Listing Complaints About Illegal Immigrants and How to Handle Them

MEXICO IS ANGRY!

Three cheers for Arizona

The shoe is on the other foot and Mexicans from the State of Sonora, 
Mexico don’t like it.

The State of Sonora is angry at the influx of Mexicans into Mexico . Nine 
state legislators from the Mexican State of Sonora traveled to Tucson to 
complain about Arizona ‘s new employer crackdown on illegal’s from Mexico ..

It seems that many Mexican illegal’s are returning to their hometowns and the 
officials  in the Sonora state government are ticked off. A delegation of 
nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to state that 
Arizona ‘s new Employer Sanctions Law will have a devastating effect on the 
Mexican state.

At a news conference, the legislators said that Sonora — Arizona ‘s southern 
neighbor, made up of mostly small towns–cannot handle the demand for 
housing, jobs and schools that it will face as Mexican workers return to 
their hometowns from the USA without jobs or money. The Arizona law, which 
took effect Jan. 1, punishes Arizona employers who knowingly hire 
individuals without valid legal documents to work in the United States ..

Penalties include suspension of, or loss of, their business licenses. The 
Mexican legislators are angry because their own citizens are returning to 
their hometowns, placing a burden on THEIR state government.

“How can Arizona pass a law like this?’ asked Mexican Rep Leticia 
Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales .”

“There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or 
relative working in Arizona ,” she said, speaking in Spanish.

” Mexico is not prepared for this–for the tremendous problems it will face 
as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and who were sending money to 
their families, return to their home-towns in Sonora without jobs,” she said. 
“We are one family, socially and economically,” she said, referring to the people of 
Sonora and Arizona . Wrong!

The United States is a sovereign nation, not a subsidiary of Mexico , and 
its taxpayers are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico ‘s citizens. It’s time for the Mexican

 Government to stop feeding parasitically off the United States and start taking care of its/ 
their own needs.
 
New Immigration Laws: Read to the bottom or you will miss the message. . . 

• 1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.  * * * * * *
• * *
• 2. All ballots will be in this nation’s language. * * * * * * * *
• 3. All government business will be conducted in our language.  * * * * * * *
• 4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are
• here.  * * * * * * * *
• 5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office. * * * * * * * *
• 6.  Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food
• stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs.
• Any burden will be deported.  * * * * * * * *
• 7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least
• equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.  * * * * * * * *
• 8. If foreigners come here and buy land… options will be restricted.
• Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens
• naturally born into this country. * * * * * * * *
• 9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a
• foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his
• policies. These will lead to deportation. * * * * * * * *
• 10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &,
• when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you. * * * * * * * * *

Too strict? The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO !

These sound fine to me. NOW, how can we get these laws to be America ‘s 
Immigration Laws?

(I received the above from Prager fan, Regina Reed, but she did not pass the source on to me.  I believe the information declared in the above to be accurate.)

Read Frank Rich……The Times Leftist Whom Dennis Prager Called “A Liar”

Read the following words of Frank Rich, long time Leftwing opinion man for the vaunted New York Times. Those of you who know Dennis well know  how cautious Dennis Prager himself is regarding the use of language especially how it is used to characterize people.  

Last week Frank Rich of the Times Op-Ed page railed against conservatives attacking them  as bigots;  racists, conspiring against president Obama and his administration, using underlined backups for his claims of proof which were misleading and false. 

Dennis gave examples from his article and openly exposed Frank Rich as a liar.

Please read this article by “liar” Frank Rich.  BE CERTAIN…..extra CERTAIN…to click on to the claims of proof underlined in blue, to review Mr. Rich’s veracity this time around for his leftwing propaganda. 

Is Mr. Rich still a lying scoundrel?     MR. RICH WRITES THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE, ENTITLED:      

“The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party”…..

“ANOTHER weekend, another grass-roots demonstration starring Real Americans who are mad as hell and want to take back their country from you-know-who. Last Sunday the site was Lower Manhattan, where they jeered the “ground zero mosque.” This weekend, the scene shifted to Washington, where the avatars of oppressed white Tea Party America, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, were slated to “reclaim the civil rights movement” (Beck’s words) on the same spot where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. had his dream exactly 47 years earlier.

Their self-interested and at times radical agendas, like Murdoch’s, go well beyond, and sometimes counter to, the interests of those who serve as spear carriers in the political pageants hawked on Fox News. The country will be in for quite a ride should these potentates gain power, and given the recession-battered electorate’s unchecked anger and the Obama White House’s unfocused political strategy, they might.

All three tycoons are the latest incarnation of what the historian Kim Phillips-Fein labeled “Invisible Hands” in her prescient 2009 book of that title: those corporate players who have financed the far right ever since the du Pont brothers spawned the American Liberty League in 1934 to bring down F.D.R. You can draw a straight line from the Liberty League’s crusade against the New Deal “socialism” of Social Security, the Securities and Exchange Commission and child labor laws to the John Birch Society-Barry Goldwater assault on J.F.K. and Medicare to the Koch-Murdoch-backed juggernaut against our “socialist” president.

Only the fat cats change — not their methods and not their pet bugaboos (taxes, corporate regulation, organized labor, and government “handouts” to the poor, unemployed, ill and elderly). Even the sources of their fortunes remain fairly constant. Koch Industries began with oil in the 1930s and now also spews an array of industrial products, from Dixie cups to Lycra, not unlike DuPont’s portfolio of paint and plastics. Sometimes the biological DNA persists as well. The Koch brothers’ father, Fred, was among the select group chosen to serve on the Birch Society’s top governing body. In a recorded 1963 speech that survives in a University of Michigan archive, he can be heard warning of “a takeover” of America in which Communists would “infiltrate the highest offices of government in the U.S. until the president is a Communist, unknown to the rest of us.” That rant could be delivered as is at any Tea Party rally today.

Last week the Kochs were shoved unwillingly into the spotlight by the most comprehensive journalistic portrait of them yet, written by Jane Mayer of The New Yorker. Her article caused a stir among those in Manhattan’s liberal elite who didn’t know that David Koch, widely celebrated for his cultural philanthropy, is not merely another rich conservative Republican but the founder of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which, as Mayer writes with some understatement, “has worked closely with the Tea Party since the movement’s inception.” To New Yorkers who associate the David H. Koch Theater at Lincoln Center with the New York City Ballet, it’s startling to learn that the Texas branch of that foundation’s political arm, known simply as Americans for Prosperity, gave its Blogger of the Year Award to an activist who had called President Obama “cokehead in chief.”

The other major sponsor of the Tea Party movement is Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks, which, like Americans for Prosperity, is promoting events in Washington this weekend. Under its original name, Citizens for a Sound Economy, FreedomWorks received $12 million of its own from Koch family foundations. Using tax records, Mayer found that Koch-controlled foundations gave out $196 million from 1998 to 2008, much of it to conservative causes and institutions. That figure doesn’t include $50 million in Koch Industries lobbying and $4.8 million in campaign contributions by its political action committee, putting it first among energy company peers like Exxon Mobil and Chevron. Since tax law permits anonymous personal donations to nonprofit political groups, these figures may understate the case. The Kochs surely match the in-kind donations the Tea Party receives in free promotion 24/7 from Murdoch’s Fox News, where both Beck and Palin are on the payroll.

The New Yorker article stirred up the right, too. Some of Mayer’s blogging detractors unwittingly upheld the premise of her article (titled “Covert Operations”) by conceding that they have been Koch grantees. None of them found any factual errors in her 10,000 words. Many of them tried to change the subject to George Soros, the billionaire backer of liberal causes. But Soros is a publicity hound who is transparent about where he shovels his money. And like many liberals — selflessly or foolishly, depending on your point of view — he supports causes that are unrelated to his business interests and that, if anything, raise his taxes.

This is hardly true of the Kochs. When David Koch ran to the right of Reagan as vice president on the 1980 Libertarian ticket (it polled 1 percent), his campaign called for the abolition not just of Social Security, federal regulatory agencies and welfare but also of the F.B.I., the C.I.A., and public schools — in other words, any government enterprise that would either inhibit his business profits or increase his taxes. He hasn’t changed. As Mayer details, Koch-supported lobbyists, foundations and political operatives are at the center of climate-science denial — a cause that forestalls threats to Koch Industries’ vast fossil fuel business. While Koch foundations donate to cancer hospitals like Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York, Koch Industries has been lobbying to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from classifying another product important to its bottom line, formaldehyde, as a “known carcinogen” in humans (which it is).

Tea Partiers may share the Kochs’ detestation of taxes, big government and Obama. But there’s a difference between mainstream conservatism and a fringe agenda that tilts completely toward big business, whether on Wall Street or in the Gulf of Mexico, while dismantling fundamental government safety nets designed to protect the unemployed, public health, workplace safety and the subsistence of the elderly.

Yet inexorably the Koch agenda is morphing into the G.O.P. agenda, as articulated by current Republican members of Congress, including the putative next speaker of the House, John Boehner, and Tea Party Senate candidates like Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, and the new kid on the block, Alaska’s anti-Medicaid, anti-unemployment insurance Palin protégé, Joe Miller. Their program opposes a federal deficit, but has no objection to running up trillions in red ink in tax cuts to corporations and the superrich; apologizes to corporate malefactors like BP and derides money put in escrow for oil spill victims as a “slush fund”; opposes the extension of unemployment benefits; and calls for a freeze on federal regulations in an era when abuses in the oil, financial, mining, pharmaceutical and even egg industries (among others) have been outrageous.

The Koch brothers must be laughing all the way to the bank knowing that working Americans are aiding and abetting their selfish interests. And surely Murdoch is snickering at those protesting the “ground zero mosque.” Last week on “Fox and Friends,” the Bush administration flacks Dan Senor and Dana Perino attacked a supposedly terrorism-tainted Saudi prince whose foundation might contribute to the Islamic center. But as “The Daily Show” keeps pointing out, these Fox bloviators never acknowledge that the evil prince they’re bashing, Walid bin Talal, is not only the biggest non-Murdoch shareholder in Fox News’s parent company (he owns 7 percent of News Corporation) and the recipient of Murdoch mammoth investments in Saudi Arabia but also the subject of lionization elsewhere on Fox.

No less a Murdoch factotum than Neil Cavuto slobbered over bin Talal in a Fox Business Channel interview as recently as January, with nary a question about his supposed terrorist ties. Instead, bin Talal praised Obama’s stance on terrorism and even endorsed the Democrats’ goal of universal health insurance. Do any of the Fox-watching protestors at the “ground zero mosque” know that Fox’s profits are flowing to a Obama-sympathizing Saudi billionaire in bed with Murdoch? As Jon Stewart summed it up, the protestors who want “to cut off funding to the ‘terror mosque’ ” are aiding that funding by watching Fox and enhancing bin Talal’s News Corp. holdings.

When wolves of Murdoch’s ingenuity and the Kochs’ stealth have been at the door of our democracy in the past, Democrats have fought back fiercely. Franklin Roosevelt’s triumphant 1936 re-election campaign pummeled the Liberty League as a Republican ally eager to “squeeze the worker dry in his old age and cast him like an orange rind into the refuse pail.” When John Kennedy’s patriotism was assailed by Birchers calling for impeachment, he gave a major speech denouncing their “crusades of suspicion.”

And Obama? So far, sadly, this question answers itself.

Comment:   Charles Krauthammer wrote a terrific article reviewing the intellectual levels of the Leftists, the clan which includes this Mr. Rich, which was given the profoundly appropriate title, “Liberalism Under Siege I An Ugly Sight”.  

Ugly sights mean ugly people made ugly by their behavior.

How did Frank Rich do this time regarding offering proof for his attacks?

Andrew McCarthy Review of “Liberty and Tyranny” by Mark R. Levin

Andrew McCarthy offers this review of Mark R. Levin’s new book, “Liberty and Tyranny:  A Conservative Manifesto”.  It was found at The New Criterion.

“It is a rarity that an important book arrives at its perfect moment. Such is the case with Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto.[1] We are in the high tide of America’s Leftist ascendancy: the Obama evisceration of individual freedom and installation of authoritarian collectivism—at warp speed, driven by an ambition that would have made Woodrow Wilson and FDR blush. Against this tidal wave, Mark Levin offers not so much a defense as a plan of attack, a clarion call to roll back the seas of Change.

His answer is a restoration of civil society: the Burkean paradigm of ordered liberty in which the citizen and his society thrive, in all their ineradicable imperfection. Individual freedom is tempered by a moral order that is the heritage of each new generation, and its bequest to the next, in the “chain and continuity of the commonwealth.” In the three-quarters of a century between the New Deal and the new New Deal, civil society has gradually evaporated while the means of its preservation have become ever more remote and elusive. Like Dorothy, though, we’ve always had it in our power to return home. In our case, the ruby red slippers are the principles of the Founding—the Declaration of Independence and a Constitution that elevates liberty by sharply limiting government and, further, divides powers among competing departments, ingeniously suppressing any tyrannical tendencies.

The plan, however, is not self-actuating. To be the land of the free, Levin insists that we must also be the home of the brave. Invoking Ronald Reagan, he admonishes: “Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” That is so, as Levin sharply demonstrates throughout this fast-paced book, because the values and core of “the Conservative” are forever under assault by “the Statist.”

There is no gainsaying Levin’s fighting spirit: a Reagan administration official who served as chief-of-staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese III, he is an accomplished litigator. In recent years, he has been among the nation’s most successful talk-radio hosts, notable for the verve he brings to a nightly dilation of conservatism and his skill— richly on display in Liberty and Tyranny—rendering legal and historical complexity accessibly, but not condescendingly, to the layman. Like Russell Kirk, Levin is a conservative because he is a liberal, in the classical, freedom-loving sense. Hence the choice of “the Statist” to describe his nemesis: he refuses to cede the term “liberal” or to deem “progressive” that which regresses civil society.

To trace the dynamic struggle between liberty and tyranny, Levin must both locate conservatism and frame the attributes of statism. The latter is easier to do, and not merely because statism is today engulfing us. It owes to the fact that the statist has an agenda.

