September 19-24, 2018
Sep 19 14:34 Red Hat Event Sep 20 02:56 Keith Ellison's troubles Sep 20 16:17 Ellison vs. Wardlow Sep 21 08:29 The Kavanaugh Conundrum Sep 22 11:29 Confirmation 2-way street Sep 23 10:05 Dr. Ford's obligation Sep 24 10:53 The Democrats' investigation Sep 24 20:55 Get out & vote
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Red Hat Event
Thursday night, C-cubed and Red Hat events are holding an event at the Tuscan Center. The subjects for the event will be "Crime & Terrorism A local & National Perspective." Confirmed to attend are Philip Haney and Dave Bentrud. Mr. Haney is the co-author of the book titled " See Something, Say Nothing ." He is a former whistleblower who worked in the US Department of Homeland Security.
If you don't know much about him, this article will provide you with a ton of important information about Mr. Haney and the important responsibilities he was tasked with at the DHS.
Haney will provide insights into federal counterterrorism efforts.
Dave Bentrud is currently the Police Commissioner of the Waite Park Police Department. He's also running to become the next sheriff of Stearns County. Chief Bentrud will provide insights into law enforcement strategies to keep crime as low as possible.
The doors open at 6:30 pm, with Mr. Haney's presentation starting at 7:00 pm. The crime/law enforcement forum starts at 7:30 pm. PS- This video will help people understand Mr. Haney:
[Video no longer available]
Posted Wednesday, September 19, 2018 2:34 PM
Comment 1 by John Palmer at 20-Sep-18 08:39 AM
Candidate for Stearns County Sheriff has also confirmed and it is likely Sheriffs from Benton and Sherburne counties will attend or have a message which will be read.
Keith Ellison's troubles
John Hinderaker's latest article on Keith Ellison might push Ellison over the edge politically. Hinderaker's article includes this screen shot:
It's difficult to imagine how fair-minded Minnesotans give Rep. Ellison the benefit of the doubt when coupling this documentation with a transcript of a previous 911 call of another woman who has accused Ellison of physical abuse. Ellison has insisted that he's innocent of committing domestic violence but this screen shot from an ER visit (in which Monahan identifies Rep. Ellison by name) is virtually impossible to escape from. Houdini would have a difficult time escaping from this.
Considering the fact that the KSTP-SurveyUSA poll had Ellison tied with Doug Wardlow at 41%, it's difficult picturing things getting better for Ellison between today and Election Day.
Jessie van Berkel, the Strib reporter covering Ellison, wrote this :
U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison's former girlfriend Karen Monahan has posted a medical document on social media that shows she told a doctor in 2017 that she had been in an abusive relationship with Ellison. Monahan, who said Ellison domestically abused her in 2016, shared the patient progress notes from Nov. 2017 on Twitter several times this week.
Ellison, who is running for Minnesota attorney general, has denied the allegation, which emerged in August. Monahan's son first told the story on social media, and she later confirmed what her son said. During a fight, Ellison pulled on her legs and feet while she was lying on a bed, Monahan said.
Getting around a domestic violence complaint is difficult when there's a document signed by a doctor talking about the suffering the woman had dealt with. It's virtually impossible for me to see Rep. Ellison wiggling out of this one.
Originally posted Thursday, September 20, 2018, revised 03-Oct 3:51 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 20-Sep-18 10:10 AM
Gary, why do you figure that Wardlow's hiding the fact he sponsored two right-to-work-for-less bills and got voted out of the Minnesota House after he did that? One term wonder, wannabe AG, and he'll do all he can if elected to hurt organized working people, whatever else he postures.
Ellison favors organized labor, or had you not heard? Being distracted and all.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Sep-18 11:09 AM
Ellison is disqualified. He's a pervert. In his instance, there is proof. Karen Monahan didn't hesitate in stepping forward. Blasey-Ford hesitated. She hasn't offered proof.
Further, Janus v. AFSCME has essentially made the United States a right to work nation.
Finally, we shouldn't elect Ellison to a position where he can use taxpayer money to harass the President of the United States. He's proven that he supports cop-killers & hates law enforcement. What part of that sounds like he's qualified to be Minnesota's chief law enforcement officer?
Comment 2 by eric z. at 20-Sep-18 12:16 PM
You are calling Kavanaugh a pervert? Really Gary, that is extreme.
