Archive for the ‘Infrastructure’ Category

Newt Gingrich is one of the best election analysts in modern history. When he starts talking about the potential for wave elections, I listen. That’s what he’s talking about in this article.

One of the first things he mentions is “The liberal media likes to focus on how many House Republicans are retiring. Somehow this is supposed to make Republicans feel defeated and hopeless. In this context, I was startled recently to hear Congresswoman Elise Stefanik say 2020 was going to be the year of the House Republican woman. She went on to assert that there was a historic record being set for Republican women filing to run for the House.”

Speaker Gingrich then gets into candidate recruitment, online fundraising and a host of other things that give Republicans a distinct advantage. Here’s what he said about candidate recruitment:

I checked in with Chairman Tom Emmer at the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and found that, if anything, Stefanik had understated the momentum of new recruits. With House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy and the leadership team going all out, the House Republicans are setting a remarkably encouraging series of records.

Consider these numbers: The total number of Republicans filed for House seats so far is 928, according to Federal Elections Commission (FEC) figures – or 188 more than the total at the same time in 2010 (740). The year 2010 matters because it was the last time Nancy Pelosi was kicked out of the majority and Speaker John Boehner led the House GOP to its biggest gain in modern times – with his “where are the jobs” slogan.

Right now, the only accomplishment that the House Democrats can point to is the ratification of President Trump’s USMCA trade agreement. Compared with the things that Republicans can point to during their 2 years in office, the Democrats don’t have much to highlight during the campaign. Then there’s the fundraising portion of this equation:

In the 2018 cycle, this system raised $1.8 billion over the two-year period. When this scale of small-donor involvement was combined with massive donors like Michael Bloomberg (who spent $5 million on ads in the last two weeks in some elections) the Democrats’ money advantage was enormous. This helps explain the Republican House defeats.

The threat posed by the ActBlue system was reinforced in 2019 when it raised more than $1 billion for the Democrats. Republican leaders realized they had to match or exceed the small-dollar system the Democrats had invented. They developed a competitive model called WinRed. The intensity of support for President Trump, combined with growing anger over the Democrats’ investigation and impeachment strategy, has made WinRed a success much faster than anyone expected.

In its first two quarters, WinRed raised $101 million. Its effectiveness is growing rapidly. It raised $31 million in its first quarter of existence and more than doubled that in the second quarter with $70 million (fourth quarter of 2019). In fact, WinRed raised more in its first 190 days than ActBlue raised in its first five years.

The other factor that people haven’t talked about is the fact that most of the competitive seats that Republicans need to flip to return to the majority are seats that President Trump has done well in. It isn’t like Republicans have to flip tons of seats where Democrats traditionally do well in. That, in turn, means that they won’t need to raise as much money as Democrats raise.

House Democrats have to defend why they didn’t get important things done during this Congress. They promised to lower prescription drug prices, fix health care, work on infrastructure and strengthen the economy. They didn’t get any of those things done. They don’t have a list of accomplishments. Democrats have an accomplishment — USMCA. The rest of their time was wasted on impeachment, sour grapes and other waste-of-time investigations. If I were running the NRCC’s messaging, I’d have a single message, which would be “What have you done for me lately?”

It’s time to call Pelosi’s Democrats out. They’re essentially worthless. Democrats spent more time telling us that Iranians really loved Soleimani than they spent in court to compel witnesses that House Democrats said weren’t needed but that Senate Democrats insist are essential. Now Pelosi insists that not calling witnesses that House Democrats didn’t call amounts to a cover-up:

I’d love hearing Pelosi sell that BS to the American people.

During a week in which House Democrats impeached President Trump, Democrats also all-but-officially signed the political death certificates for their members who represent Trump districts. House Democrats then passed President Trump’s USMCA trade agreement, then passed the bill funding government for FY2020. Included in that bill was funding for President Trump’s wall and a 3.1% pay raise for the military.

After impeaching President Trump but before passing USMCA, Nancy Pelosi decided that she’d make Democrats look utterly unserious. She did that by telling reporters that she wouldn’t send the articles of impeachment to the Senate. She said that despite telling We The People that President Trump had to be impeached and convicted immediately to protect national security and preserve our elections.

While Pelosi impeached President Trump, President Trump held a rally in Michigan. These rallies have been turned into entertainment/pep rallies as well as voter registration drive headquarters. At this week’s rally, 27% of the people who filled out voter registration forms switched from being Democrats. On the subject of voter registration drives, the rally in Sunrise, FL, was a huge success, registering 31,000 people, 30% of which used to be Democrats and 27% are Hispanics.

President Trump’s great week continued when Democrats held a presidential debate in LA. At the debate, the Democrats’ frontrunner was asked a question about energy policy. Here’s Mr. Biden’s reply:

MODERATOR: Would you be willing to sacrifice [economic growth in the energy sector] knowing potentially that it could displace maybe hundreds of thousands of blue-collar workers in the interest of a greener economy?
JOE: The answer is yes.

Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders were the only Democrats with a shot at winning Pennsylvania and Michigan. That opportunity disappeared when they said that they’d worship at the altar of Climate Change. Climate change and mining fit together like oil and water. If Democrats can’t flip Michigan and Pennsylvania back into the blue column, Democrats can’t win in 2020.

During the impeachment debate and vote, the Trump campaign raised $5,000,000:

President Trump’s re-election campaign raked in $5 million in donations Wednesday, the day the House of Representatives voted to impeach him, his campaign manager said.

“Incredible fundraising numbers!” manager Brad Parscale tweeted. “[Trump] has raised over [$5 million] (still growing) today as Americans use their wallet to show support against Pelosi’s impeachment hoax!” he added.

This isn’t just people supporting a candidate they like. This impeachment has fired up Trump supporters. To them, this is personal now. When independents saw the railroad job being pushed onto President Trump, they reacted.

Next November, the Republicans’ fantastic week will come to fruition.

This article asks an important question for the Democrat presidential nominee and the DFL Senator. It’s an article about the Line 3 Pipeline project.

It starts by saying “MINNEAPOLIS — A divisive fight over the future of a crude-oil pipeline across Minnesota is pinning presidential candidates between environmentalists and trade unions in a 2020 battleground state, testing their campaign promises to ease away from fossil fuels.” Then it states something controversial, saying “Progressive candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have condemned a Canadian company’s plan to replace its old and deteriorating Line 3 pipeline, which carries Canadian crude across the forests and wetlands of northern Minnesota and into northern Wisconsin. They’ve sided with environmental and tribal groups that have been trying to stop the project for years, arguing that the oil should stay in the ground. Other candidates, including home-state Sen. Amy Klobuchar and front-runner Joe Biden, have remained largely silent, mindful that such projects are viewed as job creators for some of the working-class voters they may need to win the state next year.”

I must take issue with this statement:

Sen. Amy Klobuchar and front-runner Joe Biden, have remained largely silent, mindful that such projects are viewed as job creators for some of the working-class voters they may need to win the state next year.

Oh really, Joe? Then what did you mean at this campaign event?

Ending fossil fuels necessarily requires being opposed to the Line 3 Pipeline project because the Line 3 Pipeline project carries fossil fuels. Democrats don’t want to admit that because Democrats want to appease both construction workers and environmental activists simultaneously. That’s impossible because those organizations fit together like oil and water. (Pardon the metaphor but I couldn’t resist.)

I’d also reject the notion that Sen. Klobuchar has stayed neutral, as this suggests:

Klobuchar has also avoided taking a position. She has said she wants to ensure a thorough environmental and scientific review to determine if the Line 3 project should move forward. Minnesota regulators signed off on the main environmental review last year, although an appeals court has ordered additional study on the potential impacts to the Lake Superior watershed. But she recently returned $5,600 in donations from an Enbridge project manager after a liberal watchdog group, the Public Accountability Initiative, revealed them.

Sen. Klobuchar knows that that’s BS. The Line 3 has already gone through the entire permitting process, including getting the approval from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. The only step left is for the lawsuits to get settled. Enbridge played by the rules laid out by the legislature and signed by the governor.

Jason Lewis put things beautifully when he announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate:

When Republican Jason Lewis launched his U.S. Senate campaign at the Minnesota State Fair, the former congressman said he would focus on greater Minnesota — the mostly rural part outside the Minneapolis-St. Paul area — to make up for Democratic strength in the cities. He highlighted the 8th Congressional District, which covers northeastern Minnesota and has swung from blue to red. Lewis said Trump’s campaign is “dead serious about Minnesota,” and that he expects it to follow the same strategy.

“Greater Minnesota is turning red, deep red. I don’t know how a Democrat’s going to win the 8th District promising to give pink slips to every trade union member on the Iron Range, promising to stop Enbridge, to stop copper mining, to stop logging, to stop people from having jobs on the Iron Range,” Lewis said.

The DFL is almost ceding rural Minnesota legislative districts while becoming more and more metrocentric. If the DFL continues siding with environmental activists and against the construction unions, they won’t win many elections in rural Minnesota. The truth is that the DFL isn’t interested in farmers or laborers, aka the F-L in DFL.

If President Trump highlights the differences between the DFL’s broken promises to farmers and laborers vs. President Trump’s promises made and promises kept on the issue of slapping tariffs on China to prevent steel dumping, he’ll make Minnesota competitive again.

Democrats love saying that budgets are moral documents. Democrats then say that budgets reflect our priorities. If that’s true, which I think it kinda is, then Tina Smith’s budget priorities are disgusting. As Minnesota’s junior senator, she’s opposed all projects that would’ve helped the people of northern Minnesota. That isn’t opinion. It’s fact. She’s fought the Line 3 Pipeline. She’s opposed the PolyMet and Twin Metals mining projects.

Just those projects alone would’ve had the opportunity to transform the Iron Range from a region with sky-high poverty rates and a virtually nonexistent middle class into a prospering region of the state. The median household income in Virginia, MN is $36,327, compared with the statewide average of $65,699. The percentage of people living below the Federal Poverty Level in Minnesota is 10.5%, compared with 24% living below the FPL in Virginia, MN.

While visiting southern Minnesota, Sen. Smith said “I think at the end of the day, I’m just thinking about what Minnesotans are thinking about, which is prescription drug costs being too high, how can they get the kind of amazing workforce training that they need to get great jobs like they can get here at Red Wing Shoes, and that’s where I’m going to stay focused as long as I can.”

If Smith was honest, which she isn’t, she’d admit that she’s thinking about what Minnesotans are thinking about as long as they aren’t living in rural Minnesota. That isn’t just true now that she’s a US senator. It was true in her time as Minnesota’s Lieutenant Governor. It was true when she was Gov. Dayton’s chief of staff.

Writing off a huge geographical part of the state, including the part that feeds the rest of the state, is disgusting. Still, that’s what Tina Smith is doing. That’s been a staple of her political life for years.

If Smith won’t pay attention to rural Minnesota, she should get fired next November. Tina Smith isn’t about doing the right thing for the entire state. Tina Smith and the DFL is only interested in doing what’s best for the metro DFL. That’s why the DFL has lost the farm vote and the laborer vote. When the Metro DFL unanimously opposes the Line 3 Pipeline, which provides the vast majority of jet fuel for Minneapolis International Airport, they’re saying that serving their special interest masters is more important than doing right by the biggest airport in Minnesota.

How foolish is that? Does that like the decision that a person who is “just thinking about what Minnesotans are thinking?” I’m betting that a significant majority of Minnesotans would disagree with Tina Smith and the Democrats on that issue.

It’s time to fire the DFL, Tina Smith included. The DFL’s priorities, like Tina Smith’s priorities, increasingly aren’t Minnesota’s priorities.

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.

I don’t have a problem with the SCTimes publishing this LTE. What I’ve got a problem with is the liberal stupidity in this LTE.

Liberal stupidity, aka DFL stupidity, is on full display when the author says the “problem with Jerry Relph and his Republican colleagues in the Minnesota Senate is that they completely ignore what income and wealth Minnesotans are creating and simply assume that none of us can afford to pay anything more in taxes.”

That’s BS. I wrote several articles over the weekend stating that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to raise taxes when there’s a surplus well in excess of $1,600,000,000 and there’s $2,523,000,000 in Minnesota’s Rainy Day Fund. Further, revenues are rapidly increasing. Further still, the DFL hasn’t lifted a finger to look into the money that fraudsters have ripped off out of the CCAP program or that the idiots at MnDOT have pissed away on rest stops.

While it is true that many Minnesotans have not had a real increase [inflation-adjusted] in wages in many years, there are some that are reaping huge rewards from our collective efforts.

Some blatantly argue “tax the rich.” I’m not saying that. I’m saying don’t assume that no one has made money from our state when some have made a lot. Look at who is making money and make them pay their fair share in light of what they are making. When Republicans like Jerry Relph refuse to make wealthier Minnesotans pay their fair share, it unfairly burdens everyone else.

Clearly, this idiot was taught economics by Bernie Sanders or one of his stooges. Ronald Reagan’s economy created tons of jobs, 22,000,000 to be precise. In Oct. of 1983, the economy created 1,100,000 jobs. Wage growth exploded. GDP that quarter jumped. President Reagan famously said that you can’t be pro-jobs if you have employers. The DFL hates employers.

The DFL hates employers by imposing high taxes and unreasonable levels of regulations while suing pipeline companies that play by the rules. No wonder wages are stagnant. No wonder why manufacturers have left Minnesota. What idiot would put his/her capital at risk with such policies in place? The guy who wrote this idiotic LTE should’ve watched this video first:

If he’d watched this video first, he might’ve prevented himself from making such a fool of himself. Then again, the odds of preventing DFL socialists from looking like DFL socialists are exceptionally high. DFL socialists are extraordinary economic illiterates.

After President Trump announced that he was declaring a national emergency, CNN and MSNBC went into full spin mode. Virtually immediately, we were told by pundits that most drugs came through ports of entry. Ditto with teenage girls that eventually get sold into child pornography, though they don’t talk much about that. The ‘pundit experts’ (I’m using that term very sarcastically) insist that the coyotes and cartels go through well-equipped ports of entry rather than through unprotected areas that aren’t fenced.

That’s insulting to our intelligence. Why should people think that these cartels and coyotes try smuggling drugs through well-protected ports of entry rather than through the porous parts of the border? Do these reporters think that the cartels want to get caught and their drugs confiscated?

These are the stories of some of the people whose lives have been forever changed by illegal aliens:

MaryAnn Mendoza tried meeting with Speaker Pelosi just a couple weeks ago. Pelosi’s staffer told Mrs. Mendoza that she wasn’t in the office. In fact, Ms. Pelosi consistently refuses to meet with Angel families. Suffice it to say that Ms. Pelosi is one of the coldest hearted bitches ever to serve in Congress. Even Jim Acosta met with Angel moms after yesterday’s presidential press conference:

The woman that Jim Acosta interviewed is Agnes Gibboney. I’ve interviewed her, too. She’s a legal immigrant who came here from Europe via South America. Acosta’s interview didn’t last long but at least he didn’t entirely avoid her like Ms. Pelosi always does.

What’s most aggravating is the fact that Ms. Pelosi totally ignores these Angel moms and that Democrats and their allies in the Agenda Media insist that there isn’t a crisis. (Yesterday, Ms. Pelosi called it a “challenge.”)

What I’m predicting is that President Trump will prevail. I’m basing that mostly off of this information:

It isn’t surprising that Gov. Tim Walz has caved to environmental activists. In fact, it’s entirely predictable.

Gov. Tim Walz says his administration will continue to appeal regulatory approval of the Enbridge Energy Line 3 pipeline project in northern Minnesota. State utility regulators last summer approved Enbridge Energy’s plans to build a new $2.6 billion pipeline to replace the aging and corroding Line 3. But, former Gov. Mark Dayton’s Department of Commerce appealed that decision. Walz on Tuesday said his administration will continue that effort.

Gee, I wonder what could’ve caused that cave. Perhaps this?

Last month, more than 50 people, including scientists from the liberal activist group Science for the People, gathered in the governor’s reception room to say the science is clear the Line 3 upgrade will aggravate climate change by facilitating further use of fossil fuels.

Gov. Walz is just as owned by the lefty environmentalists as Gov. Dayton was. No wonder our economy isn’t what it could be.

It’s pretty obvious that Ilhan Omar is a serious threat to national security. Last Friday, Rep. Omar called for completely defunding DHS:


Seriously? What type of idiot would suggest that? Perhaps the better question is ‘what type of anti-Semitic America-hating person would propose this’? Watch how Rep. Omar ran away from a CNN camera:

Ilhan Omar sits on the House Foreign Relations Committee, where she can spread her anti-Semitic policies. What the hell is Pelosi thinking? Is Pelosi intent on alienating Jews from Democrats?

Finally, Rep. Omar deserves to be officially criticized by the full House for her racist statements.

PS- Omar might be further out there than Maxine Waters. (I never thought I’d say that.)

The question that will determine next year’s House races is a simple one. Will Democrats finally stand up to Nancy Pelosi, especially on the border barrier? Throughout the campaign, we were told that Democrats had recruited a bunch of moderates to challenge Republicans. Thus far, we haven’t seen proof that they recruited moderates. Thus far, nobody has challenged Nancy Pelosi.

Thus far, Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn have voiced their opinions that they don’t object to funding President Trump’s wall. Thus far, they haven’t led a rebellion against Ms. Pelosi.

Byron York quotes a Republican this way:

“This is not a negotiation between Republicans and Democrats,” said one GOP lawmaker who is keeping close tabs on the process. “This is a negotiation between rank-and-file Democrats and Nancy Pelosi.”

Then there’s this:

“That is unmistakably true,” added a Republican who is taking part in the talks. “There are many reasonable voices within the Democratic conference who want to see a positive resolution here.” The speaker of the House’s “emboldened stance” — her decision to refuse to consider any funds for a border barrier — has been “very hurtful to the process,” the lawmaker added.

If so-called moderates won’t stand up to Ms. Pelosi, then they worthless.