September 6-8, 2007
Sep 06 03:16 Tarryl, Let Me Explain It To You Sep 06 15:12 Kucinich Being Kucinich Sep 06 16:30 Democrats Accuse Gen. Petraeus of Being "Bush Mouthpiece" Sep 06 17:27 Reprioritizing Spending vs. More Taxes Sep 06 22:17 Sen. Craig Changes Course Again Sep 07 12:19 DFL Playing Special Session Games Sep 07 15:08 MPR: "Joe Kaufman Was Right" Sep 08 12:26 War Whiplash, Democrat Style
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006
Tarryl, Let Me Explain It To You
According to this article, Tarryl Clark said that it's difficult to figure out where Gov. Pawlenty is at with the special session. Here's her exact quote:
"It's been tough to figure exactly where he's at," she said.If Gov. Pawlenty's position on the special session has been difficult to figure out, it's because the DFL leadership kept pushing for an 'all-inclusive' special session, one which would allow them to refight the battles that they lost last session.
Gov. Pawlenty's position was simply that he wasn't ruling things out because he'd hoped that the DFL leadership would agree to be reasonable. That didn't turn out to be the case. Throughout the entire thing, he held fast to the need to limit the session to emergency items only. Now the DFL leadership caved and they're saying that they can't figure out what Gov. Pawlenty wants. (Perhaps that's a hint that the current leadership is clueless? Or possibly dishonest? Or both?)
DFLers are not looking for a gas tax increase, metro sales tax increase, nor a bonding bill, she said. Democrats look to dollars left unspent last session as a result of gubernatorial vetoes as a funding pool that can be tapped for the bridge and flood relief, Clark explained.This is proof positive that the DFL caved on a special session. I can't believe that their activists are happy with the 'returns' they're getting for their hard work. Let's put this in perspective. These activists were rejoicing on Election Night. Since then, they've seen Larry Pogemiller, Steve Murphy, Tarryl Clark, Speaker Kelliher, Phyllis Khan and Tony Sertich get spanked by Gov. Pawlenty, Marty Seifert and the House GOP in the regular session, then watch them get whipped over the special session, too.
Clark opined that the House and Senate DFL leaders will be able to keep their caucus in line during a special session.
Larry Pogemiller was rumored to be walking on eggshells towards the end of the regular session. After this embarrassing defeat, he's gotta be thinking that he's walking on thin ice. It isn't a stretch to think that his political career is circling the drain as we speak.
This year has been a good year for the GOP in Minnesota. More importantly, it's been a good year for Minnesota's taxpayers, who've been spared the additional burden of billions of dollars of tax increases, thanks to the steadfastness of our goalie, the House Republicans and GOP activists statewide.
I'd venture a guess that we wouldn't be talking about the great string of achievements if the groundwork hadn't fallen into place early in the regular session.
Posted Thursday, September 6, 2007 3:16 AM
No comments.
Kucinich Being Kucinich
According to this JPost article, important person wannabe Dennis Kucinich stopped in Syria to praise Syria's government for accepting Iraqi refugees before refusing to stop in Iraq. Here's what passes for logic in the Democratic Party:
US Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich, on a Mideast visit that included a stop in Syria, said the country lambasted by the Bush administration deserves credit for taking in more than a million Iraqi refugees.Just when I thought this idiot couldn't sound any more foolish, Kucinich proves me wrong. He's living proof of the old one-liner that it doesn't pay to make something idiot-proof because someone will just build a better idiot. This clown shouldn't be considered a viable candidate for anything, much less for president of the United States. Fortunately, based on the polls, he isn't considered a viable candidate for the presidency.
Kucinich, a strong anti-war opponent who trails far in the US presidential polls, also said he won't visit Iraq on his trip to the region because he considers the US military deployment there illegal.
On a more serious note, Kucinich's trip should be seen as a publicity stunt designed to garner him attention. The sad news is that he's bad-mouthing our President about conducting an illegal war (his term, not mine) in Iraq. Rep. Kucinich would be well-advised to not just look at the Iraqi refugees that Syria took in. Let's not forget that they assassinated pro-American Lebanese politicians, with Rafiq Hariri being the most famous of those politicians. Rep. Kucinich has forgotten that Syria allegedly took in several loads of Saddam's WMD's, too.
I can't find proof that any of this matters to Kucinich. It's disgusting that a public disgrace like Rep. Kucinich is given any sort of a public platform. What's worse is that a small group of people actually show up to hear what he has to say.
That should tell you everything you need to know about today's Democratic Party.
Posted Thursday, September 6, 2007 3:13 PM
No comments.
Democrats Accuse Gen. Petraeus of Being "Bush Mouthpiece"
In an attempt to downplay Gen. Petraeus' testimony next week, Democrats are portraying Gen. Petraeus' report as the "Bush Report." Here's a sampling of their statements:
"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.It isn't surprising that Sen. Durbin would impugn the integrity of Gen. Petraeus. This isn't the first time that he's accused the U.S. military of actions unbecoming a U.S. soldier. We all remember Sen. Durbin likening the guards at Gitmo to the thugs of Nazi Germany, the Soviet gulags and Pol Pot's thugs.
"We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.'"
If this isn't enough to question Sen. Durbin's, and other likeminded Democrats', patriotism, then there's no chance that we can question their patriotism. On this blog, Sen. Durbin's statements are more than enough to question his patriotism.
Sadly, his isn't the only voice in that 'choir':
Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Gen. Petraeus' report was potentially compromised by the White House's involvement in drafting it.My first reaction after reading Rep. van Hollen's statement was to tell him to sit down and shut up. Rep. van Hollen's opinions should be viewed through the lens of his July 8 statement on FNS. Here's his most noteworthy statement:
"If the same people who were so wrong about this war from the start are writing substantial portions of this report, that raises credibility questions," he said.
"The entire integrity of our criminal justice system is in question."This was in response to Brit Hume's question on the meaning of President Bush commuting Scooter Libby's prison sentence. It's obvious that Rep. van Hollen graduated from the Al Gore school of hyperbole. The notion that a president's commuting the prison sentence of someone will undermine the entire criminal justice system is silly. Rep. van Hollen should remember that making one hyperbolic statement after another will quickly get you ignored.
Here's a quote from Speaker Pelosi's press release:
"The independent GAO report released today contrasts sharply with President Bush's stay-the-course Iraq strategy. The GAO report is the latest in a series of assessments to conclude that the Iraqi government has failed to meet nearly every political, economic and security benchmark laid out by President Bush himself in January.If Democrats truly stood with the American people, they wouldn't be making such defeatist statements. They'd be saying things like 'Let's give our boys another chance.'
"Democrats stand with the American people and are committed to bringing our troops home safely and soon. It is time to refocus our nation's efforts on fighting the real threats of terrorism around the world."
Speaker Pelosi is essentially accusing Gen. Petraeus and the Maliki government of failing their missions. That's simply inexcusable. That type of statement should earn her the title of former Speaker.
If these statements aren't enough motivation to get GOP activists working hard to keep a Republican in the White House and sweep Democrats from control of the US House, then nothing will motivate them.
Posted Thursday, September 6, 2007 4:32 PM
No comments.
Reprioritizing Spending vs. More Taxes
Based on this article, that's what the debate in the House Transportation Committee boiled down to. Jim "God Help You" Oberstar is defending his tax increase proposal while the Bush administration makes the case that the Transportation Committee change its priorities by spending money on road and bridge repair instead of bridges to nowhere and bike trails. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that President Bush will win this fight.
At a House Transportation Committee hearing, panel chairman Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., touted his plan to pay for a bridge trust fund with a 5-cent increase in the 18.3 cents-a-gallon federal gasoline tax, saying Congress can't solve the problem with a "bake sale."While Rep. Oberstar is right that we can't "solve the problem 'with a bake sale'", it's also true that they can solve the problem by stepping away from the earmark buffet. The 2005 Highway Bill had over 6,400 earmarks totaling $24 billion in spending. I find it quite ironic that Oberstar's proposed gas tax increase would generate an estimated $25 billion.
But Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said a gas tax increase wasn't the solution. "Increasing federal taxes and spending would likely do little, if anything, to address either the quality or performance of our roads," she said. Instead, she called for better use of existing funds. Following up on President Bush's comments last month, Peters criticized congressional earmarks for diverting federal money from where it was needed.
What this means is that Rep. Oberstar isn't willing to change his spending habits but he's more than willing to demand that we pay more at the pump. Why should we pay more so he doesn't have to change his spending habits? What this proves is that Rep. Oberstar has forgotten that the Constitution starts with "We The People", not "We The Spendaholic Legislators." It's time that we demanded that he relearn that part of the Constitution.
It's also time that we demand that Rep. Oberstar stop wasting our gas taxes on bike trails in his district. The last report I saw said that he'd diverted $1.3 billion from the Highway Trust Fund to pay for bike trails since 1991.
That $1.3 billion figure is scandalous when we realize that states have to pick up 25% of the costs on all Highway Trust Fund appropriations. That means that the state and federal cost of these bike trails is actually $1.625 billion.
I have to believe that once the American people realize just how much money has been diverted from bridge and road safety to pay for politicians' pet projects, the voters will be mightily upset.
It's about time that we sent a shot across these politicians' bows. Some of them have been ripping us off for a generation. That wasn't acceptable at any time but it's much less acceptable in the instant information age. We shouldn't back down until our demands are met.
Posted Thursday, September 6, 2007 5:29 PM
No comments.
Sen. Craig Changes Course Again
According to this article, Sen. Craig's spokesman Dan Whiting says that Craig has all but dropped attempts to finish out his term:
"The most likely scenario, by far, is that by October there will be a new senator from Idaho," Craig spokesman Dan Whiting told the Associated Press.It's clear that Gov. Butch Otter, (R-ID), and Senate Republican leaders, told Craig that they weren't supporting him. This likely meant that they'd work to defeat him in the GOP primary. Faced with such massive obstacles, the only sane thing to do is to fade from the public eye.
The only circumstances in which Craig might try to complete his term, Whiting said, would require the overturning by Sept. 30 of his conviction for disorderly conduct in a men's room at the Minneapolis airport, as well as Senate GOP leaders' agreement to restore Craig's committee leaderships posts taken away this week. Those scenarios are unlikely, Whiting said.
Frankly, it was stupid of him to even toy with the idea that he could finish out his term in office. Had he insisted on doing so, he might've done serious damage to GOP hopes in the 2008 elections. I understand his desire to clear his name but that doesn't mean I don't recognize how partisan politics plays into this equation. It's time for Sen. Craig to do be a team player. This isn't about him anymore.
Posted Thursday, September 6, 2007 10:18 PM
No comments.
DFL Playing Special Session Games
The DFL is playing games with the special session even before it happens. They're doing the best they can in blaming Gov. Pawlenty for things they say happened years ago. Forgive me if I question their credibility. Here's what I'm referring to:
Lyle Koenen, a DFL representative from Clara City, isn't so sure. "I'll believe it when the day and time is actually called." His skepticism is based on Pawlenty's past behavior. Koenen said before the regular session began this year, Pawlenty promised to work with the Legislature, but later dug in his heels.Let's scrutinize that last paragraph before we move on. Rep. Koenen claims that Buffalo Lake didn't get state assistance for two years after a tornado essentially destroyed the city. Here's the first question I'd ask: Why did Buffalo Lake need to wait 2 years before getting State assistance? I'm betting that Buffalo Lake got a bunch of federal assistance after that disaster.
Shortly after the bridge collapsed, Koenen said Pawlenty voiced approval for a comprehensive transportation funding package in a special session, but has now backed off of that. Koenen said it's possible that if a special session is held, legislators would just deal with flood relief and funding for the I-35W bridge.
