January 27-29, 2017
Jan 27 03:19 DFL's dishonesty exposed again Jan 27 04:06 Democrats' wishful thinking Jan 27 17:58 The Resistance vs. The Donald Jan 27 23:03 Sen. Schumer whines, CAIR files lawsuit Jan 28 05:04 When Democrats became ISIS deniers Jan 28 05:36 Peggy Flanagan, ISIS denier Jan 29 03:09 Feinstein's dark moment Jan 29 07:41 Angry Warren vs. The Donald Jan 29 19:35 Dishonest media strikes again
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
DFL's dishonesty exposed again
Freshman Sen. Matt Klein, (DFL- Mendota Heights), isn't catching on to things that quick. According to this article , Sen. Klein got upset when Sen. Carly Nelson of Rochester said "And so today we are sitting here trying to right the ship. The ship that was sailing along fine until government intervened. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't sinking like it is now."
Klein replied "To narrate that health care was fully covered and idyllic in Minnesota 10 years ago, before the government intervened and destroyed it, is a false narrative." Dr. Klein, your statement is an exercise in the improper use of straw man arguments. Sen. Nelson didn't say that "health care was fully covered and idyllic in Minnesota 10 years ago." She said that it "wasn't perfect, but it wasn't sinking like it is now." Nowhere in Sen. Nelson's statement did she hint that "health care was fully covered and idyllic in Minnesota 10 years ago."
What's interesting is that Sen. Klein voted for SF1 after his mini-diatribe:
What's interesting, though not particularly important, is the fact that 19 DFL legislators in the House and 19 DFL senators voted against SF1's final passage. It's interesting because the vast majority of these DFL legislators are from the Twin Cities. It's interesting because a majority of these DFL legislators think single-payer is the right health care system.
Fighting back tears, the Senate architect of the rescue package spoke directly to families facing economic distress. "To the farmers and small business owners, to the entrepreneurs on our main streets who are worried, we are listening. We are doing our very best to get you help today," Health and Human Services Chair Sen. Michelle Benson said.
Sen. Benson got the job done. Sen. Lourey, the chief author of the Senate bill that created MNsure, voted against premium relief for farmers and small businesses. Put differently, the person who created this crisis voted to not fix the crisis. The person who's now in charge of the Senate HHS Committee voted to fix the crisis that the DFL and Sen. Lourey created. Unfortunately, that isn't surprising.
Posted Friday, January 27, 2017 3:19 AM
No comments.
Democrats' wishful thinking
This article contains a little wishful thinking. Sen. Franken told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow that "no Democrat will vote to confirm Betsy DeVos" and that "Democrats were actively looking for Republicans to vote against her."
That's wishful thinking and then some. There isn't a chance that Republicans will vote against an education secretary that's a major advocate for school choice. Further, I'm more than a little skeptical that all Democrats will vote against DeVos.
If all 48 Democrats and independents vote against school choice, Republicans will hang that around their necks in 2018. If Democrats play their obstructionist card on DeVos, they'll get painted as the obstructionists that they are.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was in full pander mode to the Democrats' special interest allies, saying "The President's decision to ask Betsy DeVos to run the Department of Education should offend every single American man, woman, and child who has benefitted from the public education system in this country. Public education has lifted millions out of poverty, has put millions in good paying jobs, and has been the launching pad for people who went on to cure disease and to create inventions that have changed our society for the better."
What Sen. Schumer omitted is that public schools have destroyed lots of young people's lives while demolishing their potential. Then he said this:
Betsy DeVos would single-handedly decimate our public education system if she were confirmed. Her plan to privatize education would deprive students from a good public education, while helping students from wealthy families get another leg up. It would deprive teachers of a decent salary, and it would make it harder for parents to get a good education for their kids.
That's more than a little over-the-top. That's bordering on outright lying. Nobody thinks that a cabinet secretary can do all that without help from Congress, the Senate, the President and state legislatures.
Posted Friday, January 27, 2017 4:06 AM
No comments.
The Resistance vs. The Donald
Earlier this week, Sen. Chuck Schumer announced that Senate Democrats would be willing to filibuster President Trump's SCOTUS pick if the pick is certified as mainstream by Sen. Schumer. This article highlights the fact that President Trump isn't a typical Republican in that he's willing to fight back.
During an interview with Sean Hannity, President Trump said that he'd encourage Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to deploy the nuclear option if Democrats filibuster President Trump's pick to replace Justice Scalia. According to the article, "Trump said Thursday that he would encourage Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to deploy the 'nuclear option', changing Senate rules on a majority vote, if Democrats block his Supreme Court pick. The president's stance could amplify pressure on McConnell, a Senate institutionalist who is reluctant to further erode the chamber's supermajority rules, to barrel through Democratic resistance by any means necessary."
In the past, senators' word was trusted. Sen. Schumer ended that last week by reneging on an agreement to confirm Mike Pompeo to be President Trump's CIA director. Sen. Schumer is a weasel who won't hesitate in using any tactic to get his way. That includes reneging on agreements or playing fair.
The past 2 weeks, Sen. Schumer has talked about President Trump's cabinet as the #SwampCabinet, filled with "millionaires and billionaires". That's funny considering the fact that Sen. Schumer has cozied up to most of those millionaires and billionaires. In fact, he's accepted tons of contributions from those millionaires and billionaires.
Apparently, Sen. Schumer and Sen. Pocahontas think that situational ethics are the best ethics.
Because President Trump is willing to fight back and expose the Democrats' hypocrisy, expect the Democrats to feel the pain of President Trump's wrath if they continue their feeble resistance.
Posted Friday, January 27, 2017 5:58 PM
No comments.
Sen. Schumer whines, CAIR files lawsuit
One thing that's becoming exceptionally apparent is that Sen. Schumer is a whiner and a drama queen . Friday night, Sen. Schumer responded to President Trump's executive action to start extreme vetting by saying "Tears are running down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty tonight as a grand tradition of America, welcoming immigrants, that has existed since America was founded has been stomped upon. Taking in immigrants and refugees is not only humanitarian but has also boosted our economy and created jobs decade after decade. This is one of the most backward and nasty executive orders that the president has issued."
Meanwhile, CAIR announced it was filing a lawsuit against President Trump. CAIR's Lena F. Masri said "There is no evidence that refugees, the most thoroughly vetted of all people entering our nation, are a threat to national security. This is an order that is based on bigotry, not reality."
If there was a 2-way contest to see who was more out of touch with the American people, I'm betting that CAIR and Sen. Schumer would both finish third or worse. Sen. Schumer insists that Americans don't care about national security. CAIR insists that terrorists don't infiltrate refugees even though ISIS has stated publicly that they're frequently attempting to get into Europe and the United States by pretending to be refugees.
Democrats and CAIR have argued that, at most, 1 out of 1,000 refugees might be terrorists. Let's suppose that that's true. Last year, 117,000 Syrian refugees were admitted into the United States. If that ratio is accurate, that means the Obama administration let in enough terrorists to pull off 6 9/11-style terrorist attacks. Remember that 19 men pulled off 9/11.
To Sen. Schumer: why are you willing to let that many terrorists in in the name of maintaining the United States' reputation as a nation of immigrants?
To CAIR: Why do you insist that all Muslims are peaceful? Clearly, most are. Clearly, too many aren't. Isn't it time we took these fanatics at their word?
Posted Friday, January 27, 2017 11:03 PM
No comments.
When Democrats became ISIS deniers
When President Trump signed an executive order (EO) banning Syrian refugees from entering the United States, several Democrats freaked out . Chuck Schumer went drama queen, saying that tears were streaming down the Statue of Liberty's face. Sen. Warren said that the move was "a betrayal of American values." Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) "wrote in an Huffington Post op-ed that 'Trump has now handed ISIS a path to rebirth.'" Sen. Feinstein said "there is no legitimate national security reason to ban refugees, the vast majority of whom are women and children who have experienced absolute horror."
SPECIAL NOTE TO SEN. MURPHY: ISIS hasn't stopped expanding its operational capabilities. It's impossible to be reborn if you're still growing your operational capabilities.
This article highlights how ISIS is using the Syrian refugee crisis to infiltrate its operatives into Europe. According to the article, "On a crisp morning last October, 198 migrants arrived on the Greek island of Leros, all of them seemingly desperate people seeking sanctuary in Europe. But hiding among them were four men with a very different agenda. The four were posing as war-weary Syrians - all carrying doctored passports with false identities. And they were on a deadly mission for the Islamic State."
That isn't all. There's more:
Two of the four would masquerade as migrants all the way to Paris. There, at 9:20 p.m. on Nov. 13, they would detonate suicide vests near the Stade de France sports complex, fulfilling their part in the worst attack on French soil since World War II.
It's frightening that Sen. Feinstein would say that these refugees don't pose a national security threat to the United States. If ISIS terrorists can make it to western Europe disguised as refugees, ISIS terrorists can make it to the United States disguised as refugees. This should wake up Democrats. Either that or it will expose them as total ISIS deniers:
There's more:
European security officials say they think that the Islamic State has seeded terrorist cells on the continent over the past year and was able to do so in part because the European Union failed to come to grips with a migrant crisis that opened a funnel for the militant group. Europe is now working with Turkey to bar its doors, ending the waves of irregular migration that washed over the continent last year. But more than a million migrants, a record, have already entered. Hundreds of thousands of them, European intelligence agencies say, may have done so without thorough checks at their entry point: Greece.
The vast majority of migrants were genuinely fleeing war and poverty. But over the past six months, more than three dozen suspected militants who impersonated migrants have been arrested or died while planning or carrying out acts of terrorism. They include at least seven directly tied to the bloody attacks in Paris and Brussels. The Islamic State is gloating that they have far more lying in wait. "We have sent many operatives to Europe with the refugees," an Islamic State commander said in an interview over an encrypted data service. "Some of our brothers have fulfilled their mission, but others are still waiting to be activated."
Sen. Feinstein, doesn't this indicate that ISIS 'refugees' pose a legitimate threat to US national security? If it doesn't, why doesn't it?
The Statue says "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" It doesn't say "Give me your terrorists who want to create havoc within our nation."
It isn't wrong to accuse the Democratic Party of becoming the Party of ISIS Deniers.
Posted Saturday, January 28, 2017 5:04 AM
No comments.
Peggy Flanagan, ISIS denier
Peggy Flanagan's latest e-letter update highlights a new phenomenon known as ISIS deniers. In her e-letter update, she wrote "Every day under Donald Trump seems to bring yet another attack on our beloved community. Today, that attack was a series of executive orders targeting immigrants and refugees who fled to this country seeking better lives for themselves and their families. As a Native woman whose ancestors originally inhabited this land, I know the importance of welcoming the stranger. So today I stood with a beautifully diverse group of state and local leaders to send a message to Donald Trump: We don't scare easy in Minnesota. Our immigrant and refugee friends and neighbors are part of what makes Minnesota such a wonderful place to live and raise a family. And we stand ready to resist any and all efforts to intimidate our communities. We are all here to stay. We will remain. We will resist."
I don't doubt that this makes for good politics within the DFL. It's that Rep. Flanagan doesn't appear to care whatsoever about national security. Apparently, DFL legislators are as ignorant of national security threats as Sen. Schumer and Sen. Feinstein are.
I wrote this post to highlight this phenomenon where Democrats pretend that ISIS has been wiped out or, at minimum, has been contained. That's a myth started by former President Obama. Obama's problem was that he saw things as he wanted them to be, not as what they really were. Thanks to his rose-colored-glasses view of the world, we're dealing with a grave national security threat that hasn't been taken seriously for the better part of a decade. This map should wake Rep. Flanagan up:
It's time for Rep. Flanagan to pull her head out of her backside and start dealing with reality.
Posted Saturday, January 28, 2017 5:36 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 28-Jan-17 09:21 AM
We already have had the trial of some of these "refugees" willing to take up arms for ISIS. Really, isn't this "resistance" indefensible, both rationally and national security-wise?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 28-Jan-17 11:08 AM
Jerry, that's why I highlighted them. The thought that these 'refugees' don't pose a threat is laughable.
Comment 2 by JerryE9 at 29-Jan-17 12:12 PM
Especially when ISIS says outright they intend to infiltrate the refugee population to carry out terrorist acts. Compassion is not a suicide pact.
Feinstein's dark moment
Sen. Feinstein's statement on President Trump's executive order on extreme vetting represents the Democrats' national security policy. In her statement, Sen. Feinstein, (D-CA), said "Under the president's executive order, Syrian refugees can only come to this country if they are Christian - regardless of the level of persecution or need. To me, this an unbelievable action. It's one thing to see that an individual is properly vetted. It's an entirely different matter to say that because someone comes from a particular country or is a member of a particular faith that he or she has no access to this country."
Sen. Feinstein isn't telling the truth. Follow this link to read President Trump's executive order on extreme vetting. The part that jumped out at me was the part that said "In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation."
Then there's this section:
Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.
It's a dark moment when a supposed expert in national security plays games with America's safety. Here's Sen. Feinstein's full statement:
Andy McCarthy's article either proves that Sen. Feinstein is dumber than a sack of hair about the commander-in-chief's authority or she's dishonest. Either Sen. Feinstein knows about this provision or she hasn't done her homework:
Federal immigration law also includes Section 1182(f), which states: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
The thing that's frightening is that Democrats sat silent when President Obama tried rewriting existing laws through executive orders but are besides themselves when President Trump issues an EO that states that his administration will follow existing laws:
To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA , 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
In other words, President Trump's EO that temporarily stops refugees from entering our nation cites the specific law he's obeying .
Think of this. A bill is passed by Congress, then signed by the president. How can something that gets bipartisan support and is signed by the president be un-American? Further, the Constitution gives the Executive Branch the affirmative responsibility of protecting the United States from terrorist attacks.
President Trump's EO follows US law and the Constitution. That's what Sen. Feinstein calls un-American. It's frightening that Sen. Feinstein either doesn't understand the Constitution or is too dishonest to admit that the Democratic Party is willing to ignore the Constitution for political gain.
Posted Sunday, January 29, 2017 3:09 AM
No comments.
Angry Warren vs. The Donald
Elizabeth Warren has been bitchy for a couple weeks. First, she was bitchy about President Trump's cabinet picks. Now, she's upset that President Trump is protecting Americans instead of welcoming in terrorists. This article highlights Sen. Warren's part in "The Resistance."
The article starts by saying "Facing a crowd of protesters at Logan International Airport on Saturday night, US Senator Elizabeth Warren denounced President Trump's recent immigration order, proclaiming, 'we will not turn away children. We will not turn away families,' said Warren, as the crowd repeated the words back to her. 'We will not turn away people who try to help Americans. We will not turn away anyone because of their religion.'"
Elsewhere, Mrs. Clinton tweeted "I stand with the people gathered across the country tonight defending our values & our Constitution. This is not who we are."
In one sense, Mrs. Clinton is right. Protecting Americans isn't who the Democrats are. President Obama is famous for frequently reminding "his staff that terrorism takes far fewer lives in America than handguns, car accidents, and falls in bathtubs do."
As for Sen. Warren, she said "persecuting anyone 'for their religious beliefs is an attack on the very foundation of democracy.'" This article highlights this interesting fact:
The Order Suspends Visas From "Nationals of Countries of Particular Origin." The Secretary of Homeland Security, as well as the Secretary of State and Director of National Intelligence, are tasked under the order with determining the standard necessary for visa entry within 30 days. All entry into the United States is suspended, "as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order." This isn't unprecedented - Jimmy Carter issued a cancelation of visas for Iranian citizens in 1980 .
It's pretty apparent that Sen. Warren isn't good with facts or history. The only other explanation is that she's bitch with a political agenda who doesn't care about the truth.
Nah. That can't be it.
Posted Sunday, January 29, 2017 7:41 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 29-Jan-17 08:27 AM
The Democrats need a new and continual source of voters because they have lost the current block of voters that so fervently voted for them in the past. Of course they still can't wrap their heads around the fact that some of these new voters would rather kill every American including the Democrats, than becoming actual productive members of society.
Comment 2 by JerryE9 at 29-Jan-17 12:11 PM
It would be one thing if the Democrats simply differed on policy and would state a proper reason for that difference. They do not. They lie about the policy and what it does, and then lie about their reasons for opposing it, all the while lying about the motives of those who support it. Really, why do we even listen to these people?
Dishonest media strikes again
The dishonest media is doing its best to whip the nation into a frenzy by not reporting the contents of President Trump's EO accurately. Democrats are doing everything possible to keep the public misinformed. Kamala Harris, who replaced Barbara Boxer as the junior senator from California, is protesting President Trump's EO that temporarily bans Muslims from 7 specific nations known as terrorist hotbeds. Rather than doing the job that people expect them to do, which is to accurately inform people of what's happening in Washington, DC, the dishonest media is doing its best to mislead the public while telling people that President Trump is a racist and an Islamophobe.
William Jacobsen rightly said in this post that people " should actually read it ". The important part of what President Trump's EO said actually cites the US law that permits him to act in our nation's national security interests. It says "Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest."
Not only is the dishonest media getting things wrong. It's badly misleading people to the point where it's difficult that this isn't intentional. Progressive activists aren't helping, either, by flocking to social media to complain about President Trump's EO, then aggregating them under the hashtag #MuslimBan. What the dishonest media and these progressive activists haven't explained is how the so-called #MuslimBan doesn't include the nation with the biggest Muslim population in the world (Indonesia) or how Muslim nations like Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia aren't on the list.
Then there's this:
The order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Those countries were named in a 2016 law concerning immigration visas as "countries of concern."
If Trump is anti-Muslim for temporarily banning people from these countries, then former President Obama must be anti-Muslim, too, because he signed the bill into law. Thomas Lifson's article highlights the fact that Syria is the only nation named in President Trump's EO:
I read the order and Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are not mentioned in it. Go back and read it again. Do a "ctrl-f" to find "Iraq." Where is "Iraq" in the order. It's not there. Only Syria is there. So where are the seven nations? Where is the "Muslim ban?" It turns out this was a form of fake news, or alternative facts. Trump didn't select seven "Muslim-majority" countries. US President Barack Obama's administration selected these seven Muslim-majority countries.
This is proof positive that President Trump is right in calling the dishonest media the opposition party. I'd go a step further. I'd argue that they're unindicted co-conspirators with dishonest Democratic Party politicians like Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi.
If their collective dishonesty were political capital, that bunch would rule Washington, DC for decades. Thank God that isn't the case. They're just a bunch of dishonest progressive politicians that the nation rejected this past November. I'll leave you with this video:
It's video of a manipulative, dishonest politician. I never thought I'd say this but I think I'd prefer Harry Reid over this politician.
Posted Sunday, January 29, 2017 7:35 PM
No comments.
