September 1-2, 2017
Sep 01 07:24 MSM can't help themselves Sep 01 08:22 Supreme Court vs. the people? Sep 01 10:44 Jim Comey's shattered legacy Sep 01 15:22 Out -of-touch Al Franken Sep 02 07:14 Antifa's predictable next step Sep 02 10:37 That's Ezekiel Elliott's defense? Sep 02 13:51 Identity politics at its worst Sep 02 22:25 Democrats in trouble in 2020?
Prior Months: Jan Feb ~ May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
MSM can't help themselves
This week, we watched Houstonians and other heroes appear before our eyes. They volunteered their time to help families in convention centers who had lost everything. They loaded up their boats and helped first responders rescue families from flooded homes. This week, we saw the best of America while seeing Harvey's destruction.
This week, the MSM got pushed to the side. It wasn't relevant most of this week. It isn't coincidental that Americans saw American exceptionalism at its finest. Now that we're coming to the end of Phase One of the recovery, the MSM and The Swamp are reasserting itself in an attempt to take control again. This time, Chris Cillizza's article focuses its attention on dividing the nation once again. How sad.
Like a moth being drawn to a flame, the MSM and other creatures of the Swamp can't help themselves. They're drawn to conflict and division. Cillizza's article starts by saying "Back in the fall of 2012, as Superstorm Sandy ravaged the New Jersey coastline, a whole lot of political myths got started. One was that Gov. Chris Christie's hug of then-President Barack Obama amid the crisis was somehow the linchpin to Obama's re-election. The second was that the disaster relief package for Sandy became a congressional Christmas tree -- decorated with every little pet project that any member wanted, all under the guise of helping New Jersey."
This is what's wrong with Democrats. Truly patriotic Americans don't want to rehash old fights. They'd prefer getting on with the nation's business. At this moment, that means immediately putting a clean disaster relief bill together and getting it to President Trump's desk ASAP.
It's time for Americans to reject the MSM's and The Swamp's agenda of division and discord. That isn't who we are. We're better than that.
Posted Friday, September 1, 2017 7:24 AM
No comments.
Supreme Court vs. the people?
This post by Powerline's Scott Johnson predicts a sad outcome in the lawsuit filed by the legislature against Gov. Dayton. In his post, Johnson, an attorney, wrote "Based on the oral argument, it seems clear to me that the Supreme Court is poised to reverse Judge Guthmann's ruling and remand the case to Judge Guthmann for an order funding the legislature's core functions beyond October 1 for as long as necessary. If and when Governor Dayton prevails on appeal, he can be expected to call a special session of the legislature specifically limited to revisiting provisions of the state government finance bill that he found objectionable. Governor Dayton appointed four of the Minnesota Supreme Court's seven justices. The playing field is tilted in his favor."
God help us if Scott's prediction is right. I don't want to sound to dramatic but a ruling in Dayton's favor is a ruling against checks and balances and a ruling that would essentially obliterate the concept of co-equal branches of government. Harold Hamilton summarizes things perfectly in his weekly commentary:
During oral arguments, Chief Justice Gildea cut right to the heart of matter by asking this question of Dayton's lawyer: If the line-item veto power has no limits or qualification, is the governor not empowered to veto or threaten to veto funding for the judicial branch if he doesn't like the way a court rules a case?
Dayton's lawyers engaged in some verbal gymnastics before simply stating that such a question "isn't before the court today."
This is the tell-tale question.
For Dayton's view to prevail, it must be admitted that the line-item veto has no limits. It means that the governor can threaten to veto funding to operate the legislature or the courts to leverage political outcomes. In short, it means that the governor can threaten the integrity of the courts and the legislature.
Scott is right. Gov. Dayton has successfully stacked the Court. If Gov. Dayton's appointees rule in his favor, Republicans will use that ruling to eviscerate DFL candidates at all levels.
Imagine if you're Dan Wolgamott, running against Jim Knoblach in HD-14B. Further, imagine having to defend the governor from your party essentially claiming that he should have the ability to negotiate in bad faith and get everything he wants from the legislature and the courts through the stroke of a pen.
That isn't what a constitutional republic looks like. It's what a third-world dictatorship looks like. It's what totalitarianism looks like.
If Gov. Dayton's appointees rule in his favor, that'll be proof that Gov. Dayton's appointees are Democrats first and constitution-minded jurists second. Minnesotans need to ask themselves if that's what they want. Do they really want Democrats anywhere near the levers of power in St. Paul?
Posted Friday, September 1, 2017 8:22 AM
No comments.
Jim Comey's shattered legacy
Apparently, former FBI Director Jim Comey needs a refresher course in conducting investigations. It's apparent because documentation has surfaced that proves Director Comey started drafting a letter recommending that Hillary Clinton not be prosecuted before the investigation had really gotten started.
