November 6-7, 2019

Nov 06 02:32 Senate Democrats fillibuster, kill, military funding bill
Nov 06 03:39 The story behind DHS's chaos
Nov 06 10:28 Schiff's opening statement 2.0
Nov 06 13:25 Do-Nothing Dems filibuster DoD funding, hold up USMCA
Nov 06 21:44 CIA officials circle the wagons

Nov 07 01:37 The Human Services crisis
Nov 07 02:41 Mark Zaid: "the coup has started"
Nov 07 07:49 CNN = Cover-up News Network
Nov 07 16:12 Mark Zaid thinks we're stupid

Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

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

Senate Democrats fillibuster, kill, military funding bill

Today, Senate Democrats did another stupid thing. Senate Democrats voted to filibuster the "funding for our national defense for the second time in two months." Sen. McConnell continued, saying "This funding was agreed to in the bipartisan, bicameral deal that Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic Leader signed onto just a few months ago. But now they have walked away from the agreement they signed and filibustered funding for our military commanders."

The fact that the Democrats reneged on the deal negotiated in good faith is troubling enough. Proving that their word is worthless on national security isn't the look you want heading into a presidential election. That's what Democrats are doing heading into 2020. Sen. McConnell didn't stop there:

Over in the House, Speaker Pelosi continues to stall the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The USMCA would bring tens of billions in new commerce and create 176,000 new American jobs, but House Democrats would rather pursue political theater. So American workers and farmers are still waiting.

However, while our Democratic colleagues block these bipartisan priorities, at least they are not shy about what they do support. We've seen what Democrats prioritize. We remember the 'Green New Deal', an effort to grab unprecedented control over American families' daily lives.

The Do-Nothing Democrats are at it again. Rather than ratifying the USMCA, the Do-Nothing Democrats can't bring themselves to putting the nation first. They'd rather crush the US economy than give President Trump a victory. How sick is that?

Impeachment is fueled virtually entirely by anti-Trump animosity. Democrats already know that they won't remove President Trump from office. Schiff's charges don't add up to high crimes and misdemeanors. That doesn't matter because Schiff would do anything to impeach President Trump.
[Video no longer available]
This Congress started with House Democrats insisting that they could "walk and chew gum at the same time." At the halfway point, Senate Democrats are showing that they don't want to get things done. This isn't about anything except Democrats obeying their Resistance masters. Democrats ditched fighting for America months ago. Democrats just fight for progressives' ideological victories.

That's why these Democrats can't be shamed into doing something as simple as supporting the military. These Democrats are outright losers.

Posted Wednesday, November 6, 2019 2:32 AM

No comments.

The story behind DHS's chaos

It isn't a well-kept secret that the Minnesota Department of Human Services is in utter chaos . This is one of the biggest crises we've seen in Minnesota. And remember that Minnesota is the state that brought us such wonderful experiences as MNLARS, MNsure and the lesser-known MnChoices. But I digress.

Last week, senators learned from the "Legislative Auditor's report" that "DHS staff can make decisions to spend Medicaid funds without review and approval from DHS officials who are responsible for the state's Medicaid program. The agency also lacks a policy that requires that its various divisions, offices and units to obtain approval from Medicaid officials before making spending decisions."

That isn't the worst of it. Then there's this:

The legislative auditor found, for instance, that the agency's behavioral-health division had its own staff for setting payment rates and that it did not coordinate with the health care division, which actually oversees payments. Because DHS failed to establish uniform payment controls, the unauthorized payments to White Earth and Leech Lake continued for several years, the auditor's report said.

That led to this:

The overpayments were for an unauthorized billing practice that enabled the bands to bill the Medicaid program an unusually high rate, $455 a day, for an anti-addiction medication, Suboxone, even when patients took the drug at home without interacting with a clinician. The payments continued over several years even though they were never authorized. A month after that billing error became public, the agency disclosed that it was ordered to repay $48 million to the federal government.

That's quite a lovely little slush fund that the Tribes might operate. After all, the Tribes were responsible for billing "the Medicaid program an unusually high rate" of $455 per day. That's a fund of $166,075 per year per patient. The report didn't state how many patients used this program so let's go with 25 patients per year. Potentially, that's a nest-egg of over $4,000,000 a year. The report said that this practice lasted more than a decade. A dozen years of doing this might lead to a balance of almost $50,000,000.

Sen. Michelle Benson, the chair of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, said "Your internal auditors do not appear to have taken internal controls seriously." That's quite the understatement. Apparently, DHS auditors weren't the only government employees who didn't take things seriously:

In its report, the legislative auditor found that no one at the agency documented the decision that allowed the Indian bands to bill the Medicaid program for self-administering drugs at home. The state's failure to do so, the auditor's office found, violated the Minnesota Official Records Act, which requires that state agencies preserve all records "necessary to a full and accurate knowledge" of their official activities.

"We continually asked, 'What is the documentation? Do you know who made the decision?'" Nobles told legislators at Wednesday's hearing. ": No one raised their hand and said, 'I made the decision and I'm responsible.' It's disturbing that this could occur."

I can't picture this working:

To address the problems, she said a team of experts is coming together to identify the root cause of the overpayments and map out how decisions are made and by whom. She also has proposed a tighter process for documenting decisions. The changes, Harpstead said, will result in multiple layers of approval before Medicaid funds are disbursed - and a clear paper trail.

Instead of hiring a "team of experts", why not hire a competent person with executive experience, then task that person with the responsibility of implementing clearly defined procedures for each of the tasks that agency is responsible for? Hiring a team of experts might muddy things more than fix things. It's better to hire one competent person, then give that person the authority to fix that agency. That's because that person can't pass the buck off when the problem isn't fixed.

This must be fixed ASAP. Too many Minnesota and federal tax dollars have gotten spent improperly. That needs to end immediately. The OLA should audit DHS again within the next 3-4 months to see whether Commissioner Harpstead's new plan is fixing the problem.

Further, there's a legislative component to this, too. What's required is the ability to terminate incompetent or corrupt officials. Letting incompetent or corrupt officials collect like deadwood is likely how DHS slid into this crisis.

Posted Wednesday, November 6, 2019 3:39 AM

No comments.

Schiff's opening statement 2.0

When Adam Schiff, the chairman in charge of the Democrats' Impeachment Committee, wrote this op-ed to regain some momentum for President Trump's impeachment. It's a tall order, one which I can't picture him succeeding at. When the faux whistleblower first came forward, the American people were told lots of tall tales by the faux whistleblower.

When the snitch first burst into the national spotlight, articles were written about how President Trump repeatedly pressured Ukraine's President Zelenskiy to investigate former VP Joe Biden. Articles like this one soon were filling newspapers' front pages:

President Donald Trump repeatedly pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a July phone call to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of leading Democratic rival Joe Biden. Trump brought up the point again and again, a total of about eight times, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday afternoon, as a whistleblower's complaint about a call with an unnamed foreign leader was morphing into a political scandal.

Biden quickly pressed President Trump to release the transcript of the call. Surprisingly, that's what President Trump did -- after clearing the decision with Ukraine's president.

The transcript showed that the repeated pressures never happened . Think of it as the international version of 'Hands up, don't shoot.' Back to Schiff's op-ed. Here's the opening paragraph of Schiff's op-ed:

A little over one month has passed since the White House released the record of President Donald Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Americans read for themselves how President Zelensky sought more weapons critical to Ukraine's defense, and how President Trump responded: 'I would like you to do us a favor though' and laid bare his abuse of the power of the presidency.

From the call record alone, we have stark evidence that President Trump sought Ukraine's help in the 2020 election by pressing that country to investigate a political opponent. Ukraine, which lies on the front line of Russian aggression, is financially, militarily and diplomatically dependent on the United States. The president's corrupt pressure to secure its interference in our election betrayed our national security and his oath of office.

Notice Schiff's slipperiness? He starts by saying President Trump wanted President Zelenskiy to do him a favor without saying what the favor was.

In the next paragraph of Schiff's op-ed, Schiff said that "President Trump sought Ukraine's help in the 2020 election." Notice that Schiff didn't quote President Trump. According to the transcript, the favor didn't have anything to do with seeking "Ukraine's help in the 2020 election." Here's what President Trump sought a favor with:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike : I guess you have one of your weal thy people : The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.

The favor consisted of finding out about the DNC server that was hacked in 2016. How is that asking for help in the 2020 election?

Saying that that's a stretch is understatement. That's so elastic that it could stretch around corners. Then Schiff tries making his case:

What we have found, and what the American people will soon learn through the release of additional testimony transcripts and in public hearings, is that this is about more than just one call.

Schiff told NBC's Chuck Todd in March of 2017 that he'd seen evidence that was "stronger than circumstantial." We still haven't seen that proof. In fact, Robert Mueller didn't find it. But we're supposed to trust "Shifty Schiff that it exists? That won't happen, especially after this fiasco:
[Video no longer available]
Schiff's case is built on quicksand. It isn't built on anything solid. That being said, there's something important that needs investigating. That's the faux whistleblower. He made a provocative accusation that turned out not to be accurate.

Making unsubstantiated accusations against the president of the United States is serious business. If you're making that accusation, you'd better have rock-solid proof. Schiff doesn't have it. It's doubtful he ever will.

Posted Wednesday, November 6, 2019 10:28 AM

No comments.

Do-Nothing Dems filibuster DoD funding, hold up USMCA

Adding to a lengthy list of disruptions, Senate Democrats refused to fund the heroes in the US military . Do-Nothing Democrats, this time in the House of Representatives, refused to ratify the USMCA trade agreement. The trade agreement's ratification would lift the economy significantly. That's why Democrats don't want to ratify it.

As for Democrats' repeated attempts to paralyze the US military, they're doing their best to cripple long-term planning by the Pentagon:

Last week, Senate Republicans had hoped to proceed to the urgent priority of funding our national defense. But for the second time in two months, Senate Democrats filibustered defense funding. They blocked the Senate from funding our armed forces.

Over the summer, the Speaker of the House and my colleague the Democratic Leader both signed on to a bipartisan, bicameral budget deal that Democrats hammered out with President Trump's team. In order to avoid exactly the kind of partisan stalemate that we are now experiencing, and avoid a 12-bill omnibus, that agreement laid out specific topline numbers and ruled out poison pills.

With respect to presidential transfer authorities, the agreement specifically stated, quote, "current transfer funding levels and authorities shall be maintained. The President's transfer authorities, as they relate to border funding or anything else, were to remain exactly as they existed in current law. The deal just preserved the status quo that was established by bipartisan legislation last fiscal year.

This just verifies as fact that Democrats can't be trusted. Democrats agreed to specific provisions, especially in the DoD funding bill this past summer. Now, Democrats have reneged on their promises. This isn't surprising. Anyone that's watched Shifty Schiff knows that Democrats aren't trustworthy.
[Video no longer available]
These Democrats are owned by the Resistance, which is equal parts media and equal parts impeachment activists. Shame on the Democrats for putting partisanship ahead of the nation. These 'party-first' partisans don't care about doing the right thing. Those partisan Democrats ahead of everything else. What a disgusting bunch.

Posted Wednesday, November 6, 2019 1:25 PM

No comments.

CIA officials circle the wagons

If there's anything that's predictable, it's that the Swamp protects its own. Nowhere is that more visible today than with the faux whistleblower, whose name (allegedly Eric Ciaramella) was disclosed by Donald Trump Jr. today. According to this article , "current and former intelligence officials tell NBC News" that "pressure is building on the spy agency's director, Gina Haspel, to take a stand on the matter."

Fine. Here's a stand that these Swamp critters won't like. Haspel should side with the Constitution. Specifically, Haspel should side with the Sixth Amendment , which says "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him ; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

TRANSLATION: Anyone accused of a crime has the right to cross-examine his accusers, just like he has a right to accuse those accusers. The standard is that defendants shall have the right to confront their accusers. It doesn't say that defendants might have that right if the wind is out of the west and if we've just had a full moon. It says that, in all situations, the defendant shall have that right. Predictably, the faux whistleblower's attorney isn't fond of the idea of his client's name getting outed:

Andrew Bakaj, the whistleblower's lead lawyer, has said that disclosure of his client's name would deter future whistleblowers and he has threatened legal action against anyone who reveals the name. In a statement Wednesday, the whistleblower's lawyers said "identifying any suspected name : will place that individual and their family at risk of serious harm."

First, it isn't known if this person qualifies as a whistleblower. Just because his/her attorney says the person is a whistleblower doesn't make it Gospel fact. Next, if the alleged whistleblower has a partisan political agenda that includes removing the president from office, then exposing the alleged whistleblower's identity is a patriotic thing. I want people who gossip about things that they heard to not be protected. If this person didn't abide by the laws of integrity, they don't deserve protection.

The inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, found the whistleblower's complaint about Trump's alleged pressure campaign on Ukraine to be credible. The description of events in the complaint, which has been public for weeks, has largely been confirmed by the transcript of Trump's July phone call with the Ukrainian president and by the publicly available testimony of other witnesses in recent weeks.

Michael Atkinson should testify when the House Impeachment Committee, chaired by hyperpartisan Democrat Adam Schiff, conducts public hearings. What made the whistleblower's testimony credible? Was it the fact that none of it was first-hand information? Was it the fact that no court in the nation would've admitted this information into a court because it's hearsay, which is inadmissible except in a few exceptions?

"Since the affiliation of the whistleblower is unacknowledged, it is up to the Acting DNI Joe McGuire to take a firm public and private stance against any effort to expose the whistleblower," Brennan told NBC News. "Other leaders of the Intelligence Community should privately oppose any attempt to name the whistleblower. Senator Paul's appalling call for the naming of the whistleblower by the media should be denounced in the strongest terms possible; a statement signed by the heads of all the intelligence agencies would be most appropriate."

Based on what, Mr. Brennan? Why should partisan snitches peddling gossip get protection? This isn't the case of a patriot saving the nation from a madman. This is the case of a renegade madman trying to save a nation from a patriot.
[Video no longer available]
It isn't often that Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul agree so I'd better record this for history's sake:
[Video no longer available]

Posted Wednesday, November 6, 2019 9:44 PM

No comments.

The Human Services crisis

Anyone that thinks that the Minnesota Department of Human Services isn't suffering through a crisis hasn't been reading LFR lately and they certainly haven't read this article , either. After reading the article, LFR reached out to Rep. Nick Zerwas of Elk River, who consented to an interview.

Q: What has bothered you the most about this scandal thus far?
A: Obviously the total lack of accountability is disappointing (but predictable).
Q: You say that it's predictable that there was a lack of accountability. Why is that predictable?
A: In all of the scandals at DHS over the last 7 years I've been in the legislature, I can't recall anyone ever being held accountable.

If you visit Rep. Zerwas' legislative website , you'll see a lengthy list of statements on the DHS crisis. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that DHS management has responded to the crisis.


Rep. Zerwas issued this statement yesterday:

Rep. Nick Zerwas, R-Elk River, who serves on the House Health and Human Services Finance Division and has called for a full forensic audit of all state and federal spending at the embattled agency, is calling on Ramsey County Attorney John Choi to examine the latest report, and determine whether the Ramsey County Attorney's Office should step in to prosecute the repeated violations of law .

"While I appreciate the good-faith efforts Commissioner Harpstead is making to clean up the agency and restore public trust, at some point we must determine whether there are consequences for violating the laws we have in place," Zerwas said. "If the agency is unwilling to hold employees accountable, then it may be time for law enforcement to step in."

