Archive for the ‘Elizabeth Warren’ Category

Much ink has been spilled over why Joe Biden’s lead in the Democratic primaries is holding. Some rightly point out that he’s a weak frontrunner. That’s definitely true. Another theory on Biden’s lead holding is that each time a new ‘flavor-of-the-month candidate’ pops up, they put in a poor debate performance.

Let’s be realistic, though. There are only 4 candidates with any sort of a shot at winning the nomination. That short list is Biden, Warren, Bernie and Kamala Harris. The rest are pretenders, potential cabinet secretaries or unserious people. Marianne Williamson, Pete Buttigieg, Corey Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Seth Moulton, Tim Ryan, Bill de Blasio and Tom Steyer fit into that category.

Kamala Harris’s campaign is virtually dead. She had a strong first debate, which caused her stock to rise briefly. By the time of the Detroit debates, she’d lost her momentum. Then Tulsi Gabbard utterly demolished her:

Right now, Elizabeth Warren has some momentum. Will her apology to Native-Americans stop that momentum? I think it will. She’s the so-called ideas lady but her ideas are far outside the mainstream. And who can forget this moment?

If I were asked what word or term I’d use to describe that cringe-worthy moment, I’d say “Almost life-like.” Like she’s gonna come off as a regular Jane with legitimate blue collar credentials? Right!

The truth is two-fold. Biden is a weak frontrunner. Still, he’s the strongest candidate in a weak class. The rest of the candidates are essentially pretenders.

Democrats just threatened the US Supreme Court through a friend of the court brief.

Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to “heal” the court in the near future.

The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court’s conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.

“The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” the brief said. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”

The last part was quoting language from a Quinnipiac University poll, in which 51 percent favored such restructuring. In the same poll, 55 percent believed the Supreme Court was “motivated by politics” more than by the law.

Restructured? Packing the court by Democrats is what they’re threatening. In fact, I’d argue that these Democrats are telegraphing what they’ll do the next time they control the White House, House and Senate. Let’s remember what the courts are to Democrats.

Without the courts, many of the Democrats’ ‘victories’ (Roe v. Wade, gay marriage) would have happened. As the Supreme Court has gotten more conservative, Democrats have ‘won’ less and less.

Further, the Q poll reports that a majority of the people polled (55%) think that the Court was “motivated by politics.” Democrats haven’t explained how packing the courts with more far left politicians (think RBG, Sotomayor, Kagan) would make the court less “motivated by politics.”

The goal of these Democrats isn’t to make the courts less “motivated by politics.” It’s to pack the courts so the Court’s rulings are friendlier to Democrats. That’s what raw partisanship looks like. This is too:

The Democratic senators’ brief was filed in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, which dealt with legal limitations on where gun owners could transport their licensed, locked, and unloaded firearms. They are urging the court to stay out of the case brought by the NRA-backed group, claiming that because the city recently changed the law to ease restrictions, the push to the Supreme Court is part of an “industrial-strength influence campaign” to get the conservative majority to rule in favor of gun owners.

In New York, Democrats apparently think that you have the right to keep and bear arms but only in parts of the city that the government approves of. How does that comply with the text of the Second Amendment? Here’s that text:

Notice the final part of the Amendment, which says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It’s indisputable that the NY law infringes on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that the Democrats’ goal is to threaten and intimidate Supreme Court justices. Larry Holmes could figure that out. That’s what Democrat machine politics looks like. It’s all about exercising raw political power. It doesn’t have anything to do with doing what’s right for the people.

Apparently, there’s nothing that Sen. Elizabeth Warren won’t say to become the Democrats’ presidential nominee. Last night, Sen. Warren said that Friday was the fifth anniversary of the day “Michael Brown was murdered in Ferguson, MO.” As the Blaze said in its article, “this is a bald-faced lie.” Indeed it is. First, here’s Sen. Warren’s tweet:


Guy Benson got it exactly right, tweeting “This is shameful but expected.” Then the Twitterverse erupted with the perfect antidote, aka evidence:


Then there’s this:


Here’s more blowback through Twitter:


This isn’t surprising. It’s what I’d expect from hardline Democrat radicals like Sen. Warren. She’s had a history of lying throughout her political career. She’s lied about race before, too. That’s very extensively documented.

Add to that the fact that her policies would demolish the great economy that we’ve got. These questions must be asked:

  1. Why should we elect a politician that doesn’t support law enforcement?
  2. Why should we elect a politician who sees racism wherever she turns her eyes to?
  3. Why elect a socialist whose policies would demolish this great economy?

Even the frontrunners for the Democrats are socialists. This isn’t a matter of Democrats fighting between moderates and the far left. That fight is over. This is a fight between the extreme left and the far left.

Frankly, the Democrats’ presidential candidates are past the point of no return. They’re simply nuts.

Frank Luntz was in the debate hall for both nights of the Democrats’ presidential debates. To be honest, I thought that the supposed frontrunners sounded like idiot bomb-throwers while the lower tier candidates sounded reasonable in some instances. In this situation, reasonable is a relative term. Think John Hickenlooper, John Delaney, Michael Bennet.

I wouldn’t put Joe Biden in that category. At one point, Biden said “I am the only candidate whose plan limits the insurance companies from charging unreasonable prices. We should put some of these insurance executives who oppose my plan in jail for the 9,000,000,000 opioids they sell out there.”

Notice how Biden started by saying that “insurance executives who oppose [his] plan” should get thrown in prison before catching himself and mentioning opioids. Before that, Biden said that his plan “limits the insurance companies from charging unreasonable prices.” Who determines what’s unreasonable? The government? Once the government is the arbiter of what’s too expensive, what effects will that have on insurance companies? Has Biden thought about that? I’m betting he hasn’t.

So we supposedly have a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. Frank Luntz thinks that that fight is over:

Luntz is right. This fight is over. At the first Democrat debate, every Democrat presidential candidate raised their hands when asked if they’d decriminalize illegally entering the United States. Listen to the ferocious reaction of the audience when attacking CEOs and corporations. Notice how far left Democrats have gone with illegal immigration. Changing it from a criminal charge to a civil fine is like sending out a notice that a small fine will be imposed for illegally entering the United States. That would open the floodgates and then some. People wouldn’t need to game the asylum system. They could just pay a fine, then become a legal resident of the US. Tell me the difference between that and open borders.

The Democratic Party of Bill Clinton is dead. Based on the criticism against President Obama, I could make a strong argument that the Democratic Party of President Obama is in hospice and fading fast. I’m not certain that the Democratic Party as it exists today will exist in 15 years.

Contrary to the Democrats’ paid spinmeisters statements, Democrats favor open borders as their immigration policy. Right after Democrats took control of the House, Democrat spinmeisters told the American people that everyone was for securing the US border with Mexico.

That spin was a total lie. There’s no way to hide the fact that Democrats aren’t interested in securing the border. There’s an old economic principle that’s applicable to this. The principle says that if you want less of something, you tax it. If you want more of something, you incentivize it. Apply that principle to immigration, if you want lots of illegal immigration, change the risk/reward ratio to make the risk of getting caught minimal. Similarly, if you want to reduce illegal immigration, make it so that the cost of illegally crossing the border is extraordinarily high. Also, make the task extraordinarily difficult.

Put in practical terms, build a wall that’s difficult to climb to make the traffickers’ jobs difficult. (Also, it’s worth highlighting that building barriers forces those traffickers and cartels into chokepoints. That helps fewer agents protect more miles of border. That means the border patrol’s activities are significantly more efficient. I’d think increasing the CBP’s efficiency would be DHS’s highest priority.

At this point, it’s clear that this isn’t the Democrats’ highest priority. I’d argue that it isn’t a priority whatsoever. Katie Pavlich’s article offers proof that substantiates my hypothesis:

“Immigrants seeking refuge in our country aren’t a threat to national security. Migration shouldn’t be a criminal justice issue. It’s time to end this draconian policy and return to treating immigration as a civil, not a criminal, issue,” Democratic presidential candidate and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro wrote in an April op-ed on Medium.

Right. If you want fewer migrants to cross the US-Mexico border, tell the traffickers that the people will have to pay a tiny fine instead of getting deported. That should put the fear of God in those traffickers. Not.

“I agree with Secretary Castro. We should not be criminalizing mamas and babies trying to flee violence at home or trying to build a better future. We must pass comprehensive immigration reform that is in line with our values, creates a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants including our Dreamers, and protects our borders,” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) told HuffPost.

Notice Pocahontas’ wording:

We should not be criminalizing mamas and babies trying to flee violence at home…

Sen. Warren, should we criminalize traffickers using purchased babies to get into the US? That’s happening with increasing frequency. Read this website if you want your stomach turning in a split-second. When Democrats vote against legitimate border security measures, they’re voting for continuing the status quo. What type of sick person would vote to continue such a disgusting industry? That’s what happens when Democrats vote against the Republicans’ border security proposals.

Right. Let’s make it easier for illegal aliens to reach the United States. Let’s make it inexpensive for cartels to put these children’s lives at risk during the trip. That’s what Castro’s plan would do.

The next time a Democrat tells you that they’re for securing the border, ask them what they’re doing to increase the risk to traffickers. Then ask those Democrats to tell you what they’re doing to shrink the incentives for attempting to illegally enter the United States. If their plans don’t include creating chokepoints and increasing the efficiency for border patrol agents, then tell them to contact you when they put together a serious plan.

Crazy Bernie and Elizabeth Warren, aka Pocahontas, won’t like what a recent Rasmussen poll showed about socialism. Newt Gingrich wrote about the poll in this article.

In his opinion piece, Gingrich cited the poll as saying “As the Rasmussen poll reported on Wednesday, 41 percent of Americans may have a favorable view of socialism…” That doesn’t sound like bad news for Crazy Bernie or Elizabeth Warren but that’s because I didn’t include the rest of the sentence. The full sentence said “As the Rasmussen poll reported on Wednesday, 41 percent of Americans may have a favorable view of socialism – but “most who like the term socialism do not think of it as an economic ideology.” It gets worse from there:

Voters still think free markets are better than socialism, by 55 percent to 12 percent, according to Rasmussen. They also say free markets are better for raising people into the middle class, creating good jobs and shrinking poverty. Finally, a clear majority of Americans of every political persuasion are optimistic about the future of our country, according to the survey.

That last sentence is a killer for Democrats. I’ve listened to the Democrats’ economic message, if they have one. Most of them are trying to convince people that the booming Trump economy isn’t booming. That’s if the Democrat presidential candidate even has an economic message.

That’s how a party walks into a harsh, stinging defeat. To say that these candidates are tone-deaf is understatement. They think that Sleepy Joe Biden is a moderate. Good luck with that one.

Every Democrat running for president wants to eliminate the corporate tax cuts that have played a huge part in reviving the lackluster Obama-Biden ‘recovery’. Blue collar workers are experiencing the fastest wage growth of any cohort while Democrats insist that President Trump didn’t deliver on his promises to these workers. Good luck with that. This is the post-kickoff reaction of Trump supporters:

Forgive me on this but I’m betting it’s difficult to convince that many smiling people that they’re living in Soup Line America. The point is that it’s difficult to convince a person who’s having a fun time that their life is a struggle. To put it differently, Democrats are trying to tell people that their lives really aren’t better than they were 4 years ago. The great news is that the American people get it:

A theory developed while reading Salena Zito’s latest article, which is titled “What happens when Joe stops being Joe?” Salena’s article asks the question of what happens to VP Biden when he stops being lovable old Joe. That theory is that President Trump should highlight his economic accomplishments by highlighting his regulatory accomplishments in Rust Belt states.

She notes that Biden’s rollout was virtually flawless but that his handling of the Hyde Amendment was a disaster. Then she quotes Jeff Brauer, a “political science professor at Keystone College here in Factoryville.” Brauer said “What Biden needs to do is appeal to voters in the middle and even the Right. This move isn’t going to help in that. Moving hard left in the primary could prove to be fatal for the general. Biden has also succumbed to far-left pressures on the environment by rolling out a policy plan that is far more liberal than expected.”

Zito then points out, as I have multiple times, that “Trump’s victory in 2016 was primarily due to his support in the Midwestern, Rust Belt states, whose voters had been hit hard economically as jobs moved elsewhere. With a recent boom fueled by natural gas, some of these areas are bouncing back.”

The Hyde Amendment hurts Biden in the short-term but the environment hurts him in the long-term. If Democrats don’t flip the blue collar vote in 2020, they can kiss that election good-bye.

Few people paid attention to the early days of the Trump administration. That’s when Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and President Trump used the Congressional Review Act to eliminate tons of Obama environmental regulations. That wasn’t just smart policy. It was fantastic politics. President Trump can visit the Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana cities most affected (positively) by the elimination of those Obama-Biden era regulations.

What should worry Democrats most is that Biden and Tim Ryan are the only Democrats with a legitimate shot at those voters. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg don’t have a shot at those voters.
This is Biden’s Hyde Amendment flip-flop:

On issue after issue, President Trump has been the reasonable politician in the room. Whether we’re talking about immigration, taxes, regulations or the economy, President Trump has presented sensible options. When Congress runs away from some of those policies, it just makes him look that much more reasonable, especially in light of the fact that Democrats are hell-bent on impeaching President Trump.

What’s especially helpful to President Trump is the fact that he, Ryan and McConnell eliminated so many environmental regulations. Now that the US is a net exporter of energy, he’s in an especially strong negotiating position with Eastern bloc countries and Russia. Put differently, President Trump should make the case that his strong economy has made the US stronger internationally. Biden can’t make that same argument.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is nuttier than any other Democrat running for president with the exception of Sen. Bernie Sanders. Recently, Sen. Warren proposed a “$1.25 trillion education proposal.”

The article starts by saying “On Monday, Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren released an ambitious $1.25 trillion education proposal that would address rising college costs and the student debt crisis. ‘Higher education opened a million doors for me,’ the senator wrote in a Medium post introducing the plan. “It’s how the daughter of a janitor in a small town in Oklahoma got to become a teacher, a law school professor, a U.S. Senator, and eventually, a candidate for President of the United States. Today, it’s virtually impossible for a young person to find that kind of opportunity.”

Universities used to be required for people to ‘get ahead’. That isn’t as true anymore. I won’t say that universities don’t serve a purpose but they don’t serve as much of a purpose as they did 25 years ago. Trade schools, apprenticeships and other types of training might be more helpful than a 4-year degree. Also, these alternatives often lead to solid middle class jobs without the student getting hit with a pile of debt.

Finally, many of the degrees that universities hand out like candy won’t produce a job that’ll pay off the student’s loans. Students are starting to figure things out. Unfortunately, politicians haven’t. Then again, I’m not surprised even slightly.

What a dipshit! She wants to punish people who’ve been productive while letting the freeloaders, aka endowments and administrators, get off without punishment. Talk about sending the wrong signal.

Say what you want about Elizabeth Warren, aka Pocahontas. She’s nothing if not politically flexible. It wasn’t that long ago that Sen. Warren “trashed the politically vulnerable Montana Democrat for supporting a landmark bank deregulation bill.” This week, Elizabeth Warren “is coming to the rescue of Sen. Jon Tester in the face of escalating attacks by President Donald Trump.”

In her fundraising letter, Sen. Warren said “Jon and I don’t agree on everything — but I know that Jon makes every decision with the working people of Montana and all across this country in his mind. He’s a good and decent man, and right now he needs our help.”

Rather than calling her Pocahontas, I’d argue that it’s more appropriate to call her Pinocchio. What “good and decent man” throws a military veteran under the proverbial bus for purely partisan gain? That isn’t what I’d consider the actions of a good and decent man. Listen to what Sen. Tester said in this press availability:

Less than 30 seconds into the availability, when asked to confirm Sen. Tester’s statements, Sen. Tester said “I just can’t confirm it at this moment in time.” If that’s the case, Sen. Tester, why didn’t you just do your due diligence rather than leak this information to the press? I’m betting that Sen. Tester wouldn’t have followed this path had Adm. Jackson been appointed by President Obama. I’m betting that Sen. Tester would’ve quietly checked into the allegations rather than leaking it to the press. In fact, I’m betting that had Jackson a) been nominated by President Obama and b) had been guilty of the charges, Sen. Tester would’ve swept that information under the rug.

Later in the video, the MSNBC anchor and the MSNBC correspondent admit that they don’t know if the allegations were true or false. Since then, however, we’ve found out that the Secret Service has issued a statement that emphatically said Adm. Jackson wasn’t guilty of the accusations leveled against him.

Meanwhile, Sen. Warren has defended Sen. Tester, saying “Jon’s a man of integrity and courage, and I know he’s not going to back down or change his votes because of a television commercial or a tweet. But he needs our help to build the sort of grassroots campaign that can go town-to-town, person-to-person, to talk about what this election is really about.”

Finally, Sen. Tester defended himself, saying “It’s my duty to make sure Montana veterans get what they need and have earned, and I’ll never stop fighting for them as their senator.” What a crock. Sen. Tester has less integrity than the witch that ‘entertained’ the media at this weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

The city of Cambridge, MA, has a fight on its hands, thanks to their attempt to silence one of Elizabeth Warren’s opponents. Shiva Ayyadurai is suing the city because “Ayyadurai called the city’s order to remove the signs ‘a political vendetta by city officials who are supporters of Elizabeth Warren.'”

The lawsuit comes after Cambridge’s building inspector said there were a ‘series of anonymous complaints’ about the signs. Branden Vigneault, the inspector, said the signs were posted without permits and violated a zoning ordinance. Ayyadurai faces $300 for each day the signs don’t come down as well as potential legal action. But Ayyadurai said the signs are not going anywhere and tried to make it a matter of free speech.

First and foremost, the fines are likely unenforceable because they violate the First Amendment. Cities, counties and townships have been attempting to silence political speech through ordinances like this for years. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled these impediments unconstitutional because they’re thinly-veiled attempts at censorship.

What touched off this firestorm is this advertising:

Elizabeth Warren frequently complains about how life is rigged against the common man. How isn’t this rigging the system against her opponent? Then again, doesn’t Warren really mean that life isn’t rigged enough to her preference?

This is an attempt at censorship to save Sen. Warren some embarrassment for making dishonest statements. Pocahontas shouldn’t be protected against prior foolish decisions.