I read a couple articles this morning that typefy all that’s wrong with the Democratic Party. Here’s a glimpse into the first article:

“To me, this is not really and should not be a partisan question,” Dean told the panel. “I think it’s a question of institutional pride of this body, of the Congress of the United States.” He added in prepared testimony that if Congress doesn’t have the stomach for Feingold’s resolution as drafted, it should pass some measure serving Bush a warning. “The resolution should be amended, not defeated, because the president needs to be reminded that separation of powers does not mean an isolation of powers,” Dean said in prepared remarks.

It’s amazing that Democrats are so desparate to prove Bush broke the law that they’re calling on a convicted felon with a notorious axe to grind against conservatives to verify their beliefs. Mr. Dean’s assertions weren’t based in fact but rather on general platitudes that might be summed up as saying ‘Congress should have a say in this’.

If he tried arguing that to the Supreme Court, he’d be laughed out in 10 minutes. I watched him read his prepared statement this afternoon on C-SPAN2 and found it to be totally uninspiring to the point of being boring and inconsequential.

Here’s something from the second article:

Sen. Joe Lieberman’s strong stand on national security has so rankled some fellow Democrats that they actually booed him at a political dinner on Thursday night. The rude response to his speech came even as he was being endorsed by popular Sen. Barack Obama. Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is considered a rising star in the party, was the keynote speaker at the annual Jefferson Jackson Bailey Dinner in Hartford.

(continue reading post »)

On Wednesday, Democrats unveiled their ‘comprehensive’ security plan, showing that they could be tough on terror, despite their past record. However, it appears as though Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) didn’t get the memo, as today he continued to push his resolution calling for censuring President Bush. With the Democrats recent decision to be tough on terror, now dedicated to “eliminating Osama”, the majority of Democrats did not follow Feingold as he went before the Senate Judiciary committee to espouse his usual rhetoric.

Under the Bush administration, Mr. Feingold said, “we no longer have a constitutional system consisting of three co-equal branches of government. We have a monarchy.” While the use of monarchy is certainly “tough”, it is inaccurate and wrong on the specifics (much like the overall democrat plan on being “tough” on security). Furthermore, Mr. Feingold seems to be ignoring the fact that several members of the senate had been briefed on the controversial wire-tap program. The United States Senate is, of course, a part of the Legislative branch of goverment. Thus, his implication that President Bush and the Executive branch is seizing power from those that are meant to balance it is inaccurate.

Several republicans on committee spoke out against the resolution, including Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who said the resolution was “without merit”, and that “I believe that the American people would view what we are about here as part of the surreal atmosphere that they believe, and sometimes correctly so, is completely out of touch with the rest of the United States.” In regards to Mr. Feingold’s resolution, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said “it has the potential to send abroad throughout the terrorist community and to those who are watching our resolve around the world a very perverse and false message.”

Russ Feingold’s resolution is not only irresponsible, it represents a clear contradiction to the democrat’s strategy against terror, and I am surprised that Democrats are not speaking out against him. While the democrats now are committed to eliminating Osama Bin-Laden, Feingold is arguing against the very tactics that may help to find him.

Cross-posted at The Gentle Cricket

RELATED:
Russ FeinGOLD: 24 solid karat or fool’s gold?

S.F. Business Times reports: “Wells Fargo said Wednesday that it’s the first financial institution to accept Colombia’s Consular Registry Card as one of the valid forms of primary identification for new account openings and over-the-counter customer transactions.”

As many know, Columbia is also a great provider of “under-the-counter” transactions. Mostly small white bags.

The San Francisco bank (NYSE: WFC) pioneered the acceptance of such identity cards. It was the first to accept the Mexican matricula card in 2001 for such purposes, now a common industry practice. Wells was also the first bank in 2002 to accept the Guatemalan and Argentinean consular cards as valid identification.

Wells Fargo has opened more than 750,000 accounts for customers using a consular identification card from Mexico, Guatemala or Argentina. “

How can we have a serious national debate about the problems with immigration, when businesses are busy embracing illegals?

That’s called a conflict of interest.

