September 7, 2017
Sep 07 06:40 Lori Swanson's losing lawsuit Sep 07 08:39 A teachable moment in Sartell Sep 07 14:16 Environmentalists, Enbridge, energy Sep 07 15:30 Debunking conflicting information Sep 07 20:04 Franken criticizes judicial nominee
Prior Months: Jan Feb ~ May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Lori Swanson's losing lawsuit
According to this article , Minnesota State AG Lori Swanson "plans to join suit against Trump over ending DACA." If she joins that lawsuit, she's guaranteed to lose. That isn't just my opinion. It's Eric Columbus' opinion , too.
Columbus worked in the Obama/Holder Justice Department. Further, he's told his Twitter followers that "But on 6/29, ten state AGs wrote DOJ threatening to sue to kill DACA unless Trump agrees by 9/5 to phase it out. Sad to say, I agree with the Trump administration that such a challenge to DACA is very likely to succeed."
That's because the arguments against DACA are identical to the arguments against DAPA. In the Supreme Court's ruling on DAPA, the Court finished in a 4-4 tie. With Justice Gorsuch now filling that 9th spot, it's difficult to picture him ruling in President Obama's favor. Simply put, the evidence in this case isn't in dispute. President Obama's EO included new benefits for illegal immigrants. I quoted Greg Jarrett in this post as saying "At the end of the 19th century, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that congress has 'plenary power' (meaning full and complete) to regulate immigration. Derived from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the doctrine is based on the concept that immigration is a question of national sovereignty, relating to a nation's right to define its own borders and restrict entrance therein. As the high court observed, 'Over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete.'"
But I digress.
MPR's article says "The lawsuit filed Wednesday says rescinding DACA will injure state-run colleges and universities, upset workplaces and damage companies and economies that include immigrants covered under the program." It's worth noting that isn't a legal argument. It's a political argument. That should tell people everything they need to know about Swanson's motivation in joining the lawsuit. Further, the argument is irrelevant. Even if everything they say is accurate, it's irrelevant because President Obama overstepped his authority in implementing DACA. That's the only thing of any importance.
More than anything else, this lawsuit is an attempt by Democrats to make a political case and score political points. It fails on both counts. Does anyone think that voters will walk into a voting booth in November, 2018 and say 'I can't vote for the Republican because these attorneys general filed a lawsuit'?
It's time for Ms. Swanson to admit what Minnesota voters know -- that she isn't a primetime player.
Posted Thursday, September 7, 2017 6:40 AM
No comments.
A teachable moment in Sartell
This St. Cloud Times article is about 15 students who walked out of their classes to protest President Trump's decision to rescind DACA.
According to the article, there was a teachable moment. According to the article, "Sartell-St. Stephen Superintendent Jeff Schwiebert, who taught civics in Mount Vernon, Iowa, for 22 years, said the demonstration served as a teaching moment. 'So we had to have a little conversation about what civil disobedience is,' Schwiebert said. 'And when you're doing a protest, that's what you're doing. You're disobeying or disagreeing with a law that is in place. In this particular case, they responded very, very well to it.'"
It's indisputable that that's a legitimate teaching moment. Unfortunately, I'm afraid, another teachable moment might've gotten missed. Did Superintendent Schwiebert, or any of these students' teachers, teach the students about why DACA was unconstitutional. Did these teachers tell these students that DACA would've been a legitimate law if Congress had passed it and the president had signed it? Did these teachers explain to the students that the Constitution doesn't permit a president to unilaterally create new benefits for anyone, especially illegal aliens? That's exactly what happened.
If these students' teachers didn't teach them those lessons, why didn't they? Is it because the teachers are activists first, teachers next?
The protests in Sartell weren't the only DACA protests in Minnesota:
There's a simple solution to this situation. Unfortunately, Democrats have nixed that solution :
A top Senate Democratic aide said that the party would be open to agreeing to items such as additional drone operations, fencing and sensors; but not a "presidential vanity project. We are open to security that makes sense," the aide said, noting that the party had agreed to a similar exchange - albeit on a much larger scale - when it put together a comprehensive immigration reform deal in 2013. That measure included some $40 billion for border security measures.
Republicans should immediately tell Democrats that a major compromise on the Republicans' part requires a major compromise from Democrats. The compromise that Democrats proposed represents a major compromise from Republicans. It doesn't represent a major compromise for Democrats.
This is the sort of deal that President Trump criticized on the campaign trail. If he accepts this deal, his credibility as a great negotiator will instantly disappear. President Trump must insist that his wall gets funded in exchange for DACA. Trump should insist that the wall be built so we don't have to worry about another batch of DREAMers 5-10 years from now.
Border Patrol agents were deployed away from the border by President Obama so they weren't in position to prevent illegal immigration, drug smuggling or human trafficking. A serious border wall can't be deployed away from the border once it's been built.
That's a politically defensible position because it strengthens Republicans' campaigns in blue collar districts in the Midwest. If Democrats insist on getting their way with DACA, they'll get clobbered in the 2018 midterms.
Posted Thursday, September 7, 2017 8:39 AM
No comments.
Environmentalists, Enbridge, energy
If there's anything certain besides death and taxes, it's that environmental activists will fight against each energy infrastructure project in Minnesota. Enbridge's Line3 is a perfect example of that. At the behest of his allies in the environmental activist community, Gov. Dayton is dragging his feet rather than approving the construction of the Line3 replacement pipeline. In a statement published on August 9, 2017, Gov. Dayton said "In order to provide the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with the best possible information on which to base its decision, I have directed the Commissioner of Commerce to extend the deadline for publishing its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Enbridge's proposed Line 3 Oil Pipeline. According to my order, the Minnesota Department of Commerce will publish its final EIS on Thursday, August 17, 2017, including its responses to the more than 2,860 public comments the Department has received."
That pipeline EIS must've slipped because legislators along the pipeline's projected path wrote a letter to Gov. Dayton. According to the article, "In a letter to Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton and Commissioner Michael Rothman on Aug. 24, a request was made to move the proposed $3 billion Line 3 Replacement Project forward with no further delays. It was signed by 35 state legislatures, including District 10B Representative Dale Lueck, covering all of Aitkin County and part of Crow Wing County."
Further, it says "The Department of Commerce held 49 public meetings since Enbridge applied for the Line 3 Replacement project in April 2015. In September and October of 2017, another public comment period will take place with 18 more meetings. In addition, Enbridge held more than 1,200 open houses and question-answer sessions along the project's preferred route, the existing right-of-way, the alternative routes and in the Twin Cities since 2013."
Clearly, Gov. Dayton and the Public Utilities Commission aren't acting in the public's interest. They've morphed into puppets doing the Sierra Club's and MCEA's bidding. State Rep. Steve Green called out the DFL and the environmental activists in this LTE :
This pipeline shouldn't be controversial, but Democrats are protesting the project claiming that it is bad for the environment. The problem is, replacing the pipeline is the best thing to do to protect our environment and citizens. If the existing pipe is allowed to corrode, the oil being transported in that pipe is at a greater risk of escaping into the surrounding land. What is more, transporting oil through a pipeline is far safer than transporting by rail.
This video shows the fight that's continuing:
In the description is this information:
Indigenous Land Defenders from the Urban Warrior Alliance take direct action at an Enbridge pipeline stockpile near Morden Manitoba. 05/06/17 #NoEnbridge #NoPipelines
Let's be clear about something. Environmental activists have fought every fossil fuel project in Minnesota for a generation. This isn't just about the environment. It's about stifling productivity, efficiency and endangering public safety.
Environutters have been with us essentially all my life and probably longer. Right now, energy experts tell us that the United States is becoming "energy dominant." At that same point in history, environmental activists are becoming more militant towards pipeline projects.
That begs this question: which side are they on? Keep that question in mind the next time you step into a voting booth. The size of your heating bill depends on it.
Posted Thursday, September 7, 2017 2:16 PM
No comments.
Debunking conflicting information
Ron Brownstein's article highlights the upcoming fight over DACA and immigration reform. Brownstein's article, though, contains some conflicting information that's worth examining.
For instance, Brownstein wrote "In both 2006 and 2013, a bipartisan group of Senators crafted legislation whose central beam balanced tougher enforcement measures with a pathway to citizenship for 10-11 million undocumented immigrants, so long as they met certain conditions such as learning English. (Around that centerpiece, both bills also explicitly legalized those brought to the U.S. illegally as children, established a guest-worker program, and reformed legal immigration.) Every concerned interest group gnashed their teeth over some element of that composition, but business, organized labor, and immigrant advocacy groups locked arms behind the final product. With that widespread institutional backing, and polls showing support from a clear majority of Americans , the Senate comfortably approved each bill."
It doesn't make sense that "a clear majority of Americans" supported comprehensive immigration reform but elected Donald Trump, the biggest hardliner on border enforcement and illegal immigration. The most logical explanation is that people like immigration in the abstract, like health care reform, but don't like it when it's put into legislative form. Further, in the Trump era, people don't trust Washington politicians to listen to them or to do the right thing.
This phrase is the key in explaining things:
With that widespread institutional backing
Apparently, Mr. Brownstein hasn't figured it out that having Washington's "institutional backing" is a negative. People have been trying to get politicians to listen for the last 15+ years. If Congress attempts to pass a bill that's similar to the Gang of 8 legislation, they'd better expect it to get vetoed immediately. That might be what Washington insiders want but it isn't what the people want.
If Washington, Democrats and Republicans alike, try shoving another Gang of 8-style bill down our throats, they'd better prepare for the end of their political careers. If Congress doesn't listen to the American people, they'll deserve the voters' wrath. Republicans like Jeff Flake will increase the risk of losing in a primary while Democrats like John Tester, Sherrod Brown and Claire McCaskill will likely lose to their Republican challengers.
Washington, including Mr. Brownstein, hasn't noticed how popular the wall is. Voters know that future administrations can deploy border patrols 50+ miles north of the border. They don't trust Democrats to do the right thing with immigration. The wall can't be redeployed. Where it's built, it'll stay. It isn't just that President Trump insists on the wall. It's that the people insist on it.
If Democrats running in the heartland won't listen to the people, the outcome of their races isn't a mystery. They're cruising for a bruising. Sarah Huckabee-Sanders put Democrats in their place pretty quickly:
Sarah Huckabee-Sanders put Democrats in their place during one of her most recent briefings. She highlighted the question about why Democrats turned a blind eye towards law-breakers. Democrats don't have an answer to that question. That's why they keep losing elections.
Posted Thursday, September 7, 2017 3:30 PM
No comments.
Franken criticizes judicial nominee
It isn't surprising that Sen. Al Franken criticized a Trump judicial nominee. What's surprising is that his criticism is based on information supplied by the Southern Poverty Law Center, aka SPLC. According to the article, Sen. Franken "tried to tie one of President Trump's judicial nominees to a 'hate group' Wednesday, saying the woman's decision to speak at an event sponsored by Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious liberty law firm, makes her unfit to sit on a federal appeals court."
During Wednesday night's show of The Five, Greg Gutfeld demolished the SPLC , saying "You ever heard the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)? They're a hard left outfit that loves to label people as extremists. Their ever-growing list seems to defame everyone. Ben Carson, he's an extremist. Rand Paul. They called Maajid Nawaz an anti-Muslim extremist and get this, he's a moderate Muslim battling religious extremism. It makes no sense. There's [Ayaan] Hirsi Ali, a black feminist who protests against genital mutilation. SPLC placed her name and a guy to anti-Muslim extremists. So that's extreme, to be against genital mutilation?"
Later, Gutfeld said this:
But that's not the funny part. It's the money. This poverty center has loads of it. A $320 million endowment and chucks almost 20% of it into offshore equities. Cayman Island stuff. I don't understand it. So this poverty group sits on a pile of offshore dough. That's like a personal trainer with a gut. Or a priest with a harem. The Center paid out $20 million in salaries in 2015 but provided just 61 grants in legal assistance . So the Southern Poverty Law Center appears to have no poverty and do virtually no law.
Actually, I'd argue that the SPLC is just another Democrat front group that's used to criticize people that Democrats disagree with. Then there's this:
Michael Farris, president of ADF, bristled at the charge, and said seven of the Supreme Court's justices agreed with ADF's position in a case earlier this year about state funds used for a church playground. "As a member of Congress, Sen. Franken needs to fact-check before parroting discredited attacks by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a once-proud civil rights organization that is now a left-wing smear machine known to incite violence," said Mr. Farris.
It's rich to hear Sen. Franken citing the SPLC as though they were an upstanding, ethical organization. They're nothing of the sort. Sen. Franken is an ill-informed hyperpartisan bombthrower. What he isn't is a man that's intellectually capable of a committee assignment on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Anyone that'd cite the SPLC as an impartial arbiter of justice isn't the brightest bulb in a chandelier.
Posted Thursday, September 7, 2017 8:04 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 08-Sep-17 09:07 AM
"The Five?" WTF?
At any rate, Al is an okay middle of the road moderate. With a bit more moxie toward Our Revolution and/or Justice Democrats, he'd be more appealing and easier for some to vote to reelect.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Sep-17 11:05 AM
If Al Franken is a moderate, then Charles Manson is just misunderstood. Franken is an idiot who thinks that the SPLC is a legitimate organization. Would you call SPLC legitimate if they hid millions of dollars offshore? Would you call them legitimate if the executives got paid more than the victims got in legal services?
Sen. Franken is a mindless shill for Chuck Schumer. That hasn't changed.
