Need a briefing? The following briefs were taken from our HUMAN EVENTS print edition (Oct.1-8)


EXTENDING INTERNET TAX BAN: As the Senate Commerce Committee last week began consideration of the now-nine-year-old moratorium on Internet taxation, the bill introduced by Sen. Thomas Carper (D.-Del.) would extend the moratorium for only four years. More pleasing to conservatives is the push by Sen. John Sununu (R.-N.H.) for permanent extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act. Americans for Tax Reform National Policy Analyst Elizabeth Karasmeighan warned that, unless a permanent moratorium on taxation of Internet access became law, there would come a time when “your bill for the Internet will look like your phone bill.” ATR President Grover Norquist has called for also phasing out the grandfathering of nine states that were already taxing Internet access before the 1998 moratorium was enacted: Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin.

SHE WAS FOR TORTURE, BEFORE SHE WAS AGAINST IT: At the New Hampshire Democratic debate at Dartmouth University moderated by NBC’s Tim Russert last Thursday night, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) not only contradicted her husband’s belief that torture is an acceptable form of interrogation in an attempt to foil an imminent terror plot, but she also contradicted her own stance on torture. Russert asked Hillary if there should be a presidential exemption to allow interrogators to torture a terrorist leader if authorities knew a bomb was about to go off but didn’t know where. Hillary said, “It cannot be American policy, period.” When Russert reminded her that former President Bill Clinton recently advocated such a policy on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Hillary responded, “Well, I’ll talk to him later.” The New York Daily News reported the next day that Sen. Clinton had told the paper last October that “the ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.” She also told the Daily News: “In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then, the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable.”

NEW HAMPSHIRE TIGHTENS: What once looked like a runaway for Mitt Romney, former governor of next-door Massachusetts, now appears to be tightening up. According to a just-completed WMUR/CNN poll of likely Republican voters in next year’s New Hampshire primary, Romney is now favored by 23% -- down from 33% in July -- and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani by 22% -- up from 18% two months ago. The 2000 primary winner, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), was third with 18%, surging from 12% in July, and former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.) trailed with 12%, down from 13% in July. Pollster Andy Smith told reporters that 29% of the poll respondents say that Thompson’s decision to skip the September debate at the University of New Hampshire made them less likely to vote for him.

AND THEN THERE WERE NINE: One week after Illinois Rep. Jerry Weller became the eighth Republican House member to announce he would not seek re-election next year, Alabama Rep. Terry Everett became the ninth. Most of the retirees come from safe districts, although Weller’s Will County district outside Chicago is considered marginal and sure to be contested by Democrats. As for GOP worries that the number of Republican retirees will hurt the party’s chances of retaking the House next year, Pete Kirkham, operating head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, told Human Events that there is no cause for panic, that the exodus “is relatively small, compared to the 22 GOP incumbents who stepped down in ’06.”

CRAIG STAYS (FOR NOW): As he tried last week to get a Minneapolis court to let him withdraw his guilty plea to a charge of disorderly conduct in a Minneapolis Airport men’s room, Sen. Larry Craig (R.-Idaho), who had said he would soon resign, dropped a bombshell by announcing he would remain in office “for now.” The three-term senator, stripped of his senior committee assignments and under investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee following revelations last month of his guilty plea, had previously said he would resign by the end of September and permit Republican Idaho Gov. Butch Otter to name a successor. Because the Hennepin County (Minn.) Court “has not issued a ruling on my motion to withdraw my guilty plea,” Craig told reporters after the hearing, “for now, I will continue my work in the United States Senate for Idaho.” Craig has already said that regardless of the outcome of his legal maneuverings he will not run for re-election next year.

SCHIP VETO OUTLOOK: In the week since the White House issued its vow to veto the Democrat-bloated State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill that will cover families making up to $82,000 a year and has become so controversial, Congress moved closer to sending the measure to the President. In the Senate, 18 Republicans abandoned the administration and joined in the 69-to-30 cloture vote to advance the bill, indicating that the Senate’s final passage vote on SCHIP would be “veto-proof.” Discussing two of the GOP defectors, columnist Robert Novak said, “Orrin Hatch [Utah] is in another partnership with his friend, Ted Kennedy [Mass.]. Chuck Grassley [Iowa], the ranking GOP member on the Finance Committee, again has drifted leftward.” But in the House, the vote on passage last week was only 265 to 159, meaning proponents will very probably fall short of the two-thirds needed to override the expected veto.

BUT WILL HE VETO ‘NO CHILD’? Although the President’s veto of SCHIP reauthorization was widely anticipated, conservatives in Congress told Human Events last week that so far they have had no signals that Bush will veto reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind education measure, even if, as expected, it is altered significantly by House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D.-Calif.) and Senate Labor Committee Chairman Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.). Noting that he is opposed to NCLB in its present form (which the administration helped guide to enactment five years ago), Rep. Tim Walberg (R.-Mich.), a member of the Education and Labor Committee, said, “I would hope that if George Miller and Ted Kennedy get their way with the program, the President would see it as an expansion of proportions that our forefathers would never have stepped into.”


HUMAN EVENTS BRIEF OF THE WEEK


DURBIN DREAMS OF AMNESTY: The attempt by Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin to get his DREAM Act -- the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act -- grafted onto the 2008 Defense Authorization Act as an amendment failed last week after Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) filed cloture on the bill.Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) conceded it would not be on the bill but vowed to bring it up later this year. Durbin’s “DREAM” is another amnesty for many illegal immigrants. It would give five years of legal status, the right to in-state college tuition and the opportunity to serve in the U.S. military to those who illegally entered the U.S. before they turned 16 years old. Illegals who complete two years of college or serve in the military are given the opportunity to gain U.S. citizenship. Once they are citizens, Durbin’s “DREAM” would allow the former illegal immigrants to sponsor the immigration of their families to the U.S.

The motion to concur with the House passage of the brand new ethics reform bill just passed in the Senate 83-14, stay tuned for the roll call detail. I will also be participating in a bloggers conference call with Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) who will detail the “results of this vote as well as the overall earmark reform fight in Congress.”

Democrats pushed this bill to merely fulfill campaign promises before tomorrows recess as I explain in an article posted today. The Democratic Senators who drafted this bill and voted for it as well as several Republicans should be embarrassed -- they have merely created an illusion of reform and done nothing to "provide greater transparency in the legislative process."

Cloture has failed and the corpse of this monstrosity lies reeking on the Senate floor. Now to embalm, cremate and bury to ensure that it doesn't come back once our political lords and masters lose their immediate fear of the pitchfork-and-torch-wielding peasants.

Congressman Brian Bilbray (R.-Calif.) issued the following statement today regarding the proposed amendment to allocate $4.4 billion for border security measures in exchange for passage of the Kennedy-Bush amnesty bill:

“As Sigmund Freud use to say, ‘the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different outcome.’ Only in Washington would people believe that throwing money at the problem is going to solve it. This is a blatant attempt by Senators to extort votes so they can fast track an amnesty plan.

“After more than twenty years of non-enforcement, it’s long past time to pass legislation that will secure the border, implement meaningful interior enforcement and crackdown on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. What you cannot do is put 12-20 million illegal immigrants who violated our laws on a pathway to citizenship.”

It's absolutely insane that some of our nation's top leadership wanted to push the 1,000 page immigration bill through the Senate in less than a week. With the paperwork only fully drafted this weekend (by a few people in a dark room, some have said), bill sponsors just wanted their proposal to pass without question.

In light of recent action to open up the House and provide more transparent information for voters (see the Open House Project), this obvious move to conceal critical details of the bill is atrocious. Thankfully, there was enough opposition to hault the passage of the bill by the end of the week. Last night, the Senate voted 69-23 for cloture on the bill. The roll can be seen here.

According to an AP report, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), and Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.), plan to "hold daily meetings starting Tuesday to determine whether proposed revisions would sink what they are calling their 'grand bargain.'"

