When Eyes Are Opened

The Biden administration has not been good for the average American. Food and housing prices are up. Gasoline prices have come down, but not to the pre-Biden levels. The Biden administration’s economic and energy policies are costing middle class and lower class Americans money. Some Democrats are beginning to realize that these policies are becoming very unpopular.

On December 27th, Issues & Insights reported:

The only thing more uplifting than watching several prominent liberals drift rightward is the cluelessness of those on the left as to why it’s happening.

This drift is obvious enough, since it includes journalists once heralded by the left such as Matt Taibbi (who won a Young America’s Foundation award) and Glenn Greenwald, and Democratic politicians, including Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (whose speech at a Daily Caller award ceremony drew many loud cheers from the conservative audience), and Sen. John Fetterman (who recently declared that “I am not a progressive”).

Celebrities such as Russell Brand, David Chappelle, and Bill Maher (who “has been riding an asphalt roller over the far left,” according to Townhall) are part of the shift, as are a handful of prominent business leaders, Elon Musk for instance.

That’s to say nothing of the fact that surveys show once tried-and-true liberal constituencies – Hispanics, Asians, blacks, working class, and the young – are abandoning the Democratic party.

The article concludes:

For many in liberal cities such as San Francisco or New York or Chicago, it’s skyrocketing crime, abandoned storefronts, sidewalks full of homeless tents and human waste, and legions of illegal immigrants housed in bus stations, hotels, and abandoned schools. All of it the result of leftist policies.

For still others, it is the many forms of brutal intolerance the left shows toward anyone who doesn’t fall in line with whatever that day’s dogma happens to be, whether it’s school shutdowns, “transgender rights,” the climate “crisis,” or critical race theory. The left is constantly burning former friends at the stake for being heretics.

For many parents, it’s having the government call them domestic terrorists because they complained about lockdowns and gay pornography in their school libraries.

Now, it’s the left’s virulent antisemitism that was always there but only became glaringly apparent in the wake of Hamas’ genocidal attack on Israel.

The intolerance, bitterness and hate, the unquenchable desire for control, disdain for free speech, and fanaticism have always been features – not bugs – of the left, something we’ve been saying here for years.

The only reason leftists have been able to pretend otherwise is that they had better PR. But that, too, is failing them.

We can only hope those on the left continue to scratch their collective heads about why people are leaving their ranks, until one day they end up in the dustbin of history. Where they belong.

We have proof that leftist policies don’t work. It’s time Americans started paying attention to that proof.

Someone To Watch – For Various Reasons

Tulsi Gabbard served as the U.S. representative for Hawaii’s 2nd congressional district from 2013 to 2021. She is the first female combat veteran elected to Congress. She ran for President in 2020. It is quite possible that she will do that again in 2024. Representative Gabbard is a Democrat, but she does not always tow the Democrat line.  I would describe her as a liberal Democrat with common sense and the ability to think for herself rather than follow the crowd.

On Tuesday, Townhall posted an article about one of Tulsi Gabbard’s recent statements.

The article reports:

As reported over the weekend, Special Counsel John Durham confirmed the Clinton campaign hired a technology company to infiltrate servers at Trump Tower and while President Donald Trump was in the White House. In other words, they were spying. 

Former Democratic presidential nominee and U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is sounding that alarm about true threats to American democracy and where they are coming from. 

The article continues:

Meanwhile Biden National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, who played a major role in the development of the false Russia narrative against the Trump campaign, is still working in his post at the White House. The White House press team is refusing to comment on the situation.

When asked about the fake Russia narrative, Deputy White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre referred the press to the Department of Justice. I am sure the current Department of Justice is totally on board with an honest investigation of RussiaGate. Right!

Common Sense From A Legislator?

Breitbart reported yesterday that Tulsi Gabbard introduced the “Protect Women’s Sports Act” in Congress on Thursday.

The article reports:

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) maintained the distinction between the sexes while addressing critics of her Protect Women’s Sports Act in a Twitter video published on Sunday.

Gabbard introduced the above-mentioned legislation with Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) on Thursday. The bill proposes the restriction of federal funds from schools allowing boys and men to compete against girls and women in sports.

Gabbard identified broad physical advantages held by men relative to women as a rationale to segregate the sexes in the context of sports to preserve “a level playing field.”

There are two major aspects of this issue that need to be discussed. The first is the idea of high school boys in high school girls’ locker rooms. I suspect that fathers who remember what it was like to be a teenage boy would not support this idea. The second aspect is equally important. Young women who are outstanding high school athletes are being denied scholarships opportunities because they are losing in competition against biological young men.

Boys competing against boys and girls competing against girls used to be a non-issue, but the cultural warriors who want to undermine our basic societal norms have chosen to make it an issue. The issue of transgender has been pushed on teenagers through social media and added to the confusion that teenagers feel as they are attempting to find their identity. The real victims of this push to undermine what used to be understood are the teenagers who are often pushed into irreversible decisions because of peer pressure and pressure from social media. Parents need to stand up to the cultural warriors and protect their children.

The Search For An Honest Election

It seems as if much of the worrying about an honest election is on one side of the aisle. However, one Democrat is taking the concern seriously and doing something about it. Just the News posted an article (updated today) about Representatives Tulsi Gabbard (a Democrat from Hawaii) and Representative. Rodney Davis, ( a Republican from Illinois) sponsoring a bill that seeks to outlaw the practice of ballot harvesting, a growing practices especially among Democrats in which third parties distribute and collect ballots in an effort to grow the vote.

The bill is HR8285. The Congressional website describes the bill as follows (I am not giving the specific address because the links expire–just put in the bill number to find more information):

To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to prohibit payments under such Act to States which permit ballot harvesting, and for other purposes.

The text and summary of the bill are not yet available. The website reports that HR 8285 was introduced on September 17, 2020 and referred to the House Committee on House Administration on that date.

The article at Just the News reports:

Their bill would cut federal funding from states that don’t ban ballot havesting. “No one should get between a voter and the ballot box,” Gabbard said.

…In an accompanying video message, Gabbard said ballot harvesting “allows for abuse from third parties collecting and mishandling ballots” and “poses a serious threat to the integrity of our elections.”

The Democrats control the House of Representatives. It will be interesting to see if this bill ever makes it out of committee. Meanwhile, I am grateful for a Democrat that is at least willing to make an effort to deal with the problem.

 

Changing The Rules As You Go Along

The Democrat party claims to be the party of diversity, yet after a number of primary elections in which mainly Democrats voted, there were only three candidates left–two old white men and one woman. Now they have changed the debate rules so that the woman won’t be eligible to participate in the next Democrat debate. Doesn’t sound very diverse to me.

The Washington Free Beacon reported yesterday that under the newly announced rules for the March 15th Democrat debate, Representative Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat who represents Hawaii, is not eligible to participate.

The article reports:

Under the newly announced rules for the March 15 CNN/Univision debate, candidates must have at least 20 percent of the awarded pledged delegates in order to qualify.

…Elderly white male candidates Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders have already locked up the required delegates, but the rule change makes it nearly impossible for Gabbard to qualify, even with a strong showing in the next round of primaries. The congresswoman needs 335 more delegates to lock up 20 percent by March 15, but only 352 are up for grabs on March 10.

Gabbard suggested on Thursday that she would attend the debate if invited, tweeting that she would “welcome the opportunity to raise & discuss the foreign policy challenges we face.”

DNC spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa appeared to downplay the prospect of Gabbard making the debates in a Super Tuesday tweet, saying, “of course the threshold will go up.”

It’s  interesting to me that they changed the rules to let Mayor Bloomberg participate and now they have changed to rules to exclude Tulsi Gabbard. I suspect her presence would make for a much more interesting debate.

The article concludes:

The exclusion of Gabbard comes one day after Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) suspended her campaign, leaving the race with only one female candidate and prompting extensive soul-searching and criticism from Democratic women and media figures.

“I so wish that we had a woman president of the United States, and we came so close to doing that,” said Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.). “I do think there’s a certain element of misogyny.”

Former presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) omitted Gabbard entirely in her reaction to Warren’s departure, telling reporters, “Look at what’s happened. There are no women currently in this race.”

The Democrat presidential primary has reached the point where it is a soap opera that is moving very slowly toward something. I think it’s time to get out the popcorn!

The Field Narrows

Tomorrow is Super Tuesday.

According to Ballotpedia:

With both California and Texas—the two most populous states in the United States—holding their primaries on Super Tuesday, approximately 40% of the U.S. population has a primary event on March 3.[1] In total, 1,344 pledged delegates—34% of all pledged delegates—are at stake.

As of March 2020, the following six Democratic elected officials and notable public figures are running in the primary:

Today The Washington Examiner is reporting that Amy Klobuchar has dropped out of the race. According to The New York Times, she plans to endorse Joe Biden. So what is going on here. The Democrats are desperate to stop Bernie Sanders. I find it hard to believe that they think Joe Biden is a viable candidate, but the choices are definitely limited. If Joe Biden wins the nomination, I hope he can remember where he is and who he is debating if there are debates. Joe Biden needs to go home and enjoy his family; his gaffes are only getting worse.

 

An Attempt At Justice

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article about lawsuits brought by Carter Page. It seems to be common knowledge that before being targeted by the Obama administration as a back door to spy on the Trump campaign, Carter Page had done a lot of work for three-letter government agencies and was regarded as a reliable source of information.

The article reports:

Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page filed a lawsuit Thursday in federal court against the Democratic National Committee, law firm Perkins Coie and its partners tied to the funding of the unverified dossier that served as the basis for highly controversial surveillance warrants against him.

…“This is a first step to ensure that the full extent of the FISA abuse that has occurred during the last few years is exposed and remedied,” attorney John Pierce said Thursday. “Defendants and those they worked with inside the federal government did not and will not succeed in making America a surveillance state.”

He added: “This is only the first salvo. We will follow the evidence wherever it leads, no matter how high. … The rule of law will prevail.”

The lawsuit will be heard in the Federal District Court in Northern Illinois.

The article concludes:

Page could sue Steele, except that Steele is in England and has made it clear that he doesn’t plan to visit the U.S., ever again. Nearly all potential defendants other than Steele–Comey, Clapper, McCabe and the like–would try to erect a firewall by denying any knowledge that the Steele dossier was a fraud.

Whether such guilty knowledge could be proved is doubtful. At a minimum, Page will have to get far enough to conduct meaningful discovery against the existing defendants. Do the DNC’s or Perkins Coie’s emails contain evidence of a conspiracy to lie about Carter Page, for the purpose of damaging Donald Trump? Who knows? If the participants were careful, they don’t; then again, those who were talking to each other in 2016 and 2017 probably didn’t foresee that their actions might one day be exposed in court. So perhaps they were careless. Maybe, too, any such communications were deleted or destroyed long ago.

There is at least one obvious exception to the above analysis–the DOJ lawyer who misrepresented a CIA email to the FISA court. The email said that Carter Page was a CIA asset. The lawyer changed it to say that Page was not a CIA asset. That guy, who has been fired and I assume will be criminally prosecuted, has no defense other than causation. He likely would argue that he was just a cog in a giant wheel of lies, and that Page would have been equally defamed, surveilled and harassed even if he hadn’t lied about the CIA email. Which undoubtedly is true, although it is questionable as a defense.

What Carter Page is doing is noble. Let’s hope he succeeds in shedding light on the biggest political scandal, by far, in American history.

Finally, a fun fact: Page is represented by the same lawyers who are representing Tulsi Gabbard in her defamation case against Hillary Clinton, who called Gabbard a Russian asset. Which, of course, is what she and her minions also called Carter Page, an equally absurd lie.

Stay tuned.

This Is Getting Ridiculous

No, this isn’t a post about impeachment (although that, too, is getting ridiculous). Scott Johnson posted an article today at Power Line Blog about a lawsuit brought by Representative Tulsi Gabbard against Hillary Clinton. This is interesting–a few years ago, no one would have dared bring a lawsuit against the ‘powerful’ Clinton family.

The article reports:

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has sued Madam Hillary Clinton for defamation in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Gabbard’s press release is posted online here; Gabbard’s Complaint is posted online here.

Clinton defamed Gabbard as a “Russian asset” in a statement that did not call her out by name, though I don’t think there can be any doubt that Clinton’s statement was “of and concerning” Gabbard. Identification of the plaintiff in the defamatory statement is of course an essential element of the cause of action for slander or libel. Gabbard’s Complaint addresses the issue in paragraph 28 et seq.

Is the statement that Gabbard is a “Russian asset” protected as a statement of opinion (rather than one of fact)? I hope not. See generally Complaint paragraphs 26-46.

The Complaint recites Gabbard’s request for a retraction from Clinton. Madam Hillary has declined to retract. See Complaint paragraphs 23-25.

The article concludes:

In the second sentence of her Complaint Gabbard asserts: “Tulsi Gabbard is running
for President of the United States, a position Clinton has long coveted, but has not been able to attain.” I look forward to checking out Clinton’s response on this point when she files her Answer.

Let the good times roll.

This is interesting because it puts Hillary Clinton in the spotlight (not in a positive way) at a time when some of the Democrats running for President are sidelined by the impeachment. There is still some conventional wisdom that sees a brokered Democrat convention with Hillary Clinton emerging as the candidate. The next six months are going to be very interesting.

The Circus Continues

If anyone has doubts about Hillary Clinton running for President in 2020, they need to take a look at her recent actions. Hillary went semi-silent for a while, but now she is back with a vengeance. Her latest feud is with Democrat presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard. As an aside, Tulsi Gabbard is probably one of the more sane Democrats running for President.

Breitbart posted an article today about the feud.

The article reports:

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) called former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the “queen of warmongers” on Friday, blaming Clinton for orchestrating recent smears against her in the mainstream media.

Earlier on Friday, Clinton suggested that Gabbard was being “groomed” by Russia as a potential third-party candidate. Appearing on a podcast hosted by former Barack Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Clinton called Gabbard “the favorite of the Russians.”

Last weekend, the New York Times made similar accusations against Gabbard, without any evidence, calling her “a potentially useful vector for Russian efforts to sow division within the Democratic Party.”

This is getting ridiculous. I guess the latest smear of any candidate the Clinton left doesn’t like (or represents competition) is that they are a Russian agent.

The article also notes:

Gabbard, who supported Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in the 2016 presidential election, resigned a leadership post in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in protest at its favoritism toward Clinton.

As I said, I think Tulsi Gabbard is probably the most reasonable Democrat candidate running for President. It’s interesting that according to Election Central, Tulsi Gabbard has not yet qualified for the November 20th Democrat Presidential Debate. I suspect that she has too much common sense to be included in the field.

Still Rigging Primaries

Evidently the Democrat Presidential candidates are being winnowed down to fit on one debate stage. However, the winnowing process is about as fair as Bernie Sanders’ primary run in 2016.

The American Thinker posted an article today with their observations:

Iconoclastic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard did the unforgiveable in the eyes of the hidebound Democratic Party establishment: She knocked down one their favorites, Kamala Harris. 

…Now, through the miracle of rule-rigging, the Democratic establishment has maneuvered to exact a price from her: No appearance at the next Democratic debate. No more taking down the next favorite.

Yesterday Real Clear Politics posted an article about the exclusion of Representative Gabbard.

The article notes:

Tulsi Gabbard is on the verge of being excluded from the next Democratic presidential debate on the basis of criteria that appear increasingly absurd.

Take, for instance, her poll standing in New Hampshire, which currently places Gabbard at 3.3% support, according to the RealClearPolitics average as of Aug. 20. One might suspect that such a figure would merit inclusion in the upcoming debates — especially considering she’s ahead of several candidates who have already been granted entry, including Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, and Andrew Yang. But the Democratic National Committee has decreed that the polls constituting this average are not sufficiently “qualifying.”

The article at RealClear Politics continues:

The absurdity mounts. A South Carolina poll published Aug. 14 by the Post and Courier placed Gabbard at 2%. One might have again vainly assumed that the newspaper with the largest circulation in a critical early primary state would be an “approved” sponsor per the dictates of the DNC, but it is not. Curious.

To recap: Gabbard has polled at 2% or more in two polls sponsored by the two largest newspapers in two early primary states, but the DNC — through its mysteriously incoherent selection process — has determined that these surveys do not count toward her debate eligibility. Without these exclusions, Gabbard would have already qualified. She has polled at 2% or more in two polls officially deemed “qualifying,” and surpassed the 130,000 donor threshold on Aug. 2. While the latter metric would seem more indicative of “grassroots support” — a formerly obscure Hawaii congresswoman has managed to secure more than 160,000 individual contributions from all 50 states, according to the latest figures from her campaign — the DNC has declared that it will prioritize polling over donors. In polls with a sample size of just a few hundred people, this means excluding candidates based on what can literally amount to rounding errors: A poll that places a candidate at 1.4% could be considered non-qualifying, but a poll that places a candidate at 1.5% is considered qualifying. Pinning such massive decisions for the trajectory of a campaign on insignificant fractional differences seems wildly arbitrary.

In Animal Farm by George Orwell, the pigs proclaim, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” I think that is the way the Democrat party runs their presidential primary elections.

 

A Rare Moment Of Truth In The Democrat Debates

The Daily Caller posted an article today about remarks made by Democratic Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard regarding Senator Kamala Harris of California during the Democrat debate on Wednesday.

The article notes:

Democratic Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard was among the first to land a solid blow on presidential primary rival Sen. Kamala Harris (CA), but she may not have taken her attack far enough.

“She put over 1500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana,” Gabbard said of Harris’s time as a prosecutor and District Attorney of San Francisco.

But as Joe Garofoli of the San Francisco Chronicle discovered as he fact-checked Gabbard’s claim, the number of people Harris sent to jail for marijuana violations was actually closer to 2000.

Garofoli noted that an initial report published by the Washington Free Beacon had put the number at 1560, but that a spokesman for California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation had told him the actual number was 1974.

It’s an interesting attack. First of all, Kamala Harris was doing her job as District Attorney of San Francisco. Admittedly, her priorities might have been a little off, but she was essentially doing her job. The really sad part of the story is that she is so arrogant that she laughed about putting people in jail for something she herself had done. Some of our politicians have made a career out of ‘one rule for me and another rule for thee.’ That is the sad part of the story.