In this case, the usual suspects are the liberal-owned Democrats and the usual target is our nation’s ability to defend itself.

Several weeks ago we resolved to try and get away from politics for awhile, since it’s all pretty much the same thing every day now, the leftists on their side of the aisle leading Republican politicians, and America, down the road to hell by the nose, but it’s just so difficult not to comment when one feels offended, as an American and a patriot, by what some of those we’ve elected to govern us are doing and what, just as important, others are not doing to prevent it!

So,

Either the GOP has few genuine conservatives in it anymore, or those it does contain are so spineless or corrupt that all they do is take up space that might be better used by men and women with the guts and resolve to embrace the conservative cause.

Patriots who are willing and able to place America before their self seeking need to be reelected.

Well, here are the usual suspects on the left side in action.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Wednesday said no budget cuts will be off-limits as the Pentagon looks to tighten its belt.

“We need to challenge all past assumptions, and we need to put everything on the table,” Hagel said in his first major policy address, according to prepared remarks.

In other words…

Speaking at National Defense University at Fort McNair, Hagel defended his review of the military’s strategy, which he ordered shortly after taking over at the Pentagon.

He said the military must look at change “that involves not just tweaking or chipping away at existing structures and practices but, where necessary, fashioning entirely new ones that are better suited to 21st century realities and challenges.”

…fashioning entirely new ones that are better suited to 21st century realities and challenges.

That, as we’ve learned over the past 4 years, 2 1/2 months, is, in Obama Administration speak, synonymous with dismantling, to the fullest extent possible, yet another institution that has kept America safe and strong, dragging us still further down to defenseless, third world s–thole status.

They (no, LOL, not as in “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you” they, but they as in the far left wingers now inhabiting the Democratic party and their most efficient tool to date, President B. Hussein Obama) have eroded our economy in every sector, plunging the nation into debt, attacked American morality on all levels from the sanctity of marriage to institutions like the Boy Scouts, the Ten Commandments and the freedom for religious medical venues to reject treating or funding abortion and other abominations that go against their beliefs and now they’re attacking our very rights via an assault on the Second Amendment.

So yes, we should all be just a little worried when a left wing Obama stooge like Hagel uses his status as Defense Secretary to fashion entirely new anythings that are “better suited to 21st century realities and challenges”.

Yeah, yeah, call me a skeptic, but what else could anyone with any common sense be after seeing Obama Administration “have to read between the lines to get to the truth” shenanigans for more than a full term?

At any rate, the entire article can be read here.

Yes, Bob Woodward is doing a journalist’s job here, reporting from a non-partisan perspective, but of course, since the people on the left side of the political equation don’t like to hear the truth (liberal propaganda is their version of “the news”), die hard lefties couldn’t help but become enraged.

The White House sure is…

Misunderstanding, misstatements and all the classic contortions of partisan message management surround the sequester, the term for the $85 billion in ugly and largely irrational federal spending cuts set by law to begin Friday.

What is the non-budget wonk to make of this? Who is responsible? What really happened?

The finger-pointing began during the third presidential debate last fall, on Oct. 22, when President Obama blamed Congress. “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said. “It is something that Congress has proposed.”

The White House chief of staff at the time, Jack Lew, who had been budget director during the negotiations that set up the sequester in 2011, backed up the president two days later.

“There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger,” Lew said while campaigning in Florida. It “was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure.”

The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.

Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Read the entire article here.

When you give liberals an inch, they will not be satisfied to take a mere mile and, like terrorists, they will continue pushing the envelope to see how far they can get. Such is the case with political correctness, and the way the left keeps pushing more and more of it on the rest of us as a way of knocking down our defenses against their various agendas, none of which are in the least bit friendly to America and the American way of life.

Here we have yet another example of this phenomenon in action;

In yet another case of Orwellian political correctness run amok, a video posted at MoveOn.org says calling illegal immigrants “illegal” fits the definition of a hate crime and calls for the word to be banned when used in the context of immigration.

