Don’t get caught flat-footed in front of the press!  Below is a quick rundown of today’s “must reads.” – John T. Doolittle, House Republican Conference Secretary

The Morning Murmur – Tuesday, April 4, 2006

1.  Tom DeLay Says He Will Give Up His Seat - Time
In an interview Monday, Rep. Tom DeLay told TIME that he will not seek reelection and will leave Congress within months.

2. `Tough, Smart' Democrats Try to Play Offense - Bloomberg News Op-ed
Last week, Democrat party leaders went before the television cameras to announce their ``Real Security Plan to Protect America.'' Given their near-panic to prove that they are not, after all, a ragtag band of peaceniks and flower children, unfit for leadership in the war on terror, the possibilities seemed endless.

3.  G.O.P. Is Taking Aim at Advocacy Groups - New York Times
Like other major groups planning to inject themselves aggressively into the midterm elections through advertisements, voter drives and issue fights, MoveOn.org has already figured out what it thinks is a better, and less controversial, way to spend its millions. Its 527 - named for a section of the tax code - is being put on ice.

4. Let Cooler Heads Prevail - Washington Post Op-ed
Did 85 percent of Americans notice that global warming is occuring? Of course not. They got their anxiety from journalism calculated to produce it.`Tough, Smart'

5. Myths vs. facts - Rep. Tom Tancredo
It has been said that if you tell a lie 1,000 times in politics, it becomes truth. Before we reach that threshold, there are two myths that must be dispelled about the House's bipartisan immigration reform bill

For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov

FULL ARTICLES BELOW:

1.  Tom DeLay Says He Will Give Up His Seat - Time

The embattled former Republican leader tells TIME that he will leave Congress and not seek reelection
By MIKE ALLEN/SUGAR LAND, TEXAS

Rep. Tom DeLay, whose iron hold on the House Republicans melted as a lobbying corruption scandal engulfed the Capitol, told TIME that he will not seek reelection and will leave Congress within months. Taking defiant swipes at "the left" and the press, he said he feels "liberated" and vowed to pursue an aggressive speaking and organizing campaign aimed at promoting foster care, Republican candidates and a closer connection between religion and government.

"I'm going to announce tomorrow that I'm not running for reelection and that I'm going to leave Congress," DeLay, who turns 59 on Saturday, said during a 90-minute interview on Monday. "I'm very much at peace with it." He notified President Bush in the afternoon. DeLay and his wife, Christine, said they had been prepared to fight, but that he decided last Wednesday, after months of prayer and contemplation, to spare his suburban Houston district the mudfest to come. "This had become a referendum on me," he said. "So it's better for me to step aside and let it be a referendum on ideas, Republican values and what's important for this district."

DeLay's fall has been stunningly swift, one of the most brutal and decisive in American history. He had to give up his title of Majority Leader, the No. 2 spot in the House Republican leadership, in September when a Texas grand jury indicted him on charges of trying to evade the state's election law. So he moved out of his palatial suite in the Capitol, where he once brandished a "No Whining" mug during feisty weekly sessions with reporters, and moved across the street to the Cannon House Office Building, home of many freshmen.

The surprise decision was based on the sort of ruthless calculation that had once given him unchallenged dominance of House Republicans and their wealthy friends in Washington's lobbying community: he realized he might lose in this November's election. DeLay got a scare in a Republican primary last month, and a recent poll taken by his campaign gave him a roughly 50-50 shot of winning, in an election season when Republicans need every seat they can hang onto to avoid a Democratic takeover of the House.

"I'm a realist. I've been around awhile. I can evaluate political situations," DeLay told TIME at his kitchen table in Sugar Land, a former sugar plantation in suburban Houston. Bluebonnets are blooming along the highways. "I feel that I could have won the race. I just felt like I didn't want to risk the seat and that I can do more on the outside of the House than I can on the inside right now. I want to continue to fight for the conservative cause. I want to continue to work for a Republican majority."

Asked if he had done anything illegal or immoral in public office, DeLay replied curtly, "No." Asked if he'd done anything immoral, he said with a laugh, "We're all sinners." Asked what he would do differently, he said, "Nothing." He denied having failed to adequately supervise members of his staff, even though two of his former aides have pleaded guilty to committing crimes while on his staff. "Two people violated my trust over 21 years," he said. "I guarantee you if other offices were under the scrutiny I've been under in the last 10 years, with the Democrat Party announcing that they're going to destroy me, destroy my reputation, and that's how they're going to get rid of me, I guarantee you you're going to find, out of hundreds of people, somebody that's probably done something wrong."

