October 3, 2007
Oct 03 06:23 What's With the Half Measures? Oct 03 07:17 You Can't Argue With the Will of the People. Or Can You? Oct 03 08:47 Democrats Propose Tax Increase, Use War as Excuse Oct 03 10:56 Census/Illegal Immigration Ramifications Oct 03 12:30 Murtha Distracting From Democrat Failures Oct 03 18:31 Intel Treasure Trove Oct 03 21:52 Sign the Petition & Stand With Rush Oct 03 22:43 How To Defeat Liberals & Persuade Undecideds
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006
What's With the Half Measures?
Joe Atkins says he wants to protect children from sex offenders by keeping "public school directories out of the hands of sex offenders." He also wants to punish school teachers who have sex with their students. Here's how he plans to accomplish that:
His proposal would keep directories out of the hands of all but parents, guardians, school employees and others with a demonstrated need for the information, such as school photographers and yearbook companies.What kind of protection is that? Did it occur to Rep. Atkins that these deviants might steal the public school directories, thereby giving these sex offenders access to the students' personal information? Rep. Atkins' proposal sounds thoughtful but isn't a serious proposal that will protect children. Let's be clear about this: I'm all for protecting students. It's just that Rep. Atkins' proposals are timid half measures. I've long been a proponent of putting sex offenders away for life.
Alfonso Rodriguez murdered Dru Sjodin after the Minnesota Department of Corrections accumulated this data :
Offense Information:I'm not criticizing the Corrections Department for setting him back on the streets. Their hands were tied by existing laws. The complaint I have is with the legislators who didn't mandate life sentences for level 3 sex offenders. Had they written that into the law, Dru Sjodin would've been protected.
Offender has a history of sexual contact and attempted kidnapping with adult females. Contact included pentration in two instances. Offender used force and has used a weapon to gain compliance. Offender was previously known to one victim, not previously known to two victims.
After Ms. Sjodin's murder, I vowed that I'd speak out if I saw legislation proposing timid measures to protect people from sexual predators. This legislation fits that description to a T.
It's time for Minnesotans to tell rep. Atkins that we reject his ill-conceived, ineffective legislation. It's time that Minnesotans demand legislation that all but eliminates the possibility of these sexual predators inflicting their violence on innocents.
I'm sure that people will say that my ideas are neanderthal, that it doesn't give the criminal to rehabilitate himself, etc. They're right on both counts. The recitivism rate for Level 3 sex offenders is almost 100 percent. Why should we give them the opportunity to destroy the Dru Sjodins of the world? What justification can they give for not putting these villains away for life?
This is a serious problem. That's why it demands serious legislation to prevent future attacks. It's unfortunate that Rep. Atkins' legislation isn't a serious proposal.
Posted Wednesday, October 3, 2007 6:23 AM
Comment 1 by Wenn at 08-Oct-07 12:17 AM
Hi,
There is one source of information on criminal records, which do not only provide
information on past crimes, but also information on where theSex offendersat present. This can be very helpful, especially for firms that want to gain extensive information on the backgrounds of people, which include those on parole. This is because given that searches for criminal records can
only be done statewide, a past offender who may have transferred to another state may not
be accurately screened as most firms only conduct searches within the state in which they are based.
You Can't Argue With the Will of the People. Or Can You?
Pretending like they're speaking with the voice of God, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi issued t his press release :
"This afternoon, the Congress sent to President Bush a bipartisan bill to insure 10 million of our nation's children. It is our hope and the will of the American people that the President will sign the bill into law on behalf of the future. It is right for no less than 10 million reasons, our children."Forgive me for asking but when did it become the "will of the people" to pass legislation that would serve as a first step to government-run universal health care? I don't recall seeing any polling showing that the American people want that type of system. Let me correct that: I haven't seen any polling from professional polling companies that's said that. You can always find a lobbyist-sponsored poll to show that.
I'd further ask people this simple question: When was the last time Harry and Nancy accurately deciphered the will of the American people? Remember that they're the duo that said that the surge had failed. Remember that they were the duo that thought Republicans would be greeted with a groundswell of anti-war sentiment. They're also the duo that thought that these Republicans would return from their August recess chastened and ready to vote for precipitous withdrawal from Iraq.
