Why so "controversial"?

Jay Nordlinger of NRO recently interviewed Jeb Bush, whom we wish did not possess the last name that he does. Anyway, he paraphrased what it was that Bush thought was needed to be done to turn this country around and the third point really grabbed us.

And No. 3 — this one is controversial in conservative circles. We have to get our act together on immigration. We have to control our border — stop illegal immigration. That’s not controversial, of course. But this is: We then have to welcome people who can help us.

We’re a country that can absorb people from all over the world. The contract is, basically, “You share our American values, we allow you to pursue your dreams.” This fosters a vibrant, dynamic society.

So, again, control the border — any great country does. Any country worth its salt does. But then recognize that, if we’re going to grow at 4 percent a year, we have to have young, aspiring people to create that dynamism, and we can’t do it with our existing demographics. We have to bring in people who want to pursue their dreams in our country.

(italics, ours)


What?

In the conservative circles we run, we are not aware of a single person that is anti-immigrant and we certainly don't know a single person in those circles that is opposed to the outlines of an immigration policy that Bush is describing.

So, what is going on here? We think what is going on here is Bush is essentially giving into the media narrative of not being content with branding conservatives as merely anti-illegal immigration but rather broad- brushing conservatives as anti-immigration all around. It seems to fit better with the broader nativist, bigoted and, you know, terrorist narrative for conservatives.

Perhaps, we conservatives that are concerned with illegal immigration have done a poor job of communicating the fact that we are indeed in favor of young, bright, hard-working foreigners who hold American values dear and who want to come here to pursue the American dream. It's hard, though, being on anything but the defensive and yes, even reactionary to a degree when the other side constantly brings up "comprehensive" immigration reform and everybody... everybody knows that's simply thinly-veiled code-speak for "amnesty".

And this is compounded by the fact that the Beltway's ruling elite boots-on-the-ground in the immigration debate hold some of the most virulent anti-American, anti-free market and pro-Third World socialist views. Yes, that can cause a rather vociferous response among conservatives that would be easy to twist as nativist or bigoted by the other side.

Simply put, we pro-legal immigration types need to do a better job of communicating our desires to see an immigration system that favors those who we would love to have as neighbors, the kind of immigration system that rewards those who want to contribute to the exceptional spirit of America and an immigration system as described by Jeb Bush.

Perhaps, that attitude and sentiment should be our going-in position before we get around to the "Hell, no!" that the open-borders set almost always elicits.

Just a reminder...

... of what we're up against.

Here's Keith Ellison (D-MN) going all John Lennon at something called the Network of Spiritual Progressives conference this past June.


"And God willing, one day the border will become an irrelevancy."





"... equity, generosity and engagement in our relations with other nations."


Because it was that and gift baskets that defeated Nazi Germany and saved Europe back in WW II.


Keith Ellison is a silly man. Unfortunately, because he is part of the law-making body of this country, he is a silly and dangerous man.

For nearly two years there have been "extremists" protesting and demonstrating for fiscal discipline and recognition of constitutional checks on the power of government that have been called out by the media and even elected representatives of the government. How is it then, that this guy and his pie-in-sky lefty utopianism gets a pass?

As idiotic as he sounds, because of the position he holds, he cannot be ignored.

Again, with respect to comprehensive immigration reform, this is the face of the opposition of which we find very little common ground which to negotiate.

They talk of compassion for the millions of people "living in the shadows" when the end game is no borders at all and a pathway not to citizenship but rather a chaotic, grievance-based, anti-American, 3rd world socialism.

We never understood the damn thing ourselves, sir

Right before the 4th of July holiday, the President made what could only be described as a bizarre speech regarding illegal immigration and border enforcement. Before we link you to the ultimate destination, let's review a portion of the 14th amendment of the Constitution as it pertains directly to qualifications for citizenship:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now, let's bounce that against what the President had to say last week with respect to citizenship:

“Being an American is not a matter of blood or birth, it’s a matter of faith,” President Obama declared at a speech he gave on immigration.

If someone other than Obama had said this, we might reason that it was an inartful way of describing that possessing the "American spirit" is not merely a matter of where one was born or that American exceptionalism takes a "belief" that is not automatically bestowed upon one because he was born within our nation's borders.

Since Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism nor does he even know what it means we're left with the distinct impression that this was his way of blowing off all that dense legalese of the 14th amendment in order for this particular constitutional scholar to qualify American citizenship however the hell he wants.

