Saturday, April 30, 2011

Obama and the Keystone State

We thought the following Real Clear Politics article by Tom Bevan about the President's situation in Pennsylvania was worth re-printing here. It says something about what a key presidential state is thinking about Obama. Sadly, if you read the last sentence of the article it says something about the current crop of Republican presidential-want-to-bees.

Obama Job Rating Hits New Low in Pennsylvania
By Tom Bevan

"As President Obama gears up for his 2012 re-election bid, a new poll of voters in Pennsylvania presents some ominous warning signs for the president. A Quinnipac University poll of 1,366 registered Pennsylvania voters conducted last week shows Obama's job approval rating slipping to just 42 percent, an all time low, while 53 percent disapprove of the way the president is handling his job.

The finding represents a sharp decline in the president's standing in the Keystone State. Quinnipiac's last poll in Pennsylvania, taken just nine weeks ago in mid-February, showed 51 percent of voters approved of the job the President Obama is doing, while 44 percent disapproved.

Perhaps even more concerning to Obama's campaign team is that for the first time a majority of Pennsylvania voters say President Obama does not deserve another term in the White House. Fifity two percent of voters -- including 56 percent of independents -- say Obama does not deserve re-election, while just 42 percent believe he does.

In 2008, Obama carried Pennsylvania by a comfortable 11-point margin over John McCain, 55 to 44.

Pennsylvania voters appear particularly weary of America's military engagements. Sixty four percent said we "should not be involved" in the war in Afghanistan, while an even larger majority -- 68 percent -- said the same thing about our engagement in Libya.

Additionally, 52 percent of those surveyed said Congress should "try and repeal the new health care law," while 40 percent responded Congress should "let it stand."

Lastly, Obama trails a generic Republican candidate by one point, 41 to 40, in a hypothetical 2012 match up in the Keystone State.

Peter Brown, Assistant Director of the Quinnipiac poll, said that President Obama can "take solace from his ability to run a dead heat with a generic Republican despite his current standing with the Pennsylvania public." But, Brown added, "Perhaps this says as much about the popular view of the Republican field.”

Tom Bevan is the co-founder and Executive Editor of RealClearPolitics.

Now the World Has Two Supermen

Now that Superman is a citizen of the world it appears he has a lot in common with the U.S.'s own Nobel Laureate Prince of Peace President of the World of Equal Nations Commissar Barack Barry Soetoro Hussein Obama II. Enough said.

Friday, April 29, 2011

Nelson Now Making Public Service Announcements by Taxpayer Fianced Website

In our 'We Get E-mail' category we overlooked a confusing one we received on Tuesday from Judas Ben Nelson. Of course, the e-mail came courtesy of the U.S. Government and your tax dollars that now finance Ben's fancy looking e-mails to constituents.

We're not sure whether Judas Ben was trying to take credit for a new mobile nursing center being provided by the University of Nebraska Medical Center or whether he was simply using the occasion to share a public service announcement so he could get his name in front of us. He doesn't take credit for an earmark which he normally isn't at all hesitant to do proudly so it must be a public service announcement brought to us courtesy of the U.S. Senate. We have determined, however, that the vehicle was financed by a "$300,000 grant."

What do you think? Here's the text of his self-promotion, oops his e-mail:

"Senator Nelson's E-Update"
April 26, 2011

"This morning I was at the University of Nebraska Medical Center for the ribbon cutting of a new mobile nursing center, an exciting tool that will increase access to care for senior citizens throughout Nebraska.

The 38-foot long RV is equipped with exam rooms and labs and will be staffed by nurses as it travels across our state to do health screenings and provide specialized medical services for seniors. If seniors can't make it to UNMC in Omaha, this mobile clinic will bring UNMC to them!

By making these screening and preventive services more easily available to seniors, we hope it will reduce the need for more serious medical attention down the road.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

And, to make this mobile clinic even better, it will be used as a training tool for UNMC that will hopefully help get more students to specialize in geriatric services and show them the value of serving rural communities.

The mobile clinic will take care of the elderly who otherwise wouldn't have access to these services, and it will help train medical professionals. It is a good investment in the people of Nebraska."

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Nabity and the Alliance for the Private Sector

Seems that a judge has given Dave Nabity two weeks to reveal the sources of his accusations against Fire Union leader Steve LeClair. If Nabity doesn't produce, LeClair's suit against Nabity and the Alliance for the Private sector goes forward because the judge has said Nabity isn't a member of the news media who can refuse to reveal his sources. The judge said further that Nabity was using the accusations to further his political career. Surprise, surprise.

It's a shame that so many Omaha business folks were duped by Nabity into supporting the Alliance for the Private Sector. That organization can have no credibility now and may be financially destroyed by the lawsuit if it goes forward. Regardless, Nabity and his ego have destroyed the credibility of an organization that could have had a favorable impact on Omaha much like Lincoln's LIBA (Lincoln Independent Business Association)organization.

Nabity will likewise destroy any credibility that Citizens For Omaha's Future might have and sadly his failure to accurately disclose its expenditures in his failed attempt to take over the recall campaign is likely to come home to roost soon as well. Again, the same folks that supported Nabity's Alliance are also the same folks that supported Citizens for Omaha's future, again duped by Nabity.

A Hunter's Sunrise -- Dean Cowles

A Hunter's Sunrise
~{In My Woods}~

The distant reverberating gobble

Of the imperial wild turkey

Departing his roost,

Eastern horizon releasing

Its first widening rays

To loosen the obsidian cloak of night,

Incites discordant discourse from passing crows.

I spy them, close and dark as death,

A congregation without discernible formation,

Imprinting slow and measured wingbeats

Against the paling sky,

Implying their persistent progress

Denotes matters of prime considerations,

Unavailable to daylight turkeys.

This, I observe~~interested and unconvinced.

H. Dean Cowles

P.S. H. Dean Cowles is the true Poet Laureate of the Objective Conservative

This Is What Ben Nelson Really Supports

Our former blog on Judas Ben discussed his support of Planned Parenthood of which he is apparently very proud. Well, here is some information about Judas Ben's pals at Planned Parenthood:

In 2009, abortion was a “service” that Planned Parenthood provided to 12 percent of its patients overall, and to 97.6 percent of its patients who reported themselves pregnant. It performed 332,278 abortions in that one year alone. That is an average of 910 abortions each and every day, one ever 95 seconds.

Today, Planned Parenthood performs nearly double the number of abortions it did in 1999. And over the last twelve years — during which the amount of taxpayer funding Planned Parenthood receives has, coincidentally, also doubled — it has dramatically reduced the other pregnancy-related services it provides. In 2009, Planned Parenthood made referrals for only 997 adoptions, in contrast to the 2,999 referrals it made in 1999. Similarly, Planned Parenthood’s clients for prenatal care dropped from 18,878 to only 7,021.

According to its annual reports, this "tax-exempt, nonprofit" has made almost $500 million in profit over the past 10 years.

In its own reports, the organization admits that out of its total services for pregnant women, abortion made up approximately 98 percent!

Judas Ben will continue to lie about his pro-life stance, but he won't fool those who care.

Burn the Republicans

The recent staffing and re-organization changes at the fire department were made by the Mayor and the Fire Chief. The City Council had no input. However, the unions are targeting City Council members Franklin Thompson and Gene Stothert. The Fire Union thugs are walking door to door in Thompson's and Stothert's districts passing out their 'scare literature' to residents. The "Inferno", the Fire Union Local 385's newsletter states that Stothert and Thompson will have blood on their hands as a result of the changes!

If the Mayor had any leadership skills, he would hold a press conference and let the citizens know that he and the Fire Chief made the changes and that he supports them. He would reassure the citizens that they are safe. Instead, he is aware of the union's efforts and has chosen to sit back and let Thompson and Stothert take the blame.

Not surprising, the inept and embarrassing City Council President Garry Gernandt has exercised no leadership to speak to the Mayor about the fire union's unfair accusations.

Apparently, when the unions pick on Republicans, or conservatives,that's okay.

P.S. The only other Republican on the council, Tom Mulligan, is a R.I.N.O. who uses the Republican adjective to cover his liberal Democrat leanings and voting record. He gets no blame and chooses not to stand by Stothert and Thompson.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Double Speak Judas

In our "we get e-mail" category, we have one today from our 'beloved' senior U.S. Nebraska Senator Ben Judas Nelson. Yes, today he tells us that he proudly voted to fund Planned Parenthood which would like to fund video abortion services to six or seven new Nebraska communities why he remains adamantly pro-life.

Judas Ben lost his credentials as a pro-lifer on Christmas Eve of 2009 when he sold out not only the pro-life establishment but also 70% of his constituents by giving his consent to Obamacare. He can try to toss those 30 pieces of silver back or try to reinvent his pro-life credentials, but Nebraskans aren't and won't buy it.

With that said, here's the latest e-mail missive from this two-faced Judas:

"Thank you for contacting me regarding federal funding for Planned Parenthood. I appreciate hearing from you.

Planned Parenthood works to provide primary and preventive health care to thousands of women across Nebraska. The great majority of these services are unrelated to abortion, and include providing contraceptives, pregnancy testing, cervical cancer screening, HIV testing, and prenatal care. An amendment to the Continuing Resolution for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011, H.Con.Res. 36, would have banned federal funding for these services provided by Planned Parenthood. I voted against H.Con.Res. 36; and it failed with bipartisan opposition, by a vote of 42‑58.

I have been pro-life since long before I entered public service, and I agree with the prohibition of federal funding for abortions. That is why I fully support the Hyde Amendment policy, which has banned federal funding of abortions for more than three decades. Because no federal funds are spent on abortions at Planned Parenthood providers, a vote in favor of H.Con.Res. 36 would have been tantamount to saying that the Hyde Amendment does not work; I disagree.

To comply with the Hyde Amendment and other restrictions on Title X funding, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) conducts audits of Title X grantees such as Planned Parenthood to ensure that federal funds are not used for abortion activities. To ensure that this information is easily available to the public, I have co‑sponsored a bill, S. 814, to require audits of each Title X grantee to be posted on the HHS website for public view. In Nebraska, the sole Title X grantee is the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services' Reproductive Health Program. The State then contracts with various Title X delegates, including Planned Parenthood. The State may also decide not to renew a contract with a Title X delegate, including Planned Parenthood.

Thank you again for contacting me with your comments. The legislative process will only work with the input of concerned citizens, and I encourage you to continue sharing your thoughts and ideas."


Ben Nelson
U.S. Senator


It must be a bad day indeed for the failed, egotistical, out-of-touch former Nebraska U.S. Senator and Obama suck-up Chuck Hagel who isn't going to be appointed Secretary of Defense. Yep, according to the news Leon Panetta will get the job.

If you recall Hagel refused to endorse his own friend John McCain for president, hoping that the future Prince of Peace Nobel Laureate President of the World of Equal Nations Barack Barry Soetoro Hussein Obama, II would make him Secretary of State. When Hillary Clinton got that job, the failed Chuckie got an appointment as some kind of advisor to Secretary of Defense Gates no doubt hoping it would lead to his replacing Gates.

Sadly for Hagel, but lucky for us, even Obama is smart enough to know that Hagel is an uncontrollable maverick who can't be trusted to support any one's agenda other than his own. Sadly, for us in Omaha and Nebraska it means that we will continue to experience his infrequent but still too often visits to his so-called home state.

The Birth Certificate Issue

We have not addressed the 'birth certificate' issue because we found no 'rational' reason to believe that our president was a non-citizen, whatever his past non-U.S.A. domiciles were.

We now hope the silliness about the Prince of Peace Nobel Laureate President of the World of Equal Nations Commissar Barack Barry Soetoro Hussein Obama, II's birth is finally over. For those that think that Bill and Hillary Clinton weren't capable of exposing questions about Obama's birth, that the media as biased as it may be wasn't capable of exposing questions about Omaha's birth and that the John McCain, as inept as he was and is, along with the Republican Party wasn't capable of exposing questions about his birth, they must all be ready to move to a cave in hope of somehow avoiding the upcoming destruction of the world given the Mayan calendar.

Let's hope this paranoid distraction recently promoted by an unelectable potential (in his own eyes) presidential candidate, Donald Trump, finally is put to rest. It's a non-issue. Obama is and continues to be president as sad and pathetic as it is.

Shame on Obama for letting this go on as long as it did. Shame on those who exploited the paranoid class by promoting it.

Monday, April 25, 2011

Obama Seems Incapable of Loving America -- Doug Patton

April 25, 2011

Do forty percent of Americans really hate their country, or are they just too self-absorbed, apathetic and/or obtuse to recognize the loathing Barack Obama displays for the United States of America? Forty seems to be the percentage of people, give or take a few, who still express their approval of this president and his policies, in spite of the disdain he shows both for them and their country.

Perhaps American voters have become so cynical they can't hear what their leaders are clearly saying to them. Consider that just prior to the 2008 presidential election, Obama said, "We are just five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." What did he mean by that? How many interpretations could there be for that statement?

Were the voters so starved for leadership that they craved the attention of a community organizer who had never accomplished anything, simply because he told them that they could have things they had never earned, paid for by people they had never met? Or is it possible that Obama's rhetoric was so meaningless that when he said "fundamental transformation," all they heard was "hope and change."

Since that time, we have witnessed hyperbole, gross exaggeration and outright lies from this man on a scale that would make most politicians blush. But every once in a while, as he did in that speech in 2008, Obama shows us who he really is and what he really believes — if we are listening.

Such a moment of startling honesty came recently when Obama delivered what the mainstream media laughingly described as a "response" to Rep. Paul Ryan's common sense budget. What the speech really amounted to, of course, was simply a tired partisan kick-off of his 2012 re-election campaign. In it, Obama again stated his contempt for the nation that has given him so much. Consider this excerpt:

"Part of this American belief that we're all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security and dignity. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff may strike any one of us. 'There but for the grace of God go I,' we say to ourselves. And so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, those with disabilities. We're a better country because of these commitments. I'll go further. We would not be a great country without those commitments."

Really, Mr. Obama? When Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence and risked his life signing it along with the other Founders, were we not a great country? When George Washington led his troops in the freezing cold at Valley Forge, were we not a great country? When James Madison became the father of the U.S. Constitution, were we not a great country? When Abraham Lincoln agonized over the salvation of the Union and the abolition of slavery, were we not a great country?

For the first 189 years of our nation's existence we were not a great country? Is that what you are saying Mr. Obama? Until Franklin Roosevelt pushed through the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security in 1935 and Lyndon Johnson compounded the shell game with Medicare in 1965, we were — what? A mediocre country? An average country? Or perhaps, as your wife expressed during the campaign, we were "a downright mean country." Is that what you really believe about the United States of America? Obviously, it is.

© 2011 by Doug Patton

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

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Easter Crazies

Turning as serious season into insanity seems to be commonplace whether it's Christmas or Easter. Below are some examples from the Catholic League:

Ricky Gervais felt the need to offer a very public "Holiday Message," notifying the world that though he is not a Christian, he is a very Christ-like person. It is revealing that this British atheist couldn't find a single secular humanist to model himself after.

Lady Gaga, who admits to being "confused" about religion, offered more proof of her addled state by choosing to release her single, "Judas," this weekend. It begins with, "I'm in love with Judas."

Third graders at a Seattle school were told they must call Easter Eggs "Spring Spheres," though the kids refused to cooperate.
Adults in Munson Township, Ohio were ordered to call their Easter Egg Hunt the Egg Hunt. Watch for it to be banned next year.
Filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici, who a few years ago entertained us with the hoax about Jesus' tomb, is back again, this time claiming he found two nails used to crucify Jesus. He is looking in vain to find an archaeologist who might believe him.
Evangelist Rob Bell made the cover of Time, and that's because they like his "Happy Meal" approach to Christianity: sin and evil don't exist, just sugar and spice and everything nice.
The History Channel is gifting us with "Jesus: The Lost 40 Days," based on the "lost gospels," not the real ones. Nice to know more weight is given to writings which were penned in the second and third centuries rather than in the first.
On Good Friday, James Frey—the same guy Oprah sized up as a fraud—will introduce his book, The Final Testament of the Holy Bible: he portrays Jesus as an alcoholic who lives in a filthy Bronx apartment, smokes dope, kisses men and impregnates prostitutes. Frey is agnostic on the question of whether Jesus ever worked for the New York Times.

