Archive for the ‘DNC’ Category

CNN’s Chris Cillizza is a professional spinmeister. He isn’t particularly honest but he’s definitely a spinmeister. In this morning’s article, Cillizza wrote about Joe Biden’s confrontation with a construction worker in a Detroit factory over gun rights.

Jerry Wayne, the worker in question, confronted Biden about wanting to take away the Second Amendment:

Here’s what Cillizza wrote:

A video recently circulated by conservative outlets falsely suggested Biden supports widespread confiscation of guns, according to FactCheck.org.

That’s interesting. I pay lots of attention to gun rights groups and I’ve yet to hear any of the major organizations accuse Moms Demand Action or other gun grabber groups of wanting for a “widespread confiscation of guns.” These groups have said MDA and other Bloomberg organizations want to confiscate “assault weapons.” That’s entirely different than a widespread confiscation of firearms. If FactCheck wants to check information, it has the obligation to at least use facts. Misrepresentations aren’t welcome.

There’s a part of the confrontation that isn’t getting enough scrutiny. When Mr. Wayne said “You’re working for me”, VP Biden replies “I’m not working for you. Give me a break, man. Don’t be such a horse’s a**.” That’s rather telling. Who does Biden think he’s working for? Credit card companies? The DNC? Nancy Pelosi or AOC?

That’s a gaffe in the DC sense of a gaffe. A generation ago, Michael Kinsley said that the definition of a gaffe is when a politician “accidentally told the truth.” Biden isn’t interested in working for the people. There isn’t a credible poll that shows a majority of people to favor the confiscation of entire groups of firearms. That poll doesn’t exist. Period. Full stop.

Mr. ‘Man of the People’ Biden just revealed that he isn’t interested in working for blue collar America. That’s been verified before. Specifically, it happened in this debate:

Joe Biden has said that he’d put Robert Francis O’Rourke in charge of eliminating guns. He told Anderson Cooper that he’s coming for everyone’s assault weapons. He’s willing to kill the fossil fuel industry to supposedly save the planet. That isn’t a man of the people. That isn’t a man who’s earned the title Blue Collar Joe. That’s someone who hung around too long in the DC Swamp.

Blue Collar Joe fights with factory workers and wants to get rid of mining jobs. That doesn’t sound like a regular guy to me.

H/T to Powerline’s Scott Johnson for highlighting this:


This must stop. Biden’s family must intervene ASAP. Constantly forgetting people’s names, especially your boss’s, brings into question whether Biden is still competent. At this point, I’m not certain he is.

It’s cruel to let a man that’s clearly having difficulties make a fool of himself while the whole world is watching. The DNC doesn’t care, though. Tom Perez hasn’t stopped at anything to prevent Bernie from being the Democrats’ nominee. Perez hasn’t hidden the fact that he’ll change the rules to prevent Tulsi Gabbard from participating in debates. But I digress.

It’s painfully obvious that Biden’s mind isn’t right. These aren’t like his previous gaffes, either, like when he told President Obama it was a big effing deal about Obamacare. That’s just a foul-mouthed old fart acting like a wise-ass. This isn’t like Biden talking about going to 7-11 stores without “a slight Indian accent”:

Nothing in those situations suggests that he’s lost command of his memories. The videos at the top of this post raise questions whether Biden’s mind is right enough to be the leader of the free world. Frankly, I’m not certain, at this point, he’s capable of running a neighborhood lemonade stand.

Tom Perez is likely a better DNC Chairman than Keith Ellison would’ve been. That doesn’t mean he hasn’t been terrible. Thus far, Perez has been terrible at fundraising, corrupt at following the rules for the Democrats’ debates. For Democrat troublemakers like Tulsi Gabbard and Corey Booker, the rules are etched in stone. They can’t be changed. Period. For Democrat saviors like Mike Bloomberg, the debate rules are written in quicksand. They’re as meaningful as President Obama’s red lines in Syria.

MSDNC’s Ari Melber, perhaps the only anchor at that network with a spine, didn’t hesitate in criticizing the DNC:

After pointing out Perez’s explanation of the donor rule last year, which was to empower “grassroots” movements for more unknown candidates, and his defense of the debate rules after they were criticized by former 2020 candidate Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J, Melber asked his viewers if it’s “fair” for the DNC to change the rules “in the middle of the game.”

“No,” Melber answered the question. “It’s not fair to change the rules in the middle. That would be true if it was the government changing the voting laws in the middle or either political party or any political party in the middle of a primary. And I think that’s obvious from a position of fairness.”

This isn’t surprising. Few Democrats have the character required to be people of integrity. People my age remember J.C. Watts’ definition of character from the 1996 Republican National Convention from San Diego. That’s when he said that “Character is doing the right thing even when no one is watching.”

Tom Perez falls far short of that definition. He hasn’t done the right thing even when the whole world is watching. This is what happens when a political party wants the voters but doesn’t want those voters’ agenda. It’s obvious that the DNC wants Bernie’s voters but they don’t want Bernie’s socialist agenda, at least not in the in-your-face way that Bernie preaches to his choir. They don’t have a problem with his agenda once the election is over. They just don’t want to admit it in public before the election.

If Tom Perez thinks that Bloomberg is the DNC’s savior, he’s a blithering idiot. I’m betting that Perez giving special privileges to Bloomberg will motivate Bernie’s voters in ways that Bernie alone couldn’t do. The only transparency left within the DNC is the transparency being shown that they’re frightened of Bernie being at the top of their ticket.

This isn’t the way to build a party. It’s the way to piss off tons of potential voters. The thing that Democrats need to learn is that this isn’t a nation in need of radical transformation. It’s a nation in need of people of integrity. I won’t insult people by saying that Republicans are a bottomless pit of integrity. I’ll say that there’s more people of integrity in the GOP than there are in the Democratic Party by far. The other thing that President Trump is teaching the GOP is that he’s teaching them how to make rallies fun again. He’s teaching the GOP how to make rallies productive again, too.

The article finishes strongly:

Melber then posed the same fairness question to Perez and pointed out the chairman’s conflicting stances on the debate rules. “We are living through a time when our democracy is being tested. No party is immune from scrutiny and vetting for fairness. And as for Democratic Party Chairman Perez, the question is simple: Is it fair and transparent to change the rules midstream? No. Just ask Tom Perez,” Melber concluded before playing a clip of the chairman in January saying, “We made the rules, they were very transparent, they’re very inclusive, and we can’t change the rules midstream because there’s a candidate I wish were on but didn’t make the debate stage.”

After reading this statement, I’d argue that it’s time for Republicans to go on the offensive against the Democrats’ corruption. Specifically, it’s time Senate Republicans exposed just how corrupt the Obama administration was.

The key part of the statement said “According to Andrii Telizhenko, a political officer in the Ukraine Embassy in Washington, D.C. who participated in a January 2016 meeting, ‘U.S. officials volunteered … that they had an interest in reviving a closed investigation into payments to U.S. figures from Ukraine’s Russia-backed Party of Regions,’ which refers to the investigation that involved Paul Manafort.” It doesn’t stop there. Here’s what it says when it continues:

“During that same meeting, U.S. officials also reportedly brought up investigations relating to Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian gas company that had hired then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, to serve as a board member. According to Telizhenko, ‘U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the FBI to take it over.”

Doesn’t that sound like “U.S. officials” saying that they planned on making the Burisma-Biden scandal disappear? What better way to make it disappear than to give it to Jim Comey’s FBI? Why did “U.S. officials” want to restart the Manafort investigation, too? Schiff said that the Ukraine election interference story had been debunked. With official WH records showing these meetings happened, that takes this from being a conspiracy theory to being investigation-worthy.

This isn’t surprising. Democrats, starting with Schiff, have said that the Biden fiasco has been debunked. They’ve never said who debunked the story or who conducted the investigation that exonerated Hunter. This will give the Democrats some indigestion:

According to Telizhenko:

[Chalupa] said the DNC wanted to collect evidence that Trump, his organization and Manafort were Russian assets, working to hurt the U.S. and working with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin against the U.S. interests. She indicated if we could find the evidence they would introduce it in Congress in September and try to build a case that Trump should be removed from the ballot, from the election.

Democrats pretend to care about Russian interference in our elections. Democrats did this while they cultivated foreign contacts with the goal of getting President Trump kicked off the ballot. Apparently, Democrats don’t want the American people to decide who their president is. Apparently, Democrats are happy to spread propaganda on hide the truth about their corrupt intentions with Ukraine through Ms. Chalupa.

This weekend, John Bolton teamed with Sen. Schumer by saying that President Trump “told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens.”

This isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. The overwhelming evidence disproves Ambassador Bolton’s accusation. First, the transcript shows that aid wasn’t discussed during the call. Next, President Trump and President Zelenskiy talked about investigating Hunter Biden. Third, Lt. Col. Vindman testified that the transcript of the July 25th phone call was “essentially accurate.” Fourth, Ambassador Sondland admitted under cross-examination from Rep. Mike Turner that he just presumed that there was a quid pro quo:

It’s understandable that Ambassador Bolton would make this statement. He wants to sell lots of books. Selling out President Trump is a great way of generating that interest. It’s understandable why Sen. Schumer believes, at least publicly, that Bolton is telling the truth. He wants to force the calling of witnesses.

Mostly, Sen. Schumer wants to force some Republican senators into a difficult vote. He wants to pressure them as much as possible because he wants to be the majority leader. Also, he wants to keep 3 of his senators — Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren — off the campaign trail, especially Sanders. If people can’t see that the DNC is trying to rig the election against Sen. Sanders, then they’re blind as a bat.

The NYTimes article reads mostly like a gossip column, which is what Bolton’s book is likely to be. That isn’t unique to Mr. Bolton. Books written by DC insiders frequently are about gossip. It’s usually portrayed as giving readers an inside look into an administration.

Sen. Schumer knows that the transcript is the most accurate information on what President Trump’s policies were. Multiple people on the call said it’s accurate. Nowhere did President Trump connect lethal military supplies with investigations. Ambassador Sondland verified that there wasn’t a connection. At what point does this information reach a tipping point?

At what point should common sense and verified proof overtake gossip? At what point should we tell Mr. Bolton to leave the stage and tell him he should peddle his gossip elsewhere?

UPDATE: President Trump has weighed in on the Bolton manuscript:

Democrats know that winning the White House in 2020 is difficult if they get swept in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. At this point in the campaign, Ohio is pretty much out of the Democrats’ reach so let’s scratch that state off the battleground list. Pennsylvania is still definitely a toss-up state, which brings us to Florida.

Andrew Gillum, the Democrats’ gubernatorial candidate, “has played a vocal role in registering voters in Florida through 2019.” Despite that high-profile help in registering voters, “state data shows Republicans in the swing state are far outpacing Democrats when it comes to the raw number of registered voters. Between January and September 2019, the latest month for which data is available, Republicans registered a net 23,084 new voters in the state, compared to 10,731 Democrats, according to the Florida Division of Elections.”

Though those are impressive statistics important to Florida, this is important nationwide:


When Democrats argue, as they did at last week’s debate, that the Trump-GOP economy helps only the 1%, this refutes the Democrats’ lies. Listening to this BS is difficult:

President Trump isn’t just rallying his base. He’s growing that base through one great policy after another. Policies that are lifting African-Americans out of poverty will extend President Trump’s base. The people benefiting from President Trump’s policies know that the stuff Biden is peddling is BS. Without a coherent economic message, the Democrats are sunk, in Florida and elsewhere.

Democrats will undoubtedly spend lots of money trying to win Florida. That’s a losing strategy because of this:


The DNC literally can’t afford to get into a spending fight with the RNC. That’s a losing fight if ever there was one. At this point, the Trump-RNC campaign is hitting on all cylinders. Here’s proof:


Adding 600,000 new small dollar donors equals 600,000 additional GOP voters. Whatever genius thought it smart to impeach President Trump is likely looking for a new job right now. That wasn’t the brightest decision in presidential campaign history.

The Democrats were already fighting an uphill fight to unseat President Trump. That’s thanks to the power of incumbency and a great economy. With Democrats moving even further left and with them impeaching President Trump with just hearsay testimony, Democrats just made that steep hill a little more difficult to climb.

Last week, the Democrats, both those running for president and those activists in the MSM, repeatedly talked about the looming recession. At last night’s third Democrat presidential debate, hardly a word was said about the economy. Chief Washington Examiner Politics Correspondent Byron York notice that the subject of the economy didn’t make an appearance at the Democrats’ third presidential debate. Amazingly, ABC moderators didn’t ask a single question about the economy, either.

How can you have a 3-hour-long debate and not talk about the topic that most people want to talk about? That’s journalistic malpractice. In his article, York wrote “at the Democratic Party’s first one-night presidential debate, the first opportunity to showcase the party’s ten leading candidates, what role did the nation’s widespread economic anxieties play? Almost none. The candidates simply didn’t talk about it. (Nor did the ABC News moderators ask.) The word “recession” was uttered just once in the entire debate. (By Julian Castro, who noted the poll’s finding of recession fears.) Nor was the word “unemployment” ever spoken. Nor was there a discussion of job creation. Nor was there much of a discussion of wages.”

It’s almost as if ABC got the word from their boss (in this instance, DNC Chair Tom Perez) to not talk about the subject. I’m not accusing Chairman Perez of that. I’m merely stating that it’s as if Perez did that. It isn’t like Clintonista George Stephanopoulos was ever accused of rigging a debate by his former bosses. Oh wait. He has:

BRZEZINSKI:Jonathan Capehart, help me understand, tell me if I’m going down the wrong path here. It appears the Clinton campaign wants to do either a debate that no one will see, or a debate with a moderator that might not be completely fair towards Bernie Sanders. What do you think of the concept of a GMA debate with George Stephanopoulos.

Democrats understand that it’s virtually impossible to convince people that are spending extra money at Walmart because their take-home pay has increased thanks to the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act and because pay has increased by 3% over the past year. It’s easier to talk about ‘Democrat’ issues like health care and gun confiscation. DNC Chairman Tom Perez, in an attempt to spin what happened, said that health care is an economic issue:

Sorry, Tom, but creating jobs, tax policy, regulatory policy and rebuilding communities through a solid, comprehensive economic package qualifies as a discussion on the economy.

Keith Ellison isn’t hiding the fact that he won’t uphold laws he doesn’t like. That’s what he’s saying in this video:

Ellison said “If the state legislature passes laws that don’t make sense, but are constitutional, then I’m going to have to cross that bridge when I get to it.” That statement is what I’d expect from a narcissist who thinks he’s the ultimate decider of which laws get enforced and which once won’t. Ellison isn’t arguing for the principle of prosecutorial discretion. He didn’t mention a lack of resources.

Specifically, Ellison talked about laws “that don’t make sense” but that are constitutional. Who gives him the authority to determine which laws makes sense? I’m certain that Minnesota’s Constitution doesn’t. What are Ellison’s criteria for judging which laws make sense?

Apparently, being Minnesota’s chief law enforcement officer doesn’t interest Ellison, either:

Apparently, Ellison thinks that the Minnesota Attorney General’s office should be used to thwart President Trump’s agenda or advance the Democrats’ agenda. What else did he mean when he said “Some of my opponents have been trying to argue that I’m going to sort of leave the federal Congress to come back to Minnesota to try to use the state Attorney General’s Office as some sort of political platform. And the truth is I do plan on doing some national litigation.”

If Democrats want to sue President Trump, then let them raise the money and open their own law firm. Minnesota’s taxpayers shouldn’t pay the price for Keith Ellison’s or the Democrats’ activism.

The choice couldn’t be clearer. A vote for Keith Ellison is a vote for advancing the Democrats’ agenda of obstructing President Trump by any means necessary. A vote for Doug Wardlow is a vote to restore law and order in Minnesota.

After reading Doug Wardlow’s op-ed, which was published by the Duluth News Tribune, it’s becoming crystal clear that Doug Wardlow would make an outstanding attorney general. It’s equally clear that Keith Ellison isn’t interested in protecting Minnesotans.

In his op-ed, Wardlow highlights his priorities, saying “Meanwhile, even though the attorney general is Minnesota’s chief law enforcement officer, the criminal law division within the office has been ignored and downsized. But Minnesota has statewide problems that need to be tackled, like the terrible sex trafficking that occurs in our state and the opioid epidemic.”

Mike Hatch and Lori Swanson loved paying attention to high profile lawsuits but they didn’t do a good job with crime. It’s apparent that stopping crime and beefing up the criminal division within the OAG will be Wardlow’s highest priority.

Playing politics means fewer resources for law and order and has disastrous results. For example, we know the number of children being trafficked is astronomically high. According to a study, each month in Minnesota, hundreds of children, usually young girls, are trafficked multiple times a day. But the arrests of the human-traffickers behind this great evil are far too low, and the number of convictions of these criminals is even lower.

That’s because county attorneys, on the front lines with local law enforcement, are starved of resources. When it comes to statewide criminal enterprises, our county attorneys need coordination, assistance, and leadership from the state attorney general. That’s why, on day one, I will start rebuilding the office’s criminal law division.

Let’s stop this horrific crime against young girls. It’s long past time to permanently shut this type of crime down.

That won’t be a priority with Keith Ellison. Ellison’s already promised to file lawsuit after lawsuit against President Trump. Stopping sex trafficking isn’t on Ellison’s list of priorities.

It’s time to elect an AG whose priorities include stopping sex trafficking and opioid abuse.

Further, it’s time to reject a politician who can’t control himself:

Saying that Keith Ellison’s brain isn’t wired like real people is understatement. This article quotes Keith Ellison saying some of the wackiest things about borders imaginable.

In an interview with progressive activist Rabbi Michael Lerner, Ellison said “prosperity is based on the want that is experienced in other parts of the world” and complained that “people, regular people, cannot go back and forth across the border seeking out the highest wages. We just have to say that the 12 million undocumented people in the United States are here because somebody wants them to be. But they want them here to do the work, but they don’t want them to get any rights. They don’t want to pay them fairly. They don’t want them to be able to bargain collectively. They don’t want them to be able to get occupational safety and standards. And that is what’s really going on.”

This isn’t some nobody saying this. This is the Deputy Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He’s also running to become the next State Attorney General for Minnesota. The frightening thing is that his views on open borders aren’t out-of-step with large swaths of the Democratic Party. Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted on a resolution “supporting the officers and personnel who carry out the important mission of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” 133 Democrats, including Keith Ellison, voted against the resolution by voting present. What a bunch of cowards. If these Democrats think that we shouldn’t enforce our borders, and they don’t, they should just be honest.

“And these trade agreements, you know, they allow capital to travel other borders, and all capital is, is people who happen to own something we call a corporation, which is a legal arrangement which gives them special rights. And labor, which is a regular person, cannot travel back and forth across the border,” he continued. “And so corporations, certain people who get certain rights, can go back and forth across the border seeking out the lowest wages, but people, regular people, cannot go back and forth across the border seeking out the highest wages. So what it creates is an imbalance. It creates an injustice.”

The key that Ellison missed is that there’s a procedure that corporations follow to conform with the laws of the different nations. If the corporations got caught not following the rules, they’d get fined. Similarly, illegal aliens are subject to fines or deportations when they attempt to enter the U.S. without obeying the rules.

This is likely a foreign concept to Ellison but imposing penalties of fines, prison time or deportation is standard procedure for nations. This picture is worth … something:

Bernie claims that his socialist ideas are now mainstream. That’s BS, though they’ve certainly gained in popularity within the Democratic Party. Open borders have gained in popularity, too, within the Democratic Party but that doesn’t mean that they’re mainstream with voters.