Denver Judge Promotes Fraud

There's a federal judge in Denver suffering from a severe case of rectal-cranial inversion. Judge Robert E Blackburn ruled the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional, claiming it violates the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech. He thinks it's fine for a slimeball to pretend to be a wounded Iraq war vet as part of his scheme to defraud people. He dropped all charges against the fraud merchant.

The judge has clearly not thought this through. Look for other criminals to challenge the laws they're charged under. First up will be those charged with impersonating a police officer. And if they're successful, there will be a lot more victims.

Arizona Immigration Law Lawsuits

So President Barack Obama, and his crony at the Justice Department Eric Holder, have filed suit against Arizona over SB1070 — Arizona's immigration law. They might as well have titled their lawsuit the United States Government vs. the People of the United States since a majority support the Arizona law and another proportion thinks it doesn't go far enough.

I've already written of what I think about the law itself, and about the duplicity and dishonesty of most of the arguments against it. That includes the ones I heard this morning on Meet the Press.

The Obama Administration and the Holder Justice Department pretend they are just trying to avoid having a patchwork of immigration laws across the country. This is disingenuous in the extreme. As the Los Angeles Times reports, that patchwork exists now — largely because of the federal government's refusal to enforce the current laws, or to even encourage cities (& etc.) simply to avoid flouting the law.

The DOJ lawsuit also claims the Arizona law interferes with federal enforcement of the federal immigration laws it mirrors. But that's a logical impossibility — you can't interfere with something the federal government is not doing and has no intention of doing.

It seems the issue is really that Obama and Holder assert they know better than the Congress and the people. They think they can determine what laws to ignore and what laws (existing or nonexistent) to enforce.

So here's my suggestion to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer — Countersue! Sue for two things:

1. Specific performance, a court order ordering the federal government to enforce the law. (Of course, the Administration will probably ignore that court order, just as it has ignored others.)
2. Damages to repay the state and its people for the costs of the federal dereliction of duty, probably on the order of $2 trillion.

Just a suggestion.

Obama vs. Rule of Law

President Barack Obama really wants to be a dictator. He wishes he could be a tyrant whose every word stands in place of the law and is carried out by his cronies.

If there was ever any doubt about that, consider the Obama Administration's deep-water drilling moratorium. In striking it down, Federal District Court Judge Martin Feldman noted that it was justified on the basis of false statements by the Secretary of the Interior that abused "reason and common sense." He also blasted the Administration for lying about the views of the experts brought in to evaluate the situation.

(He) said the government, without justification, arbitrarily made the sweeping conclusion that 'all Gulf deepwater drilling activities put us in a universal threat of irreparable harm.' That arbitrary conclusion already was causing irreparable economic harm to the Gulf region, he said.

It was abritrary and capricious. And here's why: The Obama people didn't care about reality or about legitimate justifications — they only cared about getting what they wanted and doing whatever was necessary to accomplish that.

They didn't like Judge Feldman's decision, so they appealed it. So far, so good. But even before the Court of Appeals heard the case, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced he would issue a new, slightly different moratorium order. In other words, Barack Obama and his fellow travelers don't care about the courts or the rule of law. They just want their way.

And now they have carried out their threat and issued a new moratorium order that "amounts to the exact same ban", functionally idential to the ban the courts threw out as unjustified. And the deep-water drilling rigs have started leaving American waters, going places they won't have to fight "the Obama Administration’s nonstop bid to halt production" in the Gulf of Mexico.

This is incredible arrogance, as well as deliberate disregard for a foundational American governing principle. That shouhd have Secretary Salazar summoned into court immediately to attempt to explain to Judge Feldman why he chose to deliberately flout the judge's order (even though it was upheld on appeal) and why he shouldn't be jailed for contempt of court. And in my view Secretary Salazar should be in jail, and kept there until his (Obama's) unjustified moratorium is ended and the Interior Department ends its orders halting all new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (which the Department is denying even though it has been implementing it even to the point of rescinding permits granted just the day before.

We truly are being ruled by a rogue regime.

Kagan: We Can Trust the Government Bureaucrats

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan believes we can place absolute trust in government bureaucrats to protect our lives and our rights. She argued to the Supreme Court that it would be perfectly fine if Congress passed a law banning books, since the government has never yet enforced such a law. I suppose she would also not oppose a law allowing the government to murder anyone it pleases, since the government has never yet attempted to make use of that sort of law, either.

Yes, I know that as Solicitor General, Ms Kagan had the responsibility of arguing her superiors' position in the case being appealed. Even so, supporting that position with this kind of argument marks her as either stupid or opposed to American principles. And whatever else she may be, I don't think she is stupid. And I'm not the only one to think so:

An attorney who would advise her client to be stupid and trust something not to happen, because it has never happened before is not an advocate, or an advisor; she is either incompetent or working for the other side.

Part of what's disturbing about this is Ms Kagan's position that what's in the law doesn't matter — that the government can ignore whatever laws it likes. (What about citizens? Do they have the same right?) But, then, I shouldn't be surprised: The man who nominater Ms Kagan, and his minions, believe they can ignore lots of laws — including the voter intimidation and border security laws.

It would be nice if we could get an Administration that actually believed in the rule of law, and in a government of laws rather than men. But those are American principles, so that may be too much to ask.

Simple Solutions

The Jihadist who tried to set off a car bomb in New York City's Times Square proudly plead guilty to all charges in court. He was eager to tell about his plot — he was proud of his failed attempt — he came to court with a prepared statement.

Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistan-born US citizen, trained with the Taliban and returned to the US to launch attacks on civilians here. He considers himself a "Muslim soldier". He said the attacks will continue until US forces leave Muslim lands.

This suggests a few simple solutions to some of our current problems. Here's a big one that would solve a number of problems:

• US and other Western forces leave Muslim lands.
• In return, all Muslims leave or are ejected from Western countries.
• The Muslim lands we leave are put into isolation — under quarantine. No more Western aid. No more Western contact. They can commune among themselves. This status will continue until those countries' populations change their regimes to governments that no longer attack the West and promote terrorism and Islamist supremacy.

If we don't quite want to go that far, we can at least require reciprocity:

• No mosque or Islamic study center can be built or opened in a Western land until Christian churches and synagogues are built and opened — without threats or violence — in Muslim lands.
• No new mosque can be built or opened in a top-level Western city like New York or Washington DC until at least one cathedral and at least one synagogue is built and opened in Mecca.

Reciprocity must be required at other levels, as well.

• Because of continued demonstrations of Muslim intolerance, including the continued harassment and murder of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Baha'is, and other non-Muslims, any demands (or requests) for tolerance by Muslims must be preceded by demonstrations of Muslim tolerance for non-Muslim religions and groups. (The simplest tolerance demonstration might be acceptance of Muslim converts to other religions, or to none.) Without such demonstrations, no request or demand will be heard.

We must also quit cutting Muslim extremists so much slack. If they are going to continue to seek converts in the West, they cannot object to Christian (and other) missionaries seeking converts in Muslim countries. If they are going to continue to limit their charity to Muslims only, they cannot object if we begin to limit our charity to them.

To smooth acceptance of these solutions and terms, we might accept the demand of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (and other Muslim organizations) for a law banning defamation of religions, making it clear that the first thousand cases will immediately be filed against mosques and imams for their preaching of hatred against Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims. Large fines and jail time might do more than all the tolerance in the world to reduce the venom and violence being preached routinely to the Muslim faithful.

Just a few ideas for simple solutions to complex problems, with the added benefit of letting some of these folks reap the appropriate consequences of their own actions and their own immature demands.

And that's before we consider the question of whether Islamism (or Islam itself) is actually a religion, or whether it is in reality just another totalitarian political ideology.

Odd Privacy Decisions

The combination of two court decisions on the privacy of personal data struck me as odd.

1. The United States Supreme Court ruled in a case from Washington State that the names and addresses of people who signed a petition supporting traditional marriage could be made public. The losing side had argued the information was protected under the Privacy Act, and that releasing it would subject the petition signers to harassment by extremist gay marriage supporters.
    
   
2. The New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled the state Motor Vehicle Division was right to refuse to release the names and addresses of illegal aliens who were given drivers licenses. The losing side had argued the information was needed to determine how many of the illegal aliens were registered to vote, and had voted in state and federal elections.

So the courts have ruled illegal aliens have rights that are denied to citizens. I find that very interesting.

D Day - June 6, 1944

66 years ago today


A long time ago, but important to remember — even as the memories are fading and there are fewer and fewer of the participants left.

See the rest at the Weasel Zippers site, and visit Sense of Events and Blackfive for their commemorations.

Tian An Men Remembered

21 years ago, in China — June 4, 1989

We need to remember this bravery, these events.

And, the way history usually works, it won't be long till one of 1989's demonstrators from Tian An Men Square becomes part of the senior leadership of China.

[I'm posting this a couple of days late. But I still remember.]

Deliberate Stupidity About the Arizona Immigration Law

There are a lot of people out there saying a lot of things about the new Arizona law on illegal aliens. The milder statements have been that it's clearly invalid (statements by Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano, and earlier statements by Barack Obama), and that it was "poorly conceived" (later Obama statement). Many have said it is obviously unconstitutional, requires racial profiling, and violates U.S. treaty obligations. Others have been calling it racist and immoral, and have accused Arizona of being filled with Nazis for having passed it.

Southern Arizona's Congressman Raúl Grijalva has called on President Obama to void the law, and has called for a boycott of his own state for having passed it. It looks like Los Angeles may join that boycott — which Arizona power plants may accommodate by sending to other states the large amount of electricity they currently supply to that city. Congresswoman Linda Sanchez, from southern California, has said white supremacist groups are behind the passage of this law.

Statements calling the Arizona law racist and xenophobic, and a brutal violation of human rights, have come from dictators Fidel Castro of Cuba and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

And on a visit to Washington, D.C., Mexican President Felipe Calderón attacked Arizona and its new law — both in a speech to the Congress (drawing a standing ovation from Congressional Democrats) and in a joint press conference with President Obama at the White House.

There is one common thread among all these views and statements: As best I can determine, not a single one of the people making these statements have actually read the Arizona law.

Here's part of why that's interesting: The Arizona law mirrors the corresponding federal law, though with prohibitions against racial profiling the federal law lacks. By that means, it makes violations of the federal immigration law also violations of state law, enabling the state and local authorities to enforce them.

All of which would be known to all these folks if they would just read the bill. It's not like the Arizona law is a 2700 page monstrosity — the law is just ten pages long. Is it really too much to ask that our most senior officials read the bill before pontificating about it? It might actually keep them from making incredibly ignorant public statements. (On the other hand, maybe they simply don't want to know what's actually in the new law.)

This whole situation has caused me three particular lines of thought:

  — Consider why Arizona has been pushed into passing a law like this. Phoenix has become the kidnapping capital of the world as the drug cartels have been pushing across our far-too-open border. Ranchers have been dealing with increasing amounds of theft and destruction, both of their property and of the region's Sonoran Desert. Attempts to stop the vandals and human traffickers have gotten area ranchers hauled into court or murdered by illegal aliens. Conditions have become intolerable. Something had to be done — has to be done — and the Obama Administration, like its predecessors for at least two decades, has completely abdicated its responsibility for border security.

  — Everything we hear from the press and media, and nearly everything we hear from our nation's political leadership, opposes this new Arizona law. To restate this, everything we hear from the elites opposes this law. Despite this, 70% of Arizonans and a significant majority of all Americans support this law. In fact, even a major portion of American politicians support it. That's why at least 18 other states are now considering passage of similar laws. And that's not counting the states like California who already have laws on the books with similar provisions.

  — Thinking about the people demonstrating against this law (for example here, I keep wondering where they were before. If this law is so onerous, so obviously racist, and so obviously unconstitutional, why weren't they protesting when the U.S. Congress passed (and the president signed) the same provisions? Where were they when California passed their similar law? My conclusion is that the selective outrage of the politicians and media and demonstrators isn't about this law or any of its provisions — it's really about the fact that, unlike other jurisdictions in the past, Arizona will probably actually enforce this law.

Under these circumstances, I guess I should revise my initial statement: There are a lot of people out there spouting really stupid stuff about the new Arizona law on illegal aliens. Their statements reflect either complete ignorance or deliberate stupidity about the law. The only alternative is that they (at least some of them) know what's actually in the law and are being deliberately dishonest about it for political purposes.

All that said, it may still be open for discussion whether this particular law is the best approach to the illegal aliens problems. After all, it doesn't secure the border to stop the illegal entries. (No city or state can accomplish that.) But as an absolute baseline, I like the policy now established in Albuquerque under which every individual processed into the detention center — every individual placed under arrest — is interviewed by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to determine his/her citizenship and residency status. And I don't see any problem with similar immigration inquiries under circumstances when the law enforcement officer has the discretion as to whether to detain the individual or not.

The Department of Justice is reviewing the Arizona law, and considering what action (if any) to recommend to Attorney General Eric Holder. ABC News has reported the draft DOJ conclusion to be that "the Arizona legislature exceeded its authority in crafting a law that could impede federal responsibility for enforcing immigration laws." This conclusion, draft or otherwise, is ludicrous — it is not logically possible to impede the federal government in performance of responsibilities it has conclusively demonstrated it has no intention of performing. This does, however, suggest an approach that might be taken either instead of, or in addition to, passage of a law like Arizona's: The border states, individually and/or collectively, could sue the Administration and the federal government (I would think both for specific performance and a trillion dollars or so in damages) over its dereliction of duty in abrogating its responsibilities in securing the borders and enforcing the immigration statutes. Maybe that would actually get their attention.

In the meantime, we'll all have to keep pressing this issue. Fortunately, we seem to have some good, strong voices with us.

Memorial Day 2010

I have seen a number of Memorial Day tributes, today and in past years. This — originally posted in 2001 and reposted today — is one of the best. Go read it all. You'll be glad you did.

Enjoy your holiday, and remember why we have it.

The Economy Is Improving (?)

We keep getting told the economy is improving. Actually, they usually tell us it's improving rapidly.

But there's something wrong with this picture. We learned today that 79 banks have been closed and taken over by the regulators this year. That's more than twice as many as by this time last year. That sounds like the economy is getting worse, not better.

Looks like improvement will take some more time.

Mohammed Cartoons

Today has been designated "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day". I think the best contribution I can make is to reprint a pair of postings originally made on my old site (and linked here in the "Favorites" list as Offensive Cartoons).

UPDATE: Here are a few "Draw Mohammed Day" postings I found interesting. One was at Atlas Shrugs. A broader one (probably not safe for work) is at Weasel Zippers. The Infidel Bloggers Alliance also has a good summary. Zombie and Michelle Malkin have comments. Error Theory also has an interesting related post.

UPDATE: Facebook has shown it doesn't believe in free speech — at least, not enough to actually support it. Instead, it has shown real cowardice. It has apologized to Pakistan for the existence of the Mohammed cartoons page, taken down that page, and assured the government of Pakistan that "nothing of this sort will happen in the future." In other words, Facebook has promised to limit Americans' (and others') free speech rights at the behest of foreign control freaks. This is just another example of American companies acting badly.

This does leave one more question: What other American and Western values does Facebook not believe in or support?

February 5, 2006

“Offensive” Cartoons

I’ve been trying to figure out what the big deal is about the drawings printed by the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in Denmark. First, I wonder which of the drawings is supposed to be Muhammad? They all look different! Is any picture of any vaguely Arab-looking man supposed to be banned as an insulting image of Muhammad? Or maybe only those with beards and turbans? By that stricture, no picture of Khomeini, al Sadr, or any of the mullahs could be printed. That’s ridiculous!

Second, even the rioters seem to agree that these drawings are not, themselves, offensive. The only thing I’ve seen them bring up is that the drawings are “insulting Islam” — because they show a man someone can convince himself looks like Muhammad, which he can convince himself is prohibited by Islamic tradition. But, as Michelle Malkin notes,

In response to the notion that the West (or Islam) has ever followed the prohibition against depicting Mohammed, Zombie has created the “Mohammed Image Archive,” which contains dozens of Mohammed images from throughout history.

One set of images on that page are labeled as “Modern Iranian Icons,” and are freely available today in Iran. Another includes images from across the Muslim world from prior centuries. Those images and others demonstrate that, if such a prohibition exists, it has been honored in the breach (i.e., not at all) throughout Muslim history.

It seems to me that someone was looking for an excuse that could be used to stir up trouble. This is consistent with the drawings, themselves, which were published last September. It is consistent with the fact that there was little adverse reaction until much later. And it is consistent with the fact that the leadership of the Islamic Society of Denmark had to create additional images — which are offensive — to gain the controversy any traction.

For the record, here are the twelve cartoons all the fuss is supposedly about.
   

The cartoonists who drew the last two images (below) seem to have had some idea of the kind of responses that might come from some of the local flock.

All twelve of these images are from the Face of Muhammad site, where the words that appear on some of them have been translated into English.

Now it turns out the the leadership of the Islamic Society of Denmark went to the Middle East to “create awareness” about the cartoons that were published in Denmark. Evidently, however, they know the Danish drawings are inoffensive — nothing to get disturbed about — but don’t want to admit they cooked up the whole issue. So they created some additional graphics of their own (see right, from Gateway Pundit here and here) that really are offensive. As Gateway Pundit says, “Evidently, the originals were not offensive enough for the trip!” (See, too, the coverage in the CounterTerrorism Blog, including here and here. There are also several other related posts.) And yet, the additional graphics created by Muslims to stir up other Muslims still aren’t as bad as the ones regularly aimed at Christians and Jews in the Middle East press.

[UPDATE: It seems to me the main reason the Islamist leadership, and those in the protests they hire, don’t want U.S. and European newspapers republishing the Danish cartoons is simple — they don’t want people to see that their riots are “put up jobs” and that there’s really nothing behind their “outrage”.]

To avoid other assertions, here is an image of the page on which the drawings were published in Denmark on September 30, 2005 (left).

As for me, I tend to agree with Cox and Forkum’s take on the issue (below).

UPDATE: These two cartoonists have captured the cultural differences involved in these “cartoon wars.” The first cartoon is from Filibuster Cartoons via Zombie’s Mohammed Image Archive. The second cartoon is from Trever in the Albuquerque Journal.

For my money, though, the best comment is from Cagle. Probably no one would think the Danish drawings were of Muhammad if they weren’t being told so by their religious leaders. And isn’t that truly a fitting conclusion for the “cartoon wars”?

 

February 17, 2006

Those Who Insult Islam

Looks to me like it’s these folks (and their compatriots) that are an insult to Islam. If these are its adherents, it’s self-insulting.

By the way, I think I’ve figured out two reasons why the Islamist leadership and demonstrators are trying so hard to prevent other newspapers from printing the Danish cartoons, most of which don’t even purport to show Muhammad:

1. It’s a power thing, to demonstrate they can control other countries and societies — against their own laws — without the necessity of actual conquest.
2. They don’t want people to see there’s really nothing behind their “outrage”.

 

Tax Day Tea Parties, 2010

There were tea parties on April 15^th again this year — all over the country! This time, unlike last year, there has been press coverage both before and after the events. A lot of the coverage has been like what I heard on both CBS and NBC this morning, suggesting the tea partiers are nuts and/or dangerous.

Gary Varvel's tax day cartoon compares this media perception/spin with the reality:

Eric Allie's from a week or so before, too:

This makes me think of what I heard on radio station KKOB last Thursday evening from one of the founders of the Albuquerque Tea Party organization, quoting/paraphrasing Gandhi:

First they ignore you.
Then they ridicule you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.

The Damned Demcare Bill

Nothing has changed.

The Democrats in Congress say they want to reduce medical care costs, "bend the cost curve down", and cover those who don't have health insurance. They claim they will can do this in a way that will not increase the deficit, and will allow (!) those happy with their medical insurance to keep it.

To accomplish these noble goals, the Democrats have produced a "health care" bill. Their bill accomplishes none of these goals — and, in fact, makes every one of these problems worse.

You don't reduce costs by spending an extra $1 trillion. And that huge number is almost certainly a substantial understatement. Yes, the Congressional Budget Office has come out with their number for what they say this bill will cost, and their statement that the bill is basically deficit neutral. To get that deficit neutrality, the bill steals more than half a trillion dollars from Medicare and includes an additional half trillion dollars in new taxes. And even with that, the Democrats' Congressional leadership feels it necessary to lie and claim the CBO projects a large deficit reduction in the program's second decade, though the CBO report said no such thing.

Stop and think about that: The primary rationale for starting this process was that our expenditures on health care are too high and becoming unaffordable. What kind of sense does it make to pretend we are reducing health care expenditures by spending more than an additional trillion dollars?

And it's really worse than that. President Obama and Speaker Pelosi have both said in the past week that this bill will extend the viability of the Medicare program by more than ten years. That would be laughable if it weren't so ludicrous. They are actually claiming that stealing half a trillion dollars from this near-bankrupt program will make it healthier! Does anyone believe Obama and the Congress will willingly destroy Medicare? If not, and the assumptions the CBO was forced to use are false, then those "savings" are illusory (I would say fraudulent) and the deficit from the Demcare bill will be more than a half trillion dollars higher — at least. And that's assuming the cost estimates are accurate ten years out, as they never have been.

Part of that assumption is the claim repeated so often by President Obama that “If you like your current healthcare plan, you can keep it.” And it's true that, under this bill, the government will not order us to change our health insurance — it will just make it impossible for us to keep it. Another lie. Another deliberate lie.

In addition, the bill keeps costs down for the federal government by dumping them on the states. Much of the increased insurance coverage, for those not currently insured, is accomplished by adding them into the Medicaid program. That's a huge unfunded mandate — a huge additional cost for the states, who will have to raise their taxes to cover it. But that must be OK, 'cause it's not a federal cost.

This bill is just full of mandates. There are mandates on insurance companies, mandates on employers, and mandates on individuals. With this bill, the government arrogates to itself the right to tell every person in the country what they must buy. That is absolutely improper, and unconstitutional. Under our system of government, it is not allowed to interfere in individual choices to that degree. That kind of interference is only allowed under a tyranny — allowed by the tyrannical government to itself. Legitimate governments are not allowed to tell us what insurance we must buy, or how many cheeseburgers we are allowed to buy or must buy. But that's what they're doing. That's what this bill does. And it must be OK, 'cause it's for our own good.

Beyond that, there's one other huge lie behind this bill. The Democrats pretend that those without health insurance cannot get health care. This is a lie, and they know it. Everyone gets treated in the emergency room. No, it's not the best way to deliver health care. But everyone who needs health care gets it.

These are just a few of the reasons most Americans oppose this bill. Even the Rasmussen poll, which is considerably more favorable than other polls to the Democrat leadership's healthcare "reform" bill, reports a significant majority of the country opposes this bill. And Rasmussen reports that 45% of the population strongly opposes this bill. But the Democrats' leadership refuses to listen.

The process Obama and Pelosi are now trying to sell is for the House to pass the bill the Senate passed in December, before the election of Scott Brown from Massachusetts. They are telling House members they can vote for the abominable Senate bill on the promise that the Senate will accept the "fixes" produced by the House for the "reconciliation" bill. That seems to me a really dangerous game to play. Can they really trust that Senate Majority Leader Reid can deliver next week what he couldn't last year? And even if he does, .... Best bet — once the House passes the Senate bill, the whole game is over. Obama signs the Senate bill and it's done.

One final thing: If this bill is so great, as President Obama and Speaker Pelosi keep claiming, why are they completely unable to convince members of their own party to vote for it on its merits? Why are they having to rely on bribery and extortion to get the votes to pass it?

