Thursday, May 31, 2007


It looks like I agreed with OwlGore for about minute this week when he criticized Americans' obsession with celebrity gossip. Well he is back to his liberal bit-government self again. This time he is joining the ranks of Fairness Doctrine supporters.

On CBS' "Early Show" with Harry Smith, Al Gore said, "the first concerns among defenders of democracy arose with radio. And that's why the equal time provision and the fairness doctrine and the public interest standard were put in place here. Those protections were almost completely removed during President Reagan's term."

There you have it. OwlGore feels that the government should set the "public interest standards" for radio shows like this one. Well, maybe I am a low man on the totem poll, but liberals loathe the conservative influence in talk radio. They just can't stand the fact that people like Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingraham, and even little old me can get up here and yap for hours and hours and they can't do a darned thing to limit what I talk about.

What is so different about what Hugo Chavez in doing in Venezuela? Weren't those pretty much the same words that Hugo used when he seized the nation's most popular television station, a station critical of his rule? Chavez said he was "democratizing" the public's airwaves? Gore excuses his desire to shut down talk radio by referring "defenders of democracy."

Al is losing his political touch here. Sure, there was no real secret that he, along with the rest of the left, wants to shut down talk radio. After all, every attempt at bringing a successful left-wing talk show to the airwaves has met with failure. So, the rule in government is if you can't beat 'em, shut 'em down. But just how stupid do you have to be to voice your threat to shut down talk radio just days after your leftist fellow traveler Hugh Chavez shut down an opposition television station in Venezuela? And then you use virtually the same language that Chavez used to justify your plans?

Poor Al Gore. Perhaps he was listening yesterday when I covered the news story about global warming on Neptune.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007


Posted by Bobby Eberle

In a recent statement to the media, the #2 Republican in the Senate, Trent Lott of Mississippi, said in reference to the immigration deal brokered by the White House and a select group of senators, that the “only thing that’s unacceptable is to do nothing.”

So… it’s unacceptable, even dangerous to do “nothing,” about illegal immigration? Let’s take a look at what doing “nothing” actually does for us.

Last year, the Congress passed a bill which the president signed creating close to 800 miles of security fencing along America’s southern border. The “grand bargain,” as it’s being called in the Senate, calls for hundreds fewer miles of border fencing. Hmmm… let’s see… this means by doing “nothing” and not passing this terrible immigration bill, we actually get MORE border fence. That doesn’t sound unacceptable or dangerous to me.

Next, let’s look at employer enforcement. There are numerous laws on the books right now to crack down on the hiring of illegal aliens. What’s lacking, of course, is the political will to enforce those laws. For some reason, the White House and some members of the Senate want America to believe that with the new bill will come a new courage to enforce those laws? Show of hands… how many believe that??? So, by doing “nothing,” we still have laws against hiring illegal aliens and still have an administration with no spine for enforcement. I guess it’s not really dangerous or unacceptable to not pass the bill in this case either… let’s just enforce the laws we have.

How about economics? The White House says there are jobs Americans simply won’t do… that we NEED cheap labor and this Senate bill is the way to go. First of all, this is ridiculous. Pay a real wage for the hard work, and Americans would do it. Oh… prices would rise, you say? How much are we paying now in taxes for health care, social services, education, and more for illegal aliens? Imagine not having to pay all those extras taxes… I’d pay a little bit more for my oranges if that were the case.

In addition, the “temporary” worker plan does more than provide for cheap labor to come into America. According to the bill, each “temporary” worker is allowed to bring his spouse and children with him. Thus, the temporary worker has now become a permanent family in America which will likely draw more social services. The bill has yet to address the problem of “anchor babies,” so if these temporary workers have children in America, those children are now U.S. citizens. That doesn’t sound very temporary to me.

Then, there is the concept of deporting those who continue to break the law. As I noted in a previous posting, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said that “illegal immigrants living in the United States who don’t try to gain legal worker status will be forced to leave.”

“The people who don’t apply and don’t get the Z visa are going to be hunted down and they’re going to get deported,” Chertoff told FOX News. “So there’s a very clear choice: You can either bring yourself into the system and find, you know, safety, pay your fine, and work within the law, or you can stay outside the law and we’re going to focus our attention on those people and deport them.”

Now, one has to ask… How many of the 12-20 million illegal aliens will decide it’s better to keep the status quo than go through the hassles of a Z Visa? It will likely be millions. What the administration and Senate “leaders” are saying is that with the passage of this bill, America will deport the law breakers. Wait a second… Didn’t they say it was impractical to consider mass deportation? Isn’t that what they are saying they will do if the new bill is passed? Ok, then let’s go after law breakers now and deport them! We don’t need a new bill to do that, do we?

We have the laws in place, both old and recent, to increase the level of Border Patrol Agents, to construct hundreds of miles of security fencing, and to punish employers for illegal hiring practices. We can deport law-breakers now, and we have a system that allows for legal immigration. Add a strong dose of political cajones, and not passing this bill doesn’t seem so “dangerous” or “unacceptable” to me.


The Founding Fathers: They meant what they wrote

President Bush attacked immigration enforcement proponents for engaging in "empty political rhetoric"--and the NYTimes was all too happy to report on it:

President Bush today accused opponents of his proposed immigration measure of fear-mongering to defeat it in Congress, and took on his own conservative political base as he did so.

“If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill’s an amnesty bill,” Mr. Bush said this afternoon at a training center for border enforcement agents located in this town in Georgia’s southeastern corner. “That’s empty political rhetoric, trying to frighten our citizens.”

President Bush, meet the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

President Bush, meet Article IV, Section IV of the U.S. Constitution:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

President Bush, meet your oath of office in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Talk about "empty rhetoric," President Bush.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007


Jealousy is an ugly thing. And jealousy is especially ugly when you have freely elected leaders from a country that prides itself on a dedication to freedom and individual liberty being openly jealous of a dictator.

Such is the case with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

Hugo the Horrible has now accomplished in Venezuela what Democrats only wish they could accomplish here at home. He has silenced a broadcast outlet that was critical of his regime. Sunday night Venezuela's most popular television station went off the air. Why? Because Chavez decided that their broadcast license would not be renewed. Radio Caracas Television was the only TV station in Venezuela that was broadcast nationwide ... and Radio Caracas Television was critical of Hugo Chavez.

Are you starting to get the picture here?

Chavez says he is "democratizing" the public's airways. He also said that this TV station was a threat to his country. Wow! Now doesn't that sound very much like the things that the left is saying about talk radio in the U.S.?

What Chavez accomplished by edict the left in this country hopes to accomplish through legislation and regulation.

Just be patient, my friends on the left. Your time is coming. The impotent Republicans pose no threat to you in 2008. In the meantime, just sit back and admire your friend Hugo.

We should note that Venezuelans are protesting Chavez' actions. He'll tolerate some protests --- but let's hope these people know just how far they can push it. My wife and I were being shown around Caracas many years ago when we noticed some demonstrators. It was quite a spectacle to watch ... until the gunfire started. Our guide rushed us into a building to keep us safe.

