Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

After the ISIS terrorist attacks in Paris, some thoughtful people from both parties but led by Republicans, proposed pausing the importation of Syrian refugees. They suggested that because the vetting process of Syrian refugees isn’t reliable. That isn’t just Republicans’ opinion. It’s an opinion they share with James Comey, the director of the FBI. During testimony to Congress, he said that vetting Syrian refugees was all but impossible.

After that, President Obama announced that he wouldn’t pause the program, saying that not accepting these refugees was un-American. It isn’t surprising that Gov. Dayton is repeating President Obama’s line. In an interview with MPR’s Kerri Miller, Gov. Dayton said “the State Department and Department of Homeland Security have an extensive vetting process in place.”

According to Director Comey, that’s misinformation. In his testimony, Director Comey said that the databases they need to vet people either doesn’t exist or is highly unreliable. DHS and the State Department can say whatever they want but it doesn’t mean anything if the vetting infrastructure doesn’t exist or isn’t reliable.

Gov. Dayton later said “I think there should be an enhanced level of vetting and security for Syrian refugees or others that come from places which have been sources of terrorism” before saying “having been on the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security, there’s far more that’s actually undertaken.”

Has Sen. Dayton gotten briefed lately on the state of identification databases in Syria lately? If he hasn’t, how would he know that the vetting infrastructure is reliable? Is he just trusting President Obama? If that’s the case, would he trust a Republican president the same way in the same circumstances?

Finally, Gov. Dayton said “People who are fleeing terrorism in other countries, people with families with children in their arms — to tell them they can’t come into this country and have a future is just un-American.” Let’s explain this to Gov. Dayton through this picture:

I’d love to see whether Gov. Dayton would accept that taste-testing challenge.

When then-Candidate Obama ran for office in 2008, he sounded an optimistic tone, constantly talking about “hope and change.” A month into President Obama’s administration, President Obama’s governing motto morphed into “We won.” President Obama killed bipartisanship a month into his administration. It’s been downhill since. Salena Zito’s latest column highlights President Obama’s boorish behavior last week in the aftermath of ISIS’s terrorist attacks on Paris.

Ms. Zito noted that the definition of leadership “is guidance, direction, inspiration, motivation. And, at a moment when our nation felt most vulnerable and needed reassurance that the man in control was looking out for our welfare, we found ourselves irrevocably disappointed. Americans wanted sober, serious and authoritative. What they got was prickly and tone deaf.” President Hope and Change hasn’t listened to We The People since the passing of his failed stimulus bill. We saw the last of President Hope and Change about 3 years before the end of his first term.

Pressured by reporters about his strategy for fighting ISIS, his ill-tempered response offered no direct answer. Instead, he sharply rebuked his critics before doubling down on his tepid, ever-changing policy for taking on the terror group.

President Obama is too narcissistic to admit that he’s gotten virtually every major foreign policy wrong. It isn’t just that others might’ve done details differently. It’s that they wouldn’t have been foolish enough to offer Russia a reset button or negotiate with Iran, the biggest state sponsor of terror. They definitely wouldn’t have held a Rose Garden press conference to announce that he’d traded 5 top terrorist generals for an American deserter.

Ms. Zito got the ending right:

The majority of Ameri­cans are not behind Obama’s plan to allow 10,000 Syrian refugees into the United States, according to Bloomberg and NBC News polls conducted last week. The fear felt by Americans crosses both parties, and it is not unreasonable. In such a time of crisis or doubt, a president’s purpose is to calm our fears, not to put on a professorial hat and declare, “I am right and you are wrong.”

The fact is, Obama will never change; anytime he is backed into a corner, he not only puts on that professor’s hat but he also blames whatever problem exists on Congress and, inevitably, divides the country still further.

That is not leadership — but it sure is politics.

President Obama failed Leadership 101 in college. That’s why he’s spent the last 7 years as the Divider-in-chief.

Quinnipiac’s latest swing-state polling shows Hillary getting crushed by pretty much every top GOP presidential candidate. Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, said “As winter moves into the Rockies, Coloradans say the Democratic front-runner would get bruised and beaten by all the top GOP opponents, and absolutely crushed by Sen. Marco Rubio and Dr. Ben Carson,” adding that a “chilly if not frigid reception for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her second quest for the White House.”

The terrible news for Hillary is that “Colorado voters back any leading Republican contender over Clinton by wide margins.” Rubio leads Clinton 52–36 percent. Carson leads Clinton 52–38 percent. Cruz tops Clinton 51–38 percent. Trump beats Clinton 48–37 percent.

In other bad news for Hillary, “Clinton has the lowest favorability rating of any top candidate in Colorado, a negative 33–61 percent.” The news for Trump is better but Trump “gets a negative 34–58 percent favorability rating.”

Other important findings:

  1. Rubio has the best score for honesty, 58–28 percent, with Sanders at 56–30 percent, Carson at 57–33 percent and Cruz at 50–35 percent.
  2. Carson has the lowest grades for having strong leadership qualities, a divided 45-44 percent, with Sanders at 45–43 percent. Trump leads on leadership, with 58–39 percent, followed by Rubio at 56–30 percent, Cruz at 52–35 percent and Clinton at 51–47 percent.

It’s time people started noticing that Hillary isn’t a top tier candidate like her husband was. She’s just the least objectionable option that the Democrats have this cycle. Voters don’t trust Mrs. Clinton. Voters don’t like her, either. If Mrs. Clinton can’t be competitive in Colorado, which Democrats worked hard for a decade to turn blue, then she’s in serious trouble in the general election.

There was never any doubt that Gov. Dayton, (DFL-MN), would accept Syrian refugees. That hasn’t prevented state legislators from raising legitimate concerns about President Obama’s Syrian refugee plan. Gov. Dayton quickly said that he’d accept Syrian refugees. In making that announcement, he regurgitated the administration’s chanting points, saying “I have been assured by the White House that all refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States.”

That’s actually a telling quote. A security check for a person flying into the United States only requires checking for a weapon, then cross-checking the terrorist watch lists. A security check for someone who’s coming here to live is quite a bit more extensive than that.

After announcing that he’d accept Syrian refugees, Gov. Dayton said “the calls from state governors to ban Syrian refugees were ‘ludicrous’ and political posturing.” That’s administration spin. The truth is that Republican governors are raising a legitimate question about whether some of the people claiming to be refugees are ISIS terrorists.

Right now, the plan is for 10,000 Syrian refugees to be admitted into the US. Let’s say that the State Department verifies that they’re all legitimate refugees but then we learn that 3% of them are actually ISIS terrorists. That’s 300 potential terrorists that President Obama admitted into the United States in the name of humanitarianism. That’s almost 40 terrorist teams potentially.

Next, it’s important that we know 8 terrorists killed 129 people in Paris last Friday night. Next after that, it’s unlikely that the error rate will only be 3%. It’s been verified that 75% of the potential refugees are young men of the age that normally go into the military. Gov. Dayton and the Obama administration should consider the possibility that a high percentage of those ‘refugees’ are terrorists.

Rep. Jim Newberger got it exactly right when he said “The safety of our citizens is the first priority of any government body. In light of the tragic events in Paris I believe we need (to) join many of the other states in the union and stop of the flow of refugees until we can absolutely assure the safety of our own citizens.”

I won’t be polite. If there’s a terrorist attack in Minnesota, the blood will be on Gov. Dayton’s and President Obama’s hands.

When President Obama told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that ISIS was contained hours before ISIS’ sophisticated terrorist attacks in Paris, it was done in response to people’s concerns that President Obama’s strategy wasn’t working. What it revealed, however, is how dishonest the administration is.

When Ben Rhodes, President Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser, was interviewed by CNN’s Jake Tapper, Rhodes said “What we’ve been able to do is stop that advance and reclaim territory, going on offense with our partners on the ground, most recently retaking the strategic town of Sindjar, which cuts off the supply line between Raqqa, Syria and Mosul in Iraq.”

Let’s be clear about this. While the US military has performed valiantly, this administration has tied their hands with counterproductive restrictive rules of engagement. Further, it’s dishonest to hear Deputy Rhodes distract attention away from the important consideration of whether ISIS terrorists have the capability of conducting sophisticated terrorist attacks anywhere in the world. It’s nice to hear that ISIS is contained geographically. It’s important that we know that ISIS can’t inflict mass casualty terrorist attacks in Paris or Washington, DC.

Finally, the truth is that President Obama hasn’t contained ISIS geographically. ISIS has temporarily chosen not to expand geographically, devoting more of its resources to killing western infidels than on expanding its geographic footprint.

That isn’t a soothing final thought.

When ISIS first appeared on the world stage, President Obama infamously called them the JV team. Less than a month later, they captured Ramadi, Tikrit and Mosul. To continue the metaphor, Friday night’s terrorist attacks in Paris proved that they made a pretty fast transformation from a JV team into a state championship team. With a caliphate established in the heart of Iraq and Syria, ISIS apparently established a new set of goals. This time, they infiltrated the West’s refugee system, complete with Syrian passports. Then they travelled to Paris through the Greek Isles.

ISIS can’t be taken lightly any more. They committed a well-coordinated terrorist attack hundreds of miles away from their supposed base of operations. By doing so, they proved that they’re the best-trained, best-equipped terrorist organization with global reach in the world.

What’s worst is that they’ve achieved global reach with their terrorist threats faster than most people thought possible.

The seemingly synchronized assaults that turned Paris into a war zone on Friday came just days after a bombing targeted a Shiite district of Beirut controlled by Iran’s ally, Hezbollah, and a Russian passenger jet was downed over Egypt. The rapid succession of strikes, all claimed by the Islamic State, suggested that the regional war has turned into a global one.

That’s a level of sophistication and proficiency that doesn’t come from people who are just angry. That’s only possible with weeks of training.

President Obama, it’s time someone told you this: ISIS isn’t a JV team. It never was. Your characterization of them as JV sounded like a lightweight basketball player going through his trash-talking routine.

It’s telling that 27% of Democrats think that ‘deniers’ should be prosecuted. It’s frightening, though, that New York State has taken it a step further by investigating Exxon Mobil for refusing to play ball with the popular scientific theory.

According to the NY Times, the “New York attorney general has begun an investigation of Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business. According to people with knowledge of the investigation, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents.”

This is a serious investigation only in the sense that state attorneys general have subpoena power and the resources to make life miserable for the companies they ‘investigate’. Otherwise, this isn’t a serious investigation. The accurate terminology for what the NY State Attorney General is doing is ‘leading a fishing expedition’. Another term that might be used is that Gen. Schneiderman’s hunting for someone’s scalp, a trophy to brag about during his re-election campaign.

I seriously doubt that Schneiderman can prove anything about the science. If he can’t prove that climate change exists to a judge, then he should lose the entire case because, according to the NY Times, the investigation intends to prove how much climate change “might hurt the oil business.”

The fact that people think the government should prosecute ‘climate change deniers’ should be sufficient motivation to vote out Democrats in 2016 and beyond. These people are nuts and vindictive.

Normally, Kirsten Powers is one of the somewhat sane liberals in the national media. Ms. Powers’ latest USA Today article proves that there’s an exception to every rule.

The subject of Ms. Powers’ latest column is last week’s Benghazi hearing. According to Ms. Powers, who seems to have digested the Democrats’ chanting points then regurgitated them for this column, Republicans “bungling and bullying at Thursday’s hearing should count as an in-kind donation to the Clinton campaign.” Of course, Ms. Powers then said that what “happened in Benghazi matters” before saying that “investigating security failures, especially those that resulted in the deaths of Americans, is a laudable endeavor.”

Unfortunately, she then asked “does anyone really believe that’s what the Republicans were up to last week?”

The reason I suspect that this is a world-class spin job is this question:

But is it really a mystery as to why a friend of at least two decades would have her email address?

That’s spin. It isn’t surprising that Sid Blumenthal would have Hillary’s email address. It’s that Christopher Stevens didn’t have it. This emphasizes the point:

“During the hearing Michael McFaul tweeted, “As ambassador in Russia, I enjoyed multiple ways to communicate with Secretary Clinton. Email was never one of them.”

Actually, McFaul might’ve highlighted something important in that tweet. Clearly, he was able to “communicate with Secretary Clinton.” Why wasn’t Ambassador Stevens able to communicate directly with Mrs. Clinton? It’s clear that Stevens tried getting Mrs. Clinton’s attention often. According to documentation introduced at the hearing, Christopher Stevens literally made hundreds of requests for additional security.

According to Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, she never received a single request. She said that she “neither rejected or approved” any of Christopher Stevens’ security requests.

Ms. Powers says that “hate-blinded Republicans” bungled the hearing. That’s a cheap shot and then some. Republicans weren’t blinded with hate. They were determined to find out why Mrs. Clinton failed to protect Christopher Stevens, the man Mrs. Clinton called her “dear friend.” Is it typical for Mrs. Clinton to treat dear friends like that? If it is, then I’m thankful I’m not one of Hillary’s dear friends.

Does Ms. Powers think that it isn’t a big deal that Mrs. Clinton repeatedly told the American people for well over a week that a video caused the terrorist attack after telling her daughter that it was a terrorist attack? Does Ms. Powers think it isn’t a big deal that Mrs. Clinton told the Egyptian prime minister and the Libyan president that Christopher Stevens died in a terrorist attack?

If asking tough questions of Mrs. Clinton is bullying, then this nation’s best days are in its past. If trying to hold Mrs. Clinton accountable for her decisions is proof that Republicans hat Mrs. Clinton, then Ms. Powers has a dramatically different definition of hatred than I do. Does Ms. Powers think Mike Pompeo bullied Mrs. Clinton when he asked her why nobody at the State Department got fired for not approving Christopher Stevens’ requests for additional security? Does Ms. Powers think Susan Brooks bullied Mrs. Clinton when she asked Mrs. Clinton if she ever talked with Christopher Stevens after he was sworn in as U.S. ambassador to Libya?

Personally, I’d call those important, thoughtful questions proof that Republicans on that committee took their jobs seriously.

Finally, I’d love hearing Ms. Powers response to whether these questions are either a) inappropriate or b) proof that I’m trying to bully Mrs. Clinton.

I wrote this article to analyze the Democrats’ first presidential debate, which was moderated by CNN. I must confess that I made a mistake in considering last night’s DNC/CNN event a debate. It wasn’t a debate because nobody attempted to lay a glove on Queen Hillary. Whether that’s because the 4 males (I can’t call them men for obvious reasons) self-neutered, whether it’s because they didn’t dare cross DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz or whether they want a cabinet post in a Hillary administration, the 4 males acted more like eunuchs than candidates.

The outcomes were predictable. First, CNN lost in the sense that 9,000,000 fewer people tuned into their non-event. Second, despite Ms. Wasserman-Schultz’s spin to the contrary, America saw the pathetic cast of candidates the Democrats have. Third, Hillary wasn’t helped by the fact that she still hasn’t faced a legitimate challenge on a debate stage. Fourth, Hillary’s contention that she’s an outsider because she’s a woman running for president is getting tiresome to voters.

During the 2014 election cycle, Mark Udall ran a campaign focused on women’s issues. His campaign was all-women-all-the-time. It earned him the nickname of “Mark Uterus” from the Denver Post. Things didn’t end well for Sen. Udall:

It’s indisputable that Democrats captured lightning in a bottle in 2012 with their war on women campaign. Based on Hillary’s mediocre polling results, the lightning is gone. Hillary has certainly played up the fact that she’d be the first woman president at every opportunity. Still, Hillary’s polling is lackluster.

Pundits across the nation are chatting up how confident Hillary looked. My reply to that is simple: If you’re essentially in a competition-free zone, why wouldn’t you feel confident? The minute Bernie Sanders said that he’s tired of hearing about Hillary’s “damn emails”, Hillary lit up like a Christmas tree. It was the most genuine emotion she’s shown since marrying Bill Clinton. (Okay, that’s a bit of an exaggeration but it isn’t like most of her emotional displays aren’t contrived and calculated.)

The bottom line is this: a) Hillary is now all but officially the Democrats’ presidential nominee and b) some people are still waiting for the first Democratic Party presidential debate.

Stewart Mills officially announced that he’s running for Congress in Minnesota’s Eighth District. Rick Nolan, his opponent and the incumbent in the race, said that he welcomed the challenge while promising to run a positive race. Of course, Nolan’s definition of running a positive race is questionable considering he said “I welcome Mr. Mills III back into the race, and I’m looking forward to a positive campaign based on facts and issues affecting the voters in the 8th Congressional District- a campaign very much different from the negative and misleading campaign Mr. Mills III and his allies have already launched against me here in the 8th District.”

In 2014, Nolan’s definition of a positive campaign included dishonest attacks from Nolan himself. What’s more is that the Star Tribune criticized Nolan while endorsing Mills, saying that “Nolan already translates Mills’ position as wanting to “privatize” and even “abolish” the safety-net programs. It’s the kind of extravagant rhetoric that makes reasoned discussion, public understanding and progress so difficult on these issues.”

The Star Tribune added this insult to Nolan’s injuries:

On foreign affairs, too, Mills’ view is the tough-minded one. While Nolan wishfully believes America can safely ignore Mideast turmoil, Mills cautiously supports President Obama’s military intervention to roll back the advances of ISIL in Iraq and Syria, recognizing that regional chaos endangers U.S. interests.

Nolan still supports President Obama’s plan, which is a total failure. Not only isn’t ISIL defeated, it’s spreading. Russia has emerged as the leader of the Middle East, too, while Iran’s mullahs build their hegemon one step at a time.

In short, it’s clear that Nolan is blinded by partisan loyalties. It’s apparent that he isn’t a solutions-oriented statesman. He’s just another cheap politician who can be bought off.