Are you for real???

Please...tell me why
"Throughout my career, I have had the honor of serving under several Presidents and am proud to make today's endorsement. No other candidate will do more to advance the conservative judicial movement than Governor Mitt Romney."
Who would say such a thing.??? For years I have been told about how judges have been "Borked" when it comes to Supreme Court Appointments. Well now the man himself has told us who he thinks should be President. I don't expect anyone to post a response because there really is nothing you can say.
But anyway, to this I challenge all of you. I have been told why people don't support Mitt Romney...a) he is a flip flopper (cowards) and b) he is a mormon, (at least you're honest). Anyway, for you diehards, this probably won't mean anything, but it should. For years I have heard about Robert Bork and how he is the epitome of Conservative thought, etc. I challenge anyone of you, my friends, to post why you think he is wrong to endorse governor Romney. If anyone of you actually have the balls to write something, please, no sound bites, just tell me why...
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Endorsement_Bork

P.S, And just for the record I am talking about candidates records...please no childish claims of what somone has said or "plans" to do. Let's be adults and only focus on what a candidate has actaully Done please

Romney and Clinton the most hated candidates in America??

A new rasmussen poll has shown that of the major Presidential candidates, Mitt Romney and Hilary Clinton have the highest rate of voters who will absolutely not vote for them. Although this is just one poll, it is not something that bodes well for my guy. I would like to see a bit more information on the sample for this poll, or perhaps wait to see the results of more polls like this. The on bright spot ; the largest opposition to Romney comes from registered voters. This same poll shows that among unaffiliated voters, a full ten percentage drop occurs among those who will absolutely not vote for Romney. Ms. Clinton, on the other hand, has the same rate among registered and unaffiliated voters.

Federalism usurped

I saw this story while cruising Miss Huffington's website, and although their is not much information in the story, a simple dogpile.com news search brings up many stories. One of the main reasons, although not the only, nor the biggest, is that I am a Republican is that the idea of divided government has more of a voice within my party. I hate to pull out the "If you read the Constitution" card but seriously; is there anything in our Constitution that says the feds have the say in regulating auto emissions. Absolutely not! While I tend to disagree with the California plan, although not entirely, I am not a citizen of that state. So what right do I have as a citizen of the state of Minnesota to dictate policy like this to residents of California. The answer is that I have none, and the Federal government, and the Bush Administration has made a mistake here. Although, to be fair, All of the blame does not rest at the feet of the Bush Administration, (gasp). Had Democrats not taken it upon themselves to use the Environmental Protection Agency to initaite emissions standards to begin with, we would not find ourselves in this situation. As usual, Democrat's love of the power of the Federal government has come to roost for them...Perhaps they will now see why the Feds shouldn't be given so much power

Whats happening at Bagram

I suggest you read the article linked to this post first, but the low down is basically that the US military has a rule banning non married personnel of the opposite sex in the same room when not on official business. But there seems to be a serious case of hypocrisy, at least at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan. Condoms are available for sale at the base store and are apparently given out for free at the local "massage" parlor. Consequently nearly seventy pregnancies were reported at the base this year alone.

This brings up some very important issues about the readiness and focus of our soldiers who are put into combat positions. How reasonable is it to put a bunch of twenty somethings in a dangerous and relatively isolated environment and not expect any of them to be getting laid? It seems ridiculous to expect otherwise. And what type of effect does this have, not on unit morale, but on the readiness of soldiers to fight? And what of the relationships that develop. What type of effect does that have on the decision's a soldier is forced to make when it isn't just his comrades at stake, but his or her lover?

It's a tough situation and, not having served in the military, I won't presume to give a definitive answer. I do know however, that as a man, it is just a different scenario when men's lives are at stake vs. when a woman is put in the same situation. Add to that the effect of sexual relations and it just seems to put an undue burden on our warriors, men and women.

It seems that the only option, although not without its own drawbacks, would be to simply ban the deployment of women to combat zones. I don't mean actual fire fights, which I believe they are already banned from, but any area in which men that will be in combat will be stationed. Rammstein base in Germany would be fine for women, but Iraq and Afghanistan would be a no go. This will undoubtedly create a logistical problem, in the form of diverting men to replace the women that would be removed, but in the long run, it seems like the best option. Perhaps some of my military readers, if I even have any, would provide some input.

Kucinich-Paul, or Paul-Kucinich

The bomb has been dropped folks...Dennis Kucinich has hinted that he is considering asking Republican candidate Ron Paul as his running mate. Paul's campaign in turn said that while they "are friends and there is a lot of mutual respect", Mr. Paul is too committed to reducing the size of the Federal government to join his ticket. Immediately the National Jewish Democratic Council issued a statement indicating their outrage over such a possible pairing, namely because of Paul's positions regarding the middle east.

What an interesting proposal. For months I have been saying that the two are one and the same, at least in how they represent the farther reaches of their respective parties wings. If only I had blogged about it, for the record at least. This does bring up an interesting possibility, a third party run for the two...

With all the talk in the press about media magnate Michael Bloomberg's potential as a spoiler in the Presidential race, it's clear that this pairing has much more potential as a spoiler, but for which candidate. I think it's fair to say that both candidates represent voters who feel disenfranchised by their respective parties. According to open secrets.org Dennis Kucinich has raised $2,130,200, compared to Ron Paul's $8,229,811. While this is a relatively small sum compared to the frontrunner's war chests, and Mitt Romney's personal fortune, it definitely shows strong support for the two candidates.

