Press Shield Law? Never!

The Supreme Court ruled against The New York Times on Monday (Nov. 27,2006), refusing to block the government from reviewing telephone records of two Times reporters in a leak investigation concerning a terrorism-funding probe.

The one-sentence order came in a First Amendment battle that involves stories written in 2001 by Times reporters Judith Miller and Philip Shenon. The stories revealed the government's plans to freeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation.

Funny. I haven't heard a word about the Supreme Court decision from talking head television commentators or radio talk show hosts this evening. No David Gregory-type screamers yammering about how the Bush White House is on a covert mission to discredit whistleblowers, no matter that those mislabeled whistleblowers might possibly have destroyed significant leads in tracking down terrorist funding. No Chris Matthews yelling over the words of his guests, spitting out nonstop drivel about Bush's "war on freedom of the press".

Why, the very thought that national security would trump "the public's right to know" sends shivers through the Left, who uniformly believe that protecting the lives of innocent men, women, and children from mass slaughter should take a back seat to journalism's loose cannons who know no higher calling than groveling for a Pulitzer, Peabody, or Emmy. Those prizes, of course, are reserved solely for those who know on which side their bread is buttered.

Patrick Fitzgerald was once the object of high praise from many commentators, who lauded him as a principled federal prosecutor, even if his background was as a Republican appointee. While Mr. Fitzgerald was investigating the alleged White House leak of Valerie Plame's name and position at the CIA the mainstream press gushed over him, filled as they were with the certainty that Mrs. Joseph Wilson had been outted by Karl Rove. Hadn't Joseph Wilson himself pointed the finger at the White House and specifically at Mr. Rove? What more evidence did the braying pack of wild reporters need in order to take the accusation at face value and place all their hopes on the Fitzgerald investigation that would surely confirm Kerry-advisor Wilson's charge? End of story.

Funny. As soon as Richard Armitage came forward as the one who leaked Mrs. Wilson's name the same wild pack of reporters screaming for Karl Rove's head suddenly went silent. Joseph Wilson inexplicably went into seclusion with no public calls for Mr. Armitage to be frog marched into Pelican Bay. Although the Fitzgerald investigation continues into the Plame Affair the mainstream media no longer seems interested. I have no idea why, and if someone knows will you please drop a comment to enlighten me.

Now that Mr. Fitzgerald is investigating two reporters' contact with two Islamic charities, after learning of a Justice Department probe from a leaker, the mainstream press is performing a flip-flop. Where it was a matter of national import for the public to know the name of the government leaker in the Plame Affair, according to the press, it is now a matter of national import for the public to not learn the identity of the government leaker who divulged top secret information about the DOJ investigation. Imagine that. Oh yes, Mr. Fitzgerald is a fading memory with the media; until his investigation into the charity source leak heats up, that is. Look for his former admirers to denounce him as an overzealous, out-of-control prosecutor if Fitzgerald is forced to ask the court to order uncooperative witnesses held in contempt.

Do you ever wish members of the mainstream press were hooked up to a shock device with yourself as the one with the power to send high voltage through their systems whenever they refused to answer questions truthfully, or failed tests of logic and consistency? I do. I'd love to subject dozens of journo-celebs to a grilling on why they believe the identity of an alleged White House leaker must be determined at all costs, while the identity of a DOJ leaker must be protected at all costs. Sure, the journo-celebs all mildly professed that Judith Miller shouldn't have to divulge her (alleged) White House source; but most if not all put up very little fight on her behalf when they thought the Plame leaker was actually someone in the Bush White House. Should Ms. Miller find herself facing jail time for contempt in refusing to testify to her sources in the Islamic charities matter I am sure the usual media suspects will object to her incarceration with far greater volume and intensity than was the case in the Plame episode. Heck, the suspects might threaten en masse to vote a straight Democratic Party ticket in 2008 if Ms. Miller has to obey the same laws that ordinary American riffraff have to obey!

I dream about the delight I'd have with any number of the media sitting strapped to a chair, wired to my devilish voltage machine while I went down a list of questions for them to answer. With every non-sequitur response and equivocation I'd increase the voltage until I arrived at the truth. The subjects could have but two truthful answers: "I have a journalistic double-standard because I hate George W. Bush". And: "I was only following orders!" (The vision of Keith Olbermann screaming aloud the latter won't leave my head.)

But there's another facet to the issue of journalism's double-standard when it comes to their agitating for absolute source protection. It goes far beyond their intention to immunize themselves in the same way clergy or lawyers are protected from divulging confidential information. The press was envisioned by the Founding Fathers as a check against governmental abuse and power, and as long as the press adhered to high standards of truth and professionalism it could reasonably be assumed to guarantee the public's right to know. With the melding of political agendas and unabashed partisanship in the press, however, the Left-media axis have fashioned the design for a powerful weapon to be used against anyone who stands in the way of their own unchecked power. And the proposed Shield Law will be the final mechanism which will enable the Left-media axis to be as lawless and dangerous as any Politboro.

Can you think of the power the Left-media axis will have once the Dan Rathers of the journalism world can fabricate "sources" who are as fake and fictional as the purported "fake but true" documents dreamed up by Rather, Mary Mapes, and 60 Minutes II? Can you imagine the havoc the unchecked press would have once "fake but true" sources are promoted as factual sources of information, to be replicated and disseminated on a mass scale by a lockstep mainstream media at the service of a single political ideology? It's truly a scary thought, if one values democracy and the right of a free people to make informed decisions. If the thought of Big Brother frightens, the thought of a press Shield Law ought to throw a real scare into everyone with even average intelligence.

The voters elected the Executive managers and Legislative lawmakers to make national security decisions, and to likewise protect our national security from all enemies foreign and domestic. The voters did not elect the New York Times to unilaterally usurp any governmental decisions, let alone those of critical national security. The Times' decisions to divulge all in the top-secret NSA surveillance and bank funds tracking programs place that organization squarely in the domestic enemies camp, in my considered opinion. That the Times later admitted it erred in the second case cuts no slack whatever with me. Thank God America still has a Supreme Court with a preponderance of common sense that allows the government to protect the citizens of this country. And pray to God that the voters, through our elected officials, never allow the press to create an alternate universe where "fake but true" documents and sources are promoted to subvert the will of the people.

Go Smart, Go Cold, Go Strong

The rebuilding of Iraq in the aftermath of the US-led coalition overthrow of Saddam Hussein is not going well, to say the least. Hopes were high in 2003 that a democracy in the heart of the arab Middle East would bring centuries-needed change to this area of the world. The high hopes have given way to the reality that in the Islamic arab world sectarian hatreds are deeper than the desire for peace, prosperity, and freedom of thought. Al Zarqawi's dream of sparking a Sunni-Shiite war is on the verge of fruition, helped along by the likes of Muqtada Al Sadr, the Shiite warlord who allegedly ordered the murder of rival cleric Abdul Majid al-Khoei. Instead of going after the boy cleric when the chances were high that the fallout would be manageable the coalition allowed itself to be swayed by those who said Sadr would calm down once he entered the political process. Well, Sadr entered the process and delivered to himself the prize of a prime minister who follows his commands.

The anti-American voices nipping at George W. Bush's heels for the past six years have succeeded in badgering his Administration into fighting a politically correct war, and today we see the results of this capitulation to the worldwide Left, that loose confederation of assorted special interest groups who control the ideological bulk of the mass media. The result is chaos in Iraq, a re-energized do nothing United Nations unwilling or unable to define "terrorism", and the prospect for total war in the very region of the world the president and his advisors wished to stabilize. The body blow for the Bush Administration for all their accommodation is a Democrat opposition majority set to take congressional power in January, which will quickly lead to open outcry --- with total support from Democrat-friendly media --- to abandon the job of introducing reforms to the arab Middle East, a precursor to stability. In short, Democrats, the Left, and terrorism now hold the upper hand in their separate but coincident desire to destroy a president who did the right thing for the right reasons.

Islamofascist terror is on the march in Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere in the Middle East as well as Africa. What is the West to gain by allowing these destroyers of civilization to seize the initiative? The West and all civilized nations cannot believe for a moment that the zeal to neuter American leadership in the world will result in success against enemies who recognize no limit to barbarism. By enabling Islamofascist forces through the mass media's unrelenting focus on the real and alleged errors by the coalition the Left have elevated the quest for political power above security, a prescription for even more brutal future war against the foes we're now fighting. No sane observer believes that once America and the allies withdraw from Iraq the Islamic fundamentalists will decide that reasonable methods for settling their non-negotiable political demands will be the order of the day.