How soon before Chavez answers these protestors with gunfire?

Hold on another second here. We can't let this segment go without mentioning that Hugo Chavez is the hero of such great Americans as Cindy Sheehan (see below), Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte and others. Great Americans all. Coming soon, don't miss Michael Moore's exciting documentary on the evils of Radio Caracas Television!



Cindy Sheehan bids adieu on The Daily Kos:

I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a “tool” of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our “two-party” system?

However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the “left” started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used…

The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing…

I am going to take whatever I have left and go home.

And "home" would be...Caracas?

I hear Cindy's squeeze Hugo has just acquired a few TV stations in need of far Left propagandist news directors...

More on the turmoil in Venezuela from Fox News producer and eyewitness Nora Zimmett. FNC's Adam Housley blogged the protests.


Matt at Blackfive remembers Casey Sheehan the right way.

Sunday, May 27, 2007


"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."
- Thomas Jefferson


1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."


Saturday, May 26, 2007



If we can’t control the flow of people across our borders, no “reform”of our immigration laws will really fix anything. Illegal aliens will still come across, terrorists will get in and bring with them all manner of weapons. While congress whiles away its hours talking about complicated amnesty laws and visa regulations that no one will ever understand -- much less follow -- it’s time for Americans to measure and understand the threat that porous borders pose. I have some experience with that issue, having worked for a CIA paramilitary organization for more than 20 years, trying to prevent drug smugglers from bringing their deadly wares across those same borders.

Our borders are more secure than they were before 9-11, but not enough to prevent smart, talented people from coming across pretty much any time they like, with anything they’d like to smuggle. People -- hundreds of them -- are out there who have the sort of training and experience I do, only from the other side. They are former KGB, Cuban intelligence and intelligence officers from many nations who now hire themselves out to drug smugglers. They can out maneuver our understaffed, underequipped and underfunded border patrolmen with relative ease. And, for a price, they will smuggle anything into the US: people, drugs, or nuclear weapons. What does it say about our border security that the Fort Dix Six weren’t caught at the border or by good intelligence work, but only by sheer luck and a sharp-minded Circuit City employee who saw the jihad rehearsal video and called in the FBI?

To defeat these smart, well-trained and funded adversaries we have to get serious about border security. The legislation that’s now being considered by Congress isn’t. At the start of each new Congress the U.S. House of Representatives and members of the Senate are required under the U.S. Constitution to take the oath swearing allegiance to America. In modern times there has never been an issue which more clearly defined the Constitutional obligation by members of Congress to protect American citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And, in modern times, there has never been a Congress so willfully ignorant of what needs to be done.

On Tuesday, May 22, the Senate agreed to debate the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, S-1348, which allows for a significant number, between 12 and 25 million, illegal immigrants to be granted legal status in the United States. With support from President Bush, the man I have taken many political bullets for over the last seven years, a cadre of Senate Republicans have essentially sold out the American people by crafting a bill that allows for the continuing unfettered onslaught of U.S. borders with virtually no meaningful enforcement of security. It is now up to the House of Representatives to kill this measure and pass a real border security bill later this year.

Proponents of the Senate “compromise” legislation claim that this act was crafted by a bipartisan coalition, and it’s the only thing that can pass this year. Though the measure’s title talks about “secure borders,” it doesn’t provide for them. It calls for 370 miles of triple-layer fencing along the Mexican border, combined with a three-tiered system for filtering out those who can stay and who must leave the country as well as more jail cells for those awaiting deportation. Nowhere in the bill is there any specific requirement for real security counter-measures. Measures that will help to deter drug trafficking, international cartels running contraband and human trafficking.

We will never hermetically seal our borders. And a security fence alone -- though it is a key element of real security -- cannot protect the United States. If our legislators are serious about protecting this country and its citizens the following must be part of any security proposal:

1. The tasking of satellites dedicated to scanning our southern and northern borders.

2. Serious fence and wall barriers along the borders with listening posts throughout the less densely traveled regions of our borders.

3. The development of the United States Border Intelligence Agency. This agency would be a fully budgeted, independent intelligence gathering agency tasked to develop intelligence for the protection of our borders as well as run independent or joint task force operations against our enemies trying to penetrate our borders. They would conduct covert espionage activities worldwide, seeking out, penetrating and thwarting the plans of the black-market intelligence operators who hire themselves out to terrorists, drug smugglers and all others seeking to enter the US illegally.

4. The creation and deployment of Rapid Deployment Response Teams (RDRTs) a new, highly skilled, highly trained paramilitary unit culled from our current Special Forces Units, capable of responding to any part of our borders within 15 minutes, fully armed and whose commander reports only to the chain of command of the newly formed United States Border Intelligence Agency.

Roman Emperor Hadrian, in A.D. 122, recognized that in order to prevent military raids by the enemies of Rome and to improve economic stability and provide peaceful conditions in the Roman Empire, he had to build Hadrian’s Wall to separate British land from Scottish. The first of three walls would be 75 miles long and would be built from quarried stone, standing and protecting the empire for 300 years. The wall would physically declare and mark the territories of the Empire. Over 1600 years later the United States is under siege by her enemies. Terrorists have already attacked and murdered over 3000 people.

Terrorist cells are moving without hesitation, conditions or consequences across our borders. We are facing economic devastation by illegal immigrants who are burdening our healthcare systems by hundreds of billions of dollars per year. They pay no taxes and are about to be given amnesty for tax avoidance and who knows what other criminal acts the may have committed.

President Bush and leaders of Congress have not learned from history. Without the implementation of the types of aggressive actions outlined above, which physically declare the territories of the United States, the enforcement of our borders and the security of our nation will be virtually impossible. It will only be a matter of time when the United States will be nothing more than a footnote, a very brief footnote, in history.

Friday, May 25, 2007


No matter which way you slice it, dice it or re-work this immigration bill, it is still going to allow millions of criminals to become legal U.S. residents .. and many will become citizens with full voting rights. Right now I suppose all that we can hope for is the lesser of all the evils.

Yesterday the Senate tightened up some parts of the bill. It capped the number allowed through the guest worker program at 200,000. The Bush administration originally planned for 400,000, with the option to increase that number to 600,000 if necessary. It also cut down on the number of temporary work visas, and said that security at the borders must be tightened before any of these new laws go into place.

This one is my favorite: cracking down with mandatory prison sentences on illegal immigrants who are deported and then re-enter the U.S. Well, isn't that special. How about prison for the ones who enter illegally to begin with? All we have to do is make sure that the living accommodations we provide in our prison camps for illegal aliens are at least as good as the conditions from whence they came. Start rounding them up and throwing them in prison for a year before they're sent back and you'll see a screaming halt to the Mexican invasion.

As for the 12 to 20 million already here? Read what Dick Morris has to say about the amnesty bill and the Republicans. Sadly, he makes a lot of sense. The disgusting political reality is that this whole immigration debate is now about our law. It is about political power. Its about votes.

