July 28-29, 2016
Jul 28 03:08 Democrats: for the little guy? Jul 28 05:17 Biden's speech: what malarkey Jul 28 11:30 DNC's disunity: everything's fine Jul 28 13:43 Darlene Miller's interesting history Jul 28 14:22 Marilyn Mosby's legal predicament Jul 29 02:45 Hillary's acceptance speech a flop Jul 29 09:25 Hillary's acceptance speech, Part II Jul 29 22:11 Dayton's speech: we know best
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Democrats: for the little guy?
This article offers proof that, for all their speechifying to the contrary, the Democrats aren't the party of the little guy anymore.
We know that with certainty because they said no to a scholarship program that was helping minority and other low-income students escape the grinding poverty their parents endured. The opening paragraphs of the article says "Less than a month before the new school year starts, state budget cuts are hitting some parents hard. Some state-issued scholarships that allow low-income families to send their children to private schools have been revoked. Nicole Jack is looking forward to starting first grade at Our Lady of Prompt Succor, in Westwego, this fall. 'My daughter is very gifted. She makes straight A's, she reads beyond her grade level, so she deserves to go to a better school,' said Nikesha Hudson."
It isn't surprising that Louisiana's newly-elected governor isn't keeping his campaign promise to not cut the scholarship program:
She was told her daughter would be placed on a waitlist, and she may be contacted at a later date if funding becomes available and the scholarship award can be reinstated. "The governor said no child would lose the scholarship because of the budget cuts," Hudson said of Gov. John Bel Edwards' campaign promises.
For now Hudson is considering finding a way to pay the tuition herself to avoid disappointing her daughter.
Rest assured that Gov. Edwards will return to these people to ask for their votes after cutting the budget on their highest legislative priority. It's unfortunate that, with Democrats, it's about the outreach, not the accomplishment.
There's nothing new with Hillary, just like there's nothing new under the sun with Democrats, either.
There are other programs that can be cut but this program was cut. It isn't coincidence that this program is getting cut. The teachers unions are among the Democrats' most consistent special interest allies. Like I said, however, there's nothing new under the sun with Democrats. I wrote this post in March, 2009:
Last week, the Democrat-controlled House passed a spending bill that spells the end, after the 2009-10 school year, of the federally funded program that enables poor students to attend private schools with scholarships of up to $7,500. A statement signed by Mr. Obey as Appropriations Committee chairman that accompanied the $410 billion spending package directs D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee to "promptly take steps to minimize potential disruption and ensure smooth transition" for students forced back into the public schools.
Sounds incredibly similar, doesn't it? When it comes to pandering to the Democrats' special interest allies, there's definitely nothing new under the sun.
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders were both right that the system is rigged. Sen. Warren and Sen. Sanders were both wrong, though, because they didn't identify the Democratic Party as guilty of participating in rigging the system against those that need it most.
Posted Thursday, July 28, 2016 3:08 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 28-Jul-16 08:26 AM
Jill Stein rocks. Gary Johnson is a choice. The duopoly opposes rank choice voting. Go figure why.
Comment 2 by eric z at 28-Jul-16 08:46 AM
Charter schools and voucher programs for private schools (mostly Jesuit) suck the blood out of the rest of us, and violate separation of church and state, not only CAIR related per Katherine Kerstin's wild hair, but all of that ilk.
If the privateers want to proselytize, and the parents want their children to be proselytized, by all means, allow it, but the buggers have to pay their own freight.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 28-Jul-16 10:17 AM
That's BS, Eric. They create competition until special interests force kids into dangerous, underachieving schools. It's been that way in major cities for decades, too, long before choice became a movement.
Comment 3 by JerryE9 at 28-Jul-16 10:15 AM
OK, let's make it simple. Give EVERY parent a voucher for the school of their choice. The State isn't involved in that, so if the parent chooses a religiously-affiliated school, there's no "church-state" conflict (and the courts have already ruled that there is no such conflict, so long as the "academic purposes" are fulfilled). If the parents choose the nearby public school (because they are oh, so superior, we are told), so be it. That also solves the problem for "the rest of us," since we all get the same check for our kids.
