April 5-6, 2018
Apr 05 02:08 Listening to children? Apr 05 02:24 The history of bullying Apr 05 09:20 Taking Parkland students seriously? I can't. Apr 05 13:27 Ideologues just don't get it Apr 05 14:38 Pawlenty announces candidacy Apr 05 19:23 Pawlenty immediately puts DFL on defensive Apr 06 03:00 California's crumbling kingdom Apr 06 20:15 The progressives' blind spot
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Listening to children?
A liberal front group specializing in gun control bought a full page ad in the Star Tribune. Then the Strib published this article to make sure the organization got extra mileage for their ad buy.
In the article, the Strib wrote "A mysterious group operating under the name 'Listen to the Children' called out four members of Minnesota's congressional delegation Monday on their positions on gun control measures and donations from the National Rifle Association. In a full-page ad in the Star Tribune a week ago, the group asked the entire Washington delegation if they would introduce, cosponsor or vote for legislation to ban the manufacture and sale of high-capacity magazines for firearms, and if they would return any donation from the NRA and its affiliates and refuse to accept future NRA donations."
Later, Listen to the Children "the nonprofit placed another full-page ad, saying it received 'yes' responses from Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Sen. Tina Smith, Rep. Tim Walz, Rep. Betty McCollum and Rep. Keith Ellison, all Democrats. The ad said that Rep. Erik Paulsen, a Republican, was the only one to respond 'no' to both of the group's questions, but a spokesman for Paulsen's office said their organization never responded to the ad. Rep. Jason Lewis and Rep. Tom Emmer, both Republicans, and Rep. Collin Peterson, a Democrat, also didn't respond to the group, which stated in the ad that it considered a lack of response as "no" answers."
Tim Walz and Tina Smith both essentially said that they don't think that people should have the right to defend themselves. They also said that they'd reject any contributions from the NRA. With a significant portion of NRA members being blue collar people living in rural areas, Walz and Smith are essentially turning their backs on rural blue collar voters.
I hope rural blue collar voters remember that this November.
Posted Thursday, April 5, 2018 2:08 AM
No comments.
The history of bullying
A rose, some lipstick and bullies
More ramblings: .
Shakespeare told us that a rose remains a rose even if the name is changed. In the 2010 presidential election, we learned that putting lipstick on a pig is not enough to change its identity.
I am confused, disappointed and even disturbed by media today that seem to paint bullying as a new phenomenon that occurs in schools due to guns. And that the persons that have shot school-age children suffer from mental issues caused by bullying.
It's not that simple.
And bullying is as old as time.
Bullying, by whatever name, is not related to gun ownership. It is spawned by sin and has been exacerbated by an increasing immoral society. I am confident that the majority reading this article have been picked on, insulted and bullied as a child AND as an adult. It occurs at home, at school, in the workplace - wherever the bully is. Just because it has happened to so many does NOT make it right. Nor did it begin in the 1990's when researchers in this country became interested in the topic due to the school shootings.
Bullying is about control by one or more over others perceived to be weaker, less desirable and not just for race, religion, poverty, physical characteristics or more recently, announced sexual preferences. It's about power and control - to feed the bully's ego and warped self-worth.
Victims of the undeserved bullying have always suffered from lowered self-esteem, poor academic and/or work performance, illness, disturbed sleep, isolation and loneliness, etc. They have been targeted by ones with whom they should have had a positive relationship - family, friends and classmates, teachers and administrators, co-workers and supervisors. Instead they were attacked, often without warning. It just happened; it hurt; it was wrong.
Studies say that observers should intervene. Probably, but why would they if they could become the next targets? The studies suggest that the young people should tell teachers. Probably, but it does no good if the bullies come from the families of social status in the community, from friends of the teachers, from the athletic teams of the school. They belong! The victims learn again that they do not count, and the pain is intensified.
Many speculate on the causes of bullying - guns, violent movies, video games, drugs, race, religion, etc.
Let me add to the discussion. In the 1960's, God was removed from schools and society. Now progressives want Him removed from our history and governing documents. With the Hippies, drugs became more accessible and accepted. Now society is legalizing them. Currently the abuse of prescription drugs is epidemic. At the same time, family life was devalued and destroyed; co-habitation and no marriage covenant, no-fault divorce and no stigma, fatherless families and lack of role models. Some even advocate turning infants over to the State to be reared since families are incapable of providing for them.
