March 11-13, 2014
Mar 11 01:18 Rand Paul, appeaser Mar 11 02:28 Bill de Blasio: New York's racist mayor Mar 11 11:41 Al Franken: hot air specialist Mar 11 12:19 Highlighting Sen. Ortman's 'flexibility' Mar 12 04:10 Exposing Nancy Pelosi's latest whopper Mar 13 01:46 de Blasio's disgusting anti-charter school policy Mar 13 12:54 Bakk playing hardball on Senate Office Building Mar 13 10:34 Julianne Ortman on Raising Taxes: "I'm Back in my Comfort Zone"
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Rand Paul, appeaser
After reading Rand Paul's op-ed about Ronald Reagan , it's clear he doesn't understand President Reagan. This part is particularly upsetting:
Many forget today that Reagan's decision to meet with Mikhail Gorbachev was harshly criticized by the Republican hawks of his time , some of whom would even call Reagan an appeaser. In the Middle East, Reagan strategically pulled back our forces after the tragedy in Lebanon in 1983 that killed 241 Marines, realizing the cost of American lives was too great for the mission.
There were Reagan supporters who would've done anything for him who didn't have a clue about President Reagan's strategy. Apparently, Sen. Paul doesn't either:
There is a time for military action, such as after 9/11. There is a time for diplomacy and the strategic use of soft power, such as now with Russia. Diplomacy requires resolve but also thoughtfulness and intelligence.
What President Reagan did wasn't "soft power." What he did was show the world, especially the Soviet presidents of the time, that he was committed to simultaneously waging war by rebuilding the U.S. military and through showing the Soviets that their economy couldn't keep pace with a U.S. economy that was growing like gangbusters.
In short, President Reagan's idea of "soft power" was to scare the bejesus out of Soviets militarily while burying them economically.
As for President Reagan's conservative critics, they literally littered the landscape. It was 10 times worse with Democrats. As a newly elected senator, John Kerry said that President Reagan's installing Pershing II missiles in western Europe would destabilize the U.S.-Russian relationship. Six years later, the Berlin Wall was smashed by liberty-loving East Berliners.
Apparently, Sen. Paul didn't notice that President Reagan didn't start serious negotiations with the Soviets until his 2nd term. Once, when a reporter asked President Reagan why he hadn't held a summit with his Russian counterpart, President Reagan replied "Because they keep dying on me."
Old school 'experts' thought it was unthinkable for a U.S. president not to have a yearly summit with the Soviet leader. President Reagan was a master negotiator. He wasn't worried about doing things for appearances sake. President Reagan didn't start negotiating with the Soviets until he'd laid the foundation for intimidating Gorbachev.
Another thing President Reagan should be praised for is his fierce insistence on winning and losing. When asked what his strategy was towards the Soviets, President Reagan simply said "We win, they lose." The world was stunned when they heard that. They didn't like it, either, when President Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire." He was right in calling them evil.
What else would you call an expansionist-minded, murderous empire that throws dissidents into harsh gulags? That's where Putin got his worldview.
I've talked frequently about the Reagan Doctrine, which I describe as President Reagan utilizing the threat of military force and economic superiority to negotiate the USSR into history's dust-bin of failed ideologies.
It worked in toppling the Soviet Union. It'll certainly work now in toppling Putin. At this point, we have proof that Sen. Paul and President Obama haven't grasped that concept, much less unleashed its power.
Posted Tuesday, March 11, 2014 1:18 AM
No comments.
Bill de Blasio: New York's racist mayor
Bill DeBlasio, one of the biggest card-carrying hardline progressives in the United States, insisted that he doesn't hate minorities or charter schools when interviewed by Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough :
'I don't understand your positions on charters,' stated Mr. Scarborough. 'The waiting list is 50,000. And it's not a bunch of rich kids from Manhattan that want to get in there, it's some of the poorest, most disadvantaged children of colors.'
'For me, charter schools make sense because they can teach us how to make the entire public school system better. Why not expand, why not open the doors, figure out a way to let that 50,000 get into new charter schools? : We can learn from these charter schools some things that are working,' he continued.
Ms. Brzezinski further brought up Mr. de Blasio's 16-year-old son, Dante, as she inquired about some charter co-locations recently canceled by the de Blasio administration.
'Let me ask it this way mayor: With all due respect, your son goes to-is it Brooklyn Tech? Has a $13 million endowment, it's a highly-selective school; you're very excited, I'm sure, that he goes there. If you found out that he wasn't going there next year, wouldn't you want to know what the plan was? Do you think you played this out in a way that might not have been effective?' she asked.
Mr. de Blasio insisted he had nothing against charter schools, but he is focused on the broader student population. 'I've never been against charter schools,' he said. 'I have to worry about 1.1 million kids a year. By the way, only 70,000 go to charters. But I care about those 70,000.'
Mr. DeBlasio's insistence that he's "never been against charter schools" is a stunning lie. He's opposed charter schools since before getting elected to succeed Mayor Bloomberg.
Mayor de Blasio's statement that he worries "about 1.1 million kids a year" is spin. I'd love hearing his explanation of how letting 70,000 charter school students hurts 1.1 traditional public school students. I'm betting the best he could do is more outrageous spin.
Check out this article about the feud between de Blasio and Eva Moskowitz :
Mayor Bill de Blasio is rescinding three of the 17 charter-school plans previously approved by the Bloomberg administration. To the de Blasio camp, this is a judicious, well-reasoned course correction. To Eva Moskowitz, who runs the only three schools being completely rejected, the decision is a politically motivated vendetta.
That de Blasio and Moskowitz are bitter antagonists is not new: As a candidate, de Blasio used his harshest language to attack her and the Success Academies she's created.
It's never been a secret that Democrats are beholden to public employee unions. They're most beholden to the teachers unions. Playing connect-the-dots, it isn't difficult to come to the conclusion that de Blasio cares more about the teachers unions, which hate charter schools, than he cares about underprivileged students, especially minorities.
When push came to shove, the teachers unions got the red carpet treatment while minority students got mistreated, even abused. When a decision was made, de Blasio chose to exile minority students to an uphill fight to achieve the American Dream.
He essentially did to these charter school students what George Wallace did when he stood in the doorway at the University of Alabama to prevent black students from enrolling at the university. There's no question that some will criticize me as being provocative. Similarly, there's no question that de Blasio's decision to shut down charter schools that serve minority students is every bit as racist as Gov. Wallace's actions 50 years ago.
Posted Tuesday, March 11, 2014 2:28 AM
No comments.
Al Franken: hot air specialist
When it comes to being productive in the U.S. Senate, Al Franken is all about hot air :
WASHINGTON (KMSP) - 28 Democratic U.S. senators hit the floor Monday night, leading off a dusk-to-dawn climate change talk-a-thon that wrapped up early Tuesday morning.
Democratic leaders have no intention of bringing a climate bill to the floor this year, so the move is all about bringing attention to the issue. Senate Republicans criticized the "stunt," saying the legislation would force the elimination of jobs.
According to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, there were 7 weather and climate disasters with losses exceeding $1 billion each in the U.S. last year.
Minnesota senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken both participated in the all-night session. "A number of my colleagues in Congress don't believe that human activities contribute to climate change," Franken said.
The good news for Minnesotans is that Sen. Franken wasn't doing serious damage while talking. The bad news for Minnesota taxpayers is that Franken is mostly about hot air, as in spewing lots of it while currying favor with anti-business environmentalists.
While Sen. Franken was preaching to the environmentalists, Candidate Franken was criticizing private industrialists:
Dear XXXX,
What has four legs, a ton of money, and big plans for Minnesota?
If you answered 'the Koch brothers,' you're good at riddles. Or maybe you've just been paying attention. (If you answered 'a wealthy giraffe going canoeing in the Boundary Waters,' then points for imagination!)
