July 22-24, 2019

Jul 22 02:48 Open letter to swing voters
Jul 22 10:47 Rep. Omar's latest whopper
Jul 22 13:39 Crenshaw vs. AOC mismatch

Jul 23 05:41 The Loony Left & Mueller
Jul 23 09:25 Behind Adam Schiff's spin
Jul 23 10:49 Mueller's Jim Comey problem

Jul 24 01:37 PolitiFact or PolitiFiction?
Jul 24 15:52 Mueller's testimony kills impeachment
Jul 24 21:36 Who wrote the Mueller report?

Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

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

Open letter to swing voters

To: Swing Voters
From: Gary Gross, uppity peasant, aka Trump supporter
Subject: Why voting for President Trump is imperative

This past week +, the Agenda Media, aka the MSM, aka the Media Wing of the Democratic Party, spilled tons of ink on the subject of President Trump's criticism of 4 women known as the Squad, aka AOC + 3. Let's stipulate immediately that some of the things that President Trump said shouldn't have been said. Period. Before we move on to more important matters, however, let's also stipulate that each of the members of the Squad said disgusting things this week.

AOC insisted that Border Patrol agents forced illegal aliens to drink water from toilets. There's no proof of that. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib co-sponsored a resolution calling for a policy known as BDS. BDS stands for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. In this instance, Rep. Omar and Rep. Tlaib advocate for boycotting products made in Israel. They also advocate for placing crippling sanctions on Israel.

Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Further, Israel is the strongest ally of the United States. Is this policy, presented by Democrats, the direction we want to take the US at this point? I'd argue that it's never the direction we should go in.

President Trump has said things he shouldn't have said but that's virtually irrelevant. Here's why:

  1. President Trump's economic policies have produced the most prolific economy in the last century.

  2. Minority unemployment is the lowest in history

  3. Women unemployment is the lowest it's been since WWII.

  4. President Trump is the only person who is serious about protecting the US-Mexico Border.

  5. President Trump's regulatory policies have started rebuilding communities that the previous administrations forgot.

  6. President Trump's corporate tax cuts have rebuilt the manufacturing sector, creating 467,000 jobs during Trump's first 2 years in office compared with creating a paltry 73,000 manufacturing jobs in President Obama's final 2 years in office.

  7. Thanks to President Trump's leadership, fewer minority families will get split apart, thanks to the First Step Act, which was passed in 2018.


Knowing these things and knowing that Democrat presidential candidates want to incentivize chaos at the border by decriminalizing illegal aliens, isn't the choice exceptionally clear that the only real choice is a vote to re-elect President Trump? Further, isn't it painfully obvious that the Democrats' policies of a) ending employer-provided health care, b) preferential treatment of illegal aliens and c) job-killing tax increases would cripple the US economy just at the time when the economy is working for everyone from blue collar workers to small businesses to corporations?

Put differently, why would we think about voting for a Democrat in 2020? A vote for a Democrat might restore a little civility, though I doubt it. (Just ask Andy Ngo if he thinks Democrats are pro-civility. Here's the video of Antifa Democrats attacking Andy Ngo:
[Video no longer available]
American voters face a stark choice. They can vote for a president who's accomplished more in his first 2+ years than most presidents got done in 2 terms in office. The other option is voting for the people who voted for policies that created a stagnant economy, pathetic wage growth and that crippled small town America.

True patriots should reject that second option in a heartbeat. That option isn't a legitimate option. That's an act of foolishness.

Do I wish President Trump's tweets were more civil? Definitely. If given the choice, though, I'll pick the blunt guy who's gotten an amazing amount of things done while dealing with a fake scandal over the smooth-talking do-nothing Democrats. That isn't a choice. That's just common sense.

