Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Has Become A Danger To America!

This is an interesting article to read about one of the "watchdog" associations in America.

If you'd like to comment more go here http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-931515.html#931515 This is about the group that said in April that pro-lifers, pro-immigration enforcement, and returning veterans were the true danger to society. Hat tip www.alipac.com


Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Has Become A Danger To America!
by William Gheen
President of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC
www.alipac.us
July 30, 2009
A once revered civil rights group named the Southern Poverty Law Center has now become a threat to the freedoms and security of American citizens due to their repeated attacks on all First Amendment rights and their utter debasement of the political process. Due to the severity of the consequences of the SPLC's actions on our nation, their well funded and organized repeated attacks on American freedoms of speech, the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances, let us as Americans of every race and creed unify in our calls for the dissolution and complete political destruction of the Southern Poverty Law Center... While in the past the SPLC has targeted "hate groups" or groups deemed racist and potentially violent, such as the KKK and Neo Nazi groups, the SPLC has recently used their reputation for righting these groups to go after moderate and mainstream Americans, journalists, and show hosts and anchors in an attempt to suppress free speech. The most recent attack from the SPLC on American freedoms has come in the public call for the firing of Lou Dobbs by SPLC President Richard Cohen. Cohen asserts that Mr. Lou Dobbs is fueling hatred and inciting people to violence because he discusses issues such as illegal immigration and open borders on his show. The most recent call for Lou Dobbs to be fired was in response to Dobbs making the following statement on his radio show regarding the birth certificate and Constitutional eligibility of President Barrack Obama. The SPLC and groups like Moveon(dot)org are scrambling to defend Barrack Obama when his approval numbers are diving with Rasmussen Reports showing Obama's core ratings falling to negative 12 today! Lou Dobbs did not take a position on President Obama's Constitutional eligibility to serve as President as a natural born citizens. Lou Dobbs simply said "President Obama needs to "produce a birth certificate". American citizens of all walks of life are regularly made to provide a copy of their original birth certificate for jobs, licenses, passports, and other documents. Therefore, it is completely reasonable that President Barrack Hussein Obama should do the same to quell the large cohort of citizens that have serious questions about his eligibility to serve in an arena where there should be no doubts! God forbid that the Southern Poverty Law Center's call for free speech and freedom of the press to be destroyed in one fell swoop succeed, but is not even their call for the destruction of these rights offense enough? Surely there will be some far left open borders and amnesty enthusiasts, that represent less than twenty percent of the US Population on the political issues of illegal immigration, that will support the SPLC call for the firing of Dobbs because they feel they will benefit from this abridgment of Constitutional rights in America. However, Lou Dobbs's political views are more closely aligned with the vast majority of Americans who want America's borders secured and our existing immigration laws enforced. An even larger majority of people will support Dobbs's right to say what he likes and report what he likes as an American citizen and member of the media. Thankfully, many Americans still realize that free speech is a sacrosanct pillar of our nation's political processes and once esteemed place in history. Today, SPLC President Richard Cohen sent out another release claiming that Lou Dobbs has some association with James von Brunn, the neo-Nazi accused of killing the Holocaust Memorial Museum guard. This is outlandish, ridiculous, and absolutely hurtful to our Republic when you consider the fact that the SPLC and its sister organization the Anti Defamation League (ADL) have both been involved with documents sent out by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the DHS Fusion Center in Missouri that warn police to distrust American citizens based on their political beliefs, favorite books and movies, Presidential candidate choice, or bumper stickers.

Missouri MIAC Documents Scandal Leads to Advisory on SPLC & ADL
(March 26, 2009)http://www.alipac.us/article4073.html


The SPLC and ADL attempts to politicize American police in a way not seen in history since the reign of Stalin or Hitler are threats to our Republic, our nation, and the the freedoms and security of all American citizens. That is why ALIPAC sent out a national advisory warning Americans about these groups earlier this year! Now things have taken a new turn with the SPLC asking even their left leaning supporters to come along with them on a direct attack on free speech and the freedom of the press in America in a move that is designed to try and limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Most of us could understand and tolerate these groups and their spokespersons having different political views than us. I even fully support their free speech and right to engage in unpopular free speech supporting their positions in support for open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens. But by targeting moderate groups and commentators, smearing their names with false associations with murderous racists, and attempting to simultaneously interfere with Constitutionally protected freedoms of Americans, the SPLC has gone too far and has become a threat to the American rules, principles, ideals and freedoms necessary to allow peaceful political change and diffuse calls for violence from the extremes. I personally feel that the actions of the SPLC are increasing the chances of political violence in America as this group is trying to silence free expression of concerns and redress of grievances of tens of millions of Americans. The Americans the SPLC is targeting are not some violent fringe group, they are heartland Americans of every race and political party that believe in the founding principles of the United States! Since the SPLC is actively involved in state and Federal legislation to reinforce their anti-American agenda, and since the SPLC has been identified in the effort to turn American police into political police, and since the SPLC is now fully on record calling for the firing of one of America's most respected and revered news show hosts on CNN, let us therefore resolve to seek the political removal of the SPLC from the media and political processes they seek to control. We do not advocate anyone lift a finger in anger against them, but to engage in the process that we support and use the freedoms we still have for their intended purpose. The pen and the computer keyboard is mightier than the sword and is the apt response to this threat. The truth and a majority of Americans are on our side and all we need to do is channel that power down on the heads of those responsible for these outrages at the SPLC. Let us speak out with one voice against the SPLC and challenge the presence and messages of their spokespeople such as Richard Cohen, Morris Dees, Mark Potok, Heidi Beirich, and others when they are masquerading as a civil rights group before the media and lawmakers. Let us reach out to Americans that have been funding the Southern Poverty Law Center that have been led to believe that the groups focus is on fighting radical violent groups. They need to know that their funds are being used to attack American freedoms that are important to us all. It is time for someone to launch an education campaign to counter what the SPLC is trying to do to our nation and to people like Lou Dobbs. The SPLC is dead wrong on what they are trying to do and how they are going about it and we cannot sit idle as they move to destroy the last vestiges of freedom in America when so many of our brethren and forebears have paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect those freedoms for us all.

Comments Welcome...DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE WITH OUR ONLINE ACTIVISTS AT...http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-931515.html#931515

The Four Democrat Blue Dogs Who Sold Out America

An analysis from Erick Erickson of www.redstate.com on the so-called Blue Dogs



The Four Democrat Blue Dogs Who Sold Out America
Judas only needed 30 pieces of silver to sell out Christ. How much did these four need to sell out their country?

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

When you are calling Congressmen today, and you can get your Congressman’s name by going to http://www.redstate.com/action, keep in mind that these are the four Blue Dog Democrats who decided to cut a deal with the liberals in the House of Representatives.
These four men need to be called by every single freedom loving person in their districts.

Bart Gordon(TN) at 202-225-4231
Zack Space (OH) at 202-225-6265
Baron Hill (IN) at 202-225-5315
Mike Ross (AR) at 202-225-3772

Tisha B’Av

Here is an interesting article from Dean Wheelock of Hebrew Roots Magazine!


Tisha B’Av

Alas!Lonely sits the cityOnce a great people!She that was great among nationsIs become like a widow;The princess among statesIs become a thrall.Lam. 1:1

The story of Tisha B’Av (the 9th of Av) begins in the second year of the Exodus. It is told in the book of Numbers:
“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Send thou men, that they may search the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel... “And Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan... “And they returned from searching of the land after forty days. “And they went and came to Moses, and to Aaron, and to all the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh; and brought back word unto them, and unto all the congregation, and shewed them the fruit of the land. And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it. Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. “And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it. But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we. And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. “And all the congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept that night. And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron: and the whole congregation said unto them, Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would God we had died in this wilderness! “And they said one to another, Let us make a captain, and let us return into Egypt. (Num. 13:1-2, 17, 25-28, 30-32; Num. 14:1-2, 4.)

In the midst of all of this wailing and moaning by the children of Israel against God; “Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before all the assembly of the congregation of the children of Israel.” (Num. 14:5)
“And Joshua (Heb. Yehoshua which is the same basic name as Yeshua. It was given to him by Moses and implies ‘May God save you from the counsel of the spies’.) the son of Nun, and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, ... rent their clothes: And they spake unto all the company of the children of Israel, saying, The land, which we passed through to search it, is an exceeding good land. If the LORD delight in us, then he will bring us into this land, and give it us; Only rebel not ye against the LORD ... the LORD is with us: fear them not. But all the congregation bade stone them with stones....”(Num. 14: 6-10)

At this point in the story we have a remarkable scene that takes place between Moses and the LORD. God is angry and is ready to wipe out all of the children of Israel except for Moses himself In their place God promises to use Moses to father a nation of chosen people: “...and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they.” (Num. 14:12) Moses, however, again proves himself to be the humble type of the future ‘suffering servant’ Messiah, (Isa. 52:13-53:12) and does not seek self aggrandizement but rather, asks God to fulfill His original plan using the children of Israel. In the end, God sentences the children of Israel to wander in the wilderness “...forty years, and bear your whoredoms (idol worship), until your carcasses be wasted in the wilderness. After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.”(Num. 14:33-34)
All of this is said to have taken place on Tisha B’Av (the 9th of Av). According to tradition, over 15,000 men died each year on Tisha B’Av beginning with this second year of the Exodus. Thus, (when you include the men that died in other uprisings such as Korah’s rebellion) over a period of thirty-nine years, all of the 600,000 men between the ages of 20 and 60 died. According to tradition, on the eve of Tisha B’Av each condemned man dug his own grave and rested in it during the night. All of those who had reached the age of 60 that particular year died in their self prepared graves. However, according to tradition, on Tisha B’Av of the fortieth year, an amazing thing happened. The men dug their own graves as usual but in the morning they discovered that none of the remaining rebels had died. They thought they must have calculated the date incorrectly so they continued to return to their graves each night for the next six days. When they saw the moon was full on 15 Av they realized that God, in His mercy, had lifted His decree. This caused 15 Av to also become a special day of celebration for the children of Israel. According to tradition, God’s rejection of the children of Israel (because they believed the spies report) had also affected Moses’ relationship with the LORD, in that during those thirty-eight years God did not speak to Moses face to face as He had in the past. Rather, God communicated to Moses through an angel; through the urim (oo-reem’) and thummim (thoomeem’) of the High Priest; or through visions. However, to Moses’ great joy, God reinstated him to his former estate on that final 15 Av.

There were some groups of people that were not affected by the death decree:
Joshua and Caleb.
All of the women. (Because they did not participate in the sin.)
The men older than sixty. Two examples are Machir and Jair who were children of Manasseh the son of Joseph) and who are mentioned later as living in the land. (Num. 32:40-41)
The members of the tribe of Levi. According to tradition they did not participate in any of the sins of the children of Israel except for those who died in Korah’s rebellion.

Tisha B’Av in Jewish History
The foe has laid handsOn everything dear to her.She has seen her SanctuaryInvaded by nationsWhich You have denied admissionInto your community. Lam. 1:10
As you can see, Tisha B’Av did not get off to a very auspicious beginning in the lives of the children of Israel. But there is much more to come. The next major event to take place on that day was the destruction of Solomon’s Temple in 586 BCE. The scriptures seem to differ on the exact day:
“And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, ... came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, and he burnt the house of the LORD, and the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great man’s house burnt he with fire.(II Kings 25:8-9)
“Now in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month, ... came Nebuzaradan, ... and burned the house of the LORD...”(Jer. 52:12-13)
This seeming discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the troops entered the Temple grounds on the 7th. However, the Temple fire was probably started on the 9th and did not finish burning until the 10th.
As a result of the destruction of the Temple, the Jews began a tradition of fasting and reading the book of Lamentations every year on the 9th of Av. The next major event to take place on this date is (incredibly) the destruction of the second Temple in 70 CE by the Roman general Titus. Thus we find the second Temple was also being destroyed at the precise time the Jews, who were still in the first Diaspora, were reading the book of Lamentations (in 70 CE) and lamenting the destruction of the first Temple,.

This event is described in detail by the Jewish historian Josephus in his book Wars of the Jews. The fighting was fierce, with many casualties on both sides. After heavy fighting on the 9th of Av, during which the Romans breached the Temple compound, the Jews locked themselves in the Temple that night. On the next day, 10 Av, the fire was started that resulted in the complete destruction of the Temple as had been prophesied by Yeshua, forty years before:
“And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”(Matt. 24:1-2)
Before the Temple was completely burned, Titus went into the Holy Place, that is, the outer sanctuary of the Temple. Because Titus was an uncircumcised gentile, this was a further desecration of the Temple in the eyes of the Jews. One might ask; how could a building built entirely of stone burn’? While the walls and floor were of stone, much of the building was overlaid with wood. Also, the roof was constructed of wood and the curtains were of woven material. All of this material was flammable. In fact, the Temple was often called “Lebanon” by the Jews because of the cedar wood that came from Lebanon for its construction. A prophecy found in Zechariah 11:1-2 was considered, by the sages, to be a prophecy of the destruction of the Temple:
“Open thy doors, O Lebanon, (Temple) that the fire may devour thy cedars. Howl, fir tree; for the cedar is fallen; because the mighty are spoiled: howl, O ye oaks of Bashan; for the forest of the vintage is come down.”(Zech. 11:1-2)

What about the stones being thrown down? Much of the Temple wood was also overlaid with gold. The heat of the fire melted the gold and it ran down between the cracks in the stones. The Roman soldiers moved every stone in order to reclaim the gold. By the time the entire operation was over there was not one stone remaining in proper order on top of another, thus fulfilling Yeshua’s prophecy. Later on many of the stones were removed by other inhabitants and used for construction of other buildings.

But the story of Tisha B’Av does not end here. On this very day, in 130 C.E., the Romans plowed up the site of the Temple so that all trace of the Jewish Temple would be removed. It was then converted to a Roman colony and renamed Aeilia Capitolina.

In 133 CE the last Jewish revolt against Rome took place. It was led by a Jew who became known as Bar Kochba. A famous Jewish sage of that time, Rabbi Akiva, proclaimed Bar Kochba to be the messiah. This was the final straw in any relationship between the Jewish Believers and non-believers. The Believers could not accept Bar Kochba as the messiah but, rather, considered him a false messiah. They refused to fight the Romans and were thereafter considered traitors to Judaism by the non-believing Jews. Bar Kochba’s last outpost, Betar, fell to the Romans on 9 Av in 135 CE.

There are some other events that occurred on this day that have special significance to the Jews:
On Tisha B’Av 1290 King Edward I of England ordered that all Jews be expelled from the British Isles. In 1492, Spain was in the throws of its infamous inquisition. On April 30, 1492 a decree expelling the Jews from Spain went forth. This was the same day Christopher Columbus was given a royal commission to equip his fleet for a voyage to discover a new route to the Orient. On the 9th of Av Columbus made his final preparations for departure. On the 10th of Av, as Columbus sailed out of the harbor; he made note in his journal about the thousands of Jews who were in boats trying to leave Spain rather than convert to Catholicism. Some historians have speculated that Columbus was himself a Jew and that he had several, if not many, Jews as crew members. It is interesting that many of the Spanish Jews (known as Maranos) ended up immigrating to the Spanish controlled New World. Most of them made conversions to Catholicism some of which were false. About five years ago, the Los Angeles Times ran an extensive article about the unknown Mexican Jews. Many, of Spanish/Mexican descent have discovered that old grave stones, of their supposed good Catholic ancestors, were found to have small engravings of the Star of David, a menorah, or a Torah scroll. Apparently many of these Jews went to Mass every Sunday but still held to their Jewish traditions in secret. It has been said that Hispanics, whose last name ends in the letter ‘z’, may be of Jewish descent.
Other events that occurred on Tisha B’Av include:
1.) The ghetto of Florence, Italy was inaugurated in 1571;
2.) Shabbetai Tzevi, a pseudo-messiah, was born in Smyrna, Turkey in 1626. When the Muslims captured him they gave him the choice of converting to Islam or dying. He converted, much to the consternation of his followers.
3.) In 1648 three thousand Jews perished in Konstantynow in what were known as the Chmielnicki massacres.
4.) The last group of Jews were forced to leave Austria in 1670.
5.) In 1882 the Turkish government, which then controlled the Holy-land, barred immigration of Russian and Rumanian Jews and also banned the sale of land in Palestine to Jews.
6.) World War I broke out in 1914.
7.) A decree went forth expelling all Jews from Hungarian Ruthenia in 1941.

A Recent Happening
On Tisha B’Av in 1994 a most remarkable thing occurred. It was that day the first of twenty-one mountain sized parts of a comet collided with the planet Jupiter. Is this significant? Was this one of the “signs in the heavens”?
“And there shall be signs in the sun, arid in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. “And He spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.”(Luke 21:25-31)
While the world is unquestionably in a certain amount of distress at this time, it is also true that much of the world is at relative peace. Yet, we do see signs of breakdown in many countries, a tendency toward nationalism and fragmentation. (Sound like the Church?) But to say that the comet colliding with Jupiter is a direct fulfillment of the above prophecy is probably stretching it a little. However, it could be a wake up call for those who do study prophecy; for it was dramatic, it does prove that earth is not immune from such a disaster unless God protects us, and it did take place on Tisha B’Av. This year, (according to the traditional Jewish calendar) the 9th of Av falls on July 25th, beginning the evening before at sundown.
DEW

Sources
Bloch, Abraham P., Day by Day in Jewish History, Ktav, New York, 1983Bullinger, EW., Number in Scripture, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, 1967The Jewish Encyclopedia, 12 Vols., Funk & Wagnells Co., New York & London, 1901Josephus, Flavius, The Complete Works, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, 1984Strassfeld, Michael, The Jewish Holidays, A Guide & Commentary, Harper & Roe, New York, 1985Trepp, Leo, The Complete Book of Jewish Observance, Behrman House/Summit Books, New York, 1980Weissrnan, Rabbi Moshe, The Midrash Says, 5 vols., Benei Yakov Publications, Brooklyn, New York, 1983

Seven Things That Would Be Different If McCain Had Beaten Obama

Here's an interesting article from John Hawkins of www.townhall.com about how things would have been different. Some would be better, but interestingly some things might be worse, as the article shows, such as on immigration reform, cap and trade, and the tea party movement.


Seven Things That Would Be Different If McCain Had Beaten Obama
by John Hawkins
John Hawkins' Email John Hawkins Author Biography

Back in 2008 conservatives were in a tough spot: we had a candidate that many of us believe is representative of much of what is wrong with the Republican Party -- running against an ultra-left-winger who told America we could trust him, in part, because Joe @$&*^%$ Biden was going to be around to be a voice of reason.
While a few conservatives couldn't bring themselves to pull the lever for McCain, most of us, in the end, gritted our teeth and decided to vote for Sarah and "the other guy." Ironically, the moderates in the party, like Colin Powell and David Brooks, seemed even more reluctant than conservatives to vote for a politician whose style of politics they championed.

In the end, the less-than-enthusiastic support for McCain from the Right wasn't able to make up for a Republican brand that had been dragged through the mud, a Republican president with a 25 percent approval rating, weak debate performances and McCain's completely inept handling of a major financial crisis that proved to be the last nail in the coffin for his decrepit campaign.
However, given the radical changes Barack Obama has been making since he was elected, you have to wonder how things would be different if John McCain had actually managed to make it to the White House. Of course, all we can do is speculate, but you'd have to think that it would have been a mixed bag, at best.

1) Sonya Sotomayor wouldn't be headed to the Supreme Court: Of course, there are no guarantees that David Souter would have retired had McCain won, but given that he announced his retirement so soon after Obama was elected, you have to think he was ready to call it quits.
So, had McCain gotten to pick Souter's replacement, the big question becomes: would McCain have picked a solid originalist judge? Different people can reasonably come to different conclusions about which way McCain would have gone and whether the Democrats would have seriously considered letting a judge who'd vote against Roe v. Wade make it through. Still, however you slice it, you'd have to think that whomever McCain picked would have been a much better choice than Sonya Sotomayor.
2) A smaller, but still expensive stimulus bill: Given that McCain campaigned relentlessly on his fiscal conservative credentials, you might think he'd have opposed a stimulus. Not so. He proposed his own stimulus bill in the Senate that admittedly, was much heavier on tax cuts, but still had a hefty $421 billion price tag. Combine that with McCain's support of TARP and it's clear that deficits would have spiraled out of control no matter who took the White House.
3) General Motors and Chrysler wouldn't be government owned: McCain advocated bankruptcy for Chrysler and GM. He also took a dim view of the government buy-in to the company and Obama's meddling to help the unions. While McCain would have likely succumbed to the pressure to help both companies in some form, it's doubtful that the taxpayers would have been on the hook for tens of billions, become part owners in both companies, and that the unions would have ended up as majority stakeholders in Chrysler had McCain been President.
4) Cap and Trade would be more likely to pass: The Cap and Trade bill that passed the House is, at least for the moment, not making any headway in the Senate. Although it's possible it will eventually pass, the odds are against it. The same couldn't have been said had John McCain been President.
Although McCain has criticized Obama's Cap and Trade plan, he had his own plan during the campaign and it seems likely that he could have worked with the Democrats to craft a bill that he found acceptable. Furthermore, President John McCain could have undoubtedly persuaded at least a dozen Republicans in the Senate to vote for the legislation. That means Cap and Trade would have been much more likely to pass under McCain than Obama.
5) Say "hello" to amnesty: The Democrats are understandably terrified of pushing amnesty during a recession with Obama's approval numbers already plummeting. That's why an amnesty bill probably won't be seriously considered until 2011 at the earliest.
Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that John McCain shares the Democrats' fear despite the fact that his soft-on-illegal-immigration stance aggravated conservatives and led to his collecting, by some accounts, only 1% more of the Hispanic vote than Republicans collected back in 2006. In an environment where McCain couldn't get any legislation passed without plenty of Democratic support, amnesty AKA Comprehensive Immigration Reform would have been on the agenda and would have had a decent shot of passing, if only so that McCain could say that he "did something."
6) Socialized medicine probably wouldn't be on the agenda: Despite the Democrats' attempts to tie socialized medicine to the recession, it's being pushed right now because it has long been one of the highest priorities on the Democratic wish list and if not now, then when?
McCain did have some good ideas about improving health care, but they would have gone nowhere in a Democratic Congress and he would have vetoed a socialized medicine bill. That means that "McCainCare" would have probably never been on the agenda.
7) You'd be talking Republicans down off of ledges today: After the last four years of Bush, having another Republican President who paid little attention to the grassroots would have been incredibly demoralizing. Moreover, if the President were moderate, the Republicans in Congress, who have improved their performance considerably since Obama came into office, would be tacking to the middle, instead of the Right, in order to support the President. That's part of what killed the Republican brand under Bush and the problem would have certainly continued under McCain. So, instead of seeing increasing energy on the Right, tea parties, and conservatives starting to get fired up, the Right would probably be descending into complete despair as we would seem to keep winning elections, but continuing to lose on issues we care about in Congress.

Obviously, those wouldn't be the only changes. If McCain were President, this country would be supporting democracy in Honduras today, instead of opposing it. Gitmo would still be closing, but it wouldn't be on an unreachable timetable. McCain's administration also wouldn't be threatening to engage politically motivated prosecutions of their predecessors, accusing cops of racial profiling without knowing the facts, or hiring tax cheats to run the Treasury Department. Of course, Sarah Palin also wouldn't be the governor of Alaska and...oh, wait, maybe that's not the best example.
Long story short, it wouldn't be all bad and without question, McCain would certainly have been an improvement over the guy in the White House today, who seems to believe being president mainly consists of giving campaign speeches, catering to dictators, and playing golf. Still, when you take a hard look at it, it's remarkable how much of a mixed bag a McCain presidency would have been for conservatives. Perhaps that's at the core of the Republican Party's problem: even when Republicans win, their supporters still end up losing on so many of the issues they care deeply about.

It’s Official! Legal Immigration Is A Bigger Problem Than Illegal Immigration!

A very relevant article from Joe Guzzardi of www.vdare.com. Click on the links in the story!

It’s Official! Legal Immigration Is A Bigger Problem Than Illegal Immigration!

By Joe Guzzardi

Earlier this year while traveling through Ohio, I met Marlena, a young Russian woman who entered the U.S. on a temporary H-2B visa to work as a summer waitress at a swanky Shaker Heights country club.
After a couple of years, and having maxed out on her allowable H-2B visa extensions, Marlena changed status to a M-1 student visa so that she could study English as a second language at a local community college.
In the meantime, Marlena found a better, full time job at a restaurant specializing in Eastern European cuisine.
She’s paid cash under the table. And the sympathetic patrons tip her well.
Marlena supplements her restaurant income with another cash job by providing home care for a well-to-do elderly woman. For her services, Marlena receives $1,500 monthly as well as free room and board plus the unlimited use of the bedridden woman’s car.
I estimate Marlena’s full compensation package has a net value at a minimum of $5,000 monthly.
During one of our conversations, Marlena told me that she had “no intention under any circumstances” to return to Russia.
Instead, Marlena is focusing her energy on finding a suitable U.S.-born male to marry so she can avoid the very slight risk she may run of being deported once she exhausts her visa options.
“I will marry the first reasonable man who proposes,” Marlena told me.
For the purposes of my column, we’ll set aside the possible criminal penalties for the multiple IRS infractions committed by Marlena and her employers.
We won’t dwell on how Marlena took three jobs away from Americans that they would be happy to do.
Instead we’ll focus on the immigration aspect of Marlena’s case—starting with how absurd it is to issue a student visa to study ESL to someone who speaks perfect English. (Marlena, by the way, attends class just often enough to stay in compliance with the terms of her visa.)
For all those readers out there (Lou Dobbs most prominently) who say: “I’m opposed to illegal immigration but fully support legal immigration,” I urge you to study Marlena’s history closely.
Everything Marlena has done and plans to do to stay in the U.S. is perfectly legal.
You may think that Marlena’s plotting and conniving is unusual.
But it’s not. In fact, Marlena’s maneuvering is what we who follow the flawed non-immigrant visa system find typical.
Two years ago, I wrote about Gloria, a woman in her early 20s from the Philippines who came legally to the U.S. on a tourist visa, then found an employer to sponsor her H-1B visa application.
Gloria spent thousands of dollars on immigration lawyers to wiggle around the visa regulations. Once Gloria’s money was gone and with no other options open to her, she simply overstayed her visa when it expired.
For further proof that legal immigration is far from hunky-dory, read David Seminara’s Center for Immigration Studies backgrounder: “No Coyote Needed: U.S. Visas Still an Easy Ticket in Developing Countries”.
Seminara, a U.S. Foreign Service tenured member from 2002-2007, offers his inside view of the disaster that is U.S. visa policy.
Think of Marlena and Gloria multiplied by a factor of several million people.
Boiled down, Seminara’s report amounts to this: every visa issued potentially and most likely represents a permanent U. S. resident, either through the creativity of the Marlenas or the resolve of determined law-breakers like the Glorias.

If you want to come to America, all you have to do is file a petition. And if you want to stay in America, just don’t go home!
Seminara told me that over the last decade more than 5,000,000 non-immigrant visas have been issued to people who adjust their status after arriving in America and remain in the country indefinitely—probably for the rest of their lives.

[VDARE.COM note: You can see an Excel Spreadsheet of the figures here: Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status By Type And Major Class Of Admission: Fiscal Years 1998 To 2007 (.xls file).]

As Marlena and Gloria’s cases prove, once a foreigner reaches U.S. shores, he’s here to stay.
Alarmingly, not all visa holders come from countries that look as kindly upon America as Russia and the Philippines.

Seminara’s research found that 2007 visa issuance rates for countries like China, Iran, Kenya, Pakistan and Syria—to name but a few—are well over 50 percent (of those who apply.)
For Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the issuance rates reached highs of 94 and 96 percent.
To stem the flow of seemingly-innocent tourists, many of whom in reality are bent on getting permanent U.S. residency, Seminara urges eliminating status adjustment.
I propose another two-step idea.
Stop issuing new categories of visas—since immediately upon their creation, they are exploited.
Eliminate existing visas that have long histories of or the potential for rampant fraud.
The U.S. is under no obligation to provide dozens of different visas for every conceivable circumstance to prospective immigrants from all corners of the world.
And we don’t have to explain why we’re no longer making certain visas available. That decision would fall under the category of “we used to do it—but now we don’t.”
Here are a few visas that no one stateside will miss when they are gone
And remember—should these visas go away, the added bonus is that the family members who inevitably follow behind the original visa recipient will stay behind.
Here’s my list; it could easily be longer.

K-1, the fiancée visa.
Sorry, the jig is up on this one. I’ve been exposing K-1 fraud since 2002. In the intervening years, Internet scamming has grown to previously unimaginable levels.
The only people who benefit from the K-1 visa: the “fiancée” who gets on the path to U.S. citizenship, her extended family, Internet matchmakers, immigration lawyers who push the papers through and (maybe) the loving husband— unless she dumps him first.
You say you can’t find your dream girl? Try harder. According to the U.S. Census, 50 million single women are out there.
Or go to Shaker Heights to find Marlena. She’s cute and eager to hook up with you.

R, the religious visa.
This visa is a bad joke. Anyone who is a “minister” and has been a member of a religious denomination for a minimum of two years can qualify.
No matter what religion claims to need church workers, translators, preachers or personnel to function in any other “religious capacity”—a requirement of the loosely-written R guidelines— can recruit them from the next town or the adjacent state.
Three years ago in my hometown of Lodi, CA, we had two untoward R visa Imams who were at the center of a FBI terrorist investigation. They’re back in Pakistan now—from whence they should never have come.

O-1 visa, the so-called “extraordinary ability” visa designed for artists, scientists, and performers.
Another unfunny joke—which Rob Sanchez wrote about when he introduced readers to Dorsimar, whose “extraordinary ability” was to remove her clothes for money.
You say you’re a legitimate talent? God bless you, then. We’ll catch your act over there—wherever that is—or buy your DVDs.

The T visa and its sister, the U visa.
T is for trafficking and U is for abused women living in “immigrant homes” who may one day testify against the traffickers who got them into the country.
The fraud potential in these two visas is unlimited. But what should keep the unscrupulous from going for the T visa since, as Thomas Allen wrote in his 2004 column:
“For the lucky recipients, T visas are a wonderful deal. According to the DOJ, T-visa holders are eligible for all forms of public assistance (cash, housing, medical care, etc.) as well as job training, federal Office of Refugee Resettlement micro loans, and Federal match grant goodies—which can include cars—and an uncountable host of federal grants.”

The U visa is equally rewarding. In her column last year, Brenda Walker chronicled the riches that await those savvy enough to play the visa system for all that its worth.
I could name several other visas that should go out the window—Marlena’s M-1 is one.
But I’m sure you get my point.
Just remember: CIS’s Seminara and I are talking about legal immigration. No one in his right mind could support the blatant rip-off of American generosity that Congress misguidedly continues to offer to the world.
Here’s a closing note I know will interest you. I asked Seminara if his remarkable study generated any media inquiries.
Seminara said that he appeared on several conservative talk radio programs. But the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and other MainStream Media heavyweights have yet to call.
However, CNN Tonight—hosted by Lou Dobbs— taped a 30-minute segment.
Seminara told me that he was disappointed that his appearance was edited down to a snippet of only few seconds, which included the extraneous subject of passport outsourcing.
With visa fraud raging, legal immigration has emerged as a bigger peril to American sovereignty than illegal immigration.
The latter has strong laws in place to correct it. And a strong grassroots rebellion has scored several major victories against the alien invasion in the last several years.
But our challenge with legal immigration is that Congress, more or less under the radar, keeps making it easier.

We need to mount an equally vigorous defense against mass legal immigration. We need to achieve the same success that we have in our opposition to illegal immigration.

Joe Guzzardi [e-mail him] is the Editor of VDARE.COM Letters to the Editor. In addition, he is an English teacher at the Lodi Adult School and has been writing a weekly newspaper column since 1988. This column is exclusive to VDARE.COM.

GOP candidates for governor in New Jersey and Virginia this fall: Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell

A very strategic tip from www.hughhewitt.com

Consider supporting the two GOP candidates for governor in New Jersey and Virginia this fall: Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell. Both men are ahead of their Democratic opponents, and a double win for the GOP in these two statehouse races will send a message to all the Democrats looking at 2010 races that the Obama lurch left is not what the American people thought they were getting when they voted for a new way in Washington. Michael Barone gives the details, but you can give each of them $50 or $100 and really send a message about how you feel about Obamacare.


Stumbling governors signal trouble for Dems

By: Michael BaroneSenior Political Analyst

Before addressing the issue of the Pennsylvania state budget, Gov. Ed Rendell speaks during a news conference at the Capitol in Harrisburg, Pa., Thursday, July 23, 2009, about a summer program that will employee young people across the state.

With polls showing a drop in Barack Obama's job rating and sinking support for the Democrats' health care plans, there is evidence of collateral damage where you might not expect to find it, in the standing of Democratic governors. Pennsylvania's Ed Rendell is suddenly getting negative job ratings in both the Quinnipiac and the Franklin and Marshall polls -- his lowest marks in seven years as governor. Ohio's Ted Strickland, who has spent most of his first term working amicably with Republican legislators, scores under 50 percent in the latest Quinnipiac poll and has only tenuous leads over two Republicans, John Kasich and Mike DeWine, who may run against him next year.

In the two governor races being contested this year, Republicans seem to have an advantage. Republican Bob McDonnell has led Democrat Creigh Deeds in all but one poll and picked up the support of Black Entertainment Television billionaire Sheila Johnson, one of the biggest contributors to the incumbent, Democratic National Chairman Tim Kaine. New Jersey incumbent Jon Corzine, who spent more than $100 million on narrow wins for senator in 2000 and governor in 2005, is 15 points behind Republican Chris Christie. Corzine will not be helped by the indictment of multiple Jersey pols, most of them Democrats, in a case initiated by Christie when he was U.S. attorney.

There's an argument that these results hold little relevance to the standing of the national parties. Almost every state faces severe fiscal problems, and standoffs between a governor and a legislature can drag the governor's ratings way down, as in the case of California's Arnold Schwarzenegger. Moreover, a governor's personal strengths and weaknesses can override party identification; one of the nation's highest-rated governors is Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat in very Republican Wyoming.
Even so, these numbers should be troubling for Democrats. Rendell and Strickland are attractive personalities with some penchant for centrist policies. Both were suggested as possible running mates for Barack Obama (both sensibly swatted away those suggestions). Corzine is running in a state that, with a rising immigrant population and an outflow of affluent residents, has been solidly Democratic for a dozen years. Altogether these states have 69 electoral votes, and Obama won all four by comfortable margins last November.

Democratic governors in other important states also have been getting low marks from voters. North Carolina's freshly elected Bev Perdue has only 26 percent of voters willing to re-elect her. Colorado's Bill Ritter, Washington's Christine Gregoire, Oregon's Ted Kulongoski, Wisconsin's Jim Doyle, Massachusetts' Deval Patrick, and Michigan's Jennifer Granholm have been getting submajority voter approval most of the year.

These governors are mostly able and attractive people, and every one of their states voted for Obama. None of them is tarred by scandal or not up to the job, as seems to be the case with the nation's lowest-rated governors, Nevada Republican Jim Gibbons and New York Democrat David Paterson.
I take all this as evidence -- not conclusive evidence, but significant evidence -- for the proposition that economic distress does not predispose voters to favor bigger government. Not all the reasons for these governors' negative job ratings arise from debates over the size of government, but many do -- and voters are clearly not hankering for more government.
When you put these results together with Obama's slide in the polls, they suggest trouble for big-government Democrats. Pollster Scott Rasmussen now shows Obama with only 49 percent job approval; when he asked voters which party they'd like to represent them in the House, Republicans came out ahead of Democrats.
Some analysts will point out that Rasmussen's results tend to be more negative for Democrats than those of other pollsters. That's because, as Rasmussen explains, he uses a likely voter formula that tends to assume that first-time voters in November 2008 will not turn out in force in 2009 or 2010.
That seems to have been the case so far in most 2009 special elections and primaries. In off-year elections without Obama on the ballot, it seems unlikely that young blacks will turn out in larger proportions than young whites, as the Census Bureau reported happening in 2008. Democratic candidates will have to make their own case, and the governors' job ratings suggest their prospects may be dicey.

Michael Barone, The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His columns appear Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on www.ExaminerPolitics.com ExaminerPolitics.com.

Non-Blue Dogs Also Oppose Health Care

A big hat tip from Erick Erickson of www.redstate.com on other Democrats who oppose Obamacare.


Target these Representatives on Healthcare
Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

We know that most of the Blue Dogs are going to oppose healthcare. But what about the non-Blue Dog Democrats who live in districts McCain won? They seem to be good targets in addition to the Blue Dogs.
So here’s the list of targets for today. As the week progresses, we’re going to update, add to, and subtract from it. Start calling. And if your Congressman is not on the list, go here and find your Congressman. Start calling now.

Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-1) http://kirkpatrick.house.gov/(202) 225-2315
Vic Snyder (AR-2) http://www.house.gov/snyder/202-225-2506
Betsy Markey (CO-4) http://betsymarkey.house.gov/202-225-4676
Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24) http://www.kosmas.house.gov/202-225-2706
Ike Skelton (MO-4) http://www.house.gov/skelton/202-225-2876
Harry Teague (NM-2) http://teague.house.gov/202-225-2365
Michael McMahon (NY-13) http://mcmahon.house.gov/202-225-3371
Eric Massa (NY-29) http://massa.house.gov/202-225-3161
John Boccieri (OH-16) http://boccieri.house.gov/202-225-3876
John M. Spratt Jr. (SC-5) http://www.house.gov/spratt/202-225-5501
Chet Edwards (TX-17) http://edwards.house.gov/202-225-6105
Tom Perriello (VA-5) http://perriello.house.gov/202-225-4711
Rick Boucher (VA-9) http://www.boucher.house.gov/202-225-3861
Alan B. Mollohan (WV-1) http://mollohan.house.gov/202-225-4172
Nick J. Rahall Jr. (WV-3) http://www.rahall.house.gov/202-225-3452

"Are Cops Racist?"

A very interesting book recommended by Thomas Sowell.

His review is below.

If you have heard that the police are engaging in racial profiling, take a look at the evidence cited by those promoting that conclusion — and discover how flimsy and misleading that evidence is. When you finish reading "Are Cops Racist?" you may have your own question: Are the people who keep making that charge dishonest?

You can also get the book from your library here

http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/50333645&referer=brief_results

Read more here http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2003/12/09/christmas_books

New Media, New Activism, and a New GOP

A very interesting post from www.hughhewitt.com . If you feel motivated to do something, but don't know where to start, read this!!

New Media, New Activism, and a New GOP
http://townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2009/07/24/new_media,_new_activism,_and_a_new_gop_newt_and_the_ncpa?page=full

President Obama's sustained push to radically rework American medicine has triggered an enormous backlash among Americans who have come to understand that despite his repeated promises to the contrary, the president's scheme will cause many millions to lose the health insurance they have and see it replaced by the so-called "government option/public plan."
At the same time there is a spreading recognition that the massive "stimulus" package not only didn't work, it worsened the jobs situation in the country by signaling businesses small and large that fiscal irresponsibility on a scale never before imaginable had arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and that the years ahead would be rough. Payrolls have been trimmed drastically as a result, and now the Federal Reserve is predicting sustained and high unemployment. The president's talk of "saving or creating millions of jobs" is just that --talk. The jobs crisis is real and continuing and the Obama Administration has no plan to surge employment.

Special offer: Hugh Hewitt's book free when you subscribe to Townhall Magazine

This double Democratic whammy on the country's sense of security has launched two grassroots initiatives, the success of which signals that the GOP's grassroots are growing again.

