GITMO to Illinois?

There appears to be growing momentum to send some or all of the GITMO detainees to Thomson, Illinois to the Super max there.

Democratic leaders in Illinois applauded a draft memo leaked to a conservative Web site Friday that they believe suggests the government is seriously considering transferring terrorist suspects from Guantanamo to their state.

The White House cautioned that the memo is merely a preparation in case such a decision is made, but Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Gov. Pat Quinn said in a joint statement late Friday that it signals "the administration has narrowed its focus" to a nearly empty maximum-security state prison in Thomson, a sleepy town of 450 people near the Mississippi River about 150 miles west of Chicago.

"Even though the final decision has not been made, we are encouraged by this development," Durbin and Quinn said. "We will continue working with the White House, the Defense Department and the Justice Department to address important questions regarding security and job creation, and finalize this agreement."

The story comes after a leaked memo wound up on the web site Big Government. Thomson, Illinois is a small town of less than 1000 people on the Northwest edge of the state. The prison is actually just outside the city limits. The area has been struggling financially since most of the prisoners were moved. As such, the city manager of Thomson cheered the decision when it was first floated in the fall.

Immediately, both Pat Quinn and Senator Dick Durbin cheered the decision. This is a major opportunity for Republicans. President Obama's old Senate seat is up for grabs and so is the Governorship. Pat Quinn, the state's current Governor, is already on record as favoring the decision. Dick Durbin has done the same.

I haven't seen any polling but I would be willing to bet plenty that the state in general is opposed to this by a wide margin. Congressman Mark Kirk, who's running for Obama's seat, came out and opposed the decision immediately when it was first floated in the fall. All Republican candidates for both Governor and Senate should be jumping over themselves to condemn this potential decision. The Democrats have giftwrapped a huge issue and the Republicans should be doing everything they can to make this gain as many legs as possible.

It should be noted that the Obama administration has stressed that no final decision has yet been made. Furthermore, in order to move any detainee the administration would have to come to Congress for funding. So, this is still a long way away from being finalized.

That said, Big Government is already reporting a protest forming near Thomson.

“This is America and our government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people, and we the people were not even consulted about this decision to bring suspected terrorists to Illinois.” Beverly Perlson, founder of the Band of Mothers, and one of the rally organizers, said during a phone interview.

The rally, organized by the Illinois Tea Patriots and the Band of Mothers, has been in the works since November when the Obama Administration’s plans initially surfaced. It is scheduled to be held three days before Christmas, on December 22, outside the State Officiated Public Meeting at Sterling High School, Sterling Illinois, at 1:00 pm.

This story is still developing and so stay tuned for updates.

UPDATE: Right on cue, here's a Rasmussen poll on Illinoisians view of moving the detainees to the state.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of Illinois voters oppose relocating some suspected terrorists from the Guantanamo prison camp in Cuba to a prison in their state.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 39% of voters in the state favor housing the prisoners at the Thomson Correctional Center, a near-empty maximum security facility 150 miles west of Chicago. Ten percent (10%) are not sure.

...

ACORN, the Media, and Culture

In my capacity as a citizen of Illinois, I took it upon myself to contact both Roland Burris and Dick Durbin to see why they voted to continue to fund ACORN. Senator Burris has a press release but it's not available on line. I may receive an email in a bit and then I will post it. The basic idea of the release is this. Senator Burris is deeply troubled by the allegations. He believes that there needs to be strict oversight over the group. He also believes the group should not be defined by a few "bad apples". ACORN does a lot of good work providing services to low and mid income families in the inner cities and cutting off funding would cut off that good work.

Senator Durbin's statement was similar. Senator Durbin's office believed that this is a criminal matter and not a matter for the Congress. His office believed also that these videos showed a few bad apples and shouldn't reflect on the group as a whole. Senator Burris' office told me they were in no position to answer any questions. In other words, he laid this hand grenade on his staff, gave them a statement, and expected them to figure it out from there. Senator Durbin's staff took questions but frankly they were in no better position to answer any questions. I pointed out that Dale Rathke embezzled $1 million from ACORN, that Wade Rathke covered it up along with severl lieutenants, and that they've owed millions in past due taxes. Of course, the Issa report concluded that ACORN is a criminal organization. His office told me that they would relay my concerns to the Senator.

The manner in which both Burris and Durbin treat these latest revelations is similar to the way some in the media treat the entire issue. Burris doesn't even have the statement available on his site yet even though there's a page set aside for press releases. His staff wasn't even in a position to take questions. Durbin's statement is also not available yet on line. His staff took questions but clearly weren't prepared for many. That's not the fault of the staff. They weren't prepped for questions. The Senators clearly didn't think that prepping them was necessary.

It's this sort of dismissive attitude that many in the media take to ACORN. There's the now infamous exchange between Charlie Gibson and two Chicago radio personalities. In that exchange, Gibson admits that he knows nothing of the story. He further goes on to say that this is a story for cable. We all know that the MSM has all but ignored the story.

So, this ACORN story is now the latest reincarnation of our culture wars. There are those in our culture that think it is their duty to decide what is and isn't a major story. That's the position that both Burris and Durbin take. To them these incidents are merely isolated incidents that shouldn't be treated as anything more than that. They have obviously ignored the years and years of evidence of wrongdoing by ACORN and now treat these incidents as isolated.

The MSM is doing much the same. There is a collective yawn. Of course, no one should decide what is and is not news. What is or is not news is defined by its worthiness, impact, fascination, verifiability, etc. There are certain characteristics that are either there or they aren't. In this case, the ACORN story has all the characteristics. Some just choose to ignore it regardless.

So, what's happening is that this story is unfolding with some literally standing on the sidelines. There are those that care about this and those that don't. When 83 of 90 Senators vote the exact same way, that's news. We can't get that many Senators to agree to name an airport. Yet, we got that many to agree to defund ACORN. That's news and yet only some in the media This is NOT a partisan issue. Greg Hall is a liberal and a Democrat and he's a former ACORN employee. He knows where the proverbial bodies are buried. He wants ACORN investigated and he isn't shy about saying so. The folks at ACORN 8 are almost universally liberal and Democrat. Many have told me that they believe in ACORN's mission. They want to see a group like ACORN battling for the lower and middle classes in the inner cities.

This isn't a partisan issue but a corruption issue. That should be a bi partisan issue. Corruption isn't liberal or conservative but wrong and it's corrossive. It must be stopped. There is overwhelming evidence that there is something really wrong at ACORN. Yet, we have a schism in our society between those that think this is a very bad thing and those that dismiss it as background noise. That's another reincarnation of our culture wars. There are those that find corruption wrong and want it stopped. Then, there are those that see corruption and dismiss it as minor incidents. Everyone must decide which side they are on.

Another Roadblock to Health Care Reform

They call the legislative process making sausage. That's because the sausage making process is often messy and ugly and the legislative making process no less messy or ugly. Unlike the process of making sausage, the legislative process unfolds in front of us. The latest ugly part of the sausage making process occurred on the Sunday talk shows.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) signaled on Sunday that Senate Democrats were not on board with a plan outlined by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) that would levy a tax on the rich to fund President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

"I think we're going to have a different approach," Durbin said on ABC's "This Week," adding that he was in favor of a package of cuts to the current health care system combined with new streams of revenue.

Here's a nickel's worth of free advice for the Democrats. I suggest they choose a tax to raise and a medical service to cut and go with it. Health care reform is going to cost A LOT. There's only three ways to pay for it: borrow, tax, or cut medical services somewhere else.

All of this back and forth between the Democrats about which tax to raise and which medical service to cut makes it seem as though that is a realization they haven't come to yet. If a tax on the really wealthy isn't politically tennable, then frankly, nothing is.

The Democrats can try, as Durbin put, to find a "package of cuts" to the current system and "a new revenue stream" but that's just code for raising taxing and cutting medical service. As that now infamous saying goes, you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.

The Democrats can use all the euphemisms they want. Three things won't change. Their health care overhaul will cost...A LOT. The only way to pay for it is to borrow, tax or cut medical spending elsewhere. Since borrowing anymore isn't an option, the Democrats will need to find a tax to raise and service to cut and go with it.

Dick Durbin's Timely Trades

The Chicago Sun Times has a story today that raises some serious questions about how Senator Dick Durbin used information he learned during the course of his Senatorial duties.

As U.S. stock markets plummeted last September, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin, sold more than $115,000 worth of stocks and mutual-fund shares and used much of the money to invest in Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

The Illinois senator's 2008 financial disclosure statement shows he sold mutual-fund shares worth $42,696 on Sept. 19, the day after then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke urged congressional leaders in a closed meeting to craft legislation to help financially troubled banks. The same day, he bought $43,562 worth of Berkshire Hathaway's Class B stock, the disclosure shows.

The article goes onto point out that within days the S&P, along with most of the market, began to tank. Durbin got out just before and got himself back in at the beginning of October. Durbin's spokesperson claims that Durbin was merely acting in a prudent manner. The timing is awfully suspicious however.

If you're keeping score, Durbin now joins Charlie Rangel as a Democrat embroiled in a financial scandal. He also joins John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi as Democratic leaders embroiled in scandal. We'll see if the MSM notices that the party that claimed they would "drain the swamp" of corruption has most of its leadership knee deep in it.

Dick Morris Goes Conspiratorial

It's no secret that Dick Morris is no fan of Barack Obama's domestic policies. In fact, Morris has coined the term, depressflation, to describe what he thinks will happen to our economy as a result. He believes we will have significant unemployment, on the level of a depression, at the same time we will have hyperinflation. (as such depressflation) Yet, now, Morris is just downright conspiratorial.

Morris believes that Geithner's plan to rid banks of toxic assets is doomed to fail. After all, the Obama administration has spent the better part of the last couple months demonizing entities like Hedge Funds. Yet, Geithner's plan relies on exactly those entities, like Hedge Funds, that the Obama administration has been demonizing all along. Morris wonders aloud just how the Obama administration expects to get these folks to now join the government in a partnership, the one proposed by Geithner.

In fact, Morris believes that this has all been orchestrated by Obama in order to make sure that Geithner's plan fails. Why? That's because this will leave Obama with no choice so to speak but to nationalize banks. In Morris' view, bank nationalization is Obama's plan all along.

Furthermore, bank nationalization is all part of an even bigger master plan to socialize the country.

Now, I won't speak on Obama's motivation. It's impossible to know what someone's intentions are unless you truly can read minds and I can't. I do know one other thing. President Obama won't get anymore chances if Geithner's plan fails. If President Obama thinks that he will try and do an end run toward nationalization, then he doesn't know as much about politics as he thinks he does. If Geithner's plan fails, then Obama's entire agenda is in jeopardy. If Geithner's plan fails, the credibility of the entire domestic agenda will be questioned.

