Kyle and her husband moved to Brookfield in 1986. She became active in local politics and started blogging in 2004. Her focus is primarily on local issues but often includes state and national topics, too. Kyle looks at things from the taxpayers' perspective in a creative, yet down to earth way, addressing them from a practical point of view.
What a night for Republican candidate Rick Santorum--he swept all 3 primaries in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado. And what is even more remarkable, he did this on a shoestring. Mitt Romney's millions (and I have nothing against wealthy people) and Newt Gingrich's millionaire backing didn't seem to matter. Rick Santorum still managed to pull ahead. Santorum has won 4 states--3 caucuses and 1 primary in Missouri, the most of any candidate so far.
It is easy to see why Newt fell from favor, given his sour grapes comments lately, plus, he wasn't on the Missouri primary ballot. But Romney's fall? Romney came in 3rd in Minnesota. "Romney should have had the advantage in both Colorado and Minnesota, which he carried in the 2008 Republican presidential primaries. He awaited the returns Tuesday night in Colorado, where he spent most of the past week campaigning." At the end of the night, Santorum came in with 40% of the vote to Romney's 35%!
True, voter turnout wasn't as high as 2008, but..."Romney won fewer voters than he did in 2008, signaling that he hasn't been able to hold onto those who turned out to pull the lever for him last time. In Minnesota in 2008 he won nearly 26,000 voters in the caucuses, while on Tuesday he won fewer than 10,000. In Missouri's primary his take dropped from 172,329 votes to just 63,826. And in Colorado's caucuses he won more than 33,000 votes last time but fell 10,000 votes shy of that this year." Even in Mormon friendly Nevada, Romney's total was 25% less than his 2008 total.
Given that Romney has run before, if we compare this 2012 election cycle to 1980's, Romney's lackluster numbers should be cause for pause. In 1976, Reagan ran again for president and lost the nomination to Gerald Ford. It was at the convention, where Reagan delivered the speech for Ford, that the party realized they nominated the wrong man. Ford lost and we got Jimmy Carter instead.
So given that many of us felt (myself included) that we chose the wrong man in John McCain and would have preferred Mitt Romney, wouldn't we expect Romney to distinguish himself this go round? Instead, it seems Romney is fizzling out.
It is still early in the game, especially in this unusual election cycle where anything seems possible, but it would seem Rick Santorum is finally hitting his stride. Maybe people are finally bothering to ferret out what each candidate actually stands for.
In any event, it is refreshing to hear a candidate state what so desperately needs to be said, " 'I don't stand here to claim to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney,' [Santorum] said. 'I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.' "
A big AMEN to that.
Delegate Scorecard: Remember, 1,144 delegates are needed for the GOP nomination. Delegate estimates :Romney 86, Santorum 38+, Gingrich 29. According to RNC rules, early primary delegates should be awarded proportionately too, but in Florida, they were all given to Romney. Missouri's were non-binding and will be awarded in future.
State by State Primary Results
Behind the numbers: Romney's Tuesday disaster
No doubt about it, fossils are a fascinating, tangible glimpse into the past. They are like snapshots in time. How much time? That depends on your world view. (Click here if all 4 photos don't appear)
Concordia University professor Dr. Gary Locklair will explore the topic "Understanding Fossil Evidence" at 7pm on Tuesday, February 14th, at Concordia in the Lakeshore Room--Info & directions. His "presentation will focus on the different interpretive frameworks used by scientists in evaluating fossil evidence."
"Creationary and evolutionary scientists study the exact same evidence, the fossils, yet come to radically different conclusions about the origin of life on earth."
Differing conclusions were never more evident to me than while listening to the Park Ranger at Dinosaur National Monument last April: He explained how 1 inch of sediment depth equaled X millions of years* in the Fossil Quarry, yet the huge fossilized dinosaur bones, entombed in the hill, were cemented in a span of sediment about 15-20 feet tall! Click for picture Some of the bones were random, others were from one animal, which points to some cataclysmic event.
In fact, at Fossil Butte National Monument, they even have a display case titled CATASTROPHE to show that some sudden disaster accounted for these fish all dying at the same time. It would also account for the sudden death of the fish in the first photo, who never got to enjoy his dinner.
Another case shows how fish trails, (the curved traces or trails a swimming fish fin leaves on the lake bottom) became fossilized in a sudden covering of mud. (Click on the picture to see the curvy trails.)
Creationists would say Noah's flood was the catastrophe.
I have heard Dr. Locklair before; he is a great speaker. It should be a very interesting evening. (The Creation Science Society of Milwaukee will be holding a short Annual Meeting and Election of Officers just prior to Dr. Locklair's presentation at 6:45pm.)
Upcoming events: The great debate! Can Science Point to God? hosted by the Lutheran Student Fellowship at UWM's Student Union, Wisconsin Room -3rd floor, on Tuesday, March 6, 2012, 6:30pm. Concordia University's Dr. Mengue will debate UWM's Dr. Bristow.
Entropy and the Origin of Life, Dr. Bruce Holman, Tuesday, March 27th, 7:30 pm, at Wisconsin Lutheran High School on 84th and Bluemound Rd., in the Cafeteria, doors of school open at 7 PM
Wisconsin's Assembly passed AB 426, a Iron Mining Bill, in January. It essentially was designed to speed up the expensive, long drawn out 3-year DNR approval process to a 360 day maximum permit deadline.
Wisconsin's Senate came up with their version earlier this week, however, theirs was far worse than the long, drawn out process we presently have. Among other bad stipulations, it added a new $2 per ton tax on top of the present 15% of net proceeds tax. Since the mine would produce from 8 to 16 million tons a year, that new stipulation would cost the mining company from $16 - $32 million dollars of additional expense. So that Senate version of the the good Assembly Bill 426 would be far worse than the unfavorable process we currently have in Wisconsin.
Thankfully, many Wisconsinites contacted their State Senators, urging them to support mining in Wisconsin and not vote for this terrible Senate version, with its unfriendly business taxes and regulations. So many people called and emailed that Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald disbanded the Senate mining committee, scrapped the Senate version, and sent the clean, better AB 426 Assembly version to the Joint Finance Committee, which will send it directly to the Senate floor.
So people, you made the difference. We are still not out of the woods though because the Assembly version can still be amended in the Senate. They can still add on the poison-pill provisions, but at least this way, those promoting those bad ideas will be known and each Senator will have to take a stand if they are for or against mining jobs in Wisconsin.
Just how unfavorable is Wisconsin for mining companies to do business here? Here is a little test:
What do Zimbabwe, The Congo (DRC), India, Bolivia, Honduras and Wisconsin have in common? They rank among the top 10 bottom scorers of 79 locations throughout the world--Antarctica excepted--friendly to the mining industry.
The Fraser Institute surveyed the opinions of mining executives, exploration managers and mining consultants from around the world and found Wisconsin scored the worst in Environmental Regulations and 2nd worst, only to Hugo Chavez' Venezuela, for "Uncertainty concerning the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of existing regulations". (Click link and scroll down to look at graphs)
How did this happen to Wisconsin? We're the Badger State. Badgers because they dig and burrow!
Wisconsin, with our flag depicting a miner standing to the right of the shield and sailor to the left, state products representing the state's major industries adorning the shield and badger on top: "In four sections surrounding the shield are representations of the states main industries: Agriculture, mining, manufacturing and navigation. The cornucopia and pile of lead represent farm products and minerals. (My emphasis)
Wisconsin needs jobs. Not just in Ashland County, where Gogebic Taconite or G Tac proposes this new iron mine, but in the surrounding area where peripheral businesses will hire to support the minors and their families. Lake Superior shipping will also benefit from this new mine, as will Joy Global and Caterpillar in the Milwaukee area.
AB 426 is just a bill to speed up the DNR approval process. The DNR would still need to study the issue and decree their yea or nay on the project. Unlike other mining, iron mining does not use cyanide or other polluting acids to remove the metals from the ores. Iron mining uses magnets to separate the ferrous material from the stone. Even environmentally conscious Minnesota and Michigan both have iron mines in their states.
At this point Wisconsin's State Senate does not have the votes to pass AB 426 and Republicans are being blamed for its failure to pass. But we do have 16 Democrat State Senators in Madison. Where are they on this bill?
Mining jobs are nearly always UNION jobs. For all the whining how Gov. Walker and Republicans are against Unions and Union workers, why are the Democrats allowed to vote against AB 426, which would help 600+ people* to obtain new Union jobs, not to mention the estimated 4,000 other jobs this mine would generate, without so much as a murmur?
Don't people living in Democrat Senate districts want good paying jobs too?
The Republicans, who make up a slim majority of one vote in the Senate, could vote this bill in. But Republican Dale Schultz of the 17th District, is being Dale Schultzie again; he is opposing this bill. There are probably some other Republicans who are wimpy on this bill too. Our area Senators, Leah Vukmir and Rich Zipperer are in favor of AB 426.
The only way we are going to improve the employment climate and increase state revenues here in Wisconsin is to approve projects such as this G Tac mine.
Contact your State Senator, even if they are Democrats! Let them know you support mining and bringing good jobs to Wisconsin. If the Senator is a Democrat, urge them to support these Union jobs.
Also, contact Democrat Robert Jauch of the 25th District, where the mine would be located. His district has a higher unemployment rate than the rest of the state. Ask him to help the people of his district get good paying Union jobs, that can't be outsourced, since the iron ore is here!
Voter ID is now in effect, so do remember to bring it to the polls if you live in a municipality holding a primary election tomorrow.
All of Milwaukee County will be voting for Branch 17 Judge in the primary. Judge Nelson Phillips is the Conservative in that race. His website is judgenelsonphillips.com but clicking that link gave me a Bandwidth Limit Exceeded message and suggested trying again later.
The following is from my fellow Conservative blogger, Randy Melchert:
"Tomorrow is the Nonpartisan Primary Election. Most of Waukesha County does not have a primary (except for a Western Waukesha County municipal judge race), but Milwaukee County and many other areas do.
"The areas below are having primaries where there are identified conservative candidates:
Remember April 3rd is our spring election for nonpartisan races such as alderman, school board, and county supervisors and also our Presidential Primary!.
Yesterday, the President referenced one newspaper's lead story, that gasoline prices were on the rise and Republicans were "licking their chops", in an effort to deflect any responsibility over gasoline's unprecedented price increases.
Then he went on to say, They [Republicans] are already dusting off their 3 point plan for $2 gas... Step 1 is to drill, and step 2 is to drill, and then step 3 is to keep drilling, something he has been thwarting every chance he gets.
Sadly, the President believes higher energy prices will encourage us to adopt his greener energy initiatives such as algae or whatever, though "the president admitted, no one actually knows how to turn algae (or a million other things) into motor fuel".
Obama also touted higher fuel standard regulations as a way to help us out of our gasoline shortage. Maybe he should urge the EPA and Congress to rescind the ethanol mandates? That would increase fuel efficiency by what, 10%? (He must have forgotten to mention proper tire inflation this time.)
He bragged that the U.S. was producing more domestic oil than ever, inferring that is why we need to turn to green energy, but failed to mention that higher production level was from the Bakken Shield oil shale fields in North Dakota and other oil rich areas on private property. (In other words, no thanks to his oppressive oil policies.) No mention of how he has rejected approving Canada's Keystone oil pipeline, which would help us "build an energy-independent North America".
No, this is the same man who in January of 2008 said under my plan, under a cap and trade system, electricity prices would "necessarily skyrocket". Clearly, he doesn't mind higher energy prices.
High gasoline prices hurt the very people who can least afford them: the unemployed, the under-employed, large families, lower to middle class people, areas dependent on tourism, and businesses in general.
The one saving grace of this recession was at least gas prices were low. But now what little disposable income these people have will go into their gas tanks. Discretionary spending will go down. Vacation plans will be cut back.
We'll all be licking our wounds with high gas prices. True, there isn't much we can do about it right now, but what about in the next decade? Algae research will not help; Drill, Baby, Drill and Keystone would. Remember that when you cast your ballot in November.
Krauthammer MOCKS Obama's Algae Energy Plan
Barack 'All of the Above' Obama
Obama Vows to 'Double Down' on Green Investments Despite Solyndra and Volt Flop