Boots On

Media Wrong, 2012 Minnesota Caucus Participation Exceedingly High

2012-02-09T22:08:00.000-06:00

The media narrative on the 2012 Minnesota Republican Caucus turnout has it all wrong. I know, no surprise.
The "big story" is that turnout this year was 25% less than 2008. This must represent a depressed interest among Republicans in Minnesota. Even worse, those who did show up were the most "extreme" activists within the party.

Hogwash!

These reports conveniently ignore the unique circumstances that surrounded the 2008 caucus.

Throughout 2007 and leading into 2008, there was a heated contest between McCain and Romney for the Republicans and between Hillary and Obama for the Democrats. The media was in full swing behind Obama to "make history" without regard for qualifications. With no incumbent and the sitting VP not seeking the office, the Presidency was up for grabs. Republicans were desperate to keep it and Democrats were desperate to take it. Not only was the nomination for each party up for grabs, so was the Presidency itself. This played a big role in heightening interest in the caucuses.

But, the biggest factor in 2008 was the fact that the Minnesota Caucus was moved up from March to February to become part of Super Tuesday. For the first time, Minnesota was on the national stage and caucus attendees were able to make their voice heard BEFORE the nomination was decided. There was a lot of hype surrounding Minnesota's new role as part of Super Tuesday.

Super Tuesday, February 5, 2008 was he biggest "Super Tuesday" to date with 24 states holding primaries or caucuses. 40% of the Republican delegates were up for grabs. The media hype promoted participation. Pundits speculated that Super Tuesday would decide the nomination for the Republican Party.

In contrast, there were only three states holding primaries or caucuses this past Tuesday.

In 2008, my caucus had over 800 participants. This year we had about 500. But, most years, including 2000 and 2004, we were getting 200-250. Take away the anomaly of 2008's Super Duper Tuesday, and its clear that grass roots interest at the Republican caucuses in Minnesota is exceedingly high this year.

Give Credit where Credit is Due

2011-07-11T17:53:00.003-05:00

(ht Minnesota Majority - http://www.minnesotamajority.org/)

Not that the Dayton/DFL government shutdown does anything positive for Minnesota's credit rating, but let's give the gov full credit for what he has done.

Thanks (for nothing) Governor Dayton

2011-07-01T11:03:00.002-05:00

Minnesota Majority points out that the Governor's word means nothing...

Senator Barb Goodwin - Mindless Mockery of Marriage

2011-04-30T08:51:00.009-05:00

Senator Barb Goodwin is an embarrassment to the people of District 50, and I'm not talking about her Edith Bunker-like persona or her bargain rack at Savers wardrobe.

Any doubts that Senator Goodwin is a FOXTROT-ing idiot can be put to rest after her recent on-the-job performance documented on video below. Watch and laugh, and maybe cry. You may want to have an air-sickness bag handy before starting the video. Yes, this moron is our duly elected senator. Elections have consequences!

It's always been obvious that this woman isn't too bright, but this performance goes beyond innocent stupidity. Her mean-spirited and mocking contempt for traditional marriage and her constituents who support it is obvious, not to mention offensive.

District 50 needs and deserves better than this. Thankfully she only won a two-year term last election so District 50 voters will have the opportunity next year to correct the terrible error they made in electing this mindless DFL hack.

Conservative Talkers and the Birther Problem

2011-04-28T16:00:00.000-05:00

After my long absence from posting on this blog and with the multitude of issues ripe for discourse, I'm a little surprised that it is the "birther debate" that motivated me to get back in the game. Over the past few days, I have grown increasingly frustrated with otherwise intelligent conservative talkers like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and KTLK's Bob Davis. They don't get it. They seem so eager to drop this hot potato that they fail to demonstrate an intelligent understanding of the issue. But, it has occurred to me that their efforts to quickly dismiss the "birthers" only fuels the debate and fans the flames.

Specifically, talkers on right do their listeners a disservice when they fail to treat so-called "birther" concerns with a sincere interest in shining the light of truth upon them. Such quick dismissal only frustrates many who think the Constitution matters. President Obama's eligibility issue will not go away until it gets a serious hearing.

Yesterday, President Obama shocked the world by releasing a copy of his "long form" birth certificate, proving that the Anointed One was, indeed, born. (Allow me this one brief diversion to levity.)

Clearly, Obama proved that it was within his means to release the long form certificate. Like many Presidential candidates before him, he could have released this copy during the campaign. So why now? Why spend millions in attorney fees to keep this document secret, only to release it now as he launches his bid for re-election. Could it be that internal polling demonstrated a shift in public opinion and Obama's strategy to keep this issue alive was beginning to backfire?

The "birther" issue is ripe with nuances that expose the disconnect between Obama's rhetoric and his actions. He campaigned on transparency while keeping his birth certificate and school admission records secret. As president, he has been equally "transparent" when he rushed to pass and sign thousands of pages of legislation before Congressional members, let alone the public, had any chance to read them.

Obama also campaigned on the commitment to transcend politics. Yet, his handling of the birth certificate – fueling the "birther" debate when polls benefited him and releasing the certificate when polls turned – appears motivated solely by politics.

So does the release of the long form birth certificate end the "birther problem"? Not quite. The Constitutional question of eligibility is just beginning. Article II, Section I states very simply:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

I find it troubling that so many conservative talkers have little understanding of this requirement and little interest in seeing it enforced. If we are not willing to demand that the simplest element of the Constitution be upheld, how can argue for adherence to more complex elements?

While "birthers" were first raising the question Obama's of eligibility during the 2008 campaign, the U.S. Senate was quietly addressing Senator McCain's eligibility. Because he was born in Panama, the Senate found it necessary to address his natural born citizenship status and did so in a non-binding resolution co-sponsored by then-Senator Barack Obama:

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States; Whereas the term "natural born Citizen", as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States; Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President; Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the "natural born Citizen" clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term "natural born Citizen"; Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders; Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Note that the U.S. Senate, including Obama himself, recognized that the term "natural born citizen" holds a special meaning and that Senator McCain's status as a natural born citizen is predicated by fact the he was born to American citizens -- note the plurality of "citizens."

Also note the absence of a similar Senate resolution resolving Senator Obama to be a "natural born citizen". I find it telling that a Democrat controlled Senate sought to affirm McCain's eligibility on the basis of his parent's citizenship (both parents), but failed to do so for Obama. They publicly recognized the special meaning behind "natural born citizen" and that it isn't enough to simply be born on U.S. soil. In doing so, they exposed the problem within Obama's eligibility. His father was not a U.S. citizen and could not bestow "natural born" status to Obama's citizenship.

Article II, Section I offers the only Constitutional reference to "natural born citizen". Not even the 14th Amendment, which seeks to clarify citizenship, offers any further clarification of the "natural born" status. Since it fails to clarify it, the 14th Amendment serves to affirm the Framer's definition of "natural born citizen" as one who was born to parents who both are U.S. citizens and neither of whom are subjects of a foreign country.

Herein lies the crux of Obama's eligibility problem. The Framers were concerned about "foreigners" with allegiance, shared or otherwise, to a foreign country becoming the President of the United States. They clearly crafted the eligibility clause to ensure that there be no question to a President's loyalty by way of his citizenship.

So why are so-called "birthers" passionate about this issue? First, the Constitution matters even if it inconveniences political objectives. Second, because the questions surrounding Obama's potential dual-citizenship status and loyalties are fueled by his own actions.

Obama's formative years were spent in Kenyan schools as, arguably, a subject of the British Crown. As President, he has bowed down to Muslim dictators while shunning leaders of Allied democratic nations. One could further argue that Obama's governance is less influenced by our Founding Fathers and more influenced by foreign socialist influences. (Granted, one could argue the same for most modern Democrat politicians.)

So, where do we go from here? What is the remedy for Obama's eligibility problem?

It is unrealistic to expect the courts to strip Obama of his Presidency or Congress to impeach and convict him. Further, doing so will not undo the damage already done through signed legislation. Remember, Obama did not act alone. Senator Reid, Representative Pelosi, and their loyal congressional minions were active participants in crafting the damaging legislation. I don't see how legislative action by then-representatives of the people would be reversed by the courts or by handing the reigns of the presidency to Joe Biden. It will be far more effective and lasting to win the hearts and minds of the electorate on the benefits of conservative principles than to seek a "technical foul" on past legislation.

Still, the eligibility issue won't go away anytime soon. While Republican candidates focus on advocating conservative ideas, conservative talkers could dismiss the eligibility issue by addressing it. I'm frankly embarrassed that so few talkers understand the difference between "citizen" and "natural born citizen", or the Framer's intent for making the distinction.

I'll concede that many "birthers" held a variety of theories based on the location of Obama's birth. When someone spends millions to hide a birth certificate, it is only natural to speculate on reasons why. I suspect that fostering this speculation was one of Obama's motives behind the secrecy. The longer he kept the document secret, the wilder the speculations became.

But, there are "birthers" with legitimate concerns about adherence to the eligibility clause of the Constitution. They want to be heard. Their issue is valid -- does the Constitution matter? You cannot move on to the next topic by citing the location of Obama's birth on his birth certificate as the end of the "birther movement".

The best way for conservative talkers to advance the discourse to "more pressing" issues is to honestly explore the meaning behind "natural born citizen" and how the citizenship of Obama's father adversely affects Obama's eligibility to hold the Office of the Presidency. Recognize it. Expose it. Then you can let it be. The voters will seek their own remedy in 2012.

Ayn Rand On Inflation

2011-04-12T17:19:00.002-05:00

I’ve recently come across a collection of Ayn Rand newsletters from the 1970s. I was instantly shocked at how relevant she was to today. Almost as if she was anticipating the nonsense of today’s politicians. Today’s federal government is printing money to pay for debts that keep growing. And adding more debt to cover interest on the debt. Inflation has hit again and looms larger in the future. Here’s what she wrote in the Ayn Rand Letter of July 15, 1974: Let us suppose you have $1,000 in a savings account. If the current rate of inflation is 10%, you lose $100 a year – the government is robbing you of that amount, as surely as if it took the bills out of your pocket. Are you permitted to write that loss off on your tax return? No – the government is pretending that the loss did not occur. But the bank pays you, say, 5% interest, i.e., $50 a year – does this make up for half your loss? No – because the government regards bank interest as “unearned income,” and taxes you on it (the amount of the tax depends on your income bracket). Are there any public voices – in this age of “social conscience” – protesting against so vicious an injustice? No. Do not ask therefore for whom the bell of inflation is tolling; it tolls for you. Inflation is a symptom of the terminal stage of that social disease which is a mixed economy. A mixed economy (as I have said many, many times) is an invalid, unstable, unworkable system which leads to one of two endings; either a return to freedom or a collapse into dictatorship. In the face of an approaching disaster, what is the attitude of most of our public leaders? Politics as usual, evasion as usual, moral cowardice as usual. I could not have said it better about today’s politicians. Thank you Ayn Rand!

It's No-D Day! Get out and Vote

2010-11-02T06:56:00.006-05:00

Let's not get burned by our apathy as we have in the past. The Republicans have excellent candidates across the ticket and the other side has some of the worst in a long time, so there's no excuse not to be motivated. It's time to go on offense!

Get out and support the entire Republican ticket from Emmer for Governor and the other Constitutional candidates on down to our fine local house and senate candidates (go Tim, Russ, and Gina!).

Teresa Collette is a fine candidate for CD4 representative (really, haven't we been embarrassed by sending a dullard like Betty McCollum to Washington long enough?).

We need to make a stand for limited Constitutional government as well as good judgment in our elected officials.

Also, pay attention to the Ramsey County Charter Amendments. Both would make it easier for the public to repeal a bad vote by the commissioners. Please vote YES and YES! The wording of the questions is horribly confusing, so please share this info with other residents. You can view a sample ballot with the questions at http://bit.ly/bnzoJG

Angie Schottmuller for North Oaks City Council

2010-10-30T21:23:00.003-05:00

With all of the attention being paid to state and federal elections sometime local elections can slip under the RADAR. This is unfortunate as local government is the closest level of government to the voters and can have a significant influence on our day-to-day lives. It is often the most responsive as the people can directly provide input as well as feedback to elected officials as they are doing the business of the people.

Residents of North Oaks are fortunate to have the opportunity to elect Angie Schottmueller to the City Council this Tuesday. Angie will bring steadfast Conservative believes as well as the knowledge of how government operates and how it should operate relative to the vision of our nation's founders to city government.

Angie also brings a unique combination of business and marketing skills to the table as well as the technical expertise and political skills to apply them. She is the first candidate I've run across to propose applying cutting edge private sector business techniques to city government, and is probably the most qualified person I can think of to successfully make it happen

Cities are in competition to attract businesses and development. Success in this arena is built on the combination of sound policy as well as effective marketing of what the city has to offer private sector investors and developers in addition to being to work with other units of government. I've seen Angie in action in both political and business contexts and am very impressed with her professionalism, intelligence, business acumen, political instincts, and people skills and believe she will make a great addition to the North Oaks City Council.

Time Out for an Inspirational Message from the Gipper

2010-10-30T13:11:00.003-05:00

The times, names, and particulars have changed, but this speech by Ronald Reagan is timeless in its message. I thought it would be a good reminder of the critical job we have to do as voters this coming Tuesday.

Knuth Says Open The Floodgates To Immigration!

2010-10-30T13:10:00.000-05:00

Kate Knuth may have revealed more about herself than she wanted with an article she wrote at the U of M. Here are a few gems from her article entitled Population Heroes:

http://environment.umn.edu/momentum/current/soapbox.html

The fiscal impacts of a stabilizing, aging population can be softened. Workers must become either more productive or more abundant.

First off, what would Knuth know about productivity? She has never worked, never put anything valuable into the stream of commerce. The statement sets the table for her reasoning that only massive immigration can solve government’s fiscal problems:

The only way to increase the number of work-aged people in the short term is immigration.

The problem she is addressing is the many promises government made to an aging baby-boom generation -- such as Social Security -- and now maybe cannot keep due to political mismanagement. She recommends doing what Europe has been doing the last 30 years -- trying to use immigrants to somehow pay for the promises made to the native population.

How has that worked out for Europe? If you overlook the riots, turmoil, debt, balkanization, and terrorism, well I guess it has worked out pretty well. But the situation recently prompted German leader Angela Merkel to say that multi-culturalism in her country has failed completely. Yet multi-culturalism is exactly what Knuth wants. She says:

While changes in public finance resulting from stable population may be difficult, cultural changes could be fun.

Fun? Fun for Knuth maybe. Then Knuth goes off into another utopian vision:

Societies may also choose to abandon GDP as the sole measure of economic success, instead focusing on measures of public or environmental health, education, equity, or happiness.

In other words, she is giving up on the idea of real prosperity because she knows that government cannot provide it. Instead, go to a different measure so that the glaring “F” for economic failure is not so evident.

Folks, I could say more about Knuth’s article and her head-in-the-clouds thinking. But time is short. I say let her continue her life in academia, but stay away from legislation.

On November 2, vote down-to-earth common sense. Vote Russ Bertsch!

Gina Bauman earns NRA Endorsement for District 50 Senate

2010-10-18T23:37:00.010-05:00

Congratulations to Gina Bauman, the GOP endorsed candidate for District 50 Senate, for earning the prestigious NRA endorsement with a rating of "AQ" by the organization (click the State Senate tab after clicking the link). This is the highest rating for a candidate who has not yet held office in which significant firearms legislation had been voted on.

In contrast, Gina's main opponent, Barb Goodwin, checks in with an abysmal rating of "F", which is well-deserved based on her history of anti-gun and anti-hunting votes in the legislature (one really has to work to earn an "F" rating from the NRA).

Hunters take note: For all of the bad economic and social legislation the outgoing incumbent, Senator Satveer Chaudhary, was responsible for the one area in which he did do a good job was that of looking out for the interests of hunters and sportsmen. Your interests will continue to be supported if you elect Gina Bauman. As an NRA member and former employee of Federal Cartridge, Gina appreciates and strongly supports the values and interests of the hunting community.

For us firearm owners primarily concerned about our Second Amendment right to personal and family protection, Gina will be a much better advocate of our rights than Senator Chaudhary, who voted against concealed carry and attempted to enact a state-level "assault weapons" ban.

Goodwin would be an unmitigated disaster against the interests of all gun owners. Not only would she fail to stand up for the interests of us in the gun owning community, but would actively work against our best interests. Goodwin opposed conceal carry reform as a state representative, has voted with the "metrocrats" for virtually all anti-gun legislation in her tenure in the Minnesota House, and is supported by anti-hunting animal "rights" groups. She is also wrong on just about every other issue of interest to Conservatives.

Barb Goodwin, MCCL, and Unborn Corn

2010-10-17T17:21:00.000-05:00

There's more to that interview Barb Goodwin, DFL candidate for State Senate District 50, gave to Atheists for Human Rights (see my previous post). Goodwin went on to criticize Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life because they "took a neutral stand" on a bill to restrict prenatal care to illegal aliens. For this, she accused MCCL of practicing "situational ethics" by not supporting this "life saving bill".

Let's be fair. The bill in question was an effort to prevent citizens from a foreign country from illegally sneaking across the border to receive non-emergency medical care paid for by Minnesota taxpayers. This was an illegal immigration bill that had nothing to do with promoting or restricting abortion – which is the concern of MCCL. It is beyond MCCL's mission to address such legislation. Goodwin again resorts to pretzelian logic bending to find a reason to accuse MCCL of hypocrisy on its pro-life position. But then, bent logic is the only kind of logic that Democrats understand.

I would have actually more respect for them [MCCL], in the twenty years that I've been around the legislative process, cause I worked at the House for several years and I've been in office for six, I never once, once, not once seen them come to the legislature and support child care, support anti-abuse, [support] domestic abuse issues, support education, support health care for children, not one time in twenty years it's all about abortion and I would have respect for them if I could see some consistency in their thought.

Let's get this straight. An organization whose mission is to protect the life of babies in the womb from the consequences of death by birth-control is not worthy of Goodwin's respect because they never once, once, not once lobbied for domestic abuse issues? Bent logic indeed.

Maybe if MCCL lobbied for more government funding of Ethanol "to save the planet and unborn corn", Goodwin might re-consider her respect issues.

[Please see Mr. Dilettante's complete analysis of the Goodwin interview – Part One and Part Two.]

Barb Goodwin for the Obamacare Death Panel?

2010-10-16T22:21:00.001-05:00

After first endorsing incumbent Satveer Chaudhary for re-election to the Minnesota Senate, the DFL had a change heart. It appears that Chaudhary's ethical lapses became too embarrassing. The Senate District 50 Democrats rescinded their endorsement in favor of former State Representative Barb Goodwin.

But, did the DFL replace one embarrassment for another?

In her last year as state representative, Goodwin was interviewed by Marie Castle, Communications Director for Atheists for Human Rights. This is a group that exists "because so many violations of human rights have their source in religious authoritarianism".

Goodwin was interviewed to discuss "anti-human health care". Castle frames the discussion by suggesting that Republican health care legislation is an effort to force anti-human religious views upon the population. Goodwin appears to echo the sentiment with the obligatory those darn right-wing extremists exclamations.

Throughout this interview, the facts are flawed and the logic is bent in pretzelian fashion. Goodwin describes one such "anti-human" bill:

"We heard a bill in the health care committee, which I'm on, that would require that a person get feeding tubes and hydration, whether or not they wanted it, if they didn't have it specifically written in a health care directive that they didn't want it."

Goodwin opposes the bill because it would require the use of feeding tubes and hydration "whether or not the patient wants it". No. Wait. Did she then say that the bill would not require force feeding of patients who have a health care directive? So does Goodwin oppose "keep the patient alive" as a default plan of action for doctors?

Castle continues the interview with the claim that comatose patients feel no pain through dehydration and that feeding tubes cause pain and suffering. Goodwin elaborates with a personal story:

"I've been through this with several members of my family, and most recently, and still with a brother in-law, who is still in the hospital. Five months he's been in hospital now. And, he went to the hospital in critical condition ... a few days later, stopped breathing. My sister, his wife, was there to make health care decisions for him. But, they would not allow her to make health care decisions for him. He wasn't, in the beginning, in a place where he could make them for himself. So they did inject a feeding tube and they did, of course, give him hydration. He continued to lose weight."

Apparently, he had no written health care directive and doctors did what they could to save his life. The story continued:

"...When you give or force feed a body that's shutting down, that can be extremely painful. And, not only can it be painful, but for him, it created a case where he had diarrhea day and night for days and days. He lost weight, more and more weight, and he was way underweight when he went into the hospital. So in his case, it was technological torture to continue feeding him. He had several times, during that time, when his body tried to give out and he got pneumonia 3 or 4 times. That sometimes can be a blessing because its a quieter way of the body dying. but it was always aggressively treated. He is doing some better at this point..."

Goodwin doesn't explain the underlying cause of the brother in-law's illness. She describes a difficult battle for life, yet acknowledges that the effort improved his condition. There's more (emphasis added):

"...but the thing is is that he's only 50 years old, he was a professional architect, he's never going to be able to work again, his organs are still a mess... if he does survive this, he's going to live in a nursery home the rest of his life. That is not what he would have wanted. That is not what he wants even now. But, that's the kind of decisions that the Republican Right is trying to force on individuals."

Those darn Right Wing Extremists! How dare they force doctors to preserve life – especially when family members have decided that the life of a loved one isn't worth saving.

This issue hits home for me. Several years ago, a best friend of mine was stricken with Leukemia. There was a point where he was comatose and on life support for seven weeks. Doctors did all they could, but saw no signs of hope. They concluded that he would never breath on his own and said it was time to consider pulling the plug.

Because his young son's birthday was on the coming weekend, his wife wanted to postpone the decision until the following week. She didn't want the son to forever link his birthday to when dad died.

The following week he proved doctors wrong. He started breathing on his own and he was home a few weeks later. He lived in remission for two years before a relapse took him quickly. But, those two years were extremely valuable to him, to his family, and to his friends.

We don't know what ever happened to Barb Goodwin's brother in-law. It seems clear that he didn't have a Living Will that would have defined how far doctors should go to keep him alive. Yet, his family was willing to make those decisions for him. We are to believe that he would not want to "live in a nursery home the rest of his life" -- and that living in a nursery home was inevitable.

But, doctors can be wrong. So can family members. So can politicians.

