Categories

Archive for the ‘Hispanics’ Category

There are few political analysts I trust more than Michael Barone. I trust Mr. Barone because, in addition to being one of the best number crunchers in the business, he’s a superb researcher. That’s why I took note of what he wrote in this article:

A new Washington Post story quotes Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke as favoring “greater emphasis on the interests of these children who are refugees from extreme violence” instead of “an acceleration of the deportation process at the expense of these children.” But the Post reporters note that “O’Rourke added that he has been surprised by the anger he has heard toward the immigrants of many of his El Paso constituents, who ?feel like we can’t take care of everyone, and these children and their families are gaming the system.’” O’Rourke’s district, which includes most of El Paso County, is 79 percent Hispanic.

That’s stunning. When Hispanics are upset with the flood of illegal immigrants, that’s a sign that this issue isn’t hurting Republicans or helping Democrats. Here’s Mr. Barone’s observation on that:

Democrats are trying to blame the situation on House Republicans’ refusal to pass comprehensive immigration legislation. That seems pretty lame: There’s nothing in the bill the Senate passed in June 2013 that addressed this particular situation. As this article in the Hill makes plain, perhaps despite the writer’s intention, this is a troublesome situation for Democrats whose names are on the ballot this fall.

In past elections, Democrats did a good job convincing Hispanics that Republicans were anti-immigration. That led to Democrats winning the Hispanic vote by a wide margin. The border crisis exposed Democrats as not caring about securing the border. That’s hurt Democrats with independent and Hispanic voters.

While the American people generally favor immigration reform in the abstract, they demand fairness and the rule of law. In this influx of illegal immigrants, they’re seeing neither fairness or the rule of law. It’ more than that, though.

As these illegal immigrants get sent to cities across the country, a nasty case of NIMBYism is settling in:

In the other, Lovelace quotes the chief of staff of the mayor of Lynn, Mass., about how many Guatemalan “children” were sent there and placed in public schools. “Some of them have had gray hair and they’re telling you that they’re 17 years old and they have no documentation,” the official is quoted as saying.

Part of this is due to these illegal border crossers not being children. Another part of this is that cities are getting stuck with the bill from an unexpected influx of people. Mostly, though, they juts don’t want to have to deal with the problem. It’s one thing when they’re someone else’s problem. It’s another when they’re your problem.

If Democrats, including President Obama, don’t work towards fixing this crisis, it’ll be high profile proof that they’re incapable of governing. That’s the worst accusation to hit an incumbent with during election season. If people think that politicians aren’t interested in or are incapable of governing, the other things don’t matter.

This is a tipping point moment for Democrats, especially if they’re on the ballot this fall. If they don’t provide real leadership on this issue, they’ll be hurt this fall.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

There’s no questioning President Obama’s campaigning skills. He definitely knows how to hold a crowd’ attention. What’s at question is whether he can govern. At this late point in his administration, it’s difficult to point to an instance where he intervened and solved a problem..

Most people paying attention to what’s happening on the Mexican border call it a humanitarian crisis. While there’s no denying the fact that real people are suffering, what’s really happening is President Obama’s moment of truth. This is his last opportunity to tell activists in his party that the good of the nation is more important than their campaign contributions.

This video bears that opinion out:

It’s mild news when Joe Scarborough criticizes President Obama. It’s definitely news when Mika Brzezinski joins Scarborough in criticizing President Obama. When Mark Halperin joins in by saying that President Obama’s schedule will change while he’s headlining a pair of Democratic fundraiserss, that’s a shot across President Obama’s bow.

What got this started was Gov. Perry’s refusal to meet President Obama on the tarmac for the obligatory photo op. Rather than getting caught up in that gamesmanship, Gov. Perry sent this letter to President Obama:

“I appreciate the offer to greet you at Austin-Bergstrom Airport, but a quick handshake on the tarmac will not allow for a thoughtful discussion regarding the humanitarian and national security crises enveloping the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas,” Mr. Perry wrote in a letter to the president Monday. “I would instead offer to meet with you at any time during your visit to Texas for a substantive meeting to discuss this critical issue.”

Gov. Perry was respectful, which is important. What he didn’t do was roll over. Instead, he essentially told President Obama that photo ops weren’t important, that solving problems is what executives like governors and presidents are expected to do.

If President Obama just attends the fundraisers, people will see that he isn’t interested in governing. People will knkow that he isn’t capable of rising above petty partisan politics.