The Kochs -- and their friends in the right-wing attack-o-sphere -- are on the attack all across the country. And Minnesota tops the list of places they want to strike next.
Since joining the U.S. Senate, Franken hasn't hesitated in supporting anti-mining environmentalists. Since joining the U.S. Senate, Franken hasn't hesitated in criticizing capitalists who create jobs and make life better for Americans.
It isn't surprising, then, that the economy still hasn't recovered. When you're pro-jobs but hate job creators, the outcome is predictable. Minnesota doesn't need a hot air specialist in the U.S. Senate. (Just to be clear, Minnesota needs more HotAir specialists like Ed Morrissey .) Minnesota needs a proven job creator instead.
Posted Tuesday, March 11, 2014 11:41 AM
No comments.
Highlighting Sen. Ortman's 'flexibility'
One thing that's becoming clear is Sen. Ortman's flexibility on issues. Here's a great example of that 'flexibility':
Earlier this year, Julianne Ortman, R-Chanhassen, the chairwoman of the Senate's taxes committee, expressed willingness to at least consider eliminating some of the state's tax breaks. That interest appeared to diminish after state Republican Party Chairman Tony Sutton sent a letter to GOP legislators saying that raising any new revenue would "violate our principles." The GOP's budget proposal does not include ending tax breaks. "That's our position," Ortman said last week.
Here's Chairman Sutton's letter:
Sen. Ortman's flexibility was on display last night at the SD-14 endorsing convention. Delegates to the convention told me that Sen. Ortman's message was that she supports full repeal of Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act. If that's true, which I'm confident it is, that's a 180 degree pivot from just last week:
#Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster. It's a shame Sen. Ortman is standing with Sen. Franken against repeal. #mngop pic.twitter.com/kN5mPU2q6f
There's some questions that are unanswered. First, when will the real Julianne Ortman step forward? Finally, given her flexibility, how will we know it's the real Julianne Ortman?
Posted Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:19 PM
Comment 1 by Sean at 14-Mar-14 09:52 AM
Isn't it a bit foolish to say that repealing any tax break is off the table? Many of these breaks don't have real economic value.
Exposing Nancy Pelosi's latest whopper
Over the past few years, we've seen the Democratic Party crank up their smear machine. This week, Nancy Pelosi said something stunning. Here's what she said:
PELOSI: I asked a Republican friend why his party remains so opposed to extending the lifelines to struggling families and hungry children. This colleague's response was telling in its blunt nature and it's stunning in its honesty. What he said was that, to the Republican Caucus, these people are invisible and the Republican Caucus is indifferent to them.
Greta played that disgustingly dishonest diatribe during her interview with Sean Hannity. This video is instructive to Republicans:
This isn't the first time a Democrat lied about an anonymous Republican who had the dirt on another Republican. During the 2012 presidential campaign, Harry Reid said he had proof that Mitt Romney hadn't paid income taxes for the last 10 years. Of course, he didn't offer proof of his accusation. Most Republicans still think that Harry Reid was simply lying through his teeth.
When it comes to dirty politicking, Democrats don't hesitate in lying through their teeth. When Harry Reid lied through his teeth during the presidential election, I didn't question Reid's honesty. I knew he was a liar. I'm not questioning Pelosi's honesty now. I don't have to because it's apparent that she's lying. What's troubling about Pelosi's statement is that it's proof that lies roll off her lips effortlessly.
This isn't the first time she's been caught lying. Let's remember that she said with a straight face that unemployment checks help grow the economy. Nobody's that stupid. Let's remember that she's the liar that insisted she hadn't been briefed about the Bush administration's waterboarding of high value target terrorists . Then there's Pelosi's insistence that the Catholic church's position on human life only started 50 years ago and doesn't impact abortion in any case .
The best way to determine if she's lying is by determining whether her lips are moving. If they're moving, it's almost certain that she's lying.
While Greta interviewed Sean Hannity tonight, Greta told Sean that he'd taken Pelosi's bait before asking why he'd respond to Pelosi's lies. At first, I sided with Greta on this. Then Hannity talked about the amount of lies coming from Democrats. I still don't agree with how Hannity responded but I don't entirely agree with Greta either.
