Upside-down flag, US in distress.

This is supposed to make me understand that rampant illegal immigration is not a problem and that our porous borders should stay that way? Hundreds of thousands of protestors have hit the streets recently to protest the Government’s “racist” attempts to uphold the laws of our nation, that being the United States, not Mexico, BTW. Apparently many are more supportive of Mexico than of the United States. For my part I plan to patrol the New Mexico border in April as part of the Minute Man Project.

You really can’t get less than around 5% unemployment. People will voluntarily leave the job market for a variety of reasons such as to go back to school or spend more time with the family. Since we are at or very near full employment I support legal immigration to fill jobs that obviously need filling. Key word here is legal. I want to know who is coming in and that they will be an asset and not a burden. Those who wish to exploit illegal immigrants, be they businesses or political entities like MEChA that wish to swell their numbers and therefore their power make me sick. As legal immigrants many Mexican workers would have a far better life than they do when marginalized by their illegal status. They would be better compensated for their labor. They would be protected the same as any American worker by the many labor friendly policies the Government has such as OSHA standards and such. They would not have to fear seeking police or other law enforcement protection. Yet the very people who claim to be advocates for Mexican workers are the ones that want to keep them illegal. Who are the real racists here?

That is not the reason I became a Minuteman however. I want secure borders because in today’s terrorist environment to not have secure borders is stupid and suicidal. Yet those people who are champions of the downtrodden Mexican laborer seem to have no problem with letting terrorist stroll across the border and maybe bomb L.A. Again, if it will increase their political power they don’t seem too concerned. Let me end with a warning to pandering politicians, many Hispanics besides me don’t favor open borders because many Hispanics are loyal Americans and realize the dangers open borders pose to our country.

Put your lives in the left's hands.

There are two very good articles in National Review Online today that, while focused on two different stories, when in juxtaposition highlight the left’s dangerous stand when it comes to national security and the war on terror. The first article by Byron York focuses on a secret FISA Court of Review. The Court of Review is a process that allows parties to appeal decisions made by the FICA Court. After the Patriot Act was passed tearing down Janet Reno’s wall keeping police agencies from cooperating with intelligence agencies the FICA Court attempted to in effect keep the wall up. The result of the review:

In its opinion, the Court of Review said the FISA Court had, in effect, attempted to unilaterally impose the old 1995 rules. "In doing so, the FISA Court erred," the ruling read. "It did not provide any constitutional basis for its action — we think there is none — and misconstrued the main statutory provision on which it relied." The FISA Court, according to the ruling, "refus[ed] to consider the legal significance of the Patriot Act's crucial amendments" and "may well have exceeded the constitutional bounds" governing the courts by asserting "authority to govern the internal organization and investigative procedures of the Department of Justice."

This is the FISA court that the left wants to hand over authority for war time surveillance to. Beyond that:

And then the Court of Review did one more thing, something that has repercussions in today's surveillance controversy. Not only could the FISA Court not tell the president how do to his work, the Court of Review said, but the president also had the "inherent authority" under the Constitution to conduct needed surveillance without obtaining any warrant — from the FISA Court or anyone else. Referring to an earlier case, known as Truong, which dealt with surveillance before FISA was passed, the Court of Review wrote: "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

I don’t believe that in the CYA climate that we live in any politician is going to do anything without the approval of a host of lawyers. Yet the left believes that any lie repeated often enough will be believed. Now First Amendment killer Feingold is trying to censure the President over the “illegal wire taps”:

When the President of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable.

BTW how did he vote on the Clinton impeachment? No one is attempting to make the case that Clinton didn’t break the law. Anyway the second article by James S. Robbins discusses the brilliant effort by Al Qaeda to stage a Tet like attack on the American and British embassies in the Green Zone. He notes:

Imagine news coverage of al Qaeda fighters in the American embassy. The story line would be irresistible — Tet Offensive, the Sequel. The press is already fixated on comparing the Iraq war to Vietnam, despite the numerous and significant differences. An attack like this, a surprise urban guerilla assault on a key symbol of American power, would immediately be cast as a replay of the January 31, 1968, Viet Cong attack on the U.S. embassy in Saigon.

Tet was a military failure as was the attack on the American Embassy, one small battle of the offensive. Nevertheless it was the beginning of the end of American support for South Vietnam. Al Qaeda well knows this as Robbins points out:

Prussian military theorist Karl von Clausewitz famously posited a “trinity” essential for the successful prosecution of war — synchronization between three necessary elements; the fighting forces, the political leadership, and the national will. The terrorists realize they cannot defeat our military, nor sway our (current) leaders, so they seek to strike at our only vulnerability, our national commitment to continue to prosecute the struggle.

Just as North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap credits people like John Kerry with his victory over America, so does Al Qaeda recognize the value of people like, well, John Kerry in their effort to win in Iraq and in the WOT in general.

What is exactly at work here? Is the left so anti-American, anti-military, or anti-Bush that they will undercut the WOT at every turn? Is it just a path back into power? They were supposed to outline their positions on nation policy back in November and still haven’t done so. Is their only position that Bush is always wrong, with no alternatives of their own? Shall we trust them with our security, our lives and the lives of our loved ones? I know I’m preaching to the choir here but why is this so difficult for others to see? My only conclusion is that the “repeat a lie” theory works, especially if you have a biased MSM as your propaganda tool.

The Iranian war.

Pamela at Atlas Shrugs posted on how we’ve been at war with Iran since October 2001. She points to a Weekly Standard article on how Iran secretly agreed to assist the Taliban in it’s war with America. I’ve been saying this for years. The first Declaration of War was the invasion of US soil in the 1979 embassy takeover. Iranian funded Hezbollah carried out the Beirut bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines. Iran supported another terror cell that in 1996 truck bombed the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. 19 Americans were killed and 372 wounded.Terrorists, including Al Qaeda, are being trained in Iran and allowed to use its border to cross into Iraq. Sadr’s rebellion was financed by Iran. Spies have been caught and confessed on videotape. Arms have been stopped at the Iran Iraq border including timers, detonators, and sophisticated explosives. Iran was probably behind the bombing of the Golden Dome. Sadr certainly has taken advantage of it.

Our response to the war has been to ignore it. We calmly accept hundreds of dead and wounded because they happen sporadically and are caused by surrogates. Also there don’t seem to be a lot of good options available. The MSM has pretty much soured the country on Iraq, another conflict with Iran would have little support. Things may be coming to a head soon however. The US will take the Iranian nuke matter to the UN Security Council. One assumes we will have Chinese and Russian backing on at least some penalties. Congress is calling for sanctions against companies or nations that invest in Iran's energy sector even though that may split the international coalition against Iranian nukes. Iran in response threatens us with higher oil prices. I would prefer a blockade of Iranian ports but if they voluntarily cut off their oil that would have the same effect. Of course it’s one thing to cut them off completely as opposed to Iran shortening the supply but the Iranian economy is already in sad shape and any further pressure will hurt them more than us. From the CIA factbook:

Iran's economy is marked by a bloated, inefficient state sector, over reliance on the oil sector, and statist policies that create major distortions throughout. Most economic activity is controlled by the state.

11.2% (2004 est.) unemployment, 40% (2002 est.) below the poverty level, 16% (2005 est.) inflation, $48.82 billion in revenue and $60.4 billion in expenditures, (2005 est.) and a public debt 27.5% of GDP (2005 est.). Higher oil prices will certainly hurt the economy but if the US sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold. Iran may price its oil to such an extent that the result could mimic the OPEC fiasco of the 70s. When the dust settled the world had responded with more exploration, more energy conservation, more investment in alternative sources and less dependence on OPEC. I would not mind that happing again, especially given that our reliance on Mid East oil is funding our enemies. Hamas will be looking to Iran to make up what aid it will lose from the US and any other counties with backbone enough to withhold aid. That will further tax Iran’s economy. Strong pressure on Iran’s economy will also strengthen opposition to the Mullahs. The senior Iranian security official that promised us "harm and pain" also said "So if the US wishes to choose that path, let the ball roll”. Yes, let the ball roll.

Test of Fire

Just as they slavered over the coming of the 2000th American death in Iraq, the MSM is breathlessly awaiting a civil war between Sunni and Shia in the wake of the Golden Mosque bombing in Samarra. When the question is asked as to who benefited from the bombing Al Qaeda and Iran come to mind, but the MSM is also riding that horse for all its worth. In a classic example of Media creating the news we have the Washington Post trumpeting its latest poll that 80% of Americans believe that a civil war is coming. Given that that is what MSM has been saying since before the smoke cleared the results are not surprising. In fact many pundits are being brought forward proclaiming that the war has already started. Words such as “low level civil war” and “continuos sectarian violence” are used to press the meme that Iraq is a lost cause. Of course the same could be said of any country that contains both Sunni and Shia populations. Where are the reports of civil war in Pakistan? I will admit that this was an extreme test of Iraq’s dedication to Democracy but I believe that instead of teetering on the brink of destruction Iraq has come through this and several positive things have come to light.

The most amazing thing I saw was that the Coalition was able to sit back and let the Iraqi Army quell the violence. Units comprised of Shia, Sunni, and Kurd did not disintegrate but instead performed well. Iraqi forces are stepping up.

Of the 435 company-level or higher operations conducted in Iraq last week, 31 percent were independent Iraqi operations, Army Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, Multinational Force Iraq spokesman, said at a news briefing.

Another surprise was that, just as in the Cartoon case, the riots were not spontaneous but rather politically motivated. Mohammed at Iraq the Model gives an eyewitness account.

As a person who lives in Baghdad I've been following the situation from the early hours after the attack; on Wednesday morning I was on my way to work when I heard the news on the radio and I began watching closely to probe the feelings of the common people. People were at work as they always are, clerks behind their desks, grocers looking after their goods and municipal workers picking trash from the streets and I haven't noticed any unusual feelings among the people I came in contact with. In general life was normal until noon in the Shia majority district of Baghdad and there were absolutely no signs of a crisis of any sort. But on my way home I saw the men in black take to the streets after Ayatollah Sistani issued his fatwa.

So…the protests were not spontaneous like clerics want us to think; in fact the only spontaneous protest was the one in Samarra itself!
I live here and I've seen the whole thing. The demonstrations in Baghdad began after the fatwa and I saw how shop keepers unwillingly closed their shops when the men in black with their arms and loudspeakers ordered them to do so "in the name of the Hawza" and I saw the sad look on the faces of people abandoning their only source of income for a time that could go indefinitely.

Calm has returned to Sammara, the spontaneous riot Mohammed refers to were Sunni’s condemning the act and calling for Iraqi unity. That was pretty much the case for most clerics and Government officials. That was pretty much the case for most Iraqis. Like its Fitzmass hopes it looks like the MSM is not going to get its civil war. Unfortunately since the American public still gets most of its news from the MSM and The Daily Show it may not matter.