Confessions Of An Isolationist Wannabe

The Questions Conspiracy Theorists Need To Ask Themselves

Stupid Debating Tricks -- 9 Of My Least Favorite Debate Tactics

Answering 20 Frequently Asked Questions About Conservatism

WMD Stockpiles Or No Stockpiles: 11 Reasons Why We Were Right To Hit Iraq

Humor: RWN's Guide To Raising Your Dog

Humor: Tasmanian Devils. Man's New Best Friend?

When The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy & The Special Olympics Get Together You Better Look Out!

Making The Case For A Federal Marriage Amendment

Humor: Non-American Countries Gather for Quadrennial World Cup Wimpfest

Humor: Americans Don't Like Soccer Because It's So Boring It Sucks Your Will To Live

Humor: Politically Correct Fairy Tales

An Interview With Ed Klein, Author Of "The Truth About Hillary"

RWN's Ann Coulter Interview #2

An Interview With Ann Coulter

Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select The 20 Greatest Figures In American History

Right-Of-Center Bloggers Choose History's Biggest Impact Players

Winning the Cultural War (1999) By Charlton Heston

Winston Churchill Addresses A Joint Session Of Congress on December 26, 1941

The Eternal Nazi: Watching Roman Polanski's The Pianist in Germany

The Senate has voted 62 to 36, to pass an amnesty bill that rewards illegals, doesn't secure the borders, and that may lead, over the next twenty years, to America being flooded with somewhere between 60-95 million uneducated workers (depending on whose numbers you believe). This bill won't stop the flow of illegals, it'll cause the deficit to balloon, and in my opinion, no Senator who voted for it can sincerely say that they were looking out for the best interests of the American people when they did so.

Despite the fact that this may very well be the worst piece of legislation to make it through the Senate in the last 30 years, President Bush supports it wholeheartedly and the following Republican Senators voted for it:

Bennett (R-UT)
Brownback (R-KS)
Chafee (R-RI)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
Domenici (R-NM)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

As far as I'm concerned, if the Senators who voted for this bill want a kind word on Right Wing News between now and November, they can buy an ad.

Now the ball in is the House's court and we have every indication that they intend to stand strong in committee. Let's hope so, because they're America's last line of defense against this nightmare of a bill and there will be hell to pay if they don't get the job done.

Hat tip to John W. Lillpop, because I loved a line in his email so much that I "Bogarted" it from him, added a bit to it, and used it for the title of the post.

RWN's Answering 13 Frequently Asked Questions About Illegal Immigration column must have really stuck with Rush, because he linked it again today. He also linked the Interview With Mark Krikorian. Thanks, Rush!

PS: I love the McCain graphic.

"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gore

Hat tip to The Corner for the story.

Update #1: Questions for Al Gore about how he portrayed global warming in his documentary.

Hat tip to Ace of Spades HQ for pointing out the column.

Update #2: On a related note, here's how South Park treated Al Gore in their "global warming episode".

Mr. Mackey: M'kay, students, we have a very special guest speaker today. Who can tell me the name of our country's last vice-president?

Kyle: Dick Cheney?

Mr. Mackey: No, the last one.

Butters: Bill Clinton.

Mr. Mackey: No, Clinton's vice-president. [no one has an answer] He is here today to talk to you students about some very serious issues. Please welcome Al Gore.

Stan: Who?

Al Gore: Thank you, Mr. Mackey, students of South Park Elementary.. I'm here to educate you about the single biggest threat to our planet. You see, there is something out there which threatens our very existence and may be the end of the human race as we know it. I'm talking of course about...Manbearpig.

Kyle: Manbearpig?

Al Gore: It is a creature which roams the earth alone. It is half man, half bear, and half pig. Some people say that Manbearpig isn't real. Well, I'm here to tell you know, Manbearpig is very real, and he most certainly exists. I'm serial. Manbearpig doesn't care who you are or what you've done. Manbearpig simply wants to get you! I'm super-serial. But have no fear, because I am here to save you! And someday, when the world is rid of Manbearpig, everyone will say "Thank you, Al Gore. You're super awesome."

Mr. Mackey: Uhhh, ohhhkay, thank you Mr. Gore.

Hat tip to Free Republic for the pic and the South Park Scriptorium for the script excerpt.

Just to give you an idea of how much work the GOP has to do, I thought I'd share some of the feedback I received yesterday -- via comments and email -- after writing a column that urged conservatives to vote for the GOP in 2006. As you read this, keep in mind that the responses you are going to see below are from the sort of people who read Right Wing News & Human Events. In other words, they're mainstream conservatives, exactly the sort of people who should be the GOP's biggest supporters.

"I'm voting to punish wimpy Republicans (especially GWB) because of their ineffectiveness on conservative issues. Since the president's hell-bent on destroying this country with illegal immigration, I'm voting dem to quicken the proceedure. I'd welcome his impeachment if only because of his illegals stance.

Maybe we'll get a real conservative in office who will not be afraid to make unpopular (but good for Americans) decisions."-- Mark

"Enjoyed your Article........BUT (don't you love that?)

What I am finding is that I vote for Republicans because I believe they will enact principles that they purport to stand for ......but they immediately run left in order to appease apolitical people.

Apolitical people are like children that eat all the candy that is put in front of them....but are usually intelligent enough to know that it is not good for them and really do appreciate good parents saying NO.

Republicans are not being good parents.

This is why I will not vote for them....because if you ever wish to have good parents....some how, some where, someone needs to point out that what they are doing is not good for the children. Unfortunately you cannot get their attention without throwing them out.

Another point......

I believe you cannot get the attention of the apolitical public without basically a catastrophic change. The Democrats will cause a catastrophic event that will cause our standard of living to crash at a noticeable rate. (thank God we have such a standard of living cushion that there is enough dropping room to "get it" without hitting the bottom).

The (current) Republicans however, are worse, because they do the "How do you boil a frog bit". We will hit bottom and no one will know how we got there. And we will hear "well everybody was for it!" chant.

I would say....deluging our country with Marxist educated Mexicans, who chant "bin laden, bin laden" during our National Anthem at world cup soccer games is on our way to hitting bottom. Never to return.

No I say....if we are going to hell...let the Democrats do the driving so we know exactly how and by whom we got there." -- Clay

"So, we are supposed to decry the African American community for voting reflexively for Democrats, but it's OK for us Conservatives to vote reflexively for the Republican? And the Republicans in Congress can get away with anything, knowing that we will not punish them for abandoning us on Immigration? Sorry, I'm a big believer in actions having consequences - for the Republican Party, and even for me not voting in November. The country will survive." -- Raxter

"Of course, by following the "Democrats are so much worse" strategery and not "teaching the Republicans a lesson", we've been rewarded with increasingly liberal Republicans, year after year. What was that old cliche about the definition of insanity again? Something about doing the same crap over and over yet always expecting a different result?

Frankly, the "my guy is pretty bad, but that guy is so much worse" argument is really pathetic. If the modern GOP deserved my vote they would get it. As long as they continue to ignore us and give the Democrats everything they've ever wanted (and more), I'm finished being an accomplice.

I take no responsibility in putting more Democrats in power, despite the liklihood that I won't be voting GOP again for a while, since it was the GOP itself that forced my hand." -- roglewis

"For me it is this immigration issue. If they pass and sign a bill along the lines of the senate version - I am done. I will be voting 3rd party because it will no longer matter. That one piece of legislation will sink this nation like the Titanic. It will not matter if it is next year or 3 years from now or 20 years - we are screwed.

The economics of the immigration bill make Amercia bankrupt. On Lou Dobbs last night, Senator Sessions said it would costs 500 billion in the first decade and 500 billion in the second decade. You can not bail fast enough. Add all those illegal immigrants demanding and voting for new entitlements - we are sunk.

So if it passes - kiss it all goodbye. Really will not matter who is in power. Just a matter of how fast we sink." -- gnqanq

"Sorry John but the immigration issue is a big one for me and simply rolling over and allowing millions more into the country is not an option.

The question should be why are the Republicans so anxious to lose the election that they are alienating the base? Why aren't all the Conservative Sites like yours, Captain Ed, Hugh Hewitt and Pundits berating the Republican party for losing the election by pandering to illegals?" -- PierreLegrand

"No, Cav, et al, this is the PERFECT time to get them out. Do you seriously think any democrat could take over and make us leave Iraq? Do you think they could actually do any damage whatsoever in two short years? Look at us, we had MAJORITIES, and couldn't get crap done. I'm voting for my GOP rep and senators, because they have consistently voted against illegal immigration, against amnesty, and for law and order. They even voted the right way for drilling, both in Alaska and in the Gulf and for natural gas well drilling. But I still won't vote GOP for pres unless they come up with someone like Tancredo. Just not going to do it. You want us to maintain control? I say, fine, I agree, and the best way for those we want to be in control is to vote for them when they run for office. As soon as they do, I will. Until then, I'm for voting OUT anyone, R or D, who votes against us, because the reason we want our guys in there is to vote our way.

Tell me, Cav. How you going to feel when you vote all RINO's in, just because they have an R beside their name, and they torpedo us on all these issues at once? You going to take the blame, or will you just lay it off on well, party loyalty, we gotta try, ya know, and all that crap? Cause I'm telling you NOW, the RINO's that have been voted in with that reasoning are sinking us NOW. I'm looking at what happened when the last batch said vote the party anyway, or be disloyal. Hey, most of the party is being disloyal to ME, so to HELL with them all. All RINO's need to be unelected, no matter who gets into office behind them, even if its' Bernie the Socialist Sanders. Got that?" -- docneaves1

"I'm actually more comfortable being screwed by a deomocrat than by my own party." -- msplitt

"There are many "Republicans" in congress at this time who belong to the party for reasons of electibility only. My own state(SC) has Lindsey Graham who is a Democrat in every respect except party label. He knows that he would not be elected on a Democratic ticket so he conveniently declares himself a Republican. It is these lawmakers who must go and be replaced by truly conservative Republicans. It will take some time and possibly a temporary loss of control but they must be removed or we will always be deluded into thinking that the Republicans are in charge and remain in the mess we are in now." -- CarolinaConservative

"John I appreciate the tone of the article but when the President and most members of Congress start acting like Republicans I will vote for them and contribute money to them. This November my vote is going Libertarian. I invested time and money in 2004 and I got screwed so I am not going to become a political battered wife and love the President and GOP members of Congress just because I helped get them elected." -- anchovy

Here's the bottom line: the opinions you've just read are representative of hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of Republican voters. They're deeply dissatisfied with the job the GOP is doing, with good reason, and they're planning to sit out the election in November. Can they be turned around? I think so, but it's going to take action in Washington to make it happen. If an immigration bill comes out of Congress, it better be something conservatives can live with. We also need to see some proof that President Bush is serious about controlling spending. Furthermore, it would be helpful if the Republican lemmings in the Senate would stop following John McCain over a cliff on issue after issue that's important to conservatives. The GOP's about to go into battle in November and they can't afford to have so many troops ready to mutiny. Hopefully, this lesson, which the House seems to have caught onto, will dawn on the Senate and President Bush in the very near future.

Undoubtedly, Nancy Pelosi's request that William Jefferson step down from the Ways and Means Committee was politically motivated. After all, it's hard to credibly claim that people should vote against the Republicans because they're corrupt when one of your own party members was caught on tape taking a bribe and the money was later found in a freezer.

That being said, most people would agree that Pelosi does deserve some credit for the move she made...but, not the Congressional Black Caucus. In their opinion, going after a black legislator for any reason whatsoever is nothing but "the man keeping them down."

From The Hill:

"Furious black lawmakers, rallying behind Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), were pulled back from the brink of open revolt against House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in an emergency meeting with her yesterday.

The meeting with a handful of CBC members was called after Pelosi wrote the embattled lawmaker, who is at the center of a massive bribery scandal, a curt note requesting his immediate resignation from the powerful Ways and Means Committee.

Outraged that one of its members was being picked on even though he has not been charged with a crime, the Congressional Black Caucus had intended to issue a defiant statement against their leader but agreed after the meeting to pause, at least briefly, for reflection.

...The CBC’s chairman, Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.), engaged in a heated argument with Pelosi on the House floor Tuesday afternoon after Watt heard reports that Pelosi was considering calling for Jefferson’s ouster, according to one witness.

Members of the CBC are expected to confront Pelosi today in a meeting that was previously scheduled to address separate concerns about Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.). That meeting is now likely to focus more on Jefferson, a Democratic aide said.

...Most lawmakers would not comment afterwards, but a CBC aide summed up some members’ frustration, saying, “Congresswoman Pelosi, by preemption without any legal justification, has now created a new precedent for how members are going to be treated. Unfortunately, she’s chosen to single out an African-American for this honor.”

Either these CDC members haven't figured out a good spot, other than the freezer or their congressional offices, to hide their bribe money in, or they're engaging in the sort of thinking that seems to pop up everywhere in the Middle-East, "He may be crooked, but he is still a Sunni like me and any Sunni is better than a filthy Shia!"

Whatever the case may be, even liberals should be embarrassed by their behavior.

Hat tip to Daily Pundit for the story.

One of my favorite Senators, Jim DeMint, put this article out today and his press people gave me permission to run it on Right Wing News.

1. Rewards Illegal Behavior with Clear Path to Citizenship and Voting Rights – Amnesty

As noted by former Attorney General Ed Meese in the New York Times on May 24, 2006: “Like the amnesty bill of 1986, the current Senate proposal would place those who have resided illegally in the United States on a path to citizenship, provided they meet a similar set of conditions and pay a fine and back taxes. The illegal immigrant does not go to the back of the line but gets immediate legalized status, while law-abiding applicants wait in their home countries for years to even get here. And that's the line that counts. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and today's bill are both amnesties.”

2. Creates Temporary Worker Program That is Neither Temporary Nor Work-Based

The bill’s guest worker program would allow millions of illegal immigrants to qualify for permanent green cards within four years. Additionally, the Senate approved Senator Kennedy’s amendment that each year would allow up to 200,000 immigrants who cross the border illegally and work just 6 days a year (including self employment) to qualify for a permanent green card.

3. Unprecedented Wave of Immigrants - 66 Million Over 20 Years

This bill is estimated to skyrocket the number of immigrants, from its current level of 19 million over the next 20 years, to an unprecedented number. Heritage Foundation: “...[O]ur estimate of the number of legal immigrants who would enter the country or would gain legal status under S. 2611 … [would be] 66 million over the next 20 years.”

4. Insufficient Border Security

The Senate rejected an amendment by Senator Isakson that would have prohibited the implementation of any guest worker program that grants legal status to those who have entered the country illegally until the Secretary of Homeland Security has certified to the President and to the Congress that the border security provisions in the immigration legislation are fully funded and operational.

While the Senate adopted Senator Sessions’ amendment to increase “real fencing” by 370 miles and add 500 miles of vehicle barriers, the House passed a bill requiring at least 700 miles of “real fencing”, a more likely needed amount to secure the 2,000 mile long border.

5. Terrorist Loophole Disarms Law Enforcement

Heritage Foundation reported May 24, 2006: “The Senate’s immigration reform proposal … would restrict local police to arresting aliens for criminal violations of immigration law only, not civil violations. The results would be disastrous. All of the hijackers on (9-11) who committed immigration violations committed civil violations. Under the bill, police officers would have no power to arrest such terrorists.”

6. Social Security Benefits, Tax Credits for Illegal Work

The Senate rejected Senator Ensign’s amendment that would have prevented Social Security benefits from being awarded to immigrants for time that they worked illegally in the United States. If the immigration compromise bill before the Senate were enacted into law, an estimated 12 million illegal workers would be able to use their past illegal work to qualify for Social Security benefits.

Provisions in S. 2611 would require newly legalized immigrants to file tax returns for work they performed while in the U.S. illegally. And while some would be required to pay back taxes, many others could qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, which has a maximum payout of $4,400 per year.

