May 21-26, 2014
May 21 14:47 Franken, Klobuchar, flip Iron Range DFL the bird May 21 08:35 McConnell defeats Bevin; death of the TEA Party? May 21 09:34 Will the DC media criticize Harry Reid? May 23 02:55 Wedum Foundation gets bonding approval May 23 11:13 Taranto skewers Obama & Krugman May 25 12:36 Democrats' Benghazi chanting points tired, pathetic May 26 23:58 Environmental activist caught lying May 26 20:26 The high price of voting DFL
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Franken, Klobuchar, flip Iron Range DFL the bird
Based on Sen. Klobuchar's and Sen. Franken's statements in this MinnPost article , it's safe to say that Minnesota's DFL US senators just flipped the Iron Range's DFL legislative delegation the proverbial finger. When pushed about mining, here's Sen. Klobuchar's statement:
'While every project must undergo a thorough environmental evaluation, I am concerned about adding this additional impact statement when there is already a process in place,' she said. 'I will continue to work with the Forest Service on this issue."
It sounds like Sen. Klobuchar's statement was written in coordination with Sen. Franken's statement:
"Mining is a great Minnesota tradition, and so is protection of our environment and natural resources," he said. "There's no question that we need to take into account the environmental impact of any proposed project, but Minnesota and the federal government already have rigorous processes in place to make sure that happens. There's no reason to have an overly burdensome process. I've been talking with the Forest Service about this issue and I will continue to engage them."
Apparently, these DFL senators don't give a rip about miners or their families. If they did, they'd raise holy hell with the EPA and the Wildlife Service.
If Sens. Franken and Klobuchar cared about miners, they would've introduced legislation to push the approval process. They would've made the fight public. Instead, they're keeping the issue on the back burner. Frankly, they sound like annoyed politicians who'd rather ignore the issue.
That's important because this is isn't just any issue. The prosperity of the Iron Range for the next 30 years hinges on whether precious metal mining is approved. If it isn't, Iron Range families will drop further behind the rest of the state in terms of median household income and percentage of people living in poverty.
The time for urgency on precious metals mining is now. All public signs, though, indicate that the DFL isn't treating this issue with the urgency it deserves. In the past, if an issue was important to the DFL leadership, they'd start a high-profile media campaign to highlight their cause du jour. Within a week, everyone would know about the DFL's cause du jour because they'd fire up their media operations.
During the push for higher taxes in 2009, the DFL pushed their misery tour. Within a month, the DFL held high profile meetings in every part of the state. Each meeting was held in the city with that region's biggest newspaper and biggest city.
When Friends of the Boundary Waters and Conservation first opposed the PolyMet and Twin Metals projects, they launched a high profile website to trash precious metal mining. By comparison, Sen. Franken and Sen. Klobuchar responded to the Iron Range legislative delegation with a document that essentially said 'Whatever.'
That certainly doesn't tell Iron Rangers that this is a priority with Sens. Franken and Klobuchar. Apparently, Sens. Franken and Klobuchar only believe in the "fierce urgency of now" when it pertains to Obamacare. Apparently, that isn't their mindset on trivial things like Iron Rangers making a good living for their families.
It's time for the Iron Range to flip the DFL the bird. The DFL, especially the Metrocrats, have been flipping the blue collar workers of the Iron Range the bird for 10 years on precious metal mining. It's time the hardworking people of the Iron Range got their mines, not the shaft from the Metrocrat DFL.
Posted Wednesday, May 21, 2014 2:47 PM
No comments.
McConnell defeats Bevin; death of the TEA Party?
Thankfully, the GOP primary in Kentucky is history. I'm thankful because I won't have to hear that Matt Bevin is the TEA Party-backed candidate. Articles like this one will disappear, which, by the way, is terrible news for Alison Lundergan-Grimes. More on Lundergan-Grimes in a minute.
The truth is that, altogether too often, TEA Party-endorsed candidates are terrible candidates who shouldn't be allowed near a general election ballot. While Bevin wasn't as terrible as Todd Akin, he wasn't a top-tier candidate:
They pointed to an exaggeration of his educational credentials on his LinkedIn page and apparent previous support for the financial bailout as evidence.
And Bevin wasn't helped by a series of high-profile unforced errors, at one point suggesting that legalizing gay marriage could lead to parents being able to marry their children and speaking at a pro-cockfighting rally that he said he was unaware was related to cockfighting, and then later backtracked on that statement.
Simply put, TEA Party organizations haven't done a good job vetting candidates before supporting them. Candidates that think gay marriage will lead to wierd marital relationships isn't qualified to run for the state legislature, much less run for the US Senate.
That isn't to say I've suddenly 'gone establishment'. I still passionately believe in the founding principles of the TEA Party movement. I believe as strongly today that TEA Party principles are the remedy for this nation's ills as when I was organizing TEA Party rallies.
This year especially, I've been disappointed with some of the TEA Party's endorsements. I didn't hesitate in criticizing Sarah Palin for saying that Julianne Ortman was "a conservative champion" at a time when Ortman was enthusiastically telling Minnesota media outlets that she opposed full repeal of Obamacare.
It's time that the so-called TEA Party leaders did their research before shooting their mouths off. It's time they started picking candidates that don't tie themselves into knots on the most basic of questions. The point I'm making is that the TEA Party shouldn't feel obligated to run a candidate in each of the races. If the so-called TEA Party candidate is a terrible candidate, the TEA Party shouldn't endorse a candidate in that race.
It's time for the TEA Party to take that next step. It's time they started picking top-tier candidates who won't fall apart like Mr. Bevin did. Until they do a better job of candidate screening, they'll continue losing races they could've won.
Posted Wednesday, May 21, 2014 8:35 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 21-May-14 10:42 AM
I generally agree with you, but sometimes the best GOP candidate happens to be the incumbent. The incumbent certainly has an advantage in the general election, unless they are absolutely terrible, and the single most important thing in a GOP candidate is the ability to win. Secondarily, by a long mile, is being "Tea Party" or a "100% conservative." I'll take 90, 80, or even 50% over the certainty that a 0% Democrat will win.
And that's the bigger problem, isn't it? It's not so much whom we endorse, but the fact that we don't a) think about who can win against the Democrat and b) don't get behind and push the endorsed candidate so they DO win. THAT is the problem of Todd Aiken. He was winning. He made one SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE statement about abortion and the "gotcha media" pounced on him. The cowards at the NRSC, rather than defend a sure winner, ran from the hustings like scalded dogs. Sure, there is a right way and a wrong way to say things, but we owe some fidelity to the truth or we will be governed by liars.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 21-May-14 04:29 PM
Jerry, Let's be clear. there are 2 parts to this process. The first part is endorsing someone who consistently agrees with the GOP platform.
Endorsing a candidate isn't about whether you'll support another candidate in the general election. The conventions are about picking someone who a) can win in November & b) isn't a conservative after they've been caught being a squish.
Finally, it's irrelevant if Todd Akin's statement was scientifically accurate. This is politics. Akin's statement had nothing but downside to it.
The quality of the candidate matters. Akin couldn't win after making that statement. He should've gotten out of the race & let someone who had a chance to win finish the campaign.
Comment 3 by Rex Newman at 21-May-14 06:57 PM
Another word for consistency is predictability. I don't expect them to be perfect going in or coming out of the election. Just be consistent. Was Norm Coleman conservative? Barely, but the part that was we could take to the bank. I'll take him over any Democrat, any time.
Not so, Tim Pawlenty who repeatedly surprised and disappointed us, saying one thing before the election, doing another afterward. Oh, and then lying to our face when challenged on them. It's not that a DFL governor would have been better. It's that he so damaged the Republican brand that his two (should have been one) terms were actually a net loss for the GOP and Minnesota.
Between these extremes we have squishes the Jim Abeler, certainly not the best, but not the worst either. Show me a, oh, Dave Thompson quality primary challenger and yes, Abeler's gone. But until so challenged, he isn't likely to mess up the really big stuff like Pawlenty did.
The Tea Party perhaps should focus on the few, big problems, like John Boehner and John McCain, races worth the risk of losing the (supposed) seat.
The Tea Party I think actually did its job in Kentucky. Safe as McConnell might think or say he is, he may just remember this warning shot over the bow before joining Boehner's amnesty suicide mission this fall.
Will the DC media criticize Harry Reid?
