Is it safe?

The title comes from "Marathon Man" where the Laurence Olivier character is asking for a sign if it's safe to conduct business. I chose it because the vote last Tuesday was a sign to the Republicans that doesn't seem to be taking. And I asked myself what does it take for conservatives to vote as they did? What would drive some of them, though a small but significant percentage, to vote for someone other than a Republican candidate? I came across an article by Michael Franc of the Heritage Foundation giving, again, telling information about the election (the article is linked from Tapscott's Copy Desk).Franc repeats that the Repubs lost, not conservatism. But, the telling part of the article is how conservatives voted:
"exit poll data demonstrate that self-identified conservatives who supported the Democratic House candidates made up fully 6 percent of the electorate, while liberals who gravitated to the Republican amounted to only 1.7 percent of the total. That means the "my-conservatives-for-your-liberals" trade netted a loss of 4.3 percent of the total electorate."

And it seems that Bill Clinton caught the movement fairly accurately:
"The reason we are at this moment," he said in a campaign speech last week, "is that [Republican leaders] do not represent faithfully the Republicans and the more conservative independents in the country." He stretched reality a little, but not by much, when he argued that anyone who takes the conservative view on the budget, law enforcement and other issues ought to cast his or her lot with the Democrats." Seems that that is exactly what some conservatives did.

Now, here's my thought: With all the warnings about a Nancy Pelosi Speaker, no constructionist judicial appointments, a weakening of national security, there were conservatives that took to voting for Democrats. Why? I posit exasperation. The Repubs were being warned in 2002 (though there is also a thought of those people who voted Repub in 2002 because of 9-11, supported GWB against Kerry, but went away by 2006). The conservatives were talking about "holding their noses" and pulling the lever for Repubs in 2004. And with no veto's (save one), amnesty, Harriet Miers, No Child Left Behind, Mediscare Prescription Drug Plan, McCain/Feingold, the conservatives saw no out. That with all the warnings being sent to conservatives by Karl Rove and the neocons ("It will be worse with THEM"), the Repubs were ignoring all the warnings sent to them by conservatives. And so, in exasperation, the voters voted for reform,change.
And once again, there is this telling statistic: "one election-eve poll found that Americans trusted Democrats over Republicans to control spending by a remarkable 53 percent to 29 percent."
Franc also writes: "Republican strategists, and more than a few Democrats, will undoubtedly take note of how easily legions of conservative voters switched their partisan loyalties, and will scrutinize the data for clues as to how this could have happened." The Republican strategists will take note. The Senate has not and it looks like the House will follow suit. The Senate leadership has voted for their leadership and the House will elect their leadership tomorrow.
So much for sober reflection.
We, the voters, taught the lesson. The Senate Republican leadership didn't learn it at all by returning Trent Lott to leadership (in a parallel move that mimics bringing out Walter Mondale to replace Paul Wellstone). Tomorrow we'll see if the House Republicans have learned the lesson.
And if the House Republicans don't get their act together and show they've learned the lesson the voters taught them, well, they have two years to practice saying "Madam President".

And lessons taught but obviously not learned

And Trent Lott returns to kill the base even further.
And I'd be willing to bet that if the Senate Republicans ran White Star Line that they would put Captain Smith at the helm of RMS Olympic or HMHS Britannic .
Let's hope and pray the House of Representatives shows a higher degree of learning ability.
Let's hope.

The lesson we hope they learn

Your last bumper sticker

A lesson in the basic

I've seen a number of 11-07 postmortems. There is one that I've looked at and reviewed and recommended. The Club for Growth is an organization I'm familiar with, but I've not studied much. However, Pat Toomey had an article last week that was linked at Real Clear Politics . Mr Toomey cites a study (opens with Word) that the Club for Growth commissioned from Basswood Research. Basswood polled 15 Congressional Districts across the nation a few days before the election. All House seats were held by Republicans. The poll was taken by talking to likely voters (not registered voters).
The breakdown was as follows:

• Q: With which political party are you registered or affiliated?
  

A: Republican 37.6%
Democrat 40.6%
Independent 19.4%
Refused 2.4%

This falls within margin of error agreeing with conventional wisdom that the nation is evenly divided between Republican and Democrat at 40% each with 20% as independent.
The next question is where the first "Oh, oh" occurs:

• Q: Would you prefer to see the Democrats or the Republicans in control of Congress when the new Congress meets in January?
  

A: Democrats 50.8%
Republicans 36.3%
Refused 13%

And next, we have an "OH, OH!!":

Introduction to Question: Now tell me whether you think the following phrases better describe the Republicans or the Democrats in Washington.

Q: “The Party of Big Government”

A: Republicans 39.3%
Democrats 27.9%
Both 16.3%
Neither 9.3%
Don’t know/Refused 7.4%

Q: Would you agree or disagree with the following statement: “The
Republicans used to be the party of economic growth, fiscal discipline, and limited government, but in recent years, too many Republicans in Washington have become just like the big spenders that they used to oppose.”

A: Agree 65.8%
Strongly Agree 43.4%
Somewhat Agree 22.4%
Disagree 26.4%

Strongly Disagree 13.4%

Somewhat Disagree 13.0%

Don’t know/Refused 7.9%

This is exactly what many of us have been saying for years.We blogged, emailed, and stated that government had grown faster under the first five years under Republican control of the White House and Congress than under the full eight years with Bill Clinton. That the Repubs were not becoming Big Government Lite, that we saw Repubs as THE Big Government Party. And obviously so does everyone else except Karl Rove,GWB and the Republicans in Congress. This is what so many pundits, like Hugh Hewitt have been saying is not true. The kept proclaiming that to say that there wasn't a dimes worth of difference between the Dems and Repubs was just wrong. Seems the electorate saw a half dollar's worth of difference. And voted accordingly.

But here is what I find extremely interesting:
Q: The 2003 federal tax cuts lowered tax rates on capital gains and dividend income. In two years, those taxes will go up if Congress does not extend the tax cuts. Do you support extending the current lower rates on capital gains and dividends, or do you support allowing those taxes to go up?
A: Extend the tax cuts 62.1%
Allow taxes to rise 24.8%
Don’t know/Refused 13.1%

Q: The 2003 federal tax cuts lowered income tax rates across the board, cutting the lowest tax rate from 15% down to 10%, and cutting the highest tax rate from 39.6% down to 35%. In four years, those tax rates will return to their previously higher levels if Congress does not extend the tax cuts. Do you support extending the current lower income tax rates, or do you support allowing the income tax cuts to expire and let rates return to their previous higher levels?

A: Extend the tax cuts 59.1%
Allow the tax cuts to expire 26.8%
Don’t know/Refused 14.1%

Q: The 2001 federal tax cuts phased out the inheritance tax, also known as the death tax. The law is currently scheduled to completely eliminate the death tax in four years, but then it allows the death tax to return in the year 2011. Would you prefer to have the death tax permanently eliminated, or would you prefer to see the death tax brought back in 2011?

