PAT BUCHANAN: ILLEGAL ALIEN OVERLOAD?

On page 240 of Pat Buchanan’s stunningly logical new book, “State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America” (St. Martin’s Press, New York, 2006) appear the following words:

“One of the truly major issues with which America must deal [is] the vast tidal wave of human beings coming from the Third World. There is a fragmentation going on in this country. At what point does cultural, racial diversity become a kind of social anarchy? How do you get national cohesion this way?”

But those are not the words of my friend and political sparring partner Pat Buchanan. They are words he quoted from a 1987 interview in The Christian Science Monitor with Eric Sevareid, the CBS correspondent and close associate of Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow.

Only 19 years ago, one of the nation’s most respected public liberals could unself-consciously utter words that today could be a scandalous career ender for a public figure.

And it is around that issue — race, ethnicity, language, culture and immigration — and the problem of talking honestly about it, that Buchanan has constructed his most important book to date.

— Tony Blankley, Pat Buchanan’s “State of Emergency”,
Townhall.com, August 16, 2006

Folks, it is time to start the real discussion about illegal aliens. To date, the debate has been about whether or not we should enforce our laws, should we open the borders or close them. Then we get into the economic costs of illegal aliens and the fact that this has harmed our children, parents and the morality of a nation.

Pat Buchanan is opening up the BIG question, how does the illegal alien flood across our borders affect the future of our nation and the future of freedom? No longer is this a question of 40,000 illegal aliens in California prisons or do we give them drivers licenses. We need to concentrate on the effect of this violence to our laws, in the long term. Yet, this had been discussed twenty years ago, by certified liberals, who sounded like an early day Buchanan. What has changed in the past twenty years?

Could it be that liberals and radicals today so hate America that they prefer to see it destroyed? Note that they seem to prefer Osama to the President. Radicals believe the US military is an out of control gang and that members of the US military are moments away from killing them in their beds in Bel Air or Greenwich (Lamont really doesn’t like a strong military, prefers the French version). Why is it that radicals and US Senators like Kerry, Feingold, Chaffee, Kennedy and especially the Clinton’s have more faith in the United Nations and Kofi Annan then in the US Congress and George Bush?

The issue of illegal aliens is just one part of the puzzle of a terrorist run global government. The United States is the last bulwark of freedom and compassion. If it weren’t for Bush pushing Britain’s Blair, then Saddam would still be killing Iraqis just for the fun of it. We should be looking at the promiscuity of supporters of illegal aliens in the context of world domination, not just this one issue.

The next time you find someone who is for open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, you will most likely find someone who trusts Annan, believes the US is wrong in promoting freedom–just ask Boxer, Stark, Susan Davis, Loretta Sanchez, Phil Angelides. Lets us start looking at this issue in the broader scope of public policy, not as a stand alone issue. I believe that is the message of Pat Buchanan in his new book.

What do you think? Should we open our borders and stop fighting terrorism? Does Kofi Annan provide you more comfort than the US military?

—

Steve Frank is the publisher of California Political News and Views and a Senior Contributor to CaliforniaConservative.org. He is also a consultant currently working on gambling issues and advising other consultants on policy and coalition building.

THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE SLIMES

The San Francisco Chronicle slimes

By Michelle Malkin ·

This is Peter Hartlaub. He is the San Francisco Chronicle's pop-culture critic and "helps cover movies, television and the media," according to his bio. In addition to his newspaper duties, Hartlaub blogs for the paper's "Culture Blog." One of his latest posts is an astonishingly ugly, ad hominem attack on Ann Coulter--emblematic of the unhinged, intolerant Left. And it's posted on a "culture" blog.

The jerk compares Coulter to a horse at a children's zoo. He mocks her weight and her face by linking to sophomoric left-wing bloggers deriding her looks--including this, this, and this. He posts photos he took of the horse alongside photos of Coulter, then sits back and waits for Chronicle blog commenters to pile on. Here are a few screenshots of the post and comments as of 12am Sat. Aug. 26. The post has been up since 2am Wed. Aug. 23:

***

File this one away the next time the journalistic elite attacks bloggers as an unruly, uncivilized mob of hate-mongers in need of adult supervision. Under the guise of "culture" commentary, San Francisco Chronicle staffer/blogger Peter Hartloub displays the true colors of the moonbat mainstream media: slime green. Naturally, the anti-Coulter-obsessed staffers at media industry publication Editor and Publisher think Hartlaub's post is funny.

Do you?

Contact:

Reader representative: If you have comments on The Chronicle's coverage, standards or accuracy, please call Dick Rogers, the readers' representative, at (415) 777-7870. Written comments can be e-mailed to readerrep@sfchronicle.com, faxed to (415) 442-1847, or addressed to Readers' Representative, c/o San Francisco Chronicle, 901 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94103.

Letters to the Editor should be addressed to letters@sfchronicle.com. Due to space considerations, only letters of less than 250 words will be considered for publication. Please provide your name and telephone number along with your letter. You will be called if your letter is being considered for publication.

SFGate.com executive:

Peter Negulescu - VP Digital Media pnegulescu @ sfgate.com

***

Related: Mark Finkelstein looks at a Jeff Danziger hit.

WHY THE DEMOCRATS ARE SITTING THIS ONE OUT

It should be clear that the Democrat Party simply does not want to be engaged in the war against Islamic fascism. The Democrat Party is clearly becoming the Democrat-Appeasement Party. Good for the Islamic murderers. Bad for us.

