The past two days have seen multiple attacks in England from Islamic Terrorists. 2 Failed car bombs yesterday and an Attack on Glasgow Airport today. So how does our congress respond? Just as you would expect it to. A renewed effort on SURRENDER.
Pelosi, Reid to announce new push to end Iraq war
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are expected tomorrow to announce a new coordinated effort to force votes in July to end the Iraq war, according to Democratic insiders. (the front lines in the War on Terror)
Reid has already publicly declared that Senate Democrats will offer four Iraq-related amendments to the upcoming 2008 Defense authorization bill, including a proposal by Reid and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to set a firm timetable to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by next spring. (they would rather fight the Terrorists here as our cousins are in England)
Pelosi is planning to announce that the House will also vote on a bill setting a new withdrawal timetable of April 1, 2008, although the details of the proposal were still up in the air at press time, according to Democratic sources. The House will consider this proposal as a freestanding bill, said the sources. (a full retreat under fire as explained Here by Frank Gaffney)
Pelosi is also planning to force a vote on a proposal by Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, to repeal the 2002 use-of-force resolution for Iraq. This "deauthorization" proposal may be offered as an amendment to the 2008 Defense spending bill, which the House is scheduled to take up following the week-long July 4th recess. (they wish to remove the President from the equation by pretending the war never started)
In addition, House Democrats will push proposals to prohibit the creation of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, as well as a "readiness" initiative similar to that authored by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.). The Webb proposal would limit deployments of U.S. soldiers and marines in Iraq by requiring the Pentagon to keep military units from being sent back to Iraq until they have been stateside as long as they were in the combat zone. (which was Murthas plan to end the war with out having to vote to end it. As for the bases yeah that's good so that when we have to fight Iran or go back to end the genocide their plan will cause we will have to do it from scratch)
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the powerful Defense subcommittee on the House Appropriations Committee and a leader of the anti-war movement, is planning to offer his own new measures as part of the Defense spending bill.
Pelosi has been quietly meeting with various factions within the Democratic Caucus this week on the Iraq initiative, including Blue Dog conservatives skittish about being seen as anti-military, and the Out of Iraq Caucus, whose members have pushed hard for an end to the U.S. military involvement in Iraq. (yes twisting the Arms of people that lied when they ran saying they weren't surrendercrats)
Both Pelosi and Reid have come to the conclusion that President Bush's plan for a "surge" in the number of U.S. troops inside Iraq, has failed (after only being up to strength for 10 days) and that Democrats, despite losing their showdown with Bush and the Republicans over the recent Iraq supplemental funding bill, must continue to force votes to end the war. Gen. David Petraeus is supposed to report back to Congress in September on the state of the "surge," but Democrats have decided not to wait for his report. (why bother they have decided we lost, facts might prove them wrong)
"The surge is a failure, it isn't working," said a Democratic aide familiar with the new initiative. "We just can't leave American soldiers out there dying and not do anything." (here that Military your accomplishing nothing)
Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), the leaders of the Out of Iraq Caucus attended a meeting with Pelosi, other Democratic leaders and the Blue Dog lawmakers today.
After the meeting, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Democratic leaders "are working to build a consensus" within the Caucus on the Iraq proposals, but promised votes all next month on the issue. Hoyer said no date had been scheduled at this time for any of these votes, although the Defense spending bill is set to reach the House floor in mid-July.
Editor's Note: I will delete any comment with profanity or violent/inappropriate comments. John Bresnahan
UPDATE: Letter from Nancy Pelosi
Read the Letter its hysterical
Democrats
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
We Won Round One...
It's time to get back to work.
The ILLEGAL AMNESTY bill is finally dead (we hope), all though someone could always pull the stake from it's heart and it will rise like the blood sucking vampire that it is. For now though I believe we can remove the garlands of garlic from our necks and resume the real battles that we are facing.
First, build the damn wall it's a matter of security and we are at war. That is what we now need to re-focus our efforts on. The Democrat party and their willing accomplices in the MSM are about to do a full press on imposing time lines on the war. They still have not got the balls to do the only thing that they have the constitutional authority to do which is defund the war instead they are going to play with withdraw amendments. In the Next month, Democrats are prepared to use the Defense Authorization bill to exploit fissures within the Republican coalition. Democrats plan to press the case that Republican obstructionism in Congress and the President's vetoes are behind the quagmire in Iraq as well as behind gridlock on lobbying reform, inaction on 9/11 Commission recommendations, a lack of progress on lowering Medicare drug prices, and stasis on other bills promised at the start of the session. (stolen from this story) So you can bank on not only speeches from Reid and Pelosi to that effect, but accompanying stories in the NYTs and other rags.
We can not count on the Republican Party to mount a good defensive against these attacks. Instead what I am sure we can count on is spineless elected Republicans going along with them. We have already seen idiots like Luger and Voinavich lead the band in retreat in our side of the isle. I am sure they are only the first, as the press gears up. They will also cave on the fairness doctrine, since Talk Radio and the rest of us forced them to do the right thing on the AMNESTY BILL.
The pressure must be kept up from us. We need to apply pressure on their campaign wallets to not put our lives in jeopardy by abandoning our commitments in the Middle East.
Democrats
War
The ILLEGAL AMNESTY bill is finally dead (we hope), all though someone could always pull the stake from it's heart and it will rise like the blood sucking vampire that it is. For now though I believe we can remove the garlands of garlic from our necks and resume the real battles that we are facing.
First, build the damn wall it's a matter of security and we are at war. That is what we now need to re-focus our efforts on. The Democrat party and their willing accomplices in the MSM are about to do a full press on imposing time lines on the war. They still have not got the balls to do the only thing that they have the constitutional authority to do which is defund the war instead they are going to play with withdraw amendments. In the Next month, Democrats are prepared to use the Defense Authorization bill to exploit fissures within the Republican coalition. Democrats plan to press the case that Republican obstructionism in Congress and the President's vetoes are behind the quagmire in Iraq as well as behind gridlock on lobbying reform, inaction on 9/11 Commission recommendations, a lack of progress on lowering Medicare drug prices, and stasis on other bills promised at the start of the session. (stolen from this story) So you can bank on not only speeches from Reid and Pelosi to that effect, but accompanying stories in the NYTs and other rags.
We can not count on the Republican Party to mount a good defensive against these attacks. Instead what I am sure we can count on is spineless elected Republicans going along with them. We have already seen idiots like Luger and Voinavich lead the band in retreat in our side of the isle. I am sure they are only the first, as the press gears up. They will also cave on the fairness doctrine, since Talk Radio and the rest of us forced them to do the right thing on the AMNESTY BILL.
The pressure must be kept up from us. We need to apply pressure on their campaign wallets to not put our lives in jeopardy by abandoning our commitments in the Middle East.
Democrats
War
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
As we watch the Republican Party self-destruct over ILLEGALS, Two out of control Democrat controlled committees are still in search of a Crime..LOL
White House, Cheney's Office Subpoenaed
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday, demanding documents and elevating the confrontation with President Bush over the administration's warrant-free eavesdropping on Americans.
Separately, the Senate Judiciary Committee also is summoning Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to discuss the program and an array of other matters that have cost a half-dozen top Justice Department officials their jobs, committee chairman Patrick Leahy announced.
"If there have been lies told to us, we'll refer it to the Department of Justice and the U.S. attorney for whatever legal action they think is appropriate," Leahy told reporters. He did just that Wednesday, referring questions about testimony by former White House aide Brett Kavanaugh, who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
The escalation is part of the Democrats' effort to hold the administration to account for the way it has conducted the war on terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The subpoenas extend the probe into the private sector, demanding among other things documents on any agreements that telecommunications companies made to cooperate with the surveillance program.
Democrats
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday, demanding documents and elevating the confrontation with President Bush over the administration's warrant-free eavesdropping on Americans.
Separately, the Senate Judiciary Committee also is summoning Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to discuss the program and an array of other matters that have cost a half-dozen top Justice Department officials their jobs, committee chairman Patrick Leahy announced.
"If there have been lies told to us, we'll refer it to the Department of Justice and the U.S. attorney for whatever legal action they think is appropriate," Leahy told reporters. He did just that Wednesday, referring questions about testimony by former White House aide Brett Kavanaugh, who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
The escalation is part of the Democrats' effort to hold the administration to account for the way it has conducted the war on terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The subpoenas extend the probe into the private sector, demanding among other things documents on any agreements that telecommunications companies made to cooperate with the surveillance program.
Democrats
Words of Wisdom
Warnings from Gaza
By Newt Gingrich
The Hamas victory in Gaza is a warning that World War IV (as Norman Podhoretz has called it) is going to be long and hard. It is also a warning that the West is currently losing that war.
These defeats are not a function of the courage and will of the American people. In a June poll sponsored by American Solutions, 85 percent of the American people said it was important to defend America and its allies. Only 10 percent were opposed. On an even stronger question, 75 percent said it was important to defeat America's enemies. Only 16 percent disagreed.
So the hard left in America is only 16 percent. It is outnumbered almost 5-1 by those who would defeat our enemies.
The source of failure is not to be found in the American people but in the inarticulate and unimaginative leaders all across government who now preside instead of lead.
The tragedy of the current debate in Washington is that while the inarticulateness and the failing performance of the Bush administration have led the American people to desire a new direction, the politics of the left insists that the new direction be less than President Bush. Yet the lessons of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, New Jersey, the JFK plot, the Algerian bombings, the Iranian nuclear program, the conflict in Lebanon and now the defeat in Gaza all point to the need for a war policy that is substantially bigger and more robust than Mr. Bush.
As the forces of modernity are being ground up by terrorism, our political process is not producing a Churchill or Roosevelt to rally the democracies but instead embracing advocates of surrender withdrawal and defeat. As women are being oppressed, we remain silent. Faced with the weakness, vacillation and inarticulateness of the leaders of Israel and America, the people see the violence as senseless, the bloodshed as repugnant and the current strategies as too flawed to continue to invest in them.
Gaza is the most recent example of where Western failure of imagination is being defeated by ruthlessness and determination.
Israel has had enormous power over Gaza for 40 years. The United Nations has been running refugee camps since 1949 with disastrous results that have led to massive population growth, vast unemployment, deep bitterness and a society which produces entrepreneurs of terrorism rather than entrepreneurs of wealth creation. Michael Oren has noted that since 1993 the Palestinian Authority "has garnered more international aid than any entity in modern history — more per capita than the European states under the Marshall Plan." With all these advantages the old "reasonable" terrorist organization has been destroyed in Gaza by the newer, more militant and more ferocious Hamas.
This is a signal victory for Iran and a defeat for Israel, the United States, and the so-called moderate Arab governments.
The first reactions to this defeat have been pathetic. The beleaguered American and Israeli governments have met to wring their hands and pledge funding for the old terrorists in the West Bank. This will surely prove to be a losing strategy. Hamas will consolidate its hold on Gaza and begin to extend its reach more decisively into the West Bank.
The West will sooner or later have to confront several hard realities if it is to defeat its enemies.
First, terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah will have to be rooted
out and destroyed. We do not today have the strategy, the doctrine or the
techniques for defeating these kinds of organizations. In Iraq, after more than
four years of effort, our current doctrine for population control and for
effective local policing and intelligence is pathetic. To defeat ferocious
committed and enthusiastically violent organizations like al Qaeda and the
Taliban will take new energy, new drive and new determination on our part.
Second, the indirect strategies of propping up corrupt dictatorships
have to give way to direct people-to-people help, securing private-property
rights and direct financial assistance so we can improve their families' lives
and they can be empowered to defend their neighborhoods from evil men. Hernando
de Soto will be vastly more effective in designing this than all the bureaucrats
at AID and the United Nations combined.
Third, the U.N. camp system of
socialism with unearned anti-humanitarian charity has to be replaced with a
totally new system of earned income and earned property rights to restore
dignity and hope to every Palestinian.
Fourth, the current system of
schools under both Fatah and Hamas control have to be replaced in their entirety
with a system dedicated to genuine education and to teaching human rights rather
than jihad and hatred.
Lastly, mosques can no longer be allowed to
preach hatred and violence. The de-Nazification that seemed obvious in Germany
in 1945 will have to be matched by a dehatred campaign today. The haters have to
be defeated, disarmed and detained if the forces of peace and freedom are to
win.
These steps are only the beginning, but the gap between our current pathetic reaction to the Hamas victory and the requirements of victory give some indication of how far the West has to go before it starts winning. In Churchill's phrase, we are not even at the end of the beginning. However, we may be at the beginning of recognizing that this will be a real war.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Newt
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
The Death of a Party
The 2006 elections were lost by the Republicans due to two reasons. Spending and Immigration. The 08 elections will be lost because the assholes in the Senate still don't get it, and are shoving AMNESTY down our throats, because they know better than us.
It does not matter that 80% of the American public does not want this Bill to pass. It does not matter that Millions of people e-mailed, called, and sent letters. All that matters is that Bush, McCain and the author of the Bill Teddy (drunken murderer) Kennedy got their Bill passed.
Now I know it's not passed yet but it will be in two days, and we could still defeat it in the House if we keep the pressure up. But that's not the point.
The point is the Senate Republicans have said FUCK YOU TO THE BASE. Assholes like Trent Lott and others stated it right out that we needed to be shut up. Well fine I agree we do need to shut up, shut up our wallets and our votes.
The only Republican I will be voting for in the 08 election is whoever is running for President. Other than that I won't give a dime, a vote, or a minute of campaign time to a single Republican Candidate.
Now to be honest I never vote for my Republican Senator Arlen the Spectacle. I do not however vote for the Democrat running against him, this time I will.
This Bill should have been titled The Destruction of the Republican party Act of 07, because that's what it has added up to and was always destined to add up to.
Remember according to our own Senate Republicans we are BIGOTS, LOUD MOUTHED, STUPID and DON'T EVEN KNOW WHATS IN THIS BILL. Well bullshit you assholes we read the Bill, we support LEGAL IMMIGRATION, and voicing our honest dissent is NOT loud mouthed.
UPDATE: Here are some points in the Ammendments to fix this Bill...LOL
compliments of the Captains Quarters
POINT 1: Page 21, lines 12-16, apparently reinstated the 24-hour limit on probationary background checks. Remember when they promised to fix that so that no one would get a probationary card without passing the full background check? I guess they broke that promise.
POINT 2: Page 29, lines 12-end: The Z-visa has unlimited 4-year terms. I don't think this is a change, but shouldn't the immigrant at some point actually immigrate?
POINT 3: Page 33, lines 19-25: Z-visa non-immigrants over the age of 65 are not expected to maintain employment in order to remain eligible to be in the US. Again, why would they be here if they're not working and not applying for a regular immigration status?
POINT 4: Page 48, lines 8-14: Interesting method here to ensure that Z-visa non-immigrants don't get preferential treatment. The regulations set up a timing mechanism so that no Z-visa immigrants can file for permanent residency until 30 days after eligibility for those who applied for normal immigration on May 1, 2005. That means that illegals can't "cut in line" ahead of anyone who applied on that date or before, but can be put ahead of legal immigrants who applied in the last two years.
POINT 5: Page 61, entire page: The language has changed in this section to allow access for all law-enforcement activity to the data gleaned from applications. Before, it was restricted to just immigration enforcement and national-security activities.
POINT 6: Page 67, lines 7-11: 80% of all penalties paid by the applicants will come through installment plans. I understand the need for this, but it puts the federal government on the hook for managing a payment system for 12 million new people, along with all of the other mandates in this bill.
POINT 7: Page 69, line 20: The DREAM Act, providing scholarships for the children of illegal immigrants, still exists in the bill.
POINT 8: Page 89-90, lines 22-04: The 24-hour limit on background checks still holds within the Ag Workers section (the temporary guest worker program). If it takes longer than 24 hours, they get their credentials. (h/t: commenter Redherkey)
POINT 9: Page 92, lines 14-15: Do I read this correctly? The new limit on guest-worker visas is now 1,500,000 -- not counting dependent Z-A visas? Wasn't this originally 400,000 and reduced by half later?
POINT 10: Pages 169-170: The employer fines seem rather daunting. The first tier fine for employing an illegal will be $5,000 per occurence. If an employer has been fined in the past for employing an illegal alien, it escalates to $10,000, and on up to $75,000 per occurence. If the ICE decides to enforce the law on employers -- still a rather open point -- it could get very expensive. I wonder if that applies to corporations as a whole, or each location separately.
POINT 11: Pages 227-8: The temporary worker program gets fleshed out more specifically here, and it appears to have a limit of 180,000 for "Y-visa nonimmigrants." If so, what are the Z-A visas, and why do they have a cap of 1,500,000?
POINT 12: Page 276: This is an amendment that forces any probationary status to wait until after the security triggers have been met. It seems to me that this is another example of the many cross purposes of this bill, and it will serve to confuse both backers and opponents of this bill.
I'm done for the evening. If you want to take a look through the bill, check with NZ Bear, who has a searchable HTML version up at his site.
Republicans
It does not matter that 80% of the American public does not want this Bill to pass. It does not matter that Millions of people e-mailed, called, and sent letters. All that matters is that Bush, McCain and the author of the Bill Teddy (drunken murderer) Kennedy got their Bill passed.
Now I know it's not passed yet but it will be in two days, and we could still defeat it in the House if we keep the pressure up. But that's not the point.
The point is the Senate Republicans have said FUCK YOU TO THE BASE. Assholes like Trent Lott and others stated it right out that we needed to be shut up. Well fine I agree we do need to shut up, shut up our wallets and our votes.
The only Republican I will be voting for in the 08 election is whoever is running for President. Other than that I won't give a dime, a vote, or a minute of campaign time to a single Republican Candidate.
Now to be honest I never vote for my Republican Senator Arlen the Spectacle. I do not however vote for the Democrat running against him, this time I will.
This Bill should have been titled The Destruction of the Republican party Act of 07, because that's what it has added up to and was always destined to add up to.
Remember according to our own Senate Republicans we are BIGOTS, LOUD MOUTHED, STUPID and DON'T EVEN KNOW WHATS IN THIS BILL. Well bullshit you assholes we read the Bill, we support LEGAL IMMIGRATION, and voicing our honest dissent is NOT loud mouthed.
UPDATE: Here are some points in the Ammendments to fix this Bill...LOL
compliments of the Captains Quarters
POINT 1: Page 21, lines 12-16, apparently reinstated the 24-hour limit on probationary background checks. Remember when they promised to fix that so that no one would get a probationary card without passing the full background check? I guess they broke that promise.
POINT 2: Page 29, lines 12-end: The Z-visa has unlimited 4-year terms. I don't think this is a change, but shouldn't the immigrant at some point actually immigrate?
POINT 3: Page 33, lines 19-25: Z-visa non-immigrants over the age of 65 are not expected to maintain employment in order to remain eligible to be in the US. Again, why would they be here if they're not working and not applying for a regular immigration status?
POINT 4: Page 48, lines 8-14: Interesting method here to ensure that Z-visa non-immigrants don't get preferential treatment. The regulations set up a timing mechanism so that no Z-visa immigrants can file for permanent residency until 30 days after eligibility for those who applied for normal immigration on May 1, 2005. That means that illegals can't "cut in line" ahead of anyone who applied on that date or before, but can be put ahead of legal immigrants who applied in the last two years.
POINT 5: Page 61, entire page: The language has changed in this section to allow access for all law-enforcement activity to the data gleaned from applications. Before, it was restricted to just immigration enforcement and national-security activities.
POINT 6: Page 67, lines 7-11: 80% of all penalties paid by the applicants will come through installment plans. I understand the need for this, but it puts the federal government on the hook for managing a payment system for 12 million new people, along with all of the other mandates in this bill.
POINT 7: Page 69, line 20: The DREAM Act, providing scholarships for the children of illegal immigrants, still exists in the bill.
POINT 8: Page 89-90, lines 22-04: The 24-hour limit on background checks still holds within the Ag Workers section (the temporary guest worker program). If it takes longer than 24 hours, they get their credentials. (h/t: commenter Redherkey)
POINT 9: Page 92, lines 14-15: Do I read this correctly? The new limit on guest-worker visas is now 1,500,000 -- not counting dependent Z-A visas? Wasn't this originally 400,000 and reduced by half later?
POINT 10: Pages 169-170: The employer fines seem rather daunting. The first tier fine for employing an illegal will be $5,000 per occurence. If an employer has been fined in the past for employing an illegal alien, it escalates to $10,000, and on up to $75,000 per occurence. If the ICE decides to enforce the law on employers -- still a rather open point -- it could get very expensive. I wonder if that applies to corporations as a whole, or each location separately.
POINT 11: Pages 227-8: The temporary worker program gets fleshed out more specifically here, and it appears to have a limit of 180,000 for "Y-visa nonimmigrants." If so, what are the Z-A visas, and why do they have a cap of 1,500,000?
POINT 12: Page 276: This is an amendment that forces any probationary status to wait until after the security triggers have been met. It seems to me that this is another example of the many cross purposes of this bill, and it will serve to confuse both backers and opponents of this bill.
I'm done for the evening. If you want to take a look through the bill, check with NZ Bear, who has a searchable HTML version up at his site.
Republicans
From The TANK
From Camp Pendleton to Al Anbar [W. Thomas Smith Jr.]
Far too many Americans seem to either not grasp or not appreciate the capabilities of our deployed combat forces, what they actually do on deployment, and the impact they have on our global interests in very short blocks of time.
. The 2,200 Marines and sailors of the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) — which includes Battalion Landing Team 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines (yes, these men fought in Fallujah), Combat Logistics Battalion 13, and Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 163 — provide a great example of what I'm talking about.
. What these Marines — the last piece of U.S. Army general David Petraeus' "surge" force — have accomplished over the past two-and-half months (actually beyond that) is nothing short of amazing.
. So I've put together a quick chronological run-down of the 13th MEU's activities over the past several weeks. Let's take a look:
. Up until April 10th of this year, the 13th MEU was training in-and-around Camp Pendleton, California for a multitude of different combat operational scenarios, including training for ops in the desert and mountains, amphibious-raid training, ship-boarding and counterterrorism training, even urban-combat and security workups in some of Southern California's commercial districts.
So what exactly is a MEU? Find out here. And what are the 13th MEU's capabilities? Find out here.
06/26 04:18 PM
Iraq
Far too many Americans seem to either not grasp or not appreciate the capabilities of our deployed combat forces, what they actually do on deployment, and the impact they have on our global interests in very short blocks of time.
. The 2,200 Marines and sailors of the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) — which includes Battalion Landing Team 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines (yes, these men fought in Fallujah), Combat Logistics Battalion 13, and Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 163 — provide a great example of what I'm talking about.
. What these Marines — the last piece of U.S. Army general David Petraeus' "surge" force — have accomplished over the past two-and-half months (actually beyond that) is nothing short of amazing.
. So I've put together a quick chronological run-down of the 13th MEU's activities over the past several weeks. Let's take a look:
. Up until April 10th of this year, the 13th MEU was training in-and-around Camp Pendleton, California for a multitude of different combat operational scenarios, including training for ops in the desert and mountains, amphibious-raid training, ship-boarding and counterterrorism training, even urban-combat and security workups in some of Southern California's commercial districts.
- On April 10, the 13th MEU (SOC) boarded the ships of the Bonhomme Richard Expeditionary Strike Group in San Diego for points west. At sea, Marines continued training (martial arts, weapons skills, counter-terrorism, Arabic language, etc.), lifting weights, running, daily PT, and generally keeping their weapons clean and their spaces and equipment squared away. Let me add, as a former deployed-Marine, Marines spend a lot of time cleaning weapons.
- April 30: The 13th MEU was in Guam where several Marines and sailors participated in two construction projects: hammering, nailing, painting, putting up fences, planting trees.
- May 12: The 13th MEU was in Singapore where Marines and sailors packed computers and food bound for the Philippines and Thailand. They also helped locals with minor construction work, also hedgetrimming, gardening, and general landscaping.
- May 19: The Bonhomme Richard Expeditionary Strike Group, including the 13th MEU, linked up with the U.S. 5th Fleet.
- May 23: The 5th Fleet, including its seaborne 13th MEU, conducted fleet exercises in the Persian Gulf off the Iranian coast in a huge show of U.S. Naval force (You'll recall Mario Loyola was talking about the Persian Gulf "show of force" here, and we discussed it further here.). And I'll bet there were Marines cleaning weapons during the exercises.
- May 27: The 13th MEU disembarked from the Expeditionary Strike Group onto Kuwaiti soil, and began lots of back-to-back combat training.
- Early to mid-June: The 13th MEU was rolling into Iraq and moving into position in Al Anbar.
- Today: The 13th MEU is conducting combat operations in Iraq. And, yes, when there is downtime, Marines are cleaning weapons.
So what exactly is a MEU? Find out here. And what are the 13th MEU's capabilities? Find out here.
06/26 04:18 PM
Iraq
Traitorous John McCain
is the one who is Smoking Something if he really thinks he will even be the nominee let alone the President
Traitor
Traitor
Saturday, June 23, 2007
My Home Town
No Liberty in Philly
By Robert Knight
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 22, 2007
Philadelphia has big city problems.
The murder rate is on the rise, and gangs make some areas unsafe even in the daytime. It’s no secret that fatherless, undisciplined boys are the main reason the streets are deadly.
So what is the city doing about it? Let’s imagine for a moment that we’re in a Philadelphia City Council discussion.
“How about a crackdown on gangs? Or a crackdown on drug dealers?”
“Nah. Those people shoot back. I’ve got it! Let’s persecute the Boy Scouts! They won’t give the police any trouble.”
“Yeah, this will be a great way to pay back those gay groups for donating to our campaigns. The media will love us, too. Watch how they’ll frame this: ‘Enlightened Officials Reign in Hateful, Bigoted Boy Scouts!’ Good for us! Now, let’s take a Starbucks break!”
So it was that on May 31, the real-life City Council, without debate, and under pressure from an organization that promotes the rights of “sexual minorities,” stabbed the Scouts in the back. They voted 16 to 1 to break a 79-year-old agreement allowing the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts to occupy a building in a city park. The Scouts built the building in 1928, and turned it over to the city in exchange for a rent-free lease “in perpetuity.” Apparently, “perpetuity” in Philadelphia now means, “until gay groups boot you out.” The Scouts can stay only if they will open their ranks to open homosexuals.
Sexual immorality is now the moral high ground in Philadelphia, and the Boy Scouts are the bad guys. Does anyone with clout in Philadelphia see why this is monstrously wrong? Let’s be generous and assume that lots of people still don’t know about this. The story was ignored by all the networks except Fox News Channel, and the local press didn’t even put it on the front page.
It’s bad enough that the City Council wants to force the Scouts to allow homosexuals to be role models for young boys. There’s also the issue of child molestation.
Just ask the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia. They’ve faced lawsuits from 218 men and 33 women who claim to have been molested by priests. The church has paid out more than $1.4 million in settlements.
Councilman Darrell L. Clarke, the Democrat who introduced the motion, is urging the Scouts to “compromise. Honestly, no one wants to see them out of there.”
Okay, let’s be honest, Mr. Clarke. Everyone knows the Scouts cannot compromise. The lawsuits would bankrupt the organization. You’re telling them to slit their own throats or get out of town.
The Boy Scouts of America themselves have had to deal with hundreds of incidents of molestation. They cannot afford to surrender.
Given the clearly illustrated danger of mixing homosexual men with boys, it is criminal to use government power to force a youth group to put boys at risk just to please a special interest group. Actually, it’s criminal for any reason.
The Cradle of Liberty Council has a year to submit to this ruthless bullying and pony up rent (the amount is still undetermined) or abandon their longtime headquarters. As City Solicitor Romulo Diaz warns, “the year’s-notice clock is ticking.”
Philadelphia is getting a reputation for heavy-handedness. It was Philadelphia where 11 Christians sharing the gospel at a homosexual street festival in 2004 were arrested on “hate crime” charges and jailed, with five facing eight counts that would have netted 45 years in jail upon conviction. A judge who viewed a tape of the event months later finally dismissed the charges, but the city had made its point.
Philadelphia is the City of Brotherly Love. Now they’re beating up on the Boy Scouts’ Cradle of Liberty Council.
The irony here is thicker than a Philadelphia cheesesteak, and it’s a good deal more odiferous.
Somebody ring that Liberty Bell, will you?
Philly
By Robert Knight
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 22, 2007
Philadelphia has big city problems.
The murder rate is on the rise, and gangs make some areas unsafe even in the daytime. It’s no secret that fatherless, undisciplined boys are the main reason the streets are deadly.
So what is the city doing about it? Let’s imagine for a moment that we’re in a Philadelphia City Council discussion.
“How about a crackdown on gangs? Or a crackdown on drug dealers?”
“Nah. Those people shoot back. I’ve got it! Let’s persecute the Boy Scouts! They won’t give the police any trouble.”
“Yeah, this will be a great way to pay back those gay groups for donating to our campaigns. The media will love us, too. Watch how they’ll frame this: ‘Enlightened Officials Reign in Hateful, Bigoted Boy Scouts!’ Good for us! Now, let’s take a Starbucks break!”
So it was that on May 31, the real-life City Council, without debate, and under pressure from an organization that promotes the rights of “sexual minorities,” stabbed the Scouts in the back. They voted 16 to 1 to break a 79-year-old agreement allowing the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts to occupy a building in a city park. The Scouts built the building in 1928, and turned it over to the city in exchange for a rent-free lease “in perpetuity.” Apparently, “perpetuity” in Philadelphia now means, “until gay groups boot you out.” The Scouts can stay only if they will open their ranks to open homosexuals.
Sexual immorality is now the moral high ground in Philadelphia, and the Boy Scouts are the bad guys. Does anyone with clout in Philadelphia see why this is monstrously wrong? Let’s be generous and assume that lots of people still don’t know about this. The story was ignored by all the networks except Fox News Channel, and the local press didn’t even put it on the front page.
It’s bad enough that the City Council wants to force the Scouts to allow homosexuals to be role models for young boys. There’s also the issue of child molestation.
Just ask the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia. They’ve faced lawsuits from 218 men and 33 women who claim to have been molested by priests. The church has paid out more than $1.4 million in settlements.
Councilman Darrell L. Clarke, the Democrat who introduced the motion, is urging the Scouts to “compromise. Honestly, no one wants to see them out of there.”
Okay, let’s be honest, Mr. Clarke. Everyone knows the Scouts cannot compromise. The lawsuits would bankrupt the organization. You’re telling them to slit their own throats or get out of town.
The Boy Scouts of America themselves have had to deal with hundreds of incidents of molestation. They cannot afford to surrender.
Given the clearly illustrated danger of mixing homosexual men with boys, it is criminal to use government power to force a youth group to put boys at risk just to please a special interest group. Actually, it’s criminal for any reason.
The Cradle of Liberty Council has a year to submit to this ruthless bullying and pony up rent (the amount is still undetermined) or abandon their longtime headquarters. As City Solicitor Romulo Diaz warns, “the year’s-notice clock is ticking.”
Philadelphia is getting a reputation for heavy-handedness. It was Philadelphia where 11 Christians sharing the gospel at a homosexual street festival in 2004 were arrested on “hate crime” charges and jailed, with five facing eight counts that would have netted 45 years in jail upon conviction. A judge who viewed a tape of the event months later finally dismissed the charges, but the city had made its point.
Philadelphia is the City of Brotherly Love. Now they’re beating up on the Boy Scouts’ Cradle of Liberty Council.
The irony here is thicker than a Philadelphia cheesesteak, and it’s a good deal more odiferous.
Somebody ring that Liberty Bell, will you?
Philly
Atleast the Aussies Still Have Balls
Aussie Sailors "Vigorously Repelled" Iranian Boarders [W. Thomas Smith Jr.]
According to the story:
Iranian naval forces in the Gulf tried to capture an Australian Navy boarding team but were vigorously repelled, the BBC has learned. The incident took place before Iran successfully seized 15 British sailors and Marines in March. ... When Iranian Revolutionary Guards captured the British sailors and Royal Marines in March, it was not exactly their first attempt. It turns out that Iranian forces made an earlier concerted attempt to seize a boarding party from the Royal Australian Navy. The Australians, though, to quote one military source, "were having none of it".The BBC has been told the Australians re-boarded the vessel they had just searched, aimed their machine guns at the approaching Iranians and warned them to back off, using what was said to be "highly colourful language".
More here (h/t BostonMaggie).
06/23 10:18 AM
Iran
According to the story:
Iranian naval forces in the Gulf tried to capture an Australian Navy boarding team but were vigorously repelled, the BBC has learned. The incident took place before Iran successfully seized 15 British sailors and Marines in March. ... When Iranian Revolutionary Guards captured the British sailors and Royal Marines in March, it was not exactly their first attempt. It turns out that Iranian forces made an earlier concerted attempt to seize a boarding party from the Royal Australian Navy. The Australians, though, to quote one military source, "were having none of it".The BBC has been told the Australians re-boarded the vessel they had just searched, aimed their machine guns at the approaching Iranians and warned them to back off, using what was said to be "highly colourful language".
More here (h/t BostonMaggie).
06/23 10:18 AM
Iran
CAIR
Al-Qaida Angle Emerges in CAIR-Tied Terror Case
By Paul Sperry
FrontPageMagazine.com June 22, 2007
It started out as an investigation into U.S.-based financing of Hamas terrorist operations, which was bad enough. But as federal investigators developed a matrix of suspects, they discovered a possible 9/11 connection.
The Holy Land Foundation terror case has already touched the top Muslim lobby in Washington -- the Council on American-Islamic Relations -- which U.S. prosecutors recently named as an unindicted co-conspirator.
A former senior CAIR official is among five indicted figures in the major terror-funding case. It turns out he is related by marriage to a key suspect in the conspiracy -- a radical Muslim cleric and activist who authorities have linked to al-Qaida.
In fact, they say the cleric is closely connected to the spiritual adviser to the 9/11 hijackers.
Federal investigators have learned that imam Mohammed El-Mezain -- who goes on trial next month with one of CAIR's founding board members -- once lived in the same small Colorado apartment complex with another imam accused of preparing some of the hijackers for their "martyrdom" operation.
Read the rest HERE
Terror
By Paul Sperry
FrontPageMagazine.com June 22, 2007
It started out as an investigation into U.S.-based financing of Hamas terrorist operations, which was bad enough. But as federal investigators developed a matrix of suspects, they discovered a possible 9/11 connection.
The Holy Land Foundation terror case has already touched the top Muslim lobby in Washington -- the Council on American-Islamic Relations -- which U.S. prosecutors recently named as an unindicted co-conspirator.
A former senior CAIR official is among five indicted figures in the major terror-funding case. It turns out he is related by marriage to a key suspect in the conspiracy -- a radical Muslim cleric and activist who authorities have linked to al-Qaida.
In fact, they say the cleric is closely connected to the spiritual adviser to the 9/11 hijackers.
Federal investigators have learned that imam Mohammed El-Mezain -- who goes on trial next month with one of CAIR's founding board members -- once lived in the same small Colorado apartment complex with another imam accused of preparing some of the hijackers for their "martyrdom" operation.
Read the rest HERE
Terror
Thursday, June 21, 2007
It's Moving Night
It's Moving NightIt's moving night, They've packed their things and spread their wings. Time to go where the cool waters flow, the flowers bloom, and all things are green. If you see a flicker out of the corner of your eye, or think you here a gentle sigh. Remember it's moving night the Fay have taken flight.
Faeries
The Fairness Doctrine
This Is Not Progress
The Center for American Progress and Free Press (yeh, right) is a sleazy operation. It was set-up by Bill Clinton's impeachment chief of staff, John Podesta, and is run by him today. It is no coincidence that Podesta would issue this report now, as its purpose is to help Hillary Clinton by unleashing yet another assault on talk radio. Groups like this claim to speak for the public and wrap themselves in fairness and equality. But their purpose is to intimidate radio executives. The fact is that the Clintons and the Democrat Party created Air America. It is a failure. The public has tuned it out and it doesn't get ratings. And before Air America, the public rejected such short-lived liberal hosts as Mario Cuomo and Jesse Jackson. Talk radio is the most democratic broadcast forum in existence. Competition is fierce between hosts, between companies, and even with hosts within the same companies. Talk radio must also compete with all the other offerings in radio — including all news, sports, urban, rock-and-roll, hip-hop, business, Spanish, etc. There has never been more diversity in programming. Talk radio must also compete with IPods, Internet broadcasting, and other technologies that offer entertainment and content.
In the name of speech and competition, the report calls for severe government regulation of talk radio.
The Center for American Progress and Free Press is an IRS designated tax-exempt 501 (C)(3) organization, based on its representation to the IRS that it is a non-partisan group operating in the public interest. My guess is that Podesta is in regular communication with the Clinton campaign and he or others may well be coordinating some of their activities on her behalf and on behalf of the Democrat Party. A tax-exempt group must not participate in partisan political activity. If an investigation is warranted, it seems to me the IRS ought to look at the Center for American Progress's tax status — in the public interest, of course.
UPDATE: http://michellemalkin.com/
UPDATE II: Look at the Center for American Progress's deep ties to Democrat funders and operatives. Here, here, here, and here.
Here's an excerpt from Frontpagemag.com:
The institutional manifestation of the Hillary-Soros axis is a group called the Center for American Progress, whose president John Podesta formerly served as chief of staff to the Clinton White House. Hillary has no official connection to the Center. However, her dominance of the organization seems to be something of an open secret among leftists. One insider told a UPI reporter that the Center is “the official Hillary Clinton think tank.” Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation wrote of the Center, “It’s not completely wrong to see it as a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White House-in-exile – or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton.” The Center for American Progress received its start-up funding from Soros and was, in fact, Soros’ brainchild.
06/21 12:01 AM
by Mark Levin
The Center for American Progress and Free Press (yeh, right) is a sleazy operation. It was set-up by Bill Clinton's impeachment chief of staff, John Podesta, and is run by him today. It is no coincidence that Podesta would issue this report now, as its purpose is to help Hillary Clinton by unleashing yet another assault on talk radio. Groups like this claim to speak for the public and wrap themselves in fairness and equality. But their purpose is to intimidate radio executives. The fact is that the Clintons and the Democrat Party created Air America. It is a failure. The public has tuned it out and it doesn't get ratings. And before Air America, the public rejected such short-lived liberal hosts as Mario Cuomo and Jesse Jackson. Talk radio is the most democratic broadcast forum in existence. Competition is fierce between hosts, between companies, and even with hosts within the same companies. Talk radio must also compete with all the other offerings in radio — including all news, sports, urban, rock-and-roll, hip-hop, business, Spanish, etc. There has never been more diversity in programming. Talk radio must also compete with IPods, Internet broadcasting, and other technologies that offer entertainment and content.
In the name of speech and competition, the report calls for severe government regulation of talk radio.
The Center for American Progress and Free Press is an IRS designated tax-exempt 501 (C)(3) organization, based on its representation to the IRS that it is a non-partisan group operating in the public interest. My guess is that Podesta is in regular communication with the Clinton campaign and he or others may well be coordinating some of their activities on her behalf and on behalf of the Democrat Party. A tax-exempt group must not participate in partisan political activity. If an investigation is warranted, it seems to me the IRS ought to look at the Center for American Progress's tax status — in the public interest, of course.
UPDATE: http://michellemalkin.com/
UPDATE II: Look at the Center for American Progress's deep ties to Democrat funders and operatives. Here, here, here, and here.
