It's time for another grueling confirmation battle in Washington, and, during an election year, you can be sure that no stone will be left unturned into a soapbox. Whether politicians come out for or against General Michael Hayden as new head of the CIA, the only thing we can be sure of is that the trial -- I mean, confirmation hearing -- will be loud and ugly.

The resignation of Porter Goss seemed like a surprise to many at the time, but not in hindsight. He was appointed to head the CIA in the wake of three spectacular foreign intelligence failures. The CIA failed to anticipate 9/11, failed to notice that Saddam was moving his weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq and failed to warn us that al-Qaeda, Iraqi criminals and Saddam adherents would work together to create a serious threat to the emerging democratic Iraqi government. After these three strikes, Clinton appointee George Tenet resigned, and Porter Goss was put in place to change the entrenched reactionary bureaucracy that permeated our premiere spy agency. Unfortunately, his power to do so was soon sapped.

The 9/11 commission demanded a new layer of bureaucracy in the form of an "intelligence czar," for which post Bush nominated John Negroponte. This move effectively made Negroponte Goss' boss, reducing the latter's authority. For years, the CIA bureaucracy has been lashing out at Bush by leaking damaging information to the media like a broken sieve, and the leaks only increased. Goss responded by removing some of the entrenched bureaucrats, creating an even more hostile environment in the Agency. The last year has seen a lot of tension between Negroponte and Goss as well, finally culminating in the Goss' resignation and the appointment of Hayden.

President Bush's choice of Air Force General Hayden to head the CIA is an inspired one, on several levels. Hayden knows more about intelligence-gathering -- from both sides of the Iron Curtain, and both sides of the desk -- than most Washington denizens can even imagine. There is no way for opponents to challenge his credentials for the job. Hayden will also have no problem working with Negroponte, having already served as his deputy. In fact, the Director of Central Intelligence will become just that -- a deputy to the Director of National Intelligence. Hayden is under no illusions about the scope or power of his new position. The job of bringing the CIA, which has almost become a rogue agency operating on its own agenda, under Negroponte's control will be an important part of Hayden's new job.

The political strategy behind the nomination is almost self-evident. Democrats (and a few Republicans) will only be able to attack Hayden on two counts, both of which will put them in a bad light with the American public. They will oppose Hayden because he's a general, and the idea of a military man running the CIA -- though it's been done before -- is anathema to them. Admiral Stansfield Turner, for instance, headed the CIA under President Carter. Democrats who attack Hayden's trustworthiness on the grounds that he's wearing a uniform will send the clear message, "we don't trust the military," no matter how they try to disguise it.

The main attack on Hayden will concern the warrantless surveillance on terrorists, which Hayden spearheaded during his time in the NSA. Democrats seem not to have gotten the message that the public generally supports eavesdropping on terrorists, no matter who they're talking to. Attacking Hayden over monitoring terrorists' conversations without a warrant will seem like protecting terrorists from spying. Hayden and Bush seem almost eager for a chance to defend the NSA terrorist surveillance program in a public forum, which would serve as a warning if Democrats weren't so smugly certain they'll win the House and Senate this November.

If the Democrats were paying attention, they could avoid showcasing their distrust of the military and support of privacy rights for terrorists by simply confirming Michael Hayden without a fight. But Democrats pay even less attention to what the people think than Republicans. The chance they will refuse to grandstand in front of the cameras and have their concerned soundbytes played on the evening news is, as always, virtually nil.

I think we can expect a vicious confirmation fight, followed by Hayden's confirmation, a slight rise in Bush's poll numbers as well as those of Republicans in general, and a lot of confusion about all of it on the Left.

Zacarias Moussaoui deserved to die far more than any of the innocent victims of 9/11. Instead, he was tried in a civilian court and sentenced to live a long and healthy life at taxpayer expense, if not a comfortable one. As far as I'm concerned, the minute he said, "I am a member of al-Qaeda," he should have been taken out back and shot without another word. Unfortunately, membership in an organisation dedicated to the deliberate mass murder of innocent people in order to enslave the world under a twisted religious dictatorship doesn't happen to be grounds for immediate execution. Meanwhile, French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei has already spoken of a "possible demand for transferring Zacarias Moussaoui" to France. That's what happens when we treat terrorism as a matter of law enforcement rather than an act of war.

In June 1942, eight German agents entered the United States in two groups of four, landing by submarine in Florida and New York. They carried "enough explosives, primers, and incendiaries to support an expected two-year career in the sabotage of American defense-related production." George John Dasch, the leader of one group, apparently lost his nerve. He called the FBI and surrendered. Dasch convinced another man, Ernest Peter Burger, to talk to the FBI as well. Because of the information they gave under interrogation, the others were rounded up within days.

The eight saboteurs were tried before a military tribunal and sentenced to death. In ex parte Quirin, the Supreme Court decided that the eight men had violated the rules of war by wearing civilian clothing during a military operation. President Roosevelt commuted Dasch's sentence to 30 years and Burger's to life imprisonment. The other six were executed within a few days of sentencing. They never got a chance to commit even a single act of sabotage. The Nazis were so stunned by the utter failure that they never tried another such operation. That's the proper way to handle enemy agents in a time of war.

Moussaoui, on the other hand, was sent through our criminal justice system. He had foreknowledge of a terrorist act that cost the lives of nearly 3,000 innocents. He confessed that he had planned to fly a plane into the White House in a separate operation. He was in FBI custody before 9/11, yet deliberately lied to prevent anyone from discovering the plot before the attack took place. As an agent of a foreign power intent on committing terrorist acts in the US, surely he deserved the same fate as those long-dead Nazi agents who only planned to blow up defense installations. But because he was tried by a civilian court instead of a military tribunal, Moussaoui was allowed to live.

We've all heard the reasons for not sentencing Moussaoui to death. "He had a rough childhood" is one of my favorites. Lots of people have rough childhoods; it's no excuse for becoming a terrorist. "He didn't actually kill anyone" is another. Neither did those Nazi saboteurs; the only crimes they actually committed were immigration violation and conspiracy. There's also the smug "he wanted to die, and we denied him his wish." Next time I get stopped for speeding, I'm going to tell the cop that I really want a ticket, and the best punishment would be to deny me my wish. Maybe I can get away while he's laughing.

Some might think that by showing "mercy" to Moussaoui, we've made some sort of point with either our enemies or our allies. A trial is supposed to be about law and justice. Sometimes it's about retribution and punishment. One thing a trial should never be is a world popularity contest. Our allies don't need to be reminded who we are and what we stand for, and there isn't a single enemy who will think, "Gee, maybe the Great Satan isn't so bad after all." On the contrary, we've shown the world that we don't take this war seriously by allowing Moussaoui to live.

Our enemies will take the Moussaoui sentence as a sign of the same weakness of will that led them to plan 9/11 in the first place, and maybe they have a point. We treated terrorism as a law enforcement problem all through the nineties, while our enemies were at war with us. The response to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, for instance, was a trial. Few dared to look beyond the immediate perpetrators to seek those who sent them. The entire fiction of "stateless terrorism" was created just to avoid confrontation with Iraq over the bombing.

Ramzi Yousef, the "mastermind" of the 1993 bombing, sits in the same Supermax prison for which Moussaoui is destined. Did Yousef's trial and incarceration stop our enemies, the way executing Nazi saboteurs did? On the contrary, Bin Laden and his kind saw that we arbitrarily bound ourselves in ways that gave them freedom to act, and let them take the initiative against us. They saw that we would not act without clear evidence and court orders. Yousef got to watch 9/11 unfold in his cell while reading his Qur'an. What future attacks might Moussaoui get to witness?

War has different rules than catching crooks, for obvious reasons. Common criminals generally aren't trying to destroy our civilisation; they're trying to live off it. Soldiers on a battlefield don't have to collect evidence or conduct a trial before shooting an enemy. But in this kind of war, the battlefield is everywhere, and enemies hide among our own people. Captured enemies should be brought before a military tribunal and executed without long delays. If we return to the law enforcement mindset when dealing with terrorists, we return to the sort of willful blindness that let our enemies plot to kill thousands.

