Archive for January, 2019

Let’s be blunt about what Virginia Democrats are trying to do. Virginia Democrats are pushing to become the nation’s first political party associated with infanticide. Of course, their defenders are saying otherwise:

Gov. Ralph Northam added gas to the fire Wednesday by describing a hypothetical situation in a radio interview where an infant who is severely deformed or unable to survive after birth could be left to die. That prompted accusations from prominent Republicans that he supports infanticide.

Democrats said their views were being deliberately mischaracterized by the GOP for political gain. “Republicans in Virginia and across the country are trying to play politics with women’s health, and that is exactly why these decisions belong between a woman and her physician, not legislators, most of whom are men,” Northam spokeswoman Ofirah Yheskel said in a statement.

The story’s language says otherwise:

Northam said that if a woman were to desire an abortion as she’s going into labor, the baby would be “resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue” between doctors and the mother, leaving open what would happen next.

The mother of what? The mother of an unviable tissue mass? (That’s what NARAL and NOW used to call unborn babies.) It’s clear that Gov. Northam is referring to the mother of a fully born baby. This woman (Monica Klein) is clearly a propagandist who isn’t interested in the truth:

Check this out:

The interview began with Carlson asking Klein for her thoughts on comments made by Virginia’s Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, a pediatric neurologist, that calls to reduce restrictions on late-term abortions. Klein accused Carlson of wanting to go back to a time when women resorted to back-alley abortions and used “coat hangers.”

“I think that right now, reproductive healthcare is under attack by the Republican Party. Seventy-two percent of Americans support right to choose,” Klein said. “We have [President Donald] Trump and sexual predator [Supreme Court Justice Brett] Kavanaugh trying to repeal Roe v. Wade and trying to take away control over our bodies. This isn’t about babies. This is about you attempting to control women’s bodies.”

Sexual predator Kavanaugh? Seriously? This Klein woman is nuttier than a peanut farm. Sen. Ben Sasse issued this response:

This is morally repugnant. In just a few years pro-abortion zealots went from ‘safe, legal, and rare’ to ‘keep the newborns comfortable while the doctor debates infanticide.’ I don’t care what party you’re from — if you can’t say that it’s wrong to leave babies to die after birth, get the hell out of public office.

I couldn’t agree more. This isn’t a matter of Roe v. Wade. It’s a matter of endorsing infanticide.

In 1996, when the Senate debated whether to override President Clinton’s veto of a bill that would’ve banned partial-birth abortion, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, (D-NY), said this:

“It is as close to infanticide as anything I have come upon.”

It should be noted that Sen. Moynihan was staunchly pro-choice. Still, he was intellectually honest enough to call it what he thought it was. Sen. Moynihan died in 2002 or thereabouts. Moynihan’s Democratic Party died shortly thereafter.

Anyone that thinks that President Trump won’t get the wall built are either kidding themselves or they haven’t studied the tools at President Trump’s disposal. One guy who gets it is Bill O’Reilly. Check out this video and you’ll understand why I say this:

There’s a reason why President Trump doesn’t think they’ll reach a compromise. Actually, there’s multiple reasons why. The biggest reason in Ms. Pelosi. The next biggest reason are the Democrats negotiating on the conference committee. Any conference committee that’s got Dick Durbin, Pat Leahy, Nita Lowey and Barbara Lee (the only member in Congress to vote against the war right after 9/11) is far left and then some.

Apparently, Jim Clyburn didn’t get the memo:

I applaud the president’s reopening of the federal government and appreciate his recognition of the need for a “smart wall,” which I have defined as one that uses drones, scanners, and sensors to create a technological barrier too high to climb over, too wide to go around, and too deep to burrow under. Traditional walls are primitive and ineffective. They are expensive to build and to maintain. And throughout history—from the Wall of Jericho to the Great Wall of China to the Berlin Wall—they have ultimately failed to achieve their goals.

