{"The solution (to the illegal immigration problem) is obvious: Get serious about deporting those caught violating our immigration laws. Stop catch and release. Allow authorities to hold criminals indefinitely while they await deportation. Give enforcement personnel adequate resources. Get local police involved in enforcing immigration laws as a force multiplier. And adopt 'broken windows' policing so that illegals expect to be deported if they are caught by police."} Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Arizona)

I can't wait to here the Jay Leno jokes on this--a used car salesman giving illegal aliens phony cards--I wonder if they have baseball or football players on the reverse side. Or if they have key phrases in English to use when the police pull them over or ask for ID. Something like "I was born in the US, I love the Yankees", or "I love the United States, I get free health care, education, in-state tuition and get to vote, because no one asks if I am a law breaker". I wonder if the DMV is willing to investigate this dealership. Maybe they should have their business license taken away. I wonder if they sell cars to illegal aliens, which would be a violation of Federal law. At what point will California or local agencies will start enforcing the laws on the books--like using false ID to buy cars, homes, to get a job, etc. Maybe California could publish a list of other laws the government won't enforce, so the rest of us could be treated as well as illegal aliens--is that too much to ask from a government that feels illegal aliens should get classroom seats in the UV system and ten times less than an honest citizen from Minnesota. This needs to stop. The Mexican government is harming the U.S. economy, and we won't stop them. This is a violation of international law, and we won't stop them. Our children are being harmed by these phony cards, housing costs more, and we won't stop them. What do you think, should a used car dealership be issuing phony ID cards? Should law enforcement agencies be arresting people who use these cards, for being illegal aliens and using phony ID's to get cars and loans? Write your thoughts directly on the blog for the whole world to see, at [http://www.capoliticalnews.com/discuss.php?id=776 ->http://www.capoliticalnews.com/discuss.php?id=776] Steve Frank {{{Mexicans line up for ID in AV}}} Auto dealer offers cards in Valley By VERONICA ROCHA Valley Press Staff Writer October 12, 2006. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LANCASTER - On a warm fall morning, Dora stood near a food stand holding a plate of tacos as she stared at her husband and son standing in a long line of Mexican nationals longing to belong. "We like it here in the United States," Dora said as she ate a steaming taco. "My family and I want to stay here." Dora was one of roughly 150 Mexican nationals who anxiously waited Wednesday for a chance to get a matricula consular card, or identification card, at Camacho Auto Sales on Sierra Highway and Avenue J. A matricula consular card is a Mexican-government-issued identification card that demonstrates a Mexican national is living outside the country. The card resembles a California ID card, but it bears the colors of the Mexican flag: red, green and white. Camacho Auto Sales joined the Consulado General De Mexico, or Mexican Consul, to bring matricula consular card registration to Valley residents. Isaac Barcelona, promotions and marketing representative of Camacho Auto Sales, said the Mexican Consul requested a site where the consul would be able to provide the service to the Valley's community of Mexican nationals. "It is saving these people from having to go down to Los Angeles by MacArthur Park," he said. "If you do it that way, it is going to take you a full day to do this. Here it is going to take you three hours." Most of those standing in line heard about the event on area Mexican radio stations and at the Carniceria Vallerta Supermarkets. The line grew larger as minutes passed. "Everything's been going very fast here," said Dora, who arrived at 9 a.m. Small children played peek-a-boo behind trees along the Avenue J sidewalk. Mothers and fathers waited eagerly to be seen by Mexican Consulate representatives as they held onto their papers. Sleepy infants rested in strollers. The ID card registration began Tuesday and will end Saturday. Registration is from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Several people waited up to three hours in line Wednesday. "I got here at 6:30 a.m., and there was about 50 people here already," Barcelona said. About 400 Mexican nationals showed up Tuesday to get ID cards, Barcelona said. Of the 400 people, about 292 were issued ID cards, he said. "Yesterday, we were here until 5 p.m. because they want to serve everybody that is here," he said. "They don't want to turn anybody away." Once a Mexican national is issued a matricula card, a digital fingerprint and photo is taken. The matricula card has become increasingly valuable to Mexicans, who use the card to gain access to bank and businesses services. When demand for the cards increased, banks and businesses began accepting matricula cards as a form of identification, as they would a state ID. With the card, Mexican nationals can open bank accounts, engage in financial transactions and state and local business. The matricula card often is used by undocumented workers, who are unable to get a green card or visa. The card is an affordable option that costs about $27. Cards might not be issued immediately if the applicant doesn't present the proper forms, such as a birth certificate, naturalization card, picture ID or passport, during the registration process, according to the Mexican Consul. A Mexican woman holding several papers and a California ID card ran across the street from Camacho Auto Sales, visibly upset. "I went through the line, and they said I am missing my birth certificate," she said. "I don't know where it is. I came to the United States 15 years ago. I think I lost it." The woman didn't get an ID card Wednesday after waiting since 8:30 a.m. "I have my California ID," she said, flashing her ID. "I don't know what I am going to do now. I just don't know." Matricula cards have been an issue of much debate in Los Angeles County. The County Board of Supervisors approved the use of matricula cards among Mexican nationals in February 2005 as form of valid identification. County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, whose 5th District includes the Antelope Valley, voted against the measure, saying the matricula cards easily could be counterfeited and used by terrorists to evade security measures. The marticula card was designed with specific security measures, according to the Mexican Consul. Each card contains an infrared band and is encoded with government marks that are visible only with a special decoder. A Mexican official seal, known as the "advantage seal," appears over the person's picture and changes colors in light. For Dora, who came to United States in 1985 through the mountains of Mexico, a matricula consular card would mean she has an "identity in America." "I don't have identification," she said. "I need this to stay here, to open a bank account." Dora's desire to live in the United States also was shared by other Mexican nationals, who waited in the long line. Jorge , unlike most of the other Mexican nationals in line, has a visa. "I got lucky getting my visa," the horse wrangler said. "My boss is very rich and needed my help, so he helped me get a visa. But not everyone is as lucky as me." Jorge, a Leona Valley resident, waited in line with his nephew, who was seeking to get a matricula consular card. "I am here to support him," he said. Jorge said negative beliefs about Mexicans exists because of poor relations between the bordering countries. "It's sad about the political situation between Mexico and the United States, because I know my boss needs me and America needs us," he said. Despite strife that Jorge believes exists between the United States and Mexico, he said he is living the American dream. For Dora, who has lived in Palmdale for 2½ years, America also is home. "I just want to be happy here," she said. "I am comfortable here. I like it, and my family likes it."