One can only hope that we learn a lesson from this whole Moussaoui trial: civilian criminals are one thing, and enemies another.

Mayday is the international distress signal, from the French phrase m'aidez or "help me." It's also a common term for the first day of May. And this May Day, no one needs help more than the American people.

We have been subjected to a slow-motion invasion by foreigners who knowingly broke our laws when they crossed our borders. They excuse their violation of the law by citing the fact that we have a better economy and more freedom than they can find in their home countries. Every single day they are here, they commit further crimes including identity fraud, theft, tax evasion, falsification of information, misuse of government services and more.

Now these illegal immigrants have the temerity to demand that we grant them amnesty for all their past crimes, and even allow them to apply for citizenship, as though they had followed the procedure to come here legally. They march in our streets, waving foreign flags and signs telling us what to do in foreign languages, fly those foreign flags above the American flag, and have even disrespected our national anthem by rewriting it and publishing their bastardised version in Spanish.

Illegals show their contempt not only for our laws and traditions, but for the millions upon millions of people who have obeyed the rules and spent years waiting for permission to come to America. I have no respect for people who deliberately break the law and then insist that they deserve no punishment, and no respect for those who excuse their behavior. Illegals and their supporters label anyone who simply wants the law enforced a racist, as though "lawbreaker" has its own ethnicity. America is tired of hearing insults and demands from criminals who have no right to even be here.

These illegal immigrants tell us that we can't do anything about their presence, and that if we try, they will cause large-scale economic disruption. We are to be held hostage to a mob of criminals trying to frighten us into submission. On the first of May 2006, they plan to protest, boycott and even close down entire cities to show their "power" over Americans. They claim that they want to be treated like Americans, but real Americans don't deliberately damage our own economy just to make a political point. This is nothing short of terrorism, in my opinion, and it will not be borne.

But who will help us stop these invaders? Who is defending the country? Not our politicians, most of whom are scrambling to curry favor with the new crowd before the others can get a piece of the vote. Not our local law enforcement, which will be too busy with crowd control at these rallies to check for green cards. Not our federal law enforcement, which takes its marching orders from the pandering politicians. 

Imagine waking up to find your neighbor sitting on your couch, watching your TV, and calmly smoking a cigarette. He explains that since you have a nicer house than he does, as well as cable tv, he decided to enter through an unlocked window. As he puts his clothes in your closet and his decorations on your wall, the neighbor explains that he has a right to seek a better life and better things for himself. The fact that it's your house doesn't seem to bother him. When you call for help, the police explain that you must simply accept this new addition to your household. He's already moved in, and it would be too much trouble to make him leave. After all, he cleans up after himself and takes out the garbage. Oh, and don't lock that window -- it wouldn't be fair to your other neighbors to start doing so now.

This is the position in which we Americans find ourselves. We're frustrated and angry that those responsible for upholding our laws are ignoring them in a mad scramble for votes. But those illegal immigrants don't have the vote yet, and there will be more elections before they do. More than 80 percent of the American people want border enforcement and no amnesty -- illegal immigration may be the only issue that nearly unites both sides of the aisle. Many Senators and Congressmen who vote for amnesty -- however it's worded -- and against stopping the flow of illegal immigration will lose the power they so cherish.

Many Republicans define themselves as belonging to the party of law and order. This makes them more vulnerable than Democrats, who already pander shamelessly to criminals and foreigners. It may be worse for the country as a whole if the Democrats take the House and/or Senate this year, but it will happen nonetheless, if the Republicans don't stand up for what most of the people want. Even if the Democrats don't take control, enough people will remember which Republicans voted to give amnesty and citizenship to foreigners who perform the ultimate home invasion when the next primaries come around for those quislings.

Enforce the law. Uphold the Constitution. This is what we pay taxes for. We have the right to a reasonable expectation that all will be treated equally before the law. When some people receive special treatment, when the laws are overturned or ignored to suit certain groups, we lose faith in our system and respect for the officials we elected to positions of power. In a time of such turmoil, with our country fighting terrorists and opposing rogue regimes around the globe, can our government really afford to throw away the confidence of its citizens to appease a mob of lawbreaking foreigners?

Let's not find out.

- copy of a letter I sent to my Senators and Representative, as well as House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and President George W. Bush.

Gas prices rise, and suddenly everyone in Washington becomes a raging anti-capitalist. (Washington D.C., that is -- the other Washington already has more than its fair share.) Outrage over the audacity of oil companies daring to make money is something you expect to hear from a hippie at a Left-wing anti-everything rally, not the leadership of the greatest capitalist nation on Earth. The shock comes upon hearing the same rhetoric coming from both sides of the aisle.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) asked President Bush to order a probe into "price gouging" and "fixing." I can think of no better way to feed into the standard Liberal conspiracy theories concerning oil companies. But the Federal Trade Commission investigated the same allegations yet again just last year, and summed up "the vast majority" of thirty years of similar investigations by concluding that "market factors" were "the primary drivers of both price increases and price spikes." Politicians are considering whether to temporarily suspend gas taxes, but Democrats want to raise taxes (surprise!) on oil companies to "pay for it." Not to be outdone, Senator Arlen Specter (R?-PA) has begun gathering support for a "windfall profits" tax on oil companies! I wouldn't be surprised to see the Greenpeace flag flying over the Capitol building tomorrow instead of the Stars and Stripes, if not the ol' Hammer and Sickle itself. It just goes to show how skin-deep the Conservative beliefs of too many Republicans really are.

A lot of people point to the $400 million retirement package awarded to Exxon Mobil CEO Lee Raymond and ask, in effect, "why don't the oil companies give me that money?" Politicians point to that figure in their complaints that oil companies make "too much money," whatever that means. The answer, according to politicians and Liberals, is for the Federal government to dictate how much profit oil companies are allowed to make -- in essence, to nationalise the oil industry. Is that really what we want to happen, and is that the precedent we want to set? Perhaps we'll see a Federal limit on actors' salaries next, because movie ticket prices are getting too high. It's capitalism! Supply and demand!

If the government is really interested in lower gas prices, there are plenty of ways to help without slipping into Socialism. Chief among these would be eliminating gas taxes, permanently. The Federal government tacks 18.4 cents onto the price of every gallon of gasoline sold, and each state adds an average of 27.5 cents to the price as well. The companies that actually ship, refine, transport and sell the gas only make about 8 cents in profit on every gallon sold. And then they pay taxes on that.

Another thing the Federal government could do to lower the price of gas is to stop the practice of mandating "bouquet blends" for different regions, a result of letting environmentalists dictate policy. Such artificial controls make it impossible for places with a surplus to relieve areas of shortage. Environmental restrictions were lowered in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to allow that region to use gas from others, and it worked. But when GOP lawmakers tried to expand the easing of restrictions, Democrats accused them of exploiting Katrina to make money, and they backed down.
 
Yet another example of unwarranted government interference is the forced reliance on ethanol. The energy bill Congress passed last year should have simply ordered the use of oxygenated blends, and allowed the market to figure out which worked best in different areas. Instead, the ethanol lobbyists did their job well. Politicians promoted and protected ethanol use, while refusing to protect manufacturers of rival additive MTBE from lawsuits. (Both are technically carcinogens, as a byproduct of burning ethanol is aldehyde, but it would cost more to clean MTBE from water supplies in event of a spill.) The coastal states were forced to switch to ethanol, which is expensive to make and hard to ship, and works well only in the Midwest, where supply lines are short. It turned out that domestic ethanol manufacturers couldn't keep up with the demand, so we have to use imported ethanol -- and imported ethanol carries a 54-cent tariff on every gallon.

The most direct cause of high gas prices is something the Federal government could only partially avoid -- the high price of foreign oil. Hasn't anyone in the government noticed that gas prices rise when oil prices rise, and fall when oil prices fall? For decades, the environmental lobbies that have influence over the entire Democratic party (and too many Republicans) have forced us to rely more and more on foreign oil. Now, with China buying every drop of oil they can get their hands on, we see the result.

We have not had a new nuclear power plant since the 1970's, nor have we had new oil exploration or drilling. The same Liberals who complain that we need to stop using foreign oil consider ANWR (the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve) and the continental shelves to be some kind of holy ground. But if not foreign oil, and not domestic, than what? If Congress had any real desire to lower the price of gas, we would see oil rigs spring up on that desolate patch of barren Alaskan wilderness overnight. We would see offshore drilling on both coasts. We would see workers breaking ground for new refineries and nuclear plants. For crying out loud, Cuba is drilling off the Florida coast -- why can't we?

Instead of taking steps to alleviate the problem, Democrats and big government Republicans may use it to exert greater control over what should be solved by market forces. In the face of gas price complaints, Congress will likely impose punitive taxes, more restrictions and tighter regulations on America's oil industry instead of lower taxes, fewer restrictions and more American self-reliance. If they do, it will prove to be a colossal mistake. Haven't we learned by now that the worst way to solve a problem is to let the government take charge of it?

Few things are more entertaining than listening to Liberals play "Budget Hawk," their new favorite game. It's like overhearing children playing house, imitating their parents. Well, the way children used to imitate their parents, back when it was normal to have two (one of each), and Daddy went off to work while Mommy stayed home. These days, it might take two children to play a divorced Mommy and Daddy, two more to play their new partners (of whatever sex), and several others to play the various step-siblings and support groups of the various Mommies and Daddies. Is that what Liberals meant by "it takes a village to raise a child?"

But back to the new Budget Hawk game. It's the best way Liberals have come up with to undermine support for the war in Iraq. Realising that most Americans outside of Hollywood abhor wasteful spending, the anti-war crowd often pretends to be horrified by the amount of money spent by the Federal government on Iraq. "Do you know how much Bush's war in Iraq is costing?" they demand to know. "Hundreds of millions a day!" It's always "Bush's war," though Congress voted to send troops to Iraq, and keeps nailing slabs of pork to every defense-related bill. Still, it's all a pose, a calculated outrage designed to reduce support for the war among more fiscally conservative Americans.

As usual, however, Liberals are just throwing out raw numbers for their shock value. They do the same when they complain that an across-the-board tax cut results in the rich keeping more of their own money than the middle class. Naturally, one percent of $1,000,000 is a lot more money than the same fraction of $50,000, so if everyone's taxes were reduced by the same rate, some people would have less taken away by Uncle Sam than others. Yet we still hear Liberals and their pet Democrats screaming about a "tax cut for the rich," because the actual dollar values are different. The truth can often be found in what they don't say.

To complain that keeping the American military -- or, at least, about ten percent of it -- in Iraq costs X number of dollars per day is to ignore the fact that the military isn't cheap to keep home, either. Troops still have to be paid, fed, clothed, housed and trained; equipment still has to be upgraded, repaired and replaced. Most of the little logistical nightmares that accompany troops in the field follow them wherever they go. When playing the Budget Hawk game, Liberals just sort of skip over that part, wanting you to consider the expense in a vacuum.

All things considered, the war in Iraq really hasn't been very expensive in monetary terms, not when you compare it to previous wars and subsequent rebuilding. And it's hard to put a price tag on changing a part of the world. World War II, for instance, cost America about 130% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) -- almost a third more then the entire wealth creation of the United States during that time. Korea and Vietnam cost approximately 13% and 11%, respectively. The entire monetary cost of the war in Iraq so far is just 2% of the wealth we create every year, according to research done by Robert Whaples, a Wake Forest University professor of economics.

The trick, of course, is that Liberals don't want that money returned to the taxpayers or spent on national defense in other ways. Whenever Liberals play Budget Hawk, you can hear part of the true Democratic election platform. That means pulling out of Iraq regardless of the circumstances, reducing the defense budget, and spending that money on Socialist entitlements designed to make more people more dependent than ever on the Federal government, which translates into Democrat votes. Add impeaching the President and raising taxes to pay for even more entitlement programs, and you pretty much have the whole of it.

At least national defense is a valid expenditure mandated by the Constitution. Bailing out a floundering political party by helping them buy votes wasn't part of the Founding Fathers' vision.

Once again, the Left are ramping up their campaign for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, just so they can use the word "embattled" in a sentence. The media has tried to tie every military misstep in the War on Terror directly to Rumsfeld as a way of discrediting President Bush, blaming him for every problem from helicopter crashes to Abu Ghraib. Their political purpose is so obvious that the main result has been a general dwindling of trust in the media. Of course, Rumsfeld has already offered his resignation at least twice, but President Bush refused to accept it.

Since their attacks on Rumsfeld haven't had the desired effect, those on the Left have decided they needed to quote an authority. Lo and behold, a group of retired generals "spontaneously" decided to call for Rumsfeld's resignation, and just in time for the 2006 campaign season to get underway! And the Liberals -- the same people who call members of the military "murders" and "torturers," consider them no better than Nazis, and scream in outrage when they recruit on college campuses -- now want us to believe they hold these six generals and their opinions in the highest regard. The thousands of retired generals who don't attack Rumsfeld and Bush -- those guys don't get the time of day.

Retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, for instance, wants Rumsfeld to resign for "throwing away 10 years worth of planning, plans that had taken into account what we would face in an occupation of Iraq." What Zinni really means is that he's bitter because Donald Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks did not adopt the plan he created. Zinni's 2001 plan, drafted without any recent knowledge of conditions inside Iraq, called for 300,000 troops to invade Iraq, advancing city by city. Well, 300,000 trained and equipped heavy troops didn't happen to be available when events led to a confrontation with Iraq, so someone else's plan had to be implemented. Franks created a more aggressive, fast-moving invasion plan using fewer troops, instead of trying to stick to a plan that wouldn't work with the available forces. In a war, sometimes even generals have to get their feelings hurt.

Retired Major General Charles Swannack thinks that Rumsfeld "carries way too much baggage" and that he micromanages his generals in Iraq. Retired Major General John Riggs feels Rumsfeld and the civilians who run the Pentagon are too "arrogant" for him. Retired Major General John Batiste also feels that Rumsfeld should be fired for not taking his advice, this time on how to secure Baghdad post-war. Retired Major General Paul Eaton claims to have issues with Rumsfeld "strategically, operationally and tactically." Retired Marine Lieutenant General Greg Newbold called Iraq an "unnecessary war" in his complaint, but it's hard to understand why he doesn't call for all the members of the House and Senate who voted for it to resign, instead of the man who merely heads the Pentagon.

Most of the complaints are really rooted in the way Rumsfeld has worked to change the military from a Cold War-era blunt instrument into a modernised precision force. A military built for large-scale set piece battles is difficult to use properly in the current war. Officers whose careers were tied to obsolete or expensive weapons systems like the Comanche helicopter and Crusader self-propelled 155mm howitzer -- or to the ponderous Pentagon bureaucracy -- suddenly found themselves on the outside looking in.

Some of the calls for Rumsfeld's resignation may have more personal than professional reasons. General Zinni, for example, is currently on tour promoting his book, and could use the publicity. General Riggs retired at reduced rank in 2004, under investigation for misuse of contractors and civilian personnel, and after publicly criticising the decision to kill the Comanche helicopter program and the conduct of the Iraq war. General Newbold didn't receive his expected fourth star, after he mistakenly announced that the Taliban had been crushed while major fighting was still underway all over Afghanistan, and likely holds Rumsfeld personally responsible for the missed final promotion. General Eaton was responsible for training Iraqi troops during 2003 and 2004, and surely felt personal as well as professional embarrassment when the troops he trained broke under fire. Perhaps he blames Rumsfeld for asking him to train the Iraqis too fast. On the other hand, Lieutenant General Dave Petraeus seems to be doing a bang-up job training the Iraqi military, if you'll pardon the pun.

Taken together, all these complaints add up to... nothing much at all, really. Not every general's pet plan can be put into operation, but that's no reason for anyone's resignation. Decisions have to be made without the luxury of hindsight. Nor should civilians automatically defer to the opinions of generals; free nations place the military under civilian control for a reason. This is certainly not the first time there have been conflicts between the Pentagon military and civilian leadership, but it's rare that the conflict becomes so blatantly politicised.

Though the Left are excited over getting a few Real Live Generals to join in their crusade against Donald Rumsfeld, he's not leaving the Pentagon any time soon. It would be idiotic in the extreme to shake up the entire military structure as we face a possible conflict with Iran this year or next, just because a few retired generals didn't like their last boss. Those demanding Rumsfeld's resignation under the current circumstances are not serious, either about wanting the resignation, or about wanting America to be ready in case the Iran situation suddenly comes to a head.

In March 2006, the French Constitutional Council passed a law that would allow companies to fire employees under the age of 26 during the first two years of their employment. It was a small but necessary step towards competition, the lack of which is causing the entire European economy to slowly collapse like a hot air balloon. Companies that are prevented from firing unproductive workers, replacing or retraining employees with obsolete skills, or shifting production to respond to market forces are unable to survive in a global economy. 

The jobs contract was passed to bring competition to the job market, in the hope of reducing France's rampant unemployment and reviving their economy. However, embracing competition is the worst kind of faux pas among socialists, aside from reducing government control over the economy. Before the contract could even be signed into law, the French broke into massive demonstrations across the country, further damaging the already stalling economy. Hundreds of thousands of young French men and women marched in protest and, in some places, rioted and attacked police. They all demanded one thing: repeal of the new law.

In the face of an angry mob, the French government -- perhaps predictably -- surrendered. Not only did they abandon the law, they proposed new entitlements to appease the mob. And it looks as though our government is about to follow a similar path with regard to illegal immigration reform.

The US House of Representatives passed a bill to deal with border security, making illegal presence in America a felony and requiring states to ensure that only citizens are given driver's licenses. House Democrats refused to allow the Republicans to lessen the crime to misdemeanor, hoping that the bill wouldn't pass if the language was too tough. The bill made no mention of amnesty, guest worker programs, or citizenship for those already living here in violation of the law. It makes sense that border control must be implemented before we can have a rational discussion about how to deal with those already here. When your basement is flooding, you have to shut off the water before you can fix the leak.

In response to the House bill, Senators John McCain (R?-AZ) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) introduced a bill that would give border security what used to be called "a lick and a promise." While doing nothing to halt illegal immigration, the McCain-Kennedy bill would grant amnesty and eventual citizenship to most of the estimated 11 million illegals that are already here. The bill specifies that only illegal immigrants who have been here more than five years will be able to apply for citizenship right away... but since they crossed the border in secret, who can say when they arrived? Don't be surprised when every illegal immigrant claims to be a "long-timer." How difficult is it to forge an old pay stub or utilities bill?

All the Senate Democrats and many Republicans went along with the McCain-Kennedy bill, to the shock of many Conservatives. We're used to watching the Democrats sell out American laws and values for votes, but not usually so many Republicans. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) introduced his own immigration reform bill, but it's only marginally better than McCain-Kennedy.

Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and their supporters began marching in our streets, protesting the House bill, and demanding the passage of the Senate version. They waved Mexican flags and signs telling Americans to leave "their" continent, until they were warned by protest organisers (Worker's World Party and ANSWER) to tone it down. Who are they to tell Americans what laws to pass? Since when do people who have broken our laws think they have the right to tell us that we have no right to enforce the laws they don't like? The illegals believe that they can intimidate Americans into ignoring and changing our laws to suit them through sheer numbers. Sadly, when it comes to politicians, they may be right.

Before Congress adjourned for the Easter -- sorry, spring break, the deal made between Senate Democrats and Republicans to pass the bill was shelved. Some Republicans tried to insert an amendment that would prevent any action on amnesty until the borders were secured, and Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) led the objection. Make no mistake: those who want the McCain-Kennedy bill to pass have no intention of securing our borders or preventing illegal immigration.

The amnesty of 1986 (the first of seven passed) included provisions for border security, but Congress forgot about them the minute the bill was signed. That can't be allowed to happen again. Even if we must eventually accede to some sort of amnesty for illegal immigrants, we must not let the border remain wide open for tens of millions more illegals to pour through in the coming years.

Pandering Democrats and spineless Republicans see marching illegals demanding amnesty and citizenship and think, "look at all those potential voters!" The great majority of American citizens -- taxpayers and voters -- want illegal immigration stopped, and most of us want it stopped before we deal with those who have already broken the law. Yet the planned, organised demonstrations grab all the media attention, leaving the actual citizens with no voice. Our elected officials on both sides of the aisle will bow to the will of the mob if we can't get their attention. Like France, America will no longer be a representative democracy under the rule of law, but will be subject to mob rule.

Write to your Senators. Call them, email them, use semaphore and smoke signals if that's what it takes. Tell them that you want our laws enforced, our borders secured, and the idea of general amnesty for illegal immigrants scrapped. If immigration laws are unfair or unjust, then change them -- don't encourage people to break them. America will be governed by the law, or by the mob... but not both.

Contact information for Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for the protest pictures

UPDATE: Wizbang has pictures of pamplets that were being passed out to the crowd at illegal immigrant rallies, encouraging them to register and vote as Democrats. The pamphlets feature a picture of Texas and Mexico as one country, along with the motto "Let's Work Together -- Vote Democrat in 2006."

The Left is celebrating Tom DeLay's (R-TX) resignation from Congress, but it's not quite the big win they want everyone to believe. In fact, by giving them what they wanted, DeLay just might have thrown a monkey wrench into the Democrats' entire 2006 campaign. They may have forced "the Hammer" to step down, but it was a Pyrrhic victory at best.

DeLay's resignation is the latest chapter in the increasing Democrat tendency to take politics to the courtroom. For many years, Liberals and Democrats have sought to gain through legal action what they couldn't get through legislation or vote. Judicial activism has become a serious epidemic in this country. Even the Supreme Court is not immune, inventing a Constitutional "separation of Church and State" clause, a right to abortion and changing the definition of "public use" to allow local governments to transfer property from one private owner to another. When no one will vote your way, the Left have learned, just find a friendly judge. 

From the highest to the lowest, the legal system is being systematically abused to help the Left overturn votes they lose and destroy political opponents, often on trumped-up charges. Look at the way the Left tried to destroy Karl Rove, President Bush's advisor. Rove was openly accused of "outing" a secret agent as part of a vendetta against Joe Wilson. After dragging the entire Bush administration through the mud over the issue, it turned out that no crime had, in fact, even been committed. The entire drama was orchestrated simply to embarrass President Bush and drive his poll numbers down. If only the Left could be induced to fight terrorists as hard as they do President Bush.

Tom DeLay was indicted in Texas for a crime that didn't even exist at the time he was supposed to have committed it. District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who had been promising to find some way to "get" DeLay for years, had to bring the case before six grand juries before he could find one that would hand up an indictment. According to the Republican rules of the House, DeLay had to step down from his position as House Majority Leader if indicted for a crime, which was what the Left wanted. DeLay was one of the most effective Congressional leaders the Republicans ever had, able to shepherd bills through the House and deliver votes.

Having wounded DeLay, the Left smelled blood. Aside from President Bush, Tom DeLay has been the biggest and most persistent focus of Left-wing hatred for years. Since, of course, Bush is not running for office in 2006, many Democrat-supporting groups have been using DeLay as the boogeyman around which they could rally support and bring in the money. The entire campaign theme of Nick Lampson, DeLay's opponent in the 2006 race, can be summed up as "DeLay is evil." Democrats all too often run political campaigns based on demonisation of opponents instead of issues.

DeLay took the wind out of Lampson's sails, as well as those of the entire Democratic party, by simply stepping aside. The Democrats had more or less nationalised the Texas race, bringing in donations from Hollywood celebrities and ultra-rich Liberals like George Soros (who backs MoveOn.org). The entire "culture of corruption" meme repeated ad nauseum by every Democrat who gets near a camera was focused on Tom Delay. Now the Democrats have no national theme to run on in 2006 except "let's get a majority in Congress so we can obstruct legislation, bug out of Iraq and impeach Bush." That's never going to work.

Whether you love him or hate him, you have to give Tom DeLay his due as a brilliant politician. By sacrificing himself, he has probably ensured that the Republicans retain a majority in both House and Senate in the 2006 elections. Of course, such a move would hardly be necessary if so many Republican politicians weren't almost indistinguishable from Democrats in their spending and legislation.