DfDeportation's Blog

How Many Must Die To Pass Jamiel's Law?
By Walter Moore, Candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles, WalterMooreForMayor.com

If you haven't yet seen and heard Danielle Bologna interviewed about the murder of her husband and sons by an illegal alien gang banger in San Francisco, you need to do so.

The murder of Mrs. Bologna's husband and sons were foreseeable and preventable. That's not 20-20 hindsight. It's a fact:

On March 25, 2008, when I heard that an illegal alien gang banger had murdered Jamiel Shaw, II, an outstanding young high school athlete headed for college, whose mother was serving in our Army in Iraq, I wrote Jamiel's Law, and posted it on my website.

News of Jamiel's murder, and the subsequent publicity about Jamiel's Law, should have been enough to make Mayor Villaraigosa of Los Angeles and Mayor Newsome of San Francisco to revoke immediately all "sanctuary city" protection for gang members.

Instead, neither Mayor took any action. Nor has the Los Angeles City Council. And you can't even read about Mrs. Bologna's ordeal in the L.A. Times/Hoy.

It's up to us to pass Jamiel's Law, and to replace the Mayor and City Council. Appealing to them to do the right thing is pointless: they are committed to aiding and abetting these crimes. They are so committed to illegal aliens that they will let people like Jamiel Shaw and the Bologna men die if that's what it takes to avoid alerting the general public to L.A.'s "sanctuary city" policy.

Nor should you expect the L.A. Times/Hoy to cover this story, any more than you would expect Tokyo Rose to report accurately on World War II. After all, if the general public realizes that illegal immigration is not just a "federal problem," but is aided and abetted by City Hall, who will buy advertising in the Tribune Company's Spanish-language newspaper, Hoy?

The Shaw Family has paid a terrible price for Villaraigosa's sanctuary city policy. Now the Bologna Family has paid the same price for the same policy, albeit in a different city.

We must take action. We must replace the career politicians, the minions of Vichy California. Spread the word. Tell your friends and neighbors about Jamiel's Law and about my campaign to replace Villaraigosa as Mayor.

And if it seems like a hassle, just remember the burden the Shaw Family and the Bologna Family will bear for the rest of their lives. Get sad, sure. Get angry. But get going.

Bitterroot's sweet with S.F.'s cowboy mayor, bride

Willie Brown

Sunday, July 27, 2008

(07-27) 04:00 PDT Stevensville, Mont. -- What a party. What a wedding. What a spread.

I'm up here in Montana's Bitterroot Valley at the family ranch of Gavin Newsom's new bride, Jennifer Siebel. The place has to be at least six times bigger than Golden Gate Park and just as beautiful in its own way.

It's a working horse ranch, but the accommodations are cleaner than most airports.

The place is located about two hours outside of Missoula, Mont., where a bunch of us flew in Wednesday for the Saturday night wedding.

The group I came with flew in on one of Google's corporate jets - a Boeing 757 - and it was like flying in seven connected living rooms.

Guests include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and husband Paul Pelosi (who seems to be recovering just fine from his recent hip surgery), Pelosi's daughter, Christine Pelosi, and her husband; Charlotte and George Shultz, Gina Moscone, Gordon Getty, Joe Cotchett, Maurice Kanbar and Kathleen Alioto are all here as well.

Chuck and Helen Schwab - who helped turn the valley into a premier golf and recreation destination - are here as well and hosted a lunch for all the guests at the Stock Farm Clubhouse.

They say the Google guys, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, are here too, but I haven't seen them.

Dianne Feinstein got tied up in Washington, but they saved a place for her husband, Dick Blum.

The theme of the wedding is "Out of Africa," Montana style.

So I had to get a new outfit for the wedding: white silk and linen sun blazer, white Riviera collar shirt, Brioni khakis and brown-and-white spectator pumps.

Robert Redford would be proud.

The actual service took place on a field, far out on the ranch and way out of cell phone reach.

As far as I can tell, however, the best part of the weekend was the rehearsal dinner. It was a rodeo and barn dance thrown Friday evening by the bride-to-be's parents, Ken and Judy Siebel - complete with Gavin on a horse, demonstrating how to cut cattle from a herd.

It was something to see. Gavin on a horse, going eye to eye with some cow - and getting it to move.

I couldn't help but yell, "Just handle it like the Board of Supervisors!"

He looked just like Ronald Reagan.

And then Jennifer came out and did the same.

The dinner was a total Stanlee Gatti affair. It took place in a barn, with long tables with sunflower centerpieces and all 200 guests sitting on hay bales.

The food was fantastic, real Western country fare. They even had buffalo for those who wanted to try it. Suffice to say, Alice Waters wasn't within a thousand miles of this menu.

Then came the dancing, with Huey Lewis - who happens to live just down the road - getting up and singing a few tunes.

But the highlight of the evening came when members of the respective families got up to introduce Gavin and Jennifer.

One of Jennifer's sisters talked about Jennifer's life as an athlete, her life as a Stanford scholar, her humanitarian work in Africa and, finally, her work as an actress.

Gavin's sister, Hillary Newsom Callan, then got up, and, after a few jokes, turned to Jennifer and talked about how being with her has changed Gavin's life.

"The last time Gavin was like how he is today was 20 to 30 years ago," Hillary said. "You are singularly responsible for turning him into a human being again."

In the middle of Hillary's speech the chickens and roosters that live in the barnyard began to crow, and each time she made a point it generated a response from a rooster.

I'm sure it wasn't staged.

---

Had the honor of emceeing former KTVU anchor Dennis Richmond's retirement bash out at Blackhawk the other night - what an event!

Everyone was there. Ronn Owens in a tux - a tux! But the only way he'd come was if they sent a car.

So the host of the preparty, Brian Banmiller, sent one - a Bentley - all the way to San Francisco.

I've got to tell you, Blackhawk looks like what one of those fancy towns down on the Peninsula looked like a hundred years ago.

Everything is well manicured. The trees are all young, with no overhangs. Everything is precise.

I got inside the party and every woman in there had the same sculptured look. That has got to be plastic surgeon's heaven out there.

I also got to meet the mayor of San Ramon - H. Abram Wilson.

He's black - a Republican - and now running for the state Assembly.

I tell you, this Obama phenomenon is getting out of hand.

---

A lot of heat coming down on Mayor Newsom over this sanctuary policy for illegals and those juvenile offenders who were getting sent back to Honduras.

I'm just lucky it didn't blow up when I was mayor.

Sanctuary started back with Mayor Art Agnos, and it was a good idea at the time.

It has since been corrupted, like a lot of ideas, to where these juveniles picked up for selling crack or whatever were being sent back home rather than being handed over to immigration.

It had to be going on when I was mayor, too - but it's not something that as mayor you would be made aware of.

No truant officer or probation officer would come in and say, "Mr. Mayor, under the sanctuary policy, I just turned over a half-dozen crack dealers to a halfway house in San Bernardino."

Or, "I just sent a half a dozen teenage crack dealers back home."

They just wouldn't.

And it's hard to defend.

I went on Fox TV because nobody from the city would go on. Nobody wanted to be visible on this issue.

I went on - and I got clobbered.

“Not a campaign event”; another flip-flop Yeah, right:

Patrick Ruffini:

This is pretty extraordinary. A candidate for the American Presidency is using flyers printed in German to turn people out for his campaign rally in Berlin on Thursday. This flyer can be found on a bilingual page on BarackObama.com advertising the event … The German flyers bear Obama’s campaign logo and say “Paid for by Obama for America.” …

So, this isn’t just some sober, high-minded foreign policy speech, part of a foreign trip occurring under the auspices of his official Senate office. It is a campaign rally occuring on foreign soil. They are using the same tactics to turn out Germans to an event as they would to any rally right here in America.

I’m sure everyone recalls the assurances that the Obama campaign gave that Barack Obama would not conduct political rallies on this trip.  In fact, they got a little confused over Obama’s current job title in making those assurances:

At a morning background briefing, reporters parried with senior advisers on the characterization of Obama’s speech Thursday in Berlin as a campaign rally. The outdoor speech at the Victory Column could draw thousands of people, similar to the size of Obama events in the United States.

“It is not going to be a political speech,” said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.[”]

“But he is not president of the United States,” a reporter reminded the adviser.

“He is going to talk about the issues as an individual … not as a candidate, but as an individual, as a senator,” the adviser added.

Do “individuals” have full-color fliers distributed, complete with media credentialing for the event?  Do Senators have these efforts funded by presidential campaign committees?    Of course not.  The Obama campaign wants to hold a political rally in Berlin, apparently to impress upon American voters how popular Obama is among Europeans.

Ruffini calls this “breathtakingly arrogant”.  Glenn Reynolds says Obama seems to be running for President of the World.   At the very least, the level of truth coming from the Obama campaign on this trip has been breathtakingly low, and their political ear amazingly tone-deaf.  If they think a massive campaign rally in Berlin will convince anyone but the most ardent Leftists in America to vote for Obama, they really need a shake-up in their campaign staff.

Barack Obama's "civilian national security force" (????)

Back on July 2, Barack Obama read his "public service" address, and it contained this line that hasn't received much notice:

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set... We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

What the Sam Hill? There's nothing at his Service page (barackobama.com/issues/service) discussing anything near such a program. He wants to increase the size of Americorps, create a "Homeland Security Corps", create other specialized groups, and give more power and equipment to the Reserves and Guard. But, considering that the U.S. military budget is nearly half a trillion dollars and they've got bunker busters and nuclear submarines and things like that, one might expect some sort of inkling of a plan.

And, of course, there's the creepy nature of his proposal, but nothing new there.

McCain Launches Immigration Ad Targeted at Hispanics

Susan Davis reports on the presidential race.

Expected Republican nominee John McCain’s campaign released a new ad, “God’s Children,” today, tailored to Hispanic audiences that will run in the three Western swing states of Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico.

The ad features McCain from a June 2007 Republican primary debate performance in New Hampshire during which he extols the contributions Hispanic immigrants have made in the U.S., particularly through military service.

“My friends, I want you the next time you’re down in Washington, D.C., to go to the Vietnam War Memorial and look at the names engraved in black granite. You’ll find a whole lot of Hispanic names,” McCain says in the ad, “When you go to Iraq or Afghanistan today, you’re going to see a whole lot of people who are of Hispanic background. You’re even going to meet some of the few thousand that are still green card holders who are not even citizens of this country, who love this country so much that they’re willing to risk their lives in its service in order to accelerate their path to citizenship and enjoy the bountiful, blessed nation.”

McCain has broken with many in his party on the issue of immigration reform through his earlier advocacy of a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal residents—many Hispanic—currently in the U.S. Efforts to approve such an overhaul of immigration laws last year failed in the Senate—where McCain was a lead author of the bill.

The Arizona senator, acknowledging the divisiveness within his party as well as the push-back he received from angry voters during the primary season, has since conceded that comprehensive reform can only be achieved after the U.S. secures its borders first—a position he emphasizes on the campaign trail. (For more on McCain and immigration, read THIS recent Wall Street Journal story.)

Hard-line Republicans, such as former primary rival Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado—advocate for the deportation of those here illegally, as well as a halt to legal immigration. The latest ad also notably features a clip of Tancredo sitting on the debate stage while McCain speaks.

“So let’s from time to time remember that these are God’s children. They must come into country legally, but they have enriched our culture and our nation as every generation of immigrants before them,” McCain says in the ad.

On Monday, McCain will speak at a gathering of the National Council of La Raza, a nonpartisan Hispanic advocacy group. It is his third address to a Latino group in 15 days.

omment by Nobama - July 11, 2008 at 10:13 am

The suggestion that the American economy with its 300 million citizens needs immigrants is a lie. Read “The Economic Fallacies of Desperate Foreign Labor” @ theclearsky.blogspot.com/#70709516354357493 .
.
Allow me to explain in detail.
.
Consider the United States. It has about 300 million citizens. Its gross domestic product (GDP) is about $12 trillion. The GDP per capita is about $40,000.
.
Suppose that we inject 300 million desperate Indians (from India) into the USA. Its population suddenly doubles to 600 million people. The GDP remains the same at $12 trillion. The GDP per capita falls to $20,000.
.
In this scenario, we assume a constant level of technology. Over time, the GDP grows rapidly as the economy absorbs the 300 million Indians. Eventually, the GDP reaches $24 trillion, and the GDP per capita returns to $40,000. (Actually, the GDP per capita will exceed $40,000 slightly due to the comparative advantage of the larger population.) Once GDP per capita reaches $40,000, the growth spurt ends.
.
The propaganda game that pro-immigation bigots play is the following. They shout, “Look at the tremendous wealth that 300 million Indians added to the American nation. The GDP increased by $12 trillion to $24 trillion! Wow! Awesome!”
.
What is the error in the reasoning of the pro-immigration bigots? Well, the total GDP is not the correct measure of your wealth. The correct measure is GDP per capita. Adding 300 million Indians did not increase your wealth or my wealth at all.
.
There is no economic necessity, whatsoever, for H-1B workers, illegal aliens, or an open border.
.
When a nation, like the United States, has a sufficiently large population (on the order of hundreds of millions of people), dumping hordes of immigrants into the nation offers almost no economic benefit. Indeed, in the short term and the medium term, a large number of immigrants actually suppresses wages and diminishes working conditions — in both high-tech jobs and low-tech jobs.
.
A study by Harvard University demonstrated that illegal aliens from Mexico actually suppressed the wages of unskilled American labor by about 8%.
.
There is no economic justification for immigrants. Immigration can be justified on only ethical grounds. For example, the United States regularly offers political asylum to anyone who is fleeing dire political persecution.
.
How should we Americans deal with the flood of people from India, Mexico, and elsewhere? Washington should intervene aggressively in foreign countries that flood their people into the USA. A larger flood means a larger degree of intervention by us.
.
Consider Mexico. Its society is a total and utter failure because Mexican culture is a failure. To deal with this failure, we give the Mexican government a plan to Westernize Mexico. We order the Mexican government to implement this plan. If a Mexican politician obstructs this Westernization plan, then we aggressively punish the offending Mexican politician. We (1) freeze his assets (and the assets of his relatives) in the West, (2) declare him (and his relatives) persona non grata thoughout the West, and (3) deny him (and his relatives) any access to Western medical facilities even if such denial results in his death (or his relative’s death). Further, we Americans will fund and promote Mexican politicians who are committed to Westernization. We will run Mexico like a colony. Of course, if Mexican drug smugglers enter American territory, the American military will pursue them — even into Mexican territory. If the Mexican military interferes in our pursuit of Mexican criminals, then we kill the Mexican soldiers.
.
P.S.
—-
Most Americans have never taken a course in economics. As a result, they are easily manipulated by (1) lying, deceptive bigots in the pro-immigration groups, (2) lying, deceptive lobbyists for American companies, or (3) lying, deceptive American politicians who have been purchased by American companies or pro-immigration groups. Bigots, lobbyists, and politicians deliberately state economic lies in order to fool the ignorant American voter.

Obama: I embarrass myself! posted at 5:15 pm on July 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey 

Barack Obama’s comment that Americans should teach their children Spanish rather than worry about whether immigrants speak English gave another example of his arrogance and elitist impulses earlier this week.  In a memorable moment, he pronounced himself “embarrassed” by Americans who travel abroad and can’t speak the local language — which called into question why he doesn’t get similarly perturbed by foreigners who move here and can’t speak ours.  Today, Obama tried to “clarify” his comments by wondering aloud why people found them offensive:

“This is an example of some of the problems we get into when somebody attacks you for saying the truth, which is we should want children with more knowledge. We should want our children to have more skills. There’s nothing wrong with that! It’s a good thing,” he said.

While the Obama campaign says that Obama speaks a little bit of Indonesian, Obama himself admits that he isn’t bilingual.

“I know because I don’t speak a foreign language. It’s embarrassing!” he said.

So now Barack Obama has managed the impossible — he’s thrown himself under his own bus!

Obama mischaracterizes both his earlier comments and the response.  No one argued that children should not learn a second language, although we may want to do a better job in teaching them their first language before worrying about adding another.  Obama specifically criticized the push to make English the official language of the US and the end of requirements to produce documents and signs in a multitude of languages to accommodate people who don’t learn English while living here.  Here are the original comments:

 

I — uh — I don’t understand when people are going worrying about “We need to have English only.”  They want to pass a law — “we just — we want English only”.  Now I agree that immigrants should learn English.  I agree with that.  But — but understand this.  Instead of worrying about whether, uh, immigrants can learn English — they’ll learn English — you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish!  You should be thinking about how your child can become bilingual.  We should have every child speaking more than one language.

You know, it’s embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is merci beaucoup.  Right?

Clearly, he was not talking in the context of education policy. He was attacking people who want to stop pandering to those who refuse to assimilate when they move to the US. “They’ll learn English,” Obama states, but the evidence in every government office shows that we don’t expect them to do so, and many of them don’t. We spend a lot of money printing everything in several different languages — not just Spanish — which is a testament to the fact that we don’t.

And if Obama was speaking about education policy, he’d still be wrong. Most school districts require a second language in high school, although they don’t require it to be Spanish. Spanish wouldn’t help much in France or Germany anyway.

To no one’s great surprise, Obama tried spinning his way out of his elitist, snobby remarks by essentially lying about their context. He then contradicted repeated assertions during the campaign that he spoke Spanish (he did an ad in Spanish during the primaries). He’s flip-flopped on his own bilingual status and called himself an embarrassment as a defense.

What a week!

July 10, 2008

Cannon’s Firing: The Treason Lobby Attempts Damage Control

By Marcus Epstein

That the defeat of pro-amnesty Congressmen Chris Cannon at the hands of political neophyte Jason Chaffetz was over immigration should be simple conventional wisdom.

Were it not for Cannon’s long and vocal support for amnesty, there is absolutely no reason why Chris Cannon should have had any problem in a Republican primary. Other than immigration, he has near impeccable conservative credentials—with a 96% lifetime American Conservative Union rating. He had oodles of money and outspent Chaffetz 7-1. He had the support of the entire Republican Establishment from George Bush (still popular in Utah) on down. And having the last name Cannon in Utah is like having the name Kennedy in Massachusetts or Byrd in Virginia.

Needless to say, the Treason Lobby is attempting damage control by claiming both that illegal immigration was not the main factor driving his defeat. Michael Barone, for example, writes, "Chris Cannon's defeat made [stopping a future ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ bill] a little, but only a very little, likelier."

Henry Fernandez [email him]of the Center for American Progress claims, it is "apparently not true is that there was a connection between Cannon’s immigration moderation [sic] and his loss."

This is all very interesting to me, because for the past three election cycles, my employer Team America, a political action committee founded to support anti-amnesty candidates, had supported primary challenges to Chris Cannon.

Each time we went after him, Cannon would pose as a restrictionist—he would say he’d secure the borders, oppose amnesty etc. Then, when he won, the Open Borders lobby would claim that the election was a referendum on Amnesty. And Cannon would go back to his pro-Amnesty ways.

In 2004 Cannon was challenged by Mark Throckmorton. At that point, many in the Open Borders world still openly used the word amnesty. But this was when Chris Cannon began to say he opposed amnesty. Following Cannon’s defeat of Mark Throckmorton, Tamar Jacoby [email her] wrote, "The immigration reform movement dodged a bullet" and this proved "Americans aren’t anti-immigrant—far from it" Grover Norquist said it showed "Immigrant-bashing failed."

In 2006, Cannon was challenged again, by John Jacob. The race was well timed—immediately after the Senate had passed its first comprehensive amnesty. Cannon suddenly came out against the Senate Bill. He ran on his record on border security, and accused all of his opponents of being racists.

It still looked like Jacob was going to pull it off. But in the last week of the campaign he didn’t run any ads, although he had plenty of money in the bank, and said the Devil was behind his personal financial problems. Cannon went on to win by a healthy margin.

But nonetheless exit polls showed that only 4.5% of the population wanted illegal aliens to stay in the country permanently and only 30.5% thought they should be able to stay as "temporary workers who should return home eventually". Most likely due to Cannon’s apparent last-minute conversion on immigration 35% of voters who said all illegals should return home immediately still voted for Cannon.

Despite this, the open borders lobby took his victory as a mandate for amnesty. Grover Norquist gloated that the election was "very helpful" to getting amnesty. Michael Barone [Email him] wrote: "It is conventional wisdom in many quarters that Republican voters overwhelmingly favor a border-security-only approach to immigration. Cannon's victory casts some doubt on that."

So how can these same people claim that this election, suddenly, has nothing to do with immigration?

They have one shred of misleading evidence, a discussion of an exit poll in the Salt Lake Tribune

“It appears the election simply did not, as some have argued, hinge on immigration.

"‘It may be a victory for them, but that's different than saying that's the reason he lost,’ says Quin Monson, assistant director of the center. ‘I'm sure they're celebrating for whatever reason, but there's not a lot of evidence’ to support their claims the issue brought down Cannon.  

“Roughly the same number of voters who were highly concerned about immigration in 2006, when Cannon won his last primary, showed up this time, when Cannon got whipped. Exit poll results show that more of those who said they had a tougher view on undocumented immigrants voted for Cannon's opponent, Jason Chaffetz, but a majority of those who backed plans like a guest-worker program also favored Chaffetz.”[Why did GOP faithful fire Rep. Cannon?| Immigration not the reason, BYU poll says, By Thomas Burr and Robert Gehrke, The Salt Lake Tribune, June 29, 2008]

The problem was that BYU hadn’t posted the results of the exit poll online. But, fortunately, they were kind enough to send me some more information on the poll. It suggests a very different interpretation than Quinn’s.

There was only one question on immigration:

“Thinking about immigrants who are now living in the U.S. illegally, which of the following options for immigration reform comes closest to your view?

Illegal immigrants should be required to go home immediately: 30.5%

Most illegal immigrants should be required to go home, but some should be allowed to remain in the U.S. under a temporary guest worker program: 40.6%

Most illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. but only as temporary workers who must eventually return home: 24.9%

Illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay permanently in the U.S: 4.1%

So only 4.1 percent supported allowing the illegals being able to stay in the U.S. permanently, much less on a "pathway to citizenship". And only 24.9% thought that most illegals should be temporary workers.

Of course "temporary workers" is usually a euphemism for amnesty. So it may seem discouraging that a majority of voters apparently showed some, very limited, support for temporary workers.

But the definition of "temporary" is critical in this election. Chaffetz’ platform included a well-intentioned plan that he called a "pathway to deportation" whereby illegal aliens could come forward get a truly temporary visa, so that they could get their affairs in order before their deportation, backed up serious criminal consequences if they did not go home.

Personally, I do not think this is a particularly wise policy. Unfortunately, we cannot snap our fingers and deport all illegal aliens tomorrow. Once the writing is on the wall that their presence in this country will not be tolerated, there will be plenty of time for them to get the message, collect their things and go home.

But my objections aside, it is clearly not an amnesty or even the "temporary worker" programs that are introduced as part of the "comprehensive immigration reform" supported by Cannon and his ilk.

Nonetheless, Chris Cannon used this as an excuse to try to campaign to Chaffetz’ right on immigration, "Here's a guy who before the convention was acting like Utah's version of Tom Tancredo, who now...in his Web site says illegal should be able to stay and get a temporary pass, and not do anything,"

This became a major sticking point in the election. But Chaffetz did a good job of clarifying his position and making it clear he opposed amnesty, and would oppose any importation of foreign workers. No doubt that a large percentage of voters who said they supported some form of "temporary workers" had Chaffetz’ plan in mind—not Cannon’s "temporary workers" who will stay here permanently.

Furthermore, another exit poll was conducted by the Utah Student Research Group. It found that immigration was virtually tied with the economy as the top issue for voters (and note that this is for the most important issue facing the country—not the issue that affected your vote). Of the people who found immigration to be one of their top issues, Chaffetz beat Cannon 79.4 to 20.6%

Cannon’s defeat is one of the greatest electoral victories for the patriotic immigration reform movement for many years— no matter how the Treason Lobby tries to spin it.

Congressional Performance Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever Tuesday, July 08, 2008   -->

The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.

Last month, 11% of voters gave the legislature good or excellent ratings. Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008.

The percentage of Democrats who give Congress positive ratings fell from 17% last month to 13% this month. The number of Democrats who give Congress a poor rating remained unchanged. Among Republicans, 8% give Congress good or excellent ratings, up just a point from last month. Sixty-five percent (65%) of GOP voters say Congress is doing a poor job, down a single point from last month.

Voters not affiliated with either party are the most critical of Congressional performance. Just 3% of those voters give Congress positive ratings, down from 6% last month. Sixty-three percent (63%) believe Congress is doing a poor job, up from 57% last month.

Just 12% of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. That number has ranged from 11% to 13% throughout 2008. The majority of voters (62%) say Congress has not passed any legislation to improve life in America.

Voters hold little positive sentiment about the future. Just 41% find it at least somewhat likely that Congress will address important problems facing our nation in the near future, while 55% find this unlikely.

Despite these negative attitudes towards Congress, Democrats continue to enjoy a double digit lead on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

Most voters (72%) think most members of Congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers. Just 14% believe members are genuinely interested in helping people.

A separate Rasmussen survey found that half of all voters believe America’s best days are in the past. However, another survey found that 64% of voters also believe that the world would be a better place if more countries were similar to the United States.

  Mexican comic book sold at Wal-Mart called 'racist'

 

11:46 AM CDT on Tuesday, July 8, 2008

 

By Jeremy Desel / KHOU-TV

 

 

Video HOUSTON -- Shawnedria McGinty was not sure what to think when she found a copy of the comic book series “Memin Pinguin” on the shelves at her local Wal-Mart. After flipping through the pages of the popular Mexican comic book, however, one word came to mind – racist.

“OK, is it a monkey or a boy? Curiosity. So, I opened the book up,” she said. “This is, you know, rude.

“To me it was an insult. Then I saw the cover of this one and thought, (was it) against (presidential contender Barack) Obama or what?”

Head south of the border though, and you get a different reaction to “Memin Pinguin.” Historically, the character has been hugely popular on newsstands in Mexico and Latin American nations, with sales in the millions.

It was originally published in the 1960s, but has recently been re-issued and available on the shelves in Wal-Marts north of the border.

“They are calling him names. They call him an animal in one section. His mom is spanking his butt and it looks like they are drowning him,” said McGinty, who went so far as to buy a Spanish to English dictionary to better understand what was being said in the serial.

She found one passage particularly offensive. In the frame, Memin Pinguin is being kicked by a light-skinned man and is called “a black troublemaker.”

Activist Quanell X said the problem with the book is more than just words.

“This is poking fun at the physical features of an entire people. Making them look buffoonish (and) portraying the young (black) kid as stupid,” said Quanell. “Whenever they are beating him, they are referring to him as Negro. Even here when he is being punched, slapped (he is called) Negro.

“This is a disgrace.”

The Memin character is intended to be Cuban, but no doubt plays to dark-skinned stereotypes once thought to be reserved for white supremacists or the racially insensitive in this country.

Calls to Wal-Mart’s corporate offices for comment as to why the retailer carries the comic were never returned.

This is not the first time Memin Pinguin has stirred up controversy.

The character spurred debate in 2005 when the Mexican government issued a stamp commemorating Memin. At the time, many U.S. activists and political figures called the character racist.

The Mexican government protested the characterizations, asserting that Americans simply do not understand Memin’s cultural significance in Mexico.

That debate spurred the publisher to re-issue the old comics in a collector’s series that are available for purchase in the United States as, well as Mexico.

 

 

Judge orders Google to turn over YouTube user data to Viacom Might as well own up now that the cat’s out of the bag: I’ve been known to watch a “Hot for Words” clip or two in my time.

I’m into words.

Judge Louis L. Stanton actually delivered a mixed ruling — he refused Viacom’s demand that Google turn over YouTube’s source code, the software that runs the site, agreeing with Google that that was a trade secret.

But he used Google’s own argument, explained here on Google’s own site, that revealing users’ Internet Protocol addresses — which identify every single computer, server, cell phone or toaster connected to the Internet — does not constitute an invasion of privacy…

Viacom wants the data to prove that copyrighted “stolen” material is more popular among YouTube visitors than original “user-generated” material.

It sought the source code to show that YouTube does have software in place to filter out some objectionable content — for example, YouTube manages to keep pornography and explicit nudity off the site — but chooses to allow copyrighted material as part of its business model.

The source code would have been fascinating as potential evidence that they really are looking the other way at jihadist material. As for the user information, let me ask a stupid question: Why does Viacom need IP addresses to figure out whether copyrighted material gets more views than user-generated stuff? YouTube publishes the number of views under each clip. If all you want is the aggregate data, it’s already there and accessible.

I hope it’s overturned on appeal on principle but I have to say, as between the two companies and their respective capacities to harvest and exploit personal information, Viacom ain’t the one I’m worried about.

The Schwarzenegger Nonrevolution
Tom Brokaw and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger are old friends, having met 30 years ago when Mr. Brokaw was NBC's correspondent in Los Angeles. But that didn't spare Arnold from tough questioning in the mold of the late Tim Russert when Mr. Brokaw interviewed him for "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

Mr. Brokaw began by asking just how much had really changed in California. "When you ran for governor in 2003, you ran as a fiscal conservative who would change the system, who would bring business-like techniques," the host said. "Now, you are facing a $15-billion deficit here in California. Unemployment is running at about 6.8%; you've got the worst housing crisis since the Great Depression. If you were the CEO of a public company, the board would probably say, 'It is time to go.'"

Mr. Schwarzenegger joked: "Are you always this positive?" He then launched into a defense of some of his spending – especially on infrastructure – and said economic conditions were sour everywhere: "People are struggling, and I think we see that all over the world."

But Mr. Brokaw wasn't done. "Before you came in, governor, you said the spending was out of control. Your rate of increase in spending is about the same as your predecessor, Gov. Gray Davis. It has grown at about 34% since you took office."

A startled governor, who rode into office during the 2003 recall campaign excoriating the spending record of Democrat Davis, insisted: "The numbers are misleading. We have paid off a lot of debt. . . . I am very proud that we paid off a lot of debt and that we got the economy going again."

In truth, California's state government has taken on billions in new debt to pay for infrastructure projects. It also faces massive new obligations. Just last month, a federal court-appointed prison medical czar ordered the state to pay an additional $7 billion to build new facilities for inmates.

California's tough times have led to a slide in Mr. Schwarzenegger's approval ratings to about 40%, a fact the NBC host dryly noted by saying: "It is tough to govern under those circumstances."

But the governor was unfazed. "Not at all. I'm having a great time."

No one doubts that. Arnold has the role of a lifetime. But Californians aren't having a great time. The millions of Californians who voted for the Terminator five years ago in part because of his pledge to "blow up the boxes" of state government are wondering why their state is once again in the same fiscal fix as in 2003.

-- John Fund

06/27/2008 Border Security Advocate Says Cannon Defeat Indicates Amnesty A Losing Issue By: Bradley Vasoli , The Bulletin
Years of controversy over proposed amnesty for illegal aliens provoked continuous insistence from high-immigration advocates that the issue doesn't hurt them at the voting booth. Case-in-point: Chris Cannon.
But after serving six two-year terms, the Republican Utah congressman lost to border-enforcement proponent Jason Chaffetz by a 20-point margin in Tuesday's primary.
Restrictionists have long viewed Mr. Cannon as the GOP representative most hostile to their agenda. Conservative on most issues, he stood apart from the majority of House Republicans in his support of legal status for unlawful entrants.
Roy Beck, executive director of the nonpartisan low-immigration advocacy group NumbersUSA.com, believes the voter's message was simple: Voters don't desire a limitless immigration policy.
"He's always been a really big leader for amnesty," Mr. Beck said of the congressman. He noted that the staff of NumbersUSA, which sent copious information on Mr. Cannon to their subscribers in Utah via e-mail, was "just thrilled" at Mr. Chaffetz's victory and held a party celebrating it.
Polls consistently show that at least two-thirds of American voters object to any legalizing of the roughly 12 million unlawful immigrants in the country, according to University of Maryland government professor James G. Gimpel. Nonetheless, restrictionist candidates have had difficulty using the issue to their electoral advantage because it often doesn't figure prominently in voters' considerations.
"It's because lots of people can go about their daily lives without ever thinking about the issue until a pollster asks them," Dr. Gimpel said. "It took some time [to defeat Mr. Cannon] and it took awhile for the news of the incongruence of his position [with that of his district's voters] to become widely known. And it also obviously took some time to recruit a quality opponent."
Mr. Chaffetz shares all of the positions NumbersUSA holds on restricting immigration, both illegal and not. He supports ending the visa lottery program and birthright citizenship.
Mr. Beck acknowledges that it took Mr. Cannon's adversaries many attempts before they finally brought him down. (His organization worked in an educational role, without making endorsements or providing legwork; activist Bay Buchanan's Team America PAC coordinated the electoral effort.) But he further noted the congressman's stature as a proponent of amnesty and believes that restrictionists may carry that momentum forward into other races against pro-mass immigration incumbents.
"There are several others worse than him," he said.
Mr. Cannon was adept at concealing his position on amnesty, Mr. Beck said, by averring that he opposed it and suggesting that he only supported "guest worker programs." But Mr. Cannon did support truncated legislation to legalize some illegal constituencies, such as those working in agriculture.
"Cannon has been able for years to get the news media, both national and local, to run along with his charade," Mr. Beck said. "That's been enough to pull him out [of electoral trouble] and this time it just didn't work. We're hoping that maybe these pro-amnesty incumbents will not be able to run from their voting records this time."

Today, Howard Kurtz reminds us why his media column is a must-read at the Washington Post.  After Barack Obama’s “inartful” flip-flop on the constitutionality of the DC gun ban and his reversal on supporting it, Kurtz expected to see the facts of the issue laid out properly in media reports today.  Unfortunately, his peers around the nation apparently decided to ignore reporting for some first-class misdirection — and Kurtz calls them out on it:

But even though the earlier Obama quote and the “inartful” comment have been bouncing around the Net for 24 hours, I’m not seeing any reference to them in the morning papers. Most do what the New York Times did: “Mr. Obama, who like Mr. McCain has been on record as supporting the individual-rights view, said the ruling would ‘provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.’ ”

Supporting the individual-rights view? Not in November.

Even the Tribune–the very paper that the Obama camp told he supported the gun ban–makes no reference to the November interview. Instead: “Democrat Barack Obama offered a guarded response Thursday to the Supreme Court ruling striking down the District of Columbia’s prohibition on handguns and sidestepped providing a view on the 32-year-old local gun ban. Republican rival John McCain’s campaign accused him of an ‘incredible flip-flop’ on gun control.”

So McCain accuses Obama of a flip-flop, and the Trib can’t check the clips to tell readers whether there’s some basis in fact for the charge?

USA Today takes the same tack:

“In a conference call put together by McCain’s campaign, Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas said . . . that Obama has been changing his position on the gun issue and said the Democratic senator has done some ‘incredible flip-flopping’ on key issue.”

And? And? That’s all we get? He said/he said journalism?

Kurtz kindly references me as one of the conservative blogosphere that actually produced the comparison, as well as many other great bloggers on the right, and even  my friends at Newshoggers on the Left, who didn’t buy “inartful” for a moment.  Kurtz wonders why the journalists in America’s newsrooms didn’t bother to research what Obama had said.  Many of us believe we know the answer already, of course, but at least Kurtz has the spine to scold even his own paper for not sufficiently reporting a major reversal on a major public-policy issue.

Will Kurtz’ colleagues respond?

L.A. business leaders urging an increase in the state car tax Delegation asks for combination of budget measures By Rick Orlov, Staff Writer
Lobbying in Sacramento this week, Los Angeles business leaders are calling on state officials to look at a combination of spending cuts and tax increases - including boosting the car tax - to balance the state's projected $15.2 billion budget shortfall.

In a survey of its members, the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce said the vehicle license fee - which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger rode as an issue to the recall of former Gov. Gray Davis - should be reinstated to bring in an estimated $6 billion to help the state balance its $144.3 billion budget.

"What our members recognize is the magnitude of the problem calls for us to support something like this," said board Chairman Tim McCallion, who led a delegation of business leaders on a lobbying trip to the Capitol this week.

"We realize the state can't balance its budget without a combination of programs. What we are doing is looking at it from a jobs perspective. We will support proposals that create more jobs in the state."

The chamber said a fee of $150 to $200 per vehicle would help balance the budget and retain essential programs.

Schwarzenegger, whose first executive order on taking office in 2003 was to repeal the VLF, appreciates the chamber's views, but believes reimposing the VLF is a nonstarter.

"The governor disagrees," spokesman Aaron McLear said. "He does not believe the state can tax its way out of this problem. What he is looking for is true budget reform."

That was the only tax increase to receive any support from the local business community, which opposed all the other proposals on the table, including those from the governor regarding a sales tax on personal services, an increase in the state sales tax or a split-roll property tax.

Also, the members were divided on taking more from the state lottery to finance government services.

McCallion said the chamber does support many of Schwarzenegger's proposed reforms, including the need to develop a long-term plan for the state's budget, increase budget reserves and stabilize education funding.

McCallion said the business leaders also talked to legislators about a variety of measures dealing with education, the environment and workplace issues.

Debra Bartoshevich has rattled the Wisconsin Democratic Party with her decision to support another candidate besides the nominee, Barack Obama. The Hillary Clinton supporter won’t vote for Obama but for John McCain after Hillary’s withdrawal — and she insists that she’s not going to change her mind before the general election:

As an avid supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries, Debra Bartoshevich is not alone in her frustration over Clinton’s defeat.

She’s not alone in refusing to support Barack Obama.

And she’s not entirely alone in saying she’ll vote this fall for Republican John McCain instead.

But what makes her unusual is that she holds these views as an elected delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Denver this summer.

People don’t become delegates by accident. Delegates get selected from a pool of people dedicated to party activism, which is what makes Bartoshevich so unusual. When someone who has put that much energy into the party decides to support the other party’s candidate, that says something about the dissatisfaction — at least as experienced by Bartoshevich.

The question will be whether more Democratic delegates chosen for Hillary Clinton follow her example. I tend to think that a number of factors will keep more from doing so, especially social factors. Bartoshevich will likely become a pariah within her district for quite some time, and her participation in politics will get met with a lot less enthusiasm than before.

Wisconsin may be embarrassed, but the most likely outlet for other disenchanted delegates will be to stay quiet — and shift their votes privately.