FederalRepublic.net

From Fox News

WASHINGTON — President Bush laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns in Arlington Cemetery on Monday, carrying on a tradition that has been held every Memorial Day for the past 138 years. He said afterward that fallen soldiers have died for a worthy cause.

“In this place where valor sleeps, we find strength in knowing that those who served in freedom’s cause have acted with principle and steadfast faith,” Bush told veterans and their families.

“Here in the presence of veterans they fought with and loved ones whose pictures they carried, the fallen give silent witness to the price of our liberty, and our nation honors them this day and every day,” he said.

Monday’s ceremonies mark the fifth Memorial Day in a row that the country has been fighting a War on Terror state of war, with military members confronting combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush said the ceremony is a chance for Americans to express their appreciation for those who have sacrificed their lives in the quest for freedom around the world.

“The markers here record the names of more than 296,000 men and women. Each of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines buried here answered the call to serve and stepped forward to protect the nation they love. All who are buried here understood their duty — they saw a dark shadow on the horizon and went to meet it. They understood that tyranny must be met with resolve and liberty is always the achievement of courage,” Bush said.

Link

“Another year, another Memorial Day.” Many people around the nation often forget what Memorial Day is all about or why it is celebrated. People often consider Memorial Day an excuse to hit the beach or put back some brews, but don’t really take time to reflect on its meaning.

Memorial Day is about honoring those who have fallen in the defense of our country. From the early days of the Confederation to those who have defended our modern republic, from the defenders of liberty in the Revolutionary War to those fighting for freedom in Iraq today, we honor those who have lost their lives and sacrificed for something greater than themselves - a liberty that is the envy of the world.

Today, let us remember our fallen comrades, our brothers, our neighbors, and friends. Let us remember their sacrifice and their courage as they stood for liberty and freedom against the tyrants of history. God bless our modern warriors and our great republic as we battle for liberty and justice around the world.

William Kristol has written an article for The Weekly Standard demonstrating why he believes President Bush has had a good month of May and how recent actions could lead to an improvement in his image and governance. I’ve quoted the parts of the article that I believed to be the most relevent:

Good economic signs:

Congress extended, and the president signed, the wildly successful supply-side tax cuts on interest and dividend income originally passed in 2003. The new tax rates are now in force until 2010, providing helpful certainty for the economy and the markets, and forcing Democrats in this year’s congressional elections, and in the 2008 presidential election, either to accept a core element of Bush’s economic policy, or to be for raising taxes.

Speaking of the economy . . . last week the Commerce Department revised first quarter growth up to 5.3 percent. Not too lame. Then we learned that new home sales had risen in April, suggesting a reasonably soft landing for the housing market. And gas prices even began to drift down.

Immigration:

They can talk themselves into a frenzy about illegal immigration, of course. But on this issue, the Senate managed–contrary to the conventional wisdom of late April–easily to pass a sensible and comprehensive immigration reform bill. And House Republicans now show some signs of coming to realize that talk radio is not always the best source of policy guidance. Enough of them may come to realize that passing legislation they regard as flawed would be better than going home to the voters having achieved nothing. So Bush could have an immigration reform signing ceremony to look forward to in the fall.

Personnel Shakeups:

Meanwhile, on the personnel front, new chief of staff Josh Bolten seems to have improved White House performance, and Tony Snow took over as press secretary to rave reviews. Michael Hayden was easily confirmed by the Senate as CIA Director–as all the hoopla over warrantless wiretapping and data mining of phone records came to nothing.

The administration also got reenergized on the judicial front, shepherding Brett Kavanaugh through to confirmation to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. If a Supreme Court seat comes open in a month, the administration seems prepared, with (sources say) a short list of well vetted and well qualified conservative candidates.

War on Terrorism:

What about the world, and the war? There is a new Iraqi government, and we saw an impressive display of resolution on the Iraqi front by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair at their press conference last Thursday night. The president seems to have resisted calls to draw down troops precipitately, correctly understanding that he will get no credit for losing Iraq with 100,000 troops rather than 135,000.

As for Iran, the State Department seems to remain in charge of U.S. policy, and unwilling to come to grips with the urgency and gravity of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s challenge. Iran and Iraq are very likely to define the historical judgment on the Bush presidency. So these foreign policy splotches on the picture of a rosy May painted above are important. But if the president realizes he really isn’t a lame duck, and that he has two and half years left, two and half years in which his foreign policy can either succeed or fail–he can begin to turn his attention to reenergizing that foreign policy in June.

Read the whole thing

By the editors of National Review

The Senate isn’t serious about enforcing the nation’s immigration laws. It is bad enough that the bill that 39 Democrats and 23 Republicans just voted to pass provides an amnesty to illegal immigrants already here. There might be an argument for doing that if there were any evidence of a commitment to enforce the immigration laws in the future. But the bill actually prohibits local police from enforcing civil violations of immigration laws—which in practice, given the byzantine rules distinguishing between civil and criminal violations of those laws, will get local police out of the enforcement business altogether. No serious effort is being made to make the bureaucracy capable of the enforcement tasks that will now be asked of them, such as performing background checks on the illegal population.

All throughout this week’s immigration debate in the Senate, I have personally felt that leaders in the Senate and those in the infamous gang of 14 don’t really care about the will of the people in terms of immigration policy. The Senate has defied those in the House of Representatives and the majority of the American people who favor an enforcement first policy. The reality is the border must be secured first and foremost to cut back on illegal border crossings - ultimately the source of the United States’ immigration problem.

The bill forbids the federal government to use any information included in an application for amnesty in national-security or criminal investigations. Any federal agent who does use that information would be fined $10,000—which is five times more than an illegal alien would have to pay to get the amnesty. The Senate, on a tie vote, defeated John Cornyn’s (R., Tex.) attempt to rectify these provisions.

Unlike law enforcement standards for true American citizens where local police can arrest someone for outstanding charges while giving a speeding ticket, illegals are actually given more rights in the Senate version of the immigration bill. It’s an absurd idea to tie the hands of police who are the main law enforcers of our society. We must give local police forces the ability to arrest illegal aliens (a large source of border crime) for simply being in this country illegally.

When Sen. Johnny Isakson (R., Ga.) offered an amendment to require that enforcement be proven to have succeeded before the amnesty or guest-worker provisions could take effect, he was voted down, 55-40. For most senators, enforcement is just boob bait for the voters. They are not willing to demand it before getting what they, for various reasons, really want: an amnesty and a massive increase in legal immigration.

If the Senators in Washington were actually serious about the crackdown on illegal immigration, they would’ve supported the House’s proposal - an enforcement first approach. Instead, the Senate has put election year politics ahead of the people’s will, defying what millions of Americans have been saying since 1986 - illegal behavior must not be rewarded with a path to citizenship, directly or indirectly.

The “temporary” guest-workers will be eligible for citizenship. If they overstay their welcome, there is no guarantee they will be deported—especially when Congress will have signaled, by passing this bill, its view that deportation is draconian. So these “temporary” workers will permanently change America. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimates that the bill would make for an inflow of 66 million immigrants over the next 20 years. Since much of this inflow would consist of poor and relatively uneducated people, one result would be, he says, the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years. (And he’s not accounting for the likely effects of these people’s votes.) Another very likely result would be the increased balkanization of America, as this massive inflow slows both economic and cultural assimilation.

Many experts and common sense Americans agree that a large influx in illegal immigration will put a huge burden on states’ social services. Illegal immigration fiscal problems followed by the large increase in baby-boomer medical and social benefits will tax our government tremendously, both at the state and federal levels, producing a fiscal crisis not seen since the Great Depression.

Read more analysis at National Review Online

The Senate yesterday easily approved an immigration bill that allows 10 million illegal aliens to become citizens, doubles the flow of legal immigration each year and will cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $54 billion over the next 10 years.

The leaders of both parties hailed the 62-36 passage as a historic success

Majority Leader Bill Frist said the vote represented the “very best” of the Senate.”This is a success for the American people,” the Tennessee Republican said. “It is a success for people who hope to participate someday in that American dream.”

-Snip-

The 62-36 roll call by which the Senate yesterday passed a broad immigration-reform bill. Voting “yes” were 38 Democrats, 23 Republicans and one independent. Voting “no” were 32 Republicans and four Democrats.

-Snip-

-Amnesty: 10 million illegals can apply for citizenship.
-Border security: Adds 370 miles of triple-wire fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers;  adds 3,000 Border Patrol agents this year
-Employers: No penalties for businesses that hired illegals

Link

While seeing the Congress work in a bipartisan way toward a comprehensive immigration strategy is quite encouraging, I just don’t think this particular bill has what it takes to stem illegal immigration, while encouraging people to come into the United States in a lawful manner

Congress should’ve taken up immigration enforcement first and focused on guest worker provisions at a later period. The reality is that our borders are nowhere near as secure as they should be and border patrol agents are in dire need of additional personnel and new equipment to secure it. This bill, while offering hundreds of miles of fencing and a projected number of new border patrol agents, does not go far enough. We must secure the border with a universal fence (where possible) and allow the National Guard to do law enforcement duties under the control of state governors.

This bill also does not do enough to penalize employers who hire illegal aliens. In fact, this bill does nearly nothing to that affect. Employers must realize it is unlawful to hire illegal aliens in the first place and should have to confirm Social Security numbers before hiring immigrants. This would cut down on document fraud and unlawful workers.

As I’ve said before, the borders must be secure, first and foremost. This immigration compromise in the Senate does not go far enough in dealing with illegal immigration and a fight in conference between the House and the Senate is a foregone conclusion. The House must take a hard line on the immigration issue, forcing the government to secure the border.

Townhall.com has more about the bill:

-Urging the hiring of 1,000 more Border Patrol agents this year and 14,000 by 2011.
-Endorsing Bush’s plan for a short-term deployment of National Guard troops to states along the border with Mexico.
-Calling for the construction of 370 miles of fencing on the border.
-The guest worker program would admit 200,000 individuals a year. They eventually could apply for a green card, which confers legal permanent residency.

An interesting editorial from the Washington Times explains several reasons why many rank and file conservatives do not trust President Bush to crack down on illegal immigration:

Put plainly, when Mr. Bush talks tough on border security and enforcement, conservatives don’t believe him, and they have the facts to back them up. Last week’s address to the nation, during which Mr. Bush proposed adding 6,000 Border Patrol agents by 2007, wasn’t the first time he’s made such a promise. When one considers that it was just a couple of years ago when Mr. Bush promised to add 2,000 agents every year for the next five years, only to submit a 2006 budget calling for only 210, it’s no wonder why conservatives remain wary.

-Snip-

All of which is to say that Mr. Bush needs some bona fides on border security and enforcement. A recent CNN poll found that 66 percent of the public favors increasing penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants. Here’s one instance where the administration can reverse its abysmal record on employer sanctions, which dropped from 417 who had been fined for hiring illegal aliens in 1999 to just three in 2004. Mr. Bush should call for stricter employer sanctions and for increasing the number of federal investigators looking into those cases.
 
That’s not all. Mr. Bush should endorse the House immigration bill’s proposed 700-mile fence along the southern border, instead of the Senate’s 370-mile version. That’s still less than half of what’s required, but an improvement nonetheless. Also, the administration should stop advertising how many illegal aliens it has apprehended and start telling Americans how many it has deported. Mr. Bush’s trumpeting of his administration’s arrest and deportation of 6 million illegal aliens is actually a decline compared to any five-year period under Mr. Clinton. Once that number begins to rise in a significant way, then the administration can claim progress.

Action, not words, will convince conservatives that the president is serious about border security.

While I do not trust political polling in the least, a recent poll by Rasmussen offers an interesting viewpoint in terms of illegal immigration:

The Rasmussen Reports national opinion survey taken the night after the President’s nationally televised address also highlighted a common misconception about the immigration debate.

Media commentaries often suggest that support for an enforcement first policy is an option supported primarily by conservatives. In fact, 67% of political moderates support such an approach. That’s virtually indistinguishable from the 66% of conservatives who support for enforcement-first approach. Fifty-two percent (52%) of self-identified liberals also hold this view.

Link

The Congress and the president would be wise to take the body politic seriously when it comes to immigration. Since the beginning of the whole debate, the public has continued to support enforcement first, worrying about border control and law enforcement first and foremost. I would suspect most people would also support the idea of debating the fate of our 12 million illegal aliens once the country has a border control strategy.

By Jessamy Brown

A Keller school district parent said political correctness has run amok at her daughter’s elementary school, where the principal chose to omit the words “In God We Trust” from an oversize coin depicted on the yearbook cover.

Janet Travis, principal of Liberty Elementary School in Colleyville, wanted to avoid offending students of different religions, a district spokesman said. Students were given stickers with the words that could be affixed to the book if they so chose.

Debi Ackerman of North Richland Hills said she is offended by the omission. It’s yet another example of a politically correct culture that is removing Christian references from all public places, she said.

“I think it’s really ridiculous,” said Ackerman, whose daughter Tawni, 10, took the book home Thursday afternoon. “Now it has come to this. … When is it going to end?”

She likened the situation to retailers that use “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas” in their displays and advertising.

“First, we can’t say ‘Christmas’ trees. It’s ‘holiday’ trees. Then it’s ‘holiday’ decorations,” Ackerman said. “It just doesn’t make any sense to me.”

Link

In a show of idiocy, this school district has played the “offence” card on displaying our country’s totally legal and uniting mottos on an oversize coin display. Instead of acknoledging our country’s deep heritage and traditional ideals, this school has let political correctness get in the way of common sense. By the way, did anyone think removing “In God We Trust” would not offend patriotic citizens or Christians? Didn’t think so. Another example of the wreckless political correctness the ACLU and so-called democratic organizations have wrought.

Right Wing News and Betsy’s Page have more:

Geesh, I realize that the principal was just trying not to offend anyone, but then pick another symbol. Since they’re Liberty Elementary, you’d think that the Liberty Bell would be a natural. It proclaims “Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.” Who could object to that? Oops, that is from Leviticus. Can’t have that.

Michelle Malkin is carrying a related article about the hypocracy of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as it relates to the treatment of Christianity and Islam in the classroom:

In California, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (the one that outlawed the Pledge of Allegiance for its reference to God) approved putting public school students through Muslim role-playing exercises.

The Philadelphia Inquirer has an interesting article detailing the difficulties President Bush and religious conservatives will have in getting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage passed:

The religious conservatives who worked hard to reelect President Bush in 2004 have long anticipated that the White House would reward them by pushing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

But that’s not happening.

Too many other issues predominate, everything from Iraq to immigration. As a result, Bush seems ill-positioned to spend dwindling political capital on a social crusade - especially at a time when a nod toward greater religiosity might turn off secular Republican voters and thus imperil the moderate Republicans in Congress who are already struggling to keep their jobs in November.

So the religious right, which may well have been pivotal in helping Bush keep his job, appears destined for major disappointment in 2006.

-Snip-

Why are so many moderate Republican voters feeling alienated? Party strategist Craig Shirley suggested, “There is a fear, among some in the party, that the Republicans are being identified too much as a theological party.” With good reason, apparently: Fabrizio estimates, based on his own surveys, that half of today’s Republicans are “theocrats” who want government to “promote traditional values by protecting traditional marriage,” as opposed to wanting less government intrusion into personal lives.

-Snip-

But religious-right leaders insist that saying no to gay marriage is a mainstream position; they cite recent Pew polls showing that 51 percent of Americans oppose the concept. For that reason, said Gary Bauer, “President Bush should be pushing this. This is an issue where the public is on his side, yet he seems too busy to deal with it. At least he’d be able to talk about something that can get people’s heads nodding, instead of him getting tuned out.”

While I agree with the President’s motives for preserving traditional marriage between a man and a woman and support for the core family unit, I don’t believe a constitutional amendment is the right way to go on this issue. Sure, conservatives and American society in general, have largely rejected gay marriage in the legislatures and at the ballot box. However, issues like this remind me of why we have a Tenth Amendment to the constitution.

The Tenth Amendment to the constitution states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Clearly, because the federal government is not granted a license to govern social unions or the arrangement of the family unit in the constitution, it is up to the states to decide the status of gay marriage or define marriage in the traditional sense. President Bush and conservatives in my opinion, are wrong for attempting to use the constitution as a catalyst for social change. Not only is this not in the best interest of our republic, but it implies that the constitution should be changed for minor social issues that are clearly in the interest of the states to decide.

Instead of looking to the federal government to define what “marriage” means, conservatives should look to their state governments for defining law. As much as I support the traditionalist cause, some just might want to read the constitution for once and see how federalism allows judgement in the gay marriage fiasco.

From Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An investigation by U.S. antitrust authorities found no evidence that oil companies illegally manipulated gasoline prices or constrained oil refining operations, the Federal Trade Commission said Monday.

However, the agency said it had found 15 examples that fit lawmakers’ definition of price-gouging at the “refining, wholesale, or retail level.” It said factors like regional and local market trends appeared to explain the pricing in nearly all the cases.

Congress ordered the FTC probe last summer as part of a broad energy bill in response to a steady climb in crude oil and gasoline prices.

Link

Instead of actually doing something about rising tax prices like increase supply by passing legislation allowing more off shore drilling and refining capacity, Congress called for the FTC to investigate oil price gouging, an ineffective and insulting political ploy getting the American people nowhere nearer to ending the country’s dependence on foreign oil.

As expected, the FTC found little to no evidence of price gouging, a conclusion evident in all other investigations within this last decade. Usually a strategy taken to heart by liberal politicians, even Republicans have attempted to make price gouging an issue in this election year. Instead of ordering some worthless investigation that doesn’t even make sense in the first place, Congress could actually focus on U.S. energy priorities before politicians go jumping to conclusions that Big Oil is gouging prices or its Big Oil’s fault that they have record profits this year.

In the continuing immigration bill fiasco in Washington, the Senate has approved an amendment allowing a 370 mile, triple layer fence between the United States and Mexico on our southern border:

The Senate endorsed a chance at citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants Wednesday but also voted to build 370 miles of triple- layered fencing along the Mexican border in increasingly emotional debate over election-year immigration legislation.

Taken together, the votes gave fresh momentum to legislation that closely follows President Bush’s call for a major overhaul of the nation’s troubled immigration system.

The vote was 66-33 against a proposal that would have removed provisions giving illegal immigrants in the country more than two years an eventual chance at citizenship.

A few minutes earlier, the Senate had voted 83-16 in favor of construction of the fence and 500 miles of vehicle barriers, the first significant victory in two days for conservatives seeking to place their stamp on the measure.

Read the whole article

Powerline has more:

Senator Jeff Sessions’ amendment to the Senate’s immigration bill, which requires the construction of a fence and erection of vehicle barriers, passed the Senate this afternoon. The Associated Press’ report conveys a sense of the passions that were generated by the floor debate. The vote wasn’t close, however; the Sessions amendment passed 83-16. Which means that even most Democrats have figured out how serious Americans are on the issue of border security.

In a related note, Right Wing News is carrying a quote from Rush Limbaugh today communicating how the issue of immigration is affecting the conservative base:

“I’ll tell you what, this issue is causing more divisions in the Republican Party than any issue that I can recall in a long time, including the Dubai Ports deal. I can’t recall an issue. I’ve been doing this for 18 years. It will be 18 years in August, a big anniversary coming up. I can’t remember. I’m trying to think. There have been some, but I can’t think of any single issue which has Republicans, slash, conservatives more up in arms than this one — and particularly with the apparent lack of response at the highest levels of government, House, Senate, White House.

The House Bank was a big deal, and the House Post Office, and some of those corruption scandals that existed back in the late eighties and early nineties, but this is incredible.” - Rush Limbaugh