A: Permanent elimination 61.6%
Brought back in 2011 21.5%
Don’t know/Refused 16.9%

In other words, these people wanted what the Repubs had offered, but the people didn't trust them to deliver. Even the Dems want to end the death tax. Even the Dems want permanent tax cuts. Even the Dems want tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. In other words, people want to keep more of the money they earn. And the Repubs were not trusted to deliver.

Look at the dates when the tax cuts were proposed: 2001 and 2003. And even with majorities in both houses of Congress and a Republican in the White House, the Republicans could not make those cuts permanent in three to five years.

This is one of the most eye opening surveys I've seen in years. And unfortunately one that proves the conservatives right. And all those people who proclaimed it was more important to get Republicans elected than to adhere to principles and a platform? Well, they were wrong, flat wrong. Miserably wrong. And they never listened. Or worse, chose to ignore.

When will we learn?

There are post and editorials about how wonderful Senator Allen is for not putting the people through a recount and setting a great example for other politicians.

My response. Horse-Hockey!!

If anyone thinks this will change the way Democrats behave they are fooling themselves.

The is the same stupid logic that was at the heart of the Nuclear Arms movement.
"If we set a good example just get rid of our Weapons, the Soviets will!"
Horse-Hockey - If you want to win you defeat the opponent.
The Democrats want to win and they know this - Just because we want to play fair does not mean they will.

Do I think Allen should be fighting the outcome?
Maybe - Sort of like when a coach calls for a play to be reviewed on a turnover even when he knows he will lose.
It takes away some of the momentum, and also sets up the Officials to question themselves.

But the key is, if anyone thinks that 2008 will not have the Democrats calling voter fraud and recounting every ballot they lose, they are kidding themselves.

For the perfect example. Gov. Pawlenty makes a gesture talking about how he wants to work with the new DFL House and Senate. And what does the DFL, appoints the most partisan fighter they have to lead the Senate.

And peoples are surprised!

When will we learn?

Pre-post mortem

It’s 1:00 a.m. on 7 November, 2006, Election Day for the mid-term elections.

I’ve started the post mortem early with politicians and some RINO’s here locally in mind. The RINO’s I have in mind are not politicians. I’ve served with them on campaigns and committees. The keep trying to impress me with their credentials hoping that I’ll accept them as conservative. That being said, they only impress me as having the very same virus as the Republicans that are now in heavy spin.

I’m starting my day after my Bible readings and meditations, with coffee, and now am listening to Laura Ingraham. And her advice to the Repubs? Don’t wait until October 1^st of an election year to start paying attention to your base. It becomes pandering at that late date. She mentioned the Harriet Miers disaster, the Dubai Ports deal, no reform of Social Security, amnesty for illegals just to name a few. Here locally we’ve got the horrible stadium deal, fees instead of taxes, ethanol/E85 subsidies, and Republican senatorial candidates running ads against the oil industry. Laura has just had on Robert Novak who has written some great articles. I read where once again I’m being warned about the Senate and judicial nominations. I remember that same carrot being held out two years ago when I joined many others to work chasing the same carrot. And was given Harriet Miers.

There are plenty of articles and blogs that have warned the Repubs that the day of reckoning was approaching. Dick Armey wrote an insightful piece as did Fred Barnes. But then, there is this piece today from the WSJ by Arthur Brooks. Brooks refers to the rightward tilt of the country. That if right versus left were a seesaw, Nancy Pelosi would be doing an air dance and a Democratic House majority would just mean that her shoes are a few inches closer to the Mother Earth that she and the other lefties try to put on God’s Eternal Throne. The gross and overarching error in the article is that Brooks assumes that Republican = conservative. He states “long-term trends are still distinctly right wing.” I’d posit that what he really means is the long term trends are less left wing. When I see the federal register still growing, tax cuts not made permanent (or at least kinda’ permanent-remember the two tier tax levels from the Reagan Presidency and where we are now?) Now, to give Brooks his due, he has a book that really proves that churchy going conservatives really are more compassionate by what they personally give, not what they vote to force others to give to horrible, disastrous and evil government programs.

P.S. 11-07-06 1:09 p.m. I voted.

The Quote of the Night

I started my post mortem early yesterday morning and will post it later.
But, the quote of the night came from none other than Senator John McCain when asked to comment on the Republican losses. It absolutely should be tatooed on every Republican's forehead.
"We came to change Washington. Washington changed us."

Gang of 14 now Gang of 12

Good News tonight.

So long to DeWine and So long to Chafee.

The great RINO Hunt continues.

"Obsession"

I had heard of a new documentary called "Obsession" that uses the evidence that radical Islamists Jihadists themselves provide. Fox news did an hour special on the film. What I was able to see was chilling. And shows exactly why Democrats can not be trusted with national defense. Ever. And you need to tell others to see these clips before you vote.
Powerline and The News Buckit has linked the Fox News Special from YouTube . You need to see it. The really scary and alarming episode is where the radical Jihadists are willing to indoctrinate their children (just like the lefties do here in America in government education). I've embedded that clip below. But, for a moment, do the numbers. Though Fox and the producers mention anumber of times that most Muslims are peaceful, the usual number that are radical is 10%. 10% of 1,500,000,000 is 150,000,000. And if 10% of those are moved to terrorism, that means an active army of 15,000,000. And in the last chapter of Fox's Special , Ms. Glick is very clear to remind us that the 19 highjackers came here to America, got drivers lisences, paychecks, lived and trained to kill us all on our own soil. And the Jihadists are training all over the world. Here is the clip about the children of Jihad:

Consumer, voting ,you and victory.

This is the last weekend. I just got through talking with a national Republican Get Out The Vote director. He's quite clear that the sentiment of all of us reflects Edmund Burke's saying that all that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. All it takes for lefties to win is for liberty minded, freedom loving citizens to do nothing.
Time to stop being a consumer and start putting back on the table.
Click on the logo and go to the website to do 30 minutes of work. Use your cell phone as an instrument of victory. Call 30 other like minded Republicans and urge them to vote. Make a difference. Or do it for no other reason that a Republican victory will really tick off Al Franken and Garrison Keillor. Entertainment easily worth the 30 minutes of effort:

Light rail diguised as cars

never let it be said that Minneapolis Izvestia doesn't practice the lefty cathechism by trying to trap innocent people into believing that they are incapable of acting and thinking independtly. I call as my witness the attempt to convince us that social engineering is for our own good by running an article about how there is an overwhelming need for "transit" . And there seems to be an important vote coming up in a few days about funding "transit" (via a constitutional amendment) that well over 95% of all of us will never use or benefit from as we use "cars" not "transit". So, here we have a propaganda piece that's news about the huge demand for "transit" and voting in favor of the amendment that supports "smart growth" whereby you will be forced to possibly fund transit, not the roads that we all use, at 100%.

frum ower truupes n Irakk

From Drudge:

Kerry and Klobuchar

No need to go past Minnesota Izvestia online edition. While every other online news source has a headline about the despicable comments by Kerry, Izvestia terms it as "Bush,Kerry trade barbs". What a disgusting example of a news organization. Cowards and liars all on the editorial board.
Now watch and see how many lefties distance themselves from this contemptible man and his horrid comments.
If Klobuchar goes forward with any public appearance with this "man" that means that she agrees with his statement and his sentiment. Same for every single lefty that doesn't shun him or scream for a genuine apology. Opening a vein would suffice as due penance.
anyhow,just one more reason why Klobuchar does not merit the title Senator.
Let's be real clear about one thing: if Klobuchar's last name were Anderson or Abramowitz, she'd be running a tele-marketing call center someplace in Maple Grove.

