07 April 2006    |    PatriotPost.US    |    Patriot No. 06-14


"[T]he policy or advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits and principles which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word, soon become one people." —George Washington


E pluribus unum?

Out of many, one.

That was the national motto proposed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in 1776. Both simple and elegant, it embodied the notion that all who had come to America's shores, and all who would come, must be united—must all form one front—in defense of freedom and liberty. For 200 years, we were, largely, one people united behind constitutional republicanism. But soon after the social turbulence of the '60s and the economic woes of the '70s, that unity began to crumble. This was the era in which multiculturalism emerged—the era in which ethnocentricity became chic.

Arthur Schlesinger, a former Harvard professor and senior advisor to JFK, published a retrospective on this era in 1991 called "The Disuniting of America." Schlesinger wrote primarily about the orthodoxy of self-interested hyphenated-American citizen groups—who, rather than unifying to become one, were diversifying to become many. He warned that the cult of ethnicity would result in "the fragmentation and tribalization of America," the natural consequence being that these special-interest groups would be co-opted by the political parties.

"Instead of a transformative nation with an identity all its own," Schlesinger wrote, "America increasingly sees itself in this new light as preservative of diverse alien identities—groups ineradicable in their ethnic character." He asserts, by way of inquiry, "Will the melting pot give way to the Tower of Babel?"

The disuniting of America is a foundational concern underlying much of the debate about immigration.

The disuniting of America is a foundational concern underlying much of the current security, economic and social debate (both rational and irrational) about immigration. This is the concern that a nation, which is already ethnically fragmented internally, risks complete disunity of its national integrity in the absence of borders.



It is clear that the overwhelming majority of Americans are rightfully adamant about many immigration issues: strict border security and enforcement; automatic detention and deportation of illegals; no extension of amnesty or fast-track citizenship for illegals; preservation of our tax-subsidized medical, educational and social services for American citizens and documented immigrants; strong penalties against employers who hire undocumented migrant workers; and "Americanization" of new legal immigrants—rather than the ill-conceived provisions of bilingual schools and government services which, in effect, dissuade immigrant integration.

We are also resolute in our rejection of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens, though this right is assured by our Constitution's 14th Amendment. However, at the time of this Amendment, there was no provision distinguishing legal and illegal immigration. In other words, legislation outlawing this birthright for illegal aliens might well pass the Constitutional test.

On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of Americans don't want to pay $15 for a head of lettuce, wash our own restaurant dishes or launder our own sheets and towels when traveling. In addition, we would much rather somebody else take on laborious low-skilled and low-paying occupations like landscaping and construction.

Currently, there are 10 to 15 million illegal aliens in the United States. Only one president in four decades, George W. Bush, has dared make reconciling this issue a central administration objective. This is because the issue has no clear political consensus.

The only contemporary comparison to the cross-party divisiveness of immigration is the recent debate over Dubai Ports World management of U.S. port terminals. You'll recall that this issue pitted the President and his national-security team against disingenuous Democrats eager to appear tough on national security, weak-kneed Republicans unwilling to stand on principle in an election year and an American public fully caught up in the moment.

However, while the Dubai Ports debacle was clearly manufactured by opportunists in both parties, the immigration debate is all too real—this isn't just another flash in the political pan.

President Bush has charged Congress with taking up this complex issue.

The House plan is unenforceable and unaffordable, and the Senate plan's amnesty provision is unacceptable.

The House has already approved the Sensenbrenner immigration legislation, which essentially proposes to round up all illegals and drop them at the border, and criminalize anyone who had anything to do with them in the interim. This plan leaves one to ponder whether such tough-minded reform was spun out of xenophobic angst, or was merely a byproduct of everyday American nativism. The Sensenbrenner plan does not have a critical provision for guest workers, and is largely unenforceable—or, if enforced, largely unaffordable. But it plays well with the same constituency that believed the Dubai Ports folks were really interested in smuggling nuclear bombs into the U.S.

Worse, the Senate compromise bill would provide illegals amnesty [read: fast-track citizenship] rather than guest-worker status if they have been in the country for five years and do not have a criminal record—other than the misdemeanor crime of crossing the border illegally. This proposal should be a deal-breaker for any legislation. If here for less than five years, they would have to apply at one of 16 designated ports of entry for a new temporary "guest worker" visa for low and unskilled workers.

