6th District Convention

Today was the MN 6th Congressional District Convention. There was a lot going on for an off-year. All 5 of the candidates for the GOP nomination for 6th CD Congressman gave speeches; candidates for MN GOP Chair and Deputy Chair gave speeches and the officers for the GOP 6th were also elected. Rep. Mark Kennedy gave a rousing speech as his march towards a US Senate seat continues.

So where do I begin? How about at the moment I walked into the door? No, even a little before that. As I approached the doors to the Stillwater Area High School Auditorium there were a handful of kids handing out the requisite campaign stickers for all of the campaigns...Kennedy, Bachman, Krinkie, Knoblach, Yecke...you get the idea. At the moment I was the only one approaching. When I was about 15 feet from the door one of the kids, later identified as Emily Regan, muttered, "What are you doing here?" I thought it was rude and odd. I did not reply and instead started to accept the stickers from the other kids. Then, with a dose of "I need your patronage so I'll be nice", Emily smiled and offered a sticker from the roll she was holding. I almost took it but looked down and read it: "Eibensteiner/Hoplin". "Hoplin? Certainly not, thanks" and continued taking the stickers from everyone else. Not a warm and welcoming start from the CR, huh?

I signed in and paid my registration, read the agenda and convention rules and then entered the auditorium. Now this convention was a little less focused on convention business for me (as there was little in the way of 'doing' and more in the way of 'listening and cheering'). I split my time as delegate with networking for the radio show so I can not give a full report. What I can do is summarize 4 of the 5 candidates speeches...in the order that they spoke. I will give to you only the themes of the speeches as they came across to me, so don't look for a lot of objective recap.

Jay Esmay: Something that I noticed in most of these speeches over the years is the terrible amount of name dropping. It works on the convention crowds, unfortunately. Jay did a lot. Reagan, Kennedy and Kline were the frequent taps. Jay has given me a bit of unease since his speech at the BPOU convention. His theme then was, "I'm military, the others are not. I'm an outsider, the others are not. Politics needs new faces because politicians are corrupt." Otherwise Jay seems like a great candidate, a bit on the unknown side, but conservative and solid. The BPOU speech gave me unease because this is going to be a hard battle between 5 candidates that the GOP can feel good about, and we do not want this race to turn ugly...there is no need in this race. Jay fixed that theme for today. He focused on his record and his qualifications. Jay is the darkhorse, but still a good candidate. His focus is on his successful military and successful business (private sector) career. There was no negative vibes this time.

Phil Krinkie: The lights dimmed and a larged screen lowered over the front of the stage. Phil's "speech" was a great video presentation using mostly two things: clips from "House Coverage on KTCI" and interviews from supportive members of the House. These members included my former representative (and a great lady) Rep. Sondra Erickson. The video was well done and funny. There were some great quotes that came from Phil while on the floor battling Democrats. The best line was about Phil's motto: "I don't bring pork home...I leave it in the pig." The film was well received and I was reminded why Phil was one of my favorite legislators...you will missed in the House. If I have to handicap the race I would say that Phil is the frontrunner to the delegates...though keep in mind that it will be a new batch of delegates that do the nominating. The Rice "Krinkie" Bars was a good touch.

Michele Bachmann: Another early favorite is Michele. She has the positions that the religious part of the party love. She has the feistiness that the hard right part of the party have longed for in a candidate. She has the iritated the dander of the partisan hacks of the left, which the partisan hacks of the party love. She has won in the part of the 6th CD that will be hard for all 5 candidates which the strategists of the party love. Have you noticed that I'm not commenting on the speech? I missed her speech taking care of radio business...but there was a good response coming out of the auditorium. I did hear her make the comment that she understood the unjust heat that Tom DeLay was being subject to because also has a target on her by the liberals. This got a good response (and is true). Marty & I interviewed Michele on our show during our stint on KSTP (for the Next Big Thing). I have a good indication of what she is running on. If I had to rank the "favorites of the race" I would say that handicapping between Michele and Jim Knoblach is a tossup. They are a close 2nd/3rd behind Krinkie.

Jim Knoblach: Jim is a decent fiscal conservative. He is a good Republican. On his own or against any other candidate one on one I think Jim would be the winner. All of Jim's strengths are outflanked by the other candidates right now. Jim's positions are like my pokers hands: welcome to the 2nd best hand of the night. His themes were budget control (he gets lots of credit since he was/is Chair of the House Ways & Means Committee and thus he authored the budgets for the House), his dedication to family & church (it seems every GOP candidate is dedicated to family & church, but hey, the GOP is the party of values), and he invoked the war on terror. Did he mention that he was able to balance the budget without raising taxes as Chair of the House Ways & Means Committee? Oh, did he also mention that he was able to balance the budget without raising taxes as Chair of the House Ways & Means Committee? Jim and I had a great conversation after his speech and later another friend of mine (Dan Nygard) got to chat for a while with Jim's wife. Win or lose, Jim is a great guy. My early handicapping puts Jim & Michele running neck & neck for 2nd place, just slightly behind Phil.

