If you read Wonkette, you'll probably have gotten a good laugh out of this already:

Just a few months ago, the absolute greatest threat to American Freedom was a guy slipping across the southern border to pick lettuce for a few bucks an hour so that the U.S. agriculture industry could continue to operate. (Remember, no ag industry means no massive federal farming subsidies!)

Actually, that wasnt the real issue. Mexican migrants made the news only when they had the audacity to rally for the right to legally do menial jobs in the USA.

Then some other things happened, all forgotten now, and suddenly Mexico was no longer a big deal. Theres a civil war about to break out South of the Border, and yet the liberal mainstream media doesnt seem to care.

Leave it to the Christian Grassroots Conservative movement to finally put the spotlight back on the real problem (besides Iran and France and Frank Rich). We are, of course, speaking of the Islamic Terrorists crossing the border dressed as Mexicans.

CNS News reported Monday:

The chief law enforcement officers of several Texas counties along the southern U.S. border warn that Arabic-speaking individuals are learning Spanish and integrating into Mexican culture before paying smugglers to sneak them into the United States. The Texas Sheriffs Border Coalition believes those individuals are likely terrorists and that drug cartels and some members of the Mexican military are helping them get across the border.

(CNS News is the wonderfully hysterical website run by L. Brent Bozell III, who has dedicated his life to revealing the horrific fraud known as the Main Stream Media which is three words now, because truth wants to be free.)

While the terrorists may be evil and cunning, they also seem to be retards. The Mexi-terrorists made a crucial misstep that got the attention of Texas sheriffs deputies working the border region, because the alleged terrorists have allegedly been leaving Iranian (or Arab) military uniforms and badges along the Rio Grande.

Jesus! Really? Is it time to start calling tortillas Freedom Pancakes?

Anyway, regardless of what your boss tells you to believe this week and El Presidente says Latin American immigrants deserve the chance to come here and do all the dirty jobs white kids wont do just try to imagine Washington before the Latino Invasion.

Yeah, were talking about the only Mexican food being Taco Bell and some dubious place in Alexandria selling Tex Mex food, which is about as Mexican as Frito-Lay. Were talking about no Latino markets selling delicious items you simply could not buy in D.C. even a dozen years ago. We are talking about the nannies who care for all the neglected children of the lobbyists and the members of Congress and the Senate the Latino immigrants who say te quiero to the children who will never hear I love you in English, because their parents are heartless criminals.

Texas Sheriffs Say Terrorists Entering US from Mexico [CNS News]

Hard-Line Immigration Stance Angers Some Business Groups [Wall Street Journal]

Bush's New Iraq Argument: It Could Be Worse

Finally the President seems to be getting realistic about the situation on the ground in Iraq. The transition from "unseen progress" being made - that the media was supposedly blatantly ignoring - to "Hey, it could be worse" actually is refreshing for its (long overdue) candor.

Now - what's the strategy to move forward, Mr. President? Can we move now from "Stay the Course" to something a little more . . . strategic?

A good article on Cameron, without the irritating commentary about how horrible America is:

The Boudreauxs are growing weary of the name Katrina, particularly the media’s coverage of New Orleans. Regina says, “You hear all these celebrities with Katrina this and Katrina that. They have a Katrina fund and all this stuff. I think our governor almost forgot us.”

“She’s beginning to wake up to the facts over there,” J.C. says. “We do exist. But we didn’t holler enough. We just sucked it up and went back on back to work. People in New Orleans there squawked and howled.”

     For a very candid interview with a British member of Parliament, George Galloway, in which he agrues positions with a SKY NEWS anchor woman :
   
     He ecchoes my exact sentiments on Israel's Lebanon campaign and tangentially discusses how Israel can achieve peace, and that is by letting justice occur by seeing Israel evacuate the OT, all of them, The West Bank, East Jerusalem, get the IDF out of the Gaza, and return the Golan Heights to Syria, and return Sheba Farms to Lebanon.

    Please view :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=249JaIaubVw


      

A vacuum in Lebanon, and Hezbollah fills it - Africa & Middle East - International Herald Tribune

I've been struggling for a couple of days with Scottie's questions. This column will not completely answer his questions :), but it will give my thoughts about moving forward.

For more, visit DC Offline.

The article above really opened my eyes about the situation in the Middle East and helped me put the pieces together for the first time. My developing thoughts are below for your comments.

There is a stated aim of Bin Laden as well as a concerted effort that we are seeing right now with Iran's outstretched arm to the citizens of Lebanon through Hezbollah to recreate a Muslim Caliphate in the Middle East, free of Western influence and a world power in its own right.

