Quote of the Day
"Land of the Free Because of the Brave"True on so many levels!
"He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world." Benjamin Franklin
DAPHNE, Ala. -- Worried about the safety of her family during a stormy Memorial Day trip to the beach, Clara Jean Brown stood in her kitchen and prayed for their safe return as a strong thunderstorm rumbled through Baldwin County, Alabama.Blessed indeed! She could have been toast!
But while she prayed, lightning suddenly exploded, blowing through the linoleum and leaving a blackened area on the concrete. Brown wound up on the floor, dazed and disoriented by the blast but otherwise uninjured.
She said 'Amen' and the room was engulfed in a huge ball of fire. The 65-year-old Brown said she is blessed to be alive.
"A paper trail shows that more than $1 million has been funneled from Bakr M. Bin Laden on behalf of the Saudi Bin Laden Group to The Carter Center.
That’s an impressive bit of investigative journalism that comes your way, not courtesy of the New York Times and company, but from Melanie Morgan, Chairman, Censure Carter Committee.
'An investigation by the Censure Carter Committee into the financing for The Carter Center of Atlanta, Georgia founded by President Carter and his wife to advance his 'Blame America First' policies reveals that over $1,000,000 has been funneled from Bakr M. Bin Laden for the Saudi Bin Laden Group to the Carter Center,' says Censure Carter.Com in a mainstream media-ignored recent media release.
'In fact, an online report accuses former President Carter of meeting with 10 of Osama Bin Laden’s brothers early in 2000, Carter and his wife, Rosalyn followed up their meeting with a breakfast with Bakr Bin Laden in September 2000 and secured the first $200,000 towards the more than $1 million that has been received by the Carter Center.'"
It could explain his affinity for Hamas.
The Censure Carter Committee has taken up the cause to have Carter censured by Congress for this unsavory association. I wish them good luck, but Congress is currently governed by left leaners who would be mortified to take a stand against one of the worst presidents in modern history. Someone's feelings might be hurt.
So you've got the New York Times, the Washington Post, New York magazine; you've got the blogosphere out there. They're just excited over Gore, and they don't like Hillary, and they're not in favor of her and when they start writing things: Is she just an opportunist? Is it just that she wants this because she thinks she deserves it? Yes, they're right about that, by the way. Plus she's like anybody else in politics, she's power crazy. Now the LA Times: Just get out of the way, Mrs. Clinton, so your husband can mean something again. But they say that Hillary, if she runs for president, Bill will never be allowed to run the UN while she's president, that the UN would never do that. So the LA Times is trying to suggest that she get out of the way on her own, so that Clinton can run the UN. Can you imagine a Clinton household if this subject came up? (interruption) Yeah, that's the thing. The thing that's the most amazing about all of this is how excited, near orgasmic these Democrats are about one of the most boring and colorless figures ever to grace American politics, and that's Al Gore.Here's the Los Angeles Times piece titled, "Secretary-General Bill Clinton" and subtitled, "The U.N. needs Bill more than the U.S. needs Hillary."
Navy Cmdr. Robert Durand called the hunger strike at the U.S. naval base in southeastern Cuba an "attention-getting" tactic to step up pressure for the inmates' release and said it might be related to a May 18 clash between detainees and guards that injured six prisoners.What we should do is give them the opportunity to eat and if they refuse, they refuse. They are prisoners of war and they are not entitled to a trial. They aren't entitled to half of the amenities we provide them.
"The hunger strike technique is consistent with al-Qaida practice and reflects detainee attempts to elicit media attention to bring international pressure on the United States to release them back to the battlefield," Durand said from Guantanamo Bay.
Isaiah 2:4 "...and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."To say "happy Memorial Day" seems a bit obtuse. Rather, it's a day to soberly reflect on the high cost of freedom and a day of remembrance for those who selflessly gave their lives so that others might live.
"Mexican President Vicente Fox is hailing the Senate's passage of immigration reform legislation that contains sweeping new rights for illegal aliens as a reward for Mexicans.Sadly, he's right. It IS a huge reward for those who came here and remain here illegally. It's a classic "up yours" to the law abiding citizens, tax payers and voters from the arrogant senators who took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
'They fought for it,' Fox said Friday at a breakfast meeting with California business leaders. 'They earned what they got yesterday,' he added."
“What kind of a country do we want to be?” Mr. McCain asked his audience, walking around in the middle of a horseshoe-shaped table as he proceeded to answer his own question.
He cautioned against ghettoizing immigrants, which he noted has brought about disastrous results in France, and criticized elements in his own party as “nativist” before lambasting the punditry of Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs and Michael Savage for helping to “fuel the problem,” according to two of the sources.
On May 12, Arbour issued a stupefying press release. In the context of a message, about the 'deteriorating situation in occupied Palestinian territory,' Arbour stressed: 'The rising number of lives lost, whether as a result of targeted killings or suicide attacks, home-made missiles or artillery fire, is unacceptable.' The United Nations highest-ranking human-rights officer cannot distinguish between suicide bombing and targeting the would-be bombers or their masters. She cannot discern a difference between the missiles directed at Israeli homes and schools from Gaza, and the artillery fire from Israel directed at the launching pads or the launchers.On and on it goes. The secular left can never admit to a moral highground, unless the United States or Israel are involved. In those cases, the opposition is always given the benefit of the doubt.
In fact, not once in her lengthy remarks did Arbour mention terrorism or self-defense. On the contrary, she explicitly described her goal as 'making the parties to the conflict stop this new cycle of violence.'
The moral depravity of Arbour's message resonates across the U.N. system. This month the U.N. Palestinian representative, Riyad Mansour, issued two letters to the U.N. Security Council. The first, dated May 5, contains the 'names of martyrs killed by the Israeli occupying forces' (emphasis mine). Included in the list is Sami Salim Mohmed, the Palestinian suicide bomber that killed 11 people and wounded 66 at a food stand in Tel Aviv on April 17. Ten days later on May 15, the U.N. representative issued another letter listing as a 'martyr' Elias Ashkar. The Israeli army had successfully targeted and killed Ashkar, the man responsible for constructing the Tel Aviv bomb and dispatching the bomber.
The quote is by Jay Leno:
With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud
slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the
country from one end to another, and with the threat
of bird flu and terrorist attacks, "Are we sure this
is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus and the undisputed heavyweight champion of the border security issue in the nation's capital, now tells the whole story of the threats facing the nation, the solutions within its grasp and his own personal quest to awaken the political establishment to the seething discontentment gripping America as a result of illegal immigration.What does he suggest we do?
Without strong, moral leadership, without a renewed sense of purpose, without a rededication to family and community, without shunning the race hustlers and pop-culture sham artists, without protecting borders, language and culture, the nation that once was "the land of the free and home of the brave" and the "one last best hope of mankind" will repeat the catastrophic mistakes of the past, he writes.Although I haven't yet read the book, I agree with his premise and will place it on the top of the Amazon heap of books I'm plugging in the right hand column.
"Of course Albinos are evil; they're white aren't they!"Remember, folks, that in egalitarian, multicultural, politically correct and diversity parlance, everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
"Mexico warned Tuesday it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if National Guard troops detain migrants on the border."What a guy! Be sure to read the whole piece. Did I mention this is a must read?
On what basis? Posse Comitatus? It's unconstitutional to use the U.S. military against foreign nationals before they've had a chance to break into the country and become fine upstanding members of the Undocumented-American community?
Or is Mexico taking legal action on the broader grounds that in America it's now illegal to enforce the law? Which, given that Senate bill, is a not unreasonable supposition.
Whatever. Under the new "comprehensive immigration reform" bill (Posse Como Estas?), a posse of National Guardsmen will be stationed in the Arizona desert but only as Wal-Mart greeters to escort members of the Illegal-American community to the nearest Social Security office to register for benefits backdated to 1973.
Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain, in a quintessentially McCainiac contribution to the debate, angrily denied that the Senate legislation was an "amnesty." "Call it a banana if you want to," he told his fellow world's greatest deliberators. "To call the process that we require under this legislation amnesty frankly distorts the debate and it's an unfair interpretation of it."
He has a point. Technically, an "amnesty" only involves pardoning a person for a crime rather than, as this moderate compromise legislation does, pardoning him for a crime and also giving him a cash bonus for committing it. In fact, having skimmed my Webster's, I can't seem to find a word that does cover what the Senate is proposing, it having never previously occurred to any other society in the course of human history. Whether or not, as McCain says, we should call it a singular banana, it's certainly plural bananas.