Here's an excerpt from Frontpagemag.com:
The institutional manifestation of the Hillary-Soros axis is a group called the Center for American Progress, whose president John Podesta formerly served as chief of staff to the Clinton White House. Hillary has no official connection to the Center. However, her dominance of the organization seems to be something of an open secret among leftists. One insider told a UPI reporter that the Center is “the official Hillary Clinton think tank.” Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation wrote of the Center, “It’s not completely wrong to see it as a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White House-in-exile – or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton.” The Center for American Progress received its start-up funding from Soros and was, in fact, Soros’ brainchild.
06/21 12:01 AM
by Mark Levin
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
We built the Hoover Dam in 5 years, but we can't build a fence on our Southern Border
I came across an interesting article in the Houston Chronicle. It talks about the more than 120,000 Mexican soldiers that have deserted the Mexican army. These 120,000 have deserted in the eight years since the Zetas were organized. The Zetas are highly trained military officers mostly trained by us here in the US, that have deserted the Mexican army to act as the military arm of the drug cartels. The Zetas provide security for the drug traffic across our border. The article follows the line of thinking of why they deserted, how poorly the Mexicans treat their military personnel, blah blah blah.
The thought that struck me was my god we have a standing army of over 100,000 men on our border who's soul mission is to violate our border and bring in drugs or anything else (WMDs) that they as paid mercenaries are commissioned to bring into the US.
Yet we have assholes in Washington who think a fence isn't necessary on the border. These are the same federal idiots that are prosecuting our border guards for shooting at drug traffickers in self defence and are calling us hate mongering bigots because we are demanding that they do their job and protect us from the ILLEGAL traffic at our border.
The McCain-Kennedy Amnesty bill must be defeated, and we must insist that these assholes in DC do their only real Constitutional duty and provide for our defence.
Illegals
Border
The thought that struck me was my god we have a standing army of over 100,000 men on our border who's soul mission is to violate our border and bring in drugs or anything else (WMDs) that they as paid mercenaries are commissioned to bring into the US.
Yet we have assholes in Washington who think a fence isn't necessary on the border. These are the same federal idiots that are prosecuting our border guards for shooting at drug traffickers in self defence and are calling us hate mongering bigots because we are demanding that they do their job and protect us from the ILLEGAL traffic at our border.
The McCain-Kennedy Amnesty bill must be defeated, and we must insist that these assholes in DC do their only real Constitutional duty and provide for our defence.
Illegals
Border
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Reading Harry Reid
By Fred Thompson
Monday, June 18, 2007
Well, you've heard by now that Senate leader Harry Reid insulted one of this country's brightest military minds, Marine Corps General Peter Pace -- calling him "incompetent." Let me take a few moments to put this in context.
First, Harry Reid voted for the war, like a majority of our legislators. America decided as a nation to free Iraq and the region from Saddam Hussein's tyranny. I have friends, both Democrat and Republican, who questioned the decision at the time, but the Republic made a commitment based on constitutional and democratic procedures. So they are now a hundred percent committed to moving forward in a way that’s best for our country. None of them, by the way, believe surrendering to the forces of terror in Iraq is what's best for our country.
Harry Reid, though, has taken a different route. He made his statement about General Pace on a conference call with fringe elements of the blogosphere who think we're the bad guys. This is a place where even those who think the 9/11 attacks were an inside job find a home.
And why shouldn't they think that? Reid has led the attack on the administration, with Nancy Pelosi, charging it lied and tricked America into supporting the war. Ignoring multiple hearings and investigations into pre-war intelligence findings that have debunked this paranoid myth, they accuse an entire administration of conspiracy to trick us into a war.
I suppose that's easier for some than admitting that they've flip flopped -- but the fact that Reid says this sinister Republican plot is going to help him elect more Democrats ought to be raising a few flags. Saying General Pace is incompetent doesn't even rank near the top of his bizarre statements.
How could anyone possibly believe, as Reid charges, that our commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, is out of touch with what's going on. Surely someone in Reid's position would know that Petraeus is briefed daily on all aspects of Iraq -- from civil to military. Surely he has to know that Petraeus is a true warrior scholar who literally wrote the Army's book on counterinsurgency warfare.
But Reid's comments are not meant for logical analysis. He proclaimed the war lost some time ago, and the surge as a failure even before the additional troops were on the ground. The problem is that every one of Reid's comments I've noted here has also been reported gleefully by Al Jazeera and other anti-American media. Whether he means to or not, he’s encouraging our enemies to believe that they are winning the critical war of will.
Thompson
Monday, June 18, 2007
Well, you've heard by now that Senate leader Harry Reid insulted one of this country's brightest military minds, Marine Corps General Peter Pace -- calling him "incompetent." Let me take a few moments to put this in context.
First, Harry Reid voted for the war, like a majority of our legislators. America decided as a nation to free Iraq and the region from Saddam Hussein's tyranny. I have friends, both Democrat and Republican, who questioned the decision at the time, but the Republic made a commitment based on constitutional and democratic procedures. So they are now a hundred percent committed to moving forward in a way that’s best for our country. None of them, by the way, believe surrendering to the forces of terror in Iraq is what's best for our country.
Harry Reid, though, has taken a different route. He made his statement about General Pace on a conference call with fringe elements of the blogosphere who think we're the bad guys. This is a place where even those who think the 9/11 attacks were an inside job find a home.
And why shouldn't they think that? Reid has led the attack on the administration, with Nancy Pelosi, charging it lied and tricked America into supporting the war. Ignoring multiple hearings and investigations into pre-war intelligence findings that have debunked this paranoid myth, they accuse an entire administration of conspiracy to trick us into a war.
I suppose that's easier for some than admitting that they've flip flopped -- but the fact that Reid says this sinister Republican plot is going to help him elect more Democrats ought to be raising a few flags. Saying General Pace is incompetent doesn't even rank near the top of his bizarre statements.
How could anyone possibly believe, as Reid charges, that our commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, is out of touch with what's going on. Surely someone in Reid's position would know that Petraeus is briefed daily on all aspects of Iraq -- from civil to military. Surely he has to know that Petraeus is a true warrior scholar who literally wrote the Army's book on counterinsurgency warfare.
But Reid's comments are not meant for logical analysis. He proclaimed the war lost some time ago, and the surge as a failure even before the additional troops were on the ground. The problem is that every one of Reid's comments I've noted here has also been reported gleefully by Al Jazeera and other anti-American media. Whether he means to or not, he’s encouraging our enemies to believe that they are winning the critical war of will.
Thompson
Monday, June 18, 2007
GOP runs a big risk of losing Hispanics
That headline and assumption are bullshit. This is a myth that arises every time ILLEGAL immigration comes up.
In the article from Clint Bolick the director of the Goldwater Institute Center for Constitutional Litigation and a research fellow with the Hoover Institution. He lists all the reasons that the GOP is going to lose all the Hispanic votes, except he gets it all wrong. He starts his article with this statement:
Anti-immigration conservatives are subjecting U.S. Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain to blistering attacks over their pivotal role in the comprehensive immigration bill currently on life support in Congress. But if they get their way and the bill dies, so too may Republican electoral prospects for the foreseeable future.
That's just pure nonsense. First of all Kyl and McCain deserve every bit of crap that they are getting for trying to push this monstrosity down the American public throat.
Second this genius Clint Bolick starts his story with "Anti-immigration conservatives". The people who oppose this bill are NOT Anti-immigration they are Anti-ILLEGAL-immigration. There is a big difference between the two, unless of course you are a Democrat or an Illegal. It's a bitch that something trivial like THE LAW gets in their way.
In this paragraph Bolick comes to several wrong conclusions, and stumbles on a correct one but for the wrong reason:
Hispanic support for Republican candidates plummeted by 10 points, to 30 percent from 40 percent, between the 2004 presidential election to the 2006 congressional election debacle, costing the GOP as many as four congressional seats. In next year's presidential election, Hispanic votes could make the difference in four Western states, including Arizona. If Republicans continue chasing Hispanic voters away, they can kiss their national electoral prospects goodbye.
Hispanic support may have dropped, but this bill would not reverse that trend at all. The reason the GOP blew the 06 elections was because they refused to deal with ILLEGAL-immigration and they handled spending like drunken sailors. The base refused to support people that don't support them. It's as simple as that. By passing this bill the GOP would not gain a single vote. There are several reasons for this. The first is it doesn't create any new voters in the system. The second anyone that feels they have a right to break the law and are entitled to citizenship would automatically be a Democrat not a Republican. As I said he does get one thing right If Republicans continue chasing their base voters away, they can kiss their national electoral prospects goodbye. They don't need to worry about the Hispanics.
In this paragraph he completely misrepresents who the Republican voters are, and what the incumbents did prior to the last election:
The GOP didn't reap a huge windfall by going nativist. Even among voters most energized by the immigration issue, Republican candidates edged out Democrats by a paltry 3 percent, hardly the political tsunami anti-immigration activists forecast. Overall, voters preferred comprehensive immigration reform to an enforcement-only approach by 57 percent to 38 percent.
I notice he doesn't mention the current polls that show 80% of Americans (that's from both parties) say this bill is crap. The Republicans did NOTHING before the 06 elections on immigration that's why they didn't get the support you ass. Their lack of achievement is what kept voters away.
After these idiotic statements Bolick pleads a case for outreach to the hispanic community. His plans are basic and note worthy and you can read them and his whole article HERE .
My problem with this whole line of thinking in the above statements is simply that Bolick and a lot of others just don't get it. The ILLEGAL-IMMIGRATION issue is at this time on the right the major litmus test for Republican politicians.
Last October they passed a bill creating an 800 mile long fence, but typical of politicians they cut the funding for it, and have built only 2 miles. NO ONE trusts them on securing the border. Yet they want us to trust them to do it if they give 10-20 Million ILLEGALS AMNESTY.
SECURE THE BORDER FIRST AND SEPARATE FROM DEALING WITH THE ILLEGALS THAT ARE ALREADY HERE THEN WE CAN TALK AMNESTY
Illegals
immigration
In the article from Clint Bolick the director of the Goldwater Institute Center for Constitutional Litigation and a research fellow with the Hoover Institution. He lists all the reasons that the GOP is going to lose all the Hispanic votes, except he gets it all wrong. He starts his article with this statement:
Anti-immigration conservatives are subjecting U.S. Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain to blistering attacks over their pivotal role in the comprehensive immigration bill currently on life support in Congress. But if they get their way and the bill dies, so too may Republican electoral prospects for the foreseeable future.
That's just pure nonsense. First of all Kyl and McCain deserve every bit of crap that they are getting for trying to push this monstrosity down the American public throat.
Second this genius Clint Bolick starts his story with "Anti-immigration conservatives". The people who oppose this bill are NOT Anti-immigration they are Anti-ILLEGAL-immigration. There is a big difference between the two, unless of course you are a Democrat or an Illegal. It's a bitch that something trivial like THE LAW gets in their way.
In this paragraph Bolick comes to several wrong conclusions, and stumbles on a correct one but for the wrong reason:
Hispanic support for Republican candidates plummeted by 10 points, to 30 percent from 40 percent, between the 2004 presidential election to the 2006 congressional election debacle, costing the GOP as many as four congressional seats. In next year's presidential election, Hispanic votes could make the difference in four Western states, including Arizona. If Republicans continue chasing Hispanic voters away, they can kiss their national electoral prospects goodbye.
Hispanic support may have dropped, but this bill would not reverse that trend at all. The reason the GOP blew the 06 elections was because they refused to deal with ILLEGAL-immigration and they handled spending like drunken sailors. The base refused to support people that don't support them. It's as simple as that. By passing this bill the GOP would not gain a single vote. There are several reasons for this. The first is it doesn't create any new voters in the system. The second anyone that feels they have a right to break the law and are entitled to citizenship would automatically be a Democrat not a Republican. As I said he does get one thing right If Republicans continue chasing their base voters away, they can kiss their national electoral prospects goodbye. They don't need to worry about the Hispanics.
In this paragraph he completely misrepresents who the Republican voters are, and what the incumbents did prior to the last election:
The GOP didn't reap a huge windfall by going nativist. Even among voters most energized by the immigration issue, Republican candidates edged out Democrats by a paltry 3 percent, hardly the political tsunami anti-immigration activists forecast. Overall, voters preferred comprehensive immigration reform to an enforcement-only approach by 57 percent to 38 percent.
I notice he doesn't mention the current polls that show 80% of Americans (that's from both parties) say this bill is crap. The Republicans did NOTHING before the 06 elections on immigration that's why they didn't get the support you ass. Their lack of achievement is what kept voters away.
After these idiotic statements Bolick pleads a case for outreach to the hispanic community. His plans are basic and note worthy and you can read them and his whole article HERE .
My problem with this whole line of thinking in the above statements is simply that Bolick and a lot of others just don't get it. The ILLEGAL-IMMIGRATION issue is at this time on the right the major litmus test for Republican politicians.
Last October they passed a bill creating an 800 mile long fence, but typical of politicians they cut the funding for it, and have built only 2 miles. NO ONE trusts them on securing the border. Yet they want us to trust them to do it if they give 10-20 Million ILLEGALS AMNESTY.
