Archive for the ‘Debates’ Category

Thursday night’s debate showed just how much contempt Democrat presidential candidates have for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Kamala Harris said that she’d issue an executive order to confiscate (my word, not hers) AR-15s and AK-47s if Congress didn’t act on banning assault weapons. I quoted from the DC v. Heller case in this post why she’d get slammed 9-0 in the Supreme Court:

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

The Supreme Court has ruled that guns that are in common use are beyond Congress because they’re protected by the Second Amendment. Period.

Harris isn’t the only Democrat that thinks they’re above the Constitution. Robert Francis O’Rourke, the rich brat from El Paso, went on this tirade during the debate:

O’Rourke himself is just a punk who won’t be president. With that tirade, he took himself out of the running for being a serious challenger to Sen. Cornyn, too. That’s why I couldn’t care less about Robert Francis. What I’m bothered about was the applause he received from the audience at the Democrats’ debate in Houston. Those idiots are our neighbors, co-workers and friends.

This is what happens when our schools don’t emphasize civics in the classroom. Increasingly, our society thinks that they’re beyond the law and the Constitution. Chief of those that think that way is AOC. Harris apparently thinks that she can ignore the Constitution, too:

Harris responded, “I would just say, hey, Joe, instead of saying, no, we can’t, let’s say, yes, we can. And yes, we can. Because I’ll tell you something, the way that I think about this is, I’ve seen more autopsy photographs than I care to tell you. I have attended more police officer funerals than I care to tell you. I have hugged more mothers of homicide victims than I care to tell you. And the idea that we would wait for this Congress, which has just done nothing, to act, is just — it is overlooking the fact that every day in America, our babies are going to school to have drills.”

To Sen. Harris: I’ve read the Bill of Rights. It trumps the autopsy pictures that Sen. Harris has seen. It trumps the attempt to play on victims’ emotions, too.

Perhaps it’s just me but Sen. Harris sounded like she was high when she said “Hey, Joe, instead of saying ‘no, we can’t,’ let’s say ‘yes, we can.’ That laughter made her sound like she was high.

Whether Sen. Harris was high or not, she’s definitely wrong on the Constitution.

Last week, the Democrats, both those running for president and those activists in the MSM, repeatedly talked about the looming recession. At last night’s third Democrat presidential debate, hardly a word was said about the economy. Chief Washington Examiner Politics Correspondent Byron York notice that the subject of the economy didn’t make an appearance at the Democrats’ third presidential debate. Amazingly, ABC moderators didn’t ask a single question about the economy, either.

How can you have a 3-hour-long debate and not talk about the topic that most people want to talk about? That’s journalistic malpractice. In his article, York wrote “at the Democratic Party’s first one-night presidential debate, the first opportunity to showcase the party’s ten leading candidates, what role did the nation’s widespread economic anxieties play? Almost none. The candidates simply didn’t talk about it. (Nor did the ABC News moderators ask.) The word “recession” was uttered just once in the entire debate. (By Julian Castro, who noted the poll’s finding of recession fears.) Nor was the word “unemployment” ever spoken. Nor was there a discussion of job creation. Nor was there much of a discussion of wages.”

It’s almost as if ABC got the word from their boss (in this instance, DNC Chair Tom Perez) to not talk about the subject. I’m not accusing Chairman Perez of that. I’m merely stating that it’s as if Perez did that. It isn’t like Clintonista George Stephanopoulos was ever accused of rigging a debate by his former bosses. Oh wait. He has:

BRZEZINSKI:Jonathan Capehart, help me understand, tell me if I’m going down the wrong path here. It appears the Clinton campaign wants to do either a debate that no one will see, or a debate with a moderator that might not be completely fair towards Bernie Sanders. What do you think of the concept of a GMA debate with George Stephanopoulos.

Democrats understand that it’s virtually impossible to convince people that are spending extra money at Walmart because their take-home pay has increased thanks to the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act and because pay has increased by 3% over the past year. It’s easier to talk about ‘Democrat’ issues like health care and gun confiscation. DNC Chairman Tom Perez, in an attempt to spin what happened, said that health care is an economic issue:

Sorry, Tom, but creating jobs, tax policy, regulatory policy and rebuilding communities through a solid, comprehensive economic package qualifies as a discussion on the economy.

