WHY DO WE KEEP READING THIS WHEN APPARANTLY NOTHING HPPENS OR CHANGES?
So true............let's go back to everyone work hard like our parents and grandparents did for a better life! No handouts for them! No wonder our country is broke and in trillions of dollars in debt. I'm tired of paying for programs that I or anyone in my family will ever use. Yet I pay my taxes on time and keep plugging along! When will this "hand-out" generation end? Back to basics. President Obama...this should be your #1 Goal. Change the attitude, Change the mind set.
A letter by a Florida teacher............... A teacher speaks
This is a subject close to my heart. Do you know that we have adult students at the school where I teach who are not US citizens and who get the PELL grant, which is a federal grant (no pay back required) plus other federal grants to go to school?
One student from the Dominican Republic told me that she didn't want me to find a job for her after she finished my program, because she was getting housing from our housing department and she was getting a PELL grant which paid for her total tuition and books, plus money leftover.
She was looking into WAIT which gives students a CREDIT CARD for gas to come to school, and into CARIBE which is a special program (check it out - I did) for immigrants and it pays for child care and all sorts of needs while they go to school or training. The one student I just mentioned told me she was not going to be a US Citizen because she plans to return to the Dominican Republic someday and that she 'loves HER country.'
I asked her if she felt guilty taking what the US is giving her and then not even bothering to become a citizen and she told me that it doesn't bother her, because that is what the money is there for!
I asked the CARIBE administration about their program and if you ARE a US Citizen, you don't qualify for their program. And all the while, I am working a full day, my son-in-law works more than 60 hours a week, and everyone in my family works and pays for our education.
Something is wrong here. I am sorry but after hearing they want to sing the National Anthem in Spanish - enough is enough. Nowhere did they sing it in Italian, Polish, Irish (Celtic), German or any other language because of immigration. It was written by Francis Scott Key and should be sung word for word the way it was written. The news broadcasts even gave the translation -- not even close. Sorry if this offends anyone but this is MY COUNTRY.
IF IT IS YOUR COUNTRY SPEAK UP -- please pass this along. I am not against immigration -- just come through like everyone else.
Get a sponsor; have a place to lay your head; have a job; pay your taxes, live by the rules AND LEARN THE LANGUAGE as all other immigrants have in the past -- and GOD BLESS AMERICA!
PART OF THE PROBLEM, Think about this: If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone -- YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM! It is Time for America to Speak up If you agree -- pass this along, if you don't agree --- delete it!
Thursday, February 12, 2009
WHY SAVE AIG??
WGT SAVE AUG??
Remember when this economic crisis hit, and Congress let Bear Sterns go
under, pushed a bunch of forced marriages between banks, etc.?
Then they bailed out AIG. At the time, I thought: "That's strange.
What does an insurance company have to do with this crisis?"
I think I just found the answer.
Among other things,
AIG INSURES THE PENSION TRUST OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS!!
No wonder they got bailed out right away!
To hell with the people, let's protect our future, said all our
Senators and Congressmen.
Nice to see where their loyalties lie!
(I'm from the government and I'm here to help you!)
Remember when this economic crisis hit, and Congress let Bear Sterns go
under, pushed a bunch of forced marriages between banks, etc.?
Then they bailed out AIG. At the time, I thought: "That's strange.
What does an insurance company have to do with this crisis?"
I think I just found the answer.
Among other things,
AIG INSURES THE PENSION TRUST OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS!!
No wonder they got bailed out right away!
To hell with the people, let's protect our future, said all our
Senators and Congressmen.
Nice to see where their loyalties lie!
(I'm from the government and I'm here to help you!)
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Dear Fellow American:
An urgent message from our Newsmax Sponsor,
The National Republican Trust PAC
Dear Fellow American:
I am really angry.
Congress is on the verge of voting to enact President Barack Obama's nearly $1 trillion spending bill, a so-called "stimulus" plan.
We were close to defeating this outrageous plan.
But then three traitorous Republican senators broke ranks to back Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and the Democrats.
Who are they? Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine.
These three senators have betrayed not only their colleagues but also the basic principles of the Republican Party, including a fiscally sound government.
Collins claimed she voted for the bill after cutting out "fat" — a ridiculous statement, because the Senate proposal she backed will cost at least $8 billion more than the House's pork-laden $819 billion plan.
And Specter said the country needs a stimulus, so he is throwing out all good sense to vote for Obama's plan.
We agree that the economy needs stimulus — real stimulus such as tax cuts — not hundreds of billions in political payoffs to Democratic constituencies.
Consider that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has stated the Obama plan will actually hurt the economy — and that less than 20 percent of the "stimulus" will even spent in the next year.
How is this an immediate stimulus, Sen. Specter?
Defeat RINOs Like Specter
The truth is that these three liberal Republicans are RINOS — Republicans in Name Only who — are notorious for siding with the Democrats when important legislation comes up for a vote.
They rely on their belief that many constituents have short memories when it comes time to vote.
But we don't have a short memory.
We at The National Republican Trust PAC will pledge maximum financial support to any Republican who challenges these three senators in a Republican primary.
Arlen Specter is particularly vulnerable.
He is up for election in 2010. He almost lost a close Republican primary in 2004.
He will go down to defeat in 2010 — if we have any say in the matter.
You can help us expose RINOs like Specter
Ad Campaign Will Shock Senators
We at The National Republican Trust believe it is time to hold Republicans accountable when they support Democratic policies that are bad for America.
For far too long we have allowed GOP politicians to run as Republicans and vote like Democrats.
We at The National Republican Trust say "no more." No more to betrayal. No more to fifth columnists in the party.
We need to expose liberal Republicans like Specter, Snowe, and Collins.
In the coming days, The National Republican Trust PAC will roll out radio ads exposing Specter, Collins, and Snowe in their home states.
We will also be targeting conservative Democrats who voted for the Obama pork plan.
It is critically important that we do this, because Obama is planning to push through in the coming weeks for programs like socialized healthcare, reducing our military strength — even legalizing millions of illegal aliens.
Obama promised the most liberal administration in history. It is clear he wants to fulfill this promise.
We can stop him. But it will take real effort and hard work.
We at The National Republican Trust are willing to put in the sweat and tears.
We need your financial support to continue this effort.
Help us today
If you want to send a message to GOP traitors like Arlen Specter — donate to us today.
Believe me, he and other liberals will get the message as we blanket their states with hard-hitting ads exposing their support for Obama's radical agenda.
It is time to elect conservatives who will represent the interests of Americans.
Those of us who were forced to watch in pain as liberal Republicans defected to support Democrats now have an outlet for our frustrations.
By supporting The National Republican Trust, you know your donation will be used to punish those RINOs who have sold us out time and time again.
Show your support for us Thank you.
Yours for America,
Scott Wheeler
Executive Director
P.S. Please remember the stimulus bill is just the first skirmish in a long battle with the liberals in Congress and the Obama White House. They have already admitted planning the most liberal legislative agenda in history. We must stop them. We need to rebuild the GOP to do it. Help us today. Time is of the essence. Go Here Now
Paid for by The National Republican Trust PAC.
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
2100 M St. NW Suite 170-340 Washington, DC 20037-1233
Contributions to The National Republican Trust PAC are not
deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
No corporate funds are accepted.
The National Republican Trust PAC
Dear Fellow American:
I am really angry.
Congress is on the verge of voting to enact President Barack Obama's nearly $1 trillion spending bill, a so-called "stimulus" plan.
We were close to defeating this outrageous plan.
But then three traitorous Republican senators broke ranks to back Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and the Democrats.
Who are they? Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine.
These three senators have betrayed not only their colleagues but also the basic principles of the Republican Party, including a fiscally sound government.
Collins claimed she voted for the bill after cutting out "fat" — a ridiculous statement, because the Senate proposal she backed will cost at least $8 billion more than the House's pork-laden $819 billion plan.
And Specter said the country needs a stimulus, so he is throwing out all good sense to vote for Obama's plan.
We agree that the economy needs stimulus — real stimulus such as tax cuts — not hundreds of billions in political payoffs to Democratic constituencies.
Consider that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has stated the Obama plan will actually hurt the economy — and that less than 20 percent of the "stimulus" will even spent in the next year.
How is this an immediate stimulus, Sen. Specter?
Defeat RINOs Like Specter
The truth is that these three liberal Republicans are RINOS — Republicans in Name Only who — are notorious for siding with the Democrats when important legislation comes up for a vote.
They rely on their belief that many constituents have short memories when it comes time to vote.
But we don't have a short memory.
We at The National Republican Trust PAC will pledge maximum financial support to any Republican who challenges these three senators in a Republican primary.
Arlen Specter is particularly vulnerable.
He is up for election in 2010. He almost lost a close Republican primary in 2004.
He will go down to defeat in 2010 — if we have any say in the matter.
You can help us expose RINOs like Specter
Ad Campaign Will Shock Senators
We at The National Republican Trust believe it is time to hold Republicans accountable when they support Democratic policies that are bad for America.
For far too long we have allowed GOP politicians to run as Republicans and vote like Democrats.
We at The National Republican Trust say "no more." No more to betrayal. No more to fifth columnists in the party.
We need to expose liberal Republicans like Specter, Snowe, and Collins.
In the coming days, The National Republican Trust PAC will roll out radio ads exposing Specter, Collins, and Snowe in their home states.
We will also be targeting conservative Democrats who voted for the Obama pork plan.
It is critically important that we do this, because Obama is planning to push through in the coming weeks for programs like socialized healthcare, reducing our military strength — even legalizing millions of illegal aliens.
Obama promised the most liberal administration in history. It is clear he wants to fulfill this promise.
We can stop him. But it will take real effort and hard work.
We at The National Republican Trust are willing to put in the sweat and tears.
We need your financial support to continue this effort.
Help us today
If you want to send a message to GOP traitors like Arlen Specter — donate to us today.
Believe me, he and other liberals will get the message as we blanket their states with hard-hitting ads exposing their support for Obama's radical agenda.
It is time to elect conservatives who will represent the interests of Americans.
Those of us who were forced to watch in pain as liberal Republicans defected to support Democrats now have an outlet for our frustrations.
By supporting The National Republican Trust, you know your donation will be used to punish those RINOs who have sold us out time and time again.
Show your support for us Thank you.
Yours for America,
Scott Wheeler
Executive Director
P.S. Please remember the stimulus bill is just the first skirmish in a long battle with the liberals in Congress and the Obama White House. They have already admitted planning the most liberal legislative agenda in history. We must stop them. We need to rebuild the GOP to do it. Help us today. Time is of the essence. Go Here Now
Paid for by The National Republican Trust PAC.
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
2100 M St. NW Suite 170-340 Washington, DC 20037-1233
Contributions to The National Republican Trust PAC are not
deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
No corporate funds are accepted.
U.S., Iran: Mutually Assured 'Respect'
U.S., Iran: Mutually Assured 'Respect'
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, February 10, 2009 4:20 PM PT
War On Terror: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Tehran will talk directly to the U.S., but only "in a climate of equality and mutual respect." Will the "respect" Iran craves arrive via Israeli F-15s?
Speaking Tuesday to a massive rally in Tehran commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamist revolution, Ahmadinejad echoed a term used by President Obama in his press conference Monday night — "mutual respect."
Citing what he called the Obama administration's wish "to produce change and pursue the course of dialogue," Ahmadinejad told the crowds that "it is clear the Iranian nation welcomes real changes and is ready for dialogue in a climate of equality and mutual respect."
Obama seemed to be using a carrot-and-stick approach in the message he sent Iran.
"Iran is a country that has extraordinary people, extraordinary history and traditions," he said at the White House event, but he was quick to add that "its actions over many years now have been unhelpful when it comes to promoting peace and prosperity both in the region and around the world."
He noted Tehran's "financing of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, the bellicose language that they've used towards Israel," and what the president called "their development of a nuclear weapon or their pursuit of a nuclear weapon."
Those factors, according to President Obama, mean "the possibility of destabilizing the region and are not only contrary to our interests, but I think are contrary to the interests of international peace."