My friend Josh Trevino presents a strong, historical case why People of Faith NEED to be involved in politics and public policy. He clearly shows that the absence of a Faithful foundation for decision making has created wars, slavery, the massacres of the French Revolution and the totalitarianism of Communism. It is the absence of Faith that helps create evil, economic disasters and a lack of good will among people. This article for the Claremont Institute shows that we need to be thoughtful about this issue. You can't take the Democrat approach of cynicism toward those of Faith and use a minister, Jim Wallis, as your front for higher taxes (in the name of compassion for others), failed schools (we are all the same, so just like the Communists, students should be taught at the lowest common denominator), oppose the War on Terror (we are fighting "other People of Faith" and who is to say we are really right?") and much more. All of this cynical effort to hide the true beliefs of the Left. They support freedom of speech, as long as it agrees with them (remember these folks stopped a speech by Condi Rice, Anne Coulter, Jim Gilchrist and dozens of others because THEY WERE wrong). I wrote about a debate I had on Prop. 85, Parental Notification. The moderator was Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg. When I answered questions in a way she did not like she said, "I don't like your answer , you are finished", and stopped me from completing my statement. The Goldbergs of the world don't like folks with values and thoughtful, Faithful, beliefs...we scare them. {{It is time that People of Faith stand up and be counted. We need to speak up, not sit down. Otherwise our ability to speak up will be stopped by the tyrannists and the Goldbergs of the world. In this election, please vote. Don't let those that want you to stay home win. If you stay home and don't vote, they win. If they win, you and your family lose, a lot.}} What do you think? Should People of Faith be involved in the process, or should the ACLU, Hillary, Goldberg and others be allowed to determine how you live, how you raise your family and what values you are allowed to show? Write directly on the blog for all to see and discuss. It is important that you be heard on this subject. Again, thanks to Josh for his thoughtful article. Please forward this to your friends and family {{ Steve Frank}} {{Conservatism and Nature's God.}} [http://www.claremont.org/weblog/005304.html->http://www.claremont.org/weblog/005304.html] Heather Mac Donald, in USA Today, declares that conservatism does not need God. This seems counterintuitive to a movement that has built its generational ascendency in large part upon the votes of believers. But Mac Donald believes the effort to attract them is, essentially, for naught. Among other things, it makes the American left act in embarrassing and pandering ways. She holds forth the examples of awkward Democrats seeking to establish their religious bona fides -- a task that will grow increasingly difficult for them so long as most of them continue to self-identify as Christians, and so long as the left increasingly departs from anything resembling Christian orthodoxy. The polite fiction that it is possible to be among the faithful, and fight the faith, will not hold. It is premised upon a false division between the private and public spheres, and a misreading of "render therefore unto Caesar," which never posited the supremacy of Caesar over Christ. Mac Donald does not restrict her critique of conservative religiosity to its baleful effects on the opposition. Her principal concern is what she perceives as the eschewing of rationalism in American politics. "Conservative principles," declares Mac Donald, "are best grounded in reason and evidence, not revelation." She is wrong on several counts. First among Mac Donald's errors is her implicit contention that reason and revelation are exclusive, opposed, or antagonistic. It's a common mistake among the professionally irreligious, for whom religion exists only as parody -- see the hateful Richard Dawkins, whom Mac Donald mercifully does not at all resemble. One supposes that Mac Donald is utterly unfamiliar with the Papal remarks at Regensburg (and the accompanying Muslim furor), which discussed the very need for the concurrence of reason and faith; to say nothing of the work of Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics; and to say nothing of the martyrdom of Thomas More. That's merely drawing from the Catholic tradition: Protestantism has its own rich tradition of rationalism informing faith, and vice-versa. The faith-and-reason topic is well-trodden ground, and it's a pity that Mac Donald chooses to mischaracterize it with an invocation of inherent opposition between the two. In her zeal to posit a reason-based conservatism, Mac Donald must indulge in historical revisionism at the very font of American conservatism: the Founding. "The Founders crafted America's constitutional framework based on their knowledge of human nature and their commitment to Enlightenment ideals. They left God out of the Constitution," she writes. Mac Donald is a sharp and savvy analyst and writer, and one of the best in her field. It is difficult, therefore, to believe that she is simply ignorant of the Founder's declared source of their "knowledge of human nature," or of the relationship of the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution. Suffice it to say that the Declaration is quite clear: the Founders derive that knowledge from the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Indeed, men are "endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights." The Declaration is therefore intrinsically theistic -- although phrased in such a manner as to not be intrinsically Christian. And we know the Constitution to be the fulfillment of the promise and premises of the Declaration -- certainly not a rejection of its fundamental hypothesis -- because the Founders themselves tell us so. Mac Donald manages to mangle history beyond the Founders' era. "There were few more religious Americans than antebellum slaveholders and their political representatives," she declares, "[and] their claim to a divine mandate for slavery was based in unimpeachable Scriptural authority." This is untrue. American slaveholders did appeal to Biblical authority on occasion, but the only defined system of racial supremacism and concurrent slaveholding to emerge from the Christian tradition evolved in the Dutch Reformed churches of the Afrikaners. (Which, it should be noted, the Christian Reformed movement at large rejected.) American slaving, by contrast, was justified most notably by Calhoun in his "Disquisition on Government" -- a work of political philosophy, not theology. Furthermore, a focus on the erratic religious justifications for American slavery ignores the immensely strong and enduring faith-based movement for slavery's annihilation. The Quakers provided a disproportionate share of station-masters on the Underground Railroad. Henry Ward Beecher was a Congregationalist minister whose abolitionist views, grounded in his faith, led him to supply rifles to free-soil settlers in Kansas and Nebraska; later, his parish raised and equipped a Union infantry regiment with its own funds. Popular anti-slavery propaganda was commonly couched in religious terms. Et cetera -- the list goes on. The point here is not to assert faith as a force for unadulterated good vis a vis slavery in America, but to illustrate that it was more often positive than negative in its historical effect. De Tocqueville noted the intrinsic good of strong participatory institutions, including and especially churches, in 19th-century America. His observation then is valid now, and the mostly positive role of faith in American life is as evident now as then. People of faith today are on the front lines against the horrors of the utilitarian view of humanity and the human form: the very moral area where Mac Donald's purely rationalist appeal can offer little. As it happens, we know where pure rationalism in the political sphere, purposefully exclusive of faith, leads. The massacres of the French Revolution gave us our first taste in the modern era of the inevitable brutality of the purely rationalist man; and the calculated slaughters of the Communist experiment drove the lesson home. If there is a humane public square exclusive of faith, we have yet to see it. So why does Mac Donald wish to assert that American conservatism is the proper mechanism for the creation of that illusory public square? It is not out of respect for conservatism's history or origins. Rather, Mac Donald believes that the invocation -- and mere presence -- of faith as a meaningful element of conservatism "is a conversation stopper, not an invitation to robust debate." Faith is therefore, in her view, a stifling element in discourse, and a deadening agent in the public square. "America's rules of religious etiquette," she notes, "demand that we acquiesce silently in a believer's claim of revelation." Here, finally, Mac Donald is on firm ground. Religion has a rightful place in discourse and even policy, but its place is not inherently a privileged one. It is a proud participant in the conversation of American democracy, not a tyrannical monopolizer of the demos' time and attention. If it has become this -- and I do not believe it has -- then the proper solution to the problem Mac Donald identifies is to assert one's own challenge, to speak, and to be heard. Instead of contending with the question, Heather Mac Donald wishes to banish it. That's not conservative, and still less American.

This is a bad time for the promoters of the $84 billion in bonds (principle plus interest) to be promoting major new indebtedness. Of course the sponsors say we can "afford" it. Yet, the article below discusses the downturn in revenues already being felt by the State government. That means the deficit will be larger than the $7 billion it is this year. At some point, we will have to say STOP. Note the article doesn't mention the $170 billion in unfunded pension and health care liabilities that they will have to admit in the 2007 budget. Nor does it mention the non voter or legislature approved bonds being issued by the PUC ($6 billion--principle plus interest) for solar energy projects that the Legislature turned down. No one elected the PUC, but they can issue bonds after our elected officials say NO. What is surprising is that the mainstream media is now talking about the deficit. In 2002 they kept the Davis deficit crisis quiet till after the election. That destructive deficit caused the Recall of Gray Davis...now the people are in a worse position than we were in 2003. My guess is that when the Governor gives his 2007-08 budget sometime in February, all hell will break lose. Special interest groups will try to protect their "share". Liberals will want to raise taxes to save the "poor" from the holes in the "safety net". Conservatives will say, "we told you so". 2007 will be a difficult year for the Special Interest. My preference is to allow them to fight among themselves for more limited resources, rather than go for a tax increase and make everyone poorer. What do you think? How should we handle the budget crisis next year? Will this problem wake up the voters and throw the incumbents out in 2008--how will it affect the 2008 elections? Write your thoughts directly on the web site for all to see and discuss. {{Steve Frank}} {{Budget omens}} [Press-Enterprise->http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/editorials/stories/PE_OpEd_Opinion_B_op_26_ed_statebudget1.3118831.html] October 25, 2006 The California budget approved in June boosted spending, paid down debt and avoided politically painful cuts. But the state will still outspend its revenue this year, and the latest financial figures again call for budgetary caution. The state will spend $7 billion more this fiscal year than California will collect in taxes. The state can cover that shortfall only by dipping into unexpected revenue from previous years. And the state's legislative analyst predicts that budget shortfalls will be about $4.5 billion to $5 billion annually in the next few years. But that projection excludes $1.5 billion the state may have to pay if it loses lawsuits on past budgetary schemes. And the budget does not consider likely court-ordered increases in prison spending, perhaps as much as $600 million to add medical facilities for inmates. The budget also relies on $837 million in tribal gambling bonds slated to repay the state's borrowing from transportation funds, money also stalled in court. And while the state's economy appears in decent shape, the Department of Finance's October monthly update waves some warning flags. Income tax so far this year exceeds state estimates by $388 million, or 3.7 percent. Taxes on nonwage income, such as capital gains, largely drive the surplus. Good news, right? Yes -- as long as it continues, which the report says is uncertain. Such taxes come primarily from the wealthiest Californians, and this revenue can quickly vanish if stocks slump. Income tax from withholding payments -- the kind that average workers pay -- ran $54 million below projections in September alone. Sales taxes, corporate taxes and taxes on insurance also are short of projections for the year. Such trends may not matter if taxes on high-end income continue to boom, but the numbers underline the fragility of the state's budget. Lose those upper-income taxes and huge deficits could reappear. But if the state won't balance a budget in good economic times, what happens when the economy slows? California needs a better economic strategy than betting the future on a continued stock boom.

Tuesday is Halloween, but every day liberals try to scare us and then trick us into costly solutions to problems that either don't exist, or that government action (or inaction) caused. The issue of "lack of health care insurance" is another one of those that has been created by those taking "Economic Illiteracy I" and by big government advocates who believe families and businesses are too stupid to take care of themselves without government cracking the whip. This article shows that in California about half of the "uninsured" are really illegal aliens, hence why should they be covered in the first place. Is this why we need an overhaul of the health care delivery system so more illegal aliens can come to California for free health care? When reading this article, please note that the statistics do not come from a conservative organization, but a liberal one. The California HealthCare Foundation wants to expand the role of government in health care, to include everyone. From their web site, [http://www.chcf.org/->http://www.chcf.org/]: {{Mission Statement: to expand access to affordable, quality health care for underserved individuals and to communities and to promote fundamental improvements in the health care status of the people of California The California HealthCare Foundation is an independent philanthropy committed to improving the way health care is delivered and financed in California, and helping consumers make informed health care and coverage decisions. Formed in 1996, our goal is to ensure that all Californians have access to affordable, quality health care.}} Before we jump into a massive government run health care program we need an honest appraisal of the need. They we should find marker place responses, along with private non-profit, efforts. Groups like the California HealthCare Foundation should be spending its time and money working to provide private solutions for those truly in need, instead of begging government to take even more money from families to pay for health care for those that could get it and won't or the illegal aliens who should have health care, in their native lands. What do you think? Should we have government run all health care delivery programs, or should people make these decisions for themselves? Is it the role of the taxpayers of California to pay for the health care needs of illegal aliens? Write your thoughts directly on the web site for all to see and discuss. {{Steve Frank}} {{Health Care Reform: Who Are the Uninsured? by Senator George Runner}} (from his online newsletter) The need for greater efficiency in the delivery of health care services and increased access to health insurance in California is undeniable. Growth in health care spending far outstrips that of income and inflation. It is clear that we need to find ways to make health care more affordable. However, before we embark on adopting solutions to improve our health care system, I believe it’s important for us to understand the true numbers of the uninsured population in California. The most often quoted number of uninsured Californians is approximately 20% of the population or about 6.5 million people. I believe the important question to ask is who are the uninsured? Who are the Uninsured? {{According to a recent report by the California HealthCare Foundation, at least 1 million of the uninsured are currently eligible for existing public health insurance programs (i.e., Medi-Cal and Healthy Families). Another 1.9 million have family income over $50,000 per year, which indicates these individuals may be able to afford insurance but choose not to purchase it. However, this is difficult to determine and what is also unknown is how many individuals and families who can afford health insurance or have been offered employer sponsored insurance have declined coverage. }} {{What is unquestionable is that the largest number of uninsured in California is illegal immigrants. They represent nearly half (about 2.7 million) of the uninsured population. }} Illegal Immigrants As we embark on health care reform, we as taxpayers must not allow our tax dollars to be used to provide health insurance to illegal immigrants. The question ought to be asked as we contemplate “universal health care,” does this include illegal immigrants? If not, then the uninsured population drops dramatically and the call to radically alter every Californians health care choices becomes muted. However, if the intent is to provide taxpayer funded health care for illegal immigrants then that should be honestly debated. I do not believe that any health care reform should include providing “free” health insurance for illegal immigrants. We are already required to pay for anyone that comes into an emergency room for health care, which increases our overall health care costs. This is why the federal government should move quickly forward with their new law for a border fence and increase enforcement. Moving Forward Since most Californians have access to health care, its clear that our focus needs to be about bringing down costs rather than eliminating our current system for a failed European system that will cover illegal immigrants and leave us with no health care choices, less access to physicians and increased costs. So as we move forward, we need to make decisions to improve our health care system based on real facts, make our health care system more efficient and create more affordable choices for more people and businesses. More health care choices for all Californians, not less, should be the goal.

