July 29-31, 2014
Jul 29 03:46 Beretta leaves Maryland Jul 29 12:38 Jonathan Gruber, stylish flip-flopper edition Jul 29 17:15 Knoblach announces fundraising results Jul 30 01:26 Defamatory Pelosi PAC ad taken down Jul 31 00:19 SCSU student assaulted Jul 31 03:08 Security cabinet to IDF: Hit Hamas harder Jul 31 10:33 Dayton spokesman insults women
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Beretta leaves Maryland
Some governors are expressing surprise and outrage after gun manufacturers left their state :
Beretta USA announced last week that it will relocate from Maryland to Tennessee, explaining that stringent gun laws supported by Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley would make it nearly impossible for the company to manufacture or sell many of its products in the Old Line State.
'During the legislative session in Maryland that resulted in passage of the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, the version of the statute that passed the Maryland Senate would have prohibited Beretta USA from being able to manufacture, store or even import into the state products that we sell to customers throughout the United States and around the world," Jeff Cooper, general manager for Beretta USA, said in a statement.
Lefty Gov. Martin O'Malley is sticking to his guns:
And although Beretta has no plans to move its administrative staff in Accokeek, Md., to Tennessee, O'Malley is apparently unhappy with the company's decision to move much of its business to Tennessee.
"We're disappointed with this decision, but the common-sense gun safety law we passed, which includes licenses for handgun purchases, is keeping schools, communities and law enforcement personnel safe," said a spokeswoman for O'Malley, Nina Smith.
Here's a question for Ms. Smith. If the bill just passed, how does Gov. O'Malley know that it's keeping anyone safe? Have crime rates dropped? If they haven't, then the claim is essentially spin. If they have, how do you know it isn't attributable to other things?
Meanwhile, another southern governor is happy:
Beretta will reportedly invest around $45 million to set up shop in Tennessee, Fox News reported, and plans to employ about 300 people during the next five years.
"Beretta is one of the world's great companies, and its commitment to excellence and Tennessee's rich history in manufacturing make a great match," Dave Smith, a spokesman for Tennessee's Republican Gov. Bill Haslam, told Fox in an email.
Here's another situation where capital goes where it's welcome. Maryland essentially said that Beretta wasn't welcome in the state. Tennesssee stepped forward and said that they'd extend some southern hospitality to Beretta. This isn't that complicated. It's pretty straightforward, in fact.
Here's a list of gun manufacturers who've left states after those states passed strict gun control laws:
Beretta USA
Colt Competition
Kahr Arms
Les Baer Custom
Lewis Machine & Tool
Magpul Industries
O.F. Mossberg & Sons
PTR Industries
Remington Arms
Stag Arms
Sturm, Ruger & Co.
States that aren't hospitable to gun companies are finding out that they're essentially shooting themselves in the foot. Will they ever learn?
Posted Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:46 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 29-Jul-14 08:18 AM
Short answer: no. These liberals do not see the world the way it really is. They see the world as they wish it to be, even when the reality is clear. So the governor believes that their stupid law actually accomplishes what they want it to accomplish, even before it takes effect, and that the company left because they didn't understand how really, really good this law is.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 29-Jul-14 09:35 AM
Gary:
They probably even think if guns aren't being built in their states they are automatically safer just because there isn't a gun for a person to use. That's a bonus to them!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Jonathan Gruber, stylish flip-flopper edition
When the Halbig v. Burwell ruling came out last week, lefties like the New Republic reached out to Jonathan Gruber after their initial spin failed. Their initial spin consisted of this being a drafting error which should be excused by the courts.
When conservative bloggers found a video of Jonathan Gruber saying that health insurance subsidies were only available to people buying health insurance through state-established exchanges, TNR called Gruber. Dr. Gruber immediately backtracked by saying what he said was "a speak-o". Michael Cannon's op-ed blows that spin out of the water:
The administration's defenders responded to the Halbig case by insisting that Congress never intended to withhold subsidies from residents of states that did not establish exchanges. Like the Obama administration, Gruber told the D.C. Circuit that this idea is 'implausible.' The D.C. Circuit disagreed when it ruled for the plaintiffs last Tuesday.
Gruber then became part of the story on Thursday when a video surfaced in which he espouses the very interpretation of the law he now publicly derides as 'screwy,' 'nutty' and 'stupid.' In 2012, Gruber told an audience : 'If you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits.'
Frankly, this appears to be proof that Dr. Gruber is willing to say anything to save his greatest legislative achievement. There's no question what the legislative language says, which is the only thing the courts can go by.
As damning as that is, this is the part of Cannon's op-ed that sinks Dr. Gruber:
The problem with his explanations is that Jonathan Gruber doesn't 'flake.' He knows this law in and out. He knew what his words meant, with all their implications, when he spoke them. He knew the feature he was describing essentially gave each state a veto over the PPACA's exchange subsidies, employer mandate and to a large extent its individual mandate. He knew that could lead to adverse selection. To claim Gruber didn't know what he was saying is as absurd as saying a conductor might fail to notice that the brass section suddenly stopped playing.
It's rich that the guy who boasts that he knows 'more about this law than any other economist' suddenly left to dissembling when he's caught spinning.
Richard Epstein's explanation of the ruling is compelling and succinct:
Do the words an 'exchange established by a State' cover an exchange that is established by the federal government 'on behalf of a state'? To the unpracticed eye, the two propositions are not synonyms, but opposites. When I do something on behalf of myself, it is quite a different thing from someone else doing it on my behalf. The first case involves self-control. The second involves a change of actors. It is not, moreover, that the federal government establishes the exchange on behalf of a state that has authorized the action, under which case normal principles of agency law would apply. Quite the opposite: the federal government decides to act because the state has refused to put the program into place. It is hard to see, as a textual matter, why the two situations should be regarded as identical when the political forces at work in them are so different. Under the so-called 'plain meaning approach', there is no need to look further. The text does not authorize the subsidies for these transactions, so it is up to Congress to fix the mess that it created in 2010.
The only context needed is the text itself. It's clear that language agreed upon means that the only people who are eligible for subsidies are people who bought them through state-established exchanges. There's no question that the federal government used this carrot-and-stick approach to coax states into creating exchanges. There's also no question that the federal government couldn't force states to create these exchange.
That's considered commandeering by the federal government, which isn't allowed in our federalist system of governance.
This is enlightening information, too:
Last year, seven career Treasury and IRS officials told congressional investigators that they knew the PPACA did not authorize them to issue tax credits in federal exchanges, and that their regulations had originally confined tax credits to exchanges 'established by the State.' At the direction of their political-appointee superiors, however, they dropped that language and announced that tax credits would be available through exchanges established by the federal government as well.
Isn't it interesting that the rules didn't change until after President Obama's political appointees ordered the rule changes? That clearly shows the IRS regulation changing the clear intent of the ACA was an act of political mischief.
Posted Tuesday, July 29, 2014 12:38 PM
Comment 1 by MtkaMoose at 30-Jul-14 02:15 PM
The hypocrisy is just stunning. There is no standard of logic to Liberals by because everything is situational. Gruber and other democrats now argue 'that the most important thing is the 'original intent' for Obamacare. Why then do they deny original intent is important in deciding on constitutional court cases? There they want a 'living' constitution.
Expediency is not a standard anyone can live by. It's only another justification that might makes right which is totalitarianism.
Knoblach announces fundraising results
Jim Knoblach, the GOP-endorsed candidate for House District 14B, issued this press release on his fundraising totals thus far:
KNOBLACH RAISES OVER $57,000, HAS $42,000 IN BANK
Jim Knoblach (St. Cloud), the Republican candidate for State House District 14B, announced today that he had raised $57,249 in the four months since he filed for office, and that he had $41,941 in the bank as of July 21, the preprimary reporting date.
This contrasts with his opponent, Zachary Dorholt, who reported raising $19,820, and reported having $8,626.61 in the bank. The vast majority of Knoblach's funds were raised from Minnesota individuals. Over 60% of Dorholt's funds were raised from out of state individuals, PACs, or lobbyists.
'I am gratified at the support of my many contributors,' said Knoblach. 'This is a campaign funded by Minnesotans who care about our state, not out of state individuals and special interests.'
Knoblach also announced that he would not be accepting public subsidies for his campaign, for which he is eligible. This includes both a state check of approximately $3,000, as well as eligibility for the state political contribution refund.
