December 15-19, 2018
Dec 15 00:43 Anti-solution Democrats Dec 15 11:20 West Virginia University vs. the First Amendment Dec 17 02:10 Reagan's genius is common sense Dec 17 17:49 FBI's Miranda difficulties? Dec 18 11:32 Comey's tarnished reputation Dec 18 15:19 Jeff Johnson's clarifying editorial Dec 19 14:29 MNLARS problems continue
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Anti-solution Democrats
Anyone that thinks that Democrats want a solution to the border crisis is kidding themselves. This week, the Democrats' chief talking point was that they're serious about border security. That's BS and I can prove it.
First, Democrats have said that they have legislation that would attract bipartisan support. What's missing from the Democrats' statement is that their bipartisan legislation would fix the multiple problems that a porous border causes. The Democrats' statement didn't say it would stop drug trafficking, sex trafficking or the opioid crisis.
If it doesn't fix the biggest problems, then it's junk legislation .
Next, Democrats haven't shown any inclination to reach a reasonable compromise. That isn't opinion. It's called the Schumer Shutdown. That's when President Trump offered to sign a bill that provided permanent protection for DACA recipients in exchange for full funding for President Trump's wall. Certainly, this was a compromise on President Trump's part. Certainly, Democrats refused to compromise even though Sen. Schumer shut down the government for a weekend in his attempt to drive a my-way-or-the-highway type negotiation with President Trump.
There's no questioning whether Democrats put a high priority on getting a DACA fix after watching this:
[Video no longer available]
Let's be blunt. Democrats haven't put anything on the table that could be considered a partial victory for President Trump. President Trump offered a DACA fix, which is a win for Democrats -- if they were interested in fixing border security. It's apparent that Democrats aren't interested in that because they've rejected reasonable compromises from Republicans.
Finally, Democrats haven't offered a plan that a) fixed the problem or b) represented legislation built around listening to the experts, aka border patrol agents. If Democrats won't listen to the experts, then they should be exposed as the worthless politicians that they are.
Posted Saturday, December 15, 2018 12:43 AM
No comments.
West Virginia University vs. the First Amendment
Just when you thought people couldn't get more illiterate about the Constitution, this gets reported. The article reports that "Assistant Dean LiDell Evans informed Joseph Cortese, a fourth-year student, that he was required to attend a meeting on Friday concerning an investigation about a photo he posted on Instagram of himself dressed as a Border Patrol agent for Halloween."
According to the article, Evans told Cortese "This letter serves to put you on notice that pursuant to section 9.2 of the Student Conduct Code and Discipline Procedure for the Main Campus of West Virginia University, you are the subject of an investigation regarding alleged prohibited conduct." Here's hoping FIRE gets involved in this case. Let's hope that a lawsuit gets filed against WVU seeking damages for violating Mr. Cortese's First Amendment rights. If that lawsuit were to get filed, WVU would be well-advised to quickly settle before it gets to trial because they'll lose. Here's the picture that WVU is complaining about:
The email also informed Cortese that if he did not contact the office or attend the meeting, his student account would have a "hold" placed on it. "I received this email Wednesday and have had awful anxiety since," Cortese told The Daily Wire in an interview. "While I was trying to study for finals, this was looming on the back of my mind. I know I didn't do as well on my finals as I should have due to this," Cortese added.
I admit that I hadn't read the whole article when I started writing this post. As I read the article, I read this:
Cortese, who is also the Communications Director for Students for Trump, said that during the meeting, Assistant Dean Evans told him the costume could be 'misinterpreted the wrong way' but acknowledged that it was Cortese's 'constitutional right' to wear the costume.
In other words, WVU sought to harass a student whose political views it likely disagreed with. That's breathtaking. Then there's this:
Pro-civil liberties non-profit Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) told The Daily Wire in a statement that they are "aware of this case and looking into it. Public universities enter treacherous terrain when they investigate expression protected by the First Amendment," said FIRE.
