June 21-22, 2019

Jun 21 03:31 Ilhan Omar's dictionary is missing
Jun 21 10:55 Bernie, Warren vs. Newt Gingrich
Jun 21 14:12 Rosenstein's 2nd scope memo
Jun 21 17:52 Weissman's worries multiply

Jun 22 01:27 Let's criminalize doxxing
Jun 22 02:53 Idiots, not cowards, are holding St. Cloud back
Jun 22 12:38 Tucker's blinding stupidity
Jun 22 23:07 Democrats' negativity crisis
Jun 22 23:26 John Palmer vs. the NY Times

Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May

Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Ilhan Omar's dictionary is missing

Apparently, Rep. Ilhan Omar's dictionary is either missing or it's worthless. Based on this article , it's apparent that Rep. Omar's dictionary isn't used much. If I didn't know better, I'd say that it's used as often as her diplomatic capabilities.

According to the article, "Rep. Ilhan Omar, (D-MN), went on a rant against President Trump and his administration for calling illegal immigrants 'aliens' and 'dehumanizing' them. 'No one is an 'alien,' she tweeted. 'Dehumanizing immigrants and tearing apart families will not make us any stronger. It will only destroy lives, traumatize children, and make our country less safe,' Omar also said."

Dictionary.com's definition of alien is "a resident of one country who was born in or owes allegiance to another country and has not acquired citizenship by naturalization in the country of residence (distinguished from citizen)." If Rep. Omar wants to throw an emotional hissy fit over the dictionary's definition of a word, that's her right, though it isn't the action of a thoughtful person.

Accurately portraying people "who haven't acquired citizenship" as people "who haven't acquired citizenship" is simply being faithful to the English language. People who weren't born in the US and who didn't go through the naturalization process haven't acquired citizenship. I get it that Rep. Omar doesn't like that definition. That's tough.

If she wants to strip this terminology out of immigration code, she's free to write a bill that would eliminate that term from US immigration statutes. When her Democrat colleagues in swing districts join with Republicans in the House in defeating the legislation, I'll ridicule Rep. Omar. She deserves it.

Thursday night, Newt Gingrich spoke about how insane today's Democrats have become. I've seen tons of proof that says many of today's Democrats are anti-American. Why would people think that today's United States are racist and hate immigrants? What proof do these people have that verifies their paranoia? Seriously, watching Sen. Spartacus almost burst into tears about how awful today's US is makes me want to regurgitate.
[Video no longer available]
It's difficult to imagine a congresscritter more anti-American than Ilhan Omar. That's because it's difficult to imagine a congresscritter who doesn't defend the Constitution more than she does. When she got sworn in, she swore to uphold the Constitution. What proof do we have that Rep. Omar understands basic constitutional principles like federalism, separation of powers or the Bill of Rights?

Rep. Omar might understand those principles but I don't know what I can't prove. Right now, I can't prove that Rep. Omar understands or agrees with the Bill of Rights. She might but she might not.


Posted Friday, June 21, 2019 3:31 AM

No comments.

Bernie, Warren vs. Newt Gingrich

Crazy Bernie and Elizabeth Warren, aka Pocahontas, won't like what a recent Rasmussen poll showed about socialism. Newt Gingrich wrote about the poll in this article .

In his opinion piece, Gingrich cited the poll as saying "As the Rasmussen poll reported on Wednesday, 41 percent of Americans may have a favorable view of socialism..." That doesn't sound like bad news for Crazy Bernie or Elizabeth Warren but that's because I didn't include the rest of the sentence. The full sentence said "As the Rasmussen poll reported on Wednesday, 41 percent of Americans may have a favorable view of socialism - but 'most who like the term socialism do not think of it as an economic ideology." It gets worse from there:

Voters still think free markets are better than socialism, by 55 percent to 12 percent, according to Rasmussen. They also say free markets are better for raising people into the middle class, creating good jobs and shrinking poverty. Finally, a clear majority of Americans of every political persuasion are optimistic about the future of our country, according to the survey.

That last sentence is a killer for Democrats. I've listened to the Democrats' economic message, if they have one. Most of them are trying to convince people that the booming Trump economy isn't booming. That's if the Democrat presidential candidate even has an economic message.

That's how a party walks into a harsh, stinging defeat. To say that these candidates are tone-deaf is understatement. They think that Sleepy Joe Biden is a moderate. Good luck with that one.

