September 4-5, 2019

Sep 04 07:08 The lack of objective truth
Sep 04 07:09 Beto O'Rourke's biggest problem
Sep 04 18:20 Jerry Nadler vs. Lindsey Graham
Sep 04 23:44 Sen. Harris: "I would ban fracking"

Sep 05 00:44 Blasey-Ford's lawyer spills the beans
Sep 05 01:28 I'm checking the temperature in hell. You should, too. Here's why.
Sep 05 10:26 SCERAC's unconstitutional request
Sep 05 23:50 Twins defeat Boston, finish 8-2 road trip

Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

The lack of objective truth

This LTE highlights how society is increasingly rejecting objective truth. This paragraph is the perfect example of undisciplined thinking:

Our disagreements about how to run government, provide health care and offer housing and a sustainable living to families are only the tip of the iceberg. We disagree about how to best take care of both immigrants and citizens. None of the ways are the "right" way. We must understand that each is "a" way and that they all work with varying degrees of success. When we factor human kindness into the equation, or love of neighbor, we have more success.

Actually, the right way to deal with immigration is multi-faceted but eminently logical. It starts with the belief that each nation has the right to determine who gets into its nation.

In fact, it's important to realize that nations have the affirmative obligation to protect its citizens. Providing for public safety is a core function of government. Implicit in the above paragraph is that there isn't a wrong way. That's foolish. The wrong way is the way that the Democrats' presidential candidates are advocating for.

During the Democrats' first round of presidential debates in Miami, FL, every Democrat presidential candidate lifted their hand, signaling that they thought the US should decriminalize illegal immigration. That's insanity. That's like sending out an invitation to the world that they can live in the US if they pay a fine.

Saying that all ways "work with varying degrees of success" is foolish. Closing immigration loopholes, tightening up asylum questions and sealing our border with physical walls will shut down illegal immigration to a trickle, stop human trafficking and restrict the flow of illegal drugs to the point of crippling the drug cartels' profits.
[Video no longer available]
Hearing Nancy Pelosi say that obeying the immigration laws that Congress has passed and that various presidents have signed "isn't who we are" is sickening. If those signed laws that were passed by this nation's elected leaders don't represent our nation's values, what does? After all, those laws weren't shoved down our throats. They required compromise, wisdom and principles.

Democracy is that great American experiment in which we each have a say because we were created as equals, no matter our lot in life. Gerrymandering and restricting access to polling places (see our neighbors in North Dakota, for example) give lie to the experiment. True democracy makes it easier to vote and works toward equal representation, not the reverse.

Before the federal government existed and immediately after the Colonists won the Revolutionary War, France recognized each of the 13 former colonies as individual nation states. Today's Democrats advocate for the opposite of the post-Revolutionary War United States by advocating for a system of government that doesn't take into consideration what rural America, America's heartland and blue collar America need but caters to the needs of coastal America and elitist America.

It's important to stipulate that we don't have a national government. We have a federal government. Theoretically at least, that federal government is there to serve the states. It isn't there to tell the states what to do. The best way that the federal government can serve We The People is to let us make most decisions at the local or family level.

Yes, there really is a right way. Yes, there really is a wrong way. Though the Founding Fathers were imperfect, the Constitution that they put together was as close to perfect as any document in human history.

Posted Wednesday, September 4, 2019 7:08 AM

No comments.

Beto O'Rourke's biggest problem

Beto O'Rourke's biggest problem is that he wants to confiscate guns . That's just plain foolish. Appearing on CNN's State of the Union, O'Rourke "told CNN on Sunday that he supports stronger gun laws including a mandatory gun buyback. 'We are going to speak as strongly and as defiantly as we can but we are also going to take action,' O'Rourke said. 'Universal background checks, red flag laws, and ending the sales of weapons of war and buying those AK-47s and AR-15s back so they cannot be used against our fellow Americans.'"

What he didn't say is that his proposal would be shot down by the courts the minute the first AK-47 or AR-15 was confiscated by his administration. O'Rourke knows this. Despite his foolish antics on video, he isn't that stupid. He knows that his plan doesn't have a shot at becoming reality. He's doing this to pander to Bloomberg/Moms Demand Action Democrats.

In the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller , the part that applies directly to banning AK-47s and AR-15s is found on page 3:

Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those " in common use at the time " finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense .

AR-15s and AK-47s certainly fit into the category of guns "in common use at the time." O'Rourke knows that he couldn't confiscate guns with this court being comprised the way it's currently configured. This is pure pandering:
[Video no longer available]
The truth is that people get it that O'Rourke is pandering, nothing more. He's a waste of time. He isn't anything except a pretender. Democrats could cut next week's debate in half and it wouldn't change the outcome whatsoever.

This is O'Rourke's final political flourish. After this, his political career is over.

Posted Wednesday, September 4, 2019 7:09 AM

Comment 1 by Chad Q at 04-Sep-19 05:04 PM
There's nothing these progressive idiots won't say to try and get a person to vote for them knowing full well they don't have a snowflakes chance in hell of actually doing it.

Comment 2 by eric z at 05-Sep-19 09:48 AM
Beto's biggest problem is low polling. Also, Trump defeated Cruz, Beto lost to Cruz. There are nuances, surely, with a nationwide electorate and that of Texas not being congruent, but if Cruz is a barometer ---

Jerry Nadler vs. Lindsey Graham

Andy McCarthy's op-ed unintentionally highlights the difference between Lindsey Graham and Jerry Nadler. They chair the Judiciary committees in the Senate and the House, respectively.

Here's what Nadler is doing:

Elections have consequences. This was a point we tried to make many times in the run-up to the 2018 midterm elections. The Democrats won control of the House fair and square. That means they get to drive the agenda.

Their agenda, kinda sorta, is the impeachment of President Trump - which is to say, the quixotic quest to build political support for it. According to the Washington Post, that effort is about to sink deeper into farce: Hearings on Stormy Daniels and the hush-money payments to conceal trysts that Donald Trump had - allegedly, of course - a decade before he ran for president.

Here's what the Constitution says about impeachment:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors .

Simply put, campaign finance transactions from before a candidate is elected doesn't rise to the level of treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors. In fact, it isn't even close. Nadler knows this. Still, he insists on wasting the people's time on this charade.

While Nadler wastes time and money on this charade, Lindsey Graham is working on something substantive that would make people safer and improve their lives:

Co-host Steve Doocy asked Graham, R-S.C., why the Flores agreement has been politicized. Graham repeated "they hate Trump" in response, arguing Washington needs people who don't share such hatred of the president. "I have been working on immigration for 10 years. I'm willing to deal with a DACA population... I'm willing to spend money in Central America to make life better. I've done everything I know to do... I can't get one Democrat to agree with me that you should apply for asylum in Central America, or Mexico, not the United States."

Sen. Graham's bill would address the Flores Agreement, which essentially is where the practice of catch and release starts. That's the cornerstone of the Democrats' open borders policies.
[Video no longer available]
Graham's bill would also change the US's asylum laws. The biggest change would be to force asylum seekers to apply in their country of origin at a US embassy or consulate. It would also increase the burden for getting an asylum hearing. Most people seeking asylum (upwards of 90%) pass the initial test. Few pass the court test. (That's in the 10-15% range.) Those that pass the first test get assigned a court date that's often 2 years off.

The comparison couldn't be clearer. Jerry Nadler hasn't worked on a single substantive piece of legislation since becoming the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Instead, he's pushed an impeachment charade to appease the Democrats' looney tune base.

Sen. Graham has spent time confirming judges to district and appellate courts. He's written legislation to reform out-of-date immigration laws intended to keep Americans safe. He's worked hard on building bipartisan agreement to fix our broken immigration laws.

Sen. Graham's legislation should gain bipartisan support because protecting our citizens shouldn't be a partisan issue. Rep. Nadler's investigation shouldn't get bipartisan support because he's conducting a purely partisan investigation into something that doesn't rise to an impeachable offense.

In 2020, the American people need to decide whether they want to vote for Republicans who are trying to get things done or whether they want to vote for Democrats who have spent their time conducting sham investigations that do nothing except employ lots of lawyers. I'll vote for Republicans who want to get important things done. I won't vote for Do-Nothing Democrats. I won't vote for Do-Nothing Democrats who've voted for extremist health care legislation that's expensive and that would eliminate private health insurance. Pelosi keeps asking for a Senate vote on the bills her House has passed. Sen. McConnell is right in not giving these bills a vote because they aren't bills that would fix anything.

Posted Wednesday, September 4, 2019 6:20 PM

No comments.

Sen. Harris: "I would ban fracking"

Of all the stupid things to say, Kamala Harris told a CNN townhall audience that she would ban fracking . In her effort to win the Democrat presidential nomination, Sen. Harris attempted to pander to the heart of the Democrats' base, aka the hard-left environmental activist wing of the party.

