California Conservative

Just when Democrats start mounting an offensive based on what they’d like the NIE to confirm, President Bush and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani strike back at Democrats’ assertions. Here’s how President Bush hit back:

But at the White House, the president called critics who say the Iraq war was a mistake “naive.” “I think it’s a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe,” he said. He also took issue with the conclusion that the Iraq war is responsible for creating new terrorists, saying that those who “see a rosier scenario with fewer extremists joining the radical movement” if not for the Iraq war are ignoring 20 years of history.
“We weren’t in Iraq when we got attacked on September 11. We weren’t in Iraq when thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps,” Mr. Bush said. “We weren’t in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. We weren’t in Iraq when they bombed the Cole. We weren’t in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.”

This fits nicely with Dr. Rice’s statement:

“Now that we’re fighting back, of course they are fighting back, too. I find it just extraordinary that the argument is, all right, so they’re using the fact they’re being challenged in the Middle East and challenged in Iraq to recruit, therefore you’ve made the war on terrorism worse. It’s as if we were in a good place on Sept. 11. Clearly, we weren’t.” (more…)

Am I talking about Amy Klobuchar’s answers on the Global Solutions questionnaire or am I refering to Pelosi’s and Reid’s statement on a “new direction”? The answer is C; all of the above. Let’s first examine Amy Klobuchar’s most egregious answer in the questionnaire:

6a. Do you believe that an independent bipartisan commission should be set up to investigate U.S. interrogation policies?
Yes
Yes. I’ve always believed in leading by example, we must ensure that the example we set for the world meets the highest moral, ethical and legal standards. Torture sets a bad example and puts our own troops in danger as a result. Furthermore, torture is ineffective, it produces faulty intelligence that may undermine our domestic security.
6b. Would you be willing to call for its creation publicly?
Yes.

Does Ms. Klobuchar think that the legislation currently pending action before Congress is inadequate? Or is she saying that Democrats support endless investigations into this administration in hopes of creating a favorable political climate for 2008? Or is this simply what her Nutroots fringe puppetmasters demand of Democrats these days?

This raises other question like:

• How would Ms. Klobuchar’s policies would make us safer if she isn’t willing to let the CIA use their most effective (productive?) interrogation techniques? and
• Is she pandering to Global Solutions for a campaign contribution or if she agrees with them?

(more…)

Howard Dean’s statements are nothing if not boisterous. Here’s an example of Dean’s rantings:

“Now that President Bush has heeded Democrats call to declassify the NIE report, the American people can decide on its merits for themselves. Facts are stubborn things.

“And unfortunately the Bush Administration has repeatedly chosen to ignore the facts when they’re inconvenient, and make them up when they don’t support their rigid ideology. This is no way to run a country or a war. It’s telling that President Bush failed to say whether there were White House meetings on Osama bin Laden before the 9/11 attacks, but unfortunately this is one of many questions left answered about the lead up to the war in Iraq.

“Nothing changes the fact that President Bush’s failed leadership and war of choice in Iraq have made us less safe and hampered our ability to fight and win the global war on terror. Democrats want a new direction for our country and will fight the war on terror based on the facts and guidance from our military and intelligence officials.”

After skimming through the NIE’s key findings, it’s obvious that Dean’s yapping is more worrisome than the report. Dean says that President Bush ignores “the facts when they’re inconvenient” but I don’t hear him touting this from the NIE:

Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa’ida, could erode support for the jihadists.

(more…)

Diana Irey has asked the US Attorney for Western Pennsylvania to start an investigation to “determine whether or not Congressman Jack Murtha violated the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 by accepting campaign contributions in exchange for placing earmarked appropriations into legislation he is largely responsible for drafting and pushing to passage.”

Unfortunately, John Murtha isn’t the first congressman to get a campaign contribution after voting for a special interest group’s favorite earmark. That isn’t what this investigation appears to be about, though:

“Specifically, CREW cited a pattern of abuse regarding Congressman Murtha’s fundraising practices; essentially, they argue that he trades federal contracts, loans, and grants for campaign contributions, in violation of federal law. CREW cites two former Murtha staffers as key players in Jack Murtha’s triangle of influence, men who, after working for the Congressman for years on the Appropriations Committee, now engage in lucrative lobbying businesses, representing clients who seek federal contracts, loans, and grants.

If this information is accurate, then this is as corrupt as anything that Duke Cunningham ever did. That’s as corrupt as it gets. Unlike John Murtha’s convicting the Haditha Marines before the investigation is complete, I’ll wait to find out what the investigation determines before pronouncing judgment.

It’s one thing to vote for earmarks. It’s another to trade vote on those earmarks for campaign contributions. If that isn’t illegal, then that’s proof that incumbents like John Murtha have a slush fund mechanism constantly at their avail. I know there’s a saying that incumbency has its privileges but I’d hope that a legalized slush fund isn’t what they’re talking about.