The senator raises an interesting point. In Confucius' Analects, there's a moment when Zi-lu swings by and says, "Sir, the Prince of Wei is waiting for you to conduct his state affairs. What would you do first?" And Confucius say, "It must be the rectification of characters." By "characters," he doesn't mean lovable characters like Arlen Specter and Trent Lott, but "characters" in the Chinese-language sense -- i.e., words. Confucius means that, if the words you're using aren't correct, it becomes impossible to conduct public policy. If you're misusing language, your legislation will be false -- or, as Confucius puts it, your "tortures and penalties will not be just right." When the "torture and penalty" for breaking U.S. law over many years is that you get a big check from the U.S. government, that would seem to be an almost parodic confirmation of Confucius' point.
This is not an "immigration" issue. "Immigration" is when you go into a U.S. government office and there's a hundred people filling in paperwork to live in America, and there are a couple of Slovaks, couple of Bangladeshis, couple of New Zealanders, couple of Botswanans, couple of this, couple of that. Assimilation is not in doubt because, if you're a lonely Slovak in Des Moines, it's extremely difficult to stay unassimilated.
This is not an "illegal immigration" issue. That's when one of the Slovaks or Botswanans gets tired of waiting in line for 12 years and comes in anyway, and lives and works here and doesn't pay any taxes, so the money he earns gets sluiced around the neighborhood supermarket and gas station and topless bar and the rest of the local economy, instead of being given to Trent and Arlen and Co. to toss into the great sucking maw of the federal budget.
But a "worker class" drawn overwhelmingly from a neighboring jurisdiction with another language and ancient claims on your territory and whose people now send so much money back home in the form of "remittances" that it's Mexico's largest source of foreign income (bigger than oil or tourism) is not "immigration" at all, but a vast experiment in societal transformation. Indeed, given the international track record of bilingual societies and neighboring jurisdictions with territorial claims, it's not much of an experiment so much as a safe bet on political instability.
Thus, in the coming century, those who are advocates of capitalism may well find themselves confronted with "a myth gap." Those who, like Chavez, Morales, and Castro, are preaching the old time religion of socialism may well be able to tap into something deeper and more primordial than mere reason and argument, while those who advocate the more rational path of capitalism may find that they have few listeners among those they most need to reach -- namely, the People. Worse, in a populist democracy, the People have historically demonstrated a knack of picking as their leaders those know the best and most efficient way to by-pass their reason -- demagogues who can reach deep down to their primordial and, alas, often utterly irrational instincts. This, after all, has been the genius of every great populist leader of the past, as it is proving to be the genius of those populist leaders who are now springing up around the world, from Bolivia to Iran.
This is why socialism isn't dead, and why in our own century it may well spring back into life with a force and vigor shocking to those who have, with good reason, declared socialism to be no longer viable. It is also why Georges Sorel is perhaps even more relevant today than he was a hundred years ago. He knew that it was hopeless to guide men by reason and argument alone. Men need myths -- and until capitalism can come up with a transformative myth of its own, it may well be that many men will prefer to find their myths in the same place they found them in the first part of the twentieth century -- the myth of revolutionary socialism.
This is the challenge that capitalism faces in the world today -- whether it will rise to the challenge is perhaps the most urgent question of our time, and those who refuse to confront this challenge are doing no service to reason or to human dignity and freedom. Bad myths can only be driven out by better myths, and unless capitalism can provide a better myth than socialism, the latter will again prevail.
"Read My Lips: No New Amnesty"From the charming and witty Ann Coulter in her most recent column. (Can't believe I missed it last week, but then I was on the road and missed a lot of things.) If you missed it, you best read it. She doesn't pull any punches.
Press "1" for English; press "2" for a new president ...Be sure to buy her new book, Godless, right here!
WASHINGTON — Despite talk of an energy crisis and the need for independence from foreign oil, Congress seems to be in no mood to open more of the country's coastal waters to energy development.Here are the names of those responsible for the BAN.
The House late Thursday rejected an attempt to end the quarter-century ban on oil and natural gas drilling that has been in effect for 85 percent of the country's coastal waters from Alaska to New England despite arguments that new supplies are needed to lower energy costs.
