If I See One More Mexican Flag…

So the protests have gone to San Diego today. Same old stuff: people queuing up for a chance to voice their opposition to immigration reform known, peaceful protests of the youth and the old alike, all while waving Mexican flags.

Hey, if you’re going to fight tooth-and-nail and flood our streets with protests to affect our laws the least you could do is wave the flag of this country! I might start to get the impression like you folks like this country for what it is and really want to belong. It’d help your argument and sway public opinion.

He’s Still Not a Prince

Quick question for our female readers: Are you jealous?

Reuters Photo

The Big Surprise

The big surprise in regards to Iran rejecting the UN’s notion that they need to be transparent with their nuclear program will be the UN actually doing something about it if they don’t come clean.

China and Russia agreed to this resolution after they took the teeth out of it. If Iran doesn’t not comply, the UN’ll get mad, but do nothing else without tireless, endless debate. In the meantime, Iran gets ever closer to their goal of a nuclear weapon with which to threaten Israel.

Cap Weinberger In a Shining City

Acknowledgement from the Axis of Right on the death of President Ronald Reagan’s former Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger who succumbed to illness at age 88. He was instrumetnal in America’s hot pursuit of commies in Latin America, proposing that a Latin American “domino” effect might take place if that region was left unchecked (it nearly did). He was also instrumental in reorganizing and prioritizing the military in the 1980s. Props to Cap for helping to keep us safe during our childhood.

Fresh Blood is a Good Thing

Critics of term limits are uneasy because almost half of Nebraska’s legislature is about to be term-limited. They fear that new legislators will be easily swayed by lobbyists and will require time to learn about the legislative process.

I find the turnover refreshing. Entrenched politicians often lose touch with the real world. I don’t say that to criticize. Losing touch is simply the natural effect of being surrounded with the trappings of power for so long. New politicians are more recently connected to their constituents and are much more likely to be idealistic and unswayed by special interests.

The main reason I support term limits is its positive effect on democracy. Legislative incumbency retention is abnormally high as a result of lopsided institutional advantages such as fundraising advantages, name recognition and free media. These advantages make it very unlikely for challengers to be competitive, even those who more accurately reflect the views of the electorate. That is why most new members of legislature are elected to open seats where there is no incumbent.

I understand the opposition to term limits but I don’t buy it. No one is irreplaceable. I also have a hard time sympathizing with politicians just because they lose their power.

PA Senate Race Tightens

Democrat Bob Casey still leads Senator Santorum but his lead is shrinking. Up 16 points one month ago, Casey’s lead is down to 10 in the latest Rasmussen poll, 48-38. What I find most striking in this poll again is that Santorum’s numbers aren’t climbing all that much but Casey’s are dropping. The latest squawking by the NARAL crowd may be having an effect.

That said, Santorum needs something more. Casey will open his mouth at some point which will cause his support to erode even more. At this point however, I don’t think it will be enough. I think too many well-intentioned pro-life people will be duped into thinking the pro-life cause would be served by someone who would support Harriet Reid for Majority leader. This race is still Casey’s to lose.

“Illegal” Means Illegal

This is what a protest should look like. 100,000 people marching steadfastly for a cause they strongly believe in. They didn’t even have to sell their soul to International ANSWER (no, I’m not linking to them!) or NARAL (not going there either!). They actually look somewhat kempt as well. A decent group, even if I heartily disagree with them.

That cause for which they believe so strongly is fundamentally flawed and imminently dangerous. They want the US government to go easy on those whose first act on American soil was to break our laws. Some of the quotes in this article are disturbing in that the mindset seems 180 degrees away from a sensible law and order approach that helps to ensure our safety across those very porous borders to our south. They feel entitled to be in America and some of our politicians encourage and have encouraged this irresponsible thinking.

I’m all for guard towers, walls, and mean dogs on the border. Heck, I might even volunteer for the Minutemen this summer vacation for a few days! But, I will accept a compromise that keeps those immigrants coming here the legal and transparent way in the front of the line, and identifies those that have snuck their way into America illegally while dealing with them in a way deem appropriate by our elected officials…. as if the illegals did something, say, illegal.