They call it a bargain, I call it a disasterous compromise. After reading extensive reports on the hugely negative and unfair fiscal impact the bill will have on American taxpayers and listening to numerous politicians, like Jeff Sessions, Brian Bilbray, Duncan Hunter and others tick off the endless reasons the bill is a bad idea, I am shocked at those who continue to support it.

At HUMAN EVENTS, we've been running many anti-bill pieces and will continue to do so. This isn't an argument about amnesty -- it's an argument about principle, America, precedent, ethics, and foolishness. The immigration issue has exploded out of control but conceding to the demands of lawbreakers doesn't solve the problem -- it just enhances it and scrapes more dollars out of American pocketbooks being opened less and less by choice.

All I know is, when Harry Reid starts making more sense than a top Republican presidential nominee, there's a big problem. John McCain will not win the nomination. How could he be so daft?

U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.)released the following statemente after a meeting on the Iraq supplemental with bicameral congressional leadership and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten:

“Despite the Senate’s overwhelming bipartisan rejection of a surrender date, it’s disappointing that Democrat Leadership continues to demand that we give our enemy a timeline for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. It has been 102 days since the President sent an emergency request to ensure our troops in the field have the funding, training, and equipment they need to complete their mission. We need to move past debating a surrender date, pass a bill the President can sign, and get these funds to our troops by Memorial Day.”

Saying it's "no grand bargain," Rep. Ed Royce (R.-Calif.) says this of the Senate bill to provide amnesty:

"[It] will provide amnesty to those here illegally, no matter how the Senators "spin" the issue. Amnesty failed in 1986, as it prompted a massive increase in illegal immigration with the anticipation of future clemency. Amnesty says that individuals need not respect our laws, it awards people who break the law and flout our sovereignty."

"...They were wrong then and they are wrong now. The consequences for this country are potentially catastrophic."

In recent remarks, Royce listed what the Senate bill will include:

1) Mass Amnesty

The Senate deal will apparently grant amnesty to almost all the 12-20 million illegal immigrants in the United States - plus the millions who will most likely surge over the border following this announcement. This makes a mockery of the rule of law. The deal will claim to end chain migration - but with an eight year window. The amnesty will vastly increase extended family chain migration for most of the next decade.

2) Massive Immigration Increase

The Senate deal will apparently increase immigration by at least an additional half million low skilled people a year for most of the next decade. Imagine adding a city the size of Washington, D.C., to the U.S. population each year - filled with low skilled workers. We face more overcrowding schools, sprawl, crime and strains on all our resources and communities.

3) Mass Foreign Worker Program

The Senate deal will apparently allow employers to import hundreds of thousands of low-skilled foreign workers each year to compete with the most vulnerable Americans. Because these foreign workers will be allowed to bring their families with them and give birth while here to U.S.-citizen children, they will be unlikely to ever leave.

4) Enforcement

They are promising us more enforcement. But the Administration refuses to enforce our laws now. I do not believe that we will enforce our immigration laws in the future. This is the same promise that Congress gave when they passed the 1986 amnesty. It did not happen.

5) From Chain Migration to Points System

They are telling us they are going to end chain migration. But in order to do that they must triple chain migration. Then in the distant future, after everybody is here, they promise to stop chain migration and move to an ill defined "points system". History shows this will not happen.

6) Costs

Perhaps the most staggering issues is the cost. Amnesty will cost the American taxpayer two and half trillion dollars. The true costs of this amnesty will slam taxpayers and endanger this country's economy at a time when social security will face insolvency. When all the Senators who played politics and passed this bill are gone, our Social Security system will be bankrupt. The Heritage Foundation recently released a report that analyzes what low-skilled households cost the U.S. taxpayer. For every dollar they pay in taxes they get three dollars in benefits. The drain on the U.S. economy will be unsustainable.

Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) opposes the immigration compromise passed today. In an official statement released today, he said:

"...I believe illegal immigration is a crisis that demands an answer, but amnesty is not the answer.

“...By permitting illegal immigrants to get right with the law without leaving the country, the Senate compromise amounts to amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants and I cannot support it.

“I do hope to continue to work with colleagues in the House and Senate to craft final legislation that puts border security first and creates a temporary worker program, without amnesty, that requires workers to learn English and employers to operate under the law.”

