Yes, this country has absorbed huge migrations of illiterate peasants in the past -- notably Italian immigrants at the turn of the last century. But also notably, half of them went back. We got the good ones. America was not yet a welfare state guaranteeing room and board to the luckless, the lazy and the incompetent from cradle to grave. -- Ann Coulter
An Exclusive Mini-Interview With Congressman Jack Kingston On Illegal Immigration
This afternoon, I did an exclusive mini-interview with Congressman Jack Kingston on illegal immigration. What you'll see below is an edited, partial transcript of our conversation. Enjoy!
John Hawkins: Do you think the House approach to illegal immigration is better or is the Senate's comprehensive approach better? I think that some conservatives are worried that if we don't do the House approach, which is security, interior and border, first, we'll get the amnesty but we won't get the security.
Jack Kingston: ...(We've) already passed the House bill and I support it, but...what I don't want to do is let the Senate off the hook by saying, "We can only do this partial loaf." I would like them to...pass the House bill, but I also think we gotta charge back down the court and get on the scoreboard again.
You saw yesterday that they're really not serious yet, when they passed a bill making English the official language and then passed another bill saying, "We didn't mean it."
John Hawkins: Related to that, do you think illegal aliens should (get credit) for money they paid into Social Security while they were illegal...?
Jack Kingston: If you're illegal, you shouldn't be here and you shouldn't be entitled to benefits for being here....The more attractive you make it for people to be here, the more they're going to come. So, you don't want to pay benefits. If they pay into Social Security and they don't get any out of it because they're illegal, I'd say that's good money for the system...You know, they're here illegally and I just don't think that people who are here illegally should have the same rights and privileges as people who waited in line to become a citizen.
John Hawkins: Let me ask you another question. This is something that has come up recently. If our laws remain unchanged, we would be on pace to add about 19 million legal immigrants to this country in the next 20 years. Over at the Heritage Foundation, they're estimating that the Senate bill as written would up that number to 66 million. Senator Jeff Sessions' staff told me yesterday that their numbers put it at about 73-93 million over the next 20 years. While we have almost universal agreement that legal immigration is good for America, do you think upping the number of legal immigrants that much is a good idea or do you think it would be better to stay at the level we're currently at?
Jack Kingston: ...I think holding down the number is more appropriate at this time because of the large influx of illegals we're having to deal with and offset.
John Hawkins: Do you think the bill that's in the Senate, right now, as is, is good for America?
Jack Kingston: The legislation that seems to be most identified (with what the Senate is doing) -- that does allow amnesty -- and I would say that is not a good approach.
...You haven't asked me about it, but we need to end birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship is ridiculous. Right now, if you're flying over America in an airplane, regardless of the origin of the plane, the destination, or the flag, you become an American citizen. I'm a co-sponsor of Nathan Deal's Bill that ends birthright citizenship.
John Hawkins: Let me ask you one more question. You may not be able to answer, but give it your best shot. What do you think is going to happen if and when we get a bad Senate bill through and it goes into committee with the House Bill?
Jack Kingston: The House will kill it.
John Hawkins: You think so? You don't think the House would let something that conservatives would be really upset with get through?
Jack Kingston: I don't think so. I think there is a lot of division in the House, but I think we would kill it. ...We don't want perfection to be the enemy of progress here because we didn't get into this situation overnight and we won't get out of it overnight....
John Hawkins: So you don't think amnesty will get through?
Jack Kingston: No, and I can tell you that there are about 180 House members (who've) drawn a pretty strong line in the sand on that.
Q&A Friday #40: If The Democrats Took Over, Could They Impeach Bush?
Question: "If, God forbid, the Republicans lose control of Congress in Nov, would Pres. Bush really be impeached?" -- Anna_Venger
Answer: If the Democrats took over, you can be almost 100% sure that they'd try to impeach Bush. They desperately want payback for Clinton and the lefty Kos crowd, which is in the final stages of Bush Derangement Syndrome, would absolutely demand impeachment.
Will it work? My gut instinct is that it wouldn't. The Dems would probably end up trying to impeach Bush for "lying" in Iraq or one the NSA programs and the GOP would, quite correctly, claim that the Dems were trying to impeach Bush for defending America. Even the most wishy-washy RINOs probably wouldn't go along with impeachment under those circumstances and there would be more than a few Democrats from red states who'd also be extremely difficult to push down that road.
Unless the Democrats can find an issue where a lot of Republicans agree with the Democrats that Bush has committed an impeachable offense, something like Watergate, it seems unlikely that the Dems could pull off an impeachment. As of yet, no such issue seems to exist.
Q&A Friday #40: Why Has Illegal Immigration Become Such A Hot Issue?
Last night, via email, I spoke to Jon Henke from QandO and he wanted to know what I thought about a piece he wrote for Tech Central Station called Immigration's Fifteen Minutes: Why Now?. So, in the spirit of Q&A Friday, I thought I'd do a post answering the main question of the column.
Here's an excerpt from Henke's work that I think gives you the general thrust of the piece:
So why this, why now? Why has an army of restrictionists spontaneously arisen demanding more government when the previous immigration paradigm was, perhaps flawed, but not exactly destroying the country?
Maybe it's simply angst about threats to our "way of life". The influx and dispersion into almost every community of people who appear somehow different, whose language is unfamiliar and whose national and ideological loyalties are in question is...unsettling. Conservative America feels threatened, has reached a boiling point, and has allowed itself to admit it.
...The economic arguments are understandable from the standpoint of some laborers, but many studies indicate that the wage effect is relatively minor even for low-income workers and a net positive for the overall economy.
...That leaves the security issue, which -- considering how consistently the restrictionists are applying it to the Canadian and Coastal borders -- mostly appears to be a red herring.
To begin with, this issue didn't spring to life spontaneously, like Athena from the head of Zeus. It has been building for a long time. For example, back on November 9, 2004, I wrote:
But if you Republicans in Washington want to keep the base happy through 2006, three things are going to have to change.
1) You're going to have to get spending under control.
2) You need to stop increasing the size of government.
3) You better get a handle on illegal immigration.
Incidentally, none of those 3 things have happened; hence, an approval rating for Bush in the low thirties and a rating for Republicans in Congress that has been hovering in the mid-to-low twenties.
Initially, I think the illegal immigration issue was driven by the fact that Americans place a very high value on assimilation and, unfortunately, the illegals who are coming here very noticeably aren't assimilating. When you dial into a business, and it says, "Press 1 for Spanish and 2 for English," that's an indication that we have a problem. When you drive down one of the busiest roads in a city like Charlotte, which is far from the borders, and you see multiple businesses that have up signage that is entirely in Spanish, that's an indication of a problem. When you hear about hospitals going out of business because so many illegals are pouring over the borders and not paying their bills, that's an indication of a problem. It's an indication that instead of our changing the people that are coming here, they're changing us, and that's a bad thing.
Furthermore, let me add that I disagree with Henke's assertion that illegal immigrants are a net positive for the overall economy and that the security issue is a "red herring."
The security issue, in particular, is grating because of the way we've handled the airports and the ports. In this country, we have incredibly intrusive security procedures that Americans have to go through to get on an airplane. When it looked like a company from the UAE was going to take over our ports, Americans flew off the handle. Meanwhile, we could have terrorists pouring over either of our borders right now and we'd have no idea it was going on. Even before 9/11, we should have had adequate security on our borders to stop the illegal aliens and drug runners. But after 9/11, leaving our borders unguarded seems particularly foolish.
