FederalRepublic.net

From the website of Mike Pence:

“With a record deficit and national debt, now is the time for Congress to practice fiscal discipline, even where funding the war on terror is concerned.

“While I’ve supported our troops and funding the rebuilding and reconstruction efforts along the Gulf Coast, I could not bring myself to support recent emergency funding legislation that left this House of Representatives at some $92 billion, including many elements that the President of the United States thought were unnecessary.

“Well, if things were bad before, they just got worse. The Senate is working on the emergency supplemental bill, and it is now at $106.5 billion and rising, including such unrelated measures as $3 million for southern and eastern Kentucky tourism and $900,000 for Dartmouth College, to name a few.

“Let’s support funding the war on terror and support the families and communities affected by the Gulf Coast, but let’s do it in a fiscally responsible way.

“This legislation has become a fruit basket of spending unrelated to our war effort and Katrina, and I say plainly, ‘Mr. President, veto this bill.’”

Couldn’t have said it better. Mike Pence - my representative from Indiana!

By Melissa Drosjack

WASHINGTON — President Bush named Tony Snow to be his White House press secretary on Wednesday in the latest round of staff changes in the West Wing.

“I am here to break some news,” Bush told the White House press corps in the briefing room. “I have asked Tony Snow to be my press secretary. Tony already knows most of you. He agreed to take the job anyway.”

Snow, former host of FOX News Talk’s “The Tony Snow Show” and anchor of “FOX News Sunday,” will replace outgoing spokesman Scott McClellan. Snow had been considering the White House’s offer for the last several days.

“I am very excited and I can’t wait,” Snow said. “I want to thank you, Mr. President, for the honor.

“One of the things I want to do is make it clear that one of the reasons I took the job is not only because I believe in the president, but because believe it or not, I want to work with you,” Snow said. “These are times that are going to be very challenging, we’ve got a lot of big issues ahead and we’ve got a lot of important things that all of us are going to be covering together.”

Link

By Andrew Taylor

The Senate voted Wednesday to divert some of the money President Bush requested for the war in Iraq to instead increase patrols against illegal immigrants on the nation’s borders and increase security at U.S. ports.

An amendment cutting Bush’s Iraq request by $1.3 billion to pay for new Border Patrol agents, aircraft some fencing at border crossings widely used by illegal immigrants was adopted on 59-39 vote.

While the border security funds had sweeping support, Democrats and Republicans argued over whether the cuts to Pentagon war funds would harm troops on the ground in Iraq. The cuts, offered by Judd Gregg, R- N.H., trim Bush’s request for the war by almost 3 percent but don’t specify how.

Link

In a change of heart, the Senate has voted to divert money from the emergency funding bill for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Katrina victims. Personally, I think this is a smart move. There is no doubt the U.S. - Mexico border needs stronger security to keep illegal aliens out of our country.

Though shifting money to border and port security is a great move, there are serious concerns about funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe Iraq must take control of its own reconstruction and fund it via oil revenues. The Iraq War is an honorable war and I agree with its cause, but at some point, the United States must take a stand by giving the Iraqi government a nudge to fund reconstruction itself.

Pete Du Pont of the Wall Street Journal has written a great piece Republicans should take to heart regarding fiscal responsibility and responsiveness. Clearly, Republicans must re-learn the art of cutting spending and chopping out the pork:

So how can Republicans get their identity back? The current Congress is unlikely to fix itself from the inside–would a Congressional majority ever want to give up authority to do anything?–so it will be up to the American people to fix it from the outside
 
First, the president must be persuaded to reduce congressional spending. He must use his rescission authority to force the Congress to vote on rescinding some $15 billion, about the average of what presidents have requested since the rescission process began in the 1970s. The president has proposed one rescission of $2.3 billion, but he must be far more aggressive.

Second, when Congress enacts legislation exceeding the president’s requested budget spending levels, he should veto those spending bills. Legislators need to be forcefully reminded that spending requires executive as well as legislative approval.

