Search
Archives
Categories

Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

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: , , , , ,, , , ,

If this article is telling the truth, some Obama administration officials likely will be facing substantial jail time.

Circa News is reporting that “More than 5 percent, or one out of every 20 searches seeking upstream Internet data on Americans inside the NSA’s so-called Section 702 database violated the safeguards Obama and his intelligence chiefs vowed to follow in 2011, according to one classified internal report reviewed by Circa.”

Further, Circa quotes a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court document that said “Since 2011, NSA’s minimization procedures have prohibited use of U.S.-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collections under Section 702,” the unsealed court ruling declared. “The Oct. 26, 2016 notice informed the court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had been previously disclosed to the Court.”

This video is stunning:

Eventually, the FISA Court got so frustrated with the Obama administration that it rebuked them. It’s clear that Obama administration officials should be worried about their legal exposure. This time, Susan Rice’s testimony won’t be off-the-record. This time, it’ll be under penalty of perjury.

Let’s just say I’m thankful I’m not facing Ms. Rice’s situation.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Since news broke of Jim Comey’s firing yesterday, Democrats have acted like drama queens. They’ve pretended that Comey’s firing is surprising even though many of them have called for his head (or worse).

Some in the DC media wing of the Democratic Party have gone crazy:

That matches the Senate wing of the Democratic Party:

That matches the print wing of the Democratic Party:

President Donald Trump’s astonishing firing of FBI director James Comey on Tuesday afternoon raised throughout Washington the inevitable question: Is this Watergate? While Watergate was sui generis and is likely to remain so, Trump’s metastasizing crisis, and Washington’s reaction to it, make for a discomfiting reminder of that period. And suddenly it seems increasingly possible it could end the same way.

Seriously? Do Democrats realize how idiotic they sound? This isn’t a scandal. It certainly isn’t Watergate.

When Nixon fired Archibald Cox, Cox had identified a crime (the break-in of DNC headquarters in the Watergate Hotel) and had accumulated lots of incriminating evidence against President Nixon.

This nothing-burger is missing a crime and evidence. Further, the FBI has admitted that their investigation isn’t a criminal investigation. In other words, Comeygate is missing everything that Cox had when he was fired.

Other than those things, Comeygate is eerily reminiscent of Watergate.

Last Thursday, House Democrats threw a hissy fit. They followed their leader, Nancy Pelosi, over a cliff. They refused to offer any amendments during the debate of the American Health Care Act. Then, at the end of the vote, they did this:

Let’s get serious here. Democrats in the House and Senate have resisted any changes to the ACA. These days, they talk about how “the bill isn’t perfect” or how it needs to be tweaked. They don’t admit, though, how the ACA is broken and unfixable.

They won’t admit that people are already losing coverage:

Medica, which offers exchange plans for 12,645 members in Iowa, has a relatively small presence in the market but the recent exits of other big insurers — Aetna and Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield — makes Medica just one of two insurers selling plans on the exchanges for 2018.

Democrats won’t admit the ACA is broken:

Giant insurer Aetna on Wednesday continued an ongoing retreat from the Obamacare business, announcing it will not sell such health plans in Virginia next year because of expected financial losses.

Instead, Democrats keep sitting on the sidelines without offering substantive alternatives. That isn’t leadership. That’s political gamesmanship.

The only question left at this point is whether Democrats are digging their 2018 grave. I suspect they are.

It’s time to tell Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and the rest of the Democratic “Resistance” movement that their economic policies don’t work. It’s time they took a class I’d call “Economics for Dummies.”

The first principle of Economics for dummies is that companies making big profits spread that wealth around in the form of pay raises, promotions and expanding their companies. By comparison, companies operating in a stagnant economy, like what we had during the last administration, tend to be tight-fisted with their money.

Punishing companies with high taxes and excessive regulations doesn’t eliminate wealth creation. Instead, it incentivizes companies to hoard or hide their wealth. That leads directly to less upward mobility for those lower on the organization chart.

Until socialists like Sanders and Warren stop pushing their economic ‘gospel’, Democrats will keep underperforming in elections, including 2018.

Sen. Hatch didn’t hesitate in changing the Senate Finance Committee rules after Democrats failed to attend a confirmation vote for Steve Mnuchin to be President Trump’s Treasury Secretary and Rep. Tom Price to be President Trump’s HHS Secretary for a second day in a row.

This morning, Democrat senators didn’t attend the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, where Chairman Barrasso had scheduled a confirmation vote to recommend Scott Pruitt to be the next EPA Administrator.

Democrats are trying to prevent Republicans from putting in place President Trump’s cabinet. Republicans, growing weary of the Democrats’ tactics, have opted to not let the Democrats’ obstructionist tactics prevail. They’re sending the signal that the Democrats’ obstructionism hurts the American people. Republicans are sending the signal that Sen. Schumer’s stunts won’t be tolerated.

Thus far, leaders of The Resistance have insisted that their Democratic puppets dance. Thus far, Democrat senators haven’t resisted these special interest tyrants. It’s just more proof that Democrats don’t represent people. This video is proof aplenty that Democrats exclusively represent special interest groups:

If Democrats keep pulling these stunts, they’ll suffer massive defeats in 2018. Republicans will have a filibuster-proof majority after the 2018 election. If Democrats want to be all obstruction all the time, their participation trophy will be political irrelevance. They will have earned that ‘trophy’.

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

To nobody’s surprise, Elizabeth Warren’s statement on President Trump’s pick of Judge Gorsuch was filled with criticism.

Sen. Pocahontas started by saying “President Trump had the chance to select a consensus nominee to the Supreme Court. To the surprise of absolutely nobody, he failed that test. Instead, he carried out his public promise to select a nominee from a list drawn up by far right activist groups that were financed by big business interests.”

That’s rich coming from a 1-percenter who got a $1,300,000 line of credit from Bank of America but didn’t disclose it, thanks to a loophole created for bought-and-paid-for politicians. Then Sen. Pocahontas said “Judge Neil Gorsuch has been on this list for four months. His public record, which I have reviewed in detail, paints a clear picture. Before even joining the bench, he advocated to make it easier for public companies to defraud investors. As a judge, he has twisted himself into a pretzel to make sure the rules favor giant companies over workers and individual Americans. He has sided with employers who deny wages, improperly fire workers, or retaliate against whistleblowers for misconduct. He has ruled against workers in all manner of discrimination cases. And he has demonstrated hostility toward women’s access to basic health care.”

Rather than giving this mean-spirited (and likely dishonest) spin, why doesn’t Sen. Pocahontas cite the specific rulings? Is it because these rulings weren’t really about what Sen. Pocahontas says they’re about? Is it perhaps because she’s twisting Judge Gorsuch’s record because she’s playing to the Democrats’ special interests?

This is especially rich:

Every day, our new President finds more ways to demonstrate his hostility for our independent judiciary, our civil society, and the rule of law. Now more than ever, America needs Supreme Court justices with a proven record of standing up for the rights of all Americans – civil rights, women’s rights, LGBT rights, and all other protections guaranteed by our laws. We don’t need another justice who spends his time looking out for those with money and influence.

Sen. Pocahontas doesn’t want an independent judiciary. She wants a judiciary that rules favorably on the Democrats’ agenda. That isn’t independent, just friendly.

Sally Yates decided Monday night was the perfect time to not do her job. The good news is that President Trump decided that national security trumped putting up with corrupt lawyers. What triggered Ms. Yates’ termination was the fact that she was frustrated “with a President who seems to be running roughshod over American policy, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama appointee, announced she would not defend the order. Yates said she would refuse to put the power of the Department of Justice behind this measure in the courts. Human rights, civil rights, and civil liberties supporters were bolstered by her defiance.”

It isn’t Yates’ responsibility to agree or disagree with the policy. Yates’ responsibility is to uphold the law. She said that she wouldn’t defend President Trump’s executive order on vetting. Whether that fits the legal definition of insubordination is something others can debate. What’s indisputable is whether it fits the dictionary definition of insubordination. That definition is “the quality or condition of being insubordinate, or of being disobedient to authority”. Dana Boente, the new acting head of the Justice Department, said that he’ll enforce and defend the laws of this land.

Of course, Sen. Schumer isn’t impressed:

“The firing of Sally Yates underscores how important it is to have an Attorney General who will stand up to the White House when they are violating the law,” said Schumer, who has choked up while discussing the impact of Trump’s travel ban. “Many people have doubts about whether Jeff Sessions can be that person.”

