May 26-28, 2013
May 26 05:41 Keith Ellison's phony arguments May 26 06:38 Censorship without due process May 26 07:17 Krebs looks other way, approves accusation-filled LTE May 26 08:12 DFL already chasing jobs away May 26 21:55 DFL's definition of capitalism: Crony capitalism May 27 09:21 Scott Rasmussen: Scandals have hurt Democrats May 27 11:30 Democrats revving up PR machine ahead of next Benghazi hearing May 27 12:26 Under the IRS's thumb May 28 08:31 Environmentalists cripple Arrowhead tourism
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Keith Ellison's phony arguments
This afternoon, Keith Ellison and I got into a little dispute on Twitter:
REP. ELLISON: targeting is wrong. Obama said so; replaced people. IRS apologized. Political orgs posing as social welfare orgs is wrong too.
REPLY: He's right. It's wrong. Why did his 2008 campaign start that tactic? Check out what Bob Bauer & Tom Matzzie did.
REP. ELLISON: do you want to fix the blame or fix the problem? Obama's fixing the problem.
REPLY: Obama's campaign tactics contributed to the problem. Obama's governance looked the other way when the problem erupted. I want both. PS-Obama administration targeted reporters, conservatives.
Rep. Ellison's question of whether I wanted to affix blame or fix the problem was his attempt to distract from the question at hand. It's important to affix blame because that's the only way forward.
The bigger point, though, is that President Obama's administration specialized in these tactics, starting in 2008. They made a point of using the IRS to intimidate their political opponents. Conservatives shouldn't ignore these facts. Rather, they should highlight the fact that the Obama administration is the source of these tactics.
When we criticize the Obama administration, we should expect the Democrats to criticize us for politicizing these scandals. We should expect the Obama administration to retaliate. Our response should be swift and hardhitting. Our reply should be that we're appalled by Holder's DOJ attempting to intimidate reporters from doing their jobs. We're appalled that the IRS targeted TEA Party activists, Christians and other conservatives just like the Obama 2008 campaign did under Bob Bauer's leadership.
It isn't enough for President Obama to pledge to change how his administration and his campaigns have operated. Frankly, at this point, informed people who are willing to see the truth as the truth know President Obama's machine have specialized in the things he's now promising to fix.
Rep. Ellison is a willing flack for President Obama. If only he was willing to criticize President Obama for his administration's willingness to act without integrity. That would be news indeed.
Posted Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:41 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 27-May-13 10:12 AM
Gary lets not forget that Obama had democrat Senators telling the IRS to do this.
I would've (and feel free to do this) twit to Keith:
So Keith did Obama fix the problem by getting the Senators who were wrong and ordered the IRS to do this to resign like Senator Al Franken?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 28-May-13 09:52 AM
Rep. Ellison's question of whether I wanted to affix blame or fix the problem was his attempt to distract from the question at hand. It's important to affix blame because that's the only way forward.
You're right. Affixing blame where it now seems virtually certain that the blame will lead is step one toward fixing the problem. The people that caused the problem should not be the people who claim they'll fix it.
Regime change in this country would be the best thing that could happen to it. Perhaps this scandal will lead to it.
Censorship without due process
People are right to question President Obama's commitment to the First Amendment. Recent scandals show the Obama/Holder Justice Department is willing to trample on reporters' First Amendment right to gather and disseminate information. In a bygone era, that was known as reporting.
The Obama/Holder Justice Department's assault on the First Amendment isn't limited to intimidating reporters. George Will's column offers proof that they're willing to stretch their campaign of censorship to college campuses:
Responding to what it considers the University of Montana's defective handling of complaints about sexual assaults, OCR, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the university a letter intended as a 'blueprint' for institutions nationwide when handling sexual harassment, too. The letter, sent on May 9, encourages (see below) adoption of speech codes, actually, censorship regimes, to punish students who:
Make 'sexual or dirty jokes' that are 'unwelcome.' Or disseminate 'sexual rumors' (even if true) that are 'unwelcome.' Or make 'unwelcome' sexual invitations. Or engage in the 'unwelcome' circulation or showing of 'e-mails or Web sites of a sexual nature.' Or display or distribute 'sexually explicit drawings, pictures, or written materials' that are 'unwelcome.'
In short, the DOJ is lending its autharitorian boot to students' throats. This isn't just about censorship. It's about censorship without the right to due process:
Under 2011 rules that establish a low standard of proof, Kaminer says, 'students accused of harassment are to be convicted in the absence of clear and convincing evidence of guilt, if guilt merely seems more likely than not.' And schools are enjoined to 'take immediate steps to protect the complainant from further harassment,' including 'taking disciplinary action against the harasser' prior to adjudication. So the OCR-DOJ 'blueprint' and related rules not only violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech but are, to be polite, casual about due process.
The DOJ's actions in putting these guidelines together is appalling. They're disgusting, too. The thought that a student could be 'convicted' of making "unwelcome" comments just on the basis that it's likely they'd be convicted is disgusting.
This isn't about eliminating true sexual harassment. It's about censorship. If "unwelcome" comments are harassment, then everything is potentially harassment.
When the Education Department was created in 1980 (Jimmy Carter's payment to the National Education Association, the largest teachers union, for its first presidential endorsement), conservatives warned that it would be used for ideological aggression to break state and local schools to the federal saddle. Lukianoff says:
'Given that the [OCR-DOJ] letter represents an interpretation of federal law by major federal agencies, most colleges will regard it as binding. Noncompliance threatens federal funding, including Pell grants and Stafford loans.'
The message is clear: Obey or the students get hurt. What's interesting is that the DOJ would sign off on this unconstitutional mandate. This is the type of case that SCOTUS would swat down with a 9-0 opinion.
I'm not surprised by DOJ's decision. They've shown they won't hesitate to intimidate reporters. Why would it be surprising that they'd be willing to impose censorship (First Amendment) without due process (Fifth Amendment)? That's as surprising as finding out Bill Gates made money last week.
Posted Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:38 AM
No comments.
Krebs looks other way, approves accusation-filled LTE
Randy Krebs, the Editorial Page editor at the St. Cloud Times, has repeatedly shown a willingness to apply a double standard to the LTEs he approves. It's appalling that he'd approve this LTE . Look at this assertion of fact:
Because Bachmann is a tax attorney and once worked for the IRS, I find it ironic that she wants a deeper probe toward the actions that the IRS took. Nobody raised this kind of fuss when the IRS took similar action toward Democratic groups when Republicans were in the White House.
Claudette Moran is the idiot that wrote this LTE. Her accusations should be highlighted because they're baseless. What proof does Claudette Moran have that the Bush administration used the IRS as a weapon against its political opponents? What proof does Krebs have of the Bush administration using the IRS as a weapon against their political opponents?
It's guaranteed that the NY Times would've written a series of articles criticizing the Bush administration had the IRS been used as a weapon against their political opponents.
Krebs' penchant for approving LTEs that make baseless accusations against Republicans is well-documented. This isn't the first time he's let a Republican hater make wild accusations. He's especially notorious for approving this viled crap if Michele Bachmann is the person being accused.
It's time for Mr. Krebs to show us proof that the Bush administration used the IRS as a political weapon. If he doesn't produce that proof in a timely fashion, then people should think of him as being an unprofessional editor who's willing to use a lenient standard for LTEs criticizing Republicans but who uses a tight standard for LTEs written by conservatives.
When Michele Bachmann joined with 4 other conservatives in calling for an IG investigation into whether the Muslim Brotherhood, I wrote an LTE that cited Andrew McCarthy, the man that prosecuted, then convicted, the Blind Sheikh and Walid Phares, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood. These terrorism experts said that the "National Security Five" were justified in asking for this investigation.
Pretending to be a terrorism expert, Krebs said that these men's information and opinions were tenuous. That's the explanation he gave for why he wouldn't approve my LTE. Krebs couldn't permit an LTE that supported Michele Bachmann even though national experts verified the accuracy of her statements. Meanwhile, Krebs didn't hesitate in publishing an LTE that made wild, baseless accusations that can't be verified.
That certainly isn't the picture of professionalism. Unfortunately, that isn't surprising.
Posted Sunday, May 26, 2013 7:17 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 27-May-13 10:09 AM
Gary:
It's quite obvious that they are enemies of Bush. Did they ever tell you how they were audited or made to jump through hoops because of President Bush.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 27-May-13 11:34 AM
Walter, the Times hasn't gone after President Bush. OTOH, they've gone after Michele Bachmann with a passion. It's almost to the point that it's a blind hatred of her.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 28-May-13 02:05 PM
Gary:
The reason why I made my point is in the highlighted box they were claiming that Bachmann didn't care when the Bush White House went after liberal groups.
So I figured if they were that sure that Bachmann didn't care the Saint Cloud Times must have suffered some type of terrible treatment under Bush which Bachmann didn't stop?
Maybe if you put on the blog since they won't print your letter to the editor the question what liberal group or groups did President Bush attack while Bachmann ignored their pleas for help?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
DFL already chasing jobs away
Thanks to Mitch's great post , we have a glimpse at the job-killing 'abilities' of the DFL's policies. This article is an indictment against the metro DFL's environmental policies:
The E-Nugget iron making process was developed by Carbontec and Michigan Technological University over the past five years, including large-scale batch tests at a Minneapolis facility, John Simmons, president of Carbontec, said Monday. The company already has plans to expand to a 300,000-ton plant if the startup goes well.
Simmons said the Jamestown site is well-situated because of easy access to sugar beet residue feedstock and also because it is adjacent to a Great River Energy power plant and directly on the BNSF rail line. He said the iron ore concentrate could move from the Grand Rapids area to North Dakota in rail cars that move western coal east but generally have been empty on their return trip west.
While it's true that Carbontec started looking into this during the Pawlenty administration, it's the DFL's environmental policies that have crippled mining-related jobs in northeast Minnesota. Over the last 41 years, the DFL has held either the Senate, the legislature or the governor's mansion. That means organizations like Conservation Minnesota, the Minnesota Environmental Partnership and the Minnesota Coalition of Environmental Activism have essentially had veto authority on mining policies for over 40 years.
This sentence stood out:
Magnetation already employs about 220 people at three ore recovery facilities on the Iron Range, two of which, near Keewatin and Taconite, the company owns and which send concentrate to a Mexican steel mill.
It stood out because the DFL loves talking about all of the Fortune 500 companies headquartered in Minnesota. What's noticeable is that they don't talk about the manufacturing plants outside of Minnesota. Like this one. Minnesota's tax climate, Minnesota's overregulation of manufacturers and the DFL's love of labor mandates make it a hostile environment for manufacturers. There's little wonder why manufacturers avoid the state.
Mitch's closing statement sums things up nicely:
Let's let that one sink in; between taxes and permits, it's cheaper to ship rock 300 miles than it is to process it in Minnesota.
Posted Sunday, May 26, 2013 8:12 AM
No comments.
DFL's definition of capitalism: Crony capitalism
This Our View editorial does its best to spin the DFL's disastrous economic policies. In attempting to spin the DFL's policies, though, the Times highlights the fact that the DFL's favorite type of capitalism is crony capitalism:
Gov. Mark Dayton and the DFL Legislature are taking a lot of heat, largely from the business community, for adding a fourth income-tax tier that's expected to tap the wealthiest 2 percent of Minnesotans for about $2 billion.
But did you know this? Dayton and DFLers are on track to enact a variety of measures that add up to more than $1.21 billion worth of public assistance or expense cuts for that very same business community. Here's the rough breakdown:
• $528 million in aid to Mayo Clinic's massive 'Destination Medical Center' project in Rochester. (The state provides $400 million and Rochester and Olmsted County kick in another $128 million.)
• $250 million in aid is going to Mall of America so it can double in size.
In other words, the St. Cloud Times, aka the St. Cloud DFL Spin Machine, insists that the DFL legislature was pro-business because they showered a pair of businesses with $778,000,000 of taxpayers money. That thinking is utterly bassackwards. They should be ashamed of themselves.
The Times apparently doesn't give a rip about the businesses that aren't politically well-connected. What's in the DFL budget for them? The DFL's mantra, one that the St. Cloud DFL Spin Machine would echo, would likely be "property tax relief" or "investments in education."
First, those "investments" don't create jobs. Second, the DFL's version of property tax relief is myth, not fact. When GOP leaders visited St. Cloud last Tuesday, they confirmed that most of the property tax relief was increased LGA payments. Putting additional money in the hands of mayors like R.T. Rybak, Chris Coleman or Don Ness leads to out-of-control spending, not property tax relief.
First, those politicians and business lobbyists who portray state government as doing nothing but hurting business through tax hikes have 1.21 billion reasons to tone down their rhetoric.
If bloated government is that great for business, why did this company build their plant in North Dakota ?
I'd suggest that the St. Cloud DFL Spin Machine enroll in some economics classes at St. Cloud State. If they'd taken those classes, they'd know better than to defend the DFL's crony capitalist policies.
Posted Sunday, May 26, 2013 9:55 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 27-May-13 10:06 AM
Gary:
I know you bash that paper all the time, but how come you didn't ask "Guys how does this help Saint Cloud if the money went to Bloomington and Rochester?" If I was on that paper I would've been alarmed by that fact!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 27-May-13 11:36 AM
That's simple. I want the entire state to understand that the DFL's idea of capitalism is to pick winners & losers instead of letting consumers pick the ideas they like best.
Scott Rasmussen: Scandals have hurt Democrats
Poll junkies have wondered why President Obama's poll ratings haven't tanked in the wake of the scandals. Scott Rasmussen's op-ed offers a fine explanation of that phenomena:
So, why hasn't it hurt the president's overall job approval? Some believe it has. The theory is that with a recovering economy, his ratings should be higher. Another possibility is that the president's base may have doubts, but they are still sticking by their man.
It also may be that the doubts are popping up in other ways. For example, at Rasmussen Reports we regularly ask voters which party they trust to deal with a range of issues including government ethics and corruption. Before the scandals broke, Democrats had an 8-point advantage on this particular issue. But there has been a 10-point swing, and the GOP now has a 2-point edge.
Among unaffiliated voters, Republicans enjoy a 23-point advantage on the ethics front. Before the controversies, it was a toss-up.
Republicans shouldn't rejoice over this polling. This polling gives them an advantage on these issues. They don't say that they're popular. To become popular, not to mention trusted, Republicans need to build off of this and tell people that their actions are guided by doing the right thing for the right reasons. Anything short of that will cause people to still have doubts about Republicans.
That said, Scott Rasmussen's polling contains some troubling news for Democrats:
White House press secretary Jay Carney, speaking on CNN, dismissed "the premise, the idea that these were scandals." However, voters see it differently. Just over half believe each of the three qualifies as a scandal. Only one out of eight sees them as no big deal.
Voters also reject the notion that the IRS targeting was the work of some low-level rogue employees. Just 20 percent believe that to be the case. A slightly larger number (26 percent) thinks the decision came from IRS headquarters. But 39 percent believe the decision to target conservative groups was made by someone who works at the White House.
This isn't just a case of people believing politicians always behave this way. Only 19 percent think the IRS usually targets political opponents of the president.
Yesterday, the St. Cloud Times published an LTE that I wrote about here . The LTE essentially accused all administrations of using the IRS to punish that administration's political opponents. Clearly, people aren't buying that storyline. Apparently, though, Randy Krebs is buying that spin because he chose to publish the accusation-filled LTE. But I digress.
Simply put, Jay Carney's credibility is almost nonexistent at this point. Carney's daily changing explanations of the IRS scandal are painful to watch. His White House press briefings are almost as painful to watch as were the daily beatings Scott McLellan took while he was the Bush administration's pinata.
These scandals aren't going away anytime soon. They're destroying the Democrats' credibility, starting with this administration's credibility. The worst news for this administration is that its worst days are still ahead.
Posted Monday, May 27, 2013 9:21 AM
No comments.
Democrats revving up PR machine ahead of next Benghazi hearing
This article shows that congressional Democrats aren't interested in getting to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi. They're more interested in protecting their political flanks than finding out why this administration was caught flat-footed with Benghazi:
Retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering has agreed to be deposed by Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) Oversight panel on June 3 after being threatened with a subpoena. Democrats say they're wary of a trap, and want to be able to counter what they say is Issa's habit of leaking 'cherry-picked' portions of witnesses' testimonies to the press.
'If it's true to form, if it's a closed deposition, his staff [will] cherry pick content and leak it once again to the press that's only too willing to print it,' panel member Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) told The Hill. 'It might be grossly inaccurate. In fact, it may be the opposite of what's being asserted. But by the time somebody gets around to reporting that, if they ever do, the damage is done.'
That's rich. The Democrats are complaining that the press isn't giving them a fair shake. That isn't the full extent of the Democrats' PR tactics:
Democrats say Pickering and his co-author, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen, should be able to defend their report in a public hearing. Pickering could not be reached for comment.
'House Republicans have politicized this investigation from the beginning, and they have recklessly accused Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen of being complicit in a cover-up," said the panel's ranking member, Elijah Cummings (D-Md.). "It is time for the Chairman to honor his commitment to hold a hearing to allow these officials to respond to these reckless accusations, instead of imposing new conditions to keep them from testifying. Members of Congress and the American people should hear directly from these officials, in public, and the Chairman's efforts to keep them behind closed doors undermines the Committee's credibility and does a disservice to the truth.'
Trey Gowdy explains why the committee is deposing witnesses:
The goal of a deposition, oversight panel member Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) told The Hill, is to get 'the full facts.'
'It's hard to unlock the mysteries in five-minute increments in a committee hearing,' Gowdy said. 'So if you want to find out what happened and who he interviewed, what questions he asked, why he didn't interview certain people, you need to do it in a deposition.'
These investigations aren't a witch hunt. They're part of a real investigation, complete with initial questions that establish a base of facts, followed by the rarest of things in Washington, DC: thoughtful followup questions. That's what happened during a bygone era when investigations went where the facts took them. That's what happened when investigations found the truth and let the political chips fall where they may.
Speaking of political chips falling where they may, this speaks directly to that:
Democrats say Issa's real target is Clinton, the presumptive Democratic front-runner for the 2016 presidential election.
It's possible Hillary will suffer political consequences as a result of her mismanagement. Had she made the right decisions, she wouldn't be getting criticized for making a string of stunningly foolish decisions about the security forces in Benghazi.
It's time to detonate the 'Republicans are politicizing Benghazi' storyline. Foolish decisions were made. American patriots died as a direct result of Hillary Clinton's shoddy decisionmaking. Hillary lied when she told the diplomats' families that a video caused the terrorist attack was done to protect a president during a political campaign.
If Hillary gets tarnished because Republicans ask intelligent questions about what happened in Benghazi, then it'll be because Hillary made foolish decisions. It isn't because Republicans politicized the Benghazi terrorist attack.
Finally, there's this:
Democrats say they should have been given a chance to interview Mark Thompson, the State Department's acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism, ahead of the May 8 hearing. They say his Republican attorney, Joseph diGenova, shielded him from Democrats.
Issa strongly denied interfering during the hearing.
'Mr. Thompson, is it your decision who you talk to?' he asked. 'And did any of my people ever tell you not to talk to the Democratic minority?'
'No,' Thompson answered.
The Democrats' accusations are essentially empty. They've had the right to access witnesses and ask questions. It isn't Chairman Issa's fault that these whistleblowers' testimony is making the administration look bad.
Posted Monday, May 27, 2013 11:30 AM
No comments.
Under the IRS's thumb
This op-ed is written by one of the victims of the IRS's misconduct. It's both compelling and infuriating. This part is especially infuriating:
In order to raise money, I filed an application with the IRS in January 2011, seeking to obtain 501(c)(3) status as an educational organization. The IRS processes more than 60,000 non-profit applications annually and it typically takes two or three months for an organization such as mine to be granted status as a public charity.
I have been waiting for 27 months.
In the interim, I lost a $30,000 grant, multiple thousands of my own money and had to cease any further activity for fear the IRS would target me for harassment.
I wrote here that the IRS attacks have high-ranking political operative written all over them. Kim Strassel wrote eloquently and expansively about the Obama campaign's targeting of their political opponents in this article :
On Aug. 21, 2008, the conservative American Issues Project ran an ad highlighting ties between candidate Obama and Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground. The Obama campaign and supporters were furious, and they pressured TV stations to pull the ad - a common-enough tactic in such ad spats.
What came next was not common. Bob Bauer, general counsel for the campaign (and later general counsel for the White House), on the same day wrote to the criminal division of the Justice Department, demanding an investigation into AIP, "its officers and directors," and its "anonymous donors." Mr. Bauer claimed that the nonprofit, as a 501(c)(4), was committing a "knowing and willful violation" of election law, and wanted "action to enforce against criminal violations."
While this isn't proof that the administration is behind the targeting, it's ample proof that the Obama campaign didn't hesitate to attack its political opponents through powerful government agencies.
This is outrageous:
While seemingly reluctant to grant my non-profit status, the IRS has been quick to wield all the intimidating power of a federal agency, demanding answers to an invasive, 95-point inquisition, including, for example, that I provide a list of my members and donors and that I state for the IRS my political position on virtually every issue of importance to me. Where does one begin? For good measure, I was asked to identify those whom I train and that I inform the federal government, in detail, about what I am teaching my students.
What does this information have to do with the tax code? This is what an all-powerful and unchecked federal government can do. The old saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely certainly is fitting in this instance. Mr. Kookogey shouldn't have been subjected to this type of uneven-handed scrutiny.
The good news is that their attempt to cover up their disgusting, capricious and criminal behavior will land people like Lois Lerner, Douglas Schulman and Stephen Miller in prison. The bad news is that patriots like Mr. Kookogey and Catherine Engelbrecht have been subjected to disgusting, possibly illegal acts of threats and intimidation.
Tags: Kevin Kookogey , Linchpins of Liberty , Catherine Engelbrecht , True the Vote , TEA Party , Conservatives , Lois Lerner , Douglas Schulman , Stephen Miller , IRS , Bob Bauer
Posted Monday, May 27, 2013 12:26 PM
No comments.
Environmentalists cripple Arrowhead tourism
In their efforts to villainize the precious metals mining industry, environmental organizations have crippled tourism in Minnesota's Arrowhead. This article highlights the environmentalists' impact on tourism:
This week Cherie Sonsalla started her new job as the executive director of the Ely Chamber of Commerce. Her first headache? Educating visitors that the Boundary Waters is not being polluted by copper mining.
The headlines this week, other than Sonsalla replacing Linda Fryer, came from environmental groups Northeast Minnesotans for Wilderness, Friends of the Boundary Waters and partner group American Rivers.
"Copper and nickel mining putting recreation, drinking water, and wilderness at risk" and "If mining is permitted, the Boundary Waters and its clean water will be irreparably harmed by acid mine drainage containing sulfates and heavy metals" said American Rivers, naming the South Kawishiwi to its list of ten most endangered rivers.
The onslaught of misinformation is disturbing. Unfortunately, it isn't surprising. These paragraphs show how willing these militant environmentalist organizations are:
In January, Betsy Daub of the Friends of the Boundary Waters wrote that state agency staff shouldn't make statements in relation to proposed mine projects before they are vetted through the permitting process. "Our state agencies should objectively analyze mine proposals and review all the facts before making determinations," Daub wrote.
But last week she and others pushed for Congress to stop all proposed mining projects now, before they get to the environmental review process.
Organizations like Friends of the Boundary Waters aren't friends of Boundary Waters businesses. This is proof that they won't hesitate in hiding their agenda until they reveals their true agenda, which is an anti-business, anti-mining, anti-middle class agenda.
Nearly all of their Board of Directors are Twin Cities progressives. Twin Cities progressives have a lengthy history of militant environmental activism. Their history is short, though, on accurately talking about environmental facts.
Simply put, Friends of the Boundary Waters are enemies of blue collar mining workers.
Posted Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:31 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 28-May-13 02:06 PM
Friends of the Boundary Waters may not be frineds of the blue collar mining workers yet those same workers will vote to put Dayton back in the Gov's mansion and the DFL in charge of both chambers in 2014. We get the government we deserve and if the iron range refuses to see the error of their voting ways, then they they deserve to have high unemployment.
Comment 2 by Matt at 28-May-13 02:43 PM
Good. I hope all those Arrowhead idiots go broke. A just reward for all those years they have supported the DFL.
You buttered your bread - now sleep in it!
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 28-May-13 09:19 PM
They made their decisions, Matt, but I want everyone to succeed. That means I hope they learn quickly & turn into conservative voters.
Comment 3 by Shelly Maki at 25-Aug-13 07:45 AM
Are only St. Louis County residents going to have to pay to clean up any possible messes created by mining? If so, then I say drill baby drill. But if we're creating a few hundred short term jobs on the range, and then opening the entire state to generations of tax liability in the form of cleanup costs, well, I guess the enviro whack-a-doos may have a point.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Aug-13 12:22 PM
The Twin Metals & PolyMet mines will supply mining jobs for the next 50+ years. That isn't short-term by anyone's imagination. The money for cleanup is supplied by the company. The government doesn't pay a penny. For once, the government learned from its mistakes.
Comment 4 by Tina Nyman at 25-Aug-13 10:10 AM
There are many gullible people who are clueless to what they support. Example a relative of a friend went into Sustainable Ely to see what it was all about. Was greeted by a woman that was from Tennessee. They asked her if they were against all mining. She stated yes. He said don't you have nuclear plants supply your power? She said yes and that's what they should do here. He said maem do you not realize they have to mine uranium like they mine taconite etc...here? Same process then have to also get rid of residules. She said they can find desolate property to put it. Clueless...And then she stated Piragis wants to be the largest employer in Ely. He wants to turn it into a retirement community, but then said he wants to build a logging school, so retired people from NY will have retirement homes built. Sorry but do not understand his method of thinking and the rest that are in kahoots with him. The hypocrite from Tower that collects a pension from a range mine, (which supports him), and Riverpoint, (who grew up in mining families), and others. To me sounds like we (who support mining), are more in control of the environment as we have been mining since the 1800's, underground mines, and still have pristine waters here contrary to their propaganda they have been spreading. We have Miner's Lake in Ely that use to be the Pioneer Mine, a underground mine. And it's one of the best trout lakes around..(no belly up fish here). But Piragis and his clan want everyone to think the waters bad. I would take a drink out of them....would you city people drink from the Mississippi? Sorry but we think Piragis and his bunch with all there misinformation has ruined tourism here. We advised him we could all coexist. Have for years. But he and his bunch are out for own personal gain...don't think it has a thing to do with environment. If it was environment I would much rather have mining going on here where there are guidelines we follow then overseas where there are none. And yes that can affect us. People wake up...the democratic party is the green party now.....
