July 17-21, 2013
Jul 17 16:46 Public safety, sidewalks and busybody government Jul 17 22:36 Dayton, DFL chasing jobs from Minnesota Jul 18 05:15 Beltway bombshell? Jul 19 02:52 Bombshell testimony given on IRS Jul 19 13:29 Cummings vs.Chaffetz Jul 20 10:47 Dems deny partisan motives in IRS scandal Jul 21 23:35 The lies keep coming Jul 21 05:32 SC Times Propagandist Group strikes again Jul 21 06:49 Mob justice isn't justice
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Public safety, sidewalks and busybody government
Monday night, 4 St. Cloud City Council members voted to require that sidewalks be built in neighborhoods that don't already have them. The asterisk is that this won't happen until that block's streets are torn up to install upgrades to the city's sewer and water systems. The other notable asterisk is that this won't add a penny in assessments to the property owners.
That said, it's terrible public policy. First, I'll say that I live on a block that doesn't have a public sidewalk. I'm definitely biased. Mine is definitely a low traffic part of town. It's worth noting that I've lived in my current home for 50 years. It's noteworthy because, in all that time, we've never had any public safety issues in our neighborhood.
Last night, I spoke with Mayor Kleis about the issue at the weekly gathering for Ox in the Afternoon listeners. When I asked him for a justification for this requirement, one of his responses was that sidewalks are just part of the price of living in cities. I'd respectfully disagree. Prior to Monday night's vote, they really weren't.
There's no question that they were a potential cost. Prior to Monday night's vote, however, it was the city's responsibility to prove why installing sidewalks were necessary. Prior to Monday night's vote, the city had to hold public hearings where that block's citizens frequently spoke out against installing sidewalks. From the city's standpoint, it was a messy process that should be avoided at all costs.
Thanks to Monday night's vote, the city got its wish. Sort of.
Another rationalization for requiring the sidewalks was that we're already required to mow the law that is the city's right of way. That's something I can't dispute. That said, that isn't a persuasive argument. In fact, that's one of the flimsiest public policy arguments I've ever heard.
From the city's standpoint, upkeep is upkeep. All property owners' responsibilities are equal in their eyes. Nothing is further from reality. Making 2 passes with a lawnmower on a beautiful summer day isn't the burden for a property owner than shovelling a foot of wet snow is in February. To think that they're equal in terms of physical exertion is foolish.
This is one of the most foolish public policy statements I've ever heard:
Council President Jeff Goerger said the city will continue to consider how sidewalks will impact trees and driveway access before they are put in.
'We represent all the citizens of St. Cloud,' Georger said. 'We have to ask 'Are sidewalks important to this community as a whole? Are they a benefit to this community as a whole?'
I expect one-size-fits-all policies from the federal government. I expect custom-tailored solutions from the city council.
What's particularly bothersome is the fact that Georger isn't asking the right question. There are tons of things that theoretically make sense from community-as-a-whole standpoint that don't make any sense from a is-it-right-for-this-situation standpoint.
The question Mayor Kleis didn't address was what problem this fixes. There aren't any public safety issues that this will fix, at least not on the east side of town. It adds to government's intrusion into my life in terms of requiring me to shovel snow on a sidewalk I don't own or want.
Finally, what's inexplicable is that Mayor Kleis has a lengthy history of keeping government intrusion limited. It doesn't make sense that he's now supporting an ordinance that's this intrusive in people's lives.
Tags: Right of Way , St. Cloud City Council , Mike Goerger , Dave Kleis , Intrusive Government , Construction Projects , Nancy Gohman , Jeff Johnson , George Hontos , Individual Rights
Posted Wednesday, July 17, 2013 4:46 PM
No comments.
Dayton, DFL chasing jobs from Minnesota
Kelly Fenton, the Deputy Chairperson of the Minnesota GOP, issued this statement after Cargill announced it was expanding operations in Colorado, not Minnesota:
While Governor Dayton and Democrats in the legislature were busy raising $2.1 billion in new taxes this spring, two more Minnesota companies were making plans to move operations out of our state. It's embarrassing that Governor Dayton was unable to keep these jobs here. Instead, Colorado will benefit from new job opportunities that should be reserved for Minnesota families.
Governor Dayton talks about 'taxing the rich,' but he's actually hurting average hard working families, in this case employees at our local flour mills. Minnesota needs a Republican Governor and a Republican Legislature that will fight for Minnesota jobs, and fight to encourage companies from around the country and around the world to expand and relocate here in Minnesota.
Related Article: Flour-milling joint venture Ardent Mills to locate HQ in Denver
Cargill isn't just a Fortune 500 company. They're a big union employer. Now they're moving their operation to Colorado. After Dayton, the DFL and ABM (which should now stand for the Alliance for a Broker Minnesota) told us a) that companies don't leave because of taxes, b) people are willing to pay more for Minnesota's high quality of life and c) that companies love Minnesota's education system, this is what the new venture's president said about moving :
Why Denver? Dan Dye, Horizon's president and Ardent's CEO-to-be, said in a statement that the decision 'will allow us to offer great quality of life for employees, provide excellent service to our customers and position the business for long-term growth.'
For all of the DFL's arguments about the wisdom of their legislative agenda, Cargill wasn't impressed. It's apparent they weren't moved by Minnesota's quality of life. In fact, they spoke about Colorado's quality of life, which is a direct shot at Gov. Dayton and the DFL. They spoke about how Colorado was positioned for "long-term growth." That's a shot at Minnesota, too.
I'll add another thing to this mix. Cargill didn't mention the DFL's "historic investment in education." For all their insisting that we had to make these investments, the DFL was just slapped in the face by a Minnesota company moving a major operation from the state to Colorado.
The DFL's protestations notwithstanding, Cargill moved its operations to Colorado. That refutes Gov. Dayton's insistence that the Dayton/DFL/ABM budget was moving Minnesota in the right direction.
Tags: Cargill , Fortune 500 Company , ConAgra , Colorado , Quality of Life , Mark Dayton , Unemployment , ABM , Tax Increases , Education Legislature , , DFL
Posted Wednesday, July 17, 2013 10:36 PM
No comments.
Beltway bombshell?
If Carl Cameron's information in this video plays out as he's been told, the IRS scandal will be back front and center by noon today:
Here's the minitranscript from Cameron's interview with Bill O'Reilly:
CAMERON: What he [Chairman Issa] said to me today was make sure to watch tomorrow's hearing because he's going to present the evidence to prove it: . That he can get it right up all the way into the White House before it was all revealed.
O'Reilly started off by opining that the IRS scandal was losing altitude and that it would fade from significance. The Democrats, starting with Rep. Elijah Cummings, changed from being outraged when this first came to light to defending the administration when it started getting apparent that White House insiders were involved.
If Chairman Issa genuinely has proof that someone inside the White House worked with Lois Lerner in putting TEA Party organizations through extra rounds of scrutiny, this scandal will explode. It isn't just that this is new information. It's that it'd be new information that refutes the White House's initial stories that this was the work of a couple rogue IRS operatives in the Cincinnati office.
I wrote here that the worst word in the English language, at least in the White House's interest, is the word Y-E-T . Here's what I wrote then:
If there's a word in the English language that the Obama administration has a right to fear, that word is Y-E-T. Democrats who had previously attacked the IRS changed their tune during yesterday's hearing. Democrats transitioned into defending the Obama administration. That's because the IRS agents in the Cincinnati office haven't been rolled. Yet.
Perhaps Democrats think their's is a good strategy because it's built on the premise that the IRS agents fear prosecution. That isn't a smart gamble, even though the IRS agents haven't been granted immunity. Yet.
Rep. Cummings has tried running interference for the administration by saying the TIGTA (Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration) is a Bush administration hiree who can't be trusted.
If J. Russel George can produce the documentation verifying Chairman Issa's claims, it'll be totally irrelevant who hired J. Russell George. Chairman Issa posted this tweet :
#IRS chief counsel's office involved in targeting controversy http://wapo.st/15GGVE5 via @PostPolitics
This information, if verified, changes everything:
In interviews with congressional investigators, IRS lawyer Carter Hull said his superiors told him that the chief counsel's office, led by William Wilkins, would need to review some of the first applications the agency screened for additional scrutiny because of potential political activity.
Previous accounts from IRS employees had shown that Washington IRS officials were involved in the controversy, but Hull's comments represent the closest connection to the White House to date. No evidence so far has definitively linked the White House to the agency's actions.
According to a partial transcript released by House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and House Ways and Means chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.), the chief counsel's office also discussed using a template letter to ask questions about the groups' activities, despite Hull's warning that such a boilerplate approach would be impractical.