I agree with Greta that Hannity shouldn't respond with a statistical argument. That being said, I agree with Hannity that Republicans can't just pretend Pelosi's lies don't exist. My point is that Republicans have to respond to Pelosi's lies by going on offense. Start with highlighting the fact that Democrats will say anything if they think it'll change a few votes. Highlight the fact that this isn't the first time Ms. Pelosi got caught lying by citing the other times she's told outright whoppers. In this instance, I'd fight Ms. Pelosi's lies by questioning who this Republican friend is. Next, I'd ask why she called this Republican a "colleague." Does that mean this alleged Republican is a member of the House of Representatives?
If she's unwilling to provide the details, I'd then go on Greta's show and say that I'd questioned Ms. Pelosi about who would say such a despicable thing but that she wouldn't identify this alleged Republican friend of Ms. Pelosi's. Finally, I'd state that I'm highly skeptical of her allegations, followed by the fact that I think she's lying.
Posted Wednesday, March 12, 2014 9:11 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 12-Mar-14 04:55 PM
Gary:
If you want to talk about whopper lies by the Democrats lets remember when they created the photo opp for walking by the thousands who said don't pass Obamacare they had the nerve to claim until Andrew Breibart put out a $100,000 reward for a video that at least one person used a naughty word that starts with "N" with a couple of black members of congress that walked with Nancy.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
de Blasio's disgusting anti-charter school policy
Tuesday night, Greta van Susteren took exception to NYC Mayor de Blasio's shutting down several charter schools. In this video, she properly framed it as a moral issue:
Here's the partial transcript of van Susteren expressing her moral outrage:
GRETA: You know Mayor, I've actually walked through a charter school in NYC and it's like one part of it is a charter school and the other is the public school. It is like walking from one universe into another universe. It's the most astounding thing, whether it's how clean it is, whether there are colorful drawings on the walls where it looks like students are learning or you walk into the other area and it looks like a prison .
Here's how Mayor Giuliani responded:
MAYOR GIULIANI: The objective here should be they should all be like charter schools.
GRETA: Oh absolutely.
GIULIANI: We should be moving in the direction of hundreds, if not thousands, of charter schools and those other schools that are decrepit and not doing their jobs -- we had 100 schools a year that weren't doing their job for like 20 straight years. I closed some of them down. Mayor Bloomberg closed down a lot of them and he took a lot of heat for that.
When Mayor de Blasio announced the shutting down of those charter schools, he told hundreds of minority students that they weren't getting a shot at the American Dream. That's the definition of immorality. That isn't our national identity.
Mayor de Blasio's actions spoke something exceptionally clearly. His actions clearly stated that the teachers union's priorities were more important than minorities' priorities. That isn't just unacceptable. That's reprehensible. That's disgusting.
Posted Thursday, March 13, 2014 1:46 AM
No comments.
Bakk playing hardball on Senate Office Building
Earlier this week, I spoke with a suburban legislator about whether the House Rules Committee would vote to prevent the building of the Senate Office Building. This legislator said that there's virtually no chance the Rules Committee will vote to stop construction of Sen. Bakk's Palace for Politicians, adding that Sen. Bakk is playing hardball on a host of issues to guarantee he gets his palace.
This article is just verification for me:
The old adage "two can play that game" is being played out at the Capitol as DFLers in the House and the Senate go nose to nose, jaw to jaw, threat to threat.
There's a common belief among DFL House members, as well as Republican senators, that Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk is going to slow down virtually every bill of substance the House passes until he gets the Senate Office Building he seems to want so much.
It's quite melodramatic to say that the House and Senate are about to go "nose to nose, jaw to jaw, threat to threat." This is the tipoff that a deal is imminent:
The House Rules Committee, headed by Murphy, has held a hearing but has taken no vote - and has no vote planned. 'We're doing our due diligence," said Murphy of her plans for the bill.
