October 21-23, 2019

Oct 21 00:30 Hate crime hoaxers return
Oct 21 18:04 Attacking the Dems' weakest link

Oct 22 01:45 'Moderate Dems' Phillips, Peterson, Craig vote against Schiff censure
Oct 22 08:42 Trump to Republicans: fight back
Oct 22 10:33 Pelosi's dishonest Fact Sheet
Oct 22 15:18 Political hackery, old fart edition

Oct 23 00:37 Bill Taylor vs. John Ratcliffe
Oct 23 22:55 Constitutional principles vs. process

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

Hate crime hoaxers return

While the lineup of speakers has changed, the goal remains the same -- convince people that there's a hate crime epidemic sweeping through St. Cloud. Last time, the event was titled "Dismantling Hate Crimes" before it was cancelled amidst a ton of controversy. Last time, the dishonest thugs at the Minnesota Department of Human Rights whined that they were upset that protesters had tried to silence a discussion of hate crimes . That's a bunch of BS. Jeff Oxton, St. Cloud's assistant police chief, "said Wednesday the department received no reports of threats related to the event."

Minnesota Department of Human Rights Commissioner Rebecca Lucero issued a statement that said, in part, "Hate is not a value in St. Cloud or in any part of our state. Our community deserves better. I am heartbroken by the attempts to silence discussion on hate crimes. The goal of the forum was to discuss the community we want to create. One that is full of dignity and joy."

I pointed out that the event was cancelled before the dozen or so protesters arrived. I also highlighted the fact that no threats were received that day or that week. In other words, the statement was BS.

This time, instead of CAIR's Jaylani Hussein and MDHR's Lucero, they'll have police hating AG Keith Ellison, a former skinhead and career politician wannabe Dan Wolgamott. What this has to do with St. Cloud is beyond comprehension. St. Cloud doesn't have a hate crimes problem. We definitely don't have a skinhead problem. Unfortunately, we have a crisis with wannabe career politicians.

According to this article , "Hate crimes and white nationalism will be the focus of a St. Cloud listening session Tuesday night. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison will be joined by District 14B Rep. Dan Wolgamott and former violent extremist Christian Picciolini from 6-7:30 p.m. Tuesday at Atwood Memorial Center ballroom at St. Cloud State University. Ellison will hear concerns about hate crimes and seek community-based solutions, according to a press release from his office."

This event is scheduled to last 90 minutes. If it was based on truth, it would last 15 minutes maximum. I don't understand why a former skinhead's input makes sense. Frankly, I don't think it's relevant. It's disturbing that Keith Ellison is Minnesota's AG. He's a former Nation of Islam activist. He's also been photographed with Antifa handbooks. Antifa is now classified as a domestic terrorist organization.


Then there's this:
[Video no longer available]
Keith Ellison is the last person Minnesotans should listen to about hate crimes. Ellison has appeared at a fundraiser for Assata Shakur, a convicted cop killer who escaped from a New Jersey prison and is believed to be exiled in Cuba.

What this bunch of hoaxers have to say on hate crimes and white supremacists is difficult to imagine. Considering Ellison's history of hate, I wouldn't think his thoughts on hate crimes was worth much.

Posted Monday, October 21, 2019 12:30 AM

No comments.

Attacking the Dems' weakest link

Republicans, led by Andy Biggs, the new chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, have gone on the offensive against the Democrats' weakest link, aka Adam Schiff. Schiff's tactics have been unfair, unconstitutional and totally partisan. If the goal of this impeachment process is to win people over and hold them there, it's failing.

Newt Gingrich knows a thing or two about impeachment. He said "Schiff is an embarrassingly dishonest person. Pelosi has become an embarrassingly dishonest person." He's right, albeit a bit gentle. He said that to Fox & Friends. When he appeared on Outnumbered, Newt said "I think he's lost his mind", which is true, though not in the clinical sense.
[Video no longer available]
Schiff isn't interested in being fair. Further, his statements are further out there than Hillary's latest statements. Hillary's statements about Tulsi Gabbard are out there beyond the edge of the solar system. Schiff's statements are out there beyond the edge of the galaxy.

This information should frighten Democrats:

In the six closest states carried by the president in 2016, registered voters support the impeachment inquiry by a five-point margin, 50 percent to 45 percent. The same voters oppose impeaching Mr. Trump and removing him from office , 53 percent to 43 percent.

In other words, Democrats are pushing something that's underwater in the polls. Support for an impeachment inquiry isn't that popular. Support for impeaching and removing President Trump is far less popular. If Pelosi and Schiff push forward on impeachment and removal, 2 things can't be avoided. First, those vulnerable freshman Democrats will have to vote for impeachment for it to pass. Their other option is voting against impeachment, which hangs out their far leftist Democrats to dry.

This isn't good news for Democrats either:

An NBC/WSJ poll, for instance, found that adults opposed impeachment and removal by a six-point margin, 49 percent to 43 percent, nearly the reverse of Fox's result of 51 percent supporting and 43 percent opposed. Other surveys, from Marist College, Quinnipiac, CNN/SSRS and Monmouth College, also found more opposition than support for impeachment and removal. The Times/Siena results are fairly consistent with those surveys.

Any issue that consistently polls at 43% isn't an issue I'd spend more than a few seconds on. That being said, I hope Democrats spend the next month on this. While Democrats are holding impeachment hearings in private, then leaking partial transcripts to the press, they're reinforcing their image of being the Swamp. Meanwhile, President Trump can hold weekly rallies to tell 25,000+ people at each event that he's still fighting for them but these Do-Nothing Democrats keep holding these hearings instead of working with him on fixing immigration or making his tax cuts permanent or doing other things.

Don't be surprised if, a year from now, people say that they prefer a president who wants to fix things over Democrats who want to spend all of their time investigating things. Do-Nothing Democrats isn't just a talking point. It's the truth. This truth, though, won't set Democrats free.

Posted Monday, October 21, 2019 6:04 PM

No comments.

'Moderate Dems' Phillips, Peterson, Craig vote against Schiff censure

Earlier tonight, Democrat 'moderates' Angie Craig, Collin Peterson and Dean Phillips voted against censuring Democrat Impeachment Chairman Adam Schiff for lying to the American people while delivering his opening statement in the Maguire hearing. For those who don't remember that hearing by that name, it's the one where Democrat Impeachment Chairman opened with this speech:
[Video no longer available]
Here's the heart of Schiff's speech:

horn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates. We've been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don't see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I'm going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that. I'm going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I am going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my Attorney General Bill Barr. He's got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him.

In Schiff's speech, it's clear that he's signaling that President Trump threatened Ukrainian President Zelensky with the withholding of military aid. According to Schiff's fake phone call transcript, that military aid would be withheld from Ukraine if President Zelensky didn't "make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it."

The bottom line is this -- Adam Schiff, the Democrats' Impeachment Chairman, lied to Congress and the American people. This isn't just a silly prank. Schiff's speech is permanently part of the Congressional Record. Minnesota's 'moderate Democrats' didn't think Schiff's dishonest speech was worthy of official criticism. These 'moderate Democrats' thought that the man leading an investigation to remove the president of the United States shouldn't be officially criticized. Perhaps, it's because they bought Schiff's BS that this was a parody. If that's a parody, how do Phillips, Peterson and Craig explain this paragraph from Schiff's speech?

This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn't such a graphic betrayal of the president's oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there's nothing the president says here that is in America's interest after all.

Schiff said it with his own words that "this is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine." That's a pretty fanciful interpretation of the transcript. Here's what President Trump actually told President Zelensky :

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 wealthy 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. As you said yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

Nothing in Schiff's speech sounds like anything from Trump's phone call. It's appalling that Minnesota's supposedly moderate Democrats bought Schiff's BS and voted the way that Pelosi wanted them to vote. They aren't moderates. They're just gullible Democrats.

Democrats can't pretend that they're moderates because they're doing things that are historically unprecedented. Recently, Schiff said that he's essentially doing the work of a special counsel. I don't disagree with that. The problem is that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was officially employed by the DOJ. Schiff's biggest problem is that the DOJ is part of the executive branch. Impeachment chairs are fixtures of the legislative branch.

The Constitution matters

This says everything:

Former special counsel Robert Mueller led the Russia probe, but no new prosecutor has been tapped by Attorney General William Barr for the Ukraine matter. That leaves House Democrats with only a whistleblower's complaint rather than boxes of investigators' evidence to guide them. "Congress has to do that," Schiff said, because the Justice Department believes "there's nothing to see here."

Schiff, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, is leading the probe at the direction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and proceeding like the prosecutor he once was, staging a grand jury-like process that has been pilloried by Republicans. As Schiff works behind closed doors to build the case, Republicans accuse Democrats of waging an unfair, and according to the White House, illegitimate, investigation. But Schiff says the House has few other choices than to build the case on its own.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that members of the legislative branch have the authority to impanel investigative grand juries. If the DOJ tells the legislative branch to pound sand if the House refers cases to the DOJ, that's what happens when you lose elections. When Republicans made criminal referrals to Eric Holder's DOJ about the IRS scandal and Holder rejected those referrals, Trey Gowdy couldn't impanel a grand jury to investigate Eric Holder. That was it. If the DOJ says no, then the answer is no. Period.

