Archive for the ‘Activism’ Category

Back on March 27, 2006, I wrote this post. That’s when I coined the phrase Agenda Media. By definition, the Agenda Media is interested in furthering the Democrats’ leftist agenda. The Agenda Media isn’t interested in spreading the truth. If the Agenda Media had a mission statement, I’m betting that it would say that acquiring, then maintaining, power for Democrats is their mission. That’s a shameful mission.

Kim Strassel’s new book, titled Resistance (At All Costs): How Trump Haters Are Breaking America is essentially about the Agenda Media. The truth is that the Resist movement couldn’t exist without the Agenda Media’s help. Ms. Strassel writes:

Last week The Washington Post revealed the alarming news that House Democrats were considering having their anonymous “whistleblower” testify from a remote location, and in disguise. Just as shocking as the details of this plan was the justification the Post ladled on this Democratic effort to hide impeachment information from the public.

It explained, high up in the story, that the cloak-and-dagger approach was merely Democrats expressing “distrust of their GOP colleagues, whom they see as fully invested in defending a president who has attacked the whistleblower’s credibility and demanded absolute loyalty from Republicans.”

This year, House Minority Leader McCarthy coined a phrase that said “Democrats hate President Trump more than they love America. That’d sound extreme if you haven’t paid attention to the Democrats’ actions. If you’ve paid attention to the Democrats’ actions, Leader McCarthy’s cliché is legitimate.

It’d be wrong to call Pelosi’s Democrats a domestic terrorist organization but I wouldn’t be that far off. Since President Trump’s election, Democrats have voted virtually unanimously against prosperity and against giving President Trump some political victories. Let’s not forget that every Democrat in DC voted against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that’s been the heart of this incredible economic performance.

Let’s remember that every Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against confirming Justice Kavanaugh. In fact, those Democrats did everything imaginable to destroy Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation and Justice Kavanaugh’s family. It isn’t surprising that every Democrat voted against Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

The Resist Movement is spearheaded by the Agenda Media. The truth is that the Agenda Media is significantly to the left of traditional Democrats. That doesn’t mean that today’s Democrats are moderates. They definitely aren’t. The AOC wing of the Democratic Party is the biggest wing of the Party. They’re also the craziest part of the Party. Check out this interview:

Notice that Leslie Marshall cites polls favoring impeachment rather than defending the secrecy with which House Democrats are conducting their sham impeachment proceedings. Marshall didn’t attempt to defend Pelosi’s or Schiff’s indefensible actions.

That’s changed in the age of Trump. The press has embraced its bias, joined the Resistance and declared its allegiance to one side of a partisan war. It now openly declares those who offer any fair defense of this administration as Trump “enablers.” It writes off those who question the FBI or Department of Justice actions in 2016 as “conspiracy” theorists. It acts as willing scribes for Democrats and former Obama officials; peddles evidence-free accusations; sources stories from people with clear political axes to grind; and closes its eyes to clear evidence of government abuse.

It’s time for truth-loving Republicans and independents to shove the NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC and the Washington Post off a non-literal cliff. They’re propagandists. They aren’t real journalists.

Heading into President Trump’s Minneapolis rally, DFL Chairman Ken Martin predictably issued a statement criticizing President Trump’s divisiveness. After the event, DFL Chair Martin issued another statement that served as an I-told-you-so bookend to his previous statement. In the after-rally statement, DFL Chair Martin criticized President Trump for attacking the Somali refugees living in Minneapolis. Imagine my surprise when I read this Washington Post article that criticizes President Trump for attacking Minneapolis’s Somali population.

It didn’t happen. That’s just how it was written. Allyson Chiu wrote “The president soon widened his attack to target Somali refugees in Minnesota, a group that includes Omar, a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in the East African country. He promised rally attendees, who booed loudly at the mention of the state’s Somali residents, that he would ‘give local communities a greater say in refugee policy and put in place enhanced vetting and responsible immigration controls. As you know, for many years, leaders in Washington brought large numbers of refugees to your state from Somalia without considering the impact on schools and communities and taxpayers.’ Trump said as some in the crowd jeered, adding, ‘You should be able to decide what is best for your own cities and for your own neighborhoods, and that’s what you have the right to do right now, and believe me, no other president would be doing that.'”

Apparently, the DFL thinks that parents having a say in what’s best for their cities and neighborhoods is hateful. Similarly, the Washington Post thinks that people that don’t want their property taxes increasing each year are hateful. I live in St. Cloud, which is Ground Zero in this fight. My property taxes have gone up since the first Somali arrivals. Meanwhile, AP classes went from 9 programs at Tech to 2 in a 4-year period. The money for the AP programs was shifted to English immersion classes. As this happened, people left St. Cloud for the Sartell and Sauk Rapids-Rice school districts so their kids can get a better education.

I’d love hearing DFL Chair Martin explain why it’s hateful for parents to want the best education for their children. I’d love hearing the Washington Post explain why it’s wrong for parents to want their property taxes stable and low.

Then again, the point isn’t that these things are wrong. These spinmeisters’ goal is to spread the message that President Trump hates minorities. Ken Martin understands that the DFL will get crucified if the subject is the economy. Martin knows that President Trump’s economic policies are working for most people. This Marist Poll provides President Trump good news:

Nearly two in three Americans (65%), including 62% of independents, say the economy is actually working well for them personally. Republicans (93%) overwhelmingly have this opinion while Democrats divide. 46% of Democrats think the economy is benefitting them, and 50% do not.

If Democrats don’t convince voters that President Trump’s policies are hurting them, then Democrats will get their butts kicked in November, 2020.

People understand that it’s ok for communities to determine when a flood of refugees is too many to support. This isn’t hateful. It’s common sense. This is what hatred looks like:

It’s impossible to say that the anarchists/rioters aren’t haters. They certainly are. It isn’t just anarchists that displayed their hate:

On a Livestream of the violent protest by Star Tribune reporter Andy Mannix, a sitting Democrat State Representative Aisha Gomez (DFL-Minneapolis) was spotted participating. Due to the violence by the masked leftwing protesters Minneapolis Police was occasionally forced to deploy chemical irritants to subdue and disperse people committing assaults. Rep. Aisha Gomez bragged on twitter that she was able to use her position as a state rep to instruct the Mayor of Minneapolis Jacob Frey to have the police stand down.

Here’s that tweet:


That’s proof that the DFL actively participated in getting people fired up for violence. That’s also proof that the DFL actively ensured lawlessness. The MSM, including the Washington Post, insists that President Trump is a hater but says nothing about the DFL’s ginning up of hatred amongst rioters.

Friday night, I got TakeAction Minnesota’s weekly newsletter. The top item in TAM’s newsletter, predictably, was President Trump’s Thursday night rally. TAM wrote “Well, it’s Friday, and it’s been quite the week. Last night, President Trump visited Minneapolis. And, as expected, he used his platform to spread hate and division. Much of it was directed it toward our Somali friends and neighbors.”

Of course, that was only part of this DFL front group’s dishonest update. It continued, saying “But that’s not the entire story. Last night, tens of thousands of Minnesotans, including many of you, came together in the cold rain to affirm what we know: every person has inherent worth and dignity. No matter where they came from or what faith they practice. And no matter what President Trump says. Right now, we’re faced with a choice: Either we stand together with unbreakable solidarity across race, class, gender and geography, and rise up to meet the challenges we face. Or we allow hatred and cruelty to rule the day.”

Speaking of hatred and cruelty, here’s what the rioters did while the rally was just ending:

Then there’s this:


It’s a safe bet that the rioters weren’t Trump supporters. I’d estimate the chances of the rioters being Democrats and Antifa to be north of 90%. If TakeAction Minnesota wants to talk about hatred and cruelty, they’d better look in the mirror first. TakeAction Minnesota is famous for pushing the envelope when it comes to on-the-ground activism. I wrote about TAM’s threats and intimidation in this post. TakeAction Minnesota went to Jason Lewis’s home:

But my neighbors saw 20, 25 people, nobody knows the real count, outside. Their daughters were home alone, got scared, called their dad. He called the police, which, by the way, in the suburb I live in, it’s a violation of a city ordinance to what, not to mention trespassing.

Rule #1 — Whatever the DFL accuses Republicans of doing is exactly what the DFL is doing. Rule #2 — Never forget Rule #1.

Check out this wrap-up of Thursday night’s violence. Spread these videos far and wide. Without visual proof, people won’t believe that the DFL has gotten this violent.

Democrats are hell-bent on impeaching President Trump, even if it means ignoring what the key witness said. This morning in Ukraine, President Zelenskiy told the AP “We didn’t speak about this. There was no blackmail.” Further, in responding “to questions from The Associated Press, Zelenskiy said he only learned after their July 25 phone call that the U.S. had blocked hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine.”

I’m predicting right now that this exculpatory information won’t matter to Schiff and Pelosi. This won’t break their stride. As Newt Gingrich writes in this article, “This coup attempt, which is exactly what it is, has nothing to do with evidence or any single accusation. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said when asked what she would do if the whistleblower accusation involving Ukraine collapsed, ‘We have many other, shall we say, candidates for impeachable offense in terms of the Constitution of the United States, but this one is the most understandable by the public.'”

Pelosi and Schiff aren’t interested in releasing the testimony transcripts because those transcripts will show that the Democrats’ impeachment attempt is a purely partisan activity. Democrats have started with this coup attempt literally the morning after Election Day, 2016:

On Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2016, a left-wing group announced emergency protests against Donald Trump in six cities that day. Within 24 hours of Trump being declared president, left-wing activists were gathering in Chicago, Los Angeles, Sacramento, New York City, San Francisco, and Albuquerque. As the organizers at Act Now to Stop and End Racism (ANSWER) announced:

In a shock result, Donald Trump has been elected president – but the people can rise up and defeat his bigoted, extreme right-wing agenda! The ANSWER Coalition is mobilizing across the country to organize and take part in emergency actions.

Democrats don’t just hate President Trump. Democrats hate him so thoroughly that they’re willing to throw the rules of evidence aside if that’s what’s required to get rid of President Trump. This isn’t a goal with Democrats. It’s an obsession with Democrats.

This video was shot on Nov. 9, 2016, the night of Trump’s election. That means that Democrats have literally been trying to impeach President Trump since he got elected. For Democrats, this isn’t about just removing President Trump from office. For Democrats, it’s about telling President Trump’s supporters that they made a major mistake and that they’d better repent immediately.

For a little over a week, Ms. Pelosi has been talking about this being a solemn time, that we should keep President Trump in prayer and that Jefferson, Madison and Franklin gave us “a republic if you can keep it.” Ms. Pelosi has repeatedly said that respecting the Constitution was the Democrats’ highest priority. Yet when she’s been asked to give Republicans the right to ask witnesses questions or to subpoena witnesses, Ms. Pelosi has been an autocrat.

When she started the impeachment inquiry, she didn’t do it by announcing the results of a vote from the People’s House. Ms. Pelosi stepped up to the microphone and announced that she was starting the inquiry. That means this inquiry isn’t a legitimate impeachment inquiry in the eyes of the courts. When Chairman Schiff requests documents, the White House won’t hesitate in rejecting Chairman Schiff’s request.

Had the whole House voted to start an impeachment inquiry, the House’s authority would’ve expanded substantially. Ms. Pelosi didn’t want Republicans to have the same rights that other minority parties had in past impeachment inquiries so she didn’t hold a vote. No special rules were created for this special investigation. Impeachment investigations, we understand, aren’t like other investigations because so much more is at stake.

We’re talking about undoing the will of the American people with impeachment and conviction. Other than voting to go to war, I can’t imagine a more somber moment the House experiences. Instead of voting on impeachment, Ms. Pelosi walked up to a podium like a queen and declared that the House had officially started their impeachment inquiry:

Pelosi caved to the Squad, Maxine Waters and the other nutjobs in her caucus. The rest of her caucus didn’t even get a chance to express the will of their constituents. The somewhat more moderate Democrats were told what they’d signed up for. Queen Nancy had made her dictatorial ruling. Queen Nancy had made the Democrats’ decision for them, too.

Remember when Queen Nancy led the fight for the ACA? That’s when Queen Nancy shoved Obamacare down our throats and 63 Democrats into involuntary retirement. That’s when Queen Nancy became famous for this:

In 2010, TEA Party activists stepped into voting booths across America, along with other patriots, and voted out Democrats en masse. When the results were finalized, Queen Nancy was no longer Speaker/Dictator because Republicans were the new majority. It’s time to throw Queen Nancy out of House leadership once and for all. It’s time we put the Squad in the minority for the foreseeable future, too.

It’s difficult figuring out whether DFL operative Mark Jaede, who moonlights as a non-teaching professor at St. Cloud State when he isn’t an activist, is dishonest or if he’s just stupid. It could go either direction. Both options have significant proof that would prove that option correct. I’m sitting at this point because Prof. Jaede’s comment seems more along the lines of DFL talking points than outright stupidity.

The situation starts with Dan Johnson’s monthly column in the SC Times. Johnson is the chairman of the Benton County Republican Party. This month, Johnson’s column was about the Democrats’ impeachment “witch hunt.” Johnson’s column was well-researched, which meant that comments needed to be either condescending or snarky. Here’s the comment that Prof. Jaede left:

Trump asked a foreign leader for a “favor” – going after a political rival. Despite all the Republican attempts at denial, that is corruption. We should hardly be surprised that Trump cannot recognize his own corruption and thinks the call was “perfect.”

I wrote about the transcript in this post. The word “favor” is only used once in the transcript. Here’s how it was used:

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your weal thy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people.

That’s the transcript published on the White House’s website. As any student would notice, the favor wasn’t to go after one of President Trump’s political rivals, least of all Joe Biden. If Jaede thinks Trump needs foreign dirt to take down Biden (or any potential Democrat rival, then he’s employing wishful thinking. There isn’t a Democrat who can beat Trump this year.)

The Democrats’ spin notwithstanding, the truth is that asking a foreign leader to help get to the bottom of the hacking of the DNC’s server is anything except corruption. If it’s anything, it’s President Trump taking election security seriously. It’s getting difficult to take Prof. Jaede seriously. He’s a professor who, at least until this year, didn’t teach. His time was mostly spent being an activist. Then again, SCSU isn’t that bright if they’re paying him not to teach.

This LTE contains its fair share of contradictions.. Perhaps, the biggest contradiction is the one found in this paragraph:

Imagine how we could lower gun deaths by requiring a license to purchase or use a gun! By requiring background checks for every gun sale? By limiting ammunition purchases? By making firearms inoperable by anyone except the original owner? This would stop killings by children and gun thieves. The National Rifle Association uses money to prevent Congress from passing such common-sense solutions, and — guess what — the NRA is funded by gun manufacturers. They would lose money if reasonable and constitutional limits were placed on weapons.

This is the ultimate contradiction in my estimation. How do you place restrictions on guns that pass constitutional muster? First, let’s start with the text of the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It’s important to notice why the Second Amendment was written — for “the security of a free state.” Further, it’s worth noting that the people who wrote the Bill of Rights said that it’s “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

The person apparently doesn’t know much about this subject because we already have a system of background checks. Some of the recent mass-shooters have shot people after passing background checks. The problem isn’t whether there should be background checks but whether these background checks should include mental health data or whether juvenile arrests should be wiped clean.

The talk about implementing “common sense solutions” is just that — talk. House Democrats don’t just want “common sense” restrictions. They want an assault weapons ban, red flag laws, etc. An assault weapons ban is worthless. If you specify which weapons are classified as assault weapons, it’s easy for the manufacturer to get around that. What they did with the initial assault weapons ban, a month after the ban went into effect, the manufacturers changed the model numbers. The new model wasn’t part of the list so it wasn’t classified as an assault weapon.

If the legislation defines assault weapon by caliber, muzzle velocity of the round, physical characteristic, etc., then the definition is too broad. In their Heller decision, the Supreme Court said that firearms “in common use” can’t be prohibited. That doesn’t stop Biden, Beto or Harris from wanting to confiscate guns:

Beto’s ‘Buyback’:

Sen. Harris’ executive order:

Democrats don’t want to pass “common sense” restrictions on guns. They want to confiscate our weapons. The people making these threats aren’t back-benchers. They’re the Democrats’ presidential candidates. Their fidelity to the Constitution is limited at best.

Like most DFL-affiliated organizations, CAIR-MN has a history of publishing one thing, then doing another. That’s quickly proven with a visit to CAIR’s mission page. A list of CAIR-MN’s principles reads like this:

  1. CAIR supports free enterprise, freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
  2. CAIR is committed to protecting the civil rights of all Americans, regardless of faith.
  3. CAIR supports domestic policies that promote civil rights, diversity and freedom of religion.
  4. CAIR opposes domestic policies that limit civil rights, permit racial, ethnic or religious profiling, infringe on due process, or that prevent Muslims and others from participating fully in American civic life.
  5. CAIR is a natural ally of groups, religious or secular, that advocate justice and human rights in America and around the world.
  6. CAIR supports foreign policies that help create free and equitable trade, encourage human rights and promote representative government based on socio-economic justice.
  7. CAIR believes the active practice of Islam strengthens the social and religious fabric of our nation.
  8. CAIR condemns all acts of violence against civilians by any individual, group or state.
  9. CAIR advocates dialogue between faith communities both in America and worldwide.
  10. CAIR supports equal and complementary rights and responsibilities for men and women.

I’d start by saying that the first 3 bullet points aren’t what CAIR practices. I quoted Jaylani Hussein, CAIR-MN’s Executive Director, in this post as saying “St. Cloud residents cannot allow for a small fringe group of haters to dominate and take over the narrative of what St. Cloud is and who it is. There should be concern about these hate groups who are creating a very unsafe environment to the point where talks like these are not taking place. More people, more residents need to shun and call these people for what they are — hate groups who are trying to create fear.”

Hussein insists that a group of people peacefully protesting and another group of people praying for the Persecuted Church.

  1. Mr. Hussein, please explain how CAIR can support freedom of expression while calling for an entire city to call a group of people praying for the persecute church a hate group. In fact, forget the please. I demand that you explain how those 2 principles fit together.
  2. Mr. Hussein, I’d love hearing how CAIR can oppose “domestic policies that limit civil rights” while accusing an organization that’s praying a hate group. Since the First Amendment guarantees our right to practice the religion of our choice, including not practicing any religion, CAIR apparently doesn’t understand the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Forgive me if I don’t take it seriously when CAIR insists that it’s a civil rights organization. This video is ridiculous:

Comparing the SJW movement with MLK’s civil rights movement is beyond ridiculous. They fit together like oil and water.

It’s time to call out the St. Cloud Times for protecting their leftist cronies. This Our View Editorial is disgusting. It’s about the postponed Dismantling Hate Crimes event from this past Wednesday. Here’s the opening of the SCTimes’ article:

Sadly, people driven by fear are still driving the public agenda. Witness about two dozen people who showed up Wednesday at the St. Cloud Library to protest a panel discussion about dismantling hate crimes because, well, spreading hate and fear is their go-to.

Shame on the Times for publishing this trash. This isn’t worthy of a college newspaper, much less worthy of a once-respectable newspaper. This editorial is cringeworthy for its sloppiness and fact gathering.

First, the St. Cloud Human Rights Commission published a postponement notice on their Facebook page Wednesday afternoon. The timestamp for the post is 1:16 pm on Sept. 18th:

Next, 2 groups were there at the Library that might’ve been considered protest groups. One was a group who prayed for the Persecuted Church. The other organization is called the “Freedom Speaks Coalition.”

One of the groups applied for and received a permit to use a room in the Public Library from 2:00 pm-4:00 pm September 18. The Dismantling Hate Crimes event didn’t start until 6:00 pm. The Times’ hit piece continues:

First, though, many of the picketers (who showed up despite the cancellation that came soon before the event was to begin) would not stand up for their beliefs in the most basic way possible, by putting their names to their convictions. Offered the opportunity by journalists from the St. Cloud Times and other news outlets to explain their point of view, many offered their thoughts but most refused to provide their names.

Why would a sane person give the Times their name considering the Times Editorial Board’s penchant for smearing its political opponents? The Times is a media organization. Do they think we don’t know that they’re aware of Antifa protests on college campuses against conservatives and Christians? Am I supposed to believe that they aren’t aware of the violence that #BlackLivesMatters has perpetrated? Democrat-affiliated thugs like Antifa, #BlackLivesMatter and CAIR shouldn’t be trusted.

Notice that the Times trusted MDHR’s and CAIR’s narrative that the event was cancelled because some peaceful protesters showed up at the event. What the Times didn’t mention is that the event was postponed before the protesters arrived at the Library. Notice that the Times omitted the fact that Assistant Police Chief Jeff Oxton told Times reporter Jenny Berg that they hadn’t received any threats regarding the event.

Does the Times actually think that this postponement is legitimate? The SC Chief of Police was scheduled to participate in the discussion, as was an FBI supervisor. Also, 2 St. Cloud police officers were there. To think that CAIR and the Minnesota Department of Human Rights would get frightened by these protesters is foolish.

I’m tired of the Times Editorial Board either watering down their editorials to protect their political favorites or ignoring major facts. (Think Jeff Oxton’s statement.) The Times is supposed to be a news-gathering organization. It’d be nice if their work product reflected that. This video by Marni Hockenberg lays out pretty much the same facts that I laid out in this post:

Things have changed pretty dramatically since the last time I wrote about last night’s scheduled event on “Dismantling Hate Crimes.” First, the event was scheduled to start at 6:00 pm Wednesday night. Sources close to the event have told me that the event was postponed at 3:30 pm, well in advance of the event. But i digress. This afternoon’s updated article was significantly modified from yesterday’s article.

Yesterday’s article started by saying “the panel on dismantling hate crimes scheduled for 6 p.m. Wednesday was postponed over safety concerns, according to Taylor Putz, communications director for the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Putz told the St. Cloud Times Wednesday afternoon that the department postponed the event due to ‘logistical concerns’ and a ‘larger public safety concern’ due to the number of people expected to attend the forum.”

Today’s article starts by saying “A panel on dismantling hate crimes scheduled for 6 p.m. Wednesday was postponed over safety concerns, according to Taylor Putz, communications director for the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Putz told the St. Cloud Times Wednesday afternoon that the department postponed the event due to ‘logistical concerns’ and a ‘larger public safety concern’ due to the number of people expected to attend the forum. ‘We want to make sure the space is safe and accessible,’ Putz said.”

In this afternoon’s article, greater emphasis was put on villainizing the protesters:

“Hate is not a value in St. Cloud or in any part of our state,” Minnesota Department of Human Rights Commissioner Rebecca Lucero said in a news release issued just over an hour before the planned start of the event. “Our community deserves better.”

“I am heartbroken by the attempts to silence discussion on hate crimes. The goal of the forum was to discuss the community we want to create. One that is full of dignity and joy,” she said.

For the record, the ‘protesters’ held what I’d consider one of the mildest protests in American history. The ‘protesters’ held signs that criticized CAIR but they certainly didn’t threaten anyone there for the Dismantling Hate Crimes event. Most of the people there spent most of their time praying for “the Persecuted Church.”

Jaylani Hussein

I don’t know what Commissioner Lucero is talking about when she insists that the protesters silenced the “discussion on hate crimes.” If I had to guess, I’d bet that this is a PR stunt that didn’t turn out the way CAIR-MN and the ACLU of Minnesota hoped it would. The MDHR has a reputation for being racist or, at minimum, having a biased perspective on racial issues. This article highlights MDHR’s bias. This is the most paragraph in the entire article:

Despite the “public safety concern” cited by the human rights department, St. Cloud Assistant Police Chief Jeff Oxton said Wednesday the department received no reports of threats related to the event.

In other words, the postponement of the event was due to factors having nothing to do with the protesters. Let’s put that storyline to rest forever. As I told Ox on his program this afternoon, it isn’t a secret that the Twin Cities elitists don’t have a high opinion of people living in rural Minnesota.

Let’s be clear about this. The protests were peaceful, mild even. There weren’t altercations, brawls or confrontations. The day after the cancellation, though, the MDHR has issued a statement, saying that they’re working with “community partners, local law enforcement and the FBI to plan a future forum that is safe.”

This is purely spin. Jeff Oxton, the assistant chief of police stated quite clearly that the department received no reports of threats related to the event. Further, the police weren’t called to the event to break up any altercations.

That leads to a simple, important question. Why is the Minnesota Department of Human Rights playing this up like there was a major confrontation at the Dismantling Hate Crimes event? Clearly, there wasn’t a basis for cancelling the event from a public safety standpoint.

The Minnesota Department of Human Rights is filled with far left ideologues who think that there should be limits on disciplinary actions against minority students. I’ve called MDHR the ‘dog-whistle department’ because they see racism where it doesn’t exist.