Hello, Amnesty!

Our blog-buddy, Harrison has an excellent wrap-up of the rest of the President's speech, here.

Define broken

We wanted to break down some of the President's remarks he made yesterday to the press while he was alongside Mexican President, Felipe Calderon but first check out one of his opening lines from yesterday:

When our neighbors are in need, whether in Honduras or in Haiti, we respond together. And when we expand partnerships between our people, it forges connections that leads to greater prosperity and opportunity for decades to come.

That's what we call a backdoor curve ball. Everyone got the Haiti reference because we did indeed do the heavy-lifting with the relief effort down there but people were probably scratching their heads wondering what tragic natural disaster struck Honduras.

Check out our blog archives here on Honduras and get yourself up to speed on the man-made disaster that befell Honduras. Suffice to say that if "we respond together" means siding with Hugo Chavez in bullying the legitimate government of Honduras, threatening to cut aid to the country and revoking the visas of Honduran diplomats and officials then by damn we bent over backwards and took the shirt off our backs in "responding" to the Honduran people.

Mr. President, some of us out here are paying attention.



OK, here's what we really want to sink our teeth into because it represents a meme' that we have heard in the past and which we will hear with increasing frequency as we approach the fashioning of immigration reform legislation. Roll the tape:

We also discussed the new law in Arizona, which is a misdirected effort -- a misdirected expression of frustration over our broken immigration system, and which has raised concerns in both our countries. Today, I want every American to know my administration has devoted unprecedented resources in personnel and technology to securing our border. Illegal immigration is down, not up, and we will continue to do what's necessary to secure our shared border.

(italics ours)

First, we're not completely convinced that illegal immigration is down. At least the Associated Press doesn't think so. Our economy is still a mess right now but the situation down in Mexico is do dire, more people are coming even still.

Now about this "broken immigration system" thing. This is the rhetorical device the Amnesty crowd has used in the past and will continue to use. It's the old, We understand your frustration, that's why we have to do something to fix the system. And then, just like health care, they go and pass legislation that will only make things much worse.

And is the system really broken? We do have a guest worker program. We do issue visas and green cards for people who want to enter this country legally for a variety of reasons. We even have a pathway to naturalized citizenship that is run by the State Department. We don't necessarily hear people complaining about these things. If they are, then its a matter of efficiency rather than an inherent or fundamental wrongness of these programs.

Don't be fooled. "The system is broken" is merely code for "We lack the political will to enforce the laws and to work on improving the existing immigration system."

Challenge people on this point if they bring it up: "Precisely what is it about our immigration system that is broken?" Or, perhaps better, write your Congressman asking the same question.

The Great Amnesty Push of 2010/2011 is inevitable and we need to be ready.

Don't blame us...

...we only call'em as we see'em.

Yahoo! Finance has come up with a lucky 13 careers for the coming decade and this one certainly caught our eye:

Immigration expert

President Obama has promised amnesty or "a path to citizenship" for the U.S.'s illegal immigrants. Experts will be needed to figure out how to integrate millions of people who are typically poor, speak little English and have high health-care needs.

Now if that doesn’t fit the profile of a group of people that we should be desirous of fast-tracking to citizenship, then we don’t know what does.

Which brings up another ancillary thought: how is Obamacare going to come up with the money to cover these additional millions and millions of people who don’t have money and are in bad health? Again, another winning combination.

No sleeping on this guy

Op-ed piece in today’s San Diego Union-Tribune gives some of the conventional wisdom regarding immigration reform with respect to both political parties. The CW held that two years ago when the immigration reform was last debated in Congress, Democrats weren’t sufficiently devoted to the cause and were merely content to use it as a wedge issue against the Republicans. Fair enough.

Fast forward, though, to just a couple of weeks ago when House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi reportedly told members of her Party that she was not going to act on any immigration legislation until the Senate took it up first. This leaves recently-introduced legislation from Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) in the lurch, thus shielding vulnerable freshman Democrats from this controversial issue.

The Op-ed fails to note that, given this series of events, whatever wedge issue may exist for the Republicans exists also for the Democrats. And doesn’t that speak to the general horribleness of all the legislation regarding immigration “reform” of recent vintage that the issue is a complete loser with the voting public for both parties? We can't recall, in our lifetime, a piece of legislation that was as opposed across such a wide-range of the political spectrum of the voting public.

No matter how much of a loser it may be, immigration reform (see also: Amnesty) is the Freddie Kruger of American politics – everytime you think you have killed it, it just keeps coming back. And just because the deliberative nature of the Senate makes it unlikely that immigration reform will gain any traction in the upcoming election year, don't expect it to really fade away any time soon.

12 million... magically transformed

Who you callin’ a “liar”?



With respect to illegal immigrants, the President will certainly keep his word that government healthcare won’t be extended to the same.

President Obama has repeatedly emphasized this point and we believe him. Want to know why? Because those illegals won’t be illegal very much longer if the President has any say in the matter.

"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken," Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. "That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.

Mr. Obama added, "If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."

(italics, ours)

You don’t need to break out your decoder ring to decipher that the President is talking about waving the magic Amnesty wand over the heads of 12 million law-breakers and poof! turn them into U.S. citizens when he speaks of “resolving the issue”.

Of course, we all have George Bush to thank for getting this whole thing started and lending it the appearance of bi-partisan legitimacy.

We have a question, though, for Latino and immigrant rights activist groups that have devoted their causes to equality and justice. With respect to their constituents being on the receiving end of government healthcare: Haven’t they suffered enough?

WW()D?

After early pledges by President Obama that he would moderate the Bush administration’s tough policy on immigration enforcement, his administration is pursuing an aggressive strategy for an illegal-immigration crackdown that relies significantly on programs started by his predecessor.

This really shouldn’t come as any surprise because it was part of the Amnesty formula triangulated by the Bush administration. After the pummeling Congress took from their constituents three years ago and which is similar to the beating they are taking now with respect to health care, our governing elites in D.C. claimed they “got the message” on executing what was heretofore thought to be extra-Constitutional duties by, you know, enforcing the border.

This sovereign-state policy has been all the rage with the townies for years but had apparently fell out of favor with our dear leaders in recent times.

Anyway, the triangulation involved claiming they got the message, executing some high profile work-place raids and generally behaving like they actually were concerned with border security and then saying, “O.K. We did that whole enforcement thing you were screaming for – time for Amnesty. We held up our end of the bargain, now it’s time for you to do the same”.

How do we know it’s going down like this? Because Janet Napolitano, head of Homeland Security said so:

Ms. Napolitano and other administration officials argue that no-nonsense immigration enforcement is necessary to persuade American voters to accept legislation that would give legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, a measure they say Mr. Obama still hopes to advance late this year or early next.

See? Enforce now. Amnesty later. For an administration that has been woefully lacking in transparency of any shape or form, we’re glad to see they have no compunction towards actually enforcing the law once they make a show of enforcing it for the time being.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The sadly obligatory Amesty bill update

With legislation regarding the Amnesty bill due to heat up again, it’s important to see what the perspective is and what actions are being taken on the other side of the border.


Mexico Builds Border Wall To Keep Out US Assholes

If embed no worky, please click here

Getting ahead of the curve?

Mexico is one of two countries that "bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse," according to a report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command on worldwide security threats.

The command's "Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008)" report, which contains projections of global threats and potential next wars, puts Pakistan on the same level as Mexico. "In terms of worse-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico.

The drug wars are threatening to tear Mexico apart and that is certainly not welcome news for our country, particularly for areas close to the border with Mexico.

And why do we have a feeling, this situation is ripe for some political shenanigans here in our own country?

We’re calling our shot early: President Calderon of Mexico will use the current crisis in Mexico as across-the-board justification for the continuation of illegal immigration and the powers that be here will be more than welcome to employ the “human tragedy” angle for the same purpose.

Here’s the definition of refugee, according to the U.S. State Department’s website:

In general, a refugee is a person who has crossed an international border and is unwilling or unable to return home because of past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

What sort political sleight of hand would it take for the traditional definition to also include “safety of life and limb” due to the extraordinary circumstances as currently exists in Mexico?

Seems like a messy fight regarding comprehensive immigration reform legislation could be avoided here, doesn't it?

Jerry Brown takes a rather dim view of your ballot language.

California State Attorney General Jerry Brown is engaging in the same shenanigans with ballot initiative language that Missouri’s Secretary of State, Robin Carnahan was with initiative language that would ban affirmative action.

Here’s the language that voters were asked to consider during the signature-gathering process that ultimately qualified the initiative as Proposition 8 on the November ballot: "to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

And here’s, after Moonbeam’s word-smithing, what the voters will be asked to consider: Prop. 8 seeks to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

That’s a huge difference and political analysts believe that “inherently argumentative” and yes, divisive language will make Prop. 8 difficult to pass.