'This move is necessary to allow me to combat the special interest money that already flowing into this race,' said Knoblach. 'District 14B was the most expensive State House race in the state in 2012. My opponent beat King Banaian in large part because outside special interest groups poured over $300,000 into this race against Banaian. It would be crazy to agree to abide by the spending limit of $62,600 in exchange for receiving public funding, knowing this will likely happen again. It is an added bonus that by not agreeing I will not be spending taxpayer funds.
'I truly regret the enormous sums spent on these campaigns,' said Knoblach. 'However, with my opponent likely to again benefit from hundreds of thousands of dollars of out of state special interest money, I need to be able to respond to his negative attacks.'
This is a shot across Mr. Dorholt's bow. I'm sure Dorholt expected Jim Knoblach to be well-financed. I'm betting, though, that he wasn't expecting this fundraising total from Jim.
What's interesting is reading Mr. Dorholt's campaign finance report . The reason it's interesting reading is because it has a lengthy list of out-of-state special interests contributions. That begs the question of who Mr. Dorholt represents. Does he represent his district or does he represent the DFL's Metrocrats? At this point, there's little question that Dorholt represents Speaker Thissen's wishes. He voted with Speaker Thissen 99% of the time on issues of importance.
The Twin Cities doesn't need another representative. St. Cloud, however, needs a real representative in the worst way. HD-14B needs a legislator who's interested in the important local issues. Zach Dorholt's press releases don't read like they're written by someone interested in St. Cloud. They're mostly about touting Gov. Dayton's and the DFL's so-called accomplishments.
Originally posted Tuesday, July 29, 2014, revised 05-Aug 3:52 AM
Comment 1 by Steve Schafer at 30-Jul-14 10:12 AM
While you were on the subject of out of state money playing a part in this race, you ought to see the kind of money that's flowing to Jenifer Loon in HD 48B (Eden Prairie).
Loon, as you know, voted for the gay marriage bill and was denied party endorsement and now faces a primary challenge by Sheila Kihne.
The recent campaign finance reports came out and Loon has taken a lot of out of state money from pro-gay marriage Democrats.
Forigve me for hijacking your thread but if there's anyone out there who wants to make a difference on August 12th, please visit Sheila's website (http://www.sheilakihne.com). Make a contribution or if you can, spend a few hours doing volunteer work. I am!
Defamatory Pelosi PAC ad taken down
Last week, House Majority PAC, Nancy Pelosi's PAC, started running an utterly dishonest ad, which was also paid for by AFSCME. Todaay, WDIO and KSTP took those deceitful ads. According to a letter sent to both stations by the Mills campaign, the ads were defamatory because they spliced together 3 separate sentences to make it sound like Stewart Mills say something he's never said. Here's what the ad says:
HMP/AFSCME Advertisement: 'folks saying that 'the wealthy, the wealthy are not paying their fair share.'
Full Context (11:22): 'What happened in the last round of elections, where you had folks saying that 'the wealthy, the wealthy are not paying their fair share, that there's all these loopholes and they don't pay any taxes and we have to make them pay more.'
HMP/AFSCME Advertisement: 'the 2%, the 1%, whatever percent you want'
Full Context (14:48): 'How come we are not generating the jobs in Northeastern Minnesota that we otherwise would? Well I can tell you why. Because the overwhelming group of people that run businesses, that have the ability to employ
people are taxed at that personal rate. They are the villains, they're the bad guys. They're the ones that quote are not paying their fair share. They're the ones quote that 'the 2%, the 1%, whatever percent you want.'
HMP/AFSCME Advertisement: 'is personally offensive.'
Full Context (12:10): 'To be singled out as a deadbeat is personally offensive.'
Simply put, Nancy Pelosi is a deceitful, despicable person. This ad took words from three separate paragraphs and spliced them together to look like a single sentence.
The letter outlines the Mills Campaign's complaints:
The advertisement then goes on to suggest that Stewart Mills opposes raising the minimum wage but provides no documentation to support that assertion. In fact Stewart Mills's family business, Mills Fleet Farm, pays all its workers above minimum wage and he has been repeatedly on the record raising all workers' wages in actuality by growing the economy.
The advertisement next falsely claims that Stewart Mills, 'wants another tax break for the wealthy.' Again the advertisement provides nothing to backup this assertion. Stewart Mills doesn't believe that and has never said that. His position is that we need broad based tax reform to make a simpler, fairer tax code which creates jobs on Main Street Minnesota.
Finally, the advertisement ends with more slander by again clipping the 'personally offensive' line and claiming 'because paying his fair share is 'personally offensive.' As shown above the 'personally offensive' clip is taken from a sentence which had nothing to do with 'paying his fair share.'
After outlining the complaints, the Mills campaign highlighted the legal justification for pulling the ad:
The false ad bankrolled by AFSCME/House Majority PAC against Stewart Mills does not constitute a 'candidate use.' Under Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 412 U.S. 94 (1973), and Nat'l Conservative Political Action Comm., 89 FCC 2d 626 (1982), your station is not obligated to air any advertisements from third parties, such as the AFSMCE/House Majority PAC, as third parties have no guaranteed right of access to air their advertisements on your station.
Finally, the Mills campaign highlights the fact that the stations aren't protected legally if they run the ads:
Thus, broadcasting stations are not protected from legal liability for airing a false and misleading advertisement sponsored by the AFSCME/House Majority PAC. Moreover, broadcast licensees have a legal responsibility to review and to eliminate any false, misleading, or deceptive materials contained in advertising.
That's likely why WDIO and KSTP dropped the ad so quickly.
There's no indication that the Nolan campaign coordinated their activities with Ms. Pelosi's PAC. That isn't the point, though. Pelosi's PAC clearly won't hesitate in putting together some dihonest ads together. This isn't the only ad that HMP paid for that's been criticized for its dishonesty :
The nonpartisan FactCheck.org stamped the 'bogus' label on a House Majority PAC ad in West Virginia that accused Republican candidate Evan Jenkins, a state senator trying to unseat Democratic Rep. Nick J. Rahall II, of vowing to repeal black lung disease benefits for coal miners.
The watchdog group also questioned a TV spot by the super PAC in Arizona that heaped praise on Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, calling her an Obamacare whistleblower.
This month, AARP in West Virginia disavowed the super PAC's use of the AARP logo in another TV ad attacking Mr. Jenkins. The ad suggested that the seniors group opposed the Republican and said he wanted to privatize Social Security.
'AARP had no prior knowledge of, nor authorized, any ad from the House Majority PAC that mentions AARP and uses the AARP logo, and we did not participate in its production,' West Virginia AARP State Director Gaylene Miller said in a statement.
Saying that Ms. Pelosi's PAC isn't that concerned with accuracy is understatement. Putting it as succinctly as I know how, Ms. Pelosi will say or do anything to flip a Republican seat or protect a Democrat seat. She's shown that she didn't hesitate in lying in these ads. Why would anyone think she'll change now?
Posted Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:26 AM
Comment 1 by Sheila Van Houten at 07-Aug-14 11:28 PM
Thank you for calling out these deceitful people. How stupid do they really think we are? They didn't even do a good job of it because anyone who listens closely can hear that "TO SAY that anyone who pays 2% or whatever % is not paying their fair share is personally offensive to me"!!!! How do people like Pelosi continue to stay in office??? It's appalling. I finally had to look the whole thing up on the internet, and here I am. Apparently stupidity and dishonesty is still the name of the game.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Aug-14 11:54 PM
Sheila, the unfortunate part is that they think we're exceptionally stupid. They really think they can get away with telling their supporters that they just edited Stewart's speech sso it'd fit into a 30-second ad. That's BS. They snipped and spliced Stewart's speech until they created a new sentence.
That isn't editing. That's creating.
Comment 2 by Sheila Van Houten at 07-Aug-14 11:55 PM
(It wasn't taken down, by the way. I just saw it again on KARE 11. It should be removed with no exceptions.)
So far, Al Franken is the only office holder who speaks of what he has accomplished while in office. How refreshing. I may just vote for him, too, because of that very thing.
Comment 3 by Sheila Van Houten at 07-Aug-14 11:57 PM
Gary, so true, so disturbing.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 08-Aug-14 04:16 AM
Sheila, I'm supporting Mike McFadden for US Senate because he's the only candidate in the race that supports mining jobs on the Iron Range.
The median household income in St. Louis County is $46,231. The statewide average is $59,126. In Eveleth, the median household income is $35,500, almost $25,000 a year less than the statewide average.
Those families need real jobs, not someone who says he supports mining, then disappears when it's time to do the heavy lifting.
Mike McFadden enthusiastically supports mining on the Range. That's what those impoverished families need.
Isn't that worth voting for? Don't those families deserve that from us?
Comment 5 by Sheila Van Houten at 10-Aug-14 01:14 PM
I knew there was a reason why I revisited this page! Thank you, Gary!
Comment 6 by Sheila Van Houten at 10-Aug-14 01:23 PM
Yes, they do, and we will vote for Mike McFadden now that you have brought our attention to this.
Just because a campaign can out together a few ads that look good doesn't mean they're the best candidate! I re-thought that whole thing.
Happy voting, Gary!
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Aug-14 10:34 PM
Sheila, Thanks for that comment. You've put a big smile on my face. Hell, you've made my entire weekend! Iron Range voters (and across the state) have been voting for the DFL that existed 25 years ago. That political party put mining families and blue collar workers first.
I'd be lying if I said Republicans were the new party of the little guy. I wouldn't be lying, though, if I said Republicans are the party that wants to see everyone succeed. That's what capitalism does best. People with great ideas who work hard flourish. People that work hard and play by the rules should get ahead.
Comment 7 by walter hanson at 10-Aug-14 03:51 PM
Sheila:
Just curious are you talking about the add that Franken did claiming that he took on Wall Street and helped reform the house market? Because if that is the one he lied during the commercial.
* For starters what caused the housing market to fall apart was that loans were being given out to people who should've never been given loans. In part they got the loans because groups like ACORN pressured the banks to do it and a government agency was willing to guarantee the loans. It wasn't being in New York saying that bond put up by the bank were good (I'll get to that in a minute).
* President George Bush tried to reform the government agencies that were giving out these bad loan guarantees. Bush's efforts to reform the government agencies were stopped by the people who wrote the law that Franken is totting. Not exactly a good thing to be bragging about.
* The agencies which Franken attacked put ratings out on the bonds. Since the rating is based on will you get your principal back if there was a federal government agency guaranteeing the payment it is the job of the agency to give a good rating to the bond. Thus they did nothing wrong.
* And Franken didn't talk about how one of the agencies have correctly said that the US government is not a AAA credit risk (which is the warning that Franken wanted on the housing bonds). The result of that is that they are being sued falsely to try to silence them from giving out the correct warning.
Now if you think Franken is doing a good job answer this question. You're a banker. I walk in and I ask for a loan of $20,000. I make $37,000 a year and have debt of $170,000. Will you give me that loan? Of course not. Yet Al Franken wants the US government to make that loan since he won't support serious efforts to balance the federal budget. By the way if you didn't figure it out those numbers I just gave you are based on current federal income and federal debt.
So given that you don't realize how bad a job Al Franken is doing it's nice to know if you're as open minded as you claim you are that you will vote for Mike McFadden to vote Franken out of office.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
SCSU student assaulted
Reading this LTE was painful, though I'm certain reading it isn't a tenth as painful as writing it or living through it. Here's the opening of the letter:
In March, while still enrolled at the university, I was physically assaulted by a fellow student. In addition to pressing charges, I filed a complaint against the individual through the appropriate university channels.
In May, he was 'found responsible for violations of the Student Code of Conduct No. 3 (physical harm) and No. 4 (harassment)' and sanctioned to one year of university probation, 'a written reprimand specifying the violation for which the student has been held responsible. According to University policies, participation in some University activities and programs may be restricted while on University Probation.'
I appealed the decision on the basis that I believed the sanction was far too lenient. In my appeal letter, I explained the sanction would have little, if any, impact on my assailant. I also described the debilitating psychological effects of the trauma and expressed my sincere belief the individual would reoffend. My appeal was denied. My story is not unique.
The punishment is too lenient. This is the university equivalent of Boko Haram getting a harshly worded letter from the UN. This student was assaulted. Charges have been filed. You'd think that President Potter would do something other than play the part of not-that-innocent bystander.
This is proof that he isn't a leader. The probation, complete with written reprimand, was handed down in May. It's now the end of July and President Potter hasn't seen fit to change university policies regarding physical assaults on campus. What type of man doesn't act when one of his students is physically assaulted?
This is the closing of the SCSU student's LTE:
With Elliot Rodger's fatal misogyny still fresh in our minds, and the increasing amount of criticism colleges are facing for not handling sexual assault cases appropriately, one would think colleges would be doing everything in their power to protect females. That does not seem to be the case.
Something needs to change.
I heartily agree, starting with harsher punishments for the perpetrators. It isn't enough to put a student on probation. The student who allegedly committed this heinous act needs to be suspended from classes until this case is brought to court or is dropped. While he's suspended, he shouldn't be able to either leave the state or enroll at another MnSCU university or at the U of M.
The other thing that needs to change is that Chancellor Rosenstone and the Trustees need to bring President Potter into a meeting to find out why he didn't act decisively to protect this young lady. The meeting shouldn't brief. It shouldn't be gentle, either.
President Potter needs to find out that he didn't live up to his high office. He needs to hear that he failed this young lady. He needs to know that his behavior in this matter wasn't decisive enough. He needs to know that his actions need to restore justice. President Potter needs to know that SCSU's policies need to protect victims, not coddle people who allegedly commit assaultss.
Posted Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:19 AM
Comment 1 by Patrick-M at 31-Jul-14 07:35 AM
Shame on both of them. It's time for Chancellor Rosenstone and President Potter to go. NOW!
Comment 2 by Darlene T. at 31-Jul-14 09:38 AM
In my professional life I hear from people from all walks of life, and reports from SCSU are not good; several examples follow.
1 - After mandatory retirement a friend wanted to return as a temp a year later as allowed by SCSU policies, because she had loved working at SCSU so much. Her co-workers told her not to come back because of the terrible, low morale at the college. They said the whole atmosphere had changed dramatically.
2 - A professor told me President Potter had called her in his office, yelled at her, and said things that were so upsetting, she got sick and was in bed for two days.
3 - A married couple, both employees at SCSU, retired early because of President Potter. After telling me their opinions about him, they said "I hope you're not related to him!"
4 - A business man in the area of SCSU told me President Potter is the worst thing that ever happened to SCSU.
So although I am not physically involved at SCSU, it is quite obvious there are problems with the administration that are not being addressed.
Why is it that politicians who use our tax dollars to pay these people are unwilling to deal with problems like this. They seem to want to protect people like President Potter. Has any of them ever even TALKED to him about what's happening over there?! I'd like to hear about one of these conversations if they have.
One does not have to go far to hear negative reports about SCSU. It is small wonder that people no longer have any confidence in our government when they refuse to address problems in the public arena, that, I'm sure, they would address if these problems existed in their own businesses. Especially if their employees were paid as well as President Potter is paid.
Comment 3 by Jarrett at 02-Aug-14 08:30 AM
Instead of being pillars of higher education, turns out Rosenstone and Potter are simply an insult to any normal persons intelligence. This "diversity minded" duo has an agenda that make headlines and NO SENSE.
Financial responsibility only comes to mind when discussing self serving rock start salaries.
This is really horrifying when you throw in the PR manager, The St Cloud Times
Security cabinet to IDF: Hit Hamas harder
Thanks to Israel's insistence on doing the right thing for their people, Israel's security cabinet told the IDF, aka the Israeli Defense Forces, to keep hitting Hamas hard :
Amid mounting diplomatic pressure on Israel to agree to a ceasefire, the security cabinet on Wednesday instructed the IDF to continue to 'forcefully hit Hamas and the other terrorist organizations in Gaza,' and to conclude its mission to destroy the tunnels leading from the Strip into Israel, diplomatic sources said.
The army's actions in locating and destroying these terror tunnels have brought about significant strategic achievements in an area in which Hamas has invested much effort over the years, the sources said.
Israel should ignore world opinion when it comes to decimating Hamas. Hamas is committed to eliminating Israel as a Jewish state. They've frequently used students as human shields to protect their missiles, which are then used to kill Israeli citizens, including children. (The world apparently doesn't experience outrage when Israeli children are killed. That's apparently used only when children in Gaza are killed.)
I'm totally in favor of Israel destroying Hamas's missiles, then demolishing their tunnels. I'm totally in favor of Israel doing these things to protect their people.
What's particularly disgusting is the fact that 'the world' reflexively criticizes Israel when a child is killed or injured in Gaza but there's silence when Israeli citizens are brutally and intentionally killed by Hamas. Why doesn't the UN blame Hamas for the violence? Is it because the UN, especially UNRWA, is exceptionally corrupt? Is it because the UN isn't really about resolving disputes but in affixing blame against the US and/or Israel?
The US is pressing Israel to halt the fighting. On Sunday, in a phone call to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Barack Obama urged an immediate and unconditional ceasefire. The UN Security Council also urged a ceasefire. On Wednesday, Britain's Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond warned: 'Israelis have to understand that, while they are defending their security in seeking to root out these rocket launchers and deal with the attack tunnels, they are also undermining the support for Israel that exists in the West.' Netanyahu on Monday told Israelis to be braced for what he called a prolonged operation.
Mr. Hammond's statement is talking in circles. While he's saying that Israel sshould "root out these rocket launchers", he's also saying that Israel is "undermining" international "support for Israel." Why shouldn't Israel gain support for defending themselves? That's what they're doing. Why shouldn't Hamas lose support for using children as human shields? Why shouldn't the interational community condemn Hamas for trying to destroy and terrorize Israel?
Israel is used to international criticism. Personally, I'd modify the old cliche that there's only 2 things that are guaranteed: death and taxes. I'd modify that to 3 things: death, taxes and the international community condemning Israel for defend itself.
Posted Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:08 AM
No comments.
Dayton spokesman insults women
After a group of 9 people from Minnesota filed a federal lawsuit to stop a unionization vote of home care assistants, a spokesman for Gov. Dayton accused them of being right wing crazies :
'This is just another extremist right wing group trying to tell Minnesotans that they cannot decide for themselves whether to vote to form a union,' Matt Swenson, a spokesman for the governor, told the St. Paul Pioneer Press.
Tell that to Heidi Highet of Rochester. Here's what she wrote about forced unionization :
As a licensed child care provider and Democrat, I resent the implication that opposition to this union is a right wing issue. I am as far from the right as you can get! This is an issue that crosses all political boundaries. I have spoken with providers from every side of the political spectrum and none of them support this. The only ones speaking out in favor of this are the highly paid union representatives.
I voted for Mark Dayton. He will not get my vote again.
This is about political payback for large amounts of money given to legislative campaigns. As a Democrat, I am outraged our legislators sold us out to the highest bidder.
Perhaps Mr. Swenson should talk with Robyn Kamps Kim. Here's Robyn's story in her own words :
I am a registered Democrat and have been a Democrat all my life. That is what I have found so disheartening that my own party is doing this. I have even messaged my fellow Democrats telling them essentially they are pissing off their own party, but they do not seem to listen. Although I am TOTALLY against unionization, I remain a Democrat.
If Heidi and Robyn can't set Mr. Swenson straight, then I'd just direct him to read Jenni Branchaw's op-ed :
I am normally a DFL voter just in general. I do vary once in a while depending on certain things I feel strongly about. Like I knew Alice Johnson was for the union and she didn't not understand what this union meant to do and not do.
'
It is rather shocking how many people voting do not know all the facts. They keep saying everyone needs the vote, well then let everyone have a vote. Alice wouldn't not listen even before being elected and so I did not vote for her. I voted for Pam Wolf.
'
I knew Pam was against the child care union and understood why a lot of providers are against it and how it wasn't set up fairly. But she lost, I thought it was a sign to stick with my party. Boy was I wrong. I did vote (regrettably now) for Dayton. I do not know if I can vote straight party ever again.
Whether he knew it or not, Mr. Swenson just pissed off a bunch of women. Most of the people who fought against unionization of child care providers and home health care workers are women. Swenson's diatribe is typical DFL insult. The DFL's first instinct when people publicly oppose the DFL's policy initiatives is to characterize them as right wing crazies. Clearly, that isn't the case with Heidi, Robyn and Jenni.
Rather than actually find out the pertinent details before insulting people, Gov. Dayton and the DFL just jumped to the conclusion that the people opposing them are Democrats themselves. Gov. Dayton and the DFL apparently think that you'll support everything in the DFL's agenda if you've ever voted Democrat. Gov. Dayton and the DFL are wrong about that, especially when it comes to forced unionization.
I don't know if any of these women will vote for another Republican this year. It's quite possible they won't. I don't know. What's clear, though, is that they won't be voting for Gov. Dayton or the DFL legislator that represents their district.
The DFL calls itself the party of the little guy. Apparently, the DFL means that they're the party of the little guy until the DFL's special interests says otherwise.
Posted Thursday, July 31, 2014 10:33 AM
No comments.