This article highlights the difference between Democrats debating the Second Amendment and the GOP debating it. Rich Lowry highlights Amy Klobuchar’s statement that “I look at [gun legislation] and I always say, ‘Does this hurt Uncle Dick in his deer stand?'” Lowry then notes ” That’s not the question, though. The Second Amendment isn’t fundamentally about Uncle Dick bagging deer, but about his ability to defend himself and his family.”

As a Minnesotan, I’ve gotten tired of listening to the DFL yapping about being pro-Second Amendment, then backing it up by saying that they’ve been hunting ducks or deer for decades. My reflexive reaction has consistently been that the Second Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights to guarantee Uncle Dick the right to hunt deer or ducks.

The text of the Second Amendment is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The exceptionally clear intent of the men who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to explicitly give people the right to protect their families and to explicitly tell militias that they had the right to secure our nation from invading nations and to provide for stopping tyrannical rulers.

If you think it’s insane to think that stopping tyrannical rulers is the stuff of conspiracy theories, think about this: during the last presidential election, the incumbent administration surveilled the opposition party’s nominee. That isn’t a theory. That’s a finding of fact in multiple congressional reports and the recent IG report.

It isn’t a stretch to think that the Deep State wouldn’t hesitate in undercutting an administration it didn’t like. Further, it isn’t a stretch to think that the Deep State would squash people that it thought was a threat to its way of conducting business.

As for the current debate about what to do about curbing gun violence, Sen. John Kennedy, (R-LA), has the right idea:

“Some of my colleagues argue that by further curtailing our Second Amendment rights, they can enhance public safety. Fine, the burden of proof is on them. I’m willing to have that debate, but I want the bacon without the sizzle — no speculation, no false comfort, no pulling stuff out of your orifices.”

This past week, Juan Williams’ statement was that the problem in the United States was the availability of guns. If that’s true, and I don’t think he is, then he’s got a major obstacle to pass. It’s called the Second Amendment. It’s one thing to rewrite a bill. It’s quite another to repeal a constitutional amendment and one of the cornerstones of the Bill of Rights. That requires 290 yes votes in the U.S. House of Representatives and 67 yes votes in the Senate. BTW, that only applies if the language is identical in both bills. If one sentence is different from one bill or the other, then a conference committee is required to eliminate the differences.

At that point, another daunting task faces the proposed repeal of the Second Amendment. After all that commotion in the U.S. House and Senate, it needs to be ratified by the state legislatures of 38 states. That means both houses of those state legislatures must vote to ratify the repeal of the Second Amendment. If the DFL House votes to ratify the repeal but the Republican Senate votes to stop the repeal, then that state wouldn’t ratify the repeal. If 12 other states did the same, the repeal of the Second Amendment fails.

It’s worth noting this from Rich Lowry’s article:

It is out of this historical soil that we got the Second Amendment. Guns would make it possible for Americans to defend themselves, and to defend their liberties. Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist of “the original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.” This right can be used if necessary, per Hamilton, “against the usurpations of the national rulers.”

Here is the video of Sen. Kennedy’s interview on the Second Amendment:

Icicles must be forming in hell because Ted Cruz will meet with Alyssa Milano in Sen. Cruz’s Senate office to discuss gun control and the Bible in the spirit of I Peter 4:8. For those not familiar with that verse (I wasn’t), it says “And above all things have fervent love for one another, for ‘love will cover a multitude of sins.'” Here’s my sincere prayer that that’s the spirit that this political odd couple will meet.

This all started when Miss Milano initially tweeted “I’d love to come in and meet with you on the gun issue and many other issues that include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, @tedcruz and also, 1 Peter 4:8. I’ll be in DC next week. We can live-stream the meeting so the American people can hear your bullshit 1st hand.” Cruz then replied, saying “I’d be happy to sit down & visit next week about uniting to stop gun violence & about the Constitution. If we can have a civil & positive conversation—in the spirit of 1 Peter 4:8 as you suggest—despite our political differences, that might help resolve the discord in our Nation.”

