About Me

Name:Lady Logician
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Coleen Rowley on WCCO

Posted by Lady Logician on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:42:51 AM
 
I haven't gotten an chance to post on this as I have been busy with my own fair related business. Coleen Rowley and Congressman John Kline engaged in a couple of debates at the Great Minnesota Get Together (aka the State Fair) on Friday. The first was an interview that melded into the debate on WCCO's Jack Rice show. Below are some notes and comments from that interview/debate.

When introduced as a "whistleblower" by Mr. Rice, Ms. Rowley said that she prefered being called a "stickler for the truth" (ed holy cow - talk about hubris!) She said that the word "policy" (in describing this country's Iraq policy) is "too good of a term" - stating that what we are doing now is not a working policy. She said that she agreed with Congressman Murtha's plan to "re-deploy" our troops out of Iraq. She said that the current "lack of a plan" in Iraq is not working and she also accused the President of "not leveling" with the American people when it comes to Iraq and our lack of progress over there.

She was asked if she found herself having to figure out who her opponent was. She said that she was the "true Conservative" in the race and that she is seeing more and more "reformed Republicans - like those that Nick Coleman wrote about in his screed last week. My question to her is this - would a true Conservative quote Common Cause (see below)?

She was the asked if they (the Republicans) are the party of "small government", what are you? She didn't answer the question directly - she just went on to attack the special interests that seeem to "control" the Republican party (Mr. Rice interjected here that the Democrats have their own special interest groups "). Coleen answered that yeah that is true but because the Republicans are in power, it is "their problem" (HUH?????) When asked how SHE would fix the problem, she said that she pledged to propose much stronger ethic reform. She admitted that she needed a lot more Dems to sign on to it with her in order to get it passed. She said that we needed "good, common sense reform" such as proposed by Common Cause.

Jumping to National Defense (and the actual debate portion of the program) Ms. Rowley and Congressman Kline was asked about the sectarian violence in Iraq. Ms. Rowley started off slamming the troops by saying "I look at the insurgency as it continues to grow and what I see is them (the troops) doing everything they can but is it enough? How can you stay the course and say it is a good course?" OK - in Ms. Rowley's defense she will say she was slamming the Administration, but in all honestly given the context of the question and her answer, the troops were the ones to get the broadside - in typical Democratic fashion. Congressman Kline's response was much better. He said "The troops are doing a terrific job and morale is high. They are doing a great job. When you say 'stay the course' you imply that there are no tactical changes being made and that is incorrect! The sectarian violence is a problem - this hatred has been building for centuries. The answer to that problem lies in the hands of the new Iraqi government. The key is the Iraqi Army and they have made great progress. The Iraqi Police is not developing as fast, but the Iraqi Army putting a greater presence in these troubled areas will make things better.

Question - "Coleen Rowley, what is the Democratic Party specifically proposing we do? Answer - "I am in the majority now of the people in the country who say that there is no progress in Iraq - that is a no brainer (ed - she has used that phrase a lot in this campaign) One vote did not get us security. Regarding redeployment - I can't go into details that would tke an hour. We need responsible redeployment..." At this point Congressman Kline interjected with "We have seen Marines redeploy to Baghdad and they are making progress. If you sare saying we pull out of the country...you thin it is the wild west now???" Ms. Rowley continued "No one knows how effective this Administration has been in negotiating with the insurgents (ed - more on that little nugget in a separate post). Redeployment is part of the plan." Congressman Kline countered with a question of his own - "You mean redeploy to a neighboring country like Okinawa Japan?" Ms. Rowley answered "I am hoping to get Mr. Murtha here to explain the plan to Mr. Kline so that he can understand it...." Congressman Kline said "that is fine, but I am not running against Congressman Murtha."

Question - just recently 2500 Individual Ready Reserve troops were recalled - a shakey number because it changes. Do we need more troops (in the form of a draft) in order to relieve those that are there now. Congressman Kline "there is no doubt that our military has fewer members. In the 1990's the Army was cut from 16 divisions to 10 (ed - under President Clinton) however, I do not think that a draft is necessary." Ms. Rowley "I think a draft is something we should look at!"

That was the end of the debate time. After that it went into an interview of Congressman Kline (and I got a phone call). I would like to add a couple of thoughts here. First is that Coleen is much more comfortable addressing the issues now (as compared to February when I first heard her speak) however neither the interview nor the debate got off of National Security which is by far the subject she feels most comfortable speaking about. Second was anger - every single one of Ms. Rowley's answers came from anger. She genuinely seemed to be pi$$ed. Congressman Kline, on the other hand, was cordial to both Mr. Rice and Ms. Rowley during the whole debate - no shouting, no harsh words....none of that.

Which leads to one last observation. Mr. Rice asked both candidates what they liked about being on the campaign trail was it "fun". Congressman Kline talked about the parades and how fun it was to get out and meet the people and shake hands and talk to everyone. He admitted that come October, it tends to drag, but it (campaigning) was still fun because he did get to meet so many people. Ms. Rowley's answer was telling. When asked if she found any part of campaigning fun she simply said "No". She went on to add that when she signed on to the FBI she took a vow to protect the country and the Constitution (so did Congressman Kline when he took his Marine oath) and she sees this as an extension of that vow, but there was nothing "fun" about this.

Therein lies the core difference between the two.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Politician on a stick

Posted by Lady Logician on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:00:52 AM
 
That is what Fox 9 News is calling their daily interviews with all of the politicians that are running for state wide office this year.  Today's interviewee was Michele Bachmann who is running for Mark Kennedy's seat in the 6th Congressional District.  Everything you could ever want to know about this race (one of the top 5 highest profile contests in the country) can be found at BachmannvWetterling (another Andy Aplikowski publication).  The interview was unremarkable except for one thing.  Three times during the interview, Alix Kendall (one of the two morning anchors) mentioned "gay marriage" three times including in a question that was designed to attempt to designate Michele as a divisive candidate.  The question was " Given some of the issues you have campaigned on (tax cuts, gay marriage) do you find your support to be cohesive?"  Of course, was Michele's answer. 
 
This kind of question has been normal during the campaign.  The local drive by media is not fond of Michele's advocacy for allowing Minnesotans to vote on a state wide Defense of Marriage Act.
 
If you want to keep an eye on this targeted seat, stop by BVW often.  If you want to help Michele, contact the campaign at her website.  I know that they would love the help.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Diabetes cure promised in a Hatch Administration

Posted by Lady Logician on Monday, August 28, 2006 9:22:56 AM
 
You read me right!  Mike Hatch was just on with Alix Kendall of Fox 9 Morning news.  Most of the interview focused on health care.  AG Hatch came out in support of Universal Health Care stating that "we have universal care in that if you are sick you can go to a hospital and they HAVE to treat you whether you can pay or not".  More on that later.
 
What really got to me was the AG's hyping of stem cell research.  The AG claimed that there would be a "cure for diabetes in 5 years" if we would only fund stem cell research.  Now let's first start with the fact that it is only EMBRYONIC stem cell research that doesn't get federal funding.  Then let's start with the fact that the other types of stem cell research (adult and umbilical cord) are federally funded and are showing more promise.  Let's also talk about the fact that the Ag not only promised a cure for diabetes, but also heart disease and spinal cord damage!  All we need is to do is federally fund embryonic stem cell research!
 
What the AG refuses to take into account (aside from the facts listed above) is that the most recent advances in embryonic stem cell research - the one JUST ANNOUNCED LAST WEEK came from privately funded research!
 
Regarding the comment on Universal Health Care....while the AG is totally correct in that if you are ill and you show up at a hospital, the hospital must treat you regardless of your ability to pay.  He is absolutely correct that we all pay for that anyway - we pay for it in the high rates we pay for our health care!  My mother, for many years, worked at a very affluent hospital in suburban Chicago.  Even the hospital she worked at had to "give" away their services to people who refused to pay.  She saw, first hand, how these costs are passed on to insurance companies and the self insured.  Getting rid of the abuse of this will help bring down medical costs for all of us.  One way to bring this down is to crack down on illegal immigration!  Many Southern California hospitals have CLOSED because they got swampped with people who jump the border just to go to treated for illness and then they go back to Mexico!  Hospitals can not afford to be "forced" to give services away.  Closing these hospitals affected more than just the employees.  When the hopitals closed, the businesses around the hopitals lost business and closed.  Utilities laid off employees because of these business closures.  The state loses tax dollars.  The employees of the hospital (and the surrounding businesses that closed or laid off folks) were spending less since they had less income....like a stone tossed into a still pool - the economic ripples move outward!
 
I honestly don't know which I dispise more.  The absolute pandering that the Dems do to those that are sick, their total distortion of the facts that they choose to cite or their ignoring of the facts that don't suit their predetermined talking points.  Either way, I find their stand on the issue of stem cell research reeks of desperation - desperation to regain power.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

English versus Texan

Posted by Lady Logician on Saturday, August 26, 2006 3:43:48 PM
 
Kathleen Parker is another wonderfully logical lady.  Her recent column was directed at the purveyors of the meme that President Bush is "stupid".
 
"Bush-bashing for sport has never lacked fans in the blogosphere, but questioning the president's intelligence lately has gone mainstream.
Joe Scarborough, former Republican congressman and host of MSNBC's "Scarborough Country,'' recently tossed his beanie into the ring, running a 10-minute segment titled: "Is Bush an 'Idiot'?''
Scarborough wasn't calling Bush an idiot, mind you. He was just quoting that renowned American intellectual, Linda Ronstadt. Recently, Ronstadt had commented on the president's performance while attending an international summit of heads of state.
No wait, my mistake, she made those comments to reporters and audiences while touring in Canada. But never mind. When Ronstadt talks, people listen. Citing other leading American intellectuals -- The Dixie Chicks, Peter, Paul & Mary, and Joan Baez..."
 
This phenomonon is what prompted Laura Ingraham (yet another great logical lady) to pen the book "Shut up and Sing".
 
Lawrence Kudlow takes on the President's "communications shortcomings" in this column on the untold story about our robust economy:
 
"Some conservatives are alleging that the president suffers from an inability to communicate with the American people, and there may be some overrated truth to this."
 
I had the extreme good fortune to see President Bush speak several times during the 2004 campaign.  I found him to be very good at communicating the important issues to the audience.  John Hinderaker also has the same experience.
 
"The conventional wisdom is that Bush is not a very good speaker. But up close, he is a great communicator, in a way that, in my opinion, Ronald Reagan was not. He was by turns instructive, persuasive, and funny. His persona is very much that of the big brother. Above all, he was impassioned. I have never seen a politician speak so evidently from the heart, about big issues--freedom, most of all."
 
Those that do not understand the President blame the President for not making himself "clear" but I think that too many have gotten too used to hearing political double-speak...to the point that when they hear a straight forward speaker, the temptation is to insert meanings that are not there.  A great case in point is the meme that the President said that Saddam was tied to the 9/11 attacks.  He never did say that...he did say that Saddam was tied to TERRORISM.  Now at the time that was said, most people were still dealing with the shock of 9/11.  However that does not erase the reality of the situation.  Saddam did have ties to terrorists who had attacked Americans - most notoriously Abu Nidal the mastermind of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing.  Saddam also played host to Abu Abbas, who took part in the hijacking of the Achille Lauro.
 
I think that Ms. Parker nails the problem in this paragraph.
 
"My theory dovetails with something one of his most acerbic critics, columnist Molly Ivins, once wrote: "George W. Bush sounds like English is his second language.'' That's because it's true. "Washington English'' is a second language for Bush; "Texas English'' is his first."
 
I have several friends from Texas.  They definately do not speak "northern" and most northerners just don't know how to handle them.  Oh sure, they chuckle at some of the quaint phrases that Texans use, but many just don't get Texans and never will.  Which is a pity....my Texan friends are some of the smartest most wonderful people I know.  Loyal to a fault, ready to do battle for a friend if needed.  We need more Texans in the world.  Heaven knows if we had more people like that, this world would be a MUCH better place.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Endorsements

Posted by Lady Logician on Saturday, August 26, 2006 2:44:10 PM
 
Well, well....the timing of this certainly could not have been coincidential, could it?
 
"SILVER SPRING, Md., Aug. 4 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The political action committee of Peace Action, the nation's largest grassroots peace organization, has lent its support to candidates who have consistently supported peace positions, in an election year that is likely to turn on public dissatisfaction with the Iraq war and the generally militarist policies of the Bush Administration.
Topping the list is the endorsement of Ned Lamont, the Connecticut businessman running to unseat three-term Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman. Sen. Lieberman's, a consistent support of Bush policies in Iraq has helped galvanize support for Lamont's rise from little-known underdog to potential victor in next week's primary.
Peace Action PAC also endorsed Senator Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, who expressed his gratitude and appreciation to Peace Action. "I am honored to work with Peace Action in stressing the need for a clear exit strategy from Iraq," Akaka said. "I will continue my efforts in support of Peace Action's mission to establish international peace." Senator Akaka has also aggressively fought the development of new nuclear weapons and supported ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
Other just-announced endorsements from the nation's largest peace group include:
-- Jerry McNerney, Democratic Nominee for California's 11th Congressional District against U.S. Rep. Richard Pombo
-- Patricia 'Pan' Godchaux, running in the Republican primary for Michigan's 9th Congressional District against seven term incumbent Joe Knollenberg.
-- Rep. Sherrod Brown, the Democratic nominee for the Senate in Ohio; in the last 3 years Rep. Brown has averaged 95 on the Peace Action voting record.
-- Coleen Rowley, challenging John Kline in 2nd district of Minnesota
-- Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), who has averaged 93 percent on the Peace Action voting record over the past two years and is in a tough primary race.
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), who has averaged 90 percent on the Peace Action voting record over the past three years." (emphasis mine)
 
It was exactly 1 year ago that Coleen Rowley and State Senator (and now Gubernatorial Candidate) Becky Lourey went to Crawford TX to join Cindy Sheehan in her protest outside the President's ranch.  It was one year ago that Ms. Rowley started polishing her anti-war credentials. 
 
Note the company that Ms. Rowley is in.  Rep. Cynthia McKinney, Rep. Sherrod Brown, Sen. Robert Byrd all staunchly left and anti-war.  You would think that Ms. Rowley would be proud to be held in such esteemed company and would have the endorsement prominently displayed on her campaign website, wouldn't you?  Well if you did think that, you would be incorrect.  She lists all sorts of endorsements - the NEA, Clean Water Action, the National Women's Campaign Fund, the Council for a Livable World, the Teamsters - but no mention at all about this endorsement.  I wonder why that is? 
 
It is becoming clearer (by the company that she keeps) that Coleen Rowley will toe the line established by the Kos left should she be elected to the US House of Representatives.  It is also becoming clearer why Coleen Rowley is the wrong person for the job.  Hopefully the residents of Minnesota's 2nd Congressional District will see that as well.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Baby bust!

Posted by Lady Logician on Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:13:23 PM
 
I mentioned this theory before, but it came up again.  This time in the Wall Street Journal.
 
"Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today."
 
Now of course, the article does not take into account the "rebellion" factor.  I know more than a few college Republicans who are Republican partly out of rebellion, just as many of their parents became liberal out of rebellion to their parents.  However, are we are seeing with the Junior Logician, politics is partly a learned behavior.  The Junior Logician has, on more than one occasion, argued a conservative point of view on a political issue.  Heck, he has already stated that he WILL be campaigning for Senator Coleman when he is up for re-election in 2006!  However, the liberal indoctrination that he will get in High School and College so who knows what will happen between now and then.
 
Rebellion factor aside, the fact is that the liberals are just not having kids like the conservatives are.  Even if the liberals DID start having 2-4 kids (to catch up with the conservatives) it will take 18 years for those kids to hit the voter rolls.  Either way, this will have an effect on future elections.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What part of the war on terrorism do they support?

Posted by Lady Logician on Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:35:50 PM
 
Love her or hate her, Ann Coulter does bring up a lot of logical points about the ideas and ideals of the left.  She usually has the audacity to ask the question that everyone else is afraid to ask.  This week's column is not different.  What makes this week different is that she finally asks the question that the Democrats are afraid to answer.
 
"What Part of the War on Terrorism Do They Support?"
 
Ms. Coulter is right - time after time the Democrats say that they support the war and support the troops.  Yet time after time, they vote against giving the President, the Intelligence Community and the troops the tools they need to fight the war on terror.
 
Ann lays it out better than I ever could.  Please go read the article NOW!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A-Klo at the fair

Posted by Lady Logician on Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:10:39 AM
 
I was just finishing up the last post listening to Channel 9's morning news when they cut to a shot of Democratic Candidate Amy Klobuchar. Now the guys at KvM have long (and well) covered the lopsided treatment that the local media has given our Senatorial candidates, but I thought I would chime in on this interview.

Tom Butler drew the interviewing duty. He started off welcoming her to the show. Amy talked about her "house" that they just opened there at the fair for people to come get info on the campaign and invited all the viewers to come visit her.

Tom Butler then asked - you and your opponent differ on issues, why should people vote for you?

A- Klo answered "Mark Kennedy has been in Washington for 6 years - we need a change. Gas prices are up, helath care costs are up. We should be helping the middle class and not the wealthy like Paris Hilton" (maybe A-Klo should read my last post and look at her own donor base before she goes down that road).

Tom Butler asked what is your favorite fair food and thing to do.

A-Klo answered favorite food is cheese curds - favorite thing is Princess Kay and the ladies league when ladies knit sweaters from wool shorn from sheep at the fair and then they lead the sheep around in the sweaters they knitted.

Whoa - such biting questions (she snarks). Honestly, most politicians get softballs like this in fair interviews. Mark Kennedy will be on later this week we'll see if that truism holds for him as well. I hope that the KvM boys make sure to cover that.

Oh and AAA - be nice to the media!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I'll take Pot-Pourri for $100 Alex.....

Posted by Lady Logician on Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:19:09 AM
 
Well we certainly couldn't see THIS story coming, could we?
 
"One of the first tests for Washington's new gay civil rights law has an intriguing twist: The complaint was filed by a heterosexual woman. The state's discrimination watchdogs are investigating the case, which claims unmarried straight people should get the same domestic partner benefits as their gay and lesbian co-workers."
 
I won't say that "I" told you so, but a lot of well known conservative pundits DID tell you that this was going to happen!
 
Then there is this newsflash:
 
"Forty-five percent of Americans believe the news media in this country are too liberal, while only 14% say the news media are too conservative. These perceptions of liberal inclination have not changed over the last three years. A majority of Americans who describe their political views as conservative perceive liberal leanings in the media, while only about a third of self-described liberals perceive conservative leanings. "
 
This article says it all (when it comes to the Democrats understanding of basic economics):
 
"One of the most poignant moments in the presidential debates prior to the 2004 election occurred when Sen. John Kerry was pontificating about how he would halt the outsourcing of American jobs overseas.After outlining his approach—which predominantly consisted of giving incentives to American businesses to refrain from such nefarious behavior—Kerry was stopped cold by moderator Charles Gibson. To his everlasting credit, Gibson asked how Kerry could reasonably expect this to be effective when any incentives that could be offered would still pale by comparison to the amount companies would save by paying so much less per worker abroad than American workers would have to receive. To this, Kerry could only sheepishly reply that he never said he’d be able to stop all outsourcing.This exchange largely served to puncture Kerry’s balloon on an issue the Democrats had pinned high hopes on in seeking to derail President Bush’s re-election.This anecdote is highly relevant to numerous issues today in which even an elementary knowledge of economics is all that would be required to discern the folly of very dubious (albeit politically popular) proposals." (emphasis added)
 
Lastly is this.  Remember the cannard about the Republican Party being the party of the "rich"?
 
"In this analysis, we examined only those Fortune 100 companies that operated nonprofit charitable foundations that made grants to groups we identified as on either the political right or left. That reduced the number to 53 corporate foundations. (See page 20.) We examined the most recent tax- return filings for these foundations (IRS Form 990) and compiled the dollar values for grants and matching gifts to left-wing groups and right-wing groups.
The results are the exact opposite of the common perception. The Fortune 100 foundations gave more money to the political left. In fact, the grant-making was lopsided: The political left received nearly $59 million, while the political right received only about $4 million, a ratio of 14.5 to 1. " (emphasis again added)
 
Hmmmmm......that certainly gives one pause for thought, doesn't it?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats or Socialists

Posted by Lady Logician on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:46:25 PM
 
I got this via email this week and was unsourced.
 
