Big deal.

Given his connection to the racialist group La Raza, he shouldn’t have been America’s top cop, anyway.

More here.

Commenter Shade dropped this link: Border jumpers are burning down border posts and setting fires along patrol routes to distract agents and get across. Yeah, these people should be rewarded with precious U.S. citizenship. Way to go, King George!

…kills another American. Driving while drunk is part of their culture, don’t you know? Movie director Robert Clark and his 22-year-old son were beneficiaries. Don’t you want to benefit, too?

We’re so fortunate to have Mexican culture among us, aren’t we? They jump over the border, bringing with them a rich heritage, indeed. Their wonderful contributions only enrich America. We’re very blessed to have them. Celebrate diversity!

(Pictured: Formerly law school-bound college track and field star Joycelyn Gardiner, killed by a drunk illegal alien - MM has a picture of the car)

More death-by-illegal-alien sources:

• Driver Pleads Guilty to Running Down Pedestrian
• Teen Responsible for Fatal Crash Was Unlicensed
• Driver Charged With DWI in Fatal I-40 Wreck
• Admitted Illegal Immigrant Faces Vehicular Manslaughter Charges
• Tragedy links family, officer
• Officials crack down on illegal immigrants since fatal crash – Yeah, right…
• Fatal wreck leads to 15-year sentence
• Brother guilty in fatal crash
• Illegal Immigrant Pleads Guilty
• Speeder crashes, sends three to hospital
• Year following infamous immigrant DUI crash…

Update: Congressman Tom Tancredo, hardline enforcement guy, introduced an amendment to the amnesty-for-illegal-aliens bill that would penalize illegal alien sanctuary cities. No surprise there. Here’s the shocker: the House passed the amendment by a vote of 234 to 189.

In other news, illegal aliens slaughtered a goat. In a restaurant kitchen. Celebrate diversity!

Brothels in residential areas. Interesting…

Commenter Kim sets other commenters straight:

The issue here is not “race,” but legal status and cultural norms. Drunk driving, and all manner of other driving violations, are the NORM in many (not all) Latin and Central American countries. So are corruption, gang membership, and sex with little girls. I should know – I lived in Latin America, and traveled there extensively.

In this country, adult woman may be harrassed by construction workers – it is a stereotype with a lot of factual validity. Tell me, though – is it normal or commonplace for grown American construction workers (as opposed to illegals) to expose themselves and make catcalls at 9 year old girls in major metropolitan cities? No, it is not. And if it occurs, it is not acceptable. Yet, when I lived in Colombia, this happened to me and my schoolmates on a daily basis. Daily, because we had to walk past several construction sites. It was considered to be commonplace and not worthy of attention, let alone police action.

As much as people want to avoid reality and swallow the Kool-Aid that all cultures are “equal,” they are not.

All these years, liberals were right about one thing: George Bush is an idiot. Video here.

What a disappointment.

Addendum: The backlash begins. (Thanks, Renee!)

Update (6/1): President George W. Bush will go down in history as the man who ushered in a dramatic demographic shift that turned the United States into a Third World country, with a disappearing middle class, another poorly educated and poor underclass (this one much larger than the other and Spanish-speaking), and a wealthy, insulated, gated-community elite.

And I voted for him. Twice. I voted for Clinton twice, too, but I’m more ashamed of voting for Bush.

Peggy Noonan writes: “What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.”

Check out this exchange between a Republican donor and the RNC.

I’m a revolter! At times like this, I’m glad I don’t belong to the Republican party. No annoying phone calls (or junk mail) from the RNC.

To escape politics for a while, visit Fantasy Fiction for Christians.

Update II: Loyal reader Renee just told me Rush Limbaugh read part of an article I wrote on his show today. Excellent.

Let’s speak plainly. Republicans got their bleep kicked Tuesday night.

It was ugly. As I sat in a downtown D.C. coffeehouse on a cramped couch surrounded by bloggers blogging, I knew there’d be little good news for Republicans when the sun came up. The people spoke loudly and clearly: “You guys stink.”

In “Another Campaign Begins,” I tried to sum up, in 600 words, why I thought Republicans lost. While Americans voted for “conservative” policies, they rejected the men behind those policies. It is possible that people were so angry about the war in Iraq and recent scandals that they’ve indeed cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Self-mutilation isn’t illegal.

If former House Speaker Dennis Hastert had resigned after it was discovered that he’d known about former Congressman Mark Foley’s e-mails to underage boys for at least four years, would Republicans still be running things? Or if Bush had gone into Iraq more aggressively and cleanly? Or if Republicans had stuck to the “small government” principle? Or…who knows?

I can almost hear talk of socialized medicine, amnesty for illegal aliens (Bush must be in hog heaven!), more government regulations (interference is more precise), and appeasing Muslim terrorists and other murderous thugs. If Bush were a truly conservative president, I wouldn’t be worried. He still has the power to veto whatever he doesn’t like. But we know Bush isn’t a truly conservative president.

The Brits got it right on this one. The Democrats are directionless, and, after 12 years in the minority, out of practice. In another term or two, the people will sweep Republicans back into office. In the meantime, I’m going to enjoy blogging about Democrats’ missteps, of which there will be plenty, and defending conservatism from a “minority” point of view.

Today I’ll listen in on a blogger conference call about “GOP leadership.” Yeah, right. The last thing I want to talk about is Republican leadership. Let’s talk about conservative leadership, socially conservative leadership.

The sun has set on Republican rule. But it will rise again. Next time, I hope it’s conservatives, and not just Republicans, in charge of things.

Update: Impeachment talk? Surely not! [sarcasm off]

Update (3:21 p.m.): VA Senator George Allen has honorably conceded the race to James Webb.

Sources:

• Captain Ed says: No, let’s wait before we start campaigning…
• Money quote: “Couldn’t it have waited a day or two longer?”
• Meet the Blue Dogs: pro-gun, anti-abortion – and Democrat: Yes!
• A Loss’s Silver Lining: “First, they were punished not for pursuing but for forgetting conservatism. Second, they admire market rationality, and the political market has worked. Third, on various important fronts, conservatism continued its advance Tuesday.”
• OK, Democrats: Time to show your plan
• Conservatism Was Not Defeated
• Election Not ‘Voter Rebuke’ for Conservatives, Leaders Say
• We need humor!

U.S. immigration policy is a JOKE.

A few days ago, a local newspaper in California reported what’s been known for quite some time: the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) is giving employees cash and prize bonuses to “fastrack” immigration applications to reduce a backlog, at the expense of properly vetting the documents for criminal background and national security concerns.

In some cases, national security red flags are ignored because investigating, which is what the USCIS is tasked to do, would slow down the process!

If the average government employee worked quickly, and maintained accuracy and quality control, fastracking wouldn’t be a problem. But…need I say it? Most people I know working for the feds care little about what they’re doing and more about the security of a federal job. Add to that the enticement of cash, time off, and movie tickets for moving applications, and you’ve got a disaster in the making.