I don’t doubt Sen. Cruz’s sincerity. He’s a solid Christian man who isn’t afraid of a debate. Since he’s said that he wants to have a conversation “in the spirit of I Peter 4:8,” then I’ll accept that as Sen. Cruz’s intent. What’s interesting is Miss Milano’s reply:


Sen. Cruz’s reply might’ve surprised Miss Milano:


There’s more to Sen. Cruz’s reply, which I’d recommend everyone read, but you get the picture. Nonetheless, Miss Milano replied thusly:


This should be interesting. I’d love it if all of the cable networks covered it live. If they did, I’m betting that they’d get monstrous ratings. I’d be surprised if each network couldn’t find a major sponsor to allow them to cover the discussion/debate without interruption.

Perhaps, this odd couple might even do something positive that would help break the partisan logjam on this and other issues.

If you want to know the biggest difference between the Democrats’ presidential candidates and President Trump, it isn’t difficult to identify. The Democrats’ presidential candidates aren’t peddling the truth. They’re peddling doom and gloom. Whether it’s Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg or Bill de Blasio, they’re peddling a message that the world will end in 12 years if we don’t solve climate change or they’re peddling a message that blue collar families are getting screwed because ‘the rich’ are ripping everyone off.

Voters won’t flock to a political party that insists the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

Meanwhile, President Trump’s message is simple and two-fold. One part of President Trump’s message is Promises Made, Promises Kept. The other part of President Trump’s message is Keep America Great. They work hand-in-hand. President Trump’s speeches often start with him talking about how strong the economy is, especially for minorities and women, then talking about all the great judges that’ve gotten confirmed by the Senate, followed by talking about criminal justice reform.

Just like you can’t beat something with nothing, it’s true that you can’t doom and gloom yourself to the White House. You have to uplift people. Right now, Democrats don’t have a Reaganesque Happy Warrior. The Democrats’ candidates are angry and pessimistic. Think Bernie, de Blasio, Elizabeth Warren and Gillibrand. These are candidates that specialize in anger and pessimism.

Back in the late 1970s, it was fashionable for supposed intellectuals to talk about how the presidency was just too big for one man. The political science professoriate talked about the need for a co-presidency. That professoriate even talked about changing the Constitution so that the president would serve a single 6-year term. That was during Jimmy Carter’s single 4-year term in office.

That fashionable talk disappeared the minute President Reagan took over and got the economy hitting on all cylinders. In October, 1983, the US economy created 1,100,000 jobs. I’ve got to think that’s the single-month record and that it’ll never be eclipsed. It wasn’t that the presidency was too big for one man. It’s that it was too big for that man, aka Jimmy Carter.

During his final months in office, President Obama ridiculed then-candidate Trump, saying that you’d need a magic wand to bring back manufacturing jobs during this townhall:

Twitchy has noticed Republicans, especially Donald Trump Jr., ridiculing President Obama and his “magic wand” statement:


Just like with Reagan replacing Carter, we’re seeing the same robust economic growth increase from the turnover from Obama to President Trump. The comparison is striking. President Reagan cut taxes dramatically, especially capital gains, while pursuing deregulation, especially in the energy sector. President Trump is following the same path to success, virtually to a T.

At this week’s Democrat presidential debates, Democrat presidential candidates criticized President Obama for not being sufficiently socialist enough. By the time Democrats pick their nominee, which might not be determined until their convention, President Trump will join in the criticism of President Obama. It’s just that President Trump will criticize President Obama for not being sufficiently capitalist enough.

It’s entirely possible that President Trump will win a decisive victory, though I can’t predict him winning the 525 electoral votes that President Reagan achieved in 1984. Talk about deja vu all over again.

This op-ed should be trumpeted across the nation from sunrise to sunset from now until Election Day. Democrat presidential candidates at this week’s debates tried making the Trump economy sound like Soupline America. Each Democrat presidential candidate insisted that President Trump’s economy only benefited the rich while giving the working class the cold shoulder.

What’s needed is a dose of reality. Something like this:

Members of the campaign’s Women For Trump coalition participated in an Economic Empowerment round table this week in downtown Detroit. Over a dozen women business owners like myself participated in the discussion focused on how the president’s policies have not only empowered but advanced women in today’s modern economy.

As a result of historic tax cuts and deregulation, more than 5.5 million jobs have been created. In my own business, I have experienced growth and success thanks to deregulation and tax cuts. Just as important, my employees have felt the economic growth too.

Then there’s this:

The growth and success of my enterprise is one of many, thanks to Trump’s policies. Americans across the country, and from all walks of life, are experiencing this strong economic headwind. A boom in hiring and increased wages has created a unique problem in today’s labor force — we need MORE workers! Now, businesses of all sizes are competing for American workers by reinvesting in their employees, boosting benefits and offering competitive salaries.

When businesses compete for workers, workers win. That’s an indisputable fact.

Mark Penn’s op-ed highlights just how the Democrats’ presidential candidates from the second night’s debate view President Trump’s America:

While these same candidates earlier this week expressed outrage at President Trump for tweeting that Baltimore was a rat-infested mess, they all seemed to portray our entire country as in far worse shape than that Maryland oasis. America, it seems, is not the land of full employment, rising wages and decreased poverty. It’s not a country in which 90 percent have health insurance, almost everyone has a smartphone, and 64 percent own their home. It’s at heart a racist, misogynistic country dominated by fat cats and big corporations sucking the life out of us all. According to these candidates it’s a dark, dark place and, unless we usher them into office and save it through these programs and policies that start at a mere $30 trillion, America will continue to be a lost country.

It’s fantastic that women like Amy Azzo are speaking out about how President Trump’s policies are working. That being said, just letting these Democrats spew their idiotic crap will be enough, in my opinion, to deliver a major victory to President Trump and House and Senate Republicans.

Let’s be clear about this. We’ll still have to work hard. We’ll still need to man the phone banks, drop lit and register new voters. That’s still essential. That being said, the things that the Democrats’ presidential candidates have said are the things that lunatics have said. The questions that I have at this point are simple. How many seats will Republicans win in the House? To me, the question of whether Ms. Pelosi returns as Speaker has been determined. She’ll hold the Speaker’s Gavel one time in 2021 and that’s when she hands it to Speaker McCarthy. Another question I have is whether Republicans will have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? I’m thinking they won’t but that they might have as many as 57-58 Republicans in the Upper Chamber.

Check back later for more on the deterioration of today’s Democratic Party.

It’s more than a little strange to read that Joe Biden won the debate, then find out that, for the second debate in a row, Biden didn’t make himself available to the press in Spin Alley. That isn’t what winners do. Confident people want another round of publicity to get their message out to another potential group of voters.

The question that can’t be ignored is the one I’ll ask here. Mr. Vice President, if you’re the winner of tonight’s debate, why aren’t you acting like the winner of tonight’s debate? Why are you employing the strategy that Hillary used in 2016? If you didn’t notice, she lost. Mr. Vice President, did you skip Spin Alley because you won only because the others on stage were more mediocre than you were?

Certainly, Kamala Harris had a difficult night after Tulsi Gabbard dismantled her:

Sen. Harris’ statement might’ve been fine as part of a stump speech. It’s foolish to think that a candidate who just attacked you will let you get away with an evasive answer like that.

Whoever wins the Democrats’ nomination won’t face John McCain or Mitt Romney on the debate stage. They’ll face a guy who smells blood in the water like a great white who hasn’t eaten in awhile. Any sense of weakness will be seized upon immediately.

Tuesday night’s debate stage didn’t have anyone on it that has a realistic shot at the nomination. Crazy Bernie and Pocahontas have no chance at the Democrats’ nomination. Tonight’s candidates had a bunch of wannabes that don’t have a chance. Watch the idiotic reply Julian Castro gave on immigration:

If Castro thinks that he’s auditioning to be someone’s running mate, he’s foolish. Anyone pushing an open borders policy is kidding himself.

At the end of the day, though, Joe Biden’s hiding strategy is foolish. He might or might not win the Democrat nomination. If he wins the Democrats’ nomination, he’ll get eaten alive by the human shark known as President Trump.

Contrary to the Democrats’ paid spinmeisters statements, Democrats favor open borders as their immigration policy. Right after Democrats took control of the House, Democrat spinmeisters told the American people that everyone was for securing the US border with Mexico.

That spin was a total lie. There’s no way to hide the fact that Democrats aren’t interested in securing the border. There’s an old economic principle that’s applicable to this. The principle says that if you want less of something, you tax it. If you want more of something, you incentivize it. Apply that principle to immigration, if you want lots of illegal immigration, change the risk/reward ratio to make the risk of getting caught minimal. Similarly, if you want to reduce illegal immigration, make it so that the cost of illegally crossing the border is extraordinarily high. Also, make the task extraordinarily difficult.

Put in practical terms, build a wall that’s difficult to climb to make the traffickers’ jobs difficult. (Also, it’s worth highlighting that building barriers forces those traffickers and cartels into chokepoints. That helps fewer agents protect more miles of border. That means the border patrol’s activities are significantly more efficient. I’d think increasing the CBP’s efficiency would be DHS’s highest priority.

At this point, it’s clear that this isn’t the Democrats’ highest priority. I’d argue that it isn’t a priority whatsoever. Katie Pavlich’s article offers proof that substantiates my hypothesis:

“Immigrants seeking refuge in our country aren’t a threat to national security. Migration shouldn’t be a criminal justice issue. It’s time to end this draconian policy and return to treating immigration as a civil, not a criminal, issue,” Democratic presidential candidate and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro wrote in an April op-ed on Medium.

Right. If you want fewer migrants to cross the US-Mexico border, tell the traffickers that the people will have to pay a tiny fine instead of getting deported. That should put the fear of God in those traffickers. Not.

“I agree with Secretary Castro. We should not be criminalizing mamas and babies trying to flee violence at home or trying to build a better future. We must pass comprehensive immigration reform that is in line with our values, creates a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants including our Dreamers, and protects our borders,” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) told HuffPost.

Notice Pocahontas’ wording:

We should not be criminalizing mamas and babies trying to flee violence at home…

Sen. Warren, should we criminalize traffickers using purchased babies to get into the US? That’s happening with increasing frequency. Read this website if you want your stomach turning in a split-second. When Democrats vote against legitimate border security measures, they’re voting for continuing the status quo. What type of sick person would vote to continue such a disgusting industry? That’s what happens when Democrats vote against the Republicans’ border security proposals.

Right. Let’s make it easier for illegal aliens to reach the United States. Let’s make it inexpensive for cartels to put these children’s lives at risk during the trip. That’s what Castro’s plan would do.

The next time a Democrat tells you that they’re for securing the border, ask them what they’re doing to increase the risk to traffickers. Then ask those Democrats to tell you what they’re doing to shrink the incentives for attempting to illegally enter the United States. If their plans don’t include creating chokepoints and increasing the efficiency for border patrol agents, then tell them to contact you when they put together a serious plan.

Each week, Democrats pitch multiple messages on Trumponomics. The first attempt is telling viewers that too many people aren’t feeling the effects of the good numbers. They’re insisting that voters don’t notice the increasing wages and the tax cuts because health insurance costs have stolen the wage increases and the money from the tax cuts.

Another of the Democrats’ attempts to discredit Trumponomics is by pretending that President Obama deserves the credit for the booming economy. They point to the fact that we’ve had steady job increases under Obama. They leave out the fact that economic growth and wages were virtually stagnant under President Obama’s policies. President Obama’s supporters never mention how small business and consumer confidence have skyrocketed under President Trump’s policies.

The latest Democrat attempt is to ignore the economy altogether. This attempt will fail, too. According to Byron York’s article, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are basing their campaigns on virtue signaling:

That leaves Democrats with the task of convincing millions of Americans to vote against their economic interests, to choose a Democrat over the president, during a time of economic satisfaction.

How to do it? Some Democrats have chosen to argue that there is something so wrong with the president, that he’s a racist, or he is an agent or Russia, or he is something equally terrible, that the traditional measures of a successful presidency do not apply.

Look at Democratic front-runner Joe Biden’s entry into the race. Biden’s announcement video focused entirely on the August 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in which a counterdemonstrator was murdered.

“We are in the battle for the soul of this nation,” Biden said. “If we give Donald Trump eight years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation, who we are, and I cannot stand by and watch that happen.”

Fast-rising Democratic contender Kamala Harris chose another approach. “I know predators,” the former prosecutor said recently, “and we have a predator living in the White House.”

President Trump isn’t a predator. He isn’t the bully that Biden accused him of being, either. They’re just flailing in their attempt to pull him down to their levels. It won’t work. President Trump is still the heavyweight in the ring. Biden’s been a lightweight his entire career. That’s why former Bush and Obama Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Biden had gotten every major foreign policy issue for the past 30 years wrong.

As shown in this videotape, Biden talks tough but he’s a lightweight:

He doesn’t lack for confidence. He’s just lacking in talent. More than exposing him on an issue, Sen Harris exposed Biden on his lack of talent.