tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23114770474158934162024-03-14T02:12:01.707-07:00MNCD4ConservativeMNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.comBlogger125125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-90103564860870354442020-11-10T14:25:00.004-08:002020-11-10T15:08:33.908-08:00 The Leftist Art of the Purge<p><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">Political purges are something that America has stood against for over 200 years. But are we still? There is a very disturbing trend among the politicians of the left to specifically target people in their lives, not political discussions, but where they live and work. This phenomena has a very dark history. It was previously shunned in America, especially after a famous incident in the 1950’s (McCarthyism for those who don’t remember). However, it has been revived by Maxine Waters in 2018 <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjwPRSLFWbk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjwPRSLFWbk</a></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KjwPRSLFWbk" width="320" youtube-src-id="KjwPRSLFWbk"></iframe></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><b><u>Historically in Other Countries<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></u></b></p><p class="p2" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><b>Communist China this year</b></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Communist China in July 2020 instituted a ban against 12 pro-democracy candidates from running for office in Hong Kong. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/31/hong-kong-opposition-political-purge-may-spell-end-democracy">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/31/hong-kong-opposition-political-purge-may-spell-end-democracy</a></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"></p><blockquote><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">“This is an outrageous political purge of Hong Kong’s democrats,” Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong, said in a statement. “It is obviously now illegal to believe in democracy ... this is the sort of behaviour that you would expect in a police state.”</p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">The disqualifications come in the same week a prominent tenured professor was dismissed for his pro-democracy campaigning, and the arrest of four young activists who are facing life in jail under the national security law.</p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">“It could spell the end of opposition inside the system, for the election laws could be entirely rewritten to make it impossible or irrelevant for the opposition to run again,” Leung said.</p><p class="p2" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p></blockquote><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">This is how totalitarian regimes force out any dissenting political thought. By force and in other cases death. The lefts favorite country has always been Russia, well, until they used it as a false flag issue against Trump. Bernie Sanders honeymooned there and has always lobbied for instituting aspects of their government. But it was also the country with one of the most brutal political pogroms https://www.history.com/topics/russia/great-purge</p><p class="p2" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><b>Stalin in Russia 1930's</b></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://www.history.com/topics/russia/great-purge">https://www.history.com/topics/russia/great-purge</a></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"></p><blockquote><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">“The Great Purge, also known as the “Great Terror,” was a brutal political campaign led by Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin to eliminate dissenting members of the Communist Party and anyone else he considered a threat. Although estimates vary, most experts believe at least 750,000 people were executed during the Great Purge, which took place between about 1936 and 1938. More than a million other people were sent to forced labor camps, known as Gulags.”</p><p class="p2" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">“The exact motives for the Great Purge are debated among historians. Some claim the actions of Stalin were prompted by his desire to maintain authority as dictator. Others see it as his way to preserve, enhance and unify the Soviet Communist Party.”</p></blockquote><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Great-Purge">https://www.britannica.com/event/Great-Purge</a></p><p class="p2" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"></p><blockquote>Great Purge, also called purge trials, three widely publicized show trials and a series of closed, unpublicized trials held in the Soviet Union during the late 1930s, in which many prominent Old Bolsheviks were found guilty of treason and executed or imprisoned. All the evidence presented in court was derived from preliminary examinations of the defendants and from their confessions. It was subsequently established that the accused were innocent, that the cases were fabricated by the secret police (NKVD), and that the confessions were made under pressure of intensive torture and intimidation.</blockquote><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><b>Communist China 1950's<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Another case from China was the “Anti-Rightist Campaign” <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Rightist_Campaign">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Rightist_Campaign</a></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"></p><blockquote>The Anti-Rightist Campaign in the People's Republic of China, which lasted from 1957 to roughly 1959, was a political campaign to purge alleged "Rightists" within the Communist Party of China (CPC) and abroad. The campaign was launched by Chairman Mao Zedong, but Deng Xiaoping and Peng Zhen also played an important role. The Anti-Rightist Campaign significantly damaged democracy in China and turned the country into a de facto one-party state.</blockquote><p></p><p class="p2" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">The theme of South American dictators killing their opponents used to be rife in Hollywood films, showing firing squads and executions. Until they fell in love with Cuban dictators and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="Apple-converted-space">Many more political purges are detailed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_and_cultural_purges">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_and_cultural_purges</a></span></p><p class="p2" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><b><u>Today In the USA</u></b></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">That philosophy of punishing opponents, forcing them into isolation, seclusion, preventing them from employment, and imprisoning them was shunned by the US for most of our history. But now many voices in the Democrat party are calling for a pogrom against anyone supporting the Trump Administration</p><p class="p2" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p class="p2" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;">The Jewish Press does an excellent job with a summary</p><p class="p1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://www.jewishpress.com/news/us-news/aoc-calls-for-archiving-trump-sycophants-before-tweets-are-deleted/2020/11/08/">https://www.jewishpress.com/news/us-news/aoc-calls-for-archiving-trump-sycophants-before-tweets-are-deleted/2020/11/08/</a></p><p class="p2" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p class="p3" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); color: #758795; font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="s1" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black; font-family: Helvetica; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1324807776510595078">https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1324807776510595078</a> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKVMsSQ9qY_lyKCFFqtrq8SagM0PrnYqbjNL6r9EXKeeHlZ7nd5Jv_OV_VIgLEw2YrBe0Bx0n7VM8qUsuXsS1aexFUJ19MlO8mrpDWr65IsKp-TGZRrnQWQRj9ra3ODuHi055EsPdpfPHx/s1200/Screen+Shot+2020-11-10+at+4.06.44+PM.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="632" data-original-width="1200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKVMsSQ9qY_lyKCFFqtrq8SagM0PrnYqbjNL6r9EXKeeHlZ7nd5Jv_OV_VIgLEw2YrBe0Bx0n7VM8qUsuXsS1aexFUJ19MlO8mrpDWr65IsKp-TGZRrnQWQRj9ra3ODuHi055EsPdpfPHx/s320/Screen+Shot+2020-11-10+at+4.06.44+PM.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p class="p4" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"></p><blockquote>In response, former Obama Administration official Michael Simon mentioned the “Trump Accountability Project” <a href="https://www.trumpaccountability.net/">https://www.trumpaccountability.net/</a> and reassured AOC, as she is known, “Every Administration staffer, campaign staffer, bundler, lawyer who represented them — everyone.”</blockquote><p></p><p class="p4" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">https://twitter.com/HariSevugan/status/1324809630200070147</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjInlCFKpxyvJ7V5zUgWYGyhxPnkdK5b_NHJzncG89Q3kIhE0lnXQS3JiU5drghYEmPVC31PCYJ5KzxJtsVaYDC7QSruY7XFtWbbXbUX-yrC2mcMokNe6WE50loTjJBligXbycOq7lB2wCx/s1196/Screen+Shot+2020-11-10+at+4.08.22+PM.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1044" data-original-width="1196" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjInlCFKpxyvJ7V5zUgWYGyhxPnkdK5b_NHJzncG89Q3kIhE0lnXQS3JiU5drghYEmPVC31PCYJ5KzxJtsVaYDC7QSruY7XFtWbbXbUX-yrC2mcMokNe6WE50loTjJBligXbycOq7lB2wCx/s320/Screen+Shot+2020-11-10+at+4.08.22+PM.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p class="p4" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p class="p4" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is following in the footsteps of the worst in history - Joesph Stalin</p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://massachusettsdaily.com/2020/11/07/ocasio-cortez-touts-secret-list-targeting-trump-supporters-for-retaliation/">https://massachusettsdaily.com/2020/11/07/ocasio-cortez-touts-secret-list-targeting-trump-supporters-for-retaliation/</a></p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"></p><blockquote><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Now that the election has passed, Ocasio-Cortez is conjuring visions for one of the most oppressive periods in world history – Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union.</p><p class="p4" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">In a chilling dispatch from her Twitter account, the socialist diva encouraged her zombie hordes to begin to compile information on political foes who supported President Trump for inclusion on a secret list that will be used for the sort of reprisals that communist dictators have carried out to eradicate dissent.</p></blockquote><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"></p><p class="p4" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Even Journalists in Australia make note of the totalitarian nature of the left in America<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T76t9oGbZM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T76t9oGbZM</a></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9T76t9oGbZM" width="320" youtube-src-id="9T76t9oGbZM"></iframe></div><br /><p class="p4" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">But she is far from alone in her endeavors. In addition to Maxine Waters and the “Trump Accountability Project” Elizabeth Warren is advocating unprecedented legal action against members of the administration after they are out of the White House, and preventing them from future employment anywhere.</p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/canceling-trump-alumni-11604962923">https://www.wsj.com/articles/canceling-trump-alumni-11604962923</a></p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://apkmetro.com/canceling-trump-alumni/">https://apkmetro.com/canceling-trump-alumni/</a></p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"></p><blockquote><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Elizabeth Warren proposed a Justice Division activity power to focus on the outgoing Administration. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich in October called for a “Reality and Reconciliation Fee.”</p><p class="p4" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Assuming Republicans maintain their Senate majority, probably the most vindictive Democratic officers could discover it onerous to be confirmed for high positions in a Biden Justice Division. But even when they will’t corrupt the authorized system, some progressives wish to harness their cultural energy to punish public officers who served the nation over the past 4 years.</p><p class="p4" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Final Friday former Democratic Nationwide Committee Press Secretary Hari Sevugan tweeted that “employers contemplating [Trump White House staff] ought to know there are penalties for hiring anybody who helped Trump assault American values.”<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p><p class="p4" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p></blockquote><p class="p4" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;">But the left is not stopping just with assaults on those serving our government for 4 years. They are going after every citizen who may oppose them. They have even setup a database of contributors to the campaign <a href="https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/website-lists-trump-supporters-and-home-addresses-possibly-founded-by-china/">https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/website-lists-trump-supporters-and-home-addresses-possibly-founded-by-china/</a>. So if you contributed tot he Trump campaign, you may be subjected to antifa coming to visit you at home!</p><p class="p4" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><b><u>There are some who fight this irresponsible behavior<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></u></b></p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Here is Deneen Borelli’s response to AOC. She is afire with indignation over the totalitarian nature of AOC</p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfO04DwdGZY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfO04DwdGZY</a></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LfO04DwdGZY" width="320" youtube-src-id="LfO04DwdGZY"></iframe></div><br /><p class="p4" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Laura Ingraham really details the phenomena<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mrbc6ZX-TL4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mrbc6ZX-TL4</a></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Mrbc6ZX-TL4" width="320" youtube-src-id="Mrbc6ZX-TL4"></iframe></div><br /><p class="p4" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Maria Bartiromo details some other aspects of the cancel culture of the left attacking and destroying the lives of ordinary citizens they know will oppose them</p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=6208677185001">https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=6208677185001</a></p><p class="p4" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><b><u>Where Do You Stand?</u></b></p><p class="p5" style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(117, 135, 149); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">If you find any of this even marginally reasonable or in any way appealing, you are most definitely totalitarian fascist. So you can stop accusing others of being fascist. But for those who find this appalling and disgusting, remember that this is the modern left. Remember when next you vote to look into what you are voting for. This cannot be the future of America, “the last best hope of earth” (Lincoln Dec 1, 1982, Reagan 1964)</p>MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-37903800463273285562018-02-05T11:09:00.001-08:002018-02-05T11:12:03.947-08:00Is there reasonable doubt? The Memo<div class="p1">
I don’t understand how Democrats can say some of the things they do, take for example Sen Amy Klobuchar here (<a href="https://www.facebook.com/amyklobuchar/videos/10154927798211191/">https://www.facebook.com/amyklobuchar/videos/10154927798211191/</a>). </div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
They truly are playing political games and ignoring the facts. I agree that interpretation can vary, based on your world view. However some facts do insist upon close scrutiny. The “Memo” (a left leaning analysis here <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/02/02/582828461/fact-check-read-the-gop-memo-released-by-house-intelligence-committee">https://www.npr.org/2018/02/02/582828461/fact-check-read-the-gop-memo-released-by-house-intelligence-committee</a>) had some basic facts that are basically universally accepted:</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
</div>
<ul>
<li>1) The dossier, which had no verifiable information just salacious innuendo, was compiled by an ardent anti Trump agent (desperate to prevent a Trump Presidency) through the paid request of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign “to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump's ties to Russia”. In the FISA court applications, this was not revealed, though it was known to the agents.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></li>
<li>2) Testimony given to the committee indicated the dossier play a significant role in the FISA applications. How significant is being debated between sides, though “Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information”, a statement that is somewhat disputed by Democrats.</li>
<li>3) The agents involved all expressed significant anti-trump sentiments and did not want him to be President. Text messages of those involved in the Mueller investigation, have since shown the extent of this bias.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="p2">
These basic facts are not really in dispute, except where noted. </div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
Outside of the memo we know Russians did hack the DNC (via Podesta and other avenues), and used Facebook to produce fake news. Well they contributed, along with US media sources like CNN, to attempt to confuse the electorate. Investigations of that are eminently reasonable. However what is the basis for accusing one campaign of a link to that over the other campaign’s links to Russian sources? One paid for a dossier to accuse the other., and got an FBI investigation. One met with a Russian lawyer, possibly for opposition research, but got nothing, except accusations from opponents. That’s about all. If we go from business connections there is probably more evidence of collusion (as defined as money paid) in the payments from Russian sources into the Clinton Foundation, but we mustn’t talk about that of course.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px}
</style>
<br />
<div class="p1">
So the question is, why do the Democrats not agree with the legitimate concern about violation of Fourth Amendment rights, and possible agency malfeasance? We have had over a year of “Russian Collusion” that has to the best public knowledge produced nothing but process charges. At some point the Mueller investigation should end. It is unreasonable to continue public accusations, ad infinitum, with no verifiable evidence. That is a smear and witch hunt, not an investigation. Was it originated due to an entirely partisan unfounded accusation? Was it based on any facts? Is it unreasonable to point fingers at Justice Dept agents who quite likely let their partisan views push unfounded investigations for political reasons? If there is reasonable doubt that these investigations not simply politically motivated, should we sit back and not complain? According to Amy Klobuchar Republican should not resist or object. That is unreasonable. What would she say, were these investigations and charges made about her?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
The above three facts should cause great alarm for anyone concerned about honesty and fair treatment, regardless of political ideology. The fact that it is not for the Democrats is equally telling. And Amy Klobuchar as prosecutor ought to know and admit that!</div>
MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-80790793121052567402017-12-28T21:26:00.003-08:002017-12-28T21:58:25.702-08:00Who's Scamming Who - Taxes<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
On Nov 8, 2017 Rep Betty McCollum gave a standard floor speech to rail against the on going work to provide Tax Reform and Reduction to the American people. This paralleled speeches and language from Nancy Pelosi (a California multi-millionaire, with <a href="http://investmentwatchblog.com/fun-fact-nancy-pelosi-has-a-196-million-net-worth-on-a-193000-senators-salary/">net worth of $196 million</a>) seen <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8_HZfDhf8I">here</a>.</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
Here is the transcription and the video:</div>
<div class="p2">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I97E0ExrADI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I97E0ExrADI</a></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republican’s Tax Scam. The middle class receives virtually no benefits from this bill. This bill hits middle class Minnesotan’s especially hard by dismantling the state and local tax deduction. It increases cost for college students and their families. It abandons adoptive parents and it punishes people with high medical bills. So why does this bill hurt hard working families? So President Trump and the Republican’s can pay for give aways to the wealthiest Americans. Big corporations and billionaires will see their taxes slashed wealthy, heirs and heiresses will be allowed to dodge taxes entirely. While the top 1% of Americans receive nearly half the tax cuts. 99% of us will be stuck with a federal debt that will explode by trillions of dollars. Mr. Speaker this Republican bill is not tax reform, it is not a good bill for the middle class, it is a scam plain and simple. I oppose it and we must defeat it.</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/I97E0ExrADI/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/I97E0ExrADI?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
So let’s analyze, line by line, and parse the fact from the fiction, and decide who is scamming who. It will take a lot to unpack the innuendo and deliberately vague allusions to “what if” conjectures made about unspoken charges.</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<div class="p2">
<b><u>Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republican’s Tax Scam.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></u></b></div>
<div class="p2">
There is no real testable information here. But lets note that<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>its an immediate appeal to emotions using a classic “name calling” technique. Not particularly persuasive for most people. Or at least I hope it would not be.</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
<b><u>The middle class receives virtually no benefits from this bill.</u></b></div>
<div class="p2">
Well CBS went to test that very thesis and declared it to be untrue. They had the potential tax bills from 3 households tested and found all would be reduced substantially<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div class="p2">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gda27SWWdZg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gda27SWWdZg</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gda27SWWdZg/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gda27SWWdZg?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
<b><u>This bill hits middle class Minnesotan’s especially hard by dismantling the state and local tax deduction.</u></b></div>
<div class="p2">
This one is partly true, not because of the tax bill itself, but because of the indisputable fact that Minnesota taxes are so high relative to most other states. It is the 8th highest tax state in the union. And the discrepancy has increased through the entire Dayton administration.</div>
<div class="p2">
<a href="https://interactive.taxfoundation.org/minnesota-illustrated/#minnesota-illustrated">https://interactive.taxfoundation.org/minnesota-illustrated/#minnesota-illustrated</a></div>
<div class="p2">
<a href="https://interactive.taxfoundation.org/minnesota-illustrated/#minnesota-s-tax-burden-ranks-higher-than-most-other-states-burdens">https://interactive.taxfoundation.org/minnesota-illustrated/#minnesota-s-tax-burden-ranks-higher-than-most-other-states-burdens</a> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://interactive.taxfoundation.org/minnesota-illustrated/images/3-1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="359" data-original-width="800" height="143" src="https://interactive.taxfoundation.org/minnesota-illustrated/images/3-1.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
Now here comes the complete story. Since the Federal Tax plan now doubles the standard deduction, the only people who will see any such problem are the highest income households in Minnesota. So the reality of it is, Rep McCollum is decrying “taxes on the richest Minnesotans”, rather than the substantial savings for any lower income household.</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
<b><u>It increases cost for college students and their families.</u></b></div>
<div class="p2">
Well the best information on that appear to be a combination of fears that the wealthy will reduce donations and a small tax imposed on the wealthiest of private institutions endowment funds. Again. It looks like Rep McCollum is more anxious about the wealthy than she is about the average Minnesotan, she is simply twisting arguments to support her preference.</div>
<div class="p2">
<a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/12/04/tax-bill-key-implications-colleges-clears-senate">https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/12/04/tax-bill-key-implications-colleges-clears-senate</a></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Like the House bill, the Senate legislation imposes a new 1.4 percent excise tax on the largest endowments held by private colleges. But thanks to an amendment offered Friday, the tax will apply only to endowments valued at $500,000 per full-time student. Previously, that provision would have applied to endowments valued at $250,000 per student. But although the tax will apply to only the wealthiest private institutions, higher education leaders call it a flawed idea that sets a worrying precedent.</blockquote>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
In general the Washington Post describes <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2017/12/15/heres-what-the-gops-proposal-to-overhaul-the-tax-code-means-for-schools-students-and-parents/?utm_term=.f25796c9e190">benefits in almost every point for education</a>.</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
<b><u>It abandons adoptive parents and it punishes people with high medical bills.</u></b></div>
<div class="p2">
These were tax deductions that were proposed to be reduced since the standard deduction was being doubled.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div class="p2">
The best discussion of the adoption credit is <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2017/12/14/tax-credit-may-not-best-way-foster-adoption/">here</a></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
However much it may have alleviated the financial burdens of adopting families, it appears not to have increased the number of adoptions.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></blockquote>
<div class="p2">
Regardless, it <a href="http://infantadoptionguide.com/adoption-news-republican-lawmakers-drop-plan-to-eliminate-adoption-tax-credit/">did not make it into the bill anyway</a>. And the same thing happened with the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-latest-trump-predicts-monumental-tax-bill-will-pass/2017/12/15/b982d956-e1aa-11e7-b2e9-8c636f076c76_story.html?utm_term=.f1a597912f1c">medical expenses deduction, the proposal was not adopted</a>.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
But the use of language “punishes people” is a great hyperbolic emotional exaggeration. Which is exactly what the next sentence proceeds to do by excessive language and posing a statement as an extreme question. An unfounded statement and </div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
<b><u>So why does this bill hurt hard working families?</u></b></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
So on to the next line where she attempts to answer this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dln3DJEcghY">false dilemma</a> or <a href="http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_cause.htm">false cause</a>. </div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
<b><u>So President Trump and the Republican’s can pay for give aways to the wealthiest Americans.</u></b></div>
<div class="p2">
The blatant appeal to envy and greed aside, its an empty statement as far as information. Thus we are left to assume next lines are to be used to define this<span class="Apple-converted-space"> further</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
<b><u>Big corporations and billionaires will see their taxes slashed wealthy, heirs and heiresses will be allowed to dodge taxes entirely.</u></b></div>
<div class="p2">
“Big Corporations” must mean an allusion to the corporate tax rate. Taxing corporations is a much argued topic. What does it mean to tax a corporation, since any such “cost” to the corporation must either be passed directly onto the consumer as increased prices to compensate, or has to be absorbed and reduces competitiveness (higher price relative to competitor or foreign product) and future investment. We saw the effect of high corp tax rate here in Minnesota when Medtronic moved corporate headquarters to Ireland’s 12.5% tax rate environment <a href="https://www.equities.com/news/why-are-so-many-health-care-companies-moving-to-ireland">to escape the US 35%</a> </div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
But what does reducing corporate tax rates really mean for US employees? A number of companies have already answered that question with large bonus’s attributed to the tax bill.</div>
<div class="p2">
<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-corporate-tax-cut-dividend-1513902063">https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-corporate-tax-cut-dividend-1513902063</a></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Corporate Tax-Cut Dividend<br />
Workers get a $1,000 bonus. Democrats call it ‘cruel’ and a ‘scam.’<br />
Alas for Rep. Pelosi, the business reaction so far to the tax bill is starting to look like the ending of “It’s a Wonderful Life.” As we went to press, at least six large corporations had announced plans to do more for their employees, explicitly attributing their action to the tax bill’s business tax reforms.</blockquote>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
Tax cut are difficult to make unless you actually cut the tax rates. It is an inescapable fact that cutting taxes will cut taxes for everyone, including the wealthy. Since they pay most of the taxes, they will see a reduction. Its a ridiculous claim to try to use. This chart of California tax rates gives some hint of that dependence and the inevitability. Its a complicated chart, which analysis goes beyond the scope here. But imagine trying to draw the red line lower, without going below zero.</div>
<div class="p2">
<a href="http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2011/10/who-pays-their-fair-share-in-california.html">http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2011/10/who-pays-their-fair-share-in-california.html</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi82ulfbu3Tl9F10NgpKdyL_KyrTYmpFUj2VMEWHrSqMiOsNxAi-c2yTmRezrtKPr9DGQRPCU_YREF8rQIFUaM_JtOb8l9DnPCG3N2Nosp7K_2_hcgPZmm4LE8DSLnKtbAZsvY6M7Av5oQ/s640/Average+Effective+Tax+Rate+California+Personal+Income+Tax+2008.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="521" data-original-width="640" height="260" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi82ulfbu3Tl9F10NgpKdyL_KyrTYmpFUj2VMEWHrSqMiOsNxAi-c2yTmRezrtKPr9DGQRPCU_YREF8rQIFUaM_JtOb8l9DnPCG3N2Nosp7K_2_hcgPZmm4LE8DSLnKtbAZsvY6M7Av5oQ/s640/Average+Effective+Tax+Rate+California+Personal+Income+Tax+2008.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2009/07/oppressive-progressive-income-tax.html</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiB4TZQp4QOccctAv5cjLwdBjx3apTbvn6cD_Z2OdVyLCMRAhGrpssE2GvHtrgg0jRXC4DiI5a0Tw3qPJcf3K5iQX_Y9fcotPiU2f4Eh-skfnnYp1QcdxevjluMB9N9U1Kuky1shTn47Mg/s1600/ca_pit_by_population_png.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiB4TZQp4QOccctAv5cjLwdBjx3apTbvn6cD_Z2OdVyLCMRAhGrpssE2GvHtrgg0jRXC4DiI5a0Tw3qPJcf3K5iQX_Y9fcotPiU2f4Eh-skfnnYp1QcdxevjluMB9N9U1Kuky1shTn47Mg/s1600/ca_pit_by_population_png.jpg" data-original-height="394" data-original-width="503" height="250" width="320"></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
The reference to heirs and heiresses must be another allusion, this time to the “death tax”</div>
<div class="p2">
<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/02/gop-bill-will-kill-the-estate-tax-after-6-years.html">https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/02/gop-bill-will-kill-the-estate-tax-after-6-years.html</a></div>
<div class="p2">
The death tax has always been problematic, because it can force sale of smaller companies. With the subsequent loss of jobs. The final plan reduced the impact on the number of households that would have to pay the death tax by increasing (doubling) the threshold for the progressive tax. <i><b>But don't worry, Nancy Pelosi’s, and Donald Trump's for that matter, heirs and heiresses will still have to pay this tax, in any scenario.</b></i></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
<b><u>While the top 1% of Americans receive nearly half the tax cuts.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></u></b></div>
<div class="p2">
This is the traditional class envy “go to” line that is a time honored appeal to greed for all. As shown before, its impossible to cut taxes without cutting the tax for “the wealthy” unless you specifically raise their taxes and violate the tax cut promise. As the tax bill progressed in committee and the normal process the “broad picture” statements were developed, the reductions curves were flattened. But since there is such a huge progressive distortion in how much the different income groups pay in taxes, refer to chart above, it will always be the case that those who pay more will get more reduction. So, as far as an age old argument its always guaranteed to be true, and thus immensely useful for demagoguery.</div>
<div class="p2">
<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2017/12/28/how-the-tax-bill-got-smaller-and-less-regressive/#7315aea1202c">https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2017/12/28/how-the-tax-bill-got-smaller-and-less-regressive/#7315aea1202c</a></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
<b><u>99% of us will be stuck with a federal debt that will explode by trillions of dollars</u></b></div>
<div class="p2">
Ah the lure of exaggeration.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>The estimates are for about <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/30/senate-gop-tax-plan-would-fall-1-trillion-short-of-trump-administrations-promises-congress-tax-analyst-says/?utm_term=.ade0d405f2d7">$1 Trillion dollars</a> over 10 years, not "trillions" . Now personally I am logically (although perhaps not strict enforcement due to pragmatism) opposed to adding to the national debt at all, but let's address the hypocrisy here. Rep McCollum was perfectly fine with the Barack Obama debt addition of about $9 trillion, or just over $1 trillion every single year on average! </div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
As extra bonus points, Nancy Pelosi's video claims that the Tax Bill will represent an increase for 86 million households. That 4 Pinocchio whopper is discussed <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/02/senate-democrats-falsely-claim-gop-tax-plan-will-raise-taxes-for-most-working-class-families/?utm_term=.d7ccffa72b07">here</a> and <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/20/nancy-pelosis-tax-apocalypse-216155">here</a>. Surprisingly Rep McCollum did not make that claim in this video we dissected here. The source of that statement appears to be <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democrats-cant-stop-lying-about-the-gop-tax-bill/article/2644003">this</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
What Democrats tried to hide is that their statement is based on one part of the Tax Policy Center's analysis of the GOP bill, which focused on what would happen in 2027, <b>after the individual tax cuts are set to expire</b>.</blockquote>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: "times"; font-size: small;"><b><u>Mr. Speaker this Republican bill is not tax reform, it is not a good bill for the middle class, it is a scam plain and simple</u></b></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: "times"; font-size: small;"><b><u><br class="Apple-interchange-newline" /></u></b></span>So Rep Betty McCollum’s floor speech was great theater, but really,<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Who’s Scamming Who?</span></b></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
So to see how it will affect your taxes, here is the final test,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div class="p2">
<a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-new-trump-tax-calculator-what-do-you-owe-2017-10-26">https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/trump-tax-reform-calculator</a></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
For a detailed study of Minnesota taxation look <a href="https://interactive.taxfoundation.org/minnesota-illustrated/#minnesota-illustrated">here</a>:</div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica}
</style>
<br />
<div class="p2">
<a href="https://interactive.taxfoundation.org/minnesota-illustrated/#minnesota-illustrated">https://interactive.taxfoundation.org/minnesota-illustrated/#minnesota-illustrated</a></div>
MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-43073993886109914622017-12-23T21:00:00.001-08:002017-12-23T21:00:47.026-08:00Liberals see it raining Tax Increases<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">In a recent Facebook discussion I had with a liberal, he opined that the recent Tax Bill was a Huge Tax Increase. The following ensued.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Is it really so hard to have a substantive discussion with a liberal? Do they always devolve to ad-hominem attacks when emotional arguments fail? It appears so, here at least. Pardon the misspellings, I left everything as a direct copy.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p3">
<span class="s2">This was all in the context of a liberal responding to a post that posited: </span></div>
<div class="p3">
<span class="s2">“</span><span class="s1">Democrats might have made a mistake by attacking the recently enacted tax bill.”</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">A Liberal</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">It's actually a tax hike over the next 10 years: </span></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s3"><a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Finterc.pt%2F2Aq18oC&h=ATNLmINm6Srz2hzolTDlIcnyem9jsaVBOExyrc6FZBkGpVv6TJ7GZ7V5rCEf0HeaSr7o2uZSKjO3w7K5L7klznPZ7yk5mlQMDQzLAnGIpn8JAwkPB5Tn1NG9E_gucywud6crLFji5I8MG8oftA">https://theintercept.com/2017/12/01/the-gop-plan-is-the-biggest-tax-increase-in-american-history-by-far/</a></span></div>
<div class="p5">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s1">Me:</span></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s4">Even the far left WashPo calls that meme a lie, giving it 4 Pinocchios</span></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s4"><a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fdemocrats-are-lying-about-republican-tax-plan-says-washington-post-fact-checker%2Farticle%2F2639367&h=ATMsgyox926WM6ILmxDTnu3McUNWD1njZo5VHhuoj6l3PYxm8P4_5UqPdGt1_PCPHnlsCGpYvAmnMbZbIx3XVUdgumqtIlkKnGj8W-zLyA3xteOU6uKQlgmXaee5McbWQTuysMfcdqiiNMgnzg"><span class="s5">http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democrats-are-lying-about-republican-tax-plan-says-washington-post-fact-checker/article/2639367</span></a></span></div>
<div class="p5">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s1">A Liberal:</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">This images expresses my stance on this. </span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><a href="https://twitter.com/hormiga/status/943361860157562885">https://twitter.com/hormiga/status/943361860157562885</a></span></div>
<div class="p1">
It's worth noting your news source is not unbiased: <a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmediabiasfactcheck.com%2Fwashington-examiner%2F&h=ATNvSLdD9Vd4TFVSz6_j8wyay1W_F7G51OhGe4LHsS03qO6zLMqR484jN_wcZYCeNuwqHUgIHR1pjv-6aPUzBStgv3pOoH5dI7j2JQk1ptDdwiM5aYXCDNO0mgGGmtP2EpbOMvznyZhaOuDF-A"><span class="s5">https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner/</span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjThulnLRE78uE77C0tNdtF5hlmfzO-y_iMMZAToYCzlUX2ecYKp2FcndIdwKZbwx6Gacj8oBlLM9cErmEQmLw5WlGrBK-pmOc1HJM1y2326XwiS4FhYxBdxfrztjkOcrcWgSfIqxWHMg0/s1600/TerryMcGlynTweet.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1084" data-original-width="1244" height="278" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjThulnLRE78uE77C0tNdtF5hlmfzO-y_iMMZAToYCzlUX2ecYKp2FcndIdwKZbwx6Gacj8oBlLM9cErmEQmLw5WlGrBK-pmOc1HJM1y2326XwiS4FhYxBdxfrztjkOcrcWgSfIqxWHMg0/s320/TerryMcGlynTweet.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p5">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s1">A Liberal:</span></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s3"><a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politifact.com%2Fpersonalities%2Fwashington-examiner%2F&h=ATOdmx_jDoEFGXeJkHzsXPMLFDHGG5A9Tlfqx8gXM7SmMSVEycbXVMWpl8bKTxBE5UxhHB4WvSrVh0d3rXeCCg_qKg49bHj1YQg-4ZHLjehsaydwzViPKJlD2jFIqXnTB7Z67SaCTjL43Ep3nA">http://www.politifact.com/personalities/washington-examiner/</a></span></div>
<div class="p5">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s1">Me:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">So since you cannot follow that it was a review of the leftist Washington Post, here is the Washington Post, which while leftist to the hilt, you will probably accept as "truth", and in this case may be close <a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Ffact-checker%2Fwp%2F2017%2F11%2F02%2Fsenate-democrats-falsely-claim-gop-tax-plan-will-raise-taxes-for-most-working-class-families%2F%3Futm_term%3D.ae9a078e1a5a&h=ATPQNZR_v4Qwyas4IlGcPtKujpZVrpkrwbI6pGWwqOA-DupAQuHXUycIijOVVLifEdNXoRtWMUSWHM_OySbOhCJ3ZEO22ODlHheUKuA-dr0nGJYWYozmNSbGjpU8iseyzsjlXT29v5gqjyaOtA"><span class="s5">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/02/senate-democrats-falsely-claim-gop-tax-plan-will-raise-taxes-for-most-working-class-families/?utm_term=.26b17091a6f9</span></a></span></div>
<div class="p5">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s1">Me:</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Here is where you can up your contributions to the Fed if you wish</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"> <a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fiscal.treasury.gov%2Ffsfaq%2Ffs_gifts_to_govt.htm&h=ATMiPEwklNqAAR2qhxUdQ90lshCKHlCLpziJ56VYSe1l5N26Brsm4ds41npO6NR8cWrw2zwcLcPRqOSsuM4PcQuphPjKivkSn0KR7C44IUsBXP-gqYvGPug4KjQ9jDghyB9T2_QDfDq0M2StSw"><span class="s5">https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsfaq/fs_gifts_to_govt.htm</span></a></span></div>
<div class="p5">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s1">Me:</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">And using your tool, it shows the WashPo to be just as biased, albeit to the left as Washington Examiner. So does that invalidate either? I think your view is a little myopic. </span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmediabiasfactcheck.com%2Fwashington-post%2F&h=ATPsw3PHc29eZ77EW6ZuFD8HzKhk27qdqZnVmpoemHq__n67aGKpamq5inVGje6E6M1-Hc22T4w-z4IecaibdCF7qcm0GhfubrWGK1QHB7dY111LE7wIo6VVHCw3xGxFUTALwKtNafZqvGQbuQ"><span class="s5">https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/</span></a></span></div>
<div class="p5">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s1">A Liberal:</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Income inequality has never been higher than it is now...except during the first great depression. Giving corportions tax breaks is not going to improve this situation. Empowering corrupt venal racists to make sure that out roads are maintained, that children are educated and that jobs continue to pay fairly seems like a lose lose to me. I think when Trump term ends in 2019 we will see how HE managed the existing swamp after a little distance. Our system is broken I don't believe Dems or Reps are going to get it under control until we reverse Citizens United. It's too tempting for our reps to make fair decisions when they stand to get so rich in modern politics.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Me: So many unfounded untruths its hard to know where to start. Corporate tax does not take money from a corporation. It is simply passed on in increased prices and reduced competitiveness. "Corrupt venal racists", really? Why use such abusive and ad hominem attacks in polemic? Its a cheap argument and really unpersuasive. If you study the education issue you can find so much data that shows money does not solve issues. In the state of California there was a study done that demonstrated exactly the lack of correlation. Citizens United, while the left abhors it was equally an issue for Corporate Unions as for Corporate Non-Union organizations.</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"> <a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsunlightfoundation.com%2F2014%2F02%2F06%2Flook-whos-benefiting-from-citizens-united-unions-wrote-more-big-checks-than-corporations-in-2013%2F&h=ATMFCbqbRpHRwbEnX7YkM4erwc0Br9XiGkVWtNeeEZ0QzKHM1AsfLpP4DIQqIZgrVJcl-f_OvXnVBjO_Kpgw0yJ9fLq3419hKe-ba2ogRsk32TDDH_ImgcGJovcatBQS5G-UKnnhnecpLa3CBg"><span class="s5">https://sunlightfoundation.com/2014/02/06/look-whos-benefiting-from-citizens-united-unions-wrote-more-big-checks-than-corporations-in-2013/</span></a></span></div>
<div class="p5">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s1">Me:</span></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s6"><a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwashington.cbslocal.com%2F2014%2F04%2F07%2Fstudy-no-link-between-school-spending-student-achievement%2F&h=ATOA-3_sot5sHHkgp01eGsCFcS94l16hYCspVJjcQV1XNDXfh-PIWrYScdfkJmXXjDY30Cx4HENOKyHRexn3QT2Ydaa1ytK77odFM4YrrYoQ-rSBZHEvnicsC_7nYgklzXqPTf1HRjJmzdIMDA">http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/04/07/study-no-link-between-school-spending-student-achievement/</a></span></div>
<div class="p5">
