As most of you probably already know, the unsatisfying Speakership of Congressman John Boehner is drawing to a close. After helping to rubber-stamp some of President Obama’s worst legislative ambitions, while enabling his administration’s flagrant disregard for the Constitution, and punishing dissident House members who are actual conservatives, Mr. Boehner has decided to call it a career.

Kudos to the small yet brave group of Republicans who opposed him before this current session of Congress, as well as to Congressman Mark Meadows, who got this ball rolling. Although it’s too soon to speculate as to what Boehner’s future career plans hold, I wouldn’t be surprised if he follows the path of his protege, Eric Cantor, onto K Street. After all, if you’re going to do the bidding of corporate lobbyists, you might as well make it official.

If any evidence were needed that corruption and statecraft are inseparable, then the saga of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman would prove sufficient. While the wily Casanova merely escaped the Leads beneath the  Doge’s palace in Venice a single time, El Chapo has managed to spring himself from two maximum security federal prisons. This, in addition to evading the clutches of both Mexican authorities and the most powerful nation in the world for the better part of two decades. His latest vanishing act occurring this very weekend, to the surprise of a surprising number of observers, actually.

Whether his latest disappearing act can be attributed to the Sinaloa Cartel’s cozy relationship with certain members of Mexico’s Institutional (Ruling) Party, or to the troubling accusations made regarding its ties to our government, or simply to a particularly lax penal policy, remains to be seen. However, it’s always worth asking these questions, especially when the people who might provide us with answers seem so reluctant to do so.

After celebrating Wealth Confiscation Day, it’s only appropriate that we reflect upon what our government does with the thousands of billions of dollars Americans unwillingly render it each year. A particularly obscene program administered by the Internal Revenue Service is the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, which is used by illegal aliens in lieu of a W-4. The purpose is ostensibly to help illegals working in this country to pay income taxes on undeclared-for obvious reasons-income they earned throughout the previous year. However, as Terence Jeffrey pointed out in his exhaustive analysis of the use of ITINs published two years ago, it is also used to reap the windfall of numerous tax credits to which these illegals are not entitled, including the lucrative Child Tax Credit.

So in addition to enabling the theft of the identities of law-abiding, productive members of society, this innovation by the IRS in 1996 also victimizes taxpayers a second time, by allowing the theft of even more wealth from an already overburdened American public. It would be difficult to find a more vivid illustration of both the cupidity of government and the insanity of this country’s open borders immigration policies, although I’m certain the collective intelligence of Washington D.C. will surely find a way to outdo itself in the years ahead.

After all, if there’s something the federal government is adept at, it’s screwing over the individuals whom it ostensibly serves.

This week’s guilty verdict returned in the trial of Chechen Islamic terrorist Dzhokhar Tsarnaev gives us the perfect opportunity to reflect upon the dysfunctional nature of our government’s immigration system. Not simply its implicit endorsement of specific individuals who are confirmed terrorists in other parts of the globe, but its mass importation of refugees whose intrinsic beliefs are inimical to the values and deleterious to the lives of American citizens.

Steve Sailer’s trenchant observation at the time of the Boston Marathon bombing-and subsequent revelations about the atrocity’s perpetrators-that if there truly are only 100 Chechen immigrants living in this country-which is undoubtedly an underestimate if we’re including those here illegally, but we’ll concede the point-then over 2 percent of them are spectacular international terrorists, is worth pondering. The fact that the Tsarnaev’s crone-like mother has emerged as a champion of her malignant issue, in spite of the fact that we gave her family an opportunity to live in a country that isn’t a bomb-cratered, third world colony of the former Soviet Union, shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Asra Nomani’s review of Masha Gessen’s biography of the two Boston Marathon murderers gives you an insight into how the warped views of the Tsarnaev matriarch make perfect sense within an hermitically sealed community whose frustrations and hatreds are nurtured by a state-sanctioned course of multiculturalism. Hundreds of Americans’ lives have been marred so that diversity can be preserved, and that is one of the enduring lessons of the Tsarnaev trial, unfortunately. A lesson that we’ll have ample opportunity to digest in the months and years ahead.

One of the recurring themes of Jeb Bush’s political life is his low estimation of American citizens, especially those of the native-born kind. Whether he’s pontificating idiotically on the fecundity of border-crossers, or disparaging our entrepreneurial zeal, Dubya’s younger brother never fails to miss an opportunity to gratuitously bash the people whose votes he presumably seeks in next year’s presidential election. Although his recent comments pertaining to immigration are not quite as incendiary as some past remarks, they do reveal a mindset which has not evolved in any tangible sense over the past several decades he’s devoted to public life. 

Numbers USA has a very astute analysis of Jeb’s White House trial balloon, which essentially consists of belittling the competence and dismissing the aspirations of American workers, albeit in a slightly less obtuse manner than is customary for him. The fundamental problem is that Bush has not reconsidered any of the hackneyed ideas he outlined in the ghostwritten campaign book he co-authored with fellow open borders enthusiast Clint Bolick. Although asking him to recant some of his most cherished dogmas out of political expediency would be an absurd expectation, the fact that he hasn’t seen fit to even question the wisdom of legislative amnesty in the wake of the most lawless and blatantly unconstitutional actions of any White House in recent memory gives you an idea of where immigration patriots stand in the eyes of the GOP’s frontrunners.

We can only hope the pool of Republican presidential candidates appreciates in quality before it’s too late.

The graphic above is taken from the brilliant Cognitive Bias Parade, which is one of many online venues that have chosen to show their solidarity with the 12 martyrs of Charlie Hebdo by embracing the satirical defiance which so aggrieves the soldiers of Allah. The insincere protestations of America’s intellectual gatekeepers notwithstanding, the reaction of the American press corps has been depressingly familiar. Of particular note was the petulant, disingenuous, and yet not altogether surprising outburst from New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet. You can read the very illuminating-as well as entertaining-Facebook thread which sparked this contretemps here. 

For an analysis of the choices made by the Canadian counterparts of  chickenshit American editors like Mr. Baquet, check out the superb interview of Jen Gerson on the Canadaland podcast. Even as editorial cartoonists in the Arab Middle East, a region filled with homicidal Islamic lunatics, have expressed sympathy for the latest victims of the The Religion of Peace, and those living in a brutal Islamic theocracy have engaged in the journalism the Daily News eschews, the most appropriate response to the events of this horrific week has come from one of the surviving members of Charlie Hebdo’s staff.

For an index of artistic depictions-ranging from reverent to blasphemous-of the media’s favorite bloodthirsty warlord, I recommend Zombietime’s Mohammed Image Archive, which is an invaluable resource in a time when even the images we see must come with a halal certification.

Update: As promised by Brit Hume, Fox News has republished the offending cartoons. If you’re waiting expectantly for other drive-by media to follow suit, don’t hold your breath. There’s only one religion in contemporary society whose mockery is verboten. 

Mark Steyn, as usual, cuts to the heart of the matter. The refusal by almost every North American media outlet of consequence-with one glaring exception-to republish the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo-like their choice to ban the Jyllands-Posten Mohammed caricatures, is an example of cowardice. This is a decision motivated by base, craven fear, masquerading as a sop to Muslim sensibilities. That said, the decision by most European newspapers to republish those same satirical cartoons shouldn’t be seen as an indication that the continental media have any firmer grasp of what’s at stake, as the  groupthink denunciation of grassroots anti-Islamization campaigns, as well as of those political figures who’ve criticized the multicultural ideology that contributed to Wednesday’s massacre, makes clear. The consistent obfuscation of who is responsible for the series of horrific anti-Semitic violence being but one example of how muddled the Fourth Estate’s evaluation of Islam’s relationship to the West is.

Unfortunately, I think that Steyn has hit upon a difficult truth to digest. The journalists who were assassinated by jihadists in Paris were not simply irreplaceable in terms of their unique talent for clarifying the relationship described above. They were irreplaceable in a much more immediate, practical sense. There are only so many people willing to place themselves in the crosshairs of the perpetually aggrieved religion before our reserve of martyrs is exhausted. And then, notwithstanding the faux solidarity of people who posture as journalists, the terrorists really will have won.
h/t Gates of Vienna.

The President’s abrupt announcement of an imminent détente with the tropical gulag run by the Castro Bros. has sent reporters and pundits scurrying to analyze the broader political implications of this seeming diplomatic breakthrough. On the economic front, the observation by former Mexican Foreign Secretary Jorge Castenda that the cutoff of Venezuela’s oil subsidies to the island nation has forced it to seek another benefactor is undoubtedly accurate. As is the conclusion drawn by the Washington Post’s editorial board that this new policy will in effect-if not in intent-serve as an American bailout of an economy entering the terminal stage of Marxist decline.

The reality of a first world, capitalist-for the time being-nation riding to the rescue of a regime which has turned what was once one of the most robust economies in the Western Hemisphere into a stagnant pool of human misery is something that El Jefe’s apologists are loathe to accept. A situation that Michael Moynihan deftly skewered in a Daily Beast post recounting some of the more imbecilic remarks tweeted by Castro sycophants, most of whom have probably never set foot inside a Cuban hospital. 

Steve Sailer, on the other hand, has mooted a fascinating and original point which I think most of our readers would be interested in contemplating. To wit, that the relaxation of diplomatic relations between our two nations could potentially lead to the export of scores of Cuban migrants who pose economic and political problems for a faltering Communist dictatorship. Although the analogy to the Marielitos is tempting for a number of reasons, it’s not necessary to consider a seaborne invasion in order to foresee how immigration could be dramatically impacted by this diplomatic thaw.

While drawing any firm conclusions as to what will happen in the future regarding Cuban-American relations is impossible at the moment, is it that outlandish to consider the possibility of thousands-or a possibly greater number-of Cuban refugees being admitted to the United States as a result of a bilateral agreement between this administration and the caudillo in Havana, with or without congressional input? Based upon recent history, I don’t believe it is. Only time will tell whether this démarche is the beginning of a new era in American foreign policy or something much more cynical and unromantic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Free_Use_Castro_Image.JPG

One of the more interesting races to watch this November will be the Texas gubernatorial contest,  which features the dream candidate of feminist progressives, State Senator Wendy Davis. Although a fundraising dynamo and icon for those who support expansive access to abortion, the chances that she will actually emerge victorious from this race are increasingly negligible, as self-inflicted wounds doom a candidacy that many already considered-with some justification-a hopeless cause.

Even as the Davis boomlet evaporates, however, the project to turn Texas blue proceeds apace. A key part of that plan involves the national political aspirations of a man our readers are familiar with, current Hud Secretary Julian Castro. Despite having a resume as thin as that of the man who appointed him-which might work to his advantage in a presidential race if the past is any guide-Secretary Castro has an extensive record of making incendiary comments on the subjects of race and ethnicity. Naturally, for an ambitious Democratic politician, Castro espouses the usual litany of open borders cliches that have become old hat by this point in time. However, the reasons behind his support for the demographic transformation of this country have never been explored by a news media eager to promote the aims of a young, telegenic, Chicano politician who supports open borders policies.

That’s why the piece written by Charles Johnson for Breitbart.com comes as such a welcome relief. An antidote to the tireless and tiresome propaganda from the usual bloviating heads, this essay describes in excruciating detail-using Julian Castro’s own words to damn him-why he is an unabashed radical devoted to the anti-American goals of La Raza. We urge you to read it all!

As this country celebrates Labor Day, it’s important to reflect upon how our political class continues to shortchange American workers and those who are desperately seeking work but are locked out of opportunities by our government’s disastrous immigration policies. It’s perhaps not surprising that the chief cheerleader for the disemployment of Americans, i.e. President Obama, would use this holiday to tout the ways in which his administration is going to help illegal aliens obtain gainful employment in the United States.

Of course, the work these newly amnestied illegals will be doing-if Obama follows through on his threats-is something that the mainstream media has gone to great pains to obscure. Not that this in itself is surprising, considering the efforts journalists have gone to in order to soft-peddle what is the single biggest usurpation of Constitutional powers in recent memory. One hopeful sign is that even those on the other side of the fence recognize how shortsighted and stupid the President’s administrative rampage is. We can only hope that the excess of O will occasion some in the GOP to reconsider their devotion to open borders before 2016.