random rants and references

My last post discussed the Summit St. Petersburg Declaration which I felt deserved special and seperate treatment. This post provides more information about the summit.

For full coverage of the summit, start with Gateway Pundit: Secular Islam Summit: Secularism & Islamic Thought. It has pictures, video, quotes and commentary in several posts.

Follow up with Bret Stephens' excellent article on the summit in the WSJ.com. As it may require subscription, here are some of his observations :

* At this landmark Summit on Secular Islam, there are no "moderate" Muslims.

* Canadian author Irshad Manji, whose documentary "Faith Without Fear" airs on PBS next month, describes herself as a "radical traditionalist" and draws a sharp distinction between Muslim moderates and reformers: "Moderate Muslims denounce terror that's committed in the name of Islam but they deny that religion has anything to do with it," she says. "Reform-minded Muslims denounce terror that's committed in the name of Islam and acknowledge that our religion is used to inspire it." The difference is not trivial. For more than five years, the Bush administration has been attempting to enlist the support of the so-called moderates in the war on terror -- its definition of "moderate" being remarkably elastic, to put it charitably.

He notes cogently that, while the FBI is providing considerable security for the conference, the State Department has no representatives here, nor is the VOA (Voice of America) or any US-sponsored Arabic language media present.

* Al-Jazeera, however, is here, suggesting that the real Arab mainstream better appreciates the broad interest the conference's speakers attract in the Muslim world, as well as their latent power. Perhaps this is the flip side of the appeal of extremist Islam, an indication that what Muslims are mainly looking for are radical alternatives to the unpalatable mush of unpopular autocratic governments, state-approved clerics like Sheikh Tantawi, and Saudi-funded "mainstream" organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

He closes with two good questionst: If Mr. Warraq, Dr. Sultan et al. are really irrelevant to the larger Muslim debate, why are the jihadists so eager to kill them? And if the jihadists want to kill them, don't they deserve support as well as security?

Indeed. ( and a thanks to InstaPundit and Michael Ledeen for these leads).

We are engaged in a world-wide conflict with state and non-state proponents of a violent and hegemonic ideology hiding behind the cover of a religion. Some call it the Greater War On Terror; some call it Militaristic or Radical Islamism or simply Jihadism; others cite a Clash of Civilizations. Many others, rather foolishly and short-sightedly in my opinion, refer to this as "Bush's War" - as though the dangers of a global conflict could be avoided by a tunnel vision focus on one battle area in the war or by substitution of a "safe enemy (Bush)" for the real enemy.

One recent event, the Secular Islam Conference in St Petersburg, Florida, seems to have a great deal of promise for re-framing the context in which this ideological struggle is waged. The conferees have issued a document that deserves a wide audience - both because of what it proclaims and because many of the participants are risking their lives and fortunes by their actions.

This link will take you top the Summit web page and the names of its co-signers. Here is the text of The St. Petersburg Declaration as released by the delegates to the Secular Islam Summit, St. Petersburg, Florida on March 5, 2007 :

"We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree.

We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience. We believe in the equality of all human persons.

We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights.

We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. These values do not belong to the West or the East; they are the common moral heritage of humankind.

We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called “Islamaphobia” in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights.

We call on the governments of the world to


We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy.

We enjoin academics and thinkers everywhere to embark on a fearless examination of the origins and sources of Islam, and to promulgate the ideals of free scientific and spiritual inquiry through cross-cultural translation, publishing, and the mass media.

We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine;

to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha’is, and all members of non-Muslim faith communities: we stand with you as free and equal citizens;

and to nonbelievers: we defend your unqualified liberty to question and dissent.

Before any of us is a member of the Umma, the Body of Christ, or the Chosen People, we are all members of the community of conscience, the people who must chose for themselves. "

That's a great statement. Not a Clash between Civilizations or Religions but between the Free and the Unfree. Made by Muslims, whom Bret Stephens terms "radicals" as opposed to "moderates" - perhaps like those American radicals of 1776.

OK; Maybe that's a bit much.

But this blog by iowahawk: Repent, Sinners! shows how to cure Global Warming and feel good about yourself while doing it.

But which bumper sticker to choose :
"Gaia Is My Co-Pilot" or "Be Green Like Gore" ??

Brought to you via InstaPundit.

Sen Joseph Lieberman (Dem,Conn) demonstrates a statesman's thinking and perspective on Iraq in this Article:

"The Senate and House of Representatives are bracing for parliamentary trench warfare--trapped in an escalating dynamic of division and confrontation that will neither resolve the tough challenges we face in Iraq nor strengthen our nation against its terrorist enemies around the world.

What is remarkable about this state of affairs in Washington is just how removed it is from what is actually happening in Iraq."

Sen Lieberman goes on to discuss the new war strategy and how it is focused directly on countering the al-Qaeda strategy of inciting a Sunni-Shiite civil war and how to observe and judge from facts on the ground and the nation's interests rather than from calcified political party positions. He argues strongly against the war opponents' view that our withdrawal will be beneficial to either the Iraqis or ourselves :

"In fact, halting the current security operation at midpoint, as virtually all of the congressional proposals seek to do, would have devastating consequences. It would put thousands of American troops already deployed in the heart of Baghdad in even greater danger--forced to choose between trying to hold their position without the required reinforcements or, more likely, abandoning them outright. A precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake, which terrorists, insurgents, militias and Iran would rush to fill--probably resulting in a spiral of ethnic cleansing and slaughter on a scale as yet unseen in Iraq.

I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed."

His conclusion puts the Iraq issue clearly in the proper perspective of our national security interest in a global conflict that we did not start and can not leave with impunity.

"We are at a critical moment in Iraq--at the beginning of a key battle, in the midst of a war that is irretrievably bound up in an even bigger, global struggle against the totalitarian ideology of radical Islamism. However tired, however frustrated, however angry we may feel, we must remember that our forces in Iraq carry America's cause--the cause of freedom--which we abandon at our peril."

Read the full article.

Local Boy supports the Troops - at least in "Democratic Party Speak" - as reported by the Times Leader : Carney rips troop surge in address.

"U.S. Rep. Chris Carney delivered a national radio address Saturday on behalf of his party just days after the House approved a ceremonial disapproval of President Bush’s plans for troop escalations in Iraq.

Carney, an active a lieutenant commander in the Navy Reserves and former senior intelligence advisor at the Pentagon, disapproves of the plan to extend the deployment and to redeploy nearly 22,000 additional troops.

In the address, carried by several nationally syndicated radio networks including ABC, CBS Radio, NPR and Voice of America Radio, Carney, D-Dimock, talked up his own military experience and said sending more troops to Iraq will do nothing to curtail the violence there.

“As an intelligence and counterterrorism advisor in the U.S. Navy Reserves, I was proud to serve at the Pentagon after the September 11th attacks, but my experience there has taught me that our troops deserve a better plan,” he said."

Mr. Carney became Rep Carney because a great many residents of his district voted against former Rep Sherwood and his very public personal and legal problems. Many of us were persuaded that Mr. Carney meant his campaign statements about supporting the troops and protecting our country from its enemies. Clearly, we were wrong.

I am glad to see that LCdr Carney, a "senior intelligence advisor", has had extensive military experience enabling him to see that the troops need a better plan than the one supported by General Petraeus, who was confirmed by the Senate to lead the US Forces in Iraq.

Just as an aside, does anyone really understand how the term "senior advisor" is used here ? For context, in the military, there are 10 Officer Grades from O-1 for Ensigns to O-10 for full Generals and Admirals ( like General Petraeus); at the O-4 level, a LCdr is quite a bit "junior" to a General. Oh, and Gen Petraeus also has considerable "real senior" combat leadership in Iraq as a Division Commander; and has spent the last year leading a complete rewrite of the Army and Joint Services "Book" on CounterInsurgency Warfare.

I wouldn't make so much of this if Rep Carney hadn't cited his military "experience" so explicitly to give authority to his opinions. Of course, it doesn't really provide much authority or expertise as a simple contrast to Gen Petraeus's experience shows. But something esle is clearly shown by both Rep Carney's words and his selection as Party Spokesman on this issue. He is doing what he was recruited and nominated to do - provide a "military cover" to the Party Platform, which in the case of Iraq is to exit quickly and blame Bush.

I accept political party game-playing; and credit the Democrats with playing this game very well in 2006. But I do not abide the disregard for the nation's vital interests demonstrated by these symbolic attacks on the president and on the troops. It is hypocrisy to say both "we support you" and "we seek to undermine you". Whether that undermining is in words that demoralize as Rep Carney has done or in legal constrains on effective prosecution of the war as Rep Murtha has proposed. These actions are for the Party's gain at the Nation's peril.

So what is the Democratic party plan and Rep Murtha's proposal? Well, try this summary by Mark Steyn :: Why the Iraq war is turning into America's defeat: "So 'the Murtha plan' is to deny the president the possibility of victory while making sure Democrats don't have to share the blame for the defeat. But of course he's a great American! He's a patriot! He supports the troops! He doesn't support them in the mission, but he'd like them to continue failing at it for a couple more years. As John Kerry wondered during Vietnam, how do you ask a soldier to be the last man to die for a mistake? By nominally 'fully funding' a war you don't believe in but 'limiting his ability to use the money.' Or as the endearingly honest anti-war group MoveCongress.org put it, in an e-mail preview of an exclusive interview with the wise old Murtha:

'Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president's foreign and national security policy.'

'Undermining'? Why not? To the Slow-Bleed Democrats, it's the Republicans' war. To an increasing number of what my radio pal Hugh Hewitt calls the White-Flag Republicans, it's Bush's war. To everyone else on the planet, it's America's war. And it will be America's defeat."

So who's buying the Carney Man Pitch to avoid a "Surge" in Iraq? Well, for starters, the Iranian sponsored Moqtada al-Sadr and his terrorist militia leadership have decided to run to Tehran rather than stay around for those surging US soldiers to get serious with them. That says a lot.

UPDATE - For those who would like to read exactly what Rep Carney said during the House Hearings on this bill, follow this link to page H1717 of the Congressional Record at THOMAS (Library of Congress) . After Rep Carney's brief speech, Rep Bonner, of Alabama, spoke. The contrast between these two talks is quite stark and frames well the context for the debate between the advocates of US defeat and the advocates of US Victory.

My blogging has a simple pattern - write for a few months and go silent for more months. I need a lot of time to acquire a store of information and frustration; but only a little time to deplete that store. And being lazy helps. Or maybe it's just the winter doldrums that inspires blogging.

At any rate, the blogging urge is upon me. It might be a hint of spring in the air; or, more likely, just reading something that calls for an immediate response. So, for my Susquehanna County and NE PA neighbors, I offer up my rendition of the Carney Man Pitch to start this blogging season.

My last post covered the votes taken on amendments to the CIRA Senate Bill S.2611, but missed one significant roll call vote and also missed a voice vote on wage provisions.

I should have given special notice to Roll Call Vote 127 on 17May06 for an amendment by Senators Vitter, Santorum and others : "To strike the provisions related to certain undocumented individuals." This would have completely removed the bill's amnesty provisions for all illegal immigrants. Needless to say, it failed to pass (by a vote of 66-33), with Senator Specter voting against it and for amnesty. Senator Santorum voted in favor of removing the amnesty provisions.

The other item missed is about the wages being mandated by the bill. This aspect is discussed well by Kate O'Beirne at NRO: "Among the little-noticed provisions in the Senate bill is one that shatters the economic rationale for millions of new unskilled, affordable foreign workers. .....
The bill extends Davis-Bacon “prevailing wage” provisions—typically the area’s union wage that applies only to construction on federal projects under current law—to all occupations (e.g. roofers, carpenters, electricians, etc.) covered by Davis-Bacon. So guest-workers (but not citizen workers) must be paid Davis-Bacon wage rates for jobs in the private sector if their occupation is covered by Davis-Bacon. Presumably because Senate Democrats’ union bosses thought this provision too modest, an amendment by Senator Barack Obama, approved by voice vote, extended Davis-Bacon wages rates to all private work performed by guest workers, even if their occupations are not covered by Davis-Bacon."

She also notes that : "While the White House is banking on winning House approval making new border enforcement measures contingent on legalizing millions of illegals, House Republicans remain firmly opposed to any amnesty and are confident that Hastert will not permit a bill that a majority of his party opposes to reach the floor. A large number of House Republicans could support a well-regulated guest worker program, with a more secure border and a workable workplace enforcement program, but they have no confidence the president’s recent commitment to serious enforcement measures matches their own."

This theme is present in other punditry and opinions that suggest a compromise bill based on no amnesty or citizenship path for existing illegal immigrants and focused on securing the border and enforcing the existing law against employers who hire illegals. The guest worker aspects might allow resident as well as new immigrants a chance to enter (or re-enter) as credentialed workers for temporary labor only and without a path to citizenship. Basically that is the House Bill with a guest worker feature and without the new "felon" provisions. I think that would be a good compromise but wonder if it can be done politically.

Also interesting is O'Beirne's observation about wages. The bad news it that the wages would be excessive for most employers and do damage to the economy - IF workers were really hired at those rates. The worse news is that it might discourage open legal immigration and employment while encouraging continued illegal immigration for all the same economic reasons that prevail today. Assuming continued lax enforcement of the laws, we would have legislated a new worst world of amnesty for existing lawbreakers and incentives for future lawbreaking.

In all of this legislating and opining, I do not see any meaningful public discussion of what future immigration policy is best suited to advance the national interest. Should the top priorty be importing day laborers from Mexico and Central America or should it be attracting the best highly skilled talent from the rest of the world? How much total immigration (of all and each type worker) do we need and can we assimilate over the near-mid future?

The President and the Senate are focused on a Mexican Expediency Program with dramatic and ill-understood immigration impacts. The House is focused on solving a Border Security problem and postponing the larger policy issues until the immediate critical problem is solved. The more the Senate discusses its bill, the wiser the House approach seems.

I've already stated my basic views on the pending Senate Bill S2611, C0mprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (CIRA). This post provides a record of voting on the more important (my selection) amendments and motions to table ( i.e. to reject an amendment). It also record the votes of our two Pennsylvania Senators, Specter and Santorum, who are voting rather differently on this issue. Senator Specter is a Sponsor of the bill, having sheparded it through his Judiciary committee.

The information ( and votes of other senators) can be found at U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes . You can also link from that site to all the bill data and text. The list starts with the first roll call vote and will be updated. (My personal interpretations are included parenthetically.)

Vote 121, 16May06 : "To prohibit the granting of legal status, or adjustment of current status, to any individual who enters or entered the United States in violation of Federal law unless the border security measures authorized under Title I and section 233 are fully completed and fully operational." ( This would require securing the border first, before granting amnesty (adjusting status) to illegal immigrants.) Result - Failed by 55 to 40 votes; Specter voted against it ; Santorum for it.

Vote 122, 16May06 : "To prohibit implementation of title IV and title VI until the President determines that implementation of such titles will strengthen the national security of the United States." ( A face-saver to allow those who voted Nay on 121 above to show they voted for a "national security" interest. The President has already made that determination in his speech.) Result - Passed by 79 - 16 ; both Specter and Santorum voted for it.

Vote 123, 16May06, to Table (defeat) amendment : "To prohibit aliens who are currently outside the United States from participating in the H-2C guestworker visa program." (Another attempt to restrain the bill, by limiting Guest Workers to those already in the country, failed). Result - Tabled by 69-28; both Specter and Santorum voted to Table.

Vote 124, 16May06, to Table amendment : " To reduce the number of H-2C nonimmigrants to 200,000 during any fiscal year." (This amendment won and reduces the size of the guestworker intake and removes the 20% increase in annual caps.) Result - Not Tabled by 79 - 18; Specter voted to Table; Santorum to Not Table. ( This was an important vote for some small amount of restraint; but Specter was one of only 18 to vote to grow the unskilled immigrant intake to over 100 million in 20 years, based on analysis of S.2611. This amendment may slow that growth from the original 100-200 million to a 40-90 million range.)

Vote 126, 17May06 : "To increase the amount of fencing and improve vehicle barriers installed along the southwest border of the United States." ( To provide a modicum of real border security.) Result - Passed by 83-16; both Specter and Santorum voted for it.

Vote 128, 17May06 : "To modify the conditions under which an H-2C nonimmigrant may apply for an employment-based immigrant visa." (This precludes convicted felons and other criminals from becoming guestworkers with a path to potential citizenship.) Result - Passed by50-48; Specter voted against; Santorum voted for it.

Vote 130, 18May06, to Table amendment : "To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system, by ensuring that persons who receive an adjustment of status under this bill are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity." ( by voting to table this, the Senate gives a financial reward as a bonus to amnesty for illegal immigrants. The rest of us get a big future tax bill to pay for it.) Result - Tabled by 50-49; Specter voted to Table (and give us the bill for rewarding illegal immigrants); Santorum voted to Not Table.

Vote 131, 18May06 : "To amend title 4 United States Code, to declare English as the national language of the United States and to promote the patriotic integration of prospective US citizens." Result - Passed by 63-34; both Specter and Santorum voted for it. (Another bill for English as the "common and unifying" language also passed 58-39)

Vote134, 18May06 : "To require aliens seeking adjustment of status under section 245B of the Immigration and Nationality Act or Deferred Mandatory Departure status under section 245C of such Act to pay a supplemental application fee, which shall be used to provide financial assistance to States for health and educational services for noncitizens. " (Not a big fee in view of what they get; but at least a fee.) Result - Passed 64-32; Specter voted against; Santorun voted for it.

Vote 135, 18May06, to Table amendment : "To prohibit H-2C nonimmigrants from adjusting to lawful permanent resident status." ( An attempt to prevent "Temporary Guest Workers" from converting to permanent residents with an easy path to citizenship. Also residents can bring more of their extended family legally into the US with green cards, compounding the size of the immigrant population coming in this way - all with an easy path to citizenship.) Result - Tabled by 58-35; Specter voted to Table; Santorum voted to Not Table. ( I really don't understand why we call them "temporary" workers given these votes.)

Well, that's where we are at the end of the first week of amending the Senate bill. A few good changes got made - some fencing will be included; the number of low-skill immigrants will only be 200,000 per year, instead of 325,000 with an automatic increase of 20% per year as in the original bill; and we won't take in convicted felons. But some really bad items stayed in the bill including a huge Social Security giveaway to existing illegal immigrants and not providing border security as a first priority.

Overall, not a good session from my perspective. Based on the role call votes, It seems Senator Santorum and I agree on most aspects of this issue.

UPDATE , 20 May 06. : I should have given special notice to Roll Call Vote 127 on 17May06 for an amendment by Senators Vitter, Santorum and others : "To strike the provisions related to certain undocumented individuals." This would have completely removed the bill's amnesty provisions for all illegal immigrants. Needless to say, it failed to pass (by a vote of 66-33), with Senator Specter voting against it and for amnesty. Senator Santorum voted in favor of removing the amnesty provisions.

So, how does the Mexican Government view President Bush's Immigration Reform plan? Well, It seems to be a two-pronged reaction: encouraging more and faster illegal border crossings while laying down a covering barrage of legal suits. At least that's the theme of this Yahoo! News article, Mexico Threatens Suits Over Guard Patrols :
"'If there is a real wave of rights abuses, if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people ... we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates,' Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez told a Mexico City radio station. He did not offer further details. .....

In Ciudad Juarez, Julieta Nunez Gonzalez, local representative of the Mexican government's National Immigration Institute, said Tuesday she will ask the government to send its migrant protection force, known as Grupo Beta, to more remote sections of the border.

Sending the National Guard 'will not stop the flow of migrants, to the contrary, it will probably go up,' as people try to get into the U.S. in the hope that they could benefit from a possible amnesty program, Nunez said."

Well, I guess they recognize an amnesty program regardless of what it's called by President Bush and the US Senate. They seem undeterred by our statements that immigrants who are here less than 2 years won't get amnesty. Could they think that no one will really be able figure out who is in the US for how long? Not a bad gamble considering the ICE has a large backlog of work just processing the current applicants.

I have been busy mending fences instead of blogging. (Real fences, I live on a horse farm and fence repair is an annual chore.) As I stretch aching muscles, I have to wonder: are there really jobs that no American will do? Which brings me to the issues of Immigration and Border Security. Not an easy topic to write about, since it can lead to a lot more "fence mending" with friends.

It's a complex issue that's not getting as full a discussion as it needs. So let's start with the President's address on Immigration Reform. It's a good speech and well presented; it does have some good ideas for increasing border security, such as sending the National Guard to the border, aiding and engaging state and local police efforts to arrest and detain illegal immigrants, and providing some real and virtual border fencing. While most of these ideas are not new, they could be useful components of new legislation and the President's interest in them is good. But, overall, I admit to being very discouraged by the speech.

The President seems more focused on establishing a Mexican Expediency Program than a National Immigration Policy. His speech seemed to basically endorse the current Senate Bill with the addition of six thousand National Guard troops on the Mexican Border, if only for a year. Unfortunately, he seems less interested in the House Bill, which has garnered more popular support and which focuses on border security and reducing the incentive for illegal immigration. That's a straightforward tough but doable job.

The Senate Bill and the President seek also to establish a temporary worker program coupled to an effective amnesty program for most resident illegal immigrants and, with little thought or discussion, to establish a new immigration template that will change dramatically the American social and economic demographic over the next 20 years. The primary discussion seems to be more about compassionate treatment of Mexican immigrants than about what we want America to become and how an Immigration policy can shape that desired future.

That's why I ask: are we seeking a National Immigration Policy or just a Mexican /Latino Immigrant Expediency Program? It's a vital question.

I fear the answer is that the politicians are trying to get a quick fix Expediency Program and will enact a potentially catastrophic National Policy as an unintended by-product.

What unintended consequences might be catastrophic? Start with the devastating analysis of the Senate Bill (S.2611), by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years: "If enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current population of the United States.
Much attention has been given to the fact that the bill grants amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants. Little or no attention has been given to the fact that the bill would quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the United States, raising, over time, the inflow of legal immigrants from around one million per year to over five million per year. The impact of this increase in legal immigration dwarfs the magnitude of the amnesty provisions."

And that is his "reasonable estimate"; the maximum allowed by the Bill is over 200 million new legal immigrants in twenty years, compared to less than 19 million under current law. Most of the new immigrants permitted by the Senate Bill would be low-skill, low-education workers or their families. In fact, the Senate seeks to allow 325,000 new low-skill immigrants each year, compared to 115,000 new high-skill workers each year - and these caps can rise by 20% each year. More specifics on the Senate Bill are here, along with this quote from Senator Sessions , referencing the above study,"Until now, most of us have focused on securing the border and deciding how to treat the illegal alien population already in the United States. Few, if any, of us have looked ahead to see what the long-term numerical impact of the bill would be.'"

There is more background information at the Heritage Foundation website, including another study on the economic impact of Senate bill that projects "increased government spending of $46 billion per year or more" due to the influx of low skill workers and their families, making the Senate immigration plan " the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years".

The Senate bill creates a legal immigration template for a dramatic shift in the American demographic from a high-skill population to a low-skill population. All done without any public debate. Do we really want to compete in the future high technology global economy by deliberately importing an undereducated workforce? My answer is a resounding No!

Do we want to give amnesty to illegal immigrants? Again, most Americans answer No! Even the President says he is against "Amnesty", but then defines it narrowly enough to allow him to propose an effective amnesty program that allows existing illegal immigrants to stay and be put on a path to citizenship. Too many others play by the rules and do not get that chance because they are not Mexican - even though they are highly skilled. This is neither fair, nor good policy for America. We do not need more high school and grade school dropouts.

The first priority is to secure the borders. National Guard troops will help; but six thousand are far too few. A temporary worker program is not essential to security and should be a completely separate initiative to be debated and defined after securing the border and after reducing the incentives for illegal immigration. The House bill does this.

The second priority is to enforce the laws against illegal immigrants and their employers. This does not mean deport anyone - just make it extremely hard for them to find work, go to schools or colleges without certifiable documentation. Do this and they will deport themselves and others will not come illegally. Remove the incentives for illegal immigration and it will slow significantly or stop - fence or no fence. It is essential to have very severe penalties for employment of illegal immigrants and to enforce the laws. Funds and authority can be given to states and local police to arrest and hold illegal immigrants when discovered and encourage their deportation. These people are not living in “shadows”; they are marching in public - because there is no consequence to be seen as an illegal. To reduce the attractiveness of illegal immigration, we need to remove the economic incentives and to increase to legal consequences for both the immigrant and the employer. The House bill does this; and there is no need to make anyone a felon to do it.

The third priority, coming only after establishing an effective system for the above two, is to begin the debate on a National Immigration Policy (not just a Mexican ExpediencyProgram) with the goal of bringing the best talent from the world into America; not with the hidden goal of bringing the unskilled and uneducated from Mexico and Central America. We are in an age of technology and innovation - we do not need to import more unskilled workers and their families; we need to import more talented and skilled workers.

As part of this comprehensive national immigration policy, we need to address the total amount and balance of immigration inflow desired from all countries; the need for assimilation and English language abilities; and whether we want only potential citizens or real temporary workers. It is not clear that we do want a policy of temporary workers separate from the immediate Mexican worker problem. Solve that, as above, and there may not be a need or any real national interest in a continuing temporary worker program except for rare high-skills.

One transition possibility is to consider some, but not all, existing illegal immigrants as candidates for a temporary worker program that would sunset after five years or so. They would have the option to self-identify and be granted truly temporary status, with limits based on job duration and national economic needs. The incentive to self-identify comes from the penalties and lack of work and social services resulting from the enforcement program. This aspect can soften the impact of immediate strict enforcement for a transition period only, but does not grant an automatic path to citizenship. Citizenship could be attained by a variety of means such as return to country of origin before applying or by substantial service to the nation, e.g. military service. Going to the back of the citizenship line must mean the real back of the line – behind the others who are waiting in line in other countries, some for many years already.

The immigration issue is serious and should be discussed and decided as a National Immigration Policy not as a Mexican/Latino Immigrant Expediency Policy. That should take time and be done as a major public debate with full disclosure of facts, projections and goals. It should not be done in haste as an undiscussed and poorly understood consequence of the Senate Bill.

But the Border Security Problem can be solved now and firmly. The Illegal Immigrant problem can be attacked with it by getting a handle on the existing illegal population and reducing the incentive for illegal immigration. That is what the House Bill does.

This is certainly a very debatable issue and I could be persuaded to change my assessment. However, my bottom line is simple; we need these actions. Pass the House Bill or a close version of it. Protect the Border and Enforce the Immigration Laws against both employers and illegal immigrants. Then, when that is done and an effective system in place, examine carefully and calmly what our National Policy should be for long term immigration and assimilation of future citizens.

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo case that local governments can seize private property to increase tax revenues or to benefit other private interests without violating the U.S. Constitution, a number of States prepared legislation to protect the property rights of citizens. This week, the PA Legislature passed the “Property Rights Protection Act” (SB 881) and its companion bill, HB 2054, to preserve property owners from eminent domain abuse. These bills restrict the taking of private property for private commercial uses, tighten the definition of “blight” which is used to condemn private property, and increase reimbursements to property owners when eminent domain is exercised against them.

Gov. Rendell has not committed to signing them, stating that he wants to assure that municipality needs are balanced against citizen rights. However, since the bills passed both houses unanimously, they should be veto-proof and the Governor will most likely sign them into law.

This is a major gain for property owners' civil rights in our State. There was considerable grassroots pressure for these bills and the Legislature acted well, passing the best of several bill versions. The practice of defining "blight" will need monitoring to assure compliance with legislative intent, but this is still a great improvement.

A while ago, I posted here and here about The Pennsylvania Voter ID Act for "Fraud-Free Voting" that Governor Rendell vetoed, claiming it would place an unfair burden on poor and minority voters. Well, Indiana passed a similar, if not stronger, bill and their Governor signed it. The usual cast of characters sued in Federal Court.

The result was just announced - Law upheld: Voters need photo ID: "U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker upheld Indiana's stringent voter-identification law. Barker said plaintiffs, including the Indiana Democratic Party, failed to back up their contention that the ID law is unduly burdensome and would keep many people from casting ballots."

But what about all those horror stories that we heard in Pennsylvania from the ACLU, the LWV, the Governor, and the other Democratics opposed to Fraud-Free Voting? It seems that same song was sung by the same chorus in Indiana, but Judge Barker was unimpressed.

In an earlier post, here, I had complimented Sen. Rick Santorum for his outspoken defense and characterization of the current war as being waged against "Islamic Fascists" rather then against "Terror". It's essential to know and name your "Enemy" to fight effectively. I have used the term "Islamist" to distinguish the violent, radical, fascist, jihadist faction in Islam from majority of Muslims and the broader religion of Islam. But no one has a really good, simple and broadly acceptable term for and definition of our enemy.

Jonathan Rauch suggest a good solution to that problem. I think the suggestion makes sense, has historic authenticity, and is timely. So, I'm going to quote extensively from his National Journal article, A War On Jihadism -- Not 'Terror':
"'I think defining who the enemy is is a real problem in this war,' says Mary Habeck, a military historian at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. 'If you can't define who's a real threat and who's just exercising free speech, it's a problem.' As it happens, Habeck is the author of one of three new books that, taken together, suggest the time is right to name the battle. It is a war on jihadism.

Jihadism is not a tactic, like terrorism, or a temperament, like radicalism or extremism. It is not a political pathology like Stalinism, a mental pathology like paranoia, or a social pathology like poverty. Rather, it is a religious ideology, and the religion it is associated with is Islam.

But it is by no means synonymous with Islam, which is much larger and contains many competing elements. Islam can be, and usually is, moderate; Jihadism, with a capital J, is inherently radical. If the Western and secular world's nearer-term war aim is to stymie the jihadists, its long-term aim must be to discredit Jihadism in the Muslim world.

No single definition prevails, but here is a good one: Jihadism engages in or supports the use of force to expand the rule of Islamic law. In other words, it is violent Islamic imperialism. It stands, as one scholar put it 90 years ago, for 'the extension by force of arms of the authority of the Muslim state.'

In her new book, Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror , Habeck sets out to map the ideological contours of Jihadism. The story begins, but does not end, with religion. 'Western scholars have generally failed to take religion seriously,' she writes.

'Secularists, whether liberals or socialists, grant true explanatory power to political, social, or economic factors but discount the plain sense of religious statements made by the jihadis themselves.' Pretending that Islam is incidental, she notes, is not just incorrect, it is patronizing.

Jihadists, she writes, are not merely angry about U.S. policies. They believe that America is the biggest obstacle to the global rule of an Islamic superstate. Ultimately, in the Jihadist view, 'Islam must expand to fill the entire world or else falsehood in its many guises will do so.' Violence is by no means mandated, but it is assuredly authorized.

And always has been. The point that Bush, Blair, and others understandably finesse is that the ideology of Jihadism traces its lineage to the very beginning of the religion of Islam. It has 'roots in discussions about Islamic law and theology that began soon after the death of Muhammad and that are supported by important segments of the clergy (ulama) today,' Habeck writes."