The thing is that Schiff didn't bother trying to hide his attempt to be an investigator/prosecutor. He said this right out in the open.

Posted Tuesday, October 22, 2019 1:45 AM

No comments.

Trump to Republicans: fight back

I won't dispute that President Trump has made mistakes. Pulling the troops out of Syria by itself wasn't a mistake. Pulling out without consultations with the Kurds was a mistake.

Mick Mulvaney's Friday afternoon press conference wasn't a mistake. Mick Mulvaney's Friday afternoon press conference was an in-your-face-things-have-changed masterpiece. That's the gospel of Kevin McCullough :

I know that the mouth breathers mixed amongst the White House press corps acted as though acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney committed some set of cardinal sins on Friday. Excuse me if I disagree. It was a stroke of pure genius on the administration's part. And for the record they would do themselves a huge favor by continuing this practice for the duration of Pelosi's faux impeachment.

Since Pelosi and Schiff aren't conducting a lawful impeachment nor observing the long held practices of past impeachments, there is absolutely zero rationale in participating in their charade. They want to interrogate everyone in secret and not make the exculpatory testimony (of nearly everyone they speak with) available to the people. They want to undo lawful elections and remove the overwhelming winner of those contests via illegitimate and fraudulent means. Hence the president should reserve the right of using his press briefings to more or less call his own witnesses and let them blister the media with testimony exactly the way Mulvaney did on Friday.

The first rule of dealing with schoolyard bullies is to punch them hard so they know that there's a price to pay for being a bully. If there isn't a price for bullying, the bullying will continue. Democrats in the media aren't used to having the person from the podium punch back. Based on their reactions, those Democrats aren't handling it that well.
[Video no longer available]

I'm not sure what bothered the press more: that Mulvaney made it clear that he wouldn't play their semantic word games or that he unloaded facts to the public with such force. He also irritated them to no end in blatantly explaining that the aid America gives to any group of people that are not American will be on a basis that is assessed on a primary consideration of how they cooperate with the interests of America!

In other words, President Trump is insisting that money is spent wisely. The Democrats' media accomplices acted like Mulvaney committed multiple mortal sins. The vast majority of the White House press corps are a bunch of sniveling ninnies. It's time for them to grow up.

Likewise, it's time for Republicans to start standing up to the Democrats' enablers.

Posted Tuesday, October 22, 2019 8:42 AM

Comment 1 by eric z at 22-Oct-19 12:15 PM
I admit to less than full immersion in right wing media outlet output, but those with more familiarity might answer, "What is Mike Pence doing to fight the impeachment roller-coaster?" Little to nothing is all I see.

Pelosi's dishonest Fact Sheet

Speaker Pelosi's office issued a Fact Sheet Monday that's utterly dishonest. Here's the opening page:
https://www.scribd.com/document/431368353/Trump-Shakedown-and-Coverup#page=1
Notice what Pelosi's document omits. Under the heading of "In President Trump's own words", Speaker Pelosi's 'Fact Sheet' says "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. There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution of his son and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. "

This is what the White House official transcript says:

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 wealthy 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. As you said yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you.do it if that's possible.

Let's call this the 'Favor' paragraph. In the official White House transcript, which was put together by career White House security personnel, there isn't a mention of the Bidens in the Favor paragraph.

That's proof that Ms. Pelosi's 'Fact Sheet' is as dishonest as the Democrats' Impeachment Chairman, Adam Schiff. It's fair to say that Ms. Pelosi doesn't have integrity. If she had integrity, she wouldn't have merged 2 paragraphs together that were a page apart. This wasn't accidental. It was intentional so that the dishonest Fact Sheet would send the message that President Trump called Ukraine's president and asked him to dig up "lots of dirt" (Schiff's phrase from the Maguire hearing opening statement).

Most of the information in Ms. Pelosi's Fact Sheet is distortion or outright lies. She accused Secretary of State Pompeo and Vice President Pence of being part of President Trump's coverup. Read the Fact Sheet for yourself. Then read the Trump-Zelensky transcript and notice the differences. Then remind yourself that the transcript was put together by career White House security personnel. Ms. Pelosi's Fact Sheet was put together by the 2 most dishonest Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Posted Tuesday, October 22, 2019 10:33 AM

No comments.

Political hackery, old fart edition

Ed Rendell is an old-fashioned Clinton spinmeister. Specifically, that means that he doesn't need verification to make outlandish unsubstantiated statements. He just needs a microphone. Nowhere is that more visible than in this article and interview.

In the interview, Rendell said "I think we got to watch what rolls out in the next month or so. I think there's more evidence to come and I think as the evidence rolls out, it's going to become more and more clear that the president not only broke the law here but he abused his power at the detriment of the United States of America." Rendell also said that "President Trump 'committed a crime by soliciting the Ukraine government to get involved in the U.S. election.'"

Apparently, Democrats don't care about the truth. Nothing in the transcript of the call shows that President Trump solicited "the Ukraine government to get involved in the U.S. election." What's apparent is that President Trump wanted Ukraine to help investigate a corrupt politician who bragged about getting a prosecutor fired after that prosecutor started investigating the company this corrupt politician's son worked for at the time.

Here's a great rule for Democrats to apply. If you don't want to be investigated, stop being corrupt like Joe Biden and especially Hillary Clinton:
[Video no longer available]
These are people who've been swamp critters the vast majority of their careers. Hillary's career is the personification of the Swamp and the pay-to-play plan. Biden's story is more about stumbling into corruption. Meanwhile, another corrupt Democrat, Adam Schiff, got protected by the corrupt Democrats in the House when 217 Democrats voted to protect him for lying to Congress. Afterward, Schiff tweeted this:


Friend of LFR Jeff Dunetz replied perfectly with this tweet:


Follow the entire chain of tweets Jeff unleashed on the House Democrats' Impeachment Chairman. They're so worth it .

Posted Tuesday, October 22, 2019 3:18 PM

Comment 1 by eric z at 22-Oct-19 08:17 PM
The sky is falling on Chicken Little. Pence is who I fear. He is more warmonger than Trump. Trump did at least disavow endless regime change war. Pence would lack courage to do that. Go along to get along Pence.

Comment 2 by Chad Q at 23-Oct-19 07:03 PM
Seems like it your friends in congress who are the war mongers, not Pence.

Bill Taylor vs. John Ratcliffe

Just 2 months ago, I didn't know who Bill Taylor was. Now I know that he's another career diplomat who doesn't like it that President Trump is implementing the foreign policy that the American people elected him to implement. Tuesday, Taylor testified that "President Trump pushed Ukraine to investigate both election interference and a company linked to former Vice President Joe Biden's son -- and was willing to hold up military aid and a White House meeting to get a public announcement from the country that the probes were underway."

Even if that's true, that's still a nothingburger. Unfortunately for Taylor, there was a man of integrity in the room during Taylor's testimony. That man's name is John Ratcliffe. Ratcliffe is a former US attorney who now represents TX-04. Tonight, Ratcliffe appeared on The Story to be interviewed by Martha McCallum. After Ratcliffe said that he couldn't repeat what he said in the secret room, Ratcliffe figured out a legal way to say what happened during his cross-examination of Taylor. Here's the video of that interview:
[Video no longer available]
Predictably, Democrats described today's testimony as "the most damning they've heard." Ratcliffe had a different perspective. First, though, is part of what Taylor testified to:

"I was alarmed by what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation. This was the first time I had heard that the security assistance, not just the White House meeting, was conditioned on the investigations."

In this instance, Taylor's testimony was third-hand information at best. Third-hand testimony heard behind closed doors and which doesn't come with a transcript of Congressman Ratcliffe's cross-examination is virtually worthless.

Congressman Ratcliffe noted that "At the end of the day, this was about quid pro quo and whether the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld and on that most important issue, neither this witness nor any other witness has provided any evidence that there was a quid pro quo, any evidence that the Ukrainians were aware that any military aid was being withheld on July 25th. Unless and until they can bring in a witness who is willing to say that there was knowledge by someone who speaks Ukrainian to that fact, a legal quid pro quo is impossible."

Ratcliffe also noted that "[Schiff] keeps trotting in career ambassadors who are alarmed at Donald Trump's unconventional approach to foreign policy. Who's surprised at that? And again, today, I found Ambassador Taylor to be very forthright. He had very strong opinions about Donald Trump's approach to foreign policy, but again, the MSM keeps reporting that he provided evidence of a quid pro quo involving military aid is false. I questioned him on that and, under Adam Schiff's rules, I can't tell you what he said but I can tell you what he didn't say. And he nor any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld. You have a quid pro quo without the quo."

Ratcliffe's final major contribution of the interview came when he said this:
Martha, if this was a court case, the lawyers for the defense would be moving for a directed verdict. They'd be saying 'this case isn't allowed to go to a jury because the prosecution is missing an essential element of their case.' There is no quid pro quo until someone from the Ukraine says 'We knew that military aid was being withheld during that July 25th call and that testimony hasn't come and it isn't going to come."

This impeachment case is collapsing, albeit behind closed doors. It isn't just that the case is weak. It's that the Senate is about to vote on Lindsey Graham's resolution that essentially says that the House process has been a travesty:
[Video no longer available]
Sen. Graham is right in pushing that the impeachment trial be dismissed without a trial if the Democrats' Impeachment Chairman, aka Adam Schiff, isn't willing to afford to President Trump the same rights that were granted to President Nixon and President Clinton. The House Democrats' impeachment process is a travesty. It shouldn't be treated like it was an honest investigation based on constitutional rights.

Posted Wednesday, October 23, 2019 12:37 AM

Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Oct-19 01:17 PM
What about the Biden dimension? Has any Republican Senate committee asked to see Hunter's passport, whether he's ever set foot in Ukraine, and if so, when? Does he even know the Ukrainian words for "gas" and "energy," or if he can say, "I should be on your corporate board," in Ukrainian? Are you guys ever going to drop that shoe?

Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Oct-19 02:16 PM
Eric, I get your point. I suspect that that's something that they'll get to during the campaign if Biden lasts that long. At this point, I suspect that Republicans are focused most on highlighting the unconstitutional nature of Schiff's inquisition. This afternoon, I read of a Dem spinmeister who insisted that Democrats, at this stage, were "mirroring" a grand jury. I don't doubt that but that's a legitimate constitutional crisis for Democrats because the only people that are allowed to impanel a grand jury are part of the executive branch. They're known as the DOJ.

Nobody in the legislative branch has the constitutional authority to impanel the grand jury. It's a separation of powers issue. Congress can't impanel a grand jury any more than the various executive branch agencies are permitted to write their budgets that the president signs. If the Constitution doesn't give that authority to a branch of government, then that branch should obey the Constitution.

Comment 2 by Chad Q at 23-Oct-19 07:01 PM
Funny Eric should bring up Hunter Biden ever being in the Ukraine because that's what was brought up on talk radio today.

The progressives have nothing just like with the Mueller fiasco.

Constitutional principles vs. process

For the past few days, Democrats have criticized Republicans for whining about the Democrats' Impeachment Chairman Adam Schiff's "process", hinting that Republicans can't win on the evidence. First, it's important to admit that we don't have any proof of wrongdoing. The leaked information suggests multiple things, all of which can be explained as either damning or thoroughly plausible.

Next, it's essential to admit that Democrats, including the Democrats' Impeachment Chairman Adam Schiff, have admitted that they're acting as a grand jury. That's a legitimate constitutional crisis for Democrats because the only federal personnel permitted to impanel grand juries are employed by the DOJ, which is part of the executive branch. Nobody in the legislative branch is constitutionally authorized to impanel a grand jury.

The question thus becomes whether Republicans are fighting for legitimate constitutional principles, for process or both. At this point, it's apparent that Republicans are fighting for constitutional principles like separation of powers, due process and the right of the accused to confront their accuser. Further, Adam Schiff, the Democrats' Impeachment Chairman, has admitted that he's violated the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. Schiff is guilty of violating President Trump's due process rights because we've heard from people who participated in the hearings that each day brings a different set of rules. It's impossible to uphold a person's due process rights when you don't have a process.

After hearing the Democrats' spin that this process was damning, John Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, set things straight in this interview with Martha McCallum:
[Video no longer available]
It isn't indisputable that Democrats have put a strong case together. When Bill Taylor is called as a 'witness', he admitted in his opening statement that he didn't have firsthand information. If that's in his 15-page opening statement, how can Democrats say that his testimony was explosive? In a judicial setting, his wouldn't be permitted to testify because it's hearsay, which isn't permitted.

Republicans aren't fighting for process. They're fighting for the most important constitutional principles. The judicial system couldn't exist if the right to defend yourself didn't exist. The judicial system couldn't exist if defendants' attorneys weren't allowed to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses. The judicial system couldn't exist demolish a witness's testimony.

Apparently, that's what John Ratcliffe did to Ambassador Taylor's testimony. Adam Schiff isn't interested in constitutional principles. Schiff's interested in achieving a specific outcome. That outcome is overturning the 2016 presidential election. It doesn't bother him if that overturns the will of the people.

Overturning the will of the people is horrific. In fact, it's intolerable. What's worse is overturning the will of the people while violating President Trump's most important constitutional protections.

It's infuriating to think that it's happening in the bottom of a building known as the People's House. This is proof that, with Adam Schiff, the Democrats' Impeachment Committee Chairman, it's amazing how low it can go.

Posted Wednesday, October 23, 2019 10:55 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