Comment 4 by Chad Q at 28-Jul-16 06:36 PM
Why are progressives so against vouchers so students can get a quality education? Oh that's right, tough to keep indoctrinating the students if you don't have control over them.
The St. Paul and Minneapolis schools should be shut down for their lack of performance and yet there are still people out there defending them.
The money should follow the student, period.
Biden's speech: what malarkey
During his speech to the delegates attending the Democratic National Convention, Vice President Joe Biden was at his BSing best . At one point in his speech, Biden attacked Donald Trump, saying "lack of empathy and compassion can be summed up in a phrase I suspect he's most proud of having made famous, 'you're fired,'. How can there be pleasure in saying 'you're fired?' He's trying to tell us he cares about the middle class? Give me a break!" That's when Biden deployed "his own well-used tagline: "That's a bunch of malarkey!"
In another part of the speech, Biden praised Hillary, saying "Everybody knows she is smart. Everybody knows she is tough. But I know what she is passionate about. I know Hillary. Hillary understands. Hillary gets it."
When Biden praised President Obama, he went way overboard, saying that President Barack Obama was "the embodiment of honor, resolve and character, one of the finest presidents we have ever had." What a bunch of malarkey.
First, if Hillary is so smart, why did she expose her emails to Chinese, Iranian and Russian hackers? If Hillary's so smart, why did Russia experience a revival after Ronald Reagan killed it? Why did the Muslim Brotherhood take control of Egypt? If Hillary's so smart, how did Christopher Stevens not get the security he needed?
Next, saying that President Obama is "one of the finest presidents we've ever had" isn't just dishonest. It's verifiably false on issue after issue. Obamacare was supposedly President Obama's "signature accomplishment." Today, Americans were forced out of policies that they were satisfied with and into policies with ever-increasing premiums and skyrocketing deductibles.
President Obama's stimulus didn't revive the economy. It's been the most anemic economy since WWII. In June, 2012, the workforce participation rate was at a 30-year low of 64.3%. Four years later, the labor force participation rate dropped two-tenths of a point to 62.6 percent , near its 38-year low.
In terms of keeping Americans safe, President Obama is a failure. Police officers are getting assassinated, thanks in large part to President Obama's unwillingness to call out #BlackLivesMatter activists and Al Sharpton for the 'Hands up, don't shoot' hoax. In terms of preventing terrorist attacks and terrorist attacks increasing thanks in large part to President Obama's unseriousness in destroying ISIS, he's failed the US and the world.
If that's the resume of "one of the finest presidents we have ever had", I've got something to say to Vice President Biden: that's a bunch of malarkey.
Posted Thursday, July 28, 2016 5:17 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 28-Jul-16 08:23 AM
You watched it?
Gary, value your time more.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 28-Jul-16 10:18 AM
I didn't watch it. I read it later. I respect myself more than that.
DNC's disunity: everything's fine
The messaging from Joe Biden's and President Obama's speeches seems to have been 'We're on the right path. Elect Hillary to President Obama's third term.' Karl Rove thinks that they missed an opportunity. According to his article in the WSJ , he thinks that Bill Clinton blew it, too. Rove cited a "June 26 Pew Research Center survey found that 24% of Americans are 'satisfied with the way things are going in this country today'; 71% are 'dissatisfied.'"
From that, Rove concluded that "President Bill Clinton's speech Tuesday night didn't significantly alter this dynamic. Even his political talents couldn't transform his wife into a 'change-agent,' a phrase he repeatedly invoked. If anything, Mr. Clinton reminded voters that Mrs. Clinton has been a political fixture for decades." It's pretty difficult for a president who left office 16 years ago to talk about his wife as a change agent. It's especially difficult considering the fact that he left office but she hasn't, except to run for president. It's virtually impossible considering that the elites in the Democratic Party rigged the nominating contest in Hillary's favor . (It's impossible to think that the Democratic Party's insiders would rig a system in the outsider's favor, isn't it?)
