So many things going on today that there’s no time to give them the “Ricky Treatment” – the soulful, meandering, almost coherent ramblings that are the hallmark of this blog in its ongoing defense of the values found in Western Civilization…

Yeah, so? It’s Friday already.

Anyway, here are some items catching my eye this afternoon..

JILL CARROLL: 15 YARD PENALTY FOR PILING ON?

What is wrong with my fellow right wing nuts?

Here we have this poor woman held captive for three months and the page at Memorandum is full of people criticizing her for 1) wearing Muslim dress, 2) praising her captives for their fine treatment of her, 3) not condemning same, 4) and even some criticism of a statement she made with a gun to her head about how bad we Americans are.

That last was figuratively written as some – Macsmind for one – smell a rat. Mac, a former intelligence professional, is not one to go off the deep end so his blog bears watching on this subject. Alexandra however, is willing to give the reporter the benefit of the doubt as is Rusty Shacklelford.

I can see the Italian communist propagandist Guiliana Sgrena , who gave so many versions of her ordeal that they could have made 3 different Mini-series out of it, having herself kidnapped for political purposes but not a serious journalist like Carroll. Let’s wait a few days and see what she has to say when she gets her feet back on the ground before judging her for any real or imagined transgression.

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY: STRANGE BUT TRUE

From what I understand, Representative McKinney has been involved in 4 other similar spats with security guards in the House all because she refuses to wear her Member’s pin. Is it asking too much that our guards be able to recognize the 535 faces of lawmakers?

That’s an awful lot of faces. Unless the guards have been given a course in memory retention, the average human can remember 200 – 300 faces , which means that there is a likelihood that Representative McKinney will not be recognized. This is especially true if she changes her hair style, something she complained about earlier.

In defense of McKinney, she is one of only 14 black members of the House which should mean that this visual clue of skin color should make remembering her face that much easier. Unfortunately, the probability is that officers are trained to check first for the pin without even looking at the face. And since she said she was in a hurry, it is also probable that the guard never saw her face at all.

Blaming racism, as her lawyer does here is unfortunate. When what was apparently an honest mistake on the part of the guard is turned into a political hot potato in order to deflect attention from the issue of Representative McKinney’s possible assault charge, everyone loses. It would have been much better if 1) the guards are given a refresher course in memory retention, and 2) McKinney grow up, act like an adult, and wear her damn Member’s pin.

Perhaps then we can get back to the people’s business in the House…

WALKING THE PLANK ON IMMIGRATION

House Republicans are apparently intent on walking a very short plank in their showdown with the Senate over immigration reform. Standing firm on making it a felony to enter the country illegally, the bitter enders seem intent on either getting their way or killing the bill altogether:

Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, dismissed arguments made by President Bush and business leaders who say the United States needs a pool of foreign workers. He said businesses should be more creative in their efforts to find help and suggested that employers turn to the prison population to fill jobs in agriculture and elsewhere.

“Let the prisoners pick the fruits,” Mr. Rohrabacher said. “We can do it without bringing in millions of foreigners.”

Good thing convicted felons can’t vote, Danny. You’d be in trouble. And most migrant workers – about 1.3 million – are actually US citizens. The seasonal need for additional workers brings about 300,000 illegal immigrants over the borders, a proverbial drop in the bucket.

While it may be hugely satisfying to make illegals into felons, the fact is you can’t round up 11 million people and put them…where? Concentration camps? Not enough room in the jails. And thanks to several controversial court opinions, you just can’t load them onto a bus or plane and send them back where they came from without a hearing.

Yes enforce the law as it is on the books. No to amnesty. No to “guest workers.” And a great big yes please to doing a better job of securing our borders.

Read also, VDH on the subject. Well done as usual.

UPDATE

Kender points out in the comments one other thing I strongly support – jail time for employers who knowingly hire illegals.

Hard to prove but would be an excellent incentive for employers to get fanatical about making sure they hire legal residents.

I will be appearing on C-Span’s “Washington Journal” on Sunday morning April 2 from 8:30 AM - 9:15 AM Eastern Time.

You might want to remember to set your clocks the night before one hour forward due to daylight savings time (where applicable).

My left wing foil for the show will be Taylor Marsh, a relatively sane liberal who is a great writer and excellent blogger. Steve Scully will host.

“Our Lady of perpetual Moonbats…Pray for us…”

Today’s column by Richard Cohen in the Washington Post is an interesting read not only for its attempt to twist the facts in order to fit a disingenuous narrative of what happened in the lead-up to the War in Iraq but also, achieves the dubious distinction of making Richard Clarke an unbiased source for relating what the President was thinking regarding Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

The latter point in and of itself is typical of a curious kind of myopia that liberal commentators have developed about both Mr. Clarke and that other poster boy for proving perfidy in Administration intentions about going to war Joe Wilson. Why the left has latched on to a preening peacock and a prevaricating poseur in order to “prove” that the President lied about going to war with Saddam is one of those mysteries of the universe that we’ll probably not solve in our lifetimes.

In truth, Cohen has always been at the lower end of the Loon-O-Meter when it comes to the kind of one-dimensional thinking most liberals use to critique the Iraq War. But today, the columnist throws caution (and logic) to the four winds and jumps into into the vat of Kool-Aid without his water wings:

...So common is the statement “Bush lied” that it seems sometimes that I am the only blue-state person who does not think it is true. Then, last week, the indomitable Helen Thomas changed all that with a single question. She asked George Bush why he wanted “to go to war” from the moment he “stepped into the White House,” and the president said, “You know, I didn’t want war.” With that, the last blue-state skeptic folded.

“I would not go so far as to say that Bush wanted war from Day One in the White House, but there was plenty of evidence he had Saddam on his mind and in his sights from the very moment he got the news of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We have it from Richard Clarke, formerly the White House’s chief anti-terrorism official, that within a day of the attacks Bush was inquiring if Saddam might have had a hand in them. When told no—“But, Mr. President, al-Qaeda did this,” Clarke told him—it became instantly clear that this was not the answer Bush wanted. “’Look into Iraq, Saddam,’ the president said testily,” Clarke writes in his book, “Against All Enemies.”

First of all, referring to Helen Thomas as “indomitable” is like calling a pig in a dress a prom queen. Thomas may be a lot of things – loud, obnoxious, disrespectful, kooky – but “indomitable” as a descriptive should be reserved for battleships, cancer survivors, and some race horses; not doddering old reporters who waddle around the press room talking about the glory days when Jack Kennedy prowled the White House looking for his next sexual conquest in the steno pool.

And Cohen bases his thesis that the President had Saddam “on his mind and in his sights” following 9/11 based on the storytelling of Richard Clarke who says the President reacted “testily” when our hero tried to tell him that it was al-Qaeda and not Iraq who carried out the attacks.

Less than 24 hours after the Towers fell, and the President should close his mind to the possibility that someone besides al-Qaeda was involved in the attacks? If the President did indeed react “testily” – a pejorative that a more objective observer would question – could it be because bureaucrat Clarke was constructing a narrative of the attack that would have him as the point man in advising the President rather than the Neo-con cabal at the Pentagon who were agitating for the overthrow of Saddam?

There is little doubt in reading Clarke’s book that the former Counter-Terrorism official felt slighted by the Bush inner circle. His access to the President was restricted. And he was further humiliated (in his own mind) by having to go through National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice in order to make his voice heard. Consciously or unconsciously, Clarke was taking out his frustrations on a President who simply would not listen to his brilliant analysis and dire warnings of catastrophe. The reality of the situation was that Clarke rubbed everyone the wrong way and was a pretentious lout to boot. No one likes a Cassandra. And Clarke would play that part perfectly.

Cohen doesn’t stop with Clarke to prove his point about the President’s “fixation” on Iraq. He quotes from Bob Woodward’s excellent book Plan of Attack in which the President ordered Secretary Rumsfeld to come up with an invasion plan for Iraq around Thanksgiving, 2001. This brings up an interesting point about the genesis of the pre-emptive war doctrine and the Wilsonian vision of a democratic Middle East that started to dominate the President’s thinking by at least the first half of 2002.

It will be interesting to read a book in the future that details the arc of decision making that went into formulating the Bush Doctrine. Some will point to the President’s evangelical outlook and try to marry it with a proselytizing impulse to bring freedom to peoples under the oppressive yoke of religious fundamentalism and corrupt kleptocrats. This is a shallow analysis in that it ignores the singularly American tradition regarding the natural rights of man. When Bush talks about all people wanting freedom, he is referring back to the founding of the United States, that certain rights are “self-evident.” These rights exist independent of governments and that people are born into freedom by virtue of their humanity and a just, caring God. While not entirely secular in origin, the natural rights argument could in no way be confused with any kind of evangelical Christian drive to spread the “Good News” about the savior.

In this sense, Bush is a natural inheritor of the Reagan legacy and the belief that Communism was an evil not because of what it did to prevent people of faith from exercising their belief in God but rather because of how it tried to destroy the individual’s natural right to freedom by setting the state up to be the final arbiter of what rights a person might exercise.

This is important in trying to understand why, so soon after 9/11, the Bush Administration’s thoughts were turning to Iraq. The outlines of the Bush Doctrine were already being drawn. The President was thinking about the future and how to prevent an even more devastating attack that, if successful, could destroy what had taken more than 200 years to build. Unless one is willing to posit the notion that the President of the United States went to war in Iraq to personally enrich himself and his friends with monies from war contracts and oil, then the only other explanation that makes sense is that Bush was serious about making Iraq an example by which democrats all across the Middle East could rally to and help reform their own governments.

This notion – breathtaking in its audacity and, in hindsight something of an overreach – has never been acknowledged by the left as the proximate cause for war with Iraq despite the President talking about several times before the invasion. Saddam Hussein was an enabler, financier, and as we’re finding out with the release of the Saddam papers, a booster of terrorism throughout the Middle East and probably the world as well. If some kind of coherent strategy were to be followed after the destruction of the Taliban, the end of Saddam would have to figure in to it.

Cohen trivializes this momentous decision by according the President precious little credit for any kind of forward looking thinking:

There remains, though, the little matter of what was in Bush’s gut—not his head, mind you, but that elusive place where emotion resides. It was there, in the moments after 9/11, that Bush truly decided on war, maybe because Saddam had once tried to kill George H.W. Bush, maybe because the neocons had convinced him that a brief war in Iraq would have long-term salutary consequences for the entire Middle East, maybe because he could not abide the thought that a monster like Saddam might die in his sleep—and maybe because he heard destiny calling.

Whatever Bush’s specific reason or reasons, the one thing that’s so far missing from the record is proof of him looking for a genuine way out of war instead of looking for a way to get it started. Bush wanted war. He just didn’t want the war he got

By brushing aside the Bush Doctrine with a slap at the “Neo-cons” and trivializing the decision even more by playing amateur psychologist regarding the President’s motives for revenge, Cohen shows that he just doesn’t get it. Like many liberals, the idea of a sustained effort to defeat al Qaeda and the historical forces that drive their murderous ideology is an anathema. Trying to “understand” the brutes and deal with the “underlying causes” of terrorism is their battle cry. In this respect, it points up competing notions about the significance of 9/11. How much did or should 9/11 change America? Many of us believe it was a shattering event that demanded a response that encompassed a grand strategic vision that would change the planet. Others think it a horrible tragedy that the Republicans are using for political purposes and thus, a more reactive policy is in order, responding to terrorist threats as they arise (or happen) rather than pre-emptively combating the menace.

And to say that Bush didn’t try to find a way out of the war is stating the obvious. The Woodward book makes clear the President would have much preferred that Saddam take the way out offered by several nations and abdicate (no mention of that fact by Mr. Cohen, of course. It wouldn’t do to interrupt his earth shaking change of heart). Saddam was a gone goose once 150,000 Americans were ready sitting in Kuwait waiting to invade. The question in the President’s mind was whether Saddam would take the hint and go or stay and make a fight of it. After 15 UN resolutions and violating the 1991 cease fire accords on a daily basis for 11 years, Saddam was out.

It is amazing that anyone thought otherwise, that there was a hope for….what? Cohen, along with the President and everyone else did not want to have to fight to get rid of Saddam Hussein. But that was the option Saddam took, not the President. To suddenly discover the President “lied” when he said he “didn’t want war” is being disingenuous. It was always up to Saddam whether he would exit the stage peacefully or not. But exit he would.

I don’t think it ever occurred to Mr. Cohen that the President would honestly balk at taking an action that would result in the death of thousands of people. In this, he is no different from any other liberal who, when they look at the President, sees horns and a tail.

“Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame,
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

(Emma Lazarus, 1888)

“. . . . [W]e declare the independence of our mestizo nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.” (“For the race, everything. Outside the race, nothing.”)

(From El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan)

A land of dreams. A land of myths. America began as a rumor, a subject of court gossip in the great halls of 15th century Europe where it was whispered that some Genoese navigator had discovered new lands across the ocean sea. In the ensuing 500 years as tens of millions flowed to her shores, America swallowed the new arrivals with relative ease, assimilating them with a combination of brutal exploitation and wondrous opportunity – powerful forces that stoked the fires of the melting pot and imprinted American values, customs, and ideals on the peoples of every race, color, and creed.

But something has gone horribly wrong. Not just with immigrants from Mexico although currently being the largest group of new arrivals, they come in for the harshest criticism. It is the same with Russians, Poles, Slavs, Balkanites, Africans, Asians and many more who make it to our shores and then disappear into the great morass of bureaucratic ineptitude and inertia. The fact is, it is ridiculously easy to skirt our immigration laws.

Overstayed your visa? No problem. A huge underground industry has grown up that supplies illegal immigrants with documentation so that they can live and work in the United States as well as apply for benefits related to everything from health care to unemployment compensation. No one knows how large this illegal document industry is but estimates are in the 1-2 billion dollar range. This doesn’t include the monies stolen from the American taxpayer in illegal benefits.