During this interview, Barb Goodwin endorsed flexibility in health care legislation that gives family members wide latitude in life or death decisions over loved ones. With the passage of Obamacare, legislators and bureaucrats now have rationing authority based on the cost of care versus the perceived value of the patient's recovery.

Do we really want Barb Goodwin on Obamacare's extended legislative death panel with the power to regulate health care rationing based on her perceived value of life?

Steve Wynn: The Politicians Are Ruining Us

2010-10-13T18:15:00.002-05:00

Casino entrepreneur Steve Wynn articulates how Congress and the President are destroying the American Dream.

Betty the Dim

2010-10-13T17:28:00.001-05:00

This isn't really far from the truth.

Tarryl Clark, Deceitocrat

2010-10-12T22:52:00.001-05:00

Democrat Tarryl Clark is currently running another ad which outright lies about Republican Michele Bachamann's position on Social Security. This is nothing new. She does this a lot.

The ad is a blatant attempt to scare senior citizens into thinking that the Republican candidate will take away their social security. This, too, isn't new. Scaring senior citizens is what Democrats do.

The latest ad got a 'D' from KSTP's Truth Test for misrepresenting Bachmann's statements. The ad starts with Clark's voice declaring "I'm Tarryl Clark and I approve this message". At the 22 second mark, the ad features a photo of Bachmann next to three false statements presented to look like she made them. Then it features Bachmann's voice saying "I'm Michele Bachmann and I approve this message". What? Two disclaimers from opposing candidates in the same ad?

It seems clear that the Clark campaign intended for the casual viewer to mistake this for a Bachmann ad. It also seems like a clear violation of the campaign finance law.

When it comes to Tarryl Clark, the 'D' in Democrat stands for "Deceit".

District 50 North Metro Mayors Forum - Dull, but revealing

2010-10-02T09:42:00.010-05:00

After watching the video of the event it doesn't appear that anything terribly exciting happened. All of the GOPers (Gina Bauman for SD50 Senate, Tim Utz for HD50A House, and Russ Bertsch for HD50B House) presented their Conservative case well in spite of the shallowness of the softball questions while the libs showed their true socialist leanings. Hopefully those who generally don’t follow politics will watch one of the many replays or the internet feed and conclude that all of the DFLers need to be denied election or re-election to office as they all showed they are clueless when it comes to what the people want or need.

There were no major gaffs, and very little in the way of surprises to those of us who pay attention to politics. Conservatives Gina Bauman, Tim Utz, and Russ Bertsch all agreed that taxes are too high and should not be raised, and the spending that is driving the high taxes must be cut. The three hard-core left-wingers Barb Goodwin, Carolyn Laine, and Kate Knuth admitted that they viewed tax increases as inevitable, though Knuth carefully avoided using the phrase and substituted variations of "revenue increases". "Independent" Rae Hart Anderson pretty much prattled on through her allotted time with her usual incoherent steam of semi-consciousness.

Apparently the fun stuff occurred after the cameras stopped rolling as related by HD50A GOP Chair John Anderson. After the forum Carolyn Laine would not pose for pictures with the GOP challenger for her seat, Tim Utz. It's understandable that Carolyn Laine was upset as one can see in the video that Tim pretty much sanitized her clock throughout the forum and goaded her into revealing that her political ideology is to the left of Karl Marx. She actually came out and said the Minnesotans are not over taxed (what planet does she live on?), and that we have a high tax rate because we have so many high income people who can afford to pay it(!). Unfortunately the other candidates are not visible in the video while the camera is on the speaker, but I heard from someone who attended the event that Laine spent most of the evening with a sucking-on-a-lemon expression as Tim put the smack on her with his customary in-your-face, yet droll, delivery.

Although it’s doubtful many minds were changed among the politically engaged I thought the Conservatives came off well, the libs showed what they’re all about (mostly more government and taxes), and Rae Anderson occupied space and consumed time. Now that the election is about a month away there will probably be an increase in interest and I encourage those looking to get up to speed to watch the replay of this forum as well as the many other upcoming forums.

Tim Utz gave some good advice in his closing statement when he recommended that viewers check out the web sites of all the candidates:

District 50 Senate:
Gina Bauman (GOP Endorsed)
Barb Goodwin (DFL Endorsed)
Rae Hart Anderson (not GOP endorsed, in spite of what she may imply on her "house calls" - in fact she was kicked out of the GOP)

District 50A House:
Tim Utz (GOP Endorsed)
Carolyn Laine (DFL Endorsed)

District 50B House:
Russ Bertsch (GOP Endorsed)
Kate Knuth (DFL Endorsed)

I think people will find that the GOP has fielded a great group of truly Conservative candidates, the DFLers are actually much more liberal (or downright socialist) than they portray in their public appearances and one-minute sound bites, and the "Independent" pretty much marches out of step to the beat of various irrhythmic drummers.

Take the time to visit all the various sections on each web site and carefully check out the philosophy and positions of each candidate, as well as the individuals and groups who support and associate with them - it’s often very revealing on what kind of legislator they will be.

How To Continue Knuth's Education

2010-10-01T14:02:00.001-05:00

After listening to Kate Knuth brag about her Oxford degree at last night’s candidate forum in New Brighton, I’ve decided on the best way to continue her education. Boot her out and let her find a real job.

Knuth has nothing to really boast about. She’s lived her life in academia. She has never produced anything as valuable as a McDonald’s hamburger.

Knuth has produced environmental mandates though. The kind that produced frozen windmills in January 2010. Windmills that were mandated by alternative energy requirements. Windmills that required another power source just to warm up. And the resulting inefficiency shows up as hidden costs in our energy bills.

Knuth’s challenger, Russ Bertsch, lives and works in the real world. He grew up on a farm learning the meaning and value of work. He has a financial industry work history. He runs his own business now and understands what’s what in a budget. What a contrast to Kate Knuth!

Just imagine Kate Knuth applying for a job in private industry. What would she say? On November 2 let’s replace her and let her real education begin …

Latest Nonsense from Local Libs

2010-09-28T21:12:00.013-05:00

The liberals and socialists are starting to panic as evidenced by the vapidity of some of their commentary in the local papers. I think they sense that the electorate has had enough of the damage their side has done at all levels of government and are making some very lame attempts to counter the common sense Conservative positions which are obviously resonating with the people.

One example is a Letter to the Editor printed in the last Shoreview Post where the author makes a pathetically futile attempt to rebut a post pertaining to economics from the web site of Gina Bauman, the GOP endorsed candidate for District 50 senate:

Senate district 50 Republican candidate Gina Bauman can sound quite reasonable. As a voter in SD50 I have done some research on the candidates and found her actual positions to be quite disturbing. Let’s take a look at some statements from Gina’s own campaign website.

“Most of our current economic difficulties are the result of government losing sight of these simple concepts and over stepping its legitimate bounds and authority” Apparently she hasn’t noticed that the Wall Street/mortgage industry craziness which brought the US and world economies to the brink of collapse occurred FOLLOWING DE-regulation.

“No society has ever, or could ever, tax and regulate itself to prosperity.”

Sounds good and American – right? Not so fast. What do taxes bring? Oh, useless things like roads, schools, the Army – plus the state subsidies received by both Ms. Bauman and her husband as Home Health Care Aids to take care of her mother. Regulation is stifling and bad right? Hmm should we go back to rivers that start on fire or cars without seat belts? And, of course, the financial industry needs more freedom to come up with gems like mortgage backed securities. Let’s be clear here: Capitalism NEEDS regulation to function. Would the NFL be better if there were no referees on the field? They get some calls wrong, but the game couldn’t function without them.

“Government does not and can not (sic) create wealth”. Seeing a pattern here? Again – roads, bridges, schools, police etc. How much wealth could the private sector create without these?

There are many more examples. If Gina and her cohorts gain power our current problems will seem like the Garden of Eden.

John Bristow
Columbia Heights

Where does one begin to dissect such twaddle? I'll attempt to address the Mr. Bristow's "points" in the order in which he states them.

First up he seems to have a problem with Bauman's "quite disturbing" assertion that “Most of our current economic difficulties are the result of government losing sight of these simple concepts and over stepping its legitimate bounds and authority” . Doesn't disturb me in the least - in fact it seems pretty darn reasonable. Mr. Bristow responds with

"Apparently she hasn’t noticed that the Wall Street/mortgage industry craziness which brought the US and world economies to the brink of collapse occurred FOLLOWING DE-regulation."

Apparently Mr. Bristow hasn't noticed that securities and banking are among the most highly regulated industries there are. It wasn't de-regulation that caused the meltdown, but rather near dictatorial over-regulation that virtually required lending institutions to grant mortgages to people that the free market would not otherwise lend to (i.e. "sub-prime") with the promise to lenders that the government would cover the bad loans. Although the Bush Administration expressed concern that this was a potential problem it did not aggressively attempt to stop it and rightly deserves some blame, but primary "credit" for this insanity goes to liberal democrats in congress (e.g. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd). So-called "financial reform" by the Obama Administration is a joke and the problem still remains.

The next point made by Bauman is almost axiomatic when it comes to basic economics: “No society has ever, or could ever, tax and regulate itself to prosperity.” Apparently Mr. Bristow does not have even a rudimentary grasp on economics as he can't come to terms with such a simple and common-sense truth. His attempt at a sarcastic rebuttal is nothing short of pathetic. He clumsily infers that Bauman is against the legitimate things government finances through taxation (roads, schools, the Army) and all regulation. He also takes a very cheap personal shot at the candidate and her family that adds nothing to his already vacuous arguments. And "caring and compassionate" liberals like this have the nerve to label Conservatives as "extremists"?

Finally, the pap equating legitimate government services and infrastructure maintenance with the creation of wealth in a free market economy shows that Bristow is utterly clueless when it comes to economics, as are the liberals/socialists/"Obama Democrats" he apparently supports for public office. This kind of thinking is what got us into the economic stagnation and out-of-control government interference in our lives we currently have to contend with.

If this letters and ones like are indicative of what the libs have going for them in this election (one liberal clown actually rebuts Bauman with "Cutting our way to prosperity has never worked" in a letter to the Sun Focus - I won't embarrass the author by naming him) it doesn't say much for them.

Hopefully, the electorate will finally take notice and vote accordingly.

Bush Tax Cuts Wake Up The Faithful, Maybe

2010-09-17T21:59:00.000-05:00

I feel sorry for the loyal Democrat supporter. I really do.

If you support Democrats, you likely absorb what they tell you like the Gospel truth then echo it faithfully to friends and political foes. It's easy. No research is necessary. You find comfort in numbers with the constant repetition from fellow supporters in the mainstream media. Like living in an echo chamber, the mantra is all you hear. It must be true. You believe it. You live it. You repeat it. "Bush gave tax cuts only to the rich – who didn't want them."

For nearly a decade, you have been told, and you faithfully repeated, that President Bush did nothing for the poor, lower, and middle income families. You have been told that the "Bush Tax Cuts" were only for the rich.

Now Democrats, including President Obama are desperately trying to extend the Bush tax cuts for poor and those who make less than 200-some thousand per year.

WHAT?!?!?

BUSH GAVE TAX CUTS TO THE POOR?!?!?

BUSH GAVE TAX CUTS TO THE MIDDLE-CLASS?!?!?

BUT...YOU TOLD ME THAT...I BELIEVED THAT...I TOLD MY FRIENDS THAT...THAT, BUSH ONLY GAVE TAX CUTS TO THE RICH – NO, ONLY THE FILTHY RICH AND THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT THEM.

WHAT?!?!?

You have also been told that taxing the rich somehow, magically, helps the poor and middle class. But now a growing number of Democrats are desperately seeking to preserve ALL of the Bush Tax Cuts. They argue that jobs will be affected – lower and middle income jobs – if the "rich" have less money to invest in business.

WHAT?!?!?

BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH HELPS THE POOR AND MIDDLE-CLASS?!?!?

BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH MEANS MORE JOBS...MORE THAN GOVERNMENT CAN GIVE?!?!?

BUT...YOU TOLD ME THAT...I BELIEVED THAT...I TOLD MY FRIENDS THAT...THAT, TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH TAKES MONEY FROM THE POOR.

WHAT?!?!?

It must be crushing to discover that the party you have supported and believed in all these years has been lying to you, using you, and abusing your faith to increase their power. It must be devastating to realize that you have been manipulated into despising, even hating the political foes of the Democrat Party.

Now I realize that the most loyal Democrat supporters won't question why Democrat politicians who once chastised President Bush for "only giving tax cuts to the rich" are now seeking to extend the "Bush tax cuts for the poor and middle-class." How this rhetorical about-face exposes these politicians as brokers of deceit will be lost on most of their supporters. Still, I do hope that for some, this will be an awakening that motivates them to do their own research and to demand honesty in the politicians for whom they vote.

Next time, let's discuss how off-shore drilling was to turn the beaches of Florida black with oil. Baby steps here. We'll save the expose on the prophet Al Gore's profiteering from lies and blind faith for another time

Scream! And Scream Again!

2010-09-17T13:17:00.003-05:00

http://host6.evanced.info/melsa/anoka/eventcalendar.asp?et=Legacy+Amendment&nd=60&ln=ALL

Remember the Bob Lessard Legacy Amendment. The one that added 3/8 of one percent to the sales tax?

Well it was supposed to aid conservation and the environment. But in order to get passed, liberal legislators wanted the “arts” funded as well. The link above will take you to some of the programs at the Anoka County libraries funded by the Legacy.

Here’s an example: Monster Movies at the library.

That’s right. The ad says come and enjoy "Classic Monster Movies' from the 30's, 40's, and 50's.”

I’ll tell you what scares me. All the money wasted on these non-essential programs. And the deception that was used to fool the public.

I’ll bet the same amendment today would not pass.

New Codeword for Redistribution

2010-09-03T13:24:00.003-05:00

I interrupt this program to alert you to a new concept and new codeword for redistribution … in our public schools.

Picture a public elementary school somewhere in the metro area. One first grade public school teacher. One intelligent and responsible parent. One enthusiastic kid starting first grade.

The school’s letter to parents was quite explicit. They were to purchase a certain number of a certain kind of pencil, a certain number of glue sticks, a certain number and kind of crayons, and certain color folders. And the parent was supposed to place them in the child’s designated desk on Open House night.

Sounds simple and straightforward. Not.

Unbeknownst to the parents, this was a "Responsive" classroom. So the kid was very surprised when he opened his desk the first day to find that his treasure trove of supplies was missing. Just a few items were in their place.

The "Responsive" teacher in the "Responsive" classroom had confiscated the supplies and threw them into a common drawer which she administered. And to hand out items as she saw fit to any student, regardless of whose parent had bought them in the first place.

No doubt there would be a few needy and forgetful kids in that class. The idea of parents stepping up and buying extra supplies and donating them is not bad at all. If it is done voluntarily and the parents knows about it in advance.

Instead, what the teacher had done was sneaky. Only afterwords explaining the "Responsive" concept. And being careful not to use the words "redistribution" or verboten words such as Socialism or Marxism.

Watch for "Responsive" classrooms in a public school near you.

Representative Kate Knuth and her liberal cronies put up another goose egg

2010-09-03T09:52:00.008-05:00

The Taxpayers League of Minnesota has published their annual Legislative Scorecard and District 50B Representative Kate Knuth has yet again posted a shutout against her constituents.

Our orange attired green garotter repeated her past performances with another 0-for-15 when it came to votes in the best interests of the taxpayers. With her latest non-performance Kate maintains her lifetime "zero" rating with the Taxpayers League, a fitting tribute to such a poor excuse for a representative of the people.

Joining Kate in the "Perfect Zeroes" club is District 50A Representative Carolyn Laine, the other half of the Beavis and Butthead team (I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is which) that currently represents District 50 in the Minnesota House. Maybe there's something in the water in this area that has escaped Kate's scrutiny (she's always looking for some new pollutant to combat via another tax or business killing regulation) as Tom Tilberry, who some understandably have dubbed "Tommie the Commie", in District 51A also qualifies as a perfect zero, along with four more uber liberals in the House for this dishonor.

The legislative contingent for District 50 has been controlled for years by central command-and-control big government advocates. It is long overdue to replace clowns like Knuth and Laine with intelligent hard-working people with good practical judgment who will advance the will of the people instead of goofy liberal pipe dreams or the desires of left-wing special interests.

More to come...

How to Destory Marriage

2010-08-11T20:50:00.000-05:00

Marriage is under attack. Make no mistake, this attack is intended to destroy marriage and any pretense that there is something unique and special about the union of a man and a woman.

We are to believe that traditional marriage discriminates against gays and lesbians because it prevents them from marrying whomever they wish. But, this presumes that marriage is defined by love and desire. It is not.

Marriage is defined by biology. It is the union of two biological opposites – of one man and one woman. It is unique and special because it is the ONLY union of two individuals that has the potential to create life.

This isn't to say that the individuals united by traditional marriage are superior to those in any other form of coupling. It is only to point out the obvious, that the union between a man and a woman is the only union that can transcend beyond desire to procreation. This is why it's special.

It's about the children!

When government promotes and endorses traditional marriage, it promotes the procreation of future citizens. This is the only reason why the government regulates marriage because it is of national interest to sustain its population with future, potentially productive citizens. For all those who hope to benefit from Social Security, you're going to need lots of young, productive taxpayers paying your way.

Of course, this doesn't mean that government should require the birth of a child to validate a marriage. (Although it often requires the procreative act to consummate the marriage.) It only means that promotion of traditional marriage ultimately leads to the procreation of future citizens.

In his decision striking down California’s Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker concluded (p.111 of his ruling):

"...Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

Judge Walker falsely presumes that the "fundamental right to marry" equates to the "fundamental right to marry a lover." But, this "fundamental right" doesn't exist for traditional marriage either. For the benefit of potential offspring, the government places restrictions on whom one can marry and it doesn't care if the parties involved love and desire each other – it doesn't even ask about love or desire on the application for a marriage license.

Traditional marriage does not discriminate specifically against gays and lesbians. If they seek to enter into a union designed for the benefit of procreation, they can seek a union partner of the opposite sex just like anyone else. Sure, there is a benefit if love and desire are parts of the equation, but it isn't required for a legal marriage. Indeed, American History is filled with marriages of arrangement in which two newly-met became newlywed before discovering a mutual love and desire.

The restrictions on marriage are applied equally to all applicants. In addition to requiring that both applicants be of the opposite sex, one cannot marry a blood relative no matter how much love and desire might be present. There are also age restrictions based on both mental and physical, child-bearing maturity. These restrictions clearly recognize the biological consequences of uniting male and female and upon the children that might be produced. It is a precedence for recognizing biology as the defining basis for marriage.

If the definition of marriage is changed to include the "union" of two same-sex partners, than the law must discard biology as its defining basis and replace it with love or desire. To do so would change marriage to something meaningless. In an effort to eliminate presumed discrimination, the state could no longer prevent cousins from marrying – or brother and sister, brother and brother, sister and sister, or even parent and child.

Moreover, to remove biology as the defining basis also means that marriage need not be limited to union of two persons. The ONLY reason that we think of marriage as a union of two is because there are exactly two sexes – male and female. Replace biology with love and desire, then it would be wrong to discriminate against three or four or more of any gender combination to enter into a "marital union."

It isn't difficult to see that changing the defining basis of marriage to allow for same-sex unions ultimately destroys the institution altogether.

Senator Satveer Chaudhary - Gone and needs to be forgotten ASAP

2010-08-11T05:43:00.004-05:00

Barb Goodwin took out Satveer Chaudhary in the primary yesterday. While it is a good thing that District 50 will no longer have to put up with the arrogance and ineptitude of Chaudhary, Goodwin would be just as bad, and possibly even worse, from a policy perspective. She is a hard-core liberal that would bring many of the same goofy liberal ideas and special interest big government baggage to the office. She may not show the sanctimony, arrogance, and ethical problems as the self-serving fishin’ politician, but would nonetheless be a poor senator.

District 50 can do much better. Fortunately we have a great candidate in Gina Bauman. Liberals in general are probably going to go down in large numbers this fall and the DFL and their special interests will be pulling out all of the stops to retain the District 50 seat.

We as Conservatives have a tremendous opportunity to finally get a good and effective senator for District 50, but it won’t be easy. This campaign could certainly get ugly if the DFL chooses to make it that way.

In any case, it’s time for Conservatives to get off of our collective butts and get out and support Gina. Don’t let the left out-hustle us as they have in the past and end up getting their inferior candidate elected largely due to our apathy.

The opportunity is here. We just have to put in the hard work to make it happen.

The 2010 Primary - The first step toward victory in November

2010-08-09T19:20:00.007-05:00

The primary election takes place tomorrow, August 10. It is our first opportunity to start undoing the damage that started with the 2006 elections and worsened in 2008 when liberals and socialists gained one-party control of our state and federal governments. The ramifications of this terrible mistake by voters have been painfully obvious. Allowing the left to remain in power for yet another election cycle would compound the damage they have already inflicted and make it even more difficult to restore our lost liberties, wealth, and property rights.

The left gained control via the ballot box and they can taken out of power in the same way. A big reason a lot of these poor excuses for elected office holders rose to political power is that too many of us on the Right were apathetic and unenaged. We allowed the left to frame the debate by letting them get away with outrageous lies and distortions. We allowed moderates and RINOs to take control and define the direction of the GOP and its candidates, and then many of us stayed at home on election night out of spite or disgust. This cannot be allowed to happen again! Our liberty, property, and way of life is at stake, not only for us but for our children and grandchildren.

Although the results won't directly change the course of our government, a primary election can be a powerful means of setting the table for the general election. It can weed out weak candidates who are ostensibly on our side of the political divide in favor of stronger ones, or to promote weaker candidates on the other side to set up a more favorable contest in the general election. Remember how John McCain was foisted upon us in 2008 (and how did that work out for us)?

There is no one-size-fits-all strategy. In some cases a good candidate is running unopposed and could potentially benefit much more in the long run by facing off against a weaker opponent in the general election rather than running up an impressive number of primary votes against token or no opposition. In others, good candidates are being challenged by lesser qualified, politically weak, or downright unelectable candidates. Think carefully on how best to use your right to vote to get a general election match-up that would result in removing the bad incumbents and getting good people into office.

