The Asylum

We're moving, right now

2007-06-07T13:21:00.000-07:00

It was time for a change anyway. I explain this over at our new site, which is officially open for business right now. So please feel free to join us there. This will be our new, and hopefully permanent home, from now on. Nothing has changed but the location. It's still the same three people as before (with the third hopefully returning sometime soon. Sabrina is as excited about this move as we are.)

Publius II

More Senate Woes: Cloture Fails

2007-06-07T10:48:00.000-07:00

The Democrats tried to pull a cloture move this morning on the immigration bill, and the effort to end debate failed miserably by a vote of 63-33, with three senators not voting. Those three were Senators John, Kerry and, McCain. Then the Democrat Senate leadership gave in after the important vote failed:

A fragile bipartisan compromise that would legalize millions of unlawful immigrants suffered a setback Thursday when it failed a test vote in the Senate, leaving its prospects uncertain.

Still, the measure — a top priority for President Bush that's under attack from the right and left — got a reprieve when Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he would give it more time before yanking the bill and moving on to other matters.

"We need to complete this marathon," Reid said.

His decision set the stage for yet another procedural vote later Thursday that will measure lawmakers' appetite for a so-called "grand bargain" between liberals and conservatives on immigration.

By a vote of 33-63, the Senate fell far short of the 60 votes that would have been needed to limit debate on the immigration measure and put it on a path to passage. Republicans — even those who helped craft the measure and are expected to support it — banded together to oppose that move, while a majority of Democrats backed it.

Republicans were seeking assurances they would get chances to add several conservative-backed changes that would toughen the measure.

Proponents in both parties were scrambling to find a way of reversing a blow their compromise sustained earlier Thursday, when the Senate voted to phase out the bill's temporary worker program after five years.

The 49-48 vote just after midnight on making the temporary worker program itself temporary came two weeks after the Senate, also by a one-vote margin, rejected an amendment by Sen. Byron Dorgan to eliminate it entirely from the bill. The North Dakota Democrat says immigrants take many jobs Americans could fill.

Dorgan's success on his second effort dismayed backers of the immigration bill, which is loathed by many conservatives.

This is very good news because it seems that many in the Senate that were in favor of this bill are finally hearing their constituents calls for it's demise. It was underhanded for Harry Reid to try the cloture vote, knowing the ire that has been raised amongst the American electorate. We are not stupid. We know how to read and comprehend, and those that have read this bill know that it is a disaster waiting to happen.

We know that the bill proponents want this rammed through as quickly as possible. They tried to pull that when the bill was first introduced to the nation when they wanted only one week for debate. Thomas observed this morning that this bill was conceived in secret, and with an alliance between the executive and legislative branches, and next to no input from the experts regarding the economic or security impact on the nation. These are the two gripes that the nation -- both liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat -- have with the bill. I do believe that the Senate has begun to hear the people grousing about this legislation, and that the days are numbered for this slip-shod, ill-conceived legislation.

(Hat-Tip: Captain Ed Morrissey)

Marcie

Is that "Taps" I hear for the immigration bill?

2007-06-07T08:48:00.000-07:00

We're almost there. The bill is almost dead. AP news wires are reporting that the bill is unraveling at the seams:

A fragile compromise that would legalize millions of unlawful immigrants risks coming unraveled after the Senate voted early Thursday to place a five-year limit on a program meant to provide U.S. employers with 200,000 temporary foreign workers annually.

The 49-48 vote came two weeks after the Senate, also by a one-vote margin, rejected the same amendment by Sen. Byron Dorgan. The North Dakota Democrat says immigrants take many jobs Americans could fill.

The reversal dismayed backers of the immigration bill, which is supported by President Bush but loathed by many conservatives. Business interests and their congressional allies were already angry that the temporary worker program had been cut in half from its original 400,000-person-a-year target.

A five-year sunset, they said, could knock the legs from the precarious bipartisan coalition aligned with the White House. The Dorgan amendment "is a tremendous problem, but it's correctable," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. The coalition will try as early as Thursday to persuade at least one senator to help reverse the outcome yet again, he said.

Until the Dorgan vote was tallied, Specter and other leaders of the so-called "grand bargain" on immigration had enjoyed a fairly good day.

They had turned back a bid to reduce the number of illegal immigrants who could gain lawful status. They also defeated an effort to postpone the bill's shift to an emphasis on education and skills among visa applicants as opposed to family connections.

And they fended off an amendment, by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., that would have ended a new point system for those seeking permanent resident "green cards" after five years rather than 14 years.

All three amendments were seen as potentially fatal blows to the bill, which would tighten borders, hike penalties for those who hire illegals and give many of the country's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants a pathway to legal status.

The Senate voted 51-46 to reject a proposal by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, to bar criminals - including those ordered by judges to be deported - from gaining legal status. Democrats siphoned support from Cornyn's proposal by winning adoption, 66-32, of a rival version that would bar a more limited set of criminals, including certain gang members and sex offenders, from gaining legalization.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., alone among his party's presidential aspirants in backing the immigration measure, opposed Cornyn's bid and backed the Democratic alternative offered by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.

"Crash and burn, huh, Mav?" Yeah, this bill is going down. Too many people have had kittens over this, and will continue to do so until it's either dead, or the politicians pull their heads out of their rectums. Cornyn is among only a couple doing his best to put common sense into this bill. Unfortunately, he keeps getting shot down.

The fact that there are people in the House trying to find a way to kill this, and there are those in the Senate that are a litle more reluctant to move this forward speaks volumes to the ability of the American electorate to convey a simple message to their legislature: This bill stinks and we on't want it. It has come through so loud and clear that President Bush was "shocked" to learn he was losing his base, and quickly tried yesterday to repair that damage.He can be surprised, but that betrays the disconnect between him and America, and that's a rift that's unlikely to heal soon.

This "jam down" wasn't the right way to go. Having clandestine, closed-door meetings without any public scrutiny when the bill was constructed was idiotic. When people started reading it, we knew the lawmakers had lost their marbles. And, of course, we're patted on the head and told that the security provisions will be in place first, they're even more insane to think the country will believe them. We've ben promised these security measures since 1986, and we've yet to see any real progress. Mitt Romney bropught this up in the debate Tuesday night. We wouldn't be in this position if we had just followed the laws to begin with.

Now Congress is trying to overwork the plumbing. The more you do that, the easier it is to stop up the pipes. When a bill as complex as this one is passed, lawyers will be working overtime to locate every little loophole in it. Hell, Marcie and I read over all 380 opages the first weekend it was out, and we located a good five or six loopholes that could seriously undermine our security, but also the effectiveness of the bill itself.

We only need to keep up the pressure on Congress. Keep calling, keep e-mailing. If this were a bill that addressed security first, and Congress was being serious about it, then we'd be a lot happier than lumping security and regularization together, and having the Senate only be willing to deal with the latter side of the bill, rather than the former and more important side.

Publius II

The president backpedals

2007-06-06T16:46:00.000-07:00

Yeah, of course he's backing off his statements, which means he's heard the base, and the nation loud and clear. From the Washington Times:

HT: Allah at Hot Air

President Bush did not intend to single out his conservative supporters for criticism in a speech on immigration reform last week and was "surprised" that his remarks angered Republicans, White House spokesman Tony Snow said today.

"He was surprised by the reaction," Mr. Snow said of Mr. Bush's speech in Glynco, Ga., last week. "The speech in Georgia was, 'We've got a serious problem and we need to fix it.' It was not in any way designed to be pointed at Republicans."

But conservative opponents of a Senate immigration bill supported by Mr. Bush reacted furiously to the president's suggestion that they are resorting to scare tactics by using the word "amnesty" in referring to the measure that would allow millions of illegal aliens to remain in the United States.

"Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don't like," Mr. Bush said in the May 29 speech about the legislation now being debated in the Senate. "If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it, you can use it to frighten people. Or you can show leadership and solve this problem once and for all."

We can find fault in a bill that promises the nation more security, but leaves out the details of how it will be done. Likewise, after years of being spoon-fed drivel about security, we've seen butkus. We watch as illegal aliens on 11 September hit this nation. We were horrified to learn that other illegal aliens were prepared to engage in a suicide attack on Fort Dix. The borders are open, and people who don't like are coming here to kill us. As security-minded voters, Marcie and I aren't happy with the plan being proposed right now. Nor can we say, with absolutel certainty, that we trust the government to abide by their worthless word.

As for his surprise, what did he expect? You attack the people that have supported you, and Tony Snow can spin his statements as he desires, but we within the base felt offended that the man we supported suddenly turned on us when we raised some questions about this bill. Furthermore, rather than acknowledging that we may have some points, he dresses us down for not knowing what we're talking about.

Marcie and I reside in Mesa, AZ. We are on the front lines of this issue. We DO understand the issue completely. I've often been told this by others that we know. I've been told that I've got no clue about the border situation by border patrol agents. That's the problem. I do get it. I understand it. Fixing this problem isn't going to be easy. We're not advocating deportation of everyone here illegally. That's not a part of security. We're security first. Secure the borders, make the background checks mandatory, and longer than 24-48 hours, and put provisions in place that provide extra scrutiny for people coming from jihadist-friendly nations.

If the president can comprehend those simple things, then he doesn't get the issue at all. And his non-apology to the base isn't accepted. Try again, Mr. President.

Publius II

Post debate thoughts ...

2007-06-05T18:53:00.000-07:00

I said I'd give these thoughts this monring, and this is going to be short, sweet and to the point. Many bloggers watched this debate with a level of enthusiasm, and the rest of us knew what we'd be getting with CNN. I have to agree with the vast majority that FOX's debate was better handled, better moderated, and didn't have the technical problems that CNN did with an apparent storm tonight. By the way, the laugh of the night is Rudy's answer regarding the Catholic bishop and abortion, when the lightning screwed with the audio. It got a good chuckle out of the crowd when the other candidates backed away from him as he was explaining his fear of God through his parochial education. Very funny, and worth seeing. Allah has it. It's the last in line of video clips, and the last segment of that clip.

Let me start by saying that there are three tiers to our grading scale. Who won, who improved, and who shouldn't even be on stage. Let's start with the latter first.

Ron Paul, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Jim Gilmore, and Thommy Thompson have no business in this debate. I'd really like to like Brownback, but he comes across flat. Tommy-boy never had a chance for the sheer fact that despite being in the administration, no one knows who the Hell he is. Tancredo has two issues now -- immigration, and how Karl Rove snubbed him. Gilmore is another no name with no shot. And Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul. He was a bit more subdued tonight (some are speculating he might have taken his meds tonight?) but he's still nutty as a fruitcake.

Who showed improvement tonight were Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, and yes, John McCain. Huckabee seemed to get into the game a bit more. Hunter was on top of the issues he was handed. And John McCain sounded far better than he has in the previous two debates. Likewise, I'll give him kudos for going out and trying to make a case for his immigration plan, though it still fell flat. (Um, hint to Senator Queeg, the VAST MAJORITY of Americans are opposed to the bill. Please, let it die in peace and START OVER.) BONUS POINT: If you catch a replay of the debate, Play the John McCain drinking game; drink every time you hear him say "my friends." Trust me, it'll be fun.

The stand outs are still Rudy and Mitt. Rudy has been on fire since the second debate, and he lit up CNN's bell tonight by questioning whether the media will report "good news" from Petreus in September if that's the message from him. The lightning bit was good for some laughs, and will likely reflect well with social conservatives. He also made serious points with the "this war isn't a bumper sticker; it's real" comment at the start of things tonight. Mitt carried himself well. Jim Geraghty says 'unflappable,' and we couldn't agree more. He was professional, and refused to bite Wolf Blitzer's bait over McCain and immigration. (The essence of style in refusing to air the dirty laundry on stage.) He also slammed a home run on Wolf's underhanded Mormon question. I really wish the media would drop this issue. It's not relevant, and we find it repulsive to continue bringing it up.

All in all, the debate wasn't bad, and the questions from the audience were better than the Politico ones from the first debate. A lot more of this debate revolved around policy, and the candidates were able to air (read: filibuster) their way through their positions.

Publius II

Some housekeeping ...

2007-06-05T00:58:00.000-07:00

Today the third GOP debate will be held. No, I won't be live-blogging it like I did the previous two. Instead, Marcie and I will be watching it, and one of the two of us will give a post-debate wrap-up. This will be the first time I will have actually watched these guys in action. (The previous two live-blogs I haven't been watching. I've been listening only.) This should be interesting. We'll be taking notes, and give our opinions after the debate. Who wins, who loses, and who is still on the bottom rung looking up. (I'd wager that Ron Paul will likely be the guy on the bottom rung, again.)

But I can't just post this up without adding a few tidbits to look over for the new day. First, two primo posts from Hot Air. Both come from Allahpundit. The first is a USA Today poll on immigration. At the risk of giving the ending away, "it's dead, Jim." Allah writes:

Unfortunately, probably not enough people know it to stop it.

But I’ll bet enough do to derail a certain Republican presidential candidacy that shall remain nameless.

The Washington Times adds that as the bill stands right now, it'll only reduce illegal immigration by 25% a year. Stephen Dinan will report on this later today for the Times. Be sure to check that out. I distinctly hear the sounds of coffin nails going into this bill, though I'm not sure who's doing the hammering.

The second story is about Peggy Noonan drilling the president on this bill. It's not pretty. It's not kind. And I'm sure the bill's supporters will accuse Ms. Noonan of being "racist" or "nativist." Don't buy it. She's spot on. again, Allah writes: (emphasis mine; I've listened to it)

More audio from ~~Brian~~ Kirsten and the Judge courtesy of Johnny Dollar. Her soft, measured speaking style softens the blows but Noonan’s clearly throwing roundhouses here, particularly when she accuses him of having exploited the goodwill he accrued from 9/11. The amnesty bill and the accusations of bad faith that have come with it are the last, indefensible straw. There’s simply no making excuses for the guy anymore. Like Noonan says, we don’t know who he is. But we do know he’s not one of us.

Don’t quit on it before it’s played all the way through. The end is devastating.

The Hill reports that Sen. Craig Thomas has lost his battle with leukemia, and that he will be replaced by a Republic. Rest in peace, Senator.

The number three guy in the House's GOP leadership, Adam Putnam, is joing Team Fred!

Back to the USA Today and things don't look too good for Senator Clinton as Senator Obama is nearly even with her right now in the straw polls. "Faster please, Mr. Soros," is likely what she's saying right now.

The Politico reports that John Boehner is seeking the expulsion of William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson after his indictment was handed down on Monday. Ah, and they say no "good deed" goes unpunished. (No, I don't think he did good, but his cronies sure think it.)

McCain and Romney are tossing barbs back and forth over immigration. No offense to Senator McCain, he's out of his league:

"To want the office so badly that you would intentionally make our country's problems worse might prove you can read a poll or take a cheap shot, but it hardly demonstrates presidential leadership," McCain told members of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce.

Romney answered back.

"The immigration approach proposed by Senators McCain and Kennedy falls short of a workable solution to an important problem," the former Massachusetts governor said in a statement. Romney said he respected McCain, but his opposition was based on a "principled disagreement about policies and priorities related to enforcement of our immigration laws."

Hey Senator, you read the bill yet, or are you still crawling around in the dark on this one? Captain Ed proved that in this post where John McCain didn't even know the back taxes provisions had been removed fromt he bill. Less talk, Senator, and more reading I think is due with this issue.

And last but certainly not least, tune into all three hours of Hugh Hewitt's show today,/li> as he hosts the "Great God Debate" between Mark D. Roberts and Christopher Hitchens. It's sure to be interesting and fun. And if you have anything you'd like to add to the debate, feel free to e-mail Hugh at Hugh@HughHewitt.com. I'm sure he'll be happy to entertain any posited questions.

See you all after the debate!

Publius II

Character Assassination MSNBC-Style

2007-06-04T13:54:00.000-07:00

This was not funny at all and Joe Scarborough should be ashamed of himself. I agree with Michelle that he owes Fred Thompson and his lovely wife, Jeri, an apology for making the comment. The video clip is up at Michelle's site. The comment in question was the one referring to Fred Thompson's wife "working the pole."

Now kidding aside, the joke was not funny. the former congressman does not spell out what is meant by "working the pole," though there are a couple of connotations that can be drawn from the remark. the most common one accepted by those criticizing the remark is performing with a stripper's pole. (Though I have seen some crude comments regarding a different pole, which is simply gross, high school humor; the same sort that I disliked then and still do now.)

If this is the sort of attacks that will be launched at Fred Thompson in his run for the presidential nomination, it is low-brow. This line of attack has no merit with Mr. Thompson because there is nothing wrong with his choice for a wife. He had been divorced and remained single for a few years before remarrying. Mrs. thompson is a lovely woman, and they obviously love one another very much. His divorce was not messy, at all (not like the Giuliani divorce when he was thrown out of the mayor's mansion). The parted amicably.

The Left should be focusing on him and his record, but as they decided to levy the first salvo at his wife it is apparent to me that they cannot find a great deal on Mr. thompson that can stick. That speaks volumes about their confidence in being able to deal with a man who can so eloquently pound on them. Is there a level of controversy surrounding Mr. Thompson? Allegations of "flip-flopping?" Yes there are, but no more than any other politician running for the nomination on either side.

Rudy has faced the criticism over his divorces, his abortion stance, his gun control stance, and his gay rights stance. Mitt Romney is facing criticism (from John McCain, no less) over his immigration stance -- a veiled swipe that raised the ire of conservatives for the underhanded snipe. He has also been assailed over his abortion position, especially with regard to the 1994 YouTube video showing him saying that he would protect a woman's right to choose.

For the record, and so readers understand precisely what we mean on this subject, it is the de facto law of the land. Abortion cannot be changed by the president or by Congress. If it is to be changed, it must be done by the Supreme Court. We would expect nothing less than an admission from any politician running for office to state they would follow the law. As of right now, the law is abortion is legal. Granted, the partial-birth abortion ban was upheld by the USSC, and it marks the beginning of the process that Justice Scalia admitted would have to happen to drop-kick Roe -- kick in the doors one at a time. We would expect an elected official to uphold the law. We do not get to pick and choose the laws we will follow.

These men have enough issues to deal with without going after their spouses. As I said, I am not pleased with this, but when it comes to the Left are we surprised by their outrageous statements? I know I am not. But it does not excuse the matter. He owes them an apology. Will he give one? Probably not.

Marcie

White House Prepares Short List In Case Of Vacancy

2007-06-04T12:38:00.001-07:00

While the White House is not expecting a vacancy to the Supreme Court when they break at the end of June, they are preparing a short list according to ABC News:

The White House is developing a short list of possible Supreme Court nominees so President Bush can move swiftly if a justice retires at the end of June, when the Court breaks for its summer recess, according to sources involved in the selection process.

Bush met with top advisers last month, and they discussed possible nominees if a Supreme Court vacancy occurs.

He told White House Counsel Fred Fielding and other administration lawyers that he wanted to nominate a woman or a minority to the Court, and his legal team has narrowed its focus to a half-dozen contenders, sources said.

We dislike that last part about nominating a woman or a minority, but it is the president's choice. The reason why we dislike the blatant admission is that he seems to be pandering to a specific demographic, i.e., playing politicis with the choice. However, we cannot discount the fact that both Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts have been solid textualist jurists, and have not engaged in the sort of activism that many feared they might entertain.

(This was not a worry of ours. We were among those bloggers vetting John Roberts so we knew what he was about. The full list of the blogs involved in the monumental undertaking is here at Generalissimo Duane's site.)

Of course the question on everyone's mind at this point is "Who is the president looking at?" We have three sure-fire nominees that have exhibited outstanding work since being elevated to their respective bench assignments. Janice Rogers Brown (DC Circuit court of Appeals), Priscilla Owen (Fifth Circuit Court), and Edith Clement (Fifth Circuit Court). As some will remember all three of these women were, and still are, on our own short list along with a few other possible nominees. (If President Bush is looking for a minority, Emilio Garza from the Fifth Circuit Court.)

And of course the other question is who would be the next person to step down. Obviously Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts are out of the speculation. However, the remaining justices and their ages are listed below:

Antonin Scalia -- 61
Clarence Thomas -- 59
Stephen Breyer -- 69
David Souter -- 68
John Paul Stevens -- 87
Anthony Kennedy -- 61
Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- 74

The obvious choices would either be Justice Stevens or Justice Ginsburg. But the ABC report states that neither of them are even considering retirement. There were some rumblings last year that Justice Souter or Justice Breyer might be mulling over retirement, but they, too, have disavowed any rumors of such a decision.

We should remember that what the White House is doing is normal. With the recess of the high court coming up quickly, there is always the possibility that someone may step down. this is merely the president being pre-emptive and pro-active. He knows it is a possibility, however slim, and he does not wish to make the same mistake his father did with the Souter nomination. (Then, the elder Bush refused to listen to the one person arguing vehemently against sending Souter up. That would be J. Michael Luttig, formerly of the Fourth Circuit Court, who warned the president that Souter was not a constructionist or originalist.)

For thomas and I, this is when the excitement starts to build. The possibility of another nominee coming up warms our hearts. We enjoy the law, especially Con Law, and it is always fun to see the fight that will ensue. If you think there will not be a fight over the next nominee, think again. the Democrats, according to the ABC report, are already warning the president not to send them a conservative, i.e., an originalist.

Both Judge Owen and Judge Clement are more subdued than the mnore vocal Judge Brown. But the fact that all three are originalist jurists could hurt them. We hope that such a fight is not one the president will back down from, and that he will appoint a solid, constitutionally-minded jurist. Though I willa dmit if he does nominate any one of these three women, I do not envy them. They will be facing an openly hostile Judiciary Committee currently chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy. To say the fur will fly is a gross understatement.

This is one of those stories we will be keeping a close eye on.

Marcie

Jefferson Indicted In Bribery Probe

2007-06-04T12:10:00.000-07:00

Representative William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson was indicted today after the FBI finished it's months-long probe into corruption allegations:

Rep. William J. Jefferson was indicted today in a longstanding FBI corruption probe centering on allegations that he took bribes to promote high-tech business ventures in Africa.

The Louisiana Democrat faces charges that include racketeering, money laundering, wire fraud and conspiracy to solicit bribes by a public official. The 16-count indictment was returned by a federal grand jury in Alexandria.

Federal officials have scheduled a 3:30 p.m. news conference to discuss the 94-page indictment, which could land Jefferson in prison for life if he is convicted on all counts. The charges cap a long and tumultuous investigation that was stalled for months because of a legal battle over the constitutionality of an FBI raid on Jefferson's office last May. The raid came after the FBI found $90,000 in the freezer of his Capitol Hill home.

A political and legal maelstrom followed the raid, prompting President Bush to intervene and seal the seized documents for 45 days. In July, U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan, who had signed the search warrant, ruled that the raid was constitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals has yet to rule on the matter.

Jefferson, 60, is a potential political embarrassment for Democrats, just months after they took over control of Congress. Democrats had campaigned last year on the theme that Republicans had created a culture of corruption. In July, the House officially expelled Jefferson from the prestigious Ways and Means Committee.

At the time, then House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the allegations against Jefferson were too egregious to wait for a legal resolution.

"This isn't about proof in the court or law; this is about an ethical standard," she said.

News of the FBI probe hurt Jefferson in his reelection bid last fall, but he managed to win in a runoff, garnering 30 percent of the vote in a crowded primary field of 12 candidates. His campaign ads emphasized that he had not been charged with any crime.

The investigation began in March 2005 when Virginia investor Lori Mody, went to the FBI to complain that Jefferson and her business associate were trying to scam her in a high-tech business venture in Africa in which a copper wire technology would be used to deliver the Internet and cable television.

Mody agreed to wear a listening device for federal authorities, previously issued court documents said.

During an undercover sting, on July 21, 2005, Jefferson told Mody that he needed to give Nigerian Vice President Atikua Abubakar $500,000 "as a motivating factor" to make sure they obtained contracts.

Mody eventually agreed to give Jefferson $100,000 -- in marked bills from the FBI, court records have indicated. A few days later, $90,000 was found in Jefferson's freezer.

Eventually, Mody's business associate Brett Pfeffer and Vernon L. Jackson, the president of iGate, a Louisville based high tech firm, pleaded guilty to bribing Jefferson to use his political influence to push through a lucrative contract in Africa to sell technology for the Internet and cable television. Both are serving time in prison.

We are happy to see this come to fruitition. This indictment has been a long time in coming, and we may finally see Rep. Jefferson where he belongs -- in jail. The fact he is a Democrat does give us a giddyfeeling, but more importantly this should get rid of another crooked politician in Washington, DC. We were not pleased to see Duke Cunningham indicted on similar charges in 2005, which prompted him to plead guilty in federal court. His sentence was eight years for breaking the laws, and a standing order to pay $1.8 million in restitution is still in effect.

Rep. Jefferson did far worse, and faces more charges. While we may appreciate Nancy Pelosi talking about cracking down on corruption in the House, but she has not been doing a great job about it. Yes. Rep. Jefferson was tossed from the House Ways and Means committee, but she should have been expelled from the House. Furthermore, the DNC had no problem giving him campaign funds for his reelection. That is not exactly the sort of message to be sending when the man is facing an indictment. And if Ms. Pelosi did not think there was going to be an indictment when the man was in possession of $90,000 in marked bills from the FBI, then she is far more obtuse than we gave her credit for. There was no excuse for that discovery.

As for the Court of Appeals weighing in on the search of his office, it will likely not come. They should let Judge Hogan's decision stand. Rep. Jefferson was not on his way to the floor for a vote, and his office does not possess the immunity enumerated in Article I, Section 6. An argument can be made that the FBI should have notified House leadership about the pending search, but authorities have contended that such a move could have prompted Rep. Jefferson to hide or move evidence they were seeking.

