October 10-12, 2011
Oct 10 01:39 LFR Exclusive: Landowners File Lawsuit Against Houston County's Illegal Land Grab Oct 10 07:11 Dissecting Mr. Keller's Drivel Oct 11 05:22 Parry will challenge Walz Oct 11 06:05 Chip Cravaack making PolyMet a reality Oct 11 07:17 Keith Ellison makes an ass of himself Oct 11 13:31 Exposing Mitt's flip-flops Oct 11 14:45 Christie Endorsing Mitt Oct 12 03:13 Environmentalists still opposing PolyMet Oct 12 15:04 The fix is in
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
LFR Exclusive: Landowners File Lawsuit Against Houston County's Illegal Land Grab
The Houston County Minnesota Landowners Concerned About Property Rights have filed a lawsuit in federal court. In their lawsuit, the Houston County, Minnesota Landowners Concerned About Property Rights argue that their U.S. constitutional rights have been violated. Here's their press release announcing the lawsuit:
The Houston County, Minnesota Landowners Concerned About Property Rights have endorsed new litigation to get government back in the hands of 'We the People.' The Complaint, to be filed in the Minnesota Federal District Court, asserts that the Houston County Commissioners, the Board of Adjustment, and the Planning Commission, as well as Houston County Zoning Administrator Bob Scanlan and Environmental Service Director Richard (Rick) Frank are violating the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the landowners in Houston County.
The case, which will be filed during the week of October 3, 2011, argues that the County, Scanlan and Frank have violated the private property rights, the rights of due process, the rights to freedom of speech and association, the right to petition for redress of grievance and the right to equal protection of the law to similarly situated landowners in the application of the County's Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The case is being brought under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871.
"We are not a litigious group," said Robert Ideker, a Houston County landowner. 'We have tried to work with the County; we have attended dozens of meetings and hearings; we have written dozens of letters but no one will listen. This last year, we even tried to talk to the Commissioners individually to express our concerns about the protection of property rights; some landowners were told that the Commissioners would not speak to them. These are our elected representatives; it boggles my mind that they won't even hear what we have to say."
"At some of the meetings, we are told not to talk about the Constitution and the protection it guarantees to U.S. citizens. We need to get government back in the hands of the people; we just want the use of our property, land and buildings. As we have told the County numerous times, we are not against civil law, but if our property use is not harming our neighbors or the environment, we should be able to use our property. We aren't disrespectful to the County but they should listen to our side as well. We are disappointed that we have to resort to the federal court to get a fair hearing on our concerns."
The disagreements with the County came to a head when concerned citizens who had been deprived of their property rights went to the county officials, only to be rebuffed for their concerns. The landowners, often referred to as Landowners Concerned About Property Rights, then drafted a resolution, which was signed by 700 of the County's landowners, that urged the County Commissioners to recognize the protections for private property and property use. That petition was presented to the Commission in 2007. The Commissioners never responded.
The Concerned Landowners filed litigation in state court challenging the land use plan and zoning ordinance in 2010, but during the research and discovery in the case, many landowners learned that the issues between the County and its citizens were significantly deeper than the land use plan; those issues go to the heart of the guarantees in the U.S. Constitution that are protected by the Federal Civil Rights Act. That is why the landowners are dismissing the state court case and endorsing the Federal District Court Civil Rights case. Dismissal of the state court case does not mean we agree with the County, it means we want to resolve all the claims at once. That can only be done in Federal Court.
"Civil rights are the rights belonging to an individual by virtue of his or her U.S. citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including property rights, civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination,' explained Ideker. 'Specifically, section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act makes monetary and equitable relief available to those whose constitutional rights had been violated by a bureaucrat or official acting under State authority.
The Federal Civil Rights Act stands as one of the most powerful authorities under which federal courts may protect those whose constitutionally guaranteed rights are deprived. Section 1983 provides a way individuals can sue to stop past and prevent future violations of constitutionally protected rights. Section 1983 applies to both governmental employees as individuals and to state and local boards and commissions acting under state authority. It requires that the individuals or boards be responsible for the decisions they make, and not simply hide behind a claim that they are 'following the law.'"
"It is disappointing that it has come to federal court litigation, but there is nowhere else to turn. We would still be open to talking to the County officials to try to come to a resolution," said county land owner Tom Groeschner. "But we can't really talk to them if they won't listen to us. Don't we have to put government back in the hands of 'we the people?'"
The Houston County Minnesota Landowners Concerned About Property Rights argue that the Houston County Commissioners have stripped them of their constitutional rights by telling these landowners that they've changed the rules of the game after the land has been purchased. They've essentially said that the things they wanted to do when they purchased the land can't be done thanks to Houston County's oppressive regulation.
Worse, Houston County has said that the property's use has been restricted "for the public good" without paying the landowner for the taking. What Houston County is claiming is that they can take the land without paying for the taking. If the courts let this stand, it will essentially gut private property rights. Local units of government wouldn't need to use the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution to achieve their goals. They could just use zoning laws to tell property owners what they can or can't do.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation'. Houston County is essentially saying that they aren't taking the property. They're just telling private property owners that the county, not the landowner, will control the use of private property.
This is unacceptable. If Houston County wants to be the final arbiter of what land can be used for, then it should be required to purchase the land from the landowners at a fair market price. If Houston County isn't willing to purchase the land for a fair market price, then it shouldn't have decision-making rights, final or otherwise.
Essentially, Houston County wants everything for nothing. That sounds more like what happened in the former Soviet Union than in the United States.
Originally posted Monday, October 10, 2011, revised 08-Oct 8:19 AM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 10-Oct-11 02:02 PM
Gary understands an under-reported problem. While conservatives are focusing on relatively rare eminent domain private property takings, progressives are conducting massive partial regulatory takings across America. Agenda 21, it's domestic trademark Sustainable Development and it's local marketing tool Smart Growth are being espoused and implemented by liberal counties and cities.
Houston County and Fillmore County are both using down-zoning to manipulate private property rights. Down-zoning typically requires 40-acres to build a home. Since land is expensive, this takes most young people out of the housing market and forces them into a city - right where the liberals want to see them. A property owner is no longer able to subdivide his land into lots for his children to build and live. It limits the ability of a farmer to subdivide and sell small parcels for revenue during periods of drought or poor market conditions.
The Houston County situation is not exactly what you might think: big city ideas contaminating an otherwise sensible rural county. The truth is that sixties-vintage hippies settled communes in Houston County, grew up, raised children and continued farming. While the rest of the baby boomers espoused a more traditional view of America, these folks never lost the ideological dream of government solutions at the cost of private property ownership rights.
The Houston County situation is at the leading edge of property rights concern and the citizens there who have filed suit are to be applauded and supported.
Comment 2 by Anthony Garrity at 02-Oct-13 10:12 PM
Has this been decided? How are the good folk of Houston county doing? A lot is riding on their fight.
Anthony Garrity
1044 Maplewood Rd
West Newfield ME, 04095
(207)793-3923
Comment 3 by Milton Therese at 11-Jan-14 01:31 AM
What is the status or outcome of this lawsuit currently? I think Chisago County is also corrupt...residents there may find this info valuable...
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Jan-14 02:23 AM
I don't know.
Dissecting Mr. Keller's Drivel
NYTimes editor Bill Keller's editorial isn't disappointing. It's what I expect from a NY elitist who couldn't find America's political mainstream with a GPS and an unlimited supply of gas for his car.
First, he throws in a quote from another clueless GOP operative:
'Ronald Reagan couldn't get past first base in today's environment,' said one Texas Republican operative who has turned despondent about the party's drift.
Remember Ed Rollins saying that Reaganite conservatism was dead in 2008? In 2010, alot of Reagan admirers helped produce the biggest midterm landslide since Reagan was a young aspiring actor. Reaganite conservatism won't die because it's anchored in liberty, personal responsibility and accountability.
Aren't those are the principles that are the cornerstones of the TEA Party movement?
Then Mr. Keller attacks the 'Not Romney candidate':
Perry brings to the campaign, besides great posture and polished good looks, an economic record that looks like a vindication of Tea Party dogma, never mind that it was made possible by a quarter of America's known oil reserves, a lot of low-wage immigrants, a reluctance to waste government money on frills like education and health care, and a tax and regulatory environment out of the Wild West.
On paper, and, for all I know, in his heart, Perry is the most ardent of Tea Party ideologues. His book, 'Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America From Washington,' is a manifesto of 10th Amendment hyperfederalism and radical individualism, assailing the constitutional basis of Social Security, the income tax, the Federal Reserve, consumer protection, and 'federal laws regulating the environment, regulating guns, protecting civil rights, establishing the massive programs and Medicare and Medicaid, creating national minimum wage laws, establishing national labor laws,' and so on.
Now there's a movement. A "10th Amendment hyperfederalism and radical individualism." Sounds ferocious, doesn't it? Being particularly steadfast on 10th Amendment issues isn't a vice; it's a virtue. Except in Mr. Keller's mind. Then it's a dangerous form of radicalism.
Similarly, radical individualism isn't radical except with collectivists like Mr. Keller and adherents from the upper east side of Manhattan.
The title of Mr. Keller's op-ed is "Is the Tea Party Over?" The short answer is exceptionally short: No. The slightly abridged version is a bit longer: Only a liberal elitist would think the TEA Party's enthusiasm is shrinking.
Mr. Keller thinks that not having settled on a candidate already is a sign that the TEA Party is diminishing. It doesn't prove that at all. It's proof that TEA Party activists are being wise presidential shoppers. They aren't buying the first conservative-sounding schtick they hear.
They're intent on not settling for I-checked-all-the-right-boxes candidate. They're intent on getting the real deal, the person who best fits the most TEA Party attributes. That necessarily includes fighting for the TEA Party's principles. (There's that hyperfederalist thing again.)
Rather than sounding like a movement who's losing its intensity, it sounds more like a movement that's matured, stayed steadfast to constitutional principles while making sound real-world decisions.
The day after Election Day, 2012, I'll probably write a post asking Mr. Keller if he thinks the TEA Party is dead. I'm confident he won't think, much to his chagrin, the TEA Party is dead. He'll only wish it was.
BTW, a great gauge of whether TEA Party principles are waning is counting how many people utter the sentence "I wish the election was tomorrow" or a variant thereof.
Posted Monday, October 10, 2011 7:11 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 10-Oct-11 09:13 AM
I liked the Tea Party better when it was spontaneous and unorganized. I don't know what to make of the various individuals claiming to speak for, request donations for, and push "action for" various Tea Party organizations. When you have a leaderless movement, and somebody shows up claiming to be the leader, what are you to think?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 10-Oct-11 01:50 PM
Jerry, Ignore the TEA Party's alleged spokespeople. They don't speak for me. I probably agree with them most of the time but I'm pretty good at speaking for me.
I care mostly about whether the TEA Party's principles make sense & whether TEA Party activists are working to implement the TEA Party's principles into legislation.
I hope that clarifies things for you.
Parry will challenge Walz
Last Friday, Sen. Mike Parry announced that he's running for the CD-1 seat currently occupied by Nancy Pelosi's lapdog, aka Rep. Tim Walz:
Sen. Mike Parry is the first Republican to announce a run against Walz, a three-term Democrat from Mankato and a former teacher at West High School. Walz attracted five Republican challengers in 2010, but all dropped out after state Rep. Randy Demmer of Hayfield beat them at an endorsing convention in April.
Sen. Parry is a formidable opponent. Rep. Walz will quickly find that out. Perhaps Sen. Parry's greatest strength is that he's a no-nonsense, let's-get-to-the-bottom-of-this kind of guy. That became apparent to me watching him utterly dissect MMB Commissionef Showalter . Here's the most telling exchange:
CHAIRMAN PARRY: So you did give written instructions so that they fully understood how they were to move forward with their testimony today?
SHOWALTER: Mr. Chairman, I haven't instructed anyone on testimony. What I have asked and informed them on is these provisions because not everyone is watching the State Government Committee or they're assuming that we take the lead in looking at these elements and helping them understand the impact and what issues they need to be aware of.
PARRY: So were your instructions orally delivered, your message, or in form of the information that they're working off from. I guess what I'm asking for, Commissioner Showalter, I would like to, if there was a written memo given to each commissioner on how to look at their budget, I would be interested, and I'm sure this committee would be interested to see that memo.
Because if every commissioner that's coming here with worst case scenarios, that is a far cry from what is inside the House and the Senate versions of this bill as I have listened. And so I guess maybe, for us to understand what the commissioners are working off of, I would think that it would be prudent to give us: let us look at the instructions that you have given commissioners.
Shortly thereafter, Commissioner Showalter admitted that he'd prepped the other commissioners on how to testify by relying on misleading information. He turned over the written memo he'd used to prep the commissioners.
In short, Sen. Parry spotted the pattern in the commissioners' testimony, identified the source of the misinformation, then embarrassed the person responsible for prepping the commissioners with the information.
If Sen. Parry is the GOP endorsed candidate, Rep. Walz won't be running against a career politician. He'll be running against a legislator with a history of getting to the bottom of things.
Sen. Parry won't let Rep. Walz get away with his split personality schtick, the one where he plays a conservative while he's visiting his district, then behaves like Nancy Pelosi's obedient lapdog the minute he returns to Washington, DC.
I have a suggestion for Rep. Walz: Announce your retirement now before you're dissected by Sen. Parry. Otherwise, prepare to get exposed as Pelosi's lapdog.
Posted Tuesday, October 11, 2011 5:22 AM
No comments.
Chip Cravaack making PolyMet a reality
The starkest difference between Chip Cravaack and Jim Oberstar, besides Chip being accessable and approachable and Oberstar being distant, is the fact that Chip's getting results on PolyMet :
Federal regulatory agencies are cooperating better and are on pace to finish the draft environmental review of the PolyMet copper mine project by January.
That was the report Friday after a meeting in Duluth called by U.S. Rep. Chip Cravaack, R-North Branch.
Cravaack, Iron Range lawmakers, PolyMet corporate officials and representatives of state and federal regulatory agencies have met three times this year to facilitate progress of the proposed copper-nickel mine and processing center between Babbitt and Hoyt Lakes.
'I'm extremely encouraged. We're addressing problems before they become problems,' Cravaack told reporters after the meeting.
Rep. Oberstar didn't lift a finger to make PolyMet a reality until he noticed he was in a dogfight for re-election. Then he suddenly told the world that he'd return to Washington to cut through the federal government's red tape :
It's been in the works for more than four years, but when the environmental review came out last fall, the federal government blasted the report as inadequate.
Oberstar says he wants a thorough review, but it shouldn't take so long.
'The red tape, the slowdown, the lack of full attention by federal and state permitting agencies has dragged this process out much too long,' said Oberstar.
Oberstar said the No. 1 issue people talk about in northeastern Minnesota is jobs. And the Polymet mine promises 400 jobs.
'I've heard some concerns, 'Be careful about our environment. We love this land, we don't want our waters to be adversely affected.' And I've assured people that corners will not be cut, there will be no exceptions made, but we have to do this in an expeditious manner,' he said.
Chip didn't just talk the talk. He's followed through. He's shown leadership. He's getting results.
Oberstar paid lip service but he didn't get things done with PolyMet. Here's how Chip is getting things done:
Cravaack has excluded environmental groups and mining opponents from the meetings. He said mining critics have a 'conduit' to the meetings through regulatory agencies.
In short, he's excluded the organizations committed to preventing PolyMet from becoming a reality. The results speak for themselves:
On Friday, Cravaack said the environmental impact statement should be ready by January, as has been predicted for about a year, and that permits could be issued and the mine under construction by this time in 2012. It would be Minnesota's first copper mine.
'We're on track to get this mine open and bring jobs to northern Minnesota,' he added.
Cravaack said the quarterly meetings have spurred agency officials to talk more and coordinate efforts, speeding the environmental review process that already has lasted four years. That includes the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Pollution Control Agency also are involved.
The results are obvious. Even the DFL is praising Chip:
State Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Pike Township, and Sen. Dave Tomassoni, DFL-Chisholm, agreed that Cravaack's meetings have helped keep federal regulators focused.
'It appears the agencies are communicating in a way they were not communicating before,' Tomassoni said.
In short, the results can't be denied. It must've killed Rep. Oberstar's allies to admit that a Republican is helping revive the Iron Range's mining industry through his persistence and his dogging federal regulators into action.
Posted Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:05 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 11-Oct-11 10:14 AM
Chip gets it. Congratulations, Congressman -- and when was the last time you could say THAT about someone in Washington?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Oct-11 11:18 AM
Bob, I get to say it frequently. Then again, not everyone gets to be represented by Michele or Chip.
Comment 2 by Nancy McReady at 11-Oct-11 10:29 PM
It is so great that Iron Range legislators (DFLers) are sitting at the table with Chip. It show that the Republicans and Democrats CAN work together if you keep the lawyers for the environmental groups out. Good job to all involved!
Keith Ellison makes an ass of himself
This article highlights perfectly the difference between the DFL's philosophy on creating jobs vs. the Republicans' philosophy. Keith Ellison's words should be enshrined in the RNC's advertisements starting today and running through Election Day, 2012:
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) tells MSNBC regulations create jobs because a business will have to hire people to help them comply with the new requirement.
"I think the answer is no," Ellison said when asked if he believes regulations kill jobs. "And here is why: When we talked about increasing fuel efficiency standards, the industry responded, and they need engineers and designers and manufacturers, and they need actually more people to help respond to the new requirement."
"I believe if the government says, look, we have got to reduce our carbon footprint, you will kick into gear a whole number of people that know how to do that or have ideas about that, and that will be a job engine. I understand what you mean, because if anything adds a cost to a business, you could assume that that will diminish that business's ability to hire. But I don't think that's actually right. I think what businesses want is customers and what, if they are selling product, if they have a product to sell they will do well even if they have some new regulations to meet," the Congressman said.
That's stunning. Rep. Ellison admits that regulations force businesses to hire people to comply with regulations fought for by militant environmentalists and Wall Street interests. He didn't say that the regulations were essential. He didn't say that the regulations would improve life for Main Street.
More importantly, what he's admitting is that progressives are interested in creating jobs that feed the bureaucratic beast rather than creating jobs that add value to the economy. Why wouldn't we want to free up capital to innovate and create manufacturing jobs?
Without capital being freed up for productive uses, dynamic economies won't exist.
According to Rep. Ellison's own words, he isn't worried about freeing up capital to innovate and manufacture. Every penny spent on complying with a bureaucrat is capital that can't be spent on manufacturing products that make life better for Americans.
Rep. Ellison talks about hiring engineers to help design cars that comply with the federal government's regulations. What Rep. Ellison didn't talk about is how the federal government's regulations drove up the cost of those cars.
People can't afford Rep. Ellison's recipe for creating jobs. Dynamic economies aren't built on regulatory excesses. They never have been. If Rep. Ellison had done his homework, he would've known that. Instead, he's wedded to his progressive ideology.
Thankfully, the American people are running out progressives who've taken a bad economy and made it worse. Thanks to their votes, Rep. Ellison's voice will be more irrelevant in 2013 than it currently is. 2012 won't be pretty for Democrats at any level.
Posted Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:27 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 11-Oct-11 12:17 PM
What would John Galt say? About Mitt? About Ellison?
Where is John Galt's America, among the GOP hopeful?
If it is not Ron Paul, it is nobody. Romney is from the pack of unproductive manipulators John Galt both dispised and pitied. Romney could not run a steel mill although he could figure how to manipulate its stock.
Would Rick Perry, or Rick Santorum or Santorum's separated-at-birth sister, Michele, resonate with John Galt? Unlikely.
Comment 2 by eric z at 11-Oct-11 12:27 PM
Another unrelated thought, Gary, who's the candidate to run against Klobuchar? Andy at Residual Forces wants Bachmann to do it or to get to work on CD6 because Bachmann's leaving a lot of other CD6 GOP folks straddling a should-I fence. Is there any truth to Emmer vs. Amy? What about Brodkorb stepping out of the shadows and having a go? Kline will not, Paulsen's not been asked.
Who you gonna call, Ghostbusters?
Finally, is there any truth from inside the GOP, to "draft Rubio" rumors? Is he sitting like Tim, looking at the second ticket spot? Any info, or notions?
Comment 3 by Rose at 26-Feb-13 11:08 PM
AGAIN STILL>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 27-Feb-13 09:00 AM
I'll give you a hint, Eric. I'm no Libertarian, but Galt, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, is nowhere to be found in Republican leadership, which does a great job in helping you Destructocrats spend us into bankruptcy.
We've tried every economic theory there is -- including Barack Obama's economic fascism -- except true conservative theory as espoused by Hayek and von Mises.
That's why there's a civil war inside the Republican Party. If conservatives don't win it, you'll run out of other people's money to waste. So perhaps you'd better root for a little Galt yourself.
Exposing Mitt's flip-flops
For a supposedly unflappable frontrunner, Mitt Romney certainly is spending alot of time distancing himself from his past statements. Chris Horner's op-ed for Big Government is another sticky wicked that Gov. Romney will have to distance himself from:
Mr. Romney finds himself needing to detach himself from these past positions on environmental issues without painting a target on his back for more accusations of flip-floppery. Otherwise, he must plainly state that voters should expect him to stick to his prior instincts on these issues.
This is too big a topic to pussyfoot around. The importance of Romney's views on energy and his courting of environmental lobbyists, including a venture capitalist about to take the reins of what has become the world's largest (and worst) VC slushy fund, cannot be overstated at this point.
This would be true even without Solyndra having exposed many voters to the growing fiscal disease in 'green' industries, which is so typical and predictable that some of us foresaw it long ago.
Romney's seeming embrace of the corrupt environmental lobby is made all the sadder by the fact that this country has a real opportunity for a spectacular revival with a domestic energy production boom . But such a change will require a leader with both strong vision and the will to stand up to anti-business, anti-energy extremists.
Mitt's taken the liberal position on climate change and Obamacare. Cozying up to a corrupt militant environmentalist isn't Mitt's only venture into global warming junk science :
Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney broke with Republican orthodoxy on Friday by saying he believes that humans are responsible, at least to some extent, for climate change.
'I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,' he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.
'It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.''
In addressing climate change and energy policy, Romney called on the United States to break its dependence on foreign oil, and expand alternative energies including solar, wind, nuclear and clean coal.
Mitt said that in June of this year. What he's said prior to that, like this , won't help Mitt either:
Romney: I think the risks of climate change are real. And that you're seeing real climate change. And I think human activity is contributing to it. I would develop within this country sources of energy which would allow us to be free of foreign oil. But sources that don't emit CO2. And that's nuclear power, clean-burning coal, all of our renewable resources and so forth. I also wanna see much greater efficiencies in our autos, in our homes, in our businesses. That'll get us energy independent.
What's most disturbing is what Mitt did't talk about. Mitt didn't talk about implementing a robust plan for oil. He didn't talk about opening ANWR or exploration on the OCS. At least until after Labor Day this year:
SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY REFORM
Streamline and fast-track approval processes.
Amend Clean Air Act to exclude regulation of carbon
INCREASED PRODUCTION
Conduct comprehensive survey of the nation's reserves.
Open reserves to exploration and production.
Where did this version of Mitt come from? Why the dramatic change in energy policy? This Mitt isn't like earlier versions of Mitt. What happened to the unapolgetic Mitt that insisted that global warming was real and that man is causing it? That Mitt was visible a mere 128 days ago. Now he's Mr. Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less?
If this isn't proof that Mitt's a total phony willing to say anything to anyone, then flip-flopping should be deleted from political dictionaries forever.
If this isn't proof that Mitt can't be trusted to do what he's said he'll do, then Pope Benedict might as well as bestow instant sainthood on Mitt. I can't say that Mitt's corrupt. I can just prove that he isn't trustworthy.
Posted Tuesday, October 11, 2011 1:31 PM
No comments.
Christie Endorsing Mitt
According to this NBC article , Chris Christie will endorse Mitt Romney:
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie will make a surprise appearance Tuesday to endorse Mitt Romney for president, a week after Christie said he had decided not to run.
Christie is planning a joint press conference with the former Massachusetts governor at 3 p.m. in New Hampshire, NBC News has learned.
This isn't a surprise, especially considering the fact that Mitt and Christie agree with the global warming junk science :
Says Christie : 'I'm certainly not a scientist, which is the first problem. So I can't claim to fully understand all of this, certainly not after just a few months of study. But when you have over 90 percent of the world's scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role, it's time to defer to the experts.'
There are many attributes and characteristics I like about Chris Christie. Chief among them is his willingness to fight the media and the unions.
I wasn't clamoring for Christie to jump in and be the Republicans' savior. Christie's endorsement won't change the fact that Mitt's a liberal who's attempted to create a conservative image for himself by repackaging himself more times than people should be asked to count.
Mitt's still a phony. Despite his protestations, Mitt's still a believer in socialized medicine.
What this genuinely changes is today's news coverage. People like Sean Hannity and other members of the Shiny Object Media will latch onto this story and tout this as a prized get.
They're right. To the media, Gov. Christie is a prized get.
After that, though, it all comes down to whether Mitt's policies will be appreciably better than President Obama's. It's a given that his policies will be better than President Obama's because President Obama's policies have stunk. It doesn't take alot to clear that benchmark.
The question that the GOP establishment doesn't want to ask is whether Gov. Christie's endorsement means that Mitt Romney's finally committed to fighting for conservative principles. If Mitt isn't, which I suspect he isn't, then the economy will likely marginally improve but the debt crisis likely won't improve by an appreciable amount.
Endorsements are certainly a significant part of the election process.That can't be argued. That said, they can't change the underlying truth of who the candidate is.
If Mitt got the endorsement of every Republican governor and senator, it still wouldn't change the fact that Mitt's a liberal with a troubling history of flip-flopping after supporting liberal policies.
Posted Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:45 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 12-Oct-11 10:32 AM
I've never cared for the mating call of the wild RINO.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 13-Oct-11 07:45 PM
Christie's endorsement fits in with Norm and Pawlenty. Two career politicians and a Bushco U.S. Attorney. Mitt is an uber-wealthy east-coast-only elitist also. He got his easily - under a system just fine for him, as is, no changes. Global in perspective. No doubt on that. "Corporations are people." Occupy Wall Street is "class warfare." Born on third base. Coleman and Pawlenty are what, Romney "pragmatists?" Is that the word?
Yet you guys will not run Ron Paul.
Environmentalists still opposing PolyMet
Though Chip Cravaack's leadership is bringing the PolyMet project to the brink of reality, environmentalists still are attempting to stall the project through any means possible:
The controversial Polymet mining project proposal near Hoyt Lakes on the Iron Range has been under environmental review for years, in part because of the potential for sulfuric acid to contaminate area waters. But as review nears conclusion, some mine supporters are worried about another potential environmental roadblock: wild rice.
This is another attempt by the militant environmentalists to prevent PolyMet from becoming reality. Raising this issue gives the militant environmentalists the basis for suing PolyMet.
This doesn't really have anything to do with the environment. It's just another tool in these anti-capitalists' arsenal to stop the PolyMet project. The good news is that PolyMet is confident they can meet the standard:
Rukavina suggested Friday it might require federal legislation to change the standard. He said Cravaack, a Republican, was receptive to the idea. But Polymet spokeswoman Latisha Geitzen said the company doesn't need to change the standard.
"Polymet can meet the current sulfate standard. We have not been pushing to have the standard arbitrarily changed."
Gietzen said the company can meet the standard through a combination of technologies that capture and treat water at the mine. But some constituencies watch the situation warily.
When PolyMet has met this challenge, expect other people to raise other challenges:
The Fond du Lac reservation located downstream of Polymet on the St. Louis River has its own EPA-approved water quality standards that also set the sulfate limit in wild rice waters at 10 milligrams per liter.
The standard is fair, said Nancy Schuldt, water projects coordinator for the Fond du Lac Ojibwe band's environmental program. She said that technology exists for companies like Polymet to meet the standard.
"I think that ought to be considered part of the cost of doing business, if mining companies want to continue to make a profit on these mineral resources in the state of Minnesota, then they ought to be prepared to be good corporate neighbors and apply the most rigorous available technology," she said.
That last sentence is revealing. To be good neighbors, PolyMet is expected to "apply the most rigorous available technology"? Apparently, pretty good isn't good enough for the Fond du Lac Ojibwe. Apparently, their standard is pristine and then some.
This project will happen. It's amazing the tactics that militant environmentalists will employ to prevent job creation. Make no mistake about this: these tactics are being deployed by militant environmentalists through their network of allies.
What's most bothersome is that these organizations don't care about whether people can make a living. They only care about executing their agenda.
Posted Wednesday, October 12, 2011 3:13 AM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 12-Oct-11 01:53 PM
Environmentalists can't resist the capitalist element of suing and getting reimbursed profitably under the Equal Access to Justice Act. This act, intended to give poor people access to the courts, has been hijacked by environmental litigation machines like the Sierra Club.
"Hit low, collect high", is the environmental analoque of "buy low, sell high".
The fix is in
If people want to know whether the fix was in on who the GOP establishment and the media wants to be president, just read this article by Scott Conroy:
For his part, Romney once again demonstrated a confident stage presence and ease with the debate's focus on economic issues, as each of the other candidates tried and failed to knock the GOP front-runner off stride.
Earlier in the day, Romney picked up the coveted endorsement of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and he continued that momentum into the debate.
'Let me tell you, to get this economy restructured fundamentally on a path to be the most competitive place in the world to create jobs is going to take someone who knows how to do it,' Romney said in response to a challenge by Cain that his economic plan is too complicated. 'And it's not one or two things.'
It's easy looking unflappable when you're not answering people's questions. At least 4 of Mitt Romney's answers were evasive. At one point, Mitt talked about leadership and having "the courage to stand up for your principles."
That's offensive. Mitt Romney knows as much about fighting for his principles as I know about drilling for oil. And I don't know a thing about oil drilling. If standing for important principles is important to your vote, Mitt isn't qualified.
Mitt keeps talking about knowing how to get the economy running again. What makes him better qualified than Newt? Newt's record as Speaker was that he, John Kasich and Bill Clinton put in place a plan that helped entrepreneurs create 11,000,000 new jobs and produced 4 straight surpluses.
Nothing that Mitt's done in government comes close to that.
Conroy's article isn't the only gushing about Mitt's performance. Jeanne Cummings' article was less effusive but nonetheless biased:
For 10 minutes, the former Massachusetts governor explained the goals of his economic recovery plan and his record in the private sector on job creation, and he defended the health-care overhaul he signed into law as an appropriate remedy for his state.
'I'm not running for governor of Massachusetts,' Romney said in the debate at Dartmouth College sponsored by Bloomberg News, the Washington Post and WBIN-TV in New Hampshire. 'I'm running for president of the United States.'
It was the sort of sharp, declarative statement that can resonate with voters.
That's a snappy reply alright but it didn't answer the question either. That's a trait Gov. Romney repeatedly displayed last night. After last night's performance, shifty is the first word I'd use to describe Gov. Romney. Evasive fits, too.
Fred Barnes' article might be the worst of the pro-Romney articles, though:
Another Republican presidential debate, another forceful performance by Mitt Romney. The subject was the economy, jobs, and finance - Romney's strong suits - and he made the most of it, having more to say on those subjects and saying it more cogently than the other seven candidates.
When the rescue of major banks in 2008 and its aftermath was discussed, Romney took the lead. He explained why the $700 billion bailout was necessary to save the economy and the currency. Later, he insisted the massive regulations in the Dodd-Frank bill, passed last year, would crush small and community banks and dry up their ability to lend. On both issues, his opponents for the GOP nomination deferred to him.
It's time for the pundits to focus on who's best qualified to be the next POTUS. The next POTUS must pay down the debt, shrink the size of government, unleash the United States' energy industry and shrink the influence of the federal government's regulations.
That doesn't fit Mitt's profile. Frankly, that doesn't fit Herman Cain's profile, either. The only people on that stage that fit that profile are Newt, Michele Bachmann and perhaps Rick Perry. Their persistence, determination and commitment to cutting regulations and aggressively tapping America's energy supply make them most qualified to lead America, though Perry's commitment to cutting spending is still questionable.
The fix might be in but that doesn't mean activists should stop fighting. It's important that we get this decision right. If that means outorganizing and outhustling the GOP establishment and outmessaging the Shiny Object Media, then that's we'll have to do.
We must undo the fix so we can fix this great nation.
Posted Wednesday, October 12, 2011 3:04 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 13-Oct-11 08:38 AM
I will say it again, though, because I think it is important beyond measure: If Romney is the nominee, I will vote for him, work for him, and contribute to his campaign. That said, I am coming to strongly dislike the media telling us who our candidate WILL be (they don't even bother with /should/ be any more). The media carry the "horse race" to the total exclusion of what the campaign is about, and the early, ever earlier state voting nonsense rushes us into a decision rather than allowing a thorough vetting of all the candidates.
And one other thing: if the media things Romney should be our guy, that's two strikes against him in my book.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 13-Oct-11 07:29 PM
Romney has more money to campaign with than the others. You don't need the media to tell you that. Money and foot soldiers. Add to that now endorsements. There was some discussion when Pawlenty endorsed over whether he had campaign debt the Romney machine would mop up. Money talks. Not just with the GOP. Both parties. Gary, how can we fix that?
Comment 3 by eric z. at 13-Oct-11 07:34 PM
J. Ewing - Any thoughts about Pawlenty and Coleman, early on before even the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire, telling you what you dislike hearing from "The media."?
J.E., and Gary - at this point, who else besides Romney would you argue is a really viable player?
It would surprise me a lot if there is either a Romney-Perry ticket, or a Perry-Romney one. I see it as a Romney-Rubio ticket. Do you guys see any likelihood to that?
