Trivializing Illegal Immigration

As a LEGAL immigrant and naturalized American citizen who has filled every form, met every deadline and abided by every rule in order to comply with American immigration laws, I resent the implication from the open borders crowd that I am a racist for wanting the laws to be enforced.

When trying to detract from the term "illegal," open border types often point out to what they consider the inconsistency between Canadian and Mexican border enforcement. The implication is that America discriminates against "brown people." Liberals do so love to play the race card.

However, the Canadian government is not publishing literature to both encourage and help their native population cross the border into the United States "safely," Mexico is.

Canada is not threatening to sue the American government in OUR courts if we send the National Guard to our own borders in order to stem the tide of ILLEGAL immigration, Mexico is.

Canada is not outsourcing its jobs and social services to the United States, Mexico is.

Liberals are obviously ignorant of how strict Mexico's immigration laws are. The Mexican government apparently does not understand the absolute poverty some of the Honduran and Guatemalan immigrants crossing its southern border face in their own country.

Doesn't the Mexican government care where their illegal immigrants' next meal is coming from or how they will get medical care for their sick children? Why is the southern border of Mexico so tightly controlled when the northern one is a sieve? Mexico should be more tolerant of "undocumented" immigrants but they can't get past the word.

Kill Gil

Eight out of twelve letters to the editor and three out of four Rochester Post-Bulletin editorials discussing First District Congressman Gil Gutknecht's performance, positions and statements over the last 60 days have had a negative tone. The letters to the editor are patently orchestrated. The editorials are more disturbing. Perhaps the Post-Bulletin should register as a 527.

Liberals Find God at Guantanamo Bay

Jay Johnson has found God.Sort of.

The Rochester Post-Bulletin editorial writer believes that the Creator has endowed islamofascist terrorists in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere with certain unalienable rights ("God-given rights for all?," Wednesday, July 19, 2006).

It's funny how God is often sidelined in political discussions, unless the Good Lord can somehow be shown to favor the liberal side of an argument.

Whereas Americans and other free peoples pursue happiness through hard work, self-sacrifice, involvement in and support of their duly formed governments, uncivilized and murderous peoples such as the terrorists incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay get their jollies from broadcasting decapitations, blowing up car bombs at street markets and committing other innumerable senseless acts of slaughter.

But Mr. Johnson argues that we "must" protect "the God-given rights of people who might have sought to do us harm." Might? "Harm?" He makes it sound like terrorists have been plotting to toilet paper our homes, place whoopee cushions on our chairs just as we are about to sit down or give Americans a collective wedgie. That bin Laden. What a prankster! The awful truth Mr. Johnson and most liberals refuse to face is that, given a chance, Gitmo detainees would murder our families and us where we stand.

Conferring constitutional rights on fanatical mass murderers, as Mr. Johnson argues we "must," will do nothing but embolden America's enemies in their pursuit of democracy's demise. They will plot, attempt and execute acts of unthinkable carnage secure in the knowledge that, whether their plans are foiled or they are apprehended after the fact, they will be afforded every protection and right guaranteed by the principles, documents and institutions they have sworn to eradicate in the bloodiest possible manner. If liberals like Mr. Johnson have their way, the very rights and freedoms terrorists loath would be showered upon the ones now imprisoned and others we are sure to capture in the future.

The United States Supreme Court has given Congress a unique opportunity to "limit" the so-called rights of sworn enemies of the United States of America. It concerns me that the likes of Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Dick Durbin (D-ILL) will have a say in the matter. Preserving our system of government requires defending it from real threats posed by the likes of Guantanamo Bay terrorist detainees.

In his Gettysburg Address, one of the most brilliant speeches ever written, Abraham Lincoln states that America's Founding Fathers established a nation "conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Mr. Johnson's Guantanamo Bay friends, on the other hand, have dedicated themselves to the proposition that such a nation and form of government SHALL "perish from the earth."

The Declaration of Independence states,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Terrorists do not believe they are equal to "infidels." And they certainly reject the idea that power requires consent of the governed - the major tenet of a democratic government.

The Preamble of our, not the terrorists', Constitution reads,

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

When has al-Qaida, or Hamas and Hezbollah for that matter, ever committed to unity, justice or tranquility? What document have terrorists produced that binds them to the promotion of the good of their people and promises to perpetuate freedom?

I welcome Mr. Johnson's desire to make this an election issue. The referendum question to be answered is as follows. Whose rights are we to preserve, our truly God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or the terrorists' "rights" to take them away?

True Heroes

It is the soldier, not the reporter,

Who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet,

Who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,

Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag,

Who serves beneath the flag,

And whose coffin is draped by the flag,

Who allows the protestor to burn the flag.

Father Denis Edward O'Brien

USMC

Jay Furst, the Rochester Post-Bulletin's managing editor, is in mourning. Two journalists were killed in Iraq on Monday and Mr. Furst took notice that about 71 members of the media have died in the conflict since the war started in 2003.

Mr. Furst believes that because journalists "put their lives on the line to report to the world and explain this critical moment in history," they are heroes. I beg to differ.Unlike most media types, I simply have INFINITELY more empathy for the often thankless work American soldiers do and the sacrifice they bear to keep not only the United States but the whole world safe. Like Father Denis Edward O'Brien, I know and appreciate who actually guarantees the freedom I enjoy.

I will place the value of the work being done by American soldiers injured or killed in the war against terror above any presumed sacrifice any journalist has EVER made. I have not and will not criticize dead or wounded journalists. However, I will criticize their methods, biases, and motivations. Media services and journalists have a choice to go or not go into the field of battle, to risk or not risk injury and death - soldiers do not.

Yesterday I heard an interview with a soldier stationed in Iraq. He said he gets shot at EVERY night. He and every other serviceman and woman, much like the American soldiers in every war before them, in Iraq and Afghanistan are the ones truly putting their lives on the line to SAVE the world at this critical moment in history.

I will not lower standards so far as to label journalists "heroes" - a sure sign of a lack of good judgment and compassion for the true sacrifice American men and women in uniform in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world have made and will continue to make every single day.


American soldiers are the true heroes.

Hot Air

A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He lowered his altitude and spotted a fisherman in a boat below. He shouted to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."



The fisherman consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 4909 minutes west longitude.

The balloonist rolled his eyes and said, "You must be a Republican."

"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."

The fisherman smiled and responded, "You must be a Democrat."

"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"

"Well," said the fisherman, "you don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but, somehow, now it's my fault."

Yearning to Breathe Free

Give me your illegals, those who willingly violate American immigration laws,
Your whiny masses demanding amnesty,
Those who don't even care to learn English.
Send these, who refuse to assimilate into American culture, to me:
I give in to their bullying and make them American citizens because they say so.







I am an American by choice. That choice became official when I took the Oath of Citizenship on Wednesday, November 17, 2004. I often wonder what took me so long to get to that point. Over the years, I had always felt American. My wife often tells me I am the most American person she knows. That's high praise from someone who was born and raised in the Midwest - the heart of America.

But, over the years, my permanent residency status ("green card") alone was not enough. I had become politically aware and drawn to conservatism initially through President Ronald Wilson Reagan's contagious, unapologetic and inspiring love for America. I will write more about Reagan's influence in my life in a later blog.

The Islamic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 changed everything. I am still shocked, saddened and outraged over the events of that fateful day. All of a sudden, it was not enough to simply live here legally. The country that embraced and adopted me had been attacked in a bloodthirsty and cowardly manner. And, as if to confirm the wisdom of my ideological choice, it didn't take long for liberals to ask themselves and a recently wounded country what Americans had done to deserve being on the receiving end of mass murder.

September 11 made me realize that I needed to go all the way citizenshipwise. It was no longer enough to appreciate the history and embrace the values of this great country. I did battle feelings of unworthiness, however. Foolishly, I thought I could live, work and raise a family in America, but surely I wasn't worthy of citizenship. I did overcome those thoughts and determined to become an American. Still, it took me another two years to take the plunge.

What put me over the edge, as it were, was the looming 2004 presidential election. The president who had brought the country together and took the war to the enemy, was suddenly under attack by those who wondered what evils America had been punished for on 9/11. I began applying for citizenship even as I started campaigning for the reelection of President George W. Bush. I shook his hand the first time he came to Rochester - an unforgettable moment in my civic experience. Unfortunately, I was not able to vote for him since the citizenship ceremony was scheduled for two weeks after the election.

