This is a very disturbing story coming out of London today. Earlier today, a very large car bomb was discovered in the West End of London, and now the reports say, there was a second car bomb, roughly equal in power, also discovered in the West End later today.

The first bomb consisted of gasoline, gas canisters, and nails, and would probably have caused a sufficient degree of damage if it had gone off. The bomb was disengaged by a brave police officer, before the Bomb Squad arrived, and it is possible that the action of this man saved several lives.

The police weren't sure that it was an act of Jihadism (islamic terrorism) at first, because it could have been the act of one lunatic - Timothy McVeigh used a car bomb. With the discovery of the second bomb however (though London Police have been largely unwilling to comment on this), the only realistic conclusion to draw is that it IS terrorism, and specifically, Jihadism.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said the UK is "currently facing the most serious and sustained threat"

It is good that some people in Britain recognize that they are not immune to the dangers that face the world from Islamic terrorism. 7/7 opened that first eye for them, and perhaps the actions today will open their other eye. Some Brit's understand, but many do not - as is the case in the United States.

Authorities within the British government suspect that the terrorists who planted these vehicles, are home grown terrorists - British jihadists. This is very distrubing, and needs to be addressed in the United States as well. We have a larger population, that is spread out over a wider area. We have a southern border with more holes then the moon, and the northern border isn't a whole lot better. Homegrown terrorism is an even bigger danger for us than for the Brits I'd say.

This also proves the validity of the "If we leave, they will follow argument" that frequently gets attacked by liberals and leftists. They claim that terrorists in Iraq are just fighting for their homeland, and will calm down if the United States were just to leave the country alone. Conservatives and terror analysts on the other hand, have argued largely that the jihadists will follow us back home, should we choose to leave.

England has chosen to leave Iraq, and that process has started already. And guess what? They almost got attacked again - they foiled a terrorist plot, but they only foiled the plot when the bombs were already in place - they didn't nab it in the planning stages, which is much safer and less likely to fail (but also harder). Have the jihadists stayed home and decided not to bother the UK because they are leaving? It doesn't seem that way to me. Rather, the jihadists are just going to Britain, because now it is easier (and it's where the Brits are - they can't kill them in Iraq if they are no longer there).

The US Needs to take heed of this, and realize the threat we face from global islamic terror, and take more steps to deal with these threats. The border is one of the biggest problems, and the one that needs to be fixed the most (unfortunately, many over-politicized Senators have crafted the Immigration Bill that looks as though it originated on the 7th circle of hell.)

We need to understand the threat we face, and how to best deal with that threat - and it is a threat, and it is a very dangerous one. If we leave Iraq right away, without taking attempts to quell the jihadists that are there, then not only will Iran soon conquer Iraq (the worst of all possible outcomes for the fledgling democracy, and the region as a whole), but the jihadists who want to kill Americans, will move to the place where the Americans are. Now, they can kill Americans from the comfort of their own geography. But since their goal is to kill Americans, they will just go where we are. And I would prefer to keep them away from HERE.

It would seem that, after months of fighting, that revealed multiple Republican senators for who they really are, that angered and mobilized the American people in ways not usually seen, that the dastardly immigration reform bill has finally come to an end, after cloture was voted down.

Cloture, which would have required 60 votes to end the debate, failed with a 46-53 vote. This is because multiple Democratic and Republican senators changed their vote from the earlier cloture measure, which did pass earlier this week. Let us hope that, this bill has finally died, once and for all. The filibuster is continuing, and it should continue until finally this bill is laid to rest, and the Democratically controlled Congress can get back to doing what it has proven to be excellent at accomplishing - absolutely nothing of any value.

There's not much to say other than we need to keep up the fight, and vote all 53 bozos out of the Senate when their time comes - all 53 who voted for Cloture. All 53 who voted to let this damn thing move forward. All 53 who clearly ignored the will of the American people, and pursued their own goals for their own reasons. They have forgotten the fundamental principle of American government - that elected officials MUST be held accountable for their actions, and that they must be responsible for them, and that if they are not, then the people - who hold the real power - can remove them from duty.