Third, the president needs line-item veto authority. Most of the states governors have it and use it to control spending, and so should the President. When President Bush recently suggested a line-item veto, Mr. Lewis said the legislative branch of government had the spending power and to give any veto power to the president “could be a very serious error.” But the opposite is the case: the line-item veto is a very serious improvement that the president and Republicans should pursue.

Next, Congress needs to clean up its earmark spending process. As a start it should adopt the proposal from Rep. Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.) that each earmark’s sponsor be identified in the text of spending bills, and that a vote be allowed on specific earmark proposals. Congress should also establish term limits for Appropriations Committee members so that the congressional political establishment cannot go on swag-splitting forever.

Though I don’t agree with any proposal of line-item veto as I believe it violates the principle of separation of powers in terms of the constitution, I do agree President Bush needs to yield his veto power on spending bills that are either pork-laden and unneeded (massive earmarks or various highway spending proposals for starters). The Congress must cut massive federal spending in order to promote long term economic growth in the United States.

By Elliot Spagat

Marcial Rodriguez, a U.S. Marine who grew up in a Mexican farming village, is offended that the country he went to war for might deport his relatives who are living here illegally.

Three months after the lance corporal returned to Ohio from the fighting in Iraq, the U.S. House adopted a bill that would make Rodriguez’s cousin a felon for being one of the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants.

Rodriguez, 20, said he enlisted in the Marine reserves to repay the debt he felt owed to a country that had given him an education and a home for his family.

“People from many different countries are fighting, not just from Mexico,” he said. “We want to participate in this country.”

It is unclear how many soldiers find their loyalties similarly divided, but at a time when Pentagon has stepped up recruiting of Hispanics to fill recruiting quotas, experts say a crackdown on illegal immigration would undoubtedly cause resentment in the ranks.

“How do you tell them we’re going to deport their parents and grandparents?” asked Hector Flores, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, a group that has encouraged Hispanics who do not plan to attend college to join the military. “That’s not America.”

-Snip-

“After serving our country, to see our relatives now criminalized through this legislation is provoking a lot of people,” said Mariscal, director of Chicano studies at the University of California, San Diego.

Link

As a veteran myself, I am offended by this Marine thinking his family can continue to break the law even though he served this great nation. By oath, military members are charged to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies foreign and domestic.” The Constitution of the United States is the law of this great land; there is no greater fixed principle of justice and law.

The constitution gives Congress the authority to “…establish a uniform rule of naturalization…” Under current laws created by Congress, someone who jumps the border and is not documented under proper legal procedures are termed “illegal aliens.” Clearly, it is against the law for the person(s) in question to be within the territories of the United States. What this Marine refuses to understand is that his family broke immigration laws - laws protected through the United States Constitution, which he swore to defend.

Finally, some Christians are stepping out of the dark on the issue and getting angry:

HOLLYWOOD – A Christian advocacy group has blasted Comedy Central for last week’s episode of the controversial cartoon show “South Park,” in which the network censored an image of the Prophet Muhammad but showed an animated Jesus defecating an American flag. President Bush was depicted doing the same thing.
 
Charmaine Yoest, vice president of the Family Research Council, said it was “outrageous” to air the prophet’s image and censor another. “It only adds insult to injury that Comedy Central is so sensitive to the feelings of Muslims without seeming to care one little bit with how Christians would react,” Yoest said.

The decision marks the third time in recent show history that the network interfered with a “South Park” episode dealing with religion. Comedy Central also pulled reruns of episodes dealing with Scientology as well as a show depicting a menstruating statue of the Virgin Mary.

Link

By Janet Hook

WASHINGTON — Just when it looked like the political climate couldn’t get worse for President Bush and the Republican Party, more storms have gathered.

This month’s abrupt rise in gas prices is fueling new worries about the party’s prospects in the fall elections, which have been roiled by controversy over GOP policies on immigration, the federal budget and Iraq.

So when Congress returns today from a spring recess, Republicans face a political landscape even more challenging than when they left town two weeks ago after failing to pass legislation that would crack down on illegal immigration and curb domestic spending.

Since then, gas prices have shot up to more than $3 a gallon in some places. Demonstrations against GOP immigration proposals have continued across the country. A poll shows Bush’s approval ratings at new lows — and the Republican-led Congress’ even lower.

