June 1-6, 2013
Jun 01 09:19 Holder's charm offensive vs. Holder's actions Jun 02 05:47 The St. Cloud Times is surprised? Jun 02 06:49 St. Cloud Times' Bachmann hatred showing Jun 02 07:33 Government waste is a misconception? Jun 02 10:05 Dayton, Bakk, Thissen spin published Jun 02 10:51 Morillo-Alicea hints at mudslinging campaign Jun 05 07:43 Ritchie won't seek re-election Jun 05 11:54 Yet Jun 06 11:08 A most frightening fishing expedition
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Holder's charm offensive vs. Holder's actions
Amidst all the talk about Eric Holder's semi-off-the-record meeting with news organizations, one thing is getting lost. I think that's intentional. Holder's only hope of hanging onto his job is to get the media to return to their lapdog posture. Eric Holder knows that the media doesn't trust him, at least for the moment. He's hoping that his charm offensive will give them the political cover they need to pretend he didn't just violate their rights to do investigative journalism.
The American people, however, aren't fooled. Neither is Fox News. It's their responsibility to remind people that Holder didn't hesitate in tossing the Constitution aside, especially the Bill of Rights. He didn't respect the media's First Amendment rights to report on the government's actions.
That's actually the lesser of the violations he made. When he signed a warrant application that accused James Rosen of being a criminal co-conspirator in order to rifle through Rosen's private emails without his knowledge, he deprived Rosen and Fox News of their due process rights. That's a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Why should people trust Mr. Holder when he didn't hesitate to ignore the highest laws governing the federal government? This isn't an aberration, either. Mr. Holder lobbied President Clinton to pardon the biggest tax cheat, Marc Rich, in U.S. history. Mr. Holder dropped the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party after the Mukasey Justice Department had won the case.
The media shouldn't be given the option to ignore Mr. Holder's outrageous behavior. This isn't about him 'accepting responsibility', whatever that means. It's about him getting prosecuted for his wrongdoings. That includes prosecuting him for lying to Congress. It includes prosecuting him for lying to a judge, too.
Why should news organizations trust Mr. Holder when they don't know how many times he signed off on looking through their reporters' phone logs and reading their reporters' emails? We know he signed off on more than just the Rosen warrant because he testified he didn't know how many times he'd signed off on warrants that let authorities surreptitiously read Rosen's emails and look at his phone records. When that application was approved, it also gave federal authorities permission to look at Mr. Rosen's parents' phone records.
We know from their statements the last week that they never intended to prosecute Rosen. If that's true, why did the Justice Department need to prevent Rosen's and Fox's attorneys from arguing against the warrant in court?
Finally, it's safe to conclude that Holder's actions prove that his respect for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is selective at best.
Follow this link for more on this topic.
Posted Saturday, June 1, 2013 9:19 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 01-Jun-13 11:47 AM
Gary:
I will love just one mainstream media that went to a meeting with Holder and publish everything said by Holder. When Holder and the Justice Department protest just have them ask back, "And why should we respect your rights when you didn't respect the rights of the AP and James Rosen?"
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
The St. Cloud Times is surprised?
When it comes to intellectual foolishness, it's difficult to beat the St. Cloud Times Editorial Board. This editorial is laced with that intellectual foolishness. Here's a prime example:
Sure, his desire to beat Bachmann is implied in most every speech, news release and public appearance. However, the words he speaks (and writes) literally list priorities that go well beyond who isn't in office. Here are two very recent examples:
'... I'm running to work with both sides to find ways to balance the budget, keep our promises to seniors, create jobs and strengthen the middle class,' closes out a 'Why I'm Running' explanation on his website.
'... As a businessman who has balanced budgets and created jobs, I'm running to work with both sides to find ways to balance the budget, keep our promises to seniors, create jobs and strengthen the middle class,' is the final quote he issued in announcing April 12 his candidacy for the 6th District seat in the 2014 elections.
So was that all just lip service?
It's amazing that a supposedly high profile newspaper didn't notice that Jim Graves' platform was all about him not being Michele Bachmann. Either they didn't notice or they're pretending that they didn't notice that that's Graves' motivation.
The foolishness continues:
Another big reason for disappointment is the stark reality that, contrary to Graves' belief, Minnesota's Republican Party, foundering amid an internal ideological war and massive debt, could very well end up nominating a candidate similar to Bachmann.
And to be even more honest, who is to say the DFL Party, emboldened by its dominance at the state level, might not just find an extreme DFLer to put on its ticket?
First, there isn't another person who is as steadfast in her belief in the right things as Michele Bachmann. Her charisma, her policy chops and her love of limited government gave people a reason to vote for her.
Next, the DFL has nominated extremists before to run against Michele. Graves' talk about being a new Democrat was a fallacy. Barney Frank, one of the most extremist, hateful Democrats in DC, hosted a fundraiser for him. Graves told me that the PPACA was a free market solution to the health care crisis. The truth is that it's a government-centered program.
As this board noted last fall, the appeal of Graves is his moderate viewpoints. He was an island of common sense and potential compromise amid a sea of political extremism.
On the issues, Graves sounded more moderate than he really was. More importantly, his policies wouldn't solve America's problems. The PPACA won't lower health care costs. In fact, health insurance premiums are rising rapidly. There will be almost as many uninsured with the PPACA in place as before. Graves the politician didn't see the need for uprooting the PPACA.
Graves the politician never talked about the crippling effects of the federal government's overregulation. Michele Bachmann fought against the federal government's overregulation every minute she was in DC. America's economy can't grow with the regulators running wild. Graves didn't have a plan for that. That's because it wasn't a priority for him.
If you don't reduce the federal government's overregulation, we can't achieve energy independence. Jim Graves didn't speak about the need for achieving energy independence. Michele frequently spoke about reducing regulations and achieving energy independence.
For all the Times talk about Graves the moderate, they've never spoken about his policies or his problem-solving abilities. They seemed to think that being a compromiser was the chief qualification for being a congressman. That type of wrong-headed thinking is what's gotten America in the trouble it's in.
We don't need compromisers as much as we need people who get policies right. Michele Bachmann made some indefensible statements. That said, she's been right on the issues, from energy independence to health care to taxes to regulations. I'd love it if the Times got rid of their irrational hatred of Michele. If they'd paid attention to the issues, they might've appreciated what Michele brought to the table.
Instead, they got a tingle up their leg for any DFL politician who criticized Michele. What a pathetic excuse for a newspaper.
Posted Sunday, June 2, 2013 5:47 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 02-Jun-13 11:58 AM
Gary:
I know that you like to beat up on the Saint Cloud Times, but if they are agreeing with what you put in the box that Graves said then they are endorsing Paul Ryan's plan to reform medicare let alone get the budget balanced with in ten years. And keep in mind Ryan's plan was created before we had the flood of revenues that came in the month of April that is suppose to dramatically reduce the deficit.
Of course what the Times doesn't want to say is that Bachmann supported those things.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
St. Cloud Times' Bachmann hatred showing
When Michele Bachmann officially becomes a private citizen again, the St. Cloud Times will need to find a new villain. Their hatred of all things Michele has been documented throughout the years. I'm not sure I ever read them praise her. If they did, it was buried in their avalanche of criticism of Michele. The Times' hatred of her stems mostly from Randy Krebs. His op-ed is filled with incredible criticism. This one is most ironic:
I find the most stunning aspect of Bachmann's political style is her refusal to admit she makes mistakes. It's like she's perfect, like she walks on water.
This coming from a man who isn't capable of admitting he's ever made a mistake. Last year, when Michele and 4 other conservative Republicans worried about the State Department's pro-Muslim Brotherhood slant, I tried submitting a YTE editorial. Randy Krebs rejected the YTE, calling my statements "unsubstantiated allegations." I explained in this post how Krebs wasn't just a little bit wrong:
This week, I attempted to submit an LTE defending Michele Bachmann. I tried highlighting the fact that the questions Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Trent Franks, Lynn Westmoreland and Tom Rooney asked were both legitimate and substantive. I used information from Andrew McCarthy's article to show that Huma Abedin's parents had significant ties to radical Islam, including to the Wahhabist movement that produced 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists.
Despite quoting Mr. McCarthy's impeccable documentation for the LTE, Mr. Krebs told me that they wouldn't publish an LTE based on 'unsubstantiated allegations.' It's insulting that Mr. Krebs would argue about 'unsubstantiated allegations,' especially considering this research by Walid Shoebat . Shoebat's research is detailed, on topic and damning. Mr. Shoebat was a ' radicalized Muslim willing to die for the cause of Jihad ' until his conversion to Christianity.
Here's the subtitle to Mr. McCarthy's article:
Michele Bachmann has every right to ask questions.
Krebs' blind hatred of Michele Bachmann wouldn't permit him to admit that his criticism of Michele wasn't right. He'd excoriated her for her calling for an investigation. The lead prosecutor in the trial against the Blind Sheikh said this about Michele's claims:
Representative Bachmann is one of five House conservatives who have raised concerns about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of our government. Glenn Beck reported Tuesday that GOP leadership is trying to extort an apology out of Bachmann by threatening to boot her from the House Intelligence Committee if she fails to submit.
That got me to wondering: Any chance Speaker Boehner might take just a couple of minutes out of his busy jihad against Bachmann to focus on how the State Department, during Ms. Abedin's tenure, has cozied up to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood's chief sharia jurist?
I suspect that the man who led the successful prosecution and conviction of the Blind Sheikh might know more about the Muslim Brotherhood than Mr. Krebs. When I pointed out that Mr. McCarthy was a respected expert on terrorism, I got an email from Krebs saying that my YTE was based on "unsubstantiated allegations."
Isn't it a bit ironic that Krebs now whines that Michele can't admit when she's wrong? First, shouldn't Krebs practice what he preaches before criticizing others for what he won't do? Mr. Krebs, if you aren't willing to admit your verifiable mistakes, why should we listen to anything you say?
Finally, it's long past time for Mr. Krebs to admit that Michele's positives exist and that they're important. Perhaps that isn't possible because he's approved far too many I-hate-Michele LTEs. The common trait of those LTEs is that they're filled with emotion-filled, fact-free anti-Michele rants.
Witness her 2012 campaign. She agreed to only three debates with challenger Jim Graves, all within the last two weeks of the election. Only one of those was in a public setting, here in St. Cloud. But even it was moderated by the deep-red St. Cloud Area Chamber of Commerce.
The St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce is filled with people who believe in capitalism and who do good work. Saying that they're "deep-red" isn't just a stretch. It's an exaggeration of epic proportions. That statement by Mr. Krebs shows just how liberal he is.
The Times is running a loose shop. If they don't get their act together quickly, they'll fade into irrelevance. That said, Mr. Krebs is in danger of that already.
Posted Sunday, June 2, 2013 6:49 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 02-Jun-13 02:50 PM
It is time, not overdue, but here, now, time for Marcus Bachmann to run.
Keep that family paycheck. Get a second family member into the cushy government pension category. While railing against government spending on welfare.
Go, Marcus.
Government waste is a misconception?
It's impossible to take anything David Shuster writes seriously. Shuster is part of the Times Writers Group, which means he writes a column once a month. Tons of his statements border on the ridiculous. That's certainly the case in this month's editorial :
Starting in the 1980s, Americans were fed a steady diet of anti-tax, anti-government propaganda. Although the folly of conservative rhetoric on other issues such as gay marriage and gun 'rights' is recognized by an increasing percentage of the electorate, taxation and the notion that government can be a benevolent (rather than malevolent) institution have tougher rows to hoe.
The misconception that public institutions are, by definition, wasteful and inefficient may contribute to societal ambivalence about government.