A Wild Quote

I just finished Thomas PM Barnett’s second book, Blueprint for Action, a book on geopolitics and the changing nature of warfare in the 21st Century, when I segued into another light read, The Cold War: A New History, by John Lewis Gaddis. I highly recommend the Barnett book, and I do like the succinct nature of the under 300-page account of the major Cold War themes and players that Gaddis gives the reader. At least so far. If Reagan is portrayed as an “amiable dunce” I’m trashing the book!

But, I digress. There was a quote in Gaddis on page 149 about the dilemma that Mao had in March of 1969 about what to do with the Soviet Union and the United States. He had a strained relationship with Brezhnev and Nixon had just been elected. Dealing with the Soviets was usually perfunctory and always awkward. So how to deal with Nixon? Says Mao to advisor Li Zhisui:

“The United States and the Soviet Union are different… America’s new president, Richard Nixon, is a longtime rightist, a leader of the anti-communists there. I like to deal with rightists. They say what they really think–not like the leftists who say one thing and mean another.”

I don’t even know what to fully think of this quote.

Mao Zedong still holds the title as the world’s worst mass murderer, but why do I think that Mao was kind of thinking rationally here, like there is some place for this perspective on one’s analysis of politics in this very election year, 2006? Is it me, or does it seem that lately leftists still pretend to be something they are not just to get elected (read “strong on defense”), and rightists pride themselves on their solid unambiguous positions (read “strong on defense”)?

“Cold” Habits Die Hard

Apparently, the Russians were privy to certain aspects of America’s plans during the first phase of Operation Iraq Freedom and probably shared them with Saddam before the assault on Baghdad.

I thought the Cold War was over? I thought Russia was an ally and Bush looked into the “soul” of Putin? Granted, the events in question took place before Beslan, but decidedly after the October 2002 Moscow Theater Attack, when Russia should have understood the nature of today’s enemy and those that harbor them, when Russia was aiding our attempts to get Saddam out of Dodge, when Chechen terrorist violence was peaking.

Yet, typically, even Russian sponsored intelligence could to little to help Saddam beat us, or even turn the seizure of Baghdad an essential cake-walk. Old Cold War foe, Russia, still showing signs of their inadequacy.

Way to Go Dominican Friars

The priests at my alma mater say mass for opponents of the New England Patriots prior to the games. I love PC! Check out the pop quiz section of the Providence College to find the particular question.

I wonder though, who drafted these awful pop quiz questions? Sharon Hay? Many of the questions are just poorly spun. (The NBC question is a perfect example). Hopefully Father Shanley is working on it. I bet he is. He’s off to a great start.

Debunking a Myth

Yesterday I wrote about Illegal Immigration and how it was a winning issue for Republicans. One of our loyal readers responded that the Republican Party needed the Hispanic vote to survive, as Hispanics will soon make up at least 20% of the U.S. Population. That comment, while well thought out and certainly valid from a particular point of view, suffers from a false premise. The premise is that Hispanics will in general support Illegal Immigration. This is a myth. There are several vocal Hispanic groups that are in favor of Illegal Immigration, but the majority of Hispanics are in favor of increased border security, a crackdown on illegal immigrants, and denying of services to illegal aliens. An article by Ruben Navarrette Jr., of the San Francisco Chronicle (himself a Mexican-American) debunks the myth that Hispanic American’s support illegal immigration (or oppose tougher restrictions) en Masse. He sights several major polls to back up his claim. Among the results:

• 61% of Latinos rate Illegal Immigration as a “Serious Problem” (Time Magazine Poll).
• 60% of U.S.-born Latinos support laws that deny driver’s licenses to Illegal Immigrants (Pew Hispanic Research Center)
• A Plurality of Hispanic Americans feel that the rate of legal U.S. Immigration should stay the same (44%, with 16% saying the number should be decreased, and 28% saying the number should be increased; Pew Hispanic Research Center).

