Gov. Dayton is certainly liberal but he certainly isn’t a constitutional scholar. According to this Strib article, Gov. Dayton got a little testy with North Dakota for winning a lawsuit regarding the Next Generation Energy Act, aka the NGEA. Unfortunately, the lawsuit won’t cause the NGEA to be voided. The good news is that the Supreme Court will make short work of this.
The NGEA imposes restrictions on other states by banning Minnesota utilities from “signing deals to import coal-generated electricity.” It’s entirely unsurprising that “North Dakota sued and won on the grounds that the law constitutes a trade barrier between the two states that is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.”
Specifically, that restriction is forbidden by the Interstate Commerce Clause. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 gives the federal government the authority “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The text is clear. States aren’t allowed to put restrictions on other states that might hurt that state’s economy. Allowing Minnesota to dictate to North Dakota what it must do or can’t do is, essentially, taking over another state’s sovereign authority.
BONUS QUESTION: How would Gov. Dayton react if North Dakota’s governor signed a bill into law that forced Minnesota to build a pipeline across northern Minnesota?
Gov. Dayton didn’t just expose his lack of constitutional expertise. He went on another diatribe:
He said North Dakota has “its head in the sand,” and that Minnesota would continue to litigate to protect air quality.
What’s especially delicious is this statement:
Dave Glatt, head of the environmental health section for the North Dakota Dept. of Health, said his state is one of just a handful meeting all ambient air quality standards established by the EPA. He said roughly 25 percent of North Dakota’s total electric generation comes from wind and hydroelectric power, both non-carbon sources. Total carbon emissions are down 11 percent below 2005 levels despite the Bakken oil boom, Glatt said. He acknowledged the carbon intensity of the Bakken oil boom but said Minnesota has benefited from the boom. Oil prices have plunged in part due to a rapid rise in supply in places like North Dakota.
Gov. Dayton, stick that in your stovepipe and smoke it.
A strange, albeit predictable, thing happened on the way to Hillary’s coronation. What happened that’s hurt Hillary most is that she reverted to Clinton form. She’s unlikable. She’s been secretive. She’s acted like the rules don’t apply to her. That’s before she pissed off the MSM with her petulant behavior.
In short, Clinton’s handlers let Hillary be Hillary.
She might’ve gotten away with it if she hadn’t been the most corrupt Secretary of State in US history. Because she didn’t want to deal with FOIA requests, she set up a private email account. That’s an exceptionally stupid decision considering the fact that Judicial Watch’s mission is to hold people accountable. Judicial Watch isn’t a little mom and pop organization. They’re well-funded and they’re tenacious. They’re well-equipped to file one lawsuit after another, which is what they’ve done.
As a result of Hillary’s corruption and Judicial Watch’s tenacity, Hillary can’t afford to treat this like a coronation any more:
Amid concerns about Mrs. Clinton’s softening poll numbers and her exclusive use of a personal email server as secretary of state, she will interrupt her Hamptons stay next week to travel to the Midwest and try to shift attention back to her campaign message by unveiling new policy positions.
She will then return to the Hamptons, where she and former President Bill Clinton are renting a beach-side estate in Amagansett that costs $100,000 for a two-week stay, and will attend several $2,700-per-person fund-raisers hosted there by her wealthy friends.
While there’s no indication that Hillary won’t be the Democrats’ nominee, there’s more than enough information, mostly in the form of swing-state polls, that suggests she’ll get beat in the general election.
The basis for those swing-state polls is that she’s a) totally unlikable, b) untrustworthy and c) she doesn’t relate to the average person. That’s hitting the trifecta…if you want to lose. It’s understandable that Hillary’s campaign wants to take the attention away from the emails by switching to friendlier turf. Their problem is that she’s alienated the media and she’s insisted that she be treated like royalty.
That’s the perfect path to stopping a coronation.
Now that Donald Trump’s statements about Megyn Kelly have gone public, it’s time for the media to shun Mr. Trump entirely. He shouldn’t be invited on another Sunday morning show. He shouldn’t be invited on cable news shows, either. This isn’t about political correctness. It’s about not enabling Mr. Trump to spew the most disgusting accusations imaginable on TV as an invited guest.
Last night, during an interview on CNN, Mr. Trump said that “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her — wherever” about Megyn Kelly. What type of man says something like that?
When word got out that Trump had made that disgusting statement about Ms. Kelly, Erick Erickson, the organizer and host of RedState Gathering 15, took to Twitter to tell people that he’d rescinded his invitation to Mr. Trump for the Saturday night finale, later saying that “I wanted to have him here as a legitimate candidate, but no legitimate candidate suggests somehow a female asking questions is doing it because she’s hormonal,” Erickson told reporters late Friday night.
Meanwhile, Mr. Trump issued his own statement:
“Re Megyn Kelly quote: “you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever” (NOSE). Just got on w/thought,” he tweeted.
His campaign also skewered Erickson in a statement.
“This is just another example of weakness through being politically correct. For all of the people who were looking forward to Mr. Trump coming, we will miss you. Blame Erick Erickson, your weak and pathetic leader. We’ll now be doing another campaign stop at another location,” the statement read.
Mr. Trump’s statements aren’t credible. They’re self-serving, though. What person in their right mind would buy that anyone would have blood coming out of their eyes? It’s clear that Mr. Trump doesn’t respect women whatsoever. In late July, I wrote an article titled Donald Trump, tyrant. I wrote that article because the Trump campaign had barred Katie Obradovich, the chief political reporter from the Des Moines Register, from a public campaign event, later saying that the DMR was “a left wing rag.” (Are you detecting a pattern here?) Ms. Obradovich’s offense? Her newspaper’s editorial board had written a scathing editorial about Mr. Trump.
It’s pretty apparent that Mr. Trump lashes out at whoever criticizes him. That criticism includes ripping people, either by calling them pathetic (in Erickson’s case) or insinuating that they’re hormonal (in Ms. Kelly’s case).
Here’s a question that Mr. Trump’s supporters should ask themselves: How will Mr. Trump get things done in Washington, DC after he’s alienated everyone that’s criticized him?
Finally, let’s admit that Mr. Trump doesn’t hate political correctness. Let’s admit that Mr. Trump is just a mean-spirited egotist who can’t handle rejection.
Last night, Donald Trump was exposed as a wimp with a glass jaw. After the debate, he whined that Megyn Kelly “behaved very nasty to me.”
The man who insists he’ll get China, Mexico, Russia and Iran to buckle can’t take tough questions from a moderator. While he didn’t crumble, he lost his temper. Then he lied. Ms. Kelly started by saying “You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.’” Mr. Trump insisted that he’d said that about “only Rosie O’Donnell” as though that was ok. Ms. Kelly re-asserted herself, saying “No, it wasn’t. Your Twitter account – For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell.” Mr. Trump’s condescending response was “Yes, I’m sure it was.”
Ms. Kelly continued on track, saying “You once told a woman on Celebrity Apprentice that ‘it would be a pretty picture of her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of the man we should elect as president and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton that you are part of the war on women”?
Mr. Trump replied that “This country’s problem is being politically correct” before saying that “we’re $19,000,000,000,000 in debt.” Poor little rich boy. A debate moderator criticizes him for playing into Hillary Clinton’s ‘War on Women’ storyline but that’s somehow mean-spirited and out-of-bounds? Trump calls women “fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals” but that’s ok? Which universe was Mr. Trump born in that that makes sense?
Mr. Trump has tried portraying himself as a Master of the Universe type of omnipotent being. RealClearPolitics’ Tom Bevan posted this pitch-perfect tweet, saying “Trump is going to bust balls of Putin, China & Mexico – right after he recovers from having his feelings hurt by @megynkelly’s questions.”
It’s impossible to not mock Mr. Trump after he told MSNBC “I’m very surprised at Fox News that they would do that because, you know, I would say it’s pretty unprofessional.” Saying that “it would be a pretty picture” to see a female celebrity “on her knees” is presidential but getting asked tough questions is unprofessional?
Mr. Trump isn’t a man of integrity. He’s foul-mouthed. He’s as egotistical as Obama. Like Bill Clinton, Mr. Trump treats some women properly while treating others like trailer trash. There’s nothing presidential about him.
I just read Margaret Hartmann’s article about how yesterday’s Senate vote to defund Planned Parenthood fired up the Democrats’ War on Women theme. In the article, she said “Planned Parenthood officials discuss gathering fetal tissue from abortions.” That’s sloppy, ideology-driven journalism. What happened was someone taped Planned Parenthood officials discussing gathering human body parts from abortions.
Later, Ms. Hartmann said that “Planned Parenthood receives up to $500 million annually in Medicaid reimbursements and $60 million in federal funds for family-planning services, but by law none of that money can fund abortions.” Let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s suppose that a college freshman gets caught buying cocaine. His parents bail him out of jail. Upon getting released, the freshman insists that he didn’t use any of the money his parents send him each month to buy the cocaine. Instead, he insists that he uses that money to pay his rent and buy groceries. He insists that their money makes it possible for him to use the money he’s saved through high school to buy the drugs.
Isn’t it accurate that this student’s ability to purchase drugs was made possible by his parents sending him the money to pay for his rent?
The bottom line is simple. The Senate shouldn’t defund Planned Parenthood. Instead, they should attach a rider to a budget bill that says the money can only go to women’s health clinics that don’t offer abortions. If Planned Parenthood wants to continue providing abortions, they can tell their corporate sponsors to fund that.
One thing that’s undeniable is that Ben Rodgers, a St. Cloud Times reporter, parroted the DFL’s chanting points in his article. In Rodgers’ article, he said that a “group of St. Cloud-area residents” met at the Stearns County Courthouse to “protest an anti-immigration speaker who visited St. Cloud earlier this week.” Jane Conrad, the event organizer, said that Bob Enos spoke “out against refugees and Sharia, the Islamic law.” Ben Rodgers accepted that as Gospel fact without checking with Mr. Enos to verify if Ms. Conrad’s statement was accurate.
What’s startling is that, at no point in the article did Rodgers quote Mr. Enos. I know that I’m a lowly blogger but I’m pretty certain that Reporting 101 requires that, if you’re going to quote a person making an accusation against another person, you should quote the accused, too. That way, it’s a she said, he said thing, not a she said thing.
Further, the Times reporter didn’t report about one of the worst-kept stories in St. Cloud. Mr. Rodgers didn’t write about Prof. Mark Jaede’s use of St. Cloud State’s email system to announce this political event. There was little written about who attended the event in terms of protesting Mr. Enos. Did a substantial number of SCSU professors attend the AFL-CIO protest? What labor unions attended the protest? What did they say? Did they criticize Mr. Enos?
I won’t mince words. This was a pathetic attempt at reporting.
Gov. Dayton took some well-deserved heat Friday when he held a meeting in the Isle High School auditorium. He got criticized because he didn’t know what he was talking about and because the MNDNR has lost its credibility. A resort owner said that “the DNR’s numbers are skewed from the beginning. From the minute they say that netting over spawn beds is not affecting the walleye population, that’s nuts.”
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out that netting spawning beds will dramatically (and negatively) affect the walleye population of any lake. What does the DNR think happens when you remove walleyes that are trying to breed from the lake? Does the DNR think that they’re magically replaced by other breeding walleyes?
Another thing that Gov. Dayton got criticized for was his mentioning restocking the lake. That’s beyond foolish. As recently as the early 1990s, Mille Lacs Lake produced more walleye fry than all of the state’s fisheries combined. It isn’t possible for the DNR to restock Mille Lacs without hurting most of their other restocking projects across the state. Mathematically, it’s simply impossible.
Thankfully, legislators are pushing back against a special session:
“I think the suggestion of a special session is a little bit premature,” said Rep. Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, chair of the House Mining and Outdoor Recreation Committee. The state should look at alternatives, he said, such as promoting other fishing options on the lake and catch-and-release requirements for walleye.
Hackbarth said he isn’t convinced the DNR should be shutting down walleye fishing on Mille Lacs at all.
“Maybe we can get past this without closing the season, and that would take care of a lot of the economic problems that they’re having in the area,” he said. “How critical is it that we close it right now? Maybe we don’t need to do that.”
Rep. Hackbarth is onto something. In fact, he might’ve identified a long-term solution to the problem. The guides in the area have talked about the increase in the northern and musky populations. If Explore Minnesota started highlighting the quality musky fishing on the lake, that might reduce musky populations enough to help the walleyes rebound. I wouldn’t hesitate in highlighting the smallmouth fishing to be had on the north end of the lake.
This past Saturday, the DFL and Zach Dorholt staged a protest against racism. This St. Cloud Times article didn’t even get the basics right. To reporter Ben Rodgers’ credit, he was right in saying that this fake protest was held at “the Stearns County Courthouse.” After that, facts weren’t part of Mr. Rodgers neighborhood.
Rodgers wrote that Dorholt, the DFL and the AFL-CIO gathered “to protest an anti-immigration speaker who visited St. Cloud.” They identified that “anti-immigration speaker” as Bob Enos. It’s fiction to call Mr. Enos anti-immigration. I wrote about Mr. Enos in this post. I included a video of his presentation to the Willmar City Council in the post. Mr. Enos’ presentation was solely about the federal refugee resettlement program. Specifically, he was worried that this ‘federal’ program was stretching the budgets of state and local agencies. It’s a legitimate thing to worry about.
Here’s the video of Mr. Enos’ presentation:
Jane Conrad admitted that Mr. Enos isn’t anti-immigration:
Jane Conrad, a field representative for the East Central Area Labor Council, planned the rally after Bob Enos, of Willmar, appeared at an event booked at the Veterans of Foreign Wars speaking out against refugees and Sharia, the Islamic law.
Here’s part of Enos’ presentation to the Willmar City Council:
We’ve been working on an issue that’s become pretty important to us which has to do with the subject of the resettlement of political refugees around the world and how that affects our counties particularly. I don’t know if you’ve had any briefings on this matter but back in November, the coordinator for the refugee resettlement program for the state of Minnesota in St. Paul requested the director of Family Services here at the County to organize a meeting that took place over a couple of days. Twenty people attended from 3 county agencies, the Willmar School District as well as city hall. The Mayor-elect was there. A couple of vice presidents from Jenny O were there. The subject of the meeting had to do with migration of refugees to Kandiyohi County. We’re used to thinking of the refugee issue in terms of those that are leaving the refugee camps in east Africa and winding up on our shores and going out to the cities and the counties.
The big issue lately that we can’t seem to get a handle on very easily, particularly from a financial planning standpoint, and that has to do with the secondary relocation of refugees from other states around the country. The most recent data that we’re seeing now from the State of Minnesota, specifically from the Department of Health, now tells us that of every city and town, the city that is attracting the most refugees is Minneapolis. The city that’s attracting the second-most refugees is Willmar, not St. Paul, not Bloomington, not St. Cloud, Mankato, Worthington. Willmar.
We suspect that, for the most part, most of this has to do with family re-unification but, best guess, there’s a number of factors contributing to this. What we’re seeing is the Somali community, in particular, is such a size and critical mass, that that critical mass is, in and of itself, the primary magnet for refugees coming here from Atlanta, California and Texas. The last time we knew, we were looking at a number roughly of 2,000 or roughly 10% of our population. We know that’s quite conservative.
I’ve been to 2 other meetings subsequent to the meeting held in November. One was held out in St. Cloud and was sponsored by Lutheran Social Services organization, which in Minnesota, is called the # 1 volunteer agency or VOLAG, which is a private contractor with the State Department and the Department of Health and Human Services from the federal government to aid in that relocation within the first 6 months that they’re here. That meeting, interestingly enough, had about 35 stakeholders, people that have some part, some incentive, some exposure to the program. There was not a single elected official there from the City of St. Cloud or the county. There were no representatives of the School District and these are the places where we’re seeing the most impact, and, of course, the schools.
The federal contracts that the VOLAGs have, though they’re hardly volunteers, requires that they quarterly have meetings with stakeholders. Those stakeholders are supposed to include members of the community. I would take that a member of the community to be an elected representative and I have not been to a meeting where I’ve seen a city councilman, a county commissioner or anyone of an elected status.
Nowhere in Enos’ presentation did he mention Sharia law. Zach Dorholt said this in continuing the DFL’s façade:
“When people come to St. Cloud with the intent to divide us and spread hate and anger we here in St. Cloud are simply going to ask for peace, love and happiness,” Zach Dorholt said. “St. Cloud is always going to stand for peace, love and understanding over the fear and hate that those who don’t live here are trying to incite.”
In other words, Dorholt thinks that worrying about city and county finances is “spreading hate and anger.” Enos has talked about doing a moratorium on the refugee resettlement program until an audit is done to determine the local impact of the program.
If that’s Dorholt’s definition of racism, then it isn’t surprising that he sees racism everywhere. Speaking about things that aren’t surprising, it isn’t surprising that the Times got the lede information wrong.
