September 13-15, 2019
Sep 13 00:13 St. Cloud City Council vs. Minnesota Open Meeting Laws Sep 13 01:00 A much-needed civics lesson Sep 13 09:16 It's the economy, Stupid! Sep 14 01:39 Rep. Urdahl's civics concern, Part I Sep 14 09:14 2020: Energy dominance vs. environment? Sep 15 00:47 When will this hit St. Cloud? Sep 15 01:04 Rep. Urdahl's civics concern, Part II Sep 15 22:48 Resist Movement vs. Reagan
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
St. Cloud City Council vs. Minnesota Open Meeting Laws
When the St. Cloud City Council voted to censure Councilman George Hontos, it may have violated Minnesota's Open Meeting Laws . According to the article, "Mark Anfinson, an attorney for the Minnesota Newspaper Association, said the law is clear that a public body cannot vote by secret ballot."
Needless to say, the City offered a different perspective:
In an email to the Times on Wednesday, City Administrator Matt Staehling said he, City Attorney Renee Courtney and City Clerk Seth Kauffman consulted Robert's Rules of Order before the vote on Monday. "We agreed that the guidance recommended (that) the subject of the censure does not participate in the vote but can participate in the discussion and debate (and) the ballot should be by confidential ballot," Staehling stated.
Robert's Rules of Order are helpful when the law isn't clear. In this case, Minnesota's Open Meeting Laws are quite clear, clear enough for the Minnesota Court of Appeals to render a decision:
Anfinson cites a decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals in which the Mankato Free Press sued the city of North Mankato after the city refused to provide the names of job finalists for city administrator, conducted closed interviews with job finalists, and took a written straw vote to narrow the field of candidates; the results of that straw vote were not made public until later.
In its decision, the Court of Appeals wrote: "Secret voting denies the public an opportunity to observe the decision-making process, to know the council members' stance on issues, and to be fully informed about the council's actions."
It's one thing if the Council was voting to suspend a city employee. There are certainly times when a closed session would be required. Suspending or terminating an employee fits that situation. Telling a councilman that his First Amendment rights can be suspended by the government doesn't fit that description.
Frankly, I want to know who voted that the City Council has the right to violate a person's civil rights. Further, I want to know which jackasses voted to censure George Hontos. What Councilman Hontos did was entirely proper. City Council Rule No. 6, at least as much of it that is public, "states council members 'respect the majority vote of the council, and do not undermine or sabotage implementation of ordinances, policies and rules passed by the majority.'"
That rule isn't enforceable because it precludes a City Council member from representing his constituents by limiting his speech. How can any representative of the people effectively represent his/her constituents if he can't voice his/her opinion on matters that've come before the board/legislature he/she serves on? That part of Rule No. 6 needs to be abolished because it's unconstitutional.
Here's the First Amendment's text:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How can the government stifle a person's right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances"? The idea that the City Council insists that its members "respect the majority vote of the council" sounds nice but it doesn't respect the rights afforded to the people by the Bill of Rights.
It's more than a little frightening to think that St. Cloud's lawmakers are this constitutionally illiterate. What's encouraging is that Councilman Hontos has stated on the record for LFR that he "will continue to represent the constituents of St. Cloud as [he has] been doing for 18 years." As long as Councilman Hontos keeps fighting for these principles, I'll keep voting for him.
Posted Friday, September 13, 2019 12:13 AM
No comments.
A much-needed civics lesson
When former St. Cloud City Councilman Jeff Johnson asked if I'd publish his opinions about the current City Council's censure of George Hontos, I immediately accepted his proposal. Here is Councilman Johnson's op-ed to LFR:
I find the censorship of St. Cloud City Councilman George Hontos nothing short of a retaliatory witch hunt. In the eight years that I served with Mr. Hontos on the council, he has always been well prepared, extremely knowledgeable, and never afraid to ask the tough questions. I once jokingly said that George probably knows more about city matters than the rest of us councilmembers combined. He has made himself consistently available to the citizens who want to speak to him about various matters. He represents his constituents extremely well which explains why he has been re-elected over and over.
There are certainly times when it is inappropriate for a councilmember to speak out about various matters. This would include personnel matters, any time the council is in closed session to talk about legal issues (like the city getting sued) or when the council is acting as a quasi-judicial body. Mr. Hontos' letter to the editor clearly falls well outside these parameters and it was appropriate for him to exercise his free speech rights under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution regardless if the reader finds his editorial disagreeable or not. A public official does not check his/her 1st amendment rights 'at the door of public service' when taking office by swearing an oath to the Constitution. Doing so would be hypocritical and I dare say, unethical.
Council Rule No. 6, which states council members "respect the majority vote of the council, and do not undermine or sabotage implantation of ordinances, policies and rules passed by the majority."
City Council rules and Robert's Rules of Order do not trump state and federal law. Sadly, I personally witnessed council members during my 8 years of service repeatedly violate Council Rules and Robert's Rules which resulted in absolute chaos. The first time or two appeared accidental however it appeared to become willful. Look no further than my refugee resettlement moratorium proposal when I had approximately 8 minutes (from the council video) to read a Welcoming Resolution that appeared out of nowhere and then vote on it during the ensuing chaos. The welcoming resolution was never scheduled in advance which is an egregious violation of council rules and good etiquette. I felt like the public : both for and against my proposed resolution : were ambushed, which can be seen in this post . It did a great disservice to the public and eroded trust in local government. To be fair to everyone and to follow council rules, I clearly announced my proposed resolution weeks in advance, so everyone had a chance to read it and voice an opinion : for and against.
It appears that history is repeating itself with George Hontos taking the brunt of trying to do the right thing. According to this September 12th article in the St. Cloud Times:
Staehling said Thursday the city did not know the council was going to make a motion to censure Hontos ahead of the meeting - and said that none of the staff can recall the last time the council made a motion to censure a council member. "It was a scramble. It wasn't expected," Staehling said.
The city council has unwittingly taken proactive steps to reduce transparency. The article shows that the city council may have violated open meeting laws by having a secret vote on censoring Mr. Hontos. In my mind, it's clear that open meeting laws were violated in using the secret vote which may be appropriate for Mason membership but not for a local government body. If another councilmember votes to censor another councilmember, should not the accused have the right to know and deal directly with the accuser(s)? Clearly, the public has a right to know how their council representative voted in a highly public meeting.
I am also deeply troubled that the public forum is no longer televised. There are some people in St. Cloud that routinely watch city council meetings on the local government access channel. A good friend of mine who can no longer physically travel to city hall to watch meetings will no longer be able to watch his neighbors address the council on quality of life or other issues of interest. Accessibility has now been diminished for some of our residents.
Perhaps what saddens me the most is WE THE PEOPLE is being replaced with WE THE GOVERNMENT. Local government is supposed to provide the greatest access to WE THE PEOPLE. I served on the St. Cloud City Council because I genuinely wanted my constituents to have a better life. On some occasions, individuals came to the open forum to publicly berate me or other councilmembers. Although it was uncomfortable at times, I want them to have the freedom to do so and the TV cameras is one way to hold government (me at the time I was on the council) accountable to them.
I actively listened and tried to learn from WE THE PEOPLE to educate myself and when appropriate, change my mind to help them with various problems. British economist John Maynard Keynes once said, 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?' Councilmembers should listen to learn from WE THE PEOPLE because it's supposed to be representative government. Sadly, I saw that many councilmembers' minds were already made up by eye rolling, looking at their watches, or clearly looking disinterested during some open forums when citizens came to address the council.
Clearly, George Hontos listens to learn and does not shy away from tough issues. We clearly need more people like him to serve in government. He should not have been censored. He should have received the coveted 'Spine of Titanium' and 'Grinding the Axe' awards.
Jeff Johnson
Former St. Cloud City Councilmember, 2010 - 2018
Posted Friday, September 13, 2019 1:00 AM
Comment 1 by Mary T Dombrovski at 13-Sep-19 09:09 AM
Well said Jeff...well said!
Comment 2 by Brenda Korman at 13-Sep-19 11:53 AM
Agreed! Is there any chance the council members will read this and learn? It is becoming more difficult to trust our "leaders" to make decisions. They seem more interested in personal gain than making the tough decisions or even...tough discussions. Do they realize voters are moving out of St. Cloud and taking their wealth with them? Business owners are finding better lives in other communities? Million dollar homes are being reduced in value and still not moving on the market today as in previous years.
Comment 3 by D. GARCEAU at 16-Sep-19 10:08 PM
I concur with all of the above. The Mayor and Council are elected officials supposed to be listening to their constituents. Too many issues appear to be decided on before the actual meetings, and not all issues are brought to the attention of the community:-
- such as the Department Head alleged criminal act situation. If Open Forum were not televised many would still not be aware of it.
