Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Ellison category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Ellison’ Category

What’s fascinating about President Obama’s list of 8 candidates running for election across the United States isn’t who’s on the list. It’s who’s omitted from the list. What’s fascinating is that the article starts by saying former “President Barack Obama weighed in on behalf of 81 candidates for federal and state offices on Wednesday, his first major batch of endorsements for the 2018 midterm elections.” Then the article states “I’m proud to endorse such a wide and impressive array of Democratic candidates – leaders as diverse, patriotic, and big-hearted as the America they’re running to represent. I’m confident that, together, they’ll strengthen this country we love by restoring opportunity that’s broadly shared, repairing our alliances and standing in the world, and upholding our fundamental commitment to justice, fairness, responsibility, and the rule of law. But first, they need our votes — and I’m eager to make the case for why Democratic candidates deserve our votes this fall.”

What’s noteworthy about President Obama’s statement is that he didn’t mention anything about creating jobs or strengthening the economy. That isn’t surprising. It’s just noteworthy. President Obama didn’t put a priority on creating jobs while he was president. Why think that he cares about building a strong economy now? Here’s the tweet with President Obama’s endorsements:


Attached to the tweet are the candidates he’s endorsing. It’s rather fascinating that he didn’t endorse any Democrats in Minnesota. It’s fascinating that he didn’t endorse Dianne Feinstein or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This was a fun interview to watch:

Here’s something that I just thought of that’s worth considering. President Obama didn’t endorse a single DFL candidate in Minnesota. He didn’t endorse Keith Ellison. He didn’t endorse Tina Smith. Question: Is that because they’re both Bernie followers? Also, as I said earlier, President Obama didn’t endorse Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She’s a Bernie candidate, too. Question: Is this the start of a fight between the establishment and the Bernie wings of the Democratic Party? Only time will tell but I can’t rule it out.

RNC Chairman Ronna McDaniel made a great point in her interview with Harris Faulkner when she asked if Democrats would highlight the fact that President Obama had endorsed them. I’m betting they won’t highlight it.

The Democrats have a major problem brewing that really can’t be fixed. Thanks to their divisions, Democrats are fighting over immigration. A significant percentage of Democrats openly want open borders. Another significant percentage are fine with open borders but don’t want to talk about it during the campaign. There’s a tiny fraction of Democrats that are actually sane who want the borders enforced. Doug Schoen is a patriotic member of that tiny fraction. In this op-ed, Schoen makes the argument that advocating for open borders will eliminate opportunities for Democrats.

Specifically, he wrote “Not only is Ellison’s statement in itself completely detached from reality, but it seems to suggest that if we cannot have wide open borders, then we must not have free trade at all. These remarks come just weeks after Ellison wore a T-shirt which read ‘yo no creo en fronteras,’ which in English translates into ‘I do not believe in borders.'”

What’s stunning about that t-shirt is that it gives context to his run for Minnesota’s state Attorney General’s office. It’s clear that Ellison will fight law enforcement (through the courts) whose responsibility it is to protect us from drug cartels, gangs like MS-13 and sex and human traffickers. It’s apparent that his only is to pad DFL voter lists. If he has to ignore the law, he’s shown that he’s willing to do that without hesitation.

Further, Ellison has a history of defending cop-killers in the court of public opinion. He did that with convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur, aka Joanne Chesimard, and with Kathleen Soliah. But I digress.

Concerningly, Ellison’s brash statement on immigration is not far out of line with the Democratic Party as a whole. In fact, a Harvard Harris poll from June states that a striking 36 percent of Democrats support “basically open borders”—an inflammatory policy dangerously out of line with mainstream thinking.

Then there’s this:

With the midterms slowly approaching, regaining the support of Independents and moderate Republicans will be key for Democrats in their fight to take back the House. However, light of contentious issues such as immigration where the party has moved further left than ever before, this will be an increasingly difficult demographic for Democrats to appeal to in November. According to a July Gallup poll, immigration is one of the most important issues for Americans heading into the midterm elections, with 22 percent of respondents saying it was the nation’s most important problem.

The Democrats lead in the generic ballot polling but I don’t think it’s a sturdy lead. That’s because I think the Republicans’ closing arguments will devastate Democrats this fall.

