The Objective Conservative exists to postulate views from the right reflecting conservative, sometime libertarian thought influenced by a belief that the United States of America is a country founded with a Christian/Judeo philosophy. It will express objective views of issues and candidates.
While we anticipate that we'll be publishing, some of our staff members are seeking shelter, refuge, asylum in safer and saner venues. Accordingly, over the next two weeks our daily input of thoughtful diatribe may be somewhat reduced, but we'll be back at it on a full throttle basis early in February.
Our staff at the Objective Conservative has just about had enough of the Douglas Street Rag (aka, Omaha World-Herald) and KFAB's talk show hosts telling us that we have to vote today, that the 32% turnout in the 2009 mayoral election was dismal. By the way, 39% of the Republicans voted in that election, 31% of the Democrats. In any event, it's up to the citizen to make that decision. Most times when they end up with a bozo like Mayor Suttle they don't get a redo. This time they do because some, and yes some who didn't vote in 2009, chose to hold Suttle ACCOUNTABLE for his broken promises and his actions.
Yes, many have died to give Americans the right to vote. It's a sacred right. But it is also the right of Americans to choose not to vote. Those Americans who died to protect that freedom didn't die to IMPOSE THE OBLIGATION on anyone.
If the local daily and the radio stations and the other bloviators are so concerned about getting people out to vote maybe it is time to save thousands of dollars every four years and just move our city elections to the the national election calendar. Turnout would increase and the county would save millions of dollars over the next decade by not conducting low-turn-out city-only elections.
As the world comes to a stop and focuses its eyes on the Omaha recall today, we're looking ahead--ahead to the 2012 removal of Mayor Suttle's mentor, the Prince of Peace, Nobel Laureate, President of the World of Equal Nations, Commissar Barack Barry Hussein Soetoro Obama.
In our morning e-mail we received a video, 'Courage to Stand', from aspirant G.O.P. presidential nominee Tim Pawlenty. We're still not totally convinced that Pawlenty is the 'conservative' he claims he is but we were really impressed with his video which gave some of our 'older' contributors a sense that they were watching some reincarnation of Saint John Fitzgerald Kennedy. It's worth checking out at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfkNEq1XioE
Since today is State of the Union Speech day, we thought we'd share some information with our readers about the speech. All of the above facts are actually answers to questions submitted to and answered by the folks at Congress.org
"George Washington gave the very first State of the Union address much in the same fashion as it is delivered today. He read his speech in person on January 8, 1790, in front of a joint session of Congress in New York City, which was the provisional capital at the time. It remains the shortest State of the Union speech to date. His 1,089-word oration would take a modern speaker less than 10 minutes to read out loud. In it, Washington celebrated North Carolina's decision to adopt the U.S. Constitution and the young nation's general prosperity, and he thanked the pioneering lawmakers for their part. He highlighted a few matters of policy, including foreign diplomacy, currency, agriculture, commerce, education and defense. "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace," Washington said, adding that Congress should organize the nation's troops to defend the colonies' western and southern borders. He also emphasized the need to promote science and literature, saying, "Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness." Unlike the modern tradition of a response from the opposition party, lawmakers in Washington's day formulated responses by chamber. The House and Senate separately debated and approved official replies that were then personally delivered to Washington by a congressional delegation. The second State of the Union also happened in 1790. Washington decided to deliver it in December of the same year, followed by the third in October 1791.
George Washington actually started out giving the State of the Union speech in person. It was Thomas Jefferson who, finding the practice too aristocratic, had his message written and hand delivered to Congress instead. "Jefferson's change was intended to simplify a ceremony that he believed to be an aristocratic imitation of the British monarch's Speech from the Throne, and thus unsuitable to a republic," the Congressional Research Service said in a 2006 report. Woodrow Wilson gets credit for reviving the oration in 1913, and for expanding the scope of the address. Under the 28th president, the annual speech went from a progress report on the executive branch to a venue for the president to set policy priorities for Congress. Still, some subsequent presidents opted for written messages from time to time. It was only after John F. Kennedy's 1961 address that the oral tradition stuck. Television also played a role in transforming the ceremony and expanding its audience. Today, 64 years after the first State of the Union was televised, tens of millions of people tune in to watch.
Indeed many State of the Unions have fallen on the last Tuesday of January, but that isn't always the case. It's really up to the president and what his handlers believe makes strategic sense. The last speech given by George W. Bush in 2008, for example, was held on a Monday. In 2005, he held the address on Wednesday. Bill Clinton held all but one of his speeches on a Tuesday. In 2000, he appeared before Congress on a Thursday and delivered one of the lengthiest speeches ever.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, Congressional leaders began selecting a Republican and Democrat from each chamber to skip the State of the Union address, according to the Congressional Research Service. It's been a long-held custom for a member of the president's Cabinet to stay back in case the Capitol building is attacked with most of the nation's leaders inside. Congressional members sought to take the same precaution with the legislative body. But there's no official rule requiring the absences, House Deputy Historian Fred W. Beuttler noted. The House Sergeant at Arms office, which handles security for the event, would not confirm which lawmakers would be absent this year.
The longest speech ever written was by Jimmy Carter, but he didn't deliver it orally. That 1981 statement was 33,667 words — longer than novels such as John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men." Among oral addresses, Bill Clinton gave one of the longest State of the Union speeches in 2000. His took nearly 90 minutes to deliver it, according to The American Presidency Project . Their data on length of speeches begins in 1966. But Clinton's speech was just 7,452 words, short by State of the Union standards. The average length of a modern State of the Union speech is 5,000 words, about the size of a magazine cover story. As for the shortest speech, no president has beaten George Washington's 1790 record of 1,089 words. That's about the length of a daily newspaper article and would take less than 10 minutes to read out loud. President Obama gave a 51-minute address last year with 5,902 words. That wasn't an official State of the Union speech, so it remains to be seen how he measures up.
Once a year, on a winter morning, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) changes his routine. Rather than going to his desk in the Rayburn House Office Building, the 11-term Congressman makes his way to the House chamber. Arriving no later than 9 a.m., Engel takes a seat along the center aisle and waits. And then he waits some more. He will spend the next 12 hours anticipating the moment when the president of the United States will enter the room to deliver his annual address. Engel, along with dozens of other House Members, will rise from that coveted perch on the aisle, thrust his hand toward the president and finally reach the goal: the moment when the leader of the free world will smile, shake it and say hello. "It's a great celebration," Engel says. "I have been there to greet every president in the 22 years that I've been there, whether Democrat or Republican, because the president is the president of all of us." Securing an aisle seat is no easy task. House rules state that there is no assigned seating in the chamber and that staffers cannot save seats for their bosses. Over the years — particularly after President Lyndon Johnson moved the television broadcast of the State of the Union to prime time in 1965 — more and more Members have attempted to secure an aisle seat. The trend has especially caught on in recent years. During President George H.W. Bush's tenure, Engel says, he would arrive in the chamber at 6 p.m. and be able to secure an aisle seat. Now he must arrive 12 hours before the 9 p.m. speech. "What's happened through the years is that you've got to get there earlier and earlier because more people come," Engel says. "You have to be there yourself, so instead of coming to the office, I go to the floor and I wait."
