Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Weaponized Government category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Weaponized Government’ Category

The big blue wave that never really existed is getting exposed, as I suspected it would, as a regional wave. Though I never had polling proof of this theory, I thought that much of the wave potential and enthusiasm gap was limited to bi-coastal regions. Lately, though, there’s some proof that that’s the case. Ed Morrissey highlights this ‘phenomenon’ in this post:

This mirrors a poll last week from the Washington Post and ABC News. Their poll put Democrats up 11 points on the generic ballot, but Republicans at +1 in the 66 battleground districts, also a big swing from their earlier polling. That suggests that Democratic enthusiasm intensified in districts where they were already safe, and that Republican enthusiasm has changed the election where the House majority will be determined.

This doesn’t mean that Republicans won’t lose seats in the House. I’m thinking, though, that it means their losses in the House will be significantly smaller than predicted.


This close to an election, it’s smarter to pay attention to where the alphabets (DCCC, NRCC, etc.) are putting money into or pulling money out of than to pay attention to polls. The fact that the DCCC pulled its money out of MN-8 indicates that Democrats have given up on that race.

Last spring, Democrats tried convincing people that there truly was a blue wave coming by announcing that they were expanding their map from 40+ seats to 60+ seats. I wasn’t convinced of the wave because of that. Democrats expanding the map didn’t prove that voters bought into the blue wave. As it turns out, more voters each week are picking accomplishments over attacks.

It’s understatement to say that Keith Ellison has chutzpah to spare. This week, Ellison criticized Doug Wardlow for being a mouthpiece for special interest groups while speaking at the Minnesota AFL-CIO headquarters.

While at the AFL-CIO headquarters, Ellison said “The special interests already have high-powered lawyers on their side. They don’t need another one in the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office.”

To his credit, Wardlow hit back hard, saying “Keith Ellison, he wants to talk about anything other than the domestic abuse allegations against him.” With the judge just unsealing Ellison’s divorce records this past Thursday, rest assured that this wasn’t Ellison’s best week in politics ever.

Then again, Ellison hasn’t had many good weeks lately. He certainly didn’t have a great week when Karen Monahan accused him of sexual assault. Ellison definitely didn’t have a great week when various bloggers highlighted the fact that Ellison has frequently supported cop-killers.

Ellison not only supports special interest organizations. He couldn’t thrive without their support.

In the past, Ellison was a politician in the minority, a bomb-thrower. This time, he’s running to become Minnesota’s chief law enforcement officer. John Hinderaker summed things up beautifully in this post, titled “Who wants a pro-crime attorney general”?

If you want a pro-law enforcement attorney general in Minnesota, the only choice is Doug Wardlow:

Click on this link if you want to permanently retire Keith Ellison from politics.

Had the Democrats simply vigorously opposed Brett Kavanaugh during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearing, they wouldn’t have nationalized these midterm elections. Instead, they turned the hearings into a spectacle, thereby turning the midterms into a referendum on the Democrats’ inability to govern.

Ever since his justified diatribe during last Thursday’s hearing, Lindsey Graham has nailed the Democrats in one interview after another. Last night, he appeared on Sean Hannity’s show to talk about the status of the FBI’s investigation into Judge Kavanaugh. At one point in the interview, Hannity asked him what would happen if Kavanaugh’s confirmation fell a vote short. His answer was nothing short of brilliant, in my estimation:

Here’s the partial transcript of Sen. Graham’s reply:

First of all, I don’t think we will because I don’t think we’ll find out anything new in this investigation. I think Sen. Collins and Sen. Murkowski just wanted to make sure that the FBI did their homework to check the Committee’s work. Now, what would happen if something really weird did occur and we’re 1 vote short on the Committee? Here’s what I’d tell the President. I would appeal the verdict of the Senate to the ballot box. This good man should not be destroyed. If you legitimize this process by falling 1 vote short, woe be unto the next person. I’d hate to be the next person nominated. I would renominate him. I would take this case to the American people and I’d ask voters in Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota and other places where Trump won and see if the voters want to appeal the verdict of their senators.

That’s exactly the right strategy. The Democrats have been totally unfair throughout this process. Let’s see if those states’ voters are as unfair as their senators. I’m betting they aren’t. I’m betting that those voters will boot out those red-state Democrats.

In fact, I’m betting that Democrats have already gone too far with these hearings. When Sen. ‘Spartacus’ said that anyone supporting Judge Kavanaugh was “complicit in evil”, he fired up voters. When Mazie Hirono told men to shut up and do the right thing for once, she fired up voters even more.

The thing, though, that really fired people up was the Democrats constant insistence that Judge Kavanaugh wasn’t entitled to the presumption of innocence because this wasn’t a court trial. The presumption of innocence isn’t just for court trials. It’s the basis for simple fairness. Democrats emphatically implied that Judge Kavanaugh wasn’t entitled to fairness.

This article lays out nicely what’s at stake for red-state Democrats:

Senate Democrats up for reelection this year in deep-red states face a nightmare decision on how to handle Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Vulnerable Democrats are hoping Republicans will force him to withdraw his nomination, allowing them to avoid politically divisive votes.

Their worst nightmare came one step closer when Judge Kavanaugh defiantly said “you might defeat me but I’m not going anywhere.”

The Democrats’ behavior is way over the line. They’ve been despicable, especially Amy Klobuchar, Dianne Feinstein and Mazie Hirono. Those women (I’m using that term exceptionally loosely in that instance) don’t have a bit of integrity combined.

Why has Sen. Klobuchar endorsed accused woman assaulter Keith Ellison but crucified Judge Kavanaugh? The woman who was allegedly assaulted by Keith Ellison has published a doctor’s report. The woman who’s accused Judge Kavanaugh doesn’t have anything in terms of forensic evidence.

Nostradamus isn’t required to find out what will happen in 2019 if the Democrats get control of the House and/or the Senate. The policies that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and other Democrat Socialists will destroy the positives that President Trump and the GOP have put in place.

I’ll stipulate that Republicans like John McCain, Jeff Flake and Susan Collins haven’t been a great help to President Trump’s agenda. With that said, there’s no disputing that replacing McCain with Jon Kyl, Flake with Martha McSally, Bob Corker with Marsha Blackburn, then replacing Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, Jon Tester, Heidi Heitkamp and Claire McCaskill with solid conservatives would be a major step in the right direction.

We’ve seen what happens when environmental activists and socialists get their way. You get a lost decade like we had under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, then Barack Obama. Companies left the US. Income inequality increased. Economic growth stagnated. Is that the future you want?

Fast forward to January, 2017. President Trump took over. With the help of the Republican Congress, President Trump rolled back billions of dollars of anti-coal and anti-mining regulations that the Democrats had installed. Though Sen. McCain sunk our attempt to repeal and replace the ACA, President Trump and the Republicans revamped the tax code, unleashing the animal spirits of an economy stalled for too long.

The result? Small business and consumer confidence soaring. Capital investment increasing for the first time in years. In other non-economic areas, we’re confirming solid judges that think it’s a sin to act like legislators but who see interpreting the Constitution as their primary function.

This past week, Democrats showed that they’re only interested in obstructing everything that President Trump stands for. Will Republicans fight with President Trump? Or will we let evil triumph? As for myself, I plan on fighting until I drop.

Republicans, it’s time to get fired up and kick some electoral ass.

When Paul Wellstone was essentially the face of the DFL, the average citizen thought that he was wrong on the issues but that he was a generally trustworthy person. That’s how he got elected. This isn’t the ‘Party of Wellstone’ anymore.

These days, the DFL is the party of Al Franken and Keith Ellison. Sen. Franken groped a Hollywood actress. Ellison was accused by his ex-girlfriend of dragging her off the bed after grabbing her legs. That’s just here in Minnesota.

In DC, Democrat activists chased Sen. Cruz and his wife from a restaurant:

In the Senate, once the greatest deliberative body in the world, idiots like Richard Blumenthal make wild, unsubstantiated accusations in the corridors of power. He insisted that Judge Kavanaugh’s third accuser swore in an affidavit that Kavanaugh had committed rape.

Wrong:

“That affidavit is so deeply flawed and so open-ended that any good lawyer, any good defense attorney would be able to tear that apart in 30 seconds,” Dershowitz began. “It’s an embarrassment to the law that anybody would file an affidavit like that filled with hearsay, filed with ‘well I was raped but he didn’t rape me, he was there, he saw it, where was he, there are witnesses people told me, it happened ten times, I went back, I knew there were rapes going on but I went back to the party.’ This is such a deeply flawed affidavit.”

“If there were gang rapes like that, how did it not get to the police? It’s a shocking affidavit. Any lawyer who loves cross-examination would love nothing more than to examine a witness holding that affidavit in his hands and saying, ‘here, here, here.’ But Avenatti doesn’t care about that. All he cares about is getting the headline,” he continued.

Blumenthal is from a deep blue state so he can pretty much say anything and get away with it. That’s what he did in this instance. The party of Wellstone, Humphrey and Moynihan wouldn’t have pulled the stunts that the party of Schumer, Hirono and Gillibrand have pulled.

It isn’t that Democrats don’t have solutions. It’s that Democrats aren’t interested in the truth or justice.

Anyone that thinks that the DFL is capable of running government hasn’t read this audit report. The opening paragraph of the report is a damning indictment of the Dayton administration. The opening 2 paragraphs of the report state “Minnesota did no t comply with Federal waiver and State requirements in overseeing centers that serve vulnerable adults who receive services through the program. To protect the health and safety of vulnerable adults, Minnesota, as the licensing agency for centers, must ensure that centers follow licensing requirements in State statutes established in its application for waiver services. These licensing requirements include health and safety and administrative requirements.

“We determined that all 20 of the centers we reviewed did not comply with State licensing requirements. In total, we found 200 instances of noncompliance with health and safety and administrative requirements.”

I wrote this post right before Christmas of 2017. This part was particularly heartbreaking:

Ehlinger’s resignation comes after media reports, including a five-part series in the Minneapolis-based Star Tribune, found residents of senior care facilities statewide were neglected, abused and robbed, but the perpetrators were often never punished and in most instances complaints were never properly investigated. The state Department of Health is responsible for licensing and oversight of senior care centers.

Putting this HHS OIG together with the Star Tribune reporting, the inescapable truth is that the Dayton administration either wasn’t aware of what was happening in the state’s elder care facilities. Either that or they didn’t care what was happening in those facilities. One person who cares is State Sen. Karin Housley:

Think about what Sen. Housley said. Gov. Dayton first heard about this issue in 2012. Despite that, “they got absolutely nothing done.” Gov. Dayton played political games rather than doing the right thing. That’s unconscionable. It’s time to throw these bums out. If the DFL won’t protect these vulnerable citizens, they shouldn’t have control of any part of state government.

Think about this: the people in charge of the Office of Health Facilities Complaints are staffed by public employee union personnel. That explains why Gov. Dayton and the DFL did nothing to fix this situation. Lives were ruined because Gov. Dayton and the DFL protected their special interest allies. That’s pretty sick.

This paragraph is particularly indicting to the Dayton administration:

The State agency did not comply with Federal waiver and State requirements in overseeing centers that serve vulnerable adults who receive services through the program. We determined that all 20 of the centers we reviewed did not comply with State licensing requirements. The 20 centers we reviewed had from 3 to 25 instances of noncompliance. In total, we found 200 instances of noncompliance with health and safety and administrative requirements.

Think about that. The bureaucrats charged with overseeing “centers that serve vulnerable adults” didn’t pay attention to what was happening in these facilities. It’s frustrating to think that the party of big government, aka the DFL, didn’t give a damn about the most vulnerable people.

From this point forward, the DFL should be called ‘the party of big, broken government’. At this point, I haven’t seen proof that the DFL gives a tinker’s damn about these vulnerable citizens. Further, how many things must the DFL royally screw up before people decide that they can’t be trusted to run anything beyond a lemonade stand?

CNN’s article about President Trump starts off by reading like a fashion critique rather than like a serious news article.

Early in the article, it says “This may be the first Department of Justice criminal investigation ordered via Twitter feed. Given the importance of a presidential decision regarding a possible criminal investigation, the use of Twitter was completely inappropriate. It trivializes the entire process. What’s next in the presidential communication arsenal, the use of Facebook and Instagram with photos?”

The message from that paragraph seems to be ‘how dare he use Twitter to express his opinion’. That’s kind of disappointing considering the fact that the investigation President Trump ordered was about determining whether the Obama Justice Department or the Obama FBI sought to infiltrate the Republicans’ presidential campaign for strictly partisan reasons. At a time when people get their news from social media, why wouldn’t President Trump use Twitter to put pressure on the Deep State? Why wouldn’t President Trump use Twitter to put John Brennan, Jim Comey and Jim Clapper on notice that they’d better hire a good lawyer?

The CNN article also treats this situation like it was normal:

In modern times, though, most presidents have taken a hands-off approach with respect to specific criminal investigations in a deliberate effort to keep them out of partisan politics and to preserve public respect for the integrity of federal law enforcement authorities.

This investigation is totally about partisanship. The fact that the NYTimes and the Washington Post tried spinning it as the Obama administration’s attempt to protect the Trump campaign is laughable. It’s disgusting that CNN tries peddling that same line in their article:

Part of the DOJ and the FBI ‘s job is after all the conduct of counterintelligence investigations and, if warranted by the evidence, the warning of presidential candidates that the Russians might try to infiltrate their campaigns to influence the American election. One would think that Trump would be grateful rather than suspicious about the warning.

Apparently, CNN didn’t notice that the DOJ and FBI didn’t warn the campaign. Rather, when then-President-Elect Trump insisted that his campaign had been surveilled, people openly ridiculed him, saying that couldn’t happen in America. Now they’re peddling this infiltration of the Trump campaign like it’s a public service? Seriously?

In the end, Trump’s attempt to embarrass his own Department of Justice and FBI is likely to wound only his own presidency. If Inspector General Horowitz makes the highly unlikely finding that the DOJ and the FBI acted criminally in their conduct of a counterintelligence operation related to the Trump campaign, a criminal referral will be necessary.

I’m almost to the end of the article and the ‘reporter’ still hasn’t told us what the investigation is about. I’ve heard about burying the lede but this is ridiculous.

The lede should be that Obama DOJ or FBI political appointees might have tried interfering in a presidential election. While the article hints at that, it certainly doesn’t lead with that.

Sunday’s Twitter order to commence a new investigation to smear the Obama administration is likely to backfire and extend the Mueller investigation. It may also cause Mueller to look at an interesting new idea — was the presidential order to commence such a frivolous investigation itself really an attempt to block the progress of the Mueller investigation and obstruct justice?

What would a CNN article be without them defending either Hillary or the Obama administration? Here’s something for CNN to think about. The thought of a presidential administration of one political party using its intelligence services to gather information on the presidential campaign of the other political party is a true threat to our system of government. There’s nothing trivial about such an investigation. Watching Kimberley Strassel lay this out is what real journalism looks like:

Unlike this CNN ‘article’, Kim Strassel’s articles have been the work product of a professional journalist.

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

According to this Strib editorial, the Met Council is just terrific. Apparently, they don’t think the same about Jason Lewis. The editorial’s opening paragraph states “Second District Republican U.S. Rep. Jason Lewis is attempting to apply the heavy thumb of the federal government to tip the scales in a long-running debate over the composition of the Metropolitan Council. We think Lewis and the feds should keep their hands off. This is a matter Minnesotans can and should decide for themselves.”

Actually, it isn’t just a local matter. That’s because many bodies like the Met Council exist across the nation. Further, since the Met Council has taxation authority and the authority to usurp local jurisdictions, it’s insane to think that they shouldn’t be accountable to the people.

The editorial also says this:

We’ve also been skeptical about creating a “council of governments.” Its members would be politically beholden to the local constituencies that elected them, rather than the region as a whole. Instead, we favor instituting staggered terms for council members and employing a panel of local officials as a screening committee to recommend council candidates to the governor.

What’s so virtuous about a panel that’s accountable only to the governor? I don’t see anything worthwhile about that. Let’s further ask the question at the heart of this argument: why do these bureaucrats, plus the Star Tribune, fear the people? Governments are supposed to be of, by and for the people. This nation was started in part by the belief that there should be no taxation without representation. Who does the Met Council represent? The Governor?

That doesn’t sound like a governing body that governs with the consent of the people. That sounds like a dictatorial body.

The Met Council is filled with special interests. For instance, Jennifer Munt ‘represents’ District 3, “which includes the Hennepin County cities of Chanhassen, Deephaven, Eden Prairie, Excelsior, Greenwood, Long Lake, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Mound, Orono, Shorewood, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Wayzata, and Woodland. Munt is the Public Affairs Director for AFSCME Council 5, where she leads marketing, communications and media relations.”

This isn’t about representing the people. It’s about representing the special interests:

Previously [Munt] was the Communications Director for the Hiawatha LRT project (2000-2005) and an Outreach Coordinator for the Metropolitan Council (1999-2002).

Munt hasn’t represented people in the past. She’s represented governments and special interests.

Here’s Jason Lewis’s statement on what his amendment actually does:

“Currently, and in contrast to federal law, all 17 members of the Met Council are appointed by the Governor of the State of Minnesota. MPOs nationwide are created with the intent to improve infrastructure planning and, especially, transit investments on behalf of constituencies across a given region. In 2012, Congress rightly determined that locally elected officials are best suited to represent those same groups. In our region, the failure of the Met Council to include locally elected officials as part of their governing board has undermined this key aspect of accountability to the people they represent.”

Background:

MAP-21 required that federally recognized MPOs that participate in transit improvement program planning, long-range capital plans, coordination of transit services, and that carry out other state activities, all of which rely on federal funding and grants, meet certain requirements. These requirements include a board makeup of locally elected officials, public transportation officials, and appropriate state officials.
The Metropolitan Council (Met Council) currently has a Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) that consists of local elected officials, but in August of 2015, the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration ruled that the TAB lacked any voting authority and therefore the Met Council did not meet the threshold of MPO compliance.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration used a separate clause in federal law to “grandfather” the Met Council into compliance.

Our amendment does not seek to change the operations or scope of the Met Council. It does not attempt to change the activities of the board. It simply requires that for a board to be in compliance they need to have locally elected official representation consistent with every other MPO in the country.

In other words, the Strib appears to be running interference for the Met Council. Rep. Lewis’s amendment doesn’t change the Met Council’s responsibilities. It simply requires the Met Council into compliance with existing federal law. That isn’t “tipping the scales” in one direction or another, as the Strib implies. It simply forces the Met Council to comply with existing federal law.

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

Say what you want about Elizabeth Warren, aka Pocahontas. She’s nothing if not politically flexible. It wasn’t that long ago that Sen. Warren “trashed the politically vulnerable Montana Democrat for supporting a landmark bank deregulation bill.” This week, Elizabeth Warren “is coming to the rescue of Sen. Jon Tester in the face of escalating attacks by President Donald Trump.”

In her fundraising letter, Sen. Warren said “Jon and I don’t agree on everything — but I know that Jon makes every decision with the working people of Montana and all across this country in his mind. He’s a good and decent man, and right now he needs our help.”

Rather than calling her Pocahontas, I’d argue that it’s more appropriate to call her Pinocchio. What “good and decent man” throws a military veteran under the proverbial bus for purely partisan gain? That isn’t what I’d consider the actions of a good and decent man. Listen to what Sen. Tester said in this press availability:

Less than 30 seconds into the availability, when asked to confirm Sen. Tester’s statements, Sen. Tester said “I just can’t confirm it at this moment in time.” If that’s the case, Sen. Tester, why didn’t you just do your due diligence rather than leak this information to the press? I’m betting that Sen. Tester wouldn’t have followed this path had Adm. Jackson been appointed by President Obama. I’m betting that Sen. Tester would’ve quietly checked into the allegations rather than leaking it to the press. In fact, I’m betting that had Jackson a) been nominated by President Obama and b) had been guilty of the charges, Sen. Tester would’ve swept that information under the rug.

Later in the video, the MSNBC anchor and the MSNBC correspondent admit that they don’t know if the allegations were true or false. Since then, however, we’ve found out that the Secret Service has issued a statement that emphatically said Adm. Jackson wasn’t guilty of the accusations leveled against him.

Meanwhile, Sen. Warren has defended Sen. Tester, saying “Jon’s a man of integrity and courage, and I know he’s not going to back down or change his votes because of a television commercial or a tweet. But he needs our help to build the sort of grassroots campaign that can go town-to-town, person-to-person, to talk about what this election is really about.”

Finally, Sen. Tester defended himself, saying “It’s my duty to make sure Montana veterans get what they need and have earned, and I’ll never stop fighting for them as their senator.” What a crock. Sen. Tester has less integrity than the witch that ‘entertained’ the media at this weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

What wasn’t written in Kathy Kersten’s latest article on Minnesota education is that the principles of implicit bias and restorative justice are destroying what’s left of education in Minnesota.

First, the article talks about how “MDHR also announced the filing of ‘charges’ of ‘educational discrimination’ against the St. Louis Park School District and Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District. Apparently, these two districts declined sufficiently to bend to the department’s will, though a St. Louis Park school official told MinnPost that the district is, in fact, ‘seeking to enter into an agreement’ with the department.”

What’s particularly frightening is the fact that school districts that don’t heed the MDHR’s threats are faced “with a choice: enter into an agreement with the department to come up with a plan to address [discipline] disparities, or face litigation.” In other words, do it our way or we’ll destroy you with expensive litigation. The DFL hasn’t explained how that isn’t oppressive. The DFL hasn’t explained why these threats of intimidation and financial ruin aren’t based on official complaints instead of statistical disparities.

For districts and charters that have chosen to enter into a collaborative agreement with the Department, all have submitted three-year plans that outline the specific strategies they’ll be implementing. These strategies include a broad range of things like professional development trainings to help educators address the “implicit bias that influences perceptions of student behavior” and ways to increase student and community engagement.

This is insane. How can you fight something that exists only in the minds of the most whacked-out liberals? Let’s see if you can spot the flawed thinking in the opening paragraph of this article:

Ten Minnesota school districts and charter schools have reached a pact with the state Department of Human Rights to fix racial disparities in student discipline.

I’m betting everyone reading that noticed the flawed thinking that deals with discipline disparities, not behavioral disparities. Next, notice Commissioner Lindsey’s statement:

“I’m encouraged. There was some good ideas that came out of the conversations with the school districts and charter schools. They are going to drive change and we will see positive results in Minnesota because of their efforts.”

Next, check out this sentence:

State leaders say the discipline disparities amount to human rights violations.

Commissioner Lindsey didn’t define what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior. Until that’s defined, his declarations are subjective. Next, check out this video on implicit bias:

How many people think that “for like 75% of white Americans, it’s hard to put black and good together”? I don’t buy that for a split-second. I know that’s a phony ‘statistic.’ This isn’t the way to achieve justice. FYI- the definition of justice is “the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness.” Righteousness isn’t situation-based. It’s defined by the Word of God, who is never-changing.

Just like other progressive social experiments, restorative justice and implicit bias will fail. The only question left is how much society will be harmed.

Technorati: , , , ,