Senator Joe Manchin is largely into symbolism about being a moderate

The 50-50 split in the Senate all depends on Manchin, but he is largely into symbolism about being a moderate. When his vote makes a difference he always votes with his party. Manchin makes all sorts of noises about wanting the Keystone XL pipeline built, but when he actually can force it to be done, he backs down.

"Manchin, alongside fellow Dem Sen. Jon Tester, MT, joined Republicans in a budget resolution supporting the pipeline. But they later voted for an amendment from Chuck Schumer, D-NY, to kill that resolution"

Senate Dems approved a budget resolution that will allow them to pass coronavirus relief without GOP support.. Despite  Sen. Joe Manchin  making noises about demanding a bipartisan bill ("Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said he wants Biden's agenda to pass with Republican support"), he NEVER goes against his party when he would be the decisive vote.

When the vote came up for Kavanaugh, Manchin waited until Collins had already come out for Kavanaugh and his confirmation would already go through. Manchin would never be the decisive vote against what his party wants.

"It now appears that there will be 51 votes in favor of Kavanaugh, because Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia came out minutes after her [Collins'] speech in favor of the nominee, the only Senate Democrat to back Trump's pick."


131,000 people of the 220,000 deaths that were classified as Coronavirus deaths already had life ending diseases

 The Coronavirus is rarely the actual cause of death among patients who are classified as Coronavirus deaths. Video from OAN is available here.



Biden WH reportedly screening press secretary's briefing questions

 From Fox News:

A new, eyebrow-raising report suggests the White House communications team has attempted to screen questions for press secretary Jen Psaki in advance of daily briefings, as media watchdogs caution that the Biden team will have to walk a fine line given the way reporters treated President Trump's spokespeople.

Spectator USA editor Amber Athey, who used to be a White House correspondent for The Daily Caller, never experienced anything resembling what Biden’s communications staff has been accused of.

"The Trump administration certainly never asked me for questions in advance and I suspect there would have been universal outrage from reporters if they had done so," Athey told Fox News.


Democrats using inflammatory language to incite violence


Left wing groups brag that "The Coronavirus Bill Contains ‘The Most Significant Climate Legislation’ Ever"

 "The Coronavirus Bill Contains ‘The Most Significant Climate Legislation’ Ever"

The left wing National Resources Defense Council says, “This is perhaps the most significant climate legislation Congress has ever passed.”
Why is this massive environmental regulation in the Covid bill?

Labels: ,


Remember how the FDA delayed the Coronavirus Vaccine until after the election by requiring the strictest standards ever for a vaccine

A month before the election the FDA changed the rules on approving vaccines. The motivation was that they needed stricter rules this time for approval because people were concerned that this vaccine would be particularly dangerous. Just something to remember:

The most notable guideline to emerge from the FDA’s new advisory stipulates that data from phase 3 studies of any potential COVID-19 vaccine should include a median follow-up duration of at least two months after patient’s receive their final dose.

This guidance ensures that no COVID-19 vaccine is likely to be approved before the US presidential election, which is taking place on 3 November. US president Donald Trump has said a number of times over the last few months that a vaccine for COVID-19 could come before election day ...


Joe Biden used to be fearful of vote fraud

Back in 1977, Biden wrote:

“Should Voters Be Allowed To Register On Election Day? No,” Biden wrote in an op-ed to a now-defunct Wilmington, Del. newspaper in 1977. He even chided President Carter for proposing it.

A “reservation I have and one that is apparently shared by some of the top officials within the Department of Justice is that the president’s proposal could lead to a serious increase in vote fraud,” Biden wrote. . . .

Labels: ,


Billings Gazette: Bullock's pharmaceutical claim misguided

 I have an op-ed about the Senate race in Montana.

Steve Bullock’s Senate campaign is targeting greedy pharmaceutical companies and demanding that the government negotiate drug prices. It misleadingly claims that Sen. Steve Daines “gave billions in tax breaks to [big drug companies], while blocking lower prices to you.”

If Bullock wants to be altruistic, he ought to raise taxes to subsidize the costs of these drugs. Making the companies that develop these drugs pay for his altruism will mean fewer life-saving new treatments in the future.

Americans are understandably upset that Canadians buy drugs at a far lower price than Americans do, especially since nearly all of their prescription drugs are made in the U.S. in the first place. Canadians and Europeans are able to enforce price controls because they threaten the pharmaceutical companies with the loss of their patents. If pharmaceutical companies don't accept the price that these governments are willing to pay, they can't sell their drug there.

Under World Trade Organization rules, if the drugs aren't sold, for example, in Canada within two years of when they hit the U.S. market, the company loses its patent and Canadian companies can copy the drug. The company that created the drug is left with absolutely nothing.

These foreign countries use the threat of stealing patents to free ride on our investments. U.S.-based drug companies spend vast sums to develop new drugs, and Americans pay market prices for them to cover the R&D costs. Once developed, drugs are reasonably inexpensive to produce, and foreign countries force companies to sell the medicines at a price that is little more than the cost of manufacturing and distribution.

The American consumers thus cover the R&D costs. Over the long haul, companies will not keep developing new drugs unless they can recoup the massive costs of research and regulatory approval. In effect, the U.S. underwrites the cost of a critical chunk of the world's health care. If Americans paid the same price as Canadians, new drugs wouldn’t be made.

While American consumers would get the short-term windfall of lower prices under Bullock’s price controls, they would end up suffering and not living as long as they could have if promising new therapies had been developed.

Drug-price controls are particularly pernicious. While controls on oil and other products tend to be short-lived — voters eventually object to the resulting shortages — the effects of drug regulations are more difficult to observe since they prevent new medicines from being invented. Even if people realized that controls were preventing new drugs from being developed, it’d be hard to convince them to pay higher prices for benefits coming years down the road. Pharmaceutical companies would also have to be convinced new controls wouldn’t not be imposed as soon as the new drugs are released. 

The average cost of developing a new drug and overcoming the regulatory hurdles and bringing it to market are enormous: $2.87 billion. Even then, only 3 in 10 drugs that are brought to market generate enough revenues to cover these average costs.

In 2018, U.S. pharmaceutical R&D totaled $80 billion. Despite the high risks of not recouping these costs, drug companies in the past 30 years have developed powerful new therapies for conditions such as high cholesterol, sepsis, depression, Alzheimer's, HIV/AIDS, and asthma. These conditions had previously been difficult or impossible to treat.

Politicians such as Bullock like to promise cheap things that others have to pay for. The problems may not appear for many years, but they will be real. If you think we have all of the breakthrough drugs that we will ever need, Steve Bullock is your candidate.

Labels: ,


Kamala Harris lauds Jacob Blake and his family, prejudges police as being wrong in shooting


From the New York Post:

The officer who took her statement said she “had a very difficult time telling him this and cried as she told how the defendant assaulted her.”

The alleged victim said Blake “penetrating her digitally caused her pain and humiliation and was done without her consent” and she was “very humiliated and upset by the sexual assault,” the record states.

Add to it that Jacob Blake

-violated restraining order

 -resisted arrest 

-Ignored orders to drop knife

Even if Kamala Harris thinks that the police somehow behaved improperly, why would she say that this is such "an incredible family"? Regarding Jacob Blake, why say "I'm proud of you"?  The father has a "long history of racist, antisemitic, and anti-Christian" comments.

Among his comments choice comments:

“A jew can’t tell me shit period”

“The same pink toe Jewish people that control the interest rate control the media the control Minds and money”

“The Jewish media picks and chooses who is a terrorists  and is not”


Three depressing stories of our times: Museum to review eliminating Charles Darwin collection, Public School Suspends kid for gun at home, and more

1) "Natural History Museum to review potentially 'offensive' Charles Darwin collection

Ted Frank: "Museums are racist, Y’all. Fascinating how quickly “Black Lives Matter” has moved past police reform into basically trying to replicate Pol Pot and Mao."

2) Public schools monitor for toy guns in homes 

"12-year-old suspended after teacher spots toy gun during virtual class

"although the teacher thought it was a toy gun authorities still did a welfare check on Isaiah Elliott without parental notification." 

3) "San Francisco gym owners livid after discovering gyms in government buildings have been opened for months"ancisco gym owners livid after discovering gyms in government buildings have been opened for months


Most Democrats believe Biden lie about Trump supposedly praising neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and white supremacists

Biden in his acceptance speech: 
"Just a week ago yesterday was the third anniversary of the events in Charlottesville. Close your eyes, remember what saw on television, and remember seeing those neo-Nazis and Klansmen and white supremacists, coming out of fields with lighted torches, veins bulging, spewing the same anti-Semitic bile heard across Europe in the ‘30s. Remember the violent clash that ensued between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it. Remember what the President said when asked, he said there were, quote, “very fine people on both sides.” It was a wake-up call for us as a country.  And for me, a call to action.  At that moment I knew I had to run, My father taught us that silence was complicity.  And I could never remain silent or complicit."
59% of Democrats remember it the way Biden does, as do 19% of Republicans and 37% of unaffiliated voters.
49% of Democrats Think Trump Voters Are Racist

A constant theme of the Democratic National Convention on Thursday night was that Joe Biden is a decent and honest person. Someone who wants to heal the divisions in the country and bring people together. 
Well, in his acceptance speech at the convention, Biden completely blew up that narrative.
Biden couldn’t help telling whopping lies in accusing President Trump of racism. In recalling the horrors of racists rioting in Charlottesville in 2017, Biden claimed that Trump said that there were “very fine people on both sides,” among both the protesters — which included white supremacists and white nationalists — and the counter-protesters.
We must condemn racists. But what do you make of someone who repeatedly lies that someone else is racist?
Ever since the 2016 campaign, Democrats and the media have asserted that President Trump has failed to distance himself from white nationalists and neo-Nazis. The fact that White House staffers must answer these questions shows how far out of kilter the discussion has gone.
These media depictions are so extreme that they are easily proven false. If Trump “stayed silent” and really “refused to distance himself,” there shouldn’t be any statements. Yet, there are dozens of them.
Instead of taking a few words completely out of context, here is Trump’s statement where he referred to “very fine people.”
TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. . . . I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too.  
REPORTER: I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly?  
TRUMP: No, no. There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before. If you look, they were people protesting very quietly, the taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee. . . .
So what exactly is unclear? It’s hard to see how any rational person could think that Trump wasn’t condemning neo-Nazis. Was “very bad people” not strong enough? Should he have said, “very, very bad people”?
Or how about another Trump statement in the aftermath of the riots? “Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

Labels: ,

In the Missoulian: Bullock Ads Claim Support For The Second Amendment

I have a new piece in the Missoulian newspaper:
For the last couple of weeks, Steve Bullock has bombarded the airwaves with ads claiming that he supports gun ownership. “Bullock took on his own party to defend our Second Amendment rights,” claims one ad, while another features his young son, Cam, saying, “He was by my side when I got my first buck.” Ads over the weekend warned voters not to be fooled on this issue: “Out-of-state secret money groups can lie all they want, the truth is [Bullock] will always keep Montanans safe.”  
Those are just some ads that Bullock has run on gun control. 
But, with an F-rating from the NRA, it is no wonder that Bullock is spending so much money trying to convince Montanans that he shares their values. He just hopes that people will forget about his gun control stances when he ran for president last year.
When Bullock ran for president, he quickly came out in support of a long list of gun control laws: a ban on some semi-automatic guns based on their appearance, Red Flag laws that let judges take away people’s guns without a hearing, higher age limits on gun ownership, and bans on magazines that can hold more than 15 bullets. 
The “assault weapon ban” might fly in California and New York where people don’t know very much about guns, but that isn’t true in Montana. While Joe Biden and Kamala Harris call AR-15s “weapons of war,” Montanans understand that the semi-automatic AR-15 merely looks like the M-16 machine gun that was made famous in the Vietnam War. No military in the world uses the AR-15. 
The rest of the piece is available here

Labels: ,


In the Missoulian: This election will determine future of private gun ownership in US

This past week, President Trump claimed the election will determine the future of private gun ownership in the United States. 
He’s right. And Montana voters’ choice for the U.S. Senate looks set to determine its balance of power. If they gain control, Joe Biden and Senate Democrats promise to eliminate the filibuster, allowing them to pass any legislation they want with a simple majority vote. 
But the Senate won’t just determine what gun control legislation gets passed — it will also determine what judges get confirmed. 
There are few issues that divide Democrat- and Republican-appointed judges more consistently and completely than gun control. President Trump's 200 federal judicial confirmations have only just brought the courts into balance, with Democrat-appointees still controlling circuit courts for 24 states plus D.C. 
The states Democrats control judicially are ones that they also tend to control legislatively. These circuit courts approve any and all of the regulations they get passed, no matter how flagrantly they infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. 
Don’t expect the Supreme Court to restrain these courts. All four Democrat appointments claim people don’t have a right to self-defense. Indeed, they have already noted they will vote to overturn the court’s 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald decisions. Those rulings merely ensured the government could not completely ban guns . . . .
The rest of the piece is available here.

Labels: , ,