DC Signs Off

DC ends his blog with some great advice. The best advice was this paragraph:

The best way to influence the world is focus on "small unit tactics", that is, start with your own family. Work out from there, into your community, and so on. But if you forget what is at home and fail to build from there, you are building your house on sand.

I'll miss his blog and the great discussions in the comments to his posts. Thank you for all the effort you put into blog DC. And thank you for providing a place for the great discussions with you, Rhod, Mark, Hoss, Gordon, etc.

Dead Man Walking (on the right)

In case the feds are reading this: by "dead" I mean politically dead.

Victory II

The Comprehensive Immigration "Reform" bill has been killed (again). It was as I feared. George Bush and the grand bargainers in the Senate came back for more, with the same result as the last time.

For an excellent round-up of what just happened and what it all means check out this DailyPundit post.

Also, for those waffling Republicans who could not make up their minds on this bill and those other "Republicans" who supported the President in this boondoggle (Republicans In Name Only - or RINOs) see this DailyPundit post for an excellent graphic.

Victory!

The Shamnesty (immigration "reform" bill) is dead. It is a victory for democracy in the US. Lets hope it holds. The left and the RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) are like jihadis. They will keep coming back at it again and again.

This whole event reminds me of Europe. Mark Steyn has written (as has Rhod - a commenter over at DaisyCutter and occasionally here) that in Europe there is aristocratic political class that removes certain subjects from public discussion and deigns to know better then their commoner subjects. Rhod has written about how he is seeing it here in the US. In the past, his references to this phenomenon in the US rang hollow to me. This Shamnesty bill threw the existence of the phenomenon into clear relief - even enough for me to see it. As I wrote in my post below this one, the government (the elite) is forcing the public to negotiate with it (at the cost of 15-20 million new subjects) in order for the government to perform one of its fundamental duties. They say its for our own good and call it leadership. It is not leadership to demand something in order to get you to do something you already have to do. It is no more leadership than it would be an act of "leadership" to eliminate the military during a war. It is the abdication of leadership.

So, we have the elitist phenomenon here in the US as well. Yesterday, however, it was cast aside. Millions of others like me have also seen the ugly phenomenon (many are Democrats). Whether or not they recognize the elitism that it represents (not having had the benefit of Rhod's insight and wisdom) they know its stink and will begin howling more quickly and more violently the next time they catch its scent.

(BTW, the European "commonfolk" also managed to beat down the aristocrats when the commonfolk rejected the EU constitution.)

McCain should give his money back to his donors - he is destroyed.

Another great side-effect is that Lindsey Graham (R-SC) will not survive this overreach. South Carolina will not allow an elitist, tear-stained (see Michelle Malkin’s coverage for a hint), woman-named, terrorist-protecting RINO to represent it after the next election.

And the President…well what can you say…nearly everyone loathes him now, and it’s a good thing. He needs to be stuffed in a very small box for the rest of his administration. He has lost his mind (makes me wonder if he ever had one).

There was great irony in all of the events last night. Harry Reid, after years of demonizing and belittling the President, is forced to beg the President for help on this bill. A President brought low by opposition (and his increasing ineptitude) is powerless to help …the opposition! Thank god for the Democrats! Thank god the President is inept at this point (he fired up the opposition to the bill more than any Democrat could have)!

Think about it…these bizarre events…isn’t this some of the best proof that someone is looking out for us?

Thank god for Michelle Malkin, National Review, Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, DailyPundit for all of their efforts to draw attention to the bill.

Shame on the editors of the Wall Street Journal for their support of the Bill.

There are no pictures of Ted Kennedy smiling today.

It is a great day.

Prelegislation

Why have an immigration bill that contains a two step process consisting of: (1) increased immigration/border enforcement and probationary legal status for illegals; and, upon completing step one, (2) non-probationary residency and a path to citizenship for illegals? Why not just have one bill for immigration/border enforcement and then, when it has been executed, submit a bill for residency and a path to citizenship for illegals?

Why prelegislate the 2nd step? Here's why: the government wants to remove the decision from the public as to whether the first step has been completed. Normally the decision as to whether the first step had been met and whether it was time to move on to the second would be made by the public through the legislative process. Not here though.

Why remove the decision from the public? Here's why: to avoid the government having to do the first step.

What is remarkable is that the first step is a requirement for a sovereign nation. It is something that our government has to do already. However, in what is one of the most extraordinary perversions of "democratic" government that I have ever heard of, we (the majority of the people- by all public polls) are being forced to negotiate with our government (by offering it 12 million new citizens) to obtain the performance of one of its fundamental duties. Not only that, but we are, as a result of the prelegislation, being required to accept the government's sole determination as to whether it has satisfied the first step. This determination would be made by the same government that has failed for decades to enforce its immigration laws or its borders. Don't fall for it!

