« October 2007 | Main | December 2007 »

Hostages taken at Clinton campaign NH HQ; political impact

Someone with a supposed bomb strapped to his chest took hostages at Hillary Clinton's campaign headquarters in New Hampshire earlier today. Indications are that he's released the hostages and that he's a local man who was known to have issues. Hopefully it will work out peacefully.

The political impact will include:

1. The mainstream media will spend days talking about this rather than talking about the issues. Certainly, they do so little of the latter that no one will notice it, but one can always hope. This event will make that even worse.

2. Certain Democratic agents will try to use this to play the victim-of-right-wingers card. For the gold standard, turn to DU where you can find things like:

I can't help but wonder if the guy might be someone who listens to right wing talk radio and has fixated on Senator Clinton.

Expect those who have actual links to the Democratic Party to make similar comments.

3. Security around the candidates will be tightened, meaning it will be even more difficult than ever for non-MSM "reporters" to ask them real questions. The candidates will use this as an excuse to avoid taking as many questions as they have in the past.

Posted to Politics at 12:39 PM

Immigration "parliament" held in Mexico, with Americans; may lobby in Washington DC

On November 16 and 17 a group of activists from Mexico and the U.S. met in Mexico City for the "First Parliament of Mexican Migrant Leaders Living In The U.S.A.". This doesn't appear to have been an official Mexican government event, but many of those attending were apparently Mexican political leaders, and some of the Americans attending serve on the Institute for Mexicans Abroad (IME, www.ime.gob.mx), an advisory council to Mexico's president.

A roundup with links to Spanish-language sources is here. The event was organized by MX congressman Jose Jacques, who earlier this year met with Congressional Democrats to jointly support "comprehensive immigration reform" (Nancy Pelosi was scheduled but had "scheduling difficulties"). Elvira Arellano spoke and appeared to - surprise - cheat. In this case it was on her hunger strike. While they made a lot of proposals, according to that the one most likely to stick is a "Permanent Parliament" which might meet next year in Washington DC.

And, from this we learn that two attendees were "Rosa Marta Zarate, program coordinator for the San Bernardino nonprofit Librería del Pueblo, and Daniel Morales, of the Riverside-based National Alliance for Human Rights". The latter group is run by Armando Navarro.

According to this, Emma Lozano was also there.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 10:48 AM

Instapundit highlights my comment!

This is truly a watershed mark in my blogging commentary career. Instapundit points to this Howard Kurtz entry and says (instapundit.com/archives2/012323.php):

Using Google for plane tickets is okay. But next time, try using them for . . . Googling. As a commenter at Kurtz's observes: "What should be noted about this issue is that CNN probably has a whole army of interns and low-level producers who could vet the possible questioners. They 'could spend hours Googling everybody', while the top level hacks concentrated on choosing the 'best' questions."

Well, hold on to your hats, everybody!

I am that "commenter"!

And, all those who then visit the Howie Kurtz link, provided that they remember what Insty just said, will perhaps match up my comment at the link with my name at the link ("LonewackoDotCom") and then, through the miracle of deductive reasoning, visit this site.

I would like to welcome that person, and I would like to thank Glenn "Insty" Reynolds for his shout-out.

It's been a long time, since the last "Instalanche" this site received was way back in August, 2003. That was shortly before, visiting Knoxville, I requested an audience. Insty complained of being busy, then didn't reply to my follow-up requests. That resulted in this. Since then, I occasionally sent him tips just to annoy him keep him apprised of my progress, but I stopped after no one still cared what he thinks.

Related:
Eugene Volokh referenced me once.

Posted to Bloggage at 10:04 PM

Hundreds smuggled over Canadian border (from South Korea, Pakistan, India and Central America)

From this via this:

A human smuggling operation based in Toronto and another in Montreal moved hundreds of immigrants into the U.S. [from Canada via somewhere between New York and Maine], with some paying $10,000 apiece, American prosecutors said Wednesday in announcing indictments against the groups...

[Thomas Anderson, U.S. attorney for Vermont] estimated the groups had brought hundreds of people into the U.S. from South Korea, Pakistan, India and Central America since 2004, though he did not have a specific figure. Some of those people paid as much as $10,000 for the smugglers' services, he said.

Officials said that some of the people brought into the United States had previous criminal records in this country, and that others were vulnerable to being preyed upon by the smugglers...

There's no indication of any terrorist link but one would imagine the smugglers weren't doing background checks on those they brought over.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 08:51 PM

CNN/Youtube Debate Debacle: 11/28/07 GOP version, Part 2

Part 1 is here.

At last night's debate, CNN gave Mike Huckabee so much time to demagogue college discounts for illegal aliens that they didn't give Mitt Romney enough time to make the essential point that what Huckabee supported would have deprived U.S. citizens of college discounts.

They also failed to do their research and realize that there's already an existing federal law (Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623) covering the wider issue: post-secondary benefits given to illegal aliens have to be made available to U.S. citizens. However, the DHS has apparently refused to enforce that law.

Huckabee may have also misled about the contents of the bill, although he could be refering to different versions. If CNN were a credible news outlet they would have asked him to clarify that matter.

UPDATE: Via this, there's a list of the different versions of HB 1525 (the Arkansas bill Huck supported) at this FTP page. From the first link:

Nothing about being in the school system since age 5, nothing about being drug-free, nothing about being an A+ student. Those are provisions of the existing Academic Challenge Scholarship Program [acs.adhe.edu], which HB 1525 would have given illegals access to.

Posted to Politics at 11:55 AM

CNN/Youtube Debate Debacle: 11/28/07 GOP version, Part 1

Analyzing all the ways that CNN and Youtube are trying to lead America astray with their bogus "debates" would take a tremendous amount of time. So, I'm just going to look at two of the ways (Part 2 is here).

The first is keyed to this video, the question asking the candidates to pledge to oppose any immigration bill containing amnesty.

CNN should not have selected that question because no one who supports amnesty calls it amnesty. They use euphemisms like "regularization", "legalization", "normalization", and so forth.

More on the word games supporters play here.

Posted to Politics at 11:51 AM

CNN Youtube GOP debate November 28, 2007

[UPDATE: Videos showing how CNN went wrong here and here.]

1. Huckster really showed how to demagogue, changing what appeared to be a question about giving illegal aliens college discounts into an answer generating pro-military applause. Romney made the important point that there's only so much money to go around... that is, before CNN had to move on to the next question.

2. Ron Paul just uttered North American Union on TV, answering a smear question about whether he supports conspiracy theories. His answer was fairly good given the time limits.

3. Some basic question about the national debt. It's like these people don't realize that candidates have websites where they've answered such questions.

...

4. How many and what type of guns do you own? This is a policy debate? Oh, wait, it isn't. It's CNN entertainment.

5. The issues with the question about torture should have been obvious even to CNN. People other than McCain have also been tortured, and they have divergent opinions. McCain is not the only authority on the subject.

PLANTS FOR HILLARY UPDATE: From this we learn that the Brigadier General who asked about gays in the military is a member of the "LGBT Americans For Hillary Steering Committee" (hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2196 ; info). There's nothing about that on the page containing his question (youtube.com/watch?v=yIQTWX0bo7g), nor did he mention that in a pre-debate interview someone else did (youtube.com/watch?v=Md8Hm1LHVpI). On his Youtube profile, he lists his homepage as asknotfilm.com, which is producing a film about... don't ask don't tell. Just ordinary citizens asking questions, CNN-style.

"INVESTIGATE" "REPORTER" ANDERSON COOPER UPDATE: After the debate, he apparently said this, but only after Richard Bennett brought up the subject on the air:

"...Apparently there was a press release from some six months ago. Hillary Clinton office saying that [Kerr] had been named to some steering committee. We don't know if he's still on it. We're trying to find out that information. Certainly had we had that information we would have acknowledged that in using his question, if we had used it at all.

Posted to Politics at 05:33 PM

Lawyer Julie Pace sues Arizona over e-Verify, suggests filing late to crash system

Julie Pace and David Selden are lawyers with the Arizona firm Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, and they're representing a coalition of business groups fighting against a new Arizona law set to go in effect on January 1. The law would require employers to use the federal e-Verify system to verify the identities of new hires; if they knowingly hire illegal workers their business licenses could be suspended or revoked.

From this:

If the judge upholds the law, lawyers plan to tell employers to sign up en masse during the last two weeks of December, Pace said. The notices will be sent out by e-mail through chambers of commerce and trade associations, she said.

Even if the computer system doesn't crash, the government doesn't have enough manpower to answer all the questions that will be generated as employers try to navigate the system for the first time, she said.

"If you have 100,000 people signing up in December, how are they going to handle it?" Pace asked.

This provides a partial list of those being represented: Arizona Contractors Association, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Arizona Farm Bureau Federation and the Arizona Restaurant and Hospitality Association.

This is similar to the fears some had that, under "comprehensive immigration reform", groups would encourage applicants to apply on a specific day of the week or the month in order to swamp the system and push through every application. And, her scheme is only slightly less repugnant than that of the H1-B lawyers featured on this infamous clip.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 10:20 PM

Non-citizens/illegal aliens voting in U.S. elections (Texas)

From this:

After the review of data from Tarrant and Dallas Counties [homes of Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas], it appeared, at least on the surface, that some non-citizens were participating in U.S. elections.

Since 1976, 1,900 people have been removed from the voter rolls because of their citizenship status in Dallas County. Of those, 221 had voter histories.

Tarrant County election data from 2004 and 2005 shows 43 people have been removed from the voter rolls, but none had voter histories.

It goes on to present alternative explanations other than illegal aliens or legal visitors and immigrants voting, such as citizens not revealing their correct status in order to avoid jury duty. They also say that there's no check for citizenship status and the "only way to determine someone's citizenship is to see which box they checked on their voter registration card." State Representative Phil King tried to pass a bill requiring citizenship verification; Rep. Lon Burnam opposed it.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 12:13 PM

From "Vacation Resorts with Dick Van Pattten" to the "colonization" of the U.S. (Dennis Kucinich)

A running Dennis Kucinich artifact is "Campaign Updates" featuring a business-suited female anchor in a newsroom-style set (example here). Watching a couple of these in the past, my first thought was, "where's Kevin Trudeau? Will Dennis himself be showing up to try to sell us herbal supplements?"

Not only do they feature someone who doesn't look like she'd be a far-left supporter discussing things like an appearance by Elizabeth Kucinich at an event held by the International Indigenous Sacred Women's Council (and Red Nation) to commemorate the "colonization" of the U.S. and other far-left mainstays, but the host (Anne Marie Howard)... has hosted such infomercials as "Wealth Building with Donald Trump" and "Vacation Resorts with Dick Van Pattten" (link).

I'm not holding it against Howard, whether she believes in DK's ideas or whether she's just there for a pay check. But, what exactly was DK thinking? Is he trying to provide a bland veneer to his generally wacky ideas? Why not choose someone more of a stereotypical supporter? Like, for instance, Hal? (Yes, the obvious choice is at the beginning, but the others make for a better punch line.)

Posted to Politics at 11:31 AM

Michael Conlon/Reuters misleads about misleading Alexander Ortega/UC illegal alien healthcare "study"

Michael Conlon of Reuters offers "Illegal immigrants not U.S. health care burden: study". The study in question (from Alexander Ortega of the University of California's School of Public Health) was derived from thousands of phone calls in 2003 with Latino illegal aliens or their family members.

Thus we see the first issue with the study: not all of those may have been telling the truth. The second is that they may have been unaware of the costs of their care and related issues; if Ortega had gone the extra step and contacted those from whom the illegal aliens had sought their care that would probably be mentioned. The article only mentions "doctor visits" as the metric that was used. And, 2003 was four years ago.

The other issues should be clear to even a hack like Conlon:

Illegal Latino immigrants do not cause a drag on the U.S. health care system as some critics have contended and in fact get less care than Latinos in the country legally, researchers said on Monday.

1. That begs the question: how much care do "Latinos in the country legally" get? Since we're comparing, we need to know what's being compared. Oddly enough, Conlon doesn't mention that.

2. And, most obviously, illegal aliens aren't supposed to be here. If they weren't here, we wouldn't have to spend any healthcare dollars on them. Thus, Conlon can't say they aren't a drag; the most he could say (if he were an honest reporter) would be that according to the flawed study they're less of a drag than others.

In addition, articles like this promote illegal immigration as a worthy model: not only do illegal aliens have job-related upsides like working cheaper and with less safety restrictions, but they use less healthcare as well. Only serfs would be better.

And, the mainstream media refuses to look into the non-financial costs of illegal immigration, such as the costs of massive government corruption. By presenting flawed studies such as this, they give an inaccurate portrait of the issue.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 10:41 AM

Can we get the presidential candidates to attend policy debates?

The presidential debates so far have been a mockery of a sham, featuring shallow questions, few follow-ups, and even worse in the case of the last CNN debate.

The following video proposes a new type of debate. Each candidate - together with their policy advisors - would face off with a panel of policy experts from across the spectrum. Those experts would ask the candidate a series of detailed questions designed to reveal the flaws in their arguments. Each segment would feature only one candidate and one specific issue, such as immigration or national security.

It would be great if something like this could be arranged before the end of the year, and it doesn't have to be a major production. In fact, it could simply be uploaded to Youtube with a transcript provided. In that case, the only major limiting factors would be getting the candidates to agree and then scheduling those involved.

Please contact those who could produce something like this and urge them to get involved. That includes think tanks, C-SPAN, Youtube, and educational institutions. Or, go to campaign appearances and ask the question on the video.

Posted to Politics at 03:00 PM

Gustavo Torres/CASA de Maryland, SVREP, Ward Churchill at Venezuala "revolution in the U.S." conference

The Venezuela International Book Fair took place earlier this month, and it included a "five-day rolling panel discussion" called "United States: A possible revolution" [1]:

The 22 panelists, four or five of whom spoke each day, included political activists and writers from the United States expressing diverse political views, as well as a number of U.S. citizens living in Venezuela... The issues debated on the character of the working class and prospects for revolution in the United States sparked a political discussion that permeated the book fair...

...In addition to the forum panelists mentioned below, others included Bernardo Alvarez, Venezuela's ambassador to the United States; former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill; August Nimtz, a University of Minnesota political science professor; William Blum, an author who has written a number of books opposing U.S. foreign policy; ex-Maryknoll priest Charles Hardy; and Dada Maheshvarananda, yoga instructor and founder of the Prout Institute...

...Several panelists are active in work to expand rights for immigrants in the United States. These included Diogenes Abreu, a Dominican-born community organizer who currently lives in New York; Luis Rodriguez, a Chicano activist in California's San Fernando Valley; and Gustavo Torres, an organizer for the immigrant rights group Casa de Maryland...

Note: Casa of Maryland is a publicly-funded group.

Both Torres and Antonio Gonzalez, president of the Southwest Voter Education and Registration Project, said the road to "empowerment" is organizing Latinos to vote. "What does a revolutionary do in the U.S. today?" asked Gonzalez. "Take power wherever you can" by electing Latinos to city, state, and federal offices. His PowerPoint presentation highlighted the growing number of Latino voters.

The SVREP is frequently presented by the MSM as a mainstream group; now we know better.

Others on the panel or in the audience included:
* Lee Sustar from the Socialist Worker newspaper
* "ex-Marine and founder of Iraq Veterans Against the War Jimmy Massey"
* Hector Pesquera, "a leader of the Hostosiano Independence Movement of Puerto Rico"
* Amiri Baraka and Amina Baraka (the former read a poem and provides some choice quotes)

And, there was dessert after the panel ended: a "video interview with Noam Chomsky".

[1] themilitant.com/2007/7145/714503.html

UPDATE: The correct name of the group is Southwest Voter Registration Education Project; it's reversed above.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 11:42 AM

Mike Huckabee: in-state tuition for "the children of illegal immigrants" (2005; actually for illegal aliens themselves)

An oft-repeated claim is that, as governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee wanted to give scholarships to "the children of illegal immigrants". That claim has appeared in several news stories, and it's partly false:

1. The discounts were for students who were themselves illegal aliens. The immigration status of parents doesn't necessarily imply the status of their children; parents who are illegal aliens could have U.S. citizen children for instance.

2. Whether a potential college student who's 18 or older is a "child" is definitely an open question.

Whether the formulation is used as an attempt to hide what The Huckster supported or due to ignorance isn't clear. However, something like, "students who are illegal aliens" would be the more accurate description. (The bill was passed by the AR House, but failed in the Senate).

The earliest article available from the Google News archive with that formulation is "College aid for illegal immigrants bill passed by House" from Rob Moritz of the Arkansas News Bureau (link):

An emotional and teary-eyed Rep. Joyce Elliott, D-Little Rock, buried her head in her hands Monday afternoon after the House approved a measure that would make the children of illegal immigrants in Arkansas eligible for state college scholarships...

...House Bill 1525 [sponsored by Elliot], which is endorsed by Gov. Mike Huckabee, now goes to the Senate...

"House members showed courage by dismissing the shrill, misleading, often inaccurate criticisms of this bill," Huckabee said in a statement. "They voted to create true opportunity for all graduates of Arkansas schools. It's the kind of message that gives our state a very different image from the one in 1957 when we said 'no' to opportunity for children."

..."I remember ever so clearly what it felt like to have the big boot of the government on my back, and I was a mere child," [Elliot, speaking of segregation] said. "For these kids today, it is not a memory, it's a way of life. They are living with the boot of the government on their back, and it's not fair because they've done nothing wrong."

The preamble to the bill itself (PDF) does mention "children of undocumented immigrants". However, the body of it makes it clear it was intended to apply to illegal aliens themselves:

Any tuition rate that is granted to residents of Arkansas shall be granted on the same terms to all persons, regardless of immigration status, who have attended a secondary educational institution in Arkansas for at least three (3) years and who have either graduated from an Arkansas high school or received a general education diploma in the state.

They also had to file an affidavit stating that they had an "intent to legalize his or her immigration status". No penalties were indicated if they never followed through on their "intent".

Posted to Immigration2007b at 02:47 PM

Bush admin to submit new no-match rule... in March 2008

In October, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer blocked the Bush administration from enforcing a new "no-match" rule that they'd announced in August. Under "no-match", letters are sent to companies warning them that an employees' name doesn't match the Social Security number they provided. The letters have been sent out - and then ignored - for years, but the DHS was supposedly going to finally start targeting some firms for enforcement.

On Friday, the Bush administration announced that, while they still might appeal, their main course of action will be to try to come up a revised rule to meet the judge's objections, specifically relating to a survey of small businesses to determine the impact the rule would have (link). They'll try to have the survey done and issue the new rule by the end of March.

The restraining order was brought to us courtesy of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union, the San Francisco Labor Council, among others. And, expect those groups to continue enabling illegal immigration by suing over the revised rule:

"It's clear the government has given up defending an indefensible rule," said Lucas Guttentag, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, another group bringing the lawsuit. "But now they're hoping to rush through another half-baked rule without addressing the fundamental flaws. It's like putting lipstick on Frankenstein."

There's certainly the possibility that the Bush administration knows all this and wants the ACLU and those who profit from illegal activity to keep suing.

Related:
DHS, SDUT, Harry Reid on Charles Breyer no-match ruling (ACLU, CofC, AFL-CIO)

Posted to Immigration2007b at 01:09 PM

When "kinda creepy" meets beautiful

It looks like this:

Posted to WackyHumor at 02:52 PM

NYT almost follows the money on Western Union (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Ken Salazar)

Jason DeParle almost follows the money on Western Union, a company that makes almost a billion dollars per year off legal and illegal immigrants sending money home ("remittances"): link. While it's a much better job than, for instance, Jill Capuzzo of that paper would have done, he doesn't go as far as he could. However, he does uncover some interesting contributions they've made:

The company sponsored public forums to promote ["comprehensive immigration reform"] and donated $100,000 to a group unsuccessfully fighting Proposition 200 in Arizona, which requires proof of citizenship from people seeking to vote or collect certain public benefits.

As the debate moved to Washington, Western Union gave money to many groups supporting legalization plans. The United States Chamber of Commerce received "in the high six figures," a Chamber official said, while an Illinois group [perhaps the Mexico-linked Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; see this] used some Western Union money to bring busloads of immigrants to Capitol Hill. When a bipartisan Senate bill emerged last spring, company officials flew to Washington to lobby directly, urging Senator Ken Salazar, a Colorado Democrat, to support the measure. He did, though it ultimately failed.

"Most companies are afraid to speak up," said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, which has received $40,000 from Western Union in the past three years. "When it got hot, they stayed with it."

And, more sleaze practically drips from the page:

Many of his customers are in the country illegally. [Michael Lee, 35, who owns an electronics store called World Top Communications in New York’s Chinatown], who was once an illegal immigrant, said his business fell by about 40 percent last spring after a series of nationwide immigration raids...

Salo Eduardo Levy, Western Union's Mexico director, echoed that theme at a September meeting of industry executives. "We have customers calling agents before they go: 'Is it safe? Is La Migra around?'"

A 2006 survey by the Inter-American Development Bank found that illegal immigrants made up 41 percent of the Latin Americans in the United States who used money transfer companies.

[...in 1999 they held promotions in front of a U.S. detention center for illegal aliens and held events in Central America for those deported from the U.S...]

...["former company official who spoke only on the condition of anonymity" says:] "We knew that within a week they would be back on their way to the U.S."

[WU VP Fred Niehaus says they won't do things like that anymore]

Posted to Immigration2007b at 01:05 PM

Judy Woodruff/PBS lies about Romney, Giuliani ("anti-immigrant", Mark Shields, David Brooks)

On tonight's PBS News Hour, Judy Woodruff discussed political matters with Mark Shields and David Brooks [1]. And, she lied:

On the Republican side, you've got Romney and Giuliani trying to sort of out anti-immigrant one another.

Obviously, that's a false statement about both. Part of Romney's stock speech about this topic is to support legal immigration. And, Giuliani wants to "solve" illegal immigration by declaring a massive amnesty. Neither positions are in any way "anti-immigrant".

After that, David Brooks reiterated comments made in today's column (see the first link):

I think Rudy Giuliani is the most pro-immigration candidate probably running in the past 20 years, and now he's pretending to be something entirely different, to his discredit.

And, Mark Shield chimes in with this:

I would commend -- which I very rarely do, and I don't think I've ever done before -- commend David's column today in the New York Times on the subject of the Republicans, and particularly Giuliani on immigration.

Would it pain the NewsHour to have one person there who isn't a supporter of illegal activity in one way or another? Could they suggest that Judy Woodruff actually learns what she's trying to talk about and is able to use the correct words for things? If the two "debaters" and the host are all on the same side, is it a debate or something else?

Please contact both the NewsHour and the general PBS ombudsman with your thoughts:

pbs.org/newshour/letters.html
pbs.org/ombudsman/feedback.html

Related:
PBS NewsHour's Soviet-style immigration coverage
Anne Taylor Fleming not on immigration
PBS NewsHour: pro-illegal immigration, pro-amnesty bias
"Liberals" get "liberalism" fed back to them by the shovelful
PBS's Hypocrisy Revealed: PBS station opposes day-laborer center

[1] pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/sbcampaign_11-23.html

Posted to Immigration2007b at 06:56 PM

Why few take libertarianism seriously (11/23/07 4:24pm edition)

The 11/23/07 4:24pm (and 32 milliseconds) edition of our running feature "Why few take libertarianism seriously" features "Thanksgiving: The Producer's Holiday" from the Ayn Rand Institute (link). In case it disappears - as at least one article from that Institute has in the past - there's a cached copy here.

UPDATE: 11/23/07 4:24pm (and 73 milliseconds) edition of this feature is on display in the highly-similar "An Ayn Rand Thanksgiving - you've earned it!" And, it's even more libertarian than the other:

But, morally, we should reach for the sky. We should recognize that the corporate profits, electricity or pie was earned through our production - and savor its consumption. We should take pride in being rationally selfish - our lives and happiness depend on it.

Posted to WackyHumor at 04:20 PM

Youtube/CNN GOP debate: Wednesday, November 28, 2007

The second Youtube/CNN debate will be held on Wednesday, November 28, and I can tell already it's going to be as bad - if not worse - than the first one. They'll ask a series of lightweight questions, and throw in a few humorous entries designed to portray those on the internet of being wacky (in contrast to the "serious journalists" at CNN).

And, CNN isn't even hiding that their goal is to entertain rather than having a real discussion about important issues. See the debate previews at their "Funny, poignant questions pour in for GOP debate" article (link). In the four videos, at least two of them feature an Elvis impersonator and other wacky characters. And, almost all of the semi-serious videos they show would simply be answered with a stock speech.

One way to deal with this is to contact CNN's Political Director and suggest they have a real debate: sam.feist *at* cnn.com

Another is to help discredit CNN by pointing out their lies.

And, the questions submitted for the debate so far fall into three broad categories: a small number of worthy entries, a good number of joke entries by those seeking their 15 minutes, and a large number of entries from people who don't know how to ask questions that can't simply be answered by a somewhat related stock speech. In the second case, I suggest working to discredit them by asking them to seek their 15 minutes elsewhere. In the last case, I suggest pointing out to them that they might want to do some research first.

Posted to Politics at 04:05 PM

David Brooks pines for Rudy Giuliani's illegal immigration supporting days

David Brooks offers "The Real Rudy" (link), most of which consists of a series of now-infamous Rudy Giuliani pro-illegal immigration quotes. I half-expected him to try to explain them away, but I wasn't too surprised that he explicitly supports that side of Rudy, calling someone who supported illegal activity "moderate". And, he says that by currently at least making noises about opposing illegal immigration, both Rudy and Mitt Romney are "competing to drive away Hispanic votes". Brooks is too shallow and too much of a hack to admit that not all Hispanics support illegal activity, and that importing people who do support illegal activity out of racial solidarity reasons is not good public policy. On the other hand, those Republicans who support our immigration laws are refered to as "the narrowest slice of the old guard".

More in "David Brooks: What happened to the open-borders Rudy I used to know and love?":

...I bet if we adopt the entire Democratic platform we can make a real race of it before next year.

Perhaps Brooks is actually smarter than it might appear and he's highlighting these quotes as a way to hurt Rudy's chances. Although, I'd say the chances of him doing that are rather slim.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 01:30 PM

Secret Bush plan to deal with Bush/Rove "import Democrats" plan? (citizenship backlog)

Mark Kleiman - someone who is shockingly a UCLA professor - writes [1]:

The Bush Administration plans to steal hundreds of thousands of votes, most of them Democratic votes, in the 2008 elections by the simple expedient of sitting on new citizenship applications until after the elections.

He links to his site, which mostly just links to the WaPo article "Immigrant Paperwork Backs Up At DHS" (link). Neither of those back up his contention that most of those would be Democrats, but they do contain a few hints [2]. However, it's clear that the corollary to Kleiman's quote is that he's supporting immigration as a means of obtaining political power for his party. If this is an actual effort by the Bush administration, it's the opposite of what occurred in the Clinton administration, with citizenship applications rushed through in order to obtain votes (Doris Meissner was involved: link).

And, the Bush admin has sent mixed signals:

"I really want to target the elections," USCIS Director Emilio T. Gonzalez told the Associated Press in an interview published Tuesday. "I really want to get as many people out there to vote as possible." ...Aides, however, contradicted him. "We are going to process these cases as responsibly and as quickly as we can, but we're not focused on any of the election cycle," [Michael Aytes, associate director of USCIS] said. USCIS spokesman Bill Wright emphasized that political calculations played no role in agency decisions. "Any implication of that is ludicrous," he said.

Does the Bush admin think that if they push the applications through they'll get votes? If the Bush admin is delaying the process intentionally, isn't that an admission that massive immigration equals more Democratic voters and a repudiation of the Bush-Rove loose borders scheme? Does the Bush admin foolishly think that if only "reform" would have passed they'd get votes from grateful newly-naturalized citizens, but because "reform" didn't pass they would have to engage in this scheme? Why didn't George Bush and Karl Rove try to import large numbers of Republicans? The mind boggles.

[1] huffingtonpost.com/mark-kleiman/voter-fraud_b_73808.html
[2] Those condemning the backlog in the article include Crystal Williams, deputy director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, former immigration lawyer and U.S. Representative Zoe Lofgren, a spokesman for the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (a group linked to the Mexican government), and Eliseo Medina from the SEIU. The article also trots out stock verbage about the Hispanic vote.

Posted to Politics at 08:13 PM

10Questions.com is a horrible idea, here's *more* proof

10 Questions.com lets people vote on their favorite questions for the political candidates, which their MSM partners (NYT and MSNBC) will presumably try to get the candidates to answer (two have already come in: youtube.com/profile?user=10ques).

My issue with the site is that it allows those who can drive traffic to the site to propel weak questions to the top; this allows partisan hacks to avoid having difficult questions asked. I'm having a great deal of trouble seeing it as something other than a deliberate plan by some involved to avoid a real debate, i.e., a debate that would reveal the huge gaps in the policies of the various candidates as well as just how weak the questions the MSM asks are.

In October, MoveOn.org was able to get a weak question about net neutrality asked of Obama at a debate. He had already spoken out in favor of that, and when asked he spoke out in favor of it again. (Unfortunately, he didn't make the parallels to Soviet debates exact by trying to answer in Russian).

The latest example of a weak question being propelled to the top of 10Questions occured a few days ago. Patrick Ruffini asked an incredibly vague question about reducing the size of the government (youtube.com/watch?v=ko5BxgPKR5Q). By contacting various sites, and using Facebook, Digg, etc. he was able to send them at least 2600 unique visitors, who then got his question into the top 10 [1].

I'm sure there will be many more examples to come.

[1] personaldemocracy.com/blog/entry/1667/
10questions_update_did_ruffini_snipe_a_top_spot

Posted to Politics at 02:33 PM

When will the MSM pull the ball away from Mike Huckabee?

The mainstream media has been working feverishly to promote Mike Huckabee, as have various low-level Democrats. Are those completely unrelated, or is the MSM taking their marching orders from the Democratic Party? And, is The Huckster being promoted because:

1. They're simply reporting on what's happening...
2. They just need something to write about...
3. They're trying to give "them" an acceptable candidate...
4. They support him due to, for instance, his support for illegal immigration...
5. They're trying to hype him now and make him the nominee (or VP candidate), only to pull the ball away at the last moment and dash the GOP's hopes...

I'm sure there are other options as well. As for how Huck's downfall would come about, they could cover:

1. Huckabee is extremely weak on immigration matters. Oddly enough, while the MSM might mention this in passing, they haven't looked into it. Whether that's due to their support for illegal immigration or because they're holding this for later isn't known.
2. His support for nanny-state measures, due to his weight loss.
3. His strong religious conservatism. That might attract support from millions of people, but most Americans probably aren't quite that conservative.
4. His various scandals. While he has glib answers when they're brought up, I can practically see the last-minute headlines from sources like the Los Angeles Times digging up dirt.

Let me suggest getting the truth about Huck out there by, for instance, going to his campaign appearances, asking him this question, and then uploading his response.

Posted to Politics at 10:58 AM

Chase, Citibank, Laredo National Bank get desk inside Mexican consulate in San Antonio

From this:

The Consulate General of Mexico signed an agreement Monday with three U.S. banks that could make Mexican nationals more comfortable with the banking industry.

Chase, Citibank and Laredo National Bank will take turns each day manning a desk in the Mexican Consulate on Navarro Street [in San Antonio]. They will answer questions for Mexican nationals about financial services and products with the hope of eventually turning them into customers at area branches.

"In other areas of the U.S. — New York, Los Angeles, Chicago — we have had a presence in consulates for years," said Inigo Arzac, assistant vice president and relationship manager for Citibank San Antonio...

Not all of those who'll become new customers for those banks are here illegally. However, the dodge the banks will use will be that they can't check someone's immigration status, even while they realize that those who use Matricula Consular cards (available from the friendly consulate) are most likely illegal aliens. Those banks will then donate a portion of their profits to politicians, who will then ensure that the banks continue to profit from indirect illegal activity.

Related:
Bank of "America" signs up customers at Dallas Mexican consulate

Posted to Immigration2007b at 09:11 AM

Rudy Giuliani misleads about "NAFTA Superhighway" (Captain Ed, amnesty)

Rudy Giuliani held a conference call earlier today, and "Captain Ed" says (captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016063.php):

Iowa wants to know about the NAFTA superhighway coming through the state -- Giuliani will not support any kind of NAFTA superhighway, anywhere.

What a relief! Of course, as detailed at the last link, Juliani's law firm (Bracewell & Giuliani) is involved with the Trans Texas Corridor, what many suspect to be the first leg of the "Superhighway". Guiliani is playing word games: he doesn't support something called the "NAFTA Superhighway", he's just profiting from something that looks an awful like the first leg of it. (Whether Captain Ed is just clueless or is retailing a lie is, of course, a perennial question; it could be a bit of both.)

And, while Rudy's support for amnesty is already known, it's good that Rep. Pete King reminded everyone:

No legalization without closing the border -- but that doesn't keep legalization off the table.

Posted to Politics at 12:21 PM

"Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" (Jane Harman, Hillary Clinton)

The House recently passed Jane Harman's "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" (HR 1955, link), and it's currently in the Senate. I scanned it after seeing some anti-HR1955 videos (example link), but I didn't see any bright red flags. Now comes the guest editorial "Here come the thought police" (link):

...Not since the "Patriot Act" of 2001 has any bill so threatened our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

...[Harman's] bill tramples constitutional rights by creating a commission with sweeping investigative power and a mandate to propose laws prohibiting whatever the commission labels "homegrown terrorism."

...Ms. Harman's proposal includes an absurd attack on the Internet, criticizing it for providing Americans with "access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda," and legalizes an insidious infiltration of targeted organizations. The misnamed "Center of Excellence," which would function after the commission is disbanded in 18 months, gives the semblance of intellectual research to what is otherwise the suppression of dissent...

Although they only mention the current administration, perhaps we should play the inevitable, "would we trust Hillary Clinton with these powers?" game.

And, from this we learn that a related Harman panel ("Terrorism and the Internet") had testimony conflating 9/11 Truthers with terrorists.

It would seem that we're starting down the slippery slope towards criminalizing those who disagree with the official interpretation of events, and I suggest contacting your Senators and/or those in the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (hsgac.senate.gov).

Posted to Privacy at 11:07 AM

Caption this George W. Bush picture (Part #931123)

Here, I'll start:

A Connecticut Doofus in Colonial Williamsburg

"What's a 'time machine', and why does this 'Dick Cheney' hate us so?"

"No, this isn't Paraguay."

(Picture from his Thanksgiving day address: link).

Posted to WackyHumor at 10:10 AM

GAO on Custom and Border Patrol failings (just waving people through)

From this:

A video made during an investigation by the U.S. Government Accountability Office shows a stream of Mexicans strolling through the border into the U.S. as federal Custom and Border Patrol agents sit staring at "information on computer screens."

On another of the videos recorded at eight entry points across the country, an agent was reportedly waving aliens through the lane without "looking at them, making verbal contact or inspecting travel documents."

The GAO director of homeland security and justice issues, Richard Stana, testified before Congress last week and said those weren't just isolated incidents. And, while funding is part of the reason, Stana says it goes deeper:

"Emphasis is not being placed on all missions, and there is a failure by some of its officers to recognize the threat associated with dangerous people and goods entering the country."

Posted to Immigration_terror at 09:45 AM

ABC News' Political Radar edits comments without notice

Earlier today I left a comment on this post (blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/huckabees-first.html) from ABC News' Political Radar:

If I didn't know better, I'd say the ad was great. And, if I were promoting Huck for some reason, I'd say it was great too!

If that doesn't sound like me or make much sense, it's because ABC News edited my comment without notice. Here's the version that I left; this is how it appeared on the site before the edit:

If I didn't know better, I'd say the ad was great. And, if I were promoting Huck for some reason, I'd say it was great too! Thankfully, I'm actually familiar with Huck's record:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5Dp7FaKIJo

Maybe ABC could decide to do some real reporting about his record. (Or, perhaps they're waiting until after they've built him up.)

This isn't the first time they've done something like this, and it's not too difficult to imagine them getting into legal hot water should they edit comments in the wrong way.

Previous coverage of comments being deleted, bannings, etc. begins in this entry about Kevin Tracy.

Posted to Bloggage at 08:22 PM

Ted Kennedy, William Delahunt try blocking immigration enforcement ("Lactation Memo")

The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") has created a new, not-yet-public document called "Guidelines for Identifying Humanitarian Concerns among Administrative Arrestees When Conducting Worksite Enforcement Operations" (link). While it will be sold as a humanitarian effort, the goal strongly appears to be to be to hamper immigration enforcement and to help illegal aliens remain in the U.S.

[The document outlines] elaborate steps federal agents should follow to quickly identify detainees who have children or those who should be released for other reasons, such as pregnancy or illness. They also guarantee access to legal counsel, emergency medical care, and social workers...

[Ted Kennedy]'s spokeswoman, Melissa Wagoner, said that "New Bedford was the catalyst, and illustrated the need for national reform." Wagoner's statement, which accompanied a copy of the guidelines sent to the Globe [by Kennedy's office], said the document was the product of discussions among the agency, Kennedy, and US Representative William D. Delahunt.

This follows a so-called "Lactation Memo", a copy of which is available here. And, shortly before that came an Urban Institute/National Council of La Raza study opposing enforcement and even encouraging changes in favor of those charged with identity theft. Teddy Kennedy crows over his victory here. Obviously, if he really wanted to be humanitarian, he'd work to discourage illegal immigration rather than continually enabling it.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 01:30 PM

Sanctuary city proposed for Des Moines (Network Against Human Trafficking, Christine Hensley)

A very preliminary proposal to establish Des Moines, Iowa as a sanctuary city has been presented to Councilwoman Christine Hensley (link). It would seek to block that city from inquiring about someone's immigrations status or taking part in federal immigration raids. Hensley's position on the matter isn't clear, but she's at least naive enough to state who would profit from such a scheme:

Hensley said the impetus for the ordinance is illegal immigrants who fear raids and do not come to work, incurring costs on their employers.

She appears to have punted:

"What I suggested to them is there has to be a lot of discussion about it and whether or not there's really a problem."

The other councilmembers either couldn't be reached or said that haven't seen the plan. Two groups are pushing it, with "Alex Orozco, executive director of the Iowa-based Network Against Human Trafficking" refusing to name the other group. One might expect someone against human trafficking to oppose illegal immigration due to the fact that traffickers can take advantage of sanctuary policies and hide among illegal aliens, but apparently he has other goals.

You can contact the mayor and council here: ci.des-moines.ia.us/mayor_council/message/index.htm

11/20 FWIW UPDATE: From this:

"I absolutely and firmly oppose the concept of Des Moines becoming a sanctuary city," Hensley said. She and City Manager Rick Clark said they called the news conference to address a backlash from groups opposed to illegal immigration that began with news reports of the earlier meeting, which she said took place more than a month ago... The outcry included dozens of telephone calls to City Hall. U.S. Rep. Steve King, a Kiron Republican, said he would support efforts to limit federal money to Des Moines, according to an e-mail sent to the City Council by Lorna Davros, the council's administrative assistant... Representatives of national groups opposed to amnesty for immigration violations also called to express concern.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 11:12 AM

CNN lies, misleads (11/15/07 Democratic debate edition)

The following video describes how CNN failed to note the material affiliations of some of the audience members who asked questions at Thursday's Democratic debate. And, one of the audience questions included an outrageous lie. Since CNN approved the questions in advance, they're responsible for that lie.

Here's a rundown of the audience members who asked questions.

Here's a description of a setup question from Campbell Brown and a misleading answer from Barack Obama.

Here are more examples of Obama being misleading at the debate.

And, here's more on the lie about terrorists and border.

Posted to Politics at 08:15 PM

CNN, the most Soviet name in "news" (plants at Democratic debate)

Thursday's CNN Democratic debate featured more than wimpy questions and a CNN-approved lie. Some of the audience members who asked questions weren't just regular Joes and Janes. And, CNN failed to disclose those links.

From the transcript:

[Wolf Blitzer:] you're going to be hearing directly from voters here in Nevada. They're going to have a chance to ask these Democratic presidential candidates questions... [Suzanne Malveaux], you have some undecided voters who are ready to ask these presidential candidates some specific questions. Let's begin right now... [Malveaux:] ...I've had a chance to actually meet at least some of you here, and obviously I noticed when you were responding to some of the candidates you were shaking your head, wrinkling your nose. I'm not sure if they've answered your questions, and this is your opportunity to ask the candidates what you really care about.

Out of eight audience members selected, at least half had some form of undisclosed link:

* Khalil Khan (made unverified claim that he'd been racially profiled at the airport; Malveaux does say "he says" about those claims; the impression I received when watching it live was that she bought the claims)
- identified by CNN only as a "businessman"
- President of the Islamic Society of Nevada (lvmasjid.com)
- Appeared in Paula Zahn segment (transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/28/pzn.01.html)
- more

* LaShannon Spencer (asked about Supreme Court nominees)
- identified by CNN only as a member of a church
- someone with that same name was identified as director of political affairs for the Democratic Party of Arkansas (NYT, August 8, 2003, link)

* Maria Parra-Sandoval
- identified self at debate as a UNLV student
- former illegal alien (lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2006/apr/02/566679250.html)
- "In high school, she was active in voter registration, volunteered in a congressional campaign, and interned for Clark County. In college, she was selected to attend the Fifth Annual Public Policy and Leadership Conference at Harvard. She is also a Fellow of the National Latina Leadership Institute Summer Program in Washington, D.C. and was selected to intern in the office of the Honorable Harry Reid in Spring 2006." (lasvegasnevada.gov/files/2005_CLA_Yearbook.pdf)

* Catherine Jackson (asked about Iraq war)
- described as an "local anti-war activist" when she was at a counter-protest in front of Harry Reid's Nevada office (Las Vegas Review-Journal, May 18, 2007, cache)

* George Ambriz (falsely claimed that "no terrorist has come from our southern border")
- Malveaux identified him as a UNLV grad student
- someone named George R. Ambriz claims to have been the president of the Western New Mexico University chapter of MEChA in 2002-2003 (link); WNMU was his former school: unlv.edu/admissions/George_Ambriz.html
- the former editor of that school's student newspaper confirms he was the president of that MEChA chapter: livefromsilvercity.com/2007/11/17/wnmu-alumnus-on-the-national-stage

* Jeannie Jackson (asked about private contractors in Iraq making more than U.S. military)
- a person with that name has left several emotional, Iraq-related comments:
thinkprogress.org/2005/06/22/halliburton-scores-a-juicy-new-contract
iraqforsale.bravenewfilms.org/blog/866-video-tour-of-blackwater-s-training-facility
motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/07/splitting_the_baby.html
cache
tmz.com/2007/09/19/marcia-marcia-marcia/8
americansunitedforchange.org/blog/entries/small_price_ad_jon_porter
link (March 09, 2007 letter to Las Vegas Review-Journal)

* Judy Bagley (asked vague Social Security and Medicare question)
- identified by Malveaux as a casino cashier
- has some involvement with the Culinary Workers Union (in response to her question, Barack Obama said: "thanks for the great work you do on behalf of the culinary workers; a great union here.")
- Whether she's just a member or an official with that union isn't yet known; if the latter, that would be yet another affiliation CNN didn't disclose.

* Frank Perconte (extremely vague question about "uniting" the country)
- identified by Malveaux as a UNLV student

And, there's more:

Eric Alterman says: CNN producers purposely ginned up the crowd to cheer over and over, as if they were pom-pommed cheerleaders at a high school pep rally. (mediamatters.org/altercation/200711160005#1)

Then, per CNN: "The audience hooted and jeered at both Edwards and Obama as attacks continued -- when Obama accused Clinton of sounding like Republican candidate Mitt Romney and when Edwards repeated charges the front-runner took money from special interests." (cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/16/debate.follow)

And, there was apparently some funny business involving how the tickets were distributed: here, here.

Posted to Politics at 11:49 AM

The bluebirds have yet not flown south for the winter due to the hot weather in Southern California

Just thought I'd pass on this observation: the bluebirds have yet not flown south for the winter due to the hot weather in Southern California. However, there appear to be fewer sparrows and pigeons around these days, perhaps simply because of the unseasonably warm weather. Yesterday it must have been 79 or 80, and the day before it was probably around 84. Unlike in New England, there are not only no leaves to turn, but the leaves wouldn't turn if they could. That said, at around the 5532' elevation level or so, there are indeed deciduous trees that can turn. You can see those by heading 25.3 or so miles up Highway 2. Best of luck!

Posted to WackyHumor at 01:57 PM

Campbell Brown/CNN asks simplistic question, gets stock Barack Obama answer (benefits for illegal aliens)

Last night's CNN Democratic debate is the Sovietski-style gift that keeps giving. Campbell Brown asked Barack Obama a question about immigration that wasn't specific enough, allowing him to simply give his stock reply. Should we assume that Brown is completely naive and wasn't aware that politicians have a habit of doing this? Or, should we assume that she was simply playing a setup role?

The question:

...you've supported various benefits for illegal immigrants, including driver's licenses and in-state college tuition... What do you say to those Americans who say they are losing out because you would give benefits to people who broke the laws of this country, who came here illegally?

A better question would have asked him whether it's good public policy to allow illegal aliens to take college discounts from U.S. citizens, and would have included language in the question asking that he address that specific point. And, when he didn't answer the question the moderator would have interrupted his speech and asked again. (After his speech, Blitzer did to a certain extent by asking about driver's licenses for illegal aliens, which generated the Obama quote already discussed.)

If I had been asking questions, I would have continued to press that point until it was revealed that Obama is willing to throw U.S. citizens under the bus if he thinks he can get votes out of the deal.

Obama's answer contains some of the issues mentioned at the previous link:

I would say that they're justified in feeling frustrated because this administration -- the Bush administration -- has done nothing to control the problem that we have. We've had 5 million undocumented workers come over the borders since George Bush took office [see #3 at the previous link]. It has become an extraordinary problem, and the reason the American people are concerned is because they are seeing their own economic position slip away... And so what we have to do is create a comprehensive solution to the problem. [...issues stock legalization speech...]

So, his solution to the problem is to wave a magic wand and declare current illegal aliens to suddenly become legal workers, and that will fix the problem? Obviously, if Campbell Brown or Wolf Blitzer had been doing their jobs, they would have asked him to specify exactly how that would work.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 12:03 PM

Felipe Calderon's "League Against Discrimination of Mexicans in the United States"

Here's the next grand plan of the Mexican government that will a) backfire, and b) reveal some in the U.S. to be little more than de facto agents of that government (link):

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has forcefully inserted himself into the U.S. presidential campaign, denouncing the candidates for demonizing Mexican immigrants and announcing that the government would finance a public relations campaign aimed at reversing Americans' negative perceptions.

...[The Mexican government] also said it would back a proposal by the immigrants agency [the Institute of Mexicans Abroad] to organize a coalition of Mexican activists inside the United States to respond to political attacks on immigrants. The coalition would be called la Liga contra la Discriminación de los Mexicanos en Estados Unidos, or the League Against Discrimination of Mexicans in the United States.

But the most unusual initiative would budget an undisclosed amount for a campaign inside the United States to "win the battle of public opinion" by highlighting inspirational "success stories" of Mexican immigrants who had prospered in American society.

Calderon did not disclose details of the new campaign, but he said it would help the U.S. public recognize "the irreplaceable contribution of Mexicans to the United States, to its economy and its society."

A particular target will be the U.S. news media, where he said he would seek an "objective dialogue" on immigration.

"Strategies of simple confrontation and rudeness aggravate an anti-Mexican feeling," Calderon said, amplifying "the worse phobias even more."

And, I welcome this news, because we Americans love it when corrupt foreign countries try to spread propaganda inside our country. This move will also cast doubt on anyone who supports Mexico agenda from now on: are they part of Mexico's propaganda push? Are they being paid or at least directed by Mexico?

Note that members of the IME helped organize last year's illegal immigration marches, as did a former Mexican consul general. And, just recently the Blue America PAC joined with a group whose president is with the IME to push amnesty.

In other news, Mexico is lowering the banking fees on remittances to Mexico City. Surely it was just a humanitarian move.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 09:59 AM

American Jewish Committee collaborates with Mexican government to support illegal immigration

Dianne Solis of the Dallas Morning News - someone not unfamiliar with downplaying meddling inside the U.S. by the Mexican governmnt - offers this:

Leaders of a national Jewish group say the hate being directed at Mexican immigrants resonates with their own experience. So they've taken up the cause and convened a series of meetings and workshops with immigrant and Mexican-American leaders, including some from North Texas.

Of course, an unbiased reporter would put "hate" in quotes or would say something like, "what they call hate". Solis is, of course, not a real reporter; she's pushing "the cause".

Laura Gonzalez, a Dallas college professor, and Jacobo Kupersztoch, a Dallas biologist, were among about three dozen Latinos from around the country who made the trek to Washington for sessions on organizing, fundraising and advocacy.

The American Jewish Committee co-sponsored the three-day workshop with Mexico's Institute for Mexicans Abroad, which includes an advisory council established by the country's Foreign Relations Ministry.

In other words, they're part of the Mexican government: www.ime.gob.mx Later in the article it's revealed that both Kupersztoch and Gonzalez served on that board between 2003 and 2005, and that Gonzalez is "active in the League of Women Voters of Dallas". Kupersztoch wants to establish "phone trees" of retirees to contact Congress.

Question: are both subject to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (usdoj.gov/criminal/fara)? Even if they aren't required to register under that Act, should the reader consider them de facto agents for the Mexican government? And, likewise with the AJC should they continue to associate themselves with the Mexican government.

Also mentioned:
* Dina Siegel Vann, AJC director of the Latino and Latin America initiative
* Jeffrey Sinensky, AJC's director of domestic policy
* Jorge Navarrete, "who served on the advisory board of the Institute for Mexicans Abroad"

They met with with Rep. Howard Berman; no word is provided on whether the IME was among those who attended that meeting. They also met with Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 09:42 AM

Barack Obama supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens, misleads about incentives

On this video from tonight's CNN Democratic debate (youtube.com/watch?v=UQXYYIdjjFg via this), Barack Obama does a partial Hillary Clinton on driver's licenses for illegal aliens, before unequivocally supporting them (followed only by, "but, I am going to be fighting for comprehensive immigration reform"; the "but" part generated peals of laughter from the audience).

In addition to his chances being damaged by the fumbling, it would be nice if the other statements he made were damaging as well:

...the problem we have here is not driver's licenses. Undocumented workers don't come here to drive... they're not coming here to go to the In-N-Out Burger [1]... that's not the reason they're here, they're here to work. And, so, instead of being distracted by what has now become a wedge issue, let's focus on actually solving the problem that this administration, the Bush administration, has done nothing about...

There are at least five - yes, five - things wrong with that statement that I, had I been moderating, would have called Obama on:

1. First and most minor, they're illegal aliens, not "undocumented workers".

2. Isn't Obama actually welcoming the current situation? Doesn't he actually want those illegal aliens to remain here, and does he actually consider it that important an issue that millions of foreign citizens have come here illegally? Isn't he an apologist for the current situation?

3. The Bush administration hasn't just "done nothing about" illegal immigration, they've actively encouraged, enabled, and promoted it. And, the Democrats have done the same. Perhaps Obama would like to enumerate all the steps that Democratic Party leaders took to try to prevent the current situation from developing (here's an eighth-page of paper where he can write it down).

4. Just because they aren't coming here for driver's licenses and other goodies doesn't mean that those don't play a part. If, for instance, people in foreign lands knew that they wouldn't be able to work here, get welfare benefits, get educations, get driver's licenses or even get library cards, very few would try to come here. The more incentives are offered to illegal aliens, the greater their ability to live here. So, while driver's licenses might not be the main draw, they do play a role in increasing illegal immigration, at least to those states that offer them. Obama is being intellectually dishonest (assuming he can even figure that out in the first place).

5. The solution to the problem offered by Obama will only make the situation worse through things such as discouraging respect for our laws, encouraging even more illegal immigration, giving even more political power to racial demagogues and to foreign governments, and so on.

It's good that Wolf Blitzer's questions resulted in Barack Obama being derided, but it would have been even better if he had helped end his political career by pointing out how misleading he is.

UPDATE: See also Campbell Brown/CNN asks simplistic question, gets stock Barack Obama answer (benefits for illegal aliens).

[1] In-N-Outs are only in CA/AZ/NV; Obama's doing a shout-out and in Texas he would have said "Whataburger" (sadly there are none of those in CA).

Posted to Immigration_dls at 09:18 PM

CNN Democratic debate November 15, 2007

Just started watching, and so far both questions CNN has gone to the audience for had major issues.

First, the claim that the questioner was racially profiled is just that: a claim, not a fact.

Second, the question about immigration contained a lie: terrorists have indeed crossed our southern border, as have tens of thousands of people from Special Interest countries like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and more [1]. CNN's Suzanne Malveaux then tossed it to Bill Richardson, who simply launched into his stock legalization speech.

CNN is wasting your time and allowing unfounded claims and lies to be spread.

From the transcript (link), here's the question:

It seems that many political commentators such as Lou Dobbs are guiding the debate and strongly shaping U.S. policy on immigration by insinuating a linkage to terrorism. As many people know, no terrorist has come from our southern border. Do you consider fighting terrorism and slowing the flow of illegal immigration coming from our southern border as intrinsically related issues?

About the second question, Katharine Q. Seelye of the New York Times says:

Really smart question from a voter who asked whether fighting terrorism and slowing immigration were intertwined.

Such "journalism"!

Ben Smith at the Politico (politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1107/Terrorism_and_the_border.html) chimes in, saying it was a "very good question".

You don't want to know what I thought of the "diamonds or pearls" question.

Please, please, please:
1. Go to campaign appearances.
2. Ask tough questions.
3. Upload and promote the response.

CNN isn't a news source, they're propaganda mixed with entertainment. We need to completely disintermediate them.

UPDATE: The "diamonds or pearls" student has issued a statement (link):

"Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN... I was asked to submit questions including "lighthearted/fun" questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance."

CNN's Sam Feist (sam.feist *at* cnn.com) says it was because that question had already been asked earlier. Now that we know that CNN had to approve each question, we know that CNN allowed a lie and an unverified claim to be broadcast. Please contact Feist with your thoughts.

UPDATE 2: See also "Campbell Brown/CNN asks simplistic question, gets stock Barack Obama answer (benefits for illegal aliens)" and "Barack Obama supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens, misleads about incentives".

UPDATE 3 (POTTED PLANT EDITION): How prescient of me! The "racial profiling" person (Khalid Khan) is president of the Islamic Council of Nevada. He apparently has a link to Harry Reid. The "pearls" girl is apparently a former illegal alien who used to work for... Harry Reid. See the comment from Jenny Bea here.

[1] From this (or this):

Texas' top homeland security official said Wednesday that terrorists with ties to Hezbollah, Hamas and al-Qaida have been arrested crossing the Texas border with Mexico in recent years.

See also "[45,000] Illegals From Terror-Sponsoring Nations at Large in US", "FBI warns of 'special interest' aliens", "Terrorists at The Border?", "Illegals from terrorist nations are crossing the border into Arizona", "FBI's Mueller: Hezbollah Busted in Mexican Smuggling Operation" (March 2006), "Terror-Linked Migrants Crossing Into U.S.", Bush "cognizant" of border terrorism risk, but won't do anything about it and, from this PDF file:

Members of Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based terrorist organization, have already entered to the United States across our Southwest border. On March 1, 2005, Mahmoud Youssef Kourani pleaded guilty to providing material support to Hezbollah. Kourani is an illegal alien who had been smuggled across the U.S.-Mexico border after bribing a Mexican consular official in Beirut for a visa to travel to Mexico. Kourani and a Middle Eastern traveling partner then paid coyotes in Mexico to guide them into the United States.

Posted to Politics at 06:38 PM

Ramos/Compean drug smuggler arrested (for 2005 case)

From this:

Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, the drug smuggler who was shot in the buttocks by El Paso Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean in 2005, was arrested on drug charges at the Zaragoza Bridge this morning, officials with the U.S. Attorney's office said.

Aldrete was arrested by agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General on a sealed indictment charging him with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, and with possession with intent to distribute marijuana in September and October 2005.

That was both after he was shot (February 2005) and given immunity, and if he had been charged earlier it might have changed the outcome of the case. U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton says it was because he'd been working with the DEA to get new evidence (link).

Posted to Immigration2007b at 04:27 PM

AP: 'HuffPost "Worst Post" selection committee suffers group seizure'

This story just crossed the wires. Neurologists speculate it has something to do with all the possibilities simply "overloading their circuits" due to all the entries from Dave Johnson and many, many others, combined with this recent post being thrown on the pile:

Posted to WackyHumor at 03:12 PM

National League of Cities awards New Haven's IDs for illegal aliens scheme

New Haven, Connecticut is handing out ID cards to illegal aliens, and not only does their mayor John DeStefano have a possible financial incentive, but the city worker who pushed the plan through previously headed a non-profit that is/was collaborating with the Mexican government.

Now, the Washington DC lobbying group National League of Cities and their partner CH2M Hill have given them one of their "2007 Awards for Municipal Excellence":

The Elm City Immigration Project in New Haven is a series of innovative, comprehensive and far-reaching policies and initiatives aimed at strengthening the relationship between the city and its immigrant community while improving public safety... The award winners were selected by a panel of judges, including Karen Anderson, former president, National League of Cities; Janet Areson, Virginia Municipal League; Cy Behroozi, Brookings Institution; Jacqueline Byers, National Association of Counties; Del D. Borgsdorf, Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce; Saul Ramirez Jr., National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials; Carol Rhea, American Planning Association; and Toni Samuel, American Society of Public Administration.

Please let the president of the NLC (Indianapolis mayor Bart Peterson) know what you think of the NLC giving their imprimatur to NH's corrupt scheme: indygov.org/eGov/Mayor/contact.htm

Posted to Immigration2007b at 10:54 AM

Nutroots: Blue America PAC joins with Mexico-linked group to support illegal immigration (anti-Rahm Emanuel)

The Blue America PAC - a nutroots/netroots group composed of Firedoglake, Down with Tyranny (run by Howie Klein), Crooks and Liars, and Digby - has apparently decided to make Rahm Emanuel look mainstream by comparison. They're launching a campaign to "fight for the soul of the Democratic Party on immigration issue", i.e., to support massive illegal immigration and an amnesty [1]. Their first ad accuses Emanuel of "betraying" "immigrants" by not opposing the deportation of someone. While her case isn't explained - they usually aren't, at least factually - it sounds like she entered the U.S. illegally. [It gets even worse, see the UPDATE]

Further, Blue America is joining with the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, a group whose president is linked to the Mexican government.

I've left a total of three comments (one on FDL, two on DWT) pointing that link out, so clearly the fact that those bloggers are now in turn indirectly linked to the Mexican government isn't considered that big of an issue. I suggest pointing out their new link when they alone or together issue future pronouncements on this issue.

UPDATE: For completeness' sake, I'll point out that the comment I left at downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/11/rep-gutierrez-re-rahm-and-steny-we.html appeared and then disappeared; I added it again and it remains there as of 11/15. However, a similar comment I left at the later post downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/11/rahm-emanuel-il-05-accountability.html appeared but isn't there now.

As for Blue America's victim of our immigration policies, she was using someone else's identity. Even Mark Brown's hugely sympathetic plea can't avoid the basic facts (link):

[Teresa Figueroa is] a convicted felon awaiting probable deportation... Two years ago, the real Lucia Peraida [the name Figueroa was using] complained to Elmhurst Police that somebody at Micron was using her name and Social Security number. Peraida, of Chicago, had learned this when the Internal Revenue Service accused her of failing to report income from Micron that left her with a $3,566 tax liability...

Oddly enough, the Blue America gang don't disclose that she was convicted of identity theft and that there was a victim. I'd suggest pointing that out to their readers if the opportunity presents itself.

[1] firedoglake.com/2007/11/14/blue-america-holding-rahm-accountable-on-immigration

Posted to Immigration2007b at 08:04 PM

Communist Party Pride! (TV ad)

You might be a Communist and not know it! We support things like a woman's right to vote, Social Security, and environmentalism. If you support those things too, you're a Communist and welcome to the Party. (We can worry about those other things we support later on).

Note: this isn't a take-off on the Center for American Progress "progressive" ads (like youtube.com/watch?v=qnktauTeIeg). It just looks a lot like it.

(While I prefer to let my art speak for itself and let others interpret it, I should point out that I'm not comparing "progressives" to Communists, only highlighting that CAP is being misleading about not disclosing everything that today's "progressives" represent.)

Posted to WackyHumor at 03:03 PM

Center for American Progress misleads about "progressive" label

One unremarked note about the topic of Hillary Clinton's weakness is that some of her minions, while effective, are also lightweights. Media Matters has been able to get a few of their smears into the wider sphere, but they've also damaged what little reputation they had by failing to contextualize or misinterpreting remarks.

Another example is the Center for American Progress, a group that can't seem to get anything right. A misleading study from them is at that link, and here's another from Meredith King, and some propaganda from Ruy Teixeira. And, via Senior Fellow Henry Fernandez, they have an indirect link to the Mexican government.

The latest example comes from television ads they're running in Columbus, Milwaukee, and Indianapolis and want to make nationwide. The ads attempt to "begin defining progressivism in the public's mind". Oddly enough, this coincides with Hillary Clinton now assuming the "progressive" label. You can see the ads here: thinkprogress.org/2007/11/14/progressive-and-proud

Summary: the Communist Party could run ads discussing only some of their policies - such as their environmental stance - and then tell people they might be Communists. [UPDATE: I did just that at the link.] For another example, see the "World's Smallest Political Quiz", something that usually informs people - surprise! - that they have libertarian leanings.

The ads fail to note that the rise of "professional administrators" also led to Democratic Machines and their associated corruption and a massive, inefficient, entrenched bureaucracy. They fail to note that some "progressives" such as Mike Gravel explicitly support the formation of a world government. They fail to note that few "progressive" leaders support the enforcement of our immigration laws.

They discuss Teddy Roosevelt's environmentalism, without noting that he would almost certainly be aghast at someone who doesn't support enforcing our borders. They fail to note the "progressive"/Gramscian role in unnecessary forms of affirmative action, speech codes, racial divisiveness used to obtain political power, racial demagoguery, and on and on. They fail to note that many "progressives" have a proclivity towards being useful idiots or collaborateurs. They fail to note that many "progressives" don't seem clear on the concept of free speech, with some engaged in Stalinesque attempts to silence those who disagree with them.

Due to those factors and more, today's "progressives" strongly differ from the ones depicted in the old footage on the videos. If they discussed everything that "progressive" means nowadays, many fewer people would be proud to wear that label.

Posted to Politics at 12:54 PM

Enrique Morones chickens out of Jim Gilchrist debate

Enrique Morones - a far-left, loose borders loon linked to the San Diego Democratic Party - "debated" Jim Gilchrist of the Minuteman Project at California State University, Long Beach yesterday (link). What actually happened is during Morones' opening remarks he encouraged everyone in the auditorium to walkout in protest, and he followed leaving Gilchrist alone on stage speaking to a few dozen attendees.

"We cannot tolerate this kind of behavior. What they're doing is a hate movement," Morones said, while objecting to the format of the debate, which had a friend of Gilchrist's as moderator...

Outside, students and professors gave speeches from a podium set up on the green about human rights and respect for diversity on campus – the message of the Campus Coalition Against Hate, which formed in the last two weeks in response to Gilchrist's visit...

"We didn't come together around immigration," said Norma Chinchilla, a professor of sociology and women's studies. "We came together around human rights and keeping our campus a place where hate does not take root."

Posted to Immigration2007b at 09:57 AM

San Francisco approves ID card; corruption in plain sight; Tom Ammiano?

The San Francisco Supervisors have approved a city ID card for everyone, including illegal aliens (link). While this will be sold as either a wacky plan from the far-left or a common-sense solution, the more likely reason this was pushed through is hiding in plain sight:

[Bill author, supervisor Tom Ammiano] said banking institutions in San Francisco have signaled their willingness to accept the municipal ID card for the purpose of setting up accounts. He noted that people without bank accounts are frequently more vulnerable to theft and robbery.

Officials with the city's Bank on San Francisco program, which helps people obtain bank accounts, said institutions such as Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Washington Mutual and US Bank had expressed interest in accepting the ID cards.

Bank on San Francisco is a city partnership with the Federal Reserve Bank. Although criteria for opening bank accounts are set in part through the USA Patriot Act, "to our knowledge that law is not a bar to a municipal ID," said David Augustine, spokesman for the city treasurer's office, which oversees the program.

At least the first two banks listed as well as the Federal Reserve have in the past taken steps to profit from indirect illegal activity: the money that illegal aliens earn by working illegally. And, in fact, the Bush administration fought to allow banks to accept Mexico's ID card which is only of use to illegal aliens. And, from the Bank on San Francisco page (sfgov.org/site/bankonsf_index.asp?id=46628):

Accept alternative forms of identification, such as consular identification cards. For many immigrants, the barrier to opening an account is having the proper documentation.

The banks aren't going to earn that much off this; I'd imagine that due to the cost of living in Frisco they don't have a high illegal alien population (except for those living 20 to an apartment in shifts). However, this could be used as an entree to other cities, such as Los Angeles.

As for Ammiano, I'm not familiar with him and I don't know whether he's just a soft-brained far-leftie or whether he's trying to get a piece of the pie. However, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he's received donations from those banks or he has some sort of other link. Those who live in the area are strongly encouraged to follow the money. His fellow supervisor Gerardo Sandoval is a strong supporter of illegal immigration.

Note that New Haven, CT has their own municipal ID. Their mayor John DeStefano has a possible financial interest and the person in his office who pushed the ID (Kica Matos) previously headed a group (Junta for Progressive Action) that is/was collaborating with the Mexican government.

UPDATE: The "Case Study" PDF at the sfgov link above has some interesting nuggets on the Bank on San Francisco program. First, they've got a section for those "thinking about starting something similar to Bank on San Francisco in your community", and I'm sure some are. As for how it all started:

Anne Stuhldreher, a Fellow at the New America Foundation, approached staff of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and City Treasurer Jose Cisneros with the initial concept. The Treasurer’s Office convened a working group of the staff of the Mayor and Treasurer, the Mayors Office of Community Development, New America Foundation, and EARN, a citywide nonprofit that helps low-income residents build assets. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco joined the group soon after hearing about the program.

To participate in the program, banks have to accept those foreign IDs which are of use only to illegal aliens. And:

From further research, the working group learned that Latinos who are un-banked often don't realize that you do not need a social security number to open an account and that they can open accounts with Mexican or Guatemalan Identification cards.

In other words, you don't have to be here legally to have a U.S. bank account.

As for government corruption at the federal level:

[at a meeting] Michael Frias, of the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation [sic], discussed how the New Alliance Task Force is helping banks learn about how they can accept the Matricula Consular Card and develop products and services to help Latino immigrants, save, send money to their home countries, and buy homes... The New Alliance Task Force is a partnership between the FDIC, the Mexican Consulate, banks, community-based organizations, federal regulators, the secondary market, and private mortgage insurance companies. The partnership has opened 50,000 new bank accounts totaling $100 million.

In other words, something akin to a federal agency is collaborating with a foreign government to help nationals of that government who are here illegally get home loans, and is assisting banks to profit from money that was earned illegally.

Related:
Pro-illegal immigration performance art (funding by Bank of America and Wells Fargo)
Wells Fargo and illegal activity
remesamex.gob.mx features Bank of "America", Wells Fargo, and Western Union
Citibank "recruiting" illegal aliens for home loans

Posted to Immigration2007b at 09:26 AM

Democrats: soft on terrorist infiltration

Based on the response to Rep. Tom Tancredo's ad about terrorism, one thing is clear: the nutroots/netroots (like Crooks and Liars, Raw Story, etc.), supposed mainstream bloggers/pundits (like Matt Yglesias), and the MSM just don't take border security that seriously. Some Democratic politicians might not go that far, and some might truly support border security, but most of them - including the top-tier Democratic candidates - simply talk a good game.

Hopefully Frank Luntz or similar is working on rhetoric that would expose this abject failure to protect the U.S. and that could be used by various candidates when it applies. In the meantime, here's my first attempt:

The Democrats just don't see terrorist infiltration of the U.S. as an important issue and would prefer to concentrate on more important things.

It needs a bit of clean-up; I use "important" twice.

Posted to Immigration_terror at 08:33 PM

Eliot Spitzer drops driver's licenses for illegal aliens (Hillary updates position)

Presumably not wanting to join Hillary's List, New York governor Eliot Spitzer will announce tomorrow that he's shelving his unpopular plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens (link):

The governor's office signaled to New York lawmakers Tuesday that the morning of the meeting, he will say he is shelving the plan and that immigration is a federal issue to be handled by Washington, according to congressional aides who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because no formal announcement had been made.

I'd say it worked out quite well: he not only made immigration a factor in the presidential race, he damaged both Hillary Clinton's chances and his political career.

UPDATE: Fire up your Clintonian Parsing Machine! Per this she's now come out against the licenses, when it seemed to me that she was for them despite her claims to the contrary. From her statement:

"I support Governor Spitzer's decision today to withdraw his proposal... As president, I will not support driver's licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system."

Of course, as pointed out before, there will be many illegal aliens not covered under "reform" as well as many additional people who will come here illegally, leading to a continuation of the issue of unlicensed drivers. And, while she might not support giving illegal aliens driver's licenses herself, I wonder whether her statement would allow her to support governors who want to give them licenses. Or, whether she'd change her mind should "reform" fail yet again.

Posted to Immigration_dls at 06:53 PM

Thanks, Huckabee: business at Little Rock Mexican consulate is booming

Former Arkansas governor and current presidential candidate Mike Huckabee arranged for a Mexican Consulate to be built in Little Rock. And, business is booming! Per Jon Gambrell of the Associate Press (link):

...In its first six months, the Mexican consulate based in Little Rock has seen the number of citizens it serves a day rise from 50 to 120, said consul Andres Chao. Now, Chao said the consulate plans to hire three or more new staffers in the coming year, anticipating demand will only grow [to as much as 300 per day].

...Most seek matricula consular identity cards or passports, while others come for legal protection or other needs.

So far, Chao said consulate employees have issued more than 10,000 documents since April...

Please go to The Huckster's public appearances, ask him this question (youtube.com/watch?v=T5Dp7FaKIJo), and then upload his response.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 03:49 PM

More on Mike Huckabee's questionable Mexican consulate deal

From this:

An Arkansas commercial developer confirmed his role in a no-cost "incentive deal" packaged by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to attract a Mexican Consulate to Little Rock.

...Bruce Burrow told WND his commercial real estate company acquired the land and developed the Mexican consulate building in Little Rock at the request of Huckabee [and at no profit in a "public-private" deal], in a deal the then-governor engineered to make sure he snared the Mexican consulate away from other states.

...Arkansas Republican state legislator Rick Green objected to Huckabee using taxpayer funds in the scheme.

...Green told WND that two legislative study groups he helped organize this past summer concluded Arkansas has more illegal immigrants per capita than any other state and that its Hispanic illegal immigrant population is the fastest growing of any state in the nation.

..."We estimated that $410 million per year from Arkansas is sent back to Mexico alone, just in remittance payments," Green noted.

Much more on the questionable nitty-gritty of the deal at the link.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 12:19 PM