Come again?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a letter to the "noble" American people yesterday. Aside from spouting the usual Democratic/MSM talking points, President Ahmadinejad made a couple of statements that just defy belief.

"We all deplore injustice, the trampling of peoples' rights and the intimidation and humiliation of human beings."

Do you really Mr. President? If that is the case, will you be speaking out, any time soon, on this "trampling" of women's rights? Or this instance of "intimidation" of one's critics?

"Both greatly value and readily embrace the promotion of human ideals such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings, securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent and the weak against oppressors and bullies."

Perhaps the President would care to comment on the inequities and oppression that are being ordained by his own administration? Remember Salman Rushdie, Mr. President? What dignity is there in having to live in hiding because of a fatwa that came out of your country? Where is the equity for Dr. Wafa Sultan, who receives daily death threats because she does not believe in your version of God? Where is the empathy for her? Where was the "justice" for this 16 year old who was hanged for having a "sharp tongue"? Or for this 13 year old who was impregnated by her brother? What justice is there when a rape victim is stoned to death while her rapist gets off with 150 lashes? Where is the "justice" for this young woman who is facing a death sentence for appearing in an alleged sex film?

You speak of the Palestinian mothers who weep for their lost children. What about the Israeli mother mourning her children - children killed by weapons your government supplied to the Palestinians? Palestinians who continue to launch rockets into Israel, in violation of the numerous peace treaties that the PA has signed. What about the Sunni mother whose child was slain by the Madhi Militaman that your government trained and armed (directly and via your proxies Hezbollah)? What of their pain and loss? Do these mothers love their children any less than the Palestinian mother loves hers? Is their loss any less tragic?

Mr. President - you say you want to live in peace with the rest of the world and yet you make weapons of war. You have stated your "anxieties and concerns". I have already listed many of mine, but here are a few more. I am concerned that your mullahs - your religious leaders - issue death warrants to any and all who disagree with them. I am anxious for my son and his life - growing up under the threat from people you support who have declared that people like us must convert to your religion or die!

Mr. President, if you really mean what you say, you would denounce your religious leaders and give up your nuclear ambition. The fact that you have done neither speaks volumes. I just hope that the world pays more attention to your actions than they do to your meaningless, flowery prose.

Endangered species

Sisyphus did some analysis on the Minnesota Election results (h/t Mitch at SITD).

"The election was hard on Minnesota Republicans of all stripes. In the state legislature, Republicans lost 19 of 68 seats in the House and 6 of 29 seats in the state Senate. The question many have been asking is whether the voters were harder on more conservative or more liberal Republicans. Would Republicans have done better had they moved more to the left? "

His answer is not surprising to the Minnesota voters who drove out the RINO's in question. It is must reading for all Republicans, but especially for those who are delegates to next Saturday's State Central Committee meeting. Those delegates have a big choice to make on December 9...to accept the declines in electoral results under current leadership or ask for new leadership. The debate is raging over at Residual Forces. Get in on the debate on the direction of the MNGOP.

The Soft Racism of the Media

Now much has been said about this story on other blogs.

"The story was reported world-wide. The only official source for the account, however, was "Police Capt. Jammil Hussein." CENTCOM initially said that it had not been able to confirm the account of the burned-alive Sunnis. Upon further investigation, it appears that the incident probably never occurred at all. In addition, "Police Capt. Jamil Hussein" appears to be non-existent. "

but none was the pressing question. WHY? I wondered why someone would make up this kind of story. I remember my first reaction, the first reaction of many people when they heard the initial story and that first reaction contained the words "those people" as in "what is wrong with those people" and "we should just pull out and let those people just kill each other off." Now as a child of the '60s, I loathe the phrase "those people" as it has enormous negative connotations with it. As a result, I do not use the phrase easily. The more I pondered why someone would make up a story that would engender such a visceral reaction. Oh the obvious answer is to make the war effort look bad, to make Iraq appear to have spiraled into a civil war. Because after all, the MSM meme is just that - Civil War. However, I can't help but wonder if there wasn't a more insideous, subtle reason....a subtle soft racism that is willing to brand Iraqis as "those people". It would be one more excuse to pull out...and leave "those people" to their fates.

While I hope I am wrong, I fear I am not. After all, the left has shown a past propensity for using people as they see fit, regardless of the consequences to those they use.

What would you do?

Workplace sexual harassment is something that happens - far more often than we would like to see happen. When you have a situation like this, what do you suppose the reaction (of the employer) should be.

"The three women all allege that Bleskachek unfairly denied them opportunities to advance within the department. And they claim the chief based her decisions on...personal feelings toward the women, not on their job performance. Bleskachek's lawyer says those claims are false. "

In most situations, where the supervisor was male, the supervisor would have been fired immediately - and rightly so. However, the supervisor in this instance is Bonnie Bleskachek, the country's first openly lesbian fire chief. Sadly, in this instance, the supervisor in question was not fired, but placed on administrative leave.

"The 43-year-old chief is on leave as the city conducts an internal investigation amid lawsuits from three female firefighters who allege various acts of discrimination and sexual harassment. Also, a city investigation found evidence that the department gave preferential treatment to lesbians or those who socialize with them."

Finally, after months of investigations and over $400,000 spent on them, Mayor Ryback is asking that the City Council approve a buy-out. Demote Bleskachek to Captain, allow her to keep a city job and settle the remaining two lawsuits against the city. Thankfully, the City Executive Committee grew a spine and said "no - it's time to fire her".

Actually it is past time, but at least they are finally making the right move.

So long and thanks for all the fish.

Twenty days after the election, Coleen Rowley finally comes up for air. According to MDE, neither Coleen nor any member of her campaign called to congratulate Congressman Kline on his election day victory, nor has she spoken to any member of the local press until now.

"On Nov. 7, a Democratic wave swept across the country and ushered new leadership into the House and Senate. But a few Republicans survived the wave, including my opponent, John Kline, in Minnesota's Second Congressional District.
I freely admit that I did not run a perfect campaign, and certainly not according to what political experts advise."

Now I will admit that I have laid more than my fair share of slams on Ms. Rowley, but she is correct. She ran a horrible campaign. Her mistakes are myriad, but the biggest problem that she had was that she just did not connect with the voters of the 2nd District. I saw her at multiple events and she truly did not appear to be enjoying herself and it showed to the voters. Heck, she even admitted (in a WCCO radio interview/debate) that she did not enjoy campaigning and getting out amonst the voters.

However, this has nothing to do with her losing on November 7.

"For politics, you do have to have a certain amount of prom queen appeal," she said. "

As a friend of mine said "how does that explain the victories of Amy Klobuchar, Betty McCollum, Lori Swanson, Rebecca Otto, Sandra Masin and Shelley Madore - not one of whom is known for having "prom queen" appeal?"

Coleen said she stuck to the issues during the campaign. Except when she did tackle the issues, she frequently lied about the Congressman's verifiable voting record. It happened so often that she had to issue multiple apologies to the Congressman. Couple that with the out of control actions of her supporters (the notorious photoshopping of Congressman Kline's face onto a stock photo of Werner Kempler's "Col. Klink" and another volunteers effort to trap the Kline campaign into accepting an illegal campaign contribution) and you have a comedy of errors of epic proportions.

It's a shame really. I had hoped she would have run a better campaign. It would have been better for the district in the long run. Oh well, maybe next time.

Deck the halls....

Scrooge made an early appearance this year.

"It won't become law in time for this holiday shopping season, but a long-standing DFL proposal to ban expiration dates and service fees on gift cards faces improved prospects in the 2007 Legislature.
"It's a common-sense consumer protection bill that most Minnesotans would support," Rep. Katie Sieben, DFL-Newport, said at a news conference Wednesday. It's the third straight year that DFLers have pushed the proposal during the holiday season."

Seriously, is this the most important thing facing the Minnesota legislature this year? Is there nothing more pressing than outlawing expiration dates and service fees associated with gift cards?

Twin Cities International in the news again

Last week was an active news week at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. First we had the flying Imams. The less reported story (nationally) is one that is, to me, a little more concerning.

"A bomb-like device was found in a rental car Sunday morning at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, shutting down part of the Lindbergh terminal parking ramps for about two hours."

Bloomington police disposed of the device without incident and the FBI tracked down the renter of the vehicle in question.

"FBI agents interviewed the man who rented the car after he arrived on the West Coast on Sunday. He said that the device was not a bomb and that he didn't mean to leave it behind, said Pat Hogan, airport spokesman."

Excuse me??? You have shrapnel in your rental car, why??? If you didn't "mean" to leave the device in the car, just where did you "mean" to leave it? In your hotel room? How did you expect to get bomb materials onto an airplane? Did you "mean" to leave it on the plane?

Something about this guy's excuse just doesn't ring right.

Tally-Ho

Way back when I was a horse crazy teen-ager, I had the opportunity to work in a hose show barn that also housed a fox hunt. Before you of you libs pipe up, I was the one doing the "work that Americans won't do" - i.e. I shoveled horse manure and built fences and basically did manual labor in order to pay for my horses board and for my lessons. Because I worked with the hounds and braided and generally helped the Master of Hounds, I was allowed to ride with the hunt. We did not purposly do live hunts - we were too suburban of an area (Chicago area), but every now and then, the hounds actually DID scare up a fox or two. Because of that past history, I have followed the story of the British foxhunting ban for some time. That is one reason why I found this story to be of interest.

"Last week, The Independent was invited to follow a typical hunt in a remote corner of Wales. It killed nine foxes, almost all by illegal methods; the previous week's bag had been 13.
On that evidence, the Hunting Act is failing. Supporters of field sports believe it to be unenforcable, poorly drafted, and riddled with loopholes. Opponents say it is being ignored by many of Britain's 300-odd hunts on a daily basis." (emphasis mine)

That is the crux of the matter. Poorly written laws are impossible to enforce and this law was the epitome of a poorly written law. Case in point, this quote from the article.

"I rang the police station this morning to say we'd be out," said the Master of Fox Hounds at last week's illegal meeting. "Do you know what they told me? The boy told me to have a nice day. In Welsh, of course.
"We've spoken to the Chief Constable and he told us that his officers must govern with the consent of the people. Out here, that means he'll divert no resources to the hunting ban, unless we take the piss."

Here, we have a law, that the people don't want that the police won't enforce. This bad law was passed because someone thought that this method of pest control - and in this part of the world foxes ARE pests - was cruel. I have argued (many, many times) with animal rights folks that overpopulation and starvation are crueler than culling the herb via a hunt. Starvation is the cruelest form of animal abuse on the face of the earth. An animal that is starving will literally be eaten alive by his own metabolism's drive for nourishment. Muscle tissue is broken down in order to keep the heart and the lungs and the brain functioning. It goes on until the animal can no longer stand. From there, it does not take long. If the predators don't (mercifully) get the animal first, the animal's system just slowly shuts down. Controlled hunting - deer hunting, goose hunting, fox hunting, pheasant hunting et al are means of mantaining a healthy vibrant population.

Poorly written laws, such as this one, don't serve the people. It is imperative that we hold our legislators accountable to do it right the first time. Otherwise we end up with horrible laws, like our new transportation amendment.

What is he thinking?

Mayor R.T. Rybak of Minneapolis has announced his 2007 budget. In that budget is $2.8m for streetcars to replace buses in Minneapolis. This is coming from the man that complained that he doesn't have enough money to fund more police to curb the escalating murder rate in his city.

Can someone please explain why funding streetcars is more important than putting cops on the street to protect the people from the thugs that are preying on the people of Minneapolis?

What me resign?

The gents at Anti-Strib and David at Loydletta have done a bang up job tracking the furor over newly elected Minneapolis School Board member Chris Stewart and his creation of a racist/sexist hate site. If you want to read the whole story you can follow it at their respective sites. It is not my intention to rehash the fantastic work that these gents have done. I just wanted to use this story to again point out something that should be obvious to voters that are paying attention.

When Republican politicians get caught doing the wrong thing (like Tom DeLay and Mark Foley) they resign. When Democratic politicians get caught doing the wrong thing (like William Jefferson, Jack Murtha, Gerry Studds and Chris Stewart) they don't. It's that simple.

Settled fact?

This is was inspired by Skipper (in the comments section). Some more folks who do NOT think that human induced global warming is a "settled scientific fact".

First we have Bjorn Lomborg. A self described "slight lefty", he set out to write a book to debunk claims that the envionment is getting better.

"Bjorn Lomborg busted--and that is the only word for it--onto the world scene in 2001 with the publication of his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist." A one-time Greenpeace enthusiast, he'd originally planned to disprove those who said the environment was getting better. He failed. And to his credit, his book said so, supplying a damning critique of today's environmental pessimism. Carefully researched, it offered endless statistics--from official sources such as the U.N.--showing that from biodiversity to global warming, there simply were no apocalypses in the offing. "Our history shows that we solve more problems than we create," he tells me. For his efforts, Mr. Lomborg was labeled a heretic by environmental groups--whose fundraising depends on scaring the jeepers out of the public--and became more hated by these alarmists than even (if possible) President Bush."

Second we have the Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research & Engineering Laboratory (as reported in the LA Times).

"An international team of scientists Thursday reported that rising temperatures were steadily transforming the Arctic — warming millions of square miles of permafrost, promoting lush greenery on previously arid tundras and steadily shrinking the annual sea ice.
Yet the researchers also found new patterns of cooling ocean currents and prevailing winds that suggested the Arctic, long considered a bellwether of global warming, may be reverting in some ways to more normal conditions not seen since the 1970s. " (emphasis mine)

Then we have a Nobel lauret who is saying that air pollution just might be able to COMBAT global warming.

"NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- Air pollution may be just the thing to fight global warming, some scientists say.
Prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate, said a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere could act as a "shade" from the sun's rays and help cool the planet."

Regarding "greenhouse gasses", I found this little tidbit.

"The "greenhouse effect" actually is a bit player in global climate (although without it's benefits the average temperature of the Earth would be minus 18° C). Human's did not cause the greenhouse effect, but critics maintain human additions to atmospheric greenhouse gases may cause global temperatures to rise too much.
Generally understood, but rarely publicized is the fact that 95% of the greenhouse effect is due solely to natural water vapor. Of the remaining 5%, only 0.2% to 0.3% of the greenhouse effect (depending on whose numbers you use) is due to emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases from human sources. If we are in fact in a global warming crisis, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have an undetectable effect on global climate. However, significant efforts to limit the emission of greenhouse gases in the United States are currently underway." (emphasis again mine)

Lastly Skipper - if cars and emissions are the "cause" of global warming, how do you explain the fact that there was a 400 year time period, PRIOR TO AUTOMOBILES and the internal combustion engine where global warming was a worse problem than it is today?

All I'm saying Skipper is that established science currently says that global warming and cooling is a cyclical phenomonal. All of the scientific record to date says that. IF greenhouse gases are indeed contributing to global warming, there is not enough scientific data YET to support that theory. More research is needed...that's all I'm saying.

Dear Governor Pawlenty

I am one of the many Minnesotans who worked their behinds off during September and October trying to get you and the rest of the Republican slate in my county re-elected. I went to bat for you with all the dis-affected Republicans regarding the stadiums and the tobacco "fee" and your habit of capitulating to the DFL controlled Senate. I cringed when you proposed "free" college tuition, but I soldiered on.

After yesterday, I have 5 words for you. I WANT MY VOTE BACK!!!! I would have never in my life voted (knowingly) for a proponent of universal health care. Universal heath care is anything BUT universal or health care! Universal healthcare leads to healthcare rationing as is happening in Canada and Great Britian. You have the Mayo Clinic in your backyard. Talk to them about all of the foreign nationals that come to them (and other US clinics) for care that they can not get in their home country! Do you really want to condemn Minnesota's children to the same thing?

Please, Governor Pawlenty, for the sake of the Republican Party and the grass roots volunteers who put their integrity on the line for you - change your party affiliation. Heck you have governed like a Democrat - make it official. Those of us who DO believe in the Republican Party platform would appreciate not having you trample it any longer.

Oh, one last favor please....take a moment and remove your knife from the middle of my back. Thank you sir.

The Lady Logician

For the Children...

I wonder if this is what Governor Pawlenty had in mind when he said he wanted to expand MNCare to the states uninsured children.

"BRITAIN’S top medical ethics expert has urged doctors to let the most premature babies die, with treatment offered only in exceptional cases.
Baroness Warnock believes Britain should follow Holland in setting an age limit below which babies would not routinely be resuscitated. "

Needless to say, condemnation of this has been swift!

"Critics condemned the report, for imposing a "blanket ban" on treatment and demanded that each case be assessed on its merits."

This is what you get when you have the government in charge of health care decisions - as opposed to doctors and patiente! What in heavens name were you thinking yesterday? Putting more people on the government dole is NOT conservative. That is something for another post and something you may want to consider Mr. Governor.

I wonder...

For a long time, the Democrats accused President Bush of ignoring the recommendations of officers in the field when it came to making policy decisions about the Iraq War. I wonder if that means that they are going to listen to the Generals when they tell them things that they don't want hear?

"Top military officials warned Congress yesterday that a quick withdrawal of American troops from Iraq could cause the country to spiral into even deeper chaos that would destabilize the region and create a safe haven for Al Qaeda."

The New York Times has even finally come to the same conclusion - that a premature withdrawal from Iraq is ill-advised.

"“The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.”
Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces."

Yet Congressman Murtha was again making the call for troop "re-deployment" today. Is that his idea of "listening" to the Generals on the ground?

The ball is now in their court. Even "their" generals are saying what the President has long said - removal of our troops in Iraq would be a disaster. Will the Dems listen? Or will they ignore the Generals - as they have accused the President of doing. Yeah...the next few weeks are going to be very interesting!

Impeachment: Fact vs. Fiction

The following is making the rounds via email.

"just sent a personal message to all my representatives in Congress, I hope you will join me!http://www.democrats.com

Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick CheneyI support the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons:
1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, and misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization.
2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
3. Violating the Constituton by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.
4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.
5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.
6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.
7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.
8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.
9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

http://www.democrats.com
Thank you"

With the help of my dear friend Doc Farmer, I thought I would answer some of these "charges".

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, and misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization. If you are going to charge anyone with fraud, let's start with the people who were telling us all through the 1990's that Saddam had WMD's. We can start with former President William Jefferson Clinton, move to former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and (if there's time) maybe Senator John Kerry. Let's not forget that Russian, French, German and British intelligence all told us that Saddam had WMD's. Is that really where you want to start?

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross. I think I'll let Doc do the talking here..."Torture - REAL torture - isn't putting panties on somebody's head, or spraying water up their nose (look up how Muslims perform pre-salat ablutions), or making them stand in a cold or hot room. REAL torture is what Saddam did. REAL torture is what the Viet Cong did. REAL torture is what Hitler/Tojo did. There is a marked difference between interrogation techniques which use intimidation, and torture...Also, the ICRC have NOT been denied access to battlefield prisoners (NOT prisoners of war, since they did not wear any uniform nor did they belong to any organised or recognised armed military group under any national flag), they've been to Club G'itmo several times." The only thing that I will add to this is REAL torture is what the Islamists did to poor Nick Berg. Remember the screams as they sawed his head off....the screams that finally were drowned out by his own blood?????

3. Violating the Constituton by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel. Doc "What part of "we're at war" escapes your admittedly limited comprehension? We can very easily detain "non-Americans" when we pull them off a battlefield where they are SHOOTING AT AMERICANS. Non-Americans who are terrorists or even suspected terrorists don't get the protections of the US Constitution, and never were intended to. Due process? They DO get that in military courts under Genevè Conventions and UCMJ, but only IF they are legal combatants. In other words, actual military personnel captured during or after battle. Terrorists get NO such protection, and were never intended to. They're like spies. We (and any other signatory of the Conventions) can summarily execute them on the spot if we so wish. " 'nuff said...

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm. When the terrorists start playing by the Geneva Convention, maybe we can do the same for them. We are above that you say. I agree - which is why we are not BEHEADING the terrorists the minute we capture them. As far as civilians being "targeted". That is because they are allowing the terrorists (in many cases encouraging) to hide in their midst. As we saw in the last Israel/Lebanon conflict - the terrorists have no qualms about stationing their artillary among the civilian population. Are we supposed to not defend ourselves in these instances?

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant. There was no domestic spying!!!! Period end of discussion. The calls that were monitored were initiated by foreign combatants to their collaborators in the US - no American citizens were targeted - unless they were plotting with the terrorists to kill their fellow Americans. Doc adds "I'd also remind you that during WWII, FDR's administration would regularly violate "privacy" (which does NOT exist under the Constitution) by opening, reading and censoring paper mail, as well as wiretapping ACTUAL domestic communcations."

6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress. "Doc "Presidential orders have been a mainstay of the Executive Branch for DECADES, and do NOT violate the law, the Constitution or the actions of Congress. Clinton used plenty of them, as did Carter, LBJ and Kennedy. So, also, did Bush41, Reagan, Ford and Nixon (and many before them). This has been upheld by SCOTUS.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.
Ummmm - hello....last I looked you people won last week!!!! Are you saying that you won as a result of dishonest elections. Hmmmm....Perhaps we should call the FBI after all.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution. That's funny. If the Administration was "leaking classified information" why didn't they leak information that was helpful to the cause. Oh, and Valerie Plame was outed by her own husband. (see update)

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Doc "When it comes to the Executive Branch, the President IS the Unitary Executive. It's not a theory. It has been a fact of this nation since it's inception. Clinton used Unitary Executive power when he went into Bosnia WITHOUT UN OR CONGRESSIONAL approval or even consultation. Furthermore, for the Legislative branch to try to interfere with the Constitutional activities of the Executive branch, THEY are in violation of the law and the Constitution. Want to impeach/eject Pelosi or Murtha or Kennedy or Clinton?"

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming. As I have noted here, here, here and here pollution caused global warming is not a scientific fact. There is still much research that needs to be done. And if you are going to talk about negligence in failing to assist the residents of New Orleans, don't you think that the Mayor of New Orleans has some responsibility...or perhaps the Governor of Louisiana? Oh, silly me, they are Democrats and can't be held responsible because they are too helpless. I tell you what - if you want the federal government to be responsible for your stupidity - then you need to cede all authority over the federal government. Let's make New Orleans a federal protectorate - under the rule of a federal appointee rather than under the rule of the elected government. What do you say to that?

Now that we have just a little FACT to go with the rhetoric, what do you say we table the talk of impeachment once and for all. Then maybe we can FINALLY get back to the people's business?????

UPDATE BUMP AND LINK: Thanks to Doc for reminding me that legally (as far as the Grand Jury is concerned) Valerie Plame was "outed" by Richard Armitrage a Clinton era holdover in the State Department and vocal critic of the Bush Administration. Doc has posted his lengthy response over at ChronWatch as well and it is a must read.

Cleaning up the House

The irony in this is so very rich.

"Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) threw her support behind Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) for majority leader Sunday, giving a significant boost to Murtha in his race against Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)."

What is ironic about this you ask? Ms. Pelosi, the unchallenged heir apparent to the Speakers Chair in the House of Representatives said that she was going to "clean up" the House. Yet she chooses to throw her support behind the last remaining ABSCAM conspirator in the House of Representatives. You can even watch video (part 1 and part 2)of the esteemed Congressman pitching to get the bribers to invest in his district in order to get him to work with them (we invest in your district and you help us get our Sheiks into the US)! You Tube even has this Hannity and Colmes report on the subject. The American Spectator also has a story and partial transcript.

That's cleaning up the House? Oh boy....the next two years are really going to be fun.

Speaking of Global Warming...

I've been sitting on this, waiting for the right time to bring it out. I think that time is today.

"Asserting “the science is settled” ignores the debate that still rages. Proclaiming that “climate change is real” ignores Earth’s constant, natural warming and cooling.
Vikings raised crops and cattle in Greenland 1000 years ago, while Britons grew grapes in England. Four hundred years later, the Vikings were frozen out, Europe was gripped in a Little Ice Age, and priests performed exorcisms on advancing Swiss glaciers. The globe warmed in 1850-1940, cooled for the next 35 years, then warmed slightly again.
Detroit experienced six snowstorms in April 1868, frosts in August 1869, a 98-degree heat wave in June 1874, and ice-free lakes in January 1877. Wisconsin’s record high of 114 degrees F in July 1936 was followed five years later by a record July low of 46. In 1980, five years after Newsweek’s “new little ice age” cover story, Washington, DC endured 67 days above 90 degrees.”

Now, I am not going to tell you that there isn't global "warming", I'm just not conviced that greenhouse gases are the cause of the warming. However...if greenhouse gases DO have something to do with global warming (as celebs such as Julia Roberts, George Clooney and others tell us) then don't you think we should ALL share in the sacrifice. Sure it is fine to drive a Prius, but when you are jetting all over the globe (like Al Gore has been while promoting his book/movie on global warming) in a private jet, well don't you think that is just a tiny bit wasteful? I'm just saying....

Really what I am saying is, I'll be happy to do my part (as I already do) to save gas and reduce my usage of electricity and natural gas but don't lecture me on what I am driving day to day to get to work when you are flying to Kenya for the weekend. It just does not pass the "smell test".

The atheist and Christ.

Hugh Hewitt makes much of the Los Angeles Times - holding it up as an example of the disconnect that the Old Media has with the heartland of America. When I read this column in particular though, I was saddened beyond all words. Saddened because by publishing this column they lay out, for the whole world to see, their complete ignorance of the most important thing to the majority of the people in the United States.

"I HAD NEVER BEEN to church before. I mean I'd been inside them for weddings, architectural curiosity and once, in college, to hear some guy play organ so I could hook up with Jenny Hodge. I'm pretty sure God will be cool with that because, as an omnipotent being, he knows how hot she was.
But I'd never sat through a service until I went to Austin, Texas, two weeks ago. This mostly has to do with the fact that I'm Jewish and don't believe in God, and sermons don't have nudity or anything to gamble on. But my college friend, Mike Langford, just got ordained as a pastor at Covenant Presbyterian Church, so I felt like I needed to see his gig."

Now I know a lot of people who would be upset, even offended, by the first two paragraphs, but what got to me, was this paragraph.

"In fact, I'd never realized how much of a death cult Christianity is. When we weren't fixating on how awesome Christ's murder was, we were singing about how terrific it was going to be when we bite it. Chipper up, Christians! There's a lot to live for. They're making more of those "Narnia" movies."

But I was not offended by this paragraph...I was deeply saddened. Mr. Stein just does not "get it" and apparently he doesn't care to get it either. Yeah Christ died...it is a part of the story, but THE part of the story (the part that Mr. Stein doesn't get) is why Christ died or the fact that He was resurrected! Christ's death is a means to the end...the end being the TRIUMPH over death. Focusing on the death alone, doesn't tell you the why either. Christ's death was God's sacrifice for people like Mr. Stein - and that is something else that he doesn't get....someone who would sacrifice his very life for someone else. That is one reason why people like Mr. Stein don't "get" the military either - but I digress.

Christians do not celebrate Christ's death - we celebrate His resurrection FROM the grave. We do not celebrate the coming of our own deaths - we celebrate the great lives we have today and the coming better life that we will have when we leave this world to go live with Christ. There is a big difference. We appreciate what God has done for us and so we celebrate Christ's triumph over death.

I pray that someday Mr. Stein comes to understand that. Then maybe he will be able to understand Christians and he will come to celebrate that faith - rather than mock it.

Become a Soldiers Angel

The Logical Husband joined the Army Signal Corp when we first got married. We were both recent college graduates, we were looking at a stagnant job market (thank you Jimmy Carter) and a mountain of college debt. It was the thing to do. Our respective families were both worried. After all that "Cowboy" Ronald Reagan had just been elected and everyone was sure that he was going to get us into a war with Russia. Thankfully that never happened.

Today I can not help but think about the families of todays soldier. They are faced with challenges that I could never imagine. The families of the wounded especially have it rough. Which is why today I joined up with Soldiers Angels in Project Valor IT - a fundraising competition. While my traffic may not be up there in the lofty heights of my friend Captain Ed, or with Hugh Hewitt for that matter, however it is my profound hope that my friends and readers would please step up and help with this worthwhile project.

Please take a moment and click on the Valor IT Make a Donation in the sidebar and give what you can to help make life better for one of our wounded warriors.

VETERANS DAY BUMP: I will keep this post at the top of the page all weekend in honor of Veterans Day which is tomorrow. If you have not done so already, please donate a couple of dollars to help injured vets.

What you do in your the privacy of your own home...

is your business right? Not if you live in Minnesota. In Minnesota, we have a thing called "Tobacco Free Community Grants" a government subsidy that is given to communitys to use in preventing tobacco use - as a matter of public health. The Dakota County Tribune (article not available online) ran a story in it's November 2 issue (front page above the fold too) about two Dakota County (MN) commisioners who were fighting the county's application for a "Tobacco Free Community Grant" to be used to promote smoke free homes and cars. Both board members were absent from the October 17 meeting when the board approved the grant application. Their concern is that government would involve itself with legal activities that go on inside a private home....you know - like consensual sex between same sex couples maybe?????

Commissioner Mike Turner said that he thought the action was "very intrusive" and that he "can not support anything that requires people not to smoke in their home or car". Bravo Commissioner Turner! He then goes on to say that he does support government involvement in promoting healthy lifestyles. Does that mean you support banning consensual sex between two men - as a matter of promoting a healthy lifestyle? Do you really want to go down that slippery slope in light of the above linked Lawrence decision?

As I said here, if you are really that concerned about the health of smokers and their families then you need to make tobacco ILLEGAL - just like marijuana and cocaine! Forego the tax dollars that pour into the state and county and city coffers as a result of tobacco taxes and MAKE SMOKING COMPLETELY ILLEGAL!!!!!

However, that will never happen. The politicans are too addicted to the tax dollars that come in. Don't listen to them when they say that they are concerned about your health...they aren't! All they want is to intrude in your private affairs!

Class

Some people have it, some people don't. Take, for example, the way George Allen responded to losing an election by less than 1/4 of 1% versus the way that Al Gore responded to losing Florida. Or the way Conrad Burns handled losing versus the way John Kerry did. Or the way Conservative bloggers and supporters acted this year, versus the way liberal ones did in both 2000 and 2004. Even though there were incidents of irregularities in Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum did not threaten to take legal action. He called his opponent to congratulate him on his victory. On the other side, you have Coleen Rowley who never did call her opponent to congratulate him on his win Tuesday night.

When Republicans lose elections they say "what did we do wrong?". When Democrats lose elections they say "the Republicans cheated.". Will the voters pay attention to any of this?

Lessons from Tuesday

Tuesday did not turn out well, for Republicans. After some quiet retrospection and reflection, I think I understand why.

Republicans in power did not practice their own principles and morals. Oh sure, we ousted Mark Foley and Tom DeLay (unlike the Dems who when faced with their own scandals kept Gerry Studds in a position of power) but what about all of the times where they acted like they were more concerned with keeping power, than doing the right thing? There were many times when it seemed like Republican leadership was willing to sweep principle aside for political expedience.

Republicans didn't spend like conservatives. They spent money like.....like Democrats! If they are going to spend like Democrats, why not have Democrats in power?

Republican candidates - for the most part - did not run to win. They were continuously on the defense, rather than offense and while defense can HELP you win (a la the Chicago Bears) it is not enough to have a stellar defense - you have to have a decent offense to match up with the "D". Republican candidates did not do that. Do not confuse "attack" ads with offense. While offensive (to a lot of people) those ads on their own can not do the trick as we saw in Minnesota this year. The candidates that tried to do nothing but tar their opponent with slime via attack ad (Mark Kennedy and Patty Wetterling) lost! Michele Bachman won by telling people what she was about - not how horrible her opponent was!

Republican leadership ignored the base. This was apparent from the White House on down. Now many conservatives (myself included) say that the Democrats cater too much to the far left, which is probably true, but the Republicans have practiced the inverse. The base was basically told to sit down, shut up and vote on Election Day. Rather than doing that, the Republican Party needed to explain to the base what they were doing and try to get the base engaged in the basic decision process. I know that there were times during the last year or two that if I asked one of my representatives about an issue that I was concerned about and the rep took the time to explain the decision process (thankfully I have a wonderful rep in St. Paul and an equally wonderful rep in DC who will do that) I understood why the decision was made in the manner it was made. The electorate is (by and large) an intelligent, understanding lot - TALK TO US!

Conservatives have a choice to make and we need to make it now! We can either sulk and accuse the other side of cheating (as the Democrats did in 2000 and 2004) or we can pull ourselves off of the floor and try to do better in 2008. What's it gonna be guys????

This is the last time I will tell you...

I have tried to show my fellow Conservatives all the reasons why they must show up and vote on Tuesday. I leave the last word to Doc Farmer as he sums it all up succinctly.

" So why should you even bother to get out of your chair, drive to a polling station, wait in line, and do your duty as a Citizen of this Constitutional Republic?
What follows are the reasons you MUST vote tomorrow.
· Nancy Pelosi: You’ve not heard anything from this banshee from San Francisco in the past few weeks. For good reason. The lib/dem/soc/commies KNOW that if you see her for what she truly is, you’ll run screaming to the polls begging to vote against her philosophy. A philosophy that will further assist the terrorists--and yes, she has actively helped terrorists and terrorism over the past few years. Why? Because (wait for it, folks) she doesn’t like Dubya. If the lib/dem/soc/commies get into power, she will be THIRD IN LINE for the presidency. She wants power. She doesn’t care how many bodies she has to crawl over to get it. Those bodies, by the way, could quite easily include yours.

· Harry Reid: He’s been a bit low-key, too, but for different reasons. The MSM have been actively suppressing his real estate fraud for several weeks now, because they want to focus on the “culture of corruption” in rep/con/tair-land. Are there crooks on the right? A few, yes. What happens to them? They get fired, they get tried, they get convicted and they get JAILED. What happens to lib/dem/soc/commies that are crooks? They get promoted into senior positions, or protected by their buddies, or they blame [insert addiction / character flaw / unfortunate childhood experience here] and go into rehab.

· William Jefferson: See above (but don’t ask too many questions about why he keeps his bribe money in the freezer).

· Teddy Kennedy: He’s a murderer. He’s a liar. He’s a fool. He’s a danger to our nation. And he’s one of their ''elder statesmen''? ‘Nuff said.

· John Kerry, aka Hanoi John, aka Jean François Kerrée: He’s a traitor. He has taken every opportunity to diss our troops, to bad mouth them, to accuse them of unspeakable crimes, while protecting the enemy. And then, when he makes a “joke” that openly states our soldiers in Iraq are stupid, he makes a faux apology that basically says, “I’m sorry that you’re too stupid to understand my nuanced sense of humor.” His own website even has an op/ed from the Seattle Post/Intelligencer which clumsily reaffirms Kerry’s own belief that he is correct, thereby nullifying that bogus act of contrition. He even tries to make the excuse that he was talking about Bush being dumb. Considering the fact that Bush got better grades than he, his excuse sounds like most of what he’s spreading. A hot, steamin’ load of male bovine excrement.

· John Murtha: A former Marine (I know, there’s supposedly no such thing as a former jarhead, but in this case I think they should make an exception) who doesn’t even know where Okinawa is in relation to the Middle East, and he’s their spokesman on military matters? A man who decides, before any evidence is presented to the proper authorities, that our military is guilty, and MUST be guilty, thereby avoiding all that annoying “innocent until proven” stuff. This from a guy who was implicated in ABSCAM (look it up) but wasn’t arrested because he didn’t want to accept a bribe “at this point”--his words, on video (go here).

· Hillary Clinton: Because she’s Hillary Clinton. No other explanation is necessary.

· Immigration: Look, I’m honked off about Dubya’s terrible handling of illegal aliens (they’re not guest workers, dammit!) However, rep/con/tairs in the House were the ONLY thing that kept his “all-inclusive” bill about immigration “reform” being put into play. Instead, they forced the creation of a security-fence bill. Granted, it’s only 700 miles, but that’s a start compared to what the opposition would provide. Lib/dem/soc/commies actively encourage illegal aliens and will provide them with amnesty followed by citizenship, because 1) they figure they’ll get their vote and 2) they further the creation of an underclass, which provides lib/dem/soc/commies with a powerbase. Allow them to come into power, and you can kiss the borders, your job, the English language and America ‘s culture goodbye.

· World War IV: It’s not about Iraq. That is one front in an overall war against terrorism. Moreover, WE ARE WINNING IT with rep/con/tairs at the helm. Lib/dem/soc/commies, if allowed into power in the House or Senate, will pull another Vietnam. Remember that? LBJ micromanaged the war, which screwed things up badly. Nixon got in, and actually started winning the war by letting the generals run the show. The mainstream media (and Jean François Kerrée) LIED about our actions and involvement there. Nevertheless, winning was something the lib/dem/soc/commies in Congress couldn’t abide. As a result, they PULLED THE FUNDING. More of our troops died because of that. Millions of Cambodians died because of that. An entire region ended up under the thrall of communism. More millions died or were imprisoned and tortured. Lib/dem/soc/commies have done this to us before. They will do it again. Instead of having a war fought far away from us, terrorists will again come to our shores. Am I fear mongering? Yes. Why? Because sometimes, you need to be reminded of things that you SHOULD fear. "

There is much, much more and you should read it.

I've "known" Doc for about 3 years now. We both belong to a couple of on-line discussion groups. Doc is a rock solid Conservative and he has made no bones about his dis-satisfaction with the administration's handling of issues such as the immigration crisis. But even through all of that, Doc realizes (as I do) that the alternative is - from a conservative stand point - a much worse alternative.

To all of you conservatives out there this is the last time I will say this to you (at least during this election cycle)....GET OFF OF THE COUCH AND GO VOTE ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 7!

Accountability

I saw a bumper sticker, driving into work on Friday, that caught my eye. The bumper sticker said ""Support our troops by holding their leadership responsible! " Now we all know that the intended meaning is to hold the President and Secretary of Defense responsible for all of the "failings" in Iraq . Well, that got me to thinking. What if we DID hold our leadership responsible for their failings?

What if we held the leadership in the media responsible for failing to report all of the good things that are happening in Iraq? Minnesota Senator Mark Dayton was just in Iraq and he told local reporters about all the good things that Minnesota soldiers are doing in Iraq - building schools, rebuilding infrastructure, saving lives...Why is the media nor reporting any of that? What if we held the media leadership responsible for publishing leaked intelligence that probably cost some of our soldiers their lives. How many lives have been lost because the New York Times published details of secret surveillance tactics that were intended to track the terrorists that killed over 100 soldiers in Iraq last month?

What if we held the Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate for their rhetoric and actions? What would the Democrats that are running for office under a plan of "phased redeployment" say if the Generals on the ground came to them and asking for more soldiers on the ground? Would they listen to the in theatre Generals or would they still insist that we take troops OUT of Iraq?

Then I remember what happened the last time that the Democrats were in charge. The year is 1993, the place - Mogadishu Somalia. Then President Clinton sent an expedition into Mogadishu to help the Somali government fight off militia forces loyal to a rival Somali war-lord. The troops were sent into the streets of Mogadishu and right into a trap. The soldiers on the ground called DC - BEGGING for help from the 10th Mountain Division which was stationed in "nearby" Pakistan". The 10th Mountain was never called and as a result 80 American soldiers were injured and 18 were killed! If President Bush is "responsible" for the deaths of 3000 troops in Iraq, then President Clinton is equally responsible for the deaths of the 18 soldiers that lost their lives that day. Yet you will never hear that coming out of the Democrats.

All I am saying is that we need to take a look at the Democrats history when going into the election on Tuesday. There is a lot of history that says that they will NOT do any better in Iraq - and may even make things worse (if they "responsibly redeploy"). The decision is ours to make.

Cliche

How many cliches and DFL talking points can you fit into one 30 second TV slot? Plenty if you are candidate Coleen Rowley.

She is "outraged" and says that you would be too....IF you were paying attention. She says she is a "former Republican" and then talks about all of the far left things she is in support of. She talks about all of the "scandals in DC" but neglects to mention Harry Reid and William Jefferson.

The ad is cheap and amateurish, but then again that has been the hallmarks of her campaign. That and anger - the anger is visible in her words and her body language. The emotion can't be hidden. Is that what voters of the 2nd District want - someone who makes decisions based on anger? Or raw emotion? I hope not.

Cathartic, but not smart

Dennis Prager wrote the definative dissertation on the upcoming mid-term elections.

"One repeatedly hears that some conservatives and Republicans will either vote Democrat or not vote at all -- out of anger at the Republican Party.
According to these Republican holdouts, the Republicans have governed as Democrats-lite by greatly increasing government spending and doing little about illegal immigration. Accordingly, it is better to have liberal government under liberals than liberal government under Republicans, and the Republicans need to be taught a lesson so that in the future they will govern as authentic Republicans.
Conservatives should file this thinking under the heading "Cathartic," but not under "Smart."

Many of us have given our reasons why staying home or otherwise not voting for Republicans is a bad idea. Dennis' column cuts to the heart of all of the reasons why letting the Democrats take control of the House and the Senate is detrimental to the survival of the Republic! Please, please take the time to read this and pass it on to any recalcitrant Republicans you might know before November 7.