Archive for the ‘Civil Rights’ Category

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.

It’s time to expel Adam Schiff from Congress. Appearing on CBS’s Face The Nation, Schiff said “We want to make sure that we meet the needs of the investigation and not give the president or his legal minions the opportunity to tailor their testimony and in some cases fabricate testimony to suit their interests.”

I went to the transcript of Margaret Brennan’s interview of Chairman Schiff. Stating that Schiff is paranoid is understatement. Here’s what Schiff said:

REP. SCHIFF: the Republicans would like nothing better because they view their role as defending the president being the president’s lawyers. If witnesses could tailor their testimony to other witnesses. They would love for one witness to be able to hear what another witness says so that they can know what they can give away and what they can’t give away. There’s a reason why investigations and grand jury proceedings for example, and I think this is analogous to a grand jury proceeding, are done out of the public view initially. Now we may very well call some of the same witnesses or all the same witnesses in public hearings as well. But we want to make sure that we meet the needs of the investigation and not give the president or his legal minions the opportunity to tailor their testimony and in some cases fabricate testimony to suit their interests.

Actually, what’s upsetting is that this is the first impeachment inquiry in modern history where the president’s lawyers weren’t in the room during questioning. In fact, in the Nixon and Clinton impeachment hearings, the testimony was given in public. Further, the vote of the whole House stipulated that the President’s attorneys were allowed to cross-examine the House’s witnesses. Before anyone whines about how that that’s the Senate’s responsibility, it’s worth noting that the House allowed the President’s attorneys to cross-examine witnesses before the House voted on articles of impeachment.

This means that, for the first time in US history, the majority party states that part of their impeachment strategy is to violate the president’s due process rights. I can’t think of anything that’s more disgusting. This is a legitimate constitutional crisis. When a member of Congress states emphatically that his goal is to violate the President’s due process rights, that’s a huge problem. This is the oath that Chairman Schiff took less than a year ago:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

It’s impossible to support and defend the Constitution when you’ve stated that you want to deny people their constitutional rights. Further, in previous impeachment inquiries, the presidents’ attorneys were free to disseminate that day’s testimony to their client and the witnesses that they planned on calling, exposing Chairman Schiff’s statement as flimsy at best.

What Schiff didn’t mention is that Democrats don’t have the right to pick which constitutional rights they’ll enforce. Here’s the interview:

Equating a criminal grand jury with the impeachment of a president is ill-informed. A criminal grand jury investigation is an inquiry into whether a crime has been committed. In addition to investigating whether a crime has been committed, the impeachment of a president is the House’s step of negating an election. Later in the interview, Schiff states that he doesn’t want to give witnesses the opportunity “to fabricate testimony to suit their interests.”

That’s a highly provocative statement to make without something to substantiate that worry. Chairman Schiff’s statements, including the opening statement to the Maguire hearing that he fabricated, are disgusting.

Tuesday afternoon, Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff, Chairman Engel and Chairman Cummings received this letter from Pat Cipollone, Counsel to the President. The statement stated the administration’s case quite clearly, saying “you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent.”

Later, Cipollone wrote “For his part, President Trump took the unprecedented step of providing the public transparency by declassifying and releasing the record of his call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine. The record clearly established that the call was completely appropriate and that there is no basis for your inquiry. The fact that there was nothing wrong with the call was also powerfully confirmed by Chairman Schiff’s decision to create a false version of the call and read it to the American people at a congressional hearing, without disclosing that he was simply making it all up.”

Clearly, House Democrats knew that this impeachment inquiry was a sham, an exercise in the nastiest partisanship seen in Washington, DC in decades. Despite that, Speaker Pelosi issued this statement that confirmed what Mr. Cipollone wrote. Ms. Pelosi wrote this:

The White House should be warned that continued efforts to hide the truth of the President’s abuse of power from the American people will be regarded as further evidence of obstruction.

This is proof that President Trump’s due process rights are being violated by Speaker Pelosi. This isn’t an impeachment inquiry. The definition of the word inquiry is “a seeking or request for truth, information, or knowledge.” Ms. Pelosi’s statement is just that — a statement. It wasn’t “a seeking or request for truth, information, or knowledge” by any stretch of the imagination. It was an accusation. Contained in Ms. Pelosi’s words was a verdict that President Trump, in her mind, was already guilty of “hiding the truth” and that he was already guilty of “obstruction.”

It’s noteworthy that President Trump released the transcript of his call with Ukraine President Zelensky virtually immediately, along with the informant’s complaint the following day. It’s noteworthy because it’s been a week since House Republicans started asking Chairman Schiff to release the transcripts of the witnesses the Democrats questioned. They still haven’t received any of those transcripts.

Further, it’s noteworthy that each of these witnesses have been interrogated in closed sessions. That’s the opposite of meeting a person’s due process requirements. This paragraph stings Ms. Pelosi:

Your inquiry is constitutionally invalid and a violation of due process. In the history of our Nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the President without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step. Here, House leadership claims to have initiated the gravest inter-branch conflict contemplated under our Constitution by means of nothing more than a press conference at which the Speaker of the House simply announced an “official impeachment inquiry.

I titled this post “This isn’t a monarchy & Pelosi isn’t the queen.” It fits that paragraph perfectly. This is important:

To comply with the Constitution’s demands, appropriate procedures would include-at a minimum-the right to see all evidence, to present evidence, to call witnesses, to have counsel present at all hearings, to cross-examine all witnesses, to make objections relating to the examination of witnesses or the admissibility of testimony and evidence, and to respond to evidence and testimony. Likewise, the Committees must provide for the disclosure of all evidence favorable to the President and all evidence bearing on the credibility of witnesses called to testify in the inquiry. The Committees’ current procedures provide none of these basic constitutional rights.

If we had real journalists working at the NY Times, CNN, MSNBC and the Washington Post, we wouldn’t require diatribes like this:

Thus far, Democrats have made up the rules each day. Further, Democrats have violated President Trump’s due process rights. Worst, they’re doing this all behind closed doors. The only conclusion that’s reasonable to draw is that Democrats don’t want people to hear what the witnesses have said.

Finally, Democrats are working to hide the identity of the ‘whistleblowers’. The whistleblowers’ law doesn’t cover these Democrat operatives. Further, we found out Tuesday night that one of them was recently employed by one of President Trump’s 2020 challengers. Does that sound fair? If that sounds fair to you, I’ve got a beautiful bridge I’d like to sell you.

During the course of this faux impeachment inquiry, Nancy Pelosi first acted like she was the queen of the House of Representatives, then acted like she was judge, jury and executioner in President Trump’s trial.

Since Angie Craig and Dean Phillips announced that they supported impeachment proceedings, they’ve resisted making it a level playing field for Republicans and Democrats alike. Thus far, the ‘rules’ have been made up on the fly.

If that’s the Democrats’ definition of constitutional fairness, I don’t think many people will agree with Democrats. We’ve been told by Ms. Pelosi that this is a solemn matter that requires constant prayer and introspection. These hearings haven’t featured fairness, much less constitutional principles. Why haven’t Phillips and Craig insisted on investigative fairness? If this is supposed to be a time of solemnity, why hasn’t Schiff displayed fairness throughout?

Craig and Phillips flipped their opinions on whether to conduct an investigation into impeachment based on nothing. Let’s remember that these freshmen Democrats switched their opinions before the facts of the case changed. When Craig and Phillips switched to yes on the impeachment investigation, they didn’t switch their opinion on whether they think President Trump should be impeached.

Craig and Phillips switched their opinion the Friday before Queen Nancy declared the impeachment inquiry was official. Let’s not forget that the Trump-Zelensky transcript wasn’t released until the day after Queen Nancy’s declaration. Let’s not forget that the CIA snitch’s complaint wasn’t released until that Thursday. It’s fair to ask Craig and Phillips why they changed their minds.

Let’s ask this Democrat duo what rules must be put in place to ensure fairness and constitutional due process. Should President Trump’s attorneys have the right to confront President Trump’s accusers? If not, why not? If defendants’ representation are allowed to cross-examine witnesses, shouldn’t a man have that right if he’s about to potentially be thrown out of office?

Craig and Phillips haven’t pushed for a real impeachment vote. Apparently, they won’t vote for a real investigation. Apparently, Democrats are willing to vote for articles of impeachment without an investigation:

House Democrats believe they have the 217 votes needed to pass articles of impeachment against President Trump stemming from his Ukraine call, enough votes to impeach Trump and send articles to the Senate, even before their planned hearings or formal investigation.

That’s breathtakingly stunning. At least 40 of those Democrats just signed their political death certificate. It might reach higher; perhaps as much as 50-55 might get defeated. These Democrats just said that they’ll vote to undo an election without conducting an investigation. Remember this moment of solemnity?

That’s when Ms. Pelosi said “The actions taken to date by the President have seriously violated the Constitution, especially when the President says that “Article II says that I can do whatever I want.” It’s time Ms. Pelosi went to law school. She apparently hasn’t figured out that due process is a constitutional right. Likewise, Ms. Pelosi apparently doesn’t know that the right to a speedy trial doesn’t mean skipping the investigation.

Angie Craig and Dean Phillips are part of that 217 vote majority who will vote to impeach President Trump without investigating him. If that isn’t the definition of radicalism, then such a definition doesn’t exist. Craig and Phillips should join a lengthy list of radical Democrats who’ll need to look for work come New Years Day 2020.

President Trump will send a letter to Speaker Pelosi that will say the White House won’t cooperate with the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry until the full House passes a resolution approving an impeachment inquiry. Thursday afternoon, House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy sent a letter to Pelosi asking Pelosi whether Pelosi would grant co-equal subpoena power to the chair and the ranking member, whether Pelosi would allow President Trump’s counsel to attend all depositions and hearings.

At the end of the list of questions, McCarthy states “By answering ‘no’ to any of the above, you would be acting in direct contradiction of all modern impeachment inquiries of a sitting president. By answering ‘no’ to any of the above, you would be denying the President the bare minimum rights granted to his predecessors.”

Ms. Pelosi gave the game away with this reply:

Pelosi shot back at McCarthy, saying that “existing rules of the House provide House committees with full authority to conduct investigations for all matters under their jurisdiction.”

With that reply, Ms. Pelosi admits that this is just like any other congressional investigation from her perspective. She’s welcome to that opinion but that’s BS. Pay close attention to what Ms. Pelosi said in this tweet:

The fact that the @HouseGOP’s loyalty is to Trump and not to the Constitution is not going to slow down or impair our ability to keep the republic our Founders envisioned. #TruthExposed pic.twitter.com/AlxphEf8eS

— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) October 4, 2019

Ms. Pelosi said “The fact that the @HouseGOP’s loyalty is to Trump and not to the Constitution is not going to slow down or impair our ability to keep the republic our Founders envisioned.” Actually, it’s Ms. Pelosi that isn’t being faithful to the Constitution. To impeach a president, then convict that president requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate, which is 67 votes. That makes it unlike other congressional proceedings. The House only needs a simple majority but the Senate requires a two-thirds majority.

If Speaker Pelosi wants to make up the rules as she goes along, that’s her option. If she thinks that she can get away with that, she’s kidding herself. Making up the rules as they go along won’t meet the requirements for establishing due process. Republicans will squawk about that immediately. With the guy with the biggest, loudest megaphone leading the squawking, it won’t take long to demolish Ms. Pelosi’s pretending to care about the Constitution. (If you don’t establish due process that are adhered to consistently, you aren’t a constitutionalist. Period.)

Republicans can slow this thing down. They have a strong argument to make. If Democrats just want to push this through rocket-docket-style with ever-shifting rules, Republicans will, and should, throw sand in the gears of Ms. Pelosi’s railroad.

Impeachment without a search for the truth isn’t justice. The People’s House should be treated with reverence. Pelosi’s House has been ruled by a tyrant. That’s beneath the dignity of the People’s House. Pelosi didn’t call for a vote to start the impeachment inquiry. She walked up to a podium and announced it. That’s why this is the Democrats’ impeachment, not the House impeachment.

House impeachment requires a vote of the entire House membership. That’s a solemn moment, the kind of thing that Ms. Pelosi has been constantly chattering about for a week. Despite all that talk about solemnity, etc., House Democrats sure are acting like autocrats. FYI- the Constitution doesn’t have anything to do with autocrats. That’s because they’re opposites of each other.

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.

In the stranger-than-fiction category, it’s apparent that the official statement issued by Commissioner Rebecca Lucero are spreading nationwide. These media outlets accept as Gospel Commissioner Lucero’s non-truths. For instance, this article quotes Lucero when she said “Hate is not a value in St. Cloud or in any part of our state.” The article continues, saying “Lucero says she is ‘heartbroken by the attempts to silence discussion on hate crimes.'”

No attempt was made to stifle free speech. Commissioner Lucero shouldn’t spread lies about people exercising their right to speak freely about matters of religion and government. I don’t know what’s worse — Commissioner Lucero spreading propaganda or the Minnesota Department of Human Rights attempting to criticize people exercising their right to free speech.

The right to free speech doesn’t just apply to Democrats. A wise man once said that ‘the law protects everyone or it doesn’t protect anyone.’ How can the Human Rights Commissioner in Minnesota dispute that.

The sad part is that Commissioner Lucero’s propaganda is spreading like wildfire. The AP article stripped out things like the fact that Jeff Oxton, the St. Cloud Assistant Police Chief, said that they were monitoring things but that they hadn’t received any threats concerning the event. Why didn’t the AP keep that part of the SCTimes article in the AP article? It’s like the AP intentionally did that just like the NYTimes’ editors omitted the part about the supposed victim doesn’t recall the incident and isn’t talking to anyone.

The more articles I see with Commissioner Lucero’s highly inaccurate quote, the more certain I am that the Dismantling Hate Crimes event was nothing more than a Democrat publicity stunt. Our commissioners don’t just serve the governor. They’re supposed to serve We The People, too. I don’t know how they can do that when they turn a blind eye on a special interest’s propaganda. That’s what CAIR did with Jaylani Hussein’s rhetoric.

Hussein said that CAIR is a civil rights organization in one breath, then insists that groups like “Freedom Speaks Coalition is a hate group.” This is the USA, where that type of organization can criticize organizations like CAIR or politicians like Commissioner Lucero. Apparently, CAIR didn’t learn that in Civil Rights 101 when it was in law school. Perhaps they were attending a Farrakhan rally the day they taught that.

Then again, they might not have learned that because CAIR is really just Hamas DBA as CAIR in the USA:

It’s one thing for CAIR to spread their propaganda. It’s quite another when a commissioner that works for us puts out a statement that accuses her bosses, aka We The People, of committing hate crimes. That’s quite a prejudice for a human rights department.

CAIR-MN insists that it’s a civil rights organization that works closely with the FBI. This article provides proof that isn’t true, stating “The Fiscal Year 2013 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Bill, which passed the House on Wednesday, contains in its Committee Report (a separate public document that spells out how agencies are expected to spend the money allocated to them) a recommendation that Attorney General Eric Holder follow in the FBI’s footsteps and sever ties with CAIR”:

The committee understands that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has an existing policy prohibiting its employees from engaging in any formal non-investigative cooperation with CAIR. The committee encourages the attorney general to adopt a similar policy for all department officials.

This isn’t Fox News reporting. This is from an official House committee report saying that the FBI has severed ties with CAIR.

CAIR specializes in propaganda. That’s what they specialized in with the Dismantling Hate Crimes event. They did that even after the event was postponed. When Jaylani Hussein, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Minnesota, arrived from the Twin Cities after the event was cancelled. Hussein started spreading his propaganda virtually immediately. That carried into Thursday, too.

On Thursday, Hussein said “The idea behind it was pretty large, not specifically just addressing Islamophobia. Unfortunately, as we know, Islamophobia is an issue in St. Cloud, and the postponement, I guess, was evident of that.”

He continued, saying “We are not talking to someone that has legitimate claims; we are talking to people clearly showing a racist as well as a xenophobic and white nationalist agenda. And that’s the unfortunate reality.”

What’s unfortunate is that Hussein criticized St. Cloud without a basis for his opinion. Then again, as a propagandist, his responsibility is to criticize people he knows nothing about. That’s what happened in this instance.

Hussein said Freedom Speaks Coalition is a hate group that uses anti-Muslim statements to further its agenda. He also said groups that feed into white nationalist groups are really the ones who could potentially put community members at risk.

“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,” Hussein said. “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,” he continued. “And there are consequences to that type of activity.

It’s interesting that Hussein would say that. CAIR calls itself a civil rights organization. Fair enough but shouldn’t civil rights organizations fight for everyone’s civil rights, even for those organizations with which it disagrees? HINT TO HUSSEIN: This is the United States, home of the First Amendment. That means all organizations and people have the God-given right to disagree with others as long as they don’t put people’s lives in danger.

See also: MDHR commissioner decries “attempts to silence discussion”
St. Cloud hate crimes event postponed; MDHR, CAIR upset

UPDATE: The SCTimes has taken down their article on the event, leaving only a video of Marni Hockenberg leading a peaceful rally. The link has changed, too. The good news is that you can still find their article by clicking on the link in this post. I don’t know why they’ve hidden this story. If anyone gets the hardcopy version of the Times, please check the paper and let me know if the article is in that version.
UPDATE II: Now it’s back again. Go figure. All I did was email the reporter and told her that her article had disappeared.

This St. Cloud Times article reports that an event titled ‘Dismantling hate crimes’ was postponed. The SCTimes article starts 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.”

That sounds rather ominous, doesn’t it? How can you argue against postponing an event over “larger public safety concerns”? I’ll be the proverbial skunk at the garden party by highlighting a statement by St. Cloud Assistant Police Chief Jeff Oxton. The Times wrote that “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.”

Of course, the Times used some interesting editing techniques for this story. The MNDHR concerns about the alleged “larger public safety concerns” were positioned in the first 2 paragraphs. By comparison, Jeff Oxton’s statement that no threats related to the event wasn’t found until the 16th paragraph of the Times’ article. It’s almost as if the Times wanted its readers to think that the threat was averted at the last minute. It’s as if the Times didn’t want readers to know that there weren’t any threats related to the event.

Panelists scheduled to participate were:

1. Blair Anderson, chief, St. Cloud Police Department
2. Jaylani Hussein, executive director, Council on American-Islamic Relations
3. Rebecca Lucero, director, Minnesota Department of Human Rights
4. Michael Melcher, supervisory special agent, FBI
5. Teresa Nelson, legal director, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota

What’s interesting is that the event was scheduled for the day after the third anniversary of the terrorist attack at Crossroads Mall. Another thing that’s interesting is that the propagandists, aka CAIR-MN and ACLU of Minnesota, were afraid of people praying for the Persecuted Church.

This is smelling more and more like a setup. This article is quite illuminating:

“Hate is not a value in St. Cloud or in any part of our state. Our community deserves better,” says MDHR Commissioner Rebecca Lucero. “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.”

Panelists would have had the opportunity to define hate crimes, explain criminal and civil responses and discuss prevention.

Commissioner Lucero’s statement is as phony as a $3 bill. If she thinks that 2 dozen activists praying for the Persecuted Church are a threat to the community, then that isn’t the type of community I want anything to do with. Then there’s this KSTP article:

“We remain committed to advancing a community dialogue focused on dismantling hate crimes,” Chair of the Regional Human Rights Commission Eunice Adjei said in the release. “While the decision to postpone the forum was unfortunate, we have renewed energy to ensure this community discussion takes place.”

Based on St. Cloud Assistant Police Chief Jeff Oxton’s statement, the decision to postpone didn’t have anything to do with threats received by the St. Cloud PD. The more I read about this postponement, the more I think it’s likely that this is based on fiction.

While campaigning, then-Candidate Trump would say that Americans would get tired of all the winning if they elected him. As the 2020 election nears, Victor Davis Hanson has written this article that’s appropriately titled “Trumped Out?” I’m not. Give me 4 more years of this. I’m loving it.

Hanson is apparently loving it, too:

The August jobs report “unexpectedly” reminds us that never have so many Americans been at work. The 3.7 percent unemployment rate continues to be the lowest peacetime unemployment figure in 50 years. Black and Hispanic unemployment remain at record lows. Workers’ wages continue to rise. Talk of recession is belied by low interest, low inflation, low unemployment and a strong stock market. The result is that millions of Americans enjoy far better lives than they had in 2016.

If President Trump isn’t re-elected, what will happen? Here’s Hanson’s opinion into that:

When we look to alternatives, all we seem to hear is multi-trillion-dollar hare-brained schemes from radical progressives and socialists masquerading as Democrats at a time of record national debt. The Green New Deal, Medicare for All, free healthcare for illegal aliens, reparations, the abolition of $1.5 trillion in student loan debt, and free tuition for all—are the stuff of fantasies and either would have to be repudiated by any of the Democratic nominees who actually was elected, or would destroy an already indebted nation.

That doesn’t sound attractive. That’s what would likely happen with a Democrat president. Democrats control the House. The woman who really runs the House is so radical that she thinks this isn’t radical enough. I’m not talking about Nancy Pelosi. I’m talking about AOC. This is what awaits us if AOC ever assumes total control:

But these are not normal times. There is (for now) no longer a Democratic Party. Instead, it is a revolutionary Jacobin movement that believes socialism is our salvation, that identity politics is our creed, that gun confiscation is our duty, that the abrupt end of fossil fuels is coming very soon, that open borders is our new demography, and that the archetypical unmarried, childless, urban hipster is our model woke citizen.

Over my dead body. President Trump has had quite the effect on otherwise timid Republicans. Check out the ‘Trump effect’ on Lindsey Graham:

It’s important that traditional-thinking people decimate today’s AOC Democrats. They’re despicable. They’re the antithesis of fair-minded. Today’s AOC Democrats don’t see the United States as the greatest protector of human rights or civil rights. Check out what Robert Francis O’Rourke thinks of your right to protect your family:

Prof. Hanson is a historian by trade. When he makes statements about history, I pay attention. That’s why I paid attention to this statement:

I cannot remember a moment in U.S. history when a presidential candidate conspired with the intelligence community of the lame-duck administration of the same party to destroy a presidential rival.

Robert Mueller forever discredited the idea of a special counsel, given his unprofessionalism, bias, and apparent incompetence that ate up 22 months of the Trump presidency. Even in the crude post-1960s, we have never seen anything like the current assassination rhetoric of Hollywood celebrities and the boasts of doing bodily harm to the president by his political opponents.

That’s what AOC’s Democratic Party is about. They’re mostly interested in trampling anyone, whether it’s a Republican, a Democrat who isn’t sufficiently woke or an apolitical person, who doesn’t march in lockstep with them. I don’t agree with each of President Trump’s tweets. I certainly disagreed with his idea of bringing the Taliban to Camp David. But I’ve literally thanked God that he’s our president. I thank God because he’s a fighter. As Prof. Hanson said, “After all that, the strange thing is not that Trump can be occasionally wearisome, but that he is even still breathing.”