The drive-by media has been pounding the fact into our heads that the Democrats will sweep on November 7. But is this really the case? Are the media's polls still hopelessly flawed, based on an old system of elections in which the Democrats beat the Republicans in voter turnout initiatives, and all politics was about local issues? The more I see, the more skeptical I am that the media is just trying to influence the outcome rather than reporting valid data with these polls. Let's look at the last several elections and the media coverage:

• 1994: No one in the Drive-by media seriously predicted the Republican take-over. Yet the Republicans came in and took over both chambers for the first time in decades.
• 1996: The drive-by media, counting 1994 as a fluke, predicted that the congress would go the way of Bill Clinton. If he were re-elected, the congress would revert back to the Democrats. If he wasn't, it would stay Republican. After the elections, they chalked it up to a "pro-incumbancy" election.
• 1998: The media predicted that the fallout over impeachment would bring the Dems back to power.
• 2000: Media was somewhat non-committal about the congressional elections, focusing more on the Presidency.
• 2002: Media predicted that Americans, sick of G.W. Bush, would put the Dems back in power because people liked "Divided Government". Republicans Swept.
• 2004: A victory was predicted for Kerry, and with him the Dems were predicted to pick up many seats. Republicans increased to a 55-seat majority.
• 2006: The year of the Democrat, according to the Drive-by Media. They are already calling San Fran Nan "Speaker Pelosi". We'll see...

 Gays and Marriage

The current definition of marriage:

Marriage - \mar-ig\ - the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.

Gays want to change the definition of marriage to: the joining together of any two or more people in a legal bond for the purpose of having an intimate personal relationship.

The most common reasons cited for support of Gay marriage:

· Love

· Marriage gives heterosexual partners end of life rights not available to homosexual partners

· Benefits, like Social security and health insurance, are denied to homosexual spouses.

Love

I am amused when I hear Gay advocates say they are discriminated against because they can’t marry the person they love, as if love is the most compelling argument for gay marriage. As a heterosexual, married for more than 20 years, with children, I can assure Gay advocates that love as a reason for getting marriage is totally absurd.

Marriage has been existence for at least 5,000 years and until 100 years ago most people has no choice of when, if, or who they would marry. Marriage was created for the protection of women and children, passing of inheritance and to organize our social and political world. At higher levels of society, family and tribal bonds were created or strengthened by marriage.

Science has shown the chemicals in the brain which give us the feeling of being in love, rarely last more than two years. Love is a chemical imbalance, causing temporary insanity, which traps the young, inexperienced and innocent into making impossible promises to a complete stranger.

Gay advocates may wonder why the “LUV” reason has no resonance in the hetero world. For those of us creating families there is a spiritual and social aspect of marriage which transcends “LUV”. The production and rearing of children is the most important aspect of heterosexual marriage. Gay marriage can never produce children. Our society depends on the production of children. The production and rearing of children creates those spiritual and social bonds and serves societies needs. Society should reward those who are meeting societies needs by giving them special protection and benefits.

End of Life Benefits

The second argument is that marriage confers rights on married partners, like the ability to automatically inherit property and to manage health care when the partner is unable to make decisions. Since most heteros die single, either from death, divorce or from never having married, heteros don’t benefit from these laws.

The argument that married couples inherit each other’s property automatically at death is of little benefit. Most married couples have a will – or should – no good lawyer will advise married couples to rely on state inheritance laws. Many married couples make extensive plans, especially if they have property, to purposefully avoid the state laws of inheritance. The rights of inheritance in marriage laws, again, don’t benefit people who choose to avoid them or die single as outlined above.

My Mom and Dad were married for more than 55 years. My mother died. He was there to manage the end of life decisions and protect her interests, but no married partner is there for him. He is in the same position in terms of managing his own end of life decisions as a homosexual would be.

Gay advocates can’t argue they are being discriminated against because of sexual orientation because most heterosexuals don’t benefit from these laws. It is only the small percentage of people, who happen to be married when their spouse is ill or dies, and choose the use the laws, who benefit. Gay advocates overestimate this number.

Gays can and do create contracts and using living wills to the same effect as the laws governing marriage. So our laws do not keep gays from having the same rights as any single person or widow(er).

Social Security and Health Care Benefits

The argument for Social Security and Health Care benefits is also not compelling. If gays succeed in litigating spousal benefits from the Social Security administration and from employee or private health insurance companies, the result will be less benefits for everyone. Gay marriage will open up the definition of marriage to any grouping of two or more people. And, of course, there will be those few who use marriage simply to get benefits even though they really do not have an intimate personal relationship.

The social security system is bankrupt now and can’t give the benefits promised to its current beneficiaries. If gays succeed in getting those benefits, then the result will be fewer benefits for all, spreading the current sparse resources over a larger population. The current benefit for spouses is to reward and protect those who spent time producing and raising children. This is a benefit for society and should continue.

Employers are already struggling to maintain their insurance benefits and private health insurance companies are facing double digit increases in medical costs. How can employers and private health insurance companies begin to cover this on-slot of new beneficiaries? Faced with this problem, employers and private health insurance companies will retreat to covering only employees and not their families and/or stopping family coverage. Employees will have to pay for their “family” coverage out of their own pocket or possibly get other insurance not with their employer. Private insurance companies will allow individual coverage for adults and their children, but not allow “spouses” on the same plan. At a time when children are underserved, this would cause more children to be uninsured.

If marriage is open to any two or more adults then the benefits currently available to tradition men-women marriage will go away. Unveiled, the gay lobby’s push for marriage is about money and the normalization of the gay life style. In the end, their push for these benefits will result in all people losing those benefits and children will be hurt in the process. Heterosexual marriage, between one man and one woman, is an institution for the protection and production of children and as such, deserves special protection and benefits, not for the benefit of the married couple but for the benefit of children. Gay advocates should put aside their grasping for money and status to consider the children who will suffer as a result.

e

 

Amy Klobuchar’s Fumbles

Violent crime in Minneapolis increased 35% in 2005 from one year earlier.

• Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report, 2005: (FBI Website, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2005preliminary/05jan-dec.pdf, Accessed June 10, 2006) 
• “The crimes of homicide, rape, aggravated assault and robbery increased by 35 percent from 2004, compared to an average 5 percent increase for cities of similar size to Minneapolis across the nation, according to FBI crime statistics given to interim Police Chief Tim Dolan on Friday. Violent crime rose an average of 2 percent nationwide.” (David Chanen and Myron P. Medcalf, “Rise in Minneapolis crime topped Midwest, FBI says,” Star Tribune, June 9, 2006).
• This statistic has subsequently been revised to 15.6% - 6 times the national average (David Chanen, “Minneapolis police knew crime data was flawed,” Star Tribune, 6.16.06. Mark Sherman, “Violent crime rises for first time in five years, FBI reports,” Associated Press, June 12, 2006)
• “And according to Minneapolis police data, there were 2,524 reported violent crimes through June 5, up 35 percent from 1,874 at the same time last year.” (David Chanen and Myron Medcalf, “Rise in Minneapolis crime topped Midwest, FBI says,” Star Tribune, June 10, 2006)

Called for a $900 billion tax increase, the largest in American history.

• The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says repealing the tax relief on those making over $500,000 would be a least a $930 Billion tax increase. Therefore, Klobuchar’s proposal of repealing the tax relief on those making over $200,000 would be more than a $930 Billion tax increase.
• “But, while Kennedy said the path back to fiscal health is through lower spending and continued lower taxes, the Democrats favored revisiting the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts Bell would repeal them entirely, while Klobuchar would bring back the higher taxation of those earning $200,000 a year or more.” (Patrick Condon, “Senate Candidates Use Debate To Define Themselves,” The Associated Press, March 3, 2006)

Supports government run universal health care.

• “I favor universal health coverage, and I think we must have universal health coverage. Single-payer is one option, but what I want to see is progress now.” (Amy Klobuchar, Midday, Minnesota Public Radio, February 23, 2006).
• “You know I think single-payer plans are an option, my focus is on universal health care and I want to see immediate progress.” (Amy Klobuchar, Midday, Minnesota Public Radio, June 12, 2006)
• “And that means affordable healthcare, universal healthcare.” (Amy Klobuchar, Rally for Change, April 8, 2006)

Opposed bill funding body armor for our troops and explosive detection equipment.

• A Klobuchar spokeswoman said that Klobuchar would have voted against the defense bill because of ANWR. (Frederic Frommer, “Coleman votes against ANWR filibuster then votes no on drilling,” Star Tribune, December 22, 2005).

Supports amnesty for those who have entered America illegally.

• “The third part of this is when you have 12 million undocumented workers in our country. You have to acknowledge that some of them have been working here for years, they have been paying taxes, and with those people you create some kind of path to citizenship, guest worker program so that they’re not just in the shadows.” (Amy Klobuchar, Midday, MPR, June 12, 2006)
• Klobuchar supports the Senate bill on immigration reform, which includes possible amnesty for some undocumented immigrants, but not the House bill, which would make being an undocumented immigrant a felony. She maintained that immigrants who are working hard and paying taxes should be supported to achieve their American dreams. (Swallehe Msuya, “U.S. Senate candidate addresses Africa-born residents’ issues,” Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder, June, 14, 2006)
• “On immigration, Klobuchar supports a John McCain’s bill to provide path to citizenship to those illegal aliens who agree to pay a fine.” (Josh Verges, “Social Security, deficit reduction, health care key for Senate hopeful,” Austin Daily Herald, February 1, 2006)

Kennedy’s Winning Strategy

Keeping taxes low and controlling spending so we can grow jobs in Minnesota.

• Rep. Mark Kennedy, R-Minn. who faces a challenging Senate race cast the decisive vote... Despite the changes, the core of the five year, $50 billion deficit-reduction bill remains intact. (Andrew Taylor, “House Passes Sweeping $50 Million Budget Cut Bill in a 217-215 Vote,” Associated Press, November 18, 2006).
• "Washington shouldn't have a blank check," Kennedy said. "As a CPA and businessman, I'm happy to see us act to reduce our federal deficit." (Kevin Diaz, “Budget battle: Minnesota's Kennedy puts GOP over top” Star Tribune, November 19, 2006).
• Kennedy said preserving the tax cuts was critical to continued economic growth and smaller government. (Patricia Lopez, “War, taxes and health care top agenda in U.S. Senate debate”, Star Tribune, March 4, 2006)

Taking tax breaks away from oil companies and suspending the gas tax for the summer.

• Reflecting the dangers facing his party over fuel costs, Mr. Kennedy said he told voters that the energy bill was not enough and pointed out that he is a co-sponsor, with Representative Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, of a bill that calls for taking back tax credits from energy companies and doubling investments in ethanol and other renewable fuels. (Michael Janofsky, Democrats Eager to Exploit Anger Over Gas Prices, New York Times, April 21, 2006).
• Congressman Mark Kennedy wants to suspend the federal gas tax for the summer. (One eye's on the gas pump, the other's on the ballot box, Minnesota Public Radio, May 12, 2006)

Putting patients and doctors back in charge of health care.

• Kennedy, who repeatedly asked Bell and Klobuchar how they would pay for their expanded health-care programs, said he would continue to push consumer-driven health-care and lawsuit reform. (“Senate candidates play nice during early debate; DFLers Amy Klobuchar and Ford Bell and Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Kennedy give brief answers on health care and energy policy,” Duluth News Tribune, March 4, 2006)

Winning the war on terrorism and protecting our families here at home.

• "We must win the war over there, so we don't have to fight them here at home," Kennedy said. "Mistakes have been made, but so have corrections." (Rachel Stassen-Berger, Kennedy gets GOP's nod, stresses his independence, Pioneer Press, June 2, 2006).
• Kennedy touched on many of the same themes that helped earn him a reputation in GOP circles as a winner of tough elections. He called for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq until after a victory in the war on terrorism, cutting government spending instead of undoing tax cuts to balance the federal budget, and increasing access to health care through tax incentives and less regulation, not government sponsorship of universal health care. (Pat Condon, State Republicans gather for endorsement, Associated Press, June 2, 2006).

Controlling our borders and holding employers accountable that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

• “We need a comprehensive immigration policy that: Includes a plan to build a fence on our border; Bans criminals from becoming U.S. citizens; Requires new citizens to pass an American history test in English & pledge undivided allegiance to the American flag; Sanctions employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens; Denies illegal immigrants the ability to jump ahead of those who are following the rules to get into this country legally.” (www.MarkKennedy06.com, http://www.markkennedy06.com/petition/)

  Fact or Fiction: The Kennedy Campaign Sets the Record Straight, Because You Just Can’t Trust ‘em When it Comes to Words or Numbers

The Facts Behind Kennedy's Ad "Done" First Degree Drug Offenders Received Downward Durational Departures 51.507% Of The Time In Klobuchar’s Tenure From 1999 Through 2004. (Hennepin County Chart, “% of All 1st Degree Drug Cases within Named County Given Downward Durational Departures by Year,” Received September 13, 2006; Hennepin County Spreadsheet, “Number of Drug Cases by Degree by County and Year Sentenced,” Received September 13, 2006) Klobuchar’s County Attorney’s Office Allowed For Downward Durational Departures In 1st Degree Drug Cases At Least 36% Of The Time And As Much As 63% Of The Time In The Years 1999—2004. (Hennepin County Chart, “% of All 1st Degree Drug Cases within Named County Given Downward Durational Departures by Year,” Received September 13, 2006) (2005 and 2006 statistics not available) Before Klobuchar, “Felon In Possession” Convicts Did Not Serve Their Mandatory Sentence 14.29% Of The Time. In the term before Klobuchar took office (1995 – 1998), sentenced felon in possession criminals received a downward dispositional departure from the mandatory sentencing guidelines 14.29% of the time. (Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, “Departure Rates For Felons In Possession Offenses, 1995-2004,” Received September 25, 2006) In Years Before Klobuchar’s Tenure (1997 – 1998) With A Presumptive Commit For “Felon In Possession” Convicts Did Not Serve Their Mandatory Sentence 19.12% Of The Time. (Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, “Departure Rates For Felons In Possession Offenses, 1995-2004,” Received September 25, 2006) Under Klobuchar Felons In Possession Did Not Serve Their Prison Time 25.87% Of The Time, Representing An 11.58% And 6.75% Increase Over The Two Preceding Bullets’ Percentages, Respectively. In the available years for Klobuchar’s term (1999 – 2004), sentenced gun criminals received a downward dispositional departure from the mandatory sentencing guidelines 25.87% of the time. (Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, “Departure Rates For Felons In Possession Offenses, 1995-2004,” Received September 25, 2006)

 

associated press 

Wednesday, November 1, 2006

 BACHMANN LEADS WETTERLING BY 10 POINTS IN LATEST POLL