SECURE THE BORDER FIRST AND SEPARATE FROM DEALING WITH THE ILLEGALS THAT ARE ALREADY HERE THEN WE CAN TALK AMNESTY
Illegals
immigration
Saturday, June 16, 2007
I Love Lieberman
Facts on the Ground (CM)
Sen. Joe Lieberman reports on his recent visit to Iraq:
The officials I met in Baghdad said that 90% of suicide bombings in Iraq today are the work of non-Iraqi, al Qaeda terrorists. In fact, al Qaeda's leaders have repeatedly said that Iraq is the central front of their global war against us. That is why it is nonsensical for anyone to claim that the war in Iraq can be separated from the war against al Qaeda -- and why a U.S. pullout, under fire, would represent an epic victory for al Qaeda, as significant as their attacks on 9/11.
Some of my colleagues in Washington claim we can fight al Qaeda in Iraq while disengaging from the sectarian violence there. Not so, say our commanders in Baghdad, who point out that the crux of al Qaeda's strategy is to spark Iraqi civil war.
Al Qaeda is launching spectacular terrorist bombings in Iraq, such as the despicable attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra this week, to try to provoke sectarian violence. Its obvious aim is to use Sunni-Shia bloodshed to collapse the Iraqi government and create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, radicalizing the region and providing a base from which to launch terrorist attacks against the West.
Facts on the ground also compel us to recognize that Iran is doing everything in its power to drive us out of Iraq, including providing substantive support, training and sophisticated explosive devices to insurgents who are murdering American soldiers. Iran has initiated a deadly military confrontation with us, from bases in Iran, which we ignore at our peril, and at the peril of our allies throughout the Middle East.
The precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces would not only throw open large parts of Iraq to domination by the radical regime in Tehran, it would also send an unmistakable message to the entire Middle East--from Lebanon to Gaza to the Persian Gulf where Iranian agents are threatening our allies--that Iran is ascendant there, and America is in retreat. One Arab leader told me during my trip that he is extremely concerned about Tehran's nuclear ambitions, but that he doubted America's staying power in the region and our political will to protect his country from Iranian retaliation over the long term. Abandoning Iraq now would substantiate precisely these gathering fears across the Middle East that the U.S. is becoming an unreliable ally. …
Some argue that the new strategy is failing because, despite gains in Baghdad and Anbar, violence has increased elsewhere in the country, such as Diyala province. This gets things backwards: Our troops have succeeded in improving security conditions in precisely those parts of Iraq where the "surge" has focused. Al Qaeda has shifted its operations to places like Diyala in large measure because we have made progress in pushing them out of Anbar and Baghdad. The question now is, do we consolidate and build on the successes that the new strategy has achieved, keeping al Qaeda on the run, or do we abandon them? …
While benchmarks are critically important, American soldiers are not fighting in Iraq today only so that Iraqis can pass a law to share oil revenues. They are fighting because a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, overrun by al Qaeda and Iran, would be a catastrophe for American national security and our safety here at home. They are fighting al Qaeda and agents of Iran in order to create the stability in Iraq that will allow its government to take over, to achieve the national reconciliation that will enable them to pass the oil law and other benchmark legislation. …
I returned from Iraq grateful for the progress I saw and painfully aware of the difficult problems that remain ahead. But I also returned with a renewed understanding of how important it is that we not abandon Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran, so long as victory there is still possible.
Read the rest here.
Posted by Cliff May at 09:59 AM
Iraq
Sen. Joe Lieberman reports on his recent visit to Iraq:
The officials I met in Baghdad said that 90% of suicide bombings in Iraq today are the work of non-Iraqi, al Qaeda terrorists. In fact, al Qaeda's leaders have repeatedly said that Iraq is the central front of their global war against us. That is why it is nonsensical for anyone to claim that the war in Iraq can be separated from the war against al Qaeda -- and why a U.S. pullout, under fire, would represent an epic victory for al Qaeda, as significant as their attacks on 9/11.
Some of my colleagues in Washington claim we can fight al Qaeda in Iraq while disengaging from the sectarian violence there. Not so, say our commanders in Baghdad, who point out that the crux of al Qaeda's strategy is to spark Iraqi civil war.
Al Qaeda is launching spectacular terrorist bombings in Iraq, such as the despicable attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra this week, to try to provoke sectarian violence. Its obvious aim is to use Sunni-Shia bloodshed to collapse the Iraqi government and create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, radicalizing the region and providing a base from which to launch terrorist attacks against the West.
Facts on the ground also compel us to recognize that Iran is doing everything in its power to drive us out of Iraq, including providing substantive support, training and sophisticated explosive devices to insurgents who are murdering American soldiers. Iran has initiated a deadly military confrontation with us, from bases in Iran, which we ignore at our peril, and at the peril of our allies throughout the Middle East.
The precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces would not only throw open large parts of Iraq to domination by the radical regime in Tehran, it would also send an unmistakable message to the entire Middle East--from Lebanon to Gaza to the Persian Gulf where Iranian agents are threatening our allies--that Iran is ascendant there, and America is in retreat. One Arab leader told me during my trip that he is extremely concerned about Tehran's nuclear ambitions, but that he doubted America's staying power in the region and our political will to protect his country from Iranian retaliation over the long term. Abandoning Iraq now would substantiate precisely these gathering fears across the Middle East that the U.S. is becoming an unreliable ally. …
Some argue that the new strategy is failing because, despite gains in Baghdad and Anbar, violence has increased elsewhere in the country, such as Diyala province. This gets things backwards: Our troops have succeeded in improving security conditions in precisely those parts of Iraq where the "surge" has focused. Al Qaeda has shifted its operations to places like Diyala in large measure because we have made progress in pushing them out of Anbar and Baghdad. The question now is, do we consolidate and build on the successes that the new strategy has achieved, keeping al Qaeda on the run, or do we abandon them? …
While benchmarks are critically important, American soldiers are not fighting in Iraq today only so that Iraqis can pass a law to share oil revenues. They are fighting because a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, overrun by al Qaeda and Iran, would be a catastrophe for American national security and our safety here at home. They are fighting al Qaeda and agents of Iran in order to create the stability in Iraq that will allow its government to take over, to achieve the national reconciliation that will enable them to pass the oil law and other benchmark legislation. …
I returned from Iraq grateful for the progress I saw and painfully aware of the difficult problems that remain ahead. But I also returned with a renewed understanding of how important it is that we not abandon Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran, so long as victory there is still possible.
Read the rest here.
Posted by Cliff May at 09:59 AM
Iraq
Another Don't Pee down my back and tell me it's raining story!
Bush Backs Security Funding as Lawmakers Seek Accord (Update4)
By James Rowley and Brendan Murray
June 14 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush endorsed a plan to speed funds to border security projects as Senate negotiators reported progress toward reviving stalled immigration legislation. (an attempt to silence us bigoted hordes that believe in law)
``I support an amendment that will provide $4.4 billion in immediate additional funding for securing our borders and enforcing our laws at the worksite,'' Bush said at a speech to the Associated Builders and Contractors. in Washington. The money ``will come from the fines and penalties that we collect from those who have come to our country illegally.'' (I love it he's saying I'll give you the money for the fence but he'll get the money by fining the people they say they can't catch...LOL )
The plan to create a mandatory spending fund for border enforcement is intended to attract support for the immigration overhaul from Republicans, who are concerned that the legislation doesn't sufficiently emphasize border security. (because it doesn't)
Bush's endorsement ``could break the logjam'' preventing Senate action on the legislation because ``it will give the American people confidence'' that border security will be tightened,'' said Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican. (#1 Arlen Specter is not a Republican he's an ASS, and #2 Nothing done with this Bill will give the 80% of the American public confidence that this government will secure our borders. Adding IMAGINARY FUNDS to finish the fence will not buy them cover for giving AMNESTY to 10-20 MILIION ILLEGALS)
Specter said border enforcement was the chief concern raised by lawmakers when Bush went to Capitol Hill this week to try to persuade Republican senators to back the measure. The legislation, one of Bush's top legislative priorities, would offer legal status for 12 million undocumented aliens. It would also create a temporary worker program. (it will make every ILLEGAL in the country LEGAL no matter if they are mexican or Iranian, And the only reason the LAWMAKERS are concerned about the security issue is because all their offices have been overwhelmed by phonecalls, letters and e-mails from the people that VOTE)
`Political Courage'
``We've got to summon the political courage to move forward on comprehensive reform,'' Bush said. ``Doing nothing is not a solution.'' (Yes they must have the courage to be voted out of office by their constituants. This is the issue that gave the Dems control of the house and senate, it is also the issue that will gurantee that they keep that control)
Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl called Bush's endorsement of the fund a ``huge'' boost to the measure's prospects. Kyl and South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, who first proposed the security fund, said Bush's support will help them persuade the Senate's Democratic leaders to resume debate on the measure as early as next week. (allowing the Senate Republicans to continue their march off the cliff in political suicide)
The immigration legislation stalled last week when senators refused to end debate and move to a final vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid shelved it after lawmakers couldn't agree on limiting the number of amendments to be considered.
California Democrat Dianne Feinstein said negotiators have a ``general'' agreement to allow votes on 10 Republican amendments and nine from Democrats.
Lawmakers and legislative aides who briefed reporters stressed there were still details to work out.
`Still Talking'
Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said a deal wasn't yet ready to take to Reid. ``We're still talking about it,'' he said. (they better be talking about what they are going to be doing for a living after the next election, because a large number of them will no longer be in the Senate)
The $4.4 billion should help ease ``honest skepticism'' about the legislation from ``those who want to make sure the government is going to put their money where their mouth is,'' Graham said.
That skepticism and distrust arose because Congress didn't take adequate steps to stem the tide of illegal immigration when it enacted legislation in 1986 to legalize the status of 3 million undocumented aliens then in the U.S., Graham said. (yes they peed down our backs then also, this reporter also forgets to mention the main reason for the distrust. The fact that they passed a law last october that an 800 mile long fence was to be built and then they cut the funding and have built a whopping 2 MILE long fence. )
Still, Georgia Republican Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson said the $4.4 billion fund wouldn't meet their demand for a supplemental appropriation to finance border security and enforcement.
The president needs to ask Congress for the amount of money he thinks he needs to ``fully secure the border,'' Chambliss said. ``I don't think we could have been any stronger in emphasizing that to him the other day.''
`Last Minute'
South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint said in a statement that ``this funding should have been supported all along, not offered at the last minute to attract votes to a bad bill.'' (the funding should have been done first and seperatly from any AMNESTY)
When the proposal was first raised about a month ago ``it got discouraged by'' Rob Portman, the president's budget director, said Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the chief Democratic negotiator. (also the chief negotiator in 86 )
Besides providing financing for border enforcement, the Graham-Kyl proposal is designed to deter future illegal entry by making it a crime for foreigners to overstay travel or student visas.
``Where there was lack of deterrence'' in the 1986 immigration law, ``we are going to create deterrence,'' Graham said. (BULLSHIT)
The amendment would require the government to set up a tracking system so law enforcement can easily determine if visitors have overstayed visas, as several of the participants in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks did.
To contact the reporters on this story: Brendan Murray at bmurray@bloomberg.net ; James Rowley in Washington at jarowley@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: June 14, 2007 17:57 EDT
Illegals
immigration
By James Rowley and Brendan Murray
June 14 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush endorsed a plan to speed funds to border security projects as Senate negotiators reported progress toward reviving stalled immigration legislation. (an attempt to silence us bigoted hordes that believe in law)
``I support an amendment that will provide $4.4 billion in immediate additional funding for securing our borders and enforcing our laws at the worksite,'' Bush said at a speech to the Associated Builders and Contractors. in Washington. The money ``will come from the fines and penalties that we collect from those who have come to our country illegally.'' (I love it he's saying I'll give you the money for the fence but he'll get the money by fining the people they say they can't catch...LOL )
The plan to create a mandatory spending fund for border enforcement is intended to attract support for the immigration overhaul from Republicans, who are concerned that the legislation doesn't sufficiently emphasize border security. (because it doesn't)
Bush's endorsement ``could break the logjam'' preventing Senate action on the legislation because ``it will give the American people confidence'' that border security will be tightened,'' said Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican. (#1 Arlen Specter is not a Republican he's an ASS, and #2 Nothing done with this Bill will give the 80% of the American public confidence that this government will secure our borders. Adding IMAGINARY FUNDS to finish the fence will not buy them cover for giving AMNESTY to 10-20 MILIION ILLEGALS)
Specter said border enforcement was the chief concern raised by lawmakers when Bush went to Capitol Hill this week to try to persuade Republican senators to back the measure. The legislation, one of Bush's top legislative priorities, would offer legal status for 12 million undocumented aliens. It would also create a temporary worker program. (it will make every ILLEGAL in the country LEGAL no matter if they are mexican or Iranian, And the only reason the LAWMAKERS are concerned about the security issue is because all their offices have been overwhelmed by phonecalls, letters and e-mails from the people that VOTE)
`Political Courage'
``We've got to summon the political courage to move forward on comprehensive reform,'' Bush said. ``Doing nothing is not a solution.'' (Yes they must have the courage to be voted out of office by their constituants. This is the issue that gave the Dems control of the house and senate, it is also the issue that will gurantee that they keep that control)
Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl called Bush's endorsement of the fund a ``huge'' boost to the measure's prospects. Kyl and South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, who first proposed the security fund, said Bush's support will help them persuade the Senate's Democratic leaders to resume debate on the measure as early as next week. (allowing the Senate Republicans to continue their march off the cliff in political suicide)
The immigration legislation stalled last week when senators refused to end debate and move to a final vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid shelved it after lawmakers couldn't agree on limiting the number of amendments to be considered.
