Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger plans to furlough state workers an additional day each month starting in July if lawmakers do not send him an immediate solution for the entire $24 billion budget deficit, he said Friday.
Fair enough -- if he can't fire them and they won't accept a pay cut, but there isn't enough money, they get to work less.
Schwarzenegger's move would force at least 215,000 state workers to take three unpaid days of leave each month, the equivalent of a 14 percent pay cut in all. A third furlough day would strike another economic blow to the Sacramento region, where more than 80,000 area residents work for the state.
The Republican governor framed the additional furlough day as an effort to preserve cash as the state faces the prospect of issuing IOUs starting Thursday to vendors and low-income disabled and elderly residents.
"It's clear that if the Legislature does not send a full budget solution to my desk by June 30, California will face an extreme cash-flow problem that will threaten our ability to pay for vital services," Schwarzenegger said in a statement. "I cannot force the Legislature to act, so I must do what is in my power as governor to conserve cash so that the state can continue to operate."
The state would save about $61 million in cash in July alone with an additional furlough day -- and $184 million with all three days of unpaid leave, according to the Department of Finance.
But Hallye Jordan, spokeswoman for Democratic state Controller John Chiang, said the cash shortage for July is currently pegged at $2.78 billion, and that the savings from one day's furlough would not provide enough savings to avoid having to issue IOUs in July.
Every little bit helps.
State employees would schedule the third furlough day, like the other two, on their own, said Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear.
The Legislature and the state judiciary are exempt from the governor's furlough plan because they are separate branches of state government. An estimated 15,000 employees who work for constitutional officers, such as Chiang or Attorney General Jerry Brown, also have avoided furloughs because the question of whether Schwarzenegger can compel them to do so is tied up in court.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/28/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11134 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
While most other (local) governments in CA had staff-level freezes, the State has been hiring up until a couple months ago, anticipating the voters would stupidly approve those five lying propositions raising taxes. The sheeple actually shot em down overwhelmingly. Things are changing here, for the better, and if the Reps can hold out, this will be a Rahm-type crisis: don't waste it
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/28/2009 9:51 Comments ||
Top||
#5
And if the Big O tries a Fed bailout of the state, there will be a sh*tstorm. I would not put it past him to do something, thinly disguised.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/28/2009 13:50 Comments ||
Top||
#6
if the Big O tries a Fed bailout of the state, there will be a sh*tstorm. The Big 0 can do no wrong, blame can be shifted to his non-supporters somehow.
Congress has yet to come up with a clear prescription for the nation's health care system. But some state legislators are already urging voters not to take the medicine.
Under Arizona's Health Care Freedom Act, which was passed by the state legislature this week, a voting initiative will be placed on the 2010 ballot that, if passed, will allow the state to opt out of any federal health care plan. Five other states -- Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming -- are considering similar initiatives for their 2010 ballots.
"Our health care freedoms are very much at risk by health care reforms proposed in Washington, D.C.," said Arizona state Rep. Nancy Barto, the Republican legislator who sponsored the measure. "We needed to act as a state to protect our citizens and ensure that they will always be able to buy their own health care and not be forced into a plan they don't want."
But an opponent of the bill, state Rep. Phil Lopes, says the measure has less to do with individual freedom and more to do with the protecting the status quo. "The proponents of this are saying the system we have now works and we don't want any kind of reform," the Democratic legislator said. "This flies in the face of what the public tells us they want."
Not so, says Christine Herrera, director of the Health and Human Services Task Force for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The group's 1,800 state legislator members have endorsed a resolution opposing a Medicare-modeled federal health plan and a national health insurance exchange, two concepts that are gaining ground in Washington.
"Our state legislatures are looking at what's going on in Washington as trampling state's rights," Herrera says.
Some state legislators say they worry that a government-mandated program will effectively eliminate their traditional role in regulating health insurers -- an important power base. Others raise constitutional concerns. "The real goal of national health insurance exchange isn't competition -- it's a federal power grab that flies in the face of the Tenth Amendment," says Wisconsin state Rep. Leah Vukmir, a Republican.
The Tenth Amendment ensures that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It's the same constitutional roadblock Franklin D. Roosevelt ran into during the Great Depression when he tried to ram through the first round of recovery programs under the New Deal. In a series of rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court found the National Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act and several other recovery programs unconstitutional.
But constitutional scholars say it's unlikely history will repeat itself with health care reform efforts. "It's hard to imagine Congress passing anything that would be plausibly challengeable under the Tenth Amendment, but it's certainly theoretically possible," said Paul Bender, professor of constitutional law at Arizona State University. He said Congress has broad powers to regulate interstate commerce, which would include something as big as health care.
But Bender also said he sees a striking similarity between the current makeup of the Supreme Court and the "Nine Old Men" who stymied FDR's sweeping reform efforts in the 1930s. "Both sets of jurists seem to share a belief that the balance of power has shifted too far in favor of Congress at the expense of the states," Bender said.
Some state lawmakers who oppose President Obama's efforts to implement a national health care plan say the inevitable result will be socialized medicine. "The public plan and national health insurance exchange will squeeze out private insurance and put us on the road to single-payer health care," warns Georgia state Sen. Judson Hill, a Republican.
"Having the public plan now will mean socialized medicine later," he said.
Hill and other state legislators expressed concerns that millions of people will drop their private coverage if there is political pressure to keep a public plan's premiums low and benefits high. And if private insurers leave the market, they say, consumers will essentially be left with no choice of plans and no control over how their health care dollars are spent.
"Pure speculation," says Lopes. "In 1964 this was the same argument insurance companies made with President Lyndon Johnson when he proposed Medicare. Medicare did not do away with private insurance companies. They did very well."
"Protecting the rights of individuals to be in control of their health and health care must be a fundamental component of health care reform," says Dr. Erick Novack, chairman of Arizonans for Health Care Freedom, which promoted the state's ballot measure. "We are confident that the people of Arizona will vote to ensure their own rights."
With a constitutional challenge to health care reform problematic at best, that vote may turn out to be largely symbolic. But for now, that doesn't seem to be stopping other states from following Arizona's lead.
#1
Years ago I "opted out" of the public education systems for our children, but that did NOT prevent me from having to pay the bloody property taxes for the corrupt, unionized, jobs-for-life systems and "free" nanny state breakfasts and lunches for the broods of others. No regrets regarding my decision however. None at all.
#2
Besoeker - we did the same thing with our youngest daughter from third to sixth grade. We also supplemented her education once she returned to public schools. It seems to have worked pretty well for her. She at least has read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, something most children (or adults) haven't done.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
06/28/2009 16:54 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Yep state "health-care" can best be thought of as the nationalisation of the bodies of everyone in the country.
Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) had a few choice words about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) landmark climate-change bill after its passage Friday. When asked why he read portions of the cap-and-trade bill on the floor Friday night, Boehner told The Hill, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s--t."
Using his privilege as leader to speak for an unlimited time on the House floor, Boehner spent an hour reading from the 1200-plus page bill that was amended 20 hours before the lower chamber voted 219-212 to approve it. Eight Republicans voted with Democrats to pass the bill; 44 House Democrats voted against it.
Pelosi's office declined to comment on Boehner's jab. But one Democratic aide quipped, "What do you expect from a guy who thinks global warming is caused by cow manure?"
Even though Sen. Majorty Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) holds the bill's fate in his hands, House Republicans intend to hammer Speaker Pelosi's signature climate-change measure over recess. And GOP Conference Chairman Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.) said "we have only just begun to fight" as he left the Capitol Friday night.
Pence encouraged GOP rank-and-file lawmakers to hold energy summits in their districts over the Independence Day recess. In the recess packets sent home with members, he even included directions on how to organize energy summits. The goal of holding an energy forum is to "educate your constituents about the Democrats' national energy tax legislation and let them know what 'all of the above' solution you support." "All of the above" solution is a reference to the Republicans' plan that would increase the use of and exploration for domestic energy supplies. Further, officials with the House GOP's campaign arm, the National Republican Congressional Committee, confirm that they will run with paid media over recess in districts of conservative Dems who voted for the bill. The official would not reveal details on the ad buys at this time.
One Democrat was upset that his leaders would needlessly force vulnerable Dems to vote for a bill that will come back to haunt them. Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor (D) voted against the measure that he says will die in the Senate. "A lot of people walked the plank on a bill that will never become law," Taylor told The Hill after the gavel came down.
#2
Typical Pelosi thug tactics for own ego and narcissistic pride before going to Copenhagen. The woman knows no sanity or care for anything but herself. How can California turn out such brain damaged or deficient idiots as Boxer, Taxman Waxman and Pelosi. That state deserves everything that is happening to them right now.
From my prior life experience in DC, this thing is DoA in the Senate. Think about the "Energy States" (WV, MT, CO, NM, VA, PA, IL) that have democratic senators. Then you know my rationale.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
06/28/2009 8:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It is a pile of shit, and it yet does not exist. They voted on a concept as the finished bill is still not prepared.
#13
I suppose that hunting them for sport is out of the question.
LAWYERS FIRST, then open season on Donks and lawyers (Double points if the lawyer is also a donk)
Snark, or is it?
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
06/28/2009 15:38 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Everyone should read John Boehner's blog on a regular basis. The man is a breath of fresh air in the putrid cesspool that is Washington, DC. Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are doing everything they can to destroy this nation as a free, independent one. We need to stand up to them any way we can. I do NOT recommend shooting them - that's how we ended up with LBJ's "Great Society" following the death of John Kennedy. We should do everything in our power to make them look ridiculous. Ridicule is a much more viable weapon against these pieces of steaming bovine fecal matter than a bullet. A bullet IS quicker, but the possible fallout is just too much to consider at the moment.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
06/28/2009 16:14 Comments ||
Top||
#17
We must not make the mistake of confidence that the Senate will be a bulwark against this horror. And on the heels of it will come another legislative triangulation, Immigration Reform (amnesty) and another confrontation in the foreign policy arena to conflict the news/propaganda media and the Fox network and talk radio. Zero and his fellow travellers don't give a farthing about actual foreign policy except the popularity contests, it is merely a way to distract the rubes while they drive another stake through the heart of their hated homeland.
WAKE UP fellow citizens, we MUST stop these people by harnessing white-hot anger and public protests. I mean, huge, street filling protests in WAshington, D.C. demanding resignations, and we must wage all out lawfare against these threats to our nation and our way of life. Injunctions and grand jury work regarding malfeasance in office. How can you not be charged with passing a trillion dollar tax bill you haven't read?
#18
How can you not be charged with passing a trillion dollar tax bill you haven't read? It's not illegal for a congressperson to pass a law he/sheit hasn't read. They've been doing that for many years. Shtupid, but not illegal.
#19
I'd like to get Judicial Watch to sue the Federal Government (especially Congress) for criminal fraud, since the evidence from the last ten years shows that carbon dioxide has such a miniscule effect on "climate change" that it can be ignored completely. Maybe they can name "The science is settled" Gore as a co-conspirator.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
06/28/2009 16:44 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Voting to approve without reading is the height of smuggery. On Friday however, the filthy buggers graduated to passing UNFINISHED legislation.
#21
I suppose that hunting them for sport is out of the question.
I'm to the point where I have almost no problem w/American citizens doing this. I'm coming to a personal impasse - I'm sworn to support & defend the U.S. Const vs all enemies (foreign & domestic) but yet the people who make the laws and are subject to the same oath violate it routinely. At some point Atlas needs to shrug. Gov't keeps growing, taxes keep growing, elected officials do nothing to protect the integrity of our borders. Big gov't is in bed w/big money. Corruption & nepotism is daily business on the hill. Our Founders would roll over if they saw this. I hate to say this - but if these fools keep over reaching - the threat of voting them out might not be enough.
#22
Not that it really matters but there are hundreds of meteorologists, atmospheric scientists, and climate scientists who work for the feds who cannot speak out against the AGW scam, for fear of being disciplined.
The mystery of who revealed Gov. Mark Sanford's e-mail messages may finally be solved. A business associate of Mr. Sanford's Argentine mistress said Friday that private messages between the two lovers had been sent anonymously to a South Carolina newspaper last December by an Argentine man the mistress had briefly dated.
Last December, the executive said, Ms. Chapur was dating a young Argentine a few months after her affair with Mr. Sanford began. The man happened to see the e-mail messages being exchanged between the governor and Ms. Chapur, said the executive -- who said he had direct knowledge of the situation -- and hacked into her e-mail account to see the rest.
Infuriated, the man sent the messages to The State, the newspaper in South Carolina's capital, Columbia.
The scorned man! It always works out that way, men are such sensitive brutes ...
Yes they are, the little darlings.
When she found out, the executive said, Ms. Chapur immediately ended the relationship with the man, whose identity has not been disclosed.
In one of the published messages, dated July 9, 2008, Ms. Chapur wrote Mr. Sanford that she had seen another man. "He is a very nice guy, great heart," she wrote, "but unfortunately I am not in love with him. You are my love. Something hard to believe even for myself as it's also a kind of impossible love, not only because of distance but situation."
In publishing the e-mail messages this week, The State said they had been sent anonymously. Asked on Friday about the executive's account of the source of the messages, Steve Brook, the managing editor, said he had no comment, adding only, "That's interesting." Joel Sawyer, the governor's spokesman, also had no comment.
Ms. Chapur did not respond to messages left on her cellphone.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/28/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11131 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What ebbs the fastest - Sanford, Iranian protests, MJ or Crap and Trade? I suspect it is Sanford followed closely by Iran and hopefully Crap and Trade in September. MJ will [ according to American short attention span for anything relevant and important to their lives ] live on forever right next to Elvis.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
06/28/2009 8:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Why'd the paper sit on the letters for six months?
#3
Waiting for confirmation. They needed a second source. That turned out to be the governor himself, when they photographed him at the Atlanta airport getting off a plane that had landed from Buenos Aires.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/28/2009 10:15 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Second source? Seems like sometimes the papers don't even wait for a first source.
Reporting from Phoenix -- In recent years, the onset of summer in Phoenix meant two things -- triple-digit temperatures and a budget battle between the Republican-dominated Legislature, which regularly pushed to cut taxes, and Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, who pushed to maintain them to save or expand services.
In January, Napolitano moved to Washington to become secretary of Homeland Security, and Jan Brewer, a staunch fiscal conservative who was then Arizona's secretary of state, took her spot. "We thought, we've got a friendly face in the governor's office and we'll be able to do some good things," said Bob Burns, president of the state Senate.
It didn't work out that way.
Instead, Brewer called for a hike in the sales tax to preserve essential services, and the Legislature and the governor became enmeshed in what many call the nastiest fiscal fight in Arizona history.
Republican lawmakers refused to send Brewer a budget that she has signaled she would veto. Instead, they tried to delay until the end of the fiscal year -- June 30 -- when she would either have to sign it or shut down the government.
Brewer sued Burns and Kirk Adams, the speaker of the Arizona House, to force them to send her the budget, but the Arizona Supreme Court ruled against her this week. On Friday afternoon, the governor and legislative leaders announced an agreement that would basically kick the debate over to the voters, asking them to approve Brewer's $1-billion, three-year tax increase in November.
"It's a really interesting trap for the GOP here," said Earl DeBerge, a Phoenix-based nonpartisan pollster. "They have been so die-hard on shrinking government and shrinking taxes, they couldn't foresee that there's a minimal level of government required."
Posted by: Fred ||
06/28/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"They have been so die-hard on shrinking government and shrinking taxes, they couldn't foresee that there's a minimal level of government required."
How, how did the country and people survived for two hundred years without a lot of 'minimal government'? There's a lot that have become 'essential' that never existed 50 years ago or 30 years ago. Just go back to those budgets and see what was funded and what was not. At the same time check the number of administrative layers that existed between the mayor or governor and the cop, teacher, fireman, or street/road repairman, then and now.
#2
I suggest they go through the record and look at legislation that has been passed over the past 20 years. Starting with the most recent, start repealing it.
But the one thing is going to be prison populations. Since three-strikes laws came into being US prison populations have soared. That is the one thing that is different than before ... the larger percentage of the population in prison, and the one place they are not going to be able to do much cutting.
#3
US prison populations have soared Most if not all state chief executives have the power to commute/pardon/kick prisoners out of prisons, and the power is not reviewable. I don't know whether or not the public would be endangered by releasing any of the nonviolent offenders. It's interesting that there has been zero discussion of this anywhere.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) would like to amend that little joke he made earlier this week about Sarah Palin when he said he wished it had been the Alaska governor who had gone missing instead of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.
"Too bad, if a governor had to go missing, it couldn't have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin," Kerry told a group of civic and business leaders on Tuesday, according to the Boston Herald. That, of course, was before he and the rest of us learned Sanford had lost himself in Argentina with his secret mistress.
Conservative women rushed to Palin's defense after the Kerry joke. Ethel Fenig at American Thinker wrote, "Tee hee! Letterman, Kerry -- all afraid of strong, independent women! Kerry should find a job with David Letterman -- who would miss him?"
Kerry's spokeswoman now tells The Sleuth the senator really didn't mean what he said, though his clarification would hardly qualify as an apology.
"We stand corrected, the truth is every Democrat hopes Governor Palin is in the public eye for a long, long time, especially on the 2012 presidential ballot," Kerry spokeswoman Jodi Seth says. "Lately it's been Vice President Cheney that everyone hopes would lose the cameras and go for a long leisurely hike on the Appalachian Trail. And good grief, if anyone thinks John Kerry is afraid of strong, smart women, they sure haven't met his brilliant wife and two independent daughters. It sounds like getting crushed these last two election cycles cost some of these Republicans their sense of humor."
Posted by: Fred ||
06/28/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11141 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
To Kerry, brilliant == rich.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
06/28/2009 1:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Clarify all you want, John, but Sarah wins this round with her "John Kerry, why the long face?" snark.
#7
Yes, he was in fact there. There long enuf, by his own admission, to shoot a wounded enemy combatant to death with his Colt 1911. Hell of a man he is. Hell of a man.
#8
Don't overlook the shock factor here - who knew there was something more humorless than Sen. Kerry? Sen. Kerry explaining and clarifying a joke lowers the bar. Hard to believe.
Nah, you're thinking of that movie "Pork Lips Now" where John goes upriver to hunt for Marlin Brando around the Cambodian border. On the way, John and his little dog Toto stop off to see the Great Wizard who gives him a magic hat. Too bad he never found Marlin (or a great white whale!), he coulda been President by now.
Democratic leaders in the U.S. House were scrounging for votes Friday to pass a controversial global-warming bill, and U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Orlando, was willing to deal.
The result?
In exchange for his vote, Grayson got assurances from Democratic leaders that they would support his efforts to build a new $50 million hurricane-research center in Central Florida. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi got a 219-212 victory on the bill. "This is a home run," Grayson said.
The $50 million storm center is likely the result of a $5,000 campaign contribution. How cheap our politicians are in the end ...
But construction of the hurricane facility is hardly guaranteed.
First, the bill must pass the more-cautious Senate and survive negotiations between the two chambers before it can be signed into law by President Barack Obama. Given the costs of capping carbon emissions and coming up with alternative-energy sources for electricity -- the Congressional Budget Office estimates at least $175 per household a year -- the fight will be fierce.
Indeed, 44 Democrats voted against the bill Friday night, despite intense lobbying by Obama and other Democratic leaders.
Even if the bill does become law, the pledge Grayson extracted remains the legislative equivalent of an IOU. On the House floor before the vote, the hurricane center simply was called a "priority" by the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
"I think it's a very worthwhile project. I look forward to working on it and making it a priority as the legislative process moves along," said U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, the California Democrat who sponsored the bill.
According to Waxman, the center could be constructed with funds aimed at helping states "study and adapt to climate change," money that would not be available until 2012 at the earliest. The hurricane center is "among the type of activities that would be eligible to receive funding," he said.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/28/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11133 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This guy Grayson is a one termer. I live in Florida near his district and he got in by campaigning as a reformer but has shown his true colors. Neal Cavuto ate him for a late lunch and spit him out challenging his constitutional authority to regulate the pay and compensation of the financial industry. He was no match for Neal or for anyone with an 8th grade education who decides to run against him.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
06/28/2009 8:13 Comments ||
Top||
#2
There must have been a lot of Dems and RINOS who sold themselves out for 20 pieces of silver for this piece of sh*t bill. Judas on a national scale.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/28/2009 13:55 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Not my congress critter, but Grayson runs TV ads telling all Central Florida what a good job he is doing. I'm sure he'll run an ad telling us to thank him for all the green jobs he created.
The House just passed the sweeping carbon tax bill commonly known as Waxman-Markey by the thinnest of margins, 219-212. Right-leaning groups felt very strongly about the measure and pulled out all sorts of stops to get Republicans in line against it.
Those efforts, and those of the House GOP leadership, worked for the most part except for 8 Republicans, most of whom are likely to face significant pressure from the base for their vote. They are as follows: Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Mike Castle, Mark Steven Kirk (Ill.), Leonard Lance (NJ), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), John McHugh (NY), Dave Reichert (Washington), Chris Smith (NJ).
I want to know the names of the forty-four Democrats who crossed the line to vote with the Republicans against their party's bill. Especially if they are in strongly Democratic districts, these Representatives deserve our support.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/28/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
cap and traitors.
Vote the ones that voted for this insanity out. We may have no GOP at the end of it all, but we may sleep at night. Until they rustle us up and take us in for disent.
#3
The Republican Nay votes are all RINO/Country Club Republican districts without any "energy interests". Probably not a lot of heavy industry either that will be affected. It is all meaningless since I just cannot see the senate voting for this thing that I now call an Obamanation.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
06/28/2009 8:17 Comments ||
Top||
#4
#3 The Republican Nay votes are all RINO/Country Club Republican districts without any "energy interests".
But what was the payoff? John Boehner needs to take the gloves off and expose these Judas' publically.
The Obama administration on Friday named America's first ever special representative to Muslim communities. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday named Farah Pandith as the United States Special Representative to Muslim Communiites. Pandit is expected to engage with Muslims around the world on a grassroots and organizational level.
Until she's told to put on a burqa and shut up ...
"I am pleased to announce the appointment of Farah Pandith to serve as Special Representative to Muslim Communities," Clinton said. "Farah brings years of experience to the job, and she will play a leading role in our efforts to engage Muslims around the world."
Pandith, a State Department veteran and former official at the U.S. Agency for International Development, was an immigrant to the United States from India.
They're going to send an Indian female to the Arab world? That's almost as bad, even if she is Muslim, as sending a Jew or an African-American. Either somebody in State is seriously tone deaf, or they really want to ram home the idea that such moldy old ideas die in America... and if Muslims want to succeed in the larger world we represent, they'll have to give up such ideas.
"She has said that she sees her personal experience as an illustration of how Muslim immigrants to the US can successfully integrate themselves into American society," the State Department said of her Islamic faith. "She grew up in Massachusetts with a diversity of faiths, ethnicities and perspectives."
She has indeed succeeded until now. Let us hope, for the sake of the country she chose, that she continues to succeed in her new position.
If I thought this was a clever idea to push a Muslim, Indian woman into the Arab world to get them to recognize that they had to change and join the 21st century, I'd be impressed. Then I look at who's in charge, Bambi and the Hildebeast, and I don't think they're that clever.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/28/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) had a few choice words about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) landmark climate-change bill after its passage Friday. When asked why he read portions of the cap-and-trade bill on the floor Friday night, Boehner told The Hill, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s--t."
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) would like to amend that little joke he made earlier this week about Sarah Palin when he said he wished it had been the Alaska governor who had gone missing instead of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.
