September 25-30, 2018
Sep 25 11:04 Exposing the DFL's hypocrisy Sep 25 16:34 Sinema vs. McSally Sep 26 01:47 The presumption of innocence Sep 26 10:29 Will the DFL throw Keith Ellison under the bus? Sep 27 01:16 These Democrats are NUTS Sep 28 03:06 The Democrats' mask is off Sep 29 14:07 The foundation of right & wrong Sep 29 15:42 Amy Klobuchar's stiff-necked stupidity (Updated) Sep 30 01:08 The compromise illusion
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Exposing the DFL's hypocrisy
Karin Housley and Jim Newberger are making a point of highlighting Tina Smith's and Amy Klobuchar's hypocrisy when it comes to Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
When contacted by the Duluth News Tribune, Sen. Housley said "I believe the Judiciary Committee should hear directly from the accuser so that all the facts can be known by the public. Tina Smith and national Democrats should apply the same standard to Keith Ellison, who has been accused by two victims of horrific accounts of abuse." The Committee should hear from Judge Kavanaugh after they've heard from Dr. Ford. If Dr. Ford decides not to testify Thursday, then the Committee should immediately proceed to a vote on the nomination.
If Dr. Ford thinks that it's ok to drop this uncorroborated bombshell on Judge Kavanaugh, then walk away from testifying, then it'll be apparent that she's afraid that she'll be exposed as telling whoppers. Dr. Ford's attorney apparently agrees:
"This hearing plan that Mr. Davis described does not appear designed to provide Dr. Blasey Ford with fair and respectful treatment," Bromwich wrote. "In our view, the hiring of an unnamed 'experienced sex crimes prosecutor,' as Mr. Davis described in his email, is contrary to the Majority's repeated emphasis on the need for the Senate and this Committee's members to fulfill their constitutional obligations."
He added: "It is also inconsistent with your stated wish to avoid a 'circus,' as well as Dr. Blasey Ford's requests through counsel that senators conduct the questioning. This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate."
Grandstanding senators would turn the hearing into a circus. I suspect Democrat senators will deploy that strategy if Dr. Ford shows up. Having an experienced sex crimes prosecutor question Dr. Ford would eliminate the circus.
Jim Newberger raised questions about Sen. Klobuchar in a tweet, saying "Where is her call for further action regarding Keith Ellison's repeated reports of abuse, which are now supported by medical records?"
Posted Tuesday, September 25, 2018 11:04 AM
No comments.
Sinema vs. McSally
If this NYTimes article is accurate, then the Democrats just lost a great opportunity to flip a Republican Senate seat.
According to the article, "When Kyrsten Sinema began her rise in Arizona politics in the early 2000s, she was a Ralph Nader supporter and local spokeswoman for the Green Party who worked to repeal the death penalty and organized antiwar protests after the Sept. 11 attacks. But today, as the Democratic nominee for Senate from Arizona in one of the most pivotal races in the country, Ms. Sinema is campaigning as an altogether different person. While she is now a three-term member of Congress, Ms. Sinema is running as much on her biography - her three years spent homeless as a child - as on any issue. She is using that personal hardship to project grit and distinguish herself from 'most people in politics,' as she says."
Here's where Sinema's problems start:
In speeches and interviews, Ms. Sinema recalls how she spent three years as a child living in a former gas station 'without running water or electricity.' She has highlighted that hardship as a way to distinguish herself from 'most people in politics,' as she would be the rare senator with personal experience of being homeless.
But court documents reviewed by The New York Times raise questions about Ms. Sinema's descriptions of what she endured in the mid-1980s, when her mother remarried and moved the family from Arizona to Florida. And Ms. Sinema herself, as her national profile has risen, has given contradictory answers about her early life.
This won't end the race by itself, though it will cause people to think twice about trusting her.
There's no questioning Martha McSally, though. Her life story is well-documented. She isn't a dishonest person. Like Judge Kavanaugh, there aren't any questions about her integrity or reliability. People aren't looking for chameleons. They're looking for problem-solvers. Sinema is a chameleon. This is what a problem-solver looks like:
[Video no longer available]
Posted Tuesday, September 25, 2018 4:34 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 25-Sep-18 05:37 PM
The dopes voted for Richard Blumenthal so why wouldn't they vote for this liar? Lots of illegals to vote for her down there and the ends always justify the means for progressives.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Sep-18 12:37 AM
It's worth noting that the people in AZ didn't vote for Blumenthal.
The presumption of innocence
Sen. Hirono, Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Schumer have each insisted that, because Judge Kavanaugh isn't involved in a criminal or civil trial, he isn't entitled to the presumption of innocence. Most lefty pundits have accepted that as Gospel fact. I don't accept that as Gospel fact or anything like it. In fact, I dispute it vehemently.
The first question that the outrageous left hasn't answered is straightforward: at what point does a person lose the presumption of innocence? Do we really want to live in a society where uncorroborated accusations were enough to destroy a person's life? Right now, the Hate-Filled Left is targeting Brett Kavanaugh but let's suppose that he withdraws his nomination. There's a decent possibility that Amy Coney-Barrett would be President Trump's next nominee. Isn't it virtually guaranteed that the Hate-Filled Left will attack her with uncorroborated accusations?
The Hate-Filled Left is parading out one woman after another with stories that can't be verified to prevent a judicial conservative from being confirmed for the Supreme Court. They'll certainly keep doing that until President Trump nominates another Ruth Bader-Ginsberg.
The ruthless lefties don't just think conservatives are wrong. They think we're evil. Don't believe me? Check this out:
[Video no longer available]
Bill O'Reilly nails it in this interview with Wayne Allen Root:
[Video no longer available]
Without question, the Democrats have a script they're following on SCOTUS nominees. They've been doing that since Ted Kennedy lied through his teeth about Robert Bork. The only difference is that today's Democrats would make Ted Kennedy look mild.
That should frighten everyone who cares about civil rights.
Posted Wednesday, September 26, 2018 1:47 AM
No comments.
Will the DFL throw Keith Ellison under the bus?
According to this AP article , the DFL's investigation (I use that term loosely) into Keith Ellison's alleged domestic abuse is drawing to a close. What that investigation will find is anyone's guess.
According to the article, "The longtime Minnesota congressman and Democratic National Committee deputy chairman has called the allegations false and tried to ride out the storm of questions after winning the Aug. 14 primary. But the old sexual assault allegations that have thrown Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination in doubt have renewed focus on Ellison and a six-week old investigation into his conduct that has shown few outward signs of progress."
Ken Martin, the chairman of the Minnesota DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor) party is getting frustrated:
Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party Chairman Ken Martin said he believes the investigation has concluded and that a final report should be issued in the coming days. "I'm starting to get a little frustrated because it's been a long time now, almost two months," he said. "I hope soon. I hope any day here."
That won't happen after Karen Monahan's Twitter rampage last night:
Example of a misogynistic narcissist conversation.
Keep reading tweets after this to get the full convo. pic.twitter.com/IKvGgTXfvF
- Karen Monahan (@KarenMonahan01) November 25, 2017
That's just one of her tweets. Here's another:
- Karen Monahan (@KarenMonahan01) August 12, 2018
Then there's this:
- Karen Monahan (@KarenMonahan01) August 12, 2018
Based on this new information, I'm skeptical that the investigation is finished. I suspect this is just getting restarted. If these types of tweets keep coming out, the DFL won't have a choice but to throw Ellison under the #MeToo bus.
Posted Wednesday, September 26, 2018 10:29 AM
No comments.
These Democrats are NUTS
When Paul Wellstone was essentially the face of the DFL, the average citizen thought that he was wrong on the issues but that he was a generally trustworthy person. That's how he got elected. This isn't the 'Party of Wellstone' anymore.
These days, the DFL is the party of Al Franken and Keith Ellison. Sen. Franken groped a Hollywood actress. Ellison was accused by his ex-girlfriend of dragging her off the bed after grabbing her legs. That's just here in Minnesota.
In DC, Democrat activists chased Sen. Cruz and his wife from a restaurant:
[Video no longer available]
In the Senate, once the greatest deliberative body in the world, idiots like Richard Blumenthal make wild, unsubstantiated accusations in the corridors of power. He insisted that Judge Kavanaugh's third accuser swore in an affidavit that Kavanaugh had committed rape.
Wrong :
'That affidavit is so deeply flawed and so open-ended that any good lawyer, any good defense attorney would be able to tear that apart in 30 seconds,' Dershowitz began. 'It's an embarrassment to the law that anybody would file an affidavit like that filled with hearsay, filed with 'well I was raped but he didn't rape me, he was there, he saw it, where was he, there are witnesses people told me, it happened ten times, I went back, I knew there were rapes going on but I went back to the party.' This is such a deeply flawed affidavit.'
'If there were gang rapes like that, how did it not get to the police? It's a shocking affidavit. Any lawyer who loves cross-examination would love nothing more than to examine a witness holding that affidavit in his hands and saying, 'here, here, here.' But Avenatti doesn't care about that. All he cares about is getting the headline,' he continued.
Blumenthal is from a deep blue state so he can pretty much say anything and get away with it. That's what he did in this instance. The party of Wellstone, Humphrey and Moynihan wouldn't have pulled the stunts that the party of Schumer, Hirono and Gillibrand have pulled.
It isn't that Democrats don't have solutions. It's that Democrats aren't interested in the truth or justice.
Posted Thursday, September 27, 2018 1:22 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 27-Sep-18 06:12 PM
A) Why does anyone care what liar Blumenthal has to say and
B) This woman is either a liar herself or more of a monster than Kavanaugh ever could be because she didn't tell anyone what was going on and continued to go to the parties.
Ballsy Ford was pathetic at today's testimony. How does a person with a doctorate not understand the simple questions she was having a hard time understanding? I'm glad Kavanaugh came out swinging and I'm impressed with Graham's speech.
Comment 2 by EverettHix at 14-Mar-19 05:52 AM
The spectacle of Democratic elites flagellating themselves for their growing distance from these voters has the whiff of the comic - the office-tower anthropologists seeking to understand Appalachia from their Kindles. But there's another way of putting the problem. If the stagnation of the middle class and the self-reinforcing advantages of the rich are among the largest issues of our time, the Democrats have done a bad job of attuning themselves to them. The party that has prided itself on representing regular people has struggled to make a dent in the problem - and at times has given the impression of indifference to it. A healthy republic can't afford for a seething populace to fall deeper into its hostilities. A healthy party, arguably, ought never to write off a whole category of voters. Greenberg's focus groups begin to hint at a way that Democrats can stay true to their principles and still reverse some of their losses with the white working class - but will their leaders pursue that path?
Comment 3 by Edenfantasys at 22-Mar-19 11:14 AM
The focus groups were designed to probe for weakness in Trumpism, to test lines of attack that might neutralize his appeal. Once Greenberg has earned a room's trust, he introduces new ideas to it. His moderator asked the subjects whether it worried them that Trump had stocked his administration with Wall Street chieftains. That piece of news, it seemed, hadn't traveled widely in Macomb, and it consistently rattled the groups. 'It's going to be a lot of the same old garbage,' one man groused. Concerns about Trump's temperament did nothing to dislodge the participants' support - the connection these voters felt with Trump was personal and deep - but the fact that he might align with traditional Republicans annoyed them to no end. (The groups reacted angrily when shown photos of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. People described them as 'shifty' and 'for the upper class.') What many Macomb voters value about Trump is that he represents an unaligned force in American politics. That's the very quality that in earlier election cycles led them to Obama. The spectacle of Democratic elites flagellating themselves for their growing distance from these voters has the whiff of the comic - the office-tower anthropologists seeking to understand Appalachia from their Kindles. But there's another way of putting the problem. If the stagnation of the middle class and the self-reinforcing advantages of the rich are among the largest issues of our time, the Democrats have done a bad job of attuning themselves to them. The party that has prided itself on representing regular people has struggled to make a dent in the problem - and at times has given the impression of indifference to it. A healthy republic can't afford for a seething populace to fall deeper into its hostilities. A healthy party, arguably, ought never to write off a whole category of voters. Greenberg's focus groups begin to hint at a way that Democrats can stay true to their principles and still reverse some of their losses with the white working class - but will their leaders pursue that path?
The Democrats' mask is off
If anyone didn't watch Thursday's hearing of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, you missed one for the ages. Seriously. In the morning, Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford provided testimony that most people thought was credible. Pundits, starting with FNC's Chris Wallace, thought that this was putting Republicans in a difficult position. To be honest, I agreed with his opinion. He even said that Judge Kavanaugh needed to deliver the opening statement of his lifetime. Fortunately, that's precisely what Judge Kavanaugh did:
[Video no longer available]
Saying that Judge Kavanaugh's opening statement was historic is understatement. Epic was his telling the Committee that his daughter told his wife that they should "pray for the woman":
[Video no longer available]
Anyone who didn't get emotional at that point is a robot. When Judge Kavanaugh said "that's a lot of wisdom for a 10-year-old", I can't picture anyone disagreeing. The only part of the hearing that possibly topped that was Sen. Lindsey Graham's anti-Democrat diatribe in which he called their tactics out for what they are:
[Video no longer available]
That's right. Democrats only care about power. They betrayed Dr. Blasey-Ford. They trashed Judge Kavanaugh and his family over an ideological fight. They didn't give damn if they ruined a man or his family. To the Democrats, just like with Justice Thomas, Judge Kavanaugh poses an existential threat.
The fantastic news is that Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed early next week:
With the Senate Judiciary Committee holding a vote at 9:30 A.M. tomorrow, a Senate insider has told Townhall that Kavanaugh has the votes to make it out of committee and the votes to be confirmed on the floor for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Sens. Flake (R-AZ), Collins (R-ME), Murkowski (R-AK), and Manchin (D-WV) are expected to vote in favor of Kavanaugh. All the Republicans are voting yes. Also, in the rumor mill, several Democrats may break ranks and back Kavanaugh. That's the ball game, folks.
The good guys win this round. Better yet, the #Resist Movement loses. It's long past time for those unpatriotic, anti-American jackasses starts consistently losing. They're a sickening bunch of people.
As I said earlier this week, Republicans, independents and fair-minded Democrats need to utterly reject these poisonous #Resist Democrats.
Posted Friday, September 28, 2018 3:06 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 28-Sep-18 03:35 PM
Didn't get to watch but I heard a lot of her testimony and she was far from credible. What she was, was an incredible liar. I believe the reason they wouldn't come to testify sooner is so her lawyers could coach her. She still doesn't know where or when the alleged sexual assault took place but she's now 100% certain it was Kavanaugh and Judge even though both deny it and so do others. This woman is a fraud and should not be believed. Unfortunately the GOP is going to give them dems one more chance to sink Kavanaugh with he FBI investigation.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 28-Sep-18 05:26 PM
BTW, the FBI investigation that will find no wrong doing by Kavanaugh, will not change one progressive democrats senators mind as they have all said they were going to resist and fight the nomination even before he was nominated. This is a farce and a sham and even Lindsey Graham knows it.
The foundation of right & wrong
This past week, Democrats insisted that the Kavanaugh hearings weren't a real trial so they didn't need to pay attention to innocent until proven guilty. Let's examine the intellectual integrity of that principle. (I'm betting it won't last long but that's just me.)
Does anyone think that innocent until proven guilty is just a judicial philosophy deployed in trials? If that's what you think, you'd better rethink things immediately. While it's true that innocent until proven guilty is standard during trials, it's also the foundation to living a moral life. (Perhaps, that's why Democrats are trying to quarantine it to trials.)
Christine Ford, as visually convincing as she was, still can't prove that Judge Kavanaugh did what she's accused him of doing. After her testimony, she still can't provide a scintilla of corroboration. She'll never be able to do that. Despite that important objective fact, Democrats insist that Judge Kavanaugh must disprove this negative. But I digress.
Imagine living in a world where a person's life can be utterly demolished by unsubstantiated allegations. Is that a world you want to live in? Is that a world you want your kids to inherit?
This fall, Democrats have campaigned by saying that our democracy is at stake. They're kinda right but not in the way they mean. Why isn't their insistence on demolishing a family's life without a hint of corroboration more damaging than President Trump's tweets?
Isn't the Democrats' insistence that people they don't like bear the burden of disproving a negative longer lasting than a Trump Twitter tirade? Haven't Democrats, starting with Ted Kennedy's borking of Judge Bork, weaponized the confirmation process?
[Video no longer available]
Ted Kennedy's diatribe in 1987 was pure BS. What's sad is that, since then, the Democrats have weaponized the confirmation process even more. Do we really want to pretend that Democrats play fair? Here's a hint to Sen. Flake: they don't play fair. Ever.
Posted Saturday, September 29, 2018 2:07 PM
No comments.
Amy Klobuchar's stiff-necked stupidity (Updated)
Predictably, the Twin Cities media and the national media are treating Sen. Klobuchar, aka St. Amy of Hennepin County, like she's a genius worthy of presidential consideration. Though she isn't the embarrassment that Al Franken was and Tina Smith is, she's still embarrassing. She's been peddling the FBI investigation chanting point all week as consistently as she's peddled the BS that Dr. Blasey-Ford was credible.
First, I'll stipulate that, from an emotional standpoint, Dr. Blasey-Ford came across as an empathetic figure. With me, that isn't enough, though. Next, from a corroborative standpoint, Dr. Blasey-Ford wasn't convincing. The fact that you come across as sympathetic or empathetic means nothing if you can't corroborate the story you're telling, especially if it's from 36 years ago. If you're going to trash a man with impeccable character credentials, I need more than speculation.
Apparently, St. Amy doesn't need more than that if the nominee is from a Republican president. The criteria needs to be the same whether the nomination is made by a Republican president or a Democrat. St. Amy doesn't play by those rules.
Perhaps, that's why she was a mediocre county attorney. Check out St. Amy's speech:
[Video no longer available]
Is St. Amy actually stupid enough to think that any of the alleged witnesses will change their testimony? Let's be straight about this. Each of the people that Dr. Blasey-Ford named as a witness to the event have submitted statements ("under the penalty of felony") saying that the event never happened or that they didn't witness the event.
That means that these people aren't witnesses whatsoever. Why should I think that they'll suddenly have a magical "Perry Mason moment"? The odds of that happening are about the same as me getting hit by lightning while holding a pair of lottery tickets. It isn't exactly high.
St. Amy has voted with Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer consistently. She's never voted for a Republican-nominated Supreme Court justice nominee. In other words, she's been Sen. Schumer's shill her entire career.
Let's remember that during St. Amy's time in office, the economy tanked and stayed tanked for 10 years. Now the economy took off. St. Amy voted for every budget that caused the economy to tank and against every but that's helped the economy to soar.
How stupid is that? How stubborn is she? Aren't we better off with someone who won't vote for failing economic policies but who will vote for pro-growth policies?
It's time for you to get to know Jim Newberger . He's the smart alternative to St. Amy.
Posted Saturday, September 29, 2018 11:11 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 30-Sep-18 07:55 PM
St. Amy has Daddy issues and thinks that by stopping Kavanaugh, she will somehow resolve those issue of her fathers alcoholism. Of course even if the investigation comes back saying Ballsy-Ford lied, St. Amy isn't going to vote for Kavanaugh and neither are any of the other progressives who were against him even before he was nominated. Both MN senators are an embarrassment to the state.
Comment 2 by Michelle Innes at 03-Oct-18 02:19 PM
Liar women playing political machavellian games look at lying news too, remember the San Bernadino terrorist attack such liars info.tanzeem.org and www.farhathashmi.com all the news propaganda
The compromise illusion
Saturday afternoon, a pundit was asked if this 7-day investigation will lead to greater harmony in the Senate, especially within the Senate Judiciary Committee. That question seemed utterly foolish to me.
For years, Republicans were accused of being unwilling to compromise. It was said that compromise had become "a 4-letter word" with Republicans. That myth was exploded with the #SchumerShutdown. President Trump offered Democrats a totally reasonable compromise, where they'd get permanent protection for DACA recipients in exchange for voting for fully funding President Trump's wall.
Instead of accepting that compromise, Sen. Schumer shut down the government. Within 3 days, Democrats had sent signals that they were taking a PR beating and were willing to partially surrender. Democrats still haven't funded the wall but they caved on military spending pretty quickly.
Let's be honest about something. As long as Democrats like Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Amy Klobuchar, Tina Smith, Chuck Schumer, 'Spartacus' Booker, Pocahontas Warren and Bernie Sanders inhabit the Senate, compromise will remain a dirty word with Democrats. It's that simple.
These aren't reasonable people. If they were reasonable, a healthy portion of them would've voted for the tax cuts that has the economy running like gangbusters. If these Democrats were reasonable, a few would've announced that they're voting to confirm either Justice Gorsuch or Judge Kavanaugh. Neither of those things has happened. Democrats are in full resist and obstruct mode. They've been that way since President Trump's inauguration.
Democrats boycotted President Trump's inauguration. In fact, a handful of Democrats started calling for President Trump's impeachment before his inauguration. Which of the Democrats' actions sound like the actions of reasonable people?
When President Trump tried negotiating with Sen. Schumer on DACA, the compromise was simple. Rather than protecting DACA recipients, Democrats shut down the government.
Then there's this:
[Video no longer available]
Democrats aren't interested in compromising. They're interested in resisting at all costs. The #SchumerShutdown is proof of that. If you want government that functions and actually fixes things, you'd better vote for a straight Republican ticket because Democrats have shown they aren't interested in fixing things.
Posted Sunday, September 30, 2018 1:08 AM
No comments.
