Netanyahu Urges U.S. Return To 1845 Borders

Netanyahu Urges U.S. Return To 1845 Borders

Israeli PM calls for “just solution” to end the conflict.

Aboard Air Force Aleph (Reuters) – Speaking to reporters accompanying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on his long flight to the United States tonight, Netanyahu spoke of the injustice and hardship Mexicans have endured since American forces annexed Texas in 1845. “Tens of thousands of ordinary Mexicans were driven out of their homes – the only homes they had known for centuries – and forced to live in poverty and squalor south of the border imposed by American aggression,” Netanyahu said. “The Israeli and Mexican people agree on this: This festering wound will never heal until America takes bold steps to return to the internationally accepted lines of 1845. Clearly the settlement activity that’s taken place in occupied Mexico since then is illegal. When I meet the President tomorrow I will tell him to halt all building activity in Texas immediately. Two lands for two peoples, yes, but not on land taken by force from Mexico,” the Prime Minister said.
Asked if his hard-line stance could hurt the U.S.-Israel relationship, Netanyahu reiterated Israel’s commitment to America’s security and the unshakeable friendship shared by the two countries, then added, “But who was it who said, part of friendship is being able to tell your friend the truth. The ball is now in Obama’s court.”

Yeah, it's a spoof, but not at all out of line. There are some important differences between the two situations, though. Namely, the government of Mexico has never made it official policy that America should be destroyed and all Americans killed.

The Palestinian government, not so much.

Health Care Cost Cutting Explained...

...by Don Surber.

Large demand divided by small supply equals high prices.

You don’t even have to sleep at a Holiday Inn Express to know that.

Even if you're Paul Krugman.

Wisconsin

Kinda says it all, doesn't it?

Comedy of Errors

When Judge Maryann Sumi enjoined the Wisconsin Secretary of State from publishing the just-passed union legislation (just before leaving on vacation) the desperate union left rejoiced. One little problem -- it looks like she enjoined the wrong party, and the law was published anyway.

Wisconsin Union Law Published Despite Court Order

Wisconsin officials couldn't agree Friday about whether an explosive law taking away nearly all public worker collective bargaining rights was about to take effect after a nonpartisan legislative bureau published it despite a court order blocking implementation.

...Walker signed the collective bargaining measure March 11 and La Follette had designated Friday as the date of publication. But after the restraining order, La Follette sent a letter to the Reference Bureau saying he was rescinding the publication date.

The Reference Bureau said it's still required to publish every new law within 10 working days after it's signed by the governor, on the date designated by the secretary of state, so it went ahead on Friday.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice issued a statement saying it would evaluate how the publication of the law, which it said was lawful, affects the lawsuit that prompted the restraining order. The bureau's action did not require anything to be done by La Follette and he was not in violation of the court's order, the DOJ statement said.

Long story short: Apparently, Sumi enjoined the wrong party.

SoS La Follette (a partisan Democrat who openly acknowledged pushing back the publication date as far as he legally could to facilitate unions getting contracts in place before the law took effect) did not violate the injunction. The SoS's only discretion is in setting the date of publication, which must be within ten working days of the Governor's signature on the bill. Nor does WI statute appear to give the SoS any power to rescind once the date is set. Sumi's order enjoined the SoS from publishing the law, but it is not the SoS that initially publishes, it's the LRB. The SoS publishes later in the state newspaper, but it appears to be the LRB publication that counts for activating the statute. The law gives the LRB no discretion about whether or not to publish, the LRB was not enjoined, had a statutory DUTY to publish, and did so.

There will be much bickering about "intent" and so forth, and not being a lawyer I will simply watch the proceedings with amusement. We do love a circus! For those interested in the technicalities, this piece by Marquette law professor Rick Esenberg is a good start. A good takeaway quote:

"District Attorney Ozanne and Judge Sumi never had the authority to stop publication and their failure to read the law has only resulted in their own errors being negated. There is poetic justice in that."

Indeed. And some delicious irony too.

Save the Children!

San Francisco becoming a child-free zone as youth population declines

Despite efforts to stem the tide of family flight, the population of children in San Francisco continues to ebb.

...The decrease is disappointing news for city officials, who have attempted to counter the family-flight trend by creating more affordable housing, improving schools and cutting costs, such as a college savings account for kindergarten enrollees.

Yeah, it's a real mystery. No one could ever have seen this coming. Right?

Law of the Instrument, Redux

Kaplan's Law of the Instrument states: "Give a small boy a hammer and he will find that everything he encounters needs pounding."

I was amused to stumble over Gabriel Malor's variation: "If your only tool is a hammer, then all your problems start to look like people that need to be beat with a hammer."

Extortion

I don't have a lot to add to the screaming in Wisconsin (Ann Althouse and hubby Meade have already done a fine job of on-site reporting) other than a few observations. One of which is this:

UNIONS THREATEN BUSINESS

March 10, 2011
Mr. Tom Ellis, President
Marshall & Ilsley Corporation
770 N. Water Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202
SENT VIA FASCIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL

Dear Mr. Ellis:
As you undoubtedly know, Governor Walker recently proposed a “budget adjustment bill” to eviscerate public employees’ right to collectively bargain in Wisconsin...

As you also know, Scott Walker did not campaign on this issue when he ran for office. If he had, we are confident that you would not be listed among his largest contributors. As such, we are contacting you now to request your support.

The undersigned groups would like your company to publicly oppose Governor Walker’s efforts to virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public employees in Wisconsin. While we appreciate that you may need some time to consider this request, we ask for your response by March 17. In the event that you do not respond to this request by that date, we will assume that you stand with Governor Walker and against the teachers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters, and other dedicated public employees who serve our communities.

In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining, please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the goods and services provided by your company. However, if you join us, we will do everything in our power to publicly celebrate your partnership in the fight to preserve the right of public employees to be heard at the bargaining table.Wisconsin’s public employee unions serve to protect and promote equality and fairness in the workplace. We hope you will stand with us and publicly share that ideal.

In the event you would like to discuss this matter further, please contact the executive Director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, Jim Palmer, at 608.273.3840. Thank you in advance for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

James L. Palmer, Executive Director
Wisconsin Professional Police Association
Mahlon Mitchell,President
Professional Fire Fighters
Jim Conway, President
International Association of Fire Fighters Local 311
John Matthews, Executive Director
Madison Teachers, Inc.
Keith Patt, Executive Director
Green Bay Education Association
Bob Richardson, President
Dane County Deputy Sheriffs Association
Dan Frei, President
Madison Professional Police Officers Association

If this were teachers making boycott threats, it would be garden variety union weight-swinging, annoying perhaps but quite legitimate. But when law enforcement and fire fighters utter such veiled threats, it starkly illustrates exactly WHY public-sector unions are a bad idea for a free society.

As the racketeers always say, "Nice business you have there. Shame if anything were to happen to it." By stacking up the law enforcement and fire unions as the majority of the signers, the implied threat is clear. "Support us ... or else." Don't expect any rapid response or strenuous investigations when your building or home or vehicles get vandalized or torched, or when you or your employees are harassed and/or assaulted. It's not only an implied threat, it's a backhanded invitation to fellow travelers to demonstrate the Protection Principle to you.

On a lighter note, one of the funnier headlines of the day:

Wisconsin labor protesters refuse to quit

Heh. And you can't just fire them, they're union!

Half and Half

Sex, cocaine, air pollution, anger, caffeine and alcohol among top causes of heart attacks: study

Come between me, my woman, and my rum & cola and you're a dead man. The rest you can have.

Pants On Fire! and sundry shorts

LIAR LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!

Despite the copious reporting from respectable sources that the White House was up to its lymph nodes in the Wisconsin protests, the White House is now denying involvement.

Administration officials said Sunday that the White House had done nothing to encourage the demonstrations in Wisconsin — nor was it doing so in Ohio, Florida and other states where new Republican governors are trying to make deep cuts to balance their budgets.

Pull the other one! The fast backtrack tells us exactly how poorly the protests and the legislator walkout walkouts are playing with the public, even as union and Democrat leaders go all in.

Only the dimmest voters are going to buy the administration's attempted triangulation. Those observing more closely will notice the admin's determined efforts to entrench union power, even at the cost of the workers the unions claim to be representing. Well, enough of that. Onward into the fog ...

-----------------------

In an astounding display of complete idiocy, Arvada police have arrested, handcuffed, and thrown in a cell a handicapped 11-year-old for drawing stick figures at school as a coping mechanism as directed by the child's therapist. One notes that the thousands of dollars the parents have spent on dealing with the legal issues would have been much better spent on, you know, the therapy the kid needs. Well, let's just keep on trucking through the idiocies of the day.

-----------------------

Detroit is closing HALF their public schools to stay afloat. But don't worry, they haven't asked the unions for any concessions yet!

-----------------------

Over on the Left Coast, our ever-nannyish friends in Loonie Land San Francisco are all set to ban infant circumcision. Apparently the science is not allowed to be an issue. Maybe they just want to discourage certain ethnic groups from living in the city.

Closing quote: Industrial unions are organized against the might and greed of ownership. Public employees unions are organized against the might and greed...of the public? --Joe Klein

Individual Mandate Unconstitutional

We were assured that objections to the constitutionality of the individual mandate were frivolous. Judge Vinson found them quite convincing, especially the objection that if the individual mandate is not limited by the Constitution, then damn near nothing is. He found the individual mandate unconstitutional.

With prejudice.

In subsequently dealing with the issue of severability, Vinson wholly accepted the government's oft-repeated assertion that the individual mandate was inextricably integral to the entire bill, and accordingly struck down ObamaCare in its entirety, saying it was not the function of the judiciary to re-write legislation when it failed to pass judicial review. That, he said, remains the job of Congress.

Hoist with their own petard.

Vinson's Summary Judgement decision can be read HERE.