According to the article, "In a news release Thursday, the senators [Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham] said Comey began drafting the exoneration statement in April or May 2016, which was before the FBI interviewed 17 key witnesses, including Clinton herself and other top aides." Later, the article quoted from Grassley's and Graham's letter. Specifically, the letter said "Conclusion first, fact-gathering second - that's no way to run an investigation. The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy."
If the Grassley-Graham letter is right, and I'm 99% certain it is, then Comey's reputation should be in tatters. President Trump is right in saying "Wow, looks like James Comey exonerated Hillary Clinton long before the investigation was over: and so much more. A rigged system!"
Then there's this:
Grassley and Graham said they learned about the draft after reviewing transcripts of interviews with top Comey aides.
"According to the unredacted portions of the transcripts, it appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton," the senators said. They added, "That was long before FBI agents finished their work. Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership. The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts."
This interview is, at minimum, disheartening:
According to this article , Sen. Grassley and Sen. Graham wrote "a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray seeking more information, including all drafts of Comey's final statement on Clinton's emails by September 13." Later in the article, it states none "of the committee's Democrats signed onto the request."
That's proof of 2 things -- that the FBI didn't conduct a serious investigation and that Democrats aren't interested in the truth, especially when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Far from being the straight shooter that people said he was, it's looking like Director Comey is just another DC insider whose first instinct is to protect the Swamp.
If this is proven true, then Mueller should shut down his investigation, too. I'm not the first person to write about the belief that Mueller hopes Comey will be his star witness against Trump. Once this information comes out, it won't take much for a skilled defense attorney to impeach Comey's testimony.
Posted Friday, September 1, 2017 10:44 AM
No comments.
Out -of-touch Al Franken
During Congress's August recess, congresscritters and senators take the time to catch up with what's happening with their constituents. In this month's email newsletter, Sen. Franken wrote about his travels through "Northern Minnesota and the Iron Range." He talked about stopping at Tobies' Restaurant in Hinckley for a caramel roll. He talked with Native Americans in Grand Portage and small business owners in Grand Marais, too.
The part that I found interesting is when he wrote "I also met with Iron Range steelworkers in Eveleth during my trip to the Northland. These are the men and women who helped build this country and bring us into the 21st century, and I'm fighting to protect their jobs and keep their local economies vibrant." With all due respect to Sen. Franken, Iron Range economies aren't vibrant. They haven't been in a generation. That's just the myth that Sen. Franken and the DFL continue peddling.
According to the latest census data , Virginia, aka the heart of the Iron Range, families have a median household income of $34,075. A staggering 23.7% of the people live below the Federal Poverty Level, aka FPL. That's compared with the statewide averages of $61,492 for median household income and 10.2% living below the FPL.
It's impossible for thoughtful, honest people to say that people making $27,500 less than the average Minnesota family lives where the economy is vibrant? How can a U.S. senator say that people live where the economy is vibrant when one-fourth of them live in poverty?
Either Sen. Franken is exceptionally dishonest or he's exceptionally out of touch. Another possibility exists but it won't flatter Sen. Franken. Perhaps he's satisfied with that information. Perhaps, he isn't upset when one-fourth of the people of Virginia live in poverty.
Later in his newsletter, Sen. Franken wrote this:
I want to make sure our unions stay strong and that we're cracking down on the foreign trade cheats that suppress our domestic steel production and steal jobs in Iron Range communities.
Here's a question for Sen. Franken: why do you crack down on "foreign trade cheats that suppress ... domestic steel production and steal jobs in Iron Range communities" but you haven't criticized members of your own party for filing one lawsuit after another with the goal of preventing the creation of hundreds of high-paying middle class jobs? If high-paying middle class jobs are the goal, who cares who's standing in the way of creating those jobs? Shouldn't those jobs and those people come first?
Sen. Franken, why won't you fight for those people?
Posted Friday, September 1, 2017 3:22 PM
Comment 1 by Barbara Lofquist at 08-Sep-17 03:00 PM
About 3 years ago I saw diaper boy eating breakfast in Virginia, MN with his aide/minion. The place was packed. In the hour I was there, not 1 person acknowledged his presence. I don't think it was to be polite. I have heard anecdotally that he is s lousy tipper too.
Antifa's predictable next step
According to this article , Democrats are rethinking their public support for Antifa. I'm still skeptical over whether these Democrats have rejected Antifa totally. The headline of the article says "Democrats' alliance with Antifa crumbles; even Berkeley's mayor denounces 'street gang.'" The first Democrat who publically criticized Antifa was Nancy Pelosi.
