Now that alot of the classified NIE report on terrorism has been released, as opposed to leaked, Republicans and Democrats are scrambling to explain what it all means.  When the original section was leaked by the media, Democrats jumped on it to use it for political gain.  They argue that the document proved that the Iraq war was not diminishing terror threat.  As we read now through the rest of the document, or at least the amount that has been released, we see that that concept is not entirely true.  The problem with this document is that it isn't gospel.  It actually takes a very broad view on the terrorist threat in the world.  We must remember that this is a global war, not a regional war.  We also must remember, as I mentioned in another article, that Iraq and Afghanistan are two theaters in the global war on terror.  The document spells out similar notions as well as a few vague contradictions.  The main issue I have with this document is that when it is 'cherry-picked' as one commentator said, it can be used by either side.  Here is a breakdown of some of the report and the truth behind it in my opinion.

 **Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq jihad; (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-United States sentiment among most Muslims - all of which jihadists exploit.

 1) Note the overuse of jihadist movement.  One must understand that the jihadist movement only represents a very small percentage of Muslims in the entire world.  The grievances they carry are those placed on them by the imperial regimes which govern them.  Thus democracy and a more free society would potentially rid them of these.

 2) Again democracy, all be it a very slow process, prevails in the end.  Our nation was not built in a year or even 5.  We must find those Muslim nations that can change from within, without force, so that we do not sink as low as the radical ideology that many radical Muslims follow - conversion by force.

 3) The slow pace is brought on due to already established jihadists groups.  This is a catch 22.

 4) The anti-US sentiment has been brought on in part by the Iraq war, but you must remember this sentiment has been around for well over 30 years.  Recall the bombing of the US barracks in Lebanon.

 **Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.

 **The jihadists’ greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution - an ultraconservative interpretation of Shariah-based governance spanning the Muslim world - is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists’ propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.

 Correct) A perfect example of how vulnerable the movement is when presented with a majority of Muslims who outweigh the jihadists beliefs.

 **Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.

 Correct again)  Please note the concept here that this is the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.  I noted above about this movement being in the minority.  Although when you have a religion with 1 billion followers world wide, even 5-10% is still a huge group.  Muslim leaders have been silent in their efforts to dismantle the radical clerics, thus the movement persists.

 **Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.

 Really?) This passage is perfect for anyone who can’t understand the rest of the document.  Yes, the whole thing isn't an easy read.  Many big words in there.  Not to sound too shrewd, but I think many Democrats and members of certain news media outlets elected to read and discuss the easier passages to understand.  I am not kidding.

 **If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives.

 Yes)  Please note the world PROBABLY in there.  As I mentioned above, this document is not gospel.  It is not a plan, it is a report, a mission statement with many too many angles if you will.

 **Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit. Al-Qaida, now merged with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.

 Uh oh)  This one the dems will jump all over.  Should they?  Maybe, depends on if they read the rest of the document.  This is a possibility but it is not a proven fact.  So one must take this concept with a grain of salt and be prepared for it.

 **The loss of key leaders, particularly Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahri, and al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into smaller groups. Although like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements. We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less serious threat to United States interests than does al-Qaida.

 Perhaps) Cutting off the head will hinder their cause, will it destroy the whole movement, probably not.  It would be a huge morale boost to the world if we were able to destroy the heads of the leading terrorist groups, and yes it would cut off many of the financial and provisional outlets that they carry with them.  But it is not only Bin Laden, it is the leaders of radical nations, such as Iran, that must be dealt with as well for its funding of radical terrorist groups.

 **Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global threat.

 Remember) - This report was written in April, we all know about Zarqawi's fate.

 **The increased role of Iraqis in managing the operations of al-Qaida in Iraq might lead veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations. Other affiliated Sunni extremist organizations, such as Jemaah Islamiya, Ansar al Sunnah, and several North African groups, unless countered, are likely to expand their reach and become more capable of multiple and/or mass-casualty attacks outside their traditional areas of operation.

 They might)  Note the word MIGHT.  Many have forgotten about the North African movement.  I believe the entire US government has, we must remember this is a global war, North Africa is yet another theater where allies must work together to win.

 ** We assess that such groups pose less of a danger to the Homeland than does al-Qaida but will pose varying degrees of threat to our allies and to United States interests abroad. The focus of their attacks is likely to ebb and flow between local regime targets and regional or global ones.

 Assessment)  The rest of the document deals with homeland threats and ways terrorists will attempt to attack not only us, but other countries allied in this war. 

As you can see this document does provide some information, but it does not tell us much we do not already know.  So using it for political gain was simply impractical and darn right foolish in my opinion.  If anything, this document, again, reminds us of the threats we face all over the world and how broad this war really is.  Once our politicians, other world leaders, and even the old U.N. realize the potential gravity of this situation, then we may see a more belligerent stance.  It may take more terrorist attacks in other countries as well as in the US, unfortunately, for them to understand.  But when we elect our officials this November and forever, let’s be sure those we do elect are ready to avoid any more attacks by striking down terror where it lives.

Republicans are dancing in glee, well kind of. Media is split on this topic. MSNBC, if anybody still watches that station, seems to back Bill Clinton as a man who stands up for himself and what he has done, yes they editorialize, of course they do! It's Keith Olbermann's job! A guy who once did sports for an LA Newscast is now telling us what he thinks he knows about politics. Sorry Keith, you should still be covering the lawn bowling tournament, for this, my friend, is over your head.

On Monday, according to a report in the NY Daily News, many of Clinton's ex-advisers came out and proved that Bill Clinton is just as full of it now as he ever was.

'Former advisers ridiculed ex-President Bill Clinton yesterday for saying he had a plan to invade Afghanistan, topple the Taliban and kill Osama Bin Laden after jihadists nearly sank the destroyer Cole.

"The only order we got from [Clinton] after the Cole was to put together a target list for air attacks," said Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama Bin Laden under Clinton.'

But no! Not so says Clinton, he said on Sunday that he made plans to attack the Taliban with full force not just an air assault and yet he claims he was denied it could be done by the armed forces. The FBI and CIA stated they were not sure it was bin Laden, according to Clinton. (See my previous article)

'Still, Team Clinton stood by its story. "A plan existed, but the ability to act on it was not corroborated by intelligence until after President Clinton left office," said Clinton spokesman Jay Carson.

Two sources that Clinton repeatedly cited in the Fox interview - the 9/11 commission report and Richard Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror" - never mention plans to invade Afghanistan.

Poor Bill. Maybe during all of this he was sleeping in the oval office because he was so tired. He worked so hard trying to get bin Laden. He had proof! He said 'he tried!' Well the proof was in the pudding and his own people have spoken.

One irony here is that people have a tendency to forget the past. I do not like to dwell in it, but unfortunately in politics, you have to.

Bill Clinton gave an interview to Peter Jennings on ABC in 2004.

The similarity with Clinton's eruption with Chris Wallace over terrorism is striking.

Here is a transcript of the 2004 exchange, which took place at the Clinton library and presidential center in Little Rock, Arkansas:

Peter Jennings: "Fifty-eight historians, as I think you may know, did this for C-SPAN. And they were all across the political spectrum. And they came out, in general terms, that you were 21st. And on public persuasion and economic management, they gave you a fifth. Pretty good."
Former President Bill Clinton: "Pretty good."
Jennings: "They gave you a 41st on moral authority."
Clinton: "They're wrong about that."
Jennings: "After Nixon."
Clinton: "They're wrong about that. You know why they're wrong about it? They're wrong about it."
Jennings: "Why, sir?"
Clinton: "Because we had $100 million spent against us and all these inspections. One person in my administration was convicted of doing something that violated his job responsibilities while we were in the White House, 29 in the Reagan/Bush years. I bet those historians didn't even know that. They have no idea what I was subject to and what a lot of people supported.
"No other President ever had to endure someone like Ken Starr indicting innocent people because they wouldn't lie, in a systematic way. No one ever had to try to save people from ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and the people in Haiti from a military dictator who was murdering them and all the other problems I dealt with, while every day, an entire apparatus was devoted to destroying him. And still, not any example of where I ever disgraced this country publicly.
"I made a terrible public, personal mistake, but I paid for it many times over. And in spite of it all, you don't have any example where I ever lied to the American people about my job, where I ever let the American people down. And I had more support from the world and the world leaders and people around the world when I quit than when I started. And I will go to my grave being at peace about it. And I don't really care what they think."
Jennings: "Oh, yes, you do, sir."
Clinton: "They have no-"
Jennings: "No, excuse me, Mr. President. You care, I can feel it across the room."
Clinton: "No, no, I care-"
Jennings: "You feel it very deeply."
Clinton, raised his arm and menacingly pointed at Jennings: "You don't want to go there, Peter. You don't want to go there. Not after what you people did and the way you, your network, what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every little sleazy thing he leaked. No one has any idea what that's like. That's where I failed.
"You want to know where I failed? I really let it, it hurt me. I thought I believed in a, I thought I lived in a country where people believe in the Constitution and the rule of law, freedom of speech. You never had to live in a time when people you knew and cared about were being indicted, carted off to jail, bankrupted, ruined because they were Democrats and because they would not lie.
"So I think we showed a lot of moral fiber to stand up to that, to stand up to these constant investigations, to this constant bodyguard of lies, this avalanche that was thrown at all of us. And, yes, I failed once. And I sure paid for it. And I'm sorry. I'm sorry for the American people, and I'm sorry for the embarrassment they performed. But they ought to think about the way the rest of the world reacted to it.
"When I, when I got a standing ovation at the United Nations from the whole world, the American networks were showing my grand jury testimony. Those were decisions you made, not me. I personally believe that the standing ovation I got from the whole world at the United Nations, which was unprecedented for an American President, showed not only support for me, but opposition to the madness that had taken hold of American politics."

