An interesting proposal:

An anti-immigration group is calling on the Obama administration to ensure a smooth exit for illegal immigrants who are trying to leave the U.S. due to the weak economy and Arizona’s strict new immigration law.

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) is urging U.S. citizens to pressure the White House and the Homeland Security Department to establish “safe departure” border checkpoints along the U.S. border for illegal immigrants so they can leave without fear of being detained or prosecuted for immigration crimes…

Makes sense – voluntarily turn yourself in at the border, and out you go with no questions asked. The only problem I can see is if a violent offender on the lam tried to take advantage of such a program. We should have protections against that – but other than violent offenders, anyone who wants to self-deport should be afforded all possible conveniences – we can even help defray travel expenses as that will still be a lot cheaper than either having them stay or arresting them in the interior.

Such a program would probably induce several million to head home. The economy here isn’t in very good shape and its highly likely that illegals have borne a large measure of things such as the home building crash. It might be that a large number are willing to head back home but both lack the means and have the fear of getting tangled up in America’s immigration laws.

From Huffington Post:

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell predicted on Tuesday that if the president escalates America’s military involvement in Afghanistan he could very well face a primary challenger in 2012…

Which is both typical of liberal Democrat politics, and a continuing reminder of just how pathetic liberals are. Boiled down, what Rendell is saying is that if Obama responds to changing circumstances in Afghanistan and sends more troops (or, presumptively, if he just refuses to draw down after July of 2011), then there could be a primary challenger to him. Shades of Bobby Kennedy against LBJ in 1968!

While it should be kept in mind that Rendell was a Hillary backer in 2008, it cannot be ignored that he represents a significant portion of the Democrat coalition on this. And the fact that he’s airing this in public shows the level of dismay Obama is generating on the left. There is clearly a growing level of anger out there over the fact that the new, liberal dawn hasn’t come about as expected on election night, 2008.

I will have to rate the emergence of a serious primary challenger to Obama as a 1-100 shot. But this is still vastly different from “absolutely impossible”, which would have been my judgment even a couple weeks ago. Its still not at all likely because, quite simply, any Democrat who did challenge Obama would be doomed politically, even if they snatched the nomination away from him – there is no way that the broad mass of African-Americans would forgive the Democrat who ousted Obama;come November after that, black voters would stay home in droves, thus assuring not just a GOP Presidential win, but also a massive win in House, Senate and other down-ballot contests (Democrats are extraordinarily dependent upon high black turnout voting 90% Democrat). The Democrat who brought this about would be utterly finished in politics.

And so, I don’t think any of the potential serious challengers would do it. For instance, Hillary ages, but she is also in good health and 2016 is not too long from now. Why end all chances of it in 2012 when a mere four years later she’d have a chance of grabbing the brass ring?

On the other hand, if 2010 turns out badly for the Democrats and the economy slips deep in to recession/depression in 2011, then the choice for the Democrats may come down to figuring out how to save the party. Staying loyal to Obama won’t be much worth if by January 2013 they’re facing a GOP President backed by 300 House and 60 Senate Republicans. With that, in just two years all of Obamunism can be undone and great strides made in dismantling the entire Democrat power structure.

We’ll have to see how it comes out – but clearly things are not rosy in Democrat-land at the moment.

Interesting news:

A law enforcement source confirms to KATU News that Portland detectives interviewed former U.S. Vice President Al Gore this past week in San Francisco.

Portland police detectives interviewed the VP on Thursday, questioning him further about allegations that he sexually abused a licensed Portland massage therapist…

The Enquirer has been reporting that more women are coming forward – and one does wonder just why Tipper packed her bags.

Gore’s problem probably stems from the fact that he got away with it for too long. “No controlling legal authority” should have got him forced out of public life in disgrace, but it didn’t. Not only that, but he went on to gain triumph after triumph. Just the sort of thing to build a sense of invincibility.

Mercy and forgiveness are always best, but everyone still must pay the price for their errors..even if we mercifully abate the punishment, and kindly forgive the sin.

Byron York thinks so – Democrats are worried that if the GOP picks up the gavels in 2011, we’ll aggressively go after the Democrat Administration. In a certain sense, they are right – and it is one of the reasons some people prefer a divided government. Opponents watching each other tend to keep each other honest. I take a bit of a different view.

When Matt and I wrote Caucus of Corruption back in 2006, the time frame we were covering, for the most part, involved the time of GOP control of Congress (we dipped in to the more distant past in some areas, but mostly just to show how the pattern of corruption emerged early on in the current crop of Democrat leaders). In all that time, the GOP Congress never made any serious move to police the activities of individual Congressmen, Democrat or Republican. For all the talk of how the House GOP went after Clinton, the fact of the matter is that action was only taken after the Independent Counsel reported – committees out the wazoo and the Congressional GOP still waited until someone else took the lid off.

The plain fact of the matter is that there has been a too cozy relationship in the House and Senate. An unwillingness to cause offense. A shying away from the stern, republican virtues necessary to the proper functioning of a democratic government. I’d like it very much if the relevant committees of the House and Senate would rake over the coals everyone in government who has been suspected of malfeasance – but I doubt that I’ll get to see that.

You see, I’m not worried if some of my GOPers are raked over – I want them raked over. I want them so far gone that no one even remembers that they were once in the Party. Its ok if doing so causes the GOP to take a hit in the polls – the cleaner GOP which emerges will be better positioned to win public trust. But I also know that a full raking over it going to bring a couple score Democrats down – and that is in the least.

There is such much bribery, kickbacks, nepotism and other forms of corruption in government that a truly aggressive investigation would be a political explosion – and as all of this involves government, the part of government (ie, the Democrats) will be most exposed. But it is not for purely partisan advantage that I want this done – it is no less than the rescue of the two-party system I seek.

I like the two-party system. I like it, that is, when you have to parties so broadly based that wide variations exist in both parties, and towards the edges they tend to merge in view point. I don’t want a half dozen ideological parties where everyone has to be as politically pure as the wind-driven snow. The problem is, that corruption – unaddressed – is disgusting everyone with both major parties, and thus opening up the prospect of small, ideological parties. Get at the corruption and the two major parties will be restored to respectability – the people will start to trust them again.

American government is a complex monster. It can’t be worked by any one man, or any one party. The Founders ensured this – and even after half a century of the left trying to strip away Constitutional protections, they still haven’t been able to sweep away that bedrock of designed difficulty. But for this thing to work, the people in government have to be reasonably honest – not saints, because there are few such, but honest to the point where we, the people can rely upon a solid majority of them to actually be motivated by public spirit rather than personal greed or lust.

To get that, there will have to be the raw courage on the part of those in government to fearlessly go after political corruption. It is clear the Democrats, lost in a swamp of corruption, cannot lead this charge. Can the GOP? Time will tell – but it will take extreme pressure from the people to give it even a chance of happening.

The “wikileak” of US military documents related to the Afghan campaign doesn’t really tell us anything perceptive observers had not already figured out – but it does highlight, once again, the need for a clear US policy regarding the use of military force.

The fundamental problems we face in Afghanistan – attempting to win hearts and minds; dealing with timid allies; enemies who have safe havens from which to launch attacks upon us – have been with us ever since the Korean War. In the highest councils of our government and in spite of having, at times, Presidents and generals who understand war, we have had an overall paralysis of will which has prevented the United States from securing clear-cut victory most of the times we have engaged in battle since the Second World War. Only the comparatively minor operations in Grenada and Panama have been fought to a conclusion – and the clear peace resulting from such action stands in stark contrast to the bitter defeat or disappointing half-victories of other conflicts.

In Korea were the bad military seeds planted. First in Truman’s decision to go to war without a clear, Congressional declaration of war. Secondly, and most fatally, in the loss of nerve when things didn’t immediately work out as well as planned. In these two actions came about both the concept that the American people cannot sustain a big war as well as the insane proposition that wars may be fought for limited ends (this last bit had a shred of support from the fact that in the 19th century Bismarck had fought three wars for very strictly limited ends and wound up with a united, powerful Germany dominating the European scene – left out of such considerations were, of course, the dragon’s teeth sewn by those limited wars which united to undo Bismarck’s Germany in World War One). The truth is that both the Civil War and World War Two demonstrated America’s willingness to go all out for victory, while to fight for less than absolute victory is an absurdity no great captain of the past would understand, let alone agree to.

It is America’s leadership which has been unwilling to either declare war or to show courage when things go badly. Because of this unwillingness/cowardice, America’s wars since WWII have tended to be half-fought, and thus rapidly lose support from a public which seems to instinctively know that if you go to war at all, you go all out (and they understood this from the start – the massive, unprecedented outpouring of public support for a relieved General MacArthur in 1951 was testimony to a popular desire to win, once war was started). It is time for us to bring to an and the era of quasi-war for the United States – we have to short-circuit an often faint-hearted leadership, and ensure that if an American soldier is ever engaged in battle from this point on, then his entire nation is absolutely committed to victory regardless of cost.