What a liar! The Berlin Wall kept Germans from experiencing freedom for almost 30 years. The wall in Israel has kept terrorists from killing Israelites for over a decade.

Further, if anyone thinks that smart walls stop caravans, then they’re either too stupid or too dishonest to serve in Congress.

Based on this op-ed, I’d argue that Clyburn’s statements to Chris Wallace this past Sunday were exceptionally slippery:

WALLACE: Yes, so, I just want to make sure bottom line, are you saying no negotiations until the president reopens the government, and are you saying, as Speaker Pelosi does, under no circumstances, no money — new money for the wall?
CLYBURN: No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying yes to the first part. To the second part, it seemed as if the president started talking about barriers in a statement yesterday. And as you realize, I have been talking about barriers for a long time. A smart wall will be a barrier. A smart wall would be using drones, using sensors, using X-ray equipment to be an effective wall.
Not just something that would be a monument to one’s existence, but to be a deterrent at the border and to be an effective barrier for people who are trying to come in illegally. And while we’re doing that

This indicates that President Trump will have to use the Emergency Powers Act to get his wall. It’s clear that Pelosi won’t spend a dime.

After reading this article, the obvious question is whether Nancy Pelosi will accept this offer or if she’ll simple ignore these women. I’m betting that she’ll ignore them, even if they appear in the First Lady’s box during the SOTU Address.

A group of women whose husbands work as Border Patrol officers are inviting Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to come to McAllen, Texas, to see what’s taking place at the U.S.-Mexico border. “We would like to show you around!” Jill Demanski wrote in a Facebook post to Pelosi last Thursday, which marked the 34th day of the government shutdown. “You don’t need to bring any security detail. Our husbands/boyfriends/fiancés/wives/significant others are actually very good at their jobs, thank goodness! And since you see no threat here, I’m sure you can just make a quick flight down here alone.”

During the shutdown, I wrote President Trump with the suggestion that he include some of the Angel families in the FLOTUS box, as well as border patrol agents. I also suggested that President Trump blister Ms. Pelosi in the opening of his speech. With her sitting right behind him, its a golden opportunity to highlight the fact that she flew to Hawaii for Christmas while President Trump cancelled his Christmas plans. If he thinks that’s too harsh, he can dial it back a notch or 2.

Democrats might want to consider this:

The government shutdown is over — for now — but the political ramifications are still being sorted out. The media has been chortling that Donald Trump “caved,” and he may well have lost this battle with congressional Democrats. Their “victory,” such as it is, is to notify American voters that they are so opposed to a wall and a secure border that they were willing to keep the government shut down for four weeks to ensure it doesn’t happen.

Trump has thus exposed the Pelosi-Schumer Democrats as being hopelessly soft on illegal immigration. Some Democrats are starting to wonder whether they have dug their own political grave for 2020. This is why in recent days congressional Democrats are screaming from the rafters that they are for border security — just not the way Trump wants to do it.

The reality is far from this spin. At the start of the shutdown, the Pelosi crowd was saying that “there is no border crisis” and that “a wall is immoral.” But actions speak louder than words, and every response to illegal immigration over the past decade proves they don’t want it stopped. Democrats have instead openly encouraged illegal immigration.

There’s only one vote that matters on this or any other issue. That vote belongs to Nancy Pelosi. Democrats, including Chuck Schumer, don’t matter. That’s why I agree with President Trump that a deal won’t get reached. Pelosi is too dug in to let President Trump get credit for an important victory.

The Democrats’ new face of anti-Semitism is Rep. Ilhan Omar. According to this article, Rep. Omar once said of ISIS terrorists “The best deterrent to fanaticism is a system of compassion. We must alter our attitude and approach; if we truly want to effect change, we should refocus our efforts on inclusion and rehabilitation.” Right. I’m sure that the minute we show compassion towards these terrorists that they’ll return to a life of running their small businesses and volunteering to help with the Boy Scouts.

