Sunday, October 24, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
A congressional challenger's name captures the nation's mood
The campaign signs plastered across Virginia's 5th Congressional District have become a minor cult phenomenon: "Hurt U.S. Congress," they say.
The red, white and blue posters advertise the candidacy of Republican Robert Hurt, a state senator looking to win south-central Virginia's House seat. But to a broader group of fans, the signs imply a promise of things to come in the "tea party"-fueled "Year of the Angry Voter" - a seething backlash against the political body Mark Twain described as composed of "the smallest minds and the selfishest souls."
"I think the idea of hurting them by taking away their power is the perfect idea. If you want to do something that really hurts," said Jerry Douglas, who was so taken by the signs that he posted a photo of one to the Internet. "To me, that sign says that. It says, this is what they care about. Power and ability to control our actions. They have hurt us over the last two years, and now is our chance to hurt them."
Even the French have taken notice. In an article titled "La route du Tea Party," French newspaper Le Monde this week said the sign perfectly captures what's different about this year's elections. The writer said it was a "un usage brillant de son patronym" - roughly, a brilliant use of his surname.
Reports on the Internet suggest that Mr. Hurt is trouncing his opponent, incumbent Rep. Tom Perriello, a Democrat, in the battle to dot the 5th District with their signs. Hurt campaign officials say they've heard of the signs being posted well beyond the district's boundaries.
Gay conservatives go after Democrats Frank, Boxer and Pelosi
GOProud, a group that represents gay conservatives, is going where no gay organization has gone before: It’s running a campaign ad against a Democratic candidate.
The Washington-based group is going after Democratic incumbents Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi of California, calling them “catty” and “arrogant.” The spot plays off of the television show “Real Housewives of D.C.” with a new take, “The Real Democrats of Washington, D.C.”
“If you thought the housewives were dysfunctional, wait until you meet the Real Democrats of Washington D.C.” a voice declares while pictures of the three candidates pop up in front of a pink background.
The ad lets the politicians do most of the talking, pulling audio recordings from their less than amiable moments. The list includes the time Frank (justifiably) told a woman at a town hall meeting that talking to her was like “trying to argue with a dining room table” and when Boxer scolded an officer in the U.S. Army for not referring to her as “Senator Boxer” during a hearing.
The group became known for shaking things up within the gay community in September when they invited conservative pundit Ann Coulter to headline an event in New York City.
“For the first time ever a national gay organization is airing a television advertising campaign going after Democrats,” said Jimmy LaSalvia, GOProud’s executive director. Christopher Barron, the group’s chairman, added that he sees Frank as an “embarrassment to the gay community.”
The 30-second spot will air in California, Massachusetts, Hawaii and New York starting on Monday.
The Washington-based group is going after Democratic incumbents Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi of California, calling them “catty” and “arrogant.” The spot plays off of the television show “Real Housewives of D.C.” with a new take, “The Real Democrats of Washington, D.C.”
“If you thought the housewives were dysfunctional, wait until you meet the Real Democrats of Washington D.C.” a voice declares while pictures of the three candidates pop up in front of a pink background.
The ad lets the politicians do most of the talking, pulling audio recordings from their less than amiable moments. The list includes the time Frank (justifiably) told a woman at a town hall meeting that talking to her was like “trying to argue with a dining room table” and when Boxer scolded an officer in the U.S. Army for not referring to her as “Senator Boxer” during a hearing.
The group became known for shaking things up within the gay community in September when they invited conservative pundit Ann Coulter to headline an event in New York City.
“For the first time ever a national gay organization is airing a television advertising campaign going after Democrats,” said Jimmy LaSalvia, GOProud’s executive director. Christopher Barron, the group’s chairman, added that he sees Frank as an “embarrassment to the gay community.”
The 30-second spot will air in California, Massachusetts, Hawaii and New York starting on Monday.
While awaiting trial, Hamas-front CAIR shuts down free speech
The Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a press release Wednesday afternoon demanding action against Juan Williams for daring to exercise his 1st Amendment rights to free speech that resulted in Williams' ouster from National Public Radio (NPR).
"Such irresponsible and inflammatory comments would not be tolerated if they targeted any other racial, ethnic or religious minority, and they should not pass without action by NPR," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.
The CAIR complaint was the catalyst that led to Williams' firing.
CAIR has long been identified as a Hamas-affiliated Muslim Brotherhood front group through the Texas Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial -- the largest terrorism funding trial in U.S. history. CAIR is named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial. The sheer volume of participants in the terrorist fundraising schemes lent itself to a list of co-conspirators subject to prosecution with the same evidence that resulted in the successful prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation in 2008.
The HLF co-conspirators including CAIR currently await trial. At the moment the Obama administration is tied up suing Arizona for enforcing immigration law.
And CAIR is allowed to move about and freely operate in the U.S. -- even appearing on Fox News and other media organizations -- like NPR -- as representatives of "moderate" Islam.
Much has been said about Williams' firing from NPR for comments not even made on their air, but the connections between the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, CAIR and NPR warrant a closer look.
As previously and extensively reported on HUMAN EVENTS, there is an organized effort underway worldwide orchestrated by a powerful Islamic political body to squelch and even criminalize speech that "offends" Muslims. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations --comprised of kings and heads of state representing 57 member states.
One of its stated goals is to seek to criminalization of speech that violates the archaic tenets of shariah law. The OIC broadcasts its every move on its website. All we have to do is read it.
"Such irresponsible and inflammatory comments would not be tolerated if they targeted any other racial, ethnic or religious minority, and they should not pass without action by NPR," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.
The CAIR complaint was the catalyst that led to Williams' firing.
CAIR has long been identified as a Hamas-affiliated Muslim Brotherhood front group through the Texas Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial -- the largest terrorism funding trial in U.S. history. CAIR is named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial. The sheer volume of participants in the terrorist fundraising schemes lent itself to a list of co-conspirators subject to prosecution with the same evidence that resulted in the successful prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation in 2008.
The HLF co-conspirators including CAIR currently await trial. At the moment the Obama administration is tied up suing Arizona for enforcing immigration law.
And CAIR is allowed to move about and freely operate in the U.S. -- even appearing on Fox News and other media organizations -- like NPR -- as representatives of "moderate" Islam.
Much has been said about Williams' firing from NPR for comments not even made on their air, but the connections between the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, CAIR and NPR warrant a closer look.
As previously and extensively reported on HUMAN EVENTS, there is an organized effort underway worldwide orchestrated by a powerful Islamic political body to squelch and even criminalize speech that "offends" Muslims. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations --comprised of kings and heads of state representing 57 member states.
One of its stated goals is to seek to criminalization of speech that violates the archaic tenets of shariah law. The OIC broadcasts its every move on its website. All we have to do is read it.
Rep. Barney Frank bailed out banks; now he's collecting his pay
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, in an intensifying clash with GOP upstart Sean Bielat, has pledged not to take campaign cash from lenders that got federal bailouts — yet has raked in more than $40,000 from bank execs and special interests connected to the staggering government loans, a Herald review found.
Frank vowed in February 2009 that he wouldn’t accept campaign donations from banks that received money under the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) or political action committees tied to such institutions.
But Frank has hauled in thousands from top execs at Bank of America, Citizens Bank, Wainwright Bank, JP Morgan Chase and other institutions that received billions in TARP money.
Just yesterday, Frank made new campaign finance disclosures showing he received $17,000 from top executives of Bank of America — including $2,000 from CEO Brian Moynihan. B of A received $45 billion in bailout money. In all, Frank has hauled in at least $27,000 since 2009 from bank execs — and $13,000 from PACs — connected to banks that received TARP funding, including:
• $5,000 earlier this month from the Bank of America Corp. Federal PAC;
• $10,000 in August and September from the Bipartisan PAC/Bank of New York Mellon Corp.; Mellon received $3 billion from TARP;
• $2,000 in June 2009 from the Financial Services Roundtable PAC, which counts TARP recipients B of A, JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo among its members; and
• $1,000 in March from U.S. Bancorp PAC; the Minnesota-based bank received more than $6 billion in TARP funds.
“Now that he’s in the political fight of his life, Barney Frank tossed aside his phony pledge and lined his pockets with cash from his closest allies — Wall Street executives,” said National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Tory Mazzola. “He made a promise to voters, but obviously he cares more about saving his career as a politician than with keeping his word.”
In a statement last night, a Frank spokesman said the congressman has declined to take contributions only from the top 10 TARP recipients, but he noted he would accept donations from those institutions once they repaid their debts. The spokesman said none of the donations cited by the Herald violated that policy.
Meanwhile, in a release responding to a Herald report yesterday that Bielat is tapping Wall Street bigwigs in a bid to force Frank into a Martha Coakley-style collapse, Frank said, “Mr. Bielat’s eagerness to serve as the agent of those wealthy Wall Streeters who seek to undo the financial reform bill explains why this race has become so expensive and why it is so important in order to prevent another economic crisis.”
The 15-term Democratic congressman pumped $200,000 of his own cash into his campaign this week and has spent $700,000 in the first two weeks of October. His war chest has $650,000 to Bielat’s $420,000. Bielat, a 35-year-old Marine, reported he has raised $650,000 so far in October, records show.
In a Feb. 23, 2009, article in the Washington publication Roll Call, Frank is quoted saying, “I won’t take any PAC money from banks that took TARP funds, nor would I take it from the top executive.” The article made no mention of the policy only applying to the top 10 TARP fund recipients. Frank said he floated the loan to his campaign to counter an expected flood of right-wing attack ads, including from the national Tea Party.
Frank vowed in February 2009 that he wouldn’t accept campaign donations from banks that received money under the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) or political action committees tied to such institutions.
But Frank has hauled in thousands from top execs at Bank of America, Citizens Bank, Wainwright Bank, JP Morgan Chase and other institutions that received billions in TARP money.
Just yesterday, Frank made new campaign finance disclosures showing he received $17,000 from top executives of Bank of America — including $2,000 from CEO Brian Moynihan. B of A received $45 billion in bailout money. In all, Frank has hauled in at least $27,000 since 2009 from bank execs — and $13,000 from PACs — connected to banks that received TARP funding, including:
• $5,000 earlier this month from the Bank of America Corp. Federal PAC;
• $10,000 in August and September from the Bipartisan PAC/Bank of New York Mellon Corp.; Mellon received $3 billion from TARP;
• $2,000 in June 2009 from the Financial Services Roundtable PAC, which counts TARP recipients B of A, JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo among its members; and
• $1,000 in March from U.S. Bancorp PAC; the Minnesota-based bank received more than $6 billion in TARP funds.
“Now that he’s in the political fight of his life, Barney Frank tossed aside his phony pledge and lined his pockets with cash from his closest allies — Wall Street executives,” said National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Tory Mazzola. “He made a promise to voters, but obviously he cares more about saving his career as a politician than with keeping his word.”
In a statement last night, a Frank spokesman said the congressman has declined to take contributions only from the top 10 TARP recipients, but he noted he would accept donations from those institutions once they repaid their debts. The spokesman said none of the donations cited by the Herald violated that policy.
Meanwhile, in a release responding to a Herald report yesterday that Bielat is tapping Wall Street bigwigs in a bid to force Frank into a Martha Coakley-style collapse, Frank said, “Mr. Bielat’s eagerness to serve as the agent of those wealthy Wall Streeters who seek to undo the financial reform bill explains why this race has become so expensive and why it is so important in order to prevent another economic crisis.”
The 15-term Democratic congressman pumped $200,000 of his own cash into his campaign this week and has spent $700,000 in the first two weeks of October. His war chest has $650,000 to Bielat’s $420,000. Bielat, a 35-year-old Marine, reported he has raised $650,000 so far in October, records show.
In a Feb. 23, 2009, article in the Washington publication Roll Call, Frank is quoted saying, “I won’t take any PAC money from banks that took TARP funds, nor would I take it from the top executive.” The article made no mention of the policy only applying to the top 10 TARP fund recipients. Frank said he floated the loan to his campaign to counter an expected flood of right-wing attack ads, including from the national Tea Party.
GOP looks stronger than Democrats before 2006 takeover
Republicans have opened up a double digit lead among likely voters on the generic Congressional ballot according to the latest survey by the Pew Research Center, outperforming where Democrats stood in the same poll when they took over Congress in 2006.
The new survey shows GOP candidates building a 50 percent to 40 percent lead among likely voters. In November 2006, Pew's pre-election poll showed Democrats with a narrower 47 percent to 43 percent advantage among likely voters. The GOP opens up an even larger lead in competitive districts at 51 percent to 39 percent.
Whereas Democrats enjoyed a 7-point edge among independents in 2006, Republicans now hold a staggering 19-point advantage among this group. In fact, the Republicans' lead extends to nearly every demographic category -- they're ahead among men and women; all education levels; all age groups; among those earning above $30,000; and in the West, Midwest, and South. The only segments of the population where Democrats enjoy advantages are among black voters, those earning less than $30,000, the religiously unaffiliated, and Northeasterners (where they lead by just 1 point). But even where Democrats do hold advantages, they have lost considerable ground relative to 2006.
The Midwest experienced the largest turnaround of any other region -- going from an 11-point Democratic advantage to a 16 point Republican advantage.
The new survey shows GOP candidates building a 50 percent to 40 percent lead among likely voters. In November 2006, Pew's pre-election poll showed Democrats with a narrower 47 percent to 43 percent advantage among likely voters. The GOP opens up an even larger lead in competitive districts at 51 percent to 39 percent.
Whereas Democrats enjoyed a 7-point edge among independents in 2006, Republicans now hold a staggering 19-point advantage among this group. In fact, the Republicans' lead extends to nearly every demographic category -- they're ahead among men and women; all education levels; all age groups; among those earning above $30,000; and in the West, Midwest, and South. The only segments of the population where Democrats enjoy advantages are among black voters, those earning less than $30,000, the religiously unaffiliated, and Northeasterners (where they lead by just 1 point). But even where Democrats do hold advantages, they have lost considerable ground relative to 2006.
The Midwest experienced the largest turnaround of any other region -- going from an 11-point Democratic advantage to a 16 point Republican advantage.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Noonan: the Tea Party rescued the GOP from George Bush
Two central facts give shape to the historic 2010 election. The first is not understood by Republicans, and the second not admitted by Democrats.
The first: the tea party is not a "threat" to the Republican Party, the tea party saved the Republican Party. In a broad sense, the tea party rescued it from being the fat, unhappy, querulous creature it had become, a party that didn't remember anymore why it existed, or what its historical purpose was. The tea party, with its energy and earnestness, restored the GOP to itself.
In a practical sense, the tea party saved the Republican Party in this cycle by not going third-party. It could have. The broadly based, locally autonomous movement seems to have made a rolling decision, group by group, to take part in Republican primaries and back Republican hopefuls. (According to the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, four million more Republicans voted in primaries this year than Democrats, the GOP's highest such turnout since 1970. I wonder who those people were?)
Because of this, because they did not go third-party, Nov. 2 is not going to be a disaster for the Republicans, but a triumph.
The tea party did something the Republican establishment was incapable of doing: It got the party out from under George W. Bush. The tea party rejected his administration's spending, overreach and immigration proposals, among other items, and has become only too willing to say so. In doing this, the tea party allowed the Republican establishment itself to get out from under Mr. Bush: "We had to, boss, it was a political necessity!" They released the GOP establishment from its shame cringe.
The first: the tea party is not a "threat" to the Republican Party, the tea party saved the Republican Party. In a broad sense, the tea party rescued it from being the fat, unhappy, querulous creature it had become, a party that didn't remember anymore why it existed, or what its historical purpose was. The tea party, with its energy and earnestness, restored the GOP to itself.
In a practical sense, the tea party saved the Republican Party in this cycle by not going third-party. It could have. The broadly based, locally autonomous movement seems to have made a rolling decision, group by group, to take part in Republican primaries and back Republican hopefuls. (According to the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, four million more Republicans voted in primaries this year than Democrats, the GOP's highest such turnout since 1970. I wonder who those people were?)
Because of this, because they did not go third-party, Nov. 2 is not going to be a disaster for the Republicans, but a triumph.
The tea party did something the Republican establishment was incapable of doing: It got the party out from under George W. Bush. The tea party rejected his administration's spending, overreach and immigration proposals, among other items, and has become only too willing to say so. In doing this, the tea party allowed the Republican establishment itself to get out from under Mr. Bush: "We had to, boss, it was a political necessity!" They released the GOP establishment from its shame cringe.
Breitbart defends tea party against "desperate" NAACP attack
Don’t ask me what I think of the NAACP’s desperate, politically timed report, ask Cedra Crenshaw, Damon Dunn, Tim Scott, Ryan Frazier, Allen West, Star Parker, Bill Marcy, Charlotte Bergmann, Robert Broadus, Ryan Frazier, Charles Lollar, Stephen Broden, Michel Faulker, Bill Randall, Patrick David King, Chuck Smith, and Isaac Hayes, all conservative black candidates running for higher office, endorsed and embraced by tea parties around the country. This malicious “report” is crafted and timed as a cynical means to scare the black community to the voting booth, and is dutifully played up by the same media that ignores the aforementioned black conservative candidates because it goes against the “narrative”.
Or ask former chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and liberal icon Mary Frances Berry, who said:
“Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.”
The same media that plays up the NAACP’s desperate smear campaign continues to trot out the provably blatant falsehood that a “mob” of Tea Partiers hurled the N-Word at Congressmen John Lewis, Emanuel Cleaver and Andre Carson the day before the health care vote on the steps of the Cannon House Building.
Or ask former chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and liberal icon Mary Frances Berry, who said:
“Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.”
The same media that plays up the NAACP’s desperate smear campaign continues to trot out the provably blatant falsehood that a “mob” of Tea Partiers hurled the N-Word at Congressmen John Lewis, Emanuel Cleaver and Andre Carson the day before the health care vote on the steps of the Cannon House Building.
Detroit Economic Club cancels disgraced car czar Rattner
Appropriately, the thuggish face of the Obama Administration's auto task force — the aptly named "auto czar," Steve Rattner — is now up to his neck in legal soup. With charges of financial kickbacks sullying his name, Rattner's triumphal return to Detroit to promote his tell-all book about his reign over the Detroit auto bailouts was canceled this week.
His host, the Detroit Economic Club, was not willing to hold its nose.
The Democratic czar has been disgraced by reports that he has settled with the SEC for $5 million for lying about an illegal kickback scheme he concocted while managing public pension funds. In short, his firm, Quadrangle, bribed key pension fund officers in order to get their business. "His settlements with the S.E.C. could reduce the chances of prosecution," reports The New York Times.
Funny. . . isn't the Democratic 2010 campaign theme that Republicans bilked Main Street in favor of Wall Street?
Rattner's legal troubles were too much for the Economic Club, but Rattner has a history of playing fast and loose with the law while running with the fast and loose Chicago crowd of President Obama. A year ago, in an outrageous abuse of bankruptcy law, Rattner trampled the legal rights of secured investors in order to hand Chrysler over to the Democrats' preferred investors, the UAW and Fiat.
Some secured bondholders — many of them big Democratic Party donors — refused to accept a mere 29 cents on their investment dollar ("an offer they couldn't refuse," as Don Corleone might have observed). That's when Rattner's goon squad, according to the lenders' lawyer, Tom Lauria, reminded the holdouts how difficult life can be for anyone who messes with Washington. One investment fund, Perella Weinberg, immediately buckled, Lauria told the website Business Insider, "under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight."
Michael Barone called these tactics "gangster government." Financial analyst and law professor Glenn Reynolds called it "waterboarding bondholders." "We might expect this behavior from Hugo Chavez," said George Mason law professor, Todd Zywicki.
But it was all in the good service of the Obama Mob and its Big Labor backers.
His host, the Detroit Economic Club, was not willing to hold its nose.
The Democratic czar has been disgraced by reports that he has settled with the SEC for $5 million for lying about an illegal kickback scheme he concocted while managing public pension funds. In short, his firm, Quadrangle, bribed key pension fund officers in order to get their business. "His settlements with the S.E.C. could reduce the chances of prosecution," reports The New York Times.
Funny. . . isn't the Democratic 2010 campaign theme that Republicans bilked Main Street in favor of Wall Street?
Rattner's legal troubles were too much for the Economic Club, but Rattner has a history of playing fast and loose with the law while running with the fast and loose Chicago crowd of President Obama. A year ago, in an outrageous abuse of bankruptcy law, Rattner trampled the legal rights of secured investors in order to hand Chrysler over to the Democrats' preferred investors, the UAW and Fiat.
Some secured bondholders — many of them big Democratic Party donors — refused to accept a mere 29 cents on their investment dollar ("an offer they couldn't refuse," as Don Corleone might have observed). That's when Rattner's goon squad, according to the lenders' lawyer, Tom Lauria, reminded the holdouts how difficult life can be for anyone who messes with Washington. One investment fund, Perella Weinberg, immediately buckled, Lauria told the website Business Insider, "under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight."
Michael Barone called these tactics "gangster government." Financial analyst and law professor Glenn Reynolds called it "waterboarding bondholders." "We might expect this behavior from Hugo Chavez," said George Mason law professor, Todd Zywicki.
But it was all in the good service of the Obama Mob and its Big Labor backers.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Democrat congressman's son imprisoned for alien smuggling
The son of Rep. Allen Boyd (D.-Fla.) is in prison for smuggling illegal aliens across the Mexican border, calling into question Boyd’s commitment to securing borders and voting on immigration legislation in the House.
The congressman’s son, John Boyd, is currently in federal prison after pleading guilty to the felony charge of conspiracy to transport and harbor illegal aliens for profit. Boyd charged the four illegal aliens $3,000 each—$12,000 total—“to be smuggled into the United States and transported to their final destination.”
According to the Bureau of Prisons, John Boyd is in the Federal Correction Institution, a medium security prison in Yazoo City, Miss. He is serving a 30-month sentence. His projected release date is April 10, 2011.
Speaking of Boyd's father, Congressman Allen Boyd, Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, said that, “given that he has a weak record on enforcement and his son is explicitly an alien smuggler and serving time for that, it is reasonable to wonder about his commitment to securing our borders and enforcing our laws.”
Until recently, Boyd was one of two Democrats on the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, but he is no longer a member of the caucus.
The congressman’s son, John Boyd, is currently in federal prison after pleading guilty to the felony charge of conspiracy to transport and harbor illegal aliens for profit. Boyd charged the four illegal aliens $3,000 each—$12,000 total—“to be smuggled into the United States and transported to their final destination.”
According to the Bureau of Prisons, John Boyd is in the Federal Correction Institution, a medium security prison in Yazoo City, Miss. He is serving a 30-month sentence. His projected release date is April 10, 2011.
Speaking of Boyd's father, Congressman Allen Boyd, Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, said that, “given that he has a weak record on enforcement and his son is explicitly an alien smuggler and serving time for that, it is reasonable to wonder about his commitment to securing our borders and enforcing our laws.”
Until recently, Boyd was one of two Democrats on the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, but he is no longer a member of the caucus.
Examiner: Freeze federal spending as first step in reform
Aside from Islamic terrorists, the greatest threat to America's future can be found right here in the nation's capital: professional politicians in both major parties who are spending the country into bankruptcy. No individual or family can chronically spend more than they earn, going ever deeper into debt, without eventually having to face financial reality. With President Obama and the Democratic Congress having run up more than $3.6 trillion in deficit spending in just two years, Washington has reached the moment of truth.
The federal government must realign its spending priorities because, as the Heritage Foundation recently said, "Washington taxes families, subtracts a hefty administrative cost, and sends the remaining revenues back to state and local governments with specific rules dictating how they may and may not spend the money. Instead of performing many functions poorly, Congress should focus on performing a few functions well. Most highway, education, justice, and economic development programs should be devolved to state and local governments."
The following are The Examiner's recommended starting points for that realignment:
First, freeze total federal expenditures and employment at 2008 levels. Second, create a Spending Realignment and Closure (SPRAC) commission to do for the federal budget what was done in the 1980s by the immensely successful Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) panel in closing unneeded military facilities. Implementation of SPRAC recommendations should start in 2013.
The federal government must realign its spending priorities because, as the Heritage Foundation recently said, "Washington taxes families, subtracts a hefty administrative cost, and sends the remaining revenues back to state and local governments with specific rules dictating how they may and may not spend the money. Instead of performing many functions poorly, Congress should focus on performing a few functions well. Most highway, education, justice, and economic development programs should be devolved to state and local governments."
The following are The Examiner's recommended starting points for that realignment:
First, freeze total federal expenditures and employment at 2008 levels. Second, create a Spending Realignment and Closure (SPRAC) commission to do for the federal budget what was done in the 1980s by the immensely successful Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) panel in closing unneeded military facilities. Implementation of SPRAC recommendations should start in 2013.
People impervious to their multicultural betters still take offense when hoodlums, crimnals and dysfunctional people move in
Somebody eventually had to say it -- and German chancellor Angela Merkel deserves credit for being the one who had the courage to say it out loud. Multiculturalism has "utterly failed."
Multiculturalism is not just a recognition that different groups have different cultures. We all knew that, long before multiculturalism became a cult that has spawned mindless rhapsodies about "diversity," without a speck of evidence to substantiate its supposed benefits.
In Germany, as in other countries in Europe, welcoming millions of foreign workers who insist on remaining foreign has created problems so obvious that only the intelligentsia could fail to see them. It takes a high IQ to evade the obvious.
"We kidded ourselves for a while," Chancellor Merkel said, but now it was clear that the attempt to build a society where people of very different languages and cultures could "live side-by-side" and "enjoy each other" has "failed, utterly failed."
This is not a lesson for Germany alone. In countries around the world, and over the centuries, peoples with jarring differences in language, cultures and values have been a major problem and, too often, sources of major disasters for the societies in which they co-exist.
Even the tragedies and atrocities associated with racial differences in racist countries have been exceeded by the tragedies and atrocities among people with clashing cultures who are physically indistinguishable from one another, as in the Balkans or Rwanda.
Among the ways that people with different cultures have managed to minimize frictions have been (1) mutual cultural accommodations, even while not amalgamating completely, and (2) living separately in their own enclaves. Both of these approaches are anathema to the multicultural cultists.
Expecting any group to adapt their lifestyles to the cultural values of the larger society around them is "cultural imperialism" according to the multicultural cult. And living in separate neighborhoods is considered to be so terrible that there are government-financed programs to take people from high-crime slums and put them in subsidized housing in middle-class neighborhoods.
Multiculturalists condemn people's objections to transplanting hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families into the midst of people who may have sacrificed for years to be able to escape from living among hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families.
Multiculturalism is not just a recognition that different groups have different cultures. We all knew that, long before multiculturalism became a cult that has spawned mindless rhapsodies about "diversity," without a speck of evidence to substantiate its supposed benefits.
In Germany, as in other countries in Europe, welcoming millions of foreign workers who insist on remaining foreign has created problems so obvious that only the intelligentsia could fail to see them. It takes a high IQ to evade the obvious.
"We kidded ourselves for a while," Chancellor Merkel said, but now it was clear that the attempt to build a society where people of very different languages and cultures could "live side-by-side" and "enjoy each other" has "failed, utterly failed."
This is not a lesson for Germany alone. In countries around the world, and over the centuries, peoples with jarring differences in language, cultures and values have been a major problem and, too often, sources of major disasters for the societies in which they co-exist.
Even the tragedies and atrocities associated with racial differences in racist countries have been exceeded by the tragedies and atrocities among people with clashing cultures who are physically indistinguishable from one another, as in the Balkans or Rwanda.
Among the ways that people with different cultures have managed to minimize frictions have been (1) mutual cultural accommodations, even while not amalgamating completely, and (2) living separately in their own enclaves. Both of these approaches are anathema to the multicultural cultists.
Expecting any group to adapt their lifestyles to the cultural values of the larger society around them is "cultural imperialism" according to the multicultural cult. And living in separate neighborhoods is considered to be so terrible that there are government-financed programs to take people from high-crime slums and put them in subsidized housing in middle-class neighborhoods.
Multiculturalists condemn people's objections to transplanting hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families into the midst of people who may have sacrificed for years to be able to escape from living among hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families.
99 Democrat House seats in play with the party on the run
With two weeks remaining until Election Day, the political map has expanded to put Democrats on the run across the country – with 99 Democratic-held House seats now in play, according to a POLITICO analysis, and Republicans well in reach of retaking the House.
It’s a dramatic departure from the outlook one year ago – and a broader landscape than even just prior to the summer congressional recess. As recently as early September, many Republicans were hesitant to talk about winning a majority for fear of overreaching.
Today, however, the non-partisan Cook Political Report predicts a GOP net gain of at least 40 House seats, with 90 Democratic seats in total rated as competitive or likely Republican.
"When Chairman [Pete] Sessions and Leader [John] Boehner said that 100 House seats were in play, Democrats scoffed,” said Ken Spain, the National Republican Congressional Committee’s communications director. “Today, they aren't laughing anymore."
The number of Democrats in danger is more than double the 39 seats Republicans need to seize control of the House. It reflects an elastic electoral environment that favors the GOP by every measure: money, momentum and mood of the country — in this case, sour on Democratic incumbents.
For Democrats, a deteriorating political environment – unemployment high, President Barack Obama’s approval ratings low — has been exacerbated by the presence of cash-flush, independent conservative groups that have poured huge sums of money into races.
The groups, including American Crossroads, have combined with the National Republican Congressional Committee to stretch the boundaries of the 2010 map into races where there’s even a scent of Democratic vulnerability.
It’s a dramatic departure from the outlook one year ago – and a broader landscape than even just prior to the summer congressional recess. As recently as early September, many Republicans were hesitant to talk about winning a majority for fear of overreaching.
Today, however, the non-partisan Cook Political Report predicts a GOP net gain of at least 40 House seats, with 90 Democratic seats in total rated as competitive or likely Republican.
"When Chairman [Pete] Sessions and Leader [John] Boehner said that 100 House seats were in play, Democrats scoffed,” said Ken Spain, the National Republican Congressional Committee’s communications director. “Today, they aren't laughing anymore."
The number of Democrats in danger is more than double the 39 seats Republicans need to seize control of the House. It reflects an elastic electoral environment that favors the GOP by every measure: money, momentum and mood of the country — in this case, sour on Democratic incumbents.
For Democrats, a deteriorating political environment – unemployment high, President Barack Obama’s approval ratings low — has been exacerbated by the presence of cash-flush, independent conservative groups that have poured huge sums of money into races.
The groups, including American Crossroads, have combined with the National Republican Congressional Committee to stretch the boundaries of the 2010 map into races where there’s even a scent of Democratic vulnerability.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Anything that turns voters against Obama is false consciousness
...who could forget this shot at the bitter clingers of small town Pennsylvania?
You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
This kind of dime store sociological explanation is pretty common for the president, despite the fact that it landed him in hot water back in the spring of 2008. These comments have three traits in common.
(a) He doesn’t really know what he’s talking about. Obama might seem like a sociological expert, but he really just plays one on television. For instance, explaining the cultural conservatism of small town Pennsylvania as an artifact of economic decline sounds extremely ill-informed to anybody with at least passing familiarity of the subject.
(b) Hardships generate a false consciousness that always seems to manifest itself as irrational opposition to...Obama. As far as Obama is concerned, the fact that the country is disappointed with his performance is not a sign that he hasn’t done what he promised, but that the country is not thinking clearly.
(c) He turns fellow citizens into sociological subjects. It is one thing for a professor doing a study to treat other human beings as subjects; it’s another for the president of the United States to do it. There is a condescending, anti-republican quality to these statements. Rather than take opposition at face value – President Obama locates the hidden causes behind it, causes that his fellow citizens do not even understand themselves.
This is a terribly bad habit of President Obama's. It comes across as arrogant and condescending, and it doesn’t do a thing to help persuade people.
You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
This kind of dime store sociological explanation is pretty common for the president, despite the fact that it landed him in hot water back in the spring of 2008. These comments have three traits in common.
(a) He doesn’t really know what he’s talking about. Obama might seem like a sociological expert, but he really just plays one on television. For instance, explaining the cultural conservatism of small town Pennsylvania as an artifact of economic decline sounds extremely ill-informed to anybody with at least passing familiarity of the subject.
(b) Hardships generate a false consciousness that always seems to manifest itself as irrational opposition to...Obama. As far as Obama is concerned, the fact that the country is disappointed with his performance is not a sign that he hasn’t done what he promised, but that the country is not thinking clearly.
(c) He turns fellow citizens into sociological subjects. It is one thing for a professor doing a study to treat other human beings as subjects; it’s another for the president of the United States to do it. There is a condescending, anti-republican quality to these statements. Rather than take opposition at face value – President Obama locates the hidden causes behind it, causes that his fellow citizens do not even understand themselves.
This is a terribly bad habit of President Obama's. It comes across as arrogant and condescending, and it doesn’t do a thing to help persuade people.
Tancredo puts illegal immigration on front burner in Colorado
The surprise decision of Tom Tancredo to run as a third party candidate in Colorado’s gubernatorial election and his surprising (at least to the political establishment) surge in the polls has brought immigration to the forefront of the race.
VDARE.com readers are no doubt well aware of Tancredo’s record on immigration. But few people outside of Colorado have heard of his Democratic opponent, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper.
Tancredo just released an ad featuring Marat Kudlis, a legal European immigrant whose son had been killed by illegal alien Francis Hernandez. The father puts the blame on Hickenlooper’s sanctuary city policies:
“An illegal alien crashed into a Baskin Robbins store and killed my 3-year-old son Marten.
“The illegal alien had been arrested 16 times but never turned over to immigration because of the sanctuary city policies that Mayor Hickenlooper supports. I am sending you Marten’s picture, Mr. Mayor. Try to sleep at night knowing your policy contributed to his death.
“My wife and I are legal immigrants. Tom Tancredo is our choice for Governor.”
[Bad Policies Kill People, Tancredo for Governor, YouTube]
Hickenlooper’s campaign responded by claiming that there are no sanctuary policies in Denver:
“This case had nothing to do with John, but it’s these kinds of shameful, false attacks that Tom Tancredo has routinely used to grab headlines…His latest attempt to exploit a horrible tragedy to fill his own political coffers is sad, but not surprising.”
[Tancredo ad blames Hickenlooper’s policies for child’s death, by Karen Crummy Denver Post, October 12, 2010]
VDARE dealt with Hickenlooper’s sanctuary policies back in 2005 when an illegal alien employee of Hickenlooper’s killed a police officer. Denver’s policy is
“Generally, officers will not detain, arrest, or take enforcement action against a person solely because he/she is suspected of being an undocumented immigrant. If enforcement action is deemed necessary under these circumstances, the approval of an on duty supervisor or commander is required.”
Hickenlooper and his apologists claim that that Denver is not a sanctuary city because it is technically permissible for the police to “take enforcement action”. But in practice, this means that the Denver police never look up the legal status of those who are already arrested, even for serious crimes. This was the case with Hernandez.
State Senator Ted Harvey explained how Hickenlooper’s immigration policies work in practice:
“Denver police officers made less than 500 calls to ICE since 2006 out of over 250,000 total arrests, over 15,000 DUI arrests and over 500,000 traffic stops. Over 7,000 referrals were made to ICE by the Denver county jail for individuals already in custody. Hickenlooper consistently lumps the two numbers together—Denver police referrals and jail referrals—thereby misrepresenting the extent of Denver police contacts with ICE… in 2009, Denver police officers made only 105 ‘Refer to Immigration’ notes on arrest reports for 63,803 individuals arrested. That is less than .002% of arrests.”
VDARE.com readers are no doubt well aware of Tancredo’s record on immigration. But few people outside of Colorado have heard of his Democratic opponent, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper.
Tancredo just released an ad featuring Marat Kudlis, a legal European immigrant whose son had been killed by illegal alien Francis Hernandez. The father puts the blame on Hickenlooper’s sanctuary city policies:
“An illegal alien crashed into a Baskin Robbins store and killed my 3-year-old son Marten.
“The illegal alien had been arrested 16 times but never turned over to immigration because of the sanctuary city policies that Mayor Hickenlooper supports. I am sending you Marten’s picture, Mr. Mayor. Try to sleep at night knowing your policy contributed to his death.
“My wife and I are legal immigrants. Tom Tancredo is our choice for Governor.”
[Bad Policies Kill People, Tancredo for Governor, YouTube]
Hickenlooper’s campaign responded by claiming that there are no sanctuary policies in Denver:
“This case had nothing to do with John, but it’s these kinds of shameful, false attacks that Tom Tancredo has routinely used to grab headlines…His latest attempt to exploit a horrible tragedy to fill his own political coffers is sad, but not surprising.”
[Tancredo ad blames Hickenlooper’s policies for child’s death, by Karen Crummy Denver Post, October 12, 2010]
VDARE dealt with Hickenlooper’s sanctuary policies back in 2005 when an illegal alien employee of Hickenlooper’s killed a police officer. Denver’s policy is
“Generally, officers will not detain, arrest, or take enforcement action against a person solely because he/she is suspected of being an undocumented immigrant. If enforcement action is deemed necessary under these circumstances, the approval of an on duty supervisor or commander is required.”
Hickenlooper and his apologists claim that that Denver is not a sanctuary city because it is technically permissible for the police to “take enforcement action”. But in practice, this means that the Denver police never look up the legal status of those who are already arrested, even for serious crimes. This was the case with Hernandez.
State Senator Ted Harvey explained how Hickenlooper’s immigration policies work in practice:
“Denver police officers made less than 500 calls to ICE since 2006 out of over 250,000 total arrests, over 15,000 DUI arrests and over 500,000 traffic stops. Over 7,000 referrals were made to ICE by the Denver county jail for individuals already in custody. Hickenlooper consistently lumps the two numbers together—Denver police referrals and jail referrals—thereby misrepresenting the extent of Denver police contacts with ICE… in 2009, Denver police officers made only 105 ‘Refer to Immigration’ notes on arrest reports for 63,803 individuals arrested. That is less than .002% of arrests.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
