Nebraska Corn Farmers Are Not Happy With Trump

Corn farmers have received a double-whammy from Donald Trump, and they are hurting. Not only are they continuing to be hurt by the trade war with China, but Trump has changed the renewable fuel rules which is hurting the farmers that provide corn for ethanol.

The following is a statement released by the Nebraska Corn Board.

As harvest approaches after an extremely difficult year for agriculture, many Nebraska corn farmers are outraged by the Trump administration’s lack of support for the American farmer. The Nebraska Corn Board and the Nebraska Corn Growers Association call upon the administration to fulfill its promises and to abide by the law and uphold the integrity of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).

President Trump’s administration continues to erode the RFS by granting 31 unjustified refinery waivers, destroying demand for corn and ultimately choosing to bail out the oil industry rather than helping American farmers. Corn farmers are already suffering from ongoing trade disputes, uncertain weather and continued low prices.

“I’ve never experienced anything like this,” said David Bruntz, chairman of the Nebraska Corn Board and farmer from Friend. “All we’re getting is lip service. At one moment, we think President Trump is on our side, and then the refinery waivers come through. It’s truly a slap in the face. Farmers are hurting and it just keeps getting worse.”

Along with undermining the RFS, the U.S. has made little progress in trade. A new deal between the U.S., Mexico and Canada still has not been reached and tensions continue to escalate between the U.S. and China.

“Many of our corn farmers have stood with Trump for a long time, but that may soon change” said Dan Nerud, president of the Nebraska Corn Growers Association and farmer from Dorchester. “Trump needs to uphold the law and his commitment to our nation’s corn farmers by making the RFS whole and bringing trade agreements to the finish line.”

Nebraska Corn urges you to stand up for our state’s corn and ethanol industries by telling the Trump administration to stop stripping the RFS. Rural America is under attack and now is the time to act. Submit a letter to President Trump by clicking here. Submit comments before the August 30 deadline.

Conservative Newspapers Still Lining Up Behind Clinton

Conservative newspapers are abandoning the Republican Party in this election. The GOP candidate, Donald Trump, scares them -- just as he scares most Americans. The latest to shun Trump and endorse Hillary Clinton is the Omaha World-Herald -- a newspaper that hasn't endorsed a Democrat for president since Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 (84 years). Here is what their editorial board has written:

There is little question that the presidential election of 2016 is perhaps the most unusual in our lifetimes.

Both of the major-party candidates, Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump, have unheard-of negative approval ratings, with more than half the country viewing both of them unfavorably. Many votes will be cast this year AGAINST a candidate, rather than FOR a candidate.

The stakes are high. The United States has a debt — let’s call it outstanding loans — totaling nearly $20 trillion. The annual deficit totals an estimated $590 billion, which increases the national debt total each year.

The Middle East is a powder keg, threatening the stability of the world in general. Obamacare is a disappointment at best, a disaster at worst. Multiple Supreme Court appointments are likely to take place during the new president’s term. Racial tensions are spilling over into actions in some communities across the country.

With that much on the line, the prudent vote would go toward the least risky candidate for president. Put another way, the candidate who would have the best chance to implement changes by working with Congress, foreign and domestic leaders and military leaders under normal circumstances as well as during a crisis.

That candidate is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

This endorsement comes after careful consideration and with some trepidation. Secretary Clinton, if elected, will need to gain the trust of a significant portion of Americans who are concerned about her private email server and attendant deleted emails, her handling of the Benghazi crisis and her longstanding quest for a single-payer health care system in the United States.

With that said, Clinton’s legislative experience and decades of political involvement — as first lady of Arkansas, first lady of the United States, U.S. senator from New York, secretary of state and two-time presidential candidate — make her the better prepared of the two major candidates for the office of president of the United States.

The risk of a Donald Trump presidency is simply too great.

His alienation of so many groups — women, the disabled, Muslim-Americans, former prisoners of war, the family of a Muslim soldier killed in action, Mexican nationals and Mexican-Americans — is too divisive.

Trump shows a lack of statesmanship that is fundamental to serving in the Oval Office.

Trump has repeatedly shown a disdain for our nation’s allies and alliances and an affection for its enemies.

He has revealed a lack of command over key issues, such as the nation’s nuclear triad, Russian aggression and the significance of NATO alliances, paired with a propensity for unrealistic hyperbole, such as his promise to end all crime and violence in the country, or to build a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico and have the Mexican government pay for it, with no pragmatic path to achieve such aims.

His claim that he would have Iranian gunboats “shot out of the water” for taunting a U.S. Navy ship shows a reckless response that could trigger yet another Middle East war.

A man who lashes out impulsively when attacked should not be entrusted to command the world’s most powerful military.

These issues, coupled with his statements regarding women, including the taped comments about grabbing women’s genitals and forcing kisses on them, simply make it too difficult to inspire confidence in him as president and commander-in-chief.

This year’s presidential election has been the country’s most polarizing race in decades. If Secretary Clinton is elected, Americans will need her to be a uniting president, working from the center, and not advancing an agenda that will further alienate moderates and conservatives.

Kansas, Nebraska, Louisiana Democrats Make Their Choice

Democratic voters made their preferences for president known on Saturday in Kansas (caucus), Nebraska (caucus), and Louisiana (primary). Kansas has 37 delegates, Nebraska has 30 delegates, and Louisiana has 59 delegates.

Bernie Sanders won Kansas by about 35 points, and Nebraska by about 14 points. This will likely give Sanders a 13 delegate edge in Kansas and about a 5 delegate edge in Nebraska. But Hillary Clinton won Louisiana by about 48 points, and since Louisiana had nearly twice the delegates of the other two states, will easily cover her delegate shortage and more.

Bernie won a moral victory by taking two out of the three states, but Hillary won the more important delegate victory -- and increases her overall delegate lead.

Here are the results in each state:

KANSAS

Clinton...............12,593 (32.3%)
Sanders...............26,450 (67.7%)

NEBRASKA

Clinton...............11,293 (43.4%)
Sanders...............14,711 (56.6%)

LOUISIANA

Clinton...............221,102 (71.2%)
Sanders...............71,900 (23.1%)

And here are the current delegate totals:

Clinton...............1121
Sanders...............479

Romney Still Creeping Toward The Nomination

There were two more primaries last Tuesday -- in Nebraska (with 32 delegates) and in Oregon (with 25 delegates). Romney went into those primaries with 970 delegates according to RealClearPolitics, so even if he had won all those delegates he would still be short of the nomination (and he didn't win them all). Arkansas and Kentucky will vote on May 22nd, and they have another 81 delegates. But it's looking now like it will have to be Texas on May 29th that finally gives Romney enough delegates for the nomination.

Romney did win both the Nebraska and Oregon primaries fairly easily (as he should have since all of his opponents have suspended their campaigning, even Ron Paul). But for me, that's not the biggest story. I think the bigger story is that Romney got another black eye by losing a significant portion of the vote in both states. There's still about 30% of Republicans that stubbornly refuse to vote for him. Here are the numbers from the most recent primaries:

NEBRASKA
Mitt Romney...............129,548  (70.86%)
Rick Santorum...............25,537  (13.97%)
Ron Paul...............18,199  (9.96%)
Newt Gingrich...............9,523  (5.21%)
TOTAL VOTES...............182,807

OREGON
Mitt Romney...............196,460  (72.24%)
Ron Paul...............34,812  (12.80%)
Rick Santorum...............25,825  (9.50%)
Newt Gingrich...............14,856  (5.46%)
TOTAL VOTES...............271,953

Senate Chances Look Better For Democrats

The political punditry world has been saying for a while now that it could be difficult for the Democrats to hang on to their majority in the U.S. Senate. That's because they have more senators up for re-election in 2012 than the Republicans do -- and Congress is not very popular right now. But two things have happened in the last few days that has favored the Democrats.

The first is the announcement by Bob Kerrey that he will run for the Nebraska senate seat being vacated by blue dog Democrat Ben Nelson. It had been thought that the seat would surely be occupied by a Republican after the November election. That still might happen, but at least the Democrats have a fighting chance to hold on to that seat now. That's because Kerrey is the only Nebraska Democrat that might win.

The other thing that happened is the announcement by Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) that she will not run for re-election this year. She probably could have been re-elected because she is a moderate who is not afraid to vote against Republicans when they go too far. But her retirement means that seat will very likely be filled by a Democrat now -- hopefully a progressive Democrat.

Thoise were two seats many thought were sure things for the Republicans. Now it looks like at least one of them will go to the Democrats, and possibly both.

It Costs To Be Racist

A few weeks ago the small Nebraska city of Fremont (25,000 residents) decided that undocumented immigrants were a problem and they were going to deal with it. They passed a voter-approved ordinance which banned not only employment, but housing for undocumented immigrants. I'm sure they were proud of themselves for passing their racist ordinance, but now the time has come to pay the piper.

Almost from the time the ordinance was approved it was in court. Those opposing the ordinance say it is discriminitory and have taken it to court. This same kind of city ordinance has been ruled unconstitutional in other cities like Farmers Branch, Texas. Now the city is stuck with mounting legal fees to defend their silly ordinance in federal court.

At the end of this month the city council will vote on increasing the property tax rate by a whopping 18% (about an extra $116 on a $200,000 home). They need the higher tax to pay for defending the new law. And they shouldn't expect it to be cheap either. Farmers Branch, which lost in court and is still appealing, has racked up over $4,000,000 in legal costs.

It's not cheap being a racist these days. But it's their choice. Pay up (and most likely lose in court) or rescind the law and avoid higher taxes.

Would Dems Miss Nelson If He Was Gone ?

Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) is not up for re-election this year, but he will be in 2012. Would the Democrats miss him if he was defeated in that election? I ask the question because it seems like its been an awful long time since he voted like a Democrat and supported the efforts of President Obama to make this country better and help pull it out of recession.

While Democrats were trying to cover all Americans with health insurance, Nelson was one of the main senators responsible for watering down the health care reform bill and insuring it would contain very little real reform. The after seriously weakening the bill, he turns around and votes against it anyway.

In 2009, when the Democrats were trying to pass a decent stimulus bill to get the economy moving again, Nelson teamed with Republicans to slash funding for NASA and eliminate funding for Head Start, the National Science Foundation, child nutrition, and school improvement and construction. He replaced this with more funding for Defense Department operations and procurement.

He has consistently voted with the Republicans on bankruptcy reform, environmental protection, abortion rights, lawsuit reform and trade matters. Twice he voted to advance the Federal Marriage Amendment. He voted against stem cell research.

More recently he has opposed the new financial reform bill that imposed new regulations on Wall Street in the hopes of preventing another financial meltdown (which helped to kick off the recession). And he opposed the renewal of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed, while supporting a renewal of the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Like his Republican friends, he said he couldn't support extending unemployment benefits because it would increase the deficit (by about $33 billion), but sees nothing wrong with extending the tax break for the rich (which would increase the deficit by about $115 billion). Frankly that makes no sense. Helping the workers who badly need help is bad, but giving more money to the rich who don't need the help is a complete abandonment of the principles of the Democratic Party.

Nelson may call himself a Democrat, but this blue dog DINO has never acted or voted like one. If he were to lose in 2012, I doubt the Democrats would even notice he was gone since he votes like a Republican. In fact, he is further to the right than several senate Republicans.

If the national party gives him any money for his re-election campaign in 2012, it would be a waste of valuable resources that could be spent to elect a real Democrat.

Nebraska Further Restricts A Woman's Choice

It looks like the male legislators in Nebraska are determined to keep women in a second-class status. They evidently think women are not capable of making their own decisions regarding their own bodies, so they have passed a new law to "protect" those women. Actually, the new law has nothing to do with protecting women, and everything to do with denying women the control over their own bodies.

The new bill, introduced by Senator Cap Dierks (a male who would never have to deal with the new restrictions imposed by the law), would impose new requirements on any woman seeking an abortion. It would require the woman to be screened for any risks the procedure could cause, including "physical, psychological, emotional, demographic or situational" risks.

The legislators have intentionally made the law as vague as possible in an effort to scare doctors away from performing legal abortions. What the hell is the difference between a psychological and emotional risk? And what the hell is a demographic or situational risk? Does anyone know? And if a doctor doesn't know that, how can they be sure of complying with this silly law?

The law doesn't provide for any criminal penalties, but it would allow a patient to sue any doctor who doesn't comply fully with the law (and a jury of closet fundamentalists could wreck a doctors career for performing a legal procedure). Kyle Carlson, a Planned Parenthood attorney, said, "It's very difficult to know for certain if you're complying with this bill. There's an undetermined amount of documentation you have to go through to know all the different. . .risk factors."

These legislators tried to make it sound like they were worried about women's health. They aren't. This is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to take away a woman's rights over her own body. Women are already screened for any medical problems the procedure might cause, and frankly, denying an abortion for a spurious reason (such as a demographic or situational risk) could easily be just as risky for a women not prepared to deal with a baby (or another baby).

There are already far too many instances of child abuse and child murders by women under stress or with psychotic problems. Forcing women to have unwanted babies will just make the problem worse. This must be a woman's own decision, as she is the only person who truly knows the situation she is in.

Hopefully, this new law will be quickly challenged in court. I believe it can be challenged on grounds of vagueness and discrimination. The law is so vague as to be almost impossible to obey. Also, it will substantially increase the cost of the legal procedure -- making it even more difficult for poor women, if not impossible.

This is just a bad law, and the courts need to toss it out as quickly as possible.

"Butt Bandit" Is Finally Caught

The city of Valentine, located near the state line with South Dakota, is not the kind of place where you would expect to find a serial criminal. But that is just what this Nebraska metropolis (population 2650) has had for the last couple of years. The locals dubbed him the "Butt Bandit".

This dastardly criminal has been plaguing the citizens of Valentine since the Spring of 2007. That was when the businesses, churches and community buildings of the city began to find "butt prints" on their windows. The criminal would smear vaseline or lotion on his behind (and sometimes his groin), and then press it against the window. On one particularly busy night, he "printed" nearly all the windows on a local hotel.

Over the past two summers (he stopped during the Winter of 2007-08), he has struck at window after window. When he "printed" the school police got a picture of him, but it was not good enough to identify him.

But the master criminal's luck ran out early last Wednesday morning. About 3:30am, the Valentine police caught him in the act. He will now have to pay for his crimes (and suffer a "buttload" of embarrassment, I suspect).

The culprit turned out to be a local 35 year-old man. I had expected it was someone younger, but I guess it just shows that age has little to do with maturity.