Democrat politics

Joe Biden Calls for Gun Controls that Already Exist Following CO School Shooting

Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden called for gun controls that already exist following the shooting at Colorado’s STEM School Highlands Ranch. Biden was campaigning in Los Angeles Wednesday when asked about the shooting. The Guardian News quoted him saying: “The idea we don’t have universal background checks, the idea that we don’t outlaw a number of the weapons I was able to get outlawed in the crime bill, from large magazines to ‘assault weapons,’ this is crazy.” Biden listed three gun controls in response: 1. Universal background checks 2. “Assault weapons” ban 3. “High capacity” magazine ban. The problem with his suggestion is that Colorado already had universal background checks and a ban on “high capacity” magazines. They do not have an “assault weapons” ban but such a ban would have been of no consequence, as handguns were used in the STEM School shooting. Similar pleas for more gun control were issued Wednesday by Chelsea Handler, Alyssa Milano, Gabby Giffords, and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), although none of the pleas were coupled with calls for a specific gun control that does not yet exist.

And, of course, the dominantly liberal mainstream media won’t call out these brain trusts on their moronic comments.  Typical…

Analysis: Fact Check: No, Democrats — The Electoral College Was Not Created Because of Slavery

Democrats are complaining about the Electoral College once again. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who is running for president, told a CNN town hall on Monday night in Mississippi that she wanted to abolish it because it meant that candidates avoided states that were not “battleground states.” Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) followed suit on Tuesday, telling CNN the Electoral College was “conceived in sin” to “perpetuat[e] slavery.” Fact Check: FALSE. They are both wrong. The Electoral College is an institution created by Article II of the Constitution for the election of the president. It provides that each state will appoint a certain number of “electors,” equal to the number of representatives it has in Congress (House plus Senate). The electors are to meet in their respective states and cast their votes for president. The votes from all the states are then counted in Congress, and the person who wins a majority is elected president. The primary purpose of the Electoral College was to serve as a brake on populism. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 68: “A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment” necessary to select a person with “the requisite qualifications,” who would not use “low intrigue” or “little arts of popularity” to sway the masses of the people to support him. In other words, the Electoral College was designed as an anti-populist measure. Over time, the votes of the electors became more or less automatic — that is, all of a state’s electors generally cast their vote for whichever presidential candidate wins the majority of votes in that state. Few were particularly bothered about that, until George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in 2000 despite losing the popular vote. Even after that, Democrats did not change the system. Then came the election of Donald Trump, which Democrats still regard as illegitimate. Many cling to conspiracy theories that Trump somehow conspired with Russia to steal the presidency. The real (non-)secret was that Trump campaigned in Midwestern states Democrats had taken for granted. (Hillary Clinton did not even visit Wisconsin in the general election.) Warren, Cohen, and others now want to undo the system that allowed Trump to win. But their diagnosis of the problem is wrong. The reason candidates avoid states like California, Mississippi, and Massachusetts during the general election campaign has less to do with the Electoral College and more to do with the fact that they consistently choose one party over another. (Candidates do campaign vigorous in those states during the primary stage, and visit wealthy liberal states during the general election to hold political fundraisers.) It is true that a national popular vote would mean that voters who are in the minority in any given state would see their votes “count.” But it is untrue that candidates would therefore spend more time in rural states or small states. Quite the opposite: presidential campaigns would shift to focus on the country’s dense population centers, such as the New York tri-state area and Southern California. Elections would probably be less, not more, representative. As President Trump tweeted Tuesday: “With the Popular Vote, you go to … just the large States – the Cities would end up running the Country. Smaller States & the entire Midwest would end up losing all power.” A national popular vote would also enable cheating. Democrats know the voting rules are loosest in states they control, like California. In the 2018 midterm elections, for example, they used “ballot harvesting,” in which activists delivered thousands of mail-in ballots for other people. The practice is illegal in many states, but Democrats legalized it in California. They want to run up the score there, then use their “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” to award other states’ electoral votes to the popular vote winner. Republicans cannot accept that. Then there is Cohen’s argument about slavery. He claims that the Electoral College was preferred by southern states because it allowed them greater clout than a national popular vote. Northern states could, theoretically, allow all of their adult residents to vote (though few did at the time). Southern states denied slaves the right to vote — but were allowed to count them, due to the infamous three-fifths compromise, in the size of their congressional delegations. That is part of the history of the Electoral College — even after the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, when Democrats in the South continued to restrict the right of blacks to vote until the latter half of the twentieth century. But that is not the reason the Electoral College was created, and at this stage it has no effect whatsoever on the way we elect presidents. (Arguably, it is Democrats today that want to disenfranchise black voters, and other citizens, by counting illegal aliens in the Census toward the apportionment of congressional representatives to the states.) If anything, the current system favors the Democrats, because they are virtually guaranteed to win New York, California, and other large “blue” states with large numbers of electoral votes. (And it is quite possible that if the Electoral College functioned as originally designed, the electors would have stopped Trump from taking office.) The Electoral College is clumsy and archaic. But its replacement would likely be worse. The simple reason Democrats want to abolish the Electoral College is to rig the system so that they cannot lose. It is self-interest masquerading as civic virtue.

Exactly!!  And well said, Joel.  Joel B. Pollak is the author of that outstanding history lesson, and providing such great insight and perspective.  Joel is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.      🙂

Incoming House Democrats Ready Bill to Criminalize Private Gun Sales

The incoming Democrat House majority is readying legislation to criminalize private gun sales. Ironically, the push comes nearly 227 years to the day after private gun ownership was hedged in by the Founding Fathers via the Second Amendment, which was ratified on December 15, 1791. Politico reports that Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) is spearheading the current gun control push through “universal background” legislation. Such checks criminalize private gun sales, making it illegal for a neighbor to sell a firearm to his neighbor, a friend to his lifelong friend, and even a father to his son. Under the Democrats’ plan, a background system like that in California would require a gun seller to seek government permission for any sale or transfer of a firearm. Such a system was put in place in California in the early 1990s and has failed to prevent some of our nation’s most heinous mass public attacks. Nevertheless, Thompson expects to push his gun control bill within “the first 100 days” of the new Congress. Incoming House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has already assured his colleagues that he will move the bill “very quickly” once it is introduced. The criminalization of private gun sales would not have stopped a single 21st century mass shooting, as nearly every mass shooter bought his firearms at retail via a background check. The exceptions to this norm are the two or three mass shooters who stole their guns.

The good news is that such a bill wouldn’t pass through the (still) GOP-controlled Senate.  And, even if it did, President Trump would likely NOT sign it into law.  THIS is the kind of fascist, extreme-liberal nonsense we can look forward to in the coming two years.  Buckle up kids!  It’s gonna be a bumpy ride..

White liberals ‘patronize’ minorities: study

White liberals present themselves as less competent when addressing minorities, while conservatives use the same vocabulary no matter what the race of their audience, according to a newly released study. Yale and Princeton researchers found that both white Democratic presidential candidates and self-identified liberals played down their competence when speaking to minorities, using fewer words that conveyed accomplishment and more words that expressed warmth. On the other hand, there were no significant differences in how white conservatives, including Republican presidential candidates, spoke to white versus minority audiences. “White liberals self-present less competence to minorities than to other Whites—that is, they patronize minorities stereotyped as lower status and less competent,” according to the study’s abstract. Cydney Dupree, Yale School of Management assistant professor of organizational behavior, said she was surprised by the findings of the study, which sought to discover how “well-intentioned whites” interact with minorities. “It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect,” Ms. Dupree said. “Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.” The study flies in the face of a standard talking point of the political left—that white conservatives are racist—while raising questions about whether liberals are perpetuating racial stereotypes about blacks being less competent than whites. The paper, which is slated for publication in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, first examined speeches by Republican and Democratic presidential candidates to mostly white and mostly minority audiences dating back 25 years. Ms. Dupree and Princeton’s Susan Fiske analyzed the text for “words related to competence,” such as “assertive” and “competitive,” and “words related to warmth,” such as “supportive” and “compassionate.” “The team found that Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words in speeches delivered to mostly minority audiences than they did in speeches delivered to mostly white audiences,” said the Yale press release. “The difference wasn’t statistically significant in speeches by Republican candidates.”

Just pause and let that all sink in..  We have a bunch of liberal professors from 2 spectacularly liberal elitist institutions of higher learning do a study, and their saddened to learn through their arduous research something the rest of America has known for years; that white liberals patronize minorities.  Imagine that!     🙂

Tucker Carlson: Accepting election outcomes you don’t like is something only Republicans are required to do