Here’s something else that Diana Irey cited:

“‘Paul Magliocchetti worked with Rep. Murtha as a senior staffer on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for ten years,’ says the report. ‘After leaving the committee, Mr. Magliocchetti founded the PMA Group, which has become one of the prominent Washington, DC defense lobbying firms. In the current campaign cycle, the PMA Group and 11 of the firm’s clients rank in the top 20 contributors to Rep. Murtha, having made contributions totaling $274,649. In the 2002 and 2004 cycles, PMA and nine of the firm’s clients ranked in the top 20 contributors, having made $236,799 in contributions and $279,074, respectively. ‘In turn, many of PMA’s clients have benefited significantly from Rep. Murtha’s earmarks. In the 2006 Defense Appropriations bill, PMA clients received at least 60 earmarks at a total of $95.01 million.’
“Stop and think about that for a moment. Over the last six years, officials and clients of the PMA Group have contributed roughly $800,000 to Congressman Murtha’s campaign fund. In return, they have received at least $95 million in federal contracts, loans, and grants. That’s a better than 100-to-1 return on investment.”

The more you learn about John Murtha, the more you realize about Washington’s corrupting powers. That’s just another reason why Murtha Must Go.

Technorati Tags: Election 2006, Murtha, Corruption, Earmarks

Cross-posted at Murtha Must Go

Have we seen the last Bachmann-Wetterling debate? If we have, what would Patty Wetterling’s reluctance to debate Sen. Bachmann tell us about her command of the issues and the appeal of her policies? We wouldn’t be asking these questions if Patty Wetterling hadn’t broken her commitment to Tuesday’s debate at the St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce. As Larry Schumacher points out, this isn’t the first time she’s skipped a Chamber of Commerce-sponsored debate:

Bachmann mentioned Wetterling’s absence from several debates this campaign, most of which have been sponsored by chamber of commerce organizations. She appears to be conceding this territory in the campaign.

The easiest answer to why she’s skipping Chamber of Commerce debates is because her ‘tax the rich’ policies don’t play well with small business owners. Her tax increases would hurt the job creation engines of America that the Chambers of Commerce represent. I’d further predict that we’ve seen the last Bachmann-Wetterling debate if the rest are Chamber-sponsored events.

Binkowski mentioned that he and Bachmann were the only two at another chamber-sponsored debate in Elk River this morning as well. The reason given for her absence was that she was campaigning on the other side of the district and could not make it back in time.

Observers of the 2004 campaign will recall that she didn’t attend the St. Cloud Area Chamber’s debate then, either. That time, she said it was because her daughter was getting married and she was helping with the preparations.

As Larry observes, Ms. Wetterling seems to be ceding that section of the vote, meaning that she can’t win. Central Minnesota’s Republicans still need to work hard to maximize the vote in the district but Wetterling’s ceding of this crucial vote is the equivalent of her throwing in the towel on this race.

Ms. Wetterling doesn’t stand a chance of attracting significant support from the sizeable pro life constituency in this district. Now she’s essentially saying that she’s written off the ’small business’ vote.

Technorati Tags: Election 2006, Patty Wetterling, Small Business, Chamber of Commerce

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Amy Klobuchar has avoided answering questions on Klobogate for over a week, which leads me to ask what questions she doesn’t want to answer. Today, MNGOP Communications Director Mark Drake might have given us the answers to that question. Here’s what he said:

“Based upon the deeply troubling questions raised by Mark Kennedy’s campaign today, a new question has now emerged: did the Klobuchar campaign, the DFL Party or any of their liberal allies push poll based upon the information the Klobuchar campaign received from the ad stolen by DFL operative Noah Kunin?”

As if that weren’t enough to get the press’s attention, Pat Shortridge asked additional questions of the Klobuchar campaign. Here’s part of his message today:

Let me tell you what we know:

We have learned, not because of the Klobuchar campaign’s cooperation, but through exhaustive analysis, that the ad stolen is the one I’m about to play for you now. Before I play, let me say that this is NOT a completed ad. It is probably only 50-60% done. Once the hacking occurred, we stopped any further work. So it is rough. But many of you have asked, so we thought we would play it for you.”
We then learned, as is laid out in Governor Quie’s letter, that someone had been polling on the substance of the stolen ad. I might add, only on the substance of the stolen ad, and none of the other issues we’ve been raising on Ms. Klobuchar’s record. No questions on her calls for massive tax increases, the more than $630,000 she’s gotten from EMILY’s List whiles she’s railed against special interests, the lining of her own pockets with oil stocks while she’s criticized the oil industry for high gas prices, or her calls for universal health care.
(more…)

Progressive educators today proudly declare that they don’t warp students’ minds by teaching specific bodies of knowledge, by teaching to the test; they teach students how to think. That concept is a meaningless and dangerous abstraction.

Commenting upon a recent posting, a reader wrote:

“…. Now, if you go to college, you learn how to analyze information critically as opposed to reeling with whatever gut, emotional response you get. You learn not “What to think,” but “How to think.” The only way that education will ever succeed in our times is if it raises a generation of children who can not only read, but read between the lines.”

No one would disagree with the sentiment that children should be able to understand the context of what they read and have a sufficient breadth of knowledge to bring critical judgment to what they read.

But the concept of learning how to think, as a stand-alone pedagogy, is meaningless. One has to think about something, and, in order to understand what one is thinking about, is is necessary to learn a great many facts about that something. In many cases understanding comes only with much practice and drill.

One might as well hand an oboe to an untutored music student and lecture him on how to think about playing the oboe, without benefit of being able to read music and without practice to master the mechanics of producing correct notes from the instrument.

This is particularly true, for example, in mathematics. When a teacher presents a concept with a blackboard demonstration, keener students may be able to follow each step of the process. But only later, working alone at home on assignments, will the student discover what he doesn’t know and in the process learn the concept sufficiently well to solve similar problems in the future.

When students are allowed to use electronic calculators to solve problems, their minds are not engaged in any meaningful way with mathematics itself. They might as well be playing a video game. (more…)

“S 3696 (PERA), sponsored by Sen. Brownback (R-Kan), a companion bill to H.R. 2679 (PERA), sponsored by Rep. Hostetter (R-Ind.), would amend all relevant federal laws to eliminate the authority of judges to award taxpayer-paid attorney fees to the ACLU, or anyone else, in lawsuits under the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment against veterans memorials, the Boy Scouts, or the public display of the Ten Commandments of other symbols of America’s history with a religious aspect.”

This legislation will stop your taxes from paying the ACLU to attack our Christian heritage and symbols. Act now before it is too late.

It will be voted on this Tuesday in the House.

NRB has learned that PERA, the Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (H.R. 2679) introduced by Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN), is expected to be considered for a floor vote in the House, tomorrow, Tuesday, September 26th. This critical legislation, which has been supported by NRB, would protect our government agencies and their civil servants from having to pay huge attorneys fees awards to groups like the ACLU when they sue over references to God and religion in public settings.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Urge your listeners and viewers to contact their representatives in Congress and urge him/her to “vote for H.R. 2679, Public Expression in Religion Act of 2005, also known as PERA.”

CONSIDER THIS: This legislation would avoid the outrageous funding (through taxpayer dollars) of the ACLU, atheist organizations, and others who want to strip acknowledgements of God from the public square, and for that reason this bill is a major plus. But more than that, it would also force more of these cases to face the bright sunlight of a court of law, rather than the present situation of government officials being intimidated into capitulating through private settlements with these radical secularist law groups for fear of facing mammoth attorneys fee awards if they lose at trial.

WHY THE TIMING IS CRITICAL: PERA will be brought to the House Floor on the very challenging “suspension calendar,” which means that debate is limited, it is possible that amendments may be restricted, and the bill must pass with a 2/3-majority. Therefore it is critical that your audience contact Capitol Hill today!

I have already recieved a letter from my Representative and have been assured of his vote. I contacted him on the day the bill was approved by the House Committee on the Judiciary, so I got an old form letter. Nevertheless it was assuring.

Find your Representative here.

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

The AP’s Nedra Pickler is reporting that Tony Snow has joined the GOP electoral arsenal. Here’s the details thus far:

“They asked, and I thought about it a lot and we went back and forth,” Snow said. “It’s one of those things where I certainly want to help the president. But you have to make sure it’s a fine line, and that’s why I don’t want to get into opponent bashing. The approach I’m going to take is not going to be one of going out and whacking Democrats by name, but straightforward comments about what the president has accomplished,” Snow said.

Tony’s yet another ‘weapon’ that the GOP that the Democrats don’t have. The DNC can’t send their ’superstars’ anywhere in the US and be widely accepted. Republicans can send Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, President and First Lady Laura Bush, Lynne Cheney, Mary Matalin, Karen Hughes, Speaker Hastert, Majority Leader Boehner, former Speaker Newt Gingrich out almost anywhere.

On the other hand, Democrats can send out…Barack Obama. They certainly can’t send Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and the Clintons out anywhere. They have to send them to already blue districts.

Tony’s a gifted speaker with a great sense of humor. He’s originally a speechwriter. He knows how to connect with voters. This makes too much sense to ignore it.

Technorati Tags: Tony Snow, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Laura Bush, Lynne Cheney, Mary Matalin, Election 2006

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

“No, I didn’t write that headline just to get you to click through to my column. All right, maybe I did a little, but there really is no better way to describe it.

Come on, you know you got goosebumps. How I do love to see the fairer sex meting out justice. When called upon, this 51-year-old nurse’s hands went from mothering to manslaughter in seconds flat…”

The police can not be everywhere. We the people have the right to defend ourselves. It is time to fight back. The women in these story fought back and protected home, property and lives. Imagine if everyone was capable, in one way or another to defend themselves and others? I have no problem with criminals being afraid of who they are picking on. Maybe we need a TV show, not on bad bathrooms, but people who defend themselves and how they do it. (more…)