Keep in mind that in a primary election in Minnesota you must vote only for candidates in one party (e.g. only DFL or only GOP) when it comes to partisan races. But it is important to remember that there is also a slate of non-partisan races (primarily for judge or county attorney offices) on the flip-side of the ballot that you can, and should make selections from, regardless of how you voted on the partisan side of your ballot. With all of the politicization of the judiciary and legislating from the bench that occurs, particularly from the left, it is important to make sure that the best possible choices for these non-partisan offices end up on the general election ballot.

I strongly recommend checking out these candidates beforehand if possible. Although no political affiliation will be indicated on the ballot, a check of campaign web sites, as well as some local blogs (I have at least one in mind :) ) and a little time with Google can reveal a lot about what kind of judge or county attorney a given candidate will be by who supports them and who they hang with.

Please get out and vote in the primary, regardless of your motivation or strategy, and help to create favorable match-ups for the general election. Conservatives have some excellent candidates this time around and the other side has some real losers in office that were made election winners last time largely through our apathy and inaction. Let's not let it happen again as far too much is at stake.

Forget Hollywood...

2010-08-04T23:07:00.002-05:00

I hope the actual event is as good as this trailer suggests:

HT: Angie Schottmuller

Even a Blind Squirrel In Hollywood...

2010-08-02T19:53:00.000-05:00

I just saw The Blind Side – a very good, heartwarming movie that portrays Christians and Republicans in an honest, positive light.

This is rare for Hollywood. Christians and Republicans are such an oddity in Tinsel Town that movie-makers simply don't know how to portray them. They are all too often falsely portrayed with negativity that makes hating what they stand for much easier to do.

Sandra Bullock was even hesitant to play the part of Leigh Anne Tuohy, a devout Christian, a Republican, and football fanatic. In an interview for the Guardian, Bullock said "...I know nothing about Christianity, nothing about football, and I'm not a Republican. But John Lee Hancock [the director] had always told me this is a mother-son story that just happened to involve people that you might normally pass judgment on. I go, 'Hmmm . . . white, Southern, Christian, Republican . . . not the kind of people I feel comfortable around, because they're usually not appreciative of me, or the lifestyle I supposedly lead. So I automatically assume that they'll reject me because of all that. But this family was the exact opposite."

Hey Sandra, maybe there are a lot of Southern, Christian, Republicans that are the exact opposite of your predisposed judgement.

Initially, Bullock wasn't interested in doing the movie because she didn't know how to play Tuohy. According to Bullock, "The director said, after about eight months, 'Why don't you go and see Leigh Anne and see what I'm talking about? It'll explain her.' I met her and was really blown away by the energy she had. I stopped thinking about it like an actor just seeing a part, and the story is what finally got me."

Hmmm, it appears that Sandra's perception of the Touhys was wrong until she met them. This is my general complaint with Hollywood movie-makers. They don't know Christians and Republicans, so they don't know how to portray them. Moreover, they don't feel comfortable around them. If Sandra's comments are any indication, perhaps movie-makers fear being judged in the same manner that they most often judge Christians and Republicans.

But, Sandra Bullock stepped out of her comfort zone to meet and get to know a Christian Republican family. Arguable, she actually practiced the type of diversity awareness that liberals are quick to preach – while demagoging Christians and Republicans. For effectively portraying someone so opposite of herself, Sandra Bullock earned her Oscar.

For being willing to put her predisposition against Christian Republicans aside and deliver an honest performance, she's earned my kudos.

The movie is a great story about compassion and love for fellow man and it's even better that it comes from real life. I was impressed that Hollywood resisted the temptation to throw in unnecessary foul language and implicit sex scenes that it so often does to boost box office sales. Hollywood should take note that the unexpected success at the box office might be for the simple fact that a good heartwarming story trumps adolescent language and cheap sex.

Still, there was one scene that director Hancock could not resist. It was unnecessary for it didn't add to the story. It was senseless and factually flawed. And it was revealing. In a movie about compassionate Christian Republicans, Hancock couldn't resist taking a shot at President Bush.

The scene was a Tennessee state license bureau where Bullock's character tries to get a driver's license for then 17 year-old Micheal Oher. After waiting an hour with little apparent movement in the line, she confronts the government employee behind the counter about the lack of service. She notes that employees are chatting with each other and taking coffee breaks instead of helping customers and asks "whose in charge here?" The employee points to a photo of President Bush on the office wall. [Insert silly liberals laughing here.]

Okay, maybe this scene was aimed squarely at the liberals in the audience because surely they would have a problem sitting through two hours of feel-good mush perpetuated by compassionate conservatives. They needed a familiar bone to tickle their perception of reality. Far be it for me to sour the bone with facts and logic.

According to the time line within this movie, the scene took place about two month's before Micheal Oher's 18th birthday – around March of 2004. President Bush's popularity was still high then. He won Tennessee handily in both 2000 and 2004. This scene seems born of the liberal narrative to blame Bush for the economy and for all that President Obama touches – which was more prominent during the filming of the movie than the date when the event was to occur.

Granted, post Katrina, it became popular for media and liberals everywhere to blame President Bush for all that ails us. But, Katrina hit the south in 2005.

Still, blaming Bush for the fact that government employees in a state-run office fail to do their jobs makes no sense. This was a Tennessee state office. The federal government has NO jurisdiction over the administration of this state-run office. The buck stops not at the White House, but at the governor's mansion.

Curiously, this scene was born of the same logically and factually flawed narrative that fueled the effort to blame Bush for the slow response to the disaster that followed Katrina in New Orleans. In truth, the slow response was a direct result of a mayor who failed to execute a disaster recovery plan and a governor who failed to seek federal assistance in a timely manner. There was simply nothing that President Bush could do for New Orleans until the governor of Louisiana asked for it. The buck for failure to respond to Katrina stopped in Baton Rouge. But, I digress...

The Blind Side is worth a viewing. It is a rare movie that faithfully and honestly portrays real people – real Christians and real Republicans. It's a story of compassion, devotion, and earning success through hard work. Hollywood deserves credit for finally getting it right, even if the movie is momentarily blinded by a cheap political shot at President Bush.

Senator Satveer Chaudhary - Condescension on Parade

2010-07-14T22:03:00.007-05:00

A friend of mine sent me a sound clip of Senator Chaudhary from an interview on MPR where he is talking up how well his campaign is going in spite of the DFL pulling his endorsement (clip is linked from http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/06/29/chaudhary-loses-endorsement). The clip contains some typical Chaudhary self-aggrandizing babble, but one little tidbit of the senator's pitch, delivered in a very smug, condescending tone, caught my attention:

"Our showing at the parades was really strong, and none of my opponents were even in the parades..."

Granted, whether or not a candidate participates in a parade is not a huge deal in the large scheme of demonstrating suitability for office, but this is a blatant lie and Chaudhary knows it.

Maybe the senator just isn't too observant, or maybe he just didn't see Gina Bauman and her supporters with their T-shirts, signs, and banners working the crowd at the Fridley parade. Besides Gina and her supporters, another of the fishin' magician's opponents was also present and highly visible.

In defense of the senator, visibility probably isn't that good with one's nose angled jauntily upward while ensconced in the driver's seat of a planet destroying SUV (but cut him a break for the "Critical Habitat" plates on it). For some reason the Satmobile had a plain utility trailer full of kids in tow (which, incidentally, is probably not the safest way for children to participate in a parade) rather than the senator's spiffy bass boat. Perhaps it was easier to attach the tacky pandering "Viva Senatore Chaudhary" (or something like that - I speak English) Spanish language campaign sign to the back of trailer than on the curved surface of the boat.

I guess referring to the senator's statement as a "blatant lie" is a bit strong - let's just chalk it up as yet another DFL "sanding off of the truth" and leave it at that.

New Library Discriminates Based on How You Get There

2010-07-06T15:28:00.002-05:00

I don't know all the details, but a Star-Trib article this morning set me off.

After detailing all the luxurious new features at the renovated Ramsey County Library in Roseville -- fire places, terazzo floors, computers galore -- the article casually dropped this little tidbit:

"Pavement murals adorn parking spots reserved for carpools and fuel-efficient vehicles near the front door."

Since when should librarians and libraries decide what is fuel efficient? And implement what amounts to a preferred clientele program to boot.

I invite commentary on what to me is another overreach by the county.

Support Ed Matthews for Judge

2010-06-29T22:26:00.004-05:00

Sometimes important judicial races get lost among the high-profile legislative contests and do not receive the attention and support they warrant. This fall we have an excellent candidate for Ramsey County Judge in Ed Matthews who deserves all of our support. Ed is truly a good guy who "gets it" when it comes to small limited government and the role of the judiciary.

Ed's campaign is based on basic principles: competence, experience, and strict construction of our laws and Constitutions (state and federal) and has earned strong bi-partisan support, including that of four former Minnesota Supreme Court Justices, appointed by three different governors. He also been endorsed by the last two U.S. Attorneys for Minnesota. For complete details on these and other endorsements, please visit Ed's website at www.edforjudge.com.

Some liberal outlets are trying to make the laughable claim that Ed is "running as a Republican" in this non-partisan race. Yes, Ed has run as a Republican candidate for a partisan legislative office in a past election, but the last I heard it is legal for Republicans to run for a non-partisan office.

Not coincidentally, we Conservatives have advocated a non-politicized judiciary rooted in original intent much more than liberals. For the most part the GOP has advocated this Conservative (as opposed to "Republican") position much better than the DFL. It shouldn't be all that much of a concept to master that many of the people who support a just and independent judiciary would also happen to associate with the GOP. There is a much higher incidence of partisan political activism within the judiciary from the left than from the Right. Bad (e.g. liberal and socialist) legislators have caused many problems, but bad and/or activist judges arguably cause just as much or, in some cases, more. Ed is a very intelligent, thoughtful, and hard-working guy who would make the kind of independent judge that we need a lot more of in our over-governed and over-litigious society.

When it comes to the law there is no "Republican" or "Democrat" law - there is only one US Constitution and one Minnesota State Constitution. The ironic thing here is that Ed understands this and would be a positive influence to start returning our judiciary to a non-partisan body that makes decisions based on what the applicable constitution says, not the "social justice" and "voice for the little guy" nonsense that many on the political left advocate. The implication from the left is that Ed's competition in this judicial race is apolitcal while suggesting that Ed would apply justice with a "Republican" bias is a load of Bravo Sierra.

Please help spread the word about Ed's candidacy and remember to vote in the primary on August 10.

The Strange Case of Tom Horner, Steve Horner and the Ramsey County Commissioners

2010-06-23T17:09:00.002-05:00

Independence Party Candidate for Governor Tom Horner positions himself as a moderate -- in between the conservative Republican and whatever tax and plunder candidate the Democrats come up with. I think I can debunk that idea and maybe even end his candidacy before it gets started.

First of all, Horner’s company, Himle-Horner has thrived on big government, doing hogwash studies telling the liberals in government what they want to hear. He’s already come out in favor of raising some taxes. Which means Horner is in favor of bigger government for government.

Horner is part of the off-the-radar underground getting money for studies. Bigger government means extra spillage at the feeding trough. The more spillage, the more money for him and his ilk.

Here’s a prime example of how Horner works and what it means for big government: In 2007 the Ramsey County Commissioners commissioned him to do a study on commissioner salaries. Of course the purpose was clear from the beginning. The commissioners wanted to raise their own salaries – out of pure greed -- and they needed a study to provide cover. Previously they had relied on a cost of living index to decide their salaries. They wanted to abandon that and go for the big time.

The Horner study looked at Hennepin County and lo and behold that county paid out bigger salaries than Ramsey County (Never mind that each Hennepin County commissioner represented twice as many people.) Not only that, but Horner looked at other counties in other states for a comparison. Lo and behold those counties paid bigger salaries, too. Never mind that the other counties in other states were irrelevant. But the biggest load of hogwash was this: Horner compared the Ramsey county Commissioners to CEOs of corporations because they handled big budgets!

That’s right. The commissioners were CEOs without any of the achievements of a real CEO such as climbing the corporate ladder and proving themselves every day … meeting the challenges of the marketplace, controlling costs and making a profit. No. The commissioners were CEOs simply by spending other people’s money!

This is what the Ramsey County Commissioners wanted to hear from Horner. Lo and behold the commissioners got really big heads. They decided to raise their salaries 25% for 2008.

What a deal. The commissioners can raise their own salaries and taxes at will. And Tom Horner provided the rationale to give them the Big Heads to ignore the regular citizens who pay the bills.

Regular citizens recently weighed in on the salary issue urging the commissioners not raise their salary during this economic downturn. Letters to the editor in major newspapers, citizens appearing at a public hearing last week, and multiple emails all against the raise meant nothing to the brazen Ramsey County commissioners. On Tuesday morning the commissioners decided to raise their own salary another 2%, taking all of 10 seconds of the agenda. No discussion. Thank you Tom Horner for giving the Commissioners the big heads to become shameless.

There’s another bit of news that should chill Horner’s campaign. Tom Horner is the brother of Steve Horner, the lawyer now living in Utah who files complaints with the Human Rights Commission to end – of all things – Ladies’ Nights at local bars. What self-respecting man would do such a thing? I don’t think I could vote for a man that shared the same chromosomes with Steve Horner. Call it weirdness by association.

Horner recently broke off his association with his business, Himle-Horner. But it’s too late. We now know his love for big and dumb government.

Senator Satveer Chaudhary - Fishy Ethics

2010-06-12T23:11:00.008-05:00

Senator Satveer Chaudhary’s self-serving career building and influence brokering is even too over the top for the generally DFL cheer-leading StarTribune as evidenced by their latest coverage.

The story echoes much of what we who oppose the senator have been pointing out for years and pretty much speaks for itself. To me, the following partial paragraph from the linked story gets right to the crux of the situation:

State ethics laws place severe restrictions on gifts that legislators can accept from registered lobbyists -- even a cup of coffee and sandwich can be out of bounds. But many of the hunting and fishing groups Chaudhary deals with are populated by enthusiasts, who essentially lobby for free, unencumbered by the ethics rules for registered lobbyists.

Please take the time to read the entire story as it’s well worth it and, more importantly, remember in November.

Ethics? Satveer don't play that!

2010-06-04T20:45:00.008-05:00

The good ol’ boys and girls in the Minnesota Senate went through the motions of holding an ethics inquiry into Senator Chaudhary’s transgressions, but in the end they gave him a little love tap rather than a serious smack-down.

From the Fox News affiliate piece linked above:

Because the legislative session is over, the ethics committee can't really do anything. But, they are dishing some advice to Chaudhary, as he negotiates his own slap on the wrist...The committee issued a written advisory saying "...while your conduct did not violate any rule or policy of the senate, it did violate accepted norms of senate behavior and threatened the public confidence in our legislative institution and it's processes."

Duh! Check out the video in the linked piece so see Senator Smug sluff off the advisory. Quoting Senator Chaudhary from the video:

"There's nothing here that says I made this on my own and there was some nefarious plot to improve my own personal fishing. People brought this to me they were interested in it and we acted on it. It was last minute, but that's because the issue came up at the last minute."

The video makes it apparent that Satveer is in the slow class when it comes to ethics. Even most DFLers, a group not known for a staggeringly high average intelligence, seem to get it and apparently considers Mr. Outdoors to be politically radioactive.

If nothing else, the aftermath of this charade of a hearing pretty much ends the speculation that Senator Chaudhary is in position to become the DNR Commissioner if Minnesota voters are brain-dead enough to elect Mark Dayton as governor. Dayton is more than a little goofy but generally considered to be a pretty ethical guy, and clearly wants nothing to do with our ethically challenged senator as reported by those right-wingers at MPR.

It was disappointing, though quite revealing, that the DFL controlled Senate did not think the hearing was newsworthy enough to allow it to be televised (although considering the topic, a liberal career DFLer with an ethics problem, they may have a point).

This has not gone unnoticed by the GOP. From a 6/4 edition of the GOP Newsline e-mail:

Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Tony Sutton issued the following statement regarding the refusal of Senate Media Services to televise the Senate Ethics Subcommittee’s meeting addressing Senator Satveer Chaudhary’s conflict of interest.

"What is the DFL-controlled Senate Media Services hiding and why won’t they televise the ethics hearing regarding Senator Satveer Chaudhary’s sweetheart fishing deal? It is clear that Minnesotans are tuned in to Sen. Chaudhary’s unseemly last-minute, under-the-table deal making and the public deserves to know how the Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct will address the situation. Chaudhary got himself into this mess by not being open and transparent about his provision in the game and fish bill. Now the DFL-controlled Senate is failing to shine sunlight on this DFL scandal by refusing to provide a live video feed of the hearing on a state website so the public can be fully informed."

Nothing but the usual sunshine and openess from the DFL gang in Saint Paul.

But, alas, at least some of the proceedings did get out, courtesy of YouTube (thank you, Algore, for inventing the Internet!):

I couldn't locate Part 3, but if you can make it through the first two parts with minimal gastric distress that's probably enough anyway.

Here are a couple of executive summary length videos on the matter for those of us with limited time and endurance:

Those of us in the Conservative community cannot afford to sit out the upcoming election as so many on our side have done in recent years. We have a great candidate in Gina Bauman with proven Conservative credentials as well as honesty and integrity - essentially everything Chaudhary lacks. The mood of the public, even among hard-left DFLers and those who don't pay a lot attention to politics, is conducive to running this poor excuse for a senator out of office.

We have a great opportunity to give Senator Chaudhary the time to seek out and cultivate the character building experience that often comes with a private sector occupation. Perhaps he could become a contestant in a "Dr. Evil" or Homey D. Clown impersonation contest. He's got the look going for him, as well as the experience of impersonating, albeit rather poorly, a competent senator for many years.

Clearly this clown has got to go!

Satveer Chaudhary The Eternal Juvenile

2010-06-03T12:46:00.004-05:00

Eddie Haskell lives.

Sen. Satveer Chaudhary was called before a Senate ethics panel and reprimanded.

But he somehow convinced the panel to remove the tougher language they were considering for a more general reprimand.

When it was over he practically told the press that he was off scot-free and could go campaigning as if nothing had happened.

What the panel said was telling enough. He violated "the accepted norms of Senate behavior." And he "threatened public confidence in our legislative institution and its processes."

Satveer never learns. So now it is a matter of how much of the public is not paying attention and how many voters he can still fool.

In the opinion of yours truly, Force 50, Satveer will never grow up. He is juvenile in his thoughts and actions. There's something wrong upstairs. Immaturity is just the beginning. He does not have the well-formed conscience of most people. He has an unrealistic view of himself as better and more important than anyone else. Therefore, regular rules and norms don't apply to him.

We've all seen this before in politicians. Often it leads to their downfall. They can't help themselves.

The Night Satveer Squirmed

2010-05-27T22:23:00.005-05:00

What a pathetic scene.

Satveer Chaudhary apologizing to his constituents ... saying he had made no ethical lapse ... saying he made a mistake and was sorry ... and then telling us what an outstanding upright guy he is.

The scene was Thursday night at the Fridley Community Center. A hastily called community meeting with the Democrat Central Committee serving as a kind of jury. Believe me, sparks flew. Some people supported him, some were against. But emotions were high.

One participant hit the nail on the head -- saying the whole issue was not about fishing or conservation or some technical fault by Satveer -- but a question of ethics, integrity and trust.

Another attendee -- who appeared to be a Central Committee Member -- openly asked Satveer, that all things considered, would he offer his resignation?

Satveer was not at his best. He alternately touted his achievements while attacking Republicans, the Republican endorsed candidate for Governor, and the sitting Governor. He even attacked his Republican opponent, Gina Bauman, revealing more about himself than Gina. The Democrats in attendance were not impressed. This was not the time. Satveer did not get it.

Satveer attacked Gina Bauman for being in favor of the Marriage Amendment. I don't think this helped his case. Those in attendance looked for all the world like parents who raised their kids with traditional values. Made you wonder just who Satveer had been listening to. Surely not the people in his own district.

The whole thing was a chance for Satveer to explain himself and maybe save his campaign. He just may have shot himself in the foot.

Senator Satveer Chaudhary - A Symptom of a Systemic Disease

2010-05-23T09:47:00.008-05:00

Those of us critical of Senator Chaudhary have for a long time pointed out his narcissistic, self-serving actions that indicate the elitist view he has of himself and the political class of which he is a member. The senator clearly either doesn’t understand who he works for or has decided to ignore the trust given to him by the voters in favor of advancing his political career.

The latest misstep by Senator Chaudhary in-and-of-itself was not all that big of a transgression relative to some of the bad legislation, graft, and corruption that has come out of the Minnesota Legislature over recent years. I’m far more concerned with how our influence-peddling senator got his offensive legislation into a bill that is currently eligible to be signed into law by the governor.

Perhaps even more culpable than Senator Chaudhary is State Representative David Dill. From the above linked Strib story:

"[Representative Dill being quoted] I was standing at my desk on the House floor with the microphone in my hand, and I looked down and Chaudhary is kneeling next to my desk," said Dill, a DFLer from Crane Lake and the chief House author of the game and fish bill. "It looks pretty awkward, really."

He said Chaudhary told him, "I need you to do this Fish Lake amendment." Dill said he inserted the language as a "courtesy" to the senator. But with controversy erupting in northeastern Minnesota, Dill said, he has since talked to Chaudhary and told him the episode "made me look bad."

"As a courtesy to the senator"? Just what has Chaudhary done in the past to be entitled to such a "courtesy"? Is it merely just because the good senator is a fellow member of the self-perceived elite political class? Or perhaps a lunch-time cribbage buddy, a fellow "avid sportsman", or fellow big government liberal democrat? Was Chaudhary spending some political capital that he "earned" over his long career in Saint Paul, or calling in a political debt (and, if so, how was the debt incurred)? What was Senator Chaudhary’s big rush in getting this relatively innocuous legislation in at the end of this horrible legislative session where obligatory action on many serious and controversial matters was stalled and stagnant? Enquiring minds want to know.

It really doesn’t matter what the reason was that Dill honored Chaudhary’s improper and self-serving request. My bigger concern is the mechanics of how this blatant political influence peddling was executed and how much of the bad legislation that has come out of the legislature in recent years was pushed through by use of similar mechanisms. Is this the way we, the people who own this government, want our legislature to be run?

State government is out of control and governing largely against the will of the people. For those of us who are just trying to make an honest living, support our families, and enjoy our God-given freedoms the legislature certainly has not been working in our interests.