Bullying causes physical and emotional consequences that destroy human dignity, freedom and security. Previously, a stronger family re-affirmed the victims' identity, even if the victim chose not to share the humility with the family unit but did find strength at home. Now that resource is not available to many.
Cyberbullying is another layer of bullying. I thank Melanie Trump's efforts to tackle this problem as her project as First Lady.
I congratulate all who have had the family support to survive and thrive. Bullies want to hurt, harm and humiliate to feed their egos. They won't stop. But we can help the targeted victims.
Our task is to love our family members and let them know that they are valued and loved. Hug your child; take time for your child - no matter their age.
A survivor.
Posted Thursday, April 5, 2018 2:24 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 05-Apr-18 08:19 AM
Thank you. I think there is one other element-- the notion that our government can, should and has assumed the responsibility to make everything "good" for everybody. Look no further, on this issue, than the bureaucratic "anti-bullying law" that was crammed down our throats, threatens schools, teachers, kids and parents alike with its mandates, with real penalties for not "handling" such situations in the approved manner. It is bullying, pure and simple, and government is the one doing it.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Apr-18 08:52 AM
Thanks for that astute observation, Jerry. Who protects us when government is the bully?
Taking Parkland students seriously? I can't.
It's difficult taking Parkland students David Hogg, Emma Gonzalez and Cameron Kasky seriously, especially since their targeting seems more guided by ideology than logic. Their targets have been Marco Rubio, who definitely isn't part of the problem, and the NRA. They'd have a hint of credibility if they'd taken the FBI and the Broward County's Sheriff to task for their failings. Since that didn't happen, there's nothing that they've said that suggests that they're serious policymakers.
This discredited trio seems disinterested in the fact that Deputy Scot Peterson ignored sheriff office's protocol when he told other deputies "Do not approach the 12 or 1300 building, stay at least 500 feet away." The sheriff's protocol "calls for deputies to engage an active shooter until the threat is eliminated."
By not engaging the shooter, Deputy Peterson didn't do his job. The Parkland student activists haven't criticized him or his wimpy sheriff boss. Why haven't they taken aim at Dep. Peterson and Sheriff Israel? Is it because Sheriff is helping them criticize the NRA? If that's the case, then these students aren't principled problem solvers. They're displaying the traits that do-nothing career politicians show.
Why haven't these frauds gone after Sheriff Israel like this?
WPLG's Bob Norman approached Sheriff Israel on Monday outside a Wings Plus restaurant where the Democrats club was scheduled to meet, asking the sheriff, 'How do you have the time to politic when you got all these problems?'
'Your stories have never been balanced,' Sheriff Israel accused the reporter.
"This isn't about me, sheriff," Mr. Norman fired back. "There are 17 dead people. If you're disappointed in me, I think there's a lot of people disappointed in you." "You know, I disagree with you," Sheriff Israel said. "You haven't heard? About the country being disappointed in you and the [Broward Sheriff's Office]?" Mr. Norman asked. "No, not at all," Sheriff Israel responded. "My job is to protect and serve the Broward County residents." "Did you do that?" Mr. Norman asked. "Did you do that?"
"But when the report is in, we'll have that conversation," Sheriff Israel said. "Are you ever going to take responsibility for what happened at Stoneman Douglas?" Mr. Norman asked. "When the report's in, we'll have that conversation, Bob," the sheriff repeated.
Gonzalez, Hogg and Kasky haven't gone after these incompetents even though they stood by while their classmates died.
It's impossible for me to take these students seriously because they haven't proven that they're interested in solving the problem. Thus far, they're more interested in being media stars.
Posted Thursday, April 5, 2018 9:20 AM
No comments.
Ideologues just don't get it
Ideologues like Gov. Kate Brown, (D-OR), don't get it when it comes to border security. Their reflexive hatred for President Trump eliminates the possibility of rational thought. This morning, Gov. Brown took to Twitter to state her position on illegal immigration. She said "If @realDonaldTrump asks me to deploy Oregon Guard troops to the Mexico border, I'll say no. As Commander of Oregon's Guard, I'm deeply troubled by [President] Trump's plan to militarize our border."
Angel Mom Sabine Durden replied "Do you have 2 lose a loved one at the hand of an illegal and join the many angel families before you get it? This isn't about ur dislike of @POTUS, but about the SECURITY AND SAFETY of the citizens you are responsible for. Want ur child's name in a story like mine?" Ms. Sabine then included this picture memorializing her slain son:
Do you have 2 lose a loved one at the hand of an illegal and join the many angel families before you get it? This isn't about ur dislike of @potus , but about the SECURITY AND SAFETY of the citizens you are responsible for.
Want ur child's name in a story like mine? pic.twitter.com/QFpRstJDkO
- Sabine (@sabine_durden) April 4, 2018
Here's a little background on Sabine and Dominic Durden:
Durden's son, Dominic, was killed four years ago in a fatal motorcycle crash. On July 12, 2012, Dominic, 30, was on his way to work when an illegal immigrant driving an unlicensed pickup truck took a wrong turn. Dominic was killed instantly.
The driver, Juan Zacarias Lopez Tzun, was an illegal immigrant from Guatemala with a record of drunk driving convictions. His initial sentence included nine months' jail time, five years of probation, and a restitution fee of $18,800.
Then there's this:
For Ms. Durden, the hardest part about Dominic's untimely death was knowing that his killer was permitted to remain in a "sanctuary city" of Riverside County, California, after having demonstrated irreverence for its laws on multiple occasions. "I want my country to be protected, and I want others to never know the kind of pain and grief this causes - not just when your child gets killed, but when it's avoidable."
Gov. Brown apparently doesn't want to hear from people like Sabine Durden. If she took time to listen, it might change Gov. Brown's mind. That might lead her to get out-of-step with the Democratic Party.
There's a personal cost that Gov. Brown isn't considering:
"I've been called racist, Nazi, Hitler," [Sabine] said, adding that she commonly has to report threatening Facebook messages she receives from strangers. But even more upsetting, she shared, are the biting comments from people who she 'thought were friends,' telling her that she should "leave things alone and not separate families." "And then I remind them, 'What about my family?' I don't have one left. My only child is dead," she said. "When they call me a racist, I show them a picture of Dominic and tell them, 'That was my son,'" she laughed, referring to Dominic's mixed race.
It's time for Democrats to take their first real look at this crisis rather than acting like puppets dancing for campaign contributions from La Raza and other open borders organizations. Thus far, Democrats have demagogued this issue. When someone disagrees, they accuse that person of being a racist. The notion that Sabine is accused of being a racist is disgusting and dishonest. Whoever made that accusation should be publicly humiliated. Period.
This is the third Angel Mom I've written about this week. I'm writing about these women because their stories need to be told. I'm writing about things that the MSM hasn't written about. That's because they don't want the real story to be told. This is too important to not get told.
Posted Thursday, April 5, 2018 1:27 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 05-Apr-18 07:30 PM
I wonder if Gov. Brown was against the NG going to the border in 2010 when her guy was in office? Hypocrite much Gov. Brown?
Pawlenty announces candidacy
Today, Tim Pawlenty will officially announce that he's running to become the governor of Minnesota . A GOP strategist is already speaking out about Gov. Pawlenty's campaign, saying "Pawlenty is a huge addition to the Republican efforts across the map this fall. Specifically in Minnesota, Pawlenty's entrance to the race is the type of game changer Republicans need. Pawlenty is not only experienced and has a very good image with voters across the ideological spectrum, he's also demonstrated a level of confidence that most voters are looking for this fall and it's exactly the type of thing Republicans want in every ticket in every state."
This strategist spoke with "CNBC on the condition of anonymity."
Gov. Pawlenty's campaign strengths are two-fold. First, he's able to raise a ton of money, something that's been missing from GOP coffers for years. Next, he's a great retail politician. On the stump, he's got the gift of connecting with people. As the time-tested saying goes, you don't get to govern if you can't get elected.
Predictably, A Better Minnesota already has a video up in their attempt to stir up trouble:
[Video no longer available]
I won't criticize Prof. Schier but saying that he'll have lots of questions to answer about being a Washington lobbying is what the media will care about. Voters will care about policies and Gov. Pawlenty's plan for making their lives better.
It isn't that those questions aren't legitimate. It's that they aren't that important to voters unless there's some sort of scandal Pawlenty's involved in. And yes, that's true about most politicians. That's why the Trump-collusion 'investigation' has been such a failure. After 2 years of digging, they don't have anything to show for their efforts. People have moved on.
Posted Thursday, April 5, 2018 2:38 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 05-Apr-18 07:26 PM
How is it that this state doesn't have anyone better than Jeff Johnson or Tim Pawlenty to run for the GOP ticket? It's like the movie industry that has to re-make movies because they are all out of new ideas.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Apr-18 07:32 PM
It might be because the DFL's economic policies are driving people from the state.
Comment 2 by eric z at 06-Apr-18 09:35 AM
I am confused, and you guys may be able to help. This link
https://cfb.mn.gov/reports-and-data/viewers/campaign-finance/candidates/18292/2018/
That shows Pawlenty registerd his committee with the CFB on March 18. He held Minnesota and Florida private fundraiser events. When must he file reporting showing the money. Does he have to detail sources of money raised prior to the filing date; i.e., prior to March 18. That seems as if it would be a big loophole.
Do you Gary, or any reader, have an answer? Or would that be Jeff Johnson's concern?
And I am a voter who cares about who bought this on, aren't you? Are you saying whose money is in play is irrelevant to you? That would be quaint.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Apr-18 09:52 AM
Pawlenty first formed an exploratory committee rather than jumping straight into the race like others did. Yesterday was when he officially announced his official candidacy. The money that Pawlenty raised at those events will be reported on the next report.
Comment 3 by eric z at 06-Apr-18 09:42 AM
Forgot to say, Chad Q. raises a good question. A glib sidestep is a rhetorical device. The only answer I can give to Chad is, "Have you any name in mind?"
But responding to a question with a question also is a rhetorical device; even when sincere.
Is there any answer? You've an arguably better candidate gunning for Tina Smith. Are am I wrong?
Pawlenty immediately puts DFL on defensive
Earlier this afternoon, Tim Pawlenty announced that he's running for governor. Within hours, the DFL candidates and DFL State Party Chair Ken Martin had issued defensive-sounding statements .
For instance, Tim Walz, the supposed DFL frontrunner, issued a statement saying "Tim Pawlenty was a bad governor, and he's not the leader Minnesota needs. When he was running the state, Tim Pawlenty made decisions that hurt working Minnesotans. Those decisions really hit home on the issues of health care, education, and infrastructure."
DFL State Party Chair Ken Martin's statement said "Minnesota needs a governor who will fight for everyday families. That's not Tim Pawlenty. As governor, he deprived thousands of Minnesotans of affordable health care. He jeopardized our children's education. He devastated our budget, and left roads and bridges across the state to crumble. From health care to education to infrastructure, Pawlenty failed our state. We need an honest leader who will fight to build a better Minnesota - not a Wall Street lobbyist who cares more about the wealthy than everyday families."
With all due respect to Tim Walz, he isn't a leader. Tim Walz is a pander bear. He's one politician out of 435 politicians. He's never had the responsibility of being the man before. He's been a reliable vote for Nancy Pelosi, nothing more. What's worse is that he abandoned his allies the minute he started running statewide. This wasn't a decision based on gathering new information, then making a principled change. When Tim Walz attacked the NRA, it was a purely political calculation.
As for Ken Martin, he's fought hard to hide the DFL's contempt for blue collar Iron Rangers. That's why President Trump won the 8th district by 15 points . President Trump is fighting for the Iron Range while Ken Martin is fighting the working families of the Range.
Amidst all of the DFL's angry words, Tim Pawlenty reintroduced himself to Minnesotans with this upbeat-but-realistic appraisal of Minnesota:
[Video no longer available]
The DFL's angry responses are telling. Is it because they know that their candidates are back-benchers compared to Tim Pawlenty?
Posted Thursday, April 5, 2018 7:23 PM
Comment 1 by Rexnewman at 05-Apr-18 09:50 PM
Strictly speaking, the DFL is right in saying Pawlenty was a bad Governor. But that's because of his many unforced errors and betrayals in dealing with the DFL and their media friends. Fool me once ...
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Apr-18 12:10 AM
With all due respect, Rex, while it's true that Pawlenty wasn't a great conservative, let's what he dealt with. When first elected, he took over from Jesse, who left him with a $4.2BB deficit & a terrible economy. After he was re-elected in 2006, he dealt with DFL supermajorities in the House, with Margaret Anderson-Kelliher & Tony Sertich holding an 85-49 supermajority in 2007 & an 87-47 supermajority in 2009. After the special elections of 2007-008, the DFL had a veto-proof majority in the Senate.
Comment 2 by eric z at 06-Apr-18 07:41 AM
Better headline: . . . puts JJ on the defensive.
Comment 3 by eric z at 06-Apr-18 07:47 AM
Was there a CFB fiscal quarterly report of declared candidates due as of March 31? For candidates who've declared before March 31? Showing the money?
Just asking. For now. Others will ask too. At any rate, many will hope for November buyers' remorse.
Comment 4 by Rex Newman at 06-Apr-18 02:33 PM
Pawlenty was good when he had no choice - a huge deficit or an orgy of DFL spending bills. But when the battle was close, like vs. "sanding off the truth" Dean Johnson, he caved. And Northstar. And Target Field. And when he abandoned Yecke because he couldn't take the Education Minnesota heat. And Sue Jeffers can list a dozen more, like his broken promise on tip credits in minimum wage.
I need some substantive, like an admission and apology, to tell me this won't continue in his third term.
California's crumbling kingdom
It's indisputable that California is experiencing middle class flight in unimaginable proportions. This article , written in 2009, talks about a situation that's unimaginable in most states.
It starts by saying "With new data suggesting that a net 50,000 to 100,000 people left Los Angeles County last fiscal year, the San Fernando Valley is emerging as the poster child for middle-class flight - even as L.A. politicians try to spin an almost opposite tale." Then it gets into the nitty gritty of the situation, saying "The Valley was once America's suburb, the nation's most firmly rooted bastion of families holding jobs sufficient to pay for homes, cars, leisure and college tuition. Its more than 1 million people poured such a wealth of taxes into downtown's municipal treasury, subsidizing other areas, that Valley secession was seen as an attack on L.A.'s fiscal health."
Rather than admitting that they're going nowhere fast, California's politicians told whoppers:
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa recently claimed that people are moving here. But, in fact, an L.A. Weekly analysis based on U.S. Census data clearly shows that for the middle class, the opposite is true. L.A. grew in 2007-2008 due to high birth rates among the poor and working class, mostly Latinos, and due to illegal immigration. But since 2001, on the key measure of an area's ability to attract the middle class, 901,426 more citizens have fled the county for other states than arrived from other states , and last year, they continued that flight.
If this editorial's headline doesn't get your attention, nothing will:
How can a place with 58,000 homeless people continue to function?
It continues:
Consider the pairs of thick gloves that George Abou-Daoud has stashed inside the nine restaurants he owns on the east side of Hollywood. When a homeless person accosts his customers, Abou-Daoud says, he can no longer count on the police for help; unless there's an imminent threat to safety, he contends, they don't respond quickly and can't just haul the person away. So he's had to take matters into his own hands, literally, by physically ejecting problematic homeless people himself. That's why he has the gloves; to keep his hands clean.
When media outlets like CBS Network News cover the homeless crisis, it's impossible to ignore:
[Video no longer available]
LA Times columnist Steve Lopez offers this grim perspective of LA's homeless crisis:
[Video no longer available]
It isn't a hyperbole to say that California's reputation as the best place to live is quickly dying. It once had a significant middle class. Now California is made up mostly by elitists and illegals. Between the homeless crisis, the high taxes and the super-excessive regulations, what's to love about California? Couple that with the fact that the taxpayers' money is going to pay for social programs for illegal aliens. Why should people who've worked hard and played by the rules pay taxes so people who shouldn't be here can milk the system?