Faced with that, the president said he intends to "take an approach with Iran that employs all of the resources at the United States' disposal, and that includes diplomacy."
He said, "my national security team is currently reviewing our existing Iran policy, looking at areas where we can have constructive dialogue, where we can directly engage with them."
In that context, according to the president, the U.S. "will be looking for openings that can be created where we can start sitting across the table, face-to-face diplomatic overtures that will allow us to move our policy in a new direction." But because of "a lot of mistrust built up over the years," it's "not going to happen overnight."
Still, he said "there's the possibility at least of a relationship of mutual respect and progress." And he added that "now it's time for Iran to send some signals that it wants to act differently . . ."
Iran sent that signal within 24 hours, using the president's exact language, "mutual respect."
What exactly does it mean? Does it mean that the same charisma that wooed so many American voters during last year's campaign has now mesmerized Tehran's mullahs?
As they watched the president's press conference, did a beam of light come down upon Madman Mahmoud and his associates, causing them to experience an epiphany? Are they all now saying to themselves, "we have to cooperate with Barack"?
Considering the extraordinary duplicity that Iran has practiced against the U.S. over the years, that is highly doubtful.
How respectful was it to hold 53 American hostages for 444 days during the Carter administration? How respectful of the U.S. was it to demand hundreds of Hawk anti-aircraft missiles for each of the seven American kidnap victims being held by the Iranian-financed Hezbollah during the Reagan administration — then increase their demands over and over for years, delaying their release and resulting finally in two of the hostages being murdered?
Barack Obama doesn't appear to be the naif that Jimmy Carter was. Carter, recall, was shocked upon discovering that the Soviet Union was lying to him at the negotiating table.
There are, however, some disturbing Carteresque signals now being sent out. Praising Iran for its "extraordinary" attributes, for instance, and requesting "mutual respect," smacks of the kind of moral equivalence with which the American left viewed the U.S. and U.S.S.R.
Whether it is Tzipi Livni or Bibi Netanyahu who becomes the next Israeli prime minister, it may not be U.S.-Iran talks that bring Tehran's nuclear program to an end.
Israel being Israel, the Jewish state's idea of respect for Iran may come special delivery, via a bomb bay.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, February 10, 2009 4:20 PM PT
War On Terror: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Tehran will talk directly to the U.S., but only "in a climate of equality and mutual respect." Will the "respect" Iran craves arrive via Israeli F-15s?
Speaking Tuesday to a massive rally in Tehran commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamist revolution, Ahmadinejad echoed a term used by President Obama in his press conference Monday night — "mutual respect."
Citing what he called the Obama administration's wish "to produce change and pursue the course of dialogue," Ahmadinejad told the crowds that "it is clear the Iranian nation welcomes real changes and is ready for dialogue in a climate of equality and mutual respect."
Obama seemed to be using a carrot-and-stick approach in the message he sent Iran.
"Iran is a country that has extraordinary people, extraordinary history and traditions," he said at the White House event, but he was quick to add that "its actions over many years now have been unhelpful when it comes to promoting peace and prosperity both in the region and around the world."
He noted Tehran's "financing of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, the bellicose language that they've used towards Israel," and what the president called "their development of a nuclear weapon or their pursuit of a nuclear weapon."
Those factors, according to President Obama, mean "the possibility of destabilizing the region and are not only contrary to our interests, but I think are contrary to the interests of international peace."
Faced with that, the president said he intends to "take an approach with Iran that employs all of the resources at the United States' disposal, and that includes diplomacy."
He said, "my national security team is currently reviewing our existing Iran policy, looking at areas where we can have constructive dialogue, where we can directly engage with them."
In that context, according to the president, the U.S. "will be looking for openings that can be created where we can start sitting across the table, face-to-face diplomatic overtures that will allow us to move our policy in a new direction." But because of "a lot of mistrust built up over the years," it's "not going to happen overnight."
Still, he said "there's the possibility at least of a relationship of mutual respect and progress." And he added that "now it's time for Iran to send some signals that it wants to act differently . . ."
Iran sent that signal within 24 hours, using the president's exact language, "mutual respect."
What exactly does it mean? Does it mean that the same charisma that wooed so many American voters during last year's campaign has now mesmerized Tehran's mullahs?
As they watched the president's press conference, did a beam of light come down upon Madman Mahmoud and his associates, causing them to experience an epiphany? Are they all now saying to themselves, "we have to cooperate with Barack"?
Considering the extraordinary duplicity that Iran has practiced against the U.S. over the years, that is highly doubtful.
How respectful was it to hold 53 American hostages for 444 days during the Carter administration? How respectful of the U.S. was it to demand hundreds of Hawk anti-aircraft missiles for each of the seven American kidnap victims being held by the Iranian-financed Hezbollah during the Reagan administration — then increase their demands over and over for years, delaying their release and resulting finally in two of the hostages being murdered?
Barack Obama doesn't appear to be the naif that Jimmy Carter was. Carter, recall, was shocked upon discovering that the Soviet Union was lying to him at the negotiating table.
There are, however, some disturbing Carteresque signals now being sent out. Praising Iran for its "extraordinary" attributes, for instance, and requesting "mutual respect," smacks of the kind of moral equivalence with which the American left viewed the U.S. and U.S.S.R.
Whether it is Tzipi Livni or Bibi Netanyahu who becomes the next Israeli prime minister, it may not be U.S.-Iran talks that bring Tehran's nuclear program to an end.
Israel being Israel, the Jewish state's idea of respect for Iran may come special delivery, via a bomb bay.
Free Speech Vs. Fairness Dogma
Free Speech Vs. Fairness Dogma
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, February 10, 2009 4:20 PM PT
First Amendment: Beyond the various threats that President Obama has said require confrontation — financial, military, nuclear, climate — another danger looms large: Those in his party who want government to muzzle dissent.
A lot has changed in the two decades since the federal government stopped requiring broadcast licensees to provide varied viewpoints within their programming.
Talk radio, for instance, has become a counterweight to the liberal establishment media. Blogs have allowed anyone and everyone to become a pundit with no limit to the number of readers who can be reached. And Fox News has overwhelmed CNN and the Big Three networks on American TV screens.
Stabenow: Eyeing the airwaves.
Liberal politicians see it all — rightly — as a threat to their power. And so the scheming for a new "Fairness Doctrine" on steroids has begun in earnest.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., in an interview last week with liberal radio host and former CNN "Crossfire" co-host Bill Press, said: "I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves."
When Press asked if he could depend on the senator to push for hearings on the issue, Stabenow indicated that she had already discussed the matter with fellow senators "and, you know, I feel like that's gonna happen. Yep."
Is it an exaggeration to say that mulling the notion of restricting political speech is a practice more suited to the Reich stag of Nazi Berlin than the Congress of Barack Obama's Washington?
Sad to say, when the McCain-Feingold campaign law was enacted in 2002 and endorsed by a 5-4 liberal majority on the Supreme Court the next year, it signaled to politicians that restrictions on political speech were OK in America.
There is also an obvious conflict of interest: Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, is co-founder of the liberal TalkUSA radio network and served as executive vice president of the liberal Air America network — now bankrupt because so few Americans were interested in listening to its left-wing versions of Sean Hannity and Michael Reagan.
With hundreds of billions of dollars of stimulus being spent on every imaginable Democratic wish item, does Stabenow see some loot available from the taxpayers' pockets to subsidize her husband's radio ventures (since they can't seem to succeed on their own)?
Stabenow is by no means alone among congressional Democrats in yearning for a return to the days of the Fairness Doctrine.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., has remarked that "the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since." The 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, has said "the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there, and I also think the equal-time doctrine ought to come back."
Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., a member of the House telecommunications subcommittee, has also promised to work on bringing back a revamped version of the Fairness Doctrine. Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Human Events political editor John Gizzi that she personally supported the Fairness Doctrine.
As Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., a former broadcaster, stated in reaction to Stabenow's comments, "Congress has no business pursuing hearings on censorship of our radio airwaves."
Don't bet on Pence's Broadcaster Freedom Act, prohibiting a new Fairness Doctrine, getting a vote in Pelosi's House of Representatives. Pence guarantees that if it did, it would "surely pass, because every time freedom gets a vote in the People's House, freedom always wins."
We can think of another effective way to shut down all this outrageous talk of regulating political discussion in America: a bold statement from our new president to those in his party making it clear that the "change" he is bringing to Washington must not include government meddling in the sources of information that free people choose for themselves.
Email To Friend
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, February 10, 2009 4:20 PM PT
First Amendment: Beyond the various threats that President Obama has said require confrontation — financial, military, nuclear, climate — another danger looms large: Those in his party who want government to muzzle dissent.
A lot has changed in the two decades since the federal government stopped requiring broadcast licensees to provide varied viewpoints within their programming.
Talk radio, for instance, has become a counterweight to the liberal establishment media. Blogs have allowed anyone and everyone to become a pundit with no limit to the number of readers who can be reached. And Fox News has overwhelmed CNN and the Big Three networks on American TV screens.
Stabenow: Eyeing the airwaves.
Liberal politicians see it all — rightly — as a threat to their power. And so the scheming for a new "Fairness Doctrine" on steroids has begun in earnest.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., in an interview last week with liberal radio host and former CNN "Crossfire" co-host Bill Press, said: "I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves."
When Press asked if he could depend on the senator to push for hearings on the issue, Stabenow indicated that she had already discussed the matter with fellow senators "and, you know, I feel like that's gonna happen. Yep."
Is it an exaggeration to say that mulling the notion of restricting political speech is a practice more suited to the Reich stag of Nazi Berlin than the Congress of Barack Obama's Washington?
Sad to say, when the McCain-Feingold campaign law was enacted in 2002 and endorsed by a 5-4 liberal majority on the Supreme Court the next year, it signaled to politicians that restrictions on political speech were OK in America.
There is also an obvious conflict of interest: Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, is co-founder of the liberal TalkUSA radio network and served as executive vice president of the liberal Air America network — now bankrupt because so few Americans were interested in listening to its left-wing versions of Sean Hannity and Michael Reagan.
With hundreds of billions of dollars of stimulus being spent on every imaginable Democratic wish item, does Stabenow see some loot available from the taxpayers' pockets to subsidize her husband's radio ventures (since they can't seem to succeed on their own)?
Stabenow is by no means alone among congressional Democrats in yearning for a return to the days of the Fairness Doctrine.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., has remarked that "the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since." The 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, has said "the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there, and I also think the equal-time doctrine ought to come back."
Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., a member of the House telecommunications subcommittee, has also promised to work on bringing back a revamped version of the Fairness Doctrine. Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Human Events political editor John Gizzi that she personally supported the Fairness Doctrine.
As Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., a former broadcaster, stated in reaction to Stabenow's comments, "Congress has no business pursuing hearings on censorship of our radio airwaves."
Don't bet on Pence's Broadcaster Freedom Act, prohibiting a new Fairness Doctrine, getting a vote in Pelosi's House of Representatives. Pence guarantees that if it did, it would "surely pass, because every time freedom gets a vote in the People's House, freedom always wins."
We can think of another effective way to shut down all this outrageous talk of regulating political discussion in America: a bold statement from our new president to those in his party making it clear that the "change" he is bringing to Washington must not include government meddling in the sources of information that free people choose for themselves.
Email To Friend
FROM NEWT GINGRICH
www.AmericanSolutions.com
Dear Dave,
To his credit, President Obama said this weekend that "the American people know that our challenges are great. They don't expect Democratic solutions or Republican solutions - they expect American solutions." We agree with that sentiment.
But this big government, pork-laden spending bill is not a solution. It is not change we can believe in. It is debt we can count on and wasteful spending we will have no control over.
Of course, Washington will never change unless we demand something different. We must present a clear and decisive alternative that contrasts starkly with the 778 page, almost $1 trillion debt package being voted on in the U.S. Senate.
So today, we offer our "12 American Solutions for Jobs and Prosperity." Please read it by clicking on the image below.