At this point, actions and consequences are more important than words. If the Ramsey County Attorney won't prosecute lawbreakers, then it'll be apparent that their office isn't taking this seriously. There were other questions asked of Rep. Zerwas. This one stood out:

Q: One final question: Should the legislature break up DHS? Or is just changing the culture required?
A: I think the agency is too large, and I would support breaking it up. However, a restructure of DHS alone will not fix anything. If the employees don't believe there will be consequences for their illegal actions, then I guarantee you nothing will change.

That's the growing consensus about DHS. There's no question that the culture must change. The Department must change, too.

The records obtained by the newspaper show employees sometimes allowed vendors and grantees to perform work or services without finalized and signed contracts, while in other cases employees bought products such as software without the required permission. Department officials said the agency has safeguards in place that prevent spending in such situations. But legislators said the violations put the agency at risk for misusing taxpayer dollars.

Thank God for those departmental safeguards. Where would we be without them? Apparently, DHS management doesn't pay much attention to those 'safeguards'. Question: Can they be considered safeguards if nobody pays attention to them?

Posted Thursday, November 7, 2019 1:37 AM

No comments.

Mark Zaid: "the coup has started"

Mark Zaid, the faux whistleblower's attorney, apparently has a bone to pick with President Trump . He's apparently a prolific Twitter user, too. Zaid's tweets might hurt his client.

According to Zaid's tweets, he wants Trump out of office ASAP:


What's laughable is what's written on Mr. Zaid's profile page:

Attorney handling cases involving national security, security clearances, govt investigations, media, Freedom of Information Act, & whistleblowing. Non-partisan

That should read "Hyper-partisan" instead of "Non-partisan."

Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, "I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president." Also that month, Zaid tweeted, "We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters."

Only in Washington, DC, would a man who tweeted out such tweets be considered non-partisan.

Tim Murtaugh, the Trump campaign's communications director, told Fox News that "The whistleblower's lawyer gave away the game. It was always the Democrats' plan to stage a coup and impeach President Trump and all they ever needed was the right scheme. They whiffed on Mueller so now they've settled on the perfectly fine Ukraine phone call. This proves this was orchestrated from the beginning."

As dense as Mr. Zaid is, apparently, Justin Amash is just as clueless :

"Actually, the Constitution specifically provides for the right of the accused to meet his accuser," Hemingway tweeted. "Whistleblower protection has never - could never - mean that accusations are accepted without question. He of course must testify. To say otherwise is silly."

Amash made this feeble argument against Hemingway:

"Yeah, at *trial* in a *criminal* prosecution," Amash responded. "To say otherwise is silly. The best argument one could make is that it also should apply at trial in the Senate, despite not being a criminal prosecution, following impeachment in the House."

Seriously? So a person can get impeached without the accuser having to testify? When did the USA's judicial system become predicated on the notion that a person could get indicted by anonymous accusations?

It's one thing to say that a person can get indicted without having their accuser cross-examined. While a criminal indictment isn't fun, it's a breeze compared with getting impeached. Getting impeached means that the president isn't permitted to run the nation for the betterment of a nation. Does Mr. Amash think that the impeachment process not affect the entire nation?

If Mr. Amash thinks that, then he and Mr. Zaid deserve each other. They're both losers if that's the case.

Posted Thursday, November 7, 2019 2:41 AM

No comments.

CNN = Cover-up News Network

If you visit CNN's Politics webpage , you'll find headlines like "House to explore Pence's role in Ukraine controversy with new testimony", "John Bolton trying to 'walk that tightrope' over role in Trump's impeachment inquiry" or "Voters' views of impeachment still forming in a key 2020 battleground." Another column of headlines reads "Republicans again shift their defense of Trump over impeachment inquiry barrage", "Senate Republicans have mixed views of Election Day losses", "New poll finds tight four-way race in Iowa" or "Jeff Sessions to announce run for Senate."

Nowhere on its politics webpage does CNN talk about Mark Zaid's Trump-hating tweets. Here's Zaid's first Trump-hating tweet:


That isn't the last Trump-hating tweet. Here's another of Zaid's Trump-hating tweets:


That wasn't the last Trump-hating tweet either. Here's another Trump-hating tweet from Mr. Zaid:


Why doesn't CNN think that any of Mr. Zaid's Trump-hating tweets are newsworthy? Apparently, NBC and CBS don't think Mr. Zaid's Trump-hating tweets are newsworthy either. What are the odds that the editors at CNN, CBS and NBC didn't know about Mr. Zaid's Trump-hating tweets? Isn't it likely that they knew about these damaging tweets, then omitted them?

Make no mistake about whether Mr. Zaid's Trump-hating tweets hurt Democrats. Mr. Zaid's Trump-hating tweets hurt Democrats because they call into question what anti-Trump biases the CIA snitch shares with Mr. Zaid and the Democrats' Impeachment Committee chairman. They open debate on whether the CIA snitch is just the tip of the iceberg. Is the CIA snitch collaborating with Schiff and Mr. Zaid in an effort to eliminate President Trump? Given Schiff's and Zaid's public animosity towards President Trump, it isn't a stretch to think that's possible. In fact, that seems like the most likely explanation for this impeachment inquiry.

Posted Thursday, November 7, 2019 7:49 AM

No comments.

Mark Zaid thinks we're stupid

Mark Zaid, the CIA snitch's attorney, got caught with his hands in the proverbial cookie jar. Now he's trying to weasel his way out of hot water . After saying that "a 'coup has started' and that 'impeachment will follow ultimately', Zaid issued a flimsy statement that said "the tweets 'were reflective and repeated the sentiments of millions of people. I was referring to a completely lawful process of what President Trump would likely face as a result of stepping over the line, and that particularly whatever would happen would come about as a result of lawyers.'"

Later, Zaid added "The coup comment referred to those working inside the Administration who were already, just a week into office, standing up to him to enforce recognized rules of law."

Impeachment is a completely lawful process in that it's provided for by the Constitution. The way that Zaid and Ciaramella and others in the Resistance went about it isn't legitimate because they couldn't have found an impeachable offense to convict President Trump of within President Trump's first 10 days in office. This is BS from Zaid because he's hated President Trump since before he was President Trump.

In that respect, he's no different than Democrats like Schiff, Maxine Waters, Al Green and other Fever Swampers. Zaid, like Schiff and Waters, started with a verdict, then worked to find evidence of the thing they were certain he'd done wrong. In the first 10 days of his administration, President Trump signed a bunch of executive orders. He also got started killing (through the Congressional Review Act) a ton of anti-fossil fuel regulations implemented by the previous administration.

It's impossible to find anything that's impeachable. That's the hallmark of the Resistance. The Democrats' Resistance doesn't care about the Framers' Constitution. These Democrats prefer the flexible, nimble Constitution that they constantly talk about. Zaid essentially admitted that he isn't unbiased in this video:
[Video no longer available]
That's where Zaid tweets "We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters . " Notice the disdain Zaid has for President Trump's supporters. That's what elitists think. There's your proof that Zaid is a card-carrying member of the Swamp. Zaid got into a fight with Bryan Dean Wright over the CIA snitch:


The more Zaid opens his mouth, the more he indicts himself, which hurts the CIA snitch's credibility. Why should I trust a person who hides himself and who doesn't have any first- or second-hand information and associates himself with a lawyer that's steeply biased against the nation's sitting president?

FYI- Bryan Dean Wright is a loyal Democrat. He isn't a partisan hack like the whistleblower is.

Posted Thursday, November 7, 2019 4:12 PM

Comment 1 by Chad Q at 07-Nov-19 05:10 PM
Zaid is worse than Avenatti (hard to believe) and the outcome will be the same, squat, because they have nothing.

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