"My friend Michael and I have discussed this many times. We've come to the conclusion that the House should be Dimocrat and the Senate and the president be Republican. The judiciary needs to be moved further to the right".

Man! I sure could back this idea!

Forunately, our Founding Fathers set up a Republic and not a Parlimentary system of goverment.

Because of this our gummit moves slowly and does not react to immediate issues as in a parlimentary system.

That sounds bad but actually what it does is allow the country to change more slowly. The resistance seen by the minority party is no fluke. It is built into the system.

The point is, if the DemocRATS do become the majority party, they can not fuck up the country too quickly because they will still be met with resistance.

The whole problem with the Repub party boils down to leadership (or lack therof), i.e., Bush.

Over spending. Did you ever see that free wheeling big spending Cowboy veto a spending bill?

Border security. Bush more or less forced many repubs to follow his vision of amnesty and guest worker programs, which SUCKS.

I realized because of this administration that in our system the two houses are pretty much free to do what they want. The President needs to be a leader that LEADS the Congress and the country in the right direction on the basis of what the Congress sends him.

Problem is, most of Bush's directions are "liberal" and downright anti-conservative.

I voted for Bush because the alternative was a trully insane dingbat asshole nut case. Nevertheless, I have always disliked what was coming out of Bush every time he spoke.

9/11 changed his viewpoint, but ONLY ON THE MATTER OF HOMELAND SECURITY (exclude border control). Everything else he stands for is unacceptable. He's a damn socialist for Christ's sake.

The point is, if the D-Rats take either house, all is not lost, they'll have two years to really fuck up right before the 08 elections.

Denny, I don't think nancy Pelosi is "Ugly", I think she's FUGLY! If the Democrap party wins one branch of Congress, it will give Saturday Night Live some badly needed material.

Nancy?

I'd bang er.

I'm all for gridlock... stop some of the scary stuff that's been going on - Did anyone else notice that habeas corpus just got recinded?

Yes... it's for "bad guys", but what does that mean? ANYONE determined by the "selection committee" to be a threat is subject to the act. Selection committee is appointed by Pres or SecDef... not elected by anyone, not approved by anyone, just a group appointed by one of those two. If they say you don't deserve basic rights, you don't have them.

Link: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf

Didn't think I'd see the day.

Pat,

Under the Military Commissions Act (MCA), a US citizen can be deemed an unlawful enemy combatant. That's a clarification.

While the MCA denies habeas corpus and Federal jurisdiction to aliens,and also establishes procedures for military tribunals of aliens, it does not and cannot deny habeas corpus to citizens. That's because the Constitution guarantees us that right. What's more, under the Supremacy Clause, rights guaranteed by the Constitution take precedence over any and all statutes. Furthermore, citizens are not subject to military tribunals because other laws prohibit it.

The only reason those things aren't spelled out in the MCA is that they are spelled out elsewhere, e.g., Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, Ex Parte Milligan, and the Constitution.

So, all the hubbub is due to people reading the MCA in a vacuum, when in fact is a new part of a large system.

Denny, and everyone else who thinks it'd be OK if the Democrats took the House,

Are you nuts?!?

Seriously, the only reason that the "Dissolve America Now Act," S.2611, didn't get passed is the House Republicans' refusal to even discuss it with the traitors in the Senate. For those of you who don't recall, S.2611 would grant blanket amnesty to massive numbers of illegal aliens. It treats law-breaking illegal aliens better than citizens by allowing illegals to file taxes for only three of the past five years, and by forgiving illegals their Social Security fraud. Citizens, you try those tricks and watch the fines--and prison time--add up. (Further discussion by senators opposing this legislative piece of garbage here and here.)

Jorge W. Busheron, our first Mexican president, would have signed the "worst-bill-to-pass-a-chamber-of-Congress-in-the-history-of-the-United-States," S.2611, in a heartbeat. The House Republicans stopped S.2611. On the other hand, the enforcement-only bill that House Republicans put forward, the one authorizing 700 miles of fencing along the border with that corrupt, Third-World, kleptocratic "nation" to our south, languishes on W's desk. The House Republicans want a big signing ceremony to show their constituents that they're responsive to their demands; W wants to do it without fanfare because he is an open-borders liberal.

No, the Republicans do not deserve to remain in power. However, let's be logical here. The president is the open-borders fanatic, not the House Republicans. Why punish congressmen for the president's shortcomings?