Finally:
"The West Virginia University Office of Student Conduct received a complaint claiming the student was posting 'vulgar hateful Instagrams' but did not single out what was 'vulgar' or 'hateful' about them," WVU said in a statement to The Daily Wire. "The Office followed standard procedure, including the timing, to follow up on the complaint and talk with the student. The Office tries to wrap up any matters before students leave campus at the end of each semester. No charges or disciplinary action was taken and the matter is now closed."
Did this investigation get wrapped up because Mr. Cortese contacted FIRE and other civil liberties organizations? Would Mr. Cortese have been investigated if he was the Communications Director for 'Students for Elizabeth Warren' or 'Students for Kamala Harris'? I'm betting he wouldn't have been.
Posted Saturday, December 15, 2018 11:20 AM
No comments.
Reagan's genius is common sense
When Johnny Carson interviewed Ronald Reagan on the Tonight Show With Johnny Carson in March, 1975, Reagan told Carson about a study called "The Demography of Happiness." According to that study, which cost taxpayers $249,000, young people are happier than old people, healthy people are happier than sick people and that people who earn more are happier than people who earn less.
Reagan summarized by saying that it didn't take a government study to figure out that people "who are rich, young and healthy are happier than people who are poor, old and sick." I can't argue with that statement.
Reagan said something else during that interview that I thought was profound. In fact, I've remembered it literally for more than a decade. Reagan said "If the American people would take a little inventory and take a look around, if you triple our troubles and were better off than any other people on earth."
[Video no longer available]
Let's be honest. Despite all the whining from leftists, Americans are far better off than most nations. While it's true that the rich in our nation make more than the poor, it isn't because the poor are in terrible trouble. It's because our top income-earners are that well off. Put differently, our poor would be considered rich in many industrialized nations.
Further, the truth is that many industrialized nations' systems hold people in place. They don't let lower income people rise. It's explained in Friedrich Hayek's classic book " The road to serfdom ." In that book, Hayek explains that "the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning."[1] He further argues that the abandonment of individualism and classical liberalism inevitably leads to a loss of freedom, the creation of an oppressive society, the tyranny of a dictator, and the serfdom of the individual."
I suspect that Reagan would've agreed with most of Hayek's thoughts. That's because President Reagan wasn't afraid to see what he'd seen.
Posted Monday, December 17, 2018 2:10 AM
Comment 1 by Joseph at 21-Dec-18 11:31 PM
Hayek? Careful, Gary. Soon you will be reading Mises and then Ron Paul!
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Dec-18 02:03 AM
I won't be reading Ron Paul. I never trust people with 2 first names.
FBI's Miranda difficulties?
This afternoon, after his non-testimonial testimony to the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Jim Comey utterly disgraced himself , saying "Republicans used to understand that the actions of a president matter, the words of a president matter, the rule of law matters, and the truth matters. Where are those Republicans today. At some point, someone has to stand up and in the fear of Fox News and fear of their base, and fear of mean tweets, stand up for the values of this country and not slink away into retirement."
There used to be a time when FBI directors were men of integrity, too. Unfortunately, those days are far in the rear-view mirror. Last week, Jim Comey virtually admitted that the FBI didn't Mirandize Gen. Flynn. Approximately 14:30 into this video, Dir. Comey admitted that he sent 2 FBI agents to 'interview' Gen. Flynn:
[Video no longer available]
Let's understand that Dir. Comey's agents told Gen. Flynn didn't need a lawyer and that they just wanted to talk with him. Further, these FBI agents, one of whom was Peter Strzok, didn't tell Gen. Flynn that he was the target of an investigation, which he clearly was.
This afternoon, Darrell Issa told Harris Faulkner that he thinks that Gen. Flynn wasn't properly Mirandized:
If that's true, then I wouldn't be surprised if Judge Emmet Sullivan doesn't accept the Mueller-Flynn plea deal. In fact, if Judge Sullivan rules that Gen. Flynn wasn't properly Mirandized, he'd be justified in throwing the case out and ruling that double jeopardy attaches.
If the FBI ignores people's civil rights in order to pressure people into testifying against a higher-up, then the FBI has lost their way. At that point, FBI Dir. Comey's statements ring hollow.
