Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Activism category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Activism’ Category

When Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced the indictments of 13 Russians and “3 Russian entities”, Rosenstein specifically said “There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in this indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome.”

Somewhere, Adam Schiff is likely crying in his beer.

The indictment itself specifically states that a company called “Internet Research Agency, LLC” was created in 2014, long before the presidential campaign started. Further, the indictment states that the Russians plan was a) sophisticated enough to fool American political activists that the activists thought they were dealing with other like-minded American activists. The Russians’ goal was to sow distrust.

On one day, Nov. 12, 2016, the defendants organized a rally in New York to “show your support for President-elect Donald Trump” while at the same time organizing a “Trump is NOT my president rally” that also was held in New York.

While this indictment doesn’t totally clear the Trump campaign, it’s definitely a defeat for the Democrats, especially Rep. Schiff. Schiff has invested tons of time in front of TV cameras insisting that he’d seen proof that Trump colluded with Russians.

This is the biggest news from the special counsel’s office thus far. Not only does it not accuse the Trump campaign of colluding with Russians, it states that people from Trump’s campaign “unwittingly” participated in the Russians’ plot:

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said the defendants created hundreds of accounts using fake personas on the social media platforms Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to advance their scheme. One example of that was the Twitter account “Tennessee GOP,” which used the handle @TEN_GOP,” and “which falsely claimed to be controlled by a U.S. state political party,” the indictment said. “Over time, the @TEN_GOP account attracted more than 100,000 online followers.”

The defendants also allegedly used a “computer infrastructure, based partly in the United States, to hide the Russian origin of their activities and to avoid detection” by US authorities, the indictment said.

It isn’t a stretch to think that this plot achieved its goal, which was to create distrust in our election.

What’s sad is that the MSM is totally content with sowing additional distrust with their ‘reporting’.

After reading this email, there’s little doubt that Sartell High School’s principal, Brenda Steve, engaged in political activism on the public’s time:

From: Brenda Steve
Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 1:01 PM
Subject: Message from Gender Equality Club

Hello Sabres! This year, for International Women’s Day, Gender Equality Club is selling shirts to fundraise for Planned Parenthood! All of the proceeds will be directly donated to the charity to protect the healthcare rights of women locally and around the globe. On March 8th, Women’s Day, everyone is encouraged to wear their shirt in celebration! Thank you!

Shirts can be purchased via this link. Feel free to share the link, too! Additional donations are welcome :)

www.customink.com/fundraising/womens-day-sartell

Again, thank you!
GEC Presidents Monte Belmont & Belle LeBlanc

Here are email links to school officials:

Sartell HS Principal Brenda Steve: steve@SARTELL.K12.MN.US

Sartell Schools Superintendent Jeff Schwiebert: Jeff.Schwiebert@SARTELL.K12.MN.US

Link to contact the school board: dist-schoolboard@sartell.k12.mn.us

This is political activism. If it was nonpartisan, both pro-life and pro-choice organizations would have been listed. Further, Principal Steve would have listed the community health care clinics created through the ACA.

Taxpayers shouldn’t pay for political activism. If Sartell High School’s principal wants to be involved, that’s the principal’s right. That’s only if it isn’t taking time away from her official responsibilities.

I’ll start by admitting that other publications have written about DFL candidate Leah Phifer. This MinnPost article is one such article.

What’s interesting is how strident Ms. Phifer is in her environmentalism. It started with this:

Fresh tensions over mining in CD8 began at the end of 2016, when the outgoing Barack Obama administration moved to deny the company Twin Metals a renewal of leases it held on a valuable trove of copper, nickel, and other metals in the Superior National Forest, a few miles from the protected Boundary Waters Area Canoe Wilderness.

That also set in motion a process to potentially impose a 20-year moratorium on any mining exploration or activity in a quarter-million acres of land. The U.S. Forest Service stated that the kind of technique that would be used to extract these metals, sulfide mining, is unlikely to be conducted in a way that does not seriously pollute the water and soil of the surrounding area.

