Are we still allowed to support the troops?

In 2006, Congress passed an act making March 26 National Support the Troops Day. They didn't make it an annual event -- they just passed it for March 26, 2006. The repeated the act in 2007 and again in 2008. I haven't seen anything about making tomorrow the same, though. Are we still supporting our troops by Congressional act, or is it back to just us folks who genuinely care and respect the men and women who serve?

Either way, today, like all days, my family and I thank our servicemen and women, and thank all those who serve alongside them, and all those who make it possible back home for these good people to protect and defend freedom throughout the globe.

There are still people at home who have your six.

At last! a senator who gets it!

Via CQ: Minnesota's Norm Coleman is doing what he can to protect the citizens and the law of this country:

In an effort to strengthen national security, Senator Norm Coleman yesterday introduced an amendment to the Immigration bill to make sure local law enforcement officials are able to communicate with federal law enforcement agencies regarding suspected immigration violations. Currently, a number of cities throughout the nation are using a loophole to get around Sec. 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 by instituting ordinances forbidding local law enforcement to even ask the question as to whether a person is in the U.S. lawfully, thereby evading their legal responsibility to report their suspicions to the federal government.

“In a post 9-11 world, it is simply unacceptable for communities to ignore federal laws requiring them to share this type of information with federal authorities. This is not a matter of making state and local governments enforce federal immigration laws, it is simply a matter of closing this loophole that certain cities have created,” said Coleman. “This defies common sense, as the rule of law must apply to both legal and illegal residents. Moreover, we know how crucial it is to connect the dots in order to avert another terrorist attack in this country. The consequences of prohibiting information sharing are too great. To close this loophole, I have introduced an amendment that will ensure the lines of communication are open between local and federal law enforcement officials.”

Senator Coleman’s legislation will not require local law enforcement to use their own resources to enforce federal immigration laws. Moreover, it does not require local law enforcement to conduct immigration raids or act as federal agents. Senator Coleman’s bill will simply give law enforcement officers the ability to inquiry about a person’s immigration status during their routine investigations, and in turn report their findings to the appropriate Federal authorities though already-established channels, as they are currently required to do by law.

I don't really ask all that much, I think, when I ask our elected representatives to stand up and recognize that this country was built on the principle that the law is egalitarian toward its citizens, and, in light of that, should at least act as though they respect those laws. It's nice to know somebody's senator sees his job in the same light, and is willing to try to do something about those who undermine the law of the land.

I wish, I wish, I wish... dammit, I'm still stuck with Durbin as my senator!

Will somebody from Minnesota please give Coleman a big kiss for me?


Update: Power Line has another good reason for shutting down "sanctuary city" policies and enforcing the law as written. Follow the link to Jean Hopfensperger's Star-Tribune story, especially.

Why both ALL parties should listen to Joe

If you haven't heard or read Joe Lieberman's speech the other day, as the rest of the Democrats were so earnestly passing the latest surrender bill, please take the time to read the entire transcript.

Some of the best of it comes about halfway through:

For most of the past four years, under Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the United States did not try to establish basic security in Iraq. Rather than deploying enough troops necessary to protect the Iraqi people, the focus of our military has been on training and equipping Iraqi forces, protecting our own forces, and conducting targeted sweeps and raids—in other words, the very same missions proposed by the proponents of the legislation before us.

That strategy failed—and we know why it failed. It failed because we didn't have enough troops to ensure security, which in turn created an opening for Al Qaeda and its allies to exploit. They stepped into this security vacuum and, through horrific violence, created a climate of fear and insecurity in which political and economic progress became impossible.

For years, many members of Congress recognized this. We talked about this. We called for more troops, and a new strategy, and—for that matter—a new secretary of defense.

And yet, now, just as President Bush has come around—just as he has recognized the mistakes his administration has made, and the need to focus on basic security in Iraq, and to install a new secretary of defense and a new commander in Iraq—now his critics in Congress have changed their minds and decided that the old, failed strategy wasn't so bad after all.

What is going on here? What has changed so that the strategy that we criticized and rejected in 2006 suddenly makes sense in 2007?

Why is it that Senator Lieberman has recognized the flexibility, the openness to input on Iraq President Bush has continued to demonstrate, and yet otherwise sensible conservatives seem blind to it? It is important that we not lose patience with ourselves, but I find the temptation rising to shout at people I respect, over this very issue.


(If you don't want to be caught visiting Front Page Magazine's pages, out of fear of catching some terrible rightwing contagion, you can find it also at, uh, oh well, rightwing lunatic wink wink nudge nudge Power Line, where Paul Mirengoff was the first I know of to post it in its entirety. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to appear at a leftwing site, though. Sorry. If you're nervous, get your shots, then go among the rabid conservatives, if you dare.)

Really good comment on US Farm Report

In my early rousing moments on Sundays, I have the tv tuned to the local station which carries the US Farm Report. This morning, the host had a thing or two to say about the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill.

He mentioned that he didn't know whether or not things like storage facilities for peanuts needed federal money or not, and that those sorts of decisions should be left to those who knew more than he... then he went on to say that farmers deserve help from the government as much as anybody else, "but not this way. Supporting our troops does not mean just putting a flag sticker on your combine."


I've never been so proud of my black-dirt-farming roots, I think, as this morning.

A petition worth signing

I have had a lot of bones to pick with John McCain, over the years, but he's dead on the money, on one issue -- the war in Iraq. As he says, surrender is not an option.

Also, over the years, I've learned that online petitions to congressmen usually aren't worth the paper they're printed on. I stopped signing and forwarding those things in my e-mail box long ago.

Nevertheless, putting the two of these together actually seems like a good thing, for once. John McCain has an online petition worth signing and sharing around:

• The supplemental appropriations bill that passed the Senate on March 27, calling for a date certain withdrawal from Iraq, is nothing more than a guaranteed date of surrender.
  
  
• It is a refusal to acknowledge the dire consequences of failure, in terms of the stability in the Middle East and the resulting impact on the security of all Americans, whether home or abroad.
  
  
• Democrats have chosen the politically expedient position of failure rather than putting aside the small politics of the day in the interest of our nation and the values upon which this nation rests.
  
  
• We the undersigned remain steadfast in our support for the war against terrorism and mindful of the consequences of failure in Iraq, even if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid refuse to acknowledge those consequences.
  
  
• We support our troops and the new strategy and believe it should be given the opportunity to succeed. American national security interests are directly at stake. Success or failure in Iraq is the transcendent issue for our foreign policy and our national security. People say they want to defeat the terrorists, but if we withdraw from Iraq prematurely, it will be the terrorists' greatest triumph.
  
  
• If we leave Iraq based on an artificial timetable, al Qaeda will be free to plan, train for and conduct operations from Iraq just as they did in Afghanistan before 9/11.

Please go here and sign it, then pass on the address to everybody you respect. (HT: CQ)

Update: For a really good reason to sign the petition, read what Sergeant Krueger has to say (as posted by Scott Johnson) at Power Line.

What are you doing on Saint Paddy's Day?

I'll no doubt be sitting and grumbling about lacking the ability to travel. I'd very much like to be in Washington, D.C., driving snakes off the Mall. If there is a charter bus running, say, through the Quad Cities or Peoria, I'd love to hear about it & join up. Considering the history of behavior of the "anti-war" protesters (I tend to think of them less as anti-war, and more as anti-freedom, anti-American, anti-greater-human-decency), in vandalizing and defacing our taxpayer property, I'd very much like to be there to stand by the veterans.

Part of the issue, as I see it, lies in the misapprehension that was expressed in a comment at Smash's post on the upcoming events (said comment sparked a new post, with a few samples of "activist" vandalism):

The Wall belongs to those who died, I understand that. But our civil liberties -- which include gathering at the Wall in protest of war -- belong to US.

The Wall does not belong to the dead. The dead own nothing except their souls, if you believe in that much.

The Wall belongs to the survivors, in remembrance and out of respect for both living and dead who gave for their fellow man. Let me repeat: out of respect. That means folks don't need to be going up and spitting on it or on the other Americans who served. That means folks don't need to go all high-and-mighty with righteous indignation about the possibility that they won't be allowed to approach it to mentally or physically urinate on the names of loyal Americans. That means folks should leave their paint at home, or if that's not an option, then just stay home themselves.

Jalal and his buddies have the right to peaceable assembly. The Constitution doesn't actually say, though, that they have the right to vandalize -- or even threaten to vandalize -- our people's properties. And, if threats have been made, then those who cherish the memories of those whose names are engraved in that black slab have every right to be on the defensive.

And we're talking about a few hundred American military veterans against a few thousand candy-a$$ed leftwits. I don't think there's any real contest, here. One aging marine can take out a whole pit of copperheads and still have breath to dance a Highland Fling. I've seen it done.

So if you're planning to cause trouble by disrespecting or vandalizing any war monument or memorial, let me give you some friendly advice:

Don't.

Friends don't let friends march stupid. And patriots don't let it happen twice.