Posted Monday, July 22, 2019 2:48 AM

Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 22-Jul-19 07:51 AM
Face it. In any sane world, Democrats would never win an election. The reason they hate Trump is because he de-fangs their most potent weapon, which is their disdain and hatred for anybody that disagrees. He simply doesn't lay back and take it and that makes them furious. Too bad more Republicans can't figure this out and, rather than condemn Trump for what he says, double down on it. "It could have been said more nicely, but it is true. And what the Democrats have said is simply beneath contempt."

Comment 2 by Nick at 22-Jul-19 09:14 AM
I wonder what Trump will do about Ameco Beijing and Aeroman El Salvador (both are third party Aircraft Maintenance Repair Overhaul facilities outside the US). Lots of US Aircraft Maintenance jobs outsourced there. BTW, no background checks or drug tests required in both countries.

Rep. Omar's latest whopper

This Washington Free Beacon article contains the latest whopper from Rep. Ilhan Omar. In responding to a question about her sham marriage, her office said "Whether by colluding with right-wing outlets to go after Muslim elected officials or hounding family members, legitimate media outlets have a responsibility not to fan the flames of hate. Continuing to do so is not only demeaning to Ilhan, but to her entire family."

The only responsibility that media outlets have is to find the truth. News organizations don't have an obligation to politicians except to report fairly what that politician has done.

If news organizations report things accurately, then they've met their obligation. The last I looked, reporters report to their editors, not to the politicians. If politicians don't like getting asked uncomfortable questions about touchy subjects, then they should stay out of politics.

Lately, Democrats have thought that they aren't accountable to the people. Proof of that is the quickly-thrown-together rally at MSP Airport:


It takes a trained eye but the proof is in this picture. That 'spontaneous' rally was thrown together by TakeAction Minnesota, one of Minnesota's furthest far left organizations. This paragraph is rather telling:

"We've asked her these questions, and also asked her to make her father available. We've tried to reach Elmi. We've tried to reach her sisters. Her family could put this (the question of Elmi's relationship to Omar) to rest easily. No one will talk to us. I wish we could send a reporter to Mogadishu (Somalia) but we don't have the bandwidth."

A simple DNA test would determine whether her Omar 'siblings' were actually siblings. If they aren't her siblings, then she's potentially committed immigration fraud. It's also likely at that point that she isn't a legal citizen of the United States because her citizenship is tied to her father becoming a citizen before she turned 18. If she isn't Mr. Omar's daughter, then she isn't a citizen.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out that she doesn't meet the Constitution's requirements if she isn't a citizen. Here's the text of the Constitution pertaining to eligibility:

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States , and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

This helps explains why Rep. Omar hasn't cooperated. Potentially, she's got a lot to lose.

Posted Monday, July 22, 2019 10:47 AM

No comments.

Crenshaw vs. AOC mismatch

Anytime that the matchup is Rep. Dan Crenshaw vs. AOC , it's bound to be a mismatch. Crenshaw is a rising star in the GOP. Part of that status is earned by his willingness to subject Democrats to harsh truths about the Democrats' policies. Rep. Crenshaw unloaded on AOC and other Democrats because he's tired of Democrats offering nothing except complaints.

AOC has now proposed a commission to study the border crisis. What genius! The house is burning to the ground. The neighbors are worried that their home is the next to go and AOC thinks that a commission that will take 3 months minimum to staff will fix anything? It isn't as stupid as some of her other proposals but it isn't that bright, either. A commission is the right option if you've got the time. It's the worst option in a crisis.

One of the things that Republicans should run on is the do-nothing Democrat House majority. If Pelosi rattles off some partisan bills that got passed in the House but went nowhere beyond that, the people should be reminded that it only matters if the President signs the bills into laws and they actually fix things. If they don't meet that criteria, then Democrats will have failed.

"Notice that they never come up with a solution," Crenshaw told "Fox & Friends" Monday morning. "They talk about the over-crowded facilities. They never have a solution. They don't have a solution for our immigration system. They say it shouldn't be defined by the administration -- well, we do have laws right now...that says you can't illegally cross the border. That's immigration policy set by Congress. It's a law in place. We need to enforce it."

Democrats like passing laws, then not enforcing those laws. Don't pay attention to the Democrats' words. Pay attention to their actions. Pay attention to their shifting priorities, too. What is a priority one week isn't a priority the next, often for no good reason. Rep. Crenshaw wasn't finished unloading both barrels. Here's more:

"I'm worried that the Democrats like this crisis too much," Crenshaw added. "I'm worried as I've seen them fight against every single, even the smallest measures to help fix our immigration problem, they fight against. They don't want walls. They don't want a fix to the asylum loopholes. They're talking about decriminalizing illegal border crossings."

Where are the Democrats' solutions? Do the Democrats think in those terms? Thus far, I've seen Democrats only proposing fixing symptoms. I haven't seen them fix the underlying problem on anything.
[Video no longer available]
Rep. Crenshaw vs. AOC is a mismatch. It isn't pretty. Then again, AOC is a dipstick.

Posted Monday, July 22, 2019 1:39 PM

No comments.

The Loony Left & Mueller

When it comes to Robert Mueller's report, the Loony Left can't resist hearing what Mueller didn't say. That's the take I got from this dishonest diatribe masquerading as journalism.

Jill Lawrence's dishonesty is only exceeded by her writing deficiencies. This is what passes for journalism? That's frightening. Apparently, Ms. Lawrence's column is based on what she thinks Robert Mueller really thinks. It's apparent that she doesn't understand the US legal system. I'll give Ms. Lawrence an A in creativity but that's the only passing grade I'd give her. Check out this paragraph:

If I could stand up to raise my right hand, I'd swear to tell the truth. And it would be this: Of course I would have indicted Donald Trump if I could have. What don't you get about 'if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that"? Or 10 textbook cases of obstruction of justice? Or the difference between 'no collusion' and insufficient evidence to nail down a criminal conspiracy with the Russians?

One of the cornerstones of the Mueller report was what he said about collusion/conspiracy. The American Bar Association quoted from the report, saying this :

The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but "did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

There's nothing in that paragraph that says they didn't have enough evidence to charge. There's nothing in that paragraph that suggests that the Trump campaign was that receptive to the Russians. So much for Ms. Lawrence's theories, which, by the way, doesn't constitute proof.

Then there's this:

I regret being overly considerate of the president and his right to a "speedy and public trial." We faced so many limits on our investigation and obstacles in our path, I should not have added more restrictions of my own free will and out of a sense of good sportsmanship. We are in a crisis that demands clarity and, alas, I did not recognize just how dire our circumstances - Barr's perfidious misrepresentations, maddening Democratic caution, scandalous Republican indifference - until too late.

Ms. Lawrence thinks that a person's right to a "speedy and public trial" is a nicety? I suppose she thinks other parts of the Constitution's Bill of Rights are niceties, too? Here's what the Speedy Trial Clause says :

"[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial"

As for the statement that Mueller's investigation faced tons of limits and obstacles, that's ridiculous. Over 1,400,000 documents were turned over. Not once during the investigation did President Trump invoke Executive Privilege. In fact, he let the White House Counsel testify for over 30 hours. The Trump administration's level of transparency was historic in a positive way. It'd be interesting to see what Ms. Lawrence thought of when she said that Mueller's investigation faced lots of limitations.

What the hell was Lawrence thinking when she wrote about "10 textbook cases of obstruction of justice?" We don't know whether any of the charges met the probable cause burden of proof. If those examples couldn't meet that level of proof, they certainly couldn't meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of proof that's required to convict. It's frightening that journalists have left that field to become published activists while masquerading to be journalists. The truth is that Ms. Lawrence is just a paid political hack.

Posted Tuesday, July 23, 2019 5:41 AM

Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 23-Jul-19 07:53 AM
Odd, but it seems as if this "journalist" is just making #$%^ up. No facts, no sources other than her own poisoned, fever-swamp imagination. Is this the best we can do?

Behind Adam Schiff's spin

This weekend, Adam Schiff went off the rails at the Aspen Institute's Security Forum. Then again, his replies to questions didn't sound that much different than his replies back in DC. Most importantly, Chairman Schiff, one of the Democrats charged with impeaching President Trump, insisted that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz's investigation into alleged FISA abuse is "tainted" because of political influence.

According to the Washington Examiner article, "At the Aspen Security Forum this weekend, Schiff accused top Justice Department officials of pandering to Trump by instigating a "fast track" report last year about former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. His comments came as part of a broader answer to a question about whether he has concerns about Attorney General William Barr's review of the origins of the Russia investigation."

That's irrelevant. If IG Horowitz can gather testimony and forensic evidence showing that the upper echelons of the FBI didn't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the FISA Court, then those FBI people who signed off on the integrity of the Russian disinformation otherwise known as the Steele Dossier are in trouble. As a former federal prosecutor, Schiff knows that it's what IG Horowitz can prove, not what Schiff can spin about in fanciful terms. What's important is what's verifiable. This is hilarious:

"I have no reason to question the inspector general's conclusion, but that investigation was put on a fast track. It was separated from a broader inspector general investigation, which is still ongoing," he said. "Why was that done? It was done so he could be fired to not get a pension. It was done to please the president when the initiation investigation is tainted. So are the results of that investigation."

Immediately after Schiff said that he doesn't have a reason to question the IG's conclusion, Schiff questions the IG's conclusion that hurts the Democrats' drive for impeachment the most. Schiff is as easy to read as a children's book. Jim Jordan chimed in with this pertinent question :

'Inspector General Horowitz is a professional. He's conducting a crucial investigation into FBI and DOJ misconduct. But @RepAdamSchiff said his investigation is 'tainted.' What's got Schiff worried?' Jordan tweeted.

Already, Democrats are deploying 2 different spin messages. The first is that the Mueller investigation was heavily restricted, which corrupted the investigation. The other is that DOJ rules for DOJ employees testifying limit Mueller's answers, also corrupting Mueller's testimony. Both lines of spin aren't worth the bandwidth they're printed on.

What's most frightening is that this clown is in charge of the Intel Committee:
[Video no longer available]
If you go to the dictionary to find the definition of the term dishonest broker, Adam Schiff's face will appear.

Posted Tuesday, July 23, 2019 9:25 AM

No comments.

Mueller's Jim Comey problem

Robert Mueller has a big problem that he can't get rid of. When I say big, I'm talking about 6'8" of a problem. His name is Jim Comey and, if Republicans choose to go this direction, Robert Mueller will have lots of uncomfortable explaining to do tomorrow. It isn't that Comey is in Mueller's report -- except in Mueller's footnotes .

Eric Felten of RealClearInvestigations, aka RCI, painstakingly reviewed the Mueller Report. What he found is especially noteworthy:

One of the bedrock decisions investigators must make in complex probes filled with incomplete and contradictory accounts is whom to believe. Dozens of footnotes in the Mueller report make it clear that the special counsel placed absolute faith in former FBI Director James Comey.

Dozens of the footnotes refer to memos Comey wrote recording his account of meetings and phone calls with President Trump. These include memos dated Jan. 7 and Jan. 28, 2017, as well as notes from Feb. 14, March 30 and April 11. Those memoranda were treated as the evidentiary gold standard by Mueller. Long stretches of the special counsel's report hang almost exclusively on Comey's say-so. One or another of Comey's memos are cited some three dozen times in Volume II alone, which addresses possible obstruction by Trump. Mueller relies on Comey memos in footnotes 109, 110, 111, and 112, and then in footnotes 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182 and so on. Comey was also interviewed by the FBI and numerous are the footnotes - 68, 108, 109-112, 176-78, 180-82 and more, anchoring the narrative in his testimony.

If Comey is the verification anchor of Mueller's report, then Comey isn't an anchor. He's a millstone -- around Mueller's neck. Here's why:

Mueller relied so heavily on Comey's memos that he felt the need to argue the superior believability of the former FBI head's version of events. He uses legal citations that 'contemporaneous written notes can provide strong corroborating evidence' and that 'a witness's recitation of his account before he had any motive to fabricate also supports the witness's credibility.' Perhaps. But Comey was not a disinterested observer. As Paul Sperry reports for RealClearInvestigations, citing sources familiar with an internal Justice Department review, the FBI director Trump inherited was secretly trying to build a conspiracy case against the president.

Which means that Comey was writing his memos with an eye to swaying future legal and public opinion. Upon finishing a memo, he would run it by his top deputies (see footnotes 187 and 188 in Volume II) to make sure it served its purpose. Comey's memos may or may not be the 'strong corroborating evidence' Mueller claims, but Comey surely intended for those memoranda to establish his version of events.

Contemporaneous notes aren't corroborative in and of themselves. If the 'corroboration' comes from a liar and a demagogue, they'd quickly turn into the aforementioned millstone. Put another way, GIGO, aka Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Put yet another way, trusting Comey's insights of an investigation into the man who fired him is as foolish as relying on Michael Cohen's testimony. The only person stupid enough to trust Comey or Cohen are people with a gun to their proverbial head. Add into that the fact that it was just discovered that Comey lied to President Trump while targeting President Trump:

Two U.S. officials briefed on the inspector general's investigation of possible FBI misconduct said Comey was essentially 'running a covert operation against' the president, starting with a private 'defensive briefing' he gave Trump just weeks before his inauguration. They said Horowitz has examined high-level FBI text messages and other communications indicating Comey was actually conducting a 'counterintelligence assessment' of Trump during that January 2017 meeting in New York.

If this is accurate, then what little was left of Comey's credibility is gone. Subsequently, the credibility of Mueller's report would likely evaporate. Mueller should've just left well enough alone:
[Video no longer available]

Posted Tuesday, July 23, 2019 10:49 AM

No comments.

PolitiFact or PolitiFiction?

For several years, Politifact has been seen by conservatives as a joke. Their 'fact-checks' have been more opinion than objective fact. This weekend, a controversy erupted over whether AOC had gotten her picture taken in front of an empty parking lot. This article sets the record straight.

The fact-check, titled "No, this isn't a photo of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez crying over a parking lot," was written by Ciara O'Rourke and Duke University student Stefanie Pousoulides. It was reviewed by several editors, Fox News is told.

Their approach didn't pass muster among commentators Tuesday, who said the site had missed the point intentionally, for the sake of issuing a "false" rating that would help bury stories unfavorable to Ocasio-Cortez about the episode.

Politifact deserves a misleading rating. Here's why:

Wrote humorist Frank Fleming: "'Ha! AOC was crying over a parking lot!'" POLITIFACT: 'False, haters, we checked a satellite image and it was an empty road.' I might be paraphrasing @jamestaranto, but fact checks are like editorials but dumber."

"IMPORTANT CORRECTION: @AOC Was Weeping Over an Empty Road, Not an Empty Parking Lot," joked PJ Media's Jim Treacher.

Whether AOC was 'crying' over an empty road or empty parking lot is immaterial except in the most nit-pickiest of senses. Nothing there is nothing there except in the most insignificant of details.

The story started by saying that AOC was crying over little children being kept in a cage. As usual, the initial story was intentionally fake. It was legitimately called fake news. Someone named Ivan Pierre Aguirre started the story with this tweet:


Now that you've seen AOC's fiction, take a look at what AOC actually saw:


The fact that Politifact stands by their false rating against Jim Treacher's article earns them a new name. They shouldn't be called Politifact. They should be called PolitiFiction. Either that or they should be called another weapon in the DNC's ministry of propaganda, aka the MSM.

