Both Ramesh Ponnuru, [ How to Win by Losing, NYT] and Jonah Goldberg [If Demos were to win control of House, it would boost GOP] seem to think that a period in opposition would be good for the Republicans. This has given rise to headlines like Right-wingers seek ‘dose of the Democrats’ to rescue Republicans and Beat Us, We Need It, Say Republican Conservatives.

Now, while it’s true that Republicans probably deserve to lose, at this point in history, the Republican house happens to be the only thing standing between American and the Bush/Senate Amnesty bill.

Mickey Kaus has takedowns both on Slate.com, (here and here)and on his private video conference, Bloggingheads.tv, where he goes into detail about how stupid Ponnuru and Goldberg are being.

His specific objection to Jonah Goldberg’s idea that “One exception[to the political benefits of a loss of the House] might be immigration, but that would hand conservative Republicans a dream issue for 2008.”is a patriotic rather than a political one:

Immigration reform is a big idea–it sets twelve million new citizens on the path to citizenship, changing the composition of the electorate that will then vote in future elections. It also acts as a beacon for everybody in Latin America, to say “Hey, come to America and one you’ll get amnesty too,” it could fundamentally change the fabric of our nation–it’s not just something you let slip through and so you’ll have an issue later.

Good point. Why can’t the editors of National Review see that?

Imagine exiting church on a Sunday morning and facing dozens of hateful, threatening creatures like these. That’s what happened yesterday in London [Catholic Londoner Blog: Just outside Westminster Cathedral today, 9/17/06].

The affront was part of the growing Islamic attack on western values of free speech and liberty generally that began on Friday with another overblown case of offended Muslim sensibilities.

Part of the carnage was the murder of an old lady, a medical nun ministering to the poor, who was shot in the back in Somalia, apparently a reaction to the Pope speech controversy.

AN ITALIAN nun was killed by gunmen at a children’s hospital in Somalia yesterday in an apparent revenge attack for the Pope’s speech about Islam last week.

Sister Leonella Sgorbati, 65, left, was shot four times in the back by two men at the entrance to the hospital in the capital, Mogadishu. Her bodyguard was also killed. The Vatican said that it hoped that the “horrible tragedy” was an isolated incident.

The killing came after Benedict XVI expressed deep regret yesterday at the furious reaction to his remarks on Islam and holy war, saying that the text he quoted last week did not reflect his personal opinion.
[Nun shot dead as Pope fails to calm militant Muslims, The Times 9/17/06]

Of course, a serious case of Muslim rage cannot be satisfied by one little murder. Several churches in the West Bank and Gaza have been firebombed since the most recent controversy kicked in.

Furthermore, a follow-up escalation was the demand from at least one member of The Religion of Peace that Pope Benedict be executed.

A notorious Muslim extremist told a demonstration in London yesterday that the Pope should face execution.

Anjem Choudary said those who insulted Islam would be ’subject to capital punishment’.
[Londoners told - Pope must die, London Metro 9/18/06]

We knew that was coming, right?

The website Cartoon Body Count put the number killed by the Danish cartoon jihad at 139, so we may be only at the beginning of the current round of murderous Islamic attacks against our civilization.

Many Muslims openly declare their intention of destroying the West and replacing democratic institutions with an Islamic Caliphate run by clerics under Sharia law. Yet we continue to allow them to immigrate here, and they are coming in increasing numbers.

How much more trouble do we need to import?

This one deserves to become a classic:

The name that supporters of open immigration most frequently call their opponents is “racist” — as if every country that has more restrictive immigration laws than the United States (and almost all of them do) were manifestly “racist” in its intentions. If you are a supporter of open immigration, I can’t demand that you keep your temper and refrain from calling me a word like that. But I hope you do. Then maybe something like a real discussion can emerge.[The Fallacy of
Open Immigration, By Stephen Cox, Liberty Magazine, October 2006 ]

UPDATE:There’s a lot more by Stephen Cox in the July 2006 issue of Liberty.

I’m sorry to interrupt you . . . — To all bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, country-club conservatives, Democratic Party activists, and libertarian political fundamentalists:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I’m sorry to interrupt the celebration you’re having for open borders and free immigration. I know that for the first time in history, you’re really enjoying one another’s company. I hate to distract you from the food and drink and the big hugs all around, but I’d like to ask you a few short questions. I hope you will try to answer them without reminding me that we are all immigrants, calling me a racist or a xenophobe, or reciting Emma Lazarus’ poem about the Statue of Liberty.

Do you believe there are any limits to the number of immigrants that America should accept? If so, what are they? Or should anyone who can travel to America be allowed to live here permanently?

Do you believe there are any limits to “immigrants’ rights” — including, as many of you insist, the right to government-provided education, government-provided welfare, government-provided health care, government-provided hiring and advancement quotas, and government-provided pensions, as well as the right to elect the government? Do immigrants gain these “rights” simply by existing here? If so, how long should they be required to do that? Ten years? One year? One month? One minute?

Are you making the same demands for open borders on Canada, Mexico, England, and Italy that you are on the United States?

Liberty - Reflections, July 2006

Read the whole thing.