"The following is a list of members of congress that also belong to an organization called the Democratic Socialists of America.  Also included are web pages and e-mail addresses for contact, and demand that they stop promoting their socialist agenda in Congress.  For more information about the Democratic Socialists of America, you can go to their web site and find out for yourself what it is all about. The URL is (http://www.dsausa.org) 
     At one time, the following list of members could be located on the DSA web site.  However, Once this list was made public, The DSA removed the link to the Web page that listed the following members.  Although they removed the link, they did not remove the Web Page.  You can go directly to the Web page that contains the list of names by clicking on this link (http://www.dsausa.org/pc/pc.members.html ).  Now that this is exposed also, I wonder how long it will take them to remove the page altogether?" (emphasis in the original)
 
Well it didn't take long.  Following the link gets you a "404 page not found error".  However, the email lists out some of the Congressional folks involved.
 
"Rep Bernard Sanders (VT-AL), Chair
2202 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
bsanders@hr.house.gov
sanders@igc.apc.org
http://www.house.gov/bernie/

Rep Cynthia A. McKinney (GA-04), Co-Chair
124 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
No e-mail address found
http://www.house.gov/mckinney/
Rep Peter A. DeFazio (OR-04), Co-Chair
2134 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
pdefazio@hr.house.gov
http://www.house.gov/defazio/
Rep Maurice Hinchey (NY-26), Co-Chair
2431 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
hinchey@mail.house.gov
http://www.house.gov/hinchey/
Rep Major Owens (NY-11), Co-Chair
2305 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Major.Owens@Mail.House.Gov"
 
The list went on - a lot of the usual suspects.  One thing that surprised me is that none of our Minnesota delegation was on this list.  One that didn't surprise me though (based on my conversations with my friend Steve Beren) was this one:
 
"Rep James A McDermott (WA-07)
2349 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
No e-mail address found
http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/"
 
Now if you take a look at the voting records of the folks on this list you can certainly understand why the connection is made.  Any socialists piece of legislation that has been brought up on the floor of the House or or the Senate was either proposed by one of the folks on this list or voted one of the names on this list.  Legislation for greater re-distribution of wealth, greater centralized government powers, you name it.  Take a look at the voting records of all of these folks - many of whom are running for re-election and compare it to the stated ideals on the DSA website.  The parallels are there.

Seattle certainly can do better than what they have now.  Good Luck Steve.  Fight the good fight and may November 8 find us all calling you "Congressman-elect".
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The promise of stem cells

Posted by Lady Logician on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:18:13 PM
 
Adult stem cells that is.  I wonder why we don't hear about this kind of stem cell research out of the Red Star and the NY Times?
 
"Ryan Schneider was born in late 1992. He's been through a lot in his young life.
Ryan's mom, Mary, said, "His main means of communication was screaming, pointing and crying...He was so frustrated in his own body -- it was very, very difficult. He just couldn't get his point across. It was…impossible...Last summer, doctors came up with a diagnosis for Ryan's afflictions: cerebral palsy, a brain affliction with no certain cause and no certain cure.
But the Schneiders had saved cells from Ryan's umbilical cord in a special blood bank. Those cells are rich in adult stem cells.... In October, doctors put those cells into Ryan's blood through an IV inserted in the back of his hand...Mary recalled, “after the first week, Ryan said his first sentence to us, and we were shocked. And we were even more shocked -- it was about giving him some food, which was even more shocking -- he ate it all and wanted more!"
 
Now the doctors can't say for sure that Ryan's turn around was because of the adult stem cells or not, but they say that Ryan's recovery is "consistent" with other adult stem cell successes. 
 
One thing that they do seem to be sure of.  There appears to be more potential (and cures) from adult stem cell research.  I wonder why we don't hear more about this?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Whose rights are more guaranted?

Posted by Lady Logician on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:33:50 PM
 
A lot has been said about "rights" lately.  The ACLU has been pushing for the Constitutional rights of NON US citizens.  However there is one right that they have not been talking about.  The Constitutional rights of US citizens to LIFE, liberty and the persuit of happiness. 
 
One right that is no where to be found is the right to aid those that want to kill millions of Americans.
 
"The ACLU says the NSA surveillance program makes it difficult for its attorneys to represent its clients. Especially when your attorneys help fund terrorist groups like Hezbollah...
 
 One of the lesser known plaintiffs in the case, Noel Saleh, attorney for the ACLU's Michigan chapter, said the NSA program made it difficult for him to represent his clients, some of whom the government accuses of terrorist connections.
Saleh has had a number of terrorist clients, such as Ibrahim Parlak, a member of the PKK, the Kurdish Islamic terrorist group on the State Department's terror list, who was found responsible for the deaths of two Turkish border police.

Not to mention Imad Hamad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine member."
 
What about the right to life of the 3000 people killed on September 11, 2001?  Do their rights not matter?  Apparently not to the ACLU.  What about the right to pursue happiness for the families of those that died?  Their happiness died the day that the terrorists flew airplanes into those 3 buildings on that sunny September morning.  What about the rights of US citizens to live in liberty on our own shores?  Apparently the ACLU doesn't care about those rights.
 
"The ACLU seems to have a fondness for attorneys who send money to terrorists or act as couriers for them and an agenda that opposes any activity that protects the American people from those who would kill them. "
 
Yep, this is the organization that claims to be the defenders of OUR Constitutional rights.  Don't you feel better?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Religious Persecution

Posted by Lady Logician on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:01:17 PM
 
Over the last few months, you have heard CAIR warn the Western World that it should not "persecute" Muslims because of the actions of the terrorists. Recently we heard the story of a Muslim pilot who claimed that he was persecuted because he was not allowed to board a flight England because the other passengers were concerned about them. Well for the benefit of these two (and for CAIR), I thought I would give you a couple of examples of REAL persecution.

"Reporters Without Borders today condemned the months of harassment bythe authorities in Qina (near Luxor, in central Egypt) that forced Hala Helmy Botros to close down her blog Aqbat Bela Hodood(Copts Without Borders) about the persecution of the Christian Copticminority, and to stop writing on this subject for other websites.

Botros, 42, who wrote under thepseudonym of Hala El-Masry, is now the target of a judicial investigation and is banned from leaving the country."

It seems to me that not being allowed to board an airplane is mild compared to what this woman is going through. Here is another one:

"Last month, CBN News brought you the story of Abdul Rahman, the Afghan man who was thrown in prison for converting from Islam to Christianity. He has since been released and has left Afghanistan.

But countless other ex-Muslims continue to face persecution--even here in the West."

Hmmmmmm - countless Christians are persecuted by MUSLIMS!!! Yet we are not supposed to persect them for their beliefs....does anyone beside me see the incongruity in that? ANYBODY?????

Meanwhile the American left (you know, the tolerant ones) not to be outdone has their own method of discriminating and denegrating Christians.

"A slew of new books have emerged with titles like ``American Theocracy,'' and ``Kingdom Coming,'' that tackle the perceived emerging Christocracy, while op-ed-ists opine that right-wing evangelicals are directing foreign policy through the White House. Words like ``theocrats'' and ``American Taliban'' have become commonplace in describing those who fill televangelism's La-Z-Boys. "

Kathleen Parker is one of the wonderful logical ladies that I love to read and highlight here.

"Doubtless (Pastor John) Hagee holds his audiences in thrall, but that audience does not happen to include George W. Bush or even (cue thunderclouds) Karl Rove. Nor millions of other Christians. Despite what the anti-Christianists seem to believe, the evangelical movement is not monolithic on such issues and Hagee doesn't have an office in the State Department. "

That is what I am talking about. The anti-Christian left will tell you that Evangelical Christians, like you humble author, are h*ll bent on bringing about the second coming of Christ. The conspiracy minded will tell you that the Zionists (which is a code word for Jews and their Evangelical supporters) are willing to sacrifice all in order to bring about their version of "heaven on earth" (sound familiar?). As Ms. Parker points out, there is one little problem with that theory.

"Although both groups may be ``true believers,'' those who try to connect the dots of Christian belief, specifically evangelical Christianity, to Islamism seem willing to overlook the fact that Islamists praise Allah and fly airplanes into buildings while Christianists praise Jesus and pass the mustard.

And though both groups of people may use scripture to shape their approach to the public square, Islamist interpretation of doctrine permits religious expression through suicide-murder, beheadings, public stonings (preferably of women) and Jew-hating, while Christianist doctrine deals in such wimpy notions as forgiveness, tolerance, redemption and cheek-turning."

Yeah - that is a big difference between the two. Something that those suffering from BDS will never be able to see until the day they remove the blinders of hatred.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Duck and dodge - cut and run

Posted by Lady Logician on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:26:46 AM
 
I recently received a press release for a Congressional candidate from Seattle .  This candidate happens to be a friend of mine which is why I got the press release.  In the release is below:
 
 Beren: McDermott weak on terrorism and avoiding debate
Steve Beren for Congress (WA - 7th C.D.)  www.berenforcongress.com
 
Britain has successfully broken up a terrorist plot to blow up planes flying to the United States. The uncovering of this plot drives home the fact that we are a nation at war with Islamic fascism. But Jim McDermott and the Democratic Party are weak on national security, with a pre-9/11 mentality. They don't have a clue how to fight terrorism. McDermott opposes the terrorist wiretapping program and the Patriot Act - precisely the tools we need to continue successfully disrupting the enemy's plans.
 
I am sick and tired of hearing Jim McDermott say this is a so-called war, that this is a so-called threat, that this is so-called terrorism, that it's all hype.
 
The war is real, the threat of terrorism is real, the effort of Islamic fascists to acquire nuclear weapons is real, the attempt to destroy Israel. National defense, homeland security, protection of our ports, and disruption of the terrorists must remain priorities.
 
McDermott says there is no way we can win the war, and he says we should completely withdraw from Iraq before election day. Such a defeatist approach is not only wrong - it is dangerous. McDermott is entitled to his opinion, but he also needs to be held accountable. He should defend his views in an open forum, and that's why I've challenged him to a series of debates. So far, he has tried to avoid my challenge.
 
But Jim McDermott and I WILL debate! I won't let him be a debate dodger. He can cut and run - but he can't hide!
 
Steve Beren for Congress (WA - 7th CD)
(206) 240-1841
* Lower taxes and limited government
* Protect our ports and borders
* Victory in the war against terrorism
This communication paid for and authorized by Beren for Congress
 
Now, reading this it struck me that there has indeed been little debate so I did some digging.  In the Klobuchar/Bell/Kennedy race, only Ford Bell and Mark Kennedy debated.  Ms. Klobuchar declined to attend all debates.  In the 7th CD, incumbent Collin Peterson was a no show at a debate that included a primary challenger to Peterson, the Republican candidate AND the Constitution Party Candidate.  In the 2nd CD, Coleen Rowley has finally accepted (after many local attempts) an invitation to debate incumbent John Kline.  The debates that she finally accepted were RADIO debates and not live in front of constituent debates!  The same scene is playing out in Minnesota's 6th CD as well.  All over Minnesota (and apparently all over the country if my friend's campaign is any indication) Democratic candidates for office are engaging in the same tactic that they are advocating for our troops - avoid engaging the enemy at ALL COSTS.  It's the same old cut and run that they advocate for our troops. 
 
If they can't even stand up to defend what they believe in a debate format, how are they going to defend the country if (God forbid) we are ever attacked again!  The choice is becoming clearer by the minute.  If the Democrats can't even stand up for their "firmly held beliefs" how are they going to stand up for the country?
 
I would be very interested in hearing of any similar situations out there. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats vs Wal-Mart

Posted by Lady Logician on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 8:37:17 AM
 
What do you do with a company that employes over 1 million Americans and makes $316 billion in revenue?  If you are a Democrat, you turn them into a campaign target. 
 
"DES MOINES, Aug. 16 — Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, a likely Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, delivered a 15-minute, blistering attack to warm applause from Democrats and union organizers here on Wednesday. But Mr. Biden’s main target was not Republicans in Washington, or even his prospective presidential rivals.

It was Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer."
 
Forget Islamic terrorists, Wal-Mart is apparently the largest single threat to American safety!  Instead of focusing on the danger that terrorists they cater to unions.
 
Never mind the fact that Wal-Mart makes life better for the middle class by making more products available at a more affordable price.  Never mind the fact that many of Wal-Mart's employees are the very voters that the Democrats say they are reaching out to.  Never mind the fact that many of Wal-Mart's shopers are the same "values voters" that the Democrats  are trying to court!    Instead, focus on the fact that Wal-Mart doesn't "provide benefits" - never mind the fact that most Wal-Mart employees are PART TIME employees and companies are not required to give full time benefits to part time employees.  Never mind that over 10 million Americans shopped at Wal-Mart on the Friday after Thanksgiving last year.
 
Yep - that is a winning strategy.....
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12…5354555657585960616263Next »