Have we mentioned Moonbeam is considering running for governor in 2010?

"Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for the attorney general, denied that there was any political motivation for the move.

Instead, he said, the change was necessary because of the dramatic turn of events that have taken place since the petitions were circulated: namely that the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage and thousands of gay couples have since wed."

This is absolute nonsense, of course, as the ballot drive did not begin in anger until after the Court’s decision.

All this frustrates us to no end and yes…. it does create an admittedly unwanted backlash against the gay movement within our hearts. We have gay friends and co-workers and this animus is not directed at them but rather the mechanations behind these efforts that swear up and down there is no politics involved, there is no agenda when, in plain sight, a clear-headed assessment of unfolding developments betray them.

There was a time when we could’ve been sweet-talked into some form of Amnesty for illegal immigrants and there was also a time when we were only mildly-opposed to gay marriage. However, after seeing how the rule of law was being flouted, the will of the people ignored, “rights” being fashioned out of thin air and the haughty and high-handed nature of political overreach in both cases… we’d had it. Enough is enough! Both the Amnesty crowd and the pro-gay marriage folks lost any sympathy let alone support by jerking around the voters and not being honest with the public.

If these ends cannot be achieved by legitimite means then we are forced to question the legitimacy of the ends, themselves.

Story here.

It's Time

Kirsten Powers pens article here that takes the left-wing netroots to task for getting their panties all in a wad regarding Obama’s flip-flops and triangulating towards the center in the post-primary/general election season. Its all part of a necessary compromise with reality that is required in order to win the Presidency, she believes


"They claim to want to win, yet they're determined to malign the Democratic nominee for doing what he always said he would do: make compromises and find the middle ground."

"Grow up, net rooters: You're going to see more Obama compromises with reality, more shifts to address what the real Democratic base cares about. Don't even be surprised if he comes out with a plan to allow domestic oil drilling."

And though we see Obama’s “compromising” and “post-ideological” brand of politics as more “lacks a set”, we nonetheless were struck by the article over how it applies to the conservatives’ relationship with John McCain and how we are seeing ourselves cope with his candidacy and message here in the general election.

If you are familiar with our work, you know we haven’t exactly been charitable towards Senator McCain in the past. We viewed his authorship of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act and last year’s Amnesty bill to be egregious sins… nearly unforgivable.

Well, what are we going to do? To pick up on Ms. Powers’ “reality of the situation” thought process, if one is never going to find a job that is exactly to their liking or a spouse that grades-out 10s across the board, one is sure as hell not going to find the completely ideal political candidate.

What is important to us? Again, to use Powers’ reasoning that you will get a blank look from 85-90% of the people in this country if you asked them about FISA legislation, or in our case, Campaign Finance Reform, we’re going with the national security/War on Terror, the economy and government spending.

What about the Border? What about illegal immigration? We truly do believe McCain “got the message” on border enforcement and though we think he’s still too cozy with the idea of defacto Amnesty we also believe that the issue has been raised to a level of public awareness that the citizenry of this country across the political spectrum who believe passionately about the rule of law and real justice as it relates to illegal immigration can practice a policy of “containment” with whoever is in the Oval Office, be it McCain or Obama.

We believe John McCain is better for this country in terms of national security - a virtual endorsement by Hamas of Obama is all one really needs to know regarding that topic. We believe McCain’s solid record when it comes to fiscal and budgetary restraint is about the best answer to this country’s mounting future under-funded liabilities – Obama has not given any indication that he has the will to rein-in spending, in fact, his indications have been the opposite. And it’s McCain’s commitment to free-trade and small-government/minimalist approach to spending that is what will serve the economy best in the short, mid- and long terms. We are a nation of 300+ million hard-working, innovative people. With respect to the economy, many times the best thing to do is to simply stay out of our way.

And personally, we find McCain’s combination of strength of conviction and humility to be far more engaging than the haught and smarm evinced by Obama for whom we are experiencing an increasing personal distaste.

So there you have it. As far as endorsements go, there have been stronger but the time has come to embrace the reality of the situation as Beers with Demo formally endorses John McCain for President of the United States.

Your much-anticipated La Raza Convention update

Barack Obama spoke to the La Raza convention here in San Diego yesterday and the text of his speech can be found here. The text of John McCain’s speech who finished his up just a few hours ago can be found here.

