Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category
It isn’t a secret that the media has seen protecting President Obama and Hillary Clinton as one of their primary responsibilities. Still, it’s stunning that it’s outdone itself with this Miami Herald editorial.
With regards to absolving Hillary of all wrongdoing, it created a preposterous argument, saying “Yes, it found a series of failings by the national security bureaucracy, but here’s what else it did: Cleared former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of the absurd accusation that she somehow knew about the attack on the diplomatic compound in Libya before it happened and did nothing about it.” That’s breathtakingly dishonest. I’ve followed this story for almost 4 years. In that time, I’ve never heard anyone accuse Mrs. Clinton of knowing “about the attack on the diplomatic compound before it happened and did nothing about it.”
What has happened is that people accused Mrs. Clinton of not acting on repeated requests from Christopher Stevens for additional security. Then as now, Democrats have insisted that the cables, many of them labeled as urgent, never were brought to Mrs. Clinton’s attention. Then as now, nobody outside of her inner circle believes her. That’s why her honest and trustworthy numbers stink.
This part really stinks:
The GOP-led committee’s desire to find evidence of malfeasance by Ms. Clinton to support all the conspiracy theories surrounding Benghazi went unfulfilled. Had there been real facts to support it, surely this committee would have found it.
First, the thing that sets Benghazi apart from other tragic events is the relative scarcity of conspiracy theories of what happened that night. Next, this article highlights the evidence showing the utter incompetence of Mrs. Clinton and the disinterest shown by President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta:
The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part I:
- Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]
- With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]
- The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]
- A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]
- None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]
- The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]
How can a patriotic American read that information and not be infuriated? That the Miami Herald read that and dismissed it says that a) there aren’t any patriots on the Miami Herald’s Editorial Board and b) the Miami Herald’s Editorial Board can’t be trusted to offer insightful, honest opinions about the biggest events of our time. That’s how it can say this with a straight face:
The report, a product of the longest Congressional investigation in memory on possible wrongdoing in the executive branch, longer than Watergate or 9/11, went a bit further and deeper than the earlier ones, but the general outline was already known.
TRANSLATION: This report was far more detailed than the other ‘investigations’ but we the media have already determined the narrative we’re going to push. If it conflicts with the truth, then the truth be damned. It’s the narrative, damn it.
Watch Andrea Mitchell’s interview of Chairman Gowdy. Then tell me his committee didn’t uncover important new information:
If this plethora of new information doesn’t constitute important new information, what would constitute something new and important?
Technorati: Hillary Clinton, Christopher Stevens, Benghazi Terrorist Attack, Leon Panetta, Barack Obama, Miami Herald Editorial Board, Media Bias, Trey Gowdy, House Select Committee on Benghazi, Benghazi Report
This Washington Post editorial, published in the Star Tribune, highlights what passes for liberal logic. First, it’s worth highlighting some of the statements made in the editorial.
The editorial says “Citing ‘insufficient evidence,’ Judge Barry G. Williams on Thursday found Officer Caesar R. Goodson Jr. not guilty of all charges in the April 2015 death of Gray.” That’s the Post’s way of saying the prosecution couldn’t prove that Freddie Gray’s rebellious actions didn’t cause his own death.
What the Post omitted is the fact that Mosby’s office conducted their own investigation and that police questioned the thoroughness of that investigation. In fact, this article highlights the rift between Mosby’s office and the Baltimore PD.
Specifically, Detective Dawnyell Taylor said “As I read over the narrative it had several things that I found to be inconsistent with our investigation,” adding: “I thought the statements in the narrative were misquoted.” It gets worse:
The claims in her account underscore a rift between prosecutors and police that began in the spring of last year, when the two agencies worked together on parallel tracks to investigate Gray’s death.
Some police officials believe prosecutors moved too quickly and have questioned their findings, while prosecutors have raised questions about whether police were seeking to absolve the officers of wrongdoing. Prosecutors have accused Taylor in court of trying to sabotage their case.
Here’s Det. Taylor:
Frankly, Mosby’s prosecution of these police officers is a sham. A year before the first case went to trial, legendary law professor Alan Dershowitz criticized Mosby’s office:
The mayor outrageously said we’re going to get justice for the victim, the family and people of Baltimore, never mentioning the defendants. Under our Constitution, the only people who are entitled to justice are the defendants. They are presumed innocent, they need due process of law, and the mayor and the state attorney have made it virtually impossible for these defendants to get a fair trial. They have been presumed guilty.
More than a few attorneys have suggested that Mosby should have her license suspended. Others have said she’s committed an offense that warrants disbarment.
Prosecuting police officers is always difficult and, as former state Sen. Clarence M. Mitchell IV pointed out, it showed “courage to bring charges when it appeared that the police had done something wrong.”
It didn’t take courage to railroad these officers. It took a reckless disregard for the rules of evidence. The fact that Mosby’s office hasn’t convicted the officers of a single criminal count shows that the “$6.4 million settlement” to the Gray family was meant to taint the jury pool. That strategy apparently failed.
Glenn Reynolds’ USA Today article highlights some points of peril that elitists haven’t paid attention to.
In the opening paragraph to his article, Reynolds writes “So the post-Brexit number-crunching is over and it turns out that the decisive support for Britain’s leaving the EU came not from right-wing nationalists but from working-class Labour voters. This offers some lessons for British and European politicians — and for us in America, too.”
This is potentially significant if you’re Hillary Clinton. The American equivalent to Labour voters are what used to be called Reagan Democrats. Eventually, they stopped being Democrats because the Democratic Party stopped being the party of the little guy. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were the first unabashed friends of ‘Too Big To Fail’ banks. Later, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama caught on and started cashing in with Wall Street.
Meanwhile, it’s impossible to highlight this part of Dr. Reynolds’ article too much:
The result, Mandler writes, is that “For the rest of the country has felt more and more excluded, not only from participation in the creativity and prosperity of London, but more crucially from power. . . . A majority of people around the United Kingdom are feeling like non-people, un-citizens, their lives jerked about like marionettes by wire-pullers far away. In those circumstances, very bad things indeed can be expected.”
Given a chance, these people seized an opportunity to give the wires a yank of their own. A lot of people felt powerless, and the political system not only didn’t address that, but seemed to glory in it.
These Brits’ votes were their way of saying this:
It was their opportunity to tell their country’s elites that they weren’t going to get talked down to anymore. Think of it as the British people’s visceral reaction to the elitists’ control over their lives.
America, of course, faces the same kind of division, as Dana Loesch writes in her new book, Flyover Nation: You Can’t Run A Country You’ve Never Been To. Every once in a while, she notes, a publisher or a newspaper from a coastal city will send a reporter, like an intrepid African explorer of the 19th century, to report on the odd beliefs and doings of the inhabitants of the interior. But even the politicians who represent Flyover Country tend to spend most of their time, and, crucially, their post-elective careers, in Washington, DC.
Simply put, DC and New York have viewed Heartlanders like aliens from outer space. They’re insulated from reality. While he was a presidential candidate, Gov. Walker had it right when he called Washington, DC “68 square miles surrounded by reality.”
Whether Heartlanders experience their own version of Brexit remains to be seen. Is it possible? Without question. Will it happen? I’m hoping.
The Democratic Party has waged a war against straightforward speech for decades. They aren’t pro-abortion. They’re pro-choice. They aren’t anti-gun. They’re for gun control. They aren’t pro-terrorist. They’re just opposed to racial and religious profiling. They aren’t big spenders. They’re pro-government ‘investment’. They aren’t the party of tax increases. They’re the party that favors the one-percent paying their fair share. They aren’t anti-fossil fuel. They’re pro-green energy. They aren’t pro-oppressive regulation. They’re for ‘common-sense regulations’.
Pardon my French but that’s BS. Democrats are pro-euphemism because that’s the only way their ideas sound palatable. If they didn’t spin what they’re for, they’d never win another election throughout eternity. At minimum, they’d get their butts kicked each year if they couldn’t hide their real identity.
The truth is that today’s Democratic Party is a collection of lunatics that don’t care about national security or our Constitution. The proof of that is the legislation that they pushed and the faux sit-in they staged. I wrote this article to highlight Hawaii’s disgust with the Constitution. Their governor just signed a bill that requires Hawaiians who buy a gun in Hawaii to register that gun, which then requires law enforcement to put all gun owners on the FBI’s criminal watch list. The bill blatantly thumbs its nose at the constitutional principles of due process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
The Democrats’ fundraising rally on the House floor shows that Democrats aren’t serious about protecting our nation from terrorists. Democrats put a higher priority on playing word games to achieve their goal of controlling people.
The Democratic Party of Hubert Humphrey, Pat Moynihan and JFK had a healthy libertarian streak to it. The Democratic Party of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is defined by its fascist and authoritarian tendencies.
Today’s Democratic Party isn’t anything like the Democratic Party of 25 years ago, much less like the Democratic Party of JFK. It’s a shame. We could use that party again.
Technorati: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Fascism, Authoritarianism, No-Fly, No-Buy, FBI Criminal Watch List, House Sit-in, Due Process Rights, Presumption of Innocence, Second Amendment, Hubert Humphrey, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, JFK, National Security, Libertarians, Democrats
Comments sections of newspapers frequently look like a bad stretch of Twitter. Still, they’re often instructive of what people think on issues. In some instances, they’re proof that people don’t think. The comment section of this thoughtful LTE is quite instructive.
One commenter said “If a gun is just a tool, why do some people insist on having one on them 24/7? What sort of work requires a civilian to have that kind of a tool? Surely you don’t need a tool that is as efficient at killing and wounding as the one the Orlando shooter used.”
First, this commenter wasn’t alone in thinking that. Next, the obvious answer is that it’s important to have a gun with you 24/7 because terrorists and violent criminals don’t make appointments with their victims. Third, why shouldn’t civilians be prepared to protect themselves and their families 24/7? It isn’t like there’s an acceptable time to let your family get attacked.
Another commenter said “In one of his calls to action for Congress after the shooting in San Bernardino, California, President Barack Obama urged lawmakers to pass legislation preventing suspected terrorists on the no-fly list from buying guns.” Let’s amend that statement so that it’s accurate. If we made that correction, here’s what it would say:
In one of his calls to action for Congress after the shooting in San Bernardino, California, President Barack Obama urged lawmakers to pass legislation preventing suspected terrorists and innocent civilians who’ve done nothing wrong on the no-fly list from buying guns.
The thing Democrats reflexively leave out of their propaganda is the fact that famous people who haven’t committed a crime are on that federal no-fly list. Should people have their constitutional rights trampled based on speculation?
I just wrote this article to highlight a bill that Hawaii’s governor just signed into law. Here’s what you need to know about the bill:
Hawaii has become the first U.S. state to place firearm owners on the FBI’s Rap Back, which until now was used to monitor criminal activities by individuals under investigation or people in positions of trust such as school teachers and daycare workers.
Let’s be clear about this. Everyone who buys a gun in Hawaii will be put on the FBI’s criminal watch list. Obviously, they haven’t committed a crime. If they had, they’d be denied the ability to purchase a gun in the first place.
Further, anyone bringing a gun to Hawaii from the mainland will be required to register their gun. When they leave, they are given the right to petition the FBI to be taken off the FBI’s criminal watch list.
Let’s be truthful. The goal of these laws isn’t to protect people. The goal of this type of legislation is to give government the ability to harass law-abiding citizens 24/7 for wanting to protect themselves and their families and for exercising their constitutional rights.
Let’s remember that the Constitution was written to essentially tell the government what it wasn’t allowed to do. This picture should tell us why we should reject the Democrats’ gun grab attempts:
Personally, I’ll pick free and safe over endangered and not free every time.
Greg Gutfeld has a theory about Orlando. Unfortunately, it’s a depressing theory. The silver lining to society’s dark cloud is that it’s possible, albeit a longshot, to change things.
The turning point will happen when we answer some important questions in unison. Right now, we’re nowhere close to that point. Don’t think in-the-next-town-over distant. I’m thinking the-next-solar-system-over-then-hang-a-left distant. Gutfeld lays it out with this illustration: “We quarrel about the quarrel. We cannot agree on the fight. And therefore we cannot begin to fight. Instead, we are like that proverbial snake that devours its own tail. Except, we think it’s sushi. But it’s blowfish. You get the idea. We’re dead.”
Then Mr. Gutfeld applies that illustration to the horrific terrorist attack in Orlando, saying “How can America defeat ISIS if we have vocal factions believing that we are worse? How can we fight the enemy if a large portion of our population thinks an inanimate object, a gun, caused Orlando?”
Mr. Gutfeld’s logic is indisputable. Yesterday in the Senate, they debated 4 gun control bills. Each bill predictably failed on (more-or-less) party line votes. Last night, I wrote this article to highlight how ideologically blind the Left is about guns and terrorism. In the article, I quote Sen. Franken as saying “I will continue to do everything I can to disarm hate and get these measures passed into law despite today’s setback.” I reject Sen. Franken’s belief that he’s done everything he could to “disarm hate” because he hasn’t done a thing to annihilate ISIS. Greg Gutfeld has another illustration that might break the logjam:
As I said earlier, Dr. Gutfeld’s logic is indisputably correct. Therein lies the bigger problem. The first problem identified is an identification problem: was Orlando a gun problem or a terrorist problem? That’s the first problem but yesterday’s Senate votes expose the bigger problem. It’s impossible to persuade people who don’t apply logic in their decision-making. Picture this hypothetical conversation:
FBI Agent: Did the terrorist have a gun?