<span class="s7"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s7">Me:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s4">Or the original study </span></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s4"><a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fobject.cato.org%2Fsites%2Fcato.org%2Ffiles%2Fpubs%2Fpdf%2Fpa746.pdf&h=ATNUog_bV8piWLTgOflXX0lTlehjnS_Ke4gTW6br9AsMXOnm-p6ru8ubKExnxRNUd11uyKsJG3Ymm4MRnRaGbjqwwzikb2OfCwoaoUMJ5Fs5B1r-Ljs5zitvlZR6CZNjyS1Zl9rvVhzYvJu69g"><span class="s5">https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa746.pdf</span></a></span></div>
<div class="p5">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s1">Me:</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Probably a more important question for many, at least those who attempt to improve their income, is income upward mobility. Which has been stable. Its interesting to note that downward mobility is also common, but few really look at it or care.</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2014%2F01%2F23%2F265356290%2Fstudy-upward-mobility-no-tougher-in-u-s-than-two-decades-ago&h=ATN3z6_FS0a2gj1Hgt8kpmWHoi8_9X19vfsju6ucA0d5ngJixUdp8tJ8NXJkQCmUpAkqIihG2x0ItPi07wjbuyeULZDAmW7kxIh37VoSkwOIanQXTWwCf1uJxzrSgATXXDTn97x7c_CWT3P0gA"><span class="s5"> https://www.npr.org/2014/01/23/265356290/study-upward-mobility-no-tougher-in-u-s-than-two-decades-ago</span></a></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">A Liberal:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Cato and NPR are both generating propaganda. Look this admin is the least 'christ like' of any administration. I am ambarrassed by our white house. I wonder why you are not. Trump is convenient idiot who is also a racist, classist, mesogenist, kleptocratic tool for the Republicans. Oh and he is right dimplomat for the job if you want all of our allies to start breaking off relationships with us. America first? More like Trump first. Good luck with your version of the US. I hope it works out for you.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Me:</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Wow. Definition: Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda. That is basically true for anyone attempting to put forth any argument in any discussion. Even ostensibly "objective" fact finding organizations can bias by ignoring some of the facts, and enhancing others. I assume you are attempting to say that the Libertarian Cato institute is biased "right" (though I think they might disagree) and NPR is biased left (I know they will disagree, but I would agree they are). I repeat, does that really invalidate an organization, simply for having an ideological stance? In that case you pretty much cannot listen to anyone but yourself. And I hate to tell you, you probably have a bias also.</span></div>
<div class="p5">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s7">A Third Commentor:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">The tax cuts will KILL BABIES!!!!</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 13.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; color: #1d2129; -webkit-text-stroke: #1d2129; background-color: #ffffff}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 13.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; color: #1d2129; -webkit-text-stroke: #1d2129; background-color: #ffffff; min-height: 15.0px}
p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 14.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; color: #1d2129; -webkit-text-stroke: #1d2129; background-color: #ffffff}
p.p4 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 13.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; color: #365899; -webkit-text-stroke: #365899; background-color: #ffffff}
p.p5 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 13.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; color: #365899; -webkit-text-stroke: #365899; background-color: #ffffff; min-height: 15.0px}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
span.s2 {font: 13.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; font-kerning: none}
span.s3 {font-kerning: none; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed}
span.s4 {font-kerning: none; color: #1d2129; -webkit-text-stroke: 0px #1d2129}
span.s5 {font-kerning: none; color: #365899; -webkit-text-stroke: 0px #365899; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed}
span.s6 {text-decoration: underline ; font-kerning: none; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed}
span.s7 {text-decoration: underline ; font-kerning: none}
</style>
<br />
<div class="p5">
<span class="s7"></span><br /></div>
MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-80888970900885448782017-11-22T20:20:00.003-08:002017-11-22T20:20:22.782-08:00What Does Hollywood Teach?The last few weeks the media has been filled with discussions about "assaults on women". Its always easier to simply blame and dismiss than it is to study where attitudes potentially come from. Since I personally have had a hard time watching anything for the last year except the Hallmark channels, I took note this Thanksgiving week of the Lifetime Network offerings, just a channel away from my standard location in the directory. I frankly was appalled at what the daily fare on a channel purportedly managed by women for women had as its content. Is this what trendsetting Hollywood women think is a good example and fare for an audience of potentially young women to watch? What message do they display and endorse? One is left wondering what the rationale is for this content. I know for me it is depressing and distressing to think someone considers this the norm or something to celebrate.<br />
<br />
From their website their <a href="http://broadfocus.tumblr.com/">"broad focus"</a> statement is:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Lifetime's Broad Focus is a major initiative designed to provide women with more opportunities to write, develop, produce and direct content for the network. Lifetime is proud to claim 52% of our writers and 29% of our directors on all movies last year were women. For scripted series, 59% of our writers and 55% of our directors were women. </blockquote>
So one would think that this would be an endorsement for what they feel should be good behavior and appropriate messages to both women and men who watch the channel. But a quick scan of the titles and synopsis shows something that I both cringe at and avoid completely.<br />
<br />
This is the complete 6am to midnight schedule for November 22, 2017.<br />
<a href="http://www.mylifetime.com/lifetime-movies/schedule?month=11&day=22&year=2017">http://www.mylifetime.com/lifetime-movies/schedule?month=11&day=22&year=2017</a><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border-color: #000000 #000000 #000000 #000000; border-style: solid; border-width: 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px; height: 35.0px; padding: 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px; width: 89.0px;" valign="top">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: black; font-family: Helvetica Neue; font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">T</span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: black; font-family: Helvetica Neue; font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">he Other Man</span><br />
</td>
<td style="border-color: #000000 #000000 #000000 #000000; border-style: solid; border-width: 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px; height: 35.0px; padding: 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px; width: 424.0px;" valign="top">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: black; font-family: Helvetica Neue; font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">After his wife Lisa disappears on a business trip, Peter finds evidence that she has been having an affair with Ralph. He flies to Milan and enters into a complicated charade by befriending Ralph and slowly teasing information about Lisa out of him.</span><br />
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-color: #000000 #000000 #000000 #000000; border-style: solid; border-width: 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px; height: 23.0px; padding: 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px; width: 89.0px;" valign="top">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: black; font-family: Helvetica Neue; font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">Another Woman's Husband</span><br />
</td>
<td style="border-color: #000000 #000000 #000000 #000000; border-style: solid; border-width: 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px; height: 23.0px; padding: 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px; width: 424.0px;" valign="top">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: black; font-family: Helvetica Neue; font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">A shared detail threatens to snap the tight bond between two female friends (Lisa Rinna, Gail O'Grady).</span><br />
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-color: #000000 #000000 #000000 #000000; border-style: solid; border-width: 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px; height: 23.0px; padding: 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px; width: 89.0px;" valign="top">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: black; font-family: Helvetica Neue; font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">Love Thy Neighbor</span><br />
</td>
<td style="border-color: #000000 #000000 #000000 #000000; border-style: solid; border-width: 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px; height: 23.0px; padding: 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px; width: 424.0px;" valign="top">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: black; font-family: Helvetica Neue; font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">A family moves into a seemingly idyllic community but starts to receive threats from an unknown source.</span><br />
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-color: #000000 #000000 #000000 #000000; border-style: solid; border-width: 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px; height: 23.0px; padding: 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px; width: 89.0px;" valign="top">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: black; font-family: Helvetica Neue; font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">When Husbands Cheat</span><br />
</td>
<td style="border-color: #000000 #000000 #000000 #000000; border-style: solid; border-width: 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px; height: 23.0px; padding: 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px; width: 424.0px;" valign="top">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: black; font-family: Helvetica Neue; font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">A woman (Patricia Kalember) becomes a detective, then uses her skills to check her policeman husband's (Tom Irwin) fidelity.</span><br />
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-color: #000000 #000000 #000000 #000000; border-style: solid; border-width: 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px; height: 23.0px; padding: 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px; width: 89.0px;" valign="top">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: black; font-family: Helvetica Neue; font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">Her Best Friend's Husband</span><br />
</td>
<td style="border-color: #000000 #000000 #000000 #000000; border-style: solid; border-width: 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px; height: 23.0px; padding: 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px; width: 424.0px;" valign="top">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: black; font-family: Helvetica Neue; font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">A woman faces a moral dilemma when she tries to save her friend's marriage but falls in love with the woman's husband.</span><br />
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-color: #000000 #000000 #000000 #000000; border-style: solid; border-width: 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px; height: 35.0px; padding: 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px; width: 89.0px;" valign="top">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: black; font-family: Helvetica Neue; font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">Nightmare Nurse</span><br />
</td>
<td style="border-color: #000000 #000000 #000000 #000000; border-style: solid; border-width: 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px; height: 35.0px; padding: 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px; width: 424.0px;" valign="top">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: black; font-family: Helvetica Neue; font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">After a bad accident, Brooke's boyfriend Lance requires at-home care during his recovery. His attractive nurse seems perfect until her troubled past comes to light, making it apparent to the happy couple that someone is trying to destroy their lives.</span><br />
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-color: #000000 #000000 #000000 #000000; border-style: solid; border-width: 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px; height: 23.0px; padding: 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px; width: 89.0px;" valign="top">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: black; font-family: Helvetica Neue; font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">A Deadly Affair</span><br />
</td>
<td style="border-color: #000000 #000000 #000000 #000000; border-style: solid; border-width: 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px; height: 23.0px; padding: 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px; width: 424.0px;" valign="top">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: black; font-family: Helvetica Neue; font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">A woman who suspects her contractor husband of having an affair trails him to a house and finds him dead.</span><br />
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-color: #000000 #000000 #000000 #000000; border-style: solid; border-width: 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px; height: 24.0px; padding: 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px; width: 89.0px;" valign="top">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: black; font-family: Helvetica Neue; font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">A Perfect Murder</span><br />
</td>
<td style="border-color: #000000 #000000 #000000 #000000; border-style: solid; border-width: 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px; height: 24.0px; padding: 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px; width: 424.0px;" valign="top">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: black; font-family: Helvetica Neue; font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">A commodities trader (Michael Douglas) takes action when his wife (Gwyneth Paltrow) has an affair with a bohemian painter (Viggo Mortensen).</span><br />
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-color: #000000 #000000 #000000 #000000; border-style: solid; border-width: 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px; height: 23.0px; padding: 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px; width: 89.0px;" valign="top">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: black; font-family: Helvetica Neue; font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">Love to Kill</span><br />
</td>
<td style="border-color: #000000 #000000 #000000 #000000; border-style: solid; border-width: 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px; height: 23.0px; padding: 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px; width: 424.0px;" valign="top">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: black; font-family: Helvetica Neue; font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">A man (Rick Ravanello) learns that his seductive wife (Blanchard Ryan) is responsible for the deaths of her previous husbands.</span><br />
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-color: #000000 #000000 #000000 #000000; border-style: solid; border-width: 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px; height: 23.0px; padding: 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px; width: 89.0px;" valign="top">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: black; font-family: Helvetica Neue; font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">A Perfect Murder</span><br />
</td>
<td style="border-color: #000000 #000000 #000000 #000000; border-style: solid; border-width: 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px 1.0px; height: 23.0px; padding: 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px 4.0px; width: 424.0px;" valign="top">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: black; font-family: Helvetica Neue; font-kerning: none; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">A commodities trader (Michael Douglas) takes action when his wife (Gwyneth Paltrow) has an affair with a bohemian painter (Viggo Mortensen).</span><br />
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br />
We as a society may be hesitant to claim that movies and television affect moral attitudes, but constant bombardment of negative stereotyping eventually takes a toll, <a href="http://changingminds.org/principles/repetition.htm">conditioning</a> us to the content. I know its one I cannot stand to watch in the entertainment I will partake of!<br />
<br />
See:<br />
<a href="http://changingminds.org/principles/repetition.htm">http://changingminds.org/principles/repetition.htm</a><br />
<a href="http://mediasmarts.ca/blog/media-and-morality">http://mediasmarts.ca/blog/media-and-morality</a><br />
<a href="http://scitechconnect.elsevier.com/media-childrens-social-moral-development/">http://scitechconnect.elsevier.com/media-childrens-social-moral-development/</a><br />
<a href="http://humanevents.com/2007/06/13/does-watching-tv-damage-character/">http://humanevents.com/2007/06/13/does-watching-tv-damage-character/</a><br />
<br />
<br />
MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-70902076936108382832015-12-17T13:16:00.002-08:002015-12-17T13:16:49.819-08:00My Question for a Presidential ForumWhat question would you want to pose for a Presidential forum? As I wait to attend and video record the Ted Cruz event tonight I was thinking about what question I would ask, were I chosen to ask a question during the media press conference, and this came to mind:<br />
<br />
After 7 years without a Federal Budget, where the government funding is decided basically by omnibus continuing appropriation bills that carry everyones favorite expenditure, which they could not get passed by any other vehicle, is there a way to get back to "<a href="http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2015/11/19-restoring-regular-order-congressional-appropriations-hanson">regular order</a>"? And what steps can a President actually take to help that? Or has the coalition of Obama-Reid-Pelosi so destroyed the system that constitutional process cannot be restored?<br />
<br />
Or after having ruled the country essentially by Presidential executive order fiat (it could certainly be read as "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship">dictatorship</a>" or "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism">totalitarian</a>", by the above mentioned cabal) for 7 years does it simply reassert because the liberals will see it as the best way to continue to force their agenda? Because regular order helps representation of the minority, and their agenda continues with each bill increasing government and regulation. The current "executive order" process simply does it ever at a much faster pace. That is one reason why progressives like MN Rep Betty McCollum have been so strongly supportive of Barack Obama executive orders and regulation (bypassing Congress). While it diminishes the power and authority of Congress, where she serves, it achieves the progressive goals much more quickly and can much more easily ignore the rights and desires of even a majority, let alone a minority.MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-15349474079267096232015-05-30T20:32:00.000-07:002015-05-30T20:32:02.982-07:00The Case for a Dayton Shutdown Blame GameDuring the 2011 shutdown, Governor Dayton made certain that the most egregious shutdown actions possible were conducted. Essential services were cut and pain was exacted so that he could have good talking points for later use.<br />
<br />
Is the DFL Senate majority and Governor Mark Dayton trying to force another shutdown on Minnesota? There is significant evidence to indicate that they may be working towards that. Here are the reasons.<br />
<br />
After the 2011 shutdown in an interview Governor Dayton was asked about it: <br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/UZy86QwzIG4?t=91">https://youtu.be/UZy86QwzIG4?t=91</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Dayton: And this was not apparent to me or other of our negotiators at that time of June 30, but the Republicans said subsequently [it was stated in a letter PRIOR to the shutdown] publicly that they would take all these policy items everything from banning stem cell research to abolishing teacher tenure to abrogating contractual bargaining rights to uh of employees, all that was going to be taken off of the negotiating tables so we would be able to focus just on the budget. That was not at all clear to us at all on the night of June 30th and so it really put it in a different context, and it also uh they have agreed to my $500 million bonding bill which would go a long way to putting more people to work in Minnesota [not borne out in results subsequently] .<br />
<br />
Interviewer: Its sounds like governor, without putting words in your mouth, that it sounds like this could have been worked out on June 30th without a shutdown, except for miscommunication.<br />
<br />
Dayton: Well uh, eh, ya, you know we were in constant communication [except for reading negotiating letters], but uh I don't know whether there was miscommunication or subsequent revision [misdirection?], I don't know, but anyway you know what's done is done and the important thing now is to get an agreement very quickly where you have our groups working very quickly on that today, we've got 10 o'clock today deadlines…</blockquote>
<br />
Sounds similar to Hillary's "what difference does it make" comment about the dead in Benghazi and blaming it on a youtube video no one had seen?<br />
<br />
The 2011 interview is at 91 seconds...<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UZy86QwzIG4/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="180" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UZy86QwzIG4?t=91 feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
So this year there were some rather banal leading questions by the media, at a Governor Mark Dayton press conference in March (full conference <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWbdZyKX2fg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWbdZyKX2fg</a>) where Mark Dayton decried the 2011 shutdown and said he hopes other people remember it, he certainly does. See the shutdown questions from the beginning of the link above <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZy86QwzIG4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZy86QwzIG4</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Dayton: Compromise means you agree to things you don't agree with, obviously I'm going to have to compromise if we are going to get a resolution and avoid the serious consequences of 2011</blockquote>
But what he appears to remember, is how to set up the conditions for a shutdown. In 2011 he vetoed all the bills <a href="http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2011/05/gov-mark-dayton-vetoes-all-gop-budget-bills-foresees-likely-state-government">http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2011/05/gov-mark-dayton-vetoes-all-gop-budget-bills-foresees-likely-state-government</a><br />
<br />
And he is repeating that strategy again this year! <a href="http://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2015/05/dayton-vetoes-two-more-budget-bills/">http://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2015/05/dayton-vetoes-two-more-budget-bills/</a><br />
<br />
Rather than actually working through it, he simply vetoes clearly bi-partisan compromise bills, since they had to pass both a DFL controlled Senate and GOP majority house.<br />
<br />
Where Mark Dayton demands concession and compromise, he is far from inclined to offer any such on his part to avoid a shutdown.<br />
<br />
While GOP House leader Daudt said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“With his vetoes, he is rejecting bipartisan efforts to put more than $17 billion toward students in every classroom, provide resources to help farmers devastated by avian flu, send relief to miners facing unemployment on the Iron Range,” Daudt’s statement said. Daudt added while the legislature, including the DFL-majority Senate, finished its work, “the governor wants more time. We will continue to work with him for Minnesotans.”</blockquote>
Dayton has used <a href="http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/05/19/dayton-veto">inflammatory rhetoric</a> to vilify the GOP and further draw back from any potential compromise.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
They hate the public schools, some of the Republican legislators," the
governor said. "They're loathe to provide any additional money for
public schools and for public school teachers because all of the good
programs I've seen around this state for pre-K and all-day kindergarten..<br />
.<br />
Dayton said his previous budget offers are now off the table and he
intends to push for even more school funding. But he wouldn't say if
he'll insist universal pre-K be a part of the final deal</blockquote>
<br />
And then there is the question of the blame game, because of course the DFL and Mark Dayton must ultimately be seen as blameless in the failure to negotiate and compromise<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.startribune.com/sen-tom-bakk-blames-house-gop-for-impasse-recriminations-fly/303478711/?recirculation=most-read">By J. Patrick Coolican MAY 12, 2015 — 1:25PM</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook] said he'd seen seeing polling data that would place blame for a shutdown on Republicans, but said it's not his intention.</blockquote>
On Mitch Berg's radio show it was revealed that no one in the Republican caucus has seen or heard of such a poll. Which means its almost certain that early during the Legislative session the DFL has had a poll taken that gives them both comfort that they will not be blamed if they bring about a shutdown, and the clear freedom to go beyond brinksmanship. All punishment for their actions will be meted out to their political opponents. That is smoking gun evidence of underhanded dealing and negotiating in poor faith by the DFL.<br />
<br />
Sen. Tom Bakk has <a href="http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/05/19/dayton-veto">stated</a> that he is not going to negotiate with House Republicans. As Senate Majority Leader, doesn't he have an inherent responsibility to make sure that the Senate has a seat at the table? Of course we know that by deferring the responsibility, he's essentially siding with Dayton in the negotiations. So with Senator Bakk abrogating his responsibilities and Dayton's radical brinksmanship approach, the evidence suggests are they simply pushing us into a shutdown deliberately?<br />
<br />
Hopefully voters and <a href="http://www.startribune.com/bad-day-in-minnesota-budget-talks-layoff-notices-pending-for-9-500-state-workers/305541891/">state workers threatened with layoff notices</a> will remember next year what transpired, and who really caused the pain that the state will go through. It was not the media's favorite piñata, it was the Democrat Party!<br />
<br />
<br />MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-48577589853195969532015-03-02T23:00:00.000-08:002015-03-02T23:00:00.508-08:00Betty McCollums Dangerous NaivetyIn an article <a href="http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2015/mar/02/i-won-t-go-to-the-speech-20150302/?opinion">written by Betty McCollum</a>, she states her rationale for not going to the speech by Benjamin Netanyahu<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in the midst of a heated re-election campaign. Yet he is traveling 5,900 miles to give a speech before a joint meeting of Congress on Tuesday--just two weeks before Israelis go to the polls. </blockquote>
<br />In her analysis, the only motivation is political gain in an election.<br /><br />There are just too many holes in such naive, and very dangerous, logic. It ignores the main issue of a nuclear Iran poised to destroy the tiny nation of Israel, our best ally in a very dangerous region, with a looming acceptance of its nuclear ambitions coming from a treaty in the <a href="http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/02/iran-nuclear-deadline-puzzles-us-allies.html#">immediate works with Barack Obama</a>. With Betty McCollum's almost certain support.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
But some US administration allies are puzzled that what they consider a soft deadline for a framework agreement for a final Iran nuclear deal has seemingly become the de facto deadline, rather than the June 30 deadline that Iran and the six world powers agreed to in November.<br /><br />The US administration has “bought two months, but sold three,” a Western diplomat, speaking not for attribution, told Al-Monitor.<br /><br />Some Democratic Senators who have signed onto a letter from Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., to President Barack Obama have told interlocutors that the Obama administration asked them to give it until the end of March to see if a framework deal could be reached, before voting on new Iran sanctions legislation.</blockquote>
<br />Read more: <a href="http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/02/iran-nuclear-deadline-puzzles-us-allies.html##ixzz3TIndNaNM">http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/02/iran-nuclear-deadline-puzzles-us-allies.html##ixzz3TIndNaNM</a><br /><br />Lest anyone think that this is not an issue of immediate importance to all the people of Israel, and our own National security, not merely a "political stunt" as she prefers to think of it, one needs go no further than today's article of the Jerusalem Post<a href="http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/US-lawmakers-send-letter-to-Obama-on-Iran-392741">http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/US-lawmakers-send-letter-to-Obama-on-Iran-392741</a><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
JPOST.COM STAFF \ 03/03/2015 04:50 <br />US Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and US Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), the Committee’s Ranking Member, released a bipartisan letter on Monday, to be sent to President Barack Obama, highlighting concerns over ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran.<br />Royce and Engel circulated the letter to other House members, in hopes of garnering support and signatures.<br />With a looming deadline for a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran, the letter outlines a series of "difficult issues" which have surfaced during negotiations and have yet to be resolved. These “grave and urgent issues" pertain to the size of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, its lack of cooperation with international inspectors, and the need for an intrusive inspection regime. </blockquote>
<br />And in case there is any question about "one ups man ship", this all comes on the heels of<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/01/us-iran-nuclear-usa-obama-idUSKBN0LX11320150301"> Barack Obama telling Congress to get lost </a>on attempting to weigh in on the treaty<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama would veto a bill recently introduced in the U.S. Senate allowing Congress to weigh in on any deal the United States and other negotiating countries reach with Iran on its nuclear capabilities, the White House said on Saturday.<br /><br />"The president has been clear that now is not the time for Congress to pass additional legislation on Iran. If this bill is sent to the president, he will veto it," said Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the White House's National Security Council.</blockquote>
more <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/412534/obama-administration-we-dont-need-congress-approve-iran-treaty-jim-geraghty">here</a> and <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/senators-press-on-iran-sanctions-despite-obamas-veto-threat-1421861534">here</a><br /><br />So in terms of rude treatment, I think the prize goes to President Obama and his ardent supporter Betty McCollum.<br /><br />Regardless of the outcome of the upcoming elections, March 17, there will be a significant delay in furthering the case for change to the proposed treaty. A new government will have to form and begin negations with Barack Obama. Negotiations that have met with pointed resistance and dismissal in the past. So the time is now for presenting any message that has a hope of making an impact in the thinking behind this treaty. Since President Obama seems dedicated to making the decision this March, almost during the Israeli elections, rather than even the agreed upon June deadline. It would be difficult for the Israeli elections to be able to do anything but prevent their voice being heard.<br />
<br />
Thus I believe it is very evident that Betty McCollum's arguments are wholly specious!MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-12693827880517017192014-10-11T11:34:00.000-07:002014-10-11T11:36:03.199-07:00Betty McCollum and Irreconcilable StatisticsBetty McCollum shows us once again the perils of naive thinking and use of poorly handled statistics.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV9AGHpttwnkSWQKYmWFqJCPWim_ZM5QSwIuluxyESaW6jl5KPNHFzS6gde77zNTQfZLihkiIawL4laMdOw9AaAFIwFGaySzViPVyXdYB1zI-0_R5I5VKqhBqO2j2X4_h0eNyoq4TV925v/s1600/BettyMcCollumTweet.png" height="99" width="320" /><a href="https://www.facebook.com/repbettymccollum/posts/734634026591965">https://www.facebook.com/repbettymccollum/posts/734634026591965</a></div>
<br />
Arguably she does not do the analysis herself, she simply reports what her favorite organizations (agenda driven, not truth driven groups) put out, without adequate investigation. This is an excellent example of the use of "happenstance data". In this case from the:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.wfmn.org/wfmn-research/facts/">Women’s Foundation of Minnesota</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Below is a sampling of data from the Status of Women & Girls in Minnesota, an ongoing collaborative research project of the Women’s Foundation of Minnesota and the University of MN Humphrey School’s Center on Women & Public Policy. Annually, data specific to Minnesota women and girls is gathered and analyzed in economics, safety, health, and leadership.</blockquote>
As is standard for these egregious studies in the misuse of statistical data, it is an "apples to anvils" comparison taken simply by naively saying "compare all men to all women", irrespective of life choices that put them in completely different economic paths and positions. It is a statistical strategy guaranteeing flawed results that will never give a picture other than what they want, not a search for "truth". They are simply looking for "victimization" rubrics. It is a way to continue to demagogue issues, that they feel promotes their political agenda. It is an "issue" that can never be "solved" if the data is viewed naively. Thus providing perpetual outrage and growth of pet programs.<br />
<br />
When the data is more correctly handled, the analysis gives a much different picture. These results were published at the Huffington Post. It is a<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html"> very thoughtful article with this take-away</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
That's not a comparison between people who do the same work." With more realistic categories and definitions, the remaining 6.6 gap [<i>Note: they had explained away most of the purported difference earlier in the text</i>] would certainly narrow to just a few cents at most.<br />
Could the gender wage gap turn out to be zero? Probably not. The AAUW correctly notes that there is still evidence of residual bias against women in the workplace. However, with the gap approaching a few cents, there is not a lot of room for discrimination. And as economists frequently remind us, if it were really true that an employer could get away with paying Jill less than Jack for the same work, clever entrepreneurs would fire all their male employees, replace them with females, and enjoy a huge market advantage.</blockquote>
<br />
Read the original, statistically honest/well handled, <a href="http://www.aauw.org/research/graduating-to-a-pay-gap/">study here</a>.<br />
<br />
Illogical analyses like this study must never be used for determining public policy. That is how we get so many truly bad policy laws. Thoughtful analysis and prudent probative evaluation is required to have the information to make good policy decisions. Decisions that benefit our country, not undermine it.MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-12177689193728837832014-08-02T21:46:00.000-07:002014-08-02T21:46:45.790-07:00Betty McCollum and Politics of "The Big Lie"As I was out dropping lit for a candidate, I was engaged in a discussion with a gentleman who wanted to talk about the lack of accomplishment of Congress in this session. While he tried to portray himself as a moderate/Republican, he continued to point toward the shortcomings of "tea partiers" as the source of the divisiveness in Washington. His speech sounded very much like the continual referencing (with disrespect intended) of "tea-party Republicans" by Congresswoman Betty McCollum. The name calling approach is a standard tactic of those who want to dismiss and marginalize others, rather than engage in dialog and really accomplish a task. He had been swayed by the "politics of disrespect".<br />
<br />
As I told this gentleman, the original intent of our Constitutional Republic was to create a system with "tension" (like a spring) that would make passage of poor legislation difficult. In other words - gridlock was a decidedly good thing in the minds of the founders, because it prevented the loss of liberty for the minority. <br />
<br />
When the Constitution was up for ratification, there was an ongoing debate, for and against, recoded in the writings of the Federalist and Anti-Federalists papers. The fears of the people for a government that disregarded the rights of the minority had to be allayed before ratification. From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10">Federalist 10</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[Madison] thinks that "the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society". He saw direct democracy as a danger to individual rights and advocated a representative democracy in order to protect what he viewed as individual liberty from majority rule, or from the effects of such inequality within society. He says, "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths".</blockquote>
Disrespect and incivility are standards of the <a href="http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm">Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."<br />13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...<br /> "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
So here is the most recent example provided by <a href="https://twitter.com/BettyMcCollum04/status/494966252155441152">Congresswoman McCollum</a>:<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkZF0ExuYEU5IA_kP7kAFYn7ds7DGXa9wFDjGAY4puPJocVg5PsX-Q_EIV2Qqw0gmCgbF81DNizuOodStZyNzvxz6Jy7A4M42eoOK9ew-QWrdaNHfXca2BR9v9W05rnf8rc1_7HzRTEG3b/s1600/BettyMcCollumTweet.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkZF0ExuYEU5IA_kP7kAFYn7ds7DGXa9wFDjGAY4puPJocVg5PsX-Q_EIV2Qqw0gmCgbF81DNizuOodStZyNzvxz6Jy7A4M42eoOK9ew-QWrdaNHfXca2BR9v9W05rnf8rc1_7HzRTEG3b/s1600/BettyMcCollumTweet.png" height="124" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
What this "politics of disrespect" accomplishes is to "poison the well" and attempt to shift the blame for a perceived "lack of progress". Never forget that the "progress" that some may want may be a direct violation of the rights and property of others. That will get lost in the din of the ensuing flurry of accusations. Follow the tactics of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie">"Big Lie"</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.</blockquote>
The demagogic use the "victim" politics appears to be the plan of the Democrat Party this year. The empty argument should not be believed, but history has demonstrated the effectiveness of the "Big Lie". If you want a real change in tone in Washington, those who practice the "Big Lie" are not who you should support.<br />
<br />MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-68623284053133787882014-05-04T18:04:00.000-07:002014-05-05T09:38:06.612-07:00MNCD4 GOP Endorsement - Sharna WahlgrenMinnesota Congressional District 4 (MNCD4) Republicans held their 2014 Convention April 26. They endorsed, by acclamation, an exciting first time candidate -- Sharna Wahlgren.<br />
<br />
Sharna Wahlgren is a lifelong resident of Minnesota Congressional District 4. Attending Harding High School, graduating from the University of Minnesota with a degree in Economics, worked with Senator Rudy Boschwitz in Washington, and spent 20 years working in the private sector with hard working, energetic, entrepreneurs.<br />
<br />
Sharna realized that more is required if we are going to change the course our country is now set upon. Who represents our diverse communities priorities in congress? She contrasts her middle class priorities against the far left priorities of Betty McCollum (who receives a significantly divisive <a href="http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.htm?member=400259">93% progressive rating</a>) in her nomination speech at MNCD4. Watch her speech to see her describe her views and plans for winning the hearts and minds of people in CD4. Responding to the demagogic claims of Betty McCollum that Republicans engage in a "<a href="http://www.meetup.com/Politically-Aware-Left-Learners-Socializing/events/55705292/">War on Women</a>", Sharna states: "We know a strong economy is the best friend any woman has. Single or married, we know that women don't want government dependency but want to live their lives free from the grasping claws of those in government who claim to know better -- they do not know better!"<br />
<br />
<a href="http://youtu.be/Ua3ndVzNnio">Sharna's 2014 MNCD4 Convention Speech</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='480' height='270' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ua3ndVzNnio?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Sharna Wahlgren is an attorney focusing in Patent, Trademark & Franchise Matters. The processes, tools and requirements for innovative new products, businesses, and jobs are the heart of her work for 20 years. Her experiences have been in a very diverse range "including gemstone enhancement, chemical compounds, computer software, medical devices, commercial refrigeration systems, snowmobile equipment, automotive maintenance equipment, adhesives, consumer products, and a variety of other consumer products and mechanical devices." Sharna has also worked in real estate, including condemnation and tax appeal. Giving Sharna a base and breadth of experience that will greatly benefit constituents of CD4.<br />
<br />
Sharna has a broad depth of understanding of business, regulation, and government policy that affect you, your job, and improving the environment affecting job creation for you and your children. Here in Congressional District 4 we have watched as businesses have diminished and jobs have left the area and the state. Much of the reason for this is an environment of intrusive governmental regulation and obstructiveness. Current policy and policy makers are dedicated to a path that continues to disadvantage business growth and stifles job creation. Sharna will bring enthusiasm, knowledge, and proven ability to changing that path in Congress.<br />
<br />
Follow Sharna's plans and efforts at:<br />
<a href="http://www.sharna4us.com/">http://www.sharna4us.com/</a><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/sharna4us">https://twitter.com/sharna4us</a> (@sharna4us)<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-5868250601839104732013-10-03T16:39:00.001-07:002013-10-03T16:39:41.993-07:00Harry Reid on "What right do they have"<br />Harry Reid often says some outlandish things, sometimes bordering on libelous, but none more so than his recent response to a question from a CNN media journalist. It was outlandish on multiple levels and points. However these two stand out as cruel, heartless, and arrogantly incorrect. His only intent is political gain, apparently at the risk of throwing children under the bus.<br />
<br />
Here is the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=O0lFyFJeZSY">video of the question and Harry Reid's scurrilous response</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/cwA3jo-5uUg?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
Her main question was "but if you could help one child with cancer, why wouldn't you want to do that". His response: "why would we want to do that!"<br />
<br />
To be fair, though not sure why, that response may be less about being in context to her question, than his dismissing the real questions about financing the government. I doubt such fairness would be afforded were it a Republican who had made such a statement<br />
<br />
The main issue in his statements for him as a constitutional officer of the U.S. Senate is his comment<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"what right do they have to pick and choose what part of government is going to be funded"</blockquote>
<br />
Perhaps Harry Reid should review the basic document of government, the US Constitution<br />
Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution!<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.</blockquote>
<br />
While he tries to shift the blame and call Republicans "reckless and irresponsible" it is obvious that this is no more than a game to he and President Obama. Their stated position and strategy of absolutely no compromise is reckless. Their strategy of <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/02/unreal-park-workers-installing-more-barricades-around-wwii-memorial-to-keep-vets-out/">closing open air park</a>s and staffing them with <a href="http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/10/02/confirmed-obama-admin-deployed-more-guards-at-the-wwii-memorial-than-benghazi/">more officers</a> than Benghazi to <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/shutdown-overreach-more-guards-at-wwii-memorial-than-benghazi-park-service-closes-park-it-doesnt-run/article/2536710">keep closed than existed when "open"</a> is truly irresponsible.<br />
<br />MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-14531484907982590392013-09-17T20:44:00.001-07:002013-09-17T20:59:25.193-07:00Playing the Debt Blame Game<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-unicode">
From the floor of the Senate:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt
limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S.
Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on
ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our
Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt
weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the
buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad
choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America
has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve
better.</blockquote>
Is this another "horrible idea" floated by, as Betty McCollum has described, those "Tea Party Republicans" who simply want to drive the
American Economy into recession and destroy the "full faith and credit"
of the United States?<br />
From <a href="https://mccollum.house.gov/press-release/mccollum-rejects-republican-tea-party-strategy-risk-default-us-debt">Rep Betty McCollum's web site</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Tonight's vote was nothing less than Republican game playing with
our government's debt obligations. This is a dangerous game that puts
our national security, the U.S. economy, and millions of jobs in
jeopardy. Congress had an opportunity tonight to ensure there are funds
for our troops in harm's way and to protect America's fragile economic
recovery as Congress and the President work to address the long-term
fiscal crisis facing our nation. Instead the House Republican majority
is signaling to global markets that it is willing to gamble with the
full faith and credit of the United States."</blockquote>
Does this meme sound familiar? Heard it from the left, or far left ( example MSNBC) leaning mainstream media enough to make it a mantra you
could recite in your sleep? The Republicans are to blame for shutting down Government, blocking the ability to pay Government's Bills. Perhaps this will come as news, news I am
sure you might initially reject if you are of such a mind. Clearly
those of a mind with Rep Betty McCollum reject this notion, when its
convenient, and would blame Rand Paul or Ted Cruz for, in her words, <a href="https://mccollum.house.gov/press-release/mccollum-rejects-republican-tea-party-strategy-risk-default-us-debt">"National Security, U.S. Economy, and Millions of Jobs in Jeopardy</a>".<br />
<br />
But the initial statement above was from then Sen. Barack Obama’s
Floor Speech, March 20, 2006, providing a screed against President
George W Bush's request for a debt increase. However now he is on the opposite side of the debate, speaking with equal disdain in his<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/obama-calls-gop-debt-ceiling-demands-an-assault-on-us-constitutional-structure/"> recent speech</a> Sep 15, 2013<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“If
we continue to set a precedent in which a president … is in a situation
in which each time the United States is called upon to pay its bills,
the other party can simply sit there and say, ‘Well, we’re not going to
put — pay the bills unless you give us … what we want,’ that changes the
constitutional structure of this government entirely,” Obama said.<br />
House
Republicans, seeking to defund and delay implementation of the
president’s signature health care law, have sought to use the upcoming
debt ceiling and government funding fights to extract concessions from
the White House.<br />
<i>Obama says he is drawing a line in the sand.</i><br />
“What
has never happened in the past was the notion that in exchange for
fulfilling the full faith and credit of the United States, that we are
wiping away let’s say major legislation like the health care bill,” he
told Stephanopoulos.<br />
“Never in history have we used just making
sure that the U.S. government is paying its bills as a lever to
radically cut government at the kind of scale that they’re talking
about,” he added.</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256288/senator-barack-obama-explaining-his-2006-vote-against-raising-debt-limit-andrew-c-mcca">At that time, 2006, our National Debt was</a> moving to $9 Trillion, now it currently is $16.7 Trillion, nearing double. Each citizen owed roughly $45K, now its $52,864.93. For a family of four, that's essentially the lifetime savings for the<a href="http://blog.aarp.org/2013/06/17/average-401k-balances-for-55-plus-reach-255000-retirement-savings/"> average American</a>.<br />
<br />
Every Democratic Senator in 2006 voted against the debt increase. And in the house Betty McCollum has similarly been <a href="http://www.minnpost.com/dc-dispatches/2011/06/everyone-looking-something-different-debt-ceiling-deal">chameleon in her voting record</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
McCollum, for example, voted against raising the debt limit every time it came up for a vote between 2002 and 2005. Since the Democrats won the House in the 2006 elections, though, she’s been a supporter of half-a-dozen measures with debt ceiling increases attached to them, including some straight increases, budget resolutions and three major economic recovery packages in 2008 and 2009 (the Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac takeover, TARP, and the stimulus package).</blockquote>
Were his initial statements about George W Bush hyperbole, social
gaffe, lack of of leadership, or is it as as Guy Benson stated<a href="http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/09/16/flashback-sen-obama-assaults-constitutional-structure-with-2006-debt-ceiling-vote/"> entirely self interest</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Blowing through Obama ‘red lines’ isn't typically that<a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/09/11/this-has-been-one-of-the-most-humiliating-episodes-in-presidential-history-n1697567"> big of a deal</a> if you’re a foreign butcher. This president usually gets more
animated about defeating his domestic political adversaries, so don’t
worry too much about the Hitler comparisons, Bashar; the administration
has likened Republicans to <a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2011/08/01/shameful_biden_says_tea_party_has_acted_like_terrorists">terrorists</a> and <a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/07/17/sebelius-obamacare-opponents-remind-me-of-segregationists-n1642883">segregationist</a>s,
so you only rank slightly above Mitch McConnell on the rhetorical
hierarchy of evil. In any case, Obama’s definition of preserving the
“constitutional structure” tends to vary, and by pure coincidence, his
conclusions often align with his immediate political interests.<br />
That was <a href="http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/">$8 trillion</a> ago. <b>Obama’s
decision wasn't just throw-away symbolism, either. Democrats fell just
<a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00054">three votes shy</a> of defeating a debt ceiling increase to “make a point” about Bush’s
(<a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2011/10/06/chart_whos_the_king_of_debt">comparatively modest</a>)
spending and borrowing.</b> Now, 2006 Barack Obama’s actions are being
lambasted by 2013 Barack Obama as reckless threats to the republic.</blockquote>
Under President Barack Obama and Democrat Betty McCollum we now have a
much more severe threat to our Country, one might say near double the threat under their "lack of leadership". A threat fed by the continual
profligate spending of those who simply denigrate opposition rather than
attempt to really work on the problems. That's "lack of leadership".<br />
<br />
And is it not reasonable to consider the crippling impact of the unpopular Obamacare in any discussion of debt? Even Obama's favorite go to billionaire guy Warren Buffet has said, in an article released by <a href="http://moneymorning.com/ob-article/obamacare-buffett.php">Money Morning</a>;<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"What we have now is untenable over time," said Buffett, an early supporter of President Obama. "That kind of a cost compared to the rest of the world is really like a tapeworm eating, you know, at our economic body."<br />
Buffet does not believe that providing insurance for everyone is the first step to take in correcting our nation's healthcare system.<br />
"Attack the costs first, and then worry about expanding coverage," he said.</blockquote>
Democrats, like Barack Obama and Betty McCollum, have never been serious about the debt. To them it is simply a hammer to use to bludgeon opposition into following their desires, or get punished! Yes we can do better.<br />
<br /></div>
MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-84017512162926185182013-09-05T22:32:00.000-07:002013-09-05T23:44:43.897-07:00Syria - Agreeing with Betty McCollum?I currently find myself in agreement with the early Betty McCollum opposition to Syrian intervention. Probably not for the same reasoning, but the end result is agreed. However will that agreement be longer than a fleeting moment?<br />
<br />
Betty McCollum has always been consistently and vocally against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Sometimes to the detriment of truth to the American people (relating to the level of the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDKemECA2Lw">Al Qaeda threat</a>, while Betty McCollum has stated "Al Qaeda is not longer a threat", they really still are, as <a href="http://www.tubechop.com/watch/644420">Lara Logan explains the lie</a>). But now that it is a Democrat President, and her mentor Nancy Pelosi is <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/nancy-pelosi-to-congressional-democrats-use-of-force-in-syria-is-in-our-national-interest-20130903">solidly</a>, <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/house/320133-pelosi-scrambling-if-not-whipping-for-house-democratic-votes-on-syria-">here</a> and <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nancy-pelosis-rank-hypocrisy-exposed-by-syria-intervention-debate/">here</a> acting as a war <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/03/nancy-superhawk-pelosi-we-must-bomb-assad-for-being-outside-the-circle-of-civilized-behavior/">hawk</a>, seeking authorization for War, is Betty McCollum showing signs of reversing her heretofore solidly anti-war stance? <br />
<br />
10/10/2002 Betty McCollum <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/h455">voted</a> against authorization for use of Military Force against Iraq. She was steadfastly against Iraq and Afghanistan actions. This action similarly based but one of its several rationales on use of chemical weapons. Later the evidence was found lacking, but prior to that point all intelligence agencies, notably the French, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/24/iraq-george-w-bush-cia-intelligence-laurence-silberman-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html">were saying they were there</a>. However at the time there were also UN approved authorizations, world wide acknowledgement, Congress voted 296 to 133 for action, the American people were <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/">predominately for such action as well</a>. Several months (18 or more) were spent working with the UN and Congress to provide diplomatic efforts and sanctions to try to get Saddam Hussein to change. <br />
<br />
So is she changing her tone now? This action has but one rationale, the use of chemical weapons.<br />
<br />
2/9/2013 from her <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%A8http://mccollum.house.gov/congresswoman-betty-mccollums-statement-condemning-ongoing-violence-syria">website</a> she voices strong condemnation, no hint of intervention<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I strongly support President Obama's efforts to work with America's western and Arab allies to <b>stop the bloodshed</b>. Though China and Russia have chosen to stand with Assad, the world will not. Already, nations across the Middle East and throughout the world are expelling Syrian diplomats, <b>tightening sanctions, and ratcheting up pressure</b> on the Syrian government. The time has come for President Assad to step down, and for the Syrian people to determine their own future. </blockquote>
<br />
8/29/2013 from her <a href="http://mccollum.house.gov/press-release/congresswoman-mccollums-statement-syria%E2%80%A8">website</a> hints at possible escalation, though undesirable<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Now is the time for measures that will bring <b>strategic pressure to prevent an escalation</b> of the conflict, rather than add to the wanton violence of a situation already out of control. Unilateral U.S. military action against the Syrian regime at this time would do nothing to advance American interests, but would certainly fuel extremist groups on both sides of the conflict that are determined to expand the bloodshed beyond Syria’s borders.”</blockquote>
<br />
9/3/2013 from her <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%A8http://mccollum.house.gov/press-release/mccollum-statement-congressional-authorization-military-action-syria%E2%80%A8">website</a> hints at possibly being convinced<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As I have stated previously, the U.S. should not take unilateral military action, but it is clear the Obama Administration is making significant diplomatic efforts to seek support from a host of nations, especially Arab League nations, for a limited military strike. President Obama’s plan can only be successful if the world is standing with the U.S.” “It is my intention to return to Washington tomorrow, attend additional briefings, and consult with the Administration and Congressional colleagues. President Obama must make the case and earn the support of the American people and Congress,<b> including this representative, for limited and effective military action against the Syrian regime</b>. I applaud the President for fully engaging Congress in this critically important decision.”</blockquote>
<br />
So will she continue to be strident in her opposition for military action? Or will Betty McCollum follow her mentor Nancy Pelosi in now voting for Obama's Second War? Her last statement would seem to indicate her evolution in thinking. She also <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Betty_McCollum_War_+_Peace.htm">voted NO</a> on on banning armed forces in Libya without Congressional approval. Hinting at a new openness to military action by Democrat President Obama.<br />
<br />
But wait, the verdict is still out on the validity of the basis for the entire argument. Intelligence sources have been mixed at best. There was an <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/israeli-intelligence-intercepted-syria-chemical-talk">Israeli interception of Assad communication</a> that would imply Assad was taking such an action. However there have been <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/05/syria-sarin_n_3220502.html">UN reports (from Huffington Press)</a> that the syrian rebels, many if not most now are Al Qaeda terrorists, may have been the source of the sarin gas, and a <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html">Russian report to the UN</a> where Putin claims:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Russia says a deadly March sarin attack in an Aleppo suburb was carried out by Syrian rebels, not forces loyal to President Bashar Assad, and it has delivered a 100-page report laying out its evidence to the United Nations. </blockquote>
The later, Aug 21, sarin gas attack does seem more likely to be an Assad forces action. However in this chaotic environment one would want to be a little cautious about exuberant behavior here. There are no "good guys".<br />
<br />
Nevertheless its getting embarrassing as previously anti war liberals jump forth to support Obama's Second War, with <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/04/endgame-its-time-to-bomb-syria-says-howard-dean/">Howard Dean</a> being one of the most recent nonsense talking heads. <br />
<br />
Military action is not always a bad thing, nor one that should be dogmatically opposed. But the mission rationale for US involvement, which seems sadly lacking, planning, both the action and the followup must be carefully planned, and well executed. And here is where we see the most damning case against military action in Syria. The utter incompetence of this CINC and his cohorts in the State Department. A perfect military action can be not merely wasted but turned into a complete disaster by the political mismanagement that is <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/04/dont-look-now-but-guess-which-western-intervention-success-story-is-a-disaster/">evidenced in Obama's First War in Libya</a>. An outcome that has benefited no one but Al Qaeda. More on that next time.<br />
<br />
Perhaps Betty McCollum needs some reinforcement about constituent views, which are overwhelmingly, 60%, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/six-in-10-oppose-u-s-only-strike-on-syria-a-closer-division-if-allies-are-involved/">against action in Syria</a>. If you would like to send her an email contact her <a href="https://mccollum.house.gov/contact-me/email-me">here</a>.<br />
<br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: #444444; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;" /><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #444444; display: inline !important; float: none; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Update: bringing new meaning to the word fleeting, as I did a final look at email I found the Betty McCollum has made the transition to supporting military action. Who knew.. </span><a href="http://roseville.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/rep-mccollum-supports-syrian-action-but-with-stringent-restrictions_ec4989bc" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;" title="Link: http://roseville.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/rep-mccollum-supports-syrian-action-but-with-stringent-restrictions_ec4989bc">http://roseville.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/rep-mccollum-supports-syrian-action-but-w...</a><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #444444; display: inline !important; float: none; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"> Call and tell her your displeasure.</span> MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-86593713509936815722013-07-31T21:50:00.002-07:002013-07-31T21:50:44.367-07:00Betty McCollum, Does she mean Open Borders?<div class="p1">
Congressional District 4 Representative Betty McCollum held what was termed a listening session on immigration policy on July 22nd at the Minnesota State Capital. There were two presentations that spoke to the primary message that was the "take away".</div>
<div class="p1">
1) Betty McCollum's introductory remarks, a full court press demeaning Republican intentions</div>
<div class="p1">
2) Hector Garcia's that let slip the mask to see the desired end point. Open Borders, not immigration "reform".</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
The participants were:</div>
<div class="p1">
US Rep Betty McCollum </div>
<div class="p1">
MN Sen Sandy Pappas</div>
<div class="p1">
Matt Bostrom, Sheriff, Ramsey County</div>
<div class="p1">
John Keller, Immigration Law Center</div>
<div class="p1">
Michehe McKenzie, MN Advocate for Human Rights</div>
<div class="p1">
Bruce Thao, Hmong American Partnership</div>
<div class="p1">
Hector Garcia, Chicano Latino Affairs Council</div>
<div class="p1">
Abdullah Kiatamba, African Immigrant Services</div>
<div class="p1">
Steve Hunter, MN AFL-CIO</div>
<div class="p1">
Bernie Hess, Local UFCW</div>
<div class="p1">
Matt Kraemer, Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce</div>
<div class="p1">
Juve Meza, Student</div>
<div class="p1">
Rev. John Guttermann, Interfaith Coalition on Immigration</div>
<div class="p1">
Joanne Tromczak-Neid, Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
The panels were as devoid of any balance in viewpoints as they could possibly be. Immigration is a complex subject, with many aspects that must be discussed and thought out to form good immigration policy. Is that possible, or intended, when only one view is considered? It works very well for partisan politics, but not for real resolution of differences.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
In her introductory remarks (shown in entirety in the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2f-kVZMC4Q">video</a> here) Betty McCollum stated:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"It is time for us to listen to the American People and pass comprehensive immigration reform. Our communities need our Nation to provide a bill that meets the needs of our economy, keep families to gather, improves border security and interior enforcement, without compromising our values, or dividing communities. And something that will provide a pathway to earned citizenship for qualifying undocumented immigrants. <b>Unfortunately there are too many members in the house Republican caucus that want to block any attempt on comprehensive immigration reform.</b> Thats in the papers, I'm not, that's not a secret, people have heard that loud and clear. So let me be clear, I fundamentally reject the solution by some of the Republicans in the, that the United States should just detain and deport eleven million individuals. The opportunity to earn citizenship should not be out of reach in the Nation where immigration is such a fundamental part of our American story. There should be a pathway for undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows and into the sunlight. So that they can fully participate and investing our communities. The Senate, US senate, should be commended for taking a concrete step to meeting this need."</blockquote>
<br />
While it is not a trait exclusive to her, Betty McCollum takes an extremist view of the Republican position. Discounting completely the desire of virtually all Republicans to achieve immigration reform. Both fair and just. Just not taking the form that Rep McCollum would demand. Yes the "papers", lead by an almost <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/28/obama-democrats-got-88-percent-of-2008-contributions-by-tv-network-execs-writers-reporters/">universally Democratic group of journalists</a> (and <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/07/24/medias-campaign-donations-tilt-100-1-favor-democrats">here</a>), do say Republicans want to block reform. However, that is simply a <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/canard">canard</a> to marginalize all but their own view. Demagoguery will never achieve a solution to the problems they use as a wedge to stir dissatisfaction.<br />
<br />
A key difference between the two views is that of securing the borders. Supporters of the Senate Bill, such as Rep McCollum, say that there are strict measures in the bill for border security. However the DHS has full authority to simply say no to its implementation. Leaving any such measures as impotent as if they were not present.
<br />
<br />
The US currently has one of the, loosest, most open enforcements of immigration. <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/03/mexicos-illegals-laws-tougher-than-arizonas/#ixzz2ag1stDyv">Consider the Mexican policy</a> <span class="s2"> </span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.<br />
The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” violate Mexican law, are not “physically or mentally healthy” or lack the “necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents.</blockquote>
<div class="p3">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/04/illegal_immigration_unfair_mexican_laws_that_keep_out_americans_who_want_to_immigrate_there_.html">Property ownership is very limited</a></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Article 27 of the Mexican constitution states: “Foreign citizens cannot own land within 100 km of the borders or 50 km of the sea; however, foreigners can have a beneficial interest in such land through a trust (fideicomiso), where the legal ownership of the land is held by a Mexican financial institution.” Of course Mexican immigrants to the United States can own land outright.</blockquote>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
The restrictions in China are even more confusing, <a href="http://newmatilda.com/2009/04/29/border-control-chinese-style">especially if you are Chinese</a>. </div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
In Europe there are regions where there exists a Schegen Border Code for those Nations. There are practically open borders between them, for a period of <a href="http://www.immihelp.com/visas/schengenvisa/">90 days</a>, with <a href="http://www.travelinsure.com/newsroom/052306_schengenvisainsurance.asp">proof of travel health insurance</a> (also <a href="http://www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/shared/shared/mainsite/activities/health/PHBLM-Project-Summary-Brief-011209.pdf">here</a>). However there is <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/border-crossing/index_en.htm">strict enforcement at the external borders</a>.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
This is essentially what the participants in the Betty McCollum listening session would appear to have really wanted. For the United States to have completely open borders, without the limits of Schegen, with no enforceable laws to impede anyone from unfettered immigration or migration across what used to be national boundaries. Could any national economy long survive and ultimately provide even basic services under those conditions? Or is it intended to?</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
That was the clear message from Hector Garcia, Chicano Latino Affairs Council presentation on "Globalization" and immigration. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99Z9cHEJ0oU">video</a></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The context in which immigration is discussed is domestic, when it is really an international matter. The immigrant, particularly the undocumented immigrants really are the primary social controversy in all these discussions. Don't appear just after they cross the border, they have existence prior to that. And I, I'm an immigrant myself from Mexico, now a citizen of the US. I promoted the American Free Trade agreement, since before it was named as such, in 1990. And that was the first agreement in the current stage of globalization. And that to me is the context within which people from poorer nations are moving to more affluent nations.<br />
And that has to be taken into account because<b> they were not the ones who promoted globalization, it was promoted by the West, lead by the United States. So if they end up here, it as a lot to do with the decisions that were made in Congress.</b> And this information is unfortunately not given out to the public as often as it should. Although academics know this quite well, there are a lot of researches throughout the country that know what the sources of undocumented migration are. It is not publicized. And so I think its never going to be possible for us to make appropriate decisions on immigration reform unless we understand the context. And in that regard I believe that by acknowledging the context of globalization we will not only be able to resolve the challenging issue of undocumented migration, we will also be able to live more in keeping with the realities of globalization. <br />
So these individuals are primarily here because they come from poverty stricken areas in their countries of origin, primarily Mexico and Central America and they have been cornered into an economic situation that does not give them many options, except to move to the United States, which is the wealthiest nation in the world. Some others unfortunately have taken other directions which are even more dangerous, like joining the drug cartels of Mexico. These problems will continue to mushroom <b>until we decide that we have to manage the flows of labor that are part and parcel of international relations under globalization.</b> <br />
We cannot only think in terms of flows of trade, flows of capital, we need to acknowledge that people are going to go where the jobs are. And if we change the game on them, their going to go where the new game is at. So I think by making their status official, in accordance with their countries of origin we will be better able to place them in those industries and jobs that most need their services. Without that official status I don't think the undocumented migrants will ever be treated fairly or justly, because they don't have an official status. They will be treated the way they are being treated now, and its not very justly. <br />
But justice alone cannot be the only reason why they should be treated in a different way. Economically in addition to the justice side would really make more sense of whats going on in the world that keeps changing around them and we're not helping them to understand what's going on and we're not helping them manage the consequences of those changes. So which ever way we can help them, you [Rep McCollum] and others who are making these decisions to understand better the origins the repercussions how to better manage those flows. </blockquote>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
Further examination of the term "globalization" was given in a paper on the topic of <a href="http://www.worldwatch.org/node/559">Population, Migration, and Globalization</a>. Spelling out in more concise and explicit detail what this is really about:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Globalization, considered by many to be the inevitable wave of the future, is frequently confused with internationalization, but is in fact something totally different. Internationalization refers to the increasing importance of international trade, international relations, treaties, alliances, etc. Inter-national, of course, means between or among nations. The basic unit remains the nation, even as relations among nations become increasingly necessary and important. Globalization refers to the global economic integration of many formerly national economies into one global economy, mainly by free trade and free capital mobility, but also by somewhat easier or uncontrolled migration. It is the effective erasure of national boundaries for economic purposes. What was international becomes interregional.<br />
The word "integration" derives from "integer," meaning one, complete, or whole. Integration is the act of combining into one whole. Since there can be only one whole, it follows that global economic integration logically implies national economic disintegration. As the saying goes, to make an omelette you have to break some eggs. The dis-integration of the national egg is necessary to integrate the global omelette. <b>It is dishonest to celebrate the benefits of global integration without counting the consequent costs of national disintegration. </b></blockquote>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="p1">
So if the goal of your view is open borders, it was an exciting discussion. If you desire both fair and manageable immigration policy, while maintaining the ideals of American Exceptionalism as the greatest entity for good in the world, it was far more troubling!</div>
MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-60528045687942105602013-07-28T23:42:00.001-07:002013-07-28T23:42:56.223-07:00Misrepresentation of Stand Your GroundStand Your Ground is a legal concept that is being too often deliberately misrepresented. Charles Cooke at <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/353854/stand-your-ground-stand-your-ground-charles-c-w-cooke">National Review</a> states it even more clearly: "By dint of an unholy marriage between genuine ignorance and political opportunism, the Zimmerman trial has this week led to a peculiar dispute as to the propriety of so-called Stand Your Ground rules." Mr Cooke goes on with a very thorough and excellent analysis of stand your ground. See also the review at <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/20/the-grounds-for-standing-your-ground/">Hot Air</a>.<br />
<br />
It is part of and an extension to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine">Castle Doctrine</a>. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The legal concept of the inviolability of the home has been known in Western Civilization since the age of the Roman Republic. The term derives from the historic English common law dictum that "an Englishman's home is his castle." This concept was established as English law by 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628. The dictum was carried by colonists to the New World, who later removed "English" from the phrase, making it "a man's home is his castle", which thereby became simply the Castle Doctrine. The term has been used in England to imply a person's absolute right to exclude anyone from his home, although this has always had restrictions, and since the late twentieth century bailiffs have also had increasing powers of entry.</blockquote>
What SYG does is add two key components to self defense legal definition.<br />
1) That the right to defend yourself, without having to first retreat, where ever you have a right to be. It is not lost simply because you are not on your home/property. The lack of that right gave tremendous advantage to criminals.<br />
2) Extension of statutes that shielded people from any criminal/civil suits for using force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home. Without that, people were too often driven to penury to provide their own legal defense by unreasonable prosecutions.<br />
<br />
One of the misrepresentations is the deliberate misapplication of the Fourth Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons" is often where they stop in their protestations. However the application is evident from the reading of the entire amendment. It is protection from the government partaking in unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause.<br />
<br />
Another, and one of the more egregious, misrepresentation comes from President Barack Obama. As one that lays claim to the title "Constitutional Lawyer" should know his statement is incorrect, said in a recent Nationally televised speech:<br />
From <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/07/obama_misrepresents_stand_your_ground.html">American Thinker</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these "stand your ground" laws, I just ask people to consider if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, <b><i>because he felt threatened?</i></b></blockquote>
It is instructive to compare what Mr. Obama said to the facts, as stated by Florida's criminal code (emphasis is added):
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.<br />
<br />
"Stand your ground" does not, therefore, entitle you to shoot somebody just because he makes you uncomfortable. That's unless the discomfort is the physical kind that results from a violent assault.</blockquote>
<br />
The best study of Stand Your Ground cases in Florida was done by the Tampa Bay Times, in <a href="http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases">reviewing the almost 200 cases that they have documented in Florida</a>. Their diffusive analysis looks at a <a href="http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133">variety of situations and "explanations"</a> of the application of the law in cases, some inconsistent, some unexpected like drug deals gone wrong. A variety of weapons, other than guns, were evident in about one third of the cases.<br />
<br />
The paper did a series of articles on their research. The most significant for purposes of the current discussion dominated by Al Sharpton (who brought us the Tawana Brawley scandal <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/booming/revisiting-the-tawana-brawley-rape-scandal.html">revisited by the NYTimes</a> ) and many people active in the progressive movement against the Constitutional 2nd Amendment, is an article <a href="http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/race-plays-complex-role-in-floridas-stand-your-ground-law/1233152">reviewing racial aspects of the data</a>.<br />
<br />
They made two key observations, the rest mainly speculations and simple discussion<br />
Point 1 ) Whites who invoked the law were charged at the same rate as blacks.<br />
Point 2 ) Whites who went to trial were convicted at the same rate as blacks.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A Tampa Bay Times analysis of nearly 200 cases — the first to examine the role of race in "stand your ground" — found that people who killed a black person walked free 73 percent of the time, while those who killed a white person went free 59 percent of the time.<br />
Overall, black defendants went free 66 percent of the time in fatal cases compared to 61 percent for white defendants — a difference explained, in part, by the fact blacks were more likely to kill another black.<br />
<b><i>"Let's be clear,'' said Alfreda Coward, a black Fort Lauderdale lawyer whose clients are mostly black men. "This law was not designed for the protection of young black males, but it's benefiting them in certain cases.''</i></b><br />
<b><i>The Times analysis does not prove that race caused the disparity between cases with black and white victims. Other factors may be at play.</i></b><br />
The analysis, for example, found that black victims were more likely to be carrying a weapon when they were killed. They also were more likely than whites to be committing a crime, such as burglary, at the time.</blockquote>
The use of "per cent" typically implies the use of statistical treatment, which is not really present. There is no discussion of "standard error" in the statements or descriptions. The further discussion that shows the myriad reasons and situations found, demonstrate that any reasonable statistic for error would be so large as to dwarf the differences they report. Hence their basic 2 statements. That would run counter to the ability to make any but a personal emotional statement about what it means. Many are more than eager to make their emotional accusations for a variety of reasons. Chief among them is the desire for political gain. <br />
<br />
From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_your_ground">Wikipedia</a> another study that diminishes the racial argument<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Another analysis of stand-your-ground laws by economists at Georgia State, using monthly data from the U.S. Vital Statistics, found a significant increase in homicide and injury of whites, especially white males.[8] They also analyzed data from the Health Care Utilization Project, which revealed significantly increased rates of emergency room visits and hospital discharges related to gun injuries in states which enacted these laws.</blockquote>
The perplexing cases in application of the law is by no means limited to Florida. Many states have cases where information is murky and defendants can do some strange things. In <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/24/standing-her-ground-woman-shoots-assailant-dead-at-texas-gas-station/">Texas</a> a black woman was clearly threatened by a black male with a knife. After taking out her gun and shooting him, she then takes pictures. None of which lessens her right to protect herself from deadly force. The whole thing was recorded by a surveillance camera. Perhaps she did not know that, and thought pictures might protect her.<br />
<br />
Another case that closely parallels Zimmerman - Martin is that of a black man who killed a white teenager when the teenager charged him. Mr Roderick Scott was acquitted. The best summary of this case that I have seen is at <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/roderickscott.asp">Snopes</a>. However <a href="http://politicalblindspot.org/why-are-so-many-racists-comparing-zimmerman-to-roderick-scott-hint-because-they-dont-know-any-better/">another site</a> which calls everyone comparing the cases "racist", a common theme amongst those misrepresenting the Stand Your Ground laws, states:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Scott, we must remember, was on his own property, defending his own property originally, from three individuals – not one – who were actively engaged in undisputed criminal behavior.</blockquote>
There are two reasons why the racist site is wrong. The most important is, the action of the other committing a crime often means little as a defense against manslaughter. If Mr Scott had simply walked up and shot the criminal, he would have been convicted. The other is that, as Snopes stated, Scott heard a disturbance on his property, told his girlfriend to call the police, but left his property to confront two people rummaging through his neighbors car. The third was walking away. And finally, c<b>alling people racist or accusing them of being complicit of murder because they analytically review reports and disagree with the Al Sharpton's of the world is more about defamation than fair discussion. </b><br />
<br />
So here is the obligatory review of some of the facts about Stand Your Ground and the Zimmerman - Martin case, from <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/19/video-the-medias-got-a-fee-vah-and-the-only-prescription-is-complaining-about-stand-your-ground-laws/">Hot Air</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Had he chose, Zimmerman could have demanded a “Stand Your Ground” hearing in the pre-trial phase. If the judge had ruled in his favor, the charges would have been thrown out. He waived his right to that hearing, which means the media obsession with SYG is a total non sequitur, sort of like their obsession with gun laws post-Newtown that would have done zip to stop Adam Lanza. Right? Not exactly. The concept of standing your ground, i.e. having no duty to retreat when force is being used against you, is also part of the general self-defense law that Zimmerman did successfully invoke in being acquitted.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Don’t take any of this too seriously, though. Like I said yesterday, the SYG outcry is less about the particulars of the Zimmerman case and more about giving liberals something to rally around for the midterms when the DOJ inevitably decides not to prosecute Zimmerman. This is politics. </blockquote>
Since President Obama has inserted himself in this case, as he did in the "Beer Summit", what views has he held on <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/22/then-sen-obama-co-sponsored-stand-your-ground-law-/">Stand Your Ground in his political life</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
President Obama may currently be calling on the states to review their respective “stand your ground” gun laws, but he wasn’t always so opposed to the right-to-carry rule.<br />
In 2004, while a senator in Illinois, he co-sponsored legislation that allowed for the same rights.<br />
The text summary read: “Provides that it is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another. Effective immediately.”<br />
The Illinois General Assembly website indicates then-Sen. Obama signed on as a co-sponsor on March 25, 2004.</blockquote>
As is usually the case with any legislation, there are several aspects that lead to a politician to vote for legislation. From <a href="http://www.guns.com/2013/07/24/did-obama-vote-to-expand-illinoiss-stand-your-ground-law/">Guns.com they examine some of the "nuances" in Obama's positions</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Before one examines the validity of that claim, perhaps it’s best to revisit what the president said last Friday about SYG.<br />
“It may be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations, confrontations, and tragedies as we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations,” Obama said.<br />
Obama went on to acknowledge that SYG was not explicitly mentioned during the Zimmerman trial, which ended with the acquittal of the neighborhood watch volunteer who fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, but said that the self-defense law should still be examined because the message it sends to society.<br />
“If we’re sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed has a right to use those firearms even if there’s a way for them to exit from the situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we’d like to see?”<br />
He then posed the question of whether Martin would have been justified in shooting Zimmerman if he had felt threatened when Zimmerman followed him in a car, concluding that “if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.”<br />
So, it’s pretty clear that Obama has a problem with the SYG law, which would make him a hypocrite if he did vote to expand Illinois’s “Stand Your Ground” law — so, did he?<br />
The short answer is: yes. But there’s way more to the story, so it’s not a clear-cut case of hypocrisy and/or flip-flopping.<br />
. . .<br />
S.B. 2386 went on to clear both Democratically controlled chambers, the state House and Senate, by a near unanimous votes. As the National Review noted, at that time Stand Your Ground laws weren’t a partisan issue. They were merely viewed as common sense self-defense laws by both Democrats and Republicans.</blockquote>
<br />
<a href="http://nationalreview.com/corner/354059/obama-voted-strengthen-illinoiss-stand-your-ground-law-2004-john-fund">National Review</a> reviews that there was much less partisan issue when Florida passed the SYG law, nor since, until the opportune moment.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There was little outcry about the change from minority communities. Perhaps that’s because, as The Daily Caller discovered, “African Americans benefit from Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground” self-defense law at a rate far out of proportion to their presence in the state’s population, despite an assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder that repealing ’stand your ground’ would help African Americans.”<br />
A third of Florida’s Stand Your Ground claims in homicide cases are made by African-Americans, a rate nearly double the black percentage of the state’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that of Florida whites.</blockquote>
The "racist site" I discussed before, also claims that Zimmerman is being used as a poster child by racists and bigots. They are projecting their own prejudices. It would never have been brought to national prominence, had it not been that it fit the political meme they were looking for. They continually bring up Zimmerman to force their agenda and to force response within the context of Zimmerman. The real issue should be a discussion about treatment of individuals in the judicial system. There are so many other cases that really should be receiving focus to achieve real "social justice", or the more preferable, simply justice. But that's not the goal of Zimmerman baiters. <br />
<br />
There are two cases here in Minnesota that really should be the focus.<br />
<br />
First: Police brutality in Brooklyn Park. An inadequate treatment is shown <a href="http://kstp.com/article/stories/s3098336.shtml">here</a>.<br />
<br />
Second: The case of Mrs Dorothy Dunning. It is an egregious case of the use of "best interest of the child" in keeping a grandmother from adopting her grand children.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-9830111199539337932013-06-16T21:09:00.000-07:002013-06-16T21:09:00.491-07:00Why is it Always Racism?There once was a very liberal family who had two conservative friends, husband and wife. The husband would attempt to strike up a discussions on politics and current events, contrasting liberal and conservative views. Which made him rather unpopular, so he thereafter strove to never rock the boat (i.e. discuss politics), regardless of what was said to him.<br />
<br />
At a Father's Day backyard party the matriarch of the very liberal family was giving all the male members of the family a Father's day gift. It was a combination meat fork and digital thermometer. The one son, who was the most conservative of the family made a remark as he studied the fork,<br />
<br />
More Conservative Son: "It evidently won't let you cook pork rare!"<br />
<br />
Very Conservative Friend of the family, who striving not to upset, goes over to More Conservative Son and whispers a joke quietly in his ear. More Conservative Son often posts Facebook links to news articles, and is expected to catch on to the "nanny state" reference:<br />
<br />
Very Conservative Friend: "It must be a NY Mayor Bloomberg approved product."<br />
<br />
More Conservative Son: Laughs politely.<br />
<br />
A storm (slight double entente) begins, driving everyone to grab things and rush into the house. The Very Conservative Friend heads to the bathroom as the More Conservative Son catches up to him and declares:<br />
<br />
More Conservative Son, smiling and laughing: "I just got the joke! The joke about Bloomberg. Funny."<br />
<br />
The More Conservative Son must have then told the joke to the rest of the family. When the Very Conservative Friend returns to the group he overhears the Extremely Liberal Patriarch:<br />
<br />
Extremely Liberal Patriarch: "I don't think that was a racist comment", (turning to Very Conservative Friend "Was it racist? Was it about pork, is Bloomberg Jewish. Its a Jewish name isn't it?<br />
<br />
Very Conservative Friend, in stunned disbelief: "No it was not." Unable to stammer more in the face of the standard, but still wildly unexpected, fare of viewing everything a conservative says as racist.<br />
<br />
Very Liberal Matriach: "Was it about the sale of large pops?"<br />
<br />
Hopefully the entire family finally "got" the joke. The Very Conservative Friend will never know, since he can't press to find out. But once again makes a mental note to NEVER again broach the realm of a political joke amongst liberal friends.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-44051802030028490262013-05-06T23:48:00.001-07:002013-05-07T00:01:14.238-07:00A Moral Dilemma<br />
