July 16-17, 2014
Jul 16 02:43 Harry Reid: Border is secure Jul 16 05:03 Was Rosenstone the wrong hire? Jul 16 05:54 Demolishing Pelosi's Hobby Lobby spin Jul 16 12:13 Thank God the border is secure Jul 16 13:39 Jalen Rose, Vivica Fox, Deion Sanders: This generation's civil rights leaders Jul 17 01:06 DFL pushing fake War on Women meme Jul 17 12:04 Standing up to tyranny
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Harry Reid: Border is secure
Harry Reid is one of the most deceitful men to ever serve in Washington, DC. He isn't too bright, either. The things he said in this video contradict each other:
Here's what Sen. Reid said :
'From all the reports I've gotten, the answer for me is no, I won't support it,' he said.
'I believe our No. 1 concern should be this narrow issue of we take care of this situation we have on the border. As I've been told, the Cornyn-Cuellar legislation covers a lot of other issues other than the problem we're having on the border,' he said.
As foolish as that statement is, this statement is breathtakingly dishonest:
'The border is secure,' he told reporters after the Senate Democrats' weekly policy lunch. '[Sen.] Martin Heinrich [(D-N.M.)] talked to the caucus today. He's a border state senator. He said he can say without any equivocation the border is secure.'
I wish I'd been one of the reporters at Sen. Reid's press availability. I would've asked him why a supplemental appropriation was needed to handle the flood of illegal immigrants if the border was secure. This isn't rocket science. If the border is secure, then they wouldn't be predicting 90,000 children from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.
The best way to tell whether Sen. Reid is lying is to determine whether his lips are moving. If they are, it's likely that he's lying.
Rick Perry's op-ed exposes Sen. Reid's dishonesty:
In recent months, tens of thousands of children have come across the border and are now housed in federal facilities across the U.S., the result of failed federal policies and Washington's indifference to securing the border.
I visited one of these facilities in June and saw these children, frightened and alone, who left their homes and families, survived a harrowing trip, and are now facing an unknown future. It was staggering to realize that this humanitarian crisis is not the result of a natural disaster, but of our nation's own misguided laws and misplaced priorities. It's nothing less than a moral outrage.
President Obama last week proposed $3.7 billion in spending to deal with the continuing crisis. But only a small fraction of that money would go to the actual core of this problem: the lack of sufficient resources to secure the border. The majority of the billions he proposes to spend - including on housing and transporting the minors around the country - is treating the symptoms of the problem instead of addressing its root cause.
Unlike Sen. Reid, Gov. Perry has been to the border. He's seen the unaccompanied children. He's gotten daily briefings from his staff on the flood of illegal aliens coming into the US.
Sen. Reid is attempting to hide the fact that 70% of the Border Patrol has been pulled from their normal jobs to help process the illegal aliens. There's only 2 explanations for doing that. Either President Obama wants to leave the Tex-Mex border unsecured or the agents are being pulled to help with the flood of illegal immigrants who've crossed an unsecured border.
Just once, I wish a DC reporter would stand up to Sen. Reid and ask him why he's saying such obviously contradictory things. You don't need a $3,700,000,000 supplemental appropriation to handle a flood of illegal immigrants if the border is secure. Period.
Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2014 2:43 AM
No comments.
Was Rosenstone the wrong hire?
Now that people are questisoning some of Chancellor Rosenstone's decisions, like his decision to pay a consulting firm $2,000,000 or the Trustees' decision to extend Chancellor Rosenstone's contract before giving him a performance review , perhaps it's time to ask what his qualifications were. This chart shows that Rosenstone wasn't as qualified as the other finalist:
It's too late to void Chancellor Rosenstone's sweetheart deal but it isn't too late to question whether the Trustees serve a useful purpose. Based on this side-by-side comparison and their decision to hire a less qualified candidate, I'd argue that their decisionmaking abilitie are questionable at best.
Further, it's time to admit that Gene Pelowski, Bud Nornes, Michelle Fischbach and Terry Bonoff haven't done the job Minnesotans needed them to do. Their refusal to conduct oversight hearings is an indictment against their chairmanships.
What Minnesota needs is for the Trustees to disappear and for the legislature to play a more hands-on role in MnSCU, especially with regards to hiring chancellors and negotiating the chancellor's contracts. I don't want people who can't be held accountable to make these important decisions. I expect people who can be held accountable at election time to make these decisions.
The best way to produce terrible results is to look the other way and not demand explanations for important decisions. Part of why Chancellor Rosenstone is making questionable decisions is because he wasn't qualified. Another reason why he's making questionable decisions is because he isn't disciplined when he makes decisions like hiring a do-nothing consulting firm for $2,000,000.
I can't say that Minnesota's higher ed system is worthless. I can say, however, that MnSCU has made lots of foolish spending decisions that shouldn't have gotten made.
That's why MnSCU reform should be a high priority for the next legislature.
Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2014 5:03 AM
Comment 1 by Wanderer at 16-Jul-14 09:21 AM
I flinched with a shiver of apprehension over the suggestion that the legislature become directly involved with hiring and negotiating with chancellors. That is not their job, not what they were elected to do. As it is, they frequently demonstrate that they need to tend more diligently to those things that ARE included in their job descriptions and statutory pledges. Further, the legislature, as a body, does not have expertise in higher education. I've experienced situations in other states where higher ed leadership positions were handed over to legislators as political plums even when the required, intensive academic searches were conducted. What a demeaning travesty. Universities are capable of finding individuals whose professional experience is a good match for them. Problems ensue when that process is thwarted, as has been done in the not-too-distant past, by MnSCU delaying local processes until the most-desired candidate has accepted a position elsewhere, leaving a candidate who is less desired by the search committee but perhaps more desired by the Chancellor/system - the level that has done the least research on the prospective candidates. The Board and MnSCU should be strongly advised that they are supposed to be FACILITATORS for the campuses and not manipulators. The Board should include people with a history and understanding of higher education in the mix - they should have some knowledgeable hands-on experience about what they are helping to manage. Oversight at the system level would be good - there are things that need some daylight. BUt, getting legislators actively involved in actual governance (oversight at system level is fine) is a bad idea. It would be inefficient, confusing, and inappropriate. Can you imagine the chaos? Instead, make the Board itself accountable and make MnSCU more truly professional within its mission.
Comment 2 by Crimson Trace at 16-Jul-14 10:30 AM
Minnesota higher education is too insulated from public oversight. What are the pros and cons of the chancellor candidate, assuming they have specific qualifications, be elected for a 4 or 6 year term by Minnesota voters? It would become political however this would force the chancellor to become more transparent with the taxpayers.
Demolishing Pelosi's Hobby Lobby spin
Betsy McCaughey's post is a great starting point to discuss the Left's dishonesty:
'Really, we should be afraid of this court,' said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's June 30 Hobby Lobby ruling.
What the Supreme Court ruled, if it's distilled to its core, is say that female employees at Hobby Lobby have to pay for their own birth control if they want to use 4 types of birth control that are called abortifacients. The decision didn't make any form of birth control illegal, though that' what Nancy Pelosi and Patty Murray are lying through their teeth to make you think that:
Sen. Patty Murray announced, 'After five justices decided last week that an employer's personal views can interfere with a woman's access to essential health services, we in Congress need to act quickly to right this wrong.'
Here's Ms. McCaughey's reply to Sen. Murray's diatribe:
Another whopper. Nothing in Hobby Lobby gives employers control over a woman's birth control choices. The Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby and a related chain of Christian bookstores, objected to paying for four types of birth control that their religious teachings consider abortifacients. Their health plan covers 16 of the 20 types mandated by the Obama administration's insurance regulations. The Court ruled that Hobby Lobby is protected by the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act of 1993 and doesn't have to pay for the other four products. But women can still choose to use them.
I'd argue that, though RFRA was cited in Justice Alito's opinion, Hobby Lobby was protected by the First Amendment. Government doesn't have the right to force people to ignore their religious beliefs.
As a sidenote, I'd question the left's argument that corporation aren't protected by the First Amendment. That's a silly argument. Should a sole propietorship be forced to violate their deeply held religious beliefs? Should limited partnerships be forced to violate their deeply held religious beliefs? Should 10 women who formed an LLC be forced to violate their deeply held religious beliefs?
The question that Ms. Pelosi and Sen. Murray won't answer is if a LLC with 2 shareholders should be exempted but LLCs with 10 shareholders should be forced into abandoning their deeply held religious beliefs. Pelosi's and Murray's opinions are intellectually flimsy, both from a moral standpoint and from a legal standpoint.
That isn't surprising because the hardline left is as intellectually dishonest as they are morally bankrupt.
Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2014 5:54 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 16-Jul-14 01:26 PM
Nancy P a silly question if it suppose to be none of your bosses business what your sex life is like:
Why does the boss have to pay since in effect it isn't the bosses choice that you went and had the s word?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Thank God the border is secure
Thank God that great prognosticator and policy wonk Harry Reid has ended the confusion. Thank God we now have Harry's word that the border is secure. If I hadn't gotten that information from 'Gospel Truth Harry', I'd probably pay more attention to this article :
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - Connecticut officials have rejected a federal request to temporarily house up to 2,000 immigrant children from Central America at a mostly-vacant facility built for developmentally disabled adults.
The Republican-American reports the New England office of the U.S. General Services Administration has inquired about leasing space at the Southbury Training School.
I've got a suggestion for Sen. Reid and the Obama administration. Since the USGSA is checking into renting facilities, why don't they just keep this in house? According to their website, they manage over 9,600 properties nationwide.
Since this is a mess of the federal government's making, specifically of this administration's making, let's house these children right there in the nation's capitol. Let's let these children see the nation's capitol. Let's let them visit Capitol Hill. Let's let them attend a Harry Reid press availability . Let's have the entire First Family visit them on one of their days of service, like they usually do each Thanksgiving.
As usual, Washington, DC is behind the curve :
'Right now it's looking like we'll have a little more than 300 protest rallies large and small across the country. Our goal is to unify Americans of all races, political parties and walks of life against the Obama-inspired illegal immigrant invasion,' Gheen said. 'At last count we had 257 communities signed up, but that was two hours ago. We're expecting more than 300 and updating the event list every two hours.'
Here's a couple questions I wish the DC press had the cajones to ask Sen. Reid on camera:
- Sen. Reid, if the border is secure, why is this protest growing by the minute?
- Sen. Reid, if the border is secure, why is the USGSA looking into renting space in states all across the country to house these immigrants?
The truth is that the border isn't secure. The truth is that Democrats don't want it secured. Think that's a little harsh? Check out this exchange between Charles Krauthammer and Kirsten Powers:
It's time for Democrats to stop lying to the American people. It's time Democrats stopped telling us that the Tex-Mex border is secure while TV reports run articles about how people are protesting the dumping of illegal aliens into their citiess. Democrat should stop lying about the border being secure while a nationwide rally is being planned to protest the Democrats' open border policies.
It's sickening that the Democrats think we're that stupid. It's sickening that Harry Reid has spent the last year or more lying to us about one thing or another. The Democrats' lying must stop immediately.
Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2014 12:13 PM
No comments.
Jalen Rose, Vivica Fox, Deion Sanders: This generation's civil rights leaders
After reading this article on school choice , it's time to highlight the leaders of this generation's civil rights movement:
"Many of the athletes,' said Kevin P. Chavous, executive counsel of the American Federation for Children, 'come from humble backgrounds. They know what happened to many of their classmates who couldn't make it out of failing schools. And they know that athletic skills good enough to play in the NBA and NFL shouldn't be the only way out of poverty for these kids, as is too often the case.'
The former District councilman added, 'That's why they're supporting school choice."
Their new video, 'Educational Choice Now,' features Sanders, Olympic gold medal winner and former WNBA star Lisa Leslie, ESPN analyst Jalen Rose, actor Louis Gossett Jr., Fox Sports journalist Stephen A. Smith, Cosby Show actress Keshia Knight Pulliam, gospel duo 'Mary Mary,' gold medal swimmer Janet Evans, skateboarder Theotis Beasley, soprano Mary Millben, boxer Laila Ali, Jamie Foxx Show star Garcelle Beauvais and former talk show hostess Kathie Lee Gifford.
'Many young people in America today face a harsh reality. Their fate in life is determined by their ZIP code. For an overwhelming number of African Americans and other minorities, having the wrong ZIP code keeps you from a high school diploma, a college degree, and a future that offers you opportunities that match your talents,' Rose wrote in today's Orange County Register.
'An athletic scholarship shouldn't be a child's best opportunity to receive an education. That's not right and it's not fair. Neither luck nor the ability to dribble a basketball should be the only tickets out of an underperforming school. It is well past time that our elected officials enact common sense reform to save a generation of children from a fate they do not deserve,' added Rose, a former player for the Chicago Bulls.
This is something Republicans should tout in their outreach to minority communities. Tommy Thompson was the first governor to implement school choice in his state, with John Engler following close behind. Meanwhile, David Obey is just one of the Democrats who hate school choice :
Last week, the Democrat-controlled House passed a spending bill that spells the end, after the 2009-10 school year, of the federally funded program that enables poor students to attend private schools with scholarships of up to $7,500. A statement signed by Mr. Obey as Appropriations Committee chairman that accompanied the $410 billion spending package directs D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee to 'promptly take steps to minimize potential disruption and ensure smooth transition' for students forced back into the public schools.
It's time for these inner city families to tell Democrats they either start supporting school choice or these minorities will start supporting the people who support school choice.
This isn't a political issue to these families. It's a matter of life and death. I applaud Deion Sanders, Vivica Fox, Jalen Rose and all the others who support the school choice movement. If these celebrities are willing to work with GOP legislators at the state level, I'm positive they'll receive an enthusiastic reception.
It's important, though, for Republicans to highlight the fact that this isn't about politics. They need to tell minority communities that it's a moral issue with them, too. It's about this old cliche: People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care.
Doing the right thing for the right reasons is always the smart thing to do. These celebrities have earned that praise.
Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2014 1:39 PM
No comments.
DFL pushing fake War on Women meme
The Democrats must think that they have to push their fake War on Women meme. This week, it's TakeAction Minnesota' Dan McGrath's turn to push that dishonest meme :
The Hobby Lobby and Harris v. Quinn rulings handed down by the Supreme Court's conservative and male majority lay bare exactly what they value. And it's not caring for each other. Nor is it a woman's right to make her own decisions. Instead, these justices value ever-expanding corporate power at the expense of working people and believe that women, and the professions they lead, are worth less than others. In ruling as they did on two very disparate topics, these five men have launched an assault on women in the workplace. But it's workers and their families who should be concerned.
In the Hobby Lobby ruling, the conservative majority took the absurd notion that corporations are people one step further. In its earlier Citizens' United ruling, these justices granted corporations the right of free speech, and thus the ability to spend limitless amounts of money in elections. Now, these same justices have established corporate religious freedom, and the right to refuse women contraception. As the power of corporations expands, a woman's ability to decide what is in her own best interest is diminished. That this ruling applies to 'closely held' corporations means that as much as 52 percent of the American workforce may be affected.
First, I'd love hearing where the First Amendment only pertains to individuals. I still haven't heard a Democrat point to the part of this text that says the First Amendment's protections only pertain to individuals:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment talks about "the right of people peaceably to assemble." Otherwise, there's no hint on whether they thought the First Amendment should apply only to individuals.
What compelling case can Democrats make that the political speech of corporations is less legitimate than the political speech of individuals? Should LLCs with 3 owners be allowed to express their political beliefs but corporations with 50 stockholders be prohibited from expressing their political beliefs? If Democrats think that, why do they think that?
Hobby Lobby simply said that they'd offer insurance that covered 16 forms of contraceptives, not 20. Am I to think that women are incapable of making the right decision in that situation? Further, should I think that women working at Hobby Lobby can't afford to pay for the other types of contraceptives? After all, they make twice the rate of minimum wage.
What right do women have to have their contraceptives paid for? If I received $10 for each time I've heard the left talk about reproductive rights are a woman's private decision, I'd be wealthy and then some. If it's that private, then women should bear some of that responsibility.
Finally, why should government tell people that they can't practice their faith? The First Amendment certainly promises people that government can't tell them how to practice their faith. That's one of the biggest reasons why people left Europe.
In Harris v. Quinn the same five justices ruled that workers who provide care to children, the elderly and disabled are only partial government workers and, therefore, can opt out of paying union dues, even if they benefit from workplace protections obtained by a union. While public employee unions are already finding ways to adapt, this is a serious blow to their strength. But it's an even bigger blow to care providers, 90 percent of whom in Minnesota are women, many of whom are women of color.
In Harris v. Quinn, the Supreme Court said that small business owners have the right to determine who represents them in petitioning the legislature. In fact, the National Labor Relations Act prohibits business owners from belonging to a union. The high court decided that small business owners aren't public employees, at least in the sense that a PR person for a public agency is a public employee.
This is pure BS:
Homecare is one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy. But the wages these workers earn are paltry. The average wage of non-union caregivers is $9-11 per hour. In Illinois, whose homecare union was the subject of the court case, wages are $13 per hour. By limiting the power of these workers to bargain for better wages and set higher professional standards workers and those they serve lose out. While anyone who depends on a caregiver knows their work is priceless, these five justices are saying that work in the home is less valuable than other male dominated professions.
That's a non sequitur argument. Child care provider establish their rates independent of government. If they want to negotiate a raise for themeselves, they negotiate with the parents who get the check. They don't negotiate with the commissioner of Human Services.
If they think that government should spend more money on this assistance, then they petition for higher assistance rates. When they do that, they're the ones who determine whether they should hire a lobbyist, a trade organization, join a union or just lobby the legislature themselves. That's their decision alone.