California Democrat Dianne Feinstein said negotiators have a ``general'' agreement to allow votes on 10 Republican amendments and nine from Democrats.
Lawmakers and legislative aides who briefed reporters stressed there were still details to work out.
`Still Talking'
Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said a deal wasn't yet ready to take to Reid. ``We're still talking about it,'' he said. (they better be talking about what they are going to be doing for a living after the next election, because a large number of them will no longer be in the Senate)
The $4.4 billion should help ease ``honest skepticism'' about the legislation from ``those who want to make sure the government is going to put their money where their mouth is,'' Graham said.
That skepticism and distrust arose because Congress didn't take adequate steps to stem the tide of illegal immigration when it enacted legislation in 1986 to legalize the status of 3 million undocumented aliens then in the U.S., Graham said. (yes they peed down our backs then also, this reporter also forgets to mention the main reason for the distrust. The fact that they passed a law last october that an 800 mile long fence was to be built and then they cut the funding and have built a whopping 2 MILE long fence. )
Still, Georgia Republican Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson said the $4.4 billion fund wouldn't meet their demand for a supplemental appropriation to finance border security and enforcement.
The president needs to ask Congress for the amount of money he thinks he needs to ``fully secure the border,'' Chambliss said. ``I don't think we could have been any stronger in emphasizing that to him the other day.''
`Last Minute'
South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint said in a statement that ``this funding should have been supported all along, not offered at the last minute to attract votes to a bad bill.'' (the funding should have been done first and seperatly from any AMNESTY)
When the proposal was first raised about a month ago ``it got discouraged by'' Rob Portman, the president's budget director, said Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the chief Democratic negotiator. (also the chief negotiator in 86 )
Besides providing financing for border enforcement, the Graham-Kyl proposal is designed to deter future illegal entry by making it a crime for foreigners to overstay travel or student visas.
``Where there was lack of deterrence'' in the 1986 immigration law, ``we are going to create deterrence,'' Graham said. (BULLSHIT)
The amendment would require the government to set up a tracking system so law enforcement can easily determine if visitors have overstayed visas, as several of the participants in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks did.
To contact the reporters on this story: Brendan Murray at bmurray@bloomberg.net ; James Rowley in Washington at jarowley@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: June 14, 2007 17:57 EDT
Illegals
immigration
Thursday, June 14, 2007
On Flag Day
There was a poem I can't remember about this flag a fallen....
I am going off topic....
Anybody payin attention?
Israel is about to be engaged in a two front war. With hezboohah attacking from one side and hamass attacking from the other.
Gaza has been flooded with rocketry and heavy explosives through egypt and lebenon arms brought in through Syria are at levels higher than they were before last years skirmish, both stockpiles being paid for by Iran.
It is more than likely no matter what you feel about the jews or the jewish state that we will be called to support our only true ally in the region, definitly with arms and possibly troops and air assets.
With the current idiots screaming for immediate surrendor in Iraq and declaring defeat before all the troops are even in place
Here is the question Will this congress allow Israel to be over run?
Sadly I believe it is a real possibility
I am going off topic....
Anybody payin attention?
Israel is about to be engaged in a two front war. With hezboohah attacking from one side and hamass attacking from the other.
Gaza has been flooded with rocketry and heavy explosives through egypt and lebenon arms brought in through Syria are at levels higher than they were before last years skirmish, both stockpiles being paid for by Iran.
It is more than likely no matter what you feel about the jews or the jewish state that we will be called to support our only true ally in the region, definitly with arms and possibly troops and air assets.
With the current idiots screaming for immediate surrendor in Iraq and declaring defeat before all the troops are even in place
Here is the question Will this congress allow Israel to be over run?
Sadly I believe it is a real possibility
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
From FDD
Terror Stats Inflated or Not Inflated? It All Depends on What the Left Wants to Argue (AM)
I just debated an official from Human Rights Watch on the NPR program To the Point. I was astounded to hear her argue that the Justice Department has successfully prosecuted "hundreds of terrorist suspects" since 9/11.
Usually, the Left's position is that the terrorism problem is grossly overstated. The Justice Department, it is claimed, has vastly inflated its terrorism prosecution numbers both to heighten our sense of fear and to appear to be doing something meaningful to protect us.
The Justice Department, of course, does not claim to have prosecuted "hundreds" of people for terrorism offenses; it has investigated hundreds (hopefully, thousands) of people based on rationally grounded fears of terrorist activity or sympathy; but few people are actually charged with terrorism crimes. Many, instead, are deported or prosecuted for less serious offenses uncovered in the course of the investigations. This allows the government to neutralize them without having to compromise intelligence that it may not be able to use in court — because using it would reveal vital sources and methods of intelligence gathering, or would induce foreign intelligence services to stop telling us things, which would make us significantly less safe.
So why now, all of a sudden, is one of the leading "progressive" organizations, HRW, suggesting that Justice has actually racked up "hundreds" of successful prosecutions? Because of yesterday's Fourth Circuit decision in the al-Marri enemy-combatant case (which I write about, here). By a 2-1 ruling, the court held that an alien terrorist who is lawfully in the United States may not be held without trial as an enemy combatant. He must, the court said, be handed over to the civilian courts for trial, deported or released — which, of course, means either giving jihadists lavish discovery of our intelligence while the war is going on, or letting them go to rejoin the jihad.
You see? Yesterday, the Left wanted to argue that terrorism prosecutions almost never happen, so DOJ's numbers were inflated and there is no real threat to national security. Today, to defend the al-Marri decision, they want to argue that terrorism trials in the civilian courts happen all the time with no harm to national security, so DOJ's doing a bang-up job and its numbers are just outstanding.
You gotta hand it to these guys. There's always an answer for everything when every day is a new day that wipes the slate clean.
Posted by Cliff May
I just debated an official from Human Rights Watch on the NPR program To the Point. I was astounded to hear her argue that the Justice Department has successfully prosecuted "hundreds of terrorist suspects" since 9/11.
Usually, the Left's position is that the terrorism problem is grossly overstated. The Justice Department, it is claimed, has vastly inflated its terrorism prosecution numbers both to heighten our sense of fear and to appear to be doing something meaningful to protect us.
The Justice Department, of course, does not claim to have prosecuted "hundreds" of people for terrorism offenses; it has investigated hundreds (hopefully, thousands) of people based on rationally grounded fears of terrorist activity or sympathy; but few people are actually charged with terrorism crimes. Many, instead, are deported or prosecuted for less serious offenses uncovered in the course of the investigations. This allows the government to neutralize them without having to compromise intelligence that it may not be able to use in court — because using it would reveal vital sources and methods of intelligence gathering, or would induce foreign intelligence services to stop telling us things, which would make us significantly less safe.
So why now, all of a sudden, is one of the leading "progressive" organizations, HRW, suggesting that Justice has actually racked up "hundreds" of successful prosecutions? Because of yesterday's Fourth Circuit decision in the al-Marri enemy-combatant case (which I write about, here). By a 2-1 ruling, the court held that an alien terrorist who is lawfully in the United States may not be held without trial as an enemy combatant. He must, the court said, be handed over to the civilian courts for trial, deported or released — which, of course, means either giving jihadists lavish discovery of our intelligence while the war is going on, or letting them go to rejoin the jihad.
You see? Yesterday, the Left wanted to argue that terrorism prosecutions almost never happen, so DOJ's numbers were inflated and there is no real threat to national security. Today, to defend the al-Marri decision, they want to argue that terrorism trials in the civilian courts happen all the time with no harm to national security, so DOJ's doing a bang-up job and its numbers are just outstanding.
You gotta hand it to these guys. There's always an answer for everything when every day is a new day that wipes the slate clean.
Posted by Cliff May
Monday, June 11, 2007
A Good Read on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
from the July 06, 2006 edition -
How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico
By John Dillin
WASHINGTON
George W. Bush isn't the first Republican president to face a full-blown immigration crisis on the US-Mexican border.
Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.
President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents - less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.
Although there is little to no record of this operation in Ike's official papers, one piece of historic evidence indicates how he felt. In 1951, Ike wrote a letter to Sen. William Fulbright (D) of Arkansas. The senator had just proposed that a special commission be created by Congress to examine unethical conduct by government officials who accepted gifts and favors in exchange for special treatment of private individuals.
General Eisenhower, who was gearing up for his run for the presidency, said "Amen" to Senator Fulbright's proposal. He then quoted a report in The New York Times, highlighting one paragraph that said: "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."
Years later, the late Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower's first attorney general, said in an interview with this writer that the president had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration when he took office.
America "was faced with a breakdown in law enforcement on a very large scale," Mr. Brownell said. "When I say large scale, I mean hundreds of thousands were coming in from Mexico [every year] without restraint."
Although an on-and-off guest-worker program for Mexicans was operating at the time, farmers and ranchers in the Southwest had become dependent on an additional low-cost, docile, illegal labor force of up to 3 million, mostly Mexican, laborers.
According to the Handbook of Texas Online, published by the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas State Historical Association, this illegal workforce had a severe impact on the wages of ordinary working Americans. The Handbook Online reports that a study by the President's Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas in 1950 found that cotton growers in the Rio Grande Valley, where most illegal aliens in Texas worked, paid wages that were "approximately half" the farm wages paid elsewhere in the state.
Profits from illegal labor led to the kind of corruption that apparently worried Eisenhower. Joseph White, a retired 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol, says that in the early 1950s, some senior US officials overseeing immigration enforcement "had friends among the ranchers," and agents "did not dare" arrest their illegal workers.
Walt Edwards, who joined the Border Patrol in 1951, tells a similar story. He says: "When we caught illegal aliens on farms and ranches, the farmer or rancher would often call and complain [to officials in El Paso]. And depending on how politically connected they were, there would be political intervention. That is how we got into this mess we are in now."
Bill Chambers, who worked for a combined 33 years for the Border Patrol and the then-called US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), says politically powerful people are still fueling the flow of illegals.
During the 1950s, however, this "Good Old Boy" system changed under Eisenhower - if only for about 10 years.
In 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph "Jumpin' Joe" Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner.
Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing's close connections to the president shielded him - and the Border Patrol - from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests.
One of Swing's first decisive acts was to transfer certain entrenched immigration officials out of the border area to other regions of the country where their political connections with people such as Senator Johnson would have no effect.
Then on June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.
By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.
By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.
Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.
Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.
The sea voyage was "a rough trip, and they did not like it," says Don Coppock, who worked his way up from Border Patrolman in 1941 to eventually head the Border Patrol from 1960 to 1973.
Mr. Coppock says he "cannot understand why [President] Bush let [today's] problem get away from him as it has. I guess it was his compassionate conservatism, and trying to please [Mexican President] Vincente Fox."
There are now said to be 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the US. Of the Mexicans who live here, an estimated 85 percent are here illegally.
Border Patrol vets offer tips on curbing illegal immigration
One day in 1954, Border Patrol agent Walt Edwards picked up a newspaper in Big Spring, Texas, and saw some startling news. The government was launching an all-out drive to oust illegal aliens from the United States.
The orders came straight from the top, where the new president, Dwight Eisenhower, had put a former West Point classmate, Gen. Joseph Swing, in charge of immigration enforcement.
General Swing's fast-moving campaign soon secured America's borders - an accomplishment no other president has since equaled. Illegal migration had dropped 95 percent by the late 1950s.
Several retired Border Patrol agents who took part in the 1950s effort, including Mr. Edwards, say much of what Swing did could be repeated today.
"Some say we cannot send 12 million illegals now in the United States back where they came from. Of course we can!" Edwards says.
Donald Coppock, who headed the Patrol from 1960 to 1973, says that if Swing and Ike were still running immigration enforcement, "they'd be on top of this in a minute."
William Chambers, another '50s veteran, agrees. "They could do a pretty good job" sealing the border.
Edwards says: "When we start enforcing the law, these various businesses are, on their own, going to replace their [illegal] workforce with a legal workforce."
While Congress debates building a fence on the border, these veterans say other actions should have higher priority.
1. End the current practice of taking captured Mexican aliens to the border and releasing them. Instead, deport them deep into Mexico, where return to the US would be more costly.
2. Crack down hard on employers who hire illegals. Without jobs, the aliens won't come.
3. End "catch and release" for non-Mexican aliens. It is common for illegal migrants not from Mexico to be set free after their arrest if they promise to appear later before a judge. Few show up.
The Patrol veterans say enforcement could also be aided by a legalized guest- worker program that permits Mexicans to register in their country for temporary jobs in the US. Eisenhower's team ran such a program. It permitted up to 400,000 Mexicans a year to enter the US for various agriculture jobs that lasted for 12 to 52 weeks.
• John Dillin is former managing editor of the Monitor.
Illegals
immigration
How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico
By John Dillin
WASHINGTON
George W. Bush isn't the first Republican president to face a full-blown immigration crisis on the US-Mexican border.
Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.
President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents - less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.
Although there is little to no record of this operation in Ike's official papers, one piece of historic evidence indicates how he felt. In 1951, Ike wrote a letter to Sen. William Fulbright (D) of Arkansas. The senator had just proposed that a special commission be created by Congress to examine unethical conduct by government officials who accepted gifts and favors in exchange for special treatment of private individuals.