He seeks the agglomeration of power in government for the purpose of wielding it to impose his preferences, though the goal is pursued under the seemingly noble auspices of enforcing “equality”—the statist’s primary organizing principle. Self-determining individuals are the impediment to this vision, so the statist must eviscerate the bedrock of civil society that enables them to thrive. He accomplishes this by relentlessly attacking bourgeois values; abrading American exceptionalism with multi-culti relativism; and inculcating a resentment-driven class consciousness that sets tribe against tribe along racial, ethnic, and economic lines—exploiting the divisions beneath the banner of “economic justice,” through such toxins as the “progressive income tax.” In every sense, the statist’s project is a conscious, Fabian one, with coconspirators and useful idiots throughout the international community (with its global governance aspirations), the academy, Hollywood, and the media.

By contrast, the conservative’s objective is simply life: faith, family, community, and country. His imperative is to preserve. The conservative does not have a project; for him, the personal is not the political—which is why the statist finds him an easy foil. The conservative resists change, but is open to reform, for the latter addresses meritorious grievances by improving civil society’s time-tested institutions without radically altering their character. Contrary to conventional (i.e. statist) lore, the conservative cannot be dogmatically wedded to the status quo; as Levin points out, the status quo “may well be a condition created by the statist and destructive of the civil society—such as 1960s cultural degradations.” The conservative accepts that inequality is the natural condition of mankind because each individual is uniquely endowed by our Creator. For the conservative, equality means enjoying the same opportunity as the next person to live free and flourish, coupled with impartial treatment before a just law. The conservative is alert to injustice but does not see it in each and every iniquity.

Tyranny is the suppression of liberty. In the United States, it is a soft but increasingly suffocating and arbitrary state power. The Obama moment is not “the iron fist of absolute despotism”—the only dire condition, the Founders explained, which could justify the last resort of revolution. But it is an alarming nadir for liberty. How did we get here, and how do we get back?

Levin answers these questions in a well-conceived, exquisitely executed format. He first addresses the ways in which we have veered far from our founding principles: the centrality of faith, the primacy of the Constitution, federalism, free-market capitalism, the welfare state, the role of science, legal immigration, and national defense. Having diagnosed the pathology and its major symptoms, Levin finally offers his prescription, the “Conservative Manifesto”—a series of practical albeit hugely hard-to-implement remedies.

The author is especially trenchant on the animating role of faith in the American founding, and, consequently, its place atop the statist hit-list. The Framers understood “that liberty and religious liberty are inseparable.” But Christianity, unapologetically, was and is America’s dominant religion and it is undeniable that Judeo-Christian values heavily influenced our founding law. The point of religious liberty was to forfend the establishment of a theocracy of the type Tocqueville discerned in the Islamic world, where the Qur’an imposed not merely religious tenets but control over every aspect of life. The Supreme Court’s fabrication of a “wall of separation” in its 1947 Everson decision (authored by one-time Klansman Hugo Black, the first justice appointed by FDR), installing official hostility to religion, was “a wretched betrayal of America’s founding.” As a result, “American courts sit today as supreme secular councils, which, like Islam’s supreme religious councils, dictate all manner of approved behavior respecting religion.”

A strong proponent of constitutional originalism, Levin particularly laments FDR’s “Second Bill of Rights,” the initiative Obama has thrown into high gear. These “positive rights”—economic and social welfare benefits, not rights but redistributions—are “tyranny’s disguise”: the statist’s “false promises of utopianism … to justify all trespasses on the individual’s private property.” Like freedom of conscience, property is part of liberty’s irreducible core, and is thus exalted in our founding law. So, like religion, it is forever in the statist’s cross-hairs as he seeks to micromanage every vestige of autonomy from employment to healthcare to the type of cars we drive.

To carry out such intrusions requires two essential ingredients. The first is a welfare state, the ever more staggering dimensions of which play to the strength of the technocrat. With Ponzi math and junk science swaddled in the rhetoric of good intentions, the expert cons bewildered citizens about what government can do (the public hears “world peace” and “ending poverty” but never seems to think “post office”), while the statist converts them into irrational dependents—such that demands resulting in tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities for schemes like Social Security and Medicare would inevitably demolish the economy even if there were no credit default swaps.

The second is the statist’s infiltration of government’s faceless bureaucratic sprawl. Levin recounts story upon jaw-dropping story of radicals at the helm: the Social Security Administration’s adoption of Henry Rogers Seager’s socialist rant against the “creed of individualism,” calling for “an aggressive program of governmental control and regulation” to enforce “the common welfare”; the National Park Service ecologist David M. Graber’s declaration that the human beings are a “plague upon the earth” engaged in an “orgy of fossil-energy consumption” which caused him to conclude that “until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along”; and so on. The utopia they promise is a conveyor belt of misery, rolling out millions of deaths when enviro-statists banned the use of DDT, and thousands more (to say nothing of an industry destroyed), when mandated fuel-economy standards made American cars less safe.

Levin is not a dewy-eyed dreamer. His blueprint of solutions is ambitious not because it is instantly achievable but because our condition is dire. Among other things, he recommends ending the progressive income tax; a legislative veto over Supreme Court decisions; a yearly sunset of all federal agencies subject to congressional reauthorization; breaking government’s ruinous education monopoly; repealing chain immigration and multiculturalism in public institutions; slowly reforming entitlement programs by reversing the education system’s proselytism on their behalf; rejecting treaties and other international arrangements that encroach on U.S. sovereignty; a revitalization of the Constitution’s original limits of government power; and a restoration of faith’s rightful place as the source of rights the citizen cannot be denied. Like conservatism itself, it is the work of generations. And taking its lead from Mark Levin, it is not for the faint of heart.”

Citizen’s Council on Health Care May Need Your Help!

Hello Friend of CCHC! If you’re a parent of a child age 13 or younger, we need you to send a quick EMAIL. We’ll provide the words. You fill in the name/address/etc.

 On Tuesday, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the 9-parent BABY DNA lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). Officials at MDH, who are storing and using newborn citizen DNA without parental consent had requested the dismissal. As we noted in yesterday’s CCHC news release, the Court dismissed your constitutional rights and said there is no evidence that the DNA of these children was used beyond screening. Yet, we know more than 59,000 Minnesota children have had their DNA used for research without consent. Help us find the children used for government research without parental consent.

In short, we need you to request by email an accounting from the government of what happened to your child’s newborn blood spots and newborn (genetic) screening test results.

(Four easy steps & Sample letter below) Thank you for your help! Twila Brase, RN, PHN President Citizens’ Council on Health Care (CCHC) 651-646-8935 ——————————————————–

———————— FOUR EASY STEPS: ————————————————————————–

—— 1) Make sure you are qualified to send the email request. You must be a parent or guardian of a child born on or after July 1, 1997. All children born on or after July 1, 1997 have had their DNA warehoused at the MN Dept. of Health—and claimed as State government property.

2) Use our sample letter below or create your own.

Send one email per child to:

 lynn.belgea@state.mn.us

DO NOT FORWARD THIS EMAIL. Copy and paste it into a new email. Type or print all the information clearly. Please refrain from making additional comments or opinions about the action of MDH in the lawsuit. Lynn Belgea is MDH’s data compliance officer and designated by the Commissioner to handle data requests.

3) Send a separate email to CCHC with the letter you sent to the Department so we can monitor the response to this critical project.

4) Once you receive a written response to your request, provide CCHC with the information you receive (including any comment about delays, lost records, denial of access, etc).

Please KEEP A RECORD of EVERYTHING and then email or send it to CCHC. MN Law Allows You to Request & Receive Data: Under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, you have the legal right to request and receive this data.

 See the MDH data practices document (note pages 5, 7 and 10 specifically) and the state administrative rules. ——————————————————————————– SAMPLE LETTER ——————————————————————————– Date____________

Commissioner Sanne Magnan, M.D., Ph.D. Minnesota Department of Health Freeman Building 625 Robert Street North P.O. Box 64975 Saint Paul, MN 55164-0975 Dear Commissioner Magnan, I am making a data practices request under the authority of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. I am requesting a comprehensive accounting of the data and blood spots of my child that were collected through the Minnesota newborn screening program. Specifically, I am requesting a comprehensive accounting of the collection, storage, use and dissemination of my child’s newborn blood spots, my child’s newborn screening laboratory test results, and any information (including parent information) associated with my child’s newborn blood spots and my child’s newborn screening test results. Such accounting must include, but is not limited to, internal uses by the Minnesota Department of Health, all Department contracts and/or data sharing agreements which include the sharing and/or use of my child’s blood spots and data with government or outside entities, all internal and/or external research, public health studies, newborn studies, other studies, other testing, test development using my child’s blood spots and/or data, all linkages to my child’s data and blood spots within and outside the Minnesota Department of Health, storage of the data and/or blood spots in databases or repositories in and outside the Minnesota Department of Health, all research findings in which my child’s data or blood spots were stored, used, and/or disseminated, and any other collection, storage, use and/or dissemination of my child’s data or blood spots. My child’s complete name is ___________ My child’s birth data is __________ My child was born at _____________ (institution) The mother’s name at the time of the birth was _____________ Thank you for your assistance with my request. Please let me know when I can expect to receive this information.

Sincerely, Parent Name (Print Full Name)_____________________________________________

 Address________________________________________________________________ City, State, Zip___________________________________________________________

Phone Number__________________________________________     

Email Address ______________________________________

Thank you…..

Twila Brase, RN, PHN
President
Citizens’ Council on Health Care (CCHC)
651-646-8935

George Soros, Mark Dayton, Al Franken and More Dirt to Come to Minnesota

Scott W. Johnson of Powerline provides Minnesota Prager fans with this following tidbit about our new Minnesota of leftwing slash and burn politics:

“In The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care), Rob Witwer and Adam Schrager report on the Democratic takeover of Colorado. One key to the takeover is the cash deployed by a handful of extraordinarily wealthy donors to fund left-wing front groups performing specialized dirty work.

The Colorado model has been franchised and extended to Minnesota as well as several other states. The election of Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie in 2006 was one of the first successes of the Minnesota franchise. Ritchie was in place to serve his designated role in the post-election proceedings that led to the election of Al Franken as Minnesota’s Senator in 2008. The election of Al Franken was the Minnesota franchise’s second success. See, for example, Ed Lasky’s “The Soros connection in the Minnesota Senate race vote count.”

The Alliance for a Better Minnesota PAC is a key element of the Minnesota franchise. ABM is the PAC that did dirty work for Franken in 2006. ABM is also the PAC that spent more than $800,000 trashing Republican gubernatorial nominee Tom Emmer while Mark Dayton spent his own inherited money winning the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.

ABM has done falsely defamed and successfully blackened Emmer in the advertising it underwrote while Dayton campaigned for the Democratic nomination. When Dayton won the nomination earlier this month, Republicans ran their first ad attacking Dayton. Dayton promptly called for a cessation of negative advertising. The unfolding scene reeks.

The Minnesota media, however, have shown little interest in exploring the stench. In today’s Star Tribune, Katherine Kersten performs the job with skill and concision.

The nonfeasance of the Minnesota media is notable. Mark Dayton is a profoundly flawed candidate. He is an alcoholic who, by his own account, has been through treatment twice, the second time only a few years ago. Dayton’s second round of treatment was occasioned by a relapse that occurred while he was serving in office as Senator. Dayton is also a man with chronic mental health issues that, also by his own account, require regular medication.

According to Dayton, his mental health issues relate to depression, but one would have to be a fool to take his word that depression is the only mental health issue Dayton struggles with. Do you suppose it would make sense to ask for a look at his medical records before he is elected to high office again, this time in an executive capacity? To put it charitably, the Minnesota media are Dayton’s fool.”

Comment:  Can anyone think of a more appropriate and foul a stain on Minnesota’s history than  the  personage of Al Franken  representing the state in the United States Senate…….yet, he seems right at home with all of the other leftist entertainers, nearly carbon copies of the SNL creature.

Obama Fueling the Myth That America Is a Land of Bigots

The following article was written by Toby Harnden at Telegraph.co.uk:

The controversy over the ‘Ground Zero mosque’ has portrayed the United States as a land of bigots. Toby Harnden wonders why the US President has helped fuel this myth.

“It took a Manhattan taxi driver called Ahmed Sharif to speak out for America, which is being vilified as bigoted and Islamophobic because of the controversy generated by opposition to the so-called “Ground Zero mosque”.

The United States was his dream country, he enthused, and he loved New York City. “I feel like I belong here. This is the city actually [for] all colours, races, religion, everyone. We live here side by side peacefully.”

Which was a pretty noble sentiment coming from a man whose throat had been slashed by a drunken, deranged passenger who had inquired whether he was a Muslim before pulling out a knife and shouting “Peace be upon you” in Arabic.

As the whole world knows, there is a furore raging over the proposed building of a 15-storey Islamic community centre, containing a mosque, two blocks from Ground Zero, site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda.

America’s liberal elites have been falling over themselves to denounce their country and fellow citizens as anti-Muslim xenophobes who don’t understand that it was not all followers of Islam who were responsible for the atrocities of 2001.

Certainly, some Americans opposed to what is now known as the Park51centre (its previous name of Cordoba centre, a reference to a mosque built in Spain on the site of a Christian church to symbolise a Muslim victory, did not quite strike the right public relations note) are motivated by bigotry.

But it was the centre’s Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf himself who linked its purpose to its proximity to the Ground Zero site. It is entirely valid to question whether this is the right approach to building interfaith bridges.

Rauf, who once described the US policies as “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11, stated in Bahrain last week that all the “attention is a sign of the success of our efforts” – an utterance that shows he is stupid, mischievous or worse.

Even if the aim of building the centre there was to encourage religious understanding, that is clearly no longer a possible outcome. So what kind of success was Rauf referring to?

To want to debate such matters, however, is judged as beyond the pale. Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York tried to shut down discussion by saying that opponents of Rauf’s initiative “ought to be ashamed of themselves”. Presumably, that includes Bangladeshi-born Sharif, who doesn’t support the Park51 centre.

President Barack Obama said that the US constitution guarantees religious freedom (which no one disputes). The American mainstream media and commentariat has stridently and almost uniformly championed Rauf’s cause. In doing so, they’ve happily trashed their fellow Americans, stating they’re motivated only by intolerance.

In fact, most evidence points to the US being one of the most tolerant countries in the world. A poll from you won’t see cited much because it doesn’t fit the prevailing narrative was recently conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute.

It found that 76 per cent of Americans would support Muslims in their community building an Islamic centre or mosque provided they followed the same rules and regulations required of other religious groups. But the 9/11 site is seen as different. After the 9/11 attacks there was no anti-Muslim backlash in the US.

Obama’s ill-judged intervention, and the shrill outrage of his allies in the intelligentsia, has damaged America’s standing in the world by fuelling anti-American stereotypes.

Aides to General David Petraeus, commanding troops in Afghanistan, say he is livid about the portrayal of the US as a hotbed of anti-Muslim bigotry and fears it may undermine the war effort, which is based on partnership with an Islamic regime.

Many Americans are incensed by the way that legitimate protest and questioning of Obama’s policies is routinely branded as racist or ignorant. They are tired of being told what to think and when to think it.

During the 2008 campaign, for instance, you were a bigot if you mentioned Obama’s middle name or his Muslim background. Yet once he was elected, he went to Ankara and Cairo to proclaim that his full name was “Barack Hussein Obama”.

Ahmed Sharif, a victim of real anti-Muslim bigotry, stated that the attack on him was an aberration and that America is a land of tolerance and opportunity. What a shame that Obama, despite his much-vaunted gift with words, appears unable to speak about such things with similar eloquence.

Comment:  Our president does not know of the country he has been elected to lead.  He is an isolate, a stranger, a graduate of graduate school and Jeremiah Wright’s “Goddamn America” church.  He had no father and no caring mother.  He  chose to be black and in his more advanced life chose to behave as an American black. 

Despite all of the many social and educational advantages he was provided, where would he have learned anything beyond taking and receiving from America as an entitlement?

With whom would he even have had a consversation?

He is a programmed Marxist…..an automoton who had no clue how wonderfully American American Muslims from overseas  are………..up to now.

Schwarzenegger, Belatedly, Rallies to Save California

The following is from an article, “California Gift of Shame”, by Tim Cavanaugh at reason.com:

“…………. in a state that has seen three years of nearly solid financial pain, what is going on right now is pain with a purpose. Outgoing Gov. Schwarzenegger is using fiscal emergency as leverage toward a permanent solution to the public employee pension crisis that has gutted California’s budget and hamstrung other states. If he succeeds, the example could point to a solution for the many states that need to get a handle on their public employee commitments.

First, about those IOUs. During a lengthy budget standoff in 2009, the state issued $2.6 billion in IOUs to cover payments to contractors, local governments, and residents in line for tax refunds and college scholarships. This year the budget (which is supposed to have been completed in June) is overdue again, and the differences between Schwarzenegger and the Democrats are even sharper. Last week, Controller John Chiang announced that IOUs would begin coming in late August or early September.

On its face, Chiang’s announcement is an attempt to put pressure on the governor. The two are locked in a long-running legal dispute over another budget-standoff tactic: the governor’s annual attempts to reduce state workers’ pay to Federal minimum wage until the budget is approved—which the union-friendly Chiang claims is impossible due to the state’s antiquated COBOL-based payroll system.

But on the IOU issue, Chiang has been fairly consistent in his comments, and the state will in fact need to put off payments (as it did Monday by deferring subsidies to counties and schools) very soon. In any event, the controller’s comments probably ended up strengthening the governor’s position, which has been refreshingly clear: Schwarzenegger is willing to risk any number of fiscal “black eyes,” to court credit downgrades and bad public relations, even to leave office without a budget passed, in order to get concessions from Democrats and their union supporters.

Among these concessions: a 5 percent increase in employee pre-tax contributions toward retirement funds; changes in pension calculations to prevent pension “spiking”; and more honest disclosure of how pensions are funded. Another item that has long been on the governor’s wish list is a state “rainy day fund” of $20 billion—close to what Schwarzenegger believes the state would have saved in the absence of runaway public-sector pension payouts during the last decade.

Which brings us to the most important concession of all. Schwarzenegger is seeking to undo Senate Bill 400, a 1999 law that vastly expanded pension payouts to government workers. Passed after a mere five minutes of debate, based on some highly misleading documentation and unrealistic expectations from the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), SB 400 paved the way for a nearly 3,000 percent increase in pension liabilities for the state. 

That debt is eating into other state funding. Since SB 400’s passage, expenditures on environmental protection and parks have actually decreased relative to inflation. It’s important to remember that Schwarzenegger’s struggle is not motivated by small government principle. His problem is that commitments to government workers are preventing the state from spending on other stuff.

But he has been remarkably consistent on this, and may deserve more credit than he has received for raising the national alarm about public sector union power and the crushing burden of paying for government workers’ plush retirements.

Viewed through this lens, Schwarzenegger’s gambits in the budget battle—alternately described as nonsensical, petulant, and a “gubernatorial ransom note”—begin to make sense.

As of now, state employees are due for furloughs three days a month, which will amount to an average 14 percent pay cut. Critics and the media have questioned whether furloughs save the state’s budget as much as advertised, but the savings are a side benefit. The real aim is to put pressure on the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and its clients in the state legislature. Union members see actual pay reductions, and eventually, so the thinking goes, they will demand their leaders work with the governor to do something about it. (That Schwarzenegger has negotiated new contracts—which roll back most of SB400—with six unions suggests the tactic works, though the largest union contract negotiations, including SEIU’s, are still unfinished.)

An even clearer use of pressure on government workers has been in the governor’s (so far unsuccessful) attempts to reduce state employee pay to minimum wage for the duration of the budget delay. While Chiang and previous controllers have used the old-software excuse to avoid implementing this plan, the message still comes through: State workers are not innocent bystanders in the budget impasse. Their excessive compensation is the reason California can no longer manage its budgets.”

Schwarzenegger has proven to be a master at stratagems like these, declaring states of fiscal emergency, using apocalyptic rhetoric in places, and courting the credit downgrades that would accompany another IOU experience. (Standard & Poor’s already gives the state its fourth-lowest investment-grade rating of A-, and has said it may lower the score if a budget isn’t signed by autumn.) Schwarzenegger’s genius has been to realize that what looks like catastrophe from the outside can be pretty useful in negotiation.

Whether it helps the state’s never small self-image is another matter. But Kathryn Burnside, spokeswoman for the industry-funded California Travel and Tourism Commission, says the trade group has not seen bad news keeping people away from California (though the global recession has cut into tourism). “Certainly, there has been coverage of the state’s financial state, and we’ve seen it in international headlines as well,” Burnside says. “But when people come to California, they’re coming for the beaches, they’re coming for the mountains, for the attractions and the resorts and the sunshine. We’re not worried that political news is deterring people from coming to enjoy all the things California has to offer.”

Comment:  I have to admit I really like Arnold Schwarzenegger.  I have never seen any of his movies…..that would be stressful and damaging to my respect for him, I am certain. 

I like him for his intelligence and his sincere and deep apprepriation for the country which he has adopted as his own.  I am proud he claims he is a Republican, and that despite his politics, he is a closet conservative…..(a closet conservative is better than no conservative at all..)

He started out his governorship as a conservative, but hit the leftwing wall of  tolerance for spending willy-nilly on political bribes and marriages, and intolerance about nearly everything that might be good for the state and the country.  

Alas, Mr. Muscles decided to stay Hollywood and enjoy the social life rejecting  the life of a responsible state leader of the most populous American state.

Except for…..perhaps…….at his exit begins to be defined.

Mr. Schwarzenegger speech at the 2004 Republican conventions is one of the best collections of words since Martin Luther King on the Capitol Mall.   He has a good feel for why this country has been, until the presidency of Obama and the Leftwing Congress since 2006,  exceptionally citizen friendly and worldly generous.  

Now we have  Barack Hussein Obama, the anti American president  as our ‘leader’……the enemy of the citizen and hero of the STATE. 

Hail Obama!   We Who Are About to Die, Salute You!

Review Pat Condell’s “Anti-Obama” Lecture on the Ground Zero Mosque!

The Ground Zero Mosque is still in the air.   Patriot Americans have not yet put it to permanent rest.  Perhaps it is because the main stream media’s accusations of “islamophobia”  have caused eyes to weep and minds to curl.   Perhaps the “new’  more “tolerant” American is one who is programmed to honor and humor those who have murdered our brothers and sisters.  Or perhsps the modern college graduate American has come to believe that these attacks on America have nothing to do with Muslims and Islam.  Perhaps they have come to believe it is Christian propaganda. Mainstream reporter, Chris Cuomo of famed Democrat Party Cuomo family fame, announced to his fans that the attacks on America were equivalent to the Crusades of nearly one thousand years ago.  Mr. Cuomo was apparently not educated broadly enough  to be reminded that the Christian Knights  were rallied  to go eastward to free the Holy Land from Islamic military conquest.     More likely, however, it is the political union of the American left with Islamists in America to show fellow Leftists how profoundly diverse and tolerant the Marxist movement is.  The only group which is not to be tolerated is the American conservative. Please watch the following video, again, or for the first time. to bring reality back to the American mind, whether leftist or conservative: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/pat-condell-on-ground-zero-mosque-is-it-possible-to-be-astonished-but-not-surprised.html   Pat Condell is a British stand-up comedian. Comment:  How is it that a Brit Comedian can see through the webbings  of Jihadi deceit, and the president of the United States and so many of his fellow left wingers are left in the tangle of ignorance? How is it that Mr. Obama, who pretends to be a Christian, whose aids say he prays every day, rallies to Islam whenever he defers  politically to religious issues?   Is it that Mr. Obama, for twenty two years a member of Jeremiah Wright’s “Goddamn America” church, was trained to believe building mosques at America’s sights of suffering, is the Christian thing to do?