Thank you, Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.), for staying with this and pushing through an important amendment to an important bill. The "John Doe" provision will protect those who believe they see a terrorist incident being planned and report it to authorities. It sounds like everyone would agree that it is a good thing... that is everyone but the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Democrats they support.

It sounds also as though King didn't have to give up too much in negotiations either:

The House Republican leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, and Rep. Peter King, a Republican of Long Island, said last night that they had reached agreement to include what has become known as the "John Doe" amendment in the final version of a major homeland security bill to implement the recommendations of the commission established to investigate the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The bill is currently in a House-Senate conference committee, and a deal will be announced today.

The legislation to protect those who contact the authorities about potential crimes arose from a lawsuit supported by CAIR for the so-called "Flying Imams" who were acting strangely like the 9/11 groups led by Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and seventeen others. The moniker "John Doe" comes from the fact that those who reported the imam's behavior were not identified.

Senator John Cornyn (Republican) is now asking President Bush (Republican) why he can pardon his friend Scooter Libby while allowing two border patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, to serve 10 year sentences for shooting a drug smuggler. His statement today from National Review Online:

"I am deeply concerned with some of the information that came to light at today's Committee hearing today. Among other things, it would appear that the government allowed this drug dealer to violate the terms of his immunity agreement with impunity. Further, it would appear that this drug dealer was allowed to commit perjury with impunity. I would also note that several jurors have since come forward to state that evidence which they were prevented from hearing would have changed their verdict. I have serious concerns with the government's decision to suppress certain information from this jury. Finally, I am perhaps most concerned with the very excessive prison terms that were handed down to these two individuals.

"Agents Ramos and Compean were on the front lines; their duty was to enforce our immigration laws and protect this nation. The prosecutors had a duty to dispense equal justice under the law. It seems to me an open question whether Agents Ramos and Compean were treated differently because of their status as law enforcement officers. What I do know, however, is that if the Scooter Libby case is one which the President believes was excessive then I have a hard time understanding why these two individuals would not warrant a similar review."

This issue has been smoldering in the background of conservative ranks for awhile now, but I am surprised that a high profile Republican senator has been willing to challenge the administration on this. That's a good thing, but a little surprising that it's a Republican. Where are the Democrats on this issue? This is a golden opportunity for them to contrast the presidents pardoning of a friend of his while letting two hispanic federal agents rot in prison. Are the Democrats more concerned about the rights of illegal immigrant drug smugglers? I doubt it, yet so far only Dianne Feinstein has latched on to this issue. That should change and this issue may blow up at any time.

While the Bush administration has been conducting its international war on terror, it has forgotten the fact that safety starts in one's own backyard. For the second year in a row, the number of violent crimes in the United States has increased. To me, it doesn't come as a great surprise.

After 9/11, the Bush spin doctors latched on to world-wide terror as a way to win votes. Keep the eye on those terrorists in the Middle East. Make sure they don't attack us. While the sky was falling in the U.S., Bush was able to divert the voters attentions away from the problems at home.

States around then nation lost federal funding after the attack. Income taxes were decreased and money was diverted to the war effort. How could a voter place a value on this war against terror? Though Bush couldn't spend enough in the Middle East, the same concept did not hold true at home. States lost money and cities and towns lost funding. Police, firemen and teachers were laid off. Cities and towns tightened their belts and moved on.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, there is a serious effort to revive a bill to put mental health problems in the background check system.

Under the bill, states would be given money to help them supply the federal government with information on mental-illness adjudications and other run-ins with the law that are supposed to disqualify individuals from firearms purchases. For the first time, states would face penalties for not keeping the National Instant Criminal Background Check System current.

The legislation, drafted several years ago by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), has twice passed the House, only to die in the Senate. But Cho Seung Hui's rampage Monday has given it new life.

Since 1968, individuals deemed mentally ill by the legal system are not supposed to be able to buy guns. A court's ordering Cho into treatment in late 2005 should have been reported to the federal background check system, congressional aides said. Instead, his background check came up clean, and he legally bought the two handguns used to kill 32 students and teachers before he committed suicide.

I did not know that last part. The problem is that mental health is protected private information according to our laws. This protects your medical history from becoming public knowledge. This is a good thing if you've ever had a problem and need a job. It's a bad thing if your mental condition is a threat to society.

In the face of the Virginia Tech tragedy, gun control proponents have their hopes up. They shouldn't. Democrats aren't about to take up this cause except in a few interviews here and there. Why? The short answer is that they like to win elections. The long answer is handled very well at this recent Salon article (free after viewing advertisement).

Democrats have been turning away from gun control ever since Al Gore's run for the presidency. The then-vice president and his advisors had tried to out-gun-control liberal challenger Bill Bradley during the Democratic primaries. Campaigning against George W. Bush in the general election, Gore decided to quiet his criticism of the NRA and mute his support for gun control to build support in battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan where support for gun rights runs high. In the wake of Gore's loss, many Democrats blamed the defeat on previous pro-gun control positions Gore had taken, and pulled the party further back from where it had been on the issue.

Harry Reid, Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Howard Dean. All are against gun control. Even my new governor, Ted Strickland, is a pro-gun liberal.

My guess is that the Democrats like having control of the senate. And if they do, don't expect to see a major push on this issue. In fact it goes back way before 2000. Democratic reluctance goes back to 1993 when they passed the original assault weapons ban. Immediately after that they lost control of both house of congress for the first time in 40 years.

If the American people want gun control, they're going to have to be a lot more convincing, because the only party that's going to even think about pushing it has had their fingers burned too many times.

Previously on 'The Stump' and 'AOL News Bloggers':
· Cho Seung-Hui's Plays
· Politics on Hold
· What if There Were Thirty Virginia Tech Shootings a Day

McCain and Giuliani have cancelled their schedules for tomorrow and I expect others to follow suit if they haven't already. The Edwards campaign has a new front page.

This is an appropriate response as the usual politics will grind to a halt over the next few days. At this moment the gunman has not been identified, but might be a 24-year-old Chinese man who is also a recent immigrant. Still waiting confirmation on that.

I'm not going to push the usual political buttons on this. Yes there are some points that could be made, but I think the more important reality is that it could have been a bombs or plane hijackings as well as guns. We've seen it all and know that evil finds a way. Politicians and the media can help most by just getting us the facts without any political overtones. Who did it and why? Were there any warning signs? Could anything have been done?

If you're not helping to answer questions like this, it's probably best to stand to the side.

Victims Identified So Far

32 students were shot by a man who systematically walked through two buildings and commenced firing. This is the worst school shooting ever. Details are emerging every minute, but his name and specifics are not yet known. Info is constantly being updated at several sites (including a jilted boyfriend angle) including ABC. The Blotter already is blaming guns instead of the gunman.

Interestingly, last year, the Virginia legislature rejected in committee a bill that would have allowed guns to be brought on campus:

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

In what could only be explained as words one would like to take back, a spokesman for VA Tech, who was against the bill, had this to say:

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

What if one person in proximity to the gunman had a weapon and knew how to use it? How many people could've been saved from this psycho? Gun control advocates will say that we need stronger gun control laws. That is exactly the wrong reaction, but it's visceral after events like this. Shockingly, an ABC News poll shows that at 4:31 PM, twice as many people think that more gun control is needed than not.

My prayers go out to the families of those killed and wounded.

Update (1910): Several questions come to mind after watching the earlier presser. First, why did they wait so long to lock down the school? I imagine it did appear that it was a love triangle gone bad but they didn't have the guy in custody. Second, Why did it take nearly two hours to alert the students the first murder had occurred? Lastly, was it me or did the police sound as if they may be searching for more than one murderer?

Patrick Casey covered this very well earlier here, but I want to interject some further thoughts. Patrick notes that North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper actually said that the students were "innocent." He also noted that this was career death for Mike Nifong. It also clearly sets up the the Durham DA's office for a huge lawsuit.

Let's review a bit about this case. District Attorney Mike Nifong was in an election year and he saw in this case a great opportunity to bolster his bona fide's. A racial case that would help him secure the minority vote that would make him appealing in the eyes of the community. He pursued it with a vigor most Conservatives wish the president would pursue illegal immigration. He convinced the media -- who in turn told the public-- that these white, rich lacrosse players were guilty of raping a black woman. He played on what he thought was the inherent racism in America as a whole and the South in particular. He made it clear that this was an open and shut case and that he had evidence the players were guilty. He then withheld information that would have exonerated the players and failed to meet with the accuser.

Three students at the esteemed and elitist Yale were arrested for burning the American flag:

BOSTON (Reuters) - Three Yale University students, including a Briton and a Greek national, have been charged in a case involving the burning of a U.S. flag outside a Connecticut house, a court official said on Wednesday.

...Anklesaria is British and Angelopoulos is Greek. Both are freshmen. Akbar, a senior, was born in Pakistan but is a U.S. citizen, according to police and court documents. Anklesaria and Angelopoulos turned over their passports.

The Brit and the Greek should probably read a little history and learn why they should love America. It was only sixty-some years ago that the Nazis threatened the former and occupied the latter. It was America's entry into WWII and the sacrifices of our servicemen that freed them from near certain decades of Nazism. You figure if they were accepted at Yale they would have some semblance of intelligence. Goes to show that you can send 'em to school and still they may not learn a damn thing.

... from New Orleans. Eight murders over the weekend and Mayor Ray Nagin has asked Governor Blanco of Louisiana to keep the LA National Guard on the streets of New Orleans through the summer. They are desperately needed.

New Orleans has watched violent crime escalate in the wake of Hurricane Katrina although the latest Census Bureau estimate said the city had slightly less than half the people it did before the storm. A study by Tulane University demographer Mark VanLandingham put New Orleans' per capita murder rate at 96 per 100,000 people last year - the highest in the nation.

"With all the efforts being made by the city and the feds, you have not seen a down turn," said criminologist Peter Scharf. "Nothing has had any impact. In fact, things are getting measurably worse."

The crime in New Orleans was bad before, of course. But it's reaching new levels of insanity. This elevated crime-wave is absolutely threatening to smother any chance at a real recovery for New Orleans.

Never one to not politicize current events, Hillary Clinton used the recent vile attack on the 101-year-old New York granny, Rose Morat, as a political prop -- blaming President Bush for the attack:

The vicious mugging caught the attention of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), who made it a part of her presidential campaign yesterday, blaming President Bush's cuts to community policing programs for recent spikes in crime and rising fear.

"We had a horrible mugging the other day in New York City. A 101-year-old woman in her walker was attacked," Clinton told the National League of Cities conference in Washington.

"That was on the front page of our papers. Imagine how that makes every widow living alone, every older person, everybody [feel]."

"We've got to get back to making crime reduction a No. 1 objective in our country," she said.

Very, very slick. I assume that she is talking about the the Bush administration's reduction of her (or was it Bill's?) COPS program, a grant program that pumped $10 billion dollars to the states for the hiring of 100,000 more police, in an effort to curb crime. Unfortunately (and counter to the claims of Bill and Hillary), as USA Today reported two years ago, the COPS program was a debacle: