GOP, Dems, Illegals and Iraq
Posted in Money Matters, Bush, Terrorism, Iraq, war, wordpress, Politics, campaign, election, McCain, GOP, Democrats, Rumsfeld, Immigration, Tancredo, Kennedy, Kyl, Clinton, Waxman, lobbyist, ethics, Afghanistan, Specter, U.N., United States, Law, Justice, Safety, Public, Sensenbrenner, obama, kerry, romney, Freedom, Cheney, Pelosi, Murtha, Hoyer, Feingold, Edwards, Foreign Affairs, Dingell, Grassley, Congress, Silvestre Reyes, Tony Blair, Border Control, Minimum Wage, Business, Gingrich, Hagel, Legislation, Military, David Obey, Colin Powell, Mitch McConnell, giuliani, durbin, Halliburton, Sen Dianne Feinstein on May 17th, 2007 by Stanford Matthews 
The extreme peaceniks and others expressing less venomous opposition to the Iraq war often begin their arguments with reference to inherent characteristics of war as their central theme. Aside from the obvious death and destruction that accompanies armed conflict, they stress the loss of troops and civilians as their largest concern. But they will never accept the fact that this same expression of opposition has prolonged the war in Iraq by strengthening the determination of the enemy. In other words, opposition prolonging the war shares responsibility for the death toll that the anti-war crowd views with such disdain. How’s that for irony?
Each day that politicians seek political cover on the war in Iraq from these same anti-war critics also causes more loss of life. A prudent and practical human being regardless of ideology would sacrifice their own selfish interest in favor of the valiant contributions by those actually at risk of death. To express the realities of politics is simply more rhetoric and of little consolation to those who shoulder the real burden. If you are not now nor have ever been in Iraq, shut the hell up and get this thing done so those who are can satisfy the demands of both sides of the issue by achieving victory in Iraq and coming home that much sooner.
To a much less dramatic issue but with equal potential for serious injury to the United States is illegal immigration. The reason for addressing it at the same time as the Iraq war is the focus afforded these two issues will distract from attending to other matters until resolved. The sympathy argument for illegals is another ploy that compels politicians to seek political cover rather than face the reality that this is simply an economic or financial issue.
The open borders crowd claims that illegals are merely seeking a better life is really describing a better income. The business community’s scare tactics about economic disaster without illegals is really describing lower costs and higher profits by exploiting artificial wage competition. Trying to solve the world’s problems by eliminating border and immigration control only exacerbates the symtoms.
Not securing the borders or controlling immigration is a national security risk we cannot afford. Allowing amnesty for lawbreakers only encourages its continuation. Not enforcing existing laws is a violation of the oath of office of all or most elected and appointed officials in the executive branch. Both sides of the issue, again, can be satisfied by effective control and management of the flow of people in and out of this country. Conceding to the demands of selfish special interest is not an option. Common sense demands this issue be solved now. The guiding force should be the rule of law not the whim of personal preference.
As a personal note, if you truly believe open borders are a good thing, I suggest this. Leave all your locks unlocked 24/7 from now on. Then let us know how long it takes before you experience something really bad. It is nice to think the best of people but that does not suggest ignoring the worst. They invented security because both exist.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Congressional Democrats Negotiate With Bush Aides on Iraq
Congressional Democrats and President Bush’s aides meet again Thursday to negotiate on funding for the Iraq war.
Senators Work With White House to Craft Immigration Deal
Bipartisan group of senators and White House officials work to craft an immigration agreement.
So how did the United States Congress do in the first month of the 110th session? You be the judge. First, a little review of the fact that posts here have sometimes asked why we get so focused on what Congress does. After all, they legislate. That’s it. They legislate. The can pass laws. Whatever the House passes must be passed in the Senate also. So both Houses of Congress must pass the same version of a bill before it can become law. Then it goes to the President. He can sign it into law. He can veto it and send it back to Congress. He can pocket-veto at the end of the session. Or he can pretty much ignore it and it becomes law. All you expert legal types out there, feel free to refute this if you must.
So six bills and one joint resolution have the term “on passage” next to them in the voting record in the House. Being that it is joint and includes the Senate, that’s the only thing showing up on their completed list. Then there are the six bills. You’ll remember them from the daily reminder of the 100 hour agenda. Here’s a take on that.
One law was passed to rename a park. And the other bills have many hurdles to cross before they can become law. Even if they become law there is no guarantee they will have any positive effects. No one, with any regularity, will follow up on them. So the Congress has done nothing for one month. They have solved nothing. There is only one item as law and it is not critical. 21 Senators are worried about 2008 due to re-election. Other Senators are worried about running for President. And the rest have passed one joint resolution and participated in renaming a park.
The House Judiciary Committee will be conducting hearings on President Bush’t use of signing statements. The usual complaints from the minority party are heard as well as support of the hearings from the majority. But there are some surprising responses from members of both sides of politics. The question should be is there substance in the concern that is expressed. Whether there is a political motive involved is irrelevant if the inquiry has merit.
The argument from those opposed to the President’s use of these statements is claimed to be a concern that he is trying to circumvent the legislation he just signed. It seems the statement at the link provided is a good example of why they might feel that way. Those who support the President’s use of the statements declare these hearings as nothing more than a fishing expedition. You can’t catch fish if you don’t go fishing. But in order to catch fish, one must be smarter than the fish.
It was reported that Dingell’s Committee would study Big Pharma’s direct to consumer advertising and possibly apply some new restrictions to the practice. And tonight on NBC News, they ran a story about RLS, the recently developed ailment needing a drug. One of the people in the report said this is one time they believe the direct to consumer approach provided a service to consumers. The overall tone of the piece was unmistakenly pro Big Pharma.