Do you hate the Republicans so much that you'll let the Democrats pass nation-destroying immigration legislation? Does that make any sense at all?

grant blanket amnesty to massive numbers of illegal aliens.

Apparently, Squid, most Americans are complacent about immigration and they don't care. I sure as Hell do!

I'm with Squidley.

I'm with stupid, but she refuses to leave. Stupid lib....

quag·mire (kwgmr, kwg-)
n.
1. Land with a soft muddy surface.
2. A difficult or precarious situation; a predicament.

Vicki,

Actually, immigration, legal and illegal, has been one of the big issues that most voters generally see our way: wanting less of the first, and none of the second. The problem is that most of the ruling classes, especially the Democrats and liberal RINOs like W and McCain, are open-borders true believers. What's more, the MSM are also liberal open-borders true believers, so they misportray the House Republicans' successes--stopping S.2611, passing enforcement-only legislations--as failures.

Remember Bizzarro-land from Saturday Night Live? Welcome back to that weird and unpleasant place where right is wrong, tradition is oppressive, and success is failure.

Squid, I hear ya.

Pissed off conservatives and Republicans, get out there and vote.

No cut and run Republicans.

I won't be able to stand the gloating if the Democrats win!

When I hear Hillary in 2008, I get nausated.
What's worse is the Democrat's dream boy, Barack Ubama!

If the Democrats take over government, I'm going back under a rock in 2008, like I did during the Clinton years. I turned off and pretended none of it existed. Actually, I found a young boyfriend, gave up politics, had lots of sex and listened to jazz music.

Hey Vicki,

I like doing all of what you said without going under a rock (young girlfriend though). I basically did the same and have a beautiful little 5 years old boy living in Texas. And NO, I can't deduct all of that child support from my taxes either. The IRS (woman) said, "we now have a lot of people with more than one family, with children who live in all parts of the country. If we allowed you to deduct child support, the IRS would lose more than 25% of what it takes in."

Anyway, speaking of A rock...............the problem I have with it, as I believe most Americans do, is the way it is being prosecuted.

You don't fight a war with a gun in one hand and a flower in the other. The bullshit rules of engagement they have in place. Ex: still can not fire until fired upon.(never mind being proscuted for murder for doing your job - Pendleton 8).

Go in STRONG, clean it up, and THEN be policemen if you want. But clean it up with MILITARY first.

Team America: World Police

So, just as I voted for Bush twice, politics in this contry again comes down to voting for the lesser of two evils.

Yes, I will be voting for Pubs if available.

I like gridlock - this country was set up to make gridlock prominent. Unfortunately it hasn't been prominent enough in the last 50 years. Thus we have McCain-Feingold and SOX... among other terrible bits of legislation.

How do we get it back without endangering the country... now that is the big question.

Teresa,

Even with a Republican House, Senate, and president, we still have gridlock. The House Republicans won't give the Senate and president the nation-destroying amnesty legislation they want. Many other things get held up, too--thank God we don't have a parliamentary system, where they can react quickly to unreasonable public demands, fleeting social trends, and other distractions to good government.

If we could weed out the rubbish--most Democrats, RINOs, and W--we just might be able to go back to a smaller government, a bigger military, and even lower taxes.

I disagree with most here on this thread. The Republicans are going to maintain control of the House and Senate. Granted, Americans will be voting against the Democrats, instead of for the Republicans (if any body follows what I just said). Nancy Pelosi as Speaker will be an absolute nightmare, and Americans aren't falling for it.

I don't know what's gotten into Willie. Willie, dude, that woman is rotten ugly. I would have said something really raunchy but I noticed several classy ladies commenting on this thread so I'll just keep that crap to myself.

If only I were pres for a week so I could do a little something each day .. 1st thing on my aggenda Bomb Muktadda AL Sadder and everything within a 2 mile radius of where he was sitting.. 2nd take full control of all Iraqi oil and sell it the american people for 1.00 a barrel for the next 2 years and raise the price of gas for iraqis to 3.00 a gallon .. 3rd pull every soldier out of europe and have them start building our brand new naval port and army , airforce base's in the south of Iraq ..4th declare all illegal's in this country enemy combatants and send them to work off thier sentence' building our new ultrawide and deep shipping canal that runs from south texas to southern California.. 4th give the cockroaches at the UN 30 days to find new real estate and sign donald trump to build the new quad towers on the prime real estate they are stinking up now .. 5th renew the draft with no age limits and then put LT. Kerry on a fast track back to getting some more purple hearts ..6th announce a new holiday called beer and barby day ..7th ... rest ...