The media is up in arms because House GOP leader John Boehner used a profane four-letter word to describe the bill. What's the big deal? I think there are a few more choice words I could add to his list.

Monday, May 21, 2007


I've been hacking away at it all weekend and will post analysis tomorrow.

Hugh Hewitt has a seven-part dissection here and writes: "The jam down of such a far reaching measure, drafted in secret and very difficult for laymen much less lawyers to read, is fundamentally inconsistent with how we govern ourselves."

The invaluable N.Z. Bear has taken the bill text and converted it into an annotation/link-friendly format that allows readers to browse page-by-page, allows bloggers to link directly to individual pages, and allows anybody to add commentary and links to individual pages.

Go here. Read it, use it, link and add your comments!

Scott Johnson at Power Line has the inside story on the death of Sen. John Cornyn's deportation and enforcement provisions, which prompted John McCain's obscenity.

Sunday, May 20, 2007


Well the day is finally here. It is a day where our Congress and our President have come together to grant legal residency and then citizenship to millions of illegal aliens who broke the law. Criminals in this country will be on a fast track to becoming citizens, with the same rights and benefits as you and me.

A couple of points about the proposal:

First, there are only vague references to closing our borders. It won't happen. The borders will remain porous and the Mexican invasion of the United States will continue. The count now is between 12 and 20 million. That doesn't include the six million that have been granted amnesty in previous "deals." Over the next few years we'll see millions more come .... they'll either try to get in on this amnesty deal or they'll wait around for the next one. And there will be a next one. Neither political party has the will to do something to stem the tide of this invasion.

The bill calls for criminal aliens to step forward to obtain something called a "Z" visa. (Would that be for Zorro?) They have to pay some fees and a $5000 fine. Ain't gonna happen. Liberals and illegal immigration proponents are going to scream asesinato sangriento about this fee. "These poor people can't afford to pay the fee. You're taking food out of the mouths of their children ... etc, etc." We won't collect enough in those fees to fuel one Humvee.

The bill also says that heads of household will have to return to their own countries before they can get the Zorro Visa. What's the point? They leave their wives and children here and go home .. then come back to get the visa? The only way this will work is if that visa is only issued in the country where that person has citizenship. No Zorro Visas issued in the US. We'll see what's in the bill.

We're also told that every new crop of "guest workers" will have to return home after stints of two years. Yeah? How are we going to make this happen? Are we going to place harsh punishment on anyone who pays them after they're supposed to have gone home? How about landlords who provide them a place to hide?

Come on ... let's get serious here.

President Bush says this bill would "treat people with respect." Respect? How about the respect they showed for our laws? They're criminals! They told our country to take it's law and empujelos donde el sol no brilla! (Look, my Spanish isn't perfect here .. I'm trying.) Now we're talking about treating criminals with respect? There are millions of people around the world who are trying to get into this country legally. They apply for visas. The fill out the paperwork. The answer the questions. The study our language. And they wait --- they wait until the legal process has run its course, then they come into this country and try to assimilate. These are the ones who are owed our respect, not the criminals who cross the border illegally, work here illegally, stay here illegally ... and often avoid paying taxes.

Amnesty? Hell yes it's amnesty! The dictionary defines amnesty as "forgetting or overlooking of any past offense" or "an act of forgiveness for past offenses." Any way you look at it this bill does just that.

The reaction to this bill? Well, many Democrats like John Edwards are not too pleased with the temporary guest worker program. Others like McCain were standing right by Ted Kennedy as he announced the plan. So far as I know, Mitt Romney is the only candidate to come out against the bill.

And the final kicker is that the legislation won't even be ready to be viewed by the great unwashed until after the Senate votes on it. That sounds like a great idea; let's vote on one of the largest changes in immigration reform without seeing it in writing. You do understand why it's happening this way, don't you? They want to ram it through before you really get a chance to see what they're doing.

Friday, May 18, 2007


Poll results on Bush/Kennedy amnesty;
The bogus "touchback" provision;
Kyl says the bill will be done tomorrow
GOP Clintonism: "This is a parole, not an amnesty"

Mitt Romney:

"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."

My warning back in March about the so-called touchback provision--when no one was paying attention--still stands:

The amnesty-peddlers' game of "touchback" By Michelle Malkin · March 26, 2007 08:17 AM

Chris Kelly at Lonewacko has been doing the job no one else will do: doggedly analyzing and tracking illegal alien amnesty legislation coming down the pike.

You will hear, for example, that the amnesty bills require illegal aliens to return to their home country before being granted "temporary" guest worker status.

The requirement, dubbed the "touchback provision," is a sham. Just like most every other attempt at appearing tough on immigration enforcement has been under the Bush administration. Kelly highlights this description of the touchback game:

Lawmakers were vague about exactly how long they would have to stay outside the country under what is being called the touchback provision. But staff members said they could stay as little as one day.

In case you were still under the impression that DHS would stop this open-borders nightmare, DHS chief Michael Chertoff gives it two thumbs up.

From a retired Border Patrol agent:

As a retired Border Patrol Agent (26yrs.), I resent the attitude and actions of the Senate and House with respect to aliens in the USA. With IRCA in 1986, all things pertaining to illegal aliens in the USA were going to be answered. We were going to make employers responsible. Let me tell you: If there was ever a US Attorney scandal, it was their refusal to prosecute the violators. It only took about 1 year for every one concerned [to realize] that it was just hot air from Washington.

Bill West, high-ranking retired INS official, sums up many of the same points I've made repeatedly over the last several years to deaf ears:

Last year it appeared we dodged the bullet when proposed immigration reforms died on “The Hill.” Unfortunately, the mad rush to “do something” has taken over the common sense of too many of our political leaders and we may actually see some form of immigration reform become law in the near future. Most unfortunately, if this “reform” includes the proposed legalization and guest worker provisions currently being touted, whatever euphoria the politicos and the media may experience won’t last long because nothing passed in that context will work in the real world.

Redstate: "There is no bill."

9:02pm Eastern update. Sen. Jon Kyl on Hannity and Colmes: "I think the text will be done by tomorrow and there will be plenty of time to read it...I fought very hard for what I believe...I'm confident that the provisions I fought for will make it a much better bill...This is a parole, not an amnesty."

Reader John responds: "If this is a parole, will anyone go to jail for not following the law or will this be another non-enforced law?"

The question answers itself.

Another reader e-mails: "Don't you normally have to go to jail BRFORE you get parole?"

George Borjas boils it down: "No bill is better than this bill."

Thursday, May 17, 2007


National Review has amazing news from Capitol Hill. Yesterday House Democrats unveiled a plan to rewrite the House rules so that Congress can increase taxes and government spending without having to vote. The House voting rules on tax increases have been in place for 185 years, and little 'ole Nancy and her party want to yank the rug right under all that history. And why? What are Democrats so eager to spend money on, if not on national defense (as they refuse to fund the troops in Iraq)? And who do they want to raise taxes on? Well that would be the rich, because after all they have no right to keep the money that they rightfully earned...

