June 26-28, 2008
Jun 26 07:14 Questions the New Direction Congress Can't Answer Jun 26 10:32 Liberal Indoctrination At Its Disgusting Worst Jun 26 13:55 CBS News: "Supreme Court Shoots Down D.C. Gun Ban" Jun 26 17:05 Blogger Energy Conference Call Jun 26 19:47 McHale Gets It Right (Before He Gets It Wrong) Jun 28 06:36 Tinklenberg I-35W Your Turn Editorial Posted Jun 28 11:19 Safer Now? Safer Then?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Questions the New Direction Congress Can't Answer
Tuesday night, I attended our local Republican Party's Summer Social. Predictably, one of the subjects of conversation was the high gas prices. After Rep. Dan Severson gave his presentation, out party chairman asked me to deliver an update on what were the hot topics on the blogosphere. I'm not an accomplished public speaker but this was an easy speech to make.
I said that gas prices were the dominant topic on the blogosphere by a wide margin. I said that this should excite the GOP faithful because Democrats don't have the solution to the gas crisis. I stated first that the crisis was artificial in nature, meaning that it's a crisis that was entirely avoidable.
The reason why Democrats don't have an answer to this crisis is because they don't believe in oil exploration. That isn't just an opinion. Check out the picture from this post on Powerline . What better proof do you need that Democrats don't have a solution than to show that House Democrats announcing on Tuesday that they'd be holding a press conference this morning, then cancelling the event?
As I pointed out here , Tim Walz is muttering the Democrat mantra that "we can't drill our way out of this crisis." Tuesday night, I told our group about how I argued against that mantra. I said that we could use the same information whether we're talking aboout Tim Walz, Al Franken, El Tinklenberg or whoever.
While that's the biggest question that Democrats don't have an answer for, another important question that they don't have an answer for is why they haven't done anything to make us mmore prosperous. We should be asking people what this 'New Direction Congress' has done to make them more prosperous. In fact, I'd ask people if they're better off now than they were 2 years ago.
Another important question that the New Direction Congress doesn't have an answer to is what they've done to protect the US from terrorist attacks. When the FISA Reform bill passed the House, fewer than half of the House Democrats voted for the bill. On the Senate side, a significant portion of the Senate Democrats have announced that they'll try defeating the FISA Reform bill with a filibuster.
UPDATE: The FISA Reform cloture vote passed by an 80-15 margin. Not surprisingly, Sen. Obama didn't vote on cloture. He definitely isn't a profile in courage. Democrats and Obama are sending a flimsy message on national security, especially since they've failed miserably in Iraq War policy.
When the New Direction Congress took over, Ms. Pelosi promised to drain the swamp of corruption. Can anyone say that Washington is less corrupt now than 2 years ago? Can anyone look at John Murtha or Paul Kanjorski and say that Ms. Pelosi and her leadership minions have taken any serious steps in curbing the corruption?
The reality is that House Democrats aren't just the Do-Nothing Congress; they're the 'No Solutions Congress', too. It's time we hired a solutions-oriented congress.
Over the last 2 years, we've seen that this sloganeering congress hasn't done anything to make us more prosperous or safer. It's time we hired a solutions-oriented congress this November.
Originally posted Thursday, June 26, 2008, revised 29-Jun 7:41 AM
No comments.
Liberal Indoctrination At Its Disgusting Worst
This morning, the SC Times is running an editorial explaining why Rep. Michele Bachmann's energy plan is wrong for America. The editorial is titled "Letter: Preteen has a better plan than Bachmann". This is the epitome of despicable. It's obvious that this preteen had help writing the letter. Here's what I'm basing my opinion on:
Frankly, the whole act is politically motivated and short-sighted. The federal Energy Information Administration says drilling in Alaska wouldn't be able to start until 2018 if approved today and that production wouldn't reach its peak until 2027.How many 12 year-olds talk about "politically motivated and short-sighted" legislation? Better yet, how many 12-year-olds know that the "federal Energy Information Administration" exists? Or that drilling in ANWR would take 10 years to start drilling? Or that it'd take another 9 years for it to start producing?
What are the odds that this child's parents 'helped' her research this editorial? North of 95%? A point or 2 south of 100%?
Then there's this line:
Is ruining Alaska worth about $1.35? I hope not!Ruining Alaska by drilling on a 2,000 acre plot of land? FYI- 2,000 acres is just a bit more than 3 square miles. ANWR alone is 19,000,000 acres, which translates into 29,687.5 square miles. Alaska is 663,267 square miles. In other words, ANWR is about 4 percent of Alaska's land mass.
Here's the key question on this subject: How will drilling on 3 square miles in far northern Alaska ruin a state that's 670,000 square miles? You'll forgive me if I don't buy into that argument.
The environmentalists' desperation is exposed in this editorial because they have to hide their arguments behind a 12-year-old girl. That's a feeble attempt to win an argument. Frankly, it speaks volumes about the environmentalists' confidence in their arguments.
The editorial finishes with another political shot:
We can't completely change this world, but we sure can try! Help by voting in El Tinklenberg, who would actually promote the use of renewable energy sources and alternative transportation options!El Tinklenberg has criticized Rep. Bachmann for having an overly simplistic energy policy but the truth is that he's got it wrong. Rep. Bachmann's approach isn't just drilling. It also includes extending tax credits to incent entrepreneurs to build alternative energy supplies. Rep. Bachmann also thinks that building nuclear power plants are part of a mutli-faceted approach to energy independence. Rep. Bachmann also is looking into technology that would convert coal into fuel. That's hardly a simplistic approach.
Rep. Bachmann's approach is an all of the above approach whereas Mr. Tinklenberg's approach is best categorized as an 'alot of the above as long as the environmentalists give me permission' approach.
Democrats obviously think that the only way they can win the energy debate is by using 12-year-olds to make their arguments. That's disgusting. Liberals should be ashamed of themselves.
Posted Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:27 PM
No comments.
CBS News: "Supreme Court Shoots Down D.C. Gun Ban"
The Supreme Court finally delivered a sane ruling in striking down D.C.'s gun ban. As you'd expect, the majority and dissenting opinions were like a night and day difference. Here's a sample of Justice Scalia's brilliance:
1. Operative Clause.What Justice Scalia is saying is that simple English shouldn't be mangled to the point that a former president asks what the meaning of the word is is. Justice Scalia said that the meaning of the Second Amendment is clear when you look at other examples in the Constitution .
a. "Right of the People." The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a "right of the people." The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase "right of the people" two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not "collective" rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.
In the opposing corner is Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent:
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."The first three words of Justice Breyer's dissent should scare the daylights out of thoughtful people. "In my view" doesn't have a place in a SCOTUS ruling. If it isn't in the Constitution and its amendments, then it doesn't belong in a judicial opinion.
This is the perfect picture of what judicial activism looks like. Judicial activists use the term "In my view" to replace "In the Constitution." The best way I know how to chastize Justice Breyer and likeminded justices is to adapt a Clinton War Room slogan to say "It's the Constitution, Stupid."
You'll never have to worry about that with Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia because that phrase is ingrained in their DNA.
Posted Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:59 PM
No comments.
Blogger Energy Conference Call
Here are some of the highlights of a blogger conference call on energy policy:
House GOP Policy Chief Rep.Thad McCotter:
GOP POSITION: American production, common sense conservation & free market innovation. Democrat position: litigation, conservation.
John Shimkus: "This energy package doesn't produce an ounce of new energy in any of the 3 bills." Rep. Shimkus said that Democrats twic shut down committee hearings rather than voting on opening up the OCS. (editor's thought: Is this how to make America independent of foreign oil ?)
Here are two quotes from John Peterson that caught my attention :
"There is no environmental danger in offshore drilling." Rep. Peterson cited the fact that there was "no damage offshore from Katrina & Rita."Finally, there was this eyepopper:
"California could have production "within months" with modifications to offshoreJohn Peterson: "When we open up production, we get rid of the speculators."
rigs.
Rep.Thad McCotter: "These are regulation bills, not production bills." (House was scheduled to vote on 4 bills today, none of which would've added a bit of energy.)
Minority Whip Roy Blunt: "Congress can decide that our natural resources are an asset." (ed. note: Rep. Blunt then said that Pelosi's bunch had decided not to make them part of the solution. )
"Peterson is a real leader on offshore."Newsbusters' Noel Sheppard:
Shouldn't we also be talking about inflation caused by high gas prices?Michele:
"Democrats are getting exactly what they want." "Obama was clear that energy prices aren't too high. The price just went up too fast."What's astonishing to me is how utterly opposed Democrats are to increasing oil and natural gas production. It's pretty pathetic that they shut down a pair of committee hearings rather than vote on amendments that would've opened up oil production on the OCS. Rest assured that they didn't adjourn the meetings because they knew they had the votes. It was done because they knew that those amendments would pass.
The House GOP Caucus is pushing this issue hard. We've had our reservations about them in the past but they're doing the right thing. It's time we rewarded them by contributing to the NRCC. Every contribution will go a long ways in defeating Democrats. Follow this link to contribute. Let's make Speaker Pelosi a quaint piece of history.
Originally posted Thursday, June 26, 2008, revised 06-Apr 5:32 PM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 28-Jun-08 09:37 AM
Gary do you ever sit on a blogger call with the Mccain people. Tell them how people are interested in drilling! How people are interested in having energy prices lowered.
The reason why I note this is last night I saw John Mccain air a commercial for the first time in Minnesota. Was it on Iraq and foreign policy? No!
Was it on the importance of judges for the US Supreme Court?
No!
Was it on drilling for oil to lower oil and gasoline prices? No!
It was on global warming. Somebody has to get it across to the Mccain camp that it will be a waste of time to talk about it.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
McHale Gets It Right (Before He Gets It Wrong)
Kevin McHale has taken alot of abuse for his drafting but tonight, McHale got it right by picking USC freshman O.J. Mayo. Mayo's played with alot of attention paid to him during his brief career. What's stood out to me is that he's a hardnosed competitor who made big shots & who plays great defense.
This will improve the T'Wolves on both ends of the court. He'll be the outside to the T'Wolves inside-outside tandem with Al Jefferson being the inside force.
Here's something from YouTube:
This kid's got game. He's got a great touch on his shot. He's got great range & a great midrange jumper. Plus he's got quickness off the dribble. That'll work with me.
UPDATE: Here's NBADraft.net's evaluation of O.J. Mayo's strengths:
Strengths: Very explosive scorer, able to fill it up in a hurry and in a variety of ways , Has the swagger and confidence of a seasoned veteran, and never gets down on himself or allows an opponent or performance rattle him , Possesses range well beyond the NBA 3 , Some of his height concerns were answered when he measured 6'4.25" with shoes in Orlando to go along with a 6'6" wingspan , Most impressive of all was his 41" vertical , Has an uncanny ability to make difficult shots with defenders draped all over him , Crafty ball handler who is very confident dribbling against pressure and trapping defenses , Knows how to use his body when getting to the hoop, shielding the ball and making it difficult to contest his drives , Has a variety of jerky moves and fakes that create enough separation allowing him to get his shot off against even the top defenders , His strong core allows him to shoot fade-aways from deep and still keep good form , Both his elevation and stroke are exceptional, combining to make him one of the better shooters this class has to offer , When he buckles down defensively, he gives fits to many players , He is able to stay in front of quicker point guards as well as athletic wing players , Went through an up & down season, but found his touch coming down the stretch and once again regained his spot as a top tier prospect ,
Make sure & check out their website. For the first time in their history, they're providing instant analysis of each individual pick.
UPDATE II: It's time to end the speculation about O.J. Mayo. According to Fred Hoiberg , Mayo will be wearing a T'Wolf uniform next season.
Check back later tonight for more updates. The T'Wolves have the first & 4th picks in the second round. Ordinarily, that isn't exciting news but this year is different because it's a deeper draft.
UPDATE III: Here's a little bit from ESPN's Live Chat with O.J. Mayo:
Buzzmaster: (8:46 PM ET ) We've got OJ!UPDATE IV: Kevin McHale Strikes again. First he drafts O.J. Mayo, the third most talented player in this draft. Then he picks Mario Chalmers with the 34th pick, about 15 spots after he was projected. Chalmers fills a major need at PG & he's a good defender. Then he trades Chalmers to Miami for 2 second round picks in next year's draft & cash considerations. By now, T'Wolves fans are upset & rightfully so. But McHale isn't satisfied with the fans tuning the T'Wolves out for the 08-09 season. He's working on something bigger. So he trades Mayo, who was a perfect fit for the T'Wolves, along with Antoine Walker, Greg Buckner & Marko Jaric for Kevin Love, Mike Miller, a one dimensional spot-up shooter, Brian Cardinal & his 2 year contract plus Jason Collins.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete (Minnesota): OJ, I CANT WAIT! YEAH! MY QUESTION IS HOW LONG UNTIL YOU WIN YOUR FIRST MVP AWARD?
O.J. Mayo: (8:46 PM ET ) I don't know. I just want to come in and fit in with the team and come in with a winning attitude.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huy (Fountain Valley): OJ, are you disappointed you didnt get selected by the Heat, since you and Dwyane Wade are buds now?
O.J. Mayo: (8:47 PM ET) No, not at all. At the end of the day, it's a business. I'm happy to be in the NBA and happy to be with the T-Wolves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jeremie (Minesota): question for OJ- being considered a lock down defender at times and a great offensive force how do you feel about competing with a guy like kobe on both ends of the court?
O.J. Mayo: (8:48 PM ET ) Man, it's a lot on my plate as just a rookie. But at the end of the day, I'm a competitor. I'm going to work each day to compete against those kind of guys.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick(VA): Ayo, O.J, should I draft you for my basketball fantasy?
O.J. Mayo: (8:48 PM ET ) Yeah!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason (Minneapolis): Best burgers in town, O.J. - The Nook in St. Paul. Gotta try the Double Nookie Burger!
O.J. Mayo: (8:48 PM ET ) All right. I'm going to hold you to that one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blaine (Kalamazoo MI): OJ: What is the biggest area of your game that will help the T-Wolves to more wins?
O.J. Mayo: (8:49 PM ET ) I think defense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farquardt (Moose Lips): OJ - It's cold in Minnesota in the winter, how are you going to stay warm?
O.J. Mayo: (8:49 PM ET ) Make sure my heater is working in my house and buy a big coat!
O.J. Mayo: (8:49 PM ET ) Keep me warm and keep me safe. I'm going to try my hardest to make the fans and the organization happy.
Buzzmaster: (8:50 PM ET ) Thanks OJ!
McHale makes 2 very astute picks, then traded them away for marginal players & cash considerations. I've sent an email to the T'Wolves saying that I'll never watch another game. McHale's made more dumb moves this decade than most GMs get a chance to make in a lifetime.
His punishment: Permanent employment in Glen Taylor's organization.
The Woofies are incompetent. They're the worst run franchise in Minnesota history. And it ain't even close.
Originally posted Thursday, June 26, 2008, revised 27-Jun 6:40 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 27-Jun-08 12:14 AM
Did Mchale get it wrong? He trade Mayo. The way ESPN describes he got three things, Love a player that Mchale loved, Brad Miller a player who will allow Jefferson to move, and we get rid of Marco's contract.
What do you think now?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 27-Jun-08 01:00 AM
We got Mike Miller, not Brad Miller. As for what I think now, I posted my thoughts in the 4th update. McHale makes 2 good picks then trades them away. Pathetic.
Comment 3 by Lady Logician at 28-Jun-08 06:27 PM
Gary - to be fair (and this comes from the Logical Husband who thinks that Kevin McHale is the WORST GM in the biz) McHale has no room under the salary cap for OJ or just about any other "decent" player. He is still paying for KG.....
LL
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 29-Jun-08 06:06 AM
Lady, Tell the Logical Husband taht the NBA runs a soft cap. The NFL has a hard cap. The bottom line is that McHale could've kept Mayo.
Comment 5 by kb at 29-Jun-08 01:40 PM
Gary, the last thought I'll leave you with -- would OJ have been happy here? Apparently - I did not see it - he looked like he'd been kicked in the groin when Stephen A interviewed him.
Your other consolation: McHale is not the worst GM in the league. The guy who traded Pau Gasol for the pu-pu platter (featuring Kwame Brown as the wrapped chicken) is, and you just made a deal with him.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 29-Jun-08 01:50 PM
When teams trade bigname players, the cliche is that it's a win-win situation. Knowing that your GM isn't as stupid as the other GM means that this is a lose-lose trade. Both look like buffoonse. That's small consolation.
Tinklenberg I-35W Your Turn Editorial Posted
My Your Turn editorial on the I-35W Bridge collapse is posted on the St. Cloud Times website. Make sure to check it out. It's also worth checking out some of the liberals' comments. They're quite a hoot.
Posted Saturday, June 28, 2008 6:36 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 28-Jun-08 09:33 AM
great column Garry. Send Michelle a copy if she's busy so anytime he starts claiming in a debate how he's qualfied she can pull it as an example to tell the audience what his real job performance was like.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 28-Jun-08 11:23 AM
Walter, I'm marching in a parade with her this evening. Also, she's got a staffer who reads the blogs on a daily basis. She knows everything I post.
Safer Now? Safer Then?
That's essentially the question Ralph Peters is asking in this column . Based the evidence, it's clear that we're safer now than we were during the Clinton administration. Here's the first proof Col. Peters offers:
Whopper No. 1: America is less safe today than it was on Sept. 10, 2001. Oh, really? Where's the evidence? The Clinton years saw New York City attacked and Americans slaughtered by terrorists around the globe. Nothing was done to protect us.Democrats have put forth their propaganda for the past 6+ years and no one's called them on it. Until now. Allegations aren't proof. Allegations shouldn't be treated with respect. They should be ridiculed, which is what's happening in Col. Peters' column.
And the true end of the Clinton era came on 9/11. A record to be proud of.
Whopper No. 2: Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. Al Qaeda just suffered a strategic defeat in Iraq that may prove decisive. It can't launch attacks beyond its regional lairs. The cowardly Osama bin Laden can't show his face (remember his Clinton-era pep rallies?).Let's give President Bush credit for coming up with an aggressive plan to go after terrorists where they live rather than prosecuting them where we live. President Bush's is to go after them where they live. President Clinton's policy was to prosecute then where we live after they've killed innocent Americans. Which like the better policy of protecting us?
Yes, terrorists can still murder innocents on their home court. I personally prefer that to them killing Americans in Manhattan and Washington. Even in Iraq, al Qaeda's been beaten down to violent-fugitive status.
By what objective measurement is al Qaeda stronger today than it was when it had an entire country for its base and its tentacles reached all the way to Florida and the Midwest?
More importantly, which policy kept us safer?
Col. Peters made a great point in debunking the first whopper. He asked where the proof is. That's what I'm asking evertime that Democrats repeat their mantra that we can't drill our way out of this oil crisis. Where's their proof of that? They don't offer any because it doesn't exist.
Here's the whopper that's most powerful to me:
Whopper No. 4: Iran is stronger than ever. Tell that to the Iraqis, who've rejected Iranian meddling in their affairs, who've smashed the Iran-backed Shia militias and who didn't take long to figure out that Tehran's foreign policy was imperialist and anti-Arab.The next time you hear or read a Democrat spouting their talking points, ask yourself what their proof is. Better yet, write editorials asking them what proof they have for their allegations, whether it's about oil, the Middle East or whichever subject they're talking about.
The people of Iraq don't intend to trade Saddam for Ahmadinejad. Iran has lost in Iraq. At this point, all the Iranians can do is to kill a handful of innocent Iraqis now and then. Think that wins them friends and influence?
I said during the 2006 campaign that Pelosi and Reid were utterly incompentent. Now I have proof. That's why I've given them the nickname of the 'No Solutions Congress'. When I asked King yesterday what the 110th Congrss's signature accomplishment was, it took him a few seconds before he said "I suppose the Minimum Wage Bill", which I agree with. The thing is, that didn't pass the first time. It passed the second time because they included it in the Iraq supplemental bill. Some accomplishment. By comparison, eight of the ten items in the Contract With America are now law.
The proof is in the pudding. It's time we realized that Democrats haven't made much 'pudding' lately. (Thankfully.)
Originally posted Saturday, June 28, 2008, revised 29-Jun 6:34 AM
No comments.