'My reviewer and I both said a template makes absolutely no difference because these organizations, all of them are different,' Hull told investigators. 'A template would not work.'
I'll predict that, at some time during the hearing, Elijah Cummings will complain that partial transcripts are despicable. Whatever. I'd love hearing him put these statements in a context that isn't damnig to the administration. Whichever way you slice it, the reality is that Mr. Wilkins tried orchestrating a strategy to harass TEA Party organizations. There's no way to spin that.
Tags: Investigation , Treasury Department , J. Russell George , Inspector General , IRS , Darrell Issa , House Oversight Committee , Republicans , Obama Administration , Elijah Cummings , Cover-Up , Democrats
Posted Thursday, July 18, 2013 5:15 AM
Comment 1 by Patrick-M at 18-Jul-13 10:15 AM
Watching the hearing now... predictably Rep. Cummings has just gone on record as saying there is no evidence linking this to the White House. In other words 'nothing to see here, move along'.
I can hardly wait for the real story to be told.
Bombshell testimony given on IRS
Carter Hull's testimony provided explosive information into the IRS targeting fiasco. Here's part of that explosive testimony:
Carter Hull, a recently retired tax law specialist, gave his first-hand account during testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Hull had earlier come under scrutiny after an employee in the Cincinnati IRS office told congressional investigators that he had been micro-managing her review of Tea Party groups' applications for tax-exempt status. But Hull revealed that he, too, was taking orders from up the chain of command.
Hull specifically said he was told to forward documents to an adviser for embattled IRS official Lois Lerner, who first revealed the targeting of Tea Party groups and has since refused to answer lawmakers' questions. But Hull said he was then told to send documents to the Office of Chief Counsel for their review, which is led by political appointee William Wilkins.
That's a big deal because it's proof that Cincinnati is being thrown under the bus in the attempt to hide the Treasury Department's role in this fiasco.
This information can't be spun, either. Jay Carney can't say that this is just Republicans playing politics. He can't say that this is a witch hunt, either. He can't do those things because Hull was a career IRS employee before retiring. He wasn't a political appointee of the Bush administration, either.
At an August 2011 meeting, Hull said, someone from the chief counsel's office said additional information was needed from Tea Party applicants that Hull was dealing with, and that a second letter should be sent out requesting more information.
These letters have since been cited by Tea Party groups as part of a drawn-out process that in some cases left them without any resolution for years.
Hull said during his testimony that the multi-level layer of review was "unusual." And he said the Cincinnati office was stuck on applications because he, too, was waiting for guidance from the chief counsel's office.
It's unforgiveable to strip the approval/rejection responsibility from a lawyer who a) had consistently received strong performance ratings and b) was an expert in this field. For half a century, Hull didn't need help in making the final determination on these types of applications.
The fact that this administration pushed him aside and implanted a political appointee into the process is suspicious at minimum. What's the reason for putting Mr. Wilkins in charge of this process? Why didn't Mr. Wilkins make a final decision on any of the 292 applications from TEA Party organizations?
Doesn't that sound like political chicanery?
Tags: House Oversight Committee , IRS Investigation , Darrell Issa , Jim Jordan , Republicans , Elizabeth Hofacre , Carter Hull , IRS Agents , William J. Wilkins , TEA Party Applications , BOLO List , Political Appointee
Posted Friday, July 19, 2013 2:52 AM
No comments.
The lies keep coming
The spokesman for St. Cloud State President Earl Potter III isn't the telling the truth in this article. Here's what he said that's verifiably false:
Allegations into wrongdoing started with a few professors expressing concerns about student grades being altered after the initial grades posted by the professors were changed. In addressing this concern at a meet and confirm meeting conducted amongst university professors and administration, Hammer said the cause for concern primarily dealt with late drops and withdrawals.Professors are most upset with students' grades inexplicably disappearing from their transcripts. I reported in this Examiner exclusive how this all got started. Here's what I wrote in that exclusive:
Hammer said professors had felt they were not being included in the process of altering student grades, from failing, to withdrawals after the withdrawal deadline for the semester. Hammer had said the Provost office had requested research into the process of how late drops and withdrawals were handled by the university.
Prof. Tamara Leenay, a chemistry professor at St. Cloud State, was looking through her list of students when she spotted the name of a student in her organic chemistry class. She recognized the student's name because he'd taken (and failed) her organic chemistry class before.In fact, discussions I've had with multiple professors have focused almost exclusively on grades disappearing from students' transcripts after they'd submitted their final grade. According to these Meet & Confer minutes, something more than late drops and withdrawals is happening:
By going through her records, Dr. Leenay was able to verify that the student had taken her organic chemistry class before, that he'd completed all the course work, taken the mid-term and final exams and that he'd failed the class.
Dr. Leenay then asked other professors if this student had taken organic chemistry with any of them. The student had, failing that class, too.
The other piece of it is that it's difficult to do some things like helping with student success, some things like doing accurate assessment if people disappear from our records and we don't have that information in our records anymore or if we learn for example that, and this is kind of an odd example I suppose, you don't know that a student has taken a course three times because there is no record of it and the student is in there for the fourth time and you're trying to figure out a way to help that student be successful and yet you're blindsided by this lack of information.Think about this sentence:
"You don't know that a student has taken a course three times because there is no record of it and the student is in there for the fourth time and you're trying to figure out a way to help that student be successful and yet you're blindsided by this lack of information."What are the odds of a student taking the same class 3 times and each of those times was a late drop or withdrawal? What are the odds that student getting their participation in those classes deleted from their transcript? I'm betting those odds to be exceptionally tiny.
Remember that this professor didn't say that they didn't know because the grade had been changed to a W, the code for withdrawals. The professor said that "there is no record of it." When I talk with professors about the transcripts, they refer to these disappearing grades as 'poofs'. That's when the only record of a student's participation is in a professor's hardcopy records.
Finally, it isn't credible for Mr. Hammer to make a statement on this transcript fiasco because nobody has talked with Dr. Leenay about what she spotted. This is proof that it's impossible to find what you refuse to look for.
Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 11:35 PM
Comment 1 by Jethro at 22-Jul-13 08:28 AM
'We are confident in the work we've been doing in the administration and records and registration,' Hammer said. The means for students to request a change in their transcript for extenuating circumstances, Hammer said, reinforces the goals of the university, student achievement.
When did a grade "poof" become an extenuating circumstance? I also find it odd that administration has not contacted Professor Leeney to conduct an investigation. Apparently, Hammer is confident in the administration's incompetence.
Cummings vs.Chaffetz
During yesterday's hearing, Congressman Jason Chaffetz took Elijah Cummings to task for suggesting that this investigation was over. Rep. Cummings said that that isn't what he was asking for. This video catches yesterday's exchange:
Here's what Rep. Cummings said in defending his indefensible statements:
CUMMINGS: Let me be clear because this is just old talking points going on here...
CHAFFETZ: To suggest that these are just talking points. These are not just talking points.
A month ago, Rep. Elijah Cummings was interviewed by CNN's Candy Crowley about whether the investigation into the IRS scandal was over. Here's Cummings' reply:
Here's the important line from the interview:
CUMMINGS: Based on everything I've seen, the case is solved and, if it was up to me, I'd wrap this case up and move on.
In other words, what Chaffetz said about Rep. Cummings wanting to wrap up the hearings into the IRS are 100% accurate. Cummings' interview with Candy Crowley is verification for Chaffetz's claims.
Cummings has turned from being outraged with the IRS to defending the administration. That's borne out by another exchange that Peggy Noonan highlighted in this column :
It was Maryland's Rep. Elijah Cummings, the panel's ranking Democrat, who, absurdly, asked Ms. Hofacre if the White House called the Cincinnati office to tell them what to do and whether she has knowledge of the president of the United States digging through the tax returns of citizens. Ms. Hofacre looked surprised. No, she replied.
It wasn't hard to imagine her thought bubble: Do congressmen think presidents call people like me and say, "Don't forget to harass my enemies"? Are congressmen that stupid?
Cummings' partisanship is showing and it isn't a flattering look on Cummings.
Looking at this from a big picture perspective, there's only one conclusion a thoughtful person can draw: that this investigation is making slow, steady progress and that it's going to get to the bottom of this administration's scandals. I'd further add that these investigations are beyond the administration's control.
The only thing that will stop the investigation is if Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker again. The terrible news for the Obama administration is that that won't happen anytime soon.
Tags: Jason Chaffetz , IRS Investigation , House Oversight Committee , Republicans , Elijah Cummings , Candy Crowley , Talking Points , Obama Administration , Nancy Pelosi , Scandals , Democrats
Posted Friday, July 19, 2013 1:29 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 20-Jul-13 10:23 AM
Off point, but with Krinkie making it a four-horse race, how do you at this early stage handicap the MN6 GOP contest?
Have you a preference that you will, now or later, publish?
Are you waiting for the field to broaden with yet more hats in the ring?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 20-Jul-13 10:51 AM
Eric, I don't have an opinion at this point.
Comment 3 by eric z at 24-Jul-13 08:19 AM
That is a very fair response, Gary. What I expected.
As something of a heads up, within your GOP inner circles ask around and learn what you can about Rhonda Sivarajah, other than she was the Lt. Gov. candidate on a GOP ticket that lost to Emmer/what's her name, (the advocate with that Watchdog operation in Minnesota for which Tom Steward is a regular publicist [Not to be confused with Harold Hamilton's "Minnesota Watchdog"]). Sivarajah seems more substantial, though less well known than Emmer or Krinkie, each of whom leads with his mouth. Aside from doctrinal differences I may have with Sivarajah, she seems to lead with her mind.
Dems deny partisan motives in IRS scandal
I don't expect brilliance from the MSNBC crowd and I'm never disappointed. This post by Steve Benen is instructive, though, on the Democrats' strategy for the growing IRS scandal. Some of Mr. Benen's statements are downright boneheaded. Others are just silly. First, he quoted from something from the Huffington Post:
J. Russell George, the IRS inspector general, told the House Oversight Committee that only in the past few weeks has he become aware of documents showing that the IRS screened progressive groups in addition to conservative ones. George said he was "disturbed" by the fact that these documents were not provided to his team of investigators prior to the audit's release and that he was continuing to investigate the issue.
"I am concerned that there may be additional pieces of information that we don't have," he said. "I'm very concerned about that sir."
Here's a sample of the Democrats' spin:
Oh, you mean "additional pieces of information" such as the fact that liberal groups were subjected to the same scrutiny as conservative groups? And there was no targeting of conservative organizations? And that politics had nothing to do with the added scrutiny?
In Mr. Benen's delusional world, Cathy Engelbrecht didn't survive this withering ordeal :
In July 2010 she sent applications to the IRS for tax-exempt status. What followed was not the harassment, intrusiveness and delay we're now used to hearing of. The U.S. government came down on her with full force.
In December 2010 the FBI came to ask about a person who'd attended a King Street Patriots function. In January 2011 the FBI had more questions. The same month the IRS audited her business tax returns. In May 2011 the FBI called again for a general inquiry about King Street Patriots. In June 2011 Engelbrecht's personal tax returns were audited and the FBI called again. In October 2011 a round of questions on True the Vote. In November 2011 another call from the FBI. The next month, more questions from the FBI. In February 2012 a third round of IRS questions on True the Vote. In February 2012 a first round of questions on King Street Patriots. The same month the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms did an unscheduled audit of her business. (It had a license to make firearms but didn't make them.) In July 2012 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration did an unscheduled audit. In November 2012 more IRS questions on True the Vote. In March 2013, more questions. In April 2013 a second ATF audit.
When Mr. Benen can show me a single time when a progressive organization received this much governmental scrutiny, then I'll pay attention.
That's before talking about John Eastman's testimony to Darrell Issa's committee:
In March 2012, NOM's 2008 federal tax return (form 990-Schedule B) - which listed the names and addresses of NOM donors - was uploaded to the websites of the Human Rights Campaign and the Huffington Post. Computer analysts determined that the document's leak came from within the IRS.
According to Eastman, 'the willful unauthorized public disclosure of NOM's 2008 Schedule B by the IRS or its employees is a violation of federal law. Indeed, it is a serious felony punishable by a $5,000 fine and up to five years in federal prison, penalties that apply both to IRS and other government employees and third parties.'
It's worth noting that Benen can't say that progressive organizations had their confidential IRS donor files leaked to conservative organizations. The IRS did, however, leak this information to a vindictive progressive organization. Then there's the case of Kevin Kookogey :
Kevin Kookogey, president of Linchpins of Liberty, was the first to testify. In his opening statement, he said he applied for 501(c)(3) status as a nonprofit educational organization, but as of today has been waiting 29 months to be granted that status by the IRS. He said the IRS asked him to identify the political affiliations of his mentors and his political position on many issues.