We're going to get into this with Jamie Dupree on the show today ... We'll need his help. Over the years congress has intentionally made so many of their rules vague to the point that the average person really can't understand what's going on up there.

The power of the purse is perhaps the most sacred power that Congress has, and Democrats are going to completely betray that trust by allowing money to be tossed around with absolutely no accountability. At a time when everyone (Democrats and Republicans) is fed up with ridiculous spending in Washington, this is exactly what our country does not need. Thanks but no thanks Democrats. You have demonstrated a hypocritical lack of sense and leadership time and time again, and you sure as hell will not be using any of my tax dollars without a proper vote!


scroll for updates


With friends like the Senate Republicans, who needs enemies?

I'll have much more to say and report. For now:

See, I told you so.


If it quacks like amnesty...

Here's the bill: S. 1348. Detailed textual analysis coming.

Meantime, Numbers USA reports:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) delayed until May 21 the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1348, immigration legislation very similar to last year's Senate-passed amnesty bill (S. 2611). The vote was delayed to buy Senators more time to negotiate a "compromise" bill and draft its language.

Frosty Wooldridge writes:

The Senators listed below are key to stopping Reid and Amnesty legislation. They voted in 2006 to bring the illegal alien amnesty bill to a floor vote so they could play "moderate" on the record with a "yes" vote for "inclusion". Then they covered themselves with the Republican base and tried to recover their "anti-amnesty" image by voting NO on passage of the bill, well aware that the legislation would fail and that their NO vote was just political tail-covering...

Lamar Alexander (R-TN), up for 2008 re-election
Thad Cochran (R-MS), up for 2008 re-election
John Cornyn (R-TX), up for 2008 re-election
Orrin Hatch (R-UT), was up for 2006 re-election
Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), was up for 2006 re-election
Jon Kyl (R-AZ), was up for 2006 re-election
Trent Lott (R-MS) was up for 2006 re-election
Ben Nelson (D-NE) was up for 2006 re-election
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), was up for 2006 re-election
Craig Thomas (R-WY), was up for 2006 re-election
Ken Salazar (D-CO)
Senator Murkowski
Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
Senator McConnell
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Hammer him to get a clue on adding 100 million people
Ted Kennedy (D-MA) call him to give him a piece of your mind
Arlen Spector (R-PA) mostly out of touch with reality, but call anyway
Senator Lindsey Graham (SC) He thinks Americans are bigots
Senator Mel Martinez (FL)
House Rep Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Give her a piece of your mind on amnesty

Direct numbers to specific offices:

Senator Jon Kyl 202-224-4521
Senator Lindsey Graham 202-224-5972
Senator Harry Reid 202-224-3542
Senator McConnell 202-224-2541
Senator Ted Kennedy 202-224-4543
Senator Arlen Specter 202-224-4254

Kate O'Beirne:

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.

I repeat:

There have been seven illegal alien amnesties passed into law since 1986:

·The 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act blanket amnesty for an estimated 2.7 million illegal aliens

·1994: The "Section 245(i)" temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens

·1997: Extension of the Section 245(i) amnesty

·1997: The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act for nearly one million illegal aliens from Central America

·1998: The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti

·2000: Extension of amnesty for some 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed eligibility under the 1986 act

·2000: The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, which included a restoration of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty for 900,000 illegal aliens]

Guess what? None –not one—of those amnesties was associated with a decline in illegal immigration. On the contrary, the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. has tripled since President Reagan signed the first amnesty in 1986. The total effect of the amnesties was even larger because relatives later joined amnesty recipients, and this number was multiplied by an unknown number of children born to amnesty recipients who then acquired automatic US citizenship.

And as I've noted before, there is no such thing as a "temporary" amnesty.

Flashback: Guest worker amnesty--the horrific implementation problems

Update: Chris Kelly dissects the GOP talking points on their immigration bill capitulation.

Update: I'm shocked, shocked....via WashTimes...

The Bush administration, trying to win an immigration agreement with Democrats, is backing away from safeguards designed to target businesses that hire illegal aliens and to prevent a repeat of the rampant fraud that resulted from the 1986 amnesty.

Republicans are pleading with the Bush administration to hold firm on the safeguards, arguing that otherwise any new guest-worker program will be unworkable.

"We need their help on that," said Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, who for two years has fought to give the Department of Homeland Security new tools to limit lawsuits, share information with the Social Security Administration and allow authorities to target those whose applications are denied and who should be deported.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007


The headline of this article reads "Workers sue U.S. factory after immigration raid." Now let's think about this for a moment. The raid that took place in a factory in Massachusetts, where 361 illegal aliens were found to be working in the factory, which produces U.S. military equipment and apparel. Point number one: isn't calling illegal aliens "workers" something like calling bank robbers "tellers?"

After the raid, the illegal aliens sued the factory for failure to pay them over-time wages. Are we out of our minds here? First we are paying them money to break our laws, and then we are allowing them to abuse our legal system. Absolutely not. The factory had been under a long time investigation and should be shut down or heavily fined for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, particularly to produce materials for the government. At the very least all government contracts should be immediately cancelled. There are plenty of companies out there who hire legal residents who would be willing to do the work.

Now we have to suffer the outrage of these criminal aliens turning around to sue the factory and reap the benefits of the U.S. Court system. Just how weak are we?

Perhaps my favorite line of this little article here says, "Dozens of children were stranded when 361 workers at Michael Bianco Inc., which makes equipment and apparel for the U.S. military, were arrested by federal agents in New Bedford, a port city about 55 miles south of Boston." What we have here is a typical leftist ploy to tug at the heart strings, making you feel guilty for not fighting to protect the "rights" of these illegal aliens and all of their children.

I know! Maybe we should consider not enforcing any criminal laws against people with children! Have a child, get immunity!


Senator Sam Brownback: (here's a hint: never try and mix comedy with biofuels)

"How I'd prevent [high gas prices] is us getting more supply in the system through biofuels for one thing, like ethanol from Kansas or maybe Iowa would be a nice state, too, for it to come from...And, we have to in the future work on more conservation here. My family, we have a hybrid car. In that car you can get up to 42, 43 miles to the gallon.

Now my 17-year-old daughter does about 25 on it, so it does matter how you drive it." (and nobody

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee:

"We've had Congress that's spent money like Edwards at a beauty shop. And it's high time that we have a different kind of tax structure, and the FairTax would get us there."

Former Virginia Governor James Gilmore: (now here's a new strategy: attack your fellow opponents and then refer people to your website for your rebuttle!)

"I looked back at the California debates, and I think that some of the people on this stage were very liberal in characterizing themselves as conservatives, particularly on the issues of abortion and taxes and health care.

..And I want to say -- well, let me to say to you that in this forum, it's very difficult to single people out. But I will say this -- we're going to talk about it on my website tomorrow..."

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: (I can only imagine how he feels about Rudy McRomney)

"Look, I've been governor in a pretty tough state. You've heard of blue states. If you ever bought a suit and you look at it and you can't tell if it's blue or black, that's how blue Massachusetts is."

