California's New 'Sanctuary State ' Law

 

The State of California is putting the finishing touches on the “California Values Act." Essentially, this is California's New 'Sanctuary State ' Law. The new law, just vetted and passed by the California Assembly Judiciary Committee would prevent state and local law enforcement from cooperating in any way with federal immigration authorities.



State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon, (D-Los Angeles), is sponsoring the state senate version of the new law, Senate Bill 54 to fight what he called the “Trump Deportation Machine.”

Back in February when he was first crafting the bill, De Leon admitted in an interview with left wing public broadcasting station KPPC that, "half my family is here illegally" and using fake IDs, a felony under California and federal law:

"I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [President Donald Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB60, if they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members, you know, who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification. That’s what you need to survive, to work. They are eligible for massive deportation."

“Someone simply who received or purchased a [fraudulent] Social Security card down at MacArthur Park, or elsewhere in my district would be eligible immediately for mass deportation,”

And of course, with a fake Social security card or a fake green card, many illegal migrants can easily obtain social welfare benefits like welfare, SSI, food stamps, section 8 public housing, and MediCal, California's taxpayer funded free medical care. And of course, they can - and many do- also vote, especially since in California  it's established policy  in social welfare  departments and the state's voter registration office not to check things like immigration status too closely.

 

That last fact is a huge reason why De Leon and many of his fellow Democrats are going all out to protect illegal migrants from being deported. Believe me, if illegal migrants voted Republican, people like De Leon would be calling out the National Guard to conduct mass deportations, and the Border Wall would have been built a long time ago. The Democrats want the votes of this new 'constituency' and the campaign donations from donors who love the continued flow of cheap labor.

 “Under constitutional threats from the reckless Trump administration, SB 54 protects state and local law enforcement and resources necessary to keep our communities safe,” De Leon said. De Leon also claimed that "Arrests of undocumented immigrants with no previous criminal record are up 150 percent since Trump became president.”

We'll explore these falsehoods in a second.

Assemblywoman Eloise Gomez Reyes chimed in, saying the measure is necessary not just for California, but for the nation. “California must send a clear message that we will remain the last line of defense against the fear-mongering and xenophobia,” Reyes said. “Rather than addressing the failure of policy, the federal solution has been to demonize our immigrant communities.”

Hmm...if these people she's talking about are 'immigrants' rather than illegal migrants,  why ever would they need fake IDs? And why would public policy in California need to have such strict measures against inquiring as to someone's immigration status? But I digress. None of these politicians seem overly concerned about ID theft, voter fraud or respecting any existing laws that conflict with their political agenda.

Back on May 25 of this year, there was a raid in which ICE agents arrested 188 illegal immigrants in Los Angeles. But according to U.S. immigration officials, total numbers of arrests of illegal immigrants are relatively flat in California and somewhat lower than during the Obama administration. So De Leon's nonsense about the 'Trump deportation machine' is simply partisan horse manure.

Oh, and his other remarks about how SB54 keeps our communities safe? Let's see how California's New 'Sanctuary State ' Law does that.

Most of the illegal migrants arrested in the May 25 raids had ties to El Salvadoran prison gangs such as MS-13, one of the most vicious and violent gangs in America. Almost 90 percent had previous criminal records for a variety of crimes including drug offenses, domestic violence, DUI, sex crimes, battery, weapons violations, assault, burglary, fraud, vehicle theft, arson, cruelty to a child, robbery, obstructing justice, property damage, larceny, escape, manslaughter, prostitution, trespassing, incest, and receipt of stolen property.

 

Under SB 54, none of these individuals would be transferred to ICE after serving their sentences after they were tried and convicted for these offenses. The bill specifies “serious felonies” but doesn't include almost all of the ones listed above. Instead of being turned over to ICE for deportation, these criminals would simply be released into the very communities De Leon and his cohorts claim SB 54 would 'keep safe.'

The question of the bill's legality is interesting.

SB 54 was given a a constitutional legal sign-off written by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who was paid a large sum for his analysis and is still on the State of California's payroll as it's lawyer to defend California's sanctuary policies. The state's Democrat legislators chose to pay for Holder's analysis rather than rely on one prepared by the California legislature's Legislative Council.

As Assemblyman Kevin Kiley, (R-Rocklin) pointed out, Holder announced his approval of SB 54 just one day before announcing his intention to run for president in 2020. how convenient!

So what are the actual legal precedents for California's New 'Sanctuary State ' Law?

The Constitution is pretty clear on the subject. The 10th Amendment  states that those powers not claimed by the Federal government in the Constitution "are clearly  are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Control over immigration and naturalization, like the coining of money or foreign policy are expressly given to the Federal Government.

And legislation signed, ironically by none other than President Bill Clinton in the mid-1990s bars states from creating laws that restrict communication with federal law enforcement agencies.

Now there are also two recent decisions by the Supreme Court that ruled against Federal Law superseding state laws ( New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 [1992] and Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). Neither involved powers reserved constitutionally to the Federal government, since one involved the dumping of waste within a sovereign state's borders and the other involved a clear violation of the Second Amendment via the Brady Bill.

There are also a few judicial decisions at the lower federal level, creating precedents that the federal government cannot commandeer local law enforcement resources for the purpose of immigration enforcement. SB 54 deals with all cooperation with ICE including merely providing information on criminal illegal migrants. Do these decisions apply? The feds are not asking for the use of manpower or other resources to round up illegal migrants  but merely for basic cooperation by local law enforcement that SB 54 essentially blocks,

Given the effort, time and taxpayer dollars Democrats are willing to spend in protecting illegal migrants, even criminals from being deported, California's New 'Sanctuary State' Law will probably be headed to the Supreme Court if Governor Brown signs it and SB 54 becomes law.

Congress Overrules Obama Veto On State Sponsored Terrorism Bill

 

The U.S. congress with strong bi-partisan majorities overrode President Obama's veto of a bill that allows the families of American victims of terrorism to sue states that sponsor terrorist attacks. The catalyst behind the legislation was new evidence about Saudi complicity in the 9/11 attacks, and the bill would allow victims of those who were murdered sue the government of Saudi Arabia. Iran is also a likely target.

The vote in the senate was 97-1, and was led by Chuck Schumer(D-NY) who made an impassioned speech urging his fellow Democrats to vote to veto the bill. The one holdout was Harry Reid (D-Nevada)who is retiring from the Senate this year with his ill-gotten gains intact and a reputation of being the worst, most divisive Senate Majority leader in history. Vice presidential candidate Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) chose to skip out on the voting even though he was in town. Given his Muslim Brotherhood ties, I'm not surprised.

In the house, the vote was 348 to 77.

The argument against the bill was that it would allow other countries to retaliate and sue us. At a time when Iran is kidnapping hostages and holding them for ransom, that argument holds little water. And when it comes to the Saudis, Qatar and other nations in the region, they need us a lot more than we need them.

This is the first time President Barack Hussein Obama has ever been overruled.

Congress Sends Bill To Obama Allowing 9/11 Victims to sue the Saudis

 

The House approved legislation Friday by voice vote that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia, CBS News has confirmed.

The Senate passed the measure back in May, , which was sponsored by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Chuck Schumer, D-New York.

President Obama, of course opposes it and has threatened to veto the legislation. His reasoning? That if we start suing other countries, gee, they might sue us!

As if the United States was in the habit of financing attacks by our countrymen that kill 3,000 people.

But this president's attitude symbolizes something worth looking at.

This comes shortly before the 15th anniversary of 9/11, a day that changed our lives forever and has never been properly dealt with to see that it doesn't happen again. Our present government with it's talk of 'workplace accidents' and 'man-made disasters' government is obviously back in the pre 9/11 mindset, when the run up of mounting attacks before 9/11 like the first WTC bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and other incidents were pretty much ignored at worst or treated as a simple law enforcement problem at best. And unfortunately a number of Americans are in that same mindset.

It's plain to see what the results of that mindset are.

Both the Saudis and Iran were complicit in 9/11. It's time they were brought to account.

L.A. City Council Votes To Increase Unemployment, Destroy Tax Base

 

Ah, Lah Lah Land! While it's not quite the People's Republic yet, it's getting there fast, with a nice side order of corrupt banana republic.

Today,they voted 14-1 to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour, joining Seattle, San Francisco and several other municipalities:

Los Angeles became the largest US city to raise its minimum wage to $15 an hour on Tuesday, as a wage increase bill passed the city council by a vote of 14-1.

It is now up to city attorney Mike Feuer to draft an ordinance to implement the new minimum wage requirements. The ordinance will then return to the council for a final vote before becoming law. Under the proposed legislation, the city’s minimum wage would increase to $10.50 in July 2016, and would increase incrementally every year until it reaches $15 in July 2020. For small businesses with 25 or fewer employees, the wage hike would come on a modified schedule with the incremental increases starting in July 2017 and the minimum wage reaching $15 by July 2021.

The current minimum wage in California is $9 an hour and is set to increase to $10 in January 2016.

The one no vote might have come from this guy, who before getting into politics was L.A's no-nonsense police chief:

Council member Bernard Parks has previously expressed concern about $15 minimum wage leading to higher unemployment in the area.

“Every minimum wage increase that we’ve seen, if it’s too high, causes unemployment,” Parks told NPR in February. “If you have a big city like Los Angeles doing something, you’re going to find a lot of people will fall in line without any thought, because they believe that we’ve done the research. The fact is, we have not done the research.”

Proponents of the new law responded that they had done some research..from the Institute for Research on Labor Employment from University of California, Berkeley. And Berkeley, or Berserkely as we natives fondly refer to it, has a certain reputation in matters like these as some of you may know.

So, how will this new law effect Los Angeles? Believe it or not, a lot of the workers whom were egging the council on to pass this will end up far worse off.



The first thing that will happen is that lots of them will be fired. If you own a small business where you were paying people $12 an hour and you now are mandated to pay them $15 per hour so your bottom line costs go up 1/3, you'll either raise your prices (which will cut into your business), cut your work force by 1/3 or both. Or you'll move somewhere else.

San Francisco and Seattle, aside from their radical politics are both fairly small cities. San Francisco in particular is somewhat isolated on its little peninsula unless you take the ferries or pay toll to use the bridge, and it has the advantage of being a major tourist town. so it's a lot easier to get away with this there, to an extent.

Los Angeles isn't like that at all. It's a large, heavily populated area clustered with smaller, independently incorporated cities like Glendale, Burbank, Torrance and Calabasas.All of them are thriving because they've avoided L.A's ridiculous restrictions, costly permits and high taxes on business. The result is that when people start a business , lots of them do it outside Los Angeles unless it's something like a franchised fast food restaurant like a McDonald's where their location is mandated by the franchise. This does not do wonders for the city's tax base.

Next, the ones that still have jobs will be introduced to the wonders of unsubsidized ObamaCare and life without food stamps, section 8 rent subsidies or earned income credit refunds on their federal taxes, because they will no longer qualify for them.

And finally, those of them whom work at jobs where tips are a big part of their income can largely forget about that. In Seattle and San Francisco,the new normal is 'service charges' and no tips. In Seattle, the service charges are running a hefty 18.5% at restaurants like Ivar's and the Whale Wins. And no, the wait staff doesn't get that, the restaurant does to offset that $15 per hour wage, although some restaurants might choose to share a portion of it with the help..who will now be taxed on every cent they receive. Or, since people will be eating out less because the service will deteriorate and the cost will be much higher, restaurants will need those service charges to stay in business. Yes, those waiters and waitresses who used to make more than their co-workers by hustling and taking good care of their customers will have absolutely no incentive to do so. Talk about penalizing hard work and enterprise!

I can just imagine how that's going to work in a spread out, car friendly city like Los Angeles. People will eat out less, or they'll travel outside the city limits to do it. One huge trend in the L.A. area is specialty food trucks featuring gourmet and ethnic cuisine, and I would expect them to get a lot more business as well, since they're mostly small, family owned businesses.

I can hear the wheels turning in those of my reader's heads with socialist leanings. "Why, we can just mandate it in all of L.A. County. Or in all of California! And why not a federal minimum wage law? No one will be able to avoid it then, bwah ha ha ha!"



Well, that's the way it is in much of Europe. It hasn't exactly worked out the way it was supposed to, and those legendary EU high unemployment benefits are already becoming a casualty out of sheer necessity,what with the double digit unemployment and all,

Here's something to think about.

Minimum wage jobs were never intended to be careers. They were always intended to be one of two things. Either they were entry level positions, with the low starting salary a sort of compensation for the employer training you and taking a chance on someone without experience so that you could either move up where you were or find a better paying position as an experienced worker elsewhere. Or they were a stopgap, a temporary situation designed to keep things together until you (a) got that big break (b) finished your schooling or training for something better or (c) were ready to move on somewhere else.

I've had such jobs before. My very first one, at age 15 was working at a gas station owned by a friend of my father's after school. I swept up, pumped gas, checked oil and tires and even did the odd lube job or tire change. I was absolutely thrilled to have it, even though I was paid in cash at slightly less than the minimum wage back then.Aside from being able to give my parents a little money, it meant I had money of my own to spend (there was no such thing as allowances in my house), and it introduced me into the adult world of work and responsibility. That experience was one of the many things I have to thank my father (Z"l) for.

No, I never had to support a family on that. But then, it never would have occurred to me to start a family I couldn't support either.


Attempts like this to bypass economic man never really work. What you end up with is collective misery and massive corruption as people do what they need to do in order to bypass the system. Just talk to anyone who used to live in the Soviet Union.

J Street Fails In Attempt To to Prevent Anti-BDS Legislation

 


In late April, the Senate Finance Committee adopted new amendments to the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which would require US trade negotiators to make rejection of the anti-Israel BDS (Boycott Divestment and Sanction) Movement a requirement in any Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations with the European Union, which are now ongoing.

The bill requires signers of the TTIP “to discourage politically motivated actions to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel and seek the elimination of politically motivated non-tariff barriers on Israeli goods, services, or other commerce imposed on the State of Israel.”

This was aimed not only at EU threats of sanctions against Israel but at EU financial support of anti-Israel BDS groups.

As you might expect, the usual suspects among Jewish anti-semites er, 'anti-Zionists' went into full tantrum mode over this one, lobbying feverishly against it.

The rabidly pro-BDS, anti-Israel Jewish Voice for Peace has been one of the leading voices opposing the legislation, along with Americans For Peace Now,and of course, "pro-Israel, pro-peace" J-Street.

They were especially enraged that the wording of the bill - which refers to all "Israeli-controlled territories" - would also make it illegal to boycott Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.


But despite the pressure from these far-left anti-Israel groups the amendments have near unanimous, bipartisan support:

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) strongly praises Senators Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Rob Portman (R-OH) for sponsoring the bipartisan United States-Israel Trade Enhancement Act of 2015 (S.619) and Congressman Peter Roskam (R-IL) and Juan Vargas (D-Cal) for sponsoring the United States-Israel Trade and Commercial Enhancement Act of 2015 (HR.825). In addition, ZOA strongly praises HR.825’s thirty-seven co-sponsors listed below. ZOA also praises Senators Cardin and Portman for annexing this anti-boycott legislation as an amendment to a bill currently in the Senate Finance Committee. [...]

The praiseworthy bipartisan co-sponsors of HR.825 (in addition to sponsors Congressmen Roskam and Vargas) include:

Steve Stivers (R-OH), Lee Zeldin (R-NY), Paul Cook (R-Cal), Blake Farenthold (R-TX), Randy Weber, Sr. (R-TX), David Schweikert (R-AZ), Mark Meadows (R-NC), Bob Gibbs (R-OH), Brian Babin (R-TX), Patrick Murphy (D-Fla), Jackie Walorski (R-IN), Trent Frants (R-AZ), Austin Scott (R-GA), Stevan Pearce (R-NM), Rodney Davis (R-IL), Martha McSally (R-AZ), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Chris Collins (R-NY), David McKinley (R-WV), Tim Walberg (R-MI), Kevin Yoder (R-KS), Peter King (R-NY), Ron DeSantis (R-Fla), Luke Messer (R-IN), Tom Emmer (R-MN), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Bradley Byrne (R-AL), Bill Johnson (R-OH), Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla), Earl “Buddy” Carter (R-GA), Daniel Lipinski (D-IL), Nita Lowey (D-NY), Leonard Lance (R-NJ), Susan Brooks (R-IN), Candice Miller (R-MI) and Daniel Webster (R-Fla).

And those are just the co-sponsors.

Congressman Peter Roskam (R-IL), who co-sponsored the legislation, told The Washington Free Beacon that the whole issue "is a non-story: a bunch of anti-Israel groups criticizing a pro-Israel amendment."

"While a broad bipartisan, bicameral group of Members of Congress are focused on strengthening the mutually beneficial US-Israel economic relationship, this small handful of outside organizations are more interested in defending destructive efforts to delegitimize Israel," he said.

He's got something there. Sanctions are essentially a trade A-bomb, and once the EU uses it, there's zero incentive for Israel to negotiate anything. Unlike Russia and Iran, Israel has more than one product the world wants, and lots of buyers, so even some EU countries will wink at any sanctions, especially with some convenient re-labeling and resales involved. That's exactly how the EU avoided the Arab boycott against Israel in the 1960's and the 1970's.

Not only that, but these days Israel has lucrative and established trade relations with China, Vietnam, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Burma, India, Russia and many other non-EU countries..not to mention Canada and Australia.

President Obama might of course veto this, but doing so would pretty much signal exactly how much he really despises Israel to even the most clueless, not to mention that this legislation merely reiterates existing U.S. law. Even his fellow Dems might participate in a veto overide to preserve their own political hides. And I have a feeling he too realizes that vetoing this would pretty much end what little leverage he has left to get the Israelis to negotiate anything vis a vis 'Palestine'. He has other things more important to deal with, and other plans for Israel, as I'll reveal shortly.

Oklahoma OK... Kol Hakavod!

I'm a fan of Oklahoma, as readers and friends who live there will attest to. I've been there a few times and the place, generally speaking is full of G-d fearing decent folks who tend to exhibit common sense, love freedom and treat strangers with courtesy. And they also tend to elect no nonsense, honest conservatives to public office, unlike my home state.

Not only that, but I've noticed that again,generally speaking, a solid sense of justice seems to exist among most of the denizens of Okie Land,even when there's no money or benefit involved.To wit, this item.

