Inside the Beltway – Page 45

A 50 year plan: Border security and immigration

This post should be right up Crabbin‘s alley. For those of you not familiar with the Eastern Shore blogging scene (and those who are but don’t know his blog), D.D. Crabb (pen name of the writer) spends quite a bit of his time looking at the issue of illegal immigration. This chapter of my 50 year plan is going to deal with his pet issue.

Some have estimated that there are 20 million illegal immigrants in America. Most are from Mexico and Central America, but a few come from other places around the globe, including countries that are on America’s terrorist watch list. The impact is obvious – just look at the bilingual store signage that many national merchants now feature. Even in our position over 1,000 miles from the Mexican border we have Spanish-language radio stations in our area. All of this was unheard of in most parts of America even 10 years ago. But this immigration spigot along our southern border had been dripping for most of the last fifty years. It’s become a rushing torrent in the last decade though as Mexican and Central American economies stagnated while America’s abundant thirst for cheap labor combined with easy access to free health care and the chance for children of these undocumented workers to become American citizens by virtue solely of being born within our borders enabled this problem to become a hot-button issue. It’s so hot that a heretofore obscure Congressman from Colorado, Tom Tancredo, made a name for himself as a border hawk and is now one of the second-tier GOP candidates for President in 2008.

For most of the late 19th and early 20th century, America was the land of opportunity for immigrants of all stripes. Wave after wave of Germans, Poles, Irishmen, Italians, Greeks, Asians, and others from all points of the globe converged on America and filled up this land from sea to shining sea. My ancestors, mostly from Germany but a few Poles mixed in, were in that group. All of them had to deal with the language barrier and some amount of discrimination (as in the mid-19th century “No Irish Need Apply” signs) but if they didn’t adapt, their children surely did because they wanted to become Americans. Most cities of the era had enclaves where these immigrants eventually settled to be with those they shared language and culture with. But even moreso than the fun poked at rural Americans today, people from the “old country” were looked down upon by the next generation and those children who were born or raised in America grew somewhat ashamed of their cultural roots, leaving these old-world enclaves to live out their American dreams.

Eventually the pendulum started swinging the other way and in the last half-century or so many Americans have reembraced their ancestry through vacations to the homeland, ethnic festivals, and the like. In my old hometown of Toledo summers were punctuated by weekend gatherings celebrating Irish, Polish, German, Hungarian, and Greek food, dance, and culture. (And those were some good eating, let me tell you – particularly the Polish Festival. Now there’s where you can get REAL kielbasa.)

But the large majority of immigrants in the modern era have played the role in reverse, wishing America to adopt their culture and language instead of having the desire to become Americans like immigrants of yore. With the foreigners’ economic impact and the desire of major corporations to be politically correct (lest they offend some legal organization someplace enough to incite a lawsuit) they’re bending over backwards in an effort to appease the undocumented folks streaming in across our southern border. Bank of America recently made headlines by adopting a pilot program in California that eliminated the requirement of a Social Security number for applicants to receive a credit card. And right now a big fight amongst the Republicans pits the Chamber of Commerce types who like the idea of a cheap labor pool against the border and security hawks who see danger in the flood of humans crossing the border knowing that there are some among them who wish our nation ill.

In choosing sides, I stand with the border and security hawks. But the solutions of putting up a stronger security fence and enabling our Border Patrol to become a quasi-military outfit in order to fight against the heavily armed drug and human smugglers who operate along what’s best described as a lawless Mexican border is just a small bite out of the whole enchilada.

We also need to crack down on the employers. Obviously this is going to piss off the Chamber of Commerce types but there’s millions of people out there who knowingly or unknowingly have had their Social Security numbers hijacked by someone who’s using it to work here illegally. It’s unfortunate that the Mexican economy has put itself in such a bad state that emigration by a large chunk of their young male population is necessary, but with all of the oil they sell to us one has to wonder how they cannot support their own people with decent jobs. This phenomenon isn’t lost on the new Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who’s even questioned whether his relatives are working in the United States legally. Speaking to the immigration issue from Mexico’s perspective, he’s quoted in the Washington Times today, “We want (those who emigrated to the U.S.) to come back; we want them to find jobs here in Mexico.” Continued President Calderon, “We miss them. These are our best people. These are bold people, they’re young, they’re strong, they’re talented.”

So these are three legs of the stool: tighter physical security at the border, a stronger show of force against drug and human trafficking, and a crackdown on employers who don’t show due diligence in checking whether a worker has the proper status to be in the country.

But there are other needs which have to be addressed. Another simple one is to make English our official language of government. Additionally, it’s my belief that bilingual education needs to be scrapped. Just like the immigrants in the days of old, the adults may feel more comfortable to converse in their native tongue, but in order for children to advance in our society they need to learn English as their first language. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being bilingual but in America the vast majority of people speak English as their first and only language. If one were to move to Japan it would be expected that this individual learn enough of the language to get by and if they were to have children those children would be taught Japanese as their first language. So it is with America.

If America is to survive and have a chance to enact the entirety of my 50 year plan, among other things it has to disdain this slide into multiculturalism. Abraham Lincoln noted (paraphrasing Sam Houston) that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” By Balkanizing our culture in the way we have over the last quarter-century, we’re isolating pockets in our country that do not speak the language and have no desire to become Americans with the exception of the dollars we place in their pockets. We’ve turned the heat off from under our melting pot and the results are far from the ideals we once shared in common.

Firing back at a white flag

At the risk of violating Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment, I received a pair of letters from Congressman Gilchrest during the last week or so. They both explained his thoughts on the situation in Iraq and addressed to some extent my reaction to his vote on H. Con. Res. 63. My reacting to this in a public way may not make my cohorts on the Central Committee happy but it’s time for me once again to put principle above party.

However, I realized upon looking at both of them that one is on Congressional letterhead (thus a public document) and the other is “Authorized by Gilchrest for Congress” so it’s more of a personal nature. So I’m only going to retype the Congressional one and post my thoughts on it, plus this will also likely serve as part of my response to the other one. The fact I had two different letters didn’t occur to me because these went to two separate addresses (one went to my old address and was forwarded) and arrived a couple days apart – I just assumed they were two copies of the same letter until I looked closer. Regardless, most of you know I’m passionate on the issue and occupy the opposite (correct) side. The letter reads as follows, the only exception being I cannot underline passages on WordPress thus those underlined parts on the original will be in bold font. Italics on the original are in standard font on this post.

February 27, 2007

Mr. Michael Swartz

(address)

Dear Mr. Swartz:

As you know, I recently cast a vote on the floor of the United States House of Representatives in favor of a resolution that both expresses my complete and unwavering commitment to our American troops, but also to signal my opposition to a surge in troop levels in Iraq.

I understand that some may disagree with this vote and the potential implication it has both domestically and internationally, which is why I wanted to give you my detailed thinking on this issue.

Before we can discuss the implication of the recently passed resoultion, it is important to understand the exact text of the resolution which simply states:

“Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops in Iraq.”

This vote had absolutely no impact on funding for our troops.

This is a message to the Administration that we need to go back to the drawing board. I have spent the last several months meeting with Middle East experts, military leaders, Administration officials, soldiers just back from the field, and my constituents. After a long period of prayer, soul searching and sitting through the funerals of many, many of our local fallen heroes, I reached the conclusion that an escalation of military force in Iraq is not in our best interest.

First, it is important to understand that the proposed “surge” is a misconception. We are not adding fresh troops into the picture. We are accomplishing the “surge” through the early and redirected deployment of troops in other areas, and by involuntarily extending the stays of troops already in Iraq. This strategy will depart from the traditional rotation and deployment procedures that are designed to prevent udue burdens on our servicemen, and to ensure adequate troop training and equipment preparedness. I have concerns that extended and altered deployment rotations will put an even worse strain on our soldiers already on the ground and on our already overextended military.

Second, I believe this “surge” is ill-advised on a military level. By comparison, when I served in Vietnam, a country half the size of Iraq, a “surge” of troops meant more than 100,000 new soldiers at a time. In Germany during World War II, Allied forces comprised nearly 3 million men in a nation roughly the size of Iraq. A proposed “surge” of only 20,000 troops will have minimal impact on our ability to operate in that theater, yet will ceratinly result in the unnecessary loss of additional American lives.

Third, this “surge” sends the wrong message at the wrong time and will embolden the insurgents who use the American occupation as their most effective recruiting tool. Under the current circumstances, we are spending most of our time fighting militant factions of an old Saddam-led Iraqi army that are angry over losing their power to brutalize the people of Iraq. To increase troops would only enflame those factions and cause more unrest in the region.

The purpose of our involvement now should be to eliminate any possibility of Al Qaeda and other radical terrorist groups from gaining a foothold inside Iraq – but instead we are being drawn into and distracted by an Iraqi civil war.

The sad fact is that more and more Iraqis see American troops as occupiers, not liberators. The proposed increase in troop levels provides an even greater rallying point for insurgents, and by sending a message such as the recent vote in Congress on that resolution, we can help dispel our image as occupiers and begin to break down the best recruitment tool of the terrorists. Therefore this vote in fact may be the best message to end the violence in Iraq.

The reality is that the U.S. made a grave miscalculation from the beginning. It was not a military miscalculation, but a cultural miscalculation. Iraqis have little historical basis or understanding of a democratic form of government. Thousands of years of history in that region have sent the unfortunate message that you are either in power and you rule with an iron fist, or you are not in power and you are slaughtered. There is no experience in shared government, and after decades of brutal leadership under Saddam Hussein, there is no motivation for the minority Sunni insurgents to lay down arms and participate in the Iraqi government.

Now the country has escalated to the point where the country is threatening to come apart at the seams. And unless we change our policy and begin to talk to Iran and Syria, we will see these neighboring countries come into this civil war to protect their own interests and security. We cannot in good conscience stand by and enable this continued sacrifice of American lives on a policy that is destined for failure.

I recognize that after all of these serious considerations, there may be some who say that while they may agree with our reasoning, it is not right to disagree with my party or our President during a time of international conflict. But we should never fear to exercise the freedoms that make our nation so great.

I have strongly believed that debate and discussion of this critical issue in our Congress is a show of seriousness and resolve to protect our troops and advance the interests of our great nation. We are a nation of liberty and freedom. Only in tyrannical dictatorships such as North Korea and Cuba is debate suppressed. We must embrace and exercise our freedoms, with the understanding that all sides of this important debate love our nation and support our fighting men and women.

I know that when I was sitting in the jungles of Vietnam as a soldier, my greatest hope was that our leaders back home were informed, responsible, and honest enough to find a way to end the horrible war in which we were engaged while protecting the people of the United States. And after many visits with American troops both in Iraq and in the United States, I am convinced that our soldiers want nothing more than the same thing today.

I disagree with the notion that debating this resolution somehow harms our troops or sends the wrong message to our enemies. Supporting our troops is about sending them into a situation where we have a viable military strategy, a clear set of goals that can be accomplished.

I will continue to support full funding for our troops at home and abroad. But without clear signs of progress, I cannot support sending more of our young men and women into the battlefield without a viable plan.

It is time to honestly and responsibly evaluate our original mission, and realize that we accomplished our task of ending the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein and provided the basis for a functioning, democratically-elected government, but that Iraq is now engaged in a civil war U.S. military force alone cannot resolve.

In the end, I understand that we may not reach the same conclusion and that some in my party may continue to disagree. But this is an issue that has and will continue to literally determine the fate of thousands of American lives, and the future security of our nation.

The U.S. is at a critical juncture in Iraq. I don’t believe that the current policy can yield the results we desire, and that an escalation in military troops to police a civil war would be a mistake. Our next step requires more than just an increase in troops, but demands new tactics and a reformation of strategic, political, and diplomatic efforts. My vote last week was the first step for a new direction.

I thank you for taking the time to read this message, and I appreciate your advice, counsel and feedback on this or any other issue.

Sincerely,

Wayne T. Gilchrest

Member of Congress

As you may guess, I still have several objections to this well-meaning and well-argued communication I received.

First, let’s look at the resolution as it was presented. While this is true that it did not affect funding for our troops, many Democrats considered this just the first step in eventually dictating terms in such a way that President Bush had no choice but to withdraw from Iraq in defeat (much like Vietnam.) By proving with his vote that they’ll cross the aisle to support this first measure, Gilchrest and his sixteen Republican cohorts that voted for the resolution create a crack in the GOP’s traditional support for the Long War. Moreover, there are many other devious ways that progress toward our goals in the greater war may be impeded which have nothing to do with funding. Gilchrest alludes to them when he writes about troop rotation and other personnel issues.

Wayne is correct in a historical sense when he opines that the sheer number of troops that would comprise this surge are rather small. What’s not apparent in his argument is that we do not have to subdue nearly the geographical area in this case. The majority of Iraq is peaceful by most accounts – the Kurdish area in the north is well-behaved, and the partial British pullout in the south around Basra is possible because conditions there have improved to a state where withdrawal is possible. When we speak of Iraqi problems, they usually occur within a reasonable radius of Baghdad proper. So 20,000 troops can go a long way there.

I also have an issue to a point with Gilchrest’s assertion that we are hated as “occupiers”. There will come a day when we can withdraw our troops and return them to America. But in this soldier’s view, we are hated less than the Iranians who provide support and a number of personnel to the opposition are feared. Memories are still fresh in Iraq of fighting the Iranians for most of the decade of the 1980’s, and not only would a U.S. pullout align with Osama bin Laden’s portrayal of America as a “paper tiger”, but leaving would likely create a similar situation to that which Lebanon suffers at the hands of neighboring Syria – Iraq as a puppet state of a much more powerful Iran, with the Iranians gleefully taking their revenge out on the Iraqi people as a ghoulish bonus for the Tehran tyranny. (I find the omission of Iran as a tyrannical dictatorship interesting as well. While Iran may be more of an oligarchy than a true dictatorship, it’s very much the same style of tyranny.)

Probably most of all, I disagree with the Congressman’s thought that we need to talk to Iran and Syria about this situation. He cannot have this both ways: portraying the situation in Iraq as a civil war, yet wishing to discuss things with two countries that have been proven to provide aid and comfort to our enemies. There’s too many fingerprints of Iranian involvement of supplying weaponry to the insurgents for me to doubt that we’re not fighting Iran by proxy, and I’m still of the mind that Syria is complicit in helping Saddam hide some of his WMD stockpiles. Neither of these two countries wish us well, and diplomacy only works well for a party when it is dealing from either a position of strength or, less effectively, as a rough equal to the other party.

Further, in advocating talks with Iran, we’re showing a willingness to discuss this with a country that has thumbed its nose to the United Nations and flat-out lied about its nuclear intentions. Do you, Congressman, really feel they would bargain in good and honest faith with us? By voting for this resolution, Gilchrest has helped to undercut any leverage we would have at the bargaining table. The enemy knows that, in dealing with a group of Americans who don’t have the stomach to stick out this situation when it becomes difficult, they only need to bide their time until they get all that they want and more by outlasting our diligence.

We fought and retreated from the Vietnam War in this manner. It “only” cost 58,000 American lives to achieve what turned out to be a mild defeat (not quite the “domino effect” some predicted) but the effects that followed in the Southeast Asia region led to the slaughter of millions of innocent people.

By voting for the original resolution, and despite the fact that it failed to achieve cloture in the Senate, Gilchrest sent a message to our enemies that our country doesn’t have the stomach to pursue this course regardless of cost. The pullout Democrats truly desire would only lead to a return to Iraq as safe haven for terrorists. And with a nuclear-capable Iran as a terrorist sponsor, I fear we may see events in the next decade that make the tragedies of 9/11 pale in comparison.

Editor’s note: Just looked at the two letters again to file them, and aside from a paragraph at the opening of the letter from the “Gilchrest for Congress” committee (citing me as an opinion leader in the community, no less), the contents ARE the same. So my original thinking was right that I did in essence get two copies of the same letter!

Legislative checkup, March 2007 (Congress)

This post will be quite a bit shorter than its predecessor. The pace of bill introduction has slowed down as the bodies of Congress start holding scheduled hearings and votes, generally working through the sausage-grinding where bills become ever more onerous laws (in most cases.)

As far as the local Congressmen go, the bills I alluded to in my last post (H.R. 16 for Rep. Wayne Gilchrest and three for Rep. Mike Castle – H.R. 96, H.R. 97, and H.R. 334) all continue to languish in committee, with no action in the last month. But I do have three votes of interest that were recorded by the duo.

One of these was on H. Con. Res. 63 and served as the gateway to my post on the Long War. It’s the one where Wayne Gilchrest voted to cut and run (in essence) – shamefully Delaware’s Mike Castle was another “white flag Republican” that voted for the resolution. They were also in the large majority in voting for H.R. 976, the “Small Business Tax Relief Act” that passed 360-45. I read the bill and I STILL don’t understand it because it’s not in the context of the regulations it affects. (At least Maryland shows the current law!) The reason I note this is that the 45 who voted “no” are among the most conservative in the House and I’m wondering what the objection was.

On the other hand, both Castle and Gilchrest properly voted against the (so-called) Employee Free Choice Act, H.R. 800. It passed the House 246-182, but the pressure will be on these “moderates” to change their votes against EFCA and override a threatened veto by President Bush.

Maryland’s two Senators didn’t have a lot of work to show for themselves on the THOMAS website over the last month. Last week Senator Cardin introduced a trio of amendments to the 9/11 Commission recommendation adoption act (S. 4) that dealt with the National Capital Region and amending Amtrak rules, all are under consideration. For her part, Senator Mikulski’s earlier bill (S. 414, the “Cloned Food Labeling Act”) and a newer bill (S. 624, which deals with reauthorizing an act for early detection of breast and cervical cancer) are both still parked in committee.

Delaware’s Senator Joe Biden also introduced two amendments to S. 4 in the last week. S.A. 306 deals with materials shipped in “high hazard” corridors and is just additional regulation. I’m more worried about S.A. 284 myself.

S.A. 284 (to S. 4) would create the “Homeland Security and Neighborhood Safety Trust Fund” to the tune of $53.3 billion for FY 08-12. And how would this fund come up with the scratch? “(B)y reducing scheduled and existing income tax reductions enacted since taxable year 2001 with respect to the taxable incomes of taxpayers in excess of $1,000,000, and…appropriat(ing) an amount equal to such revenues to the Homeland Security and Neighborhood Safety Trust Fund.” In governmentese, soaking the rich by reducing the Bush tax cuts that have kept our economy strong. (And I don’t want to hear this class envy bullshit, the top 1% already shoulder over 1/3 of the tax burden.)

Even better, the amendment only actually allocates $3.5 billion of this fund, the other $50 billion or so is left undertermined at this time. (The pertinent part is in the upper left of the linked page.)

Just like last month, it’s no surprise that the four Democrats stuck together on votes (when Biden actually showed up, he missed a few in the last month.) The only exception came on voting to table S.A. 289, yet another amendment to S. 4. (The amendment was sponsored by Sen. Rangel and involved checking every piece of cargo coming into our ports – a herculean task.) Senator Carper voted with the Republicans to table the amendment while the other three voted to keep the amendment alive (S.A. 298 was tabled 58-38.)

So it was a fairly slow month in Congress compared to January – however, action’s getting hot and heavy in Maryland’s General Assembly. I’ll look at that later today.

A 50 year plan: The Long War

Editor’s note: In breaking news, the Senate did not advance this resolution, voting 56-34 in its favor. Sixty votes were needed to advance it. Seven Republicans broke ranks and nine did not vote; meanwhile, save for Joe Lieberman, all 50 healthy Democrats voted “aye”. I found it most interesting (and it buttresses my point below) that Sen. Harry Reid stated that any subsequent actions would not be nonbinding. I’m not surprised.