It’s been more than a week since the last votes were cast in the 2018 midterms, that was last Tueday. but still several key races remain unresolved. In the state of Florida, a recount is ongoing, and we’ll have more on that in a moment. It’s a pretty weird story. But perhaps strangest of all is what’s happening in Georgia. The race for Georgia governor was tight for months, you probably followed it, but it finished in the end pretty much exactly where the polls predicted it would finish: The Republican Brian Kemp defeated Democrat Stacy Abrams by about one and a half percentage points. In a big state, that is an awful lot of votes. For reasons she hasn’t really explained though, Stacey Abrams has refused to accept those results. Her allies are now claiming the election was stolen. Here’s what some of them are saying: OHIO SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D): If Stacy Abrams doesn’t win in Georgia, they stole it. It’s clear. It’s clear. NEW JERSEY SEN. CORY BOOKER (D): Stacey Abrams’s election is being stolen from her, using what I think are insidious measures to disenfranchise certain groups of people HILLARY CLINTON: I know Stacey well, she was one of my really strong surrogates in the campaign. If she’d had a fair election, she already would have won. Election fraud! That’s what they’re saying. — By the way, is there anyone more fraudulent than Cory Booker? Think about that. But back to election fraud. It’s a serious charge. And it’s telling that nobody making that charge has provided any evidence that it actually happened. No detail at all. Most remarkable of all though is that Hillary Clinton is one of the voices in this chorus. We keep track and we remember Hillary’s view just two years ago. Here’s what she thought of losing candidates who claim the election is rigged in October 2016: “That’s horrifying! You know, every time Donald thinks things are not going in his direction, he claims, whatever it is, it’s rigged against him. … That is not the way our democracy works. We’ve been around for 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections. We’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them. … He is denigrating, he’s talking down our democracy. And I, for one, am appalled.” She’s appalled. You got to accept the outcomes you don’t like. But it turns out that accepting outcomes you don’t like is something only Republicans are required to do. Richard Nixon had an entire presidential election stolen from him by JFK in 1960. Liberals applauded when Nixon chose not to contest that election. But Democrats do not apply the same standard to themselves. When Democrats lose, there is always a reason, a reason that has nothing to do with alienating voters or getting fewer votes. It’s Putin rigged the machines. The Macedonians hacked Facebook. Roger Stone sent unapproved tweets, or the perennial favorite, you’re racist, all of you who didn’t vote for us, you’re racist, you’re immoral bigots. And, of course, that’s what we’re hearing once again now. By the way, it’s a lie. America is not a racist country. It’s a kind and decent country. But the left hopes that by calling you enough names they’ll bully you into giving them more power. They always try that and sometimes it works. It might work this time. The question is what’s the cost to the country?

Exactly..  Well said, Tucker.  Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET).

Opinion/Analysis: Why Hillary Clinton will never be president

An op-ed published this week in the Wall Street Journal has ignited rumors of a potential 2020 presidential run for Hillary Clinton. The piece discusses the different iterations of Hillary Clinton the public has seen over the past 30-plus years. But none of those versions became president and no matter how many times Clinton tries to reinvent herself she cannot change who she is at the core: inauthentic, unlikable and out of touch. According to the op-ed by Mark Penn and Andrew Stein – headlined “Hillary Will Run Again” – Hillary Clinton 1.0 was a “universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand” in 1994 when she was first lady. Hillary Clinton version 2.0 was a moderate when she successfully ran for the Senate and again when she lost in the Democratic presidential primaries to then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2008. In 2016, Clinton 3.0 was a progressive who moved further to the left because of her challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. And Hillary Clinton version 4.0 will run for president in 2020 by returning to her roots as a progressive, Penn and Stein predict. But the fact there have been so many different versions of Clinton is precisely the problem. Clinton is inauthentic. Former Obama adviser and Democratic strategist David Axelrod nailed this point about Clinton and the 2016 election when he said: “Authenticity is a big factor and a leading indicator for candidates, and they have to be comfortable in their own skin. There is no one wishing that Donald Trump would speak his mind. Hillary Clinton has always been allergic to revealing herself, and when she does talk, it comes out through a political filter.” Clinton’s authenticity has also taken a major hit over the years because she changes policy positions depending on where the political winds are blowing. This gives the perception that she is not rooted in any core beliefs. One issue that probably hurt Clinton most in the rust belt was trade. As secretary of state in 2012, she backed the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, even calling it the “gold standard.” However, she changed her position in 2016 while under scrutiny from Bernie Sanders on the left and candidate Trump on the right. Clinton also has a likability problem. In an interview with the Washington Post, Democratic pollster Peter Hart put it this way: “I bring it down to one thing and one thing only, and that is likability.” The likability issue was also brought up during a 2008 Democratic primary debate in New Hampshire, when the moderator said voters were impressed by Clinton’s resume but were “hesitating on the likability issue.” Obama famously quipped that she was “likable enough” during the exchange. Clinton is also out of touch. Her surprise pit stop to an Ohio Chipotle in 2015 while on the campaign trail demonstrated this. Despite it being a great opportunity for pictures with customers, she wore dark sunglasses in the restaurant. She couldn’t be bothered to speak with anyone. Clinton’s infamous “basketful of Deplorables” comment also underscores this point. In response to her comment calling his supporters “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic,” Trump responded that Clinton showed “her true contempt for everyday Americans.” Other gaffes also speak to Clinton’s disconnect with voters. In response to a question from ABC’s Diane Sawyer in 2014 about her $200,000 speaking fees, Clinton said that she and President Bill Clinton “came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt.” President Clinton received a $15 million advance for his memoir after leaving the White House and then-Sen. and former first lady Hillary Clinton received $8 million in a deal for her memoir. In what will likely be a crowded 2020 Democrat primary field, Hillary Clinton would not stand out. Her time has come and gone. She is a relic of the past. No amount of pollsters, speechwriters, or consultants can change who she is – and that is why she will never be president.

Agreed…and well said, Lisa.  Lisa Boothe is responsible for that spot-on op/ed.  Hillary has no core beliefs.  And a great percentage of Americans absolutely despise her.  Her likability” factor is in the toilet.  When she said she was “dead broke,” a LOT of us said.. “can I please be that ‘dead brok?'”   Unreal…   Hillary is a self-righteous, arrogant, sanctimonious, entitlement-minded, liberal elitist.  She changes her “views” based on what’s currently popular.  And, she’s a brazen hypocrite.  Remember when she said we all need to believe “all women” who make sexual allegations against men?  Yet, when such very credible accusations were leveled at her husband, she fought them tooth and nail.  In other words, to her..  Believe all sexual accusations made by women, unless they’re against my husband.  So much for the #MeToo movement, lol.  Hillary made her 2016 campaign all about herself.  Donald Trump made it about “the forgotten men and women”..and to “Make America Great Again.”  That was the difference.  Heck, the man only takes $1 a year for his salary (because he has to), and donates the rest of his presidential salary to charity and federal government agencies like Health and Human Services (it rotates each quarter).  In a million years, Hillary would NEVER do that.  Remember when she got caught stealing the china out of the White House when the Clintons left it in 2001?  They had to go back and recover the china and other items and return them to the “People’s House.”  Lisa is right..  Hillary’s time has come and gone, and America has had enough of her.  But, hey..  If the Dems are dumb enough to renominate that nauseating bitch, then they deserve to lose….again.

Jerry Nadler: Democrats Will ‘Impeach Kavanaugh,’ Investigate Trump

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee who is favored to be the next House Judiciary Committee chairman, revealed in a phone conversation that Democrats plan to “impeach Kavanaugh” and investigate President Donald Trump for alleged Russian collusion. The Federalist reported that Nadler was riding an Amtrak Acela train to Washington, DC, Wednesday to meet with his congressional staff and House Judiciary Committee staff when he revealed in a phone call with a friend the details of House Democrats’ plans for the next two years. “We’ve got to figure out what we’re doing,” he explained on the call before he began discussing House Democrats’ plans to investigate and later impeach Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh for alleged perjury. The first option, he explained, was to investigate the FBI for how they handled the uncorroborated claims from several women claiming Kavanaugh sexually assaulted them. “They didn’t even do a half-ass job,” he said. “They didn’t interview 30 witnesses who said ‘Interview me! I’ve got a lot to say!’” He then brought up Democrats’ Plan B, which was to go after Kavanaugh himself, because “there’s a real indication that Kavanaugh committed perjury.” Nadler claimed Kavanaugh perjured himself when someone asked him “at a committee hearing under oath” about an article in the Atlantic revealing the allegations of a third accuser, and he denied hearing about it. The New York Democrat was actually referring to a different claim, which has been debunked, that Kavanaugh perjured himself when he denied knowing about an allegation involving Deborah Ramirez until the New Yorker published a story on it. “The worst-case scenario — or best case depending on your point of view — you prove he committed perjury, about a terrible subject and the Judicial Conference recommends you impeach him. So the president appoints someone just as bad,” Nadler told the caller. Nadler added that Democrats do not plan to carry out their investigation quietly. “You can’t do it quietly because word will get out that the FBI or the committee is reaching out to witnesses,” he said. The top House Democrat then moved on to the subject of investigating Trump, which he said would be branded as holding Trump “accountable” for his actions when in reality Democrats plan to go “all in” depending on the outcome of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. After Nadler arrived in D.C., he tweeted Wednesday afternoon that “Americans must have answers” as to why Trump removed Attorney General Jeff Sessions from his position. Nadler, who has compared Russian meddling to Pearl Harbor, called for Sessions’ resignation once before in March 2017. The New York Democrat’s conversation comes after other Democrats, such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have already issued calls to protect Mueller’s investigation into Trump.

We all knew this was coming when Tuesday night’s election results came in.  Once the Dems take control in of the House inlate January, this is the kind of nonsense we’ll have to endure….for two years.