7. Costs Over $50 Billion A Year to Federal Government; States Foot The Bill for Immigrant Health Care

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation described the bill as a “fiscal catastrophe,” and has said the measure would prove to be the largest expansion of government welfare in 35 years. According to Rector, the bill would increase long-term federal spending by at least $50 billion a year.

The Senate bill does not reimburse state and local governments for health care and education costs related to the millions of undocumented immigrants. While the underlying bill creates a state impact assistance account for future temporary workers, it is an unfunded account.

8. Hurts Small Business

The Senate approved an amendment by Senator Obama extending Davis-Bacon “prevailing wage” provisions for guest workers, but not American citizens, in all occupations covered by Davis-Bacon (currently limited to federally paid work). Small businesses would be forced to pay inflated wages to guest workers above the pay American citizens receive for performing the same work.

9. Gives Some Immigrant Workers Greater Job Protection Than American Workers

As reported by Robert Novak of Chicago Sun Times on May 24, 2006: “The bill supposedly would protect American workers by ensuring that new immigrants would not take away jobs. However, the bill's definition of ‘United States worker’ includes temporary foreign guest workers, so the protection is meaningless… Foreign guest farm workers, admitted under the bill, cannot be ‘terminated from employment by any employer ... except for just cause.’ In contrast, American ag workers can be fired for any reason.”

10. Weak Assimilation/English Requirements

The Senate approved Senator Inhofe’s amendment to make English the national language and require those seeking citizenship to demonstrate English proficiency and understanding of U.S. History. However, a far weaker amendment by Senator Salazar gutted the Inhofe amendment, leaving it in doubt, and also giving immigrants the right to demand the federal government communicate with them in any language they choose.

"I don't think Jesus would be mad at me and the message I'm trying to send." -- Madonna on her fake crucifixion

Yes, I'm sure Jesus just loves it when whorish, aging pop stars try to draw attention to themselves by mocking the terrible suffering he endured when he sacrificed himself for all mankind.

"It is strange, but here's how liberals think:

If there is a strategic advantage to America taking military action against a corrupt and murderous regime, we must not do so. The mission may be justifiable on moral grounds, but the possibility that America herself will gain from taking the action taints it too much to even comtemplate.

Meanwhile, if there is absolutely no possible selfish national-security benefit to be gained for America, the left is pretty comfortable with putting our soldiers in harm's way. Haiti, Bosnia, Dafur. Each of these presents a strong case for intervention on moral grounds alone-- without any appreciable strategic benefit to America. As there is no chance that America may benefit from such interventions, the left supports risking our soldiers' lives and limbs to intervene.

They're so fearful of Enemy America that they would rather innocents suffer than so much as risk America gaining in some way from a use of force." -- Ace

Domestic

Contact Your Senators And Let Them Know What You Think Of The Senate's Immigration Bill

Vote Coming Up On Sweeping Immigration Bill In The Senate

Senate Backs Job Verification for Immigrants (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Sen Chuck Grassley Unveils Top 10 Flaws With Amnesty And Guest Worker Of Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill

Ariz. Republican, Jeff Flake, Predicts House Won't Act on Immigration Bill

Hastert Demands FBI Return Document (Good Grief)

Despite Reports To The Contrary, 'Speaker Hastert Is Not Under Investigation By The Justice Department.'

Nancy Pelosi Requests That William Jefferson Resign From The Ways and Means Committee

Jefferson Refuses to Quit Ways and Means

Claim: Sen. Lindsey Graham, Who Sits On The Judiciary Committee And Is Close To Sen. John McCain, Is Blocking A Nominee To The Federal Bench Whom McCain Opposes

Hillary Backs A Return To A 55 Mile Per Hour Speed Limit

CBS, Stern Settle Breach Of Contract Suit

A.C.L.U. May Block Criticism by Its Board (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Foreign

Iraq VP Says Blair, Bush To Study Pullout

Iraq's PM Says He Believes Government Forces Will Be Able To Take Over All Security Responsibilities From Us-Led Coalition Troops Within 18 Months

Iran Requests Direct Talks on Nuclear Program (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Columns

Human Events: No Conservative Could Vote For Senate Immigration Bill

John O'Sullivan: The Senate's Foul Immigration Law. A Product Worthy Of The Revolting Way It Was Made.

Gary Bauer: Bush Needs Bold, Conservative Agenda

Jonah Goldberg: Katrina Revealed Ineptitude—of The Press, That Is

Glenn Reynolds: The Parent Trap. How Safety Fanatics Help Drive Down Birthrates

Michael Warren: Keep 'America' In Michigan Schools. State Bureaucrats Want To Do What Stalin, Osama Could Only Dream About (Outageous)

Ann Coulter: Apple-Polisher Shows POW Real Courage

Mary Katharine Ham: In Need Of Moral Clarity

Left-Overs

Everest Conqueror Sir Edmund Hillary Has Denounced Fellow Kiwi Climbers For Leaving An Englishman To Die Alone Just Below The Summit

Pill Temporarily 'Reverses' Vegetative State

Casey Sheehan's Father, Patrick, Has Had Enough Of This And Has Quietly Arranged With A Local Monument Company To Erect A Memorial Because Cindy Sheehan Still Hasn't Put A Marker On Her Son's Grave

Draft Dodger Reunion Set For This Summer In B.C.

Humor: Jessie Macbeth: Stop The Lies

Humor: An Average Day for the Deputy Chief of Staff

Website Of The Day: Rightwing Nuthouse

Over the last few weeks, the conservative blogosphere and punditocracy have been aiming a wave of venom at the GOP in Washington that’s so wide and deep that you could practically surf on it. The grumbling over out-of-control spending, the Gang-of-14 compromise, Harriet Miers, the Dubai Port deal, and most of all, illegal immigration, has become ceaseless and increasingly bitter.

The dismay at the performance of Congress has gotten so bad that a conservative stalwart like Peggy Noonan has actually begun speculating that the “White House has decided it actually doesn’t like the base,” while in other quarters, the idea that the GOP might benefit long-term from losing power in the elections later this year has already started to jell into conventional wisdom.

This is understandable because the GOP in Washington, President Bush included, have been “stinking it up” since the 2004 election. To be fair, the House has shown some signs of life on spending and illegal immigration since Rep. John Boehner has become Majority Leader, but the same can’t be said of the Senate, which has performed abysmally—or Bush, who, in his second term, has shown about the same level of political competence as a fourth grader running for hall monitor.

Since that’s the case, it’s not hard to see why so many conservatives have become dispirited and angry about the performance of our elected representatives. However, if there’s one thing I’ve learned about politics, it’s that the solution to the GOP’s problems is never, “more Democrats.”

That doesn’t mean that we conservatives should engage in a bunch of fake “rah-rah” or refuse to criticize Republicans if they deserve it, but it does mean that when November rolls around, conservatives should show up at the ballot box and pull the lever for the GOP.

Philosophically, that doesn’t sit well with some conservatives. They believe, with some justification, that if we don’t punish these wayward Republicans, their performance will continue to disappoint. But that’s only half the equation. It’s not about just the Republicans who’d be losing, it’s about the Democrats who’d be taking their place. Would we be better off replacing the most wishy washy Republicans with Democrats who believe that taxes are way too low and that Rep. John Murtha would make a fantastic Secretary of Defense? I think not.

Now, some people point to the divided government of the nineties and believe that if we once again had different parties in power, that we’d see less spending as a result. But, what people need to remember is that was a unique situation. Newt Gingrich’s revolution featured Reagan Republicans getting into power for the first time in decades, in part because they promised to restrain government spending and, indeed, they were highly motivated to wrestle down government expenditures.

However, the Democrats, being Democrats, believe in bigger, more expensive government, not shrinking the size and cost of the beast. So, if they got in power, we’d be much more likely to see a situation like the eighties, where we had a President who believed in smaller government overpowered by Democrats who just couldn’t spend enough of our money.

We also must keep in mind that Republican philosophy up on the Hill has changed for the worse as well. Today, if the Democrats want to spend $100 million—instead of saying, “no way,” the Republicans are more philosophically inclined to say, “How about $50 million instead?” Then after the new boondoggle becomes law at $50 million, they pat themselves on the backs for, “taking an issue away from the Democrats,” and “saving” the taxpayers $50 million. That is not exactly a formula for reducing the size of the budget, especially when we have a President who has never vetoed a single bill for having too much pork in it (or for any other reason).

So, what can we do to get the deficit under control? Fight for a Balanced Budget Amendment? Good idea. Support members of Congress like Sen. Tom Coburn and Rep. Mike Pence who’re fighting tooth and nail against pork? Yes. Insist on having a presidential candidate in 2008 who believes in cutting spending? Absolutely. But, replacing spendthrift Republicans with Democrats who’ve never met a program they thought was overfunded? Let’s just say that’s not the best way to handle the situation.

We also can’t forget about judges. The “Gang-of-14” deal is no longer in effect after the November elections. If Stevens or Ginsburg retires and being willing to pull the trigger on the nuclear option turns out to be the difference between getting another Samuel Alito through or having to settle for an Alberto Gonzales, do you want more or less Republicans in the Senate?

Then there’s impeachment. The liberals in Congress are absolutely chomping at the bit to impeach Bush for anything and everything they can come up with. That’s not only because they absolutely despise him, and because their base is demanding it, but because they want payback for Bill Clinton. Would two years of politically motivated impeachment threats be good for the country?

How about taxes? Do you think they would go up or down under a Democratically controlled Congress? Do you think Bush’s tax cuts, which have helped revive the economy and have been one of his greatest achievements domestically, would survive if we had House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid?

Perhaps most importantly, we shouldn’t forget about the war. Could we see the Democrats put enormous pressure on Bush to force him to pull out of Iraq before the situation on the ground merits it? Sure. It might destabilize the country and render the sacrifices our troops have made meaningless, but they could blame the resulting disaster on Bush—and quite frankly, that’s probably all that would matter to a lot of the Democrats in Congress.

Here’s my advice: set your emotions aside and think long and hard about what a Democratically controlled Congress would really mean. Is the satisfaction of, “teaching the Republicans a lesson,” worth the price? Think back to the Clinton years: conservatives certainly stuck it to Old “Read My Lips,” but the price turned out to be eight years of, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” In my book, that wasn’t such a great trade-off and keep in mind, when you’re talking about congressmen and senators, it could be worse. Incumbent politicians are tougher to get rid of than a cockroach infestation and 40 years from now, do you really want to be sitting around, remembering how you stayed home and helped the next Robert Byrd get into office? Folks, be mad at the GOP if you don’t think they’re doing a good job. Call your senator, call your congressman and give ’em hell if they deserve it. But, when November rolls around, make sure to vote because there’s more on the line than you might think.

Earlier this morning, I was pleased to get an opportunity to be in on a teleconference with former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese and Matt Spaulding from the Center For Immigration Studies.

Mr. Meese has just written a column about the Senate's immigration bill called, "An Amnesty by Any Other Name ....

Keep in mind that Ed Meese was around for the Reagan amnesty, so he knows what one looks like and in the teleconference, he essentially said, make no mistake about it, this is an amnesty. He also said that if we pass this bill, we can expect another big group of illegals to be here in 10-15 years.

Meese advocated increased activity against employers who handle illegals and thinks we need much increased enforcement. He also believes that the enforcement should predate any guest worker program (another vote for the House plan).

He noted that after the amnesty in 1986 there was very little concern about enforcing the law and he noted that the current Senate bill would actually prevent police officers from arresting anyone based on the fact that they're in this country illegally. Mr. Meese pointed out that we need more, not less cooperation from police departments for enforcement.

Meese also said that he believes that if we do have a temporary worker program, it should start with a pilot program and should be handled by private sector organizations like employment agencies.

Matt Spalding added that the bill in the Senate would lead to more document fraud because of the unworkable tier system it contains.

As a side note, so you can see what he's talking about, here's how the tier system works:

"The bill would create a three-tier system for illegal immigrants seeking to stay in the country. People who could prove they have been here five or more years could apply for citizenship. Those who have lived here two to five years could stay as guest workers and later apply for citizenship. Illegal immigrants here for less than two years would be required to leave."

Spalding pointed out that you could prove residence in the US for 5 years based on nothing more than an affidavit from a friend, so what that will mean is that fraud will be rampant and the illegals will end up staying.

Long story short: The Senate bill is an amnesty that treats enforcement like a joke and it would be no more effective at stopping illegal immigration than the 1986 bill.

Others commenting include:

Captain's Quarters
Capitol Report
Decision '08
Freeman Hunt
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Q&O Blog
Wizbang

Want to see what our future is if the Senate gets its way on illegal immigration? Then look at this excerpt from an MSNBC article about Germany's guest worker program. It's so familiar that it's almost feels like deja vu....

"Germany is home to millions of immigrants, 3 million of whom are Muslim. The majority were invited to the country as gastarbeiters, or guest workers, mainly from Turkey. Faced with a labor shortage in the 1950s, and 60s, then-West Germany encouraged foreigners to fill positions in factories and in construction.

“The Germans recruited untrained and uneducated people,” said Steffen Angenendt of the German Council on Foreign Relations. “It didn’t seem necessary to have academics come to Germany to work on an assembly line. They were trained on the job.”

Given temporary visas, the Germans expected the workers to come, make money and then head home.

What the government didn’t count on was the employers’ reluctance to let trained workers leave. So the men stayed and then brought their families — along with their traditions, religion and culture.

The immigrants settled together and neighborhoods slowly began to reflect their new inhabitants. Signs were hung in Turkish, supermarkets sold Turkish products and stands selling kebabs — a traditional meal in a sandwich similar to a gyro — popped up in nearly every German city.

“They came in the sexual revolution and they saw the communes — men, women and children living together. It was a shock for these people, so of course, they put up borders,” said Seyran Ates, a lawyer who works with immigrant women. “It was automatic. They felt, they don’t want us here, and on the other side, we don’t want to be like them; they are immoral,” Ates said.

As German industry changed and the need for more qualified workers rose, the jobs filled by many of these laborers disappeared, leading to widespread unemployment.

“The discussion on integration problems you have today is to a large extent a result of this immigration,” said Angenendt, who was part of a committee which suggested future immigration policies for the government. “These workers had no ability to adjust to the labor market.”

Although there were efforts at the city and state level to assist in integration, little effort was made on a federal level -- an oversight that has ramifications even today. Language has proved to be one of the bigger challenges. Many immigrants and their families don’t speak German, which makes it more difficult for them to find work.

“Integration never really started,” said well-known actor Mehmet Kurtulus, who came with his parents as a baby to Germany from a small town in Turkey. “The Germans missed the point that workers are people with families.”

This is especially obvious in the German school system, in which even second-generation children perform significantly worse than their native-born counterparts, according to a report by the international Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development."

We're in the same situation as Germany except we're bringing in the workers illegally. We're flooding our country with foreigners who are uneducated, don't speak our language, and don't want to assimilate. Guess what? The results are going to be the same down the line, too.

This week-end, John McCain was heckled at a college commencement ceremony. On the one hand, if anyone in American politics deserves to be heckled, it's John McCain. Personally, I have the urge to yell, "You suck," at the television screen every time I see his face. But still...is a commencement ceremony a proper place for idiots to try to scream over someone just because they disagree with that person's political views? Apparently, ex-Senator Bob Kerrey, who actually invited McCain, thinks that it is:

"That said, I now speak in defense of the behavior of my students – the minority who protested and the majority who did not. On the surface, some of the tactics of the protest were rude, noisy, and disrespectful. Less obvious, however, was the self-restraint that prevented the protestors from behaving in a fashion that would have shut down the commencement or made it impossible for Senator McCain or me to continue. Though many in the audience – including Senator McCain and I – were offended by the heckling, at no time were we in danger of not being able to proceed. By the end of the program, we had awarded five honorary degrees and graduated 2,630 students in The New School’s 70th Commencement ceremony.

More importantly -- and also lost in the charges and counter-charges -- is this fact: student protests are a necessary and essential part of democratic free expression. Did we not love the brave and disrespectful students at Tiananmen? Did we not applaud the determination of the student led movements that helped bring down the dictators that ruled Eastern Europe in 1991? Have we forgotten the critical difference students made in reversing an unlawful election in Ukraine or in driving the Syrians from Lebanon or who still seethe in discontent under the religious law of Iran’s mullahs?

Thus, when some of the critics of The New School students suggest they should have behaved with more discipline, as did the students at Liberty University, I strongly disagree. Our students were moved by idealism, not arrogance. I may not agree with their conclusions, but I do not begin with the presumption that my age gives me a privileged view of the truth. Quite the contrary – I believe that those of us who are older should keep our ears and hearts open to the possibility that our age may have cost us the most important of human characteristics: the hope for a better, fairer, and more just world."

Oh geeze, did he just compare a bunch of idiots shouting from the commencement ceremony crowd to the students who stood up for democracy at Tiananmen square and protested the Soviet Union? Those were brave kids standing up for Democracy in the face of tyrannical governments. The idiots who yelled over McCain at that commencement ceremony were just a bunch of yappy punks who were apparently never taught any manners. What's next? Will Kerrey explain how the people in movie theaters who are talking on cell phones in the middle of a picture are actually fighting for our 1st Amendment rights?

If you go to a speech or a political rally and you have to protest, you should at least show enough common courtesy to do it silently so that you don't disturb the other people who actually want to hear what the speaker has to say. Turn your back on the speaker or hold up a sign...I mean, don't get me wrong, you'll still look like a jackass, but at least you'll be a quiet jackass, not a braying jackass, and that's a step in the right direction.

An astonishing article in Capitalism Magazine details the Seattle Public School District’s view that if you are an individualist, you are a racist. The school system webpage defines “cultural racism”:

Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers. [Emphasis added].

First of all, one form of English is standard. There is not profit or benefit in denying this. But the crux of the matter is also disturbing. (If they really believe this, then) I assume that according to the school, individual students won’t get grades; classes will. And if a student misbehave, he will not be punished - the entire class will.

Absurd! Check out the article for Ayn Rand’s writing on the nature of racism. Excellent stuff!

This content was used with the permission of Right Thinking Girl.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, who wanted the election to be about the supposed Republican, "culture of corruption," they've actually got a guy in office who's so crooked that he makes a circle look straight. Yes, good old William Jefferson. It's bad enough that he managed to get caught on tape taking money from an FBI informant, but what's even worse, from a Democratic perspective, is that by sticking the money in a freezer, he gave the American public a hook that makes it particularly easy to remember his malfeasance.

So, what has been the reaction in Congress to this outrageous ethics lapse by Jefferson? Believe it or not, leaders of both parties have incessantly complained about the fact that the FBI raided Jefferson's office.

"House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) told President Bush yesterday that he is concerned the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) raid on Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) congressional office over the weekend was a direct violation of the Constitution.

Hastert raised concerns that the FBI’s unannounced seizure of congressional documents during a raid of Jefferson’s Rayburn office Saturday night violated the separation of powers between the two branches of government as they are defined by the Constitution.

...Calling the Saturday-night raid an “invasion of the legislative branch,” House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) predicted the case would eventually be resolved in the Supreme Court and hinted that Congress would take further action. The majority leader said Hastert would take the lead on the issue because he is the chief constitutional officer in the House.

...“No member of Congress is above the law,” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters yesterday. “I am concerned about the unprecedented exercising of authority over a separate branch of government and the execution of a search warrant without any communication with the leadership of this House.”"

Know what the average American must be thinking after reading all this? "Gee, I wonder what's going on in their offices that they don't want the FBI to know about?"

Moreover, trying to use the Constitution as a shield in this case is pure bunk. If you look at Article 6, Section 1 of the Constitution, it says:

"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Even if you very liberally interpret that clause to mean that it prevents their offices from being searched, bribery is a felony and wouldn't be covered.

So, Steny Hoyer? He was right that, "No member of Congress is above the law," but he should have stopped right there. The FBI had a warrant, they were going after a Congressman who looks to have taken a bribe, and they were absolutely right to search his office if they believed relevant evidence was there. You shouldn't be allowed to have a "Get out of Jail" card if you hide your evidence in your Congressional office and the "leadership" of both parties in Washington should stop asking for it.

Domestic

Study: Half Of Illegal Immigrants In U.S. Came Legally

Citizenship by Birthright Up for Debate

Defense Sources: Duke Accuser Gave Conflicting Stories About Alleged Rape

Web Inventor Tim Berners-Lee Comes Out In Favor Of Net Neutrality

US Goes On Counter-Attack Against Amnesty International (Applause)

McCain "Criticized Elements In His Own Party As “nativist” Before Lambasting The Punditry Of Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs And Michael Savage For Helping To “Fuel The Problem,” According To Two Of The Sources.

Foreign

Claim: US, Britain To Start Iraq Exit In July

Bombs Kill At Least 25 In Baghdad

China Military Upgrades A Potential Threat To US: Pentagon

Bin Laden: Moussaoui Not Linked To 9/11 (What A Character Witness)

Seven Indonesian Bird Flu Cases Linked To Patients

Columns

Jonah Goldberg: For Starters, Build A Wall

Peter Wehner: Antiwar Myths About Iraq, Debunked

Mike Kelly: An Illegal Alien Who Can Legally Sue

Ed Meese: An Amnesty by Any Other Name (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Ed Koch: Is It Xenophobic To Regulate Entry Into The US?

Left-Overs

Former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen Dies (Sorry To Hear That)

Ian Schwartz From Expose The Left (At The Bottom)

The Truth About Global Warming - It's The Sun That's To Blame

Country Radio Nixes Dixie Chicks

Humor: Northern Irish, Serbs, Hutus Granted Homeland In West Bank

Humor: Today's Main Problem Facing Society Today

Website Of The Day: Debbie Schlussel

The defense team is leaking some of the information they got from the material turned over to them last week. If this is all true, it is amazing that the District Attorney proceded with such a terribly weak case.

The woman who has accused three members of the Duke University lacrosse team of raping her at an off-campus party told investigators several different stories about the night of the alleged incident, sources close to the defense team representing the players have told FOX News.

The differing accounts are included in the 1,300 pages of evidence delivered to defense lawyers last week by Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, the sources said

First, she said she wasn't raped, then that she was raped, then that she wasn't.

Regarding the 1,300 pages of evidence, sources told FOX News that the accuser allegedly did not tell the officer who met her at a supermarket after responding to a 911 call that she had been raped. Later, the woman told a doctor at a mental health facility that she had been sexually assaulted. She later denied that claim to a police officer when she arrived at the Duke hospital for care.

She was also purportedly confused whether it was 3 or 20 men who had raped her. She also was confused as to whether or not Kim, the other dancer was in the bathroom while she was supposedly being raped.

When police asked Roberts whether she was in the room at the time, Roberts reportedly told police, "that's a crock."

Can't you picture the cross-examination of Kim? "Ms. Roberts, did you call the alleged victim's first version of events "a crock?"

And, it seems that she waited until after the first DNA test to tell law enforcement that there were three men that could have been responsible for any male DNA found inside her. And two of those men were the ones who had driven her to hotels so she could do her dancing there for customers.

Defense sources also say the accuser admitted to having had sexual intercourse with at least three men around the time of the alleged attack. According to those sources, when investigators questioned her after DNA tests on the semen found inside her body did not match any of the Duke players, the accuser gave police the name of her boyfriend and two men who drove her to her dancing engagements.

The drivers say in police statements that they brought the accuser to at least five separate gigs the weekend before the alleged attack, defense sources said.

According to what has been leaked from the defense, it doesn't sound as if there is any smoking gun in all the information handed over last week. And, there isn't any indication that a toxicology test was performed on the alleged victim in the hospital exam.

Authorities have said a doctor and a specially trained nurse performed a physical exam on the accuser that found her condition to be consistent with having been sexually assaulted. But the nurse who filled out a report on that exam indicated no toxicology tests were performed, according to a defense motion filed Monday.

Several attorneys not connected with the case said Monday they were surprised by the apparent lack of a toxicology report.

If such data showed the exotic dancer was intoxicated on the night in question, it could be highly beneficial to the defense, lawyer Mark Edwards said.

"Either way -- whether it was a date-rape drug or voluntary intoxication -- it would affect the reliability of her identification," Edwards added. "It goes to the question of her credibility."

On the other hand, evidence of a date-rape drug in the dancer's body could have helped the prosecution by showing evil intentions on the part of someone, Edwards said.

"It would help to explain the apparent intoxication when police encountered this woman later," he said. "It also would show that there was likely a sexual assault or at least a plan to commit a sexual assault."

The question of whether a toxicology report was conducted arose in a motion filed Monday by lawyers representing indicted rape suspect Reade Seligmann.

And it doesn't seem that there was all that much really in the nurse's report of the physical examination of the alleged victim.

According to the sources, the papers handed over by Nifong also reveal that the forensic nurse who did a gynecological exam on the accuser did not find abrasions, tears or bleeding in the vaginal area, which is often present in forcible rapes. They say she did find swelling in the vaginal area along with tenderness in the accuser's breasts and lower right quadrant.

Sounds like that there would be a lot more damage from three men forcibly raping her.

Of course, we're just getting the leaks from the defense, but it seems that we're really narrowing down the possibilities of the D.A. having anything other than her story to back up his case. You really have to wonder what he could have been thinking he had that would convince any jury that this woman is telling the truth. He has a responsibility in his job to bring only those cases that he thinks he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not such a case. And those three students have had their lives turned inside out by this woman's accusations. This is pathetic. This case shows how vulnerable we can all be to a runaway district attorney who doesn't have the sense to evaluate the case he's presented with and decide if it's worth bringing charges.

This content was used with the permission of Betsy's Page.

There are a lot of conservatives blogs upset that Google appears to be "purging" conservative websites. Here's the Newsbusters coverage of the story:

"Something frighteningly ominous has been happening on the Internet lately: Google, without any prior explanation or notice, has been terminating its News relationship with conservative e-zines and web journals.

....As reported by NewsBusters, the most recent occurrence of this unexplained phenomenon was Friday, May 19, when Frank Salvato, proprietor of The New Media Journal, realized that his content that day hadn't been disseminated at Google News as it had been on a daily basis since he reached an agreement with the search engine in September 2005.

After sending the Google Help Desk a query concerning the matter, Salvato was informed that there had been complaints of "hate speech" at his website, and as a result, The New Media Journal would no longer be part of Google News. As evidence of his offense, the Google Team supplied Salvato with links to three recent op-eds published by his contributing writers, all coincidentally about radical Islam and its relation to terrorism.

Unfortunately, this was not the first conservative e-zine to be terminated in such a fashion. On March 29, Rusty Shackleford, owner of The Jawa Report, received a similar e-mail message as Salvato informing him that: “Upon recent review, we've found that your site contains hate speech, and we will no longer be including it in Google News.” For those unfamiliar, The Jawa Report focuses a great deal of attention on terrorist issues and how they relate to radical Islam.

Two weeks after Jawa was cut from Google News, Jim Sesi’s MichNews.com was banished on April 12. In Sesi’s case, the three pieces provided as examples of “hate speech” were articles by conservative writer J. Grant Swank, Jr., all about – you guessed it – radical Islam and terrorism.

See a trend here?

...To be sure, there have been complaints in the past from conservative bloggers that Google seems to have dubious requirements to be a part of its News Crawl. In February 2005, Michelle Malkin wrote of the difficulties she was having becoming part of Google News. At roughly the same time, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs also complained about not being able to curry Google’s favor."

Let me add that Right Wing News has been turned down as a Google News source twice now. The last time, after they turned me down, I politely wrote back and asked the reason why RWN didn't pass muster and they politely responded that they were declining to give me a reason.

Does that mean that this is some sort of vendetta against conservatives? I'm not so sure about that. To the best of my knowledge, Google doesn't post their requirements to be included on Google News, but they seem to be very inconsistent.

There are a lot of big conservative and liberal blogs that don't seem to show up -- like Power Line, Hugh Hewitt, Crooks And Liars, & MyDD.

On the other hand, some of the blogs that did make the list include:

Wonkette, TPMCafe, Wizbang, & Q&O.

Why did some of those blogs make it on while the other didn't? No idea. But, sometimes a cigar is a just a cigar and sometimes what appears to be inconsistency may just be that: inconsistency, not a deliberate effort to get rid of conservative bloggers.

Last night, I was talking to my buddy Right Thinking Girl and she suggested that I write a post about the 10 most datable Senators....which was just wrong!

But, I decided to meet her halfway and pick the hottest woman in the Senate and the House because...well, there's no good reason, except that I don't recall ever hearing of anyone doing it before.

In the Senate, I believe that the top honors are going to have to go to Mary Landrieu from Louisiana.

In the House? I think you have to give the edge to Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee.

Congrats, ladies! You have now officially been crowned, via RWN, Miss House & Miss Senate for 2006!

Last week, in an exclusive interview with Right Wing News, Congressman Jack Kingston said that you wouldn't see a bill that supports amnesty come out of the House because 180 out of 231 Republicans oppose it. If the numbers are really that high, then it may very well mean that we're going to get a bill conservatives can live with or no bill at all:

"Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's insistence that major legislation reach the House floor only if it appears to be backed by a "majority of the majority" could throw a high hurdle in front of efforts to reach a House-Senate compromise on immigration later this year, lawmakers said. Hastert (R-Ill.) has invoked the policy in blocking bills that appeared likely to win approval from more than half of the House's 435 members but less than half of its 231 Republicans.

That is the scenario that could emerge in the House this summer, sources say, because the immigration debate divides both parties along unusual lines. It is possible, they said, that enough House Democrats and Republicans -- but not a majority of the Republicans -- could support a version of the legislation backed by Bush and most senators to enact it into law.

But Hastert would prevent House action on such a measure under his leadership policy, spokesman Ron Bonjean said yesterday. Hastert still embraces the majority-of-a-majority rule -- first enunciated in a 2003 speech -- "and he intends to do so with any immigration bill that comes out of [a House-Senate] conference," Bonjean said.

...A House GOP leadership aide, who spoke on background to be more candid, said Hastert and his lieutenants will not be persuaded by Bush to embrace a conference report opposed by most GOP members. "There's a feeling that no bill is better than a bill that further alienates our base and divides the [Republican] conference," the aide said."

It's sounds like Dennis Hastert is planning to make sure that any immigration bill that gets through will actually be supported by the American people and the Republican base. That's something that the Republicans in the Senate and George Bush, almost inexplicably, haven't been doing. So, it's fantastic to see that it looks like a little bit of sanity is about to be inserted into this process.

This story from The Guardian seems to back up the Raw Story article yesterday about a coming American withdrawal from Iraq:

The new Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, today said Iraqis could be in control of security by the end of the year in all of the country apart from Baghdad and Anbar province.

Mr Maliki, appearing at a news conference with Tony Blair, who is visiting Baghdad, indicated that he expected the Iraqi government to begin taking over control of some of the more peaceful provinces from the multinational forces from next month.

...Mr Blair declined to set out a precise timetable for the return of British troops, but said that the UK wanted to move as fast on the issue as was possible, without jeopardising security.

"We have always, under the Iraqi-isation strategy, had the perspective of building up the Iraqi security force capability and as they build up, we are able to draw down," he said. "That is what was envisaged in the UN resolution under which our forces are here. We want to move as fast as we can on it, but it has got to be done in a way that protects the security of the Iraqi people."

He added: "We have got the Iraqi forces up to a strength, I think, of round about 250,000. They come up to their full strength at the end of this year. There is the notion, which has been there for a significant period of time, of slowly being able to release individual provinces into the control of Iraqi forces."

If the Iraqis completely take over 16 out of 18 provinces, which is entirely possible given how many troops they now have and the fact that most of Iraq's provinces are relatively quiet, we're obviously going to free up a lot of troops to come home.

Of course, you'll hear Democrats claiming that this is a political stunt, but that's not true. Let me repost something that was up on RWN in August of last year. It's question and answer #9 from a post called Answering 10 Frequently Asked Questions About Iraq.

9) Ok, so the Iraqis are making progress. What does that mean for our troops? When can they start to come home?

The President has refused to set a timetable for a pull out because he believes it would give the insurgents an "incentive 'to wait us out.'" Instead Bush has said that as: ""Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

Although the President is keeping his lips buttoned, some of our generals have been a bit more forthcoming about our plans.

Gen. George W. Casey has said that there may be: "some "fairly substantial reductions" after these elections in the spring and summer.

Furthermore, the Washington Post noted in late July that Lt. Gen. John R. Vines: "told reporters last month that four or five of 17 battalions, roughly one-quarter of U.S. forces in Iraq, could be pulled out if security conditions improved and if Iraqi national elections scheduled for December went smoothly."

Similarly in July, Gen. John Abizaid: "outlined a plan last month to gradually reduce by 20,000 to 30,000 by next spring the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, with more to follow in the summer and fall."

So, it looks likely that we will see substantial troop reductions in Iraq between Jan & June of 2006, although we may actually see a temporary increase in the number of troops in Iraq over the next few months in order to provide extra security for the Iraqi elections.

Bookmark this post folks and then, if and when the Democrats start claiming a troop pull-out is a cynical move by President Bush, throw those quotes from our generals, that were made last year, right back in their faces. If we can pull a significant number of troops out of Iraq this summer it'll be proof that the Iraqis are starting to get strong enough to handle their own security and that Bush's policies are working. So, cross your fingers and hope that the withdrawal stories turn out to be true.

Welcome to the thoughtless world of contemporary liberalism. Beginning in the 1960s, liberalism, once the home of many deep thinkers, began to substitute feeling for thought and descended into superficiality.

...This is easy to demonstrate.

Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:

Racist
Sexist
Homophobic
Islamophobic
Imperialist
Bigoted
Intolerant

And here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:

Peace
Fairness
Tolerance
The poor
The disenfranchised
The environment

These two lists serve contemporary liberals in at least three ways.

First, they attack the motives of non-liberals and thereby morally dismiss the non-liberal person.

Second, these words make it easy to be a liberal -- essentially all one needs to do is to memorize this brief list and apply the right term to any idea or policy. That is one reason young people are more likely to be liberal -- they have not had the time or inclination to think issues through, but they know they oppose racism, imperialism and bigotry, and that they are for peace, tolerance and the environment.

Third, they make the liberal feel good about himself -- by opposing conservative ideas and policies, he is automatically opposing racism, bigotry, imperialism, etc." -- Dennis Prager

Domestic

Immigration Bill Expected To Pass Senate This Week. Hastert May Block Version That Divides House GOP (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Senate Bill Protects Employers Of Illegal Aliens From Penalties

Rep. Peter King: Senate Bill is 'Amnesty

Former President Clinton Agrees With Bush Immigration Plan

Call Your Senators And Let Them Know What You Think About Illegal Immigration

New Jersey's Ex-Democratic Gov. Jim McGreevy: I Cruised Truck-Stops For Sex

The DNC Denies That They Opposed Nagin

NYT: State Of Clinton Marriage A Question For Dems

Foreign

Claim: France, Italy And Germany Sanctioned The Payment Of $45 Million In Deals To Free Nine Hostages Abducted In Iraq

Insurgents Keep U.S. At Bay In Ramadi

Montenegro Votes To Secede From Serbia

Columns

Phyllis Schlafly: President's Immigration Speech Lacks Credibility

Robert Novak: A Hard Bill To Love

Thomas Sowell: Bordering On Fraud

Deroy Murdock: Bush Administration Steers Immigrants Away From English

The Detroit News: Ethanol Won't Solve U.S. Energy Problems

Left-Overs

Soldiers Walking Through American Grass In Iraq For Luck

Lorie Byrd Moves Over To Wizbang

Workers Flee Explosive Fries

Humor: If Men Gave Advice... (Raunchy Subject Matter)

Website Of The Day: Parapundit

"The Rasmussen Reports national opinion survey taken the night after the President's nationally televised address also highlighted a common misconception about the immigration debate.

Media commentaries often suggest that support for an enforcement first policy is an option supported primarily by conservatives. In fact, 67% of political moderates support such an approach. That's virtually indistinguishable from the 66% of conservatives who support for enforcement-first approach. Fifty-two percent (52%) of self-identified liberals also hold this view." -- Rasmussen Reports

It's hard to know how much credence to give to this story, but if it's true, it's really good news:

"Tony Blair and George Bush will announce that they are to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq at a summit in Washington as early as this week, RAW STORY has learned.

The process has already been carefully choreographed in an attempt to bolster the popularity of both Bush and Blair who have suffered domestically for their handling of the war.

The scope of the phased withdrawal, which will see the 133,000 US force levels cut to around 100,000 by the end of the year and British numbers almost halved, has already been agreed, one senior defence source said.

The actual announcement will come in response to a statement from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that his government believes coalition forces are no longer needed in a number of provinces."

Will there be a summit and a big announcement in the next week or two? Will it take longer? Don't know. But, George Bush has been saying for quite a while now that as the Iraqi troops stand up, our troops will stand down. It has been a "long, hard slog" in Iraq, but as early as July of last year, there were predictions that we'd be bringing home a significant number of troops this summer because they'll no longer be needed in Iraq, so it wouldn't be surprising if that prediction came to fruition in the next few weeks or months. Although you wouldn't know it from reading the mainstream media, most of Iraq isn't wracked with violence, and since the number of trained Iraqi troops have been increasing rapidly, it wouldn't be all that surprising if we could bring some of our troops home.

If that turns out to be the case, it'll be a real sign of progress and proof that Bush has taken the right approach. Unlike the Democrats in Washington who've placed political concerns above winning the war, Bush has refused to set a timetable and has said over and over again that decisions will be made based on what's happening on the ground, not politics. That's was the right decision and America may be about to see some proof of that.

This sounds like a real classy show:

Later on, (Madonna) donned a crown of thorns and suspended herself from a giant mirrored cross to deliver the ballad "Live to Tell." Video screens showed images of third-world poverty and reeled off grim statistics.

During one of her half-dozen costume changes, another video montage juxtaposed images of Bush, members of his administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair with footage of Adolf Hitler, Osama bin Laden, and Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe. Midway through the new song "I Love New York," she deviated from the script and made a crude reference to Bush and oral sex.

Crucifying herself, huh? Maybe she can stick that on the cover of one of her children's books.

Of course, the only thing she was trying to do with this whole Hitler and pony show was to attract attention and get people to write about her which is....oh. Well, I guess it worked.

Still, I think I'm safe. I mean it's not like I'm suggesting that people boycott her and how many RWN readers are going to a Madonna show? Particularly since, despite the fact that she keeps in shape, she's not aging that well -- and should middle-aged women really be crucifying themselves in public? Should anyone really be crucifying themselves at all these days?

No, I don't think so.

This does not strike me as healthy for the United States.

"Roughly 10 percent of Mexico's population of about 107 million is now living in the United States, estimates show. About 15 percent of Mexico's labor force is working in the United States. One in every 7 Mexican workers migrates to the United States."

From our perspective, we want immigrants to this country who want to assimilate and become Americans. When you have that many people coming from any one country, especially one so close to our own borders, where they speak another language, it's going to greatly hinder assimilation.

Then there's the attitude of the Mexican government which is, in diplomat speak, "not helpful." It's bad enough that they openly encourage their citizens to cross into our country illegally and loudly protest any and all measures that we take to secure our borders, but they've even gone so far as to admit that they want these large numbers of Mexican nationals in the US to, "influence the foreign policy of the United States towards Mexico."

As if that weren't enough, in a 2002 Zogby poll, it was revealed that 58% of Mexicans believe that the "U.S. Southwest rightfully belonged to Mexico." Put that together with the 10% of Mexico's population figure and that means we probably have more than 6 million people in this country who believe that America has stolen land that rightfully belongs to them. Does that not strike people as something that may be more than a little bit dangerous for this country in the long term?

When it comes to immigration, the most important thing to consider is always, "What's best for the American public?" Clearly, having so many illegal immgrants coming into this country from Mexico is not in the long-term interests of the United States.

Over at the Daily Kos, someone named DarkSyde is riffing about how he doesn't like the religious right. Here's how he started things off:

"I'm not religious. I don't see religious belief as inherently evil or fundamentally good. Martin Luther King Jr. based much of his objection to institutionalized racism on his religious convictions. Osama bin Laden ostensibly did the same with 9-11."

So, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Osama Bin Laden are just flips of the religious coin? Oh, good grief. But, let's not get distracted because that wasn't the main point I wanted to cover. Here's something else DarkSyde said:

"Every modern item on the neo-conservative agenda revolves around robbing from the poor and giving to the rich. Every item on the agenda of the religious right is carefully selected and promoted by neocons only if it facilitates or does not interfere with this goal. It's not easy to sell an ideology that benefits the elite at the expense of the working class."

Let me get this straight: the entire conservative agenda is all about stealing from the poor and giving it to the rich? Since the poor -- being poor -- don't have any money to begin with, how can conservatives be stealing it from them to give it to the rich? Does that really make sense?

Moreover, let's talk about who does more for the poor, conservatives or liberals. Liberals believe in giving poor people just enough government largesse to live on, to keep them under control and voting for Democrats. On the other hand, conservatives believe in finding ways to help people help themselves. For example,

-- Conservatives believe in school vouchers, which allow poor children to get away from failing public schools and go to the sort of private schools that normally only the rich can afford. Liberals believe in keeping poor kids trapped in failing school systems because allowing them to go to private schools would upset the Dems' political allies, the teachers' unions.

-- Conservatives believe in being tough on crime and keeping the sort of criminals who prey on poor neighborhoods locked up. Liberals treat the criminals like victims and work to get them set free as quickly as possible, so they can get back to terrorizing the same poor neighborhoods they came from in the first place.

-- Conservatives believe in the 2nd Amendment, which benefits poor families that need protection in bad neighborhoods most of all. Liberals believe in gun control, which takes weapons away from honest families who need them and leaves them at the mercy of criminals.

-- Conservatives also believe in low taxes, light regulation, and pro-business policies which keep the economy strong and give poor people the opportunity to get jobs. Liberals believe in high taxes, heavy regulation, and anti-business policies which make it harder for the poor to get jobs.

-- Although there are more than a few RINOs out there who are pro-illegal immigrants, the overwhelming majority of politicians who are tough on illegal immigration are conservative and which Americans are harmed the most by illegals? Poor Americans who lose jobs to illegals and see their wages driven down. The vast majority of liberal politicians in Congress are open borders advocates and their policies are devastating to the poor.

If you're a poor American, especially one who's looking for more opportunities, not handouts, then you're certainly better off voting for Republicans than Democrats.

An elementary school decided to put a patriotic symbol on the cover of its yearbook.. Fine. But there was one little problem. It was that pesky "In God We Trust" saying on the coin. So, they airbrushed it out. But, any kid who missed it could get a little sticker to put on the yearbook.

A Keller school district parent said political correctness has run amok at her daughter's elementary school, where the principal chose to omit the words "In God We Trust" from an oversize coin depicted on the yearbook cover.

Janet Travis, principal of Liberty Elementary School in Colleyville, wanted to avoid offending students of different religions, a district spokesman said. Students were given stickers with the words that could be affixed to the book if they so chose.

Geesh, I realize that the principal was just trying not to offend anyone, but then pick another symbol. Since they're Liberty Elementary, you'd think that the Liberty Bell would be a natural. It proclaims "Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." Who could object to that? Oops, that is from Leviticus. Can't have that.

Ackerman suggested that the school could have used a different symbol for liberty, such as the Liberty Bell or the Statue of Liberty, if it was concerned about giving offense. But Gardner [head of the PTA] said those symbols may not be acceptable to everyone, either.

Oh, dear. Who objects to the Statue of Liberty? Those who don't like immigrants being welcomed here? Those who don't like the French who gave it to us? I can't imagine what the objections this principal was worrying about. I've never heard of anyone ever objecting to the Liberty Bell or the Statue of Liberty. Where do we draw the line?

This content was used with the permission of Betsy's Page.

Foreign

Iran Is Just A Few Months Away From Acquiring The Technological Know- How That Will Allow It To Build An Atomic Bomb, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert Said In An Interview Broadcast Sunday (If That's True, They Need To Be Bombed Soon)

Iraqi Premier, Cabinet Sworn In (Free WAPO Reg Req)

An Apparent Attempt To Assassinate Gaza's Intelligence Chief With A Bomb Planted At His Headquarters Saturday Heightened Tensions Between President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Faction And The Islamic Militant Group Hamas

Saudi School Textbooks Encourage Jihad Against The Infidels

Saudis Jump Aboard Florida School Bus. Police Try To Determine Intent: '1 Of The Guys Was Wearing Shorts With A Black Trench Coat'

For Soldiers, Gratitude And Praise From An Iraqi Mayor

Baghdad's Lionel Richie Obsession

Domestic

Roughly 10% of Mexico's Population Is Now Living In The United States

Mexico Works to Bar Non-Natives From Jobs

Bush Is Losing Hispanics' Support, Polls Show (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Contact Your Senator And Let Him know You Oppose Giving Citizenship To Illegals

Nagin Wins Re-Election As Big Easy Mayor

Democratic National Committee Worked To Defeat Nagin

Democrat William Jefferson Was Caught On Videotape Accepting $100,000 In $100 Bills From An FBI Informant

In House Races, More G.O.P. Seats Look Vulnerable (Free NYT Reg Req)

A Federal Judge Struck Down A 2-Year-Old Law That Prohibits Oklahoma From Recognizing Adoptions By Same-Sex Couples From Other States And Countries.

Columns

Mark Steyn: Not Just Immigration: It's Societal Transformation

Rick Santorum: Where I Stand On The Immigration Bill: Increase Border Security, No Amnesty

Bill O'Reilly: Guarding The Border

Richard A. Viguerie: Bush's Base Betrayal

Nathanael Blake: Multiculturalism With Entertainment Options

Cathy Seipp: Why I Joined The GOP

Left-Overs

Hospice, Again

Texas School Omits 'In God We Trust' From Coin On Yearbook Cover

Nothing Wrong With The Ned Lamont/Daily Kos Ad That A Little Script Doctoring Can’t Fix

Gay Anti-Bush Film At Cannes Features The Star Spangled Banner During A Gay Sex Scene

Elton John Says Photographers "Should All Be Shot"

A Woman Rips Off Part Of Her Husband's Genatalia With Her Bare Hands

Humor: Ask PETA!

Website Of The Day: Grassfire

How about helping me out by taking a look at just a few of RWN's advertisers? Even if you clicked on just 3 or 4 of them, it would really be great. And, as an added bonus, I've just listed the advertisers without mentioning their names, to sort of make it like a game...not a very fun or entertaining or intriguing game, but slightly more fun that soccer! So, how about clicking on a just few ads? Please?

Link #1

Link #2

Link #3

Link #4

Link #5

Link #6

Link #7

Link #8

Link #9

Link #10

RWN now has three banner ad slots available. You can purchase a 468x60 banner ad on RWN for $60 a month. The banners appear on every page of RWN. If you're interested, send $60 to my Paypal account (which is also located in the support section -- please mention what the money is for in the comments section) and email me your 20kb or smaller banner ad at johnhawkins-at-rightwingnews.com. I will sell a maximum of 4 of these ads per month.