If President Obama doesn’t produce a truly bipartisan solution to this crisis, he’ll be exposed as a politician who isn’t interested in solving problems. That would dry up what’s left of President Obama’s political capital.

At this point, Rick Perry looks like the solutions-oriented statesman. President Obama looks like another Washington politician. That’s why this really is President Obama’s moment of truth.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

If this LTE doesn’t make you see red, then you’re a heartless leftist ideologue that cares more about ideology than people. Here’s what’s got me seeing red:

This Minnesota family is a young married couple with three children. Until ObamaCare and Dayton’s MNsure came along they shared the cost of their Blue Cross-Blue Shield family health insurance policy 50/50 with the father’s employer. Thanks to ObamaCare, the cost of that policy sky rocketed and is no longer affordable to the family. After endless hours of working with MNsure, here is what resulted.

Without the parent’s consent, MNsure jammed their three children onto government insurance. The children are now covered by Medicaid at no cost to the family or employer, but 100 percent cost to the taxpayers. The father had to go with a single insurance plan from his employer and purchase a separate new policy for his wife. Because of the confusion and disarray at MNsure, neither he nor his wife currently has health insurance ID cards for the insurance they have already paid for.

The family and the employer were paying their own way for a good insurance policy that covered all members of the family. Today they are hostage to three different insurance policies. The husband and wife’s deductibles have doubled. The cost of the two adult policies is about equal to the old policy that covered the entire family. Their family dentist does not accept Medicaid, so they are also out dentist shopping for the children. President Obama, Gov. Dayton and the DFL majority in St. Paul decided they knew better what this family needed.

This proud, responsible, self-reliant family has always paid their own way. Their children are now on government insurance that was intended for those individuals that could not afford health insurance. The parents now have two different insurance policies to deal with, plus the Medicaid policies for their children. In addition to hurting this family’s self-esteem by having others pay for their children’s health insurance, the adults’ deductibles and co-pay for prescription drugs have sky rocketed, seriously damaging their overall financial well-being. To add insult to injury, Obama and Dayton have the audacity to count this family as one of the uninsured Minnesota families they have provided health insurance for.

I wrote this post to highlight how the Democrats’ chanting points included the fairy tale that the new policies people were getting forced into were vastly superior to the policies they had. I’d triple-dog dare Rep. Pallone to tell that to this family. If he tried peddling that BS to them, it’s quite possible that Rep. Pallone would wind up with a punctured backside, compliments of this family.

In fact, I’d argue that the only way a family would get shoved into their current policies is if government regulations shoved these policies down the family’s throats. What family would have 3 different insurance policies if they had the option of putting the entire family on a single policy, especially if their first policy came with lower deductibles?

The simple truth is that families would choose the policy that a) kept the entire family on a single policy and b) had significantly lower deductibles if they had that option. In fact, if that was a poll question, I’d bet that 95% of the people polled would opt for the single policy with low deductibles.

Thanks to Gov. Dayton and the DFL ideologues in the legislature, families didn’t have that option. That’s terrible. Simply put, that situation shouldn’t happen. Period. If not for the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, and MNsure, this family wouldn’t have gotten shoved into that inferior health insurance policy.

There’s no escaping the fact that Sen. Franken, Gov. Dayton and the DFL legislature own this mess. Their talk about caring about families is schtick. If they cared about families, they wouldn’t shove families into this situation. Sen. Franken started the ball rolling by voting for the ACA. Gov. Dayton lobbied for the health insurance exchange, aka the HIX. Without the HIX, this family wouldn’t be in that difficult position. Rep. Joe Atkins and Sen. Tony Lourey wrote the legislation that created the exchange. Then the DFL voted en masse for the exchange.

By contrast, Republicans didn’t vote for the ACA. They didn’t vote to create the exchange. They don’t share the blame for this disaster. The DFL owns this disaster lock, stock and barrel. That’s the inescapable truth. Next November, the DFL will feel the voters’ wrath for creating this disaster.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday night, the trio of David Schultz, Kathryn Pearson & Stacey Hunter-Hecht were guest panelists on Almanac. Predictably, Dr. Schultz bemoaned the fact that Republican moderates were nowhere to be found in the House on immigration.

This isn’t a big thing because Dr. Schultz hasn’t had a new idea in years, possibly decades. Further, Dr. Schultz has been a shill for the DFL for nearly all that time.

The problem with the Senate amnesty bill isn’t that there aren’t enough GOP moderates in the House. The problem with the Senate amnesty bill is that conservatives know it isn’t a solution to the problem it’s meant to fix. I wrote here about the gaping hole in the ‘Border Trickle’ in the Senate Amnesty Bill:

On page 35, line 24 of the new bill, a provision was inserted that says Napolitano–who already believes the border is secure–can decide against building a fence if she chooses not to erect one:

Notwithstanding paragraph (1), nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to install fencing, or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing, in a particular location along the Southern border, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the Southern border at such location.

In other words, House conservatives see this as a sham provision. It doesn’t secure the border. It doesn’t fix the problem. Its only purpose was to provide political cover for weak-kneed Senate Republicans.

House Republicans shouldn’t budge from their demand for a real solution to immigration. That means a border fence. That means 5 straight years of enforcing current immigration laws. That means no catch and release. That means implementing E-Verify.

Dr. Schultz’s lamentations about the lack of House GOP moderates is silliness parading as thoughtful policymaking. The Senate Amnesty Bill has a gaping hole in it. Milton Friedman, the late, great economist, was fond of asking where the halfway point between right and wrong was.

When the gap between House conservatives and the Senate Amnesty Bill are this immense, Dr. Friedman’s question should be modified to ask what the halfway point is between a solution and a disaster.

The Senate Amnesty Bill is a disaster. The CBO says that it doesn’t stop illegal immigration, meaning that the Republicans who voted for the Senate bill voted for a bill that will cause us to revisit the issue 5-7 years from now.

If I were advising House Republicans on this issue, I’d advise them to highlight the failure of the Senate bill to fix the problem. I’d send Speaker Boehner and Rep. Trey Gowdy out daily to any TV news program to talk about the need for a real solution. I’d have them pick a fight with Chuck Schumer, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. I’d have them ask why they support a bill that doesn’t fix the problem.

It’s really that simple.

As I write this, Republicans are playing the role they often play: that of the timid, unprincipled party. They’re doing a terrible job negotiating the immigration bill. It’s time for them to tell Sen. Schumer that there won’t be a bill unless the fence is built. Yesterday, Sen. Schumer lied through his teeth when he said that building a fence “might take years and years and years.” A double fence doesn’t take long to build once there’s a will to do it.

Republicans should run from this bill. Instead, they’re giving platitude-filled speeches on the subject:

Sen. Marco Rubio stayed away from specific immigration reform policies during a talk Thursday, reiterating that America must be recognized as an exemplary nation that welcomes those seeking freedom they don’t have in their home countries.

“What we have is special,” Rubio said. “Every single human life is worthy of the protection of our values. Who else will do it if not us?”

The Florida Republican also appealed to America’s religious heritage, asserting that as the “salt of the earth,” the United States has a duty to be compassionate to the less-fortunate.

That’s pretty sounding Unfortunately, that isn’t what’s needed. What’s needed is for Republicans to tell Sen. Schumer that the bill isn’t going anywhere without guaranteed border security. If Sen. Schumer replies that it’s impossible to do with this bill, Republicans’ response should immediately be that it’s never impossible to build things like fences.

If Republicans vote for this immigration bill, they’ll be the minority party for a generation. They will have shown themselves to be as unprincipled as Democrats. Not as corrupt but as unprincipled.

At this point, they aren’t engaged in negotiations. They’re engaged in taking orders from Sen. Schumer. They’re frightened that the media and the DNC will paint them as mean-spirited, rigid ideologues. They shouldn’t worry about that. Democrats will paint them that way regardless of what happens.

As for Sen. Rubio, he should be ashamed. If he asserted himself on the fence, he’d win that negotiation. He isn’t asserting himself, which is why Republicans appear to be on the verge of signing onto another bad bill. If he doesn’t assert himself on that specific issue, he’ll never be president.

The bottom line is that no bill is better than a bill that doesn’t build a fence. The bottom line is that Republicans hurt themselves when they’re seen as being unprincipled. That’s what they look like now.

It’s obvious that Ryan Winkler is either the most ignorant, loud-mouthed DFL legislator or he’s totally dishonest. Rep. Winkler tweeted this during Thursday night’s speeches:

First time tuning in to RNC. Romney speech seems fine but it occurs to me GOP wants to go back to Founders: white, male property owners.

I believe Rep. Winkler when he said that Thursday night was his “first night tuning into the RNC” because he doesn’t have a clue about the racial and ethnic diversity within the GOP. Chuck Todd appreciates the GOP’s diversity:

Anyone who watched this convention knows that the GOP is filled with tons of talented newcomers and that there’s tons of diversity within this group of newcomers. Brian Sandoval and Susana Martinez wowed crowds with their speeches. That they’re Hispanic just adds to their appeal with the general public. Add them to Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley, the first governors of Indian descent, and it’s pretty obvious that the GOP is a principled big tent political party.

That’s before talking about soon-to-be US Senator-Elect Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. That’s before talking about rising rock star Mia Love, who should defeat Jim Matheson in Utah’s 4th District.

Had Rep. Winkler paid attention to the delegates in the hall, he would’ve seen a hugely diverse crowd. It’ll be difficult for the Democrats to be more diverse than the GOP’s delegates.

The TEA Party has helped grow, not to mention energize, the conservative movement. They’ve attracted men and women into the movement. Apparently, the TEA Party’s principles of limited, constitutional, government resonates with people of all ethnic, racial and religious backgrounds.

Rep. Winkler hasn’t figured it out that ABM’s charicature of the TEA Party doesn’t match reality. The Left’s charicature of the TEA Party isn’t even close to reality.

When it comes to the national stage, the so-called party of diversity are more like the Neanderthal Party. Their image of the GOP is severely outdated.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Senate Democrats plan on pushing legislation that would invalidate SB1070, the Arizona immigration law. Today starts the SCOTUS oral arguments for the Arizona law. They’d only push this legislation if the SCOTUS validates it as constitutional.

“If the court upholds the Arizona law, Congress can make it clear that what Arizona is doing goes beyond what the federal government and what Congress ever intended,” Schumer said in an interview.

He called the Arizona law an “assault on the domain of the federal government” that Congress will need to address if the court allows it to stand.

What a windbag. If the Supreme Court rules in Arizona’s favor, they will have ruled that Arizona didn’t change or set federal immigration laws. They will have ruled that they acted within the framework of federal immigration laws.

As for SB1070 being toxic to Hispanic voters, that might be true. However, it’s wildly popular with voters who don’t already lean Democrat. Simply put, this isn’t a winning issue for Democrats.

It’s just a situation where they please one demographic group but piss off a different demographic group. Since the group that Democrats would piss off is significantly bigger than the Hispanic group, it’s a net loss for the Democrats.

I’d recommend that vulnerable Senate Republicans vote for the bill so they’re protected against future ads. I’d then tell Republicans occupying strong GOP seats to defeat the bill.

I’d then instruct the House to not bring the bill up for consideration. Once that happens, the bill dies quietly.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Earlier this week, Rush Limbaugh called President Obama a “debt man walking.” Based on the statistics Karl Rove put together, I’d contend that, politically speaking, he’s a dead man walking, too:

As of August 7, the president’s approval number is down 28 points with independents (to 34% rating), 27 points with college graduates (to
42%), 26 points with women (to 43%) and with those who live in the Midwest (to 39%), 25 points with young voters (to 50%) and 23 points with points
with Hispanics (to 51%).

That means President Obama’s support has dropped with each key constituent group from 2008. That’s before factoring in turnout rates, which political experts expect to decline from 2008.

Putting approval rating statistics together with declining turnout rates and you’ve got a recipe for an electoral disaster for President Obama and the Democrats.

If President Obama wants to win back these individuals, he must do more than just talk about jobs and the economy when he goes on his Midwest bus tour next week. He had better start showing real leadership or he risks losing those them for good.

With people already being anxious over high unemployment and stagnant economic growth, people aren’t in a cut-him-some-slack mood. They’re getting more impatient by the day. That’s why I’m not certain he hasn’t lost these voters already.
People who’ve paid any amount of attention know that President Obama isn’t into listening and taking advice from advisors. He’s got too big of an ego for that. They know he won’t change because he hasn’t changed thus far.

If he won’t change after his policies have failed thus far, why should people think that he’ll change now that the 2012 election is getting closer?

Whether people look at these polling statistics, President Obama’s struggles in key battleground states that he breezed through last year, or whether they look at President Obama’s job approval ratings, it still says the same thing, that he’s heading for a humiliating defeat.

November, 2012 can’t get here soon enough.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

During a townhall meeting last Friday, Sen. Jon Kyl said that President Obama told him that enforcing Arizona’s border would give Republicans less incentive to work with him on amnesty comprehensive immigration reform. According to this article, the fight between the Obama administration and Sen. Kyl has gone thermonuclear:

The White House denied the claim on Monday.

“The president didn’t say that and Senator Kyl knows it,” White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a written statement. “There are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the president has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system.”

But Kyl’s office stood by the senator’s account. Kyl spokesman Ryan Patmintra said, “There were two people in that meeting, and Dan Pfieffer was not one of them.” He said Pfeiffer’s call for comprehensive immigration legislation “only confirms” Kyl’s story.

While Obama has pledged to send an influx of National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, Kyl said in the clip that the president made clear to him that border security is just a political tool in the broader goal of passing an immigration package through Congress.

The facts speak for themselves. Sending 1,200 National guard troops is a photo op deployment. It isn’t a deployment aimed at stopping the drug cartels’ reign of violence in Phoenix. If the Obama administration was serious about stopping the violence, they would’ve sent 10,000 troops and they would’ve gone on the offensives against the drug cartels.

The violence won’t stop until this administration starts making the drug cartels pay a heavy price for their illegal activities.

With this escalation, it’s clear that this administration got stung by Sen. Kyl’s statements. If they weren’t having an effect, they wouldn’t say a word.

UPDATE: I participated in a blogger conference call with Sen. Orrin Hatch Monday afternoon. The call first focused on Sen. Hatch’s two bills to repeal the individual and employer mandates from Obamacare. Nonetheless, I was able to ask Sen. Hatch about the immigration standoff between Sen. Kyl and the Obama administration.

Specifically, I asked if the statistics on continued violence in Phoenix didn’t prove Sen. Kyl’s case. Clearly energized, Sen. Hatch said that the statistics and the continued violence indeed proved that this administration wasn’t doing its duties.

Sen. Hatch then said that the 1,200 people being deployed to our southern border wasn’t even serious, saying that he did’t even think Sen. McCain’s request for 6,000 National Guard troops probably still wasn’t enough.

In my followup, I asked Sen. Hatch if the 1,200 troops weren’t just “photo op troops” designed to take some political pressure off President Obama. Sen. Hatch said that that’s exactly their intent.

Expect this fight to intensify because Sen. Kyl is fighting to protect Arizonans and President Obama has too much to lose in this fight.

SIDENOTE: If there’s a battle between President Obama and Sen. Kyl over who’s more credible, this isn’t a fair fight. Sen. Kyl’s history is filled with honesty and measured statements whereas President Obama’s brief presidential history is filled with important broken promise after another. This isn’t a fight President Obama can win.

This administration’s best bet is to retreat. If this administration picks a fight against Sen. Kyl, they’ll hurt Democrats nationwide. They’ll force Democrats to decide between running away from this administation or suffer humiliating defeats.

That’s a foolish strategic ploy if ever I heard of one.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Rep. Keith Ellison has a habit of branding his opponents as fascists. This past weekend, Rep. Ellison was at it again, this time calling the Arizona law “a fascist, racist law“:

The Minneapolis congressman said Congress urgently needs to pass immigration reform in light of Arizona’s new law giving police more rights to detain people whom they suspect are in the country illegally. Borrowing a word normally reserved for Tea Party protests these days, Ellison called the law “fascist.”

“The fact is that we have to fight against these repressive laws in Arizona,” Ellison said. “They want to say that everybody is a criminal. They will stop anybody. We’ve got to stop these fascist, racist laws [inaudibule].”

I expected this from Rep. Ellison because he’s a reliable mouthpiece for the Democrats’ spin even if what he’s saying is utter nonsense and not based in the truth. First things first: Rep. Ellison should invest in a good dictionary and use it daily. Here’s Dictionary.com’s definition of fascist:

A reactionary or dictatorial person.

That definition exposes Rep. Ellison’s mischaracterization of Arizona’s law. I’m fairly certain that Rep. Ellison’s mischaracterization was intentional because a lawyer who’s read the law would know that Arizona’s law prohibits racial profiling.

Rep. Ellison’s mischaracterization might also be to deflect attention from the real problem, which is that the federal government’s border enforcement efforts have been pathetic at best.

Let’s hear Rep. Ellison explain how passing new laws will eliminate or even marginally reduce the violence currently happening in Arizona. Let’s hear Rep. Ellison explain why the laws currently on the books aren’t sufficient to stop the rampant violence in Arizona.

Most importantly, let’s hear Rep. Ellison explain why Democrats take campaign contributions, and marching orders, from NCLR, an organization committed to open borders policies.

Is Rep. Ellison’s mischaracterization of the Arizona law intentional? Let’s consider what Pinal County, AZ, Sheriff Paul Babeu told Greta van Susteren about the dramatic uptick in violence in Arizona:

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. All right, what happened?

BABEU: Well, he was out there, found some actual backpacks of marijuana and some other suspicious activity. And now, this is a known corridor for smuggling not only of drugs but of illegals. And so he radioed back to dispatch to call for support, and he continued to track the direction because he’s highly skilled in this as a search-and-rescue deputy.

As he was pursuing these five; he didn’t have them in sight yet; they had realized that somebody was tracking them. And so they left the rear guard behind and took cover and concealment as our deputy approached. This last suspect, who was armed with an AK-47, popped up and started shooting at our deputy, who was in uniform. They clearly knew he was an officer of the law.

And our deputy engaged. He had not only his handgun that he emptied the magazine, he also had his AR-15, which is a semi-automatic rifle that we often carry. And he returned fire, and that’s when he was shot. And he believed that he hit one of the five suspects. There was two AK-47s and they had handguns, as well.

If that’s got your attention, it gets worse:

VAN SUSTEREN: Sheriff, was he alone? I mean, because — I mean, he was — was he out there by himself? You don’t mention anybody else.

BABEU: Yes, he was alone at that time, and this is often…

VAN SUSTEREN: Why? I mean, that’s — I mean…

BABEU: Well…

VAN SUSTEREN: I — you know, in the streets of D.C., where it’s a little different than the desert of Arizona…

BABEU: Yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: … the officers work in tandem because of the great danger. And I’m surprised to hear an officer would be or a deputy sheriff would be alone.

BABEU: We haven’t seen this type of aggressive posture against law enforcement before in our county, and this is where it’s reached a level that it is truly concerning, not only to be outgunned, the fact that they would ambush a deputy. This hasn’t happened before.

So now I’ve given direction to all of my deputies that if they’re out in remote areas and they’re doing tracking such as this that there’s at least two deputies. And they’re always to be highly armed with their AR-15, as well as their sidearm, and for us to have other deputies in the area.

So this was something that was highly unusual. We’re not a border county. We’re several counties away, and we’re the last county before, which 80 percent of all the illegals who come into Arizona have to cross through our county. So this is what is most concerning in that we in law enforcement now, we have been calling for Senator McCain, Senator Kyl, for their plan to deploy 3,000 soldiers immediately to secure our border with Mexico.

That there are paramilitary units operating within the United States should shock every American’s senses and infuriate them, too.

Rep. Ellison surely knows that we don’t need additional laws on the books to act against paramilitary units operating within the United States. Rep. Ellison surely knows that we’ve got sufficient laws to prosecute paramilitary units operating within the United States who are committing acts of violence.

Then again, Rep. Ellison has a habit of coddling violent criminals, criminals like Kathleen Soliah and others:

In 2000 he spoke at a fundraiser for longtime fugitive Kathleen Soliah, aka Sara Jane Olson. The text of his speech was posted on a website, www.soliah.com, by Minneapolis resident Greg Lang.

Ellison praised Soliah for “fighting for freedom.” At the time, she faced charges of planting pipe bombs under two Los Angeles police cars as a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, a paramilitary organization whose slogan was “Death to the fascist insect that preys on the life of the people.” Soliah pleaded guilty in 2001. In 2002 she also pleaded guilty to the murder of Myrna Opsahl, a bank customer shot by another SLA member during a holdup. She’s now serving a long prison sentence.

But Ellison’s call to the crowd was broader than a plea to aid Soliah. “We need to come together and free…all the Saras,” he proclaimed.

It’s common knowledge in Minnesota that Rep. Ellison didn’t hesitate in defending Kathleen Soliah’s murder of Myrna Opsahl and the planting of pipe bombs in L.A. Forgive me if I discount Rep. Ellison’s use of the term fascism. It isn’t the first time he’s intentionally used incendiary language.

The nation is reaching a consensus that goes against the Progressive Democrats’ doctrine: that we must secure the border and eliminate the drug cartel-related violence that’s being perpetrated in Arizona. We don’t need new laws for that, just a president who’s willing to get serious about enforcing existing laws.

Unfortunately, thanks to enablers like Rep. Keith Ellison, we don’t have one of those right now.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative