Perri Nelson's Website 

Sam Adams?

Ogre's Politics & Views found this cool little blogthingy site with a beer personality quiz, so I went and took the quiz...

You Are Samuel Adams

You're fairly easy to please when it comes to beer - as long as it's not too cheap. You tend to change favorite beers frequently, and you're the type most likely to take a "beers of the world" tour. When you get drunk, you're fearless. You lose all your inhibitions. You're just as likely to party with a group of strangers as you are to wake up in a very foreign place.

Interestingly enough, I happen to really like Sam Adams beer...

Hat tip: 123Beta

You can put the tinfoil hats away now

Do you remember the speculation in early October that falling gas prices might be the responsibility of Karl Rove in an "October Surprise"? Well, if they were, it obviously didn't work...

WASHINGTON (AP) — Consumer prices, helped by another huge decline in gasoline pump prices, fell for a second straight month in October, providing more relief to Americans battered earlier in the year by soaring energy costs.

The Labor Department reported Thursday that consumer prices dropped 0.5% last month, matching the September decline. It was the first back-to-back drops in the consumer price index since late last year and provided more evidence that inflation pressures are beginning to ease.

Core inflation, which excludes volatile energy and food prices, was also well-behaved, rising just 0.1%, the smallest gain in 13 months.

The slowdown in inflation provided a boost to Americans' weekly incomes, which were up 3.3% in October compared with a year ago, after discounting inflation. That was the biggest 12-month increase in eight years and followed a period of extremely sluggish wage growth.

Read more at USATODAY.com.

I guess now that the elections are over and the Democrats are safely in control of the House and the Senate it's OK to report good economic news as good economic news instead of a Rovian conspiracy to keep Democrats out of power.

Update: Iowa Voice notes that ABC has chimed in, giving the Democrats credit for the good economy. They haven't even begun their new session and already they're taking credit for the past few months when they weren't in power. Give me a break, and pass the tinfoil.

Improved technology for border security

U.S. border officials will soon be able to screen all foreign visitors against databases of latent fingerprints left by terrorists on weapons or in safe houses, according to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.
    Mr. Chertoff said at a meeting of technology vendors this week that the coming deployment of 10-digit fingerprint readers at U.S. consulates and ports of entry was "exactly the kind of 21st-century tool that will give us a measure of protection at our borders that has never been dreamed of in the history of this country."
    He said the new fingerprint readers, which will replace the existing two-fingerprint scanners starting next year, would allow foreign visitors and visa applicants to be checked "not only against our existing databases to see whether they have been here before under a different name or whether there is a criminal record in this country or internationally against them," but also "against latent prints lifted from around the world in terrorist safe houses or on battlefields."

Read more inThe Washington Times

It's a good improvement in the existing technology.

Now if we can only get congress to authorize the use of some old technology along the entire length of our Northern and Southern borders. After all, good fences make good neighbors. Even if the neighbors dog does dig under them.

The New York Times resists complying with the law - yet again

A former Army scientist suing the New York Times for libel has asked a federal judge to fine the newspaper $25,000 a day for refusing to disclose its confidential sources and to increase the fine amount by $25,000 each month in an attempt to encourage the paper to comply.

The scientist, Steven Hatfill, contends that a series of Times columns fingered him as responsible for the anthrax mailings in 2001 that terrorized the nation and killed at least five people. While the FBI searched Mr. Hatfill's home and the Justice Department eventually named him as a "person of interest" in the anthrax case, neither the scientist nor anyone else was ever charged in connection with the crimes.

Last month, a federal magistrate in Alexandria, Va., where Mr. Hatfill's suit was filed, ordered the Times to identify the sources for the five columns in dispute. A federal judge upheld the order, but the newspaper indicated the author of the columns, Nicholas Kristof, would persist in refusing to name his sources.

...

Mr. Connolly painted the Times's refusal to comply as brazen and willful. "Courts, not newspapers, decide what evidence must be presented in court when the administration of justice so requires," the lawyer wrote.

Read more in  The New York Sun.

This isn't the first time that the New York Times has refused to comply with a court order. Eventually they'll get the message that just because the Constitution promises "freedom of the press" doesn't give them a license to print libel.

Osama Mamma Takes Fourth Place!

WASHINGTON - Washington Sen. Patty Murray was elected to the No. 4 slot in the Senate's Democratic leadership Tuesday as yet another sign of the growing influence of the state's congressional delegation following last week's election.

As conference secretary, Murray will play an insider's role in developing the Democratic agenda for the next Congress, determining legislative priorities and implementing the party's strategy and message.

"It's a tremendous opportunity for our state to be at the table and to have the issues we care about on the agenda," Murray said in an interview. "I'm very excited and gratified."

So what issues does Patty Murray care about? Well... back in December of 2002 she said of Osama bin Laden...

"We've got to ask, why is this man so popular around the world? Why are people so supportive of him in many countries that are riddled with poverty?"

...

She said that Osama bin Laden had worked in unnamed countries "for decades building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities. And the people are extremely grateful." She added this eyebrow-raiser: "He's made their lives better. We have not done that."

I'm waiting for the joint congressional resolution honoring Osama bin Laden's humanitarian efforts. Maybe she can work with Rep. Jim McDermott on it. He has a lot of experience writing those kind of resolutions honoring local sports teams for their tremendous efforts.

John McCain leading a conservative revival?

The man who helped co-author the bill that squelches the first amendment rights of most ordinary Americans claims he can lead the GOP back to common-sense conservatism.

WASHINGTON (AP) - On the heels of devastating GOP losses, Sen. John McCain called on the Republican Party to return to its common-sense conservatism - and implicitly cast himself as the one who can lead the party's rebirth.

"We lost our principles and our majority. And there is no way to recover our majority without recovering our principles first," the Arizona Republican said Thursday in the first of two speeches that could set the tone for a potential presidential campaign.

On the same day he launched a presidential exploratory committee, McCain said voters felt that Republicans valued their incumbency over their beliefs on such conservative standards as limited and efficient government - and he urged a return to those tenets.

You could start by repealing the incumbent protection act known as McCain-Fiengold.

"Americans had elected us to change government, and they rejected us because they believed government had changed us," the four-term senator said. "We must spend the next two years reacquainting the public and ourselves with the reason we came to office in the first place: to serve a cause greater than our self-interest."

Yep, you changed government, ushering in more pork spending than even the big government Democrats had ever done. You changed yourselves from believing in limited government to a party that seemed to want to outdo the Democrats in big-government related spending. You took away our right to speak freely about politicians in the 60 days leading up to an election. You gave us one of the biggest entitlement expansions in history, and you blew away our chances of getting originalists in the judiciary with your weak kneed compromising "gang of 14".

...

"Hypocrisy, my friends, is the most obvious of political sins. And the people will punish it," McCain said, explaining that while Republicans were elected to reduce the size of government, they ended up increasing it "in the false hope that we could bribe the public into keeping us in office."

Hmmm. Do you think maybe he's starting to get the point? Oh wait a minute, he mentioned hypocrisy didn't he. Its too bad the voters didn't punish the blatant hypocrisy of the Democrats too.

...

McCain is taking advantage of the postelection period to outline a vision for the party much like Ronald Reagan did after the Republican defeat in the 1976 presidential election.

John McCain is no Ronald Reagan. He's not even close. In the primaries for the 2000 election, the GOP basically had a choice between two moderates. John McCain was the furthest left of the two. That's why he lost the primaries in 2000. I don't think he's changed that much.

For the last six years I've gotten sick of hearing from the news on CNN and MSNBC and reading in the newspapers about the "Republican Maverick" John McCain. I'm sure Senator McCain is proud of being called a maverick. It's good publicity for him. All of those glowing fawning puff pieces in the media.

Hey Senator McCain! If you're listening, here's a tip for you. When the mainstream media praises you for being a "maverick Republican senator" they're really saying "here's a Republican that stands up for liberalism and Democratic values, a man we can work with."

You shouldn't let it go to your head as if it was praise. They're congratulating you for betraying your party's values. Why else was there so much talk in the spring of 2004 about running a John Kerry/John McCain democratic ticket? Why even Hillary Clinton said she'd support you as the Democratic candidate for Vice President if John Kerry tapped you.

...

Over the past year, McCain has repeatedly demurred on questions about his political future and said he was focused entirely on helping Republicans get elected across the country.

He wasn't that successful at it though was he? It was partly thanks to pseudo-conservatives like John McCain that the GOP lost so many seats in congress this year. He's just lucky he wasn't up for re-election himself.

John McCain is right (in a centrist sort of way). The GOP needs to return to conservative values. The GOP needs to develop a spine and stand behind it's principles. The "maverick" from Arizona is not the man to help them do it.

Citizendium v. Wikipedia

There's an interesting blog post about an alternative to Wikipedia that was pointed out to me by Abi Paramaguru:

Wikipedia is the most prominent of the new-age collaborative information sources. But even its champions acknowledge that there are challenges, and choices to be made.

Larry Sanger, one of Wikipedia's co-founders, has long been dissatisfied with some aspects of its management. He announced on 17 October 2006 his intention to spawn a fork, or republished version, of Wikipedia that is intended to progressively develop higher-quality, more reliable articles.

Source: The House of Commons: Citizendium v. Wikipedia

Larry Sanger has a reply taking exception to the post and Roger Clarke has a response. It might be interesting to follow the comment thread. In the meantime, I think I'll give Citizendium a look. It probably won't be ready to use until sometime after the first of the year, but it looks like an interesting approach.

What's wrong with the immigration debate.

I think that a lot of writing on the topic of immigration fails to make the distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration. That leaves a lot of people that read about it with the impression that conservatives are against all immigration. I'm entirely and adamantly against illegal immigration, and I'm entirely for legal immigration.

When a conservative brings up the topic of illegal immigration, liberals typically counter with accusations of racism, hypocrisy, or the argument that everyone not of native American stock is an illegal immigrant. When the media discusses the topic the term "illegal immigration" is usually avoided in favor of euphemisms or to leave the misleading impression that anyone against illegal immigration is actually against immigration in general.

This is a pretty sad state of affairs, because it obscures the real issues behind emotionally charged language, self righteousness, and anger. I've read a lot about the topic lately, some from conservative leaning websites and weblogs, but also from liberally biased newspapers and the propaganda published by the SEIU and International A.N.S.W.E.R. and a few other groups that have sponsored "immigrants rights" marches. None of it leaves me satisfied.

Now, if you're interested, I'll throw my two cents in.

This country was built on immigration.

First of all, I think it's important to remember that the United States was built upon immigration. Yes, there were a lot of other things that went into the building of this great nation, but the topic of this posting is immigration. Anyway, from the nation's founding immigrants have been welcomed into the United States.

All that we as a nation have ever asked of immigrants is that they come to us openly, honestly and obey our laws. For this we grant them the protection of the United States Constitution and the Bill or Rights, as well as all of the other amendments to the Constitution. We grant them the protection of our laws and access to our courts. And we don't require that anyone become a citizen to enjoy these protections. Yes, there have been restrictions on who we allow to cross our borders, but on the whole American society and the United States itself have been very open to immigration.

We ask a bit more of the people that come to the United States with the goal of becoming citizens. For those immigrants we ask that they learn our language, our laws, and our history. We ask that they assimilate themselves into our society, and that they swear an oath of allegiance to our nation. This is not unreasonable. We are granting one of the greatest privileges that we can offer to prospective citizens. It is completely reasonable to expect them to show that they truly desire it and are deserving of it.

It is not easy to become a citizen of the United States for someone foreign born of foreign parentage. The path to citizenship is filled with hurdles. First, the prospective citizen must arrive here legally. Then they must learn what it means to be a citizen of the United States. They must live honorably while among us and they must take a test to demonstrate their knowledge of our language and our laws. Everybody I know that has gone through this process is proud of their accomplishment and deserves to be.

Anchor Babies 

There is another path to citizenship for many. The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution states:

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.

Much is made of the first part of the first phrase, "All Persons born or naturalized in the United States". Many claim that this is sufficient to grant a child born within the borders of the United States, or within a United States Territory citizenship, regardless of the citizenship of the child's parents. This is not the case, because the second part of that phrase is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

I have read the argument on some blogs, and heard it on some talk radio programs that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" disqualifies the children of parents who are in the United States in violation of the nation's immigration laws. This won't make me popular with my conservative friends, but I think that argument is wrong.

If people that have come to the United States in violation of the nation's immigration laws are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then those very immigration laws do not apply to them. If we expect to prosecute and deport people that come here in violation of our laws then we must have jurisdiction to apply those laws or they are meaningless.

According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services:

The 14^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli.

I think that makes it plain how the United States interprets the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". The term "diplomatic immunity" pretty much covers it. If a person can claim diplomatic immunity to the laws of the United States, then that person is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. A child born within the United States to parents with diplomatic immunity is not a citizen of the United States under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Any other child born in the United States is a citizen of the United States.

