Whom to vote for Tuesday

There is, believe it or don’t, a primary election Tuesday.

There are six races of note, three of which are Congressional races, and four of which are Democratic primaries. The race in both categories is in the Third Congressional District, where U.S. Rep. Ron Kind (D-La Crosse) is opposed by Myron Buchholz of Eau Claire, who aligns himself with Bernie Sanders (not really) Democrats. The winner will be unopposed because for some reason no Republican could be found to run against Kind.

Kind is a mainstream Democrat. Buchholz is as leftist as Comrade Bernie. In fact, Buchholz sent a news release about his pride in getting arrested at a protest. He opposes free trade. Unusually, Buchholz didn’t blame the Orlando shootings on guns, but he did blame the shootings on our being in the Middle East. (And yet he touted the endorsement of his daughter, an Army veteran.) I’m not exactly a fan of Kind, but the last thing we need anywhere in politics is leftists like Buchholz.

The biggest Congressional race, at least in terms of coverage, is the First Congressional District race between Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R–Janesville) and Donald Trump Republican Paul Nehlen.

Nehlen is running for his first office, and does it show. The Washington Post’s Amber Phillips reported:

It’s safe to say that until a few days ago, the average consumer of political news had no idea who Paul Nehlen was.

Actually, the average consumer of political news probably still has no idea who Paul Nehlen is. But Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) primary challenger is getting the kind of national media attention right now that long-shot primary challengers dream of — and that he may come to regret. …

On Tuesday, Trump suggested that he might back the conservative business executive, who’s a long shot to upset Ryan in Tuesday’s primary.

Trump’s comment set the political world ablaze. On Wednesday, Nehlen got the chance to introduce himself to the world — and Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District, of course — in an interview on CNN.

It didn’t go well. Over the course of the five or six minutes he was on air, Nehlen made several unfounded assertions about his opponent, stumbled in his talking points and came across as just generally unprepared for the spotlight.

First, the assertions:

“He has said he’s going to sue Mr. Trump.” (Fact check: taken out of context.)

“We wouldn’t even have borders if it were for Paul Ryan.” (Fact check: What? “I’m pretty sure he’s never said we should abolish borders,” CNN anchor John Berman said in response. “That would be a pretty extraordinary position for him to take.” )

When Berman and Kate Bolduan called him out on those statements, Nehlen stumbled, retreating to his talking points about Ryan’s record.

Even his talking points didn’t go over smoothly. At one point, Nehlen used his hands to draw a “circle of trust” on camera. “Here’s the circle of trust,” he said. “Paul Ryan’s out here.”

We get what he was trying to demonstrate — Ryan’s not a conservative, he’s too entrenched in Washington — but the moment came across as hokey. And a moment made for mocking on Twitter. …

At one point, Berman asked Nehlen if he felt he was being used as a pawn in the broader Trump vs. establishment battle. Nehlen answered it with a metaphor about sneezing, totally missing the symbolism of Trump’s comments to The Washington Post’s Philip Rucker.

“I wrote something that was well researched and put it out there, and Mr. Trump thanked me for that,” Nehlen said. ” … If somebody sneezes and I say ‘God bless you,’ was somebody used in that transaction?”

(The “something” he wrote was a lengthy statement defending Trump point by point for his response to the Khan family. Nehlen has embraced Trump this campaign, though Trump hasn’t endorsed him.)

Nehlen said Wednesday that he’d welcome Trump’s endorsement. “I am absolutely in lock step with Mr. Trump,” he said.

Then he threw in a caveat: “But the last thing I want is for him to screw up the presidential race.” Bolduan asked how Trump’s endorsement in Wisconsin’s first congressional primary would “screw up” the race for the White House, to which Nehlen appeared to have no answer: “Why are we even talking about this? Why are you asking me about that?”

The thing is, this could not have been more perfectly laid out for Nehlen if he had planned it himself. The national media spotlight is coming less than a week before the primary, just in time for Nehlen to ride the Trump wave — to the extent there is one. Let’s be clear that absolutely no one in political circles is predicting Nehlen to win. He is vastly underfunded and unknown.

If you vote for Nehlen, this is what you’re supporting, as reported by Right Wisconsin:

Paul Nehlen, who is challenging House Speaker Paul Ryan in Wisconsin’s first congressional district, said on “Chicago’s Morning Answer” that he wonders why we have any Muslims in the country.

He actually told the that there should be a discussion of throwing Muslims out of the country. All Muslims.

When he was asked whether he would support deporting every Muslim from the country, Nehlen told hosts Amy Jacobson and Dan Proft: “I’m suggesting we have a discussion about it. That’s for sure. I am absolutely suggesting we figure out how do we, we — here’s what we should be doing. We should be monitoring every mosque. We should be monitoring all social media.”

Here’s a partial transcript of his comments: Starts at about 5:40 min point.

Paul Nehlen: “So if the breakpoint is Sharia, and Islam is the only major religion that encourages lying. The Taqiyya says lie to the infidel. You lie to them if you have to. So if you look at a Muslim and say hey, are you lying, they go, no. Okay, you’re in, absolutely. Okay, you’re out. If they lie, how do you, how do you vet something like that?”

Dan Croft: “Then how do you implement, how do you implement the test that you want to implement?”

Paul Nehlen: “Well, then, the question is, why do we have Muslims in the country? How can you possibly vet somebody who lies?

Dan Croft: “Well, that said, are you suggesting that we deport all of the Muslims in this country?”

Paul Nehlen: “I’m suggesting that we have a discussion about it. That’s for sure. I am absolutely suggesting we figure out how do we, we, here’s what we should be doing. We should be monitoring every mosque. We should be monitoring all social media.”

Croft, of course, can’t believe what he’s hearing and actually challenges Nehlen again on whether he wants to throw out all Muslims.

Croft: “I think it’s clear that there is a threat. There’s no question. But, but I mean…”

Nehlen: “So let’s invite more into the country.”

Croft: “Well, well, that’s one issue. But what you’re talking about is people that are Americans that are here, and whether or not we should deport all of them. Do, do you see any Constitutional problems with the vetting, the kind that Newt Gingrich wanted to do and apparently you do as well. Much less deporting Americans who have done nothing wrong.”

Nehlen: “Well, if somebody supports Sharia that is doing something wrong. It is.”

Unlike apparently Nehlen, I know Muslim Americans, as well as Muslims from outside this country. None support what is purported here as sharia law. Sharia law as Nehlen apparently understands it is unenforceable in this country anyway under the U.S. Constitution. But if you vote for Nehlen, you are voting for a racial and religious bigot.

Nehlen’s campaign has resorted to this:

Democrats voting in Republican primaries got us Trump as the Republican presidential nominee. A vote for Nehlen therefore is a vote for the candidate working hard to destroy the Republican Party out of his own ego.

Ryan should not have endorsed Trump, though he seems to be doing everything he can to not actually help Trump’s candidacy. Ryan is in fact what more Republicans should be — optimistic and forward-looking. Those who oppose Ryan apparently don’t get the concept of separation of powers and who controls what in the federal government. Those who oppose Ryan also want the most influential Wisconsin House Republican — possibly the most influential Congressman in Wisconsin history — booted from office. That is stupid.

The other notable Congressional race is the Eighth Congressional District Republican primary. Terry McNulty lost a Senate Republican primary in 2014. Mike Gallagher is a Marine veteran who was a staffer for U.S. Sen. Bob Corker (R–Tennessee) and briefly the foreign policy advisor for the Walker for President campaign. Gallagher is spending, I am told, a lot of money.

Then there’s Sen. Frank Lasee (R–De Pere), who has had a colorful legislative career. I’m a fan of Lasee’s because he has consistently supported a Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which is sorely needed in this state. He also has supported arming teachers, which apparently contrasts to a federal law banning guns in schools (which strikes me as Congressional overreach), and he supported cutting funding for the UW Law School on the grounds we have too many lawyers as it is. There also appears to be some question as to whether Lasee lives in his Senate district, and if he doesn’t live in his Senate district he doesn’t live in the Congressional district he’s seeking to support.

Things like that ended Lasee’s Assembly career in 2008. But two years later, Lasee got elected to the state Senate. Usually when incumbents lose, that ends their political career, but not so with Lasee.

Whoever Eighth District voters choose to replace, sadly, Rep. Reid Ribble (R–Green Bay) should be chosen on the basis of his ability to defeat the Democratic candidate, Outagamie County executive Tom Nelson, a former Democratic representative from Kaukauna who represented everything bad about the late 2000s Democratic party under Gov. James Doyle.

There is an intriguing state Senate Democratic primary between Sen. Lena Taylor (D–Milwaukee) and Rep. Mandela Barnes (D–Milwaukee). Mikel Holt, with whom I appeared on WTMJ-TV’s “Sunday Insight with Charlie Sykes,” wrote this in the Milwaukee Community Journal, calling Barnes’ candidacy …

…an attempt by White interests to undermine, if not destroy, independent and resourceful Black leadership.Or to be more exact, this race–and several others–is part of a continuing effort by former legislative Democratic Party leader and current state Senator Chris Larson and the Wisconsin (White) Working Families Party to control Black legislative district representation through systematic replacement of pragmatic and independent Black incumbents with White ‘representatives’ and/or Black

Or to be more exact, this race–and several others–is part of a continuing effort by former legislative Democratic Party leader and current state Senator Chris Larson and the Wisconsin (White) Working Families Party to control Black legislative district representation through systematic replacement of pragmatic and independent Black incumbents with White ‘representatives’ and/or Black accomodationists. I first exposed this ‘conspiracy’ weeks before the recent county executive race.

I first exposed this ‘conspiracy’ weeks before the recent county executive race. Much to the embarrassment of the Wisconsin (aka White) Working Families (misrepresented as a political party) Party and its chief architect, Larson, talk show host Sherwin Hughes and I revealed the election to be part of a conspiracy to control Milwaukee urban politics.

Much to the embarrassment of the Wisconsin (aka White) Working Families (misrepresented as a political party) Party and its chief architect, Larson, talk show host Sherwin Hughes and I revealed the election to be part of a conspiracy to control Milwaukee urban politics. We provided a chronology that was carried out under the false flag of progressive politics (progressive in this case means ‘pimping the poor), including linking the campaign to a scheme to redirect poverty funds from Black controlled non-profits to White missionary organizations.

We provided a chronology that was carried out under the false flag of progressive politics (progressive in this case means ‘pimping the poor), including linking the campaign to a scheme to redirect poverty funds from Black controlled non-profits to White missionary organizations.That goal would be accomplished by subverting those who put their people before the party and embrace a philosophy grounded in Black empowerment, with political pawns.

That goal would be accomplished by subverting those who put their people before the party and embrace a philosophy grounded in Black empowerment, with political pawns.

Absent from the Journal Sentinel article is the certainty that the Taylor/Barnes race is at the very core of this conspiracy. There is no doubt in my mind that Barnes was ‘ordered’ to take on Taylor, who has been a thorn in the side of Larson for several years, refusing to bow down to the new plantation overseer’s dictates.

Obviously, a strong case can be made that Larson’s embarrassing defeat in the county executive race has prompted an acceleration of his plans. Larson didn’t count on the ‘Black-lash’ from African American leadership when he boldly threatened Lena in the heat of his campaign. Thus many assume that ordering Barnes to run against Lena could be grounded in revenge; a common motivator among politicians, particularly those who think they are (their) God’s chosen.

But I contend that regardless of the outcome for the county executive’s race, Lena Taylor had a target on her back. The Larson/White Working Family Party scheme started several years ago with the coordination of the campaign for Sandy Pasch to take over the seat of Black Nationalist Polly Williams.

Polly was at the vanguard of a movement that redefined our relationship with the Democratic Party, advocating a philosophy that we had no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. She boldly declared the Democratic Party was no more than a different wing on the same bird, and neither party had our best interest at heart.Her declarations angered party leadership, which took our vote for granted and provided nothing in return.

Her declarations angered party leadership, which took our vote for granted and provided nothing in return.Had she known that the Larson group would orchestrate the election of Pasch as her replacement, I’m sure Polly would not have retired. Polly made no bones about the need for Black representation of Black districts.

But by the time Black constituents woke up to what had happened, it was too late. Fortunately, pressure on Pasch from Black leadership and the Black

Fortunately, pressure on Pasch from Black leadership and the Black Press, made her a one- term incumbent. But that wasn’t the end of the story. The following election cycle Larson engineered the elections to defeat the only remaining independent Black voices, Beth Coggs and Jason Fields.

In a clever, and successful strategy, Coggs and Fields were made to appear as if they were in bed with Republicans who had taken over the assembly majority.The accusations were totally false and inflammatory. But you know what they say about a lie that is repeated often enough.

Their true crime? Being shrewd politicians, who put the interests of the community above that of the Democratic Party’s ‘Regressive’ wing. As Fields has repeatedly noted since his departure, “My crime was being able to deliver legislation to my district and our community.”

The only way you do that in a partisan, hostile environment, he explained to me recently, was through honest negotiation and political maneuvering. Politics is the art of compromise and arbitration, he explained. “They (Republicans) may not like me, but they respect me. It is on that basis that we can operate.”

The proof is in the pudding. Fields was the only Black assemblyman during his last term to get several important pieces of legislation through. And he did so without selling his soul.“You can spit in their eye, but how does that benefit our community?” he asked rhetorically.

“With all the problems we face as a community—crime, unemployment, poverty–it is ridiculous to do nothing but complain. “We need solutions, and can’t wait until the next decade. “

But that pragmatic philosophy was contrary to the Democratic Caucus policy under Larson. His mandate is to not work with the Republicans, even if it meant negative consequences for the Black community. In fact, Larson’s ordered his pawns to not even look at a Republican. Or walk on the same sidewalk with one. Or drink from the same water fountain.

At stake were not only a philosophical difference, but also the risk of Black people seeing through the insanity of spitting into a strong political wind. If other Black politicians subscribed to Taylor and Fields’ pragmatic philosophy, a link in the political chain could be broken. And who knows what could possibly happen next. An escape from the political plantation?

The solution, in Larson’s mind, was to get rid of Fields, and Coggs. Enter Barnes, who I first met several months before his campaign against Fields kicked into high gear. I had heard rumors of the Larson plot, with Barnes’ name being mentioned as a pawn in the political plot. I asked Barnes point blank if it were true. Without  blinking he proclaimed, ‘no.’ In fact, he went so far as to say he was a big admirer of Jason and considered him among the most effective Black lawmakers.

In fact, he went so far as to say he was a big admirer of Jason and considered him among the most effective Black lawmakers.A couple of weeks later I was shocked to see a Barnes’ campaign sign at Coffee Makes You Black.

A couple of weeks later I was shocked to see a Barnes’ campaign sign at Coffee Makes You Black. I’m used to politicians lying to me. But one named ‘Mandela?’ That’s sacrilegious.

What makes this entire scenario all the more interesting is that Barnes, aka Mandela, is now being cast in a similar role as an opponent against Lena, whose record of securing resources for the Black community and spearheading legislation is unprecedented. That’s why Barnes’ campaign against her is nonsensical; save for his being a pawn in the Larson/White Working Family Party scheme.

If you believe the Journal Sentinel article, Barnes is running because he believes the district needs fresh, new leadership. Say what?Lena has been the voice of the Black community for the last decade. She has championed Black causes and took a jackhammer to the wall of educational and economic apartheid. She has helped scores of businesses—Black and White—and a member of the powerful Joint Finance Committee (until Larson removed her) she made sure Milwaukee was never neglected in the allocation of funding.

Lena has been the voice of the Black community for the last decade. She has championed Black causes and took a jackhammer to the wall of educational and economic apartheid. She has helped scores of businesses—Black and White—and a member of the powerful Joint Finance Committee (until Larson removed her) she made sure Milwaukee was never neglected in the allocation of funding.Equally important, during her tenure, Lena has sponsored 103 pieces of legislation that have been signed into law.

Mandela Barnes? Zero! As in none. As in number of times I can beat LeBron James in our one-on-one basketball shoot out. As in the likelihood that Hillary Clinton will lose to Donald Trump, Barack Obama will follow Michael Jackson and Tiger Woods and declare he’s White, or that Black women will stop buying extensions.

New leadership? Interpret that to mean another step in the ‘New World Order’ takeover, and the further lost of Black empowerment.

Think I’m off base? Consider that the first Barnes’ priority after being elected was to seek an amendment of the Black and Hispanic Caucus bylaws to allow ‘White members!’ So who would represent Black interests? Paul Ryan?

That’s akin to the Black Congressional Caucus becoming the Black and White Caucus. So who would represent Black interests? Paul Ryan?After that idiotic attempt was scrutinized, Barnes effectively killed the caucus, which is no more, as was any hope of a coordinated attack on Black poverty, crime, and dysfunctional education.

Think back six weeks. Where did Barnes announce his campaign? In the suburbs, not the heart of the central city he supposedly loves so much! And where is he doing most of his campaigning? Not in the Black community, but in the suburban areas of the district, accompanied by Pasch, and the bossman, Chris Larson.

Conclude what you will about that race. I trust Holt more than I trust Larsen.

The Dane County District Attorney race features incumbent Ismael Ozanne against one of his assistants, former Kenosha County DA Robert Jambois. Ozanne is a race-baiting political hack who refuses to prosecute assailants of police officers. Nor does Ozanne prosecute sexual offenders, as a Facebook Friend recounts:

Tell me again how liberals care about women?

Two years ago, last May, [his wife] was sexually assaulted in our own home, while we slept. The man took video of the assault and we brought forth charges in Dane County.

Today, he walks free never spending a second in jail or paying a single dime in restitution (we had to move from Madison within days after he assaulted her because Jaclyn could no longer sleep in our house), and now he walks away without even anything on his official record because he was a “First-time offender”. Our liberal government, especially the DA’s office, in Dane County chose that route for us.

Today, Jaclyn can’t sleep with a fan on because it reminds her of that night. I can’t sleep near her, because of I touch her in the night, she wakes up freaking out, and our sex life still hasn’t returned to normal.

We received the letter this afternoon saying that he finished his program and will walk away free and clear.

And my wife is laying in bed crying.

This human sewage (who interestingly has a previous conviction for second-offense drunk driving, which means he’s not a first-time offender) was the criminal Ozanne let off with no consequences whatsoever. Applaud that, Madison liberals.

There is one other DA race, in Milwaukee County, where persecutor of conservatives and non-prosecutor of criminals with guns John Chisholm is up for reelection. Another Facebook Friend had this message for Milwaukee County police officers:

Your unions may have asked to vote for the incumbent and put up a yard sign.

Before you do, I ask you to please remember my good friend, the late Michael Lutz, a brother in blue.

You may recall Lutz was the whistleblower who exposed the political motivations of John Chisholm when he launched the John Doe investigations into Scott Walker and his associates.

Lutz made national headlines when he told the world Chisholm was motivated by his wife, a teacher and union steward, who the DA said would cry after talking about Governor Walker’s Act 10 proposal.

Lutz wasn’t just anybody. He was a highly decorated police officer who became disabled when shot in the line of duty by a drug dealer.

His one-time partner was Johnny O, another MPD veteran who lived in his brother-in-law’s basement. That brother-in-law is Milwaukee DA John Chisholm.

There was a time Lutz admired Chisholm, knew him well, and credited him with pushing him to go to law school.

After graduation he went to work in the DA’s office as an unpaid assistant.

It was through direct conversations with Chisholm and Johnny O that he learned just how partisan the DA’s office had become, and of the DA’s personal hatred of Walker.

In the fall of 2014, Lutz went to the media as an anonymous source and blew the whistle on the political corruption he witnessed within the DA’s office.

Lutz knew if it were ever exposed that he was the source of the story his legal career would be over.

And soon after the story broke, a media frenzy erupted and Lutz was identified. Chisholm quickly sought to discredit him, and as Lutz predicted, ruin his career. It’s sad that Chisholm used an episode when Lutz was concerned about Johnny O’s well being to destroy his reputation.

It demonstrated to everyone that John Chisholm will stop at nothing to advance his own political agenda. He does not have your back and never will.

In a deposition before his tragic death last July, Lutz described the John Doe investigation as a political weapon used by Chisholm to destroy Walker and his associates.

Michael Lutz could have been silent. But no, he risked his livelihood, reputation and future to tell the public the truth about Chisholm.

As expected, Lutz’s career was ruined, and he was on the verge of losing everything all because of his extraordinary actions; and for telling the truth.

Michael Lutz will always be remembered as a patriot, and fighter of freedom for political speech.

Michael Lutz supported Verona Swanigan, who he met weeks before his death. If Michael were alive today, he would ask you, beg you, to go the polls on August 9th and vote for Verona Swanigan.

Unfortunately, if the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is to be believed, Chisholm’s Democratic opponent may not be qualified to be DA. (However, consider the source.) Maybe someday justice will come to Wisconsin’s two largest cities, but probably not this year.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s