At that point, the Republicans will be attacking Obama on just about everything. The mood of the public will be for change in philosophical direction. Rather than an appetite for more government control and power, the public will demand less of each. So, while I won't speak to Morris' thesis, I can say for sure that there's no way it will ever happen.

The Windfall Profits Tax: The New Class Warfare

A while back I wrote about how the Democrats have mastered the art of class warfare. In their latest installment comes the windfall profits tax on oil companies.

With gasoline prices topping $4 a gallon, Senate Democrats want the government to grab some of the billions of dollars in profits being taken in by the major oil companies.

Senators were to vote Tuesday on whether to consider a windfall profits tax against the five largest U.S. oil companies and rescind $17 billion in tax breaks the companiesexpect to enjoy over the next decade.

I am no fan of the oil companies but I am even less of a fan of taxes, especially punitive taxes. A so called windfall profits tax is frankly nothing less than fascist. Furthermore, such a tax is not only non productive but likely counter productive. Most companies treat taxes like any other expenses. Raise their taxes and they pass that increase in expenses onto their consumers. Such a tax would almost certainly produce even higher oil prices.

Some of the quotes I have found are just stunning.

The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy," said Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, warning that if energy prices are not reined in "we're going to find ourselves in a deep recession."

Last I checked we live in a country that still values CAPITALISM not SOCIALISM or COMMUNISM. Last I checked, the object of any business, oil companies included, is to maximize profits. That isn't the way my Senator, Dick Durbin, sees it. He thinks they are making too much money.

Now, I have long supposed that oil companies are not competing in a market but rather in an oligopoly. As such, I find their profits obscene, however a windfall profits tax does absolutely nothing to change the dynamic of the corrupted sphere they occupy. Rather, what this does is make a political statement.

The Democrats want to wholly put themselves on the side of the middle class that is struggling to pay for ever rising fuel costs. They want to stick it to the oil companies and say to the middle class

see we are with you and against those greedy SOB's

While that may even work as a political statement, what it really says is that the Democratic party is bankrupt of substantive ideas. Political statements are all well and good but they solve absolutely NO problems. While the Democrats try and punish the oil companies for making too much money, they also refuse to allow drilling in ANWR and several other places loaded with untapped oil. They get into bed with enviromentalist to stop building new refineries and limit the production of nuclear energy. All of these would be tangible steps toward reducing the price of gas in the short term, and making our country energy independent in the long term.

Rather than doing the difficult work of standing up to one of their constituencies, the environmentalists, to make tangible progress on an issue that is now not only economic but a matter of national security, the Democrats have decided to engage in one of the oldest political stunts, class warfare.

The Republicans, for their part, are against this travesty. Mitch McConnell even pointed out its futility in the seventies when Carter tried it. They have also pushed drilling all around this country for untapped oil. On the other hand, the Republicans have been protecting the oil companies like they are relatives. While a small group of companies continues to consistently make obscene amounts of money all at the same time with absolutely no price war, no one in Congress asks any serious questions or does any serious investigations. That would require real work, and it would require challenging serious donor constituencies.

This latest stunt is a prime example of why, America, the lone superpower continues to treat oil like crack rock while Brazil, a third world nation, has become nearly energy independent.

Trifecta from the New York Times on Mortgages

Either I have come late to the game or the New York Times used this week to come out swinging against the mortgage industry. In the last two days, I have featured two separate articles vis a vis mortgage from the New York Times. The articles follow a pattern of narrative of the mainstream and it is a dangerous pattern.

The New York Times takes on a populist message. They side with the borrower against the mortgage broker and the bank (and even against Wall Street). The propose all sorts of legislation that protects the borrower even more against foreclosure and the undefined "predatory lending". For instance they back a bill by Dick Durbin that gives an incentive to go into bankruptcy. Under his bill, a person that goes into bankruptcy can re negotiate the terms of their loan. I assume that means for the better. Not only does this give incentive to go bad, but frankly all good borrowers would scream bloody murder and it would create an obscene amount of legislation.

That is some of the legislation they support in the first and second installment. Here is their third installment. (I believe it is their first in chronology however I found it last). First, the New York Times laments a portion of H.R. 3915 that has been altered.

Industry has already scored some regrettable victories. It persuaded the bill’s backers to include a provision that would prevent borrowers from suing Wall Street firms in state court — where consumer protections are often stronger — for common abusive loan practices.

Here, the New York Times, much like most in the media and unfortunately in Congress as well is dealing with concepts well beyond their grasp. While it may make for a great populist message to say you back allowing borrowers to sue Wall Street if they suffer hardship, this is an absolute nightmare. The first problem is that most people don't understand Wall Street's role and of course the consequences of opening them up to suit. Wall Street creates markets for loans. Whereas banks deal in millions of dollars of loans, Wall Street turns those loans into bonds and deals in hundreds of millions. If each individual borrower could actually go to the securitizer (that is Wall Street or the folks that turn loans into bonds) and sue them because they felt they were wronged, that would open up the litigation floodgates with unknown results. That said, the practical results would be that Wall Street would simply not get involved in securitizing loans.

This is in fact what Wall Street has done already with no legislation. Long ago Wall Street soured on mortgage backed securities and without legislation they have washed their hands of the instrument. The sort of legislation the Times touts would give Wall Street even less incentive to get back into that market. Remember, it is those "evil" Wall Street folks that the Times is dying to attack, that created a market for most of the poor folks to get loans in the first place. Before there was such things as mortgage backed securities, the standard loan usually required 20% down and good credit. It was only the innovation of mortgage backed securities that lead to the revolution in mortgages and created the sophisticated system we have today.

Now, the market in the aftermath of the crisis is threatening that system. Sub prime, the outlet for loans for most of the poor folks the Times pretends to care about, is being threatened out of existence through market forces. By this I mean, Wall Street is refusing to make markets for those loans. Without a market, most of these banks will go under or move out of sub prime. Again, this is happening without the push of any legislation. Now, the Times is supporting legislation that would hold Wall Street liable for bad loans. This gives the folks on Wall Street even less reason to make a market. This is at exactly the time when we need to give them as much reason as possible.

Then, the Times says this...

Another must-pass amendment would adopt sensible underwriting standards for all nontraditional mortgages — not just subprime loans — including a rule that lenders must verify a borrower’s ability to repay. The amendment is crucial because it is not only subprime loans that have turned out to be toxic. Another important proposed change would give borrowers the right to modify an illegal loan, before they’re forced into foreclosure.

The first problem with this philosophy is that the word sensible is vague and difficult to define. In my business, whenever there is legislation that is vague and difficult to define what that means to the consumer is

YOU HAVEN'T SIGNED ENOUGH PAPERWORK YET

If there is legislation passed and all it says is a reference to sensible underwriting standards, then banks will create a sensible underwriting standards disclosure. That is what banks do every single time there is vague legislation and the reason why there a hundred documents to sign and not ten or so. Second, the Times, with their cohorts in Congress, continue with their attack on stated loans. (these are loans in which income is claimed but not verified). While the concept of stated loans gets debated in the halls of the Times, the mortgage market has long rendered its verdict. Stated loans are virtually non existent. If Congress wants to outlaw them completely, that is their prerogative but they will only be following the market. The problem with outlawing stated loans is that it assures that the overwhelming majority of self employed borrowers and real estate investors never get a mortgage. Since they are able to take a plethora of write offs, proving income is virtually impossible. (for real estate investors, there is a complicated mortgage formula too boring to discuss that also makes it impossible)

By throwing out the baby with the bathwater so to speak and outlawing stated loans entirely, all Congress would do is remove their original intent. The market has long ago on its own returned stated loans to their original intent, self employed borrowers and real estate investors. The problem wasn't stated loans but rather that garbage men, secretaries, and janitors, could now claim income even though they were salaried and thus had only lying as a reason to go stated.

The New York Times, along with their cohorts in Congress, don't care much about that or frankly good policy. They have figured out which side they need to be on to look good. Keep in mind that while the Times looks to punish banks, brokers and Wall Street for providing loans to borrowers who "lacked a reasonable ability to pay". It was these same borrowers that willingly agreed to take loans that they either did know, or should have known, they couldn't afford. If the borrower themselves had followed their own reasonable ability to pay philosophy, we wouldn't have this mess. The blame isn't solely on their shoulders however, unlike what the Times, and the Congressional cohorts believe, they must shoulder some of the blame.

The reason this is important is because the crisis will affect everyone. The legislation that will no doubt follow must be sensible. Right now, it is not. The Times is effectively cheerleading for Congress to pass legislation who's sole effect is playing political games at the expense of good policy. Ultimately the only practical effect of these new laws will be that the borrower

HASN'T SIGNED ENOUGH PAPERWORK YET

There are two huge problems with this entire mortgage debate. The first is the naive and uninformed making statements, observations, and recommendations regarding the path forward. The second is the uninformed making policy on how to move forward. The New York Times represents the first and Congress represents the second. The mortgage market is at vulnerable state and the last thing it needs is the contribution of the uninformed.

The New York Times Perpetuates a Dangerous Politically Correct Narrative vis a vis Mortgages

The New York Times contributed to the debate on the mortgage meltdown with this piece. It is exactly this sort of politically correct analysis that leads to the dangerous legislative agenda that Congress currently is wrestling with regarding my industry.

The NY Times lays out several fundamentals. First, the rightly predict that the housing crisis will get worse before it gets better. The rightly predict that things will get even worse when ARM's (which are already adjusting) adjust to higher levels hit borrowers even more. That is the end of any correct assertions that they make regarding the housing market.

They blame Bush for not acting. The problem is there is absolutely nothing the administration or any other politician can do. The current problem is that there is a plethora of people currently in over their heads. They have bought homes they can't afford. There is no political fix for that and furthermore any bailout will only delay the inevitable and pour good public money after bad private money.

They tout a bill by my Senator, Dick Durbin, that would allow rates to be rearranged as part of any bankruptcy. This bill is nothing short of dangerous. If borrowers are allowed to reset their rates artificially as a part of any bankruptcy, then that encourages someone to go into bankruptcy. It also leaves a lot of good borrowers screaming bloody murder.

Here is how the Times sees it.

The bill also undoes a longstanding injustice. Under current law, mortgages on primary homes are the only type of secured debt that is ineligible for bankruptcy protection. Owners of vacation homes, farms and commercial property can modify those debts in bankruptcy court. But not your everyday homeowner. Under any circumstances, that double standard should not be allowed. With a foreclosure debacle unfolding, it must be rectified.

Now, I didn't know that vacation homes and investment properties can be modified, however that is no less dangerous. If that is the case, the proper course of action is to close that loophole not open up a new one. By re arranging the mortgage so that the payment and subsequently the rate is lowered that encourages bankruptcies. Think about it. You have two borrowers. One borrower makes their payments on time and the other one falls behind. The second borrower files for bankruptcy and as part of that bankruptcy has their rate and payment lowered. Not only does that encourage bankruptcies, but frankly opens banks up to all sorts of suits. If you are a borrower that makes your payment on time, and you heard about borrowers having their rates lowered because they were late, what would you do?

This is what the New York Times is suggesting as a good idea. Again, the politically correct narrative has the borrowers as helpless victims that must be protected from future malfeasance. This is simply not true. The borrowers are for the most part irresponsible. The problem is that through irrational exuberance banks and Wall Street opened up a market so that irresponsible borrowers qualified for loans. We, the mortgage broker, gladly put many of these irresponsible borrowers into loans we shouldn't have. These people are no less responsible because of the dynamics I just described. That has long been corrected by the market, however those same people continue to hold onto mortgages that they can't afford.

No politician can fix this current dynamic no matter how much they claim they can. Providing extra protections for borrowers to take advantage of in case they default in the future only encourages more irresponsible borrowers to take on loans. Because no politician or politically correct news organization would ever dare put even a little responsibility on the shoulders of the borrowers, asinine proposals like the one that Durbin is touting are given credibility rather than ridicule.

Senator Durbin Responds on the DREAM Act

This email I received from Senator Durbin gives a window into the philosophy of those that put illegal immigration and the rule of law behind compassion.

Thank you for contacting me about the Development, Relief, and Educationfor Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. I appreciate hearing from you.

The DREAM Act, which I first introduced with bipartisan support in 2003, would provide permanent residence to undocumented young people who have proven their desire to fulfill the American dream.

These young people were brought to the United States as children, when they did not have the independence to make choices on their own. Often, these young people did not discover until much later that the decisions made by their parents left them without a country to call their own. Since arriving here they have attended school, learned English, contributed to their communities, and want to be productive members of our society.

There is currently no way for these deserving young people to legally earn
U.S. permanent residence or citizenship. The DREAM Act simply provides them with
that opportunity. In return, the bill requires that these young people prove
themselves by satisfying several requirements, all of which must be verified by
appropriate documentation.

In order to qualify for residency under the DREAM Act, these members of our communities must have come to our country before the age of 16 and must have lived here for at least five years before the bill becomes law. They must refrain from criminal or immoral behavior, and they must have earned a high school degree. Most importantly, they must either complete two years of college or serve at least two years in the military.

I believe our country would benefit greatly if young people who meet these conditions are given the chance to become U.S. citizens.The DREAM Act would help our military, which faces a serious recruitment crisis. Under the DREAM Act, tens of thousands of well-qualified potential recruits would become eligible for military service. Defense Department officials have said that the DREAM Act is "very appealing" to the military because it would apply to the "cream of the crop" of students. They have concluded that the DREAM Act would begood for readiness.

For those who pursue college, the DREAM Act provides the opportunity to become an American scientist, nurse, teacher, engineer, or an American in any other profession that requires a college education. Since 2003, we have watched intelligent, ambitious students graduate from high school only to end up in low-wage undocumented jobs because they cannot attend college or work legally. As a result, the United States loses future leaders and social vibrancy as well as tax revenue and economic growth.

I understand the concerns some have about the expense of the DREAM Act. This bill does not provide free financial aid to any individual. Although an earlier version ofthe DREAM Act allowed states to decide whether their undocumented students shouldbe eligible for in-state tuition, that provision was later removed. I have led the effort in Congress to make college more affordable for middle-class families, and I will continue to support such efforts.

Some opponents of this legislation suggest that it would encourage illegal immigration or that it would provide amnesty to illegal immigrants. This is not the case. Applicants are required to have already been in the country for at least five years before enactment of the DREAM Act. Furthermore, family members of DREAM Act applicants would remain ineligible for legal status.

I have consistently supported efforts to deter illegal immigration. Soon after the debate on immigration reform, I voted in favor of a Homeland Security Appropriations bill that included $3 billion in emergency funding to ensure quick implementation of the bill's border security provisions. The fact remains, however, that the United States can benefit from the contributions of thousands of hardworking, upstanding young people who have proven themselves and who want to live and uphold the American Dream.In October 2007, the DREAM Act was brought to the floor of the Senate. Although 52 senators - including 11 members of the minority - voted to end a filibuster on the bill, 60 votes were needed to proceed to a final vote. As a result, the DREAM Act did not receive final consideration.

There is no doubt that our current immigration system must be reformed. We need reforms that are tough and enforceable but also fair and consistent with our nation's values. I will continue to support legislation, such as broader enforcement and the DREAM Act, that advances us toward these goals.I hope this letter helps you better understand my support for the DREAM Act. Thank you again for your message.

There is all sorts of equivocation, rationalization and out and out nonsense all throughout this email. Frankly, Durbin said nothing that I didn't expect him to say and so the email is instructive of the belief system of those that don't treat illegal immigration with any seriousness. As I predicted, Durbin appeals to our basest emotion. He wants everyone to have compassion for law breakers. Durbin is absolutely right that this bill only pertains to children of illegals. They had no decision in coming over the border illegally, and for this reason we should have mercy on them and allow them to stay.

The problem is that illegal immigration works much like Pavlov and his mice. If you reward illegal immigration, you encourage more of it. This may not be compassionate and it may win me no friends in certain circles, however it is the reality. While I have sympathy for the folks covered under the DREAM Act, I cannot allow for them to get blanket amnesty. By doing so, more illegals will be encouraged to cross the border in hopes that their children will also be given amnesty. While it may play well politically for Durbin to stand up for the little guy, and it may even open up a new voting block, what it won't do is create good policy.

His reasons for why this won't encourage more illegal immigration do not work for me and here is why. While it is true that they encourage people to be good citizens, it still encourages them to come here illegally and then be good citizens nonetheless. The goal is to end illegal immigration, not merely limit it to illegals that are good citizens.

He goes onto claim that he is in favor of tough enforcement and I guess I am supposed to be impressed because he favored a bill that is one third the net worth of George Soros. I am not. So far the only thing I see is him giving a pathway to citizenship to millions of illegals. Anyone that commits to a pathway to citizenship for illegals before the border is secured is not serious about stopping the flow of illegals.He even goes so far as to claim this bill will help our military. That is the height of hubris. I don't know if this is true and I don't care, because I know that we should be able to build a successful military without legalizing millions of illegals.

What Durbin does is what many who support illegal immigration do. First, he never refers to them as illegals. In this case, they are undocumented. Second, he appeals to the basest emotion, in this case empathy. Third, he lists all of the potential benefits without once addressing any problems. The fact that illegal immigration may have benefits is beside the point. Our country thrived long before a plethora of illegals filtered into our nation. It is ludicrous and insulting to suggest that there are benefits to illegal immigration. There are benefits to all sorts of things that ultimately have a lot more negatives. Hillary Clinton's baby bond idea also has benefits and it doesn't make it any less of a ridiculous idea.

Ultimately, politicians have to decide if they are serious about illegal immigration or if they are pretending. Durbin has decided to pay lip service and it is shameful.

update: Since this was written, the DREAM Act ultimately failed for now however don't think that open borders and amnesty forces are done trying to shove such legislation through.

It looks as though the DREAM Act will come up for a vote today. Senator Reid is trying to fast track this bill through the Senate and is looking for a cloture vote later today. He will need sixty votes in order to accomplish that. Now, according to Michelle their side is having trouble with logistics,

it looks like Dick Durbin is worried about senators showing up for the
vote: “Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the legislation’s chief sponsor, said Tuesday that his biggest challenge was ensuring that supporters, including five senators — four Democrats and one Republican — running for president, make it to the Capitol for the roll call. Another question mark: Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, who are trying to return to California to review wildfire damage…Durbin needs 60 votes to allow the bill to be debated. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said the DREAM Act amounts to a ‘ratification of illegality’ and could provide an incentive for more illegal immigration. ”

Whatever their problems are, now is not the time to rest. Unlike last summer this bill has flown under the radar a la the Vitter Amendment to end sanctuary cities that failed a couple weeks ago. It is time to give it the attention it deserves. Here are the instructions from Numbers USA...

Hi, my name is xmxmxm xmxmxmx. I am calling about S. 2205, the DREAM Act amnesty. I urge the Senator to vote NO on cloture today and kill this amnesty. Thank you." It is going to take a lot of first-timers to pull out a victory when the Senate is expected to vote by mid-day. How about calling and saying something like: "I would like for you to tell Senator xmxmxmxm that giving the DREAM Act amnesty to 2.1 million illegal aliens will send the wrong message to the rest of the world. Ask him to please vote NO on cloture on S. 2205. We don't need to entice a larger wave of illegal immigration." Or this: "There should be no amnesty of any kind until Congress passes laws to stop the hiring of illegal foreign workers. S. 2205 would just invite a lot more illegal aliens to come. Please ask Sen. xmxmxm to vote NO on the DREAM Act amnesty."

Here is the view from the rest of the blogosphere

At one level, it’s understandable that pro-amnesty politicians would be reluctant to invite the press to what was in effect a lobbying session with illegal aliens in the Capitol building. After all, the American people have made it abundantly clear that they disagree with Washington elites on illegal immigration and the in-state tuition. The Dream Act was included in the bipartisan amnesty bill pushed by the White House and Sen. Edward Kennedy that imploded in late June, after Americans deluged their senators with telephone calls, e-mails and faxes protesting the legislation. Last month, Mr. Durbin, with the support of Mr. Hagel and Mr. Lugar, tried to attach the Dream Act as an amendment to the defense authorization bill. But once again, America protested, forcing Mr. Durbin & Co. to shelve the legislation — until today.

and

The DREAM Act positively conveys the benefits and contributions of
immigrants to America. Its passage would send a clear message across the country that immigration is a valued American tradition that is badly in need of a makeover. Senate support of the DREAM Act promotes hardworking immigrant students while expressing a commitment to repairing our broken system.If theDREAM Act Fails to Pass the Senate...

and finally,

2205, which is cosponsored by long-tenured Republicans Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), is, essentially, the same amnesty offered up for consideration by Durbin as an amendment (SA 2919) to H.R. 1585, the Defense Department (DoD) authorization bill for fiscal year 2008. The Senate passed that bill October 1 without ever taking up the DREAM Act amendment or amendments concerning increased worker importation.In this most recent iteration, the DREAM Act authorizes DHS to cancel removal for, or adjust to lawful permanent resident status (in other words, grant amnesty to), an alien who is inadmissible or deportable in cases where the alien demonstrated that he/she: * has maintained continuous presence in the United States for five years and was not yet 16 years old upon initial entry, but is no older than 30 years of age;* is of “good moral character” and is not inadmissible or deportable on certain criminal grounds or on the basis of being a risk to national security;

It really comes down to whether we become compassionate to law breakers or we are people that believe in the rule of law. It is your choice. Here is a way to reach your Senator. Let your voice be heard.

UPDATE:Here is my email to my Senator Barack Obama

Today there will be a vote on the so called DREAM Act. I suspect, Senator, that you support this bill which would legalize millions of people that came here illegally. Since the illegals in question are children and minors, I suspect that this is a great opportunity for you to flex your compassionate credentials.

When you let emotion interfere with making policy, what we all get is bad policy. Illegal immigration is a cancer on our society and our elected officials must do everything to encourage less of it. This bill would encourage more of it and that is unacceptable. Your record proves that you have more sympathy for people who came to this country illegally than you do for the rule of law.

While it maybe good politics to find a poor helpless teenager and get
behind them and their plight, it isn't good policy and we, theAmerican people, are onto all of you. We will hold all of those who perpetuate illegal immigration responsible for their actions.Last week, you missed a vote to make sanctuary cities, like ours, Chicago, illegal. I am sure you had an important rally or townhall meeting, however your non vote contributed to the amendment failing and now my fair city can continue to ignore criminal illegal aliens in its borders.

I believe that George Soros is the puppet master for your party and he is a strong proponent of open borders which eventually lead to one world government. Your actions and words lead me to conclude that your position is very little different from his. You said you stood with millions of illegal immigrants when they marched for rights they had no business receiving. You voted against an amendment that would have barred all criminals, gang members, and terrorists from entering our nation, and you even voted against an amendment that simply
would have committed our government to finally follow the laws already on the books.

You have an opportunity to show me that I am wrong and that you are not a puppet of George Soros by voting against this bill and I hope you take it.Now, it is your turn, call, fax and email and pass along your own thoughts on the matter and any responses from the powers that be.

ANOTHER UPDATE:One for two everyone, according to Michelle Malkin the cloture vote has failed, so the forces against illegal immigration have won this round, however all we have now is the status quo. We had a chance last week to outlaw sanctuary cities. Keep in mind all Democratic Senators buy Mary Landrieu either voted against it or didn't vote at all. Contact each and every Senator and tell them that sanctuary cities are unacceptable and that the amendment must be looked at again.

THE LAST UPDATE REALLY!!

Here is the roll call.There are a few names of note. Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama rushed back to Washington to vote in favor of amnesty. This is important because they didn't even bother to vote on the Vitter Amendment that would have outlawed sanctuary cities, like the one Senator Obama lives in Chicago. They are obviously paying homage to George Soros and his open borders, one world government philosophy and I will leave it up to the folks to decide if that is the vision of America you have.

Hat tip again goes out to Numbers USA. The DREAM Act stands for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act. What it does is legalizes illegals who came here as minors and also stayed out of trouble after they came here. If you ever wanted an illegal immigration bill that pulled at your compassionate heart strings, this one is it. Here is a great example of the sort of tug at your heart string story you will see. This one is about a 24 year old college student from the state of Washington.

After graduating in June with a degree in social work from Eastern
Washington University, a 24-year-old Tacoma woman — the first in her family to go to college — returned to the campus this week to begin pursuing a master's degree.After that, she'll probably seek her doctorate.

She acknowledges that she's only delaying the inevitable, knowing that as an illegal immigrant she won't find employment as a social worker.

Going to school is a way to "kill time, while I wait for something to give," said the woman, who asked that her name not be used.

The break she seeks could come this week, if the U.S. Senate votes on an amendment to a Department of Defense spending bill allowing illegal immigrants to earn legal status by enrolling in college or entering the military for two years.

This is exactly the sort of bleeding heart bills the Democrats are famous for. It is in the same mold as minimum wage, SCHIP, and Title IX. They pick a victim, someone that is sympathetic, and they make a bill that sides with the victim. This is a tried and true political strategy and DREAM is no different.

Make no mistake folks. Once there is a path to citizenship for illegals, any illegals, more of them will flood in. I have long ago compared illegal immigration to Pavlov's work with mice. It all comes down to motivation. If illegals think their kids can get citizenship, more of them will be motivated to come here. Any bill, any act, that creates more motivation for future illegal immigrants to come to this country is one that furthers this crisis. This is just such a bill.

There is more though. According to Numbers USA, the bill is being brought for a vote under the cover of darkness. Here is how Numbers USA described it in their email.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has invoked Rule 14 on the new stand-alone DREAM Act amnesty! That means he is setting up Senate procedure to spring the amnesty at any time without hearings or committee action.

For the Majority Leader to invoke Rule 14 means that he can bring a bill to a floor without it going through the debate and markup of a committee.

Rosemary Jenks, our NumbersUSA Director of Government Relations, says, "Generally when Rule 14 is invoked, it means the leadership intends to have a vote on the bill in fairly short order."Under the rule, the amnesty bill (S. 2205) can be brought up as early as Tuesday.

The rule also allows Sen. Reid to wait until our forces are distracted and bring it at any time in the future at the spur of the moment.So, we need all of you hitting up your Senators' offices all over again starting Monday with phone calls and faxes.

Besides Reid, the chief culprits in this mess are Senate Assistant Majority Leader Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Hagel (R-Neb.) and Sen. Lugar (R-Ind.). I hope you will feel free from anywhere in the country to let these four Senators know how you feel about their aggressive leadership to pass this amnesty.

As anyone reading this, the forces for unfettered illegal immigration are Dick Durbin, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, and Harry Reid. These Senators need to hear from the American people. Expect the forces of illegal immigration to call those of us that favor the rule of law: racist, heartless, nativist, and Anti Hispanic.