The day I became an American citizen was one of the proudest and happiest of my life - right alongside my wedding day and the birth of my six children. The words of the Oath of Citizenship still ring in my ears and resound in my heart:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

It saddened me to realize that others who were about to take the same oath were not serious about the oath's meaning and implications. As I was seated at the Bethel College auditorium, I engaged in at least two conversations where my fellow citizenship candidates confided that they either planned to retain the citizenship of their country of origin or were becoming citizens primarily as a means of obtaining some personal benefit.

I have renounced all allegiance to Brazil, my country of origin. My loyalty is to America. And that's the reason why the recent pro-illegal immigration protests are so disturbing to me. What makes people who deliberately and persistently break America's immigration laws think that they must be rewarded with American citizenship? They are not the "huddled masses yearning to be free." They are people who believe themselves entitled to that which they neither value nor are willing to sacrifice for. Their economic blackmail failed but their threats remain. They are not "yearning to breathe free" or they would take their protests across the border. Imagine what sea change would come about in Mexico if the hundreds of thousands who have marched here were to make the same demands of their own government and on their own soil.

A word on temporary work permits: they are ok with me. Just make sure the application process starts at the applicant's country of origin.

America is a nation of immigrants who came to her shores to find the one thing that made them thrive: FREEDOM. Freedom was the yearning of their hearts, not entitlement and dependence. They didn't feel they were owed anything. Empowered with that freedom, they built this country. They came to give and in time, if not they themselves, their descendants reaped the benefits of their hard work. America is truly the land of opportunity. If it can happen anywhere, it can happen here. And often, it can't happen anywhere but here.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

The "Progressive" Ten Commandments

In yet another display of their intellectual bankruptcy and lack of originality, liberals have come up with their own "Contract with America." They call it (Are you ready?) "A Progressive Contract with America." (http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/?q=node/235 )

The following is a translation of the most recent liberal, I mean "progressive" ten commandments.

1) "We Will Bring the Troops Home"
TRANSLATION: We will cut and run in Iraq.

2) "We Will Crack Down on Corruption"
TRANSLATION: We will do a better job of covering our tracks while we still take money from lobbyists and corporate types. It's only morally objectionable when Republicans get caught doing it .

3) "We Will Make Public Officials Accountable"
TRANSLATION: Never mind Bill Clinton, Dan Rostenkowky, Jim Wright, Mike Espy, Ron Brown, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Cynthia McKinney et al.

4) "We Will Unleash New Energy for America"
TRANSLATION: Let India, China and Russia use up all the oil. Who cares about economic development? Let America's competitors surpass her. Why compete anyway? Incidentally, how do you like my new hand-cranked coupe?

5) "We Will Rebuild America First"
TRANSLATION: We will tax the hell out of everyone. When the rich shelter their income, we will go after the middle class. We know Joe Six-Pack doesn't make enough to pay tax accountants.

6) "We Will Make Work Pay Once Again"
TRANSLATION: We will squash entrepreneurship and destroy small businesses once and for all. Minimum Wage? Through the roof! Union membership? Mandatory! Taxes on businesses? Confiscatory!

7) "We Will Make Healthcare Affordable"
TRANSLATION: Government will take over health care. We will decide if you are sick and how sick you are. When you need life-saving surgery, plan on it six to eight months in advance. Pray you don't die before then. Oh, did I mention we will outlaw prayer?

8) "We pledge to strengthen Social Security"
TRANSLATION: We will do more of the same, dumping more and more money on a system already on the brink of bankruptcy. If it's broken, why fix it?

9) "We Will Keep the American Dream Alive"
TRANSLATION: We will be your nanny from cradle (those whom we allow to be born) to grave (those whom we do not euthanize). We will punish initiative, eliminate self-respect and extinguish self-reliance from the American landscape.

10) "We Will Provide Real Security for America"
TRANSLATION: Welcome to El Norte. Mi casa es su casa. "Si se Puede."

Quail Hunting the Kennedy Way

I wish I could take credit for this but I found it on the Internet:

When Cheney was asked why he didn't report the accident more quickly, he replied, "I placed a call to Teddy Kennedy immediately to get his input. He told me to sleep on it and if it still bothered me the next day, then to call it in."

Foo-foo Dust

The Rochester Higher Education Development
Committee recommends the establishment of a world class institution that leverages the University of Minnesota's research capability, in
partnership with IBM, Mayo Clinic, and other industry leaders to build signature academic and research programs that complement southeast Minnesota's existing leadership roles in health sciences, biosciences, engineering, and technology. Educational programs will provide application to economic activities via innovation, translational research and clinical experiences. This institution will have a distinct identity and one governing entity. This institution will be the University of Minnesota Rochester.

-- Rochester Higher Education Development committee vision statement.

"These are all buzz words. This is foo-foo dust. It really looks good when you throw it up in the air, and it glistens as it comes down to the ground. Then you get a broom and sweep it up and throw it away."

-- State Representative Gene Pelowski (DFL - Winona) reacting to the release of Rochester Higher Education Development Committee report to Governor Tim Pawlenty and the Minnesota legislature, as reported in the Rochester Post-Bulletin.



Rep. Pelowski should read the Rochester Higher Education Development Committee Report to Governor Tim Pawlenty and the Minnesota Legislature. I have. It IS a great document. Here are some highlights.

"Rochester's confluence of world-class medicine, advanced technology and bioscience industry makes it uniquely poised to be a major player in the 21st century bio-economy. This potential cannot be fully realized without further investments, most notably in the area of human capital generated through a research university and associated academic programs. Partnerships between the University of Minnesota, IBM, Mayo Clinic, and related businesses position the State of Minnesota to become one of the fastest growing and dynamic biomedical economics in the world." (p. 5)

"Currently, 40 states specifically target the biosciences for development and all 50 states have economic development initiatives available to assist bioscience companies. Other states are investing aggressively in a comprehensive range of bioscience programs to promote research and commercialization. Many are pursuing bioscience development strategies including strengthening research, increasing university-industry collaborations, and enhancing their business development support." (p. 7)

" Rochester has key private-sector research and develompent engines, but national studies prove that the presence of a major research university is also required to really power the knowledge economy and to provide the skilled human capital required to populate and grow innovation-driven enterprises." (p. 14)

Hardly the "foo-foo dust" Winona (State) DFL Rep. Pelowski claims it to be. His attitude is typical of the DFL whenever Rochester advances the four-year university proposal. It is time for bold investments in the economic and educational future of southeastern Minnesota.

Rochester's detractors have opposed the growth of educational and business opportunities in our region as outlined the Rochester Higher Education Development Committee (RHEDC) in one form or another for at least 30 years. The reasons are myriad.

The "foo-foo dusters" fear their slice of the funding pie will be reduced if the U of M - Rochester project is advanced. They argue that Rochester doesn't really need a four-year university since WSU is only about an hour away and the city is "overcrowded" with institutions that offer baccalaureate and masters' degrees - even doctorates, if you look hard enough .

The U of M - Rochester concept is unique, however. It will offer signature courses available at no other institution in the state. Biomedical Informatics, Computational Biology, Nanotechnology and Pharmacogenics are only a few of the distinct course offerings listed in the RHEDC report (pp. 18-23).

In addition, the U of M - Rochester curriculum will incorporate business education concepts such as entrepreneurship, innovation and leadership with a view to economic development. As stated in the RHEDC report, "These skills are essential to the transfer of technology to the marketplace leading to significant economic development for the area, state, and nation." (p. 24).

Also, they turn a blind eye to the fact that Rochester is Minnesota's third largest city. It is the home of the Mayo Clinic, arguably one of the top two medical research institutions in the world. IBM Rochester has developed the world's fastest supercomputer, BlueGene. Biomedical and technological advances run on parallel tracks in southeastern Minnesota. Powerful partnerships have taken place, but in order to bring the two fields together in the most comprehensive and economically profitable manner, we need a research institution of the highest caliber. Hence the U of M - Rochester concept.

Saying that Rochester has to support the whole system if it wants consideration for the project, as DFL State Senator Sandy Pappas suggests, is a mix of blackmail and the repackaging of the same old excuses to keep our educational and economic aspirations down.

If "our" area legislators have questions or reservations about the committee report, they are just a cover. Reps. Andy Welti and Tina Liebling in particular have proven to be puppets of the Twin Cities DFL. They will do or not do and say or not say what Matt Entenza, or whoever their next caucus leader is, tells them.

Assuming that all legislators are decent people who will do the right thing in an election year is a naïve approach to a pivotal issue. Senator Sheila Kiscaden's sincerity on the U of M - Rochester concept is in doubt. Her party switches over the years have been dictated by political convenience rather than moral conviction. Her ability to promote the idea of a U of M - Rochester within the DFL caucus is D.O.A. unless, she can convince Winona State University Rep. Gene "Foo-foo Dust" Pelowski and others to drop their petty parochial antipathy toward Rochester's educational and economic progress. Kiscaden talks a good game while in the district. Always has but so far hasn't delivered.

There is a difference between "being known" as the champion for a Rochester university and getting in the rink to fight for it. Governor Tim Pawlenty is the true Rochester university champion. And as someone who has followed the issue for the last decade, I think that State senator Dave Senjem and retiring Rep. Fran Bradley have done more in a practical way to advance the idea than our own chameleon senator.

Southeastern Minnesota voters need to understand that the U of M - Rochester project is not even on the DFL's radar screen. Kiscaden will dance the dance and say a lot about it without saying much.

DFL Reps. Andy Welti and Tina Liebling will either equivocate or remain mum on the U of M - Rochester project because they know where the Twin Cities/Iron Range DFL leadership stands on the issue. They know their place and will not dare stand up for the community they should represent above all other interests, whether they are personal or their party's.

They are welcome to prove me wrong.

What I Believe

Olmsted County has recently been infected with politicians of the worst kind, as you know. They are placeholders whose goal is to grow their party and further their selfish ambitions rather than develop the community that entrusted them with elected office.

As strongly as I feel about my deeply held beliefs regarding what makes America great, I learned long ago that there is only so much an individual can accomplish on his own. My wife and I were discussing the American Revolution before bed a few nights ago (quaint, I know) and it hit me again that the reason it was so successful in the end is that it was a movement. It wasn't about an individual's heartfelt beliefs about freedom. It wasn't about the agenda of a business or farming elite. People of all walks of life dedicated themselves to building America out of the highest principles and aspirations humanity has ever harbored.

It is time for that same kind of movement today - a Second American Revolution, if you will. People need to be re-educated on what it means to be an American. If they know and understand the principles, the history, the toil, the sacrifice, the setbacks and the victories that brought America to where she is today, they will instinctively reject the liberal principles of obscene taxation and moral laxity that permeate our society.

Sadly, my tea bag "stunt" at the Rochester Truth-in-Taxation hearing was lost on American citizens who had no idea what the Boston Tea Party was. That saddened me deeply but also helped me understand why they were so easily deceived by Andy Welti and Tina Liebling (and almost Kim Norton, the Tax Lady) during the last election cycle.

Knowing American history and sharing the principles on which America was built inoculates anyone against the pernicious disease of liberalism.

War: What Is It Good For?

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last."

-- Sir Winston Churchill






"If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me,"

-- John "The Blue Bunny" Kerry

Let it not be said that liberals haven't learned at least one lesson from the Vietnam War. They have learned that spitting on soldiers and calling them "baby killers" is not endearing to the American public. Now they know to lie about "supporting" the troops. They may be disingenuous but they are not stupid.

Damage Control

If their absence at Governor Pawlenty's Rochester Bioscience Center announcement does not convince voters that Rep. Tina Welti, Rep. Tina LIEbling and Senator Sheila Kiscaden's focus is not the economic, scientific and educational development of southeastern Minnesota, nothing will.

Welti, LIEbling and Kiscaden were at the Governor's Rochester Higher Education Committee announcement yesterday because they HAD to be. After the P-B exposed their absence (snub, actually) from the Governor's previous visit, they couldn't afford to have their hypocrisy and disregard for issues that benefit Rochester exposed in the media again.

Hiding their partisanship behind a façade of moderation is a carnival trick that has run its course. When the legislature is in session, Welti, LIEbling and Kiscaden are there and that is all that really counts to the Twin Cities/Iron Range DFL.

Giving (and not giving) Rochester Her Due

A friend who was present at the Rochester Higher Education Committee release of its U of M-Rochester expansion proposal told me this afternoon that Welti, LIEbling and Kiscaden were present and accounted for. As I watched the local news tonight, there they were front and center. Kiscaden dragged DFL senate District 30 hopeful Ann Lynch to the event for a photo-op. Ironically, Nancy Brataas, Kiscaden's former mentor, was sitting across the aisle from Kiscaden. Next to Distric 30A Republican candidate Carla Nelson.

Either Welti, LIEbling and Kiscaden have learned to check their emails regularly or finally understand that they can no longer only give half-hearted lip service to the idea of a four-year university in Rochester. They have to pretend to support it publicly too.

The only sure way to make the four-year university in Rochester a reality is to reelect Governor Tim Pawlenty, fire Andy Welti and Tina Liebling and snuff the electoral hopes of Ann Lynch and Kim Norton. The DFL's spending priorities lie in the Twin Cities and the Iron Range, not the Med City. Under a DFL regime, Rochester would be reduced to a piggy bank to finance their failed social experiments.

Even if LIEbling, Welti and Kiscaden were inclined to promote the four-year university effort, which they are not, their DFL puppetmasters in the Twin Cities would never agree to giving Rochester her due.

DFL: The Party of the Twin Cities and Iron Range

The insinuation that DFL Senator Sheila Kiscaden and Reps. Andy Welti and Tina Liebling were given no advance notice of Governor Tim Pawlenty's most recent visit to the Med City on purpose, as a recent Rochester Post-Bulletin editorial (All area legislators must pull for the community) implies, is preposterous. The Rochester area state legislators have since admitted receiving an email notice in advance but hadn't checked their messages in time to attend the event. Or so they say.

It is hard to believe that our area legislators and their secretaries would have missed the governor's press announcement. The secretaries have access to their legislators' email and are to alert them if something important comes up. In addition, the staff of their caucus gets the emails and are to alert members of the meeting. Since it is unlikely that Welti, Liebling and Kiscaden would have missed the announcement, the only reasonable explanation is that, in their partisanship, they decided not to attend the meeting.

The P-B editorial assumes that our area's DFL legislators actually care about the growth of southeast Minnesota to begin with. There is evidence to the contrary.

Rochester's progress and prominence are not a priority of the Minnesota DFL, a party beholden to the interests of the Twin Cities and the Iron Range. As for the Olmsted County DFL, the growth of their party is their main priority. Welti, Liebling and Kiscaden would probably prefer not to attend events that highlight the importance of Rochester in the governor's agenda for fear that their presence would convey support for Pawlenty's initiatives.

Were they truly "bipartisan" and "moderate" as they falsely claim, Welti, Liebling and Kiscaden would be present at this and other events. But alas, they are not. How have House districts 30A and 30B benefitted from Liebling's and Welti's (mis)representation?

Welti can't even deliver a new fence for the Rochester International Airport, which seems to be his legislative priority for 2006.

LIEblings hypocrisy has been dealt with in a previous post.

Kiscaden's focus for the last 14 years has been ... well ... Kiscaden.

Rochester and surrounding communities deserve better.

Liberalism is Wrong

"The GOP's progress during the last four decades is a stunning political achievement. But it is also a cautionary tale of what happens to a dominate party _ in this case, the Democrat Party _ when its thinking becomes ossified; when its energy begins to drain; when an entitlement mentality takes over; and when political power becomes an end in itself rather than a mean to achieve the common goal,"

-- Karl Rove

Kiscaden's Record

Whereas DFL Patriarch Gary Mullen-Schultz is intellectually dishonest, Paul Scott is quite simply ignorant of Rochester politics (Kiscaden's record speaks for her , Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 21, 2006).

Mr. Scott seems to think that Rochester politics started the day he was born, if not the day Senator Sheila Kiscaden switched parties yet again and became Kelly Doran's running mate. If you don't know the political importance and influence Nancy Brataas has had in this region over the decades, you are not qualified to write about politics in our region. Mr. Scott certainly fits that exclusionary clause.

Brataas' mentorship over the last 14 years was certainly valuable to Kiscaden while it was a political asset to the chameleon senator. Kiscaden herself has been quoted as saying that all political friendships are temporary.

A Kiscaden run does put Governor Tim Pawlenty's Rochester's initiatives at risk. Especially the four-year university proposal. As a Winona State University cheerleader, Kiscaden would never support a competitor in Rochester. She has given lukewarm lip service to the idea before, but that's all.

Mr. Scott's piece is nothing but a shameful campaign plug for Kiscaden. Shame on him for writing it and on the P-B for publishing it.

Who Speaks for the Taxpayer?

The following is an excerpt from my correspondence with a Rochester City Council member regarding the controversial monthly "dinner meetings" with city adminstrators and others.

Thank you for your willingness to engage me in this debate. None of your City Council colleagues have seen it fit to do so as of yet. I am particularly disappointed that Amy Blenker, "my" councilperson, has chosen not to address my concerns. Or maybe you've been designated as the point person on this. Regardless, it is encouraging to have any kind of response from an elected official.

Please do not attribute the lack of public participation in your budget deliberations as apathy. I know how busy I am with my family, job, and church commitments. December is arguably the worst possible time to hold such meetings and expect taxpayers, specially business owners, to participate in the process. By the way, the City Council, School Board and County Board all voted their tax increases the week before Christmas. What's with that?

The problem may not be apathy, as you diagnosed it, but trust. I know I used to trust elected officials to look out for my best interests. I was content to let them sift throut the endless pages of numbing budget numbers. No longer. Particularly when said elected officials socialize with those presenting and advocating the numbing budget numbers.

Human nature being what it is, forgive me for suspecting that having a personal relationship and socializing regularly with those presenting budget requests would make it difficult to be more objective when examining those requests. I trust the people with whom I choose to socialize. Barring any glaring character defects or abhorrent behavior, I take wthat what they tell me as God's honest truth, suspend judment and assume the best.

What I would like to see is a certain professional detatchment between elected officials and administrators. A Fourth of July picnic get-together or a Christmas, I mean Holiday Party should suffice to meet any socialization needs the two groups have. The estimated yearly $2,000-$3,000 cost of the cozy dinners may seem like "a pretty small amount" when spread over the year, as Mayor Brede said, but what has been the cost over the "many, many" years this "tradition" has taken place? It is my understanding that the mayor's "official city account" is financed with taxpayer money, is it not?

Those are my thoughts regarding these monthly dinner meetings. What I am concerned about is that the ordinary taxpayer on a fixed income and the small business owner trying to meet payroll do not have the time, disposition, or confidence to attend such meetings/dinners/social gatherings (What are they anyway?). They don't have the access that city administrators enjoy. Far from the eyes, far from the heart.

Those of us who object to the ever increasing levels of taxation imposed by our local government officials don't do so based on the cost of essential services such as law enforcement and snowplowing as suggested by John Trolander's December 14, 2005, letter to the Post-Bulletin. People would not object to paying taxes if it actually meant letting go of that "extra" $5 dollar bill, as he put it. Taxpayers, particularly people on fixed incomes and small business owners, are getting ever closer to being taxed out of their homes and businesses.

During the city counciI's Truth-in-Taxation hearing, a long time Rochester business owner, who said he had never attended such hearings before, felt compelled to express his concerns this time. His proposed taxes then would have meant an "extra" $100 bill EVERY WEEK for the coming year. One of my co-worker's taxes was slated to go up by 63%. Her neighbor's school district portion of the tax burden would be $3,000. That's SIX HUNDRED "extra" $5 bills!

Believe me when I say I would rather not attend your meetings and write these emails. I have plenty to keep me busy. I feel compelled to do so, however. I have lost trust. I believe local government officials need to be held accountable now more than ever. Shifting blame to higher levels of government doesn't pass muster anymore.

I have too many friends and acquaintances who are feeling the pinch from your tax increases and they are worried. I sympathize with their plight rather than with the needs, real or perceived, of the bureaucracy. Those beleaguered taxpayers are the people with whom I socialize.

I will leave you with Julie Tuffs' words as printed in today's letters to the editor section of the Rochester Post-Bulletin: " We are the ones who elected [Government officials]. It's our responsibility to keep an eye on how they are doing their jobs. When you hire someone to do work for you, don't you check the job out before paying that person? "


Sincerely and Respectfully,

Do Nothing Tina

District 30A Rep. Tina "Do Nothing" Liebling has proven once again why she is an embarrassment even to her DFL colleagues.

LIEbling's most recent delusional episode took the form of a P-B column (Legislature didn't do everything, but it did do a lot Fri, Jan 13, 2006). It is full of "inaccuracies," as my wife calls them. I prefer the L-word: LIES.

First off, the 2005 legislature didn't do "the work of two years in one." The work of the 2004 legislature had already been done when Liebling's liberal buddies decided to play political games with the state budget. What "better" way to prevent a budget from being voted on than to shut down the state government?

When the 2005 legislature convened, all they had to do was vote on the work that had been done. Liebling and Little Andy Welti never lifted a finger to bring the new floors on Mayo's Stabile Building, support the Genomics Partnership or build the health science labs at RCTC. All they did was cast votes. Any fool can do that then take credit. They did and they have.

Liebling claims that the 2005 legislature wasn't "able" to repeal Minnesota's sick tax. The truth is that her DFL puppet masters were not "willing" to give up that cash cow. Social engineering comes at a considerable cost, don't you know.

The most recent government shutdown took place minutes after DFL senate majority leader Dean Johnson pretended to reach an agreement with governor Tim Pawlenty. As the final details were being hammered out, Johnson and his DFL minions went ahead and shut down the government anyway. Bringing the state engines to a grinding halt and causing hardship to state workers brought them electoral benefits before. It was just too hard for them to resist doing it one more time. The DFL has long given up winning elections on issues anyway.

When she says she voted eight times for a continuing budget resolution during the government shutdow, Liebling uses the same disingenuous line Welti used in a previous column to the P-B. Their votes were a sham. As a friend of mine has said, anybody can say they got their job done "on time" if they move the deadline eight times. Libeling's and the DFL's next shell game is to present themselves as the taxpayers' best friends as they roll out their property tax relief dog-and-pony show. As if the DFL ever proposed a credible tax relief plan of any kind. At press time, there was no word on using part of the state surplus money to build Rep. Andy Welti's airport fence to nowhere.

Liebling should stick to her vacant smiles in front of the cameras whenever Dean Johnson and Matt Entenza roll into town to pull hers and Welti's strings. Rochester is tired of the DFL's (and Tina's) lies, er, innacuracies.

Believe It or Not

Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy's dog's name is "Splash", a Portuguese water dog.

On Illegal Immigration

America is the most prosperous country in the world.

Bar none.

Mexicans disillusioned with their country's corruption are not risking a dangerous river or desert crossing to find jobs in Guatemala. Oppressed and destitute Cubans are not tying milk jugs to rusty 1957 Ford pickup trucks and setting them out to sea hoping that the Gulf currents will drift them to Honduras. Legal immigration is possible and immigrants are welcome as long as they enter the country lawfully and abide by our rules.

Moreover, illegal immigration is a law enforcement and national security, as opposed to a primarily economic, issue.

There are no "undocumented immigrants" in America. Those who enter our country without the American government's permission or willfully remain on our soil once their visa has expired are ILLEGAL ALIENS and must be deported. Period.

As a legal immigrant - and most recently a naturalized citizen - to this great country, I resent both illegal immigrants and those who condone the practice of illegal immigration.

Governor Pawlenty did not associate immigrants with crime in Minnesota as he has been accused of doing. He associated ILLEGAL immigrants with crime in Minnesota. And rightly so.

Moreover, law enforcement officials throughout Minnesota agree with the governor. The notable exceptions are those Twin City officials and politicians who have long capitulated to the criminal element in Minneapolis and St. Paul - both illegal and "homegrown".

President George W. Bush's Guest Worker Program is an intriguingly attractive idea which needs some tweaking. If correctly implemented, it would bring order to the immigration process while allowing lawful immigrants the economic opportunity unavailable in their countries of origin. So the question becomes, what incentives would there be for legal "guest workers" to return to their countries once their permit expires?

America is unquestionably a nation of immigrants. What makes our country great is not her "diversity", however. People did not originally immigrate to America so they could be with people different from themselves and feel all fuzzy and warm inside.

People from all over the world have come to America the Beautiful because she has always been a beacon of FREEDOM and OPPORTUNITY, which illegal immigration undermines.