One of the men in particular, Abdirahman Yasin Daud, was facing over 30 years in prison for trying to join the terrorist group. He admitted in court that he wasn’t trying to enter Syria on humanitarian grounds, but rather to participate in the activities of ISIS.

“I was not going there to pass out medical kits or food. I was going strictly to fight and kill on behalf of the Islamic State,” he said.

Showing compassion to confessed terrorists isn’t just not compassionate. It’s downright stupid. What’s worse is that Rep. Omar was just put on the House Foreign Relations Committee. What’s worst is her anti-Semitic tweet:

When President Trump ended the shutdown, Democrats crowed that Pelosi had stood up to the bully and defeated him. I won’t pretend that she didn’t defeat him in this round. I’m with Kevin McCullough, though, who insists that Democrats have a long-term problem:

To see leftwing activists so eagerly cheer the defeat (even temporarily) of some of the most broad-based (and in many instances—Democrat initiated) objectives as it pertains to common sense border security was disheartening.

Why Congressional and Senate Democrats would refuse the opportunity to take partial credit of creating an orderly border process is mystifying. Especially so when 78%-90% of Americans seek tougher border measures. Most of whom also believe that a border barrier is a key component to the multi-lateral security strategy.

Democrats have a spine problem. They don’t have one when it comes to standing up to Pelosi. Democrats insist that they elected a bunch of moderates in 2018. That’s BS. They’re moderates when Pelosi doesn’t need their votes. If she needs their votes, then they’re as far left as she needs them to be.

Why didn’t Seth Moulton or Tim Ryan challenge Pelosi? A: They’re spineless. My point is simple. Until Democrats stand up to Ms. Pelosi, they’ll be a far left party. I don’t care how many so-called moderates they elect. With her at the top, they’re a far left party.

The hard left has such hooks into the party’s base that they have literally forced leadership to completely abandon policy that they supported under President Obama. Remember in 2013 Senator Schumer got the entire Democrat caucus to vote in lock step approval for a $40 billion border security package that included upwards of $8 billion in building additional miles of barriers

Democrats worry more about what Tom Steyer says than what their constituents say or what’s best for America. They should be punished for that in 2020.

Is It Important For Chancellor Devinder Malhotra To Have Followers On Twitter?
by Silence Dogood

Last December, SCSU President Robbyn R. Wacker posted her support to “unleashfollowers” to encourage faculty and staff to follow Chancellor Devinder Malhotra on Twitter. This was posted to SCSU Announce by Jeffrey C. Wood in University Communications:

I don’t care about following anyone on Twitter especially when the you consider the best ‘worst example’ of Twitter use comes from the current U.S. President. However, the idea that the Chancellor will “love us if we help push him over the 1,000 mark” is just plain silly. Hopefully, the Chancellor is not that much of a ‘diva.’ But, today who knows?

The idea that counting the numbers of Twitter followers as some measure of importance is probably one of dumbest things I have ever heard. If it were true, then one of Chancellor Malhotra’s faculty members in the Minnesota State University System at Mankato with 17,400 followers must be truly brilliant and deserving of a pay raise! And it didn’t take a plug from a university president or PR staffer for Dr. Sprankle to get his followers.

SCSU is facing serious problems from declining enrollment. It’s truly sad that a university president and PR subordinate think it’s worth their time to pitch increasing the number of the Chancellor’s Twitter followers. Unless, of course, the object is to distract people from important issues.

P.S. It worked! Chancellor Devinder Malhotra has blasted past 1,000 Twitter followers!

At this rate it will only take 136 years to catch Professor Sprankle.

I have a few suggestions for President Trump’s SOTU address. First, I’d wait until after the Feb. 15 funding deadline to give it. If Congress does what it’s supposed to do and funds the wall, I’d give a different speech than I’d give if Democrats obstruct again. That being said, I’d be surprised if Democrats didn’t continue with their open borders agenda. In that case, I’d prefer that President Trump open his SOTU Address like this:

As I traveled across the nation, I saw cities getting rebuilt, communities coming together and great unity. Across that nation, the state of our union is as strong as it’s ever been.

Unfortunately, when I’ve tried working with Congress, especially Democrats under Nancy Pelosi’s leadership, what I’ve seen is a dysfunctional union, a union that refuses to protect our southern border and the people living in the Southwest. Democrats haven’t paid much attention to Angel families. In fact, I’ve spoken with Angel families who visited Speaker Pelosi’s office, only to be told she wasn’t in.

I canceled my Christmas vacation so I could stay available to negotiate with Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Schumer. Rather than work on re-opening government, Speaker Pelosi left for a Hawaiian Christmas vacation. After the new congress was sworn in, Speaker Pelosi tried leaving on a week-long trip paid for by taxpayers. Senate Democrats took a different path. Thirty Senate Democrats accepted a lobbyist-funded vacation in Puerto Rico rather than negotiating in good faith with me.

While they were making these extravagant trips, Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Schumer talked about hold the American people hostage. How are their travels not holding the American people hostage? How were the Democrats’ trips not proof that they didn’t negotiate in good faith.

Speaker Pelosi, you started with no funding for border security. Your next bid was literally $1 of border security funding. Drugs are pouring across our southern border. Human trafficking is as awful as it’s ever been. That’s why, after attempts to negotiate multiple times in good faith with Democrats, I’m declaring a national emergency. Later tonight, I will sign an executive order to build 150 miles of border wall in Texas to stop the drug cartels, illegal aliens and human traffickers from crossing the border in those sections.

I specifically want President Trump to focus on building the barrier in Texas because that isn’t in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

As long as the Democrats can’t file their lawsuit in the 9th Circuit, which is a virtually guaranteed victory, President Trump holds the upper hand. Democrats were ecstatic last week when President Trump “caved”. If Democrats don’t negotiate in good faith, they’ll regret it because President Trump still has, metaphorically speaking, another card to play, namely the National Emergencies Act. Once that gets into the courts, the president wins.

I’m betting that Democrats will overplay their hand because that’s what they typically do. Right now, I’m betting that Speaker Pelosi thinks she’s won the final battle. I’m betting that because she knows that she can manhandle the moderates in her caucus.

Harold Hamilton’s weekly commentary contained a great pop quiz on a DFL family dynasty:

Candidate #1: Union electrician. Started his own electrical contracting company, which is also union. Never went to college; educated in the electrician’s apprenticeship training program. Likes to snowmobile, ice fish, and hunt deer. Lives in a rural area of the district and drives a pick-up.

Candidate #2: Lists a work history in politics. No private sector experience. Graduate of Carleton College. Has been living in Washington, DC (AKA The Swamp) for the past year. Comes from a political dynasty that has been in political office for decades.

If you guessed that the Democrat was candidate #1, you would be WRONG. Candidate #1 is Jason Rarick, who is the Republican candidate for Senate District 11.

This district will elect a new state Senator on February 5th to replace the incumbent, who was appointed to a political patronage job by Governor Tim Walz. Jason Rarick doesn’t come from a background of any prominence or privilege. His daddy was no one of any note.

He didn’t go to an elite private college, where the tuition is $55,000 per year, which is more than the median annual household income in Senate District 11 by a long shot. Instead, Rarick graduated high school and enrolled in the electrician’s apprenticeship program, where he learned to become a skilled tradesman and work with his hands. After mastering the craft of the electrician, he took the risk of starting his own company, Rarick Electric.

He started out like every entrepreneur, with one truck, one employee, and big dreams. He knows what it means to worry about feeding a family. He knows what it’s like to worry about work and where the next job will come from. He knows what it’s like to work with your hands. He knows how to assemble, disassemble, and perform a functions check on a deer rifle. He knows how to change the oil in truck and a snowmobile.

The Democrat, Stu Lourey, couldn’t be more different. After graduating from Carleton College, he immediately went to work in politics, working for both Senator Al “happy hands” Franken and Senator Tina Smith. Beyond that, Lourey has no work history. His only real credentials for serving the people the Senate District 11 is that he has the correct last name.

You see, Stu’s dad has been the state Senator for some years. And before that, Stu’s grand mama was the senator. In short, he comes from a political dynasty. And dynasties always believe that DNA is really the only qualification to propagate dynasties. Put another way, if Stu’s last name was “Jones” or “Lundquist” or “O’Leary”, he wouldn’t have had a shot at this office.

How ironic that the party of the “working man” is backing a privileged kid who has a powerful daddy for office over a true working man who boasts of nothing more than a belief that an honest day’s work will get you an honest day’s pay.

In other words, Stu Lourey is just another career politician. Then there’s this:

To get a great visual presentation of what we’re describing, head on over to Stu’s web site. Take a look at the photos. You see him all dressed up in Carhart work gear and Gamehide hunting gear.

There’s just one minor problem. None of the gear has a single rip or stain. No coffee stains. No blood stains. No mud. No dust. It looks like Stu borrowed the gear from John Kerry.

In other words, Lourey is a total phony. He’s as much a part of the working class as Kerry. It’s time to retire this family dynasty.

Finally, Tony Lourey was one of the authors of the disaster we call MNsure.

There’s no question that Nancy Pelosi is stubborn when it comes to building a physical wall on the US-Mexico border. That doesn’t mean there’s no chance of that wall crumbling. Steny Hoyer said that he isn’t opposed to having a strategically-placed wall:

Look, I think physical barriers are part of the solution… Look, I think it depends upon what a wall is used for whether its moral or immoral. If it’s protecting people, it’s moral. If it’s imprisoning people, it may well be immoral. But that’s not the issue. The issue is, we want border security. We want to make sure that people who come into the United States of America are authorized to do so, and we know that they have come in. We don’t want contraband. We don’t want drugs coming in. We don’t want dangerous people coming into the country. So, we’re for border security, and I think we can get there.

Bennie Thompson, the chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, said that Democrats aren’t ruling out walls or physical barriers.

The bottom line is that Pelosi’s Democrat opposition to the wall appears to be crumbling. She can’t stay belligerent while other Democrats modify their positions. Remember that she wasn’t that popular. I suspect that she still isn’t that popular.

President Trump has put Speaker Pelosi into what I call God’s little acre — east of the rock, west of the hard place. He did that by accepting her half-hearted invitation to deliver the State of the Union address from the House chamber.

In a letter sent from President Trump to Speaker Pelosi, President Trump “rejected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s request to delay his State of the Union speech until after the government shutdown ends, intensifying the brinkmanship between the two leaders.” He then wrote “It would be so very sad for our Country if the State of the Union were not delivered on time, on schedule, and very importantly, on location!”

If Speaker Pelosi allows President Trump to deliver the speech, President Trump will gain a tremendous opportunity to address the nation unfiltered. That’s something Mrs. Pelosi didn’t want to give him. On the other hand, if she prevents him from speaking, she’ll look incredibly petty. Then again, at this point, that might not be a major consideration.

I guess we didn’t have to wait long. Mrs. Pelosi decided to act like the petty person that she is. She just sent this letter saying that she won’t let President Trump to deliver the SOTU in the House chamber:

House Minority Leader McCarthy has submitted a resolution to invite President Trump to the House on January 29. I don’t see a way of this ending gracefully because, putting it bluntly, Nancy Pelosi is a bitch. She’s determined to play tit-for-tat. The question is whether anyone is willing to legitimately stand up to her from her side. I’m betting they aren’t. They’re only willing to make half-hearted meaningless gestures. Doing something that requires real courage isn’t in the Democrats’ playbook.