2010

Thune Says GOP Now Wants To Make Sure Spending For Iraq And Afghanistan Wars Is Offset (H/T – Helga)

Since the Republicans lost control of Congress and the White House, they have conveniently decided it’s time to rein in spending after helping President Bush bequeath the current administration with a more than $1 trillion deficit.

Part of that campaign has been to target the once sacrosanct emergency war funding. Republicans made a fuss last year because the war funding bill contained money for the IMF. Last month, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said war funding needs to be paid for. Today on ABC’s Top Line, Sen. John Thune (R-ND) indicated that most Republicans are starting tohold this view:

THUNE: Republicans are increasingly, I think, dug in on the issue of making sure that new spending is offset. … Frankly, I think that there is even a growing consensus among Republicans that we need to start budgeting for this, we need to start figuring out how to pay for it. And I think that’s kind of the majority view among Republicans now.

Watch it

The Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim has noted the obvious hypocrisy here:

The indecision on the vote from Coburn’s colleagues is a stark contrast from the wars’ early years, when President Bush’s war supplementals flew through GOP-controlled Congresses and any opposition was portrayed as unpatriotic. Cries of “Support The Troops!” met any lawmaker who questioned the direction or the purpose of either the Iraq or Afghanistan war.

Indeed, during the spend-with-no-consequence Bush administration days, Thune praised Congress whenever it passed non-offset emergency war funding. “This critical supplemental funding gives our troops and diplomats the important tools they need to spread freedom abroad and strengthen our security at home,” Thune said in 2005. Thune even cheered an emergency supplemental with unrelated funding for drought assistance in 2007.

On Top Line, Thune seemed to recognize the contradiction and justified the previous GOP support for emergency war funding. “Republicans in the past have viewed Iraq and Afghanistan and the war effort as something that truly is an emergency,” he said, adding, “although it’s hard to say now that we don’t know what these costs are gonna be.”

I have some required reading for the SF city council

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

This is the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, something that apparently some members of the SF city council are not aware of, even though they put their hand on a bible and swore to uphold it while taking the oath of office, but hey, details, details, details. Who needs the US Constitution when we can be safe?

“It’s unfortunate that the way it’s set up is in question, but I don’t think there’s any doubt that the corner is safer than it was before” said Council Member Vernon Brown. “It has saved lives.”

What was that famous quote by Benjamin Franklin?

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

And it rings true today. There are many things you can do in that intersection to make it SAFE and CONSTITUTIONAL. Something that should have been done from the beginning is to allow DRIVERS to fight their accuser in a court of law.

At least Bob the Builder gets it;

“I’ve long suspected we were over-stepping our bounds a little bit,” Litz said. “It was only a matter of time.”

And Greggo seems to be confused about the role of the Supreme Court;

Council Member Greg Jamison hopes the South Dakota Supreme Court can reverse the decision, but the city will have to live with the results if that doesn’t happen.

Good luck with that. Last I checked it was the SC’s job to uphold the US Constitution and State Law. Better start living with those results.

New City Council Member Michelle Erpenbach is more concerned about safety than dollars, however. She just hopes the city can continue to use the cameras.

“Maybe we’re not doing things exactly right, but if it needs to be tweaked in some way, we’d better do it,” she said.

Damn right you should be concerned about safety. Trampling citizens rights has always proven to be quite UNSAFE. The city council’s lack of constitutional knowledge makes me worry about my own safety.

South DaCola music club with Martin Zellar

A former ‘Blogger’ friend of mine and I went to see Zellar at the Orpheum last night in Sioux Falls. I haven’t seen Zellar since the Pomp Room days, and he is doing acoustic sets now. It was refreshing, even though I dosed off a few times. I think I liked this quote by him between songs;

“I keep a lot of babysitters in business nowadays.”

The highlight of the night though was the pre-concert dinner and the ‘Spicy Devil’ at Tokyo restaurant. We won’t get into that.

Martin also mentioned he was tapped for this movie but turned it down. They wanted this song;

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRvHaRmyEFc[/youtube]

Welcome to Sioux ‘Unconstitutional’ Falls

What is it with this city and their ignorance of the constitution and state law? This of course comes as no surprise;

Caldwell found that the city cannot legally write tickets for red-light running as it does now, treating the offense as a civil matter instead of a criminal matter.

This has been my main argument all along. Running red lights should be ILLEGAL but as Caldwell points out, it is a criminal matter. Why? Because some people get killed when they run red lights. If I had a loved one ran over by a red light runner, what would I prefer? They go to jail or that you wreck their credit?

Caldwell also ruled that the administrative appeals process is unconstitutional – a decision that mirrors one she made in a lawsuit over code violations brought against the city by Dan Daily.

Due Process. Due Process. Due Process. What part of that doesn’t the city freaking understand? Fascist regimes have been taken out of commission over history for a reason, while it may be good to be king it doesn’t work out so well for the subjects.

That process violates a citizen’s due process rights, Caldwell ruled. She did not, however, order the city to stop issuing red-light tickets or to dismantle the administrative appeals system.

Huh? So you are saying what the city is doing is unconstitutional but you did not advise them to dismantle the system? Nice. Caldwell is also part of the problem.

The city and Redflex were handed victories, as well. The city did not err by forbidding right turns at the intersection, did not place the lights improperly and Caldwell ruled that there is a legitimate public safety interest in operating the cameras.

There is legitimate public safety interests all over this city. Are we gonna put a camera in every intersection? We cannot trample the constitutional rights of all people because a few don’t know how to apply a brake pedal in their car.

As of today, the red-light cameras are still functional,” Barthel said.

Ignorance is bliss.

And that ignorance continues with this silly story by Stormland TV News on the issue;

In a written ruling a Sioux Falls judge dismissed most of the lawsuit,

WTF are you talking about? Violating state law and the constitution is a pretty major thing. When is Stormland TV going to remove their heads from their asses and stop being the propaganda wing for City Hall. Report the frickin’ news as it is – without the spin.