STOP THE PRESSES!!!!

That paragon of Constitutional Rights abuses, George W. Bush, is at it again. This time he has closed down Fox News.....

"On the TV, stars of RCTV sing their national anthem, and the crowd outside joins in. The men carrying the massive flag are now holding it steady. People grab me and Keith. They tell me in Spanish that they are losing their Democracy and they are worried about their future. One man asserts, "Go tell America and tell Europe what is being done to freedom in Colombia!"
11:58 p.m.: Like clockwork, the channel goes off the air. The music stops; the TV now features a spinning “TVes” logo, which stands for the new socialist, Chavez controlled TV station."

Oh wait....that wasn't President Bush???

This is the thing that bugs me about a lot of folks on the left. They scream bloody murder about supposed violations here in the US and then they align themselves with some of the WORST human rights violaters (Communist Russia, China, Cuba) and then when their guy does what everyone on the right says he is going to do, they turn a blind eye to the abuses.

Not so settled science

For something that is supposedly settled science there sure are a lot of important scientists that are coming out against global warming.

"NASA administrator Michael Griffin is drawing the ire of his agency's preeminent climate scientists after apparently downplaying the need to combat global warming.
In an interview broadcast this morning on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" program, Griffin was asked by NPR's Steve Inskeep whether he is concerned about global warming."I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists," Griffin told Inskeep. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."
"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said. "I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

There is not a whole lot to add there. Other than maybe the comment (again) that global warming is something that needs a whole lot more study before we go making any more drastic changes.

We're all in this together!

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton must have watched "High School Musical". If she hasn't she should - after this comment.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

While the Junior Senator from New York IS correct - all Americans should be equal in the eyes of their government. However, her idea of "fairness" is hardly fair.

"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

We all have different talents. My employer is a very talented entrepeneur. He is very good at developing relationships with prospective clients, turning them into customers. I can not do what he does. Period! However, my talent lies in the technical end of our business. I have deductive skills and (if I may be so bold) I have a great way of difusing a very hostile situation - turning irate customers into understanding customers in a matter of minutes. My employer does not have the patience for troubleshooting that I have - even if he does have the people skills. Others in my office don't have either. Because my employer built this business from the ground up over the last 7 years - pouring a whole lot of his money into the business - he gets the and deserves the higher pay. He negotiates contracts with our suppliers, he gets customers, he does much much more than anyone in our office does. He has put in many 20+ hour days to get us where we are. Is it more "fair" for him to get paid in relation to the work he does and the risk he has taken? Of course it is. Hard work should pay off. However, according to Mrs. Clinton, my employer should have his hard earned dollars taken from him so that others who do not work at all can have the same things that he works so hard to provide to his family.

We're all in this together is a great sentiment for a high school team (or teams) who are working to succeed at their chosen field, but it is a horrible idea for government policy. Listen to the lyrics..."all our dreams have no limitations that's what it's all about". That is the epitomy of the American Dream. "Everyone is special in their own way....we make each other strong!" That's what I'm saying. Mrs. Clinton - maybe you should take a few minutes off of the campaign trail and watch this movie. You might actually learn something!

Hypocrisy - thy name is....

Former Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE) had a piece in the Wall Street Journal last week that got little attention - and it deserved more than it got.

"Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the "head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.
As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.
No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq. " (emphasis mine)

Senator Kerrey then goes on to chastise people like Senator Biden who, while condemning US intervention in an Iraqi Civil War, have no problems interjecting the US into other Civil Wars around the world.

"The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart. "

I have long wondered how the left could justify that position. In the spirit of disclosure, I support us being in Iraq AND into the Sudan in order to stop the atrocities in Darfur. Maybe the Democrats in DC need to think about their positions on these issues and answer the question "why are they so out of line?"

Good-bye Mother Sheehan

Now there has been much said about the departure of Cindy Sheehan from the "peace" movement. Two things in her missive in her Daily Kos diary struck me the most.

"Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives."

Sadly, Mrs. Sheehan has a huge point here. More Americans care more about American Idol than they care about the state of the nation. However, rather than just condemn the country I wish she could have offered a solution or two. That is the sole of debate - the exchange of ideas. Me, I think that we should restore mandatory "Civics" classes in Middle and High Schools. When I was in Middle School I had to take a 1 semester class in "American Government" AND I could not move on to 8th grade until I passed a test on American history and American Government. Plus I had to take a full year of American History and Civics in High School. So far, they Junior Logician has had none of that.

The second statement that caught my eye was this.

"Good-bye America ...you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it."

Now some are pointing to this and saying "see - this is proof that the left hates America." Now I won't go that far, but I will say that this shows quite clearly the ego of a woman who not two paragraphs before, bemoans the overbearing egos in the peace movement. You are not what I want you to be therefore you are not worthy of my love.... All I can say is I hope she didn't shower her children with that kind of love.

Why the purists are necessary!

This could also be titled "The problem with pragmatism" because that fits just as well. I will admit, flat out, that I am a pragmatist. I tend to see the big picture - sometimes to a fault! I can see the merits of all of the core Republican/Conservative issues. However, there are problems that.

My friends all know about the "world’s best border collie" (patent pending). Border Collies are amazingly intelligent dogs who work hard, play hard and sleep hard. When it comes to herding, no other breed can compare to border collies. They focus their attention on the herd with laser like precision. Nothing except their handlers command should ever pry the border collies attention off of the flock. Pragmatists can be like a border collie on crack - we can flit from issue to issue in a split second. The purists are the ones who bring the pragmatists focus back when needed.

Right now, political consultants are telling the both parties to "ignore the purists" but that is suicide. Take a look right now at what is happening to the Democratic Party. In 2006, they swept into power in St. Paul and Washington DC simply by catering to their anti-war base and all those who were dis-satisfied with the war. Now that base is rapidly defecting because the Democrats in DC got pragmatic and realized that they could not come straight out and defund the war.

Today if you ask certain people within the MNGOP why we lost last fall, they will say it was because of dis-satisfaction with the war. However, that is not entirely the case! Large numbers of the Republican base - mostly the purists stayed home because the party was ignoring them. The sooner that the state and national GOP parties realize that, the better off that they will be.

So what's the solution? The pragmatists and the purists need to realize that they need each other. The purists help us define the issues of the day and the pragmatists help us to get the issues acted on. Winning an election is like sailing across a lake. Pragmatists will argue about which mode is best to get across the lake - do we walk around, fly over, take a sail boat/row boat or do we swim across? Purists help us decide which mode of transport is best - however they will want to sail in a straight line across the lake when sometimes you need to tack across.

Pragmatists and Purists compliment each other. We are two pieces of a greater whole. When the parties and politicians realize that, we can do great things. When they (and we) ignore one for the other - we lose elections. It's that simple!

Purity

In my day to day dealings with fellow Republicans, I have come across people who are, for lack of a better way to put it, purists. They take an all or nothing stance on their issue...whether it be stadium funding, smoking bans or immigration reform the purists have a zeal for their issue that is equally admirable and off-putting at the same time. They can give you all of the reasons why their view on the issue is justified, but they will never allow any other side of the debate even nodding justification and heaven help the poor soul who is undecided...

Their passion is contagious - of that you can have no doubt! However, that passion can be a double edged sword.

