You are currently browsing the archives for the Klobuchar category.


Archive for the ‘Klobuchar’ Category

Amy Klobuchar loves portraying herself as a moderate. That façade disappeared when she voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. She’s so extreme that she didn’t even want to debate the bill.

Politico’s ‘article, if it can be called that, said that “The Senate on Monday rejected a bill making it a felony for a doctor to harm or neglect an infant who survives an “attempted abortion,” part of a Republican effort to squeeze Democrats ahead of the 2020 campaign.”

If a baby survives an abortion, that live, breathing human is a human. Therefore, that baby has the same rights as you or me. This isn’t about abortion. It’s about infanticide. Yesterday, Democrats voted to become the ‘Infanticide Party’.

In a speech just before the vote, bill author Sen. Ben Sasse quoted campaign stump speeches by Democratic Sens. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand and independent Bernie Sanders vowing to look out for society’s “voiceless and vulnerable” and accused them of hypocrisy for opposing his bill’s regulations for the care of newborns.

“Was that all just clap track for the campaign trail and for soundbites? Or do people mean the stuff that they say around here?” he said of his colleagues with White House aspirations.

Amy Klobuchar isn’t a moderate. Neither is Tina Smith. They’re proud to be members of the Party of Infanticide.

I’ve paid attention to Amy Klobuchar’s Senate career with equal parts admiration and confusion. I genuinely admire her ability to get re-elected without doing anything noteworthy. Seriously, what significant legislation has she led on? Hubert Humphrey’s signature achievement was teaming with Everett Dirksen in getting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. Sen. Klobuchar’s signature accomplishment is virtually impossible to define. Paul Wellstone’s signature accomplishment was being the lead author of the Motor Voter bill.

One time, Klobuchar issued a statement saying that she’d worked with Roy Blunt to get additional money put into the federal budget for advertising tourism. Somehow, that pales in comparison with being the chief author of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

What does Amy Klobuchar bring to the 2020 presidential race? Will she put in place better economic policies than are in right now? That’s doubtful. The economy is already running strong. Would Sen. Klobuchar bring sensible-minded environmental policies to the Oval Office? Certainly not, especially since she’s endorsed AOC’s Green New Deal, which is really socialism on steroids.

Let’s be clear about this. Sen. Klobuchar isn’t a moderate. She’s a partisan hack. Her voting record proves it. When Democrats debated the ACA, Sen. Klobuchar could’ve been a leader and insisted on incorporating Minnesota’s MCHA provisions into the bill. She didn’t. Instead, she did what Harry Reid told her to do.

We need leaders, not partisan shills. Klobuchar is the latter, unfortunately, not the former.

It’s fair to ask whether or to what extent the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings have had on Senate races. In my estimation, BTW, the confirmation hearings have played a major role in reshaping the red state races.

House races have been flying under the radar this year. I admit that I don’t have as good a read on them as I normally have. That being said, I have some insights into the House races. First, I’m confident that the violent episodes shouldn’t be underestimated.

While these attacks haven’t directly happened against House members, they’ve happened relatively close to home. One attack happened to Kristin Davison, a female campaign manager for Nevada gubernatorial candidate Adam Laxalt. Another happened to Rep. Sarah Anderson, the chair of the Minnesota House Government Finance Committee. Still another attack happened against Shane Mekeland, a candidate for Minnesota’s House of Representatives. Last night, Mekeland was on Laura Ingraham’s show:

When Rep. Maxine Waters, a Democrat, says that people will be harassed in stores, gas stations and restaurants, she’s taking things up multiple notches from normal campaign activity. When Sen. Mazie Hirono, Amy Klobuchar, Dick Durbin, Kamala Harris and Corey Booker, aka Sen. Spartacus’, each a Democrat, says that Republicans are guilty until proven innocent, they’re far beyond being anti-American.

In 2008, Michele Bachmann told Chris Matthews that certain members of the Democratic Party were anti-American. The MSM ridiculed her from then until the election. It turns out she was right. Her real sin was that she said something others knew but weren’t willing to say.

There are patriots in the Democratic Party. Tammy Duckworth is one of them. It’s just that few of them are elected officials. Too many of them, unfortunately, support anarchism or care only about themselves. Hillary fits into that last category.

It’s time to get rid of these dregs. It’s time to make them pay a price for their anti-American actions.

Last week, Sen. Klobuchar, along with other Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats, called on Judge Kavanaugh to remove his name from consideration as a Supreme Court justice. Never has she insisted that Keith Ellison remove his name from the ballot after he won the DFL primary for AG. After the mid-August primary, there was plenty of time for Ellison to remove his name from the ballot.