Sayng that Sen. Reid has a distant relationship with the truth isn't accurate. Saying that he doesn't have a relationship with the truth might be the truth. Sen. Reid's statements frequently don't touch the truth. Take Sen. Reid's tweet this morning:
I confess I've never seen some Senators work so hard to do so little. My GOP colleagues have exerted effort to cause nothing to get done.
I won't pull punches by saying it's disappointing to hear Sen. Reid distance himself from the truth. Instead, I'll simply say that Sen. Reid's frequent lies are disgusting. If he wasn't protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution, he'd be the defendant in a multitude of slander and libel lawsuits.
Saying that Sen. Reid's a despicable human being doesn't cover it. Saying that he's evil gets a little closer. Sen. Reid's statement this morning, though, is proof that his disregard for the truth is exposed to Americans of all political stripes.
Sen. Reid's statement is verifiably false because Republicans have bills with bipartisan support piling up in the Senate because Sen. Reid won't let them get debated. That's right. Sen. Reid is the White House's protector. Sen. Reid's the obstructionist.
What's disgusting is that the DC media haven't shredded him for his disgusting relationship with the truth. About a month ago, Mara Liasson let the cat out of the bag when she said that Democrats think Sen. Reid is effective. There's no question that Democrats think that about Sen. Reid. If Democrats cared more about honesty and integrity than they care about holding onto power, they would've run Sen. Reid out of DC 5 years ago.
If the media cared about integrity in DC, they would've blistered Sen. Reid with biting, hard-hitting questions. That they haven't done that says that they're interested in seeing Sen. Reid continue with his daily dishonest diatribes. Apparently, they aren't interested in holding our nation's leaders accountable for telling whoppers.
When was the last time the networks took Sen. Reid to the woodshed for his lies? Better yet, have the networks criticized Sen. Reid for his lies? It wouldn't surprise me if they hadn't. It wouldn't surprise me because the DC media is best characterized as the Agenda Media. They don't see actual reporting as being their responsibility. In their eyes, their responsibility is to push the liberals' agenda.
First, it's the media's responsibility to call Sen. Reid out for his lies. Next, it's the Democrats' responsibility to criticize Sen. Reid for being the disgustingly dishonest politician that he is. Finally, it's time that the media started reporting on all the bills with bipartisan support that are piling up on Sen. Reid's desk.
If the media won't criticize Sen. Reid, then we'll have verifiable proof that they're almost as disinterested in the truth as Sen. Reid. If Democrats won't start openly criticizing Sen. Reid, then we'll know that their only priority is to maintain control of the Senate.
If that happens, then voters should throw out the Reid/Obama enablers. Thanks to President Obama's wayward agenda, this nation is in trouble. If Democrats are more worried about maintaining control of the Senate than they're worried about fixing what's wrong with the nation, they should be punished at the ballot box this November.
Posted Wednesday, May 21, 2014 9:34 AM
No comments.
Wedum Foundation gets bonding approval
Monday night, the St. Cloud City Council missed an opportunity to put pressure on the J.A. Wedum Foundation. Instead, they voted to give the Foundation permission to refinance their apartment complex on Fifth Ave.
Had the City Council told the J.A. Wedum Foundation they'd only approve the refinancing if the Foundation renegotiated their lease with St. Cloud State, Wedum wouldn't have had a choice but to renegotiate with SCSU.
Instead, the City Council essentially gave the Foundation permission to save money while the taxpayers foot the bill. This is aggravating because St. Cloud State has lost $6.4 million the last 4 years of the lease. This official SCSU budget document verifies that fact:
George Hontos and Jeff Johnson were the dissenting votes to approve the resolution. Unfortunately, the other council members didn't think it was the City Council's job to, in their terms, meddle in SCSU's affairs. That's a great way of saying 'it isn't my problem'.
That's rubbish. If the City Council would've put the Foundation's refinancing on hold, it would've gotten St. Cloud's attention. It would've shined the light on the fact that SCSU President Earl Potter signed a terrible lease. It would've shined the light on the fact that the Foundation is making money hand over fist at the taxpayers' expense. It would've highlighted the cozy relationship between President Potter and the Foundation.
SCSU's downward trajectory is the City Council's business because it affects St. Cloud's economy. If President Potter won't protect the University's and the taxpayers' interests, then it's perfectly appropriate for the City Council to do an intervention.
