October 5-7, 2019
Oct 05 09:43 This isn't a monarchy & Pelosi isn't the queen Oct 05 16:42 Calling out Larry Jacobs Oct 06 01:42 Ken Martin's Pelosi impression Oct 06 07:52 Andy McCarthy explains what impeachment isn't Oct 06 11:36 Democrats' impeachment dilemma Oct 07 00:37 Democrats will impeach President Trump without an investigation Oct 07 08:16 The Democrats' hatred Oct 07 15:40 Middle class incomes are rising
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
This isn't a monarchy & Pelosi isn't the queen
For a little over a week, Ms. Pelosi has been talking about this being a solemn time, that we should keep President Trump in prayer and that Jefferson, Madison and Franklin gave us "a republic if you can keep it." Ms. Pelosi has repeatedly said that respecting the Constitution was the Democrats' highest priority. Yet when she's been asked to give Republicans the right to ask witnesses questions or to subpoena witnesses, Ms. Pelosi has been an autocrat.
When she started the impeachment inquiry, she didn't do it by announcing the results of a vote from the People's House. Ms. Pelosi stepped up to the microphone and announced that she was starting the inquiry. That means this inquiry isn't a legitimate impeachment inquiry in the eyes of the courts. When Chairman Schiff requests documents, the White House won't hesitate in rejecting Chairman Schiff's request.
Had the whole House voted to start an impeachment inquiry, the House's authority would've expanded substantially. Ms. Pelosi didn't want Republicans to have the same rights that other minority parties had in past impeachment inquiries so she didn't hold a vote. No special rules were created for this special investigation. Impeachment investigations, we understand, aren't like other investigations because so much more is at stake.
We're talking about undoing the will of the American people with impeachment and conviction. Other than voting to go to war, I can't imagine a more somber moment the House experiences. Instead of voting on impeachment, Ms. Pelosi walked up to a podium like a queen and declared that the House had officially started their impeachment inquiry:
[Video no longer available]
Pelosi caved to the Squad, Maxine Waters and the other nutjobs in her caucus. The rest of her caucus didn't even get a chance to express the will of their constituents. The somewhat more moderate Democrats were told what they'd signed up for. Queen Nancy had made her dictatorial ruling. Queen Nancy had made the Democrats' decision for them, too.
Remember when Queen Nancy led the fight for the ACA? That's when Queen Nancy shoved Obamacare down our throats and 63 Democrats into involuntary retirement. That's when Queen Nancy became famous for this:
[Video no longer available]
In 2010, TEA Party activists stepped into voting booths across America, along with other patriots, and voted out Democrats en masse. When the results were finalized, Queen Nancy was no longer Speaker/Dictator because Republicans were the new majority. It's time to throw Queen Nancy out of House leadership once and for all. It's time we put the Squad in the minority for the foreseeable future, too.
Posted Saturday, October 5, 2019 9:43 AM
No comments.
Calling out Larry Jacobs
Friday night on Almanac, Larry Jacobs of the U of M's Center for the Study of Politics and Governance in the Hubert H. Humphrey School was interviewed about the impeachment process. Early in the interview, Jacobs said that "these folks are new to the process. We've already seen Congressman Schiff make some mistakes. Washington Post already called him out for a Pinocchio because he wasn't fully forthcoming about his relationships and his conversations with the whistleblower."
Adam Schiff didn't lie because he was "new to the process." Schiff lied because he's a dishonest political hack. Further, that isn't the only lie Rep. Schiff told. His opening statement at the Maguire hearing was a complete fabrication. Why Speaker Pelosi picked Schiff to be her point person on this is puzzling.
Later, Jacobs said that we'll start seeing subpoenas getting sent out to the White House. That's wrong, too, because they aren't considered by judges to be subpoenas until you have a vote of the Committee of the Whole, which is as it sounds. That's where all 435 representatives vote, in this case to open an impeachment inquiry. Because Ms. Pelosi hasn't held that vote, we don't have an official inquiry.
That's an important distinction because courts look at those so-called subpoenas as "requests for information" if they aren't issued for "legislative purposes." It's an issue of separation of powers. If Congress wants to impeach a president, then it's given limited law enforcement authorities. Otherwise, their subpoenas must be done for legislative purposes.
Later in the interview, Jacobs said "These are sacred values and law. The president has been, both openly and behind the scenes, talking to foreign powers about contributing to his domestic political campaign." That's false. Further, Jacobs doesn't have proof that verifies his allegations. At the top of page 3 of the Trump-Zelensky phone call transcript , President Trump said "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."
There's no way that can be construed as President Trump asking foreign powers to contribute to his re-election campaign. This can't be construed that way either:
The other thing, there's a lot talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it -- It sounds horrible to me.
You'd have to find a thoroughly liberal judge to rule that as a campaign finance violation. I'm talking about a judge to the left of the judges on the Ninth Circuit. I don't know if such a critter exists. But I digress.
Let's stipulate for this conversation that it is a campaign finance violation. Even if that's true, that's usually handled by the candidate writing a check to the FEC. I've yet to see that type of dispute resolved through impeachment.
It's indisputable that Richard Nixon would've been impeached and convicted if he hadn't resigned his office. Kenneth Starr cited multiple felonies that he accused Bill Clinton of committing. In the end, Clinton surrendered his Arkansas law license and pay the plaintiff almost $1,000,000. Both of those impeachment inquiries started by investigating charged crimes.
Can Professor Jacobs seriously insist that the Trump impeachment semi-inquiry is even close in terms of a constitutional crisis as Nixon telling staff to destroy documents and wiretap phone conversations without a warrant? That's what a legitimate constitutional crisis looks like. What's happening now is a farce. To mention the 2 things together is silly.
[Video no longer available]
Posted Saturday, October 5, 2019 4:42 PM
Comment 1 by John Palmer at 05-Oct-19 09:08 PM
Gary, why are you surprised by Jacob's behavior? He has an agenda and his agenda has nothing to do with the truth. His agenda is to spin, spin, spin rather than to report the truth. The transcript of the phone call is clear. The favor asked was to get to the bottom of what happen leading up to and after the 2016 election. Glen Beck's special Ukraine, The Democrat's Russia is must viewing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuvfYE7ZdL0
for those interested in the real foreign interference in our election. Perhaps Jacob's is afraid if the truth concerning the Democrat's dirty tricks becomes known that's what will influence the 2020 election?
Comment 2 by eric z at 06-Oct-19 08:24 AM
How did Jacobs get to be the pundit everyone goes to? By giving what was asked of him. He is very unimpressive. He had Abigail Whelan as a TA, showing his absolute dismal judgment.
Ken Martin's Pelosi impression
DFL Party Chair Ken Martin chose to follow the lead of Nancy Pelosi during the Almanac Roundtable Friday night. Let's just say that Martin is as convincing as Pelosi when it comes to talking about how sad a time this is for our nation. In other words, neither was convincing. When Cathy Wurzer asked who would be the political winner from impeachment, Martin even recited a cheesy line that "nobody wins with impeachment."
[Video no longer available]
I thought Chair Carnahan started off ok when she said that Democrats started off the week by going after President Trump again. It's indisputable that Democrats have spent far more time criticizing President Trump than they've spent trying to keep their campaign promises. It's worth noting that Cathy Wurzer was particularly unfair as the moderator, too. Wurzer asked "Why is it appropriate for a president to call foreign leaders and suggest investigations of his political rivals?"
Personally, the obvious answer is that the political rival in question, Vice President Biden, is a corrupt SOB, as is his son. The best way to stay out of trouble is to not be as corrupt as Joe or Hunter Biden. If the Biden family wasn't that corrupt, President Trump wouldn't have to call them out for corruption. It doesn't help when the elder Biden smarted off like this:
[Video no longer available]
That's the jackass Ken Martin is defending with a straight face. Then, with another straight face, Martin said "It's a really sad day for America. The fact is that this is a solemn and grave situation we find ourselves in and no one should take glee in the fact that a sitting president of the United States is being impeached. The reality, though, is that this President, while in office, has tried to extort a foreign government to influence our elections. Not only is that wrong. It's a brazen abuse of power which threatens our national security and it also violates a president's oath he took to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. This is a serious matter. It's not a political matter. There are huge questions that need to be answered and that's what this impeachment is about. Look, we're at a moment in our country's history where our trust in government, our trust in politicians, our trust in institutions is at an all-time low and if we're going to restore integrity and trust with the American people, we can't have this type of behavior in the highest office in the land. We need to have accountability. There's a reason why our Constitution is set up the way it is, with checks and balances and that's what this is about. Not only to hold the president accountable to his actions but to make sure that we are doing our job of protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States of America."
First, it's time to call Martin out as a bald-faced liar, perhaps on the level of Rep. Schiff. Saying that "this President, while in office, has tried to extort a foreign government to influence our elections" is an outright lie. There's no proof that supports that accusation. Period. Chairman Martin, which foreign government did President Trump extort? Chairman Martin, what thing of value did President Trump receive from a foreign government? Chairman Martin, what did President Trump use to allegedly gain this thing of value?
Next, insisting that this unmentioned thing that President Trump extorted from a foreign leader will "influence our elections" is laughable at best. If Martin thinks that Biden represents a serious challenge to President Trump, my first question would be 'what drugs are you using?' The next question would be 'how expensive are they?' Seriously, anyone that thinks that any of those nobodies running for the Democrats' presidential nomination is a serious challenger is kidding themselves.
Third, the hint that this isn't serious is when Martin says that "there are huge questions that need to be answered and that's what this impeachment is about." When Congress voted to open the impeachment on Nixon, there were multiple constitutional crises to deal with and multiple additional crimes to deal with." I'm betting that Martin couldn't honestly tell you if a crime had been committed. I'm certain that he'd admit that there isn't a constitutional crisis.
Democrats continuously insist that "nobody is above the law, not even the president." Here's a radical thought for Democrats: nobody is above the law, not even former vice presidents and their kids. Hunter Biden shouldn't get a free pass just because his washed-up dad is running for president. President Trump had an obligation to finish the Biden family's corruption. If someone has a problem with that, that's their problem.
Later in the interview, Chairwoman Carnahan rattled off a number of President Trump's accomplishments. Chairman Martin couldn't resist taking a cheapshot at President Trump, saying "President Trump made a lot of promises to Minnesotans and to Americans when he ran in 2016. He said he would fix health care. He said he would make it more affordable and accessible. He's done nothing.
What a coincidence. Pelosi's pilgrims promised to fix health care, too. Instead of fixing Obamacare, they spent tons of time investigating President Trump. Even while Robert Mueller was investigating President Trump, Democrats didn't lift a finger to fix Obamacare. This election, rather than looking backward, Democrats will have to defend Medicare-for-All because Elizabeth Warren will likely be the Democrats' nominee. Good luck defending that proposition, Kenny. You'll need it.
Towards the end of the interview, Martin was stupid enough to say that Democrats believed in the rule of law. That's from an idiot whose party thinks that citizens should pay for illegal aliens' health care. That's coming from someone whose political party thinks that illegal immigration should be decriminalized. Does that sound like a political party whose highest priority is the rule of law? Give me a break.
Later, Martin insisted that Democrats put a high priority on people of character. That's difficult to accept considering that their point person on impeachment is Adam Schiff. Schiff lied about never meeting the CIA agent/snitch/Democrat activist. Schiff is the liar who pretended to read from the transcript while he made the entire thing up. That certainly sounds like a man of sterling character.
Finally, Martin asked "The other day, on the lawn of the White House, the President implored Ukraine and China to do an investigation of one of the President's political rivals?" The correct answer to that question is 'you'd better believe it.' Hillary blamed the FBI for costing her the presidency. That's BS. She cost herself the White House because she was utterly corrupt. This time, Vice President Biden is utterly corrupt. If he'd led an exemplary life, President Trump wouldn't have a reason to have those countries investigate Biden.
The solution, Mr. Martin, is to stop having corrupt people who've been in DC for a combined 75 years run for president. If eliminating corruption is your top priority, that should be simple, Chairman Martin.
Posted Sunday, October 6, 2019 1:42 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 06-Oct-19 08:41 AM
The most hilarious line from Dems is the one that says "there is absolutely no proof that Joe Biden did anything wrong." And yet we have him on videotape BRAGGING that he had done exactly that - told Ukraine that if they didn't fire the prosecutor investigating his son that they "don't get the billion dollars," and then that within hours the prosecutor was fired. Bald-faced quid pro quo corruption, to cover up corruption. Shameless!
Andy McCarthy explains what impeachment isn't
When it comes to explaining the House proceedings currently known as an impeachment inquiry, I trust Andy McCarthy's insights. When it comes to legal matters, Andy's insights should be sought because he's a legal genius. This article is another masterpiece by Mr. McCarthy. As is always the case with Mr. McCarthy, it's a lengthy read but it's totally worth it.
For instance, McCarthy starts by saying this:
The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." It's right there in black-and-white: In article I, section 2, clause 5, our Constitution vests the entirety of the power to call for removal of the president of the United States in a single body - the House. Not in the Speaker of the House. In the House of Representatives. The institution, not one of its members.
To be sure, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a very powerful government official: second in the line of succession to the presidency; arguably, the most powerful member of Congress. She wields decisive influence on the business of her chamber. She even has the power to induce the House to vote on whether to conduct an impeachment inquiry. But she does not have the power to impeach on her own.
In other words, what Pelosi, Schiff, Cummings, et al, have been calling an official impeachment inquiry isn't an official impeachment inquiry until the House of Representatives votes, as an institution, the impeachment inquiry isn't official. Or, to use Mr. McCarthy's words, "In point of fact, the House has no impeachment inquiry; congressional Democrats have an impeachment political campaign."
That's why McCarthy makes this statement:
This exhibition includes strident letters from a cabal of committee chairs, all Democrats, falsely claiming that a refusal by Trump-administration officials to comply with their demands for information and testimony "shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House's impeachment inquiry."
Next, McCarthy explains the definition of obstruction:
Obstruction happens when there is tampering with documents or witnesses.
He also explains what obstruction isn't:
Presumptively, a person who refuses to comply with a lawful document demand is not tampering with the documents; to the contrary, the subpoena recipient is asserting a legal claim of privilege that excuses compliance. If I am a lawyer, for example, and a congressional committee subpoenas notes from my meeting with a client, my refusal to surrender the notes is not an obstruction of the House's investigation. It is an assertion that the attorney-client privilege justifies my withholding of confidential communications. If I am right about that, the legal wrong is Congress's issuance of a subpoena, not my refusal to honor it.
I won't pretend to be the legal scholar that Mr. McCarthy is. I'll just point you in his direction, then tell you that listening to him instead of Ms. Pelosi, Chairman Schiff or DFL Party Chair Ken Martin is a wise decision.
[Video no longer available]
I'll leave you with this parting thought:
The Framers designed impeachment as a political remedy, not a legal one. I argued not that President Obama was a bad person but that he was behaving as the kind of chief executive the Framers feared - i.e., defying, in several ways, the separation-of-powers structure of the Constitution. Nevertheless, because impeachment is political, it is not enough to have acts that arguably qualify as impeachable abuses of power; there must also be a public consensus that gives Congress the political will to remove the president from power.
Posted Sunday, October 6, 2019 7:52 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 06-Oct-19 10:06 AM
Doth protest too much.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Oct-19 03:39 PM
Eric, I think it's a big effing deal when a group of politicians want to undo an election. It's like the Declaration of Independence when it says that governments shouldn't be overturned "for light & transient causes." Impeachment shouldn't be done just because you don't like president's policies. Just defeat the SOB the next time around. If he wins, then rethink things. Perhaps, the people saw something you didn't.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 06-Oct-19 07:17 PM
Joe Pag's played a video ( I only got to hear it on the radio) of a then fatter Jerry Nadler in 1998 saying that impeaching Clinton would undo the election. What's good for the goose is good for the gander right? Of course if you're a progressive, the ends always justify the means and it's do as I say, not as I do. These people are pathetic.
Democrats' impeachment dilemma
Susan Ferrechio's impeachment article , not to be confused with articles of impeachment, highlights the pickle Democrats face. Ferrechio wrote "Republicans contend Pelosi was shielding politically vulnerable Democrats when she broke precedent and announced last month that the House is holding an impeachment inquiry without the customary vote. Democrats are defending dozens of contested seats, many in swing districts that support Trump and where constituents frown on the impeachment investigations. But Republicans say the political advantage Pelosi is trying to maintain by avoiding a vote is breaking decades of precedent and is fundamentally unfair to the Republican minority and the president."
Pelosi hasn't held a vote on initiating an impeachment inquiry for multiple reasons. One reason is to protect Pelosi's vulnerable freshmen. Another reason for not holding a vote is to deny Republicans the right to subpoena witnesses and documents. Ms. Pelosi is trying to railroad a president. The last thing she wants is fairness.
She also wants to everything possible to hold onto her Speaker's Gavel. Opening up those vulnerable freshmen Democrats for criticism on a difficult vote isn't something she's interested in. Pelosi expressed that in a letter to Kevin McCarthy:
The existing rules of the House provide House Committees with full authority to conduct investigations for all matters under their jurisdiction, including impeachment investigations. There is no requirement under the Constitution, under House Rules, or House precedent that the whole House vote before proceeding with an impeachment inquiry.
Actually, without a vote, the White House can ignore most 'impeachment' subpoenas because Congress doesn't have law enforcement authorities. Congress has subpoena power but only for things that fit into the category of legislative purpose. As long as Congress asks for things so that it can write legislation, the courts will usually approve their subpoenas.
The minute the House attempts to become a law enforcement institution, they're in trouble, constitutionally speaking. The Constitution assigns specific responsibilities to each of the branches. To help each branch accomplish that specific branch's responsibilities, the Constitution gives those branches the authority to successfully accomplish those responsibilities.
As far as I know, impeachment is the only exception. Normally, law enforcement and investigations are the executive branch's responsibility. The exception to that is with impeachment. That can't be left to the executive branch because they'd frequently be investigating colleagues. Until Pelosi holds a vote of the entire House, the Democrats will continue getting told no.
Until Democrats follow the rules instead of making them up as they go along, we'll have a system of madness. It's time to stop that madness:
[Video no longer available]
Posted Sunday, October 6, 2019 11:36 AM
No comments.
Democrats will impeach President Trump without an investigation
Since Angie Craig and Dean Phillips announced that they supported impeachment proceedings, they've resisted making it a level playing field for Republicans and Democrats alike. Thus far, the 'rules' have been made up on the fly.
If that's the Democrats' definition of constitutional fairness, I don't think many people will agree with Democrats. We've been told by Ms. Pelosi that this is a solemn matter that requires constant prayer and introspection. These hearings haven't featured fairness, much less constitutional principles. Why haven't Phillips and Craig insisted on investigative fairness? If this is supposed to be a time of solemnity, why hasn't Schiff displayed fairness throughout?
Craig and Phillips flipped their opinions on whether to conduct an investigation into impeachment based on nothing. Let's remember that these freshmen Democrats switched their opinions before the facts of the case changed. When Craig and Phillips switched to yes on the impeachment investigation, they didn't switch their opinion on whether they think President Trump should be impeached.
Craig and Phillips switched their opinion the Friday before Queen Nancy declared the impeachment inquiry was official. Let's not forget that the Trump-Zelensky transcript wasn't released until the day after Queen Nancy's declaration. Let's not forget that the CIA snitch's complaint wasn't released until that Thursday. It's fair to ask Craig and Phillips why they changed their minds.
Let's ask this Democrat duo what rules must be put in place to ensure fairness and constitutional due process. Should President Trump's attorneys have the right to confront President Trump's accusers? If not, why not? If defendants' representation are allowed to cross-examine witnesses, shouldn't a man have that right if he's about to potentially be thrown out of office?
Craig and Phillips haven't pushed for a real impeachment vote. Apparently, they won't vote for a real investigation. Apparently, Democrats are willing to vote for articles of impeachment without an investigation :
House Democrats believe they have the 217 votes needed to pass articles of impeachment against President Trump stemming from his Ukraine call, enough votes to impeach Trump and send articles to the Senate, even before their planned hearings or formal investigation .
That's breathtakingly stunning. At least 40 of those Democrats just signed their political death certificate. It might reach higher; perhaps as much as 50-55 might get defeated. These Democrats just said that they'll vote to undo an election without conducting an investigation . Remember this moment of solemnity?
[Video no longer available]
That's when Ms. Pelosi said "The actions taken to date by the President have seriously violated the Constitution, especially when the President says that "Article II says that I can do whatever I want." It's time Ms. Pelosi went to law school. She apparently hasn't figured out that due process is a constitutional right. Likewise, Ms. Pelosi apparently doesn't know that the right to a speedy trial doesn't mean skipping the investigation.
Angie Craig and Dean Phillips are part of that 217 vote majority who will vote to impeach President Trump without investigating him. If that isn't the definition of radicalism, then such a definition doesn't exist. Craig and Phillips should join a lengthy list of radical Democrats who'll need to look for work come New Years Day 2020.
Posted Monday, October 7, 2019 12:38 AM
No comments.
The Democrats' hatred
I can't imagine what it's like to carry the Democrats' hatred around all day, day after day, week after week. The economy is humming along. Unemployment is at historic lows, especially for minorities. Friends and neighbors are prospering. But you're still miserable, all because Trump is still president. What type of existence is that? I can't even call it a life.
Democrats are supposedly upset with President Trump because he's had the audacity to highlight the Bidens' corruption. How dare he! After spending 50 years in DC, Biden was entitled to cash in on the Swamp. So what if he had to resort to a little extortion. He's entitled.
The Democrats' hatred started the day after Trump's improbable election victory. He couldn't have won, they thought. Our candidate was Swamp-approved. She'd lived in DC since the time of Moses or, at minimum, the time of the Roman Empire.
Last night, this article announced that Democrats are willing to impeach President Trump without investigating Ukraine-gate. The gospel according to the whistleblower states that Trump committed a no-no. He committed diplomacy. Forget about committing "treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors," the actual definition of impeachment. President Trump didn't roll over like past GOP presidents. That's why Democrats are starting to like Mitt Romney. (He's speaking stupidity to power.)
President Trump asked for Ukrainian President Zelensky's help in finding out who hacked the DNC's email server. Clearly, President Trump wanted to stop Ukraine's election tampering. The Democrats' hatred isn't just focused on President Trump.
The Democrats' hatred is focused at Justice Kavanaugh , too:
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), a leading voice on the push to impeach Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined hundreds of women outside the court on Sunday in protest of the anniversary of his confirmation. "Kavanaugh may have that seat for now but what you, what we are fighting for is so much bigger than one insecure man blinded by his privilege," Pressley said.
"You are fighting for the liberation, injustice, for all of us. Because you know that our destinies are tied for generations we have softened our language and moderated our tone," she added. "No more."
According to Ms. Pressley, white Supreme Court justices should be impeached for -- white privilege? I'm betting that that's a high crime in Ms. Pressley's mind.
The Democrats' hatred is insanity turned outward. It has to stop before it destroys this nation. Since President Trump took office, Democrats have talked about his tax cuts as the start of Armageddon. AOC has told us that the world will die in 12 years if we don't cripple our economy.
Here's my message to these Democrats. Stop talking in such apocalyptic terms. Things aren't as bad as you think. Take a few deep breaths. Settle into a soothing round of prayer. Ask Christ for forgiveness. Act like this guy:
[Video no longer available]
Ms. Pelosi spoke about solemnity and prayer. This leader lived out what Ms. Pelosi talked about. If Democrats ask God for forgiveness for how they've acted, they will be forgiven immediately. That's definitely needed right now.
Posted Monday, October 7, 2019 8:16 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-Oct-19 09:07 AM
For most of these scalawags-- an ancient and too-honorable term-- God is a convenient and all-too-plastic shield they only wield when they are caught red-handed in the foulest of misdeeds. I don't think there is an ounce of repentance in any of them-- it's a foreign concept.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Oct-19 11:22 AM
When there are only situational rights & wrongs, the concept of forgiveness is abstract at best. Forgiveness wasn't abstract to Ms. Guyger, though, was it?
Comment 2 by eric z at 07-Oct-19 01:18 PM
It's reassuring to see the Republicans hate nobody. Hate free. Trump as hate free as pence. Wow!
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Oct-19 01:56 PM
Don't classify as hate policy differences. Mike Pence is a total gentleman. President Trump isn't a total gentleman. He's a typical NY fighter. I'm fine with that.
Comment 3 by eric z at 07-Oct-19 01:24 PM
Well, they do hate Nancy Pelosi, Ilhan Omar, and AOC; but that's a gender thing. And Hunter Biden, which is a gender neutral hatred having to do with gas pains.
Comment 4 by Chad Q at 07-Oct-19 06:46 PM
What, no race card played? Sheez. Disagreeing, disliking, or even hating those 3 has nothing to do with gender. Pelosi is disingenuous, Omar is for all practical purposes an anti-Semite illegal alien holding political office, and AOC is just dumber than a bag of hair. As for Biden, Trump is just trying to root out the corruption from the previous administration.
Middle class incomes are rising
It's utterly annoying to listen to Democrats like Juan Williams and Ken Martin insist that the middle class is getting shafted while 'the rich' keep getting richer. There's a simple antidote for that situation. It's a rarely-found commodity, at least in Washington, DC. It's called "the truth." In this instance, the truth is found in Steve Moore's article .
In that article, Moore wrote "The latest Census Bureau Current Population Survey data now show that middle-class incomes, after adjusting for inflation, have surged by $5,003 since Donald Trump became president in January 2017. Median household income has now reached $65,976 - an all-time high and up more than 8 percent in 2019 dollars under the Trump presidency."
Next, Moore wrote "These numbers contrast sharply with the 16 years prior to Trump's presidency. In the eight years that George W. Bush was president, median income barely showed any gain, up just $401 thanks to the deep recession of 2008. In the seven and a half years that Barack Obama was president, and not including the end of the recession, which Obama inherited, incomes inched up by $1,043 (June 2009 - January 2019). This means that in the 16 years before the Trump presidency, incomes rose by about $1,500 while in less than three years middle incomes have risen three times faster." This chart shows the same statistics:
This is interesting:
The contrast is even sharper when measured on a monthly basis. The monthly rise in incomes under Bush was $4. That number was $11 under Obama and $161 under Trump .
That's quite a difference. Then there's this:
These surges in income, especially in the last several months, have occurred at exactly the time when many liberal economists and media talking heads were shouting "recession." In reality middle-class families were enjoying a near-unprecedented income windfall and "the gains in income levels in recent months," Sentier reports, "have been accelerating."
While it would be fantastic if Nancy Pelosi stopped being a hyper-partisan foot-dragger on USMCA, I realize there's a better chance of me hitting a lottery jackpot than Pelosi losing her partisan streak. The truth is that the economy is solid, though not fantastic. The truth is that the Democrats' economic policies are wrote, partially because Democrats hate job creators.
Posted Monday, October 7, 2019 3:40 PM
No comments.