He was also told to inform the federal government "in detail" what he would be teaching students and who he was "training." Kookogey asked what would have happened if he had turned over the names of students, including minors, to the IRS, saying he could have faced legal action from parents.
Why haven't any progressive organizations reported suffering through these types of abuses? It isn't like this issue just popped up. It's been around a few years.
Democrats are pushing the 'liberal groups got harassed, too' storyline. It's a phony storyline. It's been verified that 292 TEA Party and like-minded conservative organizations were harassed. All of their applications were held in abeyance so they couldn't even appeal the IRS' ruling. By comparison, 19 liberal/progressive organizations were subjected to additional scrutiny. Six were rejected, the rest approved.
The reality is that Mr. Benen is a blowhard who isn't interested in the truth.
Tags: Rachel Maddow , Steve Benen , MSNBC , Media Bias , IRS , Catherine Engelbrecht , John Eastman , Kevin Kookogey , Linchpins of Liberty , True The Vote , TEA Party , Patriots
Posted Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:47 AM
No comments.
SC Times Propagandist Group strikes again
Karen Cyson's monthly op-ed is stunningly propagandist in nature. Here's a sampling of Cyson's propaganda:
The right to vote for representation was a catalyst for the American Revolution. It wasn't until 124 years later, in 1920 with the passage of the 19th Amendment, that women were given that right.
How patronizing then that the current conflagration about a child care providers union isn't about whether to form a union, but whether the providers be allowed to vote on whether to form a union.
That's right. Another 93 years later, many in a mostly male Minnesota government are telling a mostly female profession, 'Now, now, little lady. We know what's best for you. Don't you go worrying your pretty little head over this dang union thing.'
If Ms. Cyson didn't have a history of spewing liberal propaganda, I'd be upset. The truth is that Ms. Cyson didn't accidentally get her facts badly wrong on this issue. It's that she's lying through her teeth.
I watched about 4 hrs. of the debate on the House floor. Rep. Mike Nelson carried the bill for the DFL. Rep. Nelson is "a trades business agent for the Lakes and Plains Regional Council of Carpenters and Joiners ." In short, he's belonged to a carpenters union for over 20 years. While I can't find his voting record on union issues, I'm betting the ranch it's 100%.
By comparison, the chief Republicans fighting against the DFL's child care unionization legislation were Rep. Mary Franson, Rep. Sarah Anderson and Rep. Joyce Peppin. Rep. Franson, in fact, read from a legal study from the law firm of Seaton, Peters and Revnew that talks about the NLRA, aka the National Labor Relations Act. Here's a quote from the NLRA:
Federal law mandates that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to "...dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it..." 29 U.S.C. 158 (a)(2)
One of the highlights of the child care debate came after Rep. Nelson said for the umpteenth time that the BMS, aka the Bureau of Mediation Services, "has been doing these elections for 40 years and they've been doing a fine job." That's when Rep. Anderson asked Rep. Nelson if the BMS had ever been audited. He admitted he didn't know, at which point Rep. Anderson asked "Then how do you know that they've been doing a fine job?"
At another key point, Rep. Nelson argued against an amendment on the font size of the print on the mailer sent to child care providers. He held up a mailer that met the requirements of the amendment. Minutes later, Rep. Peppin introduced a mailer she'd gotten from the child care providers still outside the House floor at 4:05 am. Rep. Peppin showed that this mailer had lots of fine print that was difficult to read.
That's before talking about Hollee Saville, the leader of the opposition to the DFL's child care unionization efforts. Saying that Hollee is well-informed on this issue is understatement. She's the heart and soul of the leadership that's trying to defeat this illegal effort.
That's before talking about the dozens of women outside the House floor who oppose the legislation. They outnumbered the pro-union child care advocates by a wide margin.
Ms. Cyson's statement that an all-male gang of legislators told the women that they "know what's best for you. Don't you go worrying your pretty little head over this dang union thing" is pure bullshit. In fact, the DFL told the women child care providers that they knew best of how to run their child care small businessses. They did it by having Rep. Nelson, a pro-union man, repeatedly say that the "BMS has been doing these elections for 40 years and have been doing a fine job."
That's proof positive that the DFL, not a bunch of know-it-all men, told the women who run child chare small businesses they the DFL knows what's best for these women. The DFL essentially said that these female entrepreneurs shouldn't "worry their pretty little heads" about unionization.
Finally, Rep. Nelson admitted in an interview on WCCO radio that this was a payoff to AFSCME:
Thankfully, this legislation will be defeated in the federal court system. The NLRA is quite clear that it doesn't allow business owners to "dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it." Further, governments can't say that private sector business owners are public sector union employees just because it says so.
Ms. Cyson should pay attention to the laws on the books. She shouldn't be ignoring the ones she doesn't like.
Tags: Mike Nelson , Child Care Unionization , AFSCME , DFL , Hollee Saville , Mary Franson , Sarah Anderson , Joyce Peppin , Seaton, Peters and Revnew , National Labor Relations Act , Small Businesses , MNGOP
Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 5:32 AM
No comments.
Mob justice isn't justice
Yesterday, Al Sharpton said that he hopes continued pressure on the DOJ would force them to file a civil rights case against George Zimmerman:
Sharpton has said he hopes continued public pressure will force the Justice Department to bring a civil rights case against Zimmerman.
That isn't surprising. Sharpton's been a hustler and liar for decades. He's most famous for the Tawana Brawley fiasco . Since the verdict, he's a) advocated for ignoring Florida's manslaughter, b) brushed aside the fact that proof doesn't exist that George Zimmerman acted with racial malice and c) insisted that Eric Holder ignore federal hate crimes laws.
From the start, the media, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the special prosecutors who tried the case have tried painting Trayvon Martin as a cherub-faced 12-year-old boy. They've omitted the parts about how he was prone to violence, that he was 4 inches taller than George Zimmerman and that the items he bought at the neighborhood store are ingredients to a drink that causes paranoia and fits of violence.
This video by Bill Whittle highlights the things Al Sharpton and the prosecutors didn't and won't tell people:
Setting those things aside, justice can't be achieved through mob rule, which is what Sharpton specializes in. Sharpton also specializes in omitting key truths if they interfere with his storyline. That isn't just speculation. Here's what he omitted during the Tawana Brawley fiasco:
Much of the grand jury evidence pointed to a possible motive for Brawley's falsifying the incident: trying to avoid violent punishment from her mother and her stepfather Ralph King. Witnesses testified that Glenda Brawley had previously beaten her daughter for running away and for spending nights with boys. King had a history of violence that included stabbing his first wife 14 times, later shooting and killing her. There was considerable evidence that King could and would violently attack Brawley: when Brawley had been arrested on a shoplifting charge the previous May, King attempted to beat her for the offense while at the police station. Witnesses have also described King as having talked about his stepdaughter in a sexualized manner. On the day of her alleged disappearance, Brawley had skipped school to visit boyfriend Todd Buxton, who was serving a six-month jail sentence. When Buxton's mother (with whom she had visited Buxton in jail) urged her to get home before she got in trouble, Brawley told her, "I'm already in trouble." She described how angry Ralph King was over a previous incident of her staying out late.
There was evidence that Brawley's mother and King participated knowingly in the hoax. Neighbors told the grand jury that in February they overheard Glenda Brawley saying to Mr. King, "You shouldn't have took the money because after it all comes out, they're going to find out the truth." Another neighbor heard Mrs. Brawley say, "They know we're lying and they're going to find out and come and get us."
Ultimately, the man Sharpton accused of raping Ms. Brawley filed a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton. Here's that lawsuit's outcome:
In 1998, Pagones was awarded $345,000 (he sought $395 million) through a lawsuit for defamation of character that he had brought against Sharpton, Maddox and Mason. The jury found Sharpton liable for making seven defamatory statements about Pagones, Maddox for two and Mason for one.
Now Sharpton has a semi-national TV audience (He's got a show on MSNBC) from which to spew his hatred and lies. Sharpton's platform is different but his lies and omissions remain consistent.
In any other administration, I'd say I'd be surprised to see the DOJ file charges against Zimmerman. With the Obama/Holder DOJ, I'd be upset but not surprised if they filed charges against George Zimmerman. The facts and the law just don't support the prosecution of George Zimmerman.
Then again, the facts and the law haven't stopped Al Sharpton, President Obama or Eric Holder in the past.
Tags: Al Sharpton , Tawana Brawley , Trayvon Martin , Racism , Jesse Jackson , President Obama , Eric Holder , Mob Justice , Protests , George Zimmerman , Jury Trial , Acquittal
Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 6:49 AM
No comments.