More than all of that, the truth is that this is going to be a national security election, thanks in part to increased ISIS attacks on western Europe and radicalized Muslims killing people in an Orlando night club. Hillary's record on national security sucks. The Democrats' "Birkenstock-and-granola wing" is still living in la-la land by thinking that ISIS won't really hit us. There's nothing serious about their thinking, if it can be called that.
The truth is that the Clinton campaign is still stuck too often in a defensive posture. Yesterday's Trump press conference confirms that. Trump said that he'd appreciate it if Russia would turn over 33,000 emails that Hillary deleted because they were personal and not work-related. Charles Krauthammer exposed the folly of that defense:
Rather than criticizing Trump, the Clinton campaign took the bait :
After Donald Trump's comments at his press conference today Hillary for America Senior Policy Advisor Jake Sullivan released the following statement:
"This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent. That's not hyperbole, those are just the facts. This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue."
I don't know if that's technically a Freudian slip or not but it's essentially admitting that the emails Hillary deleted because they're personal actually have national security, government-owned emails. If the Russians got Hillary's yoga schedule or her helping Chelsea with wedding plans, that isn't a matter of national security or espionage.
For all their supposed experience, that was still a rookie mistake.
Posted Thursday, July 28, 2016 11:30 AM
No comments.
Darlene Miller's interesting history
After John Kline endorsed Darlene Miller to replace him in Congress, I did some checking into who she was and what she stood for. One of the first things that I found was this memo from the "President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness," which is chaired by Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE.
Another thing I found was this article , which talks about Miller being invited to be "one of 23 guests sitting in First Lady Michelle Obama's box for President Barack Obama's jobs speech to Congress tonight." The speech happened in September, 2011. I mention this because somehow, that experience isn't listed on Ms. Miller's 'Meet Darlene' page .
Among the things that are included in Ms. Miller's Meet Darlene page is her "2016 Induction into the Minnesota Women Business Owner Hall of Fame," her serving "as the first female President of Precision Machined Products Association (PMPA)" in 2014 and her being named as the "2010 Burnsville Chamber of Commerce Business Person of the Year."
Further, the DCCC put together this 203-page research report on Miller. Here's something worth noting:
Miller: "I Have Never Received Any Money From The Federal Government In A Form Of A Check."
Then she tried explaining:
MODERATOR: Darlene, it has been reported that your company PERMAC, has previously taken some of the federal stimulus money, please explain.
MILLER: Well I wish I could take about a half hour and explain some accounting practices. I have never received any money from the federal government in a form of a check. This is strictly a tax : I won't even call it an incentive, it's just a tax, uh, the way we actually depreciate our equipment, instead of the government deciding that we can depreciate it over five years so they can get their money sooner, we're allowed to depreciate it as we purchase it, so when I pay for it, I can depreciate it in that same year. And you know when you do that, and you buy equipment, you hire more people, and you create jobs, so that is what I have done and the Democrats are just strictly afraid of telling the whole truth because they don't understand business.
I don't have problem with Ms. Miller's company using the deduction. It's her fiduciary responsibility as CEO to PERMAC to increase profits. The problem I have is with the coy way that she tried explaining away the tax cut, saying "I have never received any money from the federal government in a form of a check."
Any lawyer worth their salt that heard that would ask if she got a tax break by reducing the amount of taxes owed rather than in the form of a check. It's foolish to think that the DCCC won't go after her hard on this issue.
With all these 'bipartisan moments, it's fair to ask whether Darlene Miller is a conservative or just another cookie-cutter Republican that sounds conservative campaigning, then governs like a moderate.
Posted Thursday, July 28, 2016 1:43 PM
No comments.
Marilyn Mosby's legal predicament
After Marilyn Mosby dropped the remaining charges against the 6 Baltimore police officers, it didn't take long for the other shoe to drop. 5 of those 6 officers have filed a civil lawsuit against Ms. Mosby.
According to the article, "In several lawsuits filed earlier this year, Officers William Porter, Edward Nero, Garrett Miller, Lt. Brian Rice, and Sgt. Alicia White alleged defamation, false arrest, false imprisonment, and violation of constitutional rights, among others." Later in the article, Attorney Michael Glass explained that "These officers were humiliated. Our position is that the charges were brought for a reason other than prosecuting criminal conduct . There was a political motivation and the charges were not supported by evidence."
The acquittal of these officers, coupled with Ms. Mosby's attention-grabbing headline will make it easier for these officers to win their lawsuit. Throughout the process, lawyers questioned Ms. Mosby's decision. Alan Dershowitz was among those that criticized her decision:
One of the key figures in this lawsuit will be Samuel Cogen of the Baltimore Sheriff's Office. The reason he'll be important is because Mosby's prosecutors initially said that he'd conducted an independent investigation. He's gone under oath since then in an attempt to clear his name:
However, in an affidavit unsealed in the course of Rice's civil lawsuit, Cogen claimed he in fact did not conduct the investigation. He said he merely signed off on the investigation completed by the state's attorney's office which ultimately led to the charges filed against the officers.
The situation is perfect for the plaintiffs. They can approach Cogen and offer to drop his case in exchange for his truthful testimony.
Showing that Mosby's prosecutorial team embellished the truth will strengthen these officers' lawsuit.
Posted Thursday, July 28, 2016 2:22 PM
No comments.
Hillary's acceptance speech a flop
When it comes to presidential acceptance speeches, Hillary Clinton's speech was as devoid of vision as it was devoid of honesty. When she recognized Bernie Sanders' supporters, Hillary was in full pander mode. People shouldn't believe Hillary when she said "You've put economic and social justice issues front and center, where they belong. And to all of your supporters here and around the country: I want you to know, I've heard you. Your cause is our cause. Our country needs your ideas, energy, and passion."
Translation into Hillary-speak: I need your votes and if I have to pander a little, it's worth it. I've wanted this office so long and I've broken so many promises. What's one more?
Hillary was back in pander mode again when she said "Now we are clear-eyed about what our country is up against. But we are not afraid. We will rise to the challenge, just as we always have. We will not build a wall. Instead, we will build an economy where everyone who wants a good paying job can get one."
Q1: If we're so clear-eyed, why can't this administration admit that Islamic jihadist terrorists are killing people in Orlando, San Bernardino and Nice, France? If we're so clear-eyed, why do Democrats insist that the solution to these terrorist attacks can be solved with stricter gun control laws? If Democrats are so clear-eyed, how could Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton say that Philando Castile would still be alive if he'd been white ?
This is another jaw-dropping statement:
We will not ban a religion. We will work with all Americans and our allies to fight and defeat terrorism.
It isn't that I can't believe Hillary would say this. It's that I don't believe that her administration is serious about defeating terrorists. If there's anything that we've learned about Democrats and terrorists, it's that they pull their punches far too often.
We have the most dynamic and diverse people in the world. We have the most tolerant and generous young people we've ever had. We have the most powerful military. The most innovative entrepreneurs. The most enduring values.
Mrs. Clinton, if we have the most powerful military, which I think is true, why couldn't US military assets get there to rescue Christopher Stevens? Mrs. Clinton, our military is the most powerful military in the world but it's been getting ripped apart by the administration you served in. Why should we trust you to fight for our military when you won't fight for our diplomats?
This part is jaw-dropping:
Don't let anyone tell you we don't have what it takes. We do. And most of all, don't believe anyone who says: "I alone can fix it." Those were actually Donald Trump's words in Cleveland. And they should set off alarm bells for all of us.
Remember this?
Then-candidate Obama sounded awfully narcissistic in saying this :
I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.
Now Hillary is preaching the gospel of collectivism. Why didn't she speak out against President Obama's unconstitutional amnesty executive action? Isn't our Constitution worth fighting over? After all, she spoke passionately about the Founding Fathers earlier in the speech.
If I wanted to critique Hillary's entire speech, I'd need to write a Part II, which I'll do in the morning. Check back then.
Posted Friday, July 29, 2016 2:45 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 29-Jul-16 09:48 AM
Who is this "we," Obama? Is that the "royal we"?
Comment 2 by eric z at 29-Jul-16 05:15 PM
Jerry - Mark Twain said the editorial we should only be used by true royalty, pregnant women, or somebody with a tape worm.
Aside from that, "Our country needs your ideas, energy, and passion," to the Sanders energized people now saying, "Huh?" means she needs their votes and takes them for rubes. Sort of like the Bush family with the fundies, we will have money - faith based initiatives - for the pastors; so bring along your flocks. Sheep like, they were brought along and put W into where he did his thing, ending in an all time low approval rating. Below that of Congress even.
Jill Stein is so bright and honestly believable.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Jul-16 05:19 PM
Eric, you said of Hillary "means she needs their votes and takes them for rubes." Exactly right. We've bee watching the Clintons far too long if we both know what she meant.
Hillary's acceptance speech, Part II
After Hillary's speech, I wrote this post to talk about Hillary's flop. This morning, John Hinderaker wrote this post . While I didn't watch the speech, I read the transcript. John apparently tried watching it and found it to be unwatchable, which I think is something that's sweeping the nation.
Truthfully, some of the things that Mrs. Clinton said weren't tethered to the truth. One of the things she said that I found repulsive was when she criticized Trump, saying "Really? I alone can fix it? Isn't he forgetting? Troops on the front lines. Police officers and fire fighters who run toward danger. Doctors and nurses who care for us. Teachers who change lives. Entrepreneurs who see possibilities in every problem. Mothers who lost children to violence and are building a movement to keep other kids safe."
Clearly, Mrs. Clinton is setting this up as a straw man argument. What Trump was referring to was that the US needs a real leader to point the nation in the right direction. For the last 8 years, we've dealt with an ideologue who didn't respect the Constitution. If Hillary is elected, she'd be more of the same. She's already said she'd be more lawless with regards to illegal aliens. For all her talk about the Founding Fathers, Mrs. Clinton doesn't respect their Constitution.
As for Mrs. Clinton talking about police officers, I find that sickening. Why hasn't she told Black Lives Matter thugs to stop assaulting police officers? Apparently her love of police officers is just a situational thing? I wrote this post to highlight how thuggish Black Lives Matter is. One thing that this article shows is Hillary's disrespect for officers:
Former Secret Service agent Lloyd Bulman: ?'Hillary was very rude to agents, and she didn't appear to like law enforcement or the military. "She wouldn't go over and meet military people or police officers, as most protectees do. She was just really rude to almost everybody. She'd act like she didn't want you around, like you were beneath her."
Unnamed former Secret Service agent: "Hillary never talked to us .?.?. Most all members of first families would talk to us and smile. She never did that."
Former FBI agent Coy Copeland: Within the White House, Hillary had a "standing rule that no one spoke to her when she was going from one location to another. In fact, anyone who would see her coming would just step into the first available office."
Mrs. Clinton, when did you develop this respect for the military and police officers?
That's the point of my posts. The speeches were mostly fiction. Democrats essentially spent the week humanizing a robot. In light of this news , this part of her speech sounds ridiculous:
Now, I don't think President Obama and Vice President Biden get the credit they deserve for saving us from the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes. Our economy is so much stronger than when they took office. Nearly 15 million new private-sector jobs.
