The Re-Emergance of the Issue that gave Democrats Control

This is the issue that lost Republicans control of Congress. The lack of commitment by the Republicans in Congress to deal with the ILLEGAL Immigration issue is what kept the base from supporting them. Now once again we will be watching. The President is totaly wrong on this issue, yet this is the issue that he gets support from the too long serving members of our party in congress. Amnesty is NOT acceptable, and that is what both parties are working on giving us. Build the WALL and enforce our LAWS....

Reid sets immigration bill debate
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 5, 2007
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid yesterday set a firm deadline on President Bush's efforts to work out an immigration agreement, announcing he will bypass the normal process and have the Senate debate an old immigration bill unless the White House can produce an acceptable alternative by May 14.
Democrats are worried Republicans are stalling the debate, and fear the White House is moving too far toward the Republican position in its behind-the-scenes negotiations. Mr. Reid's announcement brings the debate back to his terms, but Republicans said the May 14 deadline is unreachable, and that Mr. Reid is short-circuiting the discussions for political reasons.
"I will move to the immigration bill on Wednesday so debate can start on that the following Monday," Mr. Reid announced on the Senate floor yesterday, referring to a parliamentary maneuver that will allow him to bypass the normal committee process and bring a bill of his choosing to the floor.
Mr. Reid has said for months he wanted to have the debate at the end of May, and his office said the move ensures there is a place holder to begin the immigration debate. Staffers said they will accept a substitute bill if Mr. Bush can broker an agreement between Republicans and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the top Democrat in the negotiations.
But the move also means an impending showdown for all sides: Mr. Reid and Democrats, who want a bill the liberal interest groups and immigration advocates can live with; Mr. Bush, who desperately wants a legislative accomplishment; Mr. Kennedy, who is under immense pressure from fellow Democrats not to accept a watered-down bill; Republicans, whose conservative base is split on the issue; and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who supported last year's bill but this year has no House Republicans to water down the final version.
"The Democratic leadership would be taking a very great risk to try to force through that bill from last year," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican. "They may be able to maintain the votes to do it, but I have my doubts."
Asked whether Republicans would try to filibuster, thus forcing the bill to gain 60 votes, he said, "If they try to bring up last year's bill, yes."
Mr. Reid of Nevada plans to use a parliamentary procedure to bring up the bill that passed the Judiciary Committee last year, even though it hasn't been debated at all this year and even though it was rejected in favor of a more conservative bill, which passed the full Senate 62-36 last year.
Among the differences, the committee bill allowed almost all illegal aliens a path to citizenship without ever having to leave the country, while the bill that passed the full Senate only allowed longtime illegal aliens a direct path to citizenship. Those here between two and five years would have an indirect path, and those here less than two years would have been forced to go home.
A majority of Senate Republicans opposed last year's bill, and even some who voted for it have said publicly or privately they wouldn't vote for the same version again this year. So Mr. Bush, who praised last year's bill as "a good immigration bill," is now trying to work on a new alternative that would cut down on who is eligible for citizenship rights, and require immigration enforcement before the new worker program and path to citizenship would take effect.
A senior Republican aide involved in the negotiations called Mr. Reid's move "a threat to fish or cut bait," but said it exposes a division among Democrats as well.
"These guys want the issue, not an accomplishment. This divides his party as much as ours," the aide said, adding that Mr. Reid's move appears designed to force Republicans to filibuster the bill, thus allowing both sides to point fingers at each other.
"He wants us to save Democrats from themselves -- 'Stop me before I take bad votes again.' That's where he is. He wants us to be grown-ups," the aide said.
But Democrats were criticized by Hispanic and immigrant advocacy groups for accepting last year's bill, which they thought was already too harsh toward illegal aliens, and Democrats are wary of the direction Mr. Bush is taking in his negotiations with Republicans.
A leaked set of proposals showed the White House was open to fines as high as $10,000, a much longer wait for citizenship and more stringent criteria for who would be eligible.
"The White House's efforts to help these negotiations may in fact succeed only in making it impossible to thread the needle and get a bill done this year," said one senior Democratic aide who has followed the negotiations.
White House officials, though, continue to say they are optimistic.
"This is a process and discussions are continuing," spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore said. "We intend to push towards having an agreement prior to the debate starting on the 14th."
The bill also will be a major test for the Republican presidential candidates, particularly Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Sam Brownback of Kansas, who have been battered on the campaign trail for their support of last year's bill. Both men, in fact, were sponsors of the committee bill, and both voted for its passage on the Senate floor.
Mr. Brownback already has done an about-face, saying he "would not vote for the same bill" this year because he has since realized it allowed too many immigrants in.
Mr. McCain's office did not return a call yesterday asking whether he would support the bill again.
Defeatacrats
Immigration

Al-Qaida Is The Problem In Iraq

Al-Qaida Is The Problem In Iraq
By: Lawrence Kudlow, The Bulletin
05/03/2007
Our last, best hope in Iraq - Gen. David Petraeus - reminded Pentagon reporters this week of a critically important fact long forgotten by most observers: Our real enemy in Iraq, the true source of all the murders, mayhem and instability, is not sectarian strife. And it's not the Sunnis or the Shiites, either. The real enemy we face in Iraq is al-Qaida.
According to the top American commander in Iraq, al-Qaida's No. 1 priority is defeating the United States in Iraq. The general called this organization "public enemy No. 1," adding that "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al-Qaida's global campaign."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid doesn't understand this. Nor, for that matter, do the other defeatist Democrats carelessly demanding our immediate withdrawal. They fail to grasp that the root of our problems in Iraq - again, the true source of the hostilities - remains al-Qaida. These murderous thugs are fomenting the sectarian strife on both sides of the Iraqi street. Their tactic is the nadir of nihilism.
In contrast to the blind Harry Reid contingent, I'd like to highlight one remarkably clear thinker who does get what's going on in this war - someone who recognizes the true enemy and is able to articulate his position in breathtaking clarity. I'm talking about Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Frankly, no public official understands what's at play better than Lieberman. He set forth his lucid position in last Thursday's Washington Post and brought it alive when I interviewed him on "Kudlow & Company" later that day.
Lieberman forcefully stated that "al-Qaida, after all, isn't carrying out mass murder against civilians in the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenue. Its aim in Iraq isn't to get a seat at the political table; it wants to blow up the table - along with everyone seated at it."
To miss this point is to miss the crux of this conflict. There can be no doubt about the central role being played by al-Qaida in this war. Its domination of the Iraqi theater is unmistakable. It is the hinge of this war. And, lest we forget, these are the same murderers who bombed us on Sept. 11, 2001. They are terrorists who have made crystal clear their intention to subvert us at every turn. And make no mistake about it - they are regrouping in order to strike us again.
This is why the stakes are so high and why we must not interrupt the surge. This is why there can never be a so-called "political settlement" unless and until the United States can militarily cripple al-Qaida in Iraq. Only then can a political settlement be reached, one that can provide for a healthy representative government, oil sharing, proportional staffing in ministries and on down the line.
Without question, it is a near certainty that Iran and Syria are helping al-Qaida with money, arms and explosives. And, yes, if we leave now, al-Qaida will have an open field in which to expand its operations and prepare for the ultimate attack on the United States. In fact, the Defense Department and the CIA just nabbed a high-ranking al-Qaida operative known as al-Iraqi. He was a key link between the Taliban in Afghanistan, al-Qaida in Iraq and al-Qaida members in Iran. And while it's great news we got him, he's one more reminder that this network is strong and playing for keeps.
Another reality, too often overlooked, is that the United States successfully removed Saddam Hussein from the world scene. We ended a ruthless, tyrannical dictatorship. We fostered three heavily participated elections in Iraq and helped establish a new democratic government in the center of the Middle East.
These are important accomplishments. Yet the stated goal of al-Qaida is to sabotage all of this. Its aim is to prevent representative government in the region, since its twisted totalitarian ideology opposes such developed-world things.
The Harry Reids in Washington don't get it. They fail to see the terrorist fingerprints. But when you look at Iraq through the Lieberman lens, the dust settles. The task before us becomes clearer. Why are we in Iraq? We are fighting al-Qaida. Period.
A final question for Reid: If, as he says, we have "lost" the Iraq war, who exactly has won? Who is the winner, Sen. Reid? Who would you like the United States to surrender to?
It's not the Sunnis. It's not the Baathists. It's not the Shiites. And it's certainly not Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. In conventional warfare terms, Harry Reid is suggesting we surrender to al-Qaida.
Does the majority leader of the U.S. Senate understand his own unthinkable conclusion?

Al-Qaida
Defeatacrats

Amazing a Reporter Understands what the Congress can't seem to.

CNN'S DOBBS ON '60 MINUTES': U.S. COULD DEPORT ALL ILLEGALS
Thu May 3 2007 14:17:35 ET

He has never called for the deportation of all illegal immigrants, but Lou Dobbs believes the U.S. could pull off such a feat if it really wanted to. The CNN anchor, whose stance against illegal immigration has helped raise his ratings but also fueled criticism, speaks to Lesley Stahl for a profile to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, May 6 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

Dobbs is against amnesty programs for illegal immigrants and the president's guest worker proposal, so Stahl wonders whether Dobbs thinks the government could deport all illegal immigrants. "I've never called for their deportation,"says Dobbs. "But at the same time, when this president and open-borders, illegal-alien-amnesty advocates say, 'You can't deport them,' my answer is, 'You want to bet?' because this is the United States. I think this country can do anything it sets its mind to," he tells Stahl.

The former host of "Moneyline" for over 20 years, a business program on CNN, Dobbs has transformed himself into a purveyor of "News, debate and opinion" in the words used to introduce his current CNN program, "Lou Dobbs Tonight." The debate is often about illegal immigration. He is a believer in curtailing illegal immigrants' access to some social services. "I happen to think that it is necessary, given the fact that the federal government won't control immigration and won't control our borders," Dobbs tells Stahl. Dobbs says he's not for shutting off medical services, but illegal immigrants' use of other entitlements and the public schools is problematic. "Going to food stamps Ð should taxpayers be paying for food stamps? Should taxpayers be burdened with schools that are overcrowded?" Dobbs asks. "[Taxpayers'] children, therefore, are being denied education. Those are very serious issues," he says.

Illegals

From A Tangled Web....

America Beware: The Thief is at the Door

Americans, your Christian leaders didn't know about the HR254 bill when Catch the Fire pastors from Australia, Danny and Danny, came to the U.S. a couple of months ago to warn you. Your leaders gasped in horror as they were informed about this draconian law which would see them put in jail for life for saying something deemed (arbitrarily)to be offensive to, say, a Muslim or a homosexual. Has it gone away? CHECK THIS OUT

The Federal Hate Crimes Bill, H.R. 1592, is headed to the House, a vote is soon expected. This bill poses the greatest threat to our freedom that we have ever witnessed in the history of this nation. This piece of legislation if passed into law will give homosexuals above the law status that will create an atmosphere where homosexuals will able to harass and intimidate those who disagree with their lifestyles, leaving most Americans defenseless against the tyranny of the far fringe left. Freedom of Speech, and of the Press will be limited under these laws, I expect a great backlash against the homosexual community if this passes, and they start prosecuting people for exercising their Constitutional rights. We must contact Congress and tell them emphatically NO! NO! to H.R. 1592, The Federal Hate Crimes Bill

We can't afford to lose our vigilance now as the noose is tightening. It's either fight or lose our liberty right here at home. It's happening in America and you can be sure it will happen everywhere else. Hat tip: Stop the ACLU Cross-posted at RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION
Posted on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 01:49PM by dee in America

This is a VERY SCARY BILL, it uses the term PERCIEVED in the description of the CRIME 8 times. In other words if anyone FEELS that you hate them, you could get 10 years in Jail. Read this Bill

UPDATE: Bush Expected to Veto 'Hate Crimes' Bill
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/EditorMay 03, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - President Bush looks likely to veto a "hate crimes" bill under debate in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday if it is approved by Congress. Conservatives quickly responded by thanking the president for upholding "our nation's constitutional tradition of equal protection under the law.""The administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion or national origin," according to a statement released by the Executive Office of the President."However, the administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable," the release stated. "If H.R. 1592 were presented to the president, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill." The sentence containing the veto reference was underlined in the statement."State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new federal crime defined in section 7 of H.R. 1592, and many of these laws carry stricter penalties (including mandatory minimums and the death penalty) than the proposed language in H.R. 1592," the statement said.

The fear of the Average Iraqi

If I was an Iraqi this is where I would be mentally.

I have survived a madman, allthough loosing people that I knew. I survived an Invasion by the most efficient army in the world. I have been told that the invaders are here to destroy the people that follow Islam, and steal the oil.

What I have seen is an Army of men and even women that have shown no interest or care what religion I am. Only whether or not I was a threat first and then if I needed anykind of help. They do not drag us from our homes at night never to be seen again and they do not tell us how to think.

The holy ones tell us we must kill them and repell the invaders supporting jihad. Yet the ones that the holy ones kill the most of are my brother muslims and woman and children in the streets. They want to control us with the word of the Prophet but for their profit.

They said the Americans would never leave, yet in their homeland they argue over not if they will leave but when. Whether they leave in 3 months or 1yr. If they leave now what will happen to me and my family ? Will it be a better life? or Will they wage holy war for control?

Sadre will kill all who do not follow him and therefore the mullahs in Iran. The Kurds will march south and the Sunni will plant bombs. The children will die fighting for Allah and the woman will submit or be stoned.

Do we fight the holy outsiders that will make us all submit or do we help the occupiers kill them. And then wait for them to leave?

These would be my thoughts. The Iraqies are an educated people on the whole, but what do they fear more Freedom or Submission?

A Disturbing Article Well Worth the Read

Commentary: The Saudi-Iran file
Afshin Molavi
April 27, 2007
-- As Arab presidents, emirs, and kings lined up alongside the United Nations secretary-general and the Pakistani, Malaysian, and Turkish heads of state in last month's Arab League summit in Riyadh, one key player was missing at the highest level: Iran. Its nominal head of state, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had not been invited. In his place, the relatively weak foreign minister, Manoucher Mottaki, attended on behalf of the Islamic Republic.

On the surface, this fits the caricature narrative that has emerged in policy and media circles on both sides of the Atlantic and across the Mediterranean: Saudi Arabia, the bulwark of Sunni Islam, is caught in a battle for regional hegemony -with sectarian overtones - against Iran, the bulwark of Shiite Islam.

This analysis, however, fails to capture the growing and diverse range of diplomatic contacts between Riyadh and Tehran in the last few months, the insistent and loud anti-sectarian statements made by top leaders on both sides, and the evolving Saudi-Iranian relationship over the past decade. It also fails to capture the strategic philosophy of the Islamic Republic and the personal thinking of King Abdullah Bin Abdel Aziz.

Though Saudi Arabia and Iran are natural competitors for influence in the Muslim world, both sides have been at pains to lower the rhetoric and avoid an escalation in tensions brought about by the Iraq and Lebanon wars, differences over Palestine and Afghanistan, and rising sectarian divisions in the region.

Ahmadinejad may not have attended the Arab League summit, but he visited Riyadh to meet with King Abdullah just a few weeks earlier in a meeting that was the culmination of a flurry of diplomatic activity between Riyadh and Tehran. Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia's national security chief, has become a frequent visitor to Tehran, and his counterpart, Ali Larijani, a regular traveler to Riyadh. There have also been a series of unpublicized private visits, according to informed sources, that may have even included Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador to the UN, who has flown from New York to Riyadh for talks, and the sons of former president Rafsanjani, who are passing on messages in Riyadh from their still-powerful father.

Al-Qaeda Targeting Great Britain (RWC)

Al Qaeda is planning a massive attack in Britain, and maybe in other Western targets.
This from the London Sunday Times, sent to us by our friend Glenmore Trenear Harvey, a former MI 5 agent who lives in London.

The Times quotes a British intelligence report that the attack will be aided by Iranian supporters of al-Qaeda.
The possible attack was compared with "Hiroshima and Nagasaki" and an informant said it would "shake the Roman empire."

The threat is “deadly and enduring” said Scotland Yard’s Peter Clark, commander of the UK’s counter terrorism force. He told Bloomberg News that the Brits have arrested over 1,000 al-Qaeda connected hard-core radical Muslims since 9/11 and about 100 of them are still awaiting trial.
Clark described al-Qaeda in Britain as “incredibly resilient.”
Senior al-Qaeda operatives have been in recent contact with British supporters and they have talked about "a huge explosion," says British sources.
Up to 150 British Muslims are believed to have traveled to Iraq to fight Americans as part of what al-Qaeda calls its own "foreign legion," according to British intelligence sources.
The recent secret report was prepared by "Jay Tac" -- the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre -- which is at MI5's London headquarters. The London Times says its editors have read a copy.
Al-Qaeda is not yet believed to have acquired a nuclear weapon, though Osama Bin Laden has personally tried. But a number of al-Qaeda plots involving "dirty bombs," conventional explosives surrounding radioactive material, have so far been foiled.

Posted by Richard Carlson at 04:35 PM

A Question from Iraq. Why Are the Democrats Doing This?

Instead of trying to come up with ideas to help they try to halt the sincere effort to stabilize Iraq and rescue the Middle East from a catastrophe.

I am Iraqi and to me the possible consequences of this vote are terrifying. Just as we began to see signs of progress in my country the democrats come and say ‘well, it’s not worth it, so it’s time to leave’.
Evidently to them my life and the lives of twenty five million Iraqis are not worth trying for and they shouldn’t expect us to be grateful for this.

For four years everybody made mistakes; the administration made mistakes and admitted them and my people and leaders made mistakes as well and we regret them.
But now we have a fresh start; a new strategy with new ideas and tactics reached after studying previous mistakes and designed to reverse the setbacks we witnessed in the course of this war.

This strategy although its tools are not fully deployed yet is showing promising signs of progress.
General Petraeus said yesterday that things will get tougher before they get easier in Iraq and this is the kind of fact-based realistic assessment of the situation which politicians should listen to when they discuss the war thousands of miles away.
We must give this effort the chance it deserves and provide all the support and constructive critique, not the ‘war is lost’ empty rhetoric.

Continue reading here...

Terrorist Praise Democrat Debate

The following article highlights the TRUTH about what effect the Demoncrat position on the War on Terror has on the TERRORISTS that are plotting to kill us. All Terrorists agree the Dems are their party of choice. Read in their own words what the Dems position means to them.

Democrat debate 'victory for Iraqi insurgents'
Terrorists say anti-war statements moment of glory for global 'resistance movements'
Posted: April 27, 2007
1:24 p.m. Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

TEL AVIV – Democratic presidential hopefuls flashing their anti-war credentials last night at a national debate by stating they would immediately withdraw from Iraq, encouraged Palestinian terrorist leaders here, who labeled the debate a victory for Iraqi insurgents and "resistance movements" throughout the world.

The debate was widely covered today by the Palestinian and pan-Arab media.

"We see Hillary (Clinton) and other candidates are competing on who will withdraw from Iraq and who is guilty of supporting the Iraqi invasion. This is a moment of glory for the revolutionary movements in the Arab world in general and for the Iraqi resistance movement specifically," said Abu Jihad, one of the overall leaders of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization.

I think democrats will do good if they will withdraw as soon as they are in power," he said.

Abu Jihad said he believes if elected to the White House, the Democrats will immediately order a withdrawal from Iraq. He warned if a retreat is not carried out, the U.S. will likely be attacked on the home front.

"The (Democrat) debate showed that like in Vietnam the American people needed these thousands of soldiers killed to see that invading other people will always result in a failure. ... I think the Democrats will win and apply an immediate withdrawal, but if they don't (withdraw), the revolutionary movements in Iraq will intensify attacks, and I think you should prepare for another big attack in the U.S."

Abu Nasser Aziz, the deputy commander of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in the northern West Bank, told WND last night's Democrat primary debate proved "the invasion of Iraq was judged by Allah to be a failure. America needs to stop letting its foreign policy be dictated by the Zionists and the Zionist lobby. The Democrats understand this point and want to prevent this scenario."

Abu Aziz said it was "very good" there are "voices like Hillary and others who are now attacking the Iraq invasion."

"I think the more Americans receive the bodies of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the more the conservatives in the U.S. will be sentenced to be thrown in the garbage," he said.

Abu Muhammad, a leader of the Islamic Jihad terrorist group in northern West Bank city of Telkerem, said he believes both the Democrats and Republicans are controlled by Israel but said he thinks the Democrats are better for his group's interests.

"They will keep supporting Israel, but, yes, I think the Democrats are preferred and have a bigger chance of withdrawing from Iraq and making deals with Iran and Syria."

Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades took joint responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past two years. Both terrorist groups regularly carry out shootings and rocket attacks against Jewish civilian population centers.

At the televised primary debate last night, Democrat presidential hopefuls heaped criticism on President Bush's Iraq war policy.

"The first day, I would get us out of Iraq by diplomacy," said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, one of eight rivals on the debate stage.

"If this president does not get us out of Iraq, when I am president, I will," pledged Sen. Clinton.

"We are one signature away from ending this war," declared Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

He said if Bush won't change his mind about vetoing a bill requiring troop withdrawal, Democrats need to work on rounding up enough Republican votes to override him.

In addition to Obama and Clinton, Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware and Chris Dodd of Connecticut also cast votes in favor of Iraqi withdrawal legislation.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who together with Clinton and others voted to authorize the Iraq war, apologized for his earlier support and said he wanted to see a withdrawal.

In November, WND conducted a series of exclusive interviews in which prominent Middle East terrorist leaders said they hoped Americans would sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq.

The terrorists told WND an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired." They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.

Defeatacrats

McCain Suffers from Alzheimers doesn't remember he already did this!

McCain Jumps Into Presidential Race

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. (AP) - Republican John McCain officially entered the 2008 presidential race Wednesday, stressing his experience honed in war and Washington as he sought to revive his struggling campaign.
"We face formidable challenges, but I'm not afraid of them. I'm prepared for them," said the four-term Arizona senator, ex-Navy pilot and former Vietnam captive.
In a speech in the first-in-the-nation primary state, McCain stressed the wisdom he's acquired over time rather than the decades themselves as he sought to make the case that he's the most qualified to succeed President Bush amid challenges at home and abroad.
"I'm not the youngest candidate. But I am the most experienced," said the 70-year-old who could be the oldest first-term president, drawing cheers. "I know how to fight and how to make peace. I know who I am and what I want to do."

McCain