Archive for the ‘Corruption’ Category
In one of the biggest understatements in St. Cloud School Board history, Superintendent Willie Jett said that “We know we have more listening to do as part of this referendum.”
Actually, they need to start listening. I’m not proposing doing nothing. What I’ve consistently said was that the School Board consistently planned to overbuild. The original plan called for twin schools that each held 1,800 students. Student enrollment as of a year ago was 2,800. I’m not a rocket scientist, just like I’m not a demographer. Still, it doesn’t require a rocket scientist or a demographer to figure out that an aging school that’s getting surrounded by growing schools won’t grow 25-30% in enrollment over the next 25-30 years.
It’s far more likely that Sartell and Sauk Rapids will see significant enrollment growth over the next quarter-century than it is to expect significant enrollment growth for Apollo and Tech HS. The truth is that Jett and the School Board haven’t done any significant listening thus far. They’ve listened to people that they’ve wanted to hear from but they haven’t listened to the average voter. They’ve avoided those voters. Without them, the referendum fails.
If Jett and the School Board don’t learn from last year’s defeat, which appears like they haven’t, they’ll wind up with a defeated referendum and major turnover on the Board. The board needs a shakeup. They’ve become arrogant, which means they’ve stopped listening. It’s time for them to go.
The truth is finally starting to trickle out about why the ISD 742 School Board wants to build a new Tech High School. The truth is that the ISD 742 School Board is planning on renovating Tech. According to the article, the “St. Cloud school district plans to renovate portions of Technical High School to house the district’s administrative offices and welcome center if a school construction bond question passes in November.”
The district, from Superintendent Jett to the School Cartel, insisted that Tech was a mess than couldn’t be renovated. The St. Cloud Education Cartel insists that we have to build a new Tech High School at a cost of $104,500,000 and renovate Apollo at an additional cost of $38,750,000.
What’s insulting is that the Education Cartel insists it’s speaking with the voice of the people. Specifically, Superintendent Willie Jett said “One of the general things (we heard) was ‘we need to know what you’re doing with Tech High School, the future of that.” I’ve gotten dozens of phone calls from people throughout the district. The most frequently asked question I’ve received have asked why we can’t renovate Tech rather than build a new school. The most frequently stated statements have said that they won’t vote for that big of a property tax increase without the District first seriously considering renovating Tech.
This Board has insisted on killing Clark Field, one of the most charming football fields in the state, and killing Tech High School. I wrote this post last fall to highlight the Education Cartel’s arrogance:
Finally, it’s time that Ms. Starling understood that lots of citizens voted against the referendum because the School Board didn’t even have the decency of telling the taxpayers what the new Tech High School would look like. They couldn’t because, according to Barclay Carriar, 80% of the building wouldn’t be designed until after the referendum vote.
That sounds like what a political machine would do. It doesn’t sound like something a citizen-oriented board would do. A citizen-oriented board would start the process over rather than seek input on the plan they’re trying to shove down people’s throats.
The Cartel is scrambling in its attempt to get what it wants after voters emphatically rejected their initial proposal. This proposal is virtually the same proposal, just a little smaller. (The first proposal would’ve cost $167,000,000. This would cost $143,250,000.) Like last year’s referendum, this year’s proposal should be rejected until all options are seriously considered.
Barbara Banaian’s monthly column highlights the arrogance of the St. Cloud School Board while highlighting the fact that the school board hasn’t examined all of the different options available with regard to Tech High School.
If I sound like a broken record on the subject, it’s because the School Board hasn’t changed its plan much. They haven’t explained why a new Tech High School needs to be built. Based on some of the comments by a school board member, it’s apparent that they don’t think they need to justify their actions.
Mrs. Banaian nails the crux of the problem when she wrote “We can all agree they can’t make do with Tech in its current condition. But should we pay to build a new high school? The proposed new Tech is slightly smaller and slightly less expensive than the one rejected in the 2015 vote. The school board and interested parties have invested time and money in a detailed design for a new building. But what have they given for the option to renovate Tech?”
Then Mrs. Banaian drops the hammer:
A scant “cost opinion” based on what contractor R.A. Morton said was “limited information.” “A complete facility assessment would be required to accurately assess the mechanical, electrical and structural conditions of the existing building. An educational assessment would be required to assess the flow, function and viability of educational programming of any renovations completed,” Morton wrote to the board June 2.
When the contractor indicates that they couldn’t do a legitimate estimate because of “limited information”, that’s proof that the School Board isn’t interested in finding out how much a Tech renovation would cost. When the Board cites a “cost opinion”, it should be rejected as worthless.
This is the same problem that Claire VanderEyk and Sarah Murphy ran into when they looked into the situation.
There’s a two-step solution to this situation. The first step is in voting no against the Tech referendum. The other step is in electing members to the school board that will actually address citizens’ questions. The School Board, as currently configured, is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the ‘education community’. We need citizen leadership, not vested special interests. This group should be voted out of office ASAP:
Eliminating the Board’s institutional arrogance is the only way to fix this problem.
You can’t make this stuff up. If ever there was something that proves that the system was rigged, it’s the news that WikiLeaks provided in the form of 19,000+ emails from the DNC showing that the DNC intentionally tipped the scales in Hillary’s favor during the primaries. Thanks to that leak, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was forced to resign as the chair of the Democratic National Committee, effective the day after the Democratic National Convention.
If you think that’s proof that the DNC rigged the primaries to guarantee a Hillary nomination victory, you’re right. It’s definitely proof that the system was rigged in HRC’s favor. If you think that’s where the corruption and the rigging stops, you’re wrong. You’re extremely wrong. One of the women that assisted DWS rig the system in Hillary’s favor is Donna Brazile. According to multiple news reports, including this one, Ms. Brazile has just been named the interim chair of the DNC.
If you think that’s the end of the corruption, you aren’t cynical enough. You’re not close. The RightScoop is reporting that Ms. Wasserman-Schultz has found new employment. Late this afternoon, I tweeted that Ms. Wasserman-Schultz could always get a job with the Clinton Foundation because it’s obvious she has the connections to make it happen. That might still happen but it’ll have to wait because — wait for it — Ms. Wasserman-Schultz has a new job … as “honorary chair” of Hillary’s “50-state program to gain ground and elect Democrats in every part of the country…”
That isn’t just proof that the system is rigged. It’s proof that corruption pays, especially if you’re pandering to the Clintons. I’ve heard the Clintons complain about corporate execs getting golden parachutes before. When it comes to their friends, they don’t believe in golden parachutes. They apparently believe in soft landings on 1,600-thread count sheets. That’s apparent because that’s what HRC just gave Ms. Wasserman-Schultz.
Technorati: Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Donna Brazile, Democratic National Committee, Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks, Golden Parachutes, Bernie Sanders, Corruption, Election 2016
I’m certain that Politico’s article, especially the headline, was published with the intent of attempting to smooth over the bitter feelings Bernie Sanders voters are experiencing. I’d be surprised if Ms. Brazile’s non-apology apology will have that effect.
Eight paragraphs into the article, it’s reported that “National Democrats tried to smooth over the bitterness. DNC vice chairwoman Donna Brazile had dropped in on the meeting of Sanders-aligned Rules Committee members and apologized for how the emails came out.”
I’ve paid attention to Twitter today. Specifically, I’ve paid attention to #DNCLeaks. I can say with total certainty that Bernie’s supporters were upset with what they perceived as the DNC’s corruption. They especially were upset with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to the point that they started a separate hashtag, this time creating #Demexit. While there’s little doubt a majority of Bernie’s supporters will vote for Hillary, it’s highly likely that many will vote for Jill Stein or stay home. Hillary can’t afford that. She needs turnout to be better than Obama’s 2012 performance. That’s impossible if 30% of Bernie’s voters stay home or vote for the Green Party candidate.
Throughout the meeting, Sanders adviser Mark Longabaugh and Clinton counterpart Charlie Baker went in and out of backroom negotiations to try to hammer out some kind of compromise on superdelegates, and Sanders’ moves to open up caucuses and primaries, a big wishlist item.
In the end those negotiations satisfied both parties. “We strongly support the unity commission,” a Clinton aide said. “It appears we’re going to come out here with a great big win on Rules,” Longabaugh said.
That’s all nice at that level but it doesn’t do a thing to heal the rift that was caused by the DNC intentionally and unjustly tilting the nominating process in Mrs. Clinton’s favor. It remains to be seen whether that gets smoothed over or whether this divide doesn’t heal. At this point, it’s anyone’s guess which it will be.
This month-old article takes on additional importance in light of the new Wikileaks-DNC scandal. The thought that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC has to fight a class action lawsuit is terrible news for Hillary.
According to the article, attorney Jared Beck said “‘The first is a claim for fraud—against the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz—based on the revelations from the recent Guccifer 2.0 documents purportedly taken from the DNC’s own computer network.’ The Guccifer 2.0 documents include internal memos in which the DNC broke legally binding neutrality agreements in the Democratic primaries by strategizing to make Hillary Clinton the nominee before a single vote was cast.”
Think of this as the anything-but-democratic Democratic Party. As I wrote in this post, the more fitting word to describe the DNC is oligarchy. The definition of oligarchy is “a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.”
I’m not a legal eagle but this doesn’t sound good for the DNC:
The third claim alleges the DNC and Wasserman Schultz participated in deceptive conduct in claiming the DNC was neutral during the Democratic primaries, when there is overwhelming evidence suggesting favoritism of Clinton from the beginning.
These 19,000 documents make it difficult for the DNC to testify under oath in court that the DNC was neutral. Not only are the documents proof that the DNC wasn’t impartial but it’s proof that they put this plan in motion with the intent of tipping the race to Hillary. This won’t help DWS either:
This isn’t going away any time soon, though CNN and MSNBC are doing their best to minimize its impact.
The news that the Democratic National Committee, aka the DNC, rigged the Democratic primaries so Bernie Sanders didn’t have a chance is proof that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were right. They said that the system was rigged, although they said it in terms of meaning that the economy was rigged. This article exposes how the DNC rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders.
Early in the article, it says “In its recent leak of 20,000 DNC emails from January 2015 to May 2016, DNC staff discuss how to deal with Bernie Sanders’ popularity as a challenge to Clinton’s candidacy. Instead of treating Sanders as a viable candidate for the Democratic ticket, the DNC worked against him and his campaign to ensure Clinton received the nomination.”
It’s clear that the DNC is corrupt to the core. The Democratic Party that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz runs with Donna Brazile’s help is the poster child for political corruption. These emails aren’t the only proof of that. This article highlights the lengths to which the DNC, or rather a small group of members of the DNC, were willing to go to hand Hillary the nomination:
The Democratic National Committee is “clearing a path” for Hillary Clinton to be its presidential nominee because its upper power echelons are populated with women, according to a female committee member who was in Las Vegas for Tuesday’s primary debate. Speaking on the condition that she isn’t identified, she told Daily Mail Online that the party is in the tank for Clinton, and the women who run the organization decided it “early on.”
The committeewoman is supporting one of Hillary’s rivals for the Democratic nomination, and said she spoke freely because she believes the former Secretary of State is benefiting from unfair favoritism inside the party.
Clinton aims to be the first female to occupy the Oval Office, and “the party’s female leaders really want to make a woman the next president,” the committeewoman said, rattling off a list of the women who she said are the “real power” in the organization. “I haven’t heard anyone say we should make Hillary undergo a trial by fire,” she added. “To the contrary, the women in charge seem eager, more and more, to have her skate into the general [election].”
Further, this DNC committeewoman identified the women who were intent on putting a Democratic woman in the White House:
Based on how the women leading the DNC have behaved, there’s little about the Democratic Party that’s democratic. The definition of democratic is “pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all.” Having virtually the entire leadership team of the DNC putting their thumb on the scales in Hillary’s favor doesn’t fit the definition of democratic. The word that best describes the DNC in its current state is oligarchy. The definition of oligarchy is “a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.”
This isn’t a little thing that will disappear over the weekend. This story will hang over the Democrats’ convention all week. Bernie Sanders’ supporters have every right to tell Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and her minions that they’ll walk away from the Democratic Party if major structural changes aren’t made to eliminate this type of corruption, starting with Ms. Wasserman-Schultz’s immediate resignation.
There’s little doubt that the media will do its best to minimize this story. They can’t totally hide it but they’ll do their best to minimize its impact. If I was advising the Trump campaign, I’d run ads all week long during the convention highlighting this corruption. It shouldn’t take much to put a snappy ad together to highlight the Democrats’ corruption. The Democrats’ corruption the weekend before the DNC is like handing Trump a case of dynamite and a box of matches.
UPDATE: Eric Zaetsch has linked to my post on his blog. Eric is definitely a Bernie fan. Eric’s post does a nice job from a progressive standpoint of making the case for dumping Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. I agree that the DNC stall “needs to be mucked.” I heartily agree.
Technorati: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Donna Brazile, Hillary Clinton, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Corruption, Bernie Sanders, Democratic National Convention, Donald Trump, Republicans, Election 2016
In 2008, Hillary was considered the presumptive Democrat nominee. Pundits said that she’d win the nomination, then win the general election. They were wrong both with both predictions. This Quinnipiac Swing State Poll must be close to Hillary’s nightmare scenario.
What do you think she’s thinking when she sees that Trump is tied with Mrs. Clinton in Ohio and that he leads Mrs. Clinton in Pennsylvania and Florida? Imagine Mrs. Clinton reading “The presidential matchups show: Florida – Trump at 42 percent to Clinton’s 39, compared to a 47-39 percent Clinton lead June 21; Ohio – Clinton and Trump tied 41-41 percent, compared to a 40-40 percent tie June 21; Pennsylvania – Trump at 43 percent to Clinton’s 41 percent, compared to June 21, when Clinton had 42 percent to Trump’s 41 percent.”
If Mrs. Clinton lost those 3 states, she’d lose to Trump. It’s that simple. I can’t picture Mrs. Clinton losing Pennsylvania but winning North Carolina. That just doesn’t seem possible. These statistics are part of this RedState post with a headline glaring “Hillary Loses Ground After Outspending Trump $57M to $4M.”
This is just part of the pattern for Hillary. She’s outspending Trump by orders of magnitude but she’s losing ground to him while outspending Trump.
What’s more troubling for Hillary is that she won’t get Bernie Sanders’ voters in the percentages that she’d hoped for:
Some of Bernie Sanders’ most loyal backers have turned into his biggest bashers on the heels of his Hillary Clinton endorsement.
The Vermont senator, who slammed Clinton repeatedly during the presidential primary campaign, offered his unwavering support to the presumptive Democratic nominee at a rally in New Hampshire Tuesday. “Hillary Clinton will make a great president and I am proud to stand with her today,” he said.
What followed was an avalanche of angry tweets, blogs and other social media posts from those who had been feeling the ‘Bern’ — and now just feel burned. In New York, Monroe County Sanders activist Kevin Sweeney told the Democrat & Chronicle he’s shifting his donations to Green Party candidate Jill Stein. “A lot of Bernie supporters are making $27 donations to Jill Stein’s campaign today,” he said.
This won’t blow over anytime soon. Some of Bernie’s supporters are true believers. A woman named Ashley Marie tweeted “Used to be a Bernie fan but now that he’s joined Hillary, who supports everything he’s supposedly against, I’m a Trump fan. #NeverHillary” Dan LaMorte tweeted “Bernie Sanders endorsing Hillary Clinton feels so much like when the girl you love starts dating the guy you hate most.”
Perhaps, the best tweet came from Craig, who said “Revolution? I guess political revolution meant something different to Bernie. I was willing to fight corruption to the death. #NeverHillary”
Apparently, Bernie’s supporters were true believers. Apparently, true believers don’t fit with Hillary’s people.
This doesn’t mean Hillary will lose this November. It just means Hillary’s team will need to order tons more Maalox.
When James Comey announced that the FBI wouldn’t recommend that the Justice Department shouldn’t prosecute Hillary Clinton, he essentially said that the United States justice system be a two-tiered justice system. In addition to him effectively rewriting existing and clearly-written federal statutes, Dir. Comey essentially said that the elitists, aka the American oligarchs, should be given preferential treatment as opposed to the peasants.
It’s ironic he’d do that the day after we’d celebrated our nation’s birthday. Comey’s logic, if it can be called that, goes against our nation’s founding principles. There’s a reason why Lady Justice is blindfolded.
The definition of oligarchy is “a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.” The definition of peasant is “a member of a class of persons, as in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, who are small farmers or farm laborers of low social rank” or “a coarse, unsophisticated, boorish, uneducated person of little financial means.”
The Clintons have always thought of themselves as oligarchs. Hillary has especially thought of those not in her social class as peasants. When Hillary talked about the “politics of meaning”, she talked about how “even janitors” lives have meaning. The liberal media at the time (1993-94) suggested that she was onto something new and meaningful. That’s Hillary’s perspective. It’s the type of ‘justice system’ that we should expect from a Hillary administration.
Here’s a hint: Hillary’s type of justice is long on using the word, short on acting justly. If Hillary was truly interested in justice, she would’ve confessed to telling the massive lies she told during the FBI’s investigation.