I understand that most "indocumentados" are not marching with these signs. Yet, these are the pictures going around the Internet.

I have two questions:

1) Have the leaders gone crazy?, and/or

2) Has the international left taken over the movement?

These placards are insane!

Before you invest yourself in polls, take the time to go back and read what the same pundits were saying in the last midterm of 2002. Check out: The assessments of August and see if any of this sounds familiar:

"Their Democratic counterparts are talking more optimistically... A recent Gallup Poll showed 50% of registered voters were more likely to vote for Democrats, 42% for Republicans."

"Strategists in both parties say that while congressional elections depend heavily on local issues and trends, the war on terrorism and Bush's hands-on effort in many races have made him an issue, too."

"From all indications, this fall's midterm elections should confirm the Judis-Teixeira thesis... They could win back the House on Nov. 5 and are favored to win key governorships. For the Democrats, happy days may be here again."

As we know, 2002 turned out to be a very good year for Bush and the Republicans.

To be fair, Bush had higher approval ratings in 2002 than now. At the same time, gas prices were $2 rather $3 a gallon. Iraq is obviously a drag. Illegal immigration is red hot and many Republicans are very angry with Bush!

Nevertheless, why is Michael Barone, a great political analyst, saying that the winds are blowing in Bush's direction now. The answer is events rather than any one particular issue. Check out A change in the winds:

"When asked what would affect the future, the British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan famously said: Events, dear boy. Events. The event this month that I think has done most to shape opinion was the arrest in London on Aug. 9 of 23 Muslims suspected of plotting to blow up American airliners over the Atlantic."

What this plot confirms is that there are bad people in the world and they want to kill Americans. Furthermore, they are not selective. They want to kill those who voted for Bush as much as for those who voted for Kerry:

"They've been trying to kill us for years, going back at least to 1983, when a Hezbollah suicide bomber killed 241 American servicemen in Lebanon. Then they attacked the World Trade Center, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole in Aden -- all while Bill Clinton was president. Sept. 11 woke us up to the threat. The political acrimony of 2004 and 2005 and this year made it seem remote. The London arrests reminded us its still there."

I am not saying that Bush is in and Democrats are out. This is going to be a tough midterm, as it has been for every president in his 6th year in office.

However, the London plot shows us that the threat is real. Again, back to Barone:

"The arrests were a reminder that there still are lots of people in the world -- and quite possibly in this country, too -- who are trying to kill as many of us as they can and to destroy our way of life. They are not unhappy because we havent raised the minimum wage lately or because Bush rejected the Kyoto Treaty or even because were in Iraq." 

MY VIEW by Silvio Canto, Jr. 

Last month, I wrote that states and communities are addressing illegal immigration directly. Check it out!

This week, Farmers Branch, a nice town between Carrollton and Dallas, had a city council meeting to do something about the chaos:

"Several dozen residents crowded into the council chambers to discuss whether the city should restrict illegal immigrants through such measures as making it illegal for landlords to lease property to them; fining businesses that employ them; making English the city's official language; and halting funding for children of illegal immigrants to participate in Summer Funshine and other youth programs."

It's happening everywhere. Check this from Wisconsin, which is a long way from the border: Mayor takes stand on illegal migrants:

"In a letter in the local newspaper this month, John Kimmel, who runs the Detox Bar and Grill, said he would create an "illegal alien task force" to forward complaints to federal authorities, hold property owners accountable for renting to or allowing someone to live in the city illegally, make English the official language of Arcadia and regulate the flying of foreign flags."

In conclusion, this is about economics and the rule of law!

Self-appointed Hispanic leaders should not insult our intelligence by claiming "racism" and "anti-immigrant" attitudes.

This is a debate about illegal immigrants.

P.S. Check out Economic Angle Enters Illegal Immigration Battle by Bobby Eberle:

"While the debate over illegal immigration continues, business owners and others who are frustrated by the lack of enforcement of current immigration laws are turning to a new strategy: economics. Through lawsuits, some employers are fighting back by accusing competitors of hiring illegal aliens to gain an unfair business advantage. Whether this type of lawsuit will work remains to be seen, but something needs to be done to fix the illegal immigration problem, and enforcement of laws is the key."

"The fertility gap doesn't budge when we correct for factors like age, income, education, sex, race--or even religion.

Indeed, if a conservative and a liberal are identical in all these ways, the liberal will still be 19 percentage points more likely to be childless than the conservative.

Some believe the gap reflects an authentic cultural difference between left and right in America today."

This is exactly right!

This divide showed up in the 2004 presidential vote. This is how people voted, according to a CNN exit poll:

Bush won the Protestant vote (59-40) and the Catholics (52-47%). These two groups represented 75% of the electorate.

Bush won the Church attendance vote (61-39%).

Bush won the married vote (57-42%) and married with children (59-41%).

This "fertility gap" makes sense.

Thank you Republican mothers. Thank you for doing your part!

How can anyone take France seriously anymore?

The Wall Street Journal described the situation like this:

"On Thursday, Jacques Chirac confirmed a Le Monde report that his government was prepared to offer only some 200 combat engineers (in addition to the 200 French troops already in Lebanon) to what is supposed to be the resolution's centerpiece: A 15,000-man U.N. force that will help the Lebanese army patrol their southern border and ensure that Hezbollah will no longer use the area as a staging ground for future attacks against Israel.

All of this after the French used the promise of a robust, French-led international force to get the U.S. and Israel to agree to a cease-fire and withdrawal.

Even less reassuring is the insistence by French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie that her troops will remain in the lead only until February, after which, apparently, it's salaam and adieu."

Senator McCain spoke for many of us yesterday on Meet the Press:

"And I would like to express my deep concern that the French apparently are not going to inject the number of troops that would be necessary to lead this 15,000-person peacekeeping force. So far they're saying they would only about 200. It’s very disappointing."

I am not just disappointed. Frankly, I am angry.

France criticized Israel for defending itself. They said that a UN force should step in and stand between Israel and Hezbollah.

However, they are sending 200 troops. What countries will send the other 14,800?

Once again, France is a bad joke. Resolution 1701 is going down the same path as 1559.

By the way, did you hear this one? Have we not seen this movie before?

"Iran has turned away U.N. inspectors wanting to examine its underground nuclear site in an apparent violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, diplomats and U.N. officials said Monday.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidentiality of the information, told The Associated Press that Iran's unprecedented refusal to allow access to the facility at Natanz could seriously hamper international efforts to ensure that Tehran is not trying to make nuclear weapons. (Assoc Press)

P.S. Today, there were two interesting articles about 2006 looking 1938.

First, Rich Lowry wrote You’ll Never Confuse George W. Bush for a Frenchman:

"Civilization simply lacks backbone without the United States in the lead".

Second, check out Mideast Echoes Of 1938 By Richard Cohen:

"This inability of Europe to get its act together is what suggests 1938. Back then, Churchill was hardly the only one who thought Hitler was intent on war. After all, the German leader was an ideological zealot -- and a murderer to boot."

Of course, we will soon hear a Democrat say that Bush does not listen to our allies.

Question: How can you listen to people who don't say anything? How can you pay attention to people who are not responsible?

According to Rasmussen Reports:

"If the mid-term elections were held today, Republicans would narrowly retain control of the U.S. Senate according to Rasmussen Reports polling data. Our Balance of Power summary shows the GOP is favored in enough races to hang on to 50 Senate seats at the moment. Forty-seven seats would be in Democratic hands while 3 are in the Toss-Up category."

Let me say something about elections. Turnout matters. Organization matters. In recent years, the Republicans have outworked Democrats on election day. In other words, don't bet against Karl Rove! Organization matters.

Beyond that, Paul Bedard reports that the GOP is motivated:

"A three-page-survey memo obtained by Washington Whispers reveals that despite reports of some dissatisfaction with the economy, the war, and President Bush, 81 percent of Republican voters are "almost certain" to vote and an additional 14 percent say they are "very likely."

So don't bet your lunch money on any major shifts in November.

On one side, you have a president dealing with very complicated issues that don't lend themselves to bumper sticker solutions.

On the other side, you have an opposition party that cannot present a coherent position. Why change? Why change to a guy who does not know what he stands for?

Don't take my word for the Democrat's problems. This is what the very liberal Peter Beinart just wrote about the Democrats:

"The Democratic Party's single biggest foreign policy liability is not that Americans think Democrats are soft. It is that Americans think Democrats stand for nothing, that they have no principles beyond political expedience. And given the party's behavior over the past several months, it is not hard to understand why."

Once again, history is against Pres. Bush. This is why it is so amazing that the polling data is so decent for Republicans!

It gets worse for the judge.

Bryan Cunningham served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush. He is a private information security and privacy lawyer at Morgan & Cunningham LLC in Denver, Colorado, and a member of the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. Along with the Washington Legal Foundation, he filed an amicus brief in this case, and has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Today, he joined the attacks on the judge's decision. Check out A judge’s first-year failing-grade opinion:

"Much will be said about this opinion in the coming days. I’ll start with this: I wouldn’t accept this utterly unsupported, constitutionally and logically bankrupt collection of musings from a first-year law student, much less a new lawyer at my firm."

This is an excellent piece.

Last, but not least, The Wall Street Journal goes to the point in A federal judge rewrites the Constitution on war powers:

"Unlike Judge Taylor, Presidents are accountable to the voters for their war-making decisions, as the current White House occupant has discovered. Judge Taylor can write her opinion and pose for the cameras--and no one can hold her accountable for any Americans who might die as a result."