There does seem to be a fight over which branch of Islam will own this Caliphate, once it emerges - the Shi'ite branch from Iran (and already we are seeing a Shia Crescent develop from Iran through Syria and down through Lebanon via Hezbollah), or a Sunni branch from Al Qaeda.

America has just helped this enterprise along, however unknowingly, by deposing Saddam Hussein (a pain-in-the-ass, but an avowed secularist who saw himself as the second coming of Hammurabi) and opening the door to a Shia vs. Sunni Civil War in Iraq.

It is no longer a question of whether this Civil War will happen - it is only a question of who will influence the outcome: The United States on the side of a secular outcome regardless of the brand of Islam OR Iran toward a definitive Shi'ite state under its direct influence if we vacate our position there as some statesmen (I use that term with some levity) here in the States are now advocating.

As should be apparent, I am no Bush fan. His policies have been so disastrous to our image and to the Region itself, it will take decades to recover - IF we can navigate the months ahead successfully. But the counterpoint to his Middle East policy is NOT to leave our position there right now. The certain occupant of that power vacuum would be Ahmedinejad and the Shi'ite influence from Iran with their bloated oil treasury buying influence and good will the exact way they are doing through Hezbollah in Lebanon right now.

The pattern is obvious and will be repeated in Iraq to win the cultural victory and repair all the infrastructure we have destroyed and have been, up to this point, unable to properly restore. Just read the above article to see the real effects of this on the ground in Lebanon and translate that to Iraq if we leave right now.

The correct counterpoint to the Bush policy in the Middle East is a change in strategy. A real battle to win "the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people. Terence Daly notes: "This is scoffed at by many conservatives as the equivalent of sitting around a campfire singing "Kumbaya." But in fact it is a sophisticated, multifaceted, even ruthless struggle to wrest control of a population from cunning and often brutal foes. We must be ready and able to kill insurgents - lots of them - but as a means, not an end."

We were led to Iraq with false intelligence, false links to Al Qaeda, false motives, even false expectations and budget projections - but the question of "Should we have gone in there or not?" is no longer important. Rather, the question of "What do we do now?" is of paramount importance given the stakes of those we are playing this game against. They have already gamed out their strategy several moves ahead of us. Will we stop reacting to events as they take place, define victory and form a strategy to win, or continue to try to figure out how to retreat as quickly as we can from a war we never should have entered into in the first place?

Read this story if you want to laugh (or cry) at Ohio Judges.  Two kids set up deer decoys in the middle of the road to watch cars swerve.  That's pretty kewl.  But get this, the judge is suspending the sentencing until football season is over.  I mean, who's going to be quarterback if this kid is in jail?  Somebody should call up Jim Tressel so he can offer these boys a scholarship to join the rest of the criminals and thugs on his team.

[http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/bushs-unchecked-executive-power-v.html]

Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald: Bush's unchecked Executive power v. the Founding principles of the U.S.

I recently found this blog by Glenn Greenwald. Glenn is the author of the New York Times Best-Selling book, How Would A Patriot Act?, a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released May, 2006.

For all you Federalists out there - and I know there are plenty, since I love the Federalist Papers with a passion myself - this article is perhaps the best critique of the Bush Administration's aggregation of unchecked Executive Power that I have read.

Just as Nixon famously said, "If the President does it, that means it's not illegal."

Glenn writes, "The Administration is expressly claiming that the President does have the right to violate laws of Congress because his executive power is absolute and thus cannot be restricted by anything. And rather than applying this theory of unchecked executive power to a single case (as the Reagan Administration did in Iran-contra), the Bush Administration has arrogated unto itself this monarchical power as a general proposition, applicable to each and every issue which can be said to relate, however generally, to this undeclared "war" against terrorism."

    To open up the discussion on the blogsite, I would like ANY blogger to state their position on whether the decision to invade Iraq was right or wrong.
    If your position has changed since 2003, please note how it has changed.
    If you claim that the Iraq invasion and occupation was the right course of action, please include your reasons why.
    If you argue that the Iraq episode was not justified, then or since other issues have come to the forefront, please note underlying arguments as well.

    John McCain recently stated the he feels thats the 2006 mid-term elections might turn out to be a referendum on the Iraq war, so I feel this discussion is important and timely.

    Below I am posting 2 articles, one discussing Chuck Hagel, whom I respect greatly, and the other written by Stephen Zunes, a professor at USF, and I know it might vex some to learn that the 2nd article concerns the US, Israel, and Lebanon's Hezbollah, but it is quite informative, and really puts certain issues in their proper perspectives.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060820/ap_on_el_pr/hagel_republicans

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0819-25.htm

cheers