The Bloomberg article starts with these pathetic statistics:
The U.S. economy expanded less than forecast in the second quarter after a weaker start to the year than previously estimated as companies slimmed down inventories and remained wary of investing amid shaky global demand.
Gross domestic product rose at a 1.2 percent annualized rate after a 0.8 percent advance the prior quarter , Commerce Department figures showed Friday in Washington. The median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 2.5 percent second-quarter increase.
Q1-2016 started terribly. Q2-2016 was almost as big a disaster. Why would we think that President Obama's policies are the right policies? (Personally, I think that President Obama and Vice President Biden don't have a clue about how to build a thriving economy.)
Posted Friday, July 29, 2016 9:25 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 29-Jul-16 09:45 AM
I quit watching about 2 hours into the first day, when I got just terribly confused as to whether the lies or the delusions were the more prevalent. Theater of the Absurd, perhaps?
Comment 2 by eric z at 29-Jul-16 05:07 PM
I quit watching before it started. Channel hopping, I saw her and somebody [Kaine?] and cascading dropping balloons.
Uh, . . .
An unwatchable moment. Back to the Twins between innings commercial, better content.
Stylistically, in an interview conversation she is not too bad; debating Sanders or giving a speech, something registers wrong for me.
CNN online had an item that her unpopularity peaked this week.
Not good news for the "It's her turn" least impressive part of the Dem party. Last, Republican lite, who wants, who cares? The whole family fails to impress me, but I don't find greed all that likable.
Dayton's speech: we know best
When Gov. Dayton spoke at the Democratic National Convention, he issued a threat . He essentially said that, under Hillary Clinton, the government would seize control of insurance companies, saying "It's time we decided once and for all that the purpose of health insurance is to give Americans the health care they need at prices they can afford, not to pad the profits of corporate America. If they won't do it, we will, and Hillary Clinton will lead the charge."
First, the thought that the ACA, aka Obamacare, is making health care more affordable is BS. Tell that to the people who have fewer options, higher premiums and skyrocketing deductibles. In Minnesota, Obamacare actually ruined a good system.'
Further, it's worrisome that government, not people, should have the right to tell companies how much is the right amount of profit for their companies. This is what happens when elitists and collectivists run government. They think that they know best so they should set prices, not the people.
Third, Gov. Dayton talked out of both sides of his mouth when he said "Thanks to President Obama and the Affordable Care Act, we've made a lot of progress getting people covered. But for too many families, out-of-pocket costs are still too high." Which is it, Gov. Dayton? You can't say that we're making progress when "out-of-pocket costs" are skyrocketing out of control.
When insurance companies are opting out of the ACA's individual markets because their costs are high, that isn't making progress. That's going backwards. Going backwards, though, is something that Gov. Dayton is used to. Watch Gov. Dayton's speech here:
Posted Friday, July 29, 2016 10:11 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 03-Aug-16 01:28 PM
['It's time we decided once and for all that the purpose of health insurance is to give Americans the health care they need at prices they can afford, not to pad the profits of corporate America. If they won't do it, we will, and Hillary Clinton will lead the charge.']
Hmm. Dayton called Clinton a literal economic fascist (private ownership of the means of production under government control) and nobody said a word. How utterly unsurprising, on either count.
Comment 2 by eric z at 05-Aug-16 07:13 AM
Bob J. - You mean like Margaret Thatcher, with the British health system?
Aside from that, Dayton expresses a hope and not a likelihood. The Clintons are Repubican lite. Unless Goldman Sachs wants a change in healthcare provision in the nation, none will happen if the Clinton spouse gets elected.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 06-Aug-16 07:23 AM
Another rich limousine liberal telling the serfs what we need and how they are going to give it to us whether we like it or not.
I also don't think we have more people covered. You can't kick people off their insurance, force them into Obamacare and say you have more people covered. You're still not covered if you can't afford if you can't afford the deductibles.