With that information in mind, their God-like pronouncement on the "will of the people" is laughable at best. These two wouldn't recognize the mainstream of American politics if they had a roadmap and a GPS to help find it.
Technonrati: Harry Reid , Nancy Pelosi , Universal Health Care , Iraq War , Surge , Withdrawal
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Wednesday, October 3, 2007 7:18 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 03-Oct-07 08:58 AM
What I want to know is, when did Harry and Nancy get all of those children? I intend to care for MY children myself, and I commend others to do the same. The Congress has NO children and NO money to care for them, other than what they steal from somebody else. When did the American taxpayer become responsible for somebody else's kids? I want to know, because if they're my kids, I think a little discipline is in order.
Democrats Propose Tax Increase, Use War as Excuse
Everyone knows that Democrats are genetically predisposed to raising taxes. Now Jim McGovern, John Murtha and David Obey are using the Iraq War as their excuse to do what they love doing:
A group of Democratic legislators presented on Tuesday a plan to create an income tax surcharge to finance occupation in Iraq, which currently means to US taxpayers about $150 billion in operation costs yearly. Legislators Jim McGovern, John Murtha and David Obey said the conflict is "devouring money that could be used to expand their educational opportunities and job training possibilities and to attack our long-term energy problems and build stronger communities."Democrats ran on eliminating the middle class squeeze. Now that they're elected, they're attempting to increase taxes on "middle-income taxpayers." Surprise, surprise. I'm shocked. Who would've thunk it?
The initiative calls for low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill. Wealthier people would pay an additional 12 to 15 percent, they said. "The war will cost future generations billions of dollars in taxes that we're shoving off on them," said Obey.
This isn't surprising. In fact, this fits a pattern that we first pointed out last March when the House DFL went on an unprecedented tax-increasing binge. Remember this Steve Murphy gem ?
"I'm not trying to fool anybody," said Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, sponsor of the measure that would increase funding for roads and transit by $1.5 billion a year once it was fully implemented in the next decade. "There's a lot of taxes in this bill."This year, Democrats have shown a propensity for increasing taxes, whether it's DC Democrats or St. Paul DFLers. This plan, like the others, is a loser. Nancy Pelosi even knows that this bill shouldn't be debated because it hurts Democrats:
"Just as I have opposed the war from the outset, I am opposed to a draft and I am opposed to a war surtax," Pelosi said in a statement issued this afternoon.That ends these men's attempts to play tricks with the Iraq supplemental. Still, Obey did talk tough while it lasted:
"If you don't like the cost, then shut down the war," Obey said in a news conference.Obey's talking tough but he'll get rolled when President Bush weighs in. FDR said that "All we have to fear is fear itself." Generations later, Obey is modifying that statement to say "All we have to offer is bluster itself." For all their tough talk, they're really easy to roll. The word in Washington is that President Bush will get what he wants when he wants it. I see nothing to contradict that.
Obey also told reporters President Bush will not get supplemental money for the Iraq war until he agrees to change course.
Bush has sent a request for a $190 billion supplemental spending bill.
"As chairman of the Appropriations Committee I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of committee anytime in this session of Congress any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo," Obey told reporters.
Posted Wednesday, October 3, 2007 8:50 AM
No comments.
Census/Illegal Immigration Ramifications
I'll bet that most people don't pay much attention to the impact that illegal immigrants might have on the census that's taken in 2010. Those that don't know are about to find out because its potential to change the electoral landscape is getting noticed :
A University of Connecticut study concluded Arizona, Texas and Florida could all see their House delegations increase due to rising populations that include sizable numbers of illegal immigrants.Don't think that demographers for both parties aren't taking note of this. I'm certain that they're putting together plans for redistricting.
Although they can't vote, such aliens are included in the census. The San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News predicted Tuesday the pending 2010 headcount could be the subject of a political fight as Democrats and Republicans jockey for position before House seats are reallocated.
