December 7-10, 2018
Dec 07 02:40 Dr. Sprankle, one sick puppy Dec 07 15:44 The forthcoming Comey transcript Dec 08 12:01 Revisiting refugee resettlement Dec 09 00:38 Comey transcript highlights Dec 09 09:41 ISD742 opposes public input? Dec 09 14:59 ISAIAH's IRS difficulties Dec 10 01:28 Let's change Minnesota's priorities Dec 10 10:37 Mayor Kleis is totally wrong Dec 10 11:32 The worst kind of bigotry
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
Dr. Sprankle, one sick puppy
Saying that Dr. Eric Sprankle is a totally sick puppy is understatement. Dr. Sprankle is an associate professor at Minnesota State, Mankato. He's also the subject of this article , which highlights Dr. Sprankle's tweet that God didn't get Mary's consent when He impregnated her. Here's Dr. Sprankle's tweet:
The virgin birth story is about an all-knowing, all-powerful deity impregnating a human teen. There is no definition of consent that would include that scenario. Happy Holidays.
- Eric Sprankle, PsyD (@DrSprankle) December 3, 2018
A brief scan of Dr. Sprankle's Twitter feed shows that he's quite interested in Satanism. In my estimation, that makes his accusations about God more than a little questionable. Consider this passage in the Gospel of Luke :
26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28 And having come in, the angel said to her, 'Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; [e]blessed are you among women!'
29 But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.
33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.' 34 Then Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, since I do not know a man?'
35 And the angel answered and said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.
36 Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible.'
38 Then Mary said, 'Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word . ' And the angel departed from her.
Nowhere in this passage does Mary object. Mary asked a simple question. The angel Gabriel answered Mary's question. Once the angel answered Mary's question, Mary replied "Let it be to me according to your word."
Further, though it's difficult to explain, Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin. I fully admit that I can't explain it. That doesn't mean it isn't the truth. It simply means I can't biologically explain how Mary got pregnant. It's something I accept as an article of faith.
If Dr. Sprankle wants to say it's crazy for me to accept things I can't see as an article of faith, I have this simple reply: I've never seen Dr. Sprankle's brain. Does that mean that trusting he has a brain mean I'm crazy? I rest my case.
Posted Friday, December 7, 2018 2:40 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 07-Dec-18 08:22 AM
So?
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 07-Dec-18 09:07 AM
There is at least one other virgin birth on record; it is not impossible. During the civil war, a mini-ball passed through a soldier's testicle and lodged in the womb of a young virgin, who later gave birth.
And one doesn't have to believe the whole New Testament, yet it is the obligation of Satan and his minion's to nit-pick every little detail to weaken the Faithful.
To paraphrase an old quote, "there are three kinds of people in the world: fools, damn fools, and professors."
The forthcoming Comey transcript
After hearing reports that Jim Comey wasn't answering key questions that Republicans have asked him about, Comey didn't seem the least bit bothered by his evasiveness. Darrell Issa spoke to reporters about Comey's attitude, telling reporters "that some lawmakers have been frustrated with the testimony so far and that Comey didn't seem upset about being told by his lawyers that he doesn't have to answer certain questions."
People shouldn't think that Jim Comey is a man of integrity. He isn't that. Right after the election, Comey insisted that he'd only testify in an open hearing, saying that he worried about Republicans would selectively leak portions of his answers. Comey pretended to be a warrior for transparency. That doesn't square with his gleeful evasiveness in not answering the committees' questions.
I hope that the transcript of the hearing is published soon. I suspect that lots of people want to read it to see which questions Mr. Comey didn't answer. Let's be clear about something important. The FBI's political appointees aren't men of integrity. Throughout his sham investigation, Robert Mueller has used tactics that people of integrity wouldn't think of using.
"The details of what's going on in there will remain private until after the deposition," Issa said. "... [T]here is an amazing amount of things that reasonably the public will need to know that the Department of Justice and FBI attorney are guiding him not to answer."
It's time for the DOJ to stop protecting Comey and the other rats that have infiltrated, then ruined, the FBI. There's nothing worthwhile about a law enforcement agency that has the ability to destroy its political enemies. Further, there's nothing worthwhile about an agency that's willing to turn a blind eye towards the FBI leadership. It's time to dump the FBI's leadership so the FBI can start restoring the trust it's lost over the past 8+ years.
[Video no longer available]
ISSA QUOTE OF THE DAY: "You're not going to accept the answers as the answers that a forthright individual would give."
I want to thank Congressman Issa for exposing Dir. Comey's evasive testimony. It's now difficult to believe that Mr. Comey is interested in transparency. It's also impossible to think that the FBI isn't attempting to hide lots of embarrassing pieces of information, information that'd likely show how corrupt that organization is.
UPDATE: What chutzpah:
Comey re-asserts that he wishes Judiciary Cmte interview had been done in open session.
- Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) December 7, 2018
Posted Friday, December 7, 2018 4:02 PM
No comments.
Revisiting refugee resettlement
Fresh off its victory against Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, Judicial Watch has filed another FOIA lawsuit , this time to obtain "records on sites that were considered for the resettlement of refugees in the United States during the last two years of the Obama administration.'
According to the press release announcing the lawsuit, Judicial Watch said "In October 2016 , Judicial Watch made public 128 pages of documents it obtained from the mayor of Rutland, Vermont, showing a concerted effort by the mayor and a number of private organizations to conceal from the public their plans to resettle 100 Syrian refugees into the small southern Vermont town. The mayor and resettlement organizations shrouded the plan in such secrecy that not even the town's aldermen were informed of what was taking place behind closed doors."
Apparently, it isn't unconstitutional to look into the program. Apparently, all it takes is someone with integrity. Check this out:
The aldermen eventually wrote to the U.S. Department of State protesting the plan and opened an investigation into the mayor's actions.
It's impossible to picture the St. Cloud City Council opening an investigation into Mayor Kleis or the program's principles unless his name was Jeff Johnson. St. Cloud's City Council has too many misinformed, gullible people on it to do something smart like open an investigation.
Rest assured that Judicial Watch will get to the bottom of this situation. It might take some time but they'll find out what's happening.
Posted Saturday, December 8, 2018 12:01 PM
No comments.
Comey transcript highlights
When Jim Comey testified behind closed doors, Mr. Comey frequently testified that he didn't know the answer to the question he was asked or FBI counsel testified that he wasn't allowed to testify per FBI rules. One such instance got fairly heated. Here it is:
Mr. Gowdy: I think the whole world has read the memo and -- or most of the world. My question is whether or not Director Comey -- I think he's already answered he had no conversations with Rod Rosenstein. My question is, whether or not -- and he's entitled to his opinion -- whether or not he believes that that framed a sufficient factual basis for his termination as the FBI Director.
Ms. Bessee: He is entitled to his opinion, but to the extent -- because he also stated that he is also a witness in the investigation.
Mr. Gowdy: Which investigation is he a witness in?
Ms. Bessee: To the special counsel. He said he is a potential witness.
Mr. Gowdy: Well, you just said witness. Is there an obstruction of justice investigation?
Ms. Bessee: I believe there is an investigation that the special counsel is looking into.
Mr. Gowdy: Well, we all know that. Is it an obstruction of justice investigation?
Ms. Bessee: Mr. Chairman, can you rephrase the question, please?
Mr. Gowdy: Yes. Director Comey, you're familiar with the memo drafted by Rod Rosenstein. You have not talked to Rod Rosenstein, as I understand your testimony. Do you believe the memo, just on the cold four pages of the memo, four corners of that document, do you believe it provides sufficient basis for your termination? Even if you would have done it differently, is it a basis for your termination?
Mr. Comey: I can't answer that, Mr. Chairman, because it requires me to get into the mind of the decisionmaker, who is the President, and I'm not in a position to do that.
Mr. Gowdy: Do you have any evidence the memo was subterfuge to fire you, but not for the -- but for a different reason?
Mr. Comey: I have no evidence at all about how the memo came to be created. I know that it was part of the documentation that was attached, what was sent to me, delivered to the FBI on the day I was fired. That's the only thing I have personal knowledge of.
That's just one of the heated exchanges between Chairman Gowdy, Director Comey and Ms. Bessee. Here's the entire transcript:
[Video no longer available]
What I found fascinating about this video is Chairman Gowdy's statistics:
According to Chairman Gowdy, Comey replied "I don't remember" 71 times, "I don't know" 166 times and "I don't recall" 8 times. That's a pretty pathetic performance for a man leading the premier law enforcement agency in the world. These weren't insignificant questions about things that happened long ago. They were central questions about major recent investigations that he supposedly headed.
It's rather disgusting to hear Mr. Comey talk about transparency after hiding behind the FBI's attorney. It's clear that the FBI's attorney's mission was singular: protect Mueller. The FBI's attorney didn't care a whit about informing the public or the committees. She primarily cared about hiding important facts.
Posted Sunday, December 9, 2018 12:38 AM
No comments.
ISD742 opposes public input?
At a time when there's major distrust of institutions of government, you'd think that government closest to the people would hold themselves to a higher level of listening to their constituents. That certainly isn't what's happening at the ISD742 monthly meetings.
A loyal reader of LFR sent me an email highlighting the fact that the school board welcomes people to their meetings but doesn't want the public's input. Contained in the email is a sentence that says "This is a public meeting and any residents are welcome to attend and listen, but there is not a public input session scheduled at this meeting ."
BTW, here's the email:
I'm not a constitutional law professor but I can't see how this isn't a violation of the First Amendment. This judge's ruling seems to strengthen that belief:
A section of a Virginia school board's bylaws violates the First Amendment and results in stifled speech, according to a ruling by a federal district judge on April 27. U.S. District Court Judge Henry C. Morgan Jr. held that the Virginia Beach School Board's rule banning personal "attacks or accusations" during public comment periods at board meetings was a form of prior restraint.
The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed last July by David and Nicole Bach, who are parents in the school district. The Bachs claimed that school district officials enacted the provision in retaliation for the Bachs' criticism of the district's gifted education program. After the school board imposed the restriction, the Bachs argued that the bylaw stifled their free speech rights. The judge ordered the school board to strike the contested provision from the bylaw, but also allowed the other rules for the public comment portion of meetings to remain.
This is directly on point. Most importantly, it's an attempt to stifle speech that the school board doesn't want to hear.
That's tough. If these politicians don't want to hear from their constituents, they should resign. If they can't stand the heat, they shouldn't be in the kitchen.
The next time that the St. Cloud School Board meets, citizens should insist on giving input. If the board doesn't permit it, the citizens should notify the school board that they're filing a lawsuit in federal court claiming that their practices violate their First Amendment rights.
Citizens shouldn't be stifled by the ruling class. It's clear that they don't see themselves as public servants. How sad is that?
Posted Sunday, December 9, 2018 9:41 AM
No comments.
ISAIAH's IRS difficulties
Reading ISAIAH's recent email survey certainly makes me question whether they've violated the IRS's prohibitions on 501(c)(3) organizations with regard to political campaigns. In their email, Laura Johnson, ISAIAH's Lead Organizer, wrote "As we think about 2020, we want to dig in on the things that work and that make honest connections with voters, and stop doing the ones that people hate or that don't get people engaged."
Based on this information , it certainly sounds like they've overstepped their boundaries:
Some activities that the IRS has found to violate the prohibition on political campaigning include:
- inviting a political candidate to make a campaign speech at an event hosted by the organization
- using the organization's funds to publish materials that support (or oppose) a candidate
- donating money from the organization to a political candidate
- any statements by the organization's executive director, in his or her official capacity, that support a candidate
- criticizing or supporting a candidate on the organization's website
- inviting one candidate to speak at a well-publicized and well-attended event, and inviting the other candidate to speak at a lesser function
- inviting all candidates to speak at an event, but arranging the speaking event or choosing the questions in such a way that it is obvious that the organization favors one candidate over the others
- conducting a " get out the vote " telephone drive in a partisan manner by selecting caller responses for further follow-up based on candidate preference , and
- using the organization's website to link to only one candidate's profile.
"Making connections with voters certainly sounds like they're "conducting a 'get out the vote' drive, doesn't it? It certainly doesn't sound like they're conducting a voter registration drive, which is allowed. This confirms my suspicions:
Indigenous, Black, Hispanic and Muslim Minnesotans Partner in GOTV for Day of Action
This is a picture from ISAIAH's blog. They aren't trying to hide the fact that they're engaging in a GOTV operation. As I highlighted earlier, the IRS has long found that GOTV operations as violating 501(c)(3) rules. I don't know how a case could be more open-and-shut than that.
Posted Sunday, December 9, 2018 2:59 PM
No comments.
Let's change Minnesota's priorities
Last week, I received an email from Sarah Anderson talking about the state budget surplus. Rep. Anderson wrote "Dear Neighbors, today the state budget forecast was released showing a whopping $1.54 billion surplus." We have another $2.45 billion in the State's rainy day fund. Despite all this money sitting in Minnesota's coffers, it's stunning that the DFL is pushing tax increases.
It's time to ditch Minnesota's 'business model' and establish new priorities. The achievement gap isn't closing , at least not compared to what they should be for all the money that's gotten spent.
Minnesota's economy isn't terrible but it isn't exactly hitting on all cylinders, either. The DFL spent most of the last decade building Minnesota's government instead of building Minnesota's economy. In 2013, Gov. Dayton and the DFL legislature passed the biggest tax hikes in Minnesota history. Since then, the middle class of all age groups have left Minnesota. The only income group that's increasing their percent in the state are the lowest incomes.
It makes sense. From an education standpoint, Minnesota is mediocre. From a taxes and regulations perspective, Minnesota isn't competitive. It isn't close. If the DFL doesn't admit that their blueprint isn't working, we'll quickly turn into a cold California. Why does the DFL think that raising taxes will strengthen the economy?
In 2007, the DFL insisted that spending should be indexed to inflation. Now Melissa Hortman insists that, because spending isn't tied to inflation, the $1.54 billion surplus is really only $382,000,000. According to Hortman, that's justification for additional tax hikes.
The moral to this story is that the DFL doesn't understand a thing about economic competitiveness. They want their tax hikes regardless of whether it hurts or not. This move hurts badly. Throughout the state, people from all income groups (except the poor and the working poor) are leaving for lower-tax states. That's what's driving the worker shortage.
Let's hope Hortman and Walz don't kill Minnesota's economic competitiveness entirely. BTW, this is how socialism kills economies. When people lose the ability to make profits, they either leave the state or they stop making what they'd been making.
Posted Monday, December 10, 2018 1:28 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 10-Dec-18 09:10 AM
What is just unbelievable is that they aren't even pretending any more. Their first priority is tax increases, period. Not the things these extra taxes would fund, but the taxes themselves. No wonder 80% of Minnesotans say they would like a tax cut and believe government spends too much. How do these Donkeys win elections?
Mayor Kleis is totally wrong
When it comes to the issue of refugee resettlement, Mayor Dave Kleis couldn't be more wrong. Mayor Kleis has said that it's unconstitutional for the City Council to get involved in resettlement matters. This LTE repeats that belief when it says "Kleis went so far as to call this unconstitutional when former council member Jeff Johnson pushed a similar line. City councils have no business or right to police the free movement of people within the United States, nor do cities set federal immigration policy."
This mush is misguided at best. Let's set some things straight. First, the federal government sets immigration and asylum policy. The "United States Refugee Act of 1980" still sets the policy. What Mayor Kleis gets wrong is thinking that city councils and states aren't allowed any input into how migrant policy is implemented. Over the weekend, someone sent me information of a court case that deals with this. I wrote about that information in this post . Here's the important part:
According to the press release announcing the lawsuit, Judicial Watch said "In October 2016 , Judicial Watch made public 128 pages of documents it obtained from the mayor of Rutland, Vermont, showing a concerted effort by the mayor and a number of private organizations to conceal from the public their plans to resettle 100 Syrian refugees into the small southern Vermont town. The mayor and resettlement organizations shrouded the plan in such secrecy that not even the town's aldermen were informed of what was taking place behind closed doors."
Here's what happened when the mayor and the State Department tried hiding information from that city council:
The aldermen eventually wrote to the U.S. Department of State protesting the plan and opened an investigation into the mayor's actions.
Looking into refugee resettlement isn't unconstitutional, especially when Sen. Ted Kennedy wrote into the bill that required the State Department to talk with local units of government before the fact .
That's called collaboration. That's the opposite of unconstitutional. It doesn't require the federal government to relinquish its authority of setting immigration policy. It doesn't require city councils to be silent 'victims' of federal overreach. Instead, it requires both levels of government to work together. I'd love hearing Mayor Kleis explain how that's unconstitutional.
Finally, what Councilman Johnson proposed was a resolution that proposed a moratorium. He didn't propose an ordinance requiring a moratorium on the refugee resettlement program. Since when is it unconstitutional for city councilmembers to state their opinions on federal policies?
When it comes to "listening to both sides," it is quite clear that Brandmire is the one not listening. I suggest he go back and read Kleis's comments for reference, and review the statements made by council members about previous attempts to limit refugees moving to St. Cloud. There have also been local events that specifically addressed the costs, though it's clear from his column that cost is not the real issue - culture is.
Councilman Johnson's resolution dealt strictly with primary resettlement. It didn't (and couldn't) deal with secondary resettlement. It would be wise if this person actually paid attention to what was actually discussed instead of worrying about straw-man arguments that were never made.
Posted Monday, December 10, 2018 10:37 AM
Comment 1 by Bob Enos at 10-Dec-18 11:37 AM
I'm not sure that it's so much that Mayor Kleis is right or wrong. He is simply a politician who has heard from a constituency that exists in the shadows, a network of big business and well-funded foundations and social engineers that have decided the answer to America's aging population is immigrants, regardless of culture, stripe or motivation. The question of whether American culture and values are worth saving is superfluous to them. If rural America can't survive without turning it into the Third World, if that's the only solution, is it really worth saving?
Comment 2 by Liz at 10-Dec-18 04:48 PM
Excellent points Gary! Thank you for writing this as I missed the LTE. I will say after reading the comment above however it is clear to me why Willmar is in trouble. It is a shame too as there were activists who were convinced they knew how to fix all this trouble. Our town, St Cloud, can heal and work together, and it is worth saving. I hope the new council members are able to work with the incumbents and do just that; 2019 will be interesting.
Comment 3 by DG at 11-Dec-18 07:30 PM
I concur with both of the above. I would opine that Mayor Kleis and the council are past their sell by date. Unfortunately Jeff did not run again hopefully his replacement will do as good a job as he did, and we flipped one incumbent; both new members appear to have the welfare of St. Cloud at heart, and will not be afraid to research hard issues. Hopefully in 2020 we will be able to install a council who are willing to listen and research issues that are/would be detrimental to our city. Otherwise I am afraid St. Cloud will be another lost city like Minneapolis already is.
Comment 4 by Tom at 12-Dec-18 03:40 PM
Extremely well written and totally factual read, Gary. Having grown up in the immediate St. Cloud area, I am shocked at the dramatic shift in demographics which have gradually, but certainly intentionally taken place over just the past ten years. Without question from my perspective, this has been an intentional, obviously well planned initiative. Public and Charter school performance as measured by State test scores has deteriorated, crime rates have increased, critical safety and support services have been overwhelmed, the local College has experienced steady enrollment decline all while Mayor Kleis and the majority of the former City Council act totally oblivious to reality. St. Cloud, as many have known it, is crumbling around them in the drive for greater diversity and uncontrolled primary refugee resettlement. By the time the liberal, progressive, their kumbaya followers finally wake up to reality, my fear is it will be too late for all. I hope I am wrong, but basic intelligence convinces me otherwise.
The worst kind of bigotry
John Ellenbecker, St. Cloud's former mayor, is the worst kind of bigot. Like too many leftists, he's heard things that've never gotten said. He's certain of things that he doesn't have proof for. This LTE caused lots of comments, including this comment from Mr. Ellenbecker:
the proposed moratorium WAS/IS about excluding people from St. Cloud. The desire to exclude people from St Cloud is based upon bigotry - that is a simple fact. You can delude yourself if you like - but bigotry is bigotry - and it is alive and well and living in those who proposed the moratorium. Bigots aren't bigots because they disagree with me. Bigots are bigots because of what is in their heart and soul. Rather than arguing with me why not examine why you don't want Somali Americans residing next to you.
This is simple fact ? Forgive me if I'm not persuaded by Mr. Ellenbecker's allegations. What's his proof? FYI- Mr. Ellenbecker went to law school. I don't know if he's still a lawyer because I've heard that he's had some ethical difficulties. He should be familiar with the concept of presenting verifiable evidence. Apparently, the law school he attended taught him that allegations are verifiable proof.
Here's how Robert Ahles responded to Mr. Ellenbecker:
You keep making things up. No one mentioned Somali Americans or them residing next to me, next to Dave Bechtold, or next to many community member concerned about the additional taxpayer costs. I'm guessing I'd probably rather live next to a Somali American than next to a John Ellenbecker .
Well played, Mr. Ahles. Stick in the proverbial dagger, then give it a sharp twist or 2.
This isn't surprising when you think about it. Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee insisted that then-Judge Kavanaugh shouldn't be afforded the presumption of innocence. The Obama administration's Department of Education sent out a guidance letter instructing universities not to give people who were accused of sexual assault the right to an attorney, the right to cross-examine his accuser or any other due process rights.
Is it any wonder why lots of people don't think that Democrats care about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights?
Posted Monday, December 10, 2018 11:32 AM
No comments.
