Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Rep. Conyers' Probe of ACORN Blocked by 'Powers That Be'
Friday, June 26, 2009 8:20 AM
By: S.A. Miller, The Washington Times Article Font Size
"House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. has backed off his plan to investigate purported wrongdoing by the liberal activist group ACORN, saying "powers that be" put the kibosh on the idea.
Mr. Conyers, Michigan Democrat, earlier bucked his party leaders by calling for hearings on accusations the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) has committed crimes ranging from voter fraud to a mob-style "protection" racket.
"The powers that be decided against it," Mr. Conyers told The Washington Times as he left the House chambers Wednesday.
The chairman declined to elaborate, shrugging off questions about who told him how to run his committee and give the Democrat-allied group a pass. "
CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST AT NEWSMAX
Here's the part that really irks me:
"ACORN and its affiliates are currently the target of at least 14 lawsuits related to voter fraud in the 2008 election and a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act complaint filed by former ACORN members.
The group's leaders have consistently denied any wrongdoing and previously said they welcomed a congressional probe.
The group did not respond to questions about Mr. Conyers being convinced to drop those plans.
Ms. Heidelbaugh, who spearheaded an unsuccessful lawsuit last year to stop ACORN's Pennsylvania voter-registration drive, testified in March that the nonprofit group was violating tax, campaign-finance and other laws by, among other things, sharing with the Barack Obama campaign a list of the Democrat's maxed-out campaign donors so ACORN could use it to solicit them for a get-out-the-vote drive.
ACORN also provided liberal causes with protest-for-hire services and coerced donations from targets of demonstrations through a shakedown it called the "muscle for the money" program, said Ms. Heidelbaugh, a member of the executive board of the Republican National Lawyers Association."
By: S.A. Miller, The Washington Times Article Font Size
"House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. has backed off his plan to investigate purported wrongdoing by the liberal activist group ACORN, saying "powers that be" put the kibosh on the idea.
Mr. Conyers, Michigan Democrat, earlier bucked his party leaders by calling for hearings on accusations the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) has committed crimes ranging from voter fraud to a mob-style "protection" racket.
"The powers that be decided against it," Mr. Conyers told The Washington Times as he left the House chambers Wednesday.
The chairman declined to elaborate, shrugging off questions about who told him how to run his committee and give the Democrat-allied group a pass. "
CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST AT NEWSMAX
Here's the part that really irks me:
"ACORN and its affiliates are currently the target of at least 14 lawsuits related to voter fraud in the 2008 election and a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act complaint filed by former ACORN members.
The group's leaders have consistently denied any wrongdoing and previously said they welcomed a congressional probe.
The group did not respond to questions about Mr. Conyers being convinced to drop those plans.
Ms. Heidelbaugh, who spearheaded an unsuccessful lawsuit last year to stop ACORN's Pennsylvania voter-registration drive, testified in March that the nonprofit group was violating tax, campaign-finance and other laws by, among other things, sharing with the Barack Obama campaign a list of the Democrat's maxed-out campaign donors so ACORN could use it to solicit them for a get-out-the-vote drive.
ACORN also provided liberal causes with protest-for-hire services and coerced donations from targets of demonstrations through a shakedown it called the "muscle for the money" program, said Ms. Heidelbaugh, a member of the executive board of the Republican National Lawyers Association."
Friday, June 26, 2009
"Why We Are Not Leaving MNGOP"
"In his Opinion piece "Why I am leaving the Minnesota GOP," Lt. Col. Joe Reypa paints a pretty damning picture of the Republican Party of Minnesota. As Republican grass-roots activists, we have witnessed and experienced what Joe described as "tyrannical domination over the grass-roots" of the party.
We agree with Joe when he says "it is time to stop enabling bad behavior from that party." Joe is a friend who has been a principled champion of freedom and liberty for many years; he remains a friend. We disagree, however, with his conclusion that "the Minnesota GOP is no longer capable of being saved."
This is why we are not leaving the Minnesota GOP. Not only can the Minnesota GOP be saved, it must be saved."
READ ENTIRE COUNTERPOINT ARTICLE HERE
We agree with Joe when he says "it is time to stop enabling bad behavior from that party." Joe is a friend who has been a principled champion of freedom and liberty for many years; he remains a friend. We disagree, however, with his conclusion that "the Minnesota GOP is no longer capable of being saved."
This is why we are not leaving the Minnesota GOP. Not only can the Minnesota GOP be saved, it must be saved."
READ ENTIRE COUNTERPOINT ARTICLE HERE
Ellison's Moral Compass Continues To Disappoint
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/49125787.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU
"Ellison's office has maintained that the Mecca trip was "personal,'' but it also says the Ethics Committee is revisiting the question of whether the costs must be reported.
Ellison, a second-term congressman, is making a freshman mistake. If he has nothing to hide, why is he declining to release a detailed summary of his expenses? And why has he refused to release the entire letter from the Ethics Committee explaining why the trip was approved?
Under the 2007 ethics reform legislation, lobbyists are prohibited from sponsoring trips for members of Congress. Nonprofit entities, such as the Muslim American Society, can cover the costs of such trips, but the travel is subject to ethics guidelines that require detailed disclosure."
"Ellison's office has maintained that the Mecca trip was "personal,'' but it also says the Ethics Committee is revisiting the question of whether the costs must be reported.
Ellison, a second-term congressman, is making a freshman mistake. If he has nothing to hide, why is he declining to release a detailed summary of his expenses? And why has he refused to release the entire letter from the Ethics Committee explaining why the trip was approved?
Under the 2007 ethics reform legislation, lobbyists are prohibited from sponsoring trips for members of Congress. Nonprofit entities, such as the Muslim American Society, can cover the costs of such trips, but the travel is subject to ethics guidelines that require detailed disclosure."
Cap What? And Trade What?
By Tom Butz
What are we capping, and what are we trading? We have succeeded in reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2). Now the environmental movement is about to attempt to apply the same concept to carbon dioxide (CO2). This is a very big mistake, for the following reasons:
-The SO2 reduction program was successful because there were PROVEN technologies of reducing SO2 at the time, and the technologies continued to improve to result in reduced costs.
-Power plants that had the right to emit defined levels of SO2 suddenly were faced with an economic advantage of being able to sell the allowances, and shut down the less efficient plant, to allow for a newer larger plant, with lower emission levels of SO2 than the older plants.
-The economic engine of making the right choices was in full bloom. Emissions were reduced, additional power plants were built, technologies improved, and this is a great example of letting the market be free to make the right choices.
The same concept of Cap & Trade is being blindly touted as a means of reducing CO2. The concept is being sold under the guise that we can implement wind, solar, and conservation in order to accomplish a new version of Cap and Trade. There are some very important differences in implementing Cap and Trade for CO2 reduction.
First, let’s take a look at the level of reduction that is being called for. We are looking at a current level of CO2 emissions in the range of 6 billion tons of CO2. The bill is calling for a reduction from the 2005 levels (about 5 billion tons) of 40% of 2005 levels by 2030, and 83% reduction of the 2005 levels by 2050. This sounds very aggressive, and could be considered “forward thinking”. I consider this targeted reduction as completely ridiculous for the following reasons:
-There are currently no technical means of reducing CO2 from the emissions of power plants. No proven technology, but there are billions of research dollars being invested for a means of cleaning up the flue gas and capturing CO2. The best target for this technology being available in 2015, but this is not certain, and there are likely to be HUGE unknowns in trying to remove CO2 from such a huge amount of gas volume.
-Another major issue on capturing CO2 from plants is that it will take the equivalent of 30% of the plant output. This means that for a total fleet of about 300,000 MW of generation providing 50% of our total electricity needs, it will require an additional third, or 100,000 MW of additional generation to power this reduction technology.
-We also have a huge issue on where to store the CO2 once it is captured. Studies have been made looking at underground caverns of various types, but there are HUGE levels of uncertainty on how we can be sure the storage will work, if there is enough space, and how we can keep the CO2 stored. I call this the gopher hole problem. How can this possibly make sense?
-Trying to reduce CO2 from coal plants by fuel switching to natural gas is not feasible for coal generation, as it will result in such a huge increase of gas usage, that the price would go through the roof. Even if the fuel switch could be accomplished, the cost per ton of CO2 for this “cap and trade mirage” would double the cost of electricity.
-Renewable energy from wind currently provides about one half of a percent of our total energy needs. Wind generates power when the wind blows, and the electricity system has a unique characteristic of being “just in time delivery.” The electrical energy that we use is created in relatively the same instant it is consumed. Having wind on the system works to a certain level, but other generation needs to “follow the load” and adjust to both changes in the load, and changes in the wind.
-Irresponsible plans such as the www.google.org energy plan that called for retiring all coal and replacing it with wind would result in a third world electricity system that could not operate 24 hours a day seven days a week as we require. Let me say it as clearly as possible: huge implementation of wind generation will result in a blackouts that are beyond any acceptable level of service that we need to fuel our lives and economy. Intermittent resources such as wind can be “shaped” to follow load using a storage technology such as pumped hydro systems (not acceptable due to stirring up lake bottoms) or a battery storage system. Battery storage is feasible, but it has a fairly significant cost.
-Automobiles use about 17% of our total energy usage, and are projected to provide about 48% more vehicle usage, at roughly the same amount of energy, as driven by the mandated mileage standards. We are seeing a collision course that will blow gas prices through the roof, as we are restricting domestic drilling, and calling on some abstract ideal of having a huge influx of hybrid and electric vehicles. We need low priced access to oil products, as there will continue to be a large sector of vehicle usage that cannot be provided by electric vehicles. Increases in electric vehicles will require more electric generation, and where will this come from?
The bottom line with the cap and trade bill is that this is the most outrageous irresponsible idea that doesn’t have any real estimates of technologies available, costs, reliability, or viable alternatives. We cannot have such ridiculous levels of reduction, and claim that the “market” will find a solution. The republicans have proposed a much more responsible plan outlining funding for research and making sure that we continue to fuel our economy with low priced, reliable energy resources. The current path that we are on will result in much much higher prices, a stunted economy, and billions of dollars flowing from strapped consumers and businesses to all the favorite projects that are “green”. No thanks, this idea is terrible, and I can guarantee that if it passes, you will see a stifled economy suffer a kick in the gut.
What are we capping, and what are we trading? We have succeeded in reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2). Now the environmental movement is about to attempt to apply the same concept to carbon dioxide (CO2). This is a very big mistake, for the following reasons:
-The SO2 reduction program was successful because there were PROVEN technologies of reducing SO2 at the time, and the technologies continued to improve to result in reduced costs.
-Power plants that had the right to emit defined levels of SO2 suddenly were faced with an economic advantage of being able to sell the allowances, and shut down the less efficient plant, to allow for a newer larger plant, with lower emission levels of SO2 than the older plants.
-The economic engine of making the right choices was in full bloom. Emissions were reduced, additional power plants were built, technologies improved, and this is a great example of letting the market be free to make the right choices.
The same concept of Cap & Trade is being blindly touted as a means of reducing CO2. The concept is being sold under the guise that we can implement wind, solar, and conservation in order to accomplish a new version of Cap and Trade. There are some very important differences in implementing Cap and Trade for CO2 reduction.
First, let’s take a look at the level of reduction that is being called for. We are looking at a current level of CO2 emissions in the range of 6 billion tons of CO2. The bill is calling for a reduction from the 2005 levels (about 5 billion tons) of 40% of 2005 levels by 2030, and 83% reduction of the 2005 levels by 2050. This sounds very aggressive, and could be considered “forward thinking”. I consider this targeted reduction as completely ridiculous for the following reasons:
-There are currently no technical means of reducing CO2 from the emissions of power plants. No proven technology, but there are billions of research dollars being invested for a means of cleaning up the flue gas and capturing CO2. The best target for this technology being available in 2015, but this is not certain, and there are likely to be HUGE unknowns in trying to remove CO2 from such a huge amount of gas volume.
-Another major issue on capturing CO2 from plants is that it will take the equivalent of 30% of the plant output. This means that for a total fleet of about 300,000 MW of generation providing 50% of our total electricity needs, it will require an additional third, or 100,000 MW of additional generation to power this reduction technology.
-We also have a huge issue on where to store the CO2 once it is captured. Studies have been made looking at underground caverns of various types, but there are HUGE levels of uncertainty on how we can be sure the storage will work, if there is enough space, and how we can keep the CO2 stored. I call this the gopher hole problem. How can this possibly make sense?
-Trying to reduce CO2 from coal plants by fuel switching to natural gas is not feasible for coal generation, as it will result in such a huge increase of gas usage, that the price would go through the roof. Even if the fuel switch could be accomplished, the cost per ton of CO2 for this “cap and trade mirage” would double the cost of electricity.
-Renewable energy from wind currently provides about one half of a percent of our total energy needs. Wind generates power when the wind blows, and the electricity system has a unique characteristic of being “just in time delivery.” The electrical energy that we use is created in relatively the same instant it is consumed. Having wind on the system works to a certain level, but other generation needs to “follow the load” and adjust to both changes in the load, and changes in the wind.
-Irresponsible plans such as the www.google.org energy plan that called for retiring all coal and replacing it with wind would result in a third world electricity system that could not operate 24 hours a day seven days a week as we require. Let me say it as clearly as possible: huge implementation of wind generation will result in a blackouts that are beyond any acceptable level of service that we need to fuel our lives and economy. Intermittent resources such as wind can be “shaped” to follow load using a storage technology such as pumped hydro systems (not acceptable due to stirring up lake bottoms) or a battery storage system. Battery storage is feasible, but it has a fairly significant cost.
-Automobiles use about 17% of our total energy usage, and are projected to provide about 48% more vehicle usage, at roughly the same amount of energy, as driven by the mandated mileage standards. We are seeing a collision course that will blow gas prices through the roof, as we are restricting domestic drilling, and calling on some abstract ideal of having a huge influx of hybrid and electric vehicles. We need low priced access to oil products, as there will continue to be a large sector of vehicle usage that cannot be provided by electric vehicles. Increases in electric vehicles will require more electric generation, and where will this come from?
The bottom line with the cap and trade bill is that this is the most outrageous irresponsible idea that doesn’t have any real estimates of technologies available, costs, reliability, or viable alternatives. We cannot have such ridiculous levels of reduction, and claim that the “market” will find a solution. The republicans have proposed a much more responsible plan outlining funding for research and making sure that we continue to fuel our economy with low priced, reliable energy resources. The current path that we are on will result in much much higher prices, a stunted economy, and billions of dollars flowing from strapped consumers and businesses to all the favorite projects that are “green”. No thanks, this idea is terrible, and I can guarantee that if it passes, you will see a stifled economy suffer a kick in the gut.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The Irresponsibility Of Welfare For Politicians
Laura Brod is right. The mad dash by politicians and political parties to squeeze the last drops of solvency out of Minnesota's Political Contribution Refund program just isn't right. The time has come to end welfare for politicians.
The PCR program is a state subsidy that pays donors up to $50 of what they donate to a politician or political party unit. It's argued that the program increases the number of small donors. But really, if you get a refund are you really making a donation?
Tim Pawlenty unallotted the PCR program effective July 1. That's because we are in a serious budget shortfall.
There's something philosophically perverse about the very nature of the PCR program. And for any self-respecting conservative to promote a mad dash to slurp up the last drops of the fund is fundamentally hypocritical.
What part of we're out of money don't you understand? If you can't afford to make an unsubsidized contribution to a candidate, then don't.
UPDATE: Republican Activist Threatens Pawlenty Over Un-allotment of PCR
"Tuesday, June 30th -- Bob Carney Jr. will be at the June 30th meeting of the Legislative Advisory Commission -- he is seeking to be allowed to address the Commission regarding the issues raised in his letter to Governor Pawlenty
For immediate release
-------------------
Minneapolis, MN, June 25, 2009 -- Bob Carney Jr., editor, publisher and owner of www.republicancontract.com, and Minnesota Republican activist, called on Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty yesterday, to ask him to reverse his announced decision to unallot the Minnesota Political Contribution Refund. The Governor was not in his office when Mr. Carney visited. Mr. Carney left with the Governor's receptionist: a two page letter, two enclosures, and gifts (his recent book; a documentary excerpts dvd; "A Minnesota Republican State Legislator's Contract With Voters" coffee mug).
The Minnesota Political Contribution Refund program provides individual Minnesota taxpayers annual refunds of up to a $50 per person ($100 per couple) for contributions to eligible state political campaigns and political organizations. According to a June 23rd Star Tribune article: "It is the only such dollar-for-dollar refund program in the country."
"Governor Pawlenty is being challenged, and threatened with lawsuits, by many individuals and organizations, for the unprecedented scope and timing of his attempt to use unallotment provisions of Minnesota law to balance the state's budget for the new biennium, commencing July 1, 2009," Carney said. "However, aside from all the general and constitutional arguments against what Governor Pawlenty is attempting to do -- and they are powerful arguments -- we need to recognize the Political Contribution Refund is a tax refund -- something fundamentally different from the other unallocation targets," Carney added.
Carney addressed these points in his letter to Governor Pawlenty:
Standing to sue -- Because government programs typically effect everyone, and the amount each taxpayer contributes for any program is insignificant, courts typically hold that individual citizens lack legal standing to sue governments over questions of tax and spending policy. "But this is not true for the Political Contribution Refund program," Carney said. "If I meet the conditions of the program, the $50 rebate is my money. I have a right to sue if anyone illegally tries to seize it." Carney met for an hour on June 23rd with the head of a major Twin Cities law firm that specializes in class action lawsuits. "This attorney is checking for conflicts within his firm, and studying how the firm will be paid if an injunction is obtained. Other than these issues, he accepts my theory on legal standing, and we're good to go with a class action lawsuit if Governor Pawlenty does not unequivocally commit himself, and his administration, to not attempt to unallocate any funds that are taxpayer refunds," Carney added.
A dangerous precedent -- In Minnesota state law, tax refunds are privileged in many ways, and these privileges appear to extend to prohibiting the unallocation process from being used to seize, or delay, tax refunds. In his letter to the Governor, Carney stated: "Suppose for the sake of argument you do succeed in unalloting the campaign contribution refund. What is to prevent a future Governor from seizing everyone's property tax refund? Or all tax refunds of all kinds? Or selected tax refund percentages -- based on income? Note the language of the unallotment statute: '.the commissioner may consider other sources of revenue available to recipients of state appropriations and may apply allotment reductions based on all sources of revenue available.' How would any tax refund unallottment scheme -- including decisions to proportionately unallot tax refunds based on income -- be different in principle from what you are proposing to do with respect to the campaign contribution refund? Is this a precedent you want to establish?"
A call for reconsideration and an offer of support -- Carney recommended in his letter to Governor Pawlenty: "... you should do the right thing: state unequivocally that under no circumstances will you attempt to apply unallotment to the campaign contribution refunds due to Minnesota taxpayers according to law, and more generally, to any refund due to any Minnesota taxpayer according to law. I would be happy to meet with you, and/or your staff, to discuss this issue further. I would be happy to appear with you at a news conference where you announced you will not unallot the campaign contribution refund. At such a conference, I would be prepared explain the reasoning I am presenting to you. I would thank you for recognizing the way in which taxpayer refunds are fundamentally different from all other appropriations, and I would applaud you for your decision to place all taxpayer refunds off limits from unallotment. After all, consider this: isn't any unallotment of a taxpayer refund fundamentally equivalent in effect to a tax increase?"
Danger of a class action lawsuit -- Carney wrote to Governor Pawlenty as follows: "I have to tell you that if you don't place all taxpayer refunds off limits from unallotment, I feel I will have no choice but to proceed with a class action lawsuit, and to seek an injunction against what you are proposing to do with respect to the campaign contribution refund... I think such a cost would be unfortunate (the attorney I'm talking with sees this a little differently), but in my view it would be better for Minnesota to bear that cost now, than to have a precedent by which future Governors might claim a general power to unallot any and all taxpayer refunds, according to whatever scheme a future Governor might deem to be reasonable."
Additional information --
A copy of Carney's letter to Governor Pawlenty, and two enclosures, will be available at www.republicancontract.com by noon June 25th, 2009.
"
The PCR program is a state subsidy that pays donors up to $50 of what they donate to a politician or political party unit. It's argued that the program increases the number of small donors. But really, if you get a refund are you really making a donation?
Tim Pawlenty unallotted the PCR program effective July 1. That's because we are in a serious budget shortfall.
There's something philosophically perverse about the very nature of the PCR program. And for any self-respecting conservative to promote a mad dash to slurp up the last drops of the fund is fundamentally hypocritical.
What part of we're out of money don't you understand? If you can't afford to make an unsubsidized contribution to a candidate, then don't.
UPDATE: Republican Activist Threatens Pawlenty Over Un-allotment of PCR
"Tuesday, June 30th -- Bob Carney Jr. will be at the June 30th meeting of the Legislative Advisory Commission -- he is seeking to be allowed to address the Commission regarding the issues raised in his letter to Governor Pawlenty
For immediate release
-------------------
Minneapolis, MN, June 25, 2009 -- Bob Carney Jr., editor, publisher and owner of www.republicancontract.com, and Minnesota Republican activist, called on Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty yesterday, to ask him to reverse his announced decision to unallot the Minnesota Political Contribution Refund. The Governor was not in his office when Mr. Carney visited. Mr. Carney left with the Governor's receptionist: a two page letter, two enclosures, and gifts (his recent book; a documentary excerpts dvd; "A Minnesota Republican State Legislator's Contract With Voters" coffee mug).
The Minnesota Political Contribution Refund program provides individual Minnesota taxpayers annual refunds of up to a $50 per person ($100 per couple) for contributions to eligible state political campaigns and political organizations. According to a June 23rd Star Tribune article: "It is the only such dollar-for-dollar refund program in the country."
"Governor Pawlenty is being challenged, and threatened with lawsuits, by many individuals and organizations, for the unprecedented scope and timing of his attempt to use unallotment provisions of Minnesota law to balance the state's budget for the new biennium, commencing July 1, 2009," Carney said. "However, aside from all the general and constitutional arguments against what Governor Pawlenty is attempting to do -- and they are powerful arguments -- we need to recognize the Political Contribution Refund is a tax refund -- something fundamentally different from the other unallocation targets," Carney added.
Carney addressed these points in his letter to Governor Pawlenty:
Standing to sue -- Because government programs typically effect everyone, and the amount each taxpayer contributes for any program is insignificant, courts typically hold that individual citizens lack legal standing to sue governments over questions of tax and spending policy. "But this is not true for the Political Contribution Refund program," Carney said. "If I meet the conditions of the program, the $50 rebate is my money. I have a right to sue if anyone illegally tries to seize it." Carney met for an hour on June 23rd with the head of a major Twin Cities law firm that specializes in class action lawsuits. "This attorney is checking for conflicts within his firm, and studying how the firm will be paid if an injunction is obtained. Other than these issues, he accepts my theory on legal standing, and we're good to go with a class action lawsuit if Governor Pawlenty does not unequivocally commit himself, and his administration, to not attempt to unallocate any funds that are taxpayer refunds," Carney added.
A dangerous precedent -- In Minnesota state law, tax refunds are privileged in many ways, and these privileges appear to extend to prohibiting the unallocation process from being used to seize, or delay, tax refunds. In his letter to the Governor, Carney stated: "Suppose for the sake of argument you do succeed in unalloting the campaign contribution refund. What is to prevent a future Governor from seizing everyone's property tax refund? Or all tax refunds of all kinds? Or selected tax refund percentages -- based on income? Note the language of the unallotment statute: '.the commissioner may consider other sources of revenue available to recipients of state appropriations and may apply allotment reductions based on all sources of revenue available.' How would any tax refund unallottment scheme -- including decisions to proportionately unallot tax refunds based on income -- be different in principle from what you are proposing to do with respect to the campaign contribution refund? Is this a precedent you want to establish?"
A call for reconsideration and an offer of support -- Carney recommended in his letter to Governor Pawlenty: "... you should do the right thing: state unequivocally that under no circumstances will you attempt to apply unallotment to the campaign contribution refunds due to Minnesota taxpayers according to law, and more generally, to any refund due to any Minnesota taxpayer according to law. I would be happy to meet with you, and/or your staff, to discuss this issue further. I would be happy to appear with you at a news conference where you announced you will not unallot the campaign contribution refund. At such a conference, I would be prepared explain the reasoning I am presenting to you. I would thank you for recognizing the way in which taxpayer refunds are fundamentally different from all other appropriations, and I would applaud you for your decision to place all taxpayer refunds off limits from unallotment. After all, consider this: isn't any unallotment of a taxpayer refund fundamentally equivalent in effect to a tax increase?"
Danger of a class action lawsuit -- Carney wrote to Governor Pawlenty as follows: "I have to tell you that if you don't place all taxpayer refunds off limits from unallotment, I feel I will have no choice but to proceed with a class action lawsuit, and to seek an injunction against what you are proposing to do with respect to the campaign contribution refund... I think such a cost would be unfortunate (the attorney I'm talking with sees this a little differently), but in my view it would be better for Minnesota to bear that cost now, than to have a precedent by which future Governors might claim a general power to unallot any and all taxpayer refunds, according to whatever scheme a future Governor might deem to be reasonable."
Additional information --
A copy of Carney's letter to Governor Pawlenty, and two enclosures, will be available at www.republicancontract.com by noon June 25th, 2009.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
CALL TO ACTION!!!!!
“[U]nder my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” -- Barack Obama
An expensive new “tax” bill will be considered on the floor of the House as early as this Friday, June 26. This bill is known as the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” H.R. 2454, also known as the Waxman-Markey climate change bill.
Call these MN US Representatives TODAY! And TOMORROW. And FRIDAY!
Rep. Collin Peterson (Ag Committee Chair): 202-225-2165 ** (Peterson just caved and is now supporting the bill) **
Rep. Tim Walz 202-225-2472
Rep. Betty McCullum 202-225-6631
Rep. Jim Oberstar 202-225-6211
Rep. Keith Ellison 202-225-4755
1. I oppose the cap-and-trade Carbon Tax. This is an outrageous power grab by the federal government that will greatly expand government control and increase energy costs for my family.
2. This system of "allocations" has failed in Europe and will politicize America's energy policy.
3. Especially in these difficult economic times, Congress must not pass this tax on the American people!
Thanks for taking a stand!
An expensive new “tax” bill will be considered on the floor of the House as early as this Friday, June 26. This bill is known as the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” H.R. 2454, also known as the Waxman-Markey climate change bill.
Call these MN US Representatives TODAY! And TOMORROW. And FRIDAY!
Rep. Collin Peterson (Ag Committee Chair): 202-225-2165 ** (Peterson just caved and is now supporting the bill) **
Rep. Tim Walz 202-225-2472
Rep. Betty McCullum 202-225-6631
Rep. Jim Oberstar 202-225-6211
Rep. Keith Ellison 202-225-4755
1. I oppose the cap-and-trade Carbon Tax. This is an outrageous power grab by the federal government that will greatly expand government control and increase energy costs for my family.
2. This system of "allocations" has failed in Europe and will politicize America's energy policy.
3. Especially in these difficult economic times, Congress must not pass this tax on the American people!
Thanks for taking a stand!
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Iranian Heroism
Regardless of whether they cheated or not, the disputed outcome of recent Iranian elections, and moreso the fervent public protest, is nothing less than remarkable.
There is no Bill of Rights in Iran per se. No provision for right to assemble, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press. Yet thousands march, demonstrate, protest. Truly heroic considering the risk of life and limb for such independent rebellion against the system.
America's organized media slowly but surely is becoming less effective, less independent, less capable to fulfill its crucial role of being the eyes and the ears of the people. News is not so much objectively reported anymore as it is produced and manufactured for entertainment value, for ratings. Murrow and Cronkite would not recognize their craft.
Independent citizens speaking up and speaking out against the tide of manufactured pabulum. God bless them!
There is no Bill of Rights in Iran per se. No provision for right to assemble, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press. Yet thousands march, demonstrate, protest. Truly heroic considering the risk of life and limb for such independent rebellion against the system.
America's organized media slowly but surely is becoming less effective, less independent, less capable to fulfill its crucial role of being the eyes and the ears of the people. News is not so much objectively reported anymore as it is produced and manufactured for entertainment value, for ratings. Murrow and Cronkite would not recognize their craft.
Independent citizens speaking up and speaking out against the tide of manufactured pabulum. God bless them!
Monday, June 22, 2009
Wright County To Consider Rejecting Health Care Cost Savings Recently Approved By The State Legislature
"BUFFALO, MINN --- When the Wright County Human Services Agency meets today at 1:30 p.m., it will be the first municipal body in the state to vote on a controversial idea that would see them add an expensive new level of bureaucracy to the cost of county health care.
The meeting will see the county debate the merits of hiring Medical Transportation Management (MTM) to handle dispatching of non-emergency medical transportation for Medicaid recipients throughout the county. MTM did this work for the metro counties through a state contract for the past five years. This year, unimpressed with the reliability and the escalating cost of the service, the Minnesota Legislature voted in a bipartisan manner to remove MTM from providing these services. Rather than accept this fact, the company is now attempting an end around this ruling by going directly to the counties in an effort to retain a government funding source.
The company in question, MTM, has been removed from handling similar services in its home state of Missouri, as well as in several other states. In Missouri, the company settled out of court for several million dollars with the state over allegations of Medicaid fraud, contract problems and antitrust violations.
When it removed MTM from the equation this past session, the state utilized the resulting savings for bridging the budget gap. If the county were to, in effect, rehire MTM to manage these services, the question of how the program would be funded and how the county would be able to make such a major decision without seeking other bidders on the contract would loom. And after the Wright County hearing on Monday, other counties including Hennepin and Ramsey are scheduled to begin the debates in their counties on Tuesday.
An association of non emergency medical transportation drivers has come together to oppose the use of this extra level of bureaucracy. Until five years ago, these rides were all handled like they are outstate, by the patients calling the transportation providers directly to set up rides, and the transportation providers handling the eligibility checks and billing directly with the state. The drivers believe that this remains the most cost and time efficient method for dealing with this matter.
MORE INFO: For more information, or to set up an interview with a transportation provider, please contact Nate Dybvig at 651.488.2229. "
The meeting will see the county debate the merits of hiring Medical Transportation Management (MTM) to handle dispatching of non-emergency medical transportation for Medicaid recipients throughout the county. MTM did this work for the metro counties through a state contract for the past five years. This year, unimpressed with the reliability and the escalating cost of the service, the Minnesota Legislature voted in a bipartisan manner to remove MTM from providing these services. Rather than accept this fact, the company is now attempting an end around this ruling by going directly to the counties in an effort to retain a government funding source.
The company in question, MTM, has been removed from handling similar services in its home state of Missouri, as well as in several other states. In Missouri, the company settled out of court for several million dollars with the state over allegations of Medicaid fraud, contract problems and antitrust violations.
When it removed MTM from the equation this past session, the state utilized the resulting savings for bridging the budget gap. If the county were to, in effect, rehire MTM to manage these services, the question of how the program would be funded and how the county would be able to make such a major decision without seeking other bidders on the contract would loom. And after the Wright County hearing on Monday, other counties including Hennepin and Ramsey are scheduled to begin the debates in their counties on Tuesday.
An association of non emergency medical transportation drivers has come together to oppose the use of this extra level of bureaucracy. Until five years ago, these rides were all handled like they are outstate, by the patients calling the transportation providers directly to set up rides, and the transportation providers handling the eligibility checks and billing directly with the state. The drivers believe that this remains the most cost and time efficient method for dealing with this matter.
MORE INFO: For more information, or to set up an interview with a transportation provider, please contact Nate Dybvig at 651.488.2229. "
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Prepare! The Night Is Here: Morning's Light Will Follow
Greg Evenson is sounding an alarm in this article. As much as it pains me to propagate such an extreme viewpoint, I can clearly see the value in encouraging you to hear him out and make up your own mind. His words should make you uncomfortable.
"Communism under the thin guise of socialism has arrived at our front door. We accepted all of the false, misleading, placating, tranquilizing, feely-good stupidity that the democrats and Barry Sotero offered us. What he was doing all along under the guise of a stimulus, was petting the puppy’s head as he administered the euthanasia drugs."
READ THE FULL POST HERE
Let me knwo if you want to organize a meeting to hear this guy out.
"Communism under the thin guise of socialism has arrived at our front door. We accepted all of the false, misleading, placating, tranquilizing, feely-good stupidity that the democrats and Barry Sotero offered us. What he was doing all along under the guise of a stimulus, was petting the puppy’s head as he administered the euthanasia drugs."
READ THE FULL POST HERE
Let me knwo if you want to organize a meeting to hear this guy out.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
What Does Fish Sperm & Shubert Theater Have In Common?
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=59af3ebd-7bf9-4933-8279-8091b533464f
Minneapolis spending over $2 million on Shubert Theater makes Sen. Coburn's list of wasteful spending projects. Midwest region starts on page 19. South Dakota fish hatchery to spend half of a $20,000 grant on a freezer for fish sperm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Second Opinion on the Stimulus
"Earlier this year, Congress was quick to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or stimulus bill that promised to jumpstart the economy and put Americans back to work by spending $787 billion on “shovel-ready” projects across the country.
There was no question that the nation’s economic condition demanded bold action. Nor is there any question that the massive amount of stimulus spending so far has created some new jobs. Yet, as recent statistics have shown, the jobs that may have been created or saved from the stimulus are not offsetting the millions of jobs that our economy is still hemorrhaging.
In my estimation, Congress chose the wrong approach to stimulating the economy by spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need. Real stimulus includes lowering the tax and regulatory burden on hardworking families and businesses, which creates good jobs for the long term.
Unemployment soared to 9.4 percent in May 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), with 14.5 million Americans now out of work. These numbers are staggering, but may actually be too low. BLS also reports that “true unemployment” could be as high as 16.4 percent when adjusted for all workers that would like to work full time but are discouraged from doing so.1 Behind these statistics are stories of families trying to make ends meet without a steady pay check, and even
those who have not lost their jobs are anxious about their own financial situation, as well as the future that they can expect for their children and grandchildren.
It is fair to say that these statistics do not tell the full story of the stimulus. Taxpayers have a lot of questions about how the stimulus is working and they deserve answers.
For example, what kinds of jobs are being created? Are these permanent jobs or seasonal and temporary jobs that will soon be gone when the project is completed? What are the merits of projects being funded with stimulus dollars? Will these projects make real improvements in the lives of taxpayers and communities or are they simply pet projects of politicians and lobbyists that never got off the ground because they are a low priority? Are some stimulus projects actually making matters worse for ordinary Americans?
Taxpayers would not be shocked to hear that millions of dollars of stimulus money are being wasted, but they might be shocked to learn the answers to these questions. After a review of thousands of projects, it is fair to claim that there are some successes, but there are also places where we need to do better.
Earl Devaney, head of the Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency (RAT) Board, estimates that at least $55 billion of the money may be lost to waste, fraud and abuse.
Unfortunately, we all have come to expect waste and mismanagement when Washington spends money. But this time the expectation must be different. When ordinary Americans are laid off or lose their jobs, they are losing more than just income. They are losing their health insurance, as well as their ability to pay their
mortgages, to send their kids to school, or even provide necessities like food and shelter.
This report is an attempt to look beyond the statistics of jobs created or even money wasted. It, instead, provides a closer examination of 100 projects, programs and missteps - worth $5.5 billion - some even in my own home state of Oklahoma, that are likely to fail the expectation of out of work Americans who were hoping this bill would create good jobs that they are desperately seeking so that they can provide for their families once again.
I plan on issuing additional reports on stimulus projects in the months to come in the hope that by keeping government accountable, we can provide the most value for taxpayers.
Tom Coburn, M.D.
U.S. Senator"
Minneapolis spending over $2 million on Shubert Theater makes Sen. Coburn's list of wasteful spending projects. Midwest region starts on page 19. South Dakota fish hatchery to spend half of a $20,000 grant on a freezer for fish sperm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Second Opinion on the Stimulus
"Earlier this year, Congress was quick to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or stimulus bill that promised to jumpstart the economy and put Americans back to work by spending $787 billion on “shovel-ready” projects across the country.
There was no question that the nation’s economic condition demanded bold action. Nor is there any question that the massive amount of stimulus spending so far has created some new jobs. Yet, as recent statistics have shown, the jobs that may have been created or saved from the stimulus are not offsetting the millions of jobs that our economy is still hemorrhaging.
In my estimation, Congress chose the wrong approach to stimulating the economy by spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need. Real stimulus includes lowering the tax and regulatory burden on hardworking families and businesses, which creates good jobs for the long term.
Unemployment soared to 9.4 percent in May 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), with 14.5 million Americans now out of work. These numbers are staggering, but may actually be too low. BLS also reports that “true unemployment” could be as high as 16.4 percent when adjusted for all workers that would like to work full time but are discouraged from doing so.1 Behind these statistics are stories of families trying to make ends meet without a steady pay check, and even
those who have not lost their jobs are anxious about their own financial situation, as well as the future that they can expect for their children and grandchildren.
It is fair to say that these statistics do not tell the full story of the stimulus. Taxpayers have a lot of questions about how the stimulus is working and they deserve answers.
For example, what kinds of jobs are being created? Are these permanent jobs or seasonal and temporary jobs that will soon be gone when the project is completed? What are the merits of projects being funded with stimulus dollars? Will these projects make real improvements in the lives of taxpayers and communities or are they simply pet projects of politicians and lobbyists that never got off the ground because they are a low priority? Are some stimulus projects actually making matters worse for ordinary Americans?
Taxpayers would not be shocked to hear that millions of dollars of stimulus money are being wasted, but they might be shocked to learn the answers to these questions. After a review of thousands of projects, it is fair to claim that there are some successes, but there are also places where we need to do better.
Earl Devaney, head of the Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency (RAT) Board, estimates that at least $55 billion of the money may be lost to waste, fraud and abuse.
Unfortunately, we all have come to expect waste and mismanagement when Washington spends money. But this time the expectation must be different. When ordinary Americans are laid off or lose their jobs, they are losing more than just income. They are losing their health insurance, as well as their ability to pay their
mortgages, to send their kids to school, or even provide necessities like food and shelter.
This report is an attempt to look beyond the statistics of jobs created or even money wasted. It, instead, provides a closer examination of 100 projects, programs and missteps - worth $5.5 billion - some even in my own home state of Oklahoma, that are likely to fail the expectation of out of work Americans who were hoping this bill would create good jobs that they are desperately seeking so that they can provide for their families once again.
I plan on issuing additional reports on stimulus projects in the months to come in the hope that by keeping government accountable, we can provide the most value for taxpayers.
Tom Coburn, M.D.
U.S. Senator"
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Well Then Who's Problem Is It?
I had the privilege to meet with Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Pat Diamond on Monday June 8 at 9:00am. I was invited by Bob Carrillo. Bob ran into Mark Ritchie at a St. Paul Saints baseball game and politely asked him a bunch of unwelcome questions about how our elections are managed in Minnesota. When Bob's questions got to be too much for Mark he relented and said he would schedule a meeting. To his credit he did schedule the meeting. He chose to include Assitant Hennepin County Attorney Pat Diamond. Mark didn't know I was coming to the meeting. Mark wasn't particularly happy to see me. But he did welcome me into the meeting. The four of us met for the better part of an hour. It was fascinating.
No matter how you line up in this election integrity debate the people of Minnesota are getting the short end of the stick. We don't realistically have the ability to monitor the election process. Those charged with that repsonsibility are operating under rules and policies that clearly need to be reformed. And, hard as this is to believe, there are partisans involved in the process that may be able to influence the process to the benefit of their side.
Mark Ritchie stated that he agrees with Norm Coleman's attorney Joel Freidberg when he said "...there wasn't a wiff of election fraud in Minnesota". Remarkably, and almost in the same breath, Mark Ritchie cited a voter fraud case in Baudette. Baudette, to my knowledge has not seceded from the union. Pat Diamond cited other active investigations. Nary a wiff of election fraud? I suppose teh wiff is undiscernable, that is, if you plug your nose. Mark Ritchie's words frame a position that says there are no clear examples of fraud therefore there is no fraud. That's akin to refusing to card the kids at the saloon door and then claiming that we have no evidence of underage drinking. But the kids sure seem happy. Not very sound reasoning.
My point is simple. Assuming we agree on a basic premise we can have a civil chat about this issue. The premise is: We want one legitimate vote cast for every legitimate voter registration. And if we agree on that then here's the kicker: If we can improve our election system to reduce the opportunity for fraud then we should do so at once. The flesh is weak. Humans often cheat when they are consistently presented with an opportunity to do so. Cue Flip Wilson's Geraldine "The devil made me do it!".
