CNN Republican Debate

Regarding the controversy over the unscreened (and biased) questioners on the CNN Republican debate Wednesday night, my quick pair of pennies:

1¢: I tend to value the substance of the question more than the questioner. I like that they faced hard questions, although I wished that when the Democrats debated in the same format, they had the same quality questions.

2¢: My understanding of this debate's format was that these were supposed to be members of the American Public at the very least, preferentially undecided likely Republican voters and caucus goers. Instead, we get questions from activists in CAIR, LGBT Americans for Hillary, United Steelworkers of America, and about another half dozen groups. This should not have been the "CNN/Special Interest Debate." We already have too many problems in this country with special interests, we don't need CNN giving them special access to Presidential candidates.

CNN hit for planted questions
The Washington Times

CNN intended for political sparks to fly during Wednesday's Republican presidential debate, but outrage and accusations of partisanship were directed at the network instead.

The backlash started after it turned out that a homosexual retired soldier asking about "don't ask, don't tell" has an affiliation with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign. The network was forced to apologize and scrubbed the exchange from its repeat of the two-hour debate, even though the Clinton campaign says retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr was not acting on behalf of the Democratic presidential front-runner.

But things spiraled downward for CNN yesterday as bloggers - a more natural audience for a debate co-hosted by YouTube - held each questioner under a magnifying glass and found anti-Republican links ranging fro the Council on American-Islamic Relations to a pro-Democratic labor union. The network defended its choice of questioners and noted that it drew 5 million viewers - the most-watched primary debate every.

Reports flew on the Internet that at least nine of the 34 questions posed via YouTube videos - on topics ranging from corn subsidies to Social Security reform - came from voters who have ties to Democrats or a vested interest in asking the Republicans to go on record.

"Would it have killed CNN to Google some of these people?" conservative blogger Jason Coleman asked.

White guilt is positive?

A University of Texas at Austin press release came out earlier this month, and was mentioned in yesterday's Opinion Journal. The University studied a method of teaching children about racism and concluded that teaching both white and black children about racism. They conclude: "Challenging the idea that racism education could be harmful to students, a new study from The University of Texas at Austin found the results of learning about historical racism are primarily positive." What's odd, though, is this statement: "White children whose lessons included information on discrimination showed more defensiveness, had more racial guilt (if they were older than 7) and were less likely to accept stereotypical views about African Americans."

I agree with James Taranto over at Opinion Journal. It's very odd that they talk about racial guilt and personal defensiveness among white children learning these and don't talk about how that balances against the positive effects. This leads to one of two possibilities:

1. They consider "white guilt" to be a positive thing; or,
2. They consider "white guilt" to be an unavoidable consequence of education but it is balanced by fighting stereotypes.

Either way, further explanation of this in the press release would be very helpful.

White Children More Positive Toward Blacks
After Learning About Racism, Study Shows
The University of Texas at Austin

AUSTIN, Texas -- Challenging the idea that racism education could be harmful to students, a new study from The University of Texas at Austin found the results of learning about historical racism are primarily positive. The study appears in the November/December issue of the journal Child Development.

Psychologists Rebecca Bigler and Julie Milligan Hughes found white children who received history lessons about discrimination against famous African Americans had significantly more positive attitudes toward African Americans than those who received lessons with no mention of racism. African-American children who learned about racism did not differ in their racial attitudes from those who heard lessons that omitted the racism information, the study showed.

"There is a considerable debate about when and how children should be taught about racism," says Bigler, director of the university's Gender and Racial Attitudes Lab. "But little research has examined elementary-school-aged children's cognitive and emotional reactions to such lessons."

If even John Murtha says we're winning...

If even Rep. John Murtha is willing to admit that we're winning, then where do the rabid anti-war Democrats - and Senator Clinton - get off claiming once again that we're losing? More importantly, if we're winning then why are the Democrats so dedicated to either cutting off troop funding or forcing us to surrender?

Murtha finds military progress in trip to Iraq
Warns that Iraqis must do more for their own security
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. John Murtha today said he saw signs of military progress during a brief trip to Iraq last week, but he warned that Iraqis need to play a larger role in providing their own security and the Bush administration still must develop an exit strategy.

"I think the 'surge' is working," the Democrats said in a videoconference from his Johnstown office, describing the president's decision to commit more than 20,000 additional combat troops this year. But the Iraqis "have got to take care of themselves."

Violence has dropped significantly in recent months, but Mr. Murtha said he was most encouraged by changes in the once-volatile Anbar province, where locals have started working closely with U.S. forces to isolate insurgents linked to Al Qaeda.

He said Iraqis need to duplicate that success at the national level, but the central government in Baghdad is "dysfunctional."

Funniest story of the day...

This is one of the most idiotic stories I've recently read.

Tom Baldwin of The Times of London accused Matt Drudge of conspiring with Hillary Clinton to bolster her campaign while taking cheap shots at The Times of London.

Could you ever imagine Matt Drudge trying to help out Hillary Clinton? Hasn't The Times of London heard of Monica Lewinski? Could you ever imagine Hillary Clinton, of all people, looking to Matt Drudge as an ally?

It must be the guilt, fermenting within him, of directly causing the impeachment of our country's best President (well, at least the best President that was in office when Clinton was impeached).

Even better - this is an author who is defending his paper against a perceived accusation of spreading innuendo. How does this author mount a defense? By spreading innuendo: "Why would a 'Hillary confidante' do such a thing? The mind boggles. Could it be to provide cover for other - alleged - activities at Camp Clinton and its surrounding outposts?"

History according to a "Hillary confidante" (and Matt Drudge)
The Times of London

My collegue, Tim Reid, travelled down to South Carolina last week where he soon found himself up to his ankles in what he described as the "foulest swamp of electoral dirty tricks in America".

Tim wrote about some of the smears and innuendos already floating by in the Palmetto state. His second paragraph reported some of the extraordinary allegations being spread about Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, Fred Thompson and, oh yes, Hillary Clinton.

The purpose of this report (read it for yourselves) was not to suggest these claims were true, but to provide a measure of their nasty. For instance, I'm pretty sure Obama is not a "Muslim extremist".

Tim's article was duly picked up on Thursday by the Drudge Report and that, we thought was that.

The rich are getting poorer; the poor are getting richer

Thomas Sowell points out the secret truth that the Liberal Elite know too well but want to keep the masses from finding out: the Class War has been waged based on faulty intelligence.
For my entire life, the Democrats and the Liberal Elite in particular have been yelling loudly about "income inequality" and yammering nonsense about the "rich getting richer while the poor getting poorer." Never mind that the "poor" in America are largely food-secure, sheltered families with unimpeded access to plumbing, electricity, heat, cable television, and cellular phones. The Liberal Elite lament loudly that the "rich" are becoming more dominant. Of course, the Liberal Elite is large populated with ridiculously wealthy individuals such as Al Gore, John Kerry, and John Edwards, so they know a thing or two about arranging statistics to exclude themselves from the discussions.

However, Sowell points to a recent IRS study which tracks individual, not incoming bands, and sees how these individuals have progressed over ten years. The results? Half of those in the top 1% 10 years ago, and three quarters of those in the top 1/100th of 1% then, are not in those respective classes now. He does not point out more specifically that those in the bottom fifth of income have had their incomes doubled on average during that time period even after inflation is factored in.

What does this mean? America remains the one place in the world where someone like Bill Clinton or John Edwards can go from nothing to everything, built it himself most easily. America has the most opportunity to allow those in the bottom to work their way up, most opportunity for those at the top to fall, and we must resist the Liberal Elite's attempts at forming a dependant underclass which locks those within it in perpetual near-poverty.

