Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Special Interests category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Special Interests’ Category

It’s indisputable that past presidents have used the Antiquities Act to create national monuments. The worst presidents in terms of misusing the Antiquities Act were President Obama, President Clinton and President George W. Bush. It’s fair to say that each of those presidents misused the Antiquities Act to sidestep the original intent of the law. Rob Bishop’s op-ed highlights how past presidents have essentially ignored the law in creating national monuments.

In Bishop’s op-ed, he wrote “A few statistics can illustrate the scope of the overreach. Between 1906 and 1943, the law functioned basically as designed. Presidents respected the intent of the act. Most monuments were smaller and had clear boundaries with real antiquities inside them. By contrast, designations under the act last year averaged 739,645 acres, or more than 47 times the size of those created 110 years ago. President Teddy Roosevelt was the first president to use the act. He used it 18 times for a combined total of 1.5 million acres. President Barack Obama used it 37 times to designate 553.6 million acres of land and water.”

Chairman Bishop didn’t just complain about the problem. He’s proposed a solution:

Last week, I introduced legislation to correct these failures and permanently address my colleagues’ concerns. The National Monument Creation and Protection Act would, like the writers of the Antiquities Act intended, allow the president to unilaterally designate land up to 640 acres. Monument designations between 640 and 10,000 acres would be subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act. Designations between 10,000 and 85,000 acres would be required to obtain the approval of all county commissioners, state legislatures, and governors in the affected area. The bill also standardizes and limits the president’s power to reshape monuments.

Chairman Bishop’s legislation is well-written and desperately needed. Unfortunately, there’s no chance it will pass. That’s because it will get stopped by the Democrats’ filibuster in the Senate. Their environmental activist friends will insist that the bill be stopped.

That’s because these environmental activists want big, unaccountable government. These activists are almost always Democrats, though a handful are Republicans. These activists have proven time and again that they prefer it when government tramples over people in favor of the ‘greater good’ of saving Mother Earth. These activists don’t like the rule of law. Here’s proof:

In 1996, prior to the designation of the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in Utah, Clinton’s then-Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality Katie McGinty stated the following, “I’m increasingly of the view that we should just drop these utah [sic] ideas. we [sic] do not really know how the enviros will react and I do think there is a danger of ‘abuse’ of the withdraw/antiquities authorities especially because these lands are not really endangered.”

If McGinty’s name sounds familiar, it’s possibly because she ran for Senate in 2016 against Republican Pat Toomey. Thankfully, Sen. Toomey defeated her. But I digress.

It’s disheartening to see Democrats trample over the law. It’s especially disheartening that Democrats do that for a few extra campaign contributions. That’s how cold-hearted Democrats are. This is what’s most disgusting:

The monument was designated in the waning months of Clinton’s re-election campaign. Its total acreage: 1.7 million — three times the size of Rhode Island. No town halls, no public meetings, and no public comment sessions were ever held in Utah. No input was solicited from local stakeholders or land managers in the area. Utah’s governor, congressional delegation, public officials, and residents from across the state all expressed outrage at the lack of prior consultation or warning of the designation. In what feels like symbolism, the proclamation wasn’t even signed in Utah; it was signed in Arizona.

That’s the opposite of transparency. That’s proof that Democrats don’t like accountable government.

This week, I got an email from a loyal reader of LFR who is upset that the city council doesn’t allocate more time to listening to citizens. Imagine my surprise to hear that the City Council allocates a maximum of 10 minutes each meeting to a segment known as Open Forum. According to the City Council website, Open Forum is a time when “St. Cloud residents may address the council with questions/concerns/comments (regarding an item NOT on the agenda).” According to the City Council’s own website, “Speakers will be limited to the first five St. Cloud residents who sign up.” Further, individuals will be limited to speaking twice a year. Additionally, each individual is limited to speaking a maximum of 2 minutes.

How is that giving people the time to properly address important issues? How can a city council member get enough information to formulate an informed opinion on a topic?

It isn’t surprising that this city council is considering raising the minimum age to purchase cigarettes in St. Cloud to 21. This isn’t a priority with anything but a handful of people. Nonetheless, a significant portion of time will be devoted to that subject during the first full meeting in November. How did that item get scheduled for that night’s agenda? It definitely wasn’t because of a significant outpouring of concern from citizens. Most likely, it’s on the schedule because some special interest hacks told a handful of city council members it was important.

To be fair, there are a couple of city council members that are attentive listeners. Jeff Johnson and George Hontos will listen. There might be others but I can’t confirm that. When Tip O’Neill famously said that “all politics is local”, he certainly wasn’t talking about this city council.

Seriously, this city council listens more to the special interests than to the citizenry. At this point, citizens only have a chance to react. They don’t really have a chance to influence the council’s agenda in any meaningful way.

That can’t continue!

Whether they’ll admit it or not, these people work for us, not the special interests that typically take up the majority of the city council’s time.

To: Speaker Daudt, Sen. Gazelka
From: Gary Gross, Chief troublemaker, Uppity Peasants Brigade
Subject: Gov. Dayton standoff

Gentlemen, I’m proud of you for standing your ground in this fight against Gov. Dayton. Don’t renegotiate the tax bill that Gov. Dayton signed. Instead, tell Gov. Dayton that you’ll broadcast the fact that Gov. Dayton and the DFL didn’t put a high priority on serving their constituents.

Instead of renegotiating the tax bill, the House should immediately submit a clean funding bill that funds the legislature for the rest of the biennium. Pass it ASAP, then send it to the Senate. If Gov. Dayton vetoes the clean funding bill, I’d schedule an override vote immediately. If the House or Senate votes to sustain Gov. Dayton’s veto, tell each outstate DFL legislator that voted to sustain Gov. Dayton’s veto that they’d better prepare for the onslaught of advertising that’s heading their direction. Tell these DFL legislators that their constituents will hear that they voted against the GOP tax relief package for farmers, small businesses and the middle class. Tell these DFL legislators that their constituents will hear about their votes to keep the legislature shut down, too.

Let them know that voting with Gov. Dayton will come at a political price.

Gentlemen, tell the DFL that listening to their special interest allies will cost them bigtime this election cycle. Gov. Dayton told Tom Hauser that he wants to drag you back to the negotiating table because he’s worried that the government might run a deficit. Like you, I’ve paid attention to Gov. Dayton’s message from the start of his administration until his lame-duck year. Not once has Gov. Dayton or his DFL allies said a thing about being worried that families have enough to put a roof over their head, save for retirement or for their children’s college education or help meet their bills.

Thanks for standing tall. Thanks for not letting Gov. Dayton’s special interest allies bully you. Keep up the good work.

This afternoon, I got an email saying that the MNPCA has submitted over 10,000 cards to Gov. Dayton “demanding a union decertification election.”

SEIU Healthcare Minnesota should be getting nervous because SEIU Healthcare Minnesota “established the union in a mail-in ballot, low voter turnout election with just 13 percent of the estimated 27,000 home-based PCAs in Minnesota.” Kim Crockett, the Vice President at Center of the American Experiment, said that the 10,000 cards “total three times more than the 3,543 PCAs who voted for unionization in 2014.”

In other words, the chances of SEIU Healthcare Minnesota getting decertified is significant to high. A little history is in order. On the last weekend of the 2013 session, the DFL passed a bill authorizing a unionization vote for in-home child care providers and PCAs. The DFL passed the bill despite the fact that in-home child care providers lobbied all weekend against the bill. They simply didn’t listen. The DFL had gotten their marching orders from AFSCME and SEIU. There was no way they were going to disobey their masters.

In March, 2016, the in-home child care providers rejected unionization by a vote of 1,014-392. That’s a defeat of 72% rejecting unionization, with only 28% of in-home child care providers voting for unionization. But I digress.

Apparently, SEIU Healthcare Minnesota got the message that a fair election wouldn’t turn out well so they allegedly tried winning the certification election with low voter turnout. Now that the “home-based PCAs in Minnesota” know the details of what they were signing, expect this decertification vote to turn out differently. These people don’t like the types of people you should mess with:

Though I won’t predict anything, I’ll state that it wouldn’t surprise me if this decertification vote is lopsided, too.

Nothing verifies the fact that Sen. Franken is owned by leftist special interest organizations than a letter from 27 special interest organizations praising him for blocking David Stras’s confirmation.