The state has a history of holding special sessions to allocate emergency funding for natural disasters, including the flood in the Red River Valley. Unfortunately, Koenen said, that doesn't necessarily mean a special session will be held to help the people of southeast Minnesota.
Buffalo Lake, a community he represents, didn't receive state assistance until two years after a tornado nearly wiped out that small town because Pawlenty failed to call a special session that would have provided emergency funding sooner.
It's insulting to hear Rep. Koenen make it sound like Buffalo Lake was ignored after the entire city came close to being destroyed.
For the purpose of this discussion, let's stipulate that a special session wasn't called after the Buffalo Lake tornado. That begs this question: Why couldn't they have dealt with Buffalo Lake's needs during a regular session? Wouldn't it have been a high priority for the legislature in a bonding year session?
Frankly, I think this is the DFL's attempt to say that Gov. Pawlenty isn't doing enough fast enough. I can't believe that aid of all sorts wasn't given to Buffalo Lake, especially since it got national coverage:
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: We go now to the storm system that spawned dozens of tornadoes across the Midwest. Folks from Minnesota to South Dakota spent today picking through the shards of their homes, literally. The population of tiny Buffalo Lake, Minnesota, has grown by 50 percent; hundreds of volunteers have poured in.Frankly, after reading that, I find Rep. Koenen's statements less than credible.
Gimse cautioned legislators not to pile on issues to the agenda. Pawlenty has claimed DFL'ers want to put too much on the special session plate, a charge that Juhnke called "rhetoric" from the governor's office.I'd love asking Rep. Juhnke if it's Gov. Pawlenty's rhetoric when Margaret Anderson-Kelliher puts this paragraph in her Strib op-ed:
People are wondering when there will be a special session of the Legislature. They ask about property-tax relief and aid for their local communities. They believe our state must do something, but not just anything. Minnesotans want to know their state leaders can manage a reliable and responsible recovery from these disasters.Rep. Juhnke would be well-advised to get his facts straight before accusing Gov. Pawlenty of playing word games. Speaker Kelliher's statements essentially verify the validity of Sen. Gimse's statements while discrediting Rep. Juhnke's statements.
Posted Friday, September 7, 2007 2:04 PM
No comments.
MPR: "Joe Kaufman Was Right"
While I wish I could say that that's what MPR said directly, the truth is that they didn't say it directly. Let's retrace this week's events regarding Keith Ellison. Last week, Joe Kaufman issued a press release telling the world that Keith Ellison was going to be the Grand Marshal at this Sunday's Muslim Day Parade. Shortly thereafter, Abdi Aynte posted a story on Minnesota Monitor accusing Kaufman of not doing any fact-checking before issuing the press release:
In her "Rogues Gallery of Radical Islam" column, Canada Free Press' Judi McCleod wrote that Ellison's alleged role in the parade would have been "totally ignored were it not for the courage of a single freelance journalist." Yet that journalist, FrontPage magazine writer Joe Kaufman, seems to have ignored a basic tenet of reporting: fact-checking.Problems abound with Aynte's accusation, not the least of which is the fact that a visit to AAH's homepage gives people the opportunity to see the Muslim Federation of America flier announcing Keith Ellison as the Grand Marshal of the event.
That's just one problem with Minnesota Monitor's accusation. This article on MPR's website shows that Joe Kaufman wasn't the only person who believed that Ellison was going to be the Grand Marshal:
After being accused of not checking his facts, Joe Kaufman left a statement on Minnesota Monitor's website. When Abdi Aynte read Kaufman's statement, he posted this comment in response:DFL Rep. Keith Ellison will be the Grand Marshall of the United American Muslim Day Parade in New York City on Sunday.Apparently Ellison will not be the Grand Marshall in the parade.
Joe:Notice the loaded words in Aynte's comment. Saying that Joe "relied on MFA's website to spin the news" is a definite attack, as is saying that Joe's piece "was all but matter of fact." If the accusation is made that Joe Kaufman didn't check his facts, then Minnesota Monitor must level the same accusation against MPR's Tom Scheck. To be intellectually honest, Minnesota Monitor would have to admit that MPR ran with the same story as Kaufman did.
If you relied on MFA's website to spin the news about Ellison being a "grand marshal" of the NY Muslim parade, it would have been logical to qualify/condition your call for resignation.
Your piece was presented as a matter-of-fact kind of reporting; as it turned out, it was all but matter of fact.
What's interesting to me is that Tom posted this link after I'd posted the screen captures in this post. Thanks to Leo's good work, we also know that another website still believes that Ellison is the Grand Marshal:
New York City Muslim Day ParadeBased on the amount of different sourcing, as well as the visual proof we have of MFA's flier, I'd say that Minnesota Monitor, not Joe Kaufman or MPR's Tom Scheck, that didn't do their factchecking.
***22nd ANNUAL MUSLIM DAY PARADE***
When: September 9th, 12:00 noon
Where: Madison Ave, New York City
Who: Congressman Keith Ellison, Grand Marshall
What: Parade, Children's show, Bazaar, Rides
Aynte said that Joe didn't call Ellison's office to verify the information going into his press. My question to Minnesota Monitor is simple. Should a reporter not trust the visual proof provided by MFA's flier? For that matter, should a reporter trust the word of an Ellison staffer when visual proof exists that contradicts that staffer? It seems strange to me that Aynte trusted Brian Elliot's statement when numerous websites say the exact opposite thing.
If anyone is guilty of not doing their factchecking, it's Aynte and Minnesota Monitor. It isn't a leap to say that they've been exposed as activists with a pro-Ellison bias.
Posted Friday, September 7, 2007 3:08 PM
Comment 1 by Terror-Free Oil at 09-Sep-07 09:02 PM
Rally Against Islamofascism: Remembering Bloody Tuesday
Six years have passed since the worst terrorist attack on America. It seems that most Americans do not remember what happened on September 11, 2001. We are back to business as usual. While our military is fighting the War on Terror, American consumers are financing terrorism by buying Middle Eastern oil. While a Crucifix submerged in urine is considered to be a free artistic expression and received a government grant, flushing a Koran down the toilet is prosecuted as a hate crime. While moderate Muslim groups like American Islamic Forum for Democracy and Muslims Against Sharia are virtually unheard of, terrorist fronts like CAIR and MPAC receive multi-million dollar payments from Saudi Arabia and enjoy full recognition by our government officials.
THIS IS YOUR COUNTRY TOO; HELP MAKE IT SAFER
JOIN TERROR-FREE OIL INITIATIVE; STOP FINANCING TERRORISM!
When: September 11, 2007, 4pm-6pm
Where: 12901 Q Street, Omaha, NE 68137
Inquires: Omaha@TerrorFreeOil.org
Comment 2 by Muslims Against Sharia at 29-Oct-07 11:41 PM
Islamists Attempt to Quash Free Speech that Unmasks their Radical Agenda
On October 14, 2007 Joe Kaufman, a chairman of American Against Hate, organized a protest against the Islamic Circle of North America. ICNA has well documented ties to Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood and should really be called the ISLAMIST Circle of North America, especially, since it openly advocates for establishment of Sharia in the United States.
During the protest, Mr. Kaufman was served with temporary restraining order filed by Islamic Society of Arlington, Al Hedayah Islamic Center, Dar Elsalam Islamic Center, DFW Islamic Educational Center, Inc., Islamic Association of Tarrant County, Islamic Center of Irving, and Muslim American Society of Dallas.
The TRO restraints Joe Kaufman from the following:
- Threatening Plaintiffs in person, by telephone, or in writing to take unlawful action against any person, intending by this action to annoy or alarm Plaintiffs.
- Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' associates or members.
- Threatening Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' associates or members with imminent bodily injury.
- Inciting violence against Plaintiffs, their members or associates.
The Plaintiffs claim that Mr. Kaufman "operates a website ... that tries to foment hate and anger against law abiding United States citizens who practice their religion (Islam) freely as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. ... He wishes to stir up anger, resentment, bias, and hatred of peaceful, law abiding citizens, solely because of their religion. To this end, Defendant Kaufman organizes protests of all things Islamic, attempting to paint them in one broad swath as being allied with Hamas, Al Qaeda, and terrorists. ... To this end, Defendant has painted the Plaintiffs as terrorists."
Several members of Muslims Against Sharia went through multiple statements posted on Mr. Kaufman's website, www.AmericansAgainstHate.org. We have not found a single instance of Islam-bashing or Muslim-bashing that the Plaintiffs are complaining about. However, we found plenty of information that link ICNA and Muslim American Society (MAS) to Islamist groups both at home and abroad.
This is a despicable act of American Islamist establishment (which IS associated with terrorists) to quash any attempt to unmask its extremist agenda.
Muslims Against Sharia call on every American Muslim to condemn Islamism in general and Plaintiffs in particular and voice their support for Mr. Kaufman.
Original post
War Whiplash, Democrat Style
Watching Special Report's roundtable tonight gave me mental whiplash (as in listening to Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin talk about Iraq). Here's what Sen. Durbin said today:
Durbin: By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence is decreasing and that the surge is working. Even if the figures are right, the conclusions are wrong.That quote is enough to cause mental whiplash. Durbin essentially said that Bush and Petraeus manipulated the data to justify the continuation of the Surge. As soon as he implied that President Bush and Gen. Petraeus lied about the information, he then reversed himself by admitting that the statistics are right but that President Bush and Gen. Petraeus reached the wrong conclusions.
The first question that I'd ask is what, if anything, was the basis for Sen. Durbin's accusation that President Bush and Gen. Petraeus had lied. This article seems to answer that question:
Durbin, a war critic, said that for a long period of time he has exchanged e-mail with civilian employees who were gathering data for the report and writing draft portions of the findings.Sen. Durbin is saying that civilian employees working in the Pentagon, tried writing negative reports but that the military hierarchy edited out the negative reports because they were under orders to produce an optimistic report regardless of the facts. Before I'll consider his allegations as facts, I need proof that his accusations aren't manufactured. This causes me to ask this new set of questions:
"Some of them I correspond with almost on a daily basis. And when they sent a discouraging report about things that were happening in Baghdad, they were reminded by their superiors that's unacceptable; we need a positive report. They were sent back for editing changes. Now that's a fact," Durbin said.
- Is Sen. Durbin prepared to let investigators examine these emails to verify their credibility?
- Did Sen. Durbin receive these negative reports directly?
- Who's responsible for editing out the negative information?
- Will these potential whistleblowers testify as to these allegations?
- If they testify, what proof will they bring forward that verifies the accuracy of their allegations?
At the time of those outrageous accusations, Durbin refused to tell which FBI agent had given him information that American military personnel were torturing Gitmo prisoners. When a firestorm erupted over that speech, Durbin repeatedly apologized for his statements. Will Sen. Durbin need to apologize for making these horrific allegations?
Sen. Durbin should be given the choice of either bringing these emails forward or apologizing for manufacturing these disgusting accusations. In fact, I don't think it's unreasonable to file an ethics complaint against him.
The American people should ask themselves some questions after this. The first question they should ask is if Democrats should keep their majority in the Senate, considering their penchant for making unsubstantiated allegations against our military? Another important question to ask is whether we should tolerate leaders of either political party who make accusations without offering proof that the accusations aren't just allegations?
Before anyone asks, this isn't just someone who got some facts wrong. This is someone who made accusations based on nothing.
If it's found out that Sen. Durbin can't substantiate these allegations, he should be driven from the Senate. We shouldn't tolerate politicians who make baseless allegations against our president and our military.
Posted Saturday, September 8, 2007 12:29 PM
No comments.
