October 3-4, 2019

Oct 03 00:54 Is Jaede stupid? Or just dishonest?
Oct 03 08:43 Schiff goes way too far -- again
Oct 03 10:13 The latest reality TV show?
Oct 03 14:51 Joe Biden vs. Donald Trump, Mike Pence
Oct 03 17:44 Is impeachment falling apart?

Oct 04 08:28 The Pelosi-Schiff railroad
Oct 04 09:57 Pelosi's Do-Nothing Democrats
Oct 04 16:00 The Democrats' have a Biden oversimplification problem

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

Is Jaede stupid? Or just dishonest?

It's difficult figuring out whether DFL operative Mark Jaede, who moonlights as a non-teaching professor at St. Cloud State when he isn't an activist, is dishonest or if he's just stupid. It could go either direction. Both options have significant proof that would prove that option correct. I'm sitting at this point because Prof. Jaede's comment seems more along the lines of DFL talking points than outright stupidity.

The situation starts with Dan Johnson's monthly column in the SC Times. Johnson is the chairman of the Benton County Republican Party. This month, Johnson's column was about the Democrats' impeachment "witch hunt." Johnson's column was well-researched, which meant that comments needed to be either condescending or snarky. Here's the comment that Prof. Jaede left:

Trump asked a foreign leader for a "favor" - going after a political rival. Despite all the Republican attempts at denial, that is corruption. We should hardly be surprised that Trump cannot recognize his own corruption and thinks the call was "perfect."

I wrote about the transcript in this post . The word "favor" is only used once in the transcript. Here's how it was used:

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

That's the transcript published on the White House's website. As any student would notice, the favor wasn't to go after one of President Trump's political rivals, least of all Joe Biden. If Jaede thinks Trump needs foreign dirt to take down Biden (or any potential Democrat rival, then he's employing wishful thinking. There isn't a Democrat who can beat Trump this year.)


The Democrats' spin notwithstanding, the truth is that asking a foreign leader to help get to the bottom of the hacking of the DNC's server is anything except corruption. If it's anything, it's President Trump taking election security seriously. It's getting difficult to take Prof. Jaede seriously. He's a professor who, at least until this year, didn't teach. His time was mostly spent being an activist. Then again, SCSU isn't that bright if they're paying him not to teach.

Posted Thursday, October 3, 2019 12:54 AM

No comments.

Schiff goes way too far -- again

Back when Yasser Arafat was still alive and leading the PLO (That's what it was called back then), there was a cliche that said that the PLO "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Apparently, Democrats must've inherited that trait.

What's happening is that Adam Schiff is going too far :

House Republicans are demanding an "equal playing field" in the Democrat-led impeachment probe against President Trump after Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said ahead of Thursday's scheduled testimony from former U.S. envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker that GOP members of the Foreign Affairs Committee will not be permitted to ask questions or have equal representation during the session.

Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Mike McCaul tweeted this:


Then McCaul cited specific House Rules:

In the letter addressed to Chairman Eliot L. Engel, D-N.Y., McCaul further argued that despite statements made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other Democrats, " there is not a 'House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry " because the entire House has not voted on the matter.

Citing House Rules X and XI, McCaul said that until Congress members from both parties vote to create a special impeachment task force to carry out proceedings, "Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff lacks the jurisdiction to investigate the Department of State's conduct of United States foreign policy toward Ukraine. That prerogative belongs to our Members."

"Official impeachment inquiries are initiated by the adoption of a House resolution empowering or creating a committee or task force to undertake such activities," McCaul continued. "In both the Nixon and Clinton cases, the Judiciary Committee debated and reported a resolution authorizing the Judiciary Committee to investigate whether there were sufficient grounds to impeach the President, which was then debated and voted on by the full House of Representatives. There have been no such debates or votes in this Congress."

If Democrats want to run roughshod on Republicans, there might be a short-term gain (That's no guarantee, BTW) but there will be a long-term loss. (That's a guarantee.) People might or might not have an opinion on impeachment itself but I'm betting the ranch that they have a strong opinion on basic fairness. This doesn't come close in terms of fairness. Don't think that swing-district Democrats won't pay a hefty price for Shiffty Schiff's heavy-handed tactics.

If Democrats want to hand Chairman gavels back to Republicans, they're following the right playbook. Between this ham-handedness and the Democrats' all-impeachment-all-the-time agenda and nonexistent list of accomplishments, I don't know how Pelosi's Democrats avoid a big red wave. Expect Republicans to raise procedural complaints whenever Democrats attempt to thwart the minority party's rights according to the rules.

It isn't a secret that Democrats want to shove this impeachment through the House in rocket-docket fashion. Rest assured that House GOP leadership and President Trump to criticize Democrats mightily whenever Democrats try running roughshod on Republicans.

Posted Thursday, October 3, 2019 8:43 AM

Comment 1 by eric z at 03-Oct-19 10:11 AM
Wait and see. Do not prejudge. The Senate can investigate Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Ukraine all they want, so no harm no foul. Republicans have the Senate majority after all. They set the agenda, with McConnell sitting on House passed bills, not giving them a hearing. It is how DC operates. A wholesale cleaning of both houses, especially as to seniority and the filibusterer would be a Godsend. Absent that, wait and see.

The latest reality TV show?

Color Andy McCarthy totally unimpressed with the impeachment TV show. Appearing on Fox & Friends this morning, McCarthy said "It's not an actual complaint. And this goes to my point, which is that this is not an impeachment inquiry. It's an impeachment show for television."

If this is the latest reality TV show, which it appears to be, then Democrats stand to lose big. After all, they're trying to take down the biggest reality TV star in history who also happens to be the leader of the free world. What part of that sounds easy?

"I don't think this is actually about law-breaking. I think this is a political dispute," [McCarthy] said. "And if it's a political dispute -- that is if it's just about abuse of power and it's not about a violation of the federal penal code -- then the politics are what matters."

This isn't going well for Democrats. This Brad Parscale op-ed highlights how fundraising has taken off after Pelosi's impeachment announcement:

If the groundswell of small-dollar donations flowing into the Trump campaign's coffers offers any indication, the Democrats are going to pay a terrible price for indulging the demands of their radical base. The Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign raked in a $13 million haul within 36 hours of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's embarrassingly vague announcement of a "formal impeachment inquiry."

Then there's this :

President Trump's approval ticked up to 49 percent - its highest mark this year, according to a new Hill-HarrisX survey released on Wednesday.

If Democrats were hoping to damage President Trump, it ain't working. President Trump can handle that type of polling 'damage'. This is important:

The nationwide survey was conducted on Sept. 28 and 29, less than a week after House Democrats launched a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump over concerns raised in a whistleblower's complaint about the president's communications with Ukraine.

I can picture President Trump doing his best Brer Rabbit impression, pleading with Democrats, saying 'Please don't throw me in that briar patch.' Ms. Pelosi insisted that President Trump had gotten himself trapped in her wheelhouse. She might reconsider that soon. Kevin McCarthy, the House GOP Leader, has submitted a resolution to censure Adam 'Shiffty' Schiff, the Democrat point person on impeachment:
[Video no longer available]
If anyone had any doubt, Republicans are showing a spine. They've gone on offense. The bad news for Democrats is that Republicans are loaded for bear. This Republican Party isn't about taking half-steps and being timid. This is Donald Trump's Republican Party, complete with spines and confidence. Think about it this way: If I would've told the loyal readers of LFR that Kevin McCarthy, Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham would show spines and become leaders within the GOP 5 years ago, I'm certain that I would've been clean my readers' clocks in bets. Just for some fun, let's watch this golden oldie:
[Video no longer available]
Finally, let's' be clear about something important. Democrats have shown today that they don't want this impeachment reality TV show to be a fair process. Democrats plan on using the Pelosi-Obamacare shove-it-down-their-throats script. If that's what Democrats try to do, they'd better expect to get their a$$es handed to them in November, 2020. It's likely to get ugly.

Posted Thursday, October 3, 2019 10:13 AM

Comment 1 by John Palmer at 03-Oct-19 02:42 PM
Gary, it is ugly already and will stay ugly thru the election and Trump's second term.

Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Oct-19 03:09 PM
Frankly, John, I think we're seeing the early signs of impeachment falling apart. The key was the transcript getting released. That took it from being a he said-he said thing to a corroborated story. Couple that with Pelosi announcing the inquiry before she saw the transcript, then have Shiffty Schiff making things up, etc. & it's easy to see this thing falling apart.

Question for LFR readers: Is Nancy's heart in this fight or is she just going through the motions? Let me know in the comments..

Comment 2 by Gretchen L Leisen at 03-Oct-19 09:17 PM
Re: Nancy's heart and whether she is just going through the motions: She is head of an out-of-control leftist party which has no plan to correct it's radical extremism. I sense that Nancy does comprehend that the socialism platform is a loser. Her real difficulty is she has no spine to confront them, especially the 3 young 'squad members' who are convinced of their intellectual superiority. Nancy has an obligation to either chastise them and gather her more moderate members around her - or step aside and let one of the Communist fringe rise to the top. If she loves her/our country she would not allow our government and its reputation to be so assaulted.

Joe Biden vs. Donald Trump, Mike Pence

Things are definitely heating up in the presidential race, with President Trump and Vice President Pence on one side and former Vice President Joe Biden on the other side. Right now, Vice President Biden is outmatched. Today, Vice President Pence was asked if it was ok for President Trump to tell China and other nations to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden.

Vice President Pence " gave a full-throated defense of President Trump's call for an investigation into" Biden and his son, saying "The American people have the right to know whether or not the vice president of the United States or his family profited from his position. My predecessor had a son who was paid $50,000 a month to be on a Ukrainian board at the time that Vice President Biden was leading the Obama administration's efforts in Ukraine, I think (that) is worth looking into. And the president has made it very clear that he believes : other nations around the world should look into it as well. When you hold the second highest office in the land it comes with unique responsibilities - not just to be above impropriety, but to be above the appearance of impropriety, and clearly in this case there are legitimate questions that ought to be asked."

Pence also said that he and President Trump were elected, at least in part, on draining the swamp. Voters didn't say 'drain the swamp except if it's happening in another country.' People want the swamp drained. Period. This video is a precise, intelligent explanation for why Vice President Biden should be investigated:
[Video no longer available]
Here is President Trump calling on China and Ukraine to investigate the Bidens:
[Video no longer available]
Meanwhile, Joe Biden attempted to defend his family with limited success:

Let me make something clear to Trump and his hatchet men and the special interests funding his attacks against me: I'm not going anywhere. You're not going to destroy me. And you're not going to destroy my family. I don't care how much money you spend or how dirty the attacks get.

Biden sounds defensive. It might be the best he can do but it isn't enough to win the gold medal.

As I wrote earlier, President Trump is getting good news from lots of different locations. His job approval is definitely improving. His fundraising is shooting through the roof. These aren't the characteristics of a candidate on the defensive. They're the characteristics of a man campaigning with confidence.

Posted Thursday, October 3, 2019 2:51 PM

No comments.

Is impeachment falling apart?

Each day, Speaker Pelosi's impeachment battleship takes on more water as the chop turns into rollers, then turn into breakers. Impeachment is quickly turning into the Democrats' newest 4-letter word. Impeachment of this president has always been a risky proposition. Lately, though, it's gotten downright frightening.

Let's start with the key players. In previous impeachment investigations, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has led the impeachment investigation. Speaker Pelosi anointed Adam Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, to lead this impeachment investigation. That's because Jerry Nadler, currently the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, screwed up his latest high-profile hearing so badly that Pelosi couldn't pick Nadler.

Seriously, though, Democrats don't have a person that's capable of undertaking such a historic responsibility. Members of the Squad are too partisan to lead such a committee. Another 30-35 Democrats are freshmen, meaning they can't run the impeachment investigation. Frankly, none of the remaining Democrats could withstand the pressure of that responsibility. The bad news for Ms. Pelosi is that that's just one of her major problems.

Another major problem for her is that this faux impeachment was driven by hatred, first by Maxine Waters and Al Harris, then by AOC + 3. This faux impeachment wasn't driven by legitimate proof. First, Russian collusion fell apart. Next, obstruction of justice fell apart. Both fell apart because there wasn't any evidence. Finally, the Ukraine impeachment fiasco fell apart because Vice President Biden was more corrupt than President Trump by a country mile and then some.

This morning, House Minority Leader McCarthy sent this 2-page letter to Speaker Pelosi:


Page 1


Page 2
This afternoon, Speaker Pelosi replied:

Hours after McCarthy's letter was posted, Pelosi responded with her own note suggesting Democrats would not be hitting pause anytime soon. She wrote that "existing rules of the House provide House Committees with full authority to conduct investigations for all matters under their jurisdiction." Pelosi added: "We hope you and other Republicans share our commitment to following the facts, upholding the Constitution, protecting our national security, and defending the integrity of our elections at such a serious moment in our nation's history."

In other words, Pelosi told Leader McCarthy that, in her thinking, impeachment should be treated no differently than other oversight. If that remains her position, Democrats will have a difficult time defending that.

Nothing about this impeachment speaks legitimate. This is a show trial for the far-left. Republican senators would be wise to outright dismiss the case or drag it out and expose House Democrats are putting partisanship first, country far down the list.

Posted Thursday, October 3, 2019 5:44 PM

No comments.

The Pelosi-Schiff railroad

President Trump will send a letter to Speaker Pelosi that will say the White House won't cooperate with the House Democrats' impeachment inquiry until the full House passes a resolution approving an impeachment inquiry. Thursday afternoon, House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy sent a letter to Pelosi asking Pelosi whether Pelosi would grant co-equal subpoena power to the chair and the ranking member, whether Pelosi would allow President Trump's counsel to attend all depositions and hearings.

At the end of the list of questions, McCarthy states "By answering 'no' to any of the above, you would be acting in direct contradiction of all modern impeachment inquiries of a sitting president. By answering 'no' to any of the above, you would be denying the President the bare minimum rights granted to his predecessors."

Ms. Pelosi gave the game away with this reply:

Pelosi shot back at McCarthy, saying that "existing rules of the House provide House committees with full authority to conduct investigations for all matters under their jurisdiction."

With that reply, Ms. Pelosi admits that this is just like any other congressional investigation from her perspective. She's welcome to that opinion but that's BS. Pay close attention to what Ms. Pelosi said in this tweet:


Ms. Pelosi said "The fact that the @HouseGOP's loyalty is to Trump and not to the Constitution is not going to slow down or impair our ability to keep the republic our Founders envisioned." Actually, it's Ms. Pelosi that isn't being faithful to the Constitution. To impeach a president, then convict that president requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate, which is 67 votes. That makes it unlike other congressional proceedings. The House only needs a simple majority but the Senate requires a two-thirds majority.

If Speaker Pelosi wants to make up the rules as she goes along, that's her option. If she thinks that she can get away with that, she's kidding herself. Making up the rules as they go along won't meet the requirements for establishing due process. Republicans will squawk about that immediately. With the guy with the biggest, loudest megaphone leading the squawking, it won't take long to demolish Ms. Pelosi's pretending to care about the Constitution. (If you don't establish due process that are adhered to consistently, you aren't a constitutionalist. Period.)

Republicans can slow this thing down. They have a strong argument to make. If Democrats just want to push this through rocket-docket-style with ever-shifting rules, Republicans will, and should, throw sand in the gears of Ms. Pelosi's railroad.

Impeachment without a search for the truth isn't justice. The People's House should be treated with reverence. Pelosi's House has been ruled by a tyrant. That's beneath the dignity of the People's House. Pelosi didn't call for a vote to start the impeachment inquiry. She walked up to a podium and announced it. That's why this is the Democrats' impeachment, not the House impeachment.

House impeachment requires a vote of the entire House membership. That's a solemn moment, the kind of thing that Ms. Pelosi has been constantly chattering about for a week. Despite all that talk about solemnity, etc., House Democrats sure are acting like autocrats. FYI- the Constitution doesn't have anything to do with autocrats. That's because they're opposites of each other.

Posted Friday, October 4, 2019 8:28 AM

Comment 1 by eric z at 04-Oct-19 08:52 AM
What Trump did was reprehensible. He should lose in November 2020 over that. Biden is damaged goods and the Democratic Party should show less hubris than when they ran Hillary Clinton with her six figure speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. These people are all super sleazy, and a complete and thorough mop-up is needed. The two party stranglehold on U.S. politics is at fault, and the question is whether it can be cured. Not some pissing match over not honoring a Congresssional fact finding need.

Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Oct-19 10:05 AM
What Trump did was try to eliminate corruption. Read the transcript, not the 'whistleblower's complaint.' The complaint is crap.

Comment 2 by eric z at 04-Oct-19 01:45 PM
What Trump did was try to generate dirt on Biden. Beyond the circumstantial appearance of Hunter Biden getting money for nothing. Circumstantial evidence is good. Have you seen reporting about the texting between diplomats, one saying holding up funding over politics seemed ill-advised. In the phone call Trump never mentioned a quid pro quo, but he held up the money and requested dirt on Biden. There already was enough from earlier reporting, and Trump just wanted it to get a little more attention, so he asked a foreign head of state to assist his own political ambitions and covered it up by using an inappropriate super-secure datebase where the truth came out anyway. He's toast, but it will be the election and not the Republican Senate which will curb his occupancy of the White House. The texting among Trump's diplomats is reported today, Strib online. Have a look.

Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Oct-19 04:15 PM
Yes, I've read the texts between Taylor & Sondland. To me, they can be interpreted in multiple ways, including in the way that's totally innocent. Until I know more facts surrounding these texts, I'll remain neutral.

As for the phone call, Trump never mentioned the money. PERIOD. The Democrats, in my estimation, require tons of inferring to make a weak case against President Trump. I still refer back to the phrase in the Declaration, where it says that governments should not be overturned "for light & transient causes." I agree with that but I also think that applies to impeachments. Presidents shouldn't get impeached for light & transient causes, either. To me, this is the lightest cause for impeachment in our nation's history.

Comment 3 by Chad Q at 04-Oct-19 06:03 PM
Were you this concerned over Obama telling the Russians he'd have more flexibility after the election and Biden actually telling people on video how he blackmailed the Ukraine and Schiff lying to congress about knowing about this sham or is this just the typical progressive fake outrage? The left has nothing yet again. What will it be next week, Trump was behind Bernie's heart problems?

Pelosi's Do-Nothing Democrats

After reading House GOP Whip Steve Scalise's op-ed , it's easy to decide what the House should focus on. Democrats chose faux impeachment proceedings, complete with faux due process and faux solemnity. Meanwhile, Republicans use the tools available to the minority to push for ratification of the USMCA, aka NAFTA 2.0.

Democrats' loss of interest in legislating is particularly bad when it comes to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). USMCA is the Trump administration's replacement for the outdated NAFTA agreement, which was passed back in the 1990s, in a much different business and trade environment than the one we know now. USMCA is widely bipartisan, supported by everyone from trade groups to farmers, and could be the law of the land as soon as this year if Democrats would just put it on the House floor for a vote.

In other words, Democrats could put the bill on the House floor this week and see USMCA start creating jobs comfortably before Halloween. They've chosen instead to pursue history. These Democrats want to become the first group of politicians to impeach a president without evidence.


This is important:

The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) - the independent, bipartisan agency charged with providing trade expertise to Congress and the President - estimated that USMCA would create 176,000 jobs and raise our GDP by $68.2 billion. Our exports to Canada would increase by $19.1 billion and our exports to Mexico would increase by $14.2 billion. Most importantly, USITC notes "the agreement would likely have a positive impact on all broad industry sectors within the U.S. economy."

During next year's campaign, rest assured that Republicans will ask Democrats, especially freshmen Democrats from Rust Belt and agricultural swing districts, why they didn't push Democrat leadership to vote on pro-agriculture, pro-manufacturing treaties sooner. Those Democrats won't have an answer during the campaign. It's fitting that those Democrats won't have DC jobs in January, 2021.

How often do we have the opportunity to pass a mutually-beneficial, bipartisan trade deal that will buoy all sectors of our economy? This historic, once-in-a-generation agreement is exactly the kind of legislation the American people send us to Congress to enact. We can level the playing field for American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses.

It's time Pelosi's Do-Nothing Democrats did something productive. The next time Pelosi's Do-Nothing Democrats do something productive, it'll be the first time they'll do something productive this session.

Posted Friday, October 4, 2019 9:57 AM

No comments.

The Democrats' have a Biden oversimplification problem

Democrats have a messaging problem with Joe Biden. The Democrats' biggest problem is that they've stuck with the 'Trump is going after his political enemy' storyline. Up until now, that's been effective. Bit-by-bit, though, it's hitting the point-of-diminishing-returns wall.

It's indisputable that candidates can't take campaign contributions from foreigners or foreign companies. That's been on the books for decades. That's getting murkier by the day. Presidents have the obligation to fight crime, too. As long as those 2 obligations tug at each other, this isn't a simple thing to sort through.

The minute you say President Trump can't ask for China's help in investigating Hunter Biden's activities, 2 bad things happen. First, you tie the president's hands in conducting foreign policy. That's never a positive. I also don't think it's constitutional because the Constitution gives the president sole authority to conduct foreign policy. Also, does anyone seriously think that the Supreme Court would capriciously limit a president's ability to conduct foreign policy? I can't imagine it.

Next, does anyone think it's wise to tell the executive branch that they shouldn't investigate corruption hidden within the US executive branch? I don't. If the man who's getting investigated is the former VP and he's also running for President, I'd suggest that that political party should find someone with more integrity to be their nominee.

In 2016, Hillary complained that Jim Comey demolished her presidential campaign. At the time, I wrote that if she didn't want the FBI investigating her, she shouldn't have been that corrupt. I'd tell Joe and Hunter Biden that they shouldn't have trafficked in influence peddling while Crazy Joe was Vice President. It isn't that complicated, though I'll immediately admit that it'd be mighty tempting to take the millions and run.

This isn't just a campaign finance issue. It's a governing/law enforcement issue, too. It can't be one or the other. It's gotta be both. As is often the case with the law, there's a judicial 'tug-of-war', for lack of a better term, between competing principles that aren't settled with oversimplified communications. It's best admitting right at the start that there's a conflict that must be resolved.

To me, it isn't that big of a deal for President Trump to tell China or Ukraine he'd appreciate their help in investigating high-level corruption. If that corruption potentially involves a presidential candidate's offspring, should the offspring get a free pass? Or should that son or daughter get investigated? To me, that's a no-brainer -- investigate.

If a presidential candidate's son or daughter wants to stay out of the news, behave yourself. If you continue misbehaving, expect the investigation. This isn't that tough to figure out.
[Video no longer available]
It's time for these reporters to start putting 2 and 2 together. It's time that they figure out what the people that they're covering are busy with. It's time they start putting the puzzle together.

Posted Friday, October 4, 2019 4:00 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