define('DISALLOW_FILE_EDIT', true); define('DISALLOW_FILE_MODS', true); No Runny Eggs » Politics

No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

Archive for the 'Politics' Category

November 6, 2006

Endorsement time – Milwaukee County Sheriff

by @ 8:15. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

For those of you who think I’m just pulling a straight-Pubbie ticket, take a gander at this. I’m recommending “Democrat” David Clarke for re-election over challenger Don Holt. Clarke is continuing to try to force the deputies to become actual law officers instead of donut-munching revenue-generators because he recognizes that the Milwaukee Police Department needs all the help it can get. Holt would rather go back to the revenue-generation-only days.

Endorsement time – 7th State Senate District

by @ 8:10. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

I’m recommending challenger Dimity Grabowski over incumbent Jeff Plale. As alderwoman in Oak Creek, Grabowski somehow got both mayor Dick Bolender and tax-and-spender alderman Al Foeckler (whose district I’m thankfully leaving Wednesday) to agree to a no-levy-increase budget (even though they’re tapping half of a $6 million reserve fund). It sure seems there are two Plales; the moderate pro-life, pro-school-choice Plale that existed before he became state Senator, and the liberal partisan hack that thinks taxes aren’t high enough. The Dems tried to kill the moderate Plale, and even though their candidate Donovan “Vote Twice Like a ‘Rat” Riley was forced to drop out of the race because of double-voting, the 25% he still got will probably be enough to kill the moderate Plale if he’s returned to the state Senate.

Endorsement time – State Senate 5th District

by @ 8:01. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

My sister recently moved to this district, so I do have a stake in this. I’m recommending Tom Reynolds for re-election over Jim Sullivan. I rather like the idea of a conservative gadfly in the ointment of the power system; without him, we would still have the gas tax going up automatically every April Fool’s Day. As for Sullivan, he’s a tax-and-spend-and-tax-some-more kind of guy who at the very least believes that he can order city clerks to change election records and assistant DAs to rule he didn’t vote in a location he was recorded as voting at with nothing more than his word.

Endorsement time – Oak Creek/Franklin borrow-and-spend-and-tax referrendum

by @ 7:53. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

Since I missed the last week due to moving prep, I missed out on the week-long fluid-swapping between Jim “Craps” Doyle (WEAC/Potawatomi-For Sale) and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (the official southeast Wisconsin mouthpiece of the Craps For Governor campaign) idiotorial board and didn’t comment too much (or here at all) about their increasing tilt toward the left. Time to make up for all that with the start of my endorsement series with the local.

I’m recommending a NO vote on the Oak Creek/Franklin School District $28.5 million referrendum to build a new East Middle School. This is the third time in a decade that the school district is looking to jam the taxpayers of Oak Creek and eastern Franklin, and they’re using this to set up jams 4 (the replacement of Meadowview Elementary) and 5 (the building of a second high school), jams that were allegedly addressed by the previous 2 referrenda. Bear in mind that they already bought the property for all three of these pet projects, overpaying in the process. Bear in mind that they’re spending 7.5% more this year than last (“thanks” again for that “freeze”, Craps).

October 27, 2006

The dangers of an activist court and homosex “marriage”

Today’s Wall Street Journal (online version free today, October 27, 2006, only; I’m taking this from the print version) has an excellent editorial on New Jersey’s Supreme Court ruling that every benefit of marriage be extended to homosexual couples. Let’s take a look at the first paragraph:

This week’s New Jersey Supreme Court’s judicial diktat on same-sex-somethings (name to be determined later) is a remarkable arrogation of power by the judiciary. The court’s belief that it is empowered to embark on social experimentation in the field of marriage is embodied in the words — “We have decided that our State Constitution guarantees that every statutory right and benefit conferred to heterosexual couples through civil marriage must be made available to committed same-sex couples . . .” (our emphasis).

Note the phrase emphasized by the WSJ, “We have decided”. What, exactly, did the Lawgivers-In-Black decide? It decided that New Jersey’s legislature didn’t go nearly far enough in 2004 when it passed a law recognizing “domestic partnerships”. Indeed, it used the existance of that law to justify ordering the legislature to act as a further “great engine of social change”.