Representative Ron Paul: (Question: "Are you suggesting that we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?")

"I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary."

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani: (uh, huh no he didn't!)

"May I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that." (just for the record, he didn't withdraw the comment)

Represenatative Duncan Hunter: (Is the term "SecDef" considered cool?)

[A response to a hypothetical terrorist situation]

"Yeah, let me just say this would take a one-minute conversation with the secretary of Defense. (Laughter.) I would call him up or call him in. I would say to SECDEF, in terms of getting information that would save American lives, even if it involves very high-pressure techniques, one sentence: Get the information."

Represenatative Tom Tancredo: (how long before there was a Jack Bauer reference?)

[in response to the same hypothetical terrorist situation]

"Well, let me just say that it's almost unbelievable to listen to this in a way. We're talking about -- we're talking about it in such a theoretical fashion. You say that -- that nuclear devices have gone off in the United States, more are planned, and we're wondering about whether waterboarding would be a -- a bad thing to do? I'm looking for "Jack Bauer" at that time, let me tell you."

Senator John McCain: (looks like McCain has a web-guy too)

"In 2001, I proposed massive tax cuts, but I also proposed to rein in spending...We let spending go out of control. We spent money like a drunken sailor, although I never knew a sailor drunk or sober with the imagination of my colleagues. By the way, I received an e-mail not long ago from a fellow who said -- I repeat this story -- "As a former drunken sailor, I resent the way that Congress continues being compared to members of Congress."

Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson: (when in doubt, quote Ronnie Reagan)

"I would do the first thing that President Ronald Reagan would say: Trust but verify.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007


We want to talk about government spending? Let's talk to my favorite buddy in Congress, Mr. Murtha. Last night a bill passed through the House to fund intelligence operations. Fine. But the bill also contains $97 million of "unclassified earmarks" (aka. Pork-barrel spending). The largest benefactor was none other than that famous Democrat who told the world that our troops were killing innocent Iraqis in cold blood. Yes ... that wonderful friend of our men and women in uniform, Congressman Murtha! Murtha managed to bring home the pork in an intelligence funding bill to the tune of $23 million for a new drug intelligence center in his hometown district of Johnstown, PA. What an absolute ridiculous waste of tax payer money. Also, considering there are 19 other facilities just like it, it is in a location where there are probably more cows than people and not to mention the silly little waste of tax dollars called "the war on drugs." This is just a way for Murtha to get more jobs in his district. Pathetic. And we wonder why we spend so much. The little things add up too, folks.

Face it .. the American people have absolutely lost all control of the federal legislative process and their representatives in DC. That would be because (1) most of us are government educated and we have no real idea what is happening to us; and (2) We're more than wrapped up in the celebrity and jock culture. More people care about what is going on with Paris Hilton than what is going on in Paris, France.

Monday, May 14, 2007


The Washington Post printed an editorial yesterday stating four myths of American-hating Europeans. As you might expect, I have a thing or two to say about their findings.

1. The French hate us.

The Washington Post says this is a myth? Though the recent French elections seem to point French diplomats in the right direction, there will still be two tiny factors that will always draw the line between the French and Americans—history and power. Rocky relations with France pre-date the Treat of Versailles and our approach towards foreign affairs is on the complete opposite spectrum of appeasement-loving Frenchmen. But besides that, there is an attitude (much similar to in the US, which is justified) claiming to be the best country in the world. However, the French do not have the power geopolitically, monetarily and economically to back that up, and quite frankly, they will always be jealous. Perhaps if the French had actually succeeded in defending themselves against two German onslaughts we might be a bit more impressed. Anyway ... our grandchildren will know France as a Muslim nation. You just think they hate us now.

2. Europeans look down on the American way of life.

When it comes to this myth, I think it is a double-edged sword. Europeans are eager to soak up our re-runs of Baywatch and Britney Spears concerts, but in the end they are resentful that they can't produce such crap themselves. The exportation of any culture is always met warmly when convenient and hated when it seems to take away from cultural authenticity. Oh and not to mention that European students are coming in droves to study at American Universities. They must want something that they don't have back home! Sure, Americans go to be educated at Oxford. Look where they end up.

3. "Old Europe" no longer matters because China and India are the future.

The bonds between Europeans and Americans have created a long, rooted history of economic support and reliance. Not that the United States should ignore other markets, but "Old Europe" is by no means dead geopolitically. I'll temper this remark with a reminder that Europe is awash with Muslims. These Muslims were brought in to supply cheap labor to support the European social welfare state. The Muslims must be a randy bunch, for they're out-producing native Europeans by a wide margin. That's why I say that our grandchildren will know France as a Muslim nation. Spain is leading the race. You do know, don't you, that in some European countries school teachers won't even teach children about the Holocaust. They're afraid it might offend Muslims.

4. Europe loves only Democrats.

Well it is hard to deny the trend of appeasement, fostered by a socialist under-culture of society. The fact of the matter is, I think that the average European hates George W. Bush and automatically associates him with everything the Republican party stands for. But on the whole, I think that the people of Europe are skeptical of any party in the US. However, this street-level discontent is often not reflected by political leaders—look at Germany, Czech Republic, and now France. This myth seems to be pointing to the wrong problem, and that is that there is a disconnect between the people and the policies of European diplomats. Any policy that trends toward a free-market society or lack of government interference is labeled as "pro-American." Fine. But the people whine and complain about American foreign policy and their "pro-American" governments as they benefit from these same policies. Typical.

Saturday, May 12, 2007



Their background in terrorist plotting notwithstanding, the six Muslim men arrested earlier this week on charges of plotting to kill soldiers stationed at Fort Dix, New Jersey will be charged as criminals rather than “enemy combatants.” In addition, despite evidence that at least one of the six arrested men came to the United States under a “visa waiver” program, the White House signaled it would not touch programs that permit foreigners under special circumstances to enter the U.S. without a visa.

At today’s afternoon briefing for White House reporters, I asked Press Secretary Tony Snow whether the “Fort Dix Six” would be charged as criminals or enemy combatants.

"That’s not a question for me,” replied Snow, “Direct it to the U.S. Attorney.”

Later in the day, I did precisely that and contacted the office of U.S. Attorney Christopher Christi in Camden, New Jersey, which is overseeing the prosecution of the six.

“They are charged as criminals in the complaints,” Greg Reinert, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney told me. (A day after their arraignment at the U.S. Courthouse in Camden, five face charges of conspiring to kill American military personnel, which carry a possible life sentence; the sixth, Agron Abdullahu, faces lesser charges which carry a sentence of up to ten years).

When I asked the reason why the six, all of whom have a background in terrorism, were not charged as “enemy combatants” during the war on terrorism, Reinert replied: “I don’t know” and added that the decision “came from higher-ups.” As to who the “higher-ups” were, he suggested the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and cited the criminal complaints signed by John Ryan, special agent of the FBI.

