Democrats using inflammatory language to incite violence

Why doesn't "news" media condemn this inflammatory & violence encouraging language from AOC and Democrats?

- Biden Likened Cruz, Hawley to Nazi Joseph Goebbels 

- Biden nominated Black supremacist who endorsed anti-Semitic lecturer "who bases his information of indisputable fact”

- Biden condemns the "racists" who peacefully rallied on 1/6 

- Biden's lies during the campaign about Trump's comments at Charlottesville & "very fine" people on both sides.

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

Excerpt:

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.

Democrats turn on Facebook and Zuckerberg

CNN is making it clear that its Democrat allies hate Facebook.

Facebook has also faced mounting scrutiny on both sides of the political aisle — but especially from Democrats — over what is seen by lawmakers as its market dominance as well as the perception, expressed in an interview published this week with Democratic presidential nominee Pete Buttigieg, that Zuckerberg has too much power.  

Facebook's refusal to remove a doctored video of Pelosi last May clearly irked Democrats, including Clinton, who called the video "sexist trash" and suggested the argument for taking it down "wasn't even a close call." 

But what really hit a nerve with Democrats more recently was Facebook's insistence last September that it would not fact-check ads from politicians — a policy many Democrats saw as beneficial to Trump's reelection campaign.  

Facebook, the Democratic National Committee said, was allowing Trump "to mislead the American people on their platform unimpeded." 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren ran a deliberately false ad to highlight what Democrats saw as the ludicrousness of the policy. The false ad claimed Zuckerberg had endorsed Trump's reelection campaign. 

When Biden's campaign demanded Facebook remove a false ad from the Trump campaign accusing Biden of corruption of his role in Ukraine policy during the Obama administration, Facebook refused. 

"Our approach is grounded in Facebook's fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process, and the belief that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is," Katie Harbath, Facebook's head of global elections policy wrote in response last October. . . . 

But Facebook often appears to be the Democrats' favored target — even as leading Democratic candidates for president continue to sink money into the platform for their campaigns. . . .

Democrat Ralph Northam has no problem with shocking ad showing Gillespie supporter running down minority kids

The video is available here to watch.

There is too much division in America these days, and politicians have in many cases worked to exacerbate those divisions. But this Dem campaign ad in the Virginia Gubernatorial election is particularly disappointing. Unfortunately, when questioned about it, the Democrat Gubernatorial candidate's campaign had no problems with this add. From the Washington Post:

. . . A Northam campaign spokeswoman expressed no misgivings about the Latino Victory Fund ad. 

“Independent groups are denouncing Ed Gillespie because he has run the most divisive, fear mongering campaign in modern history,” said Ofirah Yheskel. “It is not shocking that communities of color are scared of what his Trump-like policy positions mean for them.” . . .

Democrats guerilla tactics to harass Republican congressmen at home and at town hall meetings

So much for civil discourse.  My son Maxim has a new news article at Fox News:

The left has upped the stakes in its guerilla operations against Republicans, as deep-pocketed groups fund protesters to show up to the offices and even houses of congressmen to protest their lack of "town hall" meetings. 

Earlier this month, protesters targeted the home of Rep. Jason Lewis, a newly elected Republican in Minnesota's 2nd District. The protests on his doorstep grew big enough that one of his neighbors called the police. 

"Fortunately my family wasn't home at the time,” Lewis told Fox News. “I ran for Congress, but my family didn't run ... so to bring them into it I think is not in keeping with the best of American tradition." 

Protesters also have shown up at the homes of other Republican lawmakers in swing districts such as Rep. John Faso, R-N.Y., and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. Some 200 protesters showed up at Issa's home to blast him for not holding town hall meetings, leading his spokesman to say: “Dragging the congressman’s wife and family into this goes beyond the pale.” 

Local chapters of a left-wing group called “Indivisible” helped organize and lead those two protests. . . . .

Democrat Legislators in Pennsylvania are abandoning Democrat Gov Tom Wolf

From the Pittsburg Tribune Review

It's true Republicans were as much to blame as Wolf for the impasse, but there were several opportunities for Wolf to grasp a compromise and settle for a piece — but far from all — of his complex budget proposal. But he kept insisting on a tax increase.  

It's equally true that the generally accepted strategy is for a first-year governor to propose four years' worth of programs in hopes of getting a chunk at a time when he has the most political capital.  

But Wolf wanted it all. And his all-or-nothing strategy backfired.  