"Anchor babies" as such children are often called are indeed citizens of the United States. Thus the fourteenth amendment, which was written and ratified to guarantee Blacks (or African Americans, or whatever the politically correct, non-racist term is today) citizenship rights and equal rights with all other citizens has become a bone of contention in the argument about legal and illegal immigration.

Recently much has been made in the press of new laws in several border states regarding illegal immigration and withholding state services for illegal immigrants. On the whole I think these laws are a good thing. People who are here in violation of the laws of the United States should not be receiving state supplied benefits. The question I have to ask though is a common one that you'll hear from the left: "What about the children?"

Assume for the sake of argument that two illegal immigrants, a man and a woman live in Texas. While living there, they have a child. This couple lives in Texas for many years and raises their child in Texas. Assuming the couple manages to stay in the country undetected long enough for the child to go to school and reach college age, should that child be eligible for in-state tuition granted to residents of the State of Texas? Answer me honestly now.

I believe that the child should be granted in-state tuition rates. Why? Because that child, whether I like it or not is a United States citizen, and a citizen of the State of Texas. That's right, this child, the child of illegal immigrants is a Texan, and qualified, even under any law that Texas might enact, to the same treatment as any other citizen of Texas. And that includes the right to in-state tuition rates. If the State of Texas tries to enact a law denying that child the same privileges and rights as any other Texan, that law is unconstitutional on the face of it, because the fourteenth amendment clearly states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".

On the other hand, assume the same couple is living in Texas. Assume that the woman (or the man, it doesn't matter) decides that she wants to go to college in Texas. Should she be eligible for in-state tuition rates? Absolutely NOT! She is neither a citizen of the United States, nor a citizen of the State of Texas. In fact, she legally should be deported! So should her husband. After all, they're both in the country in violation of the country's immigration laws, and the consequence of that is deportation.

Should the child be deported? Should the child be separated from his or her parents and made a ward of the State of Texas? The child is, after all, a legal citizen of both the United States and the State of Texas. Can a citizen of the United States be legally deported? Is the child also legally a citizen of the country of his or her parent's origin? Doesn't the answer to that question depend upon the laws of that country?

This is a gray area, and I don't know the answers to these questions, well, except for the last one. I have opinions on this, but I hesitate to share them, because they aren't strongly grounded in facts. So far, I haven't seen anybody with good answers to these questions.

So let's set aside the question of "anchor babies" for now. I'm willing to listen to arguments on both side on the topic, but I don't have much to add to the question at the moment. Let's move on to other parts of the debate on immigration.

Border Security

You might notice that so far I have avoided any mention of specific nationalities when I've talked about illegal immigrants. Personally I don't think it makes too much difference to the argument. If a person comes to the United States (regardless of their nationality) and enters the country without following the procedures that are outlined in the laws of the United States, then they are here illegally. They don't belong here. They aren't wanted here, and they should leave, or be made to leave.

Does it matter if that person is a Mexican? An Arab? A Canadian? Japanese? Chinese? Korean? Iranian? Cuban? Nepalese? No, it doesn't matter.

Let me ask you some more questions. These questions are for the liberals out there that might be reading this. Suppose you live in an urban environment, in an area that has a high incidence of violent crime, burglaries, rapes, and murders. Would you leave your money and your jewelry sitting on the windowsill where passers by on the street can see it? Would you leave your keys in the ignition of your car, with the engine running and the drivers side door open while you went into your house to eat your evening meal? Would you leave your front door open while you went to bed and to sleep?

If you wouldn't do these things then can you explain to me why you would want open borders and no immigration laws? Is it rational for our nation, in today's world where terrorists have sworn to kill Americans at home, to open it's borders and leave them unsecured? I'm fully aware that the borders of the United States are long, and that there are many places where people can cross unnoticed, both to the South as well as to the North, but does it truly make sense to you to simply throw up our hands and say "screw it, we can't do anything about it"?

A nation's borders are its first line of defense. If our borders are unprotected, then our country is unprotected. The outgoing congress recently passed a bill to protect our nation's Southern border. This bill called for and authorized nearly 700 miles of double-walled fencing to be built on the border as a deterrent to illegal immigration. I have questions about that wall, both for the left and for the right.

To the left I ask: What's wrong with building a fence to keep invaders out of our home? What's wrong with trying to close the door to keep people out that don't want to follow our laws? Give me honest answers. This fence doesn't compare in any way to the Berlin wall, which was built to keep people in Eastern Berlin. The purpose of this fence is to keep undesirable people out.

Do you honestly think that's a racist argument? Did I say that the purpose of this fence was to keep Mexican's out? No, I didn't say that. I said the purpose of the fence was to keep undesirable people out. Mexicans are not by their nature undesirable. People without any regard for our laws are undesirable. I don't care if they happen to be Mexican, or Canadian. I don't care if they come from Pakistan, South Korea, Great Britain, France, or South Africa. I do care if they come to take advantage of our liberties while disregarding our laws.

The United States has been criticized for the plan to build the wall, by busybodies in the United Nations, by Vicente Fox, and by the American left. I don't care. I want my country defended. You should too.

You might argue that the fence is too short to do anything meaningful. In that you would be both right and wrong. The border fence on the California border near San Diego isn't meaningless. It's quite effective. Sure people that really want to enter the country illegally can travel Eastward until they can get around the fence, but it still acts as a deterrent, at least in the area where it is. Strategically placed a fence can go a long way toward helping with border security. Even so, regardless of the length of the fence, no fence is enough to protect our borders.

To the right I ask: Why only 700 miles? Yes, I know I just argued that it's a start, but is it enough of a start? And why is it that the Democrat's plan to built a "virtual fence" is looked on as a bad idea? Do you honestly believe that a token fence is enough? Yes, it's an important start, but did you really think it would even get built? I mean let's get real here. It's no great outrage that the Democrats are thinking of scrapping this token fence. It was never going to be built anyway (I'll get to that in a bit). They are at least looking into the possibility of replacing it with a virtual fence with security cameras.

When you consider the length of the border, it's impractical to try to build a barrier that will serve to completely close off the border at all of its unprotected, unguarded locations. Since when did a fence prevent people from digging a tunnel? Besides, did you really think that the outgoing congress was serious about building the fence? If they were so serious, why didn't they bother to secure the funding for it at the same time they authorized it. Admit it. The bill authorizing the border fence was feel-good legislation without any teeth. It was a waste of time.

I still think that we need border security, and not just along our Southern border. We need to do more than build fences though. We need to do more than put cameras on the border. We need an effective border patrol.

While we're on the topic, we might as well talk about manpower and commitment. There aren't enough agents in the United States Border Patrol to protect the entire Southern border, let alone the Northern border. Doubling the size of the border patrol isn't enough to get the job done either. It doesn't help that the border patrol doesn't have a great reputation for commitment to the job.

That's why the Minutemen were formed. They're a volunteer, citizen group without any official capacity or authority, but they've done good work on the border. We need more citizens that care about border security like the Minutemen. I think it would be a good idea to support them in an official capacity. Perhaps make them deputy border patrol agents. At the very least they need protection from the ACLU.

Sadly, even the addition of the Minutemen to the border patrol isn't enough to ensure border security. Putting the National Guard on the border was a good idea. It's truly unfortunate that the governors of some states (Washington for example) refused to put the National Guard on the border, even though they would only have been there in a support and logistics role. Which brings me to the economic and political arguments.

Is illegal immigration good for our economy?

I'm not an economist. I can't honestly tell you if our country "needs" illegal immigrants. My gut feeling is that we don't. I do have some thoughts on this though.

First of all, I don't think that it's a good thing to allow illegal aliens to come into our country to "do the jobs Americans won't". There is no job that an American "won't" do if they're desperate enough. All forms of labor are honorable, even if some spoiled children think that certain jobs are "beneath them".

The problem isn't that Americans won't do the jobs, it's that Americans won't do the jobs for the wages that are being paid for those jobs. We get cheap lettuce because illegal immigrants work the fields for less than minimum wage. The farmers get away with paying less than minimum wage because the illegal immigrants won't complain, because they're not here legally. At least, that's the argument I've heard.

This is presented as an argument in favor of illegal immigration. People that object to illegal immigration are called hypocrites because they profit from the sweat and toil of illegal immigrants. That's laughable. Using this argument as an argument in favor of illegal immigration is hypocritical.

To say that the American economy needs illegal immigrants because they are willing to work for less than the law requires we pay our citizens is a hypocritical argument. Plain and simple. Anyone that makes this argument is arguing in favor of exploiting illegal immigrants because they are illegal.

If illegal immigrants deserve to be treated like legal immigrants, then they deserve to be paid at the same rate as legal immigrants. Arguing that the exploitation of illegal immigrant workers for profit and cheap lettuce is a reason to grant amnesty to them or to allow them to remain here is sheer hypocrisy and it's intolerable.

The correct answer to this problem is to send the illegal immigrants home, and to punish the employers that hired them. If we have to pay more for our salads that's just too bad.

I don't care if the illegal immigrants are making more money here than they could at home either. They don't belong here. They violated our laws to get here and we should not be rewarding them for their criminal behavior.

The very same argument, that we need illegal immigrants because they are willing to work for less money than our citizens and legal immigrants can also be turned on its head and used as an argument against illegal immigration. I have heard lots of anecdotal evidence that illegal immigration depresses wages in the building industry.

I don't know if it's true, but it stands to reason. If an illegal immigrant is willing to do the same work as a person that is here legally, but at a reduced wage to avoid notice, then the person that is here legally is working at a disadvantage. There's an incentive for the employer to hire the illegal immigrant rather than the citizen or legal immigrant. This would seem to reward the employer for hiring the illegal immigrant and depress wages in the industry. In order to compete for the same work the citizen or legal immigrant would have to agree to work for a lower rate.

Again, the solution to the problem is to send the illegal immigrants home, and to punish the employers that hired them. If we have to pay more for construction labor that's just too bad.

I've heard the argument that deporting illegal immigrants is unfair to them. That they work hard for a living and for a chance to achieve the American dream. Call me heartless if you like, but again that's just too bad. They came here illegally. They came here in violation of our laws. They came to exploit our freedoms and they came to do it with utter disregard for the rights of the people they are displacing. I don't want them here.

Is illegal immigration good for our country?

Finally we come to the political arguments. Here we need to make the distinction again between legal and illegal immigration. I believe that legal immigration is a great good for our country. I believe that illegal immigration is a horrible evil being inflicted on our country.

Legal immigrants come to our country and abide by our laws. Usually they come and contribute something of value to our society. They may come here to work, to share their culture, or to learn from us and take that knowledge home, where it becomes a benefit to the world, and by extension to us. The United States has a great deal to gain from legal immigration.

Illegal immigrants on the other hand by definition do not abide by our laws. They come here in violation of those laws and they are often a drain on our society. They refuse to abide by our laws and live in fear of being caught. To avoid being caught they engage in identity theft, they work for reduced wages, often under the table to avoid paying taxes and being discovered, and they are a drain on services funded by taxpayers.

Illegal immigrants aren't really interested in assimilating into our society either. They aren't here to become citizens, they're here to exploit our economy and our freedoms. Some of them come here with the intention of having children as anchor babies to avoid deportation should they be caught.

This past summer there were several "immigration" rallies in major cities across the country. Millions of immigrants and their supporters marched in the streets. Liberal organizations were out in droves to get as many of these people to register to vote as possible, and to encourage them to vote for liberal causes and candidates.

I am reasonably sure that most of the people marching were legal immigrants, and many were citizens of the United States, so it's quite possible that the many voter registrations that were obtained at these rallies were for people that legally had the right to vote. It's also possible, and in fact likely that many of the people targeted for registration weren't eligible to vote. Illegal immigrants are seen as a powerful voting bloc by the left.

Many of these rallies weren't sponsored by immigrants rights groups. They were sponsored by the SEIU and International A.N.S.W.E.R. At least the ones in Seattle were. They were also sponsored by several socialist organizations, as well as organizations dedicated to the re-conquest of large portions of the United States into a land called Aztlan.

It is clear to me that the organizations behind these rallies didn't have the good of the United States in mind when they organized the rallies. Some of them were even dedicated to the downfall of the current system of government in the United States or to the abolition of capitalism.

This is the threat that we are faced with by illegal immigration. It's not good for the United States. It's a slap in the face to the hard work and dedication of the millions of naturalized United States citizens and to legal immigrants.

It has to be stopped.

We don't need new laws to stop it. We don't need more unfunded mandates to stop it. We need to get our priorities straight and enforce the laws we have. We need the cooperation of the states and of the local governments to enforce those laws.

We need to be serious about it. Before our country is taken away from us because we left the jewelry on the floor in the living room with the door wide open while we went upstairs to sleep.

Linked to: Basil's Blog