"There is no question I am in favor of banning fracking," Harris said during an all-night CNN town hall event focused on climate change.

Given her track record of flip-flopping on the biggest issues to Democrats, there's little question that she'll tell voters in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania that she misspoke and that she loves blue collar workers. The truth is that Sen. Harris leaves herself plenty of wiggle room to extricate herself from tight positions. For example, the article notes that "Harris' formal climate plan , published earlier Wednesday, does not explicitly call for Congress to ban fracking." Gee. How handy that is. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Unless Sen. Harris turns things around fast, she's history. I've said for a month that this is essentially a 3-4 candidate race, with Biden leading, trailed by Bernie, Warren and finally by Harris. The thing that's getting obvious to voters who pay attention is that Sen. Harris's initial statements on each issue is quite strong, followed by less firm statements as she fields criticism for her most forceful statements. Look how forceful her initial statement is:
[Video no longer available]
It's difficult to picture Sen. Harris standing out from standing out from any of the other Democrats' presidential candidates on this subject. Still, it's difficult to see Sen. Harris not participating in this townhall. To skip such a townhall might be seen as having something to hide.

Finally, Sen. Harris's statement will doom her in the general election if she's the Democrats' presidential nominee. Banning fracking is one of the best ways of losing in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio.

Posted Wednesday, September 4, 2019 11:44 PM

Comment 1 by eric z at 05-Sep-19 09:43 AM
You can google = Kamala Harris former clinton staff

What you'd see is what you'd get. No Podesta, but others.

Blasey-Ford's lawyer spills the beans

After reading this article , there's no doubt that Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford had a sinister motive in stepping forward and making her wild accusations. At the time, I thought that it was highly possible Dr. Blasey-Ford wasn't telling the truth. When Dr. Ford's best friend said that she'd never met Brett Kavanaugh, I thought it was almost certain that Dr. Blasey-Ford hadn't told the truth.

It's worth noting that Debra Katz, a "high-powered progressive lawyer" who represented Dr. Blasey-Ford, said "In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine's testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court. He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important."

The assault against Kavanaugh has been exposed, especially in the fantastic new book Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court , written by Mollie Hemingway of the Federalist and Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network. There will be an asterisk associated with the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings but it will be attached to the far-left activists who tried derailing Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation. Here's the video proof of Katz's statements:
[Video no longer available]
What's now known is that Dr. Ford came forward for partisan political reasons, not because she had proof that Brett Kavanaugh had done the things she'd accused him of doing. Lots of accusations were thrown at Justice Kavanaugh. The most discredited accusations were made by Julie Swetnick , then represented by Michael Avenatti, aka CPL, aka Creepy Porn Lawyer. In September, 2018, Swetnick swore out a statement under penalty of perjury, stating "I witnessed Brett Kavanaugh consistently engage in excessive drinking and inappropriate contact of a sexual nature with women during the early 1980s."

In October, 2018, then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley referred both Avenatti and Swetnick for criminal prosecution to the DOJ. The Democrats' attempt to derail the confirmation of a judge who happened to be Catholic should frighten people who think that we shouldn't hold a person's religious beliefs against them if they're applying for a position within the federal government. The Constitution forbids religious tests :

but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That text is found in Article VI, Clause 3. This is just the start. If/when Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires and President Trump still occupies the Oval Office and Republicans hold a majority in the Senate, all hell will break loose. It doesn't take Nostradamus to figure that out. Joe Biden could even figure that out.

Posted Thursday, September 5, 2019 12:44 AM

Comment 1 by Chad Q at 06-Sep-19 06:44 PM
What? The progressive socialists had ulterior motives for trying to destroy Kavanaugh? Shocked, Shocked I say.

I'm checking the temperature in hell. You should, too. Here's why.

Icicles must be forming in hell because Ted Cruz will meet with Alyssa Milano in Sen. Cruz's Senate office to discuss gun control and the Bible in the spirit of I Peter 4:8. For those not familiar with that verse (I wasn't), it says "And above all things have fervent love for one another, for 'love will cover a multitude of sins.'" Here's my sincere prayer that that's the spirit that this political odd couple will meet.

This all started when Miss Milano initially tweeted "I'd love to come in and meet with you on the gun issue and many other issues that include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, @tedcruz and also, 1 Peter 4:8. I'll be in DC next week. We can live-stream the meeting so the American people can hear your bullshit 1st hand." Cruz then replied, saying "I'd be happy to sit down & visit next week about uniting to stop gun violence & about the Constitution. If we can have a civil & positive conversation - in the spirit of 1 Peter 4:8 as you suggest - despite our political differences, that might help resolve the discord in our Nation."

I don't doubt Sen. Cruz's sincerity. He's a solid Christian man who isn't afraid of a debate. Since he's said that he wants to have a conversation "in the spirit of I Peter 4:8," then I'll accept that as Sen. Cruz's intent. What's interesting is Miss Milano's reply:


Sen. Cruz's reply might've surprised Miss Milano:








There's more to Sen. Cruz's reply, which I'd recommend everyone read, but you get the picture. Nonetheless, Miss Milano replied thusly:


This should be interesting. I'd love it if all of the cable networks covered it live. If they did, I'm betting that they'd get monstrous ratings. I'd be surprised if each network couldn't find a major sponsor to allow them to cover the discussion/debate without interruption.

Perhaps, this odd couple might even do something positive that would help break the partisan logjam on this and other issues.

Posted Thursday, September 5, 2019 1:28 AM

Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 05-Sep-19 09:50 AM
Best bet is that the former witch either gets humiliated or ends up in an emotional tirade. Suggestion for Sen. Ted: Have it videoed and only released by agreement of BOTH parties.

SCERAC's unconstitutional request

Now that the first ruling is in on SCERAC's lawsuit is in , it's time for St. Cloud Educational Rights Advocacy Council (SCERAC) to lick its wounds, then regroup. The arguments put forth by the Rinke-Noonan Law Firm on SCERAC's behalf were deemed insufficient.

Specifically, "Stearns County District Court Judge Kris Davick-Halfen on Wednesday denied the advocacy group's motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the state's motion to dismiss the lawsuit", writing "Throughout its filings, (the plaintiff) has made a passionate and thoughtful argument as to why the governor and legislature should provide the St. Cloud school district with the additional funding it requests. Nevertheless, this court cannot grant the relief (the plaintiff) requests and must grant (the defendant's) motion."

Later in the opinion, it states "(The plaintiff) does not allege that the St. Cloud District receives less funding per pupil than other school districts. Instead, the ... complaint alleges that St. Cloud School District would be able to do more with additional funds. This does not constitute a violation of the Education Clause."

Later, Davick-Halfen notes this:

When discussing the denial of the preliminary injunction, Davick-Halfen cited a Minnesota Supreme Court case where "a court should examine whether granting the (plaintiff's) request would 'maintain the status quo until the case can be decided on its merits.'" "The relief that (the plaintiff) is requesting in this temporary injunction would be a substantial change from what has been occurring," Davick-Halfen states.

What SCERAC was asking the court to do is order the legislative and executive branches to do something that they chose not to do. This is prohibited by the separation of powers clause. Simply put, Minnesota's Constitution doesn't give the Judicial Branch the authority to intervene in the appropriations process. That's left to the political branches. It isn't left to the judicial branch.

Posted Thursday, September 5, 2019 10:26 AM

No comments.

Twins defeat Boston, finish 8-2 road trip

Saying that tonight's Twins-Red Sox game was dramatic is understatement on steroids. Boston scored the first run of the game on Mookie Betts' opposite-field home run off the right field foul pole. The Twins tied it up on C.J. Cron's double play. Miguel Sano scored from third base after drawing a walk. Sano scored the other Twins run by scampering home from third after getting on base after another walk. On the night, Sano went hitless but drawing 3 walks while scoring both Twins runs.

That being said, the game's last play was the game's most dramatic play. Check it out:


I had the opportunity to watch Carl Yastrzemski play Boston's Green Monster. He played it better than any left fielder in the game. Tonight's play by Rosario was as good as any play that I saw Yaz make. What a play.

It's worth noting that the Twins won tonight because they took 9 walks. Both of Sano's runs came after drawing walks from Boston pitchers. The other thing that contributed mightily to the Twins win was their bullpen. Tonight, the bullpen was outstanding , pitching 3 innings while striking out 3 without walking anyone and giving up only 2 hits.

Tyler Duffey was most impressive in his inning of work, striking out Brock Holt and Jackie Bradley, Jr. while throwing only 9 pitches in the eighth inning.

Friday night, the Twins open a 3-game series against the Cleveland Indians. Cleveland trails the Twins by 6.5 games going into tonight's series. If Cleveland doesn't sweep that series, they'll face an uphill fight to repeat as AL North Champions. If the Twins win half of their remaining games, they'll finish with a 98-64 record. In order for Cleveland to tie the Twins, they'd need to win 17 of their last 21 games.

That will be difficult since they have to still play the Twins 6 more times. That's in addition to Cleveland playing 3 games at home against Philadelphia and 3 games in Washington against the Nationals.

The Twins play 6 games against Cleveland, with 3 games at home and 3 games in Cleveland. They also have a series at home vs. the Washington Nationals. After that, they finish with 7 games against Kansas City, 3 games against the White Sox and 3 games against Detroit.

If I was a betting man, I wouldn't bet against the Twins winning the division at this stage of the season.

Posted Thursday, September 5, 2019 11:50 PM

Comment 1 by eric z at 06-Sep-19 11:17 AM
And the Green Bay defense [the DEFENSE!] shut down the Bears. Interesting times.

Comment 2 by Chad Q at 07-Sep-19 02:56 PM
I wonder how many other Twins players will get drug tested now that Pineda got a 60 day suspension.

Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Sep-19 12:50 AM
I don't have the answer for that but I have this answer: the Twins really played well tonight. Odorizzi threw the hell out of the ball. Garver delivered 2 huge HRs, one that got them started, the other that finished off Cleveland. I felt awful for Duffey's WP that gave the Indians the lead because I wasn't sure we'd come back. Still, his last 13 outs or so have come on strikeouts.

His curve has been nasty & his fastball has been spotted wherever he's wanted to put it, whether it's up, down, inside, or outside.

Popular posts from this blog

January 19-20, 2012

Image
Jan 19 02:57 Minnesota Majority report an indictment against Minnesota's election integrity Jan 19 03:41 Ron Paul's Logic Jan 19 08:08 Newt thrives despite Mitt's hatchet job efforts Jan 19 09:19 Potential Game-Changer: Perry dropping out this am Jan 20 05:12 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Jan 20 00:56 ABC, CNN, crawl into bed with National Enquirer Jan 20 04:00 Child Care small businesses file federal lawsuit Jan 20 04:41 Mitt's biggest policy blunder Jan 20 18:58 Gingrich, Reagan re-united Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Rick Santorum was really feeling it Thursday night. Then he said something that's certain to cause him pain this morning. Here's what he said that got him in trouble: SANTORUM: But you also have to admit that this freshman congressman who wasn't supposed to win a race came and did something you never did, which is blew the li...
Read more

December 2011 Posts

Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 01-Dec-11  Why did Common Cause MN get involved with TakeAction Minnesota? 01-Dec-11  Was this week the turning point? 01-Dec-11  Mitt's attacks are stale, predictable, ineffective 01-Dec-11  Minnesotans hear good news on budget, whining from Rep. Winkler 01-Dec-11  Mitt sends in Chris Christie to attack Newt 02-Dec-11  Hugh's missing something vitally important 02-Dec-11  Dayton, SEIU, AFSCME are rigging child care unionization vote 02-Dec-11  That's President Obama's definition of prosperity? 02-Dec-11  BREAKING NEWS: Romney won't debate Newt one-on-one 03-Dec-11  What Romney, Obama don't get about elections 03-Dec-11  Cain Suspends Campaign 04-Dec-11  Will's longstanding hatred of Gingrich boils over 05-Dec-11  Judge Lindman scuttles Gov. Dayton, SEIU, AFSCME forced unionization sche...
Read more

March 21-24, 2016

Image
Mar 21 01:28 SCSU's budget cuts? Mar 21 02:29 When will the Range change? Mar 21 08:54 DFL's Marty in charge of environment Mar 21 11:45 OLA report, DFL & Meyer Associates Mar 23 12:48 Liberals' definition of moderate Mar 23 14:37 DFL activists: Government is racist Mar 24 08:59 IRRRB: Revamping vs. scrapping Prior Months: Jan Feb Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 SCSU's budget cuts? Cuts in Athletics at SCSU - Will it Really Save Money? by Silence Dogood With a $6,000,000 "structural deficit" and the need to "rebuild reserves by at least $3 million," SCSU has a $9,000,000 hole in its' FY17 budget. It doesn't take a Noble Prize in economics to figure out that reductions in expenditures (i.e., cuts) are going to be made at SCSU. On the Wednesday before Spring Break, SCSU President Dr. Earl H. Potter sent an email to the campus community announcing cuts to the athlet...
Read more