Tag Archives: political parties

Who Does She Think We Are?

Posted on by
Reply

Attorney General Loretta Lynch…regrets…her private meeting with Hillary Clinton’s husband right before her FBI Director whitewashed the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s classified email transmittals via unsecured means.

I wish I had seen around that corner and not had that discussion with the former president, as innocuous as it was, because it did give people concern.  It did make people wonder, “Is it going to affect the investigation that’s going on?” and that’s not something that was an unreasonable question for anyone to ask.

Lynch is a highly experienced and talented Federal prosecutor.  That’s part of why she was nominated to the Attorney General post by President Barack Obama (D).

However, Lynch is a politically malleable lawyer, too, which is another part of why Obama wanted her for his AG.

Lynch knew what she was doing when she agreed to meet with Clinton’s husband.  All she regrets is the hoo-raw over her misbehavior; she doesn’t regret her misbehavior.  Her assumption that we’re dumb enough to buy this nonsense is offensive.

The Debil Made Me Do It

Posted on by
Reply

At least Flip Wilson’s routine was funny.  The Democrats’ and their Party’s comedy, though, is just sad.

In no particular order, it’s been low-information voters who didn’t get the message that caused Democrats to lose seats in Congress and ultimately caused Hillary Clinton to lose the Presidential election.  Or it was that we’re just too dumb to understand their message.  Or it was FBI Director Comey who spiked her campaign.  Or it was the Russians who rigged our election.  Or it was President-Elect Donald Trump who’s in cahoots with the Russians.  Or it became Republican Electors who need to do their moral duty and not vote for Trump.  Or it was a mendacious press that had it in for Clinton.  And the latest: Bill Clinton’s racist and sexist rant: it was all those angry, white men who didn’t vote for Hillary.

Now it’s Huma Abedin’s fault.  She was an enabler of Clinton’s decision to isolate herself from the public and from the nature of her campaign.

“The real anger is toward Hillary’s inner circle,” a Clinton insider told Vanity Fair for a Wednesday feature on Abedin. “They reinforced all the bad habits.”

Because her role—created by her boss (that would be Hillary Clinton for those of you following along at home)—as personal advisor and Deputy Campaign Chief meant her advising should have been taken seriously.  But it was only advice: the decisions were always those of the MFWIC (Clinton again).  And it was Clinton’s bad habits, no one else’s.

And she was too enamored of her role.

“She was enjoying the red carpet and enjoying the photo spreads much too much in my opinion,” one Clinton insider told Vanity Fair. “She enjoyed being a celebrity too much.”

Yeah, she enjoyed the spotlight on her caused by Anthony Weiner’s behavior.  Gotta be it.

It couldn’t possibly be that Clinton had no message on policy, no coherent argument on why her plan to continue, even extend, President Barack Obama’s (D) policies that have been a failure these last eight years was a good idea.  It couldn’t possibly be that in conjunction with that, Clinton simply has been a terrible campaigner.  And that she’s entirely untrustworthy in the eyes of too many Americans.  No, all of that would be Clinton doing something with her personal responsibility more concrete than just talking about taking it.

No, it’s never Democrats’ fault, and it’s never Clinton’s, either.

Of Course It Is

Posted on by
Reply

Now that the Obama administration’s end is near, and a new guy is being put forward to run Obama’s EPA, that agency is changing its mind about the impact of fracking.

Fracking can affect drinking water supplies in certain circumstances….

The report, written by Environmental Protection Agency scientists, includes findings that are more open-ended than those in a draft version last year, when the agency said fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, isn’t having “widespread, systematic impacts on drinking water.”

When pressed on the “updated” report, which contradicts that earlier draft, EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator Thomas Burke conceded the draft’s prior conclusion that only a small number of cases of contamination had been found—even though that was left out of this later iteration of the report.

While the number of identified cases of drinking water contamination is small, the scientific evidence is insufficient to support estimates of the frequency of contamination[.]

Even the identified instances of contamination—surface spills of fracking fluids or poorly done cement casing of a wells—have little to do with fracking, but are failures to execute.

