June 8-10, 2020
Jun 08 00:48 Racism thought experiment Jun 08 11:21 One nation under God, another nation under siege Jun 09 09:17 The Democrat Parties' dilemma Jun 10 05:05 An investment Democrats won't make Jun 10 16:20 Inside defunding the police Jun 10 19:28 Christopher Columbus statue demolished; who let it happen?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Racism thought experiment
For the past 2 weeks, Democrats have passionately insisted that the U.S. has a problem with "systemic racism." I don't believe that but let's stipulate that for the sake of this experiment. If that's true, the logical reaction to that would be to attack that system. The target, therefore, would be the white power structure and white privilege.
While later reaction included looting of the iconic Macys in NYC and other iconic symbols of white society, the initial reaction was to burn down minority neighborhoods. Saying that that's illogical is understatement. There's nothing in the initial reaction that suggests activists were speaking truth to power. The rioters and looters seemed far more interested in causing mayhem and spreading fear in minority neighborhoods than they seemed interested in uprooting the white power structure. Let's ask some important questions. Let's start with these:
- How does destroying a minority neighborhood uproot the white power structure?
- Does destroying minority-owned pharmacies and grocery stores make things worse or better for minorities?
- Doesn't demolishing the neighborhood deli or neighborhood hardware store trash the hard work of minority business owners?
- When these 'neighborhood institutions' get demolished, how many years back does that set the entire neighborhood?
These aren't trivial questions for the survival and prosperity of neighborhoods. They're central to the survival and prosperity of neighborhoods.
I'd argue that the rioting and looting sounded more like a turf war between rival gangs than it sounds like another painful chapter in the civil rights movement. This isn't about reclaiming neighborhoods. It's about looting and vandalism. Ben Carson's story is something to be examined. He didn't get ahead by latching onto one government program after another. Dr. Carson got ahead because his mother taught him to spend tons of time reading.
Certainly, a major portion of his education came in schools but another major part of his education came from investing time in reading. That's the blueprint that's needed to change minority societies and neighborhoods. It worked once. It'll work again if it's tried.
Let's further stipulate that this is a political issue. Robert Davi outlines it in this interview:
[Video no longer available]
This isn't a Democrat-only or Republican-only problem. It's a problem that country club Republicans and limousine liberals have avoided for generations. For all of the nasty things said about this president, he's been interested in solving problems. Let's bring people of color together from both sides of the aisle at the White House. Let's see President Trump bring together leaders in the Cabinet Room or somewhere prestigious inside the White House. Let's have this discussion. Let's put solutions on the table. Then, let's establish timetables to accomplish those goals. It's more than possible.
This is the United States. When we put our best minds together, there's nothing we can't accomplish. That's only possible if we work together in a good faith fashion. That means not inviting Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer to this meeting. It means inviting Dr. Carson, Bob Woodson, Jack Brewer, Bob Johnson and other who are willing to put their differences aside to make minority lives better.
Ronald Reagan believed that the victories he got credit for were won first by the American people. Finally, let's stipulate that We The People will always drive the most essential societal changes. That's how it's always been. MLK didn't change society by taking orders from the government. Ditto with President Reagan or President Trump. They changed societies because they won over the people. They didn't make an impact by forcing things down people's throats.
Posted Monday, June 8, 2020 12:48 AM
No comments.
One nation under God, another nation under siege
We truly are 2 nations at this point. Coastal and urban America are under siege, with Antifa and drug gangs essentially looting and pillaging cities from NYC, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Portland, St. Louis and Chicago. Minneapolis, BTW, is on the verge of totally dismantling of that city's police department. Within a decade, Minneapolis will be a crime-filled city that's probably half its current size.
It's part of everyone's DNA to want to feel safe, especially in their homes or businesses. People don't want to live in a lawless city. Those who can afford to move will move. With many of these businesses getting insurance checks, what incentive do they have to stay?
There is a structural problem but it isn't racism. I reject the principle of systemic racism. I admit, though, that racism exists. It just isn't system-wide. The structural problem is that leftist politicians have stolen money from the people by underfunding police.
Whether it was R.T. Rybak, Betsey Hodges or Boy Toy Frey, none of them have properly funded the police. They've constantly undercut the police, too. Finally, the DFL hasn't fought the police union for the right to fire officers like Derek Chauvin. That's because these spineless DFL politicians worried more about politics than they cared about protecting their constituents.
Why haven't we heard about police misbehavior in St. Cloud, Waite Park, Brainerd, Little Falls, Rochester, Mankato and Moorhead? They aren't having difficulty recruiting high quality candidates because those mayors aren't constantly undercutting them like what's happening in Minneapolis. If the DFL jumped on board with properly funding the police, then insist that the union stop protecting officers like Derek Chauvin, reform would be 100% possible. If the DFL doesn't demand that the union stop supporting dangerous officers, the problems will continue.
