Like most people, I get a lot of email offering me solutions to problems (some of which I may not even have.) Not too long ago, I received an email promising me an answer to high gas prices. Instead of the usual "let's scare the oil companies by not buying gas on a certain day," this one contained a plan to scare oil companies by not buying gas from one particular company for the rest of the year. Despite the fact that emails like this have been circling the internet for a decade or more, they just keep getting forwarded from one person to another with the best of intentions. This time -- somewhat uncharacteristically -- I hit "reply all" and wrote the following response:

Oil companies make less than a dime's worth of profit per gallon of gas, considering that the money you pay at the pump goes to a) state taxes (averaging 28.6 cents per gallon), b) federal taxes (18.4 cents per gallon), then c) exploration by oil companies and d) research and development by oil companies. Not buying gas would only slow research, development and exploration for new energy sources... and that won't lower the price of gas by a single penny. Most companies, contrary to the common Liberal portrayal, are not evil entities bent on sucking out your last cent... they provide goods you demand, and charge a price for their service. If they don't profit, they go out of business, and then who will sell you the products you want? There are, however, more pragmatic ways to go about lowering gas and oil prices. There are no "magic bullets;" no cheap and easy solutions -- only realistic alternatives to attacking those eeevil oil companies.

Four "easy" steps to lower gas and oil prices:

1. Build more refineries. We have plenty of oil, but have not been allowed to build a new refinery since the 70's. The ones we do have are operating at full capacity. We can't make gas fast enough to meet the demand, hence the high gas prices. At least get rid of the ridiculous "blend" requirements that prevent us from moving gas supplies from one state to another, or buying it cheap from countries that refine a surplus.

2. Drill for oil offshore and in ANWR. Cuba is drilling off the Florida coast with China's help; why can't we? And drilling in the tiny northernmost patch of the frozen wasteland of ANWR is not going to affect any cute and fuzzy animals. The pictures the "news" stories show you when ANWR drilling comes up for discussion were all taken in other parts of Alaska.

3. Build more nuclear power plants. If you're really concerned over the price of oil and gas, the best solution is to use another, more efficient power source.

4. Stop enabling China. One of the main reasons for high oil prices is China's stockpiling every drop they can get their hands on, using the money they make by selling us products manufactured by virtual slave labor in work camps. If you really want to help lower oil prices, you'll have to pay a little more for other things.

With most of the primary elections still to come, the media has annointed John McCain the inevitable Republican candidate. That's understandable -- McCain has been in the pocket of the mainstream media for years. Especially since 2000, he's been the Republican they could always count on -- along with Senators Chuck Hagel (NE) and Dick Lugar (IN) -- to say something negative about President Bush's policies. But McCain has done more than simply bash President Bush. He's spent years stabbing Conservatives in the back, working against Conservative principles in exchange for fawning press from the New York Times -- which has now endorsed him along with Hillary Clinton. I guess the editors couldn't make up their minds. It's alright -- I can't tell the difference between McCain and most Democrats, either. And if he becomes President, he will do so without my vote. I won't vote for McCain, even if the race is between him and Hillary Clinton. To paraphrase an old joke: one of them is an amnesty-granting, rights-limiting, global warming-believing, terrorist-coddling, industry-destroying Democrat. The other is Hillary Clinton.

McCain was part of the Keating Five scandal, which no one now seems to remember. Five Senators -- four Democrats and McCain -- tried to use their influence to make FHLBB chief Edwin Gray cease his investigation of Charles Keating, who was responsible for the 1989 collapse of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. Keating, it turned out, was a huge campaign contributor to all five. It's no coincidence that McCain spent the next ten years conducting a vindictive crusade to "reform" campaign financing by contributors, which resulted in the largest assault on the First Amendment in nearly a hundred years: the McCain-Feingold Act.

The First Amendment's not the only one McCain has tried to hamper. He sponsored yet another bill with Senator Joe Liberman that would have required all attendees at gun shows to be registered, and all show sales (including books and clothing) be filed with the BATF.  He also said he was "open" to voting in favor of the assault weapons ban, though he did, in the end, vote against it.