It is very easy to take the compassionate position, but it is also, in this case, the worst kind of policy. In this case, it is also politically astute. Whoever gets this law passed will also be able to pick up millions of new voters to register and vote for them. Bad policy can be exposed for what it is. There are exponentially more people hurt by the cancer that is illegal immigration and we all need to be aware, alert, and most importantly active. It has been a bad couple of weeks for all of us that want the cancer of illegal immigration to be dealt with. The bill to end sanctuary cities was defeated in the Senate (with only one Democrat voting to end sanctuary cities). In my homestate, Illinois, there is a bill going through the State Senate that will allow illegals to get driver's licenses. Now, we have a bill that will give millions of illegals a path to citizenship.

Winning and Losing in Iraq and at Home

Michael Totten has published his latest piece from Iraq. It shows both the successes and the complexities of the situation there. I am really impressed by how well our troops now understand the complexities of the society over there...

“Do you think your friendship with the locals is genuine?” I askedLieutenant Colonel Silverman. Ramadi is in the heart of Iraq’s Sunni Triangle, the most anti-American region in all of Iraq. I had seen what appeared to be genuine friendship and warmth from the Iraqis I’d met, but it was impossible to tell from anecdotal experience if that sentiment was typical in Anbar Provinceor even real.“I do,” he said. “Don’t just assume Iraqis are faking their friendship.

The first time I was here in 2003 I made friends with locals in Salah a Din Province. They still email and call me to talk even though they know there is nothing I can do for them now that I’m out here in Ramadi. Some of the people we work with just want to make money. For them it’s all business and has nothing to do with their private opinions of us. But most really do want to make Iraq better. You can tell when you interact with people one-on-one if they’re sincere. You can see right through people who are insincere. Many of these guys have been in fire fights with us, so I know they’re on our side.”

it continues...

“The average Iraqi post-Fallujah was not very happy with us being here,” he said. “If the insurgency only attacked Americans, the people of Ramadi would not have been very upset. But Al Qaeda infiltrated and took over the insurgency.They massively overplayed their hand. They cut off citizens’ heads with kitchen knives. The locals slowly learned that the propaganda about us were lies, and that Al Qaeda was their real enemy. They figured out by having dinner and tea with us that we really are, honest to God, here to help them.”

Anbar Province as a whole isn’t completely secured yet. But most areas have been cleared, and it’s increasingly difficult for terrorists and insurgents to evenshow up in the province let alone find refuge there.“Anbar Province allalong the Euphrates used
to be one huge rat line for getting terrorists intoBaghdad from Syria,” he said. A rat line, in military speak, is an enemylogistics route. “That’s over.”“Do you think what happened here canhappen in Baghdad?” I said.He sat motionless for a time and consideredcarefully what I had asked him. It was obvious by the look on his face that hewasn’t particularly optimistic about it.“I don’t know,” he finally said. “One advantage we had here was that the tribes are like small communities, like in rural America. The sheikhs are politically powerful. If we turn them, weturn the people. Urban areas erode tribal affiliation. It’s still there inBaghdad, but it’s weaker. So I don’t know. It did work in the urban parts ofRamadi, though. If we can get it to work in all the provinces in Iraq – and itis working in Diyala Province right now, I know it is – then maybe it can work in Baghdad.

It’s hard to say.”He’s right that the formula works inDiyala Province, and in Salah a Din Province as well. Both provinces, likeAnbar, are made up mostly of Sunni Arabs and have had similar troubles with AlQaeda in Iraq. Even some tribes in the Shia South are beginning to emulate theAnbar model and work with the Americans against Shia militias.

At this point, it is beyond arguement that our administration went into Iraq without even the basic knowledge of the complexities of the relationships in their country and complexities of the relationship in their society, however reading any interview with any military person that is no longer the case. Their society structure is now being used in our favor. In other words, our troops now know how to win Iraq.Then, there is this article from J.C. Watts

I once heard a fellow say, "If you don't believe it, it's not because there's not
enough evidence for you to believe it."As in so many circumstancesin politics, this pearl of wisdom applies to the war in Iraq. Democratleadership keeps saying they don't and won't believe that we're having successin Iraq, but it's not because things aren't going favorably for the good guys.Such is the case with the Democrat leadership on all matters Iraq. Maybeit's just me, but I'm thinking the Democrats have invested a lot in seeing theUnited States not win in Iraq. So many have invested politically in ournon-success that they don't want to hear truth and they ignore evidence.Conversely, Republicans were so politically invested in winning that we ignoredDefense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's failed war policies early on.

For evidence of this failed investment, one needs to look no further than their local headlines before Gen. David Petraeus testified before Congress. Talk abouta rush to pre-judgment."Democrats Already Discrediting Upcoming PetraeusReport," bannered an ABCNews.com story. Leaving any doubt that Sen. Harry Reidknows the heart and mind of one of the most respected military leaders ourcountry has produced, the majority leader proclaimed, "(Petraeus' report) willpass through the White House spin machine, where facts are often ignored ortwisted, and intelligence is cherry-picked."As if that weren'tconclusive enough, Reid impugned the general's integrity with this gem:

"He has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be
factual."Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois came out with this whopper. "Even if the figures are right, the conclusion is wrong."And, perhaps my favorite of all, wanna-be president Sen. Joe Biden -- a self-proclaimed civilian expert on foreign affairs -- had the impudence the week before his testimony to declare Petraeus is "flat, dead wrong."Frankly, I agree with those who believe the execution of the war under Rumsfeld was abysmal. Sen. John McCain and others were correct when they said at the outset of the war that we didn't have enough troops in play.

Before anyone pulls our troops out, we all must ask then what...