What else did the Lawgivers-In-Black decide? It decided that “or status as same-sex partners” be added to the interpretation of Article I, Paragraph 5 of the New Jersey Constitution, which reads, “No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil or military right, nor be discriminated against in the exercise of any civil or military right, nor be segregated in the militia or in the public schools, because of religious principles, race, color, ancestry or national origin.” Do note that they did NOT find a “fundamental right” to homosex “marriage” (though 3 of them did try to find just such a “right” in the “unenumerated rights” paragraph). Funny thing is, the phrases “same-sex” and “sexual orientation” (or similar language) do not appear anywhere in the New Jersey Constitution (or the United States Constitution for that matter). The other funny thing is that nowhere in that Constitution is the judiciary given a role in rewritting the Constitution.

If the Defense of Marriage Amendment fails on November 7, this ruling, or one demanding an outright mandate of “homosex marriage”, on an already-pending lawsuit to grant homosex couples “marriage” rights is in Wisconsin’s immediate future. Vote “YES” on the Defense of Marriage Amendment on November 7 (or earlier if you are voting absentee).

October 26, 2006

RDW – One Wisconsin race to effectively end tonight – UPDATE – Doyle threatened WRA

by @ 15:21. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

Stay tuned to RealDebateWisconsin for the details.

It will make Kurt Vlach’s banana hammock and the union takeover of the Racine ‘Rat party look like actions at a Sunday School picnic.

Revisions/extensions (6:25 pm 10/26/2006) – Fred has the story up. Cliff Notes version:

  • Jim Doyle (yes, THAT Jim “Craps” Doyle (WEAC/Potawatomi-For Sale)) personally threatened the Wisconsin Realtors Association with official state retaliation during his sales pitch to the WRA’s political board if they endorsed Mark Green for governor.
  • The WRA bravely thumbed their noses at Doyle, voting 35-2 to endorse Mark Green for governor.

Told you it would make Fred’s previous scoops look like Sunday School picnics.

October 25, 2006

If you…, you might be a “moderate”.

by @ 15:50. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

Once again, I apologize for the lack of blogging. This chest cold just isn’t letting go. Oh well, let’s push on and define a Jentinel “moderate” in Jeff Foxworthy terms:

  • If every action you take shows that you think taxes aren’t high enough in Wisconsin, you might be a “moderate”.
  • If you think the only form of stem cell research worth funding is both the only form that has shown zero promise and the one that destroys life in the process, you might be a “moderate”.
  • If, after a lifetime opposing expansion of gambling, you all of a sudden think the state Constitution, as expressed by both the Legislature and the public, doesn’t apply to you because you have to pay off the $1 million that Indian gambling interests gave you, you might be a “moderate”.
  • If, a few short months after claiming that “Big Oil” would simply take additional profits if you sign a (failed) bill to eliminate Wisconsin’s minimum mark-up law on gasoline, you unilaterally exempt only those stations selling corn-a-hole because you need to shore up the MIlwaukee vote, you might be a “moderate”.
  • If your idea of health care reform includes leeching off of a country that itself is leeching off the American prescription-drug consumer, you might be a “moderate”.
  • If you think that a moderately-trained armed citizenry defending itself against an armed criminal element is inherently more dangerous than a defenseless citizenry at the not-so-tender mercies of said armed criminal element, you might be a “moderate”.
  • If you oppose every effort to limit rampaging trial lawyers, you might be a “moderate”.
  • If you think forcing kids whose parents can’t afford to flee Milwaukee into a failing public schools is a good idea, you might be a “moderate”.
  • If you think that Festivus is a real holiday deserving of its own “tree”, and that “tree” is more real than a Christmas tree, you might be a “moderate”.
  • If building a new dorm for UWM is more important than delivering 800 jobs out in the Chippewa Valley, you might be a “moderate”.

October 24, 2006

Malkin – You say Democrat, I say…

by @ 10:47. Filed under Politics - National.

Michelle Malkin has a little word association game up, inspired by CNN’s navel-gazing. Let’s play…

You say, “Democrat,” I say, “Petulant cheese-eating surrender monkeys that won’t get the House and only get the Senate by hook and by crook.”

October 18, 2006

When is a 4.7% levy increase and a 7.5% spending increase not enough?

by @ 21:31. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin, Taxes.

When you’re the Oak Creek-Franklin Joint School District, which, despite those increases in the proposed budget, wants to bend over the taxpayers for a third referendum increase in a decade to replace the East Middle School in preparation for replacement of Meadowview Elementary and construction of a second high school (needs that were allegedly addressed in the previous 2 referrenda).

Remember, vote NO to the Oak Creek-Franklin referrendum (and YES on the Defense of Marriage Amendment and the non-binding return of the death penalty, along with Green, Van Hollen, Ryan, Grabowski and Honadel) on November 7.