It’s indisputable that Mark Jaede, a professor at St. Cloud State and a long-time DFL activist, used government property to help plan a political rally that was organized by Jane Conrad, a staffer at the Minnesota AFL-CIO. Apparently, Prof. Jaede doesn’t think that the rules apply to him.
Specifically, he must think this rule doesn’t apply to him:
Subpart D. Use of state property. All system property is also state property. With limited exceptions, state property is not to be used for personal or private use except as specifically authorized, such as limited personal use of computers as provided in System Procedure 5.22.1 and incidental use of system cell phones, as provided in System Procedure 5.22.1.
Earlier this week, Prof. Jaede posted this political announcement on St. Cloud State’s listserv system:
This message is from Jane Conrad, who can be reached at 320-267-0899:
A rally was planned to counter racist speaker Ron Branstner who was speaking at the VFW at 9 18th Ave N in St Cloud. Two hours after I let the police know about our action and after the police talked with management at the VFW the speaker was canceled. So I canceled the rally. However, I did find out that the VFW did allow the event to go forward with a racist speaker from Willmar, Bob Enos. To counter this we are planning a rally this Saturday at 1:00 in front of the VFW. Please join us a peaceful collective community action. We are all in this together.
When Prof. Jaede used his SCSU email address to highlight an AFL-CIO political rally, he used state property “for personal or private use.” He wasn’t conducting University business when he posted this event information. He seems to admit that in signing off:
Mark (writing as an individual faculty member who is concerned about having a community that welcomes all)
Considering the fact that Jaede’s been a DFL activist for years and considering the fact that he was using state resources to highlight an AFL-CIO political rally, does anyone take Prof. Jaede seriously when he insists that he’s doing this “as an individual faculty member who is concerned about having a community that welcomes all” and not as a DFL activist?
This morning, I got a copy of an email that Mark Jaede, a faculty member at St. Cloud State, published on SCSU’s Announce listserv. Here’s what Prof. Jaede published:
According to Jane Conrad’s email, Ron Branstner’s presentation was cancelled. According to Prof. Jaede’s second email, Bob Enos stepped in and made a speech. Here’s Prof. Jaede’s email about the Enos speech:
In both of Prof. Jaede’s emails, he referred to Jane Conrad. For those who aren’t familiar with her, here’s more information about Ms. Conrad:
This isn’t insignificant because Prof. Jaede is using a taxpayer-funded resource (SCSU’s email system) to highlight a political rally organized by Jane Conrad, a self-described AFL-CIO staffer, at the St. Cloud VFW.
Greg Jarrett is a private citizen who is interested in the State Department’s refugee resettlement program. Mssrs. Branstner and Enos have dealt with and researched this program. Here’s part of what Jarrett wrote when contacted by LFR:
The time has come for the Mayor and associated City Staff, President of SCSU, MNSCU Chancellor, St Cloud City Council and State Representatives to STOP an escalating and explosive situation that is in itself going to embarrass SCSU and the City of St Cloud again.
Here we have an AFL-CIO union-affiliated representative, Ms. Jane Conrad working in concert with a SCSU professor who was on the University time clock and is on SCSU’s payroll using internal taxpayer-funded email communications for purposes not associated with SCSU, not on SCSU property, NON SCSU Business for the purpose of agitation and SELF labeling of a public event for the second time. They have turned this into a “racial event”.
There is nothing “racial” about the economic impact of out of control Refugee Resettlement. Allowing these 2 radical militants to spin the topic and manipulate the Constitutional rights of others for personal beliefs and reasons is beyond insulting, irrational and borderline criminal in its direct purpose and intent.
Ms Jane Conrad and Professor Mark Jaede have taken upon themselves to self label and describe speaker Mr. Ron Branstner as “racist” and target the event for the sole purpose of starting an uprising of outrage. The St Cloud Police Department has also been made a pawn in this matter by Ms Conrad and Mr. Jaede by the now known threats prior to Mr. Branstner’s scheduled engagement. Ms Conrad was successful in her misguided mission to strong arm the Police Department and the VFW management to cancel the event.
Using taxpayer-funded resources to advance a political agenda is wrong, to say the least. Another thing that’s at stake here is SCSU’s reputation. If President Potter doesn’t immediately act to prevent Prof. Jaede’s improper use of SCSU’s email system, then he’s sending the signal that he’s ok with SCSU’s employees using SCSU’s taxpayer-funded email system for political use.
I’m not a lawyer but I’m still 100% certain that’s improper, if not illegal.