However, all is not lost; the coalition and those throughout the world who still believe in freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and freedom to disagree politically with those in power can and must present a new plan to rally the cause. The 2006 recruitment rate for the Army is near an all-time high, as well as the retention rate for those already serving. The desire by young Americans to protect our way of life speaks to their intelligence as much as to their courage and patriotism. These brave young men and women understand very well that the same demands for Sharia law in Western European countries foreshadow the same demands that will echo in America in due time, should we forget the enemy we're fighting. Even with the onslaught of negative press for the past several years our military, new and seasoned troops, have kept their focus on the need to win this war even as the elected and chattering class naysayers have lost their will to to fight, if it was ever there in the first place.

The opportunity to win lies in finally admitting that terrorism is a tactic; the enemy is Islamic fundamentalism. The opportunity is to put aside any pretense to political correctness and assert that the civilized world is fighting an enemy with several faces but only one identity --- militant Islam. Ask yourself: Since 9/11 how many leading Islamic clerics, either Sunni or Shiite, have you seen or heard denouncing terrorism? Very few if any, should your experience be similar to mine. In nearly every case of alleged denunciation of terror one hears a low-level spokesman for Islamic clerics equivocating while the imams hide behind a studied wall of silence. In fact, by their failure to condemn and denounce terrorism these many years the clerics and scholars have tacitly approved mass barbarity as a valid means of resistance. It appears that Hell will freeze over before a critical mass of prominent Islamic clerics and scholars assembles to declare that the wanton slaughter of innocents and non-combatants is against the religion of Mohammed. As for the assertions that a forceful and dynamic debate is going on within mosques throughout the world regarding terrorism? Put aside that propaganda; the masses of moslems who wish to live in peace and freedom are silenced by the same terrorists who speak on their behalf. The anecdotal evidence is the dearth of prominent Islamic clerics unequivocally condemning terrorism and the companion Islamic tenet that all unbelievers are second-class human beings in every respect. Therefore, by failing to clearly articulate that Islam condemns the barbarity it practices Islamic leaders must bear the brunt of blame for what has and is transpiring now in Iraq and elsewhere throughout region.

The Bush Administration attempted to keep religious ideologies out of the war equation from the outset but that, as much as any policy decision, has led to the current stalemate. The time is now for the Administration to demand that leading Islamic clerics and scholars speak out firmly and unequivocally against terrorism that takes far more moslem lives than the lives of infidels. (That word --- infidel --- is the religious equivalent of the "N-word" if you care to think about it.) The president and our allied leaders should demand this gesture as preliminary groundwork for the messy job ahead; and shouldn't moslems be required to adhere to minimal standards of humanity? Were the fault line of the war really the Israel-Palestinian conflict a political solution would have been achieved years ago. The stark truth is that militant Islam has been at war for decades with societies who have nothing to do with the aforementioned conflict. What's the reason for Islamic terrorism in Kashmir, or Sudan where a slow-motion genocide is now taking place? Zionism? Sheesh! There is no end to the list of grievances that Islamic terrorists belabor to justify their underlying motive of the worldwide dominance of strict Islamic Sharia.

The recent media buzz is about the Pentagon's Go Big, Go Long, Go Home options for Iraq. Go Big: an infusion of thousands more troops. Go Long, pare down troop levels but be prepared to stay in the region for years. Go Home, quit the fight completely. There are three options, for sure; win by staying on the offensive and jettisoning the politically correct war fighting strategy, withdraw from the battle and lose to fight a much larger war in the future, and partition of various Middle Eastern countries along tribal and religious lines.

The allies must know that to withdraw from the fight will lead to more horrendous bloodshed than can be imagined in the Middle East. The only decision, based upon events that have overtaken the original blueprint for peace and prosperity, is to ratchet up the effort and to announce beforehand that henceforth there will be no accommodation with those who seek to stall our offensive. The decision to leave Sadr free to raise his armed militia mirrors the decision to leave Fallujah alone until events forced the US to take the city. Now it's time for the US to take down Sadr, and if his Iranian supporters step in the decision to wipe out their nuclear enrichment facilities should swiftly follow. If the allies invaded Iraq to ensure no WMD technology fell into the hands of our enemies why on earth would they allow WMD programs to go forward in a country whose leader has publicly called for the annihilation of Israel? Did the West learn nothing from Hitler's public statements prior to his launching Blitzkrieg and the Final Solution?

The allies find themselves caught in the middle of impending sectarian warfare in Iraq, and this sectarian war could easily spread to other countries in the region. Why not make that threat a bargaining chip in dealing with moslem countries in the region? Why spare the fence-sitting Islamic states who want the allies to do their dirty work of deposing Saddam and disarming Iran but support the madrassas network that raises and nurtures Islamic terrorists by the tens of thousands? If the arab Middle East cannot or will not rein in their Islamic fundamentalists who wage war on the rest of humanity then why not explain to them in terms they will understand that the war will soon be on their soil? It goes without saying that given Al Zarqawi's success in sparking the Iraqi Sunni-Shiite killings one needn't be a rocket scientist to know that Al Qaeda has this planned for every country in the region.

The best policy for the allies now is to give our friends and enemies alike the clear message that the war against Islamofacism will go one of three ways according to their response to the crisis. One, it will go the way the allies originally hoped, with the introduction of political reform and freedom of thought, with the hot pursuit of those obstructing us including Sadr, Bashir Assad, and the Iranian-Hizbollah-Hamas theocrats if need be. Two, the sectarian war will spread throughout the region, with moslem murdering moslem on a grander scale than is the case in Iraq should the coalition decide to withdraw on a slow timetable. Three, partition of Iraq and the partition of several other countries in the region along ethnic, religious, and tribal lines. There certainly are options the coalition of the willing have once we ditch the politically-correct shackles we've allowed to subvert our policies. What remains to be seen is if our leaders have the will to choose those options.

Sen. Obama Ashamed of White Heritage?

The Clintons and their allies in the mainstream media are wasting no time installing Hillary as the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nominee. It's all but a done deal right now, listening to the compliant media spin the story. As detailed in my last editorial the Clinton political machine is sweeping away all opposition within Democratic ranks to their unchallenged supremacy in party affairs.

The Clinton-friendly media are now busy setting the public up for an alleged Hillary vs. Obama contest for the right to be the party's presidential nominee in 2008. Actually, the race has already been all but formalized and whatever else transpires --- short of a political earthquake --- we'll see Hillary Clinton as the nominee with Barack Obama the vice-presidential nominee on the ticket. This is not rocket science; Obama is useful as a counterweight to the possibility that Condoleezza Rice might end up on the Republican ticket in 2008. His meager record in national office leads one to assume that Sen. Obama's merely window dressing/eye candy for a party base willing to vote personalities instead of policy considerations.

Most troublesome for many people is the media's all-consuming zeal to portray Sen. Obama as an "authentic" black politician, as if the color of his skin has to pass press scrutiny. Can you think of any other black Democrat who has to establish his "blackness"? The recent Obama trip to Africa, his father's native continent, is a case in point. The media reported on his itinerary the way a presidential state visit is covered, loaded with gushing portrayals of the senator's "Africanness" via his father and paternal family. The Chicago Tribune published a special edition devoted to the African tour which all but coronated the freshman senator as political royalty, and one recent national publication deemed Obama as the most important Illinois politician since Abraham Lincoln, if you can believe it.

Barack Obama's father divorced his white mother when the senator was two years old. Little or nothing in the way of the boy's contact with his father after that is available in published accounts, although I believe I read one account which said the young man briefly visited his father once in Kenya. The young Obama, after his mother's remarriage to an Indonesian student, went to live with his white maternal grandparents during his formative years. Little or nothing has been written about the senator's white family, who raised and nurtured him to adulthood. Little wonder then that Democratic powerbrokers and the media are anxious to solidify Obama's "blackness" via his ties to his Kenyan origins, since from what biographical information is available points to his primary de facto "whiteness".

And this leads to the very point of this exercise: Why are Democrats, the media, and Obama himself so intent on hiding his white family from view? For the next two years as the media and Democrats portray Sen. Obama as the black political icon of their party will nothing of his whiteness be revealed to the general public? Will no Sunday edition fluff magazine spreads be printed --- replete with multiple photos of the senator and his white family at various stages of his life? The fact that no such photojournalism/newspaper/media accounts have been produced to date leads me to suspect the worst; namely, that the media is refusing to acknowledge that the American meltingpot has brought forth a black national political figure more white than he is black, at least as far as his formative environment is concerned. From birth to young adulthood Sen. Barack Obama's background by all appearances is middle-class white; from young adulthood and beyond he seems to have carefully crafted a black biographical profile. Again, as if one had to be crafted.

How does this play into the Clintons' machinations? In a nutshell, the moment Sen. Obama is perceived to be a real threat to Hillary's presidential candidacy the media will at once begin to detail the very same biographical sketch I have, with the attendant media "questions" that will suddenly surround Obama's authentic blackness. As long as he compliantly follows the script that the Clinton machine and the media have written for him Barack Obama will surely be the party's vice-presidential nominee in 2008. The minute he begins to believe that same media hype about his being a viable presidential candidate will be the minute his political star will dim, starting with the dismantling of his carefully crafted, one-sided biographical/racial background.

Senator Obama is the product of a black African father and a white American mother from Kansas. He is entitled to be proud of his heritage, as every human being is entitled to be proud of his or her own heritage. When one aspect of history is downplayed or devalued, however, it leads to the suspicion that political manipulation is manifest. The public has been reading and hearing a lot about the senator's African heritage; is there any reason for him and his handlers to believe he has anything to be ashamed about in his white American heritage?

Regarding Iraq, Mr. President

Before America invaded Iraq and ousted Saddam Hussein a freshman senator from New York stood on the Senate floor waving a copy of Newsday with large, bold headlines BUSH KNEW!, implying that you, Mr. President, had prior knowledge of the impending 9/11 attack and permitted it to take place. You should have known at that moment that the adage "politics stops at the water's edge" was no longer part of America's political rules. The tragic and shocking fact is that today in America the pursuit of political power --- in some quarters --- trumps all other considerations, including the safety and lives of our men and women in uniform as well as the citizens of this country.

How else does one explain that the rhetoric from both your political opponents and Al Qaeda is identical in nearly every respect? How else does one explain the reprehensible claims by your would-be political assassins that they were deliberately tricked into voting for the Iraq War? A principled political opposition would have admitted they were operating under the same assumptions and intelligence as were Republicans; a principled political opposition would have challenged the military strategy instead of ripping at the hearts of our troops by comparing them to the Waffen SS and seeking to undermine their morale by piping National Public Radio into their midst every single day.

Mr. President, you waited far too long to replace your White House press secretary. By the time you appointed the articulate Tony Snow the so-called mainstream media --- joined at the hip with the Democratic National Committee --- had eroded your support among the electorate. Millions of voters, waiting in vain for you to forcefully respond to your war critics, had already made up their minds to vote for Democrats by the time you finally decided to accurately describe "a vote for Democrats is a vote for Al Qaeda". And now, only days after the Democrats' election success, Al Qaeda is indeed trumpeting the election as their own great political and military victory.

This election year the increased insurgent attacks that resulted in the increased American military deaths, coordinated with increased mainstream media/DNC charges of your alleged failure in Iraq resulted in a perfect storm which swamped Republicans and now leave all of the world vulnerable to political surrender more dangerous than the one engineered by the Democrat/media capitulationists during the Vietnam War. You are the only one now capable of rallying your support at this juncture, Mr. President, and you should take every opportunity to contrast your courage in confronting Islamic extremism with the cut-and-run policies advocated by Democrats and wobbly Republicans.

You must take every opportunity afforded you to warn that once America withdraws from the fight against Islamic terrorists in Iraq and the Middle East the battleground will shift to Europe and that an America under the sway of isolationist, defeatist Democrats will not assist them in their survival. And it's absolutely necessary for you to point out that the media's strategy today that is designed to weaken and destroy American resolve is identical to the strategy employed during the Nixon years. Make no mistake, Mr. President; once your supporters have been demoralized your impeachment will be the next order of business for Democrats.

You are the spokesman for those of us here in America and around the world --- free and oppressed, of all faiths and persuasions --- who alone can use your bully pulpit to reverse the tide of defeat now surging against us here and abroad. Your supporters only await the same steadfast resolve you've shown in times of crisis; your critics in political circles, the media, and especially the terrorists, fear nothing more than an American president willing to espouse the reasons why we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq and why we will continue to wage this just and worthy war against those who would attack us due to our belief that the rights and freedoms of all individuals as embodied in our American constitution are God-given.

You must adopt the strategy of responding to every media-promoted attack against your policies within twelve hours, and you must be the one who steps forward to respond instead of leaving that task for others. Your physical presence must by necessity crowd the nightly news broadcasts in defense of your Iraq policy and other policies designed to make this a safer world. As an example, you might have shed your humility when North Korea relinquished and said it would return to the six-party talks by stepping to the White House podium and stating that this vindicated your Asian policy instead of allowing the media to ignore your foreign policy success.

You must contrast our willingness to fight against terrorism with the appeasers' unwillingness to confront evil. You must continue to highlight those who, against all evidence, contend that "dialogue" with our enemies and eventual surrender will somehow achieve a world at peace as the political and amoral heirs to Neville Chamberlain's failed policy of surrender to tyranny.

Finally, when congressional hearing are held on the decision to wage war in Iraq your Administration must demand sworn testimony from Democrats who shared in the decision-making process and see to it that each and every lie promulgated by Democrats and the media are exposed. America must be on offense against not only the terrorists but also against those who at every turn have enabled terrorists to succeed politically.

America and the world are hoping and praying that in our time of shared danger you will be the leader we believe you are. Our fate is in your hands, Mr. President; now more than ever.

Dear Mr. President

The election returns are in; Republicans have lost the majority in both the House and Senate for the first time in twelve years. Whatever previous reciprocal arrangements you may have had with Republican leaders in both houses of congress to stay out of each others' spheres of power are now null and void. If you are to salvage your legacy it is now up to you, and you alone, to seize that opportunity. It will do you no good to look for help from those who are now assuring you that if you only "go along" with the new majority's policies your place in history will be viewed in a positive light. Those are false voices, Mr. President.

Your party did not lose the 2006 election only because of the war in Iraq; Sen. Lieberman won re-election while so-called conservatives drafted by Democrats also won. Republicans lost, Mr. President, in large part through the refusal of many in the GOP, including you, to recognize how deeply the American people resent the invasion of illegal aliens that your administration has been so reluctant to prevent. It's true that illegal immigration is a sticky issue, but attempting to secure votes with a "path to citizenship" scheme was properly read by the majority of Americans as yet another blank check to be cashed in the future by non-citizens setting foot on our land in defiance of our law who will then demand "reform" which includes amnesty.

You can begin today to rebuild your party and your legacy by refusing to approve any congressional bill which would grant amnesty to illegal aliens. The massive, undocumented flow of people across our borders presents the most visible and immediate threat to national security; taking emergency steps to quell the invasion would assure the citizens of America that you're as committed to protecting the nation's security as you were on the day the World Trade Center was destroyed.

There is absolutely no defense for you to fall back on in allowing dozens upon dozens of hospitals and emergency rooms across America to close due to the financial holocaust forced upon them by the cost of treating people in this country illegally. These medical establishments no longer exist for the common good of your fellow citizens, Mr. President. You and others who have forced unfunded mandates upon the various states and local communities have no defense in allowing the status quo to continue. None, Mr. President.

While school districts beg for more funding your administration continues to burden them with the ruinous cost of educating the children of illegal immigrants. Those who advocate the same failed amnesty policies of your predecessors have no defense for telegraphing to other countries that they can solve their economic problems by dumping those problems onto the people of the United States; and you surely undermine the trust of those who voted you into office by ignoring a policy that tells them that children of illegal immigrants are due a free education at the taxpayers' expense. Wouldn't it be morally right and politically savvy for Republicans to advocate financial relief for our own citizens living in poverty while at the same time securing our borders against the ongoing invasion of those who have no right to be here?

Therefore, Mr. President, when immigration reform again becomes the issue of the day stand firm with the majority of Americans who demand that America's domestic and financial security be safeguarded. Refuse any immigration policy that is a real or perceived amnesty, for anything less will signal untold millions more outside our borders that the quickest path to citizenship and American largesse is by stepping over those patiently following our laws. Most galling to millions of us is seeing our government assisting the massive violation of our laws to the detriment of would-be immigrants patiently and lawfully following those same laws. The persistent problem of illegal immigration and the depth of America's feelings regarding the correct way to deal with it is something you cannot afford to misjudge again, Mr. President.