Categories

Archive for the ‘Pelosi’ Category

Jeffrey Toobin’s article isn’t factually accurate:

As Congress originally conceived it, the A.C.A. called for each state to set up its own exchange with a Web site, which most of the blue states and a few of the red ones did. But two dozen of them did not, so the Obama Administration established a federal counterpart, centered on the Web site healthcare.gov.

First, three dozen states didn’t create state-run exchanges, not two. Next, HealthCare.gov was created in the same legislation that authorized states to build their exchanges. The Obama administration didn’t create HealthCare.gov after they saw states refuse to create state-run exchanges.

Then there’s this:

According to the D.C. Circuit majority, one line in the text of the A.C.A. makes the federal exchange invalid. The law says that subsidies are to be available through exchanges that are “established by a State,” without an explicit authorization of federal exchanges. Thus, according to the judges in the majority, five million or so people who have used the federal exchange to buy health insurance must now lose it.

That’s another inaccurate statement. It isn’t just that judges said people who bought insurance through HealthCare.gov weren’t eligible for subsidies. The US House, the US Senate and President Obama said it, too.

If the US House, the US Senate and President Obama wanted everyone to get these subsidies, they could’ve written it into the ACA’s language. What’s really at play here is that the US House, the US Senate and President Obama wanted everyone to be eligible for those subsidies but they also understood that they’d need a hammer to hold over red states to force them into creating state-run exchanges.

The US House, the US Senate and President Obama calculated that they could force red states into creating state-run exchanges by making it politically unpopular to not create state-run exchanges.

The problem with the Democrats’ bluff is that red states called the Democrats’ bluff. They essentially said that they weren’t worried about not creating a state-run exchange in their states.

Next, Toobin constructs a strawman argument:

Katzmann writes that “excluding legislative history is just as likely to expand a judge’s discretion as reduce it…. When a statute is ambiguous, barring legislative history leaves a judge only with words that could be interpreted in a variety of ways without contextual guidance as to what legislators may have thought. Lacking such guidance increases the probability that a judge will construe a law in a manner that the legislators did not intend.”

There’s nothing abiguous about the legislative language in this provision. It’s exceptionally clear. When a statute says that subsidies are only through exchanges “established by a state”, that means that subsidies aren’t available to people who bought their insurance through HealthCare.gov.

The more important point is that this should be a shot across the legislators’ bow to write clearly written statutes. If legislation can be “interpreted in a variety of ways”, then legislators aren’t doing their job. If the legislators who wrote the law can’t write it clearly, then that’s their problem. Period. The citizens who didn’t qualify for subsidies should take it out on the people who wrote the bill and the people who voted for the legislation.

Further, people who don’t qualify for these subsidies should take it out on Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. They’re the people who brought the bill up for a vote before anyone could read the bill. They’re the people who wrote the final bill in the privacy of their offices rather than marking it up in committees.

Here’s a whopper:

When the Affordable Care Act was being debated, every member of Congress–supporters of the A.C.A. as well as opponents–understood that the federal government would have the right to establish exchanges in states that chose not to create them. As Judge Harry Edwards observed in his dissenting opinion in the A.C.A. case, “The Act empowers HHS to establish exchanges on behalf of the States, because parallel provisions indicate that Congress thought that federal subsidies would be provided on HHS-created exchanges, and, more importantly, because Congress established a careful legislative scheme by which individual subsidies were essential to the basic viability of individual insurance markets.”

Judge Edwards is wrong. The clear language of the bill doesn’t imply that “federal subsidies would be provided on HHS-created exchanges.” It directly says the opposite.

What can be stated is that Congress wanted everyone who made less than 400% of the federal poverty level to be eligible for subsidies and that all 50 states establish state-run health insurance exchanges. Further, we can state that Congress wrote the bill the way they did to force states into creating their own health insurance exchanges.

Congress can’t have it both ways. Either they write the law to make everyone below a certain income level eligible without conditions or they write it so that only people that met specific criteria were eligible.

As the Halbig case demonstrates, textualism is as politically fraught as any other approach to judging. The Halbig case is not an attempt to police unclear drafting but rather the latest effort to destroy a law that is despised by many conservatives.