That was Bill Clinton our ex-president, a cry-baby then and one now.
However, with all of the complaining Bill does about how the 'neo-conservative' media snubbed him, he neglects to notice how certain news stations still run a pro-liberal newscast. Today on CNN Headline News (which has been pretty neutral as of late) did a story on the new report discussing how terrorism is worse today because of the Iraq war rather than better. Did they show a Republican? Yes they did! Was there audio? Nope! They showed the Denny Hastert walking off the House floor. And they showed Bill Frist walking up to a podium. All of which could have been stock footage and was about 2 seconds long for each person. But do you know what they did show? Long clips of speeches done today by the following: Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and Harry Reid. Amazing. Now if that isn't biased news I'm not sure what is, Bill.

We can see what happens when fmr President Bill Clinton is not prepped by his White House staff prior to an interview. Chris Wallace, one of the most non biased interviewers out there asked him 1 question that emailers wrote in to ask. 'Why didn't you do more to get Bin Laden'. Certainly, if you watched this you thought that Clinton was ready for another heart attack. Not only did he exhaust himself on this issue, by the time they got to talk about the main topic of the conversation and the real reason why he was there (charity), he had his hands on his face as if he was so tired he couldn't speak. Remember he did agree to 50% of the questions be on anything Chris Wallace wanted.

Clinton blamed the CIA and FBI for not identifying that Al Quaeda was responsible for the USS Cole bombing. This of course is rubbish, as we all know the individuals who claimed responsibilities had ties with bin Laden at the time and it was reported internationally. It was evident that bin Laden had this force and had done other terrorist attacks prior to this incident. Clinton claims that Republicans blamed him for spending too much time on Bin Laden during his presidency. Where is the documentation for this? You have to admit that most Americans never heard of bin Laden in the mainstream until the USS Cole, and no one thought that Clinton was working on anti-terror measures. I'm sure he was, in his own way. He had is own anti-blouse measure with Monica at the time distracting him. The US Government sure knew bin Laden in the 80's, and knew exactly what he was capable of in the 90's before and after he declared war on the US.

Clinton claims we had no 'basing' rights in and around Afghanistan to conduct an assault on the Taliban. Shall I name all of the countries that were nearby that would allow us to move in? Or at least conduct certain special forces measures with air support? He refused to grant it because of politics. Now he blames the armed forces for saying it was too risky. Strange. Why would you blame someone if you are the President of the USA? Your word stands. Or were you worried that your approval rating would go down for fighting an enemy that people did not know threatened their security. I do not see President Bush blaming anyone for issues that we have faced with Afghanistan or Iraq today. We are working on these issues and he, of course, takes credit and defeat for everything that goes right and wrong. Clinton blames.

I will not blame Clinton so much for not getting bin Laden. The purpose of writing this piece is to show that he was a bit too defensive with the question he was asked. This shows the blame was entirely on him. As a former President and someone who was IN CHARGE of the nation, you'd think he'd have a better answer. Yes, he admitted he made mistakes, but not without blaming some other department or referring to Richard Clarke's book in his defense.

He even went so far as to point his finger at Wallace's pad over and over like Wallace was a child doing his math problem wrong. He thinks Fox News brought him on there to attack him. I really don't think he watches Hannity and Colmes, or any other show for that matter, or he'd see just how fair Fox News is.

I would be worried if Clinton was the captain of a ship that was sinking.  I'm thinking he would blame the first mate, jump into the life boat the row away leaving everyone else aboard. Hard to believe he was President for 2 terms with that performance on Sunday.

As if it weren’t enough to pass legislation that may cripple the auto industry more, California has decided to global warming lawsuit on Wednesday against Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp. and three other automakers, charging that greenhouse gases from their vehicles have cost the state millions of dollars.
“The lawsuit also names Chrysler Motors Corp., the U.S. arm of Germany's DaimlerChrysler, and the North American units of Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.. It also charges that vehicle emissions have contributed significantly to global warming and harmed the resources, infrastructure and environmental health of the most populous state in the United States.”

Who is behind this idea? State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a Democrat. He claims that millions of vehicles emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide and the automakers are at fault.

I suppose he has forgotten the bill that was just passed that requires the state to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 25 percent by 2020. The idea which in principle, seems like a great idea, but may not cut the 25% by 2020 many analysts say. So he is taking matters into his own hands now.

This lawsuit is a waste of taxpayer money. Why would you file suit against the car makers when they just got handed this crazy bill that has so many requirements forcing them to pay money for something that has already been established as a problem and is being worked on? Because the automakers have decided to file suit delaying litigation on the rules California issued to force them to cut tailpipe emissions. Touche’!

I should ask the Attorney General what kind of car he drives? Certainly something befitting a man of his stature in the community, an SUV perhaps? I honestly don’t think he takes a horse to work every day. We all understand the pollution that automobiles and trucks emit regularly, especially here in California, but forcing the auto industry to pay for something they could hardly control at the time is friveless. Auto companies have been working for years on alternative fuels and ways to cut emissions in general such as the hybrid among other ideas still in the planning stages. The cost of which has been staggering.

They are also laying off a bulk of their labor force, asking for early retirement for some, and closing plants left and right. If these types of law suits continue, we may not have much in the way of vehicles to drive. Many reports have declared that it will take many years before we see a significant improvement in emissions from cars and trucks. By singling out the auto makers, instead of other causes, Lockyer is not only making it harder for them to move on these changes, but it costing them millions in legal fees that could be used towards the future of our auto travel. Lockyer would be better suited examining why California has the highest gas prices in the nation while being the 3rd largest oil producer in the country. It does not take an economics degree to notice that Californians are being given the short end of the rope: the law of supply and demand, Californians have more cars, they need more gas, hence the price is higher due to demand. How is the supply too low? You could argue that our price should be lowest due to all of our output in our own state, but alas, that is not the case. More and more oil is being moved out of California to other states depriving California of the supply it needs to satisfy the demand
Maybe Lockyer should work on the oil companies in this state before battling 6 auto makers who are working hard to make a profit so that their workers can make a living and not make their way to the unemployment line.

Howard Dean decided to make a speech at a religious conference in DC on Tuesday. Yes, I am surprised as you at this. I will fill you in on why this is both funny and sad.

He claimed that the country was about to enter the 1960's again. He made several interesting points considering where this speech was given. He must have taken a cue from the John Kerry 'back in time' playbook to start talking about the past, instead of the future.
Dean said he is looking for "the age of enlightenment led by religious figures who want to greet Americans with a moral, uplifting vision."

Understood, I assume he wasn't referring to Buddhists, but when speaking to a conference of religious leaders, its hard to tell if he was simply patronizing them or trying to convince them that the DNC really cares about the religious community in this country.

"The problem is when we hit that '60s spot again, which I am optimistic we're about to hit, we have to make sure that we don't make the same mistakes," Dean added.

The irony here is that he is optimistic about entering the 60's again even though that time, the entire decade, was probably one of the worst in the nation's history. Racial tensions, the Vietnam War and assassinations were the mainstay. I site the assassinations of major US figures including JFK, Robert Kennedy, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. It is also ironic he should mention the 60's because at the beginning of the 60's you had JFK then LBJ running the nation. Towards the end you had a Republican, Richard Nixon, elected in 1968. This of course during a very violent time in our own country, let alone the conflict in Vietnam. Dean decided that maybe bringing up that decade may have been a bad idea. In his speech, a little later on, he states "If you look at how we did public housing, we essentially created ghettoes for poor people." So then why would you look forward to going back to the 60's Mr. Dean? Perhaps it's because you want to go back to your dead-head days and travel the country with the hippie generation that you represent? He and Kerry should go on a magical mystery tour together, this way we don't have to listen to such unpolished speeches by either!

Dean also acknowledged a BIG MISTAKE one that is still correcting itself today, that of welfare and the creation of a culture of dependence.

"We did give things away for free, and that's a huge mistake because that does create a culture of dependence, and that's not good for anybody, either,"

I assume the idea of a 'Great Society' that many on the left had in mind in the 60's was his main talking point. Unfortunately, as Mr. Dean knows, those programs did not work. But he still maintains that they actually helped more than they hurt. In reality the sinking economy of the 70's was, in part, a result of these programs set forth by the Johnson administration.

Dean also goes on to compare our nation's disagreements to that of the Civil War. Saying we as divided now as we were then. Wait a second, is he thinking of the 1960's or the 1860's. There is no way to compare the country now to that during the Civil War. In fact that comparison proves that Howard Dean does not know his history very well.

He then moves quickly to discuss how we are a nation of moral principles and how he does not want to see any child go hungry at night. Yet, he thinks it is all right to abort one? He wishes health insurance for every American much like the other 36 countries in the world who have national health care. Yet the medical care in many of these countries is sub par compared to ours here in the US.

Dean also discussed how this Republican congress has created a huge expansion of government. He reputiated the President's tax plan saying, as usual, only certain American's were benefiting from it, which is an obvious and proven untruth.

Republican National Committee spokesman Josh Holmes said he was not surprised that "Howard Dean's political perspective is derived from a 1960s counterculture view of the world. What is surprising -- and disturbing -- is that he can urge a massive expansion of government and denounce the Democrat mistake of creating a 'culture of dependence' in the same speech."

I'm not sure who wrote this speech to begin with. It bounced around so many times it was hard to keep track of him. Maybe he was watching some old 60's rock and roll concerts before attending this conference.

He concludes:
"I came in the wrong door when I first got here," Dean said. "I came in the back, and everybody was talking about praising the Lord, and I thought, 'I am home. Finally, a group of people who want to praise the Lord and help their fellow man just like Jesus did and just like Jesus taught.' Thank you so much for doing that for me."

Maybe there is hope for Howard Dean yet. Next time he should go in the RIGHT door.

Speaking in Germany, the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things. The emperor's words were, he said: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." 
 
This of course sparked a major outcry in the Muslim world. The irony here is that it resulted in violence. If Muslims claim their religion is of non violence, then what are they doing killing a Nun, burning churches and threatening the Pope and the Vatican? Are these not acts of violence? Some would argue that it is the radicals that are behind all of this. But who is to say that in the 14th century there weren’t radical Muslims? For them to say that all Islam is always peaceful is clearly a lie. I’m sure there are those peaceful Muslims, who practice their religious beliefs peacefully, but that is the minority, when you have the majority acting extreme and violent that proves the Pope’s point. Is the Pope off the hook by quoting someone else? After all it was just a quote, maybe it was taken out of context? Or is this really how he feels? Muslims say he is prejudice. I say he meant to say it and is in no way prejudice. There was no mistake in his speech. Popes are very meticulous when writing their speeches to that there are never any errors. When you have a religion that does acts of violence and terror against itself as well as the rest of the world in the name of your ‘god’ you do not have a holy religion, you have an evil one. When you forcefully convert unwilling people into your religion by putting a gun to their head, you do not have a holy religion, but one of evil.  
 
I think perhaps Rosie O’Donnell should apologize for her comments, if they want to Pope to, regarding her ‘Radical Christian’ remark. Saying they were more dangerous than radical Muslims. I’m not sure what a radical Christian is, perhaps she could explain to me. I know very holy and devout Christians who are serious about serving and loving God, but I’m certain they don’t force people into their religion by threatening to chop off their heads. Perhaps if Rosie feels so degraded by certain Christians who told her that homosexuality is wrong, her comments should be more political rather than personal but either way they could be considered career ending by many. I would find it hard to see her on ‘The View’ much longer. But one must understand, people who try to offend Christians only end up hurting themselves, because Christians are taught to let these offensive things go by turning the other cheek. Nowhere in the ‘radical’ Muslim world do we see that message being taught. We see messages of extreme hatred and violence. So again I ask, was the Pope wrong? Was the emperor wrong? Perhaps they should take a poll like they do with everything else. 

Have you noticed lately that the Democrats accuse Republicans of politicizing on every single issue before Congress?

It is clear that the Dems strategy here is to show the American people that Republicans care more about retaining their seats in Congress than helping the American people. This is a bold-faced lie. Further immigration legislation has been introduced by Republicans in the Congress, but cannot get voted on because Democrats are having their ‘waste-of time’ sessions every day. Murtha now wants a vote on no-confidence on Donald Rumsfeld in the House. Didn’t we just go through this in the Senate? If Democrats stopped introducing idiotic legislation and concentrated on tackling the real issues, then maybe something could get done before November. But they can’t and won’t get anything done before November. It is clear that if any major vote transpires between now and November’s election it could change the results.

They decide to attack Republicans on the issues they know can grant them [the dems] a better chance at victory this fall, the Iraq War, stem cell research and health care. Unfortunately, the debate on these 3 examples will be going on long after the Nov. election. The Democrats refuse to allow a vote on immigration bills that are sitting before them. The issue has completely stalled in the Senate, which is why you never hear about it anymore, and it is being attacked in the House for being ‘too tough’. But it did pass, Democrat lawmakers want to amend it to match the Senate’s version.

First, since when is going after people who break the law considered ‘too tough’? Are our police forces ‘too tough’ on the murderers, thieves, gang members and rapists that are roaming the streets today who do not have citizenship in this country? If you ask me they are not tough enough.

Second, if everyone agrees on border security, which they should and will because it’s the #1 thing all Americans agree on, why can’t they at least pass one piece of legislation on this issue in the Senate? Oh wait, I know, they are still talking about the bill that was a horrible excuse for immigration reform. The one that grants Social Security benefits to illegal aliens; for restricting the ability of local police to detain illegal aliens; and for requiring the U.S. government to consult with Mexican officials before building a border fence. Apparently they think these are good ideas, but the vast majority of Americans do not, hence why Republicans have decided to rework the legislation.

They cannot allow illegal immigrants to collect social security when no social security is being paid by them. Why should we restrict our local police forces from apprehending people who enter this country illegally? Maybe we should not have police. Why in the world should we consult with Mexico on what we wish to do in our own country? Did Mexico consult with us first before handing out maps to its citizens on how to cross the border into our country, illegally?

The Democrats amaze me. They continue to deceive the American by backing legislation that greatly endangers our national security. If the majority of Americans knew what these bills contained they certainly would not vote for Democrats in the fall. They are the ones truly playing politics, by keeping them out of site until November, so that if they take control of congress they can pass their weak bills that in the long run will greatly injure this country.
Perhaps they should analyze their own actions before being critical of the actions of others.

Joe Biden decided to unveil a 4 point plan that will make America safer at the National Press Club. He claimed that Bush and the Republicans have not made America safer at all. Actually they have. The problem is, Democrats like Joe Biden set out to destroy every plan that the Bush Administration has enacted to protect us, or copy them as you will read here.

His 4 point plan is not that impressive, in fact, its extremely similar to the one that has been in place for the last 5 years.

1) “Implementing the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission,"

Yes, which ones? Several of these have been implemented and are being implemented as we speak. He was missing specifics on this point.

2) Securing "loose weapons around the world,"

This is an interesting idea. If I’m not mistaken, I think perhaps he is getting together with Kofi Annan, because wasn’t that his idea? Another problem is that HOW do you intend to do this? If the UN will not disarm Hezbollah for example, how does Biden plan on getting their weapons? Which directly leads us to the 3rd point:

3) "Building and promoting international organizations to deal with world problems”

Haven’t we tried this with the UN, League of Nations, African Union, European Union? None of which seem to work very well at dealing with world problems. They like to sit around and discuss things over and over rather than act upon them quickly. No, this point is the worst one of all. I’m curious to hear him elaborate on why he thinks international organizations are the only answer to problems, when they can be a problem themselves.

4) "Developing democratic institutions in the Middle East and beyond."

This is amazing. Not only is this one of the main goals of the Bush Agenda, but Biden seems to wish this himself. So I really don’t want to hear him criticize the war in Iraq anymore. This particular point is a tough sell. As I wrote in a previous article, to install democratic institutions all over the Middle East will take forever and there is no guarantee that they will stay democratic. Concentrate on Iraq before the rest of the region.

Biden, again, brought up his idea of dividing Iraq into regions. This idea of course has been stomped on by pretty much every single Senator on both sides of the aisle, and for good reason.

‘The estimated cost of Biden's plan to build domestic security would be $50 billion over the next five years to hire 1,000 new FBI agents and 50,000 more police officers and to improve communications between agencies.’

The Democrats have forgotten what Homeland Security’s job is, or at least supposed to be (at times). They are working on the communications. They have worked on the communications. They will continue to improve the communications. How do they (the Dems) explain every potential terrorist plot that has been foiled as of late by the joint efforts of law enforcement, federal, state and local? Perhaps they forgot, conveniently. There is no doubt that improvements need to be made in Homeland Security, perhaps he should have mentioned that. When you have a relatively new department the only thing you can do is improve because you are starting from scratch.

So how does Biden wish to pay for a program (that he thinks he has just created) that is already in progress?

By raising taxes of course! But only on those who make more than $1 million a year. The last time I checked those Americans have been paying and are still paying more taxes than any other American. The Democrats have not checked with the IRS, perhaps they should. So raising more taxes on the ‘rich’ is always the Democrats response to how to pay for their programs. They usually end up raising taxes across the board. The problem with this idea, is not the taxes, it’s the fact that Biden did not say whether he had considered reducing government spending in other areas to offset the costs of his proposal. This is typical. I do applaud him for copying almost every idea that the Bush Administration has had over the past few years and giving a speech on them.

The one thing I did not receive from his speech was ‘Why exactly does he believe that America is not safer’?

I suppose he forgot to make America safer we must eliminate the threats before they strike us. Or maybe he just wants to wait and see what happens.

In California, both the State Senate and the State Assembly are trying to move as many bills as possible before this November’s election.  This is the exact opposite as the U.S. Congress.  A major difference is that the California legislature is controlled by Democrats with a Republican Governor.  Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is up for re-election himself and is making a few moves of his own.  He joined Democrats in supporting and signing a bill designed to cut fossil fuel emissions by 25% over the next 14 years.  By doing this, he  pre-empted challenger Phil Angelides’ pending strike on his (Schwarzenegger’s) stance on the environment.  Was the bill a good idea?  We will wait and see.  There is a nice clause in the bill allowing the state to remove certain restrictions on the companies it affects at any point in time.  Personally, I believe they will be forced to remove some as the bill itself may prove to be extremely harmful to a large group of companies besides the oil and energy companies which is what the bill was targeted to reform.

The main bill I was watching was SB 1437, said California public schools may neither teach nor sponsor any activity that "reflects adversely" on anyone because of their sexual orientation.

Schwarzenegger vetoed this bill due in part of its lack of clarity as well as its pointless nature.  The author of the bill state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, a lesbian, tried to re-work the bill in order to get certain language out of it.  Needless to say, what ended up on the Governor’s desk was a vague and somewhat manipulated version of the original which actually wanted to make teachers teach about gay and lesbian leaders in America.  Not for what they accomplished as Americans, but basically, bringing forth the fact they were gay first and foremost.

According to the Campaign for Children and Families, a conservative advocacy group that lobbied against the bill, SB 1437 would have altered K-12 public education textbooks, instructional materials, and school-sponsored activities "to positively reference trans-sexuality, transvestitism, bisexuality, and homosexuality, including homosexual 'marriage.'"

What worried me most is that they wished to discuss this lifestyle with children as young as 5; even a child as young as 12 should not be exposed to this concept in school.  I wrote about this several months ago when the bill cleared the assembly.  You can find this article here (http://calrepublicans.blogstream.com/v1/p13.html)

‘Equality California (EQCA), a homosexual advocacy group that led the push to pass what it calls the "Bias-Free Curriculum Act," described the bill as a simple nondiscrimination measure.’

Bias-Free?  I do not recall the school textbooks ever mentioning specifically that George Washington ‘WAS NOT GAY’ let alone a teacher mentioning in a class ‘today we will learn about how a bill becomes a law, unless it’s a bill about homosexuality, which is just plain wrong’.

No, there is no bias in not teaching about homosexuality.  The argument against this bill is simple.  Alternative lifestyles that certain people live should be kept private from children.  There is no need to educate our children in the classroom on what these lifestyles are.  This is up for the parents to decide.  Once the children grow up it is up for them to decide what lifestyle to lead, regardless of what I or other conservatives may believe is right or wrong. Unfortunately, its their lives. It certainly should not be engraved into their brains when they are trying to learn 2+2 or what the capital of Montana is.  These ridiculous bills represent another waste of time in government.  If both the Assembly and the Senate worked harder on true education reform, preventing this massive drop out rate that is occurring in public schools all over California, as opposed to wasting everyone’s time with this so-called ‘Sexual Indoctrination’ bill, perhaps our state and even our country would not be considered the 25th smartest in the world below even a 3rd world country in the list. (Based on international testing)

There is state law in California that prevents discrimination in all forms.  "I am vetoing this bill because the vagueness of the term 'reflects adversely' would not strengthen this important area of legal protection from bias based on sexual orientation,"  Schwarzenegger said in his veto message.

By vetoing this, was this Schwarzenegger’s move to rally a major conservative base?  He is already leading in the polls by over 13%.  There are still 2 more bills out there that need a veto, AB 606 and AB 1056.  If he does veto them, which he should, more conservatives will look forward to more family and faith based initiatives to come and more than likely go to the polls to vote for him as opposed to staying home.

Congress is back in session, well, for a month. Then it’s on another break to get ready for the fall election. Experts agree that this month will concentrate more on politics than legislation that affects the American people. Neither side wishes to examine the immigration debate for fear of losing votes, but they do wish to battle each other for position in the polls. For example, Democrats wish to publicly and officially denounce Sec. Donald Rumsfeld. This is clearly a political move to find out which Republicans will vote against this bill. Then the Democrats wish to try to use that to their advantage in the election. They believe the vast majority of Americans hate Rumsfeld and they wish him to leave, those who back Rummy will not get re-elected or at least as many votes. Well, unfortunately their idea to put this to a vote in a spending bill will get bashed at point of order. It does not pertain to the legislation before them. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., on Tuesday said Democrats were drafting a nonbinding resolution "that would express a loss of confidence in the Bush administration's Iraq policy, including a loss of confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld." You can see how your tax dollars are being used by Democrats. They are wasting so much time trying to get a vote that will never occur, instead of covering more important issues and working with the Republicans to fight the war on terror. Politics, Politics, Politics. I can’t even give them a E for effort because they obviously don’t understand how the floor of the Senate operates. One bill that they WILL get to vote on, probably on Thursday, which gains more and more interest of people, once they find out about it, is House Bill 503 which is to ban the slaughtering of horses for consumption and/or export. Some Democrats feel this one is a waste of time. Strange, what do they eat for dinner? House Bill 503 would also increase funding for the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service from $500,000 to $5 million, and permit APHIS to stop horses being transported so they may be inspected. 'Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Murfreesboro) late last week said the bill is ill-conceived and is being forced to a floor vote as a political favor by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) to help bolster the legislative record of the bill's sponsor, Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-N.Y.) who's in a hard race for re-election.' Ah yes, re-election. I find it humorous that for some reason Rep Gordon thinks a horse is like a cow. Does he eat horse meat? Opponents to this measure make quality argument for their side. Why should we slaughter horses and send the meat to France for their consumption. Can’t France slaughter their own horses? No, they need to come here and take our horses from us. Since we do not eat horse meat in the United States, the practice is pointless, but technically legal. There are 3 slaughter houses in the U.S., one in Illinois and 2 in Texas that do this. They export the meat overseas as they are foreign-owned companies. I suppose getting into the cattle business would be too hard for them. A release from Sweeney's office says that in 2003, more than 49,000 horses were slaughtered in the U.S. by two foreign-owned slaughterhouses in Texas. New York, California, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Vermont and Virginia have horse slaughter laws. What we must realize is that a horse is not like a cow or a pig. You can compare it to a dog if you will. It is a great pet to have (expensive, yes) but a great animal. Horses are beautiful animals and I would never wish to see them slaughtered in any way. This, the American public overwhelmingly agrees on. There are humane ways to take care of the sick or badly injured horses. We see this with animals (pets) all of the time. What we don’t see is the slaughter of 20,000 dogs each year. And remember it certain parts of the world they do consume dog meat. If states are passing laws forbidding the practice, then the federal government should pass a law forbidding the practice and the transport of the horses / horse meat over state and international borders. This may be a small issue to some, but it deserves to be voted on and passed.