November 24-30, 2015
Nov 24 06:11 Divider-in-Chief, Part I Nov 24 07:01 Divider-in-Chief, Part II Nov 24 17:03 DFL's nonexistent moral high ground Nov 25 15:19 Jaede's First Amendment misunderstanding Nov 27 12:40 Dayton, Obama and un-Americanism Nov 30 06:40 Dayton's, DFL's dilemma
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Divider-in-Chief, Part I
When then-Candidate Obama ran for office in 2008, he sounded an optimistic tone, constantly talking about "hope and change." A month into President Obama's administration, President Obama's governing motto morphed into "We won." President Obama killed bipartisanship a month into his administration. It's been downhill since. Salena Zito's latest column highlights President Obama's boorish behavior last week in the aftermath of ISIS's terrorist attacks on Paris.
Ms. Zito noted that the definition of leadership "is guidance, direction, inspiration, motivation. And, at a moment when our nation felt most vulnerable and needed reassurance that the man in control was looking out for our welfare, we found ourselves irrevocably disappointed. Americans wanted sober, serious and authoritative. What they got was prickly and tone deaf." President Hope and Change hasn't listened to We The People since the passing of his failed stimulus bill. We saw the last of President Hope and Change about 3 years before the end of his first term.
Pressured by reporters about his strategy for fighting ISIS, his ill-tempered response offered no direct answer. Instead, he sharply rebuked his critics before doubling down on his tepid, ever-changing policy for taking on the terror group.
President Obama is too narcissistic to admit that he's gotten virtually every major foreign policy wrong. It isn't just that others might've done details differently. It's that they wouldn't have been foolish enough to offer Russia a reset button or negotiate with Iran, the biggest state sponsor of terror. They definitely wouldn't have held a Rose Garden press conference to announce that he'd traded 5 top terrorist generals for an American deserter.
Ms. Zito got the ending right:
The majority of Ameri'cans are not behind Obama's plan to allow 10,000 Syrian refugees into the United States, according to Bloomberg and NBC News polls conducted last week. The fear felt by Americans crosses both parties, and it is not unreasonable. In such a time of crisis or doubt, a president's purpose is to calm our fears, not to put on a professorial hat and declare, 'I am right and you are wrong.'
The fact is, Obama will never change; anytime he is backed into a corner, he not only puts on that professor's hat but he also blames whatever problem exists on Congress and, inevitably, divides the country still further.
That is not leadership - but it sure is politics.
President Obama failed Leadership 101 in college. That's why he's spent the last 7 years as the Divider-in-chief.
Posted Tuesday, November 24, 2015 6:11 AM
No comments.
Divider-in-Chief, Part II
The good news is that we're almost to the end of President Obama's second term as Divider-in-Chief . The bad news is that we'll have another divider-in-chief if we elect Donald Trump. David Drucker's article is worth the reading.
Drucker notes that Trump is known for "his vow to 'bomb the shit out of' the Islamic State," though his policies are "very much like Obama - and Sen. Rand Paul." Think of Trump's statements about letting Putin bomb ISIS. Anyone with a brain in their head knew that Putin wasn't interested in ISIS. Putin intervened in Syria to protect Bashar al-Assad, not to obliterate ISIS. Trump the Alpha Male, however, couldn't admit that. That'd require him to admit he didn't know the world like he insists he knows the world.
Take his recent statements about bombing ISIS's oil fields . That's when he said "I'd blow up the pipes. I'd blow up the refineries. I'd blow up every single thing. There would be nothing left. And you know what? You'd get Exxon to come in there in 2 months. You ever see how good these guys are? They'll rebuild that sucker and it will be beautiful. And I'd ring it and I'd take the oil."
Destroying a pipeline shouldn't take more than a single plane. (It isn't like ISIS has an air force.) After that's done, ISIS would still exist. It wouldn't be irreparably damaged. The only thing that'd happen is that President Trump would thump is chest and declare that he'd made America great again.
The American people, apart from Trump's true believers, would know that Trump's rhetoric would outdistance his accomplishments by a country mile. If a reporter questioned whether he'd actually accomplished anything, it's more likely that Trump would pull that reporter's press pass than giving a thoughtful, detailed explanation to the reporter.
There's no getting around this fact. A Trump presidency would be another term for another divider-in-chief. We're trying to get rid of the divider-in-chief we've got. We certainly don't need another narcissistic divider-in-chief.
Posted Tuesday, November 24, 2015 7:01 AM
No comments.
DFL's nonexistent moral high ground
According to this KSTP article , the Republican Party of Minnesota is terminating a "social media manager" is being fired for referring to a "Negro problem" on Twitter. Predictably, DFL Party Chair Ken Martin called the comments 'racist and bigoted'. Martin expressed outrage even though the person who published the tweet is getting terminated.
Rather than defending that offensive comment, I'll simply highlight the fact that the DFL doesn't have the right to take the moral high ground on this issue. I wrote this post after the Supreme Court's ruling on the Voting Rights Act. It's helpful to highlight the fact that the DFL has racists, too. That's because Rep. Ryan Winkler was a rising star in the DFL up until that morning. Prior to the morning that the Supreme Court issued its ruling, Rep. Winkler was a leading candidate for Secretary of State. After that ruling, Winkler thought he'd get a little cute with his tweets. That's why he published this tweet:
Winkler thought that it was clever to call Clarence Thomas an "Uncle Thomas." When Winkler graduated from college, his degree was in history. That's noteworthy because Winkler's non-apology apology said that he didn't "did not understand 'Uncle Tom' as a racist term, and there seems to be some debate about it." Nobody with common sense believes that Winkler didn't know that Uncle Tom was a pejorative.
Shortly after posting that tweet, Rep. Winkler issued a statement saying that he was withdrawing his name from consideration to be the DFL-endorsed candidate for Secretary of State. Since then, Rep. Winkler resigned from the legislature.
The point is that the DFL is just as capable of being a bigot as the Republicans are.
Posted Tuesday, November 24, 2015 5:03 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 24-Nov-15 07:07 PM
Difference between DFL and GOP - GOP will fire, make them quit, disown, etc. their own people while the DFL will circle the wagons and try to deflect the controversy. The ends always justify the means for the DFL.
Jaede's First Amendment misunderstanding
Prof. Mark Jaede has a lengthy history of being a DFL activist/operative. I first came face-to-face with it during the state government shutdown in 2011 but I'd heard of Jaede's activism before that. This year, Prof. Jaede has taken his activism to a new level when Prof. Jaede complained publicly about this LTE . Specifically, Prof. Jaede complained that the St. Cloud Times editorial started by asking "Why are Muslim leaders silent?" in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks. Later in the editorial, the writer got more specific, saying that there "has been no such response from Muslim leaders around the world to express their condemnation of terrorism and to let the global community know the difference between the religion of Islam and extremism."
Yesterday, Prof. Jaede posted something to SCSU's discuss listserv. In his post to the discuss listserv, Prof. Jaede admitted that he'd done "something I have never done before. I wrote to a newspaper asking them to take down a letter to the editor." Here's Prof. Jaede's letter to the St. Cloud Times:
I am writing in regard to the above-referenced letter that appeared today in the online edition of the Times.
The letter is not merely an opinion piece. It makes a claim of fact that is patently false. Muslims all over the world have denounced the terrorism of ISIS. Muslim leaders here in St. Cloud have denounced it, and the Times has printed their statements. Why would you print this letter when you know it to be both false and likely to further anti-Muslim bigotry in our area? And why have the comments been turned off? Responsible readers can't even point out the falsehoods.
Much as I have disagreed with many opinion pieces in the Times, I have never before been moved to write to object to the publication of a piece. This letter crosses the line. It goes beyond free speech to libel against an entire religious community.
Please take it down, or at least publish a disclaimer pointing out the falsehood of its central claim.
Mark Jaede
St. Cloud
It's one thing to ask a newspaper to "at least publish a disclaimer" highlighting the inaccuracies of the LTE. It's another to ask a newspaper to unpublish an article that's been posted on their website. That's called censorship, which is prohibited by the First Amendment. Prof. Jaede said that "this letter crosses the line" by going "beyond free speech to libel against an entire religious community." The remedy for crossing that line isn't to censor the writer. It's to impeach them with your own LTE.
Methinks it's time for Prof. Jaede to refresh his understanding of the First Amendment.
Posted Wednesday, November 25, 2015 3:19 PM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 25-Nov-15 11:22 PM
Libel against an entire religious community? How exactly did the author damage this community? How were the comments on the Times website turned off? Jaede sure loves to use the SCSU taxpayer funded email system to announce to the SCSU community that the Times should willfully violate 1st Amendment protections. So much for "freedom of the press" Professor Jaede.
Comment 2 by Nick at 29-Nov-15 05:10 PM
Wasn't Jaede the same fool who said it was better to cut Aviation than Liberal Arts?
Dayton, Obama and un-Americanism
After the ISIS terrorist attacks in Paris, some thoughtful people from both parties but led by Republicans, proposed pausing the importation of Syrian refugees. They suggested that because the vetting process of Syrian refugees isn't reliable. That isn't just Republicans' opinion. It's an opinion they share with James Comey, the director of the FBI. During testimony to Congress, he said that vetting Syrian refugees was all but impossible.
After that, President Obama announced that he wouldn't pause the program, saying that not accepting these refugees was un-American. It isn't surprising that Gov. Dayton is repeating President Obama's line . In an interview with MPR's Kerri Miller, Gov. Dayton said "the State Department and Department of Homeland Security have an extensive vetting process in place."
According to Director Comey, that's misinformation. In his testimony, Director Comey said that the databases they need to vet people either doesn't exist or is highly unreliable. DHS and the State Department can say whatever they want but it doesn't mean anything if the vetting infrastructure doesn't exist or isn't reliable.
Gov. Dayton later said "I think there should be an enhanced level of vetting and security for Syrian refugees or others that come from places which have been sources of terrorism" before saying "having been on the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security, there's far more that's actually undertaken."
Has Sen. Dayton gotten briefed lately on the state of identification databases in Syria lately? If he hasn't, how would he know that the vetting infrastructure is reliable? Is he just trusting President Obama? If that's the case, would he trust a Republican president the same way in the same circumstances?
Finally, Gov. Dayton said "People who are fleeing terrorism in other countries, people with families with children in their arms - to tell them they can't come into this country and have a future is just un-American." Let's explain this to Gov. Dayton through this picture:
I'd love to see whether Gov. Dayton would accept that taste-testing challenge.
Posted Friday, November 27, 2015 12:40 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 29-Nov-15 08:13 AM
This is the same guy who packed up his office and staff and high tailed it out of Washington when there was no credible threat of an anthrax attack while he was a senator. Now he is ready to accept people from a known terrorist state without batting an eye, believing that the vetting process will catch all the bad ones. Ask the victims of the Boston Bombers if they would like to allow more "refugees" into the country.
Comment 2 by Dave Steckling at 30-Nov-15 10:20 AM
Tell Dayton if he wants to go down in history as the only governor who ate an M&M for each of the 10,000 lakes in the state, he should start the media blitz. We do want to see him go down!
Dayton's, DFL's dilemma
Gov. Dayton, Sen. Bakk and the DFL in general are upset that Republicans want to include long-term relief for the Iron Range in a special session. The DFL insists that the time to deal with that is during a regular session. Their problem is that Sen. Bakk wants to use the special session to address challenges facing the black community in Minnesota.
Gov. Dayton agrees with Sen. Bakk on that, saying "Sen. Bakk rightly expressed the urgency of the challenges facing communities of color in Minnesota. I thank Sen. Bakk and his caucus for their leadership. I agree that any special session concerning the economic hardships of steelworkers on the Iron Range should also begin to address the serious economic disparities facing black Minnesotans."
The article says that "Jeffrey Hayden, who is one of three black state lawmakers, says the Legislature could provide job training grants for minority workers or start-up money for black entrepreneurs. The AP says it could also provide incentives to encourage businesses to hire minority employees."
By definition, that means the DFL's plans for addressing "challenges facing communities of color" is old-fashioned throwing money at a valued special interest group without fixing the underlying problem. It's the DFL's version of saying 'here's some money. Vote for us, then go away.'
Gov. Dayton and the DFL say that special sessions shouldn't be about working out long-term solutions for economically-depressed parts of the state. Republicans should say that special sessions shouldn't include spending money on the DFL's special interest allies.
Posted Monday, November 30, 2015 6:40 AM
Comment 1 by Patrick at 30-Nov-15 07:51 AM
very well said Gary
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 30-Nov-15 09:02 AM
Well hell's bells, you mean all it will take is a 1 or 2 day special session and some money and we can solve all the problems in the "communities of color"?
Why are the so called leaders of these "communities of color" not offended or outraged that politicians think it is that easy to alleviate their problems in so little time and by just throwing more money at the problem without understand why there is a problem?