We the people need to remember this fact, and mobilize very strongly in 2008, when the Presidental campaign, and 1/3 of the senators come up for reelection. Of the 53 who voted for cloture, it is likely that 17 or 18 of them will be up for reelection (I haven't checked this out factually, but mathematically, it's what would make sense). That's approximately 17 senators we could be rid of, just in the next election cycle. Imagine - Democrat or Republican - how that would change the face of Washington, how revolutionary that would be.

If ever there was an argument for term limits, this immigration bill must be the shining example of it.

We all know about McCain Feingold - you know, the piece of legislation that may be one of the greatest threats to free speech since the Alien and Sedition acts of the 1790's. It was an abomination - as so much legislation is these days - when it was passed, and it remains one today.

Luckily, the supreme court on a partisan vote - 5 to 4 - decided that certain portions of McCain Feingold at least, are Unconstitutional (as some <ahem> have been arguing from the very beginning). The case that went to the court, concerned Wisconsin Right-To-Life, an anti-abortion group alleging that it's First Amendment rights were violated.

The Majority opinion, written by John Roberts, very clearly stated that it was indeed unconstitutional to prevent people from running political advertisements a certain (arbitrary) number of days before an election - that there was no compelling government interest for such infringements on free speech.

I would go one step further - though unfortunately, the court has not - and say that McCain Feingold itself is unconstitutional. It tries to limit free speech, something that I do not think should ever be infringed upon by the government, unless a persons rights are imminently in danger (If you stand in front of somebody with a knife, and tell them you are going to kill them, you are putting the right of that person's life in danger, and so these kinds of threats would be limited).

I WOULD however argue, that the Oliver Wendell Holmes quote - "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre" is stupid. When you purchase a ticket to a movie theatre, you are entering into a contract between yourself and the owner of the theatre. Your contract allows you to watch a movie on the owners property - to use their property for something you desire. Yet that contract does not give you the right to disrupt the movie. So, I see yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, as a violation of contract law, but NOT as a reason for the government to infringe upon free speech - let the owner of the theatre sue, or let the other patrons sue, who were sent into emotional anguish.

Alternatively, if the OWNER of the theatre yells "fire," then they are breaking their end of the contract - to allow you to safely use their property to watch a movie without being disturbed. Either way, contracts were broken, but I don't see how that translates to free speech - let the individuals involved in the contracts handle the problem, not the government.

But I digress.

It is good that the court struck down this thing, because it is a victory for the Constitution, and the rights of the American citizen - and that is always a good thing.

Well, I haven't updated this blog much lately, because I've had a lot of business in my life to deal with. That said, I HAVE been able to keep up with the news - just not to actually find the time to blog about it.

This immigration bill, I do not need to explain to my readers, is an abomination. Despite what some Democrats, and a few Republicans say, the bill is an amnesty bill, because it gives lawbreakers benefits before it punishes them for being lawbreakers. Furthermore, it does nothing to beef up border security, which is the real, and far more immediate concern. We can handle the 12 million or so who are already here sometime in the future - they're not going anywhere (that indeed, seems to be the source of the whole problem).

What is important, is that we beef up border security, so that jihadists cannot come across the border. We must also make sure that we do not reward lawbreaking, and it is essential that we define the type of worker we want coming across the border. Is it necessary to have another 1,000,000 unskilled laborers who barely speak English? No! We're having enough trouble as it is - we need people who have the skills necessary to do the jobs we need done. Unskilled people will eat up taxpayer welfare money, etc.

As Pat Buchanan pointed out over the weekend, in Washington D.C. the average illegal takes 12,000 in government welfare (through various programs, welfare, public education, etc). He also pointed out that they pay nowhere near 12,000 in taxes - so they really are taking our money, and that I think is one of the reasons so many people are outraged.

What upsets me the most, is the betrayal of the Conservative base of the Republican party, by some of it's top leaders. John McCain, a man who has twice wanted to become the Republican Party's presidential candidate, has completely sold out much of its base - something near 85% of Republican's despise this bill (as they very well should - it's an abomination).

