September 8-9, 2017
Sep 08 04:10 ATS helps with Harvey relief Sep 08 05:09 Investigating Comey's FBI Sep 08 09:18 Socialist Sanders' blind spot Sep 08 10:50 The NFL's patriotism problem Sep 08 18:23 Constitutional freeloaders? Sep 09 02:03 Emperor Dayton & 6 wimps Sep 09 09:15 Hortman supports Emperor Dayton Sep 09 15:49 Editorial Dishonesty
Prior Months: Jan Feb ~ May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
ATS helps with Harvey relief
According to this article , Anderson Trucking Service, "which is headquartered here in St. Cloud," will "be redirecting more than 200 trucks from its fleet to help deliver relief supplies to areas affected by Hurricane Harvey. The family-owned company said that beginning next week, it will dedicate between 15 and 20 percent of its fleet, 220 ATS vans and flatbed trailers, for the delivery of food, water and other essentials. Marketing spokeswoman Brenda Schermerhorn said the hauler will be paid."
Additionally, Anderson Trucking announced it "is also raising money for Harvey victims with a "Casual for Charity" week at the office, where employees get to dress casually each day with a donation to select hurricane recovery causes. Potthoff said the Anderson family will match donations dollar for dollar, with all proceeds going to relief efforts."
Anyone who knows the Anderson company isn't surprised with this announcement. St. Cloud is fortunate to be blessed with companies that believe in being good corporate citizens. Anderson Trucking certainly fits that description.
According to Jeff Potthoff, senior vice president of ATS' van division, ATS "has a terminal in Houston and its sister company, New Energy Transport, is also headquartered there. So while ATS is headquartered in St. Cloud, it also considers the Houston community its home."
Last week, the nation was impressed with how Houstonians responded to Harvey's flooding. Towards the end of the week, questions started popping up, asking whether the nation would forget Texas once the drama was removed. Articles like this show that some companies are in this to help Houston rebuild.
Posted Friday, September 8, 2017 4:10 AM
No comments.
Investigating Comey's FBI
Kim Strassel's column raises lots of legitimate questions about former FBI Director Jim Comey. Early in the article, though, Ms. Strassel wrote "Mr. Comey's actions in the Hillary Clinton email probe are concerning enough. He made himself investigator, judge and jury, breaking the Justice Department's chain of command. He publicly confirmed the investigation, violating the department's principles. He announced he would not recommend prosecuting Mrs. Clinton, even as he publicly excoriated her - an extraordinary abuse of his megaphone. Then he rekindled the case only 11 days before the election."
Later, Ms. Strassel wrote "the big development this week is a new look at how Mr. Comey may have similarly juked the probe into Donald Trump's purported ties to Russia. The House Intelligence Committee's investigation took a sharp and notable turn on Tuesday, as news broke that it had subpoenaed the FBI and the Justice Department for information relating to the infamous Trump 'dossier.'"
Until now, people haven't discussed whether there was a connection between the FBI and "the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS." This week, the House Intelligence Committee changed directions when it subpoenaed FBI Director Wray and Attorney General Sessions to testify on whether the FBI used the dossier to justify its launching of any investigations. Trey Gowdy is one of the people looking into whether the FBI, especially while Comey was their director, improperly used the dossier. Last night, Gowdy spoke to Martha McCallum about what's troubling him:
It's apparent that the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russian collusion isn't taking its probe seriously. They're more worried about looking bipartisan than they're worried about digging into whether the FBI manipulated anything, including commissioning the dossier.
The question is when the FBI got in on the act. The Washington Post in February reported that Mr. Steele "was familiar" to the FBI, since he'd worked for the bureau before. The newspaper said Mr. Steele had reached out to a "friend" at the FBI about his Trump work as far back as July 2016. The Post even reported that Mr. Steele "reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work." Who was Mr. Steele's friend at the FBI? Did the bureau influence the direction of the Trump dossier? Did it give Mr. Steele material support from the start?
At this point, I don't see how Congress can't avoid calling Mr. Comey back in to testify on this new information. Further, I can't see how Special Counsel Mueller's investigation isn't delegitimized. Mueller's star witness has been utterly tarnished. Mr. Comey's credibility doesn't exist anymore.
The minute he testifies in a trial, the defense attorney will grill him about his testimony in front of Congress that he leaked information to a professor in the hopes of starting a special investigation. That defense attorney will paint Comey as deceitful and manipulative. If Mueller's star witness is painted as deceitful and manipulative, that prosecution is all but officially over.
Posted Friday, September 8, 2017 5:09 AM
No comments.
Socialist Sanders' blind spot
If self-described Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders is out-of-touch with Americans, it's about the so-called campus rape crisis. In this recent tweet , Sanders said "Secretary DeVos made an outrageous announcement that she plans to overturn an Obama initiative that protected women." President Obama's initiative over protected women by trampling male students' rights on campus.
In the opening paragraph of their WSJ op-ed , KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor said "Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has made clear her intention to correct one of the Obama administration's worst excesses - its unjust rules governing sexual misconduct on college campuses. In a forceful speech Thursday at Virginia's George Mason University, Mrs. DeVos said that 'one rape is one too many' but also that 'one person denied due process is one too many.' Mrs. DeVos declared that 'every student accused of sexual misconduct must know that guilt is not predetermined.'"
A few paragraphs later in their op-ed, Johnson and Taylor wrote "But as Boston College's R. Shep Melnick has noted, that was 'just a minor part of the OCR's procedural requirements.' Worse were 'the agency's rules on cross-examination and appeals; its informal pressure on schools to institute a 'single-investigator model' that turns one person appointed by the school's 'Title IX Coordinator' into a detective, judge, and jury; and the intense pressure for schools to show they are 'getting tough' on sexual assault.'"
Compare Johnson and Taylor's op-ed with Sen. Sanders' official statement on the matter:
Today, Secretary DeVos made an outrageous and unfortunate announcement that she plans to overturn an Obama initiative than protected women on college campuses from sexual assault. Campus sexual assault is a major problem, and it must be dealt with. We must do everything possible to make sure our campuses are safe for all students. This decision does a disservice to those who have worked hard to address sexual violence. Congress must now act to undo another terrible decision from the Trump administration.
First, Congress won't act on this. Further, they shouldn't act on Sen. Sanders' silliness. Finally, if they were to pass a law codifying President Obama's Title IX assault, it wouldn't be implemented because a judge would slap a TRO on it prohibiting its implementation because it violates students' civil liberties. Specifically, it would violate students' Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment says "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
Sen. Sanders isn't the only Democrat that's out in left field on this. During Mrs. DeVos's confirmation hearing, Sen. Bob Casey, (D-PA), stated "To say that it's an epidemic is also understatement." I won't challenge Sen. Casey's later statement that one in five female college students has been sexually assaulted. Rather, I'd question Sen. Casey and Sen. Sanders if stripping male students of their Constitution-given rights would make female students safer. I'd submit it wouldn't.
Johnson and Taylor also said this:
Second, it would allow the department to implement Title IX policy through new, carefully considered regulations after a period of public notice and comment. The FIRE study identifies provisions that would be necessary to achieve a minimum of fairness in campus tribunals - the presumption of innocence, clear notice of alleged violations, sufficient time for the accused student to prepare his defense, impartial fact-finders, access to all relevant and exculpatory evidence, the right to cross-examine the accuser, a meaningful right to legal representation, and a meaningful right to appeal.
As four Harvard law professors - Jeannie Suk Gersen, Janet Halley, Elizabeth Bartholet and Nancy Gertner - argued in a recent article, a fair process requires 'neutral decisionmakers who are independent of the school's [federal regulatory] compliance interest, and independent decisionmakers providing a check on arbitrary and unlawful decisions.' The four had been among more than two dozen Harvard law professors to express concerns about the Obama administration's - and Harvard's - handling of Title IX. So too had 16 University of Pennsylvania law professors, as well as the American Council for Trial Lawyers.
It's important that the Obama administration's guidance be scrapped. Still, it's important that the system protect students' safety without trampling other students' civil rights.
Posted Friday, September 8, 2017 9:18 AM
No comments.
The NFL's patriotism problem
Last night, Kansas City cornerback Marcus Peters sat during the National Anthem in an all-too-familiar display of ingratitude. First, let's clear up the misconception that players can protest the Anthem because it's protected by the First Amendment. The football pundits that have said that, aka Trey Wingo, don't know what they're talking about.
When they're in uniform, their team has the undisputed right to dictate behavior. That's because the team controls work product. From the time an employee punches in until that employee punches out, that employee's employer can dictate to them what they shall do and how they must behave. But I digress.
Later in the article, it says "Peters' protest comes days after Seahawks defensive lineman Michael Bennett - who has also sat for the anthem - accused Las Vegas police of unfairly targeting him because of his race. Vegas police have pushed back on the accusation, saying officers chased down Bennett because he ran from an active shooting scene."
NFL teams go out of their way to emphasize how they "give back" to their communities. It's a little disingenuous for them to say they're giving back while displaying such anti-patriotic behavior. It gives fans the opportunity to question whether NFL teams understand their fans.
When Commissioner Goodell first suspended Ray Rice for 2 games for physically assaulting his then-fiance, people were rightfully outraged. People, including me, accused Goodell of being out of touch. I suspect that NFL teams' PR departments came up with the "giving back" spin to somewhat mitigate their players' negative reputations. Peters is one of those players whose reputation requires, putting it charitably, mitigation.
One retired player whose reputation is solid is Burgess Owens. Check out what he said on Fox & Friends this morning:
That's what an adult with integrity sounds like.
Posted Friday, September 8, 2017 10:50 AM
No comments.
Constitutional freeloaders?
This afternoon, the Minnesota Supreme Court punted rather than make a constitution-based decision in the lawsuit filed by the legislature against Gov. Dayton. According to the article, "The Minnesota Supreme Court said Friday that Gov. Mark Dayton was within his authority to line-item veto funding for the House and Senate. But justices ordered the parties engage in mediated negotiations to come up with a workable solution."
First, the injustice done with this ruling is stunning. Rather than rule that there are sensible limits on the executive branch, the Supreme Court essentially ruled that there aren't limits on the use of the line-item veto. They've essentially given the governor unlimited power!
According to the article, Chief Justice Lorie Gildea wrote for the court, saying "The other branches should resolve these doubts through the political process. Thus far, they have not done so. As a result, Minnesotans may soon be deprived of their constitutional right to three independent branches of government."
That's stunning. Chief Justice Gildea admitted that the Supreme Court had the opportunity to guarantee that people would have the right of 3 functioning branches of government but that the Supreme Court declined to protect the people's rights.
Further, the Supreme Court ordered the other co-equal branches into mediation rather than fulfilling their responsibility of applying the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it give the Supreme Court the authority to tell the other branches what to do? A: It isn't in there.
If I were advising Speaker Daudt and Senate Majority Leader Gazelka, I'd advise them to refuse to participate in mediation. I'd issue a statement saying that they won't participate in extra-constitutional activities that the Court doesn't have the authority to require or enforce.
If Mssrs. Daudt and Gazelka decide to participate in mediation, then I'd advise them to tell Gov. Dayton that he'll have to give up some things in the budget that Republicans agreed to that they didn't want. Further, I'd issue a statement saying that Gov. Dayton will have to renegotiate things that the GOP agreed to. Here's how I'd word that statement:
We have agreed to mediation because Minnesotans need 3 functioning branches of government. Because Gov. Dayton wants to renegotiate parts of the GOP Tax Relief Bill that he agreed to, it's only fair that he prepare to renegotiate parts of the budget that we didn't like. If Gov. Dayton isn't willing to give up things that he wanted, then it's obvious that he won't negotiate in good faith. We won't negotiate where we do all the giving and Gov. Dayton does all of the taking.
This shows why judges should be elected, not appointed. This ruling shouldn't have happened. This court made up new rules rather than apply the Constitution.
This ruling happened because DFL jurists sided with Gov. Dayton because of their political beliefs rather than based on longstanding constitutional principles. As such, they should be seen as constitutional freeloaders.
Posted Friday, September 8, 2017 6:23 PM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 08-Sep-17 06:39 PM
And if Dayton were to defund the Judicial Branch, with
Whom would the judges like to mediate?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Sep-17 12:05 AM
Those justices that voted in Emperor Dayton's favor should be impeached ASAP. Their ruling just created an unequal branch of government. For all intents & purposes, the Minnesota Supreme Court just ruled that the Executive Branch can hold the other branches of government hostage.
Emperor Dayton & 6 wimps
When the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in Emperor Dayton's favor , they created an unequal branch of government through judicial fiat. Thanks to their ruling, future governors can negotiate in bad faith, insist that the legislature give him everything he wants, then veto funding for the legislative branch or the judicial branch.
This article reports that the ruling was unanimous, with Justice Stras recusing himself. What's odd, though, is that the ruling talked about "the people's constitutional right to three independent, functioning branches of government." If it's "the people's constitutional right to three independent, functioning branches of government", then the Court's ruling makes no constitutional sense whatsoever.
It makes sense, though, from the standpoint that the justices are wimps that wanted to avoid making a constitutional ruling. They've essentially stated that they didn't want to resolve any thorny constitutional issues. The Supreme Court essentially said that they won't settle constitutional issues.
This is a picture of the Minnesota Supreme Court, including Justice David Stras, who recused himself from the case:
Justice Stras isn't a wimp. I wish I could say the same about the other 6 justices but I can't.
As terrible as their ruling is, the person who the people should most be upset with is Emperor Dayton. I won't call him governor anymore because he's insisted throughout this lawsuit that his authority was absolute. What type of egotist thinks that his actions are beyond scrutiny? Friday night, Emperor Dayton appeared on Almanac. While there, he bragged that the Court had ruled that the line-item veto was constitutional. The sick thing is that nobody disputed that. Ever. Lots of people argued that Emperor Dayton's line-item veto authority wasn't absolute. The Six Wimps of the Supreme Court ruled that this isn't part of America, that it functioned like a third world dictatorship.
Finally, I'd ask people to let this paragraph sink in:
'Minnesotans may soon be deprived of their constitutional right to three independent branches of government,' the court wrote.
If Minnesotans might "be deprived of their constitutional right to three independent branches of government," shouldn't the Supreme Court intervene and prevent that?
Posted Saturday, September 9, 2017 8:04 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 09-Sep-17 07:25 AM
I'm curious as to how the legislature, absent any funding, is even going to hire a mediator or attend mediation? I see a lot of people suggesting the legislators should simply go fishing until the whole government shuts down for lack of a legislature to authorize spending. I'm not sure how Dayton gets out of this pickle, since he cannot put funding for the Legislature back without the Legislature, and he cannot undo his own veto. The court has created as much problem for Dayton as for the rest of MN government.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 10-Sep-17 07:57 AM
I say they do exactly that, go fishing or to their actual jobs and let this all melt down around Dayton. Let Gov. Goofy figure out how to run the state.
Hortman supports Emperor Dayton
According to this article , House Minority Leader Melissa Hortman supports Emperor Dayton's new-found authority to negotiate in bad faith.
After Friday's ruling, Hortman issued this statement , which says "Minnesotans expect their elected officials to collaborate on solutions to benefit everyone, but Republicans chose to go to court instead of negotiate in good faith with the Governor. This summer, I joined Governor Dayton in calling on the Republican majorities to return to the negotiating table and work to craft a long-term, sustainable budget for Minnesota. Given the Court's order, all sides must come together with a spirit of compromise and collaboration in order to reach an agreement that will better serve Minnesotans. I look forward to working with Governor Dayton, Senator Bakk, and Republican leadership to do so."
A refresher of history is required to detect how dishonest Rep. Hortman's statement is. Prior to Emperor Dayton's calling a special session, legislative leaders from both parties and the House and Senate agreed to how much would be spent. Republican leadership then submitted the legislative language for each bill, including the Tax Relief Bill, to the legislative leaders and Emperor Dayton's senior staff.
It's vitally important to note that there weren't any surprises as to what was in the bills. It was there in black and white. Only then did Emperor Dayton agree to call a special session. After the legislature passed these spending bills and Emperor Dayton had signed almost all of them, he insisted that Republicans renegotiate the Tax Relief Bill.
Another important piece of information in this is the fact that Republicans already had agreed to reduce the size of the Tax Relief Bill when Emperor Dayton line-item vetoed the legislature's funding. For the DFL and Emperor Dayton to now say that they'll negotiate in good faith takes tons of chutzpah. They haven't negotiated in good faith thus far. Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka and Speaker of the House Kurt Daudt released a joint statement, saying in part "Today's order did not decide the case or vacate the lower court's ruling, and we are ready to go to mediation to secure funding for the legislative branch of government. We worked in good faith in the past to attempt to breach this impasse, and will work in good faith again as we look ahead to the mediation process."
The question now becomes whether Emperor Dayton and the DFL will finally start negotiating in good faith. The thing that Minnesotans should notice is that Emperor Dayton and the DFL insisted that his authorities are absolute. They argued that Minnesota governors should have the authority to hold the legislature hostage until he gets what he wants.
Pretty soon, DFL candidates and incumbents will start campaigning. Many DFL candidates will insist that they're good at bringing people together. There's proof that the DFL is good at not keeping their promises. There's proof that the DFL is good at playing hardball. There isn't proof that the DFL is good at bringing people together.
Finally, Republicans promised tax relief. They kept that promise. Republican promised educational reform. They kept that promise, too. Emperor Dayton didn't keep his promises. Then the DFL insisted that Emperor Dayton's authority was absolute. While all this was happening, Emperor Dayton issued a ruling that he was throwing another bone to the special interests by unnecessarily delaying the Enbridge Line 3 Pipeline replacement project.
It's obvious that the DFL is the party of the special interests. It's obvious that Republicans keep their promises. Think about that for a minute.
Posted Saturday, September 9, 2017 9:15 AM
No comments.
Editorial Dishonesty
If the St. Cloud Times ever insists that they aren't biased, I'll have tons of proof that they are. Their latest editorial is one of their worst anti-truth hit pieces since I started reading their editorials. It didn't take long for the Times' bias to surface. The Times' opening paragraph says "Much to the anguish those who believe in the vision of the United States as a melting pot, President Trump is making good on his campaign theme of aggressively pursuing policies that are not friendly to immigrants."
It's dishonest for the Times to say that President Trump is "aggressively pursuing policies that are not friendly to immigrants." I triple-dog dare the Times to offer proof that President Trump's policies aren't friendly to legal immigrants. The Times isn't that sloppy. This 'slip' was intentional. The Times' intent was to paint Republicans, especially President Trump, as hating immigration. Later, the editors wrote "Citing legal overreach by his predecessor and a desire for comprehensive immigration reform, Trump has given Congress six months to draft a legally binding legislative solution to DACA. It maybe a savvy legal maneuver, but it's a cruel blow to people who had no say in coming here yet are embracing the American dream. Not to mention the message it sends to the rest of the world."
It finishes with paragraphs that could've been written by the DNC:
Again, there is no doubt Trump's push to revoke DACA is another punch to the face of immigrants.
For the sake of these 800,000 people and to preserve America as a beacon of hope and freedom for the world, Congress must counter that punch with a legislative solution, ideally one that finally fixes our long-broken immigration system.
In the minds of leftists like the St. Cloud Times, there isn't any doubt. In the minds of thoughtful, analytical people, there's no doubt that Republicans, especially President Trump, insist that people coming to the United States must do it legally.
Here's a question people should ask themselves. Why do Democratic activists, including those in the media, insist on conflating illegal immigration with legal immigration? Further, let's ask ourselves if people see the US as a "beacon of hope and freedom" because we don't enforce our laws.
This editorial would disappear if I removed the DFL/DNC talking points from it. When America was great, we believed in enforcing laws. We believed in the First Amendment. We fought for the Bill of Rights. We thought, correctly, that we were the planet's last, best hope. Somewhere along the way, America's major institutions stopped enforcing laws and believing in the First Amendment. We started cheap labor flood into the US. We started looking the other direction when presidents created new laws because the law was something we agreed with.
If we continue looking the opposite direction, we won't be the "beacon of hope and freedom for the world" much longer.
Posted Saturday, September 9, 2017 3:49 PM
No comments.