There are no formal requirements or limits on how often the president can appear before Congress, but the State of the Union is held annually except for the president's inaugural year. Presidents often still choose to make a first-year speech, but it is traditionally not referred to as a State of the Union. That term was coined by Franklin Roosevelt and is only defined by tradition, not rules. President Obama held a speech on Feb. 24 last year that many billed as his inaugural State of the Union. There was even a Republican response. But official Congressional records called that a "joint session address." President Obama held a second joint address last September, which was also followed by an opposition response.
It's no secret that President Barack Obama is a fan of the teleprompter, but most presidents have used the speech-reading device for major addresses since Dwight Eisenhower introduced it. Soon after the teleprompter was invented in the 1950s, Eisenhower pioneered its use in the State of the Union. In 1954, he used two teleprompters to give "the living-room television audiences the impression that he was talking informally and looking directly at them," Anthony Leviero wrote in the New York Times that year. Leviero went on to describe how "every effort was made to key the show to the latest techniques of the television age," including bringing a make-up artist down from New York to improve how the president would look on camera. Years later, the teleprompter has become part and parcel of major presidential speeches. The exception appears to be Richard Nixon, who preferred note cards. A 1975 Chicago Tribune article about Gerald Ford's preparations for the State of the Union noted that an aide suggested "he drag up an old teleprompter from the White House basement, unused since the days of Lyndon Johnson." Ford, who was nearsighted, had trouble reading the dated teleprompter and ended up purchasing a new one. The device helped White House staff control Ford's delivery. They had a technician slow down the text speed so that Ford would speak more slowly. Presidents take a risk when they rely too much on the machine, as Bill Clinton knows all too well. In 1994, Clinton began his State of the Union address by saying, "I'm not at all sure what speech is in the teleprompter tonight, but I hope we can talk about the State of the Union." The president was making light of a glitch during his previous speech to Congress, when the wrong speech displayed and he was forced to ad lib with written notes. We don't have a firm number for how many teleprompters Obama will use this time, but he used two last year. There will likely be one on either side of the room so, like Eisenhower, Obama can seem to make eye contact with the viewing public.
As with most everything concerning the State of the Union, the congressional seating chart has a lot to do with tradition. Political parties have been sitting separately in Congress since the 1840s, according to the Congressional Research Service. The custom held during presidential speeches as well. Back then, Whigs sat to the left of the speaker and Democrats to the right. Swap Republicans for Whigs and you have the current seating tradition. Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) plan to break with the norm by sitting together during this year's speech, an effort on their part to promote bipartisanship in the wake of the deadly shooting in Arizona. We don't know yet where they will sit. Aside from seats reserved for the Senate in the front of the House chamber and those for leadership, seating remains first come, first serve — as it has been for most of Congress' history. In the past, members living around D.C. often got the best spots by arriving early to stake out. And that is yet another tradition that remains alive and well today.
Though much of the fanfare around the modern State of the Union is merely tradition, the speech does have roots in the Constitution. What the president must do, according to Article 2, Section 3, is: He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. "Time to time" has come to mean annually, but it doesn't have to. There was no speech in 1933, the only year without a State of the Union since George Washington delivered the very first one. The reason? Franklin Roosevelt delayed the speech from December to January of the following year, and the new custom of holding it at the start of the year, rather than the end, stuck. It's difficult to imagine a president choosing not to deliver the speech one year at this point, since the public has come to expect it. But he could shorten it considerably, offer a report instead, or change the date — as many before him have— and start a new precedent.
On December 17, (Friday, December 17, 2010, G.O.P. Changes) we told you that there would be a change in leadership for Americans for Prosperity's Nebraska executive director and that Brad Stevens would be leaving that post. Former State Senator Mike Friend, the first Director of the Nebraska Office of Violence Prevention, will be taking on that responsibility. In addition to taking on the leadership of Nebraska's Americans for Prosperity we understand he will start a public affairs and consulting business.
Billionaire David Koch started Americans for Prosperity and Pete Ricketts is a donor to the group.
News flash......The Douglas County Democrats are having a 'State of the Union' party tomorrow night but you aren't invited or told where unless you R.S.V.P. in advance. Sounds like an early Suttle wake to us......
With the impending demise of our current mayor we thought it might be interesting to share some fact and speculation with our readers.
First, the fact. Assuming the mayor is recalled the likely date for the 'primary' election is May 24th. Assuming that no filed candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, there will be a run-off or general election on June 28th. The current mayor will be formally removed from office on February 4th when the election commissioner completes his canvas and certifies the results. Upon Suttle's removal, Garry Gernandt will become the acting mayor and the city council will have 3o days to select an interim mayor from anyone they choose, whether on the council or not. This is how it will be done.
Now for some of the speculation. First, if the vote is close you can bet someone will try to overturn it with a law suit. If the Suttle survives, there are always those paid-for-the-vote folks from the missions. If Suttle doesn't survive, well, we've learned they have had poll watchers at the election commissioner's office so in the Suttle mode, they could find some reason to try to disallow the election and file suit. In either case, the results of the election will stand. No redos.
Now we already know that Garry Gernandt will be the acting mayor. He can't run a city council meeting as its president without lots of help and his peers and observers feeling embarrassed for him, but he will be the acting mayor or maybe the interim mayor as well.
So who will the city council choose for the interim mayor? Well, first of all every one of them, with the exception of Councilwoman Stothert believes they could be mayor--not just interim. Stothert would be better than any of them, but won't run. Who among the six remaining would want to be mayor? Gernandt, Gray, Jerram, Thompson, Mulligan. Back to them shortly.
As we noted earlier, the council could choose anyone for mayor as long as they live in the city. Some interesting names have been floated. Seems for a while the Chamber of Commerce thought Qwest executive Rex Fisher was the guy. Too bad, he fails to meet one criteria-he doesn't live in the city. Another interesting name that has been floated is that of Omaha World Herald Publisher Terry Kroeger. Laughable in a way, but the name has been proposed. Somehow that seems a little odd given Douglas Street Rag's opposition to the recall but if they can't get you to vote right maybe they can just take over the city. Won't happen. Oh, and then there is the most absurd one of them all--that the city council might ask former Mayor Fahey to accept the reins for the interim. That's equally laughable but also the truth. Actually, we wish that would happen as we could then begin the recall effort on every council member that would vote for his confirmation.
There are some things that might discourage some from seeking the post and some political realities. First of all, anyone who would want to run for mayor certainly wouldn't want to be mayor during the interim when he/she might have to make some decisions regarding the fire union contract or the next budget which will need to be done by the end of June. That leaves out at least Pete Festersen who is the odds-on favorite to be the single candidate put up by the Democrats.
So where do we think this ends up? Our first thought is that the council will leave Gernandt. He has no leadership abilities but he's promised to keep on the Mayor Suttle's current cabinet and who knows he might just decide to deal with the fire union. Our other likely candidate would be Ben Gray. Just think, he could claim to be the first Black mayor of Omaha and he'd definitely push through a fire contract. Of course, he'd have to quit calling every white person a racist just because they didn't agree with him. Ben could probably get the votes of Festersen, Jerram, Mulligan and himself. Franklin Thompson would like to be the first Black mayor, but he's a Republican and that won't happen.
After all is said and done we would tell you that the interim mayor will come from the council, not elsewhere. And it will be either Gernandt or Gray. It all comes down to whether the council wants to accept an incompetent who doesn't threaten them or a racist bloviator (not Jerram, he's a lot of things but not racist) who won't be a caretaker, but rather a activist.