The headline at the MoveOn page screams “One word we hear too often on Fox News,” as if only Fox News calls illegal immigrants “illegal.”

As usual, they alter the context to make “illegal” aliens out to mean that the peoples, their existences, are illegal rather than their undocumented presences in the United States, semantics intended to villify enforcement of federal law.

It irks me to no end that this practice is allowed to continue, but I suppose that this is the essence of a country like ours, one endowed with freedom for all, including those that would destroy us from within, taking away those same liberties that allowed them to do so.

Having said that, here is the article quoted above, complete with video.

This is, as we know, a security oriented blog, and as such, there is no way we cannot link this interesting New York Post Op Ed by Stewart Baker, a former mucky muck at the Department of Homeland Security.

What’s the best way to commemorate the 10th anniversary of 9/11? By returning to the mindset of Sept. 10, apparently. At least that’s the message delivered by the Associated Press and a chorus of blogs hyperventilating about the NYPD’s antiterror tactics.

I spent what felt like the better part of a day reading the long AP article and the commentary, thinking that surely there must be a scandal in there somewhere.

Nope.

When you’re done, you find that the New York Policy Department is uniquely determined to find terrorists before they strike. To do that, the NYPD is willing to go far outside its borders — to London, to Jerusalem, even to New Jersey.

It partners with counterterror analysts at the CIA. It looks for leads in places where terrorists have been found before — in immigrant communities and in mosques, for example — and it doesn’t give terrorists a haven where they know the cops can’t go. It takes advantage of its diversity by asking its officers to hang out in communities where they blend in. It recruits street sources wherever it can find them. It maps the neighborhoods it’s most concerned about.

Shocked yet?

Me neither.

So what gives? How come we’re getting this story, at this length, at this time?

What gives? How come? Read on.

Mr. Baker’s explanation most definitely sounds about right, given the territorialism over teamwork mentality of government agencies and the general state of the liberal media, which seems increasingly to be a general state of anti-United States.

One of the things that demonstrates the intolerance of the self styled “tolerant” left is their “either you agree with every last piece of doctrine we preach, not 1/4, 1/2 or even 90%, but all, or you are the enemy.”

Their rejection of Joe Lieberman, which didn’t work out as they’d hoped, was a prime example (deprived of the Democratic nomination after expressing views on Iraq that didn’t agree with the “party line,” he ran as an independent and was reelected to the Senate despite their pre-adolescent actions).

Or, try getting a foot in the door in the film industry, which is dominated by some of the most spacey left wing loons on earth, if it is known you are a patriotic American.

Here, we have Hard Astarboard’s all time favorite sheriff, Joe Arpaio; well, let’s let the Washington Times tell it…

Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio is known as “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” but he has a secret that not many people outside Arizona know: He loves little critters, like puppies and kittens.

Honored for his humanitarian efforts by the Humane Society of the United States, he also received the lifetime achievement award from the nonprofit group In Defense of Animals for his work encouraging police agencies nationwide to take more seriously the crimes of animal cruelty.

He puts animal abusers in jail instead of giving them citations.

The sheriff even has dedicated an air-conditioned jail solely as a sanctuary for dogs, cats and other animals that have been removed by his deputies from abusive and neglectful homes. He began a training program for some of his female inmates to learn how to care for, groom and train those very animals.

So you might imagine how disappointed he was when President Becky Barnes of Guide Dog Users Inc. (GDUI) booted him as the keynote speaker for its July national convention in Phoenix because of his tough stance on immigration enforcement and the state’s pending immigration law.

“This group says it isn’t involved in politics. Well, clearly they are,” Sheriff Arpaio said. “The local group, Arizona Council of the Blind, petitioned the national board to have me removed, and for what, because they don’t want me to enforce Arizona’s immigration laws? They are out of step with our citizenry; shame on them.”

because of his tough stance on immigration enforcement and the state’s pending immigration law

That’s exactly what I mean. It doesn’t matter that the reason they originally invited him to speak had everything to do with his and their common interest in protecting animals from abuse and giving them good homes, not immigration enforcement issues, the hypocrites on the left believe that unless you agree one hundred per cent with their politics and act accordingly, you should be excommunicated from the human race.

Yeah, yeah, these pieces of feces can say that they have:

…concerns about the invitation based on their view of Sheriff Arpaio’s policies and perceived concerns over security at the event.

Security, right. Of course, if lefties didn’t lie, they’d have very little to say.

No, they really don’t, these members of the current majority festering in Congress. Anytime any opportunity arises where they have the chance to sabotage our economy, our freedom of speech or our security in the name of liberal quagmirism, they’re wide awake and on it with a vengeance.

The Senate rejected a move Thursday to block the Obama administration from using ordinary federal courts to prosecute those alleged to have plotted the Sept. 11 attacks.

On a 54-45 vote, the Senate tabled an amendment from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that would have left military commissions as the only option for prosecuting Sept. 11 suspects.

All 40 Republicans supported the amendment, along with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and four Democrats: Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)

Graham said the measure, offered as an amendment to the annual appropriations bill for the Commerce and Justice Departments, was needed to head off what he said were plans by the Obama administration to send Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others allegedly involved in the Sept. 11 plot to trials before civilian courts in the U.S.

Of course, we were expecting something like that, the left having discussed it for a long time, often with comparisons of the gulag and Nazi death camps when referring to the Camp Delta incarceration facility at Guantanamo Bay, the feeble argument that these Butchers For Allah are mere felons, not captured prisoners in a war between civilizations we did not start, but to now see that they’ve actually done it, well, is nevertheless disconcerting.

The more sensible among our leaders, mostly Republicans, were, rightly, completely for the bill.

“These people are not criminals. They’re warriors — and they need to be dealt with in a legal system that recognizes that,” Graham said. “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, did not rob a liquor store.”

“The attacks of 9/11 were not a crime. They were a war crime,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said.

Some Democrats flatly disagreed, arguing that military trials could play into the Al Qaeda operatives’ claims that they are fighters in a holy war against America.

“They are criminals. They committed murder,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said. “These are not holy warriors. They are criminals.”

Here, here!

Jim Webb, one of the few smart Democrats present:

“I have consistently argued that the appropriate venue for trying perpetrators of international terrorism who are in fact enemy combatants is a military tribunal,” Webb said. He said federal court procedures for turning over evidence to defense lawyers and for calling military and intelligence agency witnesses “could lead to the exposure of classified materials.”

My emphasis, there, and the man said a mouthful.

Regular court procedures would require the prosecution to produce evidence that might consist of disclosure of methods, means and personnel we can’t afford to have the enemy read about in the New York Times.

Then again, that precedent was already set back when the NYT was printing the details of Bush terrorist surveillance strategies, so I don’t suppose it would be anything new.

Webb also indicated he was concerned that a terror suspect sent to federal court could be released in the U.S. if he was found not guilty.

Fancy that!

The whole story is here.

Knowing how much I detest liberal interference in what was once among the best systems of education in the world, Seth forwarded the following material to me awhile ago, from Red State.

While we are all focusing on H.R. 3200, the House Democrats’ health care plan, we should at least glance at H.R. 3221, the House Democrats’ plan to kill off higher education access. (PDF)

The legislation is opposed by many major universities including Notre Dame, among others. Basically, the bill would shut down all private providers of student loans, drive up costs for universities, and become a bureaucratic nightmare for institutions of higher learning. The professors may be leftists, but the administrators have to pay attention to the bottom line.

Incredible! It’s bad enough that today’s students are subjected to a course of liberal indoctrination during the span of their educations, now the lefties in Congress have decided that the government should decide, by controlling student loans, who gets, and doesn’t get, a college education?

In the process, putting the government in charge of something like this will create another big bureaucracy, one fraught with the same quagmire of ineptitude and the normal attached smothering taxation we always get from government usurpation of private sector functions. Prime example: The mess to which we’ll be treated if we are victimized by government run healthcare.

The Director of Student Financial Strategies at University of Notre Dame warns in a letter to Congressman Miller, “Any legislation that eliminates choice and competition and mandates that all institutions adopt an all-government run program for the 2010/11 academic year is filled with immense risk and would create massive confusion.”

Get that? The Democrats want an “all-government run program” to provide people access to money to pay for college. And if they do that, then they can force universities to comply with lots of new rules or deny students the right to use federal student loans to go to particular colleges.

But it gets better. Boy does it ever get better.

How!!!?

§ 343 of the plan creates a Green Schools Czar. No kidding. A Green Schools Czar (and committee naturally) would examine the impact of more environmentally friendly universities and find ways to create even more environmentally friendly universities. Oh . . . I have an idea . . . if students need financial assistance and they are forced to go through the feds, the feds can simply tell universities to become compliant or they won’t let students use their student loans to go there.

What is so funny is that §312 of Obama’s stimulus plan also sent money to schools to become more environmentally friendly. That was the carrot. Well, this new law will become the stick.

A green schools czar. Czars and more czars, all the better for the Obama Administration and the Kommie Left to maintain Kontrol.

Recapped today,

If you want an indication of just how radical the Democrats in Congress have become, consider the vote on H.R. 3221. The legislation, which I wrote about yesterday, shuts down all private lenders for higher education student loans, requires that colleges and universities adhere to a new federal bureaucracy, creates a new Green Schools Czar, and hints that any school not complying will see its students denied federal student loans.

The liberals now in firm control of our government will stop at nothing to change America into something entirely different than the great country in which we were born and raised.

We right thinkers had best enjoy it while there’s something left to enjoy.

…is available for our perusal at the Toronto International Film Festival.

Canadian and American filmmakers lashed back Friday at what they described as an ” outrageous” boycott of the Toronto International Film Festival by some filmmakers and writers in protest of the event’s spotlight on filmmakers from Tel Aviv.

Producer, writer and director David Zucker (”Scary Movie,” “Naked Gun,” “Airplane!” ) denounced as “left-wing crazies” the individuals who signed a letter called ” The Toronto Declaration” to protest Israeli government policies.

Even artistic endeavors are not safe from the injection of politics by the far left and its minions.

Mr. Zucker said he is “outraged” that actors such as Danny Glover and Jane Fonda, along with about 50 other activists, would sign a declaration that condemns Israel as an “apartheid regime” and dismisses the work of Tel Aviv filmmakers as “Israeli propaganda.”

The protest of Israel began Aug. 27 when Canadian filmmaker John Greyson released a public letter stating he would withdraw his film from the 10-day festival, which opens Thursday, to protest Israel’s “brutal” military assault on Gaza earlier this year.
On Thursday Sept. 3, writer Naomi Klein and others joined Mr. Greyson’s protest and issued ” The Toronto Declaration: No Celebration of Occupation.”

Israel’s “brutal” military assault on Gaza earlier this year.

Didn’t that have something to do with stopping Hamas’ launching missiles at civilian targets in southern Israel, and curtailing the smuggling of weapons into the Gaza Strip to prevent further violence against innocent civilians?

Then again, Liberals, who are always the first up to preach peace, are also always right there to raise their voices in support of the worst murderers, torturers and enslavers of civilian populations on the planet. If your cause involves genocide and totalitarianism, rest assured there will be millions of liberals, especially the American kind who have never had to worry about falling victim to the same evils, marching in your support.

Nevertheless, a liberal will be outraged if you even hint that he or she has even a single hypocritical bone in his or her body.

I’ll tell you one thing: Had I been Henry Fonda, not only would I have been the most ashamed father in America, I would probably, also, have looked into the possibility of a total gene replacement decades ago.

Mr. Greyson’s film, “Covered,” is a documentary about violence in Bosnia-Herzegovina that shut down the 2008 Sarajevo Queer Festival.

The 2008 Sarajevo Queer Festival?

ROTFLMAO!

I wonder how many people the withdrawal of Mr. Greyson’s film has brought to the very brink of suicidal despair!

Emmy Award-winning filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici complained that Mr. Greyson is now trying to shut down the voices of filmmakers in the only country in the Middle East that allows free expression.

If Mr. Greyson “were to walk down the streets of Tel Aviv with a sign saying he is a homosexual filmmaker, he would be invited to the Tel Aviv Queer Film Festival. But if he did that in Ramallah or any Palestinian village in the Territories, his films would have to be shown posthumously because they would kill him,” said Mr. Jacobovici.

In fact, Mr. Greyson was invited to the Tel Aviv Queer Festival and withdrew another of his films from that event.

My, these “queer festivals” really seem to be making the rounds. Even in “evil, apartheid mongering” Tel Aviv, imagine that!

Gays in Palestine “flee to Tel Aviv to protect themselves from their brothers who would lynch them,” Mr. Jacobovici added.

Yes, but that doesn’t count, because,

“It seems that nothing the Jews do is right and nothing the enemies of the Jews do is wrong,” said Mr. Jacobovici.

{Both above emphasis’ mine}

The idea of an Israeli apartheid is also “a lie,” said Mr. Jacobovici, noting that 1 million Palestinians live in Israel (about 20 percent of Israel’s population), “while not one Jew lives in the Territories or is even buried there because they have disinterred those bodies.”

Anyway, the entire Washington Times article is here.

Liberals…

Now that Channukah, Christmas and New Year’s have come and gone and I’ve recovered sufficiently from a rather active New Year’s Eve to take a poke at this keyboard again with some semblance of coherence…

First, being a smoker, I need to pitch a brief bitch about the no-smoking-in-bars law that was moved up from this coming summer to the day before yesterday (1 January, 2008) here in Illinois. I read all these pieces about fellow smokers facing the tribulations of having to step outside the bar, into the Chicago winter (if I’m not mistaken, it’s less than 10 degrees outside as I type this), to smoke a cigarette. They speak of everything from purchasing ear muffs and extra scarves to giving up the tobacco habit.

For me, this just means I won’t go to any bars other than those in restaurants where I’m having dinner with friends, and I’ll abstain until after I leave the establishment. I simply won’t hang out at my favorite watering hole any more, or any other local drinkeries, for that matter. So I’ll save a couple of hundred bucks a week.

Then there’s this other law that kinda’ sorta’ went into effect without my even knowing about it: I noticed, over the duration of my last carton of Chesterfield Kings, that the durn things kept going out on me when I laid them in the ashtray (more of my cigarettes spend time in the ashtray than they do being smoked, as I light up most while I’m on-line, blogging, reading, commenting, etc). It seemed that there was a problem with the paper — so I called Phillip Morris to inquire, and they informed me that certain states (including Illinois) had adopted a law requiring that all cigarettes sold in them had to have the paper thickened so that they go out when they’re not being smoked. This was explained as a measure to prevent cigarettes from starting fires. Right. Okay. Whatever. I search-engined the law and read all the statistics. Fine. Ram it.

It’s sure nice to have government entities, be they local, state or federal, protecting us from ourselves. I mean, what would we do without intrusive government? Let’s make things really easy: Let’s simply shitcan the Constitution altogether. Who needs it, right? Today’s politicians apparently haven’t read it, anyway, so why bother to perpetuate its existence?

Having gotten that out of the way, let’s move on to the meat of this post:

Just like that–like flipping a switch–Congress and the president banned incandescent light bulbs last month. OK, they did not exactly ban them. But the energy bill passed by Congress and signed by President Bush sets energy-efficiency standards for light bulbs that traditional incandescent bulbs cannot meet.

The new rules phase in starting in 2012, but don’t be lulled by that five-year delay. Whether it’s next week or next decade, you will one day walk into a hardware store looking for a 100-watt bulb–and there won’t be any. By 2014, the new efficiency standards will apply to 75-watt, 60-watt and 40-watt bulbs too.

So now the government is dictating what kind of light bulbs will be available to us, cost be damned.

As a disclaimer, I will say that I use compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) for the simple reason that I dislike pedestrian hassles, especially being a high ceilings kind of guy, and the spiral bulbs mean not having to change a light bulb for a really long time.

However, I don’t believe that CFLs should be forced on the public, like it or not. They are significantly more expensive, for one thing, and for another, as was bandied about the Blogosphere several months ago, they bring a serious element of risk into the household.

Brandy Bridges heard the claims of government officials, environmentalists and retailers like Wal-Mart all pushing the idea of replacing incandescent light bulbs with energy-saving and money-saving compact fluorescent lamps.

So, last month, the Prospect, Maine, resident went out and bought two dozen CFLs and began installing them in her home. One broke. A month later, her daughter’s bedroom remains sealed off with plastic like the site of a hazardous materials accident, while Bridges works on a way to pay off a $2,000 estimate by a company specializing in environmentally sound cleanups of the mercury inside the bulb.

With everyone from Al Gore to Wal-Mart to the Environmental Protection Agency promoting CFLs as the greatest thing since, well, the light bulb, consumers have been left in the dark about a problem they will all face eventually – how to get rid of the darn things when they burn out or, worse yet, break.

So here we’re talking about government regulation requiring families and individuals to purchase and install in their dwellings common objects (unless, of course, they have no problem with living in the dark) that present potential health hazards.

Now, I’m not a litigious person, but…

… if the government can impose this upon the masses, then the masses should, by all means, be able to sue the government, big time, in the event that these CFLs, once they’re the only game in town, present the problem they did for Brandy Bridges. Instead of the citizen with no remaining freedom of choice paying for the clean-up, let Uncle Sam pay for it. After all, Uncle is forcing the situation on us, and doing so by ignoring the Constitution and the very principles of freedom that our founding fathers bestowed upon us.

Perhaps it’s just me, a product of Ukranian and Polish grandparents who, prior to producing my mother and her two sisters and later raising me, immigrated to the United States and immersed themselves in the business of becoming English speaking, patriotic Americans, but…

I have long been rather nonplussed at the drive by our portside political community to make light of the above concept.

Should the Salvation Army be able to require its employees to speak English? You wouldn’t think that’s controversial. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is holding up a $53 billion appropriations bill funding the FBI, NASA and Justice Department solely to block an attached amendment, passed by both the Senate and House, that protects the charity and other employers from federal lawsuits over their English-only policies.

The U.S. used to welcome immigrants while at the same time encouraging assimilation. Since 1906, for example, new citizens have had to show “the ability to read, write and speak ordinary English.” A century later, this preference for assimilation is still overwhelmingly popular. A new Rasmussen poll finds that 87% of voters think it “very important” that people speak English in the U.S., with four out of five Hispanics agreeing. And 77% support the right of employers to have English-only policies, while only 14% are opposed.

But hardball politics practiced by ethnic grievance lobbies is driving assimilation into the dustbin of history. The House Hispanic Caucus withheld its votes from a key bill granting relief on the Alternative Minimum Tax until Ms. Pelosi promised to kill the Salvation Army relief amendment.

What aggravates me here is that, we being a democracy and all, the Democrats, knowing that the vast majority of Americans believe that the English language should be coin of the realm here in the U.S., continue to press their multi-lingual agenda — of course, we know that they are motivated by targeted minority votes rather than the good of our country — and that they are willing to make light of the will of The People as such.

