Dems Are Hurting for Cash, GOP Is Loaded

More bad news for the Democrat Party just weeks before the final sprint for the November elections. According to updated reports, the Republican Party has a cool 50 million on hand to spend in defense of congressional control. In contrast, the DNC has a mere 8 mil. What’s worse is that, while the RNC is debt-free, the DNC is 5 million in debt. A little second-grade math and voila, the Dems have a mere 3 to spend. And from the looks of it, that won’t go very far if we consider that a single competitive Senate race can cost twice that amount. Good luck with that blue wave, Dems.

Here’s more from The Daily Caller…

The Republican National Committee had over five times as much cash in June as the Democratic National Committee did in May, an RNC official told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The RNC had $50.7 million in cash as of June, according to the RNC official. The DNC had $8.7 million in cash as of May, according to Federal Election Commission data. The RNC also raised $13.9 million in June, the most raised during any non-presidential election year, according to the RNC official. The RNC has raised $213 million in the 2017-2018 election cycle as of June.

The RNC also has zero debt, while the DNC had roughly $5.7 million in debt as of May, according to FEC data. The RNC also has 3.5 times the cash on hand as of June as they did during June 2014, the last midterm election.

“What I see when I travel the country is that Americans continue to be enthusiastic about President [Donald] Trump and the Republican agenda. That enthusiasm has allowed for me to grow our war chest and invest it into what has become the biggest ground game in our Party’s history,” RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel told TheDCNF.


Big govt, Politics

Dem Charges EPA With ‘Secret’ Program…Started by Obama

Congressman Elija Cummings is well known the conservative world as the serial thorn in the side of Trey Gowdy during the Hillary email investigation. We wonder whether he might be more appropriately employed as a rodeo clown. This week he’s entertained us with a charge that the EPA has initiated a secret program designed to obfuscation the response to FOIA requests. The trouble with the charge is doubling confusing. First, the program, called FEAT, was designed actually speed up responses to FOIA requests. And second, it was an Obama program. But facts never bother Cummings in his effort to charge the Trump administration with something nefarious.

Here’s more from Hot Air…

On Friday evening there was a story at Politico which didn’t seem to gain much traction, what with all of the Trump activity going on. Congressman Elija Cummings (D-Md) is the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee and he’s demanding that committee chair Trey Gowdy issue a subpoena to the EPA over their handling of both FOIA submissions and requests from Congress for documents, saying that Scott Pruitt’s administration was “screening” requests based on political sensitivity. (More background coverage available at Government Executive.) These were all part of a skyrocketing number of such requests the EPA has received under the Trump administration, but we’ll have more on that below. So what was this new, secret program to allow the EPA to “screen” incoming requests?

Hot Air has received a copy of both Cummings’ letter to the EPA as well as the response sent to Cummings this weekend from Kevin Minoli, EPA’s Principal Deputy General Counsel and Designated Ethics Official. First, let’s have a look at the introductory portion of Cummings letter and what he’s clearly implying with his demand for a subpoena.

I am writing to request that you issue a subpoena to compel the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to produce documents it has failed to produce about policies implemented by ousted Administrator Scott Pruitt to withhold information about his tenure in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.





Big govt, Politics

‘Incitement’: Black Pastors Speak Out Against Maxine Waters

A coalition of 800 black pastors from across America representing more than two million African Americans among their congregations blasted Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) during a press conference at the National Press Club. The coalition is calling her rhetoric for mob-like tactics and actions against Trump administration officials ‘shameful’. “An apology is not enough” declared leaders, as the group is asking Speaker Paul Ryan to censure Waters for near criminal, reckless speech.

Here’s more from Breitbart…

A coalition of black pastors held a press conference on Thursday at the National Press Club to push House Speaker Paul Ryan to censure Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) for encouraging people to confront members of President Donald Trump’s administration.

The coalition is a network of some 800 pastors from across the country representing two million African Americans in their congregations.

“Her call to extremism based on where another American citizen works or with whom they associate must be sternly addressed by Speaker Ryan,” Star Parker, president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE) said at the press conference. “An apology is not enough.”



Big govt, Courts, Politics

Democrats Admit They Can’t Block Kavanaugh

Liberals on Capitol Hill are feeling the crunch to deliver on those promises to block Trump SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh. And now they’re already admitting that there really isn’t much they can actually do beyond those sweet nothings inciting protests en masse. According to a report from The Hill, “Senate Democratic leaders this week appeared to try to tamp down expectations of the party’s progressive base, with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) saying the procedural options for Democrats ‘are not that large.'” We’re reminded of Obama’s finger-wagging, “I won.” Now the shoe’s on the other foot.

Here’s more from Hot Air…

Consider this a follow up to a post I wrote yesterday about the collapsing opposition to the Kavanaugh nomination. Today, the Hill notes that Senate Democratic leaders are sounding a bit frustrated with the wild expectations coming from of their own base. Senators Schumer and Durbin and are doing their best to prepare the left for imminent failure.

Back when Justice Kennedy first announced he was resigning there was some immediate speculation about ways in which Democrats could prevent the GOP from replacing him. A University of Miami political scientist named Gregory Koger proposed to Vox and other news sites that Democrats could prevent a vote by denying a quorum. Simply put, Democrats would refuse to show up for work and thereby prevent the GOP, which needs a simple majority present to hold a vote on anything, from acting.

I wrote about this here and suggested that, as dumb as it sounded, the left would probably push leadership to consider it. There is some precedent for something like this, at least at the state level. Remember when Democrats fled the state of Wisconsin to prevent Republicans led by Governor Walker from passing ACT 10? That worked for a few days though ACT 10 was eventually passed. Sure enough, it sounds as if people have been recommending something similar to Sen. Chuck Schumer who is stuck having to his excited base it won’t work:

Senate Democratic leaders this week appeared to try to tamp down expectations of the party’s progressive base, with Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) saying the procedural options for Democrats “are not that large.”

“There is no way we can prevent the Senate from meeting. There’s been some discussion about that, but it just wouldn’t happen,” Schumer told reporters during a weekly press conference when asked about the possibility of actions like boycotting a confirmation hearing.




Courts, Politics

Democrats Denied Kavanaugh Before…

Fifteen years ago, Trump-nominee to the Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh was slow-walked through an appointment by President George W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. His confirmation would take more than three years, with the New York Times even chiming in to call him ‘unqualified’. Ultimately, he would make it through with the help of four Democrats who broke with their Majority leader in a 57-36 vote. And now the Democrat Senate is hoping for a reversal of fortune with a second shot at ‘Borking’ Trump’s nominee.

Here’s more from The Daily Signal…

After the president nominated Brett Kavanaugh for a key court vacancy, Democrats sought to obstruct. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., resorted to name-calling. The New York Times chimed in to call Kavanaugh “unqualified.”

That’s what happened when President George W. Bush named Kavanaugh to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2003. He was not confirmed by the Senate until 2006.

Now, 15 years later, Kavanaugh faces Senate Democrats as President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. The challenge will be only more difficult, said Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, a conservative legal group that monitors judicial nominations.

“I was surprised at the time that Kavanaugh did get confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, given the number of Bush nominees that Senate Democrats were obstructing,” Levey told The Daily Signal.

Democrats opposed that nomination largely because Kavanaugh worked for the counsel’s office in the Bush White House and previously was a lawyer on independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s team that investigated President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

Democrats also criticized Kavanaugh for being part of the Bush campaign’s legal team during the 2000 Florida recounts in 2000. He also had argued against deporting a Cuban boy, Elián González, whose mother died getting him to America but whose father sought his return to Fidel Castro’s Cuba.



Big govt, Courts, Politics

Let No Fundraising Opportunity Go to Waste

Waste not, want not. In this case, the left is certainly not considering President Trump’s nominee Brett Kavanaugh on his merits. In usual fashion, they’re resorting to baseless fear-mongering in order to exploit the high profile political event to fundraise for Democrats. Just how little do they care about the nominee’s credentials? Case in point: the Women’s March released this presser Monday night: “In response to Donald Trump’s nomination of XX to the Supreme Court of the United States, the Women’s March released the following statement … ” Meanwhile, the MSM prepared to tout the pick as “controversial” before a name was even released. Typical leftist tactics.

Here’s more from The Daily Wire…

It wouldn’t have mattered: President Trump could’ve nominated Mahatma Gandhi and the Left still would have screeched.

Who Trump picked mattered so little to the Left that they literally started without him. Long before Trump strode into the White House East Room on Monday night to name Appeals Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his nominee, the Women’s March put out this release: “In response to Donald Trump’s nomination of XX to the Supreme Court of the United States, the Women’s March released the following statement … ” That’s right: They just put a couple of Xs in there as placeholders.

At noon on Monday — nine hours before Trump’s announcement — Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) put out a statement announcing he would oppose the nomination. No, Casey would not carefully weigh the selection, as voters had elected him to do. He wouldn’t hear Kavanaugh out, ask probing questions, then make a considered judgment. Quoting Lincoln, Casey said he “was not elected to genuflect to the hard Right, who are funded by corporate America.” Ah, corporate America, that evil entity that employs 90% of Americans. What scum.

Leftists and liberals everywhere had already written their press releases, accusing the nominee — it didn’t matter who it was — of hating women and minorities, immigrants and gays. They’d already declared Trump’s nominee would set back the course of human history with Neanderthal thinking, would be in the back pocket of those evil corporations. He’d strip health care from millions, kill the unions, and run roughshod over civil rights.


Big govt, Courts, Politics

Giuliani Wants More Text Messages

President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani made it clear during an interview with Fox & Friends that he isn’t satisfied with Strzok’s text messages. “I want to see all their texts. I want to see if they’re texting the same thing.” “I’m willing to bet a dinner that they are. You’ve got two or three of them that are texting horrible things about Trump.”
In one instance, an FBI lawyer even texted “Viva le [sic] resistance” in response to a question of whether or not he would support Trump after the election. It’s a smart play to the keep the spotlight right where it should be…on the REAL election collusion investigation.

Here’s more from The Daily Caller… 

Rudy Giuliani wants to see all Mueller team members’ text messages to check for anti-Trump bias, the Trump attorney said Monday.

Three FBI officials who worked on special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation have been found to have sent text messages criticizing President Donald Trump.

Peter Strzok, the former deputy chief of counterintelligence, sent messages to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page, calling Trump an “idiot.” In one Aug. 8, 2016 text, Strzok told Page that “we’ll stop” Trump from becoming president.

Page, who resigned from the FBI on May 4, also sent messages blasting Trump.

Strzok and Page joined the Mueller team shortly after the special counsel investigation was started on May 17, 2017. Strzok was removed from the investigation after the Department of Justice’s inspector general discovered the text messages in July 2017. Page left Mueller’s team before the discovery of the messages.

An FBI lawyer named Kevin Clinesmith has also been identified as sending anti-Trump messages. Clinesmith was the FBI’s top attorney on the Russia investigation starting in early 2017. He joined the Mueller team and lasted through this February, when his text messages were recovered during the inspector general’s investigation.


Big govt, Courts, Politics

Redo: Merrick Garland for SCOTUS?

Lib-Dems in the Senate aren’t finished beating the latest dead horse. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is attempting to cajole President Trump into re-nominating Obama’s former SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland to fill Justice Kennedy’s soon-to-be-vacant seat at the Supreme Court. And not only do they think they can talk him into it, they’re gleefully looking forward to the left-media flogging Republicans over the issue. Not gonna happen. One of the top promises Trump made during the campaign was the appointment of conservative judges. If he wasn’t going back down on Gorsuch, there’s no chance he backs down now.

Here’s more from Hot Air…

I don’t understand this even as a stunt. Which rank-and-file liberals, knowing there’s no chance of it happening, are going to read this story and say, “Thank you for trying, Senator Schumer! You’re a true warrior for our cause!”? He might as well have asked Trump to appoint Obama or Hillary Clinton to the seat. Imagine the angst on the right and the damage to Trump’s credibility among Republicans if he nominated someone who’s “only” as conservative as John Roberts. Naming Garland to the seat would have conservatives more eager to impeach him than a finding of collusion by Bob Mueller would.

Because American politics now resides in the Twilight Zone, though, I suppose there’s technically some minute chance that this would happen and that Garland would be confirmed. And then the patented shocking Serling twist: Garland provides the fifth vote to overturn Roe. Picture Schumer crying like Burgess Meredith in the rubble, abortion clinics shuttering all around him. “Submitted for your approval: One Charles Schumer, a man who fought to revive an aborted nomination — and got more than he bargained for. A lesson in being careful what you wish for from … the Twilight Zone.”


Issues, Politics

Poll: (Not So) Proud to Be An American

A record low number of Americans are proud to be…American. A mere 47% of those polled by Gallup in a recent survey claim to be extremely proud patriots. This is the first time the poll dipped below a majority. The peak occurred in 2003 when 70 percent claimed pride in being American on the heels of 9/11. Get ready for the left to blame both President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress. What they’ll not tell you, however, is that the discernible downturn started soon after the reelection of Barack Obama.
Here’s more from Gallup…
This Fourth of July marks a low point in U.S. patriotism. For the first time in Gallup’s 18-year history asking U.S. adults how proud they are to be Americans, fewer than a majority say they are “extremely proud.” Currently, 47% describe themselves this way, down from 51% in 2017 and well below the peak of 70% in 2003.
The latest results are based on a June 1-13 poll. When Gallup first asked the question in 2001, 55% of Americans said they were extremely proud. After the 9/11 terror attacks caused the public to rally around the nation and its leaders, the percentage expressing extreme pride in the country increased to 65%, and went up further to 70% less than two years later.
By 2005, about the time George W. Bush was set to begin his second term in office and the U.S. was going on its second year of military involvement in Iraq, the percentage extremely proud to be Americans fell to 61%. It held in the high 50% range between 2006 and 2013, but has fallen at least marginally each year since 2015, about the time the 2016 presidential campaign was getting underway.


Courts, Issues, Politics

Shapiro Event Shutdown Results in Lawsuit for U of Minn.

Recall Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro’s speech was upended by the University of Minnesota back in February.
The move quickly earned lawsuits after the speech venue was switched to an isolated, smaller venue because ‘Defendants and other students and faculty members disagreed with the content and viewpoint of the Plaintiff’s speech’ and chose censorship instead.
According to Young America’s Foundation, who filed suit along with Shapiro, “Internal emails obtained by Young America’s Foundation through the Censorship Exposed project revealed top-level administrators’ plans to arbitrarily cap attendance at Shapiro’s lecture,” contrary to public statements.
In short, Ivory Tower elitists are all about academic freedom and the First Amendment…so long as it’s reliably leftist.
Here’s more from The Daily Wire…
On Tuesday, Young America’s Foundation (YAF), Students for a Conservative Voice (SCV), and Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the University of Minnesota, charging the university with unconstitutionally infringing upon students’ First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights by suppressing Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro’s speech and relocating it to a smaller, more isolated venue in late February 2018, “all because Defendants and others students and faculty members disagreed with the content and viewpoint of Plaintiffs’ speech.”

AS YAF wrote in their statement:

School policy permits administrators to wield unbridled discretion to suppress student speech that administrators dislike. The University of Minnesota has a long history of welcoming leftist guest speakers to campus, but when conservative students invited Ben Shapiro to speak at a YAF-sponsored lecture, administrators put the school’s Speech Suppression policy into action.

University administrators schemed to limit student exposure to Mr. Shapiro’s conservative ideas. They banished Shapiro’s lecture to the St. Paul campus, refusing to allow him to speak on the University’s main campus in Minneapolis, and they arbitrarily limited student attendance to 500 attendees.

Internal emails obtained by Young America’s Foundation through the Censorship Exposed project revealed top-level administrators’ plans to arbitrarily cap attendance at Shapiro’s lecture and move the event to the St. Paul Campus—all despite misleading public statements to the contrary.