Search
Archives
Categories

Let’s recount the DFL’s Eighth District Convention last Saturday. According to multiple tweets, Leah Phifer got the most votes in each of the 10 rounds of balloting. Still, she didn’t reach the 60% threshold needed to win the DFL’s official endorsement to run for the US House of Representatives. It was considered a fait accompli that Ms. Phifer would run in the August DFL primary. Why wouldn’t she? She was the frontrunner in each of the 10 rounds of balloting.

Late Wednesday night, though, Ms. Phifer dropped a bombshell, announcing that she wouldn’t run in the DFL primary.

In her official statement, Ms. Phifer said “My goal, since first declaring my candidacy in October 2017, has always been to win the DFL endorsement, bring new voices to the table and strengthen the party. A divisive primary season would only serve to weaken the party and distract from the issues affecting the people of the 8th District.”

This doesn’t make any sense. Phifer was the only environmental activist of the 4 candidates that were either considering running in the DFL primary or who had announced that they were running. Further, CD-8 was the only district where Rebecca Otto defeated Tim Walz. Clearly, environmental activists were activated in the Eighth. In a 4-way race, there’s no reason to think that she couldn’t have defeated her opponents.

Considering the fact that DFL Chairman Ken Martin said that a divided DFL that didn’t endorse a candidate couldn’t defeat Pete Stauber and considering the fact that the DFL was a divided shambles Saturday night after they failed to endorse a candidate, isn’t it interesting that they suddenly have 3 pro-mining candidates running in the DFL primary? What are the odds that the frontrunner, the candidate who stood between DFL unity and DFL division, unexpectedly dropped out?

It’s difficult to believe that someone who looked that energized in that picture voluntarily dropped out of the race. I think the more likely question is more nefarious. Which of Ken Martin’s inner circle forced Leah Phifer from the race?

Finally, let’s recall a little history within the CD-8 DFL. Chairman Martin and Congressman Nolan have fought to prevent a fight between the pro-mining faction within the DFL and the pro-environment faction. In fact, they fought that fight for years. Why wouldn’t they fight to prevent it one last time?

Written by Rambling Rose

The adage “Spare the rod and spoil the child” is not Biblical, nor does it have to be interpreted as a call for corporal punishment. But current discipline policies that provide no accountability may be just as bad or worse.

Public outrage is graphic and loud after events such as the most recent school shooting in Parkland, Florida in mid-February. Indignation was expressed after the previous massacres but not to the extent of the nationwide protests by teachers and students, politicians and activists…many who marched without knowing the reason for the manifestation because they were too young. Yet they marched because their teachers/parents told them to do so. This week, central Minnesotans are asking at what age should children be deemed to have attained the age of accountability for violent actions.

But the hype and media coverage do not always reveal the whole truth. Fortunately, not all are willing to take news coverage at face value. RealClearInvestigations (RCI) is the investigative arm of RealClearPolitics. Their publication on April 15th reveals that there is more to the story—WHY the officers did not enter the school during the shooting—WHY the perpetrator knew the school and its policies—WHY he had little to fear with a firearm in a gun-free zone, etc.

After the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, many learned of PROMISE (Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, Mentoring, Interventions, Supports & Education). It is far more than a program to keep students in school for minor infractions. The truth is very disturbing.

The program was adopted by the Broward Schools in 2013 with a strong push from Superintendent Robert Runcie. Prior to that, Runcie had worked in Chicago for Arne Duncan, Obama’s Secretary of Education…the plot thickens.
“That new discipline policy took effect in 2013. It was at the vanguard of the Obama administration’s efforts to address the “school to prison” pipeline. Beginning in 2009, it opened hundreds of investigations or sued to force districts to adopt lenient discipline guidelines. This push was formalized in a 2014 “Dear Colleague” letter to the nation’s public school superintendents and board members that not only discourages student arrests, but holds districts liable for the actions of school resource officers.”

“After meeting with Obama officials in the White House, Runcie persuaded the Broward County Sheriff’s Office and Fort Lauderdale Police Department to agree to stop arresting students who committed misdemeanor crimes the district deemed “nonviolent” – including assault, theft, vandalism, drugs and public fighting. Runcie argued that diverting minor offenders from jail to ‘restorative justice’ counseling and other positive behavioral interventions would help close the academic “achievement gap” by disrupting the flow of black students into the so-called ‘schoolhouse to jailhouse pipeline.’ Though African-Americans made up about 40 percent of the Broward student body, they accounted for more than 70 percent of juvenile arrests in the county.'”

This sounds very similar to the local news about a week ago. District 742 and the Minnesota Department of Human Rights are dealing with issues related to restorative justice policies, the demographics of the student population and the demographics of those named as offenders in efforts to eliminate the disparity in suspensions and expulsions. By looking at data and not specific reports about offenses, it was decided that the racial percentages of the student body and the violators should be equal. Who determined that there is a direct correlation between the racial makeup of a community and the number of violations committed? Is that a reasonable expectation in schools or in society? Is there a direct correlation between the ethnic/racial demographics in society and that of the incarcerated?

Accountability does seem any longer to be addressed by discipline policies in many schools. The explanation comes again from Florida:

“Thousands of arrested Broward students have had their records deleted in the system as part of a program to end ‘disproportionate minority contact’ with law enforcement, blindfolding both street cops and school resource officers to the criminal history of potential juvenile threats.”

So deleting disciplinary records is a way to make the numbers balance, right? No, wrong. What is restorative justice? How has restorative justice worked for Broward county?

“In a related program, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel also agreed to back off arrests of students who commit such crimes outside of schools, offering them civil citations and the same restorative justice counseling instead of incarceration, even for repeat offenders. Restorative justice is a controversial alternative punishment in which delinquents gather in ‘healing circles’ with counselors – and sometimes even the victims of their crime – and discuss their feelings and the ‘root causes’ of their anger and actions.” In Broward County, the juvenile recidivism rate grew much faster than the rate for the entire state. Is that a measure of success?

The level of violence has risen in the schools and spread to the community. The community is uneasy. According to the County’s chief juvenile probation officer, Broward County now boasts the highest percentage of “serious, violent [and] chronic juvenile delinquents in the state. Meanwhile, murders, armed robberies and other violent felonies committed by children outside of schools have hit record levels, and some see a connection with what’s happening on school grounds. Since the relaxing of discipline, Broward youths have not only brazenly punched out their teachers, but terrorized Broward neighborhoods with drive-by shootings, gang rapes, home invasions and carjackings.”

Prosecutors and probation officers lament the number of violent crimes involving Broward youths has risen dramatically while juvenile arrests overall have dropped. “Juvenile arrests for murder and manslaughter increased 150 percent between 2013 and 2016. They increased by another 50 percent in 2017. County juveniles were responsible for a total of 16 murders or manslaughters in the past two years alone, according to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice.”

“Last year, the number of Broward juveniles collared for armed robbery totaled 92, up 46 percent from 2013, department data show. Arrests for auto thefts jumped 170 percent between 2013 and 2017 – from 105 to 284. Juveniles charged with kidnapping, moreover, surged 157 percent in 2016 and another 43 percent last year.”

The evidence indicts the leniency policy of restorative justice, whatever the name. Max Eden, education policy expert and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, declared that the no-arrest policies have emboldened crimes by Broward youth. The infractions became steadily more violent regardless of race. He noted that the crimes committed become more violent when petty crimes are not punished.

Tracy Clark, Chief Public Information Officer of the Broward schools, denied that district policies have weakened safety. The administrators have refused to provide any documents to support those claims. However, the parents whose children have been bullied and beaten do not agree. Those victims were bullied and beaten repeatedly by fellow students who suffered few or no consequences for those actions. Lowell Levine, whose Stop Bullying Now Foundation is in Lake Worth, Florida, has collected dozens of complaints from those parents. When he contacted Runcie’s office about the complaints of school violence in 2015, the superintendent rejected outside advice, claiming that he had the situation under control.

Under control? “After Broward schools began emphasizing rehabilitation over incarceration, fights broke out virtually every day in classrooms, hallways, cafeterias and campuses across the district. Last year, more than 3,000 fights erupted in the district’s 300-plus schools, including the altercations involving Cruz. No brawlers were arrested, even after their third fight, and even if they sent other children to the hospital.”

In 2017, even without cooperation from the Broward county schools, federal data reveal that nearly half of the Broward middle school students were involved in fights, many requiring medical attention. Parents are aware; parents are contacting school administrators; parents are not being heard. One of the teachers in one of the Broward schools explained why when fights are more frequent and more violent but not reported with these words, “because of politics.” What a sad commentary on those schools, on today’s culture.

News media sources seem to suggest that male students are the aggressive ones. Females are also offenders:

“In a December 2016 fight caught on video at Plantation High School, several girls beat and dragged another girl to the ground and took turns kicking her. Campus police did not break up the fight and the girls who jumped her were not arrested. The attacked girl’s mother said the school failed to stop bullying before it escalated into violence, and then swept the incident under the rug. Three other fights reportedly broke out the same day at the school.”

Such attacks by females do not occur only in Florida. A similar event was shared with me by a family member of the victim at a school in St. Cloud, Minnesota. There was no video to capture the attack. The victim was thrown to the ground and kicked by the others. She had a hall pass; the attackers reportedly did not. The victim reported the incident to the school’s administrator but did not know the names of her attackers. When the offenders approached the principal with their version of the story, there was no discipline measured out for them. However, the victim was suspended for an extended period of time. Yes, the victim was white. The attackers were not.

In Broward schools, the perpetrators participate in the PROMISE program but are not held accountable and no records are kept. They are restored. One wonders if the attackers in the St. Cloud school participated in restorative justice or was it just ignored?

Other shootings were avoided prior to the February 14th shooting by observant students who were brave enough to report them to security, and security intervened. There are other reports of physical attacks to teachers for trying to maintain discipline within the classroom. No arrests were made. No entries were made in the attackers’ school records. They suffered no consequences. Recall the words of Max Eden cited above. The lax policies have “emboldened” the unpunished perpetrators to escalate the violence of their continuing crimes.

Maria Schneider, Broward juvenile prosecutor, signed the original PROMISE agreement but warned a few months later that a failure to arrest and prosecute the delinquent students could have undesired consequences of “making the schools a more dangerous place.” While administrators were worried about criminal records “stigmatizing” minority students, the prosecutor retorted that “There has to be accountability for bad behavior.” At a recent Juvenile Justice Circuit Advisory Board meeting, the prosecutor reported that “the actual police reports are being destroyed.” There appears to be no accountability for bad actions at any level in Broward county.

Even though the schools discontinued a 21-year-old practice of surveying the students about their school climate and safety, federal data revealed “a deterioration in safety indicators after the discipline reforms were adopted.”

Sadly, PROMISE and the Behavior Intervention Programs have not achieved their core objectives of “closing the racial disparity in suspensions, expulsions and arrests between black students and white students.” Since 2013, despite the aggressive implementation of restorative justice policies and the destruction of official police reports, as noted by Schneider, internal school district reports show that black students are suspended more than white students. In 2013, the disparity was 2.3 times greater for black students, and last year, after the implementation of the race-based discipline reforms, the rate was 3.4 times more frequent for the targeted group.

“The PROMISE and Behavior Intervention Programs have not accomplished the core objectives they were created to achieve in 2013 – closing the racial disparity in suspensions, expulsions and arrests between black students and white students. That gap is now wider than ever, in spite of a “very aggressive” Broward system goal of decreasing the black arrest rate by 5 percent each year and 33 percent overall.”

Rather than re-examining the effectiveness of the program, the teachers and administrators are being compelled to participate in training programs to examine their “whiteness” and eliminate their “implicit biases.” (This seems strangely similar to the “White Privilege” training forced upon some educators in central Minnesota.)

Or as reported by RCI, “…instead of blaming these students for committing a higher rate of infractions, Runcie and his team are putting teachers and principals on the spot for harboring deep-seated prejudices that lead them to “subconsciously” mete out harsher punishments for them.”

Efforts are underway to extend this training to local police officers as well.

This adage is Biblical. From Proverbs 22:6, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.

What training does society owe its young people? Do we teach, through modeling and policies, that there is accountability for bad decisions/actions? Or, do we perpetuate the racial divide and allow a “free pass” for special groups and sensitivity training for others?

Yesterday, I wrote that the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Rebecca Otto, Minnesota’s State Auditor. Otto filed a lawsuit that was doomed from the start. That was obvious from the start. That’s why the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against her. Now we’re finding out more about the lawsuit.

In writing the majority opinion for the Court, “Chief Justice Lorie Gildea said that the state Constitution does not lay out the state auditor’s duties. Rather, she wrote, the Constitution specifically leaves it up to the Legislature to define duties of constitutional offices such as the auditor. Thus, the 2015 bill did not violate the Constitution. The ruling also explains that another state office, which no longer exists, originally audited county finances.” Further, “50 counties notified Otto’s office they would not sign contracts with her office for it to conduct audits” after the 2015 law passed.