Ronald Reagan once said that Hispanics were the next wave of Conservatives. I think he is right. Most Hispanics who came here legally (which is a fairly substantial number) are for the legal immigration process. I don’t mind a guest worker program to supply labor for the economy, but those who broke the law should be returned to their country of origin where they can apply for legal immigration status, just like the countless other Hispanic Americans who have done so and are now highly productive and valuable members of American society.

Good Advice for President Bush

I’ve been writing the last few days about Laura Ingraham’s comments on NBC’s Today Show. Now, Laura has come out with some very good advice for the President, on how he can turn around his second term. The key is to focus on the base that elected him and energize them for 2006 and 2008. She basically has four points on which the administration should rally:

1. Promote the successes of the Iraq War and how it has improved the lives of Americans.
2. Enforce the Borders
3. Control and cut spending, vetoing some spending legislation
4. Keep fighting for judicial confirmations at the lower court levels.

Laura is on a tear lately. She’s always been good, but she’s starting to position herself as a major voice in Conservativism, and could become the female equivalent to Rush Limbaugh as time goes by. The full text of her email can be found here.

Madeleine HalfBright Explains How the World Works

Former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is accusing President Bush of oversimplifying today’s geopolitical situation. Claiming the notion of “good vs. evil” is not a strategy, Albright reveals that like so many on the left, she simply doesn’t get it. The successes of President Bush’s foreign policy are well known. His leadership has led to the downfall of two regimes which cooperated with and harbored terrorists who were intent upon striking America. We are safer as a result. What is Albright’s record?

This is the woman who was in charge of the State Department when the Clinton administration voluntarily provided nuclear material to North Korea, material which North Korea used to build nuclear weapons and become a threat to the world. Why on earth would Albright participate in giving nuclear material to a rogue Communist regime? Because the Communist regime signed an agreement promising not to use the material for weapons of course. You see, diplomats love pieces of paper with signatures on them. In their view, that’s how the world should work. The fact that the regime was a Communist one never seemed to give Albright pause when she was toasting the dictator. What should we expect from a woman who doesn’t see the notion of good vs. evil as valid? Pathetic.

Let’s not forget about the Jaime Gorelick wall. During the Clinton administration, the CIA and FBI were prevented from sharing intelligence with each other. Shared intelligence is certainly something which could help prevent terrorist attacks. The logic behind a ban on shared intelligence? Who knows?

If President Bush desires to build upon his foreign policy successes, he would be wise to do the exact opposite of what people like Madeleine Halfbright recommend. Their record is one of laden with failure and no amount of false accusations and naivete can change their legacy of making the world a more dangerous place while their President was distracted by other matters. The left will continue in its attempt to project their own failures on President Bush. However, these attempts will fail. NBC, ABC and seeBS no longer have a monopoly. A new media exists now. Their days of rewriting history are over.

Someone’s Trying to Fix the Leak

Again ABC tried so very, very hard to actually print what was simply translated from those captured Saddam files. But they just couldn’t do it… not without trying to do the thinking for us!

They have to guide us through the excerpts, you know, just in case we actually took what it says to heart or even literally. We cannot be completely trusted with what the content actually implies– a relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam as early back as 1994-1995! Ludicrous! It simply does not fit the paradigm that al Qaeda could have infultrated a lovely place like the brisk Buffalo, New York, but absolutely had no connection a mutual American enemy in the heart of the Mideast, with whom America had already gone to war in 1991. Outrageous!

ABC seems to believe that their readership needs their thoughts and opinions… um… guided. It’s more than just setting the context of the translation, it’s trying to calm down any impression you may have of what these things actually imply.

Update: More on Laura Ingraham and the Mainstream Media

Yesterday I wrote about the media-firestorm set off by Laura Ingraham’s appearance on the Today Show, in which she accused the MSM of something we all know, that they do not present the whole picture of what is going on in Iraq. Her statements have had such an impact that they have been the subject of countless news commentary. Keith Olberman even called Laura’s actions “McCarthyism” and “unforgivable”.

It seems to have had an effect, however. NBC’s Today Show lead this morning’s broadcast with a story about the good news of three peace activist hostages being rescued by a U.S. Military Operation.

As much as they try to deny it, did Laura Ingraham’s words have an effect over at NBC News?

Paris in flames

For the second time in a week, riots broke out in Paris during a job-law rally. The proposal included such controversial measures as allowing employers to fire employees within the first two years of their job.

The French government, taking it’s usual position of capitulation, immediately called for talks with the union in hopes of ending the riots.

And the French wonder how they got their reputation.

Ukraine is Not Weak

President Bush signed legislation today which permanently lifted Cold War trade sanctions imposed against the Ukraine. We’ve come a long way from the days when Ukraine was under the iron fist of the Soviet Union.

At that time, Ronald Reagan recognized the weaknesses of the USSR and applied pressure to its weak points, setting in motion a chain of events which led to the liberation of millions behind the Iron Curtain. Ukraine is now free. With this legislation, they will grow more prosperous.

The Reagan legacy is alive and well. What’s your legacy President Clinton?

Bring it on

Harry Reid is threatening to filibuster a new law that makes it tough on illegal immigrants. The bill, by Sen. Bill Frist, would criminalize illegal immigration and tighten security on the boarders, because the Judiciary committee is stalling on the issue. Reid wants:

• heightened border enforcement
• Guest Worker program
• A Path to citizenship for those illegals who are here already

Frist’s bill only includes the heightened border enforcement. Versions of the judiciary bill include a Guest Worker program, but no automatic path to citizenship.

My message to Harry Reid is Bring it on! Illegal immigration is a hot-button issue in this country that neither political party has successfully tapped. If Reid filibsuster’s this legislation, and Bill Frist successfully paints the Republicans as the tough-on-illegal-immigration party, the mid-term elections will look a whole lot better for Republicans.

History of Polls During the Bush Administration

Annie C. has drawn up an interesting narrative with regard to polls taken throughout the Bush Presidency. The Axis of Right and other sites have repeatedly pointed out that most polls far out from an election are inaccurate due to their over-sampling of Democrats and under-sampling of people who actually vote. Coulter takes a simpler approach. By reminding everyone of media polls regarding the President since he took office, she effectively destroys their credibility. Well done yet again Ann Coulter.

Fingerprinting

Kansas will soon be taking fingerprints of people that are pulled over. These prints will not be stored, but will be run against a database instantly of fingerprints to see if the driver is “In the System”.

I posted earlier today on Civil Liberties vs. Legitimate criminal investigations and terrorism. This strikes me as very “Big Brother”. Typically, if I am not mistaken (as a non-lawyer), probably cause and a warrant are required to take fingerprints, DNA, or any other type of “personal invasion”. The government should pursue criminals with diligence, but not while undermining the liberties of the rest of us.

Almost Home

David Souter: BEWARE!

Well, maybe not. New Hampshire has just passed a bill that basically says that there are limits on the reaches of eminent domain. I wish that they would have considered this AFTER they seized the future location of the “The Lost Liberty Hotel” that is currently being occupied by Justice Souter.

Sigh… I still totally agree that Kelo (2005) is bad law and should be eliminated wherever and however the elected branches of government choose to do it. I used to enjoy a fundamental right to property.

Ingraham, O’Reilly, Bush, and the Mainstream Media

The mainstream media is on the defensive. Their constant defeatism and focusing only on the negative aspects of Iraq is being exposed. It all began yesterday morning, with Laura Ingraham on NBC’s Today Show with David Gregory and James Carville, attacking what she saw as a bias in reporting on the war in Iraq:

The Today Show spends all this money to send people to the Olympics, which is great, it was great programming. All this money for “Where in the world is Matt Lauer?” Bring the Today Show to Iraq. Bring the Today Show to Talafar. Do the show from the 4th ID at Camp Victory. And then, when you talk to those soldiers on the ground, when you go out with the Iraqi military, when you talk to the villagers, when you see the children, then I want NBC to report on only the IEDs, only the killings, only the reprisals. When people are on the ground, whether it’s recently David Ignatius for the Washington Post, whether it’s recently–

The same day, President Bush in his press conference pointed out how the Terrorists in Iraq are using the media for their own objectives:

Thirdly, in spite of the bad news on television — and there is bad news; you brought it up. You said, How do I react to a bombing that took place yesterday? It’s precisely what the enemy understands is possible to do. I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t talk about it. I’m certainly not being — please don’t take that as criticism. But it also is a realistic assessment of the enemy’s capability to affect the debate, and they know that. They’re capable of blowing up innocent life so it ends up on your TV show.

Finally, on The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly interviewed Laura Ingraham, and they both characterized the mainstream media’s role in ignoring the Iraq war:

Laura: I think that the coverage of the war by NBC that I have really focused on, specially since I was in Iraq last month, to me it seems bizarrely focused only on the I.E.D.’s, only on the latest reprisal killings that are taking place. When stories that are so fascinating and interesting and broader and human interest, stuff the “Today” show and NBC likes to do, those stories are out there for anyone to get. I don’t get it.

Bill: Here’s my problem. And this is a serious problem. We saw it at the top of the show with what’s her name who was bantering with Bush, the older woman, Helen Thomas. I believe that there is a segment of the media trying to undermine the policy in Iraq for their own ideological purposes. It is no longer dissent, it’s no longer skepticism. It’s, ‘we want to undermine it’, and that disturbs me. Do you see that?

Laura: I see that pretty much every day, that there is a group of people who are invested in America’s defeat, in one of the most important conflicts in our nation’s history. And being invested in defeat as an American — I don’t care if you’re a reporter, a commentator orbusinesspersonson. How have we gotten to this point in this country? Regardless of what people think of Bush.

Bill: Because of hatred. Ideological hatred brings us to that point. Last question: Is NBC in that category? Do you think NBC news is actively trying to undermine the war in Iraq?

Laura: You know, I’m going to keep watching it. You know, I know there are brave people. David Bloom was over there covering the war when he died practically.

Bill: So you don’t know whether they are or not?

Laura: I don’t know. I think the media obviously has an element underneath it that really despises Bush and it’s blinding them.

Bill: Alright. I think you’re absolutely right on that. I think there is an element in the media that has gone way beyond dissent and into actually undermining American policy in the war on terror, and it’s frightening.

Now, NBC is on the defensive, claiming that the war is actually worse than has been reported. The story continues…

Harry Reid on a Military Base = Dukakis in a Tank

Part of the Democrats campaign strategy for 2006 will involve Democrat candidates attacking President Bush from military bases. Senator George Allen called this tactic “deplorable.” How right he is.

It’s also ironic. If the Democrats had their way, there would be no military bases to stand on. (paraphrasing Ronald Reagan). Throughout the 1980s they led the charge for reduced military spending, nuclear freezes, a soft approach on Communism and appeasement around the world. They opposed most of the Reagan proposals to strengthen our military during the 1980s, a Reagan strategy which helped win the Cold War. During the 1990s, the military was the one area in which Democrats were concerned about fiscal restraint prior to the election of the first Republican Congress in forty years was elected.

Today’s Democrats are no better. Many liberals often justify their opposition to overthrowing Saddam Hussein by stating the fact that he was not responsible for September 11. This is a tunnel-visioned view of the war on terror which led to the crisis we are in today. Limiting reprisals to those directly responsible for a particular attack leaves in place an infrastructure of terror networks which would otherwise be poised to attack. Recognizing this reality after September 11, President Bush promised action not only against the terrorist networks themselves but also against nations who sponsored or harbored them. Recently translated documents show that President Bush was right that Saddam Hussein harbored and assisted Al Qaeda operatives. The big three networks aren’t the only game in town anymore. These documents can’t be ignored forever.

Democrats would rather fight the war on terror with legal briefs than with the military. The party that has time and time again opposed building the military, the confrontation of the USSR, the CIA, the liberation of Iraq and in some cases even the funding for the troops fighting that war have no credibility on matters of national security. Now they have the nerve to surround themselves with the institution they deplore. If Democrats want to make fools out of themselves by being seen on military bases so close to an election, so be it. I just hope they bring She Who Must Not Be Named with them.

Media contributes to teenage sex

A new study has shown that teenage sex is linked to childhood viewing of sexual content/materials on television, movies, and through music. This is about as obvious as the fact that Bill Clinton had a sex problem.

There are two problems here:

• The media constantly pushes and publishes content that is sexually themed, even in shows that are geared towards children.
• Parents do not monitor what their kids should watch.

How does one solve this problem? It’s not by censorship. The government cannot and should not tell the media what it should and should not publish. The real area where work needs to be done is with parents. Parents need to know what their kids are watching/listening to and must instill good values to their children. If enough parents did that, the media would take notice and not be as careful to push sexual content on shows heavily watched by children.

A Censure worth mentioning

A group called “Move America Forward” has launched a new campaign to lobby the Senate to censure former President Jimmy Carter. I personally think that this is a brilliant idea. If a censure motion can be brought against President Bush for trying to protect us by spying on terrorists, one can be made that President Carter has damaged our war on terror abroad by giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

At first I thought this was a joke, but the group has a website devoted to the cause.

National Security vs. Civil Liberties

Much has been made on the NSA wiretapping story regarding the need for National Security vs. the need to protect Civil Liberties and the Constitution. Readers of the Axis of Right know that I am in favor of the NSA Wiretapping of terrorists without a warrant for the purpose of stopping a terror attack, as I believe the authority to do so is part of the President’s Article II powers as Commander-in-chief during a time of war. I also think the story has been horribly mishandled and much misinformation regarding the program is circulating the media.

An issue I am less sure about, however, is a recent NYPD initiative to place over 505 surveillance cameras throughout the city, both to capture criminals and monitor for possible terrorist activity. Part of me feels that this may go too far down the slippery slope, giving the Government too much intrusion into the personal lives of its citizens. The other side of me would rather have my life intruded upon if it means not being blown up by a bomb.

I ask all readers to comment and give your take. I’m on the fence, and could go either way. Convince me.

Sushi at Wal-Mart?

Evolution is a scientific theory, the validity of which should continue to be tested. Well, here’s an experiment. Let’s see if Darwin is on to something.

Link via Drudge

Deja Vu

President Bush is getting rave remarks for his speech today, and not just for the Helen Thomas smackdown. The President’s approval ratings would be much higher if he continued to use his bully pulpit. (They’d be higher, although still artificially low because the media would still oversample Democrats and unregistered voters). Nevertheless, 2006 would look better if the President made a habit of carrying himself like he did today.

I’m pessimistic. We have seen this pattern before. The President’s numbers slide as a result of his inept PR style. As a result, he delivers a series of speeches, temporarily increasing his numbers. Then he retreats back into the Oval Office, relying on his miserable talking heads. His numbers plummet again.

President Bush always gets his act together right before an election but this time he can’t afford to wait. His numbers are too low this time. Members of Congress will act squishy and distance themselves from the Commander in Chief unless he acts fast. President Bush needs to stay the course on his foreign policy and then explain the successes, repeatedly. Today was a good day for the White House; however, these temporary periods of PR competence simply won’t cut it anymore.

Helen Thomas

President Bush took on Helen Thomas in a press briefing this afternoon, when she asked some rather in-your-face questions about Iraq, taking up talking points from the liberal blogosphere as fact. Bush was brilliant in his defense, making Helen look like a fool.

Time to retire, Helen.

Thanks to Drudge for the transcript.

Drip, Drip, Drip

No connections?