Along with the status of the charges against the six, I asked Snow whether the arrest would have any impact on the “visa waiver” policy, a special loophole for foreigners under which defendant Agron Abdullahu entered the U.S. from Kosovo (allegedly out of fear from retribution from Serbians during the war in the Balkans in the 1990’s).

“Again the President’s visa waiver -- that is a separate debate, obviously,” said Snow, not explaining why it was separate froim the case of Abdullahu, “The President has noted all along that when it comes to matters of border security and visas, you take a good hard look at national security, national security interests, and we continue to do it.

“What he [Bush] is also trying to do is to come up with metrics that are going to permit us to have tamper-proof IDs, so you can know who’s in the country, you can track them. So there are a whole series of things that are embedded in this but -- and that debate is ongoing in the United States Senate.”


Several North Carolina readers send word of this WRAL report about a church in Spring Hope that is rankling local Muslims. The church's sign is causing controversy:


Well, as Robert Spencer has noted, Muhammad did in fact command Muslims to subjugate, convert, or kill non-Muslims (see, e.g., Sahih Muslim 4294). And salvation in Jesus Christ is certainly not the message of Islam.

The other side of the billboard at Good News Independent Baptist Church is equally provocative. It reads: "When is the last time you heard of a Jew or Christian with a bomb strapped to their body?"

An offended official at the Islamic Center of Raleigh has asked the head of the church and his congregation to "learn more about Islam." Or else?


Just a reminder of what some truly offensive religious signs look like:



Here's some background on the Islamic Center of Raleigh.

Tuesday, May 08, 2007


Over the weekend, the second-highest ranking member of al Qaeda released a video that called Democrat-led initiatives to end the war in Iraq symbols of American defeat in Iraq.

In a 67-minute interview released on May 5, known terrorist Shaykh Ayman al-Zawahiri said legislation to tie war funding with a timetable for withdrawal, “reflects American failure and frustration.”

Last week, President Bush vetoed a bill delivered to him from the Democrat Congress that did this. Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D.-Calif.) House has since failed to overturn his veto and now negotiations to proceed appear to be in a stalemate.

Zawahiri lamented that “this bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in this historic trap” but said it proved jihad “is moving from the stage of defeat of the Crusader invaders and their traitorous underlings to the stage of consolidating Mujahid Islamic Emirate.”

Zawahiri the withdrawal legislation helped to “raise the banner of Jihad as it makes its way through a rugged path of sacrifice.”

A senior government official said it was “stunning” that Zawahiri was watching Congress so closely.

The video was likely encouraged by comments from Democrat leadership. In an April 19 press conference Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) told media “This war is lost.”

Two days later, in a statement issued from the Islamic State of Iraq al Qaeda used Reid’s declaration as evidence of their success. “In the past few days it became clear to every watcher and observer the magnitude of damage that hits the American administration and the defeated declarations of its leaders about the situation in the field in Iraq,” it said. “A serious statement came from ‘Harry Reid’ the Democrat majority leader in the Congress who said: "the war is in Iraq is hopeless and that the situation in Iraq is similar to Vietnam War.”

The Vietnam War was ended with the 1973 Foreign Assistance Act that cut funding for operations in the region. The end effect of the Foreign Assistance Act was best captured in a photograph taken by Hubert Van Es that showed hundreds of Vietnamese civilians queuing up for the last American helicopter out of Saigon. Soon, without American troops or any resources to protect the Vietnamese, the Communists took over South Vietnam and millions were killed by the Khmer Rouge communist regime in the power vacuum left by American withdrawal.

Similar actions could be taken by al Qaeda forces, who have failed to hold territory in Iraq and Afghanistan or disrupt American-led political processes there, should U.S. troops withdraw from the region.

Through the 2004 presidential election, Democrat candidate Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) was also quoted by name in communications from Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri.


There's a horrific video making its way through the internet right now. I'm not going to link to it because it is just too terrible to watch. The video shows a 14-year-old Muslim girl being stoned to death [story only, not link to video] ... by members of her own family! Her crime? She was in love with another Muslim .. but he was from a different Muslim sect. This they call an "honor killing."

Honor killing? There is anything honorable about this?

Listen very carefully today. Let's hear how loud the cries of outrage and condemnation are from the Muslim community. Let's all have another sip on our morning coffee while we wait for the Council on American-Islamic Relations to step forward and condemn this act of Islamic barbarism. Don't wait too long. Your coffee will get cold.

Monday, May 07, 2007


Look for Democrats to exploit the massive ignorance of the American people on this issue. Barbara Boxer is out there telling all of us how "very clear" it is that we have a government that is being run for the benefit of oil companies. Yup .. it was so "very very clear" that Moonbat Boxer didn't even take the time to explain it to us. Now if we were to press her to give us these "very very clear" reasons I have no doubt she would immediately point to oil company profits. At that point a good journalist would ask her: "Can you tell us what the profit margin, not the profit, but the profit margin was for Exxon Mobile during the last reported quarter?" Oh how I would love to see that question asked! But there's not a chance. They'll ask a Republican presidential candidate how much a gallon of milk costs. That's all part of the media game of showing us that Republicans are out of touch with the common man. But they damned sure won't ask a Democrat some basic business questions. After all, the last thing the MSM (mainstream media) wants to do is illustrate leftist ignorance when it comes to business.

Oh ... and let's get ready for the whining from the public too; spurred on, of course, by media scare stories and Democrats slamming the oil companies. Just as soon as gas goes over $3 a gallon the media will start screaming about record gas prices and the great unwashed will join right in.

How about a bit of math. Let's say you're going to drive a family of four to Walt Disney World. You live 700 miles away, so there's a 1400 mile round trip. You burn regular gasoline. As of last Friday (excuse me, but the numbers for today aren't out yet) your regular gas could have cost $3.03 per gallon. This time last year that gas would have cost you $2.92 per gallon. That's an eleven cents per gallon increase. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tells us that the average gas mileage for new vehicles sold in the United States in 1980 was 23.1 miles per gallon. It has increased since then to around 24.7 mpg, but we'll go with the 1980 figure on the assumption that the people whining the loudest about gas prices are the least likely to have a new car. See how fair I'm being here?

So ... with the 11 cents per gallon increase since last year, how much extra are you going to have to save for your trip to Disney World? You drive 1400 miles and get 23.1 miles per gallon. That means you burn 60.6 extra gallons of gas. At 11 cents per gallon that is going to increase your vacation driving cost by a whopping $6.66! (The HELL you say!)

Now .. let's imagine that gas goes up by one entire dollar from last year's prices! Oh my! Will the media be having a fun time then! Barbara Boxer would probably pass out while delivering the anti-big-oil diatribe for the ages! That means your vacation would cost you $60.60 more while you're paying $3.92 per gallon! Hint: If that $60 is going to break you, you have no business at all taking your family to Disney World. Get a Slip 'n Slide for the backyard and take the kids to DQ.

I could say some things here about drilling for oil in ANWR and building new refineries and ending all of these special blends that cause disruptions in the gas supply around this time every year. I could also say some things about supply and demand ... but that would just make me a neo-con, wingnut hate monger. So I'll just shut up now.