That "Top One Percent"
Not an enduring class.
National Review Online

People who are in the top one percent in income receive far more than one percent of the attention in the media. Even aside from miscellaneous celebrity bimbos, the top one percent attracts all sorts of hand-wringing and finger-pointing.

A recent column by Anna Quindlen in Newsweek (or is that Newsweak?) laments that "the share of the nation's income going to the top 1 percent is at it's highest level since 1928."

Who are those top one percent? For those who would like to join them, the question is: How can you do that?

The second question is easy to answer. Virtually anyone who owns a home in San Francisco, no matter how modest that person's income may be, can join the top one percent instantly just by selling their house.

But that's only good for once year, you may say. What if they don't have another house to sell next year?

Well, they won't be in the top one percent again next year, will they? But that's not unusual.

Quote of the Day

"Those of you who live in Iowa, you have this extraordinary privilege. You are going to decide, more than probably any other American who the next president is going to be, who the next leader of the free world is going to be -- So I hope you all decide to take advantage of this opportunity."

- Senator Barack Obama, speaking to a crowd in Iowa.

Note also that Barack Obama has cooperated with the DNC's efforts to disenfranchise the voters in Michigan and Florida, going so far as to removing his name from the Michigan primary ballots. What concerns me the most about Barack Obama is that he seems to exemplify the Liberal Elite position: choosing the next leader of our country is a "privilege" which is dolled out by the powerful to certain special groups at the exclusion of others; voting is not a right to the Liberal Elite or to Barack Obama; it is a "privilege" which is allocated in "extraordinary" fashion, with differing weights given to different votes based on arbitrary historical esotary, the whims of the powerful, or whatever special interest happens to have either the ear or the pocketbook of the decision-makers.

Wikipedia's bias?

On Wikipedia, I noticed that the blog entry for "Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction" had a factual error. It indicated that no weapons were found after the invasion. I edited this to correct the entry, using the declassified report of chemical weapons found in Iraq from the U.S. Congress released last year. I changed it to state that a small number of pre-1991 weapons had been found, including mustard gas and sarin nerve gas and the artillery shells used to deliver these weapons. I used an electronic copy of the U.S. Congressional report as a source, and sourced the entry correctly. The edit has been removed twice with a threat to ban me from the site.

Hitch is again off his rocker

I'm generally a fan of Christopher Hitchens' writing. Even when he's writing about something that I stridently disagree with, he usually does so with intelligence, thoughtful purpose, and passion. Today's article published in Slate, however, has little of that. Mr. Hitchens questions why Mitt Romney shouldn't be asked about his faith and questions Gov. Romney's assertion that it is un-American to bring up faith as a qualification for the office of President.

The U.S. Constitution is very clear on the issue and answers both questions flawlessly: Article VI states that "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." That does include Mormonism, no matter how personally repugnant Mr. HItchens may consider its tenants or how fickle he considers their positions. He goes on to slander the religion by comparing it to the KKK and to the Nation of Islam, both groups which have religious identities but not religions in their own right.

What's particularly surprising about the issue is that Mr. Hitchens' own religious views as an atheist would be more objectionable to most voters that Gov. Romney's views as a Mormon. We live in a nation where voters would rather have a fundamentalist Muslim or a Mormon as President than an atheist. Instead of trying to stir up religious persecution of a minority group that he finds offensive, he should shut up so as not to stir up further persecution of individuals with whom he shares ideology.

Mitt the Mormon
Why Romney Needs To Talk About His Faith
Fighting Words for Slate

Mitt Romney appears to think that, in respect of the bizarre beliefs of his church, he has come up with a twofer response. Not only can he decline to answer questions about these beliefs, he can also reap additional benefit from complaining that people keep asking him about them. In a video response of revolting sanctimony and self-pity last week, he responded to some allegedly anti-Mormon "push pull" calls in Iowa and New Hampshire by saying that it was "un-American" to bring up his "faith," especially "at a time when we are preparing for Thanksgiving," whatever that had to do with it. Additional interest is lent to this evasive tactic by the very well-argued case, made by Mark Hemmingway in National Review Online, that it was actually the Romney campaign that had initiated the ant-Mormon push-poll calls in the first place! What's that? A threefer? Let me count the ways: You encourage the raising of an awkward question in such a way as to make it seem illegitimate. You then strike a hurt attitude and say that you are being persecuted for your faith. This, in turn, discourages other reporters from raising the question. Yes, that's a three card monte.

According to Byron York, who has been riding around with Romney for National Review, it's working, as well. Most journalists have tacitly agreed that it's off-limits to ask the former governor about the tenents of the Mormon cult. Nor do they get much luck if they do ask: When Rob Schieffer of Face the Nation inquired whether Mormons believe that the Garden of Eden is or was or will be in the great state of Missouri, he was told by Romney to go ask the Mormons! However, we do have the governor in an off-guard moment in Iowa, saying that "The [Mormon] Church says that Christ appears and splits the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. ...And then, over a thousand years of the millennium, that the world is reigned in two places, Jerusalem and Missouri. ...The law will come from Missouri, and the other will be from Jerusalem."

It ought to be borne in mind that Romney is not a mere rank-and-file Mormon. His family is, and has been for generations, part of the dynastic leadership of the mad cult invented by the convicted fraud Joseph Smith. It is not just legitimate that he be asked about the beliefs that he has not just held, but has caused to be spread and caused to be inculcated into children. It is essential. Here is the most salient reason: Until 1978, the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was an officially racist organization. Mitt Romney was an adult in 1978. We need to hear how he justified this to himself, and we need to hear his self-criticism, if he should chance to have one.

A win for democracy in Michigan...

The Michigan Supreme Court has reinstated Michigan's January 15th primary.

Michigan court OKs early primary
USA Today

LANSING, Mich. -- Michigan's Jan. 15 presidential primary is a go again.

Overturning a pair of lower court rulings, a majority of the state Supreme Court Wednesday morning found the law setting the primary date and granting exclusive access to voter lists from it to the Democratic and Republican parties was not unconstitutional.

The 4-3 decision, after a string of setbacks for the seemingly star-crossed election, means the vote can be held as planned.

State election officials had said they needed to know the primary's fate by noon Wednesday to have time to prepare and deliver absentee ballots.

The court majority said reserving lists of voters (sorted by which primary ballot is chosen at the polls) to the two parties was within the authority of the Legislation and governor when they approved the primary bill last summer.

San Francisco, sanctuary city for identify thiefs

San Francisco is issuing ID cards to any individual who lives in the city. These would be usable for a variety of services and would exclude gender identification, would be issued without regard to legal immigration status, and would require only a very simple determination of residence such as a bill. According to some reports, they may even exclude photographs. They would not be matched with legal name identifications, so even if you change your name legally you could obtain an id with your old name or even with a completely different, made-up name.

What's really upsetting about this has to do with how it will affect banking. I have serious issues with ID cards that are accepted for banking which:

1. Are so easy to obtain that you only need a phone bill to obtain one.
2. Do not have a photograph.
3. Do not match the name on state issued ID cards.
4. Are issued to individuals who the Federal government has not had a chance to ensure are not terrorists or drug smugglers.
5. Are not subjected to ensuring that the name matches the legal name of the card holder.

This is such a ridiculously large hole in financial protections afforded to banks that it's shocking. The ability for con artists, identity thieves, and defrauders to operate easily in San Francisco leads one to expect massive increases in white collar crime.

San Fransisco approves ID cards that exclude gender
USA Today

Next year, San Francisco will issue municipal identifications cards showing the usual name, birthday, and photo.