This is how the government deals with corruption of public officials. Now, if they could just crackdown on Congress and end the pork spending, earmarks, and lobbyists that continue to perpetuate this sort of behavior.

Marcie

Muslim Commune Eyed By Authorities

2007-06-04T11:30:00.000-07:00

The New York Post,/li> has a story today about a little commune up in the Catskill Mountains that authorities believe is the United States base for al-Fuqra, a radical organization that has been linked to acts of violence in the United States and around the world:

A remote Muslim commune nestled in the Catskill Mountains has come under the scrutiny of state and federal authorities for possible ties to terrorism, according to law-enforcement sources.

Officials say Islamberg - a wooded, 70-acre encampment in upstate Tompkins, about three hours north of the city - acts as the headquarters for an outfit called Muslims of the Americas, widely believed to be a front for Jamaat al-Fuqra, founded by radical Pakistani cleric Mubarak Ali Gilani.

Reports of gunfire and military-style physical training at the camp have led some investigators to believe that the group's members are preparing for homegrown jihad.

According to one account, a neighbor said he has seen commune members dressed in Port Authority uniforms.

Al-Fuqra members have been suspects in assassinations and firebombings in the United States, authorities said, and an associate of the group, Rodney Hampton-el, was jailed in 1996 for plotting to bomb New York bridges and tunnels.

Those spoken with by the reporters claim there is nothing illegal going on in Islamberg, and while they do have firearms there, they are American citizens with a legal right to own them. I am sure they do though I wonder whether or not the have the proper licenses for them. Regardless, this is not the first time that al-Fuqra has come under scrutiny. In 1983 an al-Fuqra member, Stephen Paul Paster, was involved in the Hotel Rajneesh bombing in Oregon.

I am wondering why the feds are suddenly interested in al-Fuqra. I am actually wondering if the feds believe that there may be a link to the JFK plot and al-Fuqra. There is certainly some questions about whether or not they are fostering homegrown jihadists. The piece does state that the feds have connected a few members of the group to the terrorist training camps created by al-Fuqra leader, Sheikh Gitani. The people at the compound deny that, as well.

An interesting story, to be sure, and one that should catch people's scrutiny.

(Hat-Tip: Mark Steyn @ NRO's Corner

Marcie

The wisdom of Fred! A "disconnect" between America and the politicos

2007-06-03T12:54:00.000-07:00

You know, if I were the also rans in the GOP right now, I'd be scared sh*tless about Fred's entry into the race. See, he gets it. Earlier this week, Hugh Hewitt gave some thoughts about Fred's possible run. Of course, his concern is the same of anybody else who's been watching Fred slowly move towards his decision. For Hugh, and even for us, it's the question of his lymphoma, and until a doctor comes out and says otherwise, that concern will remain. But today the Washington Times picked up on some comments from the former senator:

Former Sen. Fred Thompson yesterday said there is a giant disconnect between voters and politicians in Washington and that the immigration bill is the chief reason.

Speaking to Virginia Republicans, Mr. Thompson, who is considering a run for president, drew a standing ovation when he said voters don't believe Washington politicians when they claim they are trying to secure the border as part of the bill.

"You've got to secure the border first, before you do anything," he said. "The members say it's right here in this bill: the border. The response is, 'We don't care what's on a piece of paper -- secure the border.' This piece of paper doesn't secure the border."

Mr. Thompson said the new bill is "the same deal" offered in the 1986 amnesty -- legalization of illegal aliens in exchange for border security -- but said Americans won't be fooled again. He also said the program is unworkable because it relies on an already overworked immigration service to process millions of new applications.

Immigration is a sharp dividing line among Republicans and their presidential candidates. Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, is a key backer of the immigration bill and is highlighting it as part of his campaign, while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is opposing the bill and running ads arguing for border security.

Allow me to quote Fred from one of his most notable roles -- that of Rear Admiral Joshua Painter from "The Hunt For Red October":

"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it."

Yes, it will get out of control before too long. With the GOP sniping at each other over this, and the Democrats sitting back to watch the fun, no one's minding the store. No one's paying attention to the serious security risks we have to endure right now from some twenty-plus years of not enforcing our borders, and learning who it is that decides to come here. Need I remind readers that the 11 September hijackers were here illegally? Living here, deep with the shadows, and still communicating with their jihadist commanders abroad in preparation for the worst terrorist attack on US soil EVER? I'd hope we don't have to remind people, but it seems that we do. But that's not stopping poor, lost souls like John McCain, who believes we'll have riots here if we don't move forward on Amnesty. No, I'm not kidding:

Sen. John McCain, in a Saturday campaign stop in Le Mars, said he wasn't surprised that immigration policy, rather than the war in Iraq, dominated the morning's questions.

Meeting with about 125 people at the Le Mars Golf Clubhouse, McCain spoke about Iraq, government spending and health care, among other topics, but immigration dominated the discussion.

At one point McCain went back and forth with one audience member, who said he was upset that the immigration proposal before Congress is not tough enough.

The man asked McCain why the United States couldn't execute large-scale deportations, as he had heard they did in France and other countries.

"In case you hadn't noticed, the thousands of people who have been relegated to ghettos have risen up and burned cars in France," McCain replied. "They've got huge problems in France. They have tremendous problems. The police can't even go into certain areas in the suburbs of Paris. I don't want that in the suburbs of America."

What Allah notes, and McCain misses is that those "youths" are French citizens, so it's impossible to deport them:

The French called them Les cités. The ‘ghettos’ are specially built for excluded and disfranchised migrants from France’s former North African colonies - mostly Arabs and Muslims - and other parts of the world. Clustered on the peripheries of France’s big cities, Les cités proved to be laboratories for dissent and resistance against oppression. The children of the immigrants who built France after World War II are being pushed further outside the French society.

It is important to emphasise that the French youth who are protesting against police violence and the policy of the French political establishment, are French citizens. They were born into first and second generation immigrants communities from France’s former colonies. They are not motivated by religion, and the protest has nothing to do with Islam and Western cliché of “Islamic fundamentalism”. It is a protest against oppression and racism. This is the only way the youth can express their anger and frustration at French political establishment which deny immigrants to be integrated in their diversity. Successive French governments failed to come up with a faire and successful integration policy.

And no, we're not calling for the mass deportation of illegal aliens here. We know they're going to stay for sheer economic reasons. Besides, locating 12 to 20 million illegals here, who have been living in the shadows for so long already, is an insurmountable task. Fred knows it, and that's why he's hyping security first. We need to secure the borders, and stem the tide of illegals flowing into the nation before we can address those here now. Besides, if it does devolve to "riots" as McCain has said, I'm sure the people can handle themselves quite well, in addition to law enforcement, and the possibility of National Guard troops deployed should the riots truly get as nasty as those in France. When that happens, folks, all bets are off.

Fred has the right idea, and he's got the nation's pulse on this issue. Security comes first. It should always be that way, but the government has dropped the ball too many times, and usually because it's simply not feasible for them. Now, however, this nation is at war, and it's borders are wide open. Rather than being a deterrent to the dregs that want to kill us, it's an open invitation, and that is the point that Fred is making.

Publius II

Putin -- Unhinged And Off The Deep End

2007-06-03T12:26:00.000-07:00

"Mad Vlad" is on the warpath again, and the more we see from Russia nowadays, the more we are certain he is trying to bring back the Cold War. Today, the Globe and Mail has this story about how Putin will "target Europe with missiles:

In an interview with the Globe and Mail, Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to target Europe with missiles, including potentially nuclear weapons, in a dramatic escalation of his Cold War-style showdown with the United States.

Mr. Putin, in an interview at his country residence outside Moscow, said he considers U.S. plans to build an eastern European anti-missile site to shoot down Iranian missiles a provocation aimed at Russia.

Asked what he might do to retaliate, he said he would return Russia to the Cold War status where missiles were aimed at European targets.

"It is obvious that if part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States is located in Europe, and according to our military experts will be threatening us, we will have to respond," he said.

"What kind of steps are we going to take in response? Of course, we are going to get new targets in Europe."

He suggested that this could include powerful nuclear-capable weapons.

"What kind of means will be used to hit the targets that our military believe are potential threats to the Russian federation? This is a purely technical issue, be it ballistic missiles or cruise missiles, or some kinds of novel weapons systems - this is a purely technical issue."

why would a missile defense system designed to take out possible Iranian missiles aimed at Europe be a provocation to Russia. Are we not "peaceful" with them?

In the 21st Century we have learned that our enemies will go to great lengths to hurt us. They do not like us, they do not respect us. So, in an effort to protect ourselves better, and the existence of our allies, we have worked to create a way to stop missile attacks aimed at the aforementioned. Putin, evidently, does not like this. As Thomas would say "Tough. Deal. Cry me a river, build me a bridge, and get over it already."

We have seen what Putin has been doing lately in Russia, and it is anything but the changes urged by Gorbachev in the latter days of his reign. Yeltsin tried to continue those goals, and fell prey to those around him cutting deals with the Russian mafia, and ex-KGB strongmen; strongmen such as Putin who did not simply throw out the old ways. He embraced them, and made them even nastier when he was the FSB director.

With this announcement, if I were the president, I would seriously reconsider the relationship I have with "Mad Vlad."

Marcie

Lazy Sundaty thoughts broken up by a madman

2007-06-03T12:08:00.000-07:00

Sundays are one of the days we spend a great deal of time with one another. And while we usually just spend that time reading, talking, or playing the odd game of cribbage or chess, work still beckons us. Wouldn't you know it? The nutter from Iran is barking up a tree again:

The countdown to Israel's destruction has begun, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech commemorating the death of Iranian revolution leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini on Sunday.

"The arrogant superpowers and the Zionist regime invested all their efforts during the 33-day war, but after 60 years, their pride has been trampled and the countdown to the destruction of this regime has been started by Hizbullah fighters," the president was quoted as saying by Iranian news agency Mehr.

Ahmadinejad added that "with the help of all the Lebanese and Palestinian fighters, we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future… Anyone who works for God and believes in the power of the people will prevail."

Israel is not the only nation about to collapse, according to the Iranian president. The other "corrupt" nations will also give in to the Islamic republic's strength and suffer the same fate.

"We are already witnessing the repercussions of the surrender. The people of Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan and all over the world are joining this river that will soon be linked to the ocean of truth and justice," he said.

Discussing the resistance of suppressed nations, Ahmadinejad said that according to Khomeini's teachings, "no power can stand in the way of a people's will for independence."

He pointed out the Palestinians as an example of a people who draw encouragement from the ways of the Iranian people. "The Palestinian people have begun their movement out of oppression and the world's nations and the Zionist regime will be forced to bow down to the Palestinians and officially acknowledge this people."

Andy McCarthy weighs in on this, and notes that "There may be a global war on terror, but only one side is fighting it that way ... and it ain't us."

With that in mind, would anyone disagree with him? We won't because that seems to be the modus operandi right now of the Bush administration. Don't get us wrong. We still believe in the mission at hand, but we just don't see where the logic is in discussing anything with regard to Iraq with a nation that has been openly hostile to us for almost thirty years now. Andy also makes the following point in his assessment:

As we saw last week, the Iranians were so impressed by whatever the U.S. contingent told them in the much anticipated direct negotiations that, the very next day, they announced the indictments of three detained Iranian Americans on spying charges for which they could receive the death penalty. Now, Ynet elaborates, Secretary Rice's counterpart, Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki, has "urged Hamas and the Islamic Jihad to carry on with their armed struggle against Israel during meetings with leaders of the Palestinian groups in Damascus Saturday." Mottaki explained: "The Palestinian people are a mighty people and there is a need to continue with the resistance[.]"

We're supposed to be on offense here. Granted the three Americans detained by Iran aren't exactly like the British sailors and Marines that Iran kidnapped a couple months back, btu the fact remains that they have American citizens in custody, and they're moving forward with possibly putting them on trial.

They're doing this, they're still moving towards nuclear weapons, they're still backing Hezbollah in Lebanon (and they may even have a hand in the sudden AQ presence there), and they continue to interfere in Iraq's sovereign matters. So we have to ask this simple question:

When the frell are we going to start being serious with Iran, and go back to be on the offense in this war?

Publius II

Plot To Attack JFK International Cracked, Suspects In Custody

2007-06-02T16:58:00.000-07:00

This is still hot off the presses, and no one is more capably running rings around the MSM than Allah @ Hot Air. From Yahoo News:

Federal authorities announced Saturday they had broken up a suspected Muslim terrorist cell planning a "chilling" attack to destroy John F. Kennedy International Airport, kill thousands of people and trigger an economic catastrophe by blowing up a jet fuel artery that runs through populous residential neighborhoods.

Three men, one of them a former member of Guyana's parliament, were arrested and one was being sought in Trinidad as part of a plot that authorities said they had been tracked for more than a year and was foiled in the planning stages.

"The devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable," U.S. Attorney Roslynn R. Mauskopf said at a news conference, calling it "one of the most chilling plots imaginable."

In an indictment charging the four men, one of them is quoted as saying the foiled plot would "cause greater destruction than in the Sept. 11 attacks," destroying the airport, killing several thousand people and destroying parts of New York's borough of Queens, where the line runs underground.

One of the suspects, Russell Defreitas, a U.S. citizen native to Guyana and former JFK air cargo employee, said the airport named for the slain president was targeted because it is a symbol that would put "the whole country in mourning."

"It's like you can kill the man twice," said Defreitas, 63, who first hatched his plan more than a decade ago when he worked as a cargo handler for a service company, according to the indictment.

Authorities said the men were motivated by hatred toward the U.S., Israel and the West. Defreitas was recorded saying he "wanted to do something to get those bastards."

Despite their efforts, the men never obtained any explosives, authorities said.
"Pulling off any bombing of this magnitude would not be easy in today's environment," former U.S. State Department counterterrorism expert Fred Burton said, but added it was difficult to determine without knowing all the facts of the case.

Richard Kuprewicz, a pipeline expert and president of Accufacts Inc., an energy consulting firm that focuses on pipelines and tank farms, said the force of explosion would depend on the amount of fuel under pressure, but it would not travel up and down the line.

"That doesn't mean wackos out there can't do damage and cause a fire, but those explosions and fires are going to be fairly restricted," he said.

Since Defreitas retired from his job at the airport, security has significantly tightened and his knowledge of the operation was severely outdated.

He was arraigned Saturday afternoon in federal court, but did not enter a plea.

He was to be held pending a bail hearing scheduled for Wednesday, prosecutors said. A phone number for his lawyer could not be located.

Two other men, Abdul Kadir of Guyana and Kareem Ibrahim of Trinidad, were in custody in Trinidad. A fourth man, Abdel Nur of Guyana, was still being sought in Trinidad.

Authorities said Kadir and Nur were longtime associates of a Trinidadian radical Muslim group, Jamaat al Muslimeen, which launched an unsuccessful rebellion in 1990 that left 24 dead.

Kadir, a former member of Parliament in Guyana, was arrested in Trinidad for attempting to secure money for "terrorist operations," according to a Guyanese police commander who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Kadir left his position in Parliament last year. Muslims make up about 9 percent of the former Dutch and British colony's 770,000 population, mostly from the Sunni sect.

Isha Kadir, the Guyanese suspect's wife, said her husband flew from Guyana to Trinidad on Thursday. She said he was arrested Friday as he was boarding a flight from Trinidad to Venezuela, where he planned to pick up a travel visa to attend an Islamic religious conference in Iran.

"We have no interest in blowing up anything in the U.S.," she said Saturday from the couple's home in Guyana. "We have relatives in the U.S."

The pipeline, owned by Buckeye Pipeline Co., takes fuel from a facility in Linden, N.J., to the airport. Other lines service LaGuardia Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport.

Buckeye spokesman Roy Haase said the company, which moves petroleum through pipelines in a number of states, had been informed of the threat from the beginning but he declined to detail the company's security measures.

"Given the nature of Buckeye business and the importance of this transportation network, we have an intense and ongoing communications relationship with the Port Authority, the New York City fire and police departments, the federal Department of Homeland Security and the FBI," he said. Buckeye is a subsidiary of Buckeye Partners, L.P. based in Macungie, Pa.

JFK and the area's other airports remained at a heightened state of alert Saturday, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said.

Jeanie Mamo, a spokeswoman for the White House, said President Bush had been briefed and updated regularly as the investigation into the plot progressed.
"This case is a good example of international counterterrorism cooperation," Mamo said.

The arrests mark the latest in a series of alleged homegrown terrorism plots targeting high-profile American landmarks.

So we have all but one in custody, and this plot was real. While it was not nearly close to being pulled off like the Fort Dix case was, it was still one that was being pursued. People will disavow that this was a serious threat, but we contend that any sort of plot could have disastrous effects on whatever city happens to be the target, and the nation as a whole.

We cannot forget that the overall goal of terrorists is to create an atmosphere of fear and anxiety in addition to a body count. Had they pulled this attack off, the results could indeed have been very devastating and dibilitating.

As always, keep an eye on Allah for further developments. As yet we have not found any sort of information regarding whether the other two men in question had entered or lived in the United States illegally. However, if it is discovered that they were, this should be the jumping-off point for a solid, concerted effort for the electorate to levy pressure on Congress to reform the immigration bill to deal with "persons of interest" from "countries of interest," and ensure those people do not become legal here in any possible way.

Marcie

An answer to Linda Chavez and President Bush

2007-06-02T00:14:00.000-07:00

At the American Spectator, Robert Stacy McCain takes the less than dynamic duo on:

If the nation's economy is so deficient of human capital as to require augmentation from abroad, wouldn't it be better to take in well-educated people who are likely to become taxpayers, rather than poorly educated people who are likely to become clients of the welfare state?

Common-sense questions like that ought not be answered with accusations of harboring "anti-immigrant sentiments," a charge recently leveled by former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson.
The category "immigrant" encompasses too great a diversity for the term "anti-immigrant" to have any useful meaning in the present debate.

Surely Mr. Rector has no "sentiments" against the cheerful student/waitress, who didn't break the law to come here, and one suspects Mr. Rector would welcome many more such bright, ambitious young immigrants.Nor is there any need to insult the citizenry, as President Bush has repeatedly done, by telling us that illegal aliens are "doing jobs Americans won't do."

My own daughter waits tables at Pizza Hut to earn her college tuition, my wife works part-time as a provider of janitorial services, and both of my brothers are truck drivers. Are my kindred not American, Mr. President?

Read the whole thing because he's making poits that no one int he administration, noe of their defenders, and certainly not the poor fools on the Wall Street Journal's editorial board refuse to hear. We need common sense reform. First we secure the nation and her borders, then we move onto what needs to be dowe with those here. Deportation is idiotic and nearly impossible. Besides, such mass deportations could very well harm this nation's economy right now. Regularization is the answer, but not int he way Congress is proposing. Common sense, folks, is what we need in this debate, and it's apparent that those in favor of this bill -- offering up excuses like "A Democrat in the White House with a Democrat controlled Congress will present one even worse" is a nice excuse, but it doesn't address the overall point that this bill, as things stand right now, isn't exactly one to crow about.

Publius II

New Column Up!!

2007-06-01T23:56:00.000-07:00

(This is a reminder of our regular column being published at Common Conservative. If you want to see our posts from the day, scroll down. This post will remain at the top of the page all day.)

It's the first, which means that Common Conservative has published it's newest issue of wit and wisdom from conservative political punidts.

Thomas Lindaman, our esteemed editor, and still no relation to Mr. Lindaman from "Heroes" expresses his thoughts on Dancing With The Stars, and yes folks, he doesn't give a damn.

Patrick Shanahan speaks out on "comprehensive solutions" for immigration. Wimps doesn't begin to cover his thoughts.

Larry Simoneaux talks about a recent conversation held with his muse Mudrock. (I need to find myself a Mudrock. 'Course, I could just stick with my wife. She has less grease on the stove.)

And Marcie and I have expressed a month end round up of news events in our newest Passing Thoughts column.

Guest Articles include views from Mr. Lindaman giving a book review of AJ Kaufman's "Reclamation;" a book on the scary, seedy underbelly of public education.

Sharon Hughes takes the Democrats to task over their pork-bribery war funding bill.

Jack Ward is also talking about the Senate boondoggle also known as "Comprehensive Immigration Reform."

John Lillpop discusses a new Presidential directive that President Bush signed into law. While we're not too afraid of the president executing this directive, it bodes ill for successors, especially if one like Senator Clinton ever was elected to the presidency.

The immigration draft int he Senate seems to be a running theme this issue as Bob Parks piles on the ridiucule to those that deserve it most.

And Chris Adamo the relevant Achilles heel of a Rudy Giuliani nomination.

Again, Common Conservative defines this month with solid conservative analysis from some of the best, yet lesser known, pundits. Enjoy reading them all.

Publius II

In A Candid Moment, the WSJ Editors Go On the Attack

2007-06-01T13:48:00.000-07:00

Hat-Tip to Bryan @ Hot Air for posting this candid video. I recommend that all of our readers go there, and endure the seven-and-a-half minutes of the editors coming out against National Review and "the Right" for the stance taken against this immigration bill. If I may offer this statement from Paul Gigot as evidence of their inherent inability to understand the reasoning behind our raucous disagreement:

"The Right isn't even rational about this anymore. It doesn't really make arguments about this or that part of the bill. Now it's just that we don't want any kind of immigration reform ..."

That is bunk. It is a misnomer to state, and thereby assume, that we are not arguing against aspects of this bill. the vast majority of conservative pundits and bloggers have brought up a sngular concern that people, like the editors at the Journal, have pooh-poohed. Enforcement and security. As we have asked repeatedly, why are we now to believe the government when they say there will be a strict stance of enforcement and security where none has existed int he past?

John Fund brings up the point, and Mr. Gigot runs with it, that our side is demanding enforcement against employers for employing illegal aliens. He brings up how OSHA ran rampant until Ronald Reagan curtailed their efforts, and that we could expect a similar effort from those that would crack-down on businesses. Basically, we are being labled as very "Business unfriendly" in this regard. Why is it that employers should not bear their responsibility if they hire illegal aliens?

On the flip side, with the slipshod manner with which background checks would be carried out, I cannot fault an employer if his check comes back clean, only to learn later through the enforcement arm of DHS, or whatever agency would handle such things, that his employee(s) may not be legal. It is not the employer's fault if the check comes back clean when he tries it, but later is told that things have arisen, and he is to be fined. This si another aspect of the bill that is inherently faulty. On the flip side, he sounds like the most rational member of the editorial board in this short video clip. At least he can see this from both perspectives whereas the others who spoke up are coming fromt he talking points avenue that the WSJ has provided since the beginning of the debate. (Consequently, this video was made on May 22, 2007; approximately two weeks ago as debate was beginning.)

I would like to correct Mr. Gigot on his assertions. We are offering arguments. They focus on security. that is knowing who is coming in, making sure they do so legally, and preventing any criminals/terrorists from entering this country. The immigration bill proposed has "triggers" in it dealing with security, but with the loopholes that are within it, there are bound to be ways around those triggers. Indeed, the Z Visa alone is a way around it as it can be obtained immediately, with a minimal waiting period for a background check (we have heard 24 to 48 hours for such a check; the bill states 48, but again loopholes can make the wait shorter). If the triggers were true, no Z Visa would be issued until the provisions for the fence were met, the border guards were hired, and the necessary computer databases were established. But that will all go out the window.

The other aspect of security which concerns a great deal of us on the right -- what many have called "security voters" -- is a reminder we live in a post 9/11 world. In this world, nineteen hijackers -- the majority of which were here illegally -- attacked this nation. Four of the six homegrown jihadists in the Fort Dix plot were here illegally. This is a real aspect that is not addressed in the bill, and it is a faulty oversight. It should not be so that we neglect the extra notice that should be given to those fromt he regions of the world where Islamicists live and thrive. They do wish to harm us again, and the threat they pose is real. The "solution" offered int his bill regarding security, however, is not.

The Journal would do itself a great favor if, instead of reading the somewhat unhinged side of our aisle, to read the more down-to-earth opponents. We count ourselves amongst those that believe security and enforcement comes first before we dive into the debate as to what we do with these people. It is impractical and virtually impossible task to "deport them all." Twelve to twenty million have been living in the shadows for years. Those that are discovered face deportation, but most are not. This is a fact backed up by a recent Department of Justice report that examined over 55,000 illegals incarcerated in prison now. In that study, it was found that over sixty percent of them were repeat offenders of six or more times going through the criminal justice system. So I fail to see hwere advocates of this plan can say we have been solid and steady on enforcement.

The Journal editors have a right to their opinion. But to impugn the opponents of this measure as biased, or worse that we are racist, is simply uncalled for. We take pride in our stance, and find it under neither description. No one here, or among those we read, are advocating for things like this. We desire only a sensible and sound solution to a problem that has gone on unchecked for far too long. We are among the "security voters" that understand that this nation is at war with an enemy that knows how to hide in the shadows, and they can perform devastating attacks from those shadows if given the means to execute their operations. This bill would grant them such leeway. That is where our gripe rests.

Marcie

ADDENDUM: Over at JunkYard Blog See-Dubya has more insight. (Be sure to scroll down past the video that he linked on his site instead of stopping at the top of the page with the prelude to the piece.)

Pardon me, but I'd like to get a little serious here ...

2007-06-01T10:50:00.000-07:00

Ah, lunchtime. That perrenial hour of each day where we're supposed to go find something to eat, or face the vending machine the rest of the day in a vain search for something that isn't expired, or doesn't taste like cardboard. Me? I prefer to work through lunch. As I don't eat much to begin with, eating at lunch will keep me full through dinner. (No, I'm not kidding.) And besides, Marcie's making our favorite meatloaf tonight. The five pound monstrosity we first witnessed on I believe the Food Network with the Brooklyn guy. Looked good with the carmellized molasses on top and the mustard seeds. Granted, we had to pare downt hat recipe. Five pounds is a lot. Anyways, it's meatloaf tonight, and me -- right here -- for lunch.