If you regularly read this blog and actually follow links to sources, this fastracking news won’t be new. In July, I wrote about Michael J. Maxwell, former director of USCIS’s Office of Security and Investigations. He testified (PDF) before the House Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation in April about fraud and corruption at USCIS. He sent me a link to his July testimony (PDF) about the Senate’s amnesty-for-illegal-aliens bill.

Maxwell exposed ineptitude that reaches the very top. In “The trouble with U.S. immigration policy,” I wrote (emphasis added):

Maxwell testified about USCIS’s policy on applicant background checks. If an employee learns that an applicant is the target of an ongoing investigation by agencies like the FBI or CIA, he must contact those agencies to find out why and wait for an answer. According to USCIS’s official instructions, if an employee hasn’t received a response within 40 days, he may assume the results of the request are negative and continue processing the application. Maxwell added that some employees had been told to ignore potential national security concerns because doing the necessary investigative work slows down processing times.

Paper-pushing trumps safety. Maxwell said that he repeatedly tried to warn USCIS director Emilio Gonzalez (shown above at a citizenship ceremony) about these problems, and Gonzalez repeatedly ignored him. Gonzalez is just another useless, complacent, overpaid government bureaucrat with benefits.

USCIS leadership wouldn’t give Maxwell the funds to do his job and ushered him out the door when he wouldn’t relent from trying to do his job.

Not only is there a backlog in immigration applications, but employee criminal background paperwork piled up, too. The people tasked with the important responsibility of running background checks on foreigners trying to enter the country haven’t been checked out themselves!

As someone who’s gone through a background check to work for the federal government for a position that required a mere “Confidential” clearance, I can attest to how thorough and nerve-wracking it can be. Federal agents went to South Carolina to ask my mother all sorts of questions about me. I was to have access to confidential information contained in sealed case files (surely much less serious than immigration documents, don’t you think?), and the government checked for a criminal record, scoured my financial background, wanted to know where I lived for the past 10 years, etc. After receiving what felt like an enema, I was finally allowed to enter the building at my new job. And this was pre-9/11!

But some USCIS employees who decide who enters the country, who gets asylum, and who becomes citizens haven’t been investigated! In some cases, they don’t have the proper clearance and can’t access national security databases. So with incomplete clearances themselves, they approve applications.

I wonder what sort of background check a likely spy had before he was hired by USCIS? An Iraqi-born man who’d visited several terrorist-sponsoring countries and had been turned down for employment in other federal agencies because of a suspicious background was hired by USCIS to approve asylum applications! The man was finally canned after approving 180 applications. Maxwell said his investigation revealed national security red flags in 24.

The Washington Times covered it. I check the Washington Post regularly, and I don’t remember reading a story about Maxwell’s testimony. This is the kind of crap the Washington Post writes about: sappy human interest stories about illegal aliens gaming the system and reaping rewards for their crimes. The smiling idiot in the photo, with his adorable kids, of course, admitted jumping the border and using a phony Social Security number (So what? says the SSA). I can sympathize with the criminal for wanting to be here instead of the stink hole from which he fled, but my sympathy stops when people decide to break the law to get what they want.

It frustrates me beyond rationality that few people seem to be upset about our lax immigration policy or that mainstream media, so-called public watchdogs, won’t cover it. Nobody really cares about this, really, not the corporations or elite liberals who hire illegal aliens under the table or the media.

It’s just a few conservative bloggers, newspapers, and “fringe” groups (Judicial Watch, Numbers USA, FAIR, CIS…) trying to keep these harrowing details about our dangerously lax immigration enforcement efforts in circulation. Empty election-time gestures appease some folks, I guess.

What are you doing to help?

Update: The immigration posts don’t even generate a lot of comments anymore. I’m not comment-fishing. Just reality-checking.

After defending congressional crook William Jefferson last month and demanding the return of the documents seized in an FBI raid, Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, may have redeemed himself.

An emasculated Senate went through the motions of deliberation and quickly passed George Bush’s amnesty-for-illegal-aliens plan. The House passed a bill that at least gave a nod to enforcement. As is the usual practice, a committee made up of members of both chambers will get together and sort out the differences and compromise (oh, how I hate that word!).

Hastert wants to slow down the process and hold a few hearings on the legislation before a compromise is reached. I don’t know what he has in mind, but if it can stop Bush’s amnesty-for-illegal-aliens plan, I’m all for it.

Incidentally, did you know that aliens can use up to 20 documents to verify legal status? It’s a mockery. The point is to render the whole “legal papers” process meaningless and allow illegal aliens to remain in the United States with fake papers. Workers should present valid visas or guest worker permits. Period.

But we know the Bush administration and other elites want the country to remain flush with cheap labor, so there’s no point rehashing that tired point. As I am not a “day laborer” and don’t have to compete with below-the-radar criminal aliens for jobs, I’ll let the so-called civil rights leaders, activists, and others socialists deal with that. [Message for new readers: The device used in the previous sentence is called sarcasm. I care very much about the ability of low-skilled Americans to earn a decent living, but it is being undermined by illegal aliens.] Then again, it’s not only low-wage workers who have to worry.

In other news, hispanic gangs account for the increase in violent crimes in the U.S. As you may know, thugs known as MS-13 have infiltrated the Midwest and areas like Northern Virginia. Gangs are no longer confined to inner cities. The FBI’s report may not specify MS-13 gangs, but intelligent people can read between the lines. (See my Gangs of Illegals post and Heather Mac Donald’s The Immigrant Gang Problem.)

If you want to know what’s going on with Immigration and Customs (Non)Enforcement and related topics, Debbie Schlussel is the go-to blogger. She blogs about Bush’s self-serve enforcement system and his complicity in burdening our social services infrastructure.

Next Thursday I make my debut in the Washington Examiner with a column on legal aliens and naturalized citizens. Remember them?

Related posts:

• Washington Post Journalist Admits Biased Immigration Coverage
• Lame Duck, Straw Men, and Cosmetics
• Morning Reading

By the way, Check out The Most Absurd Rape Story of the Year, but please don’t discuss it in this thread. Discuss at Duke Rape Case: That Motion!

Update: This sort of thing is pointless if they’re going to release these people back into the general population in a few days. Stop the show “busts” and deport!

Unrelated Update II: Senator Joe Lieberman, the “conservative” Democrat, is considering running as an Independent. I haven’t thought about him since I wrote Limber Lieberman Breaks A Leg. I wrote some nice things about Bush in that piece. Time changes all things…

Update III (5/15): Guess what’s contributing to the ER crisis but isn’t mentioned in this article at all?

Victor Davis Hanson on “selective compliance”:

Selective compliance, Socrates warned, would undermine the moral integrity of the entire legal system, ensuring anarchy. And so, as Plato tells us, the philosopher accepted the court’s death sentence and drank the deadly hemlock.
…
The alien from Mexico chooses which American laws he finds convenient. He wants our border police to leave him alone — until he becomes lost in the desert or is attacked by robbers…The employer expects trespassing laws to be enforced to keep vagrants off his premises, but then assumes that the same vigilant police will ignore the illegal status of his cheap labor force…And does the city council that orders its policemen not to turn over arrested illegal aliens to the border patrol similarly allow townspeople to ignore their municipal tax bills?