Of course this drives the conclusion that when you can’t find the needle in the haystack, you don’t have enough evidence to say that there aren’t many needles in the haystack.  That’s some science the EPA has there.

Keep in mind, too, that this is same agency whose pseudo-science concluded that plant food—atmospheric CO2—is a pollutant.

Apparently rigorous thinking was outside of these guys’ school safe spaces.

Foolishness

Posted on by
Reply

Or sore, childish losers.  Or outright dishonesty.  That’s the behavior of a couple of Colorado Presidential Electors who are members, also, of the Democratic Party.  These two have filed a federal suit challenging the constitutionality of the State’s law that requires them to vote for the State’s choice in the just concluded Presidential election.  The State’s law is a winner-take-all requirement: Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton won Colorado, they’re required to cast their Electoral votes for Clinton—but they’re so desperate to block President-Elect Donald Trump, they don’t want to; they want to vote for a third party candidate if they can get enough other Electoral College voters to similarly turn their coats and vote for a common third party candidate to deny Trump 270 Electoral College votes.  (Never mind that that would just move the election to the Republican House of Representatives.  Logic has never been much of a player for the Left.)

These two persons are basing their suit’s claim on Article II and the 12th Amendment of the Constitution.

Though Hillary Clinton and Timothy Kaine won the majority vote in Colorado and are qualified for office, plaintiffs cannot be constitutionally compelled to vote for them.  Plaintiffs are entitled to exercise their judgment and free will to vote for whomever they believe to be the most qualified and fit for the offices of president and vice president, whether those candidates are Democrats, Republicans or from a third-party.

And from the complaint itself:

Many states, including Colorado, require their Presidential Electors to vote consistent with the popular vote in the state. Thus, despite the plain language of Article II of the US Constitution, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment, and the Founders’ intent that the Presidential Electors be a deliberative and independent body free to cast votes for whomever they deem to be the most fit and qualified candidates, Messrs Trump and Pence—if the state statutes are enforced—may “win” the election while also losing, by historical margins, the nationwide popular vote.

Since these persons mention the plain language of Article II and the 12th, they—and their lawyers—might want actually to review that plain language.  Here’s the relevant part of Article II:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress….

All the 12th Amendment does is fix the mechanics of voting and the number of still-eligible candidates if the contest must go to the Federal House and Senate.

[I]n such Manner as the Legislature…may direct: which plainly includes for whom and under what State-wide vote outcome as a State might choose to direct.  The Electors are representatives of the State, not of themselves.  No, they are not entitled (such a popular term for the denizens of the Left [/snark]) to exercise their judgment and free will.  They are required to reflect the collective will of their State.

The suit should be tossed, and the lawyers complicit in bringing it should be sanctioned by the Federal court whose time they wasted with this cynical frivolity.

A Bad Deal in the Offing

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal had a piece on a potential deal concerning the FCC.

We hear Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Democrat Harry Reid are negotiating for an FCC transition in which Chairman Tom Wheeler would leave in January. GOP leaders would then reconfirm two commissioners: Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel, whose five-year term has expired; and Republican Ajit Pai, who is not up until next year and is in the mix to be the next chairman.

The WSJ suitably addressed the foolishness of the overall deal.

I have a related concern.  Why deal with Senator Harry Reid (D, NV) at all?  That man is wholly untrustworthy, and besides, he’ll be gone in January.  Why deal with the Senate Democrats at all?  As a group, all they’re interested in doing is obstructing anything Republican.  Senator Tim Kaine (D, VA) has said he’d do everything he could to prevent Republicans from acting.  So has Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D, IL).  So has Senate Minority Leader-in-waiting [sic] Chuck Schumer (D, IL).  And on and on.  These folks’ word cannot be taken as reliable except as they promise to get in the way of the nation’s business for their own personal political gain.

And, courtesy of Reid’s prior dishonesty regarding the filibuster, most of the Senate’s nearby business doesn’t need these obstructionists’ participation to conclude in any event.