enlarge Yesterday ‘liberal school reform crusader’ Michelle Rhee went to Washington DC alongside Wisconsin governor Scott Walker to accept accolades for their joint crusade against public schools from right-wing organization American Federation for Children. Salon: The “American Federation for Children” — a right-wing “education reform” organization founded and funded by religious right activist multimillionaire Betsy DeVos (former Republican candidate for governor of Michigan and sister of Blackwater founder Erik Prince) and dedicated to electing state legislators who’ll fund Christian schools with taxpayer money and crush public employees’ unions — is having a party in Washington, D.C., today, and they have invited Republican governors who have been working to fix education forever by firing all the greedy teachers and letting profit-seeking private interests manage the schools more “efficiently.” Rhee and Walker joined Pennsylvania governor Tom Corbett to receive an award for their hard work undoing private schools so churches can take them over. The American Federation for Children is a rebranded organization that Devos funded and advocated for over the years — Advocates for School Choice. They’ve simply put a new coat of paint on an old horse and then slapped Michelle Rhee up on their pedestal to add some liberal cred to the whole thing. Advocates for School Choice found their brand a bit tarnished after they were fined $5.2 million for funneling corporate contributions which violated Ohio law into Wisconsin. Scott Jensen, the former Wisconsin Assembly Speaker who recently admitted to wrongdoing in the Wisconsin caucus scandal was also employed by the Alliance for School Choice. He settled the case by paying a fine to the state for using official staff for campaign activities. The lobbyist for the Wisconsin chapter of AFC is also working for Wisconsin Prosperity network , a Koch firm, funded in concert with the DeVos and Walton (Wal-Mart) families. To be honest, I expect extreme right-wingers like Walker and Corbett to be the darling of the DeVos and Koch machines. But let’s get real about Michelle Rhee. She’s as much of a right-wing tool as they are, and no liberal heroine to schools or children. If this doesn’t prove it, I’m not sure what would.
Continue reading …If FOIA Request Is Successful, AP Says It Will Decide Which OBL Pictures the Public Will See
May 10, 2011 No Comment
Just when you consider cutting the Associated Press a break for doing something right, they pull this. Most people know that in the interest of “not spiking the football,” the Obama administration has decided that it will not release photos of Osama bin Laden's dead body. Shortly after the decision was announced, AP filed a Freedom of Information Act request for said photos. According to John Hudson at the Atlantic (HT to Jim Taranto at the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web), the AP's Michael Oreskes claims that “This information is important for the historical record” and “It's our job as journalists to seek this material.” So far, so good. But you just knew they'd figure out a way to potentially ruin it. Here's Oreskes as quoted by Hudson: “We're not deciding in advance to publish this material,” he pledged. “We would like our journalists, who are working very hard, to see this material and then we'll decide what's publishable and what's not publishable based on the possibly (sic) that it's inflammatory.” Really? The WSJ's Taranto pegs this preemptive censorship correctly (italics are in original): Oreskes is trying to have it both ways, isn't he? Like the government, he is willing in principle to withhold the photos from the public . He faults the government only for withholding them from journalists . “We'll decide,” he says. But what gives the AP that right? Who elected Michael Oreskes?
Continue reading …Study: For First Time, Fracking Linked To Severe Contamination of Drinking Water
May 10, 2011 No CommentOkay, so what excuse will they come up with this time to justify polluting our water? Because if they keep this up, a clean water supply is going to be scarcer than oil: For the first time, a scientific study has linked natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing with a pattern of drinking water contamination so severe that some faucets can be lit on fire. The peer-reviewed study , published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stands to shape the contentious debate over whether drilling is safe and begins to fill an information gap that has made it difficult for lawmakers and the public to understand the risks . The research was conducted by four scientists at Duke University. They found that levels of flammable methane gas in drinking water wells increased to dangerous levels when those water supplies were close to natural gas wells. They also found that the type of gas detected at high levels in the water was the same type of gas that energy companies were extracting from thousands of feet underground, strongly implying that the gas may be seeping underground through natural or manmade faults and fractures, or coming from cracks in the well structure itself.
Continue reading …MSNBC Airs Highly-Edited Video of Bush’s March 2002 Comments Concerning Bin Laden
May 10, 2011 No Comment
Since the successful raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan nine days ago, MSNBC has been playing highly-edited snippets from George W. Bush's March 13, 2002, press conference to make it appear the 43rd president wasn't concerned with the former al Qaeda leader. Chris Matthews did this Tuesday during a Bush-bashing segment on “Hardball” (multi-part video follows with complete transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Here’s what then President Bush said about bin Laden just seven months after the 9/11 attacks. This is George W. Bush, president of the United States, talking about our number one enemy. Let’s listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is — really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. And he’s just — he’s a person who’s now been marginalized. So I don’t know where he is. Nor — you know, I just don’t spend that much time on it, really, to be honest with you. I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And again, you know, I don’t know where he is. I — I repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: You know, Joan, I’m not a Bush hater, but that was wiseass behavior there, just wiseass. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: I mean, this is the rich kid acting like, I don’t care about that old girlfriend that dumped me. I mean, that was behavioral weirdness right then. Look familiar to you? Well, it's because MSNBC has been playing a similarly edited clip for days. The one Matthews showed lasted a grand total of 40 seconds comprising only 123 words. Bush's full answer to a reporter on March 13, 2002, lasted almost four full minutes and was a far more thorough 600 words: QUESTION: Mr. President, in your speeches now, you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you can tell the American people if you have any more information — if you know if he is dead or alive. Deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really want to make… BUSH: Well, deep in my heart, I know the man's on the run if he's alive at all. And I — you know, who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not? We hadn't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is really — indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terror's bigger than one person. And he's just — he's a person who has now been marginalized. His network is — his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is — you know, as I mention in my speeches — I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death. And he, himself, tries to hide, if, in fact, he's hiding at all. So I don't know where he is. Nor — you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well supplied, that the strategy is clear, that the coalition is strong, that when we find enemy bunched up, like we did in Shah-e-Kot mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did. And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shah-e-Kot. And I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shah-e-kot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly; we're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped, we have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means. QUESTION: Do you believe the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead of alive? BUSH: As I say, we hadn't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, you know, again, I don't know where he is. I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. But, you know, once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became — we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it — either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things that's part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary or training or a place to hide or a place to raise money. And we got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand — that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that. I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you I am not going to blink, and I'm not going to get tired, because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom. Rather different than what Matthews showed Tuesday, isn't it? According to LexisNexis, similarly edited clips of this press conference have been aired on MSNBC eleven times since bin Laden's death. Besides Matthews on Tuesday, such snippets were shown four times on “The Last Word,” and twice each on “MSNBC Live,” “The Rachel Maddow Show,” and “The Ed Show.” Readers are advised that MSNBC only transcribes its weekday programs during extended prime time. Readers are also advised that MSNBC severely castigated Andrew Breitbart for publishing an edited version of Shirley Sherrod's comments at an NAACP meeting last year. This network went into a full-scale uproar when a previously unknown Department of Agriculture official had her videotaped words edited and disseminated on the blogosphere. The same was true in September 2009 when conservative activist James O'Keefe published edited interviews with ACORN representatives while posing as a pimp. Now, quite hypocritically, MSNBC is doing the exact same thing to a former president. I guess selectively editing videos is completely acceptable to this so-called “news” network if the person speaking is a Republican.
Continue reading …
On Monday, the Texas Senate approved a bill that, if passed, would allow those with concealed handgun licenses to carry weapons in public college buildings and classrooms. Supporters of the controversial legislation, which now heads to the state’s House for a vote, say carrying guns on campus is a self-defense measure, one that could allow
Continue reading …
NPR's Mara Liasson noticeably left out anti-illegal immigration conservatives on Tuesday's Morning Edition as she reported on President's Obama's latest push for “comprehensive” immigration reform. Liasson only played clips from the President, Democrat Rep. Luis Gutierrez, and Republican consultant Marty Wilson, who claimed that ” the hardline approach on immigration … is not going to work .” Host Steve Inskeep introduced the correspondent's report by noting the President's forthcoming speech later in the day outlining his “principles for an immigration overhaul.” He continued by recalling how “President Bush's immigration efforts encountered opposition from his own party, and many Republicans are also likely to resist President Obama's efforts.” Instead of turning to those who would be part of such a resistance, Liasson quickly turned to an excerpt from Obama's recent commencement address at Miami Dade College, where he proclaimed, “I strongly believe we should fix our broken immigration system …and I want to work with Democrats and Republicans, yes, to protect our borders and enforce our laws, and address the status of millions of undocumented workers.” After playing her first sound bite from Rep. Gutierrez (who boasted, “I have to tell you, we're headed in the right direction . I'm more optimistic than I've been in recent memory”), the NPR reporter highlighted that the Illinois Democrat was “among the dozens of people invited to the White House in recent weeks to talk about immigration. Along with Democratic members of Congress…there were two Republicans, moderates Michael Bloomberg and Arnold Schwarzenegger .” However, Liasson misidentified the New York City mayor's political affiliation, as he hasn't been a Republican since 2007 . Towards the end of her report, Liasson introduced her two clips from Wilson, who managed Carly Fiorina's failed 2010 Senate bid in California, by stating that “Republicans say they want to pass bills that would enhance border security, not legalize undocumented workers. But GOP strategist Marty Wilson thinks that's shortsighted . Wilson ran Carly Fiorina's Senate race in California, a race he says she lost because she didn't get enough Hispanic votes.” Besides criticizing the supposed “hardline approach on immigration,” the Republican strategist, in the correspondent's words, “thinks Republicans should add a guest worker program to their border security bills that would allow them to appear welcoming to Hispanics without angering their conservative base with talk of amnesty .” This isn't the first time this year that Liasson has conspicuously excluded anti-illegal immigration conservatives. On the March 18 Morning Edition , the NPR correspondent apparently couldn't find any to comment for her report on Utah's new and “milder” guest worker law. The full transcript of Mara Liasson's report from Tuesday's Morning Edition: STEVE INSKEEP: When President Obama gave an interview on 60 Minutes, he said the president must do more than one thing at a time, and today, he tries to demonstrate that in El Paso. Amid negotiations over the budget, as well as the aftermath of Osama bin Laden's death, the President will talk about immigration. He plans to lay out principles for an immigration overhaul. President Bush's immigration efforts encountered opposition from his own party, and many Republicans are also likely to resist President Obama's efforts. Here's NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson. MARA LIASSON: Immigration is back on President Obama's front burner. Today in El Paso, Texas, he'll continue his new push for immigration legislation, which began with a series of high profile meetings at the White House and a speech at the Miami Dade College commencement late last month. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (from speech at Miami Dade College): I strongly believe we should fix our broken immigration system- (crowd applauds) fix it so that it meets our 21st century economic and security needs, and I want to work with Democrats and Republicans, yes, to protect our borders and enforce our laws, and address the status of millions of undocumented workers. LIASSON: After the last attempt at immigration legislation died in the lame duck session of Congress, Hispanic leaders took out their frustration on the White House. They wanted the President to do more to fulfill his campaign pledge to pass a bill, and now he is. REPRESENTATIVE LUIS GUTIERREZ: I have to tell you, we're headed in the right direction. I'm more optimistic than I've been in recent memory. LIASSON: That's Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez. He was among the dozens of people invited to the White House in recent weeks to talk about immigration. Along with Democratic members of Congress, there were celebrities like Eva Longoria and Emilio Estefan. There were two Republicans, moderates Michael Bloomberg and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The President is not only devoting more attention to immigration, he's also changing his approach to deportations. In an effort to prove it was tough on border security, the administration had substantially increased the number of deportations, angering Hispanic leaders. But now, the White House has decided to move away from deporting college-age kids. The law that failed in the lame duck session,
Continue reading …
It might seem a doddle being a living statue, but it’s not as easy as it looks The Silver Wizard won’t talk to me. Nor, for that matter, will the Golden Tin Man. This is, in part, because neither speak more than a smattering of English, and in part because both make a living as human statues, a profession in which not talking to strangers is, alongside standing still, more or less the whole point of the job. To the outside observer, imitating a statue must look like the easiest and least competitive career imaginable. Turn up, get dressed, stand still, get given money by passing members of the public. But the Silver Wizard, if he spoke, would tell you otherwise. Competition is fierce, and he has got a 14in scar to prove it. The wizard, real name Rumen Nedelchev, a 45-year-old former mechanic from Brest in Belarus, plies his trade on the southern bank of the Thames in central London, under the shadow of the London Eye. It was here that, one morning last year, his bronze rival The Invisible King clubbed the wizard to the ground with a concrete block for the simple crime of setting up his plinth in a prime location. After surgery, Nedelchev spent more than three months in hospital. Earlier this week, the king – 37-year-old Dechko Ivanov – was sentenced to a minimum of four and a half years in prison. It is, undeniably, a crowded market. Yesterday, on the South Bank, the wizard and the tin man jostled motionlessly for attention with a Roman centurion, the Queen, a not-very-convinving Scream and a very sweaty Spiderman. Some of these buskers appear to be taking considerably less than the minimum wage. Though professionals earn upwards of £200 a day, making a living as a living statue is much harder than it looks. David Ferguson, 42, of Statueman Living Statues, has been standing still professionally for 18 years. “To actually do it full time is quite strenuous. You have to be in control of every muscle in your body.” He and his wife Pamela have never busked, but perform exclusively for corporate events and parties, coated head to toe in gold, silver or bronze body paint. “We do up to an hour and a half per set. That’s the maximum you could do.” “There’s a difference between buskers and professionals,” he explains, when I tell him the Silver Wizard’s story. “It’s extremely hard. There’s a lot of people that do it but there’s very few that do it professionally.” Street art Art Tom Meltzer guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Matchmaker reveals how he found the right girl for al-Qaida leader – Yemeni woman who is now in Pakistan’s custody It was early in September 1999, when Rashad Mohammed Saeed Ismael, a Yemeni sheikh in his early 20s working as a preacher and a leading member of al-Qaida in Kabul, received the most important phone call of his life. Osama bin Laden had decided to marry for the fifth time and had charged Rashad, one of his closest aides, with the important task of finding him the right woman. The aide listened carefully as Bin Laden described to him his desired spouse: “She must be pious, dutiful, young [preferably aged 16-18], well mannered, from a decent family, but above all patient. She will have to endure my exceptional circumstances.” Luckily he knew just the right girl: Amal Ahmed al-Sadah, a 17-year-old daughter of a civil servant and a former student of his, was, according to Rashad, “the perfect match” for the al-Qaida leader, then 44. Now, just over 10 years later, Sheikh Rashad, who describes himself as a staunch supporter of al-Qaida in Yemen, is fighting for Amal and her daughter, who are currently being detained by Pakistani authorities to be brought back home in the wake of Bin Laden’s death. “We have a strong practice in Islam called ardth [family honour]. When a woman like Amal is widowed, it is a duty upon all Muslims to look after her and ensure her safety. All the Yemeni people want her to come home. Others fear that if Amal is brought back to Yemen she may be handed over by President Ali Abdullah Saleh to the Americans for further questioning. Any attempts by the US to hurt Amal or any of Bin Laden’s family, Rashad says, “will cause an explosion between the west and the Islamic world. Women are not warriors. America knew that Bin Laden never used women to participate in his battles.” In 2000, Rashad returned to his home town of Ibb, a verdant city in Yemen’s south-west, to make the necessary arrangements. He went to the woman first, explaining to her who Bin Laden was, what he was like, and how he moved from one place to another pursued by the Americans. After she “dutifully accepted” Bin Laden’s offer, a dowry of $5,000 was wired to Amal’s family, triggering a bout of pre-marriage celebrations in preparation for the young woman’s departure to Afghanistan. Bin Laden’s matchmaker, Amal and her elder brother left Yemen for Pakistan, first to Karachi, and then to Quetta, where they stayed for a few days until Bin Laden sent some guards to pick her up and bring her into Afghanistan. The wedding ceremony, which took place in Kandahar, then the heart of the Taliban’s operations, was an all-male affair carried out in traditional Yemeni fashion. The men sang and danced and a lamb was slaughtered at Bin Laden’s feet as distinguished guests recited poetry and sung him songs written for the occasion. Today Rashad believes the fate of Bin Laden’s family, especially his wives, is as, if not more, important to al-Qaida than Bin Laden’s death. “We [al-Qaida in Yemen] received the news of Bin Laden’s death with happiness because we knew it was his aim to die as a martyr at the hands of the Americans. But the question of his relatives is one of women’s honour, something we consider untouchable.” Last Thursday the US launched a drone attack aimed at killing Anwar al-Awlaki, the spiritual guru of al-Qaida in Yemen, on a town not far from Rashed’s village. He says he anticipates further US strikes on Yemeni soil in the near future. “The policy of the Arab world rulers has lost them the sovereignty of their countries. All constitutions and laws have been sacrificed. The Americans will continue to bomb us because Saleh’s regime no longer controls anything and will use anything to gain support and stay in power.” When asked about the size of the organisation in Yemen and its support base, Rashad replied: “Al-Qaida is a complicated web that has no end or beginning.” “This is not an organisation with application letters and a database. Those who want to join al-Qaida receive standard religious lessons and basic military training, after that they’re considered members.” Osama bin Laden al-Qaida Yemen Global terrorism Pakistan Afghanistan Tom Finn guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Rep. John Boehner holding America hostage over debt ceiling and spending cuts
May 10, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media House Speaker John Boehner told Republicans that he will not raise the debt ceiling without everybody bowing down to their demands on trillions of dollars in spending cuts to the federal government . But what was most monumental was Boehner’s laying a marker that will set the stage for interesting negotiations with Congressional Democrats and the White House as they work to find a solution to raising the debt ceiling. “Without significant spending cuts and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be no debt limit increase,” Boehner said. “And the cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given. We should be talking about cuts of trillions, not just billions.” Let’s cut trillions and trillions and trillions just for the heck of it. Why David Plouffe seemed to think — as he told us on a blogger conference call — that the debt-ceiling negotiations with Republicans was going to be as easy as apple pie I’ll never know. Everyone could see this coming. Why aren’t the media railing at Boehner and Republicans for their mind-boggling irresponsibility about this whole debt-ceiling debate? Did you ever hear Republicans complaining about it when Bush was in office? Of course not: They understood that the full faith and credit of the United States was at stake, and the thought never crossed their minds. Then Boehner made an appearance on the Today show to top it all off and highlighted the absolute gibberish that Republicans speak when they talk about tax cuts, the wealthy and deficits. John Boehner’s Tax Gibberish: LAUER: Why not use an increase in revenues? Tax hikes to help with that debt problem? What is the evidence that you can present that the tax cuts of the Bush era have actually accomplished their goals? BOEHNER: Well, what you’re – what some are suggesting is that we take this money from people who would invest in our economy and create jobs and we give it to the government. The fact is you can’t tax the very people that we expect to invest in our economy and create jobs. Washington doesn’t have a revenue problem. Washington has a spending problem. LAUER: But when you look at – you talk about creating jobs, when the Bush era tax cuts were passed in 2001, unemployment in this country was 4.5%. Today it’s at 9%, just down from 10%. So why are the Bush-era tax cuts creating jobs? BOEHNER: They created about 8 million jobs over the first ten years that they were in existence. We’ve lost about 5 million of those jobs during this recession. But you can’t raise taxes. We can take all of the money from the wealthy and guess what? We’d hardly make a dent in the annual deficit and do nothing about the $14.3 trillion worth of debt. Lauer begins with a good question. What is the evidence that the Bush tax cut accomplished its goal? Boehner refuses to present any. Indeed, answering this question would lead him into an inescapable minefield. The Bush tax cuts are currently in effect, so any benefits of continuing them must have been felt from 2001 until the present date. That would imply those effects are less than impressive. So instead, Boehner simply restates his position. We can’t take money away from job creators. Why not? You just can’t . “The fact is,” he continues, mistaking opinion for fact, “you can’t tax the very people that we expect to invest in our economy and create jobs.” You can’t tax them at all? Obviously we have to tax them some, right? So then the question is what is the optimal level. I believe recent history suggests that Clinton-era tax levels create no significant harmful incentive effect. Boehner can’t even come near this question, because he simply insists that tax the rich is wrong is an absolute sense. And as Chait highlighted in his post: Lauer, to his credit, tries again, asking for any evidence the Bush tax cuts created jobs. Boehner replies, “They created about 8 million jobs over the first ten years that they were in existence. We’ve lost about 5 million of those jobs during this recession.” Right. That’s a net of 3 million jobs over eight years. That’s horrible! 3 million new jobs is, as the Wall Street Journal news staff put it, “the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.” Clinton created 23 million new jobs without the Bush tax cuts. It is frustrating that these lies about tax cuts by Republicans keep percolating throughout the media. They don’t want to have an intelligent conversation about any of this and the beltway media lets them get away with it. You can’t cut your way out of a recession and if tax cuts were teh awesome , then why have they failed so swimmingly?
Continue reading …
enlarge Credit: KTSM President Obama headed down to El Paso, Texas to give a speech on comprehensive immigration reform. I’m certain he has absolutely no expectation of having this Congress pass anything close to what he has in mind, but it signals the issue as a 2012 campaign issue to counter Republicans’ constant fearmongering and promise to make Shari’a law an issue in their 2012 campaigns. On steps this administration has taken to secure the borders, in spite of the Republican whining that they’re insecure: They wanted a fence. Well, that fence is now basically complete. And we’ve gone further. We tripled the number of intelligence analysts working the border. I’ve deployed unmanned aerial vehicles to patrol the skies from Texas to California. We’ve forged a partnership with Mexico to fight the transnational criminal organizations that have affected both of our countries. And for the first time we are screening 100 percent of southbound rail shipments – to seize guns and money going south even as we go after drugs coming north. So, we have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement. But even though we’ve answered these concerns, I suspect there will be those who will try to move the goal posts one more time. They’ll say we need to triple the border patrol. Or quadruple the border patrol. They’ll say we need a higher fence to support reform. Maybe they’ll say we need a moat. Or alligators in the moat. They’ll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That’s politics. Reminding that in the past, Republicans were for immigration reform before they were against it: There are Democrats and Republicans, including former-Republican Senator Mel Martinez and former-Bush administration Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff; leaders like Mayor Michael Bloomberg; evangelical ministers like Leith Anderson and Bill Hybels; police chiefs from across the nation; educators and advocates; labor unions and chambers of commerce; small business owners and Fortune 500 CEOs. One CEO had this to say about reform. “American ingenuity is a product of the openness and diversity of this society… Immigrants have made America great as the world leader in business, science, higher education and innovation.” That’s Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News, and an immigrant himself. I don’t know if you’re familiar with his views, but let’s just say he doesn’t have an Obama bumper sticker on his car. Moving on to the framework for comprehensive immigration reform ( Full document, PDF ): Continuing to invest in technological assets along the border, including unmanned aerial vehicles and surveillance technology programs; Cracking down on misuse of passports and visas to commit fraud, and significantly expanding criminal penalties associated with such offenses; Increasing existing penalties and sanctions, with particular emphasis paid to immigration- related criminal prosecution efforts; Continuing to support border relief grants to help fund state, local, and tribal agencies grappling with border issues; Mandating increased civil rights and civil liberties training for Border Patrol officers; Modifying immigration processes so that DHS can quickly remove individuals who are willing to voluntarily leave the country; and Addressing critical detention issues, including expanding the use of alternatives to detention programs. This is all great, but there’s still that pesky problem of the Administration aggressively working to deport immigrants at a point where getting Republicans to the table on this is probably nothing more than a pipe dream. Mother Jones : Even so, Obama may have a tough time convincing his own allies that he’s seriously committed to a fully revamped immigration system, as the Republican-controlled House essentially rules out any action. Pro-immigration advocates are calling for Obama to slow the administration’s deportation of illegal immigrants and ease up on other enforcement tactics—a move the president’s unlikely to make, given the White House’s pride in its heavy enforcement strategy. Joan McCarter has a great quote from Lamar Smith on immigration which sums up the President’s chances of finding consensus on immigration. Even with Mr. Obama’s tweak at Rupert Murdoch, Fox News will continue their constant fearmongering while the Tea Party continues to exercise its right to be completely xenophobic and recalcitrant. On the other hand, the Washington Post thinks he scored big with this speech. Whether he did or he didn’t, the issue is now out on the table and Republicans will need to decide whether they want to risk alienating generations of Latinos or consider a negotiated surrender.
Continue reading …