Two other new books strikingly document the connection. One is The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims. Edited by Andrew G. Bostom, it provides more than 700 pages of source material on jihadist doctrine and practice (including many fascinating translations from Arabic). A second is Islamic Imperialism: A History, by Efraim Karsh, a political scientist and historian who heads the Mediterranean studies program at King's College (part of the University of London).

A key point from these books is that there have always been two distinct threads running through the religion of Islam - one moderate and adaptable to other religions and cultures and the other rigidly 'Jihadist'. Thus , our problem becomes recognizing this tension within Islam so that we can engage and encourage cordial relations with the moderates while energetically fighting and thwarting the Jihadists. Properly naming the enemy is essential to both these objectives and to devising national strategies to accomplish them.

One could argue that the Bush Administration is doing that in practice while not clearly articulating its position for reasons of diplomatic or religious nicety. Perhaps, but the lack of a clearly defined enemy is very unhelpful in explaining why we should fight a long war. I think it would help immensly if the Administation would adopt this approach and terminology. It would open up a solid array of historical scholarship to define the problem, the enemy, and how he thinks and has acted through history. In a Nuclear Age, I don't think we can afford not to have a broad popular understanding of the essential characteristics of our enemy.

As Rauch's article puts it : "This is a struggle over Islam and who's going to control Islam," Habeck says. "If you can't talk about that, you can't talk about most of the story." Specifying that the war is against Jihadism -- as distinct from terrorism or Islam (or Islamism, which sounds like "Islam") -- would allow the United States to confront the religious element of the problem without seeming to condemn a whole religion. It would clarify for millions of moderate Muslims that the West's war aims are anti-jihadist, not militantly secular. ...... Habeck cites one other reason to call the enemy jihadists: "This is what they call themselves."

Thanks to Instapundit for the reference to Rauch's article. I think it this is a useful and timely suggestion. Read the article and try the books; I have Bostum's book and it is a lengthy, well documented product. Habeck's sounds very interesting at about 1/3rd the page count.

Two weeks ago, I went to the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference in Harrisburg. I thought I'd learn about and get a better perspective on some key state issues, activists and politicians. It's taken me a while to sort out my impressions enough to discuss them here and in future posts.

The conference was a good gathering of (mostly) conservatives and some libertarians with an excellent agenda of speakers and panels. The key speakers were Sen. Rick Santorum, Mr. Lynn Swann, former Congressman Pat Toomey, former Congressman Joe Scarborough, and Mr. John Fund.

Joe Scarborough is a popular TV host and commentator; he is super-dynamic and clearly shows how good theater and presentation can arouse an audience and power a campaign. John Fund is one of my favorite Wall Street Journal columnists; his style is more restrained, but his points and perceptions were excellent. I enjoyed and learned.

This audience loves Pat Toomey and he comes across as a dynamic and seriously good political leader. He kept his word to serve only three terms in Congress, lost a cliff-hanger nomination battle against Sen. Specter. and then urged his followers to vote for his opponent. The Republican Party is lucky to have him and his new job as president of the Club for Growth gives him nationwide access to key conservatives and funding sources. I think he may return to the PA political scene and, if this crowd is any indication, he will be very welcome.

Lynn Swann has a great stage presence and personality; he reaches out and engages his audience. He's got the sports celebrity factor in his favor and knows how to use it to enhance his political points and speech. I liked him and his talk. But he and his team did not impress me with depth on the issues. He's got some good visions but must build a better campaign effort and get more specific on the what and how of his issues. His poll numbers are very good. If he shows he can organize his team and himself into a well-tuned campaign effort, he'll have demonstrated the executive talent he needs to be the Governor and he will win the job. I think he will do it.

Rick Santorum spoke about the war, the economy and family values. He clearly understands the issues, knows where he stands on them and is very articulate about both. He started discussing the war by asserting that it is an essential war against Islamic Fascists rather than using the ambiguous 'war on terror' terminology. That is the right way to frame the discussion on this issue. You can't fight an enemy if you don't clearly identify him.

Sen. Santorum convinced me that he knows the enemy and understands the importance of the war and how to conduct it on military, social and economic fronts. As an example, I know that he was instrumental in getting US unions to help support the Iranian unionized bus drivers who were striking against the regime. That's a good way to support the Iranian people who want to change their regime as much as we do. His poll numbers against Mr. Casey are still poor. But he is smart and sincere and right on most of the key issues. I think Mr.Casey will fare very poorly against him in any open debate on issues. The nation needs Rick Santorum in the Senate during this war.

The main things I got from the conference were the above impressions of Sen. Santorum and Mr. Swann. I had not seen them speak before. I believe they are both worth supporting. I think Lynn Swann will be a good and honest Governor. Rick Santorum has been a first class statesman and leader; we need to keep him in the Senate.

You could take this post title two ways - and I will.

Let's start with the news report about the Fix not in - DeNaples license not a sure thing: "The chairman of the state Gaming Control Board admitted Friday the agency has an image problem rooted in a widespread belief that the awarding of slot-machine licenses is rigged. ..... His remarks came a day after Greg Matzel, a New Jersey developer who leads a group planning a $1.2 billion investment in Pocono Manor Resort & Casino in Monroe County, raised concerns about Dunmore businessman Louis DeNaples’ connection to Lackawanna College President Raymond Angeli, the newest member of the gaming board.

Mr. DeNaples is investing $360 million in Mount Airy Lodge in Paradise Township, and he and Mr. Matzel are competing for standalone licenses that would allow up to 5,000 slot machines.
Mr. DeNaples’s, brother, Dominic, is chairman of the college’s board. On Thursday, Mr. Matzel voiced concerns about the connection between Dominic DeNaples and Mr. Angeli."

The article talks on about perceptions of corruption on the gaming board, the need for the state to be sure casino licensees have deep pockets so they won't go out of business and that the board, and its newest member, will be fair. It also notes that : "The arrests of three gaming board staff members since September also has darkened the agency’s image. Among them was former Scranton resident Kevin Eckenrode, who is awaiting trial on a homicide charge after he allegedly dropped his girlfriend from a 23-story window of a Harrisburg high-rise.
The incidents all involved alcohol but were distinct, Mr. Decker said, admitting it created a sense that the commission lacked control."

I don't know any of these folks and have no opinion about their integrity or fairness. If State Gaming Control Board Chairman Decker says there is no fix, I'll accept that. In fact, I'll go further and argue that the whole licensing process is lacking a badly needed Fix.

Mr. Decker is worried about the depth of pockets of license applicants. That is an odd worry about two contestants that are offering to put up $350 to $1200 Million to develop their casinos in addition to the $50 Million fee for the license. Also, the article isn't clear whether those development costs include or are in addition to an inflated price for the underlying real estate.

Remember that, as I posted before here , the ability to have slots increased the real estate value of Pocono Downs by $260 Million. Since a very savvy casino operator bought the track with the intention of paying another $50 Million for the license, it's reasonable to say that the total increased value of Pocono Downs, due solely to the ability to operate gambling there, was at least $310 Million. I wonder how much monetary value is created in these two real estate property developments by the ability to get a gambling license? Probably a great deal more than the $50 Million that the State will get.

Giving away a license for a fixed $50 Million fee via Gaming Control Board decision, when the real value of the license may well be 5 or 6 times that amount, is a prescription for the perception of corruption if not the actuality. It certainly greatly reduces the funds that the State could recieve from an auction or other competitive bidding process. The only sure thing in this game is that the taxpayer loses.

There may not be a "Fix" in for the DeNaples - Matzel license decision; but the State definetly needs a Fix to its licensing process.

I had thought about posting on Prof. Lindzen's article, but it's done well in Power Line: "Climate of Fear": "Most people assume that 'science' has proved that the earth is getting significantly, and potentially catastrophically, warmer, and that the reason is human activity, specifically the release of carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse' gases. In fact, scientific support for that theory is weak. But it's where the money is: funding for climate research by the U.S. government alone is up more than a billion dollars a year as a result of the alarmism spread by--guess who--the same people, largely, who get the extra billion dollars. There are some contexts in which economic interests make reporters suspicious, and some contexts in which they don't. Why? Beats me. Ask a reporter.

One sinister aspect of the global warming industry is the extent to which it bullies those who employ scientific methods to critique its claims. Richard Lindzen of MIT writes in the Wall Street Journal:

"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

[H]ow is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear.""

That's a good introduction to the problem of "scientists following the money" and reinforces the Crichton "state of fear" theme with scientists being intimidated by fear of professional ostracism. By the way, Richard Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT and responsible for discovering the "Iris" phenomenon which one of nature's ways of balancing global temperature. Lindzen is a top scientist in the field and too senior and accomplished to be intimidated.

Read the full article here and you will get a quick easy lesson in atmospheric science and what scientists really agree on and where there is uncertainty.

Pennsylvania's "rich history of corruption" and voter fraud makes it ground zero in the battle for election reform according to John Fund in the OpinionJournal :
"Democrats claim anything that impedes or discourages someone from voting is a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Republicans insist the state's rancid history of voter fraud requires preventive measures. The conflict of visions, to borrow Thomas Sowell's phrase, couldn't be more complete.

Take the bill the GOP-controlled Legislature passed, which would require voters show a form of official ID or a utility bill; another bill would end Philadelphia's bizarre practice of locating over 900 polling places in private venues, including bars, abandoned buildings and even the office of a local state senator. City officials admit their voter rolls are stuffed with phantoms. The city has about as many registered voters as it has adults, and is thus a rich breeding ground for fraud.

But Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell vetoed both bills last month, saying that in a time of voter apathy "the government should be doing everything it can to encourage greater participation." He warned that requiring an ID could disenfranchise the homeless, nursing-home residents and the poor. Mr. Rendell says there is no evidence people routinely impersonate others to vote."

Having thus framed the issue, Fund cites some of the facts and people involved in voter fraud in Pennsylvania. For example, regarding Philadelphia Democrat Bill Stinson who was removed from office by a federal judge for voter fraud, " Mr. Rendell, then Philadelphia's mayor, had this reaction to the Stinson scandal: "I don't think it's anything that's immoral or grievous, but it clearly violates the election code." In 1997, Mr. Rendell admitted to the Journal's editorial board that Philadelphia judges had "a rich history of corruption" that called into question how fairly city laws are enforced."

Mr. Fund concludes that: "The integrity of the ballot box is just as important to the credibility of elections as access to it. In not closing off opportunities for fraud and chaos, Pennsylvania is inviting trouble in its fall elections that could rival that of Florida in 2000."

I agree. Read it all; voter fraud is real and dilutes our honest votes. But, in this election year, where the PA Legislature sees the danger of voter fraud, Gov. Rendell may only see the opportunity.

This post is about an innovative new media experiment in citizen journalism that "scooped" the major media (the NY Times) on a key facet of a big story. Perhaps "scooped" is not quite the right term; perhaps it really just uncovered the facts being hidden by the Times.

It all started at Power Line Blog: "As an exercise in citizen journalism, we put out a call to readers to attend yesterday's demonstrations in support of illegal immigration, film them, and send us the resulting video. We didn't know what to expect, but the results were gratifying. We got lots of submissions, both of video and photographs. As a result, we've put together a Power Line Video of yesterday's rallies, from Seattle to Washington, D.C., which you can watch here.
We intended this as an experiment to see whether this type of citizen journalism can work; our conclusion is that it certainly can."

What can we learn from the citizen jounalists' video reports? Watch them at PowerLineNews on the April 10 Demonstration video and check the ANSWER- Infiltrated video (actually just audio). Or consider the Power Line conclusions :

What conclusions do I draw from the materials we received? You can judge for yourself, but I would make two broad observations. First, notwithstanding mainstream media accounts that portray the turnout as vast, most of the rallies struck me as of modest size. The flagship demonstrations were pretty big; most of the others looked small to me.

Second, despite the blowback against the display of Mexican flags two weeks ago, and the distribution of American flags by leaders of some of the demonstrations, many of the demonstrators are still defiant about carrying the flags of Mexico and other Latin American countries and displaying radical slogans and images, thereby undercutting the "all-American" image of the rallies that most of the mainstream media worked hard to present."

So what's the big scoop? "The Times covers the demonstration that took place in the paper's own city here. Again, the paper's coverage is entirely positive, although it implicitly acknowledges that turnout in New York was disappointing. The Times notes the presence of Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, who addressed the rally, but it makes no comment at all on who organized the demonstration.
In fact, as our video shows, the New York demonstration (like those in some other cities) was organized and controlled in substantial part by International A.N.S.W.E.R., the Communist organization that we have written about many times, most recently here. A.N.S.W.E.R.'s National Coordinator, Brian Becker, was prominent at the New York rally; he is the man in the blue shirt on the right in the photo (above, click to enlarge).

Note A.N.S.W.E.R.'s large "amnesty" banner with the words "Full Rights For All Immigrants!" as well as the Che Guevara banner.

International A.N.S.W.E.R. passed out thousands of mass-produced, yellow and black signs with exactly the same message. You can see them prominently displayed in our video footage from New York. Here, though, is what I think is even more interesting. At either of the two New York Times pages linked above, you can also link to the Times' own video of the New York demonstration. Take a look at it. Look at the sea of yellow and black, International A.N.S.W.E.R. signs. They vastly outnumber all other signs and banners. They are the dominant visual image of the New York demonstration. "

I'd add that the videos show a lot of marchers attired in new white shirts with black messages imprinted as well as all those black&yellow signs. This was a very well funded and organized affair by some groups that have a strong agenda that is not very friendly to most Americans. Checking the links to them will reveal pro-Palestinian (anti-Semitic) organizations. Listening to the Video/Audio from the A.N.S.W.E.R meeting makes it clear that these folks are using the immigration issue as a springboard for more and larger social upset and, in their own words, "radicalization" and "revolution". Not exactly the friendly pro-immigrant message they are trying to use as cover.

That's a real story in these times - but not in the NY Times.

I've been busy and not blogging. Then I saw this and could'nt resist posting on a bit of controversy from the UK. Bob Carter, who does paleoclimate research at James Cook University has an opinion in the Telegraph. He argues that There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998:

"For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero.)

And over a longer time frame, consider : " a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. .....
The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate."

In conclusion : "The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution."

My goodness! Could it be that Michael Chrichton and George Bush are right after all?!


UPDATE - Maybe it's becoming an Anglosphere Thing, per this item( thanks to Instapundit for the link) - KYOTO: CANADA DROPS OUT: "... supported by a letter from 60 leading international climate change experts who once more reiterated the near impossibility to seperate the various causes that are contributing to climate change:"

As expected the FEC voted to adopt the draft rules on internet political speech, thus imposing the minimum regulation required by the 2004 court decision. As the Wall Street Journal puts it - FEC Won't Regulate Most Activity On Web Under Campaign Law:

"In its initial interpretation of the law in 2002, the FEC said no political activity on the Internet was covered. But a federal court judge ruled in 2004 that the commission had to craft a new rule that at the very least covered paid political advertising on the Internet.

The ruling, and the commission's decision not to appeal it, sparked fears among some Internet users that the panel might adopt broader restrictions. But Toner said the new rule gives a 'categorical and unqualified' exemption to all individual and group political activity on the Internet, except for paid advertising. ........

Hans A. von Spakovsky, appointed to the commission by President Bush in January, said the rule wouldn't have been necessary had the commission appealed the court ruling. He urged Congress to pass legislation exempting all types of political activity over the Internet from regulation."

Bradley A Smith, the former FEC Chairman whom I've quoted before, has this to say here:

"Congress would still do well to pass HR 1606, the Jeb Hensarling sponsored Online Freedom of Speech Act. There remains precious little reason to think that Congress really intended for the McCain-Feingold law to regulate the web. It is also clear that the FEC would be keeping it's blanket exemption from the statutory definition of 'public communication' for the internet, absent the ruling of a single federal judge that it must regulate the web. And it is clear that none of the horror stories spread by so-called 'reform' groups about HR 1606 have come true in the last 4 years, when the position that HR 1606 would enact has, in fact, been the law pursuant to FEC rules."

I agree with both Mr. Spakovsky and Mr. Smith that, while the FEC rules are minimal, they have placed internet speech under regulation and regulations can be easily changed by another FEC ruling. A law, passed by Congress and signed by the President, is a much stronger protection. As my two previous posts have argued, we still need to pass H.R. 1606, the Online Freedom Of Speech Act.

I intend to keep my Congressman aware of my interest in passing H.R. 1606 as soon as possible. Think about doing the same.

On Friday, 24March, the FEC issued proposed rules (pdf) , which the Washington Post reports on here :"The Federal Election Commission last night released proposed new rules that leave almost all Internet political activity unregulated except for the purchase of campaign ads on Web sites.

'My key goal in this rule-making has been to make sure that the commission establish clear rules to exempt individuals who engage in online politics from campaign finance laws,' said Chairman Michael E. Toner, a Republican.
'We tried to craft a regulation that would allow the maximum amount of freedom for people as possible,' said Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub, a Democrat." ......
"In a two-page summary of the 90-page set of rules, Weintraub and Vice Chairman Robert D. Lenhard stressed that the proposals "explicitly exempt from regulation the Internet activities of unpaid individuals or groups of individuals" and "bloggers will not be regulated.""

While the article is positive, the reference to a 90 page (actually 96 but only about a dozen are rules) document raises my concern level. Smart lawyers should be able to find a litigation hook somewhere in that many pages of regulation; and the anti-speech campaign reformers have plenty of good lawyers. More importantly, the accepted existence of FEC rules establishes that internet political speech is now a regulated commodity and no longer a right.

However, quite a few well-respected and knowledgeable people are happy with the proposed rules. The consensus is that these rules are much better than H.R. 4900, although not as good as H.R. 1606 and that that may be good enough for now. Here are two opinions.

Mike Krempaski has been a co-leader of the bipartisan blogger campaign to keep internet speech free of the BCRA . His post at RedState blog gives the FCC two and a half cheers for thse rules. He provides links to other reviewers and notes his opinion that : "these regulations aren't bad for the blogosphere. They codify the media exemption, provide an exception from the ban on corporate participation for incorporated bloggers, and bloggers would not have to disclose payments from campaigns. (although, campaigns would be required to do so, which has been our position all along)
So kudos to the FEC - especially Commissioners Weintraub and Toner. The FEC's relatively light touch on the blogosphere is a positive result."

Bradley A Smith, the former FEC Chairman, credits the FEC with hitting a triple in a game where a home run is illegal. As he says here :"I continue to think that the FEC's original approach - simply excluding the net from most regulation - would be ideal, and in the three and a half years it has been in effect, it has yielded only positive consequences. But a Federal judge ripped that option from the FEC's playbook.
The biggest problem with the rules is simply the principle established - the internet is now to be subject to regulation. The FEC can change the rules - extend them - when it wants. "

"For those who have been following the action in Congress, the FEC's move largely undercuts any argument to be made for H.R. 4900. It does not undercut the argument for H.R. 1606, which would simply exempt much internet activity from the law. But I expect it will lead Congress to shelve the measure. As we don't know how it would ultimately have fared in either the House or the Senate, that may be a price worth paying for these FEC rules. And those of us who favor online freedom can take some succor from knowing that the "reform community" originally wanted quite a bit more regulation."

Well, I may have to settle for that "succor" and it may be the best we can realistically expect from the current Congress; but trading a "right" for a "permission" just sets you up to be "permitted" less later. I believe this is a very big issue, that many in Congress recognize and support free political speech on the internet, and that many others fear the voice of the people at election time.

I thank the FEC for doing the minimal rule making. But I still want a right not just a rule; so I will write again to my Congressman urging him to vote for H.R. 1606. Think about doing the same.

The internet is a powerful mechanism for individuals to speak their opinions and to find a wide range of facts and opinions. Blogs are an obvious way for people to exchange views freely and without mediation or control by any media authorities. Just try to get free time on a radio or TV program ; even letters to newspapers are limited by space and editorial review, if published at all.

In a sense, blogs and the internet bring us back to the early days of our republic when pamphleteers wrote and handed out opinions to gain support for the formation of this nation. The value of free speech was recognized as vital to the functioning of a free state and was enshrined in the First Amendment. So, it would seem especially important to protect the ability of citizens to speak freely and broadly about political issues and politicians before an election.

And that was the way it was in this country prior to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) - the McCain-Feingold act. That Act restricted the right to speak about candidate within two months of a federal election as a means to reduce the influence of big money on elections. Of course, the press and big Media were exempt from this restraint; essentially, this created sort of a legal monopoly on political speech when it might be most effective - at election time.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) took the view that internet communications, particularly by individuals ala blogs, were not covered by the Act. This was reasonable since Congress had expressed a strong interest in keeping the internet free of regulation and the Act was not explicit on this point. The Act proponents took a different view and sued in federal court. The court ruled that the FEC must issue rules for the internet and Congress began action to clarify its intent.

An excellent summary of the state of legislation and the impact on and dangers to free speech was made by former FEC Chairman Bradley A. Smith writing on the Internet & Free Speech: "For two years, campaign-finance reformers fought in the courts to force the Federal Election Commission to regulate the Internet more heavily. They won, and legislation is in the works. Two bills are before Congress, H.R. 4900 and H.R. 1606. The “reform community” is strongly backing the former, and, to garner support for it, is claiming that it offers more than adequate protections. It doesn’t."

He describes three legal "viruses" which are embedded in H.R. 4900 and pose dangers to free political speech. Read it all; a key point is that the threat of litigation can be used to close down speech by citizens who don't have the resources to fight a legal battle - even though they are in the right. He concludes with this statement: "Viruses cannot thrive in healthy bodies, and cannot thrive on protected Internet systems. H.R. 1606 protects the Net. With H.R. 4900, Internet regulation continues to infect the system. The reformers know it. They’re hoping you won’t know it until after Congress votes and moves on to other issues."

Mr. Smith is concerned that Congress might take the easy political path and vote for the image of protecting internet speech rather than the reality. That's a real concern because the "image" side is led by Senators McCain and Feingold, both of whom are mounting Presidential campaigns for 2008. It seems strange that two men seeking the nation's highest office should have so little regard for free speech by the citizens they propose to lead. Unless one recognizes how much easier it is to control the message if only a few big media speakers are allowed.

However, on Friday, 24March, the FEC issued proposed rules, which, according to the Washington Post here , "leave almost all Internet political activity unregulated except for the purchase of campaign ads on Web sites."

And that's my next post.

There is little doubt that the traditional or mainstream media (MSM) is having serious credibility problems with their public. Much of this is due to a growing and largely accurate perception of excessive bias in both the reportage of events and in the selection of what is reported. An additional element is the easy availabilty of alternative new media sources.

For newspapers, this is becoming existentially critical, as shown by this admonition,-'Adapt to new technology or die,' Murdoch tells newspapers: "The newspaper industry needs to embrace the technological revolution of the Internet, MP3 players, laptops and mobile phones or face extinction, media tycoon Rupert Murdoch said."

I'm in no position to argue with Mr. Murdoch about business trends in his industry. Besides I agree strongly about the impact of technology; as an example, I read many papers, magazines and reports - but almost always online.

Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, presents another insightful perspective on the newspaper business in this TCS Daily column. He concludes that newspapers have seriously damaged their "core competency (and killer app) -- actual gathering and reporting of truthful, accurate, hard news. But I don't think it's too late for imaginative newspapers to save themselves."

Describing a new era newspaper he prescribes four rules for success:

"First, skip the "paper" part. ...... Their product is information. Paper is just an increasingly obsolete delivery platform.

Second, reporters would also all be photographers, equipped with digital cameras, and videographers, shooting clips of video that could be placed on the website along with their stories.

Third, stop insulting readers .... (and) give them the news, with as little bias as possible.

Fourth, incorporate readers and bloggers into the reporting, fact-checking, and revision of news stories. ... With digital cameras, cameraphones, etc., all over, there's usually somebody on the scene when something happens .... take advantage of that .... (and) of readers with special expertise in particular areas - use them as color commentators on stories in their areas. "

In the information technology (and particularly software) industry, it's recognized that a firm's real value is based on the intellectual power of the employees. That model seems applicable to the news business. So, anyone care to start a news(non)paper business on those rules ?

I'm not really comfortable with polling as an accurate indicator of Iraqi opinion since it can be strongly infuenced by the selection of respondents from specific areas. But, this poll does address the three main sects and may be a useful rough indicator. My main concern is the small number of Sunni respondents since their opinion is apt to relate closely to region and latest events. For example, the Sunni in Tal Afar would probably be much more optimistic after we cleared out the insurgents there AND established a reliable permanent police presence.

That said, you can find the all the data and methodology for this poll at the World Public Opinion site :
"The majority of Iraqis overall view the recent parliamentary elections as valid, are optimistic that their country is going in the right direction and feel that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has been worth the costs. Sunnis, on the other hand, overwhelmingly reject the validity of the elections, see the country going in the wrong direction and regret the overthrow of Saddam.

The poll was conducted for WorldPublicOpinion.org by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and was fielded by KA Research Limited/D3 Systems, Inc. Polling was conducted January 2-5 with a nationwide sample of 1,150, which included an oversample of 150 Arab Sunnis (hereafter simply called Sunnis)."

Kurds and Shia results are similar enough to average together and get 80-85% saying the elections were fair, the new government will be legitimate, and Iraq is going in the right direction; only 5-6% of the Sunni feel that way. While 95% of the Kurd-Shia group say it was worth it to oust Saddam, only 13% of the Sunni feel that way. It's interesting that all groups feel more positive about ousting Saddam than they do about the other questions; even twice as many Sunni express a favorable opinion.

PS. This post is a copy from my other blog, Warmed Over Cold Warrior.

My objective here is to introduce a party game about Grading the Presidents, courtesy of D J Drummond. Lately, I've found that many of my friends, both Republicans and Democrats, have a negative view of how well President Bush stacks up against prior Presidents - and especially against President Reagan. I hold "W" in very high regard, primarily because I believe he has demonstrated excellent vision and leadership performance in the international arena and in national security.

Usually, dinner party discussions on this topic pick (uncover?) the ground rules and criteria in an ad hoc fashion as the talks proceed. Now, D J Drimmond, of PoliPundit blog has described a set of nine criteria for Presidential ratings; averaging the nine yields an overall 'GPA' grade. Obviosly, a group could decide to weigh some criteria more heavily than others, but I don't advise that ( mostly because his example reinforces my biases above). You can read all about how to play the game on My Report Card:

"It is fairly accepted as consensus that Reagan’s Presidency was the most successful in memory of any President in our generation, and so his ideals would appear to be the most salient in comparing performance. As a rule of thumb, the default for a President is “C”, that being the average grade in common use. If a President has done some damage to the country or his office in that category, then a lower grade would be used, although an “F” would not necessarily mean the President was completely incompetent or mendacious. If a President has done some service beyond the norm in a category, then a higher grade would be used, though even an “A ” would not necessarily mean perfection. While a bit more complex, matching up grades on the Reagan Ideal for not only Dubya, but his father, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Reagan himself helps demonstrate not only a proper comparison between the modern Presidents, but also demonstrate how some Presidents have had to recover from the damage done by a predecessor. With that in mind, I turn my attention to the nine selected categories:

Vision/Optimism
Communicating That Vision
National Security
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Domestic Spending/Size of Government
Federalism
Judicial Appointments
Leadership/Tenacity
Overall Grade "

Drummond continues with a discussion of his ratings in each category, ending with this summary and challenge:

"Overall Grade . Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:

Carter: GPA 1.06, earns a D
Reagan: GPA 4.03, earns an A
GHW Bush: GPA 3.00, earns a B
Clinton: GPA 1.91, earns a D+
GW Bush: GPA 3.88, earns an A-

Now the fun part: your thoughts!"

There have been many opinions and analyses written about the last three years of the Iraq Campaign. I've read quite a few and have no intention to create yet another. But there is one speech that struck me as both substantitive and straightforward. In his Cleveland speech on the War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom, President Bush conveys the gritty reality of the current campaign, the adaptability and effectiveness of the military, and our nation's accomplishments and challenges - all in the context and importance of this campaign in a major global struggle.

I think every concerned American should read it; but read it not as a Republican or a Democrat, not as a Bush-admirer or a Bush hater, but as an American with an open mind about understanding a vitally important national security issue.

President Bush uses the town of Tal Afar, near the Syran border, as the setting to discusses the impact of the war on Iraqi citizens and the significance of the strategy of clear, hold, and build to them and to us. He does this in simple graphic language that puts you in the scene. He shows how we won; and notes that the town went from only 32,000 citzens daring to vote before we cleared out the terrorists to over 175,ooo afterwards. He emphasizes the statements of the mayor of Tal Afar as further proof of that success, saying:

"One of the most eloquent is the Mayor of Tal Afar, a courageous Iraqi man named Najim. Mayor Najim arrived in the city in the midst of the al Qaeda occupation, and he knows exactly what our troops have helped accomplish. He calls our men and women in uniform "lion-hearts," and in a letter to the troopers of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, he spoke of a friendship sealed in blood and sacrifice."

He continues by summarizing the state of Iraq campaign and putting it in the context of a global struggle against a dangerous ideology, comparable to our earlier struggles agains fascism and communism. He says it better than I can, so the rest is from the President :

"The last three years have tested our resolve. The fighting has been tough. The enemy we face has proved to be brutal and relentless. We're adapting our approach to reflect the hard realities on the ground. And the sacrifice being made by our young men and women who wear our uniform has been heartening and inspiring.

The terrorists who are setting off bombs in mosques and markets in Iraq share the same hateful ideology as the terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, those who blew up commuters in London and Madrid, and those who murdered tourists in Bali, or workers in Riyadh, or guests at a wedding in Amman, Jordan. In the war on terror we face a global enemy -- and if we were not fighting this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and trying to kill Americans across the world and within our own borders. Against this enemy, there can be no compromise. So we will fight them in Iraq, we'll fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.

In the long run, the best way to defeat this enemy and to ensure the security of our own citizens is to spread the hope of freedom across the broader Middle East. We've seen freedom conquer evil and secure the peace before. In World War II, free nations came together to fight the ideology of fascism, and freedom prevailed. And today, Germany and Japan are democracies -- and they are allies in securing the peace. In the Cold War, freedom defeated the ideology of communism and led to a democratic movement that freed the nations of Central and Eastern Europe from Soviet domination. And today, these nations are strong allies in the war on terror.

In the Middle East, freedom is once again contending with an ideology that seeks to sow anger and hatred and despair. And like fascism and communism before, the hateful ideologies that use terror will be defeated. Freedom will prevail in Iraq; freedom will prevail in the Middle East; and as the hope of freedom spreads to nations that have not known it, these countries will become allies in the cause of peace.

The security of our country is directly linked to the liberty of the Iraqi people -- and we will settle for nothing less than victory. Victory will come when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their citizens on their own, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation. There will be more days of sacrifice and tough fighting before the victory is achieved. Yet by helping the Iraqis defeat the terrorists in their land, we bring greater security to our own.

As we make progress toward victory, Iraqis will continue to take more responsibility for their own security, and fewer U.S. forces will be needed to complete the mission. But it's important for the Iraqis to hear this: The United States will not abandon Iraq. We will not leave that country to the terrorists who attacked America and want to attack us again. We will leave Iraq, but when we do, it will be from a position of strength, not weakness. Americans have never retreated in the face of thugs and assassins, and we will not begin now."

Read it all, including the question & answer session.