July 8-10, 2016
Jul 08 03:05 Angie Craig's predictable play Jul 08 09:17 Dallas snipers weren't amateurs Jul 08 14:59 'ISIS candidate' still running Jul 09 03:21 Hillary didn't make a mistake Jul 09 12:09 #BlackLivesMatter motivation Jul 09 23:57 BLM protest turns into fight night Jul 10 12:20 Revenge, not justice Jul 10 23:18 Officer's story getting out
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Angie Craig's predictable play
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that Angie Craig is attempting to tie Jason Lewis to Donald Trump . It's what a hardline lefty like Craig has to do. When I wrote this post , I highlighted Ms. Craig's issues page .
Ms. Craig's issue page identifies her quickly as part Pelosi lefty, part Bernie Sanders lefty. For instance, Craig thinks that the federal government isn't spending enough on higher education, saying "This includes both encouraging public colleges to find ways to lower costs and increase federal funding for the neediest students, providing incentives for states to invest in higher education and keeping tuition down. We can't continue to saddle our kids with the tens of thousands of dollars of debt as they enter the workforce."
Spoken like a true utopian. Craig isn't done with the leftist ideology. Another bit of low-hanging fruit from the Craig 'issues tree' comes from her saying "We have to ensure that there are meaningful, good paying jobs for our graduates and more job opportunities for working families. Congress has lost sight of the fundamentals of growing the economy."
That's too easy. President Obama has been in office for almost 8 years but it's Congress's fault that the economy hasn't helped people working for small businesses? It wasn't a GOP Congress that passed the ACA, aka Obamacare. It wasn't a GOP Congress that waged war against mining jobs with EPA regulations. Hillary Clinton promised to devastate blue collar states:
It was Hillary who said that she'd put lots of coal miners out of work. Ms. Craig seems to turn a blind eye towards that. I'd love to hear Ms. Craig explain how it's possible to build a "a sustainable economy and create meaningful, good-paying jobs" while intentionally killing other jobs. Perhaps Ms. Craig would like to explain government's history of picking winners lately. In Ms. Craig's mind, is Solyndra a success?
Earlier, I highlighted the fact that Ms. Craig blamed the Republican Congress of losing "sight of the fundamentals of growing the economy." Personally, I think Ms. Craig should be reminded of this :
Solyndra, the solar panel manufacturer who took more than $500 million from President Obama's stimulus then went bust, sticking taxpayers for the loss, lied to federal officials to secure the loan, the Energy Department's inspector general said in a report released Wednesday.
But the Obama administration goofed too, and may have cut corners in fully vetting the project because of "political pressure" from top Democrats and Solyndra itself, the investigators said in their report, which took four years to complete.
Is Ms. Craig certain that we should trust the federal government in picking investment opportunities? If she is, then I'm pretty certain that she's wrong for the Second District. Frankly, her ideas don't make any sense. 'Craigonomics' sounds like the same hair-brained foolishness that's had the economy spinning its wheels the last 8 years.
If Reaganomics is the picture of a thriving economy, which it was, then Craigonomics is the polar opposite of a thriving economy.
Finally, there's nothing in Ms. Craig's issues page that talks about civil rights or fighting terrorists. Doesn't Ms. Craig think that those things are important priorities? If she thinks those things are important, why isn't she talking about what her solution is to demolishing ISIS?
Posted Friday, July 8, 2016 3:05 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 08-Jul-16 07:09 AM
Having never listened to Jason Lewis, but knowing his involvement with galt.io and the galt coins bit, he seems like a turkey. Ditto, his past frequent Michele Bachmann interviews. How is his narcissism different from Trump's? Aren't they both, basically, blowhards? Mouth first, real ideas much later. If ever. Yet, Craig or Lewis, either would be an upgrade after Col. Kline and his love of for-profit student debt mills. That was highly offensive and the man obviously had to know better; but he was with that bunch.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Jul-16 09:39 AM
That's a pretty stunning set of assumptions. First, Lewis isn't a narcissist. Having a big personality is different from being a narcissist. Second, Jason Lewis is a thinker. That sometimes gets hidden by the things he did to hold his audience but he's smart.
