I Need Sanctuary from Ruben Navarette

CNN.com for some reason has decided for some time now that the incoherent, usually bigoted screeds of Ruben Navarette are proper commentary on immigration for their front page. Today we are treated to another dose of nonsense.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/27/navarrette/index.html

What we don't know, and won't until New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram finishes her review of this case, is whether this happened because Newark is a so-called sanctuary city , where local police are not required to determine the immigration status of those they arrest, let alone inform federal officials. Despite what you hear on talk radio, it's possible that this case has nothing to do with sanctuary. Legal experts say that local officials may have assumed that Carranza was in the country legally and that he may have fallen through the cracks due to bureaucratic ineptitude -- the kind that sometimes results in U.S. citizens getting bail when they shouldn't.

The issue here, Mr. Navarette, is that Carranza is an illegal immigrant. He shouldn't be here. You support policies that would make it easier for people like him to get here and stay here. The fact that you are trying to place the blame for his illegal presence in America on the American government rather than on Mr. Carranza shows where your sympathies lie - with a triple-murderer. You don't care that three young Americans are dead because of Mr. Carranza. All you care about is how his murders will turn even more people against your destructive opinions.

Reasonable people should wait for the facts to come out before jumping to conclusions -- or trying to score political points.

A hilarious statement from Mr. Navarette, who has made it clear in the past that his only concern is scoring political points against racist white people - who, in Mr. Navarette's opinion, consists of every white that doesn't agree with him 100% on immigration.

Republican Mitt Romney, who must be getting desperate since he can't get beyond 15 percent in national polls, is using the case to bludgeon Rudy Guiliani. The Romney campaign is running a radio ad blasting "cities like Newark, San Francisco and New York City that adopt sanctuary policies" and become "magnets that encourage illegal immigration."

Julian Navarette must be getting desperate if he thinks that anyone gives a damn about his jibes at Mitt Romney. It doesn't cover up the fact that three people are dead because of a man Mr. Navarette believes has every right to be in this country simply because he wanted to be.

The radio spot also calls sanctuary cities magnets for illegal immigration.

Stop the tape! There is only one magnet that draws illegal immigrants. It's called a job -- like, say, landscaping.

Stop the tape! First off, learn to write. You suck at it. Second, try not treating your readers like idiots. You don't look too smart judging from your picture and your writing, Mr. Navarette - you look, quite frankly, like a simpleton. And the idea that an illegal immigrant would pass up going to a city where his chances of being found out as an illegal immigrant are lower is just absurd. But then again, so is Mr. Navarette and everything he says.

Earlier this year, The Boston Globe reported that Romney -- for more than a decade -- maintained the grounds of his house in Belmont, Massachusetts, by employing a landscape company that relies on illegal immigrants. The Globe tracked the workers' home to Guatemala, where they told reporters that the owner of the company knew they were illegal. They said that Romney was nice to them and greeted them with a "buenos dias," but never asked whether they were in the country legally. When asked about the story by a Globe reporter, Romney scoffed "Aw, geez," and walked away.

Because it's Mitt Romney's job to find out. He was an immigration officer. Oh, wait, he wasn't. I hope when Mr. Navarette goes to the grocery store he inquires as to the legal status of the baggers or the stockers. And when his garbage is picked up, or any other number of jobs. I guess that Mr. Navarette just shouldn't be held to the standard he holds to Mitt Romney.

And now the toughie from Harvard Business School is trying to brush aside that story, get mileage out of the tragic deaths of three young people and turn an illegal immigrant into the Willie Horton of the 2008 campaign.

Aw, geez.

Yeah you look like a real toughie, fat ass. Sitting behind your computer writing racist bullshit about white people and excusing horrific crimes committed by illegal immigrants. You're a disgusting, sad sack of shit, Mr. Navarette. Don't you have any children? And Willie Horton? Another bit of racist ignorance from CNN's top racist. Carranza killed three innocent people in a city he went to because he was an illegal immigrant and in that city they don't care if you're an illegal immigrant.


The tragic deaths of three young people. Yeah right. Mr. Navarette doesn't give a damn about those three young people. All he cares about is making sure that more Mr. Carranzas are able to come over the border whenever they feel like it.

Why I hate Captain Ed

Over at Captain's Quarter's, Captain Ed has gone off on another wild post that doesn't acknowledge most, if any, of the realities of Iraq. His blinkers turned me, one of the most rabid pro-Bush pro-Iraq folks around, off to his blog a while ago, and they're still on.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/012119.php

Hopefully discussion will be ongoing. As I said there, I'm tired of seeing Americans die for an Iraqi government that, at best, is indifferent to the mission we're trying to complete. How much money spent and blood spilled, for an Iraqi Prime Minister that flips shit on General Petraeus every time a raid is ordered into Sadr City?

I want victory in Iraq. If some people think that blindly supporting Maliki is the way to it, whatever.

Senate GOP jumping SS Iraq

The Senate GOP is hemorrhaging support for the war, and it is a fair question of whether Bush can keep his support above the veto-proof level for the next 3 weeks until Congress recesses until September. There is also the chance that Reid and Pelosi will force the Congress to remain in session and forego the August recess.

It now seems almost certain that the Congress will in the next three weeks and if not then certainly in September vote in veto-proof numbers to retreat from Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground. Military leaders have noticed it for weeks. Note the recent comments by General Lynch and others to the media that a large-scale pullout by March 2008 or any date in the next few years makes no sense from their perspective (winning the war). This is the attempt of the military to indirectly say that they agree with the President that we should not run away from Iraq.

It will fail because even if Petraeus stood up in September and said "George Bush is right, you are wrong. You are defeatists, if we leave Iraq it will not get better, it will get worse, and terrorists will flock to Iraq and terrorism will spread from Iraq in a cancer unstoppable save by another invasion," the Congress is still going to vote for declaring defeat and leaving.

The generals have made it clear that the ridiculous fantasy of a reduced US troop number will not result in more violence is just that, a ridiculous fantasy; Senator Reid has responded by saying that General Petraeus is incompetent and out of touch. The General is indeed out of touch. He is out of touch with Washington, where the outcome of the war has already been decided: The United States has lost, if it was time to sue for peace we would be. Since there's no one to sue for peace, we're just going to leave.

To hell with the genocide and ethnic cleansing that will follow wherever there is a mixed Shiite-Sunni population. We already saw what happened when the US largely withdrew from Baghdad in 2005: the Mahdi Army ethnically cleansed large parts of Sunni Baghdad and only stopped when the surge brought US troops back in.

The Iraqi government knows what is going on. After last weekend it urged all citizens to procure firearms and use them in their own self-defense. Maliki is obviously hoping that when the US leaves and violence explodes, enough armed citizens will join government set-up local militias than joining the Mahdi or al-Qaeda or Sunni insurgents.

When the Iraqi government inevitably collapses and the center of the country turns into an Arab Somalia, when the Shiite south becomes an independent state (possibly not an Iranian puppet, as the Badr Brigade and Sistani are against Iran absorbing southern Iraq), when Turkey invades Kurdistan, when Iraq-based terrorists start attacking Saudi Arabia's oil infrastructure, when Saudi Arabia starts organizing teams of volunteer jihadis to go into Iraq and attack the terrorists, where will Senator Reid be? Senator Reid will be in retirement or dead. Speaker Pelosi will probably still be in Congress, blaming the United States and refusing to even consider sending soldiers back.

The Iraq War is lost. Richard Lugar lost it. Pete Domenici lost it. Donald Rumsfeld lost it. General Casey and Abizaid lost it. George Bush at least tried, far too late, to salvage it with General Petraeus.

The Democratic Party wants us to lose it, and they've lost it for us.

The "netroots" want us to lose it, and they've lost it for us. They have raised so much money and put so much pressure on the Democratic leadership that the Blue Dog Democrats seem to have dropped off the face of the earth.

And who really lost the Iraq War? The American people and the conservative blogosphere. The American people allowed a blatantly transparent campaign of defeatism and anti-American destroy their spirit. The American people did not sour on the war because that was the correct thing to do. People like Michael Yon and General Petraeus have made it clear that we are fighting an enemy whose barbarism is purely in the first pantheon of history's monsters. Yet instead of responding with the righteous fury that Americans have in the past to such foes, we have allowed ourselves to be convinced by the despicable lies and statements of the liberal political machine.

But how did the conservative blogosphere lose the war? First of all, remember how the conservative blogs are always saying how the liberal blogs are better organized for political activism? That's right. They raise money. They take their activism off-line. They build off-line organizations.

Does the right do this? No. They sit, in their pajamas - isn't it fucking sad how their big claim to fame is a single disparaging comment about them made three years ago? You won the pajamas, guess who won the war? The other side, idiots - and pontificate about how George Bush betrayed them and the GOP needs punishing and all this other nonsense - how stupid is Instapundit? How stupid are the people who e-mail him? Pretty damn stupid. They go on their National Review cruises. They wax nostalgic for the day when "Europe wakes up" to the Muslim threat or some other idiocy.

Do they do anything that would give them influence over the GOP? No. They don't raise money. They don't make phone calls. They don't organize people. Would Richard Lugar or Voinovich or Domenici have abandoned the president in the past week if the conservative blogosphere had said "Abandon the war and you'll get blown out of the water in your primary" and been in a position where that threat was credible? The "netroots" can.

In the end, the ultimate responsibility for losing the Iraq War falls on men like that crusty old fool William Buckley and others, unable to see past their noses. So you defeated the immigration bill. So you've made some very small inroads on pork. Guess what? The returns didn't justify the investment. You turned the GOP completely off to the conservative blogosphere, with the exception of Fred Thompson.

Fred Thompson isn't President. He doesn't control the Congressional GOP. He's a candidate for President.

Guess what you dumb fucks, while you were lambasting Bush and the GOP and talking about punishing them, the liberals were busy outflanking you on the war. Richard Lugar can look out and see a vast political machine operating against the war on the Left independent of the Democratic Party. When he looks on the right, what does he see? Nothing.

The right-wing blogs are uniformly made up of short-sighted idiots. They have allowed the GOP to stand alone on the war, and the GOP is not powerful enough to do that. Good job assholes, you stood by and did nothing while Kos and MoveOn, along with Reid and the rest, were pulling the rug out from under our feet.

First Post

I was going to say something about Ron Paul and Sayyid Qutb for my first post, but then again this caught my eye:

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/topstories_story_161144628.html (yay for Drudge!)

I'll ignore the disgraceful comments of Ron Kuby, "civil rights lawyer" - funny how the people who are always described as "civil rights" activists or lawyers are rather fond of saying outlandish things and don't understand why they don't seem to have more people paying attention to them - and consider the decision to remove these books.

A good idea, removing radical literature, right? So why - if it allegedly took three years to enact this federal directive, time ostensibly spent reviewing the books available to prisoners - were obviously, hilariously non-radical books like "When Bad Things Happen to Good People" taken off the shelves?

Certainly, the government has to make tough decisions balancing freedom and security, although the idea that the two are somehow at odds is to me lazy thinking. That's for another time. And certainly the kind of thinking represented by Ron Kuby's statements is, to put it baldly, idiotic. But the government has shot itself in the foot time after time after time after time in this war against Muslims who want to blow us up, and George Bush and Dick Cheney are hardly the ones who've done most of the shooting. America is being let down, time and again, by our mid and lower-level bureaucrats. And what's amazing is that despite all of it there hasn't been a real Muslim terrorist attack (random lone Muslims going off the deep end and trying to run over / gun down a few random people doesn't really count to me) on the continental US since September 11th. Although I guess when you're facing a bunch of guys who think it's better for women's ankles to be covered you have a lot of room for error, Muslims aren't exactly the most brilliant strategists or tacticians the world has ever seen.