The job creation engines of our economy are our small business men and women, our innovators and entrepreneurs. The consolidation of money and power in Washington will only make their job harder.
Mark S. from Marietta, GA wrote to me yesterday wondering what he could do to help our cause. Unfortunately, he recently lost his job, but he has not given up. And nor should you.
Here is what you can do: Read and understand this plan. If you support it, endorse it and become an advocate now. If you don't, then let us know how we can improve it.
Our jobs, our prosperity and our place in the world are at stake. We cannot afford to cripple future generations with massive debt.
Please read the plan, endorse it, and forward it to your friends and family.
Your friend,
Newt
P.S. If you have not already called your Senators to oppose the stimulus bill, it's not too late. You can still make your voice heard.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paid for by American Solutions for Winning the Future. Not authorized by any candidate, or candidate committee. Not printed at government expense. www.AmericanSolutions.com
To unsubscribe from future mailings, click here: info@americansolutions.com?subject=unsubscribe
Dear Dave,
To his credit, President Obama said this weekend that "the American people know that our challenges are great. They don't expect Democratic solutions or Republican solutions - they expect American solutions." We agree with that sentiment.
But this big government, pork-laden spending bill is not a solution. It is not change we can believe in. It is debt we can count on and wasteful spending we will have no control over.
Of course, Washington will never change unless we demand something different. We must present a clear and decisive alternative that contrasts starkly with the 778 page, almost $1 trillion debt package being voted on in the U.S. Senate.
So today, we offer our "12 American Solutions for Jobs and Prosperity." Please read it by clicking on the image below.
The job creation engines of our economy are our small business men and women, our innovators and entrepreneurs. The consolidation of money and power in Washington will only make their job harder.
Mark S. from Marietta, GA wrote to me yesterday wondering what he could do to help our cause. Unfortunately, he recently lost his job, but he has not given up. And nor should you.
Here is what you can do: Read and understand this plan. If you support it, endorse it and become an advocate now. If you don't, then let us know how we can improve it.
Our jobs, our prosperity and our place in the world are at stake. We cannot afford to cripple future generations with massive debt.
Please read the plan, endorse it, and forward it to your friends and family.
Your friend,
Newt
P.S. If you have not already called your Senators to oppose the stimulus bill, it's not too late. You can still make your voice heard.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paid for by American Solutions for Winning the Future. Not authorized by any candidate, or candidate committee. Not printed at government expense. www.AmericanSolutions.com
To unsubscribe from future mailings, click here: info@americansolutions.com?subject=unsubscribe
16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
NON ENFORCEMENT OF LAW IS WAY TO ANARCHY AND THAT IS WHERE WE ARE HEADED IF WE DON'T GET IMMIGRATION UNDER CONTROL. DAA.
16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
Claim violation of rights as they crossed his land
Jerry Seper (Contact)
Monday, February 9, 2009
Buzz up!An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.
His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.
Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.
The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.
Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.
The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."
In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."
The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.
In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.
Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.
Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.
Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running.
He said he carried a pistol during his searches for the immigrants and had a rifle in his truck "for protection" against immigrant and drug smugglers, who often are armed.
ASSOCIATED PRESS DEFENDANT: Roger Barnett said he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.
A former Cochise County sheriff´s deputy who later was successful in the towing and propane business, Mr. Barnett spent $30,000 on electronic sensors, which he has hidden along established trails on his ranch. He searches the ranch for illegal immigrants in a pickup truck, dressed in a green shirt and camouflage hat, with his handgun and rifle, high-powered binoculars and a walkie-talkie.
His sprawling ranch became an illegal-immigration highway when the Border Patrol diverted its attention to several border towns in an effort to take control of the established ports of entry. That effort moved the illegal immigrants to the remote areas of the border, including the Cross Rail Ranch.
"This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."
Comment on and rate this Article
Comments 1 - 20 of 947
By: johnsot6
"What law did he break?...Last time I checked, citizen's arrest in relation to personal property and non-excessive force in that protection were legal..."
The case is about whether he used non-excessive force or excessive force. If the jury finds that he used excessive force he will lose.
February 10, 2009 at 1:32 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: BBVRS
ChocoCat...
What law did he break?...Last time I checked, citizen's arrest in relation to personal property and non-excessive force in that protection were legal...
February 10, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: ktfo101
ChocoCat66 - Maybe you should re-educate yourself on exactly what his "rights" were. We are indeed a nation of laws in which these illegal immigrants were BREAKING.
It was his right to do whatever was necessary to protect his own. After years of abuse and destruction of his property, quit frankly I feel he was a hell of a lot more reserved than most of us would have been.
February 10, 2009 at 1:28 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: ktfo101
This is insane. Those illegal immigrants were lucky they didn't get shot. Once they stepped onto his property it was his right to do whatever he felt necessary to protect his own.
If I were these immigrants, I'd be worrying about my own ass as I walked into the court room.
Also if I were Roger Barnett I would counter sue on the basis that our retarded system is actually taking these idiots story into account who were BREAKING THE LAW in the first place.
February 10, 2009 at 1:25 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: johnsot6
slr456:
From the MALDEF website: "MALDEF does not accept government funding we operate from private foundation, corporate and individual support."
Just to put your mind at ease. Your tax dollars are not going to support the case.
February 10, 2009 at 1:23 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: Tax paying citizen
Illegal Immigration Costs California Over Ten Billion Annually
In hosting America's largest population of illegal immigrants, California bears a huge cost to provide basic human services for this fast growing, low-income segment of its population. A new study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) examines the costs of education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens, and concludes that the costs to Californians is $10.5 billion per year.
Among the key finding of the report are that the state's already struggling K-12 education system spends approximately $7.7 billion a year to school the children of illegal aliens who now constitute 15 percent of the student body. Another $1.4 billion of the taxpayers' money goes toward providing health care to illegal aliens and their families, the same amount that is spent incarcerating illegal aliens criminals.
February 10, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: ChocoCat66
Naten, I am not sticking up for illegals, that is what the law is for. I am sticking up for the rule of law. We have a justice system, and we live in a nation of laws. If this rancher does not want to obey the laws of this great nation, he should be held accountable, just like you, just like illegals, just like me. The fact that we have so many people willing to give up the rule law of the United States of America, just proves that they are defending something they dont understand.
February 10, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: slr456
Write you congressman and complain, I bet MALDEF gets federal funds. So, we are paying for the illegal's defense. Don't you love it.
February 10, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: Tax paying citizen
CALL the Judge
Roll, John M.
520-205-4520
February 10, 2009 at 1:18 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: Tax paying citizen
Clerk's Office
520-205-4235
February 10, 2009 at 1:18 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: Tax paying citizen
you can contact the Judge - I am trying to post his number but it will not post it. I will keep trying
February 10, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: Mak
Rated 4/5
I'll be damned if my tax dollars are paying for some illegal's lawsuit. Thank god I don't live in Texas. IMO, the judge should be cited and have a lawsuit filed again him by some illegal. Then see how he feels about it.
February 10, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: johnsot6
"(you can bet these lawyers will get their piece of the pie)"
I think MALDEF is a non-profit. They don't make money.
February 10, 2009 at 1:16 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: johnsot6
"The question is: "Was the Judges decision not to grant it PROPER".
That of course depends on all the FACTS of the case and all the Case Law related to this case."
Well, you got me there. I misspoke. A motion to dismiss can always be made, and the judge's decision in this case can be appealed. But of course, a motion to dismiss is not related to the FACTS, just the allegations; the question is whether the allegations of the complaint state a legal basis for relief; and here they do. The case law on it is not that voluminous. You can get the complaint from PACER.
Still, good catch on my grammar.
February 10, 2009 at 1:14 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: crburt
Rated 4/5
A sign of our repressed economic times. American citizen lawyers are suing American citizens on behalf of illegal immigrants. Guess they ran out of ambulances to chase. After all, they have to maintain their level of income. (you can bet these lawyers will get their piece of the pie) I would also like to comment on the nationalism of the judge that allowed this case to trial but printable appropriate words escape me.
February 10, 2009 at 1:14 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: Tax paying citizen
Help them realize
July 4 2009
Go to your state capital and demand they enforce our current immigration laws
February 10, 2009 at 1:14 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: fixourcountry
What a messed up country we live in. Our leaders need to realize what they are doing. They just dont care.
February 10, 2009 at 1:13 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: Tax paying citizen
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and landmark New York City restaurant Tavern on the Green have agreed to a $2.2 million settlement of claims that the restaurant subjected its employees to a hostile work environment on the basis of sex, race, and national origin, according to a consent decree filed June 2 with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (EEOC v. Tavern on the Green Ltd. P'Ship, S.D.N.Y., No. 07-8256, consent decree filed 6/2/08).
February 10, 2009 at 1:13 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: ErikNJ23
How does this even get to trial, should have been thrown out. This is ridiculous!!
February 10, 2009 at 1:13 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: slr456
I have been to that part of Arizona and the illegals are a huge problem. Do you know you can't camp safely in the parks? Do you know Ft Huachuca fences the soldier's camps in when they are in the field practicing exercises at night due to illegals? Even our soldiers aren't safe after dark in the mountains due to the of 1llegals running loose in the area.
16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
Claim violation of rights as they crossed his land
Jerry Seper (Contact)
Monday, February 9, 2009
Buzz up!An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.
His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.
Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.
The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.
Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.
The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."
In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."
The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.
In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.
Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.
Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.
Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running.
He said he carried a pistol during his searches for the immigrants and had a rifle in his truck "for protection" against immigrant and drug smugglers, who often are armed.
ASSOCIATED PRESS DEFENDANT: Roger Barnett said he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.
A former Cochise County sheriff´s deputy who later was successful in the towing and propane business, Mr. Barnett spent $30,000 on electronic sensors, which he has hidden along established trails on his ranch. He searches the ranch for illegal immigrants in a pickup truck, dressed in a green shirt and camouflage hat, with his handgun and rifle, high-powered binoculars and a walkie-talkie.
His sprawling ranch became an illegal-immigration highway when the Border Patrol diverted its attention to several border towns in an effort to take control of the established ports of entry. That effort moved the illegal immigrants to the remote areas of the border, including the Cross Rail Ranch.
"This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."
Comment on and rate this Article
Comments 1 - 20 of 947
By: johnsot6
"What law did he break?...Last time I checked, citizen's arrest in relation to personal property and non-excessive force in that protection were legal..."
The case is about whether he used non-excessive force or excessive force. If the jury finds that he used excessive force he will lose.
February 10, 2009 at 1:32 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: BBVRS
ChocoCat...
What law did he break?...Last time I checked, citizen's arrest in relation to personal property and non-excessive force in that protection were legal...
February 10, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: ktfo101
ChocoCat66 - Maybe you should re-educate yourself on exactly what his "rights" were. We are indeed a nation of laws in which these illegal immigrants were BREAKING.
It was his right to do whatever was necessary to protect his own. After years of abuse and destruction of his property, quit frankly I feel he was a hell of a lot more reserved than most of us would have been.
February 10, 2009 at 1:28 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: ktfo101
This is insane. Those illegal immigrants were lucky they didn't get shot. Once they stepped onto his property it was his right to do whatever he felt necessary to protect his own.
If I were these immigrants, I'd be worrying about my own ass as I walked into the court room.
Also if I were Roger Barnett I would counter sue on the basis that our retarded system is actually taking these idiots story into account who were BREAKING THE LAW in the first place.
February 10, 2009 at 1:25 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: johnsot6
slr456:
From the MALDEF website: "MALDEF does not accept government funding we operate from private foundation, corporate and individual support."
Just to put your mind at ease. Your tax dollars are not going to support the case.
February 10, 2009 at 1:23 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: Tax paying citizen
Illegal Immigration Costs California Over Ten Billion Annually
In hosting America's largest population of illegal immigrants, California bears a huge cost to provide basic human services for this fast growing, low-income segment of its population. A new study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) examines the costs of education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens, and concludes that the costs to Californians is $10.5 billion per year.