Update II (06/06/06): Did Lawrence v. Texas get the “gay marriage” ball rolling?

Update (3:02 p.m.): Ann Coulter will appear on Pundit Review Radio this Sunday, and she’ll probably discuss homosexual “marriage,” illegal “immigration,” and her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism.

Listen live on WRKO in Boston.

I’ve added Ann’s book to my Amazon Wish List (hint, hint…)

Tomorrow morning I’ll participate in a bloggers conference call with Senator Rick Santorum, who supports the Federal Marriage Amendment.
————————————————————————————————————————–

Now that George Bush and his co-president Vicente Fox of Mexico have got their America-destroying “immigration” plan working its way through a “deballed” Senate, Bush is trying to throw his base dogs a bone with a homosexual “marriage” ban amendment to the Constitution.

Bush has the wherewithal to fight to change the freakin’ Constitution, yet when it comes to stopping illegal aliens from crossing the border, he has no fight in him to execute laws already on the books? OK.

Politicians are so transparent. The midterm elections are quickly approaching (can you believe 2006 is half over?), and Bush is trying to appease angry conservatives and Christians by pushing this amendment. It’s an empty and meaningless gesture because the thing will never be ratified.

I no longer support or defend Bush, and I don’t support a “gay marriage ban” amendment to the Constitution. One doesn’t have anything to do with the other, however. My support for such an amendment waned and weakened a couple of years ago even when I thought Bush loved this country. In The Nationalization of Marriage, I argued against it on procedural and “states rights” grounds, and reminded people that Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton already managed to pass marriage-protecting legislation. Ironic, isn’t it?

From the post:

Some states can (and will) refuse to vote on the FMA or reject it outright. If 13 states do either of those things, the amendment is dead. The second way to amend the Constitution is if two-thirds of the states call for a Convention and the FMA is ratified by three-fourths of the states. Good luck with all that. On the other hand, an amendment would prevent unaccountable judges from forcing new laws on the rest of us and rights never envisioned by the Constitution.

Another reason I don’t support the FMA is because marriage laws should be determined by the states. We already have The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton, which preserves states’ rights and goes far enough in protecting traditional marriage by allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed by other states. Former Congressman Robert Barr wrote an interesting op-ed about this issue.

I suspect many disappointed conservatives will rally around the president on this issue. While Bush attempts to sound conservative, remember that his pro-Mexico, anti-America immigration scheme will cause more damage to this great country than a million homosexuals “marrying.” The influx of millions more poorly educated, poor English-speaking, non-assimilating Third World (more importantly, Third World-retaining) aliens is more of a threat to the average American than the spectacle of men standing at an altar…although it’s difficult to decide which is more disgusting.

If you’re reading this blog, King George, this is what I think of you and your proposed amendment:

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

- Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Act V, Scene V

Sources:

• Gay Marriage Ban Short of Votes in Senate
• Gay Marriage to the Rescue!
• Gay marriage creates new conflicts for neighbors
• Protecting marriage: The battle dawns
• Politics of the Altar
• Bush expected to jump-start debate over same-sex marriage

Have you blogged about this topic? Trackback, and I’ll link to your post.

Bloggers: Fellow Christian Randy Thomas and I disagree on the marriage amendment but agree on almost everything else. I appreciate his work with Exodus International. Once caught up in the homosexual lifestyle, Randy travels and shares his testimony about the healing power of Christ.

Glenn Reynolds, who supports “gay marriage,” says:

There are times when I’ve found Bush’s transparent lack of enthusiasm for this measure [the proposed ban] comforting, but of course it just makes it more obviously pandering when they trot it out at this point. Or maybe I should say “attempted pandering,” since if LaShawn’s reaction is typical it’s not a very successful effort.

The Moderate Voice, Scott Ott’s proposed amendment wouldn’t pass in 1,000 lifetimes, but I like it. , Opposing Arguments, Inoperable Terran, The Dragon and the Phoenix (cool blog name!), The Reid Report, Thoughts from a lack of sleep (another good one), Adam’s Blog, Ron’s Random Ruminations, Cagey Mind, The Political Pit Bull, All Things Beautiful…

Jay Reding:

So long as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) holds, there’s no need for a Constitutional amendment that would directly interfere in the affairs of the states. It does appear as though the DOMA will hold, and if it doesn’t, only then is it time to consider the possibility of amending the Constitution. To create a preemptive amendment to deal with a potential court case seems to be overkill to me.

Homosexual blogger and “marriage” supporter Andrew Sullivan, with whom I had a brief e-mail exchange on this issue last year, writes:

By spear-heading the FMA again, Bush has alienated a vast swathe of socially inclusive suburbanites, the veep’s daughter, every gay person and many of their families, libertarians, constitutional conservatives and principled federalists. But he’s won over the fire-breathers, right? It turns out: Not even them any more. When you’ve lost LaShawn Barber, things aren’t looking too good.

Don’t stand too close to the flames!

Say Anything, an atheist, says:

I oppose a marriage amendment to the Constitution, mostly because I think that marriage is something that should be decided by the voters/legislators of the various states. I don’t want judges deciding the issue for everyone, but nor do I want to deny the citizens of California or Massachusettes their right to allow or deny gay marriage depending upon the will of the voters.

(These men are what you’d call “enemies” of George Bush. They are vehemently anti-amnesty and fiercely pro-enforcement. Actually, I’m only assuming Thomas Sowell [far left] is “fiercely” pro-enforcement. Next is Minuteman Project co-founder Jim Gilchrist, “Rasta Republican” Ted Hayes, and Rep. Tom Tancredo, a man who should but will never be president of the United States. Honorable mentions: Rep. J.D. Hayworth and Rep. Mike Pence.)

["An estimated 45,000 cases of illegal immigrants from terror-linked countries were released to the American alien frontier between fiscal 2001 and the first five months of 2005."

OH NO, George Bush shouldn't be impeached for his immigration non-enforcement policy. That's absurd, La Shawn. You're crazy, girl. ]

[Wednesday, May 24: Part II of Bordering on fraud]

While I try to ignore people telling me how to think and feel about George Bush and his amnesty-for-illegal-aliens scheme, I’ll continue to provide my no-holds-barred commentary. Ironically, some of the same people are regular readers who know my style by now. I don’t go along with Republicans or conservatives (not necessarily the same thing) just because they’re Republicans or conservatives. I focus on principles and ideology.

My loyalty lies with men who put America and its citizens first, before all others. If they can’t do that, they won’t get my support. Period. I hate it when liberals, with their insipid multicultural claptrap, tell me how to think, and I hate it when conservatives do it.

That’s not to say I won’t vote in November. You better believe I’ll vote, but not to prove anything to anyone. I consider voting a duty because blacks who came before me fought and risked their lives so I, their descendant, could do so freely and without fear.

Remember when I blogged about joining the elites? Well, I’m not physically there, yet, but mentally…I’m on my way. I’ll continue blogging about illegal aliens, although the tone of the posts will be different. I decided the “join ‘em” route was better than ranting. Men like Thomas Sowell seem to have a cerebral grip on the matter, and I want to emulate people who’re smart enough to see the truth, calmly express their fact-based opinions, and move on.

Sowell has logged in countless words over the years through books, articles, research papers, etc. I appreciate him for the knowledge and insight he’s amassed and his ability to impart simple wisdom and common sense in his weekly column. In Bordering on fraud, he implies that the immigration “debate” is exactly what I know it is: fraudulent. Bush has no desire or will to enforce immigration law, and Sowell agrees:

Another insult to our intelligence is that amnesty is not amnesty if you call it something else. The fact that illegals will have to fulfill certain requirements to become American citizens is supposed to mean that this is not amnesty…But let’s do what the spinmeisters hope we will never do — stop and think. Amnesty is overlooking (“forgetting,” as in amnesia) the violation of the law committed by those who have crossed our borders illegally.

The fact that there are requirements for getting American citizenship is a separate issue entirely. Illegal aliens who do not choose to seek American citizenship are under no more jeopardy than before. They have de facto amnesty.

Lame Duck — George Bush is outta here. He has no interest in securing the borders, even in the wake of September 11, 2001, when Islamofascists murdered thousands on our own soil. It ought to be criminal. Lax immigration enforcement allowed those thugs access to the weapons they used to slaughter Americans. For that, there should be no mercy when it comes to securing our borders, solidifying our sovereignty, tightly regulating immigration, and expelling anyone and anything who threatens our safety and our way of life.

Straw Men — Says King George: “We are a Nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws. We are also a Nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways.”

This is contradictory drivel. Whether or not we’re a “Nation of immigrants” is beside the point and not at issue. No one I know wants to shut down legal immigration. We want to stop illegal aliens jumping the border and overstaying visas, and crush Bush’s call to grant amnesty despite their criminal activity and despite the fact that numerous others are waiting in line for legal status and naturalization.

And how, someone please educate me, can we be a “Nation of laws” and “enforce our laws” when the Senate is discussing at this very moment how to avoid enforcing the law?

As soon as I get permission from the subjects, I plan to write a series of columns about the feedback I got from legal aliens and residents seeking citizenship in the United States and what they’ve gone through. The money. The red tape. And time. Years. And as soon as I’m allowed to reveal the details of my new biweekly column job, you’ll know where you can find their stories.

Sowell points out another straw man argument: mass deportation of 12 million illegal aliens. Reasonable people, I suppose, aren’t calling for it. In the deep recesses of my brain, however, I think we have the power and might to do it. Politically incorrect, it definitely would be.

Cosmetics — Unarmed, paper-shuffling troops “on the border” sitting in offices doing clerical work and zero enforcement. It’s just an intelligence-insulting, superficial, lame duck, CYA maneuver.

[Note: Blogger and commenter Juliette: "The troops won’t be unarmed, assuming that AF Security Forces (and other service equivalents) will be there."]

One final note. My mission is not to “get along” or come to a consensus or “stick together.” It is to tell the truth plainly, boldly, and loudly. Along the way, I’ve made enemies. As certain as death and taxes, the list will grow. If I weren’t making enemies and/or offending people, I’d be wasting my time and insulting your intelligence. I simply would be a lame duck out here attacking straw men and applying cosmetics to dangerous, deep-rooted, and growing problems that undercut our greatness, render meaningless the rule of law and a sense of fairness, and trick people into believing others are responsible for their own weaknesses and failures. Shufflin’ along is not my style.

Can’t or won’t deal with it? Sounds like a personal problem.

Related sources:

• Founder of Minutemen targets run for president
• Is Illegal Immigration as Dangerous for African-Americans as Slavery Was?
• A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant

Bloggers: Wizbang, Daily Pundit, Ace in the Hole, Diggers Realm…

Polipundit:

As I’ve noted before, illegal immigrants haven’t just broken immigration laws. Most of them are guilty of fraud, perjury, forgery, and other crimes. Here are some of the penalties for those crimes…

Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler:

That they managed to screw us so utterly back then [by passing an amnesty bill in 1986] was because we didn’t know any better.

We do now.

At least those of us blessed with intelligence, memory, pride and principles…Cheap political whores need not apply.

From the Pen:

“Swallow this pile of sh**,” demands President Bush of a law-abiding American citizen.

“But, Mr. President, it’s a pile of sh**.”

Bush counters, “No, it’s not. It’s actually a ‘comprehensive’ biodegradable accumulation of organic fecal compost.”

Yeah, this just about sums it up…

Update (5/24): From one of Steve Sailer’s readers:

This whole guest worker thing is bad no matter how you look at it. If the guest worker is tied to the job or employer, then you have at best a worker almost totally under the employer’s thumb, sort of an indentured servant. Chances are you are going to see employers advancing these workers money to come to the US etc and they will end up “working it off” kind of like a drug-addicted prostitute who never seems to be able to pay back her pimp, who got her addicted in the first place.

Interesting: “Bush Is Losing Hispanics’ Support, Polls Show: Surveys Find the Immigration Debate Is Also Alienating White Conservatives”

He’s losing the support of black conservatives, too, but Repubs don’t need black conservatives to win. The GOP needs the white, married, middle-class vote to win elections. Democrats need the black vote. Priorities are all screwed up!

Black-brown: This meandering column contains a few ideas worth discussing.

Wednesday, May 17: This post is closed. If you want to discuss illegal immigration (a misnomer if I ever heard one!), click over to the latest post.

Update II (5/16 @ 7:07 p.m.): Mexico threatens lawsuits over Guard. Nice.

Sailer: “The future of the GOP lies not with the Hispanic vote but with overlooked middle-class Americans.”

Update (5/16 @ 7:30 a.m.): Polipundit, the anonymous host of the popular group blog of the same name, has issued a new editorial policy to bloggers Lorie Byrd, DJ Drummond, Jayson, and Alexander K. McClure.

Based on the policy (which he briefly explains), Lorie has decided to leave the group blog. From her personal blog:

I received a lengthy email from Polipundit tonight alerting us to an editorial policy change that included the following: “From now on, every blogger at PoliPundit.com will either agree with me completely on the immigration issue, or not blog at PoliPundit.com.”

Apparently Lorie doesn’t agree completely with Polipundit’s position. The illegal immigration issue is potent, and it’s driving a wedge between Republicans and conservative in the blogosphere. Polipundit has every right to make the rules on his blog, so he can’t be faulted for that. I support his decision. (I considered guest bloggers at LBC, and I would have selected conservative Christians whose worldview matched my own.) Yesterday I linked to his El Presidente post and highly recommended it. I share his outrage, and it’s good to know that at least one conservative blogger feels as angry as I do about illegal immigration.

It is a slap in the face that George Bush is pushing his will on the American people. That’s not a president; that’s a dictator, and I hope true conservatives in Congress fight him to the death, figuratively speaking.