Link

The American people must realize oil prices are not the fault of the Administration, but rather variables in the market, 30 years of Democratic Party obstructionism and tax raises, and environmentalist fiascos.

Oil prices, first and foremost, are a product of the world oil market. Increased demand worldwide as summer nears in the northern hemisphere and increased need from China and India make the need for oil greater than every before. Increased demand inherently leads to increased prices.

Second, Congress and state legislatures have periodically increased federal and state gas taxes to finance roads and other domestic budgetary needs. They have put taxation ahead of the people and fiscal responsibilities, like cutting spending. If Congress decides to pass legislation raising taxes on oil company profits, companies will surely pass the cost unto consumers, resulting in increased gasoline prices at the pump.

Third, obstructionist Democrats complain about the need to decrease dependence on foreign sources of energy, yet they block much needed legislation to allow more offshore drilling, more refinary production, and drilling in the Alaskan tundra. In fact, America has not built one oil refinary in the last 30 years and liberal politicians in Washington have continuously denounced and blocked legislation allowing drilling in the Alaskan wilderness. Here we can see liberal politicians don’t really care about the people and would rather play politics with the nation’s energy priorities.

Fourth, environmentalists have championed ever increasing regulation passed by Congress, placing restrictions on octane and various mixtures of gasoline. This results in higher gasoline prices and increased red tape for oil companies.

If the American people want gasoline and oil prices to decrease, they must understand the factors behind the high prices and lobby their respresentatives in Congress to deal with the rising costs. If Congress does not reform itself, focusing on pro-growth solutions to energy policy, prices will continue to rise with no end in sight.

“Dissident President” by Natan Sharansky

There are two distinct marks of a dissident. First, dissidents are fired by ideas and stay true to them no matter the consequences. Second, they generally believe that betraying those ideas would constitute the greatest of moral failures. Give up, they say to themselves, and evil will triumph. Stand firm, and they can give hope to others and help change the world.

Political leaders make the rarest of dissidents. In a democracy, a leader’s lifeline is the electorate’s pulse. Failure to be in tune with public sentiment can cripple any administration and undermine any political agenda. Moreover, democratic leaders, for whom compromise is critical to effective governance, hardly ever see any issue in Manichaean terms. In their world, nearly everything is colored in shades of gray.

That is why President George W. Bush is such an exception. He is a man fired by a deep belief in the universal appeal of freedom, its transformative power, and its critical connection to international peace and stability. Even the fiercest critics of these ideas would surely admit that Mr. Bush has championed them both before and after his re-election, both when he was riding high in the polls and now that his popularity has plummeted, when criticism has come from longstanding opponents and from erstwhile supporters.

With a dogged determination that any dissident can appreciate, Mr. Bush, faced with overwhelming opposition, stands his ideological ground, motivated in large measure by what appears to be a refusal to countenance moral failure.

I myself have not been uncritical of Mr. Bush. Like my teacher, Andrei Sakharov, I agree with the president that promoting democracy is critical for international security. But I believe that too much focus has been placed on holding quick elections, while too little attention has been paid to help build free societies by protecting those freedoms–of conscience, speech, press, religion, etc.–that lie at democracy’s core.

-Snip-

I also believe that not enough effort has been made to turn the policy of promoting democracy into a bipartisan effort. The enemies of freedom must know that the commitment of the world’s lone superpower to help expand freedom beyond its borders will not depend on the results of the next election.

-Snip-

Today, we are in the midst of a great struggle between the forces of terror and the forces of freedom. The greatest weapon that the free world possesses in this struggle is the awesome power of its ideas.

The Bush Doctrine, based on a recognition of the dangers posed by non-democratic regimes and on committing the United States to support the advance of democracy, offers hope to many dissident voices struggling to bring democracy to their own countries. The democratic earthquake it has helped unleash, even with all the dangers its tremors entail, offers the promise of a more peaceful world.

Link

While the mainstream media and the Democratic Party denounce President Bush at every turn, I stand by the president’s policies in combating terrorism. In today’s world of 30 second sound bites and liberal left dissent, it is refreshing to hear President Bush never once give up on freedom and liberty as a catalyst to solve major problems in the Middle East. He has never wavered from his convictions because of changes in the political winds or deafening party dissent.

Though I don’t always agree with the president when it comes to domestic policy, I have always agreed with him in the War on Terror. First, we must kill or capture the terrorist enemy before the enemy has a chance to land on U.S. soil. I support Bush’s national defense strategy of preemption in dealing with the terrorist crisis before us. I agree with the president that the best defense is a great offense. And I agree with the president we must stay the course in Iraq and Afghanistan until the job is done. Truth be told, if American national security is not protected, no other issues will matter.

President Bush, unlike many obstructionist, Democratic Party leaders who flip-flop on every major issue, has continued to lead and remain steady through two wars, several natural disasters, economic recession, and patriotic heartache. Americans must stand by President Bush in his plan to win the peace in the Middle East and protect America by promoting liberty and freedom abroad.

By Brent Bozell

For a long time now, we have known that Viacom was a shameless merchant of sleaze TV, a conglomerate intent on shredding everything good, decent, and even holy to feather its own filthy nest with money. What is new is that we didn’t know that Viacom had a limit to its shamelessness.
 
Any attack on Christianity, not matter how repugnant, is not only acceptable, it is celebrated. But the very idea of a scene mocking Islam … and Viacom runs for the hills. Viacom-owned Comedy Central has announced it would not let its super-sleazy cartoon “South Park” show a cartoon image of Mohammed, lest Muslims be offended. They put out a brief statement: “In light of recent world events, we feel we made the right decision.” Its executives would not comment further, but an insider told AP’s David Bauder the reason was the network brass’s “concerns for public safety.”

In a convoluted two-part episode aimed at embarrassing its own network, the creators of “South Park” wrote a show about not being allowed to show the prophet Mohammed in cartoon form. The “South Park” view is expressed in the second show: “Either it’s all OK, or none of it is,” said one character. But the creators of “South Park” don’t go for all-or-nothing mockery in this plot. For example, they don’t really attack al-Qaeda in these episodes. They draw laughs by having Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri act as foils for Hollywood-scriptwriter inside jokes.

When Mohammed was slated to appear, the image of Mohammed was replaced with a black screen, reading: “Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network.” So keep score. Comedy Central wouldn’t allow “South Park” to show a cartoon depiction of Mohammed … but it didn’t have any problem with the show ending with a depiction of Jesus Christ defecating on President Bush: “Look at me, I’m Jesus. Would you like me to crap on you, Mr. Bush? Mmm, yummy, yummy crap!”

There was no black screen explaining, “Comedy Central has refused to broadcast a mockery of the image of Jesus during Holy Week on their network.” Viacom’s standards are curious, to say the least. It mocks Christians all year long — Easter mockery is a natural next step after last year’s special, “Merry F—ing Christmas” — but the image of Mohammed is a sacred cow that must be respected.

-Snip-

Viacom used to be the scum of the Earth, parading around and accept awards from the ACLU for their “courageous” programming. (Last June, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California hailed Comedy Central boss Doug Herzog with its “Torch of Liberty” Award: “Herzog has also always stood by ‘South Park’ and its creators’ right to free expression.”) These people are still the scum of the Earth, but now they can’t in any way claim that they’re courageous when it comes to controversy. They’re hypocrites and cowards of the most odious rank.

Link

This article by Mr. Bozell explains in detail the problem of Comedy Central’s hypocracy: while the network executives are pioneers of free speech in the “Bash Christianity” category, they clearly fear the wrath of offended Muslims. How quaint it is to find that Christians will not retailiate by violent means to protest something that would be clearly offensive to followers of Christ, yet the fear of offending a minority religion in America brings to mind protests and violence last seen in Denmark or the Middle East.

If the United States is to be a haven for free speech, its people must give up their politically correct mindset. Free speech allows people the chance to be offended and allows for disagreements. Happenings like these are inherent to free speech! I’m quite sure King George III of Britain was deeply offended by the American Revolution. But that didn’t stop the Continental Congress from signing the Declaration of Independence did it?

Thomas Bray, writing for Detroit News, has written a very interesting article comparing the actions and criticisms of Abraham Lincoln to those of our modern president, George W. Bush:

The President “lied” us into war. Much of the pre-war intelligence was wrong. The civilian defense chief was detested as “brusque, domineering and unbearably unpleasant to work with.” Civil liberties were abridged. And many embittered Democrats, claiming the war had been an utter failure, demanded that the administration bring the troops home.

George Bush? Well, yes - but also a President who looms far larger in American history, Abraham Lincoln. One is struck by the parallels in reading Doris Kearns Goodwin’s masterful new book, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln repeatedly asserted that his aim was to prevent the spread of slavery, not eliminate it in the South. “I believe I have no lawful right to do so,” Goodwin quotes him as saying. Thus when he finally issued his Emancipation Proclamation two years into the war, freeing the slaves in the Confederate states, his Northern critics claimed that he had misled the country. A bloody and unnecessary war was being fought in a Utopian effort to bring the blessings of democracy to a people who had little experience with it.

-Snip-

After the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter, Secretary of State William Seward, Lincoln’s closest advisor, predicted the war would be over in 60 days. Lincoln called on the states for only 75,000 troops - who promptly got whipped at a place called Bull Run.
And as the casualties mounted - 23,000 would die or be wounded on both sides in the Battle of Antietam - the civilian chiefs, including Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, were the subject of fierce criticism.

The criticism, moreover, came not from a retired general flogging his memoirs but from the active duty commander himself, Gen. George McClellan. McClellan, a media hero who referred to Lincoln as “the original gorilla” and once kept him waiting at his headquarters while he took a nap, had a familiar complaint: Washington wasn’t giving him enough troops to do the job.

With the support of the “Peace Democrats,” McClellan wound up running for President in 1864. Lincoln won by 400,000 votes and a landslide in the Electoral College, but it could have gone the other way. Before Sherman took Atlanta in early September, signaling that the war was winnable after all, Lincoln, an excellent political nose-counter, had predicted he would be reelected - but only by three electoral votes.

No, Bush is no Lincoln. As Doris Kearns Goodwin makes clear, Lincoln was a rare combination of visionary - his rhetoric may be America’s greatest poetry - and “political genius.” Most, if not all, historians agree that a bloody Civil War was probably inevitable. Iraq bids fair to be the quagmire critics say it is, though its consequence is dwarfed by that of the American Civil War, which, as Goodwin points out, cost the equivalent of five million casualties in proportion to today’s population.

Though I don’t agree with everything Mr. Bray discusses in the above article, modern Americans can clearly see simularities in how Lincoln was treated in political circles - from dissent in his own party, to obstructionism and treason from the Democratic Party, to the negative, denouncing press. This is not an uncommon picture of today’s political world, with the Democratic Party and the mainstream liberal media denouncing President Bush at every turn.

Though George W. Bush has not  superceded his executive power under the constitution as Lincoln did (destroying slavery as an institution or suspending habeus corpus without explicit authority from Congress), Mr. Bush has enjoyed the fractioning of his own Republican Party, while tolerating the political war-mongering tactics of the liberal Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party of today often resembles a faction of the Democratic Party in the 1860s called the Copperheads. Having the mindset of today’s liberal left, the Copperheads blatantly opposed the Civil War, often arguing for total peace, even if that peace led to a continuous union of Confederate states. They viewed President Lincoln as a tyrant, explaining Lincoln mislead the nation into a war meant to abolish slavery and blamed him for sacrificing the lives of millions of young soldiers. The Copperheads called for the Democratic Party to assume power in Washington, blaming Lincoln and his Republicans for destorying American values though many “despotic” actions. The Copperhead press was no less brutal, calling Lincoln a liar and “despotic” leader who would be hung or shot for his actions (read more here).

Though George W. Bush is continuously attacked by Democratic Party hacks or liberal politicians, many believe he has done right by denouncing terrorism and surprising his critics. Like Lincoln, only history can judge if George W. Bush has done the right thing or is a leader of historical proportions.