State action, Gary. Look it up. Read your Civil War Amendments more carefully. Janus is yet more Roberts. It sucks. Like corporations being humans; corporations having religion.
Wardlow is bad news, parse it and all however you want. Ellison is fine. Let's see the voting.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Sep-18 03:47 PM
Pay attention. I called Ellison a pervert. If I had to characterize Kavanaugh, the term boy scout would be near the top of the list. If you & the DFL want to defend a pervert like Keith Ellison but attack men of character like Doug Wardlow & Judge Kavanaugh, have at it. Let me know how that turns out this November.
PS- FDR opposed unionization of public unions. Next, read your history books instead of the DFL's chanting points.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 21-Sep-18 05:34 PM
The unions are already hurting the working people and the "Ellison is fine" comment is all we need to know about Eric and the progressive left, the ends justify the means.
Ellison vs. Wardlow
After Jessie van Berkel's article , Doug Wardlow is going on the offensive in his campaign against Keith Ellison. Wardlow's campaign is going on the offensive with this ad:
[Video no longer available]
Here's a partial transcript of Wardlow's ad:
NARRATOR: Extreme Keith Ellison voted against the Farm Bill and supports radical environmental policies that hurt Minnesota farmers and workers. Extreme Keith Ellison supported cop-killers, open borders and has said he's against the Second Amendment. Even worse, Extreme Keith Ellison has been accused of domestic violence by multiple women.
Think about this -- Keith Ellison wants to be Minnesota's chief law enforcement officer but he disagrees with the Bill of Rights and he thinks that he can beat up women without getting punished. What type of idiot liberal thinks that makes sense?
Let me rephrase that. What idiot liberal other than the ones serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee thinks that ignoring the Constitution and beating up women is ok? In Karen Monahan's case, she provided proof of Ellison's assault. She didn't wait 30+ years to make the accusation. She immediately reported it to the proper authorities. Medical personnel have verified her injuries.
Keith Ellison is devoid of character plus he thinks he's above the law. Why would we elect that type of dirtbag? Instead, let's elect Doug Wardlow. With him, we know he won't support cop-killers or beat up women.
Posted Thursday, September 20, 2018 4:17 PM
Comment 1 by Gretchen Leisen at 20-Sep-18 07:00 PM
A very good piece of writing, Gary. On Tuesday Doug Wardlow was in St. Cloud and he told the group that he was definitely going to make the voting public aware of Keith Ellison's personal and public records regarding the law and abuse. This is a great ad. Congratulations to Doug. Thanks for sharing this with us.
By-the-way, can you tell us what the numbers are for people who view your blogs? I plan to tell my friends to check in on you frequently.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Sep-18 01:52 AM
Hi Gretchen. Thanks for supporting LFR. To those who don't know Gretchen, she's a great patriot. As for my numbers, I get approximately 1,500-1,600 unique visitors per day.
The Kavanaugh Conundrum
Senate Democrats, especially female senators, insist that women are right to expect to be believed. Apparently, that right comes with an asterisk. Apparently, that doesn't apply if you've accused Tom Brokaw, Matt Lauer, Bill Clinton, Keith Ellison, Al Franken or Harvey Weinstein.
Women like Karen Monahan don't have the right to be believed, even when they provide verification of their accusations. In Bill Clinton's case, he even had a wife who attacked his accusers.
What's interesting is that Kirsten Gillibrand thinks that it's impolite for Republicans to essentially tell an accuser that she wouldn't be believed if she didn't testify after making strong accusations against a Supreme Court nominee without any proof.
Initially, Dr. Ford's attorneys played this stupid, insisting that the FBI conduct an investigation. That's rather rich considering that the alleged crime happened 36 years ago at a home the 'victim' doesn't know the address of. How do you collect forensic evidence without a 'crime scene'? Without a crime scene (and, in this case, I use that term extremely loosely) or forensic evidence, this will forever be a he said/she said allegation. No investigation, done by the FBI or otherwise, will change that. Period.
Finally, how can you trust people whose logic is this circular?
[Video no longer available]
In doing background checks, the FBI just puts in raw data. It doesn't provide conclusions. Why would Democrats want that? Explanation: so they can tell people that Judge Kavanaugh did X, Y or Z, then throw in the term BI investigation to make it sound official. It's still a he said/she said thing. There still isn't a bit of proof that verifies anything in either person's direction. It isn't a stretch to think that this is just the Democrats' attempt to drag this out past the midterms, then pray that they win back the majority in the Senate, thereby killing the Kavanaugh nomination.
It isn't a stretch because the Kavanaugh confirmation represents an existential threat to Democrats. (That's why they announced their opposition to the eventual nominee before he'd been named.)
Posted Friday, September 21, 2018 8:29 AM
No comments.
Confirmation 2-way street
For most of this week, Democrat women senators like Mazie Hirono and Kirsten Gillibrand have insisted that Chairman Grassley's invitation to Christine Blasey-Ford was an attempt to silence Dr. Ford. They insisted that making her testify first violated her constitutional rights. (It doesn't.) The defendant always goes last. Who's ever heard of the prosecution going last? How would the defendant defend himself/herself if the prosecution hasn't presented its case first?
Writing in The Atlantic, Benjamin Witte writes that "Kavanaugh Bears the Burden of Proof." When I went to sleep last night, I could've sworn that people were innocent until proven guilty. The truth is that this case has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese. If a prosecutor were to bring it to trial, the defense wouldn't need to call a witness. All they'd have to do is make a motion to dismiss immediately after the prosecution rested. The judge would immediately dismiss for insufficient evidence.
Nan Aron, one of the most strident activists on the Democratic side, writes " Every Woman in America Is Watching " in an attempt to intimidate men.
She wrote this:
More than a quarter century ago, a university professor named Anita Hill was abused, shamed, and ignored by the U.S. Senate - just for having the courage to go before the Judiciary Committee and describe how she'd been sexually harassed by Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.
I know because I was at that hearing. My organization, Alliance for Justice, played a role in bringing Professor Hill's story to light, by alerting the Senate Judiciary Committee to her experiences and ability to corroborate what had been widely whispered, but not validated, about Clarence Thomas. I also remember the pain and the outrage that women felt at the way Professor Hill was treated, and I want very much to believe that such a thing would not happen again in today's #MeToo era.
First, Anita Hill was shamed because they believed Clarence Thomas, who rightly highlighted the unsubstantiated allegations in this epic scene:
[Video no longer available]
Why doesn't Aron think that women are interested in fairness? Picture a justice system where men's careers can be demolished with unsubstantiated allegations. Is that a world you'd want to live in? Women, imagine a system where your husband's career can be demolished with an unsubstantiated allegation. I can't imagine that's your definition of fairness.
It isn't just the faux feminists that are watching on this. It's everyone. Predictably, the Democrats have overplayed their hand. Again. There's an old saying about Yasser Arafat that fits Democrats perfectly: He never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Democrats didn't have an opportunity to take down Judge Kavanaugh but they're certainly missing an opportunity to win voters over.
Posted Saturday, September 22, 2018 11:29 AM
Comment 1 by Gretchen L Leisen at 22-Sep-18 04:09 PM
Your theory makes sense to you and me, but to radical feminists it will make no difference. The do not care about whether they are right, but whether they win. And to expect them to have any deference to a man being falsely accused, it's a wild-eyed notion. As I wrote above, they only care to win, and a man's innocence has no value in their evaluation of the situation.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 22-Sep-18 05:47 PM
Another unsubstantiated allegation from 35+ years ago with absolutely no proof what so ever and the progressives and feminists believe her wholeheartedly but a recent allegation with medical proof of assault and they and the accused say it is fabricated. You can't make this stuff up.
Comment 3 by Gretchen L Leisen at 22-Sep-18 09:52 PM
One more thing. In British law, I believe, the accused is assumed guilty until proven innocent. After the American Revolution, our forefathers were wise enough to change that system to be that a man/woman is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Apparently Democrats want to change our laws by turning them upside down.
Comment 4 by Chad Q at 23-Sep-18 09:02 AM
Well Gretchen, most if not all progressives like the way things are running across the pond so it's no surprise they have reverted to thinking those laws are still in effect here.
Comment 5 by Michelle Innes at 03-Oct-18 01:55 PM
Way to go Senator Grassley thank you, the dems game is getting old and it is because they are trying to play on emotions. The lies are pushing the obama identity policies and the islamification of America, I didn't vote for hillary clinton and many of my girlfriends because of her ties to the muslim brotherhood, janet napolito's department of homeland security mohamed elibiary. By the time comey said she lied American women like me had made up our minds a year prior to comey's remark. It had nothing to do with Russia and all the news agencies on the internet coming from london or india qz.com or canada and seeing muslim women in hijab's and refugees flooding our cities, and millions of anti-semetic, anti-Christian tweets like those of mohamed elibiary, seeing when our 1948 Declaration of Human Rights change on wikipedia adding palestinians to our Human Rights Declaration of 1948 by muslim professors Joe Esposito and prof John Inuzu. The dems killed their self's with riots with muslims rioting with global black lives matter and obama's own mouth his UN international law speeches against American's these people are a joke democrates chamber of commerce, restorative justice (colorado safety and justice council and sceince, space and technology. The dems are those who are saying islam is a respected religion, every women in America can see 1-877-shariah is about shariah law in America. The democrats are ugly, hateful, globalist, ignorant, and desperate. Now the dems are covering up for racist black muslim clinton appointee jeh charles johnson and obamas top pentagon lawyer www.dhs.gov/photo/secretary-jeh-johnson-one-police-plaza taken at the 2016 DNC convention and his comments to the isoamic circle of North America, and secretary jeh charles johnson remarks to www.icna.org/icna-csj-parners-with-toyota-for-super-bowl-commercial, lmao. this is also shameful www.muslimwriters.org with the mothers of the movement and immigration muslim lawyer khan nasty hateful disqusting they way he attacked President Trump. Obama's stakeholder unity across the federal government and attaching the dhs with our social security 1-9 form then American's have a jobs and travel registry www.icann.org/resources/agreements/jobs-2015-02 then muslims who are bringing in untreatable tuburculosis want not to be vetted or any travel ban from terrorist middle eastern countries., stupid as seen on cbs news (gayle king obama stooge) abc, fox, and nbc www.suncitiesfinancialgroup.com, obamas CIO 2008 dhs document calls All American's human capital market., muslim obama and starting with clinton and bush www.georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.org sickening. And obama's single care tax heathcare dhimmitute + dems attemps to disarm America only a tyrranical government attempts to disarm its citizen's dhimmi+disarmement islamic state of America. Obama thought he could hide it.
Dr. Ford's obligation
One of the things implied in Alan Dershowitz's article is that Dr. Ford must testify. That comes through loud and clear when Prof. Dershowitz wrote "Obviously she has to testify, she has to be cross-examined, preferably by good lawyers who can ask probing questions. Then [Kavanaugh] has to get up and respond."
Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think that Dr. Ford will testify . It's her affirmative responsibility to testify now that she dropped this bombshell on Judge Kavanaugh but there's virtually no chance that she'll do that because there's too much downside for her and the Democrats.
First, there's the downside of Dr. Ford sounding like a political pawn the minute the Republicans start asking her about specifics about the event. The minute that Dr. Ford can't identify the address of the home where the alleged attack happened, Dr. Ford's credibility will diminish. When they ask Dr. Ford about how she got home after the event and she admits that she can't remember, Dr. Ford's credibility will diminish.
[Video no longer available]
Dr. Ford's team of attorneys are doing their best to 'negotiate' rules that benefit her the most. Testifying after Judge Kavanaugh is designed to help her craft her story after Judge Kavanaugh has testified. Prof. Dershowitz said it perfectly when he said this:
The tool of the inquisition was to always call the accused first. Make him testify. Make him lay out his whole case and only then tell him what the accusation is.
This afternoon, Dr. Ford's attorneys issued another unresponsive response, insisting that Judge Kavanaugh go first, and that the hearing be held on Thursday. If Dr. Ford won't testify on Wednesday and if she isn't willing to testify first, then Republicans should highlight how Dr. Ford and the Democrats tried creating a kangaroo court in their attempt to not have Dr. Ford testify. Like I said yesterday, her testimony has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. If given a smell test, Dr. Ford's testimony would stink like Limburger cheese.
Sen. Grassley, it's time to make a decision. It's time to give Judge Kavanaugh an up-or-down vote.
Posted Sunday, September 23, 2018 10:05 AM
Comment 1 by Gretchen L Leisen at 23-Sep-18 02:29 PM
Any fair-minded person would say that Christine Blasely Ford has an obligation to testify. After all, her accusation against Judge Kavanaugh has the power to destroy his reputation and entire future employment. But I don't expect any fair-mindedness from her or the people who are exploiting her to further their left-wing cause. Kavanaugh is a white person and a man. That seems to be sufficient for them to justify their evil ways. They seem like a lynch mob resurrected from the old days of the Jim Crow south.
The Democrats' investigation
If anything, this article proves that the Democrats' calls for an FBI investigation were a political stunt. This article highlights the 'plight' of Deborah Ramirez, who supposedly was sexually assaulted by (drum roll please) Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
According to the article, Ramirez "was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh's role in the alleged incident with certainty."
In the legal profession, that's like admitting that you're making this stuff up. "Contained gaps"? "She'd been drinking at the time of the alleged incident"? Let's pre-emptively tell the feminist left that nobody is under any obligation to believe anything this woman says. Any person, male or female, who admits that they've got gaps in their memory of something that happened in the 1980s because they were drinking heavily at the time has credibility difficulties.
[Video no longer available]
There's nothing in the article that's credible. Check this out:
After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh's role in the incident. "I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted," she said.
Translation: After Democrats prevailed upon her to step forward, Ramirez said yes.
Posted Monday, September 24, 2018 10:53 AM
Comment 1 by Gretchen L Leisen at 24-Sep-18 01:55 PM
As I write this Judge Kavanaugh has indicated he will fight for his good name, and never give up. That's good news. All people with a sense of fair play can see how one-sided this is.
Michael Avenatti, the 'creepy porn lawyer,' is now claiming he has 3 women who will come forth and accuse Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge, of throwing drinking parties in college and getting the coeds drunk do they could have raping parties with their buddies. Democrats have turned the entire confirmation process into a Three Stooges script.
In November all men and women who believe in fair play, the rule of law and equal treatment under the law should vote Republican up and down the ballot, and throw all these nasty, evil people out of office.
Comment 2 by Darrell Gammon at 24-Sep-18 05:18 PM
I agree with you and I would like to add, if these women(which I had told my younger brother would happen weeks ago)are found lying, then is Senator Feinstein going to be expelled from the Senate? And Sen. Booker also should be expelled for releasing those documents but they won't because....Republicans are weak leaders.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 24-Sep-18 07:29 PM
Doesn't matter if Kavanaugh is innocent, the progressives will continue to roll out "victim" after "victim" demanding the FBI investigate alleged crimes they have no jurisdiction over, until he finally drops out.
Get out & vote
If watching the Democrats' trashing of a good man's reputation without corroboration isn't pissing you off, then you're either a Democrat or the most apathetic person alive. The Democrats haven't hesitated in trashing Brett Kavanaugh's reputation and the reputation of his young family. What Democrats have done (and are doing) is beyond reprehensible.
Friends, regardless of political affiliation, the Democrats' tactics should turn your stomach. They're ruining the life of a thoroughly upright, God-fearing man with unsubstantiated allegations. Judiciary Committee Democrats have said some of the nastiest things imaginable about Judge Kavanaugh. He's done nothing to deserve this. Kavanaugh's 'crime'? Being a judicial conservative.
Amy Klobuchar, aka St. Amy of Hennepin County, prides herself on her bipartisan work. While she hasn't been as hate-filled as Mazie Hirono, (D-HI), she's been a nasty partisan nonetheless. It's time to throw her out of office. Jim Newberger would be an outstanding replacement.
Across the nation, Democrats want to take us back to the failed policies that 'produced' 1.5% economic growth. Sitting at home will help get rid of President Trump's policies that've replaced President Obama's policies of pathetic growth and replaced them with robust growth. Is that what you'd prefer? Sitting at home will get you there.
This isn't a time for complacency. There's far too much at stake. There's a Supreme Court seat that's hanging in the balance. Our prosperity is, too. Do we really want a rerun of Speaker Pelosi? I don't! If you're ok with Supreme Court nominees getting treated like trash, all you have to do is nothing. This interview should motivate you to vote this fall:
[Video no longer available]
In fact, I'd recommend you vote early for your nearest Republican. Voting Democrat is a vote for another protracted smear campaign against a good man. No Thanks.
Posted Monday, September 24, 2018 8:55 PM
No comments.