Mr. Comey, part of the rule of law requires law enforcement officers to follow procedures that the Supreme Court has required. Apparently, you didn't do that. Don't be surprised if Judge Sullivan scolds Dir. Mueller in his ruling. He certainly deserves it.
UPDATE: Kurt Schlichter really nails it in this article .
Posted Monday, December 17, 2018 6:10 PM
No comments.
Comey's tarnished reputation
Saying that Jim Comey's reputation is tarnished is understatement. Still, he's been tarnishing his reputation since July 5, 2016. That's when Mr. Comey pitched aside the Constitution and decided that the FBI Director had the authority to decide whether he could ignore the fact that the Attorney General could authorize the prosecution of a person.
It wasn't Mr. Comey's responsibility to decide whether to prosecute Hillary Clinton for illegally storing confidential information on her private email server. That was Loretta Lynch's call. Instead, Dir. Comey decided against prosecuting Hillary. Monday, Comey denied that he had anything to do with the FBI's sullied reputation, saying "as far as hurting the FBI's replication, I hope not. We had to make very hard decisions in 2016. I knew we would get hurt by it. The question is, how do we reduce the damage? What I'm doing now is not what I love to do. I'd rather not be talking to you all. But somebody has to stand up and speak for the FBI and the rule of law. And I hope there's a whole lot more somebodies out there than just me."
That's a steaming pile of BS. First, President Trump is right in criticizing the FBI's political thugs, aka Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. He's right in firing Andrew McCabe for subversion of President Trump's administration both before and during his administration. Next, President Trump and people like Trey Gowdy are right in ridiculing him for telling Congress that he either didn't know, didn't recall or didn't remember key parts of the FBI's investigation 245 times during his first day of testimony. Greg Gutfeld got it right in this segment of The Five:
[Video no longer available]
Finally, it's stunning to see how arrogant Comey is. Nothing is his fault. In Comey's mind, it's President Trump's fault for calling out Page's, Strzok's and McCabe's corruption.
The FBI's responsibility is to investigate. It isn't the FBI's responsibility to determine whether to prosecute. I don't think it's too much to ask that the FBI director know that sort of thing.
I've long agreed with the things that Kurt Schlichter said in this article :
Let's stop pretending that America in 2018 has a 'justice system.' It's not a justice system. It's a set of elite institutions that swing the law like a sledgehammer to crush threats to the ruling class's monopoly on power. You know, threats like the people we elect to represent our interests against the elite. And we are under no moral obligation to pretend it is anything else.
This painful to admit it, but we need to grow up. There are two sets of law in America today, meaning there is no rule of law in America today. Oh, there are statutes, and there are courts, and there are agencies full of people with guns willing to enforce the will of aspiring tyrants, but there is not rule of law. There is only power, theirs and ours. Time to get woke to the undeniable fact what the Fredocons deny up and down. Justice is no longer blind. Her blindfold is off and she's picking favorites.
Anyone looking at what happened during the Clinton 'investigation' knows that she got treated differently than Gen. Flynn got treated, even though she did far worse things than Gen. Flynn.
Posted Tuesday, December 18, 2018 11:32 AM
No comments.
Jeff Johnson's clarifying editorial
Jeff Johnson's clarifying editorial is likely Councilman Johnson's final official statement on the issue of refugee resettlement. During this fight, others on the City Council have mischaracterized the local government's rights. Further, they've lied about the volunteer agencies' affirmative responsibilities.
Meanwhile, Councilman Johnson's research has been perfect. He cited specific US statutes that totally supported his claims. Councilman Johnson specifically cited "the Refugee Act of 1980 in 8 U.S.C 1522(2)(A)", which says "The Director and the Federal agency administering subsection (b)(1) of this section shall consult regularly (not less often than quarterly) with State and local governments and private nonprofit voluntary agencies concerning the sponsorship process and the intended distribution of refugees among the States and localities before their placement in those States and localities."
In his editorial, Councilman Johnson wrote that "Lutheran Social Services is supposed to have quarterly meetings with constituents, which has been hit and miss at best. When they do have their quarterly meeting, they simply 'inform' the participants after refugee placement occurs." How does that comply with the Refugee Act of 1980?
