Ex-Hostages: Iran's President Was Captor

A quarter-century after they were taken captive in Iran, five former American hostages say they got an unexpected reminder of their 444-day ordeal in the bearded face of Iran's new president-elect.

Watching coverage of Iran's presidential election on television dredged up 25-year-old memories that prompted four of the former hostages to exchange e-mails. And those four realized they shared the same conclusion — the firm belief that President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been one of their Iranian captors.

"This is the guy. There's no question about it," said former hostage Chuck Scott , a retired Army colonel who lives in Jonesboro, Ga. "You could make him a blond and shave his whiskers, put him in a zoot suit and I'd still spot him."

Scott and former hostages David Roeder, William J. Daugherty and Don A. Sharer told The Associated Press on Wednesday they have no doubt Ahmadinejad, 49, was one of the hostage-takers. A fifth ex-hostage, Kevin Hermening, said he reached the same conclusion after looking at photos.

Iranian Hostage Crisis

Survey: Bush's plan caused illegal immigration spike

Documents obtained by Judicial Watch under the FOIA reveal the extent to which Bush's guest worker plan resulted in a spike of illegal immigration. The documents also reveal administration attempts to cover up that fact.

See Bush "Temporary Worker Proposal" Caused Increase in Illegal Immigrant Crossings, New Docs Show for the documents and Judicial Watch's summary.

According to the document entitled "U.S. Border Patrol Survey Analysis", the BP conducted a survey for three weeks beginning on January 7, 2004. They asked detained illegal aliens why they came to the U.S. About 45% said it was because of Bush's plan, which many considered to be an amnesty. The administration stopped the survey after just three weeks.

Judicial Watch also obtained a document entitled "White House Approved Talking Points", which contains:

"Do not talk about amnesty, increase in apprehensions, or give comparisons of past immigration reform proposals... Do not provide statistics on apprehension spikes or past amnesty data..."

President Bush promoted his immigration plan on various occasions long after January 2004, including during the presidential debates and on Bill O'Reilly's television show.

UPDATE: See Administration accused of withholding information on immigration for the administration's side of things.

UPDATE 2: On a related note, see "AP: U.S. Blocked Release of CAFTA Reports":

The Labor Department worked for more than a year to maintain secrecy for studies that were critical of working conditions in Central America, the region the Bush administration wants in a new trade pact...

Ahmadinejad Wins Iranian Presidency

The mayor of Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won 62% of the votes defeating ex-President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

According to the BBC, Ahmadinejad's win means all the organs of the Iranian state are now in the hands of conservative hardliners.

Mr Ahmadinejad, 49, who campaigned on a conservative Islamic platform, had surprised observers by beating five other candidates in the first round to reach the run-off.

The election was not without controversy.

First, the U.S. and Britain criticized the election because many reformists, and all women candidates, were barred from running.

Second, there were fresh ballot-rigging allegations in Friday's runoff election. The chairman of Rafsanjani's campaign in Tehran province, accused the basij, a militant volunteer force, and the revolutionary guards of trying to skew the results in Mr Ahmadinejad's favor:

"We know they are ballot rigging," he told the Guardian.

"We are receiving reports that the basij and revolutionary guards are involved in ballot rigging and cheating. There's a probability that ballot boxes in at least two mosques in Tehran will be annulled.

"They have also been making propaganda for Ahmadinejad and that's forbidden. The law states that in the last 24 hours before polls open, you are not allowed to issue publicity for candidates. "

The Los Angeles Times reports that Ahmadinejad has never held an elected office. He has been the appointed mayor of Tehran for just two years. A former Revolutionary Guard and instructor for the pro-government Basiji militia, he talks tough toward Iran's enemies and promises to reverse what he views as the watering down of the militant politics of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Islamic Republic's founder.

Ahmadinejad's victory doesn't bode well for any improvement in relations between Iran and the West. Ahmadinejad said that better ties with the United States would not be a priority. He doesn't support Western-style democracy and last week said:

We did not have a revolution in order to have democracy.

From California Yankee.

SCOTUS rules cities may take private property for private use

via the AP:

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

The opinions in Kelo, et. al. v. New London are here.

I have more thoughts here.

The New York Times reports that Senate Democrats continued to block the nomination of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations this evening, refusing to give Mr. Bolton a vote on his confirmation.

Tonight's vote to end debate and move to actual confirmation fell six votes short of the 60 required, 54 to 38.

From California Yankee.

USDA helping Mexican citizens buy U.S. property

The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently announced a new program to give loans and grants to Mexican citizens who want to buy property in the United States. From "Pact Aims to Help Mexicans Living in Rural Parts of United States":

...The programs also support loans to businesses through banks and community-managed lending pools, and offer technical assistance and information to help agricultural and other cooperatives get started and improve the effectiveness of their member services...

This is a partnership between the Mexican government and the U.S., and it's apparently only open to legal residents from Mexico, not illegal aliens or those from other countries. The Mexican consulates in the U.S. will be deeply involved in these programs. According to Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns:

"USDA looks forward to continuing to work with Mexican authorities to enhance outreach to the Mexican community," said Johanns. "USDA administers 43 rural development programs designed to assist rural residents and communities increase their economic opportunities and improve their quality of life. Expanding access to these programs in underserved communities in need, especially the Hispanic community, is a priority for the Bush Administration."

See also the long transcript of Johanns' remarks in Mexico City on May 13 for more, including the information that this is related to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

Note that the press releases alternate between the "Mexican community" and the "Hispanic community", presumably referring to U.S. citizens. Of course, those two are not the same thing.

Currently, most Democratic politicians would probably react to these programs by suggesting that the USDA wasn't giving enough breaks to citizens of another country. However, perhaps in the near future a Democrat will decide to do the right and the politically popular thing and vociferously oppose such programs. That could prove quite damaging to the Bush administration and the Republican party.

On a related note, the FDIC is working with the Mexican consulate in Chicago to give home loans to illegal aliens. And, for a long-running case involving the USDA, see "Racism In The Fields".

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano Faces Backlash For Vetoing Illegal Immigration Bills

Having vetoed nearly 60 bills in her term, including some key bills to cut benefits and the flow of illegal aliens into the state, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano is facing a political backlash that could cost her re-election in 2006. The nearly 60 vetoes is the most by any Governor in the states history.

Bills she has vetoed include one denying in-state tuition and day care for illegal aliens and one allowing law enforcement to enforce immigration law on May 20. On May 10 she also vetoed a bill making English the official state language which would have allowed the state to save money by not having to provide all official documents in multiple languages and would have encourage assimilating immigrants into the American culture more effectively.

She also vetoed a bill that would have officially rejected the Matricula Consular from Mexico as a valid form of identification which an FBI official has said are "easy to forge" and a "major item on the product list of fraudulent document trade currently flourishing across the country and around the world.".

Knoxstudio

Napolitano said none of those bills would have solved immigration-related issues. She added that the immigration law enforcement bill did not include federal funding, so it would have cost the state millions of dollars.

"She is going to regret it," said Kathy McKee, founder of Protect Arizona Now. Her group played a major role in the passage of Proposition 200, which denies many public benefits to undocumented immigrants.

Kat Rodriguez, Tucson's Coalicion de Derechos Humanos coordinator , said Napolitano sent a strong message by not giving in to anti-immigrants while recognizing that "these bills would've been destructive to our community."

The coalition, however, regretted Napolitano's signing of a bill that prohibits use of taxpayer money for the construction of day-labor centers. She approved the legislation the same day she vetoed the most recent anti-immigrant bills.

"Day laborers won't go away," Rodriguez said, stressing the centers provide the workers some protection from exploitation.

It should be an interesting election in Arizona in 2006.

Originally posted at Diggers Realm

2006 Senate Races: The Terrain

There's been a lot of talk, more than usual this early in the election cycle, about the 2006 Senate races and the odds of either party picking up seats and changing the dynamics in a Senate now perennially deadlocked over judicial nominations and other business. In fact, much partisan strategy over these battles will, as always, be shaped by the prospects for the next election - where the parties hope to gain, where they fear to lose, and whether they expect to be dealing from a stronger or weaker hand come January 2007. With that in mind, let's take a look, using some hard numbers, at the political terrain for the 2006 Senate races.

There are polls, of course, but polls this early are volatile. Before we get to the polling data, there are two main pieces of hard data - actual votes - that we can use to evaluate the political climate in a state entering the beginning of a Senate race. The first is the red/blue issue: when people were paying greatest attention, which party did they side with? The polarizing nature of the 2004 election, with a conservative Republican and a liberal Democrat, sharpened that distinction. The second is the history of this Senate seat: how did the incumbent do in his/her last election? This second item is of particular importance where the incumbent is running again, although you do have to bear in mind that you are dealing with election results from six years ago, before 9/11, the Iraq War, the Florida Recount, Enron, judicial filibusters, Terri Schiavo, blogs, etc., etc., etc. Rather than rest on one or two of these data points, let's combine the two. I present a ranking of the Senate seats to be contested in 2006, from most to least likely to change parties, based on adding (1) the incumbent party's percentage of the vote in the last race for this seat (S%) to (2) the incumbent party's percentage of the vote in the 2004 presidential election (P%) (all numbers from FEC sources here, here and here):

ST	Incumbent	P	Notes	S%	P%	R%	D%
NE	Ben Nelson	D	B	51.00	32.68		83.68
RI	Lincoln Chaffee	R		56.85	38.67	95.52
ND	Kent Conrad	D		61.37	35.50		96.87
FL	Bill Nelson	D	B	51.04	47.09		98.13
MN	Open (Mark Dayton)	D	A	48.83	51.09		99.92
MI	Debbie Stabenow	D	A	49.47	51.23		100.70
PA	Rick Santorum	R		52.41	48.42	100.83
WA	Maria Cantwell	D	A	48.73	52.82		101.55
NJ	Jon Corzine/Open	D	B	50.11	52.92		103.03
MO	Jim Talent	R	A, E	49.80	53.30	103.10
NV	John Ensign	R	D	55.09	50.47	105.56
VA	George Allen	R	A	52.26	53.68	105.94
DE	Tom Carper	D	A	55.52	53.35		108.87
MT	Conrad Burns	R		50.55	59.07	109.62
CA	Dianne Feinstein	D	D	55.84	54.31		110.15
OH	Mike DeWine	R	D	59.90	50.81	110.71
NM	Jeff Bingaman	D		61.70	49.05		110.75
WI	Herb Kohl	D		61.54	49.70		111.24
ME	Susan Collins	R		68.94	44.58	113.52
NY	Hillary Clinton	D	B	55.27	58.37		113.64
CT	Joe Lieberman	D		63.21	54.31		117.52
MD	Open (Paul Sarbanes)	D		63.18	55.91		119.09
WV	Robert Byrd	D		77.75	43.20		120.95
TN	Open (Bill Frist)	R		65.10	56.80	121.90
MS	Trent Lott	R		65.88	59.01	124.89
TX	Kay B. Hutchinson/Open	R		65.04	61.09	126.13
IN	Richard Lugar	R		66.56	59.94	126.50
HI	Daniel Akaka	D		72.68	54.01		126.69
AZ	John Kyl	R	C	79.32	54.87	134.19
MA	Ted Kennedy	D	D	72.69	61.94		134.63
UT	Orrin Hatch	R		65.58	71.54	137.12
WY	Craig Thomas	R		73.77	68.86	142.63

Observant readers will note that I'm missing a state, Vermont. The problem is that Jim Jeffords ran there as a Republican in 2000, so it's hard to make anything of his 65.56%-25.42% thumping of his Democratic opponent. Kerry won 58.94% of the vote in Vermont, so if you double that and throw out the Jeffords anomaly, the D% should probably be 117.88, ranking the state near Maryland as an open seat the Democrats ought to be able to defend.

Notes:
A=Unseated incumbent in 2000 (or 2002, in Jim Talent's case)
B=Won open seat in 2000
C=Ran unopposed in 2000
D=Ran against divided opposition in 2000
E=Won special election in 2002

These notes are important. John Kyl is in a very strong position, but he ran unopposed in 2000; he's not quite as bulletproof as he looks. The Democrats may seem weak in several spots because they ran the table in close Senate races in 2000, but several of those candidates knocked off incumbents last time around, and will start in a stronger position this time around with the headwind of incumbency at their backs rather than in their faces. I figured "divided opposition" where the two main candidates pulled below 96%, leaving a number of voters on the table, but since Ted Kennedy beat his opponent 72.69%-12.86% in 2000, that doesn't amount to much.

I'd hesitate to say what threshhold indicates a realistic chance of a seat changing hands, but obviously anyone below 100 has to be viewed as an opportunity for the other side, and anyone above about 110 is - other than open seats - an extremely tough race. You can see that most of the most competitive races, based on this criteria, involve Democratic-held seats.

Of course, all of this is prologue; the 2006 races will be fought, like every election, with a new backdrop of issues and partisan mood and momentum, which so far seems to be favoring the Democrats. The number of genuinely competitive races is bound to be reduced if credible challengers can't be located, as was the case in 2004 in Nevada, for example, where Harry Reid was vulnerable but the GOP couldn't get a serious challenger. But the numbers above at least provide a solid guide to where the needle stands entering those races, and how far it has to move to save or defeat the incumbents listed above.

Dutch vote NO

The exit polls of today's vote on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe: 62% voted, of which 37 % yes and 63% no. Read the breaking news.