First, the National Center for Policy Analysis launched a petition to stop Obamacare which soared past 700,000 signatures this week, on the way to a million and a huge impact on the United States Senate. (You can and should add your name here, and encourage all your friends and family to do the same if you and they want to keep your health insurance.) On Thursday's radio show I asked Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona --the GOP's #2 in the upper chamber-- about the effectiveness of such petitions. His response:
HH: All right, let’s talk politics. We’ve been helping the National Center for Policy Analysis get their petition up to a million. Right now, we’re about 667,000 signatures.
JK: That’s incredible. It’s great.
HH: Does that matter? As a Senator…
JK: Absolutely!
HH: Does that matter?
JK: It matters. You bet it matters. In fact, it’s the whole ballgame here. You know, inside baseball, oh, the Obama health care deal is a done deal. And they bludgeoned all kinds of the doctors and the hospitals and the drug companies and the insurances companies, this is going to be a done deal, so you might as well come to the table and get the scraps that we’re willing to give you in exchange for going along with what we’re going to do here. And a lot of folks thought that that was the case. But little by little, as soon as it has seen the light of day, folks have realized what’s in these bills, and have said no way. We do not want our, first of all, a huge, probably at least $2 trillion dollar spending bill on top of what we’ve done already, we don’t want to go into that much debt, and especially if it’s going to effect our own insurance coverage. On Medicare, by the way, you know, Medicare is unsustainable. The administration has said that. So what we’re going to do is we’re going to try to save some money in Medicare, meaning provide fewer services to seniors, and are we going to then make Medicare healthy? No. We’re going to take that “savings” and use it to cover more Americans. So there are a lot of features here that the American people don’t like, and they’re very anxious about. And the longer it hangs out, the more they see that. That then has an impact on members of Congress, whereas I think members thought at one point this was a done deal, now you see Democrats and Republicans saying not so fast, we don’t think so, because of what their constituents are telling them. So petitions, e-mails, telephone calls, letters, visits with members of Congress over the August recess, all of these things are critical to folks expressing their point of view. You have a right to do it, you need to do it, and if you do it right, I think we can stop this legislation, and reform health care in a sensible way.
Elected officials pay attention to ten letters or a dozen calls. A million electronic signatures stops them in their tracks. It is a warning that the vote on Obamacare will be one that brings with it consequences at the voting booth. Finally the conservative grassroots are finding a way to communicate with D.C. via the new media.

On the jobs front, a familiar and powerful voice has harnessed the new technology to help rebuild a conservative agenda on jobs.
There were two press conferences in D.C. on Wednesday. The president had his disastrous, fumbling and bumbling hour in prime time, and Newt Gingrich delivered a focused and persuasive push for a jobs policy at the National Press Club. The former Speaker who is now the General Chairman of American Solutions unveiled a concise, four part proposal to ignite job creation along with the brilliant summary point: America can't work if Americans aren't working. He's right of course. Unemployment above 5% drains energy and hope from the economy. The White House is pushing a job killing carbon tax and an employment-killing array of taxes to pay for socialized medicine even as unemployment nationally creeps to California and Michigan levels. Newt's four-part agenda would unleash incentives to hire and expand, and you can read about it in detail and sign on to it at AmericanSolutions.com.
The centerpiece of Newt's plan is a two-year, 50 percent reduction in payroll taxes, which would give an enormous and immediate boost to employers and employees alike, providing not only a huge jolt to consumer spending but also an opportunity for businesses to add the employees they are presently fearful about bringing on because of looming increased marginal costs of employment and general fears about Obama economic policy. A payroll tax cut is an economic defibrillator of sorts, which would sail through the Congress on a bipartisan basis if the president adopted it. Yes, he'd get some political credit out of a jobs recovery, but that's a price the GOP should of course be willing to pay to get the country working again.

www.AmericanSolutions.com is running a text poll on just the 50 percent payroll tax cut proposal. Use the shortcode number 77569 and enter "Y" for yes to the payroll tax cut or "N" to vote against the idea. Text polls have surged in popularity within the media as a means of measuring saliency of an issue for a given audience though of course the results cannot be extrapolated to the country as a whole. That's not the point. The point is to gauge activist interest and support, and participation in such efforts helps build the agenda for 2010. If Newt's policy instincts are right --and they have been time and again over two decades-- the "Y"s will far outnumber the "N"s, and the volume of text messages to 77569 will be significant. Take a minute and send your text and thus expand the grassroots.
It has been a long six months for center-right activists as the greatly diminished ranks of Republicans on the Hill and the dispirited activists in the states have struggled to gear up for what in sports is universally called "a rebuilding year." Very few expected 2009 to be other than a series of decisive defeats on Congress as a new president with huge majorities and a supine MSM easily brought forward big bill after big bill.
Now, suddenly, the president's and Nancy Pelosi's incredible overreach combined with the demonstrable disasters that have attended the stimulus and which would follow cap-and-tax-and-tax-and-tax and the radical plans for American medicine have revived and energized the Republican grassroots. The recognition that the stakes are too high to shuffle through an entire cycle has spread quickly, and key organizations like the National Center for Policy Analysis and AmericanSolutions.com have stepped up to provide vehicles through which that energy can be effectively channeled.
Take five minutes and sign on to two polls and text one message. From such small efforts, multiplied by hundreds of thousands of individuals committed to stopping the leftward lurch of the country, will come the rebalancing of D.C. so desperately needed in 2010.

Henry Louis Gates Inc.

A very interesting article by Steve Sailer of www.vdare.com!


Henry Louis Gates Inc.
[Steve Sailer]
I’ve been writing about Henry Louis Gates for 14 years, going back to this passing mention in a National Review article. Here, for instance, is a blog post about Gates’ televised adventures with genetic testing. And here’s my post on Gates’s sensible campaign to restrict affirmative action at Harvard to the descendants of American slaves, such as, say, Michelle Obama, and deny racial preferences to the children of immigrants and whites, such as, oh, Barack Obama.
Granted, Gates is, as we’ve seen in recent days, a race hustler. It’s completely in character for Gates to try to make money off his unfortunate temper tantrum by whipping it into a PBS documentary. Yet, for most of his long career he’s been the classiest race hustler in the racket.
But, my goodness, does he ever hustle.
I touched on his indefatigability in my 1997 book review, “The Ebony Tower,” in National Review of the (purportedly) Gates-edited Norton Anthology of African-American Literature:
Although anthologies of black American writing have been published by the score over the last 150 years, this enormous tome is sure to attract much attention, due to the authority of the “Norton Anthology” brand name and the well-deserved celebrity of co-editor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. The multitalented Dr. Gates somehow manages to be a master political operator in the growth industry of multicultural studies, an impressive researcher into the history of black literature, and a graceful writer for general audiences.
Franklin Foer explained this mystery the next year in Slate in “Henry Louis Gates Jr.: The Academic as Entrepreneur.”Gates does so many things at the same time that you have to wonder how he makes sure all of them meet the same high standard. The answer is, he can’t. In 1997 alone, according to his curriculum vitae, he wrote four long pieces for The New Yorker, published one book, and edited two more. He also supervised doctoral dissertations, taught two undergraduate courses, ran Harvard’s W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for Afro-American Research (raising funds, balancing budgets, recruiting professors, planning conferences), served as director of editorial content for a publishing imprint he co-founded, was a consultant on Steven Spielberg’s Amistad, scripted and hosted a Frontline documentary on the black bourgeoisie, and developed a six-part BBC-PBS documentary on Africa–the entire continent. He continued as an editor of Transition magazine; the Black Periodical Literature Project; the Zora Neale Hurston Library series; the 30-volume African-American Women Writers, 1910-1940; and the 2 million word Encyclopedia Africana. Nominally, at least, he sat on the board of editors of 29 other journals and on 82 advisory committees for museums, theaters, institutes, literary prizes, and universities.
This month’s Boston Magazine takes a hard look at Gates. It gives you an exhaustive account of his career, marred by a deeply unfortunate headline: “Head Negro in Charge.” [That's Gates' own joking term for himself.] The Du Bois Institute site details Gates’ many projects, including the Encyclopedia Africana. If you’re interested, it says it’s hiring.
Gates works very hard. Most days, he starts writing at 5 a.m. A 9,000-word New Yorker profile that would take most journalists weeks or months flows effortlessly from his pen. An incisive piece on Louis Farrakhan was reported Monday afternoon, written Tuesday, edited Wednesday, and closed Thursday. Gates drafted his 216-page memoir, Colored People (1994), in six weeks, though some critics thought the final result reflected the hasty composition.
But hard work alone doesn’t explain Gates’ output. He also understands a fundamental maxim of capitalism: Don’t do yourself what you can pay others to do for you.
It is a time-honored perquisite of senior professorship to have students act as minions, fetching books from the library and doing grunt research. Many scholars have figured out how to turn this somewhat feudal tradition into an industry. In the 1980s, for example, Yale Professor Harold Bloom served as the “editor” of 160 anthologies of literary criticism, even though it was graduate students (and a few undergraduates) who actually waded into the library and picked out the selections. But Gates pushes the envelope. He may be the only academic with a self-designated “chief of staff” who handles day-to-day details and deals with reporters. An assistant edits his writing. Another conducts research, keeping him abreast of the latest developments in hip-hop and digging up quotes for New Yorker pieces. Dozens of other writers and editors are hired to help produce his various projects. To put together one volume, The Dictionary of Global Culture, for instance, Gates used 32 research assistants and 32 fact checkers, in addition to 27 writers. (For this piece, I spoke with 17 current and former Gates employees.)
The last large-scale reference work Gates co-edited, also with Appiah, was The Dictionary of Global Culture, published last year. The book was meant to be the multiculturalist rebuttal to E.D. Hirsch Jr.’s controversial The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (1988); the idea was to highlight the accomplishments of non-Western societies and their contributions to Western culture. But it was too weirdly conceived and poorly edited to do all that. As a response to Hirsch, it is irrelevant, appearing long after most had forgotten Hirsch’s book. It is also filled with easily dismissable PC agitprop. As a reference work it fails, because entries are shorter and less informative than most entries for the same subjects in even the Encyclopedia Britannica. And it is embarrassingly error-ridden.
Why would Gates allow the publication of such a book with his byline and photo on the dust jacket? He had no idea it was so bad. After coming up with the idea for the project and appointing an “associate editor” to run it, he says, he was only minimally involved. According to those who edited the Dictionary, Gates read entries only just before they were sent to press, then looked closely only at items within his area of expertise, such as the Harlem Renaissance and Hurston. The book’s introduction was drafted by Appiah [who, by the way, is the grandson of Sir Stafford Cripps, the famous Chancellor of the Exchequer of Great Britain in the late 1940s]. …
Gates’ 29-page CV is packed with other projects to which he devotes scant energy. Between 1992 and 1998, for example, he contributed not a single word to 28 of the 29 magazines where he is listed as an editor. He does none of the line editing of articles for Transition, even though it proclaims his editorship in ads. For the 40 volume Schomburg Library of Nineteenth-Century Black Women Writers he edited, he appointed others to put together the books and write their introductions. Ten other editors helped put together The Norton Anthology of African American Literature, even though it was his byline that appeared on the cover. …
The problem is, the work that comes out of his scholarly chop shops isn’t nearly as good as it should be.

64 Percent Of California Voters Say Illegal Immigrants Are Major Strain on State Budget–36 Percent Say “No Es Una Problema”

A very insightful article from Brenda Walker of www.vdare.com!!

64 Percent Of California Voters Say Illegal Immigrants Are Major Strain on State Budget–36 Percent Say “No Es Una Problema”

[Brenda Walker]

From the Rasmussen pollsters. I’m surprised this number isn’t higher.
Nearly two-out-of-three California voters (64%) say illegal immigrants put a significant strain on the state budget as lawmakers struggle to close a $26 billion deficit.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of California voters shows that just 25% say illegal immigrants are not a major strain on the state budget. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure. 4% of [California Voters Say Illegal Immigrants Are Major Strain on State Budget July 23, 2009 ]
The useless governor and legislature have been happy to shut parks and close down new admissions to the Cal State campuses, but have left illegal aliens benefits off the chopping block. Schwarzenegger : Illegal aliens not cause of California’s budget woes.
In response to dozens of questions from readers who say the state ought to wipe out the deficit by eliminating services for illegal immigrants, the governor said it is a “myth” that those immigrants are to blame.
He said the cost of services to illegal immigrants, which has been estimated at $4 billion to $5 billion annually, is a “small percentage” of the deficit California faces.
“Yes, it is something that ought to be dealt with, but the fact of the matter is, I think it’s an easy scapegoat for people to point the finger and say, ‘Our budget is out of whack because of illegal immigrants.’”
The Rasmussen poll shows the voters are no longer paying attention to Schwarzenegger’s blathering.
See also an overview of what the California pols worked out for the budget, Details of the California budget deal.

David Axelrod’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

A very interesting article from Steve Sailer of www.vdare.com. Check out his book at the bottom of the article.

David Axelrod’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
[Steve Sailer]
I’ve got to bet that David Axelrod’s blood pressure is high at the moment, what with his prize pupil slipping the leash at yesterday’s news conference and letting everybody know what’s really on his mind. And now, Obama’s getting a second day of headlines over GatesGate.
From ABC News:
President Obama today stood by his comments that the Cambridge, Mass., police department acted “stupidly” in its arrest of Henry Louis Gates, telling ABC News that the Harvard University professor should not have been arrested.
President says he doesn’t regret his criticism of Cambridge police department.
“I have to say I am surprised by the controversy surrounding my statement, because I think it was a pretty straightforward commentary that you probably don’t need to handcuff a guy, a middle-aged man who uses a cane, who’s in his own home,” Obama said.

In an exclusive interview with ABC’s Terry Moran to air on “Nightline” tonight, Obama said it doesn’t make sense to him that the situation escalated to the point that Gates was arrested.
“I think that I have extraordinary respect for the difficulties of the job that police officers do,” the president told Moran. “And my suspicion is that words were exchanged between the police officer and Mr. Gates and that everybody should have just settled down and cooler heads should have prevailed. That’s my suspicion.”

At this point, Axelrod must have been feeling a bit better about Obama getting back on script.
The president said he understands the sergeant who arrested Gates is an “outstanding police officer.”
Good, thinks the President’s handler, Now just wrap it up, get back to health care, and you can go smoke a whole pack of Lucky Strikes.
But he added that with all that’s going on in the country with health care and the economy and the wars abroad, “it doesn’t make sense to arrest a guy in his own home if he’s not causing a serious disturbance.”

Oh, noooooooo! What with all that’s going on in the country with health care and the economy and the wars abroad, what doesn’t make any sense is for my client, the President of the United States of America, to get publicly obsessed over a local police incident!
Cambridge Police Department Commissioner Robert C. Haas said in a press conference late Thursday that his department was “deeply pained” by the president’s comments yesterday.
Watch “Nightline” Tonight at 11:35 p.m. ET for Terry Moran’s full interview with President Obama

By the way, if you want to understand why Obama slips loose from Axelrod’s master plan and does these kind of self-destructive things every now and then, please buy my reader’s guide to the President’s memoir, America’s Half-Blood Prince: Barack Obama’s “Story of Race and Inheritance.”

Health Care Reform Explained!!!

This is the best book to read to explain why government health care reform will ruin health care. Particularly Chapter 3.

You can get it here "Applied Economics."

or here http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/52251413&referer=brief_results

His recent article about health care is below, but the book is a must read!!

Medical Care Confusion

Thomas Sowell

Is there a coherent argument for government-controlled medical care or are slogans and hysteria considered sufficient?
We hear endlessly about how many Americans don't have health insurance. But, if we stop and think-- which politicians hope we never do-- that raises the question as to why that calls for government-controlled medical care.
A bigger question is whether medical care will be better or worse after the government takes it over. There are many available facts relevant to those crucial questions but remarkably little interest in those facts.

There are facts about the massive government-run medical programs already in existence in the United States-- Medicare, Medicaid and veterans' hospitals-- as well as government-run medical systems in other countries.

None of the people who are trying to rush government-run medical care through Congress before we have time to think about it are pointing to Medicare, Medicaid or veterans' hospitals as shining examples of how wonderful we can expect government medical care to be when it becomes "universal."

As for those uninsured Americans we keep hearing about, there is remarkably little interest in why they don't have insurance. It cannot be poverty, for the poor can automatically get Medicaid.
In fact, we already know that there are people with substantial incomes who choose to spend those incomes on other things, especially if they are young and in good health. If necessary, they can always go to a hospital emergency room and receive treatment there, whether or not they have insurance.
Here, the advocates of government-run medical care say that we all end up paying, one way or another, for the free medical care that hospitals are forced by law to provide in their emergency rooms. But unless you think that any situation you don't like is a reason to give politicians a blank check for "change," the relevant question becomes whether the alternative is either less expensive or of better quality. Nothing is cheaper just because part of the price is paid in higher taxes.
Such questions seldom get asked, much less answered. We are like someone being rushed by a used car dealer to sign on the dotted line. But getting stuck with a car that is a lemon is nothing compared to signing away your right to decide what medical care you or your loved ones will get in life and death situations.

Politicians can throw rhetoric around about "bringing down the cost of health care" or they can even throw numbers around. But the numbers that politicians are throwing around don't match the numbers that the Congressional Budget Office finds when it analyzes the hard data.

An old advertising slogan said, "Progress is our most important product." With politicians, confusion is their most important product. They confuse bringing down the price of medical care with bringing down the cost. And they confuse medical care with health care.

Nothing is easier than for governments to impose price controls. They have been doing this, off an on, for thousands of years-- repeatedly resulting in (1) shortages, (2) quality deterioration and (3) black markets. Why would anyone want any of those things when it comes to medical care?
Refusing to pay the costs is not the same as bringing down the cost. That is why price controls create these problems. When developing a new pharmaceutical drug costs roughly a billion dollars, you are either going to pay the billion dollars or cause people to stop spending a billion dollars to develop new drugs.
The confusion of "health care" with medical care is the crucial confusion. Years ago, a study showed that Mormons live a decade longer than other Americans. Are doctors who treat Mormons so much better than the doctors who treat the rest of us? Or do Mormons avoid doing a lot of things that shorten people's lives?
The point is that health care is largely in your hands. Medical care is in the hands of doctors.

Things that depend on what doctors do-- cancer survival rates, for example-- are already better here than in countries with government-run medical systems. But, if political rhetoric prevails, we may yet sell our birthright and not even get the mess of pottage.

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/07/21/medical_care_confusion?page=2

El Paso to legalize Homosexual Marriage?

The city of El Paso may try to use this incident to leglaize homosexual marriage. It would be okay if this was what the Mayor and Council ran on, but instead they are using an incident to make Executive decisions. Please visit here http://www.elpasotexas.gov/community/meetings.asp and visit the webpages of the Mayor and Council Members to at least ask them to put this vital issue to a citywide vote.


Two gay men kicked out of Chico's Tacos restaurant for kissing
The expansion of homosexuality in El Paso as a result of the Supreme Court overturning the state's law in Lawrence v. Texas (h/t El Paso Times). Supreme Court appointees do matter!!

Two gay men kicked out of Chico's Tacos restaurant for kissing
By Andrew Kreighbaum and Darren Meritz / El Paso Times
EL PASO -- Two gay men kissed at a Chico's Tacos restaurant, prompting guards to eject them and a police officer to endorse their ouster.Civil-rights lawyers say the security staff was out of line. Police, though, contend that a business such as a restaurant can refuse service to anybody, any time.In all, five men were ordered to leave the restaurant. They say they were forced out by homophobic guards."It was a simple kiss on the lips," said Carlos Diaz de Leon, a gay man who was part of the group.He called police at 12:30 a.m. June 29 because he said the guards and restaurant had discriminated against the group after two of his friends kissed in public.The five men, all gay, were placing their order at the Chico's Tacos restaurant on Montwood when the men kissed. All five sat down, but the two guards at the restaurant told them to leave.De Leon quoted one of the guards as saying he didn't allow "that faggot stuff" in the restaurant.De Leon said they refused to leave and called police for help. He said an officer arrived about an hour later in response to calls from his group and the guards.As they waited for police, the guards directed other anti-gay slurs at them, he said.Already angry at the guards, de Leon and his group became angrier at the two police officers who arrived."I went up to the police officer to tell him what was going on, and he didn't want to hear my side," de Leon said. "He wanted to hear the security guard's sidefirst."Police declined to identify the officers who responded, but department spokesman Javier Sambrano described one officer as relatively inexperienced.De Leon said the officer told the group it was illegal for two men or two women to kiss in public. The five men, he said, were told they could be cited for homosexual conduct -- a law the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas.That same year, the El Paso City Council approved an ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation by businesses open to the public.An assistant manager at Chico's Tacos declined to comment Wednesday, except to say the owners of the restaurant were out of town and could not be reached. An official with All American International Security, the firm contracted by Chico's Tacos to supply guards, said one member of the security crew was contacting a lawyer. He would say no more.El Paso police Detective Carlos Carrillo said a more appropriate charge for what happened at Chico's Tacos would probably be criminal trespass."The security guard received a complaint from some of the customers there," Carrillo said. "Every business has the right to refuse service. They have the right to refuse service to whoever they don't want there. That's their prerogative."Briana Stone, a lawyer with the Paso del Norte Civil Rights Project, disagreed.She said the city anti-discrimination ordinance protects people on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation in public places. Perhaps more troubling, she said, was that the police officer chose not to enforce that ordinance and might have contributed to discrimination."This is such a blatant refusal to uphold the law on account of discrimination," she said. "The result is devastating. The Police Department is allowing that and even participating in it by refusing to enforce an anti-discrimination ordinance, which is what their job is."Lisa Graybill, legal director for the ACLU of Texas, said that businesses can ask patrons to leave for lewd conduct, but that those standards would have to apply to all customers."If a straight couple wouldn't have gotten kicked out for it," she said, "a gay couple shouldn't."The police officers involved did not file a report about the confrontation at Chico's Tacos. Carrillo said no report was made because officers thought the situation was under control and neither side requested a written account of the incident.De Leon said he and his friends left the restaurant after an officer threatened to issue a citation for "homosexual conduct."
Andrew Kreighbaum may be reached at akreighbaum@elpasotimes.com ; 546-6137.
Darren Meritz may be reached at dmeritz@elpasotimes.com ; 546-6127.

See also http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/seven-reasons-why-presidency-matters_18.html

Seven Reasons why the Presidency Matters! *Bumped*

Here is an article from http://www.hughhewitt.com/ which talks about the reasons why the last presidential election mattered so much.

The first six reasons are the Supreme Court justices who are over 68, or were when the election happened, and therefore are vulnerable to be replaced by this president.

The seventh reason is foreign policy and we have seen this president tour the world apologizing for America and weakening our nation in this way.

The book is about the Supreme Court in America and can be gotten here http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32484
or here http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/56924749&referer=brief_results

Consequences of the Supreme Court nominations can be shown as here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/two-gay-men-kicked-out-of-chicos-tacos.html where a state law, passed by the people of the state of Texas, was overturned by the Supreme Court.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/b7d8fd20-1313-4229-a4a7-5325a3815908

Seven Reasons To Support The GOP's Nominee
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt
There are seven reasons for anyone to support the eventual nominee no matter who it is: The war and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68.Folks who want to take their ball and go home have to realize that even three SCOTUS appointments could revolutionize the way elections are handled in this country in a stroke, mandating the submission of redistricting lines to court scrutiny for "fairness.""It is undeniable that political sophisticates understand such fairness and how to go about destroying it," Justice Souter announced in his diseent in Veith v. Jubilerer, the Pennsylvania redistricting case in which the Court declined by a vote of 5 to 4 to immerse itself in the details of the partisan redistricting of Pennsylvania.If Democrats control the White House and gain even one of the five seats held by the center-right majority of current justices, this and many other crucial issues are up for legal grabs. When activist judges are more than willing to rewrite rules of long-standing, periods of exile should never be self-imposed "for the good of the party." Exiles can go on a very long time indeed. Ask the Whigs.They can go on indefinitely when enforced by courts.The GOP as well is the party committed to victory in Iraq and the wider war. A four year time-out would be a disaster, a period of time in which al Qaeda and its jihadist off-shoots would regroup in some places and continue to spread in others. Iran, even if punished in the months before November, would certainly continue and accelerate its plans under the soft pleadings of a President Obama or Clinton 2.0. These aren't the years to wish a pox on your primary opponents' heads beyond June.I don't expect the principals to let up on each other in the two months ahead, and I am especially looking forward to the Ohio and Texas votes. But it is very possible to play full contact politics without the threat of going home if your team loses. The stakes in the fall are far too high for that.