Not only that, but if these congressional leaders are trying to play moderate, they are failing miserably - something near 55% of Democrats hate this bill as well. The fact is, half the country is Republican, the other half Democrat (roughly). 55% of 50% the total population (that's roughly 27.5% of the total US Population) hates this bill. 85% of 50% of this population (42.5%) hate this bill.

That's 70% of the American population that hates this bill. Democrats in particular like to talk about mandates - and frequently misunderstand precisely what a mandate is. A 51-49 majority in the Senate, is NOT a majority. Neither is their slim - but slightly larger - majority in the House. Small differences - in most cases, well within normal scientific margins of error - do not constitute mandates.

70% of the American population - that's higher than any Presidental Popular Vote total in American history (Johnson and Nixon were the highest, both well above 68%) - oppose this bill. Congressional leaders need to realize that the American people, on a largely bi-partisan level (since Senators like to talk about this sort of thing) oppose this bill, and that it needs to be dumped.

Unfortunately, they haven't yet gotten the message, because according to reports, they are trying one more time to revive this thing. The leaders of both the House and the Senate - GOP and Democrat - need to understand that this bill WILL NOT pass. And if it does, then the backlash on these clowns and troglodytes will be immense in 2008, when 1/3 of the Senate, 100% of the House, and the presidency are on the line.

They need to get it through their thick, incompetent skulls, and stop selling out the American people.

Recent information coming out of Tehran today, has President Ahmadinejad issuing a clearly-worded warning to the Israeli government, warning them about attacking Lebanon again over the summer. In the statement issued on Thursday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Israel would face repercussions if it were to attack Lebanon again.

"If you think that by bombing and assassinating Palestinian leaders you are preparing ground for new attacks on Lebanon in the summer, I am telling you that you are seriously wrong. If this year you repeat the same mistake of the last year, the ocean of nations of the region will get angry and will uproot the Zionist regime."  (emphasis added).

Now if this isn't a threat to the security and welfare of Israel, I do not know what is. There are two ways for Iran to attack Israel. The first is directly, which seems unlikely since Israel is the more powerful country, and has nuclear weapons, whereas Iran does not (at the moment) possess these weapons. Furthermore, the logistics would be too difficult, and the "international" community (particularly the US) would destroy Iran if they were to do that.

So it is likely that Iranian retaliation will come as it did last time - through their proxies Hezbollah and Hamas. Both of these groups are funded by Iran, and supplied by Iran, and Iran has a vested interest in their success in their lengthy struggle against Israel. And yet these threats that are issued so clearly from Iran, and are so obviously dangerous to Israeli national security, as well as the security of the entire middle east, go untalked about by the "international community."

I go through painstaking details on this blog to bring to the attention of people the threat that I believe exists from Iran - which is the greatest threat the US faces today, and possibly the greatest threat we have ever faced - at the very least since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

This is just another in a long, long, long line of offenses by Iran, against both the United States, and Israel, and other westernized nations. Something must be done, but our politicians and "international leaders" refuse to do a damn thing.

 According to a new report from the AP, the body of one of the three missing US soldiers has been found in the Euphrates River, just south of Baghdad today. According to the report, it has been positively identified as one of the soldiers that was abducted by Al-Qaida.

A second body was found near the area, but the military has not released details about this body, and so at this time it is unknown whether or not the body was that of one of the other US soldiers abducted by Al-Qaida earlier this month.

Usually I have a comment, but the only comment I have is that this illustrates the barbarity of the enemy we are fighting, and why it is necessary to continue this fight until that enemy ceases to be a threat - because to do otherwise would be to have people like Joseph Anzack Jr., the name of the young man who died at the hands of brutal, sadistic, madmen, die in vain, and to allow evil jihadists to succeed in their goal of subjugating America and the Middle East under their homicidal tyranny.

Let us take a moment tonight to remember Pfc. Anzack, as well as the two other missing soldiers, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez, and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty.

The Senate voted today to impose more restrictions on the Immigration bill that has been going through, which many liberals decry as being too tough on illegal aliens, and conservatives rightly complain about not being tough enough on border security, which is an extremely important security and economic issue for this country.

Today, the Senate overwhelmingly voted to drastically cut the number of foreigners who can come into this country on temporary visas. I don't generally praise Democrats, but they proposed the amendment, which would cap the number of temporary visas at 200,000 (and was strongly opposed by the Bush administration), instead of the previous 400,000 (with the added option of raising it to 600,000). Now, it is 200,000 period. This is a good addition to the bill, something that definitely should be kept (and was voted for 74-24) today in the Senate.

Additionally, they accepted an amendment which would require mandatory prison sentences for illegals who re-enter this country illegally, something else that should be kept. This amendment was proposed by Lindsey Graham.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration remains solidly behind the pro-Amnesty stance that many "illegal rights" groups have adopted, one that makes absolutely no sense to anybody with sense. First and foremost, there are not nearly enough border security measures in place to clamp down on problems at the border.

I cannot understand the Bush Administration on this issue. No Republican presidential candidate except John McCain - who helped craft the bill - have come out in support of this trash, and very few conservatives support it. Why hasn't Bush figured out that this is NOT what the American people want? He has already upset a good deal of them with his botched handling of a justified war (including myself), what political incentive does he have to continue to aggravate them with policies that nobody likes? With Iraq, there is little that can be done. Bush is generally right about Iraq now, despite what many people - some understandably upset with war - say, but on Immigration, he is completely and utterly wrong.

Why create further problems for yourself and your party?

No good can come if this bill passes. Democrats are the primary authors of it - and John McCain - and if it succeeds (highly unlikely), it will be presented as their success. Even if it does not, it will be blamed on Republicans who attached too many strings to the bill, and too many security provisions that do not take into account the aliens already here.

I still do not understand the President's stance on this issue. There are serious problems with our Legal immigration system, I understand that. Yet there are also serious problems with most government programs (the primary reason I believe almost all of them should be abolished as soon as possible), but we don't run off to fix them. Not that I'm arguing the legal immigration system should be fixed (or abolished!). What I am arguing, is that we need to stop the flow of ILLEGAL immigration first, and THEN we can worry about what to do with those already here, and reforming our legal immigration system.

Trying to do it all at once will be - and is - a nightmare.

Recent press releases by Democrats show that they are willing to give President Bush the war spending he has asked for, without the withdrawal timeline insisted upon by many Democrats no less then Friday of last week. There are suggested benchmarks, but it is not obligatory that the Iraqi government meet them. However, as Democrats have pointed out, there IS a de facto timeline in the bill - it expires in September, and more importantly, multiple Republican senators have said they will not continue to support the war unless progress is clearly being made.

The final bill has yet to be released, but it would seem that the Democrats have caved to the presidents wishes (rightfully). However, there are greater political issues here. Many rabid anti-war activists have made it clear that they voted for Democrats - and encouraged others to do so - in 2006, so that this war would end, and now it would seem that Congress is giving the President what he wants - in reality, the ability to do his Constitutional duty - which they would see as rubber-stamping the president's "Stay the course" strategy (which this is not).

However, there are still many problems with this bill. I'm not sure that it would be politically wise to see the President veto this next bill - it does after all, contain what he generally wants on the wartime issues - however it still carries 4/5 of the original pork that was in the first bill, and that is another problem. This is an emergency war measures act, and much of the spending tagged onto this bill has nothing to do with military spending. Most of the spending could be supported, but NOT on a war spending bill - tagging it on there is just to make a point.

Furthermore, there is a minimum wage hike on the bill, something that I as an absolute free-marketer thing detestable. We need to abolish minimum wage laws, abolish government restrictions on the marketplace, and let the market sort itself out - workers will be paid what they agree to do by contract, and the owners would have incentive to pay them well to keep them on staff. Regardless, this has nothing to do with military spending and should not be on the bill.

I still detest the bill that has been created, but I think it is more important that we get the bill signed into law before memorial day, so our soldiers can quit worrying about whether the funds to support them will be cut off, and go back to doing their duty - protecting this country from evil people who wish to see us destroyed.

Former US President, and idol of the big-government left, Jimmy Carter has come out blasting outgoing British PM Tony Blair, on his support for the Iraq War, calling it abominable, and claiming that Blair "blindly" followed the policies of George W. Bush.

"I think that the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," he said in an interview on the BBC, where he repeatedly attacked President Bush, as well as Tony Blair. He also says that if Blair had distanced himself from Bush in 2003, the war might never have happened.

Honestly, I think the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976 was an ill-advised policy and a major tragedy for the world. Because of Jimmy Carter, the United States was plunged into a war with Iran - when they took, and refused to release our hostage. Because of Jimmy Carter, the state of the US Economy was destroyed, requiring the excellent leadership of the great Ronald Reagan to recharge it, and re-energize it to meet the new decade (the 1980's).

I can't figure out what the source of Jimmy Carter's expertise is. He was president for 4 years - Bush for 6, and it will be 8 before he's done, so right there that should tell you something. Carter's domestic policies, economic policies, and foreign policy were all abysmal failures that hurt the US standing against both the Soviets, and in the eyes of the rest of the world - something which we are still recovering from.

I think Jimmy Carter should shut up and mind his own business, and realize that he knows nothing more about running a country than anybody else, and quite a bit less than a good deal of people.

In case there is any wonder that Hamas is a band of bloodthirsty thugs, there are now reports that they planned to assassinate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. As a result, Abbas was forced - or chose - to cancel a trip to the Gaza Strip out of fear for his life. Meanwhile, Hamas also announced that it supports deploying Arab peace-keeping (though how anybody associated with Hamas can be called "peacekeeping" is beyond me) forces throughout the Strip, to stop the "internicine violence," (or more likely, to more easily attack Israel).

Supposedly, there was a cease-fire that went into effect at 8pm on Wednesday evening - yet 4 Palestinians have been killed and 15 wounded since the cease-fire (hah!) began.

Now I'm no fan of Abbas - he represents Fatah, which is no better than Hamas, only less honest about their intentions - but this really does illustrate how completely messed up the Palestinian government is. The two factions want to kill each other all the time, and even threaten to assassinate the leaders of the opposing party.

The United States could learn a thing here about the jihadists whom we are fighting. They target our leaders, try to assassinate our high-ranking officials, and try to wreak havoc and impose destruction and death from the top down, rather than the bottom up. It also shows the kind of tactics they are willing to use to achieve their suicidal and apocalyptic goal, and it shows the kind of resolve that is necessary to combat such evil.

We need to learn or remember that the people we are fighting - people much like the members of Hamas - do not want to sit down and talk about their differences, and do not want to reach compromises. To them, compromises represent surrender, and that is something they can never do (it violates their perverted version of their religion).

We have to kill them, before they can kill us and destroy our freedom and our way of life.

Honestly, I think the entire Gonzales "controversy" is entirely overblown. On one hand, we have a bunch of bloodthirsty Democrats who are out for blood after finally winning election in 2006 (though their current approval ratings are lower than the Presidents). On the other hand, we have President Bush and Attorney General Gonzales, neither of whom have been able to successfully handle the PR of this supposed controversy.

So, perhaps Gonzales has to go. He is serving as a shield against further Democratic attacks - they've already taken Rumsfeld, they're going after Rove, and they're trying to get Gonzales - however, and so it is important perhaps that he remain so that our government isn't enveloped in hearings aimed at President Bush. Regardless it is stupid.

Yet what I'm really upset about, is the total and complete gutlessness of the Democratic party. They have pursued non-binding resolution after non-binding resolution. The binding resolutions they pass are quickly vetoed, or never even make it to a vote (as with the recent - Defeat America Now resolutions). Then they try to pass votes of no confidence.

If the Democrats really want to clean up Washington, they could start by actually DOING things.

That's not to say I'd support the things they are doing - I would still oppose most of them, because I believe they are wrong policies that will dig this country into a whole.

However, it is much easier to oppose something that exists, than something that is just angry words on a piece of paper.

Here's the story of Illegal Amnesty.

WASHINGTON - Republicans and Democrats struggled Wednesday over the final details of an elusive deal that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. and fortify the border.

Among the last sticking points was how much family ties should count toward green cards under a new so-called "point system" that prioritizes advanced skills and education levels for future immigrants. A key hurdle was cleared when negotiators agreed that low-skilled workers could also receive credit toward permanent legal status.

There was still a chance that sensitive talks among senators and the White House could collapse before a deal is reached. But key players said they were hopeful that the emerging bipartisan compromise would set the stage for a wide-ranging Senate immigration debate next week. The divisive issue carries political risks for both parties.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the Democrats' lead negotiator, called Thursday "D-Day" for an agreement, noting that it's senators' last day in town before an immigration vote scheduled for Monday evening.

"I'm hopeful that it will happen," Kennedy said.

Sen. Jon Kyl (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., another key player, said the still-developing bill could bridge what has been a wide gulf between the two parties on immigration that killed chances for a law in 2006.

"This has the potential to do much better than last year and be truly a bipartisan bill," Kyl said.

       President Bush, eager to enact an immigration overhaul, has sent        Homeland Security Secretary        Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary        Carlos Gutierrez to weeks of private meetings with lawmakers in search of a compromise.

"The best way, and, frankly, the only way to get a comprehensive bill done that will matter and deal with this issue once and for all, is for the bipartisan approach that we're now working on to come to fruition," Bush said. "There is a good chance" of an agreement, he added.

Still, liberals and conservatives alike are skeptical of the proposal. Some Republicans contend it is too lenient in how it treats the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, while some Democrats call it too restrictive toward future immigrants and unfair to families.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., said he was concerned with elements of the outline after hearing strident complaints from interest groups.

"Our immigration system is broken and certainly needs to be fixed. But in the process we don't want to make it worse than what it was to start with," Reid said.

The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa." After paying fees, a $5,000 fine and then returning to their home countries, they could get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years.

They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S. That was an important goal for Democrats, who are eager to allow undocumented immigrants to adjust their status as soon as possible.

The illegal population could not, however, begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until completion of border security improvements and a high-tech worker identification program.

A new temporary guest worker program also would have to wait until those "triggers" had been activated. This is a priority for conservatives, who had previously insisted on strengthening the border before they would act on a broader immigration bill.

All but the highest-skilled temporary workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with barely any opportunity to apply for permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice but would be required to leave for a year in between each time. Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.

The workers also would be barred from bringing their families with them, unless they stayed for only two years and could show they would not be primarily dependent on government benefits.

In perhaps the most hotly debated change, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end "chain migration" that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it's an unfair system that rips families apart.

Under the proposal, some points would be awarded to immigrants who had low skills, had held jobs in the U.S., or had relatives who were citizens, but those would hold a lower priority. Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card — except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.

New limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country.

Staff aides were scrambling to solve outstanding disagreements on how to treat agricultural workers and foreign-born children of illegal immigrants.

Kennedy described the framework as far from what he would have crafted. "But we're not dealing just with that. This is a legislative process, and a lot of different interests are at work," he said.

I cannot see how this bill does anything but grant amnesty to people who broke the laws of the United States to be here in the first place. Last I checked, we in this country don't reward breaking the law. Now, these people are being allowed to jump to the front of the line, with little or no consequences for being here illegally. The very concept is pathetic, and that our congress would even entertain the NOTION of a bill like this is pathetic - so is the fact that many Republican turncoats are supporting this trash.

I have nothing against immigration - this is a country of immigrants, and immigrants make great and necessary contributions to American life. Illegal immigrants on the other hand, are here illegally, have broken the law, and I do not see why that should be rewarded. We do not reward car theives by buying them a car. We don't reward shoplifters by buying them what they stole. We don't reward murderers or pedophiles by giving them bodies or children.

Obviously entering this country illegally is on a different level than pedophilia or murder, but the concept is the same. We in the United States, do NOT reward breaking the law, and this bill does exactly that.

"If you break the law to get into this country, we will create a government bureaucracy that will eventually give you blanket amnesty, we won't build a fence, AND we'll pay to provide for everybody in your family and extended family to come here."

Think about the math - if you take an average family + extended family, that's likely to be 10 or 11 people (1 illegal alien, mother, father, wife, wifes mother, wifes father, 2 or more kids, wifes brothers and sisters, aliens brothers and sisters, plus a few more on top). That is a lot of people that we will be allowing to come into this country, because a relative of theirs broke the law.

If somebody breaks the law in this country, they are not rewarded, and neither are their families. True, their families are not punished because of the crimes someone from it committed, however they are not rewarded either. Allowing Mexicans to stay in Mexico, is NOT a punishment - that is their country, and their residence. Allowing them to come into the US, because one of their relatives broke our laws, IS giving them a reward, and it is handing them a reward because somebody broke the law.

Does anybody realize how incredibly STUPID this concept is?

There's really no story here at all. Democrats tried to cut off funds for the Iraq war, and are working hard to cut off funds for the Iraq war.

The proposals failed in the Senate, and will fail in the Senate, and so are going nowhere.

Don't the Democrats have better things to do?

The annoying environmentalists are at it again, ladies and gentlemen. A couple weeks ago, they suggested having only 2 kids could help save the planet. Then the head of Greenpeace suggests that 5 billion people need to kill themselves to save the planet (because breathing has oh-so-nasty an affect on the ozone layer).

According to a new report, issued by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the people of Earth have just 5 years to save the planet, lest all hell break loose upon us. Says a spokesperson for the organization "We have a small window of time in which we can plant the seeds of change, and that is the next five years."
 
This comes synonymously of course, with news that April temperatures were lower than expected, and lower than average - despite the clearly dangerous and present bout of global warming that everybody is worrying about. This also comes as more and more scientists are beginning to jump off the "We're all going to die" bandwagon, and actually have reasoned, intellectual discourse about Global Warming.

This also comes as Greenpeace builds a replica of Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat, as an act of environmental "activism" (I'd call it annoyance). Says a spokesperson for Greenpeace "Those leaders have a mandate from the people ... to massively cut greenhouse gas emissions and to do it now."

What leaders? And furthermore, what people? The wacko-crazy-fringe environmentalists, who show up every nice day and tick people off and make them feel guilty? That's like saying the government has a mandate from the people to follow the advice of the KKK, because a few knuckleheads with insane ideas get together and claim they have ultimate power. The fact is, they don't. As long as there is still serious scientific and intellectual debate (and so long as the absence of it isn't the result of pro-global-warmers silencing all opposition), steps the government takes should be limited, and should not place an undue burden on the people, or on the taxpayer, and it should not create an oppressive and monstrous bureaucracy to solve the problem (which NEVER works).

Enjoy the weather!

I haven't posted in awhile, and for that I apologize. Know that it's finals week(s), and I've been busy with these assignments. I've been following politics and the like closely, however I haven't been able to find the time to post.

That said, I thought I'd start off again with a bang - my thoughts on the 2nd Republican Presidential debate, which took place last night on Fox News Channel. Let me first say that I thought the format of this debate was far superior to the format of the MSNBC debate - it actually gave the candidates time to answer, and was run by professional journalists and political analysts, not partisan, loudmouthed, liberal boobs. Even without that unfortunate side-effect, the Fox debate was still much better. I really liked Brit's scenario at the end, which describes an all-too-plausible depiction of a terrorist attack.

I'll begin by quoting what I think are the 3 best quotes of the entire night. The first, was Mike Huckabee's crack about John Edwards at a beauty shop. The second, was Tom Tancredo claiming that he would be looking for Jack Bauer (I LOVE 24!!), and the third was Rudy Giuliani demanding Ron Paul take back his comments about 9/11 and why we were attacked (I'll get to this more in a minute). Though I'd say these 3 are the best, the night was filled with wise cracks, memorable jokes, good quotes, and a great discussion of the issues that are facing this country.

I felt Giuliani did much better in this debate than the last one. In the first debate, he seemed as though he was trying to run for Mayor of New York again - not for the highest and most powerful position in the free world. I felt that something was lacking from him in the first debate - but in the second, he really picked things up, and was outright impressive when he began talking about the national security issues.

The social issues may bog him down somewhat (though I'm not exactly sure why - to me it would seem that we have more pressing issues - namely, radical islam - that take immediate precedent over the social issues which will mean nothing if we are all annihilated), but I felt that at least on the national security front, Giuliani was far more promising in this debate then he was in the last.

Mitt Romney also did a good job. Part of that is his personal charm and charisma, but he also handled himself well, discussed the issues well, and fended off the attacks against him pretty well. I don't it was as much a slam dunk for Romney as the first debate was, but I think he handled himself well and did a good job. Particularly well done was his response to Brit's scenario, in which he reminded all of us that the goal of the President should be to prevent those kinds of scenarios from coming to fruition.

McCain on the other hand, looked kind of... old. He has to live down McCain-Feingold, as well as McCain-Kennedy (which Huckabee daftly pointed out). I like McCain, and I will respect him for his service to this country - as any self-respecting American should - but he's too weak on the economic issues (though plenty hard hitting on the security ones). I've made my stance on social issues - that we have bigger problems at the moment - widely known, so McCain's stance isn't really that important to me at the moment.

Of the lesser candidates, Duncan Hunter was at least to me, the most promising. He displayed swiftness with his answers, and had some very hard-hitting positions on the national security issues, which are extremely important in a president. He was also right there on the economy, complaining about GOP big-spending (which has become so much a problem these last few years), and calling for changes in taxes. Huckabee and Tancredo also had some promising things to say.

Ron Paul's comments about the war, show what I believe is the one major flaw of modern libertarianism. Though the libertarian part of me (and that's a big part - I actually would generally describe myself as a libertarian-conservative) is completely with him on Economic issues, Constitutional issues, as well as some of the social issues, the kind of non-interventionism (isolationism) he advocates is based on the notion that our enemies are always a nation-state. If our enemies were nation states, it would perhaps be a viable philosophy (though difficult in the increasingly globalized world). Yet since our enemies at the moment are not members of a nation (the exception being Iran itself), but in fact are stateless radical muslims, just sitting around is futile. And the notion that the United States somehow invited the attacks against us is patently absurd.

Though I'm very much against government spending in most areas (I too would get rid of the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, etc), the one area that I do and always will believe it is necessary to continue spending, is on defense, because our country at the moment cannot afford to let our guard down. So touting the spending figures that we put on our military - though immense - I believe are worth it, and easily affordable if we cut government down to size in all other areas - then funding the military won't be a problem at all.

What I do find interesting about Paul, is that all the liberal bloggers wanted people to text in with support for Ron Paul. He'll never be elected, but even though he would create our defeat in Iraq, his domestic policies would make liberals cringe - just a kind of subtle irony to this kind of action.

Overall I think the debate went well. Candidates aren't quite so stiff any more, and are willing to open up a bit and let their positions be known. I think that, above everything else, is a benefit to our country, a benefit to Conservatives, and a benefit to the Republican party.

We have forgotten - or rather, our politicians have - our small-government, personal-responsibility roots that were so important in Reagan's time. Because they have forgotten, the government has fallen back into the hands of the big-government liberals (because, at the very least, they are honest about being big-government liberals, whereas the RINO'S hide behind the facade of being small-government conservatives, then govern like big-government liberals).

The 2008 presidential election is important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the protection of this country from radical muslims both at home and abroad, and the protection of American citizens in a world in which some places are growing increasingly hostile to our way of life (namely, Iran and the middle east). Yet one reason some people seem to be overlooking, is it is our next (and perhaps last) chance to re-establish the principles of conservatism - small government, personal responsibility, and the free marketplace - firmly in the hands of the Republican party. Let us not forget that.