Thanks a lot feminists. Thanks a whole lot.

Just saw a piece on Fox News about women chances of getting married after age 30 -- seems that they are plummeting dramatically. By age 35, women have a 5% chance of getting married.

Fabulous.

The reasons for this were a huge mystery to those on the stage and in the audience apparently as the cry went out for information on the steps to getting married. Why, why, oh why in the world was this happening they all wanted to know.

One of the hosts offered that given that women are financially more independent, there is no NEED to get married. The other host stated that since we are living longer, there is no need to get married younger. (The latter was male and apparently has never heard of menopause.)

The guest who put her theories forth seemed perfectly content with these findings and even pleased as punch that this was happening since clearly it showed the independence and strength of women. As if women lost that the moment they say "I do."

Doesn't anyone realize exactly what kind of strength and independence it takes to be married and a mother? Is that not even recognized as a value anymore?

The answer to the mystery of why women are not getting married anymore is quite simple. Men do not have to get married anymore.

Women are moving in and washing their socks and underwear, bearing children and all without a ring on their finger....wondering why they don't have a ring on their finger and thinking all the while not how free they are but how free their husband is......to leave.

The only group that benefitted from the sexual revolution is promiscuous men afraid of commitment. Great result, eh?

What is the reason why marriage takes place in the first place? To form a bond, blessed by God and to have children. By taking away the shame of having children out of wedlock, mocking abstinence until marriage and encouraging young women to run hog wild with their boy-chasing, men have got it made. There is no reason for men to get married whatsoever anymore unless they happen to fall in love with a woman who values herself enough to set boundaries and not set up house until there is a marriage ceremony.

The result of this madness is going to be children brought up also not knowing boundaries, probably fatherless and with no instruction on how to act in a relationship except for that old 60's mantra, "feels good, so do it..." All that has done is broken hearts, passed on disease, devalued women and made the family a vanishing commodity. What a sterling legacy!

To the woman in the Fox audience who wanted to know how to get married -- simple, my friend. Find a man who values you outside of the bedroom as well as inside the bedroom. have some respect for yourself and not look merely for someone who will fufill your every whim, but someone that you love first and foremost. If both of you love each other totally, putting each others needs first, there will be few problems.

Truth of the matter? No one is perfect. And if you look for perfection, you will be sadly disappointed. Only one man was perfect and he was crucified for it. Make a list of those things that you cannot stand about the person you are involved with -- if you can stand those things for the rest of your life (and believe me, they do not disappear with time), then chances are good they will not break you apart.

Find someone who has the same belief system as you do. It is those large questions of life -- spiritual, religious, financial, philosophical, even political -- that come into play particularly when children enter the picture. Beware of letting those practical things fly out of the window "cause he's soooooo cute..."

Figure out what is truly important to you and what your intended adds to that and what you add to your intended's life. Do you constantly complain about what he/she is NOT doing or are you praising what he/she IS doing? Is he/she someone who makes you laugh at the darkest moments of your life? Is he/she someone who loves you when the chips are really down -- would you do the same for them or would you heap more problems on the situation?

And for the ladies once you are married -- are you someone he would want to come home to? Is your house a haven from the rest of the world that beats on the two of you daily or do you bring that hell into your house with you?

Sure, it may seem old-fashioned. I remember my mother every day going in and brushing her hair and putting on a tiny bit of makeup and changing to a clean shirt or something along those lines when Dad was coming home. My mother wrapped her world around him and there were times I wondered why -- he was, as many former intelligence/military types could be -- a bit on the cold side. But when she was diagnosed with Alzheimers, you couldn't pry him away from her with a crowbar. She had the best of care at home from him for years and when his health finally started to fail, he went every day without fail to spend the entire day with her at the nursing home.

In every way, they were completely devoted to each other. Oh, they had their disagreements, but let there be no doubt that they truly had the unconditional love thing down pat.

It is sad to me that there are women out there today who truly have never known love -- real love. Or what it takes to find love. You don't lose yourself when you get married -- you just find your other half. In many ways, you can become more of a person than ever before.

If you do the whole thing backwards, though, you do lose yourself in the process. And more often than not, are left packing up the responsibilities you took on as a non-married yet married person and shouldering that burden alone until you stumble into the next non-married yet married relationship. And so the cycle continues, each time picking up more baggage, each time leaving with more responsibilities, more debt and more bitter. Until you are a mere shadow of the lovely person you once were.

That is equality?

No thank you.

Look at this week's columns....

It is becoming apparent even to the Washington chattering class that things aren't all sunshine and roses......what is it going to take for those elected to wake up and smell Rome burning?

Ruffled Republican feathers
by Tony Blankley 05/31
With Congress out of town for a week, it gives the nation a chance
to lick our wounds before having to endure the next round of
damaging blows to the body politic.
Why not ban abortion now?
by Terence Jeffrey 05/31
When I asked Mehlman whether the pro-life issue was good
for Republicans, his response was instantaneous. "Absolutely,"
he said.
Republican hypocrisy
by Linda Chavez 05/31
What is going on with Republicans in Congress? They've largely
abandoned many traditional conservative principles -- smaller
government, belief in the free market and protection of individual,
not group, rights.
Since when is Congress worried about the separation of power
by Jacob Sullum 05/31
Confronted by a president who asserts the prerogative to ignore
the will of Congress whenever he thinks national security requires
it, our brave representatives in Washington are squabbling over
who gets to watch when the FBI thumbs through their corrupt
colleagues' calendars.
The President says it again
by William F. Buckley 05/30
The broad shoulders of a national election loom just ahead. It is
traditional to deplore elections as distracting from courses charted
by celestial coordinates. Sure; OK; much of this is true. But elections
also ratify, or fail to do so, politicians who have set forth national
policy.
Lessons from the immigration war
by Cal Thomas 05/30
The war now being waged in Congress over illegal immigration is
mostly about which philosophy will prevail in the Republican Party.
Will it be the conservative wing that brought the GOP to power
after years of wandering in the political wilderness as a minority
party, or will it be the moderate-liberal wing that became
comfortable in the wilderness?
Conservatives must hold firm on immigration
by David Limbaugh 05/31
The prevailing mentality among Beltway Republicans is that
passage of an imperfect immigration bill before the November
elections is better than no bill at all. They might just find out
how wrong they are when they experience the inevitable
conservative backlash.
The case for extremism
by Jonah Goldberg 05/31
Americans love their angry moderates, their principled
centrists and their predictable independents almost as much
as they love jumbo shrimp and other oxymorons.

And of course, do not miss Jacoby's column in the Boston Globe...
..it's a doozy. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion
/oped/articles/2006
/05/31/the_crumbling_gop_base/
"The Crumbling GOP Base". Any other good news out there?

So what, then, shall we do, fellow conservatives?

Thank you, Center for Union Facts

An EXCELLENT new ad from a relatively new organization in town that has union bosses enraged across the country. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114799623004157251-b90oY39FQ_I90MpA2sF_6ti1D_I_20060617.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Good.

So that others may be free.....

Cindy Sheehan asked President Bush, "Why did my son have to die in Iraq?"

Another mother asked President Kennedy, "Why did my son have to die in Viet Nam?"

Another mother asked President Truman, "Why did my son have to die in Korea?"

Another mother asked President F.D. Roosevelt, "Why did my son have to die at Iwo Jima?"

Another mother asked President W. Wilson, "Why did my son have to die on the battlefield of France?"

Yet another mother asked President Lincoln, "Why did my son have to die at Gettysburg?"

And yet another mother asked President G. Washington, "Why did my son have to die near Valley Forge?"

Then long, long ago, a mother asked, "Heavenly Father, why did my Son have to die on a cross outside of Jerusalem?"

The answers to all these are similar -- "that others may have life and dwell in peace, happiness and freedom."

This was emailed to me with no author and I thought the magnitude and the simplicity were awesome.

Do you know what a real hero is?

At least once a week, sometimes more, I scour the obituary columns specifically to look for veterans of WWII who have passed away. I read their obituaries and usually, their war stories that their families have lovingly collected over the years.

The obits I specifically look for, though, are the ones that mention the OSS -- the Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor to the CIA. Those are usually not so detailed. They might give locations of service, but never the recognizable names -- Normandy, Bataan, D-Day, etc. Just very vague service mentions.

Every once in a while, there are mentions of military awards given to these OSS alums. Read about one gentleman who received the bronze star from the legendary founder of the OSS "Wild Bill" Donovan, himself.

I wish to God I knew even a little bit more about my father's record in the OSS.

What I do know, was told to me at unguarded moments, usually fueled by a gin and tonic, or by my mother who somehow got a story or two out of him. One time I found his discharge paper from the OSS taped underneath a file drawer. I made the mistake of telling my father of my discovery and have never seen it since.

When my father died, I called the military service office that handles the life insurance claims -- he had kept up the payments for years. It wasn't a great deal of money, but the reaction of the young, clearly unflappable serviceman on the other end of the phone was curious. I gave him the information -- Name, Social Security number, branch of service, Army Air Corps.

He offered his condolences then typed the information into the computer. Silence. He asked me to hold as he called a "higher up" to come over and see the "problem" he had discovered.

I asked if there was a problem. He said, "No, Ma'am. I just have never quite seen anything like this. You see, there is his name, the Social Security number and the payment record, but the rest of the screen is blank. Absolutely blank. Nothing there. Frankly, ma'am, I don't know what to make of it. We'll send you the check, but this is a new one on us."

I knew what that was about. At the end of the war, one of my father's assignments was to interrogate returning soldiers who were under suspicion for one reason or another, of theft of valuables taken by the Nazis, etc. Since it was an administrative position, he was able to transfer himself to the file room of the Pentagon.

As he told me, "I had a cigarette in one hand and my file in another and gosh, things happen."

He had burned his file and replaced it with another, extremely innocuous file.

The first clue that this story was true was this interaction with the military insurance office.

Finally, having two sons prompted me to want to find out more than just the stories that I had carefully written down over the years told to me by my father. There was always a point that he got a far away look in his eyes, then looked at me sternly and would say quietly, "let's not...."

I knew never to ask. But I wanted his grandsons to know something, anything. Maybe see the medals he received since I have not been able to locate anything except his pilots wings, a flight suit and his parachute. Don't get me wrong -- I treasure those things. But given the stories I had heard, there had to be medals. He had served in Italy, France, the Phillipines -- all over the world, all behind enemy lines in the most dangerous of circumstances. When he left the OSS, he was enraged at how Bill Donovan had been treated that I would imagine that he had thrown his medals into the ocean or some such thing. Dad had no use for such things as it was.

I wrote to the military headquarters that keeps track of those things and filled out the paperwork and asked for his service record and any and all awards, citations, etc.

It came back that he was a career counselor, basically, and that he was stateside the entire time.

As I sat here on Memorial Day prayerfully thanking those who served our nation to keep us free, naturally, I thought about my father. He wanted no attention whatsoever for his service, no Arlington burial, no hoopla, not even a book written about him. Yet I heard the same stories about his "capers" as he called them, from his compatriots in the OSS while I was growing up. All of them are long gone now.

And did my father serve stateside as that "file" said?

I have a picture of him raising the flag at Santo Tomas in the Phillipines, having liberated the prisoners of the Japanese there. Behind that picture stuffed in the frame was a typed list of all of the people liberated from that prisoner of war camp.

The flag had been delivered on orders from Douglas MacArthur by Capt. Sam Wilson, one of my father's dearest friends, also in the OSS. Wilson had asked my father to lead the "caper" because he couldn't do it himself -- his wife and children were held captive there and Sam wanted the best to go in and do it without emotion, but get the job done.

And there is is, in black and white, just as my father had told me. No dissembling, no exaggeration. And no medals or need for fanfare.

God bless him, and the nameless, faceless heroes who have done what they did and continue to do so that we can live in and breathe the air of freedom.

That, my friends is a real hero and thank God there are more like him.

The President's radio address on Memorial Day weekend

Thank you to all the Veterans who gave their lives for the cause of freedom --
you will not be forgotten. We are eternally in your debt -- one that we can
never truly repay. We should lift up in prayer those families who have lost
loved ones in battle and to those who wait anxiously now while their loved
ones stand courageously between us and those who would do us harm. To
our military currently serving around the world -- may God continue to protect
you in your service. Thank you for all that you do. -- KD

From the President:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_____________________________
Embargoed Until Delivery
At 10:06 A.M. EDT
Saturday, May 27, 2006

RADIO ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE NATION

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This Memorial Day weekend,
Americans pay tribute to those who have given their lives in
service to our Nation. America is free because generations of
young Americans have been willing to sacrifice to defend the
country they love, so their fellow citizens could live in liberty.

This weekend, I am visiting some of the brave men and women
who will soon take their own place in the defense of our freedom
-- the 2006 graduating class at West Point. This was the first
class to arrive at West Point after the attacks of September the
11th, 2001. Each of them came to West Point in a time of war,
knowing all the risks and dangers that come with wearing our
Nation's uniform. And the reality of that war has surrounded
them since their first moments at the Academy. Thirty-four
times since they arrived at West Point, they have observed a
moment of silence to honor a former cadet fallen in the war on
terror.

One of those former cadets was First Lieutenant Rob Seidel,
a 2004 West Point graduate who gave his life in Iraq earlier
this month. Rob grew up in Maryland, and as a child he and
his family made frequent visits to the Civil War battlefield at
Gettysburg, and from his earliest days he dreamed of serving
in the U.S. Army. He deployed to Iraq with the 10th Mountain
division and was killed by a bomb in Baghdad. His father says
this about Rob: "He loved his family, and believed in God, and
he loved his country, and he was willing to pay the ultimate
sacrifice on behalf of his country."

We live in freedom because of young Americans like Lieutenant
Rob Seidel. And in recent days in Iraq, we've seen what their
sacrifices have made possible. A week ago, the new Prime
Minister of Iraq announced the formation of a national unity
government. British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently visited
Baghdad to meet with Prime Minister Maliki and Iraq's new
leaders, and this week he came to the United States to give me
his impressions. Prime Minister Blair told me that Iraq's new
leaders are determined to rid their country of terrorism, unite
Iraqis as one people, and deliver peace and prosperity for all
their citizens.

The formation of a democratic government in Iraq marks a
victory for the cause of freedom in the Middle East. It is a
victory for millions of Iraqis who defied the terrorists and
cast their ballots in three elections last year. It is a victory
for the Iraqi Security Forces, who fought and bled for this
moment, and now have a democracy worthy of their sacrifice.
And it is a victory for the American, British, and other
coalition forces who removed a murderous dictator who
threatened the world. Because of their courage and sacrifices,
Iraq has a free government that will be a strong and capable
ally in the global war on terror.

The new government in Iraq is also a defeat for the
terrorists, who fought the arrival of a free and democratic
Iraq with all the hateful power they could muster. Now, a
day that they feared has arrived. The terrorists can kill
the innocent, but they cannot stop the advance of freedom.
We can expect the terrorists to continue bombing and
killing, but something fundamental has changed: The
terrorists are now fighting a free and constitutional
government. They are at war with the people of Iraq.
The Iraqi people and their new leaders are determined
to defeat this enemy, and so is the United States of America.

This Memorial Day weekend, we remember First
Lieutenant Seidel and the brave Americans of every
generation who have given their lives for freedom,
liberated the oppressed, and left the world a safer
and better place. And the best way to honor America's
fallen heroes is to carry on their fight, defend our freedom,
and complete the mission for which they gave their lives.

Thank you for listening.

Are your children out of control? Is your love life a mess?

This is not my usual post by a long shot. But lately, I have friends who either have children who are completely out of control or are doing remarkably dumb things in their love lives and wonder why it isn't working out so well for them.

I think we have the feminist movement to thank for invading even conservative women's psyche and convinced them that their children should never have boundaries, should never be told "no" and whatever is most convenient for the parent rules the day.

Pretty similar on the man front as well. Strong, capable, conservative women seem to be moving into their significant other's households without a ring and a date, making every mistake known to mankind and then wondering why they aren't married or happy.

Is this a new epidemic or something that has been going on for a while and it just was never discussed before? Whatever the case, it is utterly bizarre what seems to be happening out there.

Example: Went to a birthday party the other day with older son. Birthday boy gets a present that he already has. Typical of the age (five years old), he says the first thing that comes to his mind which is "I already have that toy."

Now, what do you thing the parents should have done there? Maybe, told the child to be thankful for the present and thank the guest and say not another word about it? Nope, they looked expectantly at the parents of the child who gave the gift. They immediately ran over and said, "Of course we will get you something else.....now what would you like to have"....in a sea of apologies.

The birthday boy looked and acted like he owned the place as he proceeded to run the household, talk back to his mother, use unkind words and not ONCE say "thank you" or show in any way a grateful heart.

Another example: Several mothers were talking at my son's pre-school about how their children do not stay in bed once put in bed for the night. They talked about how little Johnny just didn't like his sheets or little Suzie had to be cuddled until she went to sleep or how little Bobby would find every excuse in the world to get out of bed and end up sleeping every night in the parents bed.

Are the children running those households? Have they ever been given boundaries or instead a series of choices?

Another example: One conservative mother I know who is remarkably accomplished, intelligent, well-schooled, has two children. She has spent most of her time on her career, and as a single mother, I understand the need for that. But what time she does spend with her children seems to be assuaging her guilt for not spending more time with them. Heaven help my children if they ever talked to me they way her children disrespect her. She lets bedtimes slide and has to plead with her children to obey in the smallest way. Everything is a debate and they usually win.

The kicker to this is that she has moved in with a man without a ring and a date. Now, I know that cohabitation is common and considered quite normal. Yep, that sexual revolution has done an awful lot for men who have commitment issues and healthy libidos, but not a lot for the women who go through the pain of wondering if their lives have any sort of security whatsoever? And what does this cohabitation say to the children? Once again, it validates disrespect of the mother.

My heart truly breaks for those that have problems with their children or problems in their personal relationships -- and while that is not the normal subject of what I write about, I would like to reach out to those who do have questions about these areas of concern.

There are ways to have a loving, harmonious household no matter what the situation might currently be. There are ways to find and marry the true love of your life, or repair a marriage.

What is not acceptable is raising children to be anything BUT productive, responsible citizens and by the looks of things, the cell phone, IPod, give-them-whatever-they-want (except time) thing isn't working out. The little girls wandering around constantly text messaging boys, half dressed and on their way to being worn out, not married and with no education or hope for a future because of the wrong priorities......the little boys who are continually called by these little girls and then get called every name in the book if they don't take advantage of these young girls.....this generation suffering the consequences of absentee parents or parents who just haven't a clue about boundaries.... And for the women who think that equality is through a bedroom door or found by moving in with their significant other thinking that they will not suffer consequences, think again. The one consequence that most likely will not be enjoyed is a healthy marriage.

So. Let's talk about this. Either email through this site or respond and let's see if the problem can't be solved. It is critical that the next generation not continue and expand upon the bad habits that seem to be taking root right now.

Yes, I will get back to issues momentarily. But this has been weighing on my heart lately, so I thought I'd throw a line out and see what happens.

Anyone else have the shakes?

Going through "24" withdrawal.

Monday nights were sacred time with Jack Bauer. He is now on a slow boat to China, being tortured, while we are being tortured by not having "24" back on until January, 2007. What, is this "The Sopranos"?

A suggestion to the writers -- VERY glad that Kim Bauer did not play a major role this year. I am quite certain that she is a very nice young actress, but I don't think anyone on planet Earth ever had such rotten luck as Kim Bauer.

And come on, you have to love Jean Smart as the First Lady. Redeemed at last! Was it just me, or were there some sparks there between Aaron the Secret Service guy and Jean Smart?

Finally, what is the vote on Audrey? She is FAR better than most of Jack's lady loves, but I'm still not digging her too much. At least she isn't completely helpless, but ya know, there is some factor missing from her that is close to annoying.

At any rate, January, 2007. A lifetime away, friends.

Just call him DC Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh...

Dems who voted for cloture last night on the Kavanaugh nomination:

Biden
Byrd
Carper
Feinstein
Kohl
Landireu
Lieberman
Lincoln
Nelson
Nelson
Obama
Pryor

Dems who voted for confirmation:

Byrd
Carper
Landriue
Nelson (NE)

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under

the direction of the Secretary of the Senate Vote Summary

Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Brett M. Kavanaugh
of Maryland to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the D.C. Circuit )

Vote Number: 159
Vote Date: May 26, 2006, 08:58 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2

Vote Result: Nomination Confirmed

Nomination Number: PN1179

Nomination Description:
Brett M. Kavanaugh, of Maryland, to be United States
Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit

Vote Counts:

YEAs
57

NAYs
36

Not Voting
7

Vote Summary
By Senator Name
By Vote Position
By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Nay; Alexander (R-TN), Yea; Allard (R-CO), Yea;
Allen (R-VA), Yea; Baucus (D-MT), Nay; Bayh (D-IN), Nay;
Bennett (R-UT), Yea; Biden (D-DE), Nay; Bingaman (D-NM), Nay;
Bond (R-MO), Yea; Boxer (D-CA), Not Voting; Brownback (R-KS), Yea;
Bunning (R-KY), Yea; Burns (R-MT), Yea; Burr (R-NC), Yea;
Byrd (D-WV), Yea; Cantwell (D-WA), Nay; Carper (D-DE), Yea;
Chafee (R-RI), Yea; Chambliss (R-GA), Yea; Clinton (D-NY), Nay;
Coburn (R-OK), Yea; Cochran (R-MS), Yea; Coleman (R-MN), Yea;
Collins (R-ME), Yea; Conrad (D-ND), Not Voting; Cornyn (R-TX), Yea;
Craig (R-ID), Yea; Crapo (R-ID), Yea; Dayton (D-MN), Nay;
DeMint (R-SC), Yea; DeWine (R-OH), Yea; Dodd (D-CT), Nay;
Dole (R-NC), Not Voting; Domenici (R-NM), Yea; Dorgan (D-ND), Nay;
Durbin (D-IL), Nay; Ensign (R-NV), Yea; Enzi (R-WY), Yea;
Feingold (D-WI), Nay; Feinstein (D-CA), Nay; Frist (R-TN), Yea;
Graham (R-SC), Yea; Grassley (R-IA), Yea; Gregg (R-NH), Yea;
Hagel (R-NE), Yea; Harkin (D-IA), Nay; Hatch (R-UT), Yea;
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea; Inhofe (R-OK), Yea; Inouye (D-HI), Not Voting;
Isakson (R-GA), Yea; Jeffords (I-VT), Nay; Johnson (D-SD), Nay;
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay; Kerry (D-MA), Nay; Kohl (D-WI), Nay;
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea; Landrieu (D-LA), Yea; Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay;
Leahy (D-VT), Nay; Levin (D-MI), Nay; Lieberman (D-CT), Nay;
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay; Lott (R-MS), Yea; Lugar (R-IN), Yea;
Martinez (R-FL), Yea; McCain (R-AZ), Yea; McConnell (R-KY), Yea;
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay; Mikulski (D-MD), Nay; Murkowski (R-AK), Yea;
Murray (D-WA), Nay; Nelson (D-FL), Nay; Nelson (D-NE), Yea;
Obama (D-IL), Nay; Pryor (D-AR), Nay; Reed (D-RI), Nay;
Reid (D-NV), Nay; Roberts (R-KS), Yea; Rockefeller (D-WV), Not Voting;
Salazar (D-CO), Not Voting; Santorum (R-PA), Yea; Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay;
Schumer (D-NY), Nay; Sessions (R-AL), Yea; Shelby (R-AL), Yea;
Smith (R-OR), Yea; Snowe (R-ME), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea;
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay; Stevens (R-AK), Yea; Sununu (R-NH), Yea;
Talent (R-MO), Yea; Thomas (R-WY), Yea; Thune (R-SD), Not Voting;
Vitter (R-LA), Yea; Voinovich (R-OH), Yea; Warner (R-VA), Yea;
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Vote Summary
By Senator Name
By Vote Position
By Home State
Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---57
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC) Byrd (D-WV) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) DeWine (R-OH) Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE)
Roberts (R-KS) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---36
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM) Cantwell (D-WA) Clinton (D-NY) Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR)
Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 7
Boxer (D-CA) Conrad (D-ND) Dole (R-NC)
Inouye (D-HI) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO)
Thune (R-SD)

Vote Summary
By Senator Name
By Vote Position
By Home State

Grouped by Home State

Alabama:
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea

Alaska:
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea

Arizona:
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea

Arkansas:
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Nay

California:
Boxer (D-CA), Not Voting
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay

Colorado:
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Not Voting

Connecticut:
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay

Delaware:
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Yea

Florida:
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Nay

Georgia:
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea

Hawaii:
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Not Voting

Idaho:
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea

Illinois:
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Obama (D-IL), Nay

Indiana:
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Yea

Iowa:
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay

Kansas:
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea

Kentucky:
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea

Louisiana:
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea

Maine:
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea

Maryland:
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay

Massachusetts:
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay

Michigan:
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay

Minnesota:
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay

Mississippi:
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea

Missouri:
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Talent (R-MO), Yea

Montana:
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Burns (R-MT), Yea

Nebraska:
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea

Nevada:
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Nay

New Hampshire:
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea

New Jersey:
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay

New Mexico:
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Yea

New York:
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay

North Carolina:
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Not Voting

North Dakota:
Conrad (D-ND), Not Voting
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay

Ohio:
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea

Oklahoma:
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea

Oregon:
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Pennsylvania:
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea

Rhode Island:
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay

South Carolina:
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea

South Dakota:
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Not Voting

Tennessee:
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea

Texas:
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea

Utah:
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea

Vermont:
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay

Virginia:
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea

Washington:
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay

West Virginia:
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Not Voting

Wisconsin:
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay

Wyoming:
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea

Vote Summary
By Senator Name
By Vote Position
By Home State

Welcome Home the Troops on Monday!!!

***MEDIA ADVISORY***
Second Annual National Memorial Day Parade
To Be Held in Washington, DC

WASHINGTON – In association with America Supports You, The National Memorial Day Parade will commence on May 29, 2006 to pay tribute to American veterans from the American Revolution to Operation Iraqi Freedom and to honor active duty military personnel and all those who have died defending the United States. America Supports You is a Department of Defense program that highlights what Americans are doing to support members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their families. This year, for the first time, over 600 military personnel returned from deployed assignments from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan will be marching in the parade.

Notable veterans from WWI (104 ½ year old Lloyd Brown) through Desert Storm will serve as grand marshals alongside grand marshal Gary Sinise, the Emmy award winning actor and film director who is often noted for his efforts in raising awareness about the sacrifices made by members of the military and paying homage to their work.

What: National Memorial Day Parade
When: Monday, May 29, 2006 from Noon to 2 p.m.
Where: Parade will step off at noon on Third Street, NW and then proceed to Constitution Ave, turning north onto 15th Street and ending at the corner of 15th St. and Pennsylvania Ave.

The parade will be comprised of bands, active military units, youth groups and hundreds of veterans of World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Gulf War. Patriotic floats, marching bands, antique cars and an Air Force Flyover will be part of the procession with more than 3,000 participants expecting to take part in the parade. In addition, the parade will have representation from countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Canada.

The parade ceremonies will begin shortly before noon with the Pledge of Allegiance, led by eight recipients of our nation’s highest military award, the Medal of Honor, and the singing of the Star-Spangled Banner. At noon, the American flags across from the reviewing stand at the National Archives building, will be raised from half-staff to full, and a military flyover will take place, featuring a World War II-era P-51, Korea-era F-86, an A-10 Thunderbolt II, and an Air Force F-15 Eagle.

The event is open to the public and all are welcome to attend to show their gratitude, respect and support for the 2.6 million active duty and reservist military personnel stationed around the world and to remember those we have lost.

The National Memorial Day Parade is organized by a coalition of military, veteran and civic groups in association with the World War II Veterans Committee, the White House Commission Remembrance and America Supports You, a Department of Defense program that highlights the support of the American people for members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their families. For more information on the parade, visit www.nationalmemorialdayparade.com.

About the American Veterans Center:
The American Veterans Center is a non-profit educational foundation based in Washington, DC. The Center’s mission is to preserve the legacy of America’s servicemen and women of all generations. In addition to presenting the National Memorial Day Parade, the American Veterans Center houses the World War II Veterans Committee and the National Vietnam Veterans Committee, both of which are dedicated to telling the stories of the veterans of their respective generations through documentary work, publications, and speaker conferences. To learn more about the American Veterans Center’s projects, visit www.AmericanVeteransCenter.org.

About America Supports You
America Supports You is an ongoing nationwide program that helps showcase American’s support for the men and women of the Armed Forces. Since its launch in November of 2004 by the Department of Defense, America Supports You has welcomed more than 200 grassroots organizations and more than 20 corporate sponsors to its team. Many America Supports You team members support the troops by writing letters, sending care packages, helping the wounded when they return home, assisting military families, sending e-mails or simply extending kind gestures to the troops. To learn more about how you can support military personnel please visit www.americasupportsyou.mil.

Media: For satellite truck parking passes and media credentials, or to interview a parade spokesperson or participant, please contact Michelle Shortencarrier at (202) 414-0791 or mshortencarrier@susandavis.com.

###

Just the facts.

Senator Santorum has shown, once again, why he should be handily re-elected this November with his excellent column in National Review Online today.

It would be an absolute travesty for him to be replaced by Bob Casey. The conservative movement has had no better stalwart than Senator Santorum and all one has to do is check the record. Or watch the tapes of him on the floor fighting it out against Boxer on partial birth abortion. Or watch him lead the charge on the judicial nominations fight. Or do any one of a thousand things, both public and unseen that propels our movement forward.

There is no doubt that I would prefer Toomey to Specter, but the fact remains that Santorum's one perceived transgression is NOTHING compared to the daily betrayals by literally dozens of other elected officials who supposedly are conservatives.

I've actually had Senators lie to my face. You might say, "What is so shocking about that?" When you are in a meeting with a Senator and they are five feet away from you and telling you a blatant, provable lie -- not just talking points or the normal spin job -- but a blatant lie....trust me, that is a whole other kettle of fish.

Let's face it, friends. We have suffered quite a few losses in the Senate in the past few years with retirements, etc. -- Phil Gramm, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond.....and many others.

There just aren't that many Rick Santorums in those hallowed halls. We need him more than ever because heaven knows that courage is in short supply in our caucus at the moment.

Hillary Clinton's voice is annoying enough, thank you.

I've always thought that listening to a Hillary Clinton speech was like listening to a kindergarten teacher lecturing her students. Content was bad enough, but rotten content with a horrific delivery and you've got the combination for Dante's seventh circle of Hell.

She....speaks.....each.....word......without.....any...
..change.....in.....inflection.......or........tone.

Thought that was bad enough.

Now, Fran Drescher -- remember....."The Nanny" -- is considering a run for the House or Senate from New York, according to her latest appearance on the, ahem, Howard Stern show.

Fabulous. Just what the Senate needs. A woman with a voice that could cut glass.

Forget that her politics are standard liberal junk. The Capitol dome would shatter from her screeching.

Lindsay Graham is out of control.

What happened to the Lindsay Graham that we knew and loved as a House Manager?

Of late, he has become quite the problem.

Let me remind you that it was Lindsay Graham who, along with Mike DeWine, agreed with the seven Democrats of the Gang of 14 to have a second hearing on Kavanaugh. Fat lot of good that did. The hearing seemed to be about anything BUT Brett Kavanaugh. It appeared instead to be a "let's bash the Bush Administration" fiesta.

And now, according to "The Hill", Lindsay Graham is is holding Haynes, a perfectly acceptable judicial nominee.

Word on the street is that it is because Lindsay heard some bad things from JAG lawyers or that he is doing the dirty work as a front for McCain. Heaven knows with McCain's ambition, he cannot be seen to be an obstructionist on the number one issue that the base cares about, now can he?

Either way, Lindsay has clearly been kidnapped by space aliens who sucked the brains out of his punkin' head. According to my sources, he also had, by the way, the worst attendance record of ANY committee member on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Yet he seems to cause about as much trouble as those on the opposing team who DO attend the hearings.

I liked the old Lindsay Graham a lot better.

Coincidence?

Hollywood isn't the only group of folks who ride a newswave.....the publishing world thrives on it. A new book entitled "Secret Daughter" by June Cross describes the horrors of women having to get an abortion on the QT in a pre-Roe world and those poor souls who had their children in secret and then endure secret adoptions. Cross, as an adopted child, provides a unique view, particularly as a child produced by a white mother and a black father.

No doubt that the scourge of racism had a horrific effect on Cross' life. But thank God she was born and raised by good people who took good care of her.

In all of this -- whether aborted or adopted - there doesn't seem to be any discussion, at least in the review in "More" magazine (June, 2006), of how these babies were caused in the first place.
There was the usual complaint, found in articles like these, that there was little knowledge of birth control methods that would prevent this in the first place. Not having access to birth control has little or nothing to do with it. Birth control methods fail all the time. What seemed to be missing was the ability to say no. One little word that could have prevented so much heartache.

At some point, some time, someone neglected to let these little girls know that consequences follow every action. Consequences are inevitable, sometimes life-altering, and it seems as though there are fewer and fewer young women today who seem to understand that.

I have to say, though, that I truly believe that every one of these children was meant to be born for some purpose in God's world. Despite being born into adoption and perhaps not always living in the best circumstances, there was a reason why these children were born. I am quite certain that these children were each a blessing in some way, in some circumstance or to someone.

God bless all of the mothers who have adopted children and those who are praying every day for the opportunity to adopt. Prayers for all parents everywhere for the wisdom to raise their children to accept responsibility for their actions and the consequences that they bring.

Taylor Hicks or Katherine McPhee?

If you don't watch American Idol then you have no idea who these people are.

Gotta tell ya, I've always liked Taylor myself.

Go Soul Patrol!!!

ACLU hides behind a front organization.

According to ABC News' The Note (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238)

"The liberal grassroots organization called "Campaign to Defend the Constitution" urges Sen. Frist to bring the stem cell legislation passed by the House last year to the Senate floor for a vote by taking a full page ad in the New York Times depicting Christian conservatives Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson as "America's Most Influential Stem Cell Scientists." "

This so called "Campaign to Defend the Constitution" is a front organization for the ACLU. Check it out:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/index.html
The ACLU Campaign to Defend the Constitution Our fight to reform the Patriot Act is just beginning. Lawmakers have already introduced new legislation to make sure that needed changes are made to the Patriot Act to help protect our liberty, and Congress plans hearings to investigate the National Security Letter (NSL) provisions of the act. Take action to restore the checks and balances that shield our fundamental freedoms from governmental abuse of power.

On Kavanaugh's nomination......

What They're Saying ...

Brett Kavanaugh's Nomination To The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The D.C. Circuit

"It is undoubtedly true that Mr. Kavanaugh has been in the center of many legal disputes over the past fifteen years. That strikes me as an unqualified good – he has an enormous breadth of experience that will serve him well. I have watched his career for many years, and it strikes me as one of almost unmatched distinction. ...I do not believe it appropriate to write to you unless I feel strongly about a particular nominee. I feel strongly now: Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit."
–Neal Katyal, Georgetown University Law Center Professor, Former Attorney To Vice President Gore, And Former Clinton Administration Official, Letter To Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), 5/9/06

More from Professor Neal Katyal On Brett Kavanaugh's Nomination

Katyal: Kavanaugh "Would Be A Welcome, Terrific Addition To The United States Court Of Appeals." "I have watched this nomination with strong interest for the past two years, but have stayed silent because I was not sure whether Mr. Kavanaugh had any role in a pro bono case in which I am lead counsel, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (currently pending at the United States Supreme Court). Because of my uncertainty as to his involvement, I felt it improper to comment on the nomination given my status as counsel for a party. In the hearing before your committee today, however, Mr. Kavanaugh stated that he had no role with respect to Guantanamo Bay policy. I am very grateful for the hearing today, for it has allowed me to write to you. Accordingly, I feel free to say that Mr. Kavanaugh would be a welcome, terrific addition to the United States Court of Appeals." (Neal Katyal, Letter To Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), 5/9/06)

Ø Katyal: "This Is An Entirely Unsolicited Letter." "This is an entirely unsolicited letter, I have not spoken with Mr. Kavanaugh for approximately four years, nor have I spoken with anyone else at the White House, U.S. Department of Justice, or U.S. Senate, in conjunction with this nomination." (Neal Katyal, Letter To Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), 5/9/06)

Media Reports And Editorials On Brett Kavanaugh's Nomination

Congress Daily: "Kavanaugh Breezes Through 2nd Judicial Nomination Hearing." "An unruffled Brett Kavanaugh weathered a barrage of critical Democratic questions Tuesday and pledged to be nonpartisan if confirmed as a judge on U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia." (Michael Posner, "Kavanaugh Breezes Through 2nd Judicial Nomination Hearing," Congress Daily, 5/10/06)

The Washington Post: Kavanaugh "Does Not Appear To Be An Ideologue." "Yet Mr. Kavanaugh is a talented attorney. He has been involved in controversies, but he does not appear to be an ideologue. While Democrats complain that his experience is thin, it is no more so than others who have won confirmation and served on that court. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) is holding a second hearing on Mr. Kavanaugh's nomination today. If it produces nothing new, he should be confirmed." (Editorial, "A Tale Of Two Judges," The Washington Post, 5/9/06)

National Review's Edward Whelan: Kavanaugh "Has A Remarkable Breadth Of Experience That Few Judicial Nominees Could Match." (Edward Whelan, Op-Ed, "A Public Disservice," National Review, 5/3/06)

The Wall Street Journal: In A "Rational World," Kavanaugh "Wouldn't Be Considered Anything Close To Controversial Enough" To Merit A Filibuster. "In a rational world, he wouldn't be considered anything close to controversial enough to trigger that accord's 'extraordinary circumstances' exception." (Editorial, "The Next Filibuster?" The Wall Street Journal, 5/4/06)

The Washington Times: "After Nearly Three Long Years Since He Was First Nominated, Mr. Kavanaugh Should Finally Get His Long-Deserved Vote On The Senate Floor." "After Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter received a letter from the seven Democratic members of the 'Gang of 14' promising not to support a filibuster against Mr. Kavanaugh's nomination if he appeared before the committee a second time, the chairman scheduled today's hearing. A committee vote could come Thursday. Before the Memorial Day recess, after nearly three long years since he was first nominated, Mr. Kavanaugh should finally get his long-deserved vote on the Senate floor." (Editorial, "The Kavanaugh Hearing," The Washington Times, 5/9/06)

Senators On Brett Kavanaugh's Nomination

Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN): Kavanaugh's "Forthcoming And Candid Responses Before The Senate Judiciary Committee [On Tuesday] Further Confirm That He Will Be The Kind Of Fair And Independent Judge America Expects In Its Courtrooms." (David G. Savage, "Bench Nominee Denies Role In Controversies," Los Angeles Times, 5/10/06)

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT): Kavanaugh "Merits Our Support And When Confirmed Will Serve The Public Well As A Fair And Impartial Jurist." "I have confidence that Mr. Kavanaugh will again today demonstrate his deep understanding and knowledge of the law. I expect that he will once again display his intellect, sound judgment and judicial temperament. I have no doubt that [he] fully appreciates the proper role and limitations placed on federal appellate judges in our constitutional system. … I only hope that we focus on the qualifications and character of the nominee we have before us today. If we do that, I have no doubt that Brett Kavanaugh merits our support and when confirmed will serve the public well as a fair and impartial jurist." (Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), "Sen. Hatch Comments On Kavanaugh's Nomination," Press Release, 5/9/06)

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): Kavanaugh "Is An Outstanding Nominee And Someone Who I Think Should Be Confirmed To The District Of Columbia Circuit Court Of Appeals." (Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), Media Availability, 5/9/06)

So, anyone catch the farce of a hearing.....

Otherwise known as "Brett-Kavanaugh's-second-hearing-which-was-totally-unnecessary-to-begin-with-but-seven-Democrats-in-the-almighty-Gang-of-14-apparently-make-the- mountains-shake,-the-oceans-dry-up-and-the-winds-roar-if-they-aren't-appeased-at-every-turn-by-Republicans-scared-of-their-own-shadow" hearing.

Senators Cornyn, Hatch, Coburn and Sessions hit it on the head when they openly wondered exactly what good this second hearing has done.

Senator Leahy was positively hostile. He could not conceal his contempt for Brett Kavanaugh. Senator Kennedy was condescending and obsessed with torture....interesting to note. Senator Durbin played the wounded victim about his public documents being revealed to the world and was his usual sarcastic, bombastic self. Senator Feingold was more interested . Senator Schumer was not interested in answers, only firing as many questions as possible in an effort to play prosecutor rather than statesman. He was given double the time allowed to other Senators to parade his hostility. It was appalling.

Friends, make no mistake. This was about embarrassing the Bush Administration and vying for "Sound Bite of the Day" Award. Had little or nothing to with "discovering more information." They had three years to do that. In fact, it had little to do with Brett Kavanaugh as they tried desperately to throw as much spaghetti on the wall as they could to see what, if anything would stick.

Under this assault, Brett Kavanaugh conducted himself with absolute dignity, displayed extraordinary patience and the keen intellect so many praised in support of his nomination.

Time to end this charade and get on with the vote.

One more time for Kavanaugh.

Three years. The Democrats have had three years to ask questions, gather information and make up their minds about Brett Kavanaugh. They even made quite a spectacle of themselves at the first Kavanaugh hearing.

The Democrats have already said clearly that they will vote along party lines......even if a second hearing was granted.

So what exactly is the point of having a second hearing for Brett Kavanaugh? To ask him his favorite color?

Can you imagine the scene? Senator Durbin asks through clenched teeth in a voice dripping with hate, "So....WHAT is your......FAVORITE color?!" Kavanaugh answers..."Um, blue?" Kennedy, Leahy and Durbin in unison, "Ah-HA!!!" Then they will try to link his favorite color to the color of the logo in Halliburton, some ancient meaning of those who like the color blue, or whatever obscure connection they could make in their latest effort to smear the latest target in their crosshairs.

It really is getting that ridiculous.

At any rate, seven Democrats (of the Gang of 14 fame...) wrote a letter to Chairman Arlen Specter claiming that if a second hearing would be granted, the filibuster wouldn't be deployed. Senators Graham and DeWine had their spine collectively collapse and decided that the seven Democrats HAD to be obeyed.

Thanks a bunch, Senators Specter, Graham and DeWine for this latest outrage.

David Limbaugh has it 100% correct and hits the nail on the head with this article. It should be duct taped on the door of every Senate office and the gates of the White House.

Zogby poll on immigration -- which bill? House or Senate?

The poll was conducted for the Center for Immigration Studies by Zogby International. Complete results are on line at http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/2006poll.html .

* On immigration generally, Americans want less, not more, immigration. Only 26 percent said immigrants were assimilating fine and that immigration should continue at current levels, compared to 67 percent who said immigration should be reduced so we can assimilate those already here.

* While the Senate is considering various bills that would increase legal immigration from 1 million to 2 million a year, only 2 percent of Americans believe current immigration is too low. This was true for virtually every grouping in the survey by ethnicity, income, age, religion, region, party, or ideology.

* When offered by itself, there is strong support for the House bill: 69 percent said it was a good or very good idea when told that it tries to make illegals go home by fortifying the border, forcing employer verification, and encouraging greater cooperation with local law enforcement, while not increasing legal immigration; 27 percent said it was a bad or very bad idea.

* Support for the House approach was widespread, with 81 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of independents, 57 percent of Democrats, and 53 percent of Hispanics saying it was good or very good idea.

* When offered by itself, there is also some support for the Senate approach, though not as much as for the House bill: 42 percent said the Senate approach was a good or very good idea when told it would allow illegal immigrants to apply for legal status provided they met certain criteria, and it would significantly increase legal immigration and increase enforcement of immigration laws; 50 percent said it was a bad or very bad idea.

* There were few groups in which a majority supported the Senate plan, even when presented by itself. Exceptions included Hispanics, 62 percent of whom said it was a good or very good idea, and the most liberal voters (progressives), 54 percent of whom approved of it.

* When given three choices (House approach, Senate approach, or mass deportation), the public tends to reject both the Senate plan and mass deportations in favor of the House bill; 28 percent want the Senate plan, 12 percent want mass deportations, while 56 percent want the House approach.

* But when given a choice between just the House and Senate approaches, without the choice of mass deportations, the public prefers the House approach 64 percent to 30 percent.

* One reason the public does not like legalization is that they are skeptical of the need for illegal-immigrant labor. An overwhelming majority of 77 percent said there are plenty of Americans to fill low-wage jobs if employers pay more and treat workers better; just 15 percent said there are not enough Americans for such jobs.

* Another reason the public does not like Senate proposals to legalize illegals and double legal immigration is that 73 percent said they had little or no confidence in the ability of the government to screen these additional applicants to weed out terrorists and criminals.

* The public also does not accept the argument we have tried and failed to enforce the law: 71 percent felt that past enforcement efforts have been ''grossly inadequate,'' while only 19 percent felt we had made a ''real effort'' to enforce our laws.

After Herndon....so goes the nation????

In Herndon, VA, a microcosm of what could transpire in November should be carefully noted.

Herndon, VA doesn't sound like a place that could be a haven for illegal immigrants, but it is and unfortunately, the citizens of Herndon have even been terrorized by MS-13, a Salvadorian gang that has spread nationwide rapidly and is noted for particularly brutal crimes, usually involving a machete. How nice.

In yesterday's election in Herndon, the voters said loudly and clearly -- ENOUGH.

The mayor and two council members were soundly defeated. Why? Because they supported a day laborer center. This center, which taxpayers, of course, were expected to fund, provided a taxpayer funded location for illegal immigrants to congregate and wait for prospective employers to show up and give them work.

This would pretty much encourage more illegal immigrants to continue their illegal trek through our country....oh and people's backyards as well....one of the complaints about this center is that before it opened every day, the illegals would just make themselves at home on the backyeard furniture of people's homes!

Can you imagine?

Why don't they just go on into the houses and make a pot of coffee while they wait and hang out in the breakfast room. Good heavens. Trespassing is not ok. Taxpayer funding to support and encourage more illegal activity is not ok.

And the voters of Herndon created a council that is now 6-1 against this day laborer center from a 5-2 majority for the center. Take note, those who underestimate this issue.

Tired from all the shopping I did, actually.....

From AOL (not exactly 100% scientific, but still.....):


What's your position on the boycott?
I'm against it
67%
I support it
17%
I'm not invested either way
15%
Total Votes: 422,842
Note on Poll Results

How much has the boycott affected you?
Very little or not at all
88%
Somewhat
7%
A great deal
6%
Total Votes: 419,747
Note on Poll Results