Speaking of speaking truth to power, why was Sen. Schumer silent so often when the Obama administration’s decisions got people killed? This article highlights Sen. Schumer’s insincerity:

When an American facility was under attack in Libya and the president, secretary of state, and others did not lift a finger to save the Americans, I did not see any protests, outrage, or empathy from the media, Hollywood, or Democrats – nor when Obama, Hillary, and others concocted alternative facts instead of telling the truth. Instead of the media calling the president and Hillary the liars they were, they went after Republicans for trying to get to the truth. I did not see Schumer shed a tear for the families of those who died.

Sen. Schumer, spare me the theatrics. You aren’t a man of integrity. You’re a man of poorly scripted theatrics.

This video shows how the legal merits of President Trump’s EO should be debated:

Finally, isn’t it time Democrats allowed a vote for Jeff Sessions to become the next US Attorney General?

The Democratic Party of Hubert Humphrey, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Scoop Jackson is ancient history. The Democratic Party of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, aka The One-Man Pocket Veto, and (especially) Chuck Schumer can be described succinctly. They party of Obama, Reid and Schumer is all obstruction, all the time.

This article highlights just how unhinged today’s Democratic Party is. The article opens by saying “Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) on Monday predicted that Democrats would launch a filibuster against whoever President Trump picks for the Supreme Court. ‘This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat,’ Merkley told Politico. ‘We will use every lever in our power to stop this. … I will definitely object to a simple majority.'”

This isn’t surprising. Democrats are upset because they thought they’d get former President Obama’s third term. They thought they’d win back the majority in the Senate, too, so they could confirm lots of liberal justices. Instead, they nominated a corrupt politician who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Instead, they gained 2 seats in the Senate when they needed 5.

The important point, though, is that today’s Democratic Party isn’t interested in being public servants who listen to their constituents. Today’s Democratic Party isn’t interested in putting America first. Today’s Democratic Party is mostly about complaining when they don’t get their way. Today’s Democratic Party is about obstruction when people say no to their ideological wish list.

Simply put, Sen. Merkley has passionately and emphatically stated that his fidelity is to the Democratic Party, not the people he was elected to represent or the Constitution he swore an oath to defend.

The Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), which has ties to McConnell, quickly sent out emails questioning whether the red-state Democrats would back Merkley’s filibuster.

Of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), the group said: “Will he stand with the people of his state who overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump to be able to pick a Supreme Court nominee? Or will he stand with [Sens.] Elizabeth Warren [Mass.], Bernie Sanders [Vt.], and the rest of the Democratic caucus that only cares about its far left base of permanent protesters?”

If Democrats want to filibuster President Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, let them. That will expose them as obstructionists who obstruct for the sake of appeasing their political base. Democrats don’t care about this:

Democrats only care about maintaining power.

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

This article in the Pi-Press is disgusting in its dishonesty. In the article, the ‘reporter’ says that “Trump’s highly controversial order suspends refugee admissions for 120 days and bars all immigration for 90 days of citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries with terrorism concerns: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Those now being barred from the country include refugees who have already been thoroughly vetted by U.S. agencies.”

Either this reporter is telling an outright lie or he’s incredibly ignorant of the truth. Though Politifact attempts to sweep things under the carpet, the fact remains that FBI Director James Comey testified that “We can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database till the cows come home, but … there’ll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person.”

Politifact tried spinning things by saying “But did James Comey actually say the FBI “cannot properly vet” people coming from the Middle East? No, he didn’t. Beruff is distorting a point Comey was making about a flaw in the vetting process, but he was reiterating the system in place was actually much better than it had been in the past.”

Here’s the real exchange:

Ranking member Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) asked Comey, “Mr. Director, before this committee, [FBI] Assistant Director [Michael] Steinbach said that the concerns in Syria is that we don’t have the systems in place on the ground to collect the information to vet. That would be the concern. Databases don’t hold the information on these individuals. Is that still the position of the department?”

“Yes, I think that’s the challenge we’re all talking about, is that we can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database till the cows come home, but we’re not gonna—there’ll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person,” said Comey. “That’s what Assistant Director Steinbach was talking about,” he added.

Not having verifiable data to compare against isn’t “a flaw in the vetting process.” That’s admitting that it’s impossible to vet people. Here’s video of FBI Director Comey’s testimony:

That’s pretty open-and-shut testimony.

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