Finally, Craig would be a major step down from John Kline. She's all soundbites & no coherence.
Dallas snipers weren't amateurs
According to initial reports , the snipers who killed 5 police officers and wounded another 6 officers at a Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas were well-trained. That's the opinion of Malcolm Nance, a combat veteran and retired US Navy Intelligence official. In the aftermath of the shootings, which I'd characterize as assassinations, Nance tweeted "#Dallas 1. TACTICALLY PROFESSIONAL: Shooter uses military Combat Glide, fire-on the move & tactical flow techniques."
Nance's tweet was in response to Haidar Sumeri's tweet which said "Moment a cop was killed by one of the #Dallas gunmen during a shoot-out. These guys aren't amateurs."
If you're looking for a voice of sanity while police sort through the evidence, Salena Zito's article is a terrific place to start. Ms. Zito opened her article by saying "Politics must take a back seat this morning as we face the horror of five dead police officers, 11 total shot, 6 injured, after a Black Lives Matters peaceful protest in Dallas Texas went horribly wrong." Then she said what many of us are thinking:
In fact, reaction was brutally swift and callous by hardliners on both sides of the aisle on social media, in the race to blame their political opponents policies, values and personalities for the senseless deaths of officers in charge of keeping a peaceful protest just that: peaceful.
We need to stop doing this to each other.
Their deaths were not the fault of the NRA, or Barack Obama, or the protestors in downtown Dallas. And, for added measure, because we always go there: all white people aren't racist, all minorities aren't suspect, all cops aren't bad and everything that happens isn't always politically motivated.
This time, let's not have Chuck Schumer find a microphone and declare that the solution to this is gun control. This time, let's let law enforcement sift through the forensic information. Let's watch the reports:
Let's gather information from articles like this :
A suspect who died after a standoff with Dallas police said he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers, and that he was upset about "the recent police shootings," and that he acted alone, Dallas Police Chief David Brown told reporters Friday.
The suspect eventually was killed by a bomb that authorities detonated, Brown said. "We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was," Brown said. "Other options would have exposed our officers to grave danger. The suspect is deceased as a result of detonating the bomb."
Once we have a base of knowledge, we can start connecting the dots. We shouldn't try that until the information has been verified and we've had time to put the forensic evidence together.
Posted Friday, July 8, 2016 9:17 AM
No comments.
'ISIS candidate' still running
Dan Kimmel made just one mistake as a candidate . As a result, he's essentially a dead man walking. Kimmel is running the Minnesota House of Representatives in District 56A, which is Burnsville. He's running against Rep. Drew Christensen. Here's Kimmel's mistake:
That's breathtakingly foolish. What person says "ISIS isn't necessarily evil. People doing what they think best for their community. Violence isn't the answer, though."? I'm betting the only politicians that say things that foolish are politicians that should start writing their concession speeches in July.
Kimmel is so radioactive that Paul Thissen won't support him:
Alpha News reached out to House Minority Leader Paul Thissen for comment on Kimmel's renewed campaign bid. When asked if he supported the candidate, a representative for Thissen responded "he does not."
Mr. Kimmel isn't done fighting, though:
After several attempts to reach Kimmel, Alpha News received the following response via email: "I haven't responded because I haven't come up with the simple answer I think you want." Alpha News reached out to Kimmel a third time and did not receive another response.
TRANSLATION: I know I screwed up. There's nothing I can say.
Get out the butter. Mr. Kimmel is toast.
Posted Friday, July 8, 2016 2:59 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 09-Jul-16 06:32 AM
Get serious Gary. That would be as if I said Paul Ryan is not necessary evil, but misguided. However, I think otherwise. He's evil.
Hillary didn't make a mistake
Approximately 5 minutes into this video, Hillary 'admits' that she made a mistake, saying "But, look, I have said that I made a mistake using my personal email. I regret that and I -- uh -- am grateful that this matter has been fully investigated and has been closed and it's time to move on."
Scott Pelley's next question let Hillary off the hook. Pelley asked Mrs. Clinton "Well were you extremely careless"? Predictably, Hillary hit that question out of the proverbial park, saying "No, I was not and neither were the 300 people who sent me that material, Scott. You know, the vast majority of the material was sent to me. It was forwarded to me from professionals, from people who I have said, who had a lot of experience dealing with classified material. I do not think they were careless and I have a very high regard for the professionals in the State Department so I believe that they knew that they were doing so I had no reason to question or second guess their opinions."
The question wasn't whether "the professionals at the State Department" could be trusted. The question was whether Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Clinton's political team were trustworthy. Based on what the FBI has told us about Mrs. Clinton's mishandling of some of the most secret information imaginable, that isn't much of a debatable matter. Why Pelley asked such a softball question makes me question his interviewing capabilities.
Further, Mrs. Clinton said that she'd made a mistake using her personal email. That isn't the truth, either. The definition of mistake is "an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness , insufficient knowledge, etc." That isn't what happened. Mrs. Clinton did the wrong thing but it wasn't a mistake. She didn't exclusively use her private email account and her private email server because of "poor reasoning" or "carelessness." She did it intentionally to hide her emails. That's why Trey Gowdy's questioning of FBI Director Comey was so important:
Here's the key exchange:
GOWDY: I'm not going to ask you about any other false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements -- they are used for what?
COMEY: Well, either for a substantive prosecution, or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
GOWDY: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt right?
COMEY: Right.
GOWDY: Consciousness of guilt and intent. In your old job, you would prove intent, as you just referenced, by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to the concealment that you and I just talked about but also the failure to preserve. You would do all of that under the heading of intent. You would also being arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme -- when it started, when it ended and the number of emails, whether they were originally classified or up-classified -- you would argue all of that under the heading of intent.
There is a word that's appropriate for what Mrs. Clinton did but it isn't mistake. The appropriate word is deception. The definition of deception is "something that deceives or is intended to deceive."
Rep. Gowdy had already established that there were sufficient examples of Mrs. Clinton's dishonesty. In fact, he established that fact by citing a litany of examples of Mrs. Clinton being dishonest. That's ample circumstantial proof that Mrs. Clinton was intentionally attempting to deceive people. Mrs. Clinton lied when she said her attorneys had read every email. Mrs. Clinton lied when she said that she'd turned over all work-related emails. FBI Director Comey said the FBI found "thousands" of work-related emails that Mrs. Clinton didn't turn over.
How can a person tell the FBI that much inaccurate information and not be lying? What are the odds that Mrs. Clinton told people that many things that weren't accurate without lying intentionally? I'd say that the odds of that were astronomical.
Posted Saturday, July 9, 2016 3:21 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 09-Jul-16 06:29 AM
The world is full of people who have a business email, and a separate personal one. It is the norm. Overwhelmingly so. Unless retired. Wanting erasure physical control of what essentially is government property is questionable if not pathological.
Throughout it all, no excuse offered. Just BS. It is part of being the Clintons.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Jul-16 12:22 PM
Eric, I'm positive you've nailed it when you said "It's part of being the Clintons." If the laws don't apply to everyone, then we've lost our way. The term is "equal justice under law", not 'fairly equal justice under law' or 'equal justice except for elites'.
Comment 2 by eric z at 09-Jul-16 08:44 AM
After watching the full first hour of the Comey testimony, there is a problem. There is discussion of classified information - which is not publicly disclosed - so how can we judge the seriousness or context of whether there was a serious classified info problem.
That is apart from the use of the separate private server, which should never have been done. Comey testified that it was the lawyers who did keyword search and then scrubbed their email content storage; not Clinton. Using lawyers and accountants as a buffer is an old game, but it was that way and not Clinton deciding what to turn over, what not. Not her personally.
So, my beef, crime or not, that server arrangement invites the sternest level of distrust.
My beef, the main concern, is following money. There was no money consequence, classified info mishandled or not. The secret highly paid speeches; the entire Clinton Foundation slush; the fact that the family including the daughter became obscenely rich from politics is to me the stench; and the classified info bit is just farting around.
The server and the "private" content to me is where the wealth in politics happened and if a candidate is bought and owned, it suggests honest commander in chief conduct might be crimped and/or greatly slanted.
Clinton's made no noise about disliking the corrupting influence of money in politics; nor has she sternly denounced Citizens United as bad law to be undone; if denouncing it at all, not enough.
It is the money, the wealth from politics, that triggers my distrust. And then speeches were transcribed. It was on the record. Presumably those speeches were apart from any communication of classified info to bigwigs without clearance; so disclose them or have us think the worse.
That's where my focus and distaste rests. I don't care as much about some stamping of a classification in the past, as forming an opinion of what to expect of either Trump or Clinton as President; and that aspect to me seeing those two as the only remaining viable choices is damning of the entire political process and of the inner orientations of the two party system.
Dishing out that final crap, both sides, is a national disgrace - an America that surely is not great; and do you trust the one saying he'd make it great again any more than you trust the one reaching the 1% wealth status; the Mitt Romney regions, from politics alone?
That is the problem, and neither party is at all innocent. Both are offering a sour, awful joke, instead of a leader to respect. End of story.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Jul-16 12:31 PM
Eric, I totally agree with you when you said that using "lawyers and accountants as a buffer is an old game." The name of that game is 'Plausible Deniability' and it's insulting. Does anyone think that those lawyers and accountants woke up one morning and decided to act suspiciously? I don't either.
I might have to disagree with you when you said "I don't care as much about some stamping of a classification in the past" because some of those emails contained the identities of spies out in the field. The potential for our enemies could find out who our spies are because Hillary wanted to hide emails from FOIA requests & from Congress is infuriating. She was entrusted with a highly important job. She didn't take a major part of that job seriously. When that irresponsibility leads to patriots dying, I get more than a little upset.
Comment 3 by eric z at 10-Jul-16 07:34 AM
Two conventions one after the other. Each longer than needed, but worth watching (if at a distance) for unexpected developments. Yet Trump/Clinton with VP choices will result, absent some real news. The platforms are futile exercises meaning nothing, and then we have to endure the ramping up of mud throwing advertisements and wondering about October surprises. We've seen that movie before.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 10-Jul-16 12:30 PM
Eric, I'm thankful that you aren't jaded or cynical.
Comment 5 by eric z at 12-Jul-16 07:26 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/08/jeb-bushs-brother-neil-joins-ted-cruzs-finance-team/
Fortunate on your side too.
#BlackLivesMatter motivation
When a young black man was shot and killed in Falcon Heights, MN this past week, Black Lives Matter activist Nekima Levy-Pounds was among the first people to show up to protest. The question Minnesotans should ask is whether they should question Black Lives Matter Minneapolis is a legitimate organization raising legitimate questions or whether they're a bunch of professional agitators with ulterior motives.
It's legitimate to ask that question because Black Lives Matter has engaged in some pretty radical behavior. First, their about us page tells the story of a pretty radical group. It says "#BlackLivesMatter was created in 2012 after Trayvon Martin's murderer, George Zimmerman, was acquitted for his crime, and dead 17-year old Trayvon was posthumously placed on trial for his own murder. Rooted in the experiences of Black people in this country who actively resist our dehumanization, #BlackLivesMatter is a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society. Black Lives Matter is a unique contribution that goes beyond extrajudicial killings of Black people by police and vigilantes."
In other words, #BlackLivesMatter starts with the belief that a man acquitted by a jury is guilty of murdering a black youth. Forget the facts seems to be their starting point. That's confirmed by their insistence that something that didn't happen should become their rallying cry :
The Department of Justice found that Brown physically attacked Wilson and attempted to grab his gun. Wilson then allegedly shot Brown in self-defense. This information countered the testimony of Dorian Johnson, Brown's friend and witness to the shooting, who said Brown's hands were raised when he was shot, something Johnson still maintains as truth. "Hands up, don't shoot" would eventually become a protest cry.