That's legislative speak for 'We have a big stick and we're gonna use it."
That's political speak for 'we won't say yes until Bakk says yes on our stuff.' The minute the House gets what it wants, the House Rules Committee will approve the plans for Bakk's Palace for Politicians. The House Rules Committee isn't primarily interested in doing what's right for Minnesotans. They're thinking only in terms of how many things on their ideological wishlist they can get signed into law. Period.
Make no mistake about this: If the House Rules Committee approves plans for Bakk's Palace for Politicians, they will have said 'the taxpayer be damned.' They will have voted to give a spoiled brat and elitist what he wants. The DFL's concern for taxpayers is virtually nonexistent.
Despite Rep. Murphy's insistence otherwise, there's no due diligence to do. The building is a waste of $90,000,000. The Senate doesn't need this building:
The DFL House and Gov. Dayton don't care about taxpayers. If they did, they wouldn't have put this spending initiative in last year's Tax Bill. If the DFL wants to be tagged with the reputation of out-of-touch big spenders who don't care about taxpayers, they should vote today to approve Sen. Bakk's Palace for Politicians project.
If, however, the DFL wants to earn the reputation of caring about taxpayers, they'd better change directions and stop spending taxpayers' money on foolish things like Bakk's Palace.
Finally, Sen. Bakk apparently thinks he's in the driver's seat because they aren't up for re-election this year. He might get what he wants this year but the taxpayers will remember. They'll remember because I'll repeatedly remind them in 2016. I'll remind taxpayers that their senators foolishly spent $90,000,000 on Bakk's Palace. I'll even remind people which DFL senators voted for Bakk's Palace.
Good luck with that, Sen. Bakk.
Posted Thursday, March 13, 2014 12:54 PM
No comments.
Julianne Ortman on Raising Taxes: "I'm Back in my Comfort Zone"
It isn't likely that Sen. Ortman wants delegates to the GOP State Convention to hear this audio:
)
Here's the transcript from that brief exchange:
Sen. Tom Bakk: 'Senator Ortman.'
Sen. Ortman: 'Good morning Mr. Chair and members. Thank you for hearing this bill. This bill proposes a new tax. It's the first time I've ever proposed a new tax, and so-'
Sen. Bakk: 'How's it feel?'
[LAUGHTER]
Sen. Ortman: 'I definitely feel like I'm in the hot seat, but that's alright. I've been a lightening rod before and I probably will be again. I'm back in a zone of comfort."
The first post I wrote about Sen. Ortman highlighted how she isn't a full repeal person with regards to Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act. In her attempt to curry favor with unprincipled moderates, Sen. Ortman essentially sounded like Al Franken. I wrote this post to highlight Sen. Ortman's 'flexibility' on raising taxes. This post isn't about highlighting Sen. Ortman's flexibility on raising taxes. It's to highlight the fact that she's got a history of proposing tax increases.
I don't want a senator in DC that I have to worry about raising taxes because she's 'flexible' on the issue. For some reason, the thought of GOP lawmakers being 'flexible' on raising taxes reminds me of this nightmare:
)
Here's my 'read my lips' statement to Sen. Ortman: Sen. Ortman, read my lips. I say no to Republicans who want to raise taxes.
We're taxed enough already. The federal government spends money recklessly. The last thing we need is a senator who's flexible on raising taxes. We already have 2 senators that support raising taxes. We don't need to replace one tax-raising senator with another tax-raising senator.
In fact, that's the last thing we need. We already have 2 too many tax-raising senators. If Sen. Ortman stands before the delegates at this year's State Convention and explain why she's been flexible on raising taxes, the endorsement fight won't last long.
Sen. Ortman's policy positions keep raising questions about how conservative she is. At this point, I'd argue that she isn't that conservative. I'd argue that because raising taxes and not wanting to repeal the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, sounds kinda liberal to me. I suspect lots of delegates agree with me.
Posted Thursday, March 13, 2014 10:34 AM
No comments.
