I almost didn’t believe it when I read it: PRESIDENT BUSH IS RESURRECTING HIS IMMIGRATION BILL.

You know of what bill I speak! The immigration bill which amazingly manages to go beyond what even the simplest of voters would call “amnesty” and instead practically meets the definition of “aiding and abetting” treason. Who am I kidding? Please omit the word “practically” from the previous sentence.

President Bush is obviously unaware of the at least one or more of the following issues:

1. This is his last term in office and of that he only has a year and change left.
2. Nobody who considers themselves a conservative would say that he is as well.
3. His immigration bill was, is and will always be worthless–unless you’re an illegal alien…then it’s perfect!

Why would he toss this crummy legislation back into the hat? It’s already failed before…a few times…in spite of its various forms…so why would he think it stands a chance now? What has changed in the short time since it last failed…

Ahhh! His party is no longer in power–the Pelosi/Reid Democrats run the show and as evidence of my claim the Bush II is not a conservative, the Dems have always seen eye-to-eye with the Prez on this issue. On other issues as well but this is hardly the place to discuss that.

In fact, Senate Democrat leaders like the bill but are urging the President to lean on his own party to get it passed.

Good grief! In a time where every GOP candidate under the sun is invoking the spirit of President Ronald Reagan at every (filmed) opportunity, I have to ask if there is anything Reaganesque about a Republican President pushing members of his own party to sell-out their constituents (not to mention their party) and support this bill?

Who am I kidding? When has anybody ever compared President George W. Bush to President Ronald Reagan?

Other than himself of course…

Morfe info here.

To add great insult to injury, the President is quite sure his amnesty bill will pass this time. Currently on tour in Europe, the President (in what I am sure he considered a humorous manner) announced his intention to throw it back into the ring and concluded his remarks with:

“I’ll see you at the bill signing!”

Story here.

…because it was too fragile and bipartisan, of course. The expression ““Fragile, Bipartisan”” appears more than 500 times in Google News, but the top one, sorted by relevance, seems to be a post by me, making fun of this phrase. So here’s more about the fragility and bipartisanship, from Carol Platt Liebau at RealClearPolitics.com.

Carol Liebau, noting poll results that say that 69% of Americans believe that illegal immigrants should be prosecuted and deported, writes

At its heart, the bill was profoundly out of step with public opinion. In fact, it’s remarkable that any legislation with so many elements so at odds with prevailing opinion among Americans was ever given much of a chance at passing. Perhaps that’s why the bill’s proponents, who long believed that they had a winner on their hands, came in for a rude awakening by week’s end.[RealClearPolitics - Articles - Why the Immigration Bill Failed, June 11, 2007]

And here’s something else she has to say about bipartisanship. More or less what I had to say about, in fact:

Amid their self-congratulation, they missed an important fact. Although Americans may applaud the concept of bipartisanship, the truth is that they didn’t send representatives to Washington to engage in a “bipartisan process.” Rather, they elected them to pursue certain policies. The “grand bargainers” - especially on the Republican side - became so enamored of the process of bipartisan negotiation that they lost sight of the reality that “progress” doesn’t so much consist of following certain procedures as it does of achieving certain policy objectives.

Further to Steve Sailer’s big Sunday night article at VDARE, below is the most interesting (to me) reader comment–first paragraph, especially–associated with the Wall Street Journal’s weekend interview with Kyl.[The 'Amnesty' Canard, By Collin Levy, June 9, 2007] I didn’t bother with the interview, but here’s the comments page:

Revenge of the Grass Roots
Carl Withrow - Manassas, Va.
Thank God for the Wall Street Journal and OpinionJournal! Why? Because in less than 24 hours, Ms. Levy has illustrated better than any other source that what should have been learned from this “debate” was simply ignored. The advocates of forcing amnesty for millions upon millions of illegal Latino immigrants down the throats of America’s citizens are as cocky, determined and pushy as they have ever been, if not more so. The Senate has put the Kennedy-Bush-McCain bill off of the desk temporarily. The White House indicates that President Bush may be considering another round of “convincing” congressional leaders to reconsider and pass the bill.

Hence, we are at phase two, or three or whatever, where the smug arrogance, name-calling and elitist condescension continues to ignore and insult what the supermajority of America’s citizens are demanding. What should have been learned is that this is not a game in which when one way doesn’t work, we just figure out some way to go around the law and the people to get what we want, “we” being the advocates of amnesty for illegal Latino immigrants. What should have been learned in this recent “political storm” is that the people meant what they said when they demanded that this, and all other similar bills, be thrown into the trash where they belong.

What should have been learned is that it took the conservative grassroots movements slightly less than three weeks to do what Hollywood, the liberal media, press and the Democratic Party leadership has been obsessed with doing for over six years nonstop, with little or no success. The grassroots movements brought the White House and its wobbly GOP supporters to their knees. If the Journal wants to mock this as a canard that’s fine, but there is zero falsehood in the message that was sent to this “debate” on the idea of giving amnesty to illegal Latino immigrants. Election 2008 will mark the end the career of every politician who fails to abide by the law and respect the will of the American people.

By Anonymous Attorney

The Washington Post’s Teresa Vargas rushed to the rescue last Friday of a drunk-driving Hispanic immigrant (legal, she tells us) who overstayed his jail time.[Another Inmate Held Too Long In Pr. William | Spanish-Speaking Man Victim of Clerical Error, June 8, 2007]

A number of points not addressed by Vargas:

• How sorry should we feel, exactly, for this “hard working” El Salvadoran who, despite his hectic tree-cutting and grocery-stocking schedule, still found the time to drive drunk and endanger our lives? If he’d killed someone, would we get a story focusing on his immigrant status, leading to a bigger story about the unending number of deaths caused by drunk-driving illegals/Hispanic immigrants?
• Why should the problems caused by his inability to speak English come to rest on the English-speaking population? A man comes to the United States with no intention of learning the language (the story says he’s been here since he was a teenager) or obeying its traffic laws, and WE are all the bad guys because of the problem that arose?
• Why would Mr. Duarte sign two court documents with two different last names? Are Hispanics playing with their own dual last names in this way to confound authorities? Has anyone checked into this?
• If 25 percent of the inmates processed by Prince William County are Hispanic, doesn’t that point more to a Hispanic crime wave problem than a justice administration problem by the county?
• Has Ms. Vargas ever looked into what happens to an American in a Mexican (or El Salvadoran) jail?

We can be confident that Ms. Vargas–and the rest of the Washington Post team–will never ask these questions or write these stories. You can see exactly what’s running through her head as she sits there at her desk: fat, white sheriff’s deputies and police officials in Virginia, probably bigots, are manhandling innocent Mr. Duarte, a blameless Hispanic immigrant who only works hard and dreams his dreams of success. The hero and the villains were formed in her mind before she ever picked up the phone for an interview, and the story fell into place.

This is journalistic malpractice. It’s naked ethnic advocacy (for Hispanics) and obvious ethnic slander (against Americans, English- speakers, whites, etc.). It doesn’t pass what Chicago Tribune columnist Mike Royko (an old-style liberal) might have called the “Slats Grobnik” test: how would a working guy sitting at a bar react to a story like this? Probably by snorting that Mr. Duarte should have learned some English, or stayed home in El Salvador.

But I am willing to bet that Ms. Vargas wouldn’t care about the opinion of a working guy sitting at a bar–unless he had two last names.