As a first step, we need to retrieve our war-making power from the Executive Branch. We must pass whatever legislation is necessary to forbid the deployment of US ground forces outside the territory of the United States except during time of declared war. The President must lose his ability to send troops in to battle outside our nation until such time as he obtains specific war powers from Congress. Many will say that this ham strings the United States in times of emergency and to a certain extent they will be correct. But given the baleful effects of leaving this power in the Executive, alone, I think that on balance we’d be better off, even if a US response might be delayed a day or two while Congress gathers to debate and vote upon a war resolution.

The second step must be to prevent a Congressional cut-and-run once the war starts. The cut off of funds by Congress to South Vietnam ensured that our efforts there would end in complete failure; the attempts by Congress to cut off funds for the Iraq campaign nearly caused our complete defeat in that campaign. Once in, we must essentially be forced to stay in until victory is done – and so, legislation must be enacted to ensure that war appropriations can only be refused by a 2/3 vote of both houses.

Once in and committed to funding the fight, we can have some assurance that the war won’t be left half done. We can then look our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in the eye and tell them that whatever sacrifice they make, it won’t be for anything less than victory. It will also tell the world that while we might be slower to act than previously, you can rest assured that once we do act, we’re coming in all the way and with everything we’ve got.

We dare not become a fortress trying merely to protect ourselves. But we also cannot become a global 911. Diplomacy and economic activities will play a large roll, as always, but behind words and trade must lie not just a superb US military, but the knowledge that if we un-sheath the sword, it won’t be laid down until the enemy is completely destroyed.

None of this will help us in Afghanistan. For good or ill, the plan and forces we have in place now will have to do the best they can. The troops there deserve our support – but once we do finish in Afghanistan, we should pledge ourselves that will be the last such war we fight. Next time when faced with an insurgency supported by a Third Party, we’ll have to steel ourselves to taking on the sponsors, as well as the terrorists – in any fight, the enemy will know that war with us means ultimate destruction for them.

War is a terrible thing and should not be engaged in save for the weightiest of reasons – but once we determine that war is the only means of securing our interests, then it must be war to the bitter end.

From Rasmussen:

Republican candidates now hold a 10-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, July 25, the widest gap between the two parties in several weeks.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 46% of Likely Voters would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate, while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent…

Don’t get cocky, Republicans – we’re not called the stupid party for nothing, you know. If there is a political party which can blow this sort of advantage in a mere three months, we’re it.

But, all in all, for anyone who has observed politics over a long period of time, for the GOP to hold a ten point advantage in the generic ballot is astounding. Clearly, the Democrat brand has collapsed – all the GOP needs to do is come up with a winning message for the fall.

Anti-Democrat sentiment will carry us far – perhaps even to a narrow House majority; but to really put this away and set us up to beat Obama in 2012 (which will be the hardest task we, as a party, have faced in the past 100 years), we need to offer a compelling vision for the American people. Rote statements about tax cuts and spending restraint won’t do it – we need tap in to the revolutionary ferment of the American people.

We need bold proposals to radically cut spending – naming the programs we’ll cut, with the short, sweet rationale for such cuts immediately ready. We need to firmly come down in favor of strict border security. We need to offer hope for people crushed by the housing collapse. We need to pledge war to the knife with the purveyors of financial chicanery both in Wall Street and DC. We craft this message, and the sky is the limit for us.

What’s that, you say? Didn’t I see a news report somewhere today saying that new home sales rose by 24% in June?

Yes, you did – but while that was technically not a lie, it certainly wasn’t anything like the truth. You see, while new home sales rose from May of 2010 to June of 2010, they dropped from June of 2009 to June of 2010 – and that is the only important measure: year over year.

But even that doesn’t tell the whole tale – part of the reason there was a “rise” in new home sales in June is because May’s numbers were so abysmally low. Lower, indeed, than any time since 1963 – and way the heck back then, there were 110 million fewer Americans. In other words, a completely catastrophic month for new home sales.

And yet it gets even worse – the number for May was a downward revision, and April’s numbers were also revised downwards. We can fully expect further downward revisions to the numbers for May and June.

Boiled down, the way the report was presented was a clear attempt at propaganda – an essentially dishonest presentation of information designed to elicit a response desired by the purveyors of the information. In this case, it was the government putting it out and what Rush so aptly calls the State-run media which then ran with it. But the truth of the matter is that we’re in a housing Depression, and that will soon spread to the entire economy (a very large amount of our economic activity is tied to the building and purchase of homes…for instance, people tend to only buy a ‘fridge when they get a new home, etc).

Bad times coming – but mostly for the elites who got us in to this mess.

From Newsbusters:

…Stone said that his upcoming Showtime documentary series “Secret History of America,” seeks to put Hitler and Communist dictator Joseph Stalin “in context.”

“Hitler was a Frankenstein but there was also a Dr Frankenstein. German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support,” Stone told Sunday Times’ reporter Camilla Long…

…The Sunday Times interviewer then asked why there was such a focus on the Holocaust.

“The Jewish domination of the media,” responded Stone. “There’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f***** up United States foreign policy for years.”…

A bit astounding to see, but not that surprising. It’ll be interesting to see if Stone can back and fill his way out of this.

Still, Stone has made a career out of spreading lies, and when you do that sort of thing, all manner of depravity comes to seem normal and, indeed, laudable. In the higher service (to Stone) of curbing America, Stone could easily descend in to the gutter of Jew-baiting. Its not so much that Stone hates Jews (its likely that he’d tell us that some of his best friends are Jews), but that he hates the United States, and has identified Israel as the locus of what is bad about America in the world.

When I speak of the rising anti-Semitism on the left, this is what I mean: the increasing willingness of those on the left to blame some formulation of a Jewish conspiracy for what is wrong with the United States and the world. It goes like this – if only those dratted Jews would go away, we could have a policy of friendship with our current enemies. Following hard upon the heels of such thinking is the willingness to see a nuclear-armed Iran and, in subtext, the lack of concern for the fate of Israel when faced with such a threat.

Evil feeds upon itself. Take lies as your means of operation and you’ll eventually fall completely down. Naturally, the left doesn’t view it that way – after all, they only start out with little lies, and those lies are designed to advance a wonderful agenda. They fail to understand that a lie, even the smallest of little, white lies inevitable leads to ever larger lies. The Truth sets you free – and free from, among many other things, the trap of lies.

Stone had better reverse course soon (or come up with a bang-up excuse for this report), or he’ll wind up making films denying the Holocaust ever happened. The larger left had better stop it, too, or they’ll soon find themselves volunteering to run the next Holocaust.

Glad we’ve got Barry and Timmy and Benny watching the financial store:

Regulators closed 7 banks in 7 different states this week, bringing the total number of bank failures in 2010 up to 103.

This marks the second straight year that the United States will have more than 100 bank failures…

Can you imagine what would have happened if Obama wasn’t there to nationalize the banking industry and if Dodd and Frank hadn’t fixed all our financial industry problems with their new law…which no one has read? Boy, are we lucky to have all of them in office!

From Big Government:

She was likened to a modern day Rosa Parks or Nelson Mandela, but former the Ag official, according to the Washington Post, was not interviewed on a single major Sunday morning talk-show following a week that can only be described as a Shirley Sherrod media frenzy. Though the conversation on Sunday morning focused on race in America, noticeably absent from the discussion was the woman behind the controversy. Earlier this week a handful of people in the blogosphere began to speculate Sherrod would pull off a “full Ginsburg,” or become only the thirteenth person to appear on all major Sunday talk-shows on the same day since the feat was first accomplished by William H. Ginsburg in 1998. However, this was before a clip of Sherrod suggesting Andrew Breitbart wants blacks “stuck back in the times of slavery” went viral. Sherrod also drew extensive criticism late in the week for blasting Fox News as racist…

I watched (and posted) that Anderson Cooper bit where she accused Breitbart of wanting to restore slavery and maybe I’m over-interpreting things, but it seems to me that Cooper tried to rescue her from making that absurd statement. She didn’t take her cue, it would seem – and now the MSM doesn’t want her within a country mile of a television camera, lest she wreck the liberal racial narrative entirely.

Liberals here in 2010 are just the gang that can’t shoot straight. Even when their opponents have served them up a grand, exploitable mistake on a silver platter, they can’t get it right. Had Sherrod kept to the racial-healing talking point, she would have been invincible and would have kept the right on the defensive for a couple weeks, at least – and this is regardless of the merits of her case. Now, she’s already political kryptonite.

Just goes to show – if you don’t actually work for justice, you simply cannot get anything right, in the long run. Ms. Sherrod approached it, but then blew it right before the finish line.