But, that's not the whole of it. Backtracking a bit, you have to consider the fact that many Americans have been gravely disappointed, for one reason or another, in the performance of the Bush administration since 9/11. Iraq has gone much better than the media has given Bush credit for, but it still hasn't gone as well as everyone hoped it would at first. Gas prices have been high and then there was the Bush administration's Katrina response (I think they got a raw deal, but still...). We also can't forget the pork barrel spending, the Dubai Ports Deal, and Harriet Miers. What it all comes down to is that a lot of Americans, Republicans included, have simply lost confidence in George Bush's judgement, especially on domestic issues. Moreover, because Bush has made some incredibly amateurish political errors that have rubbed conservatives the wrong way, particularly on the Harriet Miers nomination and the Dubai Ports Deal, Republicans have become much more willing to speak up when they don't agree with him. Because of this, the political climate was getting poisonous even before the illegal immigration debate became a hot issue.
But then came the illegal immigration debate and look at how things have played out:
-- Mexico has been arrogantly & loudly protesting any and all security measures we're taking on our own borders. It's as if they look at us as their own personal employment agency and feel that we have no right to control who enters our country.
-- The illegal aliens themselves have also exacerbated the situation. Remember, we're talking about people who have no right to be in this country at all and are supposed to be deported if they're caught. Yet, hundreds of thousands of them were out in the streets, waving foreign flags, chanting in Spanish, and demanding the right to be treated as if they're above the law.
-- Then, worst of all, George Bush and the Senate have behaved with the sort of arrogance that one normally associates with 18th century French noblemen. Not only have they insulted ordinary Americans by calling them lazy ("jobs Americans won't do"), some of them have called Americans nativists, racists, & vigilantes simply for having the audacity to suggest that we actually enforce the laws that are already on the books.
On top of all that, not only have the pols in the Senate and Bush largely ignored what Americans say that they want on illegal immigration (A security first crackdown on illegals), they've come up with a program that is, in many ways, even worse than anything people could have imagined a year ago (citizenship for illegals, staggering increases in legal immigration, a guest worker program, giving illegal aliens social security) with no real assurances that the border will be secured.
The real surprise isn't that this has become such a huge issue, it's that so many clueless Republicans in Washington don't seem to understand how huge of an issue this has actually become.
Q&A Friday #40: The Difference Between Blogging For Fun And Blogging For Profit
Question: What's the difference between a casual blog for fun and a blog as a business? How does a blogger focus on business rather than simply a casual effort?" -- Christopher_Taylor
Answer: I'm toying with the idea of writing a more detailed post about this, but here are 4 of the basic concepts:
Would you run a business that way? If you ran your own restaurant, you wouldn't just decide not to show up some days, would you? You wouldn't decide that, "We're not going to clean the tables because we don't feel like it," right? Well, if you look at blogging as a business, you don't just arbitrarily decide not to post anything today or not show up for a few days. You consistently provide people with the level of service they've come to expect.
Maximize your ad space: You need to think in terms of putting as much ad space as possible, in as many high profile spots as possible, without seriously annoying your readers.
How many bloggers only have one column? How many don't have banner ads? How many have no premium ad slots with Blogads? How many bloggers put trivial things higher up on their page than ads? A lot. Those are mistakes that may cost them a lot of money.
How do you stack up to your competitors? If you look at the "A-List" blogs out there, could you fairly be said to be in their league? Is your content as good? Do you post as often? The standard is set by the people at the head of the pack and you have to make sure that you can keep up.
Work To Draw In New Customers: If a business isn't getting enough customers, then they do promotions, giveaways, and sales to get people to beat feet into their store. In the blogosphere, think of the equivalent to that as doing splashy articles that will help draw extra attention to a blog. So why aren't we seeing more interviews in the blogosphere? Why don't more people write 2,000 word, heavily researched documents? Remember Eject!Eject!Eject!? Here was a guy who built up traffic by doing almost nothing but semi-regularly pumping out long, well written editorials. Why aren't other people trying that? Why not try new formats? If doing the, "same old, same old," isn't bringing in enough customers, try something different.
Update #1: Tammy's show is always a blast and this time was no different. We talked illegal immigration for 10 minutes and it seemed like it went really well.
Question: "I haven't heard anyone else, anywhere, bring this point up, so here goes:
If an illegal immigrant uses a forged Social Security Card to get a job, the number on the card receives the tax money that the employer is legally obligated to send, right? So, if that SS number is fake, who gets the money? Is there a growing pool of unclaimable money building up in the SS system even as we speak?" -- Good_Ol_Boy
Answer: First of all, keep in mind that none of the money received for Social Security is put in a "lockbox" or account. It's immediately spent just like all the other money that comes in. When companies send in money from illegals using bad social security numbers, it's just added to the overall till. In 2002, about 1.5% of the money coming in for Social Security couldn't be properly matched up to who actually paid it. Some of those funds are undoubtedly coming from American citizens, but a majority of that amount is probably coming from illegals.
Since these illegals have used fake numbers, maybe even multiple fake numbers, and even real numbers that belong to other people, it's going to be incredibly difficult to untangle the mess and figure how much they've really contributed, if anything, to Social Security.
This move, like a lot of others the Senate has made while working on this amnesty bill, puts the welfare of illegal immigrants above that of the American people.
Q&A Friday #40: Are Americans Excited About The World Cup?
Question: "The football (that's Soccer to most readers here) world cup will kick off in 4 weeks time. The USA have a fairly good team and have a good chance of doing well. (Quarter finals at least) Does anyone in the US (except Latinos and expat Europeans) actually give a toss?" -- Simon_Begg
Answer: Oh, yeah, a lot of people are excited about the World Cup. In fact, it's such a big deal that I hear that the ESPN Alternate 2 channel is about to drop semi-regional ping pong tournament finals being held at the Boise, Idaho YMCA just to show the World Cup.
Also, there are people with insomnia who'll get the best night's sleep they've gotten in months as they nod off as Angola and Togo play to a thrilling 0-0 tie.
Otherwise, I'm not sure that most Americans are ready for a sport like soccer that features all the excitement of a well played game of checkers and all the strategy that we've come to expect from a game of freeze tag.
Q&A Friday #40: How Much Responsibility Does Jimmy Carter Bear For What's Happening In The Middle-East?
Question: "Did the way Jimmy Carter handled the Iranian hostage situation have any influence on the events that are happening today in the Mid East?" -- jcl
Answer: Maybe a small part. His decision to stand by while an American ally, the Shah of Iran, was overthrown by Islamofasicsts had a bigger impact.
If what you're driving at is, "Why does Al-Qaeda think they can take us on," the reason is simply that they think the West is weak and decadent and they may be able to defeat us. By the way, weaklings like Jimmy Carter have certainly contributed to that perception.
We may have the money and the military, but the terrorists believe that their ruthlessness and superior willpower can win out over time and allow them to gain in strength until, eventually, perhaps decades from now, they can defeat us outright. Defeating them requires disabusing them of that notion, preferably by making them dead.
On the other hand, if you're talking about Iran specifically, I think they view the current crisis as a win/win/win situation.
#1) Their own people want democracy and may revolt and overthrow the government. Could be sooner, could be later. But, an American or Israeli attack would probably make the people more nationalistic and strengthen their hand.
#2) If there is no attack and Iran gets nukes, their situation gets stronger. They may use nuclear blackmail. They may invade other countries and use their nukes to keep the West off of their back. Also, as an added bonus, most foreign policy experts across the world tend to be stability fetishists. You add oil and nukes into the mix and many of the nations that might like to see the current Iranian government overthrown today might be less likely to support a revolution because they'll be afraid of those weapons getting into the wrong hands.
#3) In the interim, whatever happens, all this talk about bombing Iran is driving the price of crude oil higher and increasing the amount of money flowing into Iran's pocket (Incidentally, I wonder if that's why Hugo Chavez keeps flapping his big yap so much).
Did a Jimmy Carter play a big role in how this has played out? Well, if it wasn't for him, the Shah's son might be ruling the country today instead of the nutjobs who are currently in power. At a minimum, Carter bears that much responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in today.