Specifics on the immigration bill have finally surfaced. This afternoon we learned that the new deal will grant millions of illegal immigrants quick legal status and establish a temporary guest worker program to bring in new arrivals to the country.

The compromise came after weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations that brought the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans together with President Bush's Cabinet officers to produce a highly complex measure that carries heavy political consequences.

One of the most significant changes is that immigration would rely heavily on preferences for those people with advanced degrees, among other useful skills. It will be less family-oriented -- eradicating the family connection alone as a path to a green card -- and honing in on some kind of individual points system.

From the WaPo:

A bipartisan group of senators reached a delicate compromise today on what could be the biggest overhaul of immigration law in more than 40 years. It would offer the nation's 12 million undocumented workers a route to legal status.

As Congress considers using funds to combat global warming and the hype about human's contribution to a rapidly deteriorating earth continues surging forth, there are some keeping their feet on solid ground so that everyone doesn't carried away with "inconvenient truths" (that may or may not be so.)

Marc Morano follows the fad closely and today released the names of many scientist who are extremely skeptical of the climate change theories.

1. Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa

2.Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa

3. Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw

4. Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa

5. Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm

6. Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences

7. Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z.

8. Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife

9. Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada

10. Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government

11. Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists

12. Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta

13. Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles

These are just some of the many scientists worldwide who disagree with non-scientist Al Gore's assessment. Check the links to get a fuller understanding of these arguments.

In a 51-42 vote in favor of the amendment to a water projects bill, H.R. 1495 was short of the 60 votes neccessary for approval.

The bill would have required the Army Corps of Engineers "to consider the impact of climate change in designing water resources projects."

The proposal was lead by Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.),who said the current guideliness -- penned in 1983 -- were too old and did not account for the growing concern with global warming.

A $13.9 billion ticket defined the bill, which would improve damaged areas, restore ecosystem and water recreaction projects and focus specifically on the Mississippi River and other places hurt by Katrina.

Not surpringsingly, the main Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee Sen. James Inhofe (R.-Okla.) lead opposition. Inhofe professes skepticism of the growing concern with global warming, saying ""environmental alarmists who want to scare people."

The Senate earlier rejected another amendment offered by Feingold that would have set up a water resources commission to recommend a process for prioritizing Corps projects to ensure that the Corps, which currently has a backlog of $58 billion in unstarted projects, devotes itself to those most important to the nation.

Check in Wednesday for the final vote.

Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor has a great, new idea -- unveiled today -- called The Solutions Project.

At a bloggers meeting today at The Heritage Foundation, Cantor said he intended to "reclaim the mantel of reform to change the way we do things in Washington."

The project encourages an online townhall setting where citizens can rate, debate, discuss and publicize issues they think are most important and solutions they think are most valuable.

There are three main points to abide by in the solutions: they must be positive, can't expand the reach of government, and must be fiscally responsible.

"Once we get the solutions rolling," said Cantor, "If an idea is worth pursuing...I intend to pursue legislation."

The web site promotes more interaction of voters nationwide with each other and with their elected officials directly. Cantor also said he has a plan in the works to recognize those constituents who bring great ideas to the table and help get them implemented into Congress.

"What conservative Republicans have going is that we are people of ideas," said Cantor. "Democrats are bankrupt of ideas..."

Seeking to empower citizens and challenge the Democrats in Congress, Cantor hopes the Solutions Project is on it's way to becoming a way of reformation for the government.

Why is Bill Gates asking the government for money? You would think the richest man in America could make do with his own -- but apparantly not. A recent Washington Post article reports why and how the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world's largest philanthropy, is asking for taxpayer money and pandering to liberal causes.

With a $33 billion endowment...If you add in donations expected from billionaire Warren Buffett, the charity's assets will grow to twice that size, making them nearly as large as those of oil-rich Kuwait.

...The foundation also is going after money from American taxpayers. This month it gave a three-year, $3.8 million grant to Families USA, a liberal advocacy group, to coax billions of dollars from the U.S. government to advance the cause of global health.