Shuster's writings are breathtaking. That he thinks gun rights is mythical is offensive. The fact that he thinks government waste is a "misconception" identifies his blind spot. And it's quite the blind spot. It's apparent that Shuster isn't informed on the mountains of wasteful spending contained in the recent GAO Report, which Sen. Coborn spoke out against :
SEN COBURN: Next one, housing assistance. We have 160 programs, separate programs. Nobody knows if they're working. Nobody in the administration knows all the programs. I'm probably the only person in Congress that does because nobody else has looked at it. Twenty different agencies. We're spending $170 billion. If we're really interested in housing assistance, why would we have 20 sets of overhead, 20 sets of administration? And what would it cost to accomplish the same thing?
All these numbers come from the Government Accountability Office, by the way. They don't come from me.
And the other part of the report is that nobody knows if these programs are working. We have no data to say that we're actually making a difference on housing assistance through this expenditure of money. So we're not even asking the most basic of questions that a prudent person would ask.
When a department can't measure where the money that's appropriated to them is being spent, it's impossible to argue that government isn't wasteful. That information proves that government isn't just wasteful. It's proof that they don't care whether they're wasteful. If they cared about spending the taxpayers' money efficiently, they would've installed a system to track their department's spending.
Shuster said that it's "anti-government propaganda" to think that government isn't malevolent. Apparently, he didn't read this article :
Johnson commenced his new 'Victims of Government' project with a short film detailing the plight of Granite City, Ill. resident Steven Lathrop who spent more than 20 years attempting to comply with federal wetlands regulations to alleviate flooding in his neighborhood, only to end up in a mess of red tape, bureaucratic mistakes and eventual financial distress.
That doesn't sound like a benevolent government. That's without talking about how the Justice Department ignored reporters' First and Fifth Amendment rights. That's without asking Mr. Shuster whether he thinks the IRS's targeting of conservatives and Christians was the act of a benevolent government.
Not surprisingly, Shuster's column couldn't have been published without Randy Krebs' approval. It's pretty apparent that Krebs doesn't subject liberals' columns to the same level of scrutiny as conservatives' LTEs and columns. It isn't surprising that Shuster's propaganda isn't scrutinized for accuracy. Krebs' selective editing and scrutiny is well-documented.
Posted Sunday, June 2, 2013 7:33 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 02-Jun-13 11:51 AM
Gary:
Maybe David Shuster can answer this question:
If we spend $10,000 per student and have a class of sixteen students, and pay the teacher $60,000 where is the other $100,000 we spend on students going to?
That's waste!
And David doesn't understand even if you spend the same number of dollars it's possible to spend the money a whole lot better. That's also waste!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Dayton, Bakk, Thissen spin published
When a governor asks a newspaper to print his editorial, it's political courtesy to say yes. That doesn't mean citizens can't rip his op-ed. This op-ed would be a paragraph if not for the DFL's spin:
Foremost, our budget will provide our children the better educations they need for brighter futures. Minnesota's long-term economic competitiveness hinges on our ability to deliver a world-class education for our kids.
All-day kindergarten isn't a great investment. It's a ripoff. Further, teacher accountability doesn't exist. AJ Kern notes that there are high school math teachers in Sauk Rapids school system who can't pass the basic skills test to get their teaching certificate. If there aren't great teachers in classrooms, no amount of spending will deliver a "world-class education for our kids."
It sounds great. Education Minnesota will certainly praise the Dayton/Bakk/Thissen budget. The reality, though, is that their policies won't appreciably improve education in Minnesota.
During the political analysis segment of @Issue With Tom Hauser, Brian Mclung noted that the DFL stripped out the basic skills test reform that Gov. Dayton signed after the Republican legislature passed it last year. Mclung noted, too, that the DFL ended graduation testing for students, too.
If DFL policies were leading to "a world-class education for our kids", why is the DFL gutting policies that verify kids are getting a "world-class education"?
The propaganda continues:
After a decade of steep tuition increases, students at the University of Minnesota and Minnesota State Colleges and Universities campuses will benefit from tuition freezes for the next two years. And more than 100,000 State Grant Program recipients from low- and middle-income families will receive additional financial aid to pursue their higher educations.
Tuitions have been frozen, which is the only positive thing in their higher ed budget. Higher ed costs haven't been reduced. Rather than fixing the problem, the DFL just increased the subsidies for students to attend less-than-average colleges.
We made major investments that will provide thousands of good-paying jobs. They include major expansions by Mayo Clinic, 3M, the Mall of America and others that will create thousands of construction jobs and thousands more for operations.
If crony capitalism worked, the American economy wouldn't be growing at an anemic 2% rate. Any time that the government raises taxes, then spends some of those taxes on the politically-well-connected, the people that don't get their "fair share" of corporate welfare are hurt.
That's before talking the disastrous warehousing tax and the sales tax on telecommunications companies. Those are the worst tax policies ever implemented in Minnesota history. I predict the warehousing tax will be repealed before the end of the 2014 session. If it isn't, Minnesota's economy will take a major hit.
Finally, there's this BS:
And we paid for these investments honestly and progressively. The very highest income earners and some large corporations will pay more in taxes. Except for smokers, middle-class Minnesotans will pay the same state income or sales tax rates while realizing the benefits from $441 million in additional property tax relief, which reverses the property tax increases that resulted from the previous Legislature's policies.
The warehousing tax will be paid for by everyone, not just "the rich", in the form of higher pricers for groceries and other products. As for the "$441 million in additional property tax relief," that's mostly a myth. Most of that relief is higher LGA payments to cities and counties. In the hands of liberals like Don Ness, Chris Coleman and R.T. Rybak, those LGA payments turn into big spending increases, not into property tax relief.
The DFL pushed things hard this year because they realize Minnesotans will throw the DFL out of the House majority in 2014.
Posted Sunday, June 2, 2013 10:05 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 02-Jun-13 11:42 AM
Gary:
Part of me doesn't like to say this, but I'm sort of looking forward to hearing that cigarette taxes are coming in way less then predicted, that Wisconsin is dramatically improving in part because Minnesota businesses move there, and the other horrible things that will happen because of these policies.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 02-Jun-13 11:48 AM
Gary:
One thing you might want to highlight when you talk about education is that in the early 1990's the voters of Minneapolis were talked into voting for a tax increase which when taken to the voters has never been voted down when asked to be kept in place. The purpose of the tax is to keep the size of the class rooms small to turn out high quality education.
Now if you compare this with what Dayton has gotten passed and praise Dayton did something to help just one year of a 13 year education cycle. Not much of an effort.
And here is the bigger kick by now Minneapolis should be turning out the state's best high school graduates since this program has been going on for over 20 years. Have they done that?
The city of Minneapolis schools are proof positive that just dumping money in doesn't improve the quality of education and can never improve it.
Now if the money is better spent (which the Dayton proposal doesn't do) that could improve education. Instead it's going to payraises and keeping job of adminstrators, education programs on things other than math, history, and English (especially the lower grades).
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 02-Jun-13 08:47 PM
If education is a public good, then why are only 54,000 higher income people and businesses paying for all day daycare er kindergarten and tuition freezes? Shouldn't everyone be paying for those goodies if it benefits everyone?
Now that the so called rich are going to pay more (i.e. their fair share), what will the DFL do when the tax collections do not amount to what they have projected and already spent? The 2014 session will really be interesting.
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 03-Jun-13 03:34 PM
Chad, the 2014 session will be the same as the 2013 session. The DFL will play the old "la la la, we're not listening" song when revenues don't meet expectations.
The fact that the current majority in the Minnesota Legislature and its governor do not understand basic economics make the 2014 session predictable before it starts. It's a revenue problem, don't you see?
Morillo-Alicea hints at mudslinging campaign
This morning on @Issue, Javier Morillo-Alicea, the president of SEIU Local 26, hinted that state unions would work with ABM in funding a mudslinging campaign against the GOP-endorsed candidate for the Sixth District. Here's what he said:
Michele Bachmann wasn't the problem. Michele Bachmann was a symptom of the problem. The problem is a party that is so far outside the mainstream, a party that is so far outside of Americans' thinking...We'll see who the Republicans put up...because the Republican primary and endorsement process...even if the person isn't Michele Bachmann at the start of the process, they'll be Michele Bachmann by the end of the process.That's spin. It's likely how ABM will attack the GOP-endorsed candidate, too.
Those attacks will start before the endorsing convention. They'll intensify once a candidate is endorsed. ABM's history, which the SEIU is part of, is littered with stinging criticism of their advertisements. ABM is known for having mounted the biggest smear campaign in Minnesota gubernatorial history.
Why should people think ABM won't try smearing Michele's successor? They've shown that the truth isn't important to them.
Republicans shouldn't take the Sixth for granted even though they start with a distinct advantage. Though it isn't likely they'll dump tons of money into this race, Republicans shouldn't just assume ABM won't try mounting a smear campaign against their endorsed candidate.
Posted Sunday, June 2, 2013 10:51 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 02-Jun-13 11:38 AM
Gary:
You know I will like to know exactly where we are extreme and out of touch:
* Are we extreme because we want a balanced budget?
* Are we extreme because we think the government should take as little of the money you earn as possible?
* Are we extreme because we want American energy independence and think the price of gasoline can be way less then $4 per gallon?
* Are we extreme because we want to have control of our businesses (which if we're forced to join an union we won't have)?
* Are we extreme because we think that life begins at conception?
I can go on, but I haven't seen where we're extreme and out of the main stream.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by eric z. at 02-Jun-13 02:46 PM
Walter and Gary - So, in what would be a perfect world for you, personally, who would you send to DC in place of Michele Bachmann? The equivocal, we don't like critics stuff is dodging the real question. WHO? Come on. ANSWER.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Jun-13 03:38 PM
There are several people who I'd enthusiastically support, with Matt Dean at the top of the list. Rhonda Siverajah would be another person on the list. Michelle Benson is the other top-tier candidate.
Frankly, Tarryl is the only candidate that comes to mind on the DFL side. Who would you like to see run on the DFL side?
Comment 3 by Tom at 03-Jun-13 06:14 PM
How about a contested primary? I want to nominate a candidate not endorse one. Endorsements are a artifact from MN nonpartisan days.
Comment 4 by eric z. at 04-Jun-13 09:55 PM
DFL side -- Since one need not reside in a district to represent it, Thissen would be ideal. He probably is lining up for another go at Governor, however, after Dayton's two terms. Within CD6, I am not aware of any DFL eagerness. Gary, you'd have made a better Rep than Bachmann. Krinkie? Emmer?
Benson and Peggy Scott appear to have removed their names from speculation.
Comment 5 by eric z. at 04-Jun-13 10:15 PM
DFL side, IN THE DISTRICT, a very capable progressive choice, former state Rep. Jeremy Kalin would represent the district well. However, he already knows district demographics, and Strib says he might run for Secretary of State given that Ritchie has announced he will not run again. DFL candidates always will have better shots at statewide seats, than the CD6 House seat. It is how it is, not how I would like it, but CD6 voters vote as they do.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Jun-13 11:28 AM
Kalin would get crucified.
Comment 6 by walter hanson at 07-Jun-13 04:16 PM
Eric:
Name your dream candidate versus the Republican I'll give you ten percent and the Republican will still win big. The only reason why some of the races was close was because the public was tarred with lies about Michelle.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Ritchie won't seek re-election
Minnesotans haven't seen this many political surprise ever. First, Michele Bachmann announced she isn't running for re-election . Within days, Jim Graves, her announced opponent, announced he isn't running. Yesterday, Mark Ritchie announced that he isn't seeking re-election :
Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie announced Tuesday that he will not seek re-election to a third term in 2014.
"This is the right decision for me and my family right now," said Ritchie, 61. "When I did the math, if I would be honored by being re-elected, I would be closer to 70 than 65" after completing another term.
The Mark Ritchie Era is thankfully coming to a close. Ritchie fought against voter integrity most of his time in office. He refused to admit reality, which is that Minnesota's election system isn't the gold standard anymore . He fought against his own party on election integrity.
There's sure to be a stampede to replace Ritchie. It'll be interesting to see who emerges as the parties' frontrunners.
Posted Wednesday, June 5, 2013 7:43 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 05-Jun-13 11:26 AM
Ritchie would be a good CD6 Rep.
Better than Emmer.
BIG QUESTION: Susan Rice, National Security Advisor?
Any thoughts, Gary, as a comment now, or will you fulminate through an entire new post?
Given past opinion, I anticipate a separate post.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 05-Jun-13 11:39 AM
But Eric, who will the Communist Party find to run for Minnesota Secretary of state? Maybe a guy who's just quit, like Jim Graves?
And your pipe dream about Ritchie getting elected in CD-6 just shows that you really should type with both hands.
Comment 3 by Speed Gibson at 06-Jun-13 10:40 PM
No matter who wins, we will get a better Sec of State. Oh wait. Unless its Carrie Lucking, Phyllis Kahn, Wy Spano, or Don Shelby.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 07-Jun-13 04:14 PM
Eric:
The only reason why you think Ritchie is better because he thinks like Obama. If there is a law he doesn't like he just doesn't obey it! That's not the type of person who Emmer is so Emmer is far more qualfied than Ritchie.
Not to mention I'll love to see that race. I'll even spot Ritchie ten percent and Emmer still wins easily.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Yet
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.
If these IRS agents won't role without immunity, it just takes a simple majority vote to grant 1 or 2 of these IRS agents immunity. Once that rumore is floated, the likelihood of rush to the Chairman's office goes up exponentially.
Another argument Democrats have made is that this is contained in the Cincinnati office. Perhaps that's because the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee investigators haven't found the document linking the Treasury Department. Yet. Perhaps it's because the House Ways and Means Committee investigators haven't found that document.
Once that document is found linking Treasury or close political advisor to President Obama, the drip, drip, drip will turn into a gusher of information.
Yesterday, the tone changed. It changed from one of bipartisan disgust with the IRS to one of partisan bickering on what constitutes the public good. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, (D-OR), said "Let's stop this charade. Let's stop pretending that these are social welfare organizations and treat them as political." That drew Professor John Eastman's fire:
PROF. EASTMAN: Rep. Blumenauer, it's your kind of statements that have empowered IRS agents to make determinations on which organizations qualify as the public good.
Posted Wednesday, June 5, 2013 11:54 AM
No comments.
A most frightening fishing expedition
Prior to this article , I thought that the IRS and DOJ scandals were the nastiest of government-sponsored fishing expeditions. That's timid by comparison with this:
The Obama administration has been collecting the phone records of millions of U.S. customers of Verizon under a top secret court order, according to a British newspaper report which raised new and troubling privacy questions.
That information is the definition of a fishing expedition. Here's why it's that frightening:
The newspaper claims the document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of U.S. citizens were being collected indiscriminately and in bulk, regardless of whether they were suspected of any wrongdoing.
Several words jump off the page at me. Millions of U.S. citizens is one of the sets of words that should frighten people. What's the logic behind that? It's one thing to collect a narrow group of records on a suspect. That isn't what's happening here.
Here's another group of words that frighten me:
collected indiscriminately and in bulk
Again, what's the justification for that? I'll bet the administration can't honestly tell the American people the logic justifying their actions. Finally, this phrase is troubling:
regardless of whether they were suspected of any wrongdoing.
Whatever happened to requiring probable cause? Did this administration throw that out? That sounds suspiciously like President Nixon telling the FBI that they didn't need warrants to wiretap people.
Considering the fact that this administration is already catching fire for the DoJ looking at James Rosen's personal emails and the indiscriminate searching of AP's phone records, this potential scandal fits a specific narrative. Add the IRS targeting religious organizations, conservatives and TEA Party organizations and you get the impression this administration wants to collect intimiate information on everyone.
A year ago, had someone told me that this administration was spying on news organizations, indiscriminately collecting phone records and using the IRS as a weapon, I would've written them off as lunatic fringers. Today, I'd call them well-informed and justifiably suspicious.
Posted Thursday, June 6, 2013 11:08 AM
No comments.