McCain led the Gang of 14, a prime example of how he often "reaches across the aisle" in a spirit of "bipartisan cooperation" to stick it to the Republican party and especially Conservatives. When Democrats threatened to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominations, using a Senate rule (never meant to be used in that way) to prevent a vote being taken, Republicans were poised to amend the rule so it could not be so abused. McCain and his little group derailed the process, thus preserving the ability of Democrats to filibuster the President's judicial nominees -- a process most Conservatives believe to be a violation of the Constitution, which mandates that the Senate vote on judicial appointments. As in the case of the McCain-Feingold Act, McCain seems to care less about the Constitution than about his "maverick" status. If he were a Democrat, he'd just be one of the pack. But as a Republican who sides with Democrats, he's lauded by the New York Times.

McCain has also been responsible for the McCain-Lieberman bill, which attempted to levy Kyoto Treaty-like penalties on American industry. If it had passed, it would have crippled the US economy. McCain has also attacked the tobacco industry and the pharmaceutical industry, all for applause from the media and his fellow Democrats. Although he now claims he voted against the Bush tax cuts twice because they did not include spending cuts, that's not the truth. In 2000, McCain said of Bush's proposed tax cuts, "Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10% of Americans -- and that's not the kind of tax relief that Americans need. ... I'm not giving tax cuts for the rich." In McCain's recent capaign speeches, he refers to "greedy people on Wall Street who need to go to jail." Is this the right man to lead the US economy? I can't tell the difference between John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Mccain touts himself as the best person to lead us in the War on Terror, but that's not true, either. McCain has been trying to force us to close Guantanamo Bay, which would mean letting captured terrorists go or housing them on American soil, granting them Constitutional rights they do not and should not have. He has tried to hamper our interrogation efforts by redefining anything that causes the subject minor discomfort as "torture." Our success in the War on Terror hinges on information, and McCain would severely limit our information-gathering capabilities.

McCain has fought building a fence on our southern border, though it is now mandated by law. Her preferred to leave us open to infiltration by terrorists who can cross from Mexico at will, bringing who-knows-what with them. He claims he will build the fence now, of course, after the Capitol Hill phone lines were shut down by an influx of angry calls over his McCain-Kennedy amnesty-that's-not-amnesty bill. McCain's bill -- the "comprehensive immigration reform" --  did not provide for building the fence before offering what amounts to amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. If McCain's bill had passed, those who have violated our borders and multiple laws against fraud would have been eligible for "Z-Visas" with almost no delay for background checks. Somewhere between 12 and 20 million of them would have been eligible for permanent residence and eventual citizenship. According to studies by the Heritage Foundation among others, those "sudden citizens" would have been able to bring in between 60 and 100 million others over the next couple of decades, forever altering our entire culture and placing a humongous burden on government and social services at all levels. Most of those new residents -- uneducated, illiterate, unskilled -- would become loyal Democrats. If McCain gets into office, McCain's amnesty will become reality.

A lot of Republicans argue that we must all stand behind the Republican nominee no matter who he is. Some say we must get a Republican -- any Republican -- into office to ensure that only Originalist or Constructivist judges are appointed. But McCain has stated that Justice Alito -- one of President Bush's two Supreme Court nominees -- was "too Conservative" for him. When picking judges, McCain will vet them through his partners on the Democratic side of the aisle, to make sure they will go through without a fight, and the media will applaud his bipartisanship. In fact, President Hillary or President Obama wouldn't pick any worse judges than President McCain. Some say that we need a Republican -- any Republican -- in the White House to veto Liberal bills that make it through Congress. I sincerely doubt that McCain would veto any bills that propose the very policies for which he has fought against the Republicans to enact all these years. Some say that we need a Republican -- any Republican -- in the White House to ensure the Democrats don't control that as well as both Houses of Congress. However, I think even most of the Liberal Republicans in Congress will band together with the Conservatives to fight against a Democratic President, out of party loyalty if nothing else (as they stood together against Bill Clinton). Against a Liberal Republican President, the Conservatives in Congress will stand alone. How can that be better?

