Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Hillary category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Hillary’ Category

Anyone who’s watched Amy Walters on Special Report’s All-Star Panel knows that she’s a lefty. Wednesday night, Walters’ leftism came out in a surprising way. The topic of discussion was President Trump’s ‘secret’ second meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. CNN’s and MSNBC’s hosts were scandalized by Trump’s and Putin’s second meeting. While she didn’t show it, Ms. Walters said that any meeting between Trump and Putin wouldn’t go well for Trump because Russia interfered in our election.

By admitting that, Ms. Walters essentially said that this event wouldn’t be judged fairly because the media is pushing a hateful, anti-Trump narrative. Apparently, Ms. Walters either doesn’t notice that she isn’t impartial or she’s admitting that she isn’t interested in being impartial. Personally, I’m betting on the latter. She’s already admitted that the MSM’s narrative isn’t fair. Next, Ms. Walters essentially says that the MSM’s partiality is something that the GOP will just have to deal with.

In 2004, Evan Thomas infamously said “There’s one other base here, the media. Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win and I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox. They’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there’s going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.”

Since then, the MSM, aka the Agenda Media, has gotten more anti-Republican each election cycle. After talkin about how unfair media coverage is on Trump/Russia, Ms. Walters compared Trump/Russia with FNC’s coverage of Hillary/Benghazi as though they were equal. Seriously?

With Trump/Russia, there’s speculation that Trump colluded with Putin in rigging the election. With Hillary/Benghazi, there’s indisputable proof that Hillary’s decisions got the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three others killed. Thanks to Hillary’s congressional testimony, we also have proof that she lied about a video causing the attack:

Ms. Walters’ comparison isn’t just intellectually dishonest. It’s incoherent.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

This article makes me question whether Democrats are dividing themselves into self-destructing camps. According to the article, “The rancor, a spillover from the contentious Democratic presidential primary last year, is aggravating divisions in a state regarded nationally as a lodestar for the liberal cause. Establishment Democrats fear the rhetoric and appetite for new spending could go too far, jeopardizing the party’s across-the-board dominance of state politics.”

That’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. According to the article, “when Rendon announced that he would not allow a single-payer health care bill to advance through California’s lower house, tempers boiled over.
The California Nurses Association and other single-payer advocates descended on the Capitol, waving signs with Rendon’s name printed on a knife buried in the back of the California bear. Sanders himself admonished Rendon, and the nurses union said it planned to air radio ads targeting the Democratic speaker.”

The fight didn’t stop there:

“Corporate Dems: Don’t underestimate grassroots taking action on #SinglePayer,” RoseAnn DeMoro, head of the nurses union, said on Twitter.

This video highlights how heated the fight between Berniecrats and moderates has become:

RoseAnn DeMoro, the president of the California Nurses’ Union, tweeted out this picture of Speaker Anthony Rendon:

Anyone that’s paid attention to the news this past month and doesn’t think that the left is capable of unspeakable violence isn’t thinking things through. There’s a significant division between the establishment and the Resistance.

Paul Song, a California physician and former chairman of the progressive Courage Campaign, said of establishment Democrats, “Whether it be single payer, whether it be [campaign finance] … whether it be now moving forward on environmental issues, I think it’s a much more energized, aggressive base that I don’t think they’ve ever faced before.”

The thing that this article didn’t talk much about, though, was whether Democrats would descend into intraparty violence. I’m not ruling it out. The MoveOn activists hate the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) activists.

There’s no reason to think that this fight will end anytime soon. Think of the MoveOn activists as representing Obama and the DLC representing the Clintons. There’s clearly no love lost between those dynasties.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

This article adds additional insight into dramatically raising the minimum wage. One of the eye-popping statistics found in this article is that “Last year, New York passed legislation that will raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2018 for almost all businesses in the Big Apple. Schnipper’s Quality Kitchen, a New York burger chain, is already making tough cuts to compensate for this added expense, as The Post reported last week. As Schnipper’s labor costs increase, the burger joint has reduced its workforce by 10 percent. It’s also cut hours for its existing staff and increased prices on the menu.”

This isn’t surprising. It’s predictable. What’s disappointing is that the activists that “promised our poorest workers a living wage. But early evidence suggests that, however well-intentioned, the movement has actually resulted in lower wages and less opportunity.”

That isn’t all. The article also cites the fact that “the minimum wage rose to $12 in New York City for fast-food workers. Since then, job growth has been a sleepy 2 percent, the Employment Policies Institute reported this month.”

The fact that dramatic minimum wage increases are a significant part of the Democrats’ economic plan (especially Bernie Sanders’, Elizabeth Warren’s and Hillary’s plans) should frighten voters. Usually, it’s talked about under the heading of income inequality, which is another way of saying stagnant economic growth. The visceral hatred towards employers in Bernie Sanders’ and Elizabeth Warren’s message is the opposite of Ronald Reagan’s economic message.

Reagan rightly said that you can’t love jobs and hate the employers. Dramatically increasing the minimum wage is the equivalent of hating employers. Those facts are indisputable.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

This article, written by Slate’s Leon Neyfakh, apparently shows that Mr. Neyfakh can’t entertain alternate theories.

In the article, Neyfakh insists that Jeff Sessions is lying because he said that the reason why he recommended Jim Comey’s firing was because he was “disgusted by Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.” Neyfakh insists that that’s a lie because President Trump said his reason for firing Mr. Comey was because “When I decided to just do it,” Trump told Holt, “I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story—it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’”

Apparently, it hasn’t dawned on Mr. Neyfakh that both statements could be true. I know with certainty that it’s possible that Jeff Sessions wanted to terminate Jim Comey because he mishandled the HRC email investigation, aka HRC “matter.” I’m equally certain that President Trump might’ve terminated Mr. Comey over the fake Russia scandal.

Later, Neyfakh wrote this:

He also said Comey had overstepped his authority as FBI director when he asserted that “no reasonable prosecutor” would pursue charges against her based on the evidence available. “It was a stunning development … a thunderous thing,” Sessions said, by way of explaining why he “had come to the conclusion that a fresh start was appropriate.”

Sessions is right. Comey overstepped his authority by making decisions traditionally left to the AG. That offense alone is grounds for immediate termination.

Yesterday, Sen. Wyden challenged Gen. Sessions. That was a mistake:

Suffice it to say that Sen. Wyden didn’t win that exchange.

Especially when it comes to health care, Democrats can’t help but wildly distort the truth. First, the basics: the CBO scoring of the House bill says that approximately 22,000,000-24,000,000 fewer people will have health care if the American Health Care Act is signed into law.

Simply put, that’s BS.

According to the Democrats, the people most affected by the AHCA will be people with pre-existing conditions and the elderly. Again, that’s an outright lie. The elderly won’t lose coverage if the AHCA is signed into law because Medicare is still the law of the land. People with pre-existing conditions won’t lose coverage because of high risk pools.

Minnesota had a high risk pool prior to the ACA. In 2007, the Kaiser Health Foundation reported that 92.8% of Minnesotans were insured. With nearly everyone insured, it isn’t a stretch to think that the majority of seniors and the majority of people with pre-existing conditions were insured. In fact, it’s a pretty safe assumption that high percentages of those demographics were covered.

In short, whenever people hear Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton complain that millions of people will get thrown off of their health insurance, let’s remember that these are the same people that said that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”

Those of us who are old enough will remember this everlasting moment:

Whichever memory you choose, the results are the same. The Democrats’ primary tactic is to fabricate answers in the hopes of frightening people. It’s always been that way.

Technorati: , , , , ,, , , ,

Apparently, Brian Fallon didn’t get beat up enough during the election when his candidate, Hillary Clinton, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. After defending the worst presidential candidate in recent history, Fallon has decided that he’d like to match constitutional wits with Alan Dershowitz. Fallon wrote this op-ed to spin the Democrats’ BS that President Trump’s firing of an insubordinate acting AG was scandalous.

Fallon’s lightweight arguments aren’t persuasive. In the op-ed, Fallon said “It is an entirely appropriate exercise of the attorney general’s authority to determine whether, and how, to defend a president’s executive orders in the face of legal challenge. In this case, while Trump’s executive order may avoid explicit mention of banning Muslims or assigning preference to Christian refugees, the order will certainly have that discriminatory effect.”

Meanwhile, Prof. Dershowitz wrote that “Sally Yates is neither a hero, nor a villain. She made an honest mistake when she instructed the entire Justice Department not to defend President Trump’s wrong-headed executive order on immigration. The reasons she gave in her letter referred to matters beyond the scope of the attorney general. She criticized the order on policy grounds and said that it was not ‘right.'”