Our registration process is flawed. Same day registrations do not allow for said registration to be verified before said vote is registered. Therefore, convenient as it is, same day registration is a flawed practice. Why have registration at all? Furthermore, our current registration process and systems for updating records for deceased voters, non-resident aliens and felons is flawed. I submit that it is worse than flawed, it may well invite fraud.
Last week Assistant SOS Jim Gelbmann held a media session where he attacked Minnesota Majority for running to the press with false claims about election fraud, instead of trying to work with the SOS. In reality, Minnesota Majority has attempted at every turn to work with the SOS to resolve MM claims. The SOS response has consistently been so unsatisfactory that Minnesota Majority has filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of State.
We openly recorded the meeting. We're missing about 5 minutes that I will try and reconstitute out of my copious notes. The tape was transcribed yesterday and sent to the attorneys handling the lawsuit and some other folks who are following this issue closely. I'm sharing it with you for your personal edification and as basis for your own research on the election integrity issue. Do teh homework and make up your own mind.
Here's a link to download an mp3 version of the recording - a tone inserted where the tape was shut-off for the 5 minute period.
http://www.4shared.com/file/110907962/2692099/2009-06-08RitchieInterview2.html
I don't want to attack Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. But he makes it evermore difficult by constantly favoring his political position in this mess over his professional position. By attacking Minnesota Majority rather than working together to improve Minnesota's election process, Mark Ritchie clearly shows that he prefers to protect the DFL's election process advantage that is thinly veiled in our convoluted registration and voting process. In spite of his duties, enumerated in statute and HAVA (Help America Vote Act), Ritchie defers all responsibility either to the individual counties, the legislature or the Governor's office. Talk about a situation that is crying out for responsible leadership. But instead all we get is an angry plume of recriminations and blame.
We do need to reform the registration and voting process. We do need legislation to eliminate the opportunity for fraud. We do need each and every registration verified BEFORE the votes anonymously and irretrievably disappear into the counted ballots pile. We do need all dead voters, non-residents and felons removed from the registartion roles before election day. We do need a mechanism whereby we can guaranteed ONE legitimate vote for every single legitimate registration.
And we need a Secretary Of State who is willing to hold the people of Minnesota more precious than he does the overwhelming influence of George Soros' SOS Project, MoveOn.org and ACORN.
No matter how you line up in this election integrity debate the people of Minnesota are getting the short end of the stick. We don't realistically have the ability to monitor the election process. Those charged with that repsonsibility are operating under rules and policies that clearly need to be reformed. And, hard as this is to believe, there are partisans involved in the process that may be able to influence the process to the benefit of their side.
Mark Ritchie stated that he agrees with Norm Coleman's attorney Joel Freidberg when he said "...there wasn't a wiff of election fraud in Minnesota". Remarkably, and almost in the same breath, Mark Ritchie cited a voter fraud case in Baudette. Baudette, to my knowledge has not seceded from the union. Pat Diamond cited other active investigations. Nary a wiff of election fraud? I suppose teh wiff is undiscernable, that is, if you plug your nose. Mark Ritchie's words frame a position that says there are no clear examples of fraud therefore there is no fraud. That's akin to refusing to card the kids at the saloon door and then claiming that we have no evidence of underage drinking. But the kids sure seem happy. Not very sound reasoning.
My point is simple. Assuming we agree on a basic premise we can have a civil chat about this issue. The premise is: We want one legitimate vote cast for every legitimate voter registration. And if we agree on that then here's the kicker: If we can improve our election system to reduce the opportunity for fraud then we should do so at once. The flesh is weak. Humans often cheat when they are consistently presented with an opportunity to do so. Cue Flip Wilson's Geraldine "The devil made me do it!".
Our registration process is flawed. Same day registrations do not allow for said registration to be verified before said vote is registered. Therefore, convenient as it is, same day registration is a flawed practice. Why have registration at all? Furthermore, our current registration process and systems for updating records for deceased voters, non-resident aliens and felons is flawed. I submit that it is worse than flawed, it may well invite fraud.
Last week Assistant SOS Jim Gelbmann held a media session where he attacked Minnesota Majority for running to the press with false claims about election fraud, instead of trying to work with the SOS. In reality, Minnesota Majority has attempted at every turn to work with the SOS to resolve MM claims. The SOS response has consistently been so unsatisfactory that Minnesota Majority has filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of State.
We openly recorded the meeting. We're missing about 5 minutes that I will try and reconstitute out of my copious notes. The tape was transcribed yesterday and sent to the attorneys handling the lawsuit and some other folks who are following this issue closely. I'm sharing it with you for your personal edification and as basis for your own research on the election integrity issue. Do teh homework and make up your own mind.
Here's a link to download an mp3 version of the recording - a tone inserted where the tape was shut-off for the 5 minute period.
http://www.4shared.com/file/110907962/2692099/2009-06-08RitchieInterview2.html
I don't want to attack Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. But he makes it evermore difficult by constantly favoring his political position in this mess over his professional position. By attacking Minnesota Majority rather than working together to improve Minnesota's election process, Mark Ritchie clearly shows that he prefers to protect the DFL's election process advantage that is thinly veiled in our convoluted registration and voting process. In spite of his duties, enumerated in statute and HAVA (Help America Vote Act), Ritchie defers all responsibility either to the individual counties, the legislature or the Governor's office. Talk about a situation that is crying out for responsible leadership. But instead all we get is an angry plume of recriminations and blame.
We do need to reform the registration and voting process. We do need legislation to eliminate the opportunity for fraud. We do need each and every registration verified BEFORE the votes anonymously and irretrievably disappear into the counted ballots pile. We do need all dead voters, non-residents and felons removed from the registartion roles before election day. We do need a mechanism whereby we can guaranteed ONE legitimate vote for every single legitimate registration.
And we need a Secretary Of State who is willing to hold the people of Minnesota more precious than he does the overwhelming influence of George Soros' SOS Project, MoveOn.org and ACORN.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
I Feel Sorry For Deputy Secretary Of State Jim Gelbmann
Yesterday Minnesota Majority announced "the discovery of individuals who were deceased prior to the election who were on voter history records". In essence, the Secretary of State has failed to do his job. No one with a brain would dispute that having deceased voters on the signature book is a serious opportunity for monkey business at the polls.
In a frenzied attempt to discredit Minnesota Majority, Deputy SOS Jim Gelbmann announced an impromptu "Media Availability". I went. It was awful.
Poor Jim Gelbmann was shaking like a leaf. He gave more of a speech than a media availability. He opened with a series of bald-faced lies about Minnesota Majority. That nonsense was as unnecessary as it was predictable coming from Mark Ritchie's highly politicized office. Gelbmann said Minnesota Majority's data was faulty. In fact, the data referenced came from the voter file Minnesota Majority purchased from the Secretary Of State's Office. Gelbmann claimed that all Minnesota Majority had to do was call the SOS office for help instead of taking everything to the media. This is preposterous considering Minnesota Majority has attempted repeatedly to get satisfactory answers from the Secretary of State's Office without success. MNMajority notified Mark Ritchie in October 2008 about the problem with dead voters still being on the voter registry and all Ritchie could muster was a dishonest claim of voter intimidation against MNMajority, expressed by Mark Ritchie in front of the cameras. What a bunch of hogwash!
A few media folks showed up and when Bill Salisbury asked if it was possible for someone to connect the dead voter registrations with live fraudulent voters, aka is it possible to cheat, Gelbmann explained like a youngster that had been caught being naughty and didn't want to answer his parent. When asked, after the long and winding answer, whether that was a "yes" or a "no", Gelbmann sheepishly admitted "yes".
Yes, it is possible to cheat in Minnesota elections. Does anyone have a problem with that besides me?
Jim Gelbmann tried unsuccessfully to explain that no one would dare cheat in Minnesota elections simply because the penalties are too high. I disagree. It's more likely that cheating is encouraged by the lack of verifiable registration and enforcement. Gelbmann's meandering lecture filled most of the time allotted and when it became clear that the presentation was not going well the reporters unplugged and headed out. You didn't see it on the news , did you?
If I had asked a question it would have been simple. Could the Deputy Secretary of State unconditionally guarantee that no one had voted on the registrations of the dead?
Poor Jim Gelbmann would have been required to say yes. To which I would have offered a hearty "Liar, liar, pants on fire!".
A responsible Secretary Of State would put down the gun and take Minnesota Majority seriously. MNMajority only represents about 80,000 Minnesotans. It would make sense for Ritchie to sit down with Jeff Davis and work together toward an election system that guarantees only on vote per eligible voter in Minnesota. Anything short of that is a defacto endorsement of preserving the opportunity for fraud.
In a frenzied attempt to discredit Minnesota Majority, Deputy SOS Jim Gelbmann announced an impromptu "Media Availability". I went. It was awful.
Poor Jim Gelbmann was shaking like a leaf. He gave more of a speech than a media availability. He opened with a series of bald-faced lies about Minnesota Majority. That nonsense was as unnecessary as it was predictable coming from Mark Ritchie's highly politicized office. Gelbmann said Minnesota Majority's data was faulty. In fact, the data referenced came from the voter file Minnesota Majority purchased from the Secretary Of State's Office. Gelbmann claimed that all Minnesota Majority had to do was call the SOS office for help instead of taking everything to the media. This is preposterous considering Minnesota Majority has attempted repeatedly to get satisfactory answers from the Secretary of State's Office without success. MNMajority notified Mark Ritchie in October 2008 about the problem with dead voters still being on the voter registry and all Ritchie could muster was a dishonest claim of voter intimidation against MNMajority, expressed by Mark Ritchie in front of the cameras. What a bunch of hogwash!
A few media folks showed up and when Bill Salisbury asked if it was possible for someone to connect the dead voter registrations with live fraudulent voters, aka is it possible to cheat, Gelbmann explained like a youngster that had been caught being naughty and didn't want to answer his parent. When asked, after the long and winding answer, whether that was a "yes" or a "no", Gelbmann sheepishly admitted "yes".
Yes, it is possible to cheat in Minnesota elections. Does anyone have a problem with that besides me?
Jim Gelbmann tried unsuccessfully to explain that no one would dare cheat in Minnesota elections simply because the penalties are too high. I disagree. It's more likely that cheating is encouraged by the lack of verifiable registration and enforcement. Gelbmann's meandering lecture filled most of the time allotted and when it became clear that the presentation was not going well the reporters unplugged and headed out. You didn't see it on the news , did you?
If I had asked a question it would have been simple. Could the Deputy Secretary of State unconditionally guarantee that no one had voted on the registrations of the dead?
Poor Jim Gelbmann would have been required to say yes. To which I would have offered a hearty "Liar, liar, pants on fire!".
A responsible Secretary Of State would put down the gun and take Minnesota Majority seriously. MNMajority only represents about 80,000 Minnesotans. It would make sense for Ritchie to sit down with Jeff Davis and work together toward an election system that guarantees only on vote per eligible voter in Minnesota. Anything short of that is a defacto endorsement of preserving the opportunity for fraud.
Decision Bars Georgia From Continuing Voter Verification Process
click the title to find the article. worth reading in light of all the hard work going into reducing teh integrity of our elections.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Lawsuit Alleges Voter Fraud in Minnesota
Newsmax publishes what many Minnesota media outlets can't or won't because of their apparent affiliation with the DFL.
Does the media avoid fair and accurate coverage of MNMajority just because we stand for the protection of life from conception to natural death, and traditional marriage?
Otherwise, why would anyone resist the opportunity to make our elections processes more accountable and reliable? The brownout on coverage just doesn't make sense.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/minnesota_fraud_lawsuit/2009/06/02/220818.html
Does the media avoid fair and accurate coverage of MNMajority just because we stand for the protection of life from conception to natural death, and traditional marriage?
Otherwise, why would anyone resist the opportunity to make our elections processes more accountable and reliable? The brownout on coverage just doesn't make sense.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/minnesota_fraud_lawsuit/2009/06/02/220818.html
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
National News Covers Election Corruption Local Media Prefers To Ignore
from the Washington Examiner
"This story really began more than seven months ago, in October 2008 when a number of irregularities were discovered in Minnesota’s voter registration records; things like deceased people being on the voter rolls, convicted felons who had registered to vote from prison and non-existent voter addresses. Instead of investigating these issues, Ritchie decided to circle the wagons, claiming at a press conference that Minnesota has one of the best election systems in the nation.
During this same time, ACORN was taking credit for registering more than 80,000 new voters in preparation for the 2008 election. Unlike other states that are now actively investigating and prosecuting ACORN for fraudulent election activity, Minnesota has done nothing. Allegations of wrong-doing were swiftly squashed by Minnesota’s ACORN-endorsed attorney general and Ritchie."
READ FULL OP-ED HERE
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Minnesota-the-land-of-murky-elections-46709247.html
"This story really began more than seven months ago, in October 2008 when a number of irregularities were discovered in Minnesota’s voter registration records; things like deceased people being on the voter rolls, convicted felons who had registered to vote from prison and non-existent voter addresses. Instead of investigating these issues, Ritchie decided to circle the wagons, claiming at a press conference that Minnesota has one of the best election systems in the nation.
During this same time, ACORN was taking credit for registering more than 80,000 new voters in preparation for the 2008 election. Unlike other states that are now actively investigating and prosecuting ACORN for fraudulent election activity, Minnesota has done nothing. Allegations of wrong-doing were swiftly squashed by Minnesota’s ACORN-endorsed attorney general and Ritchie."
READ FULL OP-ED HERE
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Minnesota-the-land-of-murky-elections-46709247.html
Mike Lindsay: Supporting Dave Thompson
"I noticed you endorsed Dave Thompson for Chair. I also support Dave. I would like to explain why.
First, let me give you some background. I have been involved in MN GOP politics at all levels for many years. I have held positions of leadership at the BPOU, Congressional district, and State Party levels. I have been a National Delegate to 3 different conventions. I could have been a National Delegate in 2008, but turned down the offer, since my wife was involved in a campaign for State Legislature. I have chaired BPOU and Congressional District conventions. I have served on Platform, Rules, and Constitution committees at the BPOU, Congressional District, and State Level. I’ve been a delegate to State Central and a candidate for Deputy Chair of the State Party. I am not a neophyte when it comes to Republican Party Politics in Minnesota.
That being said, let me state that the “status quo” in the Republican Party have all but destroyed the Republican Party.
Tony Sutton likes to talk about his involvement in the glory days of Bill Cooper. I was on the executive committee at the time. As Executive Director, Tony did a great job following Bill Cooper’s directions. The Party worked well under Bill Cooper because, as chair, Bill Cooper unabashedly supported the platform and the endorsement process. He was concerned about getting the GOP message out, raising money, and training local BPOUs. My point is that while Tony may be able to execute, his recent history in leadership shows a lack of vision or the ability to lead in a way required to win back lost Legislative seats.
What has happened since Bill Cooper left? Instead of pushing platform issues, the party has been more concerned about "electability" as the highest qualification for office. The State Party and the House and Senate caucus are more concerned about trying to control who runs for office and who doesn't. The problem is, “electability” is impossible to define. Since Republicans have been focused on “electability” we have been losing more and more elections!
The State Party leadership has abdicated its responsibility to speak for the GOP to the Governor (one Party Chair even called the Governor the "defacto head of the party."). This caused a loss of credibility when the Gov went off the reservation on the platform - stadium, smoking ban, light rail, etc). No one was there to champion our Platform.
When a party starts looking at angling and positioning for a win instead of running on issues (especially if it is the GOP), the party loses. Cooper was the last party chair to push issues and to get upset with elected Republicans who parted ways with the platform.
Tony Sutton was part of that “status quo”. He tried to shout down Sue Jeffers at our convention when she had the audacity to challenge Gov. Pawlenty for the endorsement for Governor. He tried to use his position as State Party Secretary/Treasurer to make sure she couldn’t speak. He, and the other Party officials were not successful at the 2nd District Convention, but were successful at every other Congressional District Conventions and the State Convention. Now Tony is claiming to have supported the rights of Sue Jeffers and Ron Paul to speak!
The Republican Party Constitution is clear. The Party is run by the Convention. No leader or elected official has the right to prevent anyone from going before the Convention and stating their case. The same thing happened to the Ron Paul supporters at the various conventions. Instead of letting them have their say and then letting the Convention decide, Party leadership excluded them. That kind of elitist attitude does not belong in the Republican Party.
We have had too many good candidates lose elections because they were endorsed over the candidates “chosen” by leadership in the Party and the Legislature. The punishment for those candidates is zero support. Yet, the election track record of the “anointed” candidates is abysmal.
We need to get our eyes off trying to win for winning’s sake and get the re-focused on what we stand for. When the electorate believes that we believe in our platform, we win. When we act like hypocrites (DFL-lite) we lose.
The State Party Chair is the CEO. The party dances to his tune. Dave Thompson has been singing the tune of our Platform for years. Tony Sutton has been part of the status quo “good ol’ boy network” which has been, at best, unbelievably silent, and, at worst, vociferously vocal in opposition to our Platform and Party Constitution.
Dave Thompson has communicated our Platform ideas more in the last 6 months than the leadership of the party, including Tony, has in the last 6 years.
If the Republican Party really wants to get back to the Bill Cooper glory days of winning elections, it needs a Chairman who will do like Bill Cooper: Fight for the Platform, not the status quo; Communicate well to the public; and work to give our BPOU volunteers something to be proud of in our Party Leadership.
Only one person fits that mold – Dave Thompson.
Mike Lindsay
2nd Congressional District"
Thanks Mike. I'm glad to post letters in support of other candidates. The point isn't for me to tell you who to vote for. It's about making up your own mind.
First, let me give you some background. I have been involved in MN GOP politics at all levels for many years. I have held positions of leadership at the BPOU, Congressional district, and State Party levels. I have been a National Delegate to 3 different conventions. I could have been a National Delegate in 2008, but turned down the offer, since my wife was involved in a campaign for State Legislature. I have chaired BPOU and Congressional District conventions. I have served on Platform, Rules, and Constitution committees at the BPOU, Congressional District, and State Level. I’ve been a delegate to State Central and a candidate for Deputy Chair of the State Party. I am not a neophyte when it comes to Republican Party Politics in Minnesota.
That being said, let me state that the “status quo” in the Republican Party have all but destroyed the Republican Party.
Tony Sutton likes to talk about his involvement in the glory days of Bill Cooper. I was on the executive committee at the time. As Executive Director, Tony did a great job following Bill Cooper’s directions. The Party worked well under Bill Cooper because, as chair, Bill Cooper unabashedly supported the platform and the endorsement process. He was concerned about getting the GOP message out, raising money, and training local BPOUs. My point is that while Tony may be able to execute, his recent history in leadership shows a lack of vision or the ability to lead in a way required to win back lost Legislative seats.
What has happened since Bill Cooper left? Instead of pushing platform issues, the party has been more concerned about "electability" as the highest qualification for office. The State Party and the House and Senate caucus are more concerned about trying to control who runs for office and who doesn't. The problem is, “electability” is impossible to define. Since Republicans have been focused on “electability” we have been losing more and more elections!
The State Party leadership has abdicated its responsibility to speak for the GOP to the Governor (one Party Chair even called the Governor the "defacto head of the party."). This caused a loss of credibility when the Gov went off the reservation on the platform - stadium, smoking ban, light rail, etc). No one was there to champion our Platform.
When a party starts looking at angling and positioning for a win instead of running on issues (especially if it is the GOP), the party loses. Cooper was the last party chair to push issues and to get upset with elected Republicans who parted ways with the platform.
Tony Sutton was part of that “status quo”. He tried to shout down Sue Jeffers at our convention when she had the audacity to challenge Gov. Pawlenty for the endorsement for Governor. He tried to use his position as State Party Secretary/Treasurer to make sure she couldn’t speak. He, and the other Party officials were not successful at the 2nd District Convention, but were successful at every other Congressional District Conventions and the State Convention. Now Tony is claiming to have supported the rights of Sue Jeffers and Ron Paul to speak!
The Republican Party Constitution is clear. The Party is run by the Convention. No leader or elected official has the right to prevent anyone from going before the Convention and stating their case. The same thing happened to the Ron Paul supporters at the various conventions. Instead of letting them have their say and then letting the Convention decide, Party leadership excluded them. That kind of elitist attitude does not belong in the Republican Party.
We have had too many good candidates lose elections because they were endorsed over the candidates “chosen” by leadership in the Party and the Legislature. The punishment for those candidates is zero support. Yet, the election track record of the “anointed” candidates is abysmal.
We need to get our eyes off trying to win for winning’s sake and get the re-focused on what we stand for. When the electorate believes that we believe in our platform, we win. When we act like hypocrites (DFL-lite) we lose.
The State Party Chair is the CEO. The party dances to his tune. Dave Thompson has been singing the tune of our Platform for years. Tony Sutton has been part of the status quo “good ol’ boy network” which has been, at best, unbelievably silent, and, at worst, vociferously vocal in opposition to our Platform and Party Constitution.
Dave Thompson has communicated our Platform ideas more in the last 6 months than the leadership of the party, including Tony, has in the last 6 years.
If the Republican Party really wants to get back to the Bill Cooper glory days of winning elections, it needs a Chairman who will do like Bill Cooper: Fight for the Platform, not the status quo; Communicate well to the public; and work to give our BPOU volunteers something to be proud of in our Party Leadership.
Only one person fits that mold – Dave Thompson.
Mike Lindsay
2nd Congressional District"
Thanks Mike. I'm glad to post letters in support of other candidates. The point isn't for me to tell you who to vote for. It's about making up your own mind.
Ritchie Acknowledges Claims
Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie
Publically Acknowledges Plaintiff’s Claims
Petition Amended to Incorporate New Evidence
St. Paul – On Friday, May 29, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie publically acknowledged that Minnesota’s election records are out-of-balance and that counties were late in reporting their results. “We owe Secretary of State Ritchie thanks,” said Jeff Davis, president of Minnesota Majority and one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Secretary of State and county election officials. “Secretary Ritchie basically made our case for us.” Ritchie’s statement is an admission in the plaintiff’s interest and admissible as evidence in court.
Secretary Ritchie acknowledged in Friday’s Star Tribune that Minnesota’s election records were out-of-balance by 30,000 to 40,000 records. “If the discrepancy is now down to 30,000 votes, at least that’s progress,” said Davis, “But it really doesn’t matter if the number is 3,000 or 30,000. The fact is that counties are very late in meeting their statutorily required obligations and election records still don’t balance – that is the essence of our case.”
Plaintiffs in the case decided to amend their petition based upon Ritchie’s statement and new evidence discovered on Friday. The amended petition adjusts the list of county officials named in the suit and should minimize or eliminate the need for discovery. “Because the plaintiffs will rely on statements of fact made by the Secretary of State, there should be no dispute about the facts. That both simplifies and strengthens the case, and will probably lower its cost,” said Erick Kaardal, legal counsel in the case.
Publically Acknowledges Plaintiff’s Claims
Petition Amended to Incorporate New Evidence
St. Paul – On Friday, May 29, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie publically acknowledged that Minnesota’s election records are out-of-balance and that counties were late in reporting their results. “We owe Secretary of State Ritchie thanks,” said Jeff Davis, president of Minnesota Majority and one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Secretary of State and county election officials. “Secretary Ritchie basically made our case for us.” Ritchie’s statement is an admission in the plaintiff’s interest and admissible as evidence in court.
Secretary Ritchie acknowledged in Friday’s Star Tribune that Minnesota’s election records were out-of-balance by 30,000 to 40,000 records. “If the discrepancy is now down to 30,000 votes, at least that’s progress,” said Davis, “But it really doesn’t matter if the number is 3,000 or 30,000. The fact is that counties are very late in meeting their statutorily required obligations and election records still don’t balance – that is the essence of our case.”
Plaintiffs in the case decided to amend their petition based upon Ritchie’s statement and new evidence discovered on Friday. The amended petition adjusts the list of county officials named in the suit and should minimize or eliminate the need for discovery. “Because the plaintiffs will rely on statements of fact made by the Secretary of State, there should be no dispute about the facts. That both simplifies and strengthens the case, and will probably lower its cost,” said Erick Kaardal, legal counsel in the case.
Monday, June 1, 2009
MNGOP History 101
as told by City Pages but nonetheless informative
http://www.citypages.com/2008-05-28/feature/the-10-most-powerful-minnesota-republicans/
so our new people have a clue about who went before them and who really runs the show
http://www.citypages.com/2008-05-28/feature/the-10-most-powerful-minnesota-republicans/
so our new people have a clue about who went before them and who really runs the show
Immigration 103 -- American Trauma: Jobs and the Economy
or link to the site here:
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/resources/video/promise-home/american-trauma-jobs-and-economy.html
News Media Barred From ACORN Meeting
"Freedom of the press stopped at the door of the Center for American Progress earlier today when this reporter and a camera crew from Fox News were barred from covering a "briefing and discussion" meeting of left-wing advocacy groups worried about recent coverage of the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN).
Brian Kettenring, an ACORN spokesman, refused to allow journalists to cover the meeting, which was slated to include representatives from 10 organizations.The featured speaker at the meeting was Bertha Lewis, ACORN's chief organizer and CEO.
A spokesman for CAP declined to say if the liberal think tank approved of the ACORN's spokesman barring journalists from covering the meeting.
Listed on an invitation to the meeting as sponsors were the Alliance for Justice, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Center for Community Change, Common Cause, Fair Elections Legal Network, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, People for the American Way, and Project Vote.
“The conservative campaign against ACORN and its voter registration campaign continues unabated,” the meeting announcement said.“These attacks should be understood in historical context, but also as a pretext for an affirmative strategy to demobilize voters of color. Thursday’s presentation and discussion will feature a range of speakers laying out the facts, answering questions, and discussing how to advance both a concrete message and a transcendent policy approach.”
The meeting was apparently sparked by recent coverage in the Examiner and Fox News of the fact ACORN is under criminal investigations in at least 14 states of allegations of voter registration fraud." click below to read the rest
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/News-Media-Barred-from-ACORN-Meeting-at-Center-for-American-Progress-46385957.html
Brian Kettenring, an ACORN spokesman, refused to allow journalists to cover the meeting, which was slated to include representatives from 10 organizations.The featured speaker at the meeting was Bertha Lewis, ACORN's chief organizer and CEO.
A spokesman for CAP declined to say if the liberal think tank approved of the ACORN's spokesman barring journalists from covering the meeting.
Listed on an invitation to the meeting as sponsors were the Alliance for Justice, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Center for Community Change, Common Cause, Fair Elections Legal Network, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, People for the American Way, and Project Vote.
“The conservative campaign against ACORN and its voter registration campaign continues unabated,” the meeting announcement said.“These attacks should be understood in historical context, but also as a pretext for an affirmative strategy to demobilize voters of color. Thursday’s presentation and discussion will feature a range of speakers laying out the facts, answering questions, and discussing how to advance both a concrete message and a transcendent policy approach.”
The meeting was apparently sparked by recent coverage in the Examiner and Fox News of the fact ACORN is under criminal investigations in at least 14 states of allegations of voter registration fraud." click below to read the rest
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/News-Media-Barred-from-ACORN-Meeting-at-Center-for-American-Progress-46385957.html
Get It Right Rally TODAY Capitol Steps
GET IT RIGHT MINNESOTA, REVOTE! Coleman/Franken Senatorial Race
REVOTE RALLY, come and bring friends and family.
Monday, June 1st, 3-6 PM, State Capitol Steps.
*If you believe the 2008 senatorial vote recounting process has been fraught with inconsistencies and suspicious vote counting procedures resulting in thousands of uncounted votes;
*And if you would like to send a loud message to the Minnesota supreme court, Washington and the rest of America that we the voters of Minnesota will not be quiet until this problem is solved in a fair and consistent manner through a revote.
*Then UNITE with thousands of other Minnesota voters to make your voices heard!
REVOTE RALLY, come and bring friends and family.
Monday, June 1st, 3-6 PM, State Capitol Steps.
*If you believe the 2008 senatorial vote recounting process has been fraught with inconsistencies and suspicious vote counting procedures resulting in thousands of uncounted votes;
*And if you would like to send a loud message to the Minnesota supreme court, Washington and the rest of America that we the voters of Minnesota will not be quiet until this problem is solved in a fair and consistent manner through a revote.
*Then UNITE with thousands of other Minnesota voters to make your voices heard!
Rabidly Anti-gun Sotomayor is Unacceptable
Thomas Sowell
"It is one of the signs of our times that so many in the media are focusing on the life story of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court.
You might think this was some kind of popularity contest instead of a weighty decision about someone whose impact on the fundamental law of the nation will extend for decades after Mr. Obama has come and gone. Much is being made of the fact that Judge Sotomayor had to struggle to rise in the world. But stop and think.
If you were going to have open-heart surgery, would you want to be operated on by a surgeon chosen because he had to struggle to get where he was or by the best surgeon you could find - even if that surgeon had been born with a silver spoon in his mouth and had had every advantage money and social position could offer?
If it were you who was going to be lying on that operating table with his heart cut open, you wouldn't give a tinker's damn about somebody's struggle or somebody else's privileges.
The Supreme Court is, in effect, operating on the heart of our nation - the Constitution and the statutes and government policies under which all of us must live.
Mr. Obama's repeated claim that a Supreme Court justice should have "empathy" with various groups has raised red flags that we ignore at our peril - and at the peril of our children and grandchildren.
Empathy for particular groups can be reconciled with "equal justice under law" - the motto over the entrance to the Supreme Court - only with smooth words. Not in reality. Mr. Obama used those smooth words in introducing Judge Sotomayor. However, words do not change realities.
Nothing demonstrates the fatal dangers from judicial empathy more than Judge Sotomayor's decision in a 2008 case involving firemen who took an exam for promotion. After the racial mix of those who passed that test turned out to be predominantly white, with just a few blacks and Hispanics, the results were thrown out.
When this action by the local civil service authorities was taken to court and eventually reached the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Sotomayor did not give the case even the courtesy of a spelling out of the issues. She backed those who had thrown out the test results. Apparently she didn't have empathy with those predominantly white men who had been cheated out of promotions they had earned.
Fellow 2nd Circuit Court Judge Jose A. Cabranes commented on the short shrift given to the serious issues in this case. It so happens that he too is Hispanic, but apparently he does not decide legal issues on the basis of empathy or lack thereof.
This was not an isolated matter for Judge Sotomayor. Speaking at the University of California at Berkeley in 2001, she said that the ethnicity and sex of a judge "may and will make a difference in our judging."
Moreover, this was not something she lamented. On the contrary, she added, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
No doubt the political spinmasters will try to spin this to mean something innocent. However, the cold fact is that this is a poisonous doctrine for any judge, much less a justice of the Supreme Court. That kind of empathy would for all practical purposes repeal the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees "equal protection of the laws" to all Americans.
What would the political spinmasters say if some white man said a white male would more often reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic female?
For those who believe in the rule of law, Mr. Obama used the words "rule of law" in introducing his nominee. For those who take his words as gospel, even when his actions are directly the opposite of his words, that may be enough to let him put this dangerous woman on the Supreme Court.
Even if her confirmation cannot be stopped, it is important for senators to warn of the dangers, which will only get worse if such nominations sail smoothly through the Senate."
Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.
"It is one of the signs of our times that so many in the media are focusing on the life story of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court.
You might think this was some kind of popularity contest instead of a weighty decision about someone whose impact on the fundamental law of the nation will extend for decades after Mr. Obama has come and gone. Much is being made of the fact that Judge Sotomayor had to struggle to rise in the world. But stop and think.
If you were going to have open-heart surgery, would you want to be operated on by a surgeon chosen because he had to struggle to get where he was or by the best surgeon you could find - even if that surgeon had been born with a silver spoon in his mouth and had had every advantage money and social position could offer?
If it were you who was going to be lying on that operating table with his heart cut open, you wouldn't give a tinker's damn about somebody's struggle or somebody else's privileges.
The Supreme Court is, in effect, operating on the heart of our nation - the Constitution and the statutes and government policies under which all of us must live.
Mr. Obama's repeated claim that a Supreme Court justice should have "empathy" with various groups has raised red flags that we ignore at our peril - and at the peril of our children and grandchildren.
Empathy for particular groups can be reconciled with "equal justice under law" - the motto over the entrance to the Supreme Court - only with smooth words. Not in reality. Mr. Obama used those smooth words in introducing Judge Sotomayor. However, words do not change realities.
Nothing demonstrates the fatal dangers from judicial empathy more than Judge Sotomayor's decision in a 2008 case involving firemen who took an exam for promotion. After the racial mix of those who passed that test turned out to be predominantly white, with just a few blacks and Hispanics, the results were thrown out.
When this action by the local civil service authorities was taken to court and eventually reached the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Sotomayor did not give the case even the courtesy of a spelling out of the issues. She backed those who had thrown out the test results. Apparently she didn't have empathy with those predominantly white men who had been cheated out of promotions they had earned.
Fellow 2nd Circuit Court Judge Jose A. Cabranes commented on the short shrift given to the serious issues in this case. It so happens that he too is Hispanic, but apparently he does not decide legal issues on the basis of empathy or lack thereof.
This was not an isolated matter for Judge Sotomayor. Speaking at the University of California at Berkeley in 2001, she said that the ethnicity and sex of a judge "may and will make a difference in our judging."
Moreover, this was not something she lamented. On the contrary, she added, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
No doubt the political spinmasters will try to spin this to mean something innocent. However, the cold fact is that this is a poisonous doctrine for any judge, much less a justice of the Supreme Court. That kind of empathy would for all practical purposes repeal the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees "equal protection of the laws" to all Americans.
What would the political spinmasters say if some white man said a white male would more often reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic female?
For those who believe in the rule of law, Mr. Obama used the words "rule of law" in introducing his nominee. For those who take his words as gospel, even when his actions are directly the opposite of his words, that may be enough to let him put this dangerous woman on the Supreme Court.
Even if her confirmation cannot be stopped, it is important for senators to warn of the dangers, which will only get worse if such nominations sail smoothly through the Senate."
Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Westover: Listing To The Right
published at Craig's request
***************
[Wright County Republican] has done yeoman duty keeping people informed about the controversy over access to the list of State Central Committee delegates and alternates. And by now, most of you are aware that a list of 253 delegates to the state central committee has been accidently made public by one and is intentionally being distributed by many through email and blogs. I agree with Drew, Bob Swinehart made a classy apology for his mistake. However, as strongly as I believe the list of state central delegates should be made public, I regard disclosure of the names and subsequent widespread distribution, accidental as it was, unfortunate. It only plays into the fears expressed at the recent Executive Committee meeting that the list may “fall into the wrong hands.”
By way of background, Marianne Stebbins and I instigated this public debate over list access by simply, as duly elected alternates to the SCC, requesting access to names and contact information of our fellow delegates and alternates. Our request was put off until the most recent EC meeting, at which I was allowed to make my case for access to the list. After some discussion, the issue was tabled, but it was also made an agenda item at the upcoming SCC meeting.
In keeping with the bylaws of the party, that was the appropriate action, irrespective of any speculation about motivation. Decisions about party “property” rightly belong to the State Central Committee, and that is who should set policy on list access. Of course, the obvious irony is that without list access, I am less able to effectively lobby for my position. Because the list has been partially released, I cannot use names I acquired on my own without raising the spectre that I am taking advantage of a list I am not authorized to have.
I will not use the accidently released list as a matter of principle. Simply having the names is not the objective – the objective is recognition by the party of the right and necessity of making the list available to foster communication among SCC members for the good of the party.
There are reasonable party and personal privacy concerns about generally providing the SCC list to any delegate or alternate that requests it. However, in judging those concern we must ask, do those concerns outweigh the benefits of open communication among SCC delegates? That is the objective we are pursuing. Access to the SCC list is really a proxy for larger issue of open communications.
I believe the Executive Committee overstepped its authority by establishing an unwritten policy on SCC list access without discussion or action by the State Central Committee, and that assumed authority is what gives the accidental release of a partial list any significance. Assumed authority, the command and control party structure, control of information rather than dissemination of information, is at issue.
From the discussion at the EC meeting, it was clear that while party leadership was justly concerned with its obligation to protect party information and delegate and alternate privacy, the idea of open communication among party members was not on the radar screen. It was clear from the plethora of spur-of-the-moment random alternatives to list access that were defensively proposed at the meeting, a structured discussion on increasing communication among party members was not of significant concern. Nor did I sense from the EC a heartfelt conviction that free-flowing communication was a benefit. If it were, certainly inter-party communication would have been previously discussed proactively instead of defensively in response to a simple request from a committee member for the contact information of other committee members.
The issue of list access will be discussed at the SCC, and for that the EC deserves some props. I will propose the following motion based on the “shall issue” model the GOP supports when it comes to Second Amendment rights:
I move that the State Central Committee of the Republican Party of Minnesota instructs the State Executive Committee that it shall issue the most current and most complete list of State Central Committee delegates and alternates to any duly elected delegate or alternate to the State Central Committee who requests the list for that member’s personal use, unless specific reason is given by the Secretary/Treasurer to that individual as to why he or she, individually, is denied access to the list. A written policy for State Central Committee list access, including specific criteria for denial of access, shall be an agenda item for the next meeting of the State Central Committee bylaw subcommittee.
I welcome comments below or via email at westover4@yahoo.com
Thank you
Craig Westover
***************
[Wright County Republican] has done yeoman duty keeping people informed about the controversy over access to the list of State Central Committee delegates and alternates. And by now, most of you are aware that a list of 253 delegates to the state central committee has been accidently made public by one and is intentionally being distributed by many through email and blogs. I agree with Drew, Bob Swinehart made a classy apology for his mistake. However, as strongly as I believe the list of state central delegates should be made public, I regard disclosure of the names and subsequent widespread distribution, accidental as it was, unfortunate. It only plays into the fears expressed at the recent Executive Committee meeting that the list may “fall into the wrong hands.”
By way of background, Marianne Stebbins and I instigated this public debate over list access by simply, as duly elected alternates to the SCC, requesting access to names and contact information of our fellow delegates and alternates. Our request was put off until the most recent EC meeting, at which I was allowed to make my case for access to the list. After some discussion, the issue was tabled, but it was also made an agenda item at the upcoming SCC meeting.
In keeping with the bylaws of the party, that was the appropriate action, irrespective of any speculation about motivation. Decisions about party “property” rightly belong to the State Central Committee, and that is who should set policy on list access. Of course, the obvious irony is that without list access, I am less able to effectively lobby for my position. Because the list has been partially released, I cannot use names I acquired on my own without raising the spectre that I am taking advantage of a list I am not authorized to have.
I will not use the accidently released list as a matter of principle. Simply having the names is not the objective – the objective is recognition by the party of the right and necessity of making the list available to foster communication among SCC members for the good of the party.
There are reasonable party and personal privacy concerns about generally providing the SCC list to any delegate or alternate that requests it. However, in judging those concern we must ask, do those concerns outweigh the benefits of open communication among SCC delegates? That is the objective we are pursuing. Access to the SCC list is really a proxy for larger issue of open communications.
I believe the Executive Committee overstepped its authority by establishing an unwritten policy on SCC list access without discussion or action by the State Central Committee, and that assumed authority is what gives the accidental release of a partial list any significance. Assumed authority, the command and control party structure, control of information rather than dissemination of information, is at issue.
From the discussion at the EC meeting, it was clear that while party leadership was justly concerned with its obligation to protect party information and delegate and alternate privacy, the idea of open communication among party members was not on the radar screen. It was clear from the plethora of spur-of-the-moment random alternatives to list access that were defensively proposed at the meeting, a structured discussion on increasing communication among party members was not of significant concern. Nor did I sense from the EC a heartfelt conviction that free-flowing communication was a benefit. If it were, certainly inter-party communication would have been previously discussed proactively instead of defensively in response to a simple request from a committee member for the contact information of other committee members.
The issue of list access will be discussed at the SCC, and for that the EC deserves some props. I will propose the following motion based on the “shall issue” model the GOP supports when it comes to Second Amendment rights:
I move that the State Central Committee of the Republican Party of Minnesota instructs the State Executive Committee that it shall issue the most current and most complete list of State Central Committee delegates and alternates to any duly elected delegate or alternate to the State Central Committee who requests the list for that member’s personal use, unless specific reason is given by the Secretary/Treasurer to that individual as to why he or she, individually, is denied access to the list. A written policy for State Central Committee list access, including specific criteria for denial of access, shall be an agenda item for the next meeting of the State Central Committee bylaw subcommittee.
I welcome comments below or via email at westover4@yahoo.com
Thank you
Craig Westover
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