General Eisenhower, who was gearing up for his run for the presidency, said "Amen" to Senator Fulbright's proposal. He then quoted a report in The New York Times, highlighting one paragraph that said: "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."
Years later, the late Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower's first attorney general, said in an interview with this writer that the president had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration when he took office.
America "was faced with a breakdown in law enforcement on a very large scale," Mr. Brownell said. "When I say large scale, I mean hundreds of thousands were coming in from Mexico [every year] without restraint."
Although an on-and-off guest-worker program for Mexicans was operating at the time, farmers and ranchers in the Southwest had become dependent on an additional low-cost, docile, illegal labor force of up to 3 million, mostly Mexican, laborers.
According to the Handbook of Texas Online, published by the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas State Historical Association, this illegal workforce had a severe impact on the wages of ordinary working Americans. The Handbook Online reports that a study by the President's Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas in 1950 found that cotton growers in the Rio Grande Valley, where most illegal aliens in Texas worked, paid wages that were "approximately half" the farm wages paid elsewhere in the state.
Profits from illegal labor led to the kind of corruption that apparently worried Eisenhower. Joseph White, a retired 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol, says that in the early 1950s, some senior US officials overseeing immigration enforcement "had friends among the ranchers," and agents "did not dare" arrest their illegal workers.
Walt Edwards, who joined the Border Patrol in 1951, tells a similar story. He says: "When we caught illegal aliens on farms and ranches, the farmer or rancher would often call and complain [to officials in El Paso]. And depending on how politically connected they were, there would be political intervention. That is how we got into this mess we are in now."
Bill Chambers, who worked for a combined 33 years for the Border Patrol and the then-called US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), says politically powerful people are still fueling the flow of illegals.
During the 1950s, however, this "Good Old Boy" system changed under Eisenhower - if only for about 10 years.
In 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph "Jumpin' Joe" Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner.
Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing's close connections to the president shielded him - and the Border Patrol - from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests.
One of Swing's first decisive acts was to transfer certain entrenched immigration officials out of the border area to other regions of the country where their political connections with people such as Senator Johnson would have no effect.
Then on June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.
By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.
By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.
Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.
Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.
The sea voyage was "a rough trip, and they did not like it," says Don Coppock, who worked his way up from Border Patrolman in 1941 to eventually head the Border Patrol from 1960 to 1973.
Mr. Coppock says he "cannot understand why [President] Bush let [today's] problem get away from him as it has. I guess it was his compassionate conservatism, and trying to please [Mexican President] Vincente Fox."
There are now said to be 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the US. Of the Mexicans who live here, an estimated 85 percent are here illegally.
Border Patrol vets offer tips on curbing illegal immigration
One day in 1954, Border Patrol agent Walt Edwards picked up a newspaper in Big Spring, Texas, and saw some startling news. The government was launching an all-out drive to oust illegal aliens from the United States.
The orders came straight from the top, where the new president, Dwight Eisenhower, had put a former West Point classmate, Gen. Joseph Swing, in charge of immigration enforcement.
General Swing's fast-moving campaign soon secured America's borders - an accomplishment no other president has since equaled. Illegal migration had dropped 95 percent by the late 1950s.
Several retired Border Patrol agents who took part in the 1950s effort, including Mr. Edwards, say much of what Swing did could be repeated today.
"Some say we cannot send 12 million illegals now in the United States back where they came from. Of course we can!" Edwards says.
Donald Coppock, who headed the Patrol from 1960 to 1973, says that if Swing and Ike were still running immigration enforcement, "they'd be on top of this in a minute."
William Chambers, another '50s veteran, agrees. "They could do a pretty good job" sealing the border.
Edwards says: "When we start enforcing the law, these various businesses are, on their own, going to replace their [illegal] workforce with a legal workforce."
While Congress debates building a fence on the border, these veterans say other actions should have higher priority.
1. End the current practice of taking captured Mexican aliens to the border and releasing them. Instead, deport them deep into Mexico, where return to the US would be more costly.
2. Crack down hard on employers who hire illegals. Without jobs, the aliens won't come.
3. End "catch and release" for non-Mexican aliens. It is common for illegal migrants not from Mexico to be set free after their arrest if they promise to appear later before a judge. Few show up.
The Patrol veterans say enforcement could also be aided by a legalized guest- worker program that permits Mexicans to register in their country for temporary jobs in the US. Eisenhower's team ran such a program. It permitted up to 400,000 Mexicans a year to enter the US for various agriculture jobs that lasted for 12 to 52 weeks.
• John Dillin is former managing editor of the Monitor.
Illegals
immigration
Stop Looking For Reagan
I loved Ronald Reagan, he was the epitome of what is America.
What I don't like and see a danger in is this insistence that the Republican Candidate measure up to RR. It ain't gonna happen. It's stupid, and dangerous to set that as the benchmark. Yet that is what I see every candidate is measured to that standard and it's a recipe for failure.
Fred Thompson is just the latest victim of this. George Will just did a big article comparing the two men, and if you look you can find an article on every candidate running on the right where the comparison is made.
The conservative base loved Ronny, we still do and we cherish his memory. The Anniversary of his tear down this wall speech is this week, and I will find the tape and listen to it again.
We want Reagan qualities in our nominee. I also want Nixon qualities in him, but what I really want is a nominee that has his own qualities. Someone who will fight the war on terror. Someone who won't fuck up the economy. Someone who can speak in public. Someone who can appoint good people in the key positions and someone that see's the dangers we are facing externally and internally.
Now right now who that person is I don't know yet. The only candidate in the so called top tier that I am sure about is John McCain. I am sure I DON'T WANT THAT IDIOT. As for the rest the jury is still out. Romney I have a lot of doubts about, is he real or just a good politician. Guiliani I like, but other than the war he's a liberal. Thompson is a possibility, but we have to see if he fleshes out once he is actually in the race and then there is Newt. Newt would be perfect but can he build the base momentum to carry him over the assault that will be unleashed on him when he announces in September.
Each of these men have their qualities and their problems. The question is who can get the base out to vote for them, and who can beat the Clinton machine.
NOT who is the most like Ronaldus Maximus.
Reagan
What I don't like and see a danger in is this insistence that the Republican Candidate measure up to RR. It ain't gonna happen. It's stupid, and dangerous to set that as the benchmark. Yet that is what I see every candidate is measured to that standard and it's a recipe for failure.
Fred Thompson is just the latest victim of this. George Will just did a big article comparing the two men, and if you look you can find an article on every candidate running on the right where the comparison is made.
The conservative base loved Ronny, we still do and we cherish his memory. The Anniversary of his tear down this wall speech is this week, and I will find the tape and listen to it again.
We want Reagan qualities in our nominee. I also want Nixon qualities in him, but what I really want is a nominee that has his own qualities. Someone who will fight the war on terror. Someone who won't fuck up the economy. Someone who can speak in public. Someone who can appoint good people in the key positions and someone that see's the dangers we are facing externally and internally.
Now right now who that person is I don't know yet. The only candidate in the so called top tier that I am sure about is John McCain. I am sure I DON'T WANT THAT IDIOT. As for the rest the jury is still out. Romney I have a lot of doubts about, is he real or just a good politician. Guiliani I like, but other than the war he's a liberal. Thompson is a possibility, but we have to see if he fleshes out once he is actually in the race and then there is Newt. Newt would be perfect but can he build the base momentum to carry him over the assault that will be unleashed on him when he announces in September.
Each of these men have their qualities and their problems. The question is who can get the base out to vote for them, and who can beat the Clinton machine.
NOT who is the most like Ronaldus Maximus.
Reagan
Friday, June 08, 2007
A Rare Thing, Something Honest in the NYT
Defeat's Killing Fields: Ignoring Iraqis and Regional Dominoes
[Steve Schippert] of The Tank
This New York Times commentary, "Defeat's Killing Fields," by Peter W. Rodman and William Shawcross requires attention. To cut to the chase:
They are appalling. Yet we allow our political leadership to ignore them at our peril. Furthermore, as much as those critical also often align themselves with the thinking of self-blame for the rise of the jihadi against us (often couched in the caveat of American arrogance or imperialism), what strikes me as profoundly more arrogant is the lack of consideration - across the board - of the Iraqi people and the unthinkable consequences that await them as the price to be paid for a comfort-seeking American disengagement.
Last night, I scribbled this in response to the dismissed consequences and the apparent absence of concern for Iraqis among so many of the ‘champions of compassion’:
Perhaps, in the quiet solitude of night, their conscience knows and quietly begs a way around the darkness that awaits them. Perhaps. Their words and actions, however, give no indication whatsoever.
[Steve Schippert] of The Tank
This New York Times commentary, "Defeat's Killing Fields," by Peter W. Rodman and William Shawcross requires attention. To cut to the chase:
And despite the defeat in 1975, America’s 10 years in Indochina had positive effects. Lee Kuan Yew, then prime minister of Singapore, has well articulated how the consequences would have been worse if the United States had not made the effort in Indochina. “Had there been no U.S. intervention,” he argues, the will of non-communist countries to resist communist revolution in the 1960s “would have melted and Southeast Asia would most likely have gone communist.” The domino theory would have proved correct.
Today, in Iraq, there should be no illusion that defeat would come at an acceptable price. George Orwell wrote that the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. But anyone who thinks an American defeat in Iraq will bring a merciful end to this conflict is deluded. Defeat would produce an explosion of euphoria among all the forces of Islamist extremism, throwing the entire Middle East into even greater upheaval. The likely human and strategic costs are appalling to contemplate. Perhaps that is why so much of the current debate seeks to ignore these consequences.
As in Indochina more than 30 years ago, millions of Iraqis today see the United States helping them defeat their murderous opponents as the only hope for their country. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have committed themselves to working with us and with their democratically elected government to enable their country to rejoin the world as a peaceful, moderate state that is a partner to its neighbors instead of a threat. If we accept defeat, these Iraqis will be at terrible risk. Thousands upon thousands of them will flee, as so many Vietnamese did after 1975.
We are engaged, like it or not, in a larger battle against the mind of the jihadiyun. His psyche is his movement. And to feed it quite unnecessarily in an asymmetric conflict is to build the Messerschmidt’s for the Luftwaffe in 1943. Yet, so invested in military defeat for political victory are much of America’s political leaders that they dare not broach the subject of the dire consequences of their political ‘gains.’ As Rodman and Shawcross put it, "The likely human and strategic costs are appalling to contemplate. Perhaps that is why so much of the current debate seeks to ignore these consequences."
They are appalling. Yet we allow our political leadership to ignore them at our peril. Furthermore, as much as those critical also often align themselves with the thinking of self-blame for the rise of the jihadi against us (often couched in the caveat of American arrogance or imperialism), what strikes me as profoundly more arrogant is the lack of consideration - across the board - of the Iraqi people and the unthinkable consequences that await them as the price to be paid for a comfort-seeking American disengagement.
Last night, I scribbled this in response to the dismissed consequences and the apparent absence of concern for Iraqis among so many of the ‘champions of compassion’:
And indeed those consequences are ignored. Consider that Pakistan is like a domino falling in slow motion with al-Qaeda rebuilt beyond pre-9/11 strength and facilities. When Pakistan falls, the Saudi Arabian domino with then proceed with greater alacrity and the dynamic of this conflict will undertake a profound shift.And those among them with a conscience will hauntingly find peaceable sleep a fleeting commodity. Those without will relish in their political victory with eyes averted. But history will not be kind.
Some among those who criticize our engagement in the Iraq War, when confronted with descriptions of “defeatism,” suggest that they would focus more intently on Afghanistan, where “the real fight” (with al-Qaeda) is. Unfortunately, even a complete shift of US forces into Afghanistan from Iraq would not address this, as the al-Qaeda enemy makes its home in Pakistan. Are they then advocating an invasion of Pakistan? [Note to self: Remember, Afghanistan was a 'quagmire.']
If we allow defeat in Iraq considering this greater context, what then of those who “advocate measures that would make it more likely?”
No, the conflict will not end with our ‘redeployment’ from Iraq. Not if redeployed to Afghanistan, nor if redeployed to Camp Pendleton. It almost certainly would, however, fuel the fire and spark a regional blaze with dominoes teetering.
And this is to say nothing of the Iraqi killing fields that would engulf them. When is the last time you heard a Congressional critic reference the Iraqi people? And why not? Because they dare not. In order to maintain their vested positions, they simply must “ignore these consequences.”
Perhaps, in the quiet solitude of night, their conscience knows and quietly begs a way around the darkness that awaits them. Perhaps. Their words and actions, however, give no indication whatsoever.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
It's Dead.... For now
The Immigration Bill has failed twice to get cloture
Both Reid and McConnell cry over the fact that they could not get it done. All I can say is THANK GOD. This bill was a disaster. It made 12-20 MILLION ILLEGALS LEGAL. Rewarding and protecting people for breaking our laws. Both party leaders swore to continue to pressure members to get this bill passed.
We can not let off the pressure, this abortion must never live. SECURE THE BORDER !
Illegals
immigration
Both Reid and McConnell cry over the fact that they could not get it done. All I can say is THANK GOD. This bill was a disaster. It made 12-20 MILLION ILLEGALS LEGAL. Rewarding and protecting people for breaking our laws. Both party leaders swore to continue to pressure members to get this bill passed.
We can not let off the pressure, this abortion must never live. SECURE THE BORDER !Illegals
immigration
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
NEW HAVEN, Conn. Violates Federal Law and puts ILLEGALS comfort over it's citizens safety
City OKs ID Cards for Illegal Immigrants
Jun 5, 4:58 PM (ET)
By CARA RUBINSKY
NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) - City officials approved a plan Monday to offer illegal immigrants identification cards that would let them open bank accounts and use other services that may be unavailable without driver's licenses or state-issued IDs.
Supporters say the program, approved by the Board of Aldermen and believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, will help safeguard the city's estimated 15,000 illegal immigrants. If they can open bank accounts, immigrants will be less likely to carry large amounts of cash, a practice that makes them easy targets for robbers.
Illegals
Jun 5, 4:58 PM (ET)
By CARA RUBINSKY
NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) - City officials approved a plan Monday to offer illegal immigrants identification cards that would let them open bank accounts and use other services that may be unavailable without driver's licenses or state-issued IDs.
Supporters say the program, approved by the Board of Aldermen and believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, will help safeguard the city's estimated 15,000 illegal immigrants. If they can open bank accounts, immigrants will be less likely to carry large amounts of cash, a practice that makes them easy targets for robbers.
Illegals
Barack the Babeling Obomanation....
Obama Warns of 'Quiet Riot' Among Blacks
Jun 5 03:07 PM US/Eastern
By BOB LEWIS
Associated Press Writer
HAMPTON, Va. (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Tuesday that the Bush administration has done nothing to defuse a "quiet riot" among blacks that threatens to erupt just as riots in Los Angeles did 15 years ago. (the Obmanation is making threats of race riots)
The first-term Illinois senator said that with black people from New Orleans and the Gulf Coast still displaced 20 months after Hurricane Katrina, frustration and resentments are building explosively as they did before the 1992 riots. (so people spread out over 5 states that have not been able to return do to local government incompetance are going to do what take buses to join up somewhere and riot?)
"This administration was colorblind in its incompetence," Obama said at a conference of black clergy, "but the poverty and the hopelessness was there long before the hurricane. (thats right long before Katrina the Democrat controled city of New Orleans and the Democrat controled state of Luisianna did nothing for those people or to protect that city, but it's Bush's fault)
"All the hurricane did was to pull the curtain back for all the world to see," he said. (yet they are still blind as the political hacks like the Obamanation blame Bush instead of the locals that let this disaster take place)
Obama's criticism of Bush prompted ovation after ovation from the nearly 8,000 people gathered in Hampton University's Convocation Center, particularly when he denounced the Iraq war and noted that he had opposed it from the outset. (so blame the white Republican for local Black Democrats incompetance and for trying to prevent crazed Muslims from killing us, and you get a standing ovation)
Repeatedly, he referred to the riots that erupted in Los Angeles after a jury acquitted four police officers of assault charges in the 1991 beating of Rodney King, a black motorist, after a high speed chase. Fifty-five people died and 2,000 were injured in several days of riots in the city's black neighborhoods. (and what does that have to do with the tragedy caused by a Democrat Black Mayer and a white Democrat woman Governer?)
"Those 'quiet riots' that take place every day are born from the same place as the fires and the destruction and the police decked out in riot gear and the deaths," Obama said. "They happen when a sense of disconnect settles in and hope dissipates. Despair takes hold and young people all across this country look at the way the world is and believe that things are never going to get any better." (it needs to be noted that Mississippi where the hurricane actualy hit and devistated for hundreds of miles inland, has achieved over 80% reconstruction and a 90% return rate of its people. Where Luisianna has achieved less than 40% of each. If you pull the pictures up of Katrina you will notice not a single house in New Orleans lost a shingle, where in Mississippi for over 50miles in from the cost houses were ripped from their foundations. New Orleans was devistated by flooding. Flooding that had been warned about for DECADES. Flooding that could have been prevented by the local DEMOCRAT government if they had spent the money that was allocated for strengthening the levees. Instead of there own little pet projects. Add to that the Incompetance of the Black Democrat Mayer that was to stupid to mobilize the 100s of busses he had at his disposal to get those people out of harms way.)
He argued that once a hurricane hits or a jury renders a not guilty verdict, "the frustration is there for all to see." (and directed by the race pimps at the people who were not responsible)
Obama, who is bidding to become the first black president, took the stage after a succession of ministers repeatedly brought the crowd to its feet, singing, praying and swaying to music. (Mixing Church and Government the way only Democrats are allowed to do)
Obama doesn't regularly focus on racial themes in his standard campaign speeches. He did speak out on black issues in Selma, Ala., in March, when he told a largely black audience that he was a product of the civil rights movement and lectured blacks for failing to vote in large numbers. (yes he LIED and said he was born as a result of the events in Selma, except he was born 5 years before that. The Obamanation has only the race card to play. He has no qualifications)
Democrats
Obama
Jun 5 03:07 PM US/Eastern
By BOB LEWIS
Associated Press Writer
HAMPTON, Va. (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Tuesday that the Bush administration has done nothing to defuse a "quiet riot" among blacks that threatens to erupt just as riots in Los Angeles did 15 years ago. (the Obmanation is making threats of race riots)
The first-term Illinois senator said that with black people from New Orleans and the Gulf Coast still displaced 20 months after Hurricane Katrina, frustration and resentments are building explosively as they did before the 1992 riots. (so people spread out over 5 states that have not been able to return do to local government incompetance are going to do what take buses to join up somewhere and riot?)
"This administration was colorblind in its incompetence," Obama said at a conference of black clergy, "but the poverty and the hopelessness was there long before the hurricane. (thats right long before Katrina the Democrat controled city of New Orleans and the Democrat controled state of Luisianna did nothing for those people or to protect that city, but it's Bush's fault)
"All the hurricane did was to pull the curtain back for all the world to see," he said. (yet they are still blind as the political hacks like the Obamanation blame Bush instead of the locals that let this disaster take place)
Obama's criticism of Bush prompted ovation after ovation from the nearly 8,000 people gathered in Hampton University's Convocation Center, particularly when he denounced the Iraq war and noted that he had opposed it from the outset. (so blame the white Republican for local Black Democrats incompetance and for trying to prevent crazed Muslims from killing us, and you get a standing ovation)
Repeatedly, he referred to the riots that erupted in Los Angeles after a jury acquitted four police officers of assault charges in the 1991 beating of Rodney King, a black motorist, after a high speed chase. Fifty-five people died and 2,000 were injured in several days of riots in the city's black neighborhoods. (and what does that have to do with the tragedy caused by a Democrat Black Mayer and a white Democrat woman Governer?)
"Those 'quiet riots' that take place every day are born from the same place as the fires and the destruction and the police decked out in riot gear and the deaths," Obama said. "They happen when a sense of disconnect settles in and hope dissipates. Despair takes hold and young people all across this country look at the way the world is and believe that things are never going to get any better." (it needs to be noted that Mississippi where the hurricane actualy hit and devistated for hundreds of miles inland, has achieved over 80% reconstruction and a 90% return rate of its people. Where Luisianna has achieved less than 40% of each. If you pull the pictures up of Katrina you will notice not a single house in New Orleans lost a shingle, where in Mississippi for over 50miles in from the cost houses were ripped from their foundations. New Orleans was devistated by flooding. Flooding that had been warned about for DECADES. Flooding that could have been prevented by the local DEMOCRAT government if they had spent the money that was allocated for strengthening the levees. Instead of there own little pet projects. Add to that the Incompetance of the Black Democrat Mayer that was to stupid to mobilize the 100s of busses he had at his disposal to get those people out of harms way.)
He argued that once a hurricane hits or a jury renders a not guilty verdict, "the frustration is there for all to see." (and directed by the race pimps at the people who were not responsible)
Obama, who is bidding to become the first black president, took the stage after a succession of ministers repeatedly brought the crowd to its feet, singing, praying and swaying to music. (Mixing Church and Government the way only Democrats are allowed to do)
Obama doesn't regularly focus on racial themes in his standard campaign speeches. He did speak out on black issues in Selma, Ala., in March, when he told a largely black audience that he was a product of the civil rights movement and lectured blacks for failing to vote in large numbers. (yes he LIED and said he was born as a result of the events in Selma, except he was born 5 years before that. The Obamanation has only the race card to play. He has no qualifications)
Democrats
Obama
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Most Ethical Congress Playing 3 Card Monty with Our Money
Democrats Hide Pet Projects From Voters
Jun 3, 7:20 AM (ET)
By ANDREW TAYLOR
WASHINGTON (AP) - After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year.
Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify "earmarks" - lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states.
Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., says those requests for dams, community grants and research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added to spending measures in the fall. That is when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills.
Such requests total billions of dollars.
As a result, most lawmakers will not get a chance to oppose specific projects as wasteful or questionable when the spending bills for various agencies get their first votes in the full House in June.
The House-Senate compromise bills due for final action in September cannot be amended and are subject to only one hour of debate, precluding challenges to individual projects.
Obey insists he is reluctantly taking the step because Appropriations Committee members and staff have not had enough time to fully review the 36,000 earmark requests that have flooded the committee.
What Obey is doing runs counter to new rules that Democrats promised would make such spending decisions more open.
Jun 3, 7:20 AM (ET)
By ANDREW TAYLOR
WASHINGTON (AP) - After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year.
Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify "earmarks" - lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states.
Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., says those requests for dams, community grants and research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added to spending measures in the fall. That is when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills.
Such requests total billions of dollars.
As a result, most lawmakers will not get a chance to oppose specific projects as wasteful or questionable when the spending bills for various agencies get their first votes in the full House in June.
The House-Senate compromise bills due for final action in September cannot be amended and are subject to only one hour of debate, precluding challenges to individual projects.
Obey insists he is reluctantly taking the step because Appropriations Committee members and staff have not had enough time to fully review the 36,000 earmark requests that have flooded the committee.
What Obey is doing runs counter to new rules that Democrats promised would make such spending decisions more open.
Democrats
Global Warming.....LOL
They call this a consensus?
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Saturday, June 02, 2007
"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."
So said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.
Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.
More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.
National Post's Deniers series: Scientists who challenge the climate change debate
The series
Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Saturday, June 02, 2007
"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."
So said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.
Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.
More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.
National Post's Deniers series: Scientists who challenge the climate change debate
The series
Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI
Clouded research -- The Deniers Part XII
Allegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers XIII
The heat's in the sun -- The Deniers XIV
Unsettled Science -- The Deniers XV
Bitten by the IPCC -- The Deniers XVI
Little ice age is still within us -- The Deniers XVII
Fighting climate 'fluff' -- The Deniers XVIII
Science, not politics -- The Deniers XIX
More on the environment
My series set out to profile the dissenters -- those who deny that the science is settled on climate change -- and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.
Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.
What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. "The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world," the IPCC Secretariat responded. "The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007."
An IPCC reviewer does not assess the IPCC's comprehensive findings. He might only review one small part of one study that later becomes one small input to the published IPCC report. Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused.
A great many scientists, without doubt, are four-square in their support of the IPCC. A great many others are not. A petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine between 1999 and 2001 claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. A more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human activities.
Such diversity of views is also present in the wider scientific community, as seen in the World Federation of Scientists, an organization formed during the Cold War to encourage dialogue among scientists to prevent nuclear catastrophe. The federation, which encompasses many of the world's most eminent scientists and today represents more than 10,000 scientists, now focuses on 15 "planetary emergencies," among them water, soil, food, medicine and biotechnology, and climatic changes. Within climatic changes, there are eight priorities, one being "Possible human influences on climate and on atmospheric composition and chemistry (e.g. increased greenhouse gases and tropospheric ozone)."
Man-made global warming deserves study, the World Federation of Scientists believes, but so do other serious climatic concerns. So do 14 other planetary emergencies. That seems about right. - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation.
Allegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers XIII
The heat's in the sun -- The Deniers XIV
Unsettled Science -- The Deniers XV
Bitten by the IPCC -- The Deniers XVI
Little ice age is still within us -- The Deniers XVII
Fighting climate 'fluff' -- The Deniers XVIII
Science, not politics -- The Deniers XIX
More on the environment
My series set out to profile the dissenters -- those who deny that the science is settled on climate change -- and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.
Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.
What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. "The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world," the IPCC Secretariat responded. "The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007."
An IPCC reviewer does not assess the IPCC's comprehensive findings. He might only review one small part of one study that later becomes one small input to the published IPCC report. Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused.
A great many scientists, without doubt, are four-square in their support of the IPCC. A great many others are not. A petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine between 1999 and 2001 claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. A more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human activities.
Such diversity of views is also present in the wider scientific community, as seen in the World Federation of Scientists, an organization formed during the Cold War to encourage dialogue among scientists to prevent nuclear catastrophe. The federation, which encompasses many of the world's most eminent scientists and today represents more than 10,000 scientists, now focuses on 15 "planetary emergencies," among them water, soil, food, medicine and biotechnology, and climatic changes. Within climatic changes, there are eight priorities, one being "Possible human influences on climate and on atmospheric composition and chemistry (e.g. increased greenhouse gases and tropospheric ozone)."
Man-made global warming deserves study, the World Federation of Scientists believes, but so do other serious climatic concerns. So do 14 other planetary emergencies. That seems about right. - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation.
Email: LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com.
Global Warming
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)