The Savage Republican

Big Changes coming Soon

Time to update the site and make some changes.

Stay tuned in the next month as we roll out the new site.

Also be patient as features will go up and down as I move the new site over.

Just keep repeating:

"Technology is our friend, Technology is out friend!!!"

1+1+1=2

Ya gotta admit, you just can't get one by Prairie Pravda.
Yesterday, the headline read that the Winona killer of a woman, her daughter and her unborn child was sentenced to prison. The article went on to say that this evil cretin murdered two people. OK. But the story stated one woman, one little girl, and one unborn child. And today, the article reads "Winona killer of mother, girl is sentenced to life." And yet, in the story you read that the killer was sentenced to three life terms. Yesterday the description was an unborn child. Today, it's a fetus. And three life sentences. Oh the judge, being sworn to justice, made sure that those sentences were to be served concurrently, not consecutively. Murder a little girl, eligible for parole in thirty years. Oh, and he sexually assaulted the little girl before he killed her. That also amounts to torture.
And thirty years before parole...Yup-There's justice for you! But! Be NOT dismayed! He will have to serve an additional three year sentence for the subsequent arson. THAT sentence will, of course, be served consecutively. Of course.
And the reason he gave for killing ten year old Taylor? Because she woke up as he was killing her mother and came out of her bedroom, and he didn't want any witnesses. And after all, he had nothing to lose by killing a ten year old girl. Nothing at all.
This is where a review of the death penalty enters in. For years I was opposed to the death penalty. Last December when the lefty wienies were crying for Tookie Williams, I read and blogged an article by Captain Ed. He refers to an L.A. prosecutor who lays out why the death penalty works:"A few examples to make my point: Suppose we have a career criminal with a long record of violent felonies, what we in California would call a "three-striker", who knows that he will be sent to prison for the rest of his life if he is ever caught committing a new offense. When he goes to rob the local convenience store, he doesn't want to hurt anyone - he just wants the money. But he also knows that, as there is no death penalty, he will face the exact same punishment (life imprisonment) whether or not he kills the clerk, the only witness to his crime. He would be a fool not to do so. If he happens to bump into a police officer on the way out, he may as well kill him too - there is no extra charge, so to speak." Now substitute the name of the heinous Winona child torturer and killer and for the clerk insert Taylor and you'll see that he also had nothing to lose. Nothing at all.
The only real justice I can hope for in this is that he somehow gets put into the general prison population. Child killers don't last long amongst prisoners.
Time to re-think hanging.

Millionaires for Socialism

I got another interesting email the other day. This one got me to thinking...

"The wealthy are the last people you might expect to see leading movements that claim to support the working class, but the strange thong is that without the wealthy leftists the liberal movement in America would be dead. The money from George Soros and the wealthy people who voted for Lieberman’s challenger (the poor voted for Lieberman) are typical examples of how the liberal left has become the creation of elite billionaires and millionaires."

When you consider that the patrons of today's modern left (George Soros, Barbra Streisand, Microsoft co-founder Paul Lewis, entertainment mogul Steve Bing or locally the Patricians from Growth & Justice) you have to admit, my correspondent has a very valid point.

Why is this?

"Let me posit a few ideas:
1. The rich like to enjoy a lifestyle free from moral encumbrances and they are loath to see their personal behavior ruin their reputation and hurt their wallets. By promoting moral relativism they escape serious scrutiny and can behave as they please.
2. The rich know that the poor, upon whose work their fortune rests, are less likely to complain or be a problem is they are both entertained and materially sustained. Using moral relativism they can keep the poor focused on self indulgence rather than their sorry state, using hand-outs they can keep them still too poor to ever compete but not so poor that they riot, and using class or race warfare they can keep the poor focused on “the others” rather than their actual plight and the failure of the leadership.
3. The rich find nation-states to be quite an inconvenience. By reducing or eliminating trade barriers and by reducing the dominance of one or a few nation states they can raise the importance of non state entities, such as their corporations and foundations AND they can get around any national laws that curtail their ability to “buy low and sell high.”
4. The rich want to be able to control the political scene rather than being accountable to government or the will of People, so they tend to support judicial activism, top-down control of education, a liberal monopoly of the media, and keeping the poor in a state of ignorance."

Again, given what we have seen from the actions of those wealthy benefactors of the left, my correspondent has a point. There is an old Biblical saying "you can tell them by their fruit". Well the fruits of the labors of the wealthy leftists are there for all of us to see.

