1/14/2010:   Ruben Navarette Jr. used to be a bit more centrist and a little less racist. But his columns over the last couple of years have focused almost exclusively on his perception of injustices against latinos, and his bias shows in opinions that often have little basis on facts or that simply repeat a message over and over as though repetition will transmogrify his opinion into common sense.

His latest bit of time wasting verbiage dealt with the reasons why the 14th Amendment to the Constitution should be left alone. I enjoy a good Constitutional argument, so I gave him the chance to waste my time, and he didn't disappoint. I'm can't reprint his column, which was overly verbose anyway, so I'll summarize his points and respond.

In America, we do not punish children for crimes committed by the parents. Unless you think it's okay that Johnny can't get a new Wii for Christmas because his daddy had to pay a large traffic ticket and didn't have money left for the toy. And that's what we're talking about here. Those supporting a change to the 14th Amendment argue that the parents aren't here legally anyway, and so the child is present in this country as the result of a crime being committed. If you pick up money a bank robber dropped, it's not yours. It still belongs to the bank, and by proxy, to the depositers in that bank.

The kids aren't illegal immigrants according to the 14th Amendment. Hence the push to change that Amendment. This was just one of Naverrett's time wasters...

Those espousing a "strict" application of the Constitution are those typically for circumventing the 14th Amendment. Unless, of course, they repeal the 14th Amendment and then strictly apply the newly modified Constitution. Another Navarrette time waster... How is this a reason to leave the 14th Amendment alone?

The 14th Amendment can't be circumvented by a state-level law. Yawn. More time wasted. Yeah, we know. But that isn't a reason to leave the 14th Amendment alone.

There is no such thing as an "anchor baby". Finally, a good point. He is absolutely correct. There is nothing in the Constitution that protects people who are in the country illegally, even if they are parents of citizen children. In the last 10 years, over 88,000 parents of citizen children have been deported. The children can be left in the U.S. with family or they can leave with the parent and return later. There is no restriciton on this. The parents, though, once deported, are typically banned for life from immigrating to the U.S. So that argument for repealing or modifying the 14th Amendment is specious.

The GOP is losing the latino vote by supporting this movement. And? The current GOP leadership deserves to be removed from office at the earliest possible opportunity. But regardless, that isn't a reason to leave the 14th Amendment alone.

The GOP is trying to keep latino numbers down to limit their voting power. Again, that's the GOP's problem. This has nothing to do with protecting the 14th Amendment. It should stand or fall on its own merits. The GOP's survival is not the issue. Well, except that Navarrette drank the Faux News koolaid a long time ago...

The U.S. is one big melting pot in part because of the 14th Amendment. And with the 8th of "8 reasons", Navarrette throws out only the second good reason he could come up with. We are as strong as we are because of the 14th Amendment, not in spite of it.

Some fear the changes coming. When it comes to immigration, I am not one of them. I think if you want to turn the tide, you should put pressure on Mexico to reform its economic system. Other countries south of our borders have been prosperous in the past; at least they were until U.S. corporations interfered with them. We should be pushing Mexico to be one of them. But simply saying that a baby can't be a citizen because the baby's parents aren't citizens is wasting even more time than Navarrette does with his blow-hard columns.

1/10/2010:   Sarah Palin, Sharon Angle, Michelle Bachman, and other right-wing whack jobs who espouse "Second Amendment remedies" to not getting their fringe way, are going to need a harsh cleanser to get the blood of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords blood off their hands.

After hinting over the last year with varying levels of subtlety that armed violence is a valid response to being in the minority, a whack job opened fire on a meet-and-greet with the intention of killing Mrs. Giffords. He succeeded in killing, as of this writing, 7 people thus far, with several hospitalized, and he hit his intended target, Mrs. Giffords, with a bullet through the left hemisphere of her brain. She's hanging on, and hopefully she'll recover as much as the incredible damage to her brain will allow.

Naturally, Palin et al are sending out press releases distancing themselves from their stated position on attempting to murder elected officials, but the damage is done. The seal is broken. Someone said we should pass legislation making the kinds of comments they made federal offenses, but hey, why don't we just cut to the chase and legislate common sense and maturity? Of course we can't really do that -- half the GOP would be in jail...

"The first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." That's Sharon Angle saying someone needs to shoot Harry Reid. Of course now that Gabrielle Gifford has been gunned down, Angle swears up and down she didn't actually mean to encourage violence. What kind of lying crap is that?

Haley Barbour is the new David Duke. He thinks he can sweep his racist connections under the rug while he seeks election to the office of President. Let me say that again: President. Of the United States of America. Really.

Fox News makes stuff up. Spin and outright lies. This is what Faux News uses to sell air time and shove the GOP agenda down our throats.

Here we go again. The GOP equates "energy policy" with "oil industry policy". Just like when Cheney held closed-door meetings with oil industry CEOs to work out the Bush administration's energy policy, so too is the newly GOP-controlled House looking to the oil industry to tell them how to regulate the oil industry.

1/10/2010:   Tom DeLay will serve three years in prison (probably a year with good behavior, HA!) for money laundering and conspiracy. He actually got five years for the conspiracy charge, but that got converted to a ten year probation with community service.

He told the judge out-right that he isn't remorseful because he didn't see anything wrong with funneling huge corporate donations to Texas legislature candidates, even if a jury of twelve people found it to be a clear violation of campaign donation laws.

His defense attorney had the cojones to proclaim his client an innocent man and declare DeLay's "good works for his party, his state, and his country." Unless the man lives in the United States of Corporate Greed and Unfiltered Partisan Hunger for Power, I don't think his country should be cutting him any slack based on service. Tom DeLay is a corrupt jackass, and three years doesn't begin to fix the damage he's done as a GOP legislator.

Now I can hear you saying to yourself, "But Todd," -- which would be an odd thing to say to yourself unless your name was Todd -- "you can't be harsh like that! This man was just sentenced to prison for 'white-collar' crimes. He's being punished. How can you be so mean?"

Well, that's a good question, and I'm glad you asked... Tom DeLay aided and abetted a political party devoted to the enrichment of the rich and the impoverishing of the poor, the empowerment of the powerful and the crushing domination of the un-empowered. The GOP worships the almighty dollar and spits on the common man. This has never been truer than of the GOP under Gingrich and DeLay. I have absolutely no sympathy for DeLay, or for any of the other people from that Congress that have been convicted of corruption.

Darrell Issa may define corruption as simply having a lot of money to spend on targets outlined by the law, but DeLay illustrated that true corruption is breaking the law for personal gain or for associates from whom you can realize gain.