The House Bill makes no provision for amnesty, which is good, but it also makes no provision for guest-worker permits, which is, well, asinine. Of course, the assumption is that when the House and Senate bills are reconciled in conference, the House wants to start the negotiation on guest workers at zero. Unfortunately, there is some public confusion between "amnesty" and "guest worker" —the latter being both desirable and essential to the U.S. economy.

Of course, every member of the House and Senate is mindful of the fact that there are millions of American voters of Hispanic origin—eight percent of the electorate—which is a significant factor in how this legislation will be framed.

To debate immigration meaningfully, one must have the facts.

To debate this issue meaningfully, however, one must first survey the facts regarding the security, economic and social implications of immigration.

Security Concerns...

In any discussion about immigration, border security must come first. Even if Mr. Sensenbrenner can find a way to round up all undocumented Hispanic immigrants and deport them, they'll all be back in a few days unless we can establish some real border security. Clearly, this would entail both a physical barrier and enough security personnel to enforce both border and internal immigration regulations.

A formidable security wall along our border with Mexico would also provide a measure of safety against terrorist incursions, but there are already serious security problems brewing within our borders.

In our current state of ethnocentric disunity, we tolerate cadres of radical Hispanic identity groups composed of both naturalized immigrants and illegal aliens. These groups provided the ethnic incitement behind last month's half-million-strong protests in Los Angeles and other cities from coast to coast. These were protests not just on behalf of immigrant "rights"; for many, they were a means of promoting the reunification of the southwestern United States with Mexico. This "reconquista" movement is marked by the flying of the Mexican flag over the American flag.

If immigration protests turn violent, all bets are off.

The Hispanic reconquest movement is on the verge of violent nationalism—if it hasn't already become just that—with all its terrorist implications. If they do in fact resort to violence, all bets are off in regards to the status, guest worker or otherwise, of any illegal alien in this country from south of the border.

Economic Concerns...

The essential protectionist argument against the provision of guest-worker permits is that these workers take jobs away from Americans and reduce wages for everyone. There is, however, little factual basis for those arguments. As Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey was fond of noting, "Demagoguery beats data." In other words, an emotional rant tends to be louder than a reasoned analysis.

With U.S. unemployment now at 4.8 percent (with most of these being the chronically unemployable), we need immigrant workers regardless of the ruckus that protectionists might raise. Indeed, most of the jobs performed by immigrant labor are low wage—but few U.S. citizens are lining up for those jobs. Low wages reduce the cost of products and services provided, thus reducing the cost of living for consumers. The alternative is plain to see: a lower stander of living and higher inflation.

The U.S. economy depends on immigrant workers.

David Card, professor of economics at UC Berkeley, compared wages nationally and found that high-school dropouts in cities with an abundance of immigrants performing low-wage jobs are no worse off.

Further, immigrant labor isn't just a policy, as some have suggested, of creating poverty in America while alleviating it in Mexico and elsewhere. Greater prosperity in Mexico means greater security in the United States. NAFTA has helped, but that's just the start. North America's transportation infrastructure must be improved and extended farther south in Mexico, bringing the prosperity enjoyed under NAFTA in the north to more of the country's citizens. Similar principles apply to our CAFTA partners.

The overall economic prosperity resulting from free-trade agreements, including job in-sourcing and outsourcing, creates hardships for some Americans while creating opportunity for others. This provides little solace to those whose financial security is threatened by free trade, but the fact is that most Americans benefit from free trade.

Once again, the economic protectionists are wrong—and European economies are proving it. In a recent speech to the European Parliament, British Prime Minister Tony Blair criticized Western European economies for their unwillingness to compete on a global level: "What type of social model is it that has 20 million unemployed in Europe? Productivity rates falling behind those of the USA? That, on any relative index of a modern economy—skills, R&D, patents, information technology—is going down, not up."

Of course, there are other economic concerns, particularly the cost of social services for illegal aliens—which are enormous. The most costly of these social services are education, healthcare, housing and criminal incarceration. In 1994, California passed Proposition 187 to stop the hemorrhage of tax dollars for services to illegal aliens. Unfortunately, the federal courts struck down the law.

Social Concerns...

How does a nation that has institutionalized ethnic disunity integrate millions of immigrants?

"We have room for but one flag, the American flag." —Theodore Roosevelt

In 1919, Theodore Roosevelt penned these words: "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Unfortunately, the Left has spent four decades hyphenating and disenfranchising every ethnic group it can in order to create special-interest constituencies. Challenging this disunity exposes one to substantial ridicule—claims of intolerance, bigotry and jingoism. Yet these subcultures, including immigrants, fail to become properly integrated into civil society.

We are now beginning to bear the social consequences of multicultural politicization in both American and immigrant minority populations. "Progressive" policies—bilingual education being the worst offender—have the effect of insulating and ultimately ghettoizing otherwise hardworking and well-intentioned immigrants. For fear of appearing "culturally imperialistic" by forcing newcomers to learn our language, history and laws, we've condemned them to permanent impoverishment. But then, such policies have always bred Democrat votes.


The Patriot has always endorsed the measures we mentioned earlier: strict border security and enforcement; automatic detention and deportation; no extension of amnesty or fast-track citizenship; preservation of our tax-subsidized medical, educational and social services for American citizens and documented immigrants; strong penalties against employers who hire illegals; and Americanization of new legal immigrants. We are also resolute in our rejection of birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, and we support legislation to that end.

Additionally, we strongly endorse free enterprise and free trade, including the regulated in-sourcing of low-skill labor through time-limited guest-worker visas.

As a nation, our biggest hurdles will be creating a guest worker program with functional status verification to register between five and ten million guest workers; providing the personnel for document authentication and enforcement for those workers; and establishing a secure border with Mexico.

However, will Congress demand enforcement at the border and in the workplace? The 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill specified serious punishment for hiring illegals, but after three arrests, Congress directed the Justice Department not to prosecute infractions of this law.

As always, The Patriot advocates for the restoration of American principles and the adoption of those principles by all who seek to be called "American."

E pluribus unum? Only through God can we all truly become one.

Will we ever again be a nation committed to the principle of E pluribus unum? Perhaps. In 1956, the 84th Congress declared our official national motto to be "In God we trust." This motto is especially instructive amid all the current political pandemonium, for only through God can we all truly become one.

Quote of the week...

"Capitalism 'laughs at frontiers,' wrote historian Fernand Braudel. The dynamic American economy has attracted illegal immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries to work in construction, hotels and restaurants, meatpacking, gardening and landscaping. We talk as if our immigration laws can structure our labor markets, but in practice, Congress' task now is to get our immigration laws working in tandem with labor markets. We are not going to expel a population the size of the state of Ohio. But we shouldn't simply acquiesce to violation of the law. We need to legalize and regularize the flow of immigrants the labor market demands." —Michael Barone

On cross-examination...

"Every day thousands of people violate our frontiers. We don't know who they are and, quite often, we can't stop them. In January, officials discovered a massive tunnel stretching nearly a half mile from Tijuana to San Diego. We don't know how many, or who, snuck in through this tunnel. We don't know what materials came into our country, or when, through this tunnel. When people break our laws and come through our borders, we do know that mixed in with families looking for a better life are drug dealers, human traffickers, terrorists and common criminals. Increasing our border security reduces that threat to our country and our citizens." —Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist

Open query...

"Observing the pro-immigration demonstrations in Phoenix, Los Angeles, Atlanta and elsewhere in recent days, I wondered: whose country is this? Why are many illegal aliens who broke our laws to get here and who continue to break our laws to stay here demanding that the United States not only allow them to remain, but support them with the taxes of law-abiding citizens? Have we gone mad?" —Cal Thomas

The BIG lie...

"It is so heartening to see you here... You are really here on behalf of what America means..." —Hillary Clinton to a group of illegal aliens

This week's "Alpha Jackass" award:

"Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools and social programs. Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care and other benefits often without paying any taxes. Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance. These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world. Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally." —Senator Harry Reid introducing the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993, which proposed a dramatic reduction in legal immigration, revocation of citizenship for children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens, and it even called for wiretaps for alien smuggling operations. Of course that was before he was against all those things...he must be taking lessons from John French Kerry!

Publisher's Note...

Last week marked the passing of yet another friend, neighbor and Patriot from the Greatest Generation.

"I felt like it was an honor to serve God and country." —Desmond Doss

Desmond T. Doss was reared in a religious tradition that forbade him from taking up arms. When WWII began, he declined a religious exemption that would have allowed him to continue working in a Virginia shipyard and became an Army medic. He was classified as a "conscientious objector," though he preferred the term "conscientious cooperator" because he never refused to serve his country.

"I felt like it was an honor to serve God and country," said Desmond. "I didn't want to be known as a draft dodger, but I sure didn't know what I was getting into." He never picked up a rifle, though he found himself in the heat of combat in places like Leyte and Guam after being sent to the Pacific. But it was his actions in May of 1945, near Urasoe on Okinawa, that really distinguish this small, lean and singular man.

It was there, as a medic with the 77th Infantry Division, that he witnessed his fellow soldiers being decimated above a 400-foot escarpment while attempting to eradicate a Japanese stronghold. Without concern for his own safety, Desmond crawled to more than 75 casualties, carrying each one of them back to the escarpment edge and lowering them by rope to safety. In the process, he was wounded by grenade shrapnel but refused care, telling another medic to tend to others. Shortly thereafter, he took an enemy round in his arm, suffering a compound fracture.

"With magnificent fortitude he bound a rifle stock to his shattered arm as a splint and then crawled 300 yards over rough terrain to the aid station." That is how his Medal of Honor citation reads. "Through his outstanding bravery and unflinching determination in the face of desperately dangerous conditions Pfc. Doss saved the lives of many soldiers. His name became a symbol throughout the 77th Infantry Division for outstanding gallantry far above and beyond the call of duty."

Exclusive Official Military Insignia Items!

"I wasn't trying to be a hero," said Desmond. "I was thinking about it from this standpoint—in a house on fire and a mother has a child in that house, what prompts her to go in and get that child? Love. I loved my men, and they loved me. I don't consider myself a hero. I just couldn't give them up, just like a mother couldn't give up the child."

In an interview last year, his commanding officer talked about how he despised this young man who would not fight. Then, in tears, he recalled how he was one of the wounded whom Desmond hauled to safety, noting that he owes his life to Doss.

Shortly after returning stateside, Desmond was stricken with tuberculosis and spent years in rehab after the removal of one lung. The drugs used to fight tuberculosis would later render him deaf. Neither of those ailments stopped him from raising a family, though—or working a small farm, or serving as an inspiration to all who knew him. We extend our gratitude and prayers to his wife, Frances, and his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

News from the Swamp...

On the Hill, the big news this week was Tom DeLay's resignation after having served 11 terms in the House. DeLay reasoned that his continuing legal problems in Texas could overshadow the larger Republican effort at the polls and decided that now was the time to walk away. "Because I care so deeply about this district and the people in it, I refuse to allow liberal Democrats an opportunity to steal this seat with a negative personal campaign," DeLay said in a farewell statement.

DeLay's diminished political fortunes are the result of a vendetta-like investigation by Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle. Earle has used any and all means at his disposal, some of questionable legality, in his attempt to pin corruption and money laundering charges on DeLay linked to his role in the redistricting of the Texas congressional map in 2004. Another thorn in DeLay's side has been the guilty pleas obtained from his former press secretary Michael Scanlon and from Tony Rudy, a former deputy chief of staff in DeLay's office. Both pleas are related to the wider Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal and have emboldened investigators seeking to prove that Abramoff's corruption reached into the offices of elected officials. Democrats are making a lot of hay over the so-called Republican culture of corruption, but so far Rudy and Scanlon are the end of the line in the probe.

In the House, Majority Leader John Boehner is facing the first major test of his leadership as he tries to muster support for a budget resolution for the next fiscal year. Every Democrat in the House is set to vote against the resolution, so Boehner must rally Republicans from two competing camps: the spendaholics and the spendthrifts. "Moderate" Republicans want more money for education and health programs, and conservatives, led by Mike Pence and the Republican Study Committee, want true spending reform. This includes a presidential line-item veto, a committee to investigate outdated government programs and rules changes that will end abusive pork-barrel spending. Naturally, that last item is the sticking point for many legislators on both sides of the aisle, assuming it would pass Constitutional muster.

New and notable legislation: The House voted along party lines to place caps on the money individuals can contribute to 527s. Hoping to curb the influence of George Soros and his ilk, this new legislation would limit donors to $5,000 per year in giving to any organization that seeks to affect a candidate. The controversial move again brings the deservedly maligned McCain-Feingold "incumbent protection" act into the debate. Rather than tinkering with this awful bill after the fact by further regulating Internet publications like The Patriot, and 527s, legislators should use their energy to repeal McCain-Feingold outright.

From the Left...

"President Bush authorized White House official Lewis 'Scooter' Libby to disclose highly sensitive intelligence information to the news media in an attempt to discredit a CIA adviser whose views undermined the rationale for the invasion of Iraq..." That is how the lead story in The Washington Post framed it this morning, and the rest of the Leftmedia is following suit. Libby was investigated after being accused of exposing the identity of "covert CIA operative Valerie Plame," whose husband, Joseph Wilson, went to press to discredit the assertion that Saddam was attempting to develop nuclear WMD. Plame was not covert and Libby was not indicted on that charge.

Of course, both Plame and Wilson are covert operatives for the Left.

Without rehashing all of that brouhaha, it is fully within the prerogative of the President of the United States to authorize the release of a measure of classified information to the public—in this case, to offset the Leftmedia's obfuscation of our national security objectives in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Democrats and their Leftmedia minions have calculated that most Americans are too dullard to make the distinction between "authorized disclosure" and "leak".

There is a significant difference between the President authorizing the disclosure of information in support of our national security objectives, and the illegal leak of classified information by traitors endeavoring to undermine U.S. national security. But, the Democrats and their Leftmedia minions have calculated that most Americans are too dullard to make this distinction.

Here is the spin from Rep. Jane Harman, the senior Demo on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: "If the disclosure is true, it's breathtaking. The president is revealed as the leaker-in-chief." You will be hearing many variants on that theme in the next week.

You will note that both The Washington Post and Harman use the word "disclosure" rather than "leak" —but hope you won't notice.

On the National Security front...

Despite experts' claims of rough sailing in Congress, the Bush administration's nuclear deal with India presented this week by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House International Relations Committee promised a smoother trip. Even Senators John Kerry and Joe Biden voiced tentative support for the deal, leading Rice to assure her interlocutors that New Delhi would comply with nonproliferation standards and inspections of its civilian nuclear facilities.

The India deal deserves the bipartisan support it's beginning to receive, and, if approved, will go down as one of the major foreign-policy achievements of this administration for at least two reasons. First, India's rapidly industrializing economy is thirsty for oil, which is destined to drive high prices even higher in the future. India's expanded reliance on nuclear energy serves everyone's interest in this respect. Second, and most obvious, bringing historically neutral India closer to the U.S. security camp means that New Delhi can serve as an effective regional counterweight to Communist China. India isn't a rogue state or a weapons proliferator, and the sooner Congress acts to revise U.S. obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to accommodate the Indian initiative, the better U.S. interests will be served.

From the warfront with Jihadistan...

Also this week, Secretary Rice and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw traveled to Iraq to urge a resolution to the country's impasse over the formation of a government. The two discretely pressed for the withdrawal of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who is opposed by Sunnis and Kurds and has been unable to form a government given that opposition. "There are two parts to this process: One is to nominate, and the other is that the person has to be able to form a government of national unity," Sec. Rice concluded. "Thus far, Jaafari has not been able to do that."

Fracture lines are beginning to show in the nation's dominant Shi'ite political bloc. The Shi'ite majority faction is publicly calling for al-Jaafari to resign. Of continuing concern, however, is the fact that al-Jaafari is backed by renegade cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who has already demonstrated a readiness to employ his Mahdi Army militia for political ends. A true fracture of Iraq's several Shi'ite factions, each backed by private militias, would mean a major change in the landscape of Iraqi politics. Positively, if successfully channeled by Rice, Straw and Iraq's centrist politicians, such a breakup holds the possibility of redefining the country's politics along a line other than the endemic Shi'ite-Sunni divide.

On the Homeland Security front...

In too many ways, the immigration issue continues to be flummoxing. Take, for instance, the U.S. decision to cooperate with China in returning up to 39,000 Chinese illegals currently in the U.S. In a major about-face from Beijing's standing policy of non-repatriation, Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao now says "China is willing to receive the repatriation of illegal immigrants." DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff sees the agreement as a deterrent to other, would-be illegal entrants. This all raises the question, however, of why the U.S. is cooperating with China on this issue. Unless they've entered this country for criminal purposes, are these 39,000 Chinese not entitled to hearings for political asylum? Somehow, we think more than repatriation may await them upon returning home.

From the "Department of Military Readiness"...

You can purchase Shield of Strength tags (like those we are shipping to our Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan) for yourself, family and friends! Give the perfect gift for any American Patriot, especially those standing in harm's way and the families awaiting their safe return.

Monday, 9 April, is Iraqi Liberation Day—the third anniversary of the toppling of Saddam Hussein's torturous regime and the day that launched the people of Iraq down the challenging road toward freedom, democracy and self-sufficiency. In recognition of that anniversary, Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission released the following statement, which concludes by taking the Leftmedia to task for its portrayal of Operation Iraqi Freedom: "Although many of our families have made the ultimate sacrifice in the War on Terror, we remain steadfast in our commitment to defeating terrorists throughout the world and completing the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. We remain vigilant knowing that our own security is at risk until the terrorists are defeated. While many of us await the return of loved ones abroad, we are reminded that our military comprises compassionate, volunteer warriors dedicated to finishing the job. As democracy takes root, we have witnessed more Middle Eastern men and women vote in free and fair elections in the last 12 months than in the last 6,000 years. Our troops understand this tenuous democracy abroad is paramount to our security at home. Sadly, the national media focuses on the difficulties and glosses over the achievements that our soldiers and the Iraqi people have accomplished together."

To our fellow Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, we say "Thank You!" We would also petition our Patriot readers to please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm's way around the world in defense of our liberty, and for the families awaiting their safe return.

This week's "Braying Jacque-ass" award:

"We will defeat Al Qaeda faster when we stop serving as its best recruitment tool. Iraqis ultimately will not tolerate foreign jihadists on their soil, and the United States will be able to maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence with rapid-response capacity. An exit from Iraq will also strengthen our hand in dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat and allow us to repair the damage of repeated deployments... For three years now, the administration has told us that terrible things will happen if we get tough with the Iraqis. In fact, terrible things are happening now because we haven't gotten tough enough."—John French Kerry!, clearly dreaming of a "last helicopter out of Baghdad" moment

Judicial Benchmarks...

Our justice system must have the flexibility to deal with the terrorist threat.

In the halls of justice on the right, the Supreme Court gave the Bush administration a victory this week by refusing to hear the case of al-Qa'ida dirty-bomber suspect Jose Padilla, who claims he was being detained unjustly. The administration's detaining of terror suspects has come under attack in courts across the country from liberal lawyers who would rather see terrorists treated like jaywalkers than the enemy combatants they truly are. If they had their way, Zacarias Moussaoui would probably be waging jihad against us today, rather than facing the death penalty. Moussaoui's admission in court that he was assigned to fly a plane into the White House on September 11th and that he lied to law enforcement about his knowledge of the attack is further proof that the enemy is still among us. Vigilance in daily life is not enough to protect us from further attack. Our courts and our justice system, while protecting the rights of American citizens, must also have the flexibility necessary to deal with an ongoing terrorist threat.

Improve your golf game and 'Tee off a Liberal' at the same time with a sleeve of 3 or a boxed dozen quality Top Flite golf balls! For these and other high-quality American-made gift items sure to please any Patriot, link to PatriotShop.US

This week's "Braying Jackass" award:

"I am one of the least partisan members of the United States Senate by all accounts." —Russ Feingold

Regarding the redistribution of your income...

A bill slated to be signed by Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney makes mandatory that Bay Staters carry health insurance, either through their employer or state-subsidized private insurers. An estimated 550,000 in Massachusetts live without health coverage.

Scofflaws face additional taxes possibly exceeding $1,000 with the state canceling personal tax exemptions and incurring a fine covering part of the policy cost. Non-complying businesses would be charged $295 per uncovered worker. Still to be determined is whether these penalties go to the state insurance fund or are spent elsewhere in state government, now fondly known as the "Big Hole." Gov. Romney, considered a leader for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, enthusiastically supports the bill. Once it takes effect in July, 2007, the cost is projected as $316 million in the first year, and the thought that this might be a lowball number hasn't even crossed our minds.

From the "Non Compos Mentis" Files...

Ted Turner got lowest honors last week at The Media Research Center's annual DisHonors Awards Gala, winning the "Aaron Brown Memorial Award for Stupidest Analysis" in a CNN interview The Patriot highlighted last September. Turner had just returned from a "diplomatic" visit to North Korea and wanted to share his insights with Wolf Blitzer: "I had a great time. I am absolutely convinced that the North Koreans are absolutely sincere. There's really no reason ahhh... no reason for them to ahhh... cheat or do anything to violate this very forward agreement [not to develop nuclear weapons]. I looked them right in the eyes and ahhh... and they looked like they ahhh... they meant the truth. I mean, you know, just because somebody has done something wrong in the past doesn't mean they can't ahhh... do right in the future or in the present. That happens all the, all the time."

"I am absolutely convinced that the North Koreans are absolutely sincere." —Ted Turner

Blitzer reminded Turner, "This is one of the most despotic regimes and Kim Jong-Il is one of the worst men on Earth. Isn't that a fair assessment?" Turner, a bit miffed at this challenge, replied, "Well, I didn't get to meet him, but ahhh... he didn't look ahhh... in the pictures that I've seen of him on CNN, he didn't look ahhh... look too much different than most other people I've met." Blitzer retorted, "But look at the way he's treating his own people." To which Turner countered, "Well, hey, listen, I saw a lot of people over there. They were thin and they were riding bicycles, instead of driving in cars, but..." Blitzer then interrupted: "A lot of those people are starving," leaving Turner to conclude, "I didn't see any brutality in the capital or out in the—on the DMZ. We should give them another chance. It doesn't cost us anything."

Other notable awards: MSNBC's Chris Matthews did a double-dip, taking home both the "Slam Uncle Sam" award for calling Jane Fonda's infamous embrace of our North Vietnamese enemy "objective," and the Cindy Sheehan "Media Hero" award for encouraging Sheehan to run for Congress. Also of note was Rosie O'Donnell, who won the "I'm Not a Political Genius But I Play One on TV" award for calling President Bush a war criminal.

From the Leftmedia...

In CBS's unwavering commitment to restore credibility to its evening newscast, the network has recruited NBC's Today host Katie "Perky Chick" Couric to succeed Dan "Fake-But-Accurate" Rather, though Bob Schieffer has been warming the seat for her. As testimony to Katie's commitment to objective and unbiased coverage of the news, The Patriot has assembled just a tiny sampling of her more notable journalistic moments over the years:

"Let's talk a little bit more about the right wing because I know that's something you feel very strongly about. But this is actually not necessarily about the right wing, but perhaps a climate that some say has been established by religious zealots or Christian conservatives... I just would like you to reflect on whether you feel people in this country are increasingly intolerant, mean-spirited, et cetera, and what, if anything, can be done about that because a lot of people get very discouraged when they hear and see this kind of brutality taking place." —Couric to former Texas Gov. Ann Richards while hosting a 92nd Street Y appearance in New York City, 3 March 1999

"Time magazine's 'Person of the Year' issue hits news stands today and this year it honors the American soldier... I was so, I have to say, just personally, I was so pleased to see this... Tell me why you all decided to honor the American soldier? Wondering why there's no woman on the cover, too?" —Couric to Time's managing editor, Jim Kelly, 22 December 2003. Kelly then pointed to the cover, featuring three U.S. soldiers, and responded, "This is a woman." "Oh, there you go, oh sorry... I couldn't tell because of her helmet," Couric replied.

"It's ridiculous. I had to take out a loan to fill up my minivan. It's crazy." —Couric on NBC's Today, 15 August 2005. At the time, Couric was raking in about $15,000,000 a year.

Support the 2006 Patriot Fund (CLICK HERE)

From the "Village Academic Curriculum" File...

Does the earth have too many humans? One Texas Longhorn thinks so. UT professor Eric Pianka recently made two speeches declaring that the earth would be better off with about ten percent of its current population—logically necessitating the deaths of 5.5 billion people. He promoted airborne Ebola virus for the task, although he conceded, "[B]ird flu's good, too." He claims that people are "no better than bacteria" in their reproduction rate. "I've found that it takes courage to tell people what they don't want to know," Pianka says. "Courage" apparently is not the right word in this case, considering that Pianka is busy publicly backpedaling and blaming misunderstanding and further claiming that he has passion for life and is not "pro-death." Indeed, he says his daughters are now worried about his and their safety—because of "right-wing fools." Of course, these hypocritical over-population snake-oil prophets rarely display the "courage" of their convictions, else he'd be first to lead the depopulation effort.

Around the nation...

From the states, Maryland Democrats are afraid that—gasp!—as many as 44 percent of blacks might vote for a black Republican! They are scrambling to "knock [Senate candidate Michael] Steele down" [read: politics of personal destruction] to avoid this calamity. "It confirms that...everyone expects us to do more than just rest on history," Demo Party Executive Director Derek Walker said. "We knew we were going to have to engage. But we also know it will be easier for us to forge that relationship because we're right on the issues." We, on the other hand, hope that Maryland's blacks will lead the nation in thinking for themselves rather than continuing to follow their Demo shepherds blindly.

On the frontiers of junk science...

Easter typically evokes the need of some in the sciences to try to debunk biblical stories and de-deify Jesus Christ. This year, it's the story of Jesus walking on water, which was actually floating ice, according to some Israeli and U.S. scientists, at least one of which is a self-described "non-religious Jew." You may ask, how did water freeze in the Sea of Galilee? During one of two protracted cold spells 1,500 to 2,500 years ago, they explain. Other details abound, though this seems more like political science to us. One might wonder when science—which tells us by its own methods that it can only deal with the observable world—will stop meddling in the realm of faith. Scientific method notwithstanding, some scientists act as if they can walk on water.



Blog | Join the Debate

Useful Links: Reprint Policy, Privacy Policy

Around the world...

Is Red China approaching a tipping point? China typically receives glowing praise in the Leftmedia for its growing economy, now the world's fourth largest, and for improving its living standard. But life in the Workers' Paradise may not be as rosy as reported by the MSM, according to Minxin Pei in Foreign Policy. The Chinese government accounts for 38 percent of China's GDP, compared to 28 percent in the U.S. (which is itself far too high). Furthermore, it controls over half the country's industrial assets and one third of the employees. With government corruption widespread and unpunished, China's economy will likely start showing the detrimental effects of state control. Toss in the third worst healthcare system in the world, social inequalities and no conservation safeguards, and it would appear that China is heading for economic and civil instability. Together with the Middle Kingdom's massive military buildup, these developments require the U.S. to keep this region under sharp scrutiny.

And last...

It seems that Rep. Cynthia McKinney, who may soon face charges for her assault on a Capitol Hill police officer, isn't the only Democrat who's prone to fits of uncontrolled violence. Ada Smith, a New York state senator from Queens, is set to appear in court on charges of assaulting an aide. Ms. Smith, fresh from a Weight Watchers meeting, was touting her shedding of four whole pounds when the aide dared suggest that the senator might have lost more given her active lifestyle—a compliment, by some counts. Not to Smith, however, who promptly threw hot coffee in the aide's face. Much like McKinney, Smith has a history of acting out Jerry Springer plot lines, including everything from racist verbal assaults, to attacking a guest at a wedding party with a garbage-can lid, to threatening a former chief of staff with a meat cleaver, to—we kid you not—biting a police officer's hand and having to be subdued with mace!

All of this invariably leads us to wonder: When asked for identification by the police, should our elected officials respond by punching, slapping or biting? And when will HBO take over for C-SPAN?

Lex et Libertas—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for the editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm's way around the world, and for their families, especially those of our fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty while prosecuting the war with Jihadistan.)