Part of the Republicans’ closing arguments should be this insane blathering from Nancy Pelosi:

Saying that Democrats are better at border security is stupid beyond belief. Republicans should also use this interview of Thomas Homan, the retired acting director of ICE, by Harris Faulkner:

When Homan said that the judge ordered the government to stop doing DNA testing because the ACLU filed a lawsuit on the issue, my heart broke. Homan said that “5%-7% of the kids” weren’t a match with the people who claimed to be their parents. Homan then hinted that this judge might’ve just given these kids to sex traffickers.

If Nancy Pelosi wants to have that fight, Republicans should welcome that fight. Thoughtful people don’t release kids to sex traffickers.

I know that it isn’t shocking to see a title claiming that Keith Ellison is a socialist. Still, what’s in this article is shocking.

The shock starts when it says “The object of the caucus is to not only answer questions about single-payer government-run health care for everyone, but also to campaign for the legislation to create it, HR676 and a companion bill from Sen. Bernie Sanders, Ind.-Vt. Those measures would replace the U.S.’s current, private jury-rigged high cost health care ‘system’ with federally run health care, eliminating the health insurance industry and other for-profit aspects of health care. ‘Profit must have no place in health care,’ Jayapal said.”

First, this should be a warning siren to Republicans. They’d better put aside their differences and vote. If they don’t totally swamp the polls, these idiots will try passing this crazy health care plan. And yes, they’re idiots. Anyone that thinks that “profit must have no place in health care” is an idiot and then some.

Without profit, nothing happens. Innovation is the first thing that stops. Efficiencies cease because the pay is the same whether they’re efficient or inefficient.

This is just part of the Democrats’ lunatic agenda. Based on their public statements, Democrats want to kill the American health care system entirely. They want to abolish ICE. Finally, they want to get rid of your tax cuts. Don’t believe me? Here’s what Nancy Pelosi said:

It’s pretty clear that Democrats think you’re keeping too much of the money you’re earning. It’s pretty clear that Democrats think that government, not families, do a better job of managing their health care needs. Finally, it’s pretty obvious that they think they know what’s best.

Sidenote on Ellison: It’s obvious that rational thought isn’t part of his DNA. There isn’t a single policy of his that could’ve passed when they had real legislators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Hubert Humphrey and other giants. Ellison is a mental midget.

It’s time for people to walk away from the Democratic Party. They’re the mean-spirited party, the hate-filled party. This is the agenda that Obama wanted to pursue but didn’t have the cajones to attempt. This should be ridiculed mercilessly:

Single-payer government-run health care will help end that problem by eliminating those costly middlemen, whose tab patients—or public hospitals such as Stroger—must foot, Jayapal said.

That’s right. Lazy government bureaucrats will take the place of the profit makers. Instead of the profit makers making profits and creating incentives for innovation, those government bureaucrats will take the profits, then give themselves bonuses.

Sound familiar? It should. That’s a description of the VA system from 4 years ago.

Last week, President Obama said anyone found to have manipulated or falsified Veterans Affairs records “will be held accountable,” even as he defended Shinseki.

A week later, Gen. Shinseki resigned in disgrace.

Whether you call it Medicare for All, VA Care for All or whether you call it a failed, corrupted system is irrelevant. Single-payer health care systems have never worked because they kill innovation while incentivizing corruption. The people at the top, aka those that play the role of the oligarchs, reap all the rewards.

Though these dipsticks don’t want to admit it, that’s how all systems operate. There’s corruption in every system. Pretending that government employees are somehow more virtuous than the rest of society is a fallacy. Milton Friedman explained that fact brilliantly in this interview:

Keith Ellison has announced that he’s running for Attorney General of Minnesota. Think about this — he thinks that white police officers are bigoted and don’t know it. He thinks that the VA hospital system as constructed a few years ago was patriotic and corruption-free. Now he’s telling us that getting rid of profits in the health care industry is the path to innovation and health care for all.

Which of these things sounds craziest? Good luck with that. I’ll be damned if I know which idea is craziest.

Saying that Angie Craig doesn’t want MN-2 voters to know what she stands for is the truth. It isn’t difficult to find out what she’s against. This statement on the Trump/GOP tax reform is a perfect example of Ms. Craig telling voters what she’s against. In the statement, Ms. Craig said “Paul Ryan finally released the tax plan that Jason Lewis has been talking up for weeks and it’s just as bad as we thought. This isn’t real tax reform. This is a giveaway to big corporations and the rich, paid for by tax increases for the middle class.”

First, Ms. Craig is relying on the Democrats’ talking points. It’s worth noting that the Democrats’ chanting points are dishonest. (Go figure, right?) As people have found out, everyone has gotten a tax cut. The middle class have gotten rather significant tax cuts. That’s in addition to many of them getting significant bonuses, significantly increased benefits from employers and lower out-of-pocket health care expenses. Other than those significant benefits to the middle class, the Democrats are right. If not for those benefits to the middle class, the middle class would’ve gotten the shaft.

In terms of health care, Craig is a bit of a radical:

Before he ditched his constituents, Keith Ellison announced that he was taking over the Democrats’ single-payer health care bill. In the above video, Ms. Craig said that Keith Ellison told her that he wanted her at the table when they figured out health care. That’s what makes this so funny:

Let’s get serious. When Craig is talking to her DFL activist allies, she knows exactly what she wants. When she’s talking with John and Jane Q. Public, she’s as transparent as Rod Rosenstein’s DOJ.

As the lit piece shows, Jason Lewis’s supporters know him to be a man who doesn’t moisten his finger to figure out where he stands on the issues. That’s why he’ll win re-election this November.

The St. Cloud Times’ Nora Hertel should be applauded for applying an excruciating amount of scrutiny during Keith Ellison’s visit to St. Cloud this week. It’s a safe bet he won’t grant her an exclusive interview after she put the screws to Mr. Ellison. Check this out.

For instance, we found out that “Ellison told a friendly audience in St. Cloud [aka CAIR-MN] that it’s difficult to get legislation passed in Washington D.C. now, while state attorneys general are on the front lines of protecting people’s rights.”

Later, we found out that Ellison “shared his platform and took questions from the small group Friday at New York Gyro on Third Street North. Ellison has served in Congress for 12 years and practiced law long before that.” Still later, when asked about his views on law enforcement, Ellison replied that “Like fire service and public utilities, public safety services should be delivered fairly, Ellison said. He supports a number of reforms including: allowing felons to vote, decriminalizing marijuana, training police on de-escalation and implicit bias. He supports drug courts and wants to treat addiction as a medical, rather than a law enforcement, problem.”

In other words, Ellison’s priority would be to teach the police to stop being racists and to stop shooting innocent minorities when these minorities are given fair, specific instructions by law enforcement officers.

According to the Kirwan Institute, the definition of implicit bias “refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. These biases, which encompass both favorable and unfavorable assessments, are activated involuntarily and without an individual’s awareness or intentional control. Residing deep in the subconscious, these biases are different from known biases that individuals may choose to conceal for the purposes of social and/or political correctness. Rather, implicit biases are not accessible through introspection.”

Let’s understand this. Implicit bias resides “deep in the subconscious”, meaning that they “aren’t accessible through introspection.” Further, these biases “are activated involuntarily and without an individual’s awareness or intentional control.”

If we don’t know that these traits exist and they’re “activated involuntarily”, how are we supposed to prevent them? That’s assuming that they actually exist, which I’m skeptical of, at least to the extent that Mr. Ellison says they exist.

Left out of Ms. Hertel’s article is Mr. Ellison’s extensive (and disturbing) interview with radical Rabbi Michael Lerner:

Treating Ellison like he’s just another political candidate ignores Mr. Ellison’s support of cop killers. In his past, Ellison has questioned detectives investigating cop killers like Kathleen Soliah:

At the event, Ellison told the Pioneer Press he believed the prosecution of Olson was political. In his speech, Ellison noted he didn’t know much about the SLA and he thought Olson was being prosecuted in the court of public opinion because of some of her political beliefs.

“I’m a supporter of anybody who’s subject to political prosecution based on their being in a vilified group,” he told the Pioneer Press. “Your chances of getting a fair trial are low. I’ve been waiting for the evidence against her. I don’t think they would not cheat to prosecute this woman.”

Here’s what he said about Assata Shakur and Bernadine Dohrn:

Ellison also spoke favorably of convicted cop killer Assata Shakur and expressed his opposition to any attempt to extradite her to the United States from Cuba, where she had fled after escaping prison.

“I am praying that Castro does not get to the point where he has to really barter with these guys over here because they’re going to get Assata Shakur, they’re going to get a whole lot of other people,” Ellison said at the event, which also included a silent auction and speech by former Weather Underground leader Bernardine Dohrn. “I hope the Cuban people can stick to it, because the freedom of some good decent people depends on it.”

Summarizing, Ellison thinks that cop killers are misunderstood civil rights heroes and that police officers are racists. Is that the type of man we want leading law enforcement? Is that the type of man we want harassing law enforcement? I don’t think so.

This article is proof that Keith Ellison hates the Constitution, especially the First Amendment. It’s also proof that he’s unfit to be Minnesota’s chief law enforcement officer, aka state Attorney General.

The article notes that Ellison is “demanding that Amazon censor books and other materials produced by organizations listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups.” That’s a frightening insight into Ellison’s thinking on multiple levels. First, it’s disturbing that the man who wants to be Minnesota’s attorney general thinks that censorship is a foundational constitutional principle. Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment except if it incites violence. It doesn’t make much sense to have an attorney general who hates constitutionally protected civil rights.

Next. it’s disturbing, though not surprising, that Ellison thinks that the SPLC is a reputable arbiter of right and wrong. Here’s a couple snippets from Ellison’s censorship letter:

Click to enlarge.

Later in the letter is something that’s definitely chilling:

As stated earlier, Amazon has a strict policy against hateful and racist products on its platform. The availability of all the material listed in the aforementioned report indicates to me that either Amazon is willfully refusing to enforce its own policies against the sale of racist products or its sheer size make it impossible for the company to police itself. In either event, Amazon must immediately cease doing business with groups that promote racist violence.

It’s apparent that Ellison hasn’t hesitated in using his official capabilities to intimidate companies into outright censorship.

Any legal eagle that’s anti-civil rights is disqualified to be Minnesota’s attorney general.

Saying that Keith Ellison’s brain isn’t wired like real people is understatement. This article quotes Keith Ellison saying some of the wackiest things about borders imaginable.

In an interview with progressive activist Rabbi Michael Lerner, Ellison said “prosperity is based on the want that is experienced in other parts of the world” and complained that “people, regular people, cannot go back and forth across the border seeking out the highest wages. We just have to say that the 12 million undocumented people in the United States are here because somebody wants them to be. But they want them here to do the work, but they don’t want them to get any rights. They don’t want to pay them fairly. They don’t want them to be able to bargain collectively. They don’t want them to be able to get occupational safety and standards. And that is what’s really going on.”

This isn’t some nobody saying this. This is the Deputy Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He’s also running to become the next State Attorney General for Minnesota. The frightening thing is that his views on open borders aren’t out-of-step with large swaths of the Democratic Party. Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted on a resolution “supporting the officers and personnel who carry out the important mission of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” 133 Democrats, including Keith Ellison, voted against the resolution by voting present. What a bunch of cowards. If these Democrats think that we shouldn’t enforce our borders, and they don’t, they should just be honest.

“And these trade agreements, you know, they allow capital to travel other borders, and all capital is, is people who happen to own something we call a corporation, which is a legal arrangement which gives them special rights. And labor, which is a regular person, cannot travel back and forth across the border,” he continued. “And so corporations, certain people who get certain rights, can go back and forth across the border seeking out the lowest wages, but people, regular people, cannot go back and forth across the border seeking out the highest wages. So what it creates is an imbalance. It creates an injustice.”

The key that Ellison missed is that there’s a procedure that corporations follow to conform with the laws of the different nations. If the corporations got caught not following the rules, they’d get fined. Similarly, illegal aliens are subject to fines or deportations when they attempt to enter the U.S. without obeying the rules.

This is likely a foreign concept to Ellison but imposing penalties of fines, prison time or deportation is standard procedure for nations. This picture is worth … something:

Bernie claims that his socialist ideas are now mainstream. That’s BS, though they’ve certainly gained in popularity within the Democratic Party. Open borders have gained in popularity, too, within the Democratic Party but that doesn’t mean that they’re mainstream with voters.

When Karin Housley visited St. Cloud Thursday, she brought a bold prediction with her.

During a visit to the Whitney Senior Center, Housley predicted “This is the year Minnesota’s turning red.” She then explained, saying that she “expects two U.S. House districts to flip in the state with incumbent DFLers Rep. Rick Nolan and Rep. Tim Walz retiring from Congress and running in gubernatorial races.”

I agree with both predictions. President Trump’s visit to Duluth to rally for Pete Stauber filled the arena with people. The ramp wasn’t just filled with cars. It was filled with people too. With a 4-way DFL primary set to determine who will face Stauber, expect that primary to beat each other up. I’m not sure if the DFL will be able to unite after that fight. I’d rate that race as leans GOP. As for Minnesota’s First District, the DFL doesn’t have a bench. Tim Walz was it. There’s a primary on the GOP side in MN-01 but there’s no signs of it getting bloody.

As for Sen. Housley, momentum keeps building, much of it due to the booming Trump/GOP economy. Liz Peek’s article highlights this beautifully:

President Trump wants you to quit your job! Well, not really; but the White House’s tax cuts and rollback of onerous regulations have encouraged millions of Americans to do just that. The economy is booming, opportunities are opening up all over the place, and workers are responding, by quitting in record numbers.

This may be bad news for Democrats hoping to take over Congress in November. They have no economic agenda that can compete with a buoyant jobs market that is making the American Dream come true.

Then comes the dagger:

But it is great news for American workers.

Tina Smith’s message is obstruction, resistance and socialism:

“The political revolution that Keith and I and others have talked about is not just a progressive agenda that speaks to the needs of working families, it is the need to create a national grassroots movement where ordinary people stand up to the billionaire class and take back this country,” Sanders said. “By electing Keith, and reelecting Tina and Amy [Klobuchar], you guys can help lead this country in that direction.”

Tina Smith’s socialist smile will turn upside-down when it’s revealed that she’s just another socialist who will do whatever Chuck Schumer wants her to do. Tina Smith wants to pretend to be a moderate. She isn’t:

Tina Smith rallied with Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison this week. If that’s her definition of moderation, I’m betting most Minnesotans will reject that definition. By rallying with Sanders and Ellison, Smith proved that she’s trying to appeal to everyone. Normally, that’s ok. This isn’t normally, though. She rallied with radicals from the #Resistance.

Meanwhile, Karin Housley can claim that she’d fight for Iron Rangers, the elderly and economic growth. Housley is smart, reasonable and has an overabundance of energy. She’s exactly the type of candidate that can defeat a check off the boxes candidate like Tina Smith.

The polls don’t show it yet but what’s likely going to help Republicans like Karin Housley and Pete Stauber are the Republicans’ closing arguments. The DFL doesn’t have a closing argument. All they have is #Resist and #AbolishICE.

Make no mistake about this. Bernie Sanders’ socialism isn’t mainstream like he claims. It’s more widely accepted amongst Democrats but it’s hardly mainstream. That’s why it’s difficult to imagine why Keith Ellison invited Bernie Sanders to campaign with him. Does Ellison still think that he’s running for election only in Minnesota’s Fifth District?

According to news reports, “U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders is coming to Minnesota this week, bringing his firebrand progressive style, and some level of grassroots star power, to bear on the statewide race for attorney general. In events in Duluth and Minneapolis Friday, Sanders will stump for fellow liberal U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, who’s running in the Democratic primary for attorney general instead of re-election to his Minneapolis-based seat in the U.S. House.”

In ‘honor’ of the event, Doug Wardlow has put together a video that’s sure to get people’s attention. Check it out:

As nutty as that is, that isn’t the nuttiest thing Ellison has said recently. Check this out:

In other words, Democrats will consider impeaching Supreme Court justices if they retake control of the House. It doesn’t get much ‘fringier’ than that.

In a surprise move, the DFL has opted to hold an endorsing convention to fill the soon-to-be empty seat left by Keith Ellison’s decision to run for Attorney General.

According to the DFL’s official statement, “The party said in a statement that Ellison’s move has ‘resulted in a great deal of confusion and interest’ in how the DFL will handle the primary election. The party said delegates should have a chance to endorse a candidate.”

Later in the article, it said that “the candidates are state Rep. Ilhan Omar, former Minnesota House speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, state Sen. Patricia Torres Ray, state Sen. Bobby Joe Champion, Frank Nelson Drake and Jamal Abdi Abdulahi.”

This should get interesting. First, most of these candidates are socialists. Putting them on display will only remind Minnesotans how far left the DFL has drifted. Despite all of the names on the ballot, this is essentially a 2-person race between Ilhan Omar and Margaret Anderson-Kelliher. Based on what I’ve seen thus far this election season, I’d consider Omar to be the frontrunner for the endorsement. I don’t know that there is a frontrunner in the primary.

One thing that’s pretty apparent, though, is that Margaret Anderson-Kelliher and Ilhan Omar represent significantly different wings of the DFL. Omar stated that “I am a coalition builder and will continue Congressman Ellison’s legacy of using the Minnesota Fifth District seat to fight for all of us not only in Washington but here at home.”

It will be interesting to see which part of the DFL is dominant. I suspect it’s the Ellison-Omar wing.