That had to sting Otto. That’s because in 2016, “the auditor’s office charged $84,000 for an annual audit, while Becker County paid just $31,000 in 2012 for an audit done by Hoffman Dale and Swenson Governmental Audit Services of Thief River Falls.” That’s more than $2,500,000 in lost revenues for Otto per year.

Back in January, 2018, she said “Fighting for this constitutional office is the right thing to do. But as you witnessed today, it’s complex.” Actually, Mrs. Otto, the justices thought it was pretty straightforward. (I’m not a legal scholar but I’m betting that justices rarely rule unanimously on complex lawsuits.)

Rep. Jim Nash, R-Waconia, might have the best understanding of what’s happened:

“It seems to me,” Nash said, “that [Otto] is using the taxpayer dollars to create an issue for her to campaign with for governor.”

If that’s what was happening, her strategy failed. Furthermore, if that was her strategy, she should be politically crucified. If that’s true, then a ton of the taxpayers’ money was wasted for that mission. If this was her Hail Mary attempt at winning the DFL endorsement, then Mrs. Otto made a major miscalculation.

What’s amazing is Otto’s misunderstanding of Minnesota’s Constitution. Mrs. Otto either doesn’t understand Minnesota’s Constitution or she, like other DFL politicians, was willing to throw Minnesota’s Constitution under the proverbial bus for political gain.

My question in the aftermath is this: are there any patriots left in the DFL whose respect for the Constitution is steadfast? I haven’t found any lately.

Julie Kelly’s article for the Federalist demolishes the Democrats’ chanting point that it’s a matter of when, not if, Democrats retake the US House of Representatives.

Digging into recent polling reveals some glaring weaknesses for Democrats. These aren’t insignificant weaknesses. They’re game-changing weaknesses. For instance, Kelly reports that “there is no ‘enthusiasm gap’ for Democrats. In fact, Republicans now seem more motivated to vote in November: 86 percent of Republicans say they are absolutely or certain to vote this fall, compared to 81 percent of Democrats.”

That’s the first time I’ve read that this cycle. If that holds, Democrats won’t retake the House. On the Senate side, that might indicate a red wave of historic proportions. Prior to this, I’ve been predicting Republicans gaining 4-5 seats net in the Senate. If the enthusiasm gap disappears, Republicans might have a big red wave staring at them. Instead of just flipping seats in West Virginia, Missouri, North Dakota, Indiana and Montana, the GOP might flip Florida, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, too.

The bad news for Democrats continues:

While white college graduates favor Democrats by nine points, non-college whites prefer a Republican congressional candidate by nearly 30 points, devastating news about a core constituency of the Democratic Party going forward.

This sums my thoughts up precisely:

A slim majority also said gun violence has no effect on whether they will vote Republican or Democrat. So it looks like the nonstop media exploitation of the Parkland school shooting did not work for the Left.

I don’t see a wave, be it blue or red. There just isn’t an appetite for a major change. The economy is getting stronger, which usually leads to not rocking the boat at the voting booth.

Becky Otto’s “capricious” lawsuit suffered a final defeat today when the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled against her. In their ruling, the Court wrote that “The Constitution … ‘does not expressly detail the duties of the constitutional executive officers’ of state government and are instead ‘prescribed by law.'”

If that sounds familiar, you’ve been reading what I’ve written on the subject. In February, 2016, I wroteArticle V of Minnesota’s Constitution talks about the executive branch of state government. Specifically, it says ‘The executive department consists of a governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, auditor, and attorney general, who shall be chosen by the electors of the state. The governor and lieutenant governor shall be chosen jointly by a single vote applying to both offices in a manner prescribed by law.’ Nowhere in Article V, Section 1 does it outline the duties of the State Auditor. That’s properly left up to the legislature and governor to determine through state statutes.

Had Ms. Otto listened to me then, she would’ve saved Minnesota taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Sarah Anderson, the chairwoman of the State Government Finance Committee, said she was not surprised by the court’s unanimous ruling.

Rather than conceding defeat, Otto issued a non sequitur statement, saying “The Supreme Court has now made clear that the State Auditor has authority and responsibility over county finances, including the authority to conduct additional examinations of a county following a private CPA firm audit, and that the counties are responsible for the costs.” It’s an odd statement considering the fact that nobody questioned whether the OSA had the authority to audit counties.

The fact that it was a unanimous ruling against Mrs. Otto says that it’s quite the public spanking for her. This should get every taxpayer upset:

Republican lawmakers have criticized Otto’s use of taxpayer money to fight the law. A tally last year showed her legal bills at over $250,000.

Technorati: , , , ,

The political tide is turning. It’s unmistakable. It isn’t that Democrats can’t get their message out, which is their cop-out explanation for why they fell short of their goals. It’s that they’ve become the lecturing party or the ideological party rather than being the listening party or the solutions party.

Tammy Bruce’s op-ed highlights the Democrats’ tactics. In her op-ed, Ms. Bruce said “For a long time, the Democrats have been successful by scaring people into voting for them. It’s a tactic used when you can’t persuade people on policy. Americans were recently reminded of the Democrats’ usual refrain when House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi declared President Trump’s tax cuts as ‘Armageddon.’ Mrs. Pelosi went there, relying on contrived drama, comparing a tax cut to a fight between biblical armies during the end times. When the Senate GOP was discussing Mr. Trump’s health care bill, the Democrats’ response? ‘Hundreds of thousands of people will die,’ delivered again by Nancy ‘We’re all gonna die’ Pelosi.”

In late October, 2017, Democrats thought that they were looking at a blue wave. That’s before Republicans passed the Trump/GOP tax cuts and President Trump signed them into law right before Christmas. Since then, the trend has been unmistakable. While there’ve been a few bumps in the road for Republicans, the RCP average of polling of the generic ballot question has headed in the Republicans’ favor:

Speaking of messaging, the Republicans’ message has consisted of telling people about the strengthening economy, fatter paychecks and greater financial security. The Democrats’ message, compliments of Ms. Pelosi, has sounded like fingernails across a chalkboard.

The Democrats aren’t ready for primetime. They’ve pandered to Moms Demand Action rather than putting forward plans to make schools safer. They’ve pandered to La Raza rather than getting criminal illegal aliens off the street. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi has talked in apocalyptic terms to frighten people to vote for Democrats:

Keith Ellison, the deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee, was handed the Grim Reaper baton when he said this to the Progressive National Candidate Training gathering last week: “Women are dying because we are losing elections,” Mr. Ellison said, Fox News Insider reported. “We don’t have the right to lose a damn election. We have to win.” Mr. Ellison was referring to a reported rise in maternal mortality rates in Missouri and Texas. The good news is, for Texas, that report has already been disproven, and explained by a computer reporting error.

And what is their argument really based on? The infantilizing of women. Underscoring Mr. Ellison’s remarks is an argument that women are so fragile, so vulnerable, that if Democrats don’t win and government doesn’t control more of your life, you’ll die. That is an inherently sexist argument, promoting the fraud that women can’t control their own lives and need a Big Brother to help them along.

Back in January, I wrote this post, which I titled “2018: No wave, barely a ripple?” At the time, I wasn’t sure if the trend towards Republicans would continue. If I wrote that article today, I’d omit the question mark from the title. The blue wave propaganda is coming from people like Chris Cillizza and other mindless lefties. The polling is clear. Nobody thinks that the improving economy and fat bonuses isn’t changing the mindset of the American people.

The DC/NY worrywarts should take a valium. The Trump/GOP tax cuts virtually sell themselves. Republicans still have to get out the vote but the policy sells itself. There’s a lesson I learned from a small business near my house. It’s legendary, actually. It’s called Val’s Rapidserv. They’ve been in business for 50+ years. I might be wrong on this but I don’t remember ever hearing a radio ad for them, most likely because their word-of-mouth advertising is exceptional.

This morning, I spoke with a person who owned a business right by Val’s. This entrepreneur told me that they “piggyback off of Val’s”, telling callers that they’re right next to Val’s.

The point is this: Val’s has 100% name recognition and the best fries in Minnesota. This translates to politics. If you’ve got a great reputation and a fantastic product to sell, you’ll win if you work hard. That’s where Republicans are at right now.

Tuesday night, Beaumont and San Diego became the latest cities to officially reject California’s SB 54 California Values Act, aka California’s Sanctuary State law. In Beaumont, the Beaumont City Council voted 3-2 tonight to approve a resolution asserting that California’s so-called ‘sanctuary state’ law is incompatible with federal law and, therefore, illegitimate. Beaumont is the first Inland Empire municipality to oppose Senate Bill 54, the ‘California Values Act,’ joining Orange County and a number of its cities in challenging the statute’s validity.”

Also on Tuesday night, the “San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 Tuesday to support the Trump administration’s lawsuit against California over so-called sanctuary laws that the state passed last year to limit its role in immigration enforcement. The county will file an amicus brief at the first available opportunity, likely if and when the case moves to a higher court on appeal, said Supervisor Kristin Gaspar, chairwoman of the board.”

I’d like to thank Agnes Gibboney, one of the Angel Moms I’ve had the privilege of interviewing, for tipping me off about the Beaumont vote.

It’s unmistakable that the tide is turning against the Sanctuary advocates. A month ago, Gov. Jerry Brown and California State Attorney General Xavier Becerra were lipping off to President Trump. Now, they’re in full retreat. According to Agnes and others, Californians are speaking up against the Democrats’ anti-safety policies. One of the ‘others’ is Kristin Gaspar, the chairwoman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. Ms. Gaspar is also running to replace Rep. Darrell Issa in the US Congress. After Tuesday night’s vote, Fox News’ Ed Henry interviewed Ms. Gaspar about their vote. Here’s that interview:

I found this snippet disturbing:

SB 54 also mandates that schools, health facilities, libraries an courthouses serve as ‘safe zones,’ where undocumented immigrants can come and go without risk of detention.

I don’t see how that’s enforceable since the sidewalks and city streets are public property. It’s possible that SB 54 could suggest those areas as safe zones. I don’t see how California could mandate that those areas be safe zones.

In the end, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors listened to their constituents:

During the announcement of the vote, Gaspar showed printouts of emails she received from each side of the debate. The stack of emails criticizing her for considering support for the lawsuit was not much thicker than a legal pad. The stack of emails asking her to support the Trump administration’s legal challenge was more than a foot tall.

On a political note, Democrats had to think that they’d flip Darrell Issa’s seat after he narrowly defeated Doug Applegate, his Democratic opponent, by 1,600+ votes. With an increase in Republican voter intensity in San Diego, a pretty red district, coupled with Ms. Gaspar’s popularity, I’d say another Republican seat is a bigger challenge for the Democrats than it was a month ago.

Based on the reports I’m getting from southern California, I’m getting skeptical that Democrats will get enough seats from California to flip the House.

Margaret Baker, who lives near the border, told the board that backing the lawsuit will discourage immigrants from reporting crime. “We see this lawsuit as an attack on our safety and the well-being of our community,” she said.

The reports I’m getting from southern California is that significant numbers of illegal immigrants are injuring pedestrians in hit-and-run accidents, with many legal residents getting severely injured. It’s impossible to make the case that shielding these illegal immigrants from prosecution is making San Diego safe.

Facts on the ground are changing the debate more than Jerry Brown can spin things. That truth should frighten Democrats.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A week ago, Jerry Brown and Xavier Becerra, California’s governor and state attorney general respectively, were riding high while touting California’s sanctuary state law. Since then, Brown and Becerra have done nothing but backtrack on immigration. Don’t expect their losing streak to end anytime soon. Los Alamitos was the first openly defiant city to challenge SB 54. It wasn’t the last.

Last night, Los Alamitos voted for a second time to opt out of SB 54. By a vote of 4-1, “Los Alamitos Council members voted … to opt out of a state law that prohibited state and local police agencies from informing federal authorities in cases when illegal immigrants facing deportation are released from detention.”

Councilman Mark Chirco was the lone dissenting vote. Afterwards, Chirco said “the council has no legal authority to approve the ordinance and criticized the council members for what he called being irresponsible, stating that the measure will open the city to lawsuits.”

That started the Democrats’ criticism:

Shortly after the vote, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) tweeted that the ordinance is “a blatant violation of the city’s obligation to follow a state law that puts our local resources to use for the safety of our communities rather than toward federal immigration agencies.” The civil rights group previously threatened the city with a lawsuit if it passes the ordinance.

It isn’t surprising that the ACLU has it bassackwards. California doesn’t have the authority to ignore federal immigration policies. Let’s be blunt. That’s what California is doing by not notifying ICE of when illegal immigrants are getting out of jail.

The Democrats’ arguments are worthless as trash:

Omar Siddiqui, a U.S. Congressional candidate in California running to unseat Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, also spoke at the meeting, urging the council to oppose the motion as “our communities are safer when we work with each other and trust each other, not when we operate under a police state.”

Tell that to the Steinle family. This is an outright lie that’s told by Democrats. There’s no proof that verifies that as anything more than spin or theory.

Don’t be surprised if people reject Siddiqui. There’s an anti-sanctuary state backlash building in California. More people are getting tired of California’s failed liberal policies, especially with regards to illegal immigration. They’re tired of hearing how safe their communities are when they aren’t.

It doesn’t require a rocket scientist to figure out that this controversy is increasing voter intensity on the right. People are rejecting the Democrats’ anything goes immigration policies.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Almost reflexively, Democrats insist that Central Americans flee their country of origin to avoid the gang violence. This article is a good example of that reaction. This recent survey hints that NBC is buying someone’s spin.

First, the NBC article states “At its largest, the caravan included more than 1,500 members. Although many have chosen to stay in Mexico to pursue asylum, just over 600 of them will continue traveling to the United States. Its members are fleeing violence and political conflict in Honduras and other Central American nations. One Salvadoran caravan member said she fears for her life in El Salvador and feels she must continue to the United States in order to be safe from gang violence.”

That won’t be an easy sell. According to the survey, “Hondurans emigrate primarily for economic reasons, not violence, according to a new survey by a Jesuit-run research and social action center in that country. The report by the Reflection, Research, and Communication Team (ERIC-SJ as it is known in Spanish) is based on a survey of public perceptions of Honduras’ social, political, and economic situation in 2017. ERIC-SJ conducted the survey February 12-22, 2018, with a national sample of 1,584 valid questionnaires, which is representative of all persons over 18 who live in the country.”

These are some of the questions survey respondents were asked:

  1. Under the current situation in the country, have you thought or wished to emigrate?
  2. Has a member of the family emigrated in the last 4 years?
  3. Could you tell me the reasons why your family member emigrated from the country? (Answered by those who answered the previous question in the affirmative)
  4. Do you know if an acquaintance, relative, or neighbor has emigrated due to violence?

According to the article, respondents said:

The report confirmed the economic crisis in Honduras as the main cause for migration. Of the respondents that had a family member who had emigrated in the last four years, 82.9 percent did so due to lack of employment and opportunities to generate an income. Meanwhile, 11.3 percent migrated due to violence and insecurity. In comparison, the 2015 ERIC-SJ survey showed that 77.6 percent migrated for economic reasons and 16.9 percent migrated due to violence.

This video follows the script:

I won’t say that Honduras is a tropical paradise. I’m simply skeptical of the frequent articles that portray Honduras ‘migrants’ as fleeing violence.

Technorati: , , , ,

Anyone that thinks liberalism is intellectually significant is kidding themselves. Think of this: liberals think that 18-year-olds are old enough to serve in the military but too stupid to make an informed decision about smoking and buying firearms. Further, Democrats think that that 16-year-olds can cast well-informed votes. If those facts don’t give you intellectual whiplash, then you’re a liberal.

This article almost gave me intellectual whiplash. Fortunately, I could tell from the title of the article that this was typical Democrat propaganda.

The article opens by saying “Akron City Council is expected to vote tonight on whether to prohibit the sale of tobacco products to those under 21. Proponents hope the rest of the Summit County will follow Akron’s lead.”

That sounds eerily similar to the arguments made by proponents of a similar measure put before the St. Cloud City Council. In that instance, the Council passed the proposed ordinance 4-3. After the motion was made and seconded in St. Cloud, Mark Fritz, the owner of E-Cig Emporium in St. Cloud, testified, saying “Your ordinance will not stop them. You need to recognize all you’re doing is hurting your local businesses.”

What Fritz referred to is the fact that St. Cloud’s neighboring cities haven’t adopted this ill-fated measure. It’s ill-fated because the 26th Amendment states:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The minute these laws get challenged, they’ll be flushed into the dustbin of history by the Supreme Court. One of the organizations pushing the 21 age limit for smoking in Minnesota is Clearway Minnesota / Minnesotans For A Smoke Free Generation. They present as fact this opinion:

Raising the purchase age to 21 will prevent youth tobacco use and save lives.

It’s impossible to verify this. Something else worth considering is whether the laws will be enforced. This video hints that they aren’t enforced:

That’s before talking about how high a priority preventing ‘under-age’ smoking is to police departments. I can’t picture a PD for a city the size of Akron will put a high priority on stopping underage smoking when there’s an opioid epidemic underway. There’s only so many hours in a day. Police departments don’t have unlimited resources.

That’s why passing these laws is a waste of time. If you want to decrease teenage smoking, education programs are much more efficient than banning products.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,