You are currently browsing the archives for the Pelosi category.


Archive for the ‘Pelosi’ Category

The Democrats won’t retake the majority in the US House of Representatives. They won’t because Democrats have a Martha Plimpton problem. As usual, Salena Zito identified the problem in her latest column. The opening paragraph of Ms. Zito’s column says “A clip of Martha Plimpton’s exuberance over the ‘best’ abortion she ever had played out on the television overhead of a gas-station counter somewhere along U.S. Route 422 between Ohio and Pennsylvania.”

To the average person, that’s a little too cold-hearted sounding. That image is amplified in this article. The opening paragraphs say “The days of abortion advocates calling abortion “rare” and “unfortunate” are clearly over. So are the days of being able to claim, “No one is really pro-abortion. No one actually likes it.”
Enter self-proclaimed ‘Christian’ abortionist Willie Parker and actress Martha Plimpton. Sadly, these (and other) abortion advocates do openly celebrate the violence of killing a preborn child. Between movements like #ShoutYourAbortion and Planned Parenthood fighting for abortion like it’s saving someone’s life instead of taking it, abortion has become a symbol of pride for many. Actress Martha Plimpton, however, has taken the pride of having an abortion to an incredulous level.”

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton famously said that abortions “should be safe, legal and rare.” That Democratic Party doesn’t exist anymore. Tom Perez, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren killed that Democratic Party.

Ms. Zito’s column continues:

After saying Seattle was the home of some of her family, she went on to cheer what she did in her teens: “I also had my first abortion at the Seattle Planned Parenthood. Yay!” With equal exuberance, she also revealed that her Seattle abortion wasn’t her last.

Later, she writes:

“Democrats used to debate the legal right to have one, and that was a point of view that was shared by most voters,” said Michael Wear, a theologically conservative evangelical Christian and Democrat who served in Barack Obama’s faith outreach office in the White House. “I don’t understand why, 14 months before a midterm election, why would you push 20 percent of voters who would love to support Democrats out the door? Better yet, why would you speak of pro-life Democrats as though they were some extraterrestrial who just landed on earth?” he said.

It is rare that anyone who has had an abortion celebrates it — Plimpton seems to fail to understand few in this country do. Maybe the privileged class celebrates abortions? Even if they did, that won’t help the Democratic Party win back voters. Or is it the intellectual class that celebrates them? Even if they did, that doesn’t win back majorities either. Or maybe it’s the celebrity class that does? If so, there’s not enough of them to win back the House or Senate.

In short, this is not the message you want to win every down-ballot seat the party has let waste away under the thrust of identity politics.

When Republican strategists talk about San Francisco liberals or tie candidates directly to Nancy Pelosi, that’s the image they’re trying to plant. It’s the image of a heartless, machine-like woman. (Barbara Boxer fit that image, too.)

Between driving away Catholics with these pro-abortion fanatics and blue collar workers in the Midwest and Rust Belt with their love of environmental activists, Democrats have ceded America’s heartland. That’s why the Democratic Party is a bi-coastal, urban political party.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Though Democrats insist that DACA is constitutional, it’s been a long time since anyone took their statements seriously. When then-President Obama signed that EO, he did 2 things that won’t pass constitutional muster. First and most importantly, he temporarily exempted an entire demographic group of people from deportation. Then-President Obama’s EO didn’t permanently exempt DREAMers from prosecution or deportation. It just temporarily delayed action on DREAMers. Greg Jarrett’s article sheds an important light on DACA.

In his article, Jarrett writes “At the end of the 19th century, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that congress has ‘plenary power’ (meaning full and complete) to regulate immigration. Derived from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the doctrine is based on the concept that immigration is a question of national sovereignty, relating to a nation’s right to define its own borders and restrict entrance therein. As the high court observed, ‘Over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete.'”

Considering this information and considering the fact that there’s a well-known proposal that would protect DREAMers permanently, the question is whether Democrats will be reasonable. At this point, I’m betting that they’ll be unreasonable. I’m basing that opinion partially on this video:

Democrats are insisting that Republicans pass the DREAM Act immediately. If the Democrats’ demands aren’t met, Senate Minority Leader Schumer said that they’ll attach the DREAM Act to every bill that the Senate considers until it’s passed. I’d love to see Sen. McConnell tell Sen. Schumer that DREAMers will get protection the minute Democrats vote to fund President Trump’s wall and not a minute sooner.

This does 2 things to Democrats. First, it forces vulnerable Senate Democrats to vote against building the wall. For senators living on the coasts, that isn’t a big deal. For senators living in the Heartland, that’s a big deal. It’s a big deal because it’s a potentially a career-ending vote. Next, it forces Democrats to make a decision on whether being reasonable is more important than obeying the Democrats’ special interest allies. If Democrats vote with their special interest allies, they’ll identify themselves as defenders of The Swamp.

That’s a difficult position to defend going into an election year. Let’s remember that the people that vote in midterms are more conservative than those that vote in presidential elections. Senate Democrats are already running into strong headwinds because of the red states they’re defending seats in. Couple that with the fact that some liberal senators will be running in some fairly red states and you’ve got the definition of pressure. If Democrats side with La Raza, aka NCLR, instead of siding with the American people, they’ll pay a heavy price in November, 2018.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If anything was predictable, it’s that Democrats were certain to overreact to President Trump’s decision. This article provides a collection of the Democrats’ overreaction.

The biggest overreaction to President Trump’s DACA decision comes from Rep. Luis Gutierrez. The article said that “Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois lashed out at Kelly, the former head of the Homeland Security Department, on Tuesday. The lawmaker says Kelly has ‘no honor and should be drummed out of the White House along with the white supremacists and those enabling the president’s actions by ‘just following orders.’ Gutierrez says Kelly told members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus that the mass deportation of so-called ‘Dreamers’ would be prevented. The lawmaker says Kelly, a former Marine, is a ‘disgrace to the uniform he used to wear.'”

House Minority Leader Pelosi overreacted, too, saying “President Trump’s decision to end DACA should break the hearts and offend the morals of all who believe in justice and human dignity. This cruel act of political cowardice deals a stunning blow to the bright young DREAMers and to everyone who cherishes the American Dream. Strangely, the President has chosen to pardon someone who shares his anti-immigrant views, Sheriff Arpaio, who was convicted, while punishing young children who are innocent. Congress must move immediately to protect these courageous, patriotic DREAMers. House Republicans must join Democrats to pass legislation to safeguard our young DREAMers from the senseless cruelty of deportation and shield families from separation and heartbreak. Democrats will stand firm with DREAMers and redouble our efforts to protect our nation’s families from the Trump Administration’s mass deportation agenda.”

The truth is that DACA is all but officially finished. That’s because 12 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that then-President Obama didn’t have the authority to unilaterally essentially create new immigration law. These state AGs would win, too, because it’s a matter of whether the Constitution gives the authority to write and pass legislation to the executive branch or to the legislative branch. Students in civics class could answer that question with ease.

Rep. Gutierrez went Vesuvius upon hearing the announcement:

The question now is whether Democrats will work with Republicans on funding President Trump’s wall and make DACA the law of the land. If Democrats refuse to work with Republicans, we’ll know that they’re just in it for the Hispanic vote. It isn’t because Democrats care a whit about Hispanic families.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

According to this article, Democrats are rethinking their public support for Antifa. I’m still skeptical over whether these Democrats have rejected Antifa totally. The headline of the article says “Democrats’ alliance with Antifa crumbles; even Berkeley’s mayor denounces ‘street gang.'” The first Democrat who publically criticized Antifa was Nancy Pelosi.

In this post, I wrote “The Antifa riot happened on Sunday. Ms. Pelosi didn’t issue her statement until Tuesday afternoon. Clear-thinking, principled people with integrity don’t need 48 hours to know Antifa were a bunch of thugs who’d committed felonies.” I said then that I was skeptical of Ms. Pelosi, saying that “Democrats always do the right thing … when it’s the only option left.”

Democrats have shown who they are. The fact that they’re backing off their public support for Antifa doesn’t mean, IMO, that they won’t appreciate Antifa’s tactics. The next logical step for Antifa is to disappear, then re-emerge under a different name.

John Kass’s column was written before a Ms. Pelosi’s denunciation of Antifa. He raises lots of questions that still haven’t gotten answered. Democrats certainly haven’t denied his part of his column:

There has been no concerted media effort to pressure Democratic politicians to denounce Democratic muscle. So Democratic politicians have been relatively silent, as have many of their loyal pundits. A few pundits of the left have even compared the thugs with American soldiers hitting Omaha beach, a ridiculous attempt to legitimize the violence. This is all corrosive and dangerous. And in a loud political year, the silence of Democratic politicians explains so very much.

Because silence is consent.

Ms. Pelosi’s statement was required because Democrats were losing the PR fight with the American people. In this video, Antifa leadership admits that they were violent:

Violence isn’t just a tactic with Antifa. It’s who they are. It’s horrifying that Democrats think that they’ll be able to convince Antifa to be part of their coalition. One Democrat who has credibility on the issue of Antifa is retired Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. Here’s what he recently said:

Do not let the hard left, the radicals, represent the Democratic Party. There is an alt-left and we cannot deny it. The alt-left are radical people who want to deny us free speech, who want to close the campus to conversation, who want to stop people from having dialogue, who want to use violence … Antifa is not our friend. They will not help us win elections. … I do not want to give a pass to the hard radical left, which is destroying America, destroying American universities, destroying the Democratic Party.”

Professor Dershowitz has consistently fought for people’s civil rights. He’s spoken eloquently about academia and old-fashioned debate. Antifa’s picture of debate, according to the video available, is them beating people with whom they disagree with weaponized pieces of lumber.

Technorati: , , , ,

One of my pet peeves is watching people use euphemisms that don’t fit the situation. It isn’t a major thing, especially considering the crisis that’s striking southeast Texas. Still, it’s a point worth making. Repeatedly, I’ve heard Sen. Cruz and other public officials use the term ordinary people in describing acts of ‘committing’ incredible acts of heroism.

I’ll first say that this isn’t a criticism of Sen. Cruz. In many ways, the people committing acts of heroism have unassuming, low-key personalities. They don’t seek the spotlight but they gravitate towards helping people. Some people, though, are part of organizations that do incredible things. One of the organizations fitting that description is Samaritans Purse. This article highlights what they’re doing to help the people of southeast Texas.

According to the article, “One of our disaster relief units is already on the scene in Victoria, and volunteer teams have begun work. They are tarping damaged roofs, chainsawing fallen trees, and cleaning up storm debris. Faith Family Church, located at 2002 E. Mockingbird Lane, serves as our host church.”

Then there’s stories like this:

I’ve said it before but I’ll repeat it right here. There’s no other nation on earth that could do what we’re seeing happening in southeast Texas. Whether it’s Samaritans Purse sending truckloads of supplies or Bass Pro Shops contributing boats, life vests and high protein snacks for flood victims and first responders, people are doing incredible things. Whether it’s convention centers taking in literally thousands of people or Houston McDonalds telling first responders that they’re welcome to stop past any of their restaurants for a meal on the house, people are doing incredible things.

If I could wave a magic wand and make a wish come true, I’d wish that Washington, DC, would learn from this response from the ‘ordinary’ heroes working tirelessly side-by-side to provide the basics that families need. I’d love to see Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to tell the leaders of #Resistance to take a hike. I’d love to see the Tuesday Group and the Freedom Caucus to start providing solutions rather than fighting ideological battles, then not finding a solution.

That likely won’t happen but it’s worth putting pressure on politicians to think in terms of real solutions rather than just fighting 24/7.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Philip Wegmann’s article and tweet suggest that conservatives should throw a parade for Nancy Pelosi for her condemnation of Antifa.

With all due respect to Mr. Wegmann, I won’t entertain the thought of throwing Ms. Pelosi anything, much less a parade.

The Antifa riot happened on Sunday. Ms. Pelosi didn’t issue her statement until Tuesday afternoon. Clear-thinking, principled people with integrity didn’t need 48 hours to know Antifa were a bunch of thugs who’d committed felonies. They knew it the minute the saw the footage of Antifa rioters hitting protesters with sticks and dumping urine on peaceful protesters.

Wegmann insists that “anyone with even an eighth grade understanding of American Civics must be welcomed as an ally.” Again, I disagree. Ms. Pelosi didn’t issue that statement because she was upset with Antifa. She spoke out because the political pressure built to an unacceptable level.

If there’s anything I’ve learned, it’s that Democrats will always do the right thing … when it’s their only option left.

Let’s put this into perspective. According to this article, Ms. Pelosi supported the Occupy Wall Street ‘movement’, starting in October, 2011. OWS, as they were nicknamed then, were dirtbags, although, to be fair, they weren’t the violent monsters that Antifa is. They were disgusting people who committed rapes, etc., but they weren’t an organized terrorist organization committed to inflicting violence.

Why shouldn’t we tell Ms. Pelosi that she needs to show more integrity before we accept her statement of condemnation as sincere? The fact that it took her 2+ days indicates to me that this was a political statement. It wasn’t a statement of principle. Here’s what she said about OWS at the time:

Those aren’t the words of a person who thinks of Antifa as domestic terrorists.

According to this article, the Missouri state senator who advocated for President Trump’s assassination “has been stripped of her committee assignments” even after apologizing.

Sen. Chappelle-Nadal’s apology said “President Trump, I apologize to you and your family. I also apologize to all the people in Missouri. And I also apologize to my colleagues in the Missouri legislature for the mistake that I made.” Sen. Chappelle-Nadal made her apology while in “at the Wellspring Church in Ferguson, Missouri.”

Democrats have insisted since President Trump was inaugurated that he’s a racist. Democrats have also insisted that they’re the protectors of the First Amendment. Neither statement is true. Further, Sen. Chappelle-Nadal has shown herself to represent the worst in politics.

For years, Democrats have portrayed Republicans as racists. The more we highlight Democrats like Sen. Chappelle-Nadal, the more it’s painfully obvious that there’s lots of racists in the Democratic Party.

The tide might be turning, albeit grudgingly. After last weekend’s Antifa’s Berkeley riot, Nancy Pelosi criticized Antifa last night, saying “Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts. The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa [sic] in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.”

After the Charlottesville riot two weeks ago, Democrats, not to mention the MSM, were apoplectic because President Trump didn’t respond forcefully and quickly enough for their liking. It was a 5-day story. Ms. Pelosi sat silent on the Berkeley riots for several days. We didn’t see articles from pundits like Charles Blow or Eugene Robinson criticizing Ms. Pelosi’s silence.

Pelosi’s words ring hollow when viewed historically:

The House’s top Democrat had repeatedly slammed the National Park Service as “misguided” for allowing the rally, saying she had “grave concerns” about the “public safety hazard” NPS would create by “permitting a white supremacist rally” in the middle of Crissy Field in San Francisco.

Simply put, Ms. Pelosi criticized Antifa after the political pressure got high. I’d argue that her ‘apology’ is as phony as a $3 bill.

The evidence is mounting that the Democratic Party is returning to its racist roots. It’s important to remind people that the Democratic Party was the party that wrote the Jim Crow laws and filibustered the Civil Rights Act.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Nancy Pelosi wants to be speaker in the worst way. If she has to use political mercenaries to bully Republican congressmen and women and their families, she won’t hesitate in using that tactic. This article highlights how ruthless Pelosi’s Democrats are in pursuing their goal.

The article highlights Indivisible’s tactics, saying “The group says the guide is now used by ‘over 5,800 local groups’ and has at least two groups in every congressional district. The guide tells activists how to work as a team to hector a representative. It says after one activist asks a question at a town hall, ‘Other group members around the room should amplify by either booing the MoC [Member of Congress] or applauding you.'”

Further, these activists are taught to “go further and refuse to give up the microphone after their question. It gives them a script to follow: ‘If [Congressional staffers] object, then say politely but loudly: ‘I’m not finished. The MoC is dodging my question. Why are you trying to stop me from following up?'”

The goal isn’t to engage the congressman. The goal is to “‘record everything,’ the guide advises. ‘Unfavorable exchanges caught on video can be devastating for MoCs.'”

What these anarchist lefties haven’t figured out is that the nation rejected these tactics when they elected President Trump. They voted to blow up Washington’s system because they were sick of it. These idiots are playing right into Republicans’ hands. Indivisible hasn’t figured out that Trump’s supporters are extremely motivated to vote in the next midterm. Any tactic seen as an attempt to delegitimize President Trump or stop his agenda won’t be treated with kid gloves. Actions like this will strengthen Jason Lewis’ re-election bid:

This is clearly an Astroturf operation:

Indivisible bills itself as “grassroots,” but is funded mostly by wealthy foundations and anonymous donors who give through a complex web of left-wing groups, making it hard to identify donors.

On its website, Indivisible advises potential donors that they can make a “large gift” tax deductible if they go through an intermediary group called the Tides Foundation. The foundation funnels more than $100 million a year to left-wing advocacy groups; liberal billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations is one of many groups that gives money to projects through the Tides Foundation, though there is no evidence his group supports Indivisible in particular.

Whether it’s Indivisible or another organization with a different name, the objective is the same: harass, then defeat Republican members of Congress. It’s clear that they’ll be as ruthless as they need to be.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

It isn’t surprising that high-profile Democrats criticized of President Trump’s speech on Afghanistan. For instance, Pelosi said “Tonight, the President said he knew what he was getting into and had a plan to go forward. Clearly, he did not. The President’s announcement is low on details but raises serious questions.”

The theme of details was clearly a chief talking point for Democrats. Rep. Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat and Marine Corps veteran, said “Tonight, the American people should have heard a detailed, realistic strategy with achievable objectives and measurable benchmarks. Instead, we got only vague promises and wishful thinking.”

Actually, that’s fiction. President Trump said that his administration was shifting away from an artificial timeline-based strategy to a conditions-based strategy. That alone is a major detail shift. Further, President Trump authorized his generals to make decisions in the field without having to get his approval prior to taking action. That’s another major detail and a major shift away from the Obama administration’s policy. John McCain highlighted that in his statement after the speech:

“I believe the President is now moving us well beyond the prior administration’s failed strategy of merely postponing defeat.”

Those are major details accompanied by a substantial shift in how the military will fight this war. Another major difference the Trump Doctrine and the Obama doctrine is that Trump is fighting to win. President Obama never left the impression that winning was a major consideration. Rich Lowry’s article highlights things perfectly:

Pressure on Pakistan is a major element of the new strategy. We’ll see what comes of that. It seems to me that pressuring Pakistan to be more responsible in Afghanistan is the equivalent of pressuring China to force North Korea to be more responsible: Every administration wants to find a way to do it, but no one ever does. The warm words about India surely got the attention of Islamabad, though.

At the end of the day, this is Trump concluding that he doesn’t want to lose a war on his watch, and if that means jettisoning some of his presuppositions, he’s willing to do it. If only President Obama had handled the question of whether or not to pull out of Iraq the same way.

NRO’s Quin Hillyer highlighted another important detail in his article :

And, of utmost importance, Trump is putting less strictures on our rules of engagement, so our forces in the region and on the ground can react more swiftly and more appropriately to both threats and opportunities.

Simply put, this is additional proof that Democrats feel the need to disagree with President Trump no matter what he proposed. If Democrats don’t switch out of criticize-Trump-all-the-time mode, they’ll never be taken seriously. Democrats will be seen as the party that’s only capable of criticizing President Trump.

The media isn’t helping Democrats even though they’re singing from the same hymnal:

CNN’s Athena Jones said “It was a long-awaited new strategy delivered in a speech that was long on broad themes but that was short on specifics.” Later, Ms. Jones said “He didn’t lay out details on troop levels and he didn’t explain how this new strategy, which borrows heavily from other ones, would help insure a victory, which has eluded this country for 16 years.”

This is what happens when you hire news readers instead of hiring experts who know what they’re talking about. Changing the rules of engagement, aka ROE, so that soldiers can take the fight to the terrorists, is a giant step in the right direction to winning, not just fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.

Finally, I’d love hearing Ms. Jones highlight what parts of President Trump’s new strategy “borrows heavily from” other’s strategies. Ms. Jones’ segment is more myth than reporting.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

According to Peter Doocy’s article, Democrats are targeting 80 Republican districts. Doocy wrote “It’s ambitious, to say the least. Right now, national Democratic organizers believe that battlefield encompasses an eye-popping 80 districts across America – even though they’ve lost all four of this year’s special election contests for seats held by Republicans.”

I’m a bit skeptical of those figures. Last year, Nancy Pelosi predicted “they’d take the House back” and “win 30 seats.” I said it then and I’ll repeat it now — that’s a partisan pipe dream. Republicans will grow their majority in 2018. They won’t lose their majority.

Caleb Burns is an election law attorney. He’s quoted as saying “Big data has been harnessed to draw these maps with real precision, on a block-by-block, house-by-house basis. We’ve seen over the last eight years, the number of competitive districts go from about a hundred to about two dozen.” The article then says “this means the list of realistic pickups for Democrats remains short.”

The thing to pay attention to isn’t the number of seats the Democrats target at the start of the campaign. Each year, Democrats start with high hopes and wild predictions. Each cycle, Democrats limp away with their confidence shattered and their credibility in tatters.

Until they moderate their policies and tell the environmentalist wing of the Democratic Party to get real, Democrats will have difficulty winning legislative, House and Senate races. It’s that simple.

This isn’t about redistricting or gerrymandering. It’s about people perceiving Democrats as not being willing to listen to them. President Trump won Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan as much because the people in those states trusted then-Candidate Trump when he told them he’d bring their coal mining and their steel jobs back. That’s a place where the Environmental Left won’t let the Democratic Party go.

Technorati: , , , ,