Problems with the matricula cards are well-documented. (Pun intended)

RELATED:
BusinessWeek: “Embracing Illegal Immigrants”
– Because They Buy Stuff, Too
Nuestro Banco, Opening In Our Country
Wachovia Bank Offering Statements In Spanish-Only
Case Study: Bad Business Practices –
Wells Fargo And Appeasing Liberal Activists

UPDATE: (2/13/07)
Michelle Malkin: “Bank of Illegal Aliens in America”

In a hurry? No time for security checks? No need to slap your way out of a bad situation. Just reach for the…

(Courtesy of LindaSoG)

AP reports: “A lawyer for Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the Georgia congresswoman who had an altercation with a Capitol Police officer, says she was “just a victim of being in Congress while black.”

McKinney awaited word Friday on whether she would be charged for apparently striking the officer after she entered a House office building this week unrecognized and did not stop when asked.

Two law enforcement officials said it was unlikely a warrant would be issued this week. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Her lawyer, James W. Myart Jr., said, “Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, like thousands of average Americans across this country, is, too, a victim of the excessive use of force by law enforcement officials because of how she looks and the color of her skin.”

“Ms. McKinney is just a victim of being in Congress while black,” Myart said.

Isn’t that like saying an illegal alien is just a victim of being in America while Mexican? No comprende.

Can’t we just all get along — and obey the law?

UPDATE: (4/3)
SisterToldjah: “McKinney Makes Statement on Altercation”
Wizbang: “McKinney Supporter — She Was Setup”
SuitablyFlip: “Cynthia McKinney — Clueless”

UPDATE:
Ace of Spades grabs an exclusive: the actual charges to be filed against Cynthia McKinney.
Allahpundit has video.

Students and supporters of immigrant rights yell during a rally in front of the New Jersey Statehouse in Trenton yesterday in support of proposed state and federal legislation that would allow some immigrant children without legal U.S. residency to attend state colleges and universities at in-state tuition rates. (AP)

It’s called the DREAM Act, and for taxpayers it shoud be called a nightmare. Our public schools already have enough problems. We don’t need to add to them.

John Hawkins is rightfully dismayed:

“We’ve now gotten to the point where non-Americans, who are in the country illegally, are out in public, demanding, in Spanish, that they be given things. Meanwhile, we have plenty of politicians in Washington and across the country, from both parties, who believe we should cater to these people instead of deporting them in accordance with the law.”

GatewayPundit has much more.

RELATED:
Is It ‘Amnesty’ or ‘Earned Citizenship’?

Technorati Tags: Los Angeles, Immigration, Illegal Aliens, Special Interests, Mexico

The one good thing to come out of the Los Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD) Joint Commission on LAUSD Governance this week was meeting parents, teachers, and business leaders who want alternatives like vouchers and charters as much as I do.

Each of them testified to LAUSD’s terminal failures. The only dissenting voice was that of School Board member Jon Lauritzen who, after listening to the uninterrupted evidence of LAUSD’s institutional retardation, had the gall to request a $100,000 raise AND an end to term limits. Talk about cajones!

As a career criminal investigator, I testified that no organized criminal enterprise has harmed more children in America than the LAUSD, and that it was pointless to buy new drapes for their sinking ship. Until charter schools and vouchers replace LAUSD control, millions of school children risk the intellectual vandalism that has been forced upon generations of children before them.

Little has changed since Democrats created Jim Crow to undermine the teaching of black children. More than half of all black males in the 9th grade today will drop out of school. LAUSD does today what Jim Crow did to blacks 70 years ago.

As a career cop, I’ve seen commissions come and go. Commissions have only two purposes:

1. They provide a venue where politicians and bureaucrats pretend to care about public concerns, and
2. They make new politicians look more impressive than they really are, i.e., the Mayor appointed me to this committee and that commission.

The difference between commission appointments and merit badges is that Girl Scouts usually have something to show for their effort.

The highlight of the evening came when I confronted The Beast herself, Board member Julie Korenstein. I met her a few weeks ago at a Valley Vote meeting when I asked her about LAUSD’s unusually high drop-out rates. Outdoing Lauritzen’s chutzpa, she insulted her audience AND Latinos by saying that many weren’t really dropping out, but were probably returning to Mexico after receiving their education. No one asked whether she thought the high number of black drop-outs were returning to Africa.

When the meeting finally ended, The Beast asked, “Are you running for office?”

I ignored the question and reminded her that if we divided LAUSD’s $13.4 Billion budget into 727,000 students we’d have about $18,000 to spend on each student.

She disputed the budget number and I told her where she could find LAUSD’s budget link on my education paper. I checked the next day to find that someone had killed the link. (I found and saved this one.)

The Beast rationalized that children only get $7000 of the $18,000 and the rest goes to building schools (like the Belmont Learning Center — more drapes for the sinking ship).

When I brought up the subject of vouchers, she said she opposed them because she didn’t want her tax dollars to go to Jewish, Catholic, or Islamic Schools. When I asked about the overwhelming majority of Jews, Christians, and Muslims who didn’t want their tax dollars wasted on what Harvard University calls LAUSD’s dropout factories, The Beast said they could pay extra for private schools.
(continue reading post »)

Appearing in today’s edition of FrontPageMag, William R. Hawkins writes:

Prominent on display at demonstrations around the country supporting illegal immigration has been the flag of Mexico. The last time demonstrators waved the flag of a foreign government in American streets on such a scale was during the Vietnam War when New Leftists were championing the cause of North Vietnam against the United States. Those street people were mainly mush-brained college students whose ignorance of world affairs allowed them to be manipulated by their Marxist professors. This time is different. The protesters are not just advocating a foreign cause, they are part of it. Most of the Latino students boycotting classes in California and elsewhere should not be in those classes to begin with, since they have no legal right to even be in the United States. Indeed, their enrollment has generated a financial drain on state and local budgets across the country.

When the demonstrations started, I was in England. Media coverage there combined the marches in the U.S. with the student protests in France over labor reform. Again, the symbolism harkened back to the chaos of May 1968 when student and labor union violence almost collapsed the government of Charles DeGaulle. Aging radicals on both sides of the Atlantic wish to recapture the dark chaos of the 1960s.

The United Kingdom has its own illegal immigration problems. On March 25, a Chinese gang leader was found guilty of the manslaughter of 21 Chinese illegal immigrants who drowned in Morecambe Bay two years ago while harvesting shellfish at night. I watched with a mixture of amusement and outrage as a self-styled spokesman for the Chinese community claimed that the British Home Secretary should have been the one indicted because immigration laws “forced” illegals to work under hazardous condition because they cannot work in the open. A dapper British businessman then argued for dropping the term “illegal” in favor of “economic immigrant” so that firms could have a ready supply of cheap labor.

These arguments are heard here too. But what may be “cheap” for a company can be very expensive for the larger society. Some 40 percent of the inmates in California prisons are illegal aliens, who saw America as the land of opportunity for criminal pursuits. Our de facto “open borders” policy cannot discriminate between those whose ambitions are honest or dishonest. And no new system can solve this problem if it is still possible to get into America and survive outside the parameters of the law. Truly effective border security is the pre-requisite for any system of legal immigration.

It is the prevention of border security that motivates both the street protests and the Mexican government which is helping to orchestrate them. The timing of the protests is not just connected with legislation in the U.S. Congress, whose deliberations are long and convoluted. The more direct link is to the summit between President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vincente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Cancun March 30-31. Mr. Fox has activated his fifth column in America as a diplomatic weapon. He has been aided by a network of Spanish-language radio stations and newspapers, elements in the Catholic Church and the usual variety of left-wing “civil rights” groups like the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU. This movement poses a threat to U.S. security and sovereignty that makes even the risk of terrorist infiltration across the southern border pale in significance. [Emphasis ours]

Read the rest of this excellent essay.

In an attempt to turn the tide of public perception that Democrats are weak on national security issues, Democrat leaders issued a national security policy statement. Hoping to strike fear in the hearts of terrorists everywhere and inspire voters in the midterm election, they promised a fresh approach, “one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security,” as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi stated. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid echoed this sentiment, saying, “We need a new direction on national security, and leaders with policies that are tough and smart. That is what Democrats offer.”

Sounds pretty good so far. What do they propose? Well, that’s where there’s a teeny problem. See, they don’t offer specifics. They say they want to capture Osama bin Laden, but they don’t say how. They do, however, suggest they will double the number of special forces and add more spies to the payroll.

And what do they suggest for Iraq? They want a troop withdrawal, but they don’t say when they want it done. But they do say, “We will ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for security and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U. S. forces.”

Gee. I feel safer already.

Guys, there’s a reason why Democrats are seen as weak on national security. It’s because they are weak on national security! Top to bottom, Democrats have been openly hostile towards our military and national security for decades, and that’s not something that can be overcome with a policy statement. Especially considering their actions speak more loudly than that statement.

Throughout the 80s, which party opposed Ronald Reagan’s attempts to beef up the military to defeat the Soviet Union, which would have made us safer? (continue reading post »)

The immigration debate that we’re having is the wrong debate for Republicans to be having. What I’m proposing instead is something that’s both politically intelligent and good policy towards Mexico.

Here’s what the GOP immigration policy should include:

1. Building a wall to keep illegal immigrants out. We simply can’t have people getting into this country unchecked. This isn’t controversial with the Hispanic community in general and it just makes too much sense.

2. Fine businesses that hire illegal aliens on a progressive scale. Their first infraction should get their undivided attention. Their second infraction should hurt them. Their third infraction should cripple their business.

3. This is the first proactive facet of the policy. It’s both sensible and defensible. We should be encouraging Mexicans to be voting only for politicians who want to make Mexico’s economy work. Anything short of that shouldn’t be tolerated. This is something that President Bush should make the cornerstone of American policy toward Mexico going forward.

4. Working with Vicente Fox, we should establish a goal of eliminating the Mexican drug lords within a 5 year window. Last night, Newt Gingrich told about the sheriff of Neuvo Laredo resigning after just 8 months on the job. Here’s how the Houston Chronicle reported his resignation:

“Everything is fine; everything turned out well,” Pimentel said in an interview Thursday, reflecting on his tenure as top cop in one of Mexico’s most violent cities. “I’m leaving with my head held high.”

His predecessor was gunned down hours after taking office, victim of a turf war between rival drug cartels that continued unabated during Pimentel’s watch, leaving at least 57 dead in Nuevo Laredo this year alone.

The proven ability of the cartels to kill and intimidate people in law enforcement, local government and the news media has left Nuevo Laredo a place of fun-house mirrors, where the ordinary meanings of civic life are continually distorted.

If law enforcement is intimidated by the drug cartels, how can we be surprised that people want out of Mexico? What chance do they have against well-funded, well-armed cartel militias?

Establishing a strike force along the lines of Special Forces would go a long way towards cleaning up Mexico’s terrorist-induced instability.

Here’s why this will help all parties involved:
(continue reading post »)

Another Wednesday, another night of counter-protesting.

This Wednesday, the hippies were there with their signs: “Lies Kill”; “Iraq is an Arab Vietnam”; “Bring Them Home Now”; “SC Against the War”; “Make levees, not War”. Yawn…

I’m proud of my girls who love standing up for their daddy and their country. As we walked up in front of the state building, we were greeted by a soldier in his BDUs, an MP from Ft. Jackson who happened to be passing by. He shook our hands and thanked us for the support and told us that he saw the war protesters next to us and was sickened and angered. No surprise, soldiers do not feel supported by the “bring them home now” crowd. Maybe it’s the constant criticism of the job they do in Iraq and Afghanistan, or maybe its because these are the same hippies who spat on returning Vietnam soldiers in the 70’s.. at any rate, he did feel supported and appreciated by us, he didn’t by the anti-war protesters. This is one of the reasons we do this: to make any soldier who passes by the peaceniks during rush hour feel cared about despite these protesters. (continue reading post »)