The problem, if you can call it that, that I have with purists is that purity does not win elections. Take a look at the Minnesota Gubernatorial election of 1998. You had a DFL purist with an impeccable pedigree (Skip Humphrey) on one side, a presumed Republican purist (St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman) on the other and a former professional wrestler (Jesse Ventura) in the middle. The wrestler won the election by basically taking the best from both sides and rejecting the purism. Now I won't advocate rejecting purism completely out of hand. Most Minnesotans realize that Governor Ventura was a mistake, but not completely. However, the purism needs to be tempered, at some point, with a dose of common sense and a touch of pragamatism. That is where Jesse Ventura won.

Single issue purity ignores that there are other equally vital issues to be addressed. Single issue purists feel that their issue is the most important issue of the time. It may be the most important issue for that person, but it is not that for everyone. Our elected officials represent a large number of people. Just because your representative doesn't see eye to eye with you on the importance of the issue, does not mean that representative is a traitor to the conservative cause. It simply means that you disagree on that particular issue.

The sad thing about the purists is that they will always find a "reason" not to help with campaigns. In the 2006 election, I talked to many purists. When I asked for their help in campaign events I alway got a polite "Why should I help get him re-elected? He voted against my pet issue!" A lot of times, I agreed with the purist that the vote was ill-advised, but I campaigned anyway. Now (as a result of those activities) when I write or call my elected officials, I get responses where oft-times the purist won't (or they get the obligatory "form letter" in response). I'm sure some of the reason that I get responses is probably because I have made a large pain out of myself but some of it has to do with the fact that I walked the parade routes and did the lit drops for and made phone calls on behalf of the candidate in question. The bottom line is, I worked. I made calls for and to the elected officials. I wrote letters for and to the elected officials. I walked and talked to them on the parade routes and at community festivals. I made myself known to them. And when the time came that we didn't see eye to eye on an issue, we respectfully disagreed but we also realized that, as human beings, we were not going to walk in lock step agreement on every issue. My rep did not instantly become the enemy because we disagreed. He/she was simply a fellow human being with a different perspective on the issue. I figure as long as we agree on a large majority of issues, we can work out the differences.

I won't go so far as to say that there is "no room" in the big tent for the purists. I will, however, ask that the purists try to remember that sometimes compromise is a necessary part of life. We have two choices when it comes to compromise....we can reject it out of hand or we can try to make the best compromise possible - to do the best with what is at hand.

Good Samaritans

Earlier this week I posted about the debate that took place on the floor of the House on the Omnibus Education bill. Well today, the answer to Rep. Greiling's challenge came into my inbox. It was written in the context of the immigration debate, but I think it is more than applicable in just about any discussion that involves government taxation for the purpose of giving to the "less fortunate". It starts with the parable of the Good Samaritan.

"Jesus replied and said, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.’ “Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands?”
And he said, “The one who showed mercy toward him.”
Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.” (Luke 10:25-37)"

Now this verse is used (by a lot of well meaning people) as justification for confiscatory taxes. After all - the reasoning goes - Jesus teaches that we should take care of others! However, let's take a closer look at the passage. Did the Samaritan ask for government to take care of the injured man? No - the Samaritan bound the injured man's wounds. He put the injured man on his mule and paid the innkeeper out of his money. He didn't demand that everyone else chip in...HE did it of himself. THAT is the lesson of the parable of the Good Samaritan.

The column then breaks it down further.

"First, I cannot be generous, compassionate or loving by giving your property away. I cannot fulfill the commandment to “love my neighbor as my self” by using your land, your property, your house or your money to do so. "

There can be no clearer example of the difference between Conservatives and Liberals. Liberals think that it is government that can best take care of the disadvantaged by taking money from "the rich". Conservatives, on the other hand, give of themselves. Whether is it in their church or synagog, or mentoring young people, or being a den mother in the scouts or writing the "big check" to the charity of their choice, Conservatives try to walk the walk. We don't ask others to walk it for us.

Common Sense Immigration

I think I have mentioned, once or twice in the past, that I am quite fond of Peggy Noonan. As a writer she is an excellent role model - articulate, never overbearing.....a lady of full of common sense. Her column in today's Wall Street Journal tackles the issue of immigration in her usual rational style.

"I asked myself a question this week and realized the answer is "Only one." The question is: Have I ever known an immigrant to America who's lazy? I have lived on the East Coast all my life, mostly in New York, and immigrants both legal and illegal have been and are part of my daily life, from my childhood when they surrounded me to an adulthood in which they, well, surround me. And the only lazy one I knew was a young woman, 20, European, not mature enough to be fully herself, who actually wanted to be a good worker but found nightlife too alluring and hangovers too debilitating... Everyone else who comes here works hard, grindingly hard, and I admire them. But it's more than that, I love them and I'm rooting for them. When I see them in church (it is Filipino women who taught me the right posture for prayer; Central Americans helped teach me the Bible) I want to kiss their hands. I want to say, "Thank you." They have enriched my life, and our country's."

I'm in the same boat. As the great-great-great grand-daughter of a Mexican immigrant (who was here before todays border was drawn) I too have worked with immigrants from many nations and they too were hard working people who, like my father and his father before him, wanted to make life better for their children - make it so they would never "want". So with that said, you would think that we would be all for the Comprehensive Immigration Bill in front of the Senate today.

"Naturally I hope the new immigration bill fails. It is less a bill than a big dirty ball of mischief, malfeasance and mendacity, with a touch of class malice, and it's being pushed by a White House that is at once cynical and inept. The bill's Capitol Hill supporters have a great vain popinjay's pride in their own higher compassion. They are inclusive and you're not, you cur, you gun-totin' truckdriver's-hat-wearin' yahoo. It's all so complex, and you'd understand this if you weren't sort of dumb.
But it's not so complex. The past quarter-century an unprecedented wave of illegal immigrants has crossed our borders. The flood is so great that no one--no one--can see or fully imagine all the many implications, all the country-changing facts of it. No one knows exactly what uncontrolled immigration is doing and will do to our country. "

The arrogance coming out of the supporters of this bill, including President Bush, is astonishing. However, if they really believed that this was a matter of not understanding the bill then why don't you try to explain it to us - rather than just jamming it down our throats.

"So what should we do?
We should stop, slow down and absorb. We should sit and settle. We should do what you do after eating an eight-course meal. We should digest what we've eaten.
We should close our borders. We should do whatever it takes to close them tight and solid. Will that take the Army? Then send the Army. Does it mean building a wall? Then build a wall, but the wall must have doors, which can be opened a little or a lot down the road once we know where we are. Should all legal immigration stop? No. We should make a list of what our nation needs, such as engineers and nurses, and then admit a lot of engineers and nurses. We should take in what we need to survive and flourish. " (emphasis mine)

OK - so far so good, but what about the illegals.

"As we end illegal immigration, we should set ourselves to the Americanization of the immigrants we have. They haven't only joined a place of riches, it's a place of meaning. We must teach them what it is they've joined and why it is good and what is expected of them and what is owed. We stopped Americanizing ourselves 40 years ago. We've got to start telling the story of our country again. "

It is also a place of responsibilities and one of the responsibilities that these immigrants need to be reminded of is the responsibility to integrate INTO our culture and not supplant our culture with the one you left behind. I am quite proud of my Latino heritage - something I still can't get my grandfather (who spent most of his life hiding his heritage due to racism) to understand. However, my Latino heritage does not mean that I am not also an American and as an American citizen, I am obliged to mingle my Latino heritage into the common American heritage, just as millions of immigrants from Ireland and Italy and France and Germany and Russia and on and on have done before me! It is my responsibility to adapt to the culture - just as I adapted to the German culture when I lived in Germany (more years ago than I care to admit). I spoke the language, I lived by their laws. I never demanded that they speak English to me...I learned to speak Swabbisch German!

Now here is the hard word for everyone who thinks we should just "deport them all".

"As to the eight or 10 or 12 or 14 million illegals who are here--how interesting that our government doesn't know the number--we should do nothing dramatic or fraught or unlike us. We should debate what to do, at length. Debate isn't bad. There's a lot to say. We can all join in. We should do nothing extreme, only things that are commonsensical.
Here is the truth: America has never deported millions of people, and America will never deport millions of people. It's not what we do. It's not who we are. It's not who we want to be. The American people would never accept evening news pictures of sobbing immigrants being torn from their homes and put on a bus. We wouldn't accept it because we have hearts, and as much as we try to see history in the abstract, we know history comes down to the particular, to the sobbing child in the bus. We don't round up and remove. Nor should we, tomorrow, on one of our whims, grant full legal status and a Cadillac car. We take it a day at a time. We wait and see what's happening. We do the small discrete things a nation can do to make the overall situation better. For instance: "You commit a violent crime? You are so out of here." And, "Here, let me help you learn English." (emphasis mine)

In the comment section over at Residual Forces, Nordeaster asked a question that we all need to ask of ourselves and of our government. "Is there a realistic option between amnesty and deportation? To put it another way, is there any solution that doesn’t involve the deportation of 12 million people that wouldn’t be considered amnesty?" Until we answer that question, I fear that there will be no compromise bill.

Oh and to those of you who say that these immigrants are only "doing the jobs that Americans won't do" Ms. Noonan has something for you to ponder.

"Let's find out if it's true that Americans won't stoop to any of the jobs illegals do. I don't think it is. Years ago I worked in a florist shop removing the thorns from roses. It was painful work and I was happy to do it, and I am very American. I was a badly paid waitress in the Holiday Inn on Route 3 in New Jersey.
The young will do a great deal, and not only the young. The dislike for Americans evinced by the Americans-won't-do-hard-work crowd is, simply, astonishing, and shameful. It says more about the soft and ignorant lives they lived in Kennebunkport and Greenwich than it does about the American people." (emphasis mine)

Not much more I can add to that.

Giving credit where credit is due

I got this in the inbox today.

"Dear Republican Friend:

With the legislature now likely out of session until next year, taxpayers here in Minnesota can finally breathe a sigh of relief. By standing strong against the Democrats’ insatiable desire for tax increases and reckless government spending, Minnesotans have much to cheer.
Governor Pawlenty deserves great credit for the strong fiscal leadership he has demonstrated for our state. Representative Marty Seifert and Senator David Senjem did a great job, and the fact that they held their caucuses together strengthened the Governor’s hand.
Let’s briefly review some of the key GOP hard earned victories this legislative session:
Held the line against over $5 billion in new job-killing tax increases.
Protected taxpayers by opposing proposals to hike the gasoline tax by up to 48 cents over 10 years.
Blocked a proposal to give us the highest marginal income tax rate in the nation.
Prevented increases in the state sales tax, vehicle tax and many more.
Demanded that the state live within its means with a responsible increase in state spending.
Stopped the so called “Dream Act” from becoming law. This bill will would have provided in-state education benefits for illegal immigrants.
Made certain taxpayers did not have to pay for domestic partner benefits.
Precluded the Democrats from overriding the Governor on any bill. "

Now I will agree with the Chairman that the Governor, with the use of his veto pen, was deserving of some credit for the successes of this past session, however I think a lot of credit also needs to go to Minority Leader Seifert. He did something that a more tenured legislator (former Speaker Steve Sviggum) could not do. He held a oft-times fractious Republican caucus together so that there was not chance of over-rides. There are a couple of first ring suburban Republican legislators that seem to delight in throwing their caucus members "under the bus" so to see the caucus hold so strong is indeed a testament to the Minorty Leader's skills.

"Governor Pawlenty and Republican leaders have done much to make us proud. I am honored to have worked with Governor Pawlenty and the House and Senate caucuses to help advance their pro-taxpayer agenda. "

Again, I agree. The Governor and the Republican leadership in the House and Senate have much to be proud of.

"At the Republican Party of Minnesota, we worked hand in hand with the caucus leaders and the Governor to advocate the conservative position. In the press, we aggressively attacked the DFL’s tax proposals and even produced a web video which garnered a good deal of attention. "

The Party was certainly agressive in the papers and in producing the web videos, but.....

"By rallying constituents to let their legislators know how they felt about the DFL’s tax bills, we helped Minnesotans learn the facts through BPOU leader updates, the Newsline, and targeted phone calling."

EXCUSE ME????? I think I maybe got one email or call out of the state party during the entire session that wasn't asking for money. Everything I learned about the propsed bills in the session I got from my own sources. I sent out more emails to my friends and family about what the DFL leadership was up to than I got from the state party!!! I know a lot of BPOU leaders who are frustrated to no end at the lack of communication that has come out of the state party headquarters.

If it were not for some of the intrepid bloggers in this state, I doubt much would have gotten out to the activists. Blogs like SCSU Scholars and Minnesota Democrats Exposed and Residual Forces and Freedom Dogs and Anti-Strib and Let Freedom Ring and Eckernet were all more instrumental in getting the word out about what was happening in St. Paul during the last legislative session, and for that, the Minnesota GOP should be ashamed.

Hillary in trouble

You know when the Huffington Post smacks you down, you are in a world of hurt!

"In a 1939 radio address, Franklin Roosevelt declared, "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." When it comes to Iraq, Hillary Clinton is doing everything in her power to prove him wrong -- repeatedly trying to rewrite history and belatedly catch up with public opinion against the war.
She did it during the first Democratic presidential debate, and she was at it again this morning on the Today show.
The issue was former president Bill Clinton's campaign trail complaints that it's unfair for Barack Obama to be characterized as more antiwar than his wife since they hold essentially the same position on the war.
Matt Lauer quoted Obama's retort that that was true "if you leave out the fact that she authorized and supported the war there and I said it was a bad idea" and played a clip of him saying "I think it is fair to say that we had a fundamentally different opinion on the wisdom of this war. And I don't think we can revise history when it comes to that."
Lauer then asked Hillary, "Was there a fundamental difference in 2002 between you and him?"
Instead of honestly explaining her transformation from pro-war supporter to cheerleader of the war's progress to tentative opponent of the war to her current incarnation as long-term opponent of the war, Hillary skipped right over the unpleasant past and tried to talk only about the future: "Well, you know, Matt, I think the important thing is for the Democrats to be united in trying to either persuade or require this president to change this direction now -- that's what all of us in the Senate are trying to do." Sure, why answer the question when you can divert attention and blur the differences between you and your opponents?
Hillary also dutifully hit her talking point that she's been "saying for a number of years" that we should bring our troops home -- trying to rhetorically paper-over the fact that for most of those years she was actually trying to have it both ways on Iraq: dipping her toe in the rising anti-war tide by voting for a phased redeployment of troops while steadfastly arguing against setting any kind of deadline for bringing our troops home (for instance, less than a year ago, in June 2006, she said she did not "think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interest of our troops or our country")."

Poor Hillary. I think the run is almost over.

Who gets sanctuary here?

OK - this post has been percolating for a couple of days now. I wrote about human trafficking in Minnesota last year. I asked at the time where the feminist organizations were then and I say it again now.

"The women came mostly from Mexico and Central America.
When they arrived in Minnesota, the women had their passports and other identifying documents taken away and they were forced into a world of prostitution. In one night, two women serviced more than 80 men in a south Minneapolis house." (emphasis mine)

80 men in one night.....the sound you hear is my heart breaking into a hundred pieces! The truly sickening part, as John at Powerline reports, is that the Minneapolis police refused to participate in the raid because the perps in this raid were illegal immigrants and Minneapolis is a "sanctuary city".

"The investigation and arrests were the product of a collaboration involving federal agencies, Minnesota's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, and the St. Paul Police Department. Notably absent was the Minneapolis Police Department, notwithstanding the fact that most of the brothels were in Minneapolis. The city sent out emails to reporters explaining why it was AWOL: as a matter of policy, Minneapolis does not participate in investigations of illegal aliens. If the perpetrators of these crimes had been Americans, the Minneapolis Police Department would have been all over them. But apparently, the fact that they are illegal immigrants immunizes them in the eyes of Minneapolis's authorities." (emphasis mine)

Thankfully our Senior Senator, Norm Coleman, is trying to do something about it.

"In an effort to strengthen national security, Senator Norm Coleman yesterday introduced an amendment to the Immigration bill to make sure local law enforcement officials are able to communicate with federal law enforcement agencies regarding suspected immigration violations. Currently, a number of cities throughout the nation are using a loophole to get around Sec. 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 by instituting ordinances forbidding local law enforcement to even ask the question as to whether a person is in the U.S. lawfully, thereby evading their legal responsibility to report their suspicions to the federal government.
“In a post 9-11 world, it is simply unacceptable for communities to ignore federal laws requiring them to share this type of information with federal authorities. This is not a matter of making state and local governments enforce federal immigration laws, it is simply a matter of closing this loophole that certain cities have created,” said Coleman. “This defies common sense, as the rule of law must apply to both legal and illegal residents. Moreover, we know how crucial it is to connect the dots in order to avert another terrorist attack in this country. The consequences of prohibiting information sharing are too great. To close this loophole, I have introduced an amendment that will ensure the lines of communication are open between local and federal law enforcement officials.”

This "sanctuary city" loophole is atrocious! What about the women that were abused by these perps? Where is their sanctuary Mayor Ryback?

It is stories like this that sour me on the Democratic Party in this country. Oh they say that they are for human rights and safety and security for everyone, but the bottom line is, their actions betray those words. Whether it is in the nations captial, the state capital, or big city USA, the Democrats actions show that they are only for the "rights" and safety and security of the people that are useful to them and when you are no longer useful to them, you are invisible to them.

I do hope that the Civil Society is helping the real victims of this crime. God knows they need all the help they can get.

Schools First - Minneapolis schools first anyway...

There were a couple of discussions (from Monday's final night of the Minnesota Legislature) that stood out when I heard them the first time and again when I heard them the second time yesterday as I was writing my summation of the final nights activities. The more I think about these discussions the more I think that they need to be given more exposure than cable access or what the local media would have given them (in other words nothing).

The first (Session 4 starting at the 43 minute 52 second mark) was the discussion of the E-12 education bill. After Rep. Buesgen's motion to refuse to concur, Rep. Pat Garafolo (Farmington) started off talking about the Schools First ad campaign "Mediocrity". You've seen the ad - a balding, paunchy white politician (some say Karl Rove-esque?) who wants to reduce school funding and bring "mediocrity" back into the game. Well Rep. Garafolo had the numbers to show just who is putting mediocrity back into the game. The Minneapolis and St Paul school districts would get anywhere from 50% to 80% more funding than the rural and suburban districts. Oh for sure, the rural and suburban districts would get an approximate 4.5% increase in spending in the first year, but they would only get 1.3% to 1.8% (depending on where you get your data - Rep. Garafolo or Rep. Abler). According Rep. Abler's (Anoka) figures, the Minneapolis School district would get $1300+ per pupil more in year 2 of this bill and the rural/suburban districts would only get $600 to $800 per pupil more. Rep. Sviggum, in his remarks, mentioned that it is reasonable for struggling districts to get more per pupil, but that this bill was not reasonable.

Rep. Sondra Erickson (Princeton) noted that there were provisions in the E-12 bill that allowed for putting students in special education without any parental consent or notification. That to me is frightening! Teachers and administrators are supposed to partner with parents on the education of their children. They are never supposed to supplant parents.

Rep. Lynn Wardlow (Eagan) mentioned that if the Republicans had brought up legislation like this two years ago (when they held the majority) they would have been crucified in the local media (hello Star Tribune editorial board?????).

Rep. Gottwalt (St. Cloud) echoed the remarks of Reps. Garafolo, Wardlow, Abler and Buesgens that the school district superintendents in their districts were against this bill because it did not fix the funding problems that their school districts were facing! He said that his superintendent said "well I guess we have to put up with whatever you send us..." He talked about priorities. How education spending (special education and dollars to the funding formula) was the "priority" of both caucuses. He said he could see the reaction to this was going to play out. That the funding formulas (as presented) would pass and the rural/suburban districts would complain and that the Legislature would "blame Governor Pawlenty...he was too hard , he squeezed the dollars and he asked us to live within our means and so we simply can't do it." and "When this caucus (the Republican caucus) had less money they put more on the formula...priorities!" When asked (by Rep. Gottwalt) what the reason for the disparity was, Rep. Greiling (Roseville) answered that there was a lot of mis-information out there and that since time was so short it was hard to know where to begin. She then accused the commentors from the "that side of the aisle are protesting too much." She went back to Rep. Sviggum's remarks about the necessity for disparity, but she neglected to address Rep. Sviggum saying that the disparity was still not fair or reasonable to rural and suburban districts! She then went on to say (and this is a direct quote starting at the 1 hour 21 minute mark) "If you ask any one of us - even you Rep. Gottwalt, you would acknowledge that studuents like that, who have special needs, need more money. Yet when you add up the formula that you get when you give them more money, you carp and pick about it. You can't have it both ways...to be good, kind Christian people who like to meet needs of people who have them and then complain when you add up the bill." She then went on to say that the Representatives questioning her bill "didn't understand" the calculations. She then went on to say that the increases that came from the Republican caucus two years ago came about because of property tax increases and that she challenged any of the gathered Reps to go through her bill to find a single property tax increase. HELLO - EARTH TO REP. GREILING!!!!! THE STATE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROPERTY TAXES - THAT IS A LOCAL FUNCTION!!!!!

Sorry about that.....The esteemed Representative went on to continue to attack anyone who was against this bill for another full three minutes...all the while blaming the Republicans for lack of money "in the pool".

Now I think I will take the "good, kind Christian" route and save the rest of my comments on this...for now anyway. Suffice it to say I can understand now why the animosity of the Republican caucus at the end of the night! The only thing I will say is that Rep. Greiling never DID answer Rep. Gottwalt's question...

Thoughts on the end of the legislative session.

I tuned in and out of yesterday's final day of the 2007 regular Legislative Session. There were a couple of interesting things that happened yesterday (besides the Cheesecake break) that I thought were interesting. Of course, I have decided to share them with you.

I'll start you off with a link to the House video archives. Any comments that I refer to will have the appropriate date, session and time mark in parenthesis.

First - a victory for parents. House and Senate confirees removed language from SF 184 that would allow nurses at family planning clinics to dispense oral contraceptives to minors under the age of 12 (5/21 session 1 starting at the 1 hour 20 minute mark).

HF 464 which puts all school district employees into a state wide health insurance plan was discussed next (starting at the 1:28 mark). There was much discussion on why an opt-out option was not left in the conference committee bill. The opt-out was something that was requested by several school districts because there were no guarantees that the costs would be lowered and these districts have plans where the costs to the insured are lower than what would be available to the pool. When pressed on why this was left out, all Rep. Sertich could say (when pressed on it by Rep. Mark Olson of Big Lake) was "We debated that at length a few days ago and I don't believe I'll be able to give you a sufficient answer today" (1:34 mark). Rep. Olson's follow up I thought was classic. He said that this is nothing more than the beginnings of a single payer system and it does not do a thing about reducing the problem of out of control health care costs and it will lead to rationing!

Session two lasted a whopping 25 minutes and dealt with concurrent amendments from the Senate and committee reports.

Session three was a 35 minute session and dealt mostly with a transportation "Lights on" bill. There were some fireworks in this session. Rep. Marty Seifert stood up (at approximately the 23 minute mark) to talk about the multiple transportation proposals that Republican Caucus (for two days) wanted to bring up a $2BILLION transportation funding package that did not raise gas taxes. The DFL leadership would not give consideration to the bill. The DFL had the opportunity for a roads bill and they passed on it!!!!! Rep. Sviggum got up (at about the 26 minute mark) and reminded the legislature that an "all or nothing" approach does not work. He said that there was a way to move forward without all of the tax increases, but leadership would not allow it to be considered. Rep. Lieder (DFL Crookston) countered that there was no movement from the Executive Branch (so apparently they were the only ones to negotiate with?). The rest of the session addressed modifications to charitable gambling provisions.

Session 4 was where all the fireworks were. The E-12 Education bill was discussed between the 28 minute mark and approximately the 2:30 mark. The highlight (for me) were the exchanges between Rep. Mark Buesgens (R-Jordan) and the bills author Rep. Mindy Greiling (DFL-Roseville). It should be noted that there was some back and forth between the two in the local papers. Rep. Greiling took Rep. Buesgens to task for voting against the bill when it was voted on the first time. The reason that Rep. Buesgens voted against the bill was because it set up a two tiered funding system where the school districts of Minneapolis and St. Paul would get more funding (per pupil) than school districts in Hibbing, Kenyon or Jordan! Rep. Buesgens is (in his "real" job) a school administrator so he knows the ins and outs of school funding. It really is an educational experience listening to him talk about this subject.

At the 4:55 mark the real fireworks started. During the debate on over-riding the governors veto of the transportation bill (realize this was at approximately 11pm last night), Rep. Olson got up to chastise the DFL leadership for trying to threaten Republicans on the floor to get them to vote to over-ride. He said that was reason enough to vote no on the over-ride. Debate was rapidly cut off and a vote called. The over-ride attempt failed again.

As time became tight, Speaker Anderson-Kelliher got more aggressive in pounding down discussion. There was a time, right at the very end, when a voice vote was called where Rep. Anderson-Kelliher gavelled the vote as approved before those who voted against it had the opportunity to give voice to their "NO!" It seemed to me, watching the clock and the proceedings, that Rep. Anderson-Kelliher realized what time it was and was so determined to finish on time that she was not going to allow ANYONE other than Rep. Sertich to speak. Needless to say, there were a few Republicans who expressed their displeasure with the way that the last 10 minutes of the session were run. Rep. Laura Brod and Rep. Buesgens both tried to get proceedural clarifications on the way things were being run - with little response from Rep. Anderson-Kelliher. One Republican rep (I can't remember the name but if I find the picture I will link to it) was seen sporting duct tape over his mouth to symbolize how the speaker was silencing the "opposition".

It was interesting at times and at other times it was (as Senator Senjem said) like watching sausage or hot dogs being made - truly disgusting. Now comes the fun part - the spin. The DFL are all winging their way around the state (well all except Senate President Metzen) at taxpayer expense trying to justify their actions. The governor, meanwhile is pondering whether he will veto the tax bill en toto or whether he will use his line item veto in order to trim the fat out of the tax bill.

There is still some fun left to be had, but it is clear that the Republican minority - led by Representative Seifert and Senator Senjem have much to be proud of. The saved the taxpayers of Minnesota from having even more of their hard earned dollars confiscated by the state. Bravo ladies and gentlemen! You did bang up work!

UPDATE!!!! Mitch points out yet another example of the leadership of the DFL House. You certainly have to give them points for chutzpah...trying to ram through a 3% tax increase for St. Paul ONLY in the final hours of session with no debate, no testimony and no public notice! That certainly does take audacity.

Cheesecake?????

It is 8:40 pm - the session is supposed to end at midnight and Rep Phyllis Kahn and Rep. Frank Hornstein are talking about cheesecake and the tradition of eating dairy on the Jewish holiday of Shavuot??? Does the DFL lead legislature have nothing better to talk about???????

And what business is it of yours?

Michael Vick, quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons, recently had a Virginia home he owned raided by police who busted up an apparent dog fighting ring. Now Vick claims to have not had anything to do with the ring even though (according to the story) there were dozens of malnourished and injured animals on the property. The story does not state if Mr. Vick lives in the home, just that it was a home that he "owned" which I find to be interesting. No charges have been filed in the matter as of today.

That has not stopped Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) from jumping in and condemning Vick based on the "evidence" available to him (which is the same evidence available to you and I - news reports).

"The level of cruelty involved in exploiting animals to the point that 60 malnourished and injured dogs were removed from Mr. Vick's property is mind boggling," Lantos said. "I will view anything less than the strongest repudiation of Mr. Vick's involvement as tacit support for this atrocious activity."

Now leave it for the moment that no charges have been filed or that there is an ongoing police and NFL investigation or the fact that this is not even happening in Rep. Lantos' district. What business is it of yours, Rep. Lantos? Well he answered that.....

"U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) pointed out that he's a senior member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which two years ago held highly publicized hearings on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports....In a not-so-subtle threat of possible congressional action, Lantos reminded the commissioner of his committee's efforts to weed out those who use performance-enhancing drugs.
"I also suggest you educate your players on the illegality and cruelty of dog fighting to prevent this from happening again," Lantos wrote. "It is my hope that the issue of animal fighting will not require us to further investigate the behavior of your athletes." (emphasis mine)

So Vick and the NFL py proxy are guilty until proven innocent in Rep. Lantos' eyes. Lovely...

Oh and for the record, if Vick was involved in this and the evidence shows as much, I would certainly not mind him getting punished under the full extend of the law, losing his job with the Falcons AND having some of the abuse he meted out on those innocent dogs visited on him. I have no love for people who abuse children or animals. I also have no love for people who will condemn a person before all the evidence is in. I happen to be a little picky that way...However, I will not publically call for ANY punishment until all the facts are in and charges filed and that is where Rep. Lantos and I part company.

And what business is it of yours?

It's all in the genes

I just have one question. If genetically modified food is a bad thing that should be avoided at all costs, why are we genetically modifying human beings?

"The government has overturned its proposed ban on the creation of human-animal embryos and now wants to allow them to be used to develop new treatments for incurable diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's."

I mean if genetically modified food is bad for our health, I can't imagine how this is going to be healthy. Can someone please explain?

Gas woes....

As our state legislators go to try to over-ride Governor Pawlenty's veto of the Transportation funding bill that increases gas taxes by 7.5 cents a gallon, I hope that they will stop to ponder this.

"U.S. families paid $1,000 more on average for gasoline last year than in 2001, as higher prices at the pump ate up a hefty portion of the increase in their paychecks, two consumer groups said Wednesday.
With retail gasoline prices at records, the increase in the tab for gasoline may be significant again this year.
The average U.S. household paid $2,277 for gasoline in 2006, up 78% from 2001, according to estimates from the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports. The numbers are similar to other estimates, including those from Moody's Economy.com" (emphasis mine)

Then you throw in the increase in the licensing fee and the increase in the metro area sales tax and the increase in the many other taxes that the DFL majority has foisted on the unsuspecting electorate this year.

They did not run on tax increases - they said that there was no reason for a tax increase because we had a $2.2 billion surplus. Well now is the time to hold them to that.

The taxpayers of Minnesota (and the rest of the country) are indeed overtaxed and it is time for our legislators to stop thinking about tax increases and start thinking about the taxpayers.

Fairness for all

Congressman Dennis Kucinich recently revived discussion of the "Fairness Doctrine". The Fairness Doctrine (for those of you who are too young to remember it) was an FCC rule that dictated if you had 1 hour of programming from one side of the politicial spectrum, you MUST provide equal time to the other side. This was government interfering in business with a heavy hand and it lead to some really boring radio. Also it was really easy to cheat. A station could put all of it's "liberal" programming on during the day (for example) and all their "conservative" programming on overnight when no one was listening and they could still be in compliance with the law.

Rep. Kucinich says this is because liberal views are not getting "equal time" in talk radio and in the blogosphere (apparently he has not heard of the Daily Kos which has traffic that dwarfs what most conservative bloggers get but I digress). However, is that really the case?

As I discussed previously, scientists who deviate from the Al Gore "man made global warming is a reality" matra are routinely stripped of their jobs and their funding. However, it is not just the MMGW activists that use these tactics.

But the MMGW activists are entitled to their heartfelt opinions aren't they? Of course they are, and their opinions should be respected. Just as they respect the heartfelt opinions of conservatives right?????

"That people on the political left have a certain set of opinions, just as people do in other parts of the ideological spectrum, is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is how often the opinions of those on the left are accompanied by hostility and even hatred.
Particular issues can arouse passions here and there for anyone with any political views. But, for many on the left, indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life.
How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans? How often have conservative students on campus shouted down a visiting speaker or rioted to prevent the visitor from speaking at all?
The source of the anger of liberals, "progressives" or radicals is by no means readily apparent. The targets of their anger have included people who are non-confrontational or even genial, such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
It is hard to think of a time when Karl Rove or Dick Cheney has even raised his voice but they are hated like the devil incarnate.
There doesn't even have to be any identifiable individual to arouse the ire of the left. "Tax cuts for the rich" is more than a political slogan. It is incitement to anger. " (emphasis mine)

I do find it "enlightening" that this same group of people that "hate" the thought of anything conservative are the same ones that are advocating hate speech legislation! Some would say that there might be some historical parallels to be made here.

""Why don't you go f--- yourself?" That was how House Democrat Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel reportedly responded to a Politico reporter's request – made "in the effort for openness and disclosure" – to sit in on a caucus debate over the language of a lobbying bill. "

Now I will leave aside the snide remark about Vice President Cheney saying the same thing and getting in hot water for now. What I will say is that this reaction, to a member of the media's request to sit in on a caucus debate, just goes to show the elitist arrogance of the left. It is this kind of attitude that got the Republican Caucus in trouble last year. You would think that Rep. Emanuel - as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee - would be well aware of that little fact.

Presidential Ponderings

I have not been shy about stearing clear of supporting any one candidate yet. I personally think it is way too early to make a decision - there is too much unknown about all of the announced candidates. I will say that I have already ruled out a couple - Ron Paul, Tommy Thompson and John McCain but I can honestly say I can see reasons for supporting Rudy Guiliani or Mitt Romney although they both have their downsides as well.

However, I am very intrigued with one unannounced candidate - former Senator Fred Thompson. Whether he has been writing on taxes or immigration or gun control or speaking on free speech or about foreign affairs, Senator Thompson has raised issues that seem to be resonating with the conservative base of the Republican Party.
All of that has lead people to wonder...when is he going to announce. Others are saying he needs to get in or stay out. Others still say the campaign has already begun.

"Having watched the second Republican debate the other night, it's clear to me the subject today is Fred Thompson, the man who wasn't there. While the other candidates bang away earnestly in a frozen format, Thompson continues to sneak up from the creek and steal their underwear--boxers, briefs and temple garments.
He is running a great campaign. It's just not a declared campaign."

Ms. Noonan is absolutely correct - this is a concerted campaign. Senator Thompson has been doing a lot to get his name and his stances out in front of the people who are going to vote in the Primaries next year. It's all well and good to get out in press via debates and the like, but ABC, NBC and CBS do not vote in the Republican Primaries. The readers of PowerLine and Captains Quarters and NRO and Townhall do. These are the people that the Republican Party needs to reach out to in a big way. Obviously some candidates get it. Many candidates including Governor Romney and Mayor Guiliani have set up discussion groups over at Powerline's forum (currently down due to a server crash) but Senator Thompson has made a concerted effort to get to as many of these forums as possible. You have to give him credit for that.

A couple of quick thoughts

Sorry for the sporadic posting. Life has been insane lately and it appears that it will not slow down anytime soon.

I had to get these two stories out just because I found them to be so interesting. The first has to do with the lefts reaction to the increase in gas prices - I know you will be shocked to know that they are happy and wish that the price would go even higher.

"The $3 gas prices posted at the station he passes on the way to work give Kevin Ishaug 20 miles to gloat over how much he saves commuting by bike."

Shark-Bait over at Anti-Strib pretty well eviscerated this. You should go read it.

The second still has me scratching my head.

"R. Kelly compares himself to Muhammad Ali, Marvin Gaye, Bob Marley -- and even Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. -- in a magazine interview that hits the street just in time for the release of his new album this month.
Kelly, the Chicago native who rose from street singer to star before facing criminal charges of having sex with an underage girl, made the comments in the spring/summer issue of Hip-Hop Soul magazine. "

Now I can see Ali, I can see Gaye, I can even see the Marley comparison but Dr. King????? Of course the defense is almost as lame as the original comparison.

"Kelly's publicist, Regina Daniels, said the interview and photo shoot took place in Chicago about a month ago.
"He doesn't think he's Martin Luther King. He's comparing the fact that he is a prolific songwriter of his time; now it's turned into something else," Daniels said. "Whatever Rob said, any way they can stick it to him. If he breathes it's a problem."

No Regina, Dr. King was not a "prolific songwriter". Dr. King was a a man who craved freedom and equality for all. Somone who objectifies women and rapes little girls does not even come close to being in the same rarefied strata as Dr. King.

Global Warming backlash

I know a lot of you will think I am beating a dead horse here, but these two Global Warming articles need a further review. First is a list of former anthropogenic global warming supporters who are now detractors of the theory.

"Once Believers, Now Skeptics ( Link to pdf version )
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006...
Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.”
Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog.
Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006.
Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added." (emphasis above is mine)

This is only part of the list. Go read the whole thing as there are links to many related and supporting articles.

One thing that the above mentioned scientists needs to be wary of is the backlash from the anthropogenic global warming purists.

"University of Washington climate scientist Mark Albright was recently dismissed from his position as associate state climatologist, just weeks after exposing false claims of shrinking glaciers in the Cascade Mountains, says James M. Taylor, managing editor of Environment and Climate News.
According to Albright:
At most, according to reliable datasets, the Cascade Mountains snow pack declined by 35 percent between 1950 and 2000.
Moreover, even that number is misleading; Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels (D) and other global warming alarmists deliberately choose 1950 as the "baseline" for Cascade Mountains snow pack because 1950 was a year of abnormally heavy snowfall resulting in an uncharacteristically extensive snow pack.
The current snow pack is only marginally lower than the long-term average since 1943; moreover, the Cascade Mountains snow pack has been growing since the late 1970s.
Despite being vindicated by subsequent research, Albright was told he would have to submit any emails connected with his associate state climatologist position to another scientist for pre-approval prior to distribution, says Taylor. When Albright refused, he was stripped of his associate state climatologist title.
"Anytime politics intrudes on science, science is degraded and society as a whole is the loser," said H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. "That is why the whole global warming issue is a mess right now. Scientists have not reached a scientific conclusion yet, but the politicians want to jump the gun and be seen as saviors on the issue. This is a recipe for disaster."

It is indeed a recipe for disaster. Now will our politicians pay attention?

Unintended Consequences

Here is another unintended consequence of our failed energy policies.

"Squeezed again by soaring gasoline prices, Chicago cabdrivers are demanding a $1 temporary surcharge -- and a permanent fare increase as high as 25 percent -- to ease the pain at the pump.
"We're spending $65 to $70 a day on gas. We need help like yesterday. It's killing us," said Steve Wiedersberg, president of the Chicago Professional Taxi Drivers Association. "We would like to do things through the proper channels. But if it doesn't work, we'll come off the reservation. We don't want to hurt the public. But if we need to call a boycott, we will."

If you think that the taxi drivers are hurting, imagine what trucking companies, delivery companies (like UPS), utility companies, pizza drivers, garbage collectors and the postal service are getting hit with. Now realize that those costs are passed on to the end consumer - that's you and me! Which means that we pay for our increase in gas costs and theirs!

If we had built more refineries since the 1970's, if our Senators voted to open up ANWR for drilling, if they had voted to drill off of the Gulf Coast maybe we wouldn't be in this straight. Now imagine, if you will, if these cabbies were in Minnesota with a $0.075 cent a gallon increase in the gas tax AND a higher annual license plate fee!

Now take a few moments to thank Governor Pawlenty for standing up for the Minnesotans and pressure the House and Senate Republicans to stand with the Governor. Minnesota's beleaguered voters will thank you for it!

The “Little” Minority that could.

The Star Tribune had a fluff piece in Sunday’s paper about the “little” Republican Minority and how they are holding their own in this session against a majority that has been adamant at getting “their way”. AAA touched on reasons why he thinks the minority has had success, but he missed what I think was one of the more important points.

“The turning point, Republicans say, came in early May, when DFLers trotted out an ample public works bill that used loans to pay for DFL projects and cash to pay for GOP items. Pawlenty had warned leaders not to augment the bonding bill with cash spending.
When DFLers did it anyway, said Rep. Michael Beard, R-Shakopee, it was the Republicans wet-rag-in-the-face moment. "We're not rocket scientists, but we realized real fast this was a pretty clever political move on their part."
If Pawlenty had used a line-item veto to trim the bill of its cash costs, he would have had to kill Republican projects.
Pawlenty went to the GOP House caucus that morning and asked for its help.
"We told him 'Veto the whole damn thing,' " Beard said. "He said 'What about your projects?' We said, 'We don't care, governor. We're in this together.' "
It turned out, Beard said, "their bonding bill bonded the wrong thing. We've held together ever since."

The bonding bill bonded the wrong thing alright. Take a look at what has happened since then. The governor has vetoed 7 bills now and the only one that they THOUGHT was veto proof now appears to going down to the same defeat that the rest has. What gets me though was the DFL's assertion that the tax bill actually provides "property tax relief".

"Property tax relief is not really on the way," said Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis. Pawlenty, he said, "has roadblocked significant property tax relief, and that is a big disappointment."

The bill presented to Governor Pawlenty was nothing more than smoke and mirrors. It provided (based on my understanding of the bill - correct me if I am wrong) a one time payment to property owners. However, until Senator Pogemiller and his mates in the House can do something to stop runaway county and city and school district spending, there will be no property tax relief. The only thing that the state government can do is to pass Proposition 13 type legislation that caps property taxes. Don't hold your breath on that happening anytime soon - that is unless the taxpayers of Minnesota finally get fed up and rebel against the taxes.

Tea, anyone?????

Price controls

I've had this in the in box for a couple of days, but other more important issues came up. So if you have heard about it before, oh well.

Gas prices surged thirty cents a gallon here in the Cities today. There is talk (again) in DC about going after the "obscene" gas company profits. Yet when when one gas station owner in Wisconsin, tried to do a good deed by offering seniors and those who helped local kids sports, it was not those greedy oil companies who put their heavy jack boot in the throat of this business owner!

"A service station that offered discounted gas to senior citizens and people supporting youth sports has been ordered by the state to raise its prices.
Center City BP owner Raj Bhandari has been offering senior citizens a 2 cent per gallon price break and discount cards that let sports boosters pay 3 cents less per gallon.
But the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection says those deals are too good: They violate Wisconsin's Unfair Sales Act, which requires stations to sell gas for about 9.2 percent more than the wholesale price."

So let me see if I have this right....government wants to go after oil companies for "excess profits" and yet they mandate a minimum price essentially insuring the gas companies have "excess profits".

So the next time someone tries to tell you how we should "seize" the excess profits of oil companies, do me a favor and remind them that the oil companies have a willing accomplice in state and federal government in the form of price controls.

Health Care follies....

Captain Ed highlights a study that is sure to be ignored by the MSM as it punches yet another hole into the meme that socialized medicine is what this country "needs" to fix our health care issues.

"A new study by the Karolinska Institute in Sweden shows that the American health care system outperforms the socialized systems in Europe in getting new medicines to cancer patients. The difference saves lives, and the existing Western European systems force people to die at higher rates from the same cancers, although the Telegraph buries that lede (via QandO):
The researchers studied Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, South Africa and the US, as well as 19 European countries, with a total population of 984 million, and looked at access to 67 newer cancer drugs.
They found that the proportions of female cancer patients surviving five years beyond diagnosis in France, Spain, Germany, Italy were 71 per cent, 64 per cent, 63 per cent and 63 per cent respectively. In the UK it was 53 per cent.
Among men the proportions still alive at five years in the same countries were 53 per cent, 50 per cent, 53 per cent and 48 per cent. Again in the UK it was lower at 43 per cent."

The only thing I can add to this is that it is a must read for anyone who cares about the quality of their health care!

The rest of the story?

A couple of days ago I wrote about a statement that was made by the governor of Kansas in wake of a killer tornado. A couple of days later, a Democratic candidate for President used that tornado to bash the President on his deployment of the National Guard in Iraq. Now it is being reported (unconfirmed at this moment) that the governor's remarks were made at the behest of the DCN and Chairman Howard Dean in order to gain cheap political points on the President and the Republicans. At first I was hesitant to believe that this could be the case, but then I found this editorial from the Topeka (KS) Capital Journal.

"Taken at face value, there was nothing about party politics in Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ recent comments that the war in Iraq was sapping the National Guard’s ability to respond to natural disasters.Viewed through even a thin layer of skepticism, though, an image emerges of a politician seizing a chance to score points at the expense of the Bush administration....But Sebelius, like anybody else, knows there are inherent political implications in a Democratic governor raising concerns about a Republican president’s military management. And it wouldn’t take a huge leap to conclude Sebelius considered those implications before she spoke out.Sebelius works without a carefully crafted game plan about as often as Ashton Kutcher finishes a novel. She’s calculating and cautious, which is a big part of why she’s won two terms as governor in a Republican state.The timing of Sebelius’ remarks also gives rise to skepticism. After drawing a stinging response from the White House, where press secretary Tony Snow said equipment was available but Sebelius didn’t follow procedures to get it, Sebelius’ office said equipment shortages weren’t an issue in Greensburg.“We are doing absolutely fine right now,’’ said the governor’s spokeswoman, Nicole Corcoran. “What the governor is talking about is down the road.’’

Down the road???? Let's go back and revist the governors remarks from Monday.

" A shortage of trucks, helicopters and other equipment -- all sent to the war in
Iraq' has hampered recovery in a U.S. town obliterated by a tornado, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said on Monday.

"There is no doubt at all that this will slow down and hamper the recovery," Sebelius, a Democrat, told Reuters in Kansas where officials said the statewide death toll had risen to 12 on Monday." (emphasis added)

These are not forward looking statements....these are here and now statements! Now back to Mr. Anderson.

"Why, then, was the issue brought up so early? This is the time for rebuilding, healing and grieving, not for politics.Too bad Sebelius’ remarks have already steered the tragedy in that direction."

Why indeed Governor Sebelius? There may indeed be more to this story than first blush would lead us to think. This bears close scrutiny - but then again we will never see this out of the Star Tribune.....

UPDATE - my friend Joni sent me this.

"XM Radio’s Quinn & Rose made the allegation that DNC Chairman Howard Dean called Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius early Sunday morning and instructed her not to request federal assistance in recovery from the Greensburg tornado, and to lie about the federal response to date, on their show, The War Room, today. After I discussed the story via phone with both Quinn and Rose today, here’s what they sent me.
PLEASE NOTE: The following is information we have received from a reliable source. We have never been misinformed by this person in the past.
It seems that, on Sunday, a few hours after Kansas Governor, Kathleen Sebelius, made her remarks about Bush sending all their National Guard Members and Resources to Iraq, she made a call to Brownback
Sebelius, was calling to apologize to the Senator for making the Political statements that she did. She explained that she did not believe them and that they actually had too many National Guardsmen show up.
Governor Sebelius explained “Sam, you know how political everything is right now and we’re not allowed to let an opportunity like this just pass.” She continued “I made sure not to blame you or Pat (Senator Roberts?) or anybody outside the White House. With his (Bush’s) numbers, you can’t really blame me for usin’ that.”
Then Sebelius explained the path to her comments. After Brownback told her that he was very disappointed in her, She pleaded “You know me Sam, I wouldn’t have said it if I didn’t have to.” She declared “Howard (Dean) called me around 5 o’clock (in the morning) and told me not to ask The White House for any help or make any statements until I heard back. Dick (Durban?) called me an hour or 2 later and that’s when he told me we needed to use this ‘n’ said to talk about the Guard all bein’ at war.”
She then explained the thinking; “Speaker and Harry got so much heat on them from both sides over this damn war, ‘n’ they need to get the press on somethin’ else. I didn’t think it was right to use it like this either, but I didn’t see’s I had much choice in this climate, Sam.”
She the[n] apologized a few more times and promised that she’d try to move away from the comment when she and Brownback were to meet up later and tour the damage, but she had to so it without disappointing Dean and Pelosi.
I asked them to characterize their source, and they replied that she or he would be in a position to have knowledge of the conversation between Sen. Brownback and Gov. Sebelius and has never misinformed them before. Sean Hannity has called Sen. Brownback’s office to either verify or debunk the story, but so far the senator has done neither. There is word that the senator may attempt a “limited hangout” strategy this weekend, in which he acknowledges that the conversation took place but won’t remember the Dean angle. Such a strategy, if that’s what Sen. Brownback does, might be an attempt to maintain comity in what has until now been by all accounts a smooth relationship between the Democratic governor and Republican officials in Kansas. Comity shouldn’t come at the price of truth, however.
At this point, I have no way of verifying whether DNC Chairman Howard Dean called Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and instructed her to lie about the federal response to Friday’s devastating tornado. But I will make some calls and see what I can find out. Quinn & Rose’s story does fit the timeline and does fit the Democrat M.O. of late, in which they find a way to blame every single thing under the sun on Bush and on the war in Iraq. Other Democrat governors have pre-emptively blamed the lack of response to disasters that haven’t even happened yet on Bush and the war in Iraq. So on its face the story strikes me as very plausible."

Stay tuned kids.....it could get interesting!

Not so hidden agendas

AAA, Mitch, LF and a few others have been having a good laugh at the expense of our local Soros "funded" bloggers over at Minnesota Monitor. Mini-money (as they call it) likes to claim that they are "unbiased", but it does not take long to figure out that they are just as biased as I am - the only difference is I admit my conservative leanings.

At the center of this laugh is an "interview" that AAA granted to Mini-money. AAA doctored his answers, to see what the "trained reporters" of Mini-money would print and Mini-money did not disappoint. While it may be easy to just brush this off as a local "feud" between local bloggers, this whole thing just may be the local front of a much larger plan.

"Mark Malloch Brown spoke Monday to a crowded auditorium at the World Bank's headquarters, warning that the bank's mission was "hugely at risk" as long as Paul Wolfowitz remained its president. Only hours earlier, news leaked that a special committee investigating Mr. Wolfowitz had accused him of violating conflict-of-interest rules. A coincidence? We doubt it.
Mr. Malloch Brown, remember, was until last year Kofi Annan's deputy at the United Nations. In that position, he distinguished himself by spinning away the $100 billion Oil for Food scandal as little more than a blip in the U.N.'s good work, and one that had little to do with Mr. Annan himself. Last week, Mr. Malloch Brown was named vice president of the Quantum Fund, the hedge fund run by his billionaire friend George Soros. A former World Bank official himself and ally of soon-to-be British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Mr. Malloch Brown would almost surely be a leading candidate to replace Mr. Wolfowitz should he step down. Not surprisingly, Gordon Brown cold-shouldered Mr. Wolfowitz at a recent meeting in Brussels. "

Now I am really not a conspiracy theory type person. I find it laughable that there is this "shadow" government pulling strings all over the world that is totally undetectable. That is science fiction. However, that is not to dismiss the fact that there are some people out there who are playing back room games to try to further an agenda. I would warrant to guess that the partisans at Mini-Money will do anything that they can to help get candidates that they support elected to public office - just as AAA and I would. The difference between AAA, Mini-money and I is that AAA and I admit our biases. None of the bloggers at Mini-money do.

Jeff Fecke from Min-money is now stating that AAA "lied" to him, however, if you read the initial request for the interview, AAA's skepticism is there for all to see. In fact, AAA's final words to Jeff were "I have no problem that you are a liberal hatchet man against the GOP, my problem is you hide behind a phony public persona that you and your other Soros lackey friends are unbiased and have no agenda. That’s a complete and total lie.
You can send me your questions, and I will be the judge of what I will do with them." (emphasis in the original).

AAA was crystal clear what his intentions were - the same can not be said with Mini-money or any other Soros funded outfit. From lowly bloggers like yours truly to titans of talk like Rush Limbaugh we admit our biases. It would be refreshing to see the same out of MoveOn, Mini-money and all the rest.