April 19-22, 2018
Apr 19 05:39 More on Otto lawsuit fallout Apr 19 06:15 Parkland, restorative justice and increasing violence Apr 19 06:58 Who silenced Leah Phifer? Apr 20 01:57 Sexual assault outrage! Apr 20 04:16 Heitkamp the hypocrite? Apr 20 11:56 The Democrats' disqualifications Apr 21 01:31 Proof that Democrats hate Trump Apr 22 02:21 Scarborough's hatred overflows Apr 22 10:27 Democrats' fight: Big Labor vs. Big Environment
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
More on Otto lawsuit fallout
Yesterday, I wrote that the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Rebecca Otto , Minnesota's State Auditor. Otto filed a lawsuit that was doomed from the start. That was obvious from the start. That's why the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against her. Now we're finding out more about the lawsuit.
In writing the majority opinion for the Court, "Chief Justice Lorie Gildea said that the state Constitution does not lay out the state auditor's duties. Rather, she wrote, the Constitution specifically leaves it up to the Legislature to define duties of constitutional offices such as the auditor. Thus, the 2015 bill did not violate the Constitution. The ruling also explains that another state office, which no longer exists, originally audited county finances." Further, "50 counties notified Otto's office they would not sign contracts with her office for it to conduct audits" after the 2015 law passed.
That had to sting Otto. That's because in 2016, "the auditor's office charged $84,000 for an annual audit, while Becker County paid just $31,000 in 2012 for an audit done by Hoffman Dale and Swenson Governmental Audit Services of Thief River Falls." That's more than $2,500,000 in lost revenues for Otto per year.
Back in January, 2018, she said "Fighting for this constitutional office is the right thing to do. But as you witnessed today, it's complex." Actually, Mrs. Otto, the justices thought it was pretty straightforward. (I'm not a legal scholar but I'm betting that justices rarely rule unanimously on complex lawsuits.)
Rep. Jim Nash, R-Waconia, might have the best understanding of what's happened:
"It seems to me," Nash said, "that [Otto] is using the taxpayer dollars to create an issue for her to campaign with for governor."
If that's what was happening, her strategy failed. Furthermore, if that was her strategy, she should be politically crucified. If that's true, then a ton of the taxpayers' money was wasted for that mission. If this was her Hail Mary attempt at winning the DFL endorsement, then Mrs. Otto made a major miscalculation.
What's amazing is Otto's misunderstanding of Minnesota's Constitution. Mrs. Otto either doesn't understand Minnesota's Constitution or she, like other DFL politicians, was willing to throw Minnesota's Constitution under the proverbial bus for political gain.
My question in the aftermath is this: are there any patriots left in the DFL whose respect for the Constitution is steadfast? I haven't found any lately.
Posted Thursday, April 19, 2018 5:39 AM
No comments.
Parkland, restorative justice and increasing violence
Written by Rambling Rose
The adage 'Spare the rod and spoil the child' is not Biblical, nor does it have to be interpreted as a call for corporal punishment. But current discipline policies that provide no accountability may be just as bad or worse.
Public outrage is graphic and loud after events such as the most recent school shooting in Parkland, Florida in mid-February. Indignation was expressed after the previous massacres but not to the extent of the nationwide protests by teachers and students, politicians and activists: many who marched without knowing the reason for the manifestation because they were too young. Yet they marched because their teachers/parents told them to do so. This week, central Minnesotans are asking at what age should children be deemed to have attained the age of accountability for violent actions.
But the hype and media coverage do not always reveal the whole truth. Fortunately, not all are willing to take news coverage at face value. RealClearInvestigations (RCI) is the investigative arm of RealClearPolitics. Their publication on April 15th reveals that there is more to the story - WHY the officers did not enter the school during the shooting - WHY the perpetrator knew the school and its policies - WHY he had little to fear with a firearm in a gun-free zone, etc.
After the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, many learned of PROMISE (Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, Mentoring, Interventions, Supports & Education). It is far more than a program to keep students in school for minor infractions. The truth is very disturbing.
The program was adopted by the Broward Schools in 2013 with a strong push from Superintendent Robert Runcie. Prior to that, Runcie had worked in Chicago for Arne Duncan, Obama's Secretary of Education: the plot thickens.
'That new discipline policy took effect in 2013. It was at the vanguard of the Obama administration's efforts to address the 'school to prison' pipeline. Beginning in 2009, it opened hundreds of investigations or sued to force districts to adopt lenient discipline guidelines. This push was formalized in a 2014 'Dear Colleague' letter to the nation's public school superintendents and board members that not only discourages student arrests, but holds districts liable for the actions of school resource officers.'
'After meeting with Obama officials in the White House, Runcie persuaded the Broward County Sheriff's Office and Fort Lauderdale Police Department to agree to stop arresting students who committed misdemeanor crimes the district deemed 'nonviolent' - including assault, theft, vandalism, drugs and public fighting . Runcie argued that diverting minor offenders from jail to 'restorative justice' counseling and other positive behavioral interventions would help close the academic "achievement gap' by disrupting the flow of black students into the so-called 'schoolhouse to jailhouse pipeline.' Though African-Americans made up about 40 percent of the Broward student body, they accounted for more than 70 percent of juvenile arrests in the county.'"
This sounds very similar to the local news about a week ago. District 742 and the Minnesota Department of Human Rights are dealing with issues related to restorative justice policies, the demographics of the student population and the demographics of those named as offenders in efforts to eliminate the disparity in suspensions and expulsions. By looking at data and not specific reports about offenses, it was decided that the racial percentages of the student body and the violators should be equal. Who determined that there is a direct correlation between the racial makeup of a community and the number of violations committed? Is that a reasonable expectation in schools or in society? Is there a direct correlation between the ethnic/racial demographics in society and that of the incarcerated?
Accountability does seem any longer to be addressed by discipline policies in many schools. The explanation comes again from Florida:
'Thousands of arrested Broward students have had their records deleted in the system as part of a program to end 'disproportionate minority contact' with law enforcement, blindfolding both street cops and school resource officers to the criminal history of potential juvenile threats.'
[Video no longer available]
So deleting disciplinary records is a way to make the numbers balance, right? No, wrong. What is restorative justice? How has restorative justice worked for Broward county?
'In a related program, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel also agreed to back off arrests of students who commit such crimes outside of schools, offering them civil citations and the same restorative justice counseling instead of incarceration, even for repeat offenders. Restorative justice is a controversial alternative punishment in which delinquents gather in 'healing circles' with counselors - and sometimes even the victims of their crime - and discuss their feelings and the 'root causes' of their anger and actions." In Broward County, the juvenile recidivism rate grew much faster than the rate for the entire state. Is that a measure of success?
The level of violence has risen in the schools and spread to the community. The community is uneasy. According to the County's chief juvenile probation officer, Broward County now boasts the highest percentage of "serious, violent [and] chronic juvenile delinquents in the state. Meanwhile, murders, armed robberies and other violent felonies committed by children outside of schools have hit record levels, and some see a connection with what's happening on school grounds. Since the relaxing of discipline, Broward youths have not only brazenly punched out their teachers, but terrorized Broward neighborhoods with drive-by shootings, gang rapes, home invasions and carjackings.'
Prosecutors and probation officers lament the number of violent crimes involving Broward youths has risen dramatically while juvenile arrests overall have dropped. "Juvenile arrests for murder and manslaughter increased 150 percent between 2013 and 2016. They increased by another 50 percent in 2017. County juveniles were responsible for a total of 16 murders or manslaughters in the past two years alone, according to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice."
"Last year, the number of Broward juveniles collared for armed robbery totaled 92, up 46 percent from 2013, department data show. Arrests for auto thefts jumped 170 percent between 2013 and 2017 - from 105 to 284. Juveniles charged with kidnapping, moreover, surged 157 percent in 2016 and another 43 percent last year.'
The evidence indicts the leniency policy of restorative justice, whatever the name. Max Eden, education policy expert and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, declared that the no-arrest policies have emboldened crimes by Broward youth. The infractions became steadily more violent regardless of race. He noted that the crimes committed become more violent when petty crimes are not punished.
Tracy Clark, Chief Public Information Officer of the Broward schools, denied that district policies have weakened safety. The administrators have refused to provide any documents to support those claims. However, the parents whose children have been bullied and beaten do not agree. Those victims were bullied and beaten repeatedly by fellow students who suffered few or no consequences for those actions. Lowell Levine, whose Stop Bullying Now Foundation is in Lake Worth, Florida, has collected dozens of complaints from those parents. When he contacted Runcie's office about the complaints of school violence in 2015, the superintendent rejected outside advice, claiming that he had the situation under control.
Under control? 'After Broward schools began emphasizing rehabilitation over incarceration, fights broke out virtually every day in classrooms, hallways, cafeterias and campuses across the district. Last year, more than 3,000 fights erupted in the district's 300-plus schools, including the altercations involving Cruz. No brawlers were arrested, even after their third fight, and even if they sent other children to the hospital.'
In 2017, even without cooperation from the Broward county schools, federal data reveal that nearly half of the Broward middle school students were involved in fights, many requiring medical attention. Parents are aware; parents are contacting school administrators; parents are not being heard. One of the teachers in one of the Broward schools explained why when fights are more frequent and more violent but not reported with these words, 'because of politics.' What a sad commentary on those schools, on today's culture.
News media sources seem to suggest that male students are the aggressive ones. Females are also offenders:
'In a December 2016 fight caught on video at Plantation High School, several girls beat and dragged another girl to the ground and took turns kicking her. Campus police did not break up the fight and the girls who jumped her were not arrested. The attacked girl's mother said the school failed to stop bullying before it escalated into violence, and then swept the incident under the rug. Three other fights reportedly broke out the same day at the school.'
Such attacks by females do not occur only in Florida. A similar event was shared with me by a family member of the victim at a school in St. Cloud, Minnesota. There was no video to capture the attack. The victim was thrown to the ground and kicked by the others. She had a hall pass; the attackers reportedly did not. The victim reported the incident to the school's administrator but did not know the names of her attackers. When the offenders approached the principal with their version of the story, there was no discipline measured out for them. However, the victim was suspended for an extended period of time. Yes, the victim was white. The attackers were not.
In Broward schools, the perpetrators participate in the PROMISE program but are not held accountable and no records are kept. They are restored. One wonders if the attackers in the St. Cloud school participated in restorative justice or was it just ignored?
Other shootings were avoided prior to the February 14th shooting by observant students who were brave enough to report them to security, and security intervened. There are other reports of physical attacks to teachers for trying to maintain discipline within the classroom. No arrests were made. No entries were made in the attackers' school records. They suffered no consequences. Recall the words of Max Eden cited above. The lax policies have 'emboldened' the unpunished perpetrators to escalate the violence of their continuing crimes.
Maria Schneider, Broward juvenile prosecutor, signed the original PROMISE agreement but warned a few months later that a failure to arrest and prosecute the delinquent students could have undesired consequences of 'making the schools a more dangerous place.' While administrators were worried about criminal records 'stigmatizing' minority students, the prosecutor retorted that 'There has to be accountability for bad behavior.' At a recent Juvenile Justice Circuit Advisory Board meeting, the prosecutor reported that 'the actual police reports are being destroyed.' There appears to be no accountability for bad actions at any level in Broward county.
Even though the schools discontinued a 21-year-old practice of surveying the students about their school climate and safety, federal data revealed 'a deterioration in safety indicators after the discipline reforms were adopted.'
Sadly, PROMISE and the Behavior Intervention Programs have not achieved their core objectives of 'closing the racial disparity in suspensions, expulsions and arrests between black students and white students.' Since 2013, despite the aggressive implementation of restorative justice policies and the destruction of official police reports, as noted by Schneider, internal school district reports show that black students are suspended more than white students. In 2013, the disparity was 2.3 times greater for black students, and last year, after the implementation of the race-based discipline reforms, the rate was 3.4 times more frequent for the targeted group.
'The PROMISE and Behavior Intervention Programs have not accomplished the core objectives they were created to achieve in 2013 - closing the racial disparity in suspensions, expulsions and arrests between black students and white students. That gap is now wider than ever, in spite of a 'very aggressive' Broward system goal of decreasing the black arrest rate by 5 percent each year and 33 percent overall.'
Rather than re-examining the effectiveness of the program, the teachers and administrators are being compelled to participate in training programs to examine their 'whiteness' and eliminate their 'implicit biases.' (This seems strangely similar to the 'White Privilege' training forced upon some educators in central Minnesota.)
Or as reported by RCI, 'instead of blaming these students for committing a higher rate of infractions, Runcie and his team are putting teachers and principals on the spot for harboring deep-seated prejudices that lead them to 'subconsciously" mete out harsher punishments for them.'
Efforts are underway to extend this training to local police officers as well.
This adage is Biblical. From Proverbs 22:6, 'Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.
What training does society owe its young people? Do we teach, through modeling and policies, that there is accountability for bad decisions/actions? Or, do we perpetuate the racial divide and allow a 'free pass' for special groups and sensitivity training for others?
Posted Thursday, April 19, 2018 6:15 AM
No comments.
Who silenced Leah Phifer?
Let's recount the DFL's Eighth District Convention last Saturday. According to multiple tweets, Leah Phifer got the most votes in each of the 10 rounds of balloting. Still, she didn't reach the 60% threshold needed to win the DFL's official endorsement to run for the US House of Representatives. It was considered a fait accompli that Ms. Phifer would run in the August DFL primary. Why wouldn't she? She was the frontrunner in each of the 10 rounds of balloting.
Late Wednesday night, though, Ms. Phifer dropped a bombshell , announcing that she wouldn't run in the DFL primary.
In her official statement, Ms. Phifer said "My goal, since first declaring my candidacy in October 2017, has always been to win the DFL endorsement, bring new voices to the table and strengthen the party. A divisive primary season would only serve to weaken the party and distract from the issues affecting the people of the 8th District."
This doesn't make any sense. Phifer was the only environmental activist of the 4 candidates that were either considering running in the DFL primary or who had announced that they were running. Further, CD-8 was the only district where Rebecca Otto defeated Tim Walz. Clearly, environmental activists were activated in the Eighth. In a 4-way race, there's no reason to think that she couldn't have defeated her opponents.
Considering the fact that DFL Chairman Ken Martin said that a divided DFL that didn't endorse a candidate couldn't defeat Pete Stauber and considering the fact that the DFL was a divided shambles Saturday night after they failed to endorse a candidate, isn't it interesting that they suddenly have 3 pro-mining candidates running in the DFL primary? What are the odds that the frontrunner, the candidate who stood between DFL unity and DFL division, unexpectedly dropped out?
It's difficult to believe that someone who looked that energized in that picture voluntarily dropped out of the race. I think the more likely question is more nefarious. Which of Ken Martin's inner circle forced Leah Phifer from the race?
Finally, let's recall a little history within the CD-8 DFL. Chairman Martin and Congressman Nolan have fought to prevent a fight between the pro-mining faction within the DFL and the pro-environment faction. In fact, they fought that fight for years. Why wouldn't they fight to prevent it one last time?
Posted Thursday, April 19, 2018 6:58 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 22-Apr-18 07:49 AM
Michelle Lee is clear on the risk-benefit of sulfide mining. Beyond that, Phifer could have defeated Stauber.
Lee might. Radinovich would lose. However, neither of us live in that District. At a guess Nolan-Radinovich-Justin Perpich are a bloc Phifer saw as allied against her and in a primary she'd have not had funds enough to effectively move to the general election against Stauber, had she won. Radinovich and Metsa each had more cash support after being in the contest mere weeks.
Phifer was grassroots in her approach but funds were against her. Also her stated decision is likely true and honestly decided. She was not deceptive in any part of her effort.
She was a great candidate. While having liked the idea of her being endorsed, it did not happen and many things likely weighed against her.
Phifer was opposed by the DFL Latino Caucus because of her having worked for ICE as part of her federal employment career. I believe that was a factor as she'd not have wanted ICE to be a primary issue dividing the DFL when the Blue Wave is wanted. So she made a choice, personal, not coerced as best as things appear. Putting party first.
What do you think of CD1 convening, Jeff Johnson top choice for Governor, then Woodbury Mayor Mary Giuliani Stephens. Third, the bankster favorite, Pawlenty, who did come in ahead of Phil Parrish, who was fourth?
Personally if I were there, which would never happen for multiple reasons, I'd have wanted Parrish third.
DC, Florida, and secret fund raising among the Minnesota rich must mean less among the new Republicans than it used to mean. Is grassroots enthusiasm shifting, or already shifted? Or is CD1 an anomaly?
Last, is Hagadorn a strong candidate for the House seat? What in your view is his greatest strength? Longivity as a candidate? Family bloodline? Something else? He clearly drew more support than his opponent for the nod.
Sexual assault outrage!
If you aren't outraged after reading Taylor Nachtigal's article , then you aren't human. Nachtigal's article starts by saying "A Rochester man received a 365-day jail sentence, to be served as work release, for sexually assaulting a woman in 2015. A jury convicted Darren Phillip Williams, 50, of third-degree criminal sexual conduct-force or coercion, a felony, on April 10 in Olmsted County District Court. Williams was acquitted of a second charge of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. In addition to the jail sentence, Williams received a 48-month prison sentence, stayed for 15 years, according to court documents. He'll be required to register as a predatory offender and complete a sex offender program."
According to Nachtigal's reporting, this isn't a he-said/she-said case. According to the article, "Williams allowed authorities to search his apartment, and to take a comforter and towels from the home. He also consented to a DNA swab. In August 2015, results from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension reportedly found Williams' DNA on swabs from the woman's genitals and body ."
That's bad enough but that isn't why I'm upset. This is why I'm upset:
In addition to the jail sentence, Williams received a 48-month prison sentence, stayed for 15 years , according to court documents. He'll be required to register as a predatory offender and complete a sex offender program.
Williams' conviction is now official. They found the convict's DNA "on the victim's genitals." How can the court sentence this criminal to a year in jail, then essentially give him 15 years of probation? Sexual predators like Williams deserve to be locked up for a couple of decades, if not longer.
Posted Friday, April 20, 2018 1:58 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 20-Apr-18 07:58 AM
I think I would have to know more to make that judgment. If there is any concern that this will happen again, a much longer sentence and mandatory psychiatric care is appropriate. If this is a one-time crime of misguided passion, I still favor a more severe sentence, but 15 years seems a bit much.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Apr-18 12:05 PM
In the past year, I've gotten notices that a pair of Level 3 sex offenders were released from prison & relocated to a nearby neighborhood. The official notification said that the likelihood of each man reoffending is 90+ percent. These animals should never have the opportunity to hurt free people again. Period.
Comment 2 by JerryE9 at 27-Apr-18 09:16 AM
Is this a general statistic- that 90% of all sex offenders re-offend? Or does it depend on the level of the offense and, if so, what is level 3 compared to this particular case? I'm confessing my ignorance on this. I'm inclined to agree this is outrageous, but I am concerned about the recent #metoo phenomenon where men are ruined for life based on uncorroborated accusations.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Apr-18 02:51 PM
I'm not an expert on this, Jerry, but I found this information to be helpful in understanding things. I knew from past reading that Level 3 sex offenders are almost guaranteed to re-offend. That isn't opinion. It's based on objective data, which I consider to be the strongest information available.
I'm with you on automatically trusting accusations. That doesn't mean I'd ignore the accusations. Quite the opposite. Nonetheless, I demand forensic corroboration.
Heitkamp the hypocrite?
Thursday afternoon, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp announced that she will vote to confirm Mike Pompeo as the next US Secretary of State .
According to the Washington Post's reporting, "North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp on Thursday became the first Senate Democrat to announce she would support CIA director Mike Pompeo's bid to become secretary of state, potentially clinching his bid, as long as no more Republicans refuse to vote for confirmation. Heitkamp's announcement, in which she said that 'Pompeo demonstrated ... that he is committed to empowering the diplomats at the State Department,' will not make it any easier for Pompeo to secure the support of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before his bid heads to the floor. The panel is to vote on his nomination Monday, but with several committee Democrats and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) pledging to vote against Pompeo, his chances of securing the 21-member panel's favorable recommendation are slim."
One of the things from the article that's troubling is where it reports "Pompeo ... became CIA director last year with the support of 14 Senate Democrats; at least six of them, including the two who sit on the Foreign Relations Committee, have refused to back Pompeo as the nation's top diplomat."
While it's likely that a couple more Democrats will vote in the affirmative to confirm Director Pompeo, it's a sad day in the history of the Senate, especially for Democrats. First, playing games with our national security is disgraceful. Speaking of disgraceful, apparently, Sen. Heitkamp is apparently trying to have it both ways:
[Video no longer available]
That wouldn't be the first time she's tried that tactic. Last September, Heitkamp hinted that she was interested in President Trump's tax cuts. That's why she got to fly with President Trump to a rally in North Dakota. Eventually, she voted against the tax cuts.
The Democrats who voted to confirm Pompeo as CIA Director but who won't vote to confirm him as Secretary of State are playing political games. During Easter weekend, Pompeo took a trip to North Korea to meet with Kim Jung Un to start the process for President Trump's meeting with the dictator. What excuse do Democrats have for not confirming Pompeo as America's top diplomat? That he's too accomplished at sensitive diplomacy? Would Democrats say that Pompeo finished too high in his class at West Point? That he finished too high in his class at Harvard Law School? (Pompeo finished first in his class in both instances.)