Yes, I would like to get a little serious this afternoon. See, I was cruising through the 'Sphere last night looking for litte nuggets of news and interest. What I discovered is what I had discovered earlier last night, which was most of the news was already talked about, dealt with, and shelved for the day already. Once I put the obligatory notice up about the new issue of Common Conservative being up(yes, our new column is up there), I was about to retire to one of our favorite chatrooms for some typical fun of befuddling simple-minded moonbats that dare to invade our room. It's a conservative room, but around six o'clock our time every night, the trolls begin to meander in. So, last night was target rich, and I'm sure more than one when crying to their mommies that we were, once again, unfairly using facts and logic to ruin their view of reality. Cest la vie.

But before I did that, I spotted a post by Hugh Hewitt regarding the immigration bill. He writes, in part, the following:

At this point I take out my Harriet Miers Fan Club charter membership card and put it on the table: This push for this bill is a disaster, Mr. President. Much much worse than the Miers nomination on which you had many good arguments, or the ports deal, on which you had fewer. On this issue there is no place to stand, and you are asking your friends in the Senate to go down fighting for a bad bill. It is a bad bill because no one believes the government can conduct millions of background checks (many spokesmen for the bill don't even pretend to know where the paperwork will go!). No one believes the bill will halt the next 12 million. No one believes you are going to assure the fence gets built. No one believes that the employer verification system will get done or work when some half-assed version of it does get done. No one believes that the probationary visas don't automatically convert illegal aliens with few if any rights into Due Process Clause covered legal migrants, with a Ninth Circuit ready and waiting to keep them here for decades.

No one believes passing the bill will help catch the jihadist sleepers already in the country. The constituency that has always been with you except on the ports deal --the security voter-- has left the room. If you want them back, act quickly.

This isn't a talk radio fueled shout from the far right. It isn't the Minutemen or the Tancredo people. It is the GOP faithful who don't want it, nor anything like it.

Huddle up, D.C. GOPers, and unveil a new and very different, very improved version. Couple it with the argument that Hillary is coming and this is the best we will get if we lose the White House. But the deal has to be one worth taking, not the same deal we'd get under a second President Clinton. That's why the political rebelion is here: This looks like a bill that Hillary would have sold as tough on enforcement. We can wait two years for that.

First off, don't hold it against him that he was in favor of Harriet Miers. He had his reasons, and articulated them well. But in bringing that up, he reminded me of something important, and I think the leaders in DC have overlooked this, and much to their own foolishness. The immmigration bill marks the fourth serious, knock-down, drag-out fight that our party has gone through. Now I'm an old hat at this. Being thirty-five, I've watched politics for a good deal of time, and I've spent a great deal of my formative years learning about politics, and the ideology I most closely identify with. It's not the first time that the party has been split on an issue, and it won't be the last. But the blunders that have been made over the last six years with regard to the party, and it's de facto leader -- President George W. Bush -- does not make these catfights any prettier.

We went after each other over McCain/Feingold; due in no small part to the restrictions placed on our political speech, but also how the legislation tended to protect incumbants more than ridding the cycle of "soft money." Harriet Miers was the next big tipping point for the GOP as, in our humble opinion, the president nominated someone that wasn't qualified to be a jurist ont he high court; a fear confirmed when it was revealed she was taking a "two week crash course" on the Constitution. (For the record, though I've never spent one day in law school, I have devoted the last twenty years of my life in the study of the founding document. I think I understand it a bit better than Harriet Miers did.) Regardless, the ire raised int he base reached a crescendo that drove her form the nomination, and we instead ended up with Sam Alito -- a far more qualified jurist. Then there was the Dubai Ports deal. This deal would have allowed a company from a Middle Eastern nation to oversee security at our ports during a time of war; a war that is within that region. Too risky, some of us said, and again we watched the base split on this. (Again, on the record here folks, it's telling when Jimmy Carter and George Bush are ont he same page. To be brutally honest, that's when you know something's a bad deal.) And now we have the immigration debate.

This marks the fourth schism in the last six years this nation, and the party, has had to endure. Each time we've taken deeper swipes at one another. Each time the rhetoric has gotten meaner and nastier. Hey, I'm accustomed to it. Remember the caht room I was referring to earlier? I've had my fair share of dust-ups with moonbats AND conservatives there. But I guess what irritates me most about these little arguments is this:

WE ARE SUPPOSED to be the party of ideas and sensible debate. They're supposed to be the party with dead ideas, and vitriol for debate. So what gives, all of a sudden, when our own side starts sounding like their side? What do I mean?

Demogoguery. The president says that our reservations to this bill amount to fear-mongering; "not wanting what is best for the country." Linda Chavez decided to resort to a similar sort of rhetoric that Democrats have used for years against Republicans; she played the racial victim card. (While Ms. Chavez does claim Hispanic ancestory, that side of her family has been here since before the nation was founded, so drop the "Go back to Mexico" rhetoric. It makes you no better than they are.) Those that are looked at and respected as leaders of the Republican/conservative movement sound a lot like the people who have been calling us racist xenophobes for the last forty years.

I bring this up not because of the more seasoned and savvy members of the movement, such as Hugh, or Captain Ed, or even myself. I bring it up for Marcie. Marcie is only 20, and participated in the adult right to cast her vote for the first time in 2004. While she hasn't been in the process long, she's just as astute as I am when it comes to politics. Anyone who's read her posts here knows this. But the youth question comes into play when she sees this sort of division going on in the party she chose because, like me, it identified closer to her beliefs than any other party out there. (I disregard third parties because there's no cohesion to their platform, and no real leadership in their ranks. Though I'll admit I did toy with the idea of the Constitution party for the briefest of nanoseconds.)

What she, and a number of your people see, is a party that's tearing itself apart over this one issue. And believe me, it's by no means a small one. Anyone with two brain cells available to them that can rub together fr the friction to create a thought knew deep down inside thsat this issue was going to be, shal we say, "heated." When members of our own party are sniping at the base over our decision that this bill stinks, it sends the wrong message to the base, and especially it's younger members. Let's face facts here: People my age, Hugh's age, etc., aren't going to be around to carry the torch forever. At some point, those youthful, energetic masses will take up the mantle. But, if this sort of scurrilous swiping continues, there may not be too many of them left to assume the much needed roles of standard bearers. They'll be turned off; driven from the party because the party is acting like the Democrats usually do -- spoiled, rotten do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do petulant brats. C'mon, that's the turn-off that kept us away fromt he Democrats. We're the party of adults. They're the party of emotional children.

I'm not saying that people like Marcie, or any of her friends, will go Democrat. (First, I say "her friends" meaning those she goes to school with. I myself have only ever met a couple, and they're fairly sharp when it comes to politics. Not fully polished yet, but that comes with time. Second, I know Marcie won't switch parties, though I can't say the same for those friends of hers I o know. I don't know them well enough, and they're not GOP. They're Independents right now.) What I am saying is that when you turn people off, especially the younger ones, you risk cutting off your nose to spite your face. Case in point, this observation from Bryan at Hot Air. Going into an election cycle, and RNC donations are down 40%, and due in no small part to the fracas splitting the party right now.

That's the legacy that awaits the next generation of voters. That's the legacy that will be left behind by President Bush, and his immediate push for amnesty. Ah, ah, ah, I don't want to hear the pro-immigration crowd going ape over this. It is amnesty. In a nutshell it is, and they know it. ANYONE who has read the fdraft, and have been keeping up with the amendments being tacked on in the Senate knows damn good and well that this is a form of amnesty. But our side is being painted in a light that's not true, is far from accurate, and the broad briush is in the hands of the president and his water bearers.

Believe it or not, Marcie and I fancy ourselves as Reagan conservatives. And in the end, Reagan granted 2.7 million illegal aliens amnesty in 1986. I disagreed with it then. Marcie didn't have much to say about it as she was about two months old at the time. (The IRCA was signed on 6 November 1986.) But she's read the history of it, and she disagreed it was wrong to do it just ont he sheer fact that it bumped everyone else trying to come here for citizenship to the back of the bus in favor of those who broke the laws to get here in the first place. Likewise, she has noted that because it was granted in 1986, it only encourgaed more illegal immigration. Now, she sees it happening again. So do I.

Only this time our concerns go to a simple, undeniable fact. In 1986, the nation was promised an increase in border enforcement and control, and comprehensive security measures to deal with the flow; eventually hoping to stem the tide. Of course, it's hardly possible to stop every single one of them that try to cross our borders. But the sheer fact remains that the goverment didn't follow through then, and they're now asking everyone in America to trust them this time. "This time we'll make it work." Marcie noted to me when this debate started that if they broke their word before, why should we trust them now, especially given the vehement opposition to certain security measures. We called for and fought for the border fence last year. Should this bill be passed, less than half of that fence will be built before "regularization" begins. A farce in it's own right because as soon as it's passed, people will be lining up for their Z Visas; a form of regularization.

So our concerns go to the security first stage before we deal with those here. Build the fence, hire the 25,000 border patrol agents needed, provide -- to the public -- who will be conducting these background checks -- and be serious about it -- rather than the three-ring circus proposed in the draft, and put a provision in that calls for extra scrutiny on "people of interest" from "countries of interest." (That means Asia, Africa, and the Middle East -- all the places where jihadis happen to be, for the most part.)

And that is where her greatest frustration lies. She simply can't believe or comprehend why we're getting this jam-down. That's exactly what this is because, as she has observed to me countless times since this debate began, Congress and the president aren't listening to the concerns of the nation. Forget the base, they're not listening to the nation, as a whole. Their oaths are to the nation, and they're breaking those oaths by forcing this upon the nation. They're blowing off the security concerns. They're thumbing their noses at experts like robert Rector, who is warning of a massive economic fallout should this go through. Worst of all, they're attacking detractors rather than debating it civilly ans sensibly.

I see how much this frustrates her, and at times it even sickens her when she sees this sort of back-biting and character assassination going on. These people are acting as though they're up on high, and none of what we say matters in their world. They know best. The all important federal government knows what's best for us. Ronald Reagan once stated in his Fisrt Inaugural address that "Government is not the solution to our problems; governemtn IS the problem." He was right then, and he's right now. The government's comprehensive reform is no reform. It's a punchline to a very bad joke.

In the end, this bill could cripple this nation in ways that have yet to be determined. But for the party, they're alienating people like Marcie, and the other younger members of the party. this isn't how we act, and I condemn those that have acted this way. Instead of taking what level-headed, sensible criutics are saying, and examining those concerns, they've opted to ignore them and go on the attack. What they're sacrificing in the end may be what condemns them to the darkest regions of politics for years to come.

Think about it.

Publius II

Biting The Hand That Fed Him

2007-05-31T06:56:00.000-07:00

There are not too many people who like this immigration bill. After almost two week's worth of debate, the favorability of this bill still cannot crack any higher than 25-26%. Well over three-fourths of those polled are absolutely against this bill. But that has not stopped the president and his loyalists from demogoguing the base that supported them:

Some people just don’t like Mexicans — or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans.

No amount of hard, empirical evidence to the contrary, and no amount of reasoned argument or appeals to decency and fairness, will convince this small group of Americans — fewer than 10 percent of the general population, at most — otherwise. Unfortunately, among this group is a fair number of Republican members of Congress, almost all influential conservative talk radio hosts, some cable news anchors — most prominently, Lou Dobbs — and a handful of public policy “experts” at organizations such as the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, in addition to fringe groups like the Minuteman Project.

That came from Linda Chavez, a well-known and well-respected conservative pundit. Secretary Chertoff has attacked the base that voices it's concerns. And President Bush has also done so. My question is simple and direct: Why are they biting the hand that has fed them? Why are they turning on their base? I have heard a lot of nutty theories on this, and one that sticks in my head (formented through the conservative chatrooms, and chalked up tio Rush Limbaugh for coming up with the theory) is that this bill is designed to destroy our party.

As we can see, those in senior or influential positions withi the administration sure seem fit to draw out the long knives for those opposed to this, but I believe their motives have another, more globalistic side to them rather than the push to destroy the Republican party. If this bill succeeds, it will be one more step in the direction of a global economy and a global community. Furthermore, it will be one more nail in the coffin of US sovereignty. Ronald Reagan noted in 1986 that a nation without borders is no nation, and it is becoming increadingly obvious that goal is the aim of those in this government.

No matter what happens, we, the people, cannot allow that to happen american sovereignty is of the utmost importance, and it is a guaranteed liberty of this land. To give it up, accepting foreign rule, is precisely what the Framers had tried to avoid. However, in this day and age, and especially on this piece of legislation, those that are playing the demogoguery cards seem to have lost their way and forgotten the lessons that the Framers taught us. Worse, some of them seem to have forgotten their oaths to the nation.. If this is what the two main parties i this nation are to become -- shadows of themselves -- then indeed, it is time for a chnage to occur.

Marcie

Light At The End Of The Tunnel On Immigration Reform

2007-05-30T07:01:00.000-07:00

Not to get too many hopes up, but I believe this is called "laying the trump card,"and it does not come a moment too soon:

House conservatives are ready to stop the Senate immigration bill in its tracks with a potent procedural weapon should the contentious measure win passage in the upper chamber.

The trump card conservatives may hold is a constitutional rule that revenue-related bills must originate in the House. The Senate immigration measure requires that illegal immigrants pay back taxes before becoming citizens, opening the door to a House protest, dubbed a “blue slip” for the color of its paper.

House Republicans used the same back-taxes mandate for a blue-slip threat that derailed last year’s immigration conference. The new Senate bill still must survive two more weeks of voter scrutiny and contentious amendments, but several conservatives already are lying in wait for the Senate to “make the same mistake twice,” as one House GOP aide put it.

“If we get an opportunity to do it, believe me, we’ll do it,” the aide said. “I think it’s going to be a matter of who will get there first. A number of people in the House are dying to be fingered as the person who killed [the Senate bill].

”As the bill’s Senate supporters spend the recess fighting a wildfire of grassroots resistance to the immigration deal, which held together after an intense first week, some House Republicans are unconvinced by outreach from their Senate brethren. They acknowledge that a blue slip may be their only recourse to stop a process they believe Democrats will dominate in conference.

Any House member can move to blue-slip a Senate-originated bill that raises revenue, though the protest requires a majority vote to send the legislation back across the Capitol and force immigration negotiators back to square one. “We would certainly have the right [to a blue slip] and could exercise it,” another House GOP aide said.“We’d rather have no bill than a bad bill,” Kurt Bardella, spokesman for Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), said. The House Immigration Reform Caucus that Bilbray chairs, bitterly opposed to the Senate bill, “will use any and every means necessary to see that the American people get the immigration [reform] they deserve,” Bardella added.

The list of House GOP critics who could race to blue-slip the Senate bill is a long one. Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), both staking presidential bids on opposition to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) all said through press secretaries that they are considering any and all options to counter the Senate bill.“I hope that the House will always defend its constitutional rights, and I would defer to House leadership to decide when that occurs,” Rep. Lamar Smith (Texas), ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said through a spokeswoman.

All right, quit jockeying for who is going to do it, and do it already. Do not overplay this move. Just lay the card down, and end it all right now instead of allowing the blowhard know-nothings in the Senate to continue wasting precious time and money.

Who do we have to thank for this glaring oversight on the Senate's part? Well it appears that Captain Ed Morrissey is raising his hand:

How is this my fault? During a blogger conference call with Senator John McCain, one of the bill's architects, I mentioned a Boston Globe story that reported the removal of a requirement to pay back taxes before entering either the Z-visa or Y-visa program. The White House reportedly requested that section be removed, and I asked the Senator why illegal immigrants would get a pass on paying back taxes when American citizens don't get that privilege.

McCain was surprised by this question; he hadn't heard about the removal of the requirement. According to The Hill, McCain went back and reinstated the provision after my question:

The back-taxes provision that could trigger the blue slip came from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who continues to take heavy fire on the presidential hustings for supporting the immigration deal. McCain introduced a back-taxes amendment after a conference call in which Republican bloggers mentioned reports that the Bush administration had asked that this year’s bill not force the very costly process of tax collection among illegal immigrants.

“I’d not heard that proposal on the part of the president,” McCain said, according to a transcript of the call. “I would resist that.”

I do not think that Captain Ed can take all the blame for this one. Senator McCain did, after all, put the provision back in after being informed of it's removal. No one twisted his arm on the measure. He did it on his own. All that Captain Ed and the other bloggers did was bring it to his attention. Mr. Narcissistic is the one who acted. And I am sure he will also be the one throwing the hissy fit when the blue slip is delivered to the Senate. Hopefully that arrives soon to save us from this disaster. It would seem with McCain's move that he apparently understsands less of the Constitution than the White House doesbecause it seems to me that this is why the White House tried to remove that piece of this legislation.

Up until now, those in the House have been focusing on a way to kill it via vote or filibuster. Up until now that is the only avenues they have been handed. Once the back taxes provision was put in place, the game was afoot. Nothing the Senate can do, sans removing the feature from the bill, can stop this blue slip manuever. Way to go, Senator McCain. You've just undone the bill you helped create. And thank you Captain Ed, and your team of bloggers on that call, for giving him the means to shoot himself in the foot.

Marcie

ADDENDUM: Folks, forgive my overzealous and giddy wife for this report. What she doesn't state, and should have been revealed, is that for the blue slip to work, the House needs to be able to enforce it. That means a majority has to back it up. Can that happen? Will it happen?

Given how controversial this draft is (over 70% of voters polled DO NOT support this bill based on the analysis from legal, economic, and security experts) there is a high probability that the House can unite under a solid, security-first coalition. Yes, Marcie is quite correct, as is Captain Ed -- the Senate can't pass a bill that raises" revenue" FIRST. Article I, Section 7 is explicit:

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Because this provisions regarding tax amnesty will technically "raise revenues," the Senate can't put this forward. The amendment itself must begin in the House. This isn't a pork-barrel amendment, which either House can propose. This is specifically calling for extra revenues to be paid to the government, i.e. raising revenues. This is solely a power of the House of Representatives.

The Founders understood that the House was comprised of the population of districts. The representative in question literally spoke on behalf of a group of citizens. The Founders believed the House to be, for lack of a better term, the "people's House," and only the citizenry should approve of a raise in federal revenues. They were closer to the pulse of the nation than those int he Senate because of how it is comprised, and the powers it possesses.

Can the House unite? That is a distinct possibility. WILL it unite? That remains to be seen. But given the high cry of foul that has risen from the citizenry, the possibility is high that they could. If they do, the draft is dead, and the Senate goes back to square one. If not, then it speaks volumes as to whether the House can unite and defeat the bill. We can hope that they can either stop it before they get it, or kill it when it's handed over to them.

So don't pop the cork on the bubbly just yet. We're still a ways off from killing this boondoggle.

Publius II

UPDATE: Just finished talking with Hugh Hewitt about this. First, he hasn't read the Hill report, but he has read Captain Ed's entry ont his subject. He says he doesn't hink it matters. The blue slip idea will fail, and the House will remove the amendment, and send it back to the Senate. In that effect, the Senate will have to start over again, and no difference will be made. The House, he feels, will end up passing the thing regardless if it makes it out of the Senate. As things stand right now, it's a good guess that it's going to pass the Senate.

So, as this is Constituency Week, as expressed by Carol Platt Liebeau yesterday filling in for Hugh, WE -- Marcie and I, and every other concerned citizen regarding this issue -- urge you to call both the Senate AND the House, and urge them to kill this draft.

This bill can't be allowed to come to being a law. It spells tragedy for this nation. Don't hang your hopes on this possibility. Get active, and make Congress hear your concerns.

Publius II

Fred! on the march

2007-05-30T00:03:00.000-07:00

Stephen Hayes has a new addition in the Fred! saga:

FRED THOMPSON IS RUNNING for the Republican presidential nomination. In a conference call Monday, Thompson addressed a group of more than 100 supporters and fundraisers whom the campaign has dubbed First Day Founders. He told them that he would be setting up an organization that will allow him to begin raising money and recruiting staff.

In official campaign finance parlance, the move represents a shift from "giving serious consideration" to a presidential bid, as Thompson said he would do back in March, as a non-candidate, to a "testing the waters" period where one is, in effect, a candidate-in-waiting with a campaign-in-preparation. Thompson advisers point out that the new testing-the-waters entity is not quite a campaign committee, though it will officially begin accepting contributions on June 4. On that day--the First Day, as it were--the campaign will take in donations that it can then tout as an impressive one-day haul. A corollary benefit will be that news reports about Thompson's non-entry entry will run on June 5, when the declared candidates will meet in New Hampshire for their third debate. (Thompson won't be required to disclose his donors and the amounts they give to the Federal Election Commission until September.)

No one thinks Thompson would have set up this entity if he had not decided to run, and there were apparently no serious qualifications or hesitations expressed on the conference call yesterday. The testing-the-waters committee allows Thompson to recruit and hire staff, which he intends to do. And he now has an entity that can collect campaign cash. For nearly four months, would-be Thompson supporters have been frozen in place, unable to contribute to Thompson even as they have been hounded by other campaigns.

Turn out the lights and say goodnight. Tell the fat-lady she's on in five. Prep up that bugle; taps will be playing for John McCain's campaign.

This is one of the moments that many people have been waiting to see and hear of. Fred Thompson's a dynamic that many have been hoping and praying for since it was first hinted he'd consider a run for the presidency after the Draf Fred movement started. I'm sure that the whining will begin on our side when he shows up to the first debate. And it's assured the Left will lash out him at the first chance they get.

He's going to drive people like McCain nuts because unlike the senior senator from Arizona, Fred isn't going to flip on things. He's strong, he's competent, and he's not doing this to further himself. He feels he has something to contribute to the nation. He also feels that he can lead this nation. To some that may sound ridiculous. To others -- especially those that have done their homework on him -- it's not so. They know the credentials and experience he'll bring to the race.

As of now, this race is a three-way dead heat. And I'm sirry to crush the hopes of the McCainiacs and Ron Paul bots out there, but they're done. Fred's entry will signal their departure from the race; hopefully sooner rather than later.

Publius II

Hillary Clinton Defines Marxism, But Will Anyone On Their Side Recognize it?

2007-05-29T16:49:00.000-07:00

This has been making its rounds on the Internet today, and I praise those that do recognize her ideas for what they are. From Yahoo:

Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.

"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

Clinton spoke at the Manchester School of Technology, which trains high school students for careers in the construction, automotive, graphic arts and other industries. The school highlighted one of the nine goals she outlined: increasing support for alternative schools and community colleges.

"We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this," she said.

Beyond education, Clinton said she would reduce special breaks for corporations, eliminate tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas and open up CEO pay to greater public scrutiny.

Clinton also said she would help people save more money by expanding and simplifying the earned income tax credit; create new jobs by pursuing energy independence; and ensure that every American has affordable health insurance.
Beyond education, Clinton said she would reduce special breaks for corporations, eliminate tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas and open up CEO pay to greater public scrutiny.

In 1965, the average corporate chief executive earned 24 times as much as the average worker, she said. By 2005, it was 262 times as much. In the last six years, productivity has increased, but family incomes have gone down, she said, leading to rising inequality and pessimism in the work force.

"It's not as if America hasn't been successful these last six years, but the measure of success does not relate to what's happening in households across our country," she said. "It's like trickle down economics, without the trickle."

As Tghomas was going to point out on Hugh Hewitt's show this afternoon, but was cut off before he could make the point, this is Marxism, plain and simple. This is "It Takes a Village" on steroids. This nation was not built on "shared responsibility." It was built on rugged individualism, "Yankee ingenuity," and entrepreneurship that Europe lost a long time ago.

The idea of socialism is a dead concept. Everywhere it has been tried it has failed miserably. It ends up becoming a serious problem for the populace, but not so much of one for those in power, or those that have already achieved their ends, like Senator Clinton and her husband. It is preposterous to think that America would go along with such an idea, but she will try her damndest to implement it if she wins the presidency. Unfortunately for the nation, there are enough nuts in her corner that were probably nodding along with what she said.

As Thomas would say, those people -- Mrs. Clinton included -- are about "as sharp as a sack of wet mice."

Furthermore, if Senator Clinton thinks this is such a good idea, I suggest she trim a little fat off of the Constitution. We have a right, in America, to own property, and it cannot be denied without due process of law. Will she resort to the sociualist idea of hate speech to prosecute detractors, and seize what they have? We already know she plans on raising taxes higher than her husband did if she is elected, so maybe she is counting on a large amount of foreclosures when people cannot pay their mortgages or taxes.

This speech was asinine, and the verbally, pundit-driven beating she is receiving already, and will continue to endure, is rightly deserved. This is foolhardy, and she is showing that she simply does not comprehend a free market, capitalist system that does not hold people down, but rather gives them every opportunity to succeed.

I would be remiss if I did not close with this:

"Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

Senator, the Constitution does not guarantee fairness. It guarantees equality for all citizens. And as for the government policies, I would like to counter with a well-known, great president:

"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

Marcie

The Fallout For John McCain: Actions Have Consequences

2007-05-29T07:09:00.000-07:00

This story is lighting up the blogosphere and with good reason. After a slow start, and one that had him mired in the single digits amongst straw polls, Mitt romney has pulled ahead of John McCain in a new Rasmussen poll:

The immigration reform debate may be shaking up the race for the Republican Presidential nomination. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has inched past Arizona Senator John McCain for second place in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll. Just two weeks ago, Romney was in fourth place among GOP hopefuls.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) remains on top with 25% support. That’s essentially unchanged from last week. In fact, Giuliani has been at 25% or 26% in the polls for four straight weeks.

This week, Giuliani is followed by Romney at 16%, McCain at 15%, and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson at 12%. While Romney’s one-point edge over McCain is statistically insignificant, it’s worth noting that McCain had a six-point advantage over Romney just two weeks ago.

