July 12-13, 2014
Jul 12 09:35 A smidgen here, a smidgen there Jul 13 02:56 Dorholt's 'accomplishments' Jul 13 04:10 DFL Chairman Ken Martin's temper tantrum Jul 13 06:17 Hobby Lobby and David Schultz's dishonesty Jul 13 07:55 Seifert's spin cycle Jul 13 09:21 SC Times carries Potter's water...again Jul 13 11:49 Gov. Perry vs. Sen. Paul
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
A smidgen here, a smidgen there
When President Obama told Bill O'Reilly that there wasn't even a smidgen of corruption at the IRS, Americans rolled their eyes. They knew he was full of it. They knew it because they'd gotten to know Catherine Engelbrecht and how the federal government was used to persecute her for having the audacity of participating in the political process.
Ed Rogers' article highlights the fact that more smidgens are popping up weekly. This week, some significant smidgens showed up:
In a stunning revelation this week, it was disclosed that former IRS official Lois Lerner told colleagues, 'we need to be cautious about what we say in emails' and then proceeded to ask the IRS IT department, in an e-mail, 'if [instant messaging] conversations were also searchable.' When she was told they were not, she e-mailed back, 'Perfect.' This is a smoking gun e-mail in that it makes plain she had a cover-up in mind. There is no other plausible explanation.
Josh Earnest, the Obama administration's latest version of Baghdad Bob, undoubtedly will explain that Republicans are grasping at straws because their fishing expedition is going nowhere. He'll then recite the BS that the administration has turned over tens of thousands of documents and cooperate fully with the investigation.
What Earnest won't be able to do is explain away Jim Jordan's interrogation of John Koskinen yielding this stunning admission :
"Has anyone at the Justice Department talked to you or anyone at the Internal Revenue Service about Lois Lerner's lost emails?" Jordan asked Koskinen. "I have no idea whether the Justice Department has talked to anyone at the agency," said Koskinen, who started his job last December. "They have not talked to me."
It's important to note that DOJ allegedly started their investigation a year ago. That admission is a major bombshell on multiple fronts. First, it says that Justice isn't interested in investigating the IRS. Second, it sends the message to the IRS that they don't have to worry about stonewalling Congress. These are major smidgens of corruption.
The terrible news for the administration is that their stonewalling will end, thanks to a pair of no-nonsense judges. On Thursday, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that the IRS had to explain what happened to Lois Lerner's hard drive and emails:
Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court in Washington gave the Internal Revenue Service exactly a month, until Aug. 10, to file a report, which he demanded as part of a lawsuit from a conservative watchdog, Judicial Watch, against the agency.
On Friday, Judge Reggie Walton issued a similar ruling. Greta van Susteren posted Judge Walton's ruling :
ORDERED that, on or before July 18, 2014, defendant the Internal Revenue Service shall submit to the Court an affidavit or declaration signed under oath by an appropriate individual with firsthand knowledge that: Case 1:13-cv-00734-RBW Document 91 Filed 07/11/14
1. outlines the expertise and qualifications of the individual or individuals currently conducting the forensic examination as part of the Inspector General's investigation;
2. outlines the expertise and qualifications of the individual or individuals who previously conducted forensic examinations or otherwise attempted to recover information from the computer hard drive at issue;
3. provides a projected date of completion of the Inspector General's investigation;
4. states whether the serial number, if any, assigned to the computer hard drive at issue is known; and
5. if the serial number is known, why the computer hard drive cannot be identified and preserved.
During her interview on Megyn Kelly's show last night, Cleta Mitchell noted that this can't be filled out by a political appointee like John Koskinen because his statements are inadmissable in a court of law because they're hearsay. His statements aren't based on firsthand knowledge. They're based on what someone told him, at best.
Further, Judge Sullivan's ruling and Judge Walton's rulings have teeth in them. Prior to this, if Koskinen or Lerner or whomever misled House committees, the most that those committees could do is refer the case to the Justice Department for investigation. Thanks to Eric Holder's corruption, that wasn't a stick. It was a twig, if that.
These judges, however, have the authority to appoint a special prosecutor with the ability to put people in prison if they're found guilty in a trial.
The smidgens are adding up. The American people reached their boiling point long ago. If the IRS tries playing games with these stiff-spined judges, Judges Sullivan and Walton will reach their boiling points, too. Time is running out on the Holder Justice Department. They can't stonewall much longer and get away with it.
In the end, the smidgens will win.
Posted Saturday, July 12, 2014 9:44 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 13-Jul-14 01:06 PM
Gary:
Just think how many more smidgens there will be if there was a serious FBI investigation (which there isn't) and if there was a serious justice department investigation.
Just curious where are all of those Democrats who demanded a special prosecutor when Valerie P. was expose even though the statue showed she wasn't a covered because it was a serious violation of the law.
I guess this shows Democrats don't know what a serious violation of the law is.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Dorholt's 'accomplishments'
Greg Riegstad's LTE is short because he accepted the task of explaining why Zach Dorholt deserves re-election:
Zach Dorholt deserves re-election to the Minnesota House of Representatives.
After years of gridlock in our state government, this last session made real progress. The Legislature made a real commitment to education, reduced taxes for the middle class, and turned the budget deficit to a surplus.
The second paragraph is utterly laughable. First, the DFL spent more money on education. That isn't the same as saying that they "made a real commitment to education." Dorholt was the vice-chair of the Higher Ed Committee. As vice-chair of the committee, Dorholt didn't pay attention to the corruption within MnSCU. Clarence Hightower, then-chairman of the MnSCU Board of Trustees, negotiated a contract renewal with MnSCU Chancellor Steve Rosenstone.
What's stunning is that the House Higher Ed Committee did't even know that it'd been negotiated. The other thing that's stunnning is that Hightower negotiated the contract extension before giving Rosenstone a performance review.
During the 2014 'Unsession', the House Higher Ed Committee met 4 times, twice to hear bonding presentations, once to hear about a supplemental appropriation and another time to move a bill onto the General Register. Noticeably missing are any oversight hearings.
Thanks to Mssrs. Pelowski and Dorholt, $2,000,000 was quietly spent on a consulting firm that prefered to "work in the background." Saying that oversight wasn't a priority for Mssrs. Pelowski and Dorholt is understatement.
Second, the DFL promised property tax relief. That won't happen because school districts are raising property taxes. A tiny percentage of people will see the property tax relief that the DFL promised.
Third, saying that they started with a deficit and turned it into a surplus isn't an accomplishment. Thanks to the fiscal restraint of the GOP legislature, the deficit was $624,000,000. When the DFL controlled the legislature from 2007-2010, the deficits were more than $5,000,000,000.
Fourth, what the DFL isn't telling people is that they spent one-time money on ongoing expenses. The surplus that they're bragging about doesn't exist.
Let's also remind people of some other things that this "working group" accomplished. They spent $90,000,000 on a plush office building that'll be used 4 months a year. They spent it on that instead of using that money to fix Minnesota's roads and bridges. That money could've fixed ton of roads. Instead, Mr. Dorholt chose to spend it on his friends in the Senate.
Mr. Dorholt also voted to raise taxes and fees by $2,500,000,000. Then he voted to reduce that tax increase by $300,000,000, which he's now calling a tax cut. The taxes he raised has sent companies scurrying from Minnesota.
We can't afford more of Zach Dorholt's accomplishments. That's why he needs to be replaced by Jim Knoblach.
Posted Sunday, July 13, 2014 2:56 AM
No comments.
DFL Chairman Ken Martin's temper tantrum
Bill Hanna's article apparently touched a nerve with Ken Martin, the chair of the DFL. Check out Martin's testiness:
Martin, in a telephone interview on Saturday that got testy at times, said the issue has nothing to do with PolyMet or investments.
'It's about transparency in politics and government. And I don't begrudge anyone for investments. I don't care if it would be a DFLer, a Republican or someone with the Green Party ... she was late in filing her disclosure statement and should not have been,' Martin said.
Of the 42 candidates who have filed for the state's constitutional offices, only Housley and Sharon Anderson, who is seeking the GOP nomination for attorney general, missed the filing deadline.
Housley has since made her disclosure filing and said missing the deadline was just an honest oversight. 'It was in my outbox and never went out. It's there now,' she said in the PIM story. Housley said her stake in PolyMet is only about $300.
But Martin said emphatically the amount is not the issue. 'It doesn't matter how much. What matters is she didn't have full disclosure as required on time,' he said in the MDN interview.
So why was PolyMet the only business Martin mentioned in the news release regarding Housley? 'Again, this has nothing to do with PolyMet,' he said emphatically.
Then why was PolyMet cited in his news release? 'I don't care what company it was or what industry. What matters is the company is regulated by the State of Minnesota and she had not disclosed her investments.'
But why PolyMet? What about other companies? 'I don't know if she has investments in any other companies regulated by Minnesota. Researchers went through her last statement (filed as a state senator) and PolyMet popped out to them,' Martin said.
Martin's diatribe was triggered by his getting trapped talking about a subject he wishes would disappear entirely. Further, this isn't about transparency. If transparency mattered to the DFL, DFL legislators wouldn't have coordinated campaign expenditures with the DFL in 2012:
The Minnesota campaign finance agency on Tuesday slapped the Minnesota DFL Senate campaign with a $100,000 fine improperly coordinating 2012 campaign mailings with candidates.
The result of investigation and settlement talks that lasted more than a year, the fine is one of the largest ever levied in Minnesota for campaign violations. The penalty stems from candidates and the party committee violating rules that ban coordination between independent spending and what is controlled by a candidate.
Apparently, Chairman Martin didn't think transparency was important then:
'Ultimately, it is best to set this distraction aside and allow our members to focus on governing,' Martin said.
Karin Housley omitting a $300 invenstment got Martin's attention but the DFL getting hammered with one of the biggest campaign fines in Minnesota history is "a distraction"? But I digress.
Notice Martin's evasiveness when Hanna asked why he singled out PolyMet. Here's a revealing insight into Martin's behavior:
Martin made it clear in the MDN interview he has grown increasingly 'fed up' with both sides of the issue.
Martin's wish is that he didn't have to ever deal with this issue because it's a can't-win issue for the DFL. It's something Hanna notes in his article:
PolyMet is a controversial and touchy subject politically for the DFL Party on the Range, which has been a traditional bastion of Democratic support in elections. But there is a widening political chasm on the issue this election year.
The extreme environmental wing of the party both on the Range and in the Twin Cities , which has great influence among activists, is strongly against PolyMet and other copper/nickel/precious metals venture in the works, such as Twin Metals Minnesota near Ely and Babbitt. And some are against all mining or even exploration drilling.
Martin knows that Rick Nolan will likely lose his congressional seat if the Iron Range doesn't overwhelmingly and enthusiastically support Nolan. Further, he knows that Gov. Dayton and Sen. Franken will be in the fight of their political lives if they aren' enthusiastically supported by the Iron Range.
The truth is that this issue might split the DFL into tiny pieces. That's the best explanation of what triggered Chairman Martin's diatribe. He got testy with Bill Hanna because he's seeing a brewing crisis for the DFL on the Range. The other explanation for Martin's diatribe is because he isn't used to reporters questioning the DFL. He's gotten used to getting the red carpet treatment.
That won't work this time because people on the Range are tired with the DFL's 'lip service support' of the Range. They're demanding authentic support, not just lip service support.
Posted Sunday, July 13, 2014 4:10 AM
No comments.
Hobby Lobby and David Schultz's dishonesty
David Schultz's post about the Hobby Lobby ruling is stunningly dishonest, especially considering he's a lawyer. Here's Dr. Schultz's dishonesty:
Five votes. Five Catholics. Five men. One decision. Potentially millions of American women denied contraceptive coverage.
Dr. Schultz should be ashamed of himself for making that dishonest statememt. The Hobby Lobby ruling didn't say closely held companies like Hobby Lobby could deny all types of contraceptive coverage. It said that the ACA couldn't force Hobby Lobby to provide coverage for 4 types of contraceptives known as abortifacients. Megyn Kelly explained in this video:
Here's Kelly's explanation of the Hobby Lobby ruling:
MEGYN KELLY: Nancy Pelosi either doesn't know what she is talking about or is intentionally misleading you. First of all the gender of the justices in the Hobby Lobby majority is irrelevant. Mrs. Pelosi's reference to it is obviously an attempt to stoke resentment. When Roe vs. Wade was decided it was all men in the majority. Does she think those justices were ill-equipped to fairly decide that case? Or is it only when a judge disagrees with Mrs. Pelosi that his gender is an issue. If Speaker john Boehner made a similar comment about the female Supreme Court justices, Nancy Pelosi would be crying sexism and that's what she is guilty of here.
Moreover, the five men in the Hobby Lobby majority did not, I repeat, did not "determine what contraceptions are legal" nor they did get down to the specifics of "whether a woman should use a diaphragm." What a gross misrepresentation. News flash, all birth control that was legal before this decision remains legal today. The high court simply found that a religious freedom law which was cosponsored by none other than, wait for it, Nancy Pelosi, sometimes protects corporations from being forced to violate their religious beliefs. She cosponsored the law that gave them the right!
Neither the high court or Hobby Lobby took issue with Kathleen Sebelius's minions over at HHS mandating behind closed doors after Obamacare was passed, that companies cover birth control. Sixteen forms of it in fact. But the majority did say Hobby Lobby still had the right to object to covering four terms of birth control that happen to terminate a fertilized egg, which some believe is abortion. No one ruled those contraceptives were illegal and the diaphragm was never even discussed. It wasn't one of the birth control forms at issue, which she should know since she famously promised us that after Obamacare was passed at some point, we'd know what was in it.
Either Dr. Schultz didn't read the ruling or he's intentionally being dishonest. Based on what he said later in the post, I'm betting that he's being intentionally dishonest. Here's what he said later in the post:
So think first about the sexism of the decision. Five male Justices rule that it is ok for an employer to deny women contraceptive coverage.
Again, that statement is dishonest. In fact, if Dr. Schultz had done his research, which he obviously didn't, he'd know that Hobby Lobby's insurance plan has covered contraceptives long before the ACA was passed. They just didn't cover abortifacients.
At this point, I don't know whether Dr. Schultz is an ill-informed scholar or if he's a political hatchetman spewing the DFL's chanting points. At this point, both are definite possibilities. Later, Dr. Schultz said this:
When the First Amendment was written it declared that 'Congress shall make no law establishing a religion.'
Like most liberals, Dr. Schultz didn't include the full text. Here's that text :
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In other words, the First Amendment proposed a balance on religion. First, it said that the government couldn't declare a denomination as the national religion. Their intent was to prevent the government from telling religious institutions what their beliefs should be.
The next clause in the First Amendment says that government can't prohibit people from living their faith. Dr. Schultz says that "RFRA and the five Justice majority appear to have" established a religion. I'd pose a contrarian question. Didn't the HHS essentially tell people that they didn't have the right to practice their religious faith? How is it ok for government bureaucrats to tell people of faith that they can't live out their faith but it's wrong for the Supreme Court to protect a company's First Amendment rights?
Dr. Schultz's hypocrisy is disappointing. He's substituted his political beliefs when he should be rendering a constitutional opinion. By doing that, he's lost credibility.
Techorati: David Schultz , Hamline University , Law Professor , Hobby Lobby , First Amendment , SCOTUS , HHS , DFL Chanting Points , Megyn Kelly , Nancy Pelosi , Bill Clinton , RFRA
Posted Sunday, July 13, 2014 6:17 AM
No comments.
Seifert's spin cycle
This morning, Marty Seifert was interviewed by Tom Hauser. One of Hauser's questions was about Seifert's speech to his delegates that they could go home. Specifically, Hauser asked how that's playing.
Seifert said that they'd "travelled to 13 cities by plane and by car", noting that nobody was worried "about convention adjournment procedures."
Noticeably missing from Seifert's statement was how big the crowds were at his stops. Notice that he didn't say that he was drawing big crowds. The point I'm making is simple. I spoke with lots of delegates to the convention that went there supporting Seifert who aren't supporting him now.
Please understand that a substantial portion of Seifert's supporters are fiercely loyal. People I know -- friends of mine -- wouldn't abandon his campaign in its worst hour. These people should be commended for their loyalty. Anyone can support a candidate when times are good. People that support their candidate no matter what aren't that common.
That being said, there were lots of people who supported Marty Seifert because they liked him or his policies. Many of those people got upset when they say that Marty Seifert tried preventing the delegates from endorsing a candidate for governor.
People aren't upset with Seifert because of "convention adjournment procedures." They're pissed at him because he tried to thwart the voice of the delegate.
He's lost those votes plus the people those delegates talk to. They understand that Marty Seifert was given permission to speak to the delegates with the understanding that he was dropping out of the endorsement fight. It was understood that he'd still run in the primary.
Instead, Marty Seifert tried to prevent the convention from doing its business. He put himself ahead of the delegates, the people who work hard to get Republicans elected, the people who march in parades, drop lit and make phone calls.
That isn't what a team player does. That's what a selfish person does. That's why Marty Seifert faces an uphill fight. He's facing an uphill fight because he deserves it.
Posted Sunday, July 13, 2014 7:55 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 13-Jul-14 09:19 AM
I made the comment at the time that he could have chosen to not speak, or to thank the delegates for their time but that he would concede the endorsement and go to the primary as promised, either of which would have been perfectly reasonable and widely accepted. The comment I heard back was that (paraphrasing) "that's not who he is. He's got a big ego and a temper and he can't stand coming in second."
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-Jul-14 09:25 AM
Had Seifert just conceded, then gone to the primary, he wouldn't have pissed people off. That ship has sailed.
SC Times carries Potter's water...again
This Our View editorial is breathtaking in how the Times operates...again...as President Potter's PR firm:
The struggle to fill St. Cloud State University's Coborn's Plaza - high-end student housing - needs to be viewed as an opportunity, not a blame game.
The reality is this: The roughly $30 million plaza undoubtedly helps St. Cloud State attract and retain a segment of students it would otherwise lose to the countless other universities that offer this housing option. As such, that benefits the entire metro area.
First, the Times' editorial accepts as fact that high-end student housing is popular. While it's possible to find some students who prefer this type of housing, it's impossible to find many students who want this type of housing, at least without some enticements thrown in.
Second, "the entire metro" benefits isn't taking everything into account. The property is owned by a 501(c)(3). That means that property isn't paying property taxes.
An equally compelling reality: The 453-unit plaza was overbuilt. That was evidenced again in a Monday Times news report about how occupancy rates, while increasing, are not growing fast enough to help St. Cloud State cover its costs.
Here's a dose of reality. President Potter signed a contract that should've gotten him fired. Patrick Jacobson-Schulte told the Budget Advisory Committee that Coborn's Plaza can't break even :
At the April 30, 2013 meeting of the Budget Advisory Committee, Patrick Jacobson-Schulte, Associate Vice President for Financial Management and Budget, informed the committee that, even under the best scenario of 100% occupancy, Coborn's Plaza would lose between $50,000 and $150,000 annually.
If the Times is going to offer its opinions on something, they should at least get their facts straight.
This paragraph is stunning:
To the former, from fiscal 2012 through fiscal 2015, the annual subsidy is projected to decline from $1.348 million to $937,800. While that's progress, it only amounts to an annual decline of about $105,000. So how much longer will it take to break even?
Answer: It'll never break even during this lease. Though that's stunning, this is breathtaking:
At a growth rate of 17 units annually, it will be fiscal 2020 or longer before 100 percent capacity. That's too long and too expensive.
Therein lies the opportunity: Open those vacancies to nonstudents.
This isn't an opportunity. It's a disaster. The 'solution' isn't any better. What the Times is proposing is opening the taxpayer-subsidized apartment complex to non-students. Why didn't I think of that? That's what we need. Government subsidizing private foundations' housing projects.
Again, community and university leaders need to see this is an opportunity, not a blame game.
That's stunning. Here's another term for blame game: professional accountability. Thus far, the Times has worked overtime to make sure President Potter wasn't criticized for making terrible, expensive, decisions. There's no reason to think that'll change anytime this decade.
There's an old saying that says "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I'm creating a different saying that dovetails with that saying. "Those who don't affix blame on people who make terrible decisions allow those people to continue making terrible decisions."
I know that isn't a snappy one-liner but it's the truth. It's time to start affixing blame on the Teflon President, aka Earl Potter. Signing that contract with the Wedum Foundation was stupid. Telling the Times' Editorial Board that it's a great success is pure spin.
Posted Sunday, July 13, 2014 9:21 AM
Comment 1 by Jarrett at 14-Jul-14 07:18 AM
This should actually make all residents sad...
Combine that with "The Rosenstone affair"...and it should justifiably turn all St Cloud (and MN)residents to MAD. Zero accountability from the top down, with no end in sight and continual support from a local newspaper for some unimaginable reason. This has become a LA LA LAND, welfare and diversity infused, politically correct version of a very nice (USED TO BE) "All American City"
Gov. Perry vs. Sen. Paul
It's sounding more and more like Gov. Rick Perry, (R-TX), is planning on running for president again in 2016. This op-ed sounds like the first shot against Sen. Paul:
This represents a real threat to our national security - to which Paul seems curiously blind - because any of these passport carriers can simply buy a plane ticket and show up in the United States without even a visa. It's particularly chilling when you consider that one American has already carried out a suicide bombing and a terrorist-trained European allegedly killed four at the Jewish Museum in Brussels.
Yet Paul still advocates inaction, going so far as to claim in an op-ed last month in the Wall Street Journal that President Ronald Reagan's own doctrines would lead him to same conclusion.
The thing Sen. Paul's supporters haven't paid attention to is the fact that President Reagan was a confrontationalist. Though he didn't fire a shot at the Soviet Union, he constantly confronted them strategically. He put in Pershing II missiles into western Europe. Doves like Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry howled at the move, saying that this would just provoke the Soviets to become more expansionist.
Gov. Perry understands what President Reagan understood then. Gov. Perry understands that a vibrant, growing economy, coupled with the right strategic vigilance and interventionism, will thwart Putin's expansionism and ISIS' attempt to build a caliphate where terrorists can train for their next terrorist attack.
Here's another shot frm Gov. Perry across Sen. Paul's bow:
Reagan identified Soviet communism as an existential threat to our national security and Western values, and he confronted this threat in every theater. Today, we count his many actions as critical to the ultimate defeat of the Soviet Union and the freeing of hundreds of millions from tyranny.
At the time, though, there were those who said that Reagan's policies would push the Soviets to war. These voices instead promoted accommodation and timidity in the face of Soviet advancement as the surest path to peace. This, sadly, is the same policy of inaction that Paul advocates today.
It isn't that Gov. Perry is pushing war. It's that he isn't pushing for America to stick its head in the sand. Like I said earlier, Reagan brought the Soviet empire to its knees without firing a shot.
The Soviet Union had a terrible economy. Today, Russia's economy isn't much better. Putin is flexing his country's muscles because he thinks he can get away with it. That'll end the minute the US economy starts hitting on all cylinders and the right president starts inserting itself in the world.
Again, this doesn't require going to war, though it'll require beefed up intel operations in the world's nastiest corners. That won't matter to Paul's most paranoid supporters. Paul's most paranoid supporters will still hear the drumbeats of war.
Sane people, however, will hear things clearly. Far more people will agree with Gov. Perry than will agree with Sen. Paul. Let the jockeying begin.
Posted Sunday, July 13, 2014 11:49 AM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 13-Jul-14 11:00 PM
Everything you say may be true, but 2016 is clearly shaping up as a pocketbook election, probably including Obamacare, possibly including illegal immigration. Foreign policy, like Global Warming, won't matter.