One of the commenters (a liberal named Mike Aurelius) wrote "Perhaps you should look up the word "consult". It doesn't mean what you think it means. Consult does not mean consent." Then the commenter asks "Are you actually thinking of trying to get the city to sue the Federal Government? LMAO!! Good luck with that."
Talk about strawman arguments. Councilman Johnson never said that consultation was the same as consent or the right of approval. Further, Councilman Johnson never hinted that he'd encourage the St. Cloud City Council to sue the federal government. I'm not surprised by Mr. Aurelius' comments and questions. Liberal commenters often 'hear' questions that were never asked. Why shouldn't Mr. Aurelius hear something that wasn't asked this time? This isn't the first time it's happened.
Based on the language of the bill, it's clear that local officials have been given an important responsibility in the refugee resettlement program. It's equally clear that the City Council's responsibility is limited to a consulting role. Still, that's an important role considering the fact that the federal government is essentially dumping another unfunded mandate on the cities. Perhaps unfunded mandate is too strong. Underfunded definitely isn't too strong, though.
Posted Tuesday, December 18, 2018 3:19 PM
No comments.
MNLARS problems continue
Anyone that thinks that government is efficient at delivering important services are either lying to themselves or lying to us. Predictably, neither the DFL nor the Dayton administration still hasn't gotten MNLARS running .
Now, problems are being addressed, Minnesota IT Services Commissioner Johanna Clyborne told the MNLARS Steering Committee, but progress has been slow-moving.
'We still have a lot of work to do,' Clyborne said.
MNLARS employees have received more than 32,000 applications for Real IDs this year and have mailed out just over a third, said Dawn Olson, Driver and Vehicle Services Director. Olson said she hopes the remainder will be mailed out by the first week in January .
I'm hoping to win the lottery before the new year starts, too. Based on past history, I'm betting there's an equal chance of me winning that lottery and DVS getting the remainder out on time. And I'm not betting on winning the lottery in the next 3 weeks.
[Video no longer available]
The commissioners admitted that it's still taking more than 40 days to get drivers licenses out. Why doesn't the state turn to a real IT company to fix the problem? At this point, the frustration level from the public is high. If the DFL doesn't fix their MNLARS problem ASAP, there will be a political backlash. This project has already cost taxpayers $100,000,000.
Here's something else worth considering: The DFL wanted Republicans to appropriate enough money to complete the project. Republicans refused, saying they wanted to have some control over the project. That's why Gov. Dayton vetoed the bill and the DFL voted to sustain Gov. Dayton's veto. This MNLARS project is 100% around the DFL's necks.
Department of Public Safety Commissioner Ramona Dohman said MNLARS employees were stretched thin as they were forced to switch from one role to another to cover phones or emails or license and title applications. "Driver and Vehicle Services is able to triage to bring down turnaround times momentarily, but we just can't get ahead," Dohman said.
In other words, DPS and DVS is no closer to fixing the problem today than they were last spring. It's indisputable that this is a leadership failure. The only thing that's in question is how to fix this. That's something Democrats are terrible at.
They're great at proposing new things. Unfortunately, Democrats run into all kinds of problems in the implementation phase. Think back to MNsure and Healthcare.gov. Those were total failures, too.
It isn't surprising that people don't trust government. A quick check of the history of government, whether it's local, state or federal, shows how inept government is. That's why it's essential to elect solutions-oriented people in 2020. That's who President Trump is. That's the opposite of what Gov. Dayton or soon-to-be-Speaker Pelosi are. Unfortunately, I suspect that Gov.-Elect Walz will be just as inept.
That's why I'm not expecting MNLARS to get fixed anytime soon.
Posted Wednesday, December 19, 2018 2:29 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 19-Dec-18 05:17 PM
What political backlash will the DFL face? Gaining even more seats in the house and taking over the senate? The DFL never feels the backlash for continually screwing up and screwing taxpayers in MN. Just look at the 2018 election if you need any more proof of that.
