Fair Enough

Today, the Northern Alliance Radio Network – America’s first grass-roots talk radio show – is on the air live from the Minnesota State Fair!

Today’s  show isn’t just big.  It’s not just huge.  It’s bigly yuge!

Today on the show:

  • Jennifer Carnahan, Chair of the MNGOP
  • Bridget Cronin of the  Ars Bellum Foundation, which works on providing art therapy for wounded warriors
  • Dave Osmek, candidate for Governor
  • Jake Dusenberg of “Action for LIberty”
  • Twilia Brase of the Citiziens Council for Health Freedom
  • Jason Flors of Americans for Prosperity.

Too much program for two hours?  In the lands of a lesser host, yes, but not me.  Tune in, or join us at our studio at the Fair, on Machinery Hill (Underwood just south of Murphy, two blocks south of Hoyt).

Don’t forget – King Banaian is on from 9-11AM on AM1440, and Brad Carlson is  on “The Closer” edition of the NARN Sundays from 2-3PM.

So tune in the Northern Alliance! You have so many options:

Join us!

9 thoughts on “Fair Enough

  1. Gosh, silence on the Arpaio pardon? Color me shocked.

    Seriously Mitch,

    With your silence, what I see is that you are the willing sycophants to Trump. You may not like him, like many Italians didn’t like Mussolini or Spaniards didn’t like Franco, but you defend him by not standing up to him and by attacking his detractors or suggesting they are just as bad as is he. Were the Republicans in Spain as bad as the Nationalists? In some ways probably, but one sought a preservation of liberty, the other “stability”/safety. But it goes a lot deeper than that. One attacked the press (as do all of those seeking to cover their awful intentions), the other side did not. One attacked intelligencia, philosophical defense of the liberties for all, and information, the other did not. One side engaged in systematic brutality, the other did not.

    So, Trump pardons Joe Arpaio, saying last week that “so Sherriff Joe got in trouble for doing his job??!”, similar to suggesting police should engage in petty brutality against those they arrest. Showing contempt in both cases for the general idea of presumed innocence, a foundational element of our democracy which has made it unique, and contempt for law in specific by suggesting off-hand brutality and bigotry is “ok” when the victims aren’t white or just “one of us.” Arpaio wasn’t “doing his job”, quite the opposite. He was making the job of border agents only harder by alienating those in the Hispanic community (U.S. citizens) and making it likely they will not help him and them in the future. The man was warned and warned again, and determined he was above the law, above the order of judges. What if he had decided to execute a search without a warrant, found evidence of a large drug deal, but the government was subsequently prohibited from jailing ANY of those involved? Would you have thought his conduct wise? In the absence of that, would you have accepted the open violation of the rights against random search of these people? If you would not, and I assume you would not, why would you remain silent about the rampant violation of the rights of Hispanics whom Arpaio randomly and illegally searched? No one, not even Arpaio argue what he did was legal or constitutional. He argued the needs outweighed the constitutional rights of the violated. All of you who argue for the 2nd Amendment argue that restricting armaments rights is a slippery slope, what then is this? This man went beyond that, allegedly he had pregnant women shackled to beds, allegedly he ordered the use of stun guns indiscriminately.
    The point isn’t Arpiao, it is Trump. Trump willingly threw red meat here to his base, meaning people like you, by pardoning a man who routinely and systemically violated the basic constitutional rights of hundreds of Americans. T

    Trump showed utter disregard for the constitution. He likewise showed utter disregard for the voters of Arizona who voted the man out when the found out just how ugly and brutal he was. They may have wanted something “tougher” but as is the case so often, they found out that “tougher” meant ugly, vicious and brutal, far more than they ever wanted, and so they voted him out. Trump, in his respect for local opinion, over-ruled that voice and basically said Arpaio had done nothing wrong. Do you agree he did essentially nothing wrong? More than that, if, as a law enforcement member, Arpiao (and those like him) show flagrant disregard for the law, why then should the general populace show any more than they do? The answer to that is they won’t, instead they will, as happens in all police states, learn to fear the police. That is the effect of Trump, the question is, when do you supposed “liberterians” speak out against this kind of totalitarian? When do you find your voice and even more, when do you wake up and smell the coffee that this man Trump isn’t looking out for you, he’ll bury you in his zeal just as easily and casually as he abandoned Bannon, Flynn, Priebus, or Scaramuchi. When do you realize he has no moral compass at all and you are just fools to him, fools to be exploited.

  2. Gosh, silence on the Arpaio pardon? Color me shocked.

    Pen, I’ve never heard you comment about genital mutilation, honor killing, selling girls into prostitution to pay off family debts, the Turkish genocide in Armenia, Son of Sam, Charles Manson, the Posse Comitatus, Thuggee and the Mayan tradition of cutting out virgins’ hearts.

    That must mean you approve of all of those. Color me shocked.

    Or, perhaps, the whole “I haven’t seen you comment about (whatever thinking about) so you must approve of it” thing is really juvenile and beneath anyone who considers themselves a literate adult.

    How about it?

    I don’t do this for a full-time living, Pen, and if anyone’s looking to me for moral guidance on every single issue that faces them, they’re probably not using their time wisely.

  3. Oh, yeah. The pardon is wrong.

    So was Obama sandbagging immigration law, which is what made Arpaio famous to begin with.

  4. With your silence, what I see is that you are the willing sycophants to Trump

    With this remark, I see that you have just slaughtered a troop of girl scouts and are bathing in their blood.

    Seeing things in what people haven’t said – or ascribing some fact or view to a meaning known only to you – is a strawman. It’s a logical fallacy.

    Let’s strive for better, shall we?

  5. Arpaio is the kind of cop that created the Blue Thug Gang, JPA. Just because he kicks illegals out doesn’t mean he should get a pass. Don’t forget; cops are not your friend.

    If they get a pass on something you approve of this time, it could be a pass on beating your ass, or shooting your dog, or trashing your house next time.

  6. Wasn’t Pen banned for accusing the host of lying too many times? Or am I mis-remembering?

  7. Penigma misses the point that the pardon power is pretty much absolute as spelled out in the Constitution, so the idea that Trump’s in contempt of the Constitution is ludicrous. Some argue his conviction would have stood, but I tend to the position that since the judge’s order was vague in some regards, it would have been overturned on appeal.

    The big question, per Swiftee, is whether Arpaio’s immigration round-ups are legal. My wife actually knows an illegal who is terrified to even go to the store because the rumor mill says that the federales are everywhere.

    My take is that you really should just make sure that employers verify eligibility to work and punish them, and then you don’t have to do roundups at all. Without jobs, most will go to where they can survive.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.