Immigration Bill Must Come as a Package

Yesterday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff reacted to the defeat of the Senate immigration bill with disappointment saying that, "Some necessary tools of enforcement were left on the floor of the Senate."

I do not understand why the Senate cannot pass legislation adopting these "necessary tools" and rejecting an amnesty. Its as if the Senate cannot secure the border without providing an amnesty bill. This self-imposed handicap further emphasizes the irony of this schizophrenic body. Why would America want to increase border security, and then offer increased incentive for would-be illegal immigrants.

American citizenship is a prized possession. And if someone from a third-world country with a corrupt government can attain this prize simply by crossing the border and then paying a small fine, well that's quite a deal...for them. But what an insult to the thousands of applicants who are standing in line, sometimes literally, to get legal citizenship.

Perhaps Mr. Chertoff will encourage the Senate to take up increased border security with no strings attached.

Feature on WorldNetDaily

Today, the top visited online news site posted my commentary on the recent Supereme Court decision on race. WorldNetDaily.com featured my article "Racism on the High Court." Here is an excerpt:

"School districts in Seattle and Louisville both had programs to ensure a racially diverse school population. In fact, the program in Seattle attempted to create schools where 41 percent of students were white and 59 percent were nonwhite. The court struck these programs down. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

"Wait, did he say to prevent discrimination one should stop discriminating? What a novel idea."

Read more here.

Immigration Bill Fails

The Senate had its immigration showdown today, and conservatives won! Because this immigration bill is so important, I am posting a list of votes:

YEAs ---46
Akaka (D-HI)Bennett (R-UT)Biden (D-DE)Boxer (D-CA)Cantwell (D-WA)Cardin (D-MD)Carper (D-DE)Casey (D-PA)Clinton (D-NY)Conrad (D-ND)Craig (R-ID)Dodd (D-CT)Durbin (D-IL)Feingold (D-WI)Feinstein (D-CA)Graham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH)Hagel (R-NE)Inouye (D-HI)Kennedy (D-MA)Kerry (D-MA)Klobuchar (D-MN)Kohl (D-WI)Kyl (R-AZ)Lautenberg (D-NJ)Leahy (D-VT)Levin (D-MI)Lieberman (ID-CT)Lincoln (D-AR)Lott (R-MS)Lugar (R-IN)Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ)Menendez (D-NJ)Mikulski (D-MD)Murray (D-WA)Nelson (D-FL)Obama (D-IL)Reed (D-RI)Reid (D-NV)Salazar (D-CO)Schumer (D-NY)Snowe (R-ME)Specter (R-PA)Whitehouse (D-RI)Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---53
Alexander (R-TN)Allard (R-CO)Barrasso (R-WY)Baucus (D-MT)Bayh (D-IN)Bingaman (D-NM)Bond (R-MO)Brown (D-OH)Brownback (R-KS)Bunning (R-KY)Burr (R-NC)Byrd (D-WV)Chambliss (R-GA)Coburn (R-OK)Cochran (R-MS)Coleman (R-MN)Collins (R-ME)Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX)Crapo (R-ID)DeMint (R-SC)Dole (R-NC)Domenici (R-NM)Dorgan (D-ND)Ensign (R-NV)Enzi (R-WY)Grassley (R-IA)Harkin (D-IA)Hatch (R-UT)Hutchison (R-TX)Inhofe (R-OK)Isakson (R-GA)Landrieu (D-LA)McCaskill (D-MO)McConnell (R-KY)Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE)Pryor (D-AR)Roberts (R-KS)Rockefeller (D-WV)Sanders (I-VT)Sessions (R-AL)Shelby (R-AL)Smith (R-OR)Stabenow (D-MI)Stevens (R-AK)Sununu (R-NH)Tester (D-MT)Thune (R-SD)Vitter (R-LA)Voinovich (R-OH)Warner (R-VA)Webb (D-VA)

Not Voting - 1
Johnson (D-SD)

Blatant Bias

Even though the New York Times has admitted its liberal bias, every now and then its skewed reporting still astonishes me. On the second page of the Washington Times (and released by AP) ran the headline "Louisianans OK partial-birth ban".

"The Louisiana Legislature approved a ban on a late-term abortion procedure yesterday, the first state to do so since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal ban earlier this year. The House voted unanimously to approve a measure that would allow "partial-birth" abortions only when failure to perform it would endanger the mother's life."

Many other papers picked up this story, The International Herald Tribune, the Chicago Tribune, the Houston Chronicle, and more. (Admittedly they almost all ran the AP story, but at least they ran the story.)

The partial-birth abortion issue is just slightly big news. This bill is the first to pass both houses of a state legislature (notably almost unanimously), and it somehow misses the editors at the New York Times.

Every copy of the Times has a textbox on the upper corner, front page, which says "All the News That's Fit to Print." I think that needs to be changed to "All the News That is Filtered to Praise Liberals and Demonize Conservatives."

To emphasize the bias, the paper made room to print the story "Louisiana: Nude and Dangerous Behind the Wheel". Well, I guess that's the news that is fit to print.

Update: The New York Times online edition did actually include this story on their online version under the very small National Briefing section, buried under layers of navigation.

Steps to a North American Union

Two weeks ago, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration published additional details about a project that will "demonstrate the ability of Mexico-based motor carriers to operate safely in the United States." Translation: Mexican commercial drivers can now drive in the US without a US drivers license.

Just today, the Washington Times published an article called "Full access for Mexican trucks hits rough road".

"A Bush administration plan to proceed with a pilot program to give Mexican truckers full access of U.S. roads has caused a bipartisan uproar on Capitol Hill.

"The cross-border trucking program is bad for America,' said Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican and presidential candidate. 'It appears, under the current program, that commercial interests are being pushed ahead of the safety and security interests of the American people.'

"Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill complained the program would pose serious safety concerns, and the House last month voted 411-3 to place a series of restrictions on Mexican trucks and their drivers, designed to delay the administration's program indefinitely."

This program is just another step in the plan to implement the North American Union. Dr. Jerome Corsi has written extensively about this treaty on Human Events.com.

"Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.

"What is the plan? Simple, erase the borders. The plan is contained in a 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America' little noticed when President Bush and President Fox created it in March 2005."

Carter: A Living Legacy of Ludicrous Ideas

Former President Jimmy Carter once again confirmed his leadership of the "presidents who have horrible foreign policy ideas and then base policies on those ideas" club. In an address to a human rights group in Dublin, Ireland, Carter blasted the Bush Administration for not treating Hamas the same way it has treated Fatah.

"Besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, Hamas has proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas."

And this is the kind of person who gets a Nobel peace prize? Then again, Yassir Arafat got a Nobel prize too.

Carter went on to say that the Administration's rejection of Hamas' authority after the Palestinian elections was "criminal."

I'm sure Hamas is not offended at our "criminal" actions however. How could they be? Hamas obviously does not believe in the just rule of law, but only in the radical Jihad. In order to be criminal you must have laws for the criminals to break.

Catering to Terrorists (Again)

President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have both extended a welcoming hand to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (NYT, WP, WT). In their meeting at the White House today, Bush and Olmert both agreed to cooperate with the Palestinian leader (not just cooperate, but also fund a supply.)

Bush said of Abbas he is the "the president of all the Palestinians" and "a reasonable voice amongst the extremists."

Once again the Administration runs into the lesser of two evils. But condemning Hamas by cooperating with another terrorist supporter is just like the US funding the Taliban in the 1990s, and then turning around and supporting the Northern Alliance to defeat the Taliban.

Let us not forget that Abbas is himself an Islamic extremist. He published a book back in 1983 stating that 6 million as the total number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust was "peddled" by the Jews, and that in fact "the Jewish victims may number six million or be far fewer, even fewer than one million." He has a long history of terrorism, including participation in the Munich Olympics massacre.

The Wall Street Journal wrote a serious critique of Abbas here.

"But if Americans and Europeans are genuinely interested in promoting Palestinian-Israeli peace, it is time for them to take a realistic look at [Abbas'] record ... His outright refusal to confront and disarm terrorists, in violation of the Road Map, hardly registers anymore in the Western media and where it does, it is usually excused and attributed to his relative political weakness ... the Palestinian Authority continues to glorify terrorists."

Ironically just last year Bush praised the "democratic" elections in Palestine, regardless of the result. But just because a leader is democratically elected doesn't mean that he will be good. In fact, the US should learn an important lesson from this recent Palestinian civil war. (Can it be a civil war if the Palestinians don't have a state to separate over?)

James Phillips of the Heritage Foundation states it well, "The rise of "Hamastan" in Gaza is also a sharp indictment of the Bush Administration's policy of supporting rapid democratization of a society that lacked the necessary civil and political culture to sustain a pluralist democracy."

Got Environmentalists?

Illegal aliens are getting creative in their border crossings. They aren't simply walking across the border anymore. Now, when they cross over parts of the border covered by national forest, they actually start forest fires to distract park rangers and border patrol, and even burn the rangers out of observation posts.

Where are the environmentalists when you need them! If environmentalists can complain about a border fence damaging some ecosystem in San Diego, then what about deliberately torching a US national forest? (To say nothing about smoking US Border Patrol out of their guard towers.)

A Good Idea From Democrats?

The House Democrats have come up with a potentially successful idea...somebody call the newspapers! Actually it is in the newspapers. The Washington Times reported today that House Democrats are considering separating the immigration bill in to several parts based on topic.

"House Democrats say they may break the immigration issue up into a series of smaller bills that would put off the tougher parts and allow others to pass, such as border security, and high-tech and agriculture worker programs that have clear support."

This always seemed like a simple no brainer. Yet the Senate can't seem to figure out that an immigration bill will not pass if it contains amnesty. (One that doesn't contain a path to citizenship.) The Senate should take a hint and create at least three separate bills: one to fund border security, one to discuss a guest worker program, and one to deal with deal with immigration quotas and the point system. (hopefully the middle bill fails.)

Unashamed politicizing of Darfur

Today the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon stooped to a new level and blamed climate change for the genocide in Darfur.

"The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change. Ban said in an opinion piece to the Washington Post. " It is no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought."

Using climate change as a scapegoat for the violent Islamic fascists who have murdered tens of thousands of people was rhetorically brilliant and personally disgusting. Not only did the UN Secretary General increase the urgency in solving the so-called problem of global warming, but he also shifted the spotlight away from radical Jihadists.

James Phillips, research fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, wrote about the Darfur crisis in 2004, clearly explaining its roots.

The Darfur crisis, like the previous man-made famine in southern Sudan, was engineered by Sudan's dictatorship to suppress popular resistance to its radical Islamic agenda. Ever since seizing power in a 1989 coup, General Omar al-Bashir's regime has exacerbated tensions with non-Muslims in the south and with Sufi Muslims, predominant in western Sudan, who resent the forced imposition of a harsh brand of Islamic law.

When Darfur tribes rebelled in early 2003, the Bashir regime attacked defenseless villages suspected of supporting the predominantly non-Arab rebels. Much of the regime's terror campaign has been conducted by brutal Janjaweed (a colloquialism roughly translated as "devils on horses") militias that Khartoum implausibly claims are criminal elements beyond its control. The Janjaweed, who reportedly share camps with the Sudanese Army, have burned hundreds of villages and robbed, raped, tortured, and murdered their non-Arab inhabitants. Although most of their victims are Muslims, the Janjaweed consider them apostates who deserve death or slavery if they resist the jihad invoked by the extremist regime. Victims report that the Janjaweed often shout "abeed" (slaves) before they rape or kill.

The United Nations estimates that 1.2 million people have been driven from their homes and that roughly 2 million people are in dire need of food aid. Approximately 50,000 people have already died in Darfur, and the U.S. government estimates that another 1,000 die every day from attacks, starvation, and disease.

The United Nations has been dragging its feet since the genocide began. Just last year, the UN Human Rights Council convened its fourth special session to address the Darfur region of Sudan. The result was a resolution that did not assign any guilt, but simply expressed "concern regarding the seri­ousness of the human rights and humanitarian situation." The resolution did not even mention the word "violations." [28]

During that special session, the UN approved an investigory mission, led by Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams. The Sudanese government denied the mission entry to Darfur, forcing it to investigate from Ethiopia and Chad. As expected, the mis­sion's report strongly condemned the Sudanese government for orchestrating and participating in "large-scale international crimes in Darfur."[29] Allies of Sudan on the council subsequently rejected the report as invalid because the investi­gatory team had not gone to Darfur. The council finally adopted a weak resolution that "took note" of the Williams report but did not adopt its recommendations or condemn the Sudanese government for its actions in Darfur.[30]

If the UN wants to seriously address the genocide in Darfur, it must stop using political antics to promote pseudo-science and accept the real cause for this humanitarian crisis.

Where's the fence?

RapidResponse Media in conjunction with Grassfire.org is running a media campaign called "Where's the Fence?" The ad is absolutely hilarious. It is a parody of the 1980s Wendy's campaign "Where's the Beef?"

The ad also makes an excellent point, what happened to the fence that Congress appropriated funds for? Back in October 2006, Bush signed legislation authorizing 700 miles of border fence. However, Congressman Duncan Hunter stated recently in the Republican debates that to date, only 11 miles have been built.

Before we even consider revamping immigration laws, how about enforcing the laws on the books!