October 25, 2017
Oct 25 02:37 Dave Kleis, constitutional dunce? Oct 25 04:01 Overwhelmed Carol Lewis? Oct 25 08:05 Flake's retirement, Election 2018 Oct 25 09:45 Leo Hohmann's masterpiece Oct 25 13:57 Changing the political landscape? Oct 25 17:03 Chuck Schumer, political prophet? Oct 25 22:00 Protestors veto public hearing
Prior Months: Jan Feb ~ May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Dave Kleis, constitutional dunce?
St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis isn't the brightest bulb in the Constitution's chandelier. Appearing on KNSI Tuesday morning, Kleis told host Bob Hughes that "refugee resettlement is not within the city's power to regulate and it would be a violation of the constitution." Specifically, Mayor Kleis said "Only congress has the authority when it comes to immigration and then you have the aspect of the 14th amendment, the equal protection clause."
The equal protection clause states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
First, Mayor Kleis is right that the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to set immigration policy. Nobody's disputing that. What Mayor Kleis didn't explain was what laws Councilman Johnson's resolution would violate. For that matter, Mayor Kleis didn't say how a moratorium (a pause) would violate the Constitution.
Next, there's the issue of the Refugee Act of 1980. Mayor Kleis sent this letter to the US Department of Health and Human Services. The letter reads a bit like a push poll at the end. Specifically, I'm referring to the part where Mayor Kleis wrote "The specific concern expressed by some groups is that these quarterly consultations are not occurring, at least not locally. Since this is a federal issue, and not a local matter, I am bringing this to your attention."
Mayor Kleis, why can't you put 2 and 2 together and get 4? The Refugee Act of 1980 requires consultations with " local governments ." If those consultations aren't happening locally, which you admit isn't happening, where would these consultations happen? In Washington, DC?
This sounds like shuck-and-jive Kleis, not Honest Abe Kleis. We have a right to expect better than this from our mayor.
Posted Wednesday, October 25, 2017 2:37 AM
Comment 1 by John Palmer at 25-Oct-17 09:46 AM
I hope our Mayor informed all the federal departments with responsibility for the Refugee Admissions Program. Perhaps he will also contact the Subcommittee chairman.
Washington, D.C. - On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 9:00 a.m., the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee will hold an oversight hearing on the United States Refugee Admissions Program.
The Refugee Admissions Program is tasked with vetting and resettling refugees in the United States and is administered by the Department of State in conjunction with the Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services. In recent years, there have been concerns that the program is susceptible to fraud and poses national security concerns due to the inability to thoroughly screen refugees seeking resettlement. In addition, the program has been criticized for its resettlement process, including that state and local governments are not consulted when refugees are resettled in their communities. (From a news release made by the subcommittee)
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Oct-17 11:13 AM
John, I thought that this was a federal-only matter. To hear Kleis talk about it, local collaboration with the federal government on this program was pushed only by heretics.
Overwhelmed Carol Lewis?
Based on Monday night's fiasco, St. Cloud residents are justified in questioning whether City Council President Carol Lewis is qualified for the responsibilities. During the discussion of Jeff Goerger's resolution, President Lewis slowly lost it. After the motion to adopt the resolution had properly been seconded, President Lewis opened discussion. By itself, that isn't improper. In the larger context, though, it was improper. President Lewis should have ruled it out of order because it violated City Council rules.
Specifically, it violated City Council Rule 13, which says "Copies of ordinances, resolutions and other pertinent material shall be made available for inspection at the Council Secretary's Office on the day of the meeting." This wasn't made available to the Council before Monday night's meeting, meaning that councilmembers couldn't read through the resolution, much less formulate questions or disagreements. This was ambush through secrecy.
As President of the City Council, it is Ms. Lewis' responsibility to insist upon transparency and fair play. Monday night, she didn't protect either foundational governing principle. That's unacceptable. Without adherence to that rule, it's government-by-ambush, which is precisely what happened.
The good news is that President Lewis got so flustered at the official end of the meeting that she adjourned the meeting before voting on Jeff Goerger's intentionally dishonest resolution. Though the Times is reporting that the resolution passed, it didn't because the Council voted on whether to call the question before adjourning. They didn't vote on the resolution itself.
Further, President Lewis ruled that Councilman Johnson's motion was out of order. She was rebuked for that when Johnson told her that he wasn't offering a motion, that he was just including the text of his resolution in the record for the purpose of discussing Goerger's motion.
Lewis also ignored Council rule no. 6, which says (in part) "All items of business before the Council for the first time shall be listed as new business or on the Consent Agenda with the notation indicating that it is new business."
These rules were last amended in August, 2017. Further, they weren't named City Council suggestions. They're titled City Council Rules. As the City Council president, Ms. Lewis is the protector of order and fair play for the Council. Again, she failed in that responsibility.
Posted Wednesday, October 25, 2017 4:01 AM
No comments.
Flake's retirement, Election 2018
This article was written either by a dishonest reporter or a reporter who still doesn't understand the political situation we're in. Specifically, the reporter wrote "In a speech announcing his decision, he offers a stinging rebuke to the path of the Republican Party under Trump and says he felt he no longer had a place in the party. Flake's decision generates uncertainty about the future of his seat and the GOP's Senate majority."
With tax reform now looking likely to pass by Christmas, the question isn't whether Republicans will hold their majorities in the House and Senate. The question is whether they'll gain 4-5 Senate seats or if they'll flip enough Senate seats to hold a filibuster-proof Senate in 2019.
Sen. Flake's speech showed how out-of-touch he is with his party, saying "And so, Mr. President, I will not be complicit or silent. I decided that I would be better able to represent the people of Arizona and to better serve my country and my conscience by freeing myself of the political consideration that consumed far too much bandwidth and would cause me to compromise far too many principles. To that end, I am announcing today my service in the Senate will conclude at the end of my term in early January 2019. It is clear at this moment that a traditional conservative who believes in limited government and free markets, who is devoted to free trade, who is pro immigration, has a narrower and narrower path to nomination in the Republican party; the party that has so long defined itself by its belief in those things. It is also clear to me for the moment that we have given in or given up on the core principles in favor of a more viscerally satisfied anger and resentment."
Naturally, Democrats, both in DC and the media, are praising Flake. Whatever. Flake served a single term in the Senate. Saying that his time in the Senate was unimpressive is accurate. While he wasn't the unpredictable vote that Sen. McCain was, Flake wasn't the reliable conservative vote that Sen. Kyl was or that Kelli Ward will be, if and when she's elected. After watching Sen. Flake's retirement announcement speech, it's safe to say that some of his points seem more than a little overdramatic:
It isn't that I'll spend a ton of time bemoaning the lack of civility in DC. What I will do is bemoan the fact that too many Republicans aren't fighters. Principled compromise is a good thing. Unprincipled compromise is just capitulation. There's too little of the former, too much of the latter.
This was always going to be a tough re-election for Sen. Flake. Now that he's announced his retirement, let's hope this moves this seat back into the Solid Republican category rather than letting it languish in the Toss-up category.
Posted Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:05 AM
No comments.
Leo Hohmann's masterpiece
Leo Hohmann's article exposes Jeff Goerger as either a dishonest person in public office or as too stupid to understand what he said during his grandstanding speech Monday night. Though it's just opinion, I'm fairly certain Councilman Goerger isn't stupid, though I'm willing to listen if anyone has proof to the contrary. It's my opinion that Councilman Goerger is both dishonest and patronizing.
Consider Councilman Goerger's comment that "the city of St. Cloud has the capacity to provide municipal services to the aforementioned prospective new residents without an impact on the city budget or quality of life." I hope that Councilman Goerger isn't attempting to tell his constituents that these refugees don't consume city services and don't impact the city budget whatsoever. If that's what Councilman Goerger attempted selling, then he's one of the most patronizing people in public service.
When Councilman Goerger said "I think it's important to show people this one guy bringing forth a resolution is not the voice of the city council or the voice of the people in our community," he announced that he wouldn't listen to his constituents that didn't think like him. That isn't the definition of a public servant. That's what I'd expect from an insulated career politician. This video is slanted but it gave Councilman Johnson the opportunity to state his case, albeit on a limited basis:
The prevailing 'wisdom' is that Councilman Goerger's resolution is the end of the discussion on refugee resettlement. Having talked with many pro-moratorium activists, I'm positive that Monday night's fiasco was the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end of conversation on this topic. To City Councilmembers who think they'll fade into the woodwork, think again.
Monday night was the equivalent of waving a red flag in front of a bull. This was a crystallizing moment. It wasn't a victory for Natalie Ringsmuth and the liberal idiots serving on the City Council.
These activists have a set of legitimate questions. Thus far, only Jeff Johnson has listened to their questions. The others, including Mayor Kleis and especially Jeff Goerger, have essentially said that these Christians are, at best, second-class citizens. Don't think that these citizens will forget what their at-large councilmembers did when they're up for re-election next year. The Council Chamber Goerger skirmish is over but the city-wide battle is just starting.
Posted Wednesday, October 25, 2017 9:45 AM
No comments.
Changing the political landscape?
Byron York's article might be the most politically devastating article written recently. In his article, York wrote "Investigators looking into the so-called 'Trump dossier' were not surprised when news broke Tuesday night that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC, working through the Democrats' law firm, Perkins Coie, financed the 'salacious and unverified' compilation of allegations of Trump collusion with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign. (The 'salacious and unverified' description comes from former FBI Director James Comey.)"
As explosive as that is, it pales in comparison to the next part of York's story, which says "Sometime in October 2016, that is, at the height of the presidential campaign, Christopher Steele, the foreign agent hired by Fusion GPS to compile the Trump dossier, approached the FBI with information he had gleaned during the project. According to a February report in the Washington Post, Steele 'reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work.' It was an astonishing turn: the nation's top federal law enforcement agency agreeing to fund an ongoing opposition research project being conducted by one of the candidates in the midst of a presidential election. 'The idea that the FBI and associates of the Clinton campaign would pay Mr. Steele to investigate the Republican nominee for president in the run-up to the election raises further questions about the FBI's independence from politics, as well as the Obama administration's use of law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political ends,' wrote Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa."
Then there's this :
The deal began in the spring of 2016, when Elias was approached by Fusion GPS, and lasted until right before Election Day. When Fusion approached Elias, it had already been doing research work on Trump for an unnamed client during the Republican primary. But the dossier itself was funded entirely by Democrats, using Elias as a middle-man. After the DNC and the Clinton campaign started paying, Fusion GPS hired former British spy Christopher Steele to do the dirt-digging. His work later resulted in the dossier.
If this story had a title, that title might be 'As the bubble bursts.' Another title might be 'Multiple seismic events recorded at DNC.'
Easiest prediction of the day: things will get much worse for the DNC before they get better. Brit Hume sums that line of thought up perfectly during this interview:
This is the best that the DNC could come up with:
Posted Wednesday, October 25, 2017 1:57 PM
No comments.
Chuck Schumer, political prophet?
Sen. Schumer shouldn't quit his day job if he's thinking about becoming a political prognosticator. Sen. Schumer made a purely partisan statement when he said "There is a path forward, but only after this tax bill fails. The hard right, which cares so much about just reducing taxes, has a stranglehold on the Republican Party right now. And I don't think they'll give it up unless this bill fails."
Let's be blunt. This tax bill won't fly through the House and Senate without any difficulty. That said, it will pass, most likely before Christmas. Sen. Schumer's prediction, which you'll notice he started immediately backing away from, was that the bill would fail. That isn't what a confident man does. That's something that a person says after they realize they've made a mistake.
President Trump shot back, saying "I like Schumer, but before he even knows the plan, he'll say, 'Oh, this is for the rich,' so he doesn't even know what the plan is, and he's screaming it's for the rich.' He added that he didn't think he'd ultimately need Schumer's help on anything. 'I don't think it matters; I mean, I really don't.'"
There's likely to be a flurry of activity from lobbyists as the bill starts taking shape. That's predictable because they're paid to get special carve-outs for their employers. That's the nature of the beast. That being said, these Republicans know that passing tax simplification will help them fly to victory next November and help ensure President Trump's re-election victory in 2020.
My friend Ed Morrissey thinks that there's cause for concern :
Since then, President Trump has lashed out at retiring Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) on Twitter, prompting Corker to brand Trump an "utterly untruthful president," and to declare that "the debasement of our nation is what [Trump] will be remembered most for." Just a few hours later on Tuesday, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) announced that he wouldn't run for re-election in 2018, and issued a withering critique of Trump from the Senate floor: "It is time for our complicity and our accommodation of the unacceptable to end ... Mr. President, I rise today to say 'enough.'"
It is difficult to see how tax reform manages 51 votes in the Senate if Corker and Flake both abandon Trump. It is equally difficult to imagine America's 45th president handling these criticisms from his GOP colleagues with equanimity and grace. The more likely case is that the GOP will plunge into even fiercer internecine fights that submarine the party's legislative agenda, such as it is.
Actually, President Trump took questions from reporters on his way to Texas tonight. When asked about Corker and Flake, President Trump was nice, saying that, though they had their disagreements, he felt confident that they'd both vote for the tax bill. Appearing on Fox News later in the day, Louie Gohmert said the same thing. Like I said earlier, it's inevitable that there will be ups and downs. The squabbling described here felt nothing like the total disarray that was apparent during the Obamacare fiasco.
Posted Wednesday, October 25, 2017 5:03 PM
No comments.
Protestors veto public hearing
After last week's fiasco in Duluth, in which protestors shut down public testimony on the Enbridge Line 3 Pipeline project, St. Cloud officials exercised caution for Thursday's planned testimony for the Public Utilities Commission. In the end, Mayor Kleis opted to not hold the hearing . That means the anti-pipeline protestors have won a victory just by threatening a hearing.
St. Cloud Mayor Kleis explained his thinking for shutting down the event, saying "Based on the size of the event and some of the challenges at previous meetings, there's a cost. The costs have to be met and a plan needs to be in place that meets the public safety needs based on the assessment that our police give us. For Thursday night, based on the crowd (expected) and other use of the facility, the venue would be problematic unless they can meet those demands. It's their choice to make, but we need to make sure the public and taxpayers are safe."
Minnesota Petroleum Council Executive Director Erin Roth issued a statement Wednesday night, saying "There's no doubt that today's decision to cancel the public meeting on Line 3 is disappointing. What's worse is that communities are put in this position by highly coordinated protest activities that actively obstruct civil discourse, stifle free speech, and disrespect those in attendance who are there to respectfully voice their opinion. Minnesotans deserve an open and transparent process that examines this important infrastructure project and the benefits that would come from it."
Last week, anti-pipeline thugs stopped a public hearing in Duluth's Entertainment & Convention Center, aka the DECC. (I wrote about that event here .) These thugs' intent is to silence anyone who doesn't agree with them. This paragraph sums everything up perfectly:
Proponents say the line is an essential piece of infrastructure for petroleum shippers and refineries in the region. Opponents say the pipeline won't benefit Minnesota, and that it threatens Minnesota's watershed and the Mississippi River headwaters.
I've heard the environmental terrorists' predictions for 40+ years. They've been off by incredible amounts each time they've made a prediction. When the Sierra Club opposed the Alaskan Pipeline, the Sierra Club said that North Slope and Prudhoe Bay would pump oil for 4-5 years. The pipeline opened in 1977. It's still transporting oil in 2017.
Here's what the approval process has looked like for Enbridge:
Everything is wrong with that picture.
Posted Wednesday, October 25, 2017 10:00 PM
No comments.
