October 17-18, 2018
Oct 17 02:56 Randy Johnson's BS Oct 17 10:07 Kevin Lindsey vs. free speech Oct 17 15:26 Pelosi's "manhood issue" Oct 18 02:28 The Party of Hate Oct 18 13:25 The Kavanaugh Wave? Oct 18 14:11 Two-Faced Tim Walz Oct 18 23:35 Pelosi's "collateral damage" vision
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Randy Johnson's BS
I'm more than a little suspicious of this article . I'm suspicious partly because I've never heard of this politician before. I'm partially suspicious because Randy Johnson said "I still have the same fiscally conservative values, the same beliefs in limited government. The Republican party is kind of out in Never Never Land right now", then writes in the Star Tribune that "for the first time in his life, he's voting Democrat."
If you're a fiscal conservative, it's impossible to vote for DFL politicians. DFL politicians are the opposite of fiscally conservative. According to the 2017 Taxpayers League Scorecard , the worst scores House Republicans got were 60s. The best score that a House DFL politician got was a 67 by Jeanne Poppe. That 67 is an outlier, though, because Poppe's lifetime score from the TPL is 16.
If Johnson wants to vote for the party of rioters, that's his option. Randy, welcome to your new party:
[Video no longer available]
If Johnson wants to vote DFL this year, that's his right and privilege. That being said, he's kidding himself if he thinks he's a fiscal conservative. I'd put him in the Arne Carlson/Dave Durenberger wing of the Republican Party. In other words, Johnson appears to be a perfect fit into the RINO wing of the MNGOP.
[Video no longer available]
It's apparent that Johnson enjoys the attention that this interview gives him. This is a dead giveaway:
President Trump is popular among Minnesota Republicans, but Johnson says he can't support what the President stands for. He won't vote for his former Hennepin County Board colleague Jeff Johnson for governor, or his friend Erik Paulsen for Congress. He says he cannot trust they will ever stand up to President Trump. "I think it's time for Republicans, mainstream, real Republicans, to stand up and say 'enough is enough,'" Johnson said.
Let's compare Trump's agenda with President Reagan's agenda. Both cut and reformed taxes. Both cut regulations significantly. Economic growth exploded during their administration. Both rebuilt the military. Johnson approved of President Reagan's agenda. Why doesn't he approve of President Trump's agenda?
In the interview, Johnson says that he didn't leave the Republican Party. That's BS. If he's voting for a straight DFL ticket this fall, that's proof he left the MNGOP. He can spin it whichever way he wants. The truth is that he isn't a fiscal conservative. However, he might be a 'Never Trumper'.
Posted Wednesday, October 17, 2018 2:56 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 17-Oct-18 06:04 PM
So he won't vote for conservatives who stand with Trump and a roaring economy, boarder security, etc. but he'll vote for people who'll bend over and be Chucky and crazy Nancy's puppets? I think the guy might need to be checked for the onset of dementia.
Kevin Lindsey vs. free speech
Kevin Lindsey, the current commissioner of Minnesota's Department of Human Rights, is on a collision course with the US Supreme Court. According to this article , Carl and Angel Larsen, the owners of Telescope Media Group, want to "use their wedding cinematography [business] to reanimate the hearts and minds of people about the goodness of marriage between a man and a woman."
Standing in their way is the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which "mandates that if the Larsens make films celebrating marriage between one man and one woman, then they must make films celebrating same-sex marriages as well."
The Minnesota Human Rights Act is likely unconstitutional, thanks in large part to a Supreme Court ruling from this past summer that said that a baker didn't have to bake cakes for same-sex marriages.
[Video no longer available]
There's likely a First Amendment argument to be made, too. Government shouldn't have the authority to tell businesses what they have to write.
State officials have repeatedly threatened to prosecute expressive business owners who decline to create speech promoting same-sex marriages. And there are steep penalties for violating the law, including payment of a civil penalty to the state, triple compensatory damages, punitive damages up to $25,000, and even up to 90 days in jail.
The Larsens can't comply with Minnesota's speech-compelling law. Telling stories that celebrate a same-sex marriage would violate their religious beliefs and directly contradict the very message about marriage they desire to express. But they also don't want to be investigated, prosecuted, and possibly jailed simply for exercising their First Amendment rights.
Whether you're for or against same-sex marriage, the heart of the matter is that government shouldn't have the authority to tell individuals or companies what they have to write.
According to the WCCO video, the Larsens won their appeal in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. If Lindsey appeals the Eighth Circuit's ruling, which is likely, he'll likely lose in the Supreme Court. Simply put, the DFL should stop passing laws that aren't constitutional.
Posted Wednesday, October 17, 2018 10:07 AM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 17-Oct-18 01:58 PM
Kevin Lindsey seems to operate on a double standard. When there was verbally abusive behavior at SCSU including yelling and swearing at black people, women, and lesbians, Mr. Lindsey simply couldn't get involved. He and his Human Rights Commission were nowhere to be found. This is selective outrage at its finest. Priceless.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Oct-18 06:04 PM
Why am I not surprised? Oh yeah. Perhaps, it's because Tim Walz, Amy Klobuchar & Tina Smith haven't distanced themselves from abusive Keith Ellison? Or from Al Franken, either, for that matter?
Pelosi's "manhood issue"
Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi made one of the most tone-deaf statements she's ever made. That's saying something, considering the amount of tone-deaf statements she's made in her lifetime. With a new raft of illegal immigrants heading towards the US-Mexico border, she said "It happens to be like a manhood issue for the president, building a wall, and I'm not interested in that."
Further, she said "We can't allow him to say we're not interested in protecting the border," Pelosi said, adding that the wall is "probably the worst way to protect the border."
That's a lie. Just ask Israel if their wall has stopped terrorist attacks. (It's stopped them cold.) For that matter, ask many limousine liberals who live in gated communities if walls work. Democrats know that walls work. Democrats just oppose walls because they prefer open borders. To be specific, one of their funders, George Soros, demands open borders.
Newt Gingrich brings the hammer down during this interview:
[Video no longer available]
Newt's right. This isn't just about border security or Trump. This, in Newt's words, is "about jobs vs. mobs", too.
I've said this for months. Democrats are nuts beyond belief. Check out this article , then tell me that Democrats just want to represent people who work hard and play by the rules. Simply put, Democrats want to push their extremist agenda.
They had a chance to do something constructive. They had a chance to make deal with President Trump on DACA in exchange for funding the wall. Instead of Democrats saying yes, we got the #SchumerShutdown. Republicans should think about that before the election. Democrats picked shutting down the government over making a reasonable compromise.
Staying home is like voting for a radical Democrat. It's that simple. If that's what you want, stay home. If you'd prefer a continuation of this prosperity, you'd better get to your local polling station and vote Republican. Period.
Posted Wednesday, October 17, 2018 3:26 PM
No comments.
The Party of Hate
The Democratic Party of Skip Jackson, JFK and Daniel Patrick Moynihan doesn't exist anymore. The people that call themselves Democrats today have earned a new title -- the Party of Hate.
It's impossible for me to forget how hate-filled Sen. Hirono was during the Kavanaugh hearings. It's impossible to forget how Sen. Hirono, (D-HI), said that then-Judge Kavanaugh was guilty until proven innocent. Compared with what's happened this week, Sen. Hirono's actions are mild.
This week, 2 Minnesota Republicans were attacked . As frightening as those things are, they're probably mild compared to what happened when Clintonista David Brock unleashed Wilfred Michael Stark, who "was arrested by the Las Vegas City Marshals on Tuesday evening and remains in custody in the Las Vegas city jail" after attacking Kristin Davison.
Though this isn't a manifestation of violence, this interview shows how warped and disgusting the former Democratic Party has fallen:
[Video no longer available]
How un controversial is it to say that you "stand for the flag and kneel at the Cross"? That's utterly uncontroversial yet Mr. Salvas was fired as the leader of the Allegheny County Democratic Party. Salvas confirmed that he was called a racist for that statement.
These aren't normal people. The anarchists that attacked Sarah Anderson and the Soros-paid attack dog that attacked Kristin Davison aren't exceptions anymore. They're the rule for the new 'Party of Hate'. Does anyone seriously think that a country run by these disgusting people will produce prosperity and peace? I can't picture that.
Finally, notice that all of the attackers are Democrats. This isn't a situation where both parties are guilty. The former Democratic Party is the guilty party. Period.
Posted Thursday, October 18, 2018 2:28 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 18-Oct-18 07:08 AM
That's what I don't understand. Every time it is pointed out that EVERY ONE of these crazed, violent offenders is a Democrat, the standard reply is that "both sides do it." Just as every one of the 9/11 hijackers (and almost every other terrorist) is a young Muslim male. Why the absolute stubborn refusal to admit that both sides do NOT do it?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Oct-18 12:45 PM
Jerry, that's the specific reason why I mentioned that they're all Democrats. The MSM might try & play that game. I won't!!!
The Kavanaugh Wave?
Let's be clear about something. The question as to whether Sen. Schumer or Sen. McConnell will be the majority leader is over. Sen. McConnell will be the Senate Majority Leader this January. The only question is how big his majority will be. At this point, I'm betting that he'll have at least 54 Republicans in his majority.
Each day, I check the RealClearPolitics scorecard in the upper right hand corner of the page. A month ago, Josh Hawley, (R-MO), was the only Republican leading Claire McCaskill, his Democrat opponent. Last week, Republicans leading their Democrat opponents numbered 6: Ted Cruz leading Comrade O'Rourke in Texas, Martha McSally leading Kirsten Sinema in Arizona, Dean Heller leading Jackie Rosen in Nevada, Marsha Blackburn leading Phil Bredesen in Tennessee and Kevin Cramer leading Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota. Yesterday, Bill Nelson, (D-FL), led Rick Scott. Then he made the asinine mistake of accusing Gov. Scott of using Hurricane Michael for his political advantage. Today, that race is tied. I expect Gov. Scott to win that race. People don't vote for whiners.
The Beto O'Rourke myth is essentially over, thanks in large part to their last debate:
[Video no longer available]
Sen. Cruz stung O'Rourke when he said that O'Rourke wouldn't have voted for either Neil Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh, then saying that he "led the fight" to confirm those judges to the Supreme Court.
Don't be surprised if the Senate map gets better for Republicans in the final days. (Think Montana and Minnesota.)
Posted Thursday, October 18, 2018 1:25 PM
No comments.
Two-Faced Tim Walz
When it comes to being a profile in consistency, Democrat Tim Walz, aka Two-Faced Tim, is anything except a profile in consistency. For example, Two-Faced Tim voted for and against the Keystone XL Pipeline project:
Walz Has Voted For And Against Measures To Approve The Keystone Pipeline
Walz Voted 3 Times In Support Of The Keystone XL Pipeline.
(S. 1, Roll Call #75, Passed 270-152: R 241-1, D 29-151, Walz Voted Yea, 2/11/15; CQ Summary, Accessed 4/23/18; H.R. 3, Roll Call #16, Passed 266-153: R 238-0, D 28-153, Walz Voted Yea, 1/9/15; CQ Summary, Accessed 4/23/18; H.R. 5682, Roll Call #519, Passed 252-161: R 221-0, D 31-161, Walz Voted Yea, 11/14/14; CQ Summary, Accessed 4/23/18)
In May 2013, Walz Voted Against A Measure To Approve The Keystone XL Pipeline.
(H.R. 3, Roll Call #179, Passed 241-175: R 222-0, D 19-175; 5/22/13, Walz Voted Nay)
Apparently, Two-Faced Tim votes the way the last lobbyist he talks to wants him to vote. It's totally apparent that core principles are optional with Two-Faced Tim.
Nothing proves that last point more than Walz's flip-flop on guns:
[Video no longer available]
Unfortunately, the one thing Two-Faced Tim is consistent about is raising your taxes. His health care plan would double the size of the state budget. Does anyone seriously think that tax increase wouldn't hit virtually everyone?
There's a simple solution to this problem. Vote for Jeff Johnson, a man who isn't afraid to express his core convictions.
Posted Thursday, October 18, 2018 2:11 PM
No comments.
Pelosi's "collateral damage" vision
It isn't shocking that 'San Fran Nan', aka Nancy Pelosi, wants to return to the bad old days of the Obama economic policies. That's to be expected. It isn't that surprising that she isn't worried about innocent bystanders getting hurt during the campaign. What's disgusting is how cavalierly she talks about "collateral damage" in this video:
[Video no longer available]
'San Fran Nan' apparently couldn't care less about people getting hurt by Soros-financed leftist goons. This isn't about policies for her. It's about ideology with her. If some Republican candidates have to suffer concussions for her to regain her speakership, that's fine with her.
She's power-crazed. That description fits most Democrat activists. BTW, don't buy the Democrats' spinmeisters spin on this. We keep hearing about this or that moderate. That's usually after a Republican highlights how another Republican has gotten attacked. We're told that there are lots of moderates in the Democratic Party. To that, I emphatically say BS.
If there were lots of principled moderates in the Democratic Party, they would've forged a compromise on DACA and funding the wall. They don't exist. I've been saying since 2010 that there aren't any principled moderate Democrats left. I stand by that statement.
Posted Thursday, October 18, 2018 11:35 PM
No comments.