Sick-as-a-dog Wednesday quick-hitters

Just been out of it the last couple days with an ugly cold. Oh well; time to catch up:

  • The obvious one from Owen: the state Senate ‘Rats went and left some “interesting” campaign documents, including multiple pieces of evidence of coordination with 3rd-party groups that, by law must not be coordinated with, in a Capitol building copy room, itself a felony that several Legislators served time for in the past year. Need I mention that the state Senate ‘Rats are led by the Madistan branch, currently headed by Jim “Craps” Doyle (WEAC/Potawatomi-For Sale) and formerly headed by one of those who served time Upchuck Chvala (Convict-Madistan)? Owen seems to think that the Senate ‘Rat Caucus has resurfaced under a different name, another thing that brought down Chvala, former Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen (Convict-Brookfield or Waupun) and others.
  • Koren Robinson’s 1-year suspension for a second violation of the NFL’s substance-abuse policy has been upheld. A quick review of Robinson’s history with suspensions, alcohol, the NFL substance-abuse program and the law (older material culled from The Seattle Times and KOMO-TV in Seattle):
    • Arrested in North Carolina in April 1998 on suspicion of “kidnapping a person under the age of 16 years, by unlawfully confining for the purpose of committing a felony, first-degree sex offense.” Was charged by police of attempted 1st-degree sexual assault, 1st-degree kidnapping and discharge of a firearm in the city (dunno what city), but all charges were dropped when the victim disappeared and clammed up.
    • In March 2002, was pulled over in North Carolina for doing 30 over the speed limit. Despite a BAC of .16 (from the police report), was only charged with exceeding safe speed.
    • Arrested outside a Raleigh, NC bar in February 2003 for failure to disperse. Charges later dropped.
    • Arrested in March 2003 in Raleigh, NC for carrying a concealed weapon (charges also dropped).
    • Suspended 1 game in 2003 by Seattle for missing a team meeting.
    • Suspended 2 games in 2004 by Seatlle for violating undisclosed team rules (unrelated to the NFL suspension), which sandwiched the 4-game NFL suspension for violating the league’s substance-abuse policy. Entered a rehab program after the 2004 season.
    • Arrested for DUI in Kirkland, WA March 2005 (with a BAC of .191). Received a 1-year jail term with 364 days suspended, 24 months of probation (one of the terms was that he remain sober), and a $2,000 fine July 2005. Showed up to jail with alcohol on his breath and got an extra day for his trouble. More on this item in a bit.
    • Arrested for DUI and fleeing police in St. Peter, MN August 2006 (.11 BAC). Pled not guilty to those charges October 2006.
    • Suspended by the NFL for a second violation of the league’s substance-abuse policy September 18, 2006, had been under appeal until the appeal was rejected yesterday.
    • Going back to Kirkland, picked up a 90-day jail term for violating terms of his probation in Minnesota October 2006 (was to be served after the season, but since he’s now free to serve without missing any games because of being in jail, he may as well get it out of the way).

    I honestly don’t know who’s dumber; Wile E. Thompson knowing that Robinson would be suspended for a year when he picked him up September 12, or Brett Favre for sticking up for Robinson. Earth to Favre; Robinson has been nothing but trouble since college.

  • Speaking of the Packers, their game in Miami Sunday is one of 7 that some whacko decided to threaten with a radiological bomb attack. I have to question the wisdom of hitting a Packers/Deadfins game; there won’t be many people there. Of course, there was the “lone nut” Islamokazi who blew himself up outside of an Oklahoma Sooners game last year.
  • Ian at Hot Air takes apart Sen. John McShame’s (RINO-Media) quote from Reuters that he would commit suicide if the ‘Rats take the Senate. I don’t think he was joking because that would take away all of his power and platform. He really would like it at 50-50 so he can sell his allegiance to the highest bidder, but he’d have to get in line behind Leapin’ Linc Chafee (who WILL bolt if the Pubbie majority falls to 51) and a few other RINOs.

Durn “global warming”; that 10 consecutive below-average days that it caused has me hunting for the chicken noodle soup.

October 13, 2006

BOHICA, Oak Creek-Franklin School District

by @ 8:11. Filed under Politics, Taxes.

I really need to start paying attention to the local shat more. Fortunately, CNI, the publisher of the Oak Creek Pictorial (at least until it is fully-subsumed into the Journal Sentinel Inc. umbrella). has launched OakCreekNOW.com (side note, do NOT look for me to be a community voice; I’m “just a bit” too salty.)

A few short years after getting us to bend over for a massive high school expansion and a new elementary school (and about 10 years after building a shiny new West Middle School), guess who’s coming back for more? The freshly-launched OakCreekNOW.com, featuring stories from the Oak Creek Pictorial, reports that, in preparation for a November 7 $28.5 million dollar referendum for building a shiny new replacement for Oak Creek East Middle School (originally built in 1956 and expanded in 1970), the Oak Creek-Franklin Joint School District will be spending $1.44 million for a 36-acre plot of land on East Oakwood Road. Why 36 acres? Allegedly, it’s so that they could put yet another elementary school on the site. Never mind that just down the road is their shiny new elementary school. Never mind that Meadowview is just up the road (oh, that’s right, Meadowview is more than 15 years old, so it will be deemed in need of replacement in the near future).

To throw insult onto injury, they also approved a $30,000/6 acre land purchase adjacent to the existing East Middle School. Why? So that they can build a second high school. Never mind that they just spent $30+ million to expand and remodel the current high school on the promise that they wouldn’t build a second one.

As for the city budget, I don’t have the numbers yet. The Common Council will meet in committee Monday to discuss it, and then will take it up in open session in their November 8th meeting. Guess I’ll be going to the monthly meet-the-mayor deal on Saturday to see if I can’t get my grubby little fingers on the budget.

October 12, 2006

Thanks for nothing, ChiComs and Sovie…er, Russians

by @ 18:38. Filed under Politics.

(H/T – Allahpundit)

CBS News is reporting that, in response to Russian Soviet and Red Chinese opposition, the latest draft resolution condemning North Korea would not:

  • Require member nations to freeze North Korean assets from other illicit activities such as “counterfeiting, money-laundering or narcotics” (quote from the previous draft resolution).
  • Prevent any money-laundering that could contribute to the transfer or development of WMDs/long-range ballistic missiles.
  • Require inspection of any cargo to or from North Korea (instead, it would allow “as necessary” inspections).
  • Ban North Korean ships and aircraft from world ports and airports (a demand of Japan).

Guess the ChiComs and Russians Soviets think they can still control Krazy Kim the Younger like they did Krazy Kim the Elder, and that the best method of control; and the best way to defeat the US and the rest of the West is to have North Korea sell their nukes and ballistic missiles to the highest bidder. BTW, that’s the answer to Blaise’s question, “And so we are left to ask ‘What is the point of the U.N.?'”

October 10, 2006

RedState.com is having a contest

by @ 18:16. Filed under Politics - National.

In response to this WaPo article stating that the Pubbies expect to lose 7-30 seats in the House (note; if they lose 15, we have Speaker Nancy Pelosi), RedState.com is having a little contest. For the next 18 hours, RedState.com wants your reasons why the Pubbies should be re-elected in 2006. The winner will get a 1-year subscription to the Limbaugh Letter, as Rush’s response was the inspiration behind this.

To get you started, I’ll repost my entry (not that I expect to win):

Contrary to popular belief, the Democrats do have an agenda for 2006:

– Raise taxes
– Emasculate the military and intelligence agencies
– Restore Saddam Hussein to power
– Implement universal government health care
– Prevent any appointments to the federal courts the next 2 years
– Conduct a “Constitutional” coup

Beyond that, a Democrat victory in 2006 will make their agenda for 2008, turn the US into France without the nuclear power plants, closer to reality.

I turned off comments for a reason; you can’t win by posting here. I probably will turn them on sometime after 1:30 pm tomorrow when they close the contest.

Revisions/extensions (8:26 pm 10/11/2006); no I didn’t win, but the comments are now open here.

Craps Tax Anti-Freeze sublimation, year 2, Spring City Edition

by @ 16:19. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin, Taxes.

(H/T – Mike)

Jim "Craps" Doyle (WEAC/Potawatomi-For Sale), as quoted by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in July 2005 – ""˜The result of the freeze that I will sign will be that the average property tax on the average home will not go up at all next year, and will actually go down $5′ in December 2006."

Headline in today’s Waukesha Freeman – Waukesha eyes 2007 tax increase – Includes hikes in worker health payments; average homeowner pays $55 more in taxes next year

Did anybody expect any different out of either Doyle or Comrade Nelson? As Mike points out, that’s also a 5% levy increase in an era of 3% inflation. Dunno what the WCTC or Waukesha School Board is doing (that’s Mike’s and James’ department), but I highly doubt that the Craps Pledge will hold true out there in the Spring City.

Remember this when you go to the polls November 7.

October 9, 2006

North Korea exposes the folly of “negotiations”

by @ 14:13. Filed under Politics.

It’s now official; 12 years after the Neville Chamberlains of our time, former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, declared peace in our time regarding North Korea’s nuclear program following one-on-one talks, Krazy Kim Jong-Il had his military conduct an underground nuclear test. Let’s take a look at the failures:

  • In 1994, the Peanut Farmer-brokered deal left enough weapons-grade plutonium in North Korea left under “virtual, remote” guard. Not surprisingly, North Korea broke through that non-existant guard in 2002 to retake full possession of that plutonium. In contrast, the US has been buying a massive amount of various nuclear material from most of the former Soviet republics and transporting them here under a program started under former President George H. W. Bush to prevent just such a seizure. Question for the lefties – have those former Soviet republics gone nuclear?
  • Under both the terms of that deal and a separate South Korean “Sunshine” initiative, North Korea has been given massive amounts of aid. Almost all of that aid has been diverted to the North Korean military, and that aid had been flowing more-or-less unimpeded up until earlier today.
  • In 1998, the international community found out there was a second North Korean nuclear program not covered by the Peanut Farmer-brokered deal. Repeated talks by the US under both Clinton and President Bush, South Korea, Japan, Russia, Red China, the IAEA, and the UN did nothing of consequence to either slow or stop this second program.
  • The one option that has been proven to work every time it has been tried, military intervention-induced regime change, was never really an option. Unlike Iraq, North Korea, even before they went nuclear, had the ability to lay waste to a significant portion of their neighbors with no effective defense against it (specifically in North Korea’s case, South Korea and its capital, Seoul). Also, unlike Iraq, there may well be “volunteers” coming from a couple of countries mentioned above to aid in North Korea’s defense (cough…Russia…cough…Red China…cough); in fact, there is a history of that happening.

So, what now? We’ve already established that talks haven’t stopped the North Koreans. We’ve also established that the country that stands to both gain and lose the most with a regime change, South Korea, is rightfully frightened by what they have to lose if such a regime change were attempted. There are actually three questions:

  1. Do the ChiComs and Russians think they can still control Kim Jong-Il like they did his father, Kim Il-Sung?
  2. If so, will they go to the mat for Krazy Kim the Younger like they did Krazy Kim the Elder?
  3. Does President Bush have the stones to ignore the ‘Rats, the leftist world community, the probability of question 1 above being yes, the possibility of question 2 also being yes, the almost-certain destruction of Seoul, South Korea (remember, there’s no effective defense against artillery shells, and North Korea has thousands upon thousands of pieces within range), 4 years of inactivity hoping that the lessons of Iraq taken to heart by Libya would also be taken to heart by North Korea, and the now-likely nuclear incineration of a few thousand American troops to disarm North Korea before a handful of North Korean nukes concentrated in North Korea becomes a couple thousand of them spread around to the highest bidders?

I’m not hopeful.

October 4, 2006

No further raids on Green’s campaign funds – for now

JSOnline’s DayWatch is reporting that, in their session today in Brookfield, the State Doylie Elections Board failed to take up whether to finish Grand Theft Courts on the Green Team’s funds. I wonder if it was late-breaking word that the co-author of the McShame-Slimeroad Lieberal Protection Act, John McShame (RINO-Media), and the campaign manager of fellow co-author Russ el-Slimeroad’s (Moonbat-Al Qaeda) 1998 campaign, Mike Wittenwyler, both called out Team Craps, including refuting the late-rising claims that the conversion of Green’s campaign from a federal one to a state one somehow violated the McShame-Slimeroad Lieberal Protection Act. Maybe it was the location of this meeting, which is proving troublesome to certain members of the DEB. Maybe, just maybe, they actually read the state Constitution, read what ElBd 1.39 said on January 25, 2005, and came to their senses.

The inaction of the DEB and the statement from McShame also put wooden stakes into the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign’s efforts to get the Federal Elections Commission to commit Grand Theft Courts and thus help their member groups’ man Jim “Craps” Doyle (WEAC/Potawatomi-For Sale).

The original $468,000 highway robbery, which likewise wasn’t revisited, now heads to the state Supreme Court. Jeff Wagner has more on the Team Craps’ whispering campaign against justices perceived as less-than-willing to sanction Grand Theft Courts.

September 29, 2006

Team Craps looking to fix the State Supreme Court as well

Just when you think Team Craps can’t get any slimier and lower, Charlie and Jeff report as their Friday Internet Exclusive Podcast that Team Craps has commenced a whispering campaign to get the two State Supreme Court justices perceived as most likely to vote against Grand Theft Courts, Jon Wilcox and David Prosser, to recuse themselves from the case. If they do so, that would leave the Doylies with, at a minimum, a 3-2 lieberal majority on the SCOW (Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, whose representative on the State Doylie Elections Board was “conveniently” absent when the original highway robbery happened, Ann Walsh Bradley, and Loophole Louis Butler, who owes his seat to Jim “Craps” Doyle).

Just as a reminder, the Doylies had absolutely no problem when Doyle’s (WEAC/Potawatomi-For Sale) personal representative on the Doylie Elections Board, Sherwin Hughes, who owes both his current and future position there solely to Doyle, ignored his conflict of interest to participate in the highway robbery.

September 28, 2006

Pubbie member of SEB resigns, Doylie ‘Rats apoplectic

According to JSOnline’s DayWatch, Republican member of the State Elections Board Patrick Hodan, who abstained from the Team Craps’ highway robbery of the Green campaign’s treasury because a member of his law firm is representing Green’s campaign, resigned from the SEB today. Predictably, Team Craps, who gleefully accepted the vote of Doyle appointee Sherwin Hughes, despite the fact that Hughes owes both his current and future position on the board solely to Jim “Craps” Doyle’s (WEAC/Potawatomi-For Sale) occupation of the governor’s mansion and the whim of said occupant, loudly objected, claiming that this is being done just so Green can get another vote on the board.

Let’s see; they still hold a 4-3 partisan advantage over the Pubbies, assuming that John Gard fills the position before October 4, not counting either the Losertarian or SCOW chief justice appointees. They already got the Losertarian to vote with them once. What are they afraid of? Not being able to do that again? Not being able to do the same with the SCOW rep? Hughes growing a conscience, realizing that his continued participation in Grand Theft Courts is a conflict of interest, and abstaining?

September 27, 2006

Did the Doylies really want to take Grand Theft Courts federal?

JSOnline’s DayWatch is reporting that Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, a non-partisan group conglomerate of lieberal special interests whose individual members, almost to a group, support Jim “Craps” Doyle (WEAC/Potawatomi-For Sale), filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission alleging that Mark Green violated the McShame-Slimeroad Lieberal Protection Act by converting his federal Congressional campaign to a state gubernatorial one. Unlike the State Doylie Elections Board, a majority-owned subsidiary of Team Craps, the FEC is controlled by neither party. In its complaint, WDC, like the state Department of “Justice” and Doylie Judge Niess, specifically ignores that ElBd 1.39, as it existed on January 25, 2005, specifically allowed the conversion of Green’s federal campaign to a state campaign.

Hey Doylies, thanks for taking your best arguments to an entity you don’t control. Here’s hoping you have the same lack-of-success you did in 2000 and 2001.

Gas prices – beyond the pump

by @ 7:56. Filed under Corn-a-hole, Politics - Wisconsin.

Unless you’ve been in a cave the last month or are buying diesel, you’ve noticed that the bottom has fallen out of gas prices. For you out-staters, I’ve got some bad news for you; the Milwaukee area is now boasting the lowest average price in the state. According to MilwaukeeGasPrices.com, the average price of regular unleaded in Milwaukee is at $2.276 per gallon, while its sister sites are reporting average prices at $2.345/gallon in the Madison area and $2.330/gallon in Wisconsin outside of the Milwaukee and Madison areas. ‘Tis very interesting, since I’ve noted time and again that prices in Milwaukee have historically been and, as recently as last month, were higher than the rest of the state.

So, what’s changed in the last month? Could the price of ethanol, mandated at a 10% level in Milwaukee-area gas but not in most other areas of the state, have fallen below that of gasoline? Nope. While the Chicago Board of Trade no longer updates the futures price for ethanol on a real-time basis, their most-recent chartbook showed October 2006 ethanol futures settled at $1.87/gallon on 9/13. Meanwhile, October 2006 regular unleaded gasoline futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange settled at approximately $1.56/gallon on that date (the approximation is because I had to take that off of a less-than-precise graph rather than the chart provided by CBOT). Nope, it’s not the corn-a-hole.

If it’s not the corn-a-hole prices, could it be that the reformulated gas, also mandated in the Milwaukee area but not in other areas of the state, suddenly became cheaper than regular gas? While the trading price of the special blend used in Milwaukee (and Chicago) is not available publicly, NYMEX does have a futures market for the version of reformulated gas used in New York and New Jersey (I do note that this does not include the costs of either acquiring or mixing in the corn-a-hole). With the October 2006 reformulated gasoline settling at approximately $1.61/gallon on 9/13, we can also rule that out.

Why, then, is gasoline $0.05 to $0.07 per gallon cheaper in Milwaukee, if our special blend of gas and the ethanol we’re forced to burn are both more expensive than the gasoline available to the rest of the state? The answer is that Jim Doyle issued an executive order in early August that those stations and only those stations that sold ethanol-blended gasoline be exempted from Wisconsin’s minimum markup law, which mandates a hefty markup in the price of gasoline at both the terminal and retail levels. This would be the same person who, when the issue of repealing the minimum markup law came up in the Legislature (killed by outstate RINOs and ‘Rats), claimed that its repeal wouldn’t have any impact. Really? By my math, it’s had at least a $0.10/gallon impact here in Milwaukee, where it is no longer enforced.

You out-staters, don’t forget to “thank” Doyle on November 7 for artificially inflating your gas prices so he could try to buy a few extra votes in Milwaukee – vote Mark Green.

September 26, 2006

The Craps Tax Anti-Freeze Year 2 – city of Milwaukee edition

by @ 17:01. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin, Taxes.

Jim "Craps" Doyle (WEAC/Potawatomi-For Sale), as quoted by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in July 2005 – ""˜The result of the freeze that I will sign will be that the average property tax on the average home will not go up at all next year, and will actually go down $5′ in December 2006."

Proposed city of Milwaukee 2007 budget tax levy increase – 3.3%

You suckers in the city of Milwaukee better hope that the County Board doesn’t listen to the Journtinel editorial board, and then adopts the 5th-consecutive no-levy-increase Walker budget proposal, due Thursday. MATC has a 5% levy increase, MPS has a 3% levy increase, and MMSD has a 3% levy increase (with much more promised in 2008 and subsequent years) already lined up for you.

Unconstitutional Highway Robbery endorsed by Doylie judge – part 2

Revising and extending my comments from yesterday

Why did the State Doylie Elections Board feel compelled to create emergency rule ElBd 1.935, in an ex-post-facto attempt to strip the Green campaign of $468,000? It is because, back in July 2001, when then-Attorney General and Democrat gubernatorial candidate Jim Doyle complained about then-Congressman and Democrat gubernatorial candidate Tom Barrett including out-of-state PAC money in his federal-to-state campaign conversion, they issued Opinion and Order 01-07 that specifically allowed said conversion. The text of the order is exceedingly hard to find, and is only found in two places, including the 1/26/2005 Dunst memo linked earlier (pages 18 and following). I draw your attention to item #6 in the “Conclusions of Law” section (page 23 of the linked PDF file):

6. The conversion of funds received for federal purposes by a federal candidate committee from committees registered with the FEC at the time such contributions are made is not prohibited. The non-resident committee contributors to the Barrett federal campaign committee were not subject to a Wisconsin registration requirement when they made their contribution to the Barrett Committee and are not now subject to a Wisconsin registration requirement because of the conversion of that committee to a Wisconsin personal campaign committee.

This was not successfully challenged by Team Craps. Thus, that opinion, despite what the Doylies wish to believe, was the status of the body of state law on January 25, 2005, when Mark Green converted his federal campaign to a state campaign. Your Doylie Elections Board was a day late and a dollar short.

Just in case the first attempt at Grand Theft Courts fails…

(H/T – Kathy)

…the Journal Sentinel is reporting that, at the next State Doylie Elections Board meeting on October 4, bought-and-paid-for ‘Rat board member hack Robert Kasieta will seek to go aftter the $775,000 of the Green campaign’s money the state Justice Just Us Department is going after in Doylie Judge Robert Niess’ courtroom. Again, you heard the prediction here first on September 6

Here’s a bold prediction; whether the Craps strategy of trying to smear Green while starving his campaign of some funds works or not in the public arena, Craps will try to get his Doylie Elections Board to declare the other $800,000 Green transfered from his federal campaign "illegal" by early October, using the "justification" that federal law prohibits the transfer of state campaign funds.

September 25, 2006

Paging Mr. Belling, paging Mark Belling

by @ 18:47. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

(H/Ts – Patrick and Brian)

I hope that this commercial from the Green Team whacking back at Team Craps’ attempts to buy the election meets with your approval. It does meet with mine.

Unconstitutional Highway Robbery endorsed by Doylie judge

The last sentence of the order from Dane County District Court Richard Neiss (appointed by Jim Doyle to the bench in 2004) that denies the Green campaign’s request for a temporary injunction (both links from JSOnline) against the State Doylie Election Board’s ruling retroactively declaring $467,884 of the $1.3 million the Green campaign says it all regarding the approach of Team Craps –

The bottom line is that the Elections Board reached the correct result, regardless of the infirmities, if any, in its process.

Allow me to translate – it doesn’t matter whether the state Constitution (specifically, Article 1, Section 12) is violated, just as long as Team Craps and the State Doylie Elections Board gets to commit highway robbery. Morever, the Doylie judge has set up the rationale to complete the full-monty Grand Theft Courts of the $1.24 million the state “Justice” Department now wants to pull off.

Just how is the state Constitituional prohibition against ex post facto laws violated by Team Craps, which now includes a hand-picked judge? First, let’s take a look at the section itself (the annotated version of the state Constitution is linked above):

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation
of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.

Just what is an ex post facto law? The annotated version of the state Constitution defines it as such:

An ex post facto law is one that punishes as a crime an act previously committed, that: 1) was innocent when done; 2) makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission; or 3) deprives one charged with a crime of any defense available at the time the act was committed. State v. Thiel, 188 Wis. 2d 695, 524 N.W.2d 641 (1994).

The annotated verison further goes on to note that this provision applies to judicial pronouncements:

The ex post facto prohibition applies to judicial pronouncements as well as legislative acts. The question to be addressed is whether the new law criminalizes conduct that was innocent when committed. State v. Kurzawa, 180 Wis. 2d 502, 509 N.W.2d 712 (1993).

So, what was the status of state law regarding the conversion of a federal campaign to a state campaign as of January 25, 2005, the date that Mark Green’s campaign made said conversion? Since the State Doylie Elections Board subsequently changed the applicable administrative rule (ElBd 1.39), we have to head to pages 9 and 10 SEB legal counsel George Dunst’s memo of January 26, 2005, where Dunst describes how the administrative rule that applied to a conversion of a federal campaign to a state campaign could be amended to prohibit same. Stripping out the language underlined and restoring the language struck through reveals the status of ElBd 1.39 as of the date Mark Green converted his campaign from a federal one to a state one:

ElBd 1.39 Conversion of federal campaign committee to state committee.

(1) As used in this rule,
(a) “Federal campaign committee” means the campaign committee of a candidate for federal office, which is not registered with a state or local filing officer, and
(b) “State campaign committee” means the personal campaign committee of a candidate for state or local office.

(2) A federal campaign committee may convert to a state campaign committee and use funds collected for federal purposes in a state or local campaign filing a campaign finance registration statement, pursuant to s. 11.05, Stats., with the appropriate filing officer and simultaneously filing a campaign finance disclosure report showing the sources of all funds on hand at the time of the report, pursuant to the requirements of s. 11.06 (1) (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f), Stats. In determining the sources of funds on hand and allocating those funds among the sources, the funds shall be treated on a last-in, last-out basis, so that they will be attributed in the report to the most recent sources, in the full amount received from each source.

Indeed, Judge Neiss acknowleges, as part of the “Undisputed Facts” of his order, that the emergency rule (ElBd 1.395) that the Green campaign seeks relief from did not apply at the time of the conversion (emphasis in the original):

17. On January 25, 2005, Congressman Mark Green converted his federal campaign committee to a state campaign committee by filing a campaign finance registration statement and a campaign finance disclosure report….

19. On January 26, 2005, the Board met for the purpose of, among other matters, discussing the issue of the conversion of federal campaign committees to personal state campaign committees….

20. The Board voted to promulgate an emergency rule (ElBd 1.395). The Emergency Rule was published on or about February 3, 2005….

21. The Emergency Rule states:

ElBd 1.395 Use of funds transferred by a federal campaign committee to a state committee restricted.

Funds which have been converted by a federal campaign committee to a Wisconsin state campaign committee may not be used for political purposes in Wisconsin if the contribution of those funds to the federal campaign committee would not have complied with Wisconsin law if the contribution had been made directly to a Wisconsin campaign committee. The state campaign committee shall divest itself of such money in compliance with s.11.26(11), Stats.

22. Wis. Stat. § 227.24(c) states with respect to emergency rules:

A rule promulgated under par. (a) takes effect upon publication in the official state newspaper or on any later date specified in the rule and, except as provided under sub (2), remains in effect only for 150 days.

The ruling then goes on to justify the denial of the injunction by essentially denying that the version of ElBd 1.39 that existed on January 25, 2005 ever existed. I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t profess to play one on the Web, but that sure looks like a violation of the state Constitution to me. Of course, we all know what the state Constitution means to Jim “Craps” Doyle (WEAC/Potawatomi-For Sale) and his Craps-packed State Supreme Court.

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]