In this post, I wrote "The Antifa riot happened on Sunday. Ms. Pelosi didn't issue her statement until Tuesday afternoon. Clear-thinking, principled people with integrity don't need 48 hours to know Antifa were a bunch of thugs who'd committed felonies." I said then that I was skeptical of Ms. Pelosi, saying that "Democrats always do the right thing ... when it's the only option left."
Democrats have shown who they are. The fact that they're backing off their public support for Antifa doesn't mean, IMO, that they won't appreciate Antifa's tactics. The next logical step for Antifa is to disappear, then re-emerge under a different name.
John Kass's column was written before a Ms. Pelosi's denunciation of Antifa. He raises lots of questions that still haven't gotten answered. Democrats certainly haven't denied his part of his column:
There has been no concerted media effort to pressure Democratic politicians to denounce Democratic muscle. So Democratic politicians have been relatively silent, as have many of their loyal pundits. A few pundits of the left have even compared the thugs with American soldiers hitting Omaha beach, a ridiculous attempt to legitimize the violence. This is all corrosive and dangerous. And in a loud political year, the silence of Democratic politicians explains so very much.
Because silence is consent.
Ms. Pelosi's statement was required because Democrats were losing the PR fight with the American people. In this video, Antifa leadership admits that they were violent:
Violence isn't just a tactic with Antifa. It's who they are. It's horrifying that Democrats think that they'll be able to convince Antifa to be part of their coalition. One Democrat who has credibility on the issue of Antifa is retired Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. Here's what he recently said:
Do not let the hard left, the radicals, represent the Democratic Party. There is an alt-left and we cannot deny it. The alt-left are radical people who want to deny us free speech, who want to close the campus to conversation, who want to stop people from having dialogue, who want to use violence ... Antifa is not our friend. They will not help us win elections. ... I do not want to give a pass to the hard radical left, which is destroying America, destroying American universities, destroying the Democratic Party."
Professor Dershowitz has consistently fought for people's civil rights. He's spoken eloquently about academia and old-fashioned debate. Antifa's picture of debate, according to the video available, is them beating people with whom they disagree with weaponized pieces of lumber.
Posted Saturday, September 2, 2017 7:14 AM
No comments.
That's Ezekiel Elliott's defense?
This Washington Post article contains the transcript of Ezekiel Elliott's appeal hearing with the NFL. Contained in that transcript are "statements made by Jeffrey Kessler, an attorney for the NFLPA, during the appeal hearing."
According to the transcript, Kessler said "Finally, while it's our position that you must reverse this discipline in its entirety, I can't help but note that the Commissioner did not explain in his letter why he did not find any mitigating circumstances in this case. Okay? He didn't find any aggravating, but he doesn't explain why there are no mitigating circumstances. Even if one were to conclude improperly that there were credible evidence that some act occurred that would violate the Policy, it is clear, given the extortionate threats given by [Elliott's accuser], her harassing nature, her violative nature, her drug and alcohol abuse, her penchant for rough sex, there certainly would have been provocation involved that would be a mitigating factor for two young people like this."
My first impression of Mr. Kessler's statement is that it sounds like a 'she had it coming' defense. This won't end well for the NFL, Ezekiel Elliot and the Dallas Cowboys for whom Elliott plays. This won't end well for the NFL because this story reminds people of the Greg Hardy fiasco. This definitely won't help Elliott because he comes across as either someone with anger management issues or someone who surrounds himself with people that don't have any character.
This definitely won't help Jerry Jones or his Dallas Cowboys. Jones has drafted or signed more than a few players with questionable character. Randy Gregory and Greg Hardy are poster children for players that fit into that category. Jones might get away with that if he was winning Super Bowl championships but it's been quite some time since they've done that.
Joe Lockhart, the NFL's executive vice president of communications and public affairs, replied to Kessler's disgusting statement, telling reporters "The union has single-handedly turned back the clock and trampled on the rights of victims by saying it's okay to commit violence against women as long as you're provoked."
When Ray Rice and Greg Hardy got suspended for domestic violence, the NFL got criticized for mishandling those cases. That statement from Mr. Lockhart was pitch perfect. It sent the right message. This video deals with whether Elliott should appeal the ruling in federal court:
The NFLPA, the players union, has already said that they'll file a lawsuit to get a temporary restraining order blocking the NFL from suspending Elliot. As the legal analyst said, that isn't likely to succeed because Elliott isn't likely to win the underlying case.
The biggest PR loser in all this is the NFLPA. Their aggressive attacks against the victim in this case have made them look like ruthless people willing to trample a woman to win a court battle. The biggest life loser in all this is the young lady. Not only did she allegedly get assaulted physically. After that humiliating event, she was accused of being a tramp.
Posted Saturday, September 2, 2017 10:37 AM
No comments.
Identity politics at its worst
It's indisputable that the Democratic Party is the party of identity politics. Scott Johnson's post highlights the Democrats' moral depravity by highlighting Sen. Franken's and Sen. Klobuchar's silent 'filibuster' of Justice David Stras.
In his post, Johnson wrote "On Thursday left-wing interest groups released a deeply dishonest 7-page letter opposing the confirmation of Justice Stras. The statement of these left-wing groups - Alliance for Justice, Courage Campaign, Every Voice, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Main Street Alliance, NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Association of Social Workers, National Council of Jewish Women, National Education Association, People For the American Way, Service Employees International Union and Voting Rights Forward - lacks any individual signatory." Whether it's Sen. Franken or Sen. Klobuchar or other Democrats, they're too sensitive to these special interests' wish lists to pay attention to doing what's best for their constituents. The last time Democrats did what their constituents wanted is years ago.
I remember writing something about PFAW, aka the People for the American Way, years ago. PFAW was instrumental in borking Judge Robert Bork. They were also instrumental in the "high tech lynching" that Justice Clarence Thomas spoke of. This exchange is still what PFAW is remembered for:
One of the things that Scott wrote about is the Twin Cities media. Saying that he's disappointed with their performance is understatement. Here's a portion of what Scott wrote:
Earlier this week I quoted Minnesota Senator Al Franken on his obstruction of the Senate consideration of the nomination of Justice David Stras to the Eighth Circuit: 'I think we're going to have a decision very soon.' That is a somewhat cryptic statement. What is he waiting for? If we had a free press operating in Minnesota, the obvious follow-up question would have been asked. Coverage of the blocking of the Stras nomination by Senators Franken and Klobuchar would be deep and continuing. As it is, nada.
Thanks to blogs like Powerline and commentaries like Harold Hamilton's weekly commentaries, Minnesota conservatives are finding out what's happening. They're finding out what the Twin Cities media refuses to tell them.
It isn't a stretch to think that the Twin Cities media won't drive the coverage much longer. That's bad news for dishonest politicians like Sen. Franken and Sen. Klobuchar. They do best when their activities are kept in the shadows.
BTW, another name for identity politics is special interest politics. If Democrats continue catering to the special interests, they'll continue losing, even in Minnesota, which used to be a blue state not that long ago.
Posted Saturday, September 2, 2017 1:51 PM
No comments.
Democrats in trouble in 2020?
The old political axiom is that a year in politics is 50 political lifetimes. That's certainly been true at times. In 2020, the most applicable cliche might be from late baseball legend Yogi Berra, who once infamously said "It gets late early out there." After reading Salena Zito's article , it's clear that loyalty to President Trump hasn't diminished. It's strengthened.
I don't see Pennsylvanians' loyalties changing. In fact, I'll predict right now that President Trump will win Pennsylvania again. If the Democrats don't flip Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin and if they don't hold Virginia and Colorado, they can't win. It's that simple.
Here's why I think it's getting pretty late pretty quick out there. Ms. Zito wrote "Almost a year after America sent The Donald to the White House, Moyer is still selling pro-Trump signage. Homes and businesses all over this county, which is mostly registered Democrat, continue to declare their allegiance to the Republican outsider. 'Last year, when people were asking me to make [signs] for them, I was fairly surprised. Republican political signs really aren't a big thing for me, and, well, this is a big Democrat area. The signs were everywhere, and everyone wanted one.'"
If there's anything that pundits should learn from all this, it's that President Trump's supporters are exceptionally committed to him because, thus far, he's kept his promises. Another thing that's important to remember is that he made a connection with blue collar workers during the campaign, then followed up with them after his inauguration. Then he started eliminating regulations that were holding coal mining companies back.
Democrats still haven't adjusted to this new reality. They're still committed to the environmental activist wing of their party. If they don't adjust to that new reality, Trump will own Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin again. Democrats still haven't figured out how much damage this did to them in Pennsylvania:
Last year, pollsters were convinced Pennsylvania would swing blue. Evidence of Trump signs, the kind of placards made by Moyer, which dotted rural counties all over the state, was dismissed as anecdotal, not proper scientific data. But Trump's victory upended that narrative.
I bet against President Trump too often last year. I've learned my lesson. With the economy strengthening in battleground states and consumer confidence rising, it's foolish to bet against President Trump right now.
In 2012, at the RightOnline Conference in Las Vegas, I had a brief conversation with Scott Rasmussen. He said that, though polling numbers often change, the identity of the race often gets set early. I think that's what's happening this year. If I'm right, that means that Democrats are falling further behind as we speak.
Posted Saturday, September 2, 2017 10:25 PM
No comments.
