Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the blog archives.

Categories

Let’s be blunt about something. Bob Casey is a lightweight compared to his dad. Tonight, President Trump held a well-attended rally for Lou Barletta in Wilkes-Barre, PA. After the rally, Sen. Casey published this tweet, saying “Tonight my opponent asked for your support so that he can help President Trump. Not so he can help working families or seniors or students. Just so he can help the President advance his divisive corporate agenda. That’s not the job of the Senator from Pennsylvania.”

During the rally, President Trump rattled off some of the things that Sen. Casey fought against. For instance, Sen. Casey voted against a) the Trump/GOP tax cuts, b) confirming Justice Neil Gorsuch and c) repealing all of the anti-mining regulations that President Obama imposed on coal mines. Further, he’s planning on voting against Judge Kavanaugh without bothering to meet with him. Finally, President Trump mentioned that Sen. Casey voted for the ACA and voted against repealing the ACA.

Call me crazy but I think Sen. Casey has cast tons of votes that aren’t in the interest of Pennsylvanians. I’d also highlight the fact that he’s been virtually invisible most, if not all, of his political life. He votes the way Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and President Obama tell him to vote.

In other words, he’s the furthest thing from a moderate this side of Bernie Sanders.

In an interview with Stuart Varney, Barletta talked about ‘Trump Democrats’:

The truth is that this race could tighten significantly. If I was managing Sen. Casey’s campaign, I’d be worried. President Trump spent a significant amount of time highlighting Sen. Casey’s lackluster career, including his voting record on removing anti-mining regulations. That’s a potential weakness for Sen. Casey.

Jackass Jim Acosta made another spectacle today, questioning White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee-Sanders about whether she thinks “the press is the enemy of the people.” Rather than answering directly, Huckabee-Sander replied “It’s ironic, Jim, that not only you and the media attack the president for his rhetoric when they frequently lower the level of conversation in this country. Repeatedly, repeatedly the media resorts to personal attacks without any content other than to incite anger.” She then continued, saying “Including your own network said I should be harassed as a life sentence. That I should be choked. ICE officials are not welcomed in their place of worship” before finishing by saying “When I was hosted by the Correspondents’ Association, which almost all of you are members of, you brought a comedian up to attack my appearance and call me a traitor to my own gender. As far as I know, I’m the first press secretary in the history of the United States that’s required Secret Service protection.”

Later, Acosta walked out of the briefing before tweeting this:


Here’s the video of their fiery exchange:

The truth is that Jim Acosta is a spoiled brat with no manners. It’s impossible to take him seriously. Further, his unprofessionalism is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.

What’s painfully obvious is that this was another attempt to get attention. This was the first time that Acosta talked about the White House Correspondents Dinner fiasco. He didn’t bring it up, either. He spoke to it after Sarah Huckabee-Sanders brought it up along with a lengthy litany of other abuses she’s suffered through. If the media wants to rebuild their credibility, they should stop acting like jackasses. Further, they should stop hiring insulting comediennes for the White House Correspondents Dinner. Nothing says ‘Don’t take me seriously’ like an unfunny, unserious comedian.

The only thing that’s worse is this:

Including your own network said I should be harassed as a life sentence. That I should be choked.

That qualifies as a legitimate reason to say that the press is the enemy of the people. That’s what bitter, hateful people say. That isn’t what a professional with self-respect says. Kicking a reporter out for asking a controversial statement is one thing.

Today’s episode goes far beyond that. That was just mean-spirited unprofessional behavior. Acosta shouldn’t have been allowed to walk out early. He should’ve been kicked out. Then the White House should’ve issued a statement highlighting acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

This Duluth News Tribune editorial endorses Tim Pawlenty as the Republicans’ best shot at retaking the governorship. Normally, endorsements don’t mean that much but I think this one matters. It isn’t because I think the endorsement itself is that impactful. I think it’s impactful because Tim Pawlenty was given the time and space to explain why he’s running. In my estimation, he made the most of that opportunity.

In the editorial, Gov. Pawlenty said “People criticize me for, ‘You held the line on this’ or, ‘You cut that.’ You bet I did. When you’re in a near depression and government’s budgets have contracted, the answer isn’t to go out to the taxpayers and say, ‘We need to raise your taxes.’ We had to tighten the government’s belt, just like every family did, just like every house did.”

In my estimation, that response was what you’d expect from the adult in the room. It didn’t stop there, though. After that, Gov. Pawlenty stated “I’m 57 years old, I have no other political ambitions. I’m not running for any national office. I’m coming back to try to run for governor not because I need the title; I already have it. And I don’t need to go to sit in the office; I’ve already done that for eight years,” said Pawlenty, governor from 2003 to 2011 and a Republican presidential candidate in 2012. “I’m coming back for one reason, which is to get things done for my state and for the state that I love. And I think that at this point we need somebody who is strong enough and experienced enough and, frankly, willing to embrace enough risk to bridge the (political) divides. I am in the best position in this race to do that.”

The difference between Gov. Pawlenty then and the conditions he’d walk into now are dramatic. When he first won the office, he inherited a $4.2 billion projected deficit from Jesse Ventura and a terrible economy. This time around, he’ll walk in at a time when the US economy is hitting on all cylinders. Thanks to that robust economy, Gov. Pawlenty will have the chance to reform the tax system that Gov. Dayton created.

What does Pawlenty want to do if elected again? He wants to slow down health insurance premium increases and maybe even reduce them. He wants to provide tax relief to middle- and modest-income Minnesotans, including by getting rid of Minnesota’s rare tax on Social Security benefits. And he wants to modernize and improve Minnesota schools and the state’s educational system to finally close the achievement gap and to help meet growing workforce needs.

Tim Pawlenty is the best choice to lead the Republican Party of Minnesota. He’s got universal name recognition. He’s got the funding network that’ll be needed to fight off the DFL candidate. Most importantly, he’s got a reform-minded substantive agenda that conservatives can rally around.

Jeff Johnson is touting the issues he wants to run on. That’s admirable. He’d be a fine governor if he got elected. The thing is, though, that he’d have a difficult time getting elected. You can’t govern if you don’t get elected.

Republicans have a fantastic opportunity to reform Minnesota’s economy. To do that, though, we need unified Republican control of St. Paul. We can’t get there with Jeff Johnson. He’s already lost 2 statewide races. I’m not willing to bet that the third time is the charm. There’s too much at stake to entrust to a 2-time loser.

Tim Pawlenty wants to focus on accomplishing sensible things. That’s been out of style the past 8 years in St. Paul. Here’s what I’m talking about:

This LTE criticizes Sen. Schumer’s ‘forgetfulness’. That’s noteworthy but it isn’t the most distressing news for Democrats. The most distressing news is that it was written by a Democrat.

It opens by saying “Sen. Chuck Schumer’s plea for financial support from Democratic New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind may have answered a question recently proposed by both Schumer and the Watch commentator Allison Perry. Allison challenged any supporter of President Trump to provide information “as to any way in which Donald Trump has improved your lives or this country.” And Schumer, in asking for contributions, got an earful.”

A couple paragraphs later, the LTE said “You forgot to tell us about unemployment, which is lower than it has been in decades, while economic confidence is at a 17-year high. It’s also at a record low for minorities. That’s very good news, Senator. You forgot to tell us how the U.S. is beginning to emerge in energy dominance. The Department of Interior, which has led the way in cutting regulations, opened plans to lease 77 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas drilling, decreasing our reliance on foreign oil. That’s very good news, Senator.”

Read the entire LTE. Every GOP candidate should commit to memory each of these statistics. Lately, Democrats have started testing a talking point that goes something like this: ‘yes, the economy is good but we don’t know if it’s helping everyone. We don’t know that everyone is feeling the recovery.’

That’s BS. If people weren’t feeling the effects of the Trump/GOP economic policies, consumer confidence wouldn’t be sky-high. Business investment wouldn’t be happening at the high rate that it’s happening. If the economy was in tough shape, people wouldn’t be returning to the workforce in an attempt to find a job. Optimism is increasing. Pessimism is shrinking.

Those things didn’t happen during the Obama administration. They’re happening now, though.

The Democrats aren’t happy with Sen. Schumer:

For all the talk about a blue wave, the truth is that Democrats are a divided political party.

What’s fascinating about President Obama’s list of 8 candidates running for election across the United States isn’t who’s on the list. It’s who’s omitted from the list. What’s fascinating is that the article starts by saying former “President Barack Obama weighed in on behalf of 81 candidates for federal and state offices on Wednesday, his first major batch of endorsements for the 2018 midterm elections.” Then the article states “I’m proud to endorse such a wide and impressive array of Democratic candidates – leaders as diverse, patriotic, and big-hearted as the America they’re running to represent. I’m confident that, together, they’ll strengthen this country we love by restoring opportunity that’s broadly shared, repairing our alliances and standing in the world, and upholding our fundamental commitment to justice, fairness, responsibility, and the rule of law. But first, they need our votes — and I’m eager to make the case for why Democratic candidates deserve our votes this fall.”

What’s noteworthy about President Obama’s statement is that he didn’t mention anything about creating jobs or strengthening the economy. That isn’t surprising. It’s just noteworthy. President Obama didn’t put a priority on creating jobs while he was president. Why think that he cares about building a strong economy now? Here’s the tweet with President Obama’s endorsements:


Attached to the tweet are the candidates he’s endorsing. It’s rather fascinating that he didn’t endorse any Democrats in Minnesota. It’s fascinating that he didn’t endorse Dianne Feinstein or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This was a fun interview to watch:

Here’s something that I just thought of that’s worth considering. President Obama didn’t endorse a single DFL candidate in Minnesota. He didn’t endorse Keith Ellison. He didn’t endorse Tina Smith. Question: Is that because they’re both Bernie followers? Also, as I said earlier, President Obama didn’t endorse Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She’s a Bernie candidate, too. Question: Is this the start of a fight between the establishment and the Bernie wings of the Democratic Party? Only time will tell but I can’t rule it out.

RNC Chairman Ronna McDaniel made a great point in her interview with Harris Faulkner when she asked if Democrats would highlight the fact that President Obama had endorsed them. I’m betting they won’t highlight it.

Tim Pawlenty has started running an ad that takes a shot at Gov. Dayton’s incompetence in administering government assistance programs. Before we watch the ad, though, it’s important to note that Pawlenty has listed this issue as a high priority on his campaign’s issues page.

He wrote “Whether it is a driver’s license renewal system that doesn’t work, broken healthcare websites, or childcare providers allegedly defrauding the state of a massive amount of money and sending some of that money to terrorists overseas, state government needs to be held more accountable. Too often, state government is not held accountable and taxpayers are left to pay the price. As just one example, a recent audit from the Office of the Legislative Auditor found the state is paying hundreds of millions in benefits to people not even eligible because state government fails to verify income eligibility. We will properly verify eligibility and use the hundreds of millions currently being wasted to lower health care costs and provide better care to Minnesotans in need. It’s time to hold state government more accountable and put hardworking Minnesotans first.”

Here’s Pawlenty’s ad:

Rating this ad

I consider this ad to be effective. First, Pawlenty ‘narrates’ the ad, in essence telling people what he thinks is important while highlighting what’s wrong with government. Next, he closes by saying that he’d use those savings to lower health care costs for Minnesotans who work hard and obey the law.

Next up is Karin Housley’s first ad:

Rating this ad

I rate this ad effective, too. First, Sen. Housley speaks for herself, which is always the most effective way of getting the message across. Next, she explains her governing philosophy. Simply put, she wants to ‘drain the swamp’ and get government out of the average citizen’s way. She wants government “working for you, not against you.” Finally, she tells voters that she understands “that the best place for your hard-earned money is in your pocket.”

In both cases, the ads were short, concise and about things that Minnesotans care about.

UPDATE: I saw Jeff Johnson’s first ad tonight:

Rating this ad

Johnson’s ad definitely goes after Tim Pawlenty, which is what I’d expect since Johnson first has to win the primary. I thought it was gratuitous for Johnson to say that Gov. Pawlenty “gave us higher spending.” When Gov. Pawlenty started in office, Jim Knoblach chaired the House Ways and Means Committee. It’s foolish to think that there was a massive spending increase at that time because Gov. Pawlenty inherited a $4.2 billion projected deficit from Jesse Ventura. Pawlenty and Knoblach eliminated that deficit without raising taxes. It’s fair, however, to mention the fee increases.

The ad is a bit misleading in that Pawlenty had to battle DFL supermajorities in the 2007 and 2009 budget sessions. That’s when Republicans relied on Gov. Pawlenty to be our goalie.

Overall, the ad is somewhat effective because it’s somewhat misleading.

It’s apparent that Erin Murphy hasn’t thought about crime from a police officer’s perspective. That’s totally apparent after reading this article. First, Jeff Johnson said “I watched the body camera footage from the Thurman Blevins shooting today. It shows clearly that Blevins was carrying a gun and that the Minneapolis officer involved did everything he could to convince Blevins to surrender before firing his weapon. Serving our communities as a police officer is one of the hardest jobs in America today and we shouldn’t second-guess the very difficult decisions they make until we have all of the facts.”

Gov. Pawlenty issued a statement, saying “The actions of the Minneapolis police officers involved in the shooting of Thurman Blevins were clearly appropriate. Police officers protect our communities at extreme risk to themselves every day. We support and appreciate them. Those who claimed Blevins did not have a weapon or that officers acted improperly owe the officers an apology.”

Next, compare those statements with what Erin Murphy said:

As I watched the body camera footage of Thurman Blevins death, I was struck not only by the end of his life and the hard questions it raises, but by the beginning of the video. From the first moment officers are on scene they are loudly swearing, and threatening a man who appears to be sitting on a curb with a woman and child. From the first moment the police are shouting, scaring him, pushing him, and engaging in a way that led to the awful ending of his life.

He ran, yes. He was armed, yes. He reportedly was drunk and had fired shots, yes. All of those things might have led to his death, but none of them had to. I don’t understand why calmly starting a conversation wasn’t an option or wouldn’t have been a better course.

I don’t know much about Thurman Blevins. Had the officers approached the situation differently he might be in jail right now for firing his weapon into the sky and ground, or could be sitting on that curb with his family enjoying a morning off. I don’t know.

When a man (or woman) wields a gun, that officer has a responsibility to protect himself/herself and their partner. That isn’t a situation where the officers have a ton of options. It’s literally a kill-or-be-killed situation.

Notice how Rep. Murphy blames the officers, not Mr. Blevins. Rep. Murphy, if you were faced with this life-or-death situation, would you take a pacifist’s approach? Would you let a person who has a gun wave it around? If that’s truly what you’d do, there’s a high probability that you’d be shot. Further, by taking the pacifist’s approach, you’d put your partner’s life in jeopardy, too.

This story is troubling:

More protests are expected in Minneapolis over the decision not to charge officers involved in the June 23 deadly shooting of Thurman Blevins. The two Minneapolis officers involved say he pointed a gun at them during a short chase. CBS News’ Dean Reynolds spoke to Blevins’ sister and cousin who dispute the officers’ version of events. Blevins’ sister Darlynn and cousin Sydnee Brown admitted he had a gun on him but say he was scared for his life when he ran from police.

“It was the way that they approached him when they came out of the vehicle,” Darlynn said. “I mean, who else is not going to run if somebody is behind me telling me ‘I’m going to shoot you. I’m going to kill you.'”

First, here’s the police body cam video:

Then there’s this interview of Blevins’ family:

Let’s state something here emphatically. Gov. Dayton’s reckless statements after the Philando Castile shooting contribute each day to the tension between minority communities and police officers. Gov. Dayton said that “Would this have happened if those passengers, the driver were white? I don’t think it would have.” Since that day, tensions have escalated. Rep. Murphy’s statements just further escalate the tensions.

That’s inexcusable.

Karin Housley’s optimism is infectious. Reading through this article, it’s obvious that she sees her campaign as the right elixir at the right time. It’s equally obvious that she thinks that Tina Smith is Sen. Schumer’s shill. She’s right about that, BTW. Sen. Smith has opposed everything that President Trump is for. New York already has 2 senators. They don’t need another one.

In an interview with the Brainerd Dispatch Editorial Board, Sen. Housley said “I had been in the Minnesota Senate for the last six years and seen the failures of the Dayton-Smith administration and I thought, ‘There’s no way that woman represents everyone in Minnesota or what we really stand for in Minnesota.’ I decided to jump into the race and fight for Minnesotans.”

Sen. Housley is right. Sen. Smith doesn’t represent Minnesota’s priorities. Contrary to Smith’s beliefs, there’s much more to Minnesota than the Twin Cities. In her brief time in the US Senate, Tina Smith has traveled often outside the Twin Cities. Unfortunately, she’s brought her Twin Cities beliefs with her. Rather than listening to Minnesotans’ worries, Smith has tried selling the Twin Cities’ priorities. That’s disrespectful.

By comparison, Sen. Housley has met with (and listened to) lots of groups from Owatonna to Bemidji to Walker. As she says in this interview, she and her husband have had a cabin in the Walker area for several decades:

That means they understand rural Minnesota. That isn’t all. They know that Washington’s policies have made life difficult for rural residents. Then there’s this:

By replacing Smith, Housley said she hopes to help break the deadlock in the nation’s upper house—750 bills left on the debate floor, undebated and not voted upon because of rigid partisan lines. Sen. John McCain’s absence leaves the Senate in a state of limbo, a razor-thin 50-49 Republican majority.

In doing so, Housley said, she’ll look to restore a kind of representation that actually represents the interests of everyday Minnesotans—not blind dogmatism, not run-of-the-mill Capitol Hill and not an out-of-touch Democrat who favors big government and the big problems that brings.

Smith is a not-so-bright radical. Don’t forget, she’s a Berniecrat:

People can’t seriously think that Tina Smith isn’t a Twin Cities-centric socialist. Further, let’s ask this simple question: Are you better off today than the day before President Obama left office? Honest people would emphatically say they’re better off today. Business investment is improving quickly. Consumer confidence is sky-high. Unemployment for blacks and Hispanics are at all-time lows. Unemployment for women is at a 65-year low. The energy sector, which President Obama tried to intentionally kill, has turned around so dramatically that we’ve gone from importing oil to being a net exporter of energy. We’re so strong with energy that President Trump struck a deal with the EU to export Liquefied Natural Gas to them.

Tina Smith is a closet environmentalist who hates fossil fuels. She’s also (quietly) anti-mining. She has to pretend that she’s pro-mining because she needs lots of Iron Range votes but she isn’t a big fan of mining. By comparison, Karin Housley is enthusiastically pro-mining. This is the type of straight talk that Minnesotans insist on:

Since 2003, Housley has been a small business owner and is also a real estate agent by trade—though, she admitted, she almost closed up shop in 2010 because of restrictive policies by the state at that time. “It got to a point where you’re working so hard and everything you’ve earned is going to the government, but the government is spending your hard-earned money not on things you want it spent on,” Housley said. “That’s the reason I ran. We’re just starting to reverse that. People are keeping more money in their pockets, and so are our business owners, so we just have to continue that trend.”

Tina better buckle up for a tough campaign. Thanks to her mistake-riddled campaign, she’s earned a tough campaign.

In his open letter to the NFL, it’s pretty apparent that NBA superstar Kareem Abdul-Jabbar forgot to read the Constitution. In his letter, Jabbar said “In May, you implemented a childish policy about how grown men must respond to the national anthem: a player can stay in the locker room during the anthem, but if he takes the field and then protests, the team and the player can be fined. Oh, Dear Owners. You stood at the precipice of history tasked with deciding whether to choose the principles of the US Constitution over profits of commerce, patriotism over pandering, morality over mob mentality, promoting social justice over pushing beers. Sadly, you blinked. Courage, it seems, is expected only of players.”

Actually, the Constitution gives employers the right to squash free speech if that speech hurts their business. Each individual NFL franchise is worth lots of money. For instance, the Dallas Cowboys’ franchise is worth $4,800,000,000. The NFL’s TV contract is literally worth billions of dollars each year.

For that reason, these owners have the right to protect their financial interests. Abdul-Jabbar’s whining about owners choosing “the principles of the US Constitution over profits of commerce, patriotism over pandering, morality over mob mentality, promoting social justice over pushing beers” sounds like socialist blather.

The Constitution is just fine. Just because it doesn’t give you the outcome you prefer doesn’t mean it isn’t intact. The truth is that the Constitution is built on the premise that there’s constantly competing principles that have to be balanced against each other. That’s why the First Amendment doesn’t prohibit business owners from limiting their employees’ speech.

Further, this didn’t help the players’ cause:

The entire Hands Up, Don’t Shoot thing was a myth. That isn’t opinion. It’s a finding of fact. If players want to be activists, let them do it on their own time. NFL fans tune in, at least partially, to escape politics. Then, too, if the players want to use the opportunity to be activists, I’m certain that lots of fans will be willing to eliminate the NFL from their TV schedule. I’m certain because lots of them already have eliminated it from their TV priorities.

For all of Abdul-Jabbar’s high-minded talk, he apparently hasn’t figured out that free market capitalism still drives this nation.

Rep. Steve Drazkowski is one of my favorite state legislators in Minnesota because he’s a straight shooter and an honest man. In contrast, Ilhan Omar is my least favorite state legislator because she’s dishonest and she apparently thinks that the rules don’t apply to her. I’m basing my opinion on information contained in this article.

According to the article, “After learning that State Representative Ilhan Omar accepted payments from MNSCU campuses last year – a violation of Minnesota House rules – State Representative Steve Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa) is calling on Omar to return the thousands of dollars she received. ‘It’s clear to me that Representative Omar abused the power of her office and her committee assignment for personal financial gain, which is truly disappointing,’ Drazkowski said. ‘Despite being fully aware that accepting these payments violated the rules of the Minnesota House, she not only kept the money but failed to disclose it for as long as she could to avoid an ethics hearing and an endorsement headache.'”

The article also says “Minnesota House Rule 9.20, Acceptance of an Honorarium by a Member: A member must not accept an honorarium for a service performed for an individual or organization that has a direct interest in the business of the House, including, but not limited to, a registered lobbyist or an organization a lobbyist represents.” There’s no excuse for Ms. Omar’s behavior because “every newly-elected member attends an orientation where non-partisan House research staff explains potential conflicts of interest to incoming lawmakers, including gifts, travel and lodging, and honoraria.” Plus “Rep. Omar voted to adopt the Permanent Rules of the Minnesota House – which includes Rule 9.20 – on February 16, 2017, 12 days before her first paid MNSCU speaking engagement.”

Rep. Omar is a violations machine. Check out this video:

Scott Johnson has done the digging into Ms. Omar’s marital difficulties. He explains what he found in this article:

I originally checked out the SomaliSpot story online through the Minnesota Official Marriage System. Inputting Omar’s name, I found that the two marriages cited in the discussion board post checked out as indicated. The site reflected Omar’s 2002 marriage to her advertised husband, Ahmed Aden (later Ahmed Hirsi), and her 2009 marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi (identified in the SomaliSpot post as Omar’s brother). A few days after the primary, I submitted written questions to representatives of the Omar campaign, citing the SomaliSpot post, and asking whether Omar’s second marriage had been entered into with her brother for dishonest purposes.

Predictably, Omar deflected the questions Scott Johnson had to an attorney:

Dear Mr. Johnson:

I have been contacted by the Ilhan Omar campaign. Their response to your email from this morning is as follows:

“There are people who do not want an East African, Muslim woman elected to office and who will follow Donald Trump’s playbook to prevent it. Ilhan Omar’s campaign sees your superfluous contentions as one more in a series of attempts to discredit her candidacy. Ilhan Omar’s campaign will not be distracted by negative forces and will continue to focus its energy on creating positive engagement with community members to make the district and state more prosperous and equitable for everyone.”

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please direct them to me in writing so we have a record of any further communications.

Sincerely,

Jean Brandl

Apparently, Rep. Omar is a complaint factory:

  • On May 17, 2017, Rep. Omar was fined $1,000 due to the late filing of her 24-hour notice reports.
  • On November 30, 2017, Rep. Omar was fined $150 due to the late filing of her campaign finance report. That 2016 report listed a non-campaign disbursement in the amount of $2,250 in legal fees to the Kjellberg Law Office, which specializes in divorce law, and is listed as her representative during her 2017 divorce case. It also noted that she paid her now current husband $3,100 for unspecified campaign services.
  • On June 20, 2018, Rep. Omar was fined the maximum $1,100 due to the late filing of her Statement of Economic Interest.

There’s more:

“Representative Omar’s willingness to accept money from institutions that are dependent on her committee and her vote for their funding is the textbook definition of unethical,” Drazkowski said. “Because of her decision to withhold disclosing this information until after the Legislature adjourned sine die, we are unable to formally file ethics charges against her.”

Drazkowski said Omar must return the MNSCU payments, and he said that she may not use campaign funds to make the repayment. “If the ethics committee were to find Representative Omar in violation of House Rule 9.20, and I have no doubt that it would, the end result would be a demand for her to return the payments,” Drazkowski said. “With that in mind, Representative Omar needs to return these payments to the MNSCU campuses immediately.”

For all of Omar’s complaints about being the victim of Islamophobia, etc., the truth is that she’s just a typical unethical politician who thinks that the rules don’t apply to her. There’s nothing Islamophobic about that. That’s just a long-held belief that people in positions of authority shouldn’t extort money from the people they regulate.