Its apparent that McCain was playing it close to the vest. In hi-lite excerpt below, he acknowledges the “I got the message” theme he has been repeating since the primaries with respect to he and the rest of Congress getting whacked upside the head by the American public over the Rube Goldberg Amnesty Bill of last summer but he is vague on the “After 'enforce the borders' then what…?” part.

"As you know, I and many other colleagues twice attempted to pass comprehensive immigration legislation to fix our broken borders; ensure respect for the laws of this country; recognize the important economic contribution of immigrant laborers; apprehend those who came here illegally to commit crimes; and deal practically and humanely with those who came here, as my distant ancestors did, to build a better, safer life for their families, without excusing the fact they came here illegally or granting them privileges before those who have been waiting their turn outside the country. Many Americans did not believe us when we said we would secure our borders, and so we failed in our efforts. I don't want to fail again to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. We must prove we have the resources to secure our borders and use them, while respecting the dignity and rights of citizens and legal residents of the United States. When we have achieved our border security goal, we must enact and implement the other parts of practical, fair and necessary immigration policy. We have economic and humanitarian responsibilities as well, and they require no less dedication from us in meeting them."

Here are some highlites from the Obama speech where the pander quotient was getting quite high…

"The system isn't working when 12 million people live in hiding, and hundreds of thousands cross our borders illegally each year; when companies hire undocumented immigrants instead of legal citizens to avoid paying overtime or to avoid a union; when communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids - when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel."

Nice to know that Obama thinks immigration authorities enforcing the law of the land are "terrorizing" illegal immigrants.

"The 12 million people in the shadows, the communities taking immigration enforcement into their own hands, the neighborhoods seeing rising tensions as citizens are pitted against new immigrants...they're counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling our airwaves - rhetoric that poisons our political discourse, degrades our democracy, and has no place in this great nation. They're counting on us to rise above the fear and demagoguery, the pettiness and partisanship, and finally enact comprehensive immigration reform."

And we’re counting on them to respect this country and this county’s laws.

"Yes, they broke the law. And we should not excuse that. We should require them to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for citizenship - behind those who came here legally. But we cannot - and should not - deport 12 million people. That would turn American into something we're not; something we don't want to be."

Translation: “Yes, they broke the law…. Blah, blah, blah…. Amesty!!!”

Post is running long but we wanted you to get the gist of what both candidates were telling a pro-illegal immigrant group. We sense in McCain that perhaps because of the audience he is treading on this issue very lightly and using his words carefully. Obama, however, sees no need to mince words… well, he does but its very thinly veiled code-speak for more of the same Amnesty nonsense we saw last summer.

What's in a Phrase?

He’s not revealing too many details but McCain is back in the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” rodeo again. And because he’s not in a revealing mood, we are left only to divine his intent when he says this must be a priority of the next President. He mentions his previous efforts with Ted Kennedy (bad) but follows up with “I got the message” on border enforcement (good). So at this point, consider us taking up residence in Missouri: Show Us!

We would suggest scrapping this term altogether as many of us see only “amnesty” as it related to last summer’s Rube Goldberg Amnesty Bill goat-rope. Of course, the simple-minded nativist in us would suggest wordy, though focus group-tested phrases like, “Enforcing the laws that are on the books” or “Its called the ‘Temporary Worker Visa Program’: Use It”.

That does not have, however, the sex-appeal of using the words “reform” and “comprehensive” which connotes not screwing up merely one or two things but rather a willingness to cluster-bomb a variety of concepts like “sovereignty”, “rule of law”, “justice”, “right and wrong”, etc… minor affairs all, we can be assured.

Senator McCain needs to strive for a bit more clarity in this matter. Stay tuned.

So what's a few seconds between friends and uhhh... large, furry, brown things?

Shenanigans last August in the House involving an Agriculture bill that contained a provision for benefits to illegal aliens reported in WaPo article yesterday buried on A13:

“Republicans were demanding that the measure bar illegal immigrants from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits. The proposal was an attempt to divide Democrats, pressure freshmen in districts where anti-immigration sentiment runs high and test their leadership. (ed. note: It’s acknowledged that the article excludes the possibility that this proposal by the Republicans might have also been an attempt at doing the “principled” and “right” thing. Those damn Republicans and their wedge issues.)

To thwart that move, Hoyer aggressively pushed McNulty to gavel the vote shut as soon as he could round up enough Democrats to kill it. When the gavel fell, the unofficial tally showed Republicans winning. But the vote stayed open until Democrats had won it.”

Full story on House investigation and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s pending testimony regarding his actions here.

What Were We Thinking...?

Ruben Navarette, who fills in occasionally on Michael Medved’s radio show, is a fairly sensible, moderate type and its precisely this sensible moderation that causes him to take the most preposterous lines of reasoning in the illegal immigration debate.

You see, Mr. Navarette thinks there’s a double standard with this whole flag business. He would have you believe that the marchers and rally attenders waving Mexican flags at pro-illegal alien demonstrations are just like the people waving Irish flags at St. Patty’s Day parades or Jews and supporters of Israel waving Israeli flags at the rally held just recently in the nation’s capitol celebrating Israel’s 60th birthday. They’re all just proud of their heritage, you know. Yes, he said that. Read here.

It’s this sort of soft-headed logic in attempting to find that hallowed middle-ground in this contentious debate that causes us to actually have more respect for the Mexican flag-wavers than we do for people like Navarette. At least the flag-wavers are right up front and out in the open with what it is that they want and how they feel about this country and its laws and … you. Navarette, on the other hand, in attempting to be "fair and balanced" winds up making a fool of himself.

Then again, we could be totally off-base. We could be completely misreading these peoples' love for this country and its respect for this country’s laws, culture and sovereignty.

















In fact, we're pretty sure now that Navarette is correct and this is just their unique way of exhibiting their American patriotism.











Yep... We're sorry. It's been just one big misunderstanding. We hope you all will forgive us this waste of a post.

Happy Cinco de Mayo!

… we know its tomorrow so just consider this “going ugly early”.

Greetings Racists and Nativists,


These photos were passed along to us by Mongo. They are of the May Day/Cinco de Mayo free-ride-for-everybody fiesta held 2 years ago and also of which we had some thoughts here.

Students from neighboring El Rancho and Whittier High Schools commandeered Montebello High School’s flag pole for this over-the-top display of stupidity and treason. The text of this forwarded email claimed that this would “put the nail in the coffin for any amnesty or guest worker program.” Never. Never underestimate the capacity for whining and foot-stomping petulance from the aggrieved and disgruntled that have taken up permanent residence in Earth’s nursery.

Perhaps the larger issue here is what is being taught to these little darlings that they hold in such high regard a nation blessed with an abundance of resources but which remains a fantastically corrupt, brutish and inept third-world Socialist sinkhole.

The sense of entitlement and desire for an enforcement of “fairness” held by the agitators who egg-on the little skulls full of mush here, cloak it in morality and this lame concept of “social justice”. These are the same people that roll around with their “Jesus was a Socialist” bumper stickers. We will not be as presumptive to know the Son of God’s political ideological leanings… the only statement Christ gave regarding mankind’s relationship to the government that we are aware of was: obey the laws.

And as P.J. O’Rourke reminds us in his alternative commencement address, there is a very clear repudiation of this sense of entitlement and involuntary enforcement of “fairness” that forms the intellectual backbone of Socialism and its to be found in the Ten Commandments:

“The Bible is very clear about one thing: Using politics to create fairness is a sin. Observe the Tenth Commandment. The first nine commandments concern theological principles and social law: Thou shalt not make graven images, steal, kill, et cetera. Fair enough. But then there's the tenth: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."

Here are God's basic rules about how we should live, a brief list of sacred obligations and solemn moral precepts. And, right at the end of it we read, "Don't envy your buddy because he has an ox or a donkey." Why did that make the top 10? Why would God, with just 10 things to tell Moses, include jealousy about livestock?

Well, think about how important this commandment is to a community, to a nation, to a democracy. If you want a mule, if you want a pot roast, if you want a cleaning lady, don't whine about what the people across the street have. Get rich and get your own”.

Pax.

H/T: Hot Air, Mongo

What Happened to our Country?

We remember May Day some 2 years ago with great clarity. There were two things going on that dominated the news down here in San Diego, one of which was national news as it was about that time that the whole illegal immigration debate got kicked into high gear.

Before May 1, 2006, we probably could’ve been talked into some sort of amnesty deal for hard-working, family-oriented illegals. They were generally good people, weren’t they and didn’t they contribute like, a lot, to the economy? We still leaned towards a “no” vote but one could’ve sweet-talked us into some sort of compromise. A compromise, that is, before May Day, ’06.

Because May 5 (Cinco de Mayo – the American version of the Mexican Independence Day) follows on the heels of May 1st, the international day of Communists, anti-Westeners, anti-capitalists, free Mumias, leftists, anarchists, jew haters, Che lovers, enviro-wackos and every other single gray-matter challenged cause on the planet, May Day was chosen as the day to stage a bunch of pro-immigrant rallies here in the states.

(That day was also the alleged, “don’t-buy-anything” day in order slow the economy and show solidarity with the (day) laborers of the world. Remember that? We dropped 3 bills at Sam’s Club as our show of support. It was one of our finest hours.)

That evening, when we flipped on the T.V. we saw thousands of very earnest-looking Latino folks that had taken to the streets in San Diego and up in LA. and scattered among them were a few bearded, ponytailed and in-need-of-a-back-shave white folks along with some white men – and they were all waving flags….. Mexican flags.

It was revolting. We were sick to our stomach for a day or two afterwards. These people all marched the next day and had American flags as the memo got out a day late but it was over by that point. They’d lost us. They were dead to us.

These people and their “organizers” did not have the decency, the courtesy, the graciousness, the gratefulness… not even the political savvy to wave American flags. How could they ever be taken seriously? That single act summed up what they were really saying behind all bleeding-heart rhetoric: We got ours and now we want yours. They blew it. They could’ve continued duping a lot of people, including ourselves, but that single act spoke volumes and, at least, in our hearts and minds radically altered the framing of the debate. Nice work, La Raza....chumps.

It was also at this time that the cross that sits atop the Mt. Soledad War Memorial was probably in its gravest danger of being removed. After 18 years of legal warfare, it appeared that a couple of whiny atheists with nothing better to do might prevail and have the cross removed. Between the flag wavers and the specter of seeing a San Diego landmark and memorial to this nation’s fallen destroyed, we were nearly shaking with rage for about 3 or 4 days.

The separation of church and state argument didn’t fly. The cross is also a cultural symbol as well as a religious one. Americans of every religious or non-religious stripe recognize the cross as a symbol of sacrifice as well as that of the Christian church. The men who are memorialized made that ultimate sacrifice for their country and for the man next to them. Setting a cross atop a hill does not make a religious statement… it does symbolize, though, that the ground beneath is sacred because of the self-less sacrifices that have been made. Removing the cross desecrates that ground… it devalues the price that was paid. Ironically, we imagine the very people (and there are very few of them) that wanted the cross removed, we're besides themselves when the Taliban destroyed those Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan.

The cross has survived and is still standing. We do feel a bit better about things regarding the two aforementioned subjects than we did 2 years ago. Apologies for the long-winded post but it felt good to share.

If One Doesn't Work then Two Will Do Just Fine

It’s a pretty well-known fact that Republican law-makers are in the back pocket of Big Business. And when they aren’t, as is apparently the case with California’s GOP legislators with respect to illegal immigration, they are ungrateful, untruthful and possibly hypocritical. At least this is the logic employed in op-ed here by Ruben Navarette Jr. who also trots out the “illegal-immigrants-are-good-for-the-economy” red-herring popular with border softies.

Navarette has praise for states like Arizona and Colorado who are trying to make a go of state-run guest-worker visa programs. Of course, we already have one run by the Feds but the states don’t think the Feds work quickly enough to provide them the necessary labor. Besides, the states can’t be blamed for thinking two bureaucracies would sufficiently muddy the waters on who should and shouldn’t be here. Two separate databases, two different sets of rules, two different enforcement methods, two separate jurisdictions…. Hell’s bells….. what’s not to like about that?

Yeah, were cynical. Blame Congressional action last June and July, though, for shooting to hell any good-will or trust we have in that or any other legislative body with respect to the belief that law-makers as care-takers of the Republic are acting in the best interests of its citizens.

Fool Me Once....

The recent crack-downs on illegal immigration is simultaneously encouraging and troubling. “Maybe they listened” is the optimist in us but that is competing neck and neck with a feeling that we’re all being set up.

As the country is coming up on harvest time for many of its crops, one can’t help but feel suspicious that the Administration and the pro-Amnesty crowd will leverage the complaints of the agriculture lobby and illegal immigrant advocacy groups along with possibly higher fruit and vegetable prices and images of crops withering on the vine to resurrect the Rube Goldberg Amnesty Bill or similar.

Stand by.