Now we have the answer as to why Nancy Pelosi is so supportive of illegal aliens and promotes an Open Borders policy. This ultra-rich Bay Area liberal owns a Napa Valley vineyard. Better yet, it is non-union! I did not know that Cesar Chavez was ardently opposed to illegal aliens...he even worked with the INS to deport them--sounds like he and Chris Simcox of the Minutemen could be friends! {{ As Ruben Navarrette Jr. reported in the Arizona Republic: ( 8/31/97) "Cesar Chavez, a labor leader intent on protecting union membership, was as effective a surrogate for the INS as ever existed. Indeed, Chavez and the United Farm Workers Union he headed routinely reported, to the INS, for deportation, suspected illegal immigrants who served as strikebreakers or refused to unionize."}} But, the Progressive Pelosi has lots to answer. Lets start with these questions: 1. She supports "Livable Wage" measures--does she pay her employees a "living wage"? 2. She believes in unions, why doesn't she push her members to join a union? 3. She believes Wal Mart is a bad company for not providing every temporary worker or intern with world class health insurance--does she provide her workers with the same health care coverage she gets as a member of Congress? 4. Since she is a promoter of the concept of Global Warming, I presume she has no gas or diesel generated machines in her vineyards--she should not be part of the problem. 5. Does Pelosi take any Federal Agriculture funds to grow or not to grow in her vineyards? 6. Does she check to see if illegal aliens are working for her at the vineyards? does she call the appropriate agency and check the documents and Social Security cards? These are just a few questions that must be asked of this Progressive--is she honest with her votes or with her money? Write your thoughts directly on the web site for everyone to see and discuss. {{Steve Frank}} Pelosi's Stake in Illegal Immigration By Joseph Klein [FrontPageMagazine.com->FrontPageMagazine.com] | October 30, 2006 The Minuteman Project, founded by Jim Gilchrist (who is also the co-author of the book Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America’s Borders), is made up of citizen volunteers who watch our border with Mexico and report illegal entry to the border patrol. For performing that thankless task in full compliance with the law, Gilchrist and his colleagues have been falsely maligned as fascists, racists, and even murderers. They have been driven off the speaker’s platform at Columbia University and vilified by Leftist politicians and their handmaidens in the liberal press. So it was no surprise that the mainstream media chose to ignore a recent press release, issued by his publisher, in which Gilchrist asked the question about Nancy Pelosi’s ethics that should be on the minds of every law-abiding American – including those immigrants who are following the law to become citizens here the proper way: “Do we really need a House Speaker whose every action is calculated to enhance her own financial interests, instead of focusing on how porous borders will affect the security of everyday American citizens?” Gilchrist did not stop there. He demanded an investigation into Pelosi’s “economic stake in just the kind of illegal alien exploitation that we deplore in Minutemen.” But you would never know it from the liberal media, who - while ignoring this demand - have had no compunctions in calling for Speaker Hastert’s head in the wake of the Foley page controversy. Gilchrist was reacting to my report several weeks ago in FrontPage Magazine that Pelosi – who owns non-union vineyards in Napa Valley where grape-picking depends chiefly on the availability of cheap foreign labor – is doing everything she can to help open the floodgates to more illegal immigration. And she wants the American taxpayers to pay their way. As even more proof of this than I previously reported, Pelosi does not want employers like her to be required to pay the cost of illegal aliens’ hospital care. She voted against a bill that would make employers liable for the reimbursements if an undocumented employee seeks medical attention. And she voted in favor of rewarding illegal aliens from Mexico with Social Security benefits. At the same time, Pelosi has led the Democratic opposition to any effective border controls or documentation requirements. She opposed the Secure Fence Act of 2006, signed into law by President Bush, and voted against final passage of a border security and enforcement bill in 2005 which required that all businesses must use an electronic system to check if all new hires have the legal right to work in this country. She voted against a bill to bar drivers' licenses for illegal aliens in 2005. This year she opposed legislation requiring presentation of a legitimate government-issued photo ID to prove eligibility to vote, claiming that “there is little evidence anywhere in the country of a significant problem with non-citizen voters.” She is dead wrong. For example, an accused terrorist by the name of Nuradin Abdi was just recently reported to have illegally registered to vote at the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Nuradin Abdi was indicted earlier this year as part of a conspiracy to blow up the Columbus Mall. How many other terrorist suspects may have slipped through the system because Leftists like Pelosi oppose any meaningful screens? Instead she continues to advocate our recognition of the flimsy, non-validated ID card that the Mexican consulates provide to illegal aliens before they cross over our border, called the “matricula consular”, which gives them phony documentation to set up bank accounts, apply for jobs, obtain social benefits, board airplanes, identify themselves to police, enter buildings that require IDs, obtain drivers’ licenses and then perhaps use those drivers’ licenses to try to illegally register to vote in our elections. Pelosi also believes in giving sanctuary to illegal aliens. She opposed legislation to deny federal homeland security funding to state and local governments who refuse to share information they learn about an individual's immigration status with Federal immigration authorities. Pelosi’s hometown of San Francisco is one of the sanctuary cities she voted to protect for the benefit of illegal aliens. Pelosi even voted against strengthening our immigration law with regard to the deportability of alien terrorists. Jim Gilchrist cut to the chase with this devastating observation that the mainstream media does not want you to read: "As we’ve shown again and again in ‘Minutemen,’ the Democrats aren’t just hypocrites, but are working actively to subvert our legislative system to their own ends. Their only goal is votes, votes and more votes, no matter where they come from, no matter if they’re cast legally, no matter whether the person casting them is dead, alive, a citizen or an illegal alien." Pelosi sees Jim Gilchrist’s Minutemen Project as a threat to her pro-illegal alien agenda. More illegal aliens mean more votes for the Democrats and more grape-pickers for Napa Valley vineyards like hers. So she even voted against a measure that would have cut off the use of U.S. taxpayers’ funds to tip off illegal aliens as to where the Minutemen citizen patrols may be located! She obviously wants to see the Minutemen put out of business – permanently. She can count on the liberal press to distort the work of the Minutemen and to keep out of the public eye Gilchrist’s pointed questions about her motivations for helping illegal aliens during the run-up to the mid-term elections that may make her the next Speaker of the House. Gilchrist, of course, is accustomed to being vilified and prevented by the Left from getting his message out. In early October, he was prevented from finishing his speech at the "Minutemen Forum" sponsored by the Columbia College Republicans. Gilchrist had spoken for just a few minutes and managed to utter the words “I love the First Amendment” when a group of radical protestors took the stage and interrupted him, displaying a big banner saying "There are no illegals." More protestors then stormed the stage. Chaos erupted and the audience members who had come to hear Gilchrist speak never got the chance, which was precisely the protestors’ objective. As reported online by the staff of Columbia’s undergraduate newspaper, “a mosh pit of triumphal students and community members danced and chanted outside, "Asian, Black, Brown and White, we smashed the Minutemen tonight!" They also put out a statement declaring: “The Minutemen are not a legitimate voice in the debate on immigration. They are a racist, armed militia who have declared open hunting season on immigrants, causing countless hate crimes and over 3000 deaths on the border. Why should exploitative corporations have free passes between nations, but individual people not? No human being is illegal.” (Emphasis added) We have come to the point in this country where a bunch of radical protestors get to decide who is and who is not a legitimate voice in the debate on as critical a public policy issue as immigration. Such Leftists think that migration in a borderless world is a basic human right. They want no barriers, no guards, and no proof of lawful residency. They certainly do not want the Minutemen watching the border and reporting illegal entry to the authorities. Leftist slogans like “no human being is illegal” are red herrings. It is not the human being who is illegal; it is what the human being does that may be illegal. One’s conduct is the test, not simply who one is. Immigrants who follow our rules are welcome here. Those who do not abide by our laws have no right to be here. A person who breaks into your house without your permission does not deserve room, board and a job as a reward, even if the intruder may be much poorer than you. He has broken the law and deserves to be punished for what he has done. Our country’s boundaries and rules for entry and residency similarly define who is permitted to be here and how we choose to protect ourselves. We are a land of immigrants, but we are also a land of laws with certain core values. Those seeking to enter our country and remain here must learn to accommodate to our laws and values, not the other way around. That is the way prior generations of immigrants did it, including those who passed through Ellis Island. Why should the law be thrown aside now? What we are witnessing is a frontal challenge to our nation’s sovereignty. Mexico’s Foreign Secretary wants to drag us before the United Nations for intending to build a fence on our side of the border with our money to keep out aliens who seek to enter our country illegally. They will probably get a sympathetic ear as some UN bureaucrats believe there should be no such thing as “illegal” immigrants in the first place. For the first time in our history, Americans are being asked to cede the right to decide how we define ourselves as a nation and protect our own borders to a globalist governance body. Will Pelosi lead her liberal loyalists as House Speaker to support the UN against America’s right to control its own borders? Do we really want to risk finding out? It is high time, as Jim Gilchrist demanded in the press release ignored by the mainstream media, that Pelosi come clean under oath as to her personal stake in the illegal immigration issue before she can do even more damage as House Speaker.

One of the quiet issues that will make a difference on November 7th is the abortion question. The Planned Parenthood people, the Clintons of the world, are slowly losing the battle. On the margins of the polling place those that believe in the sanctity of life, that partial birth abortion is the killing of a live human being, that if we are concern about not killing innocent lives in Iraq, then we should just as concerned here in the United States. A reader of the California Political News and Views is the writer/director of "A Distant Thunder", Jonathan Flora. I urge everyone to see it, especially those that are supporters of Planned Parenthood. Flora wrote this article in hopes it would open eyes and minds. While we debate Iraq, taxes, education and the environment, many are still debating the basics, life itself. Since the Supreme Court will be holding a hearing on partial birth abortion the day after the election, I thought this would be an appropriate time to remind folks that this is an issue that won't go away. I expect this will create a lot of discussion on the web site, please keep it civil and respectful. Steve Frank {{WINDOWS OF OPPORTUNITY by Jonathan Flora}} { {{“To every man, there comes in a lifetime those special moments when he is figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered the chance to do a very special thing, unique to him and fitted to his talent; What a tragedy if that moment finds him unprepared or unqualified for the work which would be his finest hour!” (Sir Winston Churchill)}} } On November 7th, the people of South Dakota will vote whether to adopt a sweeping state law that would make abortion illegal and therefore a crime. This is a state vote with nationwide significance and impact. If the good citizens of South Dakota do vote in favor of outlawing abortion, there are as many as 30 other states that could soon move to impose their own abortion bans. One day later, The Supreme Court in Washington D.C. will hear arguments in Gonzalez v. Carhart and Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood. These two cases will determine whether the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act that President Bush signed into law in 2003 is constitutional. So many people argue that the world is not black and white, that it’s really all shades of gray. That may be true in some instances, but there are some things that are undeniably wrong, with no middle ground, and partial-birth abortion is one of them. Even if we remove all religion, and forget whether we consider ourselves to be conservative or liberal, we must ask a very important question. How did we become a society that a procedure such as this is even a matter for debate? How is it that we as a civilized people have to argue about the legal right for a woman to desire and allow a doctor to plunge a pair of scissors into the back of the tiny head of her baby and suck out his or her brain? I am proud to be an American, but this shames me. I was certainly encouraged after President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, a legislation authored by Ohio Congressman Steve Chabot, into law three years ago. But the shame and disgust returned when pro-abortion organizations immediately challenged the Ban in three courts and prohibited its enforcement. We now live in an age where our state governments force us to pay for Embryonic Experimentation. America obviously maintains a very duplicitous attitude toward life. How else is it that we can have abortion on demand and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act? How else is it that a man could be walking down the street with a pregnant woman. He suddenly pulls out a gun and shoots her, killing her and her unborn baby, then be charged with double-homicide? However, if the man is her boyfriend or husband or even the father of the boy who got the girl pregnant, he can walk her right across the street to have a late-term abortion. That tap on my shoulder that Churchill mentions came soon after February 14, 2003. It was on that day, Valentine’s Day, that my wife Deborah, called me at work to tell me she had been notified by our doctor that the possibility of us having our own children was highly unlikely. That’s when the stark contrast of this pluralistic view and the contradictions within our society became so painfully obvious and personal to me. Here we were on our knees praying so fervently for a child while America is aborting more than 4,000 babies a day. Based on what? Overwhelmingly, on whether or not the baby is wanted, with over 75% of those decisions based on one’s financial situation. Life has become so devalued that this is now how we determine who should live or die. And let me say up front, I’m guilty. I regretfully made that same decision while in college and I’ve had to come to terms with that. I have to admit that there was a time when I struggled with the thought that perhaps God was punishing me for running away from my responsibilities as a man so many years ago. But I’m grateful that He is instead, a loving, compassionate, and forgiving God. Before President Bush signed the Ban I was doing research on abortions when I stumbled across partial-birth abortion. I was shocked when I learned what it was. The more research I did on that subject and the more I talked to people who also had never heard of it, the more I knew I had to try to bring this out. This is why I wrote the movie A Distant Thunder, the award-winning supernatural courtroom drama, designed to bring the barbaric procedure of PBA to light and encourage dialogue. Faced with the dilemma that very few on either side of the issue are willing to discuss abortion, my wife Deborah and friend Kip Perry decided to use the arts to overcome that barrier. Right after A Distant Thunder was released, we received an encouraging testimony that was a perfect example of this. We were told about a young couple at a local university in Los Angeles. They were in an all too common situation, facing an unwanted pregnancy and had decided to have an abortion. A friend of theirs gave them a DVD of A Distant Thunder. As the credits rolled, the boyfriend turned to his girlfriend and said, "We can't do this, let's get married and have this baby." The couple welcomed their new son this past Valentine’s Day. What a polar opposite of what we experienced on Valentine’s Day three years earlier! Since then, A Distant Thunder has been screened across the nation and around the world, including the Capitol Building in Washington D.C. And, soon after South Dakota Governor Rounds signed the Abortion Ban into law earlier this year, we were notified that A Distant Thunder was referred to on the Senate floor by a state legislator during the debates and it was instrumental in garnering critical votes in favor of the bill. I say this not to praise us, or the movie, but to demonstrate the power of truth if we can get people to open their hearts to it and to show that we all can play a role. We are all being taped on the shoulder and a window of opportunity has presented itself. Each of us has a voice that needs to be heard and we can accomplish anything if we work together and do not bother ourselves with the worry of who might receive the credit. The precious worth of a person’s life coupled with a righteous person’s actions can only result in turning this thing around. By the way, God proved the doctors wrong and we have been blessed with a beautiful daughter and son. Jonathan Flora is an award-winning producer with a top movie studio in Hollywood and the Writer/Director of A Distant Thunder A Distant Thunder is available at [www.ADistantThunder.com->www.ADistantThunder.com]

One of the priorities of Governor Schwarzenegger in the first half of next year is to provide us with a government health care program. No one knows the size or shape of it, whether the approach will be free market, or government based (brought you by the same type of bureaucrats that run our roads and our schools?). We do know that he has already hired folks to put together his plan, and none seem to be of the Dr. Milton Friedman school of public policy or economics...all believe in government, not people. I am not as concerned about this as I normally would be, since the fiscal health of the State will have to accommodate pension and health care unfunded liabilities, more bonds payments, Federally mandated prison reform, and numerous other issues will have first call on the tax dollars. But, it will be good to see the shape of this program. The only way it could work is by being free market oriented. Of course we could bring down the cost of health insurance if we didn't mandate that nuns be covered for contraceptives and abortions, among the sillier reasons the cost is so high. We need to get creative to save money and to broaden health care coverage. Read this article carefully and compare it with your current health care service...is it better or worse. Would you prefer to have the Canadian system or your current insurer? Which would work better for you and your family? What do you think is the answer? Should government oversee health care delivery, or should the free market. Write your thoughts directly on this web site for all to see and discuss. {{Canadians Waiting Longer for Medical Treatment in 2006 According to Annual Survey}} Contact(s): Nadeem Esmail, Director, Health System Performance Studies The Fraser Institute, Tel (403) 216-7175 ext 222 Email: nadeeme@fraserinstitute.ca Click here for the complete publication, [http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=863->http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=863] Release Date: October 24, 2006 Calgary, AB - The amount of time Canadians have to wait for surgical and other therapeutic treatment increased slightly in 2006 and continued to hover near the 18 week mark first reached in 2003, according to The Fraser Institute’s 16th annual survey, Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada, released today. The total waiting time for patients between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, increased to 17.8 weeks this year from 17.7 weeks observed in 2005. The slight increase in the average is the result of an increase in wait times in seven provinces: B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. This masked the decreased wait times experienced in Alberta, Ontario and Newfoundland. “These waiting times are the second-longest Canadians have ever experienced, despite record levels of health spending and numerous commitments made by provincial and federal governments,” said Nadeem Esmail, Director of Health System Performance at The Fraser Institute and co-author of the survey. “Canadians should not expect to see any dramatic improvement in waiting times as a result of the latest federal-provincial agreements regarding waiting lists. The long waiting times for medically necessary services are a symptom of a much greater problem: a poorly designed health care system.” The Fraser Institute’s annual Waiting Your Turn survey documents the extent to which queues for visits to specialists and for diagnostic and surgical procedures are used to control health care expenses. Total Waiting Time With a total of 14.9 weeks, patients in Ontario benefited from the shortest total average wait time (the wait between visiting a general practitioner and receiving treatment). Alberta was second at 16.3 weeks followed by Manitoba at 18 weeks. Patients in New Brunswick experienced the longest wait times (31.9 weeks) followed by Saskatchewan (28.5 weeks) and Prince Edward Island (25.8 weeks). The First Wait: Between General Practitioner and Specialist Consultation The waiting time between referral by a GP and consultation with a specialist rose to 8.8 weeks from the 8.3 weeks recorded in 2005. The shortest waits for specialist consultations were found in British Columbia and Ontario (7.4 weeks), Manitoba (7.7 weeks), and Saskatchewan (8.4 weeks). The longest waits for specialist consultations occurred in New Brunswick (20.8 weeks), Newfoundland (12.4 weeks) and Prince Edward Island (11.8 weeks). The Second Wait: Between Specialist Consultation and Treatment The waiting time between specialist consultation and treatment­the second stage of waiting­fell to 9.0 weeks from 9.4 weeks in 2005. Increases in waiting times in B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island were offset by decreases in the five other provinces. The shortest specialist-to-treatment waits were found in Ontario (7.5 weeks), Alberta (7.8 weeks), and Newfoundland (8.1 weeks). The longest waits between specialist consultation and treatment were in Saskatchewan (20.1 weeks), Prince Edward Island (14.0 weeks), and British Columbia (11.9 weeks). Waiting by Specialty Among the various specialties, the shortest total waits (between referral by a general practitioner and treatment) occurred in medical oncology (4.9 weeks), radiation oncology (5.0 weeks), and elective cardiovascular surgery (8.0 weeks). Patients waited longest between a GP referral and orthopaedic surgery (40.3 weeks), plastic surgery (35.4 weeks), and neurosurgery (31.7 weeks). The wait for neurosurgery increased significantly (by 12.9 weeks) over 2005 levels while wait times for otolaryngology increased by 2.9 weeks, internal medicine by 0.6 weeks, and orthopaedic surgery by 0.3 weeks. Wait times improved for patients seeking treatment in urology (decreased 1.2 weeks), plastic surgery (decreased 0.8 weeks), radiation oncology (decreased 0.7 weeks), medical oncology (decreased 0.6 weeks), gynaecology (decreased 0.5 weeks), general surgery (decreased 0.3 weeks), elective cardiovascular surgery (decreased 0.3 weeks), and ophthalmology (decreased 0.2 weeks). Waiting for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Technology Patients continue to experience significant waiting times for computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasound scans. The median wait across Canada for a CT scan was 4.3 weeks. The shortest waits were found in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia (4.0 weeks), while the longest wait occurred in Prince Edward Island (9.0 weeks). The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.3 weeks. Patients in Ontario and Nova Scotia experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (8.0 weeks), while Newfoundland residents waited longest (28.0 weeks). The median wait for ultrasound was 3.8 weeks across Canada. Ontario had the shortest wait time for ultrasound (2.0 weeks), with patients in Prince Edward Island and Manitoba experiencing the longest wait times (8.0 weeks). “Reasonable” and Actual Waiting Times Compared Specialists are also surveyed as to what they regard as clinically “reasonable” waiting times. While these values by themselves do not reflect the state of actual waiting time, they can be compared with actual waits to gain an understanding of the medical consequences of waiting for care in Canada. In 77 per cent of the categories surveyed (some comparisons were precluded by missing data), actual waiting time exceeded reasonable waiting time. Pan-Canadian Waiting Time Benchmarks Canada’s provincial, territorial, and federal governments agreed to a set of common benchmarks for medically necessary treatment on December 12, 2005. A comparison of those benchmarks and the measures used to compile Waiting Your Turn shows that Canada’s physicians tend to have a lower threshold for reasonable wait times than do Canada’s provincial, territorial, and federal governments. Secondly, median wait times in many provinces are already within the benchmarks set by governments in Canada. This means more than 50 per cent of patients in these provinces are already being treated in a time frame that provincial governments would consider “reasonable.” Health Expenditures and Waiting Times With variations in waiting times across the country, it is natural to ask if shorter waiting times occur in provinces that spend more on health care. An analysis reveals that provinces spending more on health care per person have neither shorter nor longer weighted median waiting times than provinces spending less. In addition, provinces spending more have no higher rates of surgical specialist services (consultations plus procedures) and lower rates of procedures and major surgeries. “While our provinces and federal government should be applauded for acknowledging there is a problem and attempting to do something about it, they are falling well short of the gold standard. All their actions are based on the premise that Canadians must wait for care and will always wait for care,” Esmail said. “It’s time Canadians sat down and took an honest look at what works elsewhere in the developed world. We need to move beyond the politics, rhetoric, and nonsense that have plagued discussions of health care reform for years if we truly want to improve the state of health care in Canada.” - 30 - Established in 1974, The Fraser Institute is an independent public policy organization with offices in Vancouver, Calgary, and Toronto.

{{ {Govindini Murty Co-Founder & Co-Director The Liberty Film Festival} }} [http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com->http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com] ---------------------------------------------- {{Liberty Film Festival, Hollywood’s conservative film festival, set for November 10-12, 2006 in West Hollywood}} The third annual Liberty Film Festival, Hollywood's conservative film festival, is this November 10-12, 2006 at the Pacific Design Center in West Hollywood. The 2006 Liberty Film Festival is screening 28 new conservative films that celebrate America, Israel, and democracy - and that support US troops in Iraq and defend the War on Terror. The 2006 Liberty Film Festival will feature such hard-hitting documentaries as ACLU: At War With America and Border War: The Battle Over Illegal Immigration - both produced by Citizen’s United. Opening Night of the Liberty Film Festival on Friday, November 10th will feature Border War, as well as hilarious new comic shorts by David Zucker (producer/director “Scary Movie 4”) and Joel Surnow (Executive Producer, Emmy Award-winning TV series “24”). In addition, the Liberty Film Festival will present a special Freedom of Expression Award to the Producers of ABC's The Path to 9/11 on Opening Night. Frank Price, recent Presidential appointee to the National Council on the Arts, and former Chairman of Columbia Pictures & Chairman of Universal Studios, will present the LFF Freedom of Expression Award to the Producers of “The Path to 9/11” in recognition of their courage in producing the miniseries and resisting political pressure from the left to pull it. The 2006 Liberty Film Festival also honors America’s troops with a Veteran’s Day Tribute on Saturday, November 11th of the festival, featuring pro-military movies like Between Iraq and a Hard Place, A Hero's Love: The Daniel Unger Story, The Road to Ramadi, The Manual, and The Verge of Greatness. Lt. Col Buzz Patterson will introduce Between Iraq and a Hard Place, and conduct a Q & A with the Marines featured in the film. KFI AM 640 talk show host John Ziegler will conduct a panel discussion on “Hollywood and the Military” featuring Jerry Molen (producer, “Schindler’s List”), Ron Maxwell (writer/director “Gettysburg”), and Lt. Col Buzz Patterson (author, “Dereliction of Duty”), which will examine how Hollywood undermines the military today - in contrast to how it supported the military in World War I & II. Sunday, November 12th of the Liberty Film Festival is devoted to films that support Israel and examine Islamic terrorism. Talk shot host Michael Medved will moderate a panel discussion on “Hollywood, Israel, and the Middle East” featuring speakers Frank Price (former Chairman of Columbia Pictures and Chairman of Universal Studios), David Zucker (director/producer “Scary Movie 4”), and Robert Avrech (Emmy Award-winning screenwriter, “Body Double”). Michael Medved will also introduce the outstanding new film “From the River to the Sea,” directed by Pierre Rehov, which examines how the UN covers up for Hamas and Hezbollah and covertly encourages terrorism against Israel. Author David Horowitz will introduce the stunning documentary “Suicide Killers,” also directed by Pierre Rehov, in which Rehov risked his life to go undercover into Palestinian terrorist training camps and into the homes of suicide bombers to show that terrorists are created not by American foreign policy, but by the poverty and repression of fundamentalist Islamic societies themselves. The festival will also be screening new films by MEMRI and Stand With Us, as well as the 1933 German classic “The Testament of Dr. Mabuse” (directed by Fritz Lang as his protest of the Nazi regime), all of which examine the dangers of totalitarianism to modern democratic societies. Washington D.C.’s renowned Leadership Institute is also conducting a special workshop at the Liberty Film Festival on Friday November 10th titled "Effective Television Techniques Workshop.” Instructors from the Leadership Institute will teach participants how to present their message on TV and in the media with maximum impact and efficiency. The Liberty Film Festival demonstrated its national impact recently when the 2005 Liberty Film Festival Best Feature Film Award-winner, “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West,” was broadcast five times on Fox News on the November 4-5th, 2006 weekend - just a few days before the national election. “Obsession” has also been featured on CNN, Fox News, the Rush Limbaugh Show, and numerous other major media - and has helped to change the national debate on the dangers of Islam-fascism. The Liberty Film Festival is proud to have held the World Premiere of “Obsession” in 2005, and to have helped launch this outstanding film to national prominence. The Liberty Film Festival was founded in July of 2004 by filmmakers Govindini Murty and Jason Apuzzo to celebrate free speech, patriotism, religious freedom and democracy by providing a forum in the heart of Hollywood for conservative and libertarian filmmakers. The 2004 and 2005 Liberty Film Festivals, held in West Hollywood, California, attracted a combined total of 6500 attendees. The festival has premiered over 30 films, of which 15 have received theatrical or DVD distribution. The festival has also launched a highly successful on-line magazine, LIBERTAS, which has become the premier forum for conservative discussion on film, with over three million hits a month. The Liberty Film Festival joined the David Horowitz Freedom Center (formerly the Center for the Study of Popular Culture) in June of 2006 to create the premier conservative film and cultural organization in America. As author David Horowitz, founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, said: "We are thrilled to announce that the Liberty Film Festival -- that great, innovative, and irrepressible response to Hollywood's one-party state--is joining the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. We welcome its creators Govindini Murty and Jason Apuzzo to our ranks and look forward to spirited collaboration." Award-winning films premiered at the 2004 and 2005 Liberty Film Festivals include "In The Face of Evil: Reagan's War in Word & Deed," "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West," "Brainwashing 201," and "Emancipation, Revelation, Revolution." Other notable festival films include "Broken Promises: the UN at 60," "Cochise County, USA," "Is It True What They Say About Ann?", "Celsius 41.11," "Michael & Me," "Confronting Iraq," and "WMD.” The Liberty Film Festival's Board of Advisors includes film financier Steve Bannon (Chairman, Genius Products); actress Morgan Brittany ("Dallas"); actor Robert Davi ("Profiler"); producer Scott Gardenhour ("Pearl Harbor"); philanthropist Paul Harberger (President, Foundation for Free Markets); author Jim Hirsen ("Hollywood Nation"); film critic and talk-show host Michael Medved ("Right Turns"); and producer Douglas Urbanski ("The Contender"). Tickets and festival passes are available on-line only at http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com. Please do not contact the Pacific Design Center for tickets, as they are only the festival venue and cannot answer any questions. For full details on the 2006 Liberty Film Festival, please visit [http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com.->http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com.]

Congratulations to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his personal victory last night. He won by about 18%, more than a million vote margin. He campaigned hard for the bonds and all of them passed, even Prop. 84 that gives the Legislature the right to spend 75% of the $5 billion measure--as long as they say it is water, parks, wetlands, the environment or horse shoeing. He also got his wish, he stopped the passage of Prop. 90, which would have stopped the uncontrolled use of eminent domain. While in Stockton last week, he was asked if he supported Congressman Richard Pombo for re-election, and he said "that is a Federal issue" and I am only concentrating on State issues. Pombo lost last night. with his loss, the effort to return the Endangered Species Act to common sense has ended. Pombo was defeated by the national environmental community which poured money and people-power into the District. These are the same people that cheered the Governor for his leadership in the passage of AB 32, the "global warming" bill. In the past GOP candidates for Governor campaigned by the statewide ticket and openly for legislative candidates. Yet, he did not make a single TV or radio ad for any of his teammates, nor did he have rallies and public appearances with his Team, as media events. Though every once in a while a member of the team would show up. Sadly, McClintock, Poochigian, Parrish and Strickland lost. Even the man he appointed as Secretary of State, Bruce McPherson lost--none of them had any public connection to the Schwarzenegger for Governor effort. Maybe all it would have taken would have been a public arm around the shoulder on a TV ad to have helped. Then we had the Schwarzenegger statement that Senator McClintock was "totally wrong" on the bonds, and that Tom would not support the rebuilding of California. Coming as it did in the last days of the race, as we now see, the statement stopped the momentum and gave Garamendi something to say. The last weekend of the race, Garamendi had robo calls all over the state. A lady gave the pitch claiming to be a lifelong Republican and then quoted the Governor and said, even though she is a Republican, she would vote for Garamendi. The usually mild mannered Board of Equalization Member Bill Leonard got upset about this and wrote in his online newsletter the following: "***Governor Is Wrong*** From the Leonard Blog As much as I want Governor Schwarzenegger to win the election, I have been hoping that he would not say something damaging in the closing days before the election. My hopes are dashed. He has attacked Senator Tom McClintock as "totally wrong" on the bonds, saying that if Tom got his way California would never be rebuilt. The Governor is the one who is wrong and on several counts. First, it is not politically smart to attack your own running mate (at least before the election). Whatever political pain McClintock might inflict on the Governor with his principled positions will be trumped by the crassly partisan slashes that a Garamendi would do if he is elected. Second, McClintock actually supported one of the bonds and agrees with the Governor on setting aside highway tax dollars for highway construction and maintenance. The Governor should be thanking Tom for this support because a lot of the rest of us conservatives see the whole bond package as a fiscal disaster as inevitable as the next flood in Sacramento." In the 30th Assembly District, our nominee Dan Gilmore lost to the incumbent Nicole Parra by 23,839 to 22,281. Do you think that a visit, a radio ad, signs with the names Schwarzenegger and Gilmore would have helped? FYI, Arnold won Kern County by a three to one margin. This is being written at 3:30 a.m. and I am looking at Lynne Daucher holding a 13 vote lead in her race for the 34th Senate District, in Orange County, with 100% of the vote counted--now that is close! But, would she have had a larger margin if Arnold had campaigned with her? Dan Schnur wrote recently that if Arnold had certain percentage of victory, Tom, Tony and Bruce would win. Well, they didn't. {{In order to have coattails, you need to allow the nominees to get close to your coat. If you don't, you won't have coattails. }} I would note that the California Republican Party, at convention, took a neutral position on the education bonds, but they got a full page in the CRP Voter Guide on how important this money is (without specifically saying vote Yes). On the other hand, the CRP took a strong position in favor of Prop. 90, and the GOP Voters Guide did not even mention the existence of this measure. How did this happen, why did it happen? In affect, those responsible for the GOP Voters Guide said it didn't matter what the Republican Party wanted, we will do as we please. Could this had confused the GOP voter into thinking we supported the education binds, when we didn't and that we had no position and didn't even know about Prop. 90 and eminent domain? The Governors Team, Steve Schmidt and company put together one of the most amazing ground operations seen. With 48 VOIP Centers (phone banks for us old folks, but calling using the Internet), a communications department that wouldn't allow Angelides to blow his nose without a comment about the germs he was spreading, and a focus on "micro-targeting" to get the most out of every voter. I received a call telling me to vote for Arnold because of his stand on illegal aliens, that he was "strong" on this. When I challenged the caller with the Governors opposition to the border fence, his support of amnesty through a guest worker program, his support of more benefits for illegal aliens, I was told the Guv had vetoed the drivers license bill, but they didn't know about the other things I mentioned. My friends who are strong on the abortion issue were told of Arnolds' support of Parental Notification, but not his support of abortions. It was a great move, and his massive landslide is evidence that this worked. To make micro-targeting work, you also need to be able to fund a mailings, radio and TV program. The Guv raised over $100 million, enough to fund a very effective campaign for his re-election. The Guv's Team was focused, disciplined and had an agenda, they wanted Arnold to win. For this they need to be commended, they had a job and did it, very well! For the rest of us, that had hoped for a unified effort to elect GOP'ers, that was not seen. For the Party that took a stand on bonds, we saw guides that were inaccurate and a division on the issues. There is more to this story, and it will be told. As the pundits and columnists write the story of the results of the election, many will see this election as a defeat for conservatives and Republicans, in California. Instead, it is a victory for the personal politics of Governor Schwarzenegger and his vision of California. Based on nominations and positions on many of the issues, it is not a Republican valued vision. As Californians we now need to make it work, hopefully all Californians will be at the table making the key decision on how the bonds money will be spent, how we handle the budget deficit and the unfunded liabilities. The Governor has stated that he wants health care and redistricting on the table. These are important issues, that affects all of us. Again, I hope that all Californians will be able to participate in those decisions. It should be noted that Steve Poizner, the GOP nominee against Cruz Bustamante, won by a wide margin. If he wishes, he could take leadership inside the GOP, to help bring the focus needed for articulating Republicans principle's in a winning manner. To do this he will have to show active leadership within the GOP. I know he can do it, hope he does. Congratulations Steve on your victory! BTW, I was wrong yesterday when I went out on a limb believing we would win with Tom, Tony and Bruce, and would defeat some of the bonds. We are stuck with $84 billion in bonds (principle plus interest) at a time we can't afford the current deficit budget. Based on the results of the election and events in the Legislature this past year, I would doubt if the legislative Republicans will be supportive of another deficit budget without major reforms. When the Governor sends his budget message to the Capitol in January, the Democrats will be looking at taking back the corner office and the Republicans will want to provide fiscal common sense. Yes, there was other news on the California election front. In some of the more noteworthy races: In Costa Mesa, Allan Mansoor ran for re-election. He had made illegal aliens and getting them out of his town a major issue. La Raza and the usual suspects all came down on him like a ton of bricks. Yet he and his running mate Wendy Leece both won seats on the City Council. In Anaheim, you had the radical Cynthia McKinney supporter Bill Dalati run for City Council, giving himself $200,000 in loans. He still lost. Maybe it was the fact a week before the election he held a press conference leaving the GOP and joining a Party that approved of McKinney and her ilk, the Democrat Party. In Yolo county Matt Rexroad was running for Supervisor, against an incumbent. At 4:00 a.m. it looks like he won, congrats to Matt. He is a solid, thoughtful person and a good friend!. In my Supervisorial District in Ventura County there has been an upset. The Democrat, Jim Dantona, beat a very conservative Republican Peter Foy, by 309 votes. The race was based on experience and backgrounds, a very hard fought race. Congratulations to Anna Bryson for winning her seat for the Capistrano Unified School District. This is the District where the Superintendent stopped a Recall of his Board--now three of his people have been defeated and he was forced to resign when his emails became public. Thoughts for the future: If McClintock wants, he could run for Congressman Elton Galleglys' seat in two years. Elton has already announced this is his last term. Then Tony Strickland, or Assemblywoman Audra Strickland could run for Toms' Senate seat (Tom is termed out in 2008). Lots of maneuvering for the future. BTW, It is only seven months to the first Presidential debate, in South Carolina! What are your thoughts on the California election? Was this a GOP victory, an Arnold Victory, or not victory at all? Is this an election we can build on, or is it one we learn lessons from? Write your thoughts directly on the blog for all to see and discuss. Just click on the title of the article, then scroll down to the bottom of the new page and write your comments. {{Steve Frank}}