No mosque at Ground Zero

From Newt Gingrich on Human Events on July 28:

One of our biggest mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11 was naming our response to the attacks “the war on terror” instead of accurately identifying radical Islamists (and the underlying ideology of radical Islamism) as the target of our campaign. This mistake has led to endless confusion about the nature of the ideological and material threat facing the civilized world and the scale of the response that is appropriate.

Radical Islamism is more than simply a religious belief. It is a comprehensive political, economic, and religious movement that seeks to impose sharia—Islamic law—upon all aspects of global society.

Many Muslims see sharia as simply a reference point for their personal code of conduct. They recognize the distinction between their personal beliefs and the laws that govern all people of all faiths.

For the radical Islamist, however, this distinction does not exist. Radical Islamists see politics and religion as inseparable in a way it is difficult for Americans to understand. Radical Islamists assert sharia’s supremacy over the freely legislated laws and values of the countries they live in and see it as their sacred duty to achieve this totalitarian supremacy in practice.

Some radical Islamists use terrorism as a tactic to impose sharia but others use non-violent methods—a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence. Thus, the term “war on terrorism” is far too narrow a framework in which to think about the war in which we are engaged against the radical Islamists.

Read more.

SEC says new financial regulation law exempts it from public disclosure

From Dunstan Prial of FOXBusiness.com on July 28:

So much for transparency.

Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities." Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.

That argument comes despite the President saying that one of the cornerstones of the sweeping new legislation was more transparent financial markets. Indeed, in touting the new law, Obama specifically said it would “increase transparency in financial dealings."

The SEC cited the new law Tuesday in a FOIA action brought by FOX Business Network. Steven Mintz, founding partner of law firm Mintz & Gold LLC in New York, lamented what he described as “the backroom deal that was cut between Congress and the SEC to keep the SEC’s failures secret. The only losers here are the American public.”

If the SEC’s interpretation stands, Mintz, who represents FOX Business Network, predicted “the next time there is a Bernie Madoff failure the American public will not be able to obtain the SEC documents that describe the failure,” referring to the shamed broker whose Ponzi scheme cost investors billions.

Read more.

Judge blocks provisions of Arizona's immigration law

From Jonathan J. Cooper and Michelle Price of the Associated Press on July 28:

PHOENIX -- A federal judge stepped into the fight over Arizona's immigration law at the last minute Wednesday, blocking the heart of the measure and defusing a confrontation between police and thousands of activists that had been building for months.

Coming just hours before the law was to take effect, the ruling isn't the end.

It sets up a lengthy legal battle that could end up before the Supreme Court -- ensuring that a law that reignited the immigration debate, inspired similar measures nationwide, created fodder for political campaigns and raised tensions with Mexico will stay in the spotlight.

Protesters who gathered at the state Capitol and outside the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City cheered when they heard the news. The governor, the law's authors and anti-illegal immigration groups vowed to fight on.

"It's a temporary bump in the road," Gov. Jan Brewer said.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton will now have to decide a question as old as the nation itself: Does federal law trump state law? She indicated in her ruling that the federal government's case has a good chance at succeeding.

The Clinton appointee said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

Bolton delayed provisions that required immigrants to carry their papers and banned illegal immigrants from soliciting employment in public places -- a moved aimed at day laborers. In addition, she blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants for crimes that can lead to deportation.

"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton wrote.

Read more.

I was so disappointed to read this news alert on my phone this afternoon.

WHY ARE WE PROTECTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS? Is it such a burden for legal immigrants to carry paperwork? And why would arresting illegal immigrants for anything that could lead to deportation be wrong? Do we want them to stay?

Bolton sends one big message with her ruling: It is OK to be a legal immigrant in the U.S. I don't get it, and I'm angry.

The South Florida Tea Party asks that you show your support for Arizona's efforts. Display a sign with a pat-on-the-back message for the state -- a simple "I support Arizona" will do. E-mail us a picture of your sign to info@southfloridateaparty.org, and you may win a T-shirt.

Sanctuary cities become new target in immigration debate

From Holly Bailey of Yahoo! News on July 27:

Opponents of the Justice Department's lawsuit challenging the enforcement of Arizona's controversial illegal-immigration law have hit upon a strategy to highlight what they contend is a gaping inconsistency in the Justice Department's policy priorities. Why should federal attorneys be targeting the Arizona law as an alleged obstacle to coherent and centralized enforcement of federal immigration statutes, they argue, while Justice officials also have done nothing to challenge the legal status of so-called sanctuary cities, which effectively block enforcement of the same federal law?

The Justice Department has asked a federal judge in Phoenix to stop Arizona's law from going into effect this Thursday, arguing that the measure interferes with federal immigration policy. But critics, including California GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter and Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, are challenging the logic of Justice's move, arguing that if U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder really cared about enforcing federal immigration law, he should be targeting sanctuary cities instead of Arizona.

More than 30 cities, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Denver, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Dallas, have local ordinances on the books that prevent police from asking about a person’s immigration status. The Arizona law would allow officers to question a person’s immigration status and report them to federal authorities if that person is believed to be in the country illegally. The crackdown could prompt illegal immigrants to seek refuge out of Arizona and into those sanctuary cities.

Read more.

Click here for a list of sanctuary cities. According to the Ohio Jobs and Justice PAC, sanctuary cities in Florida are:

• DeLeon Springs.
• Deltona.
• Jupiter.
• Lake Worth.
• Miami.

How did Jefferson know?

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Divorce agreement

I did not write this; it was e-mailed to me.

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N., but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall

Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.

Senate fails to advance campaign finance bill

From Jordan Fabian and Alexander Bolton of The Hill on July 27:

The Senate failed to advance a campaign finance bill Tuesday, dealing a blow to Democrats who were trying to pass a key piece of their agenda before the August recess.

The legislation, called the Disclose Act, would require corporations to make detailed public reports on political spending. It failed on a 57-41 vote that went along party lines. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) voted against the motion, a procedural move to allow another vote to occur in the future.

The three Republican centrists considered most likely to support the bill, Sens. Olympia Snowe (Maine), Susan Collins (Maine) and Scott Brown (Mass.), all voted against it.

They declined to support the bill despite heavy lobbying from liberal groups such as MoveOn.org, which has strong membership in Maine and Massachusetts.

Democrats were also missing the vote of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who was absent from the Senate on Tuesday because he was attending a funeral.

Reid said Lieberman assured him that he would vote for the legislation upon his return.

Still, that leaves Democrats one vote short of the 60 they need to advance the bill, meaning that Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate sponsor of the legislation, may need to make additional changes to bring Republicans on board.

The House passed the bill last month by a vote of 219-206.

The failure comes one day after President Obama held a Rose Garden press conference to urge Senate passage of the Disclose Act.

“You’d think that making these reforms would be a matter of common sense,” Obama said Monday. “But, of course, this is Washington in 2010, and the Republican leadership in the Senate is once again using every tactic and maneuver they can to prevent the Disclose Act from even coming up for a vote.”

Ahead of the vote, Schumer made changes to the legislation to address Republican concerns.

He eliminated a carve-out that would have exempted labor unions from reporting fund transfers between affiliates.

But that did not satisfy GOP holdouts. Despite the failure of the vote, Schumer promised that Democrats would hold additional cloture votes until the legislation passes.

“And we will go back at this bill again and again and again until we pass it,” he said before the vote. “It’s that vital, not to Democrats, not to Republicans, but to the future of people’s faith in the functioning of this government.”

Read more.

Faces of health reform: who will be hurt by this bill?

According to this May 24 fact sheet from the Senate Republican Policy Committee: small businesses, seniors, wounded warriors, children, Americans with insurance, families, states, students and young people. Did we forget anybody?

Click to read each page.

Billboard: Obama worse than Carter?

Notice who who paid for this billboard in Grand Junction, Colo.:

Everybody needs some time off to clear his mind

How will Allen West heal this country?

Retired Lt. Colonel Allen West is running for Congress in South Florida.

I stand on the principle that we are one people. We are one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The democratic fisc

From The Wall Street Journal on July 26:

Democrats have been running Congress for nearly four years, and President Obama has been at the White House for 18 months, so it's not too soon to ask: How's that working out? One devastating scorecard came out Friday from the White House, in the form of its own semi-annual budget review.

The message: Tax revenues are smaller, spending is greater, and the deficits are thus larger than the White House has been saying. No wonder it dumped the news on the eve of a sweltering mid-July weekend.

Mr. Obama inherited a recession, so let's give him a pass on the budget numbers for 2009. Clearly the deficit would have been large no matter who was President, even if the David Obey-Nancy Pelosi $862 billion stimulus made it larger than it otherwise would have been. What's striking about the latest budget estimates, however, is that the White House is predicting the numbers won't improve much through 2011, the third year of the President's term.

As a share of the economy, the White House now says the deficit in fiscal 2010, which ends on September 30, will be even larger than in 2009: 10%. That's after a full year of economic growth, given that the recovery began last summer. More remarkable still, the deficit will barely fall in fiscal 2011, declining only to 9.2% of GDP in the second year of a recovery that ought to be gaining steam.

To put this in historical context, consider the nearby table that compares deficits as a share of GDP under Presidents Reagan and Obama. The 1981-82 recession was comparable in severity to the one Mr. Obama inherited and reached similar heights of unemployment. The deficits that resulted from that recession were the source of huge political consternation, with Democrats, the press corps and even some senior Reagan aides insisting that only a huge tax increase could save the country from ruin.

Yet as the table shows, the Reagan deficits never reached more than 6% of GDP, and that happened only in 1983, the first year of economic recovery. As the 1980s expansion continued, the deficits fell, especially as the pace of spending slowed in the latter part of Reagan's second term. Few remember now, but when Ross Perot won 19% of the Presidential vote in 1992 running more or less on the single issue of the deficit, the budget hole was only 4.7% of GDP.

Read more.

Cap-and-trade bill would make housing less affordable

From Wendell Cox and Ronald Utt of The Wall Street Journal on July 21:

In addition to the devastating economic effects of cap and trade, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733)—introduced by Senators John Kerry (D–MA) and Joseph Lieberman (I–CT)—would likely lead to the same conditions that caused the housing bubble of a few years ago.

It would do this by providing financial incentives to the federally funded metropolitan planning organizations to shift transportation resources and passengers away from automobiles to public transit and forms of non-motorized transportation such as walking and bicycles. The bill further suggests that these be accomplished through "zoning and other land use regulations" that lead to a more crowded living environment. In turn, these communities of higher population density would be more amenable to forms of transportation common in the decades prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine.

The purpose behind the Senators' attempt to foster archaic living and travel arrangements (often called "smart growth") is the belief that this would lead to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As it turns out, there is scant evidence to suggest that this would be the consequence of such a strategy, and what evidence there is indicates that the Senators are proposing that Americans trade an empty gesture on the environment for a program that would contribute to restoring house prices to the unaffordable levels reached in 2006–2007.

Read more.

Leaked documents shed light on Afghan War

From Julian E. Barnes and Siobham Gorman of The Wall Street Journal on July 26:

WASHINGTON—The release by a Web-based organization of thousands of secret military documents that appear to present a bleak view of the Afghan war drew a range of reactions Monday, underscoring that they could have a profound impact on public perception of the war.

The U.S., the U.K. and Pakistan condemned the huge leak of classified information, while Afghanistan focused on reported Pakistani support for the Taliban-led insurgency and reports of previously undisclosed civilian deaths to demand further tightening of rules of engagement. The Pentagon said it is trying to assess the damage caused.

The release of the documents, which were obtained and made public by the website WikiLeaks, evoked the release of the so-called Pentagon Papers, the secret history of the Vietnam War, which, when published, contradicted the public narrative of that war and played a role in turning public opinion against it.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told a London news conference Monday the documents appear to contain evidence of war crimes, adding it would be "up to a court" to make judgments. He cited especially Task Force 373, which he called a U.S. military "assassination unit" that he said killed seven children in a "botched raid."

Asked how many incidents could potentially be investigated for possible war crimes or other reasons, he said "thousands," adding that the U.S. military would probably be forced to investigate some.

Mr. Assange said information in the documents "really doesn't paint a flattering picture of the Taliban, either," noting that there are many reports of Taliban-planted explosive devices causing "significant loss of human life."

He strongly suggested a coverup of civilian deaths during the war, pointing to U.S. military reports on the number of people wounded or killed during specific incidents. In some of these, a high number of those killed or wounded are classified as "enemy" while very few are classified as "civilians," which he called "suspicious."

He said the documents don't just "reveal abuses" but paint a detailed picture of "the last six years of war," including the kinds of weapons used and the progress or setbacks experienced.

Coming at a time when U.S. President Barack Obama's Afghanistan strategy has come under increasing criticism, the release will likely stoke criticism of the war effort, as well as spark a debate about the manner in which the information was made available.

Read more.

Pew applauds Florida for military and overseas voting improvements

From Stacie Temple of The Pew Center on the States on May 28:

Washington, D.C. - 05/28/2010 - Florida took meaningful steps forward today to address the disenfranchisement of military and overseas voters and answer a call first issued by President Harry Truman nearly 60 years ago. HB 131, which implements provisions in the federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act and resolves key voting problems for Americans abroad, was signed by Governor Charlie Crist.

Since Florida is one of the top three states with a significant military population, the legislation is critical to ensure that service members and citizens overseas have the opportunity to vote and have their votes counted. Representative Sandra Adams (R-District 33) sponsored the bill and championed the passage of the bipartisan legislation.

• The legislation removes obstacles that military and overseas voters commonly encounter by:
• mandating that absentee ballots for all elections be sent at least 45 days before an election for all military and overseas voters; and
• requiring e-mail transmission of blank absentee ballots to all military and overseas voters for all elections upon request.

Read more.

White House sends 2012 rescue team to Florida

From Carol E. Lee of Politico.com on July 25:

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — The White House has quietly launched an effort to confront the political backlash along the Gulf Coast over its handling of the BP oil spill — giving special attention to Florida, the only state in the region President Barack Obama won in 2008 and one he will need again when he runs for reelection in 2012.

The White House dispatched political and communications aides to the Gulf Coast states on July 12, with Alabama and Mississippi receiving one each, sources familiar with the effort said. Some aides went to Louisiana, while Florida received four.

That battleground state will be a heavy lift. In interviews conducted along the coast, Florida Democrats accused the administration of largely ignoring their calls and letters and complained of a White House that’s out of touch.

Alex Sink, Florida’s chief financial officer and the state’s presumptive Democratic gubernatorial nominee, even characterized Vice President Joe Biden’s recent visit to the state as “a screw-up,” saying she was “embarrassed” by his speech.

“It was just so off target and out of touch with the reality of what’s going on over there,” Sink said in an interview at the Florida Democratic Party headquarters in Tallahassee.

It’s the type of criticism the White House wants to avoid. The administration aides in Florida function similarly to a campaign. They do rapid response and media coordination, and they report back to senior aides in the West Wing in nearly real time about what they’re hearing on the ground.

The effort came about after the White House grew concerned over political damage from not having a permanent presence in the Gulf Coast states. Obama’s top advisers summoned a small group of young former campaign staffers working in the administration to the White House for a meeting, said a source with knowledge of the meeting. No one mentioned 2012 specifically, but it was clear the administration’s approach to the oil spill had the potential to hurt the president’s reelection campaign and that the issue required more hands-on attention.

Read more.

Election reminders from PBCRP

The Florida primary election is Aug. 24. Are you ready?

The Palm Beach County Republican Party offers these reminders:

1. Make sure you are registered to vote. Click here to check your registration status.
2. Register to vote. Click here to print a voter registration form to fill out, sign and mail or hand deliver to your supervisor of elections office (the address is on the form). For more information about voter registration in Florida, click here.
3. Request an absentee ballot. Call the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Office at (561) 656-6200.
4. Donate? The party says donations will help get Republicans elected. I say donate with caution. Are they true Republicans? Do you agree with everything they say? Can they keep their promises?

Britain plans to decentralize health care

From Sarah Lyall of The New York Times:

LONDON -- Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain's socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate.

Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948.

Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.

The plan would also shrink the bureaucratic apparatus, in keeping with the government’s goal to effect $30 billion in “efficiency savings” in the health budget by 2014 and to reduce administrative costs by 45 percent. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished.

In a document, or white paper, outlining the plan, the government admitted that the changes would “cause significant disruption and loss of jobs.” But it said: “The current architecture of the health system has developed piecemeal, involves duplication and is unwieldy. Liberating the N.H.S., and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management.”

Read more.