Forensic evidence discredited Johnson's testimony. Dorian Johnson's own words discredit his testimony:
On August 12, three days after Mike Brown was shot, Dorian Johnson (and his attorney) appeared on CNN's Anderson Cooper program. Johnson claimed that he and his friend, Big Mike, were walking down the middle of the street when they were blocked by Officer Wilson, who then just reached out and grabbed Brown by the throat:
[The officer] reached out the window with his left arm. He grabbed on to my friend, Big Mike's throat. And he's trying to pull him in[to] the vehicle. And my friend, Big Mike, very angrily is trying to pull away from the officer. And the officer now is struggling with trying to hold a grip on my friend Big Mike as he's trying to pull away.
Forensic evidence showed "hands up, don't shoot" never happened.
Things like facts don't seem to matter to #BlackLivesMatter. Threatening violence seems to be part of their repertoire:
Last night, Nekima Levy-Pounds was on Almanac calling for harmony. She might've gotten a better reception if #BlackLivesMatter hadn't chanted something that seemed to threaten police officers. 'Pigs in a blanket. Fry em like bacon' isn't the chant to use to promote healing.
Posted Saturday, July 9, 2016 12:09 PM
No comments.
BLM protest turns into fight night
It's become clear that #BlackLivesMatter isn't interested in healing racial divides. They're proving that they're interested in injuring police officers . At least one officer is injured. Police are reporting that "protesters started arming themselves with rebar from the construction site" and that police then used smoke and glass balls to clear the crowd. Protestors also threw glass bottles and liquids at the officers. One officer is injured from being hit with a glass bottle."
The Star Tribune is reporting that as "many as 200 protesters were blocking both the eastbound and westbound lanes of the major traffic artery connecting Minneapolis and St. Paul near the Lexington exits. Many sat on the freeway while others stood, the air filled with yelling and chanting. Some onlookers were climbing over the freeway fence to join the blockade, with the crowd swelling to an estimated 300 people filling the lanes in both directions."
KSTP-TV is reporting that "St. Paul Police say 3 officers have been injured so far in I-94 protests #PhilandoCastile." Meanwhile, #BlackLivesMatter- Minneapolis posted this picture:
Meanwhile, some of the best 'reporting' is coming from Twitter. For instance, this just got reported :
People now chanting "let the kids out". Police agreeing to.
Then there's this :
Aggressors still throwing fireworks and rocks at officers' heads.
That came at 11:08 pm. The bad news is that things are spiraling out of control elsewhere, too:
reports of Shots Fired At Houston Police Officers
It's going to be a long night in St. Paul :
Rebar is again being thrown at officers from a bridge above the freeway.
Yes, that's a different report than the one earlier. From this point forward, I'll try to differentiate between protesters and criminals. The people throwing rebar at officers aren't protesters. They'll be criminals if they can be located and arrested. This would definitely be considered criminal activity if it's confirmed:
Dallas PD confirms it received an anonymous threat against law enforcement across the city; has taken precautionary measures.
The violence is somewhat limited but that's a relative term. I'm going to publish this post now because, frankly, Twitter is giving the timeliest updates. Check back to LFR tomorrow for a round-up of tonight's violence.
Posted Saturday, July 9, 2016 11:57 PM
No comments.
Revenge, not justice
We're told constantly that #BlackLivesMatter wants justice for the young black men who've been shot by police officers. If only that were true. Unfortunately, it isn't true. When Diamond Reynolds said "Today is not only about justice and getting justice, but it's about all of the families that have lost people", what she hinted at was that she wanted revenge as if killing police officers would even the score.
It won't. And even if it 'evened the score', it wouldn't bring healing at a time when healing is badly needed. Evening the score is counterproductive. Unfortunately, it's exceptionally tempting, too.
Then Ms. Reynolds said "This thing that has happened in Dallas was not because of something that transpired in Minnesota. This is bigger than Philando. This is bigger than Trayvon Martin. This is bigger than Sandra Bland. This is bigger than all of us."
That sounds like she's keeping score. I'm not trying to paint Ms. Reynolds as a hater. I'm trying to highlight the difference between justice and revenge. What's needed is for both sides to take a deep breath. If it's appropriate, it's time to forgive. Most importantly, it's time to stop seeing people as part of a group.
Whether we're talking about minority communities or police officers, we're dealing with communities that feel under siege. It's like we're living our lives on a powder keg. That's no way to live. The only thing that's likely to happen is for someone to light a match.
This past week, we've seen protests led by pastors. Far too often, these pastors spoke words of bitterness, which is a very human reaction. What's needed is for those pastors to set aside the instinct to be angry. It's time for them to lead their congregation away from that anger.
Posted Sunday, July 10, 2016 12:20 PM
No comments.
Officer's story getting out
Thanks to his attorney's statements , Officer Jeronimo Yanez's side of the story is getting out. Tom Kelly, Officer Yanez's attorney, is getting word out that there's much more to the story than what's been told thus far, saying "The shooting had nothing to do with race and everything to do with the presence of that gun", adding that Mr. Castile "was not following the directions of the police officer."
This investigation is just getting started, meaning that they're just starting to connect the dots. Still, it's clear that a significant portion of the early reporting didn't tell the whole truth. I suspect that we still aren't getting everything but the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit together a bit better.
One thing, though, that's clear is that Gov. Dayton's initial statements on the Philando Castile were ill-advised. That's when he said "Would this have happened if those passengers would have been white? I don't think it would have. I'm forced to confront - and I think all of us in Minnesota are forced to confront - this kind of racism exists, and that it's incumbent upon all of us to vow that we're going to do whatever we can to see that it doesn't continue to happen."
It was always known that Diamond Reynolds' account wasn't the final word. It was dramatic. It showed part of the story. It was never going to be the final word on what happened. It's been known that Gov. Dayton's statements would quickly proven as ill-advised.
Gov. Dayton should've waited. Had he done so, he might've learned this :
An audio clip purporting to capture the moments just before Castile was stopped by Yanez seems to indicate that the officer believed he and Reynolds 'looked' like suspects in a robbery.
"I'm going to stop a car, I'm going to check ID's," the officer can be heard saying in the recording, obtained by KARE 11. "I have reason to pull it over. The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery."
The officer then tells dispatch he believes the driver looks like one of the suspects because of his 'wide set nose'. Less than two minutes later an officer screams that shots have been fired and that it's a 'code 3'. The license plate mentioned by police in the recording matches the plate of the car Castile was driving, and the location the officers give to dispatch matches where the traffic stop took place.
It is not yet clear what alleged robbery the officer in the recording was referring to.
In light of the fact that there is audio indicating that the stop was happening because the officer thought the car was used in a robbery, it isn't difficult to think that Officer Yanez was worried for his safety. Couple that with the claim that Officer Yanez told Castile not to move. If it's proven that Officer Yanez issued that command and that Castile didn't obey Officer Yanez's order, that's a potentially explosive situation.
It's time to consider the possibility that this tragedy wasn't about racism but that it might've been about a potentially dangerous situation and a motorist who didn't obey a police officer's commands.
Posted Sunday, July 10, 2016 11:18 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 11-Jul-16 11:27 AM
Mark Dayton should be charged with inciting a riot.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Jul-16 03:33 PM
Bob, there's no doubt that his idiotic & ill-advised statement should've never been spoken but let's also not blame him for the rioters' actions. It isn't exactly like blaming a gun for the Dallas assassination rampage last week. Guns didn't cause that rampage. An evil person was responsible. The things that happened here Saturday night were caused by violent people trying to foment widespread distrust & apprehension.
That being said, Dayton's comments were foolish & that's being charitable.
Comment 2 by JerryE9 at 11-Jul-16 05:36 PM
Unconfirmed reports that the "victim" had been previously stopped 52 times? That's suspicious.
Comment 3 by eric z at 12-Jul-16 07:21 AM
Prejudgment.
