THE HISPANIC INVASION: WHY AMNESTY IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN

Today we Will discuss news reports that politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington are saying that one of the first laws passed by the 110th Congress with it's Democrat majority will be amnesty for illegal aliens. Oh, they won't call it amnesty, but amnesty it will be. The 12 to 20 million illegal aliens now in this country will be granted amnesty and given a path to citizenship. And don't expect a veto of this legislation from President Bush. This has been his goal all along.

We all know what will happen then. The Mexican Invasion of the United States will only increase, with millions more crossing the border in the next few years. There will be nothing in this new legislation that will stem the invasion tide. In fact, the Democrats are probably going to oppose any funding to get that 700-mile wall on the Mexican/U.S. border built.

I have set forth a five-point plan for ending the Mexican invasion and convincing the illegals already in this country to head back home. This plan is certainly not original with me. It has been gleaned from a variety of sources. I can think of no better way to end the invasion, send the invasion force back home, while still satisfying our need for the labor that has been provided by the invaders ... all at a minimal cost to government.

1. Close the border.

If a broken pipe is flooding your basement your first task is to stop the water from coming in. It makes no sense at all to start trying to clean up while the water is still pouring in. There can be no question that it is the responsibility of our federal government to protect our borders. This is a responsibility that is being ignored. Take whatever resources you need, the military, the national guard .. whatever .. and shut the borders down. Concertina wire can be strung across the entire border in a matter of days or weeks.

2. Punish those who employ and house illegal aliens.

Pass a set of laws that establish harsh punishment for employers who hire illegal aliens and for commercial landlords who house them. The government would establish a minimum set of standards that an employer and a landlord must met when determining the legality of someone applying for employment. Private firms already exist who provide verification services to employers. These firms will spread as the demand for their services expand. Any business or landlord who hires or rents space to an illegal alien without doing due-diligence to assure that employees legal status will be subject to fines and punishment so harsh that the downside will be too great to risk.

3. Shut down all but emergency social services to illegal aliens.

This one is pretty self-explanatory. If you are in this country illegally the only government services you will be entitled to will be normal law enforcement services and services necessary to save your life in the event of a medical emergency. Any illegal alien presenting himself to a hospital for such services shall be treated, stabilized and deported.

4. Deny federal funds to all cities who have so-called "sanctuary laws."

These are law that prohibit police and law enforcement from investigation the legal status of those they may suspect of being in this country illegally. These laws are directly implicated in the deaths of law enforcement officers and private citizens.

5. Establish a guest worker program.

Establish a guest worker program designed to make sure that American businesses, especially agriculture, has access to the workers they need. Non-citizens can register to become guest workers, but registration can only take place in the countries where they legally reside. NO guest worker permits will be issued in the United States. Employment for Guest Workers will be arranged ONLY through privately owned guest worker agencies operating under a strict set of federally mandated rules. When a U.S. employer needs guest workers he will supply a list of requirements to one of these employment agencies. That agency will then arrange for the required workers through a counterpart in Mexico, India ... wherever. The employment agency will be responsible for transporting the guest worker to and from the place of employment, and for finding housing for that guest worker while here. The guest worker will be paid ONLY through the employment agency. The agency will, in turn, charge the employer for the guest worker's salary, transportation costs to and from this country, and housing costs. The employer may, if desired, provide housing for the guest worker. When the employer no longer needs the services of the guest worker, the employment agency will provide for transportation of that guest worker back to his own country.

The advantage of this plan is that there is no way for someone in this country illegally to live and work unless they are being harbored and their expenses covered by a legal resident or citizen. With the guest worker program in place no intelligent employer is going to take the chance of a large fine or imprisonment by hiring an illegal. All they have to do is contact the employment agency and the guest worker arrives soon thereafter!

This program has one big drawback. The guest workers aren't allowed to vote in U.S. elections. With the Democrats in control of the congress, there is little chance of seeing anything like this implemented.

OH GOODIE!

Hillary Clinton has made it clear .. she's going to run for president. One of Hillary's handlers is telling us that The Hildabeast is "reaching out to her colleagues in the New York delegation and asking for their advice and counsel."

Yeah, right.

I can assure you that Hillary is doing no such thing. She has already made up her mind, and she is not interested in the "advice and counsel" of the New York delegation. Support? Yes. Advice? No.

This is very good news for talk radio. If Hillary wins and the Democrats keep control of both houses of congress, the days of talk radio will be numbered. The rumblings are already out there for a resurrection of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." Well, if we're going to go out, we might as well go out with a bang. I can't think of a better way than detailing the lies, dishonesty an treachery of this nasty woman.

Is there any chance that the average voter will come to know the true Hillary before election day arrives? Will middle America begin to understand that this woman considers them to be nothing but a support system that is expected to help her achieve her life-long goal of ultimate power? Hillary's carefully crafted image of caring and compassion is cover for a cold, calculating person who considers most Americans to be beneath her and unworthy of her attention. Every single step she takes, every word she utters every minute of every day of her life is carefully crafted to do one thing .. .to satisfy her relentless craving for power?

Do American see that her partnership with her so-called "husband" has been nothing less than a crass manipulation of the institution of marriage for the purpose of acquiring and maintaining political power?

The AP is running a story this morning, being carried by multiple outlets, wondering about The Hildabeast's "electability." There seems to be some question as to whether or not she can win a national election. Well, here's a little breaking news for the mainstream media...that doesn't matter. All Hillary Clinton needs is a lot of cash, more than anyone else running on her side, and she'll win the nomination. Besides, it's not like she hasn't thought this through.

And that's another thing. This notion that she is just now reaching the stage where she is considering running is a joke. She's had her campaign team in place for months, and she's been planning for this day for decades. When Hillary Clinton was standing by her man doing the first lady thing, it was only so she could bide her time, waiting for her big day. That's what running for the Senate was all about.

One question. Can any of you name one single time in the last six years when Hillary Clinton has appeared before an uncontrolled public forum to answer questions? Work on that one and get back to me, would you?

Well .. I could go on. But we have two years to go through this, and I'm looking forward to every single day.

SUNDAY ROUND-UP: THE RUMSFELD MEMO

By Michelle Malkin

All the secrets fit to print: The blabbermouths at the NYTimes got a hold of a classified memo from Don Rumsfeld exploring Iraq war options and splashed it all over its front page for all the world and America's enemies to read.

Andy McCarthy, as always, has a succinct and incisive reaction to both the Times' publication of the memo and of the memo's substance:

Another day, another explosive classified leak published in the New York Times.

This time, it's a November memo from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to the White House, urging a complete rethinking of military strategy in Iraq. The Times today publishes the classified memo in conjunction with its page-one story.

The memo itself is extraordinarily interesting, even to us non-military types, especially given (a) how little regard Sec'y Rumsfeld seems to have for a lot of the strategy either currently being employed or likely to be proposed by the Iraq Study Group; and (b) how Rumsfeld seems a lot more interested in quick strike capability against al Qaeda and Iran elements than having U.S. forces enmeshed in Iraq's sectarian infighting...

...My strictly non-military observation, based on many years in government, is: We appear to be in for two years of increasing dysfunction.

If high officials — in wartime, no less — figure they better not give their best, most candid advice on sensitive, publicly-charged issues because opposing policy factions are going to leak each other's memos to the press, the initiative and creativity of the smart people we want in government is stifled. And the leaks will be used to portray the administration as disintegrating into rancorous chaos, which avalanche feeds on itself.

Like watching a train-wreck in slow motion.