DeLay brushed off the torrent of investigative news articles questioning the funding behind the golf, private planes and resort hotels that marked his travel at home and abroad. He even accepted a plane from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco to go to his arraignment. "There's nothing wrong with it," he said. "They had a plane available. My schedule was such that I couldn't do it commercially - that I had to get up there and then get back and do my job. And that's the only plane that was available at the time."

"You can't prove to me one thing that I have done for my own personal gain," he added. "Yes, I play golf. I'm very proud of the fact that I play golf. It's the only thing that I do for myself. And when you go to a country and you're there for seven days and you take an afternoon off to play golf, what does the national media write? All about the golf, not about the meeting that went to. I'm not ashamed of anything I've done. I've never done anything in my political career for my own personal gain. You can look at my bank account and my house to understand that."

"I don't care what history writes, " he continued. "What I care about, what's important to me is who I am, what I've done and what I can accomplish in the future. What I care about it what I believe in and how I conduct myself in fighting for what I believe in."

Appearing relaxed despite three cups of coffee, DeLay played with his petite dogs and led a leisurely tour of his home. Upstairs, he offered a frame-by-frame description of the photos reflecting his past political clout, such as a private session on the Truman Balcony with the President and First Lady Laura Bush. The first frame marks the beginning of his arc from pest-control entrepreneur to a feared and ingenious power broker. It's the front page from a local paper, the Herald-Coaster, from 1978, proclaiming, "DeLay Is House Winner." That was the Texas House; voters sent him to Washington six years later, starting him on a 21-year congressional career. During the tour, he gave an indication of his early deftness at the political game when he showed off a picture of his wife, Christine, and their daughter, Danielle, with President Ronald Reagan. "I had to withhold my vote," he said, "to get my daughter's picture with Ronald Reagan as a freshman." His wife, a formidable daily force in his office with a voice in nearly all scheduling and media decisions, pointed to a photo of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and noted, "That's when we thought she was going to be conservative."

Putting the best face on the poll taken by his campaign, DeLay said it gave him "a little bit better than a 50/50 chance of winning reelection." Asked if that didn't mean that he could lose, he replied, "Could have. There's no reason to risk a seat. This is a very strong Republican district. It's obvious to me that anybody but me running here will overwhelmingly win the seat."

DeLay said he is likely to leave by the end of May, depending on the Congressional schedule and finishing his work on a couple of issues. He said he will change his legal residence to his condominium in Alexandria, Va., from his modest two-story home on a golf course here in the 22nd District of Texas. "I become ineligible to run for election if I'm not a resident of the state of Texas," he said, turning election law to his purposes for perhaps on last time. State Republican officials will then be able to name another Republican candidate to face Democrat Nick Lampson, a former House members who lost his seat in a redistricting engineered by DeLay.

Lampson has made a major issue of the lobbying scandal, and his campaign home page has a petition headed, "Tell Tom DeLay to Return the Dirty Money!," referring to contributions from he and his political action committees have received from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a one-time DeLay ally who pleaded guilty in January to three felonies, including conspiring to defraud clients and bribe public officials.

DeLay's decision means that he no longer has to fear any further sanctions from the House ethics committee, which admonished him three times in 1994 for official conduct deemed inappropriate by members, but has been paralyzed for more than a year and has taken no action in the more recent scandal. Sources close to DeLay said he remains under investigation by the Justice Department prosecutors, who now have Abramoff's cooperation, but the lawmaker said he has nothing to fear from the feds. "I paid lawyers to investigate me as if they were prosecuting me," he said. "They found nothing. There is absolutely nothing - no connection with Jack Abramoff that is illegal, dishonest, unethical or against the House rules."

Richard Cullen, a former U.S. attorney who is DeLay's Washington lawyer, told TIME that in December, the lawmaker's legal team turned over to the Justice Department about 1,000 e-mails from his office computers. "This was to show we had nothing to hide," Cullen said. "They were everything we felt related to the Abramoff investigation. None are from DeLay. They're from staffers, showing their give and take with Abramoff. There was nothing that I said to myself or DeLay, wow, this is really bad for him. Prosecutors are looking to see whether anyone on the government payroll, whether a congressman or a staffer, performed official acts in return for a bribe or gratuity."

A Texas district attorney, Ronnie Earle of Travis County, indicted DeLay last year on money-laundering charges for transactions involving Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), a political action committee DeLay founded. Earle is a Democrat and DeLay has attacked the charges as "a political hit job." He says he did not personally carry out the transactions and that, in any case, they are standard practice for parties around the country. Regardless, DeLay was forced to vacate his post as majority leader because of a House Republican rule (known as "the DeLay rule," because it was enacted amid concern about his legal situation) that requires a leader under indictment to step down.

DeLay, a Baptist born in the border city of Laredo, said he "spent a lot of time" praying about his decision and that his personal relationship with Jesus drives his day-to-day actions. "My faith is who I am," he said. When DeLay was booked on the Texas charges, he wore his Congressional I.D. pin and flashed a broad smile designed to thwart Democrats who had hoped to make wide use of an image of a glowering DeLay. "I said a little prayer before I actually did the fingerprint thing, and the picture," he said. "My prayer was basically: 'Let people see Christ through me. And let me smile.' Now, when they took the shot, from my side, I thought it was fakiest smile I'd ever given. But through the camera, it was glowing. I mean, it had the right impact. Poor old left couldn't use it at all."

Recently, he said, he has been hearing from many people who want his help on projects outside Congress. He said his decision was cemented by the thunderous response at a conference in Washington last Wednesday decrying the "War on Christianity."

"You talk to a lot of people, give a lot of people opportunities to give you message," DeLay said. "If it's the wrong decision, doors don't open - they're closed to you, and you don't feel good about it, and you have doubts. Doors are opening already." He said he has no plans to write a book. "I'm not a very good writer, " he said. In what must be a relief to his many lawyers, he said he has not kept a diary.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1179853,00.html

To read a full transcript of the Time interview, click here: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1179857-2,00.html
 

2.  `Tough, Smart' Democrats Try to Play Offense - Bloomberg News Op-ed

April 4 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic congressional aides swarmed reporters last week as their party leaders prepared to go before the television cameras and announce their ``Real Security Plan to Protect America.''

``I don't know that we've had this kind of coordinated approach before,'' one unidentified staffer proudly told the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call.

How coordinated were they? Given the near-panic among Democrats to prove that they are not, after all, a ragtag band of peaceniks and flower children, unfit for leadership in the war on terror, the possibilities seemed endless.

Would Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid appear in a loincloth streaked with animal blood? And House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi -- would she dust off that old Wagnerian Valkyrie costume from her sorority's masquerade ball and present herself to the American people as the Bay Area Brunhilde she truly is?

No such luck. At the press conference the visuals were disappointingly dull, and that unprecedented coordination showed only in the focus-group-approved lingo the two leaders used.

``Americans,'' Reid said, ``demand policies that are tough and smart.''

``Real leadership,'' Pelosi said, ``demands tough and smart policies.''

Clearly, when it comes to defending America, Democrats are unafraid to risk offending the soft and dumb.

Happy Time?

This should be a happy time for congressional Democrats. Elections this fall offer them the real, though still distant, possibility of taking control of one or even both houses of Congress.

The key to the Democrats' possible change in fortune is national security. In 2002, Republicans used Democratic weakness on the issue to recapture the U.S. Senate. Democrats, in response, turned martial. In 2004, they chose a decorated Vietnam veteran as their presidential candidate and nominated him at a flag-festooned convention that might have been an American Legion meeting -- or a rehearsal for a Latin American coup.

The faux militarism didn't take, of course, and once again, according to exit polls, the Democrats' perceived weakness on national security gave Republicans the edge.

Yet now the edge is gone. For the first time since Sept. 11, a Rasmussen Reports poll showed more respondents trusting congressional Democrats in national security matters than President George W. Bush, 43 percent to 41 percent.

Cementing the Lead

Given the daily grind of bad news from Iraq, it's remarkable this lead is so small. Democrats aren't complaining, however, and it was in hopes of cementing the lead that Pelosi and Reid released their ``Plan to Protect America.''

Ordinary Democrats should ask their leaders for a do-over. The plan released last week consists of three pages of large type, laid out PowerPoint style, amounting to perhaps 300 words, the bulk of them devoted to listing Bush administration shortcomings.

There's not much beyond the kibitzing. The plan contains several pledges that may be smart but have nothing to do with national security (``enact a GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century,'' ``Protect America from ... the Avian flu''). Other pledges are pure bluster (``eliminate Osama bin Laden''). Some sound wonderfully tough but are impossible (``double the size of our Special Forces'').

Right to Worry

The plan does nothing to mute the real source of voter concerns about Democrats and national security: their natural tendency to minimize threats and underestimate the response required.

And voters are right to worry. When Pelosi and Reid say they will ``ensure'' that ``Iraqis assume primary responsibility for securing and governing their country'' by the end of 2006, a voter might happily agree with the goal -- but then recall Pelosi's endorsement last December of Congressman Jack Murtha's call for a complete and ``immediate'' U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

Or the voter might hear an echo from Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who last year said: ``The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.''

Reid's Boast

They may recall as well Pelosi's consistent opposition to the so-called Patriot Act, or Reid's boast at a political rally last December: ``We killed the Patriot Act.'' And they may recall that when Bush's program of warrant-less wiretaps was exposed, the first reaction of some prominent congressional Democrats --including John Conyers, who would become chairman of the Judiciary Committee if Democrats gain a majority in the House --was to ``explore'' the possibility of impeachment.

Bush, the Democrats seem to suggest, has been too tough on national security. Indeed, this is the point behind that curious focus-group formulation: ``tough and smart'' is a nice way of saying ``tough, but let's not overdo it.'' A majority of voters are unlikely to sympathize.

The mixed signals are signs either of schizophrenia or political expediency.

It's reassuring, though sometimes difficult, to remember that the Democratic Party still harbors a few people with original, serious ideas about success in Iraq and the war on terror -- if only Pelosi and Reid had consulted them.

`Oil Spot' Strategy

The Democratic Leadership Council, for example, has endorsed the views of military historian Andrew Krepinevich, whose proposed ``oil spot'' strategy against the Iraq insurgents is at once serious about winning in Iraq and different from the Bush administration's approach until recently. Krepinevich argues the U.S. should focus on winning over regular Iraqis so that good will and security would spread across the country like an oil stain.

Why not include such an idea in the Democrats' plan? Probably because Krepinevich also says this: ``This strategy will require at least a decade of commitment and hundreds of billions of dollars and will result in longer U.S. casualty rolls.''

No schizophrenia there -- just honesty and realism. Pelosi and Reid might have tried those, too, even if it's not as snappy as ``tough and smart.''

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_ferguson&sid=a68IY6PY67tY#
 

3.  G.O.P. Is Taking Aim at Advocacy Groups - New York Times

By CARL HULSE and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, March 30 - To many Republicans, the liberal activist organization MoveOn.org is a political boogeyman that they hope to chase off with new restrictions on so-called 527 groups.

But the pursuit may turn out to be fruitless. Like other major groups planning to inject themselves aggressively into the midterm elections through advertisements, voter drives and issue fights, MoveOn.org has already figured out what it thinks is a better, and less controversial, way to spend its millions. Its 527 - named for a section of the tax code - is being put on ice.

"Our 527 is dormant," said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org. He said his group would predominantly operate as a conventional political action committee, allowing it to more freely mix explicit political support and issue advocacy in a way that Mr. Pariser described as "squeaky clean."

MoveOn.org might be moving on from its 527, but Congress is not. Two years after 527's burst onto the political scene, gaining notoriety by raising unlimited amounts from private donors, Congressional Republicans are moving to rein in the groups - just in time for the November midterm elections. Leading Democrats are threatening a fight.

In the House, the Republican leadership intends to bring a plan to impose new restrictions on 527 groups to the floor next week to spur action in the Senate, where Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, a champion of the campaign finance bill that bears his name, is offering similar legislation.

"I think this leaves a gaping loophole in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill," the House majority leader, Representative John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, told reporters on Thursday, referring to a bill co-sponsored by Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin. "I think it needs to be fixed."

But Mr. Boehner's Democratic counterpart, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, denounced the effort, saying that Republicans could draw unlimited money from wealthy corporations and trade associations that used their own nonprofit arms to wage issue campaigns.

Both Mr. McCain and the House leaders want to limit annual donations to 527 groups and force them to abide by the more stringent rules governing political committees if they are active in federal races.

A federal district judge in Washington this week also called for action, ruling that the Federal Election Commission had "failed to present a reasoned explanation" for not requiring 527 groups to register as political committees. The judge, Emmet G. Sullivan, ordered the commission either to articulate its reasoning for evaluating 527 complaints on a case-by-case basis, or to "promulgate a rule, if necessary."

But even if the campaign to stamp out 527 groups succeeds, it may not greatly impede third-party involvement in political campaigns, which is flourishing as advocacy groups adapt and discover ever more creative ways to pour their contributions into the political process.

Independent organizations are already working on behalf of candidates in both parties, rallying support behind issues, canvassing for voters and preparing for big-money efforts, with many steering clear of the 527 approach. And some of the deep-pocketed 527 groups that were active in 2004 are so far on the sidelines.

"Unless and until they actually manage to repeal the First Amendment itself, we are going to find a way to give voice to the tens of thousands of people who share our views and want to have a voice in the political process," said Pat Toomey, president of the Club for Growth, an antitax group that has been sued by the election commission over the conduct of its 527 in a 2004 Senate race.

The 527 groups drew intense scrutiny after Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ran its campaign attacking the war record of the Democratic presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. But while Swift Boats drew the spotlight, the liberal philanthropist George Soros nearly single-handedly redefined the scope of campaign finance by contributing millions to progressive groups like MoveOn.

So while candidates of both parties suffered at the hands of 527 committees, the drive to limit them is being pushed largely by Republicans who fear that Democratic advantages among the groups could swamp some of their candidates.

"It is the Loch Ness monster in 527 form, rising out of the mist to eat them," scoffed Robert Bauer, an election law specialist opposed to the proposed restrictions on 527 committees.

After 2004, the Federal Election Commission scrutinized some 527 groups and sued Club for Growth. The result, said Kenneth A. Gross, a campaign finance lawyer, was that "527's have been demonized to some extent," prompting many outside advocacy groups to rely on another provision of the tax code, 501c(4), which governs nonprofit groups.

Business and trade associations typically operate under a similar provision, 501c(6). As a bonus, the 501c groups are not required to disclose their donors, as 527 groups are.

Tony Massaro, executive vice president for political affairs at the League of Conservation Voters, said his group relied on its 501c(4) status because it could push directly for the election of specific candidates right up to Election Day, since the group takes no union or corporate money. Were it a 527, the advertisements would have to skirt that issue and strike a fuzzier theme of urging voters to contact candidates about their positions on divisive issues - a gimmick that Mr. Massaro said comported with the law but left the public cold.

"Voters get frustrated by that game," said Mr. Massaro, who said his organization would spend $3 million to $5 million and was already working on behalf of Democratic Senate candidates in Florida, Pennsylvania and Washington.

Brad Woodhouse, a spokesman for Americans United, a 501c(4) group, said that category allowed his organization to work closely with like-minded Democrats in shaping its advocacy program, including its current push for changes in Medicare's new prescription drug program. Such contact that would be prohibited for a 527.

Representative Mike Pence, an Indiana Republican who is an opponent of restraining 527 committees, likened the current atmosphere to whack-a-mole, the carnival game where the player hits a mole with a hammer, only to have another pop up. He is backing legislation that would raise limits on contributions to political parties - an idea that opponents say would gut previous reforms.

"We hit political parties and 527's pop up," Mr. Pence said. "We're going to whack them and 501c's are going to pop up."

Despite the current dip in 527 activity, some new ones are being established, including one opposing Senator Rick Santorum, a conservative Republican in a tough re-election race in Pennsylvania. Veteran Democratic operatives just established a new group called Fresh Start for America, which is expected to engage in Senate races this year.

As lawmakers prepare for a potential fight, Mr. Pariser of MoveOn.org said there could be one unexpected consequence. He suggested the effort to clamp down on 527 groups could enhance the influence of his organization because it would have the financial means to mount aggressive campaigns while potential competing groups would be handcuffed.

"We will be better positioned to do political ads," he said. "I presume that was not their intent."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/washington/31groups.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
 

4.  Let Cooler Heads Prevail - Washington Post Op-ed

The Media Heat Up Over Global Warming

By George F. Will
Sunday, April 2, 2006; B07

So, "the debate is over." Time magazine says so. Last week's cover story exhorted readers to "Be Worried. Be Very Worried," and ABC News concurred in several stories. So did Montana's governor, speaking on ABC. And there was polling about global warming, gathered by Time and ABC in collaboration.

Eighty-five percent of Americans say warming is probably happening, and 62 percent say it threatens them personally. The National Academy of Sciences says the rise in the Earth's surface temperature has been about one degree Fahrenheit in the past century. Did 85 percent of Americans notice? Of course not. They got their anxiety from journalism calculated to produce it. Never mind that one degree might be the margin of error when measuring the planet's temperature. To take a person's temperature, you put a thermometer in an orifice or under an arm. Taking the temperature of our churning planet, with its tectonic plates sliding around over a molten core, involves limited precision.

Why have Americans been dilatory about becoming as worried -- as very worried -- as Time and ABC think proper? An article on ABC's Web site wonders ominously, "Was Confusion Over Global Warming a Con Job?"

It suggests there has been a misinformation campaign implying that scientists might not be unanimous, a campaign by -- how did you guess? -- big oil. And the coal industry. But speaking of coal . . .

Recently, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer flew with ABC's George Stephanopoulos over Glacier National Park's receding glaciers. But Schweitzer offered hope: Everyone, buy Montana coal. New technologies can, he said, burn it while removing carbon causes of global warming.

Stephanopoulos noted that such technologies are at least four years away and "all the scientists" say something must be done "right now." Schweitzer, quickly recovering from hopefulness and returning to the "be worried, be very worried" message, said "it's even more critical than that" because China and India are going to "put more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with conventional coal-fired generators than all of the rest of the planet has during the last 150 years."

That is one reason why the Clinton administration never submitted the Kyoto accord on global warming for Senate ratification. In 1997 the Senate voted 95 to 0 that the accord would disproportionately burden America while being too permissive toward major polluters that are America's trade competitors.

While worrying about Montana's receding glaciers, Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."

In fact, the Earth is always experiencing either warming or cooling. But suppose the scientists and their journalistic conduits, who today say they were so spectacularly wrong so recently, are now correct. Suppose the Earth is warming and suppose the warming is caused by human activity. Are we sure there will be proportionate benefits from whatever climate change can be purchased at the cost of slowing economic growth and spending trillions? Are we sure the consequences of climate change -- remember, a thick sheet of ice once covered the Midwest -- must be bad? Or has the science-journalism complex decided that debate about these questions, too, is "over"?

About the mystery that vexes ABC -- Why have Americans been slow to get in lock step concerning global warming? -- perhaps the "problem" is not big oil or big coal, both of which have discovered there is big money to be made from tax breaks and other subsidies justified in the name of combating carbon.

Perhaps the problem is big crusading journalism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR2006033101707.html

 

5.  Myths vs. facts - Rep. Tom Tancredo

It has been said that if you tell a lie 1,000 times in politics, it becomes truth. Before we reach that threshold, there are two myths that must be dispelled about the House's bipartisan immigration reform bill:

*The first myth is that the House bill would make criminals out of priests who run homeless shelters and soup kitchens.

The bill would not substantially change decades of law with respect to religious organizations. From 1986 until this year, no organization was allowed to conceal, harbor or shield an alien from law enforcement "in reckless disregard of the fact" that the alien is in this country illegally. During those two decades, no church was shut down for providing basic social services to illegal aliens. Regardless, I think congressional leaders would be open to language that reaffirms current practice and clarifies the bill's intent.

But beyond soup and shelter, why should religious organizations be exempt from a law against actively concealing illegal aliens from law enforcement? It's no secret that there are terrorist front organizations in the USA, and that these front organizations most often claim to be relief charities or religious groups. Just one example is the Holy Land Foundation, whose headquarters was only miles from our nation's capital and which was shut down for supporting Hamas and other terrorist-related organizations.

*A second myth is that House Republicans want to make illegal presence in the USA a felony.

The truth is Democrats voted for the felony provision, and a majority of Republicans (including me) voted against it.

Right now, illegal presence in the USA is not a crime; it is a civil infraction. The House Judiciary Committee voted to make it a felony but then was counseled that millions of new felons could clog our courts.

Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., wrote an amendment to his own bill asking that the penalty be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor; 191 Democrats and a few Republicans voted to keep the felony penalty in the hope that it would be a poison pill to defeat the measure. After his amendment lost, Sensenbrenner promised, "When this bill gets to (House-Senate) conference, those penalties will be made workable. You can count on that."

The truth? The House bill would construct a security fence along our southern border, require federal and local law enforcement to cooperate on immigration matters, and mandate that employers use an instant check system to verify their employees' legal status. Unlike the Senate bill, our version would offer no amnesty and would not add foreign workers to our already overwhelmed background-check system.

Polls released last week show that nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose amnesty, and that 90% say illegal immigration is a serious problem. The House's approach is supported by most Americans. Now, we wait for the Senate to follow.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., is chairman of the congressional immigration reform caucus.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-29-opposingview-immigration_x.htm
 

###