What’s more is that the DFL is using the same standard that Republicans have tried using with Judge Kavanaugh:

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — An ex-girlfriend’s allegation that Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison once physically abused her could not be substantiated because she refused to provide video she said she had of the incident, an attorney with links to the state’s Democratic party who was hired to investigate the claims concluded in a draft report obtained by The Associated Press.

The party launched an investigation after Karen Monahan alleged in August that the Democratic congressman dragged her off a bed by her feet while screaming obscenities at her in 2016. Ellison, also a deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has denied the accusation.

This is getting dizzying. With Judge Kavanaugh, all that’s needed are uncorroborated allegations from 36 years ago to demand his removal from consideration for the Supreme Court. With Keith Ellison, medical documents, text messages between Ellison and Karen Monahan and a 9-1-1 transcript rate a look of disinterest from the DFL.

Neither Amy Klobuchar nor Tina Smith have shown signs of interest in #MeToo victims. What they’ve shown tons of interest in is holding onto their seats. Further, they’ve shown utter disrespect for the Kavanaugh family, especially the Kavanaughs’ daughters and Judge Kavanaugh’s wife.

Sen. Klobuchar has led the fight against Judge Kavanaugh, even asking why he wouldn’t demand an FBI investigation if he thought he was innocent. It’ll be fun to see how Sen. Klobuchar spins things when the FBI investigation shows no new evidence. What will Sen. Klobuchar say then? In this interview, Sen. Klobuchar was virtually incoherent:

Early in the interview, Sen. Klobuchar, one of the senior Democrats on the Committee, said “It’s important that the FBI get to the bottom of the evidence.” That sounds reasonable except for one thing: after 36 years, there isn’t any evidence. There aren’t any fingerprints. There isn’t any DNA to examine. The people that Dr. Ford insists that were eyewitnesses to the alleged assault each refute Dr. Ford’s accusations.

It isn’t likely that Tina Smith or Amy Klobuchar will admit that they’re using a double standard when it comes to rape. Still, that’s what they’re guilty of. Furthermore, they’re both guilty of ruining families’ lives.

Especially in the #MeToo era, that’s inexcusable.

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:

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.

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?”

If watching the Democrats’ trashing of a good man’s reputation without corroboration isn’t pissing you off, then you’re either a Democrat or the most apathetic person alive. The Democrats haven’t hesitated in trashing Brett Kavanaugh’s reputation and the reputation of his young family. What Democrats have done (and are doing) is beyond reprehensible.

Friends, regardless of political affiliation, the Democrats’ tactics should turn your stomach. They’re ruining the life of a thoroughly upright, God-fearing man with unsubstantiated allegations. Judiciary Committee Democrats have said some of the nastiest things imaginable about Judge Kavanaugh. He’s done nothing to deserve this. Kavanaugh’s ‘crime’? Being a judicial conservative.

Amy Klobuchar, aka St. Amy of Hennepin County, prides herself on her bipartisan work. While she hasn’t been as hate-filled as Mazie Hirono, (D-HI), she’s been a nasty partisan nonetheless. It’s time to throw her out of office. Jim Newberger would be an outstanding replacement.

Across the nation, Democrats want to take us back to the failed policies that ‘produced’ 1.5% economic growth. Sitting at home will help get rid of President Trump’s policies that’ve replaced President Obama’s policies of pathetic growth and replaced them with robust growth. Is that what you’d prefer? Sitting at home will get you there.

This isn’t a time for complacency. There’s far too much at stake. There’s a Supreme Court seat that’s hanging in the balance. Our prosperity is, too. Do we really want a rerun of Speaker Pelosi? I don’t! If you’re ok with Supreme Court nominees getting treated like trash, all you have to do is nothing. This interview should motivate you to vote this fall:

In fact, I’d recommend you vote early for your nearest Republican. Voting Democrat is a vote for another protracted smear campaign against a good man. No Thanks.

Saying that Sen. Klobuchar was outmatched when she questioned Judge Kavanaugh is understatement. Simply put, she got her butt kicked — royally. At issue was an article Judge Kavanaugh wrote for the Minnesota Law Review.

In the article, “Kavanaugh, a D.C. appeals court judge, had proposed that presidents not be subject to criminal investigation while in office, citing the distractions caused by probes into misconduct by former President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.” During testimony Wednesday, Kavanaugh explained, saying “that it would be up to Congress to consider what constitutes an impeachable offense, and that he had not intended to address it as a constitutional issue”, adding that “The idea that I talked about was something for Congress to look at if it wanted to.”

In other words, Judge Kavanaugh has a policy position on the matter and that it’s irrelevant because his policy preferences don’t matter once he puts on his black robe. This is the key part of the exchange:

Judge Kavanaugh clearly stated that he hadn’t written the article from a judicial position, that he’d written it as a thought piece. That apparently escaped Sen. Klobuchar, which is actually revealing. Based on her reaction, she apparently thinks that a person’s personal beliefs should translate into their judicial rulings. It’s apparent that Judge Kavanaugh thinks that a judge’s personal opinions are irrelevant, that the law and the Constitution are the most important things.

Those are pretty dramatic differences in styles and outcomes.

After the passing of Sen. McCain, it was well-established fact that Gov. Doug Ducey, (R-AZ), would name someone to serve the rest of Sen. McCain’s term. I’m thrilled that Gov. Ducey picked Sen. Jon Kyl to serve the rest of Sen. McCain’s term.

The key part of the article said “Under Arizona law, Gov. Doug Ducey (R) named McCain’s successor to serve until the 2020 election. The winner there will serve the remainder of McCain’s term, until the 2022 election. If Kyl leaves before the 2020 election, Ducey would make another appointment.” It then continues, saying “Ducey said he opted to ‘pick the best possible person, regardless of politics. There is no one in Arizona with the stature of Jon Kyl,’ Ducey said, noting how Kyl has been working with the White House over the past few months to advance the nomination of Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh. ‘Now Sen. Kyl can cast a vote for Kavanaugh’s nomination.'”

Speaking of today’s confirmation hearing, Sen. Sasse’s speech is must viewing:

It’s a history lesson on the Democrats’ tactics at SCOTUS nominees’ hearings. It’s especially brutal after hearing Amy Klobuchar’s attempt to lecture senators on the importance of the rule of law right before Sen. Sasse’s speech.

Hearing Sen. Klobuchar lecture people on the rule of law after she sat silent after Mollie Tibbets was murdered by an illegal alien is more than a little rich. The good news is that Sen. Kyl is a real senator, not a showboat like St. Amy of Hennepin County, my nickname for Sen. Klobuchar because of her pristine image.

During her appearance on Meet the Press, Sen. Klobuchar said “What these hunters were telling me the last few days is they are willing to do some background checks. They asked me why the bump stock bill hadn’t passed. They understand as law-abiding gun owners, that we need to make changes.” Later, she said “I would like to see an assault weapon ban come up for a vote. And I would also like to see the work we need to do on domestic violence.”

Honestly, I’d love to see a vote on banning assault weapons in both the House and Senate. It’d be interesting to see how many Democrats would vote against that ban. Let’s finish this debate. Banning scary-looking weapons that aren’t any more deadly than a traditional-looking semi-automatic is pandering at its worst. That isn’t making people safer. It’s telling people that they’re safer without making them safer. Shame on these panderers for selling false hope.

In the past, Sen. Klobuchar supported feel-good, do-nothing gun control measures:

Q: What about assault weapons?
A: I did favor extending the ban on assault weapons. Unfortunately, we didn’t prevail.

Voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets.
Congressional Summary:
The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’ means a magazine or similar device that has an overall capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition
Opponent’s Argument for voting No: Sen. GRASSLEY. I oppose the amendment. In 2004, which is the last time we had the large-capacity magazine ban, a Department of Justice study found no evidence banning such magazines has led to a reduction in gun violence. The study also concluded it is not clear how often the outcomes of the gun attack depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than 10 shots without reloading. Secondly, there is no evidence banning these magazines has reduced the deaths from gun crimes. In fact, when the previous ban was in effect, a higher percentage of gun crime victims were killed or wounded than before it was adopted. Additionally, tens of millions of these magazines have been lawfully owned in this country for decades. They are in common use, not unusually dangerous, and used by law-abiding citizens in self-defense, as in the case of law enforcement.

A well-trained gunman doesn’t need a large-capacity clip to reload quickly. Further, most of the mass-shooting attackers did tons of training before carrying out their attacks. This is another feel-good provision that doesn’t fix a thing. Anything that doesn’t actually prevent lethal situations should be ignored. Period.

The key to this that the MSM and liberal politicians haven’t talked about is hardening soft targets. I won’t pretend that hardening such targets will eliminate mass shootings. Evil will still exist. I’ll guarantee, though, that we’ll see a major reduction in the number of fatalities if targets are hardened.