Among the key finding of the report are that the state's already struggling K-12 education system spends approximately $7.7 billion a year to school the children of illegal aliens who now constitute 15 percent of the student body. Another $1.4 billion of the taxpayers' money goes toward providing health care to illegal aliens and their families, the same amount that is spent incarcerating illegal aliens criminals.
February 10, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: ChocoCat66
Naten, I am not sticking up for illegals, that is what the law is for. I am sticking up for the rule of law. We have a justice system, and we live in a nation of laws. If this rancher does not want to obey the laws of this great nation, he should be held accountable, just like you, just like illegals, just like me. The fact that we have so many people willing to give up the rule law of the United States of America, just proves that they are defending something they dont understand.
February 10, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: slr456
Write you congressman and complain, I bet MALDEF gets federal funds. So, we are paying for the illegal's defense. Don't you love it.
February 10, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: Tax paying citizen
CALL the Judge
Roll, John M.
520-205-4520
February 10, 2009 at 1:18 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: Tax paying citizen
Clerk's Office
520-205-4235
February 10, 2009 at 1:18 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: Tax paying citizen
you can contact the Judge - I am trying to post his number but it will not post it. I will keep trying
February 10, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: Mak
Rated 4/5
I'll be damned if my tax dollars are paying for some illegal's lawsuit. Thank god I don't live in Texas. IMO, the judge should be cited and have a lawsuit filed again him by some illegal. Then see how he feels about it.
February 10, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: johnsot6
"(you can bet these lawyers will get their piece of the pie)"
I think MALDEF is a non-profit. They don't make money.
February 10, 2009 at 1:16 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: johnsot6
"The question is: "Was the Judges decision not to grant it PROPER".
That of course depends on all the FACTS of the case and all the Case Law related to this case."
Well, you got me there. I misspoke. A motion to dismiss can always be made, and the judge's decision in this case can be appealed. But of course, a motion to dismiss is not related to the FACTS, just the allegations; the question is whether the allegations of the complaint state a legal basis for relief; and here they do. The case law on it is not that voluminous. You can get the complaint from PACER.
Still, good catch on my grammar.
February 10, 2009 at 1:14 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: crburt
Rated 4/5
A sign of our repressed economic times. American citizen lawyers are suing American citizens on behalf of illegal immigrants. Guess they ran out of ambulances to chase. After all, they have to maintain their level of income. (you can bet these lawyers will get their piece of the pie) I would also like to comment on the nationalism of the judge that allowed this case to trial but printable appropriate words escape me.
February 10, 2009 at 1:14 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: Tax paying citizen
Help them realize
July 4 2009
Go to your state capital and demand they enforce our current immigration laws
February 10, 2009 at 1:14 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: fixourcountry
What a messed up country we live in. Our leaders need to realize what they are doing. They just dont care.
February 10, 2009 at 1:13 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: Tax paying citizen
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and landmark New York City restaurant Tavern on the Green have agreed to a $2.2 million settlement of claims that the restaurant subjected its employees to a hostile work environment on the basis of sex, race, and national origin, according to a consent decree filed June 2 with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (EEOC v. Tavern on the Green Ltd. P'Ship, S.D.N.Y., No. 07-8256, consent decree filed 6/2/08).
February 10, 2009 at 1:13 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: ErikNJ23
How does this even get to trial, should have been thrown out. This is ridiculous!!
February 10, 2009 at 1:13 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
By: slr456
I have been to that part of Arizona and the illegals are a huge problem. Do you know you can't camp safely in the parks? Do you know Ft Huachuca fences the soldier's camps in when they are in the field practicing exercises at night due to illegals? Even our soldiers aren't safe after dark in the mountains due to the of 1llegals running loose in the area.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Head-Count Case
Head-Count Case
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, February 09, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Census: Naming Republican Judd Gregg as Commerce secretary was a real act of bipartisanship. Now the Obama administration is trying to undo that good deed with a power grab.
We're beginning to see a recurring problem with this new White House team: It makes appointments with half its brain disengaged. Its vetting process is supposed to be the most thorough in history, but it misses basic stuff, like massive bills for back taxes. Blinded by its own brilliance, it trips over something obvious and falls flat on its face.
Obama with secretary designate Gregg: Was this one thought through?
The naming of Judd Gregg to be commerce secretary may be another case of this, though here the appointee is not the problem. Just the opposite. The senior senator from New Hampshire is a fiscal conservative apparently untouched by scandal. Like any good Republican, he opposes high taxes but does pay them. In fact, appointing him was a truly bipartisan act. It showed the Obama administration walking its talk.
After all, Gregg as commerce secretary would oversee the Census Bureau. He would balance the influence of a Democratic White House and Democratic Congress, which otherwise would have the whole game to themselves.
One of the first to note the significance of the Gregg appointment was conservative columnist Michael Barone, who said Gregg's supervision might prevent the abuse of sampling to cook the numbers. (Sampling, rather than a straight head count, is preferred by the Democrats because it tends to produce higher census numbers in areas where the poor and minorities predominate).
If Gregg can keep statisticians straight, Barone said, "maybe it's worth his leaving the Senate."
The Democratic base could see what was going on, and it didn't take the news as well. The Congressional Black Caucus voiced its "troubling concerns." The National Association of Latino Elected & Appointed Officials questioned Gregg's "willingness to ensure that the 2010 census produces the most accurate possible count of the nation's population."
At that point the administration could have stuck to its guns and said something like, "We named Judd Gregg because he's a man of integrity. We trust him to oversee an honest, transparent census." Instead, it said it would be cutting Gregg out of the loop.
A "senior White House official" told Congressional Quarterly last Wednesday that the director of the Census Bureau (in CQ's words) "will report directly to the White House and not the secretary of commerce."
The administration later stepped back a bit, saying it wanted the census chief "to work closely with White House senior management" while apparently still reporting to the commerce secretary. But the import was much the same: The White House was not going to let this census get away.
Now it's the right's turn for outrage, and with good reason. Even in the watered-down version of the story, the census director would be nominally working under Gregg but, in reality, answering to Obama's hyperpartisan Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel will have a role that Karl Rove could only dream of.
So much for bipartisanship, transparency and a credible census.
At this point in the story (which we're sure is not over), the Obama administration has generated distrust of its motives in both parties. Also, and not for the first time, it seems not to have thought things through.
Had it remembered that a census was coming up and that Gregg would oversee it? If it had, it should have had the spine to insist that Gregg would exercise the full power of his office. But maybe it missed the census angle — that half-a-brain thing again. Is this what on-the-job training looks like at the White House?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, February 09, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Census: Naming Republican Judd Gregg as Commerce secretary was a real act of bipartisanship. Now the Obama administration is trying to undo that good deed with a power grab.
We're beginning to see a recurring problem with this new White House team: It makes appointments with half its brain disengaged. Its vetting process is supposed to be the most thorough in history, but it misses basic stuff, like massive bills for back taxes. Blinded by its own brilliance, it trips over something obvious and falls flat on its face.
Obama with secretary designate Gregg: Was this one thought through?
The naming of Judd Gregg to be commerce secretary may be another case of this, though here the appointee is not the problem. Just the opposite. The senior senator from New Hampshire is a fiscal conservative apparently untouched by scandal. Like any good Republican, he opposes high taxes but does pay them. In fact, appointing him was a truly bipartisan act. It showed the Obama administration walking its talk.
After all, Gregg as commerce secretary would oversee the Census Bureau. He would balance the influence of a Democratic White House and Democratic Congress, which otherwise would have the whole game to themselves.
One of the first to note the significance of the Gregg appointment was conservative columnist Michael Barone, who said Gregg's supervision might prevent the abuse of sampling to cook the numbers. (Sampling, rather than a straight head count, is preferred by the Democrats because it tends to produce higher census numbers in areas where the poor and minorities predominate).
If Gregg can keep statisticians straight, Barone said, "maybe it's worth his leaving the Senate."
The Democratic base could see what was going on, and it didn't take the news as well. The Congressional Black Caucus voiced its "troubling concerns." The National Association of Latino Elected & Appointed Officials questioned Gregg's "willingness to ensure that the 2010 census produces the most accurate possible count of the nation's population."
At that point the administration could have stuck to its guns and said something like, "We named Judd Gregg because he's a man of integrity. We trust him to oversee an honest, transparent census." Instead, it said it would be cutting Gregg out of the loop.
A "senior White House official" told Congressional Quarterly last Wednesday that the director of the Census Bureau (in CQ's words) "will report directly to the White House and not the secretary of commerce."
The administration later stepped back a bit, saying it wanted the census chief "to work closely with White House senior management" while apparently still reporting to the commerce secretary. But the import was much the same: The White House was not going to let this census get away.
Now it's the right's turn for outrage, and with good reason. Even in the watered-down version of the story, the census director would be nominally working under Gregg but, in reality, answering to Obama's hyperpartisan Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel will have a role that Karl Rove could only dream of.
So much for bipartisanship, transparency and a credible census.
At this point in the story (which we're sure is not over), the Obama administration has generated distrust of its motives in both parties. Also, and not for the first time, it seems not to have thought things through.
Had it remembered that a census was coming up and that Gregg would oversee it? If it had, it should have had the spine to insist that Gregg would exercise the full power of his office. But maybe it missed the census angle — that half-a-brain thing again. Is this what on-the-job training looks like at the White House?
Elections Have Consequences
Elections Have Consequences
Dear Dave,
The commentary below is an insightful analysis of how Iran is responding to President Obama’s clear signals as to what his Iran policy will be. One week ago Iran launched a domestically manufactured satellite on a ballistic missile that has a range of up to 3,000 kilometers.
In other words, Iran has demonstrated it has the capability to launch conventional and nuclear warheads with a range of as much as 3,000 kilometers.
During the presidential campaign, at times candidate Barack Obama made it clear that a nuclear Iran was “unacceptable.” But these statements were wrapped in his broader foreign policy theme – that it was time for the U.S. to change course and diplomatically engage countries like Iran.
Anyone who even remotely appreciates the horrors of war hopes that diplomatic efforts and/or various non-military sanctions will be successful in “persuading” Iran to abort its nuclear weapons program.
But let’s be realistic here. There is little evidence that existing sanctions have had any impact in changing the Iranian government’s behavior. The Islamist regime continues to move full-speed ahead toward the acquisition of nuclear weaponry. As Iran moves ever closer to achieving this goal, will the Obama administration be willing to do what is necessary to prevent a nuclear Iran, what Obama has termed “unacceptable”?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 07, 2009
Israel's Fateful Elections
By Caroline Glick
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/israels_fateful_elections.html
Tuesday's general elections will officially end the briefest and most nonchalant electoral season Israel has ever experienced. Regrettably, the importance of these elections is inversely proportional to their lack of intensity. These are the most fateful elections Israel has ever had. The events of the past week make this point clearly.
On Monday Iran successfully launched a domestically manufactured satellite on a ballistic missile called the Safir-2 space rocket. Since the launch, experts have noted that the Safir-2 can also be used to launch conventional and nonconventional warheads. The Safir-2 has an estimated range of 2,000-3,000 kilometers. And so the successful satellite launch showed that today Iran is capable of launching missiles not only against Israel, but against southern Europe as well.
Many Israeli leaders viewed Monday's launch as a "gotcha" moment. For years they have been saying that Iran's nuclear program is a threat to global security - not merely to Israel's. And Monday's launch demonstrated that they were right all along. Israel isn't the only country on Iran's target list.
Unfortunately for Israel, the international community couldn't care less. Its response to Teheran's latest provocation was to collectively shrug its shoulders.
On Wednesday emissaries of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany convened in Wiesbaden, Germany, to discuss their joint policies toward Iran in the aftermath of the satellite launch. Some Israelis argued that Iran's provocation forced these leaders' hands. Their reputations for toughness were on the line. They would have to do something.
Unfortunately for Israel, the emissaries of Russia, Britain, China, France, Germany and the US are more interested in convincing the mullahs that they are nice than in convincing them that they are tough.
Far from deciding to take concerted action against Iran, the great powers did nothing more than wish the Obama administration good luck as it moves to directly engage the mullahs. As their post-conference press release put it, the six governments' answer to Teheran's show of force was to "agree to consult on the next steps as the US administration undertakes its [Iranian] policy review."
As President Barak Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have explained, the US is reviewing its policy toward Iran in the hopes of finding a way to directly engage the Iranian government. While they claim that the aim of these sought after direct negotiations will be to convince the mullahs to give up their nuclear weapons program, since taking office the new administration has sent out strong signals that preventing Iran from going nuclear has taken a backseat to simply holding negotiations with Teheran.
According to a report in Aviation News, last week the US Navy prevented Israel from seizing an Iranian weapons ship in the Red Sea suspected of carrying illicit munitions bound for either Gaza or Lebanon. A week and a half ago, the US Navy boarded the ship in the Gulf of Aden and carried out a cursory inspection. It demurred from seizing the ship, however, because, as Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained on January 27, the US believed it had no international legal right to seize the vessel.
In inspecting the ship the US was operating under UN Security Council Resolution 1747, which bars Iran from exporting arms. The US argued that it lacked authority to seize the ship because 1747 has no enforcement mechanism. Yet the fact of the matter is that if the US were truly interested in intercepting the ship and preventing the arms from arriving at their destination, the language of 1747 is vague enough to support such a seizure.
And that's the point. The US was uninterested in seizing the ship because it was uninterested in provoking a confrontation with Teheran, which it seeks to engage. It was not due to lack of legal authority that the US reportedly prevented the Israel Navy from seizing the ship in the Red Sea, but due to the administration's fervent wish to appease the mullahs.
Today the ship, which was sailing under a Cypriot flag, is docked in the Port of Limassol. Cypriot authorities have reportedly inspected the ship twice, have communicated their findings to the Security Council, and are still waiting for guidance on how to deal with the ship.
ALL OF this brings us back to next Tuesday's elections. With the US effectively giving up on confronting Iran, the entire burden for blocking Iran's quest for nuclear weapons falls on Israel's shoulders.
This means that the most important question that Israeli voters must ask ourselves between now and Tuesday is which leader and which party are most capable of achieving this vital goal?
All we need to do to answer this question is to check what our leaders have done in recent years to bring attention to the Iranian threat and to build coalitions to contend with it.
In late 2006, citing the Iranian nuclear menace, Israel Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman joined the Olmert government where he received the tailor-made title of strategic affairs minister. At the time Lieberman joined the cabinet, the public outcry against the government for its failure to lead Israel to victory in the war with Iran's Lebanese proxy Hizbullah had reached a fever pitch. The smell of new elections was in the air as members of Knesset from all parties came under enormous public pressure to vote no confidence in the government.
By joining the government when he did, Lieberman single-handedly kept the Olmert government in power. Explaining his move, Lieberman claimed that the danger emanating from Iran's nuclear program was so great that Israel could not afford new elections.
But what did he accomplish by saving the government by taking that job? The short answer is nothing. Not only did his presence in the government make no impact on Israel's effectiveness in dealing with Iran, it prolonged the lifespan of a government that had no interest in forming a strategy for contending with Iran by two years.
In light of this fact, perhaps more than any other Israeli politician, Lieberman is to blame for the fact that Israel finds itself today with no allies in its hour of greatest peril. Had he allowed the people to elect more competent leaders in the fall of 2006, we might have been able to take advantage of the waning years of the Bush administration to convince the US to work with us against Iran.
Then there is Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. If Lieberman was the chief enabler of Israel's incompetent bungling of the Iranian threat, as Israel's chief diplomat, it is Livni - together with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert - who deserves the greatest condemnation for that bungling.
Throughout her tenure as foreign minister and still today as Kadima's candidate for prime minister, Livni claims that she supports using diplomacy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But in her three years as Israel's top diplomat, Livni never launched any diplomatic initiative aimed at achieving this goal. In fact, she has never even publicly criticized the European and American attempts to appease the mullahs.
Livni has remained silent for three years even though it has been clear for five years that the West's attempts to cut a deal with Teheran serve no purpose other than to provide the Iranians time to develop their nuclear arsenal. She has played along with the Americans and the Europeans and cheered them on as they passed toothless resolutions against Iran in the Security Council which - as the Iranian weapons ship docked in Cyprus shows - they never had the slightest intention of enforcing.
As for Defense Minister Ehud Barak, as a member of the Olmert government, his main personal failure has been his inability to convince the Pentagon to approve Israel's requests to purchase refueling jets and bunker buster bomb kits, and to permit Israeli jets to fly over Iraqi airspace. To achieve these aims, Barak could have turned to Israel's friends in the US military and in Congress. But he did no such thing. And now, moving into the Obama administration, Israel finds itself with fewer and fewer allies in Washington's security community.
For the past several years, only one political leader in Israel has had the foresight and wisdom to both understand the dangers of Iran's nuclear program and to understand the basis for an Israeli diplomatic approach to contending with the threat that can serve the country's purposes regardless of whether or not at the end of the day, Israel is compelled to act alone.
In 2006, Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu took it upon himself to engage the American people in a discussion of the danger Iran poses not only to Israel but to the world as a whole. In late 2006, he began meeting with key US governors and state politicians to convince them to divest their state employees' pension funds from companies that do business with Iran. This initiative and complementary efforts by the Washington-based Center for Security Policy convinced dozens of state legislatures to pass laws divesting their pension funds from companies that do business with Iran.
Netanyahu also strongly backed the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs' initiative to indict Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an international war criminal for inciting genocide. Both the divestment campaign and the campaign against Ahmadinejad have been Israel's most successful public diplomacy efforts in contending with Iran. More than anything done by the government, these initiatives made Americans aware of the Iranian nuclear threat and so forced the issue onto the agendas of all the presidential candidates.
Instead of supporting Netanyahu's efforts, Livni, Barak and Lieberman have disparaged them or ignored them.
Because he is the only leader who has done anything significant to fight Iran's nuclear program, Netanyahu is the only national leader who has the international credibility to be believed when he says - as he did this week - that Israel will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Likud under Netanyahu is the only party that has consistently drawn the connection between Iran, its Palestinian, Lebanese, Iraqi and Afghan terror proxies, its Syrian client state and its nuclear weapons program, and made fighting this axis the guiding principle of its national security strategy.
GIVEN THE US-led international community's decision not to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it is clear that in the coming months Israel will need to do two things. It will need to put the nations of the world on notice that they cannot expect us to stand by idly as they welcome Iran into the nuclear club. And Israel will need to prepare plans to strike Iran's nuclear installations without America's support.
More than ever before, Israel requires leaders who understand the gravity of the hour and are capable of acting swiftly and wisely to safeguard our country from destruction. Only Netanyahu and Likud have a credible track record on this subject.
For the sake of our country, our nation and our posterity, it is our responsibility to consider this fact when we enter the voting booths on Tuesday.
Dear Dave,
The commentary below is an insightful analysis of how Iran is responding to President Obama’s clear signals as to what his Iran policy will be. One week ago Iran launched a domestically manufactured satellite on a ballistic missile that has a range of up to 3,000 kilometers.
In other words, Iran has demonstrated it has the capability to launch conventional and nuclear warheads with a range of as much as 3,000 kilometers.
During the presidential campaign, at times candidate Barack Obama made it clear that a nuclear Iran was “unacceptable.” But these statements were wrapped in his broader foreign policy theme – that it was time for the U.S. to change course and diplomatically engage countries like Iran.
Anyone who even remotely appreciates the horrors of war hopes that diplomatic efforts and/or various non-military sanctions will be successful in “persuading” Iran to abort its nuclear weapons program.
But let’s be realistic here. There is little evidence that existing sanctions have had any impact in changing the Iranian government’s behavior. The Islamist regime continues to move full-speed ahead toward the acquisition of nuclear weaponry. As Iran moves ever closer to achieving this goal, will the Obama administration be willing to do what is necessary to prevent a nuclear Iran, what Obama has termed “unacceptable”?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 07, 2009
Israel's Fateful Elections
By Caroline Glick
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/israels_fateful_elections.html
Tuesday's general elections will officially end the briefest and most nonchalant electoral season Israel has ever experienced. Regrettably, the importance of these elections is inversely proportional to their lack of intensity. These are the most fateful elections Israel has ever had. The events of the past week make this point clearly.
On Monday Iran successfully launched a domestically manufactured satellite on a ballistic missile called the Safir-2 space rocket. Since the launch, experts have noted that the Safir-2 can also be used to launch conventional and nonconventional warheads. The Safir-2 has an estimated range of 2,000-3,000 kilometers. And so the successful satellite launch showed that today Iran is capable of launching missiles not only against Israel, but against southern Europe as well.
Many Israeli leaders viewed Monday's launch as a "gotcha" moment. For years they have been saying that Iran's nuclear program is a threat to global security - not merely to Israel's. And Monday's launch demonstrated that they were right all along. Israel isn't the only country on Iran's target list.
Unfortunately for Israel, the international community couldn't care less. Its response to Teheran's latest provocation was to collectively shrug its shoulders.
On Wednesday emissaries of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany convened in Wiesbaden, Germany, to discuss their joint policies toward Iran in the aftermath of the satellite launch. Some Israelis argued that Iran's provocation forced these leaders' hands. Their reputations for toughness were on the line. They would have to do something.
Unfortunately for Israel, the emissaries of Russia, Britain, China, France, Germany and the US are more interested in convincing the mullahs that they are nice than in convincing them that they are tough.
Far from deciding to take concerted action against Iran, the great powers did nothing more than wish the Obama administration good luck as it moves to directly engage the mullahs. As their post-conference press release put it, the six governments' answer to Teheran's show of force was to "agree to consult on the next steps as the US administration undertakes its [Iranian] policy review."
As President Barak Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have explained, the US is reviewing its policy toward Iran in the hopes of finding a way to directly engage the Iranian government. While they claim that the aim of these sought after direct negotiations will be to convince the mullahs to give up their nuclear weapons program, since taking office the new administration has sent out strong signals that preventing Iran from going nuclear has taken a backseat to simply holding negotiations with Teheran.
According to a report in Aviation News, last week the US Navy prevented Israel from seizing an Iranian weapons ship in the Red Sea suspected of carrying illicit munitions bound for either Gaza or Lebanon. A week and a half ago, the US Navy boarded the ship in the Gulf of Aden and carried out a cursory inspection. It demurred from seizing the ship, however, because, as Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained on January 27, the US believed it had no international legal right to seize the vessel.
In inspecting the ship the US was operating under UN Security Council Resolution 1747, which bars Iran from exporting arms. The US argued that it lacked authority to seize the ship because 1747 has no enforcement mechanism. Yet the fact of the matter is that if the US were truly interested in intercepting the ship and preventing the arms from arriving at their destination, the language of 1747 is vague enough to support such a seizure.
And that's the point. The US was uninterested in seizing the ship because it was uninterested in provoking a confrontation with Teheran, which it seeks to engage. It was not due to lack of legal authority that the US reportedly prevented the Israel Navy from seizing the ship in the Red Sea, but due to the administration's fervent wish to appease the mullahs.
Today the ship, which was sailing under a Cypriot flag, is docked in the Port of Limassol. Cypriot authorities have reportedly inspected the ship twice, have communicated their findings to the Security Council, and are still waiting for guidance on how to deal with the ship.
ALL OF this brings us back to next Tuesday's elections. With the US effectively giving up on confronting Iran, the entire burden for blocking Iran's quest for nuclear weapons falls on Israel's shoulders.
This means that the most important question that Israeli voters must ask ourselves between now and Tuesday is which leader and which party are most capable of achieving this vital goal?
All we need to do to answer this question is to check what our leaders have done in recent years to bring attention to the Iranian threat and to build coalitions to contend with it.
In late 2006, citing the Iranian nuclear menace, Israel Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman joined the Olmert government where he received the tailor-made title of strategic affairs minister. At the time Lieberman joined the cabinet, the public outcry against the government for its failure to lead Israel to victory in the war with Iran's Lebanese proxy Hizbullah had reached a fever pitch. The smell of new elections was in the air as members of Knesset from all parties came under enormous public pressure to vote no confidence in the government.
By joining the government when he did, Lieberman single-handedly kept the Olmert government in power. Explaining his move, Lieberman claimed that the danger emanating from Iran's nuclear program was so great that Israel could not afford new elections.
But what did he accomplish by saving the government by taking that job? The short answer is nothing. Not only did his presence in the government make no impact on Israel's effectiveness in dealing with Iran, it prolonged the lifespan of a government that had no interest in forming a strategy for contending with Iran by two years.
In light of this fact, perhaps more than any other Israeli politician, Lieberman is to blame for the fact that Israel finds itself today with no allies in its hour of greatest peril. Had he allowed the people to elect more competent leaders in the fall of 2006, we might have been able to take advantage of the waning years of the Bush administration to convince the US to work with us against Iran.
Then there is Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. If Lieberman was the chief enabler of Israel's incompetent bungling of the Iranian threat, as Israel's chief diplomat, it is Livni - together with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert - who deserves the greatest condemnation for that bungling.
Throughout her tenure as foreign minister and still today as Kadima's candidate for prime minister, Livni claims that she supports using diplomacy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But in her three years as Israel's top diplomat, Livni never launched any diplomatic initiative aimed at achieving this goal. In fact, she has never even publicly criticized the European and American attempts to appease the mullahs.
Livni has remained silent for three years even though it has been clear for five years that the West's attempts to cut a deal with Teheran serve no purpose other than to provide the Iranians time to develop their nuclear arsenal. She has played along with the Americans and the Europeans and cheered them on as they passed toothless resolutions against Iran in the Security Council which - as the Iranian weapons ship docked in Cyprus shows - they never had the slightest intention of enforcing.
As for Defense Minister Ehud Barak, as a member of the Olmert government, his main personal failure has been his inability to convince the Pentagon to approve Israel's requests to purchase refueling jets and bunker buster bomb kits, and to permit Israeli jets to fly over Iraqi airspace. To achieve these aims, Barak could have turned to Israel's friends in the US military and in Congress. But he did no such thing. And now, moving into the Obama administration, Israel finds itself with fewer and fewer allies in Washington's security community.
For the past several years, only one political leader in Israel has had the foresight and wisdom to both understand the dangers of Iran's nuclear program and to understand the basis for an Israeli diplomatic approach to contending with the threat that can serve the country's purposes regardless of whether or not at the end of the day, Israel is compelled to act alone.
In 2006, Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu took it upon himself to engage the American people in a discussion of the danger Iran poses not only to Israel but to the world as a whole. In late 2006, he began meeting with key US governors and state politicians to convince them to divest their state employees' pension funds from companies that do business with Iran. This initiative and complementary efforts by the Washington-based Center for Security Policy convinced dozens of state legislatures to pass laws divesting their pension funds from companies that do business with Iran.
Netanyahu also strongly backed the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs' initiative to indict Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an international war criminal for inciting genocide. Both the divestment campaign and the campaign against Ahmadinejad have been Israel's most successful public diplomacy efforts in contending with Iran. More than anything done by the government, these initiatives made Americans aware of the Iranian nuclear threat and so forced the issue onto the agendas of all the presidential candidates.
Instead of supporting Netanyahu's efforts, Livni, Barak and Lieberman have disparaged them or ignored them.
Because he is the only leader who has done anything significant to fight Iran's nuclear program, Netanyahu is the only national leader who has the international credibility to be believed when he says - as he did this week - that Israel will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Likud under Netanyahu is the only party that has consistently drawn the connection between Iran, its Palestinian, Lebanese, Iraqi and Afghan terror proxies, its Syrian client state and its nuclear weapons program, and made fighting this axis the guiding principle of its national security strategy.
GIVEN THE US-led international community's decision not to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it is clear that in the coming months Israel will need to do two things. It will need to put the nations of the world on notice that they cannot expect us to stand by idly as they welcome Iran into the nuclear club. And Israel will need to prepare plans to strike Iran's nuclear installations without America's support.
More than ever before, Israel requires leaders who understand the gravity of the hour and are capable of acting swiftly and wisely to safeguard our country from destruction. Only Netanyahu and Likud have a credible track record on this subject.
For the sake of our country, our nation and our posterity, it is our responsibility to consider this fact when we enter the voting booths on Tuesday.
CIA Nominee Panetta Vows An End to Disputed Tactics
CIA Nominee Panetta Vows An End to Disputed Tactics
By Joby Warrick and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 6, 2009; Page A02
Leon Panetta, President Obama's surprise choice to be CIA director, yesterday promised a "new chapter" for the embattled spy agency, telling a Senate panel he would banish controversial interrogation policies while demanding greater candor and accountability with Congress and the American public.
"We need a strong CIA that keeps us safe and upholds our values," he told the Senate intelligence committee during a two-hour confirmation hearing.
Panetta, a former eight-term congressman who is expected to easily win confirmation, used the hearing to signal his intention to improve the CIA's often stormy relations with its congressional overseers.
He suggested the Bush administration had erred by fostering a culture of excessive secrecy, often limiting sensitive intelligence briefings to only eight senior members of Congress. Lawmakers have frequently accused the CIA of withholding information or giving misleading accounts, and Panetta said such practices would end in the Obama administration.
"Keeping this committee 'fully and currently' informed is not optional. It is the law," he said.
Panetta also sought to reassure the CIA's estimated 20,000 employees, describing the agency's performance as "heroic" during a time of unprecedented strain. Since 2001, the CIA "has been on an operational tempo unlike any in its history," he noted.
He praised the agency's outgoing director, Michael V. Hayden, and confirmed that the CIA's highly regarded deputy director, Stephen R. Kappes, would remain on the job and would be his "full partner."
But the largely positive hearing took a more partisan tone when Panetta was grilled about his views on dealing with captured terrorism suspects.
Panetta said he would oppose "extraordinary rendition," the forced transfer of detainees to another country, in cases in which the suspects might be tortured. But he said he would not rule out the possibility that terrorism suspects could be temporarily detained by the CIA for questioning and then sent to another country with legal jurisdiction to prosecute.
The comments drew a challenge from the committee's ranking Republican, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (Mo.), who disputed the suggestion that the CIA had condoned torture of detainees abroad and noted that the Clinton administration had ordered dozens of renditions.
Bond also pressed Panetta to explain where the CIA would put captured al-Qaeda terrorists with the CIA's secret prisons shuttered and the military detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to be closed.
Panetta acknowledged that some issues have yet to be resolved, including the fate of captured al-Qaeda operatives who cannot be tried in court but are too dangerous to be set free.
"There's going to be a group of prisoners that, very frankly, are going to have to be held in detainment for a long time," he said.
By Joby Warrick and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 6, 2009; Page A02
Leon Panetta, President Obama's surprise choice to be CIA director, yesterday promised a "new chapter" for the embattled spy agency, telling a Senate panel he would banish controversial interrogation policies while demanding greater candor and accountability with Congress and the American public.
"We need a strong CIA that keeps us safe and upholds our values," he told the Senate intelligence committee during a two-hour confirmation hearing.
Panetta, a former eight-term congressman who is expected to easily win confirmation, used the hearing to signal his intention to improve the CIA's often stormy relations with its congressional overseers.
He suggested the Bush administration had erred by fostering a culture of excessive secrecy, often limiting sensitive intelligence briefings to only eight senior members of Congress. Lawmakers have frequently accused the CIA of withholding information or giving misleading accounts, and Panetta said such practices would end in the Obama administration.
"Keeping this committee 'fully and currently' informed is not optional. It is the law," he said.
Panetta also sought to reassure the CIA's estimated 20,000 employees, describing the agency's performance as "heroic" during a time of unprecedented strain. Since 2001, the CIA "has been on an operational tempo unlike any in its history," he noted.
He praised the agency's outgoing director, Michael V. Hayden, and confirmed that the CIA's highly regarded deputy director, Stephen R. Kappes, would remain on the job and would be his "full partner."
But the largely positive hearing took a more partisan tone when Panetta was grilled about his views on dealing with captured terrorism suspects.
Panetta said he would oppose "extraordinary rendition," the forced transfer of detainees to another country, in cases in which the suspects might be tortured. But he said he would not rule out the possibility that terrorism suspects could be temporarily detained by the CIA for questioning and then sent to another country with legal jurisdiction to prosecute.
The comments drew a challenge from the committee's ranking Republican, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (Mo.), who disputed the suggestion that the CIA had condoned torture of detainees abroad and noted that the Clinton administration had ordered dozens of renditions.
Bond also pressed Panetta to explain where the CIA would put captured al-Qaeda terrorists with the CIA's secret prisons shuttered and the military detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to be closed.
Panetta acknowledged that some issues have yet to be resolved, including the fate of captured al-Qaeda operatives who cannot be tried in court but are too dangerous to be set free.
"There's going to be a group of prisoners that, very frankly, are going to have to be held in detainment for a long time," he said.
Chance To Right Racial Wrongs
AGAIN THE RACE CARD ENTERS THIS ADMINISTRATIONS FIELD. BULL,,, DAA
Holder Seen as a Chance To Right Racial Wrongs
Holder Sworn in As Attorney General
This week, Eric H. Holder Jr.'s swearing-in as the nation's first black attorney general and its top law enforcement official came weighted with heavy expectation that the system could change.
Known as a prosecutor who was unflinchingly tough on crime, Holder, 58, is also a former civil rights lawyer who has mentored young black men. Many advocates view him as the best chance in decades to right what they consider unchecked racial injustice and insensitivity by federal officials.
Civil rights advocates are already outlining a long list of priorities, including changing laws that lead to disproportionate prison terms for blacks, ending racial profiling and stepping up the policing of discrimination in employment and housing.
"The most important thing is that we have a person who gets it," said Benjamin Jealous, president of the NAACP. "He understands that the purpose of incarceration is not just punishment and protection but it is also redemption. He understands that people shouldn't be targeted because of what they look like but because of what they do. He understands that enforcing civil rights serves the interest of law enforcement. It's not about what he looks like, it's about what he believes."
Holder will oversee civil rights enforcement, crime prevention and racial justice -- issues with a broad impact and audience -- among many competing priorities in an agency that also plays a central role in fighting terrorism and policing corporate abuse. Fixing decades of perceived injustices is a difficult task at any time but will be especially challenging for Holder now, when government budgets have tightened and scarce money is allocated to national security and defense efforts.
In public statements since his nomination, Holder has emphasized civil rights enforcement, but he has not indicated a desire to plunge headlong into broad changes to the criminal laws. Civil rights enforcement represents a fraction of the Justice Department's wide-ranging responsibilities.
As he settles in during his first days in office, Holder said his personal story will inevitably shape his view of the job. His father served in World War II and was forced to stand in a segregated railroad car, Holder said. His grandmother was not allowed to sit at the counter at Woolworth in New Jersey. His sister-in-law was on the front lines of integrating the University of Alabama.
"As someone who witnessed the civil rights movement and whose family members literally suffered through the evils of segregation, I hope I can bring a unique perspective to the department," he said. "This department has played a historic role in civil rights over the years, and I owe it to those who came before me and to the American people I serve to oversee a vigorous enforcement program that deals with the realities we confront today."
On issues of crime and punishment, Holder brings his background as a hard-nosed, law-and-order prosecutor. As a U.S. attorney in the District, he lobbied for tougher minimum sentences for drug offenders but later changed course on nonviolent criminals, according to Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a D.C.-based group that calls for changing the sentencing system.
In his time away from the office, friends say, Holder worried about young black men caught up in the criminal justice system.
In the 1980s, he and his fellow public corruption prosecutor Reid H. Weingarten began to volunteer at the Oak Hill juvenile detention center. And as the crack epidemic ravaged the District in the mid-1980s, Holder became an early member of the local chapter of Concerned Black Men, a mentoring group founded to provide positive black male role models. From the judge's bench, he sent scores of young black men to prison, but in his chambers, he hosted children involved in the mentoring program.
At one of the group's fundraisers, Holder met his wife, prominent Washington obstetrician Sharon Malone. He still makes financial contributions to the organization, said Executive Director George L. Garrow Jr.
Holder's presence at the top of the Justice Department, along with his history, sends a powerful signal, said Larry Thompson, who succeeded Holder as the second black deputy attorney general.
"You bring your full self to the job, your experiences, your background," he said.
President Obama and Holder have vowed to restore public faith in the department, which was plagued by political hiring scandals during the years that George W. Bush was president. Last month, Inspector General Glenn A. Fine exposed hiring abuses and racial insults at the civil rights division, underscoring persistent complaints from Democrats that it had lost its way as the nation's premier protector of the rights of African Americans.
The black community's relationship with the department has long been complicated. The distrust of law enforcement organizations was increased by the FBI, which for years harassed and spied on the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
At the same time, activists have taken pride in the glory days of the civil rights division, which was established in 1957. Over the next decade, the department helped protect Freedom Riders and students seeking to break color barriers at state universities.
For criminal justice activists, a pressing concern has been sentencing disparities for convicts caught with crack cocaine versus powder cocaine. Possession of crack carries longer criminal penalties, and 80 percent of people prosecuted for crack offenses have been African American, according to the Sentencing Project. Obama has said repeatedly that he wants to end the sentencing disparity.
But when Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) asked Holder at his confirmation hearing to work with Congress to promote more fairness in sentencing laws, he responded with the cool of a longtime judge and prosecutor: "We have to be tough. We have to be smart. And we have to be fair. Our criminal justice system has to be fair. It has to be viewed as being fair."
The sentence disparities have combined with social and economic factors to lead to the increasing number of African Americans in prison, a figure that has grown from 100,000 in 1954 -- the year of the Supreme Court's seminal school desegregation case -- to 900,000 today, according to the Sentencing Project, a research and advocacy group.
"When we look at the prison system, it's a much worse situation than we had seen before the rise of the modern-day civil rights movement," said Mark Mauer, executive director of the group. "If current trends continue, one of every three black males today can expect to go to prison in their lifetime. It is one in every six for Hispanic men."
Locally, four out of five D.C. prisoners are black men.
Holder seldom broaches the topic of race directly, but in a 1997 National Public Radio interview conducted soon after his appointment as the Justice Department's second in command, he shared a quote by the late Samuel Proctor, a pastor in Harlem, that he carried in his wallet.
"It says that blackness is another issue entirely apart from class in America," Holder said. "No matter how affluent, educated and mobile a black person becomes, his race defines him more particularly than anything else."
Holder Seen as a Chance To Right Racial Wrongs
Holder Sworn in As Attorney General
This week, Eric H. Holder Jr.'s swearing-in as the nation's first black attorney general and its top law enforcement official came weighted with heavy expectation that the system could change.
Known as a prosecutor who was unflinchingly tough on crime, Holder, 58, is also a former civil rights lawyer who has mentored young black men. Many advocates view him as the best chance in decades to right what they consider unchecked racial injustice and insensitivity by federal officials.
Civil rights advocates are already outlining a long list of priorities, including changing laws that lead to disproportionate prison terms for blacks, ending racial profiling and stepping up the policing of discrimination in employment and housing.
"The most important thing is that we have a person who gets it," said Benjamin Jealous, president of the NAACP. "He understands that the purpose of incarceration is not just punishment and protection but it is also redemption. He understands that people shouldn't be targeted because of what they look like but because of what they do. He understands that enforcing civil rights serves the interest of law enforcement. It's not about what he looks like, it's about what he believes."
Holder will oversee civil rights enforcement, crime prevention and racial justice -- issues with a broad impact and audience -- among many competing priorities in an agency that also plays a central role in fighting terrorism and policing corporate abuse. Fixing decades of perceived injustices is a difficult task at any time but will be especially challenging for Holder now, when government budgets have tightened and scarce money is allocated to national security and defense efforts.
In public statements since his nomination, Holder has emphasized civil rights enforcement, but he has not indicated a desire to plunge headlong into broad changes to the criminal laws. Civil rights enforcement represents a fraction of the Justice Department's wide-ranging responsibilities.
As he settles in during his first days in office, Holder said his personal story will inevitably shape his view of the job. His father served in World War II and was forced to stand in a segregated railroad car, Holder said. His grandmother was not allowed to sit at the counter at Woolworth in New Jersey. His sister-in-law was on the front lines of integrating the University of Alabama.
"As someone who witnessed the civil rights movement and whose family members literally suffered through the evils of segregation, I hope I can bring a unique perspective to the department," he said. "This department has played a historic role in civil rights over the years, and I owe it to those who came before me and to the American people I serve to oversee a vigorous enforcement program that deals with the realities we confront today."
On issues of crime and punishment, Holder brings his background as a hard-nosed, law-and-order prosecutor. As a U.S. attorney in the District, he lobbied for tougher minimum sentences for drug offenders but later changed course on nonviolent criminals, according to Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a D.C.-based group that calls for changing the sentencing system.
In his time away from the office, friends say, Holder worried about young black men caught up in the criminal justice system.
In the 1980s, he and his fellow public corruption prosecutor Reid H. Weingarten began to volunteer at the Oak Hill juvenile detention center. And as the crack epidemic ravaged the District in the mid-1980s, Holder became an early member of the local chapter of Concerned Black Men, a mentoring group founded to provide positive black male role models. From the judge's bench, he sent scores of young black men to prison, but in his chambers, he hosted children involved in the mentoring program.
At one of the group's fundraisers, Holder met his wife, prominent Washington obstetrician Sharon Malone. He still makes financial contributions to the organization, said Executive Director George L. Garrow Jr.
Holder's presence at the top of the Justice Department, along with his history, sends a powerful signal, said Larry Thompson, who succeeded Holder as the second black deputy attorney general.
"You bring your full self to the job, your experiences, your background," he said.
President Obama and Holder have vowed to restore public faith in the department, which was plagued by political hiring scandals during the years that George W. Bush was president. Last month, Inspector General Glenn A. Fine exposed hiring abuses and racial insults at the civil rights division, underscoring persistent complaints from Democrats that it had lost its way as the nation's premier protector of the rights of African Americans.
The black community's relationship with the department has long been complicated. The distrust of law enforcement organizations was increased by the FBI, which for years harassed and spied on the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
At the same time, activists have taken pride in the glory days of the civil rights division, which was established in 1957. Over the next decade, the department helped protect Freedom Riders and students seeking to break color barriers at state universities.
For criminal justice activists, a pressing concern has been sentencing disparities for convicts caught with crack cocaine versus powder cocaine. Possession of crack carries longer criminal penalties, and 80 percent of people prosecuted for crack offenses have been African American, according to the Sentencing Project. Obama has said repeatedly that he wants to end the sentencing disparity.
But when Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) asked Holder at his confirmation hearing to work with Congress to promote more fairness in sentencing laws, he responded with the cool of a longtime judge and prosecutor: "We have to be tough. We have to be smart. And we have to be fair. Our criminal justice system has to be fair. It has to be viewed as being fair."
The sentence disparities have combined with social and economic factors to lead to the increasing number of African Americans in prison, a figure that has grown from 100,000 in 1954 -- the year of the Supreme Court's seminal school desegregation case -- to 900,000 today, according to the Sentencing Project, a research and advocacy group.
"When we look at the prison system, it's a much worse situation than we had seen before the rise of the modern-day civil rights movement," said Mark Mauer, executive director of the group. "If current trends continue, one of every three black males today can expect to go to prison in their lifetime. It is one in every six for Hispanic men."
Locally, four out of five D.C. prisoners are black men.
Holder seldom broaches the topic of race directly, but in a 1997 National Public Radio interview conducted soon after his appointment as the Justice Department's second in command, he shared a quote by the late Samuel Proctor, a pastor in Harlem, that he carried in his wallet.
"It says that blackness is another issue entirely apart from class in America," Holder said. "No matter how affluent, educated and mobile a black person becomes, his race defines him more particularly than anything else."
Stimulus package explained
Stimulus package explained
"Sometime this year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:
"Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
"A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.
"Q. Where will the government get this money?
"A. From taxpayers.
"Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
"A. No, they are borrowing it from China. Your children are expected to repay the Chinese.
"Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
"A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.
"Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?
"A. Shut up."
Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending your stimulus check wisely:
If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.
If you spend it on gasoline it will go to Hugo Chavez, the Arabs and Al Queda.
If you purchase a computer it will go to Taiwan.
If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, Chile and Guatemala.
If you buy a car it will go to Japan and Korea.
If you purchase prescription drugs it will go to India.
If you purchase heroin it will go to the Taliban in Afghanistan
If you give it to a charitable cause, it will go to Nigeria. And none of it will help the American economy.
We need to keep that money here in America. You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a baseball game, or spend it on prostitutes, beer (domestic ONLY), or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in the US.
"Sometime this year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:
"Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
"A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.
"Q. Where will the government get this money?
"A. From taxpayers.
"Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
"A. No, they are borrowing it from China. Your children are expected to repay the Chinese.
"Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
"A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.
"Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?
"A. Shut up."
Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending your stimulus check wisely:
If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.
If you spend it on gasoline it will go to Hugo Chavez, the Arabs and Al Queda.
If you purchase a computer it will go to Taiwan.
If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, Chile and Guatemala.
If you buy a car it will go to Japan and Korea.
If you purchase prescription drugs it will go to India.
If you purchase heroin it will go to the Taliban in Afghanistan
If you give it to a charitable cause, it will go to Nigeria. And none of it will help the American economy.
We need to keep that money here in America. You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a baseball game, or spend it on prostitutes, beer (domestic ONLY), or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in the US.
THE JOB - URINE TEST
THIS REQUIEMENT PAST DUE..
I think this is a great idea!
e
> Subject: Here's a change we can all stand up for
>
> THE JOB - URINE TEST
> (Whoever wrote this one deserves a HUGE pat on the back!)
>
> I HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB... SO I AGREE 100%
>
> Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay
> my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order
> to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which
> I have no problem. What I have a problem with is the distribution of my
> taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
>
> Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I
> have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem
> with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a
> problem with helping someone sitting on their backside, doing drugs, while I
> work. . . . Can you imag ine how much money the state would sa ve if people
> had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
> I guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'. Just a
> thought.
> Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all
> will pass it along, though . . Something has to change in this country --
> and soon !
>
> Jan adds: You also have to pass a urine test just to be considered for many jobs here in Tampa, and when they phone you to set the appointment to come in and contribute your urine you usually have under ONE HOUR to report to the peeing station.
I think this is a great idea!
e
> Subject: Here's a change we can all stand up for
>
> THE JOB - URINE TEST
> (Whoever wrote this one deserves a HUGE pat on the back!)
>
> I HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB... SO I AGREE 100%
>
> Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay
> my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order
> to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which
> I have no problem. What I have a problem with is the distribution of my
> taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
>
> Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I
> have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem
> with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a
> problem with helping someone sitting on their backside, doing drugs, while I
> work. . . . Can you imag ine how much money the state would sa ve if people
> had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
> I guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'. Just a
> thought.
> Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all
> will pass it along, though . . Something has to change in this country --
> and soon !
>
> Jan adds: You also have to pass a urine test just to be considered for many jobs here in Tampa, and when they phone you to set the appointment to come in and contribute your urine you usually have under ONE HOUR to report to the peeing station.
San Francisco Pays NRA $380,000
San Francisco Pays NRA $380,000 for Successful Proposition H Lawsuits
Total Tab to City for Unsuccessful Defense of Illegal Gun Ban Approaches $800,000
Friday, February 06, 2009
Fairfax, Va. – The City of San Francisco has paid $380,000 to the National Rifle Association (NRA) as reimbursement for legal fees incurred while striking down Proposition H, passed by San Francisco voters in November 2005.
“Freedom and common sense prevailed in San Francisco. Proposition H was a foolish scheme by anti-gun politicians to disarm only the law-abiding in San Francisco,” said NRA chief lobbyist Chris Cox. “NRA promised we would do everything we could to overturn this ill-conceived gun ban, and I am pleased to say that we have delivered on that promise. We will now put these funds back into use to advance self-defense civil rights in legislatures and courts.”
Combined with more than $200,000 in fees paid to City lawyers defending the ordinance and an equal value of lawyers time donated to the City for the unsuccessful defense of this case, the total costs to City taxpayers in defending against Proposition H, a civilian disarmament attempt, approaches $800,000.
Proposition H would have banned civilian handgun possession by city residents and banned the sale, transfer or distribution of any firearm or ammunition within the city. In addition, all San Francisco residents would have been jailed for a minimum of 90 days and up to six months if caught in possession of a handgun. All gun and ammunition sales and transfers would have been prohibited, and the one gun store and two antique firearm auction houses in San Francisco would have been forced out of business. Additionally, since action films involved the transfer of real prop firearms, no such films could have been made in the city.
"This is a tremendous victory, and we are thankful for the efforts of Chuck Michel and his legal team,” continued Cox. “Regrettably, San Francisco taxpayers have to bear the considerable financial burden caused by city officials’ selfish efforts to play politics with the self defense rights of law-abiding people.”
The lawsuits that struck down Proposition H were funded primarily by NRA and were supported by an NRA-led coalition of like-minded self-defense civil rights groups including the Second Amendment Foundation, California Association of Firearm Retailers, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and San Francisco Veterans Police Officers Association. Amicus brief efforts were led by the California Rifle & Pistol Association and joined by Gun Owners of California, The Madison Society, American Entertainment Armorers Association, San Francisco Police Officers Association, Pink Pistols, and California Sportsman’s Lobby.
-NRA-
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.
Total Tab to City for Unsuccessful Defense of Illegal Gun Ban Approaches $800,000
Friday, February 06, 2009
Fairfax, Va. – The City of San Francisco has paid $380,000 to the National Rifle Association (NRA) as reimbursement for legal fees incurred while striking down Proposition H, passed by San Francisco voters in November 2005.
“Freedom and common sense prevailed in San Francisco. Proposition H was a foolish scheme by anti-gun politicians to disarm only the law-abiding in San Francisco,” said NRA chief lobbyist Chris Cox. “NRA promised we would do everything we could to overturn this ill-conceived gun ban, and I am pleased to say that we have delivered on that promise. We will now put these funds back into use to advance self-defense civil rights in legislatures and courts.”
Combined with more than $200,000 in fees paid to City lawyers defending the ordinance and an equal value of lawyers time donated to the City for the unsuccessful defense of this case, the total costs to City taxpayers in defending against Proposition H, a civilian disarmament attempt, approaches $800,000.
Proposition H would have banned civilian handgun possession by city residents and banned the sale, transfer or distribution of any firearm or ammunition within the city. In addition, all San Francisco residents would have been jailed for a minimum of 90 days and up to six months if caught in possession of a handgun. All gun and ammunition sales and transfers would have been prohibited, and the one gun store and two antique firearm auction houses in San Francisco would have been forced out of business. Additionally, since action films involved the transfer of real prop firearms, no such films could have been made in the city.
"This is a tremendous victory, and we are thankful for the efforts of Chuck Michel and his legal team,” continued Cox. “Regrettably, San Francisco taxpayers have to bear the considerable financial burden caused by city officials’ selfish efforts to play politics with the self defense rights of law-abiding people.”
The lawsuits that struck down Proposition H were funded primarily by NRA and were supported by an NRA-led coalition of like-minded self-defense civil rights groups including the Second Amendment Foundation, California Association of Firearm Retailers, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and San Francisco Veterans Police Officers Association. Amicus brief efforts were led by the California Rifle & Pistol Association and joined by Gun Owners of California, The Madison Society, American Entertainment Armorers Association, San Francisco Police Officers Association, Pink Pistols, and California Sportsman’s Lobby.
-NRA-
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.
CLIINTON (XPREZ) WANTS GUN BAN
No Surprises Here: Former
President Clinton Advocates New Gun And Magazine Ban
Friday, February 06, 2009
With President Barack Obama stating that his "urban agenda" includes reimposing the former federal ban on "assault weapons" and "large" magazines, it's out-of-date to refer to that law as it was known at the time--the Clinton Gun Ban.
On second thought, maybe not just yet.
In January, speaking at a meeting of the anti-gun U.S. Conference of Mayors, former president Bill Clinton took credit for the old ban, praised the Brady Campaign for continuing to lobby Congress for a new ban, and suggested that the mood in Washington might be more favorable toward a ban now than it had been during the last eight years.
Here's what Mr. Clinton had to say:
"[W]e will not go forward anymore, I don't think, with the kind of politics of division and destruction that drug us down for too long. That's essentially what is different, and what creates this great moment of opportunity . . . . to have conversations with people, instead of screaming matches, over things like what former Mayor [now Brady Campaign president Paul] Helmke works on so much—over what is the best way to keep the American people safe. Nobody wants to repeal the Second Amendment, and nobody wants to keep you out of the deer woods, but wouldn't it be nice if your children didn't have to worry about being mowed down by an assault weapon when they turn the corner?"
After the mayors' reflexive applause receded, Clinton continued, this time speaking more broadly than in reference to gun control alone. "[W]e're now in a position to begin again," he said. "It's not a leftward movement. It's a forward, communitarian movement." Communitarianism is a movement that considers individualism an impediment to society uniformly adopting values the movement considers appropriate, including authoritarian gun control. For example, the Communitarian Network platform states "there is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament of the kind that exists in practically all democracies."
Mr. Clinton did not treat the mayors to a longwinded explanation of the communitarian ideal, nor did he explain that the Brady Campaign no longer advocates merely the reimposition of the Clinton-era ban. Instead, like the Violence Policy Center and Legal Community Against Violence, Brady advocates a much broader federal ban, such as California's or the one proposed by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), which would ban guns made to comply with the 1994 ban (by omitting one or more attachments, such as a flash suppressor), all semi-automatic shotguns, the Ruger Mini-14, the .30 Carbine, the M1 Garand, and other categories of guns and gun parts not affected by the 1994 ban.
Mr. Clinton also praised President Obama's selection of Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, a position in which Mrs. Clinton could lend support to international efforts to impose gun prohibitions domestically.
It's going to be an interesting four years, to say the least.
Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy
Links to Congress
The U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
Senate Schedule
House schedule today
Search THOMAS
Three Pro-Gun Bills on the Move in the Mississippi Legislature!
Firearms Bills Pending Action in the Arizona Legislature
Tennessee: Show Your Pride With an NRA License Plate!
New York: Anti-Freedom Bills Pending Action in Albany
Connecticut: Package of Anti-Gun Bills Proposed This Week
Voter Information
Grass Roots Activism
Redesigned NRA T-Shirt Available NOW!
"I'm A Bitter Gun Owner And I Vote!" Yard Signs Available Now
Another Way To Get Involved And Make A Difference
Time Is Running Out To Register To Vote!
Absentee Voting: Bank Your Vote—Assist On Election Day!
MORE>>
President Clinton Advocates New Gun And Magazine Ban
Friday, February 06, 2009
With President Barack Obama stating that his "urban agenda" includes reimposing the former federal ban on "assault weapons" and "large" magazines, it's out-of-date to refer to that law as it was known at the time--the Clinton Gun Ban.
On second thought, maybe not just yet.
In January, speaking at a meeting of the anti-gun U.S. Conference of Mayors, former president Bill Clinton took credit for the old ban, praised the Brady Campaign for continuing to lobby Congress for a new ban, and suggested that the mood in Washington might be more favorable toward a ban now than it had been during the last eight years.
Here's what Mr. Clinton had to say:
"[W]e will not go forward anymore, I don't think, with the kind of politics of division and destruction that drug us down for too long. That's essentially what is different, and what creates this great moment of opportunity . . . . to have conversations with people, instead of screaming matches, over things like what former Mayor [now Brady Campaign president Paul] Helmke works on so much—over what is the best way to keep the American people safe. Nobody wants to repeal the Second Amendment, and nobody wants to keep you out of the deer woods, but wouldn't it be nice if your children didn't have to worry about being mowed down by an assault weapon when they turn the corner?"
After the mayors' reflexive applause receded, Clinton continued, this time speaking more broadly than in reference to gun control alone. "[W]e're now in a position to begin again," he said. "It's not a leftward movement. It's a forward, communitarian movement." Communitarianism is a movement that considers individualism an impediment to society uniformly adopting values the movement considers appropriate, including authoritarian gun control. For example, the Communitarian Network platform states "there is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament of the kind that exists in practically all democracies."
Mr. Clinton did not treat the mayors to a longwinded explanation of the communitarian ideal, nor did he explain that the Brady Campaign no longer advocates merely the reimposition of the Clinton-era ban. Instead, like the Violence Policy Center and Legal Community Against Violence, Brady advocates a much broader federal ban, such as California's or the one proposed by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), which would ban guns made to comply with the 1994 ban (by omitting one or more attachments, such as a flash suppressor), all semi-automatic shotguns, the Ruger Mini-14, the .30 Carbine, the M1 Garand, and other categories of guns and gun parts not affected by the 1994 ban.
Mr. Clinton also praised President Obama's selection of Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, a position in which Mrs. Clinton could lend support to international efforts to impose gun prohibitions domestically.
It's going to be an interesting four years, to say the least.
Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy
Links to Congress
The U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
Senate Schedule
House schedule today
Search THOMAS
Three Pro-Gun Bills on the Move in the Mississippi Legislature!
Firearms Bills Pending Action in the Arizona Legislature
Tennessee: Show Your Pride With an NRA License Plate!
New York: Anti-Freedom Bills Pending Action in Albany
Connecticut: Package of Anti-Gun Bills Proposed This Week
Voter Information
Grass Roots Activism
Redesigned NRA T-Shirt Available NOW!
"I'm A Bitter Gun Owner And I Vote!" Yard Signs Available Now
Another Way To Get Involved And Make A Difference
Time Is Running Out To Register To Vote!
Absentee Voting: Bank Your Vote—Assist On Election Day!
MORE>>
The Proposal"
WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK GEORGIA FOR THIS GREAT FORWARD.
The Proposal"
When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers.The remaining workers need to find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well. Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.
Our government should not be immune from similar risks.
Therefore: . . . .
Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Also reduce remaining staff by 25%.
Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps / two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.
Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X$165,200 pay/member per year.
$97,175,000 for elimination of the above people's staff. (estimate $1.3 Millionin staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)
$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at 15 Billion per year).
The remaining representatives would need work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country.
We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.
Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few).
Note:
Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems. Also, we have 3 senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.
Summary of opportunity:
$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
$282,100,000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.
$150,000,000 for elimination of r educed senate member staff.
$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.
$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members .
$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)
Big business does these types of cuts all the time.
If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits there is no telling how much we would save.
Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term!
IF you are happy how the Congress spends our taxes, then just delete this message. IF you are NOT at all happy, then I assume you know what to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. Check it out.
The Proposal"
When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers.The remaining workers need to find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well. Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.
Our government should not be immune from similar risks.
Therefore: . . . .
Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Also reduce remaining staff by 25%.
Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps / two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.
Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X$165,200 pay/member per year.
$97,175,000 for elimination of the above people's staff. (estimate $1.3 Millionin staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)
$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at 15 Billion per year).
The remaining representatives would need work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country.
We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.
Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few).
Note:
Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems. Also, we have 3 senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.
Summary of opportunity:
$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
$282,100,000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.
$150,000,000 for elimination of r educed senate member staff.
$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.
$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members .
$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)
Big business does these types of cuts all the time.
If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits there is no telling how much we would save.
Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term!
IF you are happy how the Congress spends our taxes, then just delete this message. IF you are NOT at all happy, then I assume you know what to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. Check it out.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)