It was morbidly appropriate that the very week when our nation was observing the sad anniversary of the infamous 1973 Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, which created a constitutional right to slaughter unborn babies, a macabre story broke about the discovery of an abortion mill officials are describing as a "house of horrors."
Over the past three decades, Kermit Gosnell, 69, has raked in millions of dollars in blood money running his own little genocidal killing factory out of a run-down storefront in a poor West Philadelphia neighborhood. Gosnell, who is black, specialized in murdering the babies of blacks, immigrants and other poor women.
Three decades. And no one knew? Please.
In fact, this butcher was known far and wide as the "doctor" who would provide late term abortions for minority women. And yet, the authorities were shocked at the gruesome evidence found in the "clinic" — bags, bottles and other containers throughout the place filled with the human remains of murdered babies.
Gov. Ed Rendell, who left office earlier this month, said he was "flabbergasted." Incoming Gov. Tom Corbett has ordered a thorough investigation as to why state and local agencies did not discover Gosnell's activities before now.
Gosnell is being charged with murder. But why? Wasn't he just helping poor women exercise their right to choose? Out of all the abortionists in America, why is this particular ghoul being singled out for scrutiny? What has he been doing differently than Leroy Carhart in Nebraska or the late George Tiller in Kansas? Two things.
First, a pregnant woman died while in this man's "care." According to the district attorney's office, Gosnell is facing a charge of murder in the third degree for the death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar, who died in November of 2009 after being overdosed by an unlicensed teen-age employee with anesthesia prescribed by Gosnell.
And second, in a turn of events that must surely take the prize for hair-splitting, Gosnell was killing babies outside the womb. Unlike, Tiller and Carhart, whose practices performed what have come to be known as partial birth abortions, Gosnell found an easier way to kill babies late in their term.
In a partial birth abortion (frequently done in the eighth or ninth month of pregnancy), the abortionist reaches into the womb with a pair of forceps, grabs hold of the child's feet, pulls him/her feet-first out of the womb and — while the baby's head is still partially in the birth canal — kills the infant by stabbing him/her in the base of the skull and — while he/she kicks and squirms for the last time — sucks out the baby's brain with a vacuum hose.
This procedure is now illegal in all fifty states, thanks to a Republican Congress, former President George W. Bush and a rational Supreme Court, which found that the federal ban on this barbaric practice was, in fact, constitutional.
But for many years, this ghastly method of destroying children was perfectly legal. Gosnell, who is not even licensed to perform abortions, apparently found it easier to simply induce labor, deliver a live baby and then cut his/her spinal chord with a pair of scissors. "Snipping," he called it.
So my questions are these: Why was it wrong all those years for Gosnell to do what he has been doing, and yet other late term abortionists across the country went about their grisly business with impunity? And now that it has been declared illegal to perform partial birth abortions, why is it still legal to perform late term abortions in any other manner? And if it is wrong to perform an abortion in the third trimester, is it somehow right to destroy that same life a month earlier?
Early in her tenure, before she ran off the rails in the direction of the pro-abortion left, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor once said that Roe vs. Wade was on an inevitable "collision course with itself." That collision came last week in a "house of horrors" in West Philadelphia.
As we noted we were present for what will no doubt be Mayor Suttle's last speech in City Council chambers. If you listened, he told you how his great job had allowed the city to finish 2010 with a $3 million some dollar surplus. But maybe someone needs to check the records because we understand the fourth quarter report shows a surplus of more than $5 million. Whether $3 or $5 million, it's due to his poorly estimating the revenue generated from the restaurant tax, the fact that less dollars were retained by the state for business tax incentives and that sales tax revenue was higher than expected. So the only impact his decision had was the tax on restaurants.
But wait, if there was actually a surplus of more than $5 million that all has to be carried over to 2012 not 2011. However, we understand that Suttle has told his high-paid finance director to simply let that $2 million or so shift into the 2011 revenue. That's a violation of city statutes. Someone should be asking questions.
Maybe this is yet another recent to vote yes to recall him tomorrow.
A few things in the news have caught our eyes recently so just some of our thoughts.
It seems that the Mayor and his lobbyist staff didn't do a very good job in their testimony against LB81, which would eliminate the newly-imposed wheel tax on non-Omaha workers AND those living within the three-mile limit who currently pay the tax. We're told that other than 3 City of Omaha officials, no one else showed up to testify against the bill.
In what shows how far down the Douglas Street Rag has gone, it had to have a Midlands front page above-the-fold story about a mule. Now we wonder if there wasn't something more important than this human interest, oops asinine, story to report. We don't want to be ungrateful to John Folsom who has been busy defending his country. We know him and he's a good guy. But on top of the position of the story by the paper it also strikes us that those who support the S.P.C.A. (Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) would spend its donors contributions by paying to bring a donkey to Omaha from Iran via Turkey, Amsterdam and Washington, D.C.
Is the Omaha World-Herald embarrassed by it's support of Suttle. Sunday's editorial page column, "Weigh the Consequences" was a pretty weak endorsement of why the want you to vote no to his recall on Tuesday. All of a sudden they seem to just want to make sure you vote even if you don't vote their way. Suppose they've run a poll they aren't telling you about?
Continuing our politically incorrectness you'll either have to tolerate our headlines or comments or report us to Janet Napolitano since we are prior military, gun-owners, conservatives and abortion supporters who also think our boarders should mean something.
On to the Democrats bringing out their top guns. Yes, Ben Nelson did come out in support of the second highest ranking elected Democrat in the state, the soon-to-be-recalled Jim Suttle. But in our 'we get e-mail' category today we received one from another esteemed 'top gun' Democrat. None other than Jim Esch, two-time failed candidate for the U.S. Congress. Yep, Jim is weighing in. Somehow, like virtually every other Suttle supporter can't find a lot of reason to praise him, but like his liberal pals like the Douglas Street Rag (a.k.a. Omaha World-Herald), Dick Holland, Councilman Grey, police union cronies and fire-union thugs he tells us how bad recall is for the city. NONSENSE
Here is what Esch has to say:
"I am writing today, to ask you to vote NO against the recall. In fact, go today and vote in person. I can’t stress enough how critical it is for you to do this. I believe, I represent the view of most Omahans - I might not be terribly happy with the Suttle administration but a recall is terrible for the city.
Omaha has fared this recession better than almost any city in the nation. This puts us in a unique place to capitalize on opportunities to increase business and investment into our great city. But, if this recall happens, we effectively do not have a mayor for the next seven to eight months to negotiate deals and recruit businesses and people. We can not squander this opportunity over a few extra pennies when you eat out.
Not to mention, the alternative is either Hal Daub or David Nabity as our next mayor. While I have great respect for Hal Daub for his vision in making our downtown what it is today; it’s time to pass the torch to a new generation. Dave Nabity would simply be a disaster for our city."
Of course Esch isn't satisfied with his personal e-mail, he also sends one under the guise of "Voice", his so-called group of concerned young Omahans who happen to be mostly supporters of his failed campaigns. In that he tells us:
"Regardless of tactics, the recall remains a bad idea for Omaha. At its core, the recall is an overly-emotional response to tough economic times. Regardless of how one feels about Jim Suttle’s decisions, or those of any public servant, recalls should be reserved for individuals who have committed a crime punishable by law — not for raising taxes."
Maybe some day Jim will be on the winning side, but somehow we doubt it.....
Thinking he could scare the populace of Omaha into keeping him in office through his continued use of the media, Jim Suttle made a last ditch attempt yesterday through his 'contrived' State of the City speech given in City Council Chambers. The chamber was populated mainly by Suttle supporters (Democrats) or those that simply depended on his employment for their own (his cabinet). Of course, some like Chamber Exec Brown were there showing approval in the event that Suttle miraculously survives on Tuesday. They should have better utilized their time.
We were there and, frankly, we saw exactly what we expected.
Teetering on the edge of violating, if not violating Nebraska Accountability and Finance Laws, Suttle mused for the first few minutes of his diatribe about what might be the stoppage of any progress for Omaha over the next several months should his administration's efforts be brought to a stop. Recall, although he carefully didn't use the word.
He then went on to tell us what great shape the city was in due to his tax-increases, crime-fighting and educational efforts. How we have a 2010 surplus of some $3 million--which by the way he won't give back. Needless, to say he wants us to give him kudos for solving the fire/police pension problem and ending spiking. And of course, he told us how this was solved with the new restaurant tax and that Omahans were still eating out as much as ever (Just yesterday, Rasmussen Polling revealed information that suggests 43% of those polled are eating out less often over the last six months).
Wow, for a while we wanted to go do a 'redo' vote or possibly recommend he be canonized--Saint James Suttle, Patron Saint of city mayors!
Somehow, his supporters haven't apparently got out his positive message as the only thing they talk about is why recall is bad for Omaha. Could it be because all his so-called accomplishments have come with huge tax increases rather than spending cuts?
We'll go on record and suggest that Suttle will be recalled on Tuesday by a vote of 55% and 45% against. Omaha will not cease to exist. It's next mayor will look for solutions that don't involve more taxes. Our scare tactic is to suggest that if we are wrong you can expect lots more taxes and tax increases over the next two years.
It's hard to devote time to anything right now other than the imminent recall of Mayor Suttle which will reach its point of consummation on Tuesday shortly after 8:00 p.m. as it becomes obvious that he will need to pack his bags and leave his digs in the corner office of level 3 in the City/County Building. However, we did say we'd like to discuss a few legislative issues and one of those is the 'Castle Doctrine.'
Although it didn't get passed last year we were pleased to see State Senator Mark Christensen (LB 44) again introduce a version of 'Castle Doctrine' self-defense legislation (LB 298). The NRA was very pleased to see a renewed attempt to get this critical legislation passed after coming up just short last session. We know that evil group, the N.R.A. is working with Senator Christensen to get the job done this year. YOU NEED TO CONTACT YOUR SENATOR ON THIS.
The bill basically changes the current law and clarifies that if someone breaks into your home you have the right to shoot them:
28-1409 (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 28-1414, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion. A person not engaged in illegal activity who is attacked in a place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force.
The Judiciary Committee will here the bill in the near future. So at the risk of being once again politically-incorrect we'd suggest you put this bill in your cross-hairs and aim to contact your senator in support of it.
Hard to believe that our staff didn't point out something that appears and is updated daily on our blog but somehow the significance of our 'Messiah Watch' went unnoticed yesterday. Had it not been for the bloviating of the liberal news media about President Kennedy's inaugural speech and the minor mention of the Iranian hostage release (no mention of President Reagan's inaugural or his responsibility for that release) we might have failed to take note of the fact that the Prince of Peace, Nobel Laureate, President of the World of Equal Nations, Commissar Barack Barry Soetoro Hussein Obama has now completed the first and final half of his ignominious term in office as our President.
In an effort to atone for our oversight certain members of our staff will be executed (there we go with those violent words that cause killings of innocents just because of our using) and the rest of our editorial staff will share the same switch as we atone through an act of self-flagellation in the most monastic sense of the word.
No doubt many of our Omaha readers have received the latest evidence of why Mayor Suttle should be recalled and what is wrong with the power of the unions in Omaha, NE. We're talking about the mailing from 'Putting Omaha First', the police union funded organization that formed in the last week to save their bacon-provider Mayor Suttle.
The fancy full-page glossy mailing must have cost ten of thousands of dollars to produce and mail with it's message being, "Stop Special Interests from Wasting our Tax Dollars!" Of course, the police union isn't a special interest, right?
Not only is their bold statement total hypocrisy, an oxymoron to be sure, but the reverse side of the mailing goes on to condemn their former hero Mike Fahey for the underfunding of the pension plan, the loss of Omaha's AAA bond rating and for costing Omaha millions of dollars! Condemning the guy that they negotiated the deal with that took the city to the edge of bankruptcy, that they benefited to the tone of hundreds of millions of dollars over! Now that's bold.
Then they tell us what a great guy the new mayor, Suttle, is for negotiating a deal with them that allowed the city to get back its bond rating.
This mailing demonstrates exactly what is wrong with this mayor and with the influence of the police (and fire) unions. Former mayor who helped get this city to this huge financial burden=bad. Former city councilman, and now mayor, who sat on the finance committee and never opened his mouth during four years to tell the citizens what was happening, who negotiated the best deal the union could have hoped for=good.
Now if Suttle survives this recall (which he won't) how in the world will he ever be able to be anything other than a pawn for what ever his lackey friends in the police union want?
This mailing demonstrates completely what is wrong with the union's power in Omaha and precisely why Suttle must be recalled.
Excuse our offensive non-politically-correct headline but we don't intend to quit using such verbage. In any event, we were waiting for this and we're glad to see that the N.R.A. (National Rifle Association) has 'targeted' Mayor Suttle. We've discussed Mayor Suttle's anti-gun stance, his support of Mayor Bloomberg's anti-gun policy in the past. Finally, the N.R.A. has given gun0wners another reason to vote to send Suttle into early retirement.
On Tuesday, January 25, a special election will be held in Omaha to Recall Mayor Jim Suttle. As a member of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s national anti-gun network, “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” (MAIG), your mayor has trampled on our Second Amendment rights not only in Omaha but across the country.
MAIG has built its membership by selling itself as a group interested in fighting “illegal” guns, but a look at its agenda shows that fighting criminals is not what this group is about. Instead, MAIG has focused its efforts on the promotion of new gun control laws and regulations and on furthering its anti-gun agenda in the courts. It favors imposing regulations on gun shows that could regulate them out of existence. It supports repealing the federal protection that keeps law enforcement firearms trace data confidential, and opposes the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. It is now strongly supporting the use of a secret government list to deny people their Second Amendment rights. All of these positions promote new burdens on law-abiding gun owners and threaten our Second Amendment rights.
For more information on “Mayors Against Illegal Guns,” please click here.
With his involvement in this reprehensible anti-gun group, Mayor Jim Suttle has proven himself to be a true enemy of the Second Amendment. Local groups have been actively working on this recall and now is the time to participate in this effort and Recall Jim Suttle.
For voting information, please go to: www.VoteDouglasCounty.com To volunteer to assist in this recall campaign, please go to: www.MayorSuttleRecall.com If you are a registered voter, you are eligible to participate in this special recall election! Be sure to spread the word to your family, friends and fellow gun owners to Recall Mayor Jim Suttle this Tuesday, January 25!
Before we get back to the recall and since we've just celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday we thought it might be appropriate to burnish what liberals will surely dismiss as our racist credentials (they surely would if we got into a discussion of efforts to 'purify' Mark Twain's writings of some politically incorrect nouns) by sharing a column written by Larry Elder, "Black Man's Burden: Those who make them victims.'
We believe in Martin's much quoted adage that one should judge a man (oops, person) by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. We also believe in Ronald Reagan's color blind society. But with that said, we're sure we will be called racist for even sharing this with you. Nonetheless, here it is:
"Black man's burden," read the headline in the Los Angeles Times piece. "African-American men," read the subheading, "are still often judged by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character." It must be MLK Day.
This is when the guilt-ridden, blame-seeking, personal-responsibility-avoiding, racism-under-every-rock, oh-so-sympathetic, victicrat media tell us about Martin Luther King's "unfinished" legacy. Never mind that America, two years ago, elected a black president.
"Racism is like that," Judy Belk wrote. "A dripping faucet of sorts. You ignore it until you can't anymore." As proof of today's "dripping faucet" of "racism," Belk gives three examples.
First, she warned her son, then 13, to be wary of "strange-acting folks" when riding on Oakland's BART rapid transit system. Her son, however, told her that riders assumed him to be in the category of "strange-acting folks." "I just noticed," he said, "the last couple of times I was on BART, I could feel I was making several white women nervous when I sat near them. ... I could just tell." Her son, says Belk, was being ... stereotyped! Racism!
News bulletin: The crimes committed by a minority of young blacks affect how others -- of all races -- view the majority of law-abiding young blacks. And Oakland is one of America's most crime-ridden cities, with a disproportionately large amount of the crime committed by young black men. And though a lot of crime is same-race crime, when it is black-white interracial, by an overwhelming margin the perps are black and the victims are white.
By their early 30s, 3.2 percent of white males have been imprisoned, while 22.4 percent of black males -- nearly 1 in 4 -- have spent time behind bars. Yes, people find young black men, especially if they look and dress like Coolio, scarier than old white men who look and dress like Bob Newhart. Weird.
Jesse Jackson once told an interviewer that when hearing footsteps behind him while walking down a street at night, he is relieved if he turns to see the sound is coming from white feet.
Michelle Obama, when asked whether she worried about the safety of her then-presidential candidate husband, said, "I don't lose sleep over it, because the realities are that, you know, as a black man, you know, Barack can get shot going to the gas station." She probably didn't mean a gas station in Beverly Hills.
Second, Belk said that her 6-foot-5-inch son, then 16, "stormed into the house complaining to no one in particular: 'Why does everyone assume that just because I'm black, I play basketball? That's just plain racist.'" Sure, while his height was "undoubtedly part of the equation, it wasn't all of it (emphasis added)." What's the rest of "the equation"? That a lot of black men who are tall don't play basketball -- and it's "racist" to assume that they do? Oh, where have you gone, Rosa Parks?!
Third, Belk's son, then starting graduate studies at the University of North Carolina, and her husband were victims of "racial profiling" on a road considered "treacherous territory for black men": "The night he and my husband arrived in town to move him into his new apartment, they were stopped on the interstate by the police, allegedly for not moving to the outer lane when passing a police car that had stopped another driver. ... Like it or not, racial profiling still plays into many law enforcement decisions." Racism, case closed!!!
Police departments in many major cities have long required cops to write down the race of those stopped, as well as the race of the cop doing the stopping. In some cases, cops do indeed stop a "disproportionate" number of black motorists -- compared with their percentage of actual drivers. Does this show illegal "racial profiling," as opposed to cops focusing on high-crime areas or cops responding to the very behavior of the drivers stopped?
New Jersey state troopers, during the late '90s, were accused of illegally profiling black drivers on the New Jersey Turnpike. At the request of the U.S. Justice Department, the state commissioned an independent study to find out why troopers stopped so many black motorists. It turned out that black drivers drove faster than white drivers -- and the faster the speed the more likely the driver was black. The Justice Department, citing "flawed methodology," refused to accept the study. New Jersey commissioned a second study. Same result.
More to the point, Belk writes, "My husband told me he was glad to have been there to model ... how to behave during a police stop, something every black man needs to be prepared to handle." Exactly. Behave appropriately and so will the cops, the occasional bad apple aside.
Belk is right. There are certain things every young black person "needs to be prepared to handle." And one of them is this: learning to reject newspaper articles, relatives, friends, teachers and the media that are determined to convince them that they remain forever victims. Now, more than ever, hard work, drive and focus win the race.
Nebraska Watchdog Joe Jordan's latest communique discusses Mayor Suttle's expense keeping. At one point, he notes that the mayor expensed four dollars for a beer. Remember all the discussion about Metro Tech expenses that included alcohol?
Guess, either the city doesn't have a policy about paying for alcohol reimbursements....
In another very evident act of desperation Mayor Jim Suttle has decided to deliver a 'State of the City' address in City Council chambers on Friday at 11:00. His chief-of staff has already had to clear up confusion as to whether this was a special call city council meeting which we now understand it is not. So Mayor Suttle will use the legislative chambers of your city, paid for by your tax dollars, to deliver his last minute speech which will basically tell you what a great job he thinks he has done. This is nothing but a contrived event/speech to try to save his bacon.
This speech should be delivered elsewhere as it has been done in the past. Not on city premises, particularly given the current status of his retention in office.
Any media outlet that covers this speech should be required to give equal time to the recall proponents.
This effort is nothing more than another 'pick up the homeless' effort. City Council members and the media should refuse to participate in this last minute sham to save Suttle's job.
Sometimes those of us who fancy ourselves as conservatives are happy to see various RINO Republicans go off to new opportunities in other states. Such has been the case with Chuckie Hagel who unfortunately still comes back to Nebraska when he needs a few liberals to admire him. Such is the case with former Congressman Doug Bereuter who has returned to Cedar Bluffs, NE after his stint in California as a leader of an Asian organization. We thought such was the case when a fellow named Randy Moody left Lincoln several years ago to go to Washington, D.C., as a lobbyist for the National Education Association.
Given his prior position with the N.E.A. you can guess what kind of Republican he was......A RINO. He was not only defined by that but also by the move of Lincoln's Catholic Archbishop to excommunicate him for his liberal support of abortion. For many years, Moody was active in the Nebraska Republican Party although we're not sure he was ever a Republican.
Moody is back in Nebraska now, a fact we discovered by accidentally picking up the December issue of 'Prairie Fire' The Progressive Voice of the Great Plains', for which he is apparently now writing. You can guess from the title of that publication that Moody has not changed his stripes. Hopefully, any political time that he has will be spent with the other party.
We like Randy as a person, but we sure don't like his politics...
Ever since a violent, evil lunatic decided to shoot innocent people in a public place in Tucson, Arizona, hand-wringing liberals have been vilifying everyone but the violent, evil lunatic himself. They have tried to blame Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party and the NRA. I'm sure some of them are even trying to figure out how to pin it on George W. Bush.
One might think that "violent" or "divisive" rhetoric was something new to them. In fact, to hear them talk, prior to the last two years, all political discourse was "civil." Of course, they are modern-day experts at employing some of the nastiest slurs in the history of politics, but more on that later. Obviously, they have never read some of the early political language of the Founders of this country.
In the infamous election of 1800, when President John Adams was being challenged by Vice President Thomas Jefferson, the two exchanged smears that stand as some of the most insulting and outrageous of all time. Consider their barbs:
Jefferson's campaign called Adams a "hideous hermaphroditical character, with neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."
The Adams people fired back by calling Jefferson a "mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."
As the campaign went on, Jefferson's forces labeled Adams, alternately, a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal and a tyrant. Not to be outdone, Adams' supporters branded Jefferson a weakling, an atheist, a libertine and a coward. Federalist newspapers even claimed that a Jeffersonian presidency would bring about the "teaching of murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest."
And Barack Obama thinks Sarah Palin's little crosshairs on a map are "uncivil."
Patrick Henry told his contemporaries, "Give me liberty or give me death!"
James Madison boldly proclaimed, "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed — unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
Noah Webster warned, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any brand of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
John Dickenson and Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare that…we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind and resolved to die freemen rather than to live as slaves."
Today's whining libs are masters at the very style of rhetoric they claim to abhor. Barack Obama's insults are not as colorful as his predecessors; but then, he is no John Adams or Thomas Jefferson, now is he? Nevertheless, consider some of his political speech:
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
"Hit back twice as hard."
"I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I'm angry!"
"I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick."
"If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends…' then I think it's gonna be harder and that's why I think it's so important that people focus on voting on November 2."
"I don't want the folks who created the mess doin' a lot of talkin'. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talkin'.
"I will be happy to see the Republicans test whether or not I'm itching for a fight on a whole range of issues. I suspect they will find I am…"
In the words of John Paul Jones, "I have not yet begun to fight."
We've been meaning to address a number of issues that are appearing as bills before Nebraska's stupid one-house legislature but frankly the recall has somehow risen to the top of our agenda of things to address. But having said this we can't help but comment on an issue that somehow we've been accused of not being sensitive enough on. That would be the issue, LB 201, introduced by Senator Ken Schilz of Ogallala. Seems the good senator would like to see Nebraska join Arizona and some parts of Illinois or Indiana that don't observe daylight savings time. Of course, Nebraska seems to go its own populous way defying convention with the only single-house legislature in the nation and being only one of two states that don't have the winner-takes-all electoral vote method.
Anyway back to daylight savings time. At the Republican convention this last summer in Fremont, a resolution was addressed to support removing Nebraska from daylight savings time. The adherents suggested that daylight savings time created 'adjustment' problems for animals. One speaker said frivolously that, "We shouldn't mess with God's time and that adding that extra hour of sunlight was really bad and that by returning to God's time we might solve part of the global warming problem."
Well, although we've meant to comment on the issue at a later date, we saw Robert Nelson's column in today's Douglas Street Rag (a.k.a. the Omaha World-Herald). We frankly try to avoid the trivial and inane columns Nelson pens but the headline writer caught our eye today. And frankly, although Nelson doesn't know how to spell Ogallala (see the first paragraph of his diatribe, he makes some solid and slightly more serious arguments against abandoning D.S.T. for God's time.
Fortunately, it appears that Senator Schilz may have come to his senses if we are to believe Nelson. But unfortunately, this bill is exactly the reason why of hundreds of bills introduced never get passed--because they are unnecessary and just plain dumb. If senators were limited to two or three really important bill introductions each year we could send them home sooner and we'd have a lot less wasted time and legislative intrusion into our lives.
Anyway, at the risk of eternal damnation we don't want to go back to God's time.
Since we in the mode of publishing recall-related e-mails, we thought we'd share with you one that deals not only with the Omaha recall but recalls in general. It was sent to us from Paul Jacob, a Virginia resident who managed the Omaha recall campaign and has been involved in recalls across the country. We've met Paul. He's a dedicated guy who believes that citizens have a right to hold their elected officials ACCOUNTABLE, which is exactly what is happening here in Omaha.
Here's his e-mail:
From: Paul Jacob [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 5:26 PMTo: email@example.comSubject: WSJ on Omaha Recall
Happy New Year! The Wall Street Journal just ran a story on the campaign to recall the mayor of Omaha, Nebraska, and the increasing use of recall by citizens intent on holding their local elected officials accountable.
Sadly, though not surprisingly, the head of the U.S. Conference of Mayors argues in the article that recall petitions should be made more difficult, in part because “the political climate is toxic.” Yours truly counters, saying, “The argument that citizens ought to butt out and let politicians alone doesn't fly.”
Recall is an important safety valve. Though used far less frequently than initiative and referendum, it is part of the same citizen-empowerment philosophy and came into use at the same time. Citizens in Charge fights to protect initiative, referendum AND recall. We strive to make these checks on power more open and accessible to citizens.
This Omaha effort to recall Mayor Jim Suttle is also personal. After the November election, I took three weeks off from Citizens in Charge to manage the petition drive.
Why? Well, I certainly have no personal animus toward the mayor, but I do have friends in the city who asked for my help. And I knew that in 2008, Suttle had campaigned on NOT raising taxes, but soon raised them by over $30 million. He also ignored pleas from groups like the Omaha Alliance for the Private Sector to look into the sweetheart deals between the city and public employee unions as well as rampant corruption. A recent report on the city’s fire department by the state auditor shows they were on to something. In addition to the scathing audit report, several high-ranking fire officials refused to be interviewed by the auditor on the advice of their attorneys.
Why does what happens in Omaha matter to someone in Virginia (where I live) or to you or others? Because sweetheart deals between politicians and politically powerful public employee unions are hurting taxpayers all across the country. And slapping taxpayers further by raising taxes rather than controlling such waste – in violation of one’s campaign pledge – well, that happens nationwide, too. I figure Omaha is as good a place as any to fight it.
My Omaha experience also reminded me how difficult petition drives can be. When legislators say it’s “too easy” to put something on the ballot, I know it means they haven’t ever petitioned. A group called “Omaha Forward” harassed our petitioners, mocked the effort as failing for lack of support and hurled charges of fraud at the petition drive. When we turned in the necessary 37,000 signatures and were certified by elections officials, the public-employee-financed group sued to block the recall from the ballot.
Just before Christmas, I traveled back to Omaha to testify at the trial over the validity of the signatures. Omaha Forward’s attorney attacked me as “The Music Man” coming from out-of-town to swindle the good folks of Nebraska. But with all their charges and legal shenanigans, they failed to invalidate a single petition signature verified by the county. As the judge wrote in his decision, “Plaintiff introduced evidence to attack the credibility of certain circulators and a Paul Jacob, the coordinator for the paid circulators. … This Court found Paul Jacob credible and accepted his testimony as truthful.”
The recall of Mayor Suttle in Omaha is on the ballot in two weeks, on Jan. 25. Whether Mr. Suttle is removed from office or not, voters have demonstrated that they cannot be taken for granted. Not now. Not in Omaha.
Here’s to working even harder this year to make certain voters cannot be taken for granted. Not anywhere.
Somehow it seems that neither the mayor or his staff understand that you can't be using city hall space and city hall employees and city hall equipment for political campaigns which, of course, the recall is. Of course, if you figure you'll be out of office in a few days, maybe it is worth the risk.
Anyway, here is Amoura's latest communication from her city hall e-mail and from her city hall computer:
From: Amoura, Aida A. Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 12:00 PMTo: Mayors Staff; Directors Group; Weaver, Warren I. (CCou); Kratz, Paul (Law)Subject:
For Immediate Release
Mayor Suttle Makes Staff Changes
January 14, 2011 – Mayor Jim Suttle is granting his Policy Advisor, David Dover, a leave of absence today to oversee the anti-recall campaign against him. Dover will be joining the “Jim Suttle for Mayor Campaign” until January 26th. The purpose of this move is to improve the line of communications between the anti-recall campaign of Forward Omaha and the Mayor’s Campaign Committee. “The goal is to get the anti-recall campaign back on track and avoid any further miscommunications which could negatively impact citizens in our community that we are here to served,” said Mayor Suttle.
David Dover, 30, was a key advisor to Suttle’s 2009 campaign for Mayor. David will be meeting with Forward Omaha staff to discuss any procedures that need to be in place in order to insure the integrity of the voting process through the end of the campaign and determine if any changes are necessary.
David will handle campaign questions and can be reached at 312-4818.
### Media Contact: Aida Amoura, Communications Director, City of Omaha - Mayor's Office, firstname.lastname@example.org, (402) 444-3520
Aida AmouraRezac Director of Communications Mayor Jim Suttle email@example.com Work (402) 444-3520 Cell (402) 680-9544
Earlier today we published information on the mayor's press secretary's misuse of city computers to discuss issues dealing with the recall. Interestingly we received a copy of their last release on the matter again handled by Aida Amoura on a city computer providing her e-mail address.
No matter how you hide it or try to justify it, this is a campaign related matter that should not be handled out of the mayor's office and that is a direct violation of Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure statutes.
Here's the excuse, err letter:
For Immediate Release
Mayor Suttle Calls Busing Incident an Unfortunate Mistake
January 13, 2011 –
On Wednesday, January 12, 2011 the Office of Mayor Jim Suttle learned that Forward Omaha – one of the groups opposing the recall of Mayor Suttle – made an error in judgment relating to their efforts to oppose the January 25th Recall Election.
It has been reported that Forward Omaha used rented buses to transport potential voters from North Omaha to the office of the Douglas County Election Commissioner. After the passengers voted they were immediately transported to an Election Day training session, at which they were paid $5 for their time. Following the training session the individuals were dropped off at various locations in North Omaha including the Siena/Francis House.
The decision to bus potential voters to the election commissioner’s office was done as part of Forward Omaha’s efforts to assist individuals without transportation in their attempt to vote. The other facet of Forward Omaha’s actions was the recruitment and training of Election Day get out the vote (“GOTV”) workers. Hiring people to work on Election Day is a long-running and common aspect of modern political campaigns.
Unfortunately, someone from Forward Omaha decided to combine the dual efforts to assist voters and recruit Election Day workers. This was a mistake.
Everyone involved with both this office and the anti-recall efforts supports the voting rights of our least fortunate citizens. Most would also agree that residents of East Omaha without reliable transportation are highly vulnerable to disenfranchisement due to the location of the Election Commissioner’s office. Both of these points are valid and any efforts by Forward Omaha or others to remedy these problems are admirable.
However, the decision to intermingle the transportation assistance and worker recruitment created and unacceptable conflict of interest. The financial incentives associated with Election Day employment should never be used to affect the vote of any citizen of Omaha. The Mayor does not support this or any other type of voter manipulation. Any effort to inappropriately acquire votes from the homeless is inconsistent with Mayor Suttle’s core values and will not be tolerated.
For these reasons, Mayor Suttle has contacted Forward Omaha and demanded that efforts like yesterday not be repeated. He has made it clear to all involved that under no circumstance should voter transportation and worker recruitment be combined. Mayor Suttle has received assurances that this message was received and understood. Forward Omaha will be releasing an additional letter later today which will acknowledge their mistake in judgment and a promise to fix the problem.
We are aware of the volume of calls and emails coming in concerning this issue. It is important that, as agents of the mayor, we let people know that he believes that this combination effort was an error of judgment. If they have further comments or complaints regarding this specific instance, the appropriate venue for that would be Forward Omaha.
### Media Contact: Aida Amoura, Communications Director, City of Omaha - Mayor's Office, firstname.lastname@example.org, (402) 444-3520
It's bad enough that the Suttle campaign in its desperate attempt to prevent his recall has bused homeless potential sex offenders to vote for pay and potentially distribute literature at schools around little children, but now we learn that he is very likely violating campaign finance laws.
Yes, now we find that the mayor's Press Secretary, Aida Amoura (who is paid $64,000 a year!) is sending out press releases pertaining to the recall, a political issue, using your city-paid-for computers. That's a violation of the Nebraska campaign laws.
On top of that Suttle staff member David Sund is spending most of his working day at the offices of Forward Omaha. Although, the mayor's office will probably find a way to 'fix' this violation before the pay records are made official this is again a violation of campaign laws. Even if Sund is taking time off this suggests that the mayor's office is overstaffed, not to mention over-paid, given the reason for his absence.
The citizens of Omaha deserve a mayor who follows the law, who manages his city and campaign ethically. Does anyone believe that his retention could possibly diminish the sideshow we've seen over the last 18 months?
We believe that these potential violations will soon be referred to the Nebraska State Accountability and Disclosure Office.
Mayor Suttle and his Forward Omaha group have reached a new low in their 'use' of homeless folks. It's now clear that after his support of Forward Omaha's 'paid busing' the Mayor has backtracked. Could it be the State Patrol investigation that the Democrat County Attorney has requested?
But citizens should be even more concerned about the Forward Omaha group's judgement and its potential hirings. Just today our reporters have learned that there are 32 registered sex offenders residing at the Sienna Francs House. Those are the number of folks there being monitored by deputies under state statutes.
We wonder how many of these Mayor Suttle and his sham organization have recruited to pass out brochures in a neighborhood near you.
Of course, the mayor seems to enjoy employing folks who have 'sex' issues. First a young co-chief of staff who had to be fired because of his potential involvement with juvenile who ended up committing suicide. Then the hiring of a chief of staff who was fired from a position as the executive director of a political entity for lying to its publicly elected board about having an affair with one of its board members. Then, the continued use of a campaign manager, now working with Forward Omaha, who was fired for having pornography on his computer in the county assessor's office. Now we have the mayor hiring sex offenders to come hand out brochures at your neighborhood school.
Mayor Suttle's affinity for perverts has gone a little too far.
"The craving is for banishing randomness and the inexplicable from human experience. Time was, the gods were useful. What is thunder? The gods are angry. Polytheism was explanatory. People postulated causations. And still do. Hence: The Tucson shooter was (pick your verb) provoked, triggered, unhinged by today's (pick your noun) rhetoric, vitriol, extremism, "climate of hate." Demystification of the world opened the way for real science, including the social sciences. And for a modern characteristic. And for charlatans. A characteristic of many contemporary minds is susceptibility to the superstition that all behavior can be traced to some diagnosable frame of mind that is a product of promptings from the social environment. From which flows a political doctrine: Given clever social engineering, society and people can be perfected. This supposedly is the path to progress. It actually is the crux of progressivism. And it is why there is a reflex to blame conservatives first."
We're not exactly innocent of promoting partisan politics although we might suggest that we generally promote conservative viewpoints. We don't mind going after liberal (progressive) or so-called conservatives when we think they are off base. With that said we came across an editorial by Stu Rothenberg, 'This is a Time to Reflect on What is Important', in The Rothenberg Political Report that we thought had some value and which we quote in entirety below. It might be worth a read.
"The political fallout from the horrific shootings in Tucson, Ariz., on Saturday was predictable. Members of Congress called for a return to civility, gun control advocates used the tragedy to call for more gun control and some liberals blamed the violence on conservatives.
So what else is new?
Of course, the call for more restraint and civility often comes from exactly those who have demonized the opposition the most.
In 1982, Sidney Blumenthal wrote about the “permanent campaign,” but over the past decade, our campaigns and politics have become increasingly crude, rude, angry and confrontational. And if anything, our campaigns have become more frenzied around the clock and throughout the calendar since Blumenthal wrote that book.
Campaign posturing and political attacks literally never stop.
The day after the midterm elections, the National Republican Congressional Committee sent out a fundraising e-mail asserting that “Democrats are desperate and will do whatever is necessary to steal any seat they can.” I received almost identical e-mails from Democratic campaign committees as well. The money chase never stops.
Two weeks after Election Day, I received an e-mail from some flack pushing the availability of an author who wrote a book about “the 15 biggest lies about the economy coming from the Right today.” Over the last weekend, I received another e-mail from the same public relations person pimping another author, who wrote “Dangerous Brew: Exposing the Tea Party’s Agenda to Take Over America.”
On Nov. 16, the National Republican Senatorial Committee distributed an e-mail attacking Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), who is up for re-election in 2012, for putting “her party bosses’ reckless job-killing agenda ahead of the best interests of her constituents in Washington State.”
In mid-December, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee blasted newly elected Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) for having “gone Washington.” West’s crime? “West is actually asking Republican Party leadership if he can spend more time in Washington rather than at home in his district.”
In other words, West wants to spend more time working, which the DCCC apparently thinks is bad. You can bet, of course, that if West wanted to spend less time in session and more time in his Florida district, the DCCC would have blasted him for not wanting to do his job as a legislator.
And, on Dec. 19, the New York State Republican Party blasted Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D), who had just won her race but faces re-election to a full six-year term in 2012, because she “sides with the radical left” — the radical left — in voting to raise taxes (by opposing the compromise extending the Bush tax cuts).
No, none of the language I’ve just mentioned would encourage any sane person to pick up a weapon and attack a government official. And much of this language is standard political boilerplate. There is no talk about shooting people.
But the round-the-clock partisan attacks contribute to the coarsening of our political discourse and reflect the general deterioration of our culture.
Sure, politics is politics, and rough-and-tumble attacks are just part of the game. Partisanship is nothing new. But the relentless bombardment of politicians, officeholders and parties — accusations about lying and stealing and radicals —takes its toll.
It’s possible to have intelligence, partisanship and civility, as former Sens. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) have shown, and it wouldn’t hurt our politics or our social fabric to have a pause for a month or two from the relentless attacks. (This is a strong argument against lame-duck sessions, which continue political bickering and name-calling immediately after an election.)
Of course, while the parties and politicians bear some responsibility for the constant political attacks and growing incivility, other groups deserve a chunk of the blame.
The day after the Arizona shooting, I came across an e-mail from Michael Lerner of Tikkun, a very liberal Jewish magazine and website, titled “Shooting of Jewish Congresswoman Giffords is Not Just a ‘Tragedy’ — It’s Part of a Right-Wing Assault on Government and the Liberals & Progressives Who Support It.”
There is no point in repeating Lerner’s political rant, but he uses the shooting to further his political agenda, blaming the political right for everything and drawing conclusions that were obviously premature.
Over the past few years, groups on the political right and left have charged each other with lying, cheating, stealing and planning to destroy the American way of life. Individually, the charges aren’t a huge problem. But collectively, they are.
The Internet has become a platform for anonymous personal attacks and demonization. Cable TV, with its reliance on caricatures and faulty logic, gets ratings by playing to emotions.
We need more humility and modesty in our politics, as well as in the larger culture.
The attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others on Saturday may simply be the work of a deranged, delusional guy with a gun. But it gives us an opportunity to think about what kind of society we want. I’m not talking about health care, immigration and tax policy, but rather about how we live our lives and the part that politics should play in them."
Since every commentator in the country is opining this week about the horrific shooting of a congresswoman, a judge and 17 others in Arizona, it seems wise to withhold analysis until more is known. Besides, important stories frequently go unnoticed when such big stories dominate the news, and last week was no exception.
I must say that the incoming House Republican leadership is not inspiring this skeptic with confidence that they actually got the message of the election just two short months ago.
Despite Speaker John Boehner's frequent crocodile tears, the refreshing but largely symbolic gesture of having members read the entire U.S. Constitution out loud on the House floor, and the congressional blustering about repealing the national bad dream that is Obamacare (a vote Majority Leader Eric Cantor has announced has been postponed because of the events in Tucson), the real test of whether these people actually heard what voters were saying in November has come down, as it always does, to decisions made behind closed doors. You know, the ones they make when they think you're not watching.
One of the more cowardly betrayals of a loyal conservative who has fought the good fight and was in line for a promotion came last week when U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, learned that he would not become the next chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law — despite the fact that he is the ranking Republican on that panel.
Last summer, Congressman Joe Barton, R-Texas, called Barack Obama's $20 billion shakedown of BP for "damages" to businesses along the Gulf Coast just that — a shakedown. Boehner, Cantor and company were horrified that one of their own had told the truth about this radical president. You could hear their panicked cries across the land: "You can't say that! Now go thee and apologize!"
Rep. King, like Barton, is an honest conservative who frequently speaks truth to power. He has served on the House Judiciary Committee since his election in 2002. He has made tough enforcement of immigration laws a cornerstone of his campaigns and of his service to his state and his country. And that is what has landed him in hot water. He's too honest and he's too blunt.
I have known Steve King for the better part of a decade. I worked for him his first two years in Congress. He is a stalwart conservative hero. He backs down from no one. He believes that entering this country illegally makes you a criminal. He believes English should be our official language, and has introduced legislation both in the Congress and in the Iowa State Senate, where he served prior to going to Washington. He is tough and he is honest. He believes the things most Americans believe — and liberals hate him for it.
After the last election, King announced some of the proposals he intended to push as chairman of the subcommittee. They included denying federal funds to sanctuary cities and citizenship to anchor babies. This infuriated the Latino lobby. A group known as Somos Republicans, which claims to represent the interests of Republican Latinos in the Southwest and in parts of the Midwest, wrote a letter to Boehner opposing King's ascendancy and claiming that the Western Iowa congressman has taken "extreme positions" on immigration. They called his rhetoric "inflammatory," saying he had the potential to alienate Latino voters. "Steve King has used defamatory language that is extremely offensive to Hispanics," the group wrote.
Such groups apparently also bullied incoming Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith of Texas into passing King over in favor of Rep. Elton Gallegly, thus relegating King to serve as the subcommittee's vice chair. Although Gallegly enjoys the support of anti-illegal immigration groups, he once sponsored a bill that would have given legal status to agricultural workers.
Roy Beck, president of Numbers USA, which lobbies for tough immigration laws, said of the snub of King, "If this was about trying to muzzle an outspoken member, it is not going to be very effective."
Having once worked for Steve King, I can only smile and agree.
Doug Patton describes himself as a recovering political speechwriter who agrees with himself much more often than not. Now working as a freelance writer, his weekly columns of sage political analysis are published the world over by legions of discerning bloggers, courageous webmasters and open-minded newspaper editors. Astute supporters and inane detractors alike are encouraged to e-mail him with their pithy comments at email@example.com