October 17-20, 2019

Oct 17 09:21 Elijah Cummings, RIP
Oct 17 11:50 How Dems became the verdict first, investigation later party

Oct 18 10:20 Do-Nothing Democrats won't join
Oct 18 18:34 Paranoid delusional Hillary: "Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset"

Oct 19 10:54 Trump's millionaires' economy?

Oct 20 00:36 Adam Schiff's short-term gains
Oct 20 16:26 FNC's big exclusive is big nothing
Oct 20 22:32 Margaret Anderson-Kelliher's con

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

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

Elijah Cummings, RIP

I had to do a double-take when I saw the headline that Elijah Cummings had died at a hospice care facility this morning . Cummings was 68. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said "I was shocked and saddened to learn the news this morning of my dear friend's passing. Elijah Cummings was a man of principle, patriotism, and conviction, whose loss will be deeply felt throughout the State of Maryland and our country."

President Trump expressed his feelings with this tweet:


Rep. Cummings, RIP.

Posted Thursday, October 17, 2019 9:21 AM

Comment 1 by Chad Q at 17-Oct-19 07:33 PM
Didn't agree one iota with the guy but it is sad to hear. Funny how we haven't (at least I haven't) heard any vitriol about the congressman from the right like we did from the left when any conservative dies.

How Dems became the verdict first, investigation later party

Democrats have spent the last 3 years morphing into the 'Verdict first, investigation later' political party. Rep. Scott Perry, (R-PA), made the case that Democrats have become that party in this op-ed :

The most solemn duty undertaken by members of Congress is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. We swear an oath before the beginning of every Congress. My Oath is something I've taken seriously throughout a lifetime of public service - from solider, to state representative to congressman. Unfortunately, leftists in Congress are using their sacred oath to the Constitution as justification to flout the primacy of its principles. We see this no more clearly than in the most recent push to impeach the president.

These rushed, faux impeachment proceedings are shrouded in secrecy. No one knows what the rules are, and it gives liberal members, like Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), an opportunity to blatantly fabricate facts of convenience and mislead the American people.

That's Schiff's M.O. He's spent the last two years misleading the American people about the contents of the Mueller report. Once hopes fizzled with that (findings: "No collusion, No obstruction"), they've rolled out the next phony investigation with yet another forgone conclusion.

Republicans have argued that there wasn't any obstruction of justice. The legal-dictionary.com explains what it takes to obstruct justice :

To obtain a conviction under section 1503, the government must prove that there was a pending federal judicial proceeding, the defendant knew of the proceeding, and the defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.

I'd think that it's difficult to prove corrupt intent without a wiretap recording or an email stating that intent. I don't doubt that Schiff and other Democrats would speculate about that. It's one thing to speculate. It's another to prove.

Democrats first talked about impeaching President Trump before he became President Trump. The Constitution says that impeachment involves "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States." Before he's inaugurated, Trump didn't fit the constitutional definition. That's irrelevant to these hyper-partisan Democrats. They just know that Trump is evil and he must be removed.

With Democrats like Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Maxine Waters, President Trump has been guilty since before his inauguration. This trio of troublemakers don't really care about the Constitution. They care about impeaching and removing President Trump. If that requires throwing the Bill of Rights out, then that's what they'll do.

Posted Thursday, October 17, 2019 11:50 AM

No comments.

Do-Nothing Democrats won't join

This op-ed about prescription drug prices was written by Kevin Brady, Virginia Foxx and Greg Walden. The question now is whether Do-Nothing Democrats will join in the effort or whether they'll do what they usually do, which is resist in the name of Trump.

I'm betting that they'll express an interest in working together without actually working together. That's what they did with the Trump-GOP tax cuts. The end result was that no Democrats , either in the House or Senate, voted for the tax cuts. That's proof that no Democrats were willing to compromise with Republicans to strengthen the US economy.

Right now, President Trump and GOP leaders in the House and Senate are pressuring Ms. Pelosi into putting the USMCA up for a vote. Ms. Pelosi's statement is that they're (Democrats) are working their way to yes. Today, they're saying it's close. I'm not holding my breath. But I digress. Back to getting something done.

The op-ed tells the story of "Tracy Bush, a 45-year-old mother and an active and accomplished food allergy blogger from Pfafftown, North Carolina."

The cost of prescription drugs is way too high. Tracy Bush, a 45-year-old mother and an active and accomplished food allergy blogger from Pfafftown, North Carolina, knows this firsthand. Tracy always has two EpiPens on her. Her son, age 17 now, carries another. This practice began when he was diagnosed with serious allergies as a 2-year-old. This is life for Tracy, and for thousands of other parents across America. But when a drug company charges $1,819.08 for three EpiPen two-packs - and the medicine in the device costs only a few dollars - alarm bells go off.

I'd be outraged if that happened to me. Here's where the problem exists:

Then in 2017, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) Reauthorization Act was signed into law leading to the approval of 971 generics, or copies of brand name drug, including the first generic version of the EpiPen. Congress saw a problem, put aside politics, and made progress for families like Tracy Bush.

We started to do that this year, too. Republicans and Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee moved three significant and bipartisan bills to the U.S. House floor in May. The CREATES Act, Pay for Delay, and the BLOCKING Act each removed barriers for generic drugs to get to consumers faster, pushing back on bad behavior from big pharmaceutical companies gaming the system and preventing competition. These policies would help bring down drug prices at the counter, an obvious win for the American people.

That's where the problem starts:

Enter Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The Speaker of the House opted to discard months of bipartisan work to put politics over progress. This Washington Post headline nailed it, 'Democrats are putting a political pothole in the way of bipartisan drug pricing bills.' She snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, forsaking a bipartisan win on lowering drug prices for the American people.

~~~

Like clockwork, Speaker Pelosi entered the fray with her partisan drug pricing scheme - written behind closed doors. The Speaker's drug plan attempts to nationalize the prescription drug industry through foreign price controls, retroactive tax penalties, arbitrary inflation caps, and federally mandated 'negotiations,' which amount to nothing more than government extortion and price-setting. And as for Medicare Part D modernization? Once Speaker Pelosi's plan was introduced, bipartisan negotiations ceased, making clear the Democrats' position is their way or the highway. Bad news for seniors.

This is proof that Democrats weren't serious about walking and chewing gum at the same time. They just wanted to impeach President Trump. Implementing policies that made their constituents' lives better just wasn't that high of a priority for Democrats. This is a fantastic clip on that subject:
[Video no longer available]

Posted Friday, October 18, 2019 10:20 AM

No comments.

Paranoid delusional Hillary: "Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset"

In the 1990s, Hillary Clinton insisted that there was a "vast right wing conspiracy" dedicated to taking down her husband. Twenty years later, Hillary is still pushing conspiracy theories :

Hillary Clinton said that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is being groomed by Moscow to run as a third-party spoiler candidate in 2020 to help President Trump win reelection. The former secretary of state pushed the theory on Campaign HQ podcast hosted by David Plouffe, President Barack Obama's campaign manager in 2008.

Plouffe and Clinton discussed hurdles the Democratic nominee would face and compared the 2020 race to Clinton's loss to Trump in 2016. Plouffe asked Clinton about the part third-party candidates, such as Jill Stein of the Green Party, played in 2016, allowing Trump to secure key states. "They are also going to do third party again," Clinton, 71, said. "I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said, referring to Gabbard, without mentioning the Hawaii representative by name.

"She is a favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she is also a Russian asset. "They know they can't win without a third-party candidate, and so I do not know who it's going to be, but I can guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most need it."

Wow! This comes from a woman who was just a few votes away from being president. That's frightening.

Then, too, it isn't that surprising. Democrats see ghosts wherever they look so seeing this ghost isn't that unusual by Democrats' standards. Seeing this ghost by normal people's standard would be weird. Remember that HRC didn't just accuse Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian asset. HRC also accused Jill Stein of being a Russian asset.
[Video no longer available]
If HRC got into the race and won the nomination, she'd get drilled. It's being charitable to say that she's exhibited erratic behavior. She's made unsubstantiated accusations. The economy is fantastic. Trying to prove otherwise is challenging at minimum. HRC must know that her time has passed.

The voters that are coming of age only think of HRC as a Swamp relic from a bygone generation. They don't remember her as former First Lady. They likely don't remember that much about HRC as Obama's Secretary of State. Remember that was 12 years ago.

This is a great example of Hillary's paranoia. It's proof that a little HRC paranoia goes a long way.

Posted Friday, October 18, 2019 6:34 PM

Comment 1 by Chad Q at 18-Oct-19 06:59 PM
While I don't care for some of Tulsi's ideas, I love that she fought back against the wicked bitch of the west.

Clinton just can't get it through her thick skull that she is a horrible person and even worse candidate and the people see/saw her for what she was.

Comment 2 by eric z at 19-Oct-19 12:32 PM
Gabbard would be good as head of the VA in the new administration. I do not think she'd be enough a budget hawk, however, to head and sanitize the War Department [a/k/a "DoD"].

This post is news however. I thought Clinton had died.

Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Oct-19 09:17 PM
Thought she'd died or hoped she'd died? Or both?

Trump's millionaires' economy?

I can't say that Marc Thiessen is President Trump's most diehard supporter. What I've known for quite awhile, though, is that he's a fair-minded man who's written some good stuff that supports President Trump. For instance, this article is outstanding.

Thiessen opens the article by saying "With three polls showing her in the lead, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., may soon eclipse former Vice President Joe Biden as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. That's great news for Republicans, because Warren has a problem: The central message of her campaign is that the economy is working for the very wealthy but it is not working for ordinary Americans. Unfortunately for her, ordinary Americans disagree . "

Next, Thiessen empties both barrels of the heaviest artillery:

A Marist poll asked voters whether "the economy is working well for you personally." Nearly two-thirds of Americans said yes. This includes large majorities in almost every demographic group. Sixty-seven percent of college graduates and 64 percent of those without a college education say the economy is working for them. So do 68 percent of whites and 61 percent of nonwhite people.

So do Americans of every generation: 63 percent of Generation Z and millennials; 69 percent of Generation X; 63 percent of baby boomers; and 69 percent of Greatest Generation and Silent Generation voters. So do supermajorities in every region in the country: 60 percent in the West, 65 percent in the Northeast, 67 percent in the Midwest, and 68 percent in the South. So do most voters in every type of American community: 63 percent of both big and small city voters; 64 percent of small-town voters; 66 percent of rural voters and 72 percent of suburban voters.

Call me crazy but that sounds like an economy that's working for tons of people. That doesn't sound like an economy that's just benefiting millionaires and billionaires. That sounds like an economy that's benefiting pretty much everybody in pretty much every geographic part of the US. Then there's this:

The only groups who disagree, Marist found, are progressives (59 percent), Democratic women (55 percent) and those who are liberal or very liberal (55 percent.

That figures. Those groups are filled with sourpusses.

There is a good reason for that. Unemployment is near a record low, and the United States has about 1.6 million more job openings than unemployed people to fill them. Not only are jobs plentiful, but wages are rising. And The New York Times reported in May that "over the past year, low-wage workers have experienced the fastest pay increases."

It isn't surprising that Democrats opened their debate talking impeachment:
[Video no longer available]
Old-fashioned Democrats had an economic agenda that appealed to people from time-to-time. Today's Democrats aren't persuasive because their ideas sound like they're from outer space. They couldn't sell ice-cold Gatorade in a desert if their lives depended on it. Bernie Sanders brags that he'll raise everyone's taxes. Elizabeth Warren's evasive replies prove that she'd raise taxes, too, though not as much as Bernie. Think of Elizabeth Warren as 'Bernie Lite.'

The other way to think of Crazy Bernie and Pocahontas is to think of them as destructive to this fantastic economy. Their policies wouldn't make life better for families. Their policies are just plain stupid.

Posted Saturday, October 19, 2019 10:54 AM

Comment 1 by eric z at 19-Oct-19 12:27 PM
Damn, the emperor has such great clothes. Never seen it better and some guy writes of it, and my, oh my. Some guys are keeping current on payments on the truck. Fat City!

Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Oct-19 09:16 PM
Spin it whichever way you want but the people are satisfied. Along comes a report that says that the people who are supposedly doing so poorly reject Bernie's & Warren's message & you start spinning rather than contemplate why people are happy. Why don't you listen to people once in a while instead of just reflexively rejecting things you don't agree with?

Comment 2 by Chad Q at 20-Oct-19 07:03 AM
Unemployment for every demographic is at record lows and anyone who wants a job has one and I guarantee it isn't at minimum wage. Yet all the progressives can complain about is that the rich are still rich and that there are still poor people in the world. None of the progressive candidates speaks of anything positive and it's always doom and gloom and that they need to help everyone live their lives. Well except for the rich, screw them and we'll take all their money to make everyone else feel better. Same message they have be peddling for 50 years yet nothing got better until Trump was elected by those who were tired of the democrats failures. As trump said, "what have you got to lose?" They lost the democrats chains that had been tying down.

Adam Schiff's short-term gains

The question that needs to be asked of Adam Schiff and the Democrats is what they'll do if they're called to testify about the faux whistleblower. Let's stop with the euphemisms. This guy is nothing but a snitch, an anonymous informant.

Let's lay out what will be required if President Trump is impeached. The first witness who should testify should be the snitch. Let's find out what he/she told Schiff. Let's lock this down under oath so there's no wiggle room. The next witness should be Speaker Pelosi. Let's find out what she thought of impeachment through her documents, texts and phone logs. Finally, let's put Schiff on the stand. What was his proof that was "more than circumstantial"? Did he promise the snitch anything? Why did he hire the NSC people right before the snitch appeared.

This lays out the case against Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff and the House Democrats:


That pesky Constitution keeps getting in the way of Ms. Pelosi's and Mr. Schiff's charade. First, Ms. Pelosi declared an impeachment inquiry. Courts have consistently ruled that the only time that the House of Representatives does something official is when it votes . Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 of the US Constitution says "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." It doesn't say that the Speaker will have the sole power of impeachment. It says "the House of Representatives" shall have that authority.

Initially, Mr. Schiff and the Democrats insisted that the snitch would bring President Trump to his knees. This time, though, the snitch is likely to bring Democrats to their knees.

Leader McCarthy's statement is important for another reason. He highlights the fact that Schiff is acting as a full-fledged investigator, which he isn't. Criminal investigators are found in agencies like the DEA, the FBI, ICE, the BATFE, etc. Those agencies are found exclusively in the executive branch. The only time that the legislative branch has truly investigative authority is after a vote of the whole House of Representatives authorizing an impeachment investigation. That vote must include the rules for calling witnesses, whether the President's counsel can be in the room, who can subpoena witnesses, whether both sides can cross-examine witnesses, etc.

The point behind it is to show that impeachment isn't getting weaponized to take out political opponents. At this point, Democrats are proving the Republicans' case that this is just the political weaponization of impeachment.

Presidents that don't attempt to stop international corruption are derelict in their duties. That's what President Trump fought against when he held up military aid to the Ukraine. Further, there's nothing wrong with a president investigating a political opponent who was investigating his political opponent's son. That's what Joe Biden did when he got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired.

That wasn't an attempt to eliminate corruption. VP Biden tried preventing the prosecutor from identifying Hunter Biden as being corrupt. Hunter wasn't serving on Burisma's board because he was an expert on natural gas or the Ukraine. He was there as an insurance policy to protect Burisma from investigations.

After articles of impeachment are approved by Democrats only, those articles of impeachment go to the Senate for trial. By that time, Pelosi's vulnerable freshmen will have already voted for impeachment. Once Pelosi's freshman Democrats cast that vote, the 'moderate' sticker gets ripped off their resume. Impeaching a president for something this trivial isn't the definition of moderation. Once this moves to the Senate, Pelosi's ability to protect her freshman Democrats flies out the window.

At this point, the only person nuttier than Schiff is Hillary Clinton. To think that she was once only 38 electoral votes short of the Oval Office is frightening.

Posted Sunday, October 20, 2019 12:36 AM

Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 20-Oct-19 07:58 AM
There are really only two factual problems with this obvious political theater, mislabeled an "impeachment inquiry." Other than it being neither a legal impeachment or a legitimate inquiry.

The first is that there is clearly no "quid pro quo" in Trump's telephone call, nor any underlying factual timeline in which such an offer was made.

The second is that we have Joe Biden, on tape, BRAGGING that he had done exactly that-- getting the prosecutor fired in exchange for $1 Billion in US loan guarantees.

Comment 2 by eric z at 20-Oct-19 12:16 PM
You know, Gary, if the House does not vote to impeach Mitch and crew will not have the stage to do their counter dog and pony show. Any thoughts how that might sit? It would be Rudy and the big dog Twittng about this and that. A big yawn, while the Dem candidate will not be Biden in any event, because he lacks veritas - Iraq War and Bankruptcy Bill baggage will sink that boat before it might float when status quo will be a no-go. The news that matters was in Queens. Folks rallied. Some noticed.

Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Oct-19 04:39 PM
The House will impeach.

Comment 3 by Gretchen L Leisen at 20-Oct-19 04:37 PM
So the silly, corrupt game that the Democrats are playing against a legally elected President can be forgotten like 'a big yawn'? Whether or not Mitch and the Republican Senate does a counter investigation [which would be entirely justified], is not the question here. The fact is, the Democrats have no agenda other than to destroy the Executive branch of the U.S. government because they will not accept the results of the 2016 presidential election.

FNC's big exclusive is big nothing

Now that Shepard Smith left FNC, it's time to get rid of Chris Wallace and Juan Williams, in that order. This morning, Wallace interviewed Acting WH Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney about the confusion over his 'admitting' that President Trump connected military aid to Ukraine with investigating the Bidens . I get it that the media loves stirring up controversies where they don't exist but this is ridiculous.

First, Mulvaney said that governments engage in quid pro quos all the time. While I haven't heard him say it this way, I'm confident that Mulvaney meant that reporters are getting hung up on the phrase quid pro quo rather than asking the important follow-up question, which is 'was the quid pro quo corrupt? Or was it innocent?' Quid pro quo simply means "this for that."

Imagine this: every time you buy something in a store, you've committed a quid pro quo. You exchanged financial considerations for a product, aka this for that. If that's illegal or corrupt, shopping malls are filled with criminals.

Of course, everything in DC gets overhyped. That's how this story went from being a big nothing to being the biggest story this side of the other nothing story, aka the impeachment nothing story. This is utterly predictable. Without conflict, ratings would tank. Without misleading headlines, there wouldn't be the clicks. Conflict drives ratings and attention.

That's why I don't pay attention to those tricks. I want to gather information. I don't care about the latest hot stories. Rest assured that the content that you find here is important to people and is reliable. I don't buy into the gamesmanship that the networks employ. They're always telling us that this or that event is super-important before turning into a non-event.

I pay attention to political rallies because they tell me whether voters are fired up. If they aren't, that's an automatic disadvantage to that candidate. This year thus far, Trump holds the advantage over most of the Democrats, with Bernie and Elizabeth Warren being the exceptions -- sorta. Crazy Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are doing best but they still can't match Trump's crowds and enthusiasm.

This article highlights the difference between the Trump campaign's cutting edge media strategy and Biden's strategy:

One recent video from the Trump campaign said that Mr. Biden had offered Ukraine $1 billion in aid if it killed an investigation into a company tied to his son. The video's claims had already been debunked, and CNN refused to play it. But Facebook rejected the Biden campaign's demand to take the ad down, arguing that it did not violate its policies. At last count, the video has been viewed on the social network more than five million times .

Chris Wallace is going the way of the dinosaur. Fox Nation is a great option because it's more of an on-demand option. Why go old-fashioned when you can customize?

Posted Sunday, October 20, 2019 4:27 PM

Comment 1 by Chad Q at 20-Oct-19 05:54 PM
It's my understanding that the money had already been released at the time of the phone call so there was no quid, no pro, no quo and the president of Ukraine said he never felt pressured to do anything.

Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 21-Oct-19 08:21 AM
So, how was that Biden video "debunked"? Is the maker of the video the worlds most brilliant video-faker?

Now, of course, Schiff is saying he doesn't NEED a quid pro quo to proceed to impeach. I suppose that's a good thing, because he's never going to find one.

Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Oct-19 12:51 AM
Actually, Schiff means that they've got the votes so he can impeach President Trump for eating a ham sandwich if he'd like. Don't take this like it's a legitimate investigation. That it isn't.

Margaret Anderson-Kelliher's con

Margaret Anderson-Kelliher is trying to con Minnesotans into a massive gas tax increase . Sorta. This is where we'll get into the weeds a little. Normally, I wouldn't waste my time but this isn't normally.

Minnesota Department of Transportation Commissioner Margaret Anderson-Kelliher is pushing a combined gas-tax increase along with what she's calling a 'debt-service fee' that would raise fuel prices by up to 15 cents per gallon, according to interviews with local news outlets.

Anderson-Kelliher did back-to-back interviews with the Rochester Post-Bulletin and the Mankato Free Press in September to promote the idea. Minnesota's DFL Party began " actively exploring " the debt-service fee in July, which would increase gas prices to help cover the costs of borrowing money for highway improvements.

Next comes the razzle-dazzle:

In her interview with the Rochester Post Bulletin, Anderson-Kelliher said the state "should start anew and look at ways we can build from there. There is a real need in this community to address not only the transportation movement of cars and transit, but people want to bike safely and they want to walk safely. And to be able to do that, you actually need more resources," she said.

The Center of the American Experiment's Tom Steward thinks this means Anderson-Kelliher plans to use "the increased bonding capacity as a backdoor way of building bike paths and diverting billions of tax dollars to green alternatives to the automobile."

Gov. Walz tried pushing through a massive tax increase during the budget session. It failed miserably. IF Gov. Walz tries pushing that agenda again, he'll have to work with an all-GOP legislature in 2021. The other possibility is watching DFL legislators abandon him in large numbers. If Speaker Hortman pushes this agenda in the House, it will be her only term as Speaker. Tax increases aren't popular. Gas tax increases are the least popular of the tax increases. Having the DFL push a gas tax increase right before an election is a gift -- to Republicans. Having the DFL push a gas tax increase and 'debt service fee' increase to pay for bike paths and walking trails in an election year is political suicide for the DFL.

This won't happen unless we have another Override Six fiasco. If something like that happens, which I don't think will happen, those senators will be primaried and their political careers will be over.

Posted Sunday, October 20, 2019 10:32 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