I couldn’t make it up if I tried.

From al-Reuters:

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) - U.S. Hispanic groups and activists on Thursday called for a moratorium on workplace raids to round up illegal immigrants, saying they were reminiscent of Nazi crackdowns on Jews in the 1930s.
…
“This unfortunately reminds me of when Hitler began rounding up the Jews for no reason and locking them up,” Democratic Party activist Carla Vela said. “Now they’re coming for the Latinos, who will they come for next?”

Yes, Carla, arresting people who’ve illegally snuck into our country is exactly the same as rounding up people for being Jews and chunking them in gas chambers. Brilliant.

LULAC, the oldest and largest Hispanic group in the country with 115,000 members, said workplace raids would cause families to be separated if the arrested immigrants were deported and also would hurt the U.S. economy.

If only there was a remedy to keep families from being separated when members are arrested for breaking the law…

I often get invited to political events, dinners and parties because of my work in the political arena. As such, I’m always forced to deal with the lame photos taken by the “official photographer”. You think the DMV is bad, you ought to see what Johnny Freelancer can do with your mug just as you’re enjoying that fateful moment of shaking hands with a high profile figure. Of course, the politician is perfectly groomed and ready with a million dollar smile. I, on the other hand, am struggling to get my drink in my left hand, extend my right hand and not look like a complete goober for the digital photography.

It’s just downright aweful.

This is why I want to get a new HP Photosmart M527 Digital Camera so I can take my own photos at the time of my choosing. I have an uncanny knack for wrapping my arm around someone, sticking the camera out at arm’s length and snapping the perfect self-photo. And the nice thing about the M527 is that I can immediately review the photo - so if I don’t like it, I can delete it, make my way back in line… and snap a new one.

This post was brought to you by HP.

Perhaps Sandy Bergler wasn’t just trying to cover up incompetence for the Clinton administration’s handling of terrorism (or lack thereof), but maybe there’s more to this story than originally thought:

A former national security adviser to President Clinton, Samuel Berger, stashed highly classified documents under a trailer in downtown Washington in order to evade detection by National Archives personnel, a government report released yesterday said.

The report from the inspector-general for the National Archives, Paul Brachfeld, said Mr. Berger executed the cloak-and-dagger maneuver in October 2003 while taking a break from reviewing Clinton-era documents in connection with the work of the so-called September 11 commission.

“Mr. Berger exited the archive onto Pennsylvania Avenue,” the report says, recounting the story the former national security chief told investigators. “He did not want to run the risk of bringing the documents back in the building. … He headed toward a construction area on 9th Street. Mr. Berger looked up and down the street, up into the windows of the archives and the DOJ, and did not see anyone. He removed the documents from his pockets, folded the notes in a ‘V’ shape, and inserted the documents in the center. He walked inside the construction fence and slid the documents under a trailer.”
…
A leading authority on classification policy, Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, said Mr. Berger’s behavior was reminiscent of a “dead drop,” when spies leave records in a park or under a mailbox to be retrieved by a handler.

It’s still amazing that the same MSM that claims its the public’s right to know every national security secret of the Bush administration has virtually ignored this still incomplete story of a former National Security Advisor stealing, destroying… and now apparently “dead dropping” classified documents relating to the government’s response to terrorist acts.

Think they’d be as quiet if this had been Condi Rice or Stephen Hadley? I guess they’re too busy with the real stories that affect our nation.

UPDATE:
Here’s the official final report on the investigation. It concludes Bergler wasn’t passing the info off to others, which would seem to bolster the idea that this was simply an act of Clinton administration officials trying to cover up their actions related to dealing with terrorism. If the media would consider this as much of a public’s right to know as a discolored mole on the leg of a First Lady, I bet this case would make for an interesting piece of investigative journalism.

In March of this year, while President Bush was pandering to the open-borders lobby, he made this ridiculous statement:

“As we debate the immigration issue, we must remember there are hard-working individuals, doing jobs that Americans will not do, who are contributing to the economic vitality of our country.”

Wrong.

GREELEY - The line of applicants hoping to fill jobs vacated by undocumented workers taken away by immigration agents at the Swift & Co. meat-processing plant earlier this week was out the door Thursday.

I find it downright hilarious that the MSM is making such a big deal about Laura Bush’s choice not to make a grand public spectacle about her having a discolored mole removed from her leg.

Why, you ask?

Because this is the same MSM that tried to tell us for years that a President having an adulterous affair with a member of his staff in the White House is a private matter.

Keep that “standard” in mind when you read the transcript of this press conference (video).

Q And she didn’t feel any obligation as a person of public status to talk about this?

MR. SNOW: No, again, there are any number of — this is a room full of public people who tend not — and I know you say, wait a minute, I’m different than the First Lady. Well, no, she’s a private citizen. And the fact is, she is entitled to her medical privacy. And, again, it’s no big deal. In this case, it’s just not a big deal.

Q May I follow on that? The President is also a private citizen, as well as being the President. So —

MR. SNOW: Well, he’s an elected official. It’s different.

Q He’s an elected official and a private citizen. You can make the same claims of a number of people who have public lives. Mrs. Bush has made herself part of this party and this White House’s very public face. So my question is, if this were to be something that is a big deal, would the White House feel obliged to share that with the public?