The budget went through belatedly without a tax increase. The budget he was forced to sign was a Republican plan without the jacked-up revenue Wolf wanted.  

Republicans through the fall believed they might have had a shot at overriding Wolf vetoes. Who knows? But the bitter taste of the budget debacle has worn away at rank-and-file Democrats, who held the line for Wolf day in and day out through the impasse.
If Wolf remains intransigent, he might claim a place in history with a record number of overrides on his vetoes.  

House Minority Leader Frank Dermody, D-Oakmont, has to free up his members or they'll break anyway. He should let the governor know no more blood will needlessly be spilled.  

Wolf's recent stunt of attempting to punish Democrats who voted for the Republican budget was amateurish. Eleven lawmakers signed a letter saying they were told they must go through the governor's office rather than directly to state agencies — in other words, delaying information to thousands of constituents and spinning that information where possible to improve the administration's image.  

Wolf's office implied it wasn't true by saying “nothing has changed.”  

What, they made it up? Lawmakers said last week the order was rescinded.
It's the kind of action — on top of the budget disaster — that could make Wolf a lame duck for the final 2½ years of his term.

From the Observer-Reporter near Pittsburgh:

Some Democratic state representatives are accusing the governor’s administration of making them go over a new hurdle to help constituents after they sided with Republicans to help bring a nine-month state budget impasse to a close. 

All but two of the 13 House Democrats who voted for the GOP plan sent a letter to fellow Democrat Gov. Tom Wolf on Tuesday, saying state agencies have treated some of their staffs in a “dramatically different” way since they voted last month to approve a Republican-crafted supplemental budget, which Wolf opposed. 

The lawmakers said in the letter that when their aides contacted state agencies about constituent services, they’re now redirected to the Office of Legislative Affairs, a separate office in the Wolf administration. The lawmakers say the change makes it harder for them to help constituents. 

“I’ve experienced Democratic governors and Republican governors, and I’ve never seen a governor or his staff punish anyone in this way,” said Rep. Pete Daley, D-California, one of those who signed the letter.  . . .

If you want to go to a fast food restaurant where other customers share your political views, here is the list

This list was put together by the Wall Street Journal.  Interestingly, Liberals congregate in only three fast food restaurants.  Conservatives appear more spread out.  Conservatives don't dominate any restaurant the way that Liberals do -- CHIPOTLE and AU BON PAIN.  If you include a restaurant where Liberals are just as likely as not to go to (a rating of 100), you would get a third restaurant: Jack-in-the-box.  By contrast there are six restaurants where Conservatives have a rating of 103 or higher and nine where they are above 100.

It would be interesting to see how Starbucks was for conservatives before their meaningless statement of asking people not to bring guns into their restaurants.

Why is it that liberals just don't disagree, but want to silence their adversaries?: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee going after Rush Limbaugh

The "do nothing" US Senate, Harry Reid keeps protecting Democrats from hard votes

Senate Democrats essentially shutdown voting in Senate to protect their members from any hard votes before the November election.  From ABC News:

. . . With control of the Senate at risk in November, leaders are going to remarkable lengths to protect endangered Democrats from casting tough votes and to deny Republicans legislative victories in the midst of the campaign. The phobia means even bipartisan legislation to boost energy efficiency, manufacturing, sportsmen's rights and more could be scuttled.
The Senate's masters of process are finding a variety of ways to shut down debate.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., now is requiring an elusive 60-vote supermajority to deal with amendments to spending bills, instead of the usual simple majority, a step that makes it much more difficult to put politically sensitive matters into contention. This was a flip from his approach to Obama administration nominees, when he decided most could be moved ahead with a straight majority instead of the 60 votes needed before.
Reid's principal aim in setting the supermajority rule for spending amendments was to deny archrival Sen. Mitch McConnell a win on protecting his home state coal industry from new regulations limiting carbon emissions from existing power plants. McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, faces a tough re-election in Kentucky. . . .
"I just don't think they want their members to have to take any hard votes between now and November," said Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb. And there's "just no question that they're worried we're going to win some votes so they just shut us down."
Vote-a-phobia worsens in election years, especially when the majority party is in jeopardy. Republicans need to gain six seats to win control and Democrats must defend 21 seats to the Republicans' 15. . . .

Of course, for some Democrats this prevents them from developing any type of record to run on.  From the WSJ:

No one has done more to protect Senate Democrats from difficult votes than Majority Leader Harry Reid, but a funny thing is happening as another election nears. His own vulnerable Members are griping about the lack of votes.
Alaska Sen. Mark Begich was elected in 2008 and hasn't been able to get a Senate vote on any of his proposed legislative amendments. For years he was silent but suddenly he's upset, telling Politico: "Does it mean increased risks? Sure. That's what voting is about." West Virginia's Joe Manchin complained to the Hill newspaper: "I've never been in a less productive time in my life than I am right now, in the United States Senate."
They're right about the numbers. Wyoming Republican John Barrasso recently noted on the floor that Senate Democrats proposed 676 amendments in the last year but were allowed votes on all of seven. Republicans proposed 812 and got votes on 11. Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee has been allowed twice as many amendment votes (15) in the Republican House in the last year than Mr. Reid has allowed his entire Senate caucus. Not one of the nine Senate Democrats elected in 2012 has been granted a floor vote on any of their amendments. . . . 

With this voting record, it is pretty hard for Begich to argue that his being in office is of much value. 

Really, seriously? Harry Reid Claims Dems Don't Have Billionaire Backers

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): But what else should we expect? The decisions by the Supreme Court have left the American people with a status quo in which one side’s billionaires are pitted against the other side’s billionaires. Except one side doesn't have billionaires. We must undo the damage done by the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance decisions.

Steyer brothers, Michael Bloomberg and George Soros are among some of the billionaires who are throwing a lot of money behind Democrats.  Can the media really keep a straight face on this one?

Apparently Cantor's defeat not due to the Tea Party: Heavy Democrat voting in Republican Primary

From The Hill newspaper:

"We had probably 15,000 card-carrying Democrats come into this primary. There's just no way to anticipate something like that," Allen tells The Hill. . . ."My guess is now looking at the precinct-by-precinct analysis, probably half this electorate wasn't Republican," he said. "There's not a pollster in this country who polls voters from the other party in primary."
His analysis mirrors McLaughlin's.
"Where the voter surge was, it was Democrats who united against Cantor, who don't like him. And the mistake for our campaign above all the others, we should have polled Democratic primary voters and see if they were going to come into the Republican primary," McLaughlin said. "That's really the difference here. The reason the poll was wrong is no one anticipated Democrats were going to come in and play and they did, and that was the surge in turnout. That's why the poll was wrong, we were polling off the Republican sample." . . .

Is one of the last few Democrats in the House who support gun ownership about to retire?

From The Hill newspaper:

Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), fresh from a farm bill victory, told reporters Wednesday that he would decide on his political future next month.  

"I haven't decided. I am going to take some time," Peterson said. "I have been in limbo here, in farm bill hell for three years and it affects you." 

If he doesn't run, Peterson's departure would hand Republicans another top pickup opportunity in his Republican-leaning northwestern Minnesota that's been heavily targeted by the GOP. . . . . 

Peterson is one of the vanishing breed of moderate Blue Dog Democrats in Congress who are generally in favor of cutting the deficit while being pro-gun. . . .

Why young people support Democrats is a mystery, though support for Democrats is slipping

Whether it is Social Security, the high premium increases under Obamacare, jobs, the teachers' union, or minimum wage, Democrats have positions that hurt young people.  Social Security and Obamacare represent a huge wealth transfer from the young to the old.  Democrats protect teacher unions even though it ensures a poor education for tens of millions of young Americans.  Minimum wage rules prevent young people from entering the job market and getting training.  And thanks a lot to Democrats for the horrible job market with their Keynesian policies.

OK, young people care about abortion, but nothing is going to happen to change the Supreme Court's solid majority supporting abortion.  Marijuana legalization gets support from both Republicans and Democrats.  From the Boston Globe:

. . . Domestic spying by the government, the technological incompetence demonstrated in the launch of the Obama health care marketplace, the continued weakness in the economy — all have conspired to undermine Democrats’ big advantage among young voters, ages 18 to 29, according to specialists. 

In a detailed, national poll released last month by Harvard’s Institute of Politics, nearly half of young voters said they would recall President Obama if they could. Only 41 percent approved of the job Obama was doing, an 11-point drop from six months earlier. 

“People should be concerned about those numbers,” said Tad Devine, a longtime Democratic strategist. “We’ve got to make sure young voters understand the stakes.” . . . 

For a generation that relies on smartphones and tablets, the government’s inability to create a functioning website was unfathomable. They also believe the law will bring more costs, worse care, and little benefit to them. Among the 18- to 29-year-olds who don’t have health insurance, fewer than 1 in 3 of those surveyed by Harvard said they are likely to enroll in the health care exchange. . . .

Laurene Powell Jobs, Steve Jobs' wife, helps raise money of anti-gun group

Laurene Jobs is a big giver to Democrats.  So perhaps it isn't too surprising that she is also giving to gun control activists.  From Politico:

Over the past several years, she’s been an active political donor, giving to campaigns for Democratic candidates in her state such as California Attorney General Kamala Harris and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, as well as causes such as school reform, according to California Secretary of State records. She recently made a $7,100 donation to Harris’s reelection campaign. 

She has also given to the president and a smattering of Democratic campaign committees and candidates nationally, according to Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets.org website. This year, she gave $2,600 to Newark Mayor Cory Booker, a Democrat running for Senate, and attended a fundraiser at the home of venture capitalist John Doerr for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). In January, she joined her friend Ron Conway, another leading Silicon Valley investor, to help raise money for the anti-gun violence group, Americans for Responsible Solutions. . . . .

Conway is one determined guy on gun control.  From The Verge:

The 45 senators who blocked a gun control amendment despite its 90-plus percent approval rating may be in trouble with the white-haired godfather of Silicon Valley, "super angel" tech investor Ron Conway. 

"We will employ the most sophisticated social media campaign ever built to remove these people from office," Conway told The San Francisco Chronicle. "Our Congress has ceased to be representative. It is up to the citizens to remove those people who don’t represent them." . . . .

Republicans invited to speak at "March on Washington" just days before the event, Dems appear to be playing game on delayed invitations

Did the organizers of the "March on Washington" wait until the week before the event to invite some of the Democrats who spoke?  It would be interesting to see how long in advance the Democrats were invited to speak (also here).  Some of these Democrats don't appear that obviously important.

Ohio state Rep. Alicia Reece, D-Cincinnati
Cory Booker, Mayor of Newark, N.J.

Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio
Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md

Tamika D. Mallory, national executive director of the National Action Network
Dominique Sharpton, daughter of Rev. Al Sharpton
Myrlie Evers-Williams, widow of Medgar Evans
Simeon Wright, Emmett Till's cousin
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Benjamin Jealous, president of the NAACP
Rev. Al Sharpton
Sabrina Fulton, mother of slain teenager Trayvon Martin
U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-GA)

From ABC News:

. . . After it became clear that big-name Republicans like the Bushes were not going to be able to attend, RNC officials offered help in finding one or more appropriate Republican speakers, according to Sean Spicer, the RNC’s communications director. 

“We were very proud of our efforts to commemorate this historic event, which we did in several ways over the last few days,” Spicer said. “Furthermore, we offered up assistance to the organizers of the event — our assistance in facilitating any Republican speakers that they would be interested in having.” 

Starting August 14 – two weeks before the commemoration — GOP officials offered help in reaching out to a range of other Republicans. That list, according to an RNC official, included Scott, who is the only African-American currently in the Senate; former Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., who is black; and T.W. Shannon, the 35-year-old African-American speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. 

Organizers did invite several prominent Republicans – including both Presidents Bush, former Gov. Jeb Bush, former Gov. Mike Huckabee, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Sen. John McCain – to speak. They also reached out late in the planning process to the office of Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a veteran congressman from Wisconsin who has been prominent on voting-rights and sentencing-reform issues. 

All of those invited declined, however, with the two former presidents citing health concerns, and the others pointing to scheduling conflicts. Cantor was invited just 12 days before the event, and Huckabee told ABC News he was invited just last week – too late for him to juggle other commitments. 

“I was invited and so wished I had been able to do it,” Huckabee said in an e-mail to ABC. “I didn’t receive the invitation until last week, however, and it was too late for me to re-arrange things.” . . . 

Brazile said she assumed Scott was invited to speak. Other organizers said that when he didn’t respond to an invitation sent to all members of Congress months ago – to attend, though not necessarily to speak – that he was assumed to be unable to attend. . . .

Surely the organizers realized that inviting someone to sit in the audience is hardly the same as inviting them to speak.

“Overlooking Tim Scott would be like overlooking the president for the State of the Union speech,” he said. 

And looking at a speakers’ lineup that included lower-profile Democrats such as Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, and Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., there were plenty of other “nationally known” black Republicans who could have been included, he said. . . . 

It must be obvious to everyone now that since Democrats can't completely ban guns, they want to tax them out of existence

In March, I wrote an op-ed about how the common theme in Democrats push for gun control is to impose taxes on purchases or transfers of guns.  Who do you think that such taxes primarily prevent from obtaining guns?  The poor, and since a greater percentage of blacks are poor, these taxes primarily tend to disarm poor blacks.

Just in case that push to disarm poor blacks wasn't obvious to everyone, a new bill to tax guns and ammunition is being pushed by two Democrats in the House.

A pair of Democratic lawmakers are proposing steep new taxes on handguns and ammunition, and tying the revenues to programs aimed at preventing gun violence.Called the “Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act," the bill sponsored by William Pascrell, D-N.J., and Danny Davis, D-Ill., would nearly double the current 11 percent tax on handguns, while raising the levy on bullets and cartridges from 11 percent to 50 percent. . . .

Why do Democrats so fear poor law-abiding blacks from having guns? The taxes don't stop poor criminals from getting guns because they aren't going to be the ones paying these taxes.

McClatchy Newspapers: No Democrat groups were targeted by the IRS

From the McClatchy DC bureau:

The storm over the Internal Revenue Service’s dealings with groups seeking tax-exempt status is now nearly a month old, and virtually no organizations perceived to be liberal or nonpartisan have come forward to say they were unfairly targeted since then. 

When the House Ways and Means Committee heard testimony Tuesday from aggrieved organizations, all were conservative. Democrats were invited to have witnesses but declined. 

“In the end, it doesn’t matter if it’s Democrat, Republican, conservative or liberal, it happens to all Americans,” explained Rep. Joseph Crowley of New York, the vice chairman of the House of Representatives Democratic Caucus. 

The IRS’s targeting of conservative-leaning groups is the subject of investigations by the Treasury Department’s inspector general, the FBI and at least four congressional panels. 

The controversy dogging the IRS is the most explosive for the agency since President Richard Nixon targeted his political enemies with a special unit created in the agency more than 40 years ago. After Nixon’s 1974 resignation in disgrace, the laws were changed to limit the ability of the executive and legislative branches to influence IRS audits and reviews. . . .

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/05/193100/liberal-groups-say-they-dont-see.html#.UbB-yPZAQYE#storylink=cpy...

Democrats in Connecticut think that it is up to the state Legislature to write history

Whether the legislature is right or wrong, it seems to me that is none of government's business to decide what the history books should say.  From Fox News:

The Connecticut Senate passed a bill Tuesday evening that would delete the Wright brothers from history, explicitly stripping recognition for the first powered flight from Orville and Wilbur and assigning it to someone else. 

“The Governor shall proclaim a date certain in each year as Powered Flight Day to honor the first powered flight by [the Wright brothers] Gustave Whitehead and to commemorate the Connecticut aviation and aerospace industry,” readsHouse Bill No. 6671, which now sits on the Governor’s desk awaiting passage into law. . . .

Black Louisiana State Senator switches from being a Democrat to a Republican

The above video is from a campaign ad run by Louisiana state Sen. Elbert Guillory.  From the Lafayette Advertiser:

Louisiana state Sen. Elbert Guillory has joined the Republican Party, becoming the first black Republican senator in Louisiana since Reconstruction, according to a report in The Advertiser. This is the second time Guillory, of Opelousas, has switched parties; the lawmaker was a Republican before running for the state House in 2007. 

Guillory is scheduled to announce his new affilitation during the @large Conference, an event aimed at attracting black conservatives to the Republican Party. 

Guillory has a conservative voting record and has long been an ally of Gov. Bobby Jindal's administration, particularly on education and retirement issues. . . .

Yet another Democrat budget that claims to cut the deficit but actually increases it.

This is pretty amazing the way Democrats keep claiming to cut the deficit only to actually be increasing it.  For past examples of this see here, here, and here.  From Fox News:

Senate Democrats' budget plan is coming under increasing criticism from Republicans, who say it effectively pats itself on the back twice for savings that were only achieved once -- and even then, promises another $7.3 trillion in debt over the next decade. . . . 

Democrats claimed all along their plan would achieve $1.85 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade, half through spending cuts and half through tax hikes. 

But the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, argues the plan is taking credit for the reduced spending level already achieved when mandatory, across-the-board cuts known as sequester took effect March 1. 

The Democrats' plan would replace the sequester and build on that savings for a total of $975 billion in alternative cuts and $975 billion in tax hikes over 10 years. But, as Democratic staffers acknowledged during committee testimony last week, their plan also counts the replacement cuts toward their total deficit-reduction figure. 

"I believe you're using the money twice," Sessions said, arguing that the true savings is more like $700 billion. . . .