November 6-8, 2017
Nov 06 01:03 LSS's damage control LTE Nov 06 09:31 Exposing Clinton-Media dishonesty Nov 06 12:42 Environmentalists talking in circles Nov 06 17:48 USAF didn't report Kelley Nov 07 01:43 T-21 defeated despite 4-3 vote Nov 07 18:43 Welcoming council vs. Johnson Nov 08 10:29 Pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Nov 08 11:19 MN Senate suspends operations Nov 08 21:05 Gov. Dayton is the problem
Prior Months: Jan Feb ~ May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
LSS's damage control LTE
This LTE , written by Maureen Warren, Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota, is pure CYA. In the LTE, Warren states "As part of our work, we are required to hold quarterly meetings with stakeholders that are involved in the process of helping to resettle refugees. These stakeholders include officials from local government, county personnel in human services, and representatives from public health, public safety, housing community, public education, social services, businesses and other service providers."
There's ample proof that county officials have gotten briefed on the programs. After all, they administer most of these programs. However, there's no proof whatsoever that city officials have attended these meetings. Mayor Kleis has repeatedly said that the city doesn't have anything to do with refugee resettlement. He's also said "We don't have any funding that goes to refugee resettlement."
That's pretty slippery wording. Notice that Mayor Kleis didn't say that the city budget doesn't spend money on refugees who've already settled here. Further, citizens who support Councilman Johnson's moratorium haven't talked about city budgets:
Since July 10, 22 people have spoken about refugee resettlement. Many of the speakers said they are concerned about the taxpayer cost of refugees.
Once the refugees have been here 90 days, federal funding disappears. At that point, the taxpayers get hit with the costs of supporting refugees. The same taxpayers that pay property taxes to the city get hit with property tax increases from the school district to pay for programs that help refugees learn the English language. That's why St. Cloud's education rating is awful . By comparison, Sartell, which doesn't have to deal with refugees, earns a higher rating for education and for crime .
Our focus is to increase communication and seek solutions to meet the needs of refugee populations. This is a working group. Quarterly meetings were never intended to be an open public forum.
Thus far, it's apparent that LSS's focus is on keeping these proceedings secret.
We know there is community interest in learning more about refugee resettlement. To create greater understanding about this work, we are opening our December quarterly consultation meeting to interested public observers.
How quaint. LSS is opening up a meeting one time so LSS can say that they've been transparent.
Resettling refugees is humanitarian work. We've been involved in refugee resettlement for nearly 10 years in St. Cloud, and many decades in Minnesota. Our role is to help refugees get off to a good start and become productive members of the community as quickly as possible.
Actually, it's a racket . Businesses that hire refugees who've been unemployed more than 6 months qualify for a tax credit of up to $9,600. Businesses hiring refugees aren't hiring them for middle management positions. They're hiring them for unskilled positions. In other words, businesses get cheap labor and a huge tax credit for hiring cheap labor.
Meanwhile, LSS gets paid $1,000 for each refugee it finds a home for. This year, LSS will get $225,000 to resettle refugees. That doesn't sound like humanitarian work. That's what a lucrative racket sounds like. This letter from Ron Branstner lays things out beautifully:
Posted Monday, November 6, 2017 1:03 AM
Comment 1 by Dave Steckling at 10-Nov-17 09:24 AM
Great expose Gary. LSS appears on high defensive mode. They are being confronted on several sides --Jeff Johnsons accusation that they were being non-compliant shook them up. Will we ever get full transparency from them? Not likely.
Exposing Clinton-Media dishonesty
When Politico published excerpts of Donna Brazile's book, they set off a media firestorm. That firestorm required pushback by the Clinton-Media Complex. Glenn Greenwald's article highlights the Clintons' dishonest tactics in fighting against the truth by writing about 4 viral falsehoods.
The first viral falsehood is "The Clinton/DNC agreement cited by Brazile only applied to the General Election, not the primary." Greenwald's article exposed that by saying "The following day, NBC published an article by Alex Seitz-Wald that recited and endorsed the Clinton camp's primary defense: that Brazile was wrong because the agreement in question (a copy of which they provided to Seitz-Wald) applied 'only to preparations for the general election,' and had nothing to do with the primary season." Greenwald then wrote "The problem with this claim is that it is blatantly and obviously false. All one has to do to know this is read the agreement. Unlike the journalists spreading this DNC defense, Campaign Legal Defense's Brendan Fischer bothered to read it, and immediately saw, and documented, how obviously false this claim is."
Hillary's media, like her, can't be trusted. They're as willing to ignore the truth as she's been all her life. Hillary's vast right wing conspiracy still rates as her biggest fabrication but it isn't her only fabrication. Another attack made against Brazile is equally dishonest:
Viral Falsehood #3: Brazile stupidly thought she could unilaterally remove Clinton as the nominee.
Yesterday, the Washington Post published an article reporting on various claims made in Brazile's new book. The headline, which was widely tweeted, made it seem as though Brazile delusionally believed she had a power which, obviously, she did not in fact possess: "Donna Brazile: I considered replacing Clinton with Biden as 2016 Democratic nominee."
This fabrication was killed by reporting the facts:
But the entire attack on Brazile was false. She did not claim, at least according to the Post article being cited, that she had the power to unilaterally remove Clinton. The original Post article, buried deep down in the article, well after the headline, made clear that she was referencing a complicated process in the DNC charter that allowed for removal of a nominee who had become incapacitated.
This isn't my attempt to rehabilitate Ms. Brazile's reputation. I wrote this post to highlight how corrupt she is. This post's goal is to highlight how dishonest the Clinton media is. Greenwald's closing paragraph is good advice:
It can certainly be menacing for Russian bots to disseminate divisive messaging on Twitter. But it's at least equally menacing if journalists with the loudest claim to authoritative credibility are using that platform constantly to entrench falsehoods in the public's mind.
Amen to that.
Posted Monday, November 6, 2017 9:31 AM
No comments.
Environmentalists talking in circles
You'd better sit down to read this LTE because it features talking in circles. Let me explain.
It says "Although people sometimes paint our campaign as 'anti-mining,' we respect the need to maintain that industry in places where it cannot threaten the Boundary Waters." The definition of anti is "a person who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc." It's fair to say that someone who opposes mining is anti-mining. Later in the LTE, it says "We truly believe those Minnesotans who want copper mining near the Boundary Waters are sincere when they say they believe it can be done safely and without risk. However, so are we when we say it cannot be done safely and that the risk is too great. Because of this, we will continue to do everything we can to protect this special place for future generations. We appreciate the position of our fellow Minnesotans who don't agree with us, and we look forward to continuing this debate not as enemies but as members of a community."
TRANSLATION: We're opposed to mining but we don't want to fight over it. Maintaining the anti-mining status quo is what we're hoping to maintain.
Continuing the debate is a polite way of saying keeping mining interests stalemated. Taking no action is fine with the environmentalists. That's precisely what they want. That's because they win stalemates. This sentence is BS:
Everyone weighing in on sulfide-ore copper mining near the Boundary Waters is doing so because they care about the future of our state and communities.
I don't buy the notion that Becky Rom and Reid Carron "care about the future of our state and communities." Carron is quoted as saying "Resentment is the primary driver of the pro-mining crowd here. They are resentful that other people have come here and been successful while they were sitting around waiting for a big mining company. They want somebody to just give them a job so they can all drink beer with their buddies and go four-wheeling and snowmobiling with their buddies, not have to think about anything except punching a clock."
That isn't what respectful dialogue sounds like. That's what know-it-all elitists sound like. This video shows how aggressive Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness are:
[Video no longer available]
NMW is one of the organizations that Mr. Niemela works with. Save the Boundary Waters is another one of the organizations he coordinates with. Check out this handout to find out how hostile NMW and Save the Boundary Waters are. This LTE is nothing more than a political spin job. Niemela is worried that miners are turning against the DFL because the DFL passionately opposes mining. He's likely worried that a Republican governor, working with GOP majorities in the House and Senate, might sign reform legislation that would support the mining community.
That's likely Mr. Niemela's worst nightmare.
Posted Monday, November 6, 2017 12:42 PM
No comments.
USAF didn't report Kelley
Predictably, Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy were quick to call for more gun laws within minutes of the slaughter of 26 parishioners at a church in Texas. Their mindless diatribe should be ignored. Further, they should get ridiculed for making this argument. According to this article , Devin Patrick Kelley "was court-martialed in 2012 for two counts of assault on his then-wife and assault on their child, Stefanek said. He received a bad conduct discharge, and reduction in rank and confinement for 12 months. The Air Force tells CBS News Kelley's case was a general court martial, the most serious level of military trial proceedings. It is reserved for more serious criminal allegations, those substantially similar to felonies in civilian jurisdictions. While personnel tried under general court martial can be subject to dishonorable discharge, Kelley received the less severe bad conduct discharge. Federal law prohibits those who have been dishonorably discharged from buying a firearm, but the law does not prohibit those who have received a bad conduct discharge."
Further, it was reported that Kelley was dressed all in black, including a face mask with a white skull on it. Additionally, "Neighbors said that they heard intense gunfire coming from the direction of the address listed for Kelley in recent days. 'It's really loud. At first I thought someone was blasting,' said Ryan Albers, 16, who lives across the road. 'It had to be coming from somewhere pretty close. It was definitely not just a shotgun or someone hunting. It was someone using automatic weapon fire.'"
This video should shut up the gun grabbers (but it won't):
His application was rejected. He wore an attention-getting black outfit. His neighbors heard him firing weapons. How many other warning signs were missed? Shouldn't we focus on how many existing laws were missed? Shouldn't we focus on the mental illness part of this equation?
Perhaps, what we should focus on is the fact that we need to enforce existing laws. Another thing that's likely to pay big dividends is having government do what it's supposed to do. These sorts of things shouldn't happen:
Before 26-year-old Devin Kelley received a bad conduct discharge from the U.S. Air Force in 2014, he was court-martialed in 2012 for assaulting his wife and child. Kelley 'intentionally' fractured his stepson's skull, The New York Times reported Monday. "He assaulted his stepson severely enough that he fractured his skull, and he also assaulted his wife," retired colonel Don Christensen, formerly the chief prosecutor for the Air Force, told the Times. "He pled to intentionally doing it." As punishment, Kelley was confined in military prison 12 months, received a reduction in military rank and was discharged for "bad conduct" -- a step above a dishonorable discharge.
Finally, there's this :
SUTHERLAND SPRINGS, Tex. - A day after a gunman massacred parishioners in a small Texas church, the Air Force admitted on Monday that it had failed to enter the man's domestic violence court-martial into a federal database that could have blocked him from buying the rifle he used to kill 26 people.
In other words, existing laws should've prevented this horrific slaughter.
Posted Monday, November 6, 2017 5:48 PM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 07-Nov-17 09:07 AM
Not only did the AF not submit the info (which is being examined), but he lied on his application-- another crime. What is really curious is that we have had laws against murder on the books for centuries, but murders have not ceased. How is a gun law going to stop murders, when laws against murder have not?
T-21 defeated despite 4-3 vote
The St. Cloud City Council just passed an ordinance raising the minimum age to purchase cigarettes to the age of 21. Mayor Kleis made a great presentation, talking about how the United States Constitution was amended in 1972 in less than 3 months. Mayor Kleis noted that the 26th Amendment was passed unanimously in the Senate and with only a handful of dissenting votes in the House of Representatives. It took the states only 3 months to ratify the constitutional amendment. The text of the 26th Amendment states " Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
After hearing compelling testimony from the community, City Council President Lewis, Councilman Laraway, Councilman Hontos and Councilman Masters still voted with the CentraCare lobbying unit. One testifier was Mark Fritz, the owner of E-Cig Emporium in St. Cloud. His testimony was blunt and to the point. He said "Your ordinance will not stop them. You need to recognize all you're doing is hurting your local businesses."
The good news is that Mayor Kleis has already announced that he'll veto the ordinance, saying "I can't support it and I won't sign it." Thanks to Kleis's veto, St. Cloud stayed away from becoming a total supporter of nanny statism.
The truth is that the City Council is approaching this the wrong way. They're trying to limit supply when they should be trying to limit demand. If you don't reduce demand for cigarettes, limiting where young people can purchase cigarettes won't have a significant impact. It's the rule of the forbidden fruit. If you tell someone they can't have something, that thing quickly becomes the thing they want most.
One of the testifiers noted that cigarette smoking has dropped each year for a long time. It isn't the problem health organizations make it out to be. That isn't saying we shouldn't try reducing it more. It's that we should try reducing smoking through educating people, then trusting them to make an informed decision. People who are old enough to sign a contract are certainly old enough to make an informed decision. Based on their votes, Lewis, Laraway, Hontos and Masters disagreed with that principle.
St. Cloud State students should remember that these councilmembers think these students aren't able to make informed decisions the next time that quartet is up for re-election.
Posted Tuesday, November 7, 2017 1:43 AM
No comments.
Welcoming council vs. Johnson
Just 2 weeks ago, the St. Cloud City Council tried silencing Councilman Jeff Johnson. They improperly approved a resolution that wasn't allowed by the Council's own rules. For an item to get discussed during the meeting, the council is supposed to receive notice that it will be discussed, with the theory being that the council should have the opportunity to read and think through proposals. Instead, Councilman Goerger ambushed Councilman Johnson with his 'welcoming' resolution.
During last night's discussion of Johnson's resolution, Councilman Hontos scolded the Council for mistreating Johnson. Hontos highlighted something that the Council rejected when Jeff Johnson proposed it but accepted it when Mayor Kleis proposed it. Let's be clear about something. This Council, as currently configured, isn't welcoming if you don't march in lockstep with them. Frankly, several members don't apply the rules that they voted on in August. They've done everything they can to discourage Jeff Johnson's quest for information about how much refugee resettlement costs taxpayers.
The good news is that Councilman Johnson isn't easily discouraged. The more these politicians and bureaucrats try hiding this information, the more Johnson insists on getting the information. BTW, each time the Council tries keeping that information from the public, Johnson's group of supporters gets bigger. This isn't disappearing. It isn't going away. These citizens are determined. Politicians who've attempted to ignore this issue will get hurt the next time they run for re-election.
[Video no longer available]
About 4 hours and 10 minutes into the meeting Councilman Johnson talked about the provision that allows states to opt out of the program. Specifically, Councilman Johnson said "What absolutely frustrates me is when members of the legislature tell me that there's nothing the state can do. That's absolute bullroar because it says right here in 45 Code of regulations dash 301, giving states the ability to opt out of the Refugee Resettlement Program . " Then Councilman Johnson highlights the procedure for opting out of the resettlement program. It isn't impossible. It just requires a spine. Councilman Johnson is the only person on the City Council who has one. He's also the only person who actually listens to the people, not the special interests.
The truth is that the people who voted for Councilman Goerger's resolution aren't welcoming people. They're welcoming only if people agree with them. They ambushed Councilman Johnson because he stood up to them. That isn't the definition of welcoming. That's the definition of fickle.
Posted Tuesday, November 7, 2017 6:43 PM
No comments.
Pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
If there's a message coming from Newt Gingrich's op-ed , it's that Republicans must put together a compelling message to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Gingrich reminds Republicans that "passing serious legislation is very hard work. There is still a great deal to do, and the timeline is incredibly tight", adding that "The Joint Committee on Taxation has already provided preliminary analysis for the bill. Its estimates are static and assume tax cuts will have no impact on growth. As a result of this bad assumption, the JCT incorrectly estimates the bill would create a significant budget shortfall, $1.43 trillion over 10 years."
Gingrich continued, saying "The truth is, our gross domestic product is growing at 3 percent, largely due to deregulatory efforts by the Trump administration and the expectation of tax cuts. Passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would further spur GDP growth, so the bill should be scored dynamically. The Tax Foundation has made dynamic estimates on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which show the bill would 'significantly lower marginal tax rates and the cost of capital, which would lead to 3.9 percent higher GDP over the long term, 3.1 percent higher wages, and an additional 975,000 full-time equivalent jobs.' This economic growth would raise federal revenues by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years, according to the Tax Foundation. In the end, this new revenue could bring the bill close to neutral, depending on what baseline is used to score it."
Let's get serious about something. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will speed up the economy. That's indisputable even though Nancy Pelosi insisted in this speech that it would kill jobs. Ms. Pelosi has told lots of whoppers in the past. This is another whopper. Republicans seem interested in self-destruction.
Sen. Lankford has announced his opposition to it because it supposedly increases the deficit. Here's a simple question for Sen. Lankford. If Republicans fail to pass this bill, what's the likelihood they'll have to vote on a Democrat budget that would hurt job creation and economic growth? What's the likelihood that a Democrat budget would increase the deficit more than this bill would?
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act isn't perfect but it's definitely a step in the right direction. There's economic growth happening right now. This isn't just the right time to pass tax cuts. It's the best time to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Posted Wednesday, November 8, 2017 10:29 AM
No comments.
MN Senate suspends operations
Minutes ago, Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka announced that the Minnesota Senate is suspending operations . Specifically, his statement says " Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka announced today the Minnesota Senate will run out of money on December 1, 2017 unless new funding becomes available or the courts restore the legislative appropriation vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton."
Sen. Gazelka continues, saying "'We don't take the suspension of operations of the Minnesota Senate lightly - this is not a game - but we really have no other choice today. The Senate is running out of money due to Governor Dayton's veto of our appropriation. Even though we prevailed in our lawsuit in Ramsey County District Court, the Governor refuses to recognize that order and is forcing us to spend down our carry forward."
It's worth noting that the Senate isn't the only institution affected by Gov. Dayton's petulant behavior. The statement highlights the fact that "The office of the Legislative Auditor is funded through the LCC. Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles has already expressed concerns about certain functions of his office being suspended - specifically the certification of state financial reports that support the state's credit rating and the receipt of federal funds."
This is the Supreme Court's moment of truth. They punted, leaving many unresolved questions. One thing they said in their ruling was that Minnesotans had the right to a "fully-functioning legislature." As part of the legislative branch, the OLA has the obligation to certify "state financial reports that support the state's credit rating and the receipt of federal funds."
Sen. Gazelka added this reminder to his statement:
"Further, a proper respect for our co-equal branches of government counsels that we intervene in their dispute only when absolutely necessary. It has become 'absolutely necessary' for the court to weigh in. The people of Minnesota will no longer have a voice in the legislative branch after the first of the year, not to mention the pain inflicted on our employees."
That's from the Court's ruling. The question now is whether the Court will enforce the principles it stated in its rulings. If they don't, I'll know that they're just DFL politicians in black robes. I'll know that they aren't jurists making rulings based on the Constitution. I'll know that they're politicians first.
Finally, there's this:
The Office of the Revisor of Statutes is also funded through the LCC and they work year-round with state agencies on rule making authority. The Revisor's office would also be necessary to draft a bill to restore legislative functions once session begins in February.
It's time for the Supreme Court to issue a ruling. Their spineless dithering put the state in this mess. It's time they stopped their dithering and did their jobs as jurists.
Posted Wednesday, November 8, 2017 11:19 AM
Comment 1 by John Palmer at 09-Nov-17 02:04 PM
Then Minnesota Supreme Court may be spineless but it is Gov. Dayton who put the state in this mess when he line item vetoed the LCC appropriation when he changed his mind and reneged of his promise. I wonder if a Governor can be impeached?
Gov. Dayton is the problem
Something jumped out at me while reading this article . Specifically, I'm upset with Melissa Hortman after she said "I think that Senator Gazelka should work with Democrats like Governor Dayton and me and Senator Bakk to solve a problem rather than using people as pawns in a political dispute." Actually, Gov. Dayton is the problem. If he hadn't negotiated in bad faith, this wouldn't have happened. In fact, he negotiated in bad faith twice, once when he said he'd sign the Republicans' tax relief plan 2 years ago. He negotiated in bad faith this year when he signed the tax relief bill, then line-item vetoed the funding for the legislature.
Gov. Dayton's holding the people of Minnesota hostage because he wants to renegotiate legislation he's already signed. Giving a governor that type of authority is unforgiveable. With that authority, governors could hold the legislature hostage every budget session. Is the Supreme Court willing to give the executive branch that authority over the legislative branch? If they're willing to do that, then the Supreme Court is corrupt. They're willing to give one branch of government the upper hand in budget negotiations. It isn't difficult to envision a governor holding the legislature hostage if the legislature doesn't give him what he wants.
Here's what I'd tell Rep. Hortman. Rather than defending people in the DFL, she should defend the people of Minnesota. Thus far, she's defended the DFL. She hasn't defended Minnesotans.
[Video no longer available]
By vetoing the legislature's funding, then filing the appeal after losing the first court case, Gov. Dayton has endangered the funding for the Office of Legislative Auditor, aka OLA, and the Revisor's Office. I wrote in this post that those offices aren't inconsequential offices:
The office of the Legislative Auditor is funded through the LCC. Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles has already expressed concerns about certain functions of his office being suspended - specifically the certification of state financial reports that support the state's credit rating and the receipt of federal funds.
The Office of the Revisor of Statutes is also funded through the LCC and they work year-round with state agencies on rule making authority. The Revisor's office would also be necessary to draft a bill to restore legislative functions once session begins in February.
Thanks to Gov. Dayton's line-item veto, the office that certifies Minnesota's financial reports that keep our credit rating healthy is getting its funding stripped. The Revisor of Statutes Office is essential to Minnesota's rule-making and legislation writing processes. What is Gov. Dayton thinking when he's stripping funding from these essential offices? Was Gov. Dayton thinking when he forced the stripping of these funds?
Anyone that's willing to shortchange these offices just so he can renegotiate a bill that he's already signed is disgusting. Gov. Dayton isn't a man of integrity. He's a man who thinks that the ends justify the means. How pathetic.
Posted Wednesday, November 8, 2017 9:05 PM
No comments.
