January 8-10, 2020

Jan 08 00:24 Is West Virginia-itis contagious?
Jan 08 16:43 President Trump's Iran speech

Jan 09 03:41 Impeachment showdown
Jan 09 10:40 Elitism vs. populism
Jan 09 14:09 The Democrats' latest headache
Jan 09 22:40 Impeachment: Trump vs. Clinton

Jan 10 03:58 Buttigieg's bizarre big blunder
Jan 10 16:45 Pelosi ignores the Constitution

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

Is West Virginia-itis contagious?

Salena Zito's latest reporting from the "middle of somewhere" is the best understanding of what's actually happening in battleground states. The subject of Ms. Zito's article is West Virginia as it relates to other battleground states. If you aren't getting Ms. Zito's e-updates, it's time you started. They're as essential of reading as Kim Strassel's articles. But I digress.

The key part of the article comes where Ms. Zito writes "No one would argue seriously that West Virginia, where Trump got more than two-thirds of the vote, would ever be in play for the Democrats in 2020. But the story of its sentiments and the evolution of these voters aren't just limited to within the state's boundaries. In many ways, especially in their connection to place and their distrust of large government, political, and entertainment institutions, these voters are very similar to voters in rural, suburban, and exurban voters in the swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin."

Then it goes into extended detail:

Tom Maraffa, geography professor emeritus at Youngstown State University, explained that the similarities of the voters in slow-growth metropolitan regions are striking and important to consider when trying to understand trends. He said West Virginians "share that sense of rootedness" with voters "in places like suburban Youngstown, Akron, or Ashtabula, Ohio, or suburban Erie, Pennsylvania, or Macomb County, Michigan, or Kenosha, Wisconsin."

If Democrats don't win back these blue collar cities and counties in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, they'll lose this election. Period. In 2016, President Trump turned Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin from Hillary's "blue firewall" into red states. Based on what's happening in West Virginia, that trend is strengthening.

The premise I'm operating from is that this isn't as much about Democrats vs. Republicans as it is about ultra-liberal nutjobs vs. sane people. Imagine the reaction of people in the audience when Vice President Biden said that coal miners should learn how to program computers:
[Video no longer available]
That video says it all. Those coal miners wouldn't walk across the street on a sunny day to vote for Biden but they'd sprint across a busy highway in a snowstorm to vote for President Trump. If Vice President Biden thinks that his reputation as a blue collar guy is enough to defeat President Trump, he's kidding himself. A man whose job is on the verge of disappearing and whose community is falling apart doesn't care about a politician's reputation. That miner wants to know, first and foremost, whether that politician will be with them in their foxhole. Those miners and manufacturers know that President Trump will be with them in their foxhole.

That's the biggest reason why President Trump will win re-election. President Trump told the people of western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and Michigan that he'd be their president and that they wouldn't be forgotten again. That's powerful stuff to a man who's worrying about his community, his church and his industry.

Posted Wednesday, January 8, 2020 12:24 AM

Comment 1 by eric z at 08-Jan-20 01:07 PM
So you want us to have the West V. economy, which has attracted those of the kind of which you write.

I would not use that state as representative of anything, besides a place to leave. Don't take my word, ask Randy Moss.

Comment 2 by Chad Q at 08-Jan-20 06:02 PM
An yet again you miss the entire point of what Gary is saying.

Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Jan-20 01:24 PM
Thanks Chad. The point I'm making is that people don't want to feel like they've been forgotten. For instance, when Biden says 'well, they can learn how to code', he's essentially saying 'I want your vote but what you do for a living isn't that important. I'll sell you down the river.' That's the fastest way to ruin your campaign.

That's what I'm trying to say. PS- whatever you think of him, President Trump has told these people that he's fighting for their lives, cultures & communities. Those folks would run through walls for him. That's why he'll get re-elected.

President Trump's Iran speech

Once again, Democrats misunderestimated President Trump, this time on Iran. Just because they didn't understand his objectives and tactics didn't mean he didn't have a brilliant multi-faceted plan. President Trump's plan is brilliant for multiple reasons, though Democrats won't admit that.

First, President Trump's deregulation of the energy industry put us in a position of strength. As a result of that deregulation, the US is now energy independent. As a result of that independence, President Trump can simply tell Japan, South Korea and Europe that the Straits of Hormuz is their problem. It's up to them to keep the Straits open. Since they're reliant on that oil to keep their economies running, it's their option to keep the Straits open.

Next, President Trump's peace-through-strength initiative is entirely different than President Obama's payouts and appeasement policy. President Trump's red lines weren't ignored. As a result, Soleimani is dead. Soleimani's second-in-command is dead, too. As a result of that, Iran's network of proxies is in disarray. That isn't to say that they aren't still dangerous. They're still a threat. It's that they aren't working in orchestration at this point.

Third, President Trump took a somewhat veiled shot at the Obama administration. President Trump didn't mention their name. Instead, he mentioned that "the previous administration" gave Iran pallets of cash and billions of dollars of sanctions relief without Iran changing their behavior. President Trump then said that this money was then used to buy the missiles that were fired at the air bases in western Al-Anbar province.

Fourth, President Trump announced that the US was imposing additional hard-hitting sanctions on Iran's leaders. He isn't imposing these sanctions on the peaceful Iranian people, just on the jihadist leadership. By doing that, he's sending the signal to the Iranian people that he's looking out for them while punish Iran's increasingly unpopular leadership. It won't take long for Iran's young people to return to protesting the Regime.

Supposedly, a full three-fourth's of the Iranian population is younger than 35 years old. That's a revolution waiting to happen and the mullahs know it. When the 3 days of mourning for Soleimani end, those young people will again remember that unemployment and inflation are so high that they'd make Jimmy Carter's misery index numbers look modest.

Democrats in the media are reflexively criticizing President Trump . That's odd considering the fact that Iranians waved the white flag last night. They fired missiles that would get into the general area of the air base in Iraq but that weren't likely to do any damage to US troops. President Trump now can point to a coherent policy that's got Iran on its heels while the Democrats' presidential candidates look incoherent or petty.
[Video no longer available]

Posted Wednesday, January 8, 2020 4:43 PM

No comments.

Impeachment showdown

This past Tuesday, Speaker Pelosi sent this Dear Colleague letter to House Democrats. In the letter, Speaker Pelosi wrote "Sadly, Leader McConnell has made clear that his loyalty is to the President and not the Constitution. Leader McConnell has insisted that the approach under consideration is identical to those of the Clinton trial and that 'fair is fair.' This is simply not true. This process is not only unfair but designed to deprive Senators and the American people of crucial documents and testimony. Under the Clinton trial, witnesses were deposed."

I'm being charitable when I say that Pelosi's paragraph is dishonest. First, Sen. McConnell hasn't said that the rules would be rigged against Democrats. In fact, he hasn't ruled out calling witnesses. Sen. McConnell, like the vast majority of senators in the chamber, has formed an opinion on President Trump's guilt or innocence. (Does anyone think that Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Corey Booker, Elizabeth Warren and Michael Bennet are impartial? They're running for president.)

Further, there's nothing fair about Adam Schiff's hiding of deposition transcripts from House committees. In that case, Schiff hid deposition transcripts of "Tim Morrison, the National Security Council's outgoing senior director of European and Russian affairs and White House deputy assistant; Jennifer Williams, Vice President Mike Pence's special adviser on Europe and Russia; David Hale, undersecretary of state for political affairs; and Philip Reeker, a top State Department diplomat in charge of U.S. policy for Europe" from the Intel Committee Republicans. As a result, congressmen couldn't question anyone about that testimony.

Ms. Pelosi, what part of that sounds fair?

The House called multiple witnesses to testify. They even subpoenaed them to testify. When these people refused to testify, the House didn't file a lawsuit to compel the witnesses to testify. Apparently, Democrats didn't think these people's testimony was that important. Further, it isn't the Senate's job to investigate. If the Democrats wanted to do a thorough job with their part of this, they should have forced these people to testify. It isn't the Senate's responsibility to fix the House's sloppy work. The Senate's responsibility is to try impeachment cases.
[Video no longer available]
Sen. Schumer is trying to get testimony from 4 witnesses :

The Trump situation could not be more different. The witnesses in question, Mulvaney, Bolton, Blair, Duffey, refused to testify in the House even though they were deeply involved in the events in question. Unlike the Clinton trial witnesses, who cooperated and gave testimony during the Starr investigation, these Trump officials refused, on the President's orders, to testify or provide documents. They are in possession of information that's directly relevant to the allegations in the articles of impeachment, yet the Senate is being denied that information because of Senator McConnell's opposition to hearing it.

If these witnesses were that important, why didn't House Democrats file the lawsuit to compel these witnesses' testimony? If House Democrats didn't get a court to compel these men's testimony, their testimony isn't that important.

If Sen. Schumer wants to whine about witnesses not testifying, he should complain about Chairman Schiff for his mishandling of his part of the impeachment.

I encourage you to review the attached document from Leader Schumer, which exposes Leader McConnell's misleading claims about the Clinton trial process that are being used to justify the GOP's decision to cover up witnesses and documentation that would fully expose the President's wrongdoing.

If Speaker Pelosi is going to accuse Sen. McConnell of a coverup, she'd better accuse Chairman Schiff of covering things up, too. Further, Sen. McConnell hasn't ruled out depositions or testimony at this point. This is just an assumption on Pelosi's part.

Impeachment is only half of a two-step process. Accusing a president of committing high crimes and misdemeanors isn't something that should be done in a rush. The Declaration of Independence says that people shouldn't change governments "for light and transient causes." I'd argue that elections shouldn't be overturned "for light and transient causes", either.

President Trump deserves his day in court to clear his name. To play games with the impeachment process is the opposite of justice.

Posted Thursday, January 9, 2020 3:41 AM

No comments.

Elitism vs. populism

Thad McCotter was one of my favorite congressmen during his time in office. Now, Thad writes for American Greatness. He just started a new series titled " Let's Not Overthink Populism ." Let's get started.

In his article, Thad writes "As I've stated ad infinitum - probably ad nauseam - we are living in the midst of a communications revolution, wherein individuals are empowered to make their own decisions and direct their pursuits of happiness, to an extent never dreamt, not only in America but throughout the family of free nations. Per Andrew Breitbart, since politics is downstream from culture, this empowerment of the individual is an existential threat, not only to totalitarian and tyrannical regimes but also to elitists of all stripes. After all, if individuals can make their own decisions, there is no need for an elite to make them for us by fiat and force."

This flies in the face of Obamacare. The ACA, aka Obamacare, forced people to buy a mediocre product by telling them that they'd be fined if they didn't buy government-approved health insurance. At the time, the only policies sold were known as QHPs, aka Qualified Health Plans. Now that we've gotten rid of the individual mandate, people can buy policies that wouldn't have qualified under the ACA.

Why did people rebel against the ACA? McCotter has a simple answer:

From Trump's deplorable to Democrats who "feel the Bern," the desire to bring to heel "big" institutions unaccountably treading upon people's lives is as prevalent as its proponents are divergent in their approaches to reining them in. But despite these differences in how, the why remains the same: people want their say and their sway over governmental and any other large institutions that would attempt to instruct and control their lives. If you don't believe me, just take a look at Twitter.

Exactly. That's why the Met Council here in Minnesota has to force people into adapting to their blueprint. The plans are worthless. They try to fit unique individuals into a one-size-fits-all product. That's as likely to work as square pegs with round holes.

Posted Thursday, January 9, 2020 10:40 AM

No comments.

The Democrats' latest headache

For those who haven't figured this out, Devin Nunes is tenacious. He's the House Intel Committee's pit bull. If he sinks his teeth into a subject, he'll get to the bottom of that subject. Right now, Rep. Nunes has ripped a chunk off of Michael Atkinson's flesh. FYI- Atkinson is the inspector general for the Intelligence Community.

Appearing on The Ingraham Angle last night, Rep. Nunes told her "From the time that the whistleblower first came forward, to the IG, where the forms didn't match, it wasn't urgent, didn't have any firsthand knowledge, the form later changed, then it was backdated, : then we had to hear from the whistleblower and then we didn't have to hear from the whistleblower."

That sounds more than suspicious. First, how do you insist that it's urgent to protect this CIA snitch because he's got hearsay evidence? That's what Atkinson said that the whistleblower's complaint contained "allegations of 'urgent concern,' and should 'be shared with lawmakers.'"

Since when has third-hand hearsay testimony been thought of as an "urgent concern"? That might be of urgent concern to a Page Six gossip writer but it's trash to a watchdog for the intelligence community of the United States. Devin Nunes explains why he's digging into this issue in this interview:
[Video no longer available]

"You have to either believe he is in on it or he is incompetent," he said, adding Atkinson's October 2019 response letter could be characterized as him being indeed "incompetent." "If he's incompetent : we need to have evidence of your incompetence. : We are not going to take your word for it that, 'Oh, we made a mistake'," he added.

There's no reason to think that IG Atkinson isn't corrupted. Why would so many changes get made to the complaint? Why would they change forms, then backdate one set of forms?

It's worth mentioning that Rep. Nunes has a sterling reputation within the intelligence community, especially after the Horowitz Report vindicated Rep Nunes. Amongst House Democrats and the Democrats' MSM protectorate, he's vilified. People that deal with facts and verifiable proof respect Mr. Nunes.

Now that Rep. Nunes has started investigating Mr. Atkinson, the Democrats have a new headache to deal with. It couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch.

Posted Thursday, January 9, 2020 2:09 PM

No comments.

Impeachment: Trump vs. Clinton

It's been quite awhile since I agreed with Speaker Pelosi on anything substantive. Today is that day. Sen. Mitch McConnell has frequently said that the impeachment trial rules for President Trump's trial are similar to the rules in the Clinton impeachment trial. I totally agree with that. That being said, I also agree with Speaker Pelosi that the impeachment of President Clinton and President Trump's impeachment are dramatically different.

Bill Clinton's impeachment investigation was conducted by a team of skilled investigators who weren't political hacks. The information that the investigators uncovered were brought before a grand jury, who made an initial determination of whether he'd violated any laws. They didn't indict but they stated whether the things that they'd found were enough to get an indictment. When the investigation ended, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr was required by statute to issue a report, which Judge Starr complied with. The Starr Report was then published and given to each member of Congress.

When Special Counsel Robert Mueller completed his investigation, which was essentially run by Andrew Weissman, a disgraced attorney who got slapped down 9-0 for the way he prosecuted Enron and who took down a Big Eight accounting firm. When Mueller completed his investigation, he turned his findings over to the Attorney General. That's because the special counsel is considered an employee of the Department of Justice.

Here's a summary of the Starr Report:

In the report's introduction, Starr asserted that Clinton had lied under oath during a sworn deposition on January 17, 1998, while he was a "defendant in a sexual harassment lawsuit" and "to a grand jury." He additionally alleged that Clinton had "attempted to influence the testimony of a grand jury witness who had direct knowledge of facts that would reveal the falsity of his deposition testimony; attempted to obstruct justice by facilitating a witness' plan to refuse to comply with a subpoena; attempted to obstruct justice by encouraging a witness to file an affidavit that the president knew would be false : ; lied to potential grand jury witnesses, knowing that then they would repeat those lies before the grand jury; and engaged in a pattern on conduct that was inconsistent with his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws."

When the Mueller Report stated that "no Americans conspired with Russians" to rig the election for President Trump, Democrats didn't accept that. In the Clinton investigation, the House of Representatives had a lengthy list of crimes to pick from to impeach President Clinton on. With the Trump investigation, there wasn't a single crime that President Trump allegedly committed.
[Video no longer available]
Rather than accept failure, Democrats turned to Adam Schiff to investigate President Trump. Working with a CIA snitch who allegedly worked with 2 of Schiff's new staffers at the NSC, Schiff seized upon President Trump's second phone call with Ukrainian President Zelenskiy. After twisting the transcript's words, which is what Democrats do, Adam Schiff insisted that this faux whistleblower had to be trusted and that he had to testify.

Faster than you can say Schiff Show, Schiff was calling one hearsay testifier after another in Schiff's SCIF. When Democrats moved to public testimony, Schiff's whistleblower was nowhere to be found. Mark Zaid, the whistleblower's attorney, however, became a sideshow . It's just a matter of time before Ms. Pelosi transmits the articles of impeachment to the Senate. When that happens, Schiff will be exposed as a corrupt partisan hack. When the case goes to trial, Schiff's legacy will be demolished.

When President Clinton was impeached, legitimate crimes were committed and a legitimate investigator did the investigating. When President Trump was impeached, no crimes were committed and Humpty Dumpty was the investigator. We all know what happened to Humpty Dumpty. We can only hope that happens with Schiff, too.

Posted Thursday, January 9, 2020 10:40 PM

No comments.

Buttigieg's bizarre big blunder

Saying that Pete Buttigieg's bizarre big blunder will hurt him is understatement. Shortly after Iran's military shot down a flight, killing all 176 passengers on the plane, Buttigieg insisted that the US was, at minimum, partially to blame:


What a deadbeat Pete Buttigieg is. The US isn't to blame for the shooting down of this airliner. Iranians are to blame. Period. The US doesn't need another blame-America-first president. Obama was sufficient for a lifetime.

We don't need more presidents that won't notice that Iran has been at war with the US since the Shah of Iran received medical treatment in NYC in 1979. When Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took control of Iran's government in 1979, the radicalization of the Iranian government was essentially complete. It's stunning that someone who served in the military, which Buttigieg did, would be this ignorant of fairly recent Iranian history.

Frankly, Buttigieg is an intellectual lightweight. Either that or he's dishonest. Both possibilities are plausible.

Iran fired two surface-to-air missiles right before the plane exploded, killing every single one of the 176 passengers aboard, according to U.S. officials. And we now have video evidence of a missile being fired directly at the plane hours after the country had attacked U.S. military assets in Iraq. To be clear, there was no "tit for tat" involved. Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at U.S. targets in Iraq, and the U.S. showed restraint by not responding . Then, the downing of the airliner occurred. It's unclear whether the downing was intentional, but one thing is obvious: This had nothing to do with the U.S.

Apparently, Buttigieg didn't get briefed on Iran's attack of the airliner. That's the type of sloppiness that accidentally gets nations into wars. This isn't the time for a wet-behind-the-ears commander-in-chief who is too arrogant to admit that he's isn't ready for the job of commander-in-chief.

Posted Friday, January 10, 2020 3:58 AM

No comments.

Pelosi ignores the Constitution

When impeachment started, Nancy Pelosi insisted that she loved the Constitution. I suspect that she loves the Constitution like she loves the Bible. I suspect that she loves them when it's to her advantage. Yesterday, the House voted on a resolution that ignored the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the authority to declare war .

While it's fitting for Congress to weigh in on policy matters, it isn't fitting that the Legislative Branch should tell the Executive Branch what it should or shouldn't do. Yesterday's non-binding resolution told President Trump how Congress wanted to restrict him in prosecuting military operations. That's far outside the Legislative Branch's authority.

The military is 100% within the Executive Branch's authority. They take orders from the Commander-in-Chief, not 100 egotistical senators, not from an aging Speaker of the House, not from anyone in the Legislative Branch. The Legislative Branch's constitutional authority over the military is confined to declaring war (then getting out of the way) and appropriating money to fund the military.

Democrats insist that they love the Constitution. If that's true, why don't they appreciate it all the time? The Democrats' "living, breathing document" line apparently means that they like it when it says what they want it to say but they'll change it when they don't like what it says.

This interview says everything:
[Video no longer available]
Congress doesn't have the authority to tell presidents how to prosecute war. The Constitution only gives them the authority to declare war. Declarations of war have nothing to do with prosecuting wars.

Speaker Pelosi might not like that but she can't ignore that fact.

Posted Friday, January 10, 2020 4:45 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