Cheri Yecke: Cheri is a nice woman. She and I have had a few good long conversations about this race. She also was there to step up for Marty & me for our shot on KSTP if we needed help "filling time". (In fact her words were along the lines of 'if you need to kill time just call on this personal phone number and you can interview me'...and I'm not doing it justice here. It was a help-us-out offer, not a I-should-be-interviewed offer.) I have to say that because I want it clear that this will be an instance of not being able to help those you want to help. Cheri's speech starting out by offering an anecdote about some liberals who voted for Bush because of how mean Sen. Steve Kelley (DFL-Hopkins) was to her in the confirmations. Humor comes in truth: Kelley treated Yecke badly, I have never had a good meeting with Kelley and when I was a consituent he gave me shitty treatment (which I heard from many others in the district who had the same experience from Steve). Cheri then started out by quoting Dickens "best of times, worst of times". When Cheri was done I was afraid to leave the auditorium to get another cup of coffee. Every aspect of life is a war. War on Terror, War on Culture, War on the Borders, money going to Al-Qaeda. My handicap at this point is that Cheri is 4th...though not far out of the race. Good money could still be on Cheri.

6th CD GOP Race Thoughts
This is a tight race with 5 very good candidates. The decision ultimately will rest on intangibles and little things. Considering that in order to win the nomination a candidate will have to win 60% of the vote I expect a long convention next year and a race where the little things will be huge deciding factors. Small things that normally don't matter will matter this time: who has what endorsements, who is supporting whom, how many times did the candidate call, the food at the tables, those things will be the difference. That said, walking into the convention I was 100% undecided. I had not elimated anyone from my list of who I will support, I had not put anyone on my list of who I will not support, and I was willing to work for all 5 candidates after the nomination. Sadly, Cheri's campaign was moved off of my "will work for campaign" list and off of my "will support before or after nomination" lists. Because of the support that she had from the CRs (including Jake Grassel and Emily "What are you doing here" Regan) that shows to me an unholy union between a bad organization and a good candidate.

Cheri, dump the CR support and I will remove you from the "will not support" list. The link between crookedness is not something that you need in this race.

Conversation with Hoplin & Grasell

Today was the Minnesota 6th Congressional District Republican Party Convention in Stillwater. There was a lot going on and only some of it will I report on. This posting is about a conversation that I had with Eric Hoplin and Jake Grassel.

First was the conversation with Hoplin. Among the highlights was the emphasized and restated statement: "I did not endorse Paul Gourley."

I replied, "I'm going to quote you. Are you sure?"

"I have endorsed neither candidate and wish both of them luck."

We did that three times. He also mentioned that he wanted to be hands off (you decide for yourself if you believe him or not) because he was tired of the running tradition of CRNC Chairs fixing the election so that their choice for successor would win. Among the names that he gave as participating in this was Karl Rove. As he said that I could not stop from laughing in my mind at how that was the blueprint for Kristen handing over the CR Chair (U of MN) to Tyler by freezing out any opposition from even being nominated.

We also discussed RDI. Now you have to understand that Hoplin just gave a speech to the convention as he is running for MN GOP Deputy Chair on June 11. I asked him specific questions about RDI and he dodged almost all of them. The first question was, "How much money has been refunded after the RDI incident this past election." Well, from 2002-2004 there was roughly a whole $18,000 refunded...out of the millions raised with questionable, if not criminally misleading, fundraising. Did I mentioned that only 10% of funds raised were used for anything besides more fundraising?

Hoplin said that he is very proud of his record with RDI. He implied that all the signatures on the fundraising letters were not authorized at all. To which I asked, "if you are so proud of this record then why are you not mentioning your 'housecleaning' ability in your speeches?" His answer (in 5 minutes or more) was that he has other things that he is proud of also. His biggest theme in his speech today was his fundraising ability and the ability to bring resources together. Well, on the first point (fundraising) I would say that he either had no hand in fundraising (as those letters were bearing unauthorized signatures) or his fundraising tactics are ones we do not want in the Minnesota GOP. On his second major theme: his legacy in the MN CR is one of divisiveness and top-down control.

Oh yes, Hoplin claims that his priority since his first day as CRNC Chair was to end the RDI contract. "Do you have copies of memos from the meetings that demonstrate this priority? Agenda meetings, e-mail, something that shows that this was a priority BEFORE the media caught the story?" "No." "Eric, with all due respect, you know how that sounds then to me?" He replied with some blather about the finite details of the contract, which I also asked for a copy of. Jake said that he can send some of the many things I requested. I will look forward thsoe.

My impression of Eric Hoplin after meeting him is that he is a slick-talker. "Slimy" is the only other adjective that comes to mind, but that may be because of his RDI albatross is influencing the impression. He was very personable to everyone, though it did not have a genuine feeling.

I also asked about the lapel pin letters to which he laughed and said that "you can't believe the liberal media." Are they wrong? He did not answer that and instead went on a diatribe about the entire blogosphere being nothing but lies (sorry CR vETS for "truth"--they've got you pegged).

I also talked with Jake Grassel (I believe he is the Chair for MN CR and Paul Gourley's national campaign manager, unless I misheard his credentials). The major questions I had for him were relating to (1) the continued divide between the U of MN Campus CR and Campus Republicans (aka CaR) which leads to a division of resources for the local and grassroots causes and (2) the lack of debates accepted by Paul Gourley in his race for CR National Committee chair.

Before I summarize the conversation I will give this assessment of Jake. He seemed like a very genuine, nice and good guy. Jake, I know you read this blog. I would love to get a couple of beers with you sometime after the CRNC convention...when both of us have no axe to grind. ;)

Now for the general answers. Topic 1: the divide. He tried to bring the 2 groups together this past year. That lasted for a whole 4 months (long enough for the 2004 election...so the CR's got the extra resources they needed, but that is my observation--do not attribute that as coming from Jake). Jake mentioned a couple of CR names of people who then actively sought to re-establish the divide between CR and CaR. We also discussed how lasting this actually has been...dating back before his term as MN CR chair. My own first hand experience goes only as far back as Kristen Meyer's shady selection of her successor for CR. He did not comment on that, but I did not give him the chance to...it was before his term and not his responsibility.

Topic 2: debate avoidance. Jake got visibly annoyed with my pressing this issue, but I was not a saint. I was being fairly aggressive on this topic. His response was basically that a debate was not logistically possible. After all, Gourley still has classes to finish (though he does find time to campaign!!). And besides, people are not able to go to different states to watch the debates. Then, according to Jake, the debates are only about spin. (Uh, like the campaigns aren't anyway?)

"You can put video of the debates on the CRNC website" I mentioned.

"No one is interested in watching videos of the debates."

Excuse me? So, you're telling me that the CRs who are tasked with making a vote on something this important are too irresponsible with that task to watch video of debates? Basically, 'We want you to vote the way we tell you to, because we don't think that you are smart enough to think about the content of debates on your own.' That is horribly short changing the mentality and dedication of those who are going to vote for CRNC chair.

I pressed on, "Having only one debate at the same convention where the votes will be made, and after the endorsements of those voting, is like having the Presidential Debate on Election Day."

"Not at all because Presidential Debates are watched by millions of people and so it is justifiable to have them before election day."

Uh, I am now confused. Gourley won't debate because people can not physically be there to watch. Gourley won't videotape the debates. But it is not as if the Presidential Debates were being held on election day because millions of people watch those (nevermind the annoying nuace that they watch via live video and are not physically at the debate).

After these discussions I am firmly planted on these two beliefs: Hoplin for MN GOP Chair will be a very bad thing for the MN GOP (Eibensteiner's already been horrible in many regards). Gourley as CRNC Chair will be the status quo for the CRs...from scandal to shady business practices to fostering division.

Like I said, after actually meeting these two I would not trust Eric any further than I could spit upwind...and certainly would not trust him standing behind me. Jake seems like a decent enough person, I just flatly disagree with his positions as the campaign manager.

CR vETS for "truth" still rally around thief

The CR vETS for "truth" (that is not a typo) again post negativity about their opponent while complaining about the opponents negativity.

See here.

Here is issue number one. Eric Hoplin (now Vice-chair of MN GOP, sadly) together with Paul Gourley (now running for Chair of College Republican National Committee) swindled seniors out of lots and lots of money through deceptive, if not criminal, "fund-raising" letters. The letters were prepared by and mailed by a company called RDI.

According to a Seattle Times article:

The group's fund-raising letters often made it sound like the donors were making crucial contributions to the presidential race and in some cases implied Bush himself was counting on the money. But in fact, the money went to College Republicans, with about 90 percent of donations going back to fund-raising costs and fees to Response Dynamics and affiliated firms, according to reports filed with the Internal Revenue Service.¹

And honest conservatives howl if a group has more than 15% not going to the designated cost.

Then there was the lapel pin scam:

four-page letter asked prospects to send $1,000 together with an American flag pin for President Bush to wear to "Republican Headquarters" to ensure that Bush knows "there are millions who are giving him the shield of God to protect him in the difficult days ahead.²

Hoplin & Gourley at first tried to pass off the blame. Hoplin's comment about the fundraising scandal:

We've come to discover that there are a few donors who have been confused, a few donors who have some form of dementia, who aren't entirely sure of the amount of money that they're giving -- and how often they're giving.³

So now comes the damage control.

Hoplin said the College Republicans would discuss refunds with unhappy donors and said he wants to hear from anyone unhappy with fund-raising practices. He said the group has asked Response Dynamics to refund about $15,000 total to four donors. Still pending are requests for about $200,000 in refunds from three other donors.⁴

Ri-i-i-ight. How is that going? I have not heard anything in the press about the refund. Gourley has not even mentioned the refund, addressed the criminally masterminded fundraising ponzi schemes and has refused to debate his opponent becuase the fundraising issues will have to be addressed then.

So, where does that leave the once proud CRNC? They are left to decide between a candidate for Chair that is vowing change or a candidate in Gourley that is trying to sweep the scandal under the rug. (Sounds a lot like the Ohio school district that was trying to cover up a rape⁵.)

The supporters who are trying to shed light on the underbelly of the Hoplin-Gourley regime are being slandered compred to a liberal⁶, compared to Gore/Lieberman⁷ and other terrible mud-slinging.

In the meantime there is little being done by the Republicans. Do we not care about who leads our groups? Republicans can call their local CR groups and express distaste, put pressure on the kids to realize that it does more harm to have crooks leading the party than to call them to task.

As for me, the CR vETS for "truth" (a staunch supporter of and mudslinger for Gourley) will get some unkind airplay on the radio show. The CRNC, if they elect Gourley, will get very harsh criticism from our show. I will begin the call to prevent any funding...telling caucus members to not send money ever to the CRNC because they are crooks and they coverup the scandals rather than fix them. I will be a harsher critic of Hoplin as part of the MN GOP leadership and possibly resign from the MN GOP...call for a protest by not contributing to the party while it is led by a thief.

I find it very difficult to swallow the pill that these people (Hoplin, Gourley and their supporters) can criticize the Democrats for the same things that they are themselves doing. They are hypocrites and the party should be ashamed of itself.

Finally, capital letters in the English language are very important. It makes the difference between a democratic leader and a Democratic leader, for example. The CR vETS for "truth" know this. They play Clinton-esque word/definition games to mislead people about who they are. To try to earn more credibility they call themselves CR Veterans instead of CR veterans. The "Veterans" implies military service...and their name is a rip-off of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth who were actual Vets. They hide behind the definition of "veteran" which is someone with experience in a field or such. They actually are CR veterans, they have been in the CRs for some time. But for every instance that they call themselves CR Vets while defending a collection of crooks they are, in reality, metaphorically spitting on the face of us actual Veterans of the Armed Forces.

They know that, and they persist on their spittle. So, when you see "CR vETS" it is not a typo. Instead it is my way of re-emphasizing the fact that they are not Vets. I forsee over the next few years the demise of any group led by these types of liars.


---Notes and Sources---
1 Seattle Times, March 2, 2005
2 Washington Post.com Dec 25, 2004
3 ibid
4 ibid
5 Chicago Tribune, April 13, 2005
6 Message from Alleged Liberal In Chief, crvetsfortruth.blogspot.com, April 25, 2005
7 Sore Loserman 2005: Florida Reaffirms Gourley Endorsementcrvetsfortruth.blogspot.com, April 19, 2005

DFL lied about conceal carry bill

Was I right or what. Earlier today I predicted that the DFL would lie about getting the concealed carry bill onto the Senate floor quickly.

I log in tonight (about 9:30 PM) and see this from Mitch at Shot In The Dark.

An apparent deal to reenact Minnesota's invalidated handgun law disintegrated Thursday over a move to subject it to a Senate committee hearing.

"It's probably not going to happen now," said House Speaker Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon, who accused his DFL counterpart in the Senate of reneging on a handshake promise to give the measure an immediate floor vote.

Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, DFL-Willmar, said he is going forward with new plans to give the bill its first hearing ever in a Senate panel. Because of opposition from fellow DFL senators, he added, if he had stuck to the earlier agreement "the bill would have died."

No, the bill would not have died, you liar, it would have passed and you know it.

Where is the moral indignation from MN Lefty Liberal? He has been commenting on Rep Anderson-Kelliher who was whining about 'the GOP lying' which Lefty replied "Duh" and "You are surprised?"...implying that the GOP's deal are nothing but lies. I guarantee that Lefty will not say a word against the DFL on this one.

Gun Rights Realized?

Here it is. The DFL will allow a vote on the Senate floor of the gun permit law. The 2nd Amendment may well live again.

This article in the Strib has a couple of interesting undernotes that should be pointed out. First, the actual news.

The law that a subjective activist court struck down is going through the House and the DFL controlled Senate says they will let it on the floor there (of course, that remains to be seen).

Regardless of the committee's vote, Johnson said, "the understanding in our caucus is that the bill would return to the floor. ... It will not be buried."

My skepticism of that coming to fruition is high.

The bill is very close to the previous shall-issue concealed carry law that passed in an omnibus bill in 2003 (which was struck down because it was in an omnibus bill). It says that Minnesota citizens that qualify (not felon, not insane, etc) and apply for a concealed carry permit shall be issued one. Currently the sheriff subjectively controls who get have a permit.

That is good news. Now for the subthemes.

Senate Majority Leader Johnson, who voted against the law in 2003 but said he might support it this time

Why? I put the "Bias" tag on this post because every other report that I have heard on this change of heart had to do with the fact that some of the Senate DFLers realized that their main opposition (Minnesota would become the wild west) did not happen. Notice that the Strib gave no explanation for Johnson's change of heart.

Gov. Arne Carlson (RINO) sent a letter that said,

[the bill] significantly expand the right of trespass with a concealed weapon. This seizing of power by the state is completely contrary to traditional conservative values.

Wha-, wha-, WHAT?

With all due respect, Gov. Carlson, you are the last person that should be speaking about "traditional conservative values". You have opposed almost everything that involved "traditional conservative values"...especially since you have left office. You did you job for the GOP...you brought the state from far-left to mushy middle, the GOP now must pull the state to reasonable right and you can't help us with that. So, do the GOP a favor and ride into the sunset of private quiet citizen instead of acting like you are a conservative.

Well, there are more things to watch on this story, but I have work to do.

Does "any" mean "any" or just some of "any"?

SMALL V. UNITED STATES
The case seems pretty simple. In 1994 Gary Small was convicted in a Japanese court for trying to smuggle guns and ammo into Japan. He was sentenced to 5 years.

Upon his release he came back to the U.S. and was charged for "unlawful gun possession". The law that he was charged under states that it is "unlawful for any person … who has been convicted in any court, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year … to … possess … any firearm."

So, does the Japanese court & conviction count? What do you think?

If you agree with Breyer, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter and Ginsburg then you think that the Japanese court does not count and that "any court" is not to be read in plain English.

If you agree with Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy then you think the when the law says "any court" it means ANY court.

I actually was swayed by Thomas' dissent (the first time that Thomas has changed my mind). "The context of §922(g)(1), however, suggests that there is no geographic limit on the scope of "any court."...Congress’ explicit use of “Federal” and “State” in other provisions shows that it specifies such restrictions when it wants to do so."

When you're right, you're right. And if we do not like the result of the law we must change the law, not create meanings through the Courts.

To quote Abraham Lincoln: The best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it strictly.

If you do not like that foreign court convictions count in the American criminal justice system then such an exclusion must be included in the laws.

Today's decision altered the law's text from reading "any" to "a subset of any" and "the Court distorts the plain meaning of the statute and departs from established principles of statutory construction." (Thomas' dissent)

MN Lefty Liberal gets it wrong

MN Lefty Liberal makes two claims that need to be addressed.

If he is willing to break his pledge (again) just to give the Twins a stadium, then surly he is willing to do so again. This time to save the lives of 30,000 hard working Minnesotans, who's only fault is they are working poor.

First thing is that the stadium proposal does not have a request for state funding thus there is no increase in taxes. The "roof option" is just that: optional.

Next, just because there are working poor there is NOT an imperative for me to pick up their bills. Sorry. I have been homeless, so do not preach to me about the virtues of looking out for our brother, blah, blah, blah. The only thing that got me out of the ranks of "poverty" was my own hard work. I was not helped by getting handouts. In fact, handouts would have been worse for me in the long run...it would have kept me suckling off the teet of the benefactor and I would still be working for food.

Governor Pawlenty, be the bigger man. Do not choose the same path as Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Delano) and pick ideological hatred (this time towards the poor) over saving lives. As Governor, it is your sworn duty to protect the lives of your citizens.

The left has this huge problem. They mistake disagreement on policy for hatred. Their leaders spew actual hate (things that people would normally be fired or charged for) while turning the accusations to the right.

Get a grip. Wanting to hold the line on taxes is not hatred. Wanting people to live their own lives AND live through the consequences of those decisions (good or bad) is not hatred. In fact, that is the most compassionate ideology.

You can call me evil. You can say that I am hateful. That is OK. The truth is that Toughlove is the best love. That is the only way to fix society. Creating government program leeches is the malicious way to go.

CR vETS Against Blacklisting?

CR Veterans for Truth claim that they are against blacklisting.

I will not stand for anyone, Davidson supporter or Gourley supporter being blacklisted.

Well, then you should know about Gourley's main string puller supporter, Eric Hoplin.

In the early 90s he was the cause of a split in Minnesota's CR. He wanted to dictate and micromanage every aspect of the CR's activity. A group of the CRs felt that guidance was welcomed but mandates were not...and Hoplin did not want the CRs to focus any resources, time or effort to on-campus items such as the newly forming conservative student groups, student service fees activities and trying to get a conservative ticket elected to the student government.

Those "renegades" have been blacklisted ever since. The people that have been subsequently installed as "Chair" of the U of MN chapter of CR have been equally corrupt, immoral and have actively tried to infiltrate and destroy the split-off group: Campus Republicans. They still have members join the conservative student groups and try to undermine the groups.

Kristen Meyer (former CR Chair on U of MN) held secret nominations to ensure the CR State Board could plant her successor. Once she successfully froze out those who did not follow her dictates from running for Chair and Vice-Chair she went and to the Student Activities Office trying to pose as the Chair for both the College Republicans and the Campus Republicans, tried to close the bank accounts of both and close the registration of the Campus Republicans.

She was part of a long line of Hoplin plants...Gourley is no different. The Blacklist exists in Minnesota and it is from the Hoplin-Gourley crowd.

The question to the CR "vETS" for "truth" (who comment here occassionally as anonymous): If you will not stand for anyone being blacklisted where is your public statement about the blacklisting by Hoplin in Minnesota?

New Twins stadium?

Will stadium plan fly? That is a good question. Many legislators seem to have a "been-there done-that" approach to receiving a new stadium proposal.

Rep. Ron Erhardt (R-Edina): "The current plan has been preceded by several."
Sen. Wes Skoglund (DFL-Minneapolis): "I've been through this so many times."

However, some are a bit warmer. Sen. Linda "Sleep in Committee" Higgins (DFL-Minneapolis) said, ""It's a very attractive proposal. That's an awful lot of jobs that they're proposing."

My biggest objection to any stadium proposal has been the request for state financing, state grants, state backing or other forms of state assistance. That seems to not be the case with this proposal.

The total cost would be about $478 million, including infrastructure and finance costs. Pohlad would contribute $40 million up front with an additional $85 million to follow before the ballpark would open in 2009. The proposed sales tax increase is projected to raise $28 million a year and underwrite $353 million in county debt.

However, the plan is asking for an optional roof to be paid for by the state:

The plan as presented so far does not include a roof, but urges the state to consider paying $100 million for one. The Twins and Hennepin County have said they would build an open-air stadium if money for a roof was not available.

Now, just let the voters of Hennepin County vote on it and it should be square.

Vegetarian Antichrist is Walking Among Us

Vegetarian Antichrist is Walking Among Us

I heard about this story as the voting for the new Pope began and I thought it was interesting. Any guesses who the Antichrist is?

Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, 71, the Archbishop of Bologna said that the "Antichrist" was already on Earth in the guise of a prominent philanthropist whose concern for human rights and the environment and advocacy of ecumenicism masks his real aim: the destruction of Christianity and "the death of God".

Hmm, Soros? Bono? Turner?

Cardinal Biffi said the Antichrist was not the beast with seven heads described in the Book of Revelation but a "fascinating personality" whose outward charm and plausibility had deceived his enemies. The cardinal said the Antichrist espoused vegetarianism, pacifism, environmentalism and animal rights.

He also identified the Antichrist as an expert on the Bible who nonetheless promotes "vague and fashionable spiritual values" rather than the Scriptures. He advocates ecumenical dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian denominations, including Anglicanism and the Orthodox Church. This appeared to be a worthy aim, but was in fact being used by the Antichrist in an attempt to water down and undermine Catholicism to the point where it collapsed.

Cardinal Law? Zell Miller? Jimmy Carter?

Soros rises to the top again with this gem,

"It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of God, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out."

Who could it be?

For those of you who are easily freightened here is a prophetic link which I guess will tell us when the end is near.

Sleep well.

I Was Just On Glenn Beck About Winona

The Glenn Beck program this morning started talking about the Winona smut-button-wearers and since the nationally popular show is not on Minnesota airwaves I figured that by calling in I would have a good shot at being on.

I was right. But the real point is the conservative viewpoint on this topic is getting national attention.

How influential is Glenn?

Within hours of the story breaking about the school coverup of the sexual assault of a special ed student Glenn aired it. Damage control began. Glenn asked the Mayor of Columbus to come on to talk about the situation. The Mayor confirmed hours before the scheduled interview and then did not answer the phone for the interview. Glenn did a mock interview in place and immediately the Mayor called...hostile. That then ended up on Hannity & Colmes the next night.

He has power...he was behind the push for 5 years for Terri Schiavo which included turning Jeb Bush around as well as most of the Florida Congressional contingent.

Bottom line: the cavalry may be on the way to help us on this.

Sen Linda Higgins Sleeping in Committee

(H/T: Minnesota Democrats Exposed)

This post has two pictures from a Committee meeting within the past couple of weeks. The camera is focused on Sen Kelley (DFL) but next to him is the snoozing Sen Higgins (DFL).

This is the same DFL party that last year was busted getting plowed drinking during session hours in their offices, isn't it?

NBA Playoff Preview--Western Conference

This year's Finals should be pretty good. The West has some very dominating teams and the East's two elite teams are capable of beating the West's powerhouses.


This is like the East's #1 vs #8 matchup. There is not much hope for the boys from Memphis. They had better be satisfied with the prospect of pulling a game out of this series.

Suns in 5. As of the writing of this preview Game 1 is at the half and the Suns lead 59-50.
***UPDATE***
Suns win 4-0


Carmello Anthony was fun to watch. The Nuggets are a much improved team from almost any other year in their history. They are also the hottest team in the league as of right now. But the Spurs are still too much of a powerhouse for Denver to handle. Denver may be the upset special and could easily make me eat my words. They took Game 1 93-87.

That said I'm still picking the Spurs in 6 (partially because I think the Spurs may have the best chance of beating Miami--and all I want in 2005 is for Miami to not win).
***UPDATE***
Spurs win 4-1.


This series has trainwreck all over it. The Kings are slipping to be but a shodow of the former selves. The Sonics have lost 8 of their last 10 limping into the playoffs. The teams match up pretty well against each other. As of this moment Seattle has already taken Game 1 87-82.

Again with the coin flip...Seattle in 7. (Yes, that is the Laker fan in me...just can't get myself to actually pick Sacramento.)
***UPDATE***
Sonics win 4-1


Both teams finished the season on fire. Dallas won their last 9. Houston won their last 7. Dallas finished the season 7 games ahead of Houston. Houston has McGrady. Somehow I think that this will be a hard fought battle which will eventually doom the winner in the second round. The winner of this series will take on a well-rested Phoenix Suns team.

Dallas in 6...and best of luck in the 2nd round.
***UPDATE***
Mavericks win 4-3.

And the first pick of the 2005 NFL draft

The San Francisco 49ers shocked very few people when they made Alex Smith (QB-Utah) the first pick of the draft.

He has now the signing bonus of a #1 pick. He also now has the pressure to be an impact player. He needs to be patient, take his time and his lumps.

Also on the 49ers watch: On October 9th my 2 favorite teams will play each other. The Colts visit the 49ers...my money is on the Colts.

NBA Playoff Preview--Eastern Conference

I start this preview by clearly stating: I am often wrong in my predictions in the NBA Playoffs.

I suppose the obvious favorite is the Miami Heat...So I will start with that opening series.

As much as I would like to see an upset her I don't think it is possible. As I write this Miami has already taken Game 1 116-98. Even with the thigh bruise to Shaq and his self-graded health at "F" there is no way that the Nets can stop the Heat.

