Cap & Trade Aftermath

Here are two articles for you to review about Friday's Cap-and-Trade environmental vote in the House. The first from http://www.teapartypatriots.org/ and the second from http://www.thenextright.com/.

8 Republicans who voted for Cap and Trade
The following republicans voted FOR the largest tax bill ever passed by a session of Congress. Any good work they have done has been for naught. They will for ever be a member of the Cap and Tr8tors. HR 2454 RECORDED VOTE 26-Jun-2009 7:17 PM BILL TITLE: American Clean Energy and Security Act 1) Click on their link. 2) Select the 'Contact' tab. Contact their local office as they are not in DC and home on vacation.
Mary Bono Mack R (CA)Mike Castle R (DW)Mark Steven Kirk R (IL)Leonard Lance R (NJ)Frank LoBiondo R (NJ)John McHugh R (NY)Dave Reichert R (WA)Chris Smith R (NJ)

#capandtr8tors is the Twitter tag to use on this topic.

Cap and Tr8tors - Website dedicated to the removal of office of the 8 Republicans who voted for the Cap and Trade bill. How they voted across the board. - Official government website showing how they voted.

The successes of the anti-cap-and-trade movement
Submitted by Soren Dayton on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 03:02
in
Americans for Prosperity
cap and trade
I was struck on Thursday and Friday of last week by the extent to which activists on the right were deeply engaged on the Cap and Trade bill that narrowly passed the house last Friday.
The thing is, the media has not played this issue up. The same week that the House voted on the bill, President Barack Obama held a prime-time townhall on healthcare. Even the conservative media was mostly engaged primarily with the healthcare debate. Obama and the Democrats played and won the media cycle war.
But the conservative groups, especially Americans for Prosperity, and conservative blogs like Redstate and others kicked in. From both Republicans and Democrats, we heard about enormous call volume coming into the House. This provided a robust whip-like mechanism.
Activists understood that they were the difference between this bill passing and not.
Now the fight moves to the Senate. Already, we see Obama caving on key provisions of the deal that kept protectionist Democrats together. It is hard to see how the Democrats find the votes, especially when they need full support from the Midwest to keep their caucus together.
And next time, it is hard to see how the issue is kept under the radar. The American people will be much, much more deeply engaged.
Soren Dayton's blog

Immigration and California's Budget Woes

Here are two stories about Immigration and California. The first is from www.debbieschlussel.com and the second is from www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards. I hope you find them interesting!

California Appeals Court: We Might As Well Just Open the Borders
Printer Friendly
By Debbie Schlussel
We already know that plenty of major American cities are "sanctuary cities," prohibiting police from asking people their immigration status or turning over known illegal aliens to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
But, now, not only is Los Angeles a sanctuary city, California's Appellate Court says the whole state is. That's the essential content of a 25-page decision the court issued, last week, in Harold P. Sturgeon v. William J. Bratton et al., Break the Cycle et al., Interveners and Respondents. With the involvement and backing of the ACLU, the court affirmed that it's illegal to use illegal alien status--known illegal alien status--to start a police investigation.
Gracias & Shukran, Stupid Gringo Infidel Judges
It's absurd. Being an illegal alien is, by definition, illegal. Thus, the adjective before the word "alien." An illegal alien who is here is breaking the law. If you break any other law, the police can use that to start an investigation. But now, the People's Republic of Granola's appeals court elevates that crime above all others. It's apparently no longer enough for probable cause or even reasonable suspicion.
We might as well just open the borders. We know that Los Angeles County, from which this case emanated, is the country that spends $44 million a month for benefits for the kids of illegal aliens.
And yet, who cares about the cost? We need to be tolerant of lawbreakers if they're not here legally. We need to elevate them above all others.
Thanks, California, for the trend-setting of fruits, nuts, and flakes. The state has been the trendsetter in speeding up the moral and cultural death of America and now the border obliteration of America.
In case you were wondering, the black-robed idiots who issued this 25 pages of toilet paper are H. Walter Croskey, Joan D. Klein, and Patti S. Kitching.
Posted by Debbie at June 24, 2009 02:27 PM


Immigration destroying California schools

Of course, the media won’t tell you that. They just blame it on some mysterious “budget crisis” that came out of nowhere and HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Because everyone knows that filling your state with low IQ, unskilled people with high crime rates who don’t speak English is good for the state and the school system. Because Diversity is our greatest strength!
RICHMOND, Calif. (AP) – California’s historic budget crisis threatens to devastate a public education system that was once considered a national model but now ranks near the bottom in school funding and academic achievement.
Deep budget cuts are forcing California school districts to lay off thousands of teachers, expand class sizes, close schools, eliminate bus service, cancel summer school programs, and possibly shorten the academic year.
Without a strong economic recovery, which few experts predict, the reduced school funding could last for years, shortchanging millions of students, driving away residents and businesses, and darkening California’s economic future.
“California used to lead the nation in education,” U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said during a recent visit to San Francisco. “Honestly, I think California has lost its way, and I think the long-term consequences of that are very troubling.”
The budget cuts will be especially painful for struggling schools such as Richmond High School, where more than half of its 1,700 students are English learners and three-quarters are considered poor. The East Bay area school has failed to meet academic standards set by the federal No Child Left Behind Act for more than four years.
I Love Social Bookmarking
SubscribeDiggFacebookReddit
Tags: Calfornia schools destroyed by immigration, California education cuts

Open Letter on Health Care

A Great post from www.heritage.org!

Open Letter on Health Care

To the President and Congress of the United States
From Edwin Feulner, Ph.D.
President, The Heritage Foundation

Health care reform has been a central goal of The Heritage Foundation since our creation more than three decades ago, so we welcomed President Barack Obama’s call for a common effort to find the right solution to this public policy challenge. We believe that putting families, not the government, in control of the system is the key to success. We want to strengthen our health system based on that principle.

The trouble has been that, no sooner does the President call for “everybody to pitch in” and engage in the debate, than he vilifies anyone who criticizes his plans. Denigrating different views does nothing to improve the tone of the debate here in Washington, let alone achieve real reform.

Having a civil national debate will produce more lasting change; accusing opponents of engaging in “scare tactics and fear-mongering” will not.
And make no mistake: there are legitimate concerns with what the White House has proposed. Americans need to understand the implications of all of the competing proposals, whether from the White House, from Capitol Hill, from industries, from think tanks or from interest groups.

In his speech to the American Medical Association, the President said, “When you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They’re not telling the truth.” Truth, however, is not a commodity over which the President has a monopoly. We not only believe that we are alerting the nation to potentially catastrophic consequences when we point out pitfalls in his plans, we think that some proposals being made by the White House are advertised on false premises.

Here are a few examples:

If you like your health care package you can keep it: This assertion is difficult to square with the facts. The President says that a “public option”—a government plan—would just be one of many health care plans that Americans could select. In fact, a public plan will lead many employers to drop private health coverage for their workers and dump them into the public plan—just as many employers in the 1990s pushed their workers into cheaper managed care plans. According to independent analyses, as many as 119 million Americans could end up in a public plan. This is hardly letting people keep what they have. And many in Congress are eager to expand a public plan, with tight rules on what your doctor can do and how much he or she will be paid. Congress can do that because it will be both the “umpire” who sets the rules and the “team owner” of the public plan. There will be no “level-playing field.” We believe a public option will toll a death knell for private plans.
The end goal is not a single payer system: This is another Washington euphemism that confuses people. Let us all be clear: The “single payer” here is Uncle Sam, using taxpayers’ money, and not just paying the bills but calling the shots and deciding what care every American will get—or not get. The inclusion of a public option is nothing more than a Trojan horse. The architects of the President’s proposals, and the sponsors of his proposals on Capitol Hill, know that once a government plan is in place, private insurance companies will be eventually run out of business. The government already owns a major bank and auto company; we shouldn’t hand over the medical industry as well.
The proposals are deficit-neutral: The President also asserts that a government system will be fully financed. This is a stunning untruth. Analysts, including the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office–Congress’s own watchdog–have issued preliminary estimates that the cost could be high as $2 trillion over 10 years, with most of that borrowed money. Even squeezing Medicare payments and adding new tax revenue will not pay for the massive burden this plan would put on American families. And current congressional proposals would still leave millions without insurance. Washington always says that new costs will be paid by savings elsewhere, but these phantom savings never materialize. These new costs will be borne by American families.
The quality of your health care will get better: One need only look at current government health programs to test this premise. Medicare has huge gaps in coverage. Medicaid’s quality is notoriously bad. They both offer substandard care compared to most private insurance plans. These persistent deficiencies are routinely overlooked in discussions of a government health plan. Rather than fixing Medicare and Medicaid, what the government proposes is to make these programs the foundations of a universal plan.
But we know opposing bad ideas is not enough. We need to fix the gaps in our health care system and lower costs for Americans. The system we need must not just protect union bosses, bureaucrats and select cartels, it must empower American families. The nation needs health care reform, not health care micromanaged by the government.

We are happy the President has joined a cause we have championed since our inception. He has recently been asking audiences across the nation “Where’s the alternative?” We at The Heritage Foundation are ready to discuss our alternative plans and help craft a bipartisan solution to America’s health care problems. That is what the country needs and what the President says he wants.

Specifically, a plan that would reform health care will need to:

Give families control of their health care: We need to let families—not the government—control decisions so they can choose the coverage they want. For this to happen private health insurance needs to be portable—that is, owned by Americans so they can take their package from job to job. The health care system we have today was conceived in the era of World War II, when many Americans worked for the same company all their lives. As we know, that is not the case today. The President has acknowledged this. But we do not need a public plan, or mandates on businesses, to have portability. We need changes in rules and the removal of tax penalties to allow families real choice and ownership.
Reform the tax system: For portability to become reality, we need to reform the tax system. Right now, families can get a tax break for their insurance only if they hand over control of their insurance to their boss, and leave their plan behind if they change jobs. That needs to change. We need to provide the same tax relief to families wherever they choose to get their plan. In that world of empowered families, plans would have to compete to satisfy them, not compete to cut costs for employers.
Bring on competition: Americans will get quality health care only with the mechanism that has given us quality in all other aspects of life: competition. The way to get quality care in America is to have insurers compete to satisfy families in an insurance market, one that provides transparent information, ease of delivery and quick results, and which is fair to families and their doctors. Members of Congress pick and choose plans in such a market. The rest of America should also have that right.
Recognize that states know better than Washington: The challenges of organizing and delivering health care vary greatly across the nation. Rural Mississippi is not the same as Midtown Manhattan. States have always been smarter than Washington at figuring out how to get the job done. To the extent that government must play a role, the states should take the lead in devising the best way to reach our national goals. The last thing we need is one-size-fits-all health care. Congress needs to let states find the best way to achieve value for money in widening coverage while bringing down costs.
A reckless, expensive and one-sided rush toward “reform” would not only be damaging to our public discourse, but it could fundamentally change our society in ways that have far-reaching consequences.

Rather than bringing in the failed central-planning approach to health care, with the government controlling who gets what, let’s ensure access to affordable health care for all Americans. Let’s use the tried and tested approach of the empowered consumer in a truly competitive market.

These are some of our remedies to our nation’s health care system. There are other free market ideas that also warrant consideration. We call on the President and Congress to widen the conversation. Let the debate truly begin.

Author: edfeulner Interact: Sphere Share This


Tagged with Obama Health Care Plan

Who's Funding the Obamacare Campaign?

A very interesting and timely article from Michelle Malkin at www.vdare.com!

Who's Funding the Obamacare Campaign?
By Michelle Malkin Michelle Malkin Archive

If you believe the White House, there are 30 million Americans who support a government health care takeover. But if you look at the funding behind the Obamacare campaign, it's the same few leftist billionaires, union bosses and partisan community organizers pushing the socialized medicine agenda. Let's connect the dots.
On Thursday, a national "grassroots" coalition called Health Care for America Now (HCAN) will march on Capitol Hill to demand universal health care.
The ground troops won't have to march very far. HCAN, you see, is no heartland network. It is headquartered at 1825 K Street in Washington, D.C.—smack dab in the middle of Beltway lobby land.
In fact, 1825 K Street is Ground Zero for a plethora of "progressive" groups subsidized by anti-war, anti-Republican, Big Nanny special interests. Around Washington, the office complex is known as "The Other K Street." The Washington Post noted in 2007 that
"its most prominent tenants form an abbreviated who's who of well-funded allies of the Democratic Party. … Big money from unions such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, as well as the Internet-fueled MoveOn, has provided groups like those at 1825 K Street the wherewithal to mount huge campaigns."
MoveOn, of course, is the recreational political vehicle of radical liberal sugar daddy George Soros. The magnate's financial fingerprints are all over the HCAN coalition, which includes MoveOn, the action fund of the Center for American Progress (a Soros think tank) and the Campaign for America's Future (a pro-welfare state lobbying outfit).
HCAN has a $40 million budget, with $10 million pitched in by The Atlantic Philanthropies—a Bermuda-based organization fronted by Soros acolyte Gara LaMarche. Also in the money mix: notorious Democratic donors Herb and Marion Sandler, the left-wing moguls who made billions selling subprime mortgages and helped Soros fund his vast network of left-wing activist satellites. By their side is billionaire Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance, whose "Progressive Future" youth group has dispatched clueless volunteers armed with clipboards and literature bashing Rush Limbaugh and Fox News to scare up support for Obamacare.
And two more left-wing heavyweights joining the HCAN parade: the corruption-plagued SEIU (which has battled numerous embezzlement scandals among its chapters across the country while crusading for consumer and patients' rights) and Obama's old chums at fraud-riddled ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
ACORN and HCAN are linked by left-wing philanthropist Drummond Pike, who heads the nonprofit Tides Foundation/Tides Center. As the tax disclaimer for HCAN discloses, "HCAN is related to Health Care for America Education Fund, a project of The Tides Center, a section 501(c)(3) public charity." For decades, the Tides Center and its parent organization, the Tides Foundation, have seeded some of the country's most radical activist groups of the left, including the communist-friendly United for Peace and Justice, the jihadist-friendly National Lawyers Guild and the grievance-mongering Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Pike is the same philanthropist who assisted ACORN founder Wade Rathke after his brother, Dale, was caught embezzling nearly $1 million from the group. Wade Rathke sits on the Tides Foundation board of directors. In a conspiracy to cover up Dale Rathke's massive theft of funds, Pike volunteered to buy a promissory note worth $800,000 to cover the debt. These are the populist do-gooders supposedly looking out for you and your health.
Why do they want Obamacare? An internal ACORN memo I obtained from August 2008 makes the motives clear: "Over our 38 years, health care organizing has never been a major focus either nationally or locally for ACORN," wrote ACORN Philadelphia regional director Craig Robbins. "But increasingly, ACORN offices around the country are doing work on health care." The goal: "Building ACORN Power."
The memo outlines the ACORN/HCAN partnership and their strategy of opposing any programs that rely on "unregulated private insurance"—and then parlaying political victory on government-run health care "to move our ACORN agenda (or at least part of it) with key electeds that we might otherwise not be able to pull off."
The objective, in other words, is to piggyback and exploit Obamacare to improve and protect their political health.
The "grassroots" movement is not about representing Main Street. It's about peddling influence and power at 1825 K Street.

Michelle Malkin [email her] is the author of Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s review.

Click here for Michelle Malkin's website. Michelle Malkin is also author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild and the forthcoming Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies.

A Tactical Suggestion For The Sotomayor Hearings

A very intersting article from www.vdare.com!

A Tactical Suggestion For The Sotomayor Hearings


When it comes to racial preferences, Barack Obama and Sonia Sotomayor are ideological twins, although most Americans don’t realize it yet. Unlike the master politician, however, Sotomayor tends to rub people the wrong way. Still, the Republican Senators are highly unlikely to be able to stop Sotomayor. And it’s not clear that they should want to, since once on the Court, the mediocre and abrasive Sotomayor is unlikely to evolve into a William Brennan-like master backstage manipulator of the other Justices.
Still, a lengthy hearing over Sotomayor would be the best opportunity for the GOP to begin the process of enlightening the public that Obama isn’t the post-racial President that David Axelrod has spun him as. Clearly, the New Haven firefighter reverse discrimination case of Ricci v. DeStefano should be central to the hearings.
Yet, old-fashioned chivalry and post-modern sensitivity both dictate that a bunch of white male conservative Senators like Jeff Sessions can’t be seen asking too many probing questions of a lady / minority. The GOP needs a bad guy to pound in these hearings, but Judge Sotomayor isn’t a guy.
So, the GOP Senators should subpoena a witness on the Ricci v. DeStefano case. They should subpeona and then roast alive on the witness stand the defendant, beady-eyed New Haven mayor John DeStefano (seen here), who engineered cheating Ricci and company out of their promotions. This will associate DeStefano’s petty political machinations to please his main black supporter to Sotomayor, Obama, and racial preference supporters in general.
For examples of the kind of questions they could flail DeStefano with, just refer to the Supreme Court’s oral questioning in the case. For example, Mayor DeStefano’s city attorney claimed that the city had strong evidence for discarding the test as invalid after finding out the results by race. But Justice Samuel Alito pointed out the preposterousness of that claim in a scalding rhetorical question:
“[The city] chose the company that framed the test, and then as soon as it saw the results, it decided it wasn’t going to go forward with the promotions. The company offered to validate the test. The City refused to pay for that, even though that was part of its contract with the company. And all it has is this testimony by a competitor, Mr. Hornick, who said—who hadn’t seen the test, and he said, I could do a better test—you should make the promotions based on this, but I could give you—I could draw up a better test, and by the way, here’s my business card if you want to hire me in the future.
“How’s that a strong basis in the evidence?”
This could be fun.

Stopping "Madoff Medicine": Demand The Blue Dog Democrats Kill The Government Option and Contain the Costs of Obamacare

A very interesting post from www.hughhewitt.com!

Stopping "Madoff Medicine": Demand The Blue Dog Democrats Kill The Government Option and Contain the Costs of Obamacare


This is a weekend of great significance on the domestic side of American politics as well as reality about the fiscal and operational impacts of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid proposal to radically restructure American medicine hits home. Yesterday the Washington Post's liberal blogger Ezra Klein declared the Obama plan in deep trouble. The New York Times and Post today tell you why: It is ruinously, outrageously expensive, producing the sort of gigantic costs that would almost certainly lead to deep rationing, and very quickly. The Times story references a Senate Finance Committee proposal for an "an automatic mechanism would be triggered to achieve those spending reductions" required by ballooning deficits --which is a long winded way of saying "mandatory rationing of medicine."This scheme for a vast expansion of government and enormous run of the money printing press is proposed against the backdrop of out-of-control Medicare spending. The new "government option" would crush private insurance very quickly and leave the federal government with only one option to pay for the giant obligations it gathered up to itself --limit or cancel those obligations via federal rules that tightly control what sort of treatment can be given to patients.They ought to call this scheme "Madoff Medicine," given that what the Democrats are pushing is a giant fraud that cannot possibly deliver on the promises being made. The danger is that there are slim majorities in both houses that will take a rhetorical win --a political poster really-- as worth the enormous cost of the unraveling of American medicine. Our current system is expensive and often unwieldy, but it works, and those with insurance greatly value it and the freedom of choice it provides. The Obama plan proposes to destroy all of that in exchange for the (hyped) promise of universal coverage. The president continues to say that if you like your plan you will be able to keep it --a deeply dishonest characterization of his proposals which will lead to the dumping by employers of their employees into the government plan. It is a giveaway that the president cannot level with the public about what he is proposing. Watch to see if ABC calls him on that next week.To stop this crazy and ruinous set of proposals requires moderate Democrats to stand up to their own party bosses and the new president and refuse to be pushed into an obviously disastrous vote for a destructive fantasy. The Blue Dog Democrats in the House need to hear from you, especially if you are in thehealth care field, and especially if you are a doctor. Here's the contact list with phone and e-mail information. Start with representatives in your own state, and then spread out. Some elected leaders won't take e-mail from out-of-state, so ignore them and move on but do try and leave voice mails --polite and specific voice mails that identify yourself, what you do, and your opposition to the "government option" or "public option" and to the cost of the proposals. Promise to work against anyone who votes for the government option and to contribute to their opponent.I will publish a list of senators later today for whom the same effort is also crucial. The cracks that have developed in the facade of "bipartisan reform" are deepening now that the realities of the push for Canada-style medicine at extraordinary cost are being laid on the table. People in Iran are fighting and in some cases dying for the right to hold their government accountable and to be heard by elected representatives. Use the power that we have and that they wish they did have this weekend.UPDATE: Here is the list of Blue Dog Democrats. Call them right now.
Arkansas
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (18.70% Lifetime ACU rating)
DC Phone: (202) 224-4843
Local Phone: Dumas (870) 382-1023, Fayetteville (479) 251-1224, Little Rock (501) 375-2993, Jonesboro (870) 910-6896, Texarkana (870) 774-3106
Link to E-mail
Declared Opponent: State Sen. Kim Hendren
Address: 1501 Hwy 72 SE, Gravette, AR 72736
Sen. Mark Pryor (18.33% Lifetime ACU rating)
DC Phone: (202) 224-2353
Local Phone: Little Rock (501) 324-6336
Link to E-mail
Connecticut
Sen. Joe Lieberman (15.96% Lifetime ACU rating)
DC Phone: (202) 224-4041
Local Phone: (860) 549-8463
Link to E-mail
Florida
Sen. Bill Nelson (37.28% Lifetime ACU rating)
DC Phone: (202) 224-5274
Local Phone: Orlando (407) 872-7161, Miami-Dade (305) 536-5999, Tampa (813) 225-7040, West Palm Beach (561) 514-0189, Tallahassee (850) 942-8415, Jacksonville (904) 346-4500, Broward (954) 693-4851, Fort Meyers (239) 334-7760
Link to E-mail
Indiana
Sen. Evan Bayh (20.70% Lifetime ACU rating)
DC Phone: (202) 224-5623
Local Phone: Evansville (812) 465-6500, Fort Wayne (260) 426-3151, Hammond (219) 852-2763, Indianapolis (317) 554-0750, Jeffersonville (812) 218-2317, Southbend (574) 236-8302
Link to E-mail
Declared Opponent: Don Bates Jr.
Link to Website
Louisiana
Sen. Mary Landrieu (23.20% Lifetime ACU rating)
DC Phone: (202) 224-5824
Local Phone: Baton Rouge (225) 389-0395, Lake Charles (337) 436-6650, New Orleans (504) 589-2427, Shreveport (318) 676-3085
Link to E-mail
Montana
Sen. Jon Tester (16.00% Lifetime ACU rating)
DC Phone: (202) 224-2644
Local Phone: Billings (406) 252-0550, Bozeman (406) 586-4450, Butte (406) 723-3277, Glendive (406) 365-2391, Great Falls (406) 452-9585, Helena (406) 449-5401, Kalispell (406) 257-3360, Missoula (406) 728-3003
Link to E-mail
Nebraska
Sen. Ben Nelson (47.26% Lifetime ACU rating)
DC Phone: (202) 224-6551
Local Phone: Omaha (402) 391-3411, Lincoln (402) 441-4600, Scottsbluff (308) 631-7614, Kearney (308) 293-5818, South Sioux City (402) 209-3595
Link to E-mail
Nevada
Sen. Harry Reid (18.96% Lifetime ACU rating)
DC Phone: (202) 224-3542
Local Phone: Carson City 775-882-7343, Las Vegas (702) 388-5020, Reno (775) 686-5750
Link to E-mail
Declared Opponent: Robin L. Titus
E-Mail: dr.robin@robintitus.com
Link to Website
North Dakota
Sen. Kent Conrad (19.57% Lifetime ACU rating)
DC Phone: (202) 224-2043
Local Phone: Bismarck (701) 258-4648, Fargo (701) 232-8030, Grand Forks (701) 775-9601, Minot (701) 852-0703
Link to E-mail
Sen. Byron Dorgan (16.57% Lifetime ACU rating)
DC Phone: (202) 224-2551
Local Phone: Bismarck (701) 250-4618, Fargo (701) 239-5389, Minot (701) 852-0703, Grand Forks (701) 746-8972
Link to E-mail
Declared Opponent: Duane Sand
Phone: (701) 751-2530
E-mail: contact@duanesand.com
Link to Website
South Dakota
Sen. Tim Johnson (18.36% Lifetime ACU rating)
DC Phone: (202) 224-5842
Local Phone: Aberdeen (605) 226-3440, Sioux Falls (605) 332-8896, Rapid City (605) 341-3990
Link to E-mail
West Virginia
Sen. Robert C. Byrd (28.26% Lifetime ACU rating)
DC Phone: (202) 224-3954
Local Phone: Charlestown (304) 342-5855, Eastern Panhandle (304) 264-4626
Link to E-mail

Michigan: Christians banned from delivering tracts on sidewalk

A very interesting post from www.jihadwatch.org.

June 20, 2009
Michigan: Christians banned from delivering tracts on sidewalk
After all, Dearborn is 30% Muslim, and they don't go for that sort of thing. "It's ironic that while Americans are applauding the free speech exercised by hundreds of thousands of Muslims on the streets of Iran, the city of Dearborn is restricting free speech rights Christians are attempting to exercise on the city's public sidewalks." An update on this story.
"Faith under fire:City corrals Christians at weekend Arab fest, judge won't let ministry deliver tracts on sidewalks," by Bob Unruh for WND, June 19 (thanks to Philip):
A federal judge has upheld a decision by festival organizers in Dearborn, Mich., which is about 30 percent Muslim, to ban a Christian ministry from handing out religious information on public sidewalks.
The ruling came from U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmonds and affects this weekend's celebration but will not affect the free speech lawsuit over the event, filed by the Thomas More Law Center and the Becker Law Firm.
The case is being brought on behalf of the Arabic Christian Perspective, a Christian group that ministers to Muslims. According to the Thomas More Law Center, Pastor George Saieg and scores of his volunteers have visited Dearborn for the city's Arab International Festival to hand out religious information several times.
At estimated 30,000 of Dearborn's nearly 100,000 residents are Muslim.
While there never has been a disruption of the public peace during the five years the ministry has been attending, this year Dearborn police warned Saieg he and his group would not be allowed to walk the public sidewalks to hand out information and instead would be confined to a specific spot, the lawsuit said.
After negotiations in Dearborn failed to restore the Christians' rights, the lawsuit was filed.
"It's ironic that while Americans are applauding the free speech exercised by hundreds of thousands of Muslims on the streets of Iran, the city of Dearborn is restricting free speech rights Christians are attempting to exercise on the city's public sidewalks," said Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center...

Posted by Raymond at June 20, 2009 9:36 AMPrint this entry Email this entry Digg this del.icio.us
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/026668.php
Buzz up!

Iran On The Brink

A very interesting post from www.hughhewitt.com!

Iran On The Brink

Duane has also now posted the transcripts of interviews with Michael Rubin, Michael Totten, Claudia Rosett and John Podhoretz.The key Twitter search terms remain #iran and #iranelection. The key blogs are AndrewSullivan.com, CommentaryMagazine's Contentions (already strong and then it added Totten), and NationalReview.com's The Corner.Not every post at every blog is about Iran, nor should they be because the rest of the world hasn't stopped. (If anything, Team Obama is trying to accelerate the miserable "government option" which would be the ruin of American medicine.)But the overwhelming focus should be on Iran. It was dispiriting to watch the House of Commons debate last night and see it focus on yet another Iraq War inquiry rather than the savagery of the mullahs' death squads. We have to hope that the United States Congress acts today to stand with the demonstrators against the killers and in uncompromising terms, and that the president tries to get the message right a third time. (Strike one was the Veep on Meet the Press. Strike two was last night's incoherent statement about abhorring violence. A blunt condemnation of the killers isn't that hard to draft.)As Ledeen notes, the demonstrators cannot look for any cavalry coming over the hill. The amazing site of unarmed protestors charging a Basij compound is a testament to the deep desire for freedom, one that has been seen before in Tienamen Square and around the Berlin Wall, as well as in Ukraine and Lebanon and many other places. Sometimes that deep desire manifests itself in crowds of hundreds of thousands and turns a dictatorship over. Sometimes it is slaughtered. All that the observers in the West can do is pray for, cheer on, and report accurately on that desire for freedom and the incredible courage that supports it.

UPDATE: From the Asia Times:David Goldman (aka "Spengler") on Iran's strategic weakness, and M. K. Bhadrakumar on the Rafsanjani-Khamenei split that triggered the turmoil which could now swallow them both.


The BBC's John Leyne thinks today's announcement from Iran's Guardian Council about a recount is "just a political ruse to try and wrong-foot the opposition." Leyne continues:
They have offered a recount, but they have not said who is going to carry it out. Maybe the same people who did the election count to start with.
In any case, the opposition says there were so many other irregularities, that a recount alone would not satisfy them. For example, many more ballot papers were issued than counted, they say. Some people did not get enough ballot papers so they could not vote in areas loyal to the opposition. Polling stations were closed early, and so on and so forth.

Michael Ledeen has studied and written about Iran's mullahs and their deeply evil regime for decades. Don't miss his analysis of where that regime finds itself today. Key graphs:
But the key element is the people. They are only just beginning to understand the reality of their situation. Virtually none of them imagined that they would be in a revolutionary confrontation with the regime just two days after the electoral circus, and few of them can realize, so soon, that they can actually change the world. I think the Mousavis now understand it (they know that they are either going to win or be destroyed). It remains to be seen if they can instruct and inspire the movement.
Much will depend on their ability to communicate. The regime has been waging a cyberwar against the dissidents, shutting down websites, cell phones, Facebook, and the like. As most people have learned, the basic communications tool is Twitter, which somehow continues to function. Bigtime Kudos to Twitter, by the way, for postponing its planned maintenance so that the Iranians can continue to Tweet. Would that Google were so solicitous of freedom.
We don’t know who’s going to win. The Iranian people know that they’re on their own; they aren’t going to get any help from us, or the United Nations, or the Europeans. But paradoxically, this lack of support may strengthen their will. There is no cavalry on the horizon. If they are going to prevail, they and their unlikely leaders will have to gut it out by themselves. God be with them!

The Seven-Point Manifesto of the Iranian Resistance

A very interesting post from www.jihadwatch.org!

June 16, 2009
The Seven-Point Manifesto of the Iranian Resistance
Calling for the resignation of Khamenei, and more. These points are all good, with the exception of the call for Mousavi, a founder of Hizballah and an architect of the Islamic Republic's intelligence agency, to be made President -- but maybe he is the best they have at this point. The "preparation for the implementation of new constitutional amendments" is promising: I would like to see a call for equality of rights for women and religious minorities, and the abolition of stoning -- genuinely, not the show abolitions that the mullahs have put over on the West in the past.
"The Seven-Point Manifesto of the Iranian Resistance," from Pajamas Media, June 16 (thanks to Benedict):
The following document, known as the Seven-Point Manifesto, calling for the resignation of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, has hit the streets of Iran. Hundreds of thousands of copies have already been circulated throughout the country.
A copy was sent from Tehran to filmmaker and activist Ardeshir Arian, who has translated it for Pajamas Media:
The Seven-Point Manifesto calls for:
1. Stripping Ayatollah Khamenei of his supreme leadership position because of his unfairness. Fairness is a requirement of a supreme leader.
2. Stripping Ahmadinejad of the presidency, due to his unlawful act of maintaining the position illegally.
3. Transferring temporary supreme leadership position to Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazery until the formation of a committee to reevaluate and adjust Iran’s constitution.
4. Recognizing Mir Hossein Mousavi as the rightfully elected president of the people.
5. Formation of a new government by President Mousavi and preparation for the implementation of new constitutional amendments.
6. Unconditional release of all political prisoners regardless of ideology or party platform.
7. Dissolution of all organizations — both secret and public — designed for the oppression of the Iranian people, such as the Gasht Ershad (Iranian morality police).

Posted by Robert at June 16, 2009 7:11 AM
Print this entry Email this entry Digg this del.icio.us
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/026602.php
Buzz up

Immigration Groups Issued Advisories on Shawna Forde before Killings

An interesting post by some who would blame the wrong people.

Immigration Groups Issued Advisories on Shawna Forde before Killings
June 16, 2009
CONTACT: Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) www.alipac.us, (866) 703-0864

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, one of American largest grassroots immigration enforcement groups, issued national warnings about Shawna Forde and her key ally Jim Gilchrist of Minuteman Project months prior to her charges of double homicide in Arizona. "We knew there was something very wrong with Shawna Forde and did all in our power to forewarn groups and leaders ,as well as press and law enforcement, regarding our concerns," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "Shawna Forde does not reflect the immigration enforcement movement or the millions of Americans concerned about illegal immigration and border security." ALIPAC issued national advisories and conducted a two hour radio broadcast warning about Shawna Forde and Jim Gilchrist, when the two tried to circulate photos and a story that Forde had been attacked and raped by a Latino gang in retaliation for her involvement in the immigration enforcement movement. Gilchrist was also an active endorser and campaigner for the Mike Huckabee for President campaign in 2008. He has been rapidly removing supportive materials and comments by Shawna Forde from his website over the last few days (Screen shots available upon request). ALIPAC leads the largest coalition effort among immigration enforcement groups in America and had only recently heard of Shawna Forde. "Forde came on our radar earlier this year when she started working with Jim Gilchrist and then shortly after when she started circulating suspect photos of alleged injuries from an attack," said William Gheen. "We manage the largest archive of information in existence on these topics and our researchers red flagged Shawna and Gilchrist's story for many reasons which led to our national advisory." Shawna Forde was shunned by the vast majority of groups she encountered in the immigration enforcement movement. She founded her own group and unfortunately found an ally in Jim Gilchrist Co-Founder of the Minutemen. Gilchrist has fervently supported Forde over the last six months, despite the outcry and opposition of many groups and leaders. Several groups and leaders that are part of the NIIBC (National Illegal Immigration Boycott Coalition) found at www.illegalimmigrationboycott.com fought Gilchrist over his support and elevation of Shawna Forde, including Jeff Schwilk of San Diego Minutemen, Chelene Nightingale of Save Our State, and many others who were aware of the situation. Minuteman Civil Defense Corps also threw Shawna Forde out several years back. "At this point, we want police to fully investigate Mr. Gilchrist's involvement with Shawna Forde and we want him to fully resign from all activities within our movement.", said William Gheen the director of the largest coalition of such groups in America. "We are preparing a letter calling for his departure and we expect it to be signed by many groups and leaders." ALIPAC extends their condolences to the many victims of Shawna Forde and reminds the press and the nation that all efforts were made to keep people like Shawna out of immigration politics. Shawna Forde is an unstable person who is not reflective of others who want illegal immigration stopped. Shawna Forde and the tragedy she caused should not diminish concerns for the thousands of Americans killed by illegal aliens each year, which is where public policy attentions should be focused. ALIPAC is releasing the following documentation of prior advisories on Gilchrist and Forde.

Announcement: Jan. 5th 2009 LEADERS: Shawna Forde Story Advisory http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-142143-forde.html
Announcement: Feb 24, 2009 ALIPAC: Jim Gilchrist Minuteman Project Damages Escalate http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-147383-forde.html
March 8, 2009 Radio Show warning the nation about Gilchrist and Shawna Forde (Audio Files) http://www.lastamericans.us/index.php/2009/03/09/archives-of-the-march-08-show-of-last-am
### Paid for by Americans for Legal Immigration AMERICANS FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION PAC Post Office Box 30966, Raleigh, NC 27622-0966 Tel: (919) 787-6009 Toll Free: (866) 703-0864 FEC ID: C00405878_________________Vox populi vox Dei Ad majorem Dei gloriam

Joe Predicts (Again): No Amnesty This Year—Or Next Year Either

An interesting article from www.vdare.com

Joe Predicts (Again): No Amnesty This Year—Or Next Year Either
By Joe Guzzardi
Put up or shut up!
That’s my challenge to the other side, with whom I am more that usually fed up and disgusted.
If they think they can pass what they are forever referring to as “comprehensive immigration reform” aka amnesty, and then let them either do it or stop talking about it.
I don’t want to hear any more about how there will be immigration legislation just as soon as Congress finishes debating health care or a new energy policy.
Nothing more please about how Congressional leaders anticipate that they’ll begin amnesty deliberations this fall just as soon as they wrap up the Supreme Court debate and return from their summer recess.
As for the ethnocentric lobby, stop marching, protesting and demanding. That strategy has gotten you nowhere. As the old saying goes, talk is cheap. And an even more accurate old saw applies: empty barrels make the most noise.
I’ve just returned from a brief visit to Capitol Hill where insiders tell me that Illinois Senator Dick Durbin claims he has the votes to pass the DREAM Act.
But, Durbin hedges, he’s afraid that if the DREAM Act passes, then it would damage the chances of a comprehensive immigration reform bill.
I say if Durbin thinks he can muster up the votes for the DREAM Act, then he should proceed. But I’ll only believe it when I see it.
Durbin has a steep uphill climb. As of the date of my column, H.R. 1551 has 70 co-sponsors, all reliable pro-open borders Democrats and S. 729, 22 like-minded Senators
And then there’s California’s teetering, senile old fool Dianne Feinstein who predictably re-introduced her AgJobs bill. The surest sign of spring in Washington isn’t the cherry blossoms but Feinstein’s AgJobs bill trumpeted by her accompanying statement that there is a “farm emergency.”
This year, Feinstein is reduced to passing around a 2006 photo of some over-ripe pears on the ground that, as Steve Sailer pointed out three years ago, never had a shred of credibility in the first place. [Feinstein Offers Guest Worker Proposal, by Michael Doyle, Modesto Bee, May 15, 2009]
Feinstein’s S. 1038 is a bust with no traction and only 17 co-sponsors. Ditto its companion bill in the House, H.R. 2414, with an underwhelming 38 co-sponsors.
One notable but under publicized triumph for our side: so far the Mainstream Media hasn’t written any “crops rotting in the fields” stories. Who knows? Maybe reporters have finally asked for supporting evidence—of which there is none— to back up the long-standing, ludicrous claim.
Of course, nice as it would be, none of these traitors is going anywhere.
The National Council of La Raza’s Janet Murguia, one of the most visible of the lobbyists, earns a tidy six-figure salary to promote her employer’s agenda. We can hardly expect her to announce that, in light of the hopelessness of her amnesty effort, she’ll be summering at the Jersey Shore.
But I might miss the other side if they were gone since their offensive remarks provide their goodly share of belly laughs—in a perverse way, of course.
As if Feinstein’s sorry, transparent shilling for the agriculture industry isn’t pathetic enough, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid always like to show his contempt for Americans with his ceaselessly insulting observations.
At a press conference with Hispanic leaders—who else?— Reid said (for the umpteenth time) that passing immigration reform is “going to happen this session. But I want it this year if at all possible.”
Then, when asked if Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the top Judiciary panel Republican, could pose a problem, Reid said:
“Check the numbers of Democrats and Republicans on that committee — OK? Democrats hold a 12-7 advantage after Sen. Arlen Specter became a Democrat and a 59-40 advantage in the Senate overall." [Harry Reid Wants Immigration Bill This Year, by Manu Raju, Politico.com, June 4, 2009]
Reid’s idiotic comment suggests that Specter once voted on our side against amnesty. But, as we all too painfully know, Specter is the 100 percent equal to Teddy Kennedy in his enthusiastic advocacy for the proverbial path to citizenship for illegal aliens as well as unlimited numbers of non-immigrant visas for foreign-born workers.
Not to be outdone by Reid, New York Senator Charles Schumer came up with this doozy about Sonia Sotomayor.
After his staff analyzed how Sotomayor voted in 955 immigration cases in which she has participated (siding with the foreigner over the government 144 times) throughout her judicial career and putting a special focus on cases that involved aliens trying to win asylum claims in order to remain in the United States, Schumer said: “These findings should put to rest any doubts about Judge Sotomayor’s fidelity to the rule of law. Even in immigration cases, which would most test the so-called ‘empathy factor,’ Judge Sotomayor’s record is well within the judicial mainstream.” [Schumer: Sotomayor ‘Within the Judicial Mainstream’ on Immigration, by Amy Goldstein, Washington Post, June 6, 2009]
Never mind that the “judicial mainstream” is far from the true American mainstream.
If Durbin, Feinstein, Reid and Schumer all think that amnesty is a go, well then—stop talking and go for it.
As for me, I’ve had a belly full.
Remember all the damages that were predicted to befall us after the 2003 Immigrant Freedom Bus Ride, the May Day marches and boycotts circa 2006, 2007 and 2008 and the touching story of Elvira Arellano and her anchor baby son little Saulito.
What became of all that was a big fat zero.
Amnesty isn’t even a hot topic among Hispanic Americans.
Latino voters surveyed by the Pew Hispanic Center in January, immigration lagged behind the economy, health care, national security and the environment in the ranking of important issues. [Hispanics and the New Majority, Pew Hispanic Center, by Mark Hugo Lopez, January 15, 2009]
Only three-in-ten Latinos rate immigration as an "extremely important" issue, according to Pew’s research. Coincidentally, that’s about the same percentage as native-born Americans.
And in my January column, I placed Democratic-style immigration reform as thirteenth most important on President Barack Obama’s list of top thirteen priorities.
I’m worn out by the empty rhetoric that flies in reality’s face.
Not only am I convinced that there will be no amnesty this year—or next year, for that matter—I’d be shocked if a bill ever reaches the floor for a vote.

Joe Guzzardi [email him] is a California native who recently fled the state because of over-immigration, over-population and a rapidly deteriorating quality of life. He has moved to Pittsburgh, PA where the air is clean and the growth rate stable. A long-time instructor in English at the Lodi Adult School, Guzzardi has been writing a weekly column since 1988. It currently appears in the Lodi News-Sentinel.

Abortion Activists Forget George Tiller Killed, Injured Women in Botched Abortions

A very interesting post from www.lifenews.com

Abortion Activists Forget George Tiller Killed, Injured Women in Botched Abortions

Wichita, KS (LifeNews.com) -- Since his shooting death last weekend, the mainstream media and abortion advocates have gone out of their way to paint late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller as a champion of women. However, their portrayal of Tiller neglects any mention of the women he killed or injured in botched abortions. While hundreds of pro-life groups have forcefully condemned alleged gunman Scott Roeder for killing Tiller, and, while his record presents no reason for his death, Tiller was anything but a protector of women's health. Perhaps the biggest blunder in Tiller's career of doing legal, and supposedly safe, abortions was the death of Christin Gilbert. Gilbert was a 19 year-old mentally disabled girl from Texas who was killed in a botched legal abortion done at Tiller's abortion business in Wichita in January 2005. After the botched abortion, Gilbert was rushed into the Wesley Medical Center ER, followed by Tiller moments later. She eventually died. Following Gilbert's death, the Kansas Board of Healing Arts, which regulates doctors in the state, refused to prosecute Tiller for killing Gilbert, saying he followed all state laws during the abortion procedure. Full story at LifeNews.com

Has Anyone Checked to See if the Holocaust Museum Shooter had a DailyKos Account?

Here is a very interesting post from www.redstate.com.

Has Anyone Checked to See if the Holocaust Museum Shooter had a DailyKos Account?
The Shooter would be greeted with open arms on left wing sites, despite what they say.
Yesterday, a deranged man named James W. von Brunn shot and fatally wounded a security guard at the American Holocaust Museum. American leftists, still giddy after the murder of George Tiller, are at this moment attempting to chalk von Brunn's actions up to "right-wing extremism"; apparently, von Brunn was a white supremacist, and typical leftist projection, they have assumed that anyone who is a racist must also be a right-winger. "Will any of Them Apologize to Napolitano Now?" crows Joan Walsh at Salon. The execrable (and typically clueless) Mark Kleiman calls the security guard in question a victim of a "right-wing nutcase." Markos Moulitsas twitters on and on and on about von Brunn being a "right-winger."
Unfortunately for these leftists, von Brunn left a lengthy trail of writings behind on the internet that spell out his beliefs pretty clearly. These writings indicate pretty clearly that von Brunn would have been banned within his first three comments of posting at RedState, but would likely have enjoyed a long career as a recommended diarist at DailyKos. Let's review the bidding, shall we?

What we know about von Brunn is that he:
Hated Christians.
Despised Bush and McCain.
Posted lengthy rants about "Neocons" involved in Jewish conspiracies to alter U.S. foreign policy in favor of Israel.
He placed credence in 9/11 "truther" theories.

This guy sounds waaay right-wing to me. I went back and tried to find some examples of RedState members/diarists posting similar material here, but it turns out that the few who were stupid enough to try it got banned and had their idiotic rantings replaced with amusing YouTube videos. Interesting. Wonder how it goes when people peddle anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, truther conspiracy theories, anti-Christian rants, anti-"neocon" rants, and other such fare at DailyKos?

I imagine it goes something like this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. In other words, a smattering of disapproving comments, a roughly equal smattering of people agreeing with the tripe you are peddling, and no evidence whatsoever that the purveyors of the site disapprove in any way of you posting such material on their site. And folks, the hit parade goes on and on and on.
So I guess the obvious question is this: if von Brunn were looking for a mainstream political activism site on which to broadcast his views to the largest number of likeminded individuals (or individuals susceptible to coming around to his point of view), would he find a warmer reception at RedState, or DailyKos? I submit that the answer to this question might be a far more useful metric of von Brunn's political leanings than the baseless assumption propounded by unthinking leftists that because von Brunn is a racist, he must be a right-winger.
Click Here for More.

West Bank Settlements and the Future of U.S.-Israeli Relations

A Very Interesting Post by www.stratfor.com about the "West Bank"



West Bank Settlements and the Future of U.S.-Israeli Relations
By George Friedman
Amid the rhetoric of U.S. President Barack Obama’s speech June 4 in Cairo, there was one substantial indication of change, not in the U.S. relationship to the Islamic world but in the U.S. relationship to Israel. This shift actually emerged prior to the speech, and the speech merely touched on it. But it is not a minor change and it must not be underestimated. It has every opportunity of growing into a major breach between Israel and the United States.
The immediate issue concerns Israeli settlements on the West Bank. The United States has long expressed opposition to increasing settlements but has not moved much beyond rhetoric. Certainly the continued expansion and development of new settlements on the West Bank did not cause prior administrations to shift their policies toward Israel. And while the Israelis have occasionally modified their policies, they have continued to build settlements. The basic understanding between the two sides has been that the United States would oppose settlements formally but that this would not evolve into a fundamental disagreement.
The United States has clearly decided to change the game. Obama has said that, “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has agreed to stop building new settlements, but not to halt what he called the “natural growth” of existing settlements.
Obama has positioned the settlement issue in such a way that it would be difficult for him to back down. He has repeated it several times, including in his speech to the Islamic world. It is an issue on which he is simply following the formal positions of prior administrations. It is an issue on which prior Israeli governments made commitments. What Obama has done is restated formal U.S. policy, on which there are prior Israeli agreements, and demanded Israeli compliance. Given his initiative in the Islamic world, Obama, having elevated the issue to this level, is going to have problems backing off.
Obama is also aware that Netanyahu is not in a political position to comply with the demand, even if he were inclined to. Netanyahu is leading a patchwork coalition in which support from the right is critical. For the Israeli right, settling in what it calls Samaria and Judea is a fundamental principle on which it cannot bend. Unlike Ariel Sharon, a man of the right who was politically powerful, Netanyahu is a man of the right who is politically weak. Netanyahu gave all he could give on this issue when he said there would be no new settlements created. Netanyahu doesn’t have the political ability to give Obama what he is demanding. Netanyahu is locked into place, unless he wants to try to restructure his Cabinet or persuade people like Avigdor Lieberman, his right-wing foreign minister, to change their fundamental view of the world.
Therefore, Obama has decided to create a crisis with Israel. He has chosen a subject on which Republican and Democratic administrations have had the same formal position. He has also picked a subject that does not affect Israeli national security in any immediate sense (he has not made demands for changes of policy toward Gaza, for example). Obama struck at an issue where he had precedent on his side, and where Israel’s immediate safety is not at stake. He also picked an issue on which he would have substantial support in the United States, and he has done this to have a symbolic showdown with Israel. The more Netanyahu resists, the more Obama gets what he wants.
Obama’s read of the Arab-Israeli situation is that it is not insoluble. He believes in the two-state solution, for better or worse. In order to institute the two-state solution, Obama must establish the principle that the West Bank is Palestinian territory by right and not Israeli territory on which the Israelis might make concessions. The settlements issue is fundamental to establishing this principle. Israel has previously agreed both to the two-state solution and to not expanding settlements. If Obama can force Netanyahu to concede on the settlements issue, then he will break the back of the Israeli right and open the door to a rightist-negotiated settlement of the two-state solution.
In the course of all of this, Obama is opening doors in the Islamic world a little wider by demonstrating that the United States is prepared to force Israel to make concessions. By subtext, he wants to drive home the idea that Israel does not control U.S. policy but that, in fact, Israel and the United States are two separate countries with different and sometimes conflicting views. Obama wouldn’t mind an open battle on the settlements one bit.
For Netanyahu, this is the worst terrain on which to fight. If he could have gotten Obama to attack by demanding that Israel not respond to missiles launched from Gaza or Lebanon, Netanyahu would have had the upper hand in the United States. Israel has support in the United States and in Congress, and any action that would appear to leave Israel’s security at risk would trigger an instant strengthening of that support.
But there is not much support in the United States for settlements on the West Bank. This is not a subject around which Israel’s supporters are going to rally very intensely, in large part because there is substantial support for a two-state solution and very little understanding or sympathy for the historic claim of Jews to Judea and Samaria. Obama has picked a topic on which he has political room for maneuver and on which Netanyahu is politically locked in.
Given that, the question is where Obama is going with this. From Obama’s point of view, he wins no matter what Netanyahu decides to do. If Netanyahu gives in, then he has established the principle that the United States can demand concessions from a Likud-controlled government in Israel and get them. There will be more demands. If Netanyahu doesn’t give in, Obama can create a split with Israel over the one issue he can get public support for in the United States (a halt to settlement expansion in the West Bank), and use that split as a lever with Islamic states.
Thus, the question is what Netanyahu is going to do. His best move is to say that this is just a disagreement between friends and assume that the rest of the U.S.-Israeli relationship is intact, from aid to technology transfer to intelligence sharing. That’s where Obama is going to have to make his decision. He has elevated the issue to the forefront of U.S.-Israeli relations. The Israelis have refused to comply. If Obama proceeds with the relationship as if nothing has happened, then he is back where he began.
Obama did not start this confrontation to wind up there. He calculated carefully when he raised this issue and knew perfectly well that Netanyahu couldn’t make concessions on it, so he had to have known that he was going to come to this point. Obviously, he could have made this confrontation as a part of his initiative to the Islamic world. But it is unlikely that he saw that initiative as ending with the speech, and he understands that, for the Islamic world, his relation to Israel is important. Even Islamic countries not warmly inclined toward Palestinians, like Jordan or Egypt, don’t want the United States to back off on this issue.
Netanyahu has argued in the past that Israel’s relationship to the United States was not as important to Israel as it once was. U.S. aid as a percentage of Israel’s gross domestic product has plunged. Israel is not facing powerful states, and it is not facing a situation like 1973, when Israeli survival depended on aid being rushed in from the United States. The technology transfer now runs both ways, and the United States relies on Israeli intelligence quite a bit. In other words, over the past generation, Israel has moved from a dependent relationship with the United States to one of mutual dependence.
This is very much Netanyahu’s point of view, and from this point of view follows the idea that he might simply say no to the United States on the settlements issue and live easily with the consequences. The weakness in this argument is that, while Israel does not now face strategic issues it can’t handle, it could in the future. Indeed, while Netanyahu is urging action on Iran, he knows that action is impossible without U.S. involvement.
This leads to a political problem. As much as the right would like to blow off the United States, the center and the left would be appalled. For Israel, the United States has been the centerpiece of the national psyche since 1967. A breach with the United States would create a massive crisis on the left and could well bring the government down if Ehud Barak and his Labor Party, for example, bolted from the ruling coalition. Netanyahu’s problem is the problem Israel has continually had. It is a politically fragmented country, and there is never an Israeli government that does not consist of fragments. A government that contains Lieberman and Barak is not one likely to be able to make bold moves.
It is therefore difficult to see how Netanyahu can both deal with Obama and hold his government together. It is even harder to see how Obama can reduce the pressure. Indeed, we would expect to see him increase the pressure by suspending minor exchanges and programs. Obama is playing to the Israeli center and left, who would oppose any breach with the United States.
Obama has the strong hand and the options. Netanyahu has the weak hand and fewer options. It is hard to see how he will solve the problem. And that’s what Obama wants. He wants Netanyahu struggling with the problem. In the end, he wants Netanyahu to fold on the settlements issue and keep on folding until he presides over a political settlement with the Palestinians. Obama wants Netanyahu and the right to be responsible for the agreement, as Menachem Begin was responsible for the treaty with Egypt and withdrawal from the Sinai.
We find it difficult to imagine how a two-state solution would work, but that concept is at the heart of U.S. policy and Obama wants the victory. He has put into motion processes to create that solution, first of all, by backing Netanyahu into a corner. Left out of Obama’s equation is the Palestinian interest, willingness and ability to reach a treaty with Israel, but from Obama’s point of view, if the Palestinians reject or undermine an agreement, he will still have leverage in the Islamic world. Right now, given Iraq and Afghanistan, that is where he wants leverage, and backing Netanyahu into a corner is more important than where it all leads in the end.

Doctors can write their own prescription

A very interesting post by www.HughHewitt.com about Health Care reform!

See also A group of doctors in Atlanta is organizing resistance to the "government option" among MDs.


Doctors can write their own prescription
By: Hugh Hewitt
There are more than 800,000 doctors in the United States, up from a half million only 20 years ago. Each and every one of these professionals face a tidal wave of change whether or not Obamacare passes out of the Congress in the next 90 days.
If the Obama/Pleosi/Reid plans does make it out of the House and Senate and it includes the so-called "government option" - a government-sponsored health insurance plan open to enrollment to every American - not only will the changes ahead for doctors be massive, they will also mean a significant drop in their ability to earn incomes anything like those they are making today.Right now the country faces an unfolding doctor shortage. According to research surveyed by Slate's Juliet Lapidos, "The demand for doctors will rise to between 1.09 million and 1.17 million by 2020 — many tens of thousands more than we'll actually have."
The reasons are straightforward: There is a rise in demand for medical services as our population ages and we haven't been turning out enough doctors. Once Obamacare is in place, expect the shortage to worsen as potential future doctors rightly calculate that the likely return on their investment of years of incredibly difficult training and very high borrowing will be dropping precipitously, even as the independence and authority they associate with traditional medical practice first diminishes and then disappears as the "government option" quickly becomes "single payer," which then becomes the maker and enforcer of all rules regarding treatment and payment options.If the more than three-quarter of a million doctors actually began to demand the sorts of reform that befits the delivery of medical services, they could have an enormous impact on the debate that is beginning in earnest this month.

If, for example, the so-called "Blue Dog Democrats" in the House and incumbent Democratic senators facing the voters in 2010 like
Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln and Colorado's Michael Bennett
were to hear from even a fraction of the doctors in their districts or states that they will work against the re-election of any member who votes for the "government option," the push to single payer would die a quick and deserved death.But thus far, there has been almost no peep from the medical community which will be charged with making the new system that Congress decrees result in patient health. The American Medical Association has been largely quiet, choosing to try and negotiate a separate peace with Montana's Max Baucus, an effort that looks doomed to failure now that even Baucus has declared for a "government option."Of course, the always vocal minority of left-wing doctors is cheering the march towards the socialization of health care. There is also a split between family practitioners and the specialists, a split that makes almost no sense when one considers they will all be losers under "single-payer."But the momentum towards the radical restructuring of American medicine, though large, isn't irreversible. What it requires is vocal opposition from across the community of physicians. Waiting for the AMA to lead the battle means defeat. Allowing the GOP to lead assures that the MSM will dismiss the effort and blunt the force of the arguments against collectivization.

Doctors have to self-motivate and self-organize, via practice groups and hospital staffs,, and use the power of sustained, personal appeals to elected members.

"I'm a ________, and I see ___ patients a week," the calls to each Congressional office should begin, "and I oppose a government option in health insurance."
"If Congressman/Senator _____ votes for a government option, I will be contributing to and working for their opponent in 2010. If he/she insists on destroying the way I practice medicine, I look forward to helping them into retirement where they can try and find a real job.""The prospect of hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully,"

Dr. Johnson noted. Doctors should know that the scaffolding is going up. Whether they are obliged to mount the steps depends largely upon the choices they themselves make in the next two months.

Examiner columnist Hugh Hewitt is a law professor at Chapman University Law School and a nationally syndicated radio talk show host who blogs daily at HughHewitt.com.

Mexico’s Take Over Of California: Complete By 2014?

An interesting insight into what could happen in 5 years by Joe Guzzardi of http://www.vdare.com/.

Mexico’s Take Over Of California: Complete By 2014?
By Joe Guzzardi
In March, April and May, I wrote a series of columns about the sorry condition of California’s GOP (here, here and here). I also handicapped the party’s dismal prospects for winning any of the three most critical elections—either of the two U.S. Senate seats currently held by Democrats Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein or the 2010 governor’s race to replace termed-out Republican incumbent Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Although Boxer will also run in 2010 for re-election, California is in such dire straits that all eyes will be on the governor’s contest. That shapes up as a probable match between Republican political novice Meg Whitman versus either of two Democratic veterans, Feinstein or the omnipresent former governor and current Attorney General Jerry Brown.
But since early spring when I gave my first assessment, California’s political sands have shifted. And with the change, a Republican has suddenly vaulted into the forefront of the state’s politics.
In fact, although it’s way early, I make State Senator Abel Maldonado the odds-on pick in 2014 to become California’s governor.
For immigration reform patriots, that’s much more bad news than it is good news. While Maldonado is indeed a Republican—technically—he points to his migrant farm worker parents as the reason for his fierce illegal immigration advocacy.
How a relatively obscure state representative from Santa Maria will become California’s first Hispanic governor since Romualdo Pacheco, Jr., in 1875 is an interesting tale. [Senator Abel Maldonado Has Made A Name for Himself, by Steve Chawkins and Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times, February 22, 2009]
Maldonado will pull it off with a combination of luck and skill.
Specifically, this is how he’ll do it:
In a stroke of good fortune for Maldonado, Lt. Governor John Garamendi recently announced that he was abandoning his moribund gubernatorial effort to run instead for the congressional seat about to be vacated when Ellen Tauscher leaves for Washington DC to serve as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. [Ellen Tauscher Is Off to the State Department for Sure, by Anne Schroeder Mullens, POLITICO.com, March 19, 2009]
That means Schwarzenegger must appoint Garamendi’s replacement. And, as it happens, Republican Schwarzenegger owes Republican Maldonado a favor.
During Schwarzenegger’s bitter dispute with the state legislature to close California’s $40 billion budget deficit (via higher taxes and more debt), Maldonado infuriated his conservative Republican colleagues when he sided with the governor.
But at the same time, Maldonado ingratiated himself, not only with Schwarzenegger, but also with California’s Democrats and independents eager to end the impasse.
Step one in Maldonado’s ascent, then, will take place in a few weeks when Schwarzenegger appoints him to replace Garamendi.
Suddenly, Maldonado will emerge from relative political obscurity to become a key player who, because of his Mexican immigrant background, will be hyped to the max by California’s adoring MainStream Media.
Step two will occur in November 2010 when either Feinstein or Brown easily defeat the Republican candidate—presumably Whitman.
By 2014—the next year the gubernatorial election rolls around—several things will have evolved, all of which play in Maldonado’s favor.
California’s overall economic health will remain on life support—horrible news for an incumbent hoping for another term.
Feinstein will be 81, Brown 76 but Maldonado only 47. In age-obsessed California that creates a huge edge for Maldonado. According to census data, in 2014 the average age of California’s Hispanics will be about 30. Ask yourself this simple question: will those young Hispanics vote for the fossilized white incumbent or the polished Maldonado who can appeal to their ethnic roots?
California’s demographics will have shifted even more dramatically toward Hispanic domination. The state’s population will be about 40 percent Hispanic—the largest voting bloc.
Add to Feinstein and Brown’s age and demographic negatives is that they have knocked around California politics for nearly four decades. If voters of all stripes aren’t sick of them by 2014, then I don’t know what.
Maldonado has been building toward his political ascendancy since 2000.
As a freshman state assemblyman he accepted an invitation from then-presidential candidate George W. Bush to give a Spanish-language speech to the Republican presidential convention aimed at wooing Hispanic voters. (Vainly, of course).
And in 2008, again addressing the Republican convention, Maldonado closed with these words (translated from Spanish):
“John McCain and my father would be good amigos. Ladies and gentlemen, que viva the immigrant story.”
Maldonado’s bracero father, it is worth noting, has lived in California as a permanent resident for more than forty years without becoming a citizen.
In his own words, Maldonado calls himself "the future of this party" and claims that the GOP needs more Latinos to be its public face.
"If we don't change, we're going to go back to the old ways, and we're going to continue to lose," said Maldonado, who faulted the party's hard line against illegal immigration. "They don't get it on illegal immigration," he said.
Republican old-timers who may disagree with Maldonado "can beat me up all they want," he told reporters at a luncheon while he was surrounded by erstwhile allies who, since his support of Schwarzenegger’s budget compromise, now view him as an enemy. [GOP Withering Away in California Heat? by Alex Isenstadt, Politico.Com, April 14, 2009]
Another Maldonado bonus: his campaign will attract a broader base of non-Hispanic California voters, who cannot support other would-be Hispanic candidates like the sleazy Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, but can stomach the vastly smoother, more intelligent Maldonado.
Last but certainly not least, Maldonado will play his immigrant success story to the hilt. His family’s strawberry farm is a 6,000-acre multi-million dollar business that ships produce worldwide.
By the time Maldonado reaches the governor’s mansion, Mexico’s takeover of California—what remains of it—will be complete.
Thousands of educated, wage-earning Californians like me move away every month. Moving in are under-educated, low earning but needy aliens.
Maldonado’s family succeeded. But the vast majority of immigrant newcomers fail.
For those optionless Californians left behind, the picture will not be pretty.
By 2014, Hispanics could control state politics, both the legislature and the governor’s seat.
Whatever token resistance now exists to defeat illegal immigrant measures like driver’s licenses for aliens or reduced access to health care will vanish. Don’t expect Maldonado to get religion once he becomes California’s chief executive.
Of course, none of this is inevitable. As Peter Brimelow recently pointed out, the GOP has so completely failed to mobilize its base in California that in 2008 John McCain actually failed to carry the white vote there. But there is no sign that “Republican strategists” are going to get the message.
California’s tragedy has been a long time coming. Immigration reform patriots have predicted the state’s demise for years.
Still, for this California native, watching it actually happen is unbearably sad.

Joe Guzzardi [email him] is a California native who recently fled the state because of over-immigration, over-population and a rapidly deteriorating quality of life. He has moved to Pittsburgh, PA where the air is clean and the growth rate stable. A long-time instructor in English at the Lodi Adult School, Guzzardi has been writing a weekly column since 1988. It currently appears in the Lodi News-Sentinel.