The reason for my absence yesterday...

I mentioned earlier today that yesterday was absolutely insane for me. The Junior Logician is on his schools soccer team and they had an away game yesterday afternoon and I had to follow that with a meeting with several local political activists who had gotten together to discuss the upcoming election. However, the really exciting part of the day was yesterday afternoon.

I got a call late Wednesday from a friend who invited me to attend a luncheon in downtown Minneapolis. The featured speaker was Mary Matalin - former advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney. She was there to raise money for Congressman Mark Kennedy's campaign for Senate. She spoke about how important the Upper Midwest was for the Republican Party (which is why the RNC Convention was awarded to the Twin Cities) and how the pundits see Minnesota as the number 1 pick up opportunity for the GOP!

She talked about how "conventional wisdom" said that the 2006 mid-terms would be a veritable "tsunami" sweeping Democrats into power. She said that conventional wisdom was based on 3 items.

1) a surge of angry Democratic voters - you know the ones....the denizens of websites like the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post and on television shows like Countdown with Keith Olberman...the blind, purple rage that drives the Democratic base. However this rage is not a cathartic, usefull type of rage...it is a tantrum that does not produce answers - only more questions.

2) a surge of rage within the Conservative base. We heard the claims in the days leading up to the primary election in Minnesota...claims of how Sue Jeffers had so much support because "no one" wanted the stadium deal that Governor Pawlenty "foisted" on the people. Well, when push came to shove, that Conservative rage didn't appear. Ms. Jeffers garnered a paltry 12% of the vote.

3) running against President Bush. The problem with that is that President Bush is not on the ballot!

The good news (for Republicans) is that people are focusing on individual candidates and their positions. In that respect, but Congressman Kennedy and Amy Klobuchar have public records that voters can view. Congressman Kennedy's record is for allowing taxpayers to keep more of their hard earned money. Ms. Klobuchar's record - a 35% increase in crime in Minneapolis. Congressman Kennedy supports finishing the job in Iraq and has voted appropriately. Ms. Klobuchar advocates leaving by the end of 2007.

Ms. Matalin spoke about how 9/11 effected her. She talked about the panic that she felt not knowing where her children were when the planes hit the Pentagon (as they live near the Pentagon). She said that there is a lot of denial when it comes to the Global War on Terror - that the average American does not have the mindset or tools to understand the nature of the evil that uses children as suicide bombers or that blows up women and children...that we don't have the tools to understand a global caliphate...that this fight will be neither short, nor pretty, nor cheap. She said that the war (in Iraq) was not about stockpiles of weapons, but capability and intent - something we will need to deal with regarding Iran and North Korea. These are hard issues that we must deal with if we are to survive.

Women are, according to Ms. Matalin, are transforming the globe. They are a large portion of the fastest growing sector of the economy - small business. Small business builds the wealth in this country and those are the people that will get hit the hardest should the Democrats take control of Congress and repeal the Bush tax cuts. The "rich" that they say are the only ones that they will hit are the small business owners of America - 2/3 of whom are women! We need to ask ourselves, when we thing about "making a change" what are we changing to? For decisions we make today impact our kids and their kids. We need to go with the common sense, practical solution for the issues today.

Mary Matalin is another one of those wonderful logical ladies that are the focus of this blog. It was a great pleasure to spend the afternoon listening to her talk about the future and where we can take it. All in all it was time very well spent!

Personal responsibility!

First they came for tobacco, then they came for theater popcorn, then they came for foie gras, now they are coming for all trans fats.

"Thousands of city eateries may have to revise their recipes for French fries, doughnuts, cookies, and other baked goods under a proposal by the Bloomberg administration to ban the use of trans fats in all restaurants across the five boroughs."

Why would the City of New York impose such a ban? Because of "health concerns"...

"The city wants to force restaurants to remove the artery-clogging acids within two years as part of the administration's most aggressive health policy push since it banned smoking in bars and restaurants three years ago. A separate proposal would require many fast-food chains to prominently display calorie information on menus and menu boards."

It is well past time for people to start taking responsibility for their own actions. I realize that this is a radical thought, but it is a radical thought whose time has come!

Light posting

Yesterday was an insane day for me yesterday. I will give you all an update later this afternoon.

Meanwhile here are a couple of quick links for your morning reading.

Foreign Pilots training illegally in the US

Rockets still hitting Israel

Egypt bans European papers for comments on Islam

I may comment on the last one later.

Playing politics with National Security

For those of us who are political junkies this will come as no surprise, but the Democrats are (again) playing politics with our national security!

"Senate Democrats are blocking Republicans from passing several of their top legislative priorities this week, including new border fencing, two of the Bush administration's key counterterrorism programs and a drastic reduction in the estate tax."

The ironic thing about this story is that the Democrats are the ones accusing the Republican majority of presiding over a "do-nothing" Congress! No some (like the Logical Husband) would say that is a very good thing, however with the country fighting global terrorism that is not all good. Regardless of how you feel on that, this just goes to prove the theory that the DNC are masters of projection, accusing the Republicans of doing what the Dems are really doing, whether they are doing it or not.

What happened to honor?

Honor - you know that old-fashioned sense of fairness, integrity, honesty and respect. Well that sense of honor seems to be sincerely lacking in todays politics. Take a look at some of the "highlights" for the last few weeks.

We have the supporter of one candidate hacking another candidate's website in order to steal an unfinished campaign add. Then the candidate in question, who swore that they were not using the data found in the ad, started running push polling based on the data in the unfinished ad.

We have a staffer of another candidate posing as the supporter of his bosses opponent on an blog so that he could post messages intimating that the polling that showed the race as close was wrong.

We have another candidate whose supporters are making claims that his opponent made racial "slurs" back when he was a college student...claims that are debunked by the candidates college classmates.

Then we have one party's national committee claiming to have "accidentally" found a flaw in the other's activist database that leaves the activists personal information open to any and all who access the site and then they announced the flaw to the press and the whole world!

Then there are the multitude of leaks in Washington DC...leaks of classified information to the press.

"What happened to honor? Among our elected and appointed officials? A sense of honor still prevails within our military and among hundreds of thousands of government employees. Honor still prevails in much of our community life. Many Americans beyond the Beltway maintain a strong sense of personal and professional honor.
But honor's dead in Washington. And at "leading" universities (where patriotism, too, is beneath contempt). And in the media. Honor isn't hip. It's as pathetic as a powder-blue, polyester leisure suit.
To journalists and members of Congress, the concept of honor is so alien it's incomprehensible. If you can grab a headline, no matter the cost to your country, tell our secrets - and win an award for your "courage."

Well, that pretty much tells us what happened to honor in this country. If you are in the press, universities or Washington DC honor is dead. I guess that tells us all exactly what to expect out of the next 40 days. Dirty tricks (mostly on the Democratic side...let's face it that is where most of the current examples come from) are going to be the staple of the campaign. Republicans can either sit back and let their opponents slime them or they can fight back...and if they fight back the voters had best take a step back so that they don't get hit in the cross fire.

Well, well, well...

It appears that we are not the only ones that are talking about debating what to do about the problems inherent with open borders...

"European justice ministers clashed Thursday over how to solve Europe's spiraling migration crisis, with countries arguing over who was to blame and who should foot the bill.
More than 23,000 migrants have flooded into the Canary Islands of Spain so far this year, and more than 6,000 have reached Malta since 2002 - the per-capita equivalent of a million new people arriving in Germany."

You know...with all of the grief that we Americans have been getting over the last year out of the oh so enlightened Europeans about how we were over-reacting to the uncontrolled immigration, this story becomes even more ironic. Do you suppose that maybe now the left will understand what the rest of us have been talking about? Somehow I doubt it...

Big coup for Minnesota Republicans

I don't normally post while working, but this news was too grand to wait.

"Republicans Pick Twin Cities For '08 Convention
(AP) WASHINGTON Republicans have chosen the Twin Cities of Minneapolis-St. Paul -- in the politically pivotal Midwest -- for the 2008 presidential convention, GOP officials said Wednesday.The selection was expected to be announced later in the day, said the Republican officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The convention is slated for Sept. 1-4."

This is big news for a purple state like Minnesota. It will be interesting to see if this has any effect on November 7.

Have they no shame?

Those of us who live in Minnesota remember the Paul Wellstone memorial service. Billed as a "non-partisan" event, it quickly devolved into a DFL pep rally...to the point where one speaker exhorted Republican office holders in the audience were encouraged to switch parties in order to "honor Paul". Then there was the Coretta Scott King funeral...

Well there was yet another one.

"U.S. Rep. Jim Moran, D-8th, lauded the “perfect professionalism” of Arlington's public-safety personnel, who responded to the Pentagon after the crash and won worldwide accolades for containing the damage with no additional loss of life...But Moran then maneuvered into more sensitive ground, suggesting that the country was not safer and intimating that the Bush administration's foreign policy was headed in the wrong directions.“More people hate us,” Moran said, a comment that drew an outburst from the crowd."

Sigh....I know this has been asked repeatedly, but have they no shame? Is there nothing that they won't turn into a political rally?

I hate to say this, but it is just another indicator that the Democrats will do and say anything and everything that they think will restore their power. Whether it is hacking their opponent's website or turning a memorial service into a political rally, nothing is beyond the pale if it helps them win elections. Granted, they would never extend the same courtesy to the Republicans, but that is another rant for another day...

Secure votes

Slowly, the battle over voter ID is getting media attention. This is good news as it also showcases some of the dirty tricks that the Dems are willing to use in order to cheat.

"Hearne said he was inspired to delve into the details of election law after 2000, when on election day he found himself in court arguing against a move by Democrats to delay the closing of some St. Louis polling sites.
"They were arguing for a plaintiff who wound up to be dead. It was a fiction," he said. "I thought I had walked into a John Grisham novel."
Weeks later, Hearne joined GOP lawyers in Broward County, Fla., examining dimpled chads and other disputed ballots in the presidential contest.Hearne said he did not coordinate with the Republican Party, and he vigorously denied that his goal was to suppress Democratic votes."

It has been argued that in this day of free state issued photo ID, the Democrats argument that this is a "burdensome" requirement that equates to a modern day "poll tax" lack merit. However, what bothers me is this;

"The chief sponsor of Georgia’s voter identification law told the Justice Department that if black people in her district “are not paid to vote, they don’t go to the polls,” and that if fewer blacks vote as a result of the new law, it is only because it would end such voting fraud." (emphasis in the original).

Excuse me???? If they don't get paid to vote, they don't vote? The stunning thing (to me) is that a) the sponsor of the Georgia Voter ID bill actually said this and b) that the Dems are actually excusing this! I'm sorry, but paying people to vote is ILLEGAL already!

The argument that requiring voters to show proof of their residency is burdensome is ludicrous! They have to show ID to collect and cash welfare and unemployment checks. No one calls that requirement burdensome.

Voter ID is an idea whose time has come. Those who fight it do so at their own peril. For why would you want to fight elections where cheating doesn't happen....unless you are the ones benefitting from the cheating...

Why is health care so expensive?

The Democrats are championing universal health care - saying that health care/insurance is so expensive that people are doing without. Well here are two reasons why health care is so expensive.

"The teenager who hasn't had a date. The woman married 30 years to a devoted husband. The celibate priest.
These are among the millions of Americans who may soon undergo their first HIV tests -- not because of any high-risk behavior, but because federal officials believe testing should be routine for all Americans ages 13 to 64."

"Michigan State Senator Beverly Hammerstrom wants to vaccinate all 6th grade girls against cervical cancer. Actually, she wants to vaccinate them all against strains of human papilloma virus (HPV), specifically the types that cause 90% of genital warts and 70% of cervical cancer cases. Because these high risk HPVs are sexually transmitted, experts argue it is best to administer the vaccine before girls become sexually active."

Anytime you start mandating what tests to give to whom and what vaccines to give to whom, then you are driving the price of health care up and up and up and up....but then again that is what the Dems want. Drive up the cost so that individuals can't afford it and then the people will look to nanny government to make it all better for them.

If they really wanted to help, they would get the heck out of the way and let the people take care of themselves.

More McCain Feingold follies

I thought that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was supposed to get rid of this sort of activity?

"A mysterious $250,000 donation used to bankroll a political committee controlled by a potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, John Edwards, highlights a gap in federal laws requiring reporting of political contributions.

In June, a closely held company gave a quarter of a million dollars to the One America Committee, a so-called 527 organization affiliated with Mr. Edwards, who became the Democrats' vice presidential nominee in 2004 after making a spirited but ultimately unsuccessful bid for the presidential nomination."

One quarter of a million dollars???? Anonymously??????

Senators McCain and Feingold should be apologize profusely to the people of America and then, after they pass the bill to outlaw this junk legislation, they both need to resign in disgrace! Then maybe the people of America can finally get real campaign finance reform.

Torture

The UK Guardian released the details of the "torture" techniques that the CIA wants to use against al Qaeda suspects.

"The techniques sought by the CIA are: induced hypothermia; forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods; sleep deprivation; a technique called "the attention grab" where a suspect's shirt is forcefully seized; the "attention slap" or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damage; the "belly slap"; and sound and light manipulation."

Well if that is what the Senate is all up in arms about, I have to wonder how any of them survived childhood. After all, if I messed up my parents were not above the forcefully grabbing my shirt or using an "attention slap" and I issued (and received) more than my fair share of "pink bellies" growing up. I also wonder how they survived raising their own children. How many parents suffered with sleep deprivation, hypothermia and were forced to stand for long periods of time with our children as they were sick! How many of them used "light and sound manipulation" to force a recalcitrant child to go to sleep or force a sleepy teen-ager out of bed in the morning!

Now I realize that there is a degree of difference between the sleep deprivation that the parent of a newborn experiences verses what is done to these detainees, but come on...seizing someones shirt or slapping them in the face is HARDLY a violation of the Geneva Convention. If that were the case, then you would need to arrest a majority of the high school students in the US. There is hardly a one that has not grabbed a classmate by the collar or been grabbed by the collar him/herself!

I think we need to apply a little common sense to the situation. Grabbing shirts or an open handed slap is not degrading or dehumanizing. Cutting off their heads and burning them with cigarettes are. Americans are not the ones that are torturing people here...the jihadists are. We need to remember that little fact!

Hope?

Three articles were published this week that gave me hope that maybe, just maybe, people are waking up about the threat of radical Islam. First was this in the (London) Times online about "Why the Pope was right":

"Benedict did give offence — but no great religion should be immune from difficult questions
JOURNALISTS SHOULD NOT criticise Pope Benedict XVI for his lecture at Regensburg. He has done only what every sub-editor on the Daily Mail does every day. Confronted with a long and closely written text, he inserted a lively quote to draw attention to the argument. We all do it. Sometimes the quote causes trouble, but more often it opens up an argument that is needed.
The question is not whether the quotation from the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus is offensive: it is. The question is whether the emperor is justified in what he said. His main thrust was at least partly justified. There is a real problem about the teaching of the Koran on violence against the infidel. That existed in the 14th century, and was demonstrated on 9/11, 2001. There is every reason to discuss it. I am more afraid of silence than offence."

The second was out of Der Spiegel and it was an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali (whom I mentioned here). The title says it all..."Everyone is afraid to criticize Islam".

"SPIEGEL: Was apologizing for the cartoons the wrong thing to do?
Hirsi Ali: Once again, the West pursued the principle of turning first one cheek, then the other. In fact, it's already a tradition. In 1980, privately owned British broadcaster ITV aired a documentary about the stoning of a Saudi Arabian princess who had allegedly committed adultery. The government in Riyadh intervened and the British government issued an apology. We saw the same kowtowing response in 1987 when (Dutch comedian) Rudi Carrell derided (Iranian revolutionary leader) Ayatollah Khomeini in a comedy skit (that was aired on German television). In 2000, a play about the youngest wife of the Prophet Mohammed, titled "Aisha," was cancelled before it ever opened in Rotterdam. Then there was the van Gogh murder and now the cartoons. We are constantly apologizing, and we don't notice how much abuse we're taking. Meanwhile, the other side doesn't give an inch." (emphasis mine)

The more I hear this brave woman speak, the more I am in total awe of her. She should be held up by women everywhere as a model of doing what is right no matter what the consequences. I hope that, should the day ever come when I am in here shoes, that I can be as steadfast and as resolute as Ms. Hirsi Ali!

Lastly is this from the magazine Global Politician.

"A radical Islamic group which advocates execution for Islamic defectors is still operating legally in Britain—at least for the moment. That despite a promised ban on the group by British Prime Minister Tony Blair in Aug. 2005 after the 7/7 terrorist attacks on London. Hizb ut Tahrir, which has its international headquarters in London, has far-reaching and radical aims. Group members would like to reestablish Islamic rule throughout the Muslim world, an idea inspired by the medieval Arabic caliphate, which ruled, in part, from Saudi Arabia to southern Spain. Though Hizb ut Tahrir has come under closer inspection by the British government, its activities have not yet been banned. However, it appears that may be changing with new evidence about the group coming to light."

If Comrade Nicky is really concerned about a religious indoctrination, he would be wise to read this article. If there is a religious group to be afraid of, this is it!

I have had the distinct honor of getting to know Dr. Bruce Tefft, the director of CRA-USA's Terrorism Assessment Center. I have written posts based on his insight in the past. His insight into radical Islam has been valuable to me as it has helped me understand the geo-political nature of radical Islam. More people need to understand just what it is that we are up against. Hopefully, as stories like this hit the press more and more, we are on our way to finally understanding the threat of radical Islam and the closer we are to finally winning the Global War on Terror.

Illegal Immigration and the states

Earlier this year, Governor Pawlenty released a report that showed the problems that the state faces as a result of illegal immigration. The report was commissioned in order for policy makers to have the information necessary in order to deal with the costs of illegal immigration. He then released several proposals on what the state could do to combat illegal immigration. The nay-sayers in the DFL were quick to respond - saying that immigration enforcement was a federal responsibility, plus it didn't really bother us as we are not on the southern border. When they finally did get into the discussion, they still refused to address illegal immigration!

Well illegal immigration is an issue that the state needs to address. The number of illegal immigrants in Minnesota has gone up an amazing 467% since 1994 according the the Pew Hispanic Center! More surprisingly was the fact that Minnesota has a higher percentage of illegal immigrants living in our borders than New Mexico (a southern border state) does. More surprisingly - the upper Midwest (Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota) has a combined higher population of illegal immigrants than Arizona, another Southern border state, does.

The states need to step up and take care of what goes on within their borders. The federal government does need to enforce our international borders, but the states need to address the other issues that make illegal immigration a hot button issue with voters. Ignoring it will not make it go away, but it will help you loose elections!

Be very afraid....

That is the theme of today's Nick Coleman column. Now when it comes to fisking Comrade Nicky, no one does it better (or snarkier) than the guys at KAR, except maybe for my new friend Mitch Berg over at Shot in The Dark. However, as an evangelical Christian (the demon in Comrade Nicky's column today) with a child at Christian camp, I feel duty bound to respond.

"Holy war is coming. Thank you, Jesus.

That's the tone of a disturbing new documentary called "Jesus Camp." The film, by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady, takes us to a Bible camp called "Kids On Fire," where the children of evangelical Christians are indoctrinated in a militant faith that sees nonbelievers as opponents and secular government as an enemy to overthrow."

Note the early use of "indoctrinated" and "militant faith" in connection to Christians, something that the politically correct doyennes on Portland Avenue would NEVER allow in an article about Islamic madrassas!

"But "Jesus Camp" shows what may be in store for us when millions reject the idea of separation of church and state and want to create a Christian State ready to do battle for Christ.
We get kids in combat fatigues, their faces painted in camouflage colors, who sob, speak in tongues and pray for Jesus to re-make America in his image. Or, more accurately, to re-make it according to the plan of the adults who are turning these children into good little Evangelical mujahaddin."

I knew that old Comrade Nicky wouldn't disappoint - using mujahaddin had to come into play. I know that he could not resist equating evangelical Christians with Islamic jihadists. It was too obvious!

"Pumped up in the Lord, the kids grab hammers and smash crockery labeled "government," sending the shards flying while adult leaders urge them to "give up your lives for Jesus" and "break the power of our enemies in government."
It's not clear who the enemies are, but we know who they aren't: There's a scene showing the kids praying before a cardboard cut-out of President George W. Bush. "

Comrade Nicky is nothing if not predictable! The only surprise here is that it took a whole 5 paragraphs to work President Bush into the column. After all, President Bush is the emobdiment of all that is "wrong" (according to the mullahs of Portland Avenue) with Evangelical Christianity.

"When a precocious 9-year-old girl, on fire for the Lord, accosts some elderly black men and asks what will happen to them when they die, they answer they expect to go to Heaven. Rattled, and without a reason to preach, she walks away and mutters: "I think they were Muslims."

Muslims are the enemy, along with liberals and the shadowy forces of secularism and humanism who want us to believe in evolution and the Big Bang."

HELLOOOOOOOO Comrade!!!!! It is not "Muslims" that are the enemy, it is radical Islam and the radical Islamists are the ones that said FROM THE OUTSET that they consider all Americans to be the enemy. Especially the secularists....you see, Comrade, evangelical Christians are not the only ones who think that secularism is ruining the world. Let's not forget just WHO stones women for being "unchaste", who torture and imprison gays, who censors what books and movies and music is heard by the people, who has government agencies that dictate what form of religion is practiced in their country. It sure as hell is NOT evangelical Christians!

"All while here, on the prairie, Christian groups were urging voters to "make wise Biblical choices about how to vote in November."
Well, Christians, maybe it's time to pray for peace and to vote not just on Biblical principles, but specifically on New Testament principles, such as the Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers."

That may be true Comrade, but Christ also taught that we are to follow God's law AND that we are not to "cling" to this life. In another sermon Christ taught that we can not serve two masters (God and the world) and that we must make a conscious decision on whom we will serve. Maybe if our children knew more about God they wouldn't be shooting each other up on the streets of Amy Klobuchar's Minneapolis!

Lastly, I have to go back to this statement;

"..."Jesus Camp" shows what may be in store for us when millions reject the idea of separation of church and state and want to create a Christian State ready to do battle for Christ."

The Constitution makes no mention what-so-ever of a "separation of church and state". The only mention of church and state (in the Constitution) is the passage in the 1st Amendment that states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." The same 1st Amendment that guarantees you the rights to a free press, gives me the right to worship in the manner of my choosing and to raise my child in that manner and anytime your government schools interfere in those rights (which they do with great regularity) they are just as guilty of violating the Constitution as they would be if they were promoting my religion! It works both ways, Comrade...something you would be wise to remember.

Gridlock!

On November 7, Minnesota voters will get the opportunity to vote on an amendment to the state constitution. No, the Defense of Marriage Act did not make it out of the Senate. This amendment is for "roads". At least that is what its defenders will tell you. However, if you read the wording of the amendment, you quickly realize that is not an accurate statement. The amendment reads:

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate revenue from a tax (MVST) on the sale of new and used motor vehicles over a five-year period, so that after June 30, 2011, all of the revenue is dedicated at least 40 percent for public transit assistance and not more than 60 percent for highway purposes?” (emphasis mine)

Gridlock (of the vehicular variety) is a hot button issue in the Minnesota Governors race. Governor Pawlenty has taken a lot of heat because a long anticipated reworking of the 35W/Highway 62 junction (commonly known as the Crosstown Commons) was put on hold due to a lack of funds. One very large reason for the lack of DOT funding has to do with something the state inherited from Governor Ventura...the Minneapolis to Mall of America light rail boondoggle called the Hiawatha Line! The state of Minnesota spent $840 million to build 12 miles of track. Much of that money was borrowed and we had to pay it back over the last 4-5 years!

There is talk now of building along the "Central Corridor" of University Avenue - estimated cost is $930m for 11 miles of track. Given that the Hiawatha line was orignally scheduled to cost Minnesota taxpayers $530m, you can safely add 1/2 again as much to the estimated cost of the Central Corridor line meaning, we are looking at an approximate cost of $1.4 billion dollars to build the Central Corridor line! Currently, 31% of the annual amount of MVST goes to paying for "mass transit". Considering that the proponents of this bill say that the additional revenue increase of this amendment will be roughly $300m, if you take that and every penny currently spent on mass transit (31% of $558m or roughly $173m) it will take almost 3 years of dedicating just that money to pay for the Central Corridor. None of the additional money would be available to go to bridges and roads!

Now I know that Governor Pawlenty has "promised" that this additional money would all go to roads and bridges, but the way this amendment is worded that is no guarantee. The amendment states that no more than 60% will go to roads and bridges! Conversely, that means that 40% must be spent on mass transit! I won't even go into the fact that this amendment guarantees that most of the MVST money will be spent in the Cities of Minneapolis and St Paul. Let's face it, I don't see much need for mass transit in Warroad, do you? In order to garner "fairness" to the whole state, you must take roads money out of the Cities (since we get all of the mass transit money) which puts us back to square on the Crosstown Commons Project.

Mass transit is NOT the answer to this states transportation woes. More mass transit will not ease traffic on 35W and 494 as long as the rail routes don't go where the people are. If you want mass trasit, build commuter rail lines that parallel the major interstate highways (like Chicago, Altanta and San Francisco). THAT is the answer to gridlocked Minneapolis roadways.

Lies, Damned lies and statistics

Living in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, we hear ALL the good anti-gun stories. Well this column calls those stories what they are - DUMB!

"The positions of most urban liberals on firearms are dumb, dumber and dumbest.

It is dumb to suppose that the way to decrease crime is to make sure all potential victims of violent crime are disarmed. It is dumber yet to believe that a criminal will obey a gun-control law. No bank robber or rapist has ever set out and then stopped and said, "Gosh, I don't have a permit for this weapon, so I guess I'd better not rob that bank or rape that girl." No serial killer has ever said: "Gosh, I can't kill this person with an unregistered weapon. That would be against the law."

You can't argue with that, although that has never stopped the anti-gun forces in the Cities from trying. Especially when they were arguing against the Minnesota Conceal Carry Reform bill.

I especially liked this paragraph.

"The dumbest idea is to suppose that an inanimate object can turn a noncriminal into a criminal. To believe that guns cause crime is as stupid as believing that hammers and saws cause houses. It is the grossest kind of mindless superstition to suppose that some magical qualities of an inanimate object can overpower the human will."

We hear this all the time out of our resident media. Whenever there is a fatal car accident that involves an SUV the headline reads "SUV involved in accident". Whenever there is a shooting at a home that has been the source of numerous police calls the headline reads "Shooting at troubled house". Heck - I even heard on local radio news reader use the term "killer spinach" when reading a story about the recent e-coli outbreak! To the media, accidents don't happen. It is always a "preventable tragedy" and it is only preventable by having the government spend millions of dollars on "education". They never focus on the human element. Even with smoking. According to our media, no smokers were ever killed because the ignored the health risks and made the foolish decision to smoke...it was always the cigarettes that killed them regardless of the fact that the cigarette can not light itself!

"A gun is neither a romantic nor a sinister object. It is just a plain tool, like a hammer, a saw or a router. It can be used for recreation, and it can be used for self-defense. Like a chain saw, it can hurt its owner if the owner is careless or stupid. But the modern firearm is inherently safe. The gun cannot load itself or fire itself. Properly stored and used, it is safer than a stepladder or a swimming pool or an automobile. It is even safer than eating."

Oh look at that....a gun can not load or fire itself.....isn't that what I just said?????

The author then goes on to list the real statistics about firearms deaths in America. Guess what kids...it's not nearly as high as Mayor Ryback would have you believe. It is something that you really should read and save for future debate.

Cindy Sheehan strikes again!

Dean Barnett brings this lovely little tidbit to our attention.

"Secondly, I do not want one of my brothers or sisters in humanity tortured to "protect me." I don't want you using me, as an American, to endorse your sadistic policies. If one of my fellow human beings has to be tortured to give me a false sense of security, then I don't want it. "

I was going to add this to my post on pacifism, but it was just so choice that it deserved to have a spot all it's own. This is why we are in so much trouble. As long as the Cindy Sheehan's of the world refuse to understand that this is life and death, we are doomed to fight this war on two fronts and as long as the Cindy Sheehan's of the world are allowed to drive the dialog, the Islamists will win.

Can we talk?

One thing I just don't get.....why the so-called Womens Rights movement continues to ignore the threat to women that is radical Islam. Under the Taliban's rule, women were held prisioner in their own home. They could not work, or go to school or even go to the market without a male escort! They were bought and sold as chattel at the whim of their husbands or fathers.

Ah but the Taliban is history you say. True, but that does not mean that the anti-woman mindset is. Take a look at what has happened in "enlightened" Europe to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. This Somali born Muslim woman has had the audacity to speak her mind about the radicals and she even ran for (and was elected to) public office. She partnered with Theo Van Gogh in the making of the movie "Submission", the film that cost Van Gogh his life at the hands of an Islamist. For her role, Hirsi Ali had to live in a police station - under 24 hour guard. When the Islamists couldn't reach her there, they got her Dutch citizenship revoked. Hirsi Ali has since moved to the US because of her treatment by the oh so enlightened Dutch.

Or consider this story out of the "moderate" kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

"JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia — Officials are considering an unprecedented proposal to ban women from performing the five Muslim prayers in the immediate vicinity of Islam's most sacred shrine in Mecca. Some say women are already being kept away."

So one of the absolute MUSTS of Islam, women are being prohibited from doing because they are women! Women do not have any rights under Islam and yet I do not hear a peep out of those who complain that the Catholic Church is "repressive"...

This article addresses the main complaint I have heard out of most Americans vis a vis the elusive "moderate" Muslim.

"Recent articles about a Muslim woman doctor, who received death threats after speaking out on Al-Jazirah network against Muslim hardliners and terrorists, has been generating publicity for the right people and for a well justified cause that seldom gets enough attention, even though it would work to our advantage in the war against terrorism.Everyone wants to fight terrorism, but we seldom see any mention of Muslims who are fighting against hardliners and terrorists. That is what causes many people to question whether Muslims really mean what they say. "

It explains why you don't hear a lot of "moderate" Muslims speaking out. It also gives you a sense of why women in Islam don't speak out. Considering that women are still stoned in the Middle East and in other Islamic countries for "acts incompatable with chastity" it is not a stretch to understand why they don't speak out about the abuse that they recieve in the name of "family honor".

There is still a lot of work that needs to be done in order to make certain that the moderates are willing and able to speak out. Until that time, those of us in freer countries need to give voice to their suffering. It is up to us to tell their stories and it is up to those of us who want them to speak out to support and encourage, rather than harrangue them for not speaking out. I know it is hard, but it is something that we can and should do.

Pacificism

This article takes a look the phenomonon that I first talked about here.

"September 11 has lent me one of the most nettlesome mental challenges I have ever encountered — seeking coherence in the leftist orthodoxy on what has happened since. For me, especially confusing is those who rue our not having met 9/11 with "pacifism."
To wrap one's head around others' views and perceive how those views are compatible with intelligence and morality is an urgent task. But I have been just barely adequate to it when encountering a Berkeley professor who vehemently opposed our attacking Afghanistan, or another who thought that we should turn the other cheek to terrorist attacks."

The author asks if these pacificsts would maintain their pacifism if they had a family member who had been killed in the attacks. The answer, sadly, is yes. Many that I have spoken to in Minnesota have said just that. He then speaks a truth that these pacifists refuse to realize:

"There would seem to be a prescription for the public sphere that one exempts one's actual self from. Or if the motivation is not this selfish, then there is, at least, an interesting dissociation of self from one's civic position. A professor at a talk I gave in early 2003 condemned the Bush Administration's "militarism" and the room exploded with applause (and this was before the Iraq war). Somehow people like this, so repulsed by America defending itself, seem unaware of the fact that the America Islamic terrorists despise includes them."

He also addresses those that think that the threat of more terrorism is "exhaggerated":

"But as to "pacifism" über alles, the carnage in Al Qaeda attacks abroad is not a lie, nor is what the Mayor New Orleans, Ray Nagin, has so felicitously called a "hole in the ground" in New York. The people doing this don't want to chat. Surely there is some sense in finding and stopping the ones we can find. I pass aforesaid "hole" riding the PATH train to New Jersey, and when I hear that there was a plot to blow up one of its tunnels and drown thousands of people, I'm uncomfortable."

The people doing this DON'T want dialog. They want submission. Just take a look at what their reaction to Pope Benedict's speech has been.

Oh please, oh please

Yes Al....Please run again! It would be so much fun.

Please Al........we're begging you. Run again in 2008!

When a right is not a right....

When it is the right to self-defense and the U.N. is involved.

"UN report proclaims self-defense is not a right
Posted by David Hardy · 30 August 2006 06:40 PM
A report (pdf format) submitted by Barbara Frey, Special Rapporteur, whatever that is, to the UN Human Rights Councils's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, whatever that is.
Re-reading it, I think the point is that the Special Rapper wants to class self-defense as something less than a "right" (i.e., as a manner of criminal defense) because if it were recognized as a "right" it would be something governments would be bound to guarantee -- and that leads right to Prof. Glenn Harlan Reynold's argument that a right to arms should be guaranteed as an international right."

The UN feels that our 2nd Amendment rights are not rights! I wonder what other rights the UN feels are not really rights?

When a right is not a right....

When it is the right to self-defense and the U.N. is involved.

"UN report proclaims self-defense is not a right
Posted by David Hardy · 30 August 2006 06:40 PM
A report (pdf format) submitted by Barbara Frey, Special Rapporteur, whatever that is, to the UN Human Rights Councils's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, whatever that is.
Re-reading it, I think the point is that the Special Rapper wants to class self-defense as something less than a "right" (i.e., as a manner of criminal defense) because if it were recognized as a "right" it would be something governments would be bound to guarantee -- and that leads right to Prof. Glenn Harlan Reynold's argument that a right to arms should be guaranteed as an international right."

The UN feels that our 2nd Amendment rights are not rights! I wonder what other rights the UN feels are not really rights?

The 20 year plan

This is frightening and at the same time so very prescent given what the Pope is going through right now.

1. Terminate America's freedom of speech by replacing it with statewide and nationwide hate-crime bills.
2. Wage a war of words using black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jesse Jackson and other visible religious personalities who promote Islam as the religion of African-Americans while insisting Christianity is for whites only. What they fail to tell African-Americans is that it was Arab Muslims who captured them and sold them as slaves. In fact, the Arabic word for black and slave is the same, ''Abed.''
3. Engage the American public in dialogues, discussions, debates in colleges, universities, public libraries, radio, TV, churches and mosques on the virtues of Islam. Proclaim how it is historically another religion like Judaism and Christianity with the same monotheistic faith.
4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office to bring about favorable legislation toward Islam and support potential sympathizers by block voting.
5. Take control of as much of Hollywood, the press, TV, radio and the Internet as possible by buying the related corporations or a controlling stock.
6. Yield to the fear of the imminent shut-off of the lifeblood of America – black gold. America’s economy depends on oil and 41 percent of it comes from the Middle East.
7. Yell ''foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un- American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran'' anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.
8. Encourage Muslims to penetrate the White House, specifically with Islamists who can articulate a marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam. Acquire government positions and get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as medical doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. (Ever notice how numerous Muslim doctors in America are, when their countries need them more desperately than America?) Take over the computer industry. Establish Middle Eastern restaurants throughout the U.S. to connect planners of Islamization in a discreet way.
9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:
Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961).
Use no birth control whatsoever – every baby of Muslim parents is automatically a Muslim and cannot choose another religion later.
Muslim men must marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually). Then divorce them and remarry every five years – since one can't legally marry four at one time. This is a legal solution in America.
Convert angry, alienated black inmates and turn them into militants (so far 2,000 released inmates have joined al-Qaida worldwide). Only a few ''sleeper cells'' have been captured in Afghanistan and on American soil.
10. Reading, writing, arithmetic and research through the American educational system, mosques and student centers (now 1,500) should be sprinkled with dislike of Jews, evangelical Christians and democracy. There are currently 300 exclusively Muslim schools in the U.S. which teach loyalty to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution. In January of 2002, Saudi Arabia’s Embassy in Washington mailed 4,500 packets of the Quran and videos promoting Islam to America's high schools – free of charge. Saudi Arabia would not allow the U.S. to reciprocate.
11. Provide very sizeable monetary Muslim grants to colleges and universities in America to establish ''Centers for Islamic studies'' with Muslim directors to promote Islam in higher-education institutions.
12. Let the entire world know through propaganda, speeches, seminars, local and national media that terrorists have hijacked Islam, when in truth, Islam hijacked the terrorists.
13. Appeal to the historically compassionate and sensitive Americans for sympathy and tolerance towards Muslims in America who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.
14. Nullify America's sense of security by manipulating the intelligence community with misinformation. Periodically terrorize Americans with reports of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls.
15. Form riots and demonstrations in the prison system demanding Islamic Sharia as the way of life, not America's justice system.
16. Open numerous charities throughout the U.S., but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism with American dollars.
17. Raise interest in Islam on America's campuses by insisting freshman take at least one course on Islam.
18. Unify the numerous Muslim lobbies in Washington, mosques, Islamic student centers, educational organizations, magazines and papers by Internet and an annual convention to coordinate plans, propagate the faith and engender news in the media.
19. Send intimidating messages and messengers to the outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by hook or crook.
20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the U.S. by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethic groups in America.

More on the 20 year plan here.

Did you know...

that Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) was in town this past weekend? He was and he was campaigning for Coleen Rowley! Honest!!! However, if you were relying on our metro media outlets to report on it, you would have never found out about it. Thankfully for my dear readers, yours truly had friends who were there and reported back on the festivities.

There was a morning press conference in Bloomington (which is not in the 2nd District the last I looked) that was attended by one local lefty blogger. No press - just a single blogger!

The noon "public" meeting was surprisingly well attended (surprisingly because last Sunday was the Vikings football home opener). Rep Jim Oberstar (MN 8th) was there and took umbrage at a sign that chided him for his support of a gas tax at the time when gas was over $3.00 per gallon. The Rowley supporters made sure to greet the gathered opposition with the standard DFL salute that they give Republicans and their candidates - the 1 fingered variety!

All arrivals to the "free public" meeting were hit HARD for campaign contributions - which is in direct violation of the VFW's charter regarding political fundraising on site.

The comments (from the Rowley supporters) centered on President Bush and when reminded that the President was not on the ballot, one remarked that the President was a "cocaine snorting alcoholic who was responsibile for the deaths of 2000 soldiers! So deep is their hatred of the President that they can not see that he is not on the ballot.

Probably the funniest thing (to me anyway) about the whole protest was a sign that was carried by a young man of about 12 or 13. The sign said "Don't Draft Me!" - no doubt referring to Ms. Rowley's comment in her debate on the Jack Rice program where she said that it was necessary to reinstitute the draft!

I hope to have comments from inside the VFW for another post. Depending on how quickly my sources can get back to me.

Sound familiar?

It was overrun by illegal immigrants, who at first assimilated and did the jobs that "citizens" wouldn't do but later didn't, it's army was spread thin in conflicts throughout the world. It had a huge trade deficit with it's trade partners and was outsourcing many of it's essential jobs. "Asian" terrorists were attacking it's outposts and more of the citizens of it's capital were on welfare than there were supporting the welfare recepients. The citizens preferred violence for their entertainment and immorality and injustice were rampant.

The US today? No, Rome in the days before her fall. Will America wake up and learn a lesson from the past or are we doomed to repeat it? It's up to us.

The 5th-Century historian Salvian wrote: "O Roman people be ashamed...Let nobody think otherwise, the vices of our bad lives have alone conquered us." If we are not ashamed, soon some philosopher will be saying the same thing about America.

Life changes

For those that may have seen the posts over at Savage Republican and were wondering what was going on, it's really nothing. In the last 2 months, I have had a ton of new things heaped on my plate. The time had come when I had to make some choices - pare down a few things in order to move forward and maintain my sanity and my family life. Savage Republican came to me over the weekend and we discussed the issue and we decided that it would be best if we parted company. Some things have changed for him as well which is why the blog Savage Republican is also making a change in direction. I wish the boys the best and I will be following up with them from time to time, both personally and on the blog, as time permits.

Church and state

This story concerned me when I read it.

"Stepping up its probe of allegedly improper campaigning by churches, the Internal Revenue Service on Friday ordered a liberal Pasadena parish to turn over all the documents and e-mails it produced during the 2004 election year with references to political candidates.All Saints Episcopal Church and its rector, the Rev. Ed Bacon, have until Sept. 29 to present the sermons, newsletters and electronic communications.

The IRS investigation was triggered by an antiwar sermon delivered by its former rector, the Rev. George F. Regas, at the church two days before the 2004 presidential election. "

Now I'm sorry, but when a pastor gets up in his own pulpit and preaches that the Bible says "this" is wrong, I don't care if the "this" in question is the war or abortion, the pastor has every right under the Constitution to say so! What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" isn't clear to them.

What is wrong, and what the IRS should be investigating is any church that allows a politician to get up in the pulpit and campaign from there. I don't care if it is a Republican candidate or a Democratic candidate (to be fair - when I did my search for the stories about candidates campaigning from the pulpit the only examples that I could find were Democrats) campaigning from the pulpit is dead wrong and it should be stopped.

Natural Selection

Shortly after the sudden death of Steve "the Crocodile Hunter" Irwin, I had a disussion with a liberal I know about Mr. Irwin's sudden death. The liberal commented on how he had swum with rays in the past that they were not aggressive creatures. I countered that my horses were not "aggressive" either but that due to their natural fight or flight instinct they were still dangerous - same thing with rays.

Several days after that initial conversation the topic of "aggression" came up again. It was in this subsequent conversation that I had an epiphany. I finally think I have figured out liberals. They equate a person's natural instinct for survival - in the form of self defense as aggression. Think about it. A horses natural instinct is to graze and get along with others. When not threatened, they are gentle, beautiful creatures. However, at the sign of a threat, their demeanor changes. Their initial instinct is to take advantage of their awsome speed. However if that fails, they will turn to defend themselves. The majestic heads flatten out, the lips pull back revealing teeth that can crush a human hand. Their dainty, graceful legs become weapons that can be deadly if they catch you right.

Humans don't have the awsome speed, the crushing teeth or the deadly feet, but we still have similar "fight or flight" instincts. We have our brains and then (should our ability to think it out not be enough) we have the ability to use tools for defense. Yet the liberals would deny us the ability to use those tools. They say "negotiate only". They say "don't be aggressive". However, when we are responding to a very real threat and negotiation (thinking) does not work, we have to have options. It is a natural instinct.

Former NY City mayor Ed Koch has noticed this too. In his recent column here, the Mayor notes:

"...I believe that the U.S. is faltering in the current war against international terrorism, and we are losing our will to prevail. We are losing our fighting spirit as a result of the fighting between Republicans and Democrats on just how to prosecute the war."

Da Mare (as it is pronounced in Sweet Home Chicago) is absolutely correct. We are not only losing our will to fight, we are losing our natural instinct to defend ourselves from outside threats. In our quest to be "civilized" human beings, we ignore our internal alarms. We run the risk of losing more than this war if we continue to ignore our natural instinct. Our very lives are at peril every day.

Natural Selection

Shortly after the sudden death of Steve "the Crocodile Hunter" Irwin, I had a disussion with a liberal I know about Mr. Irwin's sudden death. The liberal commented on how he had swum with rays in the past that they were not aggressive creatures. I countered that my horses were not "aggressive" either but that due to their natural fight or flight instinct they were still dangerous - same thing with rays.

Several days after that initial conversation the topic of "aggression" came up again. It was in this subsequent conversation that I had an epiphany. I finally think I have figured out liberals. They equate a person's natural instinct for survival - in the form of self defense as aggression. Think about it. A horses natural instinct is to graze and get along with others. When not threatened, they are gentle, beautiful creatures. However, at the sign of a threat, their demeanor changes. Their initial instinct is to take advantage of their awsome speed. However if that fails, they will turn to defend themselves. The majestic heads flatten out, the lips pull back revealing teeth that can crush a human hand. Their dainty, graceful legs become weapons that can be deadly if they catch you right.

Humans don't have the awsome speed, the crushing teeth or the deadly feet, but we still have similar "fight or flight" instincts. We have our brains and then (should our ability to think it out not be enough) we have the ability to use tools for defense. Yet the liberals would deny us the ability to use those tools. They say "negotiate only". They say "don't be aggressive". However, when we are responding to a very real threat and negotiation (thinking) does not work, we have to have options. It is a natural instinct.

Former NY City mayor Ed Koch has noticed this too. In his recent column here, the Mayor notes:

"...I believe that the U.S. is faltering in the current war against international terrorism, and we are losing our will to prevail. We are losing our fighting spirit as a result of the fighting between Republicans and Democrats on just how to prosecute the war."

Da Mare (as it is pronounced in Sweet Home Chicago) is absolutely correct. We are not only losing our will to fight, we are losing our natural instinct to defend ourselves from outside threats. In our quest to be "civilized" human beings, we ignore our internal alarms. We run the risk of losing more than this war if we continue to ignore our natural instinct. Our very lives are at peril every day.

Why this election is important.

I have heard from a lot of people (including my friend Amendment X) who are talking about staying home in November in order to "teach the Republicans a lesson". Well I was sent an article from 2001 (not available online) that shows us what would happen if we put anyone with a pre 9/11 mindset back in charge. Check the data and realize what happened just a short 2 months later. All emphasis is mine.

New York Times July 10, 2001
The Declining Terrorist Threat
By LARRY C. JOHNSON
WASHINGTON -- Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.
None of these beliefs are based in fact. While many crimes are committed against Americans abroad (as at home), politically inspired terrorism, as opposed to more ordinary criminality motivated by simple greed, is not as common as most people may think.
At first glance, things do seem to be getting worse. International terrorist incidents, as reported by the State Department, increased to 423 in 2000 from 392 in 1999. Recently, Americans were shaken by Filipino rebels' kidnapping of Americans and the possible beheading of one hostage. But the overall terrorist trend is down. According to the Central Intelligence Agency, deaths from international terrorism fell to 2,527 in the decade of the 1990's, from 4,833 in the 80's.
Nor are the United States and its policies the primary target. Terrorist activity in 2000 was heavily concentrated in just two countries — Colombia , which had 186 incidents, and India , with 63. The cause was these countries' own political conflicts.
While 82 percent of the attacks in Colombia were on oil pipelines managed by American and British companies, these attacks were less about terrorism than about guerrillas' goal of disrupting oil production to undermine the Colombian economy. Generally, the guerrillas shy away from causing casualties in these attacks. No American oil workers in Colombia were killed or injured last year.
Other terrorism against American interests is rare. There were three attacks on American diplomatic buildings in 2000, compared with 42 in 1988. No Americans were killed in these incidents, nor have there been any deaths in this sort of attack this year.
Of the 423 international terrorist incidents documented in the State Department's report "Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000," released in April, only 153 were judged by the department and the C.I.A. to be "significant." And only 17 of these involved American citizens or businesses.
Eleven incidents involved kidnappings of one or more American citizens, all of whom were eventually released. Seven of those kidnapped worked for American companies in the energy business or providing services to it — Halliburton, Shell, Chevron, Mobil, Noble Drilling and Erickson Air-Crane.
Five bombings were on the list. The best known killed 17 American sailors on the destroyer Cole, as it was anchored in a Yemeni port, and wounded 39. A bomb at a McDonald's in France killed a local citizen there. The other explosions — outside the United States embassy in the Philippines , at a Citibank office in Greece , and in the offices of Newmont Mining in Indonesia — caused mostly property damage and no loss of life. In the 17th incident, vandals trashed a McDonald's in South Africa .
The greatest risk is clear: if you are drilling for oil in Colombia — or in nations like Ecuador , Nigeria or Indonesia — you should take appropriate precautions; otherwise Americans have little to fear.
Although high-profile incidents have fostered the perception that terrorism is becoming more lethal, the numbers say otherwise, and early signs suggest that the decade beginning in 2000 will continue the downward trend. A major reason for the decline is the current reluctance of countries like Iraq , Syria and Libya , which once eagerly backed terrorist groups, to provide safe havens, funding and training.
The most violent and least reported source of international terrorism is the undeclared war between Islamists and Hindus over the disputed Kashmir region of India , bordering Pakistan . Although India came in second in terms of the number of terrorist incidents in 2000, with 63, it accounted for almost 50 percent of all resulting deaths, with 187 killed, and injuries, with 337 hurt. Most of the blame lies with radical groups trained in Afghanistan and operating from Pakistan .
I am not soft on terrorism; I believe strongly in remaining prepared to confront it. However, when the threat of terrorism is used to justify everything from building a missile defense to violating constitutional rights (as in the case of some Arab-Americans imprisoned without charge), it is time to take a deep breath and reflect on why we are so fearful.
Part of the blame can be assigned to 24-hour broadcast news operations too eager to find a dramatic story line in the events of the day and to pundits who repeat myths while ignoring clear empirical data. Politicians of both parties are also guilty. They warn constituents of dire threats and then appropriate money for redundant military installations and new government investigators and agents.
Finally, there are bureaucracies in the military and in intelligence agencies that are desperate to find an enemy to justify budget growth. In the 1980's, when international terrorism was at its zenith, NATO and the United States European Command pooh-poohed the notion of preparing to fight terrorists. They were too busy preparing to fight the Soviets. With the evil empire gone, they "discovered" terrorism as an important priority.
I hope for a world where facts, not fiction, determine our policy. While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States , and it should not be portrayed that way.
Larry C. Johnson is a former State Department counterterrorism specialist.

Like our Minneapolis mayor, Mr. Johnson said that if Americans weren't engaged in "risky activity" they weren't at risk of being hurt by terrorists. Tell that to the 2996 who were killed on 9/11 Mr. Johnson!

We can't afford to go back to this mindset.

BCRA

Things have been very hectic the last few days in the Logician household. However, I absolutely had to direct your attention to this:

"In an editorial in yesterday's Examiner, former Federal Elections Commissioner Bradley Smith demolishes a recent assertion by Senator Russ Feingold that his Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act does not trample on First Amendment rights. Smith, who had a front-row seat to the implementation of McCain-Feingold, assures him that telling people when they can and cannot publicly criticize politicians is an egregious limitation on free speech:"

McCain-Feingold has been a particularlly hot hot button issue for me. Between Captain Ed's always brilliant analysis and Commissioner Smith's hands on experience you can easily understand why this legislation needs to be struck down as soon as possible.

Millionaires for Socialism

I got another interesting email the other day. This one got me to thinking...

"The wealthy are the last people you might expect to see leading movements that claim to support the working class, but the strange thong is that without the wealthy leftists the liberal movement in America would be dead. The money from George Soros and the wealthy people who voted for Lieberman’s challenger (the poor voted for Lieberman) are typical examples of how the liberal left has become the creation of elite billionaires and millionaires."

When you consider that the patrons of today's modern left (George Soros, Barbra Streisand, Microsoft co-founder Paul Lewis, entertainment mogul Steve Bing or locally the Patricians from Growth & Justice) you have to admit, my correspondent has a very valid point.

Why is this?

"Let me posit a few ideas:
1. The rich like to enjoy a lifestyle free from moral encumbrances and they are loath to see their personal behavior ruin their reputation and hurt their wallets. By promoting moral relativism they escape serious scrutiny and can behave as they please.
2. The rich know that the poor, upon whose work their fortune rests, are less likely to complain or be a problem is they are both entertained and materially sustained. Using moral relativism they can keep the poor focused on self indulgence rather than their sorry state, using hand-outs they can keep them still too poor to ever compete but not so poor that they riot, and using class or race warfare they can keep the poor focused on “the others” rather than their actual plight and the failure of the leadership.
3. The rich find nation-states to be quite an inconvenience. By reducing or eliminating trade barriers and by reducing the dominance of one or a few nation states they can raise the importance of non state entities, such as their corporations and foundations AND they can get around any national laws that curtail their ability to “buy low and sell high.”
4. The rich want to be able to control the political scene rather than being accountable to government or the will of People, so they tend to support judicial activism, top-down control of education, a liberal monopoly of the media, and keeping the poor in a state of ignorance."

Again, given what we have seen from the actions of those wealthy benefactors of the left, my correspondent has a point. There is an old Biblical saying "you can tell them by their fruit". Well the fruits of the labors of the wealthy leftists are there for all of us to see.

"There are probably other reasons you can cite for the trend amongst the really wealthy to be really liberal, but the point is that the very class that seems to be target of liberal rhetoric is the very class that is actually funding that rhetoric, which begs the question, “why?” For the answer to that question I refer you to the above reasons plus any you may see. What we must remember, however, is that when liberals talk about the rich not pulling their fair share and all that what they are doing is nothing more than a smoke screen: their policies tend not to hurt their rich patrons but, rather, the poor who are misled into believing the rhetoric." (emphasis mine)

WOW - that is probably the most succinct explaination of the whole "the rich need to pay their fair share" that I have ever heard!

Do not despair dear friends....there is some good news. The liberal benefactors appear to be sitting this election out, according to this report from "The Hill":

"This year, those well-heeled donors have yet to join the fray. Soros has given less than $2 million, Lewis a paltry $1.1 million, and the others even less. Some are eschewing election-year operations in favor of long-term efforts such as the Democracy Alliance, a group of more than 80 high net-worth individuals funding projects to amplify the liberal message, identify future leaders and conduct research."

Why are they backing away? Well it is a classic lesson in why you don't want to trust the Democrats with your tax dollars.

"These and other large donors bankrolled America Coming Together in 2004, a 527 organization devoted to turning out Democratic voters in 17 states. Although the group did make significant gains, it was outpaced by Republican organizing in key states like Ohio, leading some big donors to feel burned by the 2004 election, upset that they shelled out millions only to see Kerry lose, Democratic fundraisers said.
“There was a lot of questioning about where money went and was it spent properly,” said Andy Spahn, an advisor to Hollywood donors. “In some part that led to disillusionment and cynicism about 527s.” (emphasis mine)

It would be nice to think that the bloom is off of the 527 rose, but I would not count on that yet! Until such time as the odiuos McCain-Feingold BCFRA is history, the 527's will dominate our political landscape. BCFR gave birth to the 527 movement and only its repeal will return politics to the people.

Gambling on gambling

I am probably going to stir up a hornets nest with this but here goes anyway...

Here in the Savage Lands we have Indian gaming and a fairly successful mid-size horse racing facility. I have long admired the tribes use of gaming profits to develop non-gaming related business interests. They have built a health club, a daycare center, a strip mall that includes a gas station run by the tribe, a hotel and a golf course. If the day comes when the casino profits dry up (not likely to happen anytime soon) well they can still provide for themselves. BRAVO for free enterprise!

Well now the race track wants to add slot machines (run by the Minnesota Lottery commission) and expand their card club (in addition to their live and simulcast horse racing) in order to do the same thing. They want to build an equestrian/agriculture center and hotel complex that would bring world class equestrian competition to the Twin Cities. Now I will admit my bias up front - I used to show in the type of equestrian competitions that would be brought to the area! I still know people in the business who would be coming up here should this facility be built.

This plan has opposition from the tribe and from conservatives. Now the tribes opposition I can understand. They feel that this will cut into their "action". The conservative opposition is what I am puzzled by. Here we have a regulated business who is wanting to expand the non-regulated part of their operation. Yes it will be funded by their gaming operation, I get that. The conservatives that are blocking this say that they do not want an "expansion" of gambling. The problem is, the tribe can expand their gaming operation at will and we have nothing to say in this, we have no say in the matter. The race tracks expansion would be tightly regulated by the state (which I am not horribly fond of but I understand the reasoning why) and it will ultimately benefit the county in the form of more jobs (and thus more employment taxes paid to the state) and more tourists (in the form of the horse show people who have unreal amounts of money) and in the form of property tax relief. It is a win/win for the area, as far as Ic an see...

However, I want to try to understand the other side. Why should conservatives object to racino at Canterbury Park?

Discuss in ccomments.

Dodge City or Murderapolis

Oh my friend Amendment X is going to LOVE this one.....

"A couple of weeks ago, I checked into a hotel in Bloomington, a Minneapolis suburb framed by the airport and the Mall of America. On the hotel door was a sign: “Firearms Banned on These Premises.” The next day I drove to St. Joseph, an hour west of the Twin Cities, where I saw the same sign. Slowly the logical conclusion sank in. If firearms are banned on these premises, then they must not be banned in other places.
Sure enough, a year ago the State Legislature passed a “concealed carry” law, which means that it’s legal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit. So that no one misses the point, the Legislature has also turned Minnesota into what is called a “shall require” state. If you apply for a concealed-weapon permit, the local authorities must grant it to you."

What I found to be highly amusing (and so totally expected....this is the Grey Lady after all) was this:

"I asked one of the state coalitions opposed to these laws whether it would attack them in the Legislature this year. The answer was no. It is too busy trying to defeat a “shoot first” bill, which would give gun owners the right to fire away instead of trying to avoid a confrontation. The way I see it, Minnesota is only one step away from requiring every citizen to carry a gun and use it when provoked."

You hear that, dear readers???? The streets of Minneapolis are one step away from being Dodge City again....OH WAIT...they already ARE!

Those who have followed the goings on in Amy Klobuchar's Minneapolis (like Rambix and the KvM guys) know that the streets are already awash with guns and gangbangers and gangster wanna bes. Any one of them are looking for the chance to prove themselves to their "peeps".

"This is what I’d expect of Florida, which recently passed a “shoot first” — also called a “shoot the Avon lady” — bill. I’d expect it of Texas too. But Minnesota? I grew up thinking of Minnesota as a socially progressive state. After all, it was home of the D.F.L. — the Democratic Farmer Labor Party — and a place where local control and common sense had strong roots. Like my family in Iowa, Minnesotans were gun owners because they hunted pheasants and rabbits and deer. But then I’m thinking of a time when the leadership of the National Rifle Association resembled a band of merry sportsmen and not the paranoid cabal it is today. Whether this was also a time when a legislator could vote his conscience, and not his gun lobbyist’s orders, I was too young to know."

You want to know what's changed? Here's a hint. In Minneapolis in 2006, the animals are roaming the streets of the city and not foraging in the forests "up north".

One thing that the folks like this author fail to recoginze is what happened AFTER the Florida conceal carry law was passed. Contrary to the nay-sayers prediction of "blood in the streets" crime actually DROPPED in Florida.

Then again, facts are something that the writes for the old grey ghost seem to disregard if they don't fit the the preconceived conclusions.

Wackos abound

I received one of "those" emails today....you know the kind - the grand conspiracy theory kind. Well, I had a little time today so I did a wee bit of research which I will share with you, my friends.

"Institute for Journalism wrote:
From: "Institute for Journalism" bell@ij.net
To: bell@ij.net
Subject: Journalists confirm that Pledge of Allegiance is origin of Nazi salute
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 07:15:06 -0400"

You would think that the domain "ij.net" was Institute for Journalism, wouldn't you? It certainly seems that way, but you would be wrong. "ij.net" is the domain for an ISP named "Internet Junction". OK - this has potential...

"Every journalist who has examined the new discovery has confirmed it: The Pledge of Allegiance was the origin of the straight-arm salute used by the Nazis. But most journalists are too timid to tell children about the pledge's putrid past, to display old photographs of the pledge's raised-arm salute, or to explain each child's right to reject the daily robotic chanting. Government's schools will not educate children either."

Every journalist eh? Why are none then named? Oh yeah....out of fear of retribution. The problem is that this is a flat out lie. According to Wikipedia, Italian fascists said the salute originated with the Roman Centurians...Hitler said that it originated with the old Germanic tribes! No mention of the US in there at all...Oh wait - that's part of the conspiracy isn't it...

What the email does not mention is that the salute they allude to, the Bellamy Salute (named after the author of the Pledge - more on him later) was a multi-part process. The salute started with the person bringing their right hand up to their head in a military salute for part of the Pledge, then they would straighten the arm out straight in front of them for the remainder of the pledge! The "Hitler pledge" was nothing more than the arm being raised straight in front of you.

The author, Francis J. Bellamy, was a Baptist minister and socialist. He wrote the pledge in 1892 at the request of a family magazine "Youths Companion". The publisher was looking for something that would help foster national unity at a time when the country was healing from the Civil War.

Back to the email....the email then goes on to quote VERBATIM the webpage of one Rex Curry. Mr. Curry is a lawyer and libertarian who says that the pledge is actually a plot of the Freemasons and the socialists. For example:

"1. Professor Curry showed that the early Pledge to the USA's flag used a straight-arm salute and it was the origin of the salute to the swastika flagunder the monstrous National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis). Frightening photographs are at http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html
2. The Pledge began with a military salute that then stretched out toward the flag. Due to the way that both gestures were used sequentially, the military salute led to the Nazi salute. The Nazi salute is an extended military salute. http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html
3. The person who created the pledge to the USA's flag was a self-proclaimed socialist in the nationalism movement in the USA and he called his dogma "military socialism" and it influenced socialists in Germany, and his pledge was the origin of their salute to the swastika flag. "Nazi" means "National Socialist German Workers' Party." Although the swastika was an ancient symbol, it was also used sometimes by German National Socialists to represent "S" letters for their "socialism," as shown by Dr. Curry (author of "Swastika Secrets"). It is another discovery that has been confirmed by every journalist who has examined it. Hitler altered his own signature to use the same stylized "S" letter for "socialist" and similar alphabetic symbolism still shows on Volkswagens. http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html"

There is so much disinformation and twisted reasoning it is mindboggling. Using the swastika to represent an "S" for socialism? That's kind of like saying (which he hints at on his website) that the term SS refers to some sort of super socialism instead of "ShutzStaffel". SIGH....what do you do with people like this? Of course, Mr. Curry is not the only conspiracy theorist (as I wrote about before). But seeing Nazi's and Socialists and the threat of Freemasonry in a simple little poem that confirms your love of country???

Be very afraid. These people vote and influence voters. This country could be in serious trouble.