MR. SNOW: I don’t know. She didn’t feel obliged, and she believes that she has the same medical privacy rights that you and I have.

…so this kind of stuff doesn’t happen any longer.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - U.S.-led forces captured a senior al-Qaida leader who was responsible for hundreds of civilian deaths and housed foreign fighters who carried out suicide bombings, the U.S. military said Wednesday.

Positioning herself for the run for the White House in 2008, Hillary is continuing to clean her closet of all those past actions she thinks will cost her votes. Always the consummate politician. Today, she’s conducting a John Kerry-esque backpeddling of her vote for the Iraq war.

This morning on NBC’s “Today” show, Sen. Clinton was asked about her 2002 vote and offered a slightly evolved answer. “Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn’t have been a vote,” she said in her usual refrain before adding, “and I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way.”

First of all, do you think if this had been a Republican flip-flopping like this that ABC would’ve called it simply a “slightly evolved answer”?

Secondly, of course things would be different if we knew then what we know now. If we knew for certain that Saddam didn’t possess WMDs, we wouldn’t have discussed an attack. But that’s the issue… we didn’t know for sure that he didn’t have any and we couldn’t risk, in a post-9/11 world that he might. Now, we actually know for sure that Saddam Hussein will never pass WMDs along to terrorists.

But the problem with her current “evolved” answer is that foreign policy can’t be made in hindsight. The tough decisions have to be made in the context of the moment. You know, like this context, from her speech on the floor of the Senate on October 10, 2002:

“It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

And two years later, the context was still so clear, she was still adamant she’d voted the right way on Iraq…

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there…

…and all of this after living in the White House for 8 years with a man who continued to tell us about the dangers Saddam Hussein posed:

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

…in addition to her husband continually telling us just what was needed in Iraq…

“If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will,” said Clinton. “He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction.”

Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.

“The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people,” Clinton said.

Gotta love the Democrats and their “governing by hindsight”. Maybe she’ll ask Doc Brown from “Back to the Future” to be her running mate, so she can hop into the DeLorean every time she makes a critical policy decision.

You can run from your record, Hillary, but you can’t hide.

Others:
Carol nails it.

But it’s also worth mentioning that, with perfect foresight, Neville Chamberlain wouldn’t have tried to secure “peace in our time” with Adolf Hitler. And who’s to say that, if the Democrats succeed in forcing a failure in Iraq, the time won’t come when that’s as regrettable as the Munich accords?

Presidents do the best they can with the best information they have at the time. And their judgments aren’t always perfect, as Hillary most definitely should remember from her husband’s tenure.

I will be on the Allman & Smash in the Morning show tomorrow (Tuesday) morning at 7:45 AM Central.

Click here to listen

“Booming” probably isn’t the best adjective to use to describe the economy of a nation dealing with regular terrorist attacks, but nevertheless, Newsweek is expressing shock… shock that positive things might actually be occuring in Iraq.

Iraq has an economy, and—mother of all surprises—it’s doing remarkably well. Real estate is booming. Construction, retail and wholesale trade sectors are healthy, too, according to a report by Global Insight in London. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports 34,000 registered companies in Iraq, up from 8,000 three years ago. Sales of secondhand cars, televisions and mobile phones have all risen sharply. Estimates vary, but one from Global Insight puts GDP growth at 17 percent last year and projects 13 percent for 2006. The World Bank has it lower: at 4 percent this year. But, given all the attention paid to deteriorating security, the startling fact is that Iraq is growing at all.

Of course, MSM can’t even cover a growing economy here in the U.S., why on earth should we surprised at their shock of such a thing in Iraq?

There are many reasons the MSM isn’t eager to highlight the economic success in Iraq. For one, they might finally have to admit that Iraqis are actually better off now than they were under Saddam. A frightening admission, no doubt.

And second, the mechanics behind the successful Iraqi economy look very similar to another set of successful economic policies:

…there’s a vibrancy at the grass roots that is invisible in most international coverage of Iraq. Partly it’s the trickle-down effect. However it’s spent, whether on security or something else, money circulates. Nor are ordinary Iraqis themselves short on cash. After so many years of living under sanctions, with little to consume, many built up considerable nest eggs—which they are now spending. That’s boosted economic activity, particularly in retail. Imported goods have grown increasingly affordable, thanks to the elimination of tariffs and trade barriers. Salaries have gone up more than 100 percent since the fall of Saddam, and income-tax cuts (from 45 percent to just 15 percent) have put more cash in Iraqi pockets. “The U.S. wanted to create the conditions in which small-scale private enterprise could blossom,” says Jan Randolph, head of sovereign risk at Global Insight. “In a sense, they’ve succeeded.”

Income tax cuts? Trickle down effect? Say it ain’t so.

From AP:

NEW ORLEANS - A chance to dine with embattled Gov. Kathleen Blanco fetched a winning bid of $1 at a recent fundraising auction hosted by a group of business leaders.

Allah says, “98 cents was skimmed off the top by Louisiana politicians and split 43 ways. The remaining two cents was distributed to Katrina victims, who spent it on strip clubs.”

Priceless.