Governor Race

While I will not reveal yet who I am voting for Governor,
This latest Press Release from Tim Pawlenty is helping me make up my mind.

Dear Robert,

With only 9 days until the election, come show your support for Governor Pawlenty as he campaigns across Minnesota with special guest, Senator John McCain.

8 Days

The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. And I'm still conflicted. Despite what others have written and commented about me, I have never, ever counseled not voting or staying home in this or any election. Anyone who does is, well, to be kind, being less than honest. Way less. Since my 21st birthday, I have only missed four elections and not a one of those was a General Election. I consider voting the most sacred and important thing we do in our constitutional republic. I have never taken that duty and privilege lightly. As citizens we are duty and honor bound to be informed on issues and candidates. The opportunity to cast a ballot has been bought with blood and suffering and denial and sacrifice. I have been an election judge for four years. I loathe same day registration. I despise vouching. I hold the vote in such high regard that I believe that people need to prove that they are eligible to vote.That they hold the vote in such high regard and esteem that they will go to extraordinary lengths to vote (I'm reminded of the story of an Iraqi citizen living here in America who drove for eight hours one way to vote in the Iraqi election!). No one decides to move in three days. The sanctity of the vote needs to be fully insured. OK. I've vented. So, my confliction? Republicans.
I wrote to a friend of mine that I'm sick and tired of Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al telling me that if the Repubs lose either or both houses of Congress that it's going to be my fault. Wait a minute pal. Each and every election is a referendum. The voter/electorate are consumers. And we, as the market, decide if we're going to buy what's proposed, or going to keep buying what we been forced to buy for the last two or four years. In 1994 the Repubs made the case that the old lefty product was really bad, that the sellers in Congress had become contemptuous of the voters. Congress had become a lot like the American auto industry in the 1970's when Detroit assumed that Americans would always buy whatever the Big Three put out. And Detroit has been trying to catch the Japanese auto makers for the last three decades. And in 1994 the Repubs put together a great marketing effort with their Contract for America. And the Repubs took 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate. And then what happened? Well, for a few years things went well. And then "we" became "them". The Repubs became the Dems. Spent more. Much, much more...more in six years with a Repubs controlling both hoses of Congress and a Repub in the White House then when there was a dress staining cigar smoker in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, D.C.Spent much, much more.
Yesterday Dick Armey had a great column outlining the downward spiral of the Repubs since the 1994 Repub Revolution. Seems that the main Repub campaign slogan is "SPEAKER PELOSI !!!!!!!!!!!!" or "Vote for us because it will be worse with those others!" Not exactly what I'd call a strong message. The Repubs rightly refer to tax cuts as working. They always have. And they screech "SPEAKER PELOSI will raise your taxes!" I'm sure she will. Now, that being said, the Repubs being in control of BOTH houses of Congress AND the White House still haven't made the tax cuts permanent. They passed the direct attack on the 1st Amendment with McCain/Feingold. And the equally horrible HAVA (Help America Vote Act [a great column by George Will]...meaning you and I are both way too stupid to know how to vote). And a $1,500,000,000,000 addition to Mediscare via a prescription drug program (Yup. Nothing at all succeeds like a government program. Just look at New Orleans after Katrina!). And of course, the New Jersey Supreme Court decision was a two fold bonus for Repubs: gay marriage and rank, unchecked judicial activism. Couldn't have come at a better time for the Repubs.
And on the other hand, the Repubs are absolutely correct: of course it will be worse with the lefties. They are appeasers, UN dependent internationalists who are more concerned with how people feel and building up support for harsher UN resolutions than resolving any conflict. I'm re-reading "The Art of Political War" and have just finished Horowitz's analysis of Clinton's disastrous foreign policy. More than ample evidence again that lefties can NOT be trusted in any way, shape or form to defend America . And their solution for any and all failed programs? More of it, more money for it or another program that at the very least is just as bad.
And so, if I were alone in my in my confliction, there would definitely not be the concern over the closeness of this election. If I were the only conservative with these doubts, there would be absolutely no talk about "the base" or,"energizing the base" or concerns that "the base will stay home". I haven't heard any reference to the Repubs picking up a net increase, only articles about minimizing the losses, of still keeping the majority but with a smaller number of seats. But, there are those concerns. And the pundits are hitting hard about those concerns. The Repubs are hitting hard about those concerns. My email inbox is getting at least 6-10 emails a day from the Repubs.
As Dick Armey said in his article that I referenced above:
"Republicans -- too busy dreaming up wedge issues to score cheap points against Democrats -- have lost sight of their broad national agenda.

The likely Republican losses in next week's elections will not constitute a repudiation of the conservative legacy that drove the Reagan presidency and created the Contract With America. To the contrary, it would represent a rejection of big government conservatism. When we get back to being the party of limited government, putting a national agenda ahead of parochial short-term politics, we will again be a party that the American voters will trust to deal with the serious challenges facing our nation.

The 2006 midterm elections will be a success for the Democrats. Republicans will have to manage their own disappointment. Fingers will be pointed, and various villains will be fashioned out of recent events. But the plain fact is that Republicans have been setting the stage for this outcome for nearly a decade, running from themselves and their own principles. We will not find ourselves by conforming to the status quo, but by returning to our Reagan roots."

And be sure to vote!

One more degree in boiling the frog

International financial expert and leading economic wizard radical left wing and scofflaw Congressman Barney Frank feels the need to dissolve more American sovereignty by having an international financial regulator. That is if the left wingers take the House.
And the great ideas just keep on coming!

Canaries and beaches

I was over at Real Clear Politics and came across this headline "Kill Muqtada Now" by Ralph Peters. It's a very disturbing article. Peters writes near the beginning of the piece:
I lost faith in our engagement in Iraq last week. I can pinpoint the moment. It came when I heard that Maliki (the Iraqi Prime Minister) had demanded - successfully - that our military release a just-captured deputy of Muqtada al-Sadr who was running death squads.
Peters then goes on to tie that event to GWB's press conference and the current state of inside politics in Iraq:

As a former intelligence officer, that told me two things: First, Iraq's prime minister is betting on Muqtada to prevail, not us. Second, Muqtada, not the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, is now the most powerful man in Iraq.

At his news conference, Bush was asked about another statement made by Maliki just hours before. Our troops had conducted a raid in Sadr City, Muqtada's Baghdad stronghold. The Iraqi PM quickly declared that "this will not happen again." He was signaling his allegiance to Muqtada. Publicly.

Oh, Maliki realizes his government wouldn't last a week if our troops withdrew. He doesn't want us to leave yet. But he's looking ahead.

For now, Maliki and his pals are using our troops to buy time while they pocket our money, amass power and build up arms. But they've written us off for the long term.

The rest of the article is an analysis by Peters that portends no good. As I wrote a friend of mine the story reminds me a the canary in the cave that warned of poisonous gas, or the receding of water at the seashore that forecasts the soon to arrive tsunami.
Read the article. Peters has a solution to the problem. It's still a very ominous piece.

Neo, paleo

I was listening to a brief overview of President Bush's comments from yesterday. One of his comments was that "the government needs to reward success". He then used that comment to support cutting taxes. The government needs to reward success. I repeated that phrase one more time. And I thought "Exactly WHERE in the Constitution is THAT perogative of government located"? It's bad enough that business is regulated to death (and BTW, regulations are encouraged by big business to thwart small business).
The very last thing I want is for any President or Congress or state government or city planning agency "rewarding" business for the same reasons that I don't want them regulating "for" or "against" business. The best thing government can do is stay out of the way. As Ludwig von Mises said "Progress is that which the rules and regulations did not foresee". As any and all august government agencies assume is that a small or select government group has better and more extensive knowledge than all those hundreds, thousands and millions of citizens and those who provide for them who make up "the market". Walter Williams has an excellent article on what he calls "The Pretense of Knowledge" which shows the radical arrogance of government.
No rewards.

Nuts and Sluts exposed

Seems that the only people who attack people from the DFL here in the state or the Democrats nationally are either nuts or they're sluts, if you ask the DFL or Dems that is. Seems that's the case with Amy Alexander and her controversy with Muhhamed X Ellison, at least according the truth merchants at Mpls Izvestia.
Yesterday they had a piece that showed poor Muhhamed X Ellison as being victimized by Alexander. OK, so that makes her a slut. But today, Izvestia hits the perfect bifecta: She's a NUTTY SLUT! Oh please , tell me more!!!
The headline is the prime clue as to what will follow: "Woman in Ellison case is an enigma". Enigma... The subsentence reads "Amy Alexander is known as smart but troubled. An advocacy group saw her temper firsthand." Oh, oh...hope she's in counseling. And it's then piling on, sometimes subtle...and sometimes not so subtle:
The woman at the center of an alleged blackmail controversy surrounding Fifth Congressional District candidate Keith Ellison is a long-time Twin Cities resident known for being both bright and volatile.
Gotcha. HE'S not at the center of the controversy, she is. It's her fault. Poor, poor Muhhamed X Ellison. A victim of political hate and spite ( you just know Haliburton and Dick Cheney are in this somewhere). Understood Brother X's victimhood yesterday from Izvestia's clear and concise article from. No need to convince me anymore. It'd be overkill with all their insight and logic. You need to save column inches, just like you did in the Alan Fine piece. But, now I also see that she's "volatile". I'm locking all my doors in case she's in the neighborhood. Hhhmmm. OK. What next, oh muses of truth?
Interviews with people who have known Alexander reveal a woman who has impressed others with her intelligence but also displayed what they considered a difficult nature.
People who know her...intelligent...difficult nature...really? What next?

Sen. Linda Higgins, DFL-Minneapolis, said she has known Alexander since she was a teenager because Alexander's parents were active in North Side politics. "She's very well-spoken, very opinionated. She can quote literature and famous people. There's a lot of intelligence," Higgins said. "It was nice to have a young person interested in political things."

Higgins didn't want to say much else, and other political figures who know Alexander declined to comment.

Didn't want to say much else, huh? As did others. Seems Izvestia wants me to question what these DFLers might NOT be saying by their silence.

Alexander "said she collects Social Security disability insurance because of anxiety and depression."
She wouldn't talk about any specific diagnosis because of "the stigma of mental-health problems in the African-American" community.

Otay Panky, there you have it! What others are reluctant to say, Izvestia has been able to get her to admit-She's a self confessed nut! From her own mouth!

And another group she worked with said they were "terrified" about the disruptions. "It wasn't just inappropriate behavior; it was, 'Oh, my goodness, this woman is so angry about not being hired; what do we do about this?' ""She's an incredibly intelligent person, but the anger and destructiveness -- it's hard to reconcile,".

And there you have it. Well, maybe not. Here is the story from Amy Alexanders point, a story that Izvestia has not yet seen fit to run.

It's not in there-

How many of you remember the spaghgetti sauce ad of a few years ago that with every ingredient mentioned that should be in a good sauce, the refrain was "It's in there!"
Well, I just came across a little letter that puts the lie to probably well over 95% of everything that Congress has passed and the President has signed for the past 100 years. In other words, as far as the Constitution is concerned "it's not in there" when it comes to the Congress's power to pass many bills. And it was written by someone to would know (my blog on the constitutional scholars Auntie Rosie and the Smartest Woman in the World notwithstanding). The letter was penned by President James Madison, Father of the Constitution. Seems that he had vetoed a bill passed by Congress that seemed good, but as the author of the constitution noted, didn't warrant signing as it failed under Article 1 section 8. And it also didn't pass the "general welfare" clause either. His letter should be read by all Americans. And memorized by every politician.
If we had a Congress that observed its oath of office, a president who also did the same, and judges who understood the Constitution and their responsibilities, well, there would precious fewer economic and social problems in America.

Blacks , ball bearings and beachheads

The radical left wing's existence absolutely depends on keeping the black vote locked up at 90% +. Over a year ago I wrote about the black vote , its necessity to the left wingers and the issues that should peel that vote away from the lefties and to the Repubs. And it seems that there might possibly be the intellectual dawning of this here in Minneapolis. Seems that the modern equivalent of "Heather Has Two Mommies" is now being taught in the Minneapolis Public Schools. And parents, especially moms, are in an uproar...finally! And Katherine Kersten has reported on the issue now firmly in front of black families (HT to Mitch Berg). The curriculum is called "Families All Matter" and is a device to indoctrinate children into "diversity" regarding gay and lesbian couples...oops, uh, families, ...and you know where this is going.
""Families All Matter" is supposed to teach tolerance. In fact, says Bounds, her daughter has learned that people who believe that a mother and father are best for a family are discriminatory." Yup. You read that right. Once again, the left says that if you have principles and morals, you are discriminatory. Even worse, you're a bigot!:"After Sage read "Asha's Mums," he "told the class that his grandfather had believed that black people are stupid," she says. "He said that other adults had helped him see that his grandfather was a bigot." The implication? That parents who don't share Sage's views on family matters are bigots too.

Sage touched a nerve by claiming the mantle of the fight against racism for his own agenda, says Preyer. "I'm appalled that he, a white man, would use that tactic to push his views on African-American children."" I'm tempted to ask if Preyer even remotely sees the racism in her response, also tempted to ask "Well, how does it feel?" And the incredible irony:We conservatives have been called bigots for years because we didn't swallow the pap from the left. But, bigger fish to fry here.

And the arrogance of the school administrators?:"Officials told them to consider withdrawing their children or enrolling them in a private school."

So, we have one more beachhead issue into the monolithic black vote that involves two basic issues: gay diversity indoctrination and government schools. As Dr. Walter E. Williams (who is black) once mused that the KKK couldn't have come up with a better way to destroy black families than government schools.

And what do you think the chances are that Repubs will go into the black communities and use this beachhead issue (as Mrs. Battle told me at the 2004 MN Repub Convention) ? And I'd bet the farm that this same issue exists in Detroit, Cleveland, Atlanta, New York, Los Angeles. And the Repubs will whine with no action. A squandered moment and superb opportunity.

Balanced reporting:"They're out to get me!!"

OK. Time to declare victory and go home kids. Prairie Pravda (or Minneapolis Izvestia) has finally come over from the Dark Side and now has balanced reporting. Mpls Izvestia has finally reported on Keith Ellison's woman problems: "She's blackmailing me! HELP! HELP!" In other words, Ellison's a complete and total victim, unlike Alan Fine, who, according to the Prairie Pravda account, seems to have just stopped short of beheading his wife because she neglected to align the toothpaste tube with the edge of the counter in 1995.
Now, I notice that the Strib goes to great lengths to get all the facts in the story that seem to give Ellison the victim status that lefties desire (always better than sainthood). And yet, the radical left wingers at Izvestia just can't seem to squeeze in the real facts on the Alan Fine case. Why? Column space. Mitch Berg at Shot in the Dark does an excellent analysis of the story and an interview with the writer. And thanks to Captain Ed for the brief synopsis and the link:
"All of these facts, which provides a much different context than that supplied by Olson, got left out of the story on October 7th. When asked about this, Olson replied that the Strib had space limitations and had to decide which facts would make the editorial cut. Every mitigating fact about Fine was edited out of the story, and every salacious and sensational allegation was included, no matter how little evidence supported it.

So we have Ellison meeting with terrorist sympathizers, a description by no less of an authority than Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, and the Strib sniffs. We also have a gossipy and unproven allegation made by an ex-wife and her father (a Family Court judge), and the Strib rushes that to print, stripped of all context and exculpatory information.

That's the local media here in the Twin Cities. That's the editorial incompetence of the Star Tribune. That's why voters in MN-05 have to consider their vote carefully three weeks from now. If you think that reading our local press has informed you of the candidates in this race, think again. You owe it to yourself to read Power Line, where Scott Johnson has done the work that the Star Tribune should have been doing all along."

As captain Ed says, if you live in CD-5, and believe you're getting the real and whole story, you're lying to yourself.

Walter Cronkite and Isaiah 5:20

In a press conference yesterday, George Stephanopoulos asked GWB if this recent upswing in attacks in Iraq we the Iraqi equivalent to the Tet Offensive in Vietnam in 1968? And he commented that there could be a comparision. We can only hope. The Tet offensive was an attempt by the communists to influence the upcoming major party presidential conventions and primaries. As a military venture, it was an absolutely unmitigated disaster for the the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese. However, you would have thought it was the greatest and most successful military offensive since Operation Overlord after listening to the "I hate America and all it stands for" left wing media. Amazing that the objective of the Tet offensive was to turn American public opinion against the war. And the MSM basically became allies of communism (sound of me being stunned now uttered). The MSM became an integral part of the communist offensive. And now, we have the intellectual and cultural sons and daughters of Rather and Cronkite. There was a quote from a soldier "Gosh. I didn't know that we were losing the war in Iraq until I came back to the United States!"
And the Isaiah 5:20 quote? Look it up. And remember, the worst rebuke in the Bible is "Woe".

Madison wrong! Constitutional scholars Rosie and Hillary on original intent

I'm listening to The O'Reilly Factor (a rare event occurence) because I saw a clip of him whacking Rosie O'Dumbell. She was screeching that she wanted an America as the Founding Fathers wanted it, a democracy. What? A democracy? And the Smartest Woman in the World (our Ex-Co President Hillary) said that we have a constitutional democracy. Smartest Woman in the World. Yup. Out of their mouths. And you'd think at least the Smartest Woman in the World would know that the Founders were quite clear that they loathed and feared democracy. And therefore put together a constitutional constructed representative republic that was democratically elected. You'd assume she'd know...
Just one more reason I want her to run so we can watch the ensuing smack down and see this oxygen sucking Jezebel and her hubby finally shown the door!

Gloves? Nah, bare knuckles:The final disgrace of Patty Wetterling

Here's the bold new headline from Minneapolis Izvestia :"Complaint: Brooklyn Park pastor endorsed Bachman". A left wing complaint group out of D.C. wants to lodge a complaint with the IRS. Yet, in the article, Pastor Mac Hammond is quoted as saying that the church can't endorse Bachmann, but that he personally would be voting for her. OK. A private citizen states his preference and that warrants an investigation by the IRS? So why the huge headline when there is a small print subheadline where the Wetterling campaign has fired a paid staffer that lied to get into the Bachmann campaign. And the question is why aren't those two headlines reversed? Because Minneapolis Izvestia is a yellow dog paper where the truth does not reside nor can it be found.
So, Wetterling is a liar when she runs her ad stating that Bachmann wants an additional 23% tax (she doesn't-she's referring to a national sales tax to REPLACE the income tax), she's a liar when she states that the GOP covered up child abuse in Congress (and then Mpls Izvestia did not report that she said she had no evidence to support her claims). Now she supports illegal campaign activities. Her only qualification for Congress: Her supposed moral authority because her son was kidnapped seventeen years ago. She allowed those on the left to pour poison and beguiling words in her ear only because she had a name. And she believed them. And she has destroyed the real good she was doing with the Jacob Wetterling Foundation. And when she no longer serves a purpose, the left will dump her.

Truth from fiction

I saw the following video and remembered a story where the head of security of El Al was talking to the head of security from United Airlines. The UA security chief asked why El Al had never had a hijacking. The El Al chief said "It's because you screen for weapons. We screen for terrorists."


The story between security chiefs and the video of fiction reminded me of this picture from reality:






















Screen for terrorists, not weapons.

The ad Fox News won't run...yet

The headline at WorldNetDaily reads:
"Fox News bans ad critical of Clinton". "Really?", I thought.
Seems that the organization that submitted the ad didn't provide the documentation that Fox thought was needed to support the ad. Move America Forward felt that Cinton's outrageous assertions that he did all he could to eliminate Osama bin Laden failed on its face. Seems that jabbing finger of arrogance upset others. And though Move America Forward had CIA officials directly contradict those lies of Clinton, they failed to provide that documentation to Fox.
Here, however, is the video from YouTube:

Your country run by lefties

Look at this picture. It's a satellite picture with a night view showing the bottom part ablaze with light. The top not quite as much. Notice the line of demarcation. It's also called the DMZ, the 38th Parallel. It marks the boundary between South and North Korea. It also marks the difference between a country run by lefties (to the north) and one where liberty runs prevalent. This picture shows the natural courses of socialism (aka Communism Lite, in this case it could be said light lite, so to speak) and government control and regulation versus liberty and free markets.
Vote accordingly.

Into the booth-

If by any stretch of the imagination, you are even remotely considering voting for Patty Wetterling, Amy Klobuchar, Keith Ellison, Jim Oberstar or any lefty, make a copy of this picture along with any and all pictures of your loved ones, take them all into the voting booth with you, spread them out, look at them, then vote:

Failure or future success?

The news is still that no one knows what exactly exploded north of the 38 parallel on the Korean peninsula. Many of the mainline outlets, including a number of bloggers, believe that it was either a dud or fizzle or even perhaps an elaborate hoax (imagine putting 600 tons of ANFO [ammonium nitrate and fuel oil] in a hole and letting it go). The dominant thought is that every other member of the nuclear club exploded their first device at about 10-20 kilotons.
The DPRK device comes in at about 500-600 tons, less than 1 kt. So, the assumption is that it's a failure. Captain Ed posits that it may even be a nuclear trigger (a small nuclear explosion that drives fissile material together to reach critical mass to initiate the main nuclear reaction). What is being overlooked is the possibility reached by the Belmont Club that DPRK may have been testing a suitcase nuclear device. In reading the Belmont article, they also go on to investigate the other side that the idea of suitcase nukes are based on faulty data. An Opinion Journal piece addresses that perspective. The Belmont Club looks at a number of possibilities including that one name that keeps getting overlooked by the MSM, one A.Q. Khan of Pakistan. As Global Security says about Khan: "During the 1990's, there were intermittent clues from intelligence that AQ Khan was discussing the sale of nuclear technology to countries of concern. By early 2000, intelligence revealed that these were not isolated incidents. It became clear that Khan was at the centre of an international proliferation network. By April 2000, the UK Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) was noting that there was an evolving, and as yet incomplete, picture of the supply of uranium enrichment equipment to at least one customer in the Middle East, thought to be Libya, and evidence linking this activity to Khan." Notice the very ominous phrase "sale of nuclear technologies to countries of concern". Countries-PLURAL. Not just Libya. Belmont conjectures that DPRK may very well be working on a suitcase nuke that works.
Also, notice that the time period for Khan's selling spree happened on Bill Clinton's watch. The Abuser in Chief of Interns seems to have other things on his mind rather then the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Wonder what Co-President Hillary was doing then? What's she doing now other than not taking responsibility for her husbands failed policy on North Korea?
So, what does that have to do with the upcoming election? Well,ask Patty Wetterling what she'll do about North Korean nuclear aggression- a question that really addresses safety for the children? Ask Amy Klobuchar. Maybe she'll offer the equivalent of an international plea bargain to the Porno King of the DPRK.
As much as the Repubs have done everything to lose this election, and Denny Hastert had better learn in the next hour that he needs to talk about North Korea and stop talking about Foley as if he has any importance anymore, let's see: greasy emails or nuclear terrorism? Hhhhmmm...which one is more threatening to America? Ask the candidates.

"I don't like you because you're gonna get me killed!"

Prairie Pravda has now shown why it is not just irrelevant in the real world, but has now become dangerous. Very dangerous! In an editorial (where there is only one front page article on the N. Korean nuclear threat), the idiots at the Strib think that we need to return to the Clinton style of negotiating with the Little Dog Eater from Pyongyang:"That means swallowing Pyongyang's provocations and coming back willing to deal, much as the Clinton administration tried to do late in its second term." Yes..."tried to do"... AND FAILED! Wasn't it President Velcro Zipper who sent ex President Peanut to North Korea in 1994 to negotiate a deal that the rest of the world fawned over but was an unmitigated disaster! The nuclear equipment and material that was exploded yesterday was delivered by Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright under the deal brokered by ex-President Peanut. Never forget that! And that Mr. Peanut got a Nobel Prize for failure (and for bucking and disparaging President Bush)? And the Strib wants to return to that disaster?
Don't think for a moment that Iran isn't watching what we, America, do with this situation. The exact nature of what DPRK exploded yesterday is still being reviewed, but be absolutely clear that this is a huge wakeup call to the left and to all of us.
Stanley Kurtz of National Review Online has it correct: IT'S THE NUKES, STUPID! It ain't tawdry emails from a Congressman. It's not about no WMD's in Iraq. It's not about having our own version of failed Canadian Health Care. It's about the fact that the only thing that Porno King Kim sells is a military hardware. And radical Muslims will buy and set one off in New York, Jerusalem, Washington, Los Angeles, London. They want us dead.
Victor Davis Hanson (VDH) was in Minneapolis two weeks ago. He gave a talk on why we needed to stay the course in Iraq. He mentioned that the Roman Republic realized the need to fight their enemies on foreign soil rather than Roman soil. And realized that they were going to take casualties (in one battle, they were losing ten soldiers a second!). And VDH mentioned that the highest casualties of WWII took place within two months of the end of the war.
And the American public has forgotten what it means to be an American.
Read the Kurtz article. And know there are plans to put at least one nuke on American soil. The left doesn't want us to defend ourselves (remember, they don't even want you to have a firearm to defend yourself when the local druggie breaks into your house at 3:00 a.m.). They don't want us to fight. They think Neville Chamberlain was correct. His only mistake was that he didn't give up enough. That the horrifically failed Clinton/Carter negotiating doctrine is a model to emulate right now.
The left is going to get you and me killed!

38 degrees north and the traitor Gray Whore

As this weekend we see the truly effective results of Jimmy Carter's awesome diplomatic efforts in North Korea, there is another story behind the story that I missed last July. While we contemplate asking Mr. Peanut to go back to North Korea and give us the benefit of his extensive diplomatic acumen, it appears that The Beloved Leader has allies in New York at the Times. Seems that the gray suited porno king of North Korea was dumping tens of millions of high quality counterfeit $100 bills into the world banking system. And The New York Times reported this as a "banking dispute", never giving any of the details. Captain Ed has his read on the story here as it relates to the North Koreans' incursion into the DMZ and the apparent ramp up to a nuclear test in the DPRK. Seems that the NYT's good buddy will only come back to the bargaining table when we apologize for trying to stop him from wrecking the world economy and the dollar. Well, that's why we have Jimmy Carter. He's always ready willing and able to travel on a moments notice anywhere in the world to apologize or bad mouth anything that America does or doesn't do. And the NYT is more than happy to over report his success...and under report anything that DPRK does. Really makes you wonder where the loyalties of Mr.. Peanut and the NYT truly reside.

The Democrat scary mask

I was reading the WSJ Opinion page this morning about "Getting Beyond Foley". The writer makes a number of points about the Foley imbroglio including the seemingly Republican habit of agreeing with the lefties. I always flinch and hold my breath whenever a Repub goes on to agree with a lefty. It means nothing good for the country will come of it. And I agree with the writer that the Repubs seem to want to weaken themselves by agreeing to throw people under the bus. The writer goes on to comment that there are bigger issues facing the nation that need to be addressed in this election. And I agree. He goes on to say that nomination and confirmation of judges is critical. And I agree. But I also worked hard for Bush/Cheney in 2004 with the scary Democrat specter being held out. That we needed to get constructionist judges confirmed. And with all my work, I get: Harriet Miers. All that being said, the writer misses a very big point in all this: The Republicans haven't got a single clue as to how to fight. They never have. I'm reading David Horowitz's book "The Art of Political War" for the third time. And again, I'm sorely impressed how inept the Repubs are in all this. The last time I read the book was at the start of the Tom DeLay disaster. I had just read the section on the Newt Gingrich political assassination the day Tom DeLay stood on front of the cameras to intone that he would "not stoop to the tactics of my opponents". And I looked at the screen and thought "then you're finished." And he was.
And now and again, the Repubs are befuddled and are again letting the left frame and determine the battle.
And the best that the Repubs can come up with :"It will be worse under the Dems!!!"
Not a real attractive or convincing campaign slogan.
And this on No Left Turns on a link from Powerline .

Whoops!

Oh,oh...seems that ABC made a huge, huge mistake: they mistakenly revealed the truth about the Foley disaster. Seems that the IM's were with an OVER 18 year old male who USED to be a page. NOT A SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD. Hmmm... But, ABC had reported on Tueday that the IM's were exchanged with a young man "under the age of 18". But, in a posting on ABCNEWS.com, the IM screen name of the now 21, then 18 tear old was not redacted. And an organization called Passionate America revealed the error. The Drudge Report investigated and found that the messages were indeed exchanged with the former page who was over 18 at the time. And the story has already hit the internet according to Google News. And ABC is dancing hard and fast! And Patty Wetterling may not perhaps be getting as many calls as she'd hoped for interviews now that it's revealed that the ex page in question was NOT seventeen but eighteen. Now, Foley's IM's are still, well, strange at least. But the Dems are now going to be in the crosshairs. And the bloggers over an Ms. Underestimated have a number of other links about the breaking maelstrom. And Foley is still, well...
Seems that this story is going to get wider and deeper and longer. And I suspect that the Dems may very well be taking a huge hit on this in the not to distant future.
Stay tuned...

Captain Renault and Nancy Pelosi: Both shocked, shocked!

Seems that in the rush to see's who can pile on Rep. Foley, the left wing had best stop trying to run the bases too fast. Recently I remarked to a holier than thou lefty acquaintance of mine who remarked on all the right wing ethical lapses that he best remember that our ethical lapses resign and then go to trial and to jail if found guilty. I then said your ethical lapses stay on in office and then run for office, usually President.
Investors Business Daily well points out that the Democrats support and tolerate Rep. Foley's behavior...that is unless a Republican does it:

"In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page -- something Foley hasn't been charged with.

Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996.

In 1989, Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), also of Massachusetts, admitted he'd lived with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute who ran a gay sex-for-hire ring out of Frank's apartment. Frank, it was later discovered, used his position to fix 33 parking tickets for Gobie.

What happened to Frank? The House voted 408-18 to reprimand him -- a slap on the wrist. Today he's an honored Democratic member of Congress, much in demand as a speaker and "conscience of the party."

In 2001, President Clinton, who had his own intern problem, commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it. (Reynolds also was convicted of campaign spending violations.)"

The fact that the timing of this disclosure doesn't even come close to passing the smell test speaks volumes about the one who released it. The information is months to over a year old. So, whoever hung on to it was putting other young people at risk just to gain a political gotcha. That's the real story here.

Clinton, Chris Wallace and a very inconvenient truth

As the ripples of the Clinton temper tantrum still course through America, it seems that Zippergate Willy still can't quite outrun the truth. Robert Novak shines the hard light of truth on our ex, disbarred president and his hissy fit:
The next morning on CBS's "The Early Show" the CIA head of the bin Laden unit under the Slickmeister put the lie again to the ex-Presidential felon.
Michael Scheuer told the morning audience "the al Qaeda leader "is alive today" because Clinton and his top lieutenants refused to kill him. "It's just an incredible kind of situation," said Scheuer, "for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them." Scheuer goes on to say that Clinton had "8-10" chances to kill bin Laden. And that while Bush had one opportunity at Tora Bora, at least he )Bush) had troops on the ground.
Scheuer tells, in response to Mr. Slickie's saying there was no evidence to bin Laden being behind the bombing of the USS Cole , "To claim that the CIA could not verify that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the USS Cole, said Scheuer, "the former president seems able to deny facts with impunity." "
Read the article and see the details that you won't be seeing anytime soon in Aljazeera Minneapolis.

37 years, one small step, one giant leap...and one small word

It was the summer of 1969. I was downstairs watching a breaking news story (as were another 500 million of my dearest friends worldwide). Nah, it was history in the making. It was the culmination of centuries of wondering and longing. It was a commitment to a dead president. It was emblematic of what America was about (and could be again). It was race won by America. It was Neil Armstrong sliding down the handrails of the LEM (Lunar Excursion Module). Telling us he was about to step off the LEM. Then uttering the first words by man on another terrestrial sphere "That's one step for man. One giant leap for mankind." As much as I was enthralled by this history making spectacle, I thought "Did I hear him right?" As did many others. He didn't say "That's one small step for 'a' man." And even Mr. Armstrong says that he meant to put the article "a" in front of man. And has been concerned for four decades that he muffed his line.
Well, it appears that indeed he did say "a man". And that an Australian researcher has found the missing "a". Peter Ford, a computer expert, fed the sound recording through a sound analysis using high tech software and found an acoustic wave where the "a" should be. Mr. Ford's analysis indicates that Mr. Armstrong spoke the word too fast for it to be picked up and heard on the transmission or recording media used at the time.
NASA is reviewing the evidence.

Lies, Damn Lies and the Star Tribune

Campaign season and autumn are upon us. So expect falling leaves and extreme left wing bias at the Star Tribune to be abundant in wholesale quantities.
I've noticed in the past week that Prairie Pravda has provided hit pieces on Mark Kennedy, Michelle Bachman, Tim Pawlenty (to name a few) and today we have the consistently predictable Lori "I know the truth. And it only comes from the DNC!" Sturdevant. Today she strikes a blow for the DFL Truth in Campaign Literature and All Things Campaign Related Squad.
Well, I'm waiting for some real truth in advertising from those students of Karl Marx on the Editorial Board at Izvestia Minneapolis by giving us the full, complete and real story on Keith Ellison. So far, all we've heard is that they've found a suitable substitute for sex by the way they're drooling over the notoriety of electing the first Muslim to Congress, his background be damned. And us along with him if elected.
But again, as I once read "Why are so amazed when fig trees bear figs?" And I'm amazed that the Stribune is radically and forever biased?
P.S. And a HT to Scott Johnson at Powerline for his article "Keith Ellison for Dummies".

A walk through Open Secrets

I'm sitting here watching the Vikings do what they do after watching Michigan State University implode in the fourth quarter last night against Notre Dame. I was looking for Glen Mason on the MSU sidelines as I said there is no one in NCAA football who can lose a fourth quarter lead faster than Glen Mason. Well trying to fill those idle moments in the game, I went to Open Secrets to do a bit of analysis on campaign contributions here in Minnesota. I clicked over to Largest Donors . Among the list is AFSCME (public employees union), Trial Lawyers Association, National Education Association. As I clicked on each entry in the Top Ten, it was abundantly apparent that Big Money goes to Left Wingers. In huge percentages.
Amongst the Top Ten only three ( AT&T, Nat'l Assoc of Realtors and Goldman Sachs) even come close to any type of parity (34%,40%, 60% Dems, 66%,60%, 40% Repub donations) than any of the other seven (which is usually 98% Dems, 2% Repubs).
Take a trip through the site. And when you hear a lefty say that the Repubs are the party of Big Money, look them in the eye and tell them "You are either 1. Ignorant or 2. Stupid or 3. A liar."

And a laugh

And for a great laugh, see Steve Bridges impersonating Bill Clinton. Way too much fun.
And notice how well he has the hand mannerisms down.
And to show that we can take it also, Steve Bridges as Dubya.

Finger pointing liar

Yesterday I heard the heated and angry voice of confessed felon Bill Clinton excoriating the "right wing" for accusing him of not getting Osama bin Laden. And I could just see him pointing his finger in this tirade. And it immediately brought back the image of him on another finger pointing tirade: His angrily picturing himself as a victim of himself when he told us that he was, well,less than truthful about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He reared up to angrily tell us that his private life was invaded, that his family was embarrassed, so on and so forth (analysis here). All the time pointing that finger at us.
It occurred to me that the rich irony of this moment was lost on many if not most people, most assuredly the radical left wingers. The irony is this: he was being investigated by a Special Prosecutor for lying under oath about his sexual past. And why would he be asked about his sexual past? Because as he was the defendant in a sexual harassment law suit, his sexual history is considered germane to the charges and he can be asked about that past. And he lied about it, under oath. The irony comes from a confluence of two left wing ideas. The Special Prosecutor statute was passed by the left wing controlled Congress in the mid 1970's. It was set to expire in the early 1990's. The Republicans urged the then left wing Democratic controlled Congress to let the Special Prosecutor statute expire. Nope. The Democrat, left wing Congress put a five year extension on to the statute. Done deal. And sexual harassment lawsuits? And sexual history as pertinent to the charges brought by the plaintiff? Another idea from the radical feminist wing of the left wing Democrats to show there was a pattern of abuse (interesting that this same procedure in a rape trial is not allowed). So, here is President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton being prosecuted by a prosecutor from a Democratic extended original Democratic statute and prosecuted under laws passed by Democrats. Irony so rich even George Soros couldn't buy it.
And we have Slick Willy angrily wagging his finger at us...again.
Go here and see a part of the video(from an interview to be seen on Fox News Sunday). Then see the follow up video about him wagging that finger as he tells us that he didn't have sexual relations with...well, you know the rest.

Clearly muddled and completely obfuscated in 55 words

You may have seen the campaign signs that look like Minnesota license plates that say "VOTE YES". Those signs want you to vote yes for light rail, heavy rail and for all things that will not reduce your commute time one second. The signs are from a group called "Vote Yes for Better Roads and Transit" (website). The Prairie Pravda article title is "Most say more funds for roads". However, the article goes on to always combine "roads and transit". And they are not the same. All roads are transit, however, not all transit are roads. And in those fifty-five words is a huge, huge trap. Go to the "Vote Yes" site. Notice the subtle use and combination of "transit", "vehicles" and "taxes". The site says "A YES vote on Minnesota's Transportation Amendment will ensure that all of the existing sales tax Minnesotans pay on vehicles will be spent on our roads, bridges, highways and public transit (emphasis mine)." At the top of the site they say "Make sure your transportation taxes go to the right place"(emphasis mine). There are NO transportation taxes. They are all gas taxes or vehicle sales taxes. There are no transportation taxes.
So, what will happen is that your vehicle sales tax will go for light rail, not roads. Your car or van or truck will not use the rails that go down for light rail. Light rail costs 900% MORE per passenger mile than a freeway lane. 900% more!
Now, read the text of the Transportation Amendment very carefully:"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate revenue from a tax on the sale of new and used motor vehicles over a five-year period, so that after June 30, 2011, all of the revenue is dedicated at least 40 percent for public transit assistance and not more than 60 percent for highway purposes?" A quick read would lead one to believe that only 40% of your vehicle (car, truck, van) taxes will go for transit and that 60% will go for roads. But, after just a cursory analysis, the devil in the detail;s comes out. The text says that NO more than 60% will go for roads. Well, is 50% not more than 60%? Yes. Is 20% not more than 60%? Right again. Is 0% not more than 60%? Ceerectomondo! Now, the text says NOT LESS than 40% will go for "transit". Is 65% not less than 40%? Yup. Is 80% not less than 40%? OK. Is 100% not less than 40%? On the mark.
So, you easily be voting that 100% of your car taxes will go for light rail that you'll never use, see or benefit from...ever. And that goes double if you live in out-state Minnesota (how would light rail benefit people in Duluth, Biwabik, Mankato, Hutchinson?).
Look at the alternatives at the Taxpayers League of Minnesota and a great article in The Mankato Free Press.

Thanks for the memories

I just wanted to quick post a heartfelt message of thanks to the Savage Republican for the opportunity to blog here over the last year plus. Due to some changes in my already hectic schedule, I had to make some drastic cut backs. Given that Savage Republican is making some changes here already, we felt that this was a good time. I hope that many of you will find your way over to my "new" digs as well as keeping Savage Republican on your viewing lists.

Again - thanks so much for the wonderful memories and the fantastic opportunity! Think of it in this way - you're not losing anything - you are gaining a new reading destination! As the old commercial went - double your pleasure, double your fun.....with Savage Republican and Ladies Logic!

"Taxed Enough"

I did the Danny Thomas liquid spit stream when I saw Governor Pawlenty's new ad "Minnesotans are taxed enough". He then list all the taxes Mike Hatch has proposed and the taxes he vetoed. Good for him.
So, Governor, tell me about your signing the bill where you taxed my widowed mother to make Carl Pohlad richer? My Mom was taxed enough. She is taxed more than enough. She doesn't need, doesn't want, won't use and will not benefit in any way from making Carl Pohlad richer.