The Republicans have been right on this one. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are ideologues intent on getting this bill passed no matter how bad it is. They're gambling the Republicans and the non-extremist Democrats won't have the balls to repeal it. And no matter how good the original plan may have been, Daryl Cagle is still right about this bill.

And they're going to vote on this abomination today.

What the Obama Summit Was Really About

Trever, political cartoonist for the Albuquerque Journal hits the nail on the head. Again. This is what the Obama White House health care summit was really about.It wasn't about getting the Republicans on-board with his Obamacare 2.0 — it wasn't about the Republicans at all, except in Obama's hopes he could use the publicity to make the Republicans look bad. This summit was really about trying to get the Democrats to agree to his "compromise" plan.

Obama Lies About His Healthcare Plan

President Barack Obama claimed earlier this week that his plan gives ordinary Americans the same health care choices as the members of Congress. Presumably that also means at the same cost Congressmen pay — $503 per year for full coverage, including drugs.

For Obama to make that claim means one of two things

1. Obama hasn't a clue what's really in "his" plan.
2. Obama is telling a deliberate lie.

Whichever option is true, it shouldn't surprise anyone.

New Mexico Voter ID Update

The same-day voter registration bill, supported by Governor Bill Richardson and the Democrats' leadership in the legislature, has failed for the current legislative session. This is the bill, included in the governor's call, that allowed registration and voting at the same time with no photo ID requirement. The bill failed when, as noted in the Albuquerque Journal (subscription required), it failed to get enought votes to advance in the Senate Judiciary Committee and was tabled in the House Voters and Elections Committee.

Not included in the governor's call (and therefore unable to be introduced in the 30-day session) was a bill for a photo ID requirement to register and to vote. A Silver City Representative described in a column why she had introduced this bill before:

I carried a bill requiring photo identification at the polls last year during the 60-day session. I was prompted to take action when I learned that New Mexico State University students, many voting for the first time, had been told at the polls that votes in their name already had been cast. They were then forced to vote on provisional ballots; after the election, these students received notices that their provisional ballots were deemed invalid. The students realized that the votes other people cast using their names and addresses were the votes that counted.

Can you imagine being told the first time you were old enough to vote that someone else had voted for you? Their stories are heartbreaking.

Last year my bill for photo ID was killed by the House Voters and Elections Committee. At the time, the Santa Fe New Mexican had published a poll conducted by the University of New Mexico that revealed 85 percent of New Mexicans want photo ID at the polls.

Her column also adds to what I said before, noting the Democrats' hypocrisy and shamelessness (my words, not hers):

Perhaps the greatest irony I have seen in Santa Fe is occurring during this session. As I sat in my office writing this op-ed, citizens were lined up in the hallway outside the governor's office, waiting their turn to talk with him during his office hours.

In order to speak with him, they had to present a photo ID.

As I have said before, anyone who opposes a serious voter identification requirement is objectively promoting vote fraud. That's why a large majority of New Mexico voters (apparently 85%) favor a voter ID law. And this time the legislature listened — a little.

Amazing!

Snow on the ground in all 50 states! All at the same time!

New Mexico Democrats Still Promote Vote Fraud

The New Mexico state legislature is in its 30 day session. (Legislative sessions in even-numbered years are only 30 days long here, and can only consider topics included in the "governor's call".) And the legislature is continuing its actions against New Mexico's voters.

As previously noted, the legislature last year killed a Republican-sponsored voter ID bill on a straight party-line vote. That left New Mexico law in the state described by the Albuquerque Journal last year (registration/subscription required):

Current New Mexico law, approved by the Democratic-controlled Legislature, allows voters to identify themselves in one of several ways that don't involve a photo ID, including a “verbal or written statement” by the voter giving their name, registration address and year of birth.

In other words, current state law says you can just walk in and claim to be someone, and you can vote in their place.

This year's legislative Democrats want to expand this open invitation to fraud. At the request of Governor Bill Richardson (and presumably included in his "call"), Representative Jim Trujillo (D-Santa Fe) has introduced House Bill 123 which, if passed, will allow same day registration and voting at early voting sites without the need for a photo ID. (Same day registration would apparently be available only during early voting, and not on election day. Presumably, this is because the election day voting sites do not have real-time update access to the state's voter rolls, thus limiting the fraudulent updates to the early voting sites.)

In other words, you would be able to walk in and give a fictitious name, fictitious birth year, and fictitious address — with no documentation whatever — and be immediately placed on the voter rolls and immediately allowed to vote. This wouldn't be just an open invitation to vote fraud. It would be an absolute iron-clad guarantee of it.

HB 123 is being referred to two House committees, the Voters and Elections Committee and the Consumer and Public Affairs Committee.

Oh, yes. Need I mention that Speaker Ben Lujan and Representative W. Ken Martinez (presumably still the majority leader) — who led the effort to kill voter ID last year — are members of the Voters and Elections Committee? Something tells me they will follow the wishes of the governor, and to hell with the wishes of New Mexico's citizens and voters.

As I have said before, anyone who opposes a serious voter identification requirement is objectively promoting vote fraud. That's why a large majority of New Mexico voters (apparently 80%) favor a voter ID law, but that doesn't matter since that 80% obviously doesn't include the Democrats in the legislature. I wonder why the Democrats are insisting on this. (Maybe I shouldn't wonder.)

Things like this tell me the Democrats have had control of the state legislature FAR too long.

Regulators Take Untroubled Bank From Its Owners

The federal Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) closed family-owned Charter Bank in New Mexico on Friday afternoon and handed it to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which gave it to Beal Financial Corporation of Plano, Texas. The FDIC said all bank branches would reopen on Monday under Beal's ownership.

The closure was a surprise because the bank was not having problems, except with its regulators.

Last fall, Office of Thrift Supervision examiners, responding to the national collapse of real estate development, ordered Charter to increase its allowance for loan losses from $10.8 million to $55.4 million, even though Charter had no delinquent commercial construction loans and only .34 percent of the loans in its commercial real estate portfolio were behind on their payments. That order reduced the level of capital Charter had on its books.

Then, last Wednesday, "OTS ordered Charter to find new capital as a buffer against insolvency or face closure." That order was followed by OTS' closing the bank just two days later.

Let's look at those figures again. This bank, which the regulators said was so troubled it had to be closed, had no delinquent commercial construction loans and just .34 percent — one third of one percent of its commercial real estate loans that were behind in their payments. That's a record I suspect very few banks in the country could match.

"This was not indicative of any instability on the part of the bank," New Mexico State Regulation and Licensing Secretary Kelly O'Donnell said Friday.

In an interview Saturday, Charter Bank President Glenn Wertheim said politics played a role in his bank's death. He noted that the AIG unit considered to have been the "linchpin" in the financial system collapse in September of 2008 was regulated by OTS, which ended up with much of the blame for the collapse. As a result, "OTS found itself fighting for its life as politicians called for its abolition or merger into other regulatory bodies." As a result, they "had a shift in examination standards", which subsequently resulted in Charter's untroubled loans being reclassified as toxic.

Charter's management, led since 2001 by bank President Glenn Wertheim, insisted that loans, mostly commercial real estate loans — which OTS said were troubled — were, in fact, being paid on time. OTS disagreed and ordered tens of millions of dollars of those loans to be classified as toxic.

That classification, recorded as an entry on the bank's balance sheet, on paper lowered Charter's capital (money regulators require banks to make sure their deposits are safe) to levels well below those regulators regard as sound, even though virtually all of Charter's commercial real estate borrowers continued to pay their bills on time.

Charter Bank specialized in mortgage loans designed to help first-time home buyers get affordable mortgages, even though they could have made more money offering other types of loans. Many of its loans were made in cooperation with Mortgage Finance Authority (MFA), established by the New Mexico legislature to help finance low-income home construction. According to MFA executive director Jay Czar, Charter Bank services "about 95 percent of the mortgages issued through the agency." It is unclear how the Charter Bank closure may affect MFA programs.

— Subscription to the Albuquerque Journal is apparently required for access to most of its news articles.