Every Democrat running for president wants to eliminate the corporate tax cuts that have played a huge part in reviving the lackluster Obama-Biden 'recovery'. Blue collar workers are experiencing the fastest wage growth of any cohort while Democrats insist that President Trump didn't deliver on his promises to these workers. Good luck with that. This is the post-kickoff reaction of Trump supporters:
[Video no longer available]
Forgive me on this but I'm betting it's difficult to convince that many smiling people that they're living in Soup Line America. The point is that it's difficult to convince a person who's having a fun time that their life is a struggle. To put it differently, Democrats are trying to tell people that their lives really aren't better than they were 4 years ago. The great news is that the American people get it:
[Video no longer available]

Posted Friday, June 21, 2019 10:55 AM

No comments.

Rosenstein's 2nd scope memo

As is becoming the case more often lately, Rep. Devin Nunes has uncovered another important document that provides a more complete picture of the Mueller special counsel investigation.

According to the article, Rep. Devin Nunes, (R-CA), "told Fox News he'd reviewed still-classified materials related to then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's memos outlining the breadth of special counsel Robert Mueller's Trump-Russia investigation. He said the bulk of the information in the second scope memo came from the dossier compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele, the former MI6 agent who was hired by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS through funding from the Clinton campaign and the DNC during the 2016 presidential campaign."

The further we dig into this fishing expedition, the more we find out that the Steele document essentially triggered the government's surveillance and the government's investigation. That's pretty frightening when you consider the fact that Steele's document is likely Russian disinformation that couldn't be verified if Steele's life depended on it. Check out this interview:
[Video no longer available]
It's important to ask the question about whether any part of this investigation was based on legitimate, verifiable intel. If this doesn't sound like the Deep State working overtime, then I don't know what does. This isn't just a screw-up. This is, quite possibly, the insurance policy that Strzok and Page talked about. It isn't a stretch to think that Strzok and Page thought a special counsel investigation into President Trump that was based on Russian disinformation would cripple President Trump's administration.

Why would the Intelligence Community start an investigation based on a document that they were repeatedly told was fiction? And yes, the FBI, State Department and the CIA were told the Steele document was worthless multiple times.

Posted Friday, June 21, 2019 2:12 PM

No comments.

Weissman's worries multiply

John Solomon's reporting in this article should worry Andrew Weissmann, Robert Mueller's lead prosecutor.

According to Solomon's article, "an FBI agent wrote in a footnote to the affidavit" that "[t]he April 12, 2017, Associated Press article reported that DMI [Manafort's company] records showed at least two payments were made to DMI that correspond to payments in the 'black ledger.'" Then Solomon wrote "There are two glaring problems with that assertion. First, the agent failed to disclose that both FBI officials and Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who later became Mueller's deputy, met with those AP reporters one day before the story was published and assisted their reporting."

Then there's this:

Secondly, the FBI was told the ledger claimed to show cash payments to Manafort when, in fact, agents had been told since 2014 that Manafort received money only by bank wires, mostly routed through the island of Cyprus, memos show.

It gets worse:

Liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz said FBI affidavits almost never cite news articles as evidence. "They are supposed to cite the primary evidence and not secondary evidence," he said. "It sounds to me like a fraud on the court, possibly a willful and deliberate fraud that should have consequences for both the court and the attorneys' bar," he added.

The operational premise likely is that the FBI should have firsthand information because of its investigation. The other premise is that 'news' articles aren't exactly reliable these days. News articles, furthermore, should be considered hearsay. That's the most important reason why judges shouldn't trust news articles. The other important reason not to trust news articles is because, lately, political operatives have weaponized information in a way to sabotage their opponent's campaign.

Why wouldn't Weissmann worry about the inaccuracy of this information? Is it because he's that unethical? Is it because he's that much of a partisan hack? Is it because he isn't as worried about accuracy as he is about convictions whatever the cost? Is it all of the above? I'm betting it's the last one.

John Solomon and Sarah Carter are the Woodward and Bernstein of 2019. They aren't alone, though. It'd be improper to not recognize the work of Devin Nunes and Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch. In this video, Mr. Fitton goes into detail on the multiple dossiers in play:
[Video no longer available]
If Weissmann isn't worried, he's stupid. The Judicial Watch video is fascinating because it highlights the connections between Steele and the State Department and/or Obama administration officials. That sounds pretty shady. I don't know if it's illegal but it's worth looking into.