I pick the Heat in 4.
***UPDATE***
Heat win series 4-0


Next stop is my hope for defeating Miami: Detroit. Overall I think that the Pistons stand a great chance of reaching the Finals. The first stop is against Philadelphia. Iverson is still good, but not good enough to get his team to the 2nd round this year.

As I write this Game 1 has already been played. Detroit won 106-85. I think there will be more of the same.

Detroit in 5.
***UPDATE***
Pistons win 4-1.


One of my favorite players of all-time is retiring this year. Reggie Miller, it has been fun to watch you play. For his send off I hope that the return of Jermaine O'Neal helps get past Boston. I have no reason for this pick (especially since Boston took Game 1 already 102-82) but I'm going with the Pacers in 6.
***UPDATE***
Pacers win 4-3.


Do we call this series the Jordan connection? Either way I think that this series is like the play-in game for the NCAA basketball tournament. The winner will go on to certain defeat. So this series does not matter too much. Let's go with (coin flipping) Bulls in (dart being thrown) 6 games. Oh yeah, as of the writing of this preview the Bulls already took Game 1 103-94.
***UPDATE***
Wizards win 4-2.

Amusement Park for real thrill seekers?

This link has a lot interesting pictures of an old abandon amusement park. What a shame too. The rollercoaster looks like it would be a doozy!!

Yawning Proves Costly in Courtroom

Have the California Courts really gone insane?

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Craig Veals found the man in contempt of court during an lengthy April 1 jury selection procedure when he waved his arms, yawned, and told the judge he was "really bored," court officials said on Wednesday.

I have to wonder...they say that yawning is contagious. How did the other potential jurors fight the urge to yawn. What would they have been fined?

Responding to Letters

There was an unusually large batch of foolish letters in the Strib Sunday that warrant response. Sit back and brace yourself.

First target of enlightenment is Joyce Denn of Woodbury:

Social Security has virtually eliminated poverty among the elderly, thus giving younger generations the freedom to pursue their dreams without the financial burden of caring for destitute parents. It is not just the elderly, and their families, who benefit from Social Security; widows, orphans and the disabled have been allowed to live in dignity. It sounds like a success story to me.

The idea that Social Security has "eliminated poverty among the elderly" is simply ignorant. The fact is that many people falsely believe that SSI is supposed to be the bulk of a person's retirement. The reality is that the program was intended to be just like all other types of insurance: a partial aide in case a gamble on circumstances actually occurs. (For example, auto insurance is to cover you in the event of an unlikely occurance like an automobile accident.) Because of the mistaken belief too many people rely on SSI as their retirement.

Two things should happen...(1) the retirement age for SSI returns to the level that FDR had it at: 5 years above the average life expectancy. (2) a person gets what they put in.

I think the fact that 65% of those 65 years of age or older have SSI as more than half of their income¹ is proof of what an abysmal failure the Supplemental Security Income program has been. Too many are relying on it. Toughlove, baby, kill the program and we will all be forced to take care of ourselves.

Next up: Emilia Allen of Edina who is among many to comment on the 2 lime-light searching little girls in Winona.
Her letter is long and completely off. The key portion is this:

The self-possession that the two are displaying, and encouraging in others through their actions, will help end the dangerous and sexist belief that any action -- other than an explicit invitation -- gives men permission to treat women as sexual objects.

Bzzz...sorry, wrong answer.

The "self-possession" may be a good thing for adults but it has no place in the schools. Contrary to what the left thinks, the schools are not for indoctrinating kids into any, repeat any beliefs. Schools are not for the kids to "discover themselves" nor "display" their discoveries. Schools are for one thing: learning the essential fundamentals to better equip them with life and further education. Those are reading, writing, mathematics, history (unbiased and xenophobic, please), civics, grammar & spelling and perhaps a 2nd or 3rd language. That is it. No 'activism' or 'education funding protests' or 'homosexuality awareness' or ' awareness'. None of that belongs in the classroom and the 2 girls in Winona WITH their buttons do not belong in the class room either.

Besides, the whole ordeal has proven that the girls missed the point of their "self-revelations". 1) She watched the Vagina Monologues, which if I understand it the show is an in-your-face violence against women awareness. (Although I'm confused how a soliloquy by a nude woman dousing herself in
chocolate syrup is 'violence awareness'). 2) She wears the button to school. A smart girl that she supposedly
is ought to know that this would be an issue with administrators. This means she did this NOT for women's violence issues but for attention (and to be a contrairian).

So, even if the Vagina Monologues are effective for raising awarenes about violence against women, this girl missed the point. Now, to me that damages her free speech cliam because all her button is worth to her is vulgarity or disruption. The latter has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court as not protected in the schools.

As much as people hate him, Scalia was 100% right when he said that you do not know yourself if you do not understand your rights.

I think that my point about these girls making their buttons about themselves is emphasized by Erin Appel of Minneapolis: "I can understand that a phrase like "I [heart] My Vagina" could be startling if taken out of context, but in the context of the play and the V-Day Movement, it is a declaration of freedom from violence."

You are right, Erin, and the fact that these buttons are about "Freedom of Speech" just cements my claim that these girls missed the point of the show.

Richard Mills of Eagan nails this issues on the head: "Schools, like many businesses, have dress codes and they are far from unreasonable. They are meant to create as little distraction as possible among easily distracted adolescents."

Mark Griffin of White Bear Lake also has a great point:

"You want to actually test the limits of free speech in this case? Get some young men to put a Hustler-esque porn picture on a button and wear it to school with the words "I Love Your Vagina" on it.

Even money says that the champions of feminist free speech would instantly metamorphose into the most puritanical shrews since Cotton Mather² and demand that the boys be expelled for their sexist sins.

Finally, Mitch from Shot In The Dark poses a fascinating question on this whole topic. "If you wear that button in school, and people feel uncomfortable about it...it's "free speech". If you wear that same button at work, and someone feels uncomfortable, it's...sexual harassment³. Why?"

Whew...these things get so long. It is a lot of work trying to enlighten the misguided world. ;)

----Notes----
1 Economic Policy Institute; Economic snapshot for November 18, 2004.
2 Biography about Cotton Mather from Wikipedia Encyclopedia
3 Penn State's explanaation of Sexual Harassment

Strib does not tell full story on Fortas

This Strib editorial rips the GOP for ignoring history. The claim is that there have been many judicial nominees that have been killed via filibuster. I frankly do not care if there have been. My stand on this issue is that the filibuster is not a Constitutionally protected rule. In fact, I do not believe that the filibuster has any relevance in the Senate rules.

What caught my attention is the part about Abe Fortas whose promotion to Chief Justice was filibustered.

First what the Strib says about the situation.

President Lyndon Johnson nominated Supreme Court Associate Justice Abe Fortas to succeed Earl Warren as chief justice. Republicans, joined by a few conservative Southern Democrats, successfully filibustered Fortas' nomination. Cloture was rejected on a vote of 45 for cloture, 43 against. Fortas was denied the up-down vote on the Senate floor Coleman says he deserved.

Now, I bring this out of the editorial because the left has been parading Fortas' demise around often.

The facts about Abe Fortas show us what the Founders wanted "advice & consent" for. It was only a check & balance between the Judiciary and Executive by making certain that the Executive did not 'corrupt' the Judiciary with unqualified (or scandalous) appointees.

Abe Fortas was a friend of Lyndon B Johnson and was thus asked to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. That is no crime and I have no issue with that.

But his Senate appointment hearings became a fiasco when questions were raised about the propriety of Fortas accepting lecture fees while on the court. Republicans filibustered his confirmation vote, and Fortas asked that his nomination to chief justice be withdrawn.¹

In 1969, a new scandal arose. Fortas had accepted a $20,000 fee from a foundation controlled by Louis Wolfson. Wolfson was a financier who was under investigation for violating Federal securities laws. He was later convicted and spent time in prison. Wolfson was also a friend and former client of Fortas. Under intense congressional scrutiny, including a threat of impeachment, Fortas resigned from the court.²

As a sitting justice, he regularly attended White House staff meetings; he briefed the president on secret Court deliberations; and, on behalf of the president, he pressured senators who opposed the war in Vietnam.³

A clear violation of the seperation of powers that this country relies upon...which also makes one wonder about the credibility of the Supreme Court decisions during Fortas' tenure!

So, the bottom line is that the Strib (and many other lefties) miss the point about Fortas' because it hits them in the gut on two fronts.

1) The filibuster blocking Fortas' was not a left-right issue but a right-wrong issue
2) The Fortas' case is exactly the only reason "advise & consent" exists. Not to impose the Senate's will upon the Executive appointments.

---Sources---

¹The Crime Library

²LaborLawTalk.com

³US Senate

History and the Filibuster

(H/T: Doug at Bogus Gold)

History and the Filibuster

Great piece about the history of the filibuster (and ultimately why the left is historically incorrect about the filibuster being a Constitutionally protected rule).

In the 1806 codification of the Senate rules by then Vice-President Aaron Burr, there was acknowledged oversight which allowed for unlimited debate. Rather than filibusters in the Senate being a Constitutional provision, filibusters were introduced by accident. The use of unlimited debate to prevent bringing a bill to the floor was first employed in disputes over the Bank of the United States in the 1830s. Though the filibuster was infrequently used, for 111 years (1806 to 1917), a single Senator could prevent a vote on a bill by simply continuing talk. This is the ultimate in minority rights. A single Senator could stop the Senate from action.

If you ever hear the left talking about the GOP blocking a liberal from ascending to Cheif Justice (Abe Fortas in 1968). Here is the crucial part that the left will not tell you about that proper use of advise and consent.

the Abe Fortas case was atypical since it was revealed in hearings that Fortas kept President Lyndon Johnson informed of the secret deliberations of the Court and had accepted what seemed to be excessive and inappropriate private payments for teaching a summer course at American University

The Democrats position on protecting the filibuster is highly hypocritical. Byrd opposes changing the rules regarding filibuster even though he changed the rule to end a filibuster from requiring 67 votes down to 60 votes...enough then for his majority party to end debate.

Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said before the nominees were Republican that "It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor."

Diane Feinstein (D-CA) averred, "Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote."

Edward Kennedy (D-MA) indignantly argued, "We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote."