There seem to be some people out there who think Bush is in trouble. Richard Reeves just wrote a column called "Why George Bush Can't Win".

Glenn Reynolds writes...

"QUITE SOME TIME AGO, I noted that Bush was in danger of losing his base. Now it looks to be happening. Libertarians are already iffy; now conservatives are, too.

Bush's hole card is that the Democratic field looks weak. But, of course, it looked weak in 1991, too."

Justin Webb at the BBC says "(Bush) is a potentially vulnerable president."

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. In fact, were I a Democrat, I'd be sitting around with a trash can on my head like James Carville on election night 2002 wondering how it all went so wrong. I'll tell you why I say that...

-- The news out of Iraq has been worse than predicted. Our forces are stretched thinner than we'd like and we've lost more men than expected after the war. The media has been relentlessly negative and gloomy.

-- The economy has been soft pretty much since Bush took office.

-- Conservatives like me have trashing Bush a lot lately over his domestic policies.

-- All the Democratic contenders for the Presidency have been attacking Bush daily.

-- The Bushies were on vacation last month and did comparatively little to defend themselves.

Yet, in the latest Gallup Poll, Bush is sitting pretty with a 59% approval rating. Folks, 59% is outstanding, brilliant, superb for a politician. If the election were held today, Bush would send ANY Democratic candidate team donkey could put up screaming off into Dukakisville without breaking a sweat.

And here's the scary part -- we have every reason to think that things are going to improve for Bush from here on out.

-- Things are going better than the press would have you believe in Iraq and we're really not having to do a lot of fighting outside of the Sunni Triangle. It wouldn't surprise me if we only had 40k-50k troops with very minimal casualties over there by this time next year as Iraqi police officers take up the slack.

-- The economy grew at a healthy 3% last quarter and it looks to be picking up more steam. Because of the tax cuts, Bush will be able to take credit for bringing the economy back.

-- Moreover, as the election gets closer Bush is smart enough to make some moves to hype up the base and he will have a far bigger war chest than the Democrats as well.

Also, there's another factor that I think most people haven't considered. That's the "I-hate-politics" crowd. All of us know that there is a large percentage of Americans who care nothing for politics and rarely pay attention to anything that's going on. If you catch the attention of that group of voters in a positive or negative way, it's very difficult to change their minds, simply because they so seldom pay attention to what's going on. Well after 9/11, those people (along with everyone else) were paying attention for a few weeks and do you know what I think they see when they look at Bush? They see the guy who was standing with his arm around a fireman on a heap of rubble at the WTC saying, "I can you hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!" They remember that image and the "Hell Yeah!" they gave to the TV when they heard Bush had begun bombing Afghanistan and they'll still be remembering it when they go to the polls in 2004. Those people are going to be tough converts for the Dems and they may in and of themselves provide the margin of victory.

Last but not least, the Democratic field is mediocre. Their best candidates are Al Gore and Hillary Clinton and neither of them are running. Even if they did run, I believe they'd be hard pressed to win. Even now at one of Bush's "low points", Hillary Clinton who is well known to Americans and would be far stronger than anyone else in the field loses to Bush by 7 points. Howard Dean, who wants to raise taxes, favors gay marriage, and really comes across as a weakling on national defense, is mainly gaining momentum by being the most passionate anti-war / anti-Bush candidate. That's a message that won't resonate with anyone but the Democratic base and it won't bring the Dems the White House.

If Bush drops below 50% approval or he starts polling behind specific Democratic candidates like Hillary or Dean, then it's time to declare him to be "vulnerable", but right now he's not looking the least bit weak to me.

A new school voucher program which passed a Senate committee today, would free up seats in Washington D.C. public schools for the children of members of Congress, and other government officials.

The $7,500 vouchers would go to D.C. families with children who are failing in the public schools, helping them to pay private school tuition.

Democrat members of Congress are said to be "champing at the bit" to put their own children into the newly-vacated public classroom seats.

Senator Mary Landrieu, D-LA, whose own two children have been forced to attend a private school, will soon enroll them in Malcolm X Elementary School.

"Finally, my children can attend school among the kind of working-class people who make this country great," said Mrs. Landrieu. "We Democrats depend on the votes of minorities and the underprivileged, and now I'll be sitting in PTA meetings side-by-side with them. And my kids will get to know first-hand the challenges caused by the yawning gap between the haves and have nots."

If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can see more of his work at Scrappleface.

***Update***: In the article about vouchers that Scott linked about, I found this quote...

"Another pro-voucher group, D.C. Parents for School Choice, released the text of a television ad it is to air in the District and Massachusetts that accuses Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) of trying to stop a plan to help black schoolchildren and compares him to segregationist Bull Connor, the Birmingham police chief in the early 1960s.

Kennedy spokesman Jim Manley said the ad was "outrageous, and I'm not going to dignify it with a response."

I love that so much because we finally have someone calling the Democrats on exactly what they're doing -- selling out kids -- in this case mostly black kids -- just to pander to unions. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) said that the D.C. school system was, "the worst school system in America, and it is the most expensive." So what do the Democrats have to lose by letting the parents send their kids to decent private schools where they can get a decent education?

Dems like Kennedy give every excuse under the sun for opposing vouchers except the real one -- the unions are some of the Democrats biggest supporters and the teacher's unions don't want to have to compete for their money. So the Dems would rather see the kids lose out than make the unions mad. I'm glad to see that there are DC parents, Republicans, the Black Alliance for Educational Options, and even a few Democrats like DC mayor Anthony Williams who are willing to fight the good fight on this one for the children's sake...

I ran across some interesting numbers on immigrants in a piece about Victor Davis Hanson...

"While Mexican immigrants come to America no more or less poor, no more or less uneducated than previous waves of immigrants, they are far more resistant to assimilating into American culture. Hanson notes that, of the millions of Mexican immigrants legally admitted to this country since 1982, only 20 percent had bothered to become citizens by 1997.

The socio-economic status of Mexican immigrants barely improves over time. Nearly 55 percent of Mexican immigrants are living in or near poverty after residing here in this country more than 20 years. Some 45 percent are without health care after 20 years and 37 percent are still relying on welfare."

Those are horrendous numbers. The fact that "41 percent of Mexican immigrant households are on the public welfare rolls" is scandalous and 37% percent still need welfare twenty years later -- good grief -- what do you even say to that? The fact that we have all these uneducated deadbeats who want to leech off the rest of the population in our country shows that we desperately need immigration reform.

Why in the world should the American people -- including other immigrants who come here to live the American dream -- be forced to help pay for these people's livelihoods? Moreover, why aren't we working to change our immigration policy to try to keep out people who primarily want to take advantage of America's safety net to begin with?

The American people deserve better than to be sold out like this by Democrats looking for more votes and Republicans looking to please businesses who want cheap labor. These issues are important & could even potentially be huge winners at the ballot box, but regrettably, I see very few Republicans or Democrats who are willing to address them.

A lot of Conservatives, myself included, have been unhappy with Bush's "democrat-lite" domestic policies. Bush has abandoned all fiscal restraint, created a gargantuan new homeland security department, is adding a budget busting prescription drug benefit, has supported steel tariffs, doesn't want to repeal the assault weapons ban, supported the unconstitutional campaign finance reform, wants illegal alien amnesty, and has even been wishy washy about Affirmative Action. In short, other than his tax cuts and the limited standards he slipped into the bloated education bill, Bush's domestic policy has been mediocre. So mediocre, that if it were not for his staunch prosecution of the war on terrorism and his dedication to tax cuts, I'd prefer to see him lose in 2004 rather than have a country club Republican in the White House who for the most part doesn't represent my views. Of course, I can't in good conscience go that far since I believe that putting a Democrat in the White House would quite possibly lead to hundreds of thousands of American deaths down the road because the Dems total inability to do what it takes to defend our country in the war on terrorism.

But you know what really kills me about all of this? I honestly believe that Bush is significantly more conservative than his policies would lead you to believe and that he's taking all these left-leaning positions that are bad for our country simply because of triangulation, because he believes thats what he needs to do to win.

To me, that's the most ridiculous thing of all. Just think about it. In 1980, Ronald Reagan (who was MUCH more Conservative than Bush) won in a landslide against Carter. Then he followed that up by destroying Mondale in 1984. In 1988, Bush Sr. crushed Dukakis by claiming that he was continuing Reagan's legacy. Then in 1992, with Perot sucking off his base and after breaking his "no new taxes pledge" & proving to be much more moderate than people expected, Bush Sr. went down to Clinton.

But in 1994, the GOP took the House largely because of the Contract With America. Some of you may have forgotten how unabashedly Conservative that document actually was. It promised votes on term limits, getting rid of the baseline budget, loser pays laws, no US troops under UN command anywhere in the world, a repeal of the marriage tax, welfare reform, & a three-fifths majority to raise taxes.

Unfortunately, when that agenda wasn't carried out as it should have been, the GOP lost some seats in the house, but again we had proof that a conservative agenda could win and win big on a national level.

Now fast forward to today. The GOP controls the House, Senate, Supreme Court, & has a majority of governorships and state legislatures. While the left still controls the newspapers, network news, & 2 of the 3 Cable News channels, talk radio, Fox, & the net have helped Conservatives get their message out in a way Ronald Reagan could have only dreamed of. Moreover, the country has continued to move to the right and 9/11 only speeded-up the process.

Given all that, why move to the left now???? I know the answer to that. They'd say, "It's triangulation. If we do that, we have a slightly better chance to win elections". Excuse me, but shouldn't Republicans be trying to get elected so they can implement a conservative agenda that makes America a better place to live? When we have politicians, like George Bush, like Bill Clinton, who view getting elected as an end unto itself, and who act like "republicrats", then how can we blame people for being cynical & not voting? Not only do conservatives deserve better than what George Bush has been doing domestically, America deserves better. Bush needs to start showing the same sort of guts and courage on the domestic front that he has in the war on terrorism if he truly wants to be a great President.

BAGHDAD - U.S. Troops conducted a raid Wednesday that lead to the arrest of 13 wanted Iraqis. Authorities say 4 of the arrested may be doubles the ex-dictator used in several public appearances. Sources have revealed one of the doubles may be actor Jerry Mathers, television's Beaver.

U.S. officials have yet to confirm the rumor, but have released a photo taken at the time of booking. The authenticity of the photo is still under scrutiny.

Jamie Barto, theatrical agent for Mr. Mathers, has only confirmed the actor is working on a project overseas. He added it has been very difficult for Mathers to find work within the states. Monster truck shows do not pay what they use to.

Mathers had denied previous accusation of allegiance to the ousted dictator. Although did admit to having a childhood friendship which began during the early episodes of Leave it to Beaver when Saddam was cast as the original 'Lumpy'.

If you enjoyed this satire by Steve Tanner, you can see more of his work at Broken Newz.

As I mentioned yesterday, Johnny recently trashed not the Bush administration, but America itself. He said...

"America is dumb, it's like a dumb puppy that has big teeth that can bite and hurt you, aggressive," he said.

..."I was ecstatic they re-named 'French Fries' as 'Freedom Fries'. Grown men and women in positions of power in the U.S. government showing themselves as idiots," he told Stern."

If you read that last post, you noticed that I tore into Depp as did a lot of other right leaning blogs. But at the Democratic Underground, the reaction was a little different. You see at the DU, they apparently love it when people attack America and they heartily approved of Depp's comments. Don't believe me? Just look at this thread on DU where they overwhelmingly approved of what Depp had to say. Here's just a few comments to give you an idea of what the DUers had to say...

Soloflecks: Good for him! I just gained some respect for the guy.

xchrom: if only i could move to the south of france! sigh. he's right about the country though -- but it ain't gonna change any time soon. we are way to convinced of our own ''righteousness''. and aggressive toward each other in the extreme. i just don't know the answer because i no longer wish to get along corporate facists and phony religous zealots. it sounds harsh -- but i didn't make these current conditions -- i'm forced to accept them. and i have become unforgiving.

liberalmuse: Bravo, Johnny Depp!

I've noticed lately that more and more actors are speaking out again. I'm going to have to see 'Pirates of the Carribean' while it's still in the theatres, to throw a bit of my dough his way. I knew he was my favorite actor for a reason. He has a lot of soul.

Mari333: Yes, true,

Been to Europe, seen it...very very very good ...took me months to get used to living in the US again...it was like visiting a beautiful forest of peace and then being thrust back into a loud, dirty , angry mob. I stay here only because my adult children and my sick mother are here.

Aristus: My Republican wife adores Johnny Depp.

I wonder if she realizes he's a pinko liberal like me? Good for him. I've liked him since "Platoon". He's amazingly talented, and now it looks like he's smart, as well.

Hey, maybe Howard Dean should start trashing America and comparing it to a "dumb puppy". That sort of message seems to go over pretty well with the type of people who make up his base...

I want you to think back to the three worst terrorist attacks worldwide since 9/11...

-- There was the Bali bombing at a couple of packed nightclubs.
-- 100+ Iraqis died in a bombing at a mosque.
-- More than a 1000 Russians were put in a hostage situation at a theater.

Notice that those aren't exactly the sexy targets that we worry so much about. No dirty bombs, no crashing planes into buildings, no attacks on nuclear plants -- yet, the terrorists did tremendous damage.

Now just consider all the targets in our country that might feature hundreds of potential victims gathered together with almost no security. High school football and basketball games, theaters, churches, crowded restaurants, movie theaters, on and on and on. There are literally tens of thousands of places terrorists could attack & kill hundreds with little chance of being stopped by onsite security.

Furthermore, as we all know. It's EASY to get into the United States illegally. Tens of millions of people have just waltzed over our vast, poorly guarded borders, and once you're in it's a snap to get anywhere you want to go in our country.

Given all that, doesn't it become obvious that we can't win the war on terrorism by staying on defense? John Ashcroft and company have done an absolutely marvelous job of preventing terrorist attacks so far and I salute them for it, but what they're doing simply isn't going to cut it long-term EVEN if we pass new laws & increase spending and personnel. The area they have to guard is simply too large.

That's why we have to hit the terrorists on THEIR home ground, where THEY live. Only by going to the terrorists home turf and locking them up or better yet killing them, will we force them to go to ground and spend their time trying to figure out how to survive until tomorrow instead of coming here to attack Americans. If we allow the terrorists to have the same sort of safe haven they had in Afghanistan, in Syria or Iran for example, then we will LOSE the war on terrorism. Only by staying on the offensive and going after the terrorists AND the nations that sponsor them can we have any hope of destroying these organizations before they costs tens of thousands, and perhaps hundreds of thousands or even millions of American lives one day in a nuclear or biological attack.

That's what people like Howard Dean & so many of his ilk on the anti-war left either don't understand or don't want to accept. If we don't use our military and our intelligence agencies, if we don't go after these terrorists supporting states and force them to get out of the business or bring them down, the price our country will pay will be catastrophic. We are at war here and we can't just hunker down and hope it'll blow over. It'll end only if we're willing to do what it takes, for as long as it takes, to end. There is a lot of blood yet to be shed in the war on terrorism, the question is how much bleeding is left to do and where it's going to be done. The more terrorists we kill in the Middle-East (including in Iraq), the less of them there will be alive to kill Americans back home -- and that suits me just fine.

"Not to imply that we're better than anyone else, or better friends than any other friends, or that we're 'super-liberal', or in any way better than anybody else is, or any group of friends and/or significant others..."

From their fortress high atop the Canadian Shield, the Liberal Superfriends keep an eye on Americans' tendency to waver under the influence of their mortal enemy, Political Incorrectness (who they've never seen in the flesh, but whose existence they deduced from the behavior of those whom they watch -- it CAN'T be THEIR fault!). When they detect the taint of Political Incorrectness in those who they've been charged to watch over (by themselves, in fact), they swoop down from their hidden fortress to correct the behavior of the evildoe... uh, the poor, misguided people. Here they are, listed in no particular order because that might imply precedence and make some of them feel inferior. (Cont)

This just kills me...

"Immigrant-rights groups are suing seven Virginia colleges for allegedly following the state attorney general's advice to deny admission to immigrants.

"We cannot deny a whole generation of young immigrant children access to higher education," Tobar said."

These kids shouldn't be able to get a college education or even a high school education in the United States. You know why? They're not United States citizens & they shouldn't even be in the United States to begin with.

I know the response to this, "Oh, but you can't penalize the kids because their parents are irresponsible idiots who are breaking the law". Hey, if their kids can't get an education, then so be it, they only have their parents to blame for that.

If we make it so that illegal aliens can't get jobs here, can't get an education for their kids, and live a hunted existence, constantly fearing the next knock on the door, then maybe they'll stop COMING HERE. That's what we want to happen. Anything we do to make it harder on them and make their lives in the US less comfortable is a GOOD THING. Anything that makes it easier on them is a BAD THING, because it will encourage more of them to come here.

We have immigration laws for a reason folks and we need to start taking them seriously. The American people expect nothing less...

The United Nations will likely send a multinational force of troops to Iraq starting next month.

The plan, dubbed Operation Haughty Weasel, will use U.N. troops to guard important facilities, and to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

"It's really a goodwill gesture," said U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. "We want to let the Iraqi people know that even though we opposed their liberation, we still love their petroleum. So...you know...no hard feelings."

If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.

Super-genius & very pretty man Johnny Depp had to say about our country from France...

"America is dumb, it's like a dumb puppy that has big teeth that can bite and hurt you, aggressive," he said.

..."I was ecstatic they re-named 'French Fries' as 'Freedom Fries'. Grown men and women in positions of power in the U.S. government showing themselves as idiots," he told Stern.

Well, well, well, words of wisdom from a man who recently played an effeminate pirate in a movie based on a Disney theme park ride. So Depp thinks America is a "dumb puppy," huh? Meanwhile, back in his adopted homeland of France, a country about the size of California, more than 10,000 people died when it cracked 100 degrees for a few weeks because the sophisticates there haven't been able to figure out air conditioning.

Sure, America is "aggressive" & we can "hurt you". We turned the tide in WW2, protected the free world from the Soviets, and are now engaged in a war with terrorism while the Vichy French collaborated with the Nazis, cowered behind America as we fought the Soviets, and still sympathize with the murdering savages in Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but Edward Scissorhands thinks they're cosmopolitan and we're "idiots" so it must be the case, right?

By the way, someone should clue Depp in that it was a bad idea to run his mouth BEFORE "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" came out. That'll at least cost the film a few million dollars in the US and personally, I'll be rooting for the film to tank. It couldn't happen to a bigger jackanape...

I have to admit that I'm a fan a slasher flicks. I know that seems pretty lowbrow from a guy who spends a lot of his free time commenting on tax policy and the intricacies of the conflict in the Middle-East, but hey, what can I say? I like what I like. Of course, I haven't liked anything from the "Nightmare On Elm Street" or "Friday the 13th" series in a long time. Those movies had gotten so stale and formalistic. You start out with a bunch of kids, Jason or Freddy starts killing them, but in the end, the two most likable kids find a way to get rid of Freddy or Jason...until the next sequel -- bwahahhaahahahah. After the original stellar efforts from Freddy, Jason, & company, both series movies had become uncreative, trite, boring wastes of time.

Because of that, I didn't exactly have high expectations for 'Freddy vs. Jason'. However, I do have to admit that the idea was sort of intriguing. Two evil, indestructible monsters going head and ravaging everything that got in their path in the process? It sounded like a Godzilla movie on a smaller scale...if they could pull it off.

Things started off when Freddy Krueger wakes Jason and sends him to Elm Street to start killing kids in an effort to get them to remember him. The purpose behind that being that if enough kids remember Freddy, he'll be able to come back and murder them again. Unfortunately, Jason does the job TOO WELL and starts killing every kid in sight (the rave scene was just **WOW** on that front). Of course, that doesn't sit well with Freddy who planned to kill those kids himself.

That leads to a LONG brawl -- partly in Freddy's dream world and partly in reality -- that I found to be much cooler than anything I saw in the "Hulk" or "X-men" movies. When both of your villains can take dozens of savage cuts and brutal strikes that would kill a normal man without even being slowed down, there are a lot of cool things you can do.

Wisely, the script writers & director Ronnie Yu took a lot of the problems from the earlier movies into account. While there were a few mild scares, they went for more of "Holy crap, look how cool it was when Godzilla got slammed through that building" vibe instead coming at the movie from a "Wow, that was scary when Jason came out from behind the tree and hit the guy with the machete" angle. The movie even had a little bit of plot thrown in for good measure, which is unusual for this type of movie.

Of course, there were a few annoyances as well. While I consider huge amounts of graphic violence to be a feature, not a bug, I didn't care for the casual drug use and the start of a rape scene that occurred in the movie. Furthermore, there sure was a lot of gratuitous nudity in a movie that was supposed to be about high school students -- most of whom already had breast implants. Then there were the full propane tanks in a long deserted camp site, Jason's fear of water in one scene which he lost in a later scene, and a couple of other minor inconsistencies that I found to be minor annoyances.

Of course, I was watching a slasher film, not "Steel Magnolias" (incidentally, it's impossible to overstate how much I hated that movie which is neither here nor there). Given that, the movie is an easy "thumbs up" for me and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the movie to other fans of the genre although people with more delicate sensibilities (translation: if you don't like watching people get chopped in half with a machete) might want to skip this one...

Since the governorship of California may be at stake, predictably, there are already people on the left trying to defend MEChA. While it's terribly sad, it's hardly surprising. Winston Churchill once said, "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons" and most of the Democratic base has the same mindset when it comes to running against the GOP. The philosophy there is, "Sure, Cruz Bustamante may be backing a bunch of racists who want to takeover the Southwestern United States, but hey, better those guys than Republicans."

Now most people seem to be nailing Bustamante on the racial aspects of this whole thing which is certainly appropriate given that Bustamante, "refused over the weekend to expressly denounce the racist-sounding slogan of Latino-supremacist group MEChA, which preaches to its members, "For the race everything. For those outside the race, nothing." In and of itself, that's disgraceful and should be enough to destroy Bustamante's career.

But while the racism of MEChA is reprehensible, the fact that they actually want to recapture part of the United States that was taken from Mexico is far more serious. Folks, this organization that Bustamante refuses to renounce has succession as its raison d'etre. Let me give you some more details.

First off, if what I'm about to show you is going to make sense, you have to understand what Aztlán is. Yahoo Dictionary defines it as...

"The American Southwest, specifically the territory of northern Mexico ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. The term is used especially by Chicano-rights activists."

Got it? Ok, now let's take a look at just one MEChA chapter at a college. Let's try MEChA de UC Santa Cruz. On their website, you will find the Here's the MEChA constitution. The preamble to that constitution reads...

"Chicano and Chicana students of Aztlán must take upon themselves the responsibilities to promote Chicanismo within the community, politicizing our Raza with an emphasis on indigenous consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlán. The following structure will make every MEChista accountable to its chapter, every chapter accountable to it's central (where applicable), every central accountable to its region, every region accountable to its state (where applicable), and every state accountable to the national."

See where they mention "liberating Aztlán"? They're not talking figuratively there, they're talking literally about liberating the Southwestern United States. Maybe that'll happen via terrorism, violence, or even just by flooding the area demographically, but in any case, when it's done "Aztlán" won't be part of the United States anymore. This is the organization that Cruz Bustamante used to be a member of and still refuses to renounce.

But wait, there's more. Article 3: Section 24 of that same constitution suggests that "all members" should read and discuss historical documents of our Movimiento" including El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan". Well let's take a look at the beginning of that document (certain areas in bold for emphasis)...

""In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal "gringo" invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny.

Brotherhood unites us, and love for our brothers makes us a people whose time has come and who struggles against the foreigner "gabacho" who exploits our riches and destroys our culture. With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our mestizo nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan."

You're not missing what they're trying to say there. It's "get out gringos," the Southwestern US is ours. This is not a benign organization and they have no business being on college campuses or having their members or supporters holding positions of power in our government. The fact that a supportive ex-member of MEChA can rise to the level of Lt. Gov in California with a good shot of becoming the governor is nothing short of SCARY and it reminds me of something Tom Tancredo said in my interview with him...

"I have to tell you that we are facing a situation, where if we don't control immigration, legal and illegal, we will eventually reach the point where it won't be what kind of a nation we are, balkanized or united, we will actually have to face the fact that we are no longer a nation at all. That is the honest to God eventual outcome of this kind of massive immigration combined with the cult of multiculturalism that permeates our society. ...The fact is, that won't occur in a legal way, it will occur in a de facto way."

If someone like Cruz Bustamante, who supports an anti-American group like MEChA can become the gov of California, then maybe we're farther along towards what Tancredo described than we may have otherwise thought...