The Washington Times reports (hat tip: See-Dubya):

A Maryland-based immigrant-advocacy group is distributing guidebooks instructing those targeted by federal immigration agents during job-site raids not to cooperate with authorities if they are arrested or detained.

The eight-page, two-color illustrated book lists what rights "people who are not United States citizens" have if detained by immigration agents, details what to do if served with a warrant or charged with a crime, and urges them to remain silent if they are arrested.

The book also says they should refuse to provide authorities with any information about their immigration status.

Included in the book is a "Know Your Rights" card to be cut out and presented to arresting agents, showing that those detained choose to exercise their "right to remain silent, the right to refuse to answer your questions" and to "refuse to sign anything until I consult with my attorney."

The book, which features cartoonlike drawings of armed black and white police officers escorting Hispanic men in handcuffs and shows babies crying because their fathers are behind bars, is the product of CASA of Maryland Inc., working with other organizations.

CASA of Maryland receives tax subsidies from the cities of Baltimore and Takoma Park, Montgomery and Prince George's counties, the state of Maryland, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

"Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

Just FYI...Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

* assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or

* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or

* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

Saturday, May 05, 2007


Ten Republican presidential hopefuls stepped up to bat Thursday night during the first of several scheduled pre-convention debates, but with Chris Matthews on the mound Republicans wasted their swings on spit balls.

The agenda of MSNBC -- personified by Chris Matthews -- tainted the debate by working hard to demean the candidates. Republican contenders were on the defensive with Matthews telling them to “look into my eyes” while answering questions. The role of moderator is to keep order in a debate and maintain a friendly discourse. Matthews (a political commentator who has previously worked for four Democratic politicians) was no impartial ump.

Core issues like immigration, education, Israel, the Palestinians, and social security were not addressed. This debate’s sponsors presented questions that were design to reflect negatively on conservatives and the current administration.

Even questions from online users at seemed irrelevant and at times unfair. Lined up execution style Republican candidates took these shots from Matthews and the others:

"What do you dislike the most about America?"

"Should Bill Clinton be back in the White House?"

“Do you believe in evolution?”

“Has the increased influence of Christian Conservatives in your party been good for it?”

“Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham in prison for bribes, just last month FBI raids of two Republican members of congress – what’s with your party and all this corruption?”

“Using a letter grade, how would you rate the Bush Administrations handling of the Iraq War A-F?”

“Did you watch Al Gore’s environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth?”

“Would you hire Karl Rove?”

Despite the media’s efforts to damage Republicans, the candidate’s stats remain mostly unchanged. Mitt Romney and John McCain will stay star players, although Rudy Giuliani may have to backtrack a-bit. Giuliani failed to appease anti-abortion voters when Matthews asked each runner this question:

“Would the day that Roe vs. Wade is appealed be a good day for Americans?”

Nine candidates chimed in with responses like “a great day,” “a glorious day of human liberty,” and “most certainly.”

Giuliani said “It would be OK.” “It would be OK also if a strict constructionist viewed it as precedent.” This answer distinguished his performance as problematic for staunch social conservatives.

Giuliani’s response makes it easy to see why Romney has become so adamantly pro-life. Romney used this opportunity to set straight some of the criticism of his flip flops on abortion rights.

“I’ve always been personally pro-life, but for me there was a great question about whether or not government should intrude on that decision…”

Romney said that two years ago when he was studying cloning in Massachusetts he changed his mind “I took the same course that Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush and Henry Hyde took and I said I was wrong, and changed my mind and said I am pro-life, and I am proud of that and I don’t want to apologize to anyone for becoming pro-life.”

The War in Iraq -- predictably -- was another dominating issue, one that fired up Sen. John McCain more than other candidates. McCain from start to finish spoke with conviction, but did he go overboard?

McCain at times seemed over prepared -- as if several of his lines had been planned. He delivered these lines whether or not they pertained to the questions being asked.

McCain lectured about recent statements made by Sen. Harry Reid; “when the Majority Leader of the United States Senate says we have lost the war -- the men and women serving in Iraq reject that notion… when on the floor of the House of Representatives they cheer when they pass a withdraw motion for a certain date for surrender -- what were they cheering for, surrender, defeat?” While discussing Osama bin Laden McCain told Americans that he will “track him [bin Laden] down and follow him to the gates of hell!”

Although former Gov. Tommy Thompson’s answers were calculated and presented a plan, his lack of personality and stage presence left him without star status. With candidates as passionate as John McCain, or as suave as Romney and Giuliani -- Thompson needs a make over.

Sam Brownback scored points with his sense of humor. When asked if he would support changing the Constitution to allow Austrian-born California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to be president Brownback said "I love the Governator, but no."

Anti-war candidate Ron Paul didn’t get very much face time, all though Pat Buchanan named Paul the most conservative candidate during Keith Olbermann's pre-debate coverage.

Ronald Reagan’s “trademarks,” “principals” and “visions” were frequently tacked on to each response, while the current administration’s principals and techniques were carefully sidelined.

Long-shot candidate, former Gov. of Arknasas Mike Huckabee was in tune, and articulate. "Clearly there was a real error in judgment, and that primarily had to do with listening to a lot of folks who were civilians in suits and silk ties and not listening enough to the generals with mud and blood on their boots" said Huckabee when asked about the current administrations handling of the War in Iraq. This response had the “heart” other lower tier candidates like Tommy Thompson lacked. Huckabee came out on top of the lesser known candidates.

Who is the winner? There are no winners in a glorified press conference -- especially when you’re a Republican candidate at a liberal themed debate. But if anyone had the most opportunity to backtrack and re-issue their platform it was Romney by getting the chance to address his faith and his flip flop.


100 most influential people. Bush ignored. Kate Moss is there. Barack Obama is there. Rosie O'Donnell is there. George Bush is not. This is an intentional slap in the face of George Bush .. and the U.S. Presidency. I don't care who is in the Oval Office, by default U.S. presidents are influential .. wielding vast influence around the world. One word from the president in a press conference or speech can influence people to take actions in virtually any country in the world. The Democrats at this very moment are being forced to back off from their demands for immediate surrender in Iraq. The position they're adopting has been heavily influenced by the actions of George Bush. Here's we're talking about leaving or staying in Iraq ... and Time Magazine is telling us that the person who can influence this decision is less influential than Sasha Baron Cohen?

Actually ... this might be a blessing. Every once in a while we need a stark reminder of the bias of the mainstream media. I think this pretty much does it.

Friday, May 04, 2007


WHEN RICHARD NIXON ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor, Richardson didn't do the dirty deed.

Rather, he resigned in protest.

And when the same command came to Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, Ruckelshaus didn't go dutifully along.

He, too, refused the odious order, resigning even as the White House fired him.

"There wasn't any question in his mind or mine," Ruckelshaus said, recalling the decisions he and Richardson made back in October of 1973 to defy the president.

"What I was being asked to do by the president was fundamentally wrong," he told me. "I just couldn't do it."

When Peter Edelman, an assistant secretary of Health and Human Services, disagreed with Bill Clinton's decision to sign a welfare-reform bill because he felt it would hurt poor people, Edelman didn't put career ahead of conscience.

Instead, he resigned in protest.

"I just found in my gut that I couldn't stay there and be involved with the implementation of that policy," Edelman says. "It was as simple as that."

There's something deeply admirable about people high up in the pantheon of power and prestige willing to put principle ahead of position.

Now comes the sorry example of George Tenet, former director of Central Intelligence, who helped the Bush administration make and market its argument for war with Iraq.

A man who left office meekly, long after the war was a fait accompli, Tenet now tells us -- in a book that has earned him a multi million-dollar advance -- that privately he had qualms about the Bush administration's conduct, including its manipulation and misrepresentation of intelligence.

Having given Bush and Cheney cover as they built a fraudulent case for an ill-conceived invasion -- and then having accepted the Presidential Medal of Freedom in what looked for all the world like a reward for his loyalty -- Tenet portrays himself as a man who struggled inside the government to counsel caution to ideologues intent on war.

Certainly the former CIA director doesn't bear primary responsibility for this foreign-policy fiasco. That distinction lies with Bush, Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz & Co.

Yet if the careerist Tenet had had courage and convictions, he might well have slowed, and perhaps even changed, the march to war.

Ron Suskind, author of "The Price of Loyalty" and "The One Percent Doctrine," has offered some of the most perceptive accounts of the way this administration has operated, particularly post-9/11.

"If Tenet had stood up and said there is no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda and that when it comes to WMD, what we are relying on is supposition and not real evidence as traditionally defined, it would have made it extremely difficult for this administration to go forward based on the way American history had been written up to that point," Suskind said in an interview.

That, however, is not what Tenet did. Instead, by his own admission, he kept quiet, issuing no public alarms as the truth was twisted to build the case for war.

"No one had elected me to go out and make speeches about how and where I disagreed on thorny issues," he writes.

When a CIA analyst expressed concerns about working on the October 2002 intelligence estimate that would obviously be used to marshal support for war, Tenet told him: "Look, we don't make policy. Our job is to tell the people who do what we know and what we think. It's up to them to decide what to do about it."

But Tenet's many rationalizations notwithstanding, "If the Bush administration was misrepresenting the intelligence the CIA was expressing, he had an obligation to let us know that," says US Senator John Kerry.

That's exactly right.

And despite Tenet's anger at having Bush's team of world-class buck-passers point to his now-infamous "slam dunk" comment about WMD, his own account -- that his remark wasn't about the certainty that Iraq had WMD but rather about strengthening the marketing of that claim -- is long leagues short of exculpatory.

Pressed Wednesday on CNN about whether he should have spoken out or resigned before the war began, Tenet replied: "I know that we acquitted our responsibilities consistent with our values."

That statement, pregnant with unintended irony, is all too obviously accurate.

It is both the truth and the tragedy of George Tenet.

Thursday, May 03, 2007



“Lawlessness is lawlessness. Anarchy is anarchy is anarchy. Neither race nor color nor frustration is an excuse for either lawlessness or anarchy.”

-- Thurgood Marshall, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court

Around the world, an unacceptable number of families and children live in the most abject and hopeless poverty any of us could imagine. No one can fault any of these people from trying to escape these gut-wrenching conditions and pursuing a better way of life. Certainly we can all agree that more must be done to lift-up countries that are drowning in a sea of their own population unable to attain economic stability. As Congress looks to adopt a new illegal immigration policy, we must not forget that the root of the problem lays within countries that lack the economic and political resources needed to support a fully developed nation.

Two days ago, hundreds of thousands of immigrant-rights supporters marched the streets of major cities throughout the country demanding rights such as citizenship for the more than 12 million illegal immigrants who are currently in our country. The illegal immigration issue has always elicited strong emotions from many people but there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea of rewarding those who have broken our laws with something as precious as citizenship.

The outrage and indignation displayed by yesterday’s marchers would be justified if it were directed at the right government. The United States is not responsible for the conditions millions of would-be immigrants are fleeing from -- yet many activist groups expect us to be held accountable for a third-world environment overrun with corruption and poverty we did not create. We could grant a mass amnesty right now and it still would not change any of the social, political and economic conditions that are driving people away from their home countries.

When examining illegal immigration reform in America, I have said numerous times that the key to addressing illegal immigration is removing the economic incentive that attracts so many people to our country. Fundamentally, the reason why the United States is such an attractive destination for immigrants is because of the jobs that we have to offer. Combine that with an illegal immigration enforcement policy that has never been truly enforced and it is easy to see why we have more than 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in our country hoping to fill the jobs that supposedly Americans won’t do. Or, is it that they won’t do these jobs for what employers are willing to pay illegal immigrants?

Candidly, the 12 million illegal immigrants and the millions more looking to come to America are not at fault for the issues we face with illegal immigration. For far too long businesses in this country have been willing participants in an effort to import cheap labor to fill low-skill jobs. The result has been a depressed market for American low-skill workers and a significant financial burden being placed on the backs of middle-class Americans who must now pay for the health care, education and social costs of this new class of illegal workers.

The Federal Government can no longer be a willing accomplice to the circumvention of our federal immigration laws. Ultimately, it is our responsibility to enforce the law and the only way we can address illegal immigration in America is to hold employers and big business accountable as well. This requires the implementation of a employer verification program so we can distinguish between employers who hire illegal immigrants because they don’t know the difference and those who hire illegal immigrants because they want cheap labor. Once an employer verification system is in place, we can crackdown on the employers who are knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

Solving illegal immigration begins with giving employers the tools they need to verify employment eligibility. This has become increasingly difficult for employers as document fraud has become a widespread problem as employers are ill-equipped to detect and authenticate workers’ identification documents. A universal, non-discriminatory and tamper-resistant Social Security card would be a practical solution to this growing problem. Currently, there are more than 30 types of identification employers can use to verify employment eligibility. By limiting the burden of documentation to just one, uniform card, employers will finally have the tools they need to comply with the law. We need to separate those who are egregiously violating the law and those who do not have the means to enforce and comply with the law.

Once the employment incentive is eliminated, immigrants worldwide will have to look elsewhere for job opportunities and the flood of illegal immigrants coming into our country will subside. Now there is chorus of people in Washington D.C. who do not believe enforcement first will work, but considering that the federal government has never enforced our laws, it is impossible to know what effect real enforcement will have on stemming the illegal immigration tide.

The only thing Congress could do to make the problem worse is offer another incentive for people to leave their home countries and come to the United States. Call it a comprehensive plan, call it a temporary worker program or a pathway to citizenship, call it amnesty -- the results will still be the same. You cannot address our failures in illegal immigration policy by repeating the failed policies of the past. Amnesty hasn’t worked. Neither has ignoring the problem. Why not try the one thing we haven’t done yet? By enforcing our laws, securing our borders and holding employers accountable, we can avoid repeating our mistakes and live up to our country’s promise of being a nation governed by the rule of law.