What the card won't include: gender.

When other cities considered issuing ID cards without regard to legal status, the debate was over illegal immigrants. In San Francisco, where the Board of Supervisors approved such an ID on Tuesday, transgender activists added gender to the discussion.

"Transgender" is a broad term for people who do not identify with their birth sex. Those who refer to themselves as transgender include cross-dressers and transsexuals.

Have they taken the final step?

The budget battle between the Democrats and the Administration over funding has moved to the point of ridiculousness. It's a disgusting shame that people like Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, and Harry Reid are not only playing politics with funding the troops but are accusing the Administration of doing the same.

In fact, it's going a step further. The new stance of the Democrats is that the only two options for the Administration are either engaging in operations in Iraq absent of funding or precipitously, immediately retreating just now as the war has moved fully into a wind-down victory stage. What is particularly galling is that the Democrats seem to have moved beyond their immoral use of the troops as political pawns, moved beyond merely hoping that the U.S. loses the war in Iraq but now appear to be actively working to ensure our defeat.

Beyond unacceptable, beyond immoral, if the Democrats do not back down from this push towards defeat for the troops, back down from their attempts to deny funding for essential war operations, back down from their desire to turn victory into defeat then they are clearly and unambiguously operating at odds with the country. Holding to these attempts to ensure defeat is not patriotic descent. It is treason.

Democrats: Don't do this. Support the troops. Give them the money they need to be safe. Let them stay in Iraq to complete the job they're so close to completing. You say that you're patriotic. If so, stop using the troops as pawns; stop trying to push for our country's defeat. We are a nation at war. Start acting like it.

Dems Says Pentagon Using Scare Tactics
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - In their latest tussle with the White House on the Iraq war, two leading House Democrats said Tuesday the Pentagon was using scare tactics to try to goad Congress into passing another war spending bill.

And Reps. David Obey and John Murtha said they won't budge. Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and Murtha, D-Pa., head of the panel's Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said they won't support more money for the war this year unless President Bush accepts a timetable for troop withdrawals.

Last week, the House passed a $50 billion bill that would keep operations afloat for several more months, but sets a goal of bringing most troops home by December 2008. After Bush threatened to veto the measure, Senate Republicans blocked it.

"If the president wants that $50 billion released, all he has to do is to call the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, and ask him to stop blocking it," Obey told reporters.

Yellow journalism is alive and well

The Independent (a London, U.K. based newspaper) reports that scientists there are about 10 years away from curing mitochondrial disease by merging the egg of one woman with mitochondria from a second woman, then using these to merge with a sperm to create an embryo. The Independent, in one of the most ridiculous cases of yellow journalism I've seen outside of the New York Time's "Al Qaeda in Iraq" euphemism*, calls this "Babies made by cloning techniques from the DNA of two women could be born within 10 years as ministers prepare to give the green light for embryos produced by biological material from three 'parents'."

Oh, come on. This has nothing to do with cloning, genetic alteration, or even DNA. They're talking about taking mitochondria; these aren't part of the human DNA. They're a separate organism that complex life has absorbed hundreds of millions of years ago. This has nothing at all to do with cloning or genes. It's horrifyingly irresponsible for the writer of this article to get such a ridiculously basic biological fact wrong.

*The New York Times requires its reports to refer to Al Qaeda in Iraq as "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni extremist group that American intelligence agencies say is led by foreigners" every time they refer to the group, despite the fact that it was created by a Jordanian and consists principally of Saudis, Jordanians, Pakistanis, and Syrians (thus, not "homegrown") and pledges allegiance to (and is accepted by) Osama bin Laden. They do this principally to discredit the U.S. operations in Iraq, also referring to action there as "occupation" even though the U.S. is there at the behest of a democratically elected government, is operating under U.N. Security Council resolutions, and does not control the government.

The cloning revolution: Ministers to back controversial change to law
The Independent

Babies made by cloning techniques from the DNA of two women could be born within 10 years as ministers prepare to give the green light for embryos produced by biological material from three "parents". A new law, to be debated in the House of Commons tomorrow, opens the door for such hybrid eggs to be implanted in women.

The novel procedure is designed to find a cure for mitochondrial disease, a range of life-threatening conditions that affect one in 10,000 people.

The development has delighted scientists who say it will usher in a new wave of groundbreaking genetic research that could prevent thousands of children from being born with debilitating diseases.

But Christian groups and campaigners concerned about developments in human genetics have reacted with horror at what they see as the beginning of human cloning and the approval of "Frankenstein science."

The novel procedure is designed to find a cure for mitochondrial disease, a range of life-threatening conditions that affect one in 10,000 people.

Squander your water like this and don't ask for ours

In Arizona, a developer is planning to create a 125-acre water park in the middle of the desert. What's particularly galling about this is two-fold: 1) This adds to the massive number of golf courses which waste water, throwing it up into the atmosphere instead of using it for drinking water, crop irrigation, or erosion management; 2) Arizona's congressional representation have a long history of pushing for "nationalizing" water resources, code-works for diverting water from the Great Lakes to Arizona.

Thankfully, the representation of the Great Lakes states have been very clear about opposing diversion of Great Lakes water; however, a time may come in the future where this sort of ridiculous waste will lead the rest of the nation to divert water from the upper-Midwest to the rest of the nation. We must immediately move to make this legal.

Huge Water Park Planned for Ariz. Desert
Developers Plan Massive Water Park in Arizona Desert; Project Would Use 100M Gallons a Year
ABC News

MESA, Ariz. (AP) - By tapping rivers and sucking water from deep underground, developers have covered Arizona with carpets of Bermuda grass and dotted the parched landscape with swimming pools, golf courses and lakeshore homes.

Now another ambitious project is in the works: A massive new water park that would offer surf-sized waves, snorkeling, scuba diving and kayaking - all in a bone-dry region that gets just 8 inches of rain a year.

"It's about delivering a sport that's not typically available in an urban environment," said Richard Mladick, a Mesa real-estate developer who persuaded business leaders in suburban Mesa to support the proposal called the Waveyard.

Artists' drawings of the park show surfers gliding through waves that crash onto a sandy beach and kayakers navigating the whitecaps of a wide, rolling river. Families watch the action from beneath picnic umbrellas. If constructed, the park would use as much as 100 million gallons of groundwater a year.

Mladick, 39, said he wanted to create the kind of lush environment he remembers from growing up in Virginia Beach, Va., and surfing in Morocco, Indonesia, Hawaii, and Brazil.

"I couldn't imagine raising my kids in an environment where they wouldn't have the opportunity to grow up being passionate about the same sports that I grew up being passionate about," he said.

The APs problems with photographers

A terrorist posing as a photographer and infiltrating the AP is set to be charged with terrorism in an Iraqi court, according to AFP reports. He was captured at his home with bomb-making materials, insurgent propaganda, and surveillance photographs of military installations.

The problem with the situation is the AFP's view of the situation as a matter of criminal behavior, they say he "has been held for more than 19 months without charges in US military custody." The U.S. government has allowed the ridiculous mindset that individuals captured on the field of battle somehow are criminal defendants. They are not. They are militarty combatants. The best resolution is for the U.S. government to reclassify these individuals as prisoners of war, even though they are correctly classified as unlawful combatants. By granting them POW status in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, we can avoid the messy complication of the media expecting that these people will be dealth with as criminals instead of under the Geneva Conventions as combatants.

We need to make this very clear distinction: terrorism is an illegal act of war. It is not a criminal offense. We must treat these people as POWs first and war criminals second and must avoid using the criminal system. We tried for years to treat terrorism as a police and criminal matters, with horrible consequences.

US military accuses AP photographer of being "terrorist media operative"
AFP

The US military has filed a formal complaint with an Iraqi criminal court accusing a detained, award-winning Associated Press photographer of being a "terrorist media operative," the Pentagon said Monday.

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said the military made the complaint about Bilal Hussein, who has been held for more than 19 months without charges in US military custody, to Iraq's Central Criminal Court.

"We believe Bilal Hussein was a terrorist media operative who infiltrated the AP," he said. "MNF-I possesses convincing and irrefutable evidence that Bilal Hussein is a threat to security and stability as a link to insurgent activity."

Morrell said an investigative hearing into the case by the court is scheduled to begin on or after November 28.

Why isn't this obvious?

Nancy Pelosi is attempting to block legislation to allow companies to require that their employees speak a common language. I frankly have no idea how anyone could possibly have a problem with this. The ability to communicate within a company is essential. How can you work with someone if you don't speak the same language? Were I to get a job for Volkswagen and the requirement was that I speak German, then I'd sure as hell better learn German. Communication within a company is essential. Trying to require companies to hire employees who can't communicate with each other is ridiculous.

Mi Casa, Su Casa
Nancy Pelosi tries to force the Salvation Army to hire people who can't speak English
Opinion Journal for The Wall Street Journal

It's been less than a week since New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Gov. Eliot Spitzer had to climb down from their support of driver's licenses for illegal aliens. Now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has moved to kill an amendment that would protect employers from federal lawsuits for requiring their workers to speak English. Among the employers targeted by such lawsuits: The Salvation Army.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, a moderate Republican from Tennessee, is dumbstruck that legislation he views as simple common sense would be blocked. He noted that the full Senate passed his amendment to shield the Salvation Army by 75-19 last month, and the House followed suit with a 218-186 vote last month. "I cannot imagine that the framers of the 1964 Civil Rights Act intended to say that it's discrimination for a shoe shop owner to say to his or her employee, 'I want you to be able to speak America's common language on the job,'" he told the Senate last Thursday.

But that's exactly what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is trying to do. In March the EEOC sued the Salvation Army because its thrift store in Framingham, Mass., required its employees to speak English on the job. The requirement was clearly posted and employees were given a year to learn the language. The EEOC claimed the store had fired two Hispanic employees for continuing to speak Spanish on the job. It said that the firings violated the law because the English-only policy was not "relevant" to job performance or safety.

"If it's not relevant, it is discriminatory, it is gratuitous, it is subterfuge to discriminate against people based on national origin," says Rep. Charles Gonzalez of Texas, one of several Hispanic Democrats in the House who threatened to block Ms. Pelosi's attempts to curtail the Alternative Minimum Tax unless she killed the Alexander amendment.

Bring them here!

Daniel Byman, writing for Slate, calls for the U.S. to dramatically expand its acceptance of Iraqi immigrants. He bases this on two justifications: morality and strategic interest. Both are pretty straightforward. As we invaded the country, it is our responsibility to deal with its ramifications. The displacement of Iraqis has the potential to create the sort of discontent that the displacement of Palestinians has caused.

I'd like to add a third criteria: an economic one. The people of Iraq tend to be well educated and secular, particularly those who have been displaced. We should very easily to be able to attract Iraqi engineers, doctors, nurses, and scientists in addition to providing for humanitarian and strategic interest concerns. Bringing in highly qualified immigrants will be a boon for our nation, particularly here in Detroit where we have the ability to acclimate Arab immigrants and the desperate need for hard-working, well-educated individuals willing to work to build up our local economy.

The Next Phase of the Iraq War
Why We Must Welcome Thousands of Iraqi Refugees To The United States
Foreigners for Slate

Rarely do morality and strategy come together in the Middle East - particularly in the case of Iraq. Yet there is one area where the right thing to do for Iraq is also the best option for America's long-term interests: preventing the Iraqi refugee crisis from further destabilizing the region. So far, the debate in the United States has focused on the fates of Iraqis who have worked with U.S. diplomats and soldiers, as translators, and so on. Although these individuals are owed a special debt, our responsibility does not end there. The United States should accept tens of thousands of refugees and must encourage other major powers to do the same. Washington should also initiate a program to boost the capacity of neighboring states to host refugees and prevent them from becoming a source of instability.

Although casualty reports dominate the headlines, Iraq is also suffering a staggering exodus of refugees. More than 2 million Iraqis - from a total population of 27 million - have fled the chaos, and the numbers grow every day. (Even more Iraqis have fled their homes but have resettled in other parts of Iraq, thus technically avoiding the label "refugee.") So far, the migrants have clustered in nations close to Iraq, particularly in Syria and Jordan. The U.S. efforts to help these refugees have ranged from feeble to nonexistent. The United States has so far taken in barely more than 1,000 refugees but will reportedly boost this to 12,000 next year: a significant percentage increase on the surface but only when the absurdly low base rate is considered.

It is both morally abhorrent and strategically ill-advised to abandon these refugees. To state the obvious, the U.S. failure to establish security in Iraq drove them to leave their homes. Literally millions of people have fled under horrific circumstances, and the United States bears much of that responsibility. Americans may, understandably, say that they can no longer sacrifice to bring stability to Iraq, but that does not excuse us from the broader duty to help those who continue to suffer.

Putting aside our moral responsibility, the United States needs to take in refugees to offset significant strategic risks. The 1948 Israeli war of independence produced more than 700,000 refugees. Almost 60 years later, the region still suffers from the failure to solve this refugee problem. The Palestinian refugee crisis contributed to wars between Israel and its neighbors in 1956, 1967, 1982, as well as to Israel's constant terrorism problem.

Few Iraqi refugees are incorporated into the nations that are hosting them, but there is no prospect that they will return to Iraq in large numbers in the near future. It would not be surprising if, 20 years from now, millions of Iraqis still lived outside their home country. In other words, this problem will not disappear if we ignore it.

A new paradigm

An interesting article from The Detroit Free Press this morning points out an interesting twist to the new UAW agreements with Ford and GM. With the shift of retiree health care from being a corporate responsibility to being a responsibility of a trust being managed by the UAW, the two companies gave the UAW the ability to convert debt owned by Ford and GM to the trusts into stock in the company. This gives the UAW the potential to own 16% of GM and 15% of Ford.

The potential for this is staggering: instead of an adversarial relationship, this would turn GM and Ford into a company which is largely employee-owned; basically the world's two biggest co-op companies. This would help hasten the company towards the new paradigm they need for survival: cooperation between the Union and the companies in order to beat back the non-Union foreign automakers, the Democrats trying to give amnesty to illegals and dramatically increase CAFE standards, and to reach broadly into new foreign markets and take control of the North American market once again.

UAW's new role: Shareholder
Health trust could own key chunks of Ford, GM
The Detroit Free Press

The UAW, traditionally a mighty force in the struggle of Labor against Capital, could be on the brink of a new role: Detroit's biggest stockholder.

New 4-year labor agreements that UAW members ratified with the Detroit automakers shift retiree health costs to an independent trust under the auspices of the union, which could take control of hundreds of millions of shares of General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. The fact that the UAW could virtually be holding almost one-sixth of the equity in the nation's two biggest automakers could drive profound changes in the way the union thinks and acts, experts say.

"Equity as part of the VEBA does bring the UAW membership into being an investor group," said David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor.

"What we are witnessing is the transformation from a confrontational way of working to one of collaboration, which is absolutely necessary."

GM = "Green Motors?"

A Detroit Free Press article this morning reports that the Chevrolet Tahoe hybrid has won the Green Car of the Year award at the L.A. auto show. Of the five finalists, three were GM vehicles - the Tahoe, the Saturn Aura Hybrid, and the Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid. GM appears to be abandoning the small-car hybrid market to Toyota in order to concentrate on midsize cars, trucks, and SUVs. Being the first to market with a full-size hybrid SUV (the Tahoe) combined with their other hybrid products (the Saturn VUE, Aura, and Malibu) should help encourage consumers on the coasts to give GM a try once again. Here's to hoping that this helps the company's - and Michigan's - turnaround.

Green In A Big Way
Hybrid Tahoe's honor helps Chevy redo image
The Detroit Free Press

LOS ANGELES - Chevrolet's new campaign to establish itself as an environmentally friendly brand got an early endorsement when its Tahoe hybrid full-size SUV was named Green Car of the Year at the Los Angeles Auto Show on Thursday.

The hybrid Tahoe is a revolutionary vehicle that combines the room and capabilities SUV owners need with a 50% increase in city fuel economy to 21 m.p.g., Green Car Journal editor and publisher Ron Cogan said. The hybrid is to go on sale early next year. No price has been set.

"This is a milestone in many respects", he said. "People don't think green when SUVs are concerned and generally for good reason. Chevrolet's Tahoe hybrid changes this dynamic."

The Tahoe's win capped a strong performance for General Motors, which also placed its Saturn Aura and Chevrolet Malibu hybrid midsize sedans among the five finalists. The Nissan Altima sedan and Mazda Tribute SUV were the other finalists for the award, which is given by the editors of Green Car Journal and a panel of outside judges that includes performance-car legend Carroll Shelby and undersea explorer Jean-Michel Cousteau.

Reassuring developments?

The IAEA has released a report stating that Iran is being generally truthful about their nuclear program. What is still troubling about the entire issue, however, is that there is little difference between refining uranium for power production use and refining it for military use. The EU, Russia, and the U.S. have offered to construct reactors for Iran and supply them with non-weapon use nuclear fuel but Iran has demurred; they do not trust having foreign countries in control of their energy resources.

What makes this particularly frightening is that Iran, while not directly providing oil to the U.S., nonetheless can exert tremendous influence on our energy supply. If Iran is concerned about U.S. influence on their energy supply why do we stand for Iran having influence on our own energy supply?

Report: Iran mostly honest on nuclear issue
But U.N. agency says its knowledge base is shrinking
MSNBC News

VIENNA, Austria - A report from the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency on Thursday found Iran to be generally truthful about key aspects of its nuclear history, but it warned that its knowledge of Tehran's present atomic work was shrinking.

The International Atomic Energy Agency report, released to its 35 board members, also confirmed that Tehran continued to defy the U.N. Security Council by ignoring its repeated demands to freeze uranium enrichment, a potential pathway to nuclear arms.

The White House said it would continue to push for a third round of U.N. sanctions against Iran despite the findings.

"We believe that selective cooperation is not good enough," White House press secretary Dana Perino said.

Quote of the Day

"[T]he Democrats who run Congress have an 11 percent job approval rating. Let's just note that in my polling in 1995, O.J. Simpson was at 16 percent."

-- John Zogby

This is why people hate HIllary

I was over at Slate.com and they have their "XX" feature where a few of their female opinion writers collaborate on a blog. They've been pretty universally furious about the "How do we beat the bitch?" question asked to John McCain this week. Their argument, however, is that people hate Senator Clinton and want her to fail because she's a woman. I don wonder where their anger was when Condoleezza Rice was being called much worse than that. The the point, though, the entire "don't pick on her because she is a woman" argument is getting trite.

ABC News revealed today that people who received some of President Clinton's final-hour pardons have donated money to her campaign. Considering the millions of dollars that was paid by the family and friends of the pardoned criminals to the Clinton's (through their infamous "wedding" registry, the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library, and President Clinton's legal defense fund), their family members, and political organizations of their choosing, it should come as no surprise to anyone that Senator Clinton is accepting dirty money from criminals her husband pardoned. Don't forget, of course, that this group includes a group of terrorists convicted of heinous acts of violence.

The "don't pick on her because she's a woman" line needs to be turned around; non one is "picking" on Senator Clinton. She's taking the heat she deserves for being a two-faced, dirty, apparently corrupt, special-interests-focused, condescending, hypocritical, and fake politician. What the people calling for a reduction is criticism are really saying is "because she's a woman, don't pick on her."

Pardon Me?
Hillary Clinton Takes Cash From Recipients of Husband's Controversial Pardons
ABC News

Three recipients of controversial 11th-hour pardons issued by former President Bill Clinton is January 2001 have donated thousands of dollars to the presidential campaign of his wife, Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., according to campaign finance records examined by ABC News, in what some good government groups said created an appearance of impropriety.

"It's not illegal," Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told ABC News. "But, of course, it's inappropriate and she should return the money. It does raise the appearance that this is payback."

"One can only hope that she wasn't yet aware of who made the donations," said Sloane.

"We have raised over $65 million from over 200,000 people," said Clinton campaign manager Howard Wolfson, adding sarcastically, "I appreciate your bringing the instance of this $5,300 and these three people to our attention."

Pardonees Donate to Clinton

One of the pardonees who has become a donor to Sen. Clinton is David Herdlinger, a former prosecutor in Springdale, Ark., who, according to press accounts at the time of his pardon pleaded guilty in 1986 to mail fraud after taking bribes to reduce or drop charges against defendants charged with drunken driving offenses.

Now a life and business coach in Georgia, Herdlinger was pardoned by President Clinton in January 2001; he donated $1,000 to Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign in August.

Insurance agent Alfredo Regalado, who have Hillary Clinton $2,000, was pardoned by her husband for failing to "report the transportation of currency in excess of $10,000 into the United States," according to the Department of Justice.

If this doesn't prove the system is broken...

According to a poll reported in ABC News, in Iowa, the two leading Republican candidates are - Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Governors Romney and Huckabee are both way behind in national polls, both trialling Senators McCain and Thompson and Mayor Giuliani. Why do we have a process which skews so heavily to a couple of states which are so out of touch with the rest of the country.

Poll: Top Democrats Deadlocked in Iowa
Huckabee Catching Up to Romney Among Hawkeye State Republicans
November 13, 2007

Democrats and Republicans are both headed toward heated showdowns in Iowa, where, according to a new CBS News / New York Times poll, Hillary Clinton holds a statistically insignificant lead over John Edwards and Barack Obama, and GOP hopeful Mitt Romney finds his long-held position as the state's front-runner challenged by a surging Mike Huckabee.

The situation in Iowa, where nominating caucuses are scheduled for Jan. 3, is in stark contrast to New Hampshire, where Clinton and Romney continue to hold large leads among those likely to vote in the state's first-in-the-nation primary, which would come only two days after Iowa's contests.

But in both states, large chunks of voters have yet to make up their minds, meaning the results of the contests that will kick off the 2008 nominating season are still difficult to predict.

In Iowa, the Democratic contest is knotted up. Among likely caucus-goers, Clinton came out on top with 25 percent support, but she was trailed closely by Edwards at 23 percent, and Obama at 22 percent. With a margin of error of 4 percentage points, there is no clear leader. Trailing behind was Bill Richardson, at 12 percent, with all other candidates in single digits.

If this doesn't prove the point...

If this story doesn't prove that our immigration system is broken, nothing does. An illegal immigrant whose family members are under indictment for funding the terrorist group Hezbollah was able to obtain sensitive jobs at the CIA and FBI. She was then able to use those positions to look into the government's investigation of her family's alleged illegal acts.

If this doesn't show that we have a very serious problem with immigration and identity, then I don't know what will. Why we have any objection at all to biometric identifications in light of this is completely beyond me.

Fake U.S. citizen got FBI secrets from files
Hiring missed La Shish, terror links
Detroit Free Press

In an embarrassing breach of national security, a former metro Detroit woman whose family is suspected of having links to a Lebanese terrorist group got sensitive jobs at the FBI and CIA despite being an illegal immigrant, authorities said Tuesday.

Worse, they said, Nada Nadim Prouty, 37, of Vienna, Va., used her position at the FBI to access a classified computer system to find out whether she or her family members -- including fugitive La Shish restaurant chain owner Tatal Chahine -- were being investigated for terrorist activities. She also took home classified FBI information.

Prouty accessed the system a second time to find out about a Detroit-based investigation involving Hizballah.

Prouty, who resigned from the CIA last week, pleaded guilty to the charges Tuesday in Detroit.

Entitlement spending since 2002 cost family of 4 $146,300

The AP has a story reporting on a partisan "study" done by the Democrats which states that the 7 year cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from 2002 to 2007 will cost a family of four $20,900. This is based on the assumption that the wars together cost a total of $1.6 trillion.

Of course, during this time the nation has directly spend over $7 trillion on entitlement spending with no effect on poverty rates among children or working age adults. Why aren't the Democrats harking about that amount? Using their "math" - remember, this is the same math - remember, this is the same math which states that 50% of taxpayers paying 3% of federal income taxes is unfairly high - entitlement spending over the same period of time costs that family $146,300. Of course, this $7 trillion for entitlement is actually spending and not some trumped up number which assumes it is accountable for 100% of the budget deficit or other mysterious hidden costs that apparently you need to be a Liberal Elite to see.

I'm not going to even mention that they're now apparently considering that the war in Afghanistan is not worth funding.

Dems: U.S. wars cost family of 4 $20,900
Detroit News

WASHINGTON - The economic costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to total $1.6 trillion - roughly double the amount the White House has requested thus far, according to a new report by Democrats on Congress' Joint Economic Committee.

The report, released Tuesday, attempted to put a price tag on the two conflicts, including hidden costs such as interest payments on money borrowed to pay for the wars, lost investment, the expense of long-term health care required for injured veterans and the cost of oil market disruptions.

The $1.6 trillion figure, for the period from 2002 to 2008, translates into a cost of $20,900 for a family of four, the report said. The Bush administration has requested $804 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, the report stated.

For the Iraq war only, total economic costs were estimated at $1.3 trillion for the period from 2002 to 2008. That would costs a family of four $16,500, the report said.

TMQ versus Al Gore

Gregg Easterbrook, the Brookings Scholar and ESPN football writer, is a passionate environmentalist. Unlike many environmentalists, however, he is adamantly against the dishonesty, self-promotion, and hypocrisy with which many environmentalists treat their work. In today's Tuesday Morning Quarterback column, he takes serious aim at Al Gore. It's well down the page if you want to read more. I'd strongly suggest doing so. His column is a great piece of writing and always worth a look.

Those Hollywood Searchlights Around Gore's Home Sure Eat Power
Tuesday Morning Quarterback for ESPN

Gore wasn't the first quack to win the Nobel Peace Prize, and history suggests he will not be the last. Gore spent eight years in the White House, and in that time took no meaningful action regarding greenhouse gases. The Clinton-Gore administration did not raise fuel economy standards for cars and trucks or propose domestic carbon trading. Though Clinton and Gore made a great show of praising the Kyoto Protocol, they refused even to submit the treaty to the Senate for consideration, let alone push for ratification. During his 2000 run for the presidency, Gore said little about climate change or binding global-warming reforms. In the White House and during his presidential campaign, Gore advocated no consequential action regarding greenhouse gases; then, there was a political cost attached. Once Gore was out of power and global-warming proposals no longer carried a political cost - indeed, could be used for self-promotion - suddenly Gore discovered his intense desire to demand that other leaders do what he had not! It is a triumph of postmodernism that Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for no specific accomplishment other than making a movie of self-praise. Gore caused no peace nor led to any reconciliation of belligerent parties nor performed any service to the dispossessed, the achievements the Peace Prize was created to honor. All Gore did was promote himself from Hollywood, and for this, he gets a Nobel. Very postmodern.

An annoying complication of Gore's Nobel is that few realize the award was given jointly to him and to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organization well worthy of distinction. The IPCC is a group of scientists who have spent two decades studying climate change n obscurity, and in many cases without pay. The IPCC's efforts have been selfless, motivated only by concern for society. Had the Nobel Peace Prize gone solely to the IPCC, it would have been a great day.

An astonishing measure of how out-of-touch the Norwegian Nobel Committee seems is that it gave a prize to Gore for hectoring others about energy consumption in the same year it was revealed that Gore, at his home, uses 20 times the national power average. Gore's extraordinary power waste equates to about 377,000 pounds of greenhouse gases annually, or about 20 Hummer Years worth of global warming pollution. (A Hummer Year, TMQ's metric of environmental hypocrisy, is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted in a typical year of driving a Hummer). When his utility bill made the news - though apparently not in Oslo - Gore responded by saying he buys carbon offsets. That takes you back to the offset problem: All offsets do is prevent greenhouse gas accumulation from increasing. If you really believe there will be a global calamity unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced 80 percent, as Gore told the Live Earth crowd, you would not by carbon offsets and cut your own energy use. Instead, Gore flies around in fossil-fuel-intensive jet aircraft telling others: Do as I say, not as I do!

After news of Gore's personal energy consumption broke, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider told The Associated Press the utility bill was justified because "Al and Tipper both work out of their home." This raises the question - what kind of work are they doing? Perhaps reanimating Frankenstein; in Frankenstein movies, there is always a lot of electricity crackling wastefully about. Here are other possible reasons the Gores' home requires so much energy:

• Gore is building a time machine to return to Palm Beach, Fla., in October 2000.
• The former vice president is doing everything he personally can to cause global warming, so he can claim his predictions came true.
• Gore is growing marijuana in his basement. (Note from the corporate legal department: This is strictly a joke, ESPN is not accusing Al Gore of growing marijuana. We stand by our allegation that he is a sinister kingpin of international rare-bird smuggling.)
• Members of Gore's species require high power levels to maintain human form.
• Al and Tipper don't just leave the lights on when they make out, they leave the lights on all over the house.
  

Biggest non-story of the year

Why is anyone writing this story? It must have been a ridiculously slow news day.

Falling Flags
Political Radar for ABC News

It's been a rough stretch for Hillary Clinton -- a tough debate performance, a lost voice, and the revelation that the Clinton campaign had been coaching questioners at events.

Then, on Sunday, everything started falling down around her.

After a very Presidential-esque news conference - Clinton turned around to leave the reporters and their peppering questions. A staffer swooped open a curtain, and chaos ensues. Four large American flags came crashing in front of Senator Clinton as she headed for the door. In a controlled panic, the staffers and the Senator attempted to catch the flags before they fell to the ground.

"I think the bases are not weighted enough," Clinton said as she propped flags back up. One of Clinton's aides quickly summoned the advance man in charge to assist in the crisis.

Why can't the Freep do math?

The Detroit Free Press is once again advocating a massive release of criminals from our state's prisons. This isn't a surprise; what is a surprise, though, is their justification:

"Michigan's incarceration rate - 502 inmates per 100,000 people - is out of wack. It is by far the highest in the Great Lakes region - Illinois, for example, is 354, Ohio is 414 - and eight-highest among the 50 states, according to the latest report from the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics. The state's staggering prison costs might be worth it if Michigan also was among the lowest-crime states, but it's not."

Perhaps this is beyond the Freep's basic ability to understand: when crime rates are higher, it leads to more people being incarcerated. Of course we're going to have a higher incarceration rate; we have a higher crime rate. The way to deal with this is to reduce crime overall. The massive release of criminals from the system, particularly when Michigan has a 50% recidivism rate, isn't going to do that. It's going to drive up crime. As the Free Press points out, Michigan's crime rate is already high. Why are we trying to put more criminals out on the street?

Don't throw away the key
Prisons can safely save state millions by revising sentencing, parole rules
Detroit Free Press

Facing its worst budget problems in modern times, the State of Michigan still incarcerates 50,000 people at a cost of nearly $35,000 per inmate per year. That adds up to nearly $2 billion -- more than 20% of the general fund budget -- for the Department of Corrections. While most of the people behind bars in Michigan are right where they belong, the state can and should take more steps to safely reduce the inmate population.

Michigan's incarceration rate -- 502 inmates per 10,000 people -- is out of wack. It is by far the highest in the Great Lakes region -- Illinois, for example, is 354, Ohio 414 -- and eighth-highest among the 50 states, according to the latest report from the federal Bureau of Statistics. The state's staggering prison costs might be worth if it Michigan also was among the lowest-crime states, but it's not.

Nor are Michigan prisons much more than warehouses, lacking education and rehabilitation programs that might make a difference in the return rate for offenders, now at nearly 50%.

The state Department of Corrections has begun some efforts to cut costs. It has slightly increased parole rates in conjunction with its prisoner re-entry program; released some old, infirm or deathly ill inmates; and closed two prisons. But there is much more to be done, including revisiting the guidelines under which Michigan judges sentence people to prison and complying with a recent court ruling that could affect about 1,000 "lifers" who committed crimes before 1992.

Maybe I'm not crazy after all...

My biggest issue with the Democratic Party is that the party as a whole is led by elitists who believe wholeheartedly that the individuals who inhabit this country are not capable of running their own lives. Thus, they believe we need the Liberal Elites to dictate the course of our lives for us. They make decisions on our behalf and utilize extra-democratic means to enforce them. They put forth policies which interfere with our own abilities to choose where we send our children to school, what words we can say, what religious practices are acceptable, how to defend ourselves, how to spend our own money, how to plan for our own retirement, how to manage our finances and where to work. Most recently, they have even been working in Michigan and Florida to ensure that the people don't get in the way of the Liberal Elite's decision on who gets to run for the Presidency on the Democratic ticket.

All of this comes from the Liberal Elite's innate feeling of superiority over the common American. They know how to run your life better than you do. This all comes from their condescending view of the common American. This has long been one of my most tightly held beliefs - that much of the Democratic policy is made by Liberal Elitists who believe the common American is incapable of running his or her own life.

It looks like Senator Joe Biden agrees about this condescension. In an interview at the New Hampshire Union Leader on Thursday, he pointed out that the Democrats don't trust the American people. While I stridently disagree with Sen. Biden on quite a few issues, it's good to see a Democrat recognize that so many of his fellow Democrats are elitists and making noise, at least, about moving away from that condescension.

Biden: Democrats have lost faith in the American People
New Hampshire Union Leader

Sen. Joe Biden said in an interview at the New Hampshire Union Leader this afternoon that too many Democrats, including the frontrunners for the presidential nomination, do not have faith in the American people.

"We've got to trust the American people more," Biden said.

"I think they've really lost faith in the American people in terms of leveling with them," he said of his leading rivals.

When he asks groups of Democrats if they think the American people are stupid because they elected George W. Bush twice, most respond that yes, they do, he said. HE said he thinks that attitude is a real problem for the Democrats, who fail to understand how smart and pragmatic the American people are.

Biden was generally critical of the far left wing of his party and of the strategies the frontrunners are using to win the nomination.

Asked if he thinks, as he suggested recently in another interview, that the other candidates tend to think the American people are stupid or easily fooled, he said, "Well, I do."

Have to take issue...

Normally, I'm very much a fan of FactCheck.org, a private, non-partisan group which analyzes statements by politicians and determines their veracity. In a recent article on their site, they look at a Mitt Romney ad that talks about immigration. They take issue with two items. The first, their assertion that Gov. Romney's claims of ordering the State Police to enforce immigration laws is misleading, is fine. When Gov. Romney did order the State Police to work with the Federal government to enforce immigration laws, the order came very late in his tenure as Governor and was immediately rescinded by his successor. Their second claim, however, I take issue with.

Governor Romney claims that when he becomes President, he will deny funding to sanctuary cities. FactCheck.org takes issue with this because he did not do that as Governor and claims that this is somehow misleading. Frankly, this is an unfair statement on their part. Gov. Romney never made this statement in order to talk about what he's done in the past; only about what he intends to do in the future. He never gives the impression that he had done the same as governor of Massachusetts, nor that he feels that it is a Governor's responsibility to deny state funding to sanctuary cities; only that he feels it is the President's responsibility to deny federal funding to the same. These are definitely different issues and it is perfectly valid for someone to feel differently about the two different topics.

I'm not saying Gov. Romney isn't flipping on this issue. He very may well be doing so. However, to label it as misleading is unfair.

The real concern I have with Gov. Romney is that his views on issues such as abortion, gay rights, and immigration seem to have dramatically changed in the past two years. It makes it difficult for me to understand where he stands on these issues and where he'd stand if elected. Are the new views on abortion and gay rights just an act to get the nomination? Were his old views on immigration just an act to garner support in Massachusetts? I'm hoping that these were acts, but it's tough for me to think that he's just acting on abortion and gay rights to get a nomination now but has had a revelation about immigration and what he's saying is now what he believes.

Tough Guy on Immigration?
Romney puffs up his record.
FactCheck.org

Mitt Romney casts himself as tough on illegal immigration in a new add in which he says that, as Massachusetts governor, "I authorized the State Police to enforce immigration laws." He doesn't mention that his order never took effect. It came in the closing days of his administration and was rescinded by his successor, as we wrote back in August.

He also promises, "As president, I'll ... cut funding for sanctuary cities." Maybe so, but as governor he took no action against several such towns in his state.

We find Romney misleading on both counts.

Why do we call Democrats "Liberals"?

The State Legislature, led by the Republicans, is trying to reinstate the January 15th primary election after an Ingham County judge has struck it down. The Republicans in both the House and Senate are trying desperately to create a law which will hold up to judicial scrutiny. There are three problems facing the issue:

1. House Speaker Andy Dillon, a Democrat from Redford, wants to just scrap the whole thing and go back to the caucus/convention style of selecting a Presidential candidate.
2. Senate Democrats have the votes to enact the primary law but are waffling about enacting it in time for this election. They want to enact the law, but not have it in place for this election.
3. The current law has a provision stating that the entire law would be invalid if any part is removed; therefore, a judicial decision striking down a small portion of the law would not be a solution which would work in this case.

In all, you have Democrats who are once again working as hard as possible to deny the right to vote to the citizens of Michigan. Like the Democrats on a national level, local Democrats like Andy Dillon are working to ensure that backroom influence peddling will choose a nominee, not a vote by the people. Why the Democrats are so gung-ho about disenfranchising Michiganders and why Democratic voters are so willing to excuse this is beyond me. Frankly, as a Michigander, the only Democrat I'd even consider voting for would be Hillary Clinton because she has co-operated the least in Democrat's disenfranchisement of Michigan.

It is becoming clearer that the Liberal Elites who run the Democratic Party view the world in an elitist prism: a ruling class made up of them and the ignorant, incapable, uneducated masses who they have to direct. It's not enough that the so-called Liberal's envisioned ruling class chooses what schools people go to, how much they make on their jobs, where they live, what they do in their own homes - they now want to make sure that the masses don't butt their way into their choice of which members of the ruling class get to run for President.

State Legislature works to save Jan. 15 primary
Detroit Free Press

LANSING -- Michigan's Jan. 15 presidential primary remained on life support Thursday as the state Legislature tried and failed to push through changes in the primary election law that would help it survive a legal challenge.

The State Senate worked into the evening on legislation to address objections from an Ingham County Circuit Court judge, who a day earlier ordered the primary suspended because of a provision to give exclusive access to voter lists to the Democratic and Republican parties.

But the Senate fell short of garnering enough votes to put the changes into effect immediately, which was crucial.

Some supporters of the legislation said it could be revived in the next week, in time to meet deadlines for the election, and that negotiations would continue.

Mike Huckabee: Extremist

Salon has an interview with Mike Huckabee which goes into detail about exactly how much of a radical extremist he is when regarding social issues. It's a very interesting read and anyone who will be voting in the Republican primary (assuming, of course, that the Democrats let us have one) should read it.

Mick Huckabee, on a wing and a prayer
In a Salon interview, the long-shot GOP candidate reveals his convictions about gay marriage, wonders about Mitt Romney's faith, and fires back at Fred Thompson
Salon

VINTON, Iowa -- Unlike junior high, it's often a good sign in presidential politics when people say nasty things about you. It means you are threatening. It means others fear you. IT means you might just win something.

So, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, the dark horse in the Republican race, has not been sweating the recent barrage of attacks against him. In recent weeks, Mitt Romney has accused Huckabee of supporting tuition assistance for the children of illegal immigrants. (Gasp!) Fred Thompson called him "one of the highest taxing governors" in the nation. (Zing!) A Wall Street Journal editorialist called Huckabee a waffling conservative. (Ka-pow!) Conservative doyenne Phyllis Schlafly blamed him for wrecking the Republican Party in Arkansas. (Wham-o!) One Thompson supporter really went for the jugular, evoking the specter of Bubba: "I certainly cannot support another individual from Hope, Arkansas," announced retired Brig. Gen. James Livingston before a Thompson event on Tuesday in Columbia, S.C.

Why all of the sudden attention? With a scant staff and no television advertisements, Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor, has moved into second place in the Iowa caucus polls, and he is inching up on a big spender Romney in the still highly speculative national polls. He has earned consistent praise for his performance in debates, and regularly overperforms in straw poll contests. "He is coming on like gangbusters," says David Woodard, a South Carolina political scientist and a Republican political consultant.

So when Huckabee arrived in Iowa Wednesday for a four-stop tour of the eastern cornfields, he was greeted by the full weight of the national press: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the McClatchy News Service and a half dozen others. In January, when Huckabee launched his campaign, only a couple of local reporters were around to ask questions. Now his daughter, Sarah, who serves as a top aide on the road, has to call "last question" in press scrums so her dad can stay on schedule.

The Al Gore Sore Loser Award goes to...

This past Tuesday was Michigan's local elections. For some incomprehensible reason, Michigan chooses to waste money and reduce participation in local elections by holding elections every year - national and state elections in even years with local elections in odd years. This past Tuesday, nearly the entire city government of Ecorse was replaced. The mayor and five of the seven city council members were voted out of office. A sixth council member chose not to seek reelection. In retaliation, they have voted 5-2 (one outgoing council member, Angela Smith, and the member who chose not to seek reelection were the two against) in order to dramatically cut the pay of the winners.

The incoming council members will have their pay cut from $15,000 a year to $5,000 a year, while the new mayor will have his pay cut from $69,000 a year to $12,000 a year. Talk about vindictive...

Election's losers cut pay for the winners
Part-time intentions cited
Detroit Free Press

Only hours after Ecorse's mayor and five of the City Council members were voted out of office for the next term, they slashed their successors' salaries by much more than half.

The mayor-elect is considering going to court over the decision.

The 5-2 vote Wednesday night adopted the Local Officers Compensation Board's decision to cut council members' annual pay from $15,000 to $5,000 and the mayor's compensation from $69,000 to $12,000.

Losing re-election bids Tuesday were Mayor Larry Salisbury and council members Brenda Banks, Nathaniel Elem, Robert Hellar, Arnold Lackey and Angela Smith. Councilwoman Theresa Peguese didn't seek re-election; she and Smith were the two nay votes Wednesday. Salisbury defended his vote in favor of the pay cuts. He said Thursday that he treated the job like a full-time position, but "The incoming officers failed to commit to anything but a part service."

Good news? CNN still can't help but take a dig on the Administration.

CNN has a positive report about dramatically declining rates of chronic homelessness in America. Note that before President Bush was elected, there were Democratic partisans who were attacking President Bush and Republican economics, saying that they would result in "armies" of the homeless. It turns out that the Administration's focus on moving people from temporary housing to permanent housing had reduced chronic homelessness by about 12%.

The most amusing part of the article (I love the first line): "The Federal Government is taking credit for..." They can't help but put a dig on the Administration. What's particularly amusing is that the advocates for the homeless that they've spoken with have largely agreed that it's the new Administration initiatives which have reduced the chronically homeless.

Report: 20,000 fewer chronically homeless on streets
CNN

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal government is taking credit for what it says is a nearly 12 percent drop in the number of people who are chronically homeless, according to government estimates being released Wednesday.

About 20,000 fewer chronically homeless were on the streets from 2005 to 2006, says the Department of Housing and Urban Development citing its programs designed to move homeless people into permanent housing.

HUD says people are chronically homeless if they have been continuously living on the streets for a year or more, or if they have been homeless at least four times in the past three years. They also have to have a disability, often mental illness or substance abuse.

The number of chronically homeless people dropped from 175,900 in 2005 to 6,502 in 2006, HUD reported. In Miami-Dade County, Florida, the number dropped from 831 in 2005 to 577 the following year. In Washington, D.C., the number increased from 1,773 to 1,891, though city officials told HUD they believed the change was caused in part by better counting methods.

Judge blocks Michigan's primary

A circuit judge in Ingham County, one of the three counties that surround Lansing, has ruled that the January 15th Presidential primary cannot be held. His ruling was based on a technicality that held that a Presidential primary election is somehow a "private" event. Likely, the basis of that ruling revolved around ownership of the lists of people who voted in the election, lists which would go solely to the parties to distribute as they saw fit.

The clear and obvious solution to this would be to release the voting roles to all interested parties; instead, Judge William Collette has sided with the national party powerbrokers and against the citizens of Michigan.

The primary system is broken. If a technicality as to who owns the voting lists is what is going to keep the broken system in place then the leaders of both state parties need to stand up and agree to release the voting roles to the public in order to make it clear that we're talking about a public interest, not a private one.

Judge blocks Michigan's Jan. 15 primary
The Detroit News

LANSING -- An Ingham County Circuit Court judge today ruled that Michigan's Jan. 15th presidential primary cannot be held.

Judge William Collette said the contest is unconstitutional because it allocated public money to be used for a private purpose, which would require a two-thirds cote of the legislature. The law passed this summer establishing the contest didn't pass by a two-thirds vote.

"Clearly there's an injury to the public interest," said Collette.

At issue are the lists with the names of voters who take part in the Jan. 15 balloting. Under the law, voters would have to request one ballot or the other, and the Republican and Democratic parties would take sole ownership of the lists of who voted in each contest.