Hontos questioned the public benefit of an arrangement where the taxpayers "take a bath" over this money losing project. None of the council members argued the city should be involved in the specifics of trying to renegotiate the Wedum lease with SCSU. However, Hontos argued that the council's action in turning down the resolution might provide an incentive for Wedum to renegotiate the lease with SCSU.
Watching this video (starting at the 29:00 mark) makes me sick. Councilman Hontos entered into the record a statement from the Wedum Foundation asking for the city of St. Cloud's help in an effort to keep the lease "at an affordable rate" for SCSU.
That letter from the J.A. Wedum Foundation directly to the City of St. Cloud insists that the City has an important responsibility in this lease. Hearing Carol Lewis say that this isn't the City's business highlights her indifference towards the taxpayers. The only one I'd criticize more than Ms. Lewis is City Council President Jeff Goerger.
It's clear that Goerger and Lewis had their minds made up long before the meeting. The information presented at the City Council meeting was irrelevant to them. Shame on them for their closemindedness. Shame on them for their indifference towards taxpayers.
Finally, thanks to President Potter's inept handling of St. Cloud State's finances have given the Wedum Foundation millions of dollars they didn't earn. Let's be clear about this. I don't have a problem with companies making money in the private sector. I've got a major problem with nonprofit organizations raking in money from mismanaged government entities.
Posted Friday, May 23, 2014 2:55 AM
Comment 1 by Patrick-M at 23-May-14 03:02 PM
and all we hear from President Potter's cheering section (St Cloud Times) is gasp ...silence! In addition to a really messed up web site they don't even pretend to do investigative journalism any more.
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 23-May-14 03:09 PM
I wish I had time to watch the video, but if Wedum wants relief and re-negotiating will somehow also make it more affordable for SCSU, then who's making up the difference? The City?
Perhaps a more thoughtful City action would have been to agree to the resolution pending Potter's resignation.
Comment 3 by Patrick-M at 23-May-14 06:29 PM
Rex
As I understand it the contract is written (SCSU-Wedum) so it won't be more affordable for SCSU as there is an automatic percent increase each year that SCSU pays. So that means it benefits Wedum only.
Comment 4 by Crimson Trace at 24-May-14 10:04 AM
From last Monday's council video that Gary posted, Hontos said the yearly rate increase for the lease was 3%. The Wedum guy said it was 2%. Regardless, each year's lease has an increase. Johnson quoted a VP as saying that even if the Coborns apartments was full, it would still lose $50,000 to $150,000 a year. This looks like a great deal for the Wedum Foundation but a shi**y deal for the taxpayers. If I was an investor or owner for one of the student property management companies, I would not be too happy that my tax dollars are paying for a competitor that loses millions of dollars. Isn't there room on the SCSU campus for cost affordable housing for students? Makes me wonder what President Potter's supervisor thinks about this mess.
Taranto skewers Obama & Krugman
Each week, I wait for James Taranto's Best of the Web column. It's consistently witty and informative. This week's column definitely fits that description. Predictably, Taranto's column focuses on the VA Hospital crisis/scandal. First, he notes how the Obama administration isn't living up to other liberals' expectations:
Paul Waldman, Greg Sargent's deputy, sees broader ideological implications. "If Democrats are going to argue that government can be a force for good, their most basic responsibility is to make government work," he writes. (An odd statement. It seems to us making government work is the "most basic responsibility" of anyone who chooses a career in the public sector, regardless of ideology.)
This administration has developed a reputation for making speeches on important matters, then hoping that the issue fades or is replaced by another scandal. The Obama administration isn't known for identifying problems, then quickly fixing them.
As deserved as Waldman's criticism is, Paul Krugman is more deserving of criticism. Taranto lets him have it with both barrels:
There was no ObamaCare in January 2006, when former Enron adviser Paul Krugman wrote this:
I know about a health care system that has been highly successful in containing costs, yet provides excellent care. And the story of this system's success provides a helpful corrective to anti-government ideology. For the government doesn't just pay the bills in this system--it runs the hospitals and clinics.
No, I'm not talking about some faraway country. The system in question is our very own Veterans Health Administration, whose success story is one of the best-kept secrets in the American policy debate.
Krugman's words ring especially how in 2014, when there's verifiable proof that the VHA is sorrupt and inefficient. Unfortunately, it isn't known for its quality of care or its timely customer service.
Taranto wasn't finished quoting Krugman on the virtues of the VA:
Ideology can't hold out against reality forever. Cries of ''socialized medicine'' didn't, in the end, succeed in blocking the creation of Medicare. And farsighted thinkers are already suggesting that the Veterans Health Administration, not President Bush's unrealistic vision of a system in which people go ''comparative shopping'' for medical care the way they do when buying tile (his example, not mine), represents the true future of American health care.
Krugman is right that "ideology can't hold out forever against reality." Unfortunately for him, it's his ideology. Let's let Mr. Krugman choke on this reality:
[Desert Storm Veteran Paul] Baker said he has had treatments at several VA hospitals across the country but his worst experiences have been at the Audie Murphy VA hospital in San Antonio, where he's been forced to wait several months for a simple procedure.
"I've waited up to four months to get an appointment to see a doctor and another three months to get a test done," Baker said. "Then you got to wait another four months to get the results back to see the doctor just to discuss what the procedure is going to be."
With his health deteriorating, Baker has been fighting to get his benefits increased, waiting three years just to get a hearing to make his case.
Let's hear Mr. Krugman recite the virtues of the VA hospital system. Let's hear him talk about VA hospital efficiency. Let's hear him talk about what a great untold story the VA hospital system is. Let's hear him defend the position he passionately wrote about.
Mr. Krugman is a blind ideologue. Now he's a discredited ideologue. Let's hope he's soon a ridiculed, discredited ideologue.
Posted Friday, May 23, 2014 11:13 AM
No comments.
Environmental activist caught lying
The Ely Echo caught environmental activist Becky Rom telling a whopper. First, here's how the Echo went about getting answers:
What's strange is no group or individual has had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say that they requested that a PEIS be conducted. There have been plenty of fingers pointed at groups like Friends of the Boundary Waters, Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, Sustainable Ely along with one person who has connections to those groups and who has consistently spoken against copper-nickel mining in northeast Minnesota. That person is Becky Rom of Ely.Ms. Rom's non-answer answers were treated with justifiable disdain. That led the Echo to dig deeper. Here's the result of the Echo's digging:
So we called Rom and asked her if she or any of the groups she is affiliated with formally requested a PEIS from the Forest Service. As a former attorney, Rom is skilled at not answering questions. So we pressed and pressed some more. Here's the best of answers we could get:
'I've encouraged the agencies to do what's required under the law and using the best science.'
'Nobody is pushing for an extra layer or extra delays or costs or more money. I'm just saying this is really important and doing right is following the law and basing decisions on the best science.'
'I did not pen any letter but I've had these discussions.'
'As far as I know there's no formal process for a request like a petition.'
We specifically asked if Rom had approached U.S. Department of Agriculture Under Secretary Robert Bonnie (who oversees the USFS).
'I never talked about this to Mr. Bonnie.'
Then, late Thursday a Freedom of Information Act request by Twin Metals-Minnesota was granted. Upon request, they shared those documents with us. If anyone would like a copy, just send us an email.Simply put, the Echo caught an influential environmental activist lying through her teeth. Apparently, Ms. Rom isn't much into honesty. First, she tried evading the Echo's questions. When she was pressed into giving a direct answer, she lied outright. If not for the Echo's digging, there's no question she would've gotten away with that lie.
In the documents provided by the Bureau of Land Management was a letter asking for the PEIS. The agency requesting the PEIS? Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness. And who is the vice-chair of NEMW? Becky Rom.
We also have copies of emails sent by Rom outlining a meeting with the BLM where the agenda included: 'The BLM, together with the Forest Service, should undertake a programmatic environmental impact statement.'
Rom told us the first she heard of the PEIS was when Tom Rukavina, an aide for Congressman Rick Nolan, was in Ely on March 5.
We'd like to refresh her memory. A letter sent Jan. 23 from the attorney for NEMW specifically requests that the BLM and the USFS undertake a PEIS. The letter even references a meeting held on Dec. 10, 2013 with Bonnie and NEMW members. The letter to Bonnie is nine pages long and is a multi-pronged attack on copper-nickel mining in northeast Minnesota. It specifically targets Twin Metals Minnesota.