Its odd how sometimes the actions of the Democratic Legislative majority create a moral dilemma they seem completely ignorant of. The current bills that show this moral contradiction are the "Bullying Bill" and the "Childcare Unionization Bill". <br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.onenewsnow.com/latest-headlines-from-american-family-news/2013/04/01/critics-minn-anti-bullying-bill-threatens-free-speech">anti-bullying bill</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Named the "Safe and Supportive Minnesota Schools Act," the legislation (<a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?b=House&f=HF0826&ssn=0&y=2013">HF 826</a> / <a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?b=Senate&f=SF0783&ssn=0&y=2013">SF 783</a> ) would outlaw speech interfering with a student's ability to “participate in a safe and supportive learning environment." </blockquote>
Nothing like solving a perceived bullying issue with an open door to the complete negation of free speech. How it is applied is entirely in the potentially irrational perception of those who may also have alternative agendas. The potential for complete violation of free speech and religious freedom is almost a certainty, because it only takes one person to "feel" they have been slighted to bring down the full weight of the Minnesota Judicial system on the target of their ire. Thus forming a perfect storm of bullying that can be unleashed on a whim. With a complete lack of accountability.<br />
<br />
Then follows the Childcare Unionization bill (<a href="http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hinfo/sessiondaily.asp?storyid=3767">house article</a> , <a href="http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/bills/billnum.asp?Billnumber=HF950&ls_year=88&session_year=2013&session_number=0">HF950</a>, <a href="http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/bills/billnum.asp?Billnumber=SF778&ls_year=88&session_year=2013&session_number=0">SF877</a>). The egregious bullying that is embodied in this bill is real and made worse by the intentional violation of constitution rights to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause">equal representation</a>. The author claims “It’s simply about giving a group of individuals … the ability to try and form a union.” But only a small group of the providers affected will be allowed to vote on the formation of the union. It is rare that the Star Tribune comes out publicly against a DFL driven legislative plan, but even they see the faults in this bill.<br />
From the <a href="http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/204936081.html?refer=y">Star Tribune</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The legislation also appears to stack the odds in favor of a pro-union vote by child-care providers by unfairly excluding potentially thousands [ed. an understatement at best] of licensed child-care providers from the election process.</blockquote>
How can supposedly reasonable people rationalize this moral ambiguity of pushing for a bill to supposedly prevent "bullying" while simultaneously pushing to bully a group of people into participating in something they do not want to? The one thing that appears consistent is that the bill would payback major donor blocks to the Democratic Party.<br />
<br />
Again from the Star Tribune<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The legislation would provide a union membership boost and a steady stream of new dues conveniently collected from providers’ subsidies. Providers who receive subsidies but don’t want to join a union would still have to pay “fair share” fees for representation.<br />
Given that unionization’s success involves the public paying more, it’s hard to see how this legislation — or a lesser-known proposal that would allow collective bargaining for some home health care workers — is good financial stewardship of taxpayer dollars in an era of persistent state budget challenges.</blockquote>
So bullying appears acceptable, when its for their constituency. For those legislators who voted against these bills, congratulations and thank you! You withstood the pressure, and have voted against bullying.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-23870539017572672992013-03-31T22:45:00.000-07:002013-03-31T22:45:22.695-07:00Denying Your Vote<br />
Have you gone into the election booth Nov 6, looked at the ballot for Judges feeling that glassy eyed fugue come over you? That fugue is being used as the basis for making changes in how we elect judges. To change from allowing you choosing to vote <b><i>for</i></b> someone, to only being able to vote <b><i>against</i></b> a governor appointment, six years later.<br />
<br />
This was the topic of a recent Speechless Show. Tim Kinley shows testimony from the recent hearings at the legislature. This is a must see to follow the issue of electing judges.<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJXVzHAjAV4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJXVzHAjAV4</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/hJXVzHAjAV4?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
The first problem is there is still much confusion about having Judges inform us where they stand on issues. There is a perception that having them be silent on the issues maintains a higher level of "judicial independence and impartiality". In reality ideology is present in everyone, and partisanship will be present always. Shirley Abrahamson (in a <a href="http://www.mnbar.org/benchandbar/2004/nov04/essay.htm">MN State Bar Pub</a>) wrote:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In Republican Party of Minnesota v White, decided on June 27, 2002, the United States Supreme Court held that the portion of Canon 5(A)(3)(d)(i) (2000) of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct, providing that a “candidate for a judicial office, including an incumbent judge” shall not “announce his or her views on disputed legal or political issues,” violates the 1st Amendment. In response to the United States Supreme Court decision in White, the American Bar Association amended its Model Code of Judicial Conduct.</blockquote>
So if they choose, the Judges can inform us of their principles and ideology, what informs their world view. An unlikely event, but no longer restricted by rules.<br />
<br />
The second problem is the election process itself. The <a href="https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/constitution/#article_6">Minnesota Constitution</a> states that we the people directly elect our judges.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Article VI, Sec. 7. Term of office; election.<br />
The term of office of all judges shall be six years and until their successors are qualified. They shall be elected by the voters from the area which they are to serve in the manner provided by law.</blockquote>
But when election day comes around we almost universally find incumbent Judges running unopposed. Typically Judges announce retirement well before the election, giving the Governor the ability to appoint the successor. They later enter an election with the word "incumbent" beside their name, allowing for a virtual lifetime appointment if they choose. In 2010 Washington County Judge Thomas Armstrong and his law clerk Dawn Hennessy both filed for election to "his" seat 3, followed by Armstrong withdrawing, a rather transparent attempt to <a href="http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_16513249">"pass" the office</a>. Because it was a unique open seat, there were 25 candidates filing for the seat ultimately won by Tad Jude, and <a href="http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Minnesota_judicial_elections,_2010">all the other District 10 seats were unopposed</a>. When asked why they did not run for the other seats, responses were that incumbency identified on the ballot made the probability of overcoming extremely low, and the subsequent threat of retaliation against their clients unacceptably high.<br />
<br />
Two plans have been presented to address two very different ideological views. The first is a very simple solution to that which the candidates have said was a huge issue. Drop the word incumbency. This continues the ability of the people to vote FOR a candidate. Leaving the people in control.<br />
<br />
The second plan is far more pervasive and is currently being presented as an <a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H1666.0.html&session=ls87">amendment to the Minnesota Constitution</a> to entirely change the constitution, giving full power to the Governor to appoint judges recommended from a merit selection commission. This will be dominated by lawyers, and judges, with some non-lawyers appointed by the governor. All of <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20060907052245/http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95000927">who will bring their partisan views</a> to the selection process. It eliminates voting for a candidate, but only redacting a governors appointment 6 years later. Leaving self and special interests in control.<br />
<br />
From TwinCities.com<br />
<a href="http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_22775256/minnesota-legislature-bill-seeks-amendment-vote-change-how">Minnesota Legislature: Bill seeks amendment vote to change how judges are elected</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Voters would vote "yes" or "no" on an incumbent. No other candidates would appear on the ballot. If a majority of those voting on the retention question voted "no," the governor would appoint a replacement judge from a list of nominations by a merit selection commission.<br />
Washington County District Judge Tad Jude said the proposed system <b>would let the state's political and legal "establishment" pick judges and disenfranchise rank-and-file voters. </b>Besides, he said, "I don't know what problem you're trying to solve."</blockquote>
This amendment will eliminate your current freedom to select the judges that could decide your fate if you appear before them for legal issues. Rather than eliminating partisan influences, it will result in a <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20060907052245/http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95000927">very partisan biased process</a>, appointment by the governor, a partisan politician, an unelected board of lawyers and judges who have an ideological (possibly fiducial) interest, and partisan appointees. Senator Julianne Ortmann gives the definitive summary to the bill in a 1:18 minute presentation.<br />
<a href="http://www.tubechop.com/watch/1070136">http://www.tubechop.com/watch/1070136</a><br />
<br />
<object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=hJXVzHAjAV4&start=2499&end=2577&cid=1070136"></param>
<embed src="http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=hJXVzHAjAV4&start=2499&end=2577&cid=1070136" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-10143190055815386242013-03-24T21:50:00.000-07:002013-03-24T22:38:38.844-07:00MNCD4 2013 Convention a video retrospectiveThe 2013 Minnesota Congressional District 4 Convention was held Saturday 3/23/2013. If you have never been to a convention here's a very brief guide. <br />
<br />
The party business is conducted to elect officers for the next two years in the "off year" of the legislative election cycle. The process of certification of the delegates and alternates, who are elected during the election year precinct caucus, takes much of the early part of the day. Then the possible constitutional issues, amendments and by-laws are considered and discussed. The final order of business is the election of the new Chair, Deputy Chair, Vice Chairs, and State Executive Rep. The day is filled with long periods where votes are counted or other preparation steps have to be done.<br />
<br />
So these "lull" periods of the day are filled with often great speeches from many people seeking party office, endorsement, and legislators giving speeches of both information and encouragement to the people who have help in support for the party and the campaigns. The speeches are a great vehicle to let citizens know what is happening at the many levels of government and to introduce candidates to the district supporters. <br />
<br />
So here are the great speeches at the CD4 convention:<br />
<br />
<b>Candidates for State Party Chair</b><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Umvd-Ro7Wl8">Bill Paulsen</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZjr4JOe_dA">Bonn Clayton</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkiZjp4HcOY">Don Allen</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhVN0xRAMao">Keith Downey</a><br />
<br />
<b>Candidates for State Party Deputy Chair</b><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KcPP29suLk">Corey Sax</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkbHBVgx1YM">Kelly Fenton</a><br />
<br />
<b>Legislators</b><br />
Senate Minority Leader, Senator <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hzAzRidRnk">David Hann</a> (48)<br />
House Minority Leader <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd1Cw2rP6d0">Kurt Daudt</a> (31A)<br />
Senator <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnYKRmLQ4o">Dave Thompson</a> (58)<br />
<br />
<b>National Committee-man and woman:</b><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC8NTbn16P4">Jeff Johnson</a> (one I always consider a must hear..)<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hX4Uz565nI">Janet Beihoffer</a><br />
<br />
<b>Minnesota State College Republican Chair candidate</b><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYX6qGkyZjM">Danny Surman</a><br />
<br />
<b>Announcement of the 2013 Candidates Award</b><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQhbH5jGm64">Tony Hernandez</a><br />
<br />
<br />MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-87387414337327262732013-03-21T23:00:00.001-07:002013-07-29T16:22:20.652-07:00It’s the truth, even if it didn’t happen<br />
On my <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUEfK3nmXe4">YouTube channel</a> I found an interesting exchange between two commentors on one of the videos.<br />
Commentor 1<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">Democrats don't care for the facts. They follow the old adage "One lies and the other swears to it..." The other being the media. and so weak minded people are convinced that the "lie" is the truth.</span></blockquote>
Commentor 2<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It is in fact "the facts" that the Democrats are interested in. Clearly not a large enough number to have stopped the liars and thieves that run the Republican party. [commentor 1] Instead of just pointing fingers how about distributing some "facts" to justify your pejorative? How about the Iraq war? Jack Abramoff? Tom Delay? Plame? etc. You are showing your ignorance in an astounding fashion. The media is profoundly ruled by the right wing and their corporate agenda that the truth is forever gone.</blockquote>
My reaction:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
LOL! Oh you really meant that?</blockquote>
So let's take Commentor 2's arguments and consider each point. Is what he presents really a collection of objective "facts", or misleading subjective reality?<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">First: </span></b><br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">"How about the Iraq war? Jack Abramoff? Tom Delay? Plame?"</span></b><br />
<br />
I am not sure where he is going with that. As an argument for "Republican lies" I find this stream of consciousness particularly un-convincing.<br />
<br />
The usual liberal theme on Iraq was that there was no reason to go into Iraq. An argument that will go on for eternity. Was there a tie (of mutual support) between Sadaam Hussein and Al-Queda? Not particularly. They didn't really like each other either. Sadaam was a singular threat to peace in the middle east, and murderous to people on a horrific scale. Intelligence agencies from France to Russia thought and reported he was nearing a nuclear capability. The latter of which was essentially "disproven", once it was all over. The world is a far better place with him removed. <br />
<br />
For a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff">Jack Abramoff</a>, I'll raise you a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Hsu">Norman Hsu</a>, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/339811/corzine-s-crime-century-bruce-bialosky">John Corzine</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/us/politics/jesse-l-jackson-jr-pleads-guilty-to-wire-and-mail-fraud.html">Jesse Jackson Jr</a>, <a href="http://www.politisite.com/2012/01/26/bundling-for-obama-for-obama-for-bundlers/#.UUvJ81eRdnM">Steve Westly And Steve Spinner</a>.<br />
<br />
For a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_DeLay_campaign_finance_trial">Tom Delay</a> there is Illinois Governor <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich_corruption_charges">Rod Blagojevich</a>, Detroit Mayor <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwame_Kilpatrick">Kwame Kilpatrick</a>, Senator <a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/05/john_edwards_corruption_case_e.html">John Edwards</a>, New Orleans Mayor <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/us/c-ray-nagin-former-mayor-of-new-orleans-indicted-on-corruption-charges.html?_r=0">Ray Nagin</a> and the list goes on.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair">Valerie Plame</a> was "outed" by <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2006-09-08/politics/leak.armitage_1_novak-and-other-journalists-cia-officer-valerie-plame-patrick-fitzgerald?_s=PM:POLITICS">Richard Armitage</a>, who is often ascribed as being a Democrat (though that seems unlikely) working for Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. The left's insistent theme was that Joe Wilson's statements undermined the Bush administrations arguments for invading Iraq (never mind his subsequent statement was at odds with his own congressional testimony about Saddam's interests in uranium rich yellow cake) causing a <a href="http://www.wordaroundthenet.com/2012/07/common-knowledge-valerie-plame.html">reprisal against his wife</a>. Liberals claimed that it was Karl Rove who "outed" her, and could never get over the fact it wasn't. In fact they already knew she wasn't a covert operative and had found out the name of the leak. Armitage wasn't punished, didn't face trial, and wasn't even indicted. He said he was sorry, and the news moved on, while the trial continued.<br />
<br />
The real message is that <a href="http://familyfirst.com/who-is-more-corrupt-%E2%80%93-democrats-or-republicans.html">corruption is not really tied to political ideology</a>. All mankind <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+3%3A23&version=NIV">falls short of righteousness</a> irrespective of ideology.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Second: </span></b><br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The media is profoundly ruled by the right wing and their corporate agenda that the truth is forever gone. </span></b><br />
<br />
This is a theme that makes me laugh every time it is spoken. There is so much evidence to the contrary that it cannot be seriously thought true. It only "feels true" because so many people cannot distinguish the difference between "relative bias" and "absolute bias". Comparing <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/democratic-rep-keith-ellison-has-epic-sequester-meltdown-hannity-show-1105889#">Keith Ellison</a> to Collin Peterson may make Peterson seem conservative, but in any real analysis Collin Peterson is still liberal, with a<a href="http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.htm?member=400316"> 61% progressive advocacy score</a>.<br />
<br />
So starting first with real factual analysis of media bias:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx">Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientis</a>t<br />
By Meg Sullivan December 14, 2005 <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the <a href="http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm">study's </a>lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."<br />
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co-author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.<br />
...<br />
Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.</blockquote>
That was 2005, and the bias has become even more pronounced since then.<br />
<br />
Washington Whispers Poll: Fox,<a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/05/20/poll-fox-oreilly-most-trusted-news-sources"> O'Reilly Most Trusted News Sources</a><br />
By Paul Bedard May 20, 2011<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In a stunning rejection of network news and nightly news anchors, cable news, driven by the Fox News Channel and mouthy Bill O'Reilly, is now the top most trusted source—by a mile.<br />
In a new poll from Boston's Suffolk University, more than a quarter of the nation says Fox is tops when it comes to who they trust the most and O'Reilly is the most believable.</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/06/16/book-liberal-media-distorts-news-bias">Book: Liberal Media Distorts News Bias</a><br />
By Paul Bedard June 16, 2011<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The liberal bias of the mainstream media tilts so far left that any outlets not in that political lane, like the Drudge Report and Fox News Channel, look far more conservative than they really are, according to a UCLA professor's new book out next month.<br />
...<br />
"Fox News is clearly more conservative than ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and National Public Radio. Some will conclude that 'therefore, this means that Fox News has a conservative bias,'" he writes in an advance copy provided to Washington Whispers. "Instead, maybe it is centrist, and possibly even left-leaning, while all the others are far left. It's like concluding that six-three is short just because it is short compared to professional basketball players."<br />
...<br />
What's more, he says, "this point illustrates a common misconception about the Drudge Report. According to my analysis, the Drudge Report is approximately the most fair, balanced, and centrist news outlet in the United States. Yet, the overwhelming majority of media commentators claim that it has a conservative bias. The problem, I believe, is that such commentators mistake relative bias for absolute bias. Yes, the Drudge Report is more conservative than the average U.S. news outlet. But it is a logical mistake to use that to infer that it is based on an absolute scale."</blockquote>
And what about that ever popular meme that <a href="http://nrinstitute.org/lmotw/2011/06/23/conservatives-are-consistently-the-most-informed/">Fox viewers are less informed</a> an assertion by comedian Jon Stewart (though the left thinks of him as "astute political commentator")<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Similar single-issue reports exist on subjects like global warming, Obamacare, and the Ground Zero Mosque. If these were the only polls that existed on the knowledge of Fox News viewers, then one could see how Stewart could confidently claim Fox News viewers are always the most misinformed.<br />
But all of these polls were conducted by ideologically liberal organizations out to prove that Fox News is biased and that conservatives are misinformed. What if a more centrist organization asked more factual questions on a broad array of issues? Turns out the Pew Research Center does such a poll and on a regular basis. And the results contradict Stewart’s claims.</blockquote>
Second: anecdotal evidence that even the son of Ted Turner, who has worked at CNN in the past, agrees that CNN is basically <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/turner-liberal-cnn-viewership/2013/03/20/id/495575">un-watchably liberal</a>, and <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/03/20/ted-turners-son-cnn-so-far-left-i-mostly-watch-fox">watches mostly Fox News</a>. Which leaves open the question of where that would place the ridiculously liberal MSNBC/MediaMatters.<br />
<br />
<br />
So in review, it would seem the commentors facts and assertions are dreadfully lacking as useful facts for his argument against Republicans. Although it does fit handily in as baseless political strategy for discrediting the opposition. All that aside, it does show the very real problem with extensive media bias and induced <a href="http://tworealities.org/theory/foundations-of-subjective-reality/">subjective reality</a>. People become easily confused about reality vs <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement">reinforcement</a> induced beliefs. Three people telling you something (reinforcement) does not make it true. But it will seem to be.<br />
<br />
<em>It’s the truth even if it didn’t happen.</em> –Ken Kesey, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
For further examples:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110203171359AAupIh2">http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110203171359AAupIh2</a><br />
<a href="https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/pew-research-study-reveals-which-news-network-is-more-biased-fox-news-or-msnbc/">https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/pew-research-study-reveals-which-news-network-is-more-biased-fox-news-or-msnbc/</a><br />
<a href="http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/what-do-studies-tell-us-about-mainstream-media-bias/">http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/what-do-studies-tell-us-about-mainstream-media-bias/</a><br />
<a href="http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/winning_media_campaign_2012">PEW Study</a> Winning the Media Campaign 2012 November 2, 2012<br />
Both Candidates Received More Negative than Positive Coverage in Mainstream News, but Social Media Was Even Harsher<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-87213100791890406922013-03-10T08:56:00.000-07:002013-03-10T08:56:11.588-07:00Betty McCollum on the SequesterThe first event at the Saturday Mar 9 Woodbury town hall was a 3 round knock down debate on specific details about the sequester. During her introductory comments Rep Betty McCollum made a statement about the sequester. See in the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RXXKgWNcz8">complete video</a> from 4:40 to 7:30. Or in this <a href="http://www.tubechop.com/watch/1008980">tubechop version</a> of just the clip.<br />
<br />
<object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=6RXXKgWNcz8&start=280&end=450&cid=1008980"></param>
<embed src="http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=6RXXKgWNcz8&start=280&end=450&cid=1008980" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[Betty McCollum] If your family really had to make some tough decisions in spending and you were sitting around the kitchen table would you say well let's cut everything by 8%. Let's cut our mortgage payment by 8%, let's cut our food by 8% let's cut our moving budget by 8%, our transportation by 8%, our health insurance, we're just going to cut it all by 8% and that's how we're going to balance everything. Now not one of you would do that in your real life. Unfortunately that's what the sequester is a real basic. There are some carve out's, department of defense is in one pot of money with VA and State and the other discretionary is another. But the military came and testified, I'm on the military sub-committee, you know we don't need to cut our military teachers by 8% because if the schools aren't open...<br />