Maybe they should rename their party…

Yet the public is ready for leadership that will forthrightly defend reasonable assimilation. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger won plaudits when he said last June that one way to close the Latino learning divide was “to turn off the Spanish TV set. It’s that simple. You’ve got to learn English.” Ruben Navarette, a columnist with the San Diego Union-Tribune, agreed, warning that “industries such as native language education or Spanish-language television [create] linguistic cocoons that offer the comfort of a warm bath when what English-learners really need is a cold shower.”

“SNIP”, as they say,

But the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that last year filed over 200 lawsuits against employers over English-only rules, has a different vision. Its lawsuit against the Salvation Army accuses the organization of discriminating against two employees at its Framingham, Mass., thrift store “on the basis of their national origin.” Its crime was to give the employees a year’s notice that they should speak English on the job (outside of breaks) and then firing them after they did not. The EEOC sued only four years after a federal judge in Boston, in a separate suit, upheld the Salvation Army’s English-only policy as an effort to “promote workplace harmony.” Like a house burglar, the EEOC is trying every door in the legal neighborhood until it finds one that’s open.

The EEOC is no friend of the American People. They stink of the SPP/NAU agenda.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), who authored the now-stalled amendment to prohibit the funding of EEOC lawsuits against English-only rules, is astonished at the opposition he’s generated. Rep. Joe Baca (D., Calif.), chair of the Hispanic Caucus, boasted that “there ain’t going to be a bill” including the Alexander language because Speaker Pelosi had promised him the conference committee handling the Justice Department’s budget would never meet. So Sen. Alexander proposed a compromise, only requiring that Congress be given 30 days notice before the filing of any EEOC lawsuit. “I was turned down flat,” he told me. “We are now celebrating diversity at the expense of unity. One way to create that unity is to value, not devalue, our common language, English.”

That’s what pro-assimilation forces are moving to do. TV Azteca, Mexico’s second-largest network, is launching a 60-hour series of English classes on all its U.S. affiliates. It recognizes that teaching English empowers Latinos. “If you live in this country, you have to speak as everybody else,” Jose Martin Samano, Azteca’s U.S. anchor, told Fox News. “Immigrants here in the U.S. can make up to 50% or 60% more if they speak both English and Spanish. This is something we have to do for our own people.”

Azteca isn’t alone. Next month, a new group called Our Pledge will be launched. Counting Jeb Bush and former Clinton Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros among its board members, the organization believes absorbing immigrants is “the Sputnik challenge of our era.” It will put forward two mutual pledges. It will ask immigrants to learn English, become self-sufficient and pledge allegiance to the U.S. It will ask Americans to provide immigrants help navigating the American system, the chance to eventually become a citizen and an atmosphere of respect.

Go to any other country in the world and try to undermine its official language, and see how well recieved you are.

In 1999, President Bill Clinton said “new immigrants have a responsibility to enter the mainstream of American life.” Eight years later, Clinton strategists Stan Greenberg and James Carville are warning their fellow Democrats that the frustration with immigrants and their lack of assimilation is creating a climate akin to the anti-welfare attitudes of the 1990s. They point out that 40% of independent voters now cite border security issues as the primary reason for their discontent.

In 1996, Mr. Clinton and a GOP Congress joined together to defuse the welfare issue by ending the federal welfare entitlement. Bold bipartisan action is needed again. With frustration this deep, it’s in the interests of both parties not to let matters get out of hand.

The entire quoted Opinion Journal column, by John Fund, is here.

The only reason the Democrats are so dead set on creating a multi-lingual America is to get the votes of those immigrants/minorities who don’t consider learning English or otherwise assimilating into mainstream America a priority.

The modern Democratic Party is so, so different from the one to which I belonged and that which I supported during my younger, less informed years. Today, they are more than willing to sacrifice our country, the form of government that makes it great and any and every other ideal that distinguishes America from infinitely less desireable geographic entities for the sole purpose of having their politicians elected to office.

To my way of thinking, that is not only grossly disgraceful, but it is also pure, unmitigated treason.