Nolan, fresh off another close election victory, condemned this move harshly, and framed it as a “slap in the face and a punch in the gut” to the Iron Range and its economy. The Democrat joined 6th District GOP Rep. Tom Emmer in sending a letter to Trump, asking him to reverse the Obama decisions; the duo has met with the relevant Cabinet secretaries, Agriculture Department chief Sonny Perdue and Interior Department boss Ryan Zinke, to urge them to reverse the decisions as well.

It quickly transitions to this:

The Timberjay newspaper of Ely, in a recent editorial, pointed out a notable moment from May, in which Nolan appeared at the Twin Metals office on the Iron Range alongside Emmer and a handful of Republican congressmen from the so-called Western Caucus, a group that pushes strident right-wing views on resource extraction and public lands, to advocate for action to reverse the Obama decisions on the Twin Metals leases.

“His recent alignment with some of the Republican Party’s most radical anti-environment and anti-public lands members of Congress has left Nolan incongruously positioned to the right of the Trump administration on the environment,” the Timberjay wrote.

That didn’t sit well with Ms. Phifer:

“Certainly,” Phifer says, “the legislation the congressman has pushed forward, especially throughout the summer, that has been the last straw for a lot of folks willing to overlook militant, pro-mining stances that could put the regulatory process in jeopardy. It’s gotten to the point where we’ve lost quite a few people,” Phifer says of Nolan’s stance.

For her part, Phifer believes the Obama decisions should stand, and she is against defunding the U.S. Forest Service’s two-year study evaluating whether or not to place a lengthy mining moratorium on the swath of Superior National Forest identified by the government. Nolan supported an amendment onto a spending bill that would have defunded the Forest Service’s study, effectively killing it.

It isn’t a stretch to think that Ms. Phifer is a strident anti-mining environmentalist. She isn’t a bashful politician, either:

Phifer said she was “disappointed” in the characterization of the mining communities on the Iron Range, but that she has a broad perspective of life in the 8th District since growing up in Two Harbors and now living and working in Isanti. She hopes the two sides warring over the proposed copper-nickel projects can come together to talk about what is best for the 8th District.

“Really, acknowledging the divide and then moving on is a good plan because we need to start looking at this in a broader perspective and not letting these wedge issues completely suck the oxygen out of the room,” Phifer said.

Though she isn’t a typical politician, she is a politician nonetheless.

There’s no doubt that Sen. Karin Housley is a strong advocate for seniors, especially those living in elder care facilities. Last week’s hearing on elder care abuse proved how passionate Sen. Housley is about the issue. Rather than speak like a politician spewing policy, Sen. Housley sounded like a relative looking for justice for a parent who’d gotten abused. She also sounded like a skilled litigator trying to get to the bottom of this crisis.

During the hearing, Sen. Housley said “How long did the Minnesota Department of Health know this was going on and cover it up? I have to say it’s been disappointing to learn what’s been happening for the last I don’t know how many years.”

Daniel Pollock, the acting commissioner of the state Department of Health, replied “We openly acknowledge that in recent years the Office of Health Facility Complaints really has not met the reasonable and appropriate expectations of Minnesotans when it comes to investigating maltreatment complaints in a timely way.”

TRANSLATION: I admit that we didn’t give a damn because our pay isn’t tied to our performance.

This weekend, Sen. Housley stopped past WCCO studios to be interviewed by Esme Murphy:

The part that stung Esme was when she said “The economy though — U.S. News and World Report named us the third best state in the country — 2017 the blistering pace of construction in the Twin Cities in recent years is one sign of an economy firing on all cylinders. Don’t they deserve credit for that?” Sen. Housley replied “There’s still a lot of room for improvement. You know, you go up to the Iron Range and those people are suffering up there. They need jobs up there and they really need to have their voices heard.”

Sen. Housley is an impressive candidate and an impressive legislator. She isn’t the type of legislator that’ll let bureaucrats off the hook. When they come before her committee, they’d better be prepared and they’d better tell the truth from start to finish.

By comparison, I can’t see Tina Smith being much more than Sen. Schumer’s shill. That isn’t to say that Smith isn’t smart. I’m just saying that she’s like most Democrats in that they do what they’re told.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Saying that United We Dream is far outside the mainstream on immigration issues is understatement on steroids. Their statement starts off with a outrageous statements and finishes the same way.

United We Dream’s statement starts by saying “Let’s call this proposal for what it is: a white supremacist ransom note. Trump and Stephen Miller killed DACA and created the crisis that immigrant youth are facing. They have taken immigrant youth hostage, pitting us against our own parents, Black immigrants and our communities in exchange for our dignity. To Miller and Trump’s white supremacist proposal, immigrant youth say: No.”

Apparently, United We Dream isn’t capable of making rational arguments. I’ve seen fifth graders who’ve made more adult-sounding arguments than that. Then again, it’s typical for hardline progressives to immediately jump to race-baiting.

United We Dream’s statement finishes by saying “So let us be clear: any politician who backs up this ransom note is enabling Trump and Miller’s white supremacist agenda. Members of Congress of conscience must make the moral choice to reject this white supremacist proposal and pass legislation that protects us without harming others.”

The thought that they’ve broken the law didn’t enter their statement. Instead, there’s just a sense of entitlement to living in the United States. Following the rules of the United States hasn’t entered these illegal immigrants’ minds.

I’m not just talking about DREAMers, either. It’s impossible to identify a single demographic group of illegal immigrants who don’t think they’re entitled to ignore U.S. law. Then there’s enablers like this:


By saying “By ending DACA, @realdonaldtrump subjected 800k Dreamers to deportation. Now he wants to hold them hostage to Steven Miller’s anti-immigrant wish list. It’s insulting. We already have a bipartisan solution to the Trump-created crisis: it’s called the Dream Act”, Sen. Pocahontas has told America that she hates the rule of law. That isn’t surprising since she apparently thinks she’s a Native-American even though she’s white. We don’t need people who think they can make up the rules whenever they want.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Prof. Mark Jaede’s LTE is intellectually insulting. Speaking of President Trump’s recent comments about immigration, Prof. Jaede apparently took President Trump’s statements literally. In the LTE, Prof. Jaede wrote “Our president has called black-majority nations ‘s—holes’ and announced his preference for immigrants from Norway. This is a call to return to the race-based immigration policies of 1882-1964, excluding most Asians, favoring Western Europeans, and severely limiting immigration of ‘inferior’ Southern and Eastern Europeans.”

First, the St. Cloud Times should be ashamed of themselves for publishing this content. Several U.S. senators in the room disputed Sen. Durbin’s statement. These senators insist that President Trump never used that disgusting word. Prof. Jaede, like other Democrat activists, isn’t afraid of using statements that were never spoken to win a political fight. (Think Al Sharpton using Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.)

Prof. Jaede essentially is a paid DFL activist. While it’s true that he’s professor at St. Cloud State, it’s also true that most of his time is spent working on union-related issues. That’s the euphemism used to describe union activism. Last fall, I wrote this post about some local vandalism visited upon Granite City Baptist Church. Prior to the event, Prof. Jaede used SCSU’s listserv to talk about the upcoming event:

This is political activism, something that shouldn’t be permitted while using taxpayer-funded resources. If Prof. Jaede wants to promote a political event, he should use his private email address and private email list. Apparently, that thought didn’t appeal to Prof. Jaede.

Here’s a word of advice to Prof. Jaede: If you’re going to accuse people of corrupt acts, it’s best not to be corrupt yourself.

Last November, the St. Cloud City Council debated a resolution that said St. Cloud is a welcoming community. It was a waste of time though the St. Cloud Times and liberal activists hailed the resolution as being significant. The Hutchinson City Council apparently disagrees with the St. Cloud Times and the city’s liberal activists. Back in December, Council Member John Lofdahl brought the resolution forward, explaining that “(The 14th Amendment) is equal protection for all people, including noncitizens. This is in our constitution. The First Amendment is the free exercise of religion. So that doesn’t mean Christian religion, or Islam, or Buddhism, or Native American. It means you have the right to practice any religion. And again, it’s the 14th Amendment that defines your rights as a citizen or as a visitor to our country. And I think that’s all this resolution does. It affirms those constitutional priorities.”

Council Members Mary Christensen and Chad Czmowski, and Mayor Gary Forcier said the resolution wasn’t needed. Christensen “said that she had never heard anybody say Hutchinson was not a good place to live, and felt the city was already welcoming to new residents. She also said most of the people she spoke with felt the same way,” adding that “I will tell you that I’ve met a lot of people who have talked to me about this, a lot of people have called and talked to me personally, and everybody is saying, ‘Why do you need a resolution in the first place? Hutchinson is a welcoming city. Have we ever turned anybody away?”

I’m taking a different perspective on this. The core functions of city government are to plow streets, fix potholes, protect citizens, put out fires and arrest criminals. Passing resolutions stating that you’re a welcoming community doesn’t fit into any of those categories. That’s why it’s a waste of the council’s time. It’s a distraction. This says everything that needs to be said:

“I’ve probably spent more time talking about this resolution than selling bicycles,” said Czmowski, who owns Outdoor Motion on Main Street. “That being said, I’ve had a lot of experiences like Mary did where people either completely disagreed with what was said in the resolution, or found it to be a waste of time.”

This is telling, too:

When Lofdahl said he had heard from people who did not feel welcomed in the community and left town because of it, Christensen said some of the blame may belong to those people. “(Being welcomed) to a community and getting involved is (partly the responsibility) of the person who is coming in to the community. It’s a two-way street,” she said. “If you don’t reach out and join a church, get active in the community, reach out and meet your neighbor, say hello and greet them and get acclimated to this community, it will never happen. You cannot force people to be welcomed.”

Passing a resolution that says the city is welcoming doesn’t mean a thing. It’s a nice bumper sticker or t-shirt but, by itself, it’s meaningless. Actions speak louder than words.

This might be the smartest quote in the article:

Carol Johnson said she believed the city was welcoming enough and was concerned that the resolution would bring unwanted changes to the community. “With every change made to this community, there are changes. There are changes to the way our high school, our grade schools, when you have different populations you have different needs. You have community things that have to be paid for, so whenever there is a change in the populace, there are going to be changes in the cost to the community.”

St. Cloud is living proof of that. That isn’t automatically bad. It’s just reality.

Anyone thinking that environmental organizations care about public opinion or common sense should read this article.

I took notice when it said “The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals announced Tuesday it will hear an oral argument in March over the lawsuit, brought by the Western Organization of Resource Councils and Friends of the Earth against Interior Department Secretary Ryan Zinke. The suit challenges that the federal government is underplaying the impact of mining coal on the land it leases.”

I was especially stunned when Interior replied “In a response to the request for appeal, the defendant said, “Although the Plaintiffs’ brief, in this case, goes into great detail about the science of global climate change, plaintiffs do not challenge any substantive agency action or allege a failure to carry out.”

This lawsuit shouldn’t get taken seriously. Here’s why:

Interior added: “This case, therefore, is like any other in which a plaintiff claims to identify a new environmental impact that the agency must take into account in its decision making.”

The lawsuit against the Interior Department was initially dismissed by a federal court in 2015.

In other words, organizations like the Western Organization of Resource Councils and Friends of the Earth apparently exist to file trivial lawsuits. This video explains Friends of the Earth International’s mission:

There’s no question whether the metro DFL is the dominant wing of the DFL. They’ve essentially told rural DFL legislators that they’re valued as long as they keep their mouths shut and follow metro DFL’s orders. The vast majority of DFL gubernatorial candidates are Metrocrats. Tim Walz is the only one that doesn’t fit that description because he’s from southern Minnesota. Unfortunately, he’s had a recent change of heart and is sounding like an anti-mining, NRA-hating Metrocrat. But I digress.

The point of this article is to highlight what the Metrocrat DFL stands for. Scott Dibble’s op-ed offers great insight into the Metro DFL’s priorities. In the op-ed, Sen. Dibble wrote “Folks might know that I come from the front lines of movement building — organizing and fighting for social justice and an economy that works for everyone. Those fundamental democratic values are under attack in our country, from President Trump’s mass deportation and promotion of bigotry, to Congress’s tax giveaways to the ultra-wealthy, not to mention the Republican leadership back home pushing our state back into deficits after years of surplus. The daily onslaught can be overwhelming.”

Let’s be blunt. Sen. Dibble has made it clear that he thinks that the tax cuts that are helping middle class families are anti-American and betray “fundamental democratic values.” Sen. Dibble mentioned being a social justice warrior. The Urban Dictionary’s definition of social justice warrior is “a person who uses the fight for civil rights as an excuse to be rude, condescending, and sometimes violent for the purpose of relieving their frustrations or validating their sense of unwarranted moral superiority. The behaviors of Social justice warriors usually have a negative impact on the civil rights movement, turning away potential allies and fueling the resurgence of bigoted groups that scoop up people who have been burned or turned off by social justice warriors.”

In his op-ed, Sen. Dibble wrote glowingly about Jamie Long, who is apparently running for Paul Thissen’s open House seat. Here’s what Sen. Dibble wrote about Long:

As a young activist at Carleton College, Jamie founded a student environmental group. Among their achievements were pressuring the college to install a wind turbine and the creation of a Responsible Investment Committee so the college’s wealth would not support injustice. He took his organizing to Washington, D.C., working on climate and clean water advocacy with the Natural Resources Defense Council while attending law school.

Jamie brought his organizing skill and his passion for justice back to Minnesota five years ago. He channeled that energy and ability into running Congressman Keith Ellison’s Minnesota office, helping build community power to propel a comprehensive progressive legislative agenda.

If there’s anyone who’s more progressive than Mr. Long, it might take time to find, then identify, that person. Frankly, I’m not sure that person exists.

What I’m certain of, though, is that the Metrocrats’ priorities aren’t rural Minnesota’s priorities. I’m certain that rural Minnesota didn’t put a high priority on the “passage of the historic law granting the freedom to marry to all Minnesotans,” aka gay marriage. That doesn’t that rural Minnesota residents hate gays. It just means that issue wasn’t high on their priorities list. With the Metrocrats, it was a high priority:

Friday morning, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources “released a draft permit to mine Friday morning for PolyMet Mining” in what’s being called “a major step forward for what’s poised to be the first copper-nickel mine in the state.” While this isn’t the final step needed to mine, “the draft permit, which includes conditions the state would place on the Canadian mining company, signals the state is comfortable the mine, as proposed, can meet environmental standards and provide significant financial assurances to pay for any needed mine cleanup.”

While that’s a major step forward, the project still faces additional hurdles before construction can start. The next step allows the public “to weigh in on the draft permit, including at two public hearings scheduled Feb. 7 in Aurora, on the Iron Range, and Feb. 8 in Duluth. The DNR will also accept formal objections and petitions for special contested case hearings on the permit before a state administrative law judge.” After that, the MPCA “also plans to release draft water quality and air quality permits, two additional major permits PolyMet needs to obtain before it could open its proposed mine and processing plant near Babbitt and Hoyt Lakes.” That still isn’t enough to open the mine:

Environmental groups have already filed four lawsuits, most challenging a proposed land exchange with the U.S. Forest Service, and more suits are expected if the state eventually grants PolyMet permits. If the DNR calls for evidentiary hearings before an administrative law judge to gather testimony on aspects of the mining plan that are disputed by environmental groups and Indian tribes, that could tack on another 6 to 9 months to the regulatory process.

A vote for a DFL governor is a vote for continuing the status quo. In this instance, this process started in 2004 with the “Initial Environmental Review.”

According to this article, which was written on “Dec. 16, 2015”, PolyMet spent $249,708,000 in its attempt to get the mine operational:

Anyone that thinks spending $250,000,000 is reasonable to get approval for a mine hates mining and miners. The DFL and their front groups (think Sierra Club, Conservation Minnesota and Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters) might think that’s reasonable but sane people don’t. If anyone wants to know why entrepreneurs are leaving Minnesota, the regulatory climate is a major reason. There’s nothing reasonable about it.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,