Just reporting it, I didn't write this.

Finally, the Pelosi House of Representatives is scheduled to vote this week on a rule change that will give non-members of the House a vote. The change would give the right to vote on the House floor to the five delegates from American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.

You've probably already guessed the reason: Four out of the five are Democrats. But here's something you might not have considered: The Pelosi bill also makes a mockery of one person, one vote.

The average congressional district has about 630,000 people. But the Pelosi bill would give an equal vote to American Samoa, which is 91 percent smaller than the average state congressional district.

What's even more outrageous is that American Samoa pays no federal taxes. So what the House voting change amounts to is representation without taxation -- which would be great, if we could all have it. But as it stands, the Pelosi bill makes your vote only 1/10th as important as the people living in tax-free American Samoa. It is the same territory Pelosi tried to exclude from the minimum wage bill that just passed the Pelosi House.

This is profoundly wrong. There are no provisions for the territories' cancelling the votes of states. There is a process for becoming a state, and to have full power in the American system you have to be in a state.

The Democrats tried this same gimmick in 1993. You can read my floor speech from that time here (javascript:ol('http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/ct.php?t%3d1122904%26c%3d1047442107%26m%3dm%26type%3d1%26h%3d72FB65405D4161CF62397329CCF9C044');). We promptly took it out of the rules when we were sworn in in 1995.

Truth doesn't need balance

Tonight, it was the portion on immigration reform that mattered. The president called on Congress to "resolve the status of illegal aliens already in the country." However, their status has already been resolved -- they are illegal aliens.

What Bush wants to do is permit them to change that status (and not by leaving the country). But why should we do that? Bush did not say. Those who broke our laws and entered the U.S. illegally had no reasonable expectation that they would ever become citizens -- they decided that it was worth it to come and remain here without that enhanced status. Why then should we improve upon a bargain that was good enough when made and which the illegals could reverse by simply leaving the country?

Right now, we can't control whether folks come into the country illegally; our only control consists of making sure that those who do so cannot profit to extent of becoming citizens.

Until we prove that we can control our borders, it would be foolish to relinquish that control. But that's what Bush and the Dems likely will do.

UPDATE: There were two important lines about Iraq that Speaker Pelosi (along with many her Democratic colleagues) declined to applaud at all. One was the president's call for us to "find our resolve, and turn events toward victory."

The other was his statement that "nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East [and] to succeed in Iraq."

"Simply put, the most important question for U.S. leaders is: What set of policies is most likely to prevent Islamist terrorists from arriving in Los Angeles, or any other American community, with the capacity to kill thousands of people?"

The answer is clear: We must end Islamic immigration, for starters. However, the elites of this country won't do it because for them, "non-discrimmination" is a higher value than protecting America.

That is the NIMBYs, NAMBYs, NOPEs, and BANANAs

NIMBY = not in my backyard (Kenennedy),

NAMBY = not in anybody's back yard (most SF politicians),

NOPE = nowhere on planet earth (most of the green party)

BANANA= Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.

"union attitude" (highest possible wages for lowest possible effort)

But not all Muslims are radicals, insist the "if onlys."

Absolutely true. But neither were all Germans Nazis. What counts are not those who are passive and uninvolved but those in the driver’s seat, those who can intimidate entire populations.

The silence of virtually all of Islam’s world wide population, including America’s, regarding these barbaric outbursts and beheadings, demonstrates how the Islamic masses are acquiescing to the jihadists -- or worse.

Courtesy of a Buck posting

The "Sullivan Act", that notorious anti-gun law in New York was enacted TO PROTECT THE CRIMINALS!

True, back somewhere around the time of "Gangs of New York" or whatever that movie was called, back around that time the citizens were so overwhelmed by crime and corrupt law enforcement that they started carrying firearms to protect themselves from street robberies. The result was crime was down because the robbers were hesitant about approaching a citizen who was armed.

The revenue to the corrupt politicians (who allowed the street gangs) dropped so dramatically they passed laws banning firearms.