March 12, 2007
Mar 12 07:38 Webb: "There's Nothing Much We Can Do" Mar 12 09:50 Beware What They Aren't Telling You Mar 12 10:25 Pelosi Too Hawkish For Code Pink!!! Mar 12 14:18 Obama: "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinians" Mar 12 17:32 Rudy Conference Call Mar 12 21:20 Imams Suing US Airways
Prior Years: 2006
Webb: "There's Nothing Much We Can Do"
That isn't a quote from his appearance on This Week but it's essentially what he's saying. Here is a direct quote from Sen. Webb:
"As long as he has the authority as commander in chief to conduct a war, he's going to be able to control a lot of these sorts of things. I don't think people are going to go against him in terms of cutting back the appropriations for more troops. The big question is, how are we going to turn this thing around? And I think despite a lot of the rhetoric that you've seen, we've started to do that."It's obvious that Webb would rather pull the troops soon but he knows that it isn't politically feasible to propose that right now. It's also obvious that he's reading from the Democrats' talking points. It's obvious because he isn't saying anything about the solid progress that's being made in Iraq, especially in Baghdad and Ramadi. As I said here, the cat's out of the proverbial bag:
NBC's Brian Williams recently reported a dramatic change in Ramadi since his previous visit. The city was safer; the airport more secure. The new American strategy of "getting out, decentralizing, going into the neighborhoods, grabbing a toehold, telling the enemy we're here, start talking to the locals, that is having an obvious and palpable effect." U.S. soldiers forged agreements with local religious leaders and pushed al-Qaeda back, a trend other observers have noted in some Sunni-dominated areas. The result, Williams said, is that "the war has changed."Webb, Pelosi and Murtha can't keep that secret to themselves, though they'll surely try.
Posted Monday, March 12, 2007 7:41 AM
No comments.
Beware What They Aren't Telling You
That's the caution that this lefty blogger is telling his readers about the Minnesota Citizen Compass report. Here's part of this blogger's commentary:
The survey also noted 54% of respondents were just getting by or falling behind with their monthly expenses, so it's not too surprising a similar percentage would think they were paying too much in taxes.It shouldn't be surprising that people who are "just getting by or falling behind" would demand that taxes be reduced. Why should liberal legislators only be concerned with feeding the bureaucratic beast when real people who have to live within their means are falling behind or just barely staying ahead or the game?
After all, the Preamble to the Constitution reads We The People in tall, bold letters for a reason. The DFL lost its way on that ages ago. Therefore it isn't surprising that they think of government is able to "do many good things", which King debunks here.
This blogger also thinks it odd that people think that property taxes are too high:
Also, isn't it interesting that most respondents reporting a growing tax bill identified property taxes as the leading cause?Actually, I'd call it appalling. Most taxpayers know that their property taxes have skyrocketed since the late 1990's, in some cases almost doubling. He says that he'd ask a follow up question to the property tax question:
I wonder how those taxpayers might've responded to a question about whether they would support property tax relief for themselves if it meant taxing only households that made about double their income?I'd bet that most people would simply say that the legislature should live within its means so that everyone's tax burdens could be kept as low as possible. This blogger hasn't figured out that "taxing only households that made double their income" would cripple Minnesota's economy because limiting taxation to upper income people would starve small businesses, which create the most jobs.
In other words, that question shows how ignorant this blogger is on economics & how well-schooled he is on class warfare.
The blogger notes my pointing out this graph:
By a margin of 70-28%, Minnesotans agree that the Governor and Legislature were right to try to avoid general tax increases while dealing with the budget deficit. This support cuts across party lines; for instance, a majority of self-identified Democrats (59-39%) and Liberals (55-44%) continue to support this approach to solving the recent state budget deficit. Of the 28% who disagree with this approach, less than half say important state programs were cut as a result of not raising taxes.Then he adds this:
Again, I'd have loved a follow-up question: "Would you still agree the Governor and Legislature took the right approach to solving the past budget deficit if you learned their approach led to an increase in your property taxes?"I'd suggest that property taxes didn't skyrocket because we didn't raise taxes to solve the last DFL-caused deficit. If the DFL hadn't spent like crazy during the Clinton recovery & had instead stayed fiscally sane, we wouldn't have had a record $4.6 billion deficit. Property taxes skyrocketed because of the DFL's irresponsible spending habits. They simply won't say no to spending increases that their lobbyists ask for. They simply won't look for wasteful spending.
Let me ask some different questions:
- How many people would revolt if they knew that the DFL wanted to double the size of Minnesota's reserve fund to almost $1.25 billion instead of providing property tax relief?
-
How many taxpayers would revolt if they knew that Nora Slawik just introduced a childcare bill that costs $140.5 million the first biennium the first year & over $1 billion the second biennium?
- How many taxpayers would've revolted if they knew that Tony Sertich defeated a reform by Mark Olson that would've set taxation levels first, then set spend spending levels accordingly?
- How many taxpayers would revolt if they heard Sen. Sandy Pappas say that increasing higher education funding by $296 million for this biennium is "starving higher education"? ( Alert: Tuitions are skyrocketing at outstate universities. They can't attract students until they offer in-state tuition rates to people living in states not covered by Minnesota's reciprocity laws.)
That's why the Minnesota Citizen Compass Report's findings aren't that surprising. Taxpayers know when they're getting ripped off.
Posted Monday, March 12, 2007 9:50 AM
Comment 1 by charlieq at 13-Mar-07 01:21 PM
Gary, this lefty blogger would like to correct a few assumptions you make about his thinking and grasp of the issues.
1. I say it's not surprising people barely getting by want their taxes reduced. I do NOT say they shouldn't be upset. Rather, it's an observation that the resistance to tax increases MAY be coming from the people hardest hit, not from a cross-section of the population.
In fact, the reluctance to institute a more progressive income tax to fund government has shifted more of the burden to taxes and fees that hit lower-income taxpayers disproportionately. This SHOULD be corrected; you and I just disagree on how.
Your comment about "liberal legislators only concerned about feeding the bureaucratic beast" doesn't reflect my thinking or of any liberal legislators I know.
2. "This blogger hasn't figured out that 'taxing only households that made double their income' would cripple Minnesota's economy because limiting taxation to upper income people would starve small businesses, which create the most jobs."
Sorry I haven't figured out something the data and my personal business experience don't support. I have actually studied this, and I created and ran a multi-million-dollar business for nearly 20 years that has remained successful despite those nasty DFLers.
3. On property taxes. We agree there should be property tax relief. We appear to disagree on why property taxes went up and how relief might be achieved. We also disagree on the root causes of the deficit. You seem to think DFL spending was the cause and aren't really interested in analysis from me, which would be considerably more nuanced.
4. I'm more interested in dialog than slinging misreadings of each other back and forth. My offer made to you in a private email still stands.
Pelosi Too Hawkish For Code Pink!!!
According to this article, that's the message being sent to Nancy Pelosi:
A few dozen peace activists marched across the Golden Gate Bridge and gathered outside the San Francisco home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday, demanding that Congress stop funding the war in Iraq.Nowhere in the article does it explicitly say that the protest was organized by Code Pink. However, a quick Google search turned up this picture which proves Ms. Blome's ties to Code Pink:
"San Francisco has been against this war from the very beginning," said Toby Blome, a physical therapist who organized the event. "This is our fifth year of the war, and Nancy needs to wake up and represent San Franciscans."
Here's more from the article:
The rally is the most recent "occupation" activists have staged in lawmakers' offices on Capitol Hill and in their home communities. U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel's office in Chicago was targeted on Thursday, and peace activists dressed in pink showed up recently at the Senate offices of presidential hopefuls John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton.We know how well the meeting with David Obey went, don't we? What's a poor anti-war fanatic supposed to do? Here's how Ms. Pelosi responded:
Other recent protest targets include Reps. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio and David Obey of Wisconsin and Sens. Richard Durbin of Illinois and Barbara Mikulski of Maryland. All four Democrats voted against the 2002 measure authorizing the war.
"Speaker Pelosi shares the concerns of the protesters about the disastrous war in Iraq. The Speaker has put the House of Representatives on course to chart a new direction for the American people and the war in Iraq," said Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill, in a statement.Ms. Pelosi essentially said "I'm with you...until there's a difficult decision to be made. Then I'll pay lip service to you, then ignore you as best I can." That's a profile in courage, isn't it?
"Led by the Speaker, Democrats have put forward legislation that will measure the Iraqi government's actions by the standards President Bush himself set, conforms deployment of our troops to existing military standards for readiness and provides badly needed help to an overburdened military and veterans' medical system wracked by scandal."
Posted Monday, March 12, 2007 10:29 AM
No comments.
Obama: "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinians"
That's what presidential candidate Barack Obama thinks according to this Des Moines Register article:
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday told a small group of Iowa Democrats that U.S. policy in the Middle East can be compassionate as well as tough, while he also provided these influential voices in the leadoff caucus state with an up-close view of him as a presidential candidate.What a joke. Obama has a charisma that Hillary is envious of (and that Bill had) but he's utterly clueless when it comes to foreign policy. The Palestinian people elected a bunch of terrorists to their government. To think of Palestinians as victims denies the fact that their votes installed Hamas as their official government. As is always the case, people get the government they deserve. In this instance, they deserved a terrorist government. It's impossible for me to feel sorry for the Palestinians when they voted for this disaster.
Obama told the Muscatine-area party activists that he supports relaxing restrictions on aid to the Palestinian people. He said they have suffered the most as a result of stalled peace efforts with Israel.
"Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people," Obama said while on the final leg of his weekend trip to eastern Iowa. "If we could get some movement among Palestinian leadership, what I'd like to see is a loosening up of some of the restrictions on providing aid directly to the Palestinian people," he added.
Israel's survival as a powerful democratic ally in the Middle East must remain a top priority, Obama said. "There is also no doubt that we have a huge strategic stake in bringing about a peaceful resolution to the conflict," he said. But the United States cannot broker that resolution until the Palestinian government recognizes the nation of Israel.This is typical Obama. First he says that a President Obama would loosen up the restrictions on aid to the Palestinian people, then he says that we can't broker a deal with the Palestinian government until they recognize Israel's right to exist. HELLO!!! The Palestinian government is Hamas. Hamas won't recognize Israel's right to exist. They'll say something that gets aid flowing to them but they'll never admit that Israel has a right to exist.
Statements like that should scare everyone of an Obama presidency. He's utterly wishy-washy and clueless on foreign policy. He's as much of an empty suit as John Edwards is.
Posted Monday, March 12, 2007 2:19 PM
No comments.
Rudy Conference Call
As an influential member of the Right Blogosphere (haha), I was invited to participate in a bloggers conference call with the Giuliani Campaign. Ed Goeas and Brent Seaborn started with a 15 minute presentation, followed by a 15 minute Q & A session.
The thing that struck me the most is Hizzoner's 64%-21% favorability-unfavorability rating. Having a 3:1 favorability-unfavorability rating is simply amazing. I can't say that I'm surprised, though, because Rudy's support seems to come from each voting cohort.
This is all the more impressive after Captain Ed asked Mr. Goeas how soft the polls were at this point , which I think is a fair question. Goeas said that "lots of people are already paying attention to the race" & that "they're pretty aware of Rudy's positions on the issues." Goeas also said that the favorability-unfavorability rating shouldn't change dramatically, though the race for the nomination will likely tighten up, because Rudy has "almost 100 percent name recognition."
When my turn to ask a question came, I first identified myself as a Christian conservative who believes that the biggest determinant in this election is who has the best plan for defeating the jihadists. I then asked Mr. Goeas if they'd found significant support amongst Christian conservatives for Rudy & if they attributed that support to Rudy's position on fighting the GWOT. Goeas first said that he, too, is a social conservative. Then he said something that I've always believed: that Christian conservatives aren't single issue voters despite the Left's repeated attempts to mischaracterize us that way. He said that we care about low taxes, judges that interpret the Constitution literally and fighting the Islamofascists. Goeas then said that Rudy was picking up solid support from social conservatives.
What made that significant was the fact that social conservatives know that Rudy is pro-choice, pro gay-rights and believes in some gun control measures.
I think Rudy appeals to people, Christian conservatives included, because he believes what he believes and that he doesn't change his mind just to be popular. By the way, I think that Fred Thompson will have that same type of appeal. I think that that's why people are a little tepid in supporting Mitt Romney. I think that's why more people aren't supporting Sen. McCain. Frankly, I think that people are simply wary of Sen. McCain because of the role he played in writing the BCRA, the 'Gang of 14' and his teaming with Ted Kennedy to write a immigration 'reform' bill.
At the end of the day, I think that the Republican nomination comes down to Rudy and, if he jumps in, Fred Thompson. I suspect that Thompson will jump in, especially after all the exposure he got today on Rush and because of his appearance yesterday on FNS. If they're the finalists, Republicans, and all voters, are in a win-win situation.
Posted Monday, March 12, 2007 5:32 PM
No comments.
Imams Suing US Airways
That's the gist of this article. Here's what they're reporting:
Six Islamic leaders who were removed from a U-S Airways flight say they'll sue the airline for discrimination. The Council on American-Islamic Relations says it will provide details on the lawsuit tomorrow at a Washington news conference.The key to this entire article is found in the last sentence: "A U-S Airways spokeswoman did not immediately return a call from The Associated Press, but the airline has said prayer was never the issue." Here's what we know, courtesy of Richard Miniter's reporting, about this staged incident:
Six imams returning to Phoenix from a religious conference in November were taken off a plane in Minneapolis, handcuffed, and questioned. They had prayed in the airport before the flight, and after they boarded, a passenger who considered them suspicious passed a note to a flight attendant.
When the men returned to the airport the next day, the airline refunded their fares and refused to sell them new tickets. A U-S Airways spokeswoman did not immediately return a call from The Associated Press, but the airline has said prayer was never the issue.
- As the plane boarded, she said, no one refused to fly. The public prayers and Arabic phone call did not trigger any alarms...so much for the p.c. allegations that people were disturbed by Muslim prayers.
- Another passenger, not the note writer, was an Arabic speaker sitting near two of the imams in the plane's tail. That passenger pulled a flight attendant aside, and in a whisper, translated what the men were saying. They were invoking "bin Laden" and condemning America for "killing Saddam," according to police reports.
- Meanwhile an imam seated in first class asked for a seat-belt extension, even though according to both an on-duty flight attendant and another deadheading flight attendant, he looked too thin to need one. Hours later, when the passengers were being evacuated, the seat-belt extension was found on the floor near the imam's seat, police reports confirm. The U.S. Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader said she did not dispute the report, but said the airline's internal investigation cannot yet account for the seat-belt extension request or its subsequent use.
- Other factors were also considered: All six imams had boarded together, with the first-class passengers, even though only one of them had a first-class ticket. Three had one-way tickets. Between the six men, only one had checked a bag.
This is a show trial, though U-S Airways must take it seriously until it's disposed of. Personally, I hope it goes forward and that U-S Airways conducts an aggressive round of discovery. I hope that they ask about:
- any communications they had with CAIR prior to this;
- any communications they had with John Conyers;
- any communications they had with Keith Ellison;
- and any communications they had with Mahdi Bray.
Posted Monday, March 12, 2007 9:21 PM
Comment 1 by Don Poole at 19-Mar-07 08:44 AM
this incident of imams:
Adeliberate and wanton display of activity that is designed to cause irrepairable emotional stress and psycological damage and a negative reaction from the public passengers and staff. A civil suit against the imams and thier mosques that support them should be filed by the passengers, airlines and staff at the airport. don poole, porter texas
