September 12-13, 2017
Sep 12 10:49 Democrats' questions offensive Sep 12 14:34 Disgusting Democrat behavior Sep 12 18:05 Dayton, Rothman vs. Minnesotans Sep 13 01:38 Hillary's inept State Department Sep 13 08:16 Will Dayton negotiate in good faith? Sep 13 14:41 Impeach the Supreme Court Sep 13 17:00 Baldwin will lose in Wisconsin
Prior Months: Jan Feb ~ May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Democrats' questions offensive
During Amy Coney-Barrett's confirmation, Dianne Feinstein and Al Franken did something offensive. They questioned Prof. Barrett's faith. Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber sent a letter to Sen. Charles Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the Committee.
First, a little background is required. During her questioning, Sen. Feinstein stated "When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for, for years in this country." Sen. Feinstein's mention of dogma refers to Prof. Barrett's Catholic faith.
According to Princeton University President Eisgruber's statement, that's off-limits. In his letter, President Eisgruber said "I write, as a university president and a constitutional scholar with expertise on religious freedom and judicial appointments, to express concern about questions addressed to Professor Amy Barrett during her confirmation hearings and to urge that the Committee on the Judiciary refrain from interrogating nominees about the religious or spiritual foundations of their jurisprudential views. Article VI of the United States Constitution provides explicitly that 'no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States .'"
Sen. Feinstein has been a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee for years. There's no reason for her not to know that part of the Constitution. In fact, I'd be surprised if Sen. Feinstein didn't just ignore Article VI. It isn't an accident that our institutions aren't functioning properly. When politicians like Sen. Franken and Sen. Feinstein ignore constitutional protections to drive their obstructionist agenda, everyone suffers.
Sen. Feinstein essentially said that she's skeptical that devout Christians are capable of serving in government. That is a religious test, which the Constitution prohibits. In principle, that isn't any different than Republicans disqualifying people who don't take their faith seriously.
Feinstein and Franken are ignoring the Constitution that they swore to uphold. That makes them unfit for the offices they hold.
Posted Tuesday, September 12, 2017 10:49 AM
No comments.
Disgusting Democrat behavior
This article features a tweet from a "community college professor" who tweeted "I'm not wishing for it: but I'd be ok if #BetsyDevos was sexually assaulted. #SexualAssault #TitleIX".
The professor's name is Robert Ranco. He's "currently an adjunct Professor of Paralegal Studies at Austin Community College, where he teaches the 'Advanced Research and Writing' class. He is also a member of The Carlson Law Firm." What type of disgusting person would make a statement like that? Here's hoping that Professor Ranco doesn't have his contract renewed. Saying that you're ok with a person getting sexually assaulted is about as disgusting as it gets.
Later, Professor Ranco tweeted "Yes, @twitter. My words were harsh. I don't wish harm on anyone. I wish there's some way #BetsyDevos would understand and care about others." Rather than stop there, Ranco tweeted "Twitter trolls are now due process experts! Priceless. #TitleIX" If that isn't dripping condescension, it doesn't exist. Why does Professor Ranco think it's beyond Twitter users' ability to understand one of the foundational principles of the Constitution? Here's another of Professor Ranco's tweets:
While I don't know this for certain, I'd say there's a 90+ percent chance that Ranco is a Democrat. First, he's a lawyer. Next, he's a college professor. While that doesn't guarantee that he's a Democrat, it's still highly likely that he's a bitter Democrat.
Posted Tuesday, September 12, 2017 2:34 PM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 13-Sep-17 07:33 AM
Not sure about Democrat, but I think it safe to say he is part of the Loony Left, suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Obviously unqualified for the position he holds.
Dayton, Rothman vs. Minnesotans
Emperor Dayton apparently thinks that he doesn't have to worry what Minnesotans think anymore now that he's a lame duck. Monday afternoon, Mike Rothman, Dayton's commissioner for the Department of Commerce, announced that Enbridge hadn't proved the necessity for replacing Enbridge's Line 3 pipeline.
According to the article's opening paragraph, "Enbridge Energy has failed to establish the need for its proposal to replace its aging Line 3 crude oil pipeline across northern Minnesota and it might be better to just shut down the existing line , the Minnesota Department of Commerce said Monday." As stunning a statement as that is, it pales in comparison with the Department of Commerce's filings with the Public Utilities Commission.
According to the article, it said "In filings with the state Public Utilities Commission on Monday, the agency said refineries in Minnesota and the upper Midwest already have sufficient supplies of crude oil and little capacity for processing more of it. It said Minnesota's demand for gasoline and other refined petroleum products appears unlikely to increase over the long term. And it said the proposal carries serious environmental and socio-economic risks that outweigh the benefits to Minnesota. 'In light of the serious risks of the existing Line 3 and the limited benefit that the existing Line 3 provides to Minnesota refineries, Minnesota would be better off if Enbridge proposed to cease operations of the existing Line 3, without any new pipeline being built,' said a filing by Kate O'Connell, manager of the department's Energy Regulation and Planning Unit."
I don't know what Ms. O'Connell is smoking but it must be the good stuff. Thinking that "Minnesota's demand for gasoline and other refined petroleum products appears unlikely to increase over the long term" is proof of delusional thinking. Most importantly, it's proof that the DFL doesn't care about farmers or construction unions.
Not building the pipeline doesn't mean that this crude oil won't make it to a refinery. It simply means it'll be part of an oil train. Putting it on an oil train hurts Minnesotans 2 different ways. First, it ties up trains so farmers' products can't get to market as fast. Next, putting oil on trains creates a safety risk.
Despite the Department of Commerce's head-in-the-sand statements, the United States is going through an energy revival. We're becoming energy dominant. We're becoming a net exporter of oil and other fossil fuels. Despite those indisputable facts, Minnesota's Department of Commerce wants to cripple Enbridge.
This pipeline project is a $7,500,000,000 project that would create thousands of construction jobs. If the DFL gets its way, it will shortchange construction workers. Isn't it impossible to be the party of labor if you're opposing labor's highest priority projects?
Here's proof that Emperor Dayton is out-of-touch:
"This document will arouse considerable controversy," the governor said in a statement. "That discord should be recognized as part of the wisdom of the process."
Speaker Daudt has a different perspective:
Republican House Speaker Kurt Daudt called the filings "yet another example of (Democrats) siding with extreme environmental activists while putting Minnesotans' jobs and safety at risk."
There's no reason to think that the environmental activist wing of the DFL will let any gubernatorial candidate (that includes Tim Walz) do anything to rebuild Minnesota's energy infrastructure. This is a major project:
Commerce said that if the PUC approves the project, it should require a stronger emergency response plan, thicker pipe and other safety measures, as well as more insurance coverage and other financial assurances for cleaning up major releases and decommissioning the pipeline when it reaches the end of its useful life.
There's no chance that the PUC will approve this during the Dayton administration. Dayton has filled PUC with environmental activists who hate fossil fuels.
Posted Tuesday, September 12, 2017 6:05 PM
No comments.
Hillary's inept State Department
According to Catherine Herridge's stellar reporting , Hillary Clinton's State Department didn't just fail Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens on the day of the Benghazi attacks. They botched compound security multiple times.
According to the article, "Security at the State Department's Benghazi compound was so dire that another contractor was brought in to clean up the mess just two weeks before the 2012 terror attack, and was later pressured to keep quiet by a government bureaucrat under then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to two men from the American security company." Further into the article, it was reported "After the death of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi in the fall of 2011, Owens stressed to Fox News it was well-known that Islamic radicals including Al Qaeda-tied militias were pouring into the region and security ' had deteriorated considerably. ' Based on documents reviewed by Fox News, Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions bid on the Benghazi compound security contract in the spring of 2012. But the State Department awarded the deal to a U.K.-based operation called The Blue Mountain Group. Owens, who had personally visited the Benghazi compound to assess security, was shocked. 'Blue Mountain U.K. is a teeny, tiny, little security company registered in Wales that had never had a diplomatic security contract , had never done any high threat contracts anywhere else in the world that we've been able to find, much less in high threat areas for the U.S. government. They had a few guys on the ground,' he said."
This is disgusting:
By Aug. 31, 2012, the situation had deteriorated to the point that Owens and Torres said the State Department asked them to intervene - as Owens put it, an "admission of the mistake of choosing the wrong company."
"They came back to us and said, 'Can you guys come in and take over security?' Owens said. "So we were ready."
Though her supporter will deny this, it's indisputable that security in Benghazi was a total mess. Hillary's FSOs didn't push for increased compound security. When they finally listened to people on the ground, it was too little, too late.
Posted Wednesday, September 13, 2017 1:38 AM
No comments.
Will Dayton negotiate in good faith?
Now that both sides have agreed to a mediator , the next question is whether that mediator will get Mark Dayton to negotiate in good faith. The odds of that are slim.
Based on past reporting, Gov. Dayton wants the GOP Tax Relief Bill significantly reduced. He wants the cigarette tax breaks eliminated. Further, he wants business property tax relief reduced. Meanwhile, Republicans have little incentive to modify their tax bill, which was already trimmed down from the 2016 bill that passed with overwhelming support.
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the line-item veto was constitutional, which wasn't surprising. They also ruled that a constitutional tool can't be used to achieve an unconstitutional result. Part of their ruling stated emphatically that Minnesotans have the right to a fully functioning legislature. When the court said that, they telegraphed where this case was heading if a negotiated settlement isn't reached.
Further reducing the Republicans' incentive to renegotiate their tax relief bill is the fact that Mark Dayton signed the bill into law. The Court can't negate that. They can't order the legislature to reduce the size of the tax relief package. They couldn't enforce that if they ordered it.
I wouldn't blame Republicans if they didn't give much in mediation. The Court ordered mediation because Mark Dayton negotiated in bad faith. The Court is asking them to negotiate in good faith, something that Dayton doesn't have a reputation for doing.
Negotiations are expected to start next week. I'm not expecting miraculous results:
Posted Wednesday, September 13, 2017 8:16 AM
No comments.
Impeach the Supreme Court
After reading Briana Bierschbach's MinnPost article , it's clear that the justices who voted to give Minnesota governors virtually unlimited negotiating powers should be impeached.
In a section titled "The governor just got more power", Bierschbach quoted Steven Schier, "a political science professor at Carleton College," as saying that "the Supreme Court is setting a precedent that will allow all future governors to veto legislative budgets to continue negotiations."
That's certainly the majority opinion was amongst the media and punditry but that isn't the entire story. As Ms. Bierschbach notes from the ruling, "Our Constitution requires 'three distinct departments: legislative, executive and judicial. Minnesotans may soon be deprived of their constitutional right to three independent branches of government."
According to the ruling, the Supreme Court said that governors can't use a constitutional tool to "achieve an unconstitutional result." It's indisputable that the people have "a right to three fully functioning branches of government."
That brings me to my main point, which is that the Supreme Court should have ruled that, while the line-item veto is constitutional, its application in this instance produced an unconstitutional result. Remember, Gov. Dayton didn't veto the state government finance bill. He just line-item vetoed the legislature's operational funding.
If my understanding is right, and I'm 99+ percent certain it is, this paragraph is irrelevant:
"We are unaware of any authority that allows the Judicial Branch to authorize spending simply because parties ask a court to do so," the ruling reads. "In fact our cases suggest that the Judicial branch does not have the inherent power to appropriate money."
If the Supreme Court rules that Gov. Dayton's application of the line-item veto was improper, they can simply strike it, which means that the bill that the governor signed and that the legislature passed will take effect. There wouldn't be a need for the Court to appropriate money.
In the final analysis, the Supreme Court dodged its responsibility. They might get this right yet but, if they do, it'll be luck, not principle, that will be the deciding factor. They should've ruled that Gov. Dayton's use of the line-item veto was improper because it eventually leads to an unconstitutional result. Instead of using sound judicial principles, these 6 justices essentially said that they didn't want to make a decision.
We don't need justices with straw spines and a moist finger in the air. We need justices who use impeccable judicial principles in making the right decisions. At this point, that's asking too much of these justices. They've shown that they aren't principled jurists with a titanium spine.
That's why impeachment is the right path to take. I know that there aren't enough votes to convict. Still, it would highlight the fact that these jurists aren't fit for office. That might be enough to defeat some of them in next November's elections.
Posted Wednesday, September 13, 2017 2:41 PM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 13-Sep-17 03:28 PM
Since the court ruled that it's constitutional for one branch of MN government to defund another, clearly the legislature can leave both the Executive and the judiciary out of the next budget.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Sep-17 07:34 PM
If there's a Republican governor, which I hope happens, then I'd recommend just not funding the Judiciary.
Baldwin will lose in Wisconsin
Tammy Baldwin is a far left lefty whose political career is about to come to a crashing halt. According to Ed's post , Sen. Baldwin announced that she's supporting "the full socialist."
Ed's post includes a paragraph that says "Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin on Tuesday became the single-payer bill's first supporter from the class of Senate Democrats up for reelection next year in states Trump carried. But other politically imperiled incumbent Democrats have said no to Sanders." Sen. Baldwin just gave the Republican Party of Wisconsin a sledge hammer to pound her over the head with, which I'm certain they'll do.
The headline is worth its weight in gold but it's the underlying facts that'll bury Sen. Baldwin. As Ed highlights, "Socialized medicine got rejected in more places than just Vermont. Colorado voters balked at it after discovering that it would cost more than their state budget too - and that it would drive costs upward continuously, forcing either higher taxes or sharper rationing of care. California's state senate passed single-payer, but the assembly tabled it after no one could figure out how to get $400 billion a year to pay for it, which is more than twice the annual state budget."
Let's get realistic about this. California represents approximately 12% of the US population. Multiply that $400,000,000,000 (four hundred billion dollars) times 8. That means the federal tab for Sanders' bill would cost the US $3,200,000,000,000 or north of three trillion dollars each year .
Sen. Baldwin should start writing her concession speech. In a state that's looking more red each year, Baldwin just announced that she's heading in the opposite direction as Wisconsinites. Claire McCaskill is toast, too:
Sen. Claire McCaskill said in a brief interview that lawmakers have more work to do to keep health care costs in check "before we would think about expanding that [Medicare] system to everyone."
The problem for Sen. McCaskill isn't that answer. It's what she's said in the past:
Four months ago, Sen. McCaskill opposed Medicare for all. Unfortunately for Sen. McCaskill, that wasn't her final position:
Check out that 34-second clip. She used 4 qualifiers in the first 14 seconds to tentatively support Medicare for All. Can we officially call that 'leaving a politician some wiggle room'? That's what career politicians do. The last thing they want is to stake out a principled, firm stand on an issue. On an issue like this, the last thing Sen. McCaskill wants is to be pinned down.
The bad news is that voters want politicians pinned down on the biggest issues of the day.
Originally posted Wednesday, September 13, 2017, revised 14-Sep 7:28 AM
Comment 1 by John Palmer at 13-Sep-17 09:55 PM
Don't forget Medicare is not a single payer program. To cover risk exposure to high medical bills most people buy Midgap insurance policies to cover the bills not paid by Medicare.