Also, don't be fooled into thinking that the new law would be reversible after it is enacted. The drafters have been very smart. After enactment, all illegals would immediately be entitled to come forward and obtain probationary legal status. Imagine how hard it will be to revert 12 million legal residents back into illegal status - if they themselves have done nothing wrong in the interim.

Be Very Afraid

Ted Kennedy is happy.

Immigration "reform" is here.


"When Ted Kennedy is having a good time - bad things happen"

-Mary Jo Kopechne (1940 – 1969)

Those Marines

I sent an Email to Andrew Stuttaford in response to his postings in the Corner at National Review Online defending the behavior of the British Marines held hostage by the Iranians.

In particular, he wrote:

"Derb, via the Yorkshire Post, here's SAS veteran Andy McNab on the behavior of those captured marines:

[He said he believed they were] "just doing their best to get by...They are intelligent people, they understand the situation, they understand they are caught in the middle on a political situation."

McNab himself was captured and tortured by the Iraqis. I suspect that he knows what the correct procedures are."

My email to Andrew was as follows (I also sent him the picture from the post immediately below this one):

Take a look at the men on the right side of this picture.

Were they violating the “rules” by looking (appropriately) dour
but not broken? Do the rules require the servicepersons to make it look like they are having a good time and to thank their captors?

If the men on the right could look dour but unbroken – couldn’t the others? Do any of the smiley ones have the sort of ashen/drawn look of persons who have been tortured (aside from their normal English pallor)?

Which group displays more honor, resolution, seriousness? Which group would you fear more to meet in combat?

Don’t go great lengths to defend the giddy ones Andrew – they are not worth it. You would be better off and retain more credibility if you pointed out that not all of the Brits acted dishonorably.

The UK's Shame (update)

Make that "the three men on the right have honor".

Also, note the interesting editing of the picture in the post below by the MSM (MSNBC in this case - though it may have obtained the picture from AP). The picture was edited to only highlight the happy hostages. It helps to only show the happy people if the tag line is "No ill will".

Is suspect that there already is some ill will between the three men on the right and the shameless hams on the left.

The UK's Shame

I've never witnessed such appalling behavior from military men and women before. Thoughout this hostage-taking the British Marines have happily participated in the humiliation of their nation. The only one with honor that I can see in the picture is the dour-looking fellow on the right. Mr. Blair, the British military has become a liability to the United States in Iraq. Please send them home now.

Update: I was too harsh on the British Military here. In retrospect, It seems that much of this bad bahavior may have been the result of poor leadership on the captured unit. Our British brothers are doing a hell of a job on the war judging by reports from the likes of Michael Yon.

Talk about Overstatement

I sent the following email to the authors of a Newsweek Online Article entitled "Straying From the Script: A U.S. briefer overstates Iran's meddling in Iraq, setting off a Washington tempest", by Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball:

I think your subtitle to the article is an overstatement in itself. "A U.S. briefer overstates Iran's meddling in Iraq, setting off a Washington tempest."

After reading this article it became clear that the briefer did not overstate the "meddling" (I question whether such a cute term should be used in relation to the killing of our troops) by Iran in Iraq, just that he might have overstated whether there was proof that the "meddling" was expressly authorized by the highest authorities in Iran.

This story is not really newsworthy.

It is clear that the government is of one mind that the Iranian Quds Force is involved in the meddling. It is also well known that the Quds Force represents the elite special forces of the Iranian regime (like a mix of SEALs and CIA covert ops). If the government is correct about Quds Force involvement (your article casts no doubt on their assertion), then doesn't the burden shift to Iran to explain that its elite special forces were not acting on the orders of the highest levels of the government?

Isn't there a presumption (respondeat superior) that the acts of the Quds Force were authorized at the highest levels?

Even if you take the position that there is not a presumption of authorization - how rational is it to expect that we would ever be able to get hard proof of such authorization?

Read it for yourself and see what you think. I think the authors are gleefully setting a standard of proof that could never be met and should never have to be met.

Coming for You?

Be careful Mr. Khameni. You don't want to draw these folks' attention.*


*I wish this were a credible threat. However, given recent congressional testimony by General Pace and Secretary of Defense Gates, and given public statements by the President and numerous other members of his administration, the threat of military action aginst Iran has been taken off of the table. As a result, our efforts to curtail their militant islamist activities and their development of nuclear weapons will not succeed.