Unfortunately, these environmentalists' lies aren't surprising to me. I provided proof of another environmentalist's dishonesty in this post. In fact, this video is an outright lie:
In fact, restoration's the norm. Kennecott Mining's website explains in detail that it's quite possible to restore the land. In other words, some environmentalists have a history of lying through their teeth to win these fights. That they're a key part of the DFL's governing coalition is telling. This isn't about getting a few facts wrong. This isn't about making a couple innocent mistakes. It's about environmental activists like Becky Rom lying to prevent mining.
Environmental organizations like Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness and Conservation Minnesota apparently won't hesitate in lying. Their method of operation has been exposed, thanks in large part to the Ely Echo's persistence.
Originally posted Monday, May 26, 2014, revised 15-Apr 1:41 AM
Comment 1 by Tina Foster at 27-May-14 02:12 PM
Crazy! Whether for or against this whole thing you would think that we could at least be HONEST about it. This is important to both sides in their own ways but really Grow up and be honest! It is bad enough when groups try to"buy" what they want but then lie about it. Our entire government is based on lies right now it has to stop somewhere, why not here? Thank you for sharing "the other side" that we rarely hear about.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 27-May-14 04:45 PM
Tina, thanks for the compliment. The truth is that Twin Metals-Minnesota did the digging, the Ely Echo published what TMM discovered through a FOIA request & I just spread the word. It all fits together. Differing opinions about what's the best policy are ok. Lying about what's happening isn't.
The day that the truth becomes a partisan issue, we're in trouble.
Comment 2 by Scott Durbin at 27-May-14 07:06 PM
Seems to me this kind of thing has been going on in northeastern MN since the 50's. No one should be surprised by it.
Comment 3 by Frank Lobe at 27-May-14 09:05 PM
It appears that with these liberals, lying these days is the norm, starting right at the top with the pos.
Comment 4 by Leo Makiejus at 29-May-14 02:03 PM
The libs, from "Barry" on down are against those who produce and instead, encourage people to take. When no one is left to pull the wagon, our country will come to a standstill. In successful businesses, there is a saying: "You're either growing or you're dying".
I'm all for environmental safety, but instead of clawing at every opportunity to find reasons why we shouldn't, why not work together and find a way that we can safely use our natural resources and move this country ahead rather than pull it back?
Democrats' Benghazi chanting points tired, pathetic
Joe Lisbon's LTE is typical progressive chanting points stuff. Lisbon apparently put little thought into his LTE because it's reciting the same stuff for the gazillionth time. Here's the opening of his LTE:
Republican opposition to Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, has become an embarrassment for the GOP, and conservatives seeking political advantage need to fire up their donor base for fundraising.
Thsi is of the same tone as saying this is a political witch hunt, that there's been a gazillion investigations into Benghazi, that there's nothing new to learn. If they kept it pithy, they'd say it's time to move onto something the American people cared about.
First, the "Republican base" is fired up and then some. It's been fired up for over a year. Poll after poll shows how the GOP is on the right side of the enthusiasm gap. That's why professional political predictors like Charlie Cook, Michael Barone and Larry Sabato think Republicans will have another strong election cycle.
Right after the 2012 elections, Nancy Pelosi started talking about retaking the majority in the House. From time to time, you'd hear those mumblings resurface. Then came the IRS scandal, the DOJ spying on reporters scandal and the VA Hospital scandal. That's in addition to the Benghazi scandal.
If you're going to write an LTE, you shouldn't put this BS in it:
The GOP says there is a coverup of internal discussions of whether to call the attack 'terror' or 'terrorism' because the White House did not want to admit al-Qaida was behind the attack. Except, of course, nobody has shown al-Qaida was behind it, nor have they claimed credit.
There'a huge problem with that statement. Within the first 24 hours of the start of the attack, the Libyan president said that Ansar al-Shariah, an affialiate of al-Qa'ida, had taken credit for the precision terrorist attack.
Forgive me but the Libyan president is definitely a somebody.
Gen. Robert Lovell testified that it was clear it was a terrorist attack :
Lovell said that as intelligence was streaming into command, it became 'quickly evident' to AFRICOM that terrorists, namely Ansar al-Sharia, were behind the attack.
'What we did know quite early on was that this was a hostile action,' he said. 'This was no demonstration gone terribly awry.'
