An idea whose time has come

Tamar Jacoby at the Union Leader:

Last month, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner succeeded in attaching his Real ID Act to a must-pass Iraq appropriations bill. Now that spending measure is coming up in the Senate, and though it’s unclear how the upper chamber will handle the congressman’s proposal, members are girding for an all-out fight over immigration.
...
The bill’s history in the House, where it passed on a 261-161 vote, holds crucial lessons for the debate ahead. It’s no accident that only eight Republicans dared vote against it, or that even President Bush, who prefers a more measured approach to illegal immigration, ended up endorsing it. What Sensenbrenner grasps — and his opponents ignore at their peril — is that when it comes to immigration, what the public wants is control.

Yup.

The unavoidable answer — albeit deeply unpopular in this country — is a credible “employer verification” system: one that replaces existing fraud-prone employment practices with a better way of ensuring that businesses hire only legal residents.
...
It’s hardly surprising that the last time we tried an employer-based approach — penalties against businesses that hire illegal workers are part of the landmark Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that Congress passed in 1986 — it was so watered down as to be all but irrelevant. Still, unappealing as it may sound, an employer-verification system is probably the only way to remain a nation of immigrants and meet our labor needs without giving in to epidemic illegality of the kind we live with now.

The question is less “if” than “how”: how to make sure a new verification program is effective and that it preserves our rights — everyone’s rights. The first principle, a lesson learned from the failed IRCA sanctions, is that the task assigned to business must be one it can realistically perform. As is, we put employers in an impossible position: We require that they determine, merely by eyeballing an employee’s documents, whether that person is legally authorized to work. All new hires, citizens and foreign-born, must by law show some form of ID — the many possibilities include driver’s licenses, Social Security cards, U.S. or foreign passports, green cards and school IDs; some are enough alone, others only in combination — and many of the forged documents presented by illegal immigrants look convincing. Yet if employers ask too many questions, we accuse them of discrimination, and when there is a violation, we give them no clear guidance about how to handle it.

What businesses desperately want and need is a simple, streamlined, inexpensive method to make sure that they are on the right side of the law — to verify that their employees are legitimate and to protect themselves from legal jeopardy.

Gosh, it sounds like Polipundits longstanding proposal.

Today's Hoot!

Viking Pundit:

“But the United Nations is more than a debating club or a bureaucratic agency.” True, they also have a gift shop.

They also employ the otherwise unemployable.

Smells like a "Pew Job" to me

Only this time the target of our betters in tax exempt foundation land is Tom Delay. It's going just as outlined by Ryan Sager in the "campaign finance reform" disinformation campaign (much more at his blog):

Step 1: Have the tax exempt organizations like George Soros' Open Society Institute fire up their flying monkeys in an alphabet soup of "government watchdog groups" with antecedents that are mysterious, when they aren't pure leftoid Democrat. For garnish, trot out some old line liberal groups like the Campaign for America's Future and have them spend some union members' dues on running ads denouncing their target. The only novel twist this time is that they laundered some of the money through the 527's like MoveOn and ACT, which they created in the original Pew Job.

Step 2: Call in the peanut gallery in the mainstream media to add their one-sided yapping. This NY Time's vignette is special too.

Step 3: Keep the big name Donks under cover, although a few little pissants like Ronnie Earle who likes to indict anyone he doesn't like are OK. It's a popular groundswell, dontcha know!

Step 4: Convince a few RINO's to join in the moanfest.

And there ya go - a perfect recipe. Just sit back and watch it bubble. The only thing that seems to be missing is the Pew foundation itself, although who knows what a little digging would turn up. But that's OK, they've got George Soros, so why settle for second best.

The only problem with this swell plan is that all the complaints are about activities which aren't unethical and which pale by comparison to the Democrat leadership.

My favorite whine is that Delay's daughter and wife are on his campaign payroll for the munificent sum of about $40K each a year. These aren't no show jobs - they do run his campaigns and it's a common practice in Congress to have relatives working on campaigns. Why not? I seem to remember ole RFK ran JFK's Presidential campaign. Now if you want to haul down really big bucks for your relatives, you can do what Senate Minority leader, Harry Reid does - have a crop of family members running lobbying operations.

The other big whine is that Tom Delay took some trips paid for by lobbyists. Sorry to break the news, but that too is business as usual in Congress. Sheesh, Democrats went along on the trips they are whining about! I'd say he's got a ways to go to approach Nancy Pelosi's finder's fee, but the MSM doesn't seem to be chasing her with pitchforks. Why am I not surprised?

The real question is whether our betters' estimate of the American public is correct and a "Pew job" this lame will succeed.

I always say "Go to the experts!"

