Right Wing Nut House

The race to the bottom for the honor of being Cluebat of the Week was an exciting one, wasn’t it? From across the political spectrum, there was cluelessness galore as politicians, bloggers, and media types of every size, shape, race, creed, color, sexual orientation, and felony category vied in a most spirited manner for the top spot in the Wide, Wide, World of Cluebats.

I hardly know where to begin. I had to do a lot of work to narrow the field to three candidate cluebats. If I left you off the list, I apologize (Ted Rall) or if I didn’t think you were quite clueless enough, better luck next time (Hillary). The fact is, the finalists this week demonstrated an Olympian ability to transgress against common sense, common decency, and even the laws of nature.

For instance, the Saga of Ben Domenech will go down as a milepost in the history of blogs. For if the serial plagiarizer proved anything, it is that bloggers can be as stupid and clueless as any mainstream media reporter. Ben’s “indiscretions” are so titanically gross, they are actually more worthy of being set down as part of some epic poem, a Scandinavian saga recited for hours around a roaring fire by some guy dressed in animal skins. Or perhaps his deeds, like Siegfried’s triumphs, could be the subject of a Wagnerian opera because in Ben’s case, the fat lady has definitely started to sing. As Patrick Frey remarked only half in jest, ” Good Lord. Has this Domenech guy ever written anything original?”

Our runner-up for this week’s award goes to Zacarias Moussaoui. I know, I know…making fun of a guy who had blood on his mind directed toward Americans is probably in real bad taste - something this site is becoming justly famous for. But when you examine the antics of this bloodthirsty cluebat, you end up just shaking your head in wonder. His grandiose claims about being in cahoots with shoebomber Richard Reid have already been debunked (Reid being almost as clueless seeing that, thank God, he was so inept he couldn’t light the fuse in his shoe) as has his boast that he was supposed to fly a plane into the White House. The fact that he is on trial for his life makes it even more bizarre especially since, as was revealed yesterday, he tried to make a deal to testify against himself with the prosecutors not to avoid the death penalty but rather in order to get better living conditions in prison.

But the prize this week for sheer effrontery to logic, decency, and a just, ordered society has to go to the illegal immigrants (not the legal ones) who took part in demonstrations against reform measures that want to treat them as the criminals that they are and the arrogant and clueless scofflaws they demonstrate themselves to be. And just to show that this is an equal opportunity cluebat bashing blog, I will say to the Mexicans in California, the Irish in the Back Bay, the Poles in Chicago, the Russians in Brighton Beach, the Taiwanese in San Francisco, the Thais in Louisiana, the Arabs in Dearborne, and Serbs in Milwaukee…GET YOUR ASS TO THE BACK OF THE LINE AND WAIT YOUR TURN, DAMNIT!

So for demonstrating a maddening ability to not recognize the jaw-dropping irony inherent in their demonstrations last weekend, illegal immigrants are named Cluebats of the Week.

There’s plenty more where that came from. Sample some of the best from the world of idiots by visiting a few of the posts below. You won’t be disappointed. C’mon! Get your click on!

“In politics stupidity is not a handicap.”
(Napoleon Bonaparte)

“Hey Nappy! I see you’ve met our Republican Senators who support the guest worker program”
(Me)

*******************************************************************

Every once and a while, a post comes our way at the Carnival that defines cluelessness so well that all we can do is link to it and thank the blogger who sent it along. In this case, we have Fred Fry to be grateful to.

Pat Curley has some fallout that befell Michelle Malkin in the aftermath of the Domenech affair and the clueless conservatives at RedState who initiated it.

Bill Teach shows us why Helen Thomas will be receiving the “Life Time Achievement Award” for the clueless coming up next week when we induct several cluebats into the Hall of Fame. (See below)

Is there anything more insidious than Saudi Arabia bribing American Universities with multi-million dollar gifts? If you ask the lovely Pamela at Atlas Shrugs, she’ll tell you that it’s the clueless colleges taking the money in the first place.

Tom Bowler comments on the cluelessness of Jacques Chirac who walked out of an EU conference because one of his countrymen had the temerity to speak English.

Dan Melson has dug up another outsourcing deal that makes the Dubai ports imbroglio look like a picnic. Seems that we’ve given a contract to a Hong Kong (China!) company to scan for nukes and nuclear material at foreign ports without the presence of any US inspectors. Ronaldus Maximus: “Trust, but verify.”

DL at Bacon Bits has some eyebrow raising cluelessness on the part of Mayor Nagin and the New Orleans city government regarding all those cars that were 9 feet underwater as a result of hurricane Katrina.

Jack Cluth presents us with a typical bit of FBI/DHS idiocy; they’re spying on antiwar grandmas. Says Jack: “Man…who would have thought that the biggest threat was right here at home, baking cookies under our collective nose?”

I must confess that my head hurts after reading this post from the smartest cat on the Internet. Ferdy is debunking that Berkley study showing conservatives are whiners by using coins. My only question: Where do kitties put the change they get back from a dollar?

Not to be outdone, Buckley F. Williams gives us “Top 9 Unreported Findings From “The Berkeley Whining Study.” Check out #3. Ouch!

Welcome back Two Dogs! Mean ole Meany returns to the Carnival with a vengeance - and some excellent logic as he takes down a clueless columnist who wrote about whites “fleeing” the Democratic party in Mississippi because Republicans are now the racists.

Our favorite salty Christian Stingray has the jaw-dropper of the day about a woman who accidentally sold her son-in-law’s ashes.

Ilkka Kokkarinen, the finest Finnish-Canadian blogger around, has a fine essay on the cluelessness of feminists.

Rofa Six points us to this bit of lunacy; someone is actually trying to sell an Apache helicopter on Ebay. I wonder if it comes fully armed?

Mensa Barbie has a serious post about the new domestic violence law in France. Read about it and then wonder what the hell took them so long.

Kender is out of the hospital and making up for lost time with this piece on immigrant “rights.” Or is it “immigrant wrongs?”

Shamalama is ding donging the New York Times for their utter cluelessness about a Katrina “victim” they profiled who turned out to be a fraud and had stolen thousands from the government. The Times was a near finalist for Cluebat of the Week.

Carnival reader Dan Hagen sends us his very own “SATIRICAL POLITICAL BELIEFS ASSESSMENT TEST.” Been a while since I took the SAT…

Our shaggy friends at Random Yak have a head-shaking piece about bad language, kids, and the school district’s “concern” that is spurring them to action. Quoth the Yak: “I’m sure the foul-mouthed little cretins are quivering in their [inappropriate language deleted] boots.”

Where I Stand looks to be an interesting blog. To prove it, here’s an interesting discussion of state’s rights between two of the site’s writers.

Wenchypoo has a bit of statistical cluelessness on the part of us baby boomers and saving for our retirement.

Another good looking new blog (new to me) is Vox Popular. Here’s a letter from Mr. Hashemi, the former Taliban spokesman now enrolled at Yale University. The salutation will give you an idea: “Greetings American Swine-Dogs.”

XYBA sends us word that Planned Parenthood is opposing a proposed law in Michigan that would protect women from being forced into having abortions. You’re not surprised, are you?

Oh my! Prevaricating pachyderms at Academic Elephants? No, but many good points made nonetheless.

Although not really clueless, Lecentre would like to promote a Carnival at their own site that I will probably enter myself; “Mediocre Media Carnival.”

Jon Swift has some curious lunacy from Texas authorities who have taken to going into bars looking for drunks in order to cut down on drunk driving.

Dean Swift has a fascinating bit about bordeom and college students.

Finally, Here are my thoughts on Domenech. Make sure you check the update first.

ATTENTION: NOMINATIONS WANTED

Next week, will be our first Hall of Fame edition of the Carnival of the Clueless. I am seeking your input into the decision of who are the most clueless people on the planet worthy of being included.

I arbitrarily chose these five as original members of the Hall.
1. Ted Kennedy
2. Hillary Clinton
3. John Kerry
4. Jimmy Carter
5. Pat Robertson

Criteria is loose but what we’re looking for is cluelessness on a consistent basis that has taken place over a period of many years.

Send your entries via email or leave them in the comments on this post. A total of at least 3 and as many as 5 cluebats will be honored.

As a reward for your participation, if your nomination is well written enough, I’ll include it in the post.

Deadline is Monday at 10:00 PM central.

UPDATE

I guess I didn’t make clear that the five cluebats listed above are already in the Hall of Fame. I’m looking for others.

Anybody wanna buy a blog? Cheap?

My blog on Blogshares began the day worth a cool $4,568 per share. Someone must have started some kind of rumor because as of this moment, it is worth exactly $302.78 per share.

Jesus, now I know how Kenny Lay feels.

In an effort to buck up the price, I can let it be known that prospects for this site look very promising indeed. I have it on good authority that this blog is, in fact, undervalued considerably and if I were you, I’d head on over to Blogshares and buy, buy, buy!

I promise to donate 1/3 of my profits to the Scooter Libby Revenge Fund and the Vice President Cheney Sharpshooter School. The rest, I will of course plow back into this blog trying to earn your trust which has obviously faltered.

Invest now…or I’ll call my friend Jack Bauer and he will make this the worst day of your life if you don’t.

They came down the exit ramp of the plane and stepped on free soil for the first time in their lives. A little three year old girl, her father and mother, and nothing more but the clothes on their backs and the terrifying memories of an escape that to this day, proves the existence of God so miraculous it still seems.

It was October, 1956 and their homeland of Hungary was in chaos. A reform government had been formed headed up by Irme Nagy, whose purging from the Communist party had been rescinded less than a month earlier. Nagy took restrictions off the press and called for free elections, free speech, and economic reforms.

A group of students took the Prime Minister at his word and protested in the streets for more academic freedom. Police opened fire on the demonstrators killing dozens and wounding many more. The next day, members of the police and army joined the demonstrators and confronted Soviet tanks in Parliament Square. The tanks rolled over the crowd, firing indiscriminately killing 12 and wounding 170.

The next day, Nagy threw down the gauntlet to the mighty Soviet empire. He went on the radio and called for “the far-reaching democratization of Hungarian public life, the realisation of a Hungarian road to socialism in accord with our own national characteristics, and the realisation of our lofty national aim: the radical improvement of the workers’ living conditions.”

Nagy wasn’t finished. In a matter of weeks, he freed the imprisoned and tortured Cardinal Joseph Mindszenty, took control of the Hungarian Communist Party, and formed a coalition government that included some non-Communists.

This was too much for Nikita Kruschev who sent in the Red Army and all hell brook loose. There was fighting all over the country as the Hungarian army bravely resisted. But the Hungarians were quickly defeated and Soviet tanks, in a scene that was to become familiar, rolled into Budapest. That’s when the round-ups began. Thousands were executed. Many more thousands arrested and jailed. Nagy himself, after being promised safe passage out of the country from his refuge in the Yugoslavian embassy, was kidnapped, summarily tried, and executed.

The little girl’s father was an officer in the Hungarian air force. One night, hearing that the secret police were down the block arresting a neighbor and knowing that he was probably next, the father took his wife and daughter and began to run. On foot.

They somehow avoided the Soviet patrols and made it out of Budapest. Alternating between walking, hiding, and getting rides from strangers, the trio made their way slowly toward the Hungarian border with Austria. After nearly 3 weeks of exhausting travel, the family showed up at the border tired, hungry, but free of the pursuit of their tormentors.

Austria was only a waystation for most of the nearly 200,000 who fled the nightmare of the Hungarian Uprising. That’s because their ultimate destination was America - a place as far removed from their experience as the surface of the moon. They had been told that America was an evil place full of grasping capitalists and slavemasters who used workers to enrich themselves while keeping them in abject poverty. But they had also heard whispers that America was a wonderful place where it didn’t matter where you came from or who your father was. And that there was opportunity for those willing to grasp it.

From Austria, the family took a train to Berlin where the father got very nervous when he glimpsed Soviet troops patrolling in the Russian sector. But now under the protection of the Americans, the little family could finally begin to relax. In Berlin, they took another train to Bonn where they were issued a visa and residency documents. After a wait of several weeks, they were able to board a plane for the New World. They arrived in Newark on the 17th of December, 1956, officially welcomed into the United States as legal residents.

Today as I write this 10,000 people, mostly from Mexico, are walking across the border as if it didn’t exist which, of course, it doesn’t. The fact that they are Mexican is irrelevant. The fact that American businesses in their desire to keep wages low will welcome them is irrelevant. What matters is the double standard.

The above story is about the family of Zsusanna, the love of my life, who has been in this country now for almost 50 years. For one reason or another - raising her family, being busy with work or one of her many hobbies and causes - she never went through the process to become a citizen. She has now started that process because of what happened yesterday.

Yesterday, I had to comfort her as the Senate Judiciary Committee slapped her in the face by retroactively granting people who willingly and deliberately broke the law, the right to stay in the US without fear of prosecution. What the Senate is saying to millions of people is that they are more deserving, more worthy, than people like my Zsu-Zsu whose horrific escape and flight to freedom was validated when, after going through a torturous bureaucratic process, she and her family were allowed to emigrate. She is not any better than those who sneak like thieves in the night to cross the border. She is upset at what she sees as the injustice of the situation.

Is her lament justified? Most would think probably not. But when she compares what she had to go through to get here legally with today’s immigrant scofflaws having the same thing handed to them on a Congressional platter, she weeps.

What is happening with this flexing of muscles by illegal immigrants is the beginning of a struggle for the soul of this country. Unless something is done to stem the tide now, the kind of rhetoric coming from those who carry signs claiming that California is not United States territory anymore will continue to escalate. And once it goes mainstream, the diversity nuts, the multicultural tyrants, the starry-eyed open borders loons, and guilt-ridden left will coalesce to make that nightmare a reality.

Laugh if you feel the need. But anyone who missed the message at those demonstrations from people who celebrated their separateness from America rather than their solidarity with it should have a bucket of cold water thrown on their pretentious heads. Maybe then they’ll wake up and realize that this battle is not about race, or creed, or ethnicity. It is about the essence of America and whether the country we have known and loved in the past is going to survive another generation.

UPDATE

Daily Pundit:

Would Congress or a Republican administration ever endorse irredentism? The White House and elements of congress already have. The disastrous Akaka Bill aims at creating a race-based, sovereign, territorially-endowed entity in Hawaii, and its precedent would threaten the mainland’s cohesiveness. That Akaka stands a real chance of being enacted is proof Americans need to get a two-handed grip on Washington before the White House and Congress wreck our nation. (HT: Maggies Farm)

Gee. Anyone else want to laugh about giving California back to Mexico?

Bryan Preston has a thorough and superb round-up of student agitation on the issue. The revelation yesterday by Michelle Malkin that the school district was paying for busses to pick kids up who demonstrated off campus was an eye opener. Our tax dollars are being used to agitate for separatism.

C’mon…did you really think Audrey was working with the terrorists?

In truth, I am not 100% convinced of her innocence - more like 98.7%. She never did adequately explain her little slap and tickle session with Walt Cummings. And have you people forgotten Nina Meyers already? You may recall that Nina was fingered as the mole halfway through Season I only to wriggle off the hook through some manipulation of the records.

Then there’s Henderson. If, as we all suspect, Vice President Strangelove is the point man for some kind of plot to take over the government, there is still Henderson’s computer hard drive formatted to be read by DoD servers. And please note that Bierko, in his conversation about Wayne Palmer with Henderson, called him “sir.” This would seem to indicate that Henderson, with his extensive contacts at DoD, is running the terrorist operation. The ultimate question is going to be who does Henderson report to? This entire day has been a Henderson operation from start to finish and a large part of it is personal - a desire to exact revenge on Jack for ruining his CTU career.

Jack finally recognized this after breaking Collette. Henderson tried to frame him for Palmer’s assassination. He has targeted and killed his friends. And the Audrey ploy almost worked except that Henderson didn’t count on Jack’s supple (some would say paranoid) mind. The permutations within permutations of the plot have Jack running around like a lab rat looking for the cheese. But Jack is now fully engaged in this battle of wits. And it appears to me anyway that this has gone far beyond any kind of call to duty by Jack and, like Henderson, his pursuit of the bad guys has gotten very personal.

It’s Henderson vs. Jack with the future freedom of the United States hanging in the balance. The Greeks would kill them both off at the end. Let’s see what Fox comes up with.

SUMMARY

Collette’s apparent revelation that Audrey is involved in the day’s events spurs CTU into a frenzy of activity. Chloe starts looking for a Cummings/Henderson/Audrey connection while Bill takes Ms. Needlenose into custody. As Dr. Feelgood prepares his little black bag full of truth serum cocktails, Grandma Hayes is eager to get her first official torture session underway. Jack warns Collette, using just the right mix of menace and sexual titillation, sidling up to the hottie and saying in a low, threatening whisper “If you are lying to me, I’m going to make this the worst day of your life.” I think Collette actually enjoyed it.

With Collette’s immunity deal signed, sealed, and delivered, making the terrorist covergirl untouchable, Bill argues against shooting up Audrey and gets off the best line of the night: “We can torture our own people but we can’t torture a criminal?”

Bill has worked for the government long enough to know that this is precisely the kind of bureaucratic logic that has made our country what it is today.

Speaking of bureaucrats, Miles warns Grandma Hayes of the consequences to her ample posterior if things go south and she is accused of inaction in the case of Audrey. Jack warns her of the consequences of torturing the Secretary of Defense’s daughter which, if Audrey is innocent, could also be hazardous to Granny’s bureaucratic derriere. Instead of making a decision, Granny punts. She tells Jack he can go ahead and question Audrey but that Agent Burke should standby to administer his medicine.

Meanwhile, the terrorists are busy. Getting around martial law restrictions, Bierko’s boys stage a fight in an alley which draws the attention of two of LA’s finest who are subsequently killed allowing the terrorists to use their black and white as an escort for the truck carrying the nerve gas.

Chloe finds a pretty damning piece of info regarding Audrey, Walt, a motel in Tennessee, and a night of passion that has Chloe all apologetic thinking the revelation cuts Jack to the quick. But Jack is in full terrorist hunting mode and is determined to get to the bottom of the charge against Audrey. He seems unfazed by the revelation and heads for the holding room where he must face Audrey, his past, and all the demons that have conspired to keep the two apart.

The confrontation was deliciously done. Jack, a menacing presence skulking in the shadows. Audrey, looking at Jack fearfully but not without trust. The questions fall like a series of trip hammer blows. Did you know Henderson? Did you know Collette? Did you know Walt Cummings?

Audrey, slightly confused, still trusting, answers quietly and forcefully. No, she didn’t know Henderson or Collette. Cummings? Oh…that Walt Cummings. When Jack catches Audrey in the lie about the motel he doesn’t seem hurt or even resigned to Audrey’s guilt. He almost appears triumphant as he opens the file with the information about the Audrey/Walt tryst and asks her about it.

Her stuttering, fumbling response has Jack pouncing cat quick on his prey. She tries to wriggle free but Jack verbally corners her. “How could I be hurt? I was dead!” he shouts in her face. Audrey appeals to his feelings about her but Jack will have none of it. Kicking the table out of the way, Audrey is exposed to the full fury of Jack’s fanatical determination to find the truth of the matter. Backing her against the wall, menacing his former lover as he would any low-life terrorist unlucky enough to cross his path, Jack grips Audrey’s throat and starts to squeeze.

Her muffled protestations of innocence are at first, lost on Jack. But suddenly, looking into her eyes, searching her face for the Ultimate Truth, something passes between them - a recognition that they still love each other. In the crucible of crisis that is both personal and professional for each of them, it is fitting that they rediscover their feelings for one another while Jack is almost choking the life out of her.

Making a snap decision on her innocence, Jack announces that the interrogation is over. Granny Hayes has other ideas and sics Richard on Audrey. The clueless security guards fall victim to Jack’s interference but Richard tasers Jack into submission and Audrey is led away, piteously asking Jack and Bill to intercede.

In an effort to save Audrey from having her nervous system turned into jelly, Jack and Chloe try to hunt up connections between Collette and Henderson. Only then will Granny relent in her interrogation of Audrey.

Back at the ranch, Agent Piece begins to get worried about Wayne Palmer. The dead ex-President’s brother is late and Aaron decides to go looking for him when he finds out that Wayne was cleared through the initial checkpoint 30 minutes ago.

We meet Fat Geek Edgar’s replacement, Sweet Sherry who apparently was sexually harrassed by Miles a few years back. I’m sorry, but does anyone else think that the idea of that chipmunk Miles sexually harassing anything except perhaps the office rubber plant a little farfetched? The uber-bureaucrat is determined to make Sherry’s life miserable until Chloe, who was informed of Miles’ bad boy behavior, confronts the slimeball and tells him to get lost or she’ll report him to division. The cur retreats with his tail between his legs.

As I speculated last week, the terrorist target is indeed a gas distribution center. Confidently breaking in to the lightly guarded facility (I hope to God DHS was watching the show), Bierko saunters into the control room and orders that the pressure in the gas lines be lowered to 50% so that the nerve toxin can be delivered with all its deadly potency intact. As the terrified employee does the terrorist’s bidding, I was wondering why Bierko needed the schematics and access codes (to what?) if he was going to use an employee to help him deliver the gas. Could it be there is another target that the terrorists have already settled on?

Aaron finds Wayne wandering in the wilderness and as they make their way back to the President brother’s car, they come under attack. An RPG round detonates close to Wayne who is either dead or knocked unconscious. Aaron skeddaddles probably without whatever proof Wayne was going to give him about further skulduggery in the executive branch.

Chloe, using some geek legerdemain, discovers 8 calls between Collette and Henderson over the last few months. Since the terrorist pin up girl denied knowing him, Jack has his proof that Collette has been lying thus negating her presidential immunity. Telling Bill to retroactively get permission to interrogate Collette (sort of like getting a FISA warrant but without the sanctimonious posturing from civil liberties absolutists) Jack bursts into the holding room where Miss Terrorist centerfold is quietly awaiting her release. Cold cocking the US Marshall assigned to guard her, Jack skips the foreplay and dives right in to the meat of the matter.

Pulling his gun and pointing it at her head, he first gets confirmation from the squirming hottie that Henderson had indeed told her to use Audrey’s name as a contact at DoD. Pulling the hammer back with a satisfying click, he then inquires about the target. Realizing, as all terrorists do when Jack has the gun trained 2 inches from their skull that he is absolutely dead serious about killing them when he counts to 3, Collette spills the beans about the target being an unknown gas distribution center. The problem is that there are several to choose from so while Bill and Chloe try to find the exact target, Jack, Curtis and the CTU TAC team jump in a helicopter and take off.

Before leaving, Jack rescues Audrey from Richard’s tender ministrations. Just in time? There is a nagging feeling in the back of my head that Audrey may still be holding something back. Regardless, Audrey forgives Jack for the torture and the two have an affecting scene together as they tenderly kiss and make up.

Sweet Sherry, a Chem major at Cal-Tech, realizes that they should be looking for a distribution center where the pressure is being reduced. After discovering the specific target, Bill thanks her and as he brushes past her he gives her shoulder a familiar squeeze. We are now faced with the horrible conclusion that Miles was indeed telling the truth. The rubber plant was the target of his affections, not Sherry. Sweety complains that it was “wrong” for Bill to touch her like that. Chloe gives her a look that only Chloe could give, a mixture of wonder and disgust.

Sherry’s sexual problems will have to wait for the conclusion to this, the most exciting episode of the season. Racing the clock, CTU TAC hovers over the roof of the gas company and rappelles down. As the gang makes their way into the control room and their rendezvous with the elusive Bierko, a ferocious firefight breaks out. Seeing the meter fall to 50% pressure, Bierko releases the gas and tries to make his escape. After offing the last terrorist, Jack is informed by the frightened gas company employee that he can stop the gas by blowing up the main line that is conveniently located directly down the hall from the control room rather than where it should be which is the other side of the complex.

Chloe informs Jack that he has less than a minute to blow the line or its curtains for Burbank. Setting a 30 second timer, Jack, Curtis, and everyone else runs for their lives. Jack’s escape after the gas lines start to detonate is as good as action TV gets. A series of explosions rip through the plant with Jack only a couple of steps ahead of them. The immediate danger over, Jack glimpses Bierko making his escape and informs Curtis he’s going after him. Catching up with the terrorist, the two antagonists struggle while buildings all around them are exploding. The last we see is Jack getting in the car with Bierko subdued and a titanic blast covering the car in flame and debris.

BODY COUNT

After taking the night off last week, the Grim Reaper came back refreshed and determined to make up for lost time.

Bierko’s bums bop two cops. A guard at the gate is history. Two gas company employees meet their maker. The total from the firefight in the control room is grisly; two TAC teamers go down but our boys send 5 terrorists to hell. Jack has his best night of the year so far accounting for four souls faithfully departed.

JACK: 19

SHOW: 155

SPECULATION

Much chatter on the boards about DHS being the ultimate bad guys in the plot. Somehow, that just doesn’t compute for me. The Homeland Security folks seem too preoccupied with their little turf war at CTU to be involved in some kind of grand strategy.

I’d be interested to hear everyone’s thoughts on that.

UPDATE

Make sure to check out the excellent round-ups, summaries, and speculation threads at Blogs4Bauer including an update on a casualty that I missed from last night’s show; one very dead fire hydrant.

UPDATE II

For some reason, the blog is resolving into gibberish when I use Internet Explorer. I don’t know if it’s just me or if the problem can be seen by readers.

If you can’t read part or all of the post, please drop me a line. I have a feeling it has to do with the slow loading of the PJ Media ads in the right sidebar.

Iraqi blogger Riverbend who writes at Baghdad Burning has been named a finalist for the prestigious Samuel Johnson Prize for non-fiction, one of the world’s richest:

LONDON: An anonymous Iraqi woman was nominated Monday as a contender for a major literary award for her Internet blog-based account of the Iraq war and its deadly impact on ordinary Iraqi people.

“Baghdad Burning” by the university graduate, who uses the pen name Riverbend, is longlisted for the 30,000-pound ($52,000) Samuel Johnson prize - the world’s richest for a piece of non-fiction.

She is up against 18 other books out of 168 entries.

Among fellow nominees are established names including Alan Bennett and his offering “Untold Stories.”

In addition to Bennett (who is a writer of unusual perception) John Lewis Gaddis’s The Cold War is up for the same prize. I was going to wait until that book came out in paperback because the reviews I’ve read lead me to believe that Gaddis, who was the lead historian on The Cold War produced by Ted Turner and shown on CNN believes that Gorbechev “is the most deserving recipient ever” of the Nobel Peace Prize. Why? Because he didn’t send in the troops and massacre people. That’s right. Gaddis believes that the man who put 10,000 Soviet citizens in insane asylums for their political beliefs is a great man because he acted like a normal human being rather than a communist thug.

How moronic is that?

As for Riverbend, she is an excellent writer despite her virulent anti-Americanism. Rather than writing about the political or military situation, she writes about the personal travails of living through the war and the more frightening aspects of the occupation. In sometimes searing fashion, she has written about the death of friends and acquaintances as well as the simple daily complaints about lack of electricity and water, checkpoints, and the sense of lawlessness that permeates the streets.

I personally prefer Omar’s blog Iraq The Model whose matter of fact approach is at times even more moving than Riverbend. Omar is not as good a writer but somehow he is able to bring the tragedy home in a more realistic and immediate way. Riverbend’s emotionalism while effective, has a tendency to push the reader away rather allow the reader to share her pain.

Like Omar, Riverbend is a secular Iraqi who wants to see democracy take root. She believes this could best be accomplished by the Americans leaving. Omar thinks that the Americans must stay long enough to give the Iraqi government a chance to stand on its own. The Iraqis themselves are torn on the subject of the American military presence and these two brave souls reflect the feelings of millions of their countrymen who are now dealing with one of the bloodier periods in the aftermath of the fall of Saddam. As the bodies start to pile up and revenge killing begets revenge killing, Iraq begins to spiral into factional war with the politicians still unable to come together on many key issues.

I read Riverbend because she gives a perspective on the War that is important even though I don’t agree with it. I don’t think she has much of a chance of winning the prestigious prize but I wish her well and hope she stays safe.

Is there really anything we can do to solve the illegal immigration problem in the United States?

Asking that question is un-American. We are, after all, a nation that prides itself on its ability to “solve problems” even if many such attempts have met with abject failure. We’ve spent a trillion dollars on public housing in the last forty years and still have almost a million homeless people huddling on park benches and subway grates trying to keep warm during the winter not to mention millions more living in slavish dependence on government to keep a roof over their heads. Ditto for all the monies spent on anti-poverty programs which most objective observers agree has made the problem of poverty worse.

Even conservatives are guilty of trying to solve these problems that may have no solution by fiddling with budget numbers and offering more in the way of free-market alternatives to government intervention.

I find it interesting that all sides in the immigration debate seem to feel that their solutions will somehow “solve” the problem. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, especially to the “open borders” crew who in something of a sanctimonious fashion continue to remind us that we are a “nation of immigrants” and that opposing the entry by millions of people who are more loyal to the government of Mexico than they are to the US government is somehow racist. But the fact is, the only “solution” to the problem of illegal immigration is flinging open our borders and letting everyone who desires to live and work in America to come on in and make themselves at home. Thus would the problem of illegal immigration disappear overnight.

Of course we can’t do that which means that instead of concentrating on fixing the problem - building gigantic walls manned every few feet by border guards and rounding up millions of people - we should be working to improve the situation. This means fewer people crossing the border, more enforcement of the law regarding illegals already here, stiffer penalties for companies that employ illegals, and a decidedly less sanguine outlook toward one of the least reported and most dangerous aspects of the illegal immigrant issue; the agitation by Mexicans living in America to return a sizable portion of the United States to Mexican control.

As Michelle Malkin points out in this post:

These sentiments, as I’ve noted before, are not limited to ethnic fringe groups–but also mainstream Democrat politicians and campus chapters of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or MEChA.

Most of the members of the open-borders media won’t dare breathe a word about this militant phenomenon, lest they be accused of…racism. Oh, the irony.

Welcome to reconquista.

Where are all the assimilationists now?

Lest anyone think that this is not a serious movement or that it has absolutely no chance of succeeding, I invite you to read this piece from Maria Hsia Chang of the University of Nevada-Reno on the attitudes of many Mexicans who come here and, even more of a shock, the hugely significant demographic changes that are rapidly taking place in the southwestern United States as as result of illegal immigration and what these changes bode for the future. A sample:

Mario Barrera, a faculty member of U.C. Berkeley’s Department of Ethnic Studies, admitted that multiculturalism “would help prepare the ideological climate for an eventual campaign for ethnic regional autonomy.” In January 1995, El Plan de Aztlan Conference at UC Riverside resolved that “We shall overcome…by the vote if possible and violence if necessary.” The rise of Mexican irredentism as a serious political movement “awaits only the demographic transformation of the Southwest.”

That “demographic transformation” is almost here and it is unstoppable. Much higher birthrates among Mexican immigrant women means that by 2050, there will be more than 100 million Hispanics in the US comprising more than a quarter of our population. The current trend has more than 40% of Hispanics in the US living in California alone. That would mean more than 40 million Hispanics in California, the overwhelming number of them from Mexico, who would be a formidable bloc if Mexican irredentism becomes a truly mainstream goal.

This does not take into account a Mexican government who would see the tipping point coming and could possibly engineer a mass migration into the desired states ballooning those numbers even more.

This kind of scenario is being laughed at by some but given the present emphasis on “diversity” and multiculturalism over the out of fashion “melting pot” model of assimilation, I don’t find much humor in the situation. The fact is that immigrants from Mexico have little pressure on them to assimilate into American society. Instead, we have created a situation where two separate cultures exist side-by-side. We have encouraged this by not requiring that English be learned as an entree into American society. The fact that there are now several generations of Hispanics living in America who have had no need to learn English has accentuated the separateness of these immigrants thus keeping them from fully participating in and living the American dream.

In the past, as each successive wave of immigrants hit our shores, they would gravitate toward the communities in our major cities where their countrymen had already established a toehold in America. In those communities were support groups, some of which preyed upon the new arrivals by exploiting them for a variety of purposes, but which nevertheless offered ways for the immigrant to assimilate into society at large through a variety of activities. Local churches were important as were schools, fraternal organizations, and even sports leagues. At bottom, the goal was to become a hyphenated American by adopting English as a second language while learning the customs, mores, and habits of Americans.

The goal of the overwhelming majority of these immigrants was citizenship. Is that the case today? I have not seen any hard evidence that would answer that question one way or another but anecdotal evidence would seem to indicate the answer to be no. Also, according to this immigration attorney, only about 50% of people who receive Green Cards eventually become US citizens. That is a far lower number than in the past where that number exceeded 70%. These numbers do not include the children of those born to immigrants since they are citizens by birthright.

You cannot force someone to assimilate. But the way things are today, the system virtually assures an illegal immigrant that there is no downside to not assimilating. Unless a way can be found to stir the melting pot for these new arrivals, they will drift farther and farther away from the American mainstream thus making the dreams of the separatists more of a reality than any of us would want to admit.

The current reform proposals do not address these issues. But someday, we’re going to have to get serious about confronting the fact that today’s new arrivals are different from those in the past and that failing to integrate them into American society could have consequences down the road that are almost unthinkable.

UPDATE

My friends at Maggies Farm have an excellent round-up of Bush double-speak on immigration including my favorite:

“Comprehensive Approach/Reform:” A phrase often on the lips of Bush and co., this is the current “hip” way to refer to a mass amnesty of illegals, without actually saying so.

Whenever a politician talks about “comprehensive” anything, grab your wallet and be afraid…be very afraid.

There has been a debate in Britain these last few years over whether or not the “special relationship” that has existed for more than 100 years between England and the United States has any real advantages in a post-cold war world. Some of Great Britain’s best thinkers on the left feel that the country’s close identification with the United States has not only been inimical to Britain’s need to integrate their economy, currency, and domestic policies into the greater European whole but also that the Anglo-American alliance has actually made England less safe, largely as a result of what they see as the Bush Administration’s aggressive policies in fighting terror and the War in Iraq.

This “anti-Americanism by default” position is shared by a broad spectrum of the left including Old Labour, Liberal Democrats, and even many of New Labour’s social democrats. In fact, it could fairly be said that only the dominant personality of Tony Blair has kept the “special relationship” intact and as strong as ever over the last 3 years despite enormous domestic political pressures on the PM to pull back from his steadfast support of President Bush and carve out a more independent road in foreign policy.

There have been few British Prime Ministers since the end of World War II who have been as loyal a friend to the United States and supportive of its interests as Tony Blair. At great personal and political cost, he has continued the deployment of British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan while deflecting charges that he is President Bush’s “lapdog.” For Blair’s part, his actions are hardly altruistic nor are they based on the kind of close, personal connection with Bush as was enjoyed by Lady Thatcher with President Reagan. Those two twentieth century titans bonded at an emotional level rare for leaders of great nations. Blair and Bush on the other hand seem to have developed an excellent working relationship based on trust and and genuine friendship. This has held both in good stead as the progress in Iraq and Afghanistan has proved to be fitful and at times, ephemeral.

In truth, while Bush could be considered the “senior partner” in the alliance, it is Blair who has often given the best defense of the coalition’s decision to go to war in Iraq and stay until the job of securing democracy is achieved. Where Bush’s speeches can sometimes be dry recitations of progress made in securing and rebuilding the country with clear, logical justifications for going to war, Blair’s talks always seem to strike just the right rhetorical notes of Churchillian denunciations of evil and a Thatcheresque optimism about the future that seems to elevate the cause to the level of a crusade.

And Blair has also spoken forcefully about the importance of the Anglo-American alliance to the future of not only Europe but the rest of the world as well. He has consistently warned against the unreasoning anti-Americanism that threatens to turn the world away from the United States at a critical juncture in world history.

Speaking before the Australian parliament yesterday, Blair issued a rhetorical slap to those in Europe and around the world whose casual hatred of the United States threatens the future of the world on a wide variety of issues:

“I do not always agree with the United States - sometimes they can be difficult friends to have,” he said.

“But the strain of frankly anti-American feeling in parts of European and world politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in,” he said.

[...]

“The danger with America today is not that they are too much involved, the danger is that they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage. We need them involved. We want them engaged,” he said.

“The reality is that none of the problems that press in on us can be resolved or even contemplated without them. Our task is to ensure that with them we do not limit this agenda to security.”

Blair’s warnings are directed toward his European counterparts who too often use the rhetoric of anti-Americanism as a cheap way to garner votes. Blair’s point - that this attitude does damage to the domestic political consensus in America for international engagement - is spot on. The strain of isolationism, never far below the surface in American politics, could re-emerge with a vengeance in either 2006 or, more likely, 2008 as voters in the United States react to the virulent anti-American rhetoric of France, Germany, and others with a “to hell with them” attitude and turn their attentions to concerns more domestic in nature.

Blair’s recognition of this danger is one of the reasons he is the indispensable man in the alliance of English speaking nations that includes Australia’s John Howard. Blair’s longevity has earned him respect around the world as he has been a leading spokesman for taking action on global warming as well as issues as diverse as third world debt relief and nuclear non-proliferation. But since his announcement that he plans to leave before the end of his third term in 2010, the questions about what will become of this alliance once he is gone have occupied the State Department and our military planners.

The prospect of Blair’s resignation coming sooner rather than later was given a boost last November when the Prime Minister’s comprehensive anti-terrorism bill went down to an ignominious defeat. Oddsmakers put his staying in office past 2006 at 5-2 against although Blair himself has recently said that he regrets saying that he would stand down before the next election. But the clock is definitely ticking on the Tony Blair era and the implications for the alliance are already being assessed.

As a practical matter and for the sake of his party, Blair will have to decide within the next 2 years when he should exit the stage. That’s because he will want to give his almost certain successor Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown time to get settled into 10 Downing Street before the election in 2010. So the question is, what kind of fellow is this Gordon Brown and how will the ascension of this life-long left wing activist affect the “special relationship” between England and America?

First, it should be noted that Blair has taken steps to tie Chancellor Brown more firmly to his policies by making him the front man in Parliament on a variety of issues. While it is whispered that Brown resents this role somewhat, he sees this kind of loyalty as his ticket to the top. But how the Chancellor would deal with America is the real question and for that, it may be helpful to examine his background for clues.

Asked during the General Election of 2005 what Britain would look like under a Brown Premiership, the Chancellor replied ‘more like America’. Brown is a passionate Americanist, having studied economics at MIT and regularly vacationing on the East Coast. American business practice is held in reverence by him. A consistent theme has emerged in Brown’s key economic speeches; he wants the British and European economy to become more like the United States. More competitive, entrepreneurial and dynamic, but combining free-market capitalism with social justice. The Chancellor’s first foray into foreign policy, last autumn, with a EU/G8 trip to Palestine, gives us an insight of Brown’s approach to international policy. Brown intends to bring his economic expertise to the aid of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, by attempting to reduce the poverty and unemployment experienced by Palestinians, which makes them ripe for transforming into Jihadists.

Mr. Brown has been a staunch supporter of the Iraq War and has praised America’s ‘courageous leadership’ in the fight against Islamist terrorism. There has never been a hint from his camp that he would have done things differently, and on several tense occasions when Mr. Blair has been under fire over Iraq, Mr. Brown has intervened to offer his backing.

Clearly, Brown is positioned to maintain British commitments in Iraq and elsewhere for the near future which is good news. What is unknown is how resistant Mr. Brown will be to calls from his own party to reduce those commitments the closer to 2010 we get. It seems probable that a large troop presence will be absolutely necessary beyond 2008 and perhaps even beyond 2010 although it is doubtful that the domestic political situation in either Great Britain or the United States would allow for that kind of commitment. What is more likely is that Brown’s Labour party will be forced by electoral necessity to drastically reduce England’s commitment of troops in Iraq prior to the election even if events on the ground do not warrant it.

There is hope that those events on the ground will begin to turn in the coalition’s favor as more and more Iraqi troops and police demonstrate competence in dealing with the insurgency and domestic unrest. This may allow for more than token drawdowns of forces even before 2008 which would be good news for both Brown and Republicans here in the United States. But at present, with sectarian violence simmering at high levels and threatening to burst out into full scale street fighting, there is little talk of reducing the presence of coalition troops.

Which brings us back to Mr. Blair. While Chancellor Brown will continue his policies, the question always asked when evaluating this “special relationship” between the two great nations is how well do the two leaders get on personally? Brown was accused in the past of being something of a cold fish with a single minded determination to become Prime Minister that rubbed many of his colleagues the wrong way. But he appears to have softened considerably since his marriage in 2000 at the age of 49 to his longtime sweetheart Sarah MacCauley and then the tragic loss of his 10 day old child in 2002. He has since settled into a happy domestic situation with his 3 year old son John and wife which most observers agree has done wonders for his public face.

It appears that Brown would probably be personally comfortable with either a Democrat or Republican in the White House given his admiration for Republican free market principles and his commitment to Democratic social justice issues. How that would translate into forging a working relationship on the alliance’s continuing efforts in the Middle East and elsewhere is the mystery. Much depends on how the situation in Iraq resolves itself over the next 2 years. A bad outcome there could make both countries pull back from engaging other nations in the region like Egypt and Saudi Arabia in building more free and open societies. And in the background, looming ever more dangerous, is the specter of Iran and its quest for nuclear weapons. It is hard to imagine that the alliance would not agree that Iran cannot be allowed a nuclear option. For that reason, American-British cooperation there will be of paramount importance.

I have a feeling that once he is gone from the scene, we will greatly miss Tony Blair’s clarity of thought on the War in Iraq as well as his personal commitment to maintaining the “special relationship” that Great Britain and America have enjoyed for so long. He has left his mark on all of us and I personally will be saddened to see him go.

POLICE IN BELARUS BEAT DANGEROUS COUNTERREVOLUTIONARIES DEMONSTRATING FOR FREEDOM. SEAN PENN MUST HAVE BEEN UNAVAILABLE THIS WEEKEND.

My goodness but don’t liberals exhibit some curious logic at times? At the drop of a hat, they’re off to some of the most exotic locales in the world, braving rotten hotel food and less than first class accommodations in order to demonstrate their solidarity with the goons, loons, and poltroons who are standing up to US “imperialism.” We saw them bravely offering themselves as human shields to that famous humanitarian and lover of kites Saddam Hussein. And they were seen doing the grip and grin with that jolly old radioactive elf in Tehran President Ahmadinejad.

Their secret, of course, is that the chances of them being in any danger are about as good as the next film they’re in making any money.

But in other, more out of the way places where there are no calls for using human shields to assist murderous thugs in “resisting” the US government, when the truncheons start to fall and the blood begins to flow, and where the people could really use some of that celebrity to keep the police from bashing their heads in (dictators being enormously shy as, like cockroaches, they scurry away from the light when it is shone on their methods of control) the Sean Penns, Susan Sarandons, and Tim Robbins, as well as their lesser known comrades are inexplicably absent.

Imagine what a bunch of film stars and washed up musicians could have done here!

They tried to demonstrate for freedom in Belarus today. They didn’t quite make it. Robert Mayer has the grim details including links to about a dozen sites that give a blow by blow (literally) description of the police actions against the grandmothers, the teenage girls and boys, the shopkeepers, and all the other usual suspects - the ordinary people of the world who are changing the face of the planet one dictatorship at a time.

They got bloodied today. They’ll be back.

In that respect, they show a helluva lot more staying power than the pampered leftists here and in Europe who weep about terrorist detainees having to listen to Christine Aguilera CD’s and wail about “oppression” whenever the government does anything to try and protect us.

The irony of course, is that these hand wringers and faux martyrs don’t have a clue what “oppression” really is. In this country, if you stand up and say “I’m oppressed” you get book deals, appear on TV where you are lovingly fawned over by unctuous, blow dried lickspittles like Matt Lauer, and end up getting invited to the best cocktail parties in Washington and New York. Your every utterance - as long as its anti-American enough - is dutifully recorded and repeated ad nauseum by an obedient and agreeing press.

Here’s what happens in Belarus if you stand up and say “I’m oppressed!”

Just a little perspective for your Sunday afternoon…

UPDATE

See also Gateway Pundit who not only has an excellent round-up but shows where our true priorities lie: “Democracy Babes Get Clubbing in Belarus.”

It’s a lazy Sunday here at the House. Winter’s grip is still vise-like in the Midwest, but if I open my door, I can hear the satisfying crrrack of stitched horsehide striking green ash - a sure sign that Spring is, if not around the corner, at least within tobacco spitting distance .

My World Champion White Sox are trying to get the kinks out of a lineup and pitching staff that will once again vie for the title while the Cubs… The Cubs??? Well, it is almost Opening Day and the best that can be said is that the Cubs are still undefeated in the regular season. The Northsiders are presently going through their annual fantasy camp, pretending they are a major league team with a shot at making the playoffs while giving their long suffering (and completely clueless) fans hope that this will be the year that the curse of the billy goat will be lifted and the national leaguers will win the World Series.

Perhaps they should start wishing for something more realistic. Like a Republican mayor of Chicago.

Be that as it may, I thought it would be a nice idea to give my readers something to do while they were visiting besides being subjected to one more tiresome, tedious rant against lefty lickspittles, government waste, bloodthirsty jihadists, or the usual fiddle faddle about the endlessly fascinating but maddening game of politics.

How about another kind of game? Great! Let’s play “Who Said It?” Simply guess who said the following quotes. To make it real easy, I’ve made it a multiple choice game so be careful of trick answers.

* Look. While Domenech’s violations were blatant, it is status quo for the conservative movement. Quite frankly, intellectual dishonesty is what these people do for a living (there are entire organizations dedicated to documenting and rebutting their ooze). Whether it’s cooking the books on environmental data, changing their stories to suit a new set of facts, or just straight up and up lying, cheating, and stealing, the conservative cause is simply a fraud.

a) Oliver (“Like Sh*t to Shineola”) Willis
b) a homeless street lunatic
c) a baby marmoset passing gas
d) all of the above

Okay…so I started you off with an easy one. If you guessed “d” grab yourself a cookie and celebrate.

* Yes we do have Michael Moore, and when did he ever suggest blacks are genetically inferior to whites (Republican David Duke), that Supreme Court justices should be assassinated (Republican Ann Coulter), and when was he ever indicted (Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff, Scooter Libby, and oh so many more)?He hasn’t, because Michael Moore is someone conservatives simply disagree with, and that makes him per se hateful. Kind of like the Dixie Chicks, except they have boobs too, which makes it an even bigger crime in Republican circles that they have opinions.

a) John Aravosis
b) Michael Moore’s roll of belly fat
c) The lint in Oliver Willis’ navel
d) John Aravosis’ lesbian lover

Obviously, the answer is once again “d” because everyone knows that if someone is going to tell as many lies as Mr. Trichinosis does about politics, they will lie about anything, including their real gender and who actually writes the twaddle that appears on their blog.

* I blame the illegal (but not immoral)immigrants no more for coming to this great nation than I would blame first grade children for becoming addicted to Heroin that a drug dealer (who stands across the street from their school)methodically sells to them every day.The Republicans and some Democrats who are for this present immigration bill have become that drug dealer while they themselves have also become addicted to the money from corporations and the hate that can get them their votes.

a) a 3 year old boy
b) a 5 year old girl
c) one million chimpanzees scribbling on pieces of paper
d) a typical Democrat commenting at The Democrat Daily Blog

This was your first trick question and I hope you said “b” although if you said “d” you would have been given credit for a valid comparison. (Note: It would have taken far less than one million chimps to produce that kind of idiocy).

* The President is a political maestro. When his poll numbers are down, he walks on stage, gets behind the podium, raises his baton, and conducts away. The media follows his tempo, his song. No, no, the violins are much too sad! Stop the chorus of sorrow! Drums, drums, we need more war drums! Bring the oboe forward, haven’t you heard Iran is going nuclear, we need something more foreboding! And the spellbound media plays along, altering its performance to appease the maestro. It is at its core a merciless, orchestrated assault on truth. The performance always has the same ending: a stabilizing of a ratings free-fall, then a two or three point uptick in Bush’s approval ratings that is then lauded as the resurgence of a “popular” President.

a) The Brother From Another Planet
b) Leonard Bernstein
c) Daily Kos writer Georgia 10
d) Yankee Doodle Dandy

If you guessed “a” you would be absolutely correct. No one on planet earth could actually believe that 1) the media is manipulated by Bush, and 2) that anyone would read such overly dramatic, hyperbolic claptrap.

* I don’t believe bush is a religious man at all. He’s a man who exploits the tragedy of others for profit, and that has been the story of him since day 1, and will be forever more.
There are no religious people behind that aggressive war, behind that roman fervor of the angry crowd; bush is entirely secular, selfish, greedy, and fastidiously ignorant. He has proven time and again, a gullible killer, and his grave will aways be remembered for the hundred thousand he killed in his great leap forward.

a) A commenter at the Democratic Underground
b) A commenter at the Democratic Underground
c) A commenter at the Democratic Underground
d) Are you kidding? I’ll give you 3 guesses and the first two don’t count.

How did you do? Now that wasn’t so hard, was it? I guess I didn’t figure in the predictability factor when dealing with the leftwing idiocies…

I’ve never written about immigration reform before largely because the subject barely interests me as a policy issue and also because I have nothing new to add to the debate over what to do about it.

But 500,000 people in the streets of Los Angeles (and tens of thousands in the streets of other cities) is politics. And regardless of where you come down on the issue of immigration, the political implications of such a large group of people feeling strongly enough about something to turn off the TV, get up out of their easy chairs, and march are huge, so big in fact that where the majority of American people come down on this issue may indeed decide the fate of the Republican majority in Congress.

Since there exists the probability that the loss of Republican dominance would mean the almost certain attempt to impeach President Bush as well as some kind of limit or even a cut-off of monies to fund the War in Iraq, the stakes couldn’t be higher. (Doubters of the latter will please note that both Presidents Nixon and Ford never believed for a moment that the “Class of ‘74″ Congress would cut off aid to South Viet Nam and allow the regime to fall. They were wrong).

Despite what many Republicans think, the immigration issue has numerous pitfalls for the party. It’s an easy issue to demagogue as well as being as divisive as many social issues. Ezra Klein:

I’ve argued before that immigration is to the GOP as trade is to the Democratic Party. The base is strongly in favor of quasi-xenophobic crackdowns while the party’s intellectual and business elite is overwhelmingly internationalist, focused on the coming electoral power of the Hispanic bloc and the cheapness of immigrant labor. And when it comes to elections, the political crosscurrents grow even more violent than that. On immigration, what’s good politics in the primary is often deadly in the general. Ask Pete Wilson, whose support of Proposition 187 (which denied undocumented immigrants government services) proved initially popular but demolished the Republican Party in California for the next decade. A Republican candidate who demagogues the issue to win the primary will find himself screwed in the general, as even slight swings in the massive Hispanic electorate can easily toss an election, and an anti-immigrant push could, as it did in California, activate the heretofore underperforming Hispanic electorate. As Mike Buttry, spokesperson for Chuck Hagel, complains:

“The short-term politics of this are pretty clear. The long-term politics are pretty clear. And they’re both at odds.”

That just about sums it up. Any issue that highlights the fissures in the party between “Main Street” conservatives represented by groups like The Chamber of Commerce and “movement” conservatives whose spokesman at the moment is Representative Tom Tancredo means that it will be that much harder to maintain Republican majority status come November. Main Street congressional candidates could find activist money and shoe leather either being denied them as a result of their stand on immigration or even transferred to a primary challenger.

The Democrats seem intent on making the issue a moral choice between “justice” and “racism.” My oh my, where do you think we should come down on the immigration reform measure currently before Congress given that choice?

Senator Hillary Clinton has called H.R. 4437 a “mean-spirited” piece of legislation which “literally criminalizes the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself.” The “Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005″ (H.R. 4437) is a Republican piece of legislation which would not only makes felons out of the millions of undocumented immigrants already in the United States, but it would also make it a crime to provide any assistance to those immigrants, if you know they are undocumented. “Mean-spirited” doesn’t come close to describing this bill.

Does anyone else find it just a little bit absurd that the left, who have been ranting for 5 years about Bush placing himself above the law, now wish to put millions of people not only above the law but beyond the law as well?

I am 100% for legal immigration. And I would hope that we triple the number of people who could legally emigrate from Mexico and other places. But the idea that anyone who can sneak across the border is automatically granted a special class of citizenship replete with a shopping list of goodies courtesy of the American taxpayer is just plain wrong. It isn’t a question of “criminalizing” illegal immigrants because they are already criminals. That’s why the demonstration in Los Angeles yesterday was so perplexing; just what were the marchers demonstrating for?

Jose Alberto Salvador, 33, came here illegally just four months ago to find work to support the wife and five children he left behind; in his native Guatemala, he said, what little work he could find paid only $10 a day. “As much as we need this country, we love this country,” Salvador said, waving a stick with both the American and Guatemalan flag. “This country gives us opportunities we don’t get at home.”

A fine and noble sentiment worthy of any immigrant who has ever come to America. To my mind, the question is not whether he should come here or whether he has a right to come here, the question is how he gets here. Any nation that can’t control its own borders in the age of terror is asking for trouble of the cataclysmic kind. And what Mr. Salvador represents - as badly as we need that kind of spirit and willingness to take advantage of the opportunities that America gives the rest of the world - is a denial of our sovereignty.

I am not enamored of the idea of placing a wall up to keep Mr. Salvador and other illegals out of the country but the sad fact is we are in a crisis situation. Desperate measures are called for. Here are some of the grim statistics:

* By historical standards, the 33.1 million immigrants living in the United States is unprecedented. Even at the peak of the great wave of immigration in the early 20th century, the number of immigrants living in the United States was only 40 percent of what it is today (13.5 million in 1910).

* Immigrants account for 11.5 percent of the total population, the highest percentage in 70 years. If current trends continue, by the end of this decade the immigrant share of the total population will surpass the all time high of 14.8 percent reached in 1890.

* Immigration has become the determinate factor in population growth. The arrival of 1.5 million immigrants each year, coupled with 750,000 births to immigrant women annually, means that immigration policy is adding over two million people to the U.S. population each year, accounting for at least two-thirds of U.S. population growth.

And, there is little evidence that the bulk of these immigrants who come illegally are making any effort to assimilate. The very fact that they are illegal places them outside the channels that immigrants have historically used to adopt the United States as their homeland. Instead of assimilating, an entirely separate culture complete with government services, benefits, and a support system has grown up around the idea that people here illegally should be coddled and stroked, largely for their votes.

You cannot force people to assimilate. But you can make it easier for those who want to. And by setting up enclaves of illegal immigrants where the rule of law is made a mockery of and people are rewarded for not integrating into society, the government assures that there is no incentive to add one’s unique and fascinating cultural qualities to the great American melting pot. When “diversity” rules, “unity” suffers.

All of these issues go to the heart of immigration reform. President Bush’s proposal - cribbed from the playbook of the US Chamber of Commerce - is a mish mash of enforcement propositions and a “guest worker” program that many experts believe would do nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigration and may in fact encourage it. The Republicans are split on how draconian the enforcement provisions should be. The Democrats are united in opposition to the entire plan, seeing an easy way to demagogue some votes. Given that the President’s plan would do the least amount of damage to the GOP’s image with their growing number of Hispanic adherents, it seems likely that some kind of a guest worker program along with a few enforcement bones thrown to the Tancredo faction in Congress will emerge from Committee.

What kind of law that would make seems to be lost in all the political calculations both sides are making this election year.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin:

We are not a “nation of immigrants.” This is both a factual error and a warm-and-fuzzy non sequitur. Eighty-five percent of the residents currently in the United States were born here. Sure, we are almost all descendants of immigrants. But we are not a “nation of immigrants.”

And if the open borders advocates would actually read American history instead of revising it, they would see that the founding fathers were emphatically insistent on protecting the country against indiscriminate mass immigration.

Also, here’s an Op-Ed from today’s Washington Post that makes the case rather well that guest workers are a very bad idea.

Dan at The Glittering Eye is making sense today (as usual):

Almost everything I’ve seen in the blogosphere today on the subject has been romantic claptrap. The fact is that illegal aliens have broken the law. That many come here seeking a better way of life is irrelevant. All criminals want a better way of life and see their crimes as a means to that end. It’s no excuse.