With 96% of illegal immigrants able to procure these documents and become part of the workforce, this unprecedented outbreak of lawlessness has had predictable consequences; fewer and fewer of these illegals are on a path to citizenship and assimilation. The various schemes put forth to rectify this situation including the latest “guest worker” program have had no impact on solving the problem and may, in fact, encourage more people to illegally enter the country.

With no stake in the future of America, no need to learn English, no desire to make America their adopted land, there is no compulsion to inculcate American ideals in their children who are automatically citizens by virtue of being born here.

Anyone who doesn’t think that this aspect of illegal immigration doesn’t have consequences I would direct your gaze to the picture above of the upside down American flag being deliberately flown below the flag of Mexico. Is anyone seriously making the argument that this one image, so wrenching in its implications for our future, doesn’t accurately reflect the feelings of those children, most of whom are citizens? They are future voters. And I shudder to think of what they would be willing to vote for if the growing reconquista movement is able to successfully play upon and manipulate the current coalition of greedy businesses, weak politicians, diversity crackpots, multicultural tyrants, and guilt-ridden leftists who have made it plain that America is a land without recognizable borders and that citizenship, in the end, doesn’t mean squat.

John Fonte, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute:

We have arrived at a tipping point in American history. Make no mistake about it, these demonstrations are a challenge to what Aristotle and Straussian political theorists call a “regime” or “way of life.” We are witnessing the assertion of raw power (from and on behalf of non-citizens) that challenges our own citizenship and our very constitutional order. Illegal aliens who are here without the “consent of the governed” (aided and abetted by amoral corporate and ideological elites) are demanding that the views of the overwhelming majority of the American people (for border control and immigration restrictions) be ignored. This is an attempted social coup; war by other means.

A “social coup” indeed. The image of that upside down American flag is a declaration of war not just on the citizens of America, but on our values, our ideals, and our most cherished hopes that have sustained this country for more than 200 years.

It should go without saying that the reality of America has rarely lived up to its promise. Slavery of Africans, ethnic cleansing of the native Americans, and especially the way newcomers have been treated in the past upon their arrival have made the words contained in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution ring hollow. But almost important as this reality is the promise that our society can and does work to constantly better itself. The “No Irish Need Apply” signs in the days of our great grandfathers have disappeared along with similar disdain for subsequent waves of immigrants from Europe. The forces of assimilation worked their magic on those peoples to transform their progeny into citizens who are indistinguishable in all the important ways from the native born.

For others, the transformation was more painful but was made nonetheless. Overcoming the obscenity of racism (as well as other cultural obstacles), Asian-Americans and recent African immigrants have proven that the melting pot model of assimilation can be stretched to include those whose cultural values were vastly different from the Europeans who came before them.

The drive to assimilate has done more to make the words “All men are created equal” resonate with meaning than all the Supreme Court decisions, civil rights laws, racial pressure groups, and crusading journalists put together. By standing up for and exercising their rights as citizens, ethnic groups in the past have changed the American social and cultural landscape. By becoming citizens and taking part in the grand experiment that is American democracy, they have fought for and won important battles to make their vision of America – not their native land – a better place to live.

That is the stake that assimilation gives new citizens; the future happiness of their children. But today’s illegals, while wanting the same happiness for their offspring, don’t care about the context in which that goal is achieved. Hence, infusing their children from birth with the values of American society takes second place to maintaining their separateness from the rest of us. Part of this has to do with their status as illegal immigrants. But it has more to do with a belief that America is not a place to dream but rather a place to milk. The opportunity afforded those willing to work is seen as a means to take and give nothing in return.

This is why the image above is so disturbing. It shows that their children, despite many being citizens, have taken the same attitude as their parents toward American opportunity. Many apparently see themselves as the vanguard of a movement to “take back” California and the American southwest for Mexico. At the very least, it shows a lack of understanding of what America is all about, a failure of education both at home and at school. At worst, it presages a period in American politics that could lead to civil unrest and a fracturing of the American polity.

For 120 years, the Statue of Liberty has been the image of inclusion and opportunity for immigrants. It is sad almost beyond words that the image of the upside down American flag displayed in an inferior position to the flag of Mexico could become modern shorthand for the feelings and even the hopes and dreams of immigrants today.

UPDATE

Cao has an excellent round-up from the passionate right on the flag issue as well as the immigration bill before the Senate.

Michelle Malkin has dozens of pictuers of the illegal, forged, and fake documents used by “undocumented” workers. Quoth Malkin:

Next time you read or hear reporters mindlessly refer to the “undocumented,” send them here and ask why they continue to use such an inaccurate, biased, loaded, and plain annoying term.

I eagerly await their reply.

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.