Archive for the ‘Donald Trump’ Category

Earlier tonight, Democrat ‘moderates’ Angie Craig, Collin Peterson and Dean Phillips voted against censuring Democrat Impeachment Chairman Adam Schiff for lying to the American people while delivering his opening statement in the Maguire hearing. For those who don’t remember that hearing by that name, it’s the one where Democrat Impeachment Chairman opened with this speech:

Here’s the heart of Schiff’s speech:

horn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates. We’ve been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I am going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my Attorney General Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him.

In Schiff’s speech, it’s clear that he’s signaling that President Trump threatened Ukrainian President Zelensky with the withholding of military aid. According to Schiff’s fake phone call transcript, that military aid would be withheld from Ukraine if President Zelensky didn’t “make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it.”

The bottom line is this — Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, lied to Congress and the American people. This isn’t just a silly prank. Schiff’s speech is permanently part of the Congressional Record. Minnesota’s ‘moderate Democrats’ didn’t think Schiff’s dishonest speech was worthy of official criticism. These ‘moderate Democrats’ thought that the man leading an investigation to remove the president of the United States shouldn’t be officially criticized. Perhaps, it’s because they bought Schiff’s BS that this was a parody. If that’s a parody, how do Phillips, Peterson and Craig explain this paragraph from Schiff’s speech?

This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn’t such a graphic betrayal of the president’s oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there’s nothing the president says here that is in America’s interest after all.

Schiff said it with his own words that “this is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine.” That’s a pretty fanciful interpretation of the transcript. Here’s what President Trump actually told President Zelensky:

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 wealthy 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. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you said yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

Nothing in Schiff’s speech sounds like anything from Trump’s phone call. It’s appalling that Minnesota’s supposedly moderate Democrats bought Schiff’s BS and voted the way that Pelosi wanted them to vote. They aren’t moderates. They’re just gullible Democrats.

Democrats can’t pretend that they’re moderates because they’re doing things that are historically unprecedented. Recently, Schiff said that he’s essentially doing the work of a special counsel. I don’t disagree with that. The problem is that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was officially employed by the DOJ. Schiff’s biggest problem is that the DOJ is part of the executive branch. Impeachment chairs are fixtures of the legislative branch.

The Constitution matters

This says everything:

Former special counsel Robert Mueller led the Russia probe, but no new prosecutor has been tapped by Attorney General William Barr for the Ukraine matter. That leaves House Democrats with only a whistleblower’s complaint rather than boxes of investigators’ evidence to guide them. “Congress has to do that,” Schiff said, because the Justice Department believes “there’s nothing to see here.”

Schiff, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, is leading the probe at the direction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and proceeding like the prosecutor he once was, staging a grand jury-like process that has been pilloried by Republicans. As Schiff works behind closed doors to build the case, Republicans accuse Democrats of waging an unfair, and according to the White House, illegitimate, investigation. But Schiff says the House has few other choices than to build the case on its own.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that members of the legislative branch have the authority to impanel investigative grand juries. If the DOJ tells the legislative branch to pound sand if the House refers cases to the DOJ, that’s what happens when you lose elections. When Republicans made criminal referrals to Eric Holder’s DOJ about the IRS scandal and Holder rejected those referrals, Trey Gowdy couldn’t impanel a grand jury to investigate Eric Holder. That was it. If the DOJ says no, then the answer is no. Period.

The thing is that Schiff didn’t bother trying to hide his attempt to be an investigator/prosecutor. He said this right out in the open.

Republicans, led by Andy Biggs, the new chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, have gone on the offensive against the Democrats’ weakest link, aka Adam Schiff. Schiff’s tactics have been unfair, unconstitutional and totally partisan. If the goal of this impeachment process is to win people over and hold them there, it’s failing.

Newt Gingrich knows a thing or two about impeachment. He said “Schiff is an embarrassingly dishonest person. Pelosi has become an embarrassingly dishonest person.” He’s right, albeit a bit gentle. He said that to Fox & Friends. When he appeared on Outnumbered, Newt said “I think he’s lost his mind”, which is true, though not in the clinical sense.

Schiff isn’t interested in being fair. Further, his statements are further out there than Hillary’s latest statements. Hillary’s statements about Tulsi Gabbard are out there beyond the edge of the solar system. Schiff’s statements are out there beyond the edge of the galaxy.

This information should frighten Democrats:

In the six closest states carried by the president in 2016, registered voters support the impeachment inquiry by a five-point margin, 50 percent to 45 percent. The same voters oppose impeaching Mr. Trump and removing him from office, 53 percent to 43 percent.

In other words, Democrats are pushing something that’s underwater in the polls. Support for an impeachment inquiry isn’t that popular. Support for impeaching and removing President Trump is far less popular. If Pelosi and Schiff push forward on impeachment and removal, 2 things can’t be avoided. First, those vulnerable freshman Democrats will have to vote for impeachment for it to pass. Their other option is voting against impeachment, which hangs out their far leftist Democrats to dry.

This isn’t good news for Democrats either:

An NBC/WSJ poll, for instance, found that adults opposed impeachment and removal by a six-point margin, 49 percent to 43 percent, nearly the reverse of Fox’s result of 51 percent supporting and 43 percent opposed. Other surveys, from Marist College, Quinnipiac, CNN/SSRS and Monmouth College, also found more opposition than support for impeachment and removal. The Times/Siena results are fairly consistent with those surveys.

Any issue that consistently polls at 43% isn’t an issue I’d spend more than a few seconds on. That being said, I hope Democrats spend the next month on this. While Democrats are holding impeachment hearings in private, then leaking partial transcripts to the press, they’re reinforcing their image of being the Swamp. Meanwhile, President Trump can hold weekly rallies to tell 25,000+ people at each event that he’s still fighting for them but these Do-Nothing Democrats keep holding these hearings instead of working with him on fixing immigration or making his tax cuts permanent or doing other things.

Don’t be surprised if, a year from now, people say that they prefer a president who wants to fix things over Democrats who want to spend all of their time investigating things. Do-Nothing Democrats isn’t just a talking point. It’s the truth. This truth, though, won’t set Democrats free.

Now that Shepard Smith left FNC, it’s time to get rid of Chris Wallace and Juan Williams, in that order. This morning, Wallace interviewed Acting WH Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney about the confusion over his ‘admitting’ that President Trump connected military aid to Ukraine with investigating the Bidens. I get it that the media loves stirring up controversies where they don’t exist but this is ridiculous.

First, Mulvaney said that governments engage in quid pro quos all the time. While I haven’t heard him say it this way, I’m confident that Mulvaney meant that reporters are getting hung up on the phrase quid pro quo rather than asking the important follow-up question, which is ‘was the quid pro quo corrupt? Or was it innocent?’ Quid pro quo simply means “this for that.”

Imagine this: every time you buy something in a store, you’ve committed a quid pro quo. You exchanged financial considerations for a product, aka this for that. If that’s illegal or corrupt, shopping malls are filled with criminals.

Of course, everything in DC gets overhyped. That’s how this story went from being a big nothing to being the biggest story this side of the other nothing story, aka the impeachment nothing story. This is utterly predictable. Without conflict, ratings would tank. Without misleading headlines, there wouldn’t be the clicks. Conflict drives ratings and attention.

That’s why I don’t pay attention to those tricks. I want to gather information. I don’t care about the latest hot stories. Rest assured that the content that you find here is important to people and is reliable. I don’t buy into the gamesmanship that the networks employ. They’re always telling us that this or that event is super-important before turning into a non-event.

I pay attention to political rallies because they tell me whether voters are fired up. If they aren’t, that’s an automatic disadvantage to that candidate. This year thus far, Trump holds the advantage over most of the Democrats, with Bernie and Elizabeth Warren being the exceptions — sorta. Crazy Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are doing best but they still can’t match Trump’s crowds and enthusiasm.

This article highlights the difference between the Trump campaign’s cutting edge media strategy and Biden’s strategy:

One recent video from the Trump campaign said that Mr. Biden had offered Ukraine $1 billion in aid if it killed an investigation into a company tied to his son. The video’s claims had already been debunked, and CNN refused to play it. But Facebook rejected the Biden campaign’s demand to take the ad down, arguing that it did not violate its policies. At last count, the video has been viewed on the social network more than five million times.

Chris Wallace is going the way of the dinosaur. Fox Nation is a great option because it’s more of an on-demand option. Why go old-fashioned when you can customize?

The question that needs to be asked of Adam Schiff and the Democrats is what they’ll do if they’re called to testify about the faux whistleblower. Let’s stop with the euphemisms. This guy is nothing but a snitch, an anonymous informant.

Let’s lay out what will be required if President Trump is impeached. The first witness who should testify should be the snitch. Let’s find out what he/she told Schiff. Let’s lock this down under oath so there’s no wiggle room. The next witness should be Speaker Pelosi. Let’s find out what she thought of impeachment through her documents, texts and phone logs. Finally, let’s put Schiff on the stand. What was his proof that was “more than circumstantial”? Did he promise the snitch anything? Why did he hire the NSC people right before the snitch appeared.

This lays out the case against Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff and the House Democrats:


That pesky Constitution keeps getting in the way of Ms. Pelosi’s and Mr. Schiff’s charade. First, Ms. Pelosi declared an impeachment inquiry. Courts have consistently ruled that the only time that the House of Representatives does something official is when it votes. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 of the US Constitution says “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” It doesn’t say that the Speaker will have the sole power of impeachment. It says “the House of Representatives” shall have that authority.

Initially, Mr. Schiff and the Democrats insisted that the snitch would bring President Trump to his knees. This time, though, the snitch is likely to bring Democrats to their knees.

Leader McCarthy’s statement is important for another reason. He highlights the fact that Schiff is acting as a full-fledged investigator, which he isn’t. Criminal investigators are found in agencies like the DEA, the FBI, ICE, the BATFE, etc. Those agencies are found exclusively in the executive branch. The only time that the legislative branch has truly investigative authority is after a vote of the whole House of Representatives authorizing an impeachment investigation. That vote must include the rules for calling witnesses, whether the President’s counsel can be in the room, who can subpoena witnesses, whether both sides can cross-examine witnesses, etc.

The point behind it is to show that impeachment isn’t getting weaponized to take out political opponents. At this point, Democrats are proving the Republicans’ case that this is just the political weaponization of impeachment.

Presidents that don’t attempt to stop international corruption are derelict in their duties. That’s what President Trump fought against when he held up military aid to the Ukraine. Further, there’s nothing wrong with a president investigating a political opponent who was investigating his political opponent’s son. That’s what Joe Biden did when he got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired.

That wasn’t an attempt to eliminate corruption. VP Biden tried preventing the prosecutor from identifying Hunter Biden as being corrupt. Hunter wasn’t serving on Burisma’s board because he was an expert on natural gas or the Ukraine. He was there as an insurance policy to protect Burisma from investigations.

After articles of impeachment are approved by Democrats only, those articles of impeachment go to the Senate for trial. By that time, Pelosi’s vulnerable freshmen will have already voted for impeachment. Once Pelosi’s freshman Democrats cast that vote, the ‘moderate’ sticker gets ripped off their resume. Impeaching a president for something this trivial isn’t the definition of moderation. Once this moves to the Senate, Pelosi’s ability to protect her freshman Democrats flies out the window.

At this point, the only person nuttier than Schiff is Hillary Clinton. To think that she was once only 38 electoral votes short of the Oval Office is frightening.

I can’t say that Marc Thiessen is President Trump’s most diehard supporter. What I’ve known for quite awhile, though, is that he’s a fair-minded man who’s written some good stuff that supports President Trump. For instance, this article is outstanding.

Thiessen opens the article by saying “With three polls showing her in the lead, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., may soon eclipse former Vice President Joe Biden as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. That’s great news for Republicans, because Warren has a problem: The central message of her campaign is that the economy is working for the very wealthy but it is not working for ordinary Americans. Unfortunately for her, ordinary Americans disagree.

Next, Thiessen empties both barrels of the heaviest artillery:

A Marist poll asked voters whether “the economy is working well for you personally.” Nearly two-thirds of Americans said yes. This includes large majorities in almost every demographic group. Sixty-seven percent of college graduates and 64 percent of those without a college education say the economy is working for them. So do 68 percent of whites and 61 percent of nonwhite people.

So do Americans of every generation: 63 percent of Generation Z and millennials; 69 percent of Generation X; 63 percent of baby boomers; and 69 percent of Greatest Generation and Silent Generation voters. So do supermajorities in every region in the country: 60 percent in the West, 65 percent in the Northeast, 67 percent in the Midwest, and 68 percent in the South. So do most voters in every type of American community: 63 percent of both big and small city voters; 64 percent of small-town voters; 66 percent of rural voters and 72 percent of suburban voters.

Call me crazy but that sounds like an economy that’s working for tons of people. That doesn’t sound like an economy that’s just benefiting millionaires and billionaires. That sounds like an economy that’s benefiting pretty much everybody in pretty much every geographic part of the US. Then there’s this:

The only groups who disagree, Marist found, are progressives (59 percent), Democratic women (55 percent) and those who are liberal or very liberal (55 percent.

That figures. Those groups are filled with sourpusses.

There is a good reason for that. Unemployment is near a record low, and the United States has about 1.6 million more job openings than unemployed people to fill them. Not only are jobs plentiful, but wages are rising. And The New York Times reported in May that “over the past year, low-wage workers have experienced the fastest pay increases.”

It isn’t surprising that Democrats opened their debate talking impeachment:

Old-fashioned Democrats had an economic agenda that appealed to people from time-to-time. Today’s Democrats aren’t persuasive because their ideas sound like they’re from outer space. They couldn’t sell ice-cold Gatorade in a desert if their lives depended on it. Bernie Sanders brags that he’ll raise everyone’s taxes. Elizabeth Warren’s evasive replies prove that she’d raise taxes, too, though not as much as Bernie. Think of Elizabeth Warren as ‘Bernie Lite.’

The other way to think of Crazy Bernie and Pocahontas is to think of them as destructive to this fantastic economy. Their policies wouldn’t make life better for families. Their policies are just plain stupid.

With her actions, Nancy Pelosi admitted that she’s violated President Trump’s due process rights. While she’s right that there isn’t a checklist to follow for impeachment, she’s stupid if she thinks that there aren’t some constitutional principles that must be adhered to. She’s stupid if she thinks that past impeachment investigations haven’t set a path that subsequent impeachment investigations must meet.

When the House initiated their impeachment investigation of President Nixon, there was a defined set of rules that guaranteed the House’s ability to investigate and President Nixon’s right to cross-examine witnesses. The rules adopted by Peter Rodino’s Judiciary Committee permitted President Nixon’s attorneys the right to subpoena witnesses. When Republicans impeached Bill Clinton, the House Judiciary Committee adopted the Rodino-Nixon rules.

This sham investigation doesn’t have a clear set of rules and procedures. It doesn’t have any consistent rules or procedures other than to thwart President Trump’s legal team. That’s a violation of President Trump’s due process rights. Then there’s this:

Executive privilege was one of the protections mentioned by Counsel to the Vice President Matthew Morgan in a Tuesday letter to the chairmen of the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight Committees, who are overseeing the ongoing inquiry. Morgan’s letter claimed that the committees’ request for documents was overbroad because it included some documents that were “clearly not vice-presidential records,” and that the request was not within the realm of “legitimate legislative oversight.”

Morgan continued, saying this:

“Never before in history has the Speaker of the House attempted to launch an ‘impeachment inquiry’ against a President without a majority of the House of Representatives voting to authorize a constitutionally acceptable process,” Morgan wrote, noting that “House rules do not delegate to any committee the authority to conduct an inquiry under the impeachment power of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution.”

Ms. Pelosi can’t speak rules into existence. They have to be written, then approved of by a majority of the “Committee of the Whole”. Without that vote, no committee has authorization to start impeachment. As with other points in her career, Ms. Pelosi is acting like the autocrat she’s always wanted to be.

The goal of due process is to guarantee fairness, consistency and predictability. You can’t have due process if there isn’t a process. When this lawsuit gets filed, Pelosi’s Democrats will have problems:

“Pelosi seems to believe that she can hold a press conference and expect courts to accept that a formal impeachment process has begun,” George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote in a Wednesday morning blog post. “Some judges are likely to be uncomfortable with such an immaculate impeachment.”

Doug Collins nails it with this tweet:


Pelosi’s fatal flaw is that she thinks she can run the House like a tyrant. Frequently, she gets away with that. This is a totally different situation. It’s like the difference between a sandlot football game and the Super Bowl. The scrutiny is through the roof and the stakes don’t get higher.

What’s becoming increasingly clear is that Speaker Pelosi delegated a responsibility to Adam Schiff that will leave him in a difficult position. While Ms. Pelosi puts Schiff ‘in charge’ of the Democrats’ anti-transparent impeachment inquiry, what she’s actually done is dumped all the grief that’s heading his direction into Schiff’s lap. When Ms. Pelosi declared the start of impeachment, she thrust on Schiff the day-to-day details of the impeachment inquiry. Forever the attention-seeker, Schiff gobbled up the attention.

Ms. Pelosi left it up to Schiff how the investigation would be run. Would they hold public hearings? Would President Trump’s attorneys be permitted to cross-examine the Democrats’ witnesses? Would the Democrats allow Republicans to call witnesses? Those are just some of the day-to-day details that Ms. Pelosi dropped into Schiff’s lap. That way, when the shit hits the fan, Pelosi is a mile away while Schiff is holding a ticking time bomb.

This isn’t a matter of if it happens. It’s a matter of when. Anyone that thinks that this isn’t finishing with a lawsuit is kidding themselves. President Trump’s due process rights weren’t merely violated. President Trump’s rights have gotten trampled.

Republicans who haven’t gotten kicked out of the room by Schiff have noted that there aren’t any rules that govern these interviews and depositions. In fact, different rules govern interviews and depositions. Rep. Lee Zeldin notes that minority members of the committee are allowed to talk about the content of witness interviews, albeit in a limited fashion, whereas minority members of the committee aren’t allowed to speak publicly about depositions.

This is the definition of making the rules up as you go along. You can’t have due process where process doesn’t exist. Jim Trusty and Ken Starr explain what’s at stake in this video:

This isn’t complicated. If Adam Schiff wanted to run a fair process, he could. He doesn’t want that. That’s why this process isn’t happening in public. Trusty is right that there isn’t a set procedure codified into the Constitution on conducting impeachment investigations. That doesn’t mean there aren’t safeguards that are built into the process.

Schiff says that he doesn’t want witnesses to fabricate their testimony. What proof does Schiff have that anyone’s done that? Is that proof like the proof he had that was “more than circumstantial” that Schiff didn’t show, that Rep. Zeldin didn’t see and that Robert Mueller didn’t find?

At the end of the day, the American people will reject this process because it’s built upon deception, inconsistencies and the process keeps shifting. That isn’t the definition of fair. Further, Democrats haven’t identified anything approaching treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors. Asking a foreign country for help with an investigation into a corrupt US politician isn’t a high crime. It’s common sense.

President Nixon and President Clinton were allowed to defend themselves during the House impeachment investigations. Queen Pelosi ruled by fiat that wasn’t acceptable. Queen Pelosi understood that the case was flimsy. That’s why Queen Pelosi won’t permit a vote of the full House to authorize a legitimate impeachment investigation.

This afternoon, I wrote this post, which I titled “Is Schiff intentionally tipping the impeachment scales?” Hint: The answer is yes, Schiff is tipping the impeachment scales to guarantee impeachment. That’s the good news for Schiff and Pelosi. The bad news for Schiff and Pelosi is that Schiff is tipping the impeachment scales to guarantee impeachment.

This tactic is starting to cause an anti-Democrat backlash, thanks in large part to House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Lee Zeldin, (R-NY). This past Sunday, Rep. Zeldin appeared on “The Cats Roundtable” on AM 970 New York” with John Catsimatidis. During the interview, Rep. Zeldin said this:

Something that I find outrageous is the cherry-picked leaks, the withholding of key facts and the lying about other claims that’s misleading the American public. Why are we sitting inside of Adam Schiff’s bunker turning in our cell phones before we come in and being told that nothing here can be told to the American public?

Tonight, Zeldin appeared on Martha McCallum’s show. Here’s that interview:

During tonight’s interview, Rep. Zeldin raised a great question after mentioning that Adam Schiff threw Matt Gaetz out of the hearing. Rep. Zeldin asked “what rule is governing any of this process? What rule of the House is governing this impeachment inquiry?” That’s a pair of rhetorical questions. A 4th-grader would understand that this is a Schiff-for-brains, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants Special rule. Whatever rule helps Democrats the most at the moment will be deployed. Whether it’s been used before or whether it’s precedent-setting isn’t relevant. Whatever the Democrats need in the situation is what the rules appear to be.

For now, the process doesn’t matter from a legal standpoint. That won’t last forever. Even Democrats are bright enough to know that these procedures will be challenged in the courts. While Ms. Pelosi is right that there isn’t a set way to impeach a president, she’s foolish if she thinks that several constitutional principles aren’t essential.

For instance, if Ms. Pelosi thinks that having agreed upon a set of rules isn’t important, then she doesn’t understand the importance of due process. Without due process, the Democrats’ witch hunt is a highly-publicized kangaroo court. That won’t fly in court. Further, ignoring the past precedent of letting the president’s counsel sit in on witness testimony can’t be ignored. The impeachment and conviction of a president is a somber event that shouldn’t be acted upon capriciously. It’s wonderfully ironic that Pelosi’s words would get thrown back in her face would be delightful to Republicans.

Watching the entire Zeldin interview is well worth it. Pay special attention to the crosstalk about the 4 Pinocchios part of the interview. I found it quite enjoyable.

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.