California: Whitman Goofs on Immigration

In California, E-bay billionaire Meg Whitman is running for governor as a Republican, and spent more than $70 million of her own money to win the primary. In that primary, Steve Poizner increased his poll numbers by campaigning against illegal immigration and its huge cost to the state, and Whitman responded by claiming she was “tough as nails” on the issue.

After that win, Whitman rapidly backpedaled in the language of the invader: see Weasel Whitman Quick to Go Spanish.

Today’s report shows that Whitman is still unclear on the concept that the majority of California voters want their immigration laws enforced.

Whitman says she and Brown are similar on illegal immigration, Los Angeles Times, July 14, 010

The gubernatorial candidates continued to spar over illegal immigration Wednesday, with Republican nominee Meg Whitman insisting her positions are not so different from those of her Democratic rival, Jerry Brown, and Brown countering that their views are as different as night and day.

Whitman began the back-and-forth, publishing an op-ed piece in several Spanish-language newspapers that criticized the harsh rhetoric surrounding the debate and noting that she received flak in the Republican primary because of her opposition to Arizona’s controversial crackdown on illegal immigrants.

She says she and Brown opposed that law, as well as driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, sanctuary cities and Proposition 187, the 1994 California ballot initiative that would have denied most taxpayer-funded services to those in the country illegally.

“Clearly, when examining our positions on immigration, there is very little over which Jerry Brown and I disagree,” Whitman wrote for the Eastern Group Publications in East Los Angeles, which distributes 11 newspapers. “Latinos seeking a candidate who supports amnesty for illegal immigrants won’t find one on the gubernatorial ballot this year.”

Whitman declines to say what should be done about illegal immigrants in the country, saying such a discussion cannot be made until the federal government secures the border. However, her words suggest she is not in the camp that supports deporting all of them.

“We must find a fair and practical solution to the status of the millions of undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States,” she wrote.

Whitman has gotten into trouble in this area before. Last fall, while visiting the border, Whitman said, “Can we get a fair program where people stand at the back of the line, they pay a fine, they do some things that would ultimately allow a path to legalization?”  The last three words are precisely those derided as “amnesty” by Republicans who have argued for stricter controls. A spokeswoman later said the candidate was referring not to citizenship but to a “temporary guest worker program.”

In the GOP primary, as rival Steve Poizner hammered her for those words, Whitman brought out her campaign manager, former Gov. Pete Wilson, a man celebrated by many conservatives and reviled by many Latinos because of his highly visible support of Proposition 187. Wilson appeared in a radio ad called “Tough as Nails,” in which Whitman said, “Illegal immigrants should not expect benefits from the state of California.”

Democrats point out that such a denial of benefits was the aim of Proposition 187. Whitman’s campaign, which has aggressively and expansively courted Latinos since the primary, says that in the ad, Whitman is referring only to the benefits that appear in the next sentence in the ad, driver’s licenses and admission to state-funded universities and colleges.

Jerry Brown must be having a good laugh at Whitman’s rookie screw-up. After all, the whole point of a political campaign is to point out the idiot positions of your opponent and then use them as a club to pummel him.

Large numbers of hispanics will never vote for a Republican, but if Whitman campaigned hard on tough immigration enforcement, she might convince disaffected white voters to choose her. Oh well.

Nevada's Senator Reid Snubs Jobless Citizens

Senator Reid may think that he can squish his Tea Party opponent flat as a tortilla, but remarks like this on local Nevada media won’t win him any votes.

Reid Declines Vote on Illegal Worker Plan, 8 News Now, Las Vegas, July 13, 2010

LAS VEGAS — In this election season, Senator Harry Reid’s campaign events often include claims of how many stimulus funded jobs he’s created. But how many of these construction jobs are going to workers in the country illegally?

E-Verify is a computer program many employers use to determine if job applicants are U.S. citizens. Construction companies are not forced to use the official E-Verify system to determine if construction job applicants are in this country legally.

Republican Senator Jeff Sessions introduced an amendment in 2009 that would have made E-Verify permanent and mandatory for all construction companies. Senator Reid did not allow the idea to come up for a vote.

“The reason: we need to do comprehensive immigration reform. We cannot do it piecemeal,” said Reid.

That’s the Dems’ answer for everything immigration related: comprehensive amnesty with hispandering politics set on High.

Hey, Harry, if the country had more immigration enforcement, there would be a lot fewer jobless Americans. But traditional citizens and their need for employment get little attention from the current government.

And anyway, we citizens are still owed serious border and workplace control as promised in the 1986 amnesty, which didn’t come with an expiration date. It was a carrot-and-stick compromise (the kind that Obama denies he is holding out for now), but the aliens got their reward while we citizens never got the increased policing.

And now the Dems want to run the same play yet again, like we’ve never seen it before.

France: Lower Parliament Votes to Ban Burqas

After jawboning for a couple years about perhaps making public face-covering illegal, the French have taken action. The lower house of the legislature passed a bill and it is thought the legislation will become law in September.

There has also been also movement in Belgium to disallow burqas in the public space: Belgium ban burqa-type dress; Law cites public security, securing emancipation of women.

This follows a referendum in Switzerland last year where voters chose to ban minarets.

So Europe has not completely caved to the Muslim demographic onslaught.

French parliament approves ban on face veils, AP, July 13, 2010

France’s lower house of parliament overwhelmingly approved a ban on wearing burqa-style Islamic veils Tuesday, part of a concerted effort to define and protect French values that has disconcerted many in the country’s large Muslim community.

Proponents of the law say face-covering veils don’t square with the French ideal of women’s equality or its secular tradition. The bill is controversial abroad but popular in France, where its relatively few outspoken critics say conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy has resorted to xenophobia to attract far-right voters.

The ban on burqas and niqabs will go in September to the Senate, where it also is likely to pass. Its biggest hurdle will likely come after that, when France’s constitutional watchdog scrutinizes it. Some legal scholars say there is a chance it could be deemed unconstitutional.

Spain and Belgium have similar bans in the works. In France, which has Europe’s largest Muslim population, about 5 million of the country’s 64 million people are believed to be Muslim. While ordinary headscarves are common in France, only about 1,900 women are believed to wear face-covering veils. […]

France’s government has sought to insist that assimilation is the only path for immigrants and minorities, and last year it launched a grand nationwide debate on what it means to be French. The country has had difficulty integrating generations of immigrants and their children, as witnessed by weeks of rioting by youths, many of them minorities, in troubled neighborhoods in 2005.

Middle East expert Daniel Pipes has been collecting instances of the burqa being used for criminal or terrorist purposes, and has compiled quite a list: Niqabs and Burqas as Security Threats. On that subject, he astutely remarked, “The niqab and burqa should both be banned on security grounds, as one cannot have faceless persons walking the streets, driving cars, or otherwise entering public spaces.”

Obama's Adoring Coalition Melting Away

Aren’t Chicago pols supposed to be slick wheeler-dealers, who can trade seats and manipulate the electorate with great expertise? Obie must not be quite the smooth operator we were led to believe, judging from his klutzy handling of tough political sledding of late.

Interestingly, the public’s image of the ideal Obama, carefully crafted during the campaign by spinmeister political consultants, has been under assault by reality. The idea that he was perfect, a messiah who walked on water fell steadily into amnesia and is now little mentioned by embarrassed former acolytes.

Now we are seeing that the image of brilliant politician, a man able to combine various ethnic tribes and interest groups effectively, is similarly false

The fading embers of Obama’s coalition, Washington Post, July 13, 2010

With midterm elections less than four months away, Republicans are fired up and ready to go. But they are not the only ones upset with Barack Obama. The president has also angered many of the key Democratic constituencies he needs to keep control of the House and Senate, and now Democrats are blowing furiously on the fading embers of their electoral coalition, hoping to stave off disaster this November. In the process they are abdicating their responsibilities to govern — failing to pass a budget or any of their annual spending bills, while using their executive and legislative powers to appease their special interests instead. It is a far cry from the hope and change they promised two years ago.

Take organized labor. Unions are incensed with Obama and congressional Democrats for their failure to deliver on key priorities such as card-check legislation. Gerry McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, complained earlier this year, “We can’t get anything done for the people we represent.” The White House made things worse by publicly ridiculing the AFL-CIO for supporting a primary challenge to Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), prompting the union to fire back: “Labor isn’t an arm of the Democratic Party.” […]

Another disenchanted constituency is Hispanics. Latino support for Obama has dropped 12 points since the start of the year, as anger has grown over the Democrats’ failure to make immigration reform a priority. Instead of putting forward legislation, Obama delivered a speech this month in which he laid the blame for his failure to act on Republican demagoguery. Then last Tuesday, the administration filed a lawsuit in federal court to block Arizona’s immigration law. This was unnecessary, according to Kris Kobach, the former Justice Department official who helped draft the Arizona law, because the law was already being challenged by the ACLU and other groups: The issue was already tied up in the courts. The Justice Department doesn’t add anything by bringing its own lawsuit. These actions were designed to bolster Hispanic support, but they doomed any hope of bipartisan cooperation on immigration. Democrats appear more interested in posturing to win Hispanic votes than getting something accomplished for Hispanic voters. But the strategy may backfire if Latinos see through the charade, and the Arizona lawsuit ends up bringing down Democrats facing tough reelection battles in the West.

During the campaign, candidate Obama promised full amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. Instead, they are getting a substitute prize of a lawsuit against Arizona. Does he really think that anti-American amnesty-supporting hispanics will go to the polls in November in gratitude? It seems unlikely to me.

Obama's Arizona Lawsuit Not Popular among Democrat Governors

I’ve long enjoyed the twice-yearly meetings of the National Governors Association, which are shown on C-SPAN. The 50 members get together to share ideas and consider important topics like education and healthcare. The ambiance is normally one of adult problem solving, where the party differences are less important than exploring policies that work in the real world. Governors are executives who make decisions that have discernible outcomes, unlike legislators in Congress who can coast along for years without authoring any important bills.

Governors’ opinions are also a revealing reflection of what’s going on politically away from the Beltway. How interesting that Obama’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona was a hot topic among the governors, and was viewed unfavorably by the Democrats.

Governors Voice Grave Concerns on Immigration, New York Times, July 11, 2010

BOSTON — In a private meeting with White House officials this weekend, Democratic governors voiced deep anxiety about the Obama administration’s suit against Arizona’s new immigration law, worrying that it could cost a vulnerable Democratic Party in the fall elections.

While the weak economy dominated the official agenda at the summer meeting here of the National Governors Association, concern over immigration policy pervaded the closed-door session between Democratic governors and White House officials and simmered throughout the three-day event.

At the Democrats’ meeting on Saturday, some governors bemoaned the timing of the Justice Department lawsuit, according to two governors who spoke anonymously because the discussion was private.

“Universally the governors are saying, ‘We’ve got to talk about jobs,’ ” Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, said in an interview. “And all of a sudden we have immigration going on.”

He added, “It is such a toxic subject, such an important time for Democrats.” […]

The Democrats’ meeting provided a window on tensions between the White House and states over the suit, which the Justice Department filed last week in federal court in Phoenix. Nineteen Democratic governors are either leaving office or seeking re-election this year, and Republicans see those seats as crucial to swaying the 2012 presidential race.

The Arizona law — which Ms. Brewer signed in April and which, barring an injunction, takes effect July 29 — makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant there. It also requires police officers to determine the immigration status of people they stop for other offenses if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they might be illegal immigrants.

The lawsuit contends that controlling immigration is a federal responsibility, but polls suggest that a majority of Americans support the Arizona law, or at least the concept of a state having a strong role in immigration enforcement.

Republican governors at the Boston meeting were also critical of the lawsuit, saying it infringed on states’ rights and rallying around Ms. Brewer, whose presence spurred a raucous protest around the downtown hotel where the governors gathered.

“I’d be willing to bet a lot of money that almost every state in America next January is going to see a bill similar to Arizona’s,” said Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska, a Republican seeking re-election.

But the unease of Democratic governors, seven of whom are seeking re-election this year, was more striking.

“I might have chosen both a different tack and a different time,” said Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, a Democrat who was facing a tough fight for re-election and pulled out of the race earlier this year. “This is an issue that divides us politically, and I’m hopeful that their strategy doesn’t do that in a way that makes it more difficult for candidates to get elected, particularly in the West.” […]

But Mr. Bredesen said that in Tennessee, where the governor’s race will be tight this year, Democratic candidates were already on the defensive about the federal health care overhaul, and the suit against Arizona further weakened them. In Tennessee, he said, Democratic candidates are already “disavowing” the immigration lawsuit.

“Maybe you do that when you’re strong,” he said of the suit, “and not when there’s an election looming out there.”

Oops, Obama’s ethnic strategy is not looking quite so brilliant out in the country as seen by the Democrats who have to deal with the fallout.

Brutality as Defined by Dinosaur Media

The liberal press has taken some notice to the death sentence by stoning for an Iranian woman, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, for adultery. The execution has been postponed for review after the international uproar; however it still may be carried out.

In order to burnish its appearance of caring about justice (so important to liberal media), Newsweek (July 9) has presented a list of brutal punishments in response to the Iranian stoning case. So virtuous.

Since many of the truly cruel punishments occur in the Muslim world under sharia law, Newsweek threw in an American execution by firing squad to promote the diversity fable that all cultures are morally equal.

The article did note that the man to be executed actually chose death by firing squad, but nevertheless included shooting as one of its brutal punishments, along with the everyday punishments of beheading, amputations and stoning so favored by Islam.

The World’s Most Barbaric Punishments:
Stoning is not the only cruel and unusual measure courts around the world—and in America—hand out.


In 2003 an Indian citizen working in Saudi Arabia took part in a brawl, wounding a man’s eye. Puthan Veettil Abd ul-Latif Noushad was eventually sentenced, in 2005, to have his own right eye gouged out as punishment. It was, according to charity Human Rights Watch, the third eye-gouging sentence handed down within a year. HRW was unable to confirm whether any of the gougings had actually taken place. In Noushad’s case, the Indian government made an appeal for clemency. It is not clear if the appeal was successful. The State Department, on its website, still lists eye-gouging as a punishment that can be handed down by courts in Saudia Arabia.

Iran also allows chemical blinding. In 2005 a 27-year-old man named only as Majid had been stalking a woman, Ameneh Bahrami. When she refused his advances he poured a container of sulphuric acid over her. Bahrami was blinded and disfigured. Majid was sentenced to have five drops of hydrochloric acid dripped into each open eye, blinding him. […]


Ronnie Lee Gardner, a convicted murderer who elected to die by firing squad, was strapped to a chair at a prison in Draper, Utah, and shot with .30 caliber bullets just after midnight on June 18 this year.

According to the Associated Press his head was “secured by a strap across his forehead. Harness-like straps constrained his chest. His handcuffed arms hung at his sides. A white cloth square affixed to his chest over his heart—maybe 3 inches across—bore a black target.”

Among some in the military, death by firing squad is considered more honorable than hanging. One example was Nazi Hermann Göring, who requested that form of execution, but was denied and managed to commit suicide rather than be hanged.

There’s no nice way to be executed, of course, but according to Newsweek, a firing squad is right up there with a Saudi sword removing the head.

In Somalia, stoning is a popular form of do-it-yourself execution by sharia enthusiasts.

Democrats Plan Post-Election Surprises for Voters

There has been concerned discussions going around about how Obama and his Congressional henchpersons might use the post-election lame-duck session to push through various unpopular items of legislation, in particular an amnesty for millions.

Today’s Wall Street Journal noted the interest of powerful Democrats to jam through legislation they regard as vital to their agenda such as card check for unions and a massive energy tax. Author John Fund didn’t mention any immigration bills, but he is something of an open-borders guy.

From the sound of these politicians quoted, insulting the will of the voters by abusing the lame duck session does not appear to faze the Democrats one little bit.

The Obama-Pelosi Lame Duck Strategy, Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2010

Democratic House members are so worried about the fall elections they’re leaving Washington on July 30, a full week earlier than normal—and they won’t return until mid-September. Members gulped when National Journal’s Charlie Cook, the Beltway’s leading political handicapper, predicted last month “the House is gone,” meaning a GOP takeover. He thinks Democrats will hold the Senate, but with a significantly reduced majority.

The rush to recess gives Democrats little time to pass any major laws. That’s why there have been signs in recent weeks that party leaders are planning an ambitious, lame-duck session to muscle through bills in December they don’t want to defend before November. Retiring or defeated members of Congress would then be able to vote for sweeping legislation without any fear of voter retaliation.

“I’ve got lots of things I want to do” in a lame duck, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W. Va.) told reporters in mid June. North Dakota’s Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, wants a lame-duck session to act on the recommendations of President Obama’s deficit commission, which is due to report on Dec. 1. “It could be a huge deal,” he told Roll Call last month. “We could get the country on a sound long-term fiscal path.” By which he undoubtedly means new taxes in exchange for extending some, but not all, of the Bush-era tax reductions that will expire at the end of the year.

In the House, Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters last month that for bills like “card check”—the measure to curb secret-ballot union elections—”the lame duck would be the last chance, quite honestly, for the foreseeable future.”

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chair of the Senate committee overseeing labor issues, told the Bill Press radio show in June that “to those who think [card check] is dead, I say think again.” He told Mr. Press “we’re still trying to maneuver” a way to pass some parts of the bill before the next Congress is sworn in.

Other lame-duck possibilities? Senate ratification of the New Start nuclear treaty, a federally mandated universal voter registration system to override state laws, and a budget resolution to lock in increased agency spending. […]

It’s been almost 30 years since anything remotely contentious was handled in a lame-duck session, but that doesn’t faze Democrats who have jammed through ObamaCare and are determined to bring the financial system under greater federal control.

That list is ugly enough, but former Congressman Tom Tancredo is concerned about a massive amnesty rammed into law against the will of the voters:

Obama’s national suicide via amnesty, World Net Daily, July 3, 2010

The larger question is what will the Republican leadership in Congress do to block Obama’s plan for national suicide? If Obama goes ahead with the plan devised by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus – a plan to enact amnesty over the objections of the American people in a lame-duck session of Congress – what can be done to stop it?

There are two ways to defeat the enactment of amnesty in a lame-duck session of Congress. The best and surest way is to force the 40 to 50 so-called “Blue Dog Democrats” to disavow the plan and pledge to vote against it if they hope to be re-elected in November.

A second way is open for citizens who see a rogue government intent on destroying their constitutional liberties. We might see 1 million Americans descend on Washington, D.C., to physically obstruct the enactment of amnesty legislation by a lame-duck Congress.

It is often said that in a time of crisis, new leaders rise to the occasion. Now would be a good time for new leaders to arise from Republican ranks, because we are not seeing much leadership from the current gang.

So voting out Obama’s open-borders globalists may not be the end game this year. Stay tuned.

Farewell to a Fearless Patriot, Terry Anderson

I was stunned yesterday when I got the news that Terry Anderson had died. I didn’t know he had pancreatic cancer, so it was a terrible shock.

I admired him for many fine qualities, but most of all for his total fearlessness. When many black Americans were hunkering down, scared to voice misgivings about the alien invasion, Terry was not afraid. Saving the country was always more important to him than obeying PC rules to “say no evil” about minorities.

From his front-row seat in South Central Los Angeles, Terry saw the demographic invasion before other Americans who lived further from the border. He described the racism against blacks which Mexicans brought with them into his own city, but mostly he spoke as an American, for all citizens who care about the country.

Terry started out as a concerned citizen who phoned kindred spirit and talk-show host George Putnam on the radio (another late, great patriot). Those calls led to friendship and eventually to a radio program that was exclusively about immigration, The Terry Anderson Show.

Author Dan Sheehy devoted a chapter of his 2005 book which focused on patriotic activists Fighting Immigration Anarchy to Terry Anderson — his life, his immigration awakening and his radio activism.

Terry was a genuine everyman, a blue-collar guy who worked as an auto mechanic, and saw himself as “articulating the popular rage.” The lack of a fancy academic degree never stopped him from being a powerful speaker. And he didn’t just talk forcefully — although he was known for that — he was well versed in all the complex issues of immigration and blended them seamlessly into his thoughts.

CAPS interviewed Terry last summer, and he explained the current situation of black Americans living in southern California, that parts of Los Angeles are dangerous no-go areas for them, and most good jobs formerly held by black folks in the trades have been taken by hispanics, many of whom are illegals.

Following is Part 2 of the CAPS interview, where Terry noted how the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted to the detriment of black citizens.

For Terry the fiery orator, see him stir up the audience at the 2007 Feet to the Fire rally near the Capitol.

Roy Beck commented generously on Terry’s life and work, DEATH: Terry Anderson, Radio Host Champion of Black Americans Against Unfair Immigrant Competition. In addition, Digger’s Realm has a remembrance of Terry centered on when he travelled to Phoenix on June 5 to speak in support of Arizona’s new immigration law, which turned out to be his last public speech (Watch.)

He was one of a kind. Irreplaceable. He will be much missed by all who knew him.

California Free Food Gets Many Takers

The Golden State is $19 billion in the hole, but there is still plenty of free food to had, dispensed by schools even in the summer. Conveniently, many (if not most) programs have no income requirements, so the free grub is popular among poor citizens, immigrants and aliens (as well as some who can well afford to eat, according to some reports).

The idea that parents should be responsible for feeding their children is becoming less of a social norm, as the government trains residents to accept food stamps and expect to receive free food at the kid’s school.

Below, hundreds of Ventura County kiddies lined up with parents for meals on the taxpayer’s tab.

Lunch program feeding kids through summer, Ventura County Star, July 6, 2010

Isaac Moreno gets up early every weekday morning to beat the summer crowds at the Southwinds Recreation Center in Oxnard.

The 11-year-old, however, isn’t rushing to Southwinds to get the best spot on the playground. He and hundreds of kids like him make the early trek to be the first in line for a free lunch.

“It’s good that I get it free, so my mom doesn’t have to cook,” Isaac said as he stood at the front of a growing line of more than 600 children Thursday morning. “My mom said it’s better for me to come here so that way I can have lunch and play at the park. The line goes all the way down to the basketball court sometimes.”

Isaac is among hundreds of thousands of children across the state who participate in the Summer Food Service program. In Ventura County, the program is organized by the Ventura Unified School District.

While some school districts have shut down free summer lunch programs because of budget woes, Ventura Unified officials said they have increased the number of children they are serving throughout the county.

Ventura Unified’s program, which started June 21 and runs through Aug. 6, has recorded a 15 percent increase in kids over last year, said Sandy Curwood, director of its Child Nutrition Services.

School districts can participate in the Summer Food Service program or the Seamless Summer Feeding Option. Ventura Unified runs its meals through Summer Food Service, which is funded solely with federal dollars. Seamless Summer receives both state and federal funding.

Both programs provide free lunches during the summer for children 18 and younger. There are no income eligibility requirements, although most of the sites are in low-income communities, Curwood said. Many of the children receive free lunches at their campuses during the school year, so the goal is to keep them eating well during the summer, too.

Ventura Unified staff members pack an average of 3,200 lunches from 5 to 9 a.m. weekdays in the Foothill Technology High School kitchen. The lunches are then picked up by various schools or community organizations such as Boys & Girls Clubs, said Kara Muniz, the district’s assistant director of child nutrition services.

“About 95 percent of our kids who participate are low-income, but the program is not just for low-income families,” Muniz said.

Over in Los Angeles County, free food is actively promoted by the school officials. The LAUSD issued a press release in June that revealed the schools’ generosity with the taxpayer’s money as well as the rather large number of beneficiaries.

LAUSD to Provide Students with FREE Meals this Summer:
Food That’s In When School Is Out: LAUSD to Provide Students with FREE Meals this Summer

Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Food Services’ officials today announced the promotion of LAUSD’s summer meal services program. The District is working towards making sure that no students in the community go hungry when schools are closed for the summer. More than 530,000 students in LAUSD qualify to receive free or reduced-price meals during the school year, but many do not get enough to eat when school is out. The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) ensures that all children between the ages of one and 18 continue to grow and learn through good nutrition during the summer months.

FYI, the total number of LAUSD K-12 students in 2009-2010 is 678, 441, of whom 8.4 percent are white and 74.2 percent are Hispanic.

Finally, there was no cost given by the Ventura article, but the National School Lunch Program cost $9.3 billion in FY 2008 for the federal part of the funding.

Georgia Voters Can Choose a Strong Sovereignty Defender for Governor

In his House career starting in 1993, Nathan Deal worked against birthright citizenship and was a leader on issues like requiring English-only government services and excluding illegal aliens from Obamacare.

He supports Arizona’s tough enforcement approach. His career voting grade on immigration from NumbersUSA is A+.

In March of this year he quit the House to run for Governor of Georgia. True to his political history, he has campaigned on law and borders.

Immigration is focus of new Deal ad, Politico, July 7, 2010

Former Rep. Nathan Deal is putting illegal immigration front and center in his bid for governor of Georgia, targeting the issue in his first television ad unveiled just hours after the Justice Department filed suit against Arizona’s strict anti-illegal immigration law.

“Liberals won’t like it when I empower local law enforcement to help deport illegal aliens,” Deal says in the ad. “But it must be done, because the federal government has failed to secure our borders and illegal aliens are costing Georgia taxpayers over a billion dollars every single year.”

Deal has already made illegal immigration a theme of his primary campaign, inviting the White House in an earlier news release to “sue us too” over a proposed crackdown. In his debut commercial, Deal boasts that he “wrote the law to stop illegal aliens from receiving taxpayer-funded health care.”

Battling for second place in Republican primary polls, Deal is hoping to make it into a runoff with the current GOP front-runner, state Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine. A poll released last week showed Oxendine and former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel tied for first place.

Meanwhile in the dreary California gubernatorial election, candidate “Checkbook Meg” Whitman is running even with well-worn Democrat Jerry Brown (see the Chron’s Poll: Meg Whitman, Jerry Brown in virtual tie).

Seen by comparison from California, Georgia voters look very fortunate to have a decent candidate for governor. But the Golden State suffers from a number of difficulties that impede the political process, including unwieldy size, demographic change, the nation’s worst adult illiteracy, poor reporting of state politics and the prohibitive cost of running for statewide office. The dysfunction is exemplified by the fact that the Republican candidate has never held office voted rarely at best, but is prepared to spend $150 million of her own money to become governor.

Senator John McCain’s Continuing Voter-Amnesia Campaign

The Arizona Senator is vividly remembered by many citizens as Ted Kennedy’s devoted pal who supported a big amnesty bill — which was called the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill — and promised during his Presidential campaign to forgive millions of illegal aliens on his “first day” in the White House.

But now, Job #1 in his re-election campaign is making voters forget his passionate pursuit of alien amnesty that was unpopular then, and is even more disliked today. The Senator faces a strong pro-borders candidate (JD Hayworth) in November, which has focused the McCain brain enormously.

Johnny’s high dive today is the tricky full 180-degree flip-flop, from Mexico’s best friend in the Senate to a tough border defender who now declares “No amnesty” like he wanted people to believe it:

McCain favors immigration reform that would deport ‘many’ illegal residents, The Hill, July 6, 2010

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Tuesday he would favor immigration reform that would deport many of the residents of the United States who are here illegally.

McCain, who at one point had been the top Republican advocate for immigration legislation promising a pathway to citizenship for some illegal immigrants, said he favored establishing a guest worker program. But McCain expressed opposition to any program that would give illegal immigrants a way to become citizens.

“No amnesty. Many of them need to be sent back,” McCain said during an interview on KQTH-FM in Tucson, Ariz.

Once the border is secured, McCain said, “a temporary legal worker program has to be part” of immigration reform. But he made it clear that program would be for those who want to enter the country as part of that future program, and not those who came to the United States illegally.

Yep, John McCain pledged “No amnesty.” Being a member of the Senate must be one sweet gig, judging by what these characters will do to keep their seats.

Obama's Space Program Aims to Boost Muslim Self-Esteem into the Stratosphere

The NASA Administrator gave an interview with Al Jazeera recently, and he may have been a little too revealing about the tasks which the President assigned to the space agency. (Watch Talk to Al Jazeera – Charles Bolden):

Mr. Bolden: I am here in the region – its sort of the first anniversary of President Barack Obama’s visit to Cairo – and his speech there when he gave what has now become known as Obama’s “Cairo Initiative” where he announced that he wanted this to become a new beginning of the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world.

When I became the NASA Administrator – before I became the NASA Administrator – he charged me with three things: One was that he wanted me to re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, that he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.

For more about Obama’s Cairo Initiative speech, see my article:Obama In Egypt: Multiculturalist Meets Muslims. Muslims Win.

Below, Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech was broadcast to keen interest throughout the Muslim world.

But back to today’s gafferoo: columnist Charles Krauthammer was suitably appalled, calling Obama’s hijacking of the American space program “the worst combination of group therapy, psychobabble, imperial condescension and adolescent diplomacy.”

Page 250 of 262« First...102030...248249250251252...260...Last »