January 4-7, 2020
Jan 04 03:02 About federal reapportionment Jan 04 13:00 Susan Rice talking integrity? Jan 05 01:22 Tucker Carlson's stupidity? Jan 06 01:43 Is Warren getting desparate? Jan 06 07:07 Are there traitors amongst us? Jan 06 20:55 Josh Hawley vs. Nancy Pelosi Jan 07 04:34 Democrats intents exposed again Jan 07 15:21 The investigation has finished
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
About federal reapportionment
This SCTimes editorial about losing a congressional district avoids a topic most DFL politicians and DFL operatives would rather not talk about. In the second paragraph, it says "A slowing population growth rate in Minnesota and gangbusters growth in places including Texas, North Carolina and Florida signal a coming shift from eight House seats for Minnesota to seven."
What it doesn't say is why Minnesota is losing that district. DFL politicians, especially DFL governors, insist that Minnesota is doing fantastic. The truth is that Minnesota isn't doing that great. We're losing that district because we aren't economically competitive. We have taxes that are far too high and regulations that are far too intrusive. Environmental activists have too many bites at the apple to kill prosperity, especially in rural Minnesota.
Today's DFL is highly metro-centric and doesn't care about blue collar jobs. Today's DFL prefers white collar jobs in urban centers. The F in DFL stands for farmers. What's disturbing is that today's DFL have imposed costly regulations on farmers, making it more difficult for farmers to make a profit. The L in DFL stands for laborers. The DFL will fight to the death for public employee unions but they've ignored blue collar union jobs for 30+ years. That's why Pete Stauber is favored to win re-election in the Eighth District.
When people think of Minnesota's Eighth District, they immediately think of the Iron Range. That's understandable but that's just the most famous part of the Eighth. Huge portions of the Eighth are farmland (think Aitkin), woodlands ideally suited for logging (think Grand Rapids) and rural towns where the work ethic is outstanding (think Cambridge, Isanti and Park Rapids).
Those cities might as well be dead to the DFL. Anything beyond the inner ring of suburbs might as well be lunar landscape to the DFL.
Last year, I learned that 20+ states had a top tax rate that was lower than Minnesota's lowest tax rate. In Pennsylvania, for instance, their top tax rate is 3.07%. Minnesota's lowest tax bracket is taxed at 5.35%, with a top bracket taxed at 9.85%. That's only because Republicans insisted on cutting taxes as part of their budget agreement. The DFL wanted to raise taxes. Is it any wonder why Minnesotans are leaving the state for low-tax states?
To compete with other states, you need a well-trained workforce, low taxes and fair regulations. Minnesota fails in all 3 categories. Why would a company start or expand here? Companies see what PolyMet has endured in terms of lawsuits, permitting and hostility and they cross Minnesota off the list.
[Video no longer available]
The other thing that's turning off Minnesotans is the number of scandals we're dealing with. Whether it's MNLARS, the multiple scandals within the Department of Human Services or things that government just doesn't do well, people are paying a lot in taxes and getting very little in return. If Minnesota wants to lose another seat in 2030, they don't need to change course. They just need to stay the course. If we want to become a prosperous state, then major changes need to take place.
Posted Saturday, January 4, 2020 3:02 AM
Comment 1 by John Palmer at 04-Jan-20 09:48 PM
If you take a dive into the state demographer's data concerning in and out migration what you find is that the wealth of those leaving that states high and the new arrivals are people who will demand a high level of welfare. MN is getting poorer as Minnesotan's become poorer. The loss of a congressional seat simply reflects that living in Minnesota is not as attractive than living some where else. Since the weather is not going to change the economic climate is what needs to change to make Minnesota more attractive for people.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 05-Jan-20 09:11 AM
John P - I have been saying that for years. The only people moving into MN are those looking to suck off the government teat. Open boarders and generous welfare/social programs are not good for MN or the US.
Susan Rice talking integrity?
Having Susan Rice lecture people about integrity is insulting. During her interview with Rachel Maddow , she said that the risks of killing Soleimani probably outweighed the benefits. She also said "The Obama administration was not presented with an opportunity by our intelligence community or by the U.S. military to strike Qassem Soleimani." If they had been given that information, Rice said that what they "would have done is weigh very carefully and very deliberately the risks versus the potential rewards."
That's probably the only truthful thing she said in this interview:
[Video no longer available]
"So, if in fact the administration can be believed that there was indeed strong intelligence of an imminent threat against the United States that's being carried out by Soleimani and related militia then the question becomes [was] there more than one way to address that threat?" she asked Maddow. "Was the only way to deal with it to kill Soleimani? Certainly, given his history and track record, he deserves his just rewards but the question is does that serve our interests? Does that make us more secure?"
First, killing a man that's destabilized an entire region of the world for a generation is always in our best interests. Gen. Soleimani isn't just a high-ranking military guy. He's the man who put together the military strategy to inflame an entire region. He's the reason why Iran is the world's greatest exporter of terrorism. Iran wasn't like that before Soleimani.
Next, the US got information of an attack that would have hit multiple cities throughout the region. It isn't that taking out Soleimani doesn't come without risks. It's that taking out a man with his list of accomplishments and skills is worth the risks. The trick, I suspect, is take the proper precautions to protect US interests.
Finally, if I'm going to get lectured about integrity, that lecture won't come from Susan Rice. She's as untrustworthy as Jim Comey and John Brennan. You can't sink lower than that. If I'm going to get lectured about integrity, I'll enthusiastically accept it from Mark Geist. In an interview with Pete Hegseth, Geist said this:
"First off, I mean, when has a protest ever occurred at night and, I mean, most protests they don't typically bring AK-47s, belt-fed machine guns, and RPGs. That's somebody planning an attack and they knew it," Geist told Hegseth.
"They knew it when she went out on the speaking circuit on Sunday," he continued. "But, instead of telling the truth she wanted to tell lies because she had to say what the administration -- at the time -- wanted."
This part must've stung the most:
"If President Trump had been in office during Benghazi, we wouldn't have lost four Americans," he concluded.
That's true. Unlike President Obama, President Trump wouldn't order troops to stand down during a terrorist attack.
Posted Saturday, January 4, 2020 1:00 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 05-Jan-20 09:07 AM
They had no problems killing a radicalized US citizen with a drone though.
Tucker Carlson's stupidity?
During his antiwar diatribe, Tucker Carlson highlighted his one-track mind with regard to the Middle East. At one point, Carlson asked "Why are we continuing to ignore the decline of our own country in favor of jumping into another quagmire from which there is no obvious exit?" Then he asked "If we're still in Afghanistan 19 sad years later, what makes us think there's a quick way out of Iran?"
Of course, we aren't in Iran. That doesn't matter to Carlson. The great military strategist figured that out earlier in his monologue, saying "It is no exaggeration to say that by the next time this show airs, we could be engaged in a conflict, a real conflict with Iran."
Wow. Saying that it isn't an exaggeration that the US might be at war with Iran by Monday morning is foolish. It's nothing except an exaggeration. How does Carlson get away saying stupid things like this? Talk to Fox management about that. I haven't figured that one out. At times, he can be a thoughtful commentator. Far too often, though, he's sounded like a CODEPINK antiwar lunatic. This is one of those times.
Let's deconstruct Carlson's arguments. It won't take long since they're such flimsy arguments. We aren't ignoring the decline of our own country. Democrats are. They haven't provided a serious solution to our nation's problems since retaking the majority in the House. President Trump and Senate Republicans have put forth lots of proposals that would fix things like the opioid epidemic and illegal immigration.
When Carlson gets into his rants, he ignores the Trump administration's already lengthy list of accomplishments, too. When he rants, he's talking about what happened during the Obama and Bush administrations. Apparently, he hasn't noticed that things have changed since President Trump got to Washington.
Next, insinuating that we're on the verge of war is either dishonesty or stupidity. I don't think Carlson is stupid so that leaves us with the likelihood that he's utterly dishonest. Later, Carlson ripped into Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, who put out a statement saying that "This is very simple: Gen. Soleimani is dead because he was an evil bastard who killed Americans." Carlson then admitted that Sen. Sasse's "statement is essentially true." Rather than fleshing that out, Carlson pivoted to strawman arguments that Mexican drug cartels and the Chinese have killed lots of Americans with drugs, then flippantly saying "not that anybody in power cares" about those deaths.
Then Carlson mentioned that Sen. Sasse is a former consultant, whatever that means. Carlson is a former CNN personality. Does that mean he's ill-suited for Fox? I think he's far better suited to be one of CNN's clowns than to be one of FNC's hosts.
[Video no longer available]
I wasn't a big fan of Bill O'Reilly. Still, I'd welcome him back to FNC over this one-trick (antiwar) pony any day of the week. It's time for FNC to cut its losses and put in someone who actually thinks things through before ranting.
Finally, Carlson said that there are lots of bad guys out there, then asking if we should kill all of them while we're at it. That's oversimplification on steroids. Gen. Soleimani wasn't just a bad guy. He's the mastermind behind destabilizing an entire region of the world while spreading terrorism and launching Iran's nuclear weapons program. He supplied Shi'ite militias in Iraq with IEDs and other weapons that were used to kill Americans.
Whatever you think of the Iraq War, it's disgusting to think, as Carlson apparently does, that these soldiers were expendable because they followed a president's orders. Personally, it's one thing to question the wisdom of going to war. It's quite another to say that it's ok to kill US soldiers in the line of duty.
Posted Sunday, January 5, 2020 1:22 AM
No comments.
Is Warren getting desparate?
Bit-by-bit, the wheels are falling off of Elizabeth Warren's campaign. This morning on CNN's State of the Union, Sen. Warren said some outrageous things. One of the outrageous things that Sen. Warren said was "Next week, the president of the United States could be facing an impeachment trial in the Senate. We know he's deeply upset about that. And I think people are reasonably asking, why this moment? Why does he pick now to take this highly inflammatory, highly dangerous action that moves us closer to war?"
Democrats keep insinuating that this impeachment is a) legitimate and b) something for President Trump to worry about. It isn't legitimate. That's why Speaker Pelosi isn't transmitting it to the Senate. Pelosi knows that the House's impeachment case has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese. The Democrats' only testimony is hearsay testimony. Why would President Trump worry about a case that would've gotten thrown out of court.
[Video no longer available]
She's playing fast and loose with words, which is Sen. Warren's habit. Soleimani wasn't just a government official. In 2007, the Bush administration labeled him and the Quds Force terrorists. Then there's this:
The U.S. and the United Nations put Soleimani on sanctions lists in 2007, though his travels continued. In 2011, U.S. officials also named him as a defendant in an outlandish Quds Force plot to allegedly hire a purported Mexican drug cartel assassin to kill a Saudi diplomat.
This wasn't just a high-ranking government official and Warren knows it. Further, when Sen. Warren told Jake Tapper that we're closer to war than before hitting Soleimani, she's exposing her dishonesty. Iran has been at war with the US since 1979 . Democrats have pretended that isn't the case but that's because their appeasement-first policy is deeply embedded in their DNA.
When Iranians took the hostages in the US Embassy in Teheran, Jimmy Carter didn't threaten Grand Ayatollah Khomeini. Instead, President Carter called him "a great man of religion." The 52 US hostages weren't released until President Reagan was sworn in. Apparently, Iran wasn't worried about Jimmy Carter's feeble policies. Five minutes after Reagan was officially sworn in, the plane carrying those US hostages left Iranian airspace. Apparently, Iran was frightened by President Regan's peace-through-strength policies.
With Iran's economy contracting, Iranian citizens revolting and President Trump threatening Iran with retribution if they strike again, Iran is in a pickle. The thing that we've learned in dealing with terrorists, it's that the Arab Street sides with the strong horse. Until Thursday night, the strong horse was Soleimani. By Friday afternoon, the strong horse was President Trump and the US military.
The Democrats' sky-is-falling fear of the Iranians isn't leadership. It's cowardice. That doesn't mean I want to push war. It simply means we shouldn't operate from a position of fear with regard to Iran. Taking out Soleimani wasn't just taking out a government official. It was eliminating the most indispensable man in the Iranian regime, the man who terrorized an entire region while threatening our allies.
This about this: 40% of the world's oil gets shipped through the Straits of Hormuz. It's great that we aren't reliant on that oil anymore. Still, the world economy still relies on those shipments. What happens if Iran blockades oil shipments through the Straits? What's the likelihood of that blockade crashing the world economy?
It was past time to take out this terrorist. Good riddance.
Posted Monday, January 6, 2020 1:43 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 06-Jan-20 09:29 AM
That is why I am assuming that many of the "52 targets" mentioned by Trump are those Iranian naval bases and ports near the Strait of Hormuz that could threaten international shipping.
Comment 2 by eric z at 06-Jan-20 12:01 PM
Julian Castro dropped out and endorsed Warren. Because what? Biden? Mayor Pete? Klobuchar? Not Bernie, but he has that option, and picked second best from a field of hundreds. Castro had no traction, but he's a good man.
Aside from that, saying, "Iran has been at war with the US since 1979," is saying Reagan's sneaky deal with Iran to keep the hostages held, as a Trump=-like political foreign policy misuse against Carter was treason, and then trading weapons for hostages added yet more treason; AND I AGREE. Also Bush sat on his thumbs, both terms, doing zippo about Iran; which is something expected to come up for comment in any fair and balanced treatment. Were we really at war, that Cheney-Bush inaction, was it treason?
You misstate, for effect, without thinking how your screed reflects on your party when in office. They stunk. On foreign affairs too. Whatever your dispute with Kerry judgment, who, again was it who invaded Iraq; "Mission Accomplished" banner after a week and all, and sold a nation a false bill of goods over bogus WMD bullshit.
Are there traitors amongst us?
John Kerry has a legitimate reason to be worried. Judicial Watch has filed another FOIA request lawsuit "against the U.S. Department of State for records of communications between former Secretary of State John Kerry and State Department officials regarding 'the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (also known as JCPOA or 'Iran nuclear deal') and/or meetings between Kerry and Iranian officials to discuss the JCPOA.'"
According to Judicial Watch, "Kerry reportedly held meetings and spoke with major players, foreign and domestic, involved in the Iran nuclear agreement who opposed the U.S. withdrawal." Further, "Kerry is said to have met with Iran Foreign Minister Javad Zarif at the United Nations in New York in late April 2018, their second meeting in two months, to discuss ways of preventing the deal limiting Iran's nuclear weapons program from falling apart."
Judicial Watch has a lengthy history of decimating Washington DC's Deep State. When Congress hasn't gotten the documents that Deep Statists want permanently deep-sixed, Judicial Watch has.
Kerry also met in April 2018 with German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, separately had meetings with French President Emmanuel Macron, both in Paris and New York, and spoke on the phone with European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. Additionally, Kerry was reported to have quietly lobbied members of Congress, including then-Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and placed dozens of phone calls just before the U.S. withdrawal.
"John Kerry wasn't elected president, so he should avoid colluding with Iran and other foreign government to undermine U.S. foreign policy," said Judicial Watch President Fitton. "Our lawsuit is meant to discover not only what Kerry was up to but also to unearth who inside the Deep State Trump 'resistance' were coordinating with Kerry's clandestine efforts to undermine President Trump's Iran policy."
John Kerry's actions were disgusting. The Constitution doesn't give former secretaries of state the authority to work behind-the-scenes to keep his failed policies intact. The Constitution gives the sitting president full control of the United States' foreign policy. The last thing we need is for the worst Secretary of State in US history sticking his nose in where it doesn't belong.
Let's stop kidding people. Kerry's negotiation 'skills', if you can call them that, were a gift to Iran. Kerry is just trying to preserve his legacy. Why he's trying to do that is anyone's guess. I'd want people to forget about the JCPOA. That won't happen because Secretary Kerry is a blithering idiot. This is proof of that:
[Video no longer available]
Posted Monday, January 6, 2020 7:07 AM
No comments.
Josh Hawley vs. Nancy Pelosi
This afternoon, GOP senators sent an unmistakable message to Speaker Pelosi. With Josh Hawley as the leading co-sponsor, co-sponsors "Sens. Rick Scott of Florida; Mike Braun of Indiana; Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee; Ted Cruz of Texas; Steve Daines of Montana; John Barrasso of Wyoming; Tom Cotton of Arkansas; Joni Ernst of Iowa; David Perdue of Georgia; and Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma" joined with him "to introduce a resolution allowing the chamber to dismiss articles of impeachment against President Trump for lack of prosecution, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delays sending the case for trial."
Next, Sen. Hawley delivered this powerful, stirring speech:
[Video no longer available]
Here's part of what Sen. Hawley said in his speech on the Senate floor:
In the real world, when a prosecutor brings a case but refuses to try it, the court has the ability and the defendant has the right, the constitutional right, I might add, to have those articles, those indictments, those charges dismissed. That is precisely the action that I am proposing today.
Here's the heart of Sen. Hawley's official statement :
Speaker Pelosi started this bogus impeachment by claiming President Trump was an urgent 'threat to democracy' who had to be removed now. But after a bipartisan vote against the articles in the House, and with the public opposed to the Democrats' partisan games, Pelosi has changed her tune. Now she wants to prevent a Senate trial, perhaps indefinitely. But the Constitution gives the Senate sole power to adjudicate articles of impeachment, not the House. If Speaker Pelosi is afraid to try her case, the articles should be dismissed for failure to prosecute and Congress should get back to doing the people's business.
This impeachment is a travesty. I've written multiple times that Democrats don't have any proof of high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democrats' case, if you can legitimately call it that, specializes in hearsay testimony. If this was being tried in a court of law, at least 75% of the Democrats' testimony couldn't be admitted because it was hearsay. Sen. Cruz added this statement:
Since the start of the impeachment process, Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have made a mockery of our Constitution and abused impeachment for political gain. Now, they're undermining the role of the Senate by attempting to dictate the terms of the Senate's trial. Under our Constitution, the Senate has the sole authority to try impeachment. It is the Senate's duty to take up these articles without delay, and to resolve them in a timely and constitutionally appropriate manner.
The Sixth Amendment requires the right to a speedy trial. Serious people question whether Pelosi's Democrats are interested in upholding President Trump's civil rights. Pelosi and Pelosi's Democrat minions lied about the need to impeach President Trump on an expedited schedule. Then she decided to hold the official but flimsy articles of impeachment rather than transmit them to the Senate where a trial could be held.
Chairman Schiff told the American people that not impeaching President Trump on an expedited basis was the equivalent of arguing to just let him cheat one more time:
[Video no longer available]
We were told that democracy itself hung in the balance. Now we're being told that Speaker Pelosi wants to negotiate better terms for Senate Democrats by not transmitting the articles of impeachment. This afternoon, Josh Hawley essentially told Pelosi to butt out and let the Senate run the Senate.
Posted Monday, January 6, 2020 8:55 PM
No comments.
Democrats intents exposed again
In a speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Mitch McConnell highlighted the Democrats' hatred for President Trump while highlighting the Democrats' limited patriotism for this nation. Sen. McConnell exposed them when he said "The Senate is supposed to be the chamber where overheated partisan passions give way to sober judgment. Can we not at least wait until we know the facts? Can we not maintain a shred, just a shred, of national unity for five minutes before deepening the partisan trenches?" Additionally, Sen. McConnell asked "Must Democrats' distaste for this president dominate every thought they express and every decision they make? Is that really the seriousness that this situation deserves?"
When statesmen/patriots like Hubert Humphrey and Daniel Patrick Moynihan roamed the Senate, patriotism was in overabundance. Now that partisans like Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer lead the Democrats, patriotism is essentially missing from the Senate. Since President Trump ordered the airstrike on Soleimani, Democrats have questioned whether we're safer now than before the airstrike.
If Democrats are serious in asking that question, then Democrats should never get their hands on the levers of power. The answer to the Democrats' foolish question is this: yes, we're infinitely better off today than we were a week ago. Soleimani wasn't just some rank-and-file general. Soleimani was Iran's guy that established Iran's proxies that spread Iran's reach far beyond Iran's borders. Soleimani was Iran's guy who put in place the training for the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas and other proxies.
Put into a sports analogy, taking Soleimani out is like taking Tom Brady in his prime off the field. This wasn't like losing the backup offensive lineman on the Cincinnati Bengals. As for whether Iran retaliates, that's likely but that shouldn't have stopped the military from taking him out. The Department of Homeland Security should (and likely is) beefing up our defenses against cyberattacks. The Department of Defense is already shipping in reinforcements for our military bases around the world. The State Department is likely hiring additional FSOs (Foreign Security Officers) to protect our diplomats. (Unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration puts a high priority on protecting diplomats.)
[Video no longer available]
"My Democratic colleagues should not plow away at American unity in some bizarre, intramural competition to see who dislikes the president more," he said. "They should not disdain our Constitution by rushing through a purely partisan impeachment process and then toying around with it. Governing is serious business."
Thus far, I haven't seen anything that would indicate that Democrats are serious about governing according to the will of the people. Unfortunately, I've seen tons of proof that Democrats are willing to govern according to their far-left ideology.
Posted Tuesday, January 7, 2020 4:34 AM
No comments.
The investigation has finished
Each time Speaker Pelosi or Sen. Schumer insist that they need additional witnesses, Republicans should remind them that the impeachment investigation wrapped up when the House Judiciary Committee voted to approve articles of impeachment. That vote signified the end of the impeachment investigation. In fact, a strong argument could be made that the Schiff Report to the House Judiciary Committee ended the investigation since the House Judiciary Committee didn't call any fact witnesses.
The minute that the House voted to approve articles of impeachment is the moment that their authority died. The House, aka Speaker Pelosi, doesn't have the constitutional authority to try the House's articles of impeachment. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 states "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
It's clear that the House has the authority to appoint impeachment managers who will present the House case to the Senate. Once that presentation is finished, however, the House should totally irrelevant. Apparently, Republicans have the votes to pass the rules governing the impeachment trial:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that he has the votes to set the ground rules of the impeachment trial for President Donald Trump -- without Democrats' support.
McConnell first made the remarks during a closed-door lunch with his fellow Republican senators on Capitol Hill, an official in the room told CNN, before McConnell made the announcement publicly during a news conference following the lunch. McConnell made clear he had no plans to move forward on a trial until the two articles of impeachment are sent to the Senate, as he has said publicly.
"We have the votes once the impeachment trial has begun to pass a resolution essentially the same, very similar to the 100-to-nothing vote in the Clinton trial, which sets up what's best described as a phase one," McConnell said Tuesday.
That's excellent. It's fantastic that Sen. McConnell can tell Speaker Pelosi to butt out. Now that Sen. McConnell has the votes to pass the Clinton Impeachment rules, Speaker Pelosi can pick her impeachment managers and transmit the House's articles of impeachment to the Senate. I can't imagine that the Senate Democrats running for president want this dragging out that long. They'd prefer getting this in the rear-view mirror ASAP. In fact, those Democrats probably want it done faster than President Trump wants this over.
For the past 3 weeks, we've heard one article after another about what a brilliant tactician Speaker Pelosi is. Quietly, I've noticed what a skilled negotiator Sen. Mitch McConnell is. This time, the skilled negotiator got the better of the brilliant tactician.
[Video no longer available]
It's time for President Trump's legal team to expose the Democrats' partisan impeachment attempt as the joke that it is. I've frequently said that the only testimony that the Democrats have is hearsay testimony, which isn't admissible in federal courts except in rare exceptions.
Posted Tuesday, January 7, 2020 3:21 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 08-Jan-20 09:30 AM
Increasingly I see the likelihood that Nancy will overplay her hand and delay too long, at which point that Senate resolution to dismiss the impeachment for "failure to prosecute" will pass.