Couple that with the fact that illegal aliens are treated better than the middle class and you've got the kindling for a civil war in California. Jerry Brown took over the state and finally run it into the dirt. That's what happens when Democrats run the state from top to bottom.
Posted Friday, April 6, 2018 3:00 AM
Comment 1 by John Palmer at 06-Apr-18 09:59 PM
The record of Democratic political hegemony has been clear for many years in our urban centers. Once vibrant cities have become wastelands. The decline of our urban centers highly correlates with single party rule. Where Democrats rule, cities decay. What we are seeing in California is simply an extension of the trend that started in our big cities. However, California, unlike urban centers, can't rely on the wealth of the state that surrounds the big city. As wealth flees the state of California, they will run out of money and let's hope Congress and the DC establishment won't bail them out. Perhaps, one day the Golden State's voters will wake up and recognize doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is in fact insane. jwp
The progressives' blind spot
This afternoon, a loyal reader of LFR forwarded me an email newsletter from TakeAction Minnesota. Included in that email was a link to this article , which deals with the topics of voting and gun control.
It starts by saying "At last month's March for Our Lives in Washington, DC, the 20 young people who spoke had a clear message for the hundreds of thousands of protesters: Vote. Specifically, they urged their supporters to vote out of office any lawmaker who stands in the way of gun control. 'The voting is what we're pushing here,' Stoneman Douglas student and #NeverAgain activist Jaclyn Corin said in an interview with Crooked Media before the march. 'The March is kind of a statement saying, 'Hey, we're gonna be voting in November. Watch out - all these people are voting against you.'"
This year, Democrats are pushing 2 things hard -- raising the minimum age of buying certain types of guns to 21 and lowering the voting age to 16. Democrats are arguing simultaneously that 16-year-olds are wise enough to make informed decisions on who should represent people in Congress but 20-year-olds are too stupid to safely operate a semi-automatic firearm. Wouldn't you love to hear David Hogg or Emma Gonzalez explain that?
Actually, the explanation is rather simple. First, Democrats want to flood the polling booths with as many uninformed voters as possible. People that think things through vote for conservatives more often than they vote for Democrats. That's a statement of statistical fact. It isn't a statement of derision. Next, raising the age of purchase to 21 is an emotional issue for people. The Democrats' base will be fired up as a result.
Republicans need to frame this election as a referendum between sensible policies vs. irrational policies. Let's illustrate:
- There's nothing irrational about enforcing our international borders. There's nothing sane about opening our borders to drug cartels while fighting an opioid crisis.
- There's nothing irrational about reducing regulations and increasing competition.
- There's nothing sane about increasing regulations that cripple competition.
- There's nothing irrational about moving national guard troops to the Tex-Mex border to prevent human trafficking.
- There's nothing sane about letting human traffickers bring in sex slaves from Latin America.
- There's nothing irrational about shutting down the borders to prevent violent felons from entering the US.
- There's nothing sane about letting violent felons into the US by turning a blind eye towards the Tex-Mex border. That inevitably leads to new members of the Angel Parents 'club'.
Conservatives, it's time for you to ask yourselves if you want Congress run by people who won't protect its citizens by electing Democrat majorities in the House and/or Senate or whether we'll tell our friends, neighbors, co-workers and church family to get out and vote for sane conservatives, then voting ourselves. What's required from conservatives is gritty determination to vote. Losing the House and/or the Senate will stop President Trump's common-sense agenda on immigration, regulations and shutting down gangs like MS-13.
It's ok to disapprove of President Trump's tweets. Some of his tweets are inexcusable and shouldn't be defended. His economic and national security agenda, however, aren't just defensible. They're essential.
Finally, it's essential that all patriots vote to save this republic. I know that sounds a bit melodramatic but it's where we're at right now. Democrat progressives hate the principles that this nation was founded on. That's how they can advocate for raising the minimum age to buy a gun to 21, then immediately argue that it's essential to lower the voting age to 16. These aren't sensible arguments. They're the arguments of irrational people. Liberalism isn't a political philosophy. It's a mental disorder.
Posted Friday, April 6, 2018 8:15 PM
No comments.
