At least he's being honest!

You have to give it to Sen. Obama. He's being honest. at least he's willing to step up to the plate and admit that he's cool with an Iraqi genocide.

He is right, though, we absolutely should be intervening in the Congo and in Darfur. Of course, he's saying that sarcastically because he's cool with standing by and hoping you can talk the sick and twisted killers who have murdered hundreds of thousands of Darfuri into stopping. At least, though, you have a Democrat who's willing to stand up and say, "We have the power to stop genocide and frankly it's just not worth it." The moral vacancy of this position notwithstanding, he does get points for honesty.

It's a worthwhile debate and it's sickening that the rest of the democrats - who are either morally vacant or whose ignorance shows unimaginable incompetence - aren't willing to stand up and say that no, it's not worth the lives of a few thousand Americans to ensure that millions or Iraqis or Africans aren't slaughtered.

White House Hopeful Barack Obama Says Preventing Genocide Isn't Reason to Keep U.S. Troops in Iraq
Fox News

Sunapee, New Hampshire - Democratic president hopeful Barack Obama said the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq is not a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press.

"We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.

No surprise here

A great analysis by the non-partisan group Factcheck.org was published yesterday, looking at the IFAF attack against Rudy Giuliani. Not surprisingly, factcheck.org finds that the ad is full of misstatements, half-truths, and lies. Also not surprisingly, Rudy's statements about the makeup of the IFAF, that it is a political hack organization that is a shill for the Democratic Party, were found to be spot-on. Not mentioned in the article is the fact that the president of the union is a long-time Democratic Party operative and has donated large amounts of his own money to numerous Democrats and has even done the honor of introducing a Democrat at a fundraiser.

I don't see the problem...

Michigan's Supreme Court has finally gotten around to running on a decade-old law requiring IDs to vote. I don't see the problem with asking people to produce an ID, particularly in a situation where photo IDs can be obtained for free and where you can just sign an affidavit stating that you do not have an ID.

Part of the right to vote is the right to ensure that your vote is counted and counted with equal weight. The current system, while voting fraud isn't demonstrably rife, allows the appearance of impropriety. The problem isn't the zombie vote; the problem is the ease with which someone can walk into the poll, glance down at the book, pick out a name and vote as a legitimate voter. Our current system is based on the principal that we have no unscrupulous people, which seems an odd assumption to make.

What would this do, again?

Bruce Fein comes up with some interesting suggestions regarding regulation of the executive privilege that was instituted in United States v. Nixon and exercised by the Administration in conjunction with the Valerie Plame investigation, the Cheney energy policy report early in the first term, and the investigation into the dismissal of the U.S. Attorneys by the Administration. The most interesting comment, though, is his criteria for denying Congress access to information and upholding executive privilege:

"In addition, Congress should enact a statute stipulating that executive privilege should yield to congressional oversight unless Congress were to expose presidential advice for the sake of exposure - an act of political voyeurism."

So, if Congress is trying to expose a crime that took place, the executive privilege would not apply. If Congress is, say, trying to engage in a political fishing investigation to drum up political points when no crimes took place - like, for instance, if a CIA analyst's name is leaked to the newspapers or the Vice President writes a document setting out suggested energy policy or the Administration exercises its Constitutional authority to remove U.S. Attorneys - then the privilege would be upheld and Congress's request would be denied.

Do I have a fever?

I hate that I am about to say this, but I think Dianne Feinstein is right on the money. A report on anti-gang strategy in the United States was released, which makes the ludicrous proposition that prosecuting gang violence makes it worse. Instead, the report suggests that "intervention" policies be put in place. Dianne Feinstein's spokesman points out the comprehensive approach the Senator, in association with Orin Hatch, is proposing: a bill which would step up enforcement while providing hundreds of millions of dollars towards gang prevention and intervention programs. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to see that there needs to be a comprehensive approach to the problem, but the writers of the report seem to think that any enforcement action is harmful.

The true shame, however, is that Feinstein, Hatch, and the rest of the anti-war crowd are too focused on futile idiotic political statements to actually try to get legislation passed which would have bipartisan support and would actually help.

Who's obstructing what?

The Democrats issued an accusation of Republican obstruction during their idiotic all-nighter. The Republicans, apparently, are being obstructionist in their unwillingness to break their filibuster of the Democratic endeavor to ignore all the good news coming from Baghdad, Anbar, and Diyala. The Democrats know how the process works; they used Senate filibusters during their time in the minority to block enough judicial appointments that they understand that you need 60 votes in the Senate to make anything happen. They have 53. Even if they were magically able to get 60 votes, they still have to withstand a veto. Thus, they really need 67 total votes. That isn't going to happen in anyone's world.

What, then, are the Republicans obstructing? An inevitable veto?

More importantly, though, is what else is getting done during this stunt: nothing.

We still have a crippled domestic auto industry; we still have a devastating problem with social security; we still have a poverty rate in this country which is around 18%; we still have villages being razed in Darfur; we still have 15% of the population without any sort of health care; we still have massive shortages of nurses, special education teachers, and computer specialists; we still have a $375 billion gap between what people are required to pay in taxes and what they do pay; we still have the alternative minimum tax which is bearing down full-speed on more and more Americans; we still have millions of illegal immigrants in our country and thousands more coming in every day; we still have a murder rate among the highest in the developed world; we still have Iran and North Korea pursuing nuclear weapons. In short, we still have enough serious problems facing the country that we could try to do something about, that both sides could agree on, but which are being ignored so that the Democrats can put on their little pony show.

Military Experts: U.S. Pullout Yields "Ever Greater Carnage"

The Washington Post prints a report regarding what would happen if the United States prematurely pulls out of Iraq. The most critical prediction is, as always, that if the United States pulls out precipitously "ever greater carnage is inevitable." Of course, the phrase "ever greater carnage" is a nicer way of putting "genocide."

What Happens If U.S. Leaves Iraq?
ABC News

What would happen if U.S. combat forces left Iraq? President Bush argues that al-Qaeda and Iran would take over and that terrorists would then use the country as a launching pad for attacks on the United States.

But the Washington Post reports most military experts disagrees with that scenario.

According to recent "war games" exercises conducted for the U.S. military, the most likely outcome of a U.S. withdrawal is that the central government would fall apart and Iraq would effectively split into three separate nations.

But what is "perhaps most striking about the military's simulations" for Iraq after a U.S. pullout is that they do not focus on "the establishment of an al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq."

Civil war and increased violence are widely anticipated, however, with some military officers contending that whether Iraq splits apart or outside actors take over, "ever greater carnage is inevitable."

The Post cautions, though, that all the scenarios should be taken with a grain of salt given the accuracy of past U.S. predictions about Iraq.

PC at what cost?

Unsurprisingly, the racist requirement that adoptees need be placed with same-race adoptive parents is causing problems placing children into adoptive households in the United Kingdom. Operating under the insane assumption that a child is better off in an orphanage than being placed at a very young age in a loving household with parents of a different race has caused the United Kingdom's foster care system to become over-burdened with minority children, particularly those from southern Asia, the Middle East, and from Africa. In a country with such stark racial disparities in income, it should come as no surprise that there is a prevalence of ethnically minority children in foster care and a disproportionately low number of adoptive parents available.

Of course, the darling BBC might point out the problem and call on more minority parents, already disproportionately poor and likely less capable of adding another member to their house, to apparently do their part in adoptions but don't expect them to suggest that perhaps this racist policy isn't in the best interests of the kids. No, that level of journalistic integrity - questioning the basic assumptions behind the program - are apparently beyond the BBC, who go to great lengths to quote an adopted child, a member of the government, and two members of adoption-oriented charities but all four agree: as bad as living in a foster care system may be, it obviously would be worse to live with loving parents who "look different."

Plea for ethnic minority adopters
BBC News

Three black or Asian children are vying for adoption into every home that has adopters of a similar background, a charity says.

Jean Smith, from the NCH children's charity, told BBC Asian Network more ethnic minority adopters were needed.

She said placing children from ethnic minorities with white parents often left them without a sense of cultural and religious identity later in life.

There are about 80,000 children in care in the UK. About 10,000 of these are
black, Asian or of mixed heritage.

In the 1970s, many ethnic minority children were adopted into white families, but today the care system tries to make cultural and racial matches.

However, because of the shortage of prospective parents from non-white communities, black and Asian children can wait a long time to be placed.

The Asian Network examined the issue in a special report called "Why Are We Waiting?", part of the BBC's Family Wanted series.

Why Brits Don't Feel Safe At Home

The reason Brits don't feel safe at home is because they know that their home invasion rate, like the rest of the disarmed First World, is much too high and is much higher than that of the "crime-ridden" United States.

Third 'keep anti-intruder weapon'
BBC News

Almost a third of UK householders keep items like golf clubs, cricket bats and heavy torches in case intruders enter their homes, a survey has suggested.

And more than half of them said they were prepared to use these objects, the poll of 4,000 people for the insurance company Cornhill Direct said.

It also reported that only one in five feels safe in their own homes at night.

But the most recent British Crime Survey found that burglaries had fallen by 3% in England and Wales.

The number which had been reported to police fell by 7% in the year to 2005-6.

What's a flip-flop?

Senator John Kerry accused Governor Mitt Romney of being a flip-flop, still oblivious to any understanding as to what the term might mean and why his adherence to its principles doomed his presidential aspirations.

Kerry: "I actually voted against the funding bill before I voted for it."

Romney: "After a great deal of personal reflection, I revised my position on abortion."

There's a definite difference between the Kerry/Hillary method of licking a finger, holding it to the wind, and picking a position du jour compared to Romney having a deep, personal reflection and deciding that he had different opinions on important topics. The difference is - you can very clearly tell where Romney is on a position: he originally felt that abortion should be a private decision, but changed his mind and now believes that it should be regulated by the government. You can never tell about Kerry or Hillary: they voted for the war, voted alternately for and against funding the war, voted alternately for and against supporting specific strategies, have made statements alternately accusing the military of being corrupt and commending their bravery, etc.

The "flip-flop" tag is a legitimate one to apply to the individuals who, like Kerry and Hillary, try to change their position in order to conform to a particular crowd. If they both were originally pro-war and are now anti-war, that's fine. It's the tap-dance they've done int he intervening years where they wander back-and-forth across an imaginary line depending on the audience that earns them their title.

Best Interests of the Child

A 14-year-old is old enough to know what is in her best interests. It's ridiculous to try to tear her from her adoptive family. Why they're trying to obtain legal custody, when the girl is old enough to have a relationship with regardless of custody, is beyond reason.

Twins Reunited After 14 Years
ABC News

14 years of her life, Andrea Penaherrera never knew she had a sister.

But on one day four months ago in the southern Ecuadorean town of Milagros, she and her mother were shocked to walk into a restaurant and see across the room another face that looked just like Andrea's.

The girls had the same hair, eyes and were identical in every way.

It didn't take long for Andrea and the other girl, Marielisa, to realize that they were twins, separated at birth.

Across the globe, the discovery generated headlines, in part for how the two girls met. But, there was another twist -- the alleged story of how the two were separated in the first place.

The girls' biological mother, Petita Penaherrera, said doctors never told her she had twins.

More beaurocratic garbage

More bureaucratic nonsense is keeping Iraqi translators who helped American troops from coming to the United States. Faced with threats of rape, torture, and death, many of the brave Iraqi's who worked alongside American troops in Iraq to escape to the United States. Whatever we can do to help these people out, we need to do. If these individuals were able to help doing translating work for the American soldiers and marines in Iraq, perhaps they can help out with translation work for the United States government here. After all, we can definitely use it.

Allies Left Behind? Iraqis Who Helped U.S. Feel 'Betrayed,' Marked for Death
ABC News

Kirk Johnson is the keeper of what he calls the saddest list in the world -- a list of Iraqis who worked for the United States but are now marked for death and on the run.

Johnson says that the U.S. effort in Iraq "would not have functioned without these people. And they risk their lives every single day to come through checkpoints that are routinely mortared and shelled and hit by suicide bombers and snipers just to come and help us -- because they believe in America enough to help us rebuild their country."

Many of these Iraqis fled their country after they got letters that describe them as "enemies of God," as well as blunt threats: "We will cut off your heads."

All are now desperate to come to the United States, and Kirk Johnson is the man they are turning to.

"This is urgent," he says. "This isn't, 'Let's have a meeting once a month to figure out how we are going to address the issue.' This is, 'Let's get them on a plane to save them because they need our help now.'"

Anti-nuclear protestors

The earthquake in Japan is bound to renew calls for bans of peaceful nuclear energy production, despite the fact that no one in Western Europe, no one in the United States, and no one Japan has ever has ever died as a result of nuclear energy production while coal-fired power plants have killed tens of thousands due to asthma and other breathing-related illnesses.

Nuke Waste Drums Tipped in Japan Quake
ABC News

A powerful earthquake tipped over barrels of nuclear waste at a power plant and officials on Tuesday were investigating whether there were any radioactive levels a day after they said the quake had caused the reactor to spill radioactive water into the sea.

The death toll stood at nine a day after the 6.6-magnitude quake. One person was missing and another 13,000 were homeless, as rescue workers rushed to locate any survivors in the rubble amid fears of landslides.

The quake had caused a leak of water with radioactive material Monday at the Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear power plant, the world's largest in terms of electricity output, although officials said that leak caused no harm to the environment.

Brave New World

Apparently an Army Captain is trying to sell a plan for ending the war in Iraq via e-bay.

What bothers me about this:

1) If the captain offering this report for sale was really, truly interested in solving the conflict then why wouldn't he just e-mail it directly to every senator, every congressman, the heads of the Joint Chiefs, the Security of Defense, the President the Vice-President, every news organization, bloggers, and any political action committee he could come up with?

2) It strikes me as improper for anyone to personally enrich himself with materials he developed as part of the normal course of doing his job, particularly when it's someone in the military.

Desperation or just wishful thinking?

Newsweek's Anna Quindlen makes a desperate plea for Hillary to convince Sen. Barack Obama to be her running mate. Desperate, there, being the operative word. Still 16 months from the election, isn't it a bit early for anyone to be talking about running mates? Isn't it a little early for anyone to suggest that Obama's aims for the Presidency this time around are a lost cause? Also, let's be honest here - Obama's chances of winning the Presidency as a candidate on his own are much higher than his chances of winning the Vice Presidency along side a candidate that more than half the voting public dislikes.

Quote of the Day

"It's not reason that is at the heart of modern-day liberalism but rather the claim to superior virtue and, even more important, to a special knowledge unavailable to the unwashed or unenlightened."

- Fred Siegel, Professor of History at The Cooper Union, writing about "Camelot and the Cultural Revolution"

Feeding the Hungry

There's no reason that the developed world can't feed the world's hungry. With the United Nations worrying about being able to continue their programs, the $600 million a year the World Food Program pays out is a pittance when compared to the amount of money the United States alone pays to farm subsidies - price supports which interfere with the ability of the Third World to make a living off of agriculture. Elimination of these subsidies, which nearly universally go towards large corporations and not small, family farms, will enable Third World farmers to make a more livable wage and increase food production at the point of need. In addition, the billions the United States spends on farm subsidies could instead be used to feed the hungry, both here in the United States and abroad, particularly in Africa, Eastern Europe, and India.

Right Problem, Wrong Solution

Barack Obama is correctly and properly drawing attention to, as he accurately describes it, the "epidemic of violence that's sickening the soul of this nation. The violence is unacceptable and it's got to stop."

His policies for correcting this problem, are focusing in the wrong direction. In addition to a goal of expanded after school activities and a harsh crack-down on the very small minority of licensed gun vendors who violate the law in selling weapons - worthy aims, both - he directs his major legislative endeavor towards the predictable drivel, the now lapsed assault weapons bad. That's apparently pretty much it.

Now, the assault weapons ban had very little to do with keeping any particular weapon off of the streets. Fully automatic weapons, what most individuals would consider an assault weapon, remain illegal for civilian ownership. Armor defeating, tracer, and explosive ammunition are illegal. The entire push of the ban was to target weapons that looked a certain way. The ban made a determination of what an assault weapon was based on purely cosmetic features - a pistol grip versus a rifle grip; internal versus external magazine, etc. - and banned weapons that certain way. The obvious result? Weapons changed their appearance, previously manufactured were still sold, and nothing of substance changed to the criminals who were buying and selling stolen or illegally imported weapons anyway.

Obama is trying to take a very complex and very serious problem and boil it down to a couple of quick little sound-bites. Violent crime in our country, particularly murder, is much too high. A couple of quick little legislative fixes - adding a little more money to programs and banning some guns - isn't going to have much effect on the problem. Fighting crime must be a large-scale, broadly focused endeavor encompassing a wide variety of tactics including:

1) More and better trained police,

2) Longer prison sentences for violent offenders, including automatic
life sentences for murder and child rape,

3) improved economic conditions,

4) Keeping kids in school through graduation,

5) Providing mentors and role models to help direct kids lives away from drugs and crime.Obama again correctly points out that many of the problems are due to a lack of direction in the lives of the young men committing so many of these crimes. As they grow up, they are lacking the mentors and the role models to show them the better, proper way through life. What he doesn't do, however, is lead people toward a better path. Just saying that parents and neighbors need to do more to help out isn't enough. He should be proposing ways in which they can help and proposing policies to encourage and foster that help which is so critical.

Instead, once again, we're getting the usual Liberal Elite combination of a political slam against a punching bag industry combined with hot air and no real solutions.

$500 billion hurricane strike?

Yesterday's Houston Chronicle spoke at length about Hurricane Katrina, detailing how in studies that its devastation was not unrivaled. In it, they state that, "a $500 billion storm in a major metropolitan area along the U.S. coast, such as Miami or possibly even Houston, is conceivable by 2020.

The idea that a $500 billion hurricane hit is "conceivable" is the next 13 years is ridiculous. Katrina was an event that is expected about once every 250 years. A $275 billion dollar event is one which is expected about every 1,000 years. A $500 billion hurricane hit is so unlikely that the data doesn't go that far. The chance of a $275 billion dollar hurricane occurring in the next 13 years is about 1.3%. Remember, these are exponential numbers so as the dollar value increases, the amount the chance is lessening increases - so, a $50 billion event is not 1/2 as likely as a $25 billion event, but rather 35% as likely as a $25 billion event. What does that mean?

It means that the chance that a $500 billion hurricane hitting by 2020 is just above nil.

Is "just above nil" really the same as "conceivable"?

Quote of the Day

"The increasing concern among Iraqi political leaders that the U.S. may not have a long-term commitment to Iraq has served in recent months to reinforce hedging behaviors and made the hardest political bargains even more difficult."

- Iraq progress report referring to the reason for difficulties reaching the goals set out

More help for Darfur...

Relief workers in Darfur are having problems with delivering food aid. Apparently, one-sixth of all aid deliveries are hijacked. The United Nations is aiming to send in troops some time next year. I don't see how 27,000 total troops (20,000 new and 7,000 existing) will be enough. One-third of the population has been displaced, two-thirds need food aid. The situation there is mind-blowingly bad. Whatever needs to be done, has to be done and waiting for the United Nations to get around to sending in troops next year is not acceptable. Piracy of humanitarian aid should not be tolerated and the fact that everyone is acting as though this is business as usual while people are dying is demoralizing, to say the least.

Why the blind rush?

Lately, there's been such a hurry to try to drum up legislative support for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the civilian causalities that would result, in advance of both the July and September progress reports on Iraq that one starts to wonder why. Why, for instance, is Hillary Clinton joining with the only Klansman in Congress to write an editorial saying that it is time to turn our backs and condemn the Iraqi people to what she describes as a "civil war," a stark difference to how the vast majority of Iraqis view the struggle. Michigan Senator Carl Levin - the same one who buckled so meekly in the face of his Democratic colleagues when they steamrolled through an amendment increasing CAFE standards - expects today to propose an amendment to bring the troops home.

What makes all of this so strange is that it is coming in advance of tomorrow's Pentagon report on how the surge is going. Why are they so excited to push ahead with their rhetoric before getting all of the information?

Hillary notes that the Pentagon says that the "overall level of violence in Iraq hasn't lessened." Well, that's obvious. The United States just sent in 30,000 more soldiers and began a major offensive. Of course the overall level of violence in Iraq hasn't lessened. The U.S. is out actively hunting down terrorists, actively securing civilian areas, and actively clearing sections of the most violent cities (Baghdad and Ramadi) in an effort to provide long-term stability. Al-Qaeda has reacted by trying to increase the level of violence aimed at American troops, hoping to scare the country into surrender. What is startling, however, is that despite 30,000 more troops and despite a major offensive by the Americans and by Al-Qaeda, there hasn't been an increase in the overall level of violence, as any reasonable assessment of the situation would expect. Why not? Because as the U.S. and Iraqi Iraqi forces clear areas, they become more peaceful. The increase in troop levels and in intensity is being matched by a decrease in violence in many areas, particularly Ramadi.

From The New York Times on Sunday:

Until only a few months ago, the Central Street bazaar was enemy territory, watched over by American machine-gunners in sandbagged bunkers on the roof of the governor's building across the road. Ramadi was Iraq's most dangerous city, and the area around the building the most deadly place in Ramadi. Now, a pact between local tribal sheiks and American commanders has sent thousands of young Iraqis from Anbar Province into the fight against extremists linked to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. The deal has all but ended the fighting in Ramadi and recast the city as a symbol of hope that the tide of the war may yet be reversed to favor the Americans and their Iraqi allies.

---

The key to turning that around was the shift in allegiance by tribal sheiks. But the sheiks turned only after a prolonged offensive by American and Iraqi forces, starting in November, that put Al Qaeda groups on the run, in Ramadi and elsewhere across western Anbar.

Not for the first time, the Americans learned the basic lesson of warfare here: that Iraqis, bludgeoned for 24 years by Saddam Hussein's terror, are wary of rising against any force, however, brutal, until it is in retreat. In Anbar, Sunni extremists were the dominant force, with near-total popular support or acquiescence, until the offensive broke their power.

Tomorrow's Pentagon report is going to show three things:

1) The Iraqi government has failed to meet even one of the
benchmarks we want.

2) Sections of Baghdad are featuring intense fighting, while other
previously dangerous areas are safer.

3) Anbar province is an unquestioned, rousing victory and violence
there has been greatly diminished.

What will this mean? The troop surge has worked in Anbar and has shown some results in Baghdad, even while other areas of the capital are featuring more frequent and intense fighting. Is the surge an unmitigated success? No. Is it an unmitigated failure? Absolutely not We've seen some success, which is something that should be grasped onto dearly as we attempt to replicate it in Baghdad.

The only way to know for sure, however, is to wait for the report tomorrow and not blindly rush into attempts at swaying public perception or push through legislation before even the small amount of information available tomorrow comes out, let alone when the final report is complete in September. Why the blind, mad rush to pull the troops out now, before the report on the surge is complete? Could it be that they are afraid that the good news in the report will weaken their goal to deliver a political defeat to the President?

Polls show nation is uninformed

USA Today addressed a recently released Gallup poll in an article published today. The most striking item is the idea that 60% of adults interviewed believe that the economy is worse now than it was five years ago. Five years ago, we were in a recession and had a significantly higher national unemployment rate. In the intervening years, the economy has been growing, stocks are rising, and jobs are being created. The odd thing, though, is that the population as a whole have been stuck with the false perception, despite five years of very good economic news, that things are going poorly. Sure, there are problems in Michigan, but the vast majority of the nation is doing very, very well. Where does the public get this perspective? Could it be from the media, who publishes polls about people's opinions of the economy instead of economic data and who feature negative reports over positive ones?

Dingell committs to sell-out Michigan

A showdown between Dingell and Pelosi over CAFE is in the works. However, if Dingell is Michigan's best chance at avoiding CAFE increases, we might want to find a new champion. He's committed to raising to CAFE standards - despite the exorbitant cost, the lost of Michigan jobs, the crippling of the American auto industry, the evidence that prior CAFE increases have done nothing to reduce fuel consumption, and, most importantly, that the same CO2 reductions can be gained by improvements in the areas which produce vastly more CO2 and where we haven't had 30 years of concerted efforts at improved efficiency (namely agriculture and power generation).

Frankly, I do not understand why the UAW still supports the Democrats when the union's best interests no longer line up with the Democratic agenda. In exchange for a promise to ban secret ballot union voting, the Democrats are trying to shove down CAFE increases and bring in tens of millions of low wage manual workers to drive down UAW wages. UAW members are going to realize, and very soon, that their union is more concerned about advancing liberal agendas and protecting their privilege and power among liberal elites than they are about protecting the jobs and wages of UAW members.

Quote of the Day

"I have made it very clear that I intend to see to it that CAFE is increased."

- John Dingell, Democratic Representative from Dearborn, Michigan as he sells out Michigan to the powers in Washington.