One last thing: here's how AOC laid it on thick about being heartbroken for the children:


Now that's empathy. Caring about children that aren't even there.

Posted Wednesday, July 24, 2019 1:37 AM

No comments.

Mueller's testimony kills impeachment

Robert Mueller's long-anticipated testimony is turning into a total disaster for Democrats. Drudge's headline screams the reality:


Underneath the picture read the headline "Dazed and Confused." That's perhaps a little gentle. Here's what Grabien wrote on Mueller's testimony:

Mueller, who is often celebrated in the media for laser-like thinking, had to ask lawmakers to regularly repeat their questions, seemingly struggling to pay attention. At other points, Mueller got confused about whether the members of Congress were asking him questions or if they were reading from his own report. In just the first 90 minutes of the hearing, Mueller needed help understanding questions more than 10 times.

In one such exchange, Mueller - under questioning from Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) - asked: 'And where are you reading from on that?' 'I'm reading from my own question' the lawmaker reminded him. 'Then can you repeat it?' Mueller asked, eliciting laughter from the audience.

In another painful episode, Mueller had to ask Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee three times to clarify and restate her question. Under questioning from Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Mueller failed to follow a question that was merely 14 words long: 'Attorney #2 in the Inspector General's report and Strzok both worked on your team, didn't they?' 'Pardon me?' Mueller replied. After Gaetz restated his question, Mueller replied: 'And the question was?'

Katie Pavlich touched on something that I think is significant:


It isn't related but at the end of the House Intel Committee hearing, both John Ratcliff and Ranking Member Nunes simply thanked Mueller for his years of service and yielded back the balance of their times. It was like they knew they'd made their points and were resting their case. I think their instincts were exactly right.

The other thing that came through loud and clear was how authoritative Mueller didn't sound. He repeatedly asked Republicans on the committees to ask the question again. At other times, he didn't seem like he knew the contents of the report that bears his name. Clearly , he didn't write this report.

If today is the last time he testifies on Capitol Hill, it will be a sad final chapter to his career.

Finally, the title I originally wrote said "Mueller's testimony virtually ends impeachment." As you can see, I've since deleted the word virtually. Democrats will keep investigating but that horse is as dead as our first 41 presidents.

Posted Wednesday, July 24, 2019 3:52 PM

No comments.

Who wrote the Mueller report?

It's obvious that Robert Mueller didn't write the report that bears his name. It's obvious that he was only minimally attached to this investigation. By his own admission, Mueller said that he sat in on "very few" of the interviews.

Today's hearings didn't produce much in the way of new information, though it provided some positive pro-Trump highlights. This is one of those pro-Trump highlights:
[Video no longer available]
I'm betting, as I'm betting others are, too, that Andrew Weissman wrote the report. Further, I'm betting that he threw that line in there to help his fellow Democrats in their fight to impeach President Trump. It isn't a secret that Weissman is corrupt.

Weissman is the prosecutor who got unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court for his prosecution of Enron. He knew what his burdens were. He didn't let that stand in his way. He wanted that conviction even if it meant throwing Enron and Arthur Andersen under the bus.

Mueller looked totally unsteady, repeatedly asking that they repeat the question:
[Video no longer available]
I don't want to be disrespectful but Mueller looked as out of it as someone who'd just suffered a mild stroke. Another pathetic moment came when Mueller said that he didn't know who FusionGPS was:
[Video no longer available]
The other reason why I'm convinced that Weissman wrote the report and, in fact, was the de facto leader of the Special Counsel's office is because they didn't pay any attention to the Clinton campaign's corruption.

To those that pay attention to congressional hearings, they know that the Democrats' impeachment drive is over. That isn't what's important, though. What's important is that Democrats won't admit that impeachment is over.

Posted Wednesday, July 24, 2019 9:36 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