So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective; heck, it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV. Then, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.
Why Enforcing Our Immigration Laws Will Largely Be Irrelevant If The Senate Gets Their Way
Most of you have heard about the incredible number of immigrants the Senate bill was orginally going to allow into the United States. By some counts, the Senate Bill would have had the potential to bring in 217 million new immigrants over 20 years time.
That being said, we're still not out of the woods yet. I called Jeff Sessions' office today and spoke with one of his people, Cindy Hayden.
She told me that the Senate Bill, as written today, will allow 73-93 million immigrants to become US citizens over the next twenty years. How big of an increase is that? Well, she told me that under the current laws, 18.9 million immigrants would be allowed to become US citizens. So, we're talking about an increase in immigration of roughly 55-75 million immigrants over the next 20 years.
If that's the case, then building a wall and increasing the border patrol is pointless, at least as it relates to illegal immigration -- because we'll be bringing in considerably more immigrants legally than are making it across the border illegally today.
In other words, it doesn't matter how many enforcement provisions are put into the bill -- if you legalize a flow of immigrants that is much, much larger than the number of illegals that are already coming in. It's like putting a lock on your door to keep people out -- then knocking out a wall of your house and putting a sign on the roof that says, "Come on in."
Having this sort of massive increase in legal immigration dramatically undercuts the entire purpose of the bill, which sadly, is probably the point.
Update #1: From the comments section:
"I thought your major concerns, John, were security and obedience to the law?
Are you actually more concerned with simply the changing face of America with an influx of respectful legal Hispanics?" -- economicliberty
My major concerns with illegal immigration are "security and obedience to the law," but legal immigration at the levels proposed in the Senate bill, wherever it came from, would be terrible for America.
We can't properly assimilate the much smaller flow of immigrants, illegal and legal, that we have coming in now, hence the much despised, "Press 1 for Spanish and 2 for English," prompts that have started cropping up everywhere. So, what makes anyone think we can assimilate 95 million new immigrants in the next 20 years? If anything, given that our immigration system is barely functional as it is, we should be seriously considering lowering the numbers of immigrants coming into our country until we can get a handle on the situation.
Moreover, although legal immigrants are currently a boon to this country, that wouldn't be the case if immigration rose to the levels the Senate wants. You think conservatism in this country would be helped if we added 75-95 million people from mostly socialist countries to our population over a 20 year time period? Do you think the deficit will go up or down if we add, let's say, another 20-30 million plus people onto food stamps and welfare rolls? What happens when there is an economic downturn and the unemployment rate explodes, in part because there are so many immigrants competing with Americans for jobs? Will we have violence, riots, and car burnings like they have in France? It's entirely possible.
What it all comes down to is that this country just cannot absorb 4-5 times the number of legal immigrants that are already coming in without massive upheaval, hardship, and strife -- and the American people know that. If a stand alone proposal came up to even double the number of legal immigrants coming to this country, the American people would reject it in a landslide. Yet, the Senate is proposing a change that is much more radical and harmful to this country.
If they want to make the case that adding 73-93 million immigrants is a good idea, then why not 200 million? Why not 500 million? At some point, even the most ardent open borders supporters will say, "It would be bad for America if we brought in that many immigrants in such a small time period. That's too many." I'm saying the same thing right now when I look at the increases in the Senate bill: "That's too many."
Update #2: These results are from a Zogby Poll that came out earlier this month:
"On immigration generally, Americans want less, not more, immigration. Only 26 percent said immigrants were assimilating fine and that immigration should continue at current levels, compared to 67 percent who said immigration should be reduced so we can assimilate those already here."
Given those numbers, I wonder what percentage of Americans would actually favor a 4-5 fold increase in the amount of legal immigration we have in this country? Is it possible that the numbers could reach into single digits? Someone should poll on that questiom.
It features Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos leading a gaggle of liberals into Lamont's living room. What's it like? Here's Jim Geraghty's spot-on description:
"It seems to me to be a form of a Public Service Announcement, warning that if you run against a hawkish Democrat, Markos Moulitsas and his Daily Kos band will break into your house and surround you with a creepy, not-quite-right enthusiasm.
Notice that the screen grab that they feature on his web page displays Kos himself, staring through the window like a stalker."
Also, make sure to catch Allah's take over at Hot Air.
We Don't Want To Impeach Bush! Double Pinky Swear!
The focus group data on impeachment must be really bad, because one of the biggest advocates of impeachment in the House, John Conyers, has written a weaselly column that tries to convince people that the Democrats aren't going to push impeachment at every opportunity if they get back into power. Here's a sample:
"As Republicans have become increasingly nervous about whether they will be able to maintain control of the House in the midterm elections, they have resorted to the straw-man strategy of identifying a parade of horrors to come if Democrats gain the majority. Among these is the assertion that I, as the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.
...(R)ather than seeking impeachment, I have chosen to propose comprehensive oversight of these alleged abuses. The oversight I have suggested would be performed by a select committee made up equally of Democrats and Republicans and chosen by the House speaker and the minority leader.
The committee's job would be to obtain answers -- finally. At the end of the process, if -- and only if -- the select committee, acting on a bipartisan basis, finds evidence of potentially impeachable offenses, it would forward that information to the Judiciary Committee."
What he really means here is that they won't start the impeachment hearings the moment they get into power. Instead, they'll do some partisan investigations first -- and then trump up whatever charges they think have the best chance of succeeding.
After all, it's not as if Conyers has been making any secret of his desire to impeach Bush.
Remember the bizarre "mock impeachment inquiry over the Iraq war" that Conyers presided over last year?
Then there was the time back in 2003 when John Conyers put together "two-dozen prominent liberal attorneys and legal scholars on Tuesday to mull over articles of impeachment drafted against President Bush by activists seeking to block military action against Saddam Hussein."
But, here's the funniest one, folks. If you look at the cached version of Conyers' website, he openly mentions impeaching Bush:
But, now that the heat is on and the Democrats have decided that it's bad politics to talk about impeachment, here's what the same page looks like today:
These guys are so duplicitous. Liberals have been chomping at the bit to impeach Bush for years and if they get the opportunity, they'll do it -- if only so that they can try to get payback for Clinton. So why can't Conyers, Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrats stop trying to hide their agenda and admit that they'll try to impeach the President if they get back into power? It's a central part of what they want to do if they get Congress back and since that's the case and everyone who follows politics on the left and right knows it, they should have the guts, for once, to tell the American people the truth.
It seems the Democratic netroots community has finally won an enormous victory and America will never be the same again! From Chris Bowers over at MyDD:
Today, in just three divisions (precincts) available to me, Kevin and I pulled over 100 votes. With only 27-01, 27-02, and 27-23 reporting, we have reached roughly 110 votes. And that is only three divisions (precincts). We won, and we won huge. We accomplished exactly what I had hoped--win the election in our home precincts, with all outside assistance as frosting / margin for error. It is over. We won. I feel like crying. I honestly cannot believe this happened. I accepted Kevin's offer to run less than eight days ago. I will now serve on the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee. The city, the state, and the nation will change as a result. I promise everyone that.
The "city, the state, and the nation will change as a result" of his victory? Really? Pray tell, how is he going to accomplish that? After a bit of scouting around, I found the Bowers agenda, the one that will change this country forever:
I believe that in the event I am elected to state Democratic committee, I can bring a lot to the table to help both the Pennsylvania State Party and the progressive reform movement. If I am on the Pennsylvania state committee, I believe that no other state party committee in the nation would possess greater knowledge about the nature of online political activity. I could bring valuable insight and skills on how to build a strong local blog scene to transform local media, and how to tap into the deep well of political activism that is the netroots. At the same time, I believe I can serve as a truly progressive voice within what strikes me as the generally conservative Pennsylvania Democratic Party. I could also push for important reforms such as greater intra-party democracy, challenging every Republican held office in the state, and fewer party endorsements in primaries. Overall, I think I would serve as a vital link between the established state party and the newly energized progressive reform movement. I believe that both groups can be changed, both groups can be strengthened, and that ultimately both groups are better off when they can work together in a sustainable progressive ecosystem.
Translation of that mush: he's going to suggest that all the Democratic politicos in PA be more liberal, read the Daily KOS, and he'll try to convince them to sink resources into races that the Dems can't possibly win in an attempt to emulate Howard Dean's silly "50 state strategy."
Well, with brilliant plans like that, it's no wonder that he suspected the "darker forces" tried to rig the voting machines to stop him:
Let this also be a lesson to any Democratic establishment that does not care about making every vote count. At around 8:30 am today, I was ready to declare massive voter fraud in my campaign, because both of the machines in my district were not allowing write-in votes. Worried that darker forces had tried to keep Kevin and I from taking office by screwing with our machines, I spent much of the morning on the phone with the board of elections and with committee people in other divisions (precincts) in our ward. Eventually, it became apparent to me that the voting machine problems I was experiencing were not he result of foul play, but instead the result of an apathetic and incompetent election system in Philadelphia that really did not give a rat's *ss whether. everyone had the right to vote or not.
I'm sure that right now there's a Republican operative sitting in a dark office somewhere, twirling a long black mustache, and saying, "Curses! Our sinister plan has been foiled again and now that young house of fire, Chris Bowers, will get on the Democratic State Committee and change the "city, the state, and the nation...as a result."...snicker.
Well, whatever the case may be, it would be ungracious not to congratulate Bowers on his victory. So, here's to you, Chris! Let's hope that you and lots of other liberal bloggers get into positions of power in the Democratic party, preferably ones that allow all of you to get lots and lots of mike time in front of the general public -- so that you can "educate them" about impeachment, gay marriage, surrendering to terrorism in Iraq and other issues near and dear to the hearts of liberals.
Quote Of The Day #2: Noonan On The White House Problem With The Base
"I continue to believe the administration's problem is not that the base lately doesn't like it, but that the White House has decided it actually doesn't like the base. That's a worse problem. It's hard to fire a base. Hard to get a new one." -- Peggy Noonan
I know they'll say they're just trying to make it easier for closeted gay teens to come out, to feel that they're not alone. But I hope they understand it does tend to look a lot like recruiting.
Maybe it's just semantics. I guess there's no way to tell a gay kid "it's okay to be gay" without also "recruiting" him into being gay. Same thing, just different words for it.
But... still.
And this particular case is just plain creepy. The teachers' weren't just seeking to allow gay kids more confidence in coming out; they seemed to be agitating for full-on homosexual experimentation, just to see if the kids dug on it.
A lot of our media seems like they really want to be DNC communications officials, and a lot of our teachers seem to want to really be sexual advocates. I wish they would drop the jobs they don't really want and move into the jobs that they really do want.
(Hawkins' Note: The follow-up questions Ace listed above were, of course, a joke. But in reality, some of the ones they actually asked may have been worse:
Some of the questions apparently were intended to make heterosexuals understand what it's like to be gay or lesbian. Those questions included: "What do you think caused your heterosexuality?" and "When did you decide you were heterosexual?"
The teachers who gave this survey to those high school kids deserve to be fired.)
Bush has also apparently learned that the word "amnesty" does not poll well. On Monday night, he angrily denounced the idea of amnesty just before proposing his own amnesty program. The difference between Bush's amnesty program and "amnesty" is: He'd give amnesty only to people who have been breaking our laws for many years -- not just a few months. (It's the same program that allows Teddy Kennedy to stay in the Senate.)
Bush calls this the "rational middle ground" because it recognizes the difference between "an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and someone who has worked here for many years." Yes, the difference is: One of them has been breaking the law longer. If our criminal justice system used that logic, a single murder would get you the death penalty, while serial killers would get probation.
Bush claimed the only other alternative -- I assume this is the "irrational extreme" -- is "a program of mass deportation." Really? Is the only alternative to legalizing tax cheats "a program of mass arrest of tax cheats"? -- Ann Coulter
Quote Of The Day: Limbaugh On How Big The Illegal Immigration Issue Has Gotten
"I'll tell you what, this issue is causing more divisions in the Republican Party than any issue that I can recall in a long time, including the Dubai Ports deal. I can't recall an issue. I've been doing this for 18 years. It will be 18 years in August, a big anniversary coming up. I can't remember. I'm trying to think. There have been some, but I can't think of any single issue which has Republicans, slash, conservatives more up in arms than this one -- and particularly with the apparent lack of response at the highest levels of government, House, Senate, White House.
The House Bank was a big deal, and the House Post Office, and some of those corruption scandals that existed back in the late eighties and early nineties, but this is incredible." -- Rush Limbaugh
Do Republicans in Washington really believe they can pass a bill that's perceived as being soft on illegal immigration and not face an absolute bloodletting at the polls in November? If so, boy are they mistaken.
In 2004, the Democrats hammered away relentlessly at George Bush because the country lost jobs after the economic downturn caused the recession and 9/11. Another hot issue that had people all up in arms was companies moving overseas. Remember Kerry's comments about "Benedict Arnold" companies?
Then there was outsourcing. So let me get this straight: outsourcing jobs to foreign countries is supposed to be a bad thing -- at least that seemed to be the general consensus among politicians. But, bringing foreigners into the United States, where they fill up our prisons, hospital emergency rooms, and schools while American taxpayers pick up the tab is supposed to be a good idea? Although I can see how someone who supports outsourcing could be against a guest worker program, it's hard to see how someone who opposes outsourcing could be for a guest worker progam.
Anyway, the general idea is that politicians pay a lot of lip service to how important jobs are in this country.
Yet now, in 2006, we have RINOS, liberals, & The President who are all openly advocating taking away jobs from Americans, mostly poor Americans, so they can be given to foreigners via a guest worker program.
"Seldom do California's liberal Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer and Alabama's conservative Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions agree on anything. But they joined Tuesday in a failed attempt to kill the guest worker provision of the Senate's broad overhaul of U.S. immigration law, calling it a threat to U.S. workers.
Their 69-28 defeat -- one of a sequence of amendment battles that backers of the Senate bill won handily -- demonstrated a powerful momentum behind the underlying legislation. Senators on both sides said President Bush's push for the bill in a prime-time speech Monday night, in which he called for National Guard troops at the Mexican border, had aided its prospects.
...The emotional Senate debate Tuesday threw a spotlight on the deep fractures the immigration issue opens in both parties, the strange and fragile alliances it forges and the conundrums posed by any attempt to control the flow of human beings over national boundaries.
Those alliances included the call by Boxer and Sessions to kill a proposed guest worker program that would provide temporary visas for future immigrants with jobs in the United States.
"There are 3.6 million workers in construction with an average wage of $18.21," Boxer said. "I meet with my working people in California. They're fighting hard for these jobs, they want more of these jobs, not less of these jobs, and the last thing they want is a guest worker program that is going to provide a big pool of workers who will get far less than this amount and take jobs away from my people."
"There is nothing temporary about this guest worker program," agreed Sessions, saying the bill offers new migrants -- as well as most of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country -- a path to citizenship, leading to extraordinary new numbers of blue-collar migrants.
...Feinstein and Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., prevailed 79-18 on an amendment to reduce the number of low-skill guest worker visas from 325,000 a year to 200,000 and to remove an automatic escalator that would have increased the low-skill visas by 20 percent each year that the ceiling was reached"
So jobs paying $18.21 an hour are now supposed to be some of those infamous "job Americans won't do?" Isn't the real truth that companies really don't want to pay those wages and would rather bring illegals in so they can pay them less money than they would have to pay Americans?
Of course, this is a gross oversimplification because of the way the market works, but if we bring in 200,000 guest workers for 10 years, isn't the message that we're sending, "We believe American citizens don't need those 2 million jobs?"
The truth is that we don't need a guest worker program or the illegal aliens that are here now and the country as a whole would be better off without them. Keep in mind that we're talking about mostly uneducated people who do manual labor for relatively low wages and therefore, as they become citizens, they'll start to use up much more in government services than they contribute back to the economy. Incidentally, illegals are already a net drain on the economy, it'll just get considerably worse if and when they become Americans.
So since we've already got plenty of poor people in this country, why do we need to import more poverty? Moreover, why do we want to bring in hordes of new people who are actually going to make life harder for poor Americans by competing with them for jobs and driving down their wages? Heck, why should we be willing to expand the deficit by tens of billions of dollars every year in government service payouts just to provide cheap labor for crooked businesses and more votes for the Democrats?
A guest worker program is a bad idea, but a guest worker program with a path to citizenship would be much worse. Let's hope that if a bill gets out of the Senate, the House will stand firm against a guest worker program.
Today, I received an email from someone named Tony Sloane. Here's the email in its entirety.
The time is coming when the poorer class will rise up to take what they rightfully desearve. Places like Wal-mart, IBM, sprint as well as credit agencies that take advantage of the lower class will feel the brunt of the lower classes anger..
This country has turned its citizens into economic slaves and modern day serfs. The poor outnumber the rich by the millions if something is not done to curb the greed that has infested this country then they will fight back.
My generation has had enough. Myself and many others are at the point to pick up arms to bring justice and true equality to the people.
I suggest that many corporations and government agancies take a serious look at their citizens. Lower economic class citizens have been complacent for a long time entertained by television and mass media but no more. The french elite did not believe it would happen but it did. All it will take is a catalyst right now the cauldron is bubbling and is ready to boil over.
We have taken advantage of the poor by using our laws to strip them of any economic power. Our banks slam lower class citizens with fees since they cant effectively fight back. Companies are finding ways to avoid benefits and hire foreign labor; which is in essence looking for the most desperate worker they can so they can pay them the least. This letter should be a sign to many. I am not young or unsuccessful but I would take up arms and stand side to side to give this country to its rightful owners; the people. Corporations, credit agencies, and the wealthy will no longer hold sway over so many. Its over for them, their beliefs and everything they stand for.
Justice and freedom from the economic stranglehold of the wealthy is coming......soon.
Hey Tony, baby, comrade, you forgot to add, "Viva la communism!" at the end of your unhinged rant. Now normally, that probably wouldn't be necessary for you because if people could see you in person, they'd notice your trendy Che shirt and the copy of Mao's Little Red Book under your arm.
But, this is the internet and since you didn't send a pic...hey, wait a second, Robespierre, how can you afford to be on the internet if you're so poor and exploited? I mean, if you can afford a computer and an internet connection, you're probably not Jean Valjean, stealing loaves of bread to feed your family. Oh wait, I forgot, Tony says he's not "unsuccessful." But, how could that have happened in mean, old, unfair America?
Furthermore, does the reference to the French Revolution really make sense? As we've found out since then, the French just really enjoy rioting. Look the Muslim mini-intifada against the dreaded European automobile and the French college kids throwing a fit in the streets because they want jobs for life. Do you know what it means when France is a seething caldron of rage and there are riots and protests in the street? It means that it's Friday or Saturday or Thursday. When it comes to the French, every day is a good day to protest.
May I add that you should save these, "Revolution are near," emails for when times are really bad? The economy has been surging since 2003 and the unemployment rate is 4.7%. So, if poor people are heading to Wal-Mart or Sprint, it's going to be with a checkbook, not torches and pitchforks.
So, Tony, give up this shtick or, better yet, move to one of these fantastic countries where they've already had the, "big revolution," like Cuba. I'm sure they're much more compassionate and caring there and they'll be happy to share their mud soup with you while everyone prays for Fidel to finally keel over. Then maybe you'll be spared having to "take up arms" against your own country, you kook.
I've been meaning to talk about network neutrality since it's a complex, yet important topic, that's starting to percolate through Congress. The thing that spurred me to go ahead and put finger to keyboard about it was the anti-net neutrality ad I'm now running that is -- let me be completely frank -- breathtakingly misleading. So, I thought this would be a good opportunity to...OK, let's go back to the ad for a moment.
They don't lie, per se, in the ad. But, when they say "Don't regulate the internet," they're being more than a little dishonest. What they really want is for Congress to regulate the internet in a way that favors them.
In the ad, they also rail against "big corporations" like Google and Microsoft. But, who are the biggest opponents of net neutrality? Other big corporations like Verizon and AT&T.
Then there's the fact that they imply net neutrality is something new, when it's actually the status quo on the internet right now...but, I figure that if I've run ads for the UN, I can run ads for these guys.
Back to the main topic: net neutrality. What is net neutrality? Breaking it down to its most basic form, it's the idea that these big companies that own the backbone the internet runs over have to treat everyone coming over their pipes the same.
This is not a simple subject. In fact, it's only slightly less morally ambiguous than Pakistan and India's conflict over Kashmir, but, let me try to explain it in a way that I hope will make it easy to understand.
Imagine you have a city and a big corporation (We'll call them Corporation X) builds a plant 30 miles outside of town. Well, Corporation X needs a way for their employees, customers, and suppliers to get to their plant, so, at great expense, they build a highway that runs from the city to their plant.
However, some problems crop up. Other people and companies that didn't contribute a plugged nickel to the highway start using it and start clogging up the lanes. So some of Corporation X's employees arrive late to work because of the traffic and some of their customers dump them to go to competing businesses that are also using their highway. After seeing what has happened, Corporation X gets angry about the unfairness of it all. How can it be that they built this highway, but their competitors are benefitting from it as much as they are? How can it be that their employees, customers, and suppliers aren't given preference on their own highway?
Incidentally, folks, if you think of the highway as the internet, that's where we are right now. So, let's go to Part 2 of our tale, where we get into "highway neutrality."
After getting aggravated with the situation on their road, Corporation X goes to the city government and says, "Look, we've spent a lot of money building this road and we're spending even more money to maintain it. We're even planning to eventually build a super highway in the same spot. But, we think the current situation is unfair and we want you to give us control over the road we've built so we can gain more profit from it. We're the ones going to the trouble and expense of building this road -- so we deserve to benefit more from our labor."
But then, someone else stands up and says, "Woah, woah, woah! Things have worked out pretty well so far for Corporation X and everyone else. If we give them the right to control traffic on the road, they might put up a toll booth and it could cost everyone more money. They might even refuse to allow their competitors to use the road at all or force all the traffic that doesn't pay them an exorbitant fee into the slow lane! That's why we should make sure things stay as they are."
That's where we are today with network neutrality and as you can see, there are no easy answers.
Remember when I said the pro-net-neutrality ad was "breathtakingly misleading?" Well, it is. But, that doesn't mean the big phone companies that are against network neutrality don't have a point. They are the ones sinking vast fortunes into the internet and it's easy to see why they'd be angry that their smaller competitors are then able to turn right around and use the network they just built to take their business.
On the other hand, if net neutrality ceases to become the standard operating procedure on the net, it would be a big change that could have an enormous negative impact on consumers. Small ISPs, VOIP phone services like Vontage, and even big websites could really get hurt by this or possibly even put out business. It could also cause costs for consumers in certain areas to go up considerably.
So this is an important issue, but it's also a hard subject for people to understand. There's a lot of spin going on, and quite frankly, I suspect that more than a few legislators in Congress are making their decisions on this issue solely based on where their campaign contributions are coming from -- rather than out of concern for what's best for the general public. On the upside, at least there are a lot of real heavyweights on both sides so that the Congressmen being "persuaded" by contributions from Verizon and AT&T can be matched by the Congressmen being "persuaded" by contributions from Google and Microsoft.
Personally? I believe that if net neutrality goes away, the potential is there for these big telcos to monopolize the market in certain areas and greatly reduce the competition on the net that has benefitted the American people tremendously. Certainly, reasonable people may disagree, but you can definitely put me down in the pro-net neutrality column.
Update #1: I changed a typo in the original. I wrote that corporations like Verizon and AT&T were the biggest "supporters" of net neutrality when I actually meant to say biggest "opponents."
Update #2: If you want to see what would happen if net-neutrality goes the way of the dodo, look at these comments:
Although the lobbying battle has been going on for more than a year, two of the Baby Bells inadvertently touched off an uproar in Washington during the fall with public comments that enraged their opponents and outraged many lawmakers and regulators. In press interviews, senior executives of both AT&T and BellSouth suggested the idea of charging Google, Yahoo, Vonage and Apple fees for carrying their bandwidth-intensive video or music services.
In a widely circulated Business Week story, for instance, AT&T Chairman Edward Whitacre complained that Web content providers are receiving a free ride on his company's broadband pipes. "They don't have any fiber out there. They don't have any wires... They use my lines for free -- and that's bull," he said. "For a Google or a Yahoo or a Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts!"
That's one aspect of this, but the other is that anyone who directly competes with a service provided by these big phone companies could be in trouble. For example, the last thing a company like AT&T wants is someone like Vonage using their own network to compete with them for their telephone customers. So, they -- along with the other big telcos -- would have a lot to gain by trying to put Vonage in the slow lane in an effort to degrade their service so much that they couldn't be competitive.
They legally can't do that now, but unless net neutrality stays in force, that may not be the case for much longer.
Tackling a Handful of Immigration Myths, Misnomers and Red Herrings
There’s no topic hotter in the body politic right now than immigration.
Everywhere you turn, especially in the blogosphere, somebody has an opinion. So, since illegal immigration is the topic du jour, it seemed like a good idea to address a few of the myths, misnomers and red herrings that seem to keep popping up like a kangaroo on a hot tin roof.
We need illegals to do the jobs Americans won’t do. There is no such thing as a, “job an American won’t do.” There are only jobs some Americans won’t do at a certain price. Most illegal aliens are from poor countries and they can make much more here working for minimum wage than they can at home. Add to that the fact that as often as not, they either don’t pay taxes or pay much less than they owe. Furthermore, they generally don’t buy health care and have no auto insurance. Put it all together and it’s no surprise that an illegal will do a job for much less than an American worker.
But then when wages are driven through the floor by a flood of illegals, the employers who are hiring them announce that Americans, “won’t do those jobs.” Well, of course they won’t do them. Would you stay at your job if your employer announced that he was slashing your salary and your benefits down to the bone because there was an illegal who offered to do the same job for peanuts?
We’ve got to bring the illegal aliens “out of the shadows?” They’re in the shadows? Really? I seem to remember hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens proudly announcing that they were boycotting American businesses as they marched in the streets, made demands in Spanish, and waved foreign flags. Quite frankly, I think most Americans liked them a little better when they were still “in the shadows.”
They’re “immigrants.” This is a rhetorical trick designed to lump in unwanted visitors who’ve entered our country without permission with legal immigrants, who are welcome here. But, referring to illegal immigrants as “immigrants” is like referring to burglars as “occupants” of a house. Yes, they may be standing in the living room, but they have no right to be there and calling them “occupants” confuses the issue. People aren’t up in arms about “immigrants.” They’re up in arms about “illegal immigrants,” and trying to muddy that distinction is intellectually dishonest.
There’s just no way to secure the border without instituting a guest worker program to help slow down the flow of illegal immigrants. That’s absolutely true—if you chronically understaff the border patrol and refuse to give them the resources they need to do their jobs.
Currently, we have 12,000 border patrol agents and President Bush claims that he wants to increase that number to 18,000 by the time he leaves office. Great, that would get the border patrol up to less than half of the 39,110 police officers that are in New York City alone—except that the border patrol agents aren’t just responsible for policing a single city. They’re tasked with stopping terrorists, drug dealers, and illegal immigrants from crossing 6,000 miles of border.
If your boat springs a leak, do you (A) just give up because you can’t bail the water out fast enough with a thimble or do you (B) grab some more sailors from topside, hand them buckets, and start working to make sure your boat doesn’t sink? Most Americans would choose (B), but that’s not how we’ve dealt with the situation on our borders.
There’s no way we can round up and deport 12 million illegal aliens. Who are these people saying that we should do that? Certainly they may exist, but I can’t name one off the top-of-my-head. Can you?
What people are actually suggesting is that we crack down on the employers of illegal aliens with fines and even jail terms, so that they’ll quit hiring “undocumented workers”. Then, if the illegals can’t get jobs here, most of them will leave. After all, they came here to work. If there’s no work, there’s no reason for them to be here. That means we won’t need to round them up because most of them will self-deport.
Illegals are an essential part of the economy. Actually, no, they’re not. Illegals only make up about 5% of the work force and they generally do low skill, low income jobs. If you add up all the government services they end up using—for example: school for their kids, illegals who fill up our prisons, money paid to illegals who have children on American soil, etc., they’re actually a net drain on our economy. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that “undocumented workers” actually cost us $10 billion a year. Incidentally, that number would triple to $30 billion if the illegals became American citizens and therefore were able to qualify for more government aid.
We want to make illegal aliens “go to the back of the line.” The back of the line isn’t in America, it’s in the illegals’ home country where large numbers of other people are filling out paperwork, paying ridiculously high fees, and checking their calendars to see how many months or years they have left before they can emigrate to the United States. No illegal who is allowed to stay in the United States can fairly be said to be at “the back of line.”
I do not support amnesty, but here’s my plan that accomplishes the same thing. The majority of illegal aliens are coming to this country for the same reasons that legal immigrants come here. They want to get jobs or become citizens. So, if they’re allowed to stay here and work or become citizens, despite the fact that they broke the law, it’s an amnesty, pure and simple.
The only reason that politicians won’t call an “amnesty” an “amnesty” is because they have such a low opinion of the American people that they believe we can be tricked with weasel words. It’s not an abortion, it’s a “choice.” We’re not raising taxes, we’re asking people to “pay their fair share.” It’s not amnesty, it’s “earned legalization.” Any way you slice it, it’s the same piece of rancid meatloaf.
Patton is calling for a wall on the border, but as a compromise, he demands that it have doggy doors so that our new pitbull and rottweiler border patrol agents can freely go back and forth. He also favors slashing government spending, especially on any program that benefits cats. He does, however, favor subsidies for the dog food industry and a bouncy, squeaking ball in every home.
Patton also proposes that we reduce the demand for gasoline, which would cut into the cost, by banning trips to the vet or trips to pet stores that involve buying supplies for cats.
Patton also believes we need bomb sniffing dogs at the ports, attack dogs in Iraq, and that we should be willing to sacrifice as many cats as necessary to stop the terrorists.
Furthermore, Patton has a message for Iran. He doesn't like it when squirrels ignore his demands that they stay off of his lawn. That's because squirrels are a menace and he believes we must do whatever it takes to protect the lawn from that menace. If Patton becomes President, America will become his lawn and Iran will become the squirrel. Would you allow a squirrel to have nuclear weapons? Neither would Patton!
Remember that all those other politicians are just Washington insiders, many of whom probably secretly sympathize with cats. On the other hand, Patton is an ultimate outsider. He doesn't go to Washington parties. He doesn't ask Harry Reid who his Supreme Court nominees should be. He does what's right for America, not what consultants or pollsters say. In fact, the last time he used a poll was when he peed on one as a puppy.
So, in 2008, vote for Patton. People have always said that a dog is man's best friend and after Patton is elected President, he will prove it!
America Did Not Squander What It Never Had By Right Thinking Girl
Reading through some entertainment related news stories, I came across this quote (referencing Jodie Foster):
The U.S. “squandered” the goodwill and sympathy other nations offered after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Foster said. She also criticized officials for the “disastrous and shameful” handling of Hurricane Katrina.
This old yarn has been in circulation since 9/12/01: the USA squandered the world’s goodwill after 9/11. It irritated me then, and now it enrages me. Not because it’s untrue - that, at least, I could forgive with a little education. No, it angers me because it says something about our enemies that nobody is willing to say:
If it takes a terrorist attack to make countries feel beneficent toward the USA, those countries are not your friends. Why would a country feel “goodwill” after a terrorist attack? Because we were, for a moment, the Victim. And as everybody knows, there is leverage in victimhood.
But America doesn’t like being anybody’s victim. It’s just not who we are. Within a day or so we were picking ourselves up and looking around for the ones who momentarily knocked us on our ass. Then we picked ourselves up and went after them with everything we had.
That whole ‘retaliation’ thing was just so gauche.
Imagine it. If we had simply lain some wreaths, had our little candlelight vigils, and agreed that Islamofacists were our friends, we’d still be buddy-buddy with just about everyone. Because, after all, you don’t need strong friends if you’re just going to lay around and be a weenie. You need friends when you’re making tough decisions and taking tough actions. Of course, once we showed our true colors, France began to burn the “We Are All Americans Today” backissues of Le Monde and decided that we were not so victimy, and therefore not as loveable. And thus the “America squandered the goodwill” meme was born.
It was never genuine anyway. Those fair-weather friends were not showing goodwill toward our way of life or our freedom, our democracy - the things we truly are.
But seriously, what does “goodwill” mean in this context? That journalists would print stories about how terrorists were stinky bad people? That’s it as far as I can see. There was no goodwill. They ran like scared little rats - they didn’t want the terrorists eyeballing them next. Goodwill indeed. What were they doing for us, exactly? Where were they when we needed them - when we were going to to do something about the terrorist attacks?
Oh yes, I remember now. They were stoking the love of Hollywood elites like Jodie Foster and Michael Moore.
We did not squander the goodwill of the country. The sympathy, maybe. But not the goodwill - because we never had any of that to begin with.
Quote Of The Day: Rumsfeld On Idealists And Cynics
"You may find people who will contend that patriotism is something to be a little bit embarrassed about or that honor is somewhat outdated as a notion and that concentrating on America's imperfection makes you a realist. Not so. That's the sign of a cynic. Being a cynic is easy. You can just sit back, heckle from the cheap seats, while others serve, storm beaches, build nations, meet their destinies. Idealists write history's stirring chapters; cynics read those chapters and seem not to understand. Choose to be an idealist. There have always been those who contend that what's wrong with the world is America. Don't believe it." -- Donald Rumsfeld
Klein has covered a lot of Presidential campaigns and some of the "inside baseball" quotes and insights he came up with in the book were really fascinating. The book isn't chock full of quotable material -- it's more of an easy read -- but here are a few memorable quotations that you political junkies out there may enjoy:
"Can you imagine sending Lincoln out with the Gettysburg Address in this atmosphere?" the Republican consultant Mike Murphy once mused to me. "My biggest worry would be: What sound bite would you get on the evening news? And whatever you got, it would be immediately subsumed by some blowhard reporter saying, "Lincoln campaign insiders said the speech was an attempt to win support from veterans groups and a test of a new, shorter speaking format." Why should any politician even try for eloquence in those circumstances?" -- P.16
"Jody brought me in to see the President (Carter), who was working in the private room, adjacent to the Oval Office...Powell described my story to the President and said, "Mr. President, it's my assessment that Joe represents the first serious threat to this administration."
Carter looked at me with those pale blue eyes and said quietly, "Well then, you're just going to have to lie."
I chuckled, belatedly and uncomfortably. I was thirty years old. This was my first conversation with a President. Carter seemed to grow more serious. "I'm not joking, I can make life difficult for your publication. I have certain powers...."
"Well, Mr. President," I said, "I'll certainly try to..." and both Carter and Jody cracked up: another Yankee taken to the cleaners." -- P.44
"In late May of 1976, Ronald Reagan had Gerald Ford on the ropes in the Republican race for the Presidential nomination. It was a development every bit as stunning as Jimmy Carter's surge from nowhere on the Democratic side: no incumbent president had ever been defeated in a primary campaign*. After some critical early losses...Reagan won in North Carolina and Texas, and then clobbered Ford in (four more states). An unsigned White House memo distributed after the Texas loss concluded, "We are in real danger of being out-organized by a small number of highly motivated right-wing nuts." -- P.62
The GOP was nearly obliterated in the first post-Watergate election, losing forty-three seats in the House and four in the Senate. They were now outnumbered two to one in the House and, with only thirty eight seats in the Senate, didn't have the numbers necessary to mount a filibuster. "It was no wonder that many thought the GOP would go the way of the Whigs," wrote Republican political consultant Craig Shirley in Reagan's Revolution, his account of the 1976 campaign. "Republicans it seemed, could only win the Presidency when Democrats screwed up, as in 1968 or 1972, or when they nominated a popular war hero like Eisenhower." -- P.66
"It was a phenomenon that the economist Adam Smith had warned against two hundred years earlier when he noted that "wanton and even disorderly mirth, the pursuit of pleasure to some degree of intemperance [and] the breach of chastity" did not necessarily hurt a nobleman, who could sleep late after a night on the town, but "the vices of levity are almost always ruinous to the common people, and single week's...dissipation is often sufficient to undo a poor workman for ever." -- P.94
"Rove's assumption was that the voters had three basic questions about a candidate: is he a strong leader? Can I trust him? Does he care about people like me?" -- P.144
"Discipline and dignity are every bit as important to the political equation as humanity and sadly, candor. It is also very curious that (when it comes to mavericks) -- Jerry Brown, John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot, and Howard Dean -- the candor is unleavened by warmth: American mavericks, especially of the fanatic-reformer variety, tend to be angry loners, cold fish, egomaniacs. I have no idea why that's the case -- although the egomania may well be compounded by the lavish early reviews they receive from rogue-lovers like me." -- P.163
"I told Kerry about Elaine Kamarck's great line. "The reason why Howard Dean got Iraq right (from the Democratic perspective) was that he was the only one of the major candidates who didn't get a classified intelligence briefing from the CIA."
Kerry laughed and then he frowned. "There's more than a little truth to that," he said." -- P.196
The Bush campaign had always believed that Teresa Heinz Kerry was a major asset...for the Bush campaign. "We decided to put Laura Bush out front as often as possible," said a campaign strategist. "In part because she really was a huge asset. But also because we figured Teresa would demand equal time." -- P.215
James Carville -- and Bill Clinton -- tried to convince Kerry to make major changes in his campaign. In one phone coversation, Clinton told Kerry, "If I hear you say one more word about Vietnam, I'll vote for George godd*mn Bush." -- P.219
I Imagine a World Without Borders -- Satire By Frank J.
Everyone seems to be so worried about our borders these days, and I'm like, "Chill, dude." Borders are a concept of ancient times when people were totally uncool and all wanted to kill each other. We've matured past such attitudes and should stop getting all bent out of shape over a few people sneaking into our country and instead focus on becoming a world with no borders.
First, lets get rid of all the border agents and tell the Minutemen to calm down and just have a barbecue or something. If Mexicans want to come over here, whatever. And, if we want to go to Mexico, that's cool too. And, if the Americans who come over happen to be armed soldiers who then terminate all the officials in the Mexican government, so what. Let's not "freak out" over it because "freaking out" is for people still hung up on the archaic concept of "borders." Mexicans just want to do the job Americans won't do, and, when we have their population at gunpoint, they'll also do the jobs they don't want to do for the promise of one meal a day and a cot to sleep on. Some might kick a soccer ball at us in protest, but soon everyone in Mexico will grow to love the idea of no borders... or else.
And let's stop pretending that our border with Canada means anything. Canadians really are just part of America, aren't they? If we want free maple syrup, then I'm sure they'll give us free maple syrup before we're forced to shoot them. Since we'll be part of one society with no borders, they'll be happy to get rid of their socialized health care to pay the "Because You're Canada" tax. They'll welcome the Americans who roam Quebec in mobs, burning down any building that has a sign in French, because you know what that is? It's progress.
But why keep this progressive concept of ending borders to our hemisphere? Know who has a big problem with borders? The Middle East. We can finally bring peace there by annulling all borders. There will be some resistance, and some bombs may have to be used - and some of those bombs may involve fission - but peace will triumph. Then the new borderless Middle East will mean cheap oil for all... and by all I mean America. The complications of the initial debordering may mean a lack of local labor for the oil pumping now, but we can get more labor from elsewhere like Europe, which has far too many borders. The French youth are always complaining about lack of work, but we'll have some nice 100 hour a week jobs getting us crude. No, there won't be paid over time. There might not even be paid regular time... but why focus on that when we're moving to a borderless utopia?
Eventually we'll have no borders, and the new American Empire will have nothing but peace for all, because anyone not being peaceful will be shot. Thus, everyone will be happy. And what's not to be happy about? No borders means no wars and no need for walls to limit us. There will be a heavily guarded wall around the Imperial Capital to keep intellectuals like me from having to interact with the common folk, but let's not split hairs. Anyway, I'll be busy designing robots to eventually do all the labor, and then the unskilled workers can be converted to robots fuel. That's the future we are heading towards, and nothing can stop it.
Unless, of course, you want to be a weenie and have enforceable borders.
Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO. He is also the author of such books as "More Work for Less Mexicans: Building a More Fuel-Efficient Robot" and "'Bah!', 'Feh!', and Other Great Responses to the Complaints of Common Folk".
The Right Side Of The Blogosphere's Reaction To Bush's Immigration Speech In Quotes
After the speech last night, I took a look around the right side of the blogosphere to get a sense of what people thought. The reaction was probably -- oh, let's say somewhere between 75-90% negative and to be truthful, as often as not, I got the impression that the bloggers who said they liked the speech were reading out of the old "root, root, root for the home team playbook" rather than genuinely being enthused about what Bush had to say.
Here are some of the comments that stood out:
"At the end of the day, the President rejects both amnesty and 'know-nothingism" - his plan is the right plan in all respects, and we'll now see whether or not the rest of our political class has the courage, generosity and simple human decency the President has shown tonight." -- Blogs For Bush
"My initial reaction? President Bush tried reaching for the center -- a position he has occupied on this issue all along. He tried a one-from-column-A, two-from-column-B approach that probably will leave all sides more or less dissatisfied." -- Captain's Quarters
...I think I'll stick with with my original statement that Bush has split the Republican Party, but now a new question arises: is it a permanent split in the party, and if not, how long with it last?
I'm guessing it won't be a permanent split, and that most Republicans will "come home" by the '06 elections, but given this administration's near-Palestinian capability to make the wrong choices at the wrong time, I don't know that anyone can say that such a reconciliation is automatic. -- Confederate Yankee
"What the administration has spent the last couple of years doing is explaining that we need the wogs to do the nasty jobs that lazy Americans won't do, therefore, we need to give them some path to citizenship, so that lazy, fat Americans don't have to pick vegetables. He stayed away from that line of reasoning this evening. But, that seems to me like a politically-motivated conversion, rather than a statement of Mr. Bush's core principles.
...The bottom line: The American people in general, and the Republican base in particular, simply don't trust the president on this issue. The president's past positioning on this issue, I think, adequately explains why." -- Dale Franks at The QandO Blog
"The President is really out of touch on this issue, and since he's not facing re-election, he thinks it's ok to sell the American people down the river over this. But he has to remember, there are 435 members of the House of Representatives that ARE up for re-election, along with a third of the Senate. They go along with the President on this, they can kiss their re-election efforts good-bye.
That means, basically, that the Congress will be changing hands in November. And on January 3, 2007, the Democrats will be sworn in. On January 4, 2007, you can count of Democrats holding impeachment hearings. At this point, I'd almost support that. That's how p*ssed I am right now." -- Iowa Voice
"The only new thing in the speech was sending some unarmed National Guard troops to help the Border Patrol shuffle paper. The more appropriate headline would be "More Mush from the Wimp." -- Mark Krikorian at The Corner
"I didn't spend 35 years in the conservative movement for this. We're supposed to jump up and down for 6,000 Guardsmen, which means about 2,000 functional Guardsmen at any given time (since they all don't work 24/7)? By any factual analysis—costs to public education, the health-care system, entitlement programs, prison systems, etc.—unrestrained immigration is extremely detrimental to our country, as it would be for any country. And when you consider that the Senate bill now under consideration would result in some 100 million legal immigrants over the next 20 years—not including illegal aliens—the threat to this society is crystal clear. The U.S. cannot possibly assimilate such numbers, and the financial strain on federal, state, and local budgets is incalculable." -- Mark Levin
"This is the same speech he's delivered countless times. Does he expect a different result? Is he intentionally trying to drive his popularity down to 20%?" -- The LoneWacko Blog
"Delivery feels a bit more Mr. Rogers than commander-in-chief. I mean we have an emergency—our borders are out of control and during a time of war. You don't get that sense. Get me Jack Bauer. I'll stop now." -- Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner
"President Bush keeps trying to find the middle ground, on this and many other issues. But sometimes, there isn't a viable middle ground. This is one of those instances. President Bush is being destroyed by vicious people who hate him. So far, he hasn't seemed to notice. Apparently, he doesn't think he needs any allies. He certainly didn't win any with tonight's speech." -- Power Line
"George W. Bush is an “open-borders” president, and it’s clear that no one, not even the base of voters his party needs to keep power will change his position. We need to keep the pressure on this congress and those who are coming up hoping to take residence in the White House. We must secure our borders and everything must be done to see that this happens. Bush’s half measures won’t do. We need to press on and demand a better plan." -- PunditGuy
"Our political class has lost touch on the immigration issue. The president is supporting the Senate immigration bill that may be the worst single bill in American history. The Heritage Foundation estimates that if passed as is, the Hagel-Martinez bill could invite in as many as 200,000,000 legal immigrants in the next 20 years through amnesty and family chain migration, while doing nothing at all to stem the tide of illegal immigrants.
The impact of 200,000,000 immigrants in 20 years’ time is mind-boggling. No country on earth could remain the same country after taking in so many immigrants so fast.
....Tonight’s speech was a wasted opportunity to regain any of the stature he once had, and probably the last one he will get during his time in office. It’s a shame. He is a good man. He is just dreadfully wrong on this issue." -- Bryan Preston at Hot Air
Bush Ensures Legacy With Speech. Unfortunately, visitors to a Bush '43' Library may have to cross the border into Mexico to take it all in. In a speech which was as much a eulogy for the so-called Reagan Revolution, as it was an unfortunate beginning to a pending political battle on immigration, President Bush all but declared himself irrelevant to the conversation. In essence, the sitting President of the United States through up his hands and declared, "No mas." -- Riehl World View