Minneapolis is a city of political activists. Cities like St. Cloud, Brainerd and other places aren't. They focus more attention on things like public safety, public health and other core functions of government.
This is how idiotic the Minneapolis City Council is:
[Video no longer available]
They've announced that they'll defund the Minneapolis Police Department, aka MPD, even though they don't have a clue as to what will replace the MPD. That's the definition of stupidity. Ellison admitted that they'll start a conversation with the community before they start cutting the MPD budget. Stephen Fletcher, another DFL City Council member, wrote this op-ed for Time. In his op-ed, he wrote "The weight of that history was especially heavy when we learned of George Floyd's murder. The accumulated grief and anger from years of police violence was brought to the surface, and thousands of people abandoned social distancing to take to the streets and demand justice. Minneapolis Police had an opportunity to distance themselves from Derek Chauvin, to express sympathy, to be a calming presence. Instead, they deployed tear gas and rubber bullets, effectively escalating the situation from protest to pitched conflict."
Fletcher omits the fact that the police response happened after rioters looted minority-owned businesses while destroying property. This wasn't a rational response to Chauvin's actions. It was an outright rebellion. They weren't seeking justice. They were looking for big screen TVs. They weren't seeking justice. They were burning down pharmacies.
It's time for the Minneapolis City Council pull its collectivist head out of their backside and start doing what they're supposed to do. They're supposed to protect their citizens, not encourage looters. That's what we do out here in Hickville, USA.
Posted Monday, June 8, 2020 11:21 AM
No comments.
The Democrat Parties' dilemma
The Democrat Parties' (plural possessive) problem heading into November is visible to people willing to see what's actually there. What's actually there are 2 political parties within the Democratic Party. There's the far left wing of the Democrat Party, represented by Nancy Pelosi. Then there's the even farther left wing of the Democrat Party. That wing is represented by Ilhan Omar, AOC and, to a lesser degree, Lisa Bender and Jeremiah Ellison.
The Pelosi wing of the Democrat Party are nuttier than a warehouse full of fruitcake. They just pretend that they're moderates. They aren't moderates except by comparison with the AOC wing. Two years ago, Democrats crowed about how Conor Lamb was their blueprint for a candidate. This year, Lamb will likely lose to Sean Parnell in western Pennsylvania.
Lamb's problem is what I've called Tarryl Clark syndrome. For those of you outside Minnesota, Tarryl used to be my state senator until 2010. Then she was known as a moderate when she first ran. Then a terrible thing happened to Tarryl. She accumulated a voting record. Included in that record was a vote to literally vote for a tax increase. When she cast her vote, the vote was tied 33-33. Thereafter, she became Taxin' Tarryl Clark. In 2010, Michele Bachmann beat Tarryl by 14 points, as I predicted. But I digress. Lamb has accumulated a rather leftist voting record, too. He voted for both articles of impeachment. He's voted with Pelosi 90+ percent of the time.
The AOC wing of the Party wants to defund police departments. They also want to defund ICE, aka the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This wing of the Democrat Party is vehemently opposed to law enforcement. This is what happens when you don't worship at the altar of the AOC wing of the Democrat Party:
[Video no longer available]
Brad Parscale, the Trump campaign's manager, wrote this scathing op-ed that demolished the credibility of most media polls. In it, he wrote this:
To the delight of liberals everywhere, the Atlanta-based hub of fake news recently put out a poll showing Biden with a 14-point lead in the race, with 55% of the vote to Trump's 41%, a larger share than any presidential candidate has received in an actual election since Ronald Reagan garnered 58.8% in his 1984 shellacking of Walter Mondale.
CNN's latest wonder is a poll of all adult voters, with no effort made to sort out which people are likely, or even registered, to vote. This method of polling consistently undercounts Republican turnout, as more-reputable polling outfits have long understood, and as CNN should have learned from 2016.
Think of this as a repeat of the battle between the COVID models vs. the COVID data. The same principles apply. The models made a projection based on incomplete data. They were wrong.
Meanwhile, elections have been held over the past month. In the special elections to fill empty seats in Wisconsin and California. Republicans handily won both seats. A week later, city council races were held in Staunton, VA. All 4 Democrat incumbents got defeated. Last week, a presidential primary was held in Pennsylvania, the biggest of the battleground states. Though both candidates had clinched their party's nomination, turnout was high. President Trump got 861,000 votes. Biden got 734,000 votes. That's a hard margin of 54%-46% in President Trump's favor. That isn't speculation. That's the results of a real election.
Once the campaign starts, segment like this will hurt Biden to the core:
[Video no longer available]
There's even a strong indication of pro-Biden skew in the numbers themselves. Only 37% of registered voters who told CNN they were more likely to vote for Biden said they were actually voting for Biden, as opposed to against Trump. That's a dire figure. For comparison, polls consistently showed that about three-quarters of Barack Obama's voters were 'for' him rather than 'against' his opponent.
People are simply not enthusiastic about Biden. Shoot, even Biden doesn't seem very enthusiastic about Biden most of the time. They are, however, extremely enthusiastic about Trump - even in the supposedly 'devastating' CNN poll, about 70% of those who say they will vote for Trump say they're voting for him, not against Biden.
That's what's called an enthusiasm gap. Sleepy Joe's voters will turn out on election day. The difference is that President Trump's voters will show up for phone banking, door-knocking and whatever else they're asked to do. That's a massive GOTV advantage in President Trump's favor.
That's why listening to people who say that this will be a tight race are wrong. Ditto with people who say that 'anyone who tells you that they know how this election will turn out isn't telling you the truth'. If you only look at the horserace figure without digging into the methodology, things look difficult for President Trump. Once you start putting the entire campaign together, including the data analytics, the GOTV machine and the fundraising, it isn't difficult to figure out that President Trump is heading for re-election.
That's before talking about the greatest GOTV operation in the history of campaigning, aka the #MAGA Rallies. They're likely returning within the next 2-3 weeks. While Trump rallies attract 35,000-50,000 people both inside the arena and in the overflow, Joe will do remote interviews that attract voters by the dozens. The thought that this election will be close is laughable.
Posted Tuesday, June 9, 2020 9:17 AM
No comments.
An investment Democrats won't make
Ed Morrissey's post about Pelosi's Democrats getting nervous about the #DefundThePolice movement highlights something that's fairly uncommon -- an essential program that Democrats won't invest in. Along with investing in the military, it's painfully obvious that Democrats don't put a high priority on keeping people safe. The reason I mention this is because we're about to get into a debate about whether Democrats intend to defund police department or whether they want to abolish them altogether. It's a phony argument that Republicans shouldn't engage in.
The best approach Republicans can take is to propose reforms aimed at strengthening police forces, increasing officer accountability and improving the police forces' image within minority communities. That can't happen without buy-in from white officers. That can't happen until all officers are trained to report officer wrongdoing. Honestly, it'll take a culture change in some police forces, starting in Minneapolis.
While the conversation is happening in DC, the changes must happen in the communities. While that sounds like a contradictory statement, it isn't. Opening a debate in DC simply means putting ideas on the table. It doesn't mean legislation getting written, bills getting passed or presidential signing ceremonies. It's indisputable that "states are the laboratories for democracy." In this instance, swap out states, then plug in cities. Why shouldn't we have a nationwide debate? Think of it as a brainstorming session that everyone's invited to. What's more unifying than saying that everyone's invited?
Lisa Bender likely won't attend the brainstorming session. She thinks that having the ability to call the police in the middle of the night when a burglar is breaking in is a form of privilege:
[Video no longer available]
Let's see how willing Democrats are to engage in reforming the police and the unions that protect bad cops. Let's see if they're willing to push back against the AOC wing of their party. (I'm betting that they're too cowardly for that.) Let's see if Democrats will say that police officers make communities better, knowing that the AOC wing is ready for a revolution over this.
Don't be surprised if Jacob Frey is defeated, then replaced by Jeremiah Ellison. But I digress. Democrats are fighting a civil war that's going to get nasty. The establishment isn't moderate but they play nasty. The question is whether the main battle will happen before the election. That's what happened in 1968. Will it happen after Trump leaves office in 2025? Clinton didn't rise until Republicans kept the White House for 3 terms.
Democrats know that they're in trouble on this. Part of the Democrats want nothing to do with talking about law enforcement whatsoever. The activist wing of the Democratic Party runs the party. That's why Biden hired AOC to be the co-chair of his advisory committee on climate change. He's trying to unify a badly divided party.
It isn't a matter of whether the Democrats will 'come home' in November. It's that Republicans are already united and working on winning over persuadable voters. One of the things that'll help Republicans win over those voters is the Democrats' proposal to defund or abolish police departments.
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2020 5:05 AM
No comments.
Inside defunding the police
Each budget year here in Minnesota, the mayors of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, Rochester and St. Cloud descend upon St. Paul to lobby the legislature for more LGA money. For those unfamiliar with the LGA acronym, it stands for Local Government Assistance. Also, Minnesota has a biennial budget so budgets get set in odd-numbered years. If we're running a surplus, we'll often have a supplemental budget in the even-numbered years. I sometimes refer to those budgets as 'bringing home the bacon budgets'. But I digress.
The DFL often tells us that larger LGA payments helps lower people's property taxes. That's a myth. It isn't reality. When it's a leaner-than-normal year, the mayors and other lobbyists try convincing legislators to increase LGA by saying that they'll have to cut police or firefighters or both. Since LGA isn't required and since Minneapolis is taking steps to eliminate the MPD, there's an opportunity to change LGA.
For instance, Republicans should insist that cities accepting LGA funding should be required to not cut police or firefighting budgets. They should highlight the fact that the first responsibility of government, whether it's at the local, state or federal level, is to protect its citizens. If the DFL City Council in Minneapolis wants to resist that requirement, then they don't receive the LGA.
Remember that there isn't a constitutional requirement that cities receive LGA. If the DFL City Council accepts the LGA, them they should be required to do what the state tells them. If Minneapolis wants to dismantle their police department, then they shouldn't get a penny of the taxpayers' money.
This isn't a radical principle. Each year, when the U.S. Department of Education appropriates money, specific conditions are attached to that money. What's interesting is that it's quite possible that the Minneapolis City Council might not be able to dismantle the MPD :
Can the Council 'defund' the police and stop paying them?
Not entirely.
The Council must follow the City Charter which requires the funding of "a police force of at least 0.0017 employees per resident, and provide for those employees' compensation, for which purpose it may tax the taxable property in the City up to 0.3 percent of its value annually." As for what size police force the charter requires, a city spokesman would say that's a 'legal interpretation' that he wouldn't answer.
For those wondering about the math, Minneapolis is required to fund a police force of at least 722.5 officers. Questions still arise whether detectives count towards that 722.5 figure. Would sergeants, captains and lieutenants count towards that figure?
A city's charter isn't as easy to change as a city ordinance. Charters are to cities what constitutions are to states. Ordinances are to cities what statutes are to states. Apparently, Councilmember Stephen Fletcher doesn't know what's allowed under Minneapolis's charter:
[Video no longer available]
Fletcher is a blithering idiot. During the interview, Fletcher said "What we're trying to change is how we answer 9-1-1 calls because so many of the calls that we send police officers with guns would actually be better served by mental health experts." Is Antifa or Black Lives Matter more or less likely to not riot, loot or pillage knowing that 9-1-1 will be sending a mental health expert to a store that's getting looted?
If that's how stupid the prominent members of the Minneapolis City Council are, citizens of Minneapolis should move out forthwith. That isn't silliness. That's downright stupidity. That's frightening.
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2020 4:20 PM
No comments.
Christopher Columbus statue demolished; who let it happen?
The Christopher Columbus statue at the Minnesota state capitol was destroyed today . According the AP article, "Protesters in Minnesota on Wednesday pulled down a statue of Christopher Columbus outside the state Capitol amid continuing anger over the death of George Floyd. The protesters threw a rope around the 10-foot bronze statue Wednesday afternoon and pulled it off its stone pedestal."
The article continues, saying "The protesters, including Dakota and Ojibwe Indians, said they consider Columbus a symbol of genocide against Native Americans. They said they had tried many times to remove it through the political process, but without success."
The part that most Minnesotans will be paying attention to is where it says "State Patrol troopers in helmets, who provide security in the Capitol complex, stood by at a distance but did not try to stop the protesters, who celebrated afterward with Native American singing and drumming." The first question is this: why didn't the State Patrol intervene before the statue was toppled? That isn't to say that the State Patrol is corrupt. That's the first question because we want to know who told the troopers not to intervene.
The article clearly states that the Troopers "provide security in the Capitol complex." It also says that they "stood by at a distance but didn't try to stop the protesters." If the Troopers' responsibility is to provide security, why didn't they secure the Capitol complex? This is eerily reminiscent of Jacob Frey's order to police to stand down when rioters destroyed the Third Precinct Police Station.
The difference is that Jacob Frey isn't giving orders to State Troopers. He can't give orders to state workers any more than Gov. Walz can give orders to the Minneapolis Police Chief. What makes this even stranger is that this video shows the State Troopers guarding the toppled statue:
[Video no longer available]
This has Gov. Walz's fingerprints all over it . It's logical that he's the one that would give final approval of such a decision. I spoke with a friend of mine about who'd make the final decision. My friend said that it's likely made by the Department of Administration but that Gov. Walz would likely have to give his approval, too.
That's another instance of Gov. Walz caving to the DFL fringe. It's another opportunity lost by Walz to showcase his leadership. During the early days of the George Floyd riots, Gov. Walz didn't respond. Buildings burned, neighborhoods destroyed, lives shattered. Today, Gov. Walz could've ordered the Troopers to protect the statue. Instead, he was AWOL while the statue toppled.
The only leadership in the DFL is being shown by Ilhan Omar, Keith and Jeremiah Ellison and Lisa Bender. The bad news for sane Minnesotans is that they're crazier than AOC. Jacob Frey and Tim Walz haven't shown any leadership.
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:28 PM
No comments.