The truth is that Democrats are totally political creatures. Their special interests insist that Democrats resist, resist, resist at all costs. I wrote this post outlining the Democrats' biggest problem:
I'd love questioning Sen. Manchin or Sen. Heitkamp why they voted against the tax cuts that've pushed the US economy into overdrive. That's the opposite of patriotism . That's the definition of partisanship.
If Democrats looked seriously at Mike Pompeo's qualifications and accomplishments, they'd vote unanimously to confirm him. Instead, it's likely that just 2-3 Democrats will vote to confirm him.
If Democrats cared more about their country than they care about playing politics, this nation wouldn't be divided as it is. Finally, if Democrats put the people first, they wouldn't have lost America's heartland. The Democrats aren't the profiles in courage that liberal icon JFK once famously wrote about. Instead, they're a bunch of sniveling spoiled brats.
Posted Friday, April 20, 2018 4:16 AM
No comments.
The Democrats' disqualifications
This WSJ editorial offers a stinging substantive criticism of the Democrats' unseriousness.
Early in their editorial, they write about Sen. Tim Kaine's criticism of Mike Pompeo, saying "'I don't want a Secretary of State who is going to exacerbate the [sic] President Trump's tendencies to oppose diplomacy,' Democratic Senator Tim Kaine (D, VA) told CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday. He cited Mr. Pompeo's opposition to Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Tehran and his support for 'regime change,' although moderator Margaret Brennan didn't let him finish that thought. Mr. Kaine may recall that Donald Trump campaigned and won while opposing the Iran nuclear deal, and if Mr. Kaine is still sore about the outcome he should have told his running mate to campaign in Wisconsin."
Later, they write "Democrats say they don't trust Mr. Trump, but in denying him senior advisers they make it more likely he will govern by himself. Mark it down as one more example that hatred for Mr. Trump has caused many of his opponents to abandon rational judgment."
The underlying truth is that Democrats don't put the nation first. Their highest priority is to Resist! Senate Democrats are acting incredibly petty. This collage provides a wonderful comparison between Republicans and Democrats:
[Video no longer available]
JFK, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Scoop Jackson and Hubert Humphrey wouldn't recognize today's Democratic Party. They wouldn't be Republicans but they'd privately admit that they have more in common with Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio and Cory Gardner than they have with Chris Murphy, Cory Booker and Ed Markey.
Today's Democratic Party doesn't have much in common with the American people. The American people want serious, substantive people providing oversight over national security. Right now, Democrats (and Rand Paul and Jeff Flake) aren't providing that.
Posted Friday, April 20, 2018 11:56 AM
No comments.
Proof that Democrats hate Trump
Until recently, I thought that most Democrats were just beholden to the Resist! movement. After reading this article , though, I'm positive that Democrats hate President Trump to the point that they'll do anything to make his presidency a failure.
By any sensible person's opinion, Mike Pompeo is eminently qualified to be our nation's next Secretary of State. As I wrote earlier, Pompeo finished first in his class at West Point, then finished first in his class at Harvard Law School. Further, he was chosen by President Trump to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jung-Un during Easter weekend. That trip is being hailed as a success.
Despite all those facts, Democrats are thinking about pulling a high-risk stunt. According to the article, "Democrats are mulling an audacious plan to bottle up President Trump's nominee to head the State Department in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - even though Mike Pompeo likely has enough votes to win confirmation on the Senate floor. The plan under consideration would involve Democrats on the panel refusing to vote to discharge Pompeo, who is currently the director of the CIA, from the committee with even an unfavorable recommendation."
Whether the Democrats realize it or not, their actions and considerations are crossing a line. The American people will tolerate political differences on policies. What they won't tolerate is whether a political party is willing to put politics ahead of keeping Americans safe. This is the equivalent of shutting down the government except in this respect -- this is choosing to shut down the part of the government that protects people when they travel outside the nation. The Secretary of State negotiates important treaties, sits down with world leaders to discuss everything from nuclear weapons to how to keep rogue nations from hurting American business interests to stopping genocides of religious people to negotiating the release of political hostages from the world's worst nations.
This is getting a little confusing. Thursday, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp announced that she'd vote to confirm Director Pompeo. Today, she stumbled through this interview:
[Video no longer available]
In the interview, Sen. Heitkamp didn't back away from that position. After that, however, Democrats hinted that they'd shut down the Foreign Relations Committee to prevent a confirmation vote on Director Pompeo. The fact that Democrats even thought about pulling a stunt like this proves a) that they hate President Trump and b) that they put politics ahead of the nation.
Couple this threat with the DNC's frivolous lawsuit and you'll see the outlines of a political party that's searching for an identity and its soul. Right now, the DNC is a schizophrenic and its soul is, at best, in purgatory.
Posted Saturday, April 21, 2018 1:31 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 21-Apr-18 05:11 PM
To turn a phrase, "Hi, we are Democrats, and we have no soul of which we are aware."
Comment 2 by eric z at 22-Apr-18 08:07 AM
I never understood the Exxon guy getting first bite at that apple. What was going on to secure that from the Trump transition team? Did Exxon ever get that Russian energy deal put together before Trump dumped?
Finally, Bolton makes Pompeo look decent, but the two as a duet, watch out. Neocon bad war coming. No doubt.
Scarborough's hatred overflows
Joe Scarborough's latest rant is a little frightening. In his latest column, Scarborough wrote "It is true that GOP leaders stand silent as President Trump trashes the rule of law, attacks federal judges and declares America's free press the 'enemy of the people.' These lap dogs even remain muzzled as younger Americans are chained to a future of crippling debt. And they shame the memory of the first Republican president, who gave his life ending slavery, by marching alongside a bumbling bigot who labels Hispanics 'breeders' and 'rapists,' seeks to bar tens of millions of Muslims from entering the country, and defends white supremacy in the ugly aftermath of Charlottesville."
First, it's more than a stretch to say that President Trump is trashing the ruled of law. The chairmen of the House Judiciary Committee, the House Intelligence Committee and the House Oversight Committee issued this statement when the Comey memos were released. Here's the key part of their statement:
Former Director Comey's memos show the President made clear he wanted allegations of collusion, coordination, and conspiracy between his campaign and Russia fully investigated .
When President Nixon was investigated, Nixon didn't instruct the FBI to fully investigate the break-in of DNC Headquarters at the Watergate Inn. Nixon did everything imaginable to prevent investigators from finding out the truth.
Next, while calling the liberals' media enablers the "enemy of the people" is harsh, it isn't unjustified. The definition of enemies is "a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent." Certainly, the DC media is filled with animosity towards President Trump. They've made things up in their attempt to justify their stories about impeaching President Trump.
It's fair to say that an intentionally dishonest press is the enemy of the people. That's because a dishonest press, whether it admits it or not, is putting its thumb on the scales to help one side gain an unfair advantage over the other side. That's the definition of evil : harmful; injurious
It's difficult to believe that Mr. Scarborough isn't being intentionally dishonest in telling his readers that President Trump isn't trashing the rule of law. Further, during the presidential primaries, Scarborough had Mr. Trump on his show multiple times a week. Other than Trump's title changing from Mr. to President, Trump hasn't changed a bit. Examine Scarborough's facial expressions during this interview of then-Candidate Trump:
[Video no longer available]
Was Mr. Scarborough too stupid to notice Trump's characterization of Hispanics?
[Video no longer available]
Mr. Scarborough's credibility is disappearing by the week, thanks to statements like this:
But while the president and his team of misfit lawyers have reason to tread carefully under stormy legal skies, Republicans on Capitol Hill can relax. It's becoming clear that Trump will not be running for president in 2020.
It's clear that Joe Scarborough and Bill Kristol hate President Trump more than they love America. At a time when President Trump has a legitimate shot at the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, little brats are distorting the facts, claiming that President Trump hates the rule of law despite proof that President Trump insists on following the rule of law.
Posted Sunday, April 22, 2018 2:28 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 22-Apr-18 07:35 AM
If anyone hated the rule of law, it was Obama but Morning Dope was just fine with what happened for 8 years while lawlessness ruled the land.
Comment 2 by eric z at 22-Apr-18 07:57 AM
Rhetoric gets ratings. Isn't he a TV figure? Morning Joe or something like that? While I believe Stormy Daniels, that is separate from Trump conduct that had the likes of Paul Ryan seeing signs.
Blue Wave. Blue Wave. Blue Wave.
The problem with that, the corporatists likely again will outnumber the progressives when the wave's swept and receded, and there will be stalemate for two years.
At a guess, even if the Dems get a big House and Senate majority they will be cautious in impeaching Trump unless they can also get the goods on sanctimonious Pence too so that a new Dem Speaker of the House could take over.
Pence would be frying pan into the fire. Unlike Trump, Pence has nothing going for him whereas Trump has bluster. Pence reminds me of an undertaker with a chip on his shoulder. To be avoided at all cost. Pence makes one think Spiro Agnew must have had some good traits.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Apr-18 10:12 AM
First, the blue wave is a mirage. This week, I read several polls that showed the generic ballot margin shrinking. The enthusiasm gap has disappeared, too. Jerry Brown pissed off a ton of people, including Democrats, with his sanctuary state law. Taxpayers across the political spectrum feel like their taxes are going up to pay for welfare for illegal aliens. Whether that's accurate or not, that's the feeling in California. The Democrats have a stiff uphill fight flipping seats in the Midwest/Rust Belt.
Next, Minnesota will be a bright spot for Republicans. Republicans will hold onto the House & flip the governor's mansion. The so-called toss-up districts (1, 2, 3 & 8) will got 3-1 for Republicans. The DCCC should write off CD-1 right now. They're toast there. If Tom Rukavina jumps into the CD-8 race, which seems likely, he'll win that. Otherwise, that's a toss-up. MN-2 & MN-3 are off-limits to the DFL. Supposedly, Angie Craig is a top-tier candidate. For the life of me, I don't see it. She lost in 2016 because she promised to expand Obamacare. This year, she bragged that Radioactive Keith Ellison wants her to help with implementing single-payer. That'll work in CD-4 & 5 but that's a killer in CD-2.
Finally, Karin Housley will give Tina Smith a helluva fight. Smith outraised Housley but Tina's accumulating a very unappealing record to defend.
Comment 3 by eric z at 22-Apr-18 08:02 AM
Chad Q. - CHANGE and HOPE proved to be rhetorical devices, but I'd say Bill Clinton, W, and Obama are peas in a pod.
Nothing much to like about any of the three, but better than Reagan, who was a cosmic disaster.
Not expecting any agreement from Gary or readers, but it is how many feel despite the bugle blowing about "Great Communicator." Reagan was given a free pass by the press, as were the two Bush presidents, Clinton, and Obama.
The bunch makes Eisenhower look good and he dragged his feet before opposing McCarthy and his aide, Roy Cohn.
Cohn has a past with Trump which the press has not seen fit to examine, but to me, it is birds of a feather.
Comment 4 by eric z at 23-Apr-18 04:57 PM
Can we revisit this last comment sometime after November elections. You could be correct, but even the SEC cuts slack for future projections vs. representations of fact.
The way those counties up on the range operate, Rukavina likely pulls more cash out of the County Board seat, and it is not work; money for nothing and the chicks are free; or perhaps it's only money for nothing, Dire Straits being attuned to rock and roll.
Democrats' fight: Big Labor vs. Big Environment
If Democrats want to have a chance at winning back the US House, they'll need to prove that they won't consistently side with Big Environment, aka Big Green. During the Obama administration, Big Mining got the shaft without getting the mining project. Salena Zito's latest article suggests that Democrats are rebuilding their relationship with Big Labor.
The union voters I talked to said they didn't feel that Democrats in Washington had their back; that they were too progressive, too strident, and way out of touch with their lives and needs. "I think there were two factors at play with how union members, many union members turned away from the Democratic Party,' said Mike Mikus, a western Pennsylvania Democratic strategist who does campaign work for several unions. One is that they didn't feel their economic issues needed to be addressed and pretty frankly it was in the Democratic playbook to play to the center meant taking on organized labor rather than any other Democratic constituency," he said.
I'm not convinced that Democrats have figured it out yet, though. I don't doubt that some Democrats have made the decision to support mining. That will give those Democrats a fighting chance in some districts. The problem is that they're still part of a Democratic Party that's dominated by environmental activists.
The Democratic Party won't part ways with the environmental activists. The miners still remember this:
[Video no longer available]
or this:
[Video no longer available]
Tom Steyer and Alita Messenger won't tolerate a significant shift back to mining, which is where most union workers are employed. The other industry where lots of union workers are employed is construction. Democrats still fight tooth-and-nail against pipeline projects. If I ran the NRCC, I'd remind voters in the heartland that Democrats are still funded by environmental activists. As long as that's the case, labor will get shafted by the Democrats.
Posted Sunday, April 22, 2018 10:27 AM
No comments.