Ed Morrissey suspects the leak came from Rumsfeld's camp and wonders if the rabid Rumsfeld-bashers will lighten up now:

[I]t will be interesting after this memo to see how the press and the Democrats approach Rumsfeld. They have made him the Devil incarnate for the last three years for his prosecution of the war. Now that he has endorsed a lighter approach to Iraq, similar to what the media and the opposition have demanded, will they rehabilitate Rumsfeld as a "wise man" on the war? I suspect they will if the Bush administration continues to remain unwilling to adopt whatever recommendations the ISG provides in their report this week. We will see Rumsfeld interviewed on major talk shows in a much more respectful manner, asked to expand on the thoughts in this memo and his evaluation of why we need a "major adjustment".

Jules Crittenden, not a Rumsfeld fan, offers his deconstruction.

Mark Levin: "I think in time Donald Rumsfeld will be seen as an extraordinary force for good, including at the Pentagon."

Robert Spencer reacts to Rumsfeld's assessment that things are not working well in Iraq: "We've been trying to tell him this for years. But none of the options involve adopting an effective defensive posture against jihad activity."

Diana West considers the possibility of a Saudi-Iranian, Sunni-Shi'ite rift over Iraq. Paul Mirengoff responds.

You can read up on much more reaction from both sides over at Memeorandum.

More: Dan Riehl...

What I sensed in reading the actual memo was just how much Rumsfeld was opposed to nation building in Iraq. Left with that impression, I wonder if it wasn't the final straw for Bush in deciding to let Rumsfeld go. The Bush policy, which I continue to support, by the way, is to establish democracy in the Middle East as a means of combating radical Islam with a long term solution that will actually work.

In Rumsfeld's defense, he went to the Pentagon to reshape the American military into a technical-communications advanced, more compact fast strike force suited to what is anticipated to be the conflicts in our short-term future. But Bush had to go to war with the SecDef he had, just as Rumsfeld had to go to war with the military he had.

What troubled me about the memo is that it was long on options but absent any real advice, or solid proposal for a way out of Iraq. If I want a menu from someone I can visit a restaurant. I would imagine like many managers Bush wanted at least the proposal of an actual solution, something the memo failed to give. Maybe that stems from Rumsfeld's distaste for the whole affair.

LEARNING YOUR TERROR SCORE

The federal government is disclosing that it assigns a computer-generated score to millions of Americans. What is the score? It's your terror score! It is supposed to measure the risk you pose of being a terrorist or criminal. And you're not going to believe how they do it. The scores are assigned to travelers, both foreign and domestic, based on a variety of factors.

The criteria for determining how dangerous or terrorist-prone you are includes: an analysis of your travel records, where you are from, how you paid for your tickets (cash? Terrorist!,) Add in your motor vehicle records, any one-way travel you've done in the past, seating preferences and what kind of meal you ordered. Apparently stewed goat with figs isn't going to help you here. It's called ATS...the Department of Homeland Security's "Automated Targeting System." [pdf] This system, which no doubt cost quite a bit of taxpayer money to deploy, is a complete waste of time. I've got a better idea.

How about a much simpler test...one that could be administered by airport security. It is guaranteed to catch all of the world's terrorists and potential airplane hijackers. It would have prevented the 9/11 hijackings. Want to hear it? Here goes. A few simple questions to determine if you are a terrorist: 1.) Are you a Muslim? 2.) Are you from an Arab country? 3.) Why are you here? There you have it...a foolproof way to root out all of the terrorists that are flying into or out of this country.

And what does meal preference have to do with it?

WHY ISN'T THIS SURPRISING?

This morning’s Washington Post reports that Democrats have set a record in breaking a major campaign promise even before they assume control. That’s never happened before, to the best of my recollection.

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.

Actually, they’ve broken two campaign promises with one inaction. Democratic candidates promised more vigorous oversight and they promised to implement the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations. I’m guessing that the Democrats are only interested in oversight if it’s able to criticize Halliburton or the Patriot Act and the like. It’s obvious that they aren’t the least bit interested in oversight into truly important matters.

Bill Clinton campaigned on giving a middle class tax cut. He gave up on that fairly quickly, saying “I’ve never worked harder in all my life” on anything but it just isn’t possible with the huge deficits. At least he waited until he was in office a couple weeks before breaking a major campaign promise. Congressional Democrats couldn’t even live up to that modest benchmark.

Why am I not surprised?

“I don’t think that suggestion is going anywhere,” said Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-FL), the chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee and a close ally of the incoming subcommittee chairman, Rep. John P. Murtha, (D-PA). “That is not going to be their party position.”

Color me shocked and surprised that John Murtha isn’t interested in reform. Color me shocked and surprised that Democrats aren’t interested in reform either. Frankly, I don’t know why the American people believed that Democrats are reform-minded. Nothing in their past suggests that they’re interested in reform.

NY TIMES TAKES ANOTHER LEAK ON IRAQ

The highly anticipated trilateral meeting between President Bush, the Jordanian King and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki in Amman, Jordan, took an odd turn today. The Iraqi PM was a no-show, meeting earlier with the Jordanian King and apparently snubbing the President. The President and Prime Minister will meet tomorrow. The official White House explanation is this:

“Since the King of Jordan and the prime minister had a bilateral themselves earlier today, everyone believed that it negated the purpose of the three of them to meet tonight together in a trilateral setting,” White House adviser Dan Bartlett told reporters traveling with Bush.

However, such a meeting would still have been beneficial, so what really happened?

Earlier today the infamous leakers at the New York Times posted a classified memo by Bush National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley which was critical of al-Maliki’s ability to control the sectarian violence in Iraq. (the memo in its entirety can be read HERE) In part, the leaked memo said:

-Do we (U.S.) and Prime Minister Maliki share the same vision for Iraq?

-In my one-on-one meeting with him, he impressed me as a leader who wanted to be strong but was having difficulty figuring out how to do so.

-Despite Maliki’s reassuring words, repeated reports from our commanders on the ground contributed to our concerns about Maliki’s government.

-His intentions seem good when he talks with Americans, and sensitive reporting suggests he is trying to stand up to the Shia hierarchy and force positive change. But the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action.

Ouch, that’s gotta hurt. While this memo is a totally legitimate critique of the Prime Minister, it must embarrass and perhaps anger the good PM. This appears to be another attempt in a string of many by the communistic New York Times to purposely thwart the Bush administration. Why leak a private classified memo? Why now? Why at all? The answer is obvious: to continue to chip away at the war effort in Iraq. This time, however, the angle was to divide and conquer by placing the U.S. and Iraq at an awkward and difficult juncture.

Another possibility for the Iraqi Prime Minister’s no-show to the three way meeting could be due to the 30 parliamentarians loyal to radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr who vowed to leave their positions altogether, threatening the stability of the Iraqi government. The original condition was that if al-Maliki, whose constituency has a large portion from al-Sadr followers, met with Bush in Jordan for the summit, they would boycott the government. Now it appears the boycott may not be permanent, but significant nonetheless.

“We are sticking to our position…. The boycott is still valid,” Falih Hassan, a Sadrist legislator, said in an interview with The Associated Press. “Bush is a criminal who killed a lot of Iraqis and we do not want him to interfere in Iraq’s affairs. The Iraqi government should negotiate with the U.N. Security Council, not with the leader of the country that is occupying Iraq.”

This of course puts PM al-Maliki in a difficult position.

My sources in Baghdad, Iraq, who are Christian and therefore neither Shia nor Sunni, believe al-Maliki is a good man, but that he is surrounded by “evil and selfish” people in the parliament, and that they are the problem. “They” are the members of the government who are involved in the boycott.

If al-Maliki indeed skipped the trilateral meeting with President Bush today because he deemed it redundant, so be it. If it is because he is offended by the contents of the memo, damned be the New York Times. If it is because of the parliamentary walkout, this will work itself out. Just as with the first round of elections in Iraq back in 2004-05, the participants who sat it out realized they were more empowered through the political process than by foregoing their representation. If this current parliament needs to be reestablished, that could also be positive.

To be continued…….