In other words, the spin coming from Jay Carney and Susan Rice was BS from the earliest moments of the attack.
This Republican kangaroo court's purpose is just to make misleading or false political headlines about Clinton and Obama. I doubt there is a Fox News Channel viewer who even recalls that Benghazi occurred in the wake of Cairo. There were eight demonstrations on the same day at other U.S. embassies, 40 worldwide in major cities - which, at one point, were thought to be about an Internet video.
As someone who watches Fox News, I know that the military should've been put on high alert on 9/10 Egyptian time because the Blind Sheikh's son announced that he was going to attempt to take the Cairo embassy staff hostage, then barter those hostages to get his father, the planner of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, released.
Not only do Fox News viewers know about the other demonstrations but they know that there never were any protests outside the Benghazi compound. We know that because of Gen. Lovell's testimony and Greg Hicks' dramatic testimony. This statement is disgusting but predictable:
No one inside the Fox bubble cares about the millions spent on the 54 repeal votes on Obamacare, or the millions spent on closing down the government, or that Mitt Romney on the day of the attack was grandstanding about Benghazi for political advantage before he had the facts of what happened.
Mitt Romney's statement, the one which he's accused of grandstanding about, was a reaction to the administration's statement:
'The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims, as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.'
Jay Carney repeatedly took to the podium, saying that intelligence was still coming in. Later, Carney said that the administration's story changed as that intel came in. Apparently, Mr. Lisbon doesn't think the administration was grandstanding when it issued a statement about the video within an hour of the start of the Cairo protests.
We know that President Obama thought this wasn't a big deal because he never went to the White House Situation Room that night. We don't know whether he received hourly updates as the terrorist attack continued. That isn't to say he didn't. It's just that we don't have proof of President Obama receiving updates.
Lisbon is a political hack who does what he's told. This closing paragraph is proof of that:
At this point, anyone who is flogging this as a scandal has BDDS, Benghazi Delusional Derangement Syndrome. The only way to keep these shenanigans from happening is to vote Republicans out of office.
Shame on Mr. Lisbon for reading the Democrats' chanting points rather than thinking for himself.
Posted Sunday, May 25, 2014 12:37 PM
No comments.
The high price of voting DFL
If there's a place that illustrates how much DFL policies cost families, that place is the Iron Range. No part of the state is more subjected to the DFL's overregulation and Twin Cities DFL activism. This chart shows how much the DFL's anti-mining policies and environmental activists' campaigns cost families:
Think about what that chart says. Minnesota had a median household income, aka MHI, of $59,126 from 2008-2012. By comparison, St. Louis County's median household income was $46,231 for the same time period. That's a $12,895 annual disparity between St. Louis County and the statewide average.
The frightening thing about that is that that's the good news for the Iron Range. After that, things go downhill quickly. Duluth, which isn't technically part of the Range, had an MHI of $41,311, followed by Hibbing at $37,500, Virginia at $36,397, with Eveleth bringing up the rear at $35,500. That means Virginia is 40% beneath the statewide MHI .
That's immoral, not to mention inhumane.
The DFL's anti-mining policies hurt Iron Range families in a verifiable way. The metro DFL has shown repeatedly that they hate mining. That means they put a higher priority on their ideology than they put on helping families. That's a sick situation but it's something that can be verified by results.
One of the gimmicks that the DFL uses to get votes on the Iron Range is telling Iron Rangers that they support unions. That's a gimmick because they don't really support miners. Though they support them in the abstract, they don't support them in practical ways.
If the DFL supported these unions in a substantive way, Eveleth's MHI wouldn't be 40% less than Minnesota's MHI. If the DFL supported the Iron Range, St. Louis County's poverty rate wouldn't be 45% higher than the statewide average. If that's the DFL's way of supporting unions, they'd be better off if they supported Republicans.
It isn't that they'd agree 100% of the time with Republicans. That said, Republicans wouldn't have to get permission from the Metrocrat anti-mining crowd before siding with the miners.
Most importantly, Republicans would support miners because Republicans support private sector economic growth because that's the only place real economic growth comes from.
It's time for the miners to reject the DFL's failed policies. The proof of the DFL's failures are seen in that simple chart. No thoughtful person could look at those income statistics, then say they're proof of success.
Posted Monday, May 26, 2014 8:26 PM
No comments.
