October 29-31, 2019

Oct 29 02:12 Schiff, House Democrats can't find an impeachable offense
Oct 29 05:56 The shaming of America
Oct 29 13:23 Will Democrats govern?

Oct 30 00:16 Schiff, the most corrupt Democrat
Oct 30 08:10 The meaningless impeachment
Oct 30 15:43 Pelosi's impeachment resolution

Oct 31 03:09 Without constitutional protections, impeachment process isn't legit

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

Schiff, House Democrats can't find an impeachable offense

Alan Dershowitz's latest article highlights an old phrase attributed to Stalin. According to the article, Stalin said "show me the man and I will find you the crime." Appearing on America's Newsroom, former Clinton Independent Counsel Ken Starr told this horrific story :

"The text of the Constitution just entrusts [impeachment] to the good judgment, whether it's being exercised or not, to the House of Representatives," Starr said. "But history will, I think, judge this not well. It should judge it not well. [You] didn't have a full debate on the floor of the House -- and that just lends itself to, 'then to let's go to court and have this litigated.' "And of course, the chairman then says, 'you go to court, you're in contempt.'

"For [Schiff to] essentially declare guilt... is another procedural irregularity. He should try his best... to give the appearance of fairness and open-mindedness," he said. "He's already declared the president substantively guilty, as well as procedurally guilty."

This isn't about fairness. It's about hating the outcome of the 2016 election, then doing whatever it took to string up the guy who defeated the woman who was going to shatter that last glass ceiling. This isn't an impeachment inquiry. It's an inquisition :

an official investigation, especially one of a political or religious nature, characterized by lack of regard for individual rights, prejudice on the part of the examiners and recklessly cruel punishments.

Point to anything that Adam Schiff, the Democrats' Impeachment Chairman, has done to guarantee President Trump's civil rights. Point to anything that Adam Schiff, the Democrats' Impeachment Chairman, has done to guarantee the civil rights of anyone who served on the NSC were protected. It's impossible to highlight such a thing because Schiff isn't interested in such things. He's interested in making history even if it means destroying the nation.

The gospel of Dershowitz
[Video no longer available]

Under our constitutional system of separation of powers, Congress may not compel the Executive Branch to cooperate with an impeachment investigation absent court orders. Conflicts between the Legislative and Executive Branches are resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by the unilateral dictate of a handful of partisan legislators. It is neither a crime nor an impeachable offense for the president to demand that Congress seek court orders to enforce their demands. Claims of executive and other privileges should be resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by calls for impeachment.

This isn't a constitutional crisis. It's the Constitution working the way Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton codified it to work. The first step is to let the political branches fight things out amongst themselves. The only time the courts should get involved is after the political branches have proven they can't resolve their differences.

As Dershowitz has said, a dispute isn't cause for voting on an article of impeachment. It's cause for letting the Constitution function the way Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton intended it to work. The legislative branch doesn't resolve disputes. The executive branch doesn't resolve disputes. Only the judicial branch gets to resolve disputes between the political branches. If Schiff wasn't in such a rush to impeach President Trump, he'd let the judiciary settle this dispute.

Notice the slap that Prof. Dershowitz gave Mr. Schiff. Prof. Dershowitz said "Schiff calls it a rope-a-dope. There's another word for it. It's called checks and balances." Schiff's political animus is so strong that he isn't capable of controlling himself. When Nixon was all but officially impeached, Chairman Rodino put together this roadmap for the House to follow. There isn't a snowball's prayer in hell that this roadmap will be considered, much less adopted. Adam Schiff won't let this be considered. Nancy Pelosi is too partisan to let this become the law of the land.

Posted Tuesday, October 29, 2019 2:12 AM

No comments.

The shaming of America

While appearing on Tucker Carlson's show last night, Piers Morgan criticized the Americans who booed President Trump at the Washington Nationals-Houston Astros World Series game. Particularly of note was his memory of the night that Osama bin Laden was assassinated by US Special Forces in a compound in Pakistan"

"My mind went back to when Usama bin Laden was killed," he said. "I was in New York City that night. There was widespread jubilation throughout New York, throughout Washington, throughout America. This was a unified response from a country jubilant at seeing the end of the grisly demise of the leader of Al Qaeda." All of America rejoiced because bin Laden masterminded the killing of over 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Bin Laden's death was an American victory. Republicans didn't hesitate in rejoicing because bin Laden's demise was good for America.

By comparison, Morgan highlighted the Nationals' fans booing President Trump when it was announce he and the First Lady were attending the game. Some fans even chanted "lock him up." For Washingtonians, it was just another moment to express their hatred for President Trump. A significant portion of the people attending the game were card-carrying members of the Washington Swamp. How appropriate that they reacted like you'd expect the Swamp to react.
[Video no longer available]
It's worth noting that today's leftists aren't liberals. They're hardline progressives. There's a big difference. Liberals have a libertarian streak that's quite noticeable. For the most part, old-fashioned liberals like Hubert Humphrey, Pat Moynihan and Paul Wellstone were happy warriors. Had they been alive to see al-Baghdadi's death, they would've cheered. They likely would've criticized the Swamp creatures that booed President Trump.

The Swamp critters that booed President Trump were hardline progressives. Hardline progressives have a fascist streak that's visible from outer space, even with the naked eye. They're total sourpusses, the gloomiest of the gloomiest. Hardline progressives are Democrats, just like liberals are. The personality traits of the 2 wings of the Democratic Party couldn't be more noticeable.

I don't know if it'll happen but I'd love seeing the Democratic Party return to being happy warriors who actually love the America that our Founding Fathers envisioned. I suspect, unfortunately, that we won't see those Democrats again.

Posted Tuesday, October 29, 2019 5:56 AM

No comments.

Will Democrats govern?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is setting up a test for Democrats. In this letter , Sen. McConnell wrote "Washington Democrats have been insisting their three-year-old impeachment journey will not keep them from attending to the people's business. Well, we may just find out later this week, when the Senate votes on advancing funding for our armed forces. Recall that last month, our Democratic colleagues made the stunning decision to filibuster legislation to fund our national defense. They blocked resources for our men and women in uniform. They blocked the funding our commanders need to keep us safe in this dangerous time. They blocked a pay raise for men and women in uniform. Democrats filibustered all this for the sake of picking a fight with the White House."

This is Sen. McConnell telling Democrats to lace up their shoes and pull out their gum. It's time to walk and chew gum simultaneously. If Democrats want to filibuster again in the immediate aftermath of the successful al-Baghdadi mission, that's their option. It's a foolish option but it's an option.

This isn't setting up well for Democrats. If they filibuster the NDAA, Democrats will get painted as being weak on defense. Further, Republicans will be able to paint Democrats as wanting the military to live on food stamps while the Democrats' presidential candidates offer free health care to illegal immigrants:
[Video no longer available]
It's unfathomable to think that any politicians would paint themselves into that corner. That's a heads-you-win-tails-I-lose proposition. Actually, it's more difficult than that. This is shoving the proverbial knife in and giving it a sharp twist :

This appropriations bill would fund $250 million in military assistance for Ukraine under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. If that sounds familiar, that would be the exact same program that Democrats are currently trying to impeach the president for allegedly slow-walking.

So welcome to Washington D.C., where Democrats try to impeach President Trump for supposedly slow-walking aid for Ukraine and simultaneously filibuster the funding for the exact same Ukraine program here in the Senate. I think it's safe to say that would elevate irony to a whole new art form.

For Senate Democrats, Sen. McConnell is presenting them with a new put-up-or-shut-up opportunity. Here's hoping that Democrats won't fail our military and our allies.

Posted Tuesday, October 29, 2019 1:23 PM

Comment 1 by eric z at 29-Oct-19 07:24 PM
The House passed a number of bills that McConnell will not allow to be heard. He's the gum in the gears, and should stf up about blaming anybody but the man in his shaving mirror.

Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Oct-19 12:40 AM
The House passed a bunch of bills with poison pills in them so they could yap that they'd passed a ton of bills that didn't get a hearing. I know the backstory of lots of these stories. Calling 99% of them bills is deceptive at best.

Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 31-Oct-19 09:12 AM
I don't think those are going to be counted as "accomplishments" come election time. All anybody is going to remember is the endless Democrat yapping about the non-impeachment impeachment, based on rabid, delusional "investigations" that turned out to be nothing burgers.

It's just like Minnesota, where the GOP Senate is trumpeting a long list of accomplishments that all start with the word "stopping."

Schiff, the most corrupt Democrat

Anyone that doesn't think that Adam Schiff, the Democrats' Impeachment Chairman and occasionally Pelosi protector, is the most corrupt Democrat in Washington, DC, isn't paying attention. Read this article , then ask yourself which dirtbag Democrat did worse than this:

Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told reporters that Schiff shut down a Republican line of questioning during a hearing with Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the latest current or former Trump administration official to come before Congress in relation to the impeachment probe.

"When we asked [Vindman] who he spoke to after important events in July, Adam Schiff says, 'no, no, no, we're not going to let him answer that question,"' Jordan said. Jordan went on to say that Schiff seemed to be breaking his own rules for the hearings, implying the chairman was acting almost as a "lawyer" for Vindman.

That's how people with their thumb on the scale act. That's how someone who's pushing for a specific outcome acts. That isn't how an impartial judge acts. That's how a corrupt SOB from the DC Swamp acts.

Forget about the resolution that Pelosi put together. That's ridiculous enough. With Schiff chairing the impeachment hearings, who needs rules? Schiff has repeatedly proven that he'll do whatever it takes to impeach President Trump. There isn't a rule that Schiff won't break. In fact, Democrats in general haven't stood up to Mr. Schiff. This video says it all:
[Video no longer available]
Chad Pergram added this:



"The Democrats run out here and say, 'ooh, the Republicans are trying to figure out who the whistleblower is,'" Jordan continued. "We're trying to figure out who our witness list is! The resolution that the Speaker has just filed : she points this out in the resolution that this is going to go to the Judiciary Committee if in fact they push it there. There will be witnesses called. We would like to figure out who those witnesses should be."

The Democrat's process is as fair as a Soviet-style trial. That's where the defendant is told that he'll get a fair trial -- right before he's shot. Here's Newt Gingrich's perspective on this travesty:
[Video no longer available]
Check this out:

"I thought it was very appropriate that [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] was bringing it up on Halloween because I think, frankly, it's a joke. And I think that Schiff probably ought to come on the floor as a scarecrow," Gingrich said on "The Story with Martha MacCallum" Tuesday. "You remember in 'The Wizard of Oz', the scarecrow has no brain and it is Halloween," Gingrich added. "The fact is that they're not doing anything that's serious."

Democrats are unintentionally firing up Republicans like never before. If Democrats think that Republicans won't turn out like never before next year, Democrats should consider what Sean Hannity said tonight. Hannity said that Republicans are so fired up that they'll show up a month before the election and sit in the rain or the snow just to vote for President Trump. That's about right. It's fitting that we close with this:

MacCallum asked Gingrich why he believed Pelosi was now supporting a vote formalizing the impeachment inquiry, prompting the former Republican leader to say that Democrats are now "trapped at a dead end." "I think that the Lindsey Graham-Mitch McConnell [Senate] resolution served notice that they had to do something or it was literally dead on arrival in the Senate," Gingrich said. "I think the White House blocking them and refusing to do things until there was a vote moved them. But she has a real problem."

"Having been speaker of the House, she can probably pass this resolution if she's suicidal , but she's going to kill their majority," Gingrich predicted. "I mean, if you're Congressman [Collin] Peterson and you're in northern Minnesota and you're in a 30-point Trump district, voting yes on Thursday basically is the end of your career. And you go through district after district."

I wonder how much Pelosi wants to stay in Congress. She's getting challenged by AOC + 3. She's getting left out of the DC Loop.

What's worst, I'm betting, is that she's getting pushed around by Schiff, the most corrupt Impeachment Chairman in House Democrat history.

Posted Wednesday, October 30, 2019 12:16 AM

No comments.

The meaningless impeachment

Another day, another meaningless witness has testified , another opportunity for Democrats to make ominous-sounding statements. According to the article, top "Democrats at the deposition of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, said his testimony Tuesday was 'extremely disturbing' and praised him for appearing despite attacks from the White House."

Blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada. Democrats and the petrified media insist that I'm supposed to trust the statements coming from America-hating Democrats like Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell and Jamie Raskin rather than trust what I read in the transcript of the July 25th call between President Trump and President Zelenskiy. I don't think so. Why are their opinionated statements trustworthy? When I get to listen to the testimony, especially the cross-examination, then I can form an opinion. Listening to dishonest Democrats give me their opinions about testimony I didn't get to evaluate is foolish.

Why should I trust the dishonest Democrat who made this opening statement?
[Video no longer available]
Why should I trust the words of Democrats who will vote tomorrow to implement a set of 'rules' that's a PR stunt rather than a set of rules that guarantees President Trump's constitutional rights while informing the American people? Why should I trust Democrats that tell witnesses that they can't answer the Republicans' questions ?

Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told reporters that Schiff shut down a Republican line of questioning during a hearing with Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the latest current or former Trump administration official to come before Congress in relation to the impeachment probe.

"When we asked [Vindman] who he spoke to after important events in July, Adam Schiff says, ' no, no, no, we're not going to let him answer that question ,'" Jordan said. Jordan went on to say that Schiff seemed to be breaking his own rules for the hearings, implying the chairman was acting almost as a 'lawyer' for Vindman.

Does this sound like a man pursuing the truth? Or does it sound like a man who's already reached a verdict?

Regarding reported attempts by GOP lawmakers to get Vindman to reveal the whistleblower's identity, Schiff said that Trump would love to "punish" the whistleblower. He also said the president's comments and actions have "jeopardized the whistleblower's safety."

"The President's allies would like nothing better than to help the president out this whistleblower. Our committee will not be a part of that. We will not stand for that," he said. "They have the right to remain anonymous. They certainly should not be subject to these kind of vicious attacks and other words and actions that threaten their safety for doing their patriotic duty," he said about whistleblowers.

Schiff thinks that he's a mind-reader now? What proof does he have to substantiate this accusation? Or is he just certain that there's just one explanation for a person's actions? Trusting a repeated proven liar is stupid. Adam Schiff, the Democrats' Impeachment Committee Chairman, is a repeated proven liar. In addition to Schiff's dishonest opening statement, Schiff insisted that he had proof that was "more than circumstantial" of Trump-Russia collusion.

I don't doubt that Lt. Col. Vindman has served with distinction. I won't trust his testimony, though, until I watch him cross-examined by John Ratcliffe or Devin Nunes. Based on the testimony that Democrats leaked yesterday, I don't see the significance of Vindman's testimony. He's just another witness that objects to President Trump's foreign policy goals. The men who wrote the Constitution narrowed down the justifications for impeaching a president to "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors." Noticeably absent from that list was differences of opinions.

Adam Schiff and other vindictive Democrats want to impeach and remove President Trump because they're sore losers. Tough. That isn't a legitimate reason for impeachment. It's time to sweep these America-hating Democrats out of Washington, DC. They crave political power. If uppity peasants object to these Democrats' policies, they think that the uppity peasants should be ignored or worse. Remember this gaffe?
[Video no longer available]
The Michael Kinsley definition of a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. That's Hillary's gaffe. She accidentally told the people what she thinks of Trump voters. Adam Schiff and other Democrats on the Committee think that about Trump voters, too. Schiff thinks that we won't notice his attempts to sabotage President Trump's right to a fair hearing.

Posted Wednesday, October 30, 2019 8:10 AM

Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 30-Oct-19 09:08 AM
Heard yesterday on the radio. "Sorry, but Col. Vindman does not set foreign policy, the President does." You can have all the concerns you want, but your opinion doesn't count.

Comment 2 by eric z at 30-Oct-19 11:34 AM
Why trust an ad hoc "transcript" that says upfront it is a non-verbatim thing? Do you know who authored the thing? I don't? Trump has not said. For all I know Mike Pence typed it while at a Starbucks. There with his wife.

Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 31-Oct-19 09:06 AM
Better the official transcript than the "parody" created from the poisonous mind of liar Schiff.

Pelosi's impeachment resolution

Nancy Pelosi's impeachment resolution isn't designed to protect President Trump's constitutional rights. It's designed to protect House Intel Committee Democrats' backsides. Mostly, it's designed to put Adam Schiff, the House Democrats' Impeachment Chairman, in total command of the Soviet-style secret hearings.

For instance, the resolution says "The chair is authorized to make publicly available in electronic form the transcripts of depositions conducted by the Permanent Select Committee in furtherance of the investigation described in the first section of this resolution, with appropriate redactions for classified and other sensitive information."

That has CYA written all over it. If Democrats are committed to transparency to the greatest extent possible, why doesn't it say "The chair shall make publicly available in electronic form the transcripts of depositions"? Further, why aren't Democrats starting public hearings immediately after passage of the resolution? For that matter, there's no justification for the current depositions to not be public hearings.

Yes, Schiff and other Democrats insist that they're necessary to prevent witnesses from synchronizing their testimonies but that's just spin. Thus far, the vast majority of the witnesses have been career diplomats (with the exception of Ambassador Sondland) that disagree with President Trump's policies. These people's opening statements are virtually identical already. Some expressed concern. Others thought something wasn't right. Others started predisposed to disagree with President Trump.

Pelosi's resolutions is filled with restrictions on Republicans and options for Democrats . For instance, Democrats, specifically Schiff, has the option of making transcripts public. Meanwhile, Republicans must submit requests for witnesses they'd like to call:


In other words, Republicans can call witnesses if it's approved of by Schiff, the Democrats' Impeachment Chairman. Schiff can reject the witness request for any reason or for no reason whatsoever. If you think that this sounds like it's rigged, you're right.

There's nothing legitimate about this inquisition. There's nothing remotely close to an impeachable offense in all of this. Still, Democrats insist that we keep listening to a modified version of 'we've got him this time.' That's BS, just like the other 500 times Democrats thought they'd trapped President Trump.

If Pelosi's goal was to appear fair, she failed. That's the least of her worries, though. Her biggest worry is that she's still searching, along with the 'Impeachment Democrats', for something that's impeachment-worthy. After 3+ years of searching, it isn't likely that Democrats will find that smoking gun.

With Watergate, the House started off knowing that Nixon had broken into DNC HQ in the Watergate Hotel. They also knew that he'd told the FBI that they didn't need warrants to wiretap phones, a definite no-no.

With Ukraine-Gate, you've got a handful of diplomats that didn't like President Trump's style of foreign policy. That's anything except an impeachable offense.

Posted Wednesday, October 30, 2019 3:43 PM

No comments.

Without constitutional protections, impeachment process isn't legit

If Speaker Pelosi sincerely believed in the Constitution's protections, she wouldn't have published this set of impeachment rules. Every 'right' granted to President Trump and/or Republicans, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler are allowed to take away. It isn't that President Trump and Republicans weren't 'given' some rights. It's that the rights that they were given can also be taken away.

Unless the House makes the Republicans' rights ironclad, Senate Republicans should publish a statement5 minutes after the House votes on Ms. Pelosi's rules. The Senate's statement should state without hesitation that the Senate won't recognize the House's articles of impeachment until a) all hearings from this point forward must be public, b) all GOP witness requests must be granted, c) all transcripts from previous witnesses must immediately be made available to the members of the Intel, Foreign Affairs, Oversight & Reform and Judiciary Committee members.

Without those rights guaranteed, the Senate should emphatically state that the House's witch hunt won't be taken as a legitimate investigation. Further, the Senate should emphatically make known that, because the House investigation wasn't legitimate, the impeachment will be considered invalidated upon arrival to the Senate. That would send the signal to Ms. Pelosi and the freshmen Democrats that they'll be taking a vote that's meaningless. The message to the House would be that these vulnerable freshmen Democrats would cast a provocative, meaningless vote that immediately endangers Ms. Pelosi's freshmen. Ms. Pelosi is lots of things but being an incompetent bean-counter isn't one of those things. She's very good at what she does, especially counting noses.

The minute the testimony transcripts are made public, including the cross-examinations of each witness, Republicans should examine the contents of those transcripts. The minute Republicans find testimony that doesn't match Schiff's spin, Republicans should highlight the discrepancy between Schiff spin and the transcript.

This hearing explains why Ms. Pelosi didn't pick Jerry Nadler to be the public face of the Democrats' impeachment investigation:
[Video no longer available]
Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler have repeatedly told us that the Mueller Report would provide the proof to impeach President Trump. It didn't. Next, Schiff and Nadler insisted that having Mueller testify would breath life into their witch hunt. This cross-examination by John Ratcliffe ended that pipe dream:
[Video no longer available]
That's why Pelosi wouldn't let Nadler or Schiff conduct their hearings in public. These aren't talented people. They're idiots that got embarrassed in public. That's why President Trump's rights were violated. The dominant denigrating description for Schiff's proceedings was that of a kangaroo court. I'd argue that the better fit is that of the Three Stooges, although I'm open to the argument that the Three Stooges were way funnier than Schiff and Nadler.

It isn't that Republicans are afraid of fighting this faux impeachment on the merits. It's that the argument over constitutional principles was easier. If Democrats think that John Ratcliffe, Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows aren't confident in their ability to utterly dismantle the Democrats' case, they're foolish.

It's time for Republicans to fight for these foundational constitutional principles. The Democrats' frequent violations of President Trump's rights aren't just a threat to President Trump. They're a threat to future presidents, too.

Posted Thursday, October 31, 2019 3:09 AM

Comment 1 by eric z at 31-Oct-19 11:00 AM
Crying "Wolf!" too often - a fairy tale with currency.

Comment 2 by eric z at 31-Oct-19 01:55 PM
He whose name we dare not mention? John Bolton?

Curious.

And yeah, the Senate telling the House how to conduct its business would be a really smart move before the 2020 election. A real bell ringer.

Last thought to things not covered in LFR speculations: At least Rudi did not leave a horse's head in anybody's bed in Ukraine. Credit Rudi for restraint, that way. Pop the popcorn.

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