What I know is that the US attorney that's assigned to "investigate the investigators" isn't a prosecutor to be trifled with. John Durham took over a 30-year-old cold case and turned it into a conviction. If laws were broken, Mr. Durham will get a conviction. With all of the documents admitting what various people were doing, I can't imagine Durham not getting to the bottom of these cases.

Posted Friday, June 21, 2019 5:52 PM

No comments.

Let's criminalize doxxing

This article should frighten, then piss off, thoughtful people of all political persuasions. When I read the article, I was stunned.

The article starts by saying "The Autonomous Student Network in Austin, Texas, a group that was previously suspended from Twitter after posting private information belonging to supporters of then-Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, is now threatening to do the same to incoming University of Texas-Austin freshmen who join conservative student organizations. 'Hey #UT23! Do you wanna be famous? If you join YCT [Young Conservatives of Texas] or Turning Point USA, you just might be. Your name and more could end up on an article like one of these,' the group tweeted earlier in June, linking to a page on its website, on which it previously posted the private information, including emails and phone numbers, of Kavanaugh supporters. 'So be sure to make smart choices at #UTOrientation,' the group added."

Later, it makes this threat:

"the best #LonghornStateOfMind is an antifascist one. If you begin to spot the young racists trying to join YCT or TPUSA, send us a tip so we can keep our reports up to date #UT23. Also, if you're an antifascist/anarchist/autonomy inclined Longhorn, reach out & let's link up!"

Anarchists have a history of violence. Combining these statements leads to a society of threats, fascism and anarchy. Why would anyone tolerate that type of society? Rather than getting run out of town, however, it's time for people of all political persuasions to say Enough! It's time to criminalize these threats. It's time to throw these thugs in jail. If that ruins their lives for the next 20-30 years, that's their problem.

For the first 200 years of its existence, the US has lived according to the Judeo-Christian principles to the best of their human capabilities. Without question, the US has fallen short. That isn't surprising in light of Paul's letter to the church in Rome, which said "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." It isn't that God demands that we live sin-free lives. It's that He demands that we do our best to live sin-free lives.

These anarchists/fascists aren't interested in attempting to live up to those standards. At best, they're disinterested in achieving that goal. It's impossible to say that you're striving to live according to this nation's Judeo-Christian principles when, at best, you're indifferent to Judeo-Christian principles.

These thugs deserve mercy from God. From a society, they deserve time in jail. That's because it's our responsibility to live orderly lives. Anarchists aren't interested in living orderly lives. They're interested in living chaotic lives.

When anarchists threaten young people's lives, it's time for society to make anarchists pay for creating chaos. If that ruins their lives, then that's the path that the anarchists have chosen.

Posted Saturday, June 22, 2019 1:27 AM

Comment 1 by Lady Logician at 23-Jun-19 10:50 AM
A lot of it depends (as is prudent) on intent

https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2018/01/is-doxing-illegal.html

The intent here is purely criminal, so yes, it would be a crime (invasion of privacy, making terroristic threats etc). However as FindLaw blog notes, not all doxings have criminal intent and therefore we don't need a new law making doxing itself a crime.

LL

Idiots, not cowards, are holding St. Cloud back

In the past, I've been pretty disgusted with the (lack of) quality displayed in the St. Cloud Times' Our View editorials. Unfortunately for its readers, this Our View editorial is the worst Our View editorial I've ever read.

As is often the case, the Times' Editorial Board couldn't resist preaching from its moral high horse instead of doing its research. The editorial started by saying "St. Cloud, we have a problem. And it's costing us dearly in respect, dignity and treasure. Our problem is not refugees. It's not even an image problem, although we most certainly have one of those. If you don't think so, Google 'St. Cloud' and click on the first New York Times article at the top.

Our real problem is that there are too many cowards in our midst. Yes, we said it: Cowards. Cowards who blanch at the idea of Somalis "just walking around" on a public trail. Cowards who cost local businesses thousands of dollars by overreacting to a mismarked security vehicle out of fear of Sharia law - which isn't coming for us. It just isn't, and only cowards believe it is."

It continues:

Corporate America is not, by and large, interested in associating itself with hate of any kind. The cowardly among us keep perpetuating a local brand that makes it less likely we will be in the running for the next tech outpost or national call center. Convention schedulers are also keenly aware that attendees will look for details about our city and find our darkest side. Already this newspaper has been reached out to by travelers who planned to come to St. Cloud and changed their plans after the latest "branding effort."

The smartest young people, the ones we need to attract to our companies, will be less likely to move here. Doubt it? Ask your kids if they'd Google a city before considering a job offer there. Our own young people, many raised with classmates and teammates and friends in a rainbow of colors, will think harder than they should have to about where they want to make a life.

Electrolux didn't leave for South Carolina because of hate. It left because of Minnesota's terrible tax and regulation system. It also left Minnesota for a right-to-work state. Why didn't the Times mention that?

As for "the next tech outpost or national call center", those companies don't consider Minnesota because our taxes, transportation systems and regulations make us totally uncompetitive with the rest of the nation and the rest of the world. This isn't mentioned by the DFL because their policies have hurt Minnesota. To admit this failure would be admitting that the DFL is a failure.

Listening to the Times is like listening to Dave Kleis and the Chamber of Commerce. In their world, everything's just fine. In the real world, St. Cloud has been slipping for 10 years. This isn't entirely St. Cloud's fault. DFL state government needs to share in the blame by thinking it can tax the daylights out of everyone without consequence. That's insanity.

This is why the Times isn't trusted. Their opinions are insanity personified.

Posted Saturday, June 22, 2019 9:47 AM

Comment 1 by John Palmer at 22-Jun-19 08:54 AM
Thanks for speaking truth to power. Speaking truth to power is not cowardly it is courageous.

Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Jun-19 11:09 AM
Thanks John. In this instance, though, I spoke truth to stupidity.

Tucker's blinding stupidity

There's no polite way of saying this so I won't try. Tucker Carlson's newfound notoriety has exposed his stupidity. His latest bout with stupidity came Friday night when he accused John Bolton of being a "bureaucratic tapeworm" who is pushing President Trump into war with Iran.

In his opening monologue, Carlson played "a clip of Trump explaining his rationale, that killing upwards of 150 people would not have been a 'proportionate' response to the fact that Iran took down an unmanned drone, Carlson lamented that this 'most basic of all questions' is 'too rarely asked by our leaders contemplating war.'"

Carlson's instinct is to believe that any use of the US military will automatically lead to full-scale war. That type of thinking isn't just stupid. It's dangerous. First, there never was a plan to introduce ground troops into this fiasco. Next, there still is a need to send a message to Iran, NoKo, Russia and China that the Trump administration isn't dovish like the Obama administration.

If Carlson thinks that killing 150 IRGC troops is too hawkish, then he's as dovish as a Democrat. Should the US do nothing while Iran blows up oil tankers and shoots down US drones? We took that approach starting in 1979. When 9/11 happened, someone told Mayor Giuliani that al-Qa'ida had declared war on the US. Mayor Giuliani's reply was that Iran had been at war with us since 1979 but that we weren't at war with them.

President Clinton's 'strategy' of appeasement, history shows, is what led Osama bin Laden to conclude that the US was a paper tiger :

After leaving Afghanistan they headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians. They were surprised when the Americans entered with 300,000 troops, and collected other troops from around the world-5,000 from Pakistan, 5,000 from India, 5,000 from Bangladesh, 5,000 from Egypt, Senegal, and others like Saudi Arabia. The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the America soldiers are paper tigers. After a few blows, the Americans ran away in defeat.

I'm not implying that Carlson is a coward. I'm stating that he's an idiot. If he thinks that we should avoid war at all costs, which is what he's said for the better part of a year, then we can't let people like Tucker influence foreign policy.

Though the strike would have been "disproportionate," the "entire point," Tucker opined, was to lead to a "wider conflict" because "policy makers in Washington crave a war with Iran."

There's no proof that supports Tucker's opinion but, in his mind, it's Gospel fact. Just like when I ridicule other liberals about their wild accusations, I'd ask Carlson what his proof is for his wild accusations.

If I won't let John Brennan, Adam Schiff or Jerry Nadler escape without providing proof for their wild accusations, why should I let Carlson off the hook without proof for his wild accusations?
[Video no longer available]
Does Carlson understand the difference between full-scale war and a one-time military strike? He should. I'm just not certain he knows. It's frightening to hear Carlson accuse the US of escalating the situation in Iran. The only other idiot who'd think that would be Dennis Kucinich. The US asked Japanese PM Abe to travel to Iran to offer the Iranians the opportunity to talk peace with President Trump.

Iran's response was to blow up a Japanese oil freighter while the Japanese PM was in Iran. So much for the theory that the US escalated this tense situation to the brink of war. So much for Carlson's credibility. Carlson is a low-talent provocateur. He isn't the intellectual he pretends to be.

Posted Saturday, June 22, 2019 12:38 PM

No comments.

Democrats' negativity crisis

Democrats risk sounding like they hate America. In the aftermath of Iran's shooting down of an unmanned US drone , Sen. Schumer said "The president may not intend to go to war here, but we're worried that he and the administration may bumble into a war."

There's no indication that President Trump is interested in military action. There's a far greater likelihood that Israel would take military action than there is of the US hitting Iran militarily. Sen. Schumer knows this. It's just that he couldn't resist taking a political cheap shot at President Trump. It didn't bother Sen. Schumer that he took that cheap shot while President Trump was dealing with a national security crisis.

That's why I'm starting to think that there aren't many pro-American Democrats left. With Democrats, it's always about partisanship. It isn't about doing what's right. This should bother people, too:

Later in the day, Pelosi planned to hold a briefing for the House Democratic caucus with Wendy Sherman, who helped negotiate the Iran nuclear agreement that Trump withdrew from, and former CIA Director John Brennan.

Why on God's green earth would you have one of the idiots that negotiated the disastrous Iran nuclear agreement and a political hack brief people on the Iran situation?

John Brennan is stupid. He doesn't belong briefing a fifth grade class about bullies. He certainly doesn't belong in a meeting on Capitol Hill briefing congresscritters about an international crisis. Then there's this:

"We have to be strong and strategic about how we protect our interests. We also cannot be reckless in what we do. I don't think the president wants to go to war. There's no appetite for going to war in our country," she said at her weekly news conference on Capitol Hill. "This is a dangerous neighborhood. A miscalculation on either side could provoke something that could be very bad in terms of security and our interests."

She's right. "This is a dangerous neighborhood." It was already dangerous prior to the Obama administration. Rather than taking steps to make the region more safe, the Obama administration, from a policy standpoint, poured a gallon of white gas on the region by signing the JCPOA, which now has Iran at the brink of nuclear weapons capability. The JCPOA didn't prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. It just put them on a predictable glidepath towards getting a nuclear capability.

Though Democrats won't admit it, thus far, President Trump has handled this crisis perfectly . He's worked hard to de-escalate the situation while Iran has tried escalating the situation. If Democrats don't start showing a bipartisan streak, they'll get tagged with this well-deserved cliche:

The only thing that Democrats have to offer is fear itself. Final point: If you're a voter, would you really rather have Crazy Bernie, Sleepy Joe Biden or Pocahontas negotiating with the Iranians, the Chinese or Kim Jung-Un? Or would you rather have President Trump negotiating against those dictators or nations?
[Video no longer available]

Posted Saturday, June 22, 2019 11:07 PM

No comments.

John Palmer vs. the NY Times

This NY Times article has a loose affiliation with the truth. Saying that it's slanted is understatement. Like much of its political 'reporting', the article has an obvious agenda. That agenda is intended to vilify President Trump and his supporters. (Shocking, I know, but it's pretty obvious.)

Having known Dr. Palmer for almost 15 years, I won't hide my contempt for the NY Times hit piece. Yes, it's safe to say that that last sentence meant that the gloves just came off. The NY Times' article pretends to be an authority on John Palmer. That's laughable. Becoming an authority on Dr. Palmer takes more than the afternoon that the NY Times spent on the interview.

It's pretty obvious that the NY Times' article was intended to be a hit piece. Why else would they send a reporter and a photographer to St. Cloud, MN? This wasn't meant to provide their readers with information. This was meant to slant opinions against Trump supporters. That's apparent because of what the Times reporter quoted and what he didn't quote.

For instance, the 'reporter' wrote "Mr. Palmer said at a recent meeting he viewed them as innately less intelligent than the 'typical' American citizen, as well as a threat." The NY Times' reporter interprets Dr. Palmer as saying that Somalis as being "less intelligent" than white Americans.

The fact that the NY Times didn't quote Dr. Palmer directly is proof that they cut corners. They have the transcript or something close to it. How else would they be able to quote Dr. Palmer saying someone is "less intelligent"?

"The very word 'Islamophobia' is a false narrative," Mr. Palmer, 70, said. "A phobia is an irrational fear." Raising his voice, he added, "An irrational fear! There are many reasons we are not being irrational."

In this predominantly white region of central Minnesota, the influx of Somalis, most of whom are Muslim, has spurred the sort of demographic and cultural shifts that President Trump and right-wing conservatives have stoked fears about for years. The resettlement has divided many politically active residents of St. Cloud, with some saying they welcome the migrants.

Newt Gingrich famously said that the United States isn't a multi-cultural nation, that it's multi-ethnic. He's right. As a St. Cloud citizen, I haven't seen much proof that suggests that the Somali refugees are interested in adopting the principles of the US Constitution. I've seen plenty of proof that says Somali refugees receive preferential treatment from St. Cloud law enforcement and other parts of the government.

Dave Kleis, the mayor of St. Cloud and a longtime Republican who now identifies as an independent, has voiced support for the resettlement program, but he has also drawn criticism for not forcefully denouncing groups like C-Cubed, which he refused to discuss in an interview.

It isn't surprising that Kleis identifies as an independent. The reality is that he's closer to a Libertarian than anything else. Kleis hasn't shown leadership on the resettlement issue because he isn't a leader. He's argued, incorrectly, that refugee resettlement is a federal issue.

That's partially true. It's indisputable that the federal government sets naturalization policy. What's equally indisputable is the fact that the Refugee Act of 1980 gives city government a role in the process, too:

The Director and the Federal agency administering subsection (b)(1) shall consult regularly (not less often than quarterly) with State and local governments and private nonprofit voluntary agencies concerning the sponsorship process and the intended distribution of refugees among the States and localities before their placement in those States and localities.

(B) The Director shall develop and implement, in consultation with representatives of voluntary agencies and State and local governments , policies and strategies for the placement and resettlement of refugees within the United States.

Kleis insists that this part of US Statutes doesn't exist. Isn't it interesting that the people who insist on the government enforce existing laws are getting called Islamophobic while those that ignore the law are considered enlightened? One of those enlightened souls is St. Cloud State President Robbyn Wacker:


Listen to the loaded language in the NY Times' article:

Two years ago in St. Cloud, Jeff Johnson, a city councilman, introduced a resolution that would temporarily halt refugee resettlement until a study of its economic impact was completed. The idea arose, Mr. Johnson said, after he spoke by phone with officials from the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, an anti-immigration firm that has gained influence in the Trump era. The resolution was defeated, but its introduction caused significant uproar in St. Cloud, and pushed some residents to form or join opposing community groups.

What a crock of BS. CIS isn't anti-immigration. It's anti-illegal immigration. Notice how the NY Times conflates the 2 things as though they were the same thing? These aren't idiots. They're intentionally trying to put people like Dr. Palmer and Trump supporters on the defensive. Good luck with that.

The NY Times will undoubtedly use this hit piece to influence voters in their blatant attempt to defeat President Trump. The truth is that there's a rational basis for distrusting the refugee resettlement program. Part of that rational basis is financial. Another part of that rational basis is religious. Unfortunately, from what I've seen in St. Cloud, the biggest rational basis for opposing this program is because it's establishing a 2-tiered system of laws.

I'm not talking about imposing Sharia. I'm talking about health inspections of Somali restaurants getting bypassed. I'm talking about citizens near Lake George calling in neighborhood violence, only to have the police show up 45 minutes later. (For those not familiar with St. Cloud, the SCPD station house is less than 2 miles away from Lake George. There's no way it should take law enforcement 45 minutes to show up.)

I'll finish by asking this simple question: does this sound like equal application of the law?

Posted Saturday, June 22, 2019 11:26 PM

Comment 1 by Chad Q at 23-Jun-19 06:36 AM
When you have people who no longer want to come to America to become Americans and would rather just take in all the benefits of living in America and then have "leaders" who are more than happy to make every excuse for them and call everyone else a racist for not being happy with the situation, bad things are going to happen. The "Seattle is Dying" documentary could be done here and instead of the cause being drugs, it would be unfettered immigration.

Comment 2 by Leo Pusateri at 23-Jun-19 10:01 AM
Projection: It isn't just for movie theaters anymore.

Calling people with concerns and different points of view that conflict with liberal orthodoxy 'cowards.' Browbeating, labeling, shaming, threatening livelihoods.

It's easy to be a progressive/liberal nowadays. You just have to nod your head and agree to the orthodoxy, and no one gets hurt. Dare utter a different viewpoint, use a 'trigger' word, call someone by their 'wrong' gender, and you have the whole world coming down on you. Businesses get shuttered. Cripes-- you can't even wear a MAGA hat without getting assaulted.

Again-- in current society it takes NO courage to be a liberal/progressive. It DOES take courage to espouse a different view or different way of looking at things in ways that weigh more heavily in logic than in raw emotion. And just because someone's views or solutions to problems don't conform to liberal/progressive orthodoxy doesn't make them a racist, bigot, etc. False dichotomies do not make for intelligent nor productive public discourse.

It takes courage to declare the emperor has no clothes. It takes no courage to go along and stay silent.

The day is nigh when viewpoints contrary to liberal orthodoxy are quashed altogether. It's already happening on social media and on college campuses.

The day when diversity of viewpoints are quashed altogether is the day that we will live in a fascist state. And that day is much closer than you think.

Comment 3 by John Palmer at 23-Jun-19 12:56 PM
Thanks Leo and Gary for your thoughtful and insightful muses.

Popular posts from this blog

January 19-20, 2012

Image
Jan 19 02:57 Minnesota Majority report an indictment against Minnesota's election integrity Jan 19 03:41 Ron Paul's Logic Jan 19 08:08 Newt thrives despite Mitt's hatchet job efforts Jan 19 09:19 Potential Game-Changer: Perry dropping out this am Jan 20 05:12 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Jan 20 00:56 ABC, CNN, crawl into bed with National Enquirer Jan 20 04:00 Child Care small businesses file federal lawsuit Jan 20 04:41 Mitt's biggest policy blunder Jan 20 18:58 Gingrich, Reagan re-united Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Rick Santorum was really feeling it Thursday night. Then he said something that's certain to cause him pain this morning. Here's what he said that got him in trouble: SANTORUM: But you also have to admit that this freshman congressman who wasn't supposed to win a race came and did something you never did, which is blew the li...
Read more

March 21-24, 2016

Image
Mar 21 01:28 SCSU's budget cuts? Mar 21 02:29 When will the Range change? Mar 21 08:54 DFL's Marty in charge of environment Mar 21 11:45 OLA report, DFL & Meyer Associates Mar 23 12:48 Liberals' definition of moderate Mar 23 14:37 DFL activists: Government is racist Mar 24 08:59 IRRRB: Revamping vs. scrapping Prior Months: Jan Feb Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 SCSU's budget cuts? Cuts in Athletics at SCSU - Will it Really Save Money? by Silence Dogood With a $6,000,000 "structural deficit" and the need to "rebuild reserves by at least $3 million," SCSU has a $9,000,000 hole in its' FY17 budget. It doesn't take a Noble Prize in economics to figure out that reductions in expenditures (i.e., cuts) are going to be made at SCSU. On the Wednesday before Spring Break, SCSU President Dr. Earl H. Potter sent an email to the campus community announcing cuts to the athlet...
Read more

October 31, 2007

Oct 31 01:01 Media Matter's Alter Ego? Oct 31 03:32 Iraqi Civilian Casualties Dropping Oct 31 10:52 Hillary's Panderfest Blows Up in Her Face Oct 31 13:15 Brod, Emmer Call For Investigation of Mark Ritchie Oct 31 19:43 Ritchie's 'Episode' a Tempest in a Teapot? Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Prior Years: 2006 Media Matter's Alter Ego? One Media Matters-like organization is already too many. It appears as though there's another liberal apologist blog out there. Their name is News Hounds . The post that caught my attention dealt with last weekend's interview of Justin and Darryl Sharraltt on Hannity's America. To say that their post didn't attempt to refute Justin's story is understatement. In fact, they jump right into criticizing Mr. Hannity: Last night's (October 27th) Hannity's America was a strange magazine format which combined stories about mediums and haunted houses...
Read more