It is absolutely imperative that we keep the Congress under Republican control. Beyond that, it is essential that we replace Pres. Bush with Pres. McCain or Guiliani. The Democrats, and their angry left, are not serious about national security. Simply put, you cannot trust liberals to protect your family.

Today, John updated his article: Judge Ignores Precedent, Holds NSA Program "Unconstitutional". I like this line:

"One of the serious weaknesses of our federal judicial system is that in many cases, plaintiffs can forum-shop for a favorable district or judge. Here, the ACLU, the plaintiff in the case, could have brought the case anywhere in the United States. The ACLU naturally avoided the circuits that had already upheld warrantless surveillance as an executive power; the Sixth Circuit, which encompasses Michigan, has not ruled on the issue, to my knowledge. The ACLU was able to get its case before Judge Taylor, a 1979 Jimmy Carter appointee who was described by the Detroit Free Press as "a liberal with Democratic roots."

Another very good review is Federal court strikes down NSA domestic surveillance program by Jack M. Balkin:

"It is quite clear that the government will appeal this opinion, and because the court's opinion, quite frankly, has so many holes in it, it is also clear to me that the plaintiffs will have to relitigate the entire matter before the circuit court, and possibly the Supreme Court."

It looks like we are fighting two enemies. Over there, there are people that want to kill us. Over here, the ACLU is a partisan nuisance.

Check this out from IBD A Terrorist Win:

"Congress' post-9-11 authorization to President Bush stated "that the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against" terrorists and those who help them. Wiretapping and computer monitoring are vital parts of this effort.
What happened Thursday was nothing less than a judicial disarmament of the U.S. — stripping away some of our most valuable weapons in the global war on terror."

Check out Bush Phobia May Prove Fatal BY DANIEL HENNINGER:

"The foiling of the plot in Britain was a kind of public-policy miracle, a rare chance to rethink. The U.S. could have spent the past week with 4,000 funerals. We would have had calls for measures so stringent and draconian they would make the Bush program look like pattycake. We have none of that. But unless our politics changes, we will."

Even The Washington Post is not very impressed. Check out A Judicial Misfire:

"Unfortunately, the decision yesterday by a federal district court in Detroit, striking down the NSA's program, is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work -- that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA's program -- her opinion will not be helpful."

So what's going on? The answer is that the ACLU is mad at Bush. Why? Because Bush is against abortion, same sex marriage and the secularization of the US. Also, Bush keeps beating the candidates endorsed by the ACLU!

The ACLU is not very consistent either. Where was this judge during the Carter and Clinton years? Where was the ACLU? Go back and review this one from last December: So much for the Bush police state

Here is "Al Qaeda reminds us to hang on to our patriots" by Andrew McCarthy

"The antiwar Left has a conveniently flexible moral compass. Consequently, the Clinton era Echelon program was fine, but Bush’s NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program is an impeachable offense."

Again, where was the ACLU during the Echelon program? The bottom line is that the ACLU, and the American left, will support anyone as long as they believe in abortion!

Ironically, Joe Lieberman is the only Democrat who can win 270 electoral votes. Yet, they have no room for Joe in the modern Democrat party.

A few months ago, the SciFi TV Channel ran an entire weekend of the black and white show "The Twilight Zone". I remember watching them a boy. They were always strange and provocative. It was great TV.

Last night, I felt like I was watching a new version of The Twilight Zone. The new show is in color, takes place in Mexico and the weirdo character is a fellow named Se~or LO.

Yesterday, Mexican police had a confrontation with some of Se~or LO's sympathizers. Why? Because the public is sick and tired of traffic jams and people blocking their sidewalks.

Se~or LO thinks that the world has to stand still as his gang of lefty bullies paralyze a nation.

Sorry LO. Most Mexicans have a life. They want their streets and shops back. They don't want to play your silly game any longer.

Se~or LO reacted to the police confrontation by recalling Pres. Diaz Ordaz, a cynical reference to the 1968 incident.

I will leave Mexican history to the Mexicans. Frankly, I don't know enough to comment on what happened in 1968.

Yet, I do know that Se~or LO is a master at pushing the right buttons. Last night, the despicable Se~or LO tried to make a connection between a potential case of police brutality in 1968 and law and order in 2006.

Last month, I wrote that Mexico needs a Richard Nixon, a person who loses a close election and accepts results.

In 1960, Kennedy beat Nixon by 114,000 out of 76 million votes. It was closer than the contest between LO and Calderon (240,000 out of 41 million)

Despite incredible pressure, Nixon accepted results and moved on. Why? Because these recounts never work. All they do is to polarize the nation and make matters worse.

Mexico needs a Nixon. Unfortunately, Se~or LO has decided to be a weirdo out of The Twilight Zone!