Many Republicans are ready to abandon their Conservative principles and vote for whomever the Republican party nominates. But I can not vote for McCain with a clean conscience. I do not support him for his amnesty, his Kyoto-lite plans, his attacks on the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries, his opposition to "tax cuts for the rich," his restrictions on the First Amendment, his eagerness to backstab Conservatives and fight against Conservative ideals for media acclaim at every opportunity, or his enabling the Democratic party to filibuster judicial nominations, which I believe is a violation of the Constitution. A McCain Presidency would drag the Republican party even further to the Left than it has already gone. I will not enable that. Hillary or Obama may damage the country, but so would McCain -- and he would destroy the GOP, the only party that even halfway espouses Conservative principles, in the process.

I will not sell my soul or my vote to keep the GOP in the White House if that party is going to abandon me in exchange. Besides being a bad bargain, my vote means something; it's the only voice I really have. I will only cast it for someone, the candidate who best represents me; I will not vote against someone or out of fear. I have said from the beginning of this campaign season (about five minutes after the last election, it seems), that my first choice was Congressman Duncan Hunter, but that I could also support Senator Fred Thompson, or even Governor Mitt Romney. Now, only one of those men is left in the race. Mitt Romney is the last Conservative standing, or the nearest thing to it, and he will have my vote in the primary election.

It seems a lot of Republicans these days are urging Conservatives to "be pragmatic" and vote for Rudy Giuliani next November if he's the Republican nominee. "We have to stop Hillary!" we are told, and that's true. However, if the Republican party puts Giuliani forward as their candidate, election day will find me going straight home after work, instead of to the polls. And I'm not alone in that decision.

I'm not particularly religious. I don't care what James Dobson or his ilk have to say. They don't speak for me. However, I do hold myself to certain principles, one of which is that I won't cast my vote for a person who holds the wrong position on so many key issues. Some disagreement is one thing -- I voted for Bush despite his unwillingness to control Congressional spending and our borders -- but why would I vote for someone who hardly agrees with me at all?

Rudy Giuliani was tough on criminals during his stint as New York City's mayor, which -- imagine that! -- led to a drop in the crime rate. His response to 9/11 was sterling, and his reply to the Saudi prince who donated money for the families of those killed on 9/11 but blamed America for that atrocity was especially praiseworthy. Not many people get the chance -- or would dare take it if they did -- to tell a member of the Saudi royal family where to stick his money. Long before 9/11, Giuliani had terrorist leader Yasir Arafat ejected from a Lincoln Center event for world leaders. As President, Giuliani would probably be fairly tough on terrorists and would-be terrorists, and would likely continue Bush's policies of tapping our enemies' phone conversations and aggressively interrogating them when captured. Also, Giuliani is unlikely to let Congress raise taxes on businesses and punish individuals for making "too much" money.

But that's about as far as my admiration for Rudy Giuliani goes. Because, to paraphrase an old book I read once, what's the point in winning against the global jihad if America loses it soul? It's an important issue, perhaps the most important issue, but not the only issue. It's not enough just to beat the enemy. What are we fighting for, at that point?

Rudy Giuliani believes Americans have a "right" to abortion. He does not, however, believe in our right to "keep and bear arms," at least not without government oversight and control (which pretty much removes the purpose of that right altogether). He also believes non-Americans have the "right" to sneak into our country, violate our laws, and get rewarded by permission to stay... a glaring exception to his "tough on crime" stance, in my opinion.

Giuliani has stated he will only appoint originalist Justices to the Supreme Court -- those who believe the Constitution must be followed as written, not that its words can be "interpreted" to fit the reader's agenda of the moment. But the role of a President is much larger than that in any debate. The President of the United States has the biggest voice in the country -- arguably, in the world. How can anyone make the case for the protection of innocent life, the preservation of our most sacred rights, and the prosecution of anyone who violates our immigration laws when he doesn't really believe in those things himself? At best, Giuliani's speeches on those subjects would seem forced and weak -- full of caveats, backtracking and wavering. Sensing his lack of direction and determination on those issues, Congress would fail to follow his lead. President Giuliani would never get a truly originalist Justice through the Senate, despite his promises to nominate them.

If I'm faced with the choice between a pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-illegal immigrant candidate with an "R," or a pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-illegal immigrant candidate with a "D" after his or her name, I don't really see the point in choosing one over the other. That letter doesn't mean as much to me as the person in front of it, and the principles for which he or she stands. Sure, one of them might fight terrorists more aggressively and keep the economy strong by not raising taxes. But for what purpose?

If Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee, we Conservatives have already lost the fight for America. The choice between Left and more Left is no choice at all.

In some ways, six years can be a very long time. In others... well, not so much. Six years ago, shocked out of our complacency by the world's violent truth, Americans came together as a people for the first time in half a century. We swore to stand together against our common enemies. We vowed we would Never Forget. I still see those stickers on cars from time to time, faded and peeling. To so many people, that's all 9/11 means anymore -- a faded, tattered bumper sticker.

Just six years on, Democratic leaders spent two days -- including the anniversary of 9/11 -- in an all-out effort to see the US disgraced and our military retreat from the fight against terrorists in Iraq. Democratic Senators and Representatives alike flatly accused General David Petraeus, a career military man with an unblemished, honorable three-decade record of service -- of "cherry-picking" and manipulating data in exchange for... well, no one has indicated just what Petraeus might gain from lying. They're just certain that he is, because his report (eagerly anticipated by the same Democrats when they thought he might report failure) differs from their preconceived opinions... opinions basically hand-written for them by groups like MoveOn.org, which took out a full-page ad in the NY Times smearing Petraeus us "General Betray Us." Winning can only be considered "betrayal" if one actually sides with the enemy. Oh, but don't question their patriotism or their support for the troops!

One Democrat Presidential hopeful, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), recently went on Syrian television to attack President Bush, undermine our troops, give heart to our enemies and praise the dictator Bashar Assad -- who is allowing terrorists to funnel through his country into Iraq -- as a humanitarian who is helping bring about stability in the region! Suppose a politician (let alone a possible Presidential candidate) went on German radio during the WWII to denounce President Roosevelt's "illegal" and "immoral" war against Italy, demanding that he work with Germany to bring stability to Europe. The only debate in this country would have been whether to commit him to an insane asylum or execute him for treason.

Who knew, in the days and weeks that followed 9/11, that the Democratic party would have become so deeply invested in a US defeat at the hands of terrorists like those who attacked us that they would say anything, do anything to ensure victory for the kind of people who murdered nearly 3,000 people that day? Who would have believed that more than 40% of Democrats would think the US government actively planned 9/11, or at least allowed it to happen?

Our enemies know how divided the far Left has made this country. Osama bin Laden recently resurfaced spouting what sound suspiciously like Left-wing talking points -- railing against "neocons," issuing dire warnings about global warming, blaming the assassination of President Kennedy on evil corporations who wanted to keep the Vietnam War going, chiding Democrats for not getting US troops out of Iraq by now, bashing America for killing all but "a few specimens of Red Indians" and for using nuclear weapons against Japan in WWII. If it wasn't for his frequent references to religion and the fact that he's not a native-born American, he might be running for President.

Perhaps MoveOn.org mailed him the wrong talking points, and we'll start seeing Democratic politicians referring to the US as "the Great Satan" while demanding submission to Islamic law. To be honest, I wouldn't be all that surprised. To Democrats, there's nothing more important than being loved by the rest of the world, especially Europe... which is rapidly becoming Islamicised itself.

Before 9/11, bin Laden referred to America as the "weak horse" and a "paper tiger." He told his followers that Americans could not stand the sight of their own blood, and would crumble if his followers could only hold out long enough. With half the country desperate to forget about war and get back to American Idol, it's painful -- but necessary -- to admit that he may have been half right.

Gun owners are often asked: "Why do you own guns?" as though doing so were some kind of oddity or aberration. In fact, responsible gun ownership has been a part of this country from its inception, and the fact that every law-abiding citizen can own guns is an integral part of our heritage. Some countries may grudgingly allow certain people to own guns (under very restrictive conditions, of course); in America, it is our indisputable right to do so. It's the reason we never need fear tyranny. It's odd that the people who worry about America becoming a dictatorship are the same ones clamoring to remove our best way to prevent it.

Especially in today's world, the illusion of permanent safety having been ripped away by the events of 9/11, gun ownership is a right more people ought to practice. We now see that violent conflict is really the norm in the world, and only fools would pretend that the same bad things happening elsewhere can't happen here. We must face the fact that we cannot always depend on the government to defend our lives and property. The authorities can't always be there to protect us from harm, nor should they be. So how do we ensure our safety? There are only two possible answers. One is a pervasive police presence -- cops on every corner, guards in every building, monitors in every home. I don't think the remedy to a tough world is a police state. The other answer is a little of the old self-reliance for which America was once famous.

Unfortunately, the tendency of government is to become more invasive and stifling, encroaching on our rights and relieving us of our responsibilities. The response to any perceived problem is to create more laws -- along with more government agencies to oversee them, and more government bureaucrats to enforce them. Naturally, some criminal will always find a way around the new laws, even if it's something as simple as carrying a hidden gun into a "gun-free zone." The response? More laws, more bureaucracy, and more restrictions on the rights of law-abiding citizens, making them more dependent on the government. And just when you need help the most, the government is least likely to be there to hold your hand.

One never knows when local order might break down due to a natural or man-made disaster such as a terrorist attack, earthquake, flood, riot, mass blackout, disease outbreak, or the dead rising from their graves to seek the flesh of the living. As test after test of our emergency response systems (including actual emergencies, with the exception of a zombie apocalypse) has shown, emergency personnel will be overwhelmed by a real disaster. Rapid transportation is often impossible. Fire, police and ambulance services will likely be unable to get immediate help to all who need it. Criminals will sieze every opportunity to rob, rape, murder and terrorise innocent people. Don't say such things can't happen. They have happened, they are happening somewhere right now, and they will continue to happen in the future. So who's going to protect you, your family and your home until order is restored, however long that might take?

Well, you, of course. It's your responsibility, your duty, your right. Don't let anyone take it away from you.

Declaration of Independence by John Trumbull, 1817

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
- The Declaration of Independence

Like some shambling undead Thing from a horror movie, the amnesty bill we all thought buried with a stake in its heart has been resurrected. Once again, it's headed for the Senate floor to wreak havoc. But this is the kind of summer sequel most people don't want to see. Neither Democrats nor Republicans in Washington seem to understand -- or care -- how unhappy the American people are about this bill.

And we are unhappy about it. Many Americans are outraged by the idea of rewarding criminals by allowing them to keep what they took. While hundreds of thousands of people around the world patiently await permission to come to this country, or go home when their visas expire, illegals decided the rules didn't apply to them. Allowing them to become permanent residents violates our sense of fair play almost as much as it violates our laws. We're assured that they will be at the "back of the line" for citizenship... but that line is supposed to form on the other side of the border.

We're unhappy about rewarding criminal behavior. We're told that these illegals should be honored because they wanted to become Americans so badly that many of them risked death to come here. (We'll just ignore the fact that money was probably the real motivation for most of them.) But becoming American must include showing some regard for American sovereignty, and American laws. Those who deliberately crossed our borders illegally or overstayed their visas did not show that respect. Many illegal immigrants falsify records and documents on a daily basis, supply false Social Security numbers to employers, and lie to obtain drivers' licenses, credit cards and other documents. Moreover, those hundreds of thousands who marched protesting law enforcement waving Mexican flags and holding signs saying "This is our continent, not yours" didn't appear to want to become Americans, did they? Why should we reward them for that?

We don't like the idea of creating a huge permanent underclass of low-level workers, either. Once granted legal status, all those people doing "jobs Americans won't do" won't want to do them either -- not at the low wages they're currently paid. They'll want better jobs, with better pay. Prices for agricultural products and construction will rise as employers are forced to pay minimum wage, but that's not the worst effect of a mass legalisation. Competition for available jobs in other areas will rise sharply. Competition for many blue-collar jobs will force wages to dip towards minimum wage level, creating a sharper division between blue-collar and white-collar workers, or lower class and middle class. Unemployment and entitlements will rise, and taxes will follow. Class warfare and envy politics fueled by racial divisions -- the staples of Democratic campaigns -- will escalate, granting the Democrats a huge vote windfall for many years to come. The fact that so many Republicans (including the President himself) are willing to sign the death warrant of their own party is amazing.

Many people are unhappy about this bill because of the way members of Congress and the President tried to shove it through the Senate quickly, without time for the bill to be amended before debate. The bill was introduced on Thursday 17 May, and a vote to open debate on the final version was scheduled for Monday 21 June. The bill was not even written in final form until that Sunday, and most Senators hadn't even seen it by the time they were expected to vote, much less had time to draft amendments. Public outcry pushed back the vote to give Senators time to propose amendments and gauge public opinion. After the move for cloture -- an attempt to bring the bill up for a vote -- failed, the bill was removed from the floor. But President Bush, when attacking opponents of the bill didn't work, pushed his supporters in the Senate to bring it back after adding some money for border security -- the security that was mandated in a bill last year, and about which nothing much was done.

But it's still the same terrible bill, which grants a de facto amnesty to millions of criminal trespassers (no matter what its proponents want to call it), allowing them to stay as permanent residents and bring tens of millions of new immigrants into the country. Thanks to Liberal "multiculturalism," many of those people will never integrate into American society. It's like a home invasion on a massive scale, while the government's response is to tell us we just have to live with our new housemates. And the border fence that was mandated in the Secure Fence Act of 2006 is still not built, which means that in another decade or so, we'll have to go through all of this again. Before we decide what to do about the estimated 12-20 million illegal immigrants in this country, we have got to ensure that it's the last time we have to deal with the problem.

Back in 1986, we were told that we would have real border security, in exchange for a one-time amnesty. Well, the politicians got their one-time amnesty. Now, we want our security.

Yes, I know: it's not amnesty because we're using a different word now. However, any time the penalty proscribed by law for an offense is waived for all offenders, it's amnesty no matter what you may call it. Do they get to stay here? (Hint: Yes.) Well, that's amnesty. And the effects will be far-reaching and devastating to the country.

What sort of message does it send when people are allowed to violate a variety of laws repeatedly with relative impunity? Not only did illegal immigrants deliberately cross the border without permission, or knowingly overstay their visas, but they break other laws every day they remain here. Even the so-called "hard-working, law-abiding" illegals we keep hearing about use false Social Security numbers to get jobs and bank accounts, lie on applications and other forms, and falsify records and documents on a daily basis. Why should anyone obey the law, when millions of criminals are to be forgiven en masse?

And what will happen after they are given instant legal status? Has anyone bothered to think that through? One of the main reasons we are given for letting them stay in the country is that no one else will do the jobs they do for so little pay... but once they are legal, neither will they! Why would anyone perform hard labor for below minimum wage if they are legally able to look for better work, or demand more money for the work they currently do?

We've been told we can't deport illegal aliens without a steep rise in prices for agricultural products, domestic services and construction. But wages -- and thus prices -- in those areas will rise anyway. Of course, hordes of illegal immigrants will continue to flow across the borders to work for lower than legal wages. According to the Heritage Foundation, legalising between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants will cost the US economy trillions of dollars, and that includes huge numbers of uneducated, ignorant, and unproductive immigrants -- the kind the mainstream media pretend don't exist. And after all that, we will still have illegal immigrants coming into the country. In other words, we will have gained absolutely nothing from the passage of this bill.

The bill contains provisions that would, we are told, ensure that workers holding the new Z-Visa remain employed and out of trouble with the law, or else they will be deported. Does anyone actually believe that the mere passing of laws ensures compliance? We're talking about relying on swift and accurate responses from the same agency that approved student visas for Mohammed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi six months after they flew jetliners into the World Trade Center.

As soon as the illegals gain legal status, the first thing a hungry government will do is make them pay taxes. Hasn't anyone considered the implications of that? The ACLU and various "immigrants rights" groups will file a flurry of lawsuits charging that expecting permanent residents to pay taxes without giving them the right to vote violates their civil liberties. The more brazen among them will undoubtedly use the phrase, "no taxation without representation." What American can possibly argue with that?

The Democrat-controlled Congress will rush a voting rights bill through (no doubt just in time for the 2008 elections). Instant millions of new Democratic voters -- just add legalisation. Congratulations are due the Democratic party for ensuring that the Republicans will be maginalised for at least a generation... with the eager help of many Republicans, including the President.

And what of this persistent meme that we can't deport between 12 and 20 million people? I have never heard anyone arguing that we should. It's a strawman argument, designed to conjure mental images of stormtroopers kicking down doors in the night and hauling screaming people away. The amnesty crowd likes to pretend there are only two possible solutions to the problem of illegal immigrants -- rewarding them with full legal status or rounding them up for cattle-car deportations. The truth is that there's a middle ground that involves neither amnesty nor mass deportation: enforcing the law.

The only thing on which everyone seems to agree is that millions of people living in the US without papers, permission or rights is a huge problem. The first thing we need to do, logically, is stop the problem from becoming any worse. When President Bush signed Congressman Duncan Hunter's Secure Fence Act of 2006, he made building 854 miles of double-layer fencing at the most common people-smuggling routes across our southern border the law. It's not rocket science. When you have a leak, you have to stop the inflow before you can pump out the water. We've already got the law on our side. All we have to do is enforce it -- and that's all so many Americans really ask. Yet that fence has not yet been built.

After building the border fence to stop the inrush, we need to enforce the laws regarding those who hire illegal workers who are already here. No one seems capable of checking the Social Security numbers that illegals write on their job applications. If the immigration bureaucracy is so disordered and crippled that Mohammed Atta got a visa six months after 9/11, why would anyone imagine it can handle the mass legalisation of up to 20 million people plus all their relatives? To make matters worse, all background checks for these new Z-Visas must be performed within 24 hours of the application. It's a bureaucratic disaster of Biblical proportions waiting to happen. If only Cecil B. DeMille were still alive to film it all.

There's still time to stop this gross injustice from taking place. President Bush himself has come out blasting opponents of his amnesty-that's-not-amnesty plan. (Funny... he finally lashes out hard, and it's against those who have supported him all these years.) He would not have done so if he were not fighting a growing backlash. And just what form is that backlash taking? The kind that carries the most weight in Washington DC... money.

According to the Washington Times, the Republican National Committee, "hit by a grass-roots donors' rebellion over President Bush's immigration policy, has fired all 65 of its telephone solicitors" after a huge dropoff in donations. "Every donor in 50 states we reached has been angry, especially in the last month and a half, and for 99 percent of them immigration is the No. 1 issue," said one fired phone bank employee.

Even if the bill passes the Senate, it can still be stopped by any Representative who happens to remember the Constitutional stipulation that revenue-generating bills must come from the House. Even so, that would just leave us right where we are now -- with open, undefended borders and growing numbers of criminal trespassers in our streets. Further illegal immigration must be stopped and our laws enforced before we can even consider what to do with the illegals already living among us.

Arlington National Cemetery