The unions are dishonest in saying the Supreme Court is anti-women. That's insulting. They aren't anti-women. They're just pro-Constitution. The dirty little secret is that unions don't care about women. They see unionizing them as their best opportunity to gain more political clout.
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2014 1:06 AM
No comments.
Standing up to tyranny
Andrew Napolitano's op-ed for Fox News is a great history lesson of the Nixon administration's and the Obama administration's attempts to suppress political speech. It's today's must reading. Here's Judge Napolitano's illustration of how the Nixon administration suppressed speech:
Classic examples of "chilling" occurred in the 1970s, when FBI agents and U.S. Army soldiers, in business suits with badges displayed or in full uniform, showed up at anti-war rallies and proceeded to photograph and tape record protesters. When an umbrella group of protesters sued the government, the Supreme Court dismissed the case, ruling that the protesters lacked standing, meaning, because they could not show that they were actually harmed, they could not invoke the federal courts for redress.
Here's what Judge Napolitano highlighted about the Obama administration's attempt to suppress political speech:
So, what has the Obama administration done to stifle, or chill, the words of its detractors? For starters, it has subpoenaed the emails and home telephone records of journalists who have either challenged it or exposed its dark secrets. Among those journalists are James Risen of The New York Times and my colleague and friend James Rosen of Fox News. This is more personal than the NSA spying on everyone, because a subpoena is an announcement that a specific person's words or effects have been targeted by the government, and that person continues to remain in the government's crosshairs until it decides to let go.
This necessitates hiring legal counsel and paying legal fees. Yet, the targeting of Risen and Rosen was not because the feds alleged that they broke the law, there were no such allegations. Rather, the feds wanted to see their sources and their means of acquiring information. What journalist could perform his work with the feds watching? The reason we have a First Amendment is to assure that no journalist would need to endure that.
To his credit, Rosen hasn't stopped asking tough questions while reporting on the touchiest of subjects. Though there's no question that Mr. Rosen and his family have felt pressured by the government, Mr. Rosen has continued doing his job.
I suspect that that's due in large part to his bosses, Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch, have told him that they have his back. Further, I'm certain that his co-workers, people like Bret Baier, Brit Hume, Megyn Kelly, Greta van Susteren, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Fox's correspondents, have showed him that they've got his back, too.
The point is that people can withstand a tyrannical administration's attempts to chill political speech if a) they're suppported by their colleagues and b) they're willing to show that administration that they won't be intimidated.
That's the lesson in this tyranny. There's nothing that'll send a stronger message to a tyrant than saying that you can't be intimidated. Admittedly, that's easier said than done. Still, the rewards can be tremendous and the respect gained from colleagues immense. It's what's needed in stopping a bully like this:
Two weeks ago, a notorious pot stirrer in Norfolk, Neb., built a mock outhouse, put it on a truck and drove the truck with permission in a local Fourth of July parade. In front of the outhouse, he placed a mannequin that he claimed looked like himself, and on the outhouse, he posted a sign that stated: 'Obama Presidential Library.'
Some thought this was crude, and some thought it was funny; yet it is fully protected speech. It is protected because satire and opinion about public figures are absolutely protected, as well as is all criticism of the government. Yet, the Department of Justice has sent a team to investigate this event because a local official called it racist. Such an allegation by a public official and such a federal investigation are chilling. The reason we have a First Amendment is to ensure that the government stays out of investigating speech.
There's no question that President Obama and his chief henchman bristled when they saw this. President Obama has the thinnest skin of any American president in my lifetime. It's one thing to not like it when people poke fun at you. It's quite another to start a federal investigation when someone pokes fun at the president.
President Obama's history has been to eliminate his political opponents whenever possible. When that isn't possible, he's resorted to Gestapo-like tactic. Threats and intimidation are definitely part of his 'weaponry.'
The most indespensible tool in fights like this, again, is to show people you're willing to stand up to their bullying tactics. Another great tool is to get people rallying around you. That' happened in Rosen's case. What hasn't happened, though, is that Democrats haven't shown they've got the integrity required to stand up to a thug in their own party.
The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to permit, encourage and even foment open, wide, robust debate about the policies and personnel of the government. That amendment presumes that individuals, not the government, will decide what language to read and hear. Because of that amendment, the marketplace of ideas, not the government, will determine which criticisms will sink in and sting and which will fall by the wayside and be forgotten.
This is one of those times when the best defense is a great offense. Nothing stops a bully as quickly as giving them a bloody nose or taking out their knee. That'll send the message that you're prepared for battle. That, more than anything else, will give a bully pause.
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2014 12:04 PM
No comments.
