Saturday, May 05, 2007
Friday, May 04, 2007
Knollenberg doesn't even mention this legislation on his website. Instead, his blog entry for the day was about the Red Wings. I like hockey and I love the Red Wings -- but I don't think they should be more important to my Representative in Congress than a hate crime!
This hate crime legislation was strongly supported and heralded by the Anti-Defamation League. Here is an excerpt of the ADL's position on the issue:
All Americans have a stake in an effective response to violent bigotry. Hate crimes demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victim's community. The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of
physical injury or dollars and cents. . . .
The ADL also notes that the argument that such legislation might be unconstitutional is a red herring:
In June 1993, the United States Supreme Court upheld a Wisconsin hate crime statute that was based on model legislation originally drafted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in 1981. ( Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993).)
Joe Knollenberg is not representing our interests in Congress.
Once Again, Joe Knollenberg voted AGAINST the Jewish Community.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Joe Knollenberg voted AGAINST the Jewish Community today.
These are powerful. This is democracy in action.
I encourage everyone to write letters to the editor, and to Joe Knollenberg directly, so that someday, all of our voices will be heard.
Knollenberg's voting record on issues relating to women's rights, environmental protection and safe gun laws are all 100 percent negative. I know that his voting record on Iraq spending follow Bush's leadership precisely. He's been guilty of taking favors and campaign funding from lobbyists. These are not opinions, but easily verified facts. It is up to voters to form their opinion about "the smart, effective, common-sense approach of our Congressman Joe Knollenberg." I hope they will make their decisions based on performance, and not their favorite pundit's arguments.Anyone with half a brain and a clue would realize that the only hope the auto industry has right now is to improve government regulations and CAFE standards on all vehicles made in the United States. When surveyed, most UAW workers were in favor of these changes that would result in the future of their jobs.
Shame on Joe Knollenberg and his "out of town band of supporters" . . . for backing these insane standards for our country. The only hope Michigan has is to send Joe Knollenberg and his absolutely clueless supporters packing.
Quite a few folks in Joe Knollenberg's district are unhappy with his stances, and don't mind saying so.
Joe Knollenberg has had years to present his positions. None of them match the flurry of activity shown on the papers of recent date. Too little; too late -- and disingenuous to boot.
It boils down to whether you like the kind of leadership and direction of Bush, Knollenberg and the Republicans or not. I do not.
Mulitple letters were also published in the Farmington Eccentric. Click Here to read the letters.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Once again, Joe Knollenberg has acted as a rubber stamp for George Bush's War on Iraq.
On Tuesday, the 4th anniversary of "Mission Accomplished", Congress sent Bush legislation that fully funded, trained, and equipped our troops.
Joe Knollenberg voted NO on that legislation to fully fund, train, and equip our troops.
But Bush vetoed the legislation.
Today, Joe Knollenberg voted to sustain Bush's veto.
Once again, Joe Knollenberg voted lockstep with George Bush on the Iraq War.
So far, Joe Knollenberg has voted exactly as George Bush has told him too on every single piece of legislation related to the disaster in Iraq.
Joe Knollenberg is Too Extreme for Oakland County.
Bloggers, particularly political bloggers, are generally pretty passionate about the topics they cover. Many do extensive research -- well beyond the type of investigative reporting done by most major newspapers today.
In short, bloggers write about things that are important to them. Looking at the headlines from Joe Knollenberg's blog, we can see what is important to him -- not much.
- The Hemi-Hybrid: 40 percent better highway fuel economy!
- The Yen, Domestic Content, and Toyota
- Detroit Basketball!
- It’s time for the Democrats to stop playing politics with the war!
- 92nd Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide
- Clean Diesel Beats the Prius on Mileage
- Stop the Canadian Trash
- The Hybrid Center
- The Great Lakes are Magnificent
- Manufacturing is Cool!
- Toyota and the Detroit TigersU.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Spirit of Enterprise Award
- Karmanos on the importance of the auto industry
- Tigers’ Attitude
- Diesels: A Big Part of the Solution
- Beaumont: Center of Medical Excellence
- Orion Assembly Center Tour
- The Pickup Truck Tax!
- Presidential Candidates Should Understand Manufacturing
- GM’s Big Move to Small Chevys
- Go Tigers!
Kind of odd headlines from a Congressman. They are not original stories. Most of them are merely links to stories in the Freep or the News -- as though without his help, voters would never think to read the newspapers.
The sports entries are particularly interesting. Is Knollenberg a cheerleader or a Congressman.
He certainly isn't a leader. There isn't an original idea in any of those entries.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
April Toll Is Highest Of '07 for U.S. Troops
Over 100 Killed in Month; Iraqi Deaths Far Higher
Is this progress?
Even General Petraeus has stated that there isn't a military solution for Iraq. But Bush and Knollenberg have refused/failed to pursue other avenues.
Even school children know it is important to work towards a political solution. But now that is falling apart as well. From the Washington Post:
The deaths came as the largest bloc of Sunnis in Iraq's parliament, the Iraqi Accordance Front, threatened to pull out its ministers from the cabinet, saying that it "had lost hope" in having Sunni concerns addressed by the Shiite-led government. The threat prompted President Bush to phone one of Iraq's two vice presidents, Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni, in an attempt to defuse the potential political crisis, Hashimi's office said in a statement. A Sunni withdrawal could seriously hamper efforts at national reconciliation and further weaken the government. Only two weeks ago, six cabinet ministers loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr resigned from the cabinet.
So, in the last 2 weeks, 6 Shiite ministers have resigned and now the largest bloc of Sunnis are threatening to resign from the Cabinet. That would mean the "unity" government had failed. The elections for their parliament and their constitution would be meaningless.
Iraq is a total failure. Bush & Knollenberg have created a failed state in Iraq.
How much longer do we have to wait to see if there is "progress"?
before Knollenberg determines
if there has been "progress"?
Monday, April 30, 2007
Joe Knollenberg has very little to say about the war in Iraq. He has been a follower on the issue, not a leader. He rubber stamps whatever George Bush says.
At most he explains that he wants to see "progress" in Iraq.
He has been saying that for months. How long do we have to wait until we know if they are making progress?
Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki Supports Militias & Not the U.S.
According to the Washington Post, Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki is actually working against us, not with us. He is firing army and police officers who are too aggressive in combating militias:
A department of the Iraqi prime minister's office is playing a leading role in the arrest and removal of senior Iraqi army and national police officers, some of whom had apparently worked too aggressively to combat violent Shiite militias, according to U.S. military officials in Baghdad.
The problem is that Maliki is merely a puppet for Al Sadr and his militas. How can we possibly train Iraqi troops and quell violence when they are not really working with us, but instead are taking the training and the weapons we supply and using them against Sunnis and even American troops. Is that progress?
U.S. Has Given Up on Goal of Training Iraqi Troops to "Stand Up"
For years we have heard Bush say that our troops will "stand down when the Iraqi troops stand up". And that we have been training the Iraqi troops so they can stand up. Bush has been saying that since before the elections in 2004.
Well, apparently we've given up on that goal:
Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.
Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration's Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.
Is that progress? Is giving up on training Iraqi's progress? If we don't train them, how will they ever stand up so that we can stand down?
How Many More U.S. Troops Have To Die Before We See "Progress"?
Bush announced the escalation of the war in Iraq in January and began increasing the troop levels in February. The results so far? More U.S. troops died in April than any other month this year.
Joe Knollenberg Has Failed To Show Any Leadership on Iraq
Knollenberg has never once stood up for changing policies or strategies in Iraq. He has done nothing but quiver in Bush's shadow.
If this is progress, then how much more progress can we bare?
How many more U.S. troops Have To Die before we know if we are making "progress"?
He has given his full support to Bush's escalation of the war in Iraq. He says we have to give the new "strategy" time to work.
But, the expert of all experts -- General David Petraeus already predicts that the surge will fail to quell the violence in Iraq.
Petraeus spent the last 1 1/2 years rewriting the military manual on counterinsurgency. Field Manual 3-24 was co-written by Petraeus and published last December. In an article last month on the manual, Airforce magazine notes:
It usually takes a while for a government to realize that an insurgency is under way, Petraeus and Amos wrote. The insurgents “take advantage of that
time to build strength and gather support.” When the fight erupts, defenders “have to ‘come from behind'" and catch up to the situation.
In short, counterinsurgencies don’t go too well at first. Western militaries “falsely believe that armies trained to win large conventional wars are automatically prepared to win small, unconventional ones” and fight COIN with a similar mind-set.
But here is the real money quote from the manual:
During previous conflicts, planners assumed that combatants required a 10 or 15 to 1 advantage over insurgents to win. However, no predetermined, fixed ratio of friendly troops to enemy combatants ensures success in COIN. The conditions of the operational environment and the approaches insurgents use vary too widely.
A better force requirement gauge is troop density, the ratio of security forces (including the host nation’s military and police forces as well as foreign counterinsurgents) to inhabitants. Most density recommendations fall within a range of 20 to 25 counterinsurgents for every 1000 residents in an AO. Twenty counterinsurgents per 1000 residents is often considered the minimum troop density required for effective COIN operations
Petraeus says there should be 20 to 25 combat troops for every 1000 residents. According to the CIA Factbook, Iraq has a population of 27,499,638. That means, according to Petraeus, there should be 549,993 - 687,491 combat troops in Iraq. Even with the surge, the troop level will be somewhere around 150,000. That is just a little over 25% of the troops needed.
Heck, Bush didn't even give Petraeus enough troops to secure Baghdad!
How can Bush say he supports the troops when he won't train or equip them properly?
How can Bush say he supports the General when he won't give him the troops he needs to get the job done?
Apparently Knollenberg is unfamiliar with Petraeus's work as a General -- Knollenberg certainly hasn't said the number of troops in the surge isn't enough to succeed.
Joe Knollenberg. Uninformed. Out of Touch.