September 4-7, 2016
Sep 04 14:26 Kenneth Toole speaks the truth Sep 06 11:06 Rebecca Otto, sore loser Sep 06 13:40 Otto Response Sep 06 18:00 Democrats pick fight on defense spending Sep 06 19:39 Otto fights on (with our money) Sep 07 04:48 The Hillary index -- Bullish? Sep 07 16:15 Otto's outright loss Sep 07 20:14 When Hillary speaks, people listen
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Kenneth Toole speaks the truth
This LTE is one of the most hard-hitting, most DFL-exposing, most honest LTEs I've read about the DFL's disgust with mining. It was written by Kenneth Toole, who has apparently figured out Rick Nolan. (Here's hoping that there are thousands of Kenneth Toole voters this November.)
Mr. Toole started his LTE by saying "Last weekend in Sauk Rapids, Rick Nolan helped broker another backroom deal to help ensure his own re-election, while throwing mining families under the bus; pressuring his fellow DFLers to delay their anti-mining resolution until just after Election Day, when the anti-mining, anti-jobs, anti-working family resolution will then be passed."
Never was the phrase 'the devil's in the details' more true than in this instance. Mr. Toole wrote that "as part of Nolan's backroom deal, the DFL has announced that Rebecca Otto, who is known on the range as anti-mining, will lead an 'Ad Hoc Task Force' to address the DFL's anti-mining push. Otto is not only known on the Range as anti-mining, but according to the Mesabi Daily News, Otto previously voted 'against awarding leases for exploration.'"
Anyone that thinks Rebecca Otto will give mining a fair shot likely thinks that Republicans will get a fair shake from the Twin Cities media or that Lori Sturdevant will actually scrutinize the DFL's SWLRT project. Simply put, mining won't get a fair shot from Ms. Otto. She's as anti-mining as the DFL gets.
Here's hoping that lots of Kenneth Toole voters show up on Nov. 8. It's time to retire Rick Nolan once and for all. He's nothing more than a backstabbing career politician who won't hesitate to stab miners in the back if it'll help him get elected.
Posted Sunday, September 4, 2016 2:26 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 05-Sep-16 07:33 AM
Sadly, either the people living in CD-8 have become comfortable with the unemployment and welfare they receive due to the lack of jobs or the area has been so infiltrated with tree hugging hippie liberals from the Twin Cities and other areas, that Nolan will win another election. I saw a lot of Nolan signs and no Mills signs this weekend. Tough to beat Santa or a rich liberal.
Rebecca Otto, sore loser
Months ago, Rebecca Otto filed a lawsuit claiming that a bill passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Dayton was unconstitutional. Since then, Ms. Otto, who clearly isn't a constitutional scholar, has spent $220,000 of the taxpayers' money fighting a losing fight. Last Friday, the court ruled with Ms. Otto in part and against her in part.
The key part of the ruling is found on page 9 of the ruling when it says "The County Audit Statute is Consistent with the State Auditor's Exercise of her Constitutional Authorities." Later, it states that "The Legislature has the power to modify the State Auditor's duties under State ex rel. Mattson v. Kiedrowski. Modifying who does the initial audit does not transfer her core functioning of auditing counties."
Then it says "As noted previously, Article V does not expressly set the terms or duties of the State Auditor as an executive officer. The task of prescribing duties for executive officers is reserved for the Legislature..."
I've written about this before. I said the same thing but with different words. For instance, I wrote this in this post :
I've read Article V. That's where the Constitution establishes the office of State Auditor. Nowhere in Article V does it list the auditor's responsibilities. Article V, Sect. 3 outlines the governor's responsibilities. That's the only constitutional officer whose responsibilities are defined in Minnesota's Constitution.
Ms. Otto will supposedly appeal the ruling, which she'll lose while spending more of the taxpayers' money foolishly. Rep. Sarah Anderson issued this statement :
"I'm glad to see this law upheld as constitutional, and know it will mean meaningful savings for counties and property taxpayers throughout Minnesota," Anderson said. "Judge Marek's ruling makes clear: this issue is settled, the law is constitutional, and we can put the confusion and hassle caused by Rebecca Otto's unnecessary lawsuit behind us. Auditor Otto has wasted more than $220,000 in taxpayer money on this frivolous endeavor - I call on her to get back to doing her job, accept the court's ruling, and apologize to counties and taxpayers for so flagrantly wasting hard-earned tax dollars."
Ms. Otto, like other Democrats, is a sore loser. She can't stand the fact that she lost this ruling even though she clearly didn't have a chance of winning the lawsuit.
Posted Tuesday, September 6, 2016 11:06 AM
No comments.
Otto Response
Earlier this morning, I wrote this post to highlight the fact that Rebecca Otto, Minnesota's State Auditor, isn't a constitutional scholar but that she is a sore loser. I quoted the ruling as saying "The Legislature has the power to modify the State Auditor's duties under State ex rel. Mattson v. Kiedrowski. Modifying who does the initial audit does not transfer her core functioning of auditing counties."
Briana Bierschbach's tweet contains similar language from the ruling, saying that "giving counties the right to choose whether a CPA firm performs their audits does not transfer a core function away from the OSA, but merely modifies one of the OSA's existing duties."
This isn't a partisan fight. It's a fight between the executive branch and the legislative branch. The executive branch prefers setting its own duties and expanding its responsibilities. The legislative branch, however, prefers telling these constitutional offices what their responsibilities are. That's important to the constitutional principle of checks and balances.
Briana also has Ms. Otto's response to the ruling:
Ms. Otto has the right to appeal this ruling but it's essentially over. If she appeals this ruling, she'll just be foolishly spending the taxpayers' money going into an election year. That isn't a wise campaign strategy.
Posted Tuesday, September 6, 2016 1:40 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 06-Sep-16 03:28 PM
Not only is she not a constitutional scholar, she's not even qualified to hold the office of state auditor. How does a person with a biology degree get a job as a state auditor? She's just another progressive spending our money without a care in the world.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Sep-16 05:26 PM
That's exactly right!
Democrats pick fight on defense spending
Republicans should willingly accept the fight that the Democrats have picked on defense spending. Democrats just picked the fight by filibustering the bill that would fund the military, including funding overseas operations against ISIS. If Democrats are willing to shut down the government over fulfilling the Democrats' special interest allies' wish list, Republicans should highlight that. If Democrats want to commit political suicide, then it's Republicans' responsibility to make them pay for that stupidity.
First, it's important to know that "Senate Democrats Tuesday blocked for a third time a key defense spending bill, signaling they will not take up any spending legislation outside of an all-inclusive package that incorporates both military and domestic spending." According to the article, Democrats blocked the bill because "Democratic leaders said they don't trust the GOP to negotiate in good faith on the remaining domestic spending bills if they agree to the military spending separately."
It's time for Democrats to put on their big boy britches and negotiate in good faith. If they won't fund the military unless they get everything they want for their special interest allies, then they aren't fit to chair the Senate's committees. Period. They aren't fit for those responsibilities because they're too beholden to the special interests to do what's right for America.
Sen. Rubio issued this statement:
The federal government's chief responsibility is to keep Americans safe and provide the resources our military needs to do its job, and it's a shame Senate Democrats are refusing to do either by blocking this bill for the third time this year.
In addition to funding our military, this bill would also have made it crystal clear to the administration that dangerous terrorists must remain at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. In these last four months of President Obama's term, we need to do everything possible to stop him from releasing dangerous terrorists to other countries, or bringing them into the U.S. This includes keeping the 18 " forever prisoners ", which an independent board has deemed too dangerous to ever release, right where they are.
This is a fight that Republicans should fight with Democrats. Let the people see that Democrats aren't ready to chair the important committees that fund this nation's national security operations. Let the people see that Democrats consistently put a higher priority on political gamesmanship than they put on doing what's right for our troops.
Posted Tuesday, September 6, 2016 6:00 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 07-Sep-16 09:12 AM
The officer corps compensation structure and size need attention. Brass heavy does not help the grunts in the fight one bit.
Also, downsizing class size at the Academies would help eliminate the incentives to featherbed.
You Republicans rage over any perceived union featherbedding, but give the services' brass a free pass. That's not sincere.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Sep-16 09:34 AM
The news reports show that military readiness is terrible & the Navy's fighter jets should've been retired years ago. They know that because equipment-caused crashes are up. If you want Jimmy Carter II, you're getting close.
Otto fights on (with our money)
Rebecca Otto knows that she doesn't stand a chance of winning her lawsuit on appeal. If she thinks she has a fighting chance, then she's too stupid for public office, especially statewide office. Despite that, Ms. Otto is fighting on, with the taxpayers' money of course. She's appealing the straightforward ruling because she's a sore loser .
It's impossible to fight on when the ruling states " The Legislature has the power to modify the State Auditor's duties under State ex rel. Mattson v. Kiedrowski. Modifying who does the initial audit does not transfer her core functioning of auditing counties."
The Constitution creates the office of State Auditor, aka OSA. It doesn't assign it its responsibilities. Every constitutional office is told by the legislative and executive branch what its responsibilities are with one exception. The Constitution spells out the governors' authorities and responsibilities. The responsibilities of the attorney general, the auditor and the secretary of state are spelled out by the legislative branch -- without exception.
Sarah Anderson is the chair of the House State Government Finance Committee. She issued this statement that spells things out perfectly for taxpayers:
It's unfortunate for Minnesota taxpayers that Rebecca Otto is choosing to continue this ridiculous and frivolous lawsuit. Further attempts to overturn this bipartisan law amount to an exercise in futility coming at the expense of Minnesota taxpayers and counties.
What's obvious is that Ms. Otto is fighting this fight because she's fighting for the members of the public employee unions that will lose their jobs once counties hire CPA firms to do the audits rather than being forced to pay for unionized auditors. There's an old saying that goes 'if you always rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have Paul as an ally.' Ms. Otto wants the public employee unions to forever be her ally.
This is important information, too:
To date, Minnesota taxpayers have been forced to pay at least $220,000 in legal fees thanks to Otto's legal challenge, in addition to the tens of thousands in legal fees incurred by the counties named as parties in the lawsuit.
Why would Ms. Otto appeal this ruling knowing that she's costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and counties tens of thousands of dollars? Does she care that little about the taxpayers?
Posted Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:39 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 07-Sep-16 09:08 AM
Tom Bakk is a Republican in drag, dressing up as if a Dem.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Sep-16 10:22 AM
I know you hate Sen. Bakk but he isn't a Republican. He just isn't as hardline progressive as you'd like. There's a difference.
Comment 2 by JerryE9 at 07-Sep-16 10:01 AM
"Does she care that little about the taxpayers?" may one assume that your tongue is firmly in cheek asking that question? I'm sure you know the answer.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Sep-16 10:10 AM
Actually, Jerry, the question is a serious one. It's stunning that a politician cares that little about the people they're elected to serve. It's time to stop looking at politicians and say 'yeah, they're just career politicians. I don't expect them to be people of integrity.' It's time to start saying that, for instance, that Hillary Clinton is a liar and she's disqualified to be POTUS. It's time to start pointing a finger at Paul Thissen & tell everyone that he's an elitist scumbag who should be thrown out of the House for how he mistreated GOP staffers.
This stuff has to end & end fast. If it doesn't, our society is finished.
The Hillary index -- Bullish?
It isn't difficult to find articles telling us that the presidential race is essentially finished and that Hillary will be our next president. Thus far, what's evident is that Mr. Trump has righted himself to a certain extent. That's mostly attributable to hiring Kellyanne Conway. She's brought a focus to the campaign that's been quite noticeable.
The other thing that's led to this tightening is how pathetic Hillary has looked. I'm reminded of an old song that they played on Hee Haw. The song said "if it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all." While I can't attribute HRC's fall to bad luck, I'll certainly attribute her fall to bad news cycle after bad news cycle. Charles Krauthammer put it perfectly, stating "Look, I don't think this is really complicated. She's been in the news. It's all been bad since the Comey press conference. Every bit of news is always about emails, about the Clinton Foundation, the corruption. That's the only news we are getting. Of course, it's her numbers that are declining. Trump has been up and down but he's been relatively stable and that's why we are where we are today."
It's still far too early to predict anyone as the victor. It's definitely too early to predict that for Trump, especially, though, because it isn't clear that he's passed the commander-in-chief test. If Mr. Trump passes that test relatively soon, then the race will take a different perspective. At that point, if it happens, Trump will become a fully plausible candidate.
Finally, it's foolish to count on this stretch of terrible news cycles to propel Mr. Trump to victory -- yet. It isn't foolish to think that Hillary isn't capable to performing terribly. Just remember Hillary's disastrous book tour a couple years ago.
And now, those words from Charles:
Posted Wednesday, September 7, 2016 4:48 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 07-Sep-16 09:04 AM
Gary, if you want a Clinton response to your part of the vast right-wing conspiracy we've heard about, she'll have Huma send you an email.
NOW - You do not mention the Brietbart guy nor the Citizens United guy. From an advisory triumvirate you pick one without any link or text explaining the choice. It would be nice to know why you focus as you do.
Next, aren't those three Cruz people, now having little else to be doing?
LAST: Do you have any expectation on what further Clinton email releases will uncover? I am wondering about the son-in-law from Goldman and his Greek hedge fund victims and who the counterparties trading with that hedge fund were. If it made big losses, counterparties did okay; or do I misunderstand.
For all we know, and being positioned to presume the worse as with the Goldman speech transcripts, counterparties were or may have included Goldman and the Foundation unloading Greek holdings from their investment/trading portfolios.
It's not made news, but it tweaks my curiosity since SoS was a position fit to learn EU and particularly German policy intent as to any bailout of Greece beneficial to market price of Greek sovereign debt and Greek bank stocks. Gary, are you aware of any info that way? Am I asking questions about a later timeframe? I believe the Greek situation hit the fan 2010, even if it dragged on. That would be during SoS tenure?
Comment 2 by JerryE9 at 07-Sep-16 09:56 AM
Gary, let me ask another question. It popped up on one of these fundraising "surveys" from the NRCC and, for the first time, I had to mark something "I don't know." The question was, "do you think Trump should name his cabinet before the general election?" At the State Fair, the Republican Party was taking a survey asking which of 12 people you thought should be in Trump's cabinet, but I honestly could not recommend any of those folks. I have since then thought that Jeb Bush would be a good Secretary of Education, if he would take it. Would naming his cabinet help him pass the "commander-in-chief test"?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Sep-16 10:14 AM
The commander-in-chief test is solely about national security. If Trump named Rick Perry to be the head of Homeland Security, Rudy Giuliani to be the head of the DNI & John Bolton to be his Secretary of State, that would help people feel comfortable as a national security president.
Comment 3 by eric z at 07-Sep-16 11:05 AM
With all due respect, Gary, you are driving people to vote Clinton with that war monger pack. She's LESS a war monger; and that is something to say, Libya and all that Arab Spring stuff included. Bolton? Really? "Let the Responders Die" Rudy? Really?
Otto's outright loss
Thus far, people have tiptoed around what the judge ruled last Friday in the lawsuit brought by Rebecca Otto. Ms. Otto is quoted as saying "In the decision, the court granted our motion in part and denied it in part," Otto said. "As we requested, the court recognized the core constitutional function of the Office of the State Auditor to audit counties. The court also held that the Office of the State Auditor may 'continue to exercise its constitutional authority to audit counties to pay for such audits.' We are reviewing the opinion and analyzing our options."
It would've been surprising if the court had ruled that the OSA didn't have the authority to be the state's main auditor. This isn't surprising. That's as surprising as the judiciary finding that the Secretary of State had the authority to monitor elections. Later, Ms. Otto said this:
"Unfortunately, the district court also permitted counties to hire private CPA firms at their discretion to conduct an "initial audit." We respectfully disagree with this aspect of the district court's decision. It will result in an unacceptable diminishment of the protection this constitutional office provides on behalf of the taxpayers of this state."
The OSA already has given some counties the authority to hire CPA firms to do their audits. With that being the case, Ms. Otto's intellectual fight is flimsy. She's essentially arguing that she has the authority to give counties the right to hire CPA firms to perform their audit but that the legislature doesn't have that authority.
Further complicating matters is that Ms. Otto is essentially arguing that the statutes that have assigned specific responsibilities to the OSA and other statutes assigning specific responsibilities to other constitutional offices are constitutional but that this statute, and this statute alone, is unconstitutional.
If the Minnesota Supreme Court rules in Ms. Otto's favor, then we'll have verifiable proof that Gov. Dayton stacked that court with judges that will rule in the DFL's favor no matter what the Constitution says. Let's hope that these justices aren't partisans first and jurists second. Here's hoping that they're jurists first, last and only.
Posted Wednesday, September 7, 2016 4:15 PM
No comments.
When Hillary speaks, people listen
When Hillary Clinton talks about US national security, people listen. It isn't that they think she'll tell the truth. HRC's honest and trustworthy ratings are worse than an ant's popularity rating at a mid-summer picnic. Some people will listen to hear what absurd lies she'll tell. Others will listen so they'll know what she said once Lanny Davis and other Clinton spinmeisters appear on TV to tell us that she didn't say what everyone watched HRC say.
Those are probably the good old days. Now, the DFL and other Hillary enablers don't wait until after she's gotten caught lying. They're proactive, telling us nonsense prior to her lying to us. This tweet is a perfect example of Democrats being proactive so they can change the subject once a moderator asks about HRC's statements. The DFL tweeted "When @HillaryClinton talks about keeping our country safe, she means it ."
After visiting HRC's website, I feel safe. That's where I read this comforting thought:
The threat we face from terrorism is real, urgent, and knows no boundaries. Horrific attacks like the ones in Paris, Brussels, Orlando, and San Bernardino have made it all too clear: It is not enough to contain ISIS and the threat of radical jihadism - we have to defeat it.
That's the hard-hitting policy that we need. I feel safer already. Well, I'd feel safer if it wasn't for this :
On NBC's Meet the Press, moderator Chuck Todd asked Pence about Trump's policies to ban Muslims from entering the United States. In recent weeks, Trump has said he would ban Muslims from countries with terrorist activity.
When Todd pressed Pence about what countries those would be, Pence changed the subject to Clinton's Syria policy. "Well, Hillary Clinton wants to increase Syrian refugees to this country by 550 percent," Pence said. "Donald Trump and I believe that we should suspend the Syrian refugee program."
It doesn't make sense to take out ISIS hotspots in Syria, Iraq and Europe, then invite potential ISIS terrorists to the US through our refugee resettlement program. Despite what Pat Kessler reported , it's still highly possible for ISIS terrorists to infiltrate the US through the refugee resettlement program.
Hillary's plan to protect the US from ISIS terrorist attacks is essentially killing terrorists in Iraq and Syria while inviting new terrorists into the US. Killing terrorists there, then increasing the number of potential terrorists in the US seems slightly counterproductive. Then again, how can people feel safe watching video like this?
Posted Wednesday, September 7, 2016 8:14 PM
No comments.