Why is Bill Gates a rich man? Thanks to the glorious capitalism of America. The man does amazing things with his riches, and I say God Bless to the research and charity done with it, but there are limits.

The organization is working directly with Families USA, who "has been one of Washington's loudest and most effective cheerleaders for expanding the government's role in health services in the United States."

Because they are not permitted to lobby, they are doing their best otherwise to gain attention. The article specifices that "It will push hard, however, in ways that fall just short of buttonholing lawmakers. It certainly has the resources."

There's a good thing. But you can't get a good thing done by implementing other, wrong things in the process.

According to the Progressive Democrats of America, there really are people who plan to pursue an impeachment for President Bush. Nevermind that even Nancy Pelosi won't entertain the idea (although her best buddy John Murtha has certainly talked of it). According to report:

Sparked by an insurgency among delegates, the California Democratic Party has taken an historic step forward on the issue of impeachment. In a resolution affirmed by the full state party convention Sunday, the Democrats called on the U.S. Congress to use its subpoena power to investigate misdeeds of President Bush and Vice President Cheney – and to hold the Administration accountable “with appropriate remedies and punishment, including impeachment.” The delegate insurgency was coordinated by Progressive Democrats of America and its allies.

And here's their brilliant list of reasons:

"The resolution refers to Bush and Cheney having acted in a manner “subversive of the Constitution” by. . ."

1) using false information to justify the invasion of Iraq
2) authorizing “the torture of prisoners of war”
3) “authorizing wiretaps on U.S. citizens without obtaining a warrant”
4) “disclosing the name of an undercover CIA operative”
5) suspending “the historic Writ of Habeas Corpus by ordering the indefinite detention of so-called enemy combatants”
6) “signing statements used to ignore or circumvent portions of over 750 Congressional statutes”

In today's Politico, Roger Simon (with whom I have usually disagreed), wrote that the Constiution, "doesn't say anything about using impeachment to strong-arm a president to bend to your will...want to know how to make George Bush an object of sympathy rather than an object of criticism? Try to impeach him. It's not only bad politics, its bad for the country. It would paralyze all three branches of government...And for what? Not to prosecute a president for criminal acts, but to achieve a political goal."

The fact is that these California crazies are full of it and should waste their time pursuing something that's actually plausible and productive.

Miss Coulter's favorite punching bag is encouraging supporters to tell Bush to not veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Among the idiocies contained in Sen. Kennedy's missive is this:

Every year, thousands of unfertilized embryos from fertility clinics are discarded and destroyed. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act will enable American scientists to use these embryos in strictly regulated, ethical life-saving research.

Of course, anyone who's not scientifically illiterate knows that an unfertilized human embryo is like a five-sided triangle, an even prime number other than two, or Dennis Kucinich's grasp on reality; such a thing doesn't exist.

A human embryo created by cloning would be unfertilized, but human cloning hasn't succeeded yet. Rather, this bill allows research on "excess" embryos from IVF (In Vitro Fertilization). Note that last word: fertilization.

And to think that just a few days ago Sen. Kennedy's ilk were complaining that pro-lifers use the non-medical (but accurate) term "partial-birth abortion). As opposed, I suppose, to their non-scientific and inaccurate terms.

Like stubborn mules, the Dems pushed forth a war supplemental bill they know is impossible. I supposed they did in the name of principle -- depsite the harsh criticism it has received since its conception.

The Senate today gave final approval to a $124 billion war spending bill that requires troop withdrawal from Iraq to begin by Oct. 1, with a goal of ending U.S. combat operations there by next March.

President Bush has pledged to veto the bill, and White House spokeswoman Dana Perino promised this morning he would act "very soon."

On the same day our Army Commander from Iraq reports the progress the troop surge has accomplished, these politicians strip the meaning from those words.

I am reminded of that photograph of John Kerry eating alone in Iraq during his visit after he inferred that soldiers weren't educated.

What if the Democrats had to sit next to our soldiers overseas right now as they attempted to sign away their funding and stop the process of victory? I wouldn't be surprised if most of them said, "Seat's taken."

In yet another example of egotistical disrespect and irresponsibility, Speaker Nancy Peolosi will not attend a meeting on Capitol Hill tommorrow with U.S. Army Commanding Gen. David Petraeus to discuss progress in Iraq with lawmakers.

A Pelosi aide said the speaker on Tuesday requested a one-on-one meeting with Petraeus but that could not be worked out...

Last week, House Democratic leaders were criticized by their Republican counterparts when they initially declined an invitation from Petraeus to brief House members on the status of the war due to "scheduling conflicts," as first reported by Roll Call

What does it say when our head Democrat leaders will not even listen to those who actually know the intricacies of what is going on in Iraq?

Further, this is the same day Pelosi plans to force a House vote on a pull out strategy -- the opposite of what needs to be discussed when there are tasks to finish, a government to secure, and people to protect.

Nancy Pelosi is stubborn, foolish, and as a leader of America, very dangerous.

Oh--Check it out, Hot Air's got the video of Reid and Pelosi sharing a special, touchy-feely moment (that's the liberal way you know.)

This morning I was able to talk to former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R.-Tex.), now chairman of FreedomWorks, about the Democrats’ expected attempt to override the veto that President Bush has promised Congress on Iraq spending bill.

Under Armey’s leadership, Congress successfully overrode two of President Bill Clinton’s vetoes.

I asked him what advice he had for Republicans now in managing the Democrats plans to try to override this veto. I’ll have more in a full story on this tomorrow. Read the transcript below:

I was wondering if you had any advice to give Republicans on how to handle the Democrats veto override attempt-

FORMER MAJORITY LEADER DICK ARMEY: The President has already gotten a letter with enough Republican signatures that say the President’s veto will be sustained. The President has got two points to make on this. One, that he’s not going to tolerate the kind of free-spending earmarks and extraneous things attached to the supplemental. And, two that he is not going to accept Democrats dictating the terms of how he’ll conduct the war. So, I’m sure he’ll make the veto and I’m sure it will be sustainable.

ABC: Do you expect that his veto will be helpful to Republicans or that the Democrats will be able to use it to their advantage?

ARMEY: I think the Democrats are strategically very wrong on insisting on taking ownership of the war. I don’t understand what they are thinking about this. The only thing I can think is that they are being so hard driven by their extreme left wing base that they can’t help themselves, but I think they are making a big mistake.

ABC: Senator Reid said in a speech yesterday that his base expected a lot of dramatic action on Iraq in January, but this is still the President’s war. Do you expect them to do anything to take ownership of the outcome in Iraq?

ARMEY: Harry Reid? Basically, it’s like the Democrats want to take ownership of it and he’s disavowing that and I think he’s trying to tell the base “Lay off, you guys are running us into a blind alley. You guys are going to get us in trouble.” I’d put that down as a plea. I think he understands where it is going and probably sees it more clearly than Nancy Pelosi does. He’s a little less of the base than Nancy is. She’s from a different part of the world and she has a different perspective. I’m sure his Democrats in Nevada, I’m sure are a little different than her Democrats in San Francisco.

ABC: No doubt.

ARMEY: So, he’s trying to get them to ease up a little bit. And, also I think it’s very pointed of him to say this is still the President’s war. He understands the danger of it. That they are in.

ABC: Do you think it’s wise for the Democrats to use more legislative time for the veto override, which they know they can’t get?

ARMEY: No, but I look forward to them doing it.

ABC: One last question. Sen. Carl Levin said on a conference call that he knew they didn’t have the votes for an override, but thought it would be helpful in helping Democrats gain momentum. That’s how he put it. And, maybe getting some Republicans to join them. Do you think that will be successful?

ARMEY: No, I don’t. My only view there is that there are handful of Republicans, mostly from the Northeast that want to disassociate from this war and they will disassociate from whomever they perceive as owning the war. If Carl Levin and his party own the war, they will be very happy to disassociate from them.

The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, which gives the District a voting member of the U.S. House of Representatives, was passed yesterday. We thought you might like to know which Republicans haven't been reading the Constitution:

Burton (Ind.)
Cannon (Utah)
Castle (Del.)
Davis (Va.)
Dent (Penn.)
Emerson (Mo.)
English (Pa.)
Ferguson (N.J.)
Gilchrist (Md.)
Issa (Calif.)
LaHood (Ill.)
LaTourette (Ohio)
Pence (Ind.)
Platts (Pa.)
Porter (Nev.)
Renzi (Ariz.)
Ryan (Wis.)
Saxton (N.J.)
Shays (Conn.)
Smith (Tex.)
Upton (Mich.)
Wolf (Va.)

See the full listing for all House members here.

While I'm glad that the court ruled against the plaintiffs (some abortionists and Planned Parenthood), this decision changes very little about abortion in America. It stays within the framework set by the Casey decision, and the ban is narrow and contains exceptions. Abortionists can still kill late-term babies, they just can’t do it using this method.

It is better that Planned Parenthood (America’s largest abortion provider) lose than win here, but we shouldn’t imagine that this decision does much to stop abortion or overturn Roe and Casey.

In a victory for social conservatives today, the Supreme Court upheld a nationwide ban on partial-birth abortion.

From AP:

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated that opponents, "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases."

In an afternoon press conference billed to celebrate the first 100 days of the new Congress, freshman Senate Democrats avoided talking about their legislative accomplishments—probably because they have none to speak of yet.

The Senate Republican Communications Center distributed a flier that reminded the handful of reporters that attended the event that “Democrats have managed to get 17 bills signed into law—10 of which are bills designating the name of post offices, courthouses and other federal properties.”

Indeed, the Democrats have failed to enact any of the “Six for ’06” promises they campaigned on yet. Even the lobby reform bill to end what Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) called the "culture of corruption" hasn't been given to President Bush for his signature.

So, Sen. Bob Casey (D.-Pa.) said senators were going to focus "explicitly, if not exclusively on Iraq." Speaking at the presser were Casey, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D.-Ohio.), Sen. Ben Cardin (D.-M.D.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D.-Minn.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (D.-Vt.). All were in agreement that the war must be ended soon and U.S. troops needed to be redeployed. They said they would be undeterred by President Bush's veto threats of legislation that dictated a timetable for U.S.troops to leave Iraq or cut funding for their missions.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D.-M.D.) said “It’s time to get out of a civil war in Iraq. That’s how you support the troops.”

In a statement released today by the Office of Management and Budget, the Bush administration rejected the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (S.5), saying it promoted “taxpayer dollars to support and encourage the destruction of human life for research.”

The bill, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, allows for the “intentional destruction of human embryos” and the President plans the veto the bill if it crosses his desk.

In effort to encourage research and public causes otherwise, the Bush Administration has strongly advocated other types of stem cell studies, including adults, children, umbilical cord blood and other living sources. Such research has produced incredible results that often get downplayed in light of the highly controversial embryonic stem cell debate.

While S.5 encourages that kind of research as well, the inclusion of embryo destruction in the research negates the support of the Administration.

However, U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson has found a possible loophole in the embryonic stem cell possibility, recommending the use of stem cells located in embryos that are “naturally dead.”

The Hope Act (Hope Offered through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act), allows “scientists access to embryos whose lack of development leads to their disposal by fertility clinics – because they’re judged incapable of surviving in the womb,” according to a recent report by the Atlanta-Journal Constitution.

Many Republicans are more apt to approve of this movement and Isakson hopes the President will support research in this regard. The question arises when one defines “naturally dead.” The Isakson bill states that it “means having naturally and irreversibly lost the capacity for integrated cellular division, growth and differentiation that is characteristic of an organism, even if some cells of the former organism may be alive in a disorganized state.”

Ethical questions arise around technicalities but the Isakson Bill does flirt with the hope of bypassing a Presidential veto.

In a heavily hyped debate – one that environmentalist Democrats hoped would be a “smack down” on Republicans -- former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich disappointed them and conservatives alike when he declared that human activity was causing the Earth to warm.

The concession was made in a debate on global warming with Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) today on Capitol Hill that was sponsored by the Brookings Institution and the RAND Corporation.

In his first portion of allotted time Gingrich said there were two undisputed areas of scientific consensus on global warming: that the earth is getting hotter and the warming had been caused by human activity.

At one point, Kerry asked Gingrich what he would say to conservatives like Sen. James Inhofe (R.-Okla.) who do not believe global warming is caused by human activity. Gingrich said, "The evidence is sufficient that we should move to the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon."

“We should be moving to develop all kinds of new green technology,” Gingrich said. He challenged Kerry to find market-based solutions to reduce carbon emission instead of increasing environmental regulations.

“Regulation and litigation are the least effective ways of getting solutions,” the former Speaker said. “Reshaping markets with incentives are the fastest way.”

Kerry argued that environment laws drafted with help from the United Nations have been successful.

Kerry said the laws were “needed to create the leverage and the market so they would go out and invest in the technology because they don’t invest without it.” Government regulation, he said “is the only way to invite people to make that investment.”

“We are not arguing bureaucracy and regulation. We are arguing whether putting a price on carbon is bureaucracy.”

Kerry said it was not. “This is not bureaucracy. You set the standard the market will set the price,” he said. “We all live in a world where we don’t pay for the cost. We don’t pay for the loss of fish, we don’t pay for the lost of these species. None of that is priced into the goods today.”

Before launching into his initial speech, Gingrich endorsed the book Kerry had co-authored with his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry "This Moment on Earth.".

“This is excellent, this is a very good book,” he said. “I would commend this book to anyone who wants to see local leadership make a difference.” Gingrich said he didn’t agree with “about 60% of it” but would urge others to “read it because it’s an example of individual local leadership against the odds.”

Gingrich’s concession was expected in many news circles as part of his long-shot strategy to run for President in 2008. He has said since last year that he would make a decision to run or not sometime in the fall of this year. He is planning to release a new book, "Contract with the Earth" this November that he co-wrote with conservationist Terry Maples.

Yesterday, in his weekly email newsletter “Winning the Future” Gingrich said that September 27 would be “Solutions Day.” This is to honor the 13th anniversary of his 1994 “Contract with America.”

Last week, Gingrich called the Spanish language a “ghetto language.” Immediately after the mishap, he recorded an extensive apology, in Spanish, directed to the Hispanic community that made available on YouTube. Last month, he revealed to Focus on the Family’s James Dobson that he had an extramarital affair.

In January, Gingrich appeared at a hearing conducted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to talk about how to stabilize Iraq.

Still smarting from his 2004 loss, delivered with the help of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the book "Unfit for Command" written by John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi, Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) accused the White House of "changing the rules" by recess-appointing Sam Fox to the post of ambassador to Belgium.

From the AP:

U.S. President George W. Bush bypassed Democratic critics and appointed Sam Fox ambassador to Belgium on Wednesday during the congressional recess in a move that avoided requiring Senate approval.

The appointment came a week after the White House withdrew the nomination when it became apparent that the Democratic-led Senate Foreign Relations Committee would not vote to approve Fox, a Republican fund-raiser.

Democrats had complained about a $50,000 donation Fox made to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that questioned Sen. John Kerry's war record during the Massachusetts Democrat's 2004 presidential campaign.

"It's sad but not surprising that this White House would abuse the power of the presidency to reward a donor over the objections of the Senate," Kerry said in a statement.

"Unfortunately, when this White House can't win the game, they just change the rules, and America loses," he said.

Not only do Democrats believe that free speech in the form of donations to 527 groups they don't like such as the Swift Boat Veterans should disqualify someone from serving in a federal position, they now claim -- at least their 2004 standard-bearer claims -- that a recess appointment is a "changing of the rules," despite the fact that Article II, Sec. 2, of the Constitution permits the President to make such appointments.

Kudos to the Washington Post editorial board. The paper's lead editorial, "Pratfall in Damascus," takes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) to task for her idiotic and misinformed diplomatic trip to Syria.

Here's part of what the Post said of newly self-appointed Secretary of State Commander in Chief Queen of Congress Grandmother to All Pelosi's trip:

HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. [...]

As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

Read the whole thing here.