The Connecticut study also predicted California and New Jersey would likely keep their current number of seats while states with fewer immigrants, including New York, Illinois and Ohio, will lose a seat or two.
This could have big longterm ramifications in presidential elections. Subtracting electoral votes from New York and Illinois means that Democrats would have to flip some states in 2012 that currently are red states. Couple that with adding electoral votes to 'safe' states like Florida and Texas compounds the problem. It isn't insurmountable but it makes things dicier for Democrats.
It's impossible to predict what effect this will have in House races until we see how the districts are drawn. Rest assured, though, that we'll see lots of heated skirmishes once the census information is compiled and distributed.
Posted Wednesday, October 3, 2007 10:58 AM
No comments.
Murtha Distracting From Democrat Failures
If you want to know how inept Pelosi's Democrats are, you needn't look further than this Pittsburgh Post-Gazette . This paragraph says it all:
Since taking control of Congress at the start of the year, Democrats have repeatedly tried to force Mr. Bush to change course in Iraq. But the party's slim congressional majority has enabled Republicans to block such moves, especially in the Senate, where at least 60 votes are needed to advance major legislation.TRANSLATION: Despite all their bluster and citing poll after poll supposedly showing that their views represent the majority opinion, they can't persuade enough legislators to change Iraq policy. Simply put, they're impotent to the point of being almost irrelevant.
Mr. Murtha and other Democrats had predicted that September's testimony from Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, would compel more GOP lawmakers to switch sides. But the general's claims of progress in the war prevented any major defections.Mr. Murtha and other Democrats were wrong. The August recess strengthened GOP legislators' resolve on Iraq. That resolve was further stiffened by Gen. Petraeus' testimony. In other words, Democrats misread what the voters said in 2006.
Mr. Obey also said he will soon introduce legislation for a tax surcharge for all Americans, except members of the military and their families, to cover the conflict's costs. The tax, he said, could add 12 percent to 15 percent to the federal income tax bills of the wealthiest Americans, while low- and middle-income Americans would pay about 2 percent.Nancy Pelosi already shut Rep. Obey's legislation down. It won't see the light of day. I wonder how Obey feels about that.
Mr. Obey predicted that such a tax would collect as much as $145 billion to $150 billion each year, nearly the annual price tag of the Iraq war. "If you don't like the cost," he said, "then shut down this war."
Posted Wednesday, October 3, 2007 12:33 PM
No comments.
Intel Treasure Trove
This AFP article goes a long way towards proving that the Surge is working. Here's the big news:
The US military said on Wednesday it had seized a list of some 500 Al-Qaeda members recruited to fight in Iraq from the Middle East and Europe during a raid in northwest Iraq that killed eight militants. Major General Kevin Bergner said the September 11 raid near Sinjar targetted a senior Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader, known as Muthanna, who was killed along with seven colleagues.If I had a dollar for every time John Murtha used the term Iraq civil war, I'd be able to retire a wealthy man. This intel find tells us that Murtha's claims that our miltary is stuck in a hopeless civil war aren't true. Based on this information, lots of foreign terrorists transited through Iraq. Foreign fighters don't fight in civil wars. John Murtha has never let a little detail like that stand in the way of a perfectly good diatribe.
"Muthanna was the emir of Iraq and Syrian border area and he was a key facilitator of the movement of foreign terrorists once they crossed into Iraq from Syria," Bergner told a news conference in Baghdad. He worked closely with Syrian-based Al-Qaeda foreign terrorist facilitators," he added.
"During the operation, we captured multiple documents and electronic files that gave an insight into Al-Qaeda's foreign terrorist operations not only in Iraq but throughout the region," he said.
The files revealed "a list of some 500 foreign terrorists being recruited by Al-Qaeda, biographies on 143 foreign terrorists en route to Iraq or who have already arrived, including personal data, photographs, recruiters' names, route and date of entry into Iraq."
On the more important front, this tells our generals where to intercept and/or kill these incoming terrorists. The better we get at that, the more likely it is that we'll tamp down the sectarian violence because foreign terrorists are stirring up the violence.
Based on this information alone, I wouldn't be surprised if October's reports showed another drop in violence amongst American troops and Iraqi civilians. In fact, I'm expecting it.
Posted Wednesday, October 3, 2007 6:32 PM
No comments.
Sign the Petition & Stand With Rush
Follow this link to Eric Cantor's petition to "stand with Rush". Sign the petition. Stand with Rush. Most importantly, send an unmistakeable message to Media Matters that their smear campaign will be met with a ferocity that they can't match. It's time we stood up to these smear merchants.
If ever there was a time for us to stand in the gap and defend honorable people like Rush, it's now.
Posted Wednesday, October 3, 2007 9:55 PM
Comment 1 by John Houghton at 04-Oct-07 10:12 AM
Go Rush. Keep 'honesty' at the forefront. It's the one things Dems do not have (there are many other things too).
How To Defeat Liberals & Persuade Undecideds
I've heard lots of pundits talk about 2008 being a difficult year for Republicans, with ome pundits are predicting a total wipeout for Republicans. Frankly, they'll be right if we don't adopt a new way of arguing with liberals. There's a method that I've used frequently to defeat liberals in forums and face to face.
First, conservatives need to know some liberal tendencies. The first thing you need to know about liberals is that they'll attempt to change subjects when you nail them with objective facts. I don't know if they're that scatterbrained or if they're just admitting defeat. Regardless, that's the first thing you need to be aware of.
Second, we need to know that liberals will frequently appeal to emotions while avoiding fact-based arguments.
Third, on the rare occasion when they won't appeal to emotions or they answer directly, their tendency is to argue with reports that are easily refuted. Let's take transportation as an example.
Earlier this winter, Democrats had a lobbyist testify in committee. They touted him as a "transportation expert" though he was nothing of the sort. When I googled the guy's name, I found out that he was a member of an advocacy group in the Twin Cities. Naturally, I didn't accept his quotes at face value.
The next logical question is 'how do we deal with these three situations'? Here's how:
1. In each instance, the first step is doing the research ahead of time. Being an activist means doing your homework. That means having a solid command of the details. There aren't any shortcuts to this. Doing the research is 90 percent of the fight.
2. The next thing to remember is to get the presentation right. Simply put, lay out the facts as dispassionately and accurately as is humanly possible. If the liberal lashes out in a mini-diatribe, let them rant a while, then ask them why they've avoided the objective facts and irrefutable logic that you've just given them. there's a good possibility that they'll either launch into another diatribe or they'll attempt to change subjects. If they've launched into another diatribe, let them calm down, then ask them why they're still avoiding the question.
If they've changed subjects, you have two choices: you can ask them why they changed subjects without answering your question or you can nail them on that subject, then ask them why they've changed subjects without answering your question.
In each case, bring it back to your first question. Above all else, don't take things personally. Remain calm. Keep your facts in order. Then ask them to answer the questions that touch on the central question on that issue.
It's vitally important that you maintain a Joe Friday-like "Just the facts, Mam" attitude. There's nothing more frustrating to a liberal than for them not to fluster you. I figure there's no sense giving them the satisfaction of rattling me.
As for winning over undecided voters, the first thing to remember is to listen first. Let them talk about what's most important to them. Don't assume you know what's most important to them. Once you know what's important to them, then the timing is right to respond. The thing I try to keep uppermost in my mind is the old cliche "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care."
Nothing tells a person that you care better than simply listening. If there's anything that conservatives should learn from Clinton, it's that he was the consummate listener. He absolutely exceled at it.
Once you've listened to what that person said, then you can engage them with questions and with facts. Obviosuly, undecideds won't approach you with the same reticence as a liberal will. That gives you plenty of time to have a calm, rational conversation. It's important to do as much listening and analyzing during that time as you spend talking.
I can't stress enough the importance of doing your homwork ahead of time. I said it before but I'll say it again: that's 90 percent of the fight. Once you have command of the issues, you'll be amazed at how freely conversations flow.
Posted Wednesday, October 3, 2007 10:44 PM
No comments.