"There are probably other reasons you can cite for the trend amongst the really wealthy to be really liberal, but the point is that the very class that seems to be target of liberal rhetoric is the very class that is actually funding that rhetoric, which begs the question, “why?” For the answer to that question I refer you to the above reasons plus any you may see. What we must remember, however, is that when liberals talk about the rich not pulling their fair share and all that what they are doing is nothing more than a smoke screen: their policies tend not to hurt their rich patrons but, rather, the poor who are misled into believing the rhetoric." (emphasis mine)

WOW - that is probably the most succinct explaination of the whole "the rich need to pay their fair share" that I have ever heard!

Do not despair dear friends....there is some good news. The liberal benefactors appear to be sitting this election out, according to this report from "The Hill":

"This year, those well-heeled donors have yet to join the fray. Soros has given less than $2 million, Lewis a paltry $1.1 million, and the others even less. Some are eschewing election-year operations in favor of long-term efforts such as the Democracy Alliance, a group of more than 80 high net-worth individuals funding projects to amplify the liberal message, identify future leaders and conduct research."

Why are they backing away? Well it is a classic lesson in why you don't want to trust the Democrats with your tax dollars.

"These and other large donors bankrolled America Coming Together in 2004, a 527 organization devoted to turning out Democratic voters in 17 states. Although the group did make significant gains, it was outpaced by Republican organizing in key states like Ohio, leading some big donors to feel burned by the 2004 election, upset that they shelled out millions only to see Kerry lose, Democratic fundraisers said.“There was a lot of questioning about where money went and was it spent properly,” said Andy Spahn, an advisor to Hollywood donors. “In some part that led to disillusionment and cynicism about 527s.” (emphasis mine)

It would be nice to think that the bloom is off of the 527 rose, but I would not count on that yet! Until such time as the odiuos McCain-Feingold BCFRA is history, the 527's will dominate our political landscape. BCFR gave birth to the 527 movement and only its repeal will return politics to the people.

Gambling on gambling

I am probably going to stir up a hornets nest with this but here goes anyway...

Here in the Savage Lands we have Indian gaming and a fairly successful mid-size horse racing facility. I have long admired the tribes use of gaming profits to develop non-gaming related business interests. They have built a health club, a daycare center, a strip mall that includes a gas station run by the tribe, a hotel and a golf course. If the day comes when the casino profits dry up (not likely to happen anytime soon) well they can still provide for themselves. BRAVO for free enterprise!

Well now the race track wants to add slot machines (run by the Minnesota Lottery commission) and expand their card club (in addition to their live and simulcast horse racing) in order to do the same thing. They want to build an equestrian/agriculture center and hotel complex that would bring world class equestrian competition to the Twin Cities. Now I will admit my bias up front - I used to show in the type of equestrian competitions that would be brought to the area! I still know people in the business who would be coming up here should this facility be built.

This plan has opposition from the tribe and from conservatives. Now the tribes opposition I can understand. They feel that this will cut into their "action". The conservative opposition is what I am puzzled by. Here we have a regulated business who is wanting to expand the non-regulated part of their operation. Yes it will be funded by their gaming operation, I get that. The conservatives that are blocking this say that they do not want an "expansion" of gambling. The problem is, the tribe can expand their gaming operation at will and we have nothing to say in this, we have no say in the matter. The race tracks expansion would be tightly regulated by the state (which I am not horribly fond of but I understand the reasoning why) and it will ultimately benefit the county in the form of more jobs (and thus more employment taxes paid to the state) and more tourists (in the form of the horse show people who have unreal amounts of money) and in the form of property tax relief. It is a win/win for the area, as far as Ic an see...

However, I want to try to understand the other side. Why should conservatives object to racino at Canterbury Park?

Discuss in ccomments.

Dodge City or Murderapolis

Oh my friend Amendment X is going to LOVE this one.....

"A couple of weeks ago, I checked into a hotel in Bloomington, a Minneapolis suburb framed by the airport and the Mall of America. On the hotel door was a sign: “Firearms Banned on These Premises.” The next day I drove to St. Joseph, an hour west of the Twin Cities, where I saw the same sign. Slowly the logical conclusion sank in. If firearms are banned on these premises, then they must not be banned in other places. Sure enough, a year ago the State Legislature passed a “concealed carry” law, which means that it’s legal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit. So that no one misses the point, the Legislature has also turned Minnesota into what is called a “shall require” state. If you apply for a concealed-weapon permit, the local authorities must grant it to you."

What I found to be highly amusing (and so totally expected....this is the Grey Lady after all) was this:

"I asked one of the state coalitions opposed to these laws whether it would attack them in the Legislature this year. The answer was no. It is too busy trying to defeat a “shoot first” bill, which would give gun owners the right to fire away instead of trying to avoid a confrontation. The way I see it, Minnesota is only one step away from requiring every citizen to carry a gun and use it when provoked."

You hear that, dear readers???? The streets of Minneapolis are one step away from being Dodge City again....OH WAIT...they already ARE!

Those who have followed the goings on in Amy Klobuchar's Minneapolis (like Rambix and the KvM guys) know that the streets are already awash with guns and gangbangers and gangster wanna bes. Any one of them are looking for the chance to prove themselves to their "peeps".

"This is what I’d expect of Florida, which recently passed a “shoot first” — also called a “shoot the Avon lady” — bill. I’d expect it of Texas too. But Minnesota? I grew up thinking of Minnesota as a socially progressive state. After all, it was home of the D.F.L. — the Democratic Farmer Labor Party — and a place where local control and common sense had strong roots. Like my family in Iowa, Minnesotans were gun owners because they hunted pheasants and rabbits and deer. But then I’m thinking of a time when the leadership of the National Rifle Association resembled a band of merry sportsmen and not the paranoid cabal it is today. Whether this was also a time when a legislator could vote his conscience, and not his gun lobbyist’s orders, I was too young to know."

You want to know what's changed? Here's a hint. In Minneapolis in 2006, the animals are roaming the streets of the city and not foraging in the forests "up north".

One thing that the folks like this author fail to recoginze is what happened AFTER the Florida conceal carry law was passed. Contrary to the nay-sayers prediction of "blood in the streets" crime actually DROPPED in Florida.

Then again, facts are something that the writes for the old grey ghost seem to disregard if they don't fit the the preconceived conclusions.

The Ethanol Myth

Amendment X, AAA and I have all writen about the false promise of ethanol and how, by their blind allegiance to the ethanol industry, our Senator and several of his colleagues in the House (including the man who wants to be our next Senator) are setting the consumers up for continued high gasoline prices. Well now Consumer Reports has chimed in on the Ethanol Myth and the high price that comes with it. If you have read any of our prior posts on the subject, you will not be surprised at what CR says.

"But after putting a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe FFV through an array of fuel economy, acceleration, and emissions tests, and interviewing more than 50 experts on ethanol fuel, CR determined that E85 will cost consumers more money than gasoline and that there are concerns about whether the government’s support of FFVs is really helping the U.S. achieve energy independence. Among our findings:

The fuel economy of the Tahoe dropped 27 percent when running on E85 compared with gasoline, from an already low 14 mpg overall to 10 mpg (rounded to the nearest mpg). This is the lowest fuel mileage we’ve gotten from any vehicle in recent years.

With the retail pump price of E85 averaging $2.91 per gallon in August, according to the Oil Price Information Service, which tracks petroleum and other fuel prices, a 27 percent fuel-economy penalty means drivers would have paid an average of $3.99 for the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline.

When we calculated the Tahoe’s driving range, we found that it decreased to about 300 miles on a full tank of E85 compared with about 440 on gasoline. So you have to fill up more often with E85.

The majority of FFVs are large vehicles like the Tahoe that get relatively poor fuel economy even on gasoline. So they will cost you a lot at the pump, no matter which fuel you use. Because E85 is primarily sold in the upper Midwest, most drivers in the country have no access to the fuel, even if they want it. For our Tahoe test, for example, we had to blend our own (see The great E85 fuel hunt).

The FFV surge is being motivated by generous fuel-economy credits that auto-makers get for every FFV they build, even if it never runs on E85. This allows them to pump out more gas-guzzling large SUVs and pickups, which is resulting in the consumption of many times more gallons of gasoline than E85 now replaces. "

I realize that the government has put a lot of stock in ethanol and they are working hard to make it pay off. However, the Consumer is the one that is stuck paying the higher prices that this blind allegiance to ethanol production has saddled us with. Yes, it is time to find alternative fuels, but let's make sure that the alternative fuels are fuels that will be cost effective AND good for the environment.

Conspiracies!

Did any of you hear about this story?

"More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll."

Apparently, this theory is so prevalent that a FAQ site has been developed in order to debunk these theories. It is an interesting real - both from the conspirace theory phase and from the answer to those conspiracy theories. I work in the same building as a gentleman who firmly believes that the 9/11 attacks were actually a result of US government actions! He can tell you all the theories and when you point to facts like those listed at the FAQ site, he will tell you that it is "all lies". That is his pat answer - no reasoning....just claims that it is all part of the "vast governmental conspiracy". Given that there are many people in this state that are firm believers in handing the government that much control, it should not be surprising that they believe that the government can be responsible for this (or for the rise and fall in the price of gas).

Which is just one more reason why these people should not be given control of the State or US legislature.

Campaign Finanace Reform Minnesota Style

I was cleaning out an old folder of saved emails when I came across this.

"On January 21, Hamline University political science and law professor David Schultz met with House Minority Leader Matt Entenza. The reason for their meeting was to discuss possible changes to Minnesota's campaign finance laws. At Entenza's behest, Schultz had drafted a series of suggestions for tightening contribution limits and broadening disclosure requirements.
At the time, Entenza was facing intense scrutiny for pouring money into DFL-affiliated organizations in the final weeks of the 2004 election campaign. The St. Paul lawmaker and his wife, Lois Quam, an executive with UnitedHealth Group, donated some $600,000 to DFL causes during the election cycle. The scope of the couple's political benevolence, however, was not disclosed until after the election--when the Democrats picked up 13 seats in the House and came within one victory of toppling the Republican majority.
Schultz laid out eight suggested changes to Minnesota's campaign finance laws. Under his proposal, all political donations--whether to so-called 527 groups such as 21st Century Democrats (the organization that received much of Entenza's support last year) or directly to campaigns--would have to be disclosed within 48 hours. In addition, all contributions would be limited to $1,000. There were also measures designed to curb attack ads in the final weeks of campaigns. Many of the changes mimic those implemented in 2002 at the federal level through the McCain-Feingold bill. "

Now many of you know that I am not a huge fan of the McCain-Feingold bill. I am also not a huge fan of Common Cause, which is the organization that Mr. Schultz is affiliated with. However, I am also not a fan of some of the tactics that take place in an election. Unlimited donations to 527s by groups like Move On are indeed ruining the process. However, McCain Feingold gave rise to the 527s and other "issue oriented" groups. Restricting donations (from individual donors) is not the way to go. Rather we should allow more donations from individuals and restrict donations from 527's. People like George Soros are going to find a way to attempt to buy the election, let's make it more open. That way the voters know just who is funding a candidates campaign. Shadow organizations like Move On are simply money laundering vehicles designed to deceive the average voter.

Given that a lot of the players mentioned in the article are either up for re-election or for an even higher office, I thought it would be worth our time to revisit it.

A case for parental rights

This is what government provided/mandated health care will get you.

"A 15-year-old Jehovah's Witness with Crohn's disease will be back in court this week seeking to control her own medical treatment and refuse blood transfusions. "

Now I have lots of disagreements with the Jehovah's Witness' - all of the doctrinally based. However, this is one place where I will stand side by side with the girl's parents.

"The case began last April when the teen, then 14, went to hospital during a flare-up of her Crohn's, a chronic illness that can affect the entire gastrointestinal tract. When she and her parents refused a transfusion, a Court of Queen's Bench justice granted Child and Family Services an order allowing doctors to give blood transfusions or blood products "as they deem medically necessary" without the consent of the teen or her parents." (emphasis mine)

Where does the government get off telling a patient what treatment she must accept? Where does the government get off telling a parent what treatment their child can and can not have? And what happened to a woman's right to choose what medical treatments she has? I mean a medical proceedure IS a medical proceedure..right? Where does the government get off telling a woman what she can do WITH HER BODY?????

I looked up Crohn's disease just to make certain that this is not a life or death type treatment that this family is turning down and it does not appear to be that way. According to the NIH, the main treatments for Crohn's diease is anti-inflammatory drugs and immunosuppressants coupled with nutritional suppliments to make up for what is not being absorbed in the intestines. The NIH site says that anemia is often a side effect of the disease, so maybe that is what they are treating.

Which makes the case all the more troubling. It is also what makes it all the more important that we do not sign away our rights as parents in the name of "universal health care". Universal health care is what led the parents of this child to this point. They (and their daughter) are not willing to give up their rights as individuals in order to placate some bureaucracy that feels that they "know better".

This is just one more reason why this election is so important. Whether it is on the state or the national level, Democrats want to usurp your rights as individuals because they feel that they "know better". Whether it is health care (the Dems want universal health care) or higher taxes or school choice, the Democrats feel that they know better than you. They can spend your money more wisely than you, can educate your children better than you, they know what medical treatments are "in your best interests". Are YOU willing to give up your rights as an individual? Are you willing to let Big Brother government run your life for you? I know I'M not!

The Savage Republican

Local Attractions

Favorite Links

Previous Posts

Archives

Saturday, September 09, 2006

Big Changes coming Soon

Friday, September 08, 2006

1+1+1=2

Millionaires for Socialism

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Gambling on gambling

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Dodge City or Murderapolis

The Ethanol Myth

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Conspiracies!

Campaign Finanace Reform Minnesota Style

Monday, September 04, 2006

A case for parental rights