It's not just that they're flipping us the bird. They're mooning us. It seems like every new day that there is a new public outcry over something, you can count on somebody in the Senate to go, 'Oh, yeah?' Well, take this.Go to his website to see what the senators do best.
The key to success in this kind of enterprise is the host’s ability to articulate his positions in a logical and cogent manner. This is because most people will not listen for very long to an analysis-driven program if the analysis itself does not make rational sense.On the other hand, the libs pretty much own TV talk shows. The reason for their success there is the same reason they fail on the radio. TV doesn't allow the time to detail anything and any rational argument from the opposition can be shouted down:
And this is precisely where the crux of liberals’ problem lies. They are simply not able to explain and defend their views in rational fashion. This is not at all surprising, for how does one justify high taxes, gay marriage, abortion, multiculturalism and such? They are all based on false premises and they all produce disastrous outcomes. Anything more than a superficial examination must reveals them for the frauds and failures that they in truth are. This is why liberalism cannot withstand the analytical vigor of talk radio and why it has failed so abysmally in it.
Talk radio has thus exposed in a striking way a fatal flaw at the very heart of liberalism – its indefensibility by rational argument. Without having yet grasped it, it is the medium’s format that became liberals’ stumbling block.
Things used to be infinitely more palatable (for liberals) when the television talk show was the main forum for the mass dissemination of political opinion. Its relatively short broadcast time – rarely more than fifty minutes – is usually intensely contested by several guests. As a result of severe time constraints, the discussants rarely speak for more than a couple of minutes at a time. This, of course, makes any serious analysis all but impossible. This problem is made all the more acute by the fact that the guests’ statements are routinely intended to rebuff points made by their opponents which themselves are often quite irrelevant to the topic under consideration.I'm guessing that there aren't too many on the left who realize these truisms. They know they've failed on bigtime radio, but are they intellectually honest enough to see why?
This format is just fine with liberals who – knowing instinctively that their positions cannot withstand thorough scrutiny – are always happy to avoid in-depth discussion of anything. Conservatives, on the other hand, are badly disadvantaged in this kind of environment. Conservatism requires methodical exposition, quite unlike liberalism which can only survive in the realm of disjointed statements and unsupported assertions. The television talk show is thus liberalism’s perfect vehicle. Often nothing more than a scattered clash of personalities, it is normally dominated by those with the biggest mouth. And since liberals have almost a complete grip on television, they make sure that the biggest mouths on their programs come from their own camp.
What does it mean to be a Jew, Mendy? It is the courage to be different. Benjamin Disraeli, the celebrated British prime minister, expressed that difference in response to an anti-Semitic parliamentarian's derogatory reference to him as a Jew: "Yes, I am a Jew and when the ancestors of the right honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon."
You now become a man Mendy, and you have a choice as to what kind of man you will be. Small men want to be loved. But big men are prepared to be hated. Small men tailor their actions to suit the multitude. But big men will do the right thing no matter how much it inflames the masses.
Abraham Lincoln was detested by both South and North as he fought for the highly unpopular cause of emancipation. Winston Churchill was loathed in Britain for speaking out against Chamberlain's fictitious peace with Hitler. And Martin Luther King Jr. was cut down by an assassin's bullet as he pointed out the injustices practiced against black Americans. No great man or woman has ever lived who was not prepared to be hated.
Do not the make the mistake on your Bar Mitzvah, Mendy, as you bask in the adoration of family and community, that popularity is virtuous. On the contrary, as you steel yourself to become a man, prepare yourself to practice justice whatever the consequences.
While the rest of the world will strive to be loved, you strive to be holy. Do what's right even it costs you friendship. Do what's virtuous even if it leaves you lonely. Seek to impress not your fellow man, but none but God alone.
How many Jewish students did I meet in my 11 years at Oxford who were afraid to be different, terrified to stand apart. They would arrive at the university with their yarmulkes and quickly take them off. They weren't just abandoning God, they were betraying themselves, displaying weakness and a desire to be part of the pack.
What does the term "Christianist" mean and why is Time peddling it?
Time columnist Andrew Sullivan uses the term to describe evangelicals with whom he disagrees. He says his goal is to "take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist. Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist."
He explains further, "Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike."
Most pundits have rejected "Christianist" because it obviously tries to link Islamists and those evangelicals Mr. Sullivan loathes. He is attempting to dress up hate speech as simple precision, but given the vast spectrum of political opinions among believers on the center-right, "Christianist" is a howler. Still, no one should be laughing when a once-respected newsweekly defines a huge portion of the American mainstream as the equivalent of the Islamists who attacked the country on 9/11. Be prepared as others pick up Time's term.
Copyright © 2006 WORLD Magazine
May 20, 2006, Vol. 21, No. 20
May 10, 2006
The University of Texas at Arlington’s Hall of Flags was established to celebrate the diversity of the engineering school’s student body. These flags were not intended to endorse the politics or policies of any nation. As part of this display, the Vietnamese Heritage and Freedom Flag represented our Vietnamese-American students and the flag of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam represented our international students from Vietnam.
Recently, a heated controversy emerged when Vietnamese-American students and their community strongly protested the flag of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, viewing it as a political symbol.
As a result, I have removed all 123 flags from the Hall of Flags. A cooling off period is needed for thoughtful reflection. In the fall I will establish a committee to explore alternative means to celebrate the diversity of our student body.
Our ultimate goal remains fostering a strong sense of community among all our students, including all our international students. We must never forget that a public university is a special institution that respects all individuals and embraces diversity.
James D. Spaniolo, President
You have taken the easiest and most politically-correct way out of this situation possible. You could have taught a much better lesson to those on both sides of the issue by removing both of their flags. The South Vietnamese would have gotten their demands, but would have realized what it's like to have no flag and the situation would have probably resolved itself after that. Even if you had done absolutely nothing, the situation would have blown over with time. Just two weeks ago you confirmed in the Shorthorn (UTA's newspaper) that “The university will continue to display both the Heritage flag and the Vietnamese national flag in the Hall of Flags…”. So why hasn’t it happened that way?
Instead, you have gone back on your word and punished everyone who hails from anywhere! Just because a group of individuals has decided to take offense to something does not mean that everyone should be punished. I don't eat pork or any of its derivatives, but that doesn't mean that it should be removed from the cafeteria!
The most offensive thing to me, however, is that, for whatever reason, you have also taken down our American and Texas flags along with all of these other nations' flags. This is our country and state, and the flags should be displayed without question, even if all others are removed. There is absolutely no reason to lump ours in the same category with other flags. This is not the United Nations where all nations are represented equally... This is the United States and this is Texas and it is an absolute privilege for other nations' flags to even be displayed near ours. Our nation and state flags should be flown by default because, even at the most basic level, they remind us of where we are geographically. On a deeper level they remind us all as Americans and Texans of our heritage, who we are, and what we stand for. They are just flags, but both should always remain prominently displayed.
If you are going to concede to the illogical, emotionally based demands of a small group of students, then only remove the international flags. The American and Texas flags are not inflammatory or controversial, and anyone who believes that they are should probably not be here in the first place. There is no question that they should be in the Hall of Flags.
Please restore our nation and state’s flags to their previous locations.
Student Congress Engineering Senator
"Of course Guantanamo is a delicate issue for people. I would like to close the camp and put the prisoners on trial," Bush said in comments to German television to be broadcast Sunday night. The interview was recorded last week.
Human-rights groups have accused the United States of mistreating Guantanamo prisoners through cruel interrogation methods, a charge denied by the U.S. government.
They also criticize the indefinite detention of suspects captured since the military prison was opened in 2002 at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, as part of the Bush administration's war on terrorism.
First of all, it's not "the Bush administration's war on terrorism," it's America's war on terrorism! Interesting, isn't it, how the media likes to separate itself from the rest of the country, but I digress!
If the President is serious about closing Gitmo, it's not going to endear him to the conservative base who, almost daily, see the republican party moving further to the left by caving to criticism.
At a time when the President and republican Congressional leadership should be on constant offense against the disunified and whacked out democrats, who are totally bereft of ideas, the majority party isn't even doing a good job playing defense. They are rapidly becoming the party of wimps, giving way to leftist accusations and demands.
Why isn't anyone standing up against the so-called "human rights" groups who regularly give Third World thugocracies and the United Nations a pass for habitual human rights abuse?
The reason is fear of criticism from the left. Fear of being labeled insensitive and uncaring. Fear of saying that a pair of panties on some terrorist's head doesn't compare to decapitation with a dull knife or child prostitution rings in Africa by UN piecekeepers, er, peacekeepers. Where's the outcry against the REAL culprits of torture and abuse?
There is no sense of proportion or priority. It's always the United States who's at fault, never thieving dictators. Where are the leaders of this country who have to recognize this dichotomy?
President Bush went to the Whitehouse 6 years ago with a "new tone" making nice with his political enemies. It has never worked for him. The policy of appeasement and accommodation is a failed policy whenever it's implemented and if the President and Congressional republicans don't start standing up against the left and leftist organizations soon, they're going to have no hope of holding on to their majority come November.
If that happens, Katy bar the door, because the impeachment juggernaut will be unleashed! Can you say, Speaker Pelosi?
Last week I received an e-mail from SMU inviting students and faculty alike to assemble today at one of three on-campus gatherings in honor of the
National Day of Prayer. As I was on campus to turn in a project around
noon, and there was also a service at noon, I decided to attend and support
an extremely rare college activity that actually focused on God.
We met at the flagpole at the center of campus. I was disappointed to find
the small crowd that had gathered was less than twenty in number and
mostly faculty from the Theology department. There were several microphones
and speakers set up for the event and a video camera looked on as the head
chaplain stepped up to one of the mics. He welcomed everyone and thanked
us for coming, then proceeded to speak a little about the history of the
holiday. He then called up a senior from the vocal program to begin the
service by singing "How Great Thou Art," acappella. You could hear the
student's majestic voice echoing through the campus, which enticed several
more people to stop and listen.
Then the chaplain allowed a moment of silence for personal prayer. After
this, four different people were called on to read scriptures, after which
three prayers were given: the head chaplain prayed specifically for the
nation, another chaplain prayed for SMU, and the last prayed for the troops.
Their prayers were stronger and more inspiring than any I've heard in a very
long time. Then the same vocal student sang a powerful rendition of
"Amazing Grace," again acappella. In the second stanza, he substituted
"Praise God" for the standard lyrics, which I've never heard done before.
It was unbelievably moving.
Finally, the head chaplain gave the crowd a charge to live as Jesus lived
and give glory to God in all things. By the end, about 25 people had
gathered, and all of us were teary-eyed to say the least. I thanked two of
the chaplains afterward for planning such a wonderful service to commemorate
the National Day of Prayer. I wish all my family and friends had been there
to witness it.
I'm really glad I took the time out of studying for finals to support a
cause that hardly anyone else on campus paid attention to. Because SMU is a
private institution, we are blessed to have the freedom to pray at the
flagpole, broadcast scripture throughout the campus, and hear hymns being
sung that glorify God. Even the bell tower in our science building rang
with hymns today, such as "Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee." This would never
happen at a public campus, such as the one my brother attends. However,
judging from the turnout at the flagpole, I'm not sure
it would be missed.
Arpaio's deputies have already arrested about 120 illegal immigrants using a new state smuggling law.Hats off to Sheriff Joe for this gutsy move.
"We're going to arrest any illegal who violates this new law," he said. "I'm not going to turn these people over to federal authorities so they can have a free ride back to Mexico. I'll give them a free ride into the county jail."
Under the law — as interpreted by the Maricopa County attorney — illegal immigrants can be arrested and prosecuted for conspiracy to smuggle themselves into the country. The law's authors have said they intended it to be used to prosecute smugglers, not the immigrants being smuggled.
"Diversity" might be nice in theory, but, in practice, differences are the gateway to conflict.
Moreover, as larger numbers of people come here from Latin America, the likelihood that Latin-style politics will be imported rises, too. The left-wing demagogue Hugo Chávez is popular in Venezuela, and others like him are winning elections across the Southern Hemisphere. Closer to our border, Mexico is legalizing the possession of substantial quantities of drugs - not just marijuana, but cocaine, heroin and Ecstasy. Do most Americans want to import those sorts of values into their country?
The answer, we now can see, is "no," even "hell no." The forces of immigration control - the folks who want to build a wall - are winning the political debate. The challenge now is to convert political victory into policy action. That means repealing bilingualism, multiculturalism and ethnic preferences, so that every American, regardless of color, can get an equal shot at the American Dream, if he or she plays by a fair set of rules.