Firing Sally Yates wasn’t just proper. It was essential. She disagreed with President Trump’s policy. Prof. Dershowitz said that that’s wrong:

There are significant differences between the constitutional status of green card holders on the one hand, and potential visitors from another country who are seeking visas. Moreover, there are statutory issues in addition to constitutional ones. A blanket order to refuse to defend any part of the statute is overkill.

If she strongly disagreed with the policies underlying the order, she should have resigned in protest, and left it to others within the Justice Department to defend those parts of the order that are legally defensible.That’s what happens when you send a boy king to do a man’s job.

Elizabeth Warren has been bitchy for a couple weeks. First, she was bitchy about President Trump’s cabinet picks. Now, she’s upset that President Trump is protecting Americans instead of welcoming in terrorists. This article highlights Sen. Warren’s part in “The Resistance.”

The article starts by saying “Facing a crowd of protesters at Logan International Airport on Saturday night, US Senator Elizabeth Warren denounced President Trump’s recent immigration order, proclaiming, ‘we will not turn away children. We will not turn away families,’ said Warren, as the crowd repeated the words back to her. ‘We will not turn away people who try to help Americans. We will not turn away anyone because of their religion.'”

Elsewhere, Mrs. Clinton tweeted “I stand with the people gathered across the country tonight defending our values & our Constitution. This is not who we are.”

In one sense, Mrs. Clinton is right. Protecting Americans isn’t who the Democrats are. President Obama is famous for frequently reminding “his staff that terrorism takes far fewer lives in America than handguns, car accidents, and falls in bathtubs do.”

As for Sen. Warren, she said “persecuting anyone ‘for their religious beliefs is an attack on the very foundation of democracy.'” This article highlights this interesting fact:

The Order Suspends Visas From “Nationals of Countries of Particular Origin.” The Secretary of Homeland Security, as well as the Secretary of State and Director of National Intelligence, are tasked under the order with determining the standard necessary for visa entry within 30 days. All entry into the United States is suspended, “as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order.” This isn’t unprecedented – Jimmy Carter issued a cancelation of visas for Iranian citizens in 1980.

It’s pretty apparent that Sen. Warren isn’t good with facts or history. The only other explanation is that she’s bitch with a political agenda who doesn’t care about the truth.

Nah. That can’t be it.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

If there was ever a doubt about whether Senate Democrats would be obstructionists, this article should shout ‘Democratic obstructionism’. President Trump announced today that he’ll announce his SCOTUS nominee next week sometime. Democrats are feeling bitter that Republicans give Merrick Garland, President Obama’s pick to replace Antonin Scalia, a committee hearing.

It isn’t surprising to hear that “Democrats and their allies remain furious that Senate Republicans refused to even consider Judge Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to the high court, with 10 months remaining in Mr. Obama’s second term. That deep resentment is certain to color their handling of Mr. Trump’s choice just as it has contributed to their resistance to moving quickly on Mr. Trump’s cabinet selections.”

I respectfully disagree with that last statement. Democrats aren’t just upset with the fact that Republicans didn’t hold a hearing on Judge Garland. They’re also upset that Hillary lost. They’re upset that they didn’t retake the majority in the Senate, too. They’re upset that their coalition was demolished by ‘blue collar billionaire’ Donald Trump.

That’s their fault. Democrats hitched their wagon to Obama’s and Mrs. Clinton’s stars. The DNC leadership team was corrupt to the point that they, not voters, picked Hillary Clinton to be their presidential nominee. Mrs. Clinton ran the worst campaign in the last half-century.

All indications are that they see the forthcoming nomination as a chance to take a strong stand against the new president, since they still have the power to filibuster a Supreme Court choice — at least for now.

Democrats now think that resisting the newly-sworn-in president is their path back to power. What they’re really doing is paving the way for his re-election.

People won’t agree with Senate Republicans not granting Garland a hearing but they definitely won’t agree with Democrats acting like spoiled brats, either. That’s what the Democrats’ ‘resistance’ looks like to apolitical people.

Top Democrats say they don’t intend to play “tit for tat” with the nomination. But they say they will insist on what they consider to be a mainstream candidate capable of securing at least the 60 votes needed to thwart any filibuster. Otherwise, they promise to do whatever they can to block the nominee.

The Democrats are being stupid. If President Trump nominates Judge Gorsuch, he’ll be nominating a solid judge whose opinions are well-written. Do Democrats really want to put up a big fight against an articulate judge? It’s their option but I wouldn’t advise them to do that. That’s wasting tons of political capital on a lost cause. If Democrats filibuster President Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, they’ll put the Supreme Court off-limits for a generation. This is the face of Democratic senators:

This is rich:

“We are not going to do what the Republicans did,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, “but if the candidate’s out of the mainstream, I can tell you I will fight and my caucus will fight tooth and nail against them.”

That’s coming from the liar who sabotaged Mike Pompeo’s confirmation vote.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

The topic that didn’t get discussed often enough after the election is the viability of the so-called Obama Coalition. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira wrote a book titled “The Emerging Democratic Majority” that was based on the belief that demographics pointed to a permanent Democratic majority.

Part of the description for their book says “In five well-researched chapters and a new afterword covering the 2002 elections, Judis and Teixeira show how the most dynamic and fastest-growing areas of the country are cultivating a new wave of Democratic voters who embrace what the authors call ‘progressive centrism‘ and take umbrage at Republican demands to privatize social security, ban abortion, and cut back environmental regulations. As the GOP continues to be dominated by neoconservatives, the religious right, and corporate influence, this is an essential volume for all those discontented with their narrow agenda — and a clarion call for a new political order.”

The Obama Coalition was built, in large part, on identity politics. The book’s description isn’t accurate. In fact, it isn’t close. What we’ve learned since this book was written is that Obama’s coalition isn’t transferrable. It’s his. Since he’ll never be on the ballot again, it’s time to admit that significant parts of that coalition have switched allegiances to President Trump. Other parts of former President Obama’s coalition decided to sit this election out because neither candidate excited them.

Putting it briefly, there’s a reason why it’s called Obama’s Coalition. It’s Obama’s coalition because it doesn’t work for candidates who aren’t Barack Obama. Bernie Sanders put together his own coalition. Admittedly, it was significantly smaller than Obama’s but at least he realized he couldn’t rely on former President Obama’s coalition.

While Democrats don’t have to start from scratch, they have to rethink their identity. They’ll have to rethink their policies, too. If they don’t, they won’t win back white working class voters. Without them, they can’t win states like Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

If anything’s painfully obvious about Brian Fallon, it’s that he’s using this transition period to audition for a new job at one of the Democratic Party’s alphabet organizations. (Think of the DNC, the DCCC or the DSCC.) His TV appearances aren’t particularly impressive. The only thing noteworthy about Fallon’s appearances are his flashing his pearly whites and his constant whining about the election. If you think that’s bad news for him, think again. That’s virtually guaranteeing him a job at one of these mean-spirited organizations.

The thing you’ve got to understand is that the DNC and the DCCC peddle negativity for a living. That isn’t just what they do. That’s who they are.

This article highlights that fact. In the second paragraph of the article, S.A. Miller wrote “Brian Fallon, a former spokesman for the Clinton presidential campaign, has said there’s ‘too much evidence’ that Mr. Trump was in league with Russian spies trying to rig the election.” I haven’t seen any evidence of that. In fact, it’s quite the contrary. Has Fallon seen top secret or confidential documents that haven’t been made public? That’s certainly possible, especially considering who his former boss is.

This video is from his appearance on the opening installment of Martha MacCallum’s terrific new show “The First 100 Days”:

Saying that Fallon was filled with criticism is understatement. If you took out all of his whining, that 4:45 video could’ve been reduced to 28 seconds, if that. It’s all whining all the time. Then there’s this:

Mr. Fallon said in a Twitter post Sunday that Americans can’t trust Vice President-elect Mike Pence’s denial that the Trump team was in contact with Russia during the campaign. “Sorry, but we cannot take their word for it on this. There is too much evidence suggesting otherwise,” he tweeted.

Says the chief spokesman for the woman who blamed the assassination of a US ambassador on a Youtube video in public, then told her daughter it was a terrorist attack. Fallon shouldn’t talk about people without credibility. He was employed by a person who didn’t have credibility or integrity.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,