Night Club Witness: Al-Qa’ida is on the run. GM is alive but bin Laden is dead.
FBI Agent: Sir, the terrorist called 9-1-1 and pledged allegiance to ISIS.
Night Club Witness: We need more gun control laws.
FBI Agent (getting impatient): Sir, witnesses said the terrorist used an assault rifle. Can you confirm that?
Night Club Witness: The Religious Right is responsible for all the hate speech.
FBI Agent: Thanks for your time.
Here’s the next logical question for gun grabbers: What’s the right number of gun control laws to protect people? 1? 12? 123? What’s the right number of laws that would protect citizens from terrorists? This picture says it all:
As long as we have to deal with logic-resistant Democrats, we won’t be able to defeat ISIS.
The St. Cloud Times Editorial Board’s latest editorial could’ve been written by Moms Demand Action. The sad thing is that the Times is just as uninformed now as it was a year ago.
For instance, their chief recommendation is “Improving background checks. There are a variety of proposals in Congress that are reasonable. A good starting point is the long-proposed plan to require background checks for all gun purchases online and at gun shows. Unfortunately, the Senate, the day after the San Bernardino shootings, rejected this proposal 50-48. It was the second failure of the measure. It also rejected 55-45 a proposal to prevent people on the terrorist watch list from being able to legally buy guns.”
First, the Times should read the existing laws. Sean Davis, the founder of The Federalist, did. Then he wrote this post demolishing the myths that the Times still perpetuates:
1) The ‘Gun Show Loophole’ Allows Anyone, Even Criminals, To Get Guns
In reality, the so-called “gun show loophole” is a myth. It does not exist. There is no loophole in federal law that specifically exempts gun show transactions from any other laws normally applied to gun sales. Not one.
If you purchase a firearm from a federal firearms licensee (FFL) regardless of the location of the transaction — a gun store, a gun show, a gun dealer’s car trunk, etc. — that FFL must confirm that you are legally allowed to purchase that gun. That means the FFL must either run a background check on you via the federal NICS database, or confirm that you have passed a background check by examining your state-issued concealed carry permit or your government-issued purchase permit. There are zero exceptions to this federal requirement.
If an individual purchases a gun across state lines, from an individual or FFL which resides in a different state than the buyer, the buyer must undergo a background check, and the sale must be processed by an FFL in the buyer’s home state.
Here’s a pointed question for the TEB (Times Editorial Board): Do we need multiple federal laws covering the same situation? Here’s another question for the TEB: Might it not be better if we just enforced the laws that already address these situations?
Further, I wrote this article to highlight the fact that the federal government failed to do what it’s supposed to do. It won’t do any good to write new laws if the federal government won’t consistently and efficiently enforce the laws on the books.
To be fair, the TEB did its liberal duty. It did what it’s expected to do. Unfortunately, according to chapter 1, verse 1 of the progressives’ gospel is to disseminate untruths frequently and consistently.
Apparently, Terri Bonoff thinks she’s a serious threat to defeating Erik Paulsen. She isn’t. Nonetheless, she’s pushing the DFL/DCCC meme that last week’s terrorist attack is a gun control issue. It isn’t. This tweet should be ridiculed. In that tweet, Ms. Bonoff said “Silence speaks louder than words. These members of Congress cannot defend their vote.” According to this article, Rep. Collin Peterson “joined most of his Republican colleagues earlier this week in voting to keep the House of Representatives from debating a bill to ban firearms sales to people on terrorist watch lists.”
What they did was vote against the government’s ability to strip people of their civil rights without due process. Ms. Bonoff apparently didn’t care about the truth. Apparently, she said that Paulsen’s vote proved that he was “putting party politics above public safety.” That’s frighteningly dishonest. Ms. Bonoff knows that the murderer was a terrorist. Ms. Bonoff knows that terrorists don’t obey the law. That’s why they’re called terrorists.
She’s the politician who can’t defend her position. Betty McCollum’s position is indefensible, too:
“I strongly support a ban on weapons purchases by people on terrorist watch lists and expanded background checks on weapons purchases made at gun shows, online or in other commercial transactions,” Fourth District Rep. Betty McCollum, a Democrat, said. “Both of these proposals will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Tragically, even these narrow measures will not pass this Congress. The National Rifle Association opposes every piece of legislation that protects our families and communities from gun violence. And the NRA controls this Congress and will obstruct and defeat any effort to fight gun violence.”
TRANSLATION: Rep. McCollum supports stripping law-abiding citizens of their right to keep and bear arms while also stripping them of their due process rights. In other words, she’s anti-Second Amendment and anti-Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment says “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
McCollum is full of it when she said “these proposals will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.” That’s something that’s impossible to prove. She’s also full of it when she said “The National Rifle Association opposes every piece of legislation that protects our families and communities from gun violence.” Since the Democrats’ proposals haven’t protected families and communities from gun violence, Rep. McCollum’s statement is, at best, unprovable, if not downright dishonest.
The deadly Orlando night club shooting represents the Democrats’ worst PR and policy nightmare. They’re forced to defend members of the LGBT community or whether they’ll admit that a radicalized Islamic terrorist killed gays because of their sexual orientation. Predictably, President Obama chose an alternate route, focusing attention on guns, not the shooter. During his speech, he said “The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle. This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub.”
Some of the far left websites took it a step further. ThinkProgress published a photo of gun, with the caption reading “This is the gun that committed the deadliest shooting in U.S. history.”
Ted Cruz asked cut through the Democrats’ background noise, saying in this statement “For all the Democrats who are loud champions of the gay and lesbian community whenever there is a culture battle waging, now is the opportunity to speak out against an ideology that calls for the murder of gays and lesbians. ISIS and the theocracy in Iran (supported with American taxpayer dollars) regularly murder homosexuals, throwing them from buildings and burying them under rocks. This is wrong, it is evil, and we must all stand against it. Every human being has a right to live according to his or her faith and conscience, and nobody has a right to murder someone who doesn’t share their faith or sexual orientation. If you’re a Democratic politician and you really want to stand for LGBT, show real courage and stand up against the vicious ideology that has targeted our fellow Americans for murder.”
It’s time for Democrats to finally make a decision. There isn’t a fence to sit on with this. There isn’t any middle ground to find. This is a binary choice. Democrats either can support the LGBT community or they can quietly say nothing. When President Obama tried putting the onus on gun control, he said “we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.”
Mr. President, not addressing radicalized Islamic jihad is a decision, too. The question is whether President Obama, Mrs. Clinton or other Democrats have the character to identify the terrorists. Based on ThinkProgress’s picture, I’m betting they won’t be profiles in courage.
Let’s be blunt about something. Today’s Marxist progressives don’t have a clue about creating a growing economy. They never have. I’m betting they never will. That’s why I’m not surprised that this post criticizes President Obama’s economic policies. Mockingly, its title asks “Are We Still In the Summer of Recovery?”
Here’s a hint: we never had sustained healthy economic growth during the Obama administration. This administration has slowed the economy with intrusive, weaponized government to the point that the only thing keeping the economy going is quantitative easing. Companies aren’t moving overseas because of bad trade deals. They’re moving because this administration’s regulations are killing jobs. They’re moving because this administration thinks that sky-high minimum wage rates are good for people.
Sky-high wages for entry-level jobs are killing jobs. Here in St. Cloud, staffing cuts at fast food places have slowed order fulfillment to a snail’s pace. It’s gotten to the point where I can’t call these little burger shops fast food places anymore.
But I digress.
Mark Levin puts things in perspective:
The Environmental Protection Agency chased Carrier out of this country — or will. How do we know this? Carrier said so. So, why are none of these mouthpieces talking about the EPA? Why are none of these frauds talking about the EPA? The EPA is destroying ‘the middle class;’ it’s destroying working people in this country; it’s destroying coal miners; it’s destroying oil jobs; it’s destroying trucking jobs. The EPA is destroying our smokestack industries. The EPA is doing more damage to our economy and hardworking men and women in this country than any country in the world! And yet they won’t talk about it. You know why? Because it doesn’t rile people up as much. And you know why else? Because it’s harder to deal with.
I’ve contended for 2-3 years that this is the sleeper issue that Republicans should latch onto. I don’t know why they think that this won’t rile people up. Frankly, it might be that the consultant class thinks that this isn’t a traditional ‘Republican issue’.
If that’s the case, then they’re wrong. Intrusive government, especially the weaponized government that the EPA specializes in, is explosive if it’s explained properly. It doesn’t take a ton of time, either, because it doesn’t take time to tell people that coal regulations kill jobs, hurts the economy and drives up families’ electric bills.
Frankly, I think Republicans are intimidated by President Obama. He’s a cocky, dishonest salesman. There’s only one way to deal with that and that’s to ridicule him for thinking that excessive regulations create incentives to create jobs. This isn’t the time for a civilized debate. It’s time to, first, study the issue, then stand up to the narcissist living in the White House.