Archive for the ‘Debates’ Category

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.

This CBS article tries making a big deal of Sen. Harris’s fundraising total for the first 24 hrs. after the debate. Frankly, it’s pathetic.

According to the article, “Sen. Kamala Harris raised $2 million in the 24 hours after the first Democratic debate on Thursday, according to her campaign. She received donations from 63,277 people, 58% of whom were new contributors. The campaign said it was its best online fundraising day yet. ‘We have momentum,’ said Lily Adams, the campaign’s communications director. Adams said ‘supporters across this country are fueling our campaign because they saw her empathy, her passion, and her direct focus on the issues that keep people up at night.'”

They’re highlighting a fundraising ‘haul’ of $2,000,000? In the 24 hours after his re-election kickoff, President Trump raised $14,800,000 for his campaign and another $10,000,000 for the RNC. By comparison, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Robert Francis O’Rourke raised a combined $18,300,000 in the first 24 hours of their campaign kickoff, with Biden raising $6,300,000, Bernie raising $6,100,000 and Beto raising $5,900,000.

For those of you who were taught math (or history) in California, Sen. Harris’s claim of momentum seems far-fetched. There’s no disputing the fact that she got the better of an old fart, aka Joe Biden, who shouldn’t be debating. Frankly, he’s slower than a turtle.

If Sen. Harris makes it to a debate stage against President Trump, she’ll get sliced and diced and cut into thousands of julienne fries. If Sen. Harris thinks that debating old farts will prepare her for debating President Trump, she’s kidding herself.

Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit has exposed Kamala Harris as a total fraud. The DNC might as well get out the jelly because Kamala’s toast. In this video, Harris stated that she was part of the second class to get bussed:

Perhaps she thought that nobody would research that claim, which is a pretty good bet if the only media was the MSM. Fortunately for truth-seeking Americans, they can rely on the modern-day Pamphleteers, aka bloggers. Enter Mr. Hoft and the gentlemen at Powerlineblog.com. First, Mr. Hoft’s find. This is the Berkeley yearbook from 1963, the year before Sen. Harris was born:

This is the 1964 Berkeley yearbook, the year of Sen. Harris’s birth:

It’s pretty obvious that Berkeley was integrated long before Sen. Harris was that 10-year-old girl in pigtails. Next, enter John Hinderaker and Paul Mirengoff of Powerline blog. Here’s what Mr. Mirengoff wrote:

Harris presents a misleading picture of Berkeley and, implicitly, of her family’s status. A friend who graduated from college there around the time Harris depicts tells me:
Berkeley was not segregated or racist during that era. It was one of the most liberal places in the country. I’d like to learn a lot more about [Harris’] busing. I accept that she took a bus to elementary school, but I don’t think they were busing kids to various neighborhoods for racial reasons in Berkeley in 1971. Makes no sense at all to me. Her mom and dad were PhDs, and she went to India during summers to stay with her mom’s family (see Wikipedia). She makes it sound like they were poverty-stricken…or something.

So much for the issue of bussing being “personal” for Sen. Harris. That’s utter nonsense. Here’s what Mr. Hinderaker, the founder of Powerlineblog wrote on this subject:

What I think is most remarkable about this story is that the Democrats are now nostalgic for busing! Joe Biden is a villain because he opposed it decades ago, while Harris is a heroine…or a martyr…or something, because she participated in it.

But here’s the thing: in the 1970s, everyone opposed busing to achieve racial balance in public schools. Federal courts in urban areas around the country had ordered children to be bused from their homes to faraway schools to achieve a numerical, bean-counting ethnic balance in public schools. The result was a disaster: neighborhood schools were destroyed, student achievement declined, violence erupted, civil disobedience by parents of all races ensued. Finally, as I recall, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order: No more busing!

While this doesn’t change the fact that Biden had a lackluster performance Thursday night, it changes the glow surrounding Sen. Harris’s ‘moment’ in the sun. It’s now established fact that Sen. Harris’s big moment happened because she embellished, otherwise known as lying through her teeth.

Let’s see if the MSM tries propping her up after this.

Do you remember way back when Democrats insisted that they were pro-border security? I remember it like it was yesterday. That’s because Democrats vehemently insisted that they were staunch supporters of border security. The NY Times actually fact-checked the subject. First, they cited one of President Trump’s tweets:


They responded, saying:

THE FACTS
False.
Democrats have argued that building a wall on the southwestern border is ineffective and a waste of resources, and rejected hardline proposals to limit legal immigration. But Mr. Trump is grossly exaggerating Democrats’ positions when he conflates their opposition to his signature campaign promise and immigration priorities as “open borders.”

During tonight’s debate, President Trump tweeted about the Democrats’ new-found love of border security. (Actually, he noticed how the presidential candidates on stage reacted to an activist’s question:


Imagine that. Democrat presidential candidates favor giving illegal aliens health care. Here’s the proof that President Trump was right:

So much for the notion that Democrats are serious about border security. I can’t take Democrats seriously when they want to give free health care to illegal immigrants. That’s what’s known as a magnet because it draws illegal immigrants to the US-Mexico border.

Back during the government shutdown, which ended with a bill that’s actually made mass illegal immigration worse, Democrats, led by Pelosi, said that a wall was “expensive and inefficient.” The bill that funded DHS the rest of FY2019 contained a provision in it that said illegal immigrants entering the US with a child couldn’t be deported. Just 2 months later, the floodgates opened to the most prolific apprehension of illegal immigrants in our nation’s history. In May, almost 150,000 illegal immigrants were captured. Because most were accompanied by a minor, they couldn’t be deported.

Does that sound like border security to you? It doesn’t sound like it to me. When dealing with politicians with no integrity, expect results like this. Expect Democrats to pander to the special interests, not to We The People.

The Democrats have a subtle but major problem on their hands. It isn’t getting covered by the MSM, aka Agenda Media, because covering it might require work, intelligence and thoughtfulness. The MSM is just missing 3 of those qualities.

The Democrats’ subtle but major problem is that Democrats apparently think that some people should be presumed innocent, usually partisan Democrats like Hillary, while others (think Bill Barr or President Trump) shouldn’t be presumed innocent.

Democrats and Robert Mueller think that it’s a prosecutor’s job to state whether a prospective defendant has been “exonerated.” That’s false. Prospective defendants walk into court with the presumption of innocence. That’s a principle that Democrats like Sen. Mazie Hirono, (D-HI), can’t quite grasp. In an interview with MSNBC, Sen. Hirono said that “we aren’t in a court of law. We’re in a court of credibility at this point.” What the hell does that mean?

What’s at stake is the principles of fairness and evidence. Sen. Hirono and other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee did their best to railroad Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination. They didn’t want him on the Supreme Court. The Democrats were perfectly willing to lie about Justice Kavanaugh’s history. That’s the definition of the opposite of fair play. Here’s Sen. Hirono doubling down against the principle of the presumption of innocence:

This article lays things out beautifully:

As Attorney General William Barr testified on May 1, the job of the Justice Department, and thus the job of the special counsel, is not to “exonerate.” The job of the Justice Department is to determine whether there is “sufficient evidence to establish an obstruction” and that this “determines whether or not there was a crime.”

Mueller’s job was to make this determination. He declined to make it. But having claimed that they could not make a determination, they did not stop at laying out the facts.

I suspect that Mueller was hoping that he wouldn’t have to testify to Congress. I suspect that’s a pipe dream at this point. I can’t blame Mueller for not wanting to testify. That’d mean having to answer non-softball questions from people like Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Mike Lee, Sen. Lindsey Graham and Representatives like John Ratcliffe, Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows.

That’s the last thing I’d want to spend a day doing.

This is a problem for Democrats because it tells the nation that they aren’t interested in principled liberalism nor are they interested in fundamental fairness. That’s wrong. Watch how Mike Huckabee and Alan Dershowitz debated:

If the United States can’t return to that debating style ASAP, then we deserve the terrible government we’d get. I can’t put it plainer than that.