<br />
[Voice from the back] Ma'am, ma'am tell us the truth. Its not 8%, [many voices come in] It 2.4.. Don't tell us.. Thank you..<br />
<br />
[Betty McCollum] Sir, sir...[Betty trying to overwhelme the voices] ... I have a limited voice, people came to hear, I'm going to make comments, and then we're going to open it up to comments.<br />
<br />
[Voice from the back] We don't want to hear lies.. We don't want to hear lies.. [others adding..] Its 2%..</blockquote>
<br />
So for all the discord, what's the real history and facts of the sequester.<br />
<br />
Both Betty McCollum's 8% and the 2.4% are "correct", just misleading or not complete descriptions, because of the varied way's statistics can be created to create a wide variety of impressions. Though probably a "bit" more misleading on Rep McCollum's part, because her use of "everything" is simply not correct. The original proposition about the sequester was to cut 8% from <b>parts of the military budget</b> and some entitlements. So she is "technically" correct, the wording did use 8%. The combined areas that were subject to the cut comprises near 25% of the spending, that's how we get to 2.4% of the entire budget. We can't really call it a budget since no budget has passed the Democrat controlled Senate since Barack Obama became President. I am somewhat surprised Betty McCollum did not state this to quiet the detractors. As a member of the budget and appropriations committee's she would certainly know the exact terms. Tactically [and that's what politics is all about, in the new Obama world] it wouldn't support her and President Barack Obama's meme of horribly damaging/draconian cuts. So she probably doesn't want to have it remembered as such, the "8%" certainly has much more flair. The White House stance is too make the sequester look as painful as possible with immense histrionics, and has sent <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make-sequester-painful-promised/">emails to that effect</a>, committing to make it that way for the public.<br />
<br />
The sequester was an idea <a href="http://mncd4conservative.blogspot.com/2013/02/government-by-histrionics-part-1.html">originating in the Obama White House</a> and submitted to Harry Reid and Congress as a way to get agreement to raise the debt ceiling once again by "balancing" increases with some cuts. <br />
Georgetown University <a href="http://gai.georgetown.edu/20130220.cfm">Government Affairs Institute, Impact of the Sequester</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Of the $85 billion in scheduled cuts, $71 billion will come out of discretionary funding, and $14 billion will come out of entitlement programs. Within discretionary funding, defense (excluding military personnel accounts) will be cut by around 8% across the board, and nondefense funding that’s subject to the automatic reductions will be cut by between 5 percent and 6 percent."</blockquote>
To follow Rep Betty McCollum's analogy, and correct it to match the actual sequester language and effect, you would have to modify her statement to be [noting "we're" = <a href="http://anthropomorphizing/">anthropomorphizing</a> of federal government spending, which Rep McCollum agreed later in the discussion "we have a spending problem"]:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If your family had to make some tough decisions about reducing spending, you can't choose your fixed mortgage or health insurance, but might choose expenditures on gas and say we're going to cut all <b>non-work related use</b> of gasoline 8%. And since we're more than a little over weight, we're going to go on that long needed diet and<b> cut the, non child related, food bill by 8%</b> To get a 2.4% reduction in our total spending.</blockquote>
Throughout the town hall discussion Rep Betty McCollum kept saying we shouldn't be doing these "across the board, dumb cuts". It would seem she would want to support an alternative to be able to make more scalpel like decisions in what to cut. Did she support the Inhofe-Toomey bill that would have given President Barack Obama the ability to do just that, "smart/targeted" cuts? He said he didn't want that authority, did she support him in that?<br />
<br />
<br />MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-89862348384061548082013-02-28T21:45:00.000-08:002013-02-28T21:45:45.962-08:00Government by Histrionics Part IIRemember the Y2K scare? It was hyped as Armageddon. It would destroy the economies of nations and topple civilization as we know it, in particular ours. It all ended with a predictable thud as the date passed and nothing happened. Partly because businesses and governments were doing the right things to solve the problem, but the media paid little attention. The largest part of why it was predicable to many, was because while the media was hyping about "clocks", it was evident that in many cases the clocks were simply crystal driven pulse timers (very precise frequency pulses that engineers call "clocks") that really knew nothing about the calendar. The two digit year issue in software programs were corrected in time, as planned. The media just has to have doomsday to sell.<br />
<br />
Now we have Armageddon predicted once again by President Barack Obama as a result of the sequester that he originated and championed in 2011 (see Part I for more). This montage is a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNBhue9OMTY">video showing</a> President Barack Obama caught in the lie about who originated the sequester:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/fNBhue9OMTY?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
President Obama, spoke in complete histrionics, 10 days before his sequester is to take effect.<br />
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2qKuMjQvR0<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/N2qKuMjQvR0?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
Note the gratuitous use of people as props for his performance.<br />
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/19/remarks-president-sequester">Text of the speech</a> (excepts) <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And that’s why it’s so troubling that just 10 days from now, Congress might allow a series of automatic, severe budget cuts to take place that will do the exact opposite. It won't help the economy, won't create jobs, will visit hardship on a whole lot of people.<br />
Now, if Congress allows this meat-cleaver approach to take place, it will jeopardize our military readiness; it will eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research. It won’t consider whether we’re cutting some bloated program that has outlived its usefulness, or a vital service that Americans depend on every single day. It doesn’t make those distinctions. <br />
Emergency responders like the ones who are here today -- their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded. Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced. FBI agents will be furloughed. Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go. Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays at airports across the country. Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings.</blockquote>
The histrionics also come from others in his administration, trying to prove the pain that will be a result, he starts to assure that:<br />
1) Obama’s
<a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/26/obamas-first-sequester-move-releasing-waves-of-illegal-immigrants-from-detention-centers/%E2%80%A8">first sequester move:</a> Releasing “waves” of illegal immigrants from
detention centers <br />
2) <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/25/lahood-sequester-will-disrupt-air-travel-even-though-we-get-more-money-for-fewer-flights-now/%E2%80%A8">LaHood</a>:
Sequester will disrupt air travel even though we get more money for
fewer flights now <br />
3) Sad news: <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/27/sad-news-sequestration-might-hamper-more-renewables-investments/">Sequestration might hamper more renewables</a> projects and
“investments” <br />
<br />
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323495104578314301609669998.html">Wall Street Journal</a> <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Flanked by emergency medical personnel, Mr. Obama made his usual threat of Armageddon if automatic spending cuts go forward on March 1. Americans can expect more such melodrama in the coming days, so as a public service we thought we'd break down the President's three biggest political tricks.<br />
Americans need to understand that Mr. Obama is threatening that if he doesn't get what he wants, he's ready to inflict maximum pain on everybody else. He won't force government agencies to shave spending on travel and conferences and excessive pay and staffing. He won't demand that agencies cut the lowest priority spending as any half-competent middle manager would.<br />
But this is a message that Barack Obama is starting to lose and the truth.</blockquote>
Obama has just taken about double the sequestration amount out of the economy by his recent tax increases. Those of course will not cause any ripples like the sequestration will. Hooey!<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMsQLRHuHTw">Charles Krauthammer flays the Obama histrionics argument [Video].</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/vMsQLRHuHTw?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: This is the most ridiculously hyped armageddon since the Mayan calendar. In fact, it looks worse than the Mayan disaster. Look, this, as you say, can be solved in a day, in an hour by allowing a transfer of funds. It's incredibly soluble, easily soluble. And the president is the one who ought to propose it. He won't, of course, because he is looking for a fight and not a solution. But secondly, look at this in perspective. In terms of the gross domestic product of our economy this is .003, it's a third of 1% of our domestic economy. On the domestic side, overall, it's 2.5 cents on the dollar. And overall, on the non-defense side, it's a penny-and-a-half on the dollar of reductions. Here we are with a debt of $16 trillion and the argument today is if we cut a penny-and-a-half on non-defense spending in one year it's the end of the world. If so, we are hopelessly in debt and we're going to end up like Greece. (Special Report, February 20, 2013)</blockquote>
<br />
So today Barack Obama starts the message shift to, "it won't be so bad". After spending weeks to instill, in the minds of the media and the low information voters, the panic that he wanted and needed, so he can get a Democratic Congress in 2014 to give him a blank check, no compromise needed. Playing both sides on the record, to give himself the option of saying "see I said it wouldn't be that bad", after
spending weeks proclaiming the impending Armageddon<br />
<a href="http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/02/obama-this-is-not-a-cliff-but-it-is-a-tumbledown-158087.html">From Politico</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
He said the automatic, across-the-board cuts won't have an immediate impact except on those whose businesses are directly tied to the Defense Department but noted that other impacts will be felt, for example, if Head Start slots disappear.<br />
<b>"This is not a cliff, but it is a tumble downward," Obama said.</b><br />
He predicted it would be a "big hit" on the economy, stifling economic growth, which could shrink by 0.6 percent. And he added that the "worst part" is that it is "entirely unnecessary."</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;">S<b>o what has President Barack Obama been doing about the sequester?</b></span><br />
<a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/27/obama-top-lawmakers-will-meet-friday-budget-cuts/">Washington Times</a> He's giving the Congress a whole 7 minutes!<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Never let it be said that President Obama has failed to spend time with Republican leaders in seeking an alternative to automatic budget cuts that are due to hit most federal departments Friday. On Wednesday, for example, the president gave GOP lawmakers as much as seven minutes, a rare face-to-face encounter that the White House described as a “meeting.”<br />
The White House’s characterization of this momentary huddle at the Capitol as a meeting illuminates Mr. Obama’s strategy in dealing with Republicans on the budget cuts and other fiscal deadlines.</blockquote>
<a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/27/obama-will-finally-meet-with-congressional-leaders-on-sequester/">From HotAir.com</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%A8http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/27/congressional-leaders-invited-to-w-h-on-spending-cuts-deadline-day/%E2%80%A8">A GOP aide</a>: By the time Obama meets with the leaders, the cuts–$85 billion worth over the next seven months–could have already started to take place. It all depends on when Obama issues an order to let them begin. He has until 11:59 p.m. ET on Friday to issue the order, according to an official with the Office of Management and Budget. A senior congressional Republican chided Obama for the timing of the meeting. "Either someone needs to buy the White House a calendar, or this is just a – belated – farce," the Republican said. "They ought to at least pretend to try." </blockquote>
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%A8http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/26/video-the-road-to-a-deal-begins-with-one-million-steps/%E2%80%A8">From HotAir.com</a> 2 great points: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
1) Just how far has Barack Obama traveled to avoid reaching a deal on the sequester? The House Republican Conference put together this clever video illustration of the President’s travels over the last two weeks, showing an itinerary of over 5,200 miles of jet-setting to gripe about the sequester. The distance between the West Wing and Harry Reid’s office? Why, that’s less than two miles: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
2) Here’s what Woodward wrote in the op-ed that didn’t get them hot and bothered on Twitter, even though it should have: “[Months] of White House dissembling further eroded any semblance of trust between Obama and congressional Republicans. (The Republicans are by no means blameless and have had their own episodes of denial and bald-faced message management.)” </blockquote>
Lest you be caught up in the histrionics and still cower at the thought of the sequester taking effect tonight, you can read <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/27/reason-tv-5-facts-that-will-keep-you-from-committing-sequestration-seppuku/">Reason TV: 5 facts that will keep you from committing sequestration seppuku </a><br />
or <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW3rrnXE1sg#!">watch the video</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/TW3rrnXE1sg?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
And finally <a href="http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/files/2013/02/Mitchell-sequester-cut-graph.jpg">this chart</a> is the reality of the cuts.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/files/2013/02/Mitchell-sequester-cut-graph.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="255" src="http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/files/2013/02/Mitchell-sequester-cut-graph.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
President Barack Obama is using the sequester as a tool to campaign for midterm elections. To smear the Republicans with his actions. If you buy into his histrionic arguments, you are part of the problem, not the solution!<br />
<br />MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-330270108077856212013-02-27T21:03:00.001-08:002013-02-27T21:03:43.153-08:00Government by Histrionics - Part 1The President's sequester argument is the <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/histrionics">histrionic</a> art form raised to a new level. Is it any wonder Barack <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/25/obama-to-state-governors-ill-take-your-questions-but-first-lets-kick-out-the-media/">Obama doesn't want the Press covering anything</a> more in depth than his frequent campaign speeches, and his wife's appearances on the Oscars? He artfully obfuscates the issues by blaming others for his actions it when politically expedient. The media then follows the meme of the moment and spreads the message on demand, providing impenetrable cover for his misdirections. No other candidate could compete with such free advertising and message delivery. <br />
<br />
According to Bob Woodward, the sequestration originated in the White House, and was championed by Barack Obama in one of the singular times he has gotten involved in real presidential work, for <a href="http://obamagolfcounter.com/">more than a minute</a>. <br /><a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/23/woodward-why-is-obama-still-misleading-everyone-on-the-sequester/">From HotAir.com</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
My [Bob Woodward] extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.<br />Obama <b>personally</b> approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.<br />Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, “We didn’t actually think it would be that hard to convince them” — Reid and the Republicans — to adopt the sequester. “It really was the only thing we had.</blockquote>
But yet, 15 months later, Barack Obama is claiming <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.”<br />— President Obama, in the third presidential debate, Oct. 22, 2012</blockquote>
Even the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-fanciful-claim-that-congress-proposed-the-sequester/2012/10/25/8651dc6a-1eed-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_blog.html">Washington Post acknowledges this to be a lie in the fanciful "whopper" category</a>, giving it the maximum 4 Pinocchio rating. <br />
<br />This was a case where the Republicans did what the public voiced demands for, they "compromised", giving Barack Obama what he asked for. Now Barack Obama, in a phenomenal reversal of intent, is blaming them for the sequester. Barack Obama is basically a one trick pony, his only solution is "tax the wealthy"<br /><a href="http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/022313-645559-obama-weekly-remarks-sequester-is-congress-fault.htm">Text from Obama Speech</a> <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Unfortunately, it appears that Republicans in Congress have decided that instead of compromising — instead of asking anything of the wealthiest Americans — they would rather let these cuts fall squarely on the middle class.</blockquote>
What will he do when he<a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/10/07/you-can%E2%80%99t-tax-the-rich-enough-to-close-the-deficit/"> reaches taxing "the wealthy" at 100%</a> and can't get anymore from that well? It has been demonstrated that even at the "fair" level of <a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/why-tax-rich-doesnt-solve-anything-its-math-stupid">taking everything from the wealthy is still far less than the $1.2 trillion</a> he needs to continue his profligate spending habit, and it gets even worse when you look at <a href="http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/120412-635696-tax-the-rich-may-be-popular-but-it-will-not-shrink-the-deficit.htm">adding entitlement growth</a>.<br /><a href="http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/022313-645559-obama-weekly-remarks-sequester-is-congress-fault.htm">Presidents Speech Text</a> more histrionics<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
These are the questions Republicans in Congress need to ask themselves. And I’m hopeful they’ll change their minds. Because the American people have worked too hard for too long to see everything they’ve built undone by <b>partisan recklessness</b> in Washington.</blockquote>
Barack Obama has spent weeks flitting around the country demagoguing the sequester. Leadership requires difficult decisions and skills that have been demonstrated by few Republicans and far fewer Democrats. We cannot continue to follow inadequate solutions lasting but a moment. They must be solutions to actually solve problems, not yield "shovel ready projects" only digging us deeper. The sequester does not cut the full budget. There will be more spent in 2013 than in 2012, and in each year following. President Barack Obama lays out a demagogic array of dismissals and firings of police, firemen, and others as he parades political props behind him at each stump speech. This is again, histrionics played for a willing media and misguided public. Many of the people he targets are local government employees, not federal, with the intent to make results as painful and undesirable as possible. A plan much like Governor Mark Dayton's, in Minnesota's manufactured budget crisis. The decision about how how it affects people is entirely within the Presidents control. He can make it as painful as he wants, or make the needed decisions to curb his appetite for growing government. Its his choice. MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2311477047415893416.post-28144450140580752802013-02-10T22:32:00.000-08:002013-02-10T22:32:29.405-08:00Minn DFL Gun Grab a ReachLast week, Feb 5-7, 2013, many Minnesota Democrats embarked on an effort to impose new legislation to limit gun ownership rights for all legal and ordinary citizens. There is a lot of discussion about the value of such legislation. There is not much debate about what started the effort, the Sandy Hook tragedy. They reason that banning certain styles of guns will prevent such tragedies. For many that "logic" is not only faulty, but shallow.<br />
<br />
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, passed in 1994, expired on September 13, 2004. It was in place for the Columbine School shooting,which occurred on April 20, 1999, and others that followed. The existence of the law had no impact on that tragic act. In fact, according to <a href="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbine-myths_N.htm">US Today</a>, the original weapon of choice was not even the guns they ultimately used, and are now once again the target of legislative actions.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A decade after Harris and Klebold made Columbine a synonym for rage, new information — including several books that analyze the tragedy through diaries, e-mails, appointment books, videotape, police affidavits and interviews with witnesses, friends and survivors — indicate that much of what the public has been told about the shootings is wrong.<br />
<br />
In fact, the pair's suicidal attack was planned as a grand — if badly implemented — terrorist bombing that quickly devolved into a 49-minute shooting rampage when the bombs Harris built fizzled.<br />
<br />
"He was so bad at wiring those bombs, apparently they weren't even close to working," says Dave Cullen, author of Columbine, a new account of the attack.</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2004/04/the_depressive_and_the_psychopath.html">Slate </a>adds even more details:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Columbine was intended not primarily as a shooting at all, but as a
bombing on a massive scale. If they hadn't been so bad at wiring the
timers, the propane bombs they set in the cafeteria would have wiped out
600 people. After those bombs went off, they planned to gun down
fleeing survivors. An explosive third act would follow, when their cars,
packed with still more bombs, would rip through still more crowds,
presumably of survivors, rescue workers, and reporters.</blockquote>
The report on Columbine shows one very clear fact, killers are not
limited by limiting guns, they will seek out a different "tool" to carry out their evil acts. <br />
<br />
The evidence of any links between gun legislation and these tragedies is extremely tenuous at best. During the eight hours of committee presentation, the anti-gun lobby, headed by Heather Martens, promised extensive statistics to support their claims, but ultimately delivered very little on that promise. They ignore many facts, such as (the creator of this chart limited it to rifles, as that is all that is being discussed in "Assault Weapon" legislation)<br />
<a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/facebook-posts/facebook-post-says-more-people-were-murdered-knive/">[Picture of Chart]</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/owipl047RUoxEq4vq6S04n46jMXbXGr0gWu785dt7u_ml-L4e2ei9RAx7hLrGk23CKZWEDWeuIL84xZUVr1X9yGmluI-a9r13byRy2lcHEnPh9V_JMpj" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/owipl047RUoxEq4vq6S04n46jMXbXGr0gWu785dt7u_ml-L4e2ei9RAx7hLrGk23CKZWEDWeuIL84xZUVr1X9yGmluI-a9r13byRy2lcHEnPh9V_JMpj" /></a></div>
<a href="http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/jan/30/greg-abbott/greg-abbott-says-according-fbi-more-people-are-kil/">Politifact</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Facebook post earned a "True" rating because it reflected the FBI’s statistics from <a href="http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011">2011</a>,
the most recent year available, for murders with knives (1,694),
personal weapons (728, typed on Facebook as 726), blunt objects (496)
and rifles (323).</blockquote>
Much, if not most, of their argument rested on an egregious use of emotional manipulation and exploitation of tragedies. Lobbyist Heather Martens, ProtectMN, is a consistent user of tragedies and victims as such props.<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqZ6IF40InI">Video: Heather Martens exploitation is called out by a young Mother at the hearings.</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/FqZ6IF40InI?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<span id="goog_1090081890"></span><span id="goog_1090081891"></span><br />
So how convincing has the anti-gun lobby been? They try to convince the public that this is a partisan issue. But that is a fatal canard. Just before one of the sessions Representative Jason Metsa (DFL) from district 6B came to speak to the Second Amendment supporters in Room 10. He stated clearly that this is not a partisan issue and that he, and others, did not and will not support the legislative actions. He was far from the only democrat to make statements during the presentation and public testimony. Police officers, mothers, and self declared lifelong democrats voice opposition and disbelief in the arguments made.<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlGzXq5RIeY">Video: Self declared lifelong democrat declares "probably no more".</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/OlGzXq5RIeY?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
Clear thinking and real solutions are what all sides of the political spectrum want in our legislature. A lack of critical thinking and political expediency provides no protections, and costs ordinary citizens much.<br />
<br /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />MNCD4Conservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03386156538630301598noreply@blogger.com0