I consider the flood of illegal aliens across our open borders an even bigger threat to our national security and identity than Al Quaeda. I believe this was one of the determinant issues in the just-passed election. Historically, nations that refuse to defend their territory and sovereignty cease to exist. Examples: Maori, North American Indians (a poor example, as they were never unified into a nation), Australian Aborigines, Alto Californios, Mexico vis-à-vis Texas and the American Southwest, Arcadians, almost the entire Middle East which has been carved in so many ways over the ages, etc.

Today (19 Nov 2006) Ruben Navarette – one of the regular columnists on Townhall and a writer whose only topic seems to be the support of amnesty for illegal aliens – published another column on the topic. Here’s the link:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RubenNavarretteJr/2006/11/19/escondido_and_others_have_it_wrong_on_immigration

Having for weeks advocated,in the area reserved for posts and comments,giving him the minimal approval rating, thinking that the Townhall (TH) editors actually pay attention to that – after all, that’s what it’s for, right? – I got fed up and decided to write to Josue directly asking him to yank Navarette’s column. I went directly to Josue’s blog, and imagine my surprise to find an essay by Josue himself supporting Navarette! Here’s the link:

http://josue.townhall.com/g/f6ff2f9b-9bec-4190-afb8-67963a6360b5

Well, I posted a comment on Josue’s essay, but I’m copying it here for the edification of those who may never visit Josue’s blog. His essay is entitled “Illegal Immigration: Agreeing with Ruben”. The title speaks volumes.

“Josue: WRONG!

“I came to your blog to urge you to yank his consistently pro-illegal-alien column. He's a One Note Johnny, and that's his only song: Illegal aliens are good for the country, and we should legalize them.

”Imagine my surprise to find you acting as his apologist!

”Contrary to your position that it's "a multi-faceted and complex social and legal problem", it really is quite simple. These people, of whatever race, are here ILLEGALLY! Get it? There are laws on the books, and there's nothing complex about it. If I blow a radar speed trap, there's nothing complex about that, either. Same deal. It's called THE LAW. Look up the Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986, which Reagan signed into law and later regretted as the biggest mistake of his presidency. It already granted amnesty then, and being old enough to remember it well, I vividly recall being assured it was a one-time deal ONLY.

”Why are we revisiting it 20 years later? Because of activists like Navarette and Linda Chavez, and their apologists like YOU.

”You wrote this: "All it takes is ONE generation, and a family is assimilated". ROTFLMAO

”Have you ever even visited LA? I've lived here over 30 years, and all I see is this city sinking into a swamp of Third Worldism.

”Then you wrote this gem: "What do we need, you ask?... Improved legal guest labor program that invites and quickly welcomes qualified workers from around the world."

”BS!

”No wonder you won't kick Navarette off of this site; you believe the same crap he does.

”We don't need a "guest worker" program -- code word Amnesty -- at all. What we need are tightly regulated borders accompanied by a disciplined legal quota-based immigration program, accompanied by felony charges for those who knowingly hire illegal aliens in accord with Simpson-Mazzoli.

”Josue, I had hit a dry spell as to a topic for my next blog essay.

”I now have my topic.

”And get Navarette off this site! His votes on his column suck; he doesn't deserve a space on this site. Further, my next essay may also get YOU in its sights.”

I guess I decided to get Josue in my sights immediately after all; I am TICKED. Also, that helps explain some of the extremely BAD choices this site seems to be making with some of its columnists.

Food for thought.

BTW: ROTFLMAO means Rolling On The Floor Laughing My A__ Off.

  
                                        The people have spoken

                                       But is anyone listening?


The 2006 mid-term election has run its course; now we can assess the results.

It didn’t turn out well for Republicans. However, in spite of the losses, it is interesting to note that there were no accusations of voter fraud, hanging chads, minority intimidation, or any of the other nonsense we would have surely heard if the Democrats hadn’t succeeded in their quest to regain power. I guess those voting machines with no paper trail only function flawlessly when Democrats win.

As to the Democrats themselves, let’s hear some of the cheering from their supporters:

“A new recording Friday attributed to the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq mocked President Bush as a coward whose conduct of the war was rejected at the polls…Al-Muhajir praised the American people for handing victory to the Democrats”   (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061110/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq ) Strong praise, indeed.

“TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran”. Well. A victory for Iran. That’s comforting.

Hugo Chavez: “I just heard that Bush has been beaten up by the Democrats," he beams. "It's a reprisal vote against the war in Iraq, against the corruption." It is Wednesday afternoon and US midterm election results are bringing joyful tidings to a leader who used to call the US president "Mr Danger" before downgrading him to "the devil". (http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,1944386,00.html ).

By their friends shall ye know them.

Moving on. What can we anticipate, and what are the lessons learned?

The Dems are flushed with victory right now, and envision a radical new direction for the country. They are a traditionally arrogant group (as have lately become the Republicans, to their chagrin now as they pay the price) who will soon have to face the realities of being in control. I think they’ll quickly forget that they cobbled together a victory by enlisting candidates (the Bluedogs) who espouse more traditional values (gun rights, pro-life, anti-tax), and will find their agenda blocked on many fronts by resistance within their own party. Their margin is razor-thin. New issue-specific coalitions will form that will stymie them on some fronts. Their majority can’t overcome filibusters or vetoes (assuming Bush ever learns how to veto anything. He may well soon have to). Let’s look at a few specifics.

Immigration: the Reps were wrong on this issue anyway, with their bent toward amnesty. They only finally passed a decent bill when they saw the ship going down, and even then they never passed the enabling legislation to fund it. Perhaps if the Dems try to pass amnesty, the remaining Reps will see this as the key issue it was to their defeat and stand up for a bill similar to the original House proposal, keeping their eye toward 2008.

SCOTUS: who knows if any on the bench now are even going to retire, and if they do it's still Bush nominating the successor. If they try to block his nominee, he can and should refuse to submit a substitute. Nothing in the Constitution mandates the number of Justices. If a liberal retires, a smaller court would actually be more constructionist.

WOT: If we get hit again after the Dems are in office for a while, they have a MAJOR problem on their hands.

Spending: All I can say is, how can it get any worse?

This election was the Republicans' to lose, and lose it they did. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. It's been a long time coming, and it's because they lost their principles, and became indistinguishable from Democrats in many ways.

Conservatism -- usually Republican -- wins when it sticks to key conservative issues. However, it falls to pieces when "core conservative issue" gets re-defined.

Core issues: small government; fiscal responsibility; constructionism (gun rights, rule of law); states' rights; lower taxes; strong defense. Read the Contract with America.

However, "conservatism" becomes a joke when extraneous issues become re-defined as "core issues" to make the "tent" bigger.

Faux core issues: Medicare prescription entitlements; education; disaster relief; Terri Schiavo; anti-abortion crusade; flag-burning issue; others.

At that point, the Republicans are doing the same thing as the Dems: using the club of government to enforce their social views, or entitlement spending to buy votes. That is NOT principled.

Touching briefly on the Mainstream Media (MSM). Yes, the MSM is biased Left. Get over it. We have talk radio and the internet. The MSM was biased against the Contract with America and Reagan, too. They HATED both. Railed against them all the time, with much rending of clothes, wailing and gnashing of teeth. Both sailed to easy victory.

And THAT is the key lesson to be taken from this event. This is still a traditional, conservative country. The people vote for those values. But when the Republicans run on those values but govern like Democrats, the people see the obvious hypocrisy, and show them the door. Note how, over the years, as the Reps got more and more complacent and arrogant their margins got thinner and thinner, until now they finally lost.

The Republicans got this defeat the old-fashioned way: they earned it.

"May you live in interesting times."
Ancient Chinese curse


                         

In a few days, the political silly-season will come to an end, to be immediately followed by the autopsy/blame/jubilation period. That’s when all the political almost-made-its, their supporters, the pundits, the victors, talking heads, pol-junkies (like me), the losers, and everyone else under the sun will once again – as at the end of every political campaign period – offer their wisdom and analysis of what went right or wrong in the then-defunct campaign. They’ll offer pearls of hind-sighted wisdom, blindly project the impact on future campaigns, and generally make fools of themselves.

How can I pass up the opportunity to do the same? After all, who can ever forget that memorable picture of the jubilant Harry Truman, the day after his election to the Presidency, holding up the newspaper with the bold headline “Dewey Wins” on page 1 above the fold?

I predict the Republicans maintaining control of both houses of Congress, probably with slimmer margins. At worst, they lose one house, but I don’t think so. The main reason? The Democrats are even more inept than the Republicans. Exhibit A: John Kerry’s “humor-malfunction” (remember Janet Jackson?). Trying to disguise an actual gross misjudgment – using the old 60s rhetoric of “leave college, end up in Nam” in the modern era -- as simply happenstance, and trying to shift the blame to others, coupled with his refusal to apologize. The American people see right through that kind of thing, have contempt for it, and react strongly to it. Ask Dan Rather. Further, as with Rather, Kerry’s timing couldn’t have been worse. Trying to spring an “October Surprise”, it’s backfiring badly, happening too close to the election to allow the issue to cool down. In addition (as if more is needed) he’s also again badly misjudged the mood of the country toward the military; we’re no longer in the era of the popular perception of soldiers as “baby-killers”. They are now very admired. Kerry, of course, as well as a large portion of the Democrat party, is still mired in the Vietnam era, and simply doesn’t get it. To them, adding the phrase “… but we support the troops” forgives all sins.

Wrong!

Further, in spite of the scandals on both sides of the aisle, and the teeter-tottering poll results, we must bear in mind two things. First, the only poll that counts takes place on the first Tuesday in November. Second, in spite of the disdain of the electorate for Congress and the parties, as Tip O’Neill said, “all politics is local”. People may deplore the institution or party, and give it very bad ratings in polls, and yet still really feel motivated to support their local Representative, “Good Old Jim”, because they know him and like him on a local and individual level.

Let’s suppose I’m wrong (I think that may have actually happened once…. I have to think about that) and the Democrats take one or both chambers. They’ll be put in the position of having to perform, and be judged by the electorate based on that performance. In two short years, they’ll have to have some kind of record to which they can point as the 2008 elections loom; more on that later. If they don’t achieve a majority this time around after all their own hysteria this election season, what they'll do over the next couple of years should be highly amusing and most destructive to their own party. I'd pay money to see that.

Further, there's always the outside possibility that the Dems take a real drubbing on Tuesday. Then, with an even smaller minority, they see the handwriting on the wall and start shifting Right, pushing the Reps ahead of them. I’d pay even MORE money to see that.

The earlier-mentioned possibility of the Dems taking both houses actually poses more of a problem for them, in my estimation, than losing. Because, at that point, the reins will be in their hands. Which way will they guide the horse of policy? Will they promote programs supported by Middle America, and in a fashion that can withstand the filibuster or the veto while gaining popular support? Or will they prove themselves to be simply empty suits, masters of rhetoric who, when given the chance, find themselves holding an empty bag of tricks, with nothing better to offer than a hatred of George Bush? If so, the Democrat party will quickly find itself scrambling around on the discard pile of history, wondering what went wrong.

However, let’s assume I’m right and the result is favorable to the Republicans. They will then be looking forward to 2008, when EVERYTHING’S on the table, as the next election is the Big Leagues, the election for President as well as the Congressional elections, with no incumbent coattails for anybody to ride. That will be the tipping point for the R party: they can either continue pandering Left, in which case they are in REAL trouble in 2 years, or they can start moving back in the Right direction, which will behoove them as a party as well as the country as a whole. If they are successful this time, regardless of how large or slim the margin is, they should consider it a gift; and use the next two years as a period of rehabilitation.

Interesting times.