Until recently, PFAW, aka People for the American Way, has been significantly to the left of the Democratic Party for years. When Ralph Neas was PFAW’s president, he was known for hyperbole. For instance, Neas once said “that if the views of Scalia and Thomas were to become the majority on the Court, ‘the result on issue after issue would be a radical, reactionary shift in U.S. law.’ Specifically: ‘religious liberty would suffer’; ‘church-state separation’ would be compromised; ‘the right to strike and bargain collectively’ would be weakened; ‘laws that protect workers from sexual harassment’ would be overturned; ‘the federal government would be barred from stopping the destruction of endangered species on private land’; ‘local governments’ power to protect the environment would be restricted’; and ‘sensible gun-control legislation would be struck down.'”

Since then, PFAW has moved left. It’s worth noting that PFAW is one of the 27 organizations that is praising Sen. Franken. Here’s the opening paragraph of the special interests’ letter to Sen. Franken:

We, the undersigned civil rights, labor, and other public interest organizations, write to thank you for your commitment to preserving a fair-minded and independent judiciary. Now more than ever, our courts must serve as a check on the president, whose executive actions repeatedly disregard the law and the Constitution, and your recent, principled decision not to return your blue slip on the nomination of Justice David Stras to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit helps ensure that our courts can fulfill this essential role.

When they write that the “courts must serve as a check on the president”, they’re admitting that they’re worried about President Trump. Remember that the left sees Scalia as evil. He actually ruled according to the Constitution. They want a jurist who will implement their policy preferences without questioning.

As former Vice President Mondale has pointed out, in supporting your decision on Justice Stras, the blue slip tradition also has been vital in helping to promote bipartisan cooperation and prevent “overt partisanship” in judicial nominations. Indeed, it is a manifestation of the Constitution’s Advice and Consent process. The blue slip practice is one of the constitutional checks and balances that helps maintain equilibrium among the branches of government. When the Senate majority places partisan loyalty to the president over the Senate’s institutional interests in independently carrying out its constitutional responsibilities, the blue slip serves as a vital corrective.

Under normal circumstances, “the blue slip tradition” is vital to building bipartisan consensus. Democrats have shown, though, that they aren’t even slightly interested in building bipartisan consensus. This website sums up what Sen. Franken and the Democrats are about:

Our mission is to fuel a progressive grassroots network of local groups to resist the Trump agenda.

Thus far this session, Democrats have used every tool to prevent the installation of President Trump’s government. They’ve repeatedly used arcane rules to delay committee hearings on cabinet appointees. They’ve voted in lockstep with Sen. Schumer virtually all the time. Sen. Franken isn’t representing Minnesota. He’s representing Sen. Schumer and the Democrats’ special interest allies.

This is laughable:

You could have followed the examples of Senators McConnell, Sessions, Shelby, and Coats and not reviewed Justice Stras’ record, withholding your blue slip based solely on the lack of meaningful consultation. However, you went beyond process to evaluate extensively his record. Those of us who wrote the Committee on August 31 very much agree with your conclusion that rather than demonstrating fairness and open-mindedness, his record demonstrates that he would reliably rule in favor of powerful corporate interests over working people, and that he would place a high bar before plaintiffs seeking justice at work, at school, and at the ballot box.

That could’ve been written by Ralph Neas. It sounds that paranoid. What’s obvious is that Sen. Franken won’t vote for anyone who doesn’t get PFAW’s stamp of approval.

Sen. Franken isn’t a patriot. Apparently, Sen. Franken doesn’t know that it’s unconstitutional to demand that a nominee pass a ‘religious test’. Watch this video, then tell me that this is a patriot, an honorable man:

Frankly, I’d love to see Sen. Franken, Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Durbin get censured for questioning a judicial nominee’s religious beliefs. It’s immoral. More importantly, it’s unconstitutional. Finally, here’s the list of special interest organizations that signed the letter to Sen. Franken:

African American Ministers In Action
Alliance for Justice
American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Unions
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees
Center for American Progress
Committee for a Fair Judiciary
Courage Campaign
Earthjustice
Every Voice
Family Equality Council
Human Rights Campaign
Lambda Legal
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
MALDEF
MoveOn.org
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Black Justice Coalition
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Council of Jewish Women
National Education Association
National Employment Lawyers Association
National Women’s Law Center
People For the American Way
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Voting Rights Forward

These are the organizations that Sen. Franken represents. He doesn’t represent all Minnesotans. He’s a disgrace.

In the first 4 parts of this series (found here, here, here and here), I focused on different facets of the inadequacies of the Dayton-Rothman Commerce Department. I categorized each of the shortcomings and culprits. Most importantly, I identified the opportunities that the Dayton-Rothman Commerce Department missed and why.

This article will pull everything together so we can put together a less hostile, more business-friendly set of policies that doesn’t sacrifice the environment. First, we’ll need to streamline the regulatory review process so hostile environmental activists don’t have multiple opportunities to throttle key infrastructure projects. Whether we’re talking about killing the Sandpiper Pipeline project, the constant attempts by the Sierra Club, Conservation Minnesota and Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness to kill both the Twin Metals and the PolyMet projects or the Public Utilities Commission and the Dayton-Rothman Commerce Department, it’s clear that the DFL is openly hostile to major infrastructure projects.

It’s long past time to get the PUC out of the public safety/transportation business. Similarly, it’s time to get the Commerce Department out of the environmental regulatory industry. Public safety and transportation belong in MnDOT’s purview, not the PUC’s. Environmental regulations need to be significantly streamlined, then shipped over to the DNR. There should be a period for fact-finding and public comment. There should be the submitting and approval/disapproval of an Environmental Impact Statement and the submitting and approval/disapproval of an Economic Impact Statement.

Further, laws should be changed so that there’s no longer a requirement to submit an application for a “certificate of need.” In effect, that’s a bureaucratic regulatory veto of major infrastructure projects. That isn’t acceptable. There should be a time limit placed on the bureaucrats, too. They should have to accept or reject applications within a reasonable period of time. That’s because regulators have sometimes used delaying tactics to throttle projects without leaving a paper trail. It’s also been used to deny companies the right to appeal rulings. (If there isn’t a ruling, there isn’t an appeal.)

Third, streamlining the review process limits the opportunities for environmental activists to kill projects like those mentioned above. There’s a reason why it’s called the Commerce Department, not the Department of Endless Delays and Excessive Costs, which is what it’s become. Eliminating the PUC’s oversight responsibilities, especially in terms of approving certificates of need, will eliminate the impact that environmental activists serving on that Board can have in killing or at least delaying major infrastructure projects.

Fourth, it’s important that we bring clarity and consistency to this state’s regulatory regime. The system Minnesota has now breeds uncertainty. That steals jobs from Minnesota because companies attempt to avoid Minnesota entirely whenever possible. While we want to preserve our lakes, rivers and streams, we want to preserve our middle class, too. The environment shouldn’t be put on a pedestal while communities die thanks to a dying middle class.

I’ve seen too often how once-proud parts of Minnesota that have a heavy regulatory burden have seen their middle class essentially disappear. Cities like Virginia and Eveleth come to mind. It’s immoral to give a Twin Cities agency the authority to kill Iron Range communities. That’s literally what’s happening right now.

For the last 7 years, Gov. Dayton has run an administration that’s of, by and for the environmental activist wing of the DFL. If you work in a construction union, you haven’t had a great run. That isn’t right. People who work hard and play by the rules should be able to put a roof over their family’s head, set money aside for their kids’ college education and save for their retirement. For far too many people, that hasn’t happened recently.

The next Republican governor should implement these changes ASAP. It’s time to destroy the Dayton ‘Hostile to business’ sign and replace it with an ‘Open for business’ sign. It’s time to get Minnesota government working for everyone once again.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saying that MEP, aka Minnesota Environmental Partnership, is dishonest and biased when it comes to fossil fuels is understatement. In their statement about the Dayton Department of Commerce testimony to the Public Utilities Commission, Steve Morse, MEP’s Executive Director, admitted that MEP hates fossil fuels.

He admitted it when he said “The age of growth in fossil fuel demand is over. We don’t need increased fossil fuel capacity. Instead, We need to get about the business of abandoning and cleaning up the existing Line 3.” That’s a pretty stunning statement, especially considering the fact that natural gas will be needed for at least three-fourths of this century to replace coal-fired power plants for baseline energy generation.

In MEP’s official statement, Morse also said “We commend the Department of Commerce for taking a hard look at the data and carefully considering the criteria that are in law for this type of project. The Department found that this pipeline is not needed for Minnesota, that it does not benefit Minnesota, and is not good for Minnesota.”

That’s a narrow-minded view of things. First, legislators from northwest Minnesota have criticized the Minnesota Department of Commerce for their narrow-minded perspective:

“Gov. Mark Dayton’s administration is ‘siding with environmental extremism instead of common sense.’ ‘Shutting down this pipeline will have a substantial impact on rural Minnesota’, Fabian said in the statement. ‘Our local counties, school districts and townships will lose critical property tax revenue, and what’s more, jobs will be affected and there will be fewer workers patronizing local businesses like our grocery stores and motels. Plain and simple, bureaucrats in St. Paul are advancing policies that hurt Greater Minnesota.’”

Friday night on Almanac, Steve Morse debated Cam Winton on the merits of the pipeline. The arguments made by Steve Morse weren’t totally without merit. They weren’t the least bit persuasive, either. I’ve been watching environmentalists for 40+ years. In that time, their statistics and ‘facts’ have been consistently inaccurate. The notion that we’re starting to use less fossil fuels is preposterous. Yes, we’re driving more fuel efficient cars. Yes, car manufacturers are manufacturing more hybrids. No, society isn’t reducing the amount of gasoline we’re using. Watch the video of the interview, which starts approximately 5 minutes in:

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Rep. Dan Fabian and Sen. Mark Johnson didn’t mince words in their criticism of Gov. Dayton on his administration’s ruling that the pipeline isn’t needed.

In the opening paragraph of the article, it says the “Department of Commerce’s recent analysis that an Enbridge pipeline project is unnecessary defies common sense, northwest Minnesota legislators said this week.” Then it gets into specifics, saying “Gov. Mark Dayton’s administration is ‘siding with environmental extremism instead of common sense.’ ‘Shutting down this pipeline will have a substantial impact on rural Minnesota’, Fabian said in the statement. ‘Our local counties, school districts and townships will lose critical property tax revenue, and what’s more, jobs will be affected and there will be fewer workers patronizing local businesses like our grocery stores and motels. Plain and simple, bureaucrats in St. Paul are advancing policies that hurt Greater Minnesota.'”

That’s the heart of the matter. The DFL is ruled by environmental extremists who want to totally eliminate the use of fossil fuels. I know that sounds paranoid but it’s based on what the Sierra Club has said publicly. The Sierra Club is even opposed to natural gas:

If drillers can’t extract natural gas without destroying landscapes and endangering the health of families, then we should not drill for natural gas.

There isn’t much difference between the Dayton administration saying that we don’t need pipelines because our need for oil “isn’t likely to increase over the long-term” and the Sierra Club insisting that natural gas isn’t clean. Neither statement is credible.

The Sierra Club’s hands aren’t clean, either:

Then there’s this:

“I am frustrated the Dayton administration and Department of Commerce are once again dragging their feet on this project and throwing roadblock after roadblock in the way of this critical pipeline replacement,” Johnson said in the statement. “It seems they are more interested in working for special interests instead of supporting citizens, industry and good-paying jobs.”

In late August, Johnson, Fabian, Rep. Deb Kiel, R-Crookston, and 50 other state legislators signed a letter of support for the project. “The Department of Commerce’s recommendation to shut down and not replace Enbridge Line 3 is another example of policymakers in St. Paul ignoring common sense and the priorities of Greater Minnesota,” Kiel said in a statement Thursday. “It’s time the Dayton Administration put the people of Minnesota first instead of special interests.”

If the DFL wants to know why they lost the rural vote and is losing ground on the labor vote, this article explains it pretty well. You can’t be pro-laborer while opposing the projects that employ those unionists. The DFL has done a masterful job — if their goal was to alienate construction unions.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This article provides some interesting insights into the Minnesota Supreme Court’s line-item ruling. It’s worth reading just for the plethora of quotes from lawmakers. One of the more interesting quotes was from former Speaker and former House Minority Leader Paul Thissen.

Rep. Thissen’s habit of never missing an opportunity to miss a golden opportunity is fun to watch. According to the article, “Echoing that point, former House Speaker Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, called for transparent mediation. ‘We work for Minnesotans, and they deserve a process that is open to the public,’ Thissen said. ‘They deserve to know who is in the room, and they have the right to know what is being said.'”

Let’s dissect that quote. First, Rep. Thissen is right that the legislature works for the people. Rep. Thissen didn’t do that. In 2013, in payback to their public employee union special interests, the DFL passed a bill that Gov. Dayton signed that gave SEIU and AFSCME the right to organize in-home child care providers. The thing is that those in-home child care providers, led by Hollee Saville, showed up en masse at the Capitol that day. They lobbied against the bill. They told DFL legislators that they didn’t want to be part of a union. The DFL ignored them.

As I said, the bill passed. Then it was signed into law. When the organizing vote happened, the people that the DFL supposedly work for rejected the union by a vote of 1,014-392. Over 72% of voters rejected unionization. This wasn’t a nail-biter. It was more like Reagan vs. Mondale in 1984, Nixon vs. McGovern in 1972 or LBJ vs. Goldwater in 1964.

Q: Why didn’t then-Speaker Thissen listen to the people instead of the special interests?

Another part of the quote has Rep. Thissen saying “They deserve to know who is in the room, and they have the right to know what is being said.” I don’t remember then-Speaker Thissen insisting that negotiations between him, Sen. Bakk and Gov. Dayton be transparent. In fact, what we got from the DFL leadership was a statement saying that they’d agreed to raise taxes after negotiations had theoretically concluded. They we found out that one of those DFL leaders didn’t like the tax bill. That led to further negotiations and another statement.

At no point in 2013 did then-Speaker Thissen insist on transparent negotiations.

Watch this speech from Rep. Thissen:

In the speech, Rep. Thissen accuses Republicans of raising property taxes. That’s a lie. Republicans don’t propose raising taxes. That’s what the DFL did in 2013-14. During those years, property taxes in Princeton and St. Cloud skyrocketed.

Rep. Thissen talks a great game. Rep. Thissen’s problem is that his actions don’t match his statements. That’s why he’s one of the least-liked legislators in Minnesota. (If you don’t believe me, ask the GOP staffers Thissen attacked.)

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Al Franken’s anti-religious bigotry is getting more disgusting by the day. Last week, Franken criticized Amy Coney-Barrett, President Trump’s nominee to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, for being associated with a civil rights law firm that the Southern Poverty Law Center, aka SPLC, has designated as a hate group.

First, the name of the civil rights group is the Alliance for the Defense of Freedom, aka ADF. ADF represented Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, MO in the Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer in the Supreme Court. According to that ruling, the Trinity Lutheran Church Child Learning Center ran a “preschool and daycare center.” The Center applied to “replace a large portion of the pea gravel with a pour-in-place rubber surface by participating in Missouri’s Scrap Tire Program.” ADF not only won the case. They won by a 7-2 margin, meaning it was a pretty clear-cut case.

After Ms. Barrett’s confirmation hearing, “ADF president, CEO and general counsel Michael Farris” issued this statement. The statement said “It is deeply regrettable that Sen. Franken is misinformed about our work on behalf of religious freedom, something so ‘extreme’ that even seven justices of the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with our position three months ago in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer. There is a real danger of conflating genuine hate groups, like the Ku Klux Klan, with mainstream religious beliefs that are shared by millions of Americans and people from all walks of life across the world. 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. Alliance Defending Freedom is the largest religious liberty legal advocacy organization in the world and advocates for the freedom of all people—including Sen. Franken’s constituents—to peacefully live, speak, and work consistently with their convictions without fear of government punishment.”

Greg Gutfeld summed up the SPLC perfectly in this segment:

This week, Sen. Franken’s credibility as a legislator took a major hit. You wouldn’t know that by the Twin Cities media but it’s there. Franken is still pouring through the handful of Minnesota Supreme Court rulings that Justice David Stras participated in but the SPLC has gotten a total pass by Franken. Sen. Franken accepts the SPLC’s hateful statements as though they were carved on stone tablets without examining their principles but he criticizes organizations he knows nothing about because they don’t share his warped ideology.

Sen. Franken is a shill and ideologue. He isn’t a serious legislator. His accomplishments are virtually nonexistent. He reflexively rejects opinions held by people he ideologically disagrees with. This is consistent with the alt-left’s practices. Sen. Franken and the alt-left don’t believe in compromise, discussion or coming together based on principle. This is the end result:

Based on Sen. Franken’s affiliation with Antifa’s thugs, it’s fair to ask if we have more to fear from Sen. Franken and Antifa than we have to fear from Prof. Coney-Barrett and ADF.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,