As a longtime reader of this site, I agree that these coming elections represent a choice between bad and worse. As bad as the Republicans have been lately, I still shudder to think what would happen if the Demos regain control.

However, I must take issue with something Squidley said about "immigration, legal and illegal" -- that most people want "less of the first, and none of the second."

What do you have against LEGAL immigrants? I understand your concern about protecting our borders, but sometimes you seem hostile to ALL Hispanics, period.

It is possible to go from being genuinely concerned about the illegal immigrant problem to outright bigotry and xenophobia towards ALL immigrants. I hope that isn't the case here.

Just wondering.

Nick B,

Good points. I'll respond.

Do you realize that there are 1.2 million legal immigrants entering this country every year? We don't need this kind of excessive growth. It's clear that the increased population has negative effects, like increasingly crowded roads, skyrocketing housing prices, and more insidiously, the gradual erosion of our cohesion as a nation.

The massive immigration from Europe of the late 19th and early 20th centuries worked because we stopped it. Anti-immigrant sentiment died down after we closed the doors, and the immigrants had a chance to become Americans. We need to do that again. It's long past time to stop the current rush of immigration and let those who are here assimilate to our ways, not the other way around.

As for the charges of xenophobia and bigotry, I'll have to address those later--it's past my bedtime. (Short answer: neither xenophobic nor bigoted, but pro-American and pro-white. I'm sure you can see that neither of the pro- positions are necessarily the same as the negatives you mentioned.)

I'll go out on a limb and predict that the Republicans will hold both houses of Congress (although by smaller margins).

The Republicans deserve to lose, but the Democrats don't deserve to win.

Squid -

Bit late on replying, been tied up. I'd have to disagree that the Constitution protects US Citizens from the "selection board". The Constitution protects ANYONE in the US. It gives the rights / protections to all. Habeas Corpus applies to citizens, but also applies to aliens - legal and illegal alike. No mention of "citizenship needed" in the Constitution.

The Millitary Commisions Act (MCA) simply states that these rights can be stripped by a "selection committee" appointed by the Pres or SecDef. Doesn't say citizens excempt. The rights being pulled are guaranteed in the Constitution to ALL.

Going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

Responding again to Nick B's concerns about bigotry and xenophobia.

To start with, let's lay some groundwork.

First and foremost, no foreigner has the right to come to the United States. Immigration is a privelege, and it's up to us to decide who we want to take and who we want to exclude. This necessarily means discriminating. We should discriminate in favor of potential immigrants who can make a positive contribution to our country and are willing and able to assimilate. We should also discriminate against potential immigrants who will be a drain on us, and who have no desire or limited ability to assimilate. Of course, that some forms of discrimination can be positive flies in the face of modern liberalism, which holds that all discrimination is wrong. This is one of liberalism's many flaws.

The second point is a hard one for some people to deal with. The U.S. is not now, and has never been, a "nation of immigrants." The U.S. is a nation of Americans. Elevating immigration to the highest good is subversive, because it marginalizes the overwhelming majority of citizens who were born here and immigrated from nowhere, and it downgrades all the other values we might consider American, like abiding by the law, hard work, respect for authority, contributing to one's community, staying informed and voting, and a host of other traditional American values. Besides, if you go back far enough, everyone everywhere is an immigrant, so it's meaningless to say "nation of immigrants."

Third, and this is one that modern Political Correctness denies, race is real, and it matters. As recently as 1965, the U.S. was 89% white. (The relevance of this will become apparent later.)

Now, to address Nick B's concerns directly.

One can be both pro-white and bigoted (like David Duke). However, those don't have to overlap. One can be a bigot without being pro-white (like Spike Lee). One can be pro-white without being a bigot (like... well, no one famous). Think of a Venn diagram, with both overlapping and non-overlapping areas for bigot and pro-white. The same arguments apply for xenophobia and pro-Americanism.

Now, with all this, let me state the biggest problem facing America today: non-white immigration.

This is not necessarily a racist proposition. It is a race-realist position, however. It recognizes that multiculturalism doesn't work. The proof for this is all around us. We see it in "white flight." We see it in the race politics being engaged in by blacks and Hispanics. We see it in the breakdown of not only our society, but in other societies that either tried it (USSR, Yugoslavia, etc.) or are currently trying it (UK, Sweden, etc.).

Small minority populations amidst a dominant majority can work. It did work in the US until the suicidal Immigration Reform Act of 1965 (excellent critique available as a PDF from this web site). However, as minorities grow, people start to trust strangers less, and interracial violence grows. The pressure on immigrants to assimilate also lessens. Our common national language, literature, and identity are waning, and may even disappear. Why? Because of massive non-white immigration.

Of course, to accept all of this, one has to accept the white race's validity. One has to acknowledge that it's OK for us to value ourselves as a people. This self-esteem as a nation and a people has been steadily eroded by the cultural revolution fomented in the 1960s, and so now, for many people, any mention of pro-white sentiment is automatically twisted through their reality filters into meaning "racism," "discrimination," and even "hate." I hope everyone reading this can see that supporting your own people does not necessarily entail oppressing others.

This post is already way too long, so I'll refer you to an excellent discussion of the immigration problem.

Pat,

I'm sorry, but your understanding of the Constitution and other laws, and how they apply here, is not correct.

See for yourself. The relevant laws are Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, and Ex parte Milligan, as well as Hamdi v. Rumfeld (all accessible at Wikipedia).

Incidentally, I got the explanation I first posted from a lawyer.

Squid -

I don't argue with Article VI, para 2. I fully believe that it is why the MCA will (eventually) be found unconstitutional. The MCA attempts to do an end run around due process.

My issue with this is that the Constitution does not say "due process only for citizens", it is for all people under US law. That applies to non-citizens being held by the US. A non-citizen in the US legal system is allowed the same rights as a citizen, including appeal to the Supreme Court. Many cases of this to choose from.

I stand by my initial issue was that Habeas Corpus was being suspended. The MCA allows that. Your counter that the Constitution protects citizens is where we differ. I see nothing in the constitution (or the MCA) that differentiates between citizen and non. The selection committee can delcare a person an enemy combatant and they lose all rights. The Constitution protects the rights of both citizen and non. It (should) trump the MCA, and I believe it eventually will. This will be for both citizen and non though.

Have the lawyer who told you this point out where in either document it states "citizens except" or that aliens are not protected. Article VI, para 2 applies to aliens as well as citizens.

Lawyers are not always right... except my wife... she's perfect.

Pat,

You seem to be looking in the wrong places. What clarifies citizens' rights are in the other cases I mentioned. To wit:

Ex parte Milligan says that regular US citizens cannot be tried by military tribunals. The part of the MCA that establishes military tribunals therefore applies only to aliens.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld established that even US citizens who have been deemed unlawful combatants are entitled to habeus corpus. The part of the MCA that suspends habeus therefore applies only to aliens.

QED.

(P.S.: The lawyer I got the explanation from was once my favorite blogger, but, for reasons known only to him, he stopped blogging and dismantled his site. Intelligent, well-written, right-leaning, insightful, funny, and with boobies (boobage in GOC-speak). Damn I miss that blog!)

Squidley- Please define white. I can't wait for this.

rukidding,

If you need to have that defined for you, you probably shouldn't be reading GOC.

Also, you seem to have missed where I pointed out your mistake about "Arabic" numerals, so I'll repeat it.

The concept of zero was invented in India, and the symbols themselves are more properly called Indian numerals or Hindu numerals. Why? Because they were created in India by Hindus, and the Muslim Arabs encountered them when they invaded India. So the Arabs were only the conduit, not the source.

Do you want to continue to thrill us with your ignorance?

Squid - runkidding (AKA haha) is a troll. Facts? He don't need no steenking facts! All he's doing here is trying to be disruptive and annoying people who are both physically and mentally older than he is. He's just a spoiled child trying to get the attention of grownups.

pat,

One more thing. The Supremacy Clause, mentioned above, says that the Constitution is the highest law, and no statute can supersede it. Since habeus corpus is guaranteed (to citizens, anyway) in the Constitution, the MCA cannot take it away. However, there are cases in which the president can suspend habeus, like Lincoln did, but even that was limited to where the courts weren't functioning doe to the Civil War. Since all US courts are functioning (even if many of them are dysfunctional ;-) citizens are still guaranteed habeus.

Note also that not all aliens are subject to the protections of the Constitution. Diplomats are exempt while on US soil, and foreigners not in the US are also not protected. Now do you see why the prison is at Gitmo--in Cuba?

C'mon Squidley, I am a troll. Ignore any questions I may ask in the future because I am an idiot with nothing important to add to any debate. I prefer to display my immaturity as often as I can.