Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Democratic Culture of Corruption category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Democratic Culture of Corruption’ Category

It was inevitable that enviroterrorists were bound to shut down the Enbridge Pipeline hearings. It finally happened when DFL-supporting protesters shut down the Duluth hearing.

The foundation for the protest is exposed in the article when it says “Tribal and environmental groups say the project threatens pristine waters where wild rice grows.” The assumption is that every drop of water must be pristine. Implicit in that assertion is that people’s needs must always take a back seat to ‘the environment.’

This article highlighted the enviroterrorists’ tactics when they reported “The evening hearing at the Duluth Entertainment Convention Center was marked by one interruption after another despite pleas from Minnesota Administrative Law Judge Ann O’Reilly. ‘We’ve gotten through 13 hearings without this baloney,’ she said. ‘Now, stop it.'”

These rioters aren’t interested in being reasonable. They’re interested in shutting down infrastructure projects out of spite. It’s time to teach them that treaty rights don’t trump everything else. There’s no reason why those lands shouldn’t be subjected to the takings clause of the Constitution, which says “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Further, under eminent domain the “property need not actually be used by the public; rather, it must be used or disposed of in such a manner as to benefit the public welfare or public interest.”

It certainly can be determined that replacing the existing pipeline with a newer pipeline will increase public safety and protect the environment. This woman isn’t too bright:

Ashland’s Sheila Mitchell said she opposes using oil from Alberta’s tar sands. “I also think it’s ridiculous to be putting a line this close to Lake Superior or any of the Great Lakes,” she said. “Anything in the Great Lakes watershed is a very dangerous proposition.”

There’s already a pipeline there. I read tons of articles each day. Until a couple years ago, I’d never heard of Enbridge. If they’ve been irresponsible, I would’ve heard about it. These enviroterrorists would’ve highlighted the company’s safety record. The PUC would’ve rejected the project immediately.

That hasn’t happened, which tells me that these enviroterrorists are just whining for the sake of whining. This video proves that these enviroterrorists don’t want the public’s voice to be heard:

Technorati: , , ,

Lots of conservatives appreciate the job that AG Jeff Sessions has done thus far. Thanks to this op-ed on the threats to free speech in the United States, people have another reason to appreciate Gen. Sessions.

One of the most impactful parts of Gen. Sessions’ op-ed came when he wrote “Our legal heritage, upon which the Founders crafted the Bill of Rights, taught that reason and knowledge produced the closest approximation to truth, and from truth may arise justice. But reason requires discourse and, frequently, argument. And that is why the free speech guarantee is found not just in the First Amendment, but also permeates our institutions, traditions and our Constitution. The Federalists against the anti-Federalists, Abraham Lincoln against Stephen Douglas, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. against George Wallace. At so many times in our history as a people, it was speech, and still more speech, that led Americans to a more just, more perfect union.”

Gen. Sessions then wrote “This month, we marked the 230th anniversary of our Constitution. This month, we also marked the 54th anniversary of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham. Four little girls died that day as they changed into their choir robes because the Klan wanted to silence the voices fighting for civil rights. But their voices were not silenced. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. would call them ‘the martyred heroines of a holy crusade for freedom and human dignity,’ in a eulogy that still should speak to us today. This is the true legacy of free speech that has been handed down to us. It was bought with a price.”

Antifa, the SPLC, By Any Means Necessary and other hard left organizations are trying to silence people. The best way of combatting this modern-day fascism is to insist on more liberty of all kinds. When you hear about warriors like Hannah Scherlacher and others on college campuses, support them to the fullest extent possible. In situations like this, pushing back is an indispensable tool.

This video shows the lengths to which they’ll go to silence people:

I’d strongly recommend you read this article, too. These aren’t people who play by the rules. They’re fascists, which is defined as “a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.”

It’s clear that Antifa and By Any Means Necessary will use any tools at their disposal.

There isn’t much dispute that Antifa’s tactics are similar to those of a domestic terrorist organization. First Amendment advocates’ arguments just got strengthened thanks to Antifa’s public stalking of the Berkeley College Republicans, aka BCRs.

According to Campus Reform’s article, it’s indisputable that Antifa’s chief tactics are bullying and intimidation. Campus Reform’s article starts with “Conservative students at the University of California, Berkeley have been actively stalked and targeted by a regional Antifa organization known for inciting violence. While the Berkeley College Republicans met at a local restaurant Wednesday evening, Berkeley Antifa took to Twitter to post the exact location of the student group online. “Antifa has taken pictures of me, followed me on the street, and tracked my location using social media. BCR meeting right now inside Eureka at 2068 Center St after drinking with Kyle Chapman and Joey Gibson at Fashy’s, I mean, Pappy’s,’ the Antifa organization tweeted. ‘Inside right now is Troy Worden, Ashton Whitty, Naweed Tahmas, Matt Ronnau, Angelie Castenada, and two others.'”

Lately, the radical Left’s 2 major weapons against free speech are the Southern Poverty Law Center, aka SPLC, and Antifa. Anyone that thinks Antifa isn’t a domestic terrorist organization needs to read this:

In late August, Ashton Whitty, one of the conservative students at the university, was stalked by several Antifa demonstrators who approached her at a gas station and pummeled her vehicle as she fled the scene. “Antifa has taken pictures of me, they’ve followed me on the street, and have tracked my location using social media,” Whitty told Campus Reform. “It’s rather odd why these people would see us as such a priority when we’re just everyday people.”

This video captures what happened to Ms. Whitty:

Antifa’s tactics are different than SPLC’s but their goal is the same: silence conservative voices through any means necessary. This is frightening:

Anyone that thinks the Democratic Party’s hardline lefties are capable of being reasoned with is foolish. Yes, that includes Sen. McCain. He wants to cut deals with people who’ve praised Antifa. Sen. McCain wants to cut deals with senators who’ve relied on the SPLC’s input on judicial nominees.

Anyone that cites the SPLC as a neutral arbiter of judicial nominees is nuttier than a fruit cake. If only I could find someone who’d recently trusted the SPLC:

Sen. Franken actually said that SPLC “tracks hate groups.” Watching the video of the young lady who was labeled by the SPLC as enabling hate for doing an interview with Tony Perkins on the subject of socialism hints that the SPLC doesn’t track hate groups. It is a hate group.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

This afternoon, I got an email saying that the MNPCA has submitted over 10,000 cards to Gov. Dayton “demanding a union decertification election.”

SEIU Healthcare Minnesota should be getting nervous because SEIU Healthcare Minnesota “established the union in a mail-in ballot, low voter turnout election with just 13 percent of the estimated 27,000 home-based PCAs in Minnesota.” Kim Crockett, the Vice President at Center of the American Experiment, said that the 10,000 cards “total three times more than the 3,543 PCAs who voted for unionization in 2014.”

In other words, the chances of SEIU Healthcare Minnesota getting decertified is significant to high. A little history is in order. On the last weekend of the 2013 session, the DFL passed a bill authorizing a unionization vote for in-home child care providers and PCAs. The DFL passed the bill despite the fact that in-home child care providers lobbied all weekend against the bill. They simply didn’t listen. The DFL had gotten their marching orders from AFSCME and SEIU. There was no way they were going to disobey their masters.

In March, 2016, the in-home child care providers rejected unionization by a vote of 1,014-392. That’s a defeat of 72% rejecting unionization, with only 28% of in-home child care providers voting for unionization. But I digress.

Apparently, SEIU Healthcare Minnesota got the message that a fair election wouldn’t turn out well so they allegedly tried winning the certification election with low voter turnout. Now that the “home-based PCAs in Minnesota” know the details of what they were signing, expect this decertification vote to turn out differently. These people don’t like the types of people you should mess with:

Though I won’t predict anything, I’ll state that it wouldn’t surprise me if this decertification vote is lopsided, too.

Democrats have started attacking Education Secretary Betsy DeVos because she’s announced that she’s rewriting the guidance on how universities handle sexual assaults on campus. Lucia Graves’ article starts off with a ridiculous premise, then gets worse after that.

The opening paragraphs to Ms. Graves’ article say “As she announced the rollback of Obama-era rules on campus sexual assault, education secretary Betsy DeVos seemed at times less like the head of the Department of Education than the department of rape apologists. ‘The truth is that the system established by the prior administration has failed too many students,” DeVos said in a speech at George Mason University on Thursday afternoon. ‘Survivors, victims of a lack of due process and campus administrators have all told me that the current approach does a disservice to everyone involved. ‘It’s notable that the ‘victims’ she seems most worried about aren’t those of sexual assault – they’re ‘victims of a lack of due process.’

What a stunning accusation. Let’s look at what life has looked like for men who’ve been accused of sexual assault during the last few years. Student defendants don’t have the right to an attorney, not that it would do them much good since the defense attorneys haven’t been allowed to cross-examine the accuser. This is the criteria used in convicting these students:

Under 2011 rules that establish a low standard of proof, Kaminer says, “students accused of harassment are to be convicted in the absence of clear and convincing evidence of guilt, if guilt merely seems more likely than not.” And schools are enjoined to “take immediate steps to protect the complainant from further harassment,” including “taking disciplinary action against the harasser” prior to adjudication. So the OCR-DOJ “blueprint” and related rules not only violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech but are, to be polite, casual about due process.

Perhaps Ms. Graves likes the thought of students getting railroaded, their lives ruined forever. When people don’t have the right to confront their accusers, they’re essentially defenseless. The prosecutor doesn’t have to present evidence proving that an assault happened. The defendant can’t question his accuser’s credibility. The verdict is essentially rendered when the accuser files the complaint.

How would Ms. Graves like it if she was accused of sexually assaulting a man, then not be able to defend herself? Would she be ok with not being able to question her accuser? Would she be fine with having her career ruined by someone who accused her of doing something she didn’t do?

It’s apparent that Ms. Graves hasn’t thought about the impact due process has had. Due process has protected people from dishonest accusers. It’s also made sure that accusers didn’t ruin honest people’s lives.

She didn’t talk about the fact that according to US Department of Justice reports, an estimated 19% of college-age women will suffer attempted or completed sexual assault, but that only 12% of those cases ever get reported – or that only between two and 10% of campus sexual assault accusations are actually false, per the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. Those aren’t the victims she seems to care about.

Ms. Lucia, how will taking people’s due process rights lead to more women reporting sexual assault? Further, when sexual assault is defined as “making ‘sexual or dirty jokes’ that are ‘unwelcome’ or disseminate ‘sexual rumors’ that are ‘unwelcome'” that’s expanding the definition of sexual assault.

As certain as death and taxes, Democrats have started attacking Jason Lewis a year before he’s re-elected. In her LTE, Rachel Garaghty of Cottage Grove said “Lewis also consistently votes against our values. He voted to strip health care from 28,500 people in Washington and Dakota counties. He voted to loosen restrictions on banks that gamble with our savings and investments. He voted to let pollution clog our lakes and rivers. Lewis is voting against the very things that keep us healthy, wealthy and happy.”

It isn’t surprising that Democrats’ criticisms of Lewis are dishonest. That isn’t just what Democrats do. It’s who they are. Saying that any Republican has “voted to let pollution clog our lakes and rivers” is over the top in the extreme.

Later in her LTE, Garaghty said “The people who were brave enough to stand up to Lewis through their peaceful protest were just local moms and dads, grandparents and young people who are rightly concerned about Lewis’ undemocratic tendencies.” That’s utterly dishonest. Jason Lewis’s neighbors called the police. They obviously felt threatened:

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.

Jason Lewis isn’t afraid of debating people. It’s a strength of his. Lewis said he won’t waste his time, though, providing DFL activists the opportunity to create a “spectacle.”

TakeAction Minnesota activists aren’t civic-minded people who want to start a dialogue. They’re hard-core activists who want to create a spectacle. As we’ve seen in the past, if they have to frighten people and trespass to make their point, they won’t hesitate in doing that.

According to this article, House Minority Leader Melissa Hortman supports Emperor Dayton’s new-found authority to negotiate in bad faith.

After Friday’s ruling, Hortman issued this statement, which says “Minnesotans expect their elected officials to collaborate on solutions to benefit everyone, but Republicans chose to go to court instead of negotiate in good faith with the Governor. This summer, I joined Governor Dayton in calling on the Republican majorities to return to the negotiating table and work to craft a long-term, sustainable budget for Minnesota. Given the Court’s order, all sides must come together with a spirit of compromise and collaboration in order to reach an agreement that will better serve Minnesotans. I look forward to working with Governor Dayton, Senator Bakk, and Republican leadership to do so.”

A refresher of history is required to detect how dishonest Rep. Hortman’s statement is. Prior to Emperor Dayton’s calling a special session, legislative leaders from both parties and the House and Senate agreed to how much would be spent. Republican leadership then submitted the legislative language for each bill, including the Tax Relief Bill, to the legislative leaders and Emperor Dayton’s senior staff.

It’s vitally important to note that there weren’t any surprises as to what was in the bills. It was there in black and white. Only then did Emperor Dayton agree to call a special session. After the legislature passed these spending bills and Emperor Dayton had signed almost all of them, he insisted that Republicans renegotiate the Tax Relief Bill.

Another important piece of information in this is the fact that Republicans already had agreed to reduce the size of the Tax Relief Bill when Emperor Dayton line-item vetoed the legislature’s funding. For the DFL and Emperor Dayton to now say that they’ll negotiate in good faith takes tons of chutzpah. They haven’t negotiated in good faith thus far. Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka and Speaker of the House Kurt Daudt released a joint statement, saying in part “Today’s order did not decide the case or vacate the lower court’s ruling, and we are ready to go to mediation to secure funding for the legislative branch of government. We worked in good faith in the past to attempt to breach this impasse, and will work in good faith again as we look ahead to the mediation process.”

The question now becomes whether Emperor Dayton and the DFL will finally start negotiating in good faith. The thing that Minnesotans should notice is that Emperor Dayton and the DFL insisted that his authorities are absolute. They argued that Minnesota governors should have the authority to hold the legislature hostage until he gets what he wants.

Pretty soon, DFL candidates and incumbents will start campaigning. Many DFL candidates will insist that they’re good at bringing people together. There’s proof that the DFL is good at not keeping their promises. There’s proof that the DFL is good at playing hardball. There isn’t proof that the DFL is good at bringing people together.

Finally, Republicans promised tax relief. They kept that promise. Republican promised educational reform. They kept that promise, too. Emperor Dayton didn’t keep his promises. Then the DFL insisted that Emperor Dayton’s authority was absolute. While all this was happening, Emperor Dayton issued a ruling that he was throwing another bone to the special interests by unnecessarily delaying the Enbridge Line 3 Pipeline replacement project.

It’s obvious that the DFL is the party of the special interests. It’s obvious that Republicans keep their promises. Think about that for a minute.

Steve Cortes’ article doesn’t pull punches. It should be seen for what it is: an in-your-face put-down of former FBI Director Comey and Washington, DC’s rigged system.

Cortes lays out the evidence immediately, saying “As evidence of the rigged system, voters sided with Trump during the campaign in often citing Clinton’s apparent immunity from consequences regarding her unsavory acts as secretary of state, especially her hidden emails on a private server, as well as corrupt Clinton Foundation dealings.”

Cortes cites Comey’s letter, written in late April or early May, that essentially said the FBI’s investigation was rigged. Cortes highlights the fact that Sen. Grassley and Sen. Graham sent this letter to FBI Director Robert Wray. One of the key parts of that letter is when Grassley and Graham write “According to the unredacted portions of the transcripts, it appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton. That was long before FBI agents finished their work. Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership. The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts.”

In fact, after Comey wrote his “nothing to see here” draft absolving Clinton of wrongdoing, the FBI still interviewed a total of 17 key officials.

It’s impossible to find what you refuse to look for. Let’s be clear about something. What Comey did in predetermining the outcome of his investigation is every bit as corrupt as Loretta Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton on a Phoenix tarmac. Then there’s this:

How is it possible that Comey had ascertained, at such an early date, that the evidence would not incriminate Hillary Clinton?

There’s a simple answer to that question. Comey wasn’t interested in finding out the truth. Apparently, he had picked a destination long before his agents had done the heavy lifting.

Finally, what isn’t being discussed is the Democratic Party’s depravity in nominating a woman who was exceptionally corrupt. What type of political party nominates someone who should’ve gotten indicted and prosecuted?

Apparently, former FBI Director Jim Comey needs a refresher course in conducting investigations. It’s apparent because documentation has surfaced that proves Director Comey started drafting a letter recommending that Hillary Clinton not be prosecuted before the investigation had really gotten started.

According to the article, “In a news release Thursday, the senators [Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham] said Comey began drafting the exoneration statement in April or May 2016, which was before the FBI interviewed 17 key witnesses, including Clinton herself and other top aides.” Later, the article quoted from Grassley’s and Graham’s letter. Specifically, the letter said “Conclusion first, fact-gathering second—that’s no way to run an investigation. The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy.”

If the Grassley-Graham letter is right, and I’m 99% certain it is, then Comey’s reputation should be in tatters. President Trump is right in saying “Wow, looks like James Comey exonerated Hillary Clinton long before the investigation was over…and so much more. A rigged system!”

Then there’s this:

Grassley and Graham said they learned about the draft after reviewing transcripts of interviews with top Comey aides.

“According to the unredacted portions of the transcripts, it appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton,” the senators said. They added, “That was long before FBI agents finished their work. Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership. The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts.”

This interview is, at minimum, disheartening:

According to this article, Sen. Grassley and Sen. Graham wrote “a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray seeking more information, including all drafts of Comey’s final statement on Clinton’s emails by September 13.” Later in the article, it states none “of the committee’s Democrats signed onto the request.”

That’s proof of 2 things — that the FBI didn’t conduct a serious investigation and that Democrats aren’t interested in the truth, especially when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Far from being the straight shooter that people said he was, it’s looking like Director Comey is just another DC insider whose first instinct is to protect the Swamp.

If this is proven true, then Mueller should shut down his investigation, too. I’m not the first person to write about the belief that Mueller hopes Comey will be his star witness against Trump. Once this information comes out, it won’t take much for a skilled defense attorney to impeach Comey’s testimony.

This post by Powerline’s Scott Johnson predicts a sad outcome in the lawsuit filed by the legislature against Gov. Dayton. In his post, Johnson, an attorney, wrote “Based on the oral argument, it seems clear to me that the Supreme Court is poised to reverse Judge Guthmann’s ruling and remand the case to Judge Guthmann for an order funding the legislature’s core functions beyond October 1 for as long as necessary. If and when Governor Dayton prevails on appeal, he can be expected to call a special session of the legislature specifically limited to revisiting provisions of the state government finance bill that he found objectionable. Governor Dayton appointed four of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s seven justices. The playing field is tilted in his favor.”

God help us if Scott’s prediction is right. I don’t want to sound to dramatic but a ruling in Dayton’s favor is a ruling against checks and balances and a ruling that would essentially obliterate the concept of co-equal branches of government. Harold Hamilton summarizes things perfectly in his weekly commentary:

During oral arguments, Chief Justice Gildea cut right to the heart of matter by asking this question of Dayton’s lawyer: If the line-item veto power has no limits or qualification, is the governor not empowered to veto or threaten to veto funding for the judicial branch if he doesn’t like the way a court rules a case?

Dayton’s lawyers engaged in some verbal gymnastics before simply stating that such a question “isn’t before the court today.”

This is the tell-tale question.

For Dayton’s view to prevail, it must be admitted that the line-item veto has no limits. It means that the governor can threaten to veto funding to operate the legislature or the courts to leverage political outcomes. In short, it means that the governor can threaten the integrity of the courts and the legislature.

Scott is right. Gov. Dayton has successfully stacked the Court. If Gov. Dayton’s appointees rule in his favor, Republicans will use that ruling to eviscerate DFL candidates at all levels.

Imagine if you’re Dan Wolgamott, running against Jim Knoblach in HD-14B. Further, imagine having to defend the governor from your party essentially claiming that he should have the ability to negotiate in bad faith and get everything he wants from the legislature and the courts through the stroke of a pen.

That isn’t what a constitutional republic looks like. It’s what a third-world dictatorship looks like. It’s what totalitarianism looks like.

If Gov. Dayton’s appointees rule in his favor, that’ll be proof that Gov. Dayton’s appointees are Democrats first and constitution-minded jurists second. Minnesotans need to ask themselves if that’s what they want. Do they really want Democrats anywhere near the levers of power in St. Paul?

Technorati: , , , ,