I actually hadn’t planned on doing this chapter quite so soon, but yesterday’s vote in the House on a non-binding resolution (H. Con. Res. 63) goaded me into action. First of all, I’m quite disappointed that our Congressman, Wayne Gilchrest, was one of 17 Republicans who broke ranks and voted for the resolution. So I wrote him an e-mail, which reads as follows:

As you’re probably aware, you and I have had a number of policy disagreements over the course of the last two years I’ve resided in Maryland. It’s apparent from your voting record and the words that I write on my website that my political philosophy is quite a bit to the right of yours even though we both are elected officials in the same party.

However, I’ve not been so disappointed with a vote you’ve cast than the one you cast today on H. Con. Res. 63. In your press release, you tell us that “(o)ur troops deserve to know that their elected leaders back home care enough about their lives to make sure that their mission is justified and their cause is just. As a former Marine platoon sergeant, I know I hoped for that when I was in Vietnam.” But my contention is that the majority Democrats are going to use this resolution as the first step on a slippery slope to start squeezing our forces in Iraq; and knowing this, the enemy can bide its time and wait until President Bush has no choice but to withdraw, handing the enemy a victory they surely could not accomplish on the battlefield in a fair fight.

In June 1970 the Senate passed a similar resolution regarding the Viet Nam war. This resolution, known as the Cooper-Church Amendment, ended funding for U.S. troops and advisers in Cambodia and Laos, banned combat operations over Cambodian airspace to support Cambodian forces without prior congressional approval, and cut funding to support Southern Vietnamese forces stationed outside of Vietnam. It was a small step and seemed harmless enough because it would have no real effect on American troops fighting within Viet Nam. (In fact, the original bill died because of a veto threat, only to have a slightly modified measure pass a lame-duck Congress that December.)

But Cooper-Church opened the door, and once the GOP was blown out in the 1974 elections, Democrats felt free to cut off funding from the Viet Nam war entirely. We all now know what tragedies awaited the people of Southeast Asia in the years immediately after our shameful withdrawal. After Saigon fell, did it not make you wonder as a Viet Nam veteran whether the lives of friends and fellow servicemen that were lost in Southeast Asia were sacrificed in vain?

My stance on this war has also been in support of our troops. But further, I support their overall mission and I support the President’s prayerful handling of this mission. I have to believe that President Bush made the decision to add more troops after consulting with his top military brass, and decided as Commander-in-Chief that it would be the best course of action to take. No President has ever handled a war flawlessly, if he did, we would have lost no lives while attaining victory. To me, the increase in troop strength combined with more aggressive rules of engagement when it comes to Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs would go a long way toward victory.

Moreover, we face an enemy that does not deal fairly at the diplomatic table; where lying and deceit are acceptable tactics in their effort to spread radical Islam globally, and sacrifice of one’s self is considered noble as a shortcut to Paradise. The only way we can defeat this sort of enemy is to wipe them out in whatever manner necessary to demoralize them into surrender. Words will not do it, but in my mind military action has some chance of success. But by your vote today, you’ve made our nation take a step backward in this fight, and it’s a sign of weakness our enemies will surely find a way to take advantage of.

It also bears repeating that we were warned at the start about the time this effort would take. Noted President Bush on September 20, 2001:

“This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.”

Americans have seemed to forget that these words were spoken just over five years ago. We also seem to forget that several other countries have felt the sting of radical Islamic terror in the last few years, with major events in Great Britain, Indonesia, France, and Spain just to name a few. With the exception of the British, none of these countries have (or had in Spain’s case) a significant number of combat personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan, the main military fronts in this war.

By its nature, this war is totally different than the “Cold War” of my youth. However, the fear of nuclear annihilation is still present. Instead of the fallout shelters and drills of the 1950’s that were to prepare us for a missile attack from the Soviet Union, the threat is now just as great of a so-called “suitcase nuke” or “dirty bomb” rendering a city uninhabitable and costing untold American lives. Additionally, China has demonstrated an ability to destroy satellites, which could be another tool terrorists engage eventually. With warm relations between China and Iran and Tehran’s support of radical Islamic groups we’re currently engaged with in Iraq, it’s not difficult to imagine this technology becoming another weapon in the Islamic arsenal.

But Democrats seem to be in favor of diplomacy rather than solving this through the aggressive use of force. I heard this point made Thursday as Bill Reddish on WICO radio had a short interview with Maryland’s junior Senator Ben Cardin. Senator Cardin made the following point:

“Sacnctions will work in Iran if we have the support of the international community.”

I placed the emphasis on “if” because, as was proven in the “Oil-For-Food” program and in the assistance Russia and China have given the Iranians in their war efforts, that the so-called international community will cheat when they feel it’s in their best interests to. Combine that with the stated tendency of radical Islamists (and for that matter Communists like North Korea) to extend one hand at the negotiating table while readying the knife in the other hand for that stab in the back, it’s clear in my eyes that the only way diplomacy works is when one side is completely subdued and has its terms of surrender dictated to them.

Yesterday the Patriot Post published an essay that enlightened me about the two main and competing sects of Islam. I found it interesting that just 10 percent of Muslims subscribe to the Shi’ite sect, but that 10 percent are a majority in five nations. These five include both Iraq and Iran. So I looked a bit further and found that on the other hand, the Salafists (or Wahhabists) consider themselves as a purer form of the majority Sunni sect. This is the brand of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and to which Osama bin Laden subscribes. Also, the Taliban in Afghanistan are another subsect of Sunnis. In essence, our fight against radical Islam is against a small portion of the entire Islamic world – however, that small portion tends to congregate in countries that are some of the leaders against us in the Long War.

Because of this factor, we will likely be fighting these enemies for quite a spell; thus a difficult question arises as to what sort of help we can get. One theory I have on this is that we need to identify and support Islamic nations that are more moderate to help in this battle. To me, this is part of the reason we’re in Iraq and Afghanistan, making an effort to install leadership that is more friendly to our interests. Other countries such as Bahrain, Turkey, and Kuwait have also been helpful in providing forward bases for us to work from.

It’s here that I depart from the more mainstream conservative movement. Part of reinventing Republicanism is facing the fact that we are the source of freedom for the globe, and a healthy chunk of the world economy. Thus, our national interests transcend our borders and isolationism cannot succeed in the world today. While we do need to secure our borders better and work on free but fair trade (more on these subjects in future chapters) we need to realize that having American troops in far-flung places on the globe is going to be a fact for the foreseeable future. It’s one thing that our Founders may not have thought of in their era.

For example, George Washington opined in his Farewell Address:

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.”

But he then stated:

“Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”

Where I differ with Washington solely lies in the fact that we are not in a “detached and distant situation” anymore. As I spoke of earlier, our interests are now global and our foreign policy must reflect this fact. To this end, we must do whatever it takes and resort to whichever “temporary alliances” are needed to subdue the threat posed by radical Islam.

I do have one other main point to make. Some are of the opinion that we need to pull out of the United Nations, and I tend to agree with them.

Unfortunately, by its nature the UN is populated with all nations, regardless of their devotion to the freedom of their citizens. A tyrannical nation like China has an equal say and veto power there as we do, therefore I believe it’s truly not in our best interest to be fully invested in such an organization. Add in the fact that it’s a bloated and relatively corrupt bureaucracy saddled by its inertia (hmm, sounds like the federal government) and the benefits from divesting ourselves from the UN grow. After all, the UN did nothing to a tyrant who violated seventeen of their own resolutions until we took it upon ourselves to build a coalition to take care of the problem, which we solved. Truly we have a better solution in “going it alone” if we must than having to beg for a hall pass from the international community.

Laboring to coerce workers

I knew this had been coming for awhile, but finally it got a name and a number put to it. Last week in the House of Representatives H.R. 800 was introduced, erroneously billed as the “Employee Free Choice Act”. In reality, what this bill would accomplish is end the practice of union representation elections held by secret ballot – rather, the workers would sign cards that state they would favor union representation. Apparently the 61% success rate for union elections in fiscal year 2005 isn’t good enough for the unionistas, who want to have the perfect right to strongarm and intimidate 50 percent plus one of the workers in a place of employment into signing a card guaranteeing that the union collects dues from 100% of the workers.

But this practice is not really for the workers’ benefit; instead, it’s to collect a piece of their wages to advocate for political favors. Not surprisingly, all but a handful of the over 230 co-sponsors to H.R. 800 are Democrats. The few Republicans who have signed on are from Big Labor strongholds New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and Connecticut.

I did some checking on opensecrets.org and found out that these Republicans were (for GOP members, anyway) pretty deeply in the pocket of Big Labor. With one exception, they received 10% or more of their PAC money from labor groups, and most were above 25%. By comparison, local Congressman Wayne Gilchrest has only a 4.6% lifetime percentage of labor PAC contributions (none in the 2006 cycle) and California Democrat Rep. George Miller (lead sponsor of H.R. 800) had about 60% of his PAC money come from organized labor.

To be fair, I don’t have a problem with workers organizing, nor does a group that I’ve used as a resource in writing this post (and whose e-mail alerted me to this recently introduced bill.) In fact, The Center for Union Facts notes that they’re not against unions, but, “against union officials’ abuse of power, often at the expense of their own rank-and-file members. We are against corruption, violence, and intimidation. We are against the misuse of union dues. We support employees who elect to join a union, as well as the right of employees to remain non-union without intimidation.” A good summary of their position on “card check”, along with a copy of an ironic 2001 letter from many of these same HR 800 sponsors urging Mexican officials to support a secret ballot for unionization, can be found here.

(With regard to my stance on unions, I find it funny that I’m somewhat to the left of Gunpowder Chronicler, based on the post and comments he wrote a few days back.)

However, I’m bringing this subject up not because I’m under any assumption that this bill won’t pass the House (with over 230 sponsors passage there is a fait accompli); but it’s still possible that the GOP minority in the Senate can grow a pair and bring this to a halt like they did with the unamended minimum wage bill. Failing that, possibly President Bush would see the irony of signing a bill denying democratic rights to millions of America’s workers after expending billions of dollars and several thousand lives to bring democratic rights to millions of Afghanis and Iraqis, and properly veto the so-called Employee Free Choice Act.

There’s nothing wrong with the system as is. Workers should be free of intimidation from either side when making a choice whether to organize or not, and it’s been proven that a secret ballot is the best way to bring out the honest feelings on whether the union has made a good case for itself or not. Reverting to “card check” just stacks the deck in favor of the unions and against the employers who hire the workers in the first place.

Legislative checkup, February 2007 (Congress)

I’m going to try to make this about a monthly or so series – of course, sometimes Congress takes long recesses and our General Assembly only operates from January through April (thank goodness) so this time of year is probably going to be the busiest. And because this part dealing with the Federal side turns out so long I’ll do this one tonight and the state one tomorrow.

The information comes from the THOMAS website run by the Library of Congress. This is probably one of the best uses of the Internet out there. It’s also going to save me a lot of time linking these since anyone else can just as easily look up their particular Congressman on these issues (it’s quite simple to do there! One case where the federal government gets things pretty much right.) I’m just doing this as a “compare and contrast.”

And I’ll begin in the House. Thus far my Congressman, Wayne Gilchrest (MD-1) has sponsored just one bill, which has 24 co-sponsors – mostly comprised of Congressmen whose districts lie within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. H.R. 16 is better known as the “Chesapeake Bay Restoration Enhancement Act of 2007.” This bill was assigned to committee upon introduction January 4 and has not made it out yet.

Across the border in Delaware, Mike Castle has been somehat busier, sponsoring three bills. None of these bills have made it out of their respective committees yet. H.R. 96 and H.R. 97 were both just moved into a subcommittee, so there’s been some action on those bills recently.

The three bills Castle has sponsored: H.R. 96, the “Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007” (with 3 co-sponsors); H.R. 97, the “Accountability and Transparency in Ethics Act” (which has one co-sponsor), and H.R. 334, which “require the House of Representatives and the Senate to each establish a Subcommittee on Intelligence in the Committee on Appropriations, and for other purposes.” The “other purposes” include placing intelligence-related expenditures “on budget.” That bill has no co-sponsors.

Now I’ll turn my attention to our four Democrat Senators from Maryland and Delaware.

Maryland’s senior Senator, Barbara Mikulski, has sponsored just one bill thus far. S. 414 is the “Cloned Food Labeling Act” and languishes in committee.

Newly elected Senator Cardin has done a little bit more, offering two amendments to bills that were tabled. His one sponsored bill, S. 137, is the “Preserving Medicare for All Act of 2007”. This bill is also bottled up in committee.

Turning to the First State, their senior Senator’s been a busy beaver (when not running for President), sponsoring five Resolutions and five bills.

Joe Biden’s Concurrent Resolution on Iraq (S. Con. Res. 2) was shut out when it couldn’t attain cloture (on a 97-0 vote.) But S. Res. 24, which declared January 2007 as “National Stalking Awareness Month” passed by unanimous consent (with 2 co-sponsors).

It was not as quick for S. Res. 30, a resolution “regarding the need for the United States to address global climate change through the negotiation of fair and effective international commitments” – it’s standing in committee. The same fate is true for S. Res. 64 (regarding expenditures of the Committee on Foreign Relations) and S. Res. 65, which “condemn(s) the murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist and human rights advocate Hrant Dink.” Only S. Res. 30 has a co-sponsor.

Biden’s five bills are as follows: S. 345 is a “bill to establish a Homeland Security and Neighborhood Safety Trust Fund”; S. 368, the “COPS Improvements Act of 2007” (with 29 co-sponsors); S. 392, “To ensure payment of United States assessments for United Nations peacekeeping operations for the 2005 through 2008 time period”; S. 449 (with 4 co-sponsors) is a bill that adds regulations for state and local law enforcement agencies; and this week he introduced S. 534, “A bill to bring the FBI to full strength to carry out its mission.” Each of these bills is still in committee.

On the other hand, Senator Carper is a comparative back-bencher, having introduced just one amendment that was tabled to show for his month plus in the 110th Congress.

Now it’s on to the roll call votes. In the House:

On H.R. 1, which implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, Castle voted “aye” and Gilchrest “no” (passed 299-128).
On H.R. 2, the “Fair Minimum Wage Act”, both Castle and Gilchrest voted “aye” (passed 315-116).
On H.R. 3, the “Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act”, Castle voted “aye” and Gilchrest did not vote (passed 253-174).
On H.R. 4, the “Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act”; again, Castle voted “aye” and Gilchrest “no” (passed 255-170).
On H.R. 5, the “College Student Relief Act” (which lowered interest rates for student borrowers), both Castle and Gilchrest voted “aye” (passed 356-71).
On H.R. 6, the “Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives” act, both Castle and Gilchrest voted “aye” (passed 264-163).
On H.Res. 78, allowing the delegates from the District of Columbia and U.S. territories voting rights in the House, both Castle and Gilchrest voted “no” (passed 226-191).

So on 6 of the 7 votes here regarding “major” bills, Mike Castle voted with the majority Democrats. Are you sure you’re a Republican, Rep. Castle? Meanwhile, I’m not happy with Gilchrest on the minimum wage or energy bills where he voted with the Democrats.

The Senate votes are much easier. All four Senators voted as a block for the Democrat side in most instances (although Biden missed several of these votes.) The only exceptions were:

On an amendment to S.B. 1 to permit travel hosted by preapproved 501(c)(3) organizations, Carper and Mikulski voted “aye”, Biden and Cardin voted “no” (passed 51-46).
On another S.B. 1 amendment, this to “establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity”, Biden and Carper voted “aye” while Cardin and Mikulski voted “nay” (failed 71-27).
Another S.B. 1 amendment “to prohibit authorized committees and leadership PACs from employing the spouse or immediate family members of any candidate or Federal office holder connected to the committee” was tabled. Sen. Mikulski was among those voting not to table the amendment (tabled 54-41).

Because of its position as the “saucer that cools the steaming cup of coffee” (geez, what a terrible but often-used analogy) the Senate hasn’t seen the voting action that the House has; also, a number of their votes have been confirmation votes for various positions.

Tomorrow I’ll shift gears and look at our legislators’ roles in the Maryland General Assembly.

Replying to a comment I received…

This morning (before my server went down for about an hour – come on midPhase get with the program here!) I moderated my comments and came across this one regarding a post I did awhile back:

Bashiir wrote:

The war in Iraq obviously has degenerated to intra Iraq sectarian violence of the worst kind. Killings of children, bombing of schools, torture with drills to the face, the brain, the body are commonplace. Anarchy could easily be the result with the strongest and most violent the most successful. In the middle ages, this was a pattern as well. George W. Bush has created perhaps the most profound political mistake in history.

Instead of responding as part of a comments section of a post that’s now sort of buried, I’m going to answer this one right up front and center (at least for a few days.)

The background on the post in question stretches all the way back to a note I got in my e-mail box from Senator Cardin about the Iraqi situation back in early January. Issac Smith of The Old Line was offended and off we went.

But to address Bashiir’s comments, I’m going to ask a simple question: With the coverage of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal that was broken by and amplified daily through the partisan media, how can you honestly think that the torture and mayhem you describe would not be known about if it were being done by our forces? I have yet to see or hear about anything of the sort being blasted over the airwaves.

However, if I’m misreading your comment and you’re inferring that the killing, bombing, and torture is part of the sectarian violence you speak of, you’re right. War does tend to feature tactics that aren’t conducive to survival amongst the unfortunates who are in its path, generally innocent bystanders. This was true in the Middle Ages and true today.

But I’m not of the opinion that President Bush is to blame. Tactics that won World Wars One and Two do not work when a) the enemy is not a nation-state or group of nations as the Axis powers were in WWI and Germany and Japan were in WWII; and b) the fighting is of an asymmetrical nature. In Iraq, we’re using the standard issue warfighting equipment against an enemy brazen enough to take advantage of our rules of engagement and use nonstandard weapons such as IED’s and truck bombs. They also have no qualms about taking innocent people with them, such as yesterday’s incident where a homicide truck bomber leveled a Baghdad market. However, the strategy is to eventually have the Iraqis police themselves, with most likely a small American force remaining there as backup. This strategy already works in much of Iraq.

I’ve stated this before: the enemy has learned well from our missteps in fighting the Viet Nam War. When the enemy, both then and now, went toe-to-toe with our forces in conventional warfare, they’re usually wiped out by our superior firepower. Both the Viet Cong and the Islamic zealots we’re engaged with now have won their battles in the field of public opinion here in America.

The one difference between our era and the Middle Ages was that now there is one country that was founded on the belief that mankind yearns for freedom, not submission or simple survival to see another day.

History will judge in the years and decades to come whether GWB had a solid strategy against al-Qaeda and other nonnational Islamist enemies. But I don’t question the need to fight back in some manner, as attacks on U.S. interests here and abroad culminated in the terror of 9/11. Nor do I question the need to persevere and win the battle. While it may be a fatalistic view of the consequences of pulling out, I think Kevin McCullough’s column today on townhall.com is more plausible if we leave Iraq before the task is completed than if we don’t.

And another thing: (hate it when I think of stuff after I turn the computer off!)

I’d like to know if Bashiir, who remarked about staying involved in a sectarian civil war in Iraq, also felt the same way about our involvement in Kosovo (which was essentially a sectarian civil war where we took the side of the Muslims) and thinks we should get into the pet intervention cause of many Democrats, the sectarian civil war in Darfur.

01.20.07

I’m sure you see the little black oval stickers on the back of some Volvo or Subaru that simply say “01.20.09” on them. Normally they’re on the other side of the bumper as the “You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war” bumper sticker (the quote is attributed to Albert Einstein.)

Imagine what they would feel if they woke up that day to hear a somber newsbabe:

Today at noon President-elect Newt Gingrich and Vice-President-elect Tom Tancredo take the oath of office – this despite Senate Minority Leader Hillary Rodham Clinton’s continuing assertions of disenfranchisement of Hispanic voters who gained amnesty 2 years ago and other fraudulent voting. (What the infobabe didn’t say was that she lost by ten points.)

Meanwhile, both newly-minted House Speaker Mike Pence of Indiana and Senate Majority Leader Tom Coburn of Oklahoma vowed to complete the dismantling of our government featured in the “Second Contract With America.”

(Pence soundbite: “We now have a historic opportunity to work with the originator of the first ‘Contract With America’ to roll back and cut out the excesses of government while preserving its essential functions.” For the 2010 elections, the unions would use the same quote but have it say “We now have a historic opportunity to…cut out the…government.”)

Also, Hillary Clinton is denying internet reports that as she vowed to work with the new administration, a blogger from the widely-read ‘Maryland Bloggers Alliance’ posted a video of Hillary from behind showing her fingers crossed behind her back.

It seems to me that (and maybe my memory’s a bit hazy, after all it’s been 8 years) that there was nowhere near this much speculation and buzz on who was going to be President at this time in 1999. Then again, we did have a heir apparent in media darling Al Gore, so nobody in the mainstream media cared too much about who the Republican sacrificial lamb would be.

But I couldn’t let this occasion of the midway point of George W. Bush’s final term go by without commenting. Of course, if the above happened the owners of these Volvos and Subarus would simply slap on “01.20.13” stickers, wouldn’t they? Some people just can’t be happy.

I suppose if I were into that sort of symbolism, one one side of my bumper I’d put my “Don’t Blame Me – I Voted For Ehrlich” sticker and the other side would have a sticker with a Maryland flag on it that read “01.19.11”. But I’m not into symbolism, I’m into solutions. Maybe it’s because I have a blog that suggests solutions rather than simply whines about what was.

Links and new members

A couple things as we go into our second-to-last NFL weekend. After Sunday, I’ll have to do stuff like reading and cleaning my house all weekend. I hate that 2 1/2 months between the end of football season (save for the Super Bowl 2 weeks hence) and the beginning of baseball season. Nonetheless…

Today as I promised a couple weeks back I’ve posted the campaign websites of hopefuls for President – not just Republicans and Democrats, but also from those minor parties on the Maryland ballot. I was informed via the Maryland Green Party website and the Libertarian list-serv that both of those parties turned in what they deemed as a sufficient number of signatures by the end of 2006 to maintain their status for the 2007-2010 election cycle in Maryland. So I have their potential candidates linked online as well.

For this effort, I give a large hat-tip to Ron Gunzberger’s Politics1 website as well as fellow MBA member David Wissing (The Hedgehog Report). It was through both websites that I found the appropriate links.

And speaking of the MBA, in the last couple weeks we’ve expanded in both number and subject content.

In the last couple weeks we’ve added The Pubcrawler from Gaithersburg, who does mostly political commentary with a libertarian tone, plus we’ve added Charles Dowd (C. Dowd’s Blog), an illustrator and Web designer from Lansdowne who writes on a variety of topics. And with a website after my own heart (despite his allegiance to an inferior ballteam), the “Maryland Orioles Fan” brings Orioles Post to the MBA. As a long-suffering Detroit Tigers fan (until 2006) and a follower of the Oriole-affiliated Shorebirds, I feel his pain. He writes out of Silver Spring.

You know, it would be intriguing to know just how many people read one or more MBA-affiliated sites on a daily basis. I’m sure we reach thousands of Marylanders…even if I’m an “average” website with a couple hundred daily readers, that puts us respectably into four figures. Of course, I live in the area of Maryland outside the main population base so my numbers are likely on the low side. I’d bet we get at least 10,000 readers a day between all of us. Perhaps we need to start charging to advertise with these numbers.

I’ll likely add to my “50 year plan” this weekend (I know, where have you heard that before?) so check back. Meanwhile, check out the Presidential contender websites and my cohorts of the MBA, new and old.

Oh, by the way…the Presidential links have been set to appear in random order, not in order of my preference. So being at the top of my list doesn’t construe my endorsement.

Moving backwards in the Senate

Today I went to my political mailbox and found a note from my “friend” Senator Cardin called “Moving Backwards in Iraq.”

Dear Friend,

Last night, President Bush presented the American people with his plan for the future of Iraq. Unfortunately, his plan is not the change of course we so desperately need. It will only put more American troops in harm’s way and will not bring us any closer to achieving success in Iraq.

Later this morning, I am scheduled to deliver my first speech on the Floor of the U.S. Senate. I will use this opportunity to voice my strong opposition to the President’s plan to escalate troop levels. I’ll offer my own vision for moving forward in Iraq, which acknowledges that the country is in the midst of a worsening civil war.

The President’s plan to send thousands of additional troops to Iraq is not a change in strategy; it’s an escalated version of the same ‘stay the course’ policy that has not worked. The circumstances on the ground in Iraq are worsening. More American troops are dying each week and there’s no end in sight. A new policy in Iraq is long overdue.

By choosing an escalation in troop levels rather than a drawdown, President Bush is ignoring the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and the advice of many military experts, including several of his own generals. He is also ignoring the wishes of the American people, who last November spoke with a unified voice against the current policy in Iraq.

Like the majority of Americans, I believe we need to bring our troops home, not send more troops to war. Iraq is in the midst of a civil war and victory will not be achieved by flexing our military might.

Success can come only through aiding the Iraqis in establishing a government that protects the rights and enjoys the confidence of all its people. It must be a government that respects both human rights and democratic principles. The efforts of U.S. soldiers, no matter how heroic, cannot accomplish these objectives for the Iraqis.

Our objective must be to escalate our political and diplomatic efforts, not our troop levels.

I sincerely hope the President reconsiders his plan and works with Congress to bring about a real change in policy that allows our troops to start coming home.

Thank you for your continued support.

Sincerely,

Ben Cardin

Ben Cardin was born in 1943, so that makes him 63 years old. Unless he lives to his father’s age, he may not be around for the conclusion of this Long War against Islamofascism.

The reason Iraq is in the middle of what he terms a “civil war” is that we have taken the fight to the Islamic extremists on their turf. And much like Viet Nam, the enemy’s not fighting on a strictly military basis. They seem to have studied our Viet Nam experience and are using much the same strategy as the Viet Cong did. On a strictly military basis, the enemy has much less firepower than we do but they use the guerrilla tactics perfected in the jungles of Southeast Asia very well.

Even more so, our Islamofascist enemy is taking advantage of the same propaganda style that turned the country against the war in Viet Nam. I’m old enough to remember Walter Cronkite leading off the nightly news with the day’s body count from over there and then the second or third feature being an antiwar protest someplace. While the term may or may not be attributable to Vladimir Lenin, “useful idiot” does capture the flavor of the 1960’s mainstream media and their reporting on military events.

But I digress. Getting back to the Cardin letter:

I guess the very first objection I have is that American troops understand when they sign on the dotted line that they will be in harm’s way. To place a local slant on this, I’m sure Eric Caldwell knew that he may lose his life defending our country since he signed up for the military in 2003 and the Army in 2005, well after we began operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately for him and his family, that’s the very thing that happened.

And I have to disagree that sending more troops to Iraq is automatically a mistake. It seems to me that many on the Democrat side were pleading for more troops to be sent over there not all that long ago. Well, now they get their wish and they bitch about it. And frankly, I’m sick of their whining and pouting about how badly the war is going. Much of this may have been avoided if the last two Democrat presidents had grown a pair and aggressively gone after those who attacked us and our interests abroad.

Next, I don’t believe that the American people “spoke with a unified voice against the current policy in Iraq” in November. Yes, they elected a Democrat majority. But how many of them actually ran against the war? They ran against the “culture of corruption” and against President Bush in general. Many made themselves out as just as conservative as their GOP opponents.

And even if Americans did speak with an antiwar tone in their vote, it still doesn’t mean they’re right. If they were truly antiwar, they would’ve had the attitude they have now on September 12, 2001. But I seem to recall back then most Americans were girded for battle with whoever did this to us at the World Trade Center and Pentagon. By golly, that’s what we’re doing now – how soon they forget!

So this is a message from me to both of my Senators, Senator Cardin and Senator Mikulski (who also had remarks about the troop buildup.) It will be time for the troops to come home when we have achieved victory in the Long War. That will be the point when the threat from Islamofascists and their allies has subsided to an internally manageable level because of the use of our force to a point where free and elected governments thrive – not just in Iraq, but Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and any other country that yearns for freedom in the Middle East.

The only front we can lose this war on would be the home front. I brought up the term “useful idiots” earlier. With their remarks today, the Democrats have firmly shown themselves to be perfect examples of this, and I’m betting there’s smiles all around wherever the Islamofascists are holed up for tonight.

Day one in Congress

There were a number of bills I’m going to have to keep track of that I found interesting for various reasons.

First off, our own Wayne Gilchrest introduced one of the first bills on the House docket. H.R. 16 would “amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to improve and reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay program.” It was actually the sixth bill introduced since Nancy Pelosi reserved numbers 1-10 for her own pet items. There’s 18 co-sponsors with this, all with districts surrounding Chesapeake Bay.

Here’s one I really like. Maryland’s Roscoe Bartlett introduced H.R. 77, which would “amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to change the deadline for income tax returns for calendar year taxpayers from the 15th of April to the first Monday in November.” That would be cool if passed. Obviously the intent is to have the tax bill fresh on the minds of voters.

H.R. 121 could impact me as the push for “green” buildings continues. Rep. Michael Doyle of Pennsylvania is the sponsor of this measure “to improve efficiency in the Federal Government through the use of high-performance green buildings, and for other purposes.” It’s those “other purposes” that always scare me. This bill has 1 co-sponsor.

Ending the “automatic” citizenship of babies born in the U.S. is the aim of H.R. 133, introduced by California Rep. Elton Gallegly. This would “amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.” He also brought out H.R. 138, which is an act “to require an employer to take action after receiving official notice that an individual’s Social Security account number does not match the individual’s name, and for other purposes.”

On the other end of the political spectrum, fellow Californian Rep. Zoe Lofgren submitted H.R. 182, which would “amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose an excise tax on automobiles sold in the United States that are not alternative fueled automobiles, and for other purposes.”

Texas Rep. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Clinton Social Security tax increase with H.R. 192, a bill that would “amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits.” This actually has 5 co-sponsors.

Congress has jurisdiction over the courts. It’s my assumption that Rep. Michael Simpson of Idaho wants his state out of what’s affectionately known as the “Ninth Circus” Court. H.R. 221 has as its purpose “to amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for the appointment of additional Federal circuit judges, to divide the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the United States into two circuits, and for other purposes.”

Turning to the Senate, I found some of their bills interesting too.

S.48 was introduced by Nevada Sen. John Ensign. He and his two co-sponsors want “a bill to return meaning to the Fifth Amendment by limiting the power of eminent domain.”

S.55 would “amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the individual alternative minimum tax.” Sen. Max Baucus of Montana is the lead sponsor, with 4 co-sponsors.

S.102 also would “amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and expand relief from the alternative minimum tax” but in return it also would “repeal the extension of the lower rates for capital gains and dividends for 2009 and 2010.” Not surprisingly, Sen. John F. Kerry is your sponsor for this “soak the rich” (meaning anyone who happens to sell stock for a gain like I have) bill.

Far-left readers of monoblogue already practically worship this Senator, but Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin is the sponsor of S.121, “A bill to provide for the redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.” (i.e. cut and run.) He has one co-sponsor, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California. Boxer is also the sponsor of S.151, which seeks a law “to permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing off the coast of the State of California, and for other purposes.” That bill, in turn, has one co-sponsor – the other California Senator, Dianne Feinstein.

Barbara’s quite the busy lady. She also introduced S.152, which would “amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to establish a program to help States expand the educational system to include at least 1 year of early education preceding the year a child enters kindergarten.” So the government schools would have control of your kids basically from the age of 3 onward.

Our Rep. Gilchrest has a friend in the Senate. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska placed S.183 into the hopper, a bill to “require the establishment of a corporate average fuel economy standard for passenger automobiles of 40 miles per gallon (by) 2017, and for other purposes.”

In total, there were 230 bills introduced in the House and 173 in the Senate. These are just a few that caught my eye. The Thomas service is a nice way to find these bills and their status.

Surveying the MBA

Wanted to make a quick shout out to two fellow MBA members who have items worth reading:

We haven’t figured out why he doesn’t show up on our list yet, but I’d like to welcome “Fredneck” and the Rockin’ Catoctin blog to our merry little group. Today he has an interesting take on unionism. I really have no problem with unions insofar as organizing and such, but politically they support the wrong team and I think it’s their union-first mentality that gets in the way of what’s better for a free society.

Meanwhile, Soccer Dad talks about an interesting juxtaposition in the Sun yesterday and extends it to make some comparisons between crimefighting in Baltimore under Martin O’Malley/Kurt Schmoke and New York City under Rudy Giuliani.

Speaking of the onetime NYC mayor, his Presidential Exploratory site is up and running. I’m going to start building the links to all of the 2008 contenders and pretenders. (Believe me there’s a LOT of them.) However, my motto on this once again is “let the people decide.”

I’ll place these links down toward the bottom since we ARE over a year away from the “Hawkeye Cauci”. Look for them starting this weekend.