Search
Archives
Categories

Archive for the ‘Hillary’ Category

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: , , , , , , , , ,

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, (D-SF), and Sen. Kamala Harris, (D-Calif.), attacked Donald Trump after Rep. John Lewis said that Mr. Trump wasn’t the legitimate president. Here’s what these California dimwits tweeted:

After saying that Mr. Trump wasn’t the legitimate president-elect, Rep. Lewis said “I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. I don’t plan to attend the inauguration.”

Good riddance. I won’t miss him. Rep. Lewis was a civil rights hero a half-century ago. He’s never been a noteworthy legislator. He’s lived his entire legislative career relying on his civil rights reputation. He’s been a bitter man most of that time.

Contrary to Rep. Lewis’s opinion, “the Russians” didn’t help get Mr. Trump elected. The people who were most responsible for getting Mr. Trump elected were the lazy media, the DNC leadership and, most of all, Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton was the worst presidential candidate in US history. She insisted on running essentially the same campaign as Mitt Romney did. Rather than relying on boots on the ground, Mrs. Clinton relied on analytics and top-down-know-it-all management. Further, Mrs. Clinton was so arrogant that Mrs. Clinton wrote off Wisconsin despite the fact that Wisconsin had been trending red for years. Then Mrs. Clinton ignored the reports from Michigan that things weren’t going so well there.

Finally, let’s be blunt about something. Donald Trump won the way all other presidents have won: by winning the most electoral votes. This isn’t a mystery. President-Elect Trump won more states (by far) than Mrs. Clinton did. Mrs. Clinton won California, New York, Illinois, the northeast and the Left Coast. She got clobbered in the battleground states.

Bitter partisans like Rep. Lewis aren’t helping bring this nation together. They’re doing their best to tear it apart.

Perhaps, he should retire rather than divide the nation.

Keith Ellison is hoping to turn his support of Bernie Sanders, then Hillary Clinton, into a winning message in his bid to become the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). At this point, outsiders think Rep. Ellison is the leader to succeed Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as the full-time chair of the DNC. Whether DNC insiders think that is another matter.

Outsiders think that he’s the leader because he’s been endorsed by “Harry M. Reid (NV), who announced his support on Sunday, and Reid’s expected successor, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY). On Monday, Ellison’s list of endorsers also included Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.”

The article portrays Ellison as a team player, saying “Longtime Clinton aide Neera Tanden, who runs the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, worked with Ellison to help draft the Democratic Party’s platform in meetings where she represented Clinton and he Sanders. “I saw him as a very constructive voice in the platform process. And it was very apparent he was working hard to unite the party,” said Tanden, who is staying neutral in the DNC Chair race and not endorsing any candidate.”

I don’t doubt that Ellison has the ability to unite the Democratic Party. That isn’t the Democratic Party’s problem. The Democrats’ biggest problem is that they’re far off the left end. Their other major problem is that they’ll do anything that the environmental activist wing of the Democratic Party wants. That why they’ve alienated blue collar workers like miners and pipeline builders. Until blue collar Democrats insist that the Democratic Party incorporate their agenda into the Party’s agenda, they should make clear that their votes will go to the party that listens to them. Period.

Politics should be, to a certain extent, about which party has actually listened to that constituent group. On that note, it’s impossible to picture Keith Ellison guiding the Democratic Party to be ideologically inclusive. It isn’t difficult picturing the DNC being more ideologically rigid under Ellison, though.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Paul Krugman’s latest column is proof positive that he’s exceptionally dishonest.

In his opening paragraph, Krugman wrote “If James Comey, the F.B.I. director, hadn’t tipped the scales in the campaign’s final days with that grotesquely misleading letter, right now an incoming Clinton administration would be celebrating some very good news. Because health reform, President Obama’s signature achievement, is stabilizing after a bumpy year.” If Krugman wants to think that FBI Director Jim Comey ripped the election away from Mrs. Clinton, that’s fine. That doesn’t mean he’s dishonest.

When he states as fact that the ACA “is stabilizing after a bumpy year”, though, that’s dishonest. First, there’s no proof that prices are stabilizing. There’s proof that prices aren’t stabilizing. It’s impossible to honestly reach the conclusion that prices are stabilizing.

Then Krugman wrote “This means that the huge gains achieved so far — tens of millions of newly insured Americans and dramatic reductions in the number of people skipping treatment or facing financial hardship because of cost — look as if they’re here to stay.” That’s frighteningly dishonest. Out-of-pocket expenses (health insurance premiums plus deductibles or co-pays) are unaffordable. In October, I wrote this post about Mary Katherine Ham’s experience with the ACA:

Like many other Americans, I got a letter last week. This letter is becoming an annual tradition, arriving on my doorstep in October to inform me of my Obamacare insurance premium hike. Last year, the letter said my Bronze plan, purchased on the marketplace formed by the, ahem, Affordable Care Act, would increase by almost 60 percent. This year, my premium is going up 96 percent. Ninety-six percent. My monthly payment, which was the amount of a decent car payment, is now the size of a moderate mortgage. The president refers to these for thousands of citizens as “a few bugs” when to us it feels like a flameout.

What part of that sounds affordable? That doesn’t sound like it’s stabilized. It sounds like a system spiraling out of control, which is what’s happening.

Check out this video of Ed Morrissey’s interview of Speaker Kurt Daudt:

Prof. Krugman, you’re a disgusting person who’s devoid of integrity. I could write a longer post if I wanted to but I won’t. I’ve proven that your article isn’t honest. If the NY Times had any integrity, they’d fire you. Unfortunately, they don’t have integrity.

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