- then we have the huge number of cult of Islam proponents (welcomed)to our city as refugees which is a United Nations Agenda 21 issue....and one of the items on the City Comprehensive Plan. No answer ever was forthcoming as to what city agency invited them to take refuge here.
These are but two issues that have a serious effect on the community but were never openly discussed.
We elected to represent the the city first, not outsiders or employees who are in conflict with the federal, state or city law.
It's the economy, Stupid!
Last week, the Democrats, both those running for president and those activists in the MSM, repeatedly talked about the looming recession. At last night's third Democrat presidential debate, hardly a word was said about the economy. Chief Washington Examiner Politics Correspondent Byron York notice that the subject of the economy didn't make an appearance at the Democrats' third presidential debate. Amazingly, ABC moderators didn't ask a single question about the economy, either.
How can you have a 3-hour-long debate and not talk about the topic that most people want to talk about? That's journalistic malpractice. In his article, York wrote "at the Democratic Party's first one-night presidential debate, the first opportunity to showcase the party's ten leading candidates, what role did the nation's widespread economic anxieties play? Almost none. The candidates simply didn't talk about it. (Nor did the ABC News moderators ask.) The word "recession" was uttered just once in the entire debate. (By Julian Castro, who noted the poll's finding of recession fears.) Nor was the word "unemployment" ever spoken. Nor was there a discussion of job creation. Nor was there much of a discussion of wages."
It's almost as if ABC got the word from their boss (in this instance, DNC Chair Tom Perez) to not talk about the subject. I'm not accusing Chairman Perez of that. I'm merely stating that it's as if Perez did that. It isn't like Clintonista George Stephanopoulos was ever accused of rigging a debate by his former bosses. Oh wait. He has :
BRZEZINSKI: Jonathan Capehart, help me understand, tell me if I'm going down the wrong path here. It appears the Clinton campaign wants to do either a debate that no one will see, or a debate with a moderator that might not be completely fair towards Bernie Sanders. What do you think of the concept of a GMA debate with George Stephanopoulos.
Democrats understand that it's virtually impossible to convince people that are spending extra money at Walmart because their take-home pay has increased thanks to the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act and because pay has increased by 3% over the past year. It's easier to talk about 'Democrat' issues like health care and gun confiscation. DNC Chairman Tom Perez, in an attempt to spin what happened, said that health care is an economic issue:
Sorry, Tom, but creating jobs, tax policy, regulatory policy and rebuilding communities through a solid, comprehensive economic package qualifies as a discussion on the economy.
Posted Friday, September 13, 2019 9:16 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 13-Sep-19 02:40 PM
Medicare for All was the first topic, progressives for it, conservatives against, wanting Romneycare tinkered around.
Elizabeth Warren rang the bell with her opening sentence on the topic, roughly, "I do not know anyone who loves his insurance company." Klobuchar not memorable on the topic.
Do you?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Sep-19 02:58 AM
I don't know anyone who loves government bureaucrats. They're the ones who would run Medicare for All. A bureaucrat is a bureaucrat wherever they're found.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 13-Sep-19 04:15 PM
Rang the bell or got gonged on the gong show? These progressive socialists are bat crap crazy. Again, they know they have a snowflakes chance in hell of ever passing their 50 trillion dollar wet dreams but they'll keep promising the sheep all the free stuff only to disappoint like all other progressive socialists that came before them.
Rep. Urdahl's civics concern, Part I
Dean Urdahl's op-ed is must-reading for every Minnesota parent, in my estimation. In his opening paragraph, Rep. Urdahl writes "Our Republic faces crisis after crisis: Our government is crippled by polarization, Congress can't seem to get anything done, Supreme Court appointments have become a three-ring circus, no agreement can be reached on immigration and our borders, health care solutions can't be reached, our infrastructure is decaying and the national debt is out of control."
Then he highlights what he sees as the underlying problem, writing "It's easy to identify the problems. Digging deeper shows that these are the results of a more pervasive root cause: the diminishing of civic education nationally and in Minnesota. The foundation of our understanding of how our government works is withering. The outcomes include confusion, misunderstanding and decay in our system. A district court judge has told me that every day he sees the repercussions of citizens not understanding how our system works."
Junior high schools and high schools that don't teach in-depth history lessons about the writing of the Constitution, including principles like federalism, the Bill of Rights, separation of powers, the 3 branches of government, due process and the presumption of innocence, are cheating students. How many schools teach in-depth lessons on the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, the Civil War, where the Jim Crow laws came from and who started the Civil Rights Movement? Apparently, our schools are failing on these fronts. Badly:
The failure is measurable. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, the highly respected "Nation's Report Card," reports that 75% of our graduates leave high school not proficient in civics. They are failing. A nationwide poll found that two-thirds of Americans can name an American Idol judge, but only 15% can name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. One-third of our graduates can't name a single branch of our government. The Annenberg Study revealed that 37% cannot name one right guaranteed in the First Amendment. There are students who think Judge Judy is on the Supreme Court.
Fortunately, Rep. Urdahl isn't one to just complain about a problem. He's willing to fight to fix the problems he's highlighted:
A study by the Woodrow Wilson National Foundation found that only 36% of Americans could pass a test that immigrants pass at a 97.5% rate. Last session, I tried to pass a bill that required a course be offered for credit to juniors or seniors in high school. Facing stiff opposition to that from the Minnesota School Boards Association (MSBA), I compromised to change the requirement to "encourage."
In its recent wrap-up of the legislative session, MSBA touted its success in weakening my bill by claiming that it would reduce the number of electives and reduce local control. These claims mystify me. I compromised and amended the bill to allow for more electives. Honors programs, PSEO and other accelerated options were exempted. Frankly, it comes down to teaching what is wanted versus what is needed.
It's shameful that a lobbying organization would attempt to water down students' curriculum. And yes, it's indisputable that MSBA is a lobbying organization :
MSBA represents every school board member in the state along with more than 837,000 public school students. MSBA is the leading advocate for public education by supporting, promoting and strengthening the work of public school boards.
Here's what MSBA believes:
- An investment in a student is a smart investment in our state's future.
- Providing school districts maximum flexibility and control provides benefits to students .
- State policies should ensure every student has the opportunity to graduate prepared to be successful in the postsecondary path of their choice.
That middle bullet point sounds great until you think of who's running the schools. Parents, have you heard that students have been trained to be activists? Why weren't they being taught important things like the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, how the federal government was formed or why the Founders decided that the Electoral College was best system for electing presidents?
Posted Saturday, September 14, 2019 1:39 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 14-Sep-19 07:04 AM
Yep, no civics studies and now revised history studies but the kids sure as hell get gay and transgender studies rammed down their throats. The failed academy isn't doing the job it was supposed to do (educate) and instead it is just indoctrinating the kids.
2020: Energy dominance vs. environment?
Salena Zito's latest column highlights what I think will be one of the biggest issues of the 2020 election cycle, in both the presidential election and in congressional races. The title of Ms. Zito's column is "The crackers and frackers could hold the keys to 2020". I've said for awhile that I think they will be one of the biggest issues in the race.
Democrats are in a difficult position. If Democrats side with Tom Steyer and AOC, they'll lose the people who used to be the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, the industrial unions like the Pipefitters, the UAW, the USW and other major unions. If Democrats side with these unions, Tom Steyer stops writing checks for their campaigns.
Republicans don't have such conflicts. They can support fracking without hurting their standing with other interest groups that support the GOP. The great news is that Republicans can boast how they support great-paying blue collar jobs that are helping rebuild close-knit communities in major battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.
All Darrin Kelly wanted for the energy workers in Western Pennsylvania was that the Democratic presidential hopefuls would talk to them before going to war against shale. That opportunity slipped away last Friday when Elizabeth Warren joined Bernie Sanders in calling for a total fracking ban. "On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil-fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking - everywhere," Warren tweeted.
"It is disappointing that any national candidate would not come in here and want to talk to the men and women of this area first before unilaterally making that decision," said Kelly, a charismatic Pittsburgh firefighter who is also the head of the powerful and influential Allegheny Fayette Labor Council. They represent workers stretching from Pittsburgh to the borders of Maryland and West Virginia.
It isn't just Bernie and Warren that've abandoned blue collar America. Joe Biden ditched them , too:
Biden denied the donor's association to the fossil fuel industry before calling the young woman "kiddo" and taking her hand. He said, "I want you to look at my eyes. I guarantee you. I guarantee you. We're going to end fossil fuel .
"There you have it. Blue Collar Joe just said that he'll stop the fossil fuel industry. Then there's this:
Trump's magic came in rural and post-industrial counties such as Luzerne and Erie, but most importantly in the populous counties around Pittsburgh, where shale is king and fracking is seen as the second coming of the steel industry.
They may look like ordinary construction cranes to someone unfamiliar with the history of this region. But if you're from here, they look like something different. Building the ethane cracker plant, each of these cranes looks like a new colossus rising from the ashes of yesterday's despair.
Building the plant has brought in 6,000 good-paying jobs, with more to come. Ultimately, there will be 600 permanent jobs at the plant, with industry analysts predicting triple that amount in supporting industries.
Jobs postings are everywhere touting opportunities, no matter the skill level - high school education, trade school certificate, chemists, engineers, IT, labor. If you reliably turn up for work, there is likely a career for you in the oil and gas industry.
Let's remember this: In 2016, then-candidate Trump promised he wouldn't forget their communities. In 2020, he'll return with the campaign slogan of promises made, promises kept.
The rebuilding isn't complete but it's been started, thanks to President Trump's policies. President Trump identified the Obama administration's anti-coal regulations as one of the things killing the energy industry. Thanks to the Republicans' use of the Congressional Review Act, which they used 16 times, and the Trump/GOP tax cuts, communities are rebuilding. Under Obama/Biden, those communities were forgotten.
Posted Saturday, September 14, 2019 9:14 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 14-Sep-19 10:23 AM
The sooner the Green New Deal provides jobs and opportunity to be free of middle east war, with "defense" budget savings from that to reinvest in carbon-neutral infrastructure, the better. The technology exists. All we need is the courage to save the planet from devastation. Disarm the Republicans and the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, and we have it as a done deal.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Sep-19 10:51 AM
Eric, we're free of Middle East oil already so check that off as a reason. Next, if we went with next generation nuclear energy & natural gas, we'd even further reduce our carbon footprint. BTW, did you know that the US is already reducing its carbon footprint without giving up fossil fuels? I'm betting that you didn't know that. China & India are the culprits, not the US.
It's time to pull your head out of your ass & realize that capitalism & innovation will save the planet, not socialism & overregulation.
Comment 2 by Gretchen L Leisen at 14-Sep-19 10:55 AM
The Leftists running the Democrat Party are the biggest snobs around. They hobnob with the jet setters from both coasts, Hollywood, new high tech billionaires, etc. They have little use and even less time to be bothered by the folks in the Midwest, the gulf coast, and inter-mountain west. We are 'fly over' country and a bunch of hicks to them.
The notion of a carbon free energy system is ridiculous. Perhaps in the far off future some of it will be more useful. Right now the leftists cannot rely on hopes and dreams to fuel their jets and Porsches.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 14-Sep-19 03:13 PM
Psst Eric, The Green New Deal isn't about saving the planet from fossil fuels or making anything less polluted or more green, it's all about wealth redistribution. Just ask AOC's former chief of staff/campaign manager. We (sane people that is) have always known man made global warming/climate change/whatever the progressive socialists are calling it today, was a farce and now that the left is feeling empowered, they are finally coming out and telling us the truth. Kind of like the Irish guy from El Paso who said he wants to confiscate guns.
When will this hit St. Cloud?
I felt sick reading John Hinderaker's article , partially because of the violence visited upon the young man in the video but mostly because it's just a matter of time before that sort of thing hits St. Cloud.
Forgive my pessimism. I'm usually an optimist. After watching St. Cloud deteriorate the last 5 years, it's difficult to maintain a positive attitude. Next Wednesday, St. Cloud's Police Chief will participate in a propagandist's dream event to tell everyone just how wonderful St. Cloud would be if it wasn't for those awful hate-filled Christians antagonizing those pure-as-the-driven-snow CAIR activists.
People are leaving St. Cloud. Some are moving to southern states but most are leaving for Sartell, Sauk Rapids St. Augusta and St. Joe. They're leaving because they're disgusted with spineless politicians, rising crime in core neighborhoods, a city council that thinks that the First Amendment is optional and a school board that thinks that sneaking a bonding referendum for a $100,000,000+ Tech HS should be voted on by only those in the 'education community'. (That's why the school board kept everything hush until the Times accidentally ruined the School Board's plans .) But I digress.
John's post is about the young man who got brutalized in Minneapolis just outside Target Field. This is one of the videos of this disgusting event:
[Video no longer available]
Day after day, week after week, month after month, Democrats hint that law enforcement is the problem. That puts police officers in the impossible position of having to do a difficult job without the full support of the communities they're protecting.
Authorities admit that violent crime is up in Minneapolis, although they surround that admission with happy talk, which won't be believed by anyone who actually ventures into the city at night. (The story is the same in urban St. Paul. One night last week, the St. Paul police lacked the manpower to respond to three shootings that happened more or less simultaneously in different parts of the city.)
Minneapolis's mayor is a young man who worked briefly in my law firm and is obviously not up to the task. Members of the City Council are ridiculously left-wing and totally ineffective. In both Minneapolis and St. Paul, civic authorities are convinced that policemen are the gravest threat to "communities of color," and therefore law enforcement should be scaled back, or only grudgingly reinforced in response to events like the one you see in the video above.
Then John notes what someone reminds him of:
A reader reminds me that I should have mentioned this: 'Some Minneapolis candidates say they can envision a city without police.'
Seven City Council hopefuls and two mayoral candidates say in a local voter guide that they can envision a future Minneapolis with no police. Asked, 'Do you believe that we could ever have a city without police?' two mayoral candidates and two incumbents and five serious challengers running for City Council answered 'yes.'
The idiots on St. Cloud's City Council aren't that stupid but nobody's mistaking them for Einstein's relatives, either.
What St. Cloud needs is its version of Rudy Giuliani. If we don't find that person fast, I hate thinking what depths St. Cloud will descend into.
Posted Sunday, September 15, 2019 12:53 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 15-Sep-19 07:10 AM
Well the only good thing to come of that video is that the Mpls city council has re-thought the idea of cutting cops and now wants to hire more cops. Here in St. Paul, Mayor Melvin won't hire new cops (we've had 5 - 7 murders in the last week) but he'll spend $1.5 million to get 10 new vehicles that pollute less. Good to know we have money to piss away on scams yet no money to protect the residents.
Comment 2 by John W. Palmer at 15-Sep-19 01:44 PM
Gary the when is right now. The most recent livability score for St. Cloud:
https://www.areavibes.com/st.+cloud-mn/crime/
The following is based on the number normalized to 100,000 persons and FBI data:
St. Cloud has more than double the murder (4.4) and rape (91.3) rates compared to the statewide rate and exceeds the rates for all other crime when compared to the statewide rates.
Comment 3 by Liz at 15-Sep-19 09:17 PM
Excellent post! Rudy was great for NYC!
According to research done by Dave Gaubatz the Minneapolis and St Cloud areas are in for a lot more of this and far worse.
His report can be read here via insert from Scribd: https://conservativefiringline.com/fbi-teams-up-with-cair-for-hate-crimes-event-9-18-19-st-cloud-mn-breaking-their-own-doj-policy-how-can-this-be/
Rep. Urdahl's civics concern, Part II
In Part I of this mini-series , I highlighted the things that weren't happening in Minnesota schools. In truth, I couldn't have written that post without the information in Rep. Dean Urdahl's op-ed . In Part II, let's dig in further into other things that the MSBA is pushing.
Rep. Urdahl is exactly right to highlight the fact "that one of the MSBA's top agenda items is to gain the ability to continue levy referenda by a majority vote of the local school board, instead of putting that vote before the people. While crying for local control, the MSBA is asking to remove the ultimate local control, that vote, from residents statewide." Talk about talking out of both sides of their mouths. Apparently, the MSBA wants parental control except when they want school board control of finances. If you think that doesn't sound consistent or principled, leave a comment below.
Honestly, that's the type of duplicitousness that should fire up parents to throw these bums off their school boards. Shame on these parents if they don't take action. This is the opportunity to not get ripped off with their property taxes and to provide the education that their children need. Would these parents prefer that their children get trained in activism or get indoctrinated rather than get an education that will make them indispensable leaders of their communities?
Thanks to Rep. Urdahl, we're getting this early warning:
Next session, the MSBA plans to double down on its campaign against civic education. MSBA officials want to no longer have to offer the civics test . This crosses the line from passivity to enmity regarding civics. Testing conveys a message; we care about what we test. Eliminating the test implies MSBA doesn't think civics is important. In Minnesota, it should not be about the number of tests, but rather, are we testing the right things.
The foundation of Minnesota's success in the 1970s was that students were taught the important things that would make them leaders. Based on this information from Rep. Urdahl's op-ed, it isn't a stretch to think that this generation of students will be taught how to be activists instead of being taught how to be chemists, journalists and other CEOs.
I cannot overemphasize the fact this is a crisis with dire consequences for the future if we continue to diminish the building blocks of our nation. Some of our school districts do a fine job with civics. It should be consistent across our state. Civics should be taught in some form in all grades, but especially to high school juniors and seniors who will soon be voters and are ready to learn the subject.
Amen, Rep. Urdahl. Right now, we have a U.S. Senator who thinks that the legislative branch gives orders to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. HINT: She's currently running for president as a moderate from Minnesota.
Let's get on the phone with our legislators. Let's tell them that we want students to be taught about the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Civil War and the building of the Transcontinental Railroad. Let's teach our students the things that've helped make America the greatest nation in the history of this planet. Let's spoil the MSBA's activist agenda. It's time students were taught important things before they got to college.
Posted Sunday, September 15, 2019 1:04 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 15-Sep-19 07:06 AM
I don't remember the exact stat but I heard yesterday that most (6 or 7 out of 10) adults can't name one of the 3 branches of government. Schools continue to pump out ignorant and just plain stupid kids with what they are being and not being taught.
Resist Movement vs. Reagan
During President Reagan's administration, Dutch coined a phrase that Democrats should consider adopting. Dutch's phrase was (pretty close, though not verbatim) 'It's amazing how much you can accomplish when you don't care who gets credit for doing what.' President Reagan's battles with Speaker Tip O'Neil were epic. Still, they figured out ways to accomplish big things despite their oft-heated relationship. They passed the Kemp-Roth tax cuts that energized the US economy after 4 years of malaise under Jimmy Carter. They worked together to rebuild the US military after Carter's budgets hollowed out the military, both in terms of personnel and in terms of parts for military hardware.
The point was that Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan figured out a way to work together. They worked together because Tip O'Neil put a higher priority on improving Americans' lives than he put on resisting. They worked together because President Reagan put a higher priority on fixing the US than he put on winning the next election.
That doesn't fit into the Democrats' strategy. Today's Democrats don't put a high priority of giving a little and getting a little. Today's Democrats don't give. Instead, they insist on getting everything they want without giving Republicans anything that they want.
It's time to coin this new phrase: 'It's amazing how a handful of nutjobs can demolish a pro-American agenda' . Does anyone seriously think that we've only got 12 years left on this planet? Does anyone seriously think that opening our borders, then giving illegal immigrants free health care and virtual citizenship is wise?
Americans face a choice. The best thing for Americans would be for Democrats to cooperate with Republicans where both sides get things that they want. If Democrats don't cooperate with President Trump and House and Senate Republicans, that puts the blame for substandard public safety, out-of-control human trafficking, aka sex trafficking, and not participating in building a robust economy. If that's the option Democrats choose, which increasingly looks like their choice, then the American people face a choice of whether they'll re-elect a bunch of Do-Nothing Democrats next November that've done nothing to make Americans' lives better and who haven't kept any of their 2018 campaign promises on health care or the economy or whether they'll elect GOP majorities in the House and Senate to work with President Trump in building a prosperous, safe United States.
Democrats need to ask themselves if they want to be Americans first or Democrats first. If Democrats opt for the latter, then they'll deserve a butt-kicking. Unfortunately, I'm betting that the Democrats opt for the latter. There's certainly more proof that they put a higher allegiance to their party than to this nation.
When Republicans cut taxes in Trump's first year in office, all House Democrats and all Senate Democrats voted against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Couple the Trump/GOP tax cuts with the regulations that Republicans removed and you've explained why the economy is so strong. Every Democrat voted against prosperity as part of the Resist Movement.
That's why Democrats must be defeated next November. They literally don't have any accomplishments since President Trump took office. It's impossible to point to any problems that the Democrats have solved. Why keep people in office if they don't solve problems? A little less than 4 minutes into this interview, Kevin McCarthy went through the Republicans' priorities if they their House majority back. I think it's quite the appealing agenda:
[Video no longer available]
Doesn't that sound much better than just resisting? Isn't that better than what the Do-Nothing Democrats have done lately?
Posted Sunday, September 15, 2019 10:48 PM
No comments.
