Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Newt Gingrich is one of the best election analysts in modern history. When he starts talking about the potential for wave elections, I listen. That’s what he’s talking about in this article.

One of the first things he mentions is “The liberal media likes to focus on how many House Republicans are retiring. Somehow this is supposed to make Republicans feel defeated and hopeless. In this context, I was startled recently to hear Congresswoman Elise Stefanik say 2020 was going to be the year of the House Republican woman. She went on to assert that there was a historic record being set for Republican women filing to run for the House.”

Speaker Gingrich then gets into candidate recruitment, online fundraising and a host of other things that give Republicans a distinct advantage. Here’s what he said about candidate recruitment:

I checked in with Chairman Tom Emmer at the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and found that, if anything, Stefanik had understated the momentum of new recruits. With House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy and the leadership team going all out, the House Republicans are setting a remarkably encouraging series of records.

Consider these numbers: The total number of Republicans filed for House seats so far is 928, according to Federal Elections Commission (FEC) figures – or 188 more than the total at the same time in 2010 (740). The year 2010 matters because it was the last time Nancy Pelosi was kicked out of the majority and Speaker John Boehner led the House GOP to its biggest gain in modern times – with his “where are the jobs” slogan.

Right now, the only accomplishment that the House Democrats can point to is the ratification of President Trump’s USMCA trade agreement. Compared with the things that Republicans can point to during their 2 years in office, the Democrats don’t have much to highlight during the campaign. Then there’s the fundraising portion of this equation:

In the 2018 cycle, this system raised $1.8 billion over the two-year period. When this scale of small-donor involvement was combined with massive donors like Michael Bloomberg (who spent $5 million on ads in the last two weeks in some elections) the Democrats’ money advantage was enormous. This helps explain the Republican House defeats.

The threat posed by the ActBlue system was reinforced in 2019 when it raised more than $1 billion for the Democrats. Republican leaders realized they had to match or exceed the small-dollar system the Democrats had invented. They developed a competitive model called WinRed. The intensity of support for President Trump, combined with growing anger over the Democrats’ investigation and impeachment strategy, has made WinRed a success much faster than anyone expected.

In its first two quarters, WinRed raised $101 million. Its effectiveness is growing rapidly. It raised $31 million in its first quarter of existence and more than doubled that in the second quarter with $70 million (fourth quarter of 2019). In fact, WinRed raised more in its first 190 days than ActBlue raised in its first five years.

The other factor that people haven’t talked about is the fact that most of the competitive seats that Republicans need to flip to return to the majority are seats that President Trump has done well in. It isn’t like Republicans have to flip tons of seats where Democrats traditionally do well in. That, in turn, means that they won’t need to raise as much money as Democrats raise.

House Democrats have to defend why they didn’t get important things done during this Congress. They promised to lower prescription drug prices, fix health care, work on infrastructure and strengthen the economy. They didn’t get any of those things done. They don’t have a list of accomplishments. Democrats have an accomplishment — USMCA. The rest of their time was wasted on impeachment, sour grapes and other waste-of-time investigations. If I were running the NRCC’s messaging, I’d have a single message, which would be “What have you done for me lately?”

It’s time to call Pelosi’s Democrats out. They’re essentially worthless. Democrats spent more time telling us that Iranians really loved Soleimani than they spent in court to compel witnesses that House Democrats said weren’t needed but that Senate Democrats insist are essential. Now Pelosi insists that not calling witnesses that House Democrats didn’t call amounts to a cover-up:

I’d love hearing Pelosi sell that BS to the American people.

Last week, we were told by the Agenda Media that the Iranian people hated President Trump because he killed Gen. Soleimani. This weekend, Iranians ripped the mask off the Democrats’ attempt to spin their anti-Trump story. It’s clear that Iranians hated Gen. Soleimani as much as Iranians hate Ayatollah Khamenei.

Democratic congressional leaders and presidential candidates who were unsparing in their criticism of President Trump for the escalation with Iran over the past two weeks largely have gone silent now that the protests on the streets of Tehran and beyond have turned their rage toward the regime and not the Trump White House.

Even as videos emerged online Monday that purportedly show Iranian police and security forces firing live ammunition to disperse protesters, so far among the 2020 Democratic candidates only former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., have spoken out in support of the people.

The Democrats’ hatred of President Trump helped fuel the Democrats’ anti-Trump spin rather than cheering the killing of a terrorist mastermind. How sick that these Democrat presidential aspirants hate President more than they hate a cold-blooded Iranian terrorist mastermind.

Democrats will have difficulty gaining traction until they start a) backing away from the partisan socialist ledge, b) siding with the American people again and c) running away from Bernie Sanders’ socialist policies and AOC’s environmentalist policies. But I digress.

The story starting this week is that the Iranian people are, without American provocation, rising up against their religious leadership. These Iranian protesters are protesting the mullahs because they’re frustrated with out-of-control inflation and unemployment. People are noticing the Democrats’ behavior:


Yashar Ali isn’t a conservative, though he’s certainly an Iranian patriot. He’s upset that Democrats won’t pick the Iranian patriots’ side in this fight. Democrats won’t pick Iran’s side because that’s the side President Trump is on. Lord knows that Democrats can’t side with President Trump on anything. That’s why they’ll get thrashed this November.

When you combine obviously biased ‘reporting’ with obviously biased polling, don’t be surprised if the polling is essentially worthless. That’s what happened with this ABC News/Ipsos Poll. Q1 of the poll is “Do you approve or disapprove of the way President Trump is handling the current situation with Iran? The result of the poll was that 43% approved and 56% didn’t approve. Q2 of the poll asked “Do you think the U.S. airstrike in Iraq that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani has made the United States: Less safe – 52%, More safe – 25%, didn’t make a difference – 22%.”

Polling that asks slanted questions like that is angling for a specific set of responses. In this instance, that’s precisely what ABC got. Further, the polling was done on Friday and Saturday. Finally 525 adults were surveyed. That means that this poll was junk. The MOE was 4.8%, which is terrible.

Q3 and Q4 deserve a category unto themselves. Q3 asks “How concerned are you about the possibility of the United States getting involved in a full-scale war with Iran? A: 32% replied that they’re “very concerned” and 41% are “somewhat concerned.” Q4 is about Speaker Pelosi’s handling of impeach. It asked respondents “On another subject, three weeks ago the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not immediately deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate that would trigger a trial. Which of the following statements comes closest to your point of view even if neither is exactly right?”

“The fact that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats did not immediately transmit the articles of impeachment shows that the allegations against President Trump are not serious and that the Democrats are just playing partisan politics” A: 37%
“By not immediately transmitting the articles of impeachment, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are doing their constitutional duty to ensure that there is a full and deliberate trial in the Senate and that the jury in the Senate is impartial.” A:39%

The frightening thought is that votes cast by these uninformed idiots count just as much as the votes of informed citizens. Still, how can serious people think that we’re on the brink of full-scale war with Iran? Then again, how can anyone think that Speaker Pelosi is an honest person? After watching this video, it’s impossible for me to think that she’s honest:

Early in the interview, Pelosi said that Sen. McConnell will be involved in a cover-up if he doesn’t allow witnesses. If that’s true, then Adam Schiff is a co-conspirator. Chairman Schiff didn’t call Bolton, Blair, Mulvaney and Duffey and he didn’t subpoena them, either. Further, Democrats should’ve called for a special counsel to investigate the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call. Congressional partisans like Chairman Schiff aren’t qualified to investigate corruption. There’s a reason why people don’t take partisan congressional investigations seriously.

We were told that this was a national emergency that couldn’t wait. Pelosi insists that GOP senators will pay a price if witnesses aren’t called. Coming from the woman who turned impeachment into a political weapon because Democrats can’t win this election if their lives depended on it, that’s rich. Pelosi and Schiff are nasty partisans who don’t have a bit of integrity between them.

There’s a new Democrat coalition. It consists of corrupt Democrat politicians like Pelosi and Schiff, partisan Democrat journalists like George Stephanopoulos and intentional push-polling aimed at providing a dishonest picture. Republicans have to defeat that coalition just to stand a fighting chance. That’s why President Trump hasn’t listened to people instructing him to stop tweeting. Without Twitter and other social media platforms, he would’ve gotten buried by now.

Finally, thank God he’s a fighter.

When it comes to dovish presidential candidates, this year’s Democrats look more like 1972 than any other bunch of dovish Democrats. Kim Strassel’s article highlights just how leftist this year’s Democrat frontrunners are. Let’s start with Bernie Sanders’ dovishness.

Strassel writes “Voters now know that a President Bernie Sanders would not take action against Iran or other rogue regimes, no matter how many red lines they cross. Mr. Sanders will take no step that might bring us anywhere closer to ‘another disastrous war’ or cost ‘more dollars and more deaths.'” Honestly, I’m not certain Bernie would have any red lines. Thankfully, we won’t have to worry about that since he doesn’t stand a chance of winning the general election. That being said, he’s got a decent shot at winning the Democrats’ presidential nomination.

Then there’s Elizabeth Warren:

A President Elizabeth Warren would similarly offer a pass to leaders of U.S.-designated terrorist groups, at least if they have an official title. The Trump strike, she said, amounted to the “assassination” of “a government official, a high-ranking military official.”

Richard Nixon was right when he said that “the world is a terrible neighborhood to live in.” Anyone that thinks that these Democrats are prepared to be commander-in-chief is kidding themselves. People this dovish aren’t prepared for the harsh responsibilities of making difficult decisions on a moment’s notice. This interview is proof that Elizabeth Warren isn’t bright enough to be commander-in-chief:

Anyone that thinks that the US isn’t safer as a result of killing Maj. Gen. Soleimani doesn’t pass the commander-in-chief test. Sen. Warren thinks we aren’t safer now than we were 3 years ago. Right after 9/11, we were told that killing terrorists created more terrorists. After the US took out the Taliban and things settled down a little bit, we were told that the Arab street respected “the strong horse.” It’s time to stop thinking that these Democrats have a clue about national security/terrorism. They don’t. They’re idiots. The guy in the White House is the only person currently running that I’d trust with these matters. Trusting Bernie, Biden, Buttigieg or Warren with national security, terrorism or foreign policy is foolish.

Iranian protesters are doing what President Obama didn’t do. They’re protesting against the Iranian regime and “demanding that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei step down.” In 2009, President Obama refused to side with protesters after the Iranian regime stole a rigged election. President Obama had an agenda to achieve and Iran’s dissidents stood in the way of that.

In this article, national security reporter Eli Lake exposes the Obama administration’s disgusting plans. In the article, Lake wrote “Obama wasn’t just reluctant to show solidarity in 2009, [Obama] feared the demonstrations would sabotage his secret outreach to Iran. In his new book, “The Iran Wars,” Wall Street Journal reporter Jay Solomon uncovers new details on how far Obama went to avoid helping Iran’s green movement. Behind the scenes, Obama overruled advisers who wanted to do what America had done at similar transitions from dictatorship to democracy, and signal America’s support.”

Earlier this week, Republicans correctly said that Gen. Soleimani had blood on his hands, which is true. Thanks to Lake’s reporting, it’s apparent that President Obama has blood on his hands, too. If President Obama hadn’t sabotaged the Green Revolution in 2009, it’s definitely possible that the Khamenei regime would’ve fallen. It’s possible that a nastier regime could’ve taken over but it’s equally true that a more pro-young people regime would’ve won, too. Almost three-fourths of the people in Iran are 35 or younger. Masih Alinejad published this tweet from today’s protests:


This is what patriotism looks like:

Obama cared more about his legacy than he cared about helping these Iranian patriots topple an evil dictator. In fact, Obama let these people get trampled just so he could negotiate a terrible deal with Iranian monsters like Khamenei and Soleimani. Khamenei oppressed the people while Soleimani terrorized the region. Unlike President Obama, though, President Trump isn’t worried about his legacy. He’s worried about doing the right thing by the Iranian people. That’s why he tweeted these messages to Iran’s dissidents:


That’s the difference between a true patriot who’s fighting for what’s right and a desperate politician who wants to build a legacy. President Obama didn’t act like a patriot. If he had, Iran’s people might’ve been delivered from their government’s oppression and Obama might’ve built a legitimate legacy. Here’s what Secretary of State Pompeo tweeted in support of Iran’s people:


Can you picture John Kerry tweeting such a message? I can’t either.

Now that Speaker Pelosi has caved, Democrats, aka Nancy’s support group, have started spinning things to make it sound like her impeachment delay succeeded. It’s understandable why they’d spin that. They know that she needs to save face to avoid utter humiliation. If she wants to save face, she needs another Botox treatment, not this spin.

Byron York’s article is aptly titled Pelosi caves. In the article, Chuck Schumer is quoted as saying “in the last two weeks, there’s been a cascade of evidence that bolsters the case, strongly bolsters the case, for witnesses and documents.” Consider this the Senate Democrats’ equivalent of House Democrats’ “bombshell testimony” coming from the Schiff Show. Spare me the spin.

During the Schiff Show portion of impeachment, we were told by the corrupt media that that day’s testifiers would provide “bombshell testimony” that would devastate Orange Man Bad. By mid-afternoon each day, that day’s star witness was the one decimated. By the time the Schiff Show transitioned into Nadler’s articles of impeachment hearings, Democrats were sinking fast. Impeachment had backfired to the point that the House Judiciary Committee didn’t bother calling fact witnesses. That’s because Democrats were still looking for a fact witness that wouldn’t hurt them.

There’s speculation that Democrats might try a second round of impeachment. Democrat activists were the only people who took the first round seriously. Why think that anyone would take another round seriously? Doug Collins appears to have this right:

“I believe she finally ran out of options and realized there was no political gain anymore,” Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said in a text exchange Friday. “The case never changed, and the outcome has not been altered, but it appears to have allowed them to talk more about it and try to influence public opinion away from the show in the House and the inevitable result in the Senate.”

The American people aren’t paying attention. They’re too busy enjoying their bigger paychecks, their latest promotions, their rising wages. They’re too busy taking vacations. Washington pundits are paying attention but that’s about it.

Now, the holdout is apparently coming to an end. A trial will begin. Pelosi will undoubtedly keep trying to mess with the president. But the trial will be out of her hands.

Let’s hope for a quick trial. The Democrats’ House impeachment managers don’t have anything to present except hearsay testimony. The Trump legal team should present the transcript of the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call and the whistle-blower’s complaint to provide a contrast between what actually happened and the Democrats’ gossip. If Democrats succeed in calling witnesses, Republicans should call the whistle-blower as a witness. If he’s called, the Trump legal team should insist that he give up the names of the people who leaked information to him.

Further, we know that John Bolton won’t testify. He might get called but President Trump will exert executive privilege. If Democrats want to challenge that in court, that’s their option. It’s also their option to pound their head into a brick wall. No serious judge will side with the Democrats in forcing the national security adviser testify about classified communications between the president and another head of state. It’s time to put the Democrats’ fiasco in the rear-view mirror.

John Kerry’s op-ed might get mistaken as the rantings of a lunatic. It wouldn’t get mistaken as the craftsmanship of a highly respected former US Secretary of State. Then again, Secretary Kerry wasn’t a highly respected secretary of state at any point in his life.

Secretary Kerry’s op-ed starts with “President Trump says that on his watch, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. But if he had wanted to keep that promise, he should have left the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement in place. Instead, he pulled the United States out of the deal and pursued a reckless foreign policy that has put us on a path to armed conflict with Iran.”

The JCPOA, which stands for Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action, never would’ve prevented Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. The best possible outcome was to delay Iran’s legal acquisition of a nuclear weapon. What’s worse is that Secretary Kerry agreed to sanctions relief for the Iranian theocracy without them even signing the JCPOA. That’s a fact because Iran still hasn’t signed the document.

Another fatal flaw of the negotiations is that it was such a worthless agreement that President Obama refused to submit it as a treaty. Some of President Obama’s staunchest supporters in the Senate refused to approve the deal.

Further, Kerry lied when he said that President Trump “pursued a reckless foreign policy that has put us on a path to armed conflict with Iran.” Killing Gen. Soleimani took the US off a path to war with Iran. Iran has been making one provocative action after another to provoke the US into war. President Trump hasn’t taken Iran’s bait.

This moment was nothing if not foreseeable the moment Mr. Trump abandoned the 2015 agreement, which was working, and chose instead to isolate us from our allies, narrow our options in the region and slam shut the door to tackling additional issues with Iran through constructive diplomacy.

By putting new, tough, sanctions in place against the theocracy, President Trump is drying up the funds Iran has traditionally used to fund its proxies like Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. The predictable thing is Kerry lying about the JCPOA. It’s one of the worst agreements in US diplomatic history. Here’s where Kerry gives it away that the JCPOA is worthless:

Diplomacy had achieved what sanctions alone had not: Iran couldn’t have a nuclear weapon during the life span of the agreement; and if it cheated, the world was resolved to stop it.

Then there’s this:

In 2013, I sat down with Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, for the first meeting between our countries’ top diplomats since the 1979 revolution and hostage crisis. Iran at the time had enough enriched material for eight to 10 nuclear bombs and was two to three months from being able to build one.

In other words, Kerry negotiated a deal that gave Iran immediate sanctions relief, pallets that contained $1.7 billion in cash and time to build, then test, nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to use them. Other than that, Iran was neutralized.

What did we turn over to President-elect Trump in 2017? Iran was in compliance with the nuclear agreement. Our allies were united with the United States.

What Mr. Kerry omits is that Iran had sanctions relief that poured $150,000,000,000 (that’s $150 billion> dollars) into revitalizing Iran’s terrorist proxies around the region and around the globe. Thinking that nuclear weapons is all that Iran is interested in is foolish.

That’s what a fool looks like.

Saying that Dan Crenshaw had had enough with the Democrats’ talking points is understatement. Crenshaw’s speech utterly demolished the Democrats’ chanting points. Pete Buttigieg blamed the US for the loss of life onboard Ukraine Flight 752:


What a total loser. Then there’s Elizabeth Warren:

“When President Trump first announced that he had Soleimani killed, I thought, Why now? We’ve know about Soleimani for years. What’s the reason it’s not last month? What’s the reason it’s not next month? And does this have to do with the fact that we’re right here on the eve of impeachment,” Warren said.

Rep. Crenshaw had a reply:

“Ok, Elizabeth Warren, I’ve got an answer for you. The reason why now is because Soleimani just orchestrated an attack on our embassy, killed an American citizen and we have very good intel from the CIA, the DNI, from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They said was some of the best intel they’d ever seen, that there was an imminent attack coming within days. So, Elizabeth Warren, that is why.”

In other words, President Trump ordered the killing of Gen. Soleimani to prevent a war. Further, President Trump ordered that killing based on strong intelligence. He didn’t approve the killing because he’s facing impeachment. He’s already been impeached. He isn’t getting convicted. What’s there to worry about impeachment? Meanwhile, here’s Rep. Crenshaw unloading both barrels, first on Buttigieg, then Warren:

Notice what Crenshaw did that permitted him to effectively decimate Democrats. Rep. Crenshaw’s command of the facts was superb. Then he explained why President Trump did what he did. Further, he was under control while he made his case against the Democrats. That’s how you blow the Democrats’ talking points out of the water.

The important thing to understand is that few Democrats are able to sound coherent if they aren’t regurgitating Democrat talking points. Elizabeth Warren doesn’t sound the least bit coherent when she’s confronted about foreign policy. Her stump speech about Iran essentially is ‘President Trump killed Gen. Soleimani to distract from the impeachment trial that he isn’t worried about.’ There’s nothing substantive about Sen. Warren’s foreign policy.

When impeachment started, Nancy Pelosi insisted that she loved the Constitution. I suspect that she loves the Constitution like she loves the Bible. I suspect that she loves them when it’s to her advantage. Yesterday, the House voted on a resolution that ignored the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the authority to declare war.

While it’s fitting for Congress to weigh in on policy matters, it isn’t fitting that the Legislative Branch should tell the Executive Branch what it should or shouldn’t do. Yesterday’s non-binding resolution told President Trump how Congress wanted to restrict him in prosecuting military operations. That’s far outside the Legislative Branch’s authority.

The military is 100% within the Executive Branch’s authority. They take orders from the Commander-in-Chief, not 100 egotistical senators, not from an aging Speaker of the House, not from anyone in the Legislative Branch. The Legislative Branch’s constitutional authority over the military is confined to declaring war (then getting out of the way) and appropriating money to fund the military.

Democrats insist that they love the Constitution. If that’s true, why don’t they appreciate it all the time? The Democrats’ “living, breathing document” line apparently means that they like it when it says what they want it to say but they’ll change it when they don’t like what it says.

This interview says everything:

Congress doesn’t have the authority to tell presidents how to prosecute war. The Constitution only gives them the authority to declare war. Declarations of war have nothing to do with prosecuting wars.

Speaker Pelosi might not like that but she can’t ignore that fact.

Saying that Pete Buttigieg’s bizarre big blunder will hurt him is understatement. Shortly after Iran’s military shot down a flight, killing all 176 passengers on the plane, Buttigieg insisted that the US was, at minimum, partially to blame:


What a deadbeat Pete Buttigieg is. The US isn’t to blame for the shooting down of this airliner. Iranians are to blame. Period. The US doesn’t need another blame-America-first president. Obama was sufficient for a lifetime.

We don’t need more presidents that won’t notice that Iran has been at war with the US since the Shah of Iran received medical treatment in NYC in 1979. When Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took control of Iran’s government in 1979, the radicalization of the Iranian government was essentially complete. It’s stunning that someone who served in the military, which Buttigieg did, would be this ignorant of fairly recent Iranian history.

Frankly, Buttigieg is an intellectual lightweight. Either that or he’s dishonest. Both possibilities are plausible.

Iran fired two surface-to-air missiles right before the plane exploded, killing every single one of the 176 passengers aboard, according to U.S. officials. And we now have video evidence of a missile being fired directly at the plane hours after the country had attacked U.S. military assets in Iraq. To be clear, there was no “tit for tat” involved. Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at U.S. targets in Iraq, and the U.S. showed restraint by not responding. Then, the downing of the airliner occurred. It’s unclear whether the downing was intentional, but one thing is obvious: This had nothing to do with the U.S.

Apparently, Buttigieg didn’t get briefed on Iran’s attack of the airliner. That’s the type of sloppiness that accidentally gets nations into wars. This isn’t the time for a wet-behind-the-ears commander-in-chief who is too arrogant to admit that he’s isn’t ready for the job of commander-in-chief.