He wants border security first out of love; I, of course, want border security first out of hatred. Let's compromise and both support security-first out of, say, conflicted ambivalence (though I must insist that that conflict include at least 10% pure nativist hatred by volume).

His plan, which, strangely enough, looks a lot like a conservative plan, despite the fact his comes from love and ours from a volcanic fury:

1. Border security. There is no credible way to talk about what to do with the current crop of illegals until it is reasonably assured that we will not have to deal with the next crop.

2. Benign neglect with the current crop of illegals. There's no need to do that much right now. We can revisit the issue of their status in a few years after we have stabilized the size of the illegal population. By that time, most of the illegals who are still in the country will have such deep roots that there may be many ways of making creative uses of existing immigration statutes to regularize their status without the need for a generalized amnesty.

3. Linking immigration policy to economic needs. The idea of a guest worker program is bad for many reasons, but the idea that immigration policy can serve economic needs is not.

The Bush presidency, shall we say, has not distinguished itself through high levels of administrative competence.

Underscore that last point: Without doubt, there is an economic need for some number of migrant workers. I do not believe there is a large enough cadre of Americans who either can or are willing to leave their homes for several months of the year to pick lettuce during growing season. (Do they leave their jobs for four months to do so?)

Part of the problem with illegal workers is that it has become commonplance among so many other industries. Perhaps we do need temporary, seasonal migrant farmhands. I rather think we do. One can postulate that maybe college kids, or even teachers with summers off, can be paid enough during the harvesting months to do this job, but 1) I don't think they will, and 2) I don't know if they can. The school year used to be arranged almost precisely around harvest-time, but not so much anymore, and at any rate many crops are picked throughout the year and we can't expect Americans with full-time, year-round jobs to work a full day in Milwaukee and then work nights in California's orange groves.

But from this likely unavoaidable need for some seasonal migrant workers we've seen full-time jobs filled by more and more illegal workers. Americans used to work as bus-boys and dishwashers at restaurants. (I did, myself, in high school.) Landscapers too. Now those jobs are filled almost exlcusively by illegals, at least in areas that are magnets for illegal workers. It's hardly a coincidence that employment among the high-school and college-aged has fallen from 80% to 60%.

Hotels more and more rely on illegal workers for housekeeping and other tasks. I'm guessing they get around the illegality of it by not employing the illegals directly, but subcontracting to an independent business which itself is not-precisely-rigorous about checking for legal employment status.

And even construction -- a big industry employing millions of American workers, and quite decidedly a job that Americans are very willing to do -- is being done by more and more illegals.

This has to stop at some point lest virtually every low-skilled or manual-labor job be deemed one "Americans wont do." If Dan Balz is pro-amnesty, maybe that has something to do with the fact that few Guatemalans are actively competing for his job.

Part of the problem with this bill is that the emphasis has always been on what illegal immigrants need. What's in their best interest. What will improve their lot.

No offense to illegal immigrants, but I'd like to see a bill that proceeds from the starting assumption that immigration reform ought to be tailored according to what America needs. To some degree, these needs will be congruent. But certainly they won't be entirely so. It didn't add confidence that the numbers for the guest worker program -- we'd like 800,000, but we'll settle for 400,000 per year, no 200,000, maybe 100,000 is all we need, let's phase it out after five years in any event -- seemed picked entirely out of thin air to satisfy political rather than economic interests.

Certainly there would be a negative impact if many businesses started going bankrupt for lack of workers. On the other hand, there's also a negative impact on the economy if more and more Americans are displaced by cheaper foreign workers. Where the balance may lie, I don't know, but it sure doesn't seem that McCain/Kennedy/Bush/Graham bothered doing much investigation into this themselves.

The whole debate -- such as it was -- consisted of the pro-amnesty bloc offering us minor concessions in the direction of security (steps they seemed to admit were vital for our national security, at least when they needed to score a rhetorical point) but only in exchange for full-on amnesty. Well, if all those steps were vital for our security, why should we wait to implement them until we amnesty 15 million illegals? Are they vital or are they not vital? Is our security at risk or not? Why should steps you admit are crucial be held hostage to an unrelated question about amnesty?

That last point -- offering border security only in exchange for amnesty -- pretty much scotched the pretense that these guys cared about security at all. If they cared about security, why were they only willing to make empty gestures towards security in order to sweeten the amnesty pill?

Are national security interests -- vitalnational securty interests, we were repeatedly reminded -- not a compelling enough interest to stand on their own merits, unencumbered by and disentangled from side-deals about guest-workers and amnesty?

How could anyone possibly believe this bill was not about amnesty for amnesty's sake, first and foremost, and only about "security" to the extent it was necessary to appease the "bigots"?

They only offered to build less than half the fence they'd already promised to build (right before the elections, note: See, Dan Balz, that's when truly popular legislation is scheduled) in exchange for amnesty. And now, without amnesty, will they build the fence?

Of course not. They never intended to build it, and wouldn't even have built it had they gotten their amnesty in exchange. If they could break one political promise, what's the big deal about breaking another promise?

Had this debate moved in a different way -- security first, with a genuine, demonstrable committment to that on the part of Bush and Congress -- Americans would not have found amnesty such a bitter pill. They wouldn't have liked it, God knows, but the public would have gone along with it in grumbling annoyance.

That's how they hoped the public would react to the bill they actually pushed on us -- going along with it in grumbling annoyance, but not angry rebellion. But as it was clear they not only intended to give us the finger on amnesty, but on security as well (the very thing we were supposed to get in exchange for amnesty), we got very angry indeed, and eventually they actually noticed.

But Bush isn't going to build the fence. He's built two miles so far, and by the time he leaves office, I am confident he'll have that up to... sixteen or seventeen miles. Maybe he'll even buy one of those four UAVs he promised us!

And so all of this debate will have to wait until we have a President who is either 1) committed to enforcing immigration laws and border security or 2) is not actually personally committed to such a goal, but has to worry about facing the public in four years, and so, unlike Bush, has something to lose by defying the public's plainly-stated demands.

Whether the President enforces border security out of genuine commitment or simply pandering to the majority of the American public, I could care less.

I really don't know how to end this, but taking another dig at Bush seems like a decent enough conclusion.

Bush says he's going to continue pressing for amnesty.

Yeah. I'm not, umm, all that concerned by Bush's famous follow-through on his plans and initiatives. I'm slightly less afraid of Bush's laser-like focus on getting his proposals passed than I am of, say, vaginas.

Maybe he can use what's left of his political capital to do what he can -- in what few weeks remain left -- to secure his real legacy, a success (or failure) in the War in Iraq.

Posted by: Ace at 01:29 PM | Comments (21)
Post contains 1494 words, total size 9 kb.

Eh, I'm not thrilled to see her in misery and distress, but do a debunate's crime, do a debutante's time.

Was she over-sentenced? Probably. But there's not a big difference between what she arguably should have gotten (say ten days) and what she did get (23 days, I think). It's hard to quibble over a couple of weeks.

And it's hard to argue that without any jail time at all she would have changed her behavior. Probation sure didn't.

I'm looking forward to seeing the sherriff that let her go investigated.

I watched a black civil rights guy screaming about different standards of justice for the rich and poor in LA and could not believe the words "Preach it, brother!" escaped my lips. Then I think I started singing "Ole Man River" and then had some sort of congnitive-dissonance induced seizure.

It's a weird time. Those in positions of public trust (this guy, McCain-Kennedy-Bush-etc., Nifong*) somehow keep managing to unite the left and right against their blatant abuses.

* Well, some on the left, at any rate. KC Johnson says he's a lifelong liberal, and I believe him. Jerilyn Merritt is obviously on the left (then again, she's never met a defendant she didn't think was innocent), but at least, unlike Marcotte and their ilk, she doesn't change her basic position when she sees a chance to jail some people for thirty years for the grave offence of Drinking While White.

Posted by: Ace at 12:29 PM | Comments (118)
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

A NYT photographer snaps a picture of pro-amnesty lobbyists and illegal immigrants at the precise moment the Risen Christ transforms their bodies incorruptible, and then criticizes Jim DeMint as an "obstructionist."

Christ (D-The Right Hand of The Father) made a short statement about the need to "bring people out of the shadows" before jetting off to Washington for a photo-op and fundraiser for Ted Kennedy and Lindsey Graham.

Via See-Dub, noting the new climate of terror that has swept through the illegal community since... 8:55pm yesterday.

Posted by: Ace at 12:02 PM | Comments (32)
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

And yet more spin from the MSM. Kaus catches WaPo reporter Dan Balz employing one of Kaus' favorite bugaboos: the ostensibly "Neutral Story Line" that is anything but neutral. Pretending to show no bias, he demonstrates enormous bias by portraying the pro-amensty forces glowingly and those opposed to the bill as... well, I guess people "who don't want what's best for America."

The collapse of comprehensive immigration revision in the Senate last night represents a political defeat for President Bush, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the bill's most prominent sponsors. More significantly, it represents a scathing indictment of the political culture of Washington.

The defeat of the legislation can be laid at the doorstep of opponents on the right and left, on congressional leaders who couldn't move their troops and on an increasingly weakened president and his White House team. But together it added up to another example of a polarized political system in which the center could not hold.

Part of Balz's, errr, interesting theory is that a majority of the public really wanted the bill, and that it is therefore "scandalous" that the Senate couldn't deliver on the public's preference.

The public wanted amnesty-without-security? Really?

You're telling me the Senate had all the support in the world on the pro-amnesty side -- La Raza and immigrant lobbying groups, corporate lobbyists, the WSJ and virtually the entirey of the "respectable" MSM, and the majority of the American public -- and yet somehow found the courage and/or intestinal fortitude to nevertheless repudiate all of these groups and vote against it?

Honestly? You're really trying to sell me that? The Senate, for reasons unfathomable, chose to spurn American popular opinion, the emerging Hispanic majority, and the corporate lobbyists with all their money?

Here's a more likely storyline: Senators were initially persuaded to vote for the bill by special pleaders -- the illegal immigrant lobby, agribusiness lobbyists, the brave free-labor absolutists at the WSJ and the open-borders advocates of the NYT (not entirely dissimilar crowds, I should say) -- believing that Americans, who never favored amnesty at any point, would not actually support the bill but at least would not strongly oppose it were it passed quickly and quietly enough.

But when the plan to pass the bill speedily and steathilly failed, and the American public (on both the right and left -- for "entirely different reasons," of course!) began voicing its strong objections to it, Senators were forced to bend to public opinion and against the minority of special interest groups in favor of it.

Which scenario seems more likely?

Here's a clue for Dan Balz:

If this provision were actually popular and favored by the majority of the American public, there would be no ticking clock requiring that it be passed at a safe remove from the next election.

If it were actually popular, it could, and would, be passed right before the elections -- so that all the Senators voting in favor of it could reap the political benefits of having passed such popular legislation, no?

Why have I read time and time again that if "we don't pass this now, we'll never be able to pass it later" as the elections draw near? Why would a popular bill have to be scheduled so far in advance of an election?

In other words, I Question The Timing. Votes with public support are scheduled right before elections, to compel those who might vote against it to re-evaluate in light of their electoral propsects, not so far away from an election that the public (hopefully!) will forget the vote before election season.

And popular legislation can be debated as long as one likes, really -- if it's popular, all those arguing against it are bleeding support every day, and all those arguing for it are gaining support.

So, you know, based on when the vote was scheduled, and the absurdly brief time permitted to debate such a far-reaching transformative bill -- I'd have to say that Harry Reid, John McCain, Ted Kennedy, and President Bush do not share Dan Balz' assessment that this was actually a "popular" bill that the public was just clamoring for.

Say, Dan -- when's Harry Reid planning to really push this bill again? Right before the 2008 elections, would you imagine? I mean, after all, given that this bill is so popular, congressmen and senators will be terrified to vote against it on the eve of the elections, right?

So you just have to wait nine or ten moths, Dan. Then amnesty-without-security will sail right on through without a hiccup, one presumes.

Alternately, let me suggest a more likely time for a rescheduled vote:

How about the First Week of Never? How's that grabbin' ya? How's that comport with your theory of widespread bipartisan public support?

Unbelievable. The Democratic base opposed it by big margins, the Republican base opposed it by big margins, independents opposed it by big margins... and yet Dan Balz is convinced, despite opposition from a majority of the left, a majority of the right, and a majority of the center, that somewhere out there was a large group of Americans in favor of amnesty-without-security.

Obviously he's not counting actual people. Maybe he knows something about the unicorn and leprechaun voting bloc that the rest of us don't.

Even More Widespread Bipartisan Support! Dri tips me that a NYT/CBS poll finds that 69% of the public... is in favor of prosecuting illegal immigrants.

I don't know why, but I can't actually get to that page -- but the link I'm clicking does seem to report just that in its index-description (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/
ny_times_cbs_poll_finds_that_69_believe_illegal_immigrants_should_be_prosecuted).

So unless I'm being spoofed by dri, I'd say the case for "widespread bipartisan support" for amnesty is, err, rather questionable.

Then again, dri fed me the news about Dustin Diamond's death (and even more unbelievably, the news he was starring in an upcoming film). So who knows.

More Widespread Support! According to Rasumussen, the number of Republicans hits a "historic" low, and the number of Democrats also declines.

I assure you this decline in partisan affiliation on both sides has nothing at all to do with a majority of politicians in either party taking a position against which the public strenuously objects.

A bipartisan majority favored the amnesty bill, which is why... uhhh.... more Americans are switching to the "bipartisan" designation of "indpendent."

In related news, Dan Balz is desperately trying to remove his head from his ass. "It's not the heat so much as the humidity" he emails me.

Posted by: Ace at 11:32 AM | Comments (16)
Post contains 1135 words, total size 8 kb.

Excellent coverage by Kaus, as usual. His first point -- which I'll just summarize -- is that the Democrats deliberately tanked this bill by voting for Dorgan's killer amendment, which they knew would scuttle the whole deal.

And for that I say: Thanks!

But the MSM really ought to stop pretending the Democrats were all in favor of it. They weren't. They took the step of voting for the Dorgan amendment (with Harry Reid's blessing, no less!) knowing full well it would undo the carefully-calibrated "grand bargain." They knew as they were voting for that amendment they were voting against the bill in its entirety. "Excellent," Harry Reid told Dorgan after he'd gotten his amendment through.

The next point is the killer, revealing the depth of MSM anti-Republican bias:

Sen. DeMint, reports Murray, dislikes the "comprehensive" bill because it includes "a path to citizenship for undocumented workers." (That's not how DeMint would describe it, probably.) And, says Murray,

Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) does not like the immigration bill, either, but for entirely different reasons.

Entirely different reasons? Dorgan thinks the bill would "depress wages and lead to foreigners taking good jobs." And DeMint, presumably, thinks a "path to citizenship" would encourage more illegal immigrants, who would ... depress wages and lead to foreigners taking good jobs! They're both concerned about depressing wages. Bipartisanship! Murray reminds me of those radical feminists who insist that their reasons for censoring pornography are completely different from Pat Robertson's. No they're not.

Indeed. The media is attempting to spin this as "Democrats care about American blue-collar wages, Republicans just hate the wetbacks." A little secret to the MSM: Many Republicans are in fact blue-collar workers and/or poor. Why is that black and/or union Democrats are lauded when they act in their best perceived economic interests, and yet when Republcians act out of the precise same motivations, we're derided as nativist, racist hicks?

Could it be that most Republicans -- with the notable exception of the "labor must be free to cross borders without restriction" WSJ free-market absolutists -- actually give a shit about workers' wages and the employment of their fellow Americans? (Fellow Americans, of course, including themselves -- there are a lot of Republican construction workers, and I can't imagine they're happy to see the prevailing wages being bid down by illegal Hispanic workers.)

Neither most Democrats nor most Republicans dislike foreign-born workers. It's that we both like American-born workers more. Or, at least, our first preference is to see Americans filling jobs in America.

The MSM wants to spin this as "nativist" -- but only on the Republican side. When Byron Dorgan explicitly states he wants to control immigration in order to increase wages for American workers, and increase their employment opportunities, that's apparently not "nativist," though he is explicitly expressing the dictionary definition of "nativist" (i.e., having a preference for policies which favor the native-born over the foreign-born).

When Republicans do the same, they -- and only they! -- are "nativists."

Incidentally, if having a preference for my fellow Americans' economic interests over the interests of foreign workers makes me "nativist," by all means, sign me up for the "nativist" agenda. Though I think I'd prefer the term "economic patriot" -- but why quibble over semantics? Conservatives have never been particularly bashful about stating what the left is loathe to concede -- America first, Americans first. That doesn't mean we wish ill upon the world -- it means that we believe in taking care of our own, and our own interests, first. We're less apologetic about that than the left -- we engage in less mush-mouthed nuance about that principle -- but we believe in that too, just as much as the left, if not more so.

At least we're not afraid to say so.

The MSM desperately wishes to portray the left as acting with "warm hearts" -- They wanted to protect Americans from the wage-depressing effects of unending, uncontrolled illegal immigration -- while the right acts only with "cold hearts" -- They don't want to pay for the social services of all those dirty foreign types!

Actually, it's a bit of both for both the right and left. Obviously, the more Americans who are gainfully employed, the less need for welfare and social-services and sundry other subsidies and supports. The working poor may be poor, but they're vital contributors to the national economy.

But even if their were no selfish motive at play here -- even if, hypothetically, somehow more Americans working at decent wages did not lighten the tax load for richer Americans -- Republicans would still, generally, favor the employement of Americans over the foreign born, to the extent the two were in competition. (Which, of course, they always are, to some extent.) Simply because we believe that when it comes to priorities, Americans come first. Not first, last, and only, perhaps, but definitely first.

The MSM wants to potray those who insist on having borders as somehow acting out of malice. After all, if you insist on a border -- and a distinction between citizen and non-citizen -- you are separating people and treating those outside the borders (non-citizens) less favorably. But this statement itself contains its own corollary -- if you insist on a distinction between non-American and American, you are separating people and treating Americans more favorably.

Byron Dorgan believes precisely what most Republicans believe. And yet he and his sort are credited with the latter -- treat Americans more favorably -- while we Republicans are blamed for acting only according to the former -- treat non-Americans less favorably.

But of course they're inseperable -- you cannot treat Americans more favorably without treating non-Americans less favorably.

If Byron Dorgan is to be credited for acting out of altruistic, patriotic motives, how can the media deny that Republicans are acting out of the same altruistic, patriotic motives, when our motivations are not only congruent, but inescapably so?

One "teachable moment" from all this: economic populism still has a decent amount of cachet in the conservative moment. Maybe we've not piped up about this often enough, but that strand of "nativist" bias still animates a lot of Republicans.

As usual, the MSM, being liberal, attempts to square this very round circle by claiming differing intents, as if intent really matters all that much when the actual outcome is exactly the same. (Liberals are, of course, very big on intentions and not consequences and outcomes.)

Byron Dorgan acts to control runaway illegal immigration so as to reduce wage-depressing effects and to give the marginally-employable lower-skilled American workers a better shot at actually landing a halfway decent job. Republicans act to control runaway illegal immigration, resulting in the exact same benefits to American workers -- and yet we're not be credited for this because our intent is supposedly malicious. They're restictionists out of love; we're restrictionists out of hate.

It's astonishing to me that we conservatives can act, and argue, precisely along the lines of Byron Dorgan, and yet he is praised as having "very different motives" -- i.e., permissible, even laudable motives -- and yet we're branded as "racists" who are "afraid of brown people."

If we were afraid of "brown people," we would have been all in favor of this bill, as it unavoidably harms lower-skilled black Americans, who are definitely "browner" and hence more "frightening" than Hispanics. If we're acting out of racism, why aren't we all conspiring together, as the MSM imagines us, to keep the blacks down?

Hey, even us racists have our priorities when it comes to The Order of Hatred! And everyone knows that blacks are worse than Hispanics, being darker and all! (And having bigger penises with which to steal our white women away!) Keeping down one black is worth holding down at least three or four Hispanics, I figure.*

* Though, admittedly, I haven't worked out all the math on my KKKalculator, but I imagine that's a good enough back-of-the-white-envelope guestimate.

And, of course, it doesn't help that most Hispanics are dirty Pope-worshipping fish-eating Catholics.

But at least they're not Jews, like Sammy Davis Jr. and Hank Aaron.

Posted by: Ace at 10:07 AM | Comments (84)
Post contains 1403 words, total size 9 kb.

During the debate over the amnesty bill, the pro-amnesty champions often echoed the complaints of conservatives. Illegal immigration without controls results in us not knowing who's here in America (they're in the shadows!) Uncontrolled immigration diverts precious law enforcement resources from tracking "terrorists and drug-dealers" to hounding "landscapers." Etc.

Well -- it seems we're all in agreement about that! That being the case, will the Administration and open-borders forces now unite to begin enforcing current immigration laws, finally getting that employment verification system up and running, punishing employers who hire illegals, finally fixing the visa computer system so that we can track who's here illegally and who's overstaying their visas, and -- dare to dream -- putting additional border agents and a fence to help lighten the patrolling load on the border?

Or was all that national security talk just a lot of crap to sell the amnesty?

Bush, McCain, Chertoff, Graham and even Teddy Kennedy have made representations to us about the national security threat uncontrolled immigration poses. Having made the case, they are duty-bound now to actually address it. They cannot claim one week that uncontrolled immigration jeopardizes this country's security and the next week take the position that America can only address this issue so long as agri-business and the open-borders lobby are getting paid off with guest-worker programs and amnesty for 15+ million. Either it's a threat, or it's not -- and if it is, it has to be addressed, whether or not special interests are getting paid off in the deal.

This isn't politically impossible. Byron Dorgan, as liberal a Democrat as one could wish, expressed a desire for enforcement-first as the solution -- at least a first-step solution -- to the problem. Liberals like him are animated by pro-union, pro-wage-inflation sentiments, but so what? They're more reliable votes for enforcement-first than most Republicans. Dorgan seems to want to control the border just to control the border (and thus reduce the unending influx of cheap labor), which puts him, oddly enough, on the non-WSJ conservative, sovereignist side of the table. There are enough Democrats like him to garner a majority, or even sixty votes, for enforcement-first measures, when combined with a unified or near-unified block of Republican voters. (Okay, we'll lose Specter, Hagel, McCain, and Graham -- the usual assholes.)

Various improvements for border security either garnered majority support in the Senate or -- this is the larger category -- would have garnered majority support had the amnesty bloc not been so determined to beat down any amendment to the bill. Even common-sense why-aren't-they-doing-that-now? provisions -- like Coburn's proposal we actually enforce the law as written -- were beaten back by the amnesty-bill block, but almost certainly would pass if offered as stand-alone provisions.

How delicious will the campaign commercials be if Congressmen continue voting against actually enforcing the law as written? Few Congressmen, and fewer statewide-elected Senators, have such job security that they can afford to do so. So let's take Senator Lott's advice and start voting, start legislating.

Are we men and women, Mr. Lott, or merely mice?

Bush, McCain, Graham, and Kennedy -- and Kyl, and Lugar, and Lott, and all the rest -- have told us repeatedly that "doing nothing" is "not an option."

Good. It seems we have a consensus. Doing nothing is not an option. So let's do something -- first, improve security beyond laughably-inadequate status.

Then we can actually begin having a discussion about amnesty and guest workers.

Posted by: Ace at 09:21 AM | Comments (28)
Post contains 614 words, total size 4 kb.

In a bid to alienate the three or four dozen conservatives who still support him, President Bush is still after that sweet, sweet amnesty.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Bush considers it premature to declare the immigration reform bill dead in the Senate, White House adviser Dan Bartlett said Friday.

A motion to cut off debate on the measure failed Thursday night, stopping the proposal from coming up for a vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had said earlier that if the motion was not approved, it would be “over with … gone.”

But Bartlett told CNN that Bush wants Reid to consider putting the bill back on the table.

Story tip: Hot Air.

Posted by: Slublog at 08:21 AM | Comments (91)
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

A little background on today's action.

Thanks to Sinistar.

Posted by: Ace at 12:38 AM | Comments (40)
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

Many say that we live in an age without heroes. I dispute this assertion. Perhaps they are simply harder to find these days. Which makes it all the more important that we recognize greatness when we have the opportunity to bear witness to it.

In the past, we here at Ace of Spades HQ have reserved our highest level of praise, a recitation of "Cool Facts" about an individual, for a select few American patriots. Great men like Dick Cheney, Fred! Thompson, John Bolton and Johnathan "The Impaler" Sharkey have all received this honor.

Today, in recognition of his single-minded devotion to the rule of law and his stalwart defense of America's citizens and legal immigrants against the forces of Amnesty, I think it only fitting that we elevate Senator Sessions to our Ace of Spades HQ pantheon of heroes.

Plus, every cool fact about Jeff Sessions will make Lindsay Graham and John McCain cry. So that's cool too.

Added Bonus: I can call in a few favors and deliver the "cool facts" thread to Sessions' D.C. office as part of a "thank you" gesture if you jokers show a little restraint. Make me proud, people, and I'll deliver it personally.

Posted by: Jack M. at 08:38 PM | Comments (274)
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.

Dark Cloud Encircles Stupid, Stupid, Utterly Replaceable Trees On Hill

O poor Harry Reid
Unable to pull this coup
please kiss my beautiful round American ass, douchebag

That might not actually be in classic haiku format, but there's a rebellious mood in the air.

Please repost your previous entries from the other thread here, thanks!
This is not an exposition, this is a contest.

With real fakey-prizes and everything.

**From previous thread, a guaranteed spot in the top five for jdub:

A thousand times pwned!
im in republican base
killin ur dumb bill

Hilarious.

Added By Ace, P'Shopped By Slublog:

Posted by: LauraW. at 05:32 PM | Comments (494)
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.