CBS to Give CIA Tips on Infiltrating Enemy Groups

Nothing is as appealing to leftoids as a good vote fraud

(Via BrothersJudd) Labour to halt postal vote fraud but only after election:

LABOUR is planning to legislate to stop cheating in postal voting immediately after the general election in spite of repeated assurances from ministers that the present system is safe, The Times has learnt.

The disclosure will embarrass the Government, with critics pointing out that it is happy for the system to be used in the general election, even though it is clearly flawed enough to require speedy legislation.

But they have a swizzle in the UK that the whiners over here haven't thought of yet:

Government sources last night confirmed that all the evidence showed that individual registration, where everyone in a household has to register separately, reduces the number of people who vote.

Gosh, I wonder why that is?

The measures have become a priority as Labour was thrown on the defensive over the issue. Two judges in the past week have said that the system was wide open to fraud after scandals in Birmingham and Blackburn, where Labour stole thousands of people’s postal votes in local elections.

But at least it's refreshing they haven't bought into the whine, so common in the USA, that asking registrants to actually provide some proof of identity somehow violates their "rights."

Keep sending those cards and letters, folks!

Big Bad John:

At half past nine this morning, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will meet to begin considering the nomination of Big Bad John Bolton to be our next ambassador to the United Nations. The mere thought of Bolton being our UN ambassador has driven the Mooron Dems into a frothing rage. They can't stand the thought of an ambassador to the UN who isn't a shill for Kofi and the rest of the Turtle Bay crime family.

I think the Frenchies call that "nostalgie de la boue." The rest of us call it plain nuts.

UNconvinced? Just look at the New York Times' condemnation of Bolton. Its opposition editorial of April 8 said that Bolton was unqualified for the job because, "at a minimum, the United States representative to the United Nations should be a person who believes it is a good idea." UNsurprisingly, this is the principal argument the "Citizens for Global Solutions" organization makes in its anti-Bolton "briefing book" published on its "Stop Bolton" website website. The CGS -- actually the old one-world government whackos operating under a new name -- is, naturally, more crafty and dishonest about it than the Times.

What a hoot - the World Federalists Assocation had a makeover and their old web site (see the top link) now points to an evangelical church in Delaware!

Last week, on Greg Garrison's radio show, I interviewed Mort Halperin (he of Pentagon Papers infamy, now an employee of George Soros), who is leading the hard left's campaign against. He said that President Bush has decided to support the UN and work with Kofi Annan, so Bolton can't be the ambassador because he opposes Bush's policy. Huh?

I don't think ole George is getting full value for his money.

More fun by following the link, but here's the nut and its all about the Republican Senator from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel:

If the Bolton nomination makes it to the Senate floor, he will be confirmed. But because the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has too many wobblies and RINOs, confirmation remains a big "if." That's why the hardest-core lefties are working feverishly on Lincoln Chafee (RINO-Rhode Island) and the ever-wobbly Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. Committee Chairman Dick Lugar of Indiana isn't a tower of strength either. If the vote on Bolton fails in committee, it is possible that Lugar could try to bring the nomination to the floor with a negative vote, but that would face a certain filibuster. Would Bill Frist risk the nuclear option to save Bolton? We may find out.

Hagel will be the determinative vote on Bolton. If he votes in favor, Lugar will be able to report the nomination on a straight party-line vote. (Not counting Chafee, a UN-ophile, who is a lost cause and should be as ignored as Canada's PM, Paul Martin.) Hagel, who aspires to the 2008 presidential nomination, is the subject of the Soros organizations' television ad campaign against Bolton. Countering this, Hagel should hear a simple but forceful message from the President and every other conservative. If you don't back Bolton, your presidential ambitions will be opposed by every one of us with as much money, as many votes, and as much public scorn as we can muster. Should the Bolton vote be a -- shudder -- litmus test for Republican presidential aspirants? Yes, and there will be many more between now and 2008.

Think about it, Chuck. Do you feel lucky?

Who's up for a boondoggle in foreign parts?

Clinton To Serve 2 Years as U.N. Envoy:

UNITED NATIONS, April 9 -- Former president Bill Clinton will spend at least two years in his new role as the top U.N. envoy promoting recovery in tsunami-hit countries and demanding accountability for the unprecedented billions of dollars donated by countries and individuals, his deputy said.

Maybe he'll join OJ at the golf course? OJ can look for the real killers and Bubba can look for missing bucks. I don't remember the watchdog role being part of Bubba's original brief for this gig, but who's more watchful than he?

Inspector Bubba on the job

By the way, the "deputy" is ole Erskine Bowles who ran for the Senate twice in North Carolina and pretended he didn't know the Clintons. Now he's got a different gig on the gravy train:

Bowles, who was Clinton's chief of staff at the White House from 1996 to 1998 and is now the United Nations' deputy special envoy for tsunami recovery, traveled to Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Maldives in March for a firsthand view of the devastation while the former president was recovering from surgery.

But not to worry, Bubba will be reporting for duty shortly:

Clinton is scheduled to make his first public appearance as a U.N. envoy Wednesday.

He is to meet with Secretary General Kofi Annan for the first time since his appointment was announced on Feb. 1, and they will hold a news conference, U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric announced Friday.

Bowles said the former president plans a week-long trip to tsunami-hit countries on the Indian Ocean, probably in late May, and will go through Europe, where he plans to meet the heads of some nongovernmental organizations that have major roles in the recovery efforts.

Get 'er done, Bubba! Just like the swell display you put on at the Pope's funeral.

Someone 'splain it to me!

Table Candy:

JANE Fonda and Sally Field will lead the Hollywood contingent at this year's White House Correspondents dinner at the end of the month as guests of Knight Ridder. Donald Trump, Jack Welch, Robert Duvall, Georgette Mosbacher and Patricia Duff are guests of John McLaughlin. Newsweek has secured the company of Richard Gere. "South Park" creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone will be guests of the Denver Post. The dullest table could be ABC News, featuring liberal windbag Al Franken.

Why are these room temperature IQ preeners attending the "White House Correspondents dinner"? Well, it is getting harder to separate the reporters from the thespians. Of course, it'll be all right if ole Sally reprises her "You like me! You really like me!" speech.

Revised career path alert!

An odd twist for an ex-dominatrix:

When Susan Peacher hung up her latex evening gown and wooden paddle for a job with the federal government, the former dominatrix thought she was done with abuse.

She went to work for the Treasury Department in San Francisco, but when she arrived at her new job, she found that one of the office managers was a former client.

And to make a long story short, he was no better than he should be. Only in San Francisco.

But speaking of fancy dress, Roger Simon points to an article by Mike Adams which discusses one of the nation's "educators" who has a web site with a fetching snap of herself and some chums fitted out as terrorists. The picture is small and rather grainy, but there are some obvious oddities in the poseurs' outfits, most particularly that Jihad Jane's head mask doesn't seem to be an ordinary balaclava. Instead, it appears to have a zipper up the center. It's nice to make a career change where you can recycle your old gear.

Same old, same old

Michael Wines in the NY Times - Tough on Togo, Letting Zimbabwe Slide:

Even the heads of state who were its members called the old Organization for African Unity a dictators' club, one reason why it was replaced three years ago by a new African Union that was modeled, in name and purpose, on Europe's own union.

Funny though, it has the same old members.

The old O.A.U. fulminated about colonialism and liberation, but was often silent on human rights and the consent of the governed. The new group, bowing to a democratic breeze blowing from Mali to Mauritius, stood for the premise that the rule of law is in, and despotism out.

More like "stood for putting lipstick on the pig."

So when Robert G. Mugabe attends the next meeting of the African Union, will he have to stand?

No peeking to see the answer!

Why do African leaders who no longer tolerate a Togo coup blanch at denouncing Mr. Mugabe's strongman tactics? The question seems almost nonsensical, given that Zimbabwe's political and social implosion has flooded its neighbors with unwanted refugees and made the nation a potential vector for regional instability.

It's a trick question, right?

Foremost, perhaps, African leaders fear that the defeat of a serious ruler like Mr. Mugabe may help spread the notion that any entrenched leadership can be unseated by a committed opposition. In Africa, where most democracies are effectively one-party affairs, such a notion can be dangerous.

Ruh Oh! Of course, what he really meant was: "In Africa where dictatorships pretend to be one-party democracies."

Maybe that helps explain why South Africa endorsed the Zimbabwe vote even more warmly than did the African Union, and why its president, Thabo Mbeki, has emerged as Mr. Mugabe's most powerful ally.

Coincidentally, perhaps, Mr. Mugabe's opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change, enjoys strong support from South Africa's labor movement and from its Communist Party. Both groups are part of Mr. Mbeki's ruling African National Congress, but are widely expected to split from it before the 2009 national election.

Quite a choice - Thug A or Thug B. But not to worry, the Times has a multilateral solution from an anonymous AU staffer:

The African Union can put down a coup in Togo, he said, because its charter explicitly permits intervention in a member nation's affairs in the case of a coup. But the charter is silent on whether the bloodless theft of political power by, say, stealing an election, is a coup in all but name.

"What could change that is if Zimbabwean groups themselves make the call to the A.U.," he said. "You could make quite a strong argument that rigging and manipulating elections is a kind of constitutional coup."

It's a joke, right?