McCain, once considered the dominant frontrunner, has been strongly supportive of the immigration reform bill being debated in the Senate. That bill is unpopular with the general public—just 26% of voters favor its passage.

Romney has announced his strong opposition to the immigration bill and Giuliani called it a “hodgepodge… without any central focus.” Thompson said “We should scrap this bill and the whole debate until we can convince the American people that we have secured the borders or at least have made great headway." Most Americans are willing to support an enforcement-only approach at this time.

John McCain has brought this misery on himself. not only is his past record beginning to created cracks in that armor of his, but his inclusion in this bill has severely hurt him. Additionally, his arrogant handling of the negotiations, which he was not a regular participant in, did not help him in any way.

I believe that the public was thoroughly turned off by his underhanded swipe at Governor Romney last week; a snide comment in reference to the lie that Governor Romney had employed illegal aliens to do his lawn work. But the blow up with Senator Cornyn in those negotiations sticks firmly in my mind. And not for the reasons that many would think. The "F" bomb does not faze me. It is a word I heard fairly often on campus,a nd I am sure I will hear it there again when I return in the fall. No, the arrogant comment regarding Senator McCain telling Senator Cornyn to leave the room so the negotiations could be completed.

Senator Cornyn spent a great deal of time in those negotiations, and stood firm on the security provisions in the bill. And that was while Senator McCain was out campaigning to be the next POTUS. Senator McCain has been notably absent from his position in the Senate for months, and has missed a great deal of votes. (This does warm our hearts. The old adage goes that when Congress is in recess, the nation is safe; similarly, when John McCain is not around, his party is safe.)

Governor Romney's position on the immigration problem has moderated itself just a bit over the years. Like anyone with an opinion, that opinion can evolve over time, taking a much different shape than when it was first formulated. Not everyone comes up with a belief or opinion, and can stick by it their entire lives without moderating themselves a tad. That is what makes us human.

This leap-forgging of John McCain may be a precursor of things yet to come. We have kn own for some time that it was only a matter of time before McCain would see some of his support depart. That is now showing. Worse yet, for him, is that the new Rasmussen poll takes into account former Senator Fred Thompson's affect onthe race without him being in it, and he is polling just slightly behind McCain. That is not a good sign for John McCain's Straight BS Express.

Before any McCain supporters hit us with e-mail, or spam the heck out of our comments with long-winded diatribes and rants, just keep this in mind ....

He brought this on himself. Having the positions he has had, doing the things he has done, and acting like a spoiled, petulant child has brought him to this point in the race. Two bad performances in the two GOP debates has not helped him either. The first time around he was angry, demanding, and seemed bitter. The second time around, while better overall, he seemed lost at times, or unwilling to answer question.

Thomas reminds me of his favorite phrase -- "You reap what you sow." John McCain has reaped a great deal, and sown the seeds of his own failure. this time around, he will have no one but himself to blame.

Marcie

Iran and the US talking? This isn't good

2007-05-29T01:16:00.000-07:00

Readers know that Marcie and I support the president. We voted for him (I did twice; Marcie participated in voting for the first time it was legal for her in 2004), and we have supported his decisions despite our disagreements with him. He is the commander-in-chief and President of the United States. He is owed the respect his office demands. (I did no less for President Clinton despite my misgivings about him, and the ideological divide.)

Iran has been an enemy of the United States since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. There is simply no reason whatsoever we should be talking to them. They are openly hostile to us and our allies. They have sent fighters into Iraq to kill our troops. They have sent munitions and explosives into Iraq to kill our troops. And they are working towards gaining nuclear weapons to attack Israel, and any other Western target they so choose. And Charles Johnson, of Little Green Footballs points this story out which doesn't make either of us happy at all:

The United States and Iran broke a 27-year diplomatic freeze Monday with a four-hour meeting about Iraqi security. The American envoy said there was broad policy agreement, but that Iran must stop arming and financing militants who are attacking U.S. and Iraqi forces.

Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qomi told The Associated Press that the two sides would meet again in less than a month. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said Washington would decide only after the Iraqi government issued an invitation.

“We don’t have a formal invitation to respond to just yet, so it doesn’t make sense to respond to what we don’t have,” Crocker told reporters after the meeting.

The talks in the Green Zone offices of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki were the first formal and scheduled meeting between Iranian and American government officials since the United States broke diplomatic relations with Tehran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the seizure of the U.S. Embassy.

An AP reporter who witnessed the opening of the session said Crocker and Kazemi shook hands.

The American envoy called the meeting "businesslike" and said at "the level of policy and principle, the Iranian position as articulated by the Iranian ambassador was very close to our own."

However, he said: "What we would obviously like to see, and the Iraqis would clearly like to see, is an action by Iran on the ground to bring what it's actually doing in line with its stated policy."

Speaking later at a news conference in the Iranian Embassy, Kazemi said: "We don't take the American accusations seriously."

Crocker declined to detail what Kazemi had said in the session, but the Iranian diplomat — formerly a top official in the elite Revolutionary Guards Quds Force — said he had offered to train and equip the Iraqi army and police to create "a new military and security structure" for Iraq.

Anyone else think this is a bad idea. I sure as Hell do. Talk about making a deal with the devil. Iran has been trying to destabilize the new Iraqi government for months, and relying on Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army to do the bulk of the work. This is a bad decision by both sides, Iraqi and America. I know the president calls the shots, but trying to make nice with a pitbull is no way to run diplomacy.

Iran needs to have the screws put to it rather than having a tea party. They're trying to build nukes, and in a world like ours is today, a radical Islamic nation that has directly threatened an ally shouldn't be allowed man's most destructive weapons. Worse, this looks like capitulation to a nation that supports enemies like ours 100 times more than any other. The interesting part of this story is the twist with Israel:

Israeli officials in Washington, who have been in close touch with the US about Iran, said they understood the meeting was held to deal with the need to stabilize Iraq.

"We don't have a problem with America talking to Iran about Iraq as such," said one Israeli diplomat. The issue, he continued, would be the context of any conversation about the Iranian nuclear program. On that front, he said, it would be important that any American contacts were premised on Iran halting its enrichment activities.

He said the US agreed that "the whole nuclear issue is still another channel" and that talks on that subject have to be based on suspension.

Regardless of whether or not the nuclear subject is broached, we're not happy with US diplomats speaking to elements of Iran. It smacks of accepting the Baker Commission's recommendations to open a dialogue with Iran -- a nation that is openly sponsoring a terrorist organization, and one that has sent it's Quds force commanders into Iraq to train and supervise insurgents against our troops.

Enough is enough. The only thing Iran's interested in is hurting this nation, and they're doing it in Iraq. If I were the president, I wouldn't being saying one word to the Iranians. But I'm not. I don't have to like the decision, but I do have to accept it. The president chooses this path, then he does so on his own without our support. But he takes this route with a warning:

You can't trust the Iranians. In the end they will stab us in the back, and do the same to Iraq. This is a bad move regardless of the so-called "businesslike" demeanor of the talks.

Publius II

John Kyl's taking heat, and rightly so

2007-05-28T23:42:00.000-07:00

John Kyl is an senator from Arizona, the state Marcie and I reside in. He's attached to this boodoggle of a legislative nightmare known as "bipartisan immigration reform." And brother, is he taking some heat over this ...,/li>

Angry calls poured into Senator Jon Kyl’s office this week by the thousands, expressing outrage beyond anything he said he had witnessed in his 20-year political career. The callers were inflamed by Mr. Kyl’s role in shaping the bipartisan immigration compromise announced May 17, which lawmakers continue to debate.

“Yes, I have learned some new words from some of my constituents,” Mr. Kyl, an Arizona Republican, said at a news conference on Thursday, drawing titters from those in the room.
Mr. Kyl, 65, who garners top ratings from conservative groups every year, is the unlikely linchpin to the fragile alliance of Democrats and Republicans trying to push the sprawling immigration bill through the Senate.

Labeled by its backers as the “grand bargain,” the measure has the potential to be the most far-reaching piece of domestic legislation taken up by the Senate this year.

An ardent foe of the immigration bill that passed the Senate last year but was later stymied by House Republicans, Mr. Kyl is seen as essential to attracting conservative Republicans to the new proposal. As his party’s conference chairman, Mr. Kyl is the third-ranking Republican in the Senate and a fervent spokesman for conservative principles.

Although the bill’s backers have praised Mr. Kyl for his political courage, his about-face was not ushered in by either a high-minded refusal to demagogue on the issue or a conscious summoning of historic compromises from the Senate’s past.

A technocrat who has labored in Arizona in the shadow of his much more visible colleague, Senator John McCain, Mr. Kyl has traditionally shunned the spotlight and worked behind the scenes immersed in the details of legislation. It was that affinity for working in the trenches on policy, and pragmatism about the art of legislating, that led him to become a legislative partner of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who has been a major voice for immigration overhaul.

After winning a bruising re-election battle last November in which immigration featured prominently, Mr. Kyl said he returned to the Senate convinced that something needed to be done on the issue. Inaction was no longer an option, he said.

“The situation in Arizona is horrible today,” he said in an interview.

Mr. Kyl said he also realized that his approach needed to change, now that Republicans were a minority in the Senate. With or without him, Mr. Kennedy and others in the new Democratic majority were poised to draw up immigration legislation that Mr. Kyl knew he would dislike.

OK, before the nutter go off half-cocked here, let me just say that we recognize that something has to be done about those here illegally. Amnesty, especially the sort that is being pushed in the Senate, isn't a viable option. The Heritage Foundation has reviewed the bill draft. Hugh Hewitt dissected the snot out of it. We spent the first weekend it was available printing and reading the thing. We agree that if this bill goes through as is with only minor corrections, this will be a disaster for the nation.

YES, we need some sort of regularization of the illegals here in America right now, but amnesty isn't the answer. Granting them amnesty on back taxes owed isn't the answer, and allowing them to have social security benefits, bbased on their past work in this nation, isn't the answer. That portion of the bill needs to go through a complete overhaul. And despite the cries and caterwauling from those on the conservative side of the aisle -- from some very good people we know well -- deportation isn't the answer either. You'll never find them all to deport them, in the first place. Secondly, what of those people who have married citizens, and had children? Please, let's think this through sensibly.

The smarter approach would be to divide the overall issue into two parts. The first should completely focus on security and enforcement. The second should focus on the status of the people here. The security aspect of this proposed legislation is what has us far more concerned than anything else. Without a secure nation, we're vulnerable to our enemies. Worse, we're vulnerable to those we don't even know are enemies yet, like those that Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong-Il might employ to hurt us. This is what we're talking about, and some people are missing this point. We're not being alarmists here; we're being realists. There are people out there that want to kill us and hurt this nation in ways that only Tom Clancy could cook up. Because of that, security comes first, and that means that those involved in protecting and securing our borders have to be serious about it.

That includes the president, our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, Secretary Chertoff, and of course the Congress. Right now. we're not seeing it. And that's why Senator Kyl is taking heat. I said he deserves it. He does. I mean it. As voters int he state of Arizona -- voters that helped the Kyl campaign in 2006 -- we're not happy with this bill. We've let him, his secretaries, and his aides know this. This bill stinks. It needs an overhaul, and we're not seeing much of that coming from Congress. That has to change. Hopefully the good senator from Arizona has learned more than just "new words" from his constituents.

Hopefully he takes their wisdom and concerns to the Senate, and starts pushing for an overhaul of the bill. If not, and this bill goes through with the amnesty intact, and lax security still there, when we are hit again, we'll know the right guys to blame in Congress. And yes, I do mean "when," not "if." It's virtually assured, and seemingly invited.

Publius II

Memorial Day 2007 ... Remember that freedom isn't free ....

2007-05-28T00:38:00.000-07:00

Happy Memorial day! Please remember those that fight now, and those fallen in the past. This nation wasn't won and secured through spineless intervention. This natioon was founded on the blood of patriots. Please, stop by Cox And Forkum to see their tribute to this day. Also, don't forget the the guys at BlackFive, Mr. and/or Mrs. Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette, and Colonel Austin Bay for their tributes to this day.

And Bryan over at Hot Air takes notice of a number of tributes across the 'sphere. Captain Ed has a few things to say today, too. K-Lo at the Corner has THE photo of the day, and a moving story behind that photo. Finally, there is this from Peter Collier over at Opinion Journal</li>. In this piece, he recounts a few of the biographies of Medal of Honor recipients; biographies to the book he helped write -- "Medal of Honor: Portraits of Valor Beyond the Call of Duty" -- that sits on my bookshelf in the den. Great book.

We're basically taking the day off. We're both still sick, and hopefully we can catch up on some needed rest. Remember to pay your respect at 3 pm today for the moment of remembrance. Yes, this day should be filled with friends and family enjoying each other's company. But had it not been for the bravery and sacrifice of others in the past, and now in the present, there would be no freedom to speak of and enjoy.

Publius II

The call goes out, and the pros are answering -- Updated and bumped!

2007-05-27T17:50:00.000-07:00

On Friday, Hugh Hewitt put the call out to counterterrorism experts and intelligence officers to either tell him he was wrong about assessing Michael Chertoff's opinion regarding the immigration bill. Not to put to fine a point on it, but Sec. Chertoff basically told Hugh he was overreacting to the bill as a whole, and assured him that terrorists wouldn't be able to get around the security measures in the immigration bill being debated right now in the Senate. The flip side of the challenge was to back up Hugh's concerns. Michael Cutler, a former INS guy that has testified on the Hill on the issue of immigration was the first one to reply:

In listening to the politicians go at where the illegal immigration crisis is concerned, I am forced to wonder if most of these "leaders" have taken the time to consider the findings and recommendations of the Presidential Commission on the Attacks of September 11, 2001 or the companion report, "The 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel." Those politicians who favor providing millions of illegal aliens (undocumented workers) in the parlance of Senator Kennedy and others, appear to be ignoring a basic issue that has not been, addressed in all of the discussions about the implementation of a Guest Worker Amnesty Program: How would the adjudicators at USCIS know what name and other identifiers should be imprinted on the "tamper-proof" identity documents that would be issued to many millions of illegals? This may seem to be a strange question, but lets consider the facts. When Kennedy and others refer to these millions of illegal aliens as being "undocumented" a political agenda is in play here, they want to distract us from the fact that these people are aliens and that they are present in the United States in violation of law. That makes them "Illegal Aliens." Kennedy, in fact, has on occasion simply referred to these law violators as simply, "The Undocumented." This term is particularly devious because it neatly sidesteps the facts that these aliens are violating our laws. But, for a moment, let us consider what documents they are lacking so that he can blithely refer to them as "The Undocumented." They lack any form of reliable identification that properly identifies them. Without reliable identity documents, how can the adjudicators know the names, dates of birth or even the nationalities of these millions of illegal aliens? How would they determine when, where or how they entered the United States? These would be important questions under normal circumstances, but under the current situation where our nation is, on a daily basis, focused on averting the next terrorist attack, these questions become absolutely critical!

Read it all, folks because Cutler knows what the Hell he's talking about. He's not blowing smoke up your skirt, and he's hard-pressed to get this message across to a group of politicians in Washington that think they have the solution. In short, their solution doesn't even come close to the mark.

Today, he posted another response to his challenge, and this one is starting to generate a buzz. I recommend checking out the comments on this one:

Your colleague Hugh is more than right. Hell, he ought to be the secretary of Homeland Security. Look Michael Chertoff is a good guy, but he's a bureaucratic ass-hat. He's in this for his job, and not the security of the nation. Like every guy in his position, he doesn't quite get the depths of what it takes to really protect a nation.

Example? Hugh wrote:

Secretary Chertoff told me I was wrong. He argued that providing probationary status to every illegal who turns in their paperwork would be useful in the effort to find the terrorists hidden in our own country. If I understand him correctly, he believes that the covert terrorists ill be afraid to turn in the paperwork and will thus be left much more exposed as everyone else will have their probationary documents.

This is a false assumption, and a dangerous one, at that. You and I both know that those trying to attack us either A) have solid documentation, or B) have been living long enough in the shadows that they're not going to risk exposure, and will slip through the net. Look, these people aren't idiots. They've been doing this long enough to know that certain scrutiny is going to get them caught, and that's just not good for them. The ones who have the passports and other documents will be willing to make the risk because thus far, those documents have protected them.

As Hugh states prior to posting the letter, this letter was relayed to him, hence the reason why it sounds like the person isn't addressing him. He's not. But his point is well-founded. The writer is a 25 year veteran of Naval Intelligence, and has worked closely with the Spec-Ops community for the bulk of his time in the Navy. This is another must-read letter, but I'll warn readers that the language is a bit salty, though Hugh cleaned it up nicely. You'll get the point of his frustration, and for good reason. He spent 25 years defending this nation from attack, and the fools in congress want to leave us vulnerable.

It's true that the status quo doesn't cut it anymore. Anybody who says different is a moron. The system is broken, and due completely to the fact that the government's been an absentee lanlord on the issue of controlling our borders, and ensuring our safety and security. The government's efforts have been woefully inadequate, and nothing shows it more than the 12-20 million illegal aliens here, but more importantly, our failures were on display with the Dix Six and the 11 September hijackers.

As long as we have open borders, we're vulnerable. But simply enforcing the borders isn't enough. That's why the 25 year Navy veteran offers this simple piece of advice to Congress:

You want solid reform, here's how you do it. First, if you're going to let these &^%$# in, you give them a background check they won't forget. You crawl up their &&%$ so much they'll want to leave. Each day, every day you monitor them. This way even if you get a phony name, you got a better chance of nailing them. It's either that or you end all emigration from those nations I listed above. And believe me, that list is by no means complete. Secondly, you create a computer system that will connect to ALL national computer databases to track these guys, and if the nation in question says "no," then emigration from that country ends immediately. If they claim they don't have a database, emigration ends until they do. Those that do come here are still subject to scrutiny that would make any American citizen squeamish. That's OK though because they're not citizens. They don't like it? Screw them. Move to Britain then. Lastly, if they come from one of those suicide-loving countries, you follow them like the plague until such a time that they become a citizen and are subject to the laws and protections of the nation. And personally [name ommitted], that won't happen. These $#@& never want that. They just want to hurt us worse than the last guy.

He's got the right idea and that's because security is a serious business for him. The time for patty-cake games is done. If we don't take the steps necessary to protect ourselves, we're going to be hit again. The veteran presents a couple of "what if" scenarios that are perfectly plausible. Frank Gaffney alluded to the possibility of an EMP weapon used against the United States. He brings that up, and he also brings up the possibility of bio-terrorism. In this day and age, folks, our enemy is constantly looking for ways to hurt us the best they possibly can. Now the Dix Six were amateurs unaffiliated with al-Qaeda or any other group. But that doesn't change the fact that they could have inflicted serious damage to this nation's military but making a suicide attack on a military base. Likewise, over half of that wanna-be jihadi team were here illegally.

It wasn't the FBI, NSA, or CIA that found these guys. It was an alert citizen that noticed something was hinky about their video, and notified the authorities. Sure, the FBI admitted they had these guys under surveillance, but in the same breath they acknowledged that they were unaware of how close these guys were to making their move. Doesn't instill a lot of confidence in making sure we stay protected now does it?

Look, we're on the side that says let's deal with the security factors FIRST. We can deal with the regularization later. And we need the extra notice paid attention to those that come here from the list of countries that veteran rattles off. But even he recognized that the list is incomplete. There are Islamofascists in Britain, in France, in Bosnia, in Chechnya, etc. Come on already. The Dix Six team consisted of Albanians, a Turk, and a Jordanian. So it's time we start utilizing some extra scrutiny on these people. Furthermore, they should have a special visa issued to them if they're coming here, and not one of the ones being debated in Congress right now. Make it a visa that has to be renewed several times in a year, say every three months or so. (It'd be even better if there was a way we could possibly track the visa where it goes, say by some sort of micro dot or some such. Hey I just think this stuff up. I don't explain how it works.)

Above all, these professionals that are sounding off are making it clear that we need to seriously rethink this bill, and implement better safeguards against letting covert jihadists into America. Right now, this bill doesn't possess any such provisions.

Publius II

ADDENDUM: Hugh notes that Uncle Jimbo at BlackFive answers him. He also says that he disagrees with him in part, though he doesn't elaborate. He promises that he'll address the issue on Tuesday after the Memorial Day holiday is over. I do, however, agree with Uncle Jimbo in part: Had al-Qaeda had a decent number of active cells in the United States, the ideal time to have struck after 11 September would have been the following day, and in a midwestern city. The true essence of terrorism is to spread terror, not just rack up a body count.

And I'd like to address something that is appearing in a lot of comments on both sites -- I don't think Hugh is looking for "parrots." The idea is to hash this out. If you think he's wrong, feel free to let him know, and WHY. Don't just sit there like a lot of commenters have, and state you disagree because Hugh's not addressing the idea of the overall amnesty and mess this bill would end up creating. We ALL agree that the illegal alien problem must be addressed. But I can't say it enough that security comes first. We're in a war. It's unprecedented to leave ourselves wide open in a war where there's a distinct possibility of enemy agents penetrating the nation and wreaking havoc.

Publius II

Animals Having "Fun"

2007-05-27T13:31:00.000-07:00

When I saw the Snoking Gun entry that Thomas wrote about this morning, it made me sick to see the images of the tortured, and what al-Qaeda does to it's captives. Earlier this month, Mullah Dadullah was killed in Afghanistan by NATO forces working with Afghani forces. The Economist speculated that he may have been betrayed from amongst his own:

The intriguing question is whether Dadullah's death reveals divisions in the Taliban that might open the way for possible negotiations. There are suggestions he may have been betrayed. Certainly Western commanders are not going to do anything to allay the paranoia over internal security evident in Taliban ranks. American forces were watching Dadullah from the moment he crossed the Pakistani border into Helmand province on May 10th; they killed him within 24 hours.

You may be wondering why I am bringing this up now and what this has to do with "animals having 'fun.'" Because of this post from DR. Rusty Shackleford. This is an exclusive for the Jawa Report. He has posted several still-frame images of the beheading of a suspected spy in the Taliban. The images are extremely graphic, and as he notes in the post, the images are those that were censored in the video that is making it's way around the Internet.

What is more disgusting about these images is that the person doing the beheading is a twelve year-old boy, and he is being coached by an older man as to how it is done. This is the idea of fun that the animals enjoy. There is simply no way to comprehend the uncivilized behavior of zealots like this. It is not logical, nor is it proper. It's simply disgusting. Again, I warn our readers who decide to venture over to the good doctor's site that the images are very graphic. Likewise so are the comments that follow, and I cannot argue with what many of those that left a comment have to say.

Marcie

The beasts in Iraq

2007-05-27T09:27:00.000-07:00

Towards the end of last week, I found this on The Smoking Gun. It's an al-Qaeda torture manual. In it are not only drawings of how to conduct such barbaric practices, but also the tools to use. You can thumb through the images there, about twelve pages worth, and take heart in knowing that the MSM isn't telling anyone about this. We found this in a recent raid of an al-Qaeda safehouse. From The Smoking Gun:

In a recent raid on an al-Qaeda safe house in Iraq, U.S. military officials recovered an assortment of crude drawings depicting torture methods like "blowtorch to the skin" and "eye removal." Along with the images, which you'll find on the following pages, soldiers seized various torture implements, like meat cleavers, whips, and wire cutters. Photos of those items can be seen here. The images, which were just declassified by the Department of Defense, also include a picture of a ramshackle Baghdad safe house described as an "al-Qaeda torture chamber." It was there, during an April 24 raid, that soldiers found a man suspended from the ceiling by a chain. According to the military, he had been abducted from his job and was being beaten daily by his captors. In a raid earlier this week, Coalition Forces freed five Iraqis who were found in a padlocked room in Karmah. The group, which included a boy, were reportedly beaten with chains, cables, and hoses. Photos showing injuries sustained by those captives can be found here.

I'll warn readers right now that some of the images on those pages includes photos of torture victims and the bruises from repeated beatings. It's not a pretty. sight. However, what is a pretty sight is this from the AP. It seems that we're finding these places fairly regularly in Iraq, and today we freed 42 such captives of al-Qaeda:

U.S. forces raided an al-Qaida hide-out northeast of Baghdad on Sunday and freed 42 Iraqis imprisoned inside, including some who had been tortured and suffered broken bones, a senior U.S. military official said Sunday.

The raid was part of a 3-month-old security crackdown that included the deployment of 3,000 more U.S. troops to Diyala, a violent province north of the capital that has seen heavy fighting in recent weeks, said Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, the top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq.

Caldwell said Iraqis told U.S. forces about the hide-out: "The people in Diyala are speaking up against al-Qaida."

He said the 42 freed Iraqis marked the largest number of captives ever found in a single al-Qaida prison. Some of those freed were held for as long as four months and some had injuries from torture and were taken to medical facilities for treatment, he said.

You idiots on the Left get this finally? These are animals and this is what they do to inncoent people. Don't bring up the media-driven non-scandal of Abu Ghraib or Gitmo and claim what we're doing is torture. THIS IS TORTURE. Someone might want to drop this manual in the hands of John McCain and ask him if this is the sort of torture he believed we were engaging in. If his answer is "yes," someone needs to slap him. The United States doesn't condone or engage in torture. What the bleeding hearts call torture is nothing more than interrogations. Let our guys do their jobs and get what we can from these animals.

Publius II

We Would Like To Place A Wager On This One ...

2007-05-27T08:10:00.000-07:00

Back from Mass, and I decided to jump on the Internet for a few minutes. What did I find? Not much. Just this story from Bloomberg News courtesy of Allah @ Hot Air. It seems that Senator McConnell missed the memo last year:

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said the controversial immigration bill in Congress won't cost ``a single member of either party'' at the polls next year and predicted the bipartisan compromise will win Senate approval next month.

Most Americans want Congress to fix a system they regard as broken even though they have reservations about the proposed legislation, McConnell said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt.'' Public opinion, he predicted, will trump such specific concerns as whether it amounts to amnesty to grant eventual legal status to the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.

``This is a divisive issue'' for both parties, said McConnell, a Kentucky Republican. But, he said, ``I don't think there's a single member of either party next year who is going to fail to be re-elected over this issue.''

Did he miss the fact that the base did not turn out last year because of the feckless behavior of the GOP controlled Congress. Rick Santorum and Mike DeWine were stand-up senators, and they were bounced from their seats. Next year is a make or break year for the GOP, and playing games with this particular bill is not the way to win back control of Congress, or seize the White House.

thomas has said it numerous times both here and on the air with Hugh: If this bill goes through without the necessary security measures in place, and it grants the amnesty that is within it, the GOP in Congress will have condemned their party to wander in darkness for years to come. We will be right back where we were before with the Democrats controlling Congress for decades. In a day and age when we are at war, that is the last thing we need.

Is there anything left in that brain at all, Senator McConnell? Did you forget the lesson you were handed last year? Yes, it was a midterm election, and less people turn out for such elections, but would you like to see a repeat of it next year? The base may turn out to ensure we maintain the White House, but if they do not vote for the congressional positions, where will you be then? Out of a job, perhaps?

The arrogance of some Republicans on this matter is baffling. First, it was John McCain. Then the president and his idiotic Secretary of Homeland Security. Now it is our Minority Leader in the Senate. When are these people going to wise up and LISTEN to their constituents?

I urge ALL of the grass-roots activists to lay siege to Senator McConnell's phone and e-mail. Let him know that if he does not seriously address the immigration bill he may be one of the seats we lose in 2008. He was reelected in 2002, and it would be sweet reciprocity to have him lose in the primary to a solid conservative.

Readers know that Thomas and I are intellectually honest. We do not cover for Republicans simply because we are Republican. We are conservatives before that, and we place the Constitution above even that ideology. This bill is a disaster that will be dropped on this nation if it is passed as is. We need the security measures in the bill increased and implemented before a single effort to regularize those here illegally is even undertaken. Furthermore, Thomas and I agree with Hugh -- we must take extra steps to make sure the Islamicists do not have easy entry into this nation to do us harm. Extra analysis and investigation is needed on those that hail from nations that are known to have jihadist ties. That includes a fair number of African nations, and just about every nation in the Middle East even if they are an ally. If we do not take those extra precautions, our enemies will surely revisit 9/11 on us without even batting an eyelash.

If I were Senator McConnell, I would be working to make sure this bill is correct and secure rather than standing on a soapbox proclaiming that the GOP will not lose seats in Congress. This is the sort of statement that tends to stick in people's minds.

Marcie

While The Democrats Are Busy Patting Themselves On The Back ...

2007-05-25T10:40:00.000-07:00

... Minority Leader Boehner threw some cold water on their parade. See, the Democrats are going to tout what they passed since January. According to The Hill, he is taunting them:

Ahead of a press conference at which House Democratic leaders planned to tout their legislative accomplishments, the office of Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) released a list belittling the achievements of the current Congress.

According to the list, nearly half of the bills that have been passed this year and signed into law merely renamed federal property, such as post offices. Another piece of legislation authorizes the building of a road in Missouri.

Of the remaining 13 laws passed, according to the list sent out by Boehner spokesman Brian Kennedy, five bills extended existing laws or were also passed last year, and eight bills were “co-sponsored by Republicans or passed without opposition.”

The list comes courtesy of Kathryn Jean Lopez @ NRO's Corner:

13 BILLS TO NAME FEDERAL PROPERTY & BUILD A ROAD
H.R. 49 - To name the “Gerald R. Ford, Jr. Post Office Building”
H.R. 335 - To name the “Gale W. McGee Post Office”
H.R. 342 - To name the “Rush Hudson Limbaugh, Sr. United States Courthouse” [!!]
H.R. 433 - To name the “Scipio A. Jones Post Office Building”
H.R. 514 - To name the “Sergeant Lea Robert Mills Brooksville Aviation Branch Post Office”
H.R. 521 - To name the “Lane Evans Post Office Building”
H.R. 544 - To name the “Santiago E. Campos United States Courthouse”
H.R. 577 - To name the “Sergeant Henry Ybarra III Post Office Building”
H.R. 584 - To name the “Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building”
H.R. 753 – To name the “Clifford Davis & Odell Horton Federal Building”
H.R. 1129 - To build and maintain a road in St. Louis County, Missouri
S.159 – To name the “Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area”
S. 521 – To name the “Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building & United States Courthouse & Customhouse”

5 BILLS TO EXTEND PRE-EXISTING PUBLIC LAW OR PASSED LAST YEAR
H.R. 137 – Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act (passed last year)
H.R. 188 - To extend the Thomas Alva Edison Commemorative Coin Act
H.R. 434 – To extend the Small Business Act and the Small business Investment Act of 1958
H.R. 1003 – To extend the United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy
H.J. Res. 20 - Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution

8 BILLS CO-SPONSORED BY REPUBLICANS OR PASSED WITHOUT OPPOSITION
H.R. 475 - House Page Board Revision Act
H.R. 727 – Trauma Care Systems Planning & Development Act
H.R. 742 - Antitrust Modernization Commission Extension Act
H.R. 1130 – Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act
H.R. 1132 - National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program Reauthorization Act
H.R. 1681 – American National Red Cross Governance Modernization Act
S. 494 – NATO Freedom Consolidation Act
S. 1002 – Older Americans Reauthorization Technical Corrections Act

Boy, that first 100 hours must have been pretty tough to work through, and what great accomplishments those are. Yes, we can certainly see that the Democrats sure changed things when they came to power in Congress. Of course I would like to note that none of the things listed above were on their "first 100 hours" list of things to do. Of course they already backed away from lobbyist reform, and earlier this week they cut and ran on the cut and run from Iraq.

Here we have the facts that are separate from the spin. The Democrats fare no better in Congress than a great deal of Republicans. Granted, we would much rather prefer Republicans over the Democrats, but we are unabashedly conservative. However, Dean Barnett over @ Hugh Hewitt's site notes that the "nutroots" moonbats are unhappy with the Democrat cave-in on Iraq theater operations. See, the children still have not learned how the government or their political party actually works. Meanwhile, the adults understand their party, and on the odd occasion we get a little ticked at them. They just seem to get nastier and more anti-social when they do not get their way. Of course their reaction is not yet a full blown tantrum. This is more of a pout-fest for them than anything else.

Marcie

Gaffney wins -- "Islam vs. Islamicists" to air on PBS

2007-05-24T13:51:00.001-07:00

First, a note to our readers: We're sorry we haven't been keeping up with the site the last couple of days. We're both a bit under the weather here. You gotta love these summer colds. My voice is nearly gone, and Marcie's left for parts unknown yesterday.

But to the good news... Bryan blogging over at Hot Air noticed that PBS has come to an agreement over airing the documentary that had been in limbo for months:

A documentary billed as "the film PBS doesn't want you to see" will at long last get a national audience.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) announced a joint agreement yesterday to make "Islam vs. Islamists" available to the 354 Public Broadcasting Service member stations across the nation as a "stand-alone" TV program, with a little extra embellishment.

"We plan to distribute the film to any public broadcasting station that wants it. We'll package it and also produce some sort of discussion to accompany the film, and give it some context," OPB President Steve Bass told The Washington Times yesterday.

"There has been a lot of debate on whether this program needed editing. Some said yes, some no. When you're dealing with an object of controversy, it is better to let the audience draw their own conclusions," Mr. Bass said.

"As stewards of the investment in public broadcasting, this fulfills our responsibility to the taxpayer," CPB President Patricia Harrison said yesterday.

The often-disquieting 52-minute film explores the struggles of moderate American Muslims at the hands of their radical brethren and gives details about a "parallel" Islamist society that is slowly but surely developing within the U.S. borders. The film was produced by conservative columnist Frank Gaffney Jr., founder of the Center for Security Policy, filmmaker Martyn Burke and Middle East scholar Alex Alexiev.

Originally made for the six-part PBS series "America at a Crossroads," the film was intended for broadcast in early April. It never made it to the air, however. The producers, who received $675,000 in funding, said their work was shelved in "an ideological vendetta" and stifled on "political grounds."

They offered critical production notes from PBS as evidence. The lengthy notes said, among other things, that the documentary "demonized Islam" and promoted fear of Islamist organizations.

"This is a well-documented, textbook case of the abuse of taxpayer funding by elements in the public broadcasting system to advocate their agenda and ensure that people who have a different agenda don't get on the air," Mr. Gaffney said at the time. "The public ought to be allowed to see a film which PBS doesn't want them to see."

The producers have staged several private screenings for lawmakers and journalists to make their point. After the announcement yesterday, the audience could be considerably larger.

The "Oregon solution" was a gracious resolution to the situation, one broadcast source said.

The details have not been hammered out, but OPB's Mr. Bass anticipates that the documentary -- and its extra taped discussion -- will be made available nationwide in the next few months.

We have listened to the interviews conducted by Hugh Hewitt regarding Mr. Gaffney's project and all the pitfalls he seemed to run into trying to get the thing aired. In the day and age of global Islamofascist terrorism, this is a must-see piece of work. Mr. Gaffney noted in a recent interview with Hugh that he was holding a private screening for members of Congress, if they were interested. Needless to say, the reaction was a bit overwhelming:

Members of Congress are weighing in on public broadcasting executives' decision to shelve a documentary on the struggles moderate Muslims in the West face at the hands of radicals.

A special screening of the film "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center" for members of Congress was sponsored Wednesday evening by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Reps. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) and Brad Sherman (D-Calif.). The screening drew about 150 people, said Martyn Burke, one of the producers.

"People came up to us afterward asking 'how can we help,'" Burke told Cybercast News Service.

Something must have worked, whether it was those in Congress, or the hard work of grass-roots minded people calling and giving their opinions to the people at PBS, because the documentary will air. PBS has said they must find those affiliates willing to air it, and work out dates and times, but the hard work of Mr. Gaffney and Company will finally be able to be seen.

Publius II

And CBS joins ABC in blowing covert operations against Iran

2007-05-23T16:43:00.000-07:00

The US media -- no worse enemy of the state. That should be their motto. Allah exposes this one, and everyone should be outraged by now with the media. This is simply unacceptable any way you look at it. From CBS News:

CBS News has learned that Iran is continuing to make progress on its expanded efforts to enrich uranium — in spite of covert efforts by U.S. and other allied intelligence agencies to actively sabotage the country's nuclear program.

"Industrial sabotage is a way to stop the program, without military action, without fingerprints on the operation, and really, it is ideal, if it works," says Mark Fitzpatrick, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Non-Proliferation and now Senior Fellow in Non-Proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Sources in several countries involved told CBS News that the intelligence operatives involved include former Russian nuclear scientists and Iranians living abroad.

Operatives have sold Iran components with flaws that are difficult to detect, making them unstable or unusable. "One way to sabotage a program is to make minor modifications in some of the components Iran obtains on the black market, and because it's a black market … you don't know exactly who you are dealing with," Fitzpatrick says.

Senior government representatives, who spoke to CBS News on condition that neither they nor their country be identified, pointed to the case of the exploding power supplies. Installed at the pilot enrichment facility at Natanz in April 2006 as Iran was first attempting to enrich uranium, the power supplies, used to regulate voltage current, blew up, destroying 50 centrifuges. The head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Agency, Vice-President Gholamreza Aghazadeh said in January of this year that the equipment had been "manipulated."

There is other evidence, CBS News was told, that some of the technical difficulties Iran is having in consistently running its centrifuges are the results of a concerted effort at industrial sabotage.

Sources familiar with the U.S. effort against Iran tell CBS News that U.S. intelligence agencies have run several programs in recent years, employing different techniques, including modifying components in hard-to-detect ways and making subtle changes to technical documents and drawings, rendering them useless.

CBS is reporting on efforts that were conducted under President Clinton, which is manipulating and tinkering with components and blueprints. It didn't work well then, and that was because those involved in the AQ Khan network made the necessary corrections, for the most part. But the question remains as to why the media has taken it upon itself to blow these operations. Marcie touched on this this morning in her post regarding the Taliban's non-existent offensive by tying the support Iran has given the rogue elements of the deposed regime. ABC News blew a brand-new operation wide open, and has put any and all operatives involved in those efforts in danger. Now, CBS has decided to tip the Iranians off to our efforts to hinder their nuclear program.

What's worse is that the UN released their report today showing that Iran is stil moving forward and not being forthright with it's activities, and no one but the US seems to give a rip about it:

The U.S. will seek greater pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions than Britain, France and Germany want, diplomats said after the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency said existing sanctions aren't working.

``It is clear that what we have done so far has not been enough,'' U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters at the UN. ``The time has come to take a look at additional pressure, to ratchet up the pressure to bring about a change in the Iranian calculation.''

French and German envoys said they would support an ``incremental'' tightening of sanctions imposed on Iran in an attempt to halt uranium enrichment and open its nuclear program to more scrutiny. ``I didn't use that word,'' Khalilzad said, while declining to speculate on what the U.S. would propose in a new measure on Iran.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said it is learning less about Iran's atomic work than before the Security Council imposed sanctions, increasing concern that Iran may be diverting uranium for military purposes.

The Vienna-based agency's ``level of knowledge of certain aspects of Iran's nuclear-related activities has deteriorated,'' read a four-page report released today. The deputy chairman of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Mohammad Saeedi, told the official Iranian news agency that there is no obstacle to legal inspections of nuclear facilities by the IAEA. Saeedi said Iran had suspended some of its cooperation because its rights are being ignored by the UN.

France (despite the election of Sarkozy) and Germany aren't going to play hardball. If we're lucky, Britain may help, but we're not holding our breath. This is the same game played by Saddam Hussein, played by Kim Jong-Il, and other rogue regimes attempting to gain weapons of mass destruction. They're building them, and our efforts to end that program are now wide open. It's time that Justice starts holding these media agencies accountable. When the rule of law, and what is decent and right are tossed by the wayside, the moral responsibility will soon follow. It definitiely seems that is happening now with the media.

Publius II

So Much For The Taliban's Spring Offensive

2007-05-23T06:53:00.000-07:00

As Allah observes over @ Hot Air, things do not appear to be going well for the Taliban. The Brits keep icing their commanders:

The Taliban's much-vaunted spring offensive has stalled apparently due to lack of organisation after dozens of middle-ranking commanders were killed by British troops in the past year, according to military sources.

The death last week of the key Taliban leader Mullah Dadullah at the hands of American special forces has harmed the Taliban's morale to the point that local commanders are having to tell their troops to "remain professional" despite the loss.

After suffering more than 1,000 dead in battles with the Parachute Regiment and Royal Marines in the last year, the Taliban retired to regroup and re-equip last winter.

A spring offensive was ordered by the Taliban leadership based in Quetta, Pakistan, and was meant to be launched in late March.

But a lack of mid-level commanders has meant that there has been little co-ordination to bring about the offensive.

"They are getting strategic guidance from Quetta but this is not translating on the ground," a military source said.

"It's a bit premature to discuss the Taliban as a spent force. I believe that they are struggling but still maintain a capability to carry out attacks on a daily basis. But I would suggest in the long term the Taliban may just peter out."

Of the five main Taliban leaders who managed to escape in the 2001 fighting only two are at large, including Mullah Omar, the spiritual leader, who is living on the Pakistan border.

British commanders are still braced for a possible upsurge in attacks over the summer.

It has apparently been so bad over there that Ayman al-Zawahiri is spinning the deaths as "good omens", and Taliban/al-Qaeda forces are being told to "be professional" when going out on these raids. Meanwhile, Iran is being implicated in the sale of surface-to-air missiles to the Taliban so they may strike at British attack helicopters:

IRAN has been accused of supporting increasing sophisticated attacks on British forces in Afghanistan.

Military sources suggested yesterday that Taleban fighters in Afghanistan are now using Iranian-made surface-to-air missiles to target British helicopters operating in the country.

The report follows a statement from the Ministry of Defence last year accusing "Iranian elements" of supplying insurgents in southern Iraq with weaponry, including shaped-charge explosives that can penetrate British armour.

Concerns about Tehran's support of violent groups and its continued pursuit of a nuclear weapon, yesterday prompted David Cameron, the Tory leader, to call for a tougher government line on Iran

"The world needs to present Iran's leaders with a clear choice: either you talk to us, engage with the world and integrate into the international community - with all the benefits that could bring for your people - or you face heavier sanctions, growing isolation and pariah status," he said.

Ooo .. tough words, but we already know that Iran does not respond to such things. They have refused to respond to anything said or mandated by the United Nations, and they seem to bluster any time a nation threatens them with sanctions. Which brings me to the next part in this little drama. It seems that in the "interest" of keeping us informed (using Bill Keller's illogical conclusion that we, the people have a right to know all), ABC News has confirmed that which many of suspected long ago:

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region.

Thomas speculated a year or so ago that we were already operating in Iran, and that we were there to help destabilize the regime. That does not mean that we would not act overtly if it became necessary, but right now it seems that the administration prefers to take this route. It is a much safer strategy than a direct assault.

What is irritating about the story, as we all know, is that another MSM source seems content with blowing the lid off of another clandestine operation. This must stop. We are a nation at war, and cannot tolerate such random and harmful disclosures. The very idea that our enemies do not use the web or do not read the news is pure nonsense. Thanks to ABC, any CIA operatives operating in Iran right now have been placed in imminent danger.

Marcie

Earth to Congress: This IS a problem and needs to be addressed appropriately

2007-05-22T16:53:00.000-07:00

As we all know now, the Senate is taking up the issue of immigration reform. Now I'm not going to go into the nuances of what these monkeys in the Congress are arguing over. Nope. Not gonna do it. Why? Because it's insignificant to what should be addressed first and foremost by them, and they're turning a blind eye to it. Hugh Hewitt points to a series that is a must-read for anyone who is serious about reforming our immigration policies, and taking care of our security. From the first part of the story:

Because all but a tiny fraction of those arrested crossing the southern border are Mexican or Central American, issues of border security get framed accordingly and cast in the image of America's neighbors to the south. Right or wrong, in this country the public face of illegal immigration has Latino features.

But there are others coming across the Rio Grande, and many are in Boles' image.
People from 43 so-called "countries of interest" in the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa are sneaking into the United States, many by way of Texas, forming a human pipeline that exists largely outside the public consciousness but that has worried counterterrorism authorities since 9-11.

These immigrants are known as "special-interest aliens." When caught, they can be subjected to FBI interrogation, detention holds that can last for months and, in rare instances, federal prison terms.

The perceived danger is that they can evade being screened through terror-watch lists.

There is nothing in the draft that addresses this glaring fact. Our enemy is coming here, and they're getting in illegally. Worse, if amnesty comes to this nation, these people will be legal, and will have most likely skipped the background checks that are necessary to ensure we only have "good people" here. Memo to the nutters in the Senate: These people aren't coming here for the jobs that Americans don't want. They're coming here to hurt this nation and kill Americans with the maximum effect inflicted on the nation.

Apply pressure, people. Tell the Senate to insert the necessary provisions to keep an eye on those "special interest cases" from the Middle East, Asia, and North Africa where the jihadists have dug in, and continue to thrive.

Publius II

The Storm That Rocked Washington, DC

2007-05-21T17:26:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading something rather interesting. Today, Dean Barnett -- co-blogger extraordinaire at Hugh Hewitt's site -- posted one of his quirky FAQs on the immigration deal. Let me cite a couple of things that he wrote:

What were the Republicans thinking? Didn’t they know this immigration bill would outrage their base?

In a word, no. The storm occasioned by this dreadful bill has caught Washington completely by surprise. Both Democrats and Republicans have no idea what hot-button issues immigration and securing the border are. Or at least they had no idea until the middle of last week.

Insulation in the Beltway goe a long way with this point. Those in Congress can barely relate to their constituents, let alone have their finger on our pulse. This nation is facing a daunting task with immigration reform, but what is most telling about this draft they concocted is that their idea regarding enforcement and security have turned out to be nothing more than lip service. There are too many loopholes in this bill that can bypass those promises; guarantees that have been emphasized as "triggers" to be met before one aspect of regularization goes into effect.

How could they have been so blind?

... Most congressmen don’t interact with the base as much as bloggers do. They don’t know what you’re thinking. Believe it or not, they thought you would greet the arrival of this immigration bill with unbridled enthusiasm. A certain prickly presidential contender even wagered his campaign on it, which was probably the most foolish gamble any human being made since my last trip to Foxwoods.

Mr. Barnett is correct. They do not interact with the base nearly as much as bloggers do. Thomas and I talk to many people in a week to gauge their reactions to certain things. (This deal, forexample, has many of those in the GOP's base in Mesa, AZ hopping mad.) We can relate better to the people because we are two amongst the "little people" that Congress didains. Yes, they are not fond of us, like it or not, because we too often stick our noses into their business. The "imperial" Congress acted as though they were above the law over the William Jefferson affair, and likewise Trent Lott did himself no good when he lashed out at the PorkBusters. A succinctly as I can possibly say this, Congress would prefer we sit down, shut up, and take what they feed us. They are just as astonished by our reaction as they have been when we have reacted overr other things, such as the war funding.

I would also like to point out, and concur with my husband, when it is said that John McCain is finished. He had little to stand on as it was from the numerous gaffes over the last six years or so. This is the back-breaker. Add up all of his faults, and they blot out his hawkish record on the war like the moon passing in front of the sun for an eclipse. Add those to his blow-up with John Cornyn, and the hand grenade he lobbed at Mitt Romney today, and you have a masterpiece painted of a tragedy. A bitter old man that has undone himself, in view of all those present, and he is blaming everyone but himself.

Does anyone not pulling a paycheck from Capitol Hill like this bill?

I don’t think so. The progressive blogs (or Nutroots, if you will) have been collectively silent on the issue. They have yet to utter a peep on the matter, other than to make fun of John McCain’s temper.

The general public is melting down the phone banks and switchboards on Capitol Hill telling congress to fix this thing or kill it. We are not happy with it at all. We understand, it seems, more about this bill than the Senate does. We have seen the picture-perfect analysis presented by Hugh Hewitt, and his subsequent advice on amendments to the bill.

Congress needs to understand this simple message from the "little people" they would rather ignore: We are not stupid, and we are wiser than you give us credit for. We have seen what you have decided, and it is ugly, and it will be brutal on this nation. It will not stop the problem, nor will it correct the mistakes made.

Marcie

Dems cut-and-run on retreat from Iraq

2007-05-21T15:30:00.000-07:00

Man, the nutters amongst the moonbats are going to be seething tonight when they read this:

In grudging concessions to President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday.

The legislation would include the first federal minimum wage increase in more than a decade, a top priority for the Democrats who took control of Congress in January, the officials added.

While details remain subject to change, the measure is designed to close the books by Friday on a bruising veto fight between Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the war. It would provide funds for military operations in Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

Democrats in both houses are expected to seek other opportunities later this year to challenge Bush's handling of the unpopular conflict.

Democratic officials stressed the legislation was subject to change. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss provisions before a planned presentation to members of the party's rank and file later in the day.

Democrats in Congress have insisted for months they would not give Bush a blank check for his war policies, and officials said the legislation is expected to include political and military goals for the Iraqi government to meet toward establishment of a more democratic society.

Failure to make progress toward the goals could cost the Iraqis some of the reconstruction aid the United States has promised, although it was not clear whether Democrats intended to give Bush power to order the aid to be spent regardless of progress.

Several officials said it was possible that Democrats would attempt to draft a second bill, to include much of the domestic spending that Bush and congressional Republicans have said they oppose.

Either way, Democratic leaders have said they hope to clear a war spending bill through both houses of Congress and send it to Bush's desk by week's end. They added the intention was to avoid a veto.

OK, the Dems are going to point to the minimum wage hike and a couple other programs, and claim they did their best. The nutters shouldn't be ticked about that because the Democrats, for once, are telling the truth. They tried their best to get a retreat from Iraq, and they knew there was simply no way they could get such a bill put forward, and get it passed with a three-quarters majority. No one in the House or the Senate was dumb enough to cross lines, and jump on board to give the Democrats their necessary votes.

So, if you're a nutter, keep quiet. They did try their best. You aren't going to be able to withdraw troops from Iraq until we're ready, and we know we've succeeded. And just so that the full weight of this story sinks in, there's Allah's report from Hot Air. It seems with so much indecision going on in our Congress, the Iraqis are peparing for a possible immediate pull-out:

Iraq's military is drawing up plans on how to cope if U.S.-led forces leave the country quickly, the defense minister said Monday.

The statement by Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obeidi marked the first time a senior Iraqi official has spoken publicly about the possibility of a quick end to the U.S.-led mission.

It was unclear if the remarks were more than routine contingency planning.

"The army plans on the basis of a worst case scenario so as not to allow any security vacuum," al-Obeidi said. "There are meetings with political leaders on how we can deal with a sudden pullout."

Can we blame them? With the shenanigans going on in Congress, and a nation thoroughly divided over the issue, I don't blame the Iraqis. They know that the Brits are drawing down troops, and they're smart to think up some contingency plans now before we suddenly decide to abandon the mission.

I don't ever want to see that. I was born two years before the abandonment of the US embassy in Saigon. We have been running long enough. We did it with the end of Vietnam; we did it in Beirut; we did it in Somalia. If we keep running away, our enemy's propaganda will be right. We will be a paper tiger that just needs to be squeezed hard enough to force our capitulation. We just simply can't do that any more. It's too dangerous in a post 11 September world.

Publius II

The WaPo Accuses Us Of Being Water-Carriers For the Administration

2007-05-21T13:59:00.000-07:00

I think the WaPo makes some solid points in their piece about those on the Right having to play "catch-up" on the Internet. Though I would be more apt to agree with them if they did not seem to be shills for the nutroots. But, they did basically accuse the Right of being the water-bearers for the Bush Administration:

[A]n underlying cause may be the nature of the Republican Party and its traditional discipline — the antithesis of the often chaotic, bottom-up, user-generated atmosphere of the Internet.

“We’ve always been a party of staying on message,” All said. “It’s the Rush Limbaugh model. What Tony Snow says in the White House filters down to talk radio, which makes its way to the blogs.”…

“What was once seen as a liability for Democrats and progressives in the past — they couldn’t get 20 people to agree to the same thing, they could never finish anything, they couldn’t stay on message — is now an asset,” Leyden said. “All this talking and discussing and fighting energizes everyone, involves everyone, and get people totally into it.”

While we do indeed give our support when it is warranted, such as on the issue of the war, there are times where many on the right have split from the administration. Allah @ Hot Air notes that this was a really bad week for the WaPo to make such an allegation.

And should we really pay attention to the record of the Right in the blogosphere we would see that we are anything but parrots for the administration. Thomas and I pointed to a couple of things that should be burned into people's memories this past weekend about the Right's departure from the administration.

We broke from the president over the Dubai Ports deal that would have turned security of our ports over to a Middle Eastern nation that is not exactly a tight ally of ours to begin with.

We outright objected to Harriet Miers being named to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. While she may have been a skilled lawyer, it does not help her case when it is revealed she was going through a "two-week crash course" in Constitutional Law. (For those that criticize us for our thoughts regarding Constitutional jurisprudence, Thomas has been studying privately for 20 years on this subject. No one I know of that is NOT in the legal field knows more about the document and it's meaning.)

The point is that we do not carry anything for the administration that we do not firmly believe in. If the administration does something we do not agree with, or support, it is our duty to our readers to call the administration out. Thomas did it on Saturday over Tony Snow's interview with Hugh Hewitt. We have done it more times than I can count. We know of many bloggers that have done this. (Anyone who doubts that might want to look up Michelle Malkins take on immigration.. she is not carrying anyone's water on this issue.)

Marcie

John McCain vs. Mitt Romney on immigration

2007-05-21T13:08:00.000-07:00

We knew this was coming. It was only a matter of time, but it's clear now -- more than ever -- that John McCain isn't someone who has the temperament to handle the presidency. He proved that point on Friday when he lost it on John Cornyn:

A minor problem arose. Bush administration negotiators and a bipartisan Senate group had been meeting several days a week since February, often with glacial progress. (McCain rarely attended, though his staff was there.) As of Thursday morning, however, agreement hadn’t been reached. A final meeting started at 10 a.m. in hopes of finishing the deal. With a dozen Senators, two Cabinet members (Chertoff and Gutierrez) and perhaps 15 staffers in the room discussing an unpublished documents exceeding 300 pages in length, it was slow going. Senator Cornyn, tacitly supported by Sen. Jon Kyl, pushed hard to streamline legal procedures to allow prompt deportation of illegals. Senator Kennedy resisted.

As the clock moved closer to 1:30 p.m., Senator McCain suddenly lost it. "This is chickenshit," he told Senator Cornyn. "I think it would expedite things if you would just leave the room, Senator, so we can get along with finishing this up." Senator Cornyn responded: "Wait a minute. We’ve been meeting for three months on this in good faith, and now you parachute in here this morning and tell me to leave? I think you’re out of line."

Senator McCain responded: "F*** you! I know what is going on here. I know more about immigration than anybody in this room!” Other Senators moved in to calm things down, and the talks went on. Senator Cornyn’s provision was not included. At 1:30 p.m. sharp, the conferees (not including Senators Cornyn or Menendez and a few other negotiators) were in the press gallery, congratulating each other. Senator Kennedy recognized Senator McCain early to make his televised comments, then Senator McCain departed before the press conference was over for a flight to New York City. Later that afternoon, he missed yet another Senate vote -– this one on the Democrats' $2.9 trillion budget plan, an outline for the largest tax increase in U.S. history.

That's from Scott Johnson at PowerLine, as he was piecing the blow up together. So, there we have Exhibit A. Today, Exhibit B hit our computer:

“Maybe I should wait a couple weeks and see if [Romney’s position] changes, since it’s changed in less than a year.”

“Maybe his solution would be to get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn or something.”

No one predicted these outbursts would come about over the issue of immigration. Hell, no one expected him to shoot himself in the foot as quickly as he has already. His first debate performance was terrible. He came across as angry, arrogant, and aloof. His second debate performance did nothing to erase the previous one, and his inability to answer certain questions is a mark of someone who's not yet ready for primetime.

But the outburst over John Cornyn, and the illegitimate swipe at Mitt Romney were completely unexpected, and if I may be honest, they were uncalled for. This goes beyond simply being a loose cannon or even unhinged. John McCain acts and sounds like he's completely unstable. And while I admit that he is a good American and a war hero, he's a terrible senator, a lousy Republican, and such a loose screw that I can't tolerate or support him in any way.

NOW, I'd like to address this little gem brought to my attention by Hugh Hewitt today. According to a Freeper thread cloture will be called for on this immigration shamnesty bill. Going through the comments in that thread, many Freepers have been doing as Marcie and I have, as Hugh has asked people to do, which is call their representatives and raise Cain. Interestingly enough, the Freepers point out that the vast majority of the phone calls that have been flooding into senate offices for the last three or four days are vehemently OPPOSED to this bill.

We're not stupid, folks. We know a shame when we see one and hear about one. Congress can think they know better but I'm here to tell you that we spent the weekend running through the proposed legislation -- every page of it, every word of it -- and this bill sucks. I don't care if the president is looking for a legacy, or if John McCain thinks being a part of this will boost him a couple points in the polls. People aren't happy with this bill. Americans understand that it will basically grant amnesty to 12 million-plus illegal aliens, and that the promises of enforcement and heightened security are empty. The illegals here don't like it because they're being forced to jump through too many hoops.

This bill sucks. Keep melting down the phones. If this puppy passes the Senate, then we move over to the House, and start nailing them, too. 202-225-3121 -- Call them and demand that they end this garbage. And if they don't want to do that, then offer them a chance to get all the capiutulation in one bill. Tell them to put withdrawal timetables in the bill for Iraq. Maybe the president and the members of Congress will finally wake up out of their legacy fog.

Publius II

The Cutting Wit Of Mark Steyn

2007-05-20T11:57:00.000-07:00

I am taking a moment out of our busy day to read something lighter (not only in size and weight, but in comprehension) than the immigration proposal. That weould be Mark Steyn's very funny take on the deal:

Are you a fine upstanding member of the Undocumented-American community? That's to say, are you (if you'll forgive the expression) an illegal immigrant?

Great news! Being illegal is now perfectly legal! Just for being one of the circa 12 million people who shouldn't be here, you can now be here indefinitely! If you were living and working in America illegally before Jan. 1, 2007, you're now entitled to one of the new Z-1 "probationary" visas. And your parents and spouses are entitled to one of the new Z-2 visas, and your children to the new Z-3 visas.

Don't worry: It's not an "amnesty." Every politician in America is opposed to amnesty -- if not the concept, then at least the word. That's why the visa starts with the letter that's furthest away from the one "amnesty" begins with. "Z" stands for zellout . . . no, hang on, zurrender or Zapatista, or some other word way up the other end of the alphabet from "amnesty." But the point is, at a stroke there will be no more illegal immigrants. Because being illegal means you're now legal.

Unless, of course, you came to America after Jan. 1, 2007, and thus aren't covered by the zamnesty. But in that case why not apply for the Z-1 anyway? After all, you're here illegally so how would U.S. Immigration know when you arrived? Especially with 12-15-20 million urgent applications tossed in on top of what's already a multi-year backlog. They're not exactly going to be doing a lot of in-depth background checks, especially not for a visa category whose only entry requirement under U.S. law is that you've broken U.S. law when you entered.

By the way, when I said "came to America," if you're visiting Toronto for a weekend break from Yemen or Belarus, don't be deterred by the fact that Canada is not technically in America. Why not just head down to Buffalo and apply for the old Z-1, too? After all, it's not such a stretch to regard every single person on the planet as a Z-1-in-waiting. This being America, pretty soon -- a court decision here, a court decision there -- the presumption of every school district and hospital and welfare administrator will be that they're obliged to treat everyone who walks in through the door as if they were a Z-1. You zee one, you've zeen 'em all.

As for the notion that dumping a population the size of four mid-size European Union nations into the lap of America's arthritic "legal immigration" (please, no tittering; apparently, there is still such a thing) bureaucracy will lead to tougher enforcement and rigorous scrutiny and lots of other butch-sounding stuff, well, if that were the case, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. You can declare that "illegal" now mean "legal" very easily; to mandate that "incompetent" now means "competent" is a tougher proposition.

But, as John McCain declared, "This is what the legislative process is all about" -- and in the sense that it's a sloppily drafted bottomless pit of unintended consequences on a potentially cosmic scale whose sweeping "reforms" will inevitably require even more sweeping reforms of the reforms in a year or two's time, he's quite right. Also, as Senator McCain says, "This is what bipartisanship is all about."

I'm not a fan of "bipartisanship" for its own sake. This is a very divided political culture in which bipartisanship is all but nonexistent on everything else, starting with war and national security. So, when the political class is in lockstep bipartisan mode, that's sufficiently unusual all by itself. When it's in bipartisan mode on an issue on which the public is diametrically opposed, that looks less like bipartisanship and more like the lockstep myopia of an out-of-touch one-party state.

America is not Europe, which is being transformed by a fast-growing Muslim population profoundly alienated from the broader society. Nonetheless, fast-moving demographic shifts are always a huge challenge. Last year, National Review's John Derbyshire noted the enrollment statistics for his school district on suburban Long Island, 1,400 miles from the southern border:

High school: 17 percent Hispanic

Intermediate: 28 percent Hispanic

Elementary: 31 percent Hispanic

Those figures would have stunned any Long Island school superintendent of 40 years ago. Derbyshire's numbers suggest that at some point not far away, every school board in America will have to factor in bilingual education programs and ever swelling special ed budgets, making one of the highest cost-per-pupil/lowest scores-per-pupil education systems even more expensive and even less educational.

At some point, it's worth trying to climb over the rubble of the 2007 Z-1s and the 1986 amnesty and the 1965 immigration act, and going back to basics: What is immigration for? In the modern Western world, to question immigration in even the most cautious way is to risk being demonized as a racist. Most of us like to see ourselves as nice people, and so even to raise the subject of immigration -- even illegal immigration -- feels like an assault not on distant foreigners so much as on our self-image. Yet, whatever the virtuousness of immigration for the host society, a dependence on it is a sign of profound structural weakness, and, when all the self-congratulation about celebrating diversity has died down, that weakness ought to be understood as such. The unspoken premise behind this bill is that the socioeconomic order in America is now so dependent on the vast apparatus of a giant shadow state of illegal immigrants that it cannot be dismantled but only legitimized and thereby expanded. If that is true, that is a basic structural defect that should be addressed honestly.

Meanwhile, the reluctance of Washington to be seen to enforce its own borders is very perplexing. From the "Washington sniper" to 9/11, there has been for a generation a clear national-security component to the illegal immigration issue. To present it only as a matter of "the jobs Americans won't do" is lazily reductive. The economists may see the vast human tide as an army of much-needed hotel maids and farm workers and nurses and plumbers, but to assume that everyone on the planet sees themselves as primarily an economic entity is complacent and (post-Sept. 11) obtusely deluded. The political class' urge to capitulate on the integrity of the national border sends as important a message to the world about American will as their urge to capitulate on Iraq.

Breaking down the Senate's draft

2007-05-20T11:25:00.001-07:00

No, not us. We're still in the middle of reading all 326 pages of this monstrosity. But Hugh is breaking it down, and picking out the more insane parts of this bill. It's been a running series for him since he first printed the thing out.

Part One is here, and it deals with the triggers.

Part Two is here, and it looks like someone's promising things without actually following through on those promises.

Part Three is here and it discusses the new measures needed to enforce the laws. What is troubling though, as Hugh points out (and we have seen this part) is there are "alternatives to detention." I thought catch and release was over?

Part Four is here and it talks about workplace enforcement. But Hugh notes that a couple of things are missing there.

And Part Five is here and it talks about "literate" immigrants. As Hugh points out, this is the guest worker provisions and it runs about 94 pages.

The minds over at The Corner have also been breaking down the proposed bill. Gee, if Tony Snow thought that Hugh was cruel to him, he might want to see what the NRO group is up to. It's not pretty.

Lastly, I'll leave you with this link that Mark Steyn came across. I'd be concerned by this considering the war we're in:

Muslim leaders in the United States say interest in their religion has increased in the past few years.

More Hispanic Americans are converting to Islam, particularly in New York, California, Texas and Florida, which have the greatest concentration of Hispanic residents.

The al-Rahaman mosque in Orlando opened in 1975 and is the oldest Muslim place of worship in the city.

But over the years, its membership has changed, and now increasing numbers of Hispanics like Jesus Marti are joining the congregation. Jesus Marti, Hispanic Muslim, said: "Islam is definitely a way of life, for discipline where you follow and you try to enhance yourself to get the most positive things out of yourself."

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's time to return to our work, and going blind on proposed federal legislation.

Publius II

UPDATE: PowerLine's Scott Johnson gives us insight not only into John McCain's blow-up, but the details of the negotiations held on Thursday. Additionally, he tosses in a little history about this bill and how those on the Hill are just dead-set to ram this down the voters' throats. Meanwhile Hugh has finished his analysis of the "fine print," and it's as we expected; this deal sucks. The White House is now in a row similar to that of the Dubai Ports deal and Harriet Miers.

Publius II

Tony Snow talks immigration with Hugh Hewitt

2007-05-19T00:06:00.000-07:00

On the heels of the immigration deal being reached, Tony Snow willingly walked itno the lion's den this afternoon when he spoke with Hugh Hewitt about the farc, er, "deal" reached yesterday by both sides of the aisle in the Senate. Now, nothing has been released to the public about this yet, and Tony Snow emphasized that. He also called for cooler heads to prevail, citing the Oval Office office talking points.

I've got no problem with hearing what they have to say. Hell, I'd like to see the bill. Tony Snow did say at the end of the interview the text would be online by the end of the day. Granted, I'm not looking too hard at 12:11 a.m. on a Saturday morning. It's been a long day, and tonight was "date night." The Mrs. and I never miss date night. (Newlyweds we are, but we do love each other a great deal. We're both busy, so date nights are important to us.) I'll dig it up tomorrow if it's online.

But I'll listen to their case. From where I'm sitting right now, though, color us unimpressed, and color me ticked as Hell still. Show of hands, folks: Who trusts the federal government to abide by and execute this plan, completely as outlined, and stick to their promise of enforcement first? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Yeah, the comment's amusing, but I've been a longtime advocate of keeping as much out of the Fed's hamds as possible. Why? You want something screwed up badly, put the federal government in charge of it. They're very good at creating bureaucracy, red tape, partisan backlashing, and petty power struggles, but they're terrible at running anything effectively and efficiently. The closest they come to in terms of a good job is the military, and with all the petty antics in Congress, it's a wonder why we haven't lost this war yet.

So pardon my sarcasm and disbelief that the federal govenrment can actually follow through on their primary promise. The secondary one, which is regularization, is almost guaranteed to work the way it's believed to be set up in this compromise. The other concern I have, and it was the very first thing Hugh brought up is terrorism. I've heard a lot of this deal's defenders claiming that the "lone terrorist" theory is a straw man argument. Um, not it's not.

The federal government would be involved in a huge plan, and one that even illegals said they've got no desire to play the fed's game. I brought that up yesterday in my final post of the day on the subject. The illegals don't like the hoops they have to jump through. So, let's say a small cell of terrorists -- no more than six -- manages to slip through the nets. They either blow off the laws, or manage to evade the background checks. Let's even make it easy and say they're just going to go around blowing themselves up, nothing elaborate.

They only have to be right one time to effect their damage on the nation. The government has to be right 100% of the time. Given the fed's record, that leaves me sleepless at night, sometimes, but I've got faith. Remember, the government's good at protecting the nation, for the most part. (As long as they're not pandering to their PC, special interest, cry-babies.)

The point of this insomnia-driven rant is this: Tony Snow can spin this any way he'd like, but I'm not convinced that this is good, or that the government can even make this work. The odds, with regard to immigration, are stacked pretty high against them. And while faith pays off sometimes, all too often we, the American taxpayer, end up getting kicked in the teeth. It leaves a fairly sour taste in one's mouth and a dour outlook on life. (Marcie despises it when I end up in a such an obstinate mood because it usually leads me to get a tad surly.)

And based on the involvement of a couple key players, namely Kennedy, McCain, and Graham, I'm not wearing a happy hat over this. These guys have screwed up more in the last six years that I can count. (I'm almost to the point where I need an abacus, but not just yet.) Tony Snow wants me to buy that this deal is good, and that it solves our problem, he can keep take those delusion pills. I'm more apt to listen to Robert Rector from the Heritage Foundation when he extrapolates the costs, which will stagger taxpayers. See the illegals under this bill aren't going to cost us less, and ease the burden we already shoulder for them. No, they're costs are going to skyrocket. Trust me. Remember these three words, read the bill, and understand the cost: Social Security checks.

Yeah, they'll be in the system, and based on Rector's models, they'll be heading into the Social Security pay-out phase right about the time Social Security begins to collapse. Can you say "crisis?"

Look, we'll see more when the bill is actually released so the public can see it. God help the ones who assembled this bill. This could be their political death knell. And God help the White House if this bill stinks. If this was some sort of "legacy promotion," and President Bush is willing to go along with a thoroughly flawed, possible piece of legislation (which we hope he's not given he's heard the Hell raised over McCain/Feingold, the Dubai Ports Deal, and Harriet Miers), then his legacy won't be worth a plug nickel.

I'm sorry to those readers who thought I might have had a heart. That beats for one person, alone. And my heart would beat a lot better if we had enforcement and security first; ALL OF IT. That means we get ALL of the fence; we get ALL of the border agents; we get ALL of the surveillance; we get ALL the background checks and guarantees that those that are a danger are gone. THEN we can work out a sensible and proper path to regularization. I want this natiuon secured by something more than a band-aid.

This bill, based on what we know, and the analysis we've read of it, is a band-aid. Congress is putting a band-aid on a tumor. I'm not demeaning those here who want a job and are working hard every day at that job. But the longer we screw around with this issue, the worse it gets. We need a solution, make no mistake about that at all. But it needs to be manageable, and it can't be a detriment to the nation. Illegal immigration has been enough of a drain on this nation already. The last thing we need is that continued misery enacted in flawed legislation.

Publius II

Tom Bevan says 'don't count McCain out yet."

2007-05-18T13:14:00.000-07:00

Tom's got a decent argument. It's sound, it's researched, and optimistic. It ends on a warning-like note:

The bottom line is that those who were quick to write off McCain would be well advised to take another look and to remember the credo that "slow and steady wins the race.'' McCain still has his flaws, and he still has a long way to go to win the nomination, but eight months away from the first primary he's in a much better position than many people think.

Slow and steady does win the race, but that is but a tiny facet of such races. Let me point out that John McCain's first quarter fundraising numbers showed that he had $12.5 million in donations. That was quickly blown through (about $8 million of it), which prompted him to reassess how his campaign money would be spent. Likewise, his slow start in the race had him hovering around second place nationally. And that was behind Mayor Giuliani -- a man the pundits all agree has a liberal streak, but can't seem to figure out why he appeals to so many conservatives, especially those that should be opposed to him for his social views.

John McCain, since losing the nomination in 2000, has taken his maverick side to the extreme ends of the political spectrum. In 2001, he voted against the tax cuts proposed by President Bush to ease our burden under President Clinton's higher taxes. In 2002, he teamed up with Russ Feingold to enact campaign finance reform which, in the end, took away more of our free speech rights, especially when it mattered most -- in the realm of politics. In 2003 he voted against a new round of tax cuts, claiming then that it benefited only the rich. (That is a typical talking point of the Left and rarely rooted in truth.) In 2005, his infamous Gang of 14 deal usurped the power of the president to nominate qualified jurists to the federal bench, and continued to allow the use of an unconstitutional filibuster on judicial nominees. In 2006, he attached a torture amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill; one that was not only redundant, but it also used PC-like terms to describe what was unlawful treatment of combatants. Finally, in 2007 he and a number of senators on BOTH sides of the aisle struck a compromise in an immigration bill that is, for lack of a better word, a disaster.

Tom Bevan may not want to count him out just yet, but the base is done with John McCain. In fact, I'd wager that a fair number of people yesterday entertained the thought that he would look good tarred and feathered. (No, I'm not advocating violence on any elected representative, but I can claim with some sadistic amusement that I entertained the thought for the briefest of moments.) He has turned his back on those who elected him. He has sold out the base for some lauding approval in the MSM. (That medium, we'll recall, he declared was his "base," and that doesn't sit well with his own party's base at all.)

I'll give Tom this much: John McCain had a chance to get the nomination this time around. He really did. He could have set himself apart from the others. But he didn't. He's ripe with contempt for the people, he drips arrogance and self-adulation. In short, there isn't a mirror this man's met that he doesn't love. He's verily narcissistic, and holds little regard for those below him. And that's the damnable thing about him.

When you show little or no respect for those who believed in you, and sent you to DC to represent them, those people will turn on you. It's the vicious cycle in politics. John McCain doesn't understand that. Thanks to John McCain (at least a great deal of this can be laid at his feet), the GOP base has little respect and support for those in office, and far more contempt. We will constantly hear, from both sides, that the losses in 2006 revolved around the war.

Tell that to Mike DeWine and Lincoln Chafee. These were two members of John McCain's Gang of 14 that were routed in last year's elections, and that particular issue -- the Gang of 14 -- plagued them all the way up to election day. With this new deal on immigration that John McCain claims to "have been a small part of it" he is condemning the party to defeat, again, in 2008. Politicos like McCain tend to think the American electorate has short memories, and that the amount of time left before the next election (approximately a year-and-a-half) will eventually bring them the returns they wish to see, and a voting populace that will forget about this boondoggle.

Not so. We've already seen the long memories that voters have. The Senate GOP is responsible for this fiasco, and with 21 seats up for reelection in 2008, we will be lucky to hold onto a quarter of them. I don't lay all the blame at John McCain's feet, but a good deal of it belongs there. And because he has made idiotic decisions like this, and those mentioned above, John McCain doesn't have a chance for the nomination in 2008.

Publius II

Fred Talks To PJM

2007-05-18T12:50:00.000-07:00

It is not an interview, but rather his acknowledgment of the support he is receiving from those of us in the Internet world and blogosphere. When you are done reading it, head over to the Pajamas site (via the link above) and check out the comments. The amount of support this man continues to generate is not only exciting for our side, but if and when he does announce that he is running, the Democrats will draw out the long knives for him. They will simply have no choice.

So, I hear you all have been talking about me.

It seems that I ought to respond, at least briefly, to all those who have expressed confidence in me — both here and in other forums. I do not take that confidence lightly.

The Pajamas Media poll is certainly good news, especially when, for a lot of politicians, encouragement to run from three relatives and an unemployed campaign consultant is considered an unstoppable groundswell. When people are saying nice things about me, I try to remember the proverb that compares flattery to a net at your feet. To be sure, the Pajamas poll results are very flattering, so let me return the favor and throw a net at your feet.

Whether or not the Internet can elect any particular candidate in any particular race, it’s clear that all of you and our many friends across the blogosphere and the Web are part of a true information revolution. That’s why so much of my effort has been focused on talking to Americans through this medium. By empowering individuals and building communities, the Internet provides a way of going around the inside-the-beltway crowd to reach people in numbers unheard of not that long ago.

I believe this direct communication and discussion is going to have an enormous impact on our political process. Our nation is facing unprecedented threats, and the challenges of globalization. We have a 70-plus trillion dollar entitlement shortfall and a government that is not effective in important ways.

To solve our problems, we have to realize that our country is pretty evenly divided along party lines. With close numbers in the House and the Senate, there will be no real reform without real bipartisanship. Too often, what we are seeing isn’t an effort to find solutions, but rather insults and purely partisan politics. There are many good and responsible people in government who are willing to work together – but the level of bipartisanship needed for real progress can only be achieved when politicians perceive that the American people demand it.

I talked about this a bit a couple of weeks ago out in California. I talked about how I’d recently run across an old clipping of a Thomas Sowell editorial. In it, he pointed out that Wendell Willkie received the largest vote of any Republican for President when he lost to Franklin Roosevelt in 1940. After the election, though, he never let partisanship turn him into an enemy of the administration. Instead of trashing the president, he served as Roosevelt’s emissary to Winston Churchill.

In the same editorial, Sowell also told a story about Churchill. When British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain died, early in the Second World War, Churchill delivered his eulogy. Though Chamberlain had turned a deaf ear, for years, to all of Churchill’s warnings that could have prevented that war, Churchill praised him. “He acted with perfect sincerity,” Churchill said. “However the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honor when we have done our best.”

Compare that magnanimity to what is going on in Washington and much of the Internet today. Sowell asks us, “In this day and time, can’t we have a responsible adult discussion of issues while the nation’s fate hangs in the balance in its most dangerous hour?”

That’s the question. If the answer is going to be “yes,” it will be due in large part to sites like this one. So thank you for all you’ve done here and for all the encouragement you’ve given me. Hopefully, we’ll continue this conversation.

This is the sort of genuine appreciation that many always seek from those we have sent to Washington, DC, and yet we never really receive it. When we listen to talk radio, such as Hugh Hewitt's show, and politicos from DC are on, Hugh always asks them if they are "hearing" from the base. They always say they are. But I must sincerely question that, especially with regard to the current immigration compromise set for debate in the Senate starting this coming Monday.

First, the deal itself is by no means finished. Yea, there is an amusing photo up at Michelle's site. The Bible is on the left, and the proposed compromise is on the right, and no your eyes are not deceiving you; the legislation is thicker than the Bible. Reports are coming in from across the blogosphere that GOP phones in DC are melting down with an irate public unhappy with what is in this proposed reform. No doubt there have been more than a few posts put up by the best and brightest in the blogosphere about this legislation. Some of it good, most of it bad, but the question is, "Who is listening?"

Fred is. He shows it openly, such as with this letter to Pajamas Media, and makes no apologies for it. The appeal of Fred's possible entry is the "Reagan factor." He sounds a lot like him, and stands for the same principles that President Reagan stood for. Is he Ronald Reagan? No. Is he a lot like the former, great president? Indeed he is. The grass-roots support for his candidacy is enough to show how enthusiastic people are to him joining the race. We, here at The Asylum, are behind him if he runs.

Go ahead and see what others have said over at Pajamas Media. I think you will understand how much support he can generate in a short amount of time.

Marcie

Jack Murtha Steps In It Again

2007-05-18T11:05:00.000-07:00

Poor Jack Murtha. He is not seen as legitimate or sane in the House right now. He threatens impeachment for the president if the president followed through on his veto promise for a faulty appropriations bill. He screams and yells at panelists on talking heads Sunday shows. Today, the Politico reports that he may have violated House rules:

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) threatened to deny any further spending projects to a Republican who challenged him over an earmark last week, the GOP is charging – a potential violation of House rules that could cause a spike in partisan tensions.Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who questioned money that Murtha inserted into an intelligence bill last week, turned the tables Thursday night by saying he would call for Murtha to be reprimanded for violating House rules.

Rogers plans to insert a transcript of their exchange in the Congressional Record to document the potential violation. His resolution will also require a House vote to reprimand Murtha for his comments, according to a draft received by The Politico. Rogers is expected to file it on Monday.

It does not call for an investigation by the Ethics Committee.

'The way I do it'

According to the draft resolution, Murtha shouted at and chastised Rogers on the House floor Thursday for offering a motion last week to challenge $23 million Murtha requested in an intelligence bill.

Murtha had requested the money to prevent the administration from shuttering the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, Pa., which is part of Murtha’s district.

“I hope you don’t have any earmarks in the defense appropriations bills because they are gone, and you will not get any earmarks now and forever,” Murtha told Rogers, according to the draft transcript given to The Politico.

“This is not the way we do things here – and is that supposed to make me afraid of you?” Rogers replied.

“That’s the way I do it,” Murtha said.The showdown occurred on the Republican side of the aisle, in the so-called Ohio Corner, in front of numerous GOP lawmakers who witnessed the episode, one member present said.

Murtha could not immediately be reached for comment.

If it took place as alleged, Murtha’s tirade could violate House rules, which forbid members from blocking earmarks based on how a colleague votes.

The Rogers resolution charges that “Mr. Murtha has been guilty of a violation of the Code of Official Conduct and merits the reprimand of the House for the same.”

This shouting match follows a similar outburst Murtha directed at Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) last week.

Murtha yelled at Tiahrt on the House floor for voting in favor of Rogers’s motion, members and aides familiar with the incident said.

The overall controversy stems from a disagreement between Murtha and the Bush administration about closing the National Drug Intelligence Center, an intelligence gathering facility supervised by the Drug Enforcement Agency.

President Bush’s budget cut $23 million from the budget to force the agency to close the office, which has received repeated low marks from several federal review boards.

Politico has an update at the end of the story showing Murtha backpeddling on this issue, stating that:

“The committee and staff give every Democrat and Republican the same consideration, we have extensive hearings and every request is given careful consideration. We will continue to do just that.”

He is not backing down or denying the confrontation took place. He is capitulating because he knows what he did was wrong, and he faces a reprimand from the House. This senile old fool needs to go. He is no longer of sound mind to be serving in the House. We warned voters in 2006 that if he won, he was going to reveal how unhinged he really is, and he is doing precisely that.

Marcie

Final Thoughts for today on the farce being called a "deal."

2007-05-17T17:08:00.000-07:00

If you've been zipping by the site today you know that one thing has dominated us today, and that's this farce of an immigration deal; a deal, I might add, that's not even on paper yet! Let me just say, to start this off (yes, there will be ranting; pop some popcorn, and get ready) that John McCain's dead like dinner. His candidacy croaked today, and it wasn't pretty. Hugh Hewitt posted the McCainese from his statements today. First, I'll give you his statement, then Hugh's interpretation of Captain Queeg still searching for his strawberries:

This is the first step. We can and must complete this legislation sooner rather than later. We all know that this issue can be caught up in extracurricular politics unless we move forward as quickly as opssible. This is a product of a long hard trail of negotiation, and I am sure that there are certain provisions that each of us would not agree with, but this is what the legislative process is all about, this is what bipartisanship is all about when there is a requirement for this nation and its security that transcends party lines. I am proud to have been a small part of it.

Now, Hugh's translation:

Deal's done. I am the guy. I made it happen. My opinion mattered, not yours. What I do in the middle of a campaign for president has nothing to do with politics. My critics are all motivated by politics. Since I have already made up my mind, no debate is necessary, so shut up. Republicans especially shut up. This is how things get done in D.C.: You roll over for Democrats. And by the way, cutting half the fence and leaving the other half subject to the whims of the anti-border security bureaucracy equals protecting national security, just like the Gang of 14 was good for the confirmation process and McCain-Feingold good for the First Amendment. So, if you didn't hear me the first time: Shut up. Sit down. I'm your nominee.

I'm John McCain and I approved of this message.

That's Captain Queeg in a nutshell. Think we're the only one's ticked right now? Think again. And no, Michelle doesn't have the monopoly on this. Both those on the Right and Left (for the Left, those that are still sane), aren't happy here. They're mad, and they're sick of taking this sort of stupidity.

YES! I said stupidity. These people have flouted our laws from day one of entering the "land of opportunity." They have no regard for them at all. NONE! If they did, they wouldn't have broken the law in the first place. So, why in God's name does Congress think that these people will start abiding by our laws? It takes a world-class genius in the mold of John Kerry to think that they'll strart playing by the rules now.

Speaking of Congress's idiocy, have they seen the projections of cost? Seriously, did this enter into their little pea-brains at all? $2.5 TRILLION dollars, folks! As I said on Hugh's show this afternoon, I'd open up my checkbook if the fence were guaranteed, and all security measures would be abided by, but we're not getting that. We'll be lucky to get the 371 miles of fence that proposed in the deal. (REMEMBER, none of this is on paper. This was a backroom deal done by a few guys from both sides.)

Captain Ed's pushing for people to calm down, and says the bill isn't bad:

It's not great, and it's not even very good. It's not bad, though, and given our lack of strength in Congress and the White House on this issue, it's a good deal that will strengthen our national security now rather than wait another two years to address it. To quote the Rolling Stones, you can't always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need. This is one of those times.

Sorry, Captain Ed, we couldn't disagree more. Why not take more time to hammer this out? What the Hell is the sudden rush? Why not give the lawmakers time to come up with a sensible, logical solution -- including the time to speak with and hear from their constituents -- before declaring a deal being made? Someone's in a hurry here, and with something as delicate as immigration reform, we just can't all end up being like bulls in a china shop.

And Glennn Reynolds, AKA Instapundit notes that Ace is ticked. No, not that 'Ace.' THAT Ace confided to me he isn't surprised by this deal. Yeah, neither are we, but we were hoping for some spine, and had heart earlier today when it was reported that the deal had fallen through. So much for wishful thinking.

Counterterrorism Blog said this is a disaster:

In short order, the system will be overwhelmed. Whatever minimal fraud detection and prevention safeguards might be erected won’t last long in the face of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of applications and petitions to be adjudicated. What that means is the information provided on those applications and petitions, and whatever supporting documents they may have (if any), will essentially be taken at face value. Whatever the applicant alien tells the adjudicator will essentially be taken at face value. There will be little time or process available to verify anything, perhaps beyond running the applicant’s name through a standard battery of computer databases (and, even that may become so time consuming some will slip through the cracks).

And Tom Tancredo goes for the jugular on John McCain:

“Senator McCain and his allies seem to think that they can dupe the American public into accepting a blanket amnesty if they just call it ‘comprehensive’ or ‘earned legalization’ or ‘regularization.’ Unfortunately for them, however, the American people know amnesty when they see it,” said Tancredo. “The President is so desperate for a legacy and a domestic policy win that he is willing to sell out the American people and our national security.”

“If Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy spent as much time working on improving border security as they did poll testing creative euphemisms for amnesty, America would be a much safer place,” quipped Tancredo.

Say what you want on Tom Tancredo. We're not too fond of him ourselves, but on this issue, him and Duncan Hunter are spot-on. Hunter, I might add, appeared on Hugh Hewitt's show today and while he wasn't as hopping mad as the fair majority of talk show callers were today, he's not frelling pleased. He called this what it was: AMNESTY. These people are getting a pass for breaking our laws, and we're being told to shut up and take it.

Speaking of candidates (or potential ones, as this link shows) Rich Lowry at NRO's The Corner sends us word that Fred Thompson has spoken on this issue:

“With this bill, the American people are going to think they are being sold the same bill of goods as before on border security. We should scrap this bill and the whole debate until we can convince the American people that we have secured the borders or at least have made great headway.”

My Lord, why isn't this man in the race yet?

Oh yeah. Rich also talks about the "triggers" in the compromise. Can you S-P-E-L-L "scam?"

All the illegals get probationary legal status immediately. As I understand it, the only thing that is "triggered" is the creation of the new indefinitely renewable Z visa. The probationary status means you get a "floppy card" that allows you only to work and not travel. The card that goes with the Z visa will be fancier and allow you to work and travel. But the bottom line is that once you have the probationary status, you are legal, which is effectively an amnesty.

Allahpundit noticed that illegals aren't happy with this either:

David Guerra wants to be legal, but he says the path to citizenship offered by the Senate on Thursday would be too risky and too expensive, and could end up driving him deeper into the shadows…

“If I go home, who is going to guarantee that I’ll be let back in?” said the 44-year-old who lays bricks, clears weeds and does landscaping…

“Where would I find $5,000? In two years, I don’t get $5,000,” said Daniel Carrillo Maldonado, an illegal immigrant who was looking for construction work outside a Home Depot in Phoenix…
Amy Ndour, a 23-year-old illegal immigrant from Senegal who lives in New York, said she would be willing to pay the $5,000 fine, but not return home because her family there depends on what she earns as a hair braider.

“I’m helping myself” here, she said. “I’m helping people there too.”…

Many illegal immigrants said they had little incentive to apply for residency because the process was long and did not offer much hope of bringing their families.

“If I’ll never be able to bring my family, why should I apply?” said Jose Monson, a 33-year-old illegal immigrant from Guatemala who has lived in Los Angeles for four years. “I prefer to just stay here illegally.”

Didn't I ask that uncomfrotable question earlier? If they're here illegally, breaking our laws and taking advantage of us now, what makes Congress think they're going to follow our laws now? They're not going to. John McCain and every senator involved in this bill is an idiot. He's done, but we're not. GET ON THE PHONES NOW. Stop this damn thing before it moves to the House. And if that happens, get on the phones to them, too. But this bill must be stopped now, dead in it's tracks.

Publius II

The Senate Reaches A Deal, And America Gets A Raw Deal

2007-05-17T15:44:00.000-07:00

Indeed. Neither of us can believe that the GOP decided to make this deal. We are listening to Hugh's show right now, and saying the callers are upset is an understatement. Incensed is closer to the right word. Here, let me give you a taste of some of the more "controlled" reaction from the base. This comes from Hugh Hewitt, and is one of his listeners:

Hugh,

I am angry, heart broken and nauseated over this bill. I have voted republican my entire life. Not anymore!My husband is a legal immigrant and citizen. He now feels his citizenship to this country means NOTHING!

We live in Tucson and deal with low wages, rising crime and 1 trauma center for a population of 1 million.As far as I'm concerned, John McCain, Jon Kyl and the rest of the republican party that refuses to listen to it's constituents are TOAST!!!!!!

Fed UP,

Karen ____/ Tucson

Governor Romney issued the following statement just a few moments ago:

"I strongly oppose today's bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach. Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new 'Z-Visa' does, is a form of amnesty. That is unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S.

"Today's Senate agreement falls short of the actions needed to both solve our country's illegal immigration problem and also strengthen our legal immigration system. Border security and a reliable employment verification system must be our first priority."

Kudos to the governor for doing what should be done and be said by ANY and ALL Republican candidates running for president. John McCain has murdered the GOP with this bill, and his connection to it. Let us face hard facts here, ladies and gentlemen. John McCain has beenb a bitter, angry man since 2000, and he has decided to take it out on the nation. His record over the last six years proves it. And with his involvement in this deal, he just put the final nail, literally, in his political coffin. He is done, and he may have just finished the party off with him.

There is no hope for the Senate to stop this. Thomas was right in his continuing post (scroll down) that it is now up to the House to kill this. He has a sound strategy in targeting not only Republicans, but the new, "Blue Dog" Democrats. Appeal to them that if this bill goes through, and they are involveed, they are liable to lose their jobs in 2008.

Two-point-five TRILLION dollars in costs to the taxpayer, and the bulk of it coming just as the Social Security program will be entering the danger years. A joke of a fence. No guarantee for any of the other security measures. This is not a good deal for America. America received the raw deal today from it's lawmakers, and none of them are concerned about it. They are too busy jockeying in front of the cameras and microphones telling us to shut up, and "take it like a man."

WE are not kidding on this. ANY Republican involved in voting for this deal is going to lose in 2008. We already had less than a 50/50 chance of holding the 21 seats in the Senate up for reelection, and now it is nothing more than a pipe dream.

Hugh is beginning this hour talking to Duncan Hunter who is going to have a boon from this deal. He just said if he were president, he would definitely veto it. I hope the president pays attention to the backlash that is exploding around the country right now, and if I were anyone in Congress right now, I would be listening to the people that are hot over this issue.

Their job probably depends on it now.

Marcie

Update: Deal reached by negotiators

2007-05-17T15:00:00.000-07:00

Gag me. Let's put the callout now for GOP candidates to condemn this deal. ANY candidate that doesn't isn't getting our vote. Period.

The New York Times has the update, and a couple of names that have me fuming:

Senators from both parties will announce an agreement this afternoon on a system to offer legal status to illegal immigrants, Congressional officials said today.

Details of the accord are to be announced at a news conference by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

The announcement will not mean that a bill to ease the plight of immigrants and their families is at hand, since differences between the Senate and House on the issue must still be worked out. But the accord in the Senate is one big step closer to enactment of an immigration bill.

The senators who have been negotiating the details are known to have been considering a system that would give greater weight to immigrants’ education and to job skills deemed helpful to the economy in deciding whom to admit.

Under the proposal, the government would evaluate the qualifications and claims of many people seeking permission to immigrate using a point system.

Family ties would remain an important factor, but would have less weight than they do under current law.

The point system is one element of a comprehensive bill that calls for the biggest changes in immigration law and policy in more than 20 years. The full Senate plans to take up the legislation next week.

Although Democrats now control the Senate, the bill incorporates many ideas advanced in some form by President Bush. A draft of the legislation says that Congress intends to “increase American competitiveness through a merit-based evaluation system for immigrants.”

Moreover, it says, Congress will “reduce chain migration” by limiting the number of visas issued exclusively on account of kinship.

Democrats insisted, and Republicans agreed, that some points be awarded to people who had close relatives in the United States or could perform low-skill jobs for which there was a high demand.

Senator Graham, who has been one of the more optimistic negotiators, said on Wednesday, “There’s a 90 percent chance that we will get a deal this week.” Mr. Graham added that the legislation “would free up thousands of green cards in the future for people who meet our economic needs, while still allowing members of the nuclear family to come to this country.”

Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell University, said: “The legislation taking shape in the Senate represents a major philosophical shift. It tells the world that we are emphasizing characteristics that will enhance our global competitiveness, like education and job skills. We would not rely as much on family background as we have in the past.”

Under the proposal, Mr. Yale-Loehr said, “foreign-born spouses and minor children of United States citizens could still get green cards, but foreign-born siblings and adult children of citizens would be hurt.”

Senator Kennedy said on Wednesday that lawmakers had narrowed their differences on some issues.

“This is not the architecture of an immigration bill that I would have initially liked to see,” Mr. Kennedy said. “But this is a legislative process. A lot of different interests are at work. For the sake of this legislation, we had to come back to a point system. It will recognize a number of elements: high skills, low skills and family relationships. There are always differences about what the proportions ought to be.”

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, had set a test vote for Wednesday. But after learning that negotiators had made progress, he deferred it to Monday, to allow more time for talks.

The bill would offer legal status to most of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States. But they would not automatically qualify for citizenship. The proposal would require them to “touch back” in their home countries and apply for green cards, like other immigrants seeking permanent residence in the United States.

Some conservatives still dislike the idea of a large legalization program. But Mr. Graham said the bill struck a realistic balance.

“We are not going to put 12 million people in jail,” Mr. Graham said. “Nor should we give them an advantage over those who played by the rules to become citizens.”

Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, said he had doubts about this approach, but said Congress had to do something because his constituents were telling him that “they feel they are being overrun with uncontrolled immigration.”

The legislation also calls for major increases in the Border Patrol and tougher enforcement at the border and in the workplace.

Senator Ken Salazar, Democrat of Colorado, one of the negotiators, said he wanted the new point system to be equitable. “We do not want to create a system that is just for the wealthiest and most educated immigrants,” Mr. Salazar said.

First, I condemn Jim Demint and Ken Salazar for going along with this bill, as it is now. Second, Lindsey Graham's final comment in the piece above about not wanting to give anything special over those that are going through the legal process makes no sense. This bill is doing exactly that. Those going through this process are abiding by our laws so they don't get in trouble. The bill has reduced the fines for violating our laws, and are "forcing" the 'touchback' method, which is a farce in and of itself.

The security improvements have been reduced, and I'd like to point out that Michelle Malkin is correct: Every amnesty passed thus far hasn't gotten the trade-off of improved border security or enforcement. We the people keep getting screwed by the nutters in DC that try to come up with band-aids as solutions rather than a solid, logical result.

No, we're not going to throw twelve million people in jail. Nor can we deport them all. But before we move one iota in the direction of regularization, we need to demand that we get our security and enforcement FIRST. Let the lawbreakers languish in limbo while we do what we must to improve our security situation. They come SECOND. We're the citizens that have to deal with this problem,a nd we want it fixed now. We don't want them to wave a this bill like a banner proclaiming they've solved the rpoblem, and not implement ALL of the solution. Call DC, and demnad that they focus on enforcement and security. Screw pandering to the illegal aliens. They can get theirs when we get ours. And make sure you tell your reps in DC that you don't want them being lax on these people. They should be forced to pay the price for their crime. 202-225-3121

Publius II

ADDENDUM: Michelle notes that LoneWacko disseminates the GOP talking points, and shows them for the rubbish they are.

Also, the WaPo weighs in with some more details:

A bipartisan group of senators reached a delicate compromise today on what could be the biggest overhaul of immigration law in more than 40 years. It would offer the nation's 12 million undocumented workers a route to legal status.

The measure, which senators hope to bring to the floor for debate and a vote before they leave for the Memorial Day, is to be announced at a press conference this afternoon.

Under the deal, undocumented workers who crossed into the country before Jan. 1 would be offered a temporary-residency permit while they await a new "Z Visa" that would allow them to live and work lawfully here. The head of an illegal-immigrant household would have eight years to return to his or her home country to apply for permanent legal residence for members of the household, but each Z Visa itself would be renewable indefinitely, as long as the holder passes a criminal background check, remains fully employed and pays a $5,000 fine, plus a paperwork-processing fee.

A separate, temporary-worker program would be established for 400,000 migrants a year. Each temporary work visa would be good for two years and could be renewed up to three times, as long as the worker leaves the country for a year between renewals.

To satisfy Republicans, those provisions would come in force only after the federal government implements tough new border controls and a crackdown on employers that hire illegal immigrants. Republicans are demanding 18,000 new Border Patrol agents, 370 miles of additional border fencing and an effective, electronic employee-verification system for the workplace.

"This is not the architecture of an immigration bill that I would have initially liked to see," conceded Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.), the Democrats' chief negotiator yesterday when news of a tentative deal became known, "but we're not dealing with that. This is a legislative process."

The agreement would effectively bring an immigration overhaul to the Senate floor next week, but its passage is far from assured. The framework has the support of the White House and the chief negotiators, Kennedy and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). But immigration rights groups and some key Senate Democrats remain leery, especially of changing a preference system that has favored family members for more than 40 years.

"When they say, 'We're all in agreement, we have a deal,' certainly I don't feel that way," said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.).

Since 1965, migrants have needed a sponsor in the United States, meaning that virtually all immigrants have had family members or employers already here. The new proposal would augment that system with a merit-based program that would award points based on education levels, work experience and English proficiency, as well as family ties. Automatic family unifications would remain but would be limited to spouses and children under 21. The adult children and siblings of U.S. residents would probably need other credentials, such as skills and education, to qualify for an immigrant visa. A number of unskilled parents would be allowed in, but that flow would be capped.

To Republicans, the new system would make the nation more economically competitive while opening access to a wider array of migrants. "I think you'll find the point system to be pretty well balanced," said Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.).

But to immigration groups, the proposal is a radical break from existing U.S. law, and without changes, they could withhold their support from the final bill.

"We want to see an immigration reform debate on the Senate floor. We want to see this move forward. But we are wildly uncomfortable with a lot of what we're hearing," said Cecilia Muñoz, chief lobbyist for the National Council of La Raza.

The other hurdle will come from the temporary-worker program. The immigration bill that passed the Senate last year with bipartisan support would have allowed laborers entering the country as temporary workers to stay and work toward citizenship. But Republicans said this year that they could support such a program only if the workers would be truly temporary.

Immigration groups say such a program would only spur a new wave of illegal migration, as temporary workers go underground once their work permits expire. Perhaps more importantly, two powerful service unions -- the Service Employees International Union and Unite Here -- have threatened to pull their support from any immigration bill that would not give temporary workers a way to remain in the country, fearing that a truly temporary program would drive down wages for low-skill work.

A temporary worker cap? The enforcement provisions significantly reduced? A "point" system? And, of course, we're expecting these people -- people who have come here and live here ILLEGALLY -- to abide by the law all of a sudden, and be honest.

MSNBC video report states that the "Z visa" is the most controversial aspect of this deal because the illegals don't have to do it right away. They have up to EIGHT YEARS of leeway before they're REQUIRED to do the "touchback." The guy reporting on it, Mike Viqueira, rightly notes that opponents of this deal -- like ourselves, Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin, and a host of others -- calls this amnesty. It is amnesty, and it shouldn't be tolerated.

I'd also like to note for readers that Michelle has a poll up on her site that asks if you will support a candidate that is in favor of this measure. Overwhelmingly, the answer is "Hell No!" Why do I bring this up? Because the FOX News video this afternoon of Sen. Kennedy bloviating about his bill shows Sen. John McCain on the same stage as he is, and he's smiling.

Thanks Johnny. You're more than screwed now.

Publius II

UPDATE: Kate O'Beirne lets people know that the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector will speak with the House Judiciary Committee. She writes:

Tomorrow, The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector will share the following analysis in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Virtually no attention has been paid to the enormous costs involved in legalizing millions of low-skilled illegal aliens. One problem is that immigration reform is being negotiated by Judiciary Committee lawyers who typically have little experience in budgetary issues. Some Members who might be expected to blanch at a potential price tag of $2.5 trillion on their handiwork are kidding themselves by naively expecting that government benefits will be denied to the newly-legalized. Some know so little about tax burdens and benefit costs that they wrongly believe low-skilled workers are a net benefit to the social security system.

Giving amnesty to illegal immigrants would increase the costs outlined in this testimony. Some 50 to 60 percent of illegal immigrants lack a high school degree. Granting amnesty or conditional amnesty to illegal immigrants would, overtime, increase their use of means-tested welfare, Social Security and Medicare. Fiscal costs would go up significantly in the short term but would go up dramatically after the amnesty recipient reached retirement. Based on my current research, I estimate that if all the current adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. were granted amnesty the net retirement costs to government (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.5 trillion.

The calculation of this figure is as follows. In March 2006, there were 9.3 million adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. Most illegal immigrants are low-skill. On average, each elderly low-skill immigrant creates a net cost (benefits minus taxes) for the taxpayer of about $17,000 per year. (This includes federal state and local government costs.) If the government gave amnesty to 9.3 million illegal immigrants, most of them would eventually become eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits or Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid benefits.

However, not all of the 9.3 million adults given amnesty would survive till age 67. Normal mortality rates would probably reduce the population by roughly 15 percent before age 67. That would mean 7.9 million individuals would reach 67 and enter retirement.

Of those reaching 67, the average life expectancy would be around 18 years. The net governmental cost (benefits minus taxes) of these elderly individuals would be around $17,000 per year. Over eighteen years of expected life, costs would equal $360,000 per elderly amnesty recipient. A cost of $306,000 per amnesty recipient times 7.9 million amnesty recipients would be $2.4 trillion. These costs would hit the U.S. taxpayer at exactly the point that the Social Security system is expected to go into crisis. This is a preliminary estimate based on my ongoing research. More research should be performed, but I believe policy makers should examine these potential costs carefully before rushing to grant amnesty, “Z visas” or “earned citizenship” to the current illegal immigrant population.

Amnesty proponents may argue that some of these individuals will go home without getting benefits, or before they reach retirement age. Though perhaps valid, that argument only emphasizes how expensive amnesty recipients would be; the longer they remain in the country the greater the cost to the taxpayer.

Little wonder that supporters of "comprehensive" immigration reform are racing against the clock. They best hurry up and pass this EXPENSIVE bill before taxpayers already opposed to amnesty realize what it's likely to cost them.

And we, the taxpayers in America, need to get on the phones and urge those in the House to kill this thing. Call your GOP reps and call the Blue Dogs. The Blue Dogs ran on a fairly conservative platform, and with that comes fiscal responsibility. This bill is a fiscal nightmare and a boondoggle that has no guarantee of success. Likewise, there is nothing to ensure the enforcement/security provisions will be adhered to. Remember that border patrol agents already held a vote of no confidence in Chief David Aguilar. That doesn't send a lot of happy or secure feelings to the public, and if things don't change as enumerated in this deal, then things will be no different ten years from now than they are today.

Publius II

New Column Up!!

2007-05-17T14:56:00.000-07:00

First, let me offer my apologies to readers when I forgot to post the normal reminder of our column up on 1 May. It slipped my mind while helping my lovely wife prepare for her finals. BTW, yes, she graduated. BA in English and history. Give the girl her credit.

But, as this is a never-ending fight, it's my "duty" to inform you of another front reinforced. Yes, Common Conservative has a new issue out.

The esteemed editor, Mr. Lindaman (ro relation to Malcolm McDowell's now deceased character on "Heroes") is asking why we're having the debates so early, especially the GOP debates.

Patrick Shanahan (no relation -- I think -- to the former Red Wing enjoying his time on the golfd course right now) talks about cost, and how the liberal ideas regarding such things shouldn't fall on us alone. After all, government should have some consequences, too, unless it's the socialist utopia the Left believes in.

On the lighter side, we have Larry Simoneaux (can't FIND a relation, LOL) talks about "a dead printer and the death of reason." This sounds like Ron Paul, but not even Ron Paul could make the correlation, and still sound sane. (I'm sure it's unconstitutional somewhere.)

Back to Earth, Marcie and I are discussing a dynamic that we haven't seen in years with a possible Fred Thompson run for the 2008 GOP nomination. (C'mon Fred; s**t or get off the pot already.)

Amongst our astute guest authors this month, Jeff Lukens reminds us that we haven't lost in Irtaq up to now, and we're not losing anytime soon.

Chris Adamo,/li> talks about the Sarkozy victory in France, and how some areas of the world hang in the balance with what he'll do next hangs int he balance. (Psst! Someone send Sarkozy a copy of Mark Steyn's brilliant opus!)

The encroachment of Islam in America, and fallout from the "Flying Imams" is the subject of Sher Zieve's astute mind.

Almost as if on cue John Lillpop pipes up on Lindsey Graham and his distate for Americans who want TRUE, comprehensive immigration reform. (I wonder if Lindsey was involved in this deal ?

And finally, the lovely and talented Carey Roberts defends men, and debunks yet another "urban legend" about women working longer and harder than men, and receive nothing in return.

Enjoy readings, folks. You won't regret it! And as always, this post will sit at the top of the page, so scroll down for updates, especially on the immigration issue.

Publius II

Egypt And JordanTo Be Gaza/West Bank Caretakers?

2007-05-17T10:30:00.000-07:00

That is the story from the Times Online as reported by Captain Ed Morrissey:

Gaza was on the brink of civil war last night as violent clashes between Palestinian factions spiralled out of control.

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President, threatened to declare a state of emergency today, as fierce fighting raged on the streets.

But as the death toll climbed to more than 40 in four days of the worst fighting since Mr Abbas forged a coalition Government with Fatah’s rival Hamas two months ago, he appeared powerless to stop it.

Neither faction has been able to enforce three separate ceasefires declared in as many days. Rare, high-level talks between Mr Abbas and Khaled Meshaal, Hamas’s exiled leader, failed to produce any results beyond a loose agreement that the violence should end.

This is because Hamas does not want to try and rule over the Palestinians peacefully. They want to annihilate the Israelis, and have never changed that view. And that might be the precise reason why Egypt and Jordan are considering a possible step-in to mediate the situation:

Some Palestinian analysts predict that a collapse of the Palestinian Authority would pave the way for Jordanian custodial rule in the West Bank and a similar arrangement for Egypt in Gaza.
“The message is the Palestinians cannot rule themselves. This fighting will only end if a third party takes over,” said Ibrahim Abrash, a political analyst in Gaza.

Israel would support such a move. They have diplomatic relations with both nations, and have lived peacefully with both. If both were to step in and assume control of their respective areas, it is possible they can end the Palestinian terror groups, and force the Palestinians to live in peace. Israel wants nothing less, and the region demands just that.

Of course this deal would drive the terrorists nuts, and it will be soundly condemned by other nations, like Iran. But if there is a chance for both of these nations to come to Israel's aid in dealing with the Palestinians, so be it.

Marcie

A New Cold War Erupting With Russia?

2007-05-17T09:55:00.000-07:00

Over @ Hot Air, Bryan thinks that at least they have gone rogue with their possible cyber attack on Estonia:

A three-week wave of massive cyber-attacks on the small Baltic country of Estonia, the first known incidence of such an assault on a state, is causing alarm across the western alliance, with Nato urgently examining the offensive and its implications.

While Russia and Estonia are embroiled in their worst dispute since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a row that erupted at the end of last month over the Estonians' removal of the Bronze Soldier Soviet war memorial in central Tallinn, the country has been subjected to a barrage of cyber warfare, disabling the websites of government ministries, political parties, newspapers, banks, and companies.

Nato has dispatched some of its top cyber-terrorism experts to Tallinn to investigate and to help the Estonians beef up their electronic defences.

"This is an operational security issue, something we're taking very seriously," said an official at Nato headquarters in Brussels. "It goes to the heart of the alliance's modus operandi." ...

If it were established that Russia is behind the attacks, it would be the first known case of one state targeting another by cyber-warfare.

Relations between the Kremlin and the west are at their worst for years, with Russia engaged in bitter disputes not only with Estonia, but with Poland, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, and Georgia - all former parts of the Soviet Union or ex-members of the Warsaw Pact. The electronic offensive is making matters much worse.

"Frankly it is clear that what happened in Estonia in the cyber-attacks is not acceptable and a very serious disturbance," said a senior EU official.

Estonia's president, foreign minister, and defence minister have all raised the emergency with their counterparts in Europe and with Nato.

"At present, Nato does not define cyber-attacks as a clear military action. This means that the provisions of Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, or, in other words collective self-defence, will not automatically be extended to the attacked country," said the Estonian defence minister, Jaak Aaviksoo.

"Not a single Nato defence minister would define a cyber-attack as a clear military action at present. However, this matter needs to be resolved in the near future." ...

The main targets have been the websites of:

· the Estonian presidency and its parliament

· almost all of the country's government ministries

· political parties

· three of the country's six big news organisations

· two of the biggest banks; and firms specializing in communications

It is not clear how great the damage has been.

Secretary of state Condoleeza Rice noted Putin's heavy-handed tactics last week, and then cooled her rhetoric before meeting with Russian officials. To say that relations between the West and Russia have been considerably cooler lately, is an understatement. They are, and have been, collaborating with Iran over its nuclear program. It seems as though they have been behind a number of out-of-state assassinations. They have applied pressure to their former states through economic measures, and a cessation of resources.

If this is not the beginning of a new cold war, it is, at the very least, a signal that things are starting to get chilly between the West and Russia.

Marcie

More On Immigration Reform

2007-05-17T08:15:00.000-07:00

Hugh Hewitt and Michelle Malkin are hopping mad, but they are not the only ones. The editors @ NRO sum up their thoughts succintly as thus:

“The fight over legalization, or ‘amnesty,’ is all but over,” exults the Manhattan Institute’s Tamar Jacoby, and the “yahoos” who oppose it have been routed. She is right about who has won, at least as far as the Senate is concerned. The Bush-Kennedy immigration “reform,” which is now expected to win broad bipartisan support in that chamber, provides legal status for an estimated 12 million illegal aliens. In exchange for the massive, unpopular amnesty, Senator Kennedy is willing to engage in a little “border dressing” that purports to beef up enforcement of current laws barring illegal entry and the employment of illegal workers. As in the past, supporters of border and workplace enforcement will get the rhetoric, illegal aliens the prize, and taxpayers the huge tab.

The WaPo describes it like this:

Senate negotiators reached a tentative agreement yesterday on a broad overhaul of the nation's immigration laws that would offer virtually all of the nation's 12 million undocumented workers a route to legal status while shifting migration preferences away from the extended families of citizens toward more skilled and educated workers.

Breitbart has a similar take:

Republican and Democratic senators huddled Thursday trying to close in on an immigration compromise to grant quick legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants while fortifying U.S. borders against new ones.

And while all of this is going on, the Washington Times has an interesting addition to the story, and one that no one is picking up:

Meanwhile, pressure from interest groups is driving the two sides even further apart, making a deal less likely.

Conservative groups say Republicans are caving on principles, while immigrant rights groups say the Democrats have already given up too much -- and let Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hear about it yesterday morning. The Nevada Democrat said he arrived at his office to find "a bunch of phone calls from people around the country quite disturbed about a number of things in this proposed piece of legislation."

President Bush has dispatched Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez to try to broker a deal, but yesterday Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott said as many as 10 "sticking points" remain.

Democrats say Republicans are asking for too many restrictions and checks on illegal aliens before they can get on the path to citizenship, and object to restrictions on future guest workers, who under Republicans' plans would have limited chances to become citizens.

Meanwhile, Republicans say they have made a major concession in accepting that many illegal aliens will now have a path to citizenship, and argue that the program should be stringent to weed out fraud and abuse.

Regardless of how you look at this, and which side you happen to be on, this deal is a mess. And if Senator Lott thinks there are "ten sticking points" then there should be no deal until those points are addressed. Why are the Republicans caving into this. In the Breitbart report, it is stated that if this deal does not make it, the Democrats are bringing their deal up from last year they tried, and failed miserably, in passing. Republicans said they would block that one, again, if it were pushed by the Democrats. It is worse than this one.

But this one is no gem. The editors at National Review are right. The people who violated our law will win the prize, and we, the taxpayers, will be stuck with the check, and there is no guarantee that this will end illegal immigration. Notice that in Thomas's post yesterday about this deal, he noticed the severe drop in enforcement related provisions, including a reduction in the size of the fence.

So I must ask that if the reductions have already occurred in the perceived deal, how can we believe that these yahoos will be serious about implementing tham. We cannot accept that at face value, nor can we believe that they do mean to put security first. That, we will recall, is one of the so-called "sticking points;" that security and enforcement come first, and regularization comes second. But, at this rate, we cannot even believe that would happen.

Thomas has been on the phone since he woke up. I will be on it this afternoon. CALL YOUR PEOPLE IN DC. Tell them to end this charade. And put a little "iron in the glove" when you remind them that their careers are at stake as much as national security. We have alreadsy pledged that the RNC, the NRSC, and the NRCC will receive no money from us. But if this goes through, in 2008, we will be backing and contributing to those challenging any GOP representative or senator whose name appears on the final roll call of this bill. Call them now: 202-225-3121 and remind them that a surrender to this bill is a surrender in 2008, and that is one they can ill afford. With twenty-one seats up for reelection in the Senate, supporting a measure like this will, as Thomas so eloquently put it yesterday, condemn the GOP to walk in darkness for decades. And the leadership needs to know it. Call the number above, and ask for Mitch McConnell, John Kyl, and Trent Lott. They are the GOP leaders in the Senate. Tell them to end all negotiations, and if not, stop it when it comes to a vote.

Marcie

Immigration deal reached; Rule of law out with the baby and the bathwater.

2007-05-16T16:33:00.000-07:00

I get home and I preparing to dive into more post-debate analysis, and what am I greeted with? This from Kate O'Beirne at The Corner:

Senate Repubicans met today and it appears that the majority of them are willing to sign on to a White House-Kennedy "comprehensive" reform. Some have convinced themselves that the measure represents a good trade, i.e. amnesty for 12 million (which they privately acknowledge is the case) in exchange for beefed up enforcement including a worker verification system (assuming government can effectively design one with Democrats refusing to agree to data-sharing among relevant agencies), and an end to chain migration at some point in the future, i.e. when big backlog on extended family members waiting for green cards is cleared up. Faith-based immigration reform! The "good trade" case is easier to make when the huge net costs of legalization are simply ignored. The fact that much of the improvement they seek could be achieved by enforcing current laws is also being ignored.

The political calculation by conservative senators appears to be that the White House was going to cut a deal with Ted Kennedy with or without them and moderate senators would provide enough votes to pass any such bill. In the absence of vociferous opposition by conservatives, only about a dozen or so GOP senators are likely to oppose the grand "comprehensive" compromise.

My previous optimism about the Senate's inability to come up with a consensus plan that could win broad bipartisan approval obviously underestimated Republican Senators' capacity for self-delusion.

Hugh has the talking points fanned by the operatives on this issue here. Before I cut and paste them here so you can get all the stomach turning details, I'd like to say a few things.

Thos who do not listen to the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them. The lesson on this issue is if you grant those here illegally -- no matter the home country they hail from -- people will continue to come here illegally. In 1986 when Pres. Reagan reluctantly agreed to amnesty, we weren't in a war, and national security wasn't a serious concern. Now it is, and both immigration reform and border security are integral to national security. Hugh was speaking with Mickey Kaus spoke with Hugh Hewitt this afternoon and made an alarming and revealing observation: If this program were in effect RIGHT NOW, the "Dix Six" jihadis would have been granted amnesty.

Folks, we have an illegal immigration problem, and while the bulk of it comes from countries south of our southern border, there are plenty here from other nations, and many of these nations aren't friendly to us. They have come here illegally, or overstayed their legal visas, or their residency here has expired, and they don't care to return home. That's unacceptable, especially when you consider the fallout -- literally -- that could occur if we make a mistake, and let someone stay here that wants to do us harm, like the "Dix Six." We'd be wise to remember that the 11 September hijackers would be granted the same sort of amnesty under this plan. This plan, bluntly put, is a walking cluster-f**k.

The nation needs to step up, and shout down their representatives in Congress. Lash out. Get mad. Tell them the writing on the wall if they sign onto this bill. Do this especially to the GOP in Congress. They're not just cutting off their nose to spite their face, they're tossing out the baby with the bathwater, and the baby is wrapped in what we intelligent people call US law. If the GOP does this, if they sign onto this dire, ruinous, and highly unfavorable "solution. This isn't a remedy to a problem we have now. It's compounding the problem ten-fold.

I should caution people that this is a leaked piece of information. NO ONE in the GOP has said anything, as yet. But they need to hear from you so they know where this nation stands, and we don't stand for compromising our national security and the rule of law for what seems to be a solution where they can't see any consequences. Get on the phone, and raise some hell, folks -- 202-225-3121.

(PLEASE, if you don't want to read the thing completely now, scroll to the bottom. I have some closing thoughts ont he matter and an UPDATE on this issue. -- Thomas)

BORDER SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION REFORM

Republicans Standing Together to Fight for Tougher Enforcement and an Immigration System That Better Serves American Interests

As negotiations continue, Republicans are demanding the following from the Democrat majority:

v Beefed-up border security. Republicans are insisting on dramatic and immediate improvements to border security, including 18,000 Border Patrol agents and 370 miles of fencing, as part of a continuous effort to protect the borders.

?? Republicans insist that border security improvements must be completed before other reforms can occur. Democrats blocked any "triggers" in last year’s bill.

v Enforcement at the workplace. Republicans are insisting on a meaningful, effective, and workable electronic employment verification system that will prevent employers from hiring illegal workers and eliminate the "magnet" that attracts so many illegal aliens.

?? This verification system must be fully operational before other reforms occur (another "trigger"), a position Democrats rejected last year and have resisted in negotiations.

v Merit-based future immigration system and end to "chain migration." Republicans are insisting on eliminating "chain migration" and transforming our immigration system so that all future efforts are focused on attracting those immigrants (and their immediate, nuclear families) who have the combination of job skills, education, and English language proficiency that will make them productive Americans.

?? The Democrat majority has resisted any effort to ensure that our immigration system be rebalanced to serve national needs and still clings to a broken "chain migration" system that does not serve the national interest.

v A truly temporary worker program. Republicans insist that a temporary worker program be for a limited period of time and not serve as a path to citizenship. Temporary workers must truly be temporary.

?? The Democrat majority continues to resist this approach, seeking to let "temporary" workers stay in the United States indefinitely and become permanent residents without going home.

v Strict limits on processing of illegal aliens. Majority-party Democrats made legalization of illegal aliens a non-negotiable priority, but Republicans refused to allow automatic amnesty or a guaranteed path to citizenship for illegal aliens. Republicans insist that all green card applicants must (1) go to the back of the line behind those who have followed the law, (2) pay higher fines than in last year’s bill, (3) pass a criminal background check, (4) show a nearly perfect work history, English proficiency, and familiarity with American civics. If they cannot do so, they will be subject to removal. Republicans also insist that access to permanent status be prioritized based on immigrants’ job skills, education, and English proficiency. Illegal aliens will not gain an automatic right to stay in this country indefinitely.

?? Democrats wanted last year’s permissive Senate bill, which allowed illegal aliens to jump to the front of the line and did not require illegal aliens to continue to work.

DRAFT 5/16/07

Border Security Guaranteed by Republican Efforts

• Republicans have championed greater border enforcement in order to better protect us against terrorist, drug smuggling, human trafficking, and illegal immigration.

• Republicans insisted on the following enforcement measures in this bill before any other reforms (including a temporary worker program or adjustment of status for illegal aliens) are implemented:

? 18,000 border patrol and immigration enforcement agents must be hired.

? 370 miles of border fencing must be built.

? 200 miles of vehicle barriers must be completed.

? 70 ground-based radar and camera towers on the southern border must be operational.

? 4 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles must be deployed.

? 27,500 detention beds must be available so that apprehended aliens can be detained.

• Triggers: Republicans have insisted that all of the above improvements to border security be implemented before any additional reforms can take place. If they do not occur, then there will be no temporary worker program or movement on a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. Democrats vigorously resisted triggers such as these in last year’s bill.

Republicans Bolstered Workplace Enforcement

• Republicans know that border security is not enough: we must also eliminate the opportunities for illegal workers to be hired in the United States.

• The bill will create an Electronic Employment Verification System ("EEVS") so only legal workers can get jobs.

• Once the EEVS is in place (the administration predicts 18 months), illegal aliens without the right to work will find it extremely difficult to gain any legitimate employment.

• Illegal workers not only will be subject to removal from the country but will be permanently barred from any U.S. immigration program.

• Employers who knowingly hire illegal workers will face stiff penalties.

• Another Trigger: Republicans also insisted that this new EEVS be fully operational before reforms such as the temporary worker program or status adjustment for illegal aliens occur. Democrats vigorously resisted any effort to make an operational EEVS a precondition for other reforms.

DRAFT 5/16/07 3

Republicans Successfully Demanded an Immigration System Based on Merit

• Republicans are insisting on eliminating "chain migration" and transforming our immigration system into one based on qualification and merit.

• Due to Republican demands and over Democrat objections, the bill will require all future immigrants to qualify based on merit through a "point system."

• The main components of the merit-based "point system" will be

? job skills deemed helpful to the U.S. economy;

? level of educational attainment (with added points for science/math); and

? degree of English language proficiency.
• The impact of this new merit-based "point system" will be to ensure entry and permanent residence to those with higher levels of education and professional qualifications.

? Currently, only 20 percent of immigrants are admitted based on merit; the remainder gain permanent residence due to some form of familial relation.

? All new immigrants will still be able to bring their immediate families (spouses and minor children), but other relatives will need to qualify under the point system.

• This end to "chain migration," which allows migration of extended family members who cannot show they will benefit to America, is a significant Republican victory.

Republicans Guaranteed a Truly Temporary Worker Program

• Republicans know that American businesses have labor needs that the American workforce does not always satisfy, so they support a temporary worker program that will ensure that ample workers exist to fill those jobs.

• But Republicans have insisted that a temporary worker program should be temporary, and that it should not provide a direct path to citizenship.

• Workers will be able to enter the country for two years, working for an employer who has demonstrated that no American is available to fill the position.

? The worker must leave after two years and cannot renew for at least one year.

? A temporary worker can work for a total of three separate two-year terms, with one year out of the country between each term. (The rationale is to prevent temporary workers from establishing roots and refuse to leave when their term is completed.)

? All temporary workers will be able to travel freely to and from their home countries.

• Temporary workers must return home after their work period expires. Failure to depart on time will result in criminal penalties and a permanent bar on participating in any U.S. immigration programs, i.e., the worker could never gain an American green card.

• Republicans’ insistence on "temporary means temporary" will protect American workers and maintain the integrity of the U.S. immigration system.

DRAFT 5/16/07 4

Republicans Ensured Limits on Legalization of Existing Illegal Population

• Democrats made clear that no bill would pass without a provision to allow illegal aliens to gain citizenship, and pledged to hold hostage all border security and interior enforcement improvements.

• In response, Republicans united to block automatic amnesty and guarantee that strict limits be imposed on those illegal aliens who wish to become American citizens.

• Due solely to Republican efforts, illegal aliens will not gain an automatic right to stay in this country indefinitely.

• Republican demands guaranteed the following:

o First, Republicans insisted that illegal aliens should not be permitted even to apply for permanent residence unless he or she can demonstrate:

? a nearly uninterrupted work history, i.e., the worker (head of household) must show that he or she has been employed for 90 percent of the previous four years;

? a proven proficiency in English; and

? an education in American civics.

? If an illegal alien cannot demonstrate this work history, proficiency in English, and education in American civics, then he or she will not earn the right to permanent residency and will be subject to deportation and will be permanently barred from the U.S.A.

o Second, Republicans insisted that all illegal aliens seeking permanent residence must get in line behind the legal applicants for permanent residence who did not enter the country illegally. And they must return home to make the formal application.

o Third, Republicans insisted on higher penalties and fees that illegal aliens must pay in order to remain in the country, and also demanded that illegal aliens pay all back taxes they may owe.

• Many illegal aliens will never clear these tough hurdles and will be subject to removal. And because of the tough new workplace enforcement mechanisms, they will not be able to be employed in any legitimate business enterprise.

• If Republicans had not fought for these limits, Democrats would have passed an automatic amnesty bill without any of the restrictions that Republicans have now guaranteed.

I notice that there are some serious changes to the original idea of enforcement and security that was presented in the last session of Congress. The border fence and vehicle barriers have been cut in half, and the detention facilities have been cut. There are border agents that have been included, but we have already seen that such a promise usually goes unfulfilled. It did the previous times that the president promised a significant increase in border agents.

We can argue over what the GOP fought for, but in the end, they compromised. They caved. And if this information is true and correct, it's going to condemn them to walk in darkness for decades. They thought their base rebelled in 2006? If this is true, then they ain't seen nothing yet. I am calling for an online petition similar to the NRSC Pledge to send the message to DC that this plan is unacceptable, and wholly unworkable.

Publius II

UPDATE: Over at The Corner, Mark Krikorian adds his two cents. No offense, be we're on the same page here with the same concerns, and this agreement clearly doesn't follow the frelling logic behind it!

If Kate is right, and the Senate is going to repeat the 1986 "grand bargain" (amnesty up front for promises of enforcement in the future), every senator needs to understand that he is voting to give legal status to terrorists — also just like in the 1986 amnesty.

That amnesty program granted legal status to, among others, brothers Mohammed and Mahmoud Abouhalima, who were involved in the first World Trade Center attack. According to the 9/11 Commission staff report on the immigration histories of terrorists (the large pdf file is here), the brothers received provisional legal status after claiming to be farmworkers. Mohammed was later rejected, when it became clear he was lying, but he just stayed on illegally, since there was no effort to remove even the relatively small number of unsuccessful amnesty applicants. Mahmoud, nicknamed "The Red," successfully got a green card — i.e., permanent status — despite suspicions that he was lying. That permitted him to work and travel freely until he took part in the attack, then left for Egypt. But we don't know all the details of Mahmoud the Red's immigration history because, as the 9/11 Commission staf report says: "His INS immigration file (A 90 568 993) was not available for review. DHS informed us that the Privacy Act barred the Commission from obtaining immigration files on legal permanent residents and naturalized citizens, even those convicted of terrorism or related crimes."

The kind of illegal aliens who are guaranteed — guaranteed — to be amnestied this time around are the Duka brothers, the Albanians being held in the Ft. Dix plot. There's a Newsweek web column just posted tracing for the first time the immigration history of the Duka clan from what appears to be information directly from their immigration files. They snuck across the Mexican border in 1984 and applied for asylum in 1989: "While the asylum application was under consideration, the government effectively suspended any effort to deport family members as illegal aliens, the source familiar with their immigration history said."

There is every reason to believe that if the Circuit City clerk hadn't called the FBI (and assuming they hadn't already attacked Ft. Dix), that the Dukas would all get amnesty under any Senate plan. After all, the only thing the immigration service would do is run their names through terrorism watch lists and crime databases looking for felony convictions; if there aren't any hits, you're in.

Having illegal-alien terrorists in your country is bad; having legal-alien terrorists, with all the rights and protections that come with legal status, is worse. And we'll know whom to thank.

Yes Mark we will, but I guess we should have been paying more attention last night when McCain said there was a "new proposal" in the works, and maybe there shoud have been a follow-up to that question. It would have been a lot easier getting the shock there in a controlled environment rather than getting the news when I walk through the front door tonight. Folks, the MSM isn't talking about this AT ALL.

Publius II