Could the two candidates combine their efforts and actually contend and maybe even win the Presidency as independents. Although unlikely, it is possible, especially when you consider how many people feel so disenfranchised by the entire political process. Although it is obviously a different scenario, Jesse Ventura when my home state's Governor's race, in part by reaching out to those who usually don't vote, as well as utilizing the then underused tool known as the Internet. Both Kucinich and Paul fit into both of those categories.

I will continue to follow this pairing, however unlikely it would be, but I think the most important issue is who would be President. Soft power and influence aside, America is not a Parliamentary system, so whoever would be VP would have virtually no authority to do anything on their agenda and would have to rely solely on any "agreement" made between the two before they began campaigning.

Vouchers for all, bad schools for none

A recent report by the Center for the American Experiment regarding the state of school choice in Minnesota is as eye opening as it is yawn worthy। Considering the obvious and indisputable advantages of school choice, backed up by analytical and thorough studies, the author Mitch Perlstein sums it up best by writing "For the life of me, I can‘t understand how any educator, politician, editorial writer, or anyone else can read such a summary and not conclude that vouchers are worth a try।"

Perlstein's account contains nothing new or groundbreaking, it simply lists what followers of education reform have known for decades। Scratch that, it simply lists what believers of the advantages of choice and free markets have known since the dawn of time. In fact, in his foreword to the report, Minneapolis councilman Don Samuels sums up the knee jerk reactions that the left of center party has toward free markets; "As a Democrat and a politician, I consider it a hazard to attach my name and contribution to this fine essay. The majority of my voting base will probably frown on this association." To take a page from Friedman, food stamps may be a great way to help the poor get the food they need, but no one, save maybe Dennis Kucinich, would advocate that the government monopolize and run all the supermarkets in America.

I suggest anyone who reads this blog also read the report, I will not bore you with a glorified book report. Instead I would simply like to bring up the one point that Perlstein neglects to mention in his piece, which is the Minnesota Constitution, and the Supreme Court which holds a monopoly on the power to decide if state law is in lock step with our founding document. A cursory glance at the constitution shows the two sections which govern education in our State.

Section 1. UNIFORM SYSTEM OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS. The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it is the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools. The legislature shall make such provisions by taxation or otherwise as will secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state.
Sec। 2. PROHIBITION AS TO AIDING SECTARIAN SCHOOL. In no case shall any public money or property be appropriated or used for the support of schools wherein the distinctive doctrines, creeds or tenets of any particular Christian or other religious sect are promulgated or taught.

Although a search of the Star Tribune's website does not show the specific editorial I know I have read that paper opine on vouchers, saying that ultimately we can't do it because our constitution prohibits it and the current Supreme Court will not allow it. Although I disagree with their ideology, that does not change the fact that our chief lawyers see it as such and nothing we as citizens can do, short of a constitutional amendment, will change that. We all know that unjust laws and policies have been shrouded by the black robes using constitutional precepts since the founding of our nation, see Dred Scott. But it took decades to undue the injustices perpetrated by a Supreme Court corrupted by Southern Slave Power. The same is probably true of our current academic-legal complex.

The closest Perlstein comes to acknowledging the role of the courts in this process is, in fact, to make the opposite point. "But not talking about religious schools leaves the impression that the U.S. Supreme Court didn‘t rule in the 2002 Cleveland case that a properly designed and run voucher program is perfectly congruent with the First Amendment." Yes, it is clearly true that the US Constitution does not prohibit public money being spent for student's education at religious schools. But our constitution can be, and is, interpreted that way.

So what is the point, or rather, what can be done about this predicament। I think that the only two options are both large mountains to be climbed; a constitutional amendment authorizing such expenditures, or waiting until our current crop of black robes retire and replacing them with more progressive, forward thinking lawyers। Both of these options are undesirable and simply leave hundreds of thousands of inner city minorities stuck in the squalor that is the public school system. I think Drs. Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom summed it up best when they wrote "The racial gap in academic achievement is an educational crisis, but it is also the main source of ongoing racial inequality. And racial inequality is America‘s great unfinished business". Racial inequality in education is a fact in our state and the most obvious way to give poor minority children a ticket out of the ghetto is consistently blocked by those that big media has crowned as the champions of their cause. Below is a link to the report, I urge you to read it।

http://www.americanexperiment.org/uploaded/files/achievement_gaps__vouchers_012507.pdf

Michelle Bachmann and the MOA

For my inagural blog I think I will touch upon something that I have read on five seperate blogs on blogspot. Rep Michelle Bachmann R-MN recently returned from a trip from Iraq and, being from Minnesota, described one of Saddam's palaces as being like the Mall of America. her exact quote was...

"It’s absolutely huge,” she said. “I turned to my colleagues and said there’s a commonality with the Mall of America, in that it’s on that proportion. There’s marble everywhere. The other thing I remarked about was there is water everywhere. He had man-made lakes all around his personal palace — one for fishing, one for boating.”

Ok, having been to the Mall of America many times I can get a feel for the magnitude of the place. Sounds like a good analogy to me.

But not so fast, according to the blogging left, Ms. Bachmann was talking about Iraq.

Thinkprogress.org's first statement about her comments is "In reality, Iraq is nothing like the Mall of America"

CapeClod posted on wonkette.com "So Bachmann says Iraq is like the Mall of America"

And our friend Blueman at buildourparty.blogspot.com listed in his things to be thankful for "We’re thankful that visiting the Mall of America isn’t really like visiting Iraq."

I suppose I can understand the vitriolic hatred of Ms. Bachmann, but please., can you not come up with some other quote that you can twist completely out of context. Weak guys, weak