Mediaboss Marketing

Thomas Weida, a retired Helena resident, announced he will seek the Democratic nomination for the seat occupied by Montana's lone U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke.

Weida, the eighth Democrat to make the announcement, said he decided to run after he realized Montanas core values are being threatened by party politics.

Rep. Ryan Zinke is waiting to be confirmed as President Donald Trumps nominee for interior secretary. If confirmed, Zinke will resign and the state will hold a special election in the following 100 days to choose a replacement.

The parties will hold a convention to select a candidate, with county-level committee members from each party deciding who runs in the special election.

Weida was raised in Deer Lodge and graduated with a degree in political science from the University of Montana in 1996. He has worked in management at UPS and later in construction and sales, which he said exposed him to the issues facing small business owners in the state.

Weida is the first to admit he lacks political experience and would have a lot to learn if elected. But hes confident in his ability to stand up for Montanans and make their voices heard as the states lone congressional representative.

Heres the thing. I dont think Im the most qualified politician for Montana, he said. I think I have chosen to live in this state and turned down better offers to move because I love the state and I love being part of the fabric.

He said he thinks most Montanans agree on core issues, such as keeping public lands public and creating good-paying jobs. He said hell also advocate for protecting social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

During the general election, many Republican constituents said they wanted an administration without career politicians and Weida said he thinks Democrats are also guilty of electing candidates to advance the party or who have been putting the same ideas forward.

Its been too much of the same, he said. Ive watched for the last nine elections as Democrats have put up candidates that make them feel good and feel good about themselves, but they dont work when it comes to a statewide election.

With only one representative in Montana, Weida said he can be the candidate that looks sensibly at the whole state and will prioritize the people over the party.

You cant play party politics when youre talking about one representative for an entire state, he said. 'Majority rules, minority rights' is a phrase I really believe in.

When asked what kind of specific solutions he had to major issues, such as health care, Weida said he was unsure.

The straight answer is none, he said. What I can say is Im vocal and accessible.

Weida said he wants to be able to tell his 14-year-old daughter he did everything in his power to protect the states values.

I want to pass on a state I was able to grow up in, he said.

Weida is hosting an event at Millers Crossing in Helena at 5 p.m. Monday to meet constituents and answer questions.

Other Democrats interested in the seat include state Rep. Amanda Curtis of Butte, state Rep. Kelly McCarthy of Billings, attorney John Meyer of Bozeman, musician Rob Quist of Creston, Gary Stein of Missoula, Link Neimark of Whitefish and Dan West of Missoula.

Republicans who are interested include former gubernatorial candidate Greg Gianforte of Bozeman, former Republican chairman Ken Miller of laurel, Dean Rehbein of Missoula, Sen. Ed Buttrey of Great Falls, Rep. Carl Glimm of Kila and Drew Turiano of East Helena.

View original post here:
Helena Democrat Weida to join race for Zinke's seat - Helena Independent Record

On February 21and 22, the Morton County Sheriffs Department evacuated the remaining water protectors protesting the Dakota Access Pipelineat Standing Rock. Though several Democrats praised the Army Corps of Engineers decision on December 4 to conduct an environmental impact assessment, they have been silenton the issue since construction of the pipeline has moved forward under the Trumpadministration. The decision to stop the pipeline is now in the hands of the courts, as the Standing Rock Sioux tribe attempts to force the Army Corps of Engineers to enforce their December 4, 2016, decision.

The water protectors at Standing Rock faced a barrage of smear campaignsfrom the Morton County Sheriffs Department and companies in charge of the pipeline construction. At the behest of pipeline security, they were attacked by dogs, pepper sprayed, tear gassed and hosed with water in subfreezing temperatures. Some protectors suffered severe injuries, including a 21-year-old girl who nearly lost her arm due to police throwing a concussion grenade at the peaceful protesters. Nevertheless, theDemocraticestablishment failed to acknowledge the protests. The mainstream medialargely avoided the conflict as well, basing their limited coverageon the issue solely on law enforcementsources. Throughout the water protectors protests, establishment Democratsstood up for Standing Rock onlyafter a small victory was achieved.

The Democrat Party, an ostensible ally, continuously offersweak opposition to the Republican Party and corporate powers that oppress and infringe on human rights.

The Democratic establishments resistance to Trump ignoreshis policies that dont providepolitical expediency, like the Dakota Access Pipeline. Thoughthe battle against the pipeline lasted months, very few Democrats spoke out. Sen.Bernie Sandersand Rep.Tulsi Gabbardwere the greatest opponents of the pipeline. Supposedly progressive icon Sen.Elizabeth Warren, who claims Cherokee heritage, largely ignored the issueapartfromDecember 4, 2016, when she tried to take credit for the protesters small victory.

The Democratic Party not only needs to mobilize againstTrumpit needs to fightfor marginalized groups, like Native Americans. But instead, the Democraticestablishment is tryingto restore political power without making reforms. They continue to partner with wealthy and corporate donors andrefuse to join progressives on key issues.

Sandershasreiteratedthat the Democratic Party cannot market the interests of billionaires and Wall Street while also representing working class, middle class, and low income Americans. Democratsmustchoose a side. Unfortunately, when given the opportunity, they consistently side withtheir donors, who aredeeply invested in the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Read more:
Democrats Silent on Dakota Access Pipeline - Observer

New York Times

At Democrat's 'Listening Session,' Concern About Trump, Minus the Jeers New York Times Credit Lauren Justice for The New York Times. LA CROSSE, Wis. Representative Ron Kind stood in front of the crowd gathered at an American Legion post in his district in western Wisconsin and listened. As a Democrat in the House minority, that is ... and more »

Go here to read the rest:
At Democrat's 'Listening Session,' Concern About Trump, Minus the Jeers - New York Times

Renee C. Byer/Sacramento Bee via ZUMA

I forgot about this until Rachel Maddow mentioned it on her show last night:

A Democrat on the Federal Election Commission is quitting her term early because of the gridlock that has gripped the panel, offering President Trump an unexpected chance to shape political spending rules.

The commissioner, Ann M. Ravel, said during an interview that she would send Mr. Trump her letter of resignation this week. She pointed to a series of deadlocked votes between the panels three Democrats and three Republicans that she said left her little hope the group would ever be able to rein in campaign finance abuses.

The ability of the commission to perform its role has deteriorated significantly, said Ms. Ravel, who has sparred bitterly with the Republican election commissioners during her three years on the panel. She added, I think I can be more effective on the outside.

Ravel is not the first Democrat to resign a post early after Trump's election win. SEC Chair Mary Jo White is another high-profile Democrat who's resigned, and there have been several others as well.

Why? With Republicans in control of everything, isn't this precisely the time when Democrats should want to retain as much power as they can muster for as long as they can? Ravel's resignation will break the FEC's frequent deadlocks, but it will break them by almost certainly giving Republicans total control over election policy. This is precisely the thing that Ravel has been fighting against the past three years.

I don't get it. What am I missing here?

Read more from the original source:
Another Democrat Hands Over the Reins to Republicans - Mother Jones

Immigration: The deportation rules announced this week by Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly were greeted with the expected outrage from the usual suspects. But since when is enforcing the law a crime?

In this case, the law that Kelly plans to enforce is the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which was approved by 52 Democrats in the Senate and 202 Democrats in the House in a Democrat-controlled Congress and was signed into law by President Johnson, a Democrat.

That hasn't stopped today's Democrats from decrying the DHS memo as obscene and horribly un-American.

New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez says the policies described in Kelly's memo are "xenophobic." Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called it a "mass deportation plan to round up and quickly deport anyone who is undocumented." He said Democrats would oppose it and "continue fighting for what is right."

News accounts, meanwhile, said the DHS memos were creating fear and panic among immigrant communities.

Others complained that the DHS plan would let the government deport illegals to Mexico, even if they originated from another country, that they could be deported for something as mundane as a traffic ticket, and that the rule, as The New York Times put it, "strip such immigrants of privacy protections."

What the memos say, however, is that DHS will enforce the 1965 law.

Critics say, for example, Kelly wants to enlist local law enforcement to help identify and arrest illegals. CNN says the memos "expand the federal government's ability to empower state and local law enforcement agencies to perform the functions of immigration officers."

Not true. This ability is drawn directly from the 1965 law and has been used ever since as a "force multiplier." It was Obama who sharply scaled the program back after he won re-election in 2012.

The decision to ship illegals back to Mexico, even if they came from another country, is also drawn directly from the law which also, by the way, makes it clear that illegals can be deported simply for the crime of being in the country illegally.

As far as "stripping" immigrants of "privacy protections," what Kelly's memo actually says is that DHS will abide by the 1974 Privacy Act, which provides privacy protections for information collected by the federal government about U.S. citizens. These protections, the law makes clear, do not extend to visitors or aliens.

In early 2009, the DHS decided on its own to extend the Privacy Act to illegals, because it was easier to do so. Kelly's memo simply rescinds that 2009 "guidance memorandum."

This doesn't strip immigrants of any privacy rights which they didn't have to begin with but simply better aligns DHS policy with federal law.

In addition, DHS is scrapping Obama's Priority Enforcement Program, which was also implemented after Obama won re-election and was in force for all of two years. PEP severely limited which illegals would be deemed a priority for removal, supposedly to focus the agency's efforts on high-risk illegals.

But as Kelly states, Obama's PEP "failed to achieve its stated objectives (and) hampered the Department's enforcement of the immigration laws." So the agency is going back to the Secure Communities Program that PEP had replaced.

For the most part, then, what Kelly is doing is wiping away various roadblocks set up by Obama that hampered enforcement of the 1965 law.

It's true that Kelly plans to hire 10,000 more agents and officers, but many of these personnel will go toward speeding up what is an absurdly long removal process and to better enforcing existing laws.

In any case, the memos make clear that DHS still intends to prioritize their deportation efforts on illegals who are 1) criminals, 2) drug traffickers or 3) national security risks. Anyone want to object to that?

If Democrats don't like the 1965 law which their party wrote and passed they should try to convince the public that it needs to be changed, rather than mindlessly attack the president who tries to enforce its provisions.

RELATED:

Donald Trump News & Tweets

Trump's Right: Law-Breaking 'Sanctuary Cities' Must Obey The Law

Are We Going To Freak Out Every Time Trump Does What He Promised?

Now We Know: Those 'Spontaneous' Anti-Trump Airport Protests Weren't Spontaneous At All

See original here:
Democrats Attack Trump For Enforcing Their Own Immigration Law - Investor's Business Daily