Obama, Iran, and Honduras

I am trying not apply cynical and disturbing motivations to Obama's disjointed foreign policy but it's really hard when you look at the situations in Iran and Honduras. So, rather than getting inside his head, I will simply lay out the facts.

In Iran, there was a sham election. Despite record turnout, the results were announced about four hours after polls closed. Iran has no machine ballots nor exit polling. As such, these results would have had to have been hand counted. Even though everyone expected a very close election, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was announced to have won overwhelmingly.

Then, supporters of the opponent, Al Mousavi, took to the streets in mass protests. The protests were eventually put down, often violently. The opposition candidate doesn't appear to be free to move. Many protestors have been beaten, jailed, and even murdered. Meanwhile, the ruling elites have declared the election valid and call this the final word.

Here, President Obama has been very careful with his words. He has insisted that he doesn't want to meddle. His language has been very even handed. He once pronounced that there was little difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. He has repeatedly referred to the election and its aftermath and "internal Iranian matter".

Meanwhile, in Honduras, the President, Manuel Zelaya, was attempting to run for office one more time despite being at the end of his final term. He called for a national referendum to put it to the voters. Yet, according to the Supreme Court of Honduras, this move is unConstitutional. They declared as such. Despite the ruling of the Supreme Court, Zelaya went ahead with the referendum. When the military refused to set up balloting stations, he fired most of the heads of the military.

When Zelaya insisted on moving ahead with the referendum despite the ruling of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant. The military followed through on their order. Then, the Congress declared that Zelaya was no longer the President and installed a new one, Roberto Micheletti.

Now, some in the conservative media have already taken to siding with the Congress and the Supreme Court. I'm more skeptical. Often in cases like this, there are no good guys. There are only different sorts of bad guys all vying for power.

That said. If President Obama felt that he shouldn't meddle in Iran, he certainly shouldn't be meddling here. The last thing anyone needs is for the world to think that this is being orchestrated by the U.S. Yet, not only was he meddling, but they've been meddling for weeks.

The Obama administration and members of the Organization of American States had worked for weeks to try to avert any moves to overthrow President Zelaya, said senior U.S. officials. Washington's ambassador to Honduras, Hugo Llorens, sought to facilitate a dialogue between the president's office, the Honduran parliament and the military.

The efforts accelerated over the weekend, as Washington grew increasingly alarmed. "The players decided, in the end, not to listen to our message," said one U.S. official involved in the diplomacy. On Sunday, the U.S. embassy here tried repeatedly to contact the Honduran military directly, but was rebuffed. Washington called the removal of President Zelaya a coup and said it wouldn't recognize any other leader.

Furthermore, the statements coming out of the White House regarding Honduras are significantly less equivocating.

We call on all parties in Honduras to respect the constitutional order and the rule of law, to reaffirm their democratic vocation, and to commit themselves to resolve political disputes peacefully and through dialogue.

I am having an awful lot of trouble squaring these two situations without becoming cynical and frankly frightened by our foreign policy. In Iran, there was a popular and peaceful uprising that demanded fair and honest elections and an end to tyranny. In Honduras, the President ignored the Supreme Court and moved forward with a referendum that very Supreme Court deemed un Constitutional. As such, both the Supreme Court and the Congress acted in conjunction with each other. The president saw the situation in Iran as one he needed to maintain a passive and even handed approach to. Meanwhile, in Honduras, he sided with the President, and he meddled both in words and deeds. It's even more disturbing when you add that Zelaya is a leftist alligned with Hugo Chavez. Exactly, which side is our president on?

Will the President Really Dive into the Hornet's Nest of Immigration Reform

On both a political and policy level, it makes some sense that President Obama wants to move forward with immigration reform including some form of amnesty. Obama has favored driver's licenses for illegals all the way back to his days in Illinois. He's favored such open borders policies as the DREAM Act. All in all, he is generally pro open borders. So, immigration reform including amnesty seems rather natural.

On a political level, legalizing illegals can very much lead directly to a permanent Democratic majority. Of course, no one knows how long it would take but adding up to 20 million new voters who will overwhelmingly vote Democrat will give that party an electoral advantage that is nearly impossible to overcome.

So, on the one hand, it makes perfect sense for the president to try and tackle this. On the other hand, tackling illegal immigration with anything near amnesty would be somewhere near short term political suicide. The main reason is that the people don't trust politicians. The bill will likely have all sorts of planned beefed up enforcement provisions. Yet, none of that will matter. The people won't believe that any of that will happen. All the people will know is that illegals will get amnesty.

The main problem is a problem of intensity. I haven't seen the polling on amnesty, but here is one thing I know. Those against amnesty take that position with a lot more intensity than those that support it. Yes, some form of amnesty would be hugely supported by many parts of the Hispanic community, but for most Americans, the idea of amnesty creates a negative and visceral reaction.

The other problem with taking up immigration reform is that such debates get very ugly. If President Obama wants to take on immigration reform, he has one of two options. He can either expect to lose, or he can expect to use almost all his political capital winning. Health care reform will take years. Cap and trade will likely not pass this year. So, if President Obama wants to take on immigration reform he must know that it is with the express knowledge that most other reforms are sacrificed. If he really wants to dive into this hornet's nest that is his prerogative, but he must know that his entire presidency will be in jeopardy if he does it.

Now Israel's Actions Must Match Its Rhetoric

With about three weeks left in my final year of college, a few of my fraternity buddies decided to spend a Sunday afternoon drinking on our fraternity's roof. As the alcohol began to take hold, they began to engage in some good natured ribbing with some fraternity members, also drinking on their roof, of the fraternity across the street. One thing lead to another and good natured ribbing turned into a verbal confrontation. The more the confrontation escalated, the more the rhetoric became sensationalized. Soon, each fraternity was promising total destruction of the other. As the rhetoric escalated, finally, one of the fraternity members of the fraternity across the street threw a beer bottle the shattered one of our windows. Now, we were ready to brawl but for reasons I still don't know our side eventually backed down. 'We dared the other side for a full out fraternity war, they obliged, and once we got it, we backed down. We allowed our window to be broken with impunity. We spent the last three weeks of my senior year being the laughingstock of our Greek system.

I believe this story has much relation to the situation in Gaza. That's because, much like own fraternity, Israel has now made bold proclamations. Here is what Israel's Defense Minister said in describing the current conflict with Hamas.

Israel obliterated symbols of Hamas power on the third day of what the defense minister described Monday as a "war to the bitter end," striking next to the Hamas premier's home, and devastating a security compound and a university building.

Here is how their U.S. Ambassador described the conflict.

Israel's ambassador to the United Nations says the goal of the current offensive in the Gaza Strip is much broader than ending Palestinian rocket attacks. She says Israel wants to destroy Gaza's ruling Hamas movement.

In an interview Tuesday, Ambassador Gabriela Shalev said Israel's main goal is to "destroy completely" what she called a "terrorist gang."

Here is how a Senior Defense official characterized the military action.

A senior Israeli military officer says Israel is striking at the entire Hamas Government in the Gaza Strip, not just terrorists and people who launch rockets into Israel.

...

Israeli military's deputy chief of staff Brigadier General Dan Harel says there will not be a single Hamas building left standing in Gaza when the attack is over.

"After this operation there will not be a single Hamas building left standing in Gaza, and we plan to change the rules of the game," he told the YNet News website.

"We are hitting not only terrorists and launchers, but also the whole Hamas Government and all its wings."

Make no mistake, the message from Israel is clear and unmistakable. This is no limited military incursion. This no tit for tat operation. The top officials of the Israeli government see this offensive as one final all out war in which they intend to destroy and eliminate Hamas.

Our fraternity made similar bold proclamations in our own confrontation and we were humiliated when we didn't back those proclamations up. In the case of Israel, the stakes are exponentially higher. If Hamas retains any capability whatsoever after this confrontation, this will undeniably be seen as a loss for Israel. Following a similar loss against Hezbollah two years ago, Israel's military might will be seen as weakening. Her enemies will be emboldened, and so, anything short of a total annihilation of Hamas now will have disastrous results for Israel.

Israel has just performed the war version of going all in, and so they had better be ready to back it up. If Israel doesn't back up its rhetoric with serious military might, they will invite each and every one of their enemies to attack at will. The only thing that Israel cannot afford at all costs is to look weak. Now that they have made very bold proclamations, they must back those up with military action that accomplishes their bold rhetoric. Anything less, and they will suffer a humiliation much worse than my fraternity and with much more serious consequences.

Some Perspective on Sociopathy, Rod Blagojevich and the Illinois Political Machine

Here is how Sociopathy is defined.

Antisocial personality disorder (APD) is a mental disorder. It is defined by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual: "The essential feature for the diagnosis is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood."[1] Deceit and manipulation are considered essential features of the disorder. Therefore, it is essential in making the diagnosis to collect material from sources other than the individual being diagnosed. Also, the individual must be age 18 or older as well as have a documented history of a conduct disorder before the age of 15.[1]People having antisocial personality disorder are sometimes referred to as "sociopaths" and "psychopaths", although some researchers believe that Psychopathy/Sociopathy are not synonymous with AsPD.[2]

Here is a review of the charges against Rod Blagojevich. First, he is suspected of attempting to sell the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama for cash, favors, jobs for himself and his wife. He is charged with attempting to extort the Chicago Tribune. He wanted to remove those critical of him from their editorial board in exchange for funds the company needed to complete the sale of the Cubs and Wrigley Field. Furthermore, he was charged with withholding funds from a hospital unless its principle contributed to his campaign. He even attempted to broker a deal in which the SEIU would provide him with a cushy job in exchange for a favorable pick to the U.S. Senate. In other words, here is an individual that was entrusted with serving the public and he used this position for nothing more than personal gain. Never has there been a more clear example of a sociopath than this.

In the aftermath of these startling allegations, much of the media and political establishment in Chicago, Cook County, and Springfield have reacted with horror and shock. It is as though his behavior is peculiar and surprising. Is this really so? Here is how John Kass, the only Chicago area media person to write about the corruption here with unvarnished truth, put Blagojevich's actions into context.

But that same day, I diagnosed Blagojevich as quite sane, because all he did was act like just another corrupt Chicago politician. He squeezed people. That's how things are done in the city that is not Camelot.

Still, Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan asked the state Supreme Court on Friday to declare Blagojevich "disabled." She called on the justices—some of whom are there by grace of the Chicago machine—to remove Blagojevich, pronto.

"State government is paralyzed by a governor who is incapable of governing," Madigan insisted. "We would look to the fact that the term 'disability' legally is very broad, that it is not simply isolated to a physical or mental disability."Incapable of what? Signing his name to bills? He can sign his name, to bills, or to a federal witness list, which would be much nicer. But they don't want that, or another week or two of Gov. Dead Meat leading the nightly news.

The fact is that what has shocked the city, county, state, nation and world is the brazen nature in which Blagojevich committed his corruption. The corruption itself is frankly an everyday part of doing business. Todd Stroger, current President of Cook County, recently raised the Cook County sales tax above 10%, the highest in the nation. At the same time, he cut the budget of Cook County Hospital, also called John Stroger Hospital (named for his father the previous President of Cook County), and according to the local CBS affiliate Stroger has put multiple of his friends on the County's payroll with cushy six figure jobs.

Meanwhile, Lisa Madigan, the current Attorney General of Illinois, has been all over the news lately. She has in the last couple days been fervent in her opposition to Blagojevich and demand for him to step aside. This is a rather peculiar position. That's because while Blagojevich has committed his crimes she has been silent and absent in her role as top prosecutor in the State. I'm sure the fact that she is on most Democrat's short list to be the nominee for the next Governor has nothing to do with her new found righteous indignation.

Then, there is the head corruptor himself, Richard M. Daley. He runs the city of Chicago much like his father Richard J. Daley did, like a political machine. So, we can be sure that business is conducted based on patronage, bribes, favors, and back scratching. The list of corruption tied to Daley includes the Hired Truck scandal, patronage involving his chief deputy Robert Sorich, and a scheme in which $100 million meant to go to affirmative action recipients went to his WHITE friends. The city of Chicago isn't run for the benefit of the people he was elected to serve but rather for the benefits of the friends of Richard M. Daley. The same goes for the way in which Todd Stroger runs Cook County, and Rod Blagojevich has run the state of Illinois.

In my estimation, there are only two politicians that are genuinely against corruption, Tony Peraica a Republican and Forrest Claypool, a Democrat. So, as we all react with shock and horror to the revelation that Rod Blagojevich is corrupt, let's keep things in perspective. I'm not saying that the entire political apparatus in Chicago, Cook Cook County, and Springfield is sociopathic. All I'm saying is that my default position is that they are and each politician will have to prove to me otherwise.

Tony Peraica for Illinois Governor

This would definitely be a very controversial endorsement because Peraica just got his clock cleaned in the most recent Cook County State's Attorney's race in 2008. Yet, if the Illinois Republican Party wants to show that they are serious about ending corrupt business as usual, then the best candidate is Tony Peraica. I have known and supported Peraica for several years now, and Peraica is one of the very few Illinois politician that makes fighting corruption his platform.

The best way to describe Peraica's dedication to fighting corruption is through this story. Peraica is currently on the Board of Cook County. He was on this same board when John Stroger, the father of the current Cook County Board President, was the President. Several years ago a contract came up before the Board. Stroger was attempting to move the contract past the board in 72 business hours when the rules stated clearly that it was supposed to be no less than 96. Peraica investigated the contract and realized that one of Stroger's buddies was the recipient. Peraica rallied the entire board and the board voted 15-2 against Stroger's motion to move the contract forward. Then, with cameras rolling, despite actually losing 15-2, Stroger smacked the gavel and said the motion passed. Peraica fought Stroger all the way through the federal courts system until a federal judge finally sided with Peraica and said a 15-2 loss is in fact a loss, and the motion had no business passing.

This story is not only emblematic of the sort of ingrained corruption in Illinois but also in Peraica's dogged determination in fighting it. Here is how local political writer Dick Simpson describes Peraica's credentials as a crusader against corruption.

"[Peraica] opposes political corruption and has promised not to accept campaign contributions from county employees or vendors who do business with the county. He pledges not to raise taxes and to cut the budget, and he proposes a referendum to consolidate four tax-collecting agencies to save taxpayers' money. But can a Republican be elected on the platform of a smaller government, eliminating corruption and lower taxes?

"Peraica says 97 departments of county government can be cut to 35. He supports the 7 percent property tax cap pending in Springfield and would work for fundamental property tax reform later. He would cut the size of county government. Because 1,300 to 1,500 of the county's 27,000 employees leave each year, unnecessary jobs could be eliminated without having to fire large numbers.

Peraica is the only Illinois Republican that I can think of with a clear pedigree as a crusader against corruption. If the Republicans are to use this moment to wrestle power back in this state, they must make it clear that we aren't going to replace one corrupt regime with another. The history of politics in Illinois is that one party rules until the corruption gets to be too much and then the other party rules. The pattern never stops and we replace one form of corruption with another. The story of the indictment of REPUBLICAN power broker William Cellini shows that this state isn't run on ideology or parties, but rather it is run by corruption. It is run with a few power players sitting behind the scenes calling the shots.

If that is to stop, the state needs someone not tainted by the corruption. The reality is that this state has very few politicians like this. In 2001, Peter Fitzgerald lost his political career because he dared to nominate Patrick Fitzgerald, no relation, as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. The powers that be in Illinois were none too happy that an outsider was chosen to oversea their political business. The powers that be were looking for a consummate insider, someone eyeing a cushy lawyer gig later. In other words, the powers that be wanted someone they could control. They couldn't control Fitzgerald. As such, powerful Illinois legislator Bob Kjellander and House Speaker Denny Hastert lead an effort to strip Peter Fitzgerald of all Republican support in the party in Illinois. His political career was over.

That is the politics in Illinois and if the Republican Party nominates the typical candidate they will likely get someone that wants to play the same game that Blagojevich played. The Republican Party has one player that I can think of that will have credibility when they say that the era of corruption in Illinois is over. That person is Tony Peraica and he is my recommedation for Governor of Illinois.

The Democrat's Governance Problem Remains the Same

Following the 2006 election, Dick Morris pointed out that the Democrat's new majority was largely ceremonial, and that ultimately, the Democratic caucus would wind up in total disarray. That's because the Democratic Party is much less one unified organ and much more series of competing factions each with their own agenda. Among the factions, it includes: The Blue Dogs, The Congressional Black Caucus, The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the group allied with Soros and the Nutroot. Each of these factions have enough members that a revolt, on its own, would cause the Democratic majority to be a minority as long as the Republicans stuck together. Morris turned out to be absolutely correct and the Democratic Congress was a total nightmare. At this point, the Democratic Congress barely polls in double digits in terms in terms of approval. Nancy Pelosi swooped into Congress with a bold agenda and ultimately only showed a modest increase to the minimum wage (something she added to an Iraq War funding bill) as her "major" accomplishment.

In this Congress, we will see a similar dynamic. We are already seeing this tension surfacing.

Blue Dog Democrats Friday called on the Democratic Caucus to support “moderate voices” in the slew of leadership decisions the party will be making this month.

The release did not name any of the races or contenders, but Blue Dog sources say it can be seen as preliminary support for Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) in a brewing bid for vice chairman of the caucus and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) in his fight to stave off a committee chairmanship challenge from Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).

“As the moderate faction of our caucus has grown and contributed to our large majority, our leadership must have more moderate voices at the table if we want to continue to be successful, strong, and effective as a caucus,” said Blue Dog leader Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.).

Leadership posts are going to be the least of the problems of this tension. The real problem will be in crafting policy that can get a majority. The Democratic Soros types in the Caucus are folks like Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, and the House Speaker herself, Nancy Pelosi. Their agenda can best be summed up by this Frank interview.


Folks like Barney Frank make up a good quarter to one third of the caucus. They are also, CURRENTLY, most of its leadership.

Then, on the other hand, there are the Blue Dog Democrats. This is a coalition of about 40 "moderates" in the House and about 10 in the Senate. I say they are "moderate" because in reality they are usually a lot more Conservative these days than the Republicans themselves. While Barney Frank is calling massive new spending and dismisses any worries about deficits, the Blue Dogs are calling for PAYGO spending policies.

The PAYGO or pay-as-you-go rule compels new spending or tax changes to not add to the federal deficit. New proposals must either be "budget neutral" or offset with savings derived from existing funds. [1] The goal of this is to require those in control of the budget to engage in the diligence of prioritizing expenses and exercising fiscal restraint.

So, on the one hand, we have Barney Frank and his cohorts ready to spend with reckless abandon. On the other hand, we have the Blue Dogs who demand that any spending increase be offset by spending cuts somewhere else. Somewhere in the middle lies a policy that can turn into law.

It's important to understand the stakes. For someone like Barney Frank, spending is a matter of ideology. He believes in big government and he believes in big spending. Now that his ideological bent has power he intends to implement it. For the Blue Dogs, this is a matter of survival. They are not merely conservative philosophically. They also come from conservative areas. Many of them swept into victory in 2006 promising essentially to be more conservative than their Republican counterparts. Because the Republicans failed to hold the line on spending when in power, there was an opening. If Nancy Pelosi's Congress goes wild though, there WILL be a Republican opponent waiting to use the spending spree as a bludgeon.

Spending is only one area where this tension occurs. Most of these Blue Dogs are also socially conservative. Barack Obama has indicated that he wants all sorts of extreme abortion policies like federal funding for abortions, eliminating parental notifications, etc. The Blue Dogs would be taking huge risks in voting for these policies as well. The folks in their districts are as socially conservative as they are fiscally conservative. Having their Congress person rubber stamp any sort of radical abortion policy is not something they are likely to forget come 2011. Of course, without the Blue Dogs, there is no majority for any such radical measure.

On immigration, the Blue Dogs again act even more conservative than the Republicans. It was in fact Blue Dog Democrat Congressman and former Quarterback Heath Shuler that introduced the toughest border security bill, the SAVE Act. Anything that sniffs of amnesty will also be furiously opposed by the Blue Dogs. On the issue of immigration, illegal and otherwise, the Blue Dogs will face tension with not only the Soros types but the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. While President elect Obama is quite sympathetic to the open borders crowd, he will have a hard time passing things like the DREAM ACT, driver's licenses for illegals, etc. At best, what we will have is a stalled agenda.

Finally, there is the Congressional Black Caucus. For obvious reason, they will likely feel as though they should have more power. Here, the tension will likely be between the President himself and the Caucus. If it looks as though he is governing as an African American, that would be the worst thing that could happen to his Presidency. If legislation even sniffs of "Afro centricity" that would face an overwhelming rejection by the public at large. As such, whatever power they have, it will have to be tempered by the President himself.

The reality is that in such cases it is up to the leadership to bring all sides to the table and compromise. It is one thing not to be able to reach out to the other party. It is something quite different not to be able to reach out to the many factions of your own party. The fact that the last Congress was totally impotent in dealing with its many factions can be laid squarely on two people, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Their grades in their first terms were both F's. In order to govern all factions need to come together and compromises reached. There is a middle ground between Barney Frank's total lack of fiscal responsibility and the Blue Dog's rigid PAYGO ideas. It is the job of the Speaker and the Senate leader to get there. That they couldn't reflected badly on them. Whether they can or not in the next Congress remains to be seen, however the Democrat's governance problems remain the same as they were in 2006.

McCain's Theme Problem

John McCain, like any other candidate for President, must accomplish quite a lot in a relatively short period of time. He has to try and set the tone of debate, define himself, and his opponent. As such, supporters of McCain are quite frustrated since he can't seem to do any of it with any success right now. Theme, to me at least, is the most important thing in any campaign. Theme is the reason that a voter votes for a candidate. Obama figured out theme right away and he has hammered at the concepts of change, unity, and a new direction. McCain, on the other hand, still hasn't clearly communicated to voters why they should vote for him.

I think supporters of McCain should be extra frustrated because in many ways McCain is a remarkable politician and persona and he has a platform that should give all sorts of voters a reason to vote, but he can't seem to verbalize his platform in a way that is understandable. If I were McCain, I would have a five plank platform and begin hammering away at each plank and define the campaign through it.

1) Aggressive GWOT policy that finishes the job in EVERY theater we are in. This needs to be the leading point of his campaign. McCain is most comfortable on national security issues and during war time McCain needs to point out that war always comes first. McCain has gotten himself stuck debating the surge. It maybe natural for him to point out just how successful a policy he was lonely in supporting worked out, but ultimately voters aren't voting on the past but on the future. Rather, if I were McCain's campaign, I will build the theme on finishing the job in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would build my theme on the idea that the only way to confront Iran peacefully is to win in each theater. While Obama wants to get out of Iraq as soon as possible and then negotiate with Iran, that is a negotiation out of weakness. I would build the theme around the idea that victory is the only thing that matters in war. Whatever anyone thought about Iraq, now is the time for victory. Timetables are the concepts of defeatists.

Furthermore, the same kind of turnaround we had in Iraq can be applied to Afghanistan by shifting strategies to counter insurgency. It's time for McCain to point out why we are winning in Iraq in detail and apply those concepts to Afghanistan.

On foreign policy, this election must be about victory or defeat.

2) The economy

Here, McCain has plenty to work with if he would only get out to the American people and verbalize it. Free markets, lower taxes, and less spending. People say he needs to move away from Bush and he can. He was the lone voice while the Republican Congress went on a spending spree. He needs to hammer away at the excesses that the Republican Congress wraught, and how they contributed to the malaise. Then, he needs to lay out how a McCain Presidency would be different. The fiscal conservatives would welcome McCain's criticism on spending as this is what turned them off in 2006. Then, McCain needs to combine the ideas of less spending with lower taxes and free markets. The other side wants to spend more, regulate more, and tax more and Obama then has the chutzpah to proclaim this is some new and novel concept. This economic debate must come down to free markets or regulation, low taxes or high taxes, less spending or more spending. McCain can and should run away from Bush on the economy, and that's because Bush contributed to out of control spending. That said, he can't run away from free markets and low taxes just because Barack Obama may try and proclaim that is Bush III.

3) Judges.

Here, McCain has an opportunity to turn a marginal issue in a general election into a real positive. That's because he has clearly defined the sort of judge he wants. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has a very peculiar.

Ninety-five percent of the time the law is so clear that it's just a matter of applying the law. I'm not somebody who believes in a bunch of judicial law-making.

What you're looking for is somebody who is going to apply the law where it's clear. Now there's gonna be those five percent of cases or one percent of cases where the law isn't clear. And the judge has to then bring in his or her own perspectives, his ethics, his or her moral bearings. And In those circumstance what I do want is a judge who is sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can't have access to political power and as a consequence can't protect themselves from being being dealt with sometimes unfairly, that the courts become a refuge for justice. That's been its historic role. That was its role in Brown v Board of Education.

Wanting a judge that is sympathetic to the little guy is rather nebulous and open to interpretation. McCain wants a strict constructionist, a judge that reads the Constitution as it is and interprets the law based on what the Constitution actually says. This is clearly defined and easy to explain. Try and explain how a Supreme Court justice should rule based on sympathy for the little guy. McCain has the reasonable, logical, and easy to explain position. The Supreme Court has always been a side issue in the general election, and that is a shame. Supreme Court justices are the most lasting legacy of any President. McCain can make it an issue by talking more about it. If he makes appointing strict constructionists one of his themes, that will in and of itself make the Supreme Court a more relevant issue. The issue is there, but he needs to grab hold of it.

4) Energy Independence

This may wind up being the most important issue depending on what gas prices look like in a few months. This issue appears to be working for Republicans. It must become more than merely drilling which has become a good issue for McCain and Republicans as well. McCain has laid out bits and pieces but for now, I don't see a coherent strategy. He likes nuclear power, but I don't understand how he plans on making it marketable on a mass scale. (I have proposed a moratorium on all taxes related to alternative energy) He needs to have a plan that goes beyond rhetoric and platitudes and is transformed into something the public can imagine working. The public can see domestic drilling dropping the price of oil and that's why this issue works for Republicans. The public wants a long term plan that makes us energy independent and neither side has give that.

5) Attacking illegal immigration

Yes, if he makes this a campaign platform, it will be dicey. Of course, Barack Obama will try and demonize the issue. He will likely call him a flip flopper. So what? The public is overwhelmingly against illegal immigration. McCain lost when he tried to bring "comprehensive reform". Multiple times he has said that he has learned from the experience. Well as GI Joe once said, "Now you know but knowing is half the battle". He needs to take this knowledge and formulate a strong, cohesive policy that will attack illegal immigration. He needs a plan that builds the wall by the end of his first year. He needs to come out for putting fifty thousand National Guard troops on the border. Finally, he should come out publicly in support of the SAVE Act, the bill that will streamline employment verification so that all employers will eventually be able to easily confirm that potential and current employees are here legally.

Let Barack Obama stand up for the DREAM Act, driver's licenses for illegals, and all sorts of other open borders policies. John McCain needs to stand up for border enforcement. He can have credibility on this issue if he frames it right. He tried comprehensive reform. The voters overwhelmingly said no. They want border enforcement. He is listening to them and that is what he will bring in his first term.

By making this five planks the theme of his campaign, McCain can give voters plenty of reason to vote for him, not merely to vote against Obama.

Latinos to Obama: Open Borders or Else

According to the Hill, Latino lawmakers have given Barack Obama an ultimatum regarding the Latino vote.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) must commit to helping illegal immigrants achieve citizenship or else risk losing the vital Latino vote in the general election, Hispanic Democratic lawmakers are warning.

If he does not promise so-called comprehensive immigration reform, the lawmakers say, the only other way to win over Hispanic supporters of his erstwhile rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), may be to pick her as his running mate.

Obama’s National Latino Vote Director, Cuauhtemoc “Temo” Figueroa, will have his first meeting in Washington Thursday with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC).

Earlier, I wrote a piece about the the make up of the constituencies of the two parties. Whereas, with Republicans, the constituency is made up almost entirely based on ideology, for the Democrats the make up is made up nearly entirely on race, sex, and ethnicity. Once again, it rears its ugly head.

Fortunately, Barack Obama has been an open borders proponent for years. He has supported everything from driver's licenses to illegals, to the DREAM Act, and he has been against building the fence and the SAVE Act. Unfortunately, if he is to be totally open borders in order to please his base, he will also lose most folks in the middle. Illegal immigration will be one of the most important issues in November, and Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of tough border policy. That is NOT what Barack Obama has favored, and that is clearly not what his Latino constituency is demanding. With his opponent having a relatively moderate position as well, Obama will have to show a great deal of deference to open borders policies in order to secure that vote.

UPDATE:

Hello all VDARE readers for a full dossier of Obama's open borders policy please click here.

Border Security Victory

According to Numbers USA, the amnesty amendment to the war funding bill has been stripped.

CongressDaily AM today reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) stripped the AgJOBS amnesty from the Iraq supplemental spending bill (H.R. 2642) last night as well as the increase in visas for employment-based permanent workers. Provisions to increase H-2B visas for unskilled seasonal workers remain in the bill. Please call your Senators to tell them to remove the H-2B visa increases as well, and to keep the AgJOBS amnesty and employment-based permanent worker increases off the bill.

There is a lot to analyze here. First, as you can see, there is still yet another provision open borders provision that has yet to be stripped.

What is impressive is the coordinated email campaign that the likes of Numbers USA, Townhall, GOP USA, the Minuteman, and Human Events, have created to wage a twenty first century grass roots campaign to mobilize anti illegal immigration forces. I received emails from each of the groups in the last twenty four hours regarding this matter.

Second, the forces that continue to push pro open borders legislation are constantly thwarted by this grass roots effort. Yet, there maybe a method to their so called madness. With each piece of pro open borders legislation, these groups mobilize into a full effort of emails, phone calls, and faxes. Each piece of legislation is thwarted.

Yet, what this has done is drained valuable resources from their main priority, the SAVE Act. The SAVE Act is the only enforcement only bill currently being considered. Nancy Pelosi refuses to move the bill to the floor unless it includes blanket amnesty. The sponsor, Heath Shuler, is trying to mobilize an effort for something called a discharge petition. If he is able to get a majority of Representatives to sign onto this discharge petition, Shuler can force the SAVE Act onto the floor without the approval of Pelosi.

Shuler is being supported in this effort by the same groups that mobilize against all of these open borders efforts. Since I first noticed their grass roots campaign they have secured about ten new members for the discharge petition. Shuler is now within thirty signatures. A successful discharge petition is nearly unheard of, and yet the SAVE Act is a unique bill. It enjoys bi partisan support from an eclectic group of politicians, activists, and special interests. Everyone from Tom Tancredo to John Murtha has backed the bill.

By placing unnecessary open borders amendments into war funding bill, grass roots groups are forced to limit their energies on the SAVE Act and focus those same energies onto fighting these pieces of legislation. Whether or not this is in fact the machiavellian plans of the open borders folks is something only they can say, however the effect is the same regardless.

Passing Along Some Vital Information Regarding Illegal Immigration

I received this email from Numbers USA over the weekend.

Without explanation, Congress has stripped away $3 billion in desperately needed funds to build the Border Fence that it approved last year and to provide for other border security.That's right—without telling the public, Congress is pulling the plug on the U.S.-Mexico Border Fence that it voted for with such enthusiasm last year (just before they asked voters to re-elect them).

Help us turn this petition into a national overnight phenomenon. Time is critical—Congress will finalize this funding question before Christmas!Now, it is important to emphasize again, as Numbers points out, that the fence and its funding was voted on late in the session in 2006. At last check, about eleven miles out of thousands had actually been built.

The fence has become a sort of cause celebe for opponents of tough measures against illegal immigration.

Their rallying cry comes in this statement from Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona.

You show me a 50-foot wall and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border. That's the way the border works

That sort of statement is what I refer to as a strawman arguement. No one is claiming that the border fence will keep out everyone that tries to come in. It will however keep out a lot of them, and that is the point of anti illegal immigration legislation. Everytime I hear this statement, I always point out that a Mexican migrant is going to look awfully funny walking around the desert with a fifty one foot ladder. There is no one hundred percent full proof way of keeping illegals out. If we put together a human wall, someone might ride in in a tank. That doesn't mean that methods aren't effective even if some smart person has figured out a way to theoretically get around them.
The border fence near San Diego is proof that the fence works.

Before the fence was built, all that separated that stretch of Mexico from California was a single strand of cable that demarcated the international border.

Back then, Border Patrol agent Jim Henry says he was overwhelmed by the stream of immigrants who crossed into the United States illegally just in that sector."It was an area that was out of control," Henry says. "There were over 100,000 aliens crossing through this area a year."

Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double -- and in some places, triple -- fencing.

Both houses of Congress voted on and approved this fence and the President signed it.

If laws aren't followed through on, then our government is nothing more than a banana republic. This is unacceptable and I hope everyone rises up and demands that Congress follow through on what they started.

The Tortured Logic of Matt Yglesias

UPDATE: This debate may have been the turning point on the Democratic primary. Thus, while this was first written about a month ago, it is relevant today.

It was only a matter of time before those that support Hillary tried to prop her up by demeaning Tim Russert. There are probably lots of examples of this however I found this piece by Matt Yglesias. He seems to believe that it wasn't that Russert wasn't asking tough questions, he was, but that he was asking them about the wrong topics. Apparently, illegal immigration is not a topic worthy of tough questions. Yglesias thinks that tough questions should inform as well.

But while I wouldn't want to say that "tough questioning" is a bad thing, making toughness the goal is perverse. The goal should be to inform the audience. Climate change, for example, is a hugely important question. As a result, candidates ought to be subjected to questions about their climate change plans. And as it happens, the plans released by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are all based on good science and good economics. So asking them questions aimed at elucidating their plans shouldn't lead to any embarrassing incidents. Shouldn't, that is, unless the candidates are unprepared to discuss their own plans in an intelligent manner which really would be worth knowing about.

Now, I think that climate change is a worthy topic and there should be tough questions asked about it along with every topic a politician should deal with. Frankly, I wish some moderateor actually knew something about my business, mortgages, and could undress some of the ridiculous plans being offered. That is not the point. Just because Yglesias thinks that climate change is a more worthy topic doesn't mean it is not. It also doesn't mean that asking questions about illegal immigration isn't worthy or enlightening. I think everyone was enlightened by Hillary's non stance.

There are even more problems with Yglesias' analysis. Just because he clearly agrees with Edwards, Obama et al, doesn't mean they are right and based on good science. This is third grade debate tactics. If they are based on good science, we wouldn't need to merely take his word for it. He says they are based on good science and then says nothing beyond that. I don't know what background Yglesias has, but I doubt it is science. Thus, he is really in no position to say such a thing.

Frankly, what it appears to me is that Yglesias thinks that there should only be tough questions on things he and other people like him think is important. Any other topics beyond that are in his words, "sadistic". If you believe Yglesias, questions about climate change and alternative fuels are informative and worthwhile, while questions about illegal immigration are "sadistic".
The fact is that tough questions on any policy are informative and worthwhile. It is not up to Yglesias to figure out what topic is worthwhile and what topics aren't important.
Furthermore, he leaps and pretends as though he knows how a Republican candidate would or wouldn't handle a question.

John McCain, by contrast, might or might not end up embarrassed by serious questions about his plan, which moves in the right direction but on a schedule that's too slow and in a way that's too inefficient. Serious questions would give him the opportunity to make the case for half-measures and whether or not he winds up embarrassing himself would turn on whether or not he can give a convincing rationale for what he's doing -- which is at it should be. His Republican counterparts, by contrast, would almost certainly wind up embarrassed by serious questions about their views of climate change since their policies are badly at odds with reality.

I have no doubt that Yglesias would perceive McCain as embarrassed by a question regarding climate change, but that doesn't mean everyone will. The problem is that Hillary was nearly universally perceived as stumbling on that question. Thus, there is no defending her. Yglesias is left to attack the messenger and work on tortured logic to excuse what is frankly the definition of a gaffe.

Instead of merely admitting that she screwed up, as all politicians do at some point, he tries to deflect the issue with laughable and ultimately illogical reasoning.

Yes, Mr. Yglesias, it is possible in theory that McCain could fumble a question on climate change. He may even be wrong on the science, however I live here in reality. In reality, McCain did nothing wrong recently. In reality, it was Hillary Clinton that actually fumbled something. All your hypotheticals and tortured theories aren't going to change that. You can pretend as though the question wasn't important because YOU don't think it was, however that won't actually change reality.

Last week, the Senate voted down an amendment that would have outlawed sanctuary cities. This week the Senate is planning on taking a vote legalize millions of illegal aliens under a new bill called the DREAM Act. This bill would legalize all minors who came over illegally with their parents.

What is dirty and underhanded about the DREAM Act is the manner in which Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate, is trying to push this bill through the Senate. Harry Reid is using an obscure Senatorial procedure to push this bill through without the sort of debate and scrutiny it requires. The leader is using Senate rule fourteen to push this through. While this gets very technical, in layman's terms Rule 14 allows Reid to fast track the bill for a vote without much debate.

Let's recap what has happened since the contentious Senate debate over illegal immigration in the summer. While the Legislature authorized that roughly seven hundred miles of fence be built barely more than twenty miles have actually been put up. As I mentioned, last week the Senate killed an amendment that would have outlawed sanctuary cities. Now, the Senate wants to introduce and pass a bill that will legalize millions of illegals.

The reason that there was uproar this past summer over the illegal immigration bill wasn't because there was too much enforcement, too tough a penaties, and not enough consideration for the illegals themselves. The reasons were the exact opposite. The people didn't trust the government actually follow through on the border enforcement at the same time they were legalizing millions of people that crossed the border illegally.

Senator Reid either has no idea what the pulse of the American people is, or he simply doesn't care. Rather than taking care of the business of enforcing the border as the people demanded very forcefully this past summer, Senator Reid has decided to skip border enforcement altogether and move directly along to making lots and lots of illegals, or as he calls them undocumented Americans, legal.

Senator Reid either thinks the American people are too dumb to realize what he is up, to apathetic, or he simply doesn't care. Everyone can stand by while this bill passes and do nothing or we can mobilize and email, fax, and call until we shutdown the switchboard at the Senate. I think the second option is the best option. I implore everyone to follow this link and find your Senator and Senator Reid and tell them what you think of amnesty without enforcement. If you stand by and do nothing, you WILL get the government you deserve as a result. Please prove Senator Reid wrong.

Hat tip again goes out to Numbers USA. The DREAM Act stands for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act. What it does is legalizes illegals who came here as minors and also stayed out of trouble after they came here. If you ever wanted an illegal immigration bill that pulled at your compassionate heart strings, this one is it. Here is a great example of the sort of tug at your heart string story you will see. This one is about a 24 year old college student from the state of Washington.

After graduating in June with a degree in social work from Eastern
Washington University, a 24-year-old Tacoma woman — the first in her family to go to college — returned to the campus this week to begin pursuing a master's degree.After that, she'll probably seek her doctorate.

She acknowledges that she's only delaying the inevitable, knowing that as an illegal immigrant she won't find employment as a social worker.

Going to school is a way to "kill time, while I wait for something to give," said the woman, who asked that her name not be used.

The break she seeks could come this week, if the U.S. Senate votes on an amendment to a Department of Defense spending bill allowing illegal immigrants to earn legal status by enrolling in college or entering the military for two years.

This is exactly the sort of bleeding heart bills the Democrats are famous for. It is in the same mold as minimum wage, SCHIP, and Title IX. They pick a victim, someone that is sympathetic, and they make a bill that sides with the victim. This is a tried and true political strategy and DREAM is no different.

Make no mistake folks. Once there is a path to citizenship for illegals, any illegals, more of them will flood in. I have long ago compared illegal immigration to Pavlov's work with mice. It all comes down to motivation. If illegals think their kids can get citizenship, more of them will be motivated to come here. Any bill, any act, that creates more motivation for future illegal immigrants to come to this country is one that furthers this crisis. This is just such a bill.

There is more though. According to Numbers USA, the bill is being brought for a vote under the cover of darkness. Here is how Numbers USA described it in their email.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has invoked Rule 14 on the new stand-alone DREAM Act amnesty! That means he is setting up Senate procedure to spring the amnesty at any time without hearings or committee action.

For the Majority Leader to invoke Rule 14 means that he can bring a bill to a floor without it going through the debate and markup of a committee.

Rosemary Jenks, our NumbersUSA Director of Government Relations, says, "Generally when Rule 14 is invoked, it means the leadership intends to have a vote on the bill in fairly short order."Under the rule, the amnesty bill (S. 2205) can be brought up as early as Tuesday.

The rule also allows Sen. Reid to wait until our forces are distracted and bring it at any time in the future at the spur of the moment.So, we need all of you hitting up your Senators' offices all over again starting Monday with phone calls and faxes.

Besides Reid, the chief culprits in this mess are Senate Assistant Majority Leader Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Hagel (R-Neb.) and Sen. Lugar (R-Ind.). I hope you will feel free from anywhere in the country to let these four Senators know how you feel about their aggressive leadership to pass this amnesty.

As anyone reading this, the forces for unfettered illegal immigration are Dick Durbin, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, and Harry Reid. These Senators need to hear from the American people. Expect the forces of illegal immigration to call those of us that favor the rule of law: racist, heartless, nativist, and Anti Hispanic.

It is very easy to take the compassionate position, but it is also, in this case, the worst kind of policy. In this case, it is also politically astute. Whoever gets this law passed will also be able to pick up millions of new voters to register and vote for them. Bad policy can be exposed for what it is. There are exponentially more people hurt by the cancer that is illegal immigration and we all need to be aware, alert, and most importantly active. It has been a bad couple of weeks for all of us that want the cancer of illegal immigration to be dealt with. The bill to end sanctuary cities was defeated in the Senate (with only one Democrat voting to end sanctuary cities). In my homestate, Illinois, there is a bill going through the State Senate that will allow illegals to get driver's licenses. Now, we have a bill that will give millions of illegals a path to citizenship.

The People's World Weekly Spins vis a vis Illegal Immigration

Now that I have a stat counter on my site, I am able to easily and quickly analyze the traffic to it. It was a result of this stat counter that I found this blatantly dishonest article from the People's World Weekly. If you follow this google search you will find my piece listed along with a piece from the People's World Weekly. While the People's World Weekly is nothing more than an obscure worthless newspaper which is force to leave free newspapers in bookstores, coffee shop's etc, they are indicative of the kind of misleading information filtered about by those that occupy the sphere of the open borders crowd. If you can read, you will see that this article is full of misleading statements and downright lies. (while this article is almost three years old much of the debate remains the same)For instance, there is this.

While the struggle continues for legal status for the undocumented,
immigrant communities and their allies continue to fight for several related goals. One of these is access to drivers’ licenses without having to provide a Social Security card – required just about everywhere. Without drivers’ licenses, many immigrant breadwinners end up driving anyway, because there is no other way to get to their job.

Without drivers’ licenses, immigrant workers also cannot get automobile insurance, which creates a mess for everybody.

In Illinois, the struggle to find an alternative means to provide drivers’ licenses to immigrants has culminated in the state Legislature. Last November, a bill in the state Senate missed approval by just one vote (Gov. Blagojevich had said he would sign it). But on March 31, a similar bill, HB 4003, was defeated in the state House of Representatives by a vote of 43-68 with six representatives voting “present” and one absent. Anti-immigrant groups, playing heavily on fears of terrorism, had done their work.

It is the time honored tradition of referring to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS as undocumented or just merely immigrants. While referring to them as merely immigrants, the author immediately wants to give them rights that only legal citizens should enjoy. Furthermore, they immediately demonize anyone that dares stand up for the rule of law.

In the world of the open border crowd, not only are those that violate our sovereignty really just undocumented, but they should also be allowed to have the same rights and freedoms as those that are legal. Furthermore, anyone that actually believes in the rule of law is immediately referred to as a fear monger.

What follows next is even more outrageous.

Some of the Spanish-language media handled the vote in a very troubling way, creating the impression for Latino readers that the defeat was due to a “betrayal” of Latinos by African American legislators. Thus it is very important to look at the details of the vote.

On March 31, 13 of the 18 African Americans in the House voted for HB 4003. Two voted against, and three voted “present.” Six of the seven Latinos voted for the bill, and one voted against. But of the white, non-Hispanic representatives, only 24 voted for the bill; 65 voted against it, and three voted “present.” So only about 23 percent of white representatives supported the bill, as opposed to 72 percent of the African Americans and 86 percent of the Latinos. So its defeat was the fault of the African Americans? Strange math!

Breaking down the white, non-Hispanic vote by party, we see that only 16 white Democrats supported the bill, although it was backed by the Democratic governor and the Democratic speaker of the House. The Republicans also split: 44 white Republicans opposed the bill, while eight supported it. All three white, non-Hispanic representatives who voted “present” were Democrats

Now, Geraldo Rivera has lead the charge in painting anyone against illegal immigration and for the rule of law as really just anti Hispanic, however it is uncanny how the only ones that ever bring race into the picture are those that are for open borders. Of course, the insinuation is that those evil, evil whites are against the Latinos. After all, that is the only reason they could possibly have voted against this bill.

The article further goes on to drive home the standard compassionate arguement that these people just need a way to earn a living and that they would drive with or without a license. Of course, the article totally misses the point that being here illegally means they aren't supposed to earn a living, however in the view of the People's World Weekly, sovereignty and the rule of law aren't really all that important. These people believe that the U.S. is under obligation to take anyone that comes here.

Well, now the debate has started once again in the Illinois Senate. Once again, our legislators want to disregard the rule of law and grant driver's licenses to those that aren't here legally. The same scare tactics and demonization will come from the other side. We will be vilified, called racists, and void of compassion. The illegals will be referred to as undocumented or simply as immigrants. Those that oppose driver's licenses will be called nativist, fear mongers and racists. Don't buy it folks and don't shrink from the fight. Just remember when the facts are on your side you argue with facts, and when they aren't you demonize the other side.

E.N.D.A. To Move Through the Legislature?

A hat tip goes to Right March for bringing this story to my attention. The Employment Non Discrimination Act may find its way through the Congress soon. ENDA seeks to make gays, bisexuals, and transgenders a minority and treat their discrimination in the work place in the same manner that we currently treat age, sex, and skin color.Now, according to this gay publication here is what Nancy Pelosi promised their lobby.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed Friday to fast-track a transgender-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act once there are enough votes to pass it.

Although a version of the bill that protects only sexual orientation will be marked up by committee and move to a floor vote next week, the San Francisco Democrat has promised to hold a floor vote on a fully inclusive ENDA without delay as soon as the political support is there.

According to Right March, the bill is making its way through House Education and Labor Comittees. The problems with such a bill are plentiful. For instance, while it protects religious organizations, it does not protect groups like the Boy Scouts. If this bill passes the Scouts may very well be force to hire openly gay scouts or face sanctions. It also violates people's freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Finally, and most importantly, homosexuality is a behavior which is totally different from someone else's skin color, age, or sex.

Let's put aside the wisdom or lack thereof of this bill. I think most people that read this page will agree with me on my position.

Instead, I want to focus on two things related to this bill. First there is the political tone deafness and utter lack of competence that the Democratic leadership continues to show. This bill is another in a long line of bills that has either been handled poorly or is simply a total political loser for them. Whatever your beliefs on this particular bill, most Americans will reject it. In fact, short of SCHIP, I can't remember the last thing the Democrats did that works for them politically.

Let's look at some examples. The Democrats tried to pass a NON BINDING resolution that condemned an act from almost one hundred years ago. As a result, our ally, the Turks, took great offense and threatened all sorts of diplomatic retaliation. Fortunately, critical mass was reached when this story saw the light of day and the bill was withdrawn. Also, A high school student wanted to include the word God in a message to his grandfather that accompanied a flag that he wanted flown over the Capitol. Initially, Nancy Pelosi resisted allowing the word God accompany the flag, however once again critical mass was reached. Finally, the leadership backed down and they let the word God stay in the message that accompanied the flag.

In August, the Senate tried to play chicken with the President on the terrorist surveillance program (known as warrantless wiretaps to most of you). Again, the leadership backed down at the last minute and extended the program for six more months. Just this past week, a bill that would outlaw sanctuary cities, something that is popular overwhelmingly with Americans, was voted down 52-42 in the Senate. All but one Democrat voted against it. Even on Iraq, the Democrats have been totally politically tone deaf and incompetent.

Which brings me back to the ENDA bill. This is another in a long line of political disasters for the Democrats. Once critical mass reaches on this bill, they will be forced to back down the way they have on everything else.

This brings me to my second point. It is now nothing less than shocking just how much the Democrat's agenda mirrors that of George Soros. This ENDA bill is right down his gay friendly secular progressive agenda, and it follows a long line of bills and maneuvers that are very friendly to his agenda.

Several months ago, The Supreme Court ruled to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion. All the Democratic candidates came out against this ruling and some even swore to impose a litmus test of only pro abortion Supreme Court Justices.

At their last debate, the Democratic candidates agreed that teaching second graders a story about a gay couple was perfectly acceptable. Half the candidates refused to even acknowledge that the war on terror is really a war. Here is what Soros said vis a vis the GWOT.

Unfortunately, the "war on terror" metaphor was uncritically accepted by the American public as the obvious response to 9/11. It is now widely admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder. But the war on terror remains the frame into which American policy has to fit. Most Democratic politicians subscribe to it for fear of being tagged as weak on defense.

In fact, this statement is eerily similar to one made by John Edwards who called the war on terror...

"bumper sticker slogan" used to justify the war in Iraq and "bludgeon political opponents."

The two leading Presidential said they'd each negotiate with Iran with no conditions. What did Soros say about such matters?

The two leading Presidential candidates said they'd each negotiate with Iran with no conditions. What did Soros say about such matters?

President Bush's global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups.

In fact, when Senator Clinton voted to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards( responsible for among other things hijacking British sailors in international water) a terrorist organization, the rest of the Democratic Presidential contender pounced on her.

Even on the economy, the Democrats are marching in lock step with Soros. We are all well aware of the plethora of big government, quasi socialist, government giveaways. Including the granddaddy of them all, universal health care. How does this jive with Soros' view of the world? He believes in a "mixed economy". That is defined as such.

A mixed economy is an economic system that incorporates the characteristics of several different economic systems. This usually means an economy that contains both private-owned and state-owned enterprises[1] or that combines elements of capitalism and socialism, or a mix of market economy and planned economy characteristics.

Of course, it should be pointed out which part of the mixed economy he fears.

Most of all, George believed even then in a mixed economy, one with a strong central international government to correct for the excesses of self-interest.

Thus, anything that takes the decisions away from the market and puts it into the government's hands is something that Soros approves of.

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, in unison with Soros open borders policy, the Democrats just this week killed a bill that would have outlawed so called sanctuary cities. Now, we have the Democrats, through ENDA, pandering to another of Soros' favorite groups, the homosexuals. The overlapping agendas of the Democrats and George Soros can be found just about anywhere you look.

First, some housekeeping...unfortunately the Vitter amendment that would have cut off funding to sanctuary cities did not pass. All but one Democrat, Mary Landrieu (Louisiana) voted against and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were among six Senators who didn't vote.

Now, is the state of Illinois about to pass a law that will grant driver's licenses to illegals? A very big hat tip goes to the Illinois Chapter of the Minuteman Project. This past spring the House passed HB 1100 which allowed those here illegal to be able to get driver's licenses. Well, now, according to the Minutemen, this bill is ready to move through the Illinois Senate. Here is how the Minutemen see it playing out.

Driving certificates for illegal aliens is being pushed once again by IL State Senator Iris Martinez. It passed in the IL House last Spring, and with the help of the Senate President Emil Jones, it will be brought up for a vote-- when they think they have enough votes to pass it,

This is an idea that was tried in Tennessee with disastrous results

Bill Ketron has a warning for Illinois lawmakers: Be careful about letting illegal immigrants drive.

The Tennessee state senator sponsored that state’s 2004 law to create special driving “certificates” for illegal immigrants – an idea being considered in Illinois.

Now the program has been suspended, and Ketron is sponsoring legislation to kill it entirely. People used forged documents to obtain the certificates, he said, and some came from other states to fraudulently get certificates then go home and exchange them for regular licenses. “It’s been a disaster,” the Murfreesboro Republican said. “If they’re proceeding with it [in Illinois], go into it with your eyes open.”

The Illinois House voted 60-56 Wednesday to create a certificate program. The measure now goes to the Senate. If it passes there, Gov. Rod Blagojevich says he will sign it into law.

In other words, even if you are from out of state, you are not immune from the recklessness of this legislation. Illegals from your state will flock to ours get driver's licenses and then turn around and try and get legal licenses in your state. (at the end I give contact information for out of state readers)

Now, if I know my own state rep, Sara Feigenholtz, she is no doubt strongly in favor of this measure. Our state already has a less then splendid record on Illegal immigration. Our biggest city, Chicago, is a sanctuary city and thus, no one picked up for a crime is asked their immigration status. Thus, criminal illegals are allowed to stay in this country and infest our streets. Now, the Illinois legislature wants to make it even easier for those that come into this country illegally to function here. I have mentioned multiple times that illegal immigration works much like Pavlov.

Here are two columns, both pro and anti HB 1100. Please go here and find your Senator and let them know how you feel. If you are from out of the State, please contact Iris Martinez and Emil Jones who are heading up the effort.

Update here is text of my letter to my Emil Jones:

I understand that HB 1100 is being floated through the Illinois Senate. This would grant driver’s licenses to illegals. I have no doubt that in your liberal mindset you believe that such an action is the compassionate and reasonable thing to do. It is not. At some point, I hope that you stand up for the rule of law over whatever nonsensical feelings of compassion you have. Illegal immigration is out of control. We may have 20 million or more people here that have no documentation and that number grows every single day. As you know, our own city is a sanctuary city, and thus illegals who are arrested are not asked their immigration status, and thus instead of being deported they are let back on the streets to commit more crimes. Illegal immigration works exactly like Pavlov’s mice. The more positive reinforcements you give to illegals the more illegals you will have. Thus, if you want to contribute to solving the illegal immigration problem, then you will support each and every measure that makes life as difficult as possible for illegals once they get here. The only way to ultimately control the situation is for illegals to have no way of functioning once they reach this country. Granting them driver’s licenses has the exact opposite effect. I hope you will not support this measure.

Now, it is time to make your voice heard.