Degree of Madness

And these people want to run our health care?

Senate Votes To Privatize Its Failing Restaurants:

Year after year, decade upon decade, the U.S. Senate's network of restaurants has lost staggering amounts of money -- more than $18 million since 1993, according to one report, and an estimated $2 million this year alone, according to another.

The financial condition of the world's most exclusive dining hall and its affiliated Capitol Hill restaurants, cafeterias and coffee shops has become so dire that, without a $250,000 subsidy from taxpayers, the Senate won't make payroll next month.

[...]

The Senate Restaurants, as the food service network is known, has a range of offerings, from the ornate Senate Dining Room on the first floor of the Capitol, where senators and their guests are served by staffers wearing jackets and ties, to the huge cafeteria in the Dirksen Building and various coffee shops throughout the Senate complex.

All told, they bring in more than $10 million a year in food sales but have turned a profit in just seven of their 44 years in business, according to the GAO.

Some Democrats in the Senate resisted the plan:

But Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), speaking for the group of senators who opposed privatizing the restaurants, said that "you cannot stand on the Senate floor and condemn the privatization of workers, and then turn around and privatize the workers here in the Senate and leave them out on their own."

Apparently it's the taxpayer's responsibility to subsidize Senate restaurant workers. 

The House of Representatives has a food service operation as well.  It "has been in private hands since the 1980s".  And guess where everyone wants to eat?

...Come lunchtime, many Senate staffers trudge across the Capitol and down into the basement cafeteria on the House side. On Wednesdays, the lines can be 30 or 40 people long.

House staffers almost never cross the Capitol to eat in the Senate cafeterias.

And the two Democratic Senators who battled for the presidential nomination want to nationalize our health care.  Maybe they figure brain surgery is easier than making a good Taco Salad.

RIP Senator Thomas

Fox News is reporting Wyoming Senator Craig Thomas has died.  He was in the hospital undergoing chemotherapy for leukemia.  Thomas was 74. 

RIP

Amnesty on the way.........

Last year when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, they were able to defeat the President's immigration reform bill.  House Republicans were the heroes but what is sometimes forgotten is that a majority of Senate Republicans voted against it as well.  That was then.  As Allah notes, elections have consequences.

We do not need another law, we need to enforce what's already on the books.  When the Immigration Reform Bill was being debated last year I took the time to read it.  (Most of it anyway.)  It's a bureaucratic nightmare.  This one will be no different.  New agencies will be created and more responsibilities added to existing ones.  The cost will be astronomical, in terms of enforcement and the effect of millions of low-skilled illegals lining up for government benefits.

I guess I'm just whistlin' past the graveyard here. 

Hugh Hewitt has posted the Republican talking points.  Four pages of crap.   And he has a question:

Aren't there 41 GOP senators willing to fight for border security? Apparently not.  And they will see the result in their depleted coffers and diminished numbers come November '08.  All they have to do is fight for border security, but they won't even do that.

Elections have consequences.  Let's make sure the GOP senators going along with this crap know that their votes will too.

Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are looking better every day.

You don't need no stinking visa

Now seems like a good time to relax visa requirements, right?  In fact, in a brilliant move to counter terrorism, the Senate, with the blessing of President Bush, has decided to eliminate those pesky visas for thirteen more countries.

“Nineteen murderers got into the U.S. because of lax scrutiny of their visas,” Rosemary Jenks of the nonpartisan Numbers USA said, referring to the terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. “Now the Senate wants to eliminate visas for millions more people.”

[...]

Republicans and Democrats in Congress, as well as President Bush, have broadly embraced the effort that would add 13 more countries to the WVP. It’s part of a larger bill to enact recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

“There are many countries helping us thwart terrorism around the world, and they should be rewarded for their continued cooperation,” said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio. “This legislation will improve both our national security and economic interests while helping to solidify these relationships and improve good will toward the United States for years to come.”

Already, 27 mainly European countries are exempt from obtaining visas for travel for up to 90 days in the United States. The anti-terrorism bill would allow the administration to expand that waiver to 13 additional countries that are determined not to pose a security risk.

Senate leaders also have rejected proposals to tighten the visa process elsewhere in the security bill.

Captain Ed:

It's bad enough that the Senate wants to relax entry requirements while we're at war with people who mainly attack through infiltration. The Senate should be embarrassed to be loosening security requirements in a bill they advertise as "anti-terrorism". However, Harry Reid takes it even father by blocking some common-sense amendments that would address some other holes in the entry process -- because he says they're off-topic.

I think the Senate is beyond embarrassment, Captain. 

Here's the bill at Thomas.  (Sometimes these Thomas links time-out or something.  Just click the Thomas link and search S.4.  See S.4 RS)  The pertinent section is 401, The Modernization of the Visa Waiver Program.  The short title, This section may be cited as the `Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act'. 

Secure travel for whom?  Terrorists?   Do the dumbasses in the Senate even care?  And President Bush, sending American soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight and kill terrorists only to risk letting others fly in visa free? 

Presidential and (Un)presidential

Rudy Giuliani puts non-binding resolutions in their proper place, along with the Democrats and a few RINOs: (h/t Captain Ed)

Several potential Republican presidential candidates, including Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as well as Giuliani, have supported Bush's plan to add more than 20,000 troops to U.S. forces in Iraq.

The major Democratic candidates have opposed the move. Several are senators who have advocated a nonbinding resolution condemning the buildup.

"In the business world, if two weeks were spent on a nonbinding resolution, it would be considered nonproductive," Giuliani told the lunch crowd, setting off a burst of laughter.

He called the concept "a comment without making a decision." America, he added, is "very fortunate to have President Bush."

"Presidents can't do nonbinding resolutions. Presidents have to make decisions and move the country forward, and that's the kind of president that I would like to be, a president who makes decisions."

As I have noted before, these resolutions are meaningless time wasters.  We have real issues, real problems affecting every American and Congress is whiling away the hours (and days) trying to embarrass President Bush and demoralize our troops in the process.

Non-binding resolutions aren't enough for some Democrats, however.  The Democrats' new leading man, Barack Obama, who in addition to criticizing one of our staunchest allies, said the lives of our soldiers killed in Iraq were "wasted".

OBAMA: We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged and to which we have now spent $400 billion and has seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.

That's a pretty low blow.  Michelle would like to introduce Obama to some brave Americans.  Here's one, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr,

"Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

And there are so many others, but Michelle is right:

I could go on, but it would be a waste of breath trying to get Sen. Obama to acknowledge the existence of countless soldiers and their families who reject his patronizing, infantilizing, and insulting view of all American troops as dupes/victims who have squandered their lives.

I'm not Rudy Giuliani's biggest fan by any means but he is head and shoulders above Barack Obama and the contrast in their words speaks volumes.

Warner-Levin resolution-"self-serving bombast"

Senator Joe Lieberman's speech yesterday on the Senate floor is reprinted at Mudville Gazette.  His speech should put the proponents of the Warner-Levin resolution to shame, but it will not.  Some excerpts:

The resolution before us, its sponsors concede, will not stop the new strategy from going forward. As we speak, thousands of troops are already in Baghdad, with thousands more moving into position to carry out their Commander’s orders. This resolution does nothing to alter these facts.

Instead, its sponsors say it will send a message of rebuke from the Senate to the president, from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. But there is a world beyond Pennsylvania Avenue that is watching and listening.

What we say here is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi moderates, trying to decide whether the Americans will stand with them. We are being heard by our men and women in uniform, who will be interested to know whether we support the plan they have begun to carry out. We are being heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and by Al Qaeda terrorists, eager for evidence that America’s will is breaking. And we are being heard across America by our constituents, who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not just hollow posturing.

This resolution is not about Congress taking responsibility. It is the opposite. It is a resolution of irresolution.

For the Senate to take up a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle is unprecedented, but it is not inconsequential. It is an act which, I fear, will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity. And that is why I will vote against cloture.  (my emphasis)

[...]

Cynics may say this kind of thing happens all of the time in Congress. In this case, however, they are wrong. If it passed, this resolution would be unique in American legislative history. I contacted the Library of Congress on this question last week and was told that, never before, when American soldiers have been in harm’s way, fighting and dying in a conflict that Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a resolution like this, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy.

What an exceptional speech.  And based on reports from Iraq, we're getting pretty close to the "eve of a decisive battle", if we're not there already.  Omar at Iraq the Model:

A joint US and Iraqi force stormed al-Azamiyah neighborhood in Baghdad in what an American military official described as the start for the awaited security operation in Baghdad.

Major Robbie Park said 2,000 US soldiers are working side by side with soldiers from the 1st and 9th divisions of the Iraqi army…The troops searched dozens of homes in and around Azamiyah and confiscated large amounts of weapons.

But an assistant to PM Maliki denied that this was the start of the new security operation, saying that this is a limited operation (the government ordered) after receiving information that insurgents are hiding in the neighborhood.

From AFP:

An aide to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki who asked to remain anonymous, denied the operation was the start of the security crackdown.

"The new security plan has not been launched, this is an operation to put pressure on Adhamiyah after we received information that fighters were gathering there," the source said.

The Baghdad plan, announced by US President George W. Bush along with a decision to deploy another 21,500 US combat troops in Iraq, aims to clear bastions held by Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias that have killed tens of thousands in the past year.

A high-ranking US army official stressed that the Baghdad security plan was a process involving a broad range of troop movements along with logistics and strategic planning.

"The process has already begun. The Baghdad security plan is a process, its a long operation, it's not going to be a three day operation or a three week operation," the officer said.

"You have to look at the whole process instead of just thinking in terms of a raid, or an operation in one of the districts, it's much, much larger than that."

The official explained that the security operation comprised many steps, many of which had already taken place and each of which contributed to the overall plan.

"That's why you can't say its going to start on 'this day,'.

"There's not a set date."

The Democrats (not forgetting some Republicans and excepting Joe Lieberman, of course) are just hell-bent on criticizing President Bush, that's what this is about.  Victor Davis Hanson:

Surely if Congress can confirm General Petraeus without a dissenting vote, it can at least give this gifted officer a period of grace to allow his counteroffensive to proceed without pre-judgment — especially when thousands of American troops will be on the offensive in a matter of hours and in greater danger as all eyes turn to Baghdad.

[...]

Again, our elected representatives can at least call for a moratorium of a few weeks on self-serving bombast and blatant pre-2008 political maneuvering — when so many Americans are now risking their all to take on the jihadists for the future of Iraq.

At least.  But not likely.

Democrats "quashed" Sessions' amendment

Captain Ed:

When conservatives finally moved to bolster border security and debated how to address the millions of illegal immigrants that took advantage of decades of open borders. Critics of tough measures complained that the government should focus its efforts against employers who took advantage of illegal aliens and helped drive down wages for Americans. However, when a Republican offered an amendment to the Senate minimum-wage bill that would address both concerns, the Democrats suddenly couldn't tolerate the thought of employer enforcement:

Senate Democrats quashed a proposal yesterday that would have dramatically increased civil fines on employers who hire illegal aliens.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, offered the amendment to the bill now being debated that would increase the federal minimum wage.

Ridding the economy of illegal aliens, he argued, would do far more to help low-income wage earners than simply raising the minimum wage. Not only do aliens displace U.S. citizens in the work force, he said, they also artificially suppress wages. ...

But Democratic leaders refused to let Mr. Sessions' alien amendment reach the Senate floor yesterday, and they accused him and other Republicans of offering amendments unrelated to the minimum-wage increase in order to stall passage of the bill.

Jeff Sessions has been a voice of reason in the illegal immigration battle.  From April 18, 2006:

The United States benefits both economically and culturally from immigration, but there are security risks and costs also to consider. A wise country will seek to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs all the while insuring that the system is operated in a lawful manner. Our approach should not be based on emotions, polls, or politics. It should be founded on the legitimate national interests of the United States. Determining those legitimate interests requires a sustained and thoughtful inquiry into all the factors important to the nation.

[...]

If the Senate wants to be successful in passing immigration reform, its first priority should be to approve a bill to secure the borders and increase interior-enforcement infrastructure. Then we can move on to discussions about fair and humane treatment of the illegal-alien population and the future flow of immigrants across our borders

Enforcement first. What a concept.  Too bad many in Congress (and our President) don't care too much for it.  But thankfully Senator Sessions has not given up. 

If employers are continuing to ignore U.S. immigration laws, and they are, it is because it pays them to do so. Sessions' bill would have drastically increased the risk and the cost to the employers who hire illegals. 

It would raise the minimum fine on employers from $250 per hired alien to $5,000 per alien. And it would raise the maximum fine from $10,000 per alien to $40,000 per alien.

And the Democrats pitched a fit:

"Amendment here. Amendment there," thundered Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.
    "Amendment on Social Security. Amendment on immigration. And all the chortling and laughing as they go on about their business," he boomed.
    Republicans are "not for those millions of Americans who are heading home tonight, who've worked long and hard, facing their children hoping that at last ... the United States isn't going to fail us," he said. "What do we tell them after five days?"
    After accusing Republicans of stalling, Mr. Kennedy then proceeded to read aloud for five minutes a story in the New York Times about soldiers fighting in Iraq.

But the Democrats were for it before they were against it:

Mr. Sessions' proposal came directly out of the employer-sanctions section of the immigration-reform bill approved with overwhelming Democratic support last year.

Take the Pledge

Here is the pledge:

If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.

Go here to sign it.

Hugh Hewitt is spearheading the Take the Pledge drive and it is gaining traction.  From Hugh's site:

After you have taken the pledge, please call Senator McConnell's office and urge a filibuster of Senator Biden's and Senator Warner's resolutions. 

Senator McConnell's office number is (202) 224-2541.  The capitol switchboard is 202-225-3121.  Senator McConnell's e-mail is here.

Yesterday General Petraeus testified that the Biden/Warner resolutions and those like them encourage the enemy.

What does it mean, "to encourage the enemy?"

It means that the enemy gathers will and strength from the prospect of a collapsing political will to seek victory in Iraq and stability in the region.

Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard has a post worth reading about the pledge.

In a related post Hugh has another request for bloggers (I'm leaving in his links):

My Townhall.com column deals with the pledge, but there is even greater urgency to the task of bringing informed pressure to bear on GOP senators gone wobbly on the war.  If you are a blogger, please consider posting the contact information below and urging your readers to join in the effort to wake up the GOP Senate caucus.  Send along Dean's post below as a primer on how senators are supposed to act when difficult political decisions loom affecting the life of their country and the conduct of a war.

[...]

Please tell the candidates in the ’08 cycle especially –Alexander, Collins, Coleman and Smith and would be presidential nominee Brownback—that a vote for the Warner resolution is the end of support for them and the NRSC.

Senator Alexander’s phone: (202) 224-4944. His e-mail is here.

Senator Brownback’s phone: (202) 224-6521. His e-mail is here.

Senator Coleman’s phone: (202) 224-5641.His e-mail is here.

Senator Collins’ phone: (202) 224-2523. Her e-mail is here.

Senator Smith’s phone: (202) 224-3753. His e-mail is here.

Senator Voinovich's phone: (202) 224-3353.  His e-mail is here.

The GOP leadership, which need to announce that no resolution will voted on that encourages the enemy, and that includes the Warner resolution or any cousin of the Warner resolution:

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s phone is (202) 224-2541. His e-mail is here.

Minority Whip Trent Lott’s phone is (202) 224-6253. His e-mail is here.

Senator Jon Kyl’s phone is (202) 224-4521. His e-mail is here.

Senator John Ensign’s phone is (202) 224-6244. His e-mail is here.

When you are done calling and writing, start over, and ask your friends to do so as well, beginning with the pledge. 

I don't know what these senators are thinking this morning, but they clearly haven't been listening to you.  No debate will begin or vote be taken until next week, so invest some time in supporting the troops by bringing clarity to these senators: You can't win a war by encouraging the enemy and undercutting the commander on the ground in Iraq or the Commander-in-Chief in the White House.  Not to understand that is a great way to send an unreversable message to core supporters that their time and money is best spent elsewhere.