October 9-10, 2017
Oct 09 02:22 Trump's immigration compromise Oct 09 04:05 Interesting Enbridge Pipeline facts Oct 09 04:43 Small-town heroics Oct 09 21:10 Tim Walz's new-found NRA 'flexibility' Oct 10 07:51 ESPN suspends Jemele Hill Oct 10 08:31 Clintons, Obama silent on Weinstein Oct 10 13:18 Common rapper makes PR play Oct 10 16:59 Hillary's Weinstein problem Oct 10 20:23 Pelosi's DACA negotiations
Prior Months: Jan Feb ~ May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Trump's immigration compromise
President Trump outlined his principles for an immigration compromise Sunday night. Saying that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi weren't pleased with President Trump's immigration principles is understatement. In their joint statement, Pelosi and Schumer said "the administration can't be serious about compromise or helping the Dreamers if they begin with a list that is anathema to the Dreamers, the immigrant community and the vast majority of Americans."
Pelosi and Schumer must stick to that line because their base requires it. That doesn't mean that their base is representative of a majority of Americans, though. I was thrilled when I read the "agreement goes far beyond an outline of a deal with the White House announced by Schumer and Pelosi last month, after their meeting with Trump. The two Democrats said the president had agreed to attach a DACA fix to a border security package that would not include wall funding. They reiterated on Sunday night that their agreement 'explicitly ruled out' the border wall, a key Trump campaign promise. 'We told the President at our meeting that we were open to reasonable border security measures alongside the DREAM Act, but this list goes so far beyond what is reasonable. This proposal fails to represent any attempt at compromise,' Schumer and Pelosi added."
There's little doubt that backstabbers like Sen. McCain and Sen. Collins would agree with Schumer and Pelosi. That's their decision. If they vote against the border wall, Republicans will simply wait until the new Senate is sworn in, then tell the backstabbers they can either do the right thing or get primaried. That's their choice.
As for Schumer and Pelosi, their choice is whether they'll support real border security, including the wall or whether they want to have this issue used against their vulnerable incumbents in red states next November. President Trump should tell them that funding for the Wall isn't negotiable. Period. Point out to them how popular the wall is in blue collar districts that Democrats have to flip or hold to retake the majority. If they don't moderate their position, then they'll have to pay the price for their intransigence.
Finally, this is the perfect issue to tee up for 2020 if you're President Trump. Blue collar workers know how much this has hurt their wages. If Democrats want to flip Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan in 2020, getting on the right side of this issue is essential for them.
Posted Monday, October 9, 2017 2:22 AM
No comments.
Interesting Enbridge Pipeline facts
This LTE might be the most informative LTE written on the Enbridge Line 3 Pipeline I've seen.
It's the first place I've read that "Some opponents of the project are concerned that pipelines pose a risk to the waters of Minnesota due to a leak. Any method of transporting crude oil (pipeline, rail, or truck) has a risk of a leak or spill. To transport the equivalent amount of crude oil on Line 3 will require either 10,000 rail cars/day or 24,000 tanker trucks/day."
The Gov. Dayton/Commissioner Rothman Commerce Department testified that the existing pipeline should be shut down in addition to not building the new pipeline. Obviously, the pipeline will get built. The only question is whether it'll get built in Minnesota or through another state. Metaphorically speaking, that ship's already sailed. The question facing environmental activists is whether they want oil trains endangering cities multiple times a day or whether they want semis clogging highways.
What other LTE or Our View editorial has laid things out this succinctly? I'll tell you how many. Since getting back into blogging last May, I've searched virtually daily for articles on this subject. The answer is exactly 0. Here's another interesting, important, piece of information in making this decision:
The project will be constructed with modern high-grade steel pipe and use construction techniques that minimize the impact to the environment. In environmentally sensitive areas, Enbridge utilizes Horizontal Directional Drilling, which places the pipe deep below the environmentally sensitive area and utilizes double thickness pipe-wall .
TRANSLATION: It's the safest way of getting oil from Alberta to Superior, WI. Enbridge wouldn't have gotten a permit for the first pipeline if it hadn't met Minnesota's strict environmental standards.
Think of it this way. If Enbridge hadn't done things right the past 20+ years, the Public Utilities Commission would've shit-canned this project in a heartbeat. This graphic shows how many hoops Enbridge, or any pipeline project, would have to jump through for permitting approval:
Think of each of those dots as another delay that environmental activists exploit. The simplest question to ask is whether Minnesota wants a petroleum-free state that relies heavily on transit? I'm betting that transit is totally impractical for most of Minnesota, especially in rural Minnesota. BTW, did you know that "Enbridge provides over 80 percent of the crude oil to the two refineries in Minnesota and one in Superior Wisconsin"? Did you know that "these refineries provide fuel for the agricultural, forest products, shipping, and mining industries, not to mention the majority of the fuel used for transportation in the state of Minnesota"?
Frankly, the testimony given by the Commerce Department to the Public Utilities Commission is dishonest. Whoever prepared the Commerce Department's testimony should be prosecuted for perjury. Saying that the Line 3 Pipeline isn't needed is like saying that highways aren't needed to get people and products from one part of Minnesota to another part of Minnesota.
Posted Monday, October 9, 2017 4:05 AM
No comments.
Small-town heroics
If this story doesn't get your attention in a positive way, I don't know what will. The article starts by saying "A Minnesota farmer was presented with a $7,000 reward for finding a missing teenage girl and then just moments later gave the money to the girl, who was a captive of three men for a month. Earl Melchert, 65, of Barrett, turned the reward money over to the girl Friday at police headquarters."
That's the uplifting part of the article. Unfortunately, there's a disgusting part to the article. That's when Fox9 News reported that the "15-year-old girl was abducted from her home on Aug. 8 in Alexandria, Minn., and taken to an abandoned house where she was physically and sexually assaulted." According to the article, the "three suspects" have "been charged with kidnapping, criminal sexual conduct, assault and false imprisonment."
The girl's identity wasn't revealed by Fox9 News because they don't "name alleged victims of sexual assault without their consent." What they did report was that "the girl escaped Sept. 5 by swimming across a lake. Melchert found her when she came running toward him." Here's a picture of Minnesota's newest hero and Alexandria Police Chief Rik Wyffels:
Here's hoping the young lady's kidnappers get imprisoned for a very long time.
Posted Monday, October 9, 2017 4:43 AM
No comments.
Tim Walz's new-found NRA 'flexibility'
Last week, Tim Walz was a moderate with a sterling rating from the NRA. This week, he's a candidate who can't run fast enough from the NRA. Preya Samsundar's article shows how far Rep. Walz has travelled this past week.
Ms. Samsundar reported "On WCCO's Sunday show with Esme Murphy, Walz recanted his prior support for the NRA and announced that he would donate money given to him by the pro-Second Amendment group to a charity helping veterans and their families. 'The politics is secondary,' Walz told Murphy on Sunday. 'I have got friends who have been, had gun violence in their family and like so many responsible gun owners, it's what I grew up on.'"
Walz lied when he said that "the politics is secondary." This time, the politics are primary. Specifically, identity politics if front and center. In this instance, while the DFL and the Democratic Party are whining about the NRA, the NRA has acted quite moderately :
The National Rifle Association said Sunday it opposes any legislation to ban the use of "bump stocks" on semi-automatic weapons, even as it has said some regulation may be necessary. "It's illegal to convert a semi-automatic to a fully automatic. The ATF ought to look at this, do its job and draw a bright line," NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said on Face the Nation.
The truth is that Walz is doing everything he can to prove to Metrocrats that he's just like them. While he's doing that, he's also proving that he'll say anything to get elected.
There was a time when Rep. Walz proudly touted his A rating from the NRA:
Rest assured, if he's the DFL gubernatorial candidate next fall, the NRA and like-minded organizations will be working their butts off to defeat him. If that's the case, Walz better pray the Twin Cities turns out big for him because his NRA flip-flop will hurt him in southern Minnesota.
Let's remember that Walz's base in southern Minnesota is slipping. Last year, Walz defeated his virtually unknown GOP opponent by 2,548 votes . Now that he's sold his soul to the Metrocrats, aka the devil, expect his support in southern Minnesota to slip further.
It's easy to see that Walz is tracking left to win the DFL primary. I'm betting that he'll try moving to the center if he wins that primary. Finally, I'm betting that he'll have a difficult time getting to the middle, though, considering the fact that there's now video of him trying to have it both ways.
Politicians have tried pretending that video doesn't exist. Voters won't pretend that they haven't seen him trying to have it both ways.
The more I think about it, the more I think Walz won't be Minnesota's next governor. That's because DFL activists are looking for a true believer this time. Settling for Walz, I suspect, is like being told that Hillary's the candidate and that Bernie supporters better get in line.
Posted Monday, October 9, 2017 9:10 PM
No comments.
ESPN suspends Jemele Hill
In what was a predictable decision, ESPN suspended Jemele Hill after she criticized Cowboys owner Jerry Jones. ESPN's statement said "Jemele Hill has been suspended for two weeks for a second violation of our social media guidelines. She previously acknowledged letting her colleagues and company down with an impulsive tweet. In the aftermath, all employees were reminded of how much individual tweets may reflect negatively on ESPN and that such action would have consequences. Hence this decision."
Just as predictably, Al Sharpton weighed in on Hill's suspension , saying "We consider it outrageous that Jemele Hill was suspended by ESPN. She has the right to tell people that they ought to let advertisers know how they feel, since they are the consumers. While she didn't call for a direct boycott, it's not off the table for us in the civil rights community." Sharpton is demanding that ESPN meet "with civil rights leaders about Jemele Hill?." Knowing how connected ESPN is with the Democratic Party, that will likely happen.
FNC's Brian Kilmeade responded to Hill's comments in this interview:
Frankly, she's lucky she still has a job. She's a mediocre talent with a big mouth and a penchant for saying stupid things that hurt her employer. Of course, if ESPN fired her, a leftist organization likely would immediately hire her and portray her as a civil rights hero, which she isn't.
Here's the tweet that got Hill suspended:
If the rationale behind JJ's stance is keeping the fanbase happy, make him see that he is underestimated how all of his fanbase feels.
In this article , Barrett Holmes Pitner wrote "On Monday, ESPN suspended SportsCenter co-host Jemele Hill for two weeks after she took to Twitter to recommend fans who disagreed with Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones' stance on kneeling during the national anthem - Jones said that Cowboys players who 'disrespect the flag' will not play for his team - should boycott the Cowboys' advertisers. Regardless of whether you agree with ESPN's decision or Hill's statements, her suspension demonstrates how America is far more equipped to silence black voices than address our complex racial dynamics."
Hill got suspended because her statements have the potential to hurt her employer's profitability and ESPN's biggest revenue producer. Frankly, Hill's actions are that of a political activist. They aren't the actions of a sports show host. If she's that intent on being a political activist, then she should quit ESPN and go to work for MSNBC or CNN. She'd fit right in.
Posted Tuesday, October 10, 2017 7:51 AM
No comments.
Clintons, Obama silent on Weinstein
It's totally predictable that Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton haven't offered their opinion on Harvey Weinstein's predatory behavior. While other Democrats denounce Weinstein's actions, Obama and the Clintons have been silent.
It isn't surprising that Hillary "Clinton did not mention Weinstein during an appearance Monday night at the University of California, Davis, as part of her book tour, her first public appearance since the story broke." What's interesting is that the media isn't criticizing Hillary. It isn't like they should be surprised. She put up with a cheating hubby for years. She didn't speak out against nations that mistreated women while she was the US Secretary of State.
The Clintons' ties to Weinstein are pretty extensive and pretty long-lasting. According to the article, "Weinstein has long been a Clinton donor with ties to the political family. Weinstein was one of many from Hollywood who donated to Bill Clinton's legal defense fund in the 1990s, a Washington Post report from the time stated. More recently, the Clintons rented a home next to Weinstein in the Hamptons in 2015, and Weinstein served as a connector between Hollywood stars and Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Weinstein raised about $1.5 million from 1990-2016, according to data from the campaign finance-tracking Center for Responsive Politics, and was a bundler for Clinton's 2016 effort, including at a star-studded fundraiser for Clinton in June 2016 at Weinstein's Manhattan home."
Then there's this:
CRP's OpenSecrets website shows Weinstein was a bundler for Obama as well, and the Hollywood giant visited the White House on several occasions during Obama's tenure. At a White House event for student films in 2013, first lady Michelle Obama credited Weinstein for making the event happen and praised him as a wonderful person and a good friend.
That gives an entirely new meaning to the old saying that "politics makes for strange bedfellows." Apparently, they don't get stranger than Weinstein.
Posted Tuesday, October 10, 2017 8:31 AM
No comments.
Common rapper makes PR play
TMZ caught up with a rapper whose stage name is Common to get his take on Jerry Jones' comments about the players standing during the national anthem. It isn't a stretch to think that this is a PR stunt. Common said "It's an owner mentality. Like a slave owner mentality, to be honest. Like, 'You gonna do what I say on this.' Other people [are] choosing to put their hands over their heart. What makes that gesture better than somebody else who might be praying during the national anthem?' he asks. 'Or if somebody says, 'I'm kneeling for what I believe in,' then they should be able to do that because that's what this country is about.'"
Common is partially right in that Jones is acting like an owner, though not like a slave owner. Jones has lots of money tied up in his team. He has every right to protect his investment, as do the other owners. Right now, the players' political activism is dragging the NFL's value down. Their next TV contract isn't likely to be nearly as lucrative as the one they currently have because the NFLPA's political activism is turning off its fans. That's indisputable.
President Trump's initial comments were initially greeted with contempt by the players. Still, the fans have largely sided with him. When the man with the world's biggest megaphone criticizes you, it's gonna sting financially. He's essentially forced the owners' hands. Jerry Jones didn't become a billionaire by ignoring the fans. That's why he's siding with President Trump.
If the players were smart, something that's still in doubt, they'd stop their sideline protesting ASAP.
Posted Tuesday, October 10, 2017 1:18 PM
No comments.
Hillary's Weinstein problem
The scandal that's quickly overtaking (consuming?) Harvey Weinstein is turning into a major headache for Hillary Clinton , too. This afternoon, Hillary issued a statement, saying "I was shocked and appalled by the revelations about Harvey Weinstein. The behavior described by the women coming forward cannot be tolerated. Their courage and the support of others is critical in helping to stop this kind of behavior."
That's BS. Hillary knew about Weinstein's behavior long ago. Over the weekend, Jake Tapper called the Weinstein matter one of Hollywood's worst-kept secrets. Since then, look at the high-profile actresses that've come forward and said that Weinstein either harassed or assaulted them. Should people believe that the Clintons didn't know about Weinstein's behavior?
This article is devastating to Weinstein but it's trouble to Hillary, too, because it says "Lurid allegations against Harvey Weinstein spread like wildfire on Tuesday as A-list actresses Angelina Jolie and Gwyneth Paltrow accused the studio head of harassment, and the New Yorker published an expose with claims he raped three women and forced himself on four more." That isn't the entire story, though. Here's more:
"I was a kid, I was signed up, I was petrified," Paltrow told the Times. Then 22, she confided in her boyfriend Brad Pitt what had happened, and Pitt later confronted Weinstein.
Then there's this:
Three of the women who spoke with Farrow said Weinstein raped them, one of which later refused to speak on the record. Four more women said they experienced unwanted touching and four others said Weinstein masturbated in front of them or exposed himself.
Current and former Weinstein Company employees admitted to the New Yorker many at the company knew of Weinstein's behavior towards women and said some employees acted as "honeypot[s]" to attract women to meetings with Weinstein only to leave the women alone with the producer.
But we're supposed to believe that Hillary is surprised and that she's just learning about Weinstein's behavior now? I might've been born at night but it wasn't last night.
There's no reason to trust Hillary's statement. She's a proven serial liar. (Think about her story about running from the helicopter in Bosnia-Herzegovina while it was taking gunfire.) Finally, let's remember what this story is about:
It's about a wealthy man sexually harassing and/or sexually assaulting women. It's also about a famous politician pretending not to know anything about this fundraiser's behavior.
Posted Tuesday, October 10, 2017 4:59 PM
No comments.
Pelosi's DACA negotiations
Sen. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are upset that President Trump has them over a proverbial barrel as they start negotiations on DACA legislation. They're upset because they'll lose politically if they agree to President Trump's demands. If they don't agree to his demands, they'll lose politically, too. The biggest of President Trump's demands is funding to build his border wall.
When Schumer and Pelosi got the news that this was part of President Trump's demands, they went ballistic, saying "We told the President at our meeting that we were open to reasonable border security measures alongside the DREAM Act, but this list goes so far beyond what is reasonable. This proposal fails to represent any attempt at compromise." The definition of reasonable is "agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical." Just because the Democrats' pro-amnesty special interests don't think building the border wall is reasonable doesn't mean it isn't reasonable. Building the wall is exercising sound judgment. Not only that, the American people agree with most of President Trump's list of demands, often by overwhelming margins. If Pelosi and Schumer want to argue that more than two-thirds of the American people aren't reasonable, that's their choice.
Ms. Pelosi's hinting publicly that Democrats might be willing to shut down the government if they don't get what they want:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Monday wouldn't rule out withholding support for end-of-the-year budget bills, and risk a government shutdown, if President Trump and the Republicans don't agree to protections for immigrants brought to the country illegally as children. "We have to do it before Christmas, that's just the way it is," she said Monday in an interview with The Washington Post.
That's a major political loser for Democrats on multiple platforms. First, this will alienate blue collar America districts. If the Democrats don't flip those districts and/or states, they can't win majorities in either the House or Senate. In fact, it will likely cause them to lose seats in both the House and Senate if Pelosi shuts down the government. Even if they don't shut the government down, this strategy is foolish. It isn't difficult seeing every vulnerable Democrat in the House get tied to Pelosi's statement. Do they really think that they can hide from Pelosi's statements?
There's another part of the Democrats' threats that's a political loser. By threatening shutting down the government over building the wall, Democrats are essentially admitting that they're the open borders political party. They can issue statement after statement that they're for reasonable border security measures. It won't matter because people think of the wall as true border security. This video should be part of the Trump administration's campaign to build the wall:
I'd love seeing Schumer and Pelosi fight against that video. It isn't that they'd win. It's that it'd be fun watching them attempt to tell people that the wall hasn't had a positive public safety/national security impact. The statistics speak for themselves. If Democrats want to fight that, that's their decision.
It just isn't a reasonable decision.
Posted Tuesday, October 10, 2017 8:23 PM
No comments.