It is imperative that we as citizens and taxpayers take action for or against the elected members of the legislature from our district. While every senator and representative can influence the impact, both good and bad, of government into our daily lives, we as voters can only vote for or against the ones within our political district. If we do our job and the people of other districts take care of business we can wrest control of our government from the political elites and back to we the people.

For those of us in District 50, it’s pretty clear that it is high time Senator Chaudhary is ousted this November after many years of questionable ethics and blatant disregard for the best interests of the people of District 50 and the State of Minnesota.

Senator Satveer Chaudhary - Gone Fishin'...

2010-05-19T22:41:00.006-05:00

...and hopefully gone for good after the election this November.

I don't have time to do a lengthy post (my private sector, non-union job calls), but this story in today's Star and Sickle is the latest appalling example of how Senator Satveer Chaudhary apparently feels that his self-perceived lofty position in the Minnesota Senate entitles him to perks and privileges we commoners don't have access to (other than, of course, to pay for them).

Senator Chaudhary has ostensibly been serving us the past 14 years, but we have very little to show for the senator's efforts. On the other hand he appears to have done quite well in the self-service department. He ever so modestly portrays himself as an avid hunter, and his favorite quarry appears to be new "revenue streams" (i.e. ways to transfer wealth from those who earn it to the government) to finance legislation that benefits his interests and hobbies as well as those of his open-palmed supporters.

The Strib story pretty much speaks for itself. Read it and "remember in November" when we can provide Senator Chaudhary the opportunity to gain some much needed character building experience with a private sector job.

The Great Minds that gave us Obama-care

2010-04-02T21:27:00.010-05:00

Congressman Phil Hare from Illinois doesn't seem to think the Constitution matters when it comes to advancing the Socialist agenda of the Democrats (HT Rush Limbaugh):

I've had conversations with our dim-witted alleged representative Betty McCollum where she pretty much babbles the same sort of mindless drivel as this clown from Illinois. I fully understand why Betty's handlers pretty much avoid having her make an appearance in an uncontrolled environment in favor of intellectually vapid sessions like this:

As painfully dim as Betty is, she does have competition for the title of "Dimmest Bulb in Congress". Check out this example of a Congressman who is living proof that our "best and brightest" generally don't end up in Congress (HT Jim Quinn):

With minds like this calling the shots, is it any wonder why such stupid stuff comes out of Congress? Clearly, these people have got to be ousted from office this fall.

We here in CD4 can do our part to raise the IQ of Congress by dumping Dim Betty.

RNC Still Impressing

2010-03-25T17:04:00.003-05:00

Breitbart:

It’s time for the allegedly pristine character of Rep. John Lewis to put up or shut up. Therefore, I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point.

Huh. Um, isn't this the sort of thing that maybe an on-the-ball RNC Chairman might have thought to propose? Just askin'.

Obamacare = SSI and Medicare? Not Quite.

2010-03-22T10:37:00.006-05:00

Nancy Pelosi likened HCR to the passage of Social Security and Medicare. Some pundits suggest that repeal of this new entitlement is unlikely, also citing SSI and Medicare as examples of entitlement programs that became too popular to repeal. Here's why the comparison is not valid:

Social Security and Medicare instituted benefits that did not exist prior to implementation of the respective programs. There was no retirement program for the elderly and there was no medical program for the elderly. Where there was nothing before, these two programs created new entities that people could cling to.

Most people already have health insurance; Obamacare provides the vast majority of Americans with no substantial benefit. Repeal would simply return most Americans to a position with which they were mostly satisfied - private insurance provided through their employer.

Repeal of SSI and Medicare looks, to the elderly, like a frightening leap into the abyss - there is no credible alternative to SSI and Medicare, as they see it. Repeal of Obamacare simply takes us back to a flawed but basically satisfactory status quo ante.

Update: Here's post at The Corner that more or less echoes my thinking - in comparison to other statist experiments, Obamacare will be a downgrade for most Americans and very susceptible to repeal:

A View from Britain [Ramesh Ponnuru]

A British friend who has been following the health-care debate writes in:

In Britain the introduction of the NHS was passionately supported by both parties. Tory opposition to the legislation accepted the principle of medical care free at the point of consumption and concentrated instead on secondary questions. It could hardly have done otherwise since Churchill's wartime coalition government had developed its own plans for a single-payer system of universal health insurance--along with other statist social welfare measures.

At the time of its passage the cost-benefit structure of the new British system was radically opposite to that of Obamacare. Its benefits--mainly the extension of free medical care from the poor to the middle class--came at once; its costs were delayed for a decade and a half as almost all budgetary health allocations went to current spending and almost none to capital investment. Not until 1962 did a British government embark on a hospital building program; until then--and for many years afterwards--the national health service lived off the fixed capital invested by private Victorian philanthropy. (Even a few years ago you could tell this from the appearance of the buildings.) The advance of medical science today makes a repeat of this performance quite impossible. So the money to meet the increasing demand for medical services will have to come from somewhere other than the capital budget. Where?

Rationing is implicit in both Obamacare and the NHS. But the customers of both systems are very different. Most modern Americans get good health care. They have learned to expect it. They will complain if they don't get it. And they have their present care as a method of comparison to any new system. Brits in 1948 had just survived a terrible war. Rationing was part of their everyday lives. They were a deferential people to begin with in a much more hierarchical society. Brits of today would be much much harder to convince--if they had not got used to getting free but inadequate health care.

And the ratio of winners to losers in both cases is very different. As the previous paragraph suggests, there were no real losers in the Britain of 1948. Only a tiny handful of very rich people had any experience of great medical care--and they were rich enough to pay higher taxes AND private insurance premiums. Everyone else got roughly the same medical care; but now the middle class got it for nothing as most of the poor had done before. Nobody lost--not for another fifteen years when the quality of medical care began to decline noticeably. And by then they were hooked. By contrast almost every insured Ameerican is a potential loser under Obamacare. And some of those considered to be winners--i.e., the currently non-insured--will feel like losers if they are forced to insure and then remain inconveniently healthy.

So, for all sorts of reasons, opponents of this bill should not feel deterred from hope of repeal by the British experience. At the very least they have a window of opportunity to reverse the legislation of about eight to ten years. It's doable if you think it's doable--not if not.

Finally the wise words of . . . John Maynard Keynes: "The unexpected always happens; the inevitable never."

In Praise of Medicare Part D, Sort Of

2010-03-16T12:07:00.003-05:00

Karl Rove sat down for an interview with the Heritage Foundation - he's selling a book, naturally.

He had the following to say about Medicare, Part D (prescription drug benefit):

I understand if a conservative says to me, ‘I think we ought to repeal Medicare and it ought to be gone. And I, therefore, object to a Medicare prescription drug benefit.’ I salute them as being consistent. But if Medicare is going to exist, then we need to have Medicare driven by market forces and we need to have it as modern as possible. …
It was a wise decision for conservatives to say, while we have this moment—a Republican President, a Republican House, a Republican Senate—let us pass a conservative, market-oriented version of this benefit, rather than allowing them to pass a much more expensive, much larger, big government, price-fixing form of service.

I believe the passage of Medicare Part D is playing a major part in explaining the opposition to Obamacare, and here's why:

Americans express by upwards of 75% general satisfaction with their healthcare insurance. I would submit that much of this satisfaction stems from the recent surge in the use of high deductible health care plans (with health savings accounts) that employers have begun offering in their benefit packages. As one example, my employer began offering these plans in 2009; more than half of the workforce selected the high deductible plan in 2010.

The widespread use of these HD/HSA plans was made possible only by the passage of the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA), the legislation under which the prescription drug benefit was established. HD/HSA plans were available prior to MMA's passage, but in very limited, restricted form. Language in the MMA stripped away these restrictions, thereby blowing the market for these HD/HSA plans wide open.

The MMA also increased payments to Medicare Advantage, the PPO alternative to traditional Part A & B. Almost all of the opposition to Obamacare among the older set comes from those enrolled in MA, who would see a gutting of the program under Obamacare.

Could either the HD/HSA legislation or the MA expansion have passed on a stand-alone basis? Perhaps, but not likely, considering the 60 vote requirement in the Senate. What you had was a tit-for-tat exchange - a modest bump in Medicare spending (~$15 billion/year) for game-changing, free-market health insurance reform measures. I think it was a reasonable exchange:

1. Medicare was going broke anyway - Medicare Part D was only going to change the date at which major reforms were required, not whether it needed reform.

2. As Rove suggests, repeal of Medicare was not going to happen anytime soon. The collapse of Social Security reform proves that point.

I also agree with a minor point he makes - if we're going to have a modern medical insurance program for seniors, it should have provisions for drug use.

So, I've never been one to get real exercised about the passage of Medicare Part D. I believe that conservatives derived significantly more benefit from the MMA than has been acknowledged or understood. And perhaps we're seeing the real benefit of the MMA right now, as the free-market reforms put in place by the MMA are stoking resistance to Obamacare.

M.A.D.

2010-03-02T10:50:00.003-06:00

So, how should the GOP respond if the Democrats launch their nuclear reconciliation option for Obamacare? Doesn't such a nuclear strike require an equivalent response?

Let's assume that the GOP picks up a substantial number of seats in November. I would suggest the following measure: filibuster of all Obama judicial appointments, including Supreme Court justices. Require the Senate Democrats to break these filibusters.

Should the GOP gain enough seats to control the Senate, I would suggest total blockage of all Supreme Court nominees; any vacancies on the Court would go unfilled until Obama leaves office.

Question: Should the GOP gain control of both the Executive and Legislative branches in 2013, what's to stop them from using reconciliation to rescind Obamacare? Further, what's to stop them from using reconciliation to repeal the entire New Deal and Great Society?

How You Do It

2010-02-12T10:33:00.002-06:00

Stolen from Jim Geraghty's Campaign Spot:

A High-Caliber Candidate

My kind of fundraiser:

A man from Cumberland County who's running for Congress has his campaign locked-and-loaded.

Tim D'Annunzio — a former paratrooper — is a 30 year Raeford resident and conservative Republican running for the 8th District Congress seat currently held by Representative Larry Kissel.

Thursday night he held a fundraiser in Fayetteville at Jim's Guns. For a $25 donation, participants shot off MP-5s and Uzis. They also got a Carolina bar-b-que plate and sweet tea.

"It was awesome, it was great," Raeford resident Denyse Leake said.

More than 50 people showed up and registered for door prizes, which included an AR-15 machine gun.

"They are as fired up as they can be and as fired up as I've ever seen them," D'Annunzio said.

The man he seeks to replace, Larry Kissell, was elected in 2008, and was rated a B- by the NRA. This is a nominally Republican North Carolina district (PVI: R+2).

The first HD50B House candidate that offers this kind of fundraising activity has my vote. BBQ, sweet tea, and firearms - what's not to like?

Why Representative Kate Knuth must go

2010-02-08T09:55:00.007-06:00

The commercial below aired during the Super Bowl. It was meant to sell Audi automobiles, but it also serves as reminder (or a wake-up call to some who are just discovering that the whole climate change "crisis" is based on fraud and bravo sierra, not necessarily in that order) of why Representative Kate Knuth and her fellow radical environmentalist colleagues must be defeated.

While the video is a bit exaggerated (though not all that much considering how hysterical Knuth and her green friends carry on about the subject) it does show where the greenies in government are heading if we don't stop them soon.

Another video by the same group is probably a bit closer to what we really may be seeing in the near future:

.

Keep in mind this video is intended to be a parody and was produced at private expense to sell a product in the real economy. Similar fare from government house will be produced with the intent of sending a serious message and will be brought to us as taxpayers at our own expense. Such drivel will more than likely be shown just before speeches telling us that we need to pay more taxes to overcome the latest revenue shortfall in a cut to the bone budget.

Governor Pawlenty, why are you not denouncing your previous support for climate change and "green economy" nonsense? Your past endorsement and current silence, especially now that the climate change scam has been thoroughly exposed, provides political cover for climate change clowns like Knuth. Those of us in the Conservative base would appreciate it if you made it very clear to the socialist tree huggers in the legislature that additional economy killing green legislation will get the quick and unceremonious veto immediately upon arrival on your desk.

Happy Birthday Ronald Reagan!

2010-02-06T08:21:00.006-06:00

On today, Ronald Reagan's birthday, it is instructive as well as more than a bit depressing to see how far societal standards declined in the selection of our nation's president.

Remember when we had a real President? Review some of the speeches and policies of the Gipper (there is a nice assortment available here) and contrast them to the teleprompter-driven drivel spewed from the current occupant of the White House. The substance and intellectual gap between then and now is more of a chasm.

Speeches are "just words" as noted by President Obama (or whoever programmed his teleprompter) but they are one indicator, along with policy decisions, of the competency and character of the person.

Here are a few examples of some wisdom from Ronald Reagan that would make things a lot better for all of us if put into practice by the current administration:"We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity and ultimately human fulfillment, are created from the bottom up, not the government down. Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefitting from their success -- only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people. This is the one irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion that rigid government controls are essential to economic development."

"Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, 'What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power.' But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector."

"I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts."
Happy Birthday, Ronnie! Hopefully your vision of America as a "shining city upon a hill" will win out over the current trend that appears to view it as just another "hood" in the world community.

The Windmills of Her Mind

2010-02-04T16:41:00.002-06:00

I hope you’ve read today’s Star-Tribune article on the failed windmills in the Twin Cities suburbs. They were imported from California and froze up, generating not a single watt of power.

There’s a fix though. The turbines will need a heating element from another power source.

I wanted to put a link to the article, but of course it has disappeared from the StarTribune website after just a few hours online.

I can’t write any more about the inanities of these windmills. They are State Representative Kate Knuth’s baby. She is responsible. She helped author and push the state’s version of cap and trade. This is the absurd result and will only get worse as the mandates get ratcheted up.

The advantages exist only in the windmills of Kate Knuth’s mind!

The smart thing to do is to repeal the mandates now. Kate Knuth should humbly apologize to the populace and admit that none of her mandates will work as planned, in fact they are absurd in the extreme. She should go door to door with her eyes cast down in shame.

But no. That won’t happen. If anything Knuth will attempt to pile on even more stupid environmental mandates.

An election in November can settle the matter for the long term, but that does not prevent Kate Knuth from doing damage in the meantime. What we can do is hold her feet to the fire and remind her that while we are all in favor of a clean environment, we do not need policy based on bad science or bad politics. Like these frozen up windmills.

If Ronald Reagan were here he’d say:

“Kate Knuth, Tear Down These Windmills!”

Representative Kate Knuth - On the wrong side of an issue yet again

2010-01-29T18:02:00.003-06:00

And she's there drinking the Kool-aid with some unsavory company...just click here to go to the 'hood where Mr. D will 'splain it to you.

Opening Another Fiscal Black Hole

2010-01-27T15:02:00.002-06:00

Three new stations and three new stops are planned for the Central corridor Light Rail between Minneapolis and St. Paul. Both major city newspapers celebrated along with Senator Amy Klobuchar, Congressman James Oberstar and St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman.

Aren’t the Central Corridor Light Rail fans forgetting a thing or two. Such as the extra time the three additional stations will take for stopping there. The whole system was predicated on saving time over buses or cars. The proposal by the Met Council for federal funds barely met the minimum requirement for saving time. Do standards get thrown out the window as soon a federal approval is given? And remember that after the billion dollar cost of building the light rail is paid, it will forever be subsidized by taxpayers. So we are opening up a fiscal black whole just as folks are waking up to obese government. Let’s stop this train now while we still can.

Don't forget folks there's an ongoing quarter percent Transit Tax in Ramsey County. No train yet, but you're paying for it already in several ways. County employees supposedly working on light rail are the second highest paid departmental group in the county.

If we don't stop it, this black hole will cost us dearly.

Speaking of Climate Change Idiots....

2009-12-18T21:16:00.004-06:00

...here's one speaking:

This girl definitely puts the twit into twittering!

Lord Monckton smacks down a climate change idiot

2009-12-15T22:46:00.005-06:00

The Irony In The Obit

2009-12-14T15:28:00.002-06:00

Paul Samuelson died. He received an interesting obituary in today's printed Star & Tribune.

Samuelson is a famous economist and economics textbook author. Most college grads of the last three decades probably used his texts.

The Star obit calls Samuelson a Keynesian and a liberal. Make a note of that.

Economics is not my specialty but I know that John Maynard Keynes was pretty much the polar opposite of Milton Friedman whose supply side, small government, less regulation was favored by Ronald Reagan. Keynes on the other hand favored big government and government spending to spur the economy. Obama, through his adviser Larry Summers, favors big spending.

Throughout his lifetime, Friedman pretty much made chopped liver of Keynesian theory. Nonetheless, Democrats and liberals embraced Keynes and have always used his theories as an excuse for wild-eyed, uncontrolled spend, spend spend and on top of that, spend some more.

Back to Paul Samuelson and the Star-Trib. Near the end of the obit, the writer points out that Samuelson was an adviser to President Kennedy. He advised tax cuts (yes, tax cuts) to spur the economy. This was done by Congress. Thus, the writer credits Samuelson with the boom of the 1960s.

Dear reader, do you detect the irony. A liberal newspaper inadvertently giving credence to tax cuts to spur the economy, even as it tries to bolster Obama and his tax and spend, tax and super-debt philosophy.

The Star-Trib normally blasts Reagonomics and tax cuts. So does the liberal elite throughout the land. I looked for the Samuelson obit online a little while ago. Strangely it was not there. I think I'll take the printed version and preserve it in an archival quality notebook sleeve.

Knuth in Copenhagen

2009-12-14T09:15:00.003-06:00

Representative Knuth is lending her expertise in climate change to the goings on in Copenhagen. No doubt, she'll come back home with a renewed sense of purpose, a new religious fervor, as it is. Surely, her ability to represent the citizens of HD50B will be much enhanced.

She's Twittering, sporadically, at http://twitter.com/kateknuth. Mostly a lot of goofy name-dropping. Can't wait to see what pictures from this lark she posts on her campaign website next year - that Knuth embrace of the lecherous and disgraced former President Clinton from the 2006 campaign still brings a smile to my face. Perhaps Van Jones is in Copenhagen - I'm sure Knuth would find a photo op with him to be similarly dreamy.

Better Put Some Ice On That, Al

2009-12-11T09:15:00.002-06:00

via Ace of Spades blog:

Palin v. Gore on Climate

—Ace

Gore condescendingly dinged her. She dinged back.

The response to my op-ed by global warming alarmists has been interesting. Former Vice President Al Gore has called me a “denier” and informs us that climate change is “a principle in physics. It’s like gravity. It exists.”
Perhaps he’s right. Climate change is like gravity – a naturally occurring phenomenon that existed long before, and will exist long after, any governmental attempts to affect it.

However, he’s wrong in calling me a “denier.” As I noted in my op-ed above and in my original Facebook post on Climategate, I have never denied the existence of climate change. I just don’t think we can primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes.

Former Vice President Gore also claimed today that the scientific community has worked on this issue for 20 years, and therefore it is settled science. Well, the Climategate scandal involves the leading experts in this field, and if Climategate is proof of the larger method used over the past 20 years, then Vice President Gore seriously needs to consider that their findings are flawed, falsified, or inconclusive.

Vice President Gore, the Climategate scandal exists. You might even say that it’s sort of like gravity: you simply can’t deny it.

Putting aside the content of this Palin missive, I'm struck by just how TIGHT her thinking and writing are. She moves from point to point with ease, scoring hits one after the other. She may be even better a writer than she is a speaker - very unexpected.

Fort Hood Shootings In a Nutshell

2009-11-09T17:58:00.001-06:00

I’m going to play amateur psychologist and sum up the Fort Hood shootings. Army Major Nidal Hasan is a practicing Muslim who opened fire on his fellow soldiers, killing many, wounding many. Let’s be frank. He was not insane. This was premeditated. He did not expect to survive. He fully expected to check out. Hassan had given himself a suicide mission.

The key part of this is that Hasan was Muslim. A fact which the liberal media tries to sanitize.

Let’s compare and contrast. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is a sin to commit suicide or to murder. That kind of behavior merits the opposite of heaven. But in the Islamic tradition, as proved by terrorists over and over, if one rationalizes the suicide and murder as a religious imperative, then one supposedly goes straight to heaven. What a deal.

So in this case, Hasan was getting frustrated with life and his responsibilities, decided to do something “holy” for Allah, was fairly certain he would not survive, thus taking a straight path to eternal bliss.

Let’s be blunt again. In the western tradition, Hasan was an out-and-out coward. No guts because he was not supposed to feel any pain, or take any consequences for his actions. He was supposed to get away with causing others a great deal of anguish, making a name for himself, and earning the outspoken praise of Islamic radicals, as well as the quiet appreciation of other Islamics around the world. He was supposed to be a great man in death.

Except the dumbell survived. Perhaps to face earthly justice. Which will surely be mild and politically correct. Mild indeed compared to what happened to his victims and their families.

Blue Dogs Beware

2009-11-04T23:01:00.001-06:00

President Obama proved that he can smooth talk his way into making history. That was then, this is now.

Since taking office, Obama has introduced the nation and members of his own party to Rules for Radicals Politics -- Chicago style. His inaugural proclamation ending the petty grievances and worn out dogmas that strangled politics was seen as a commitment to seek unity with both political parties. Instead, it proved to be a warning to those who would challenge him – from either party.

When Obama promised to remake America, few realized that Marxism was the objective. This week Congress is pressing forward with two of the biggest threats to personal freedom in our nation's history – the political take-over of both health care and the energy we use.

Blue Dog Democrats are being pressured to fall in line to support their leadership. But, 2010 is just around the corner and voters are watching.

For those Blue Dogs who expect campaign help from President Obama, think again. Creigh Deeds expected to ride Obama's popularity into the Virginia Governor's mansion. Jon Corzine, for whom Obama spent the weekend stumping the trail, expected the Smooth Talker In Chief to lift his re-election campaign past the finish line. But, Obama's presence did nothing for these Democrats. Arguably, it only reminded voters of how the power-greedy in Washington are losing jobs and killing prosperity in the heartland.

Blue Dogs beware. President Obama cannot save your seat if you vote against your constituents.

New Brighton Elects New Mayor, Re-Elects Council Member

2009-11-03T21:55:00.002-06:00

New Brighton mayoral challenger Dave Jacobsen defeated incumbent Steve Larson. Jacobsen received 57% of the vote to Larson's 43%. ~~Larson did a little better today than he did two yeas ago when two challengers split the opposition vote.~~ Update: Larson received 45% of the vote in 2007. He did worse yesterday than I originally thought.

Voters also re-elected Gina Bauman to the city council. Gina received the second most votes with 1100.

Challenger Char Samuelson received the most votes with 1210 and will fill the seat vacated by Sharon Doffing. Samuelson is actually winning her old seat back. In 2002, while holding this office, she ran for and won the House District 50B seat in the Minnesota State House of Representatives. A year later, Doffing won this seat to finish out Samuelson's term. Doffing then won re-election in 2005.

Newcomer Paul Jacobsen received 1016 votes. A respectable showing for his first time, but not good enough for only there were only two seats up for election.

For the freedom loving conservatives in New Brighton, the election of Jacobsen and re-election of Bauman is huge. Samuelson may have benefited from name recognition and her four year stint in the legislature as a Republican (sometimes in name only). She was backed in this race by the Bob Benke-Steve Larson DFL leaning mini-machine. Had Larson been re-elected, I fully expected Samuelson to support his initiatives. It will be interesting to see if Benke and Larson attempt some behind-the-scenes influence on the city council through Samuelson.

For New Brighton election results, click here.

Mounds View School Board District 621

As of this writing, it appears that the incumbants of the Mounds View School board have won re-election. Follow the results here.

Get Out and Vote Today!

2009-11-03T06:35:00.000-06:00

Please make every effort to get out and vote today. We have the opportunity to elect Dave Jacobsen as our new mayor and to return Gina Bauman to the City Council. If all of us who support Dave and Gina get out and vote we have a good chance of at long last getting a mayor and council that will be able to move the city out of the state of economic stagnation and diminished respect for private property rights characteristic of the Benke-Larson years.

Like a baseball player trying to get on base in a critical situation, we stand a better chance to get the government we want by stepping up to the plate and taking our swings than we do by sitting back and hoping for a walk. There are no guarantees the election will come out the way most of us would like it to, but the chances are much better if all of us like-minded people get out and vote rather than leaving it to others to vote in our interests.

Sometimes even the best ball players strike out, but it's much easier to live with the result after going down swinging than it is getting called out without even getting the bat off of the shoulder.

Let's get out and make it happen. If we're too lazy to get out and vote for the government we want we deserve whatever we end up getting.

Mounds View School Board Election

2009-11-02T23:52:00.003-06:00

Mounds View School District 621 (Mn) elections are tomorrow. Three seats are up for election.

The incumbents:

Greg Madsen
Marre Jo Sager
Jon Tynjala

The challengers:

Jack Brunell
Timothy Husnik

For more info, check out HD50B.com. Here's a teaser. Marre Jo Sager is opposed to any form of vouchers, saying she wants the district to be so good, all parents wish to send their students to MV public schools. Translation, she supports the government monopoly. Further, she knows that many parents currently do not want to send their kids to government schools, but do so mostly because the schools already took their money.

Sager seems to fear that empowering parents with the choice of where to spend their child's "state issued tuition" will hurt government school enrollment. Is that a bad thing? As long as the kid gets an education and you aren't dependent on the MEA or it's union dues, does it really matter where the kid gets the education?

Gina Bauman Sets the Record Straight

2009-11-02T09:26:00.016-06:00

As in most political contests it is starting to get ugly out there. In a post on Enlighten New Brighton Council Member Gina Bauman corrects some of the misconceptions that are apparently being spread by the competition in the New Brighton City Council and Mayoral races.

As a unabashed supporter of Bauman's re-election I'm glad she has chosen to address some of the absolute garbage that is going around and have reproduced her post in its entirety here:

Door knocking the city with Dave Jacobsen, who I hope will be our next mayor, has been an eye-opening experience. I have been hearing some misleading and downright false statements being made about what I have said, done, or will do if I am re-elected to the council. So as the campaign draws to a close I would like to make some clarifications to set the record straight before you go to the polls this Tuesday to place your vote.
I have never proposed to sell or develop the golf course. Council member Doffing was the only representative that I recall to ever bring that up in a work session with no other support from any one.

The average salary for city employees (not including public safety) is approximately $90K a year based on full time equivalents. Mayor Larson is playing fast and loose with numbers, counting job-sharing and part time positions separately and telling people that the average is about $65K a year. My calculations come from the city employee salary and benefit summary, which shows that approximately 49 FTE employees make approximately $4.4 million a year before benefits. Salaries and benefits for ALL employees is $9 million a year out of a $13 million dollar city budget. The reason this has become an issue is that for the last two years the 3.9% city tax levy increase was used for salaries and benefits only for all city employees while expenditures were covered by reserve funds. This prompted me into asking for a salary and benefit breakdown for all employees, which is I believe the first time any council member or mayor has asked for this information. While our staff does a great job, I feel they are very fairly paid for a city of our size, so I championed a 2010 freeze on salaries. This is contrary to what you will read on another council candidate's (Graeme Allen) handout, which implies that it was the employees who voluntarily made the sacrifice to freeze their salaries.

As to council and mayor having paid health benefits available to us, I understand to a point that this could be controversial. During the League of Women Voters forum on October 19th the question on rescinding this benefit was asked. I explained that the mayor and another council member take the health insurance - this is a true statement. While Mayor Larson voted against the resolution in a 4-1 vote, he still chose to drop the state-run health insurance in which he was previously enrolled in favor of the city sponsored plan. In fairness to Mayor Larson it should be noted that he does pay the employee contribution portion of the premium himself, which has led to the "does he take it or not" controversy. Council member Phillips is the only other council member currently taking the benefit with an approximate cost of $6000 per year. Because of health issues both of them are difficult to insure. Since this has become such a hot button issue, council member Phillips brought forward in our recent work session that he will bring this issue up for discussion in the next council meeting on Tuesday, November 10th for a vote to rescind the benefits. In that same work session I posed the question to the mayor that since he did not vote for the resolution in the first place, why did he enroll in the plan? After his numerous public proclamations on how he was the only one who voted against the benefit he probably should not have, on principle, taken it regardless of whether or not he pays the employee contribution. I am curious to see how he votes when the question comes up at the next council meeting as he said he was going to talk with his lawyer when council member Phillips brought up not offering health benefits to the mayor and council regardless of who pays the employee contribution of the premium.

I have heard from many people around town that there is a council candidate (Paul Jacobsen) and/or some of his supporters knocking on your doors and implying that although he differs with me on some issues he believes in the same fiscal responsibilities that I do as part of his request to put a sign in your yard. I want to make it clear that I am not endorsing any other council candidate, as you can see from the signs I display in front of my business.

The next rumor I need to address made my jaw drop when I first heard it tonight (11/1). Did any of you know that I purportedly, single handedly mind you, drove out the hotel from wanting to build on the Quadrant with my stalling tactics? This is certainly news to me. I didn't realize I had such power. This ridiculous and mean-spirited rumor is being spread by none other than Bob Benke, who in the worst way needs Mayor Larson re-elected to retain his membership in the the "good old boys" network behind the scenes. And where is Benke getting this so-called information from? He knows that I no longer want the city taxpayers to pay the $10,500 per year it takes for Mayor Larson to belong to the North Metro Mayors Association. This organization is nothing more than a lobbyist group that is very self-serving to its members. Although there is no real benefit for the city of New Brighton to belong, there is a definite benefit to Mr. Benke as he receives payment as a lobbyist for that association that depends on how many cities belong to it.
I would also like to address some of the statements and/or responses that other candidates made at the two candidate forums.

One candidate (Paul Jacobsen) stated that the city is short two police officers and a deputy director. The city is NOT short two police officers. The city has one police officer who is serving in Iraq until February 2010 (who we should all thank for his service and pray for his safe return). The second police officer would be a 29th police officer. A few years ago, there were two different occasions when the police department did try hire for that NEW position, that did not work out either time. Recently New Brighton put in an application for not one, but two, more officers under a federally funded program grant that would have paid for the two new officers for three years, bringing the count to 30 officers (which we never have had). The city was turned down for the grant based on our low crime rate and no new population growth. We don't meet the criteria for federal funding and I don't believe we meet the criteria to have the citizens of New Brighton pay for the additional officers either. We have some great police officers and I support them wholeheartedly, but at this time it is my opinion that we do not have a public safety need to add any more officers. Regarding the deputy director, that position was vacated due to early retirement offered to all employees by the city. This was a $98,000 a year position that may possibly be filled sometime next year, possibly by promotion within the department. When the time comes then I will support hiring a police officer to fill any vacancy created by a promotion.

The candidate who made these erroneous statements about public safety staffing is being coached behind the scenes by an outgoing council member who sometimes focuses on Public Safety as if it is the only department in the city. Council candidate Paul Jacobsen needs to inform himself better on this issue before running on it. And please do not buy into the innuendo that some are spreading that I am anti public safety. I have a brother who is a member of the St. Paul Fire Department while his wife is a sergeant with the Minneapolis Police Department. I know first hand how critical their responsibilities are. I also have a family, business and a home in this community, all of which would be negatively impacted without the top-notch Public Safety department New Brighton is fortunate to have.

I have just seen the campaign handouts that are were delivered bundled together this weekend for Steve Larson, Char Samuelson and Graeme Allen. I found them fascinating to read since many of their "solutions" to the issues are not what they have expressed before (at least in the cases of Larson and Samuelson who have current or past council experience). Larson and Samuelson have been like-minded for many years, going back to when they served on the council together and have been on what has proven to be the wrong side of many issues that led to several of the problems the city currently faces. Something that also surprises me is that the mayor is backing Allen, who has only lived in his apartment in the city for the last year and half. I find this curious because when it comes to commissioner appointments, Mayor Larson, as a matter of principle, will not vote for anyone who has lived in the city for such a short period of time.

The bottom line is this is a very important election for New Brighton. We need our elected officials to put the interests of the people and the city first. It seems that some people run for office without a good understanding of the issues involved or fully appreciative of the privilege and responsibility that goes with the position. Others appear to just want to extend their careers and keep in lock-step with the past.

I believe that if you re-elect me as your council member and elect Dave Jacobsen as your new mayor, along with one of the current council members we will have the three votes it takes on the council to represent you with the financial responsibility, good judgment, and accountability needed to move New Brighton forward to a better future.

Please vote on November 3rd for Gina Bauman for City Council and Dave Jacobsen for Mayor.

Gina Bauman
New Brighton City Council

New Brighton Mayoral Race - Job Performance Matters

2009-11-01T21:58:00.005-06:00

In the real world of the private sector, after one has been on the job in their chosen professional career long enough potential employers look at a candidate's job performance as the primary criteria for deciding whether or not to hire. For example, consider an applicant for an engineering position with thirty years of demonstrated superior skills and job competency. The employer is not going to care too much, if at all, what the applicant's GPA was or even what their degree was in, or even if they have a degree. In most cases this information will probably be verified, more as a check on the character and honesty of the applicant more so than as an indicator of whether or not they can do the job.

This same principle can, and I maintain should, be applied when voters select someone for elected office. A long time incumbent has a public record and documented job performance that can and should be the primary metric to judge whether or not he or she should be returned to office. Their private sector or other previous elected office record may reinforce the conclusions drawn from an examination of their record in office or indicate how the performance could have been predicted, but really is of little consequence in the retain/replace decision. The office holder either has performed well in office or has not. It really doesn't matter how the skills, or lack thereof, to do the job were developed or acquired as the on-the-job record can speak for itself.

Conversely, a challenger to the incumbent, particularly one who has not held elected office before, can and must be judged on their life and career experience as it is usually the best objective criteria available to decide whether or not the he or she deserves to replace the incumbent. There are of course other criteria (appearance, associations, charisma, demeanor, public speaking skills, etc.) that can be taken into account, but these secondary parameters for the most part do not indicate a lot about whether or not the candidate is up to perform as needed in office. They can certainly bolster or detract from the overall assessment of a candidate's suitability for the office, but are moot points if the candidate is not capable of doing the job.

In the case of our current Mayor Steve Larson, it's obvious that after ten years as Mayor and twelve more as a member of the City Council that he is not capable of doing the job. At the last candidate forum it was clear that he was intimidated by Dave Jacobsen's impressive private sector resume and pathetically attempted to convince the audience that his private sector career as a route salesman for Ambassador Sausage qualified him as a "small businessman". He also intimated that in a previous position at Gilllette he learned all about abatement of chemical contamination. Larson's "look at me, I have private sector experience just as good as his" pitch was comical, like that of a puppy jumping up and down on its owner looking for attention.

My point in this is even if one assumed Larson's portrayal of his private sector expertise was valid, it would still not change the fact the he has failed miserably on the job that he is seeking to retain.

After watching his performance for the last twenty-two years it is clear that he doesn't know an Excel workbook from a Teletubbies coloring book when it comes to finance and budgeting. He obviously did not know a lot about eminent domain and the trouble it could get a city into. He was often the leader on what has been proven to be the wrong side of majority votes on a variety matters concerning the Northwest Quadrant. During his tenure on the City Council and as Mayor the business climate of the city has deteriorated considerably. Just how many more chances does this clown expect the voters to give him to show that he is up to the duties of the job?

Dave Jacobsen's record of success in the private sector demonstrates real world experience and expertise in dealing with the same types of problems that Mayor Larson and his cronies in city government have created for New Brighton through their arrogance, ignorance, and incompetence. Mr. Jacobsen has had to deal with environmental remediation and government regulations while working within the constraints of a limited budget. The difference is that if Jacobsen had shown the inability to deal with the problems that Mayor Larson has he would have been forced to seek employment elsewhere, or at the very least been demoted.

Over the years Mayor Larson has managed to hang on to his job through uncontested elections, poorly run or under-funded campaigns against him, or getting just enough of a plurality in a multi-candidate election. He has proven to be political survivor in that he has managed to take credit for many of the good things the City of New Brighton does (e.g. public safety, parks and recreation, community programs, etc.) that really have very little, if anything, to do with the responsibilities of the mayor, regardless of who occupies the office ("Mr. D" has recently posted a good analysis of this over in his 'hood, as well as some thoughts regarding the job qualifications of the contestants).

The question to be answered in the New Brighton mayoral election this Tuesday is actually pretty simple: will the city and the taxpayers be better off with new leadership that has a proven ability to successfully deal with the sort of problems the city currently faces, or staying with the current bumbling leadership that has caused many of the problems and has allowed others to get worse through its inability to effectively deal with them?

The answer should be pretty obvious. Dave Jacobsen has a resume that indicates he is capable of successfully leading New Brighton through the tough problems that are ahead. Mayor Steve Larson has a twenty-two year record of ineptitude on the job he is seeking re-election to that demonstrates that not only is he largely responsible for many of the problems the city faces, but has also shown he is not up to successfully dealing with them.

It's time to end Mayor Larson's reign of error. Vote for Dave Jacobsen to be the next mayor of New Brighton this Tuesday.

New Brighton "Non-Partisan" City Elections - A matter of picking the right partisans

2009-10-29T20:45:00.004-05:00

(Final post of the series)

The previous posts of this series highlighted three of the nine candidates involved in the New Brighton Mayoral and City Council races, pointing out just how partisan these candidates are in the "non-partisan" election. As I noted in the introductory post to the series, I am all for partisanship as it provides a good criteria to judge which of the candidates deserve our votes. I chose to feature the candidates that I did based on how far from the type of partisan they appeared to be from the type of partisans I want to see elected next Tuesday.

It's interesting to note that I selected the candidates I was going to put the spotlight on before former Mayor Bob Benke, who is as hard-core partisan to the left as I am to the right, made his endorsements known in the local papers. The fact that we both identified the same three candidates for opposite reasons indirectly validates both of our choices, as my picks validate the liberal bona fides of his selections and his endorsements confirm that I picked the right ones to identify as the worst choices in the election.

I want to see highly partisan Conservatives in the Mayor's office and in the council seats, simply because much of the trouble the city has gotten itself into over the last decade or so can be attributed to liberal policies enacted by those who had the majorities to get it done. It makes no sense to expect or trust the same people largely responsible for the mess, or those newcomers who will more than likely think and act in the same way, to all of the sudden have the wisdom, skills, judgment, and motivation to clean it up.

True Conservative policies (as opposed to wishy-washy nonsense like "compassionate conservatism", "a new tone", or "middle of the road moderation") work every time they are implemented while liberalism/socialism/statism (or whatever one wants to call it) has invariably been an epic failure when implemented on a large scale or over a long period of time.

With so many candidates in the City Council race the choices voters have cover the whole spectrum from hard right, to hard left, as well as a couple of candidates who have staked out the political middle of the road (which in the real-world analog is often marked by a yellow stripe and is a place where road kill ends up at ambient temperature). Gina Bauman has the proven experience, Conservative creds, and public record that clearly indicates that she has earned another term. She kept the promises she made in the last election (primarily fighting for fiscal responsibility and putting an end to eminent domain abuse). If the Conservative base gets out and votes we will make it official.

The decision on how to replace Sharon Doffing won't be as easy, but there appears to be a few candidates with the background, intelligence, and aptitude to do the job. There is room for reasonable people to disagree here as to which of the candidates is the best choice (as is the case within the Conservative crowd I hang with), but if good Conservatives get out and vote their conscience we will hopefully end up with a worthy replacement. On the down side, with the large field there are enough candidates who will almost certainly propagate the status quo or even make things worse if they end up getting elected.

The mayoral race, on the other hand, is pretty much black and white with absolutely no gray area. Voters need to ask themselves if as a city we want to continue with an inept career politician who as been a main driver of regrettable policy from the Mayor's chair, or do we actively look to switch to someone with a good private sector track record for getting the kind of work done that will be needed to undo the damage inflicted by the past decisions and policies?

If the people of New Brighton are paying attention and give the question any thought at all Dave Jacobsen is clearly the better choice - again it will be up to those of us in the Conservative base to get out and make it happen. The last time around 55% of those who voted wanted someone other than Larson, but the three-way contest split the vote just enough for "Landslide" Larson to slip back into office. This time in a one-on-one contest with a vastly superior choice for our side hopefully things will turn out better for the current and future residents of New Brighton.

By the way, did I mention I'm partisan on who I am supporting in the election? Hopefully a majority of the voters will also be both partisan and on the right side (in more ways than one) of the issues.

Words of Wisdom from Mr. D...

2009-10-29T10:04:00.004-05:00

Mark, aka as "Mr. D", over at Mr. Dilettante's Neighborhood makes a concise but very good point about the upcoming New Brighton elections.

Well worth checking out and keeping in mind as you try to make sense of all of the campaigning that will be coming at you over the next few days.

New Brighton Races Non-Partisan? Exhibit C: City Council Candidate Char Samuelson

2009-10-28T21:06:00.007-05:00

(Part 4 of a series)

Char Samuelson is a former member of the New Brighton City Council as well as a two-term State Representative from District 50B. On her run for the Minnesota House she ran as a Republican. So, are we looking at a partisan Republican right-winger here? Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Char is definitely a partisan, not so much in terms political ideology, but rather in the belief that government and more of it is the answer to many societal problems. In her tenure in the State House she had the well deserved reputation of being a RINO (Republican in Name Only), voting with the DFL on nanny state legislation and running up a mediocre-at-best record on her votes regarding taxes and spending. We could have done worse, as was later proven without a doubt by Kate Knuth, but Samuelson certainly did not show deeply held Conservative convictions.

In the 2005 Taxpayers League of Minnesota Legislative Scorecard she scored a pathetic 33% rating for 2005 (the lowest for a Republican) with an anemic lifetime rating of only 66%. It is also interesting to note that Samuelson was the only one at the candidate forums to publicly state that she would vote to raise taxes "if necessary".

But don't just take my word for it that Char is would more than likely vote in step with the old guard. From former Mayor Bob Benke, a highly partisan liberal and primary perpetrator of the failed Northwest Quadrant redevelopment project, in his endorsement of Samuelson in both of the local papers last week (my emphasis added):

I also highly recommend a vote for returning Char Samuelson to the council after an absence while serving in the Legislature and many other ways in New Brighton. She also has proven to have sound judgment, dedication and fiscal restraint. She proved her mettle when in the Legislature, making tough votes that drew the ire of her Republican colleagues. She deserves your vote for council.

Benke touting her judgment and "fiscal constraint" (downright laughable, considering the source) should raise a huge red flag. The fact that Bob the Builder is confident she will vote the "right" way and praises her for wandering off of the Republican reservation indicates she will continue to be part of the problem rather than helping to clean up the mess at City Hall.

Bulldozer Bob's endorsement alone should remove Samuelson from serious consideration for the office by any Conservative or Republican voter. Char Samuelson was part of the problem on the City Council when the city ignored market and industry experts and started down the road of eminent domain abuse and fiscal irresponsibility with the Northwest Quadrant project. By including her on his City Council Dream Team along with Mayor Larson and the liberal council candidate Graeme Allen, Benke has probably pounded the final nail into the casket of her campaign if the people of New Brighton are paying attention.

Char Samuelson is a nice lady and has held office officially as a Republican, but has demonstrated that she is not a Republican, let alone Conservative, partisan but rather one of a big government nanny stater. There is little doubt on how she will vote if elected to the council. Her yard currently sports a "Larson for Mayor" sign, and has displayed the signs of the current council old guard in past elections when clearly better choices were available for Conservative voters. Clearly, she will be an extension of past Council failures rather than a force for positive change.

More to come...the wrapup.

Why informed citizens are a career politician's worst nightmare

2009-10-25T10:19:00.001-05:00

A New Brighton resident notes in an open letter to his fellow residents what was not asked or said at the last mayoral candidate forum, but really should have been...check it out here.

New Brighton Races Non-Partisan? Exhibit B: City Council Candidate Graeme Allen

2009-10-23T17:30:00.012-05:00

(Part 3 of a series)

Graeme Allen appears to be a nice, thoughtful young man running for his first elected office. He is obviously well educated, polite, and affable. So what wouldn't there be to like? Well (a little nostalgic throwback to the days when we had a real president), he also is claiming that he will be non-partisan [cue the laugh track here].

On his campaign blog Allen states the following in a post announcing a fundraiser:

I'd love to have a chance to talk with you about my ideas for growth opportunities in New Brighton, my plans for city outreach to the schools as well as my pledge to put aside personal politics and put a non-partisan focus on the important issues facing the city today.

That sound you now may be hearing is more than likely your Bravo Sierra detector going off.

His choice of venue for his fundraiser in-and-of-itself immediately hoists a huge red-flag as to how non-partisan he and his supporters really are (hint: not very). It also shows questionable judgment on his part regarding where one goes to get good coffee in New Brighton :) .

A little on-line research into Mr. Allen brings up several strong indicators that he is an ambitious young liberal activist. According to his LinkedIn page, he is currently the "Director of Government Relations" at Minnesota State University Student Association. For those of you who don't speak bureaucratese, Mr. Allen is a lobbyist, and, at that, a lobbyist for an institution within the "education community" (as an amusing and ironic aside, check out the example the Urban Dictionary gives within its definition of "Bravo Sierra" if you have not already clicked the link above - honestly, I did not know this until after I had linked it). These folks are not generally known as a fraternity of right wingers. Allen emphasizes in his campaign literature that he learned many of his values and beliefs from his parents, who are both "educators". It would be interesting to know if the term "educators" refers to teachers, administrators, bureaucrats in the education industry, and/or whatever else.

Allen states in his campaign literature his belief that city government needs to "invest" (this is liberal-speak for "spend copious amounts of your tax dollars") in "education". Liberals typically can't grasp the concept that government at any level cannot and does not invest in anything - it does not create wealth and can only spend the money and consume the wealth of the taxpayers. Just <earmuffs>wtf</earmuffs> does his "plans for city outreach to the schools" in the above quote from his blog mean in the context of a city council race (other than, of course, that he is a "all good flows from the government" liberal)? There are many liberals/socialists/statists running for the School Board in this election, but Allen is running for New Brighton City Council. It seems he is trolling for votes from the crowd responsible for the liberal indoctrination and spending orgy that goes on at the School Board.

I'm all for providing our children with the opportunity to get a good education (as opposed to supporting the liberal education industry, which is nothing but a political power and influence vehicle for the left-wing), but someone needs to explain to Mr. Allen that "education" is outside the scope and responsibility of city government (duh!). To me his bringing up the topic of education as one of his main reasons for running for city council indicates that he is pretty clueless as to the legitimate purpose of city government. My guess is that he is gratuitously throwing out the issue to attract votes from the liberal "education community", who generally view the nebulous concept of "education" as sacrosanct in any context.

LinkedIn also reveals that Allen has also served as the "Volunteer Manager at Mike Erlandson for US Representative". Erlandson was the chief of staff to the ultra-liberal former US Representative Martin Olav Sabo, as well as serving in his more widely known position as chair of the Minnesota DFL from 1999-2005 (an organization Mr. Allen also logged some time in as an intern). I'm pretty confident that Allen did not attend many College Republican meetings in his student days and that he does not have a framed portrait of Ronald Reagan on his desk.

Graeme Allen is clearly a very bright and likeable guy, but "non-partisan" is a stretch to the point of being laughable. His youth and idealism may make him naive enough to honestly think he is or can be non-partisan, but anyone with the long term exposure to the mentally pathogenic kind of liberal ideology he is known to have had will almost certainly vote as a partisan liberal once in elected office.

In a sputtering economy and with the complex problems facing the city, do we need another liberal on the City Council? Virtually all of the problematic issues the city needs to deal with were largely caused or worsened by liberal policies emanating from all levels of government. Putting yet another liberal in city government would be like throwing gasoline on the fire. Haven't the residents of New Brighton already been burned enough by liberal thinking and policies? As in the case of Mayor Larson, don't buy this "non-partisan" ploy by Graeme Allen. There is ample evidence that he will govern like a liberal if elected,

If you're not yet convinced that Graeme Allen (partisan or not) is not a good choice to sit on the City Council, check out the endorsement for Mr. Allen in this week's Sun Focus by none other than Bob "the Builder" Benke, the former (thank God!) New Brighton mayor who was one of the primary archi-wrecks of what some New Brightonians refer to as the "Benkeville" area of town (aka the Northwest Quadrant).

Benke, a highly partisan liberal power broker, appears to still have a lot of influence at City Hall, particularly with our current mayor. If the citizens of New Brighton are paying attention in this election and want to start cleaning up the mess started under Mayor Benke and perpetuated under Mayor Larson, an endorsement by Bulldozer Bob should be the kiss of death to any campaign for elected office in New Brighton. The Benke-Larson cabal needs to be dismantled, not passed on to a new generation of central-command-and-control government liberals.

More to come in the next installment...

The LWV New Brighton Candidate Forum - Superficially Revealing

2009-10-20T21:15:00.012-05:00

The League of Women Voters Candidate Forums have always been a poor source to glean information about the candidates due to the restrictive format, but this one was a bit more tedious than usual. Nothing against any of the candidates for participating, as for all practical purposes they are pretty much obligated to show up. Nonetheless, some useful information did emerge from this little candidate get-together.

All candidates for the most part attempted to answer the questions posed within the ridiculously short time allotment (some questions were ducked or were obviously misinterpreted, but nothing really flagrant). The format is particularly bad where there is a large number of candidates in the field as was the case with the City Council candidates.

A real problem with the format is that there is no time or provision made for rebuttal. During the presentation some of the candidates obviously, whether intentionally or because of inadequate knowledge of the subject, mis-stated some facts that those of us who follow city government know darn well were wrong. There was no opportunity for a candidate to rebut an erroneous statement made by another that could make them look bad, or for a candidate to defend challenges to their assertions. This is an inherent problem with the format but, since all of the candidates were equally hampered by it, the net result should have been a wash other than contributing to an overall shallowness of the event. One candidate did however manage to circumvent the rules to get in a cheap shot at another candidate (one not even running against him, at that!). More on this later.

The mayoral candidates were up first. Watching this it was obvious that the restrictive format was much better suited for Mayor Larson, a career politician not known for intellectual depth, than for the quiet, analytical Dave Jacobsen, a first time candidate coming from a long private industry business career.

Larson mechanically delivered his usual "how much I love public service and give to the community" canned sound bites and rattled off sanctimonious accounts of his civic involvement while avoiding directly addressing issues with any specifics. If you're a fan of Politician Buzzword Bingo, Larson is definitely the guy you want to have a card for at one of these events.

Jacobsen held his own and addressed the questions posed to him head on, at least summarizing his thoughts and positions in the inadequate one-two minute per question time limit. Having watched Mayor Larson and his clumsy ineptitude for years and after talking to Dave Jacobsen about his campaign, I strongly recommend voting for Mr. Jacobsen to bring some sorely needed competence and dignity to the office. As Jacobsen said in his closing statement, let's give Mayor Larson the opportunity to become a full-time baby sitter for his grandchildren.

Overall, the mayoral forum didn't prove much, though a few points could be concluded. Those of us who watch the goings-on at City Hall saw the well-worn, pat answers, and stretches of the truth we've come to know and expect from Mayor Larson. If one watched closely you could tell Larson does not like dissent or contradiction. His body language subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) went into full defensive mode when Jacobsen made a point he perceived made him look bad or revealed some stretch marks that had been inflicted on the truth. Jacobsen gave confident and sincere answers with as much substance as could be expected to be squeezed into the short alloted time. It did appear obvious which one of the men was the career politician plying his trade and which was just answering questions posed to him as best he could in the permitted time.

The City Council part of the forum was also pretty superficial - actually even more so than the mayoral portion due to having to make time for seven candidates to respond. Even so, some conclusions could be drawn if one listened closely.

Going around the counter from the audience's left to right:

Graeme Allen looked to want to play the role of the fresh new face with fresh ideas, but appeared to carefully avoid a lot of specifics. There seemed to be a problem with his microphone and with his rather soft-spoken demeanor he was sometimes hard to hear. All in all while he was polite, credible, and obviously a bright guy, he didn't really say anything to distinguish himself from the rest of the field. This definitely did not appear to be an ideal format for him, given his softspokeness and lack of experience as a political candidate (he does have experience as lobbyist and and behind the scenes politico). I got the impression that he really wants to hold elective office but does not appear to have fully thought out what he wants to do if he is elected.

The next two candidates were interesting and had similar styles. Ron Meyer (a former military man with experience on city commissions) and Paul Jacobsen (a current military man with a clear military demeanor), showed good public speaking ability and booming, authoritative voices that commanded attention. Both of these guys would have gotten by just fine if their microphones had completely failed.

Meyer is a good and engaging speaker, but emphasized a self-described complete non-political philosophy and was all over the map regarding issues. He looked to be saying whatever he wanted to regardless of what the specific question was. Nice guy, good talker, but no core convictions or substance. I'd definitely vote for him to be the life-time Stockyard Days Grand Marshall or the voice of New Brighton at a Chamber of Commerce event, but he does not seem to be a credible council candidate, especially given the decisive action needed to address the many problems the city faces.

Jacobsen was confident and positive, but was very short on specifics and just plain wrong in some statements regarding city staffing and public safety. He also did not seem too informed on matters concerning spending and the budget. He strikes me as a good family man and a fine representative of our military, but I was a disappointed in his obvious lack of knowledge of city government and his demonstrable mis-statement of the facts on some issues. This was made even worse by his authoritative tone. He struck me as having the potential of becoming a skilled politician who will confidently forge ahead and not let facts and figures get in the way of presenting what he thinks the audience wants to hear. Before his performance in this forum I had penciled him in as a possible worthy replacement for Sharon Doffing, but now is on my "very skeptical" list.

Char Samuelson was the only other candidate besides Gina Bauman with council experience (she served on the New Brighton City Council before her two terms as State Representative). She gave what I thought was a surprisingly lackluster performance. Her answers and qualifications for the office did not stand out among the other candidates with no council or elected office experience. She was cheerful and gracious to the other candidates, but said very little, if anything, substantive, other than that she would vote to raise taxes if the city needed the money. Besides that she really didn't say anything objectionable, but also didn't say anything remotely close to impressive. I don't think anyone watching who did not know of her previous elected positions would have come to the conclusion that she has such experience. She is clearly a likeable person but did not show any passion, qualifications, or drive for the office she is seeking.

I felt that Walt Witzke gave a good accounting of himself. He is a quiet, non-imposing figure, but has experience on city commissions and is obviously engaged in the process. As a fellow engineer I appreciated his no nonsense analytical approach to the questions and he did a good job directly answering the questions and getting in as many specifics as one could expect in the restrictive time allotment. He is obviously a very smart guy who knows how to apply analytical thinking to a problem. He does not project the stereotypical image of a politician (to me this is a plus) so it's hard to gauge how effective his campaign will be. I haven't seen enough of him to go so far as an endorsement or recommendation, but I did not see anything from his performance in the forum (which is all I have to go on) to be critical of.

W. Christopher Stedman's performance was a bit puzzling. He is a good speaker with a deep, attention getting voice (not quite to the level of Meyer or Jacobsen, but still impressive). After hearing all of his answers I felt that he never really answered the implicit "why are you running" question. He didn't say anything objectionable and acknowledged agreement with several of the other candidates on some non-controversial issues, but didn't really stake out a firm position on anything. Seems like a likeable guy that hasn't quite fully thought out why he really wants the position or what he would do if he got it. He's young and energetic and may be better suited to get involved on a city commission as a pre-requisite to perhaps a future run for office after getting a better feel for the local political scene.

As would be expected Gina Bauman, the only incumbent, was head and shoulders above the rest of the field with respect to direct answers to questions, command of facts and figures, and general knowledge of the issues and the workings of city government. The limited time format was pretty restrictive but, even in spite of having to deal with some problems with her microphone, her depth of knowledge and passion for the position clearly came through as she was able to work a lot of facts and figures as well as some informative insight as to how city government works into the short time allotted. I supported Gina in her first run for office four years ago and feel that she has done an excellent job on the council. I heartily endorse and recommend a vote for her in the election.

The most telling moment of the evening came when Mayor Larson, who was hanging around outside of the council room during the City Council portion of the forum, apparently disagreed with a statement made by Gina Bauman in an answer to an audience question. He had one of his cronies send a note to the LWV moderator (or perhaps she took it upon herself) via a note card in the same manner that audience questions were being collected. On receipt of the note the moderator then announced that there was a "correction" and read Larson's statement to contradict what Gina had said. Regardless of whether or not Gina's statement was correct (it was, by the way) the ham-fisted move was in direct violation of the ground rules for the forum. The LWV moderator should have had the good sense to ignore this completely out-of-line action, but Larson or his minion should not have made the request in the first place.

Gina and the other council candidates had no opportunity to rebut Larson's bogus "correction" or to offer their own "corrections" to anything said by any of the other participants. There is a good reason for this rule - if not in place and enforced the forum could easily break down into a "that's a lie"-"no it isn't, poopy pants!" back and forth. Larson could have made a statement to the media after the fact if he disagreed with what Gina said, or waited until his opening statement at the forum next week, but he just couldn't resist inserting himself into a discussion that he wasn't even a part of.

This revealed a lot about the character, or lack thereof, of our illustrious mayor. This inept stunt was not a surprise to those of us who have observed how thin-skinned and defensive he can get when someone says something not to his liking. I've always had the impression that Mr. Larson feels rules apply to everyone else but not to him, and this was yet some more confirmation.

We the voters have the opportunity and the power to at long last clear the stage of this pathetically lame act that has had a grueling 22-year run. If enough of us vote for Dave Jacobsen we can force Mayor Larson to trade in his taxpayer paid membership in the North Metro Mayor's Association for a free, entry-level membership in the Babysitter's Club. I'm sure he could handle the position and make his grandchildren as well as the people of New Brighton very happy.

New Brighton Candidate Forums Next Two Mondays

2009-10-18T20:55:00.003-05:00

There is a candidate forum Monday 10/19 at 7:00 PM at New Brighton City Hall. This event will be moderated by the League of Women Voters.

Another forum is scheduled for next Monday 10/26, also 7:00 PM at City Hall. This event is a production of Twin Cities North Area Chamber of Commerce.

Please show up with some good questions for the candidates. I can't speak about the Chamber of Commerce forum, but in the past the LWV has lobbed "non-inflammatory" softball questions oriented toward the more left-leaning participants. The questions from the audience have usually been more substantive and have induced more useful information to help voters make an informed decision.

It's a beautiful day in Mr. D's Neighborhood...

2009-10-16T11:03:00.004-05:00

...as it always is.

In case you're not familiar with it, Mr. Dilettante's Neighborhood, located in good ol' New Brighton, is a great source for political commentary at the local, state, and national levels as well as for "just for fun" stuff and serious social commentary. I highly recommend bookmarking it or adding it to your feeds list. If nothing else, regular reading will definitely improve your vocabulary!

Check out the latest from the 'hood regarding the New Brighton city elections. It's well worth the effort.

New Brighton Elections Non-Partisan? Exhibit A: Mayor Steve Larson

2009-10-15T21:58:00.014-05:00

(Part 2 of a series)

Our current mayor, Steve Larson, is a text book example of a liberal DFL hack who tries to portray himself as a mainstream moderate. In spite of his defensive "I'm not a liberal!" outburst at a New Brighton town hall meeting a few years ago where he totally lost his cool (just an expression - "Mayor Larson" and "cool" are generally mutually exclusive concepts) when a citizen persistently questioned his actions on the city council, Mayor Larson's public record is strongly indicative of a liberal DFLer.

Larson has a history of being a big fan and supporter of the League of Minnesota Cities, clearly a liberal organization that unabashedly supports the interests and propagation of big government over private property rights and individual liberty (such as providing helpful hints on "defensive government" like how to implement unpopular eminent domain actions and deal with the resulting outrage of citizens).

Our mayor has also never been shy or hesitant to lobby the Minnesota Legislature or members of the Minnesota congressional delegation (usually the more liberal DFLers) to shamelessly beg for grants, hand-outs, and specialized legislation to bail out or clean up after failed policies that he championed. Apparently as long as money comes from taxpayers that he doesn't have to answer directly to at election time he's all for getting as much of it as possible.

Finally, applying the old adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words", check out this (click on the photo to enlarge):

Apparently Mr. Non-Partisan was on Madame Mao's Minnesota Steering Committee. Count how many times "DFL" appears on the linked page and how many prominent liberals are members of this motley group.

Can one really be expected to believe this depicts a "non-partisan"? I'd like to know just how much monetary contribution or political capital is required to capture a moment like this with the Ice Queen. I'm sure Hillary is also non-partisan and a consensus builder.

Mr. Larson is apparently so proud of his photo-(fl)op he added it to his Facebook picture collection twice:

Clearly, Mayor Larson is a prototypical big government liberal. Just because he doesn't run for re-election under a DFL endorsement will not make him any less a liberal partisan. Mr. Larson has the right to hold any political beliefs he wants, but don't ever buy the non-partisan song and dance.

The question voters need to ask themselves is given the tough economic times and problems the city is facing, many of which were primarily caused by liberal government policies, do we really want a liberal sitting in the Mayor's chair? Especially a liberal with an embarrassingly lame record in office, having been on the wrong side of so many city council decisions over nearly a quarter century of involvement in city government.

Hopefully voters have finally had enough.

More to come...

New Brighton City Elections: Non-partisan is Nonsense!

2009-10-14T23:40:00.010-05:00

A friend and I were talking the other day about the upcoming New Brighton city election and the discussion turned toward its purported "non-partisan" nature. Many candidates over the years, particularly those whose candidacy would generally not impress the contributors to, or the majority audience of, this blog have stressed their "non-partisan" position in their campaigns and public statements. They promote the premise that since the election is "non-partisan" they, if elected, would be above politics and would not let any partisan affiliation they may have had in the past influence how they would govern. City government would be characterized by peace, harmony, and compromise, free of the divisiveness caused by partisan bickering.

This, of course, is utter nonsense. The only thing non-partisan about a non-partisan election is that the campaign literature and lawn signs do not have the "DFL" or "GOP" designators on them. The core beliefs of the candidates, assuming they have any, do not change just because the campaigns don't feature political party branding.

Partisanship is not a bad thing. As far as I'm concerned, if someone does not have core convictions and beliefs or is not willing to stand up for them they have no business running for public office. Do we really want indecisive, wishy-washy, or poll-driven people making and implementing public policy? I think we are better off when candidates put all of their cards on the table so voters can make an informed decision on whose beliefs and ideas will best represent their interests.

I have found that politicians who try to hide behind a "non-partisan" claim are more often than not liberals/socialists/statists whose ideas are outside the mainstream of the majority of voters, and in most cases I believe they are well aware of it and make a conscious effort to hide their true political colors. Most Conservatives I know, for the most part, tend to be open about proclaiming and proudly defend their beliefs, while hard-core lefties often try to soft-pedal their looney to downright radical views as "progressive", "moderate", "independent", or "non-partisan".

So, just how "non-partisan" are New Brighton city elections? In upcoming posts I'll take a look at three of the candidates in the upcoming election: an entrenched career politician with a long history in office seeking re-election yet again (gee, I wonder who this could be?), a young newcomer who is no stranger to partisan politics seeking office for the first time via a "non-partisan" gambit, and a political retread seeking a comeback by playing the go-along-to-get along consensus builder strategy.

Stay tuned...(or jump to next installment)

New Brighton Votes November 3rd

2009-10-14T01:13:00.003-05:00

Endorsement Time!

Two New Brighton city council seats and its mayor's throne are up for election this year. The council seats in question are currently held by Gina Bauman and Sharon Doffing. The throne is occupied by Steve Larson.

After six years of loyal service dedicated to protecting the people's right to keep the property they own and the money they earn, Sharon Doffing has chosen not to seek re-election. Throughout her service, Doffing never forgot that tax revenue came from the taxpayer's family budget and that it is not an endless well for city projects. When others on the council became addicted to taking private property for the benefit of a private developer, Doffing was often the lone voice defending the rightful land owner. Her voice on the city council will be missed. Thank you, Sharon, for putting the people first!

Four years ago, Gina Bauman joined Sharon as a defender of personal freedom -- including the right to keep the income you earn and the land that you own. Bauman brought significant financial management experience to the council and is devoted to bringing fiscal prudence and responsibility to city management. Like Sharon, Gina put people first. She governs as a representative of the people and not a representative of government.

Fortunately, Bauman is seeking a second term. She is the best friend that freedom loving citizens seeking to protect their shrinking budgets could have on the city council. I fully support Gina and encourage New Brighton voters to do the same.

For more info about Gina, check her website at http://www.ginabauman.com/.

To fill Sharon's seat, look at Lt. Colonel Paul Jacobsen. Jacobsen has 29 years of military service including tours in Iraq with the U.S. Air National Guard. His biggest priority is to find a way to salvage the city's economic problems (such as the Northwest Quadrant) while protecting the taxpayer's family budget. In short, he wants the city to get back to the most basic form of city government -- keep the people safe, protect their freedom to enjoy the fruits of their own labor, and protect their right to own property. Are you sensing a theme here?

Next up is the mayor's throne. Steve Larson currently sits in it. Larson has served on the council as a council member and a mayor for a really long, long, time. Too long. His work engineering the Northwest Quadrant project was to represent the former private land developer in their quest to acquire land owned by New Brighton businesses and homeowners. Rather than representing the interests of those who already owned land in New Brighton, he represented the interest of the private developer who was trying to move in. This wasn't simply an effort to force land owners to sell, but to force them to sell at a cut-rate price.

The Northwest Quadrant has become a scandalous affair in New Brighton. Not for direct corruption, but for the excessive abuse of eminent domain to take private land and sell it cheaply to a private developer. Further, city leaders took it upon themselves to risk taxpayers' dollars on a scheme to build a grand residential development north of 694 along Old Highway 8.

There is a reason that such ventures are best left to the private sector. When a private citizen risks his own money on such a plan, then only he stands to lose. Further, he is more motivated to mitigate risk with due diligent research.

When a politician ventures into a risky land development scheme, he (or she) does so with someone else's money. The consequences for failure are less felt by the politician. The motivation to minimize risk is almost nil. New Brighton learned this the hard way.

After forcing tax paying, job producing businesses out of the city, we discovered that the land wasn't environmentally suited for the proposed development. Oh well. The private developer backed out. the city lost jobs, and it lost several years worth of property tax revenue that it once collected from former land owners. Now we face millions in debt all because a few politicians played SIM City with other people's land and and other people's money.

Now, one of these politicians wants another term in the mayor's throne. It's time to use eminent domain on that throne!

Dave Jacobsen (no relation to Paul) is seeking the mayor's office and would be a valuable asset in making the city fiscally responsible. Dave is also a member of the People First Club. Like Gina and Paul, Dave is a neighbor seeking to represent fellow neighbors at city hall.

For more info about Dave, check out his web site at http://www.davejacobsenformayor.com/.

There are a lot of things on which the city can spend money. Some are essential, some not. As an example, citizens can debate whether local parks projects are worthy endeavors. As a parent of young children, we could certainly benefit from projects that might add new equipment to our parks. But, such efforts typically tax every citizen for the benefit of few. In prosperous times, perhaps taxpayers could afford such projects.

These are not prosperous times. Many of our citizens are on a fixed budget and many more are watching the cost of living rise faster than their income. New Brighton needs a city council that is willing to put the needs of its citizens before the wants from city projects. Vote for Gina Bauman and Paul Jacobsen for the city council and vote for Dave Jacobsen for mayor.

Vote Bauman, Jacobsen, and Jacobsen on November 3rd.

Enlighten New Brighton

2009-10-11T22:07:00.002-05:00

There's a new blog in town and it threatens to light up the city of New Brighton with truth, logic, and reason. It's called Enlighten New Brighton.

City elections are around the corner. How will candidates deal with a financially blighted plan to rebuild the Northwest Quadrant during economically tough times? Who will prioritize essential services and who will continue to feed their SIM City dreams off the income of others?

For answers to these questions and for greater insight into city government, check out Enlighten New Brighton.

Truth, Lies, and a Presidential Address to Congress

2009-09-10T18:51:00.002-05:00

A rare thing occurred last night. President Obama addressed Congress and a truth was delivered. Of course, not by Obama, but by South Carolina Republican Representative Joe Wilson when he blurted "you lie" after the President falsely asserted that Obamacare will not cover illegal aliens.

Wilson's outburst drew the evil eye, that "how dare you challenge me" glare from Obama. Undoubtedly, it will draw more criticism from Obama defenders in the days to come.

Indeed, President Obama has reason to be upset. His nationally televised Address to Congress will be remembered for Joe Wilson's decorum violating outburst. Obama was counting on his oratory skills to mesmerize political opposition into submission, but he was upstaged by a lowly congressman's rude interruption.

Facts weren't important to the President's speech writers, all he needed was to deliver the words in his soothing, "you can trust me" tone. It has worked before. It got him elected. He's never been challenged on national TV for the content of a speech, he has only been praised for the power of his performance. Until last night.

President Obama was counting on last night's speech to save his ailing attempt to nationalize the health care industry. But his effort was torpedoed by two words, "you lie", uttered out of frustration from Rep. Joe Wilson.

With two barely audible words, Rep. Wilson succinctly summarized the President's speech and it hurt. Last night's address will forever be remembered as the "you lie" speech because Wilson was right.

The President's effort to pass so-called "healthcare reform" has been sold with lies and deception. Last night's address was no different. If Wilson's outburst was unfounded, it would have already been forgotten. But it hurts because its true.

In the days to come, Democrats and their liberal defenders in the media will attempt damage control by demanding that Wilson be punished for violating decorum during a nationally televised Presidential Address to Congress. They will ignore the truth behind Wilson's utterance. After all, its the performance that counts and Wilson interrupted Obama's delivery.

Arguably, President Obama, himself, violated decorum by calling for nationally televised Address to Congress just to boost an ailing political issue. Such events are generally reserved for annual State of the Union speeches and times of national crisis – such as a terrorist act of war that kills a few thousand citizens and topples two towers.

Was Rep. Wilson wrong for his violation of Congressional decorum? Maybe. But, his crime was no worse than the numerous outbursts of boos from Democrats attending President Bush's State Of The Union speeches.

Last night, President Obama grossly misrepresented the health care reform debate. He lied about key elements within the Democrat plan, he misrepresented solutions offered by Republicans, he tried to dismiss critics with partisan attacks, and he used fear mongering to gain public support. This was no Address to Congress from the President of the United States, it was a rhetorically charged stump speech from an extremely partisan politician. It is hard to criticize Rep. Wilson for his brief departure of decorum in responding to the President's deception – particularly when Wilson spoke the truth.

Amazing Fair Response

2009-09-09T13:27:00.004-05:00

I happened to catch a quick Channel 5 snippet over the weekend. They were interviewing Fair attendees who listened to the Republican candidates for governor forum. A couple of responses were bland as usual but one of them wasn't.

An older woman said forcefully:

"I'm here to find out which candidate understands whose money it is! I work hard for my money and I'm tired of it going to people who don't work."

How that got past the liberal editors I'll never know. Nevertheless, I've seldom heard it said better. Wish I knew who that woman was. She'd make a great campaign ad for conservative candidates.

They may not call it a Death Panel...

2009-09-09T09:52:00.003-05:00

...but no matter how advocates of Obamacare try to sanitize the terminology of their fiscally and morally bankrupt scheme the outcome is still bad.

Read how well the British system "works" for an premature baby who just missed the window of "viability" as defined by the National Health Service Death Panel (or whatever they officially call it).

This is not the way things should be in a free country where one has a God given right to life. Obama and his teleprompter will be in maximum snake oil sales mode tonight to try to sell socialized medicine to an electorate that clearly doesn't want it through whatever lies, hyperbole, and scare tactics it takes.

The sick thing about so-called national health care is that it does nothing to promote health and does much to promote a power grab by the left and the promotion of moving America toward socialism.

How's that hope and change thing working out for you?

Cheney lays the smack on Obama Anti-terror Policies

2009-08-31T08:48:00.002-05:00

Why wasn't this man president?

What's Really in the Socialized Health Care Bill

2009-08-12T20:40:00.004-05:00

Just a quick post to get some info out about what's really in the train wreck the liberals in Congress and the current occupant of the White House are attempting to ram down our throats.

The actual House bill (HR3200) is a natural predator to trees, weighing in at over 1000 pages. Right from the git-go I'm not comfortable with the short summary right at the top of the bill:

To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes [emphasis added].

Just what does "other purposes" entail? Holy blank check, Batman! This piece of crap legislation won't improve health care, cut medical costs, or promote liberty, but it may well prove to be an effective and non habit forming treatment for insomnia.

For those of us who don't speak Bureaucratese (or just want to make like a member of Congress and not read the bill), a "quick start guide" version is available, translated into plain English at a level understandable even by the average Obama voter by Professor John David Lewis of Duke University:

http://www.classicalideals.com/HR3200.htm

And finally, for liberals with low blood pressure who want to elevate it a bit, the transcript of Rush "The Mob Father" Limbaugh's take on Professor Lewis's piece from today's edition of Excellence in Broadcasting:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081209/content/01125108.guest.html

Get reading, get educated, and get prepared to direct some tough questions to our elected (or selected) representatives at their town hall meetings or at the State Fair later this month.

There is still hope to derail this train wreck by keeping the heat on the liberal clowns who are pushing this nonsense.

Boots On – The Song by Randy Houser

2009-07-30T19:01:00.003-05:00

Country star Randy Houser's latest hit is a song called "Boots On". The song has nothing to do with this blog. Still, it's a fun diversion from politics and the video features a great performance by a toddler named Drake Dixon. You gotta watch this!

For more on the making on how little Drake grew from a YouTube sensation to a music video star, check out this CMT story.

Obama's Gang Is Taking Over

2009-07-09T20:54:00.005-05:00

You can take the politician out of Chicago, but you can't take Gangster Politics out of the Chicago politician. President Obama and his left-hand man Rahm are determined to run the country. Not govern, mind you, but control all that they can grab.

There are many lessons to be learned about how Obama turned General Motors into Government Motors or, more accurately, Gangster Motors. Lessons that we should heed before giving his Congressional Mob more power over our lives – such as regulating the health care services that we seek.

LESSON 1: Politicians run government. The more things that government controls, the more things that politicians control.

LESSON 2: The politician's Number One Constituent is the politician himself (or herself). Politicians who seek greater regulatory control will always do so for the benefit of those who fund their campaigns and put them in office.

LESSON 3: Government intervention gives politicians the power to pick winners and losers in private enterprise.

Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann (R) articulates LESSON 3 in action with the new Gangster Motors:

If left unfettered, this is a sign of things to come.

By controlling GM, politicians have more power to control what we buy. They have already killed the Hummer and shut down many of your local GM and Chrysler dealers. Fewer choices in cars and fewer choices in dealers. Look for higher prices (or taxes) for those cars that aren't blessed by Algore's Chicken Little followers in Congress.

Which leads us to another lesson:

LESSON 4: Politicians control choice by limiting it. In everything they touch – from current regulations on health care insurance, to drilling and refining oil, to GM and Chrysler – the choices in products and services available to the public have been limited by politicians. While the free-market exists to satisfy consumer demand, it is the nature of politicians to stifle it through regulation.

Government isn't what made America great. Personal freedom is. And the free-market is personal freedom in action. It is the means by which free people pursue the American Dream. It is also the antithesis of tyranny. A government bent on controlling its populace will aggressively seek to destroy the free-market – and personal freedom with it.

Politicians helped drive GM and Chrysler to collapse so they can come to the rescue by taking over. They are using the same template to take full control of the health care industry.

Let me be clear. It is not their mission to fulfill consumer demand for health care services. It is their mission to control it.

As we learned in LESSON 4, politicians control using limits. This is a service industry. They cannot force doctors and nurses to serve. A closer look at Obamacare (and Hillarycare before it) reveals plans to limit what doctors can practice and what they can earn. Yet there are no limits on ambulance chasing among the lawyers who fund Democrats in Congress (see LESSON 2). Together, this control will make the medical profession less profitable for those who serve it. Doctors and nurses – particularly the good ones – will seek other professions and medical school will attract fewer students. The result? Long waits and less service for those who need medical attention.

When you think government run health care, think politician run health care. This is no cure. It's new form of cancer on personal freedom.

Grand Theft Election - Senator-select Al Franken

2009-07-01T08:38:00.008-05:00

The Wall Street Journal pretty much sums it up in the subtitle of their piece in todays edition: Franken wins by changing the rules.

In good journalistic fashion, the first and last paragraphs of the piece provide a good summary of the debacle (emphasis mine):

The Minnesota Supreme Court yesterday declared Democrat Al Franken the winner of last year's disputed Senate race, and Republican incumbent Norm Coleman's gracious concession at least spares the state any further legal combat. The unfortunate lesson is that you don't need to win the vote on Election Day as long as your lawyers are creative enough to have enough new or disqualified ballots counted after the fact.

:

:

Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election. If the GOP hopes to avoid repeats, it should learn from Minnesota that modern elections don't end when voters cast their ballots. They only end after the lawyers count them.

Although there is nothing we can do about the wormy little guy the DFL controlled power structure selected to embarrass us as our senator (as if our other one isn't embarrassing enough), we on the Right need to learn from this debacle. Norm Coleman's RINOism and unfaithfulness to his base allowed the election to be close enough to be stolen. He needs to quietly fade away and not even think of running for governor.

"Selected, not Elected" - it does has a familiar and catchy ring to it.

The Ideal Republican Candidates for 2012

2009-06-30T16:07:00.003-05:00

Call me crazy but the ideal ticket for Republicans in 2012 would be Chuck Norris for President and Bill Cosby, Vice-President.

First of all, Republicans are going to need celebrity because no politician on the horizon is popular enough or communicates well enough to win even if Obama falters in popularity. Norris and Cosby are likable and well-spoken. If I’m a good judge of character, there’s not a lie in them, and not a hidden agenda they would agree to.

I’m not sure these two have even met. I’m not sure of Cosby’s political leanings or even if he would consider politics. Still, a Norris-Cosby ticket would be ideal.

The public is looking for someone who will talk to them honestly. These guys will.

Mike Steele, get on the phone with Chuck Norris and Bill Cosby right now!

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

I’ve often thought that humor might bring Middle East peace rather than traditional diplomacy. Could you imagine Bill Cosby with Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in the same room. He’d have those guys in stitches, laughing hard enough to forget old wounds.

All he’d have to do is tell them about himself, when he was growing up in the Philadelphia projects. Here’s just one of his jokes:

“When I was growing up my family was broke. There’s a big difference between being broke and being poor. When you’re poor you still have something!”

A Mysterious County Appointment

2009-06-29T17:04:00.002-05:00

Bob Benke has been appointed to the Ramsey County Charter Commission.

Just what is his motivation for this? Why would he want it?

Bob Benke is the past Mayor of New Brighton. He's a friend and adviser to the current Mayor. He was co-chair of the re-election committee for County Commissioner Jan Parker.

Benke has a MN-DOT background. He fancies himself a traffic "expert." His firm did an early study on light rail if I'm not mistaken. Basically, Benke has lived and breathed government -- and has profited from government -- his whole life.

But I think the key is Jan Parker. Just my opinion, but I think he's on the commission by request to watch out for her interests. Her outlandish salary, her regal benefits. (The commissioners raised their own salary 20% in 2003 and again by 25% in 2007.) Just so happens the Charter Commission is discussing salary limits on the commissioners. I wonder what position Benke will take on this. One guess allowed.

Obama is the Appeasement President

2009-06-01T11:43:00.001-05:00

President Obama has quietly reduced the number of US warships in the Persian Gulf to its lowest level in two years. What’s more, no US aircraft carriers are anywhere near the Gulf region.

Meanwhile, Russian warships made their first appearance in the Bahrain port of Manama, seat of the US Fifth Fleet in the Gulf. (No such thing occurred under Bush.)

Why is Obama allowing all this? He wants Iran to feel at ease in preparation for upcoming talks.

Obama is a weak President who will bow deeply to tyrants. The tyrants know this and are taking advantage.

History Lesson – WWII was avoidable if England showed strength, determination and preparedness. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain did not show strength, but did everything to appease Hitler. Result, 400,000 died before it was all over.

Under the appeasement President, count on an ever-building tragedy as a result of U.S. weakness.

Beware The American Community Survey

2009-05-26T10:04:00.000-05:00

The recent article on the American Community Survey below reminds me of my own experience two years ago.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05262009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/uncle_sams_way_too_nosy_survey_170972.htm

I remember my wife was furious at the intrusiveness of the questions and so was I. In order to comply minimally with the law, we answered some basic questions but left most items blank.

We thought that was the end of it, but no. Then the phone calls started coming, in the evening along with the usual junk phone calls. Believe me it tried my patience. They kept pressing for more information. I told them I did not agree with the survey. Finally, about the third phone call, I answered a few more questions over the phone.

Eventually the caller asked “How many rooms do you have in your house?” A scene from Dr. Zhivago immediately popped into my head.

That was the last straw. I said that’s enough, and hung up.

I recommend complaining to your elected federal representatives about the American Community Survey. It is Orwellian, intrusive and almost surely will be used in ways adverse to you. Remember that socialism is the equal distribution of misery and that is what this survey is really about.

Cheney Sets the Record Straight on GITMO and GWOT

2009-05-22T09:04:00.004-05:00

After listening to the self-serving propaganda of the Obama Administration regarding GITMO and the Bush Administration policies in the Global War on Terror, see the non-fiction version here as presented by former Vice President Dick Cheney.

Remember when we had a real (not to mention competent) Vice President?

Jesse Jackson's Worst Nightmare

2009-05-18T21:44:00.007-05:00

He's hip and he gets it!

HT: Macho Sauce Productions, where you can find more of this:

or this:

Outrageous Bailout Proposal For Teachers

2009-05-05T11:11:00.002-05:00

Education Minnesota and the Democrats are planning another kick in the stomach to ordinary taxpayers.

It seems their pension plan is down -- and they want tapayers to bring it back up to "fully funded" level. To the tune of millions upon millions of dollars of course.

Well, I got news. Lots of pension plans and 401ks and 403bs are down. There's no bailout for those people. Yet Education Minnesota expects those same people to bail the teachers out because they are special. How about this: live with less the way working folks must do.

Some teachers will retire early and receive the princely sum of $4,000 a month or more from their pensions. Sorry, but any sympathy for you guys just drained away.

Has anyone noticed how for-profit companies have phased out their pensions, yet public employees keep rolling merrily along on the strength of the hard-working people who have no pension. How long can this go on unchecked?

Wells Fargo, BoA, Citi Lie to Us with Help From the Fed

2009-04-23T09:50:00.002-05:00

Sr. d'Anconia sent me the following infuriating tip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yut91Y1pxh0&feature=player_embedded

Meredith Whitney is famous because she was the first to call the downgrade of Citibank's dividend cut long before anyone else could believe the financials were going down. She continues very bearish, to use Wall Street lingo.

Here's Cisco's sage summary:
"Whitney explains part of the banks' big Earnings Miracle: they set up a scheme with the Fed, where the Fed preannounces large purchases of agency debt: "Pssst. We're gonna need a bunch of Fannie/Freddie bonds" and the banksters rush out and frontrun the Fed purchases by buying up all the agency debt they can leverage. Then the auction begins and the banks sell the Fannie Mac paper to the Fed at inflated prices. It's a win-win: the banks make a killing, and the Feds take a bunch of unwanted agency paper off the market while recapitalizing the worst banks in the world. Only the taxpayer loses. I'm not paying for this."

To tie this back to politics: It is farcically ridiculous that our historic president, a Teflon Liar, trumpets his commitment to saving money to the tune of $100 million, while handing over trillions, through the Federal Reserve Bank system, to the criminally credit-impaired biggest and most powerful global banks. It is wickedly wrong that our so-called journalists allow him to get away with pretending to be for hope and change for the little guy while stacking his cabinet and bureaucracy full of ex-Goldman Sachs con-men. And may God reserve a special place in hell for the people who continue to load debt onto future generations and current elderly and foreign buyers of our Treasuries, who think they're getting a safe investment, while pretending to be worried about homelessness and the trouble Joe Six-Pack is having buying his groceries. Do all in your power to hold the feet of any pol who supports the evil transfer of taxpayer dollars to rich and powerful bankers to the political fire.

If you're a conservative who's been reading my posts and thinking, "What does all this financial gobbledygook mean?" my reply is, get busy with your homework. If conservatives want to have any influence in the next two decades, they're going to have to expand their repertoire to include not only decrying the social illnesses we face, but the ability to explain what's happening in the world of finance and how it links back to our cultural demise, and how the government is deeply implicated in the causes of both. Start paying attention to financial and monetary policy above all else, because the numbers are so big that right now, in relative terms, nothing else matters. Study it until you can explain the gist to your neighbors and friends and family, and then hammer away at their thick skulls until they, too, can understand how the Federal Reserve system, Congress through the Community Reinvestment Act and other meddling in the markets, and all the financial regulatory agencies practically conspired to defraud the taxpayers, with the eager help of the greedy banksters.

Francisco d'Anconia advises you, with me: Starve the Beast. Find whatever ways sit comfortably with your conscience to pay as little as possible in taxes in any form. Preferably none, particularly to the Feds. The sooner they can no longer convince anyone to buy debt from us, because the revenue stream has slowed to such a trickle that noone can pretend we're a safe investment anymore, the better. The sooner this perverse Ponzi scheme that we've called capitalism, though it isn't, crashes, so that we can start over with real capitalism, the better.

Starve the Beast, End the Fed.

Coleman Helped Justify Obama's Threat of Prosecution for Bush Admin. Lawyers

2009-04-21T19:54:00.003-05:00

A couple of years ago, I sent an e-mail to Sen. Norm Coleman's office expressing my disgust at his decision to vote in favor of expanding the federal government's role in prosecuting crimes, to include stepping in where certain classes of "hate" crime had been committed. The new special victims entitled to greater protection through the threat of heavier punishment for their harm included those selected due to the perpetrators' supposed hatred of the victim's transgendered state or homosexuality. The provision, which had been attached to a defense spending bill, died during negotiations to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions.

Sen. Coleman's reply was lame. He said that as a Jewish person, he understood what it was like to be in the minority, targeted for hatred and violence. In other words, Jews and gays are the same--we can ignore all the issues surrounding choice and behavior versus blood lineage and status. And we should also ignore the total lack of evidence for any need of the federal government to meddle in the entirely adequate State prosecution of violent crime, and the fact that 45 or 46 States already have hate crimes legislation. And we should also overlook the Republican Party's long-standing and entirely reasonable opposition to eroding the even more long-standing tradition that we only punish people for actions, and not for their thoughts, ideas, opinions, or beliefs.

Wherein we reach the current day. First off, John Conyers has introduced a sweeping new version of the defeated federal hate crimes legislation that is predicted to work its way through committee rapidly. It would be well, though perhaps fruitless if you live in my State of Minnesota, to call your Reps and Senators and urge them not to vote for any hate crimes legislation, and especially not John Conyers's HR1913.

Even more ominous, however, is that our historic president today indicated his willingness to entertain the possibility of considering prosecuting Bush administration lawyers who prepared the interrogation memos, finding some torture techniques to be legal. Now, this is unlikely to come to anything. The Teflon Liar, as usual, leaves his statements fat with uncertainty: whether to bring charges "is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge that," and "there are a host of very complicated issues involved." These statements are a lame attempt to placate the slavering far Left, but I suspect they are also intended as a sinister warning to those on the Right.

The link to Norm Coleman is this: instead of defending the only sane policy of prosecuting people only for actions, he helped move us to this day, when we see the President of the United States deliberately planting the possibility in people's minds that they could be held criminally responsible for their professional legal opinions, and by extension, that non-lawyers could be prosecuted for their beliefs or opinions expressed in other areas of life. This is intended as a shot across the bow, a very oblique way of letting conservatives know that they'd better not get involved in public life; their opinions are so objectionable as to merit criminal prosecution.

So it's hard to mourn Coleman's likely ultimate loss of the Senate seat, except to the degree that it indicates that something very close to half the Minnesota electorate thought Al Franken a suitable person to hold that seat instead. Coleman was a symptom of the disease that's debilitating the Republican Party; all we can do is vigorously oppose the tyranny sought by our historic president (and his party) and dose the GOP with real conservatism, hoping it's enough to save the body politic.

Ho Ho Ho, Chris Dodd Must Go

2009-04-20T09:05:00.002-05:00

... but so must Richard Shelby. See this piece from Forbes.

When I saw the headline, I hoped I could write a post about how it's really the Dems who're raking in the dough from the banking oligarchy, but sadly, not so. The blame among the top 5 recipients is nearly equally shared between Democrats and Republicans.

Starve the beast: feed all these guys who are in the pockets of the banksters to the political wolves.

Pioneer Press hatchet piece on Council Member Gina Bauman was shoddy journalism at its worst

2009-04-15T22:52:00.002-05:00

In the span of two days the Saint Paul Pioneer Press published a poorly researched, highly biased hatchet piece on New Brighton Council Member Gina Bauman and the following day (actually within hours in the on-line edition) had to publish a followup to report that the charges against Bauman had been dropped. The quick dropping of the charges is indicative of how bogus they were in the first place and demonstrates that the Pravda Press didn't bother with a lot of checking into the story before they ran it.

Anyone who knows Council Member Bauman could immediately see that the original story was a copious load of Bravo Sierra. If the reporters over at the Pravda Press had bothered asking around New Brighton they would have found many people, including many who strongly disagree with her politically, who would tell them that Gina Bauman is an honest, ethical, and caring person who would never do what she was accused of.

Had the paper done the proper checking the editor, if not the reporters, should have at the very least suspected that the charges were without merit and sat on the story until more facts were known. Unfortunately responsible journalism apparently doesn't sell papers, although the shoddy variety also isn't doing so hot these days as reflected by the plummeting circulation of dead tree media "news" publications. It didn't take the Ramsey County Attorney's office very long to conclude that the charges were without merit as indicated by how quickly they were dropped.

The original story essentially assumed that the accusations made by a relative were gospel and ignored Bauman's contention that the charges were completely without merit. In addition to spewing the charges in minute detail in a very pejorative tone, the reporters (or, to be fair, possibly the editor) also felt the need to pile on by concluding the story with the following specimen of shoddy journalism:

The owner of Cuppa Chiodo's coffee shop on Silver Lake Road ran on a platform of fixed property taxes and championed the idea of making New Brighton a retail destination. She has criticized the Northwest Quadrant, a 100-acre mixed-use project in the city.

Last year, a fellow city council member had a run-in with the law.

David Phillips took an Alford plea in November to hiring a prostitute, a misdemeanor. The plea means he acknowledged the prosecution likely had enough evidence to convict him but he didn't admit to specific acts outlined in the criminal complaint. He was placed on probation.

Just what the flaming hooty-hoo does Bauman's political positions or the reference to Council Member Phillips have to do with the story, other than to inject a further implication of guilt? To me it indicates that the intent of the story was primarily an attempt at "gotcha" journalism to call to attention the alleged wrong doing of an elected official (and a Conservative one at that - so much the better!) without regard to the newsworthiness of the underlying story. And the follow-up story to report that the charges had been dropped didn't exactly go out of its way to retract the innuendo of guilt suggested by the tone of the original story.

How many dozens of cases like these come up daily and never get reported (and with good reason) to the public? And how did the reporters just happen to pick out the one that just happened to involve a Conservative elected official practically before the ink was dry on the complaint? Perhaps a little investigation into these questions is in order.

Clearly, if Gina Bauman was not an elected official the story would not have been published in the first place. The Pioneer Press dragged a private family matter based on unsubstantiated accusations that did not pertain to Council Member Bauman's actions in office into the realm of public scrutiny instead of waiting for the result of the legal process to determine the newsworthiness of the story.

I would have less of a problem with a report on the story if the county attorney's actions and the subsequent court proceeding had validated the accusations. But unless and until this was the case this was a non-story. As it turns out it was a non-story, but the good name and reputation of an upstanding citizen who happens to be an elected office holder was questioned needlessly and without warrant.

Regardless of whether the story was run with the intent to sell more newspapers or as an attempt to besmirch the name and reputation of an elected official who holds views generally opposite of the political agenda of the paper, the Pioneer Press owes Council Member Bauman and their readers a big apology.

Bernanke Tells Us Congress Is Powerless

2009-04-12T13:43:00.003-05:00

About 6 weeks ago, Ben Bernanke made it perfectly clear that returning control of Congress to the Republicans will do little, if anything, to restore order and conservative principles to our governance, at least until the Federal Reserve is gone and replaced by some form of currency standard, so that there are inherent constraints on how much money we can spend and the profits of money creation can't be endlessly skimmed by the central bank. I missed this when it happened, apparently, although I recollect the outrageous refusal by JPMorgan and other banksters to tell where the initial bailout money went. George Washington has returned from the dead and is maintaining a blog, wherein he helpfully reminds us of Bernanke's belief that he rules the US by fiat.

Quoting from the blogging President Washington on March 4:

"Yesterday, in his appearance before Congress, Bernanke revealed with a single word who really runs the United States:

Senator Sanders: "Will you tell the American people to whom you lent $2.2 trillion of their dollars?"

Bernanke: "No"

No?

Indeed, Bernanke and Treasury refuse to provide this information even confidentially and off-the-record to Congress. And the official overseer of the TARP bailout program can't even get the information of where all the bailout money is going. See also this.

With his single word "no", Bernanke revealed that Congress is impotent and out of the loop. In other words, Congress doesn't really run the country in the core area of business, finance and the economy. The financial giants and their servants at the Fed and Treasury do."

There's a tremendous list of quotations below Bernanke's arrogant remarks in President Washington's March 4 post--a long line of illustrious men from our history, all warning us to stamp out the power of the central bankers. I think the one from Woodrow Wilson is weird conspiracy-theorizing, and I've never heard that he was terribly concerned about the power of the elite bankers of the world, but otherwise the quotations are powerful.

Starve the Beast, End the Fed.

Tax Day is Tea Party for Freedom Day

2009-04-11T10:46:00.005-05:00

It's about freedom.

It's about liberty.

It's about lawmakers excessively confiscating the fruits of our labor to benefit the coffers of their political futures.

It's about taxes.

And, it's about time to say ENOUGH ALREADY!

Tax Day 2009 is Tea Party Day across the nation. Over 600 cities nationwide, and 14 in Minnesota will hold Tea Party rallies on April 15.

Click her for Minnesota Tea Party locations.

Visit Tea Party Minnesota for more info.

d'Anconia, the Sage Source, Says Social Fabric Wearing Thin

2009-04-08T20:17:00.002-05:00

My sage source has kindly developed a suitable name for his appearances on this august publication: meet Francisco d'Anconia. You know, because he's my friend, and I'm John Galt (if you don't know what all that's about, get busy on your Ayn Rand homework).

Cisco says, as he muses on the fact that the IMF has just upped its estimate of the losses in "toxic debt" incurred by banks and insurers, for at least the fourth time, "maybe, just possibly, $4 trillion will not be the final answer." This is because he knows certain disturbing facts: "the total notional value of CDS [credit default swaps] alone is something like $60 trillion (though the ISDA [Int'l Swaps and Derivatives Assoc.] can only guess, because "Over The Counter" means no market, no regulation, no oversight) and there are hundreds of trillions in interest rate swaps and other contracts without any adult supervision ... Taking William Black's fraud assessment at face value, we should probably start with a figure closer to $25 trillion, and conclude that the world's financial system is a hollow shell."

[Nota bene: Wm. Black appears to be a liberal (I take this from the fact that he says nothing about the role of the Community Reinvestment Act at points where it is obviously relevant in the above interview), but he's being brutally honest about the failure of Obama's financial/fiscal policy to date; do enjoy the video interview, because it's good stuff, and it's encouraging to see an apparent liberal be so straightforward.]

He has recently pointed me to a story about the collapse of the condo lifestyle in Miami:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE53200O20090403

And another on impending big losses for Wells Fargo (plus more for Fannie and Freddie) due to the bust up of another insurer, Triad Guaranty Inc.:
http://www.housingwire.com/2009/04/02/mortgage-insurance-woes-grow-for-fannie-freddie/
(Says Cisco, "Some of my most reliable sources are saying that the insurance industry is being sucked down with the banks, that big groups like Hartford have used poor risk management and invested heavily in stocks, and now are increasingly capital-impaired. Wait until people figure out that they've been wasting their money on car insurance and life insurance because the insurance co. doesn't have the wherewithal to pay the full claim.")

And another on people abandoning their boats (why not bilk the insurance company, after it has bilked the taxpayer? No, just kidding):
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/01boats.html?_r=1&ref=us

And another on banks abandoning their mortgage notes. Or something like that. Things are getting really, really confusing:
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/ny-times-now-banks-are-skipping-forec

Senor d'Anconia concludes as a sage should:
" "A jobless recovery"--yep, it will be that. And a profitless recovery, a growthless recovery, and ultimately, a recovery-less recovery. The U.S. is a nation of liars, in a world of liars. The social fabric is wearing very thin."

We should all join Senor d'Anconia in buying out-of-the-way agricultural property in South America, and disappear ... Starve the Beast.

"Shoreview, Shove It" Update

2009-04-08T19:46:00.003-05:00

A postcard from the City of Shoreview removes all doubt about its intentions to take over your life: contrary to previously issued information, you are first assigned an appointment time for representatives of SL-serco (does anyone else think serpent when they hear that name?) to invade your home and do their snooping, and you must OPT OUT of that appointment time after having scheduled another. The onus is on you.

Well, that makes it easy. Citizens of Shoreview, you have lives. Fail to be home at the appointed time, and do not obediently call or log in to schedule another. That postcard got lost. You never saw it. Your kids get the mail and thought it was recycling material (proof of your eco-righteousness, right?). The postman has a secret vendetta against government waste. A capitalist anti-environmental group probably stole it from the postal distribution center. It blew away, and you dutifully chased it, but the wind wouldn't let it go. Your child got sick and you had to take them to Urgent Care, unexpectedly, and you're so sorry ... couldn't you reschedule? ... oh, sorry, completely booked until 2011. Your spouse wrote an important phone number on it and took it to work, whence it was never seen again. The postcard looked like it was from the IRS, and you have IRS-phobia, so you had your therapist burn it. ...

Tell them whatever you want, and the more it sounds, when translated, like "Shoreview, Shove It," the better.

Shoreview, Shove Your Meters Where the Sun Don't Shine

2009-04-07T19:54:00.006-05:00

A letter recently sent by the City of Shoreview to its citizens has reached my attention:

"Shoreview is replacing all water meters and verifying that properties are compliant with the Inflow/Infiltration (I&I) regulations." The City is insisting that it must have its representatives, who work for the private company that won the bid to replace the water meters, inside the homes of all citizens to check their compliance, and they will "share the cost" of repairing any violations, as well as the replacement of the water meter. And get this: the water meter will be a "radio read meter."

A second letter came to my notice at the same time: it's not good enough to tidily draw your garbage bins up against your garage inside your own property line; no, you must put them inside your garage or hide them behind an attractive screen. Look, people, if you're so sensitive you can't handle the sight of a garbage can, you're not fit for modern life. Why in God's name is there a city ordinance regulating exactly where citizens can place their trash receptacles? Because there are way too many meddlers in this city. If you're an overly sensitive meddler whose got a problem with your neighbor's trash cans, then get a spine and go talk to them yourself! Honestly, people who want never to look at a trash can must be the same people who think they can go through life pretending that they never poop, belch, or scratch their nose. Garbage cans in a city are a fact of life, people; get over it, and if your neighbor is really making an ass of himself about the trash, then practice a little of your liberal belief in conflict resolution and work it out between yourselves. Stop asking the city to regulate the whole world and solve all your problems.

Citizens of Shoreview, this is enough. This is an official call to all of you who have been sheep for way, way too long: do not obey your government. They want inside your house, to snoop for violations that, as far as you know, are causing no problems (you can click the title of this post to be taken to the City's website, where you'll find .pdfs that supposedly explain how terribly costly working sump pumps and basement drains are to the metropolitan area; doesn't seem to warrant this much cost and government intrusion, especially when we're watching the world's economy melt down in real time). They want to install a radio read meter, which will undoubtedly do things beyond merely measuring total water usage, like tell the city how many gallons you use at certain times of the day or year. Get ready to be charged extra for summer usage, or morning usage, or usage above a certain limit when it's not "your" day for watering, or usage whenever the City arbitrarily thinks, according to whatever politically correct fashion it may be following, you shouldn't use as much water as you do. Get ready to be told what color your trash cans can be, what you can put in them, when you can put them out to the curb, when you must pull them back to the curb, what you can say to your garbage man, which garbage man you must hire (oh wait, we're already legally obligated on most of those points...), and so on.

DO NOT contact SL-serco (what kind of a name is that for a water meter installation company?) to set up an appointment for their representative to snoop in your house. DO NOT cooperate with the City of Shoreview in spending money to fix non-problems. DO NOT put yourself out building a nice little lattice to shield the eyes of your meddlesome neighbors from the facts of life; put your garbage cans wherever you darn well please (within your own property lines, and with common decency toward others, doing unto them as you'd have done to you, naturally). Passively refuse to help this city pretend that things are business as usual. Tell them you want police and roads and otherwise, you want the goverment to get out of your way, get off your back, get out of your pocket, your backyard, your front yard, your trash can, and your water usage. Tell the City of Shoreview to shove it.

Obama Inherits Economy From Democrat Congress

2009-03-31T20:51:00.002-05:00

Two years of Democrat control gave us the economic mess that we are in today.

In the posts below, John Galt aptly points out where Democrats and Republicans share the blame for fed banking policies and bailout fiasco's. But, there's more to the story. What changed during the last two years to exasperate the economic crisis?

As I've pointed out before, Democrats own the housing market mess. The CRA is their invention. ACORN – where Obama learned how to "organize communities" – exists to use the CRA to force banks to give loans to those not likely to pay them back. (They also exist to elect Democrats even if they need to fabricate voter registration cards, but I digress.) Democrats propped up Fannie and Freddie to ease the pain of defaulted loans – and to reap the benefits of thankful execs via campaign contributions. With the latest stimulus bill, ACORN, Fannie, and Freddie were given even more money to encourage more would-be home owners to take out loans they might not pay back.

So what happened during the last two years?

Democrats finally killed the effort to reign in Fannie and Freddie.

Democrats have made it clear that taxes will go up – that the cost of doing business will go up. The clear message to business big and small – "save your money now, don't expand, don't hire."

Democrats created an artificial energy shortage by preventing American energy companies from reaching rich deposits of crude oil off our shores. Gas shot up to $4, diesel up to $5. The cost of doing business went higher.

Cap-and-trade and other so-called green legislation gained ground with a greater likelihood of passage under a Democrat administration. The cost of doing business and the motivation to save money now continues to rise.

If $4 gas wasn't a big enough blow to Detroit, Democrats declared war on their best selling vehicles and America's favorite mode of transportation, the SUV, by raising C.A.F.E. standards. (For this one, Bush deserves some of the blame for not vetoing it.)

Democrats have tried to blame President Bush for the economic crisis. But, as described above, they obstructed Bush's initiatives and now they own the consequences. President Obama didn't inherit this mess, he helped create it.

During the last six weeks we have learned about a bigger problem. Unabashed socialists in Congress feel no bounds in remaking this great country into another Europe. Freedom as we know it will diminish greatly the longer Democrats control Congress. To this end, defeating them in 2010 is paramount.

But, don't mistake my zest for defeating Democrats with a blanket support for Republicans.

President Bush deserves a great deal of credit for rescuing us from 9/11 – both in national security and in growing the economy by empowering individuals with more of their own income. But, he made mistakes elsewhere, including those outlined by John Galt. These are mistakes that McCain might have repeated. There's a lesson here for Republicans. Go back to your roots, rediscover Reagan and conservative principles of government.

There are two parallel battles before us. First, strengthen our conservative ranks among Republican candidates to be better prepared for 2010 (and beyond). Second, win more hearts and minds among the public for limited government over socialism Obama style.

Democrats Aren't the Whole Problem

2009-03-30T21:05:00.002-05:00

This is a long one, but I'm trying to start an important argument, so please track with me:

Some of the regular posters on this blog, and no doubt many of its readers, think that the economic mess we’re in is due mainly to the control of the Democrats in Congress over the last 2 years, plus maybe the Community Reinvestment Act (more Democrat meddling from longer ago, but still something we can blame on the Dems). If you’ll scroll down to my post urging Rep. Bachmann to read an article from The Rolling Stone, you’ll see comments from G-Man to the effect that returning control of Congress to Republicans is key to solving our problems: just one piece of evidence showing this belief is prevalent.

Prevalent rubbish, that is. In the belief that problems can't be solved until understood, let's examine an ugly truth: Republican leaders (as distinguished from the party faithful at the precinct level)--as composed for the last 25 years, at least--are no good for fighting the real problem we face. They are roughly equally at fault, with the Dems, for allowing, if not encouraging, the development of the real problem.

Okay, you bite? The real problem is … ta-da!: the banksters, their view of the world, and their current position of power in federal policy making (the banksters first and foremost include the Federal Reserve, but for the sake of G-Man’s blood pressure, I’ll restrict myself to the financial meisters in general). If Republican leadership were going to show itself serious about solving this country’s financial problems in a sane (that is, conservative) way they A) would already have done so and B) would have to kick out everyone with any history of service to Wall Street banks. And they’re not going to do it, because either A) they’re Wall Street banksters themselves, or B) they have accepted the erroneous view that, as a former IMF chief economist puts it, what’s good for Wall Street is good for America.

This former IMF chief economist, Simon Johnson, has documented the bipartisan nature of the oligarchy that has taken over US policy, making it an arm of the finance-meisters for their own enrichment. He explains,
“One channel of influence was, of course, the flow of individuals between Wall Street and Washington. Robert Rubin, once the co-chairman of Goldman Sachs, served in Washington as Treasury secretary under Clinton, and later became chairman of Citigroup’s executive committee. Henry Paulson, CEO of Goldman Sachs during the long boom, became Treasury secretary under George W.Bush. John Snow, Paulson’s predecessor, left to become chairman of Cerberus Capital Management, a large private-equity firm that also counts Dan Quayle among its executives. Alan Greenspan, after leaving the Federal Reserve, became a consultant to Pimco, perhaps the biggest player in international bond markets.”

That list of names looks pretty bipartisan to me. The names dropped in The Rolling Stone piece were similarly bipartisan.

Johnson goes on to describe the policy response so far. This quotation, please note, describes actions all taken by a Republican administration:
“The response so far is perhaps best described as “policy by deal”: when a major financial institution gets into trouble, the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve engineer a bailout over the weekend and announce on Monday that everything is fine. In March 2008, Bear Stearns was sold to JP Morgan Chase in what looked to many like a gift to JP Morgan. (Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan’s CEO, sits on the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which, along with the Treasury Department, brokered the deal.) In September, we saw the sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America, the first bailout of AIG, and the takeover and immediate sale of Washington Mutual to JP Morgan—all of which were brokered by the government. In October, nine large banks were recapitalized on the same day behind closed doors in Washington. …”

Not only have Republicans been at fault in helping the financial oligarchy into power, and implementing their demands, but the Republicans were a big part of advancing false doctrine in the guise of conservative capitalism that encouraged all of us to hand over our resources to the tender mercies of the bankster bosses:
"In a society that celebrates the idea of making money, it was easy to infer that the interests of the financial sector were the same as the interests of the country… Faith in free financial markets grew into conventional wisdom—trumpeted on the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal and on the floor of Congress."

If faith in free financial markets had been accompanied by a dim view of the intentions of Wall Street's financiers, we would probably have done much better, because free financial markets are good things. The intentions of Wall Street financiers are not. The meisters of finance, the banksters, are not conservatives, nor even capitalists--they're corporatists. So as events have proved in the ancient and recent past, they'll take handouts from the taxpayer and government-enforced expansion of their market share toward monopolistic status with gleeful abandon. Republicans wrongly promoted the notion that what Wall Street wanted must be good (I have no opinion on the wisdom of gutting Glass-Steagall, but witness Phil Gramm's eager participation in giving Wall Street what they wanted that time), in the willfully blind belief that because Wall Streeters are in business, they must want laissez-faire, limited government. George W. Bush did wrong to put into his administration graduates of Goldman Sachs's top rung, because they, and the bosses at JPMorgan and AIG and Citigroup and Bank of America and HSBC and so on, ad nauseum, are big believers in a perversion of laissez-faire philosophy: "hands off our handouts."

I don’t hold with the IMF—and Mr. Johnson, true to IMF form, doesn’t offer us any solutions conservative in nature. But his description of the problem is clear and damning (and fits, with different evidence, perfectly with that in The Rolling Stone piece previously posted). It shows that we local Republicans should view our national party heads and office holders as political millstones from which to untie ourselves, rather than as intelligent, honest leaders we should follow. To win any hearts in the next few years, we’re going to have to admit to our neighbors and friends that the Republicans in power have been a part of the problem and need to go, while urging them to look at the party’s platform and what the local Republicans they know believe. We must get rid of everyone who has cooperated in the enrichment of banksters, make the end of such enrichment our foremost message, and declare George W. Bush in particular to have been, at best, a cooperator in Goldman Sach’s and JPMorgan’s “Quiet Coup”. If this is populism, it is not populism as practiced by demagogues of the past (and present, as Rep. Bachmann's recent "no foreign currency" gag demonstrates), playing on unsupported stereotypes held by uninformed masses. Rather, it’s a conservative’s populism—an appeal built on facts, the facts that current and future taxpayers and (mostly) unsuspecting foreign buyers (we don’t have to tackle the role of Asian governments just at present) of our debt are being fleeced, and that fleecing is happening to benefit people who are already rich and powerful. It’s the populism of Nathan the prophet, telling King David, “thou art the man”—the populism of truth and justice.

G-Man tells me, “Politics isn’t pretty.” No, G-Man, but I was already aware of that. Now everybody else in the Republican Party needs to join me in admitting that Reality isn’t pretty, much of the time, either. The Rolling Stone, and now The Atlantic, have published pieces making factual claims that fit with everything else I know about the financial crisis to date. Their description of the involvement of the Republican Party’s national office-holders should make us want political blood. Getting mad at the Democrats is kind of like criticizing a pagan for not living like a Christian: they don’t profess any better than they do, so even if it's true that the Democrats are more to blame, they won't feel the heat proportionately. That's just another ugly Reality. But our Republican office-holders profess conservative principles, and they should be held to the consequences of failing to act on what they say they believe.

This comic sums it up rather nicely...

2009-03-30T09:45:00.003-05:00

Cartoon courtesy of Comics.com and Creator's Syndicate. All copyrights acknowledged and observed.

State of the Union is one of the few daily comics that generally looks at things from a conservative perspective. You can view it from the Comics.com site at http://www.comics.com/creators/union/index.html