Thursday, January 29, 2009

Tales from a Nanny State


I must preface this by saying that I am not a smoker and never have been. I cant comprehend why people willingly put that crud into their bodies; and pay to do it! But it's their personal decision to do so.

Back in March of 2005 when the smoking ban in Hennepin County went into affect, I had mixed feelings about it. I hate going into a restaurant and having the person across from me light one (or two or three or four) up during my meal. That really ruins my dining experience. But I also realize that I can choose to go somewhere else to enjoy my meal. There are plenty of places around the metro that either have (or should I say 'had') a designated segregated area for smokers, or they elected to ban smoking in their establishment themselves. That is how I believe it should be done. Even with my personal anti-smoking view point, I do not believe that government has any right to tell a private business what their patrons can and can not do inside of their building, short of them committing a crime. And no, smoking is not a crime. You choose to do it to your own body, and even though it affects other people it is not a crime. As a matter of fact, WebMd in a March of 2003 article stated that the British Medical Journal conducted a study in which UCLA School of Public Health Professor James Enstrom PhD, MPH stated "We found no measurable effect from being exposed to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer in nonsmokers -- not at any time or at any level".

But thats not my main point; although my main point has to do with smoking. There is a movement of law makers in St. Paul to further remove more of our rights and liberties that we have come to love from being part of America. Rep. Nora Slawid (D-Maplewood) has introduced a bill in the Minnesota House that would make smoking in a vehicle with a child in it a moving violation, punishable by a ticket starting at $100. Now it's not a "primary violation" meaning thats not what an Officer can initially pull you over for. There has to be another reason such as speeding, a broken tail light etc. Now I am not questioning Representative Slawiks motives here. I am sure she believes she is helping the children as she told KSTP that she's "concerned about the children". But like most Liberals, they tend to find those "emotional issues" that tug on your heart strings to find a way to either take away some more of our rights or take more of your money from you. In this case it's both as there will be fines for smoking with a child in the car. Even though I don't like the thought of a child being subject to second hand smoke, there comes a point where we have to say that the parents have every right to raise their children how they deem proper. The State has absolutely no right to interfere with that unless the child is in imminent danger of injury or death as a result of hte parents actions. And again- no; second hand smoke does not fall into either of those categories. There is a serious infringement on the first section of the 14th amendment going on here if this passes; which you know it will. We have a massive budget deficit in Minnesota, companies are laying off tens of thousands of workers in our State, we share a border with another country and have a port that welcomes ships from across the world bringing us countless National Security threats on a regular basis. But regardless of all of that and more, our law makers in St. Paul are going to spend valuable time debating if there should be a ban on smoking in a private vehicle with a child in it? Why do we continually re elect these people to office? It is time to start waking up and get these clowns out of St. Paul and replace them with people who will recognize and remember how our founding fathers wanted this Country to be run; free of the over reaching hand of Government. That has completely gone by the way side not only in Minnesota, but across this great Country. It's time to take back St. Paul. Give a call or email to Rep. Slawid and tell her to drop the issue of smoking in the car with children in it and focus on the pressing needs of the people in her State and her district and to leave the running of our private lives to-- US!

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Biden gaffes

OK- I have to put this up here in honor of our new Vice President, Joe Biden. I voted for George Bush twice and even worked for his campaign in 2004, and politics aside, he gave us some incredible gaffes and countless hours of YouTube videos that will entertain us forever. But now that Mr. Bush is gone, I think the gaffes will continue ever abundantly with Vice President Biden. This post will bring you some of the best so far. Keep em coming Joe!

The classic- "Stand up Chuck"
Bidens 3 letter word- J-O-B-S?
A good compilation
More Batallions?
Barack AMERICA!!
Obama calls biden the next President
Bidens dig on Indians in 7-11's
YES

Obamaphoria hits Washington DC


Well, here we are! January 20th, 2009. Inauguration day. This is the day that change will start in America; right? There were many many things that stuck out to me today in regards to the inauguration, but I will only touch on a few today. The first is Joe Biden. Even though I think that today was probably the most we will hear from Joe Biden over the next 4 (hopefully only the next 4) years as the Obama administration will most likely keep him secluded in a tightly secured room in the basement of the White House, he has played a silent, but key role in this process. Well, maybe not such a silent role. Remember on August 19th of 2007, George Stephanopoulos in a debate quoted what Biden said back to him; "I think he [Obama] can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The Presidency is not something that lends itself to on the job training". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpjAs4vtc1w&feature=related) In fact Biden actually said on an interview (also seen on that last link) that the country "would be better off" with John McCain (although I am not 100% convinced we heard all of the sentence that was said in. I am looking for the entire interview now). Back on November 1, 2004 Obama himself said he was ruling out a run in 2008 for the Presidency (or any position on a "national ticket") because he really doesn't know what he is doing, and thinks that you need to know what you are doing before applying for a job. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BnLozS-TnM&feature=related) Then 2 years later he announced that he was forming an exploratory committee for the Presidency. So his VP does not think he is qualified. Obama himself doesn't think he is qualified. Then how did he get elected to the office? Well, thats simple. Honestly, the majority of the American people fell for the "hope and change" line that they heard time and time again. But where is it? What change is he bringing? His cabinet and staff positions are filled with ex-Clinton cronies. I think that is is awesome that we just witnessed the first African-American man get sworn in as our President. I am excited to be living in a time where we can see that. But if you were watching the MSNBC coverage of the inauguration, did you hear all the chatter after Obama was done getting sworn in? (In which he along with Roberts completley flubbed the oath) In the background after "Hail to the Chief" had finished playing and the crowd is cheering, you can hear multiple different times a euphoric MSNBC staffer saying "Change has Come" "Change is here". (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/262133.html) Maybe the change they are all talking about can be found in the benediction address by the Rev. Joseph Lowery. (http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=262303) Who says these things in a prayer? "When black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when the red man can get ahead- man and when white will embrace what is right". Are we really still asking the black people to sit in the back of the bus? No- we are not. There are a few Indian reservations around Minnesota, and I see the men from those Reservations driving SUV's that must have cost well over $60,000. They get some tremendous checks from the Casinos every month, so it looks to me like they are getting ahead when they want to just like any of the rest of us. Does Obama really feel this way? I think that remains to be seen. The camera was right on Obama when Lowery said when "White can embrace whats right" and his smile quickly took a down turn. So what are we to expect from this "change"? I think we can expect to see more socialistic ideas come to fruition, higher taxes and a weakened National defense. Now thats not the Change I want to come to America. Stay tuned.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Where does it end?

Hello to you all. I would absolutely love to write a piece on "global warming" today since it is currently -5 and falling outside, but I will leave that for another day.

I came across an article today about an attempt by the National Safety Council to get the government to ban cell phone usage while driving. The following is an email I sent to some of the Executive Management at the National Safety Council which I think explains my feelings on the issue very clearly. Below the email are the addresses of the individuals at the NSC that I sent the email to. I would urge you to do the same.

"Good evening-

This email is to address a story I just read about the NSC's desire for a nation wide ban on cell phone usage in vehicles while driving. (http://www.nsc.org/news/cellphone_ban.aspx) While I believe that the motives behind your desire are good and are also consistent with the NSC's mission, I believe that a ban by the Government on cell phone use while driving is crossing the line. So many of the problems we are facing today result from a direct over-influence of Government in our lives. Our founding fathers were very clear that the role of Government in the lives of the citizens should be minimal. Today there are so many attempts to ban everything that could be a possible danger to us that soon we will have no liberties at all. People die in automobile crashes while they are NOT talking on their cell phones. Should we ban vehicles simply because they are dangerous? How about people who watch television and develop vision problems. Should we ban the television? I don't mean to be sarcastic here, but do you see my point? A governmental ban on cell phone use while driving is not a good idea because the government has no right to infringe on my liberties as set forth by the Constitution and the Amendments to that document. To add laws that restrict so many things would be to move our country back to a form of Government that led our Founding fathers to leave Great Britain and start this great country. Please leave the decision of talking on a cell phone while driving up to us; the individual. If someone causes bodily harm to someone else while talking on a cell phone, they will and should face the consequences for doing so. But unlike someone who drinks and drives and is always impaired by doing so, there are many people who can and do talk on a cell phone while driving and pay very close attention to the road and can drive safely. You can not compare drunk driving and cell phone usage even though the numbers and facts that you give in the article are alarming. We must realize that numbers can always be skewed by the person or organization putting the numbers out in order to make it more favorable to them. I would like to see the entire report on the numbers of cell-phone related fatalities and see how many of them were actually a DIRECT result of the cell phone usage. I am almost certain that the numbers are skewed because the report contains accidents that were not the fault of the person who was on the cell phone, but they are nevertheless considered "involving a cell phone" so they can be used in your statistics.

I actually have been a large supporter of the NSC for years. In fact, I have taught your CPR, First Aid and some OSHA classes in the past. But this attempt by the NSC to bring a ban on cell phone usage while driving is wrong and causes me to rethink my support of your organization. I hope enough people bring the same concern to you that you consider dropping this push for a ban and leave it up to the individual to make that decision for themselves. On a personal note, I do believe that driving while talking on a cell phone in indeed a bad idea, but government has no place to tell me that.

Thank you for all the good that your organization does for us. You are a valuable asset to our society. I just believe you are dead wrong on this one. Thank you again!"

Here is a link to the page with the emails of the individuals who received this email: http://www.nsc.org/about/exemanage.aspx

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Felons only vote for Coleman?

I must start today saying that none of my future entries will be as long as the one yesterday! That one really ended up taking up a lot of space once I read it. Good information, but really long. Thanks to those of you who made it all the way through. For those of you who didn't, now is a good time to go back and finish it!

I was watching the 10pm news last night (which I must say is something I am doing less and less of) on KARE 11 when I saw a story that was not just partisan, but grossly partisan. Normally I would be surprised that a story could be this amazingly partisan, but we are talking about KARE 11 who is rivaling WCCO as the most pro-liberal station in town. Since I don't trust anything that comes from KARE any more, I went to the source, which was much more credible; the Star Tribune. (I am joking by the way) This is how the Tribune article started out :

"Should it come to pass that Norm Coleman wins his overtime U.S. Senate battle with Al Franken by one vote, the incumbent can thank a convicted felon who illegally cast his ballot in Minnesota's northern reaches."

There is actually a lot to be gleaned from that single paragraph. The first and foremost is that the Tribune is conceding that they realize that once Coleman takes this to the courts, the monkey business that happened in this election will come out and Norm Coleman will come out victorious. I truly believe that Norm has a legitimate shot at staying our Senator once the suit goes before a judge. The other thing this paragraph tells us is that the Franken campaign, like the Obama campaign did with Sara Palen, has operatives out there working to do anything they can to do two things. One is to smear Norm Coleman in any way possible. The second thing is to set up a scenario that if Norm is declared the winner, they can come back to a laundry list of things to say that Norm "stole" the election and received votes that were not legal. Mark my words, this story about a felon voting for Coleman is not the last thing we will here about "tainted" Coleman votes. The Franken smear mongers are now in overdrive to find anything they can to cast a shadow on Norm. but why would they do this if their candidate won the election fair and square? Well, it's because they know darn well that their candidate is now ahead in the count because of fraudulent acts by both the Canvasing Committee and yes; our own Secretary of State Mark Ritchie.

Now I am not looking past the fact that a felon cast a ballot. And Eric Willemses crime is especially disturbing. He should absolutely not have knowingly cast that ballot, which he admitted to doing. But how did the Franken campaign (which I think we can be safe to say now encompasses the Canvasing Board and the Secretary of States office) find that one ballot from way up north in Warroad this close to the end of the election? It doesn't say anything about there being errors on the ballot, so it must not have been a disputed one. How do we know that this felon even voted for Coleman? The way this whole thing has gone, I think we need to see proof that this guy actually cast a ballot for Norm. Could the Star Tribune have found a guy who would be willing to be the front man for this story and not have really cast a ballot for Norm or anybody for that matter? Without any proof, my last statement is just as credible as the Tribunes story about him voting for Norm. As the old saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding". And the pudding my friends, is starting to get pretty thick!

More tomorrow. Have a great Thursday!

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

2009- A time for new beginnings.


We all like to look at a new year as a time to "start over" or change some of our old bad habits. But even though I may receive the tag of being a pessimist, I am very doubtful that we will see a change in the way the political "machine" is run here in Minnesota. I was listening to Sean Hannity yesterday and one of his guests described the situation with our Senate race as something that will most likely be figured out quickly because "there is too much good in the Minnesota Political system". I literally almost fell out of my chair when I heard that. It was at that moment that I decided to start this blog. For too long I thought that one voice really couldn't make that much difference. But as I look around at ALL of the local and National media outlets, there are fewer and fewer out there that are not controlled by the advertisers of their shows. When you look at the big names out there (Rush, Hannity, etc) they have really gotten soft on those in our OWN party who are dragging us down and have really moved away from exposing the TRUTH for fear of loosing some of their advertising dollars. Well- I don't have any advertisers, so look out!

I couldn't believe it when I heard someone say on a National radio show that there is too much good in the Minnesota political system. The notion of "Minnesota Nice" in no way applies to our political scene. There are plenty of good people in our great State who that phrase applies well to. But I strongly believe that our political system here in Minnesota is quickly moving to be one of the most corrupt in the entire United States of America. Take for example our Senate Race. When the initial ballots were counted, Coleman had 1,211,590 (all numbers are directly from the Minnesota Secretary of States web site at http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/recount_summary_with_ab.pdf) and Franken had 1,211,375. Thats a difference of only 215 votes. Now the fact that this particular race was this close is a subject for another day. But the real stinky part comes with the final recount totals. After you figure in all the challenged ballots, the ballots that mysteriously "showed up" (which all just happened to favor Mr. Franken) and the absentee ballots, the change in the final count is staggering. The final count was 1,212,206 for Coleman (thats a gain of 616) which would have easily won it for Coleman. But Franken had a total of 1,212,431 (thats a gain of 1,056) votes gained which is unprecedented in the history of Minnesota politics. Really when you look at the number of votes gained by each man, it's a number that should make you sit up and take notice. How do that many votes get mistakenly counted or left out of any election? But that question aside, the process of the recount has some glaring red flags that are waving high for all to see; but aside from a few local media outlets (Jason Lewis) not too many in our local news agencies are touching this with a 10 foot pole. they are just reporting the results nad not the fraud that is being perpetrated against the people of Minnesota. We now have the distinct honor of having more ballots cast than we had people sign in to vote back on November 4th. How does this happen and why is the canvasing board being allowed to get away with what it's doing?

Under Minnesota law, any ballot that is damaged during election night must be taken by an election judge, set aside and a new ballot is supposed to be created and marked as "Duplicate" and then turned in. But it is now looking like some of those election officials failed to mark the duplicate ballots as such, allowing them to be mixed in with the rest of the ballots; creating 2 ballots for 1 voter. 25 Minnesota precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in that night. Some estimates show that Mr. Franken gained an extra 80-100 votes through this. Minnesota State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson (who is also a member of the canvasing board) acknowledges that "very likely there was a double counting". So how in the world is the canvasing board allowing those votes to be counted saying that "it lacks the authority to question local officials". Well- I have the authority and I am questioning them. I am a citizen of the State of Minnesota and the people who I elect to office are failing me miserably. But it's the people who I don't vote for who are the ones who are now perpetrating crimes (yes- I said CRIMES) in this recount process. Jason Lewis has talked about this on his show multiple times, but it needs to be addressed with a larger microscope. Al Franknen's campaign said that a Hennepin County precinct "lost" 133 votes because the hand recount showed fewer ballots than machine votes recorded on 11-4. There is the distinct possibility that Election Judges may have run some ballots through the machines twice which would account for the extra machine ballot totals. But yet the canvasing board choose to go with the number of machine ballots from election night even though they had the ballots in hand and there was absolutely no evidence of any ballots being lost. This gave Al another 46 votes. Meanwhile across the river in Ramsey County, the same problem occurs. There were 177 more ballots in hand than there were machine votes from 11-4. So since the canvasing board choose to go with the machine totals from election night in Hennepin county, they must go with the machine totals in Ramsey County from election night, right? WRONG! In this case, the same canvasing board with the same members on it that elected to go with the machine ballots from 11-4 in Hennepin County choose to go with the ballots in hand from 11-4 in Ramsey County. This gave Al 37 more votes. The kicker in this particular case though is that by going with the ballots in hand in Ramsey County, they now have more ballots than voters in that precinct! So wouldn't you think that even though they are trying to push Franken through, they would see this and say "uh-oh! We cant do this here because we will end up with more ballots than voters"! Nope. They either aren't bright enough to figure it out, or (this is what I think is happening unfortunately) they think that WE are too stupid to figure out what they did. Well guess what Canvasing Board- we figured it out! How is it that Al Franken benefited both times from the Canvasing Boards inconsistencies? The discrepancies here are literally statistically impossible.

And then there is our very "non-biased" Secretary of State; Mark Ritchie. If this guy were any more obvious in who he is supporting, he would have been Al's running mate if a Senator could have one! Al's campaign was screaming that some absentee ballots were rejected erroneously by local election officials. So Ritchie asked the counties to review the absentee ballots and submit a list of those that they thought should not have been rejected. The Franken heavy counties did that immediately; sending in 1,350 ballots into Mr. Ritchie's office. The Coleman heavy counties were still in the process of going through those ballots when Mr. Ritchie decided to hammer through the ones that were already submitted without waiting for the Coleman counties to come in. He did this even though Norm Coleman had a request in to the State Supreme Court (who ultimately ruled against him which is another travesty!) to standardize on the absentee review. So why did Mark Ritchie do this when he very clearly should have been waiting for ALL the counties to have their ballots in question in to him and while he should have waited on the Supreme Count ruling on it to come down? I think the answer is very obvious, and it's that Franken is Ritchie's Candidate and he wants him in the Senate. Another "eye brow raiser" here is that there are members of the State Supreme Court that are on the canvasing board also. So why would they make a ruling from the Court that would cause what they did on the Canvasing Board to look to be incorrect? We must ask ourselves that question as Colemans law suit moves into the court system, and will eventually end up in the same Minnesota Supreme Court with the Justices that were on the canvasing board. They will again try to rule in a way that makes what they did on the Canvasing Board look right. Coleman needs to take this suit to the US Supreme Court as quickly as he can.

Every single challenge and recount that has happened in this process has come out favoring Al Franken. Now I try to be as non-partisan as I can be in these issues. There is a ton of corruption on both sides of the isle; which I will be detaining in the months and years to come. But the complete lack of integrity is staunch in this election process in Minnesota. The majority of officials that were involved in the recount process (the Canvasing Board and Mark Ritchie) are such ultra-Liberals that they cant help but try to bend this election toward Al Franken. Common- how in the world would Stuart Smalley get elected to the United States Senate otherwise!!?? How in the world did the Canvasing Board certify Al Franken as the winner of this election when there is still so much obvious inconsistency present? There is no way that they will EVER have any credibility in any election process in Minnesota again. The same goes for Mark Ritchie as well. I am not the biggest Norm Coleman supporter in the world, and to be quite honest I almost marked the box by Dean Barkley as Norm was just wrong on so many issues over the last few years. But I realized that a vote for Barkley would ultimately be a vote for Franken, and unfortunately I was dead on. Dean seemed like a great candidate with views that were almost all dead on. Unfortunately the Independence party has never been a viable party. If they were, I would have voted that way in a heart beat this year. Dean did quite well though gaining 437,505 (or 15.15% of the vote) votes on election night. But I have to think that so many of those votes were fed up Republicans that couldn't vote for Norm again but would die before voting for Franken. So they voted for Dean. I believe if Dean Barkley was not on the ballot and there was only Coleman and Franken, Coleman would have crushed Al. But I don't like living in the "what if" world. But it does bring up a valid argument that the Republican party has not offered a solid Conservative candidate for far too many election cycles now. Republican voters must get back to their Conservative roots, oust the clowns that are representing us in both the Minnesota House and the US Congress (and dare I say the current President also) and replace them with men and women who hold strong and true to their Conservative, free market values.

There is something criminal going on with this election, and I am going to get to the bottom of it. I love some of our local talk radio personalities, but they simply report on whats going on. They don't have the time to dig into whats really happening. The exception ot that rule is again; Jason Lewis. Mr. Lewis really knows how to break down what is happening, and takes shots at both sides of the aisle. He is one of the few that goes beyond the story and shows people why things are happening. He has been a true advocate for getting out the truth behind the mischievous happenings of this Senate race and the recount. I like to promote people who are advocates of the truth, and Jason Lewis is definately one of them. If you are in the Twin Cities market, make sure to tune into him Monday through friday from 4pm-7pm on 100.3. (Shameless plug is now over! ;) But I have grown impatient waiting for more people to start uncovering the truth behind whats going on in Minnesota politics today. The problem is I think what I find out might deliver a blow to both sides of the aisle. I would most definitely like to see the number of registered voters by county versus the number of votes that were taken in by county on November 4th. People who don't think that ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) had a huge influence on this election and brought many many fraudulent votes into our system are sadly mistaken. Look at their conviction record. ACORN will tell you that they have never been convicted of any voter fraud; just their workers have been. That's a laugh! So even though there have been many ACORN workers convicted of fraud, we are supposed to let ACORN off the hook because they helped bring those people to justice? Steve Kest (the Executive Director of ACORN) must think that we are the most gullible people in the world if we are going to believe that. And to be blunt, if you think ACORN doesn't have a presence here in Minnesota and influenced our vote here, you're blind. If you think that they can have as many convictions as they do in as many states as they do, and somehow they are a fine, upstanding group here in Minnesota, then you my friend are part of the problem! There had to be a big influence by ACORN here, and I will get to the bottom of that too.

Well, I hope this gives you a little taste as to what this blog will bring you over the coming months. I have truly had enough of the government in this State thinking that we work for them and that they can just do whatever they want. The truth is that they work for us, and we need to get off our rear ends, get engaged in the process and take our State back. Another big issue that I will tackle here is the issue of taxes. That is getting way ot of control in this State also. It's time to wake up and let them know that enough is enough and the truth needs to be exposed. The sad part is that most of the truth that needs to come out is right in front of our noses. People are just choosing not to see it.

Have a great rest evening!