Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

Let’s stipulate at the start that progressives hyperventilate about virtually anything conservative anytime it’s brought up. Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings aren’t an exception, apparently. This article fits into that category.

It starts by saying “The Brett Kavanaugh hearings—such as they are—began on Wednesday to take on a shape that ordinary citizens can understand. When discussing the law, Judge Kavanaugh has been an impressive witness. But anyone watching the hearings Wednesday morning could see the discomfort on Kavanaugh’s face when Senator Patrick Leahy asked him about his potential knowledge of the theft of Democratic-committee emails a decade and a half ago.”

I watched yesterday’s hearing. Actually, you couldn’t “see the discomfort on Kavanaugh’s face when Senator Patrick Leahy asked him about his potential knowledge of the theft of Democratic-committee emails.” Check out this video and determine for yourselves if Judge Kavanaugh looked uncomfortable at any point in this heated exchange:

There was a point when Judge Kavanaugh looked inquisitive but there wasn’t a point when he looked worried.

For months, perhaps years, it’s been obvious that the energy in the Democratic Party has been in the ‘Bernie Sanders wing’ of the party. One thing that showed up bigtime in last night’s Democratic Party primaries was the ‘Bernie Sanders wing’ of the party. In “Nebraska, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee wanted former Rep. Brad Ashford as its nominee for an Omaha-based seat. But Tuesday night ended with liberal Kara Eastman, a social worker, proclaimed the winner by more than 1,000 votes.”

The voters said that Ashford wasn’t radical enough for their liking.

In Pennsylvania, Greg Edwards, who lost the primary to Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli, and winner Susan Wild, summed things up perfectly when he said “That’s where the momentum is. If you try and run a Republican-lite or a Democrat-lite candidate, it suppresses the Democratic vote.” Also in Pennsylvania, another moderate candidate, Rachel Reddick, “lost to ‘proud progressive’ Scott Wallace. The self-funding millionaire drenched the airwaves with TV ads that attacked Reddick for recently being a registered Republican.”

So much for Democrats recruiting candidates like Conor Lamb that “fit their districts.”

This isn’t good news for the blue wave theorists in the media:

Eastman’s victory had liberals feeling emboldened. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a liberal group, said Tuesday night that Eastman’s win should teach Democrats that “the way to inspire voters in 2018 is to campaign on a bold progressive agenda of Medicare for All, higher wages for workers, and other economic populist ideas that help working families and challenge corporate power.”

Progressives mix together with moderates like oil mixes with water. The question most likely to be asked after these primaries is whether Democrats will unite behind these candidates or will they stay home. With a message like this, Kara Eastman won’t win in November:

Seriously? Health care, raising the minimum wage and “debt-free education”? In Nebraska, she’s gonna run on those? I can’t picture those issues playing well in Nebraska.

For whatever it’s worth, St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis said that St. Cloud would have a zero tolerance policy against hate. Nobody seems to know what Mayor Kleis means by that but Eunice Adjei of the St. Cloud Area Regional Human Rights Commission is applauding him for that, saying “We stand with our mayor in his zero tolerance policy against hate groups.”

I did a little digging into the SCARHRC. What I found in their minutes is rather interesting. What I found in their minutes is essentially the DFL social issues agenda. I wish I could say that I’m surprised but I’m not.

For instance, one thing I found in the SCARHRC’s minutes is where it identifies “Students for Social Justice” and the DFL as “multicultural organizations,” with the implication being that the DFL is a tolerant organization. That implication is BS, as I highlighted in this post. There’s a significant portion of the DFL and DNC that are fascists who claim that they’re fighting fascism with fascist tactics.

What I’d like to know is whether the SCARHRC uses the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate map:

If the SCARHRC is the DFL front organization that I think it is, then it’s virtually certain that they take their ‘hate guidance’ from the SPLC. This paragraph especially caught my attention:

White nationalist/supremacist, anti-Semitic and other hate groups exist throughout the country, including Minnesota. Additionally, some hate groups have posted flyers at colleges and universities in our state and region.

It isn’t surprising that leftists haven’t included Antifa and BLM in their list of hate groups.

The dishonest media is doing its best to whip the nation into a frenzy by not reporting the contents of President Trump’s EO accurately. Democrats are doing everything possible to keep the public misinformed. Kamala Harris, who replaced Barbara Boxer as the junior senator from California, is protesting President Trump’s EO that temporarily bans Muslims from 7 specific nations known as terrorist hotbeds. Rather than doing the job that people expect them to do, which is to accurately inform people of what’s happening in Washington, DC, the dishonest media is doing its best to mislead the public while telling people that President Trump is a racist and an Islamophobe.

William Jacobsen rightly said in this post that people “should actually read it“. The important part of what President Trump’s EO said actually cites the US law that permits him to act in our nation’s national security interests. It says “Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.”

Not only is the dishonest media getting things wrong. It’s badly misleading people to the point where it’s difficult that this isn’t intentional. Progressive activists aren’t helping, either, by flocking to social media to complain about President Trump’s EO, then aggregating them under the hashtag #MuslimBan. What the dishonest media and these progressive activists haven’t explained is how the so-called #MuslimBan doesn’t include the nation with the biggest Muslim population in the world (Indonesia) or how Muslim nations like Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia aren’t on the list.

Then there’s this:

The order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Those countries were named in a 2016 law concerning immigration visas as “countries of concern.”

If Trump is anti-Muslim for temporarily banning people from these countries, then former President Obama must be anti-Muslim, too, because he signed the bill into law. Thomas Lifson’s article highlights the fact that Syria is the only nation named in President Trump’s EO:

I read the order and Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are not mentioned in it. Go back and read it again. Do a “ctrl-f” to find “Iraq.” Where is “Iraq” in the order. It’s not there. Only Syria is there. So where are the seven nations? Where is the “Muslim ban?” It turns out this was a form of fake news, or alternative facts. Trump didn’t select seven “Muslim-majority” countries. US President Barack Obama’s administration selected these seven Muslim-majority countries.

This is proof positive that President Trump is right in calling the dishonest media the opposition party. I’d go a step further. I’d argue that they’re unindicted co-conspirators with dishonest Democratic Party politicians like Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi.

If their collective dishonesty were political capital, that bunch would rule Washington, DC for decades. Thank God that isn’t the case. They’re just a bunch of dishonest progressive politicians that the nation rejected this past November. I’ll leave you with this video:

It’s video of a manipulative, dishonest politician. I never thought I’d say this but I think I’d prefer Harry Reid over this politician.

Robert Reich’s opposition article is proof that Democrats refuse to listen to the American people. In his article, Reich called for progressives to fight the Trump First-100-Days Agenda, listing off actions progressives should take. He listed 12 action items, none of which do a thing to solve a pressing problem.

Couple this with Chuck Schumer’s promise to Rachel Maddow that he’ll do anything possible to prevent a Trump Supreme Court justice nominee from reaching the high court unless Sen. Schumer deems the nominee a mainstream nominee. Schumer promises to lead the opposition to fixing the Anything But Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

Combine Sen. Schumer’s promises with Reich’s action plan. It doesn’t take Albert Einstein to figure out that Democrats plan to a) take a hard left turn, which will make them less popular in the all-important swing states than they already are and b) be all opposition all-the-time.

This is Reich’s action agenda:

There’s nothing positive or solutions-oriented about it. It’s mean-spirited and vindictive from start to finish. The closest Reich comes to policy is this action point:

Start a move in your state to abolish the electoral college by committing your state’s electors to vote for the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote.

This is anti-American. We’re known as the United States of America. Winning landslides in California, New York, Illinois and winning a handful of other reliable left wing looney bins won’t unite the country. This idea should be immediately rejected by people of all political stripes.

Democrats are bitter after losing an election they should’ve won. They rigged their primaries to favor a high profile candidate who wasn’t qualified, honest or likable. They only have themselves to blame for their historic defeat. Rather than fess up, they’ve decided to be bitter partisans. It’s going to take them time to be competitive again. (I’m thinking 2022.)

I’ve always enjoyed watching conservatives debate progressives. I especially appreciate it when the progressive hasn’t thought things through. Fortunately, that happens relatively frequently. A great case-in-point was when Tucker Carlson debated Alex Uematsu, a student protest organizer attending Rutgers University, about immigration policy. Thanks to this mismatch, the progressives’ immigration policies were exposed as intellectually flimsy.

Another thing that was highlighted was the fact that Tucker Carlson’s new show will be a major winner and that Carlson is destined to be FNC’s newest star. The intellectual mismatch started when Carlson asked Uematsu “who has the right to come to the United States? You apparently assume that these people have the right to be on your campus, taking a state-subsidized education. Who has a right to come to the United States”?

Predictably, Uematsu replied “I believe that everyone should be able to come to the United States. We are and always have been a nation of immigrants and so I believe that there is no line we can’t let in as many people as we choose in terms of policy and there are artificial limits set on who can come in and who can’t…”

Rather than transcribe the entire interview, just watch this video:

The frightening part, though, was watching Mr. Uematsu sit virtually motionless when Carlson said that illegal immigrants are a net drain to taxpayers. It was apparent that Uematsu wasn’t taking in Carlson’s information because it was different than the propaganda he’s been fed by his professors.

Thus far, Carlson hasn’t suffered the liberals he’s interviewed. His aggressive debating style, combined with his unwillingness to let the left’s false premises stand without contesting them, have helped him shine. He’s 3 shows into his primetime career but it isn’t overstatement that he’s a gifted host and interviewer.

Technorati: Tucker Carlson, Fox News Channel, Debate, Conservatism, Illegal Immigration, Alex Uematsu, Rutgers University, Snowflake, Microagressions, Safe Spaces

This past Sunday, Chris Wallace’s panel broke things down beautifully why Hillary Clinton lost. One of the eye-popping exchanges came when Chris Wallace asked “You know, George, one of the things that, and we’ve been around too long probably, we shouldn’t tell people that, but one of the things I’m always amused by is at the end of a campaign, the winning campaign, they were all geniuses. The losing campaign, they were all dopes. The winning party, they’re on the course to building a permanent majority in the country. The losing campaign is in tatters. How much of that is actually true?”

Will’s response was “Well, the losing party here is in tatters. The Republican Party is as strong as it’s been since the 1920s and probably more. Broad and deep. Sixty-nine of 99 state legislative chambers are now controlled by the Republicans. Twenty-four states, they have the Republican governor and the entire control of the legislature. Only six states have Democratic governors and Democratic legislatures. Thirty-four Republican governors. That means if you’re looking for a deeper bench for presidential candidates for the Democratic Party, you have to start with 16 governors is all they’ve got. Furthermore, one-third of the House caucus of the Democratic Party are from three states, Massachusetts, New York and California.”

Think about that set of statistics in terms of its implications to the Democratic Party and its ability to regain control of the US House of Representatives. A total of 24 states with 185 congressional districts are controlled by Republican governors working with GOP majorities in their legislatures. With Republicans totally controlling the redistricting process in those 24 states, the odds of Democrats regaining control of the US House in the next 3-4 election cycles are slim at best.

Then there’s this:

WILL: They were united by Barack Obama. They were united by an agenda. Chuck said people felt forgotten by — no, I think they felt condescended to. And there’s something about progressivism that just is condescension. We know what your healthcare ought to be, be quiet and take your medicine. We know how much water should come through your shower head. We know what kind of toilets you ought to have. We’re going to change your light bulbs, be quiet and take our direction, and people are tired of it.
LANE: Yes. Well, I — I have to say, I’ll take that as a friendly amendment, George. And I also think, just when we’re talking about factors here, I think environmentalism in a usual way worked against the Democratic Party this year. I did a little back of the envelope coalition about the most coal dependent states in terms of electricity generation in this country. There are 25 most dependent, 20 of them Trump carried. He carried Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, which are the three most coal dependent states in terms of electricity generation. That power plan to focus on global warming and stuff that he pushed with a relatively thin legal basis might have provided the small — a part, at least, of the small margin that contributed to his defeat.

Think about what Charles Lane hinted at. He essentially said that the Democrats’ siding with the environmental activist wing of their party finally caught up with them. Trump identified these blue collar voters as swing voters, then courted them, telling them that he’d be their voice in DC. Mr. Trump promised to take on the EPA if elected. He promised to be their champion.

Unlike Mrs. Clinton, he didn’t promise to retrain coal miners who lost their jobs due to her eliminating their jobs in favor of green energy jobs. That’s when Pennsylvania and Ohio knew that they’d have a champion in the White House.

The Democratic Party is so indebted to the environmental activist wing of their party that it’s almost inconceivable that they’ll be a majority party in the House in the foreseeable future.

Technorati: Environmental Activists, Energy Voters, Battleground States, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Coal Miners, California, Massachusetts, New York, House of Representatives, Keith Ellison, Democrats, Election 2016

There wasn’t much doubt about whether Zach Dorholt was a far left lefty going into this campaign. He’d voted for the biggest tax increase in Minnesota history. He voted for the biggest spending increase in Minnesota history, too. Of course, Dorholt said he voted for the tax increase to pay for property tax relief. It’s worth noting that Dorholt’s property tax relief didn’t appear. The things that Dorholt voted for that did appear were the tax increases and the Senate Office Building.

Among the other things that appeared were taxes on small businesses and farmers. When Dorholt returned home, he got an ear full from business leaders for his vote on those tax increases. It didn’t take him or the DFL long to change their minds on those tax increases. The first order of business when they returned to session in 2014 was to repeal some of the tax increases they’d passed the previous session.

It’s become even more clear that Mr. Dorholt is a far left lefty this election. That’s because an organization called Our Revolution is officially supporting Dorholt. The Our Revolution About Us page. starts by saying “Our Revolution will revitalize American democracy by unifying the millions of people who got involved over the course of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign in support of progressive causes.”

Bernie Sanders’ policies are to the left of Barack Obama’s — by a country mile. Others that Our Revolution endorsed include Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva, co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Marcy Kaptur and Russ Feingold, the man that tried to limit political speech with the McCain-Feingold legislation.

There isn’t a centrist in this bunch. The fact that Our Revolution endorsed Dorholt and Ellison speaks volumes about Dorholt’s politics. St. Cloud might not be conservative but it isn’t far left socialist, either. That’s who Bernie Sanders is. That’s who Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva are.

Apparently, that’s who Zach Dorholt is, too.

This weekend has been a banner weekend for progressive stupidity. I wrote this article to highlight E-Democracy’s anti-Christian bigotry. This morning, E-Democracy was upping the ante, saying in this tweet “Franklin Graham to bring program of hate to State Capital next Thursday. Later this morning, E-Democracy posted this tweet, saying “The Tampa LGBT Murders: http://bit.ly/1YkK75B” That’s a week’s worth of stupidity in a single morning. Unfortunately, that’s far from the comprehensive list.

Next, let’s look at this one-man Twitter conversation. Pick from Mandela Barnes saying “How many people have been driven to hate and act violently towards the lgbt community by “conservative Christian” ideology?” If that isn’t to your liking, perhaps you prefer Barnes saying “So many terroristic enablers in churches, in Congress, and state houses. Whether by discriminatory policy or the love affair with guns.”

Thankfully, Daniel Payne’s article rescues us from the left’s drivel. Take, for instance, the paragraph where Payne says “If you wish to see real homophobia—the genuine article, not the intellectually exhausted fashionable buzzword the Left trots out at every possible opportunity—look to yesterday’s mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, in which 50 individuals were murdered inside a gay nightclub.”

E-Democracy tried painting Franklin Graham as a hater. The lefty groupthink activists tried painting Christians as haters, too. That spin was obliterated when it came face-to-face with real haters and real homophobes. All it took was a lightning-quick dose of reality.

Technorati: Islamic Terrorism, Political Correctness, LGBT Community, Homophobia, Franklin Graham, Samaritan’s Purse, Christianity, Orlando, Florida, E-Democracy

Most people don’t know what Joe Davis does or what he believes. Let’s start filling in the multitude of blanks about Davis by telling people that he’s the chief propagandist Executive Director of ABM. The Alliance for a Better Minnesota, aka ABM, is the chief propaganda unit of the DFL. The morning after Donald Trump’s hostile takeover of the Republican Party, Davis issued a statement, saying “Republican legislators have been avoiding saying whether or not they’ll support Donald Trump if he’s the GOP nominee for president. Now, the path towards the nomination is clear for him, and Minnesotans deserve to know whether or not their elected officials will support Trump. Minnesota Republicans have showcased their shared priorities with Trump by focusing on things like defunding Planned Parenthood and cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy. These extreme priorities have become the hallmark of today’s Republican party, both at the national level and in our state, but Minnesotans just aren’t that extreme.”

In Joe Davis’s Minnesota, every Republican wants to cut taxes for “millionaires and billionaires” and evil “big corporations.” It’s important to highlight the fact that Joe Davis’s Minnesota, at least the one he talks about in public, doesn’t exist. Joe Davis’s Minnesota is just as imaginary as Joe Soucheray’s mythical empire of Gumption County and Garrison Keillor’s Lake Wobegon. The key difference, though, between Gumption County, Lake Wobegon and Joe Davis’s Minnesota is that Davis won’t admit that his wild statements about Minnesota Republicans are a myth.

Forgive me. I said that Joe Davis’s Minnesota was a myth. That isn’t true. Joe Davis’s Minnesota is an intentional fabrication. Saying that Minnesota Republicans prefer “cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy” is verifiably false. It isn’t even close to the truth. This isn’t accidental, either. Whether you’re listening to Gov. Dayton, Rep. Thissen or Joe Davis, they’re repeating the line that Republicans love “cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy.”

I wrote this article last May. Back then, Gov. Dayton criticized Republicans, saying “They are saving that money for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, and property tax relief for large corporations.” When I contacted Rep. Greg Davids about his tax plan, he replied “My bill does not do that. Eighty percent goes to individuals. Tax relief is for the middle class…. My tax bill is tax relief for the poor and middle class.”

It’s time to run Davis and his dishonest quislings out of Minnesota.