Lorie was one of the bloggers who disagreed with my impeachment post, but I still like her. She’s given me generous linkage on the high traffic blog through the years. Lorie’s leaving Polipundit on principle, and I respect her for it.

If Bush continues to push amnesty, expect more posts calling for his impeachment. I don’t march in lockstep with any political party. I may lose readers. Groups of bloggers may even de-link me from their rolls. It’s happened before, yet I’m still here, ranked high and drawing over 4,000 visitors a day. Do what you think is right. That’s all each of us is trying to do.

***

I’ve written about illegal immigration a lot in the past 2.5 years, so I encourage you to check out the Immigration category (keep scrolling). I discuss and link to a number of disturbing facts and stats, including undocumented (paperless!) illegal aliens working as airplane mechanics (!), once-eradicated diseases making a comeback (when you sneak over the border, you get to skip the medical exam), the toll on the already over-burdened welfare system, etc. I didn’t suddenly jump on a bandwagon.

Visit Truth Laid Bear’s live-blogging page for bloggers’ reactions to Bush’s amnesty-for-illegal-aliens speech.

Steve Sailer: “If this speech reassures conservatives, we definitely are the Stupid Party…” He also discusses citizenship and residency, two different things.

Mychal Massie: “America cannot afford to applaud the president for a promise to strengthen our borders, without a specifically defined way to repatriate the illegal aliens residing within our borders — no matter how long they have been here.”

From one of MSNBC’s blogs: “And so we find conservative blogger LaShawn Barber, always reliable for defying expectations…”

May it always be so.

National Review Online: “In his Oval Office address, the president squandered what was probably his last chance to reconnect with conservatives on immigration. They will undoubtedly note that the president has waited six years to start talking about enforcement, and will accordingly ask why he can’t postpone his amnesty long enough to give enforcement a try? A speech that had reiterated his support for amnesty in theory, but conceded that enforcement had to come first, would likely have won significant public approval and helped shape events in Congress.”

Lawrence Auster: “To say that the granting to illegal aliens of temporary legal status leading to permanent legal status is not an amnesty is one of the biggest lies in American political history, and our president and his supporters such as Sen. McCain have made a career out of promulgating this lie.”

Debbie Schlussel: “Bush doesn’t care about the borders, or he wouldn’t have waited until 5.5 years into his presidency to do something about it…But he does care about elections. And those are just 6 months away. Timing is everything.”

As I wrote before, it’s taxation without meaningful representation.

Rich Lowry: “Having the National Guard sharpen pencils and fetch coffee for the Border Patrol can’t fix our broken immigration system. It is no substitute for a fence, nor for real interior enforcement that punishes employers for hiring illegal labor…That a president from the country’s law-and-order party has been so blase about both when it comes to immigration presents an obvious opening to the opposition. Shrewder Democrats are picking up on it…Bush’s heart just isn’t in enforcement. Perhaps it’s a tribute to his sincerity that he is so bad at faking it.”

I like this theory.

————————————————————————————————————————-

7:46 p.m.: I’ve changed my mind about live-blogging the speech. I covered it in January. Here’s the text of the speech. People standing in line to immigrate legally will hear a big fat, “Screw you!” so I urge them not to listen.

You may “live-comment” the speech, if so inclined. I think I’ll read a book instead. Goodnight.
—————————————————————————————————————————

As if it will make any difference in the scheme of things, I’ll be live-blogging President George Bush’s speech tonight, but the thread is open for commenting now.

Bush knows a majority of Americans oppose amnesty for illegal aliens and dislike him for pushing it, so he’s going prime-time to offer the people a few crumbs words of encouragement.

Bush’s boy Vicente Fox, all frantic about our country’s alleged plan (and right) to guard its own borders, called Bush, who assured him the border beef up is only temporary and will not be a “militarization.” What a thoughtful man, our president

I predict that his speechwriters will insult our intelligence and present unsustainable and bad argumentation supporting amnesty for border jumpers, including the straw man “We are a nation of immigrants!” and the claim that deporting millions of illegal criminals is impractical. He’ll toss us a half-chewed border enforcement bone to throw us off the trail.

I’m not that hungry. Are you?

• I agree with this blogger.
• Counseling Kevin writes about “restorative assimilation.”
• Steve Sailer on “marketing major post-modernism.”
• Michelle Malkin on Bush’s charade. Ha! Loving the Hot Air, Michelle.
• If Republicans hate my “King George” references, they must really hate Polipundit’s “El Presidente” label. The post is a must-read. An excerpt:
  

  Tens of thousands of legal hi-tech guest workers who’ve been working here for several years are not allowed to join the line for citizenship, at the front or back. The 6 billion “decent human beings” around the world, who have never violated US or other laws, are not allowed to join the line, at the front or back.

  The privilege of joining the line for US citizenship will be reserved for those who can prove that they’ve been committing immigration fraud, work fraud, forgery, and perjury for at least five years. Yet, this is supposedly not an “amnesty” for them.

  The whole amnesty idea is shameful, and Bush should bear the consequences for even talking about it. Yet bloggers jumped all over me for a hypothetical article of impeachment! I’m constantly (and pleasantly) reminded these days why I never registered for the Republican party. And never will.

• Outside the Beltway asks why the “ridiculous step” of troops on the border?
• Right Wing News (also live-blogging) hopes it’s not a gimmick.
• Marc Cooper blogs of blood and mops.
• Kudos to Scott Ott for making me laugh during these frustrating times. For some reason I love reminding readers that he’s a Christian.
• Tim Graham blasts the left-leaning Washington Post on its coverage of the patriotic Minuteman Project.
• NZ Bear is tracking bloggers doing live coverage of tonight’s speech. Add your link.
• Uh-oh. Talk of sedition goes on at Ace in the Hole.

(AFP photo)

Monday, May 15: I’m still surprised by the popularity of this post, but I welcome new readers and civil commenters nonetheless. When you’re done reading the post, read this one about tonight’s speech.

Friday, May 12: This post is still generating interest (for some odd reason!), so I’ve re-opened it for commenting. Read the entire post, read parts of it, follow instructions or not, talk about the weather…whatever. Happy Friday!

Update II (5/11): I’m really quite disappointed with commenters on this post. It’s not about dissent; I allow non-ad homimen dissent at LBC. But I asked for two things on this post: other examples of abuse of power and other possible articles of impeachment. Exactly one commenter attempted to answer one of the questions. Many disagreed and didn’t address the questions. A few told me I was crazy (although most of those didn’t make it past the troll filter). Even commenters who agreed with the post didn’t answer the questions.

The hypothetical Article I drafted was deliberately vague. You’ll notice that I created a (1) but didn’t add (2). I wanted readers to come up with additional articles and examples. It was an exercise, an experiment to see what commenters would come up with.

But most didn’t bother. I could have added something like, “If you don’t think he should be impeached, don’t comment,” but people would have commented anyway. That’s the way we are. Whether people ask or not, we want to tell them what we think. I know my opinion about what should be done with Bush is controversial. Controversy sells. I can handle controversy. It’s the reason I’m a high ranking blogger. But this little impeachment hypothetical failed. Oh, well. On to the next post.

Read about boycotts that backfired and voter revolts. Good article.

Later…Someone responds to one of the questions on his own blog. Probably because I closed commenting. The blogger calls himself an independent and has “controversial” views.

Under a full moon…

Captain Ed blogs on righteous desertion. That’s why I’m a conservative, and not a Republican.

As I suspected and hoped, illegal alien protests have mobilized Americans who care about their country. States are exercising their power while they still have it. Even as Congress works to pass an amnesty bill before Memorial Day.

I read these words somewhere: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Taxation without meaningful representation…

Update (3:18 p.m.): I know the standards for impeachment are very high and my suggested article isn’t concrete enough. I appreciate everyone’s input, even dissenters, but I wish commenters had followed instructions, answered the questions, and continued the hypothetical. That was the purpose of this post. Blogging since 2003, however, I ought to know better! I doubt more than a few readers even read the questions.

If you want to comment, it would be extremely helpful to read the entire post first.

*** Scroll down for more reactions ***
——————————————————————————————————————–

According to Article II, Section 4, of the United States Constitution:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I believe George Bush’s failure to enforce immigration law and stop the foreign invasion, which he has the power and authority to do, warrants impeachment. Because of Bush, illegal invaders are emboldened, demanding that which they have no legal right to obtain.

While the invasion has caused incalculable physical and economic harm to legal citizens, the president proposes to offer amnesty and allow the harm to continue. To the detriment of those he swore to protect, Bush chooses instead to protect those he has no duty to protect. His actions are in violation of the Constitution.

How would George Bush’s articles of impeachment read? Let’s see take a look at a hypothetical Article I, inspired by the impeachment articles of Richard M. Nixon and William J. Clinton.

***

RESOLVED that George Walker Bush, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Article I: Abuse of Power: Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, failing to impart the due and proper administration of justice by protecting citizens against foreign invasions, contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch (Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Internal Revenue Service, for example) and the purposes of these agencies. This conduct has included one or more of the following:

(1) Complicit with foreign governments in breaching U.S. sovereignty. America’s founders codified the notion that “We the People” would govern the country by a representative democracy. The government remains legitimate only through consent of the governed, and “We the People” retain the inalienable right to alter the government, abolish it, or amend the Constitution.

***

Questions for you:

A. What other examples of Bush’s actions would make a case for Abuse of Power?

B. What additional articles of impeachment could be presented? Obstruction of Justice? Contempt of Congress? Why?

————————————————————————————————————–
Addendum and Reactions:

Blogger Misha argues that if our government is tipping off the Mexican government on the whereabouts of peaceful Americans standing watch over the borders to aid illegal aliens and Bush knows about it but does nothing, he should be impeached.

From reader/attorney David B.:

Ms. Barber,

Although I agree with you on the immigration issue, your impeachment suggestion is absurd. The President has put forth legitimate arguments in support of his position on immigration. You and I may find them less
than compelling, but I expect that you and others in the conservative blogosphere could keep the debate civil and somewhere north of the sophomoric rantings of the far left moonbats.

I still love you,

Under Siege in Texas

Check out the latest Vent. It’s very good.

Maricopa County, Arizona, is sending out the posse. But without the backing of the federal government, what will it accomplish? Round up a bunch of illegal aliens, throw them in jail, call ICE, and… Complete and total waste of fiber optic energy.

As you may know, Ronald Reagan tried amnesty back in 1986. As I didn’t care much for Reagan or politics at the time, I could not have cared less. What do I think now? It was a bad move that obviously didn’t work. If I, sitting on the sidelines, can see it, why can’t Bush?

Lorie at Polipundit says:

I love La Shawn, and agree with her most of the time, but if presidents could be impeached anytime they performed poorly on an issue, there wouldn’t even be time left for cocktail parties in D.C. There would be non-stop impeachment proceedings 24/7. Should Ronald Reagan have been impeached for his amnesty plan? How about Bill Clinton for his handling of the terrorist threat. (Well, I’ll admit that one is pretty tempting.)

Debbie Schlussel quoting a story about a friend, a former border agent:

He said that U.S. Border Patrol officials provided office space inside their headquarters to Mexican consulate officials, allowed the consulate to dictate the agents’ activities, and gave the consulate information on ongoing investigations. (Emphasis added)

If Bush knows about this and approves, does this rise to the level of treason?

Commenter Erik says:

Other posters have framed the issue as Bush refusing to do anything, Bush being lax on border security, etc. If that is merely the case, no, he should not be impeached, as his laxness does not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

However, yesterday’s revelation that U.S Border Patrol (under the umbrella of the DHS, which was created on Bush’s watch) is tipping off the Mexican government as to the whereabouts of the Minutemen raises the issue to another, more serious level.

If Bush ordered this, then he has affirmatively attempted to undermine U.S. border security, and that IMO would most definitely be an impeachable offense. And given Bush’s past statements about the Minutemen, the speculation is not unreasonable.

If Bush didn’t order the Mexican government tipped off but knew about it, it still might rise to that level, as it certainly falls under what another poster refers to a malign neglect. It would also be, as LaShawn suggested, a clear violation of his oath of office. (Emphasis added)

• Read Herman Cain’s A letter from a slave to an illegal alien.
• Other bloggers: I read that our government was alerting the Mexican government of the movements of the American volunteer group, the Minuteman Project. Michelle Malkin’s posted updates on the Department of Homeland (In)Security’s non-denial denial and other links. Well, Bush did call his countrymen vigilantes.
• Also see the Independent Conservative (with links to shocking audio) Minuteman Blog, Daily Pundit, Confederate Yankee, Riehl World View, Right Wing News, Ace in the Hole, Digger’s Realm, The Lone Wacko, UNCoRRELATED, Hot Air (and here), Wizbang, Tammy Bruce, SFPH Blog, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler…More Vent!

Update III (4/14): You know, I’ve been thinking about that “play the race card” statement. I don’t think I will. If I ever criticized someone else for doing it, I’d be a hypocrite. I’ll just do what I’ve always done: blog about why illegal immigration is bad for all Americans.

Update II: Katherine Kersten says, “Start immigration reform with those who follow the law…Obviously, many illegal immigrants are good folks, striving to better their families. But they have broken the law to get here. That’s why many Americans find it unsettling to see them pumping their fists and shouting grievances in the streets — cheered on by their American ‘social justice’ allies.”

I’m often subjected to e-mail sermons from Christians chastising me for speaking out against border-jumpers. I long to hear some of these same people tell me how they’ve also chastised Christ-professing illegal aliens for disregarding another nation’s laws for their own gain. Just one such anecdote will do. You know how to reach me. If you’re a Christ-following illegal alien, I eagerly await your response/defense.
———————————————————————————————————————–

It is in a strong nation’s best interest to maintain its culture and heritage, and that largely depends on who that nation allows to cross its borders and why.

America is strong and great for good reasons, but many of us act as though it sprung fully formed from the earth, with freedom fully intact. America’s graveyards are filled with people who helped build this nation into what it is today, people who fought and bled and died to make sure we remained free and for the rule of law to prevail.

“Rule of law” is a western ideal, one that has allowed us to be a beacon of justice and a land where the poorest of the earth can fulfill his dreams and live his life in peace.

But the rule of law is eroding. Fast. We can’t even begin to imagine what allowing millions of criminals to go unpunished will mean to something as mundane as our daily lives or as profound as the principles that distinguish us from the rest of the world.

It may seem hard to believe now, but there was a time when America dictated its own immigration policy and limited the number of immigrants from certain countries. You don’t need to be a rocket surgeon to understand why we were selective about immigration. A potential immigrant’s national origin was a consideration, as were his skills. But with the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s came a liberalization of our immigration policy. Important factors like national origin and marketable skills were “dumbed down.” We still had rules, but lawmakers apparently failed to realize that with lax standards, people would take advantage. Why they didn’t anticipate the inevitable influx of illegal immigration caused by permissive and lax policies is beyond me.

Most of today’s immigrants (including illegal aliens) are usually relatives of immigrants and/or from Third World countries. Third World immigrants may not be a problem in themselves; it’s Third World, low-skilled, illegal immigrants who inexplicably want to retain their Third World culture.

This is it, folks. Politicians have set the tone of the debate, from George Bush on down. Our president, for whatever reason, wants illegal aliens to remain in the United States, and he has the power to make it so. Bush knows very well that it is illegal immigration that most Americans oppose, not immigration per se. Whenever he talks about this issue, however, he emphasizes the “nation of immigrants” meme, failing to make the obvious distinction.

Since humans have walked the earth, they’ve packed together in groups based on mutual interest: survival. With each passing millennium, this survival has taken many forms, each more sophisticated than the next. We form political alliances based on whatever is important to us: race, sex, education, etc. Some groups are more powerful than others.

I loathe race and class envy, but because I have a human nature, it takes effort to resist the urge to join in class war games. To make my point, I must “go there” today. There is a class of people in this country who want illegal, low-wage aliens to remain right where they are. Illegal aliens raise their children, cook their food, clean their toilets, and landscape their valuable property. Imagine what it would cost them to employ legal citizens to do these jobs. This class doesn’t compete with the alien class, whose very presence depresses wages, and probably never will.

They have no regard for the damage illegal immigration causes. They can afford to live in gated communities devoid of illegal aliens, shop at exclusive stores, and visit private doctors. They can afford to insulate themselves from non-assimilating, poor English-speaking aliens, while taking advantage of their dirt-cheap labor.

They can afford private schools for their children, including college, while middle-class Americans send their children to government schools with illegal aliens or the children of illegal aliens, who bring down standards and burden the taxpayer. To add insult to injury, these same children are rewarded with in-state tuition while legal citizens have to follow the rules and pay out-of-state tuition.

Whenever I start ranting about illegal “immigration,” I have this picture in my head: the elites are sitting on high, laughing while the peasants fight over scraps. I don’t like that image. I don’t want to be a peasant, fighting over scraps. I want to be insulated from the effects of illegal immigration, just as the elites. I admit it.

I’ve got the right kind of job for it. I’m a writer and a consultant. There aren’t too many illegal aliens competing for space in print publications and online or going after book deals. This intellectual property that pays the bills is less vulnerable to market fluctuations caused by a glut of low wage workers. Unfortunately, too much of my hard-earned income goes toward a system that bears the burden of uninsured, off-the-books, poor English-speaking foreigners, but until someone writes and passes a new law, my options are severely limited. (Obeying the law? What a novel idea!!!)

The illegal immigration “debate” is a race and class issue, no matter how you frame the argument. In a way, this may be good for black Americans used to a fat entitlement system catering to their every whim. People who have no legal right to be in this country are asserting themselves, with the complicity of politicians, and blacks will be disproportionately harmed.

The ancestors of illegal aliens were never enslaved in this country, yet they’re fighting for rights that are not theirs. Black Americans are full and legal citizens of the U.S. with all the privileges and rights this entails, and our ancestors fought and died for those privileges and rights. They are ours by birthright. Yet, illegal aliens and their liberal handlers have the nerve to compare their “revolution” with ours. I have to force myself to stay calm even as I type this.

This is my declaration:

No longer will I view the immigration debacle as a put-upon peasant. I won’t view it as an elitist, either. I will try, as difficult as I know it will be, to see it simply as a concerned citizen, not a ranting, angry blogger. There are millions of criminal aliens here, and thanks to permissive government policies, they aren’t going anywhere. At every opportunity, I will play the race card until black Americans understand what’s going on and how offensive it is that foreign invaders are co-opting our cause for their crimes. Just as homosexuals equate perversion with our fight for freedom, illegal aliens equate their border-jumping and unlawful presence in this great nation with our struggle to be recognized as first-class citizens.

If I sound defeatist or vindictive, I don’t mean to. I’m just trying to be realistic. I’ll continue to oppose the amnesty bill and illegal immigration. I’ll continue to advocate the deportation of illegal aliens and speak out against a government that refuses to enforce its own law for the convenience of the elites. Always.

This post was inspired by America’s greatness, my gratitude for being born in this country, Ann Coulter’s latest column, Brown is the new black, etc.

(Photo credits: top photo by AFP; flag desecration bydoyoulikeit/Buzznet; Nazi sign by Bryan Preston)

See the Federation for American Immigration Reform’s pages on:

• Illegal Immigration
• National Security
• Labor and Economics
• Environment

Update: Does this mean I’m authentically black now?

A commenter writes:

It’s a slap in the face to everyone who comes here legally, like Erbo said. There are several immigrants in my family — all here legally. My sister-in-law had to wait until almost a year after she married my brother before she could join him here in the same country! What a fun way to start a marriage. But she did it.

Silly Democrats, tricks are for kids! Last Friday I was a bit upset by our friends in the print media. Led by the nose, papers like the WaPo parroted the NYTimes ‘pimp my book pre-sales’ account of how George Bush was tapping your 79-year-old grandmum’s phone line. As if making her wait long periods in uncomfortable positions at all hours in the AM at the security check at the airport isn’t enough … but I digress.

What upset me was that instead of being proud of the U.S.’ contribution to a significant and long-lasting geopolitical event – namely the successful parliamentary elections in Iraq – the party out of power took a cheap shot at my country’s international prestige by making something necessarily covert sound illegal. Add to this insult that neither the NYTimes nor WaPo would put an effort into uncovering the person who disclosed these secret details with the same fervor as they’ve covered PlameGate … but I digress.

The point is, despite their best efforts, the old media was minimally successful in steering the public’s attention away from the Bush administration’s successes (on behalf of the U.S.). What they should realized that if they really wanted to refocus the news cycle by stomping some poor Texan into the turf, they really need only focus their energies and finances into Joe Gibbs – whose Iraq-election like victory over “America’s Team” is all the buzz in our (my) Nation’s Capital.

My proof is a screen snippet from today’s WaPo, focusing in on a portion of their left sidebar entitled “Most Viewed Articles.” See for yourself, four out top five stories in today’s Washington Post aren’t addressing issues such as domestic eavesdropping, the war in Iraq, the SCOTUS nor various budgetary concerns. Rather all focus is given to a team named after the Native Americans totally dominating a team named after drunk, gun-toting, environmentally unfriendly, expansionists under the following less-politically correct headlines:

• It Feels Real Good Making Dallas Feel Bad – Wilbon
• Jason La Canfora – The Game of Our Life
• Redskins Helped Themselves To a Second Serving of Tuna – Kornheiser
• Thomas Boswell -Gibbs’s Risk Is Rewarded

All proving one thing Democrats need to understand if they really want to control the news cycle: If you want to get a job done right, make sure you hire a middle-aged, white working class born-again Christian who loves NASCAR almost as much as he loves American Football.

And if you can’t hire Gibbs – or just don’t want to – then may I suggest perhaps trying to persuade one of the following candidates from the blogosphere’s A-list I’ve listed over at blogs4God.com for the year? Granted, it will mean getting your stories straight, backing up assertions with facts, ditching the outrageous headlines for the truth and potentially putting the Christ back into Christmas – but then again there is no such thing as the perfect team.

As you can tell, I’ve been enjoying my guest stint here at La Shawn’s in part because it has given me a chance to flag some opinions that often lead to copious complaintage over at blogs4God.com. Especially when I poke fun at the hypocrisy of the main stream media. Of course, some times the MSM does the work for me … like today …

In the interest of love and tolerance the University of Connecticut chapter of Students Against Hate, lead by journalism and social welfare major Eric Knudsen, shouted-down Ann Coulter while she gave a speech on the UConn campus.

The WaPo is reporting that Saddam’s trial is proceeding as scheduled after a one day delay due to a Harry Ried-like boycott – because of an unjust trial. Gee, wonder where Hussein got that Ramsey Clark-ish idea? What’s next, a Howard Dean meme that Saddam was just minding his own business, that Bush should be on trial? Please refer to the larger/legible version on the magazine cover to the right for a ‘clearer picture.’

David Broder opines not so poetically about the good old days, like you know, when speaker Tom Foley was in charge during the House post office scandal and the gifts-for-trips improprieties in the early 1990s. Perhaps Mr. Broder is just grumpy because last night’s tax relief legislation didn’t include casinos, country clubs, hot tub facilities, liquor stores, massage parlors, golf courses, racetracks and tanning salons?

In a rail about "Truth for the Troops," Post writer Richard Cohen pushes the boundaries of his own credibility with hedging verbiage such as "Cheney was not strictly truthful" and "Cheney once again implied …" Of course the punch line for me was when Cohen capped his own speculative tirade of passion with "Cheney and others should avoid emotionally compelling, but intellectually fatuous, arguments …" And here I thought Broder was the pot calling the kettle black.

Anne Applebaum provides a redefinition of winning that only a Potomac River academe could love – and then blows her own point out of the water by using the Korean war as the basis of her argument. BTW, if you don’t get it, then you don’t get it.

"Shooting Is Defended But Gets Mixed Reviews" … real-world headlines like this save me the time of having to pen my own parodies.  UPDATE : Katie Couric wonders aloud if ‘air marshalls should shoot to kill.” (hat tip CCC)

Speaking of life being stranger than fiction – George Will writes of something I would have otherwise attributed to Scott Ott "The Senate has passed — and so has the House, with differences — an entitlement to digital television."

Need More? One word: ScrappleFace … well okay, that’s two words squished together, but you know what I mean …

Hube here again. I posted this late yesterday over at my home site, The Colossus of Rhodey with the updates from this morning:

Breaking news: a 44 year old American was shot and killed by air marshals at Miami Airport earlier today:

A passenger who claimed to have a bomb in a carry-on bag was shot and killed by a federal air marshal Wednesday on a jetway connected to an American Airlines plane that had just arrived at Miami International Airport from Colombia, officials said.

Homeland Security spokesman Brian Doyle said after the plane had parked at the gate, a passenger indicated there was a bomb in the passenger’s carryon bag. The passenger was confronted by air marshals but ran off the plane.

A team of air marshals pursued and ordered the passenger to get on the ground. The passenger did not comply and was shot when apparently reaching into a bag, Doyle said. He said this is the first time an air marshal has shot at a passenger or suspect.

I’m willing to bet one or more of the following will happen shortly:

• The family of the man will sue the air mashal(s), the airport, the airline and/or the US government for “excessive force” and “negligence,” claiming that the marshals acted too hastily with deadly force, and that they didn’t make sure the man actually had a bomb. The airport and airline are “responsible” for “allowing” the man to get free from the marshals.
• Ramsey Clark will represent the man’s family in a civil suit against the US government, claiming the man was driven to hysteria because of President Bush’s policy in Iraq.
• Howard Dean will call on Congress to investigate the incident based on Clark’s “case;” congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will demand intel from the White House on the growing phenomenon known as “Iraq Pseudo-Airport Bombing Syndrome.”
• Charles Rangel and other Congressional Black Caucus members will decry how minorities are “disproportionately affected” by “Iraq Pseudo-Airport Bombing Syndrome,” now known as IPABS.
• Congressman John Murtha will claim that the current crop of air marshals in the United States “is broken” and “worn out,” and will call for an immediate redeployment of all air marshals.
• Massachusetts Senator John Kerry will claim that “there’s no reason for air marshals … to be terrorizing passengers … terrorizing kids and women, breaking sort of the customs of … proper air travel.”

And so on.

UPDATE (12/8 at 7:49am): Sadly, it appears the man in question was a manic-depressive who apparently forgot his medication. And, striking home for me, he was a naturalized US citizen from … Costa Rica.

UPDATE 2 (7:52am): See? SEE? I was tongue-in-cheek, obviously, in my original commentary, but crap like this makes the truth stranger than fiction, I tell ‘ya. So, I certainly won’t be surprised in the least if my [fairly serious] first prediction holds water.

UPDATE 3 (8:05am): I TOLD you! Here’s what’s on America Online’s “Welcome” screen right now:

UPDATE 4 (3:47pm): ABC News has a poll up asking the public if they believe the air marshals’ action was justified.

MSNBC has this headline: Marshals defend Miami airport shooting; Officials say man claimed to have bomb; friends say he was a ‘nice guy.’

The NY Times includes the following bits: “An analysis this year by the Treatment Advocacy Center, a nonprofit group in Virginia, found that mentally ill people were four times more likely than members of the general public to be killed by the police.” They also quote a widow who knew the man — she called the shooting “a huge mistake.”

Like many of you, I’ve been sitting around waiting for someone else to interpret the 100,000 page snow-storm the launched by the office of Kathleen Babineaux Blanco late last week. Fortunately, our man in the field, completely rested from her behind-the-scenes work at the GodBlogCon was able to intercept an incoming email from Blanco’s man behind the curtain: