I don't know why I'm responding. You're obviously too bigoted and ignorant to understand. But here it goes, anyway.

People are the burden of the government in every society. If the people weren't a burden, there would be no need for government. This is generally referred to as Utopia. However, there will, unfortunately, always be people who feel that it is their due to damage other people's rights. There must be a final arbiter of whose rights are to be upheld, and it is the job of the government in any country, be it Republican, Socialist, Communist, or whatever, to be that arbiter. There would also be no need for government if there were no people at all. Government is indended to be a function of the people, for the people, by the people. This has been twisted in many societies to minimze who ``the people'' are, but this sort of corruption is still fairly minimal in the United States.

First, I think the indigenous peoples of this continent would disagree, to say the least, with your statement that the immigrants to their land weren't a threat. But you're right in that there is no reason to let anyone in who probably has a bomb. But basing whether or not he has a bomb on his ethnic origin is ridiculous. Examine the internment camps for US citizens during World War II. Did they prevent any spying? Perhaps, but at the cost of the freedom who had no intention of spying. Did it prevent any German spying? Assuredly not. Because they look just like ``we'' do, despite the fact that they were as ``evil'', if not more so, than the Japanese. If we had been attacked by a group of Swedes, would you suggest that we throw all Swedes out of the country? A determination of whether or not a person has a bomb should be come to by, well, determining whether they have a bomb. If this must be a search, then all people should be searched, not just the ones who some random official deems likely. At the same time, there's no reason (other than financial) why we shouldn't enforce visas more carefully.

To jump back, your statement that Islam is ``evil'' is outrageous. I'll leave it at that. If you're not interested enough in investigating your claims before you espouse them, there's no point in trying to teach you. Ashcroft's nomination was not objected to because he was Christian. It was objected to because his personal beliefs seemed to override the responsibility to performing his job duties, according to his political record. This becomes a bigger issue when your job is that of Attorney General, as it becomes your job to enforce the laws of the country, whether you believe in them or not. It is far from the duty of that office to determine what the laws mean, or to decide which ones are valid. In his defense (shudder), he seems to have mostly followed the doctrines of this country, up to this point. It was, apparently, GWB that decided to forego the lawsuit against Microsoft, for example. I still don't trust the man any farther than I could throw him, though.