Why, though, do the Democrats find it so terribly difficult -- almost impossible -- to even so much as admit that we are actually in a hot, shooting war with Islamic fascism? They simply view this as something that can be settled if we just sit down, be nice, and talk a lot.

Noodle it out. It's all about power. Political power. Regaining power and then retaining it.

Democrats know that the voting public views the Republicans as more likely to act to defend our country when we are under threat. The trick, then, is to make sure that the voters don't feel we're under a threat. Democrats know that if the voters come to understand that there is a grave threat to the security of the American people -- a threat, for instance, from Iran's nuclear program, and from Islamic radicals around the world -- then these voters are not going to be likely to vote for a party that they view as weak on defending America.

Democrats like John Kerry are trying to convince the people that Islamic terrorism is no more than a simple law enforcement problem. Find them. Arrest them. Try them. Jail them. Oh, and by the way, make sure they get their full plate of Constitutional rights in the process ... even though they most certainly aren't entitled to them.

Listen to these appeasers! "The war in Iraq is wrong." "We need to talk to Iran." "We need to make Israel stop killing all those innocent civilians."

Listen, friends. There is no "war in Iraq." There is no "War in Afghanistan." There's the Iraq front and the Afghan front in the world-wide war against Islamic fascism. Instinctively, you know this.

That's what scares the Democrat-Appeasement party so much.

BORDER ENFORCEMENT....FINALLY

Based on these articles, I’d say that it’s sounding more like the Bush Administration is finally taking border security seriously. Here’s what Reuters is saying:

Elite U.S. Border Patrol units armed with assault rifles and stun grenades may be set to play a more prominent role as authorities gain greater control over the porous border with Mexico, border police say. Little known outside law enforcement circles, the Bortac tactical teams have been deployed to remote reaches of the border to hunt drug and human traffickers using out-of-the way routes since the 1980s.
The Bortac members wear full battle-dress uniforms and carry state-of-the-art night vision and thermal optics. They are armed with weapons including M4 assault rifles and “flash-bang” stun grenades developed for the special forces.

Based on the article, these teams sound like they’re as capable in performing their duties as a Navy SEAL is in performing their job.

In a bid to gain control over the Mexico border, President George W. Bush ordered 6,000 National Guard troops to help the Border Patrol guard the international line in May. Since then, apprehensions have fallen by more than 40 percent.

Fewer apprehensions are the direct result of fewer attempts being made, not because of the ineffectiveness of President Bush’s policies.

Here’s what the AP article said:

Nearly all non-Mexican illegal immigrants caught sneaking into the United States are being held until they can be returned to their home countries, the Bush Administration said Wednesday. DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff said this marks the end of the so-called “catch-and-release” policy that for years helped illegal immigrants remain in the United States unhindered.

I rejoiced when President Bush announced during a speech that catch-and-release was over. People criticized the President then for not doing enough. It appears his critics were wrong. People like Michelle Malkin rightly criticized the administration for not enforcing the borders and for their catch-and-release policy. That criticism should now fall silent because the administration is doing what their critics were asking them to do.

SO NOW IRAN WANTS TO TALK

No doubt fearing economic sanctions that could put a dent in their massive oil profits, Iran sent out word to the world yesterday that it was willing to talk about its nuclear program. More talk. Just dandy.

But what are they prepared to do?

According to reports coming out today, absolutely nothing. Are they prepared to give up their nuclear program and stop enriching uranium? According to an Iranian news agency, absolutely not. So what is there to talk about?

Nothing. But Iran knows what it's doing.

You see, Iran wants to make the United States look bad. So they announce in a big, loud voice that they're willing to negotiate, but not on the key demand that they stop enriching uranium and pursuing nuclear weapons. The Bush Administration will send John Bolton to the podium to announce that there's nothing to talk about....so we'll look like the bad guys for being inflexible and unwilling to negotiate. The dumb masses will completely ignore the fact that Iran says they will not budge on the core issue ... and will focus on the fact that the U.S. is not willing to talk.

But you can expect the usual Euro-weanie suspects to line up in their usual appeasement pose. These countries know they can ignore the threat and, if the past is prologue as they say, depend on the United States to bail them out militarily when the going gets really rough. Then, of course, they'll end up resenting us even more because of their dependency.

We need to issue our own statement to Iran: get rid of your nuclear program, or we'll do it for you.

TAYLOR CONFLICTED?

The judge who ruled against the government and ruled the NSA terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional may have had an undisclosed conflict of interest. Anna Diggs Taylor also serves as a trustee and officer to an organization that donated $45,000 to the Michigan chapter of the ACLU -- which happened to be one of the plaintiffs in the case (via Hot Air):

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case (ACLU et. al v. National Security Agency). Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements.

According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as Secretary and Trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM). She was reelected to this position in June 2005. The official CFSEM website states that the foundation made a “recent grant” of $45,000 over two years to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the wiretapping case. Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision.

As Allahpundit notes, this does not appear to violate the legal canon of ethics, at least not explicitly, but it does seem rather too close for comfort. Many judges probably either belong to the ACLU or have given it support, but in this case it would appear unseemly for Taylor -- as an officer of an organization that is a major benefactor -- to have presided over a lawsuit the Michigan chapter brought. I doubt she will get any official sanction, but I also think it will dent her reputation than her opinion in the case has already done.

However, we should not get too triumphal about this development. The defendants of the lawsuit will almost certainly raise this question on appeal, but the real questions about the legality of the program still must find an answer. Even if the appellate court dismisses the decision on this basis, it only postpones a truly substantive review of the issue -- which Taylor didn't bother providing in the first place. The sooner that the Supreme Court reviews the issue, the better off we all will be.