Without question, Halbig is an attempt to destroy Obamacare. The thing is whether the Supreme Court will have the courage to say that specific language means specific things or whether they’ll say that the executive branch can change a law after it’s been written by Congress, voted on by Congress and signed by the president.

What Toobin is essentially asking for is a mulligan. He’s asking for that because 36 states didn’t do what Congress had hoped they’d do. Mulligans are for golfers, not major legislation that was passed without scrutiny in the dead of night the night before Christmas Eve.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

This video should worry Democrats:

The Democrats think they’ve caught Sen. Torrey Westrom in a ‘Mitt Romney moment’. In reality, they’ve shown 7th District voters that their activists aren’t the brightest people around. Here’s what I’m talking about:

Man: [During] the Eisenhower Administration, we built our infrastructure, our roads, our bridges, our schools, our fire halls, we built that during that era and the tax rate on the wealthiest people was 60 percent, and it was an honor for them, and society looked up to them, they were pillars in their community and respected, and we appreciated them. And now all I see is scapegoating on the poor, blaming people on food assistance when they can’t even get a part-time job… I’m saying that [rich people] pay less in income tax than poor people do.

Westrom: Even though 48 percent of Americans don’t pay taxes?

The first indication that this activist isn’t the brightest bulb in the chandelier is his implication that high income taxes in the 1950s paid for the interstate highway system. Income taxes didn’t have a thing to do with building and maintaining the interstate highway system:

About 70 percent of the construction and maintenance costs of Interstate Highways in the United States have been paid through user fees, primarily the fuel taxes collected by the federal, state, and local governments. To a much lesser extent they have been paid for by tolls collected on toll highways and bridges. The Highway Trust Fund, established by the Highway Revenue Act in 1956, prescribed a three-cent-per-gallon fuel tax, soon increased to 4.5 cents per gallon. In 1993 the tax was increased to 18.4 cents per gallon, where it remains as of 2012.

The next indicator that this activist isn’t the brightest bulb in the chandelier is that he thinks “poor people” pay more income taxes than “the rich.” Sen. Westrom dispatched that argument by telling the activist that “48 percent of Americans” don’t pay income taxes.

This wasn’t a vilification of “poor people.” It was simply a statement of statistical fact. It’s interesting that the DFL activist thinks stating a statistical fact is an act of vilification. Sen. Westrom finally had enough of the activist’s rantings:

Man: The Bible says, ‘To whom much has been given, much shall be required.’ Now [the wealthy] built that infrastructure and they did that out of the goodness of their hearts in the ’50s and now it’s like pulling teeth to get an extra dime out of the wealthiest people in this society, and I’m tired of it.

Westrom: Let me tell you, versus your philosophy, my philosophy is, don’t overtax the citizens, let them keep their hard-earned wealth [and] take care of themselves as much as they can and we do for the communities that individually they can’t do for themselves. You would rather tax everybody’s income, take it away from them, redistribute it, government knows best…

Before getting into Sen. Westrom’s reply, let’s focus on the activist’s statement that “the wealthy built that infrastructure…out of the goodness of their hearts…” That’s the picture of delusion. The truth is that “the wealthy” built much of this nation’s infrastructure to create bigger profits for their companies.

As for Sen. Westrom’s statement, he’s right in his philosophy of letting the people keep their money. The thought that the federal government knows best is intellectually laughable. For instance, Minnesota had a great health insurance system that featured one of the lowest rates of uninsured in the nation. In 2011, 93% of Minnesotans were insured. In 2013, thanks directly to the Affordable Care Act, that rate of insured ‘jumped’ to 95%. It just cost Minnesotans the paltry amount of $160,000,000 and counting.

The MNsure website still isn’t working. In fact, it won’t be working correctly until after this fall’s open enrollment. Thank God for the federal government’s intervention. I don’t know what we would’ve done without their assistance, though I’d love to find out.

This video should dispel the notion of government being benevolent:

Simply put, Sen. Westrom is right in ridiculing this activist. In fact, it’s best for him to just put this behind him so he can highlight his positive agenda and Collin Peterson’s history of Nancy Pelosi pushing him around. (Think voting for Cap and Trade after promising his constituents he wouldn’t vote for it.)

Sen. Westrom won’t take the 7th District for granted like Collin Peterson has for the last 20 years. Sen. Westrom has a history of getting things done. That’s the type of congressman Minnesota’s 7th District needs.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

This article highlights the intelligent fight Torrey Westrom will fight in Congress if he defeats Collin Peterson:

“The Keystone pipeline needs to be built, I am here to tell you, and it should have been built last year, not delayed another several months as we are seeing under this current Administration,” Westrom said. Without the pipeline, oil producers are using an increasing number of railcars to transport their supply, which is squeezing out farmers and propane suppliers.

“[Grain] elevators from the south end of the 7th District to the north tell me they are still going to have last year’s crop when this year’s crop comes in, and they can’t get enough extra cars to ship it out,” Westrom continued. “That’s unacceptable. We need to build energy and infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline. That’s something I will advocate for.”

When it comes to getting things done in DC, Collin Peterson is about as worthless as a potted plant. He didn’t stand up to President Obama and the environmental activists that run the EPA or the spineless diplomats in the State Department.

Thanks to Congressman Peterson’s spinelessness, grain elevators in Minnesota’s 7th District are hurting. Minnesota’s 7th District doesn’t need a DC insider with ‘influence’. Minnesota’s 7th District needs someone who gets things done.

Collin Peterson is rich with DC insider influence. Unfortunatly, he isn’t the type of congressman who gets important things done that help his district.

If voters in Minnesota’s 7th District dump Peterson, they’ll immediately see the difference in the number of important things that get done compared with Peterson’s potted plant routine.

The panel also asked the 7th District candidate what can be done to reduce government regulatory delays. “Indecision is very paralyzing for industry and for farmers,” Westrom said about the overregulation that effects Minnesota’s farmers. “Some sort of cap on decisions, so people can count on a yes or a no, or at least know what needs to be changed in a timely period, is something we should aim for.” Westrom emphasized that we should “not have unelected bureaucrats continue to delay processes.”

Peterson loves DC’s ineffective status quo. He doesn’t really have to do anything. All he has to do is talk about how much institutional influence he has. What Peterson can’t talk about is how his presence in DC is helping reduce regulations or improve life in Minnesota’s 7th District.

Throughout the forum, panelists expressed concern about government overreach, asking other candidates about the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule on navigable waters and delay on the Renewable Fuel Standard.

The EPA is a farmer’s worst nightmare. Daily, they micromanage what a farmer can and can’t do. Their new rule will get struck down by the Supreme Court because it goes far beyond the legislative language of the Clean Water Act, aka the CWA.

Not that Collin Peterson cares but the EPA can’t implement a rule that goes beyond the legislative language. That language currently says the EPA can regulate navigable waters. The EPA’s rule would allow them to regulate waters not considered navigable.

At one point, Collin Peterson was a tolerable congressman. Those days have passed. In 2009, Nancy Pelosi corrupted him. He hasn’t been a Blue Dog Democrat since. That says one thing: it’s time for a change.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rick Nolan doesn’t have rich fat cat special interests supporting him:

Rick Nolan says one thing and does another. On Rick’s Facebook page, he’s claiming that he doesn’t have “millions of dollars or billionaire super PACs” backing him. Ironically, at the same time Rick is outraged that some stations pulled the ads attacking me off the air for being dishonest and highly edited.

Here’s the hypocrisy: Rick’s confederates, the PACs that attack me and support him, are some of the biggest and wealthiest of all time. Rick’s duplicity and record of standing with the big time D.C. money speaks for itself: voting against funding for our veterans, voting against building the Keystone XL pipeline, voting for a carbon tax and voting to continue Obamacare.

Having AFSCME PEOPLE, TakeAction Minnesota and House Majority PAC running ads and making phone calls for you is proof that deep pockets are siding with you. That’s who’s supporting Nolan. That’s why Nolan’s whining should be ignored. There’s more to highlight about Nolan, too.

When Jim Oberstar voted for Cap and Trade, miners immediately understood that he’d voted to kill mining:

“Small business owners are afraid to invest in their own business to create jobs,” he said. “Miners, when you start talking to them about this cap-and-trade bill and how it’s going to affect the mines, you’ve got their attention.”

Nolan has voted for a carbon tax, which is a different name for Cap & Trade. Nolan’s finally supporting PolyMet. That’s essentially irrelevant because he’d demolish the mining industry if the carbon tax became law. It’s just another example of how Nolan simply can’t resist his environmental activist roots.

Rick Nolan is an environmental activist. That’s who he’s always been. He’ll occasionally flip-flop to win an election but there’s no question that he’s an environmental activist.

That isn’t good for Nolan because Iron Range families know that environmental activists are the miners’ worst nightmare.

Despite Nolan’s whining, the truth is that he’s supported by deep pocketed special interests. That’s because he’s just another politician who can be bought. (Rumor has it that, in DC, he walks the halls of Congress with a ‘For Sale’ button on his lapel. Just kidding.)

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

After writing this post, I read TakeAction Minnesota’s statement to the end. If I hadn’t, I would’ve missed the Democrats’ explanation of the Pelosi/AFSCME PEOPLE defamatory ad:

The ad was edited to fit a standard TV time slot, not to change the content of Mills’ positions on issues.

That’s ridiculous. The Democrats’ ad wasn’t edited. It was spliced together from 3 separate paragraphs to create a sentence Stewart Mills never said. Here’s Dictionary.com’s definition of edit:

to prepare (text) for publication by checking and improving its accuracy, clarity, etc.

This wasn’t editing according to that definition. What the Democrats did didn’t improve Stewart’s statement’s accuracy or clarity. It created a sentence Stewart didn’t say. This is easily illustrated by the fact that the first 10 words of the fictional sentence came from a of the sentence 11 minutes into the video. The next 10 words from the fictional sentence came from a sentence almost 15 minutes into the video. The final 3 words of the fictional sentence came from a sentence 12 minutes into the video.

The first 10 words came from a paragraph talking about the 2012 election. The next 10 words came from a paragraph where Stewart talked about why jobs weren’t getting created on the Range. The final 3 words came from a sentence where Stewart said that he’s personally offended that this Democrat front group called him a deadbeat for not paying his taxes.

When Democrats splice together 3 partial sentences to create a fictional sentence, it’s verifiable proof that Democrats will throw everything at Stewart Mills between today and Election Day. That’s why the Mills campaign put out this e-letter:


Stewart was right when he said that his Democratic opponents “are shameless and they’ll do anything to win.” That’s who they are. They should be forewarned, though, by this sentence:

I won’t belabor the point except to say that now we know how our opponents operate and we are acutely aware of their sleazy tactics.

Stewart knows that the race is at a critical juncture. He won’t hesitate if taking decisive action is required. It’s apparent that he’s trying to get ahead of this problem by revving up his fundraising machine. That way, he’ll have the ammunition to put Ms. Pelosi, Rick Nolan and the Democrat front groups in their place.

It’s one thing to play hardball politics. This isn’t hardball politics. It’s dirty politics. Expect dumptruck loads more of this stuff during the next 3 months.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

TakeAction Minnesota’s latest press release instructs the press to investigate Stanley Hubbard:

Statewide people’s organization TakeAction Minnesota, which has offices in Duluth and Grand Rapids, issued the following statement regarding a political TV ad running in the 8th Congressional District which was pulled off the air by Hubbard Broadcasting last week in a flurry of controversy:

“The real story isn’t about Stewart Mills or Rick Nolan. The real story is about corporate conservatives limiting political dialogue and eroding free speech. It’s about a billionaire, Stanley Hubbard, protecting certain candidates who protect wealth at the expense of working people. It’s about corporate conservatives and media conglomerates owned and run by billionaires like Stanley Hubbard and the Koch Brothers protecting candidates for their own economic gain. How concentrated wealth increasingly controls public discourse at the expense of people. You can swap in any corporate conservative candidate you want for Stewart Mills.

“There are several important questions voters and the media should be asking. Why did the ad run in the first place? When and why was it decided that it must be pulled down? Did someone from the Mills campaign see it was running and call in a favor from Hubbard? Did Stanley Hubbard himself see the ad and decide it was damaging to Mills? Did someone from Hubbard’s friends connected to the Koch Brothers decide it needed the ax?

It’s understatement to say that the ad they’re talking about didn’t enhance public dialogue. It’s defamatory and dishonest. Saying that it’s highly edited and spliced is understatement. These 128 words that Stewart Mills said:

What happened in the last round of elections, where you had folks saying that ‘the wealthy, the wealthy are not paying their fair share, that there’s all these loopholes and they don’t pay any taxes and we have to make them pay more. Well, you know what? I’m gonna speak for myself and then I’m going to allude to a few others here. We’ve paid for all of our taxes. We reinvest the money we make into our business.

How come we are not generating the jobs in Northeastern Minnesota that we otherwise would? Well I can tell you why. Because the overwhelming group of people that run businesses, that have the ability to employ people are taxed at that personal rate. They are the villains, they’re the bad guys. They’re the ones that quote are not paying their fair share. They’re the ones quote that ‘the 2%, the 1%, whatever percent you want.

To be singled out as a deadbeat is personally offensive.

turned into this 26-word sentence he didn’t say:

…folks saying that ‘the wealthy, the wealthy are not paying their fair share…the 2%, the 1%, whatever percent you want…is personally offensive.

Next, let’s answer some of TakeAction Minnesota’s questions, starting with this one:

Why did the ad run in the first place?

To smear Stewart Mills. It isn’t a coincidence that this smear campaign started after the DCCC put Nolan on their version of endangered incumbents list and after the Cook Report changed their rating of the race from Leans Democratic to toss-up.

Rick Nolan is a deeply flawed candidate running a terrible, 1-issue race. It isn’t a coincidence that Nolan’s campaign is focusing on Mills “representing the 1-percent.”

Q2: When and why was it decided that it must be pulled down?

After attorneys from the Mills campaign a) notified KSTP and WDIO of the defamatory nature of the ad and b) reminded them that the TV stations weren’t protected from running the ad:

The false ad bankrolled by AFSCME/House Majority PAC against Stewart Mills does not constitute a “candidate use.” Under Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 412 U.S. 94 (1973), and Nat’l Conservative Political Action Comm., 89 FCC 2d 626 (1982), your station is not obligated to air any advertisements from third parties, such as the AFSMCE/House Majority PAC, as third parties have no guaranteed right of access to air their advertisements on your station. Thus, broadcasting stations are not protected from legal liability for airing a false and misleading advertisement sponsored by the AFSCME/House Majority PAC. Moreover, broadcast licensees have a legal responsibility to review and to eliminate any false, misleading, or deceptive materials contained in advertising.

KSTP and WDIO pulled the ad when they saw that the ad was defamatory and they weren’t protected from having a lawsuit filed against them.

Q3: Did someone from the Mills campaign see it was running and call in a favor from Hubbard?

This is pure speculation intended to take the spotlight off the fact that Rick Nolan didn’t support mining jobs on the Range until the political pressure forced him into supporting creating mining jobs.

It isn’t a DFL conspiracy theory without throwing in this boogeyman:

Did someone from Hubbard’s friends connected to the Koch Brothers decide it needed the ax?

The paranoid rantings and the conspiracy theory just wouldn’t be complete without a reference to the Koch Brothers.

Now it’s time to ask TakeAction Minnesota this straightforward question: How can an organization that’s a major part of the DFL’s messaging and GOTV machine benefit from our nation’s tax laws? After all, TakeAction Minnesota’s facebook page states pretty clearly that they’re a nonprofit. Their member organizations page is filled with DFL front organizations. Their every action is, by Al Franken’s definition, political.

Simply put, TakeAction Minnesota’s public call for an investigation into Stanley Hubbard and the Koch Brothers is both a farce and a gimmick. This DFL front group’s questions are illegitimate because TakeAction Minnesota knows that the Pelosi ad was pulled because it was defamatory.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

TakeAction Minnesota’s fundraising email is clear proof that DFL front groups a) don’t care about the truth and b) won’t hesitate in smearing anyong they think of as a threat to their power. Here’s their latest fundraising e-letter:

Dear Gary,

In a 2013 speech, 8th district congressional candidate Stewart Mills said that all the talk about the rich not paying their fair share and corporations dodging taxes singled him out as a deadbeat, and was “personally offensive.”

But his billionaire friends at Hubbard Broadcasting won’t air an ad that uses his own words to call him out.

And here’s the kicker: the owner of Hubbard Broadcasting, Stanley Hubbard, is a major donor to Mills’ campaign and a friend of the Koch brothers. When a media station owned by someone who has maxed out to a candidate is keeping voters from knowing where that candidate stands, something’s not right.

We’re getting ready to launch a door-to-door canvass across the district to reach out to voters and give them the facts about where Stewart Mills stands and talk about what really matters to working families.

Mills doesn’t think that he and his fellow millionaires should have to pay more in taxes and he doesn’t support raising the federal minimum wage. Billionaires like Stanley Hubbard shouldn’t get to decide whether or not voters know the truth – but you and I both know that, as long as they own the media, they have an outsized voice in our elections.

That’s where you come in.

Thanks for standing with us,
Dan and the whole TakeAction Minnesota team

Mr. McGrath’s distortions are noteworthy. First, the ad was shut down because the ad, which was initially paid for by Nancy Pelosi’s PAC, is an outright distortion that I wrote about in this article. Here’s what Stewart Mills actually said:

What happened in the last round of elections, where you had folks saying that ‘the wealthy, the wealthy are not paying their fair share, that there’s all these loopholes and they don’t pay any taxes and we have to make them pay more. Well, you know what? I’m gonna speak for myself and then I’m going to allude to a few others here. We’ve paid for all of our taxes. We reinvest the money we make into our business.

How come we are not generating the jobs in Northeastern Minnesota that we otherwise would? Well I can tell you why. Because the overwhelming group of people that run businesses, that have the ability to employ people are taxed at that personal rate. They are the villains, they’re the bad guys. They’re the ones that quote are not paying their fair share. They’re the ones quote that ‘the 2%, the 1%, whatever percent you want.

To be singled out as a deadbeat is personally offensive.

Pelosi’s PAC took those 128 words and turned them into this 26-word sentence:

…folks saying that ‘the wealthy, the wealthy are not paying their fair share…the 2%, the 1%, whatever percent you want…is personally offensive.

Honest, thoughtful people would see that Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic front groups like TakeAction Minnesota didn’t just take Stewart Mills’ words out of context. They spliced his words together to create a sentence he didn’t say.

Minnesota has an option this November. If they vote Democrat, they’re voting for the political party that a) didn’t hesitate in smearing Republicans, b) didn’t hesitate in smearing media companies who have a legal obligation to the public and c) had to run a massive smear campaign on multiple levels because they couldn’t run on their accomplishments.

Here’s KSTP’s legal obligation:

The false ad bankrolled by AFSCME/House Majority PAC against Stewart Mills does not constitute a “candidate use.” Under Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 412 U.S. 94 (1973), and Nat’l Conservative Political Action Comm., 89 FCC 2d 626 (1982), your station is not obligated to air any advertisements from third parties, such as the AFSMCE/House Majority PAC, as third parties have no guaranteed right of access to air their advertisements on your station. Thus, broadcasting stations are not protected from legal liability for airing a false and misleading advertisement sponsored by the AFSCME/House Majority PAC. Moreover, broadcast licensees have a legal responsibility to review and to eliminate any false, misleading, or deceptive materials contained in advertising.

KSTP and WDIO could’ve kept running Pelosi’s disgustingly dishonest ad…if they wanted to lose a high dollar lawsuit.

That Stan Hubbard has contributed to Republicans isn’t news any more than Alida Messinger contributing to the DFL is news. What’s different here is that this DFL front organization knows the facts behind the Pelosi ad getting tossed. Rather than admitting that Pelosi’s ad is dishonest, TakeAction Minnesota is engaging in a nasty smear campaign against a media outlet they don’t like.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

There’s now enough evidence to prove that Nancy Pelosi is as corrupt a Democrat as Harry Reid or President Obama. Last week, Pelosi’s PAC, which supports Democrat congressional candidates and incumbents, put together an ad so dishonest and defamatory that WDIO and KSTP, a pair of TV stations, pulled the ad. That didn’t stop Ms. Pelosi, though. Instead, Ms. Pelosi’s PAC doubled down by essentially running the same ad as a pop-up ad on RealClearPolitics. Here’s one of the ads from Pelosi’s PAC:

If dishonesty were diamonds, Pelosi’s PAC would be filthy rich.

Let’s get something straight from the start. Pelosi’s PAC doesn’t care about honesty. If they have to throw out integrity to defeat a Republican, that’s what they’ll do. While Democrats specialize in smearing Republicans, they aren’t that good at it.

When the House Majority PAC accused Stewart Mills of wanting tax cuts for his “wealthy friends,” I exposed that lie in this article in less than an hour. All it took was a quick visit to Stewart’s issues page on his campaign website. I proved that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats had lied again.

Stewart’s position is that tax simplification would immediately help small businesses by dramatically reducing a ssmall business’s compliance costs. Reducing compliance costs frees up capital, which can then be used to expand the business and create jobs.

There’s no question that Democrats see Mills as a threat. First, Pelosi’s PAC put together a defamatory ad against him. Sunday night, I saw another dishonest ad from the Democrats smearing Stewart Mills, this one paid for by AFSCME PEOPLE. The ads were virtually the same. They even used the same narrator and virtually the same dishonest statements. AFSCME PEOPLE’s ad will certainly be taken down as quickly as the Pelosi PAC ad was last week.

The TV station running the AFSCME PEOPLE ad, in this instance WCCO-TV, would be in the same negative legal situation as KSTP and WDIO would’ve been in if they hadn’t pulled the ad. When a candidate runs an ad, the TV station can’t pull the ad, which means the TV station can’t be sued. When an independent expenditure organization or a PAC runs a defamatory ad, the TV station can pull the ad, which puts the TV station in legal risk.

Pelosi’s PAC and other Democratic front groups will undoubtedly keep attacking Stewart Mills because Rick Nolan can’t defeat Mills without driving Mills’ turnout down. The Democratic machine doesn’t care if they’re fined for defaming a Republican candidate after the election. Their only priority is winning that election.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rick Nolan must think he’s got a hot issue. From the start of this campaign, he’s railed that Stewart Mills doesn’t understand the voters in the Eighth District because he’s a “one-percenter.” This article says that Nolan is campaigning on the issue:

Increasing the federal minimum wage is front and center in Minnesota’s Eighth Congressional District race. “Stewart Mills is against increasing the minimum wage,” an AFSCME television ad says.

Actually, the ad was pulled because it’s dishonest and defamatory. Further, it was paid for by Nancy Pelosi’s PAC, which means that TV stations aren’t protected from lawsuits if the content is found to be defamatory.

While Nolan, AFSCME and the Democratic Party focus on minimum wage jobs, Stewart Mills and other pro-growth Republicans have focused on creating high-paying jobs:

“Stewart does not support an increase in the federal minimum wage,” said Mills campaign spokesperson Chloe Rockow. “But that’s because he thinks that the best way to create jobs, the best way to help people in minimum wage jobs is to make sure that there are better paying jobs; more jobs that require higher skills and the way to get those jobs is to grow the economy.” Mills says his company, Mills Fleet Farm, pays its employees a rate above the state minimum wage.

Voters in the Eighth District need to ask themselves if they’d rather vote for a candidate whose economic platform is raising the federal minimum wage or a candidate who has created hundreds of jobs that pay more than the minimum wage.

Further, do voters in the Eighth District want to be represented by a man who’s more worried about raising the minimum wage of existing jobs or a represented by a man who’s worried about creating lots of new jobs that pay well above the minimum wage? If they want the former, they should vote for Rick Nolan. If they want to be represented by someone whose life has centered on creating new jobs that pay significantly more than the minimum wage, then Stewart Mills is the clear choice.

Considering the fact that the median household income for the Iron Range is almost $25,000 a year less than the statewide average, why wouldn’t you vote for the candidate who wants to create lots of new jobs that pay significantly higher wages than the minimum wage?

Then there’s the fact that Nolan can’t tell the truth if his life depended on it:

“Ironically, my opponent, Stewart Mills III, is paid $570,000 a year, nearly $300 an hour, by his family firm, even though $45 an hour is the going rate for a position like his,” Nolan said. “And yet he has the audacity to oppose raising the minimum wage for everyday hardworking Americans to $10.10 an hour?”

That’s proof Nolan is a liar. He knows there aren’t any executive vice presidents of major retail chains getting paid $93,600 a year. This is further proof that Rick Nolan will say anything to get elected:

Northern Minnesota is known for its great fishing, so perhaps it’s fitting that tracking 8th District Congressman Rick Nolan’s position on a bill that deregulates the mining industry and fast tracks the permitting process for PolyMet is a bit like watching a fish flopping around on a dock: first he’s against it, then he’s for it and now he once again opposes it, this time promising to vote against the legislation if it “comes anywhere near close to becoming law.”

The reaction of the those who gathered in Bohannon Hall on that Saturday afternoon is perhaps best summed up by 32-year-old Jesse Peterson, who characterized Nolan’s responses and actions with respect to HR 761 as “incredibly deceptive and reflecting a willingness to be phony.”

First, Nolan’s solution for mining was a mining institute. Then he said he supported PolyMet “if it could be done” in an environmentally safe way. Now, he’s fully supportive of PolyMet…sorta. He supports PolyMet even though, according to environmental activists, it might pollute an entire watershed. On the other hand, Nolan opposes the Enbridge pipeline:

Citing environmental and economic concerns, the Minnesota Democrat issued a statement in which he spoke of potential threats to environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, porous sandy soil, drinking water sources and what he termed some of the cleanest lakes in the state.

In other words, Rick Nolan supports PolyMet until the day after the election, when he’ll return to his environmental activist roots. Environmental activists haven’t said anything since the DFL State Convention. Have they gotten a wink and nod from Nolan that he’ll support them after the election? That’s certainly possible, isn’t it? It isn’t like Nolan would be the first politician to break a campaign promise.

The simple solution is to vote for the candidate who’s consistently advocated for PolyMet and who has created lots of new jobs that pay significantly more than the minimum wage. That’s Stewart Mills.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday night, Greta van Susteren expressed her frustration with Harry Reid and the Democrat-controlled Senate. Here’s what she said:

You know, I don’t know what’s going to happen in this year’s midterms but I hope that the American people think long and hard, because if you’re gonna say that something is a humanitarian crisis and it’s so important for the nation and then you leave town, I can’t think of a greater way to not do your job.

Greta spoke while the House voted on the immigration bill. She spoke specifically about how the House was still in session while passing a bill to fix the border crisis. She highlighted the fact that she didn’t know if the Republican bill was a great bill or a terrible bill but she respected the fact that they were at least sticking around in an attempt to fix the problem.

She then lit into the Senate, saying that the Senate called the situation a humanitarian crisis before leaving for a 5-week vacation. Greta noted that they didn’t even stick around to try and work through the differences between the House bill and the Senate bill.

That isn’t surprising. Sen. Reid has practiced my-way-or-the-highway tactics since becoming Majority Leader. Sen. Reid is the chief source of the disintegrating attitude in DC. Between President Obama’s hostility and trash-talking and Sen. Reid’s daily lies, they’re a two-man wrecking crew with their sights set on demolishing bipartisanship.

The chief lesson to be learned from Sen. Reid’s irresponsible behavior is that Democrats aren’t nice people that we simply disagree with as Gov. Romney used to say. It’s that too many Democrat senators and congresscritters are despicable low-lifes who care more about winning political battles than they care about doing what’s right for the nation.

Their priorities show in their my-way-or-the-highway style of governing. Their priorities show in how they turn 3 paragraphs and 128 words about economic growth into a 22-word sentence telling the world that “the rich” think they need another tax break.

Simply put, Harry Reid is a tyrant. He’s turned the Senate into a graveyard, a place with 358 bills have died without so much as a committee hearing or a debate. He’s taken away the right of Republicans to represent their states. For that matter, the Democrats don’t represent their states. They represent Sen. Reid, who represents President Obama.

What’s interesting is that Democrat senators haven’t complained that they represent President Obama instead of representing their states. Since that’s the case, perhaps it’s time those states noticed that they aren’t being represented. Perhaps it’s time they elected someone willing to represent them, rather than electing someone who represents a tyrant and a power hungry president.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,