The picture above is called "Shepherdess Bringing in Sheep" by French Impressionist Camille Pissaro, and it's worth 8 figures easy on the open market. It currently sits in the University of Oklahoma's Fred Jones Jr. Art Museum, where it was donated along with a number of other paintings.

The problem is, there's a good chance it's stolen art. It belonged originally to French department store owner Raoul Meyer, and was part of his art collection that was seized by the Nazis when they invaded France during World War II.

The Nazis loved art, and plundered the best museums and private collections in Europe. Many of the museums were able to hide some of their treasures, but private collections were looted, especially the ones owned by Jews. After all, it's not like they were in any position to complain. And since a lot of them died in the camps or were left destitute, many of them weren't in any position to try and get their valuable paintings back, so they were sold to private collectors and museums, often by officers and bureaucrats connected to the post-war occupation.

"Shepherdess Bringing in Sheep” changed hands several times after the war,and when Meyer tried to get back his lawful property, a Swiss court ruled in ruled in 1953 that he'd missed his five-year window to recover the painting. Too bad, Jew!

So after it changed hands a few more times, it ended up being donated to O.U, where Meyer's daughter tracked it down and filed a lawsuit against the University of Oklahoma in January 2014.

And here's where it gets good.Twenty-six members of the Oklahoma House of Representatives introduced a resolution today that wants O.U. and its Fred Jones Jr. Museum of Art to determine to the legislature's satisfaction that none of paintings were “unlawfully appropriated during the Nazi era.”

"If it is determined from provenance research that an object in its collection was unlawfully appropriated during the Nazi era without subsequent restitution, the House of Representatives hereby directs the University of Oklahoma and the Fred Jones. Jr. Museum of Art to resolve the matter in an equitable, appropriate, and mutually agreeable manner, including restitution," the resolution states.

It's expected to pass. The idea, of course, is to shame OU into doing the right thing.

Oklahoma has a population of 3.878 million folks, of whom only 4,500 or so are Jews. So there wasn't any political benefit for the Oklahoma Legislature in doing this. They acted in response to a letter last month from the small Holocaust Remembrance and Restitution Society at the University of Oklahoma asking for them to support their efforts.

Those legislators did it because it was the right thing to do.

That, and a sense of sheer decency and fairness, which as I noted, is fairly common in Oklahoma.

Austria Bans Muslim Groups From Receiving Foreign Funds

 

The Austrian Parliament passed a law today regulating how Islam is funded and administered in the country.

Austrian Muslim groups are no longer allowed to receive foreign funds. This measure largely targets Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the country.

The law also requires any group claiming to represent Austrian Muslims to register and to use a standardized German translation of the Koran (Yes,Mr.President, they speak German in Austria, not 'Austrian) :

The law met with little opposition from the overwhelmingly Roman Catholic population, was backed by Austria's Catholic bishops, and was grudgingly accepted by the main Muslim organization. But it upset Turkey's state religious establishment.

"We want an Islam of the Austrian kind, and not one that is dominated by other countries," said Sebastian Kurz, the 28-year-old conservative foreign minister - formally the minister for foreign affairs and integration - who is easily Austria's most popular politician. [...]

Austria's biggest Islamic organization, IGGiO, accepted the law, but its youth arm opposed it, as did the Turkish-financed Turkish-Islamic Union in Austria (ATIB), which runs many mosques and has vowed to challenge the bill in the Constitutional Court.

Many of Austria's Muslims are Turkish migratory workers.

The new law also guarantees Islamic imams being allowed attend Muslims in hospitals in hospitals and be chaplains in the army, and protects Muslims' rights to eat and produce Halal food.

Just for the record, banning foreign funds going to religious groups in America and having Muslim groups register in accordance with the Smith Act so that their membership, literature and sources of funds are vetted and available for government scrutiny is something I've championed for some time. And admittedly, my target for this would be Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood groups, but to make it fair the ban on foreign funds would have to be extended to all such religious groups.

Hopefully, this is the start of a trend of sorely needed bit of sanity. Islam is simply not like other religions, and Islamists in particular need tobe watched closely and defanged.

The Fight OnThe Cromnibus Bill Goes To The Senate

The Washington Examiner is reporting that the new 'cromnibus' spending bill passed in the House is sparking a great deal of resistance in the Senate. It's passage as is isn't a done deal by any means.

The two senators leading the charge are Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and David Vitter (R-LA), a staunch conservative, Neither like the corporate carve outs in the bill or the abandonment of campaign finance limits.

The House passed an extension giving the Senate until December 17th to pass the bill and lame duck majority leader Harry Reid is urging them to do so and so is President Obama, but there's is a great deal of resistance from both far Left progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans.

The passage of this bill is by no means a done deal.

Law Passed To Criminalize Any Criticism Of Immigration

No, I'm not kidding.

A new law has been passed that will allow people to be criminally prosecuted for criticizing immigration policies or politicians that support them. It will come into effect in December, 2014.

it is designed to be a deterrent to anyone who criticizes the governments' policies towards immigration or amnesty and shut down all debate over the issue.This gross violation of freedom of speech has already been passed. But there is one small detail that mitigates this a bit.



This new law was passed in Sweden, not the United States. At least, not yet.

Sweden's new Left wing coalition government was elected by a narrow margin and lost no time in pushing through something designed to keep them in power permanently with votes from Muslim immigrants, no matter what it does to the country.And now, they have the power to use the police power of the state to silence anyone who dissents.

Andreas Norlen, a member of Sweden's parliament was a prime mover behind getting this new law passed.

"I do not think it takes many prosecutions before a signal is transmitted in the community that the Internet is not a lawless country and the sheriff is back in town."

Spoken like a true progfascist.Anyone who doesn't keep his mouth shut while Sweden becomes a very different country is headed for jail.

Here's why this matters.

We will almost certainly be faced with a similar attempt by President Obama to implement amnesty by executive order after the midterms. There will be absolutely no chance of reversing this unless the Republicans take the Senate.

There are a great many people who basically could care less whether this happens and aren't planning to vote in the midterms. believe me, I understand that attitude completely, seeing how the party elites have essentially made war on the GOP's base. But this is too important.

The Democrats view amnesty as their chance to change the electorate and the country forever, an if that happens we could very well see a law like Sweden's passed as the Democrats take over congress with the help of their new 'voters'.

I hear what you're saying - the GOP establishment has largely been compliant and bent over for Big Business and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in backing 'immigration reform.' But at least with a Republican House and Senate, there's a chance of stopping this or at least mitigating it to the point where it's semi-manageable. With Democrats in control of either house, there isn't.

It really is that simple. Vote, dammit!

Senate Passes US-Israel Strategic Partnership Bill

The United States senate voted unanimously to pass the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act late Thursday evening.The bipartisan legislation was authored by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Roy Blunt (R-MO) had 81 co-sponsors, out of a total of 100 Senators.

Much of this is cosmetic, what with the midterm elections looming closer, but there is some important meat here.

 


Aside from declaring that Israel is a “major strategic partner” of the United States, the bill increases the frequency and detail of US government reporting on Israel’s qualitative military edge and includes a provision that will expand the forward-deployed US weapons stockpiles in Israel.

One of the many things America gets out of its alliance with Israel is a weapons depot in a friendly country where arms and ammo can be held securely and safely to speed US resupply in the event of a crisis in the Middle East. That's a lot more valuable than it might first appear, especially when you look at the cost of a leased US base in the region, the restrictions placed on the use of our leased bases by our 'ally' Turkey and the benefits of having needed supplies to be used when we need them in a friendly nation.

The new bill allows an increase to the value of US weapons held in Israel by $200 million, for a total of of $1.8 billion. from Israel's standpoint, the good part of the deal is that the IDF, with U.S. permission, is allowed to access that stockpile in the event of an emergency, after which Israel reimburses the US for any weapons used. This summer, the stockpile — known as War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) — was accessed by Israel in Operation Protective Edge when the US let Israel use 40mm grenades and 120mm mortar rounds from the stockpile.

The bill also upgrades Israel’s trade status. And it authorizes the president to provide assistance to promote cooperation in water, homeland security, agriculture and alternative fuel technologies, pretty meaningless for the most part since Israel is self sufficient in water and food, its security apparatus is arguably better than ours and Israel is on the cutting edge when it comes to solar and biomass, but hey, a sop to the carbon footprint fanatics and it does no harm. Also it creates the establishment of a US-Israel Center of Excellence for the development of research and development and academic partnerships. There's also a provision for cooperation on cyber security.

The legislation also addresses a growing scandal, Israel’s high rate of visa rejections by the U.S.since the Obama Administration came to town.The bill encourages - it doesn't mandate - Israel's inclusion in the Visa Waiver Program, which currently allows three-dozen countries to have visa-free entry to the US.

Just guessing, but I have a feeling that a dangerous jihadi would be more likely to be a French citizen or a British subject than an Israeli. And perhaps Israel is bit more of a strategic ally to America than say, Chile or Brunei. So we'll see what happens.

Part of the problem here is Israel's disinclination to let certain violent BDS activists such as members of the International Solidarity Movement or American Arabs who identify themselves as Palestinians who hold U.S. citizenship and have a history of 'activism' into Israel. America certainly has no such problem with Israelis coming here. Again, we'll see how this works out.

The bill (of course!) has the usual language about US support for a negotiated political settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians resulting in two states living side-by-side in peace and security.

Say the last part of that sentence ten times quickly and commit it to memory and you too may qualify to be a U.S. Senator who's an 'expert' on the Middle East. Or at least for State Department spokesmouth.

Again, let me emphasize that this bill is largely about politics and the midterms.  The House has its own bi-partisan bill with similar attributes that has already passed in March 2014, but congress is set to adjourn soon and the two bills will not be able to be reconciled until after the November elections, after which President Obam has to sign it, which he may very well refuse to do.And there's no telling what kind of amendments a weasel like  Harry Reid might try to tack on as a lame duck Senate Majority Leader if the Republicans take the Senate.

So there's a lot of fluff here, but also some real meat. It might just be that some of Israel's persistent critics in the Senate are finally starting to realize how valuable our relationship with Israel really is.

Dating A Co-Ed In California? Use A Condom And Bring A Notary Along

California just added its own salvo to the war on men.

The state assembly just passed SB 967, already passed by the state Senate. This bill requires colleges and universities receiving public funds to enforce an “affirmative consent” standard on all campus sexual activity.

Among other things, the bill, by Democratic Sen. Kevin de Leon of Los Angeles requires investigations of sexual assaults to seek whether there was  "affirmative consent". Silence or lack of resistance doesn't amount to consent under the new standards, nor is it consent if the party bringing the action, the victim  claims she was drunk or otherwise intoxicated at the time.

Let's examine what those fine words mean, shall we?

 

If you're, say, a sophomore at UCLA dating a fine specimen of California co-ed you met in Owning White Privilege 101 and things progress romantically to the point where the two of you are apparently willing to make the Beast with Two Backs, S T O P   R I G H T   T H E R E.

You must first get the girl's full and explicit consent to any and all sexual activity the two of you might have had in mind....positions, who does what to whom, which orifices are involved, everything. And since if things go sour later (for example, if you start dating a different girl) it's your word against hers as to what happened,  so you had better get it in writing..and notarized. Or video tape a detailed consent statement, at the very least. How romantic!



Even then, you're not really covered. The girl can say she initially consented but then changed her mind and you refused to stop. Or she can say she didn't say anything because she 'felt intimidated'. Or she can say she was drunk or high at the time. Can you prove she wasn't? Several days, weeks or even months after the fact?

I am not kidding.

The White House and The Department of Education pressured many colleges to change the burden of proof standard that they use in disciplinary proceedings over sexual harassment and sexual assault in 2011. And unfortunately, given the politics, many colleges didn't have to be pressured at all.

They now routinely restrict a male student's right to due process by using ‘preponderance of the evidence’ as the new, lower standard of proof instead of the higher ‘clear and convincing’ standard.

Among other things, the new guidelines demand that students “not be allowed to personally cross-examine each other.” Court rulings like Donohue v. Baker (1997), concluded that cross-examination must be allowed in campus disciplinary hearings, but that isn't being taken into consideration any more. Frequently, male students are not even allowed an attorney in these college inquisitions.

According to the the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), “Preponderance of the evidence” means that if a school thinks there's as  little as a 51 per chance that the accused is guilty, the accused must still be disciplined.

 

Yes, ‘preponderance of the evidence’ essentially means that if a College disciplinary board thinks you just might be guilty or the girl's a half way decent actress, they will find against you. You will likely be asked to leave the college no matter what the actual facts are. Why take a chance and open themselves up to liability or risk being accused of political incorrectness just to protect your rights? And then, with that on your record, try to get into another college, let alone grad school. And even if you're not kicked out of college, the stigma remains, and it could even make the difference in where you are able to be hired.

You think I'm exaggerating? Here are just a a few examples that ought to change your mind.

The hellish thing about this totalitarian overreach is that it does absolutely nothing to protect college girls from rape.  Does anyone in his or her right mind imagine that an actual rapist on campus would have any problem physically intimidating his victim to sign a consent form?

A sensible male going to college in California can only take one message from this. Just as dating someone you work with no longer makes any sense for pretty much the same reason, it no longer makes sense to date California co-eds, at least if you're in college. And that especially applies to a co-ed in your own school .Of course, that doesn't totally protect you, since the way things are  now you can be accused of sexual assault even if you had no sexual contact with the girl in question and the odds are definitely not in your favor. But avoidance at least makes it less likely.

Since the two of the most common places for women meet their future spouses (or at least they used to be) is at work or in school, this new male bashing  nonsense all but guarantees that there will be a lot of sad and lonely single  California women in their late twenties to mid thirties wondering why  they can't seem to meet a decent guy who might be a potential mate. And unfortunately, it's not just California.

New Bill Demands Explicit Written or Verbal Consent For Sex On College Campuses

Where else but in California?

SB 967, written by state Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) demands that a couple stop in the middle of the festivities to obtain "an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity."

According to the language of the bill, "consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter, and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent."

So........according to this new law, a couple needs to engage in a detailed discussion before lovemaking each and every time, married or not. Talk about a mood killer! Also, since 'verbal consent' is a matter of he said, she said in a court of law and people have been known to lie, any male (and of course, that's who this bill is directly aimed at) including husbands with a decent amount of brain cells to rub together is going to get that consent in writing, just in case. Smart men will come equipped not only with condoms, but with pre-printed forms, perhaps with a checklist. Or perhaps with small video recorders or digital cameras to record consent.

Of course, even a consent form or a video isn't sufficient really, according to the bill. If consent
"can be revoked at any time" and a past relationship between a couple is not deemed to signify consent, a woman can always claim she revoked consent after she signed the form or said 'yes' on camera..say, a week or so later after the guy dumps her for a hot cheerleader. And yes, there are plenty of examples of exactly this sort of thing happening, especially now that colleges have abandoned the legal standard of a burden of proof and use the far more subjective and flexible standard of the 'preponderance of evidence' in these matters.

In fact, the bill actually places the burden of proof on the accused in a sexual assault case demonstrate they obtained at least verbal ‘affirmative consent’ before engaging in any sexual activity.Men apparently no longer have the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty when it comes to these proceedings.

This also significantly changes the legal definition of rape from being a violent act clearly against someone's will to merely being a non-violent act someone may not have explicitly consented to (returning caresses and kisses or 'yes, oh yes!' apparently doesn't count) verbally or in writing beforehand.

Of course, these non-verbal exchanges are exactly how a lot of romantic encounters occur. Foreplay? Better get that written consent form signed first.

Of course, this bill violates privacy rights as well as rights of due process and common sense, but that apparently is not a consideration for proponents of this bill. But it will never pass, right?

Wrong.

SB 967 passed the Democrat dominated California state senate by a vote of 27-9 and is now on its way to state assembly. Even more ominously, the entire University of California system has adopted a new iron clad policy that doesn't just mirror SB967 but requires affirmative consent not just for sex, but to every form of “physical sexual activity” engaged in! In other words, if you come back to your domicile at the end of the day and give your significant other a hug and a kiss, you'd better have that consent form at the ready.

Read or watch the film version of "1984" some time and pay attention to what happens to Winston Smith and Julia. We're just about there.

"The progressive Left is like an acid that distorts and ruins everything it touches." - Rush Limbaugh, saying something I once thought was fairly exaggerated.

See For Yourself How Progress Works With Seattle's $15/Hour Minimum Wage!!

 

Seattle! Socialists on the city council led by Kshama Sawant led the successful charge to push through new legislation that will mandate a $15/hour minimum wage, highest in the country for an American city.

Believe it or not, this bill was a compromise. Sawant and her allies led a failed minority effort to strip the new law of all allowances for training wages, tip credits and health care. She also tried but failed to make the effective date Jan. 1. The council pushed the date back three months to allow businesses to prepare for the higher wages.

Still, she's not at all disappointed.  “Fifteen in Seattle is just a beginning,” Sawant said. “We have an entire world to win with solidarity.”

Fast food franchises were particularly irked because they were considered 'big business' under the new bill, rather than independently owned businesses. They plan to sue.

But meanwhile let's look at the amazing changes this wonderful Progressive victory will bring!



There are an estimated 1,700 franchise locations in Seattle employing about 19,000 workers. Many of these greedy, bloodsucking capitalists will be forced to close, thus freeing their employees from soul killing, repetitive labor so that they can enjoy new careers as poets, artists, mimes  and unpaid interns working for worthy social justice causes.

Other restaurants will adapt, and have the same beneficial effect of freeing up labor:



I wonder if this burger maker works on wind or solar power? And did the company president donate to the right campaigns???


And finally, the ultimate Progressive victory:



Look son, you had a hamburger six weeks ago. You know what meat costs now? Whaddya think I am, made of money? Eat that Michelle Obama Celery Dee-lite and be glad you got it.




Let them eat sprouts...it's good for the planet!

Obama's New Anti-Israel Ally - AIPAC

 

In the wake of the Palestinian Authority's integration with terrorist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Senator Rand Paul put together a common sense bill in the U.S. Senate. It called for the conditioning of American aid to the Palestinians on its recognition of Israel. Thia is particularly apropos since U.S. law forbids aid to recognized terrorist groups (something the Obama Administration has ignored anyway) and the lip service from our own State Department is that the U>S. would supposedly not provide aid to any part of the new Palestinian government that failed to commit to opposition to terrorism, recognition of Israel and abiding by past agreements:

The legislation, titled the “Stand with Israel Act of 2014,” failed to gather unanimous consent in the Senate on Thursday and Paul’s request to pass it was blocked. After the bill failed to pass, the senator said he was “deeply disappointed and disturbed by the Senate’s inability to stand with me in defense of Israel today.”

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the largest pro-Israel group in the U.S., declined to support the bill. In an interview with Steve Malzberg on Newsmax on Thursday, Paul said he was “getting pushback from the establishment up here” on the legislation.

When asked by Malzberg who he meant, Paul said: “Ironically, the group AIPAC is pushing back this bill and this is to me very troubling.”

“I think the American people, if they knew that, would be very, very upset and think, you know what, those people are no longer lobbying in favor of America and Israel if they’re not willing to put restrictions on aid to Palestine,” Paul continued.

Yes...AIPAC.

Here's what happened. AIPAC caved to a combination of pressure from the Obama Administration and pressure from their pro-Obama Democrat donors.

I know Senator Paul to be a friend of Israel, based on sources who kept me posted about his comments and actions during his trip to Israel last year. For AIPAC to come out against this legislation and risk alienating someone who supports Israel and might even conceivably end up as our next president is not only abysmally stupid, but it's treachery against the very cause the organization is supposed to be supporting. AIPAC's phony rationale? The supposed 'security cooperation' between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. I defy them to show me one person who's ever been arrested by those 'cooperative security forces' for murdering a Jew. And I guess AIPAC has forgotten all about how those trained Palestinian 'security forces' happily turned their guns on Jewish civilians during Arafat's terrorist war on Israel.

Does AIPAC really think that this sort of behavior is somehow pro-Israel? In any sense? Do these people think that if Israel is attacked and assailed, they're somehow going to be immune because they dance to the Obama regime's tune?

AIPAC is a toothless tiger, and they won't be getting another dime from me. And believe me, that's a word I plan to spread around.

Obama Signs Bill Barring Iran's Terrorist Envoy - But Won't Enforce It

You might remember the story I ran a few days ago about 'moderate' Iranian president Hasan Rouhani's appointment of Hamid Aboutalebi to serve as Iran's UN envoy, which means he would enjoy complete diplomatic immunity in America.

As pictured above then and now, Aboutalebi was one of the terrorists who stormed the American embassy in Tehran, kidnapped our diplomats and held them hostage.

When the Iranians refused to cancel ABoutalabi's appointment, both houses on Congress, sparked by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO)voted unanimously voted to pass legislation that would ban terrorists from entering the US to serve as UN ambassadors and sent the bill to the White House for Presdient Obama's signature.

The President's spokeshole Jay Carney signalled that he would sign legislation banning terrorists from receiving visas as diplomatic personnel:

"We concur with the Congress and share the intent of the bill," said White House spokeshole Jay Carney.

Our president did indeed sign the bill, passed unanimously by both parties. And then said he would never enforce the law.


Obama decided to treat the law as mere advice. "Acts of espionage and terrorism against the United States and our allies are unquestionably problems of the utmost gravity, and I share the Congress's concern that individuals who have engaged in such activity may use the cover of diplomacy to gain access to our Nation," Obama said in his signing statement.

"Nevertheless, as President [George H.W.] Bush] also observed, "curtailing by statute my constitutional discretion to receive or reject ambassadors is neither a permissible nor a practical solution." I shall therefore continue to treat section 407, as originally enacted and as amended by S. 2195, as advisory in circumstances in which it would interfere with the exercise of this discretion."

Obama frequently criticized President George W. Bush for such signing statements during his 2008 campaign. “Congress's job is to pass legislation," he said, as The Daily Beast recalled. "The president can veto it or he can sign it.”

“It is unconscionable that, in the name of international diplomatic protocol, the United States would be forced to host a foreign national who showed a brutal disregard for the status of our diplomats when they were stationed in his country,” Cruz said when he introduced the bill.

Once again, this most lawless of presidents has shown that he'll only uphold those laws that he feels like upholding and that work for his political agenda.

Congress Votes Unanimously To Deny Iran UN Envoy a Visa - Will Obama Sign The Bill?

You have to wonder how far the Obama team is willing to go to appease Iran.

In their latest provocation, 'moderate' Iranian president Hasan Rouhani appointed Hamid Aboutalebi to serve as Iran's UN envoy, which means he would enjoy diplomatic immunity in America.

Aboutalebi, pictured above then and now ( he's on your left in the older photo) participated in taking our diplomats in Tehran hostage and holding them for ransom back in 1979.

Amazingly, the Obama Administration didn't raise a murmur at this blatant extension of the middle digit by Iran. That was left to the U.S. Congress.

The Senate unanimously passed a bill sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) that would ban terrorists from entering the US to serve as UN ambassadors, and the House quickly followed suit, in a bill sponsored by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO).

“Congress has voted unanimously in support of a bill to reject Iran’s deliberately insulting nomination of a known terrorist – one of the 1979 hostage-takers – to be their ambassador to the United Nations,” Cruz wrote in a statement shortly after the House decision. “I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for supporting it, and urge the President to act quickly. We, as a country, can send an unequivocal message to rogue nations like Iran that the United States will not tolerate this kind of provocative and hostile behavior.”

Now comes the interesting part. Will President Obama sign the legislation? And if he refuses, will congress override his veto?

White House Spokeshole Jay Carney was noncommittal about it. The Regime was probably hoping this would pass unnoticed.

Stay tuned!

What They Won't tell You About The Senate's Unemployment Extension Bill

It sounds like something good that only the mean spirited would oppose, right? A bill to extend unemployment benefits for millions of Americans who have been out of work for a very long time.

That is, until you find out this little factoid.

No less than Democrat Senate Majority leader Harry Reid is blocking an amendment to the bill that would require employers to verify the work eligibility of employees using E-Verify program, a simple web-based program that allows employers to check data against records maintained by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to make sure they're not hiring illegal aliens.

As Senator Jeff Sessions revealed, Harry Reid won't even allow the amendment to come to a vote, even though congress passed legislation in 1986 making it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ illegal aliens.

The amendment not only would help American citizens in obtaining work, but it would also help curb identity theft and illegal use of other people's Social Security numbers.

Instead, the Democrats would rather leave American citizens dependent on a government dole.They have no interest in creating jobs for out of work Americans or the effect that importing and enabling a huge pool of low skilled workers will have on unemployment, the cost of health care and housing, and depressing worker's wages. That counts for nothing next to their lust for political power.

The hypocrisy of these people in moving their mouths about increasing the minimum wage while making sure that there's going to be a huge population of workers who van be hired for whatever the traffic will bear is despicable. And yes, it's racist, as it disproportionally effects blacks and Hispanics who are legal citizens, as well as legal immigrants.

If the American people re-elect these self-serving apparatchniks, they deserve to live like the serfs Harry Reid and his friends want them to become.

'Middle class warriors'..ri-ight.

North Carolina Passes Anti-Sharia Law

North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory has signed a new bill into law that prohibits judges in the state from considering sharia in their rulings.

The bill, which easily passed both houses of the legislature uses language that targets any foreign laws, without specifically mentioning Sharia and thus will probably avoid what happened in Oklahoma, where a Democrat appointed Federal judge ruled the Oklahoma law unconstitutional on th egrounds it was discriminatory.

There are similar laws now in Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Tennessee with several other states pending, including Alabama, where the legislature approved a constitutional amendment for the state's voters to approve in 2014.

Muslim brotherhood front CAIR was in the forefront of a campaign to get Governor McCrory to veto the bill.They called a 'national action alert' urging Muslims to e-mail the governor:

This “foreign law” bill is a thinly-veiled attack on the state’s Muslim population, that only serves to marginalize Muslims and to deny them equal rights and equal access to the courts enjoyed by other religious groups.

To anyone whom knows anything about sharia law, this is ridiculous. Under sharia, women are essentially property. There is no age limit for a girl to be married off, wife beating is acceptable, a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's and in some cases like rape inadmissible unless there are two male Muslim witnesses. Women have no custody rights to their children in the case of divorce ( which can be done on any pretext by a husband even using three text messages), marital rape is legal, non-Muslims are not allowed to testify in court, and homosexual behavior calls for the death sentence. Far from denying Muslims equal rights and access to the courts, banning sharia from consideration in America's courts ensures it.

It's also necessary to codify this because a number of judges have taken it into their heads to acquit Muslims of crimes like marital rape,child abduction and wife beating because they have ruled that the perpetrators cannot be convicted due to 'cultural norms' and their religious principles.

Another aspect of this has to do with Islam itself. In Britain, where sharia is mandatory for family matters and has the same force as British common law, Muslim women have not only seen their legal rights eroded steadily by the use of sharia courts but it has contributed to the UK's Muslim communities becoming almost a state within a state.

If CAIR and anyone else want to live under sharia, well and good. There are a number of countries where where sharia is the basis of law and the time I checked,our pots and our airports were still functioning.

But this is America, where our laws and Constitution ensure protections that are incompatible with sharia law. To live here in America is to accept that.

House Democrats Present Bill Requiring Feds To Control 'Internet Hate Speech'

Thirteen House Democrats, led by one Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) have presented a bill, H.R. 3878 AKA The Hate Crime Reporting Act that would require the government to monitor and control what they define as 'hate speech'.

The bill calls for National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), a little known federal agency with a fairly murky mission in Washington to 'with the assistance of the Department of Justice, the Commission, and the United States Commission on Civil Rights' to submit a report to the
the appropriate congressional committees, and requires them to 'make recommendations consistent
with the First Amendment to the Constitution, that the NTIA determines are appropriate and necessary
to address such use of telecommunications.'

The bill, you'll note doesn't only cover the internet but talk radio.

It's supported by the NAACP and and several other 'progressive' groups, which pretty much let's you know what the agenda is here. In prog NewsSpeak, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin,and a number of your favorite websites constitute 'hate speech' and need to be suppressed. The likes of Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton and the Left side of the web, not so much.

The bill has only a slight chance of making it out of committee, and even less of being enacted but it's valuable to look at as a signpost for exactly how little regard or tolerance the Left has for anyone who doesn't think like they do or freedom of speech that diverges from their party line. This is the sort of thing much of the far Left is angry at President Obama for not pushing through by any means necessary back when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

Jeffries, by the way is the nephew of CUNY professor Leonard Jeffries, Jr., a tenured radical who is a vicious racist and anti-semite and who has spewed his hatred over the web and th epublic airways as well as in the classroom,in print and in his public utterances.

While what his uncle says and does likely has nothing to do with Rep. Jeffries personal beliefs, I wonder...would he support censoring Unkie Leonard?

Forgive my cynicism,but I have a distinct feeling he wouldn't. Certainly the NAACP wouldn't go along with it.

Obama's Push To Loosen Sanctions On Iran Headed Off By A Bi-Partisan Senate Effort

Now here's some good news.

Secretary Kerry and President Obama had been offering the Ayatollahs what they called 'reversible lessened sanctions' as a concession in exchange for Iran showing they were halting progress on their nuclear weapons program. How that was going to be verifiable in a way the West could trust is an open question.

Fortunately, in a rare moment of cooperation Republicans and Democrats in the Senate united in the face of this appeasement to quickly put together a new bill that will tighten sanctions:

The Senate Banking Committee will move ahead with a package of tough new sanctions on Iran after the negotiating session over its nuclear program ends in Geneva on Friday, the committee's chairman said on Thursday.

Senator Tim Johnson, a Democrat, said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told him to go ahead with the mark-up - or consideration - of the bill, a step toward bringing it to the full Senate for a vote. [...]

"I think Iran has in its power to decide whether or not it faces any more sanctions or whether or not it gets any relief from existing sanctions," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, who also is a member of the banking committee, told Reuters.

But otherwise, he said he felt the sanctions should go ahead. "I just don't understand a negotiating posture that suggests that we should stop pursuing a course of action that at least brought Iran to the table while they continue to enrich," he said.

..Republican Mark Kirk, a banking panel member, said they might go ahead with a sanctions package even if the banking committee held off.

Kirk and a few other Republicans said they were considering introducing a stiffer package of Iran sanctions as an amendment to a defense authorization bill that is expected to be debated in the Senate during the week of November 18.

If nothing else, this is a signal to both Iran and to the president that the Senate isn't prepared to take the blame for another Munich..not with midterms coming up in a year, anyway.

There's also talk in the House about a bill of their own stiffening sanctions.