Friday, April 22, 2011

In today's "We get e-mail" category, we received one form our friend, real friends, at Club for Growth. One thing is for sure, the Club For Growth knows a conservative from an impostor and doesn't hesitate to expose a R.I.N.O. impostor.

The media has been hyping one potential would-be G.O.P. pretender to the Republican presidential nomination, Donald Trump. Here is what The Club For Growth has to say about 'the Donald':

"We believe it is part of our job here at the Club for Growth to provide the facts. We let you know who truly believes in free-market principles, who's squishy on the issues, and who's nothing more than a dyed-in-the-wool R.I.N.O.

That's exactly why this week we exposed real estate mogul and potential presidential candidate Donald Trump as nothing more than just another liberal whose policies would sink the economy faster than the ratings of "Celebrity Apprentice."

We demonstrated how:
Trump supported higher taxes, socialized single-payer health care, and extreme protectionism that would kill jobs

Trump supported the awful Supreme Court decision Kelo v. New London which drastically expanded eminent domain abuse and infringed on freedom

Trump supported the government bailout of the car companies"

Sadly, we get this from Gallup today:

"Donald Trump debuts in a first-place tie with Mike Huckabee at 16% in Gallup's latest update on Republicans' 2012 presidential nomination preferences. Mitt Romney is close behind at 13%. Trump is the leader among moderate and liberal Republicans, while Huckabee is first among conservatives."

With candidates like this we'll have to add an additional 1460 days to our Obama countdown (see lower right inset).

I'm from the E.P.A. and I'm here to Help (?)

An announcement was made today that a local firm would be fined $4,000 by the E.P.A. and required to 'donate' $12,000 worth of energy efficient windows to a local charity to settle with the E.P.A.

On that topic we received the newsletter from the Metropolitan Omaha Property Owners Association (M.O.P.O.A.)today and were struck by the part of it concerning an E.P.A. notice to a landlord concerning a 'lead notice' and the failure of the landlord to comply specifically with the regulation. After reading, we wonder why anyone would want to face the threats of the federal government (or local government) by being a landlord.

Here, in part, is the newsletter with the notice:

"Suppose you’ve worked hard and sacrificed for years acquiring a few rental properties to support you during the sunset years. You’ve developed an excellent rapport with your tenants who are paying rent and not complaining, everything is going as planned, until the following notice of violations, threatening a $16,000 fine, arrives from the EPA:

- Failure to disclose prior to obligation under contract to lease target housing, as required by 40 CFR § 745.107(a). Specifically, the disclosure form used was the old version of the Pre-Renovation Education Receipt for the Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home pamphlet. In addition, the form was not signed by the lessor. The proper disclosure form must be completed and signed by all parties prior to the date on which the lessee becomes obligated under contract to lease the housing.

- Failure to provide the lessee with an EPA-approved lead hazard information pamphlet, as required by 40 CFR § 745.107(a)(1). Specifically, the Lessor provided Lessees with the September 2001 version of Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home. However, the current EPA-approved version is the June 2003 edition.

- Failure to include, either on an attachment or within the lease contracts, the “Lead Warning Statement” contained in 40 CFR § 745.113(b)(1), as required by 40 CFR § 745.113(b)(1). No “Lead Warning Statement” was included as an attachment or within the lease contracts.

- Failure to include, either on an attachment or within the lease contracts, a statement by the Lessor disclosing the presence of known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the target housing or indicating no knowledge of the presence of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, as required by 40 CFR § 745.113(b)(2). No statement by the lessor was included.

- Failure to include, either on an attachment or within the lease contracts, a list of any records or reports available to the Lessor pertaining to lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the target housing which were provided to the Lessee or indicating that no such reports or records exist, as required by 40 CFR § 745.113(b)(3). No information on reports or records, or information that no such reports or records exist, was included as an attachment or within the lease.

- Failure to include, either on an attachment or within the lease contract, the dated signatures of the Lessor, Agent and Lessee certifying to the accuracy of their statements, as required by 40 CFR § 745.113(b)(6). Specifically, the Lessor did not sign and date disclosure forms.

When one of our members recently received this notice regarding her properties, I wondered how an individual could possibly be expected to comply with all these regulations. Is it really about lead, or is there another agenda at work, such as destroying the concept of self-sufficiency? Who is making money from the lead hysteria game? How could a moral government attack its law abiding citizens this way? Private property rights are at stake."

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Another Non-starter G.O.P. Candidate

Well, if "the Donald" can claim to be a serious G.O.P. presidential candidate there is probably no reason a libertarian who is against our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq and wants to legalize marijuana can't claim to be a serious candidate as well. Such is the case of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson who skipped forming an exploratory committee and launched his campaign for the G.O.P. presidential nomination yesterday.

Some Republicans, when looking at some 15-20 potential candidates now in the mix, will recall the seven dwarfs of 1992 running against George Herbert Walker Bush and claim that if a Bill Clinton could win against him than certainly many of the 15-20 stand a chance. They are wrong. Clinton won because of a broken promise by Bush ("Read my Lips") and a guy name Ross Perot.

We continue to assert that the G.O.P. needs a CREDIBLE, ELECTABLE candidate if it stands a chance of defeating Obama in 2012. With the exception of two or three of the 15-20 looking at the race the party would be just as likely to defeat Obama with a resurrected John McCain or Bob Dole.

Hopefully, Republican primary voters will come to their senses and send most of this score of unelectables back to their keepers soon.

Good Riddance to a Bad Republican

If you haven't heard, U.S. Senator John Ensign of Nevada has said he will resign on May 3rd. Ensign is just another ego-centric out-of-control elected official who should have been kicked out of the U.S. Senate two years ago when his affair with the wife of his chief of staff became public and when his parents tried to bribe the family.

Here is what Ensign said in his press release:

“While I stand behind my firm belief that I have not violated any law, rule, or standard of conduct of the Senate, and I have fought to prove this publicly, I will not continue to subject my family, my constituents, or the Senate to any further rounds of investigation, depositions, drawn out proceedings, or especially public hearings,” Ensign said. “For my family and me, this continued personal cost is simply too great.”

IF this guy cared about his constituents and his family he would never have done what he did. He's just another politician who became corrupt by his presumed political power.

Some of our detractors claim that we shouldn't be unkind to Republicans, but when they smell and when they corrupt or potentially corrupt the image of what the G.O.P. should stand for we'll tell it like it is.

Hopefully, Ensign's early resignation will end up giving a capable and moral Republican a heads up in what could very well be a tough election in 2012 to retain the seat.

2012 Still A Long Way From Victory for Republicans

We've continued to assert that the Republican Party needs to have a credible candidate in 2012 if it wants to win the presidency. So far, the only ones we've actually seen that might fall into that category and the category of being electable are Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels and Mitt Romney. We're not greatly excited by them.

With that said, you might take a look at Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball this week (click on in "Links" on below left). Here is his analysis:

"With 18 months to go until November 2012, there is exactly one use for a current projection of the 2012 Electoral College results. This is merely a baseline from which we can judge more reliable projections made closer to the election. Where did we start--before we knew the identity of the Republican nominee for president, the state of the economy in fall 2012 and many other critical facts?

....If you INCLUDE the “Leans” states with the “Likely” and “Safe,” the numbers are as follows:

247 Democratic EVs
180 Republican EVs
111 Undecided

If you DO NOT INCLUDE the “Leans” states, i.e., just counting “Likely” and “Safe,” the numbers are as follows:

196 Democratic EVs
170 Republican EVs
172 Undecided

With 270 needed for election, our Democratic readers will prefer the first tally, and our Republican readers the second. Indulge yourselves! As heated as the campaign will get, let’s remember to have fun along the way."

Steve King Will Be Challenged: Battle Between Left and Right

In a "Role Call" article by Shira Toeplitz, "Christie Vilsack Moves Toward King Challenge" we're told that Chistie Vilsak is moving toward challenging Congressman Steve King. This has obviously been in the works for a long time although Vilsack has now formed an exploratory committee. With the Democrats so gleeful and the the Club for Growth countering them this will be an interesting match-up. In the end we only hope the folks of Iowa's new 4th Congressional District have the smarts to keep Steve King. America needs to hear his voice.

According to Roll Call, "Less than 24 hours after Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R) signed off on the state’s redistricting plan, Christie Vilsack (D) announced she's exploring a campaign in the redrawn 4th district — taking the first step of an expected candidacy."

"... Input from fellow Iowans will help me make the best decision and will give our state a campaign focused on collaboration and results, encouraging a new way to do business in Washington.”

"The contest between Vilsack, the wife of former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D), and Rep. Steve King, a conservative five-term Republican, sets up a clash of political titans in northwest Iowa and a race that will likely draw a great deal of interest and dollars from national groups.

"Over the past week, national Democrats have been giddy about Vilsack’s potential candidacy in the new 4th district, which they argue is more competitive than the territory King previously represented. On Tuesday morning, EMILY’s List President Stephanie Schriock told Roll Call, “We are thrilled that she’s looking at that and planning to have many conversations with her as well.”

"Minutes after Vilsack’s announcement, the conservative, anti-tax Club for Growth released a statement emphasizing its support for King, an early indication that the deep-pocketed group will likely spend to support the Congressman.

"Steve King has consistently stood up for the principles of economic freedom that create jobs and opportunity for Iowans. The people of Iowa are lucky to have him representing them in Congress,” Club for Growth President Chris Chocola said."

Getting Serious about the National Debt and the Deficit

We may tarnish our conservative credentials by sharing Stu Rothenberg's column here, but unfortunately we believe he is correct. No, we're not talking about taxing the rich, but we are suggesting that if we are to leave our children and grandchildren something other than a third-world country we need to address annual deficits and the national debt. So, we plead guilty in agreeing with Rothenberg on much of what he says:

"Obama, GOP Not Serious About Deficit Deal" from "The Rothenberg Political Report"

"After watching President Barack Obama’s response to Congressional Republicans’ proposals for cutting the federal deficit, it’s awfully hard to credit either side with being serious about finding a viable legislative compromise.

In his speech on fiscal policy at George Washington University on Wednesday, the president talked about the need to reduce the federal deficit by cutting spending and raising taxes, placing most of the blame for the deficit on his predecessor, President George W. Bush.

But Obama used the words “raising taxes” only once in a speech that ran more than 5,700 words. And when he used it, it was in the context of referring to Republicans who argue “we should not even consider ever — ever — raising taxes, even if only on the wealthiest Americans.”

Instead, the president repeatedly used odd and misleading constructions such as “reduce spending in the tax code,” “tax expenditures,” “spending on things like itemized deductions,” “reducing tax expenditures” and “more spending reductions in the tax code” when he talked about the need to raise additional revenue through taxes.

Maybe that is why I was so surprised to see Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr. write appreciatively the next day that Obama “was willing to speak plainly about raising taxes.” Plainly? Not unless you come from Planet Bureaucratic Double-Talk.

If the president believes that raising taxes is an important part of the discussion to close the federal deficit — and he and many others certainly do — then shouldn’t we expect him to talk plainly about doing so instead of resorting to euphemisms or political mumbo-jumbo?

When Obama talked about health care and entitlements in his speech, he did so by tossing around platitudes and generalities.

He said he would “build” on the new health care law by reducing “wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments” and by demanding “more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid.” Right about now a red light should be flashing, and a buzzer sounding in your head.

Obama promised to “slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission ... [that] will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services that seniors need.” In other words, he’ll punt.

But his comments about Medicare and Medicaid seemed detailed and complicated compared to his proposals on Social Security. The 98-word paragraph he devoted to Social Security was simply a restatement of the need for bipartisan cooperation to strengthen the program.

The president deserves credit for understanding the seriousness of the deficit and debt threat facing the country, but he hasn’t shown the kind of leadership that presidents need to show. Until he does, it’s hard to believe that he’s serious about addressing the problem.

Congressional Republicans also appreciate the problem, and House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has offered a more dramatic, detailed solution.

But many Republicans don’t seem to understand the nature of compromise necessary in a presidential system where power is divided between the two political parties.

Too many Republicans insist that any tax increases are off the table. “Americans are not under-taxed,” they argue, “the government spends too much.”

Maybe that’s true, and maybe it isn’t. But it really doesn’t matter, since that’s not the issue.

The issue is whether most Congressional Republicans understand that ruling out any and all means for generating additional revenue — we call that “raising taxes” on this planet — makes it impossible to arrive at a compromise with Democrats, who have very different views of the role of government and who hold both the Senate and the White House.

For Democrats, raising taxes to produce additional revenue is preferable to many spending cuts.

Whether Republican Members of Congress agree with them is irrelevant. The nature of our system requires legislators to support spending and some policies that they don’t necessarily like. It’s the art of the deal.

For Republicans to refuse to consider an entire strategy for dealing with the deficit and debt precludes any kind of compromise — and any kind of deal, at least until they hold the White House, a House majority and at least 60 seats in the Senate.

Unless they are willing to negotiate with the president and Congressional Democrats, Republicans aren’t serious about attacking the deficit.

I should add that some Congressional Republicans are serious. Senators such as Tom Coburn (Okla.) and Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), neither of whom are on the 2012 ballot, understand that everything has to be on the table — even alternatives they really don’t like — if they are to have any chance of arriving at an agreement with Democrats.

The president needs to show a lot more leadership and Congressional Republicans need to show a lot more flexibility to tackle this problem.

Only when both the folks on the uncompromising left and the uncompromising right start to scream bloody murder will you know that the two parties are serious about getting the nation back on a firm financial footing."

We have another in our 'we get e-mail' category from Judas Ben Nelson courtesy of his government sponsored website. In this one he brags about his $1.7 million earmark to UNL for it Space and Telecommunications Law Program. Yep, Judas certainly brings home the bacon.

"Gen. C. Robert Kehler, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), told students in UNL's Space and Telecommunications Law program that they can have a role in shaping the future of national security.

In a speech yesterday, Gen. Kehler noted the success of the program and its relevance to STRATCOM's mission.

In an article in today's Lincoln Journal Star, Gen. Kehler is quoted saying the Internet and modern information technology are inherently vulnerable and that means "there is potential danger to our country's critical infrastructure."

He said, "I'm not looking to redefine the constitutional role of the military," but that he wants answers about the military's responsibilities to protect national security from cyberspace threats "without trampling on people's civil liberties. ... Where do you draw the line where the military should act and where it should not act?"

Gen. Kehler added that UNL's Space and Telecommunications Law program can be very helpful in this arena. "This program is doing exactly what we hoped it would do," he said.

I'm proud to say that UNL launched the program with $1.7 million I requested and secured for it in December 2007. It was the first and only space and telecommunications law program in the country when it launched in 2008."

Now, we also failed to acknowledge Judas' earlier e-mail this week on the Omaha Veterans Hospital where he told us how happy he was about the announcement of the initial plans for the new hospital. While it is needed and while he didn't use his government sponsored website to take credit for it, he will. Just wait.

"Today, the U.S. Veterans Administration released the first schematic designs for the new Omaha Veterans Affairs Medical Center. These aren't the final blueprints for the new hospital, but they are an exciting step forward for the facility that will replace most of the aging building which now serves more than 50,000 veterans from Nebraska and Iowa each year.

The current VA hospital in Omaha was built in 1957 and faces serious structural problems, including heating and cooling systems, roof, windows and elevators that all need to be replaced. The operating rooms are not big enough, and the overall building is 40 percent too small to meet the needs of our growing population of veterans.

There is a good story on the renovations in today's Omaha World Herald:

This new VA hospital is one of the reasons it was so important for Congress to finally agree on a budget. Getting a budget passed was vital to ensuring that funding for the Omaha VA stays on track. Each step we take toward completion is good news for our veterans.

Dr. Robert Petzel, the Undersecretary for Health at the VA, said that when the hospital is completed, "we will have a state of the art facility, state of the art intensive care unit, state of the art operating rooms. We will be able to operate this facility much more efficiently than we are able to operate the Omaha facility now, and do a better job accommodating the needs of veterans."

Only Don Stenberg

In our 'we get e-mail' category we got one from Don Stenberg today. Only Don would send out an e-mail wishing supporters a Happy Easter while asking them for money (we hope).

"Dear Friends,

Sue and I would like to wish each of you a very blessed Easter and thank you for your support these past few weeks as we've begun our task to take back America and defeat Ben Nelson for the U.S. Senate. Please take a moment to catch up on our latest news and send a message to Sen. Jim DeMint to help elect a genuine, lifelong conservative in Nebraska. Also please consider making a financial contribution to our campaign – your gift of $250, $100, or $50 will help get our campaign started. Finally, please forward this note to all your friends and family"

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Beltway Elitists Mock Trump at Thier Peril - Doug Patton

April 18, 2011

I remember when Ross Perot announced his intention to run for President of the United States. All many people knew about him was that he was a diminutive, self-made billionaire from Texas who had fought for American POWs who had been left in North Vietnamese prison camps.

Before it was all over, the man revealed himself to be a paranoid eccentric who imagined elaborate government plots against him and his family. But in the beginning, he seemed like a patriot and a maverick and a viable alternative to incumbent President George H.W. Bush. Between the two of them, Bush and Perot handed the presidency to Bill Clinton in 1992.

Fast-forward twenty years and another billionaire businessman is making a lot of noise about running for president. That candidate, of course, is Donald Trump. Flamboyant, egotistical, and completely full of himself, The Donald, as he has come to be known over the decades he has been in the public eye, is capturing the fascination of enough voters to send the chattering classes into an utter panic.

Entrenched government types and media pundits alike are at a complete loss to explain the phenomenon of Donald Trump as a potential presidential candidate. Safe within their cocoon in the Washington Beltway, they view the world through rose colored glasses. They live in a universe where no one ever has to pay for the things our government gives away — and when they are challenged on this ridiculous presumption, they simply repeat the same tired mantra liberals have been parroting for the last 100 years: "Tax the rich!" As a result, they are reduced to trying to marginalize someone like Trump, just as they did last year with U.S. Senate candidates Sharron Angle (Nevada) and Christine O'Donnell (Delaware).

Of course, we expect such attitudes from Democrats and their lackeys in the so-called mainstream media, from whom no reasonable person expects anything close to fairness. Obama political hatchet man and mouthpiece David Plouffe recently scoffed at the idea of a Trump candidacy, saying that the American people would never "hire" this man to be their president.

Unfortunately, too many of the elitists mocking the idea are working on the Fox News Channel. Nationally syndicated columnist and Fox News analyst Charles Krauthammer, for whom I used to have great respect, panned O'Donnell last fall as if she were a moron, rather than a serious candidate for the U.S. Senate, preferring instead liberal RINO Mike Castle, whose election would have created no change in the Washington status quo. Krauthammer recently called Trump "the Al Sharpton of the Republican Party," a reference to the ecclesiastical charlatan who has, over the past decade, displaced Jesse Jackson as the Elmer Gantry of the Black community.

Arrogant former George W. Bush strategy guru Karl Rove, also a Fox News commentator, also berated Christine O'Donnell during last year's Delaware senate race. Rove calls Trump "a joke candidate."

With statements like "I'm a great businessman" and "My message is better than anyone else's," there is no question that the man has an enormous amount of confidence in himself. Maybe that's what people appreciate about him. I do know that Charles Krauthammer, Karl Rove and the rest of Trump's detractors are dead wrong when they announce so smugly that he has made the so-called "birther" issue the centerpiece of his potential campaign. He has attracted a lot of attention with that issue, and there most certainly are those for whom that issue defines their view of Barack Obama; but Trump is also talking about the issues a vast majority of the electorate — especially Republicans — care about: China, the Middle East, OPEC and the U.S. economy.

As I have expressed before, my two favorite candidates are still Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. I don't know if Donald Trump would be a good president. I don't know if he can beat Barack Obama. I don't know if he can win the Republican nomination if he runs. I don't know that I will support him. What I do know is that there is no one else out there who is attracting the fascination of the American people the way this man is. And I know that I would vote for Donald

Trump and sleep like a baby that night as an alternative to Barack Obama.
© 2011 by Doug Patton
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

Unions Gone Wild

If there was ever any more proof of just how crazed unions have become it might be in an event that took place in Scranton, PA recently. The police union filing a grievance because their chief of police made an off-duty arrest! It goes without saying that the Omaha Police Union is quite capable of pursuing an equally stupid suit if given the opportunity.

Here's the full story from the"

Scranton police file grievance after chief makes off-duty arrest
By Steve McConnell (Staff Writer)Published: April 19, 2011

The Scranton police union has filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the city for an off-duty drug arrest made by Police Chief Dan Duffy in March.

The complaint, which was filed with the state Labor Relations Board on April 14, takes issue with the chief arresting a man who was allegedly in possession of marijuana because the chief is not a member of the collective bargaining unit and was "off duty" when the March 20 arrest was made.

"I think it's absurd. I'm not going to turn my head on crime that takes place," Chief Duffy said. "I took the same oath (as a police officer) that everyone else took.

"On my day off and I'm driving around as the police chief, and that's wrong?" he asked.

The complaint states that "the work of apprehending and arresting individuals has been the sole and exclusive province of members of the bargaining unit," and that the city did not inform or negotiate with the union that the chief would be "performing bargaining unit work."

Because of this, the union says the city violated the state Labor Relations Act and the Policemen and Firemen Collective Bargaining Act.

"We're not out to bust his chops," Sgt. Bob Martin, police union president, said. "It's not against the chief. The action is against the city."

Mayor Chris Doherty declined to comment on the matter Monday.

While the chief has been known for several off-duty arrests in the city, the complaint only makes mention of the March 20 incident.

On that day, Chief Duffy said he was not scheduled to work but decided to check on citizen complaints about possible drug activity in a part of West Scranton.

While driving through the area, he arrested a man who had an outstanding bench warrant issued by Lackawanna County Court. The chief also searched the man and allegedly found he possessed a marijuana joint and drug paraphernalia, leading to the man's arrest on drug charges.

Sgt. Martin acknowledged that the chief is "morally and legally obligated" to act if he sees a crime happen and to make an arrest if necessary.

But, the union president said the chief, as member of management, should not actively root out crime or randomly patrol neighborhoods while off duty because it violates union agreements that protect rank-and-file officers' employment. The union is concerned city administrators will have more leverage to lay off police officers because "Chief Duffy will step in" and do the work, Sgt. Martin said.

"It's a perception and it leads to that," he said. "We're threatened with layoffs."

The union is asking an agreement be drawn up about the chief making the arrests.

Chief Duffy said he will not stop patrolling neighborhoods or making arrests if he receives reports from citizens, whether on or off-duty, because of the complaint.

"It's not like I am getting the information and keeping it to myself and playing hero," the chief said. "I will continue to do this. I'm a public servant."

Contact the writer: smcconnell@timesshamrock.comThe arrest in question

On March 20, while not on duty, Scranton Police Chief Dan Duffy decided to take a drive through West Scranton, following up on complaints about drug activity. He saw a man he had arrested before walking on Division Street, according to arrest papers. Chief Duffy ran his name, confirmed there was a bench warrant issued for his arrest, and pulled him over. "I consider myself always on duty," Chief Duffy said at the time.

Ben Nelson Continues to Vote His Liberal Ways

While the National Association of Manufacturers is running radio adds promoting Ben Nelson's stance on E.P.A. regulations, Megavote provided the following vote summary in the last few days:

Fiscal 2011 Health Care Overhaul Funding - Vote Rejected (47-53)

The Senate rejected this enrollment correction resolution that would have blocked funding for the implementation of the health care law in the 2011 fiscal year spending bill. The House adopted the resolution. Both chambers had to pass the resolution for it to be included in the final spending bill.

Sen. Mike Johanns voted YES
Sen. Ben Nelson voted NO

Fiscal 2011 Planned Parenthood Funding - Vote Rejected (42-58)

The Senate rejected this enrollment correction resolution that would have blocked funding for Planned Parenthood in the 2011 fiscal year spending bill. The House adopted the resolution. Both chambers had to pass the resolution for it to be included in the final spending bill.

Sen. Mike Johanns voted YES
Sen. Ben Nelson voted NO

So while Senator Johanns is representing Nebraska by voting against funding Obamacare and more money to Planned Parenthood, Judas Ben Nelson votes to support both. Nebraskans don't need to look much further than this to understand that Judas Ben Nelson has not only sold them out but continues to support the liberal views of Obama/Reid and Pelosi.

Whatever abortive attempts Nelson and others make to improve his image, 2012 should be a 'no-brainer' for conservative Nebraskans.

Has N.A.D.C. Caught up with Nabity and Citizens For Omaha's Future?

It could be that the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission (N.A.D.C.) has caught on to the less than transparent statements by Dave Nabity and his Citizens For Omaha's Future Pac. We have become aware of the fact that Nabity's organization has been questioned by the N.A.D.C on their explanation of expenditures in regard to the Suttle Recall and may be fined for their lack of transparency or obfuscation in its attempt to cover up how they spend funds.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

No More 'No Child Left Behind'

Since we seem to be on the topic of education this week, we thought we'd share with you a article/editorial by Rachel Sheffield, "House Hearings, Senators Push Back against Washington’s Education Overreach" which appeared on the Heritage Foundation's 'Education Notebook'. While this alternative to No Child Left Behind makes much more sense than the current law, we somehow wonder what ever happened to former conservative attempts to just do away with the Department of Education which through its bureaucratic efforts has done nothing to improve education in our country since its inception?

"One-size-fits-all usually ends up meaning “one-size-fits-few.” And education is no exception.

As discussion over the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) heats up, a variety of hearings on Capitol Hill have made clear that Washington should loosen its grip on schools.

During one hearing held just over a week ago by the House Education and Workforce Committee, witnesses testified to the importance of allowing schools to set their own courses to better serve students, instead of being forced to comply with rigid demands set forth by the federal government.

As Janet Barresi, Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction, testified:

“The U.S. Department of Education has issued guidelines that on the surface seem to offer states more flexibility to meet local needs. But there seems to be a disconnect between good intentions at the top level and what actually occurs in practice.”

Gary Amoroso, superintendent of Lakeville Public Schools in Minnesota, pleaded with the committee to seek ways to provide school districts with more flexibility for use of federal funds:

“Reauthorization [of No Child Left Behind] should … allow districts to focus on student-centered needs and to make allocation decisions free of mandatory set-asides. This, in effect, offers local control to educators to make decisions, which truly allow all students to succeed.”

Responding to appeals like these, Senators Jim DeMint (R–SC) and John Cornyn (R–TX) last Thursday introduced their conservative alternative to NCLB: the A-PLUS Act. This legislation allows states to opt out of programs under NCLB, giving states freedom to use education funds in the manner they—not Washington bureaucrats—see fit to meet their students’ needs.

Terry Grier, superintendent of Houston Public Schools, who also testified at the hearing, described how NCLB has hampered his community’s work to improve education at the local level:

“Designing and implementing instructional activities under federal programs is complicated by a myriad of requirements and statutory set-asides, as well as reservations of funds for particular activities. [Elementary and Secondary Education Act] Title I provides the most striking example with the No Child Left Behind [NCLB] statutory set-asides totaling some 56% of the funds depending on how you add them up. … With such a large proportion of statutorily-directed spending since 2001, instructional decision-making at the district and school level for Title I has been exceptionally challenging. …

“There are certainly many of the 588 requirements in just Title I Part A, identified by the Department of Education’s Inspector General in a March 2006 report, [that] could be deleted without damaging the purposes and benefits of the program.”

As legislators continue to debate how to improve education in the United States, it is critical that instead of mandating more costly and time-consuming federal approaches that divert schools’ attention from students, policymakers look to approaches like A-PLUS that give states greater flexibility in how they spend federal education dollars.

As House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R–MN) noted during the hearing:

“If we are going to move forward in education, Washington has to move in a new direction. States and schools should be able to set their own innovative priorities and receive maximum flexibility to advance those priorities.”"

Anothor Broken Obama Promise

Apparently, it's easier to break promises then to keep them-at least if you are the Prince of Peace Nobel Laureate President of the World of Equal Nations Commissar Barack Barry Soetoro Hussein Obama.

In his latest bi-polar display of past promise verses current expedience, he has decided he can write presidential signing statements when he doesn't agree with laws passed by the U.S. Congress. As a candidate, he said, " And I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.” Yet, when signing the recently passed 2011 spending bill Obama did exactly what he said he wouldn't, saying that he would construe the law as not interfering with his presidential prerogatives.

In this case that means that he will retain the right to appoint and pay "czars" contrary to the law since in his opinion the newly passed law is contrary to the well-established authority of the president to oversee and supervise the executive branch. In his statement he says: "Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President’s ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain the views of the appropriate senior advisers violate the separation of powers by undermining the President’s ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Therefore, the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives."

So, just another broken promise to add to so many others.

Obama's Taxing Lies

From last week's Wall Street Journal:

"According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year."
Enough said.

Suttle Talks to N.P.R. on Recalls

For those of you interested in reprising the recent failed effort to recall Mayor Jim Suttle, as orchestrated by Dave Nabity, you might find it interesting to listen to an N.P.R. video interview by Michelle Martin.

In the interview the incompetent Omaha mayor spoke from his own office. We're not sure that speaking about a political recall from a public office is appropriate but so be it. In the interview Suttle claimed that the recall effort was started one hour after his election by a blog titled 'Recall Suttle'. Carrying his allegations to paranoid extremes he said that the blog was linked to his opponent (Hal Daub). He said that the recall was nothing more than a hidden agenda to have a fifth quarter in a football game, a do-over. All of this he apparently attributes to Daub rather than perhaps more correctly to Nabity who formed his Alliance for the Private Sector a month or two after Suttle's election and who basically morphed it and his supporters into a group whose purpose was to elect Nabity as mayor after a successful recall.

In any event, Suttle went on to tell N.P.R. that he is undeterred from his promise to restore the city to financial stability which he claims he has and to create private sector jobs. We don't believe he's done the first (wait until you see his 2012 budget) or shown any significant signs of doing the latter but then he did say it on national radio so it must be true.

For those of you who might wish to listen to the story you can find it at:

Boehner Shows Sense on D.O.M.A. Against a Bi-polar Obama/Pelosi

We're glad to see that Speaker John Boehner is doing what the President and his Justice Department are refusing to do - Defending the laws of the United States as enacted by the U.S. Congress. As you recall, the Congress passed D.O.M.A. (Defense of Marriage Act) during the Clinton presidency.

Now that D.O.M.A. is being challenged in court the president has decided that its a law not worth defending. Would that it were just a flip of a coin that were making these capricious decisions, but it isn't. In fact, it's very interesting that this president who won't defend D.O.M.A. in court and doesn't want to enforce that law is so quick to refuse to abide by court orders saying Obamacare is illegal. In the latter case he continues to spend dollars to enforce it.

This is a president who does what is politically and personally expedient:

He doesn't enforce the laws unless they are what he wants in which case he doesn't allow court findings to stop him.

He votes against raising the national debt for his expedient purposes as a neophyte U.S. Senator but tells us the sky will fall if the Republicans refuse to raise the debt limit.

He sends bombers into a country (Libya) that has not provoked us after demonstrating a history of speaking out against such interventions, without gaining the consent of congress. In the latter case, he listens to the French (who normally are the first to raise the white flag) who don't want more Muslim refugees coming to their country and who depend on Lybian Oil to tell him he's now not doing enough there.

Getting back to House Speaker John Boehner, he wants Congress to defend D.O.M.A. by
diverting funding from the Justice Department to the U.S. House so Congress can defend the federal law that Justice and the president won't.

In another example of a Democrat bi-polar moment (such as Obama's decision) the lately great-in-her-own-mind Nancy Pelosi is concerned about the cost of the litigation -- this from the woman who had to commandeer her own 737 to fly her highness about the country while speaker. This from a woman who apparently doesn't understand that the money is fungible whether it's in the Justice Department budget or transferred to the House Legal Advisory Group to do the same thing. Like her great leader, Pelosi is just motivated by what is politically and personally expedient, not by the law.

According to U.S.A. Today, "Boehner said he has directed the House's counsel and the House Administration Committee to ensure that there are "sufficient resources" and expertise to defend the law. Paul Clement, a former solicitor general for President George W. Bush, has been retained by Boehner and the Republicans to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, according to news reports." Good for Boehner!

Monday, April 18, 2011

Teaching Gay History

Since we've been talking about radical Nebraska and California teachers, we might just as well include the radical California lawmakers who now want to include 'gay history' in the public school curriculum.

Here's what we learn from the Associated Press:

"Calif. May Require Gay History Lessons
Sunday, 17 Apr 2011 11:21 AM

Calif. - The state Senate has approved legislation that would require California's public schools to include gay history in social studies lessons.

Supporters say the move is needed to counter anti-gay stereotypes and beliefs that make gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender children vulnerable to bullying and suicide.

Opponents said it would burden an already crowded curriculum and expose students to a subject that some parents find objectionable.

The bill, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Mark Leno of San Francisco, passed Thursday on a 23-14 vote. The measure now goes to the Assembly.

It leaves it up to local school districts to decide what to include in the lessons and at what grade students would receive them."

Desperate Unions

In our prior post (Radical Proposals by Nebraska Teachers) we talked about the radical proposals made by Nebraska educators this last weekend. After doing so we came across a Wall Street Journal article, ‏"When Unions Get Desperate", by Allysia Finley discussing an approach that the radical California Teachers Association is proposing to raise taxes and coerce its own legislature to enact, even if it's done illegally.

One can't help but equate some of what they are doing with what we're seeing here in Nebraska based on the suggestions made last weekend.

Here's what the Journal article said:

"There haven't been any major earthquakes or wildfires in California recently, but teachers apparently think that the potential budget cuts to education merit a "State of Emergency Week."

The California Teachers Association, the state's largest teachers union, is planning a week of activities in May. The goal is to pressure Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown and the state legislature to raise taxes rather than cut education spending.

Earlier this week the union posted a 10-page list of potential activities on its website, Ideas included stalking legislators for a day; boycotting corporations like Microsoft that advocate for education reform; attempting to close down major roads; dying their hair red; holding night-time vigils with coffins and black arm-bands; picketing companies; and withdrawing funds from banks that "are not paying their fair share of taxes." They also planned to work with Ben & Jerry's to create a "labor-union flavored ice cream."

Apparently, the union didn't realize that documents posted to the Internet are available for public consumption. Once the CTA heard that the list was bouncing around blogs, it was removed. Soon, a new three-page list appeared that omits many of their more ludicrous and heavy-handed ideas but still includes plans to use students as props. Instead of bullying and boycotting businesses, the union now intends to meet with local chambers of commerce and to "focus [their protests] on how much money has gone to bail out Wall Street and big corporations."

CTA had hoped to persuade state legislators to put a $12.5 billion extension of tax hikes on the June ballot to help close a $26 billion deficit. The ballot measure required a two-thirds vote of the state legislature and the support of at least four Republicans. Negotiations between Mr. Brown and Republicans over the ballot measure broke down late last month.

The union has since shifted its focus to convincing Democrats to raise taxes without approval from voters or Republicans. Although the state constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature to raise taxes, unions have suggested that Democrats should risk litigation and increase taxes without Republican support. The only other options for Democrats are to resume talks with Republicans or to close the budget deficit with spending cuts. Unions don't want to do the former and won't stand for the latter. That means they'll have to convince Mr. Brown that their interests supersede law and democracy."

Another Reason For Governor Heineman to Say No to LB 357

On Friday we discussed the Mayor's half-cent sales-tax proposal (Just Another Reason for the Governor to Say No to Suttle). Saturday's Douglas Street Rag (a.k.a., Omaha World-Herald) just provided further reinforcement on our opinion that Governor Heineman ought to squash this bill like a bug.

Asked if the city would use the additional tax authority to reduce taxes, City Finance Director Pam Spaccarotella told the rag, "Would we like to reduce property tax? Yes. But we've got a whole lot of problems that we haven't been able to fix. We don't want to end up back in the position we're in."

In other words, give Omaha the new sales tax authority, but don't expect any property tax relief.

Radical Proposals by Nebraska Teachers

According to the Douglas Street Rag (a.k.a., Omaha World-Herald) the teachers across Nebraska "will explore organizing up to five petition drives to protect the interests of education and rights of public employees in Nebraska."

Again, according to the Douglas Street Rag, "Meeting Saturday at the La Vista Conference Center, the Delegate Assemby (sic) of the Nebraska State Education Association unanimously passed a resolution to explore these possible petition drives:

-- A petition to protect the role of the Nebraska Commission of Industrial Relations, the state's labor court, and the right of of employees to collectively bargain.

-- Repeal of "corporate welfare" laws such as Legislative Bill 775, which provides tax incentives for companies that expand and invest.

-- A petition to establish a "millionaire's tax" for those earning $1 million or more.

-- A referendum to repeal any law that diverts money from the state's general fund for road construction, a reference to legislation under consideration by the Legislature.

-- A constitutional amendment to dedicate a percentage of state sales tax revenue to education."

All of this is no more than a reaction to the current debate on the C.I.R. But the resolutions should tell us something about the radical nature of those who are teaching our children and grandchildren and even about what they may be indoctrinating them with.

First of all, they simply want to maintain the status quo under C.I.R. One might ask how their devotion to the status quo has improved education and graduation rates in Nebraska over the last 30 years, but they might not want to answer that question. Strangely, they've tried to say that they benefited very little and very few times from the C.I.R., but now they want to protect the status quo. No doubt, the compelling reason is 'public employee unions'.

Secondly, they want to repeal LB 775 and related tax incentives for businesses. Apparently, the teachers aren't interested in providing jobs here in Nebraska for the kids they seem so concerned about. LB 775 and other jobs incentives have produced tens of thousands of jobs here in Nebraska for kids that would have left the state assuming their education was adequate to qualify. Keeping those kids here in good jobs also provide taxpayers who help pay teacher salaries.

The third potential petition mentioned was a 'millionaire's tax". Maybe they don't realize that Nebraska's income tax structure has already driven many of those millionaires from the state and more taxes would only drive others out with the probable exception of Warren Buffett. What should be even more concerning is the thought that those who are teaching little Johnny are bloviating their class warfare against the rich.

On the fourth potential petition, apparently they haven't listened to Governor Heineman who is trying to protect education and taxpayers against Senator Fischer's earmarked roads bill.

Even more hypocritical, their fifth petition would do exactly what they are against on the roads bill, earmark tax dollars to education.

These resolutions should be of concern to every Nebraskan who has children in the state's public school system--or supports public education with his or her tax dollars. These teachers are simply out of touch with reality. Apparently, their leaders are nothing more than union pawns supported by their automatically deducted union dues.

We don't believe that all teachers across Nebraska are this radical but the sad fact is that their union dues support these kind of radical notions. This is just another reason why those dues shouldn't be deducted automatically from their paychecks.

The World Through JFK and Obama's Eyes

We thought the following column by Arthur Herman of the American Enterprise Institute was a worthwhile read as our great exalted leader the Prince of Peace Nobel Laureate President of the World of Equal Nations Commissar Barack Barry Soetoro Hussein Obama deals with world crises while trying to diminish the notion of American exceptionalism. The editorial appeared in today's New York Post:

When JFK Blinked
The Start of a Tragic US Habit

"On April 16, 1961, the Bay of Pigs was a lonely stretch of water and beach on the southern coast of Cuba. A day later, it was where American sea and air forces landed some 1,400 armed Cuban exiles, as part of President John Kennedy's effort to overthrow dictator Fidel Castro.

Forty-eight hours after that, Kennedy left them stranded on the beach to die or surrender as the invasion collapsed--leaving Cuba to plunge into 50 years of totalitarian darkness.

Half a century later, the Bay of Pigs is still the mother of all American military and foreign-policy disasters. It marks the start of America's bizarre habit of fighting our enemies with one arm pinned firmly behind our back, and dumping our friends when the going gets dicey. It also offers some pungent lessons for our current messes in Libya and Afghanistan.

The plan that April was bold if not exactly straightforward. A CIA-trained army of Cuban exiles was supposed to trigger a popular uprising against Castro's still-shaky regime by landing on Cuban territory and declaring a revolt. The Cubans were told our planes and ships would be on hand to provide any necessary support when they hit the beach on April 17. The CIA and Air Force led the way with prior airstrikes. The aircraft carrier USS Essex and American destroyers circled the Bay of Pigs to cover the landings.

Now the Saudis and Israelis are wondering if they're going to be the next ones left stranded on the beach. So are those Libyan rebels--not to mention President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan.When the exiles ran into tougher-than-expected resistance, however, Kennedy panicked and pulled the plug on the operation, leaving the stranded exiles to their fate. More than 100 were killed, as were four Americans. A triumphant Castro executed hundreds of other resisters, and threw at least 100,000 would-be political opponents in prison.

The long dark night of Communist Cuba had begun.

Before the operation JFK had told his brother Bobby, "I'd rather be an aggressor than a bum." He ended up being both.

And if Kennedy thought abandoning our Cuban allies would save him inconvenience, he was dead wrong. The bungled invasion cemented Castro's ties to the USSR, setting the stage for the nuclear confrontation over missiles on the island the next year--a crisis fueled by Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev's belief that the president who panicked at the Bay of Pigs could be bluffed and rolled.

As for JFK, he was determined not to look weak again. He told his National Security Council advisers he wanted them to find another place where he could safely stand firm against Communism. The place they chose was Vietnam.

Yet the real lessons of the Bay of Pigs were and are clear.

First, it revealed the folly of halfway measures when it comes to using American military force. Time and again, presidents convince themselves otherwise--starting with JFK's successor, Lyndon Johnson, in Vietnam.

Striking at an opponent without intending to annihilate his ability to resist (by either conventional or unconventional means) is like waterskiing without skiis. What seems a way to save trouble and expense and keep our options open, is a formula for getting in over our heads, whether we're talking Cuba and Vietnam or Afghanistan and Libya.

The Bay of Pigs also revealed the folly of allowing international opinion to dictate our strategic choices, including our allies in far-off lands. For the sake of not appearing imperialist, Kennedy betrayed the Cubans we'd recruited, as well as their cause. It's a pattern we've doomed ourselves to repeat ever since. Just ask the Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees who wound up on our shores, or Egypt's Hosni Mubarak.

Now the Saudis and Israelis are wondering if they're going to be the next ones left stranded on the beach. So are those Libyan rebels--not to mention President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan.

The truth behind Henry Kissinger's famous quip that it can be dangerous to be America's enemy but being our friend is fatal, begins with the Bay of Pigs.

Then and later, JFK apologists would blame the whole fiasco on his predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower, who authorized the operation, and on the CIA, who planned and executed it. But the real failure was a president unwilling to commit the full weight of American power to a war undertaken at his behest, for fear it would make him look bad in the eyes of the world.

That's a formula for disaster--as several commanders-in-chief since Kennedy have found. The search for some substitute for victory leads only to defeat--and no memorial is big enough for those we leave behind."

Arthur Herman is a visiting scholar at AEI.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Nelson Raises 'Big Dollars'

Roll Call Reports that Nebraska Senator Ben Judas Nelson raised more than $1 million in the last quarter bringing his total cash on hand to $2.3 million. That sounds impressive but he will need to raise at least $10 million or more to defeat, or attempt to defeat the Republican challenger next year--likely Jon Bruning.

The Nebraska Senate race will be a battleground that will bring in huge sums from both the Democrats trying to defend him and the Republicans trying to defeat him. Regardless of Nelson's war chest it's going to be difficult to posture himself as a Main street Nebraskan when he failed to listen to 70% of his constituents in his Christmas Eve sellout to Obamacare.

Friday, April 15, 2011

Judas Nelson Votes to Kill More Babies

Nebraska U.S. Senator Ben Judas Nelson showed his true colors today in voting to continue funding Planned Parenthood and it's baby killing abortion mills. Nelson has claimed to be pro-life. He claimed to be pro-life when he sold out Nebraskans with his Cornhusker kickback and allowed the president's pro-abortion health care bill to go forward.

Now, at the same time Nelson is trying to re-establish his conservative credentials he turns around and votes with the Senate liberals and Obama to keep funding Planned Parenthood. If you missed it, Planned Parenthood has recently announced that it plans to extend its 'services' to several other communities across Nebraska and Iowa. Hopefully, his action will dispel any belief that he is in any way pro-life although you can be sure he will be trying to convince folks otherwise.

Just Another Reason for the Governor to Say No to Suttle

If the Governor didn't have enough reason to say no to LB 357, the 1/2 cent sales tax increase for Nebraska cities--mainly Omaha--he has more reason after we've heard the results of the Mayor Suttle Restaurant tax. City Finance Director Pam Spaccarotella said yesterday that the city will take in more than $4.3 million in the first quarter from that tax and is on course to take in $20 million for the year. The tax was originally meant to raise about $12 million.

Under the Suttle/Ashford sales tax bill, the city would get $43 million from the tax if approved by the citizens of Omaha. That would be a windfall to Omaha. Suttle says if such a tax were approved by the voters the restaurant tax would go away. In order to satisfy the statute, he'd have to say how the windfall would be spent but he'd tell voters that $20 million would go to replace the restaurant tax and about $7 million would go to replace the wheel tax losses from the out of city citizens over the next couple of years. So he'd probably promise about $16 million in property tax relief.

How long would that property tax relief last given Suttle's spending habits? No doubt in a few years Omahans would be back to increased property taxes and more of the stupid taxes that Chris Jerram seems to be so good at inventing, i.e., satellite taxes and taxes on Omaha workers from other communities.

In the end we'd just be trading one sales tax for another and abetting Suttle's spend-thrift habits.

Ethically Challenged Senator Schumacher -- Will Conflict of Interest Rules Change?

We just received one of Joe Jordan's Nebraska Watchdog updates which in part told us:

"Following an exclusive Nebraska Watchdog report examining conflicts of interest at the State Capitol, Nebraska’s top lawmaker wants to know what other states are doing.

Speaker of the Legislature Mike Flood tells Nebraska Watchdog he’s asking the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), for an up to date detailed report.

According to the NCSL Website as of November, 2009 39 states banned some lawmakers from voting on issues where they have a personal or financial conflict of interest. Nebraska is not one of those 39."

We certainly hope that Speaker Flood gets enough information back to act on such that self-serving politicians like State Senator Paul Schumacher are prohibited at some point in the future from voting on obvious legislation that particularly enriches them.

Senator Schumacher should never be allowed to vote on any gambling legislation but as long as he faces no penalty or prohibition from doing so, he'll vote for his pocket and gambling buddies every time. In fact, if Schumacher weren't ethically challenged he'd recuse himself from doing so but apparently he must have been absent from that ethics class in law school.

In our "We Get E-mail" category we just received one from our own 'Re-Conservavated" Senator Ben Judas Nelson. Yep, he is a true Nebraska Independent who responds to the needs of Nebraska. Well, maybe not the 70% who opposed his Christmas Eve sellout to Obama on healthcare for that infamous Cornhusker Kickback which came with an infusion of more than $600,000 of Democrat funds to restore his image.

Oh well, that was sixteen months ago and Ben is working for us (and himself) promoting conservative ideas like reining in the E.P.A. So, here's what he told us today and we're at least grateful he's right on this issue:

"Thank you for contacting me regarding actions to suspend the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulation of greenhouse gases. You will be pleased to know I have been one of the leaders in this fight.

In the last Congress, I was an original co‑sponsor of S.J.Res. 26, which disapproved of the EPA's rule to regulate greenhouse gases and, unfortunately failed passage by a vote of 47‑53. Most recently, I voted for an amendment, S.Amdt. 183, commonly known as the McConnell amendment, to the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Reauthorization Act, S. 493. I voted for this amendment, which also would have prohibited the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. This latest attempt once again failed by a vote of 50‑50 (60 votes were necessary for passage).

I have heard from many agricultural, industrial, and energy-related businesses and organizations, as well as individuals such as yourself, regarding the negative potential of a top-down government-directed regime on the price of energy in Nebraska. As such, I support legislation to protect Nebraska and our nation's economy from overreaching by the EPA. Please know, I will continue to push for this and other options to ensure that Nebraska's ratepayers, businesses, farmers, and ranchers will not be subjected to costly administrative regulations."