About Me

Name: Patrick Henry
Location: Vancouver, WA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

OBAMA LIES, SURPRISE, SURPISE!

 
   At a recent Democratic fundraiser, President Barack Obama said that "Republicans
have not come up with one single new idea" to help the nation out of recession and
toward fiscal stability. When a sheltered person misstates facts out of ignorance, we
call it a mistake. When a politician embellishes his/her accomplishments or offers
different interpretations of statistics, we call that "spinning." But when a person who
surely knows better purposely utters deceptive claims for personal or political gain,
we call that exactly what it is: LYING.
   Looking back on Congressman Joe Wilson's admonishment in the well of the House
for shouting, "you lie," at Obama, it is difficult to do anything but smile. Wilson had
Obama pegged right all along. But how do we know he was actually lying in this
most recent case? Well, the facts are quite public, and are nationally known.
   Republican Governor Chris Christie is fiscally revamping the state of New Jersey to
live within its means. Certainly that has meant furloughing state employees, tearing
up fat-cat union contracts and getting rid of marginal and worthless programs. But
he has done it, and he has done it WITHOUT raising taxes.
   Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) has proposed a "Roadmap for America's Future"
that includes a flat tax, reduced government and fiscal restraint. Congressional
Democrats have passed it off as too austere or unrealistic, and Obama has never even
acknowledged it. But it's there, it's a new idea, and Ryan is decidedly a Republican.
   Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and his Republican senate colleagues have blocked bill
after spendthrift bill from passage simply because Democrats wish to continue adding
to the deficit. Republicans believe that it is impossible to boost the economy by growing
the deficit and imposing new taxes on businesses. They are saying "no," and instead
of being credited with keeping their small finger in the dike to stop the flood of
Democrat irresponsibility they are attacked by Obama and the Democratic National
Committee for being the "party of no." But given congressional habits of the last decade,
not spending money the country doesn't have most certainly qualifies as a novel (and
sensible) idea.
   When Obama challenged Republicans to come to a healthcare summit, they showed
up, ideas in hand. Those ideas were fairly presented by House Speaker John Boehner
(R-Ohio), Majority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Ryan. Most commentators agreed
that the GOPers had held up their end of that debate very well, but in the end Obama
incorporated almost none of their suggestions, instead bribing and armtwisting his own
majority to pass a bill 60% of Americans didn't want without a single Republican vote.
   And that brings us to the real problem. Republicans have plenty of alternative ideas,
but they're not ideas Obama and the Democrats want to hear. They don't propagate
infinite government growth and regulation, unabated taxation and limits on spending.
They don't provide a way for Obama and his party to get what they want: an
entitlement state with duly redistributed wealth. Repeatedly Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
and Harry Reid (D-NV) have kept Republican bills and amendments fron even
coming to the floor of their houses for a vote. They have attempted to outshout and
gag Republicans in every debate, and offered no meaningful concessions. In other
words, Republicans have plenty of ideas about how to right the nation's ship, but
they'll never be acknowledged by Obama or even see the light of day so long as
Democrats have an iron grip on both houses of congress.
   But let's be clear. Saying Republicans don't have any ideas I like, is simply stating
a preference or opinion. Saying Republicans don't have one single idea to help the
nation through recession and fiscal danger is a prevarication, a knowing, intentional
lie. That's who this man we elected president is, and it's what he does.
   Now, one would think that a man whose White House is, in fact, a house of glass,
would be a bit careful about hucking rocks at others. This is the man who touts the
"successes" of an $862B "stimulus" which if passed, he promised, would hold
unemployment at 8%. However, unemployment has hovered near 10% for over a
year now (not even counting those who have given up looking for work) and a
majority of Americans (62%) have adjudged the program a failure. This comes in
spite of endless presidential and vic-presidential barnstorming tours to tout "saved
jobs" and new infrastructure projects, along with millions of dollars worth of road
signs telling how great the program is. You lie, Mr. President!
   Or take the much ballyhooed passage of Obamacare which, he said, would result
in lower costs fo medical care and insurance, no one losing his/her physician or
insurance, no one on Medicare losing benefits and universal medical coverage for
all. Then contrast that with the reality.Congress' own budget office says insuarnce
will cost more, short-term costs for treatment will go up and not everyone will be
covered. Seniors have already lost coverage and many have lost their physcians
either because their doctors retired rather than living under the restrictions of
Obamacare or simply ceased taking Medicare patients because they could no longer
afford to do so. Employees are losing their coverage because it is simply cheaper
for their employers to pay the federal fine than to provide it. Oh, they will be
eligible to get replacement coverage through the "exchanges," but the fact is that
they've lost the policy they had and liked. You've done it again, Mr. President.
You've lied in order to advance your political agenda.
   Repeatedly Obama has asked for "a little help from Republicans," and has yearned
for more bipartisanship. The reality, as Doug Giles so eloquently stated it in his
recent TH post entitled To Compromise Or To Clash, the middle to which Democrats
invite Republicans is "the big fat center of their eurosocialist, freedom-strangling,
debt-addled. national security deficient, secularist crap pie." Republicans are saying
"no thanks," and so, according to the polls, are a majority of Americans.
   Democrats are to use a favorite Je Biden phrase, "shovel ready." Obama has dug
the hole with lies, broken promises, socialist excesses, bloated budgets and foreign
misadventures. Congressional Democrats, led by Pelosi and Reid, have willingly
jumped in by rubber-stamping it all. And on November 2, voters are poised shovel-
in-hand to bury them. Republicans aren't going to negotiate with Obama for the
same reason he won't debate Ahmadinejad. You can't trust a liar!
  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ON FINDING OUR OWN KIND

 
   So smitten was the media with bashing Andrew Breitbart and Bill O'Reilly and trying
to understand the whiplash response of the White House and NAACP that the whole
brouhaha devolved into pity for a woman fired for supposedly arguing the very reverse
of the discrimination of which she stood accused. And the crux of the story got missed
along the way.
   Nobody picked up on the aside by Tom Vilsack that while Ms. Sherrod's was a tale
of racial redemption, some of her peripheral comments required more clarification.
Since they fired her, that clarification never came. And it may be that her refusal to
accept another job with the USDA has something to do with the fact that the comments
spoke for themselves and she had to wish to "clarify" them.
   What comments are we talking about? The telling one is when she discussed sending
the white farmer seeking her help back to "his own kind." If any person in government
or media stood accused of sending a black person back to his/her "own kind" the howls
of racism would be deafening. But with Shirley Sherrod, not so much. The reason?
Those on the left were all too happy to sweep her clearly racist innuendo under the rug,
and she had no wish to be called on the carpet for it.
   In a perfect world, when it comes to people, there is only one kind -- humankind. We
have cultural, physical and ideological differences for sure. But at root we're all people --
humans -- created equal and with certain inalienable rights. It's why the Civil War was
fought and why the Emancipation Proclamation stands as a watershed in U.S. history.
It's the reason for the great civil rights struggle and the women's suffrage fight. When
it comes to race, the very concept of different "kinds" is repugnant, regressive and
reprehensible. Maybe Shirley Sherrod hadn't shed quite all of her bigotry after all.
   While the term "kind" may not fit races, it certainly does fit racial attitudes. As I see
it there are three "kinds," One is the race-hater. (I won't use the term racist because
it is so overused in the media and politics that it carries no weight and little meaning).
Race-haters are those who hate other people simply because their skin is a different
color and their cultural values are different. Race-haters come in all sizes, ages and
colors. They can be white, black, brown or yellow. They are an ugly breed, and
they exist in all communities and walks of life. They even exist in differing degrees.
They don't all wear white robes and pointy hats, nor prowl polling places with billy
clubs. Sometime one can hear the thinly veiled hate in commentary toward persons
of one race or another that carries just a hint of extra vitriol. They're out there, no
question about it.
   Then there are the race-baiters. These are the people who like to use racial tension
to provoke a fight, promote racial animosity, win a political campaign or direct 
attention from their own weaknesses or misdeeds. Race-baiters are everywhere, and
the NAACP and left wing of the Democratic party play the race card expertly to set
people against one another, impugn the motives of others and build coalitions against
faux enemies to feather their own political nest. What's really scary is that sometimes
the race-baiters are also race-haters. The real problem with the baiters is that they
keep stirring the pot and make it nearly impossible to isolate and neutralize the real
haters. There is no more vile insult than to call someone "racist" absent clear and
indisputable proof that the charge is true. And there is no lower strain of vermin than
he or she who tosses the accusation off casually for attention, personal or political
gain. That is wearing very thin with Americans.
   Then, after the race-haters and race-baiters, there are the rest of us. We don't
hate anyone. We have neighbors of all colors and creeds. Our kids go to school
together. We struggle over budgets and report cards and mortgages and what to
wear in the morning when our chosen shirt has a grease spot on it. We don't think
of people as "kinds," but as neighbors, acquaintances and even friends. And we're
smart enough to recognize the phony politics of race when it's pushed at us, to
understand that politicians aren't out to lift anyone but themselves and that after
they've been elected or not and then ridden off into the sunset we all still have to
live together and make the best of it. Hating simply doesn't come into that equation.
We don't have time for the haters, and we wish the baiters (including the NAACP)
would take their hogwash somewhere else. Newsflash, Shirley Sherrod: there is
only one "kind" when it comes to people. And until you learn and practice that,
you're either a baiter or a hater. We're all sorry your story was misunderstood, But
we really wish you hadn't said the other stuff!
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE FOX, THE CHICKEN AND THE BSM

 
   In his excellent piece "The Blame Stream Media and the Sherrod Charade," Doug
Giles, of whom I am rapidly becoming a fan, revives the euphemism for mainstream
media outlets and proceeds to give them what for. (You can and should read it on
Townhall.com).
   So just what is the "BSM?" A little boy once asked his grandpa what the letters
B.S., M.S. and Ph.D after a person's name stood for. The old man reportedly
replied, "BS means just what you think it does, MS means more of the same, and
Ph.D. means piled high and deep." In the case of the Blamestream Media, the BS
stands for just what you think it does. Think MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR,
the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and their
ilk. These are so-called "news" organizations that have forsaken reporting what
actually happens in favor of "shaping" or interpreting events to advance a specific
(liberal, politically correct, neo-socialist) agenda.
   If there was ever any doubt about the foregoing, it evaporated with Tucker
Carlson's revelations from the liberal listserv Journolist, in which "news" reporters
from all of the foregoing are revealed in e-mails trashing conservatives and urging
one another to level false or unproven charges against them to benefit Barack
Obama and distract attention from his questionable associations and wrongdoing.
And have you noticed how little attention has been paid in those outlets to the
disgraceful DOJ handling of the New Black Panther voter intimidators, or the
charges of internal racism by a former DOJ lawyer, or the way Barack Obama
utilizes his "czars" to circumvent congress, or runs roughshod over the courts
(Louisiana) or spins the constitution to mean things it has never meant before?
Yeah, you get the picture. Print or broadcast nothing that will jeopardize Obama
and his socialist agenda. Blow even the slightest gaffe, hint or question of
conservative error out of all proportion. That's how they got Obama elected,
and they're proud of it. That's the BSM (and remember the BS part).
   Enter the fox -- FOX News, that is. FOX is the most watched cable news
network in America. They stream hard news stories on a nonstop basis, and while
their opinion programming and panel shows lean decidedly to the right, their news
coverage virtually always includes spokespersons from the left as well. They are
the flipside of MSNBC, which tilts left on both news and opinion, and meticulously
selects only stories to tout liberals and trash conservatives. Their foul-mouthed,
gutter-scraping trash mongers like Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Rachel
Maddow and Ed Schultz never miss a chance to badmouth FOX. Why?
   It's simple. FOX gets a far broader segment of the viewer market, and actually
makes a difference in how people think, question and vote. And the Obama
administration is scared to death of them, which is where the Chicken comes in.
Barack Obama declared war on FOX because they criticized him and his agenda.
He lost, over and out, and many in the BSM have already admitted it in print. By
trying and failing to intimidate FOX, and by urging people not to watch cable news
because it puts out too much information too fast, the Chicken-In-Chief only made
himself look petty, small and impotent, while feeding a monster in Rupert Murdoch
and Roger Ailes' FOX News Network.
   There is a story from inside the White House that when the Shirley Sherrod tape
was first aired, terror set in at 1600 Pennsylvania because they thought Glenn Beck
(at FOX) was going ballistic with it. They panicked and colluded with USDA
Secretary Tom Vilsack to show Sherrod the door and sweep her under the rug, only
to have Beck side with the woman and question whether people rushed to judgment
about the tape. That's just how afraid this president, who has laready gotten his nose
bloodied once, is of FOX News. Cluck-cluck-cluck-cluck.
   But all of this has served one wonderful purpose. No one will ever take the BSM
at its word again, and everyone will realize what their agenda is. Would I suggest
watching, or reading their tripe? Hardly! But you can go to MSNBC headquarters
and see a statue that looks just like Keith Olbermann fashioned from bovine excrement.
At least you'll think it's a statue until you notice that the mouth is moving. Or you can
see Air America bag lady and journotrollop Rachel Maddow screaming hysterically
that someone from FOX News put a camera in her shower. Or you can listen to
the maniacal shrieking of Ed Schultz, a shambling troglodyte who is always off his
meds, as he confesses that he has busted his *ss for Obama. (Sometimes when the
meds wear off, even Schultz tells the truth). Or, you could just go back and view
a Laurel and Hardy flick with an X-rated soundtrack overdubbed. It's ugly, depicts
nothing real, and has an agenda. Remember, BSM!
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE LIBERAL DESCENT INTO HELL

 
   Timing is everything, and the synchronicity of the bogus NAACP-racist rant against
the Tea Party, the amateurish Obama administration handling of the Shirley Sherrod
debacle and Tucker Carlson's revelation of journalist Spencer Ackerman's sinister
and conspiratorial comments on the now defunct listserv Journolist reveal just how
deep the American left has mired itself in incompetence, irrelevance, unethical
behavior and outright bigotry. They are drowning in a cesspool of their own creation,
and the more they flail, the deeper they sink.
   One thing that is now clear is that accusations of racism against the Tea Party are
not grounded in any objective evidence, but simply in the left's desire for it to be
reality. Already hoist on their own petard for showing a sign at a Tea Party rally
that said "White Racist and Proud Of It," while failing to show the liberal plant who
carried it surrounded, shouted down, humiliated and expelled by rally participants,
the leftist media agenda took a terminal hit with the Ackerman disclosure. Ackerman,
a writer for the Washington Independent, counseled other journalists to deflect
criticism of Barack Obama by calling Karl Rove or Fred Barnes racists. Most telling
was his lack of preference for which one, for he spiced the comment with a question.
"Who cares?" Later, he suggested ramming a conservative's face through a plate glass
window and leaving him bleeding on the sidewalk so he would "learn what it's like to
live in fear." He claimed to be speaking metaphorically.
   In other words, journalism has sunk so low that it no longer matters what is said or
whom it is said about as long as it advances the liberal agenda and inflicts damage on
conservatives. Lying swine like Ackerman deserve little ink. But the revelation of the
leftist media's tactics discredits the labels they attempt to attach to their targets. There
is no doubt that there are racists in the Tea Party. There are also racists in the two
major parties. In fact, it seems that some of the biggest racists work at the Justice
Department and in the White House. But everyone already knew that the racist
tag, like "Nazi," was woefully overworked, and now they know that it has no merit
in fact but is only a dishonest tactic of a desperate group whose star is falling like
a rock.
   Inconsistency, hypocrisy and denial do little to bolster the stock of an organization
or an administration. NAACP President Ben Jealous' contention that the group was
"snookered" by FOX News is laughable for one simple reason. The NAACP has
possession of the whole original tape. Is it FOX's fault Jealous didn't review it
before leaping to condemn Shirley Sherrod? And supposedly the White House
called for Sherrod's firing because they thought FOX's Glenn Beck had gotten hold
of the story and was going to run with it. One couldn't find a spatula big enough to
scrape the egg from Robert Gibbs' and Barack Obama's faces when Beck did the
research they should have done and came out in support of Sherrod.
   Then came the hand-wringing, the finger-pointing and the denials. Sherrod was
exonerated and offered a new job with the USDA. Vilsack and Obama couldn't
apologize enough. But wait! Did they fail to note that in her "story of redemption"
Sherrod talked about sending the farmer "back to his own kind?" Just what "kind"
is that Ms. Sherrod, President Obama, Attorney General Holder? Because if you
condone splitting black and white into two different "kinds" then you confirm the
argument made by real racists, and prove beyond a doubt that you are one of them.
And let's don't forget that even though Sherrod eventually did the right thing, she
bragged about intially withholding "the full force of what I coulddo" from the needy
white farmer. And her biased rationale further showed when she confessed realizing
that it was not a conflict between black and white, but one between those who have
and those who don't. So, then, it's not fine to discriminate on the basis of race, but it
 IS fine to discriminate by class. Barack Obama and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack
should be cursing the day they ever heard of ShirleySherrod. And in private, they
probably are.
   Lost in the shuffle is right-wing gadfly Andrew Breitbart who initially released
a segment of the noxious video. The MSM is, as usual, dumping on Breitbart, and
Shirely Sherrod is threatening to sue him. But Breitbart contends that the release
of the video was not at all about Shirley Sherrod, but about the presence of virulent
racism at the gathering of an organization that had just finished denouncing others
for it. It was the old business about not throwing stones if you live in glass houses.
But the left is so bent on political correctness and preserving appearances that
they -- the NAACP and the White House -- missed the whole point and jumped on
Shirley Sherrod. It is sheer hypocrisy to say "shame on Breitbart," without, in the
same breath, saying "shame on Vilsack, Obama and Ben Jealous," who are the
real culprits here.
   But the spectre of November is looming dark and ominous over the left. They are
drowning in a sea of public disgust and animosity at their vapid and failed agenda,
and unless they can do better than the tawdry and transparent cabals of Ackerman,
Jealous and Obama, they will be washed away by a tsunami of voter vengeance.
The clock is ticking.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SIEG HEIL NAACP

 
   During the run-up to WWII, Adolf Hitler and his circle of cronies demonized Jews
by posting signs warning communities against them, forcing them to wear humiliating
identification placards around their necks and accusing them of horrible crimes in every
mainstream medium, including newspapers, books and films. The formula was "demonize,
isolate and exterminate."
   A similar strategy was counseled by communist community organizer Saul Alinsky who
is credited with inspiring Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, among others. The basic
tenet is that if you disagree with someone's ideas you should plaster them with the
most onerous label you can think of, thereby discrediting them in the eyes of the herd
that will not dig beyond the rhetoric to get at the truth. The tactic will also draw attention
away from your own failures, weaknesses and lies.
   In his well-publicized recent rant, NAACP President Ben Jealous demonized "racist
elements" in the Tea Party movement, and demanded their public rejection and expulsion.
In so doing he elevated a theme begun by left wing Democrats and some in the liberal
media. The "racist" charge is based entirely on speculation about Tea Party motives,
alleged verbal insults by some Washington, D.C. demonstrators which were denied and
remain completely undocumented and unproven, and the Tea Party's nonstop criticism
of Barack Obama which, according to the left, must be racially motivated. In other words
it is a bald-faced lie that those on the left wish to believe, have no proof of and have a great
 vested interest in propagating.
   The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, once a major player
in the strife for racial justice, has become little more than a race-baiting shill for the
Democratic National Committee. This devolution has been accompanied by its unabated
slide into irrelevancy. It is an irony that their current president's name is "Jealous." because
it is clear that a once proud and valuable organization, no longer able to claim the high
ground of independence and no longer productive of newsworthy activity is flatly jealous
of Tea Party activists who have stolen the media limelight, for better or worse. So the
NAACP has resorted to labeling, name-calling and race-baiting in order to steal back
some of that limelight for themselves. How pathetic and impotent.
   While the tactic fires up those on the left who had already begun employing it, it has
quickly become a two-edged sword for the NAACP which has been loth to condemn
the blatant racism of blacks such as Samir King Shabazz, who openly called upon
blacks to "kill krackers and their babies," and brandished a billy club outside a polling
place in Philadelphia, or other black radicals like Louis Farrakhan or the Reverend
Jeremiah Wright.
   And the incompetence of the organization came into focus once again in the Shirley
Sherrod debacle that is still playing out. Sherrod, you remember, was caught on tape
explaining that she, in her capacity as an administrator for a farm aid agency, purposely
diluted help she gave a white farmer facing foreclosure because "so many black farmers
had lost their farms." Eager to get out front on the matter, Ben Jealous condemned her
actions as racist. But when Sherrod explained herself, and the full tape was aired, it
seemed that she was using the story as an example of an error she had made based on
a prejudice she should not have had. This morning, Jealous reversed his position,
exonerating Sherrod and calling on the USDA to reinstate her. Ooops!
   What gets lost in this is the troubling implications of the account Sherrod gave on the
tape of how the white farmer "thought he was better than she was," "talked down to
her" and how through it all she realized that it wasn't about black against white, but
about those who don't have against those who do. In other words, her discrimination
was okay, just misplaced. It shouldn't have been about race, but about class. In any
case, her admission that she purposely withheld the "full force of what I could do" to
help the farmer means she discriminated, over and out. The law does not allow for
discrimination on the basis of class any more than it does on the basis of race. Sherrod
was wrong then, and she's wrong now, and Ben Jealous is too color blind to admit it.
   The race-baiting is a mere distraction from the earth-shaking priority of seeing the
ranch of the late Michael Jackson turned into a California state park, for which the
NAACP is lobbying hard. When an organization has nothing better to do than call
names and attach labels absent proof of the charges, and tout a memorial for a dead
rock star, one has to wonder why it exists. Oh yes, there is that Democratic shill
thing. But the Brown-Shirt-type demonization engaged in by Ben Jealous leads
skeptics to wonder what the differences really are between such tactics employed
by the NAACP and the left against the Tea Party and those employed by the Nazis
against Jews. The answer? ZERO! Sieg Heil, NAACP! Sieg Heil, Ben Jealous!
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HOW TO PREDICT ELECTION RESULTS FLAWLESSLY

 
   Big change is coming in November, or so we're told. Americans no longer trust
Barack Obama and the Democratic party to lead. Hope is elusive, with 62% saying
the country is going in the wrong direction. And the only change people seem to
want is change in Washington. So what's really going to happen in November.
   Take the pundits, pollsters, talking heads and polls of polls with a grain of salt.
Look, instead, at four tried and true indicators of how the political wind is really
blowing, and you won't miss the mark by much.
   First, apply the "reach" test. Which party or candidate is grasping at the furthest
straw(s) to claim an unproven achievement or hang something around their opponent's
neck? This one doesn't look good for Democrats. They continue to tout a healthcare
reform bill 60% of voters want repealed, and mumbling voodoospeak about "jobs
saved" by a stimulus most Americans don't think has made much real difference in
the stuttering economy. Now, Obama is haranguing Republicans because they
won't agree to add another $34 billion to the deficit to re-up unemployment for
2.5 million people UNLESS it is paid for up front (which Obama has a plenty big
enough slush fund to do if he was so inclined). Everyone who follows politics
recalls how, in February, Obama got on his soap box and demanded the Senate
pass a "PayGo" law, mandating that expenditures be balanced by revenues or cuts.
They did, and now he's sandbagging Republicans for holding him to a law he
demanded. The hypocrisy is rank, and the argument is a preposterous reach. Then
there's the NAACP, one of the Democratic party's favorite shills, going on a rant
about unproven, undocumented, alleged Tea Party Racism. These are all "reaches"
designed to blame opponents for imaginary problems and deny responsibility for
doing what they are supposed to. People aren't as dumb as Joe Biden thinks, and
those who make the biggest reaches usually end up wearing them at election time.
   A second reliable test is to watch for the "rattlesnakes commiting suicide." You know,
the old saw about poisonous rattlers dying from self-inflicted wounds. Watch for the
party or adminsitration with the most internal strife, and you'll know who is really in
the worst trouble. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs suggested that there are
enough seats in play in the House that Republicans could take over. Within twenty-four
hours Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others were attacking Gibbs. Obama had a testy
meeting with House members who believed he wasn't doing enough to support their
re-election. Joe Biden denied the NAACP's bogus racism charge against the Tea Party
on national television. I guess that crock stank too bad for even old Joe. Immigration
advocacy groups who lean Democrat are mad because immigration reform is nowhere
in sight. Anti-war leftists are angry because we're still in Iraq, struggling in Afghanistan
and Gitmo is still open. There are many more examples, but mark it well, the rattlers
are committing suicide.
   Third, find the most prominent blowhard in the party that seems to be in the worst
trouble. Listen carefully to what he says, and bet your money on the exact opposite.
Clearly the Democrats are in the most trouble, and their biggest blowhard is none other
than Joe "Foot-In-The-Mouth-Up-To-The-Kneecap" Biden. This is the guy who declared
Brussels, Belgium, the center of the free world and expressed condolences to a foreign
dignitary over the loss of his mother who was still very much alive. Sunday, on
national TV again, old Joe guaranteed that Democrats would "shock the heck" out of
everybody and that there would be no shift in power come November. Within minutes
of his statement, the odds in Vegas on a Republican takeover nosedived. If Biden says
something, bank on the opposite.
   My fourth and final test is the "festering sore" test. For the Bush Republicans it was
Iraq and Katrina. For Obama it is the BP Gulf oil spill, the unpopular healthcare bill
passed by dubious means in violation of his promise not to raise taxes on the middle
class the economy and the immigration brouhaha/Arizona lawsuit. These combine to
make the president, the leader of his party, a liability rather than an asset to Democrats
seeking re-election. There are simply too many of them and they are too toxic. Each one
will cost Democrats votes in November.
   These ae four great tests. I have applied them to fourteen consecutive national elections
and haven't been wrong yet. Maybe you have some others. Let me know.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NAACP HITS NEW LOW

 
   Today the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People dishonored
and cheapened themselves by suggesting that the Tea Parties were havens for rampant
racism, and demanding that they renounce same. They did this on the basis of the fact
that some racially offensive signs popped up at Tea Party gatherings, and some Tea
Party members allegedly shouted racial epithets at black congressmen during the
bitter debate over healthcare reform. Never mind that there is no documentary
evidence that the latter ever happened, and what party ever has public gatherings where
wingnuts don't show up with offensive signs.
   Attorney General Eric Holder alleges that when it comes to talking about race, we
are a nation of cowards, which, in his case is laughable because it is difficult to decide
of which he is the foremost, racist or coward. But let's cut through the horse hockey
and be real. The NAACP is, and always has been, an organization designed to prime
the pump of black-on-white hatred, has thrown the people it is supposed to represent
to the wolves and become a transparent and ineffective shill for the Democratic
National Committee.
   Their charge of racism against the Tea Parties echoes that of MSNBC's moronic
Keith Olbermann who crowed that Tea Partiers are "just angry white people looking
for any excuse to yell at a black president." In their eyes no white man can ever
criticize any black man without being racist, and therefore all criticism of Barack
Obama must be racially motivated.
   Smug liberal academics have long held that there is no such thing as black racism,
because racism is the systemic implementation of racial animus based on the power
to discriminate. Since blacks are the minority, they have no power. So they can be
bigoted, but not racist. Liberal politicians have baptized that noxious doctrine and
now keep score of how many times they can call Republicans, conservatives and,
yes, Tea Partiers either "racists" or "Nazis," their chosen vehicles of derogation.
   But the tired accusations are increasingly falling on deaf ears, like those of the
little boy who cried "wolf" once too often. The NAACP hates (yes, hates) the Tea
Parties because they criticize Obama relentlessly. But the reason they support
Obama is only secondarily because he happens to be black. They are phobic
about Tea Party doctrine, and with good cause. The Tea Parties demand an end
to frivolous entitlement spending, fair taxation and a balanced federal budget. If
they get what they want, then the jig is up for those who have surrendered to the
hand-out mentality (you owe us), in other words the NAACP. The NAACP's
entire resume is a litany of blaming whites for the problems of the black community.
It's what they do, and they want to keep on doing it with the help of the unlimited
entitlement socialists of the Obama administration leading the charge.
   The likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton got very uncomfortable when Obama
took the tack of demanding that blacks take responsibility for themselves. They
were far more comfortable blaming whites for the fact that a majority of black
babies are born out of wedlock, that many black men seem to feel entitled (there
it is again) to father serial children and then walk away, that many. many of those
children grow up fatherless, do poorly in or drop out of school, first use, then sell
illegal drugs, join violent street gangs and end up in prison or on death row. And
according to Obama, all of the nation's problems are the responsibility of a white
man, George W. Bush.
   But guess what? You can pour Hershey's syrup on a pile of dog do and call it
a sundae, and even believe it yourself if you want to. But the people you're
trying to sell it to soon recognize it for exactly what it is, and you for the self-serving
charlatan you are. So Obama and the Democrats can play their whole deck of race cards, Eric Holder can practice his reverse profiling (we aren't prosecuting voter
intimidation cases with white victims and black defendants) for as long as their terms
last. But people are waking up fast to the fact that America has to stop spending,
reduce its deficit and balance its budget, or else. You can change the subject by
shouting "racist" or "Nazi" all you want, but nobody's buying anymore. People aren't
 as stupid as you think.
   So the NAACP has changed its mission with one resolution. It is now officially
the National Association for the Advocacy of Cynical Politics. Come November
it will be obvious how irrelevant its sycophants really are.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SOLVING IMMIGRATION - PART VII

 
   What is proposed in this series of posts is an issue linked, bipartisan negotiation in
which immigrants get the most important part of what they want (a path to citizen-
ship), but not everything they want (universal amnesty and open borders). Liberals
get part of what they want, including a growing legalized Hispanic population that
will be fodder for the unions who tend to support Democrats, but not the hurry-up
that would enable them to hold their current power unchallenged. Conservatives
get part of what they want, secure borders, an orderly immigration process and the
continued availability of farm and other lower cost workers. But they don't get
universal deportation or exploitable labor, and they have to swallow a limited
amnesty. Two things, however, can screw up the whole deal. Those two things
are (1) diplomacy, and (2) politics, in inverse order of perversity.
   For this to work, somebody is going to have to have "the talk" with Mexico and
its president. They are going to have to be told flat out that the "right of emigration"
about which they speak simply does not exist, and the fact that some of their forbears
settled north of the border provides no inherent right for the descendants to violate
our international boundary willy-nilly or have any say whatsoever in the affairs of
individual American states or national policy. They must understand that we will
protect our border with Mexico, by armed force if necessary. though that is not our
preference. They must understand that while we regret that they are unable to
control drug trafficking and the concomitant violence in their own country, we will
not tolerate it spilling over into ours, and will, again, resort to force if necessary to
protect the lives and property of Americans, enforce our laws and defend our public
lands. In other words, "it's a whole new deal, Mr. Calderon, and we're not kidding
this time." Whether the Obama administration that has folded like a house of cards
before Iran, North Korea and Russia has what it takes to do this is highly problematic.
But if they don't, a government that actually provides maps to help illegals find their
way around Arizona, California, New Mexico and Colorado will likely take the
new policy as the ongoing joke the current one is.
   On the political side, the task is even more Herculean. Two parties that tend to
approach policy like World Cup antagonists, each trying to score goals on the other,
are going to have to, for once, stop thinking about what's good for their party (e.g.,
more union member/voters or more cheap labor) and get serious about what's good
for America. The old war horses in both the House and the Senate need to lie low
and let the younger and more moderate members of their respective houses lead this
charge. Older and more extreme younger members are too steeped in adversarial
politics and too out of touch with mainstream America to keep civil tongues, pursue
genuine compromise and craft a finished product with bipartisan credibility. If they
are not prepared to do that, this issue is doomed to permanent gridlock.
   Even more importantly, this administration must start behaving like a trustworthy
partner in this endeavor, NOT after it is done, but right now. That means no more
suits against states, REAL, hard-nosed border security and taking the leash off
Immigration Control Enforcement to begin the painful process of weeding out those
who must go from those who could safely and productively stay. Sending a mere
1,200 troops to the border in a non-enforcement capacity is not such an act of good
faith, but a cynical political pressure release valve. It engenders zero confidence
that Obama and his people would enforce any part of the new law save the parts
they favor (i.e., amnesty, guest workers and legalization). Since Obama has earned
this mistrust, he is the only one who can repair it. If amnesty sign-ups have to
publicly admit that they broke the law, Obama should publicly say he failed to
enforce it, and explain in great detail exactly how his behavior and language, and
that of the rest of his administration is going to change. His personal pride and the
arrogance of majority demonstrated by his administration and party may render
such an outcome unlikely. But without it, the issue is likely to go unaddressed so
long as he is in office.
   One parting word to Hispanics and their supporters (one of whom I am). You
have a wonderful and rich culture and an exemplary work ethic. That is what you
bring to America's greatness, and what your newly legalized brethren can multiply.
Do not be gulled by extremist organizers into believing that America can EVER be
influenced or subverted into ceding land on its southermost borders back to Mexico.
And when you must demonstrate to make your point, do so waving American, not
Mexican flags. For in so doing you only further alienate those upon whose good will
an amnesty depends. And do not hate Republicans and try to bar them from office.
For in the years ahead you will need their understanding and support to solve the
problems of a newly legal population, and friends tend to be more understanding
than enemies. What conservatives want is simply border (national) security and a
favorable business climate. Newly legal immigrants will benefit from those things
as well. Forming a strong Hispanic caucus within the Republican or Tea Parties
is far from impossible, and you can wield far more influence from the inside than
the outside. It is not only our nation that thrives on diversity, but it can and should
be our political parties as well. This is a problem we can solve together when each
of us understands we can get so much of what we want, even if we can't get quite
everything we want.
Tags: immigration  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SOLVING IMMIGRATION - PART VI

 
   Immigration chaos did not happen overnight, nor will it be remedied in the blink
of an eye. In fact, any attempt to rush it will lead to an unnecessarily toxic backlash
and likely cause it to fail.
   As already pointed out, any attempt to dump eleven million newly legal workers on
an already deflated labor market would be disastrous. In the "new economy" (i.e.,
post recession) American workers will go through a process of re-defining what jobs
they will and won't do. While they are unlikely to embrace seasonal work because it
does not provide a constant income stream, other jobs now done by illegals may take
on a new appeal, and if Americans are unable to make such adjustments due to the
legalization of a now illegal population the economic, political and social repercussions
will likely exceed the current negatives caused by illegal immigration. Such a period
of adjustment cannot, however, be interminable, and can play out while illegals who
qualify for amnesty are identified and signed up for the program. Passage of the law
will give out-of-work Americans to re-think whether washing dishes, landscaping,
and construction work are truly beneath their dignity when the alternative is starvation.
   That said, admission to an amnesty program cannot mean instant citizenship, but a
right to earn it. No benefits can precede the payment of fines and taxes or the public
admission of wrongdoing. A "green card" permitting the amnesty sign-ons to work
could, however, be provided as those requirements are completed. To be successful,
this must not be a typical government program where the requirements to learn
English, become familiar with American history and renounce foreign citizenship and
allegiance get smoothly swept under the rug. Such a falseness will perpetuate a class
of "second tier citizens," and discredit the program as a sham in the all-important
court of public opinion. Enrollees in amnesty should have a finite period in which to
complete it -- say seven years -- or be reverted to illegal status and be subject to
deportation. Privileges to vote and run for public office should be deferred until
citizenship is achieved, thus de-politicizing the issue.
   A finite enrollment period should be established, with the qualifications announced
publicly and repeatedly in English and Spanish, and Hispanic-serving organizations
educated to help in publicizing the offer and qualifying applicants. At the conclusion
of that enrollment season ICE enforcement should be stepped up markedly, with
arrests and deportations of the outliers and prosecutions of those who aid and abet
them. such as employers still operating outside the law or relatives who themselves
obey the law but provide material support to those who will not. If there is no intent
to enforce all the provisions of the new law, then why pass it?
   Tomorrow will mark the seventh and final segment of this post on immigration
reform. In it we'll look at both the diplomatic and political mandates required to make
it a success.
 
Tags: immigration  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SOLVING IMMIGRATION - PART V

 
   When the borders are secured, businesses constrained to obey hiring laws and a
fiscally sound pathway to citizenship established, the great mountain known as
immigration reform will be mostly climbed. Before the view from the summit can
be enjoyed, however, there is painful detail to work through. And the devil is in
these details.
   What actually constitutes the citizenship program for those in the country unlaw-
fully? Who will qualify to be in it? What happens to those who either don't qualify
or don't opt in? How long will it take? These are all multi-faceted and thorny issues.
   Credit here to Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer, because the DREAM Act
had the program mostly right. The price of citizenship will include public admission
of wrongdoing, payment of a hefty fine and back taxes, learning to speak English
along with all the other requirements for citizenship, including renouncing allegiance
to foreign governments and pledging it to the USA. No person unwilling to meet
each of these conditions should even be considered a candidate for amnesty. This
is where it gets sticky. Perhaps he is here illegally, and sending money to Mexico
as he earns it to support a wife and children there. Does he stay or go? And if he
stays. do they join him? Or perhaps he sneaked in looking for work, but hasn't
found it. Then what? Or perhaps she's here legally and he's not, and oh, by the
way, her aged parents in Mexico are dependent on them both for support. Does
she stay while he goes? And what about the old folks? Clearly there have to be
some clear guidelines drawn and some careful triage applied.
   First in line should be those who are here and have regular employment and an
employer prepared to pay a fine to keep them on, along with their nuclear (not
extended) families, whether here or elsewhere. That's pretty much a no-brainer
since their purpose in coming will be obvious and their industry proven. Right
behind them should be those who willingly come forward, confess their sins and
agree to go to the back of a greatly expedited line to return legally. Those in the
country unlawfully who have had children while here (Americans by birthright)
should be next, considered on a case-by-case basis. Those who cannot stay because
of criminal histories or other disqualifiers should have ethe option of taking their
citizen-children with them, or leaving them as wards of the state at the time of
their deportation. It sounds cruel, but nobody said such choices were all going to
be easy. The child, of course, would be free to return upon reaching majority and
providing proof of U.S. birth.
   Those here unlawfully but having seasonal or part-time work can be shuttled
into a competently administered guest worker program that (a) ensures knowledge
of their whereabouts while in the country, (b) sets specific time parameters for
their stay and (c) guarantees their return home when their seasonal employment
is over. Anyone overstaying their permitted time should be banned from any return
in the future.
   But Americans do not have a corner on stupidity, and there will be a large number
of those who have entered the country wrongfully yet will opt out of amnesty. They
have mastered the cat-and-mouse game of living in the shadows, don't wish to yield
their anonymity, foreswear their allegiance to Mexico (or wherever else they came
from), can't or don't wish to pay a fine or taxes, have learned to game the system
for free benefits and have no desire to learn English. THIS is the crowd that has to
go. They are essentially hardcore petty (or worse) criminals who are sponging away
the lifeblood of the states in which they reside and are ripe for the very exploitation
amnesty seeks to eliminate. Getting rid of them may eliminate as much as a third of
all those wrongfully in the country. It will require many more enforcement troops
in ICE and a lot of sorting by the courts. But identifying and eliminating these outliers
will add dignity to the process for those who genuinely wish to be Americans and will
lighten the fiscal burden of both state and federal governments. Any of them caught
sneaking in again should go straight to prison.The timing of limited amnesty will be everything. Congress cannot just dump millions of suddenly legal job seekers into an
economy that has near 10% unemployment and is flailing just to stay afloat. This will
take careful thought, planning and preparation. 
   Undoubtedly there will be those who are put off by this segment. Critics on the right
will faunch at rewarding illegal actions with ANY amnesty. Unfortunately, this is
America's unpaid parking ticket. The longer you wait to deal with it, the more painful
it becomes. The need for targeted amnesty is the "fine" that must be paid for years of
inaction. On the left, amnesty advocates will balk at excluding illegals by category, at
forbidding the migration of non-nuclear family (chain migration) and will scream about
the painful choices that may face illegal parents of children born here. The situation is
already a painful one, and nobody suggested the remedy would or could be painless.
Hard choices always hurt someone. Failing to make them hurts everyone. There is no
free lunch -- not for illegal immigrants, the right or the left. Compromise means no one
gets everything he wants, but everyone gets something. 
   In the next post we'll look at some of the timing issues, as well as some of the other
conundrums which must be negotiated before true immigration reform can be achieved.
Even if you bitterly disagree with his particular segment, I hope you will stay with me
until the argument is fully made.
Tags: immigration  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SOLVING IMMIGRATION - PART IV

 
   Stopping business profiteering by preventing the hire of cheap illegal workers is a
nod to the left by the usually pro-business right. Not doing it is a deal breaker and
will lead to more failed immigration policies. But like all pendulums, this one will
have to swing back right if the negotiations are to hold together.
   Conservatives have long refused to consider immigration reform BEFORE the
borders are secured. There are two good reasons for that. One is that if the spigot
of illegal immigration continues to run while negotiations to accommodate those
already here are in progress, there will be no numerical or chronological baseline
against which to calculate how many there are, who qualifies and what the whole
package will cost. It's precisely the same scenario as trying to calculate the cost
and dimension of the BP oil spill before the well is plugged. Another is that
conservatives do not trust this administration to hold up their end of the bargain.
The borders are well defined, and there are unenforced laws already on the books.
In an administration that covets legalized immigrant votes, there is a natural
disincentive to close the borders. Obama admitted as much to Jon Kyl. and his
performance in enforcing existing laws is either a display of total incompetence or
a betrayal of complete lack of the will to do so. But like the former issue, this one's
a deal breaker. Until the president produces a level of hard enforcement and
physical barriers sufficient to satisfy the governors of the border states, there is
little reason to go further. It's a concession he'll have to make if he wants the rest
of the package.
   There are those who argue that a 1,969 mile border cannot be secured. That's
funny, because Iran's border is twice that long, and yet they managed to catch
three wandering and foolish American hikers. Security is part of my background
and training, and one thing that is sure is that where there's the will, there's a way.
Americans have split the atom, gone to the moon, repelled the Nazis and found
cures for incurable diseases. Saying we can't secure our southern borders is an
exercise in plain foolishness. The magic keys are intelligence, identification,
interdiction and consistent enforcement. It can be accomplished by a combination
of physical barriers (completing the wall), technology (including remote cameras,
sensors and drones), boots on the ground (many more Border Patrol agents, along
with armed military units equipped to deal with traffickers and authorized to fire
if threatened) and arrests with prompt detention and deportation.
   The latter may require some additional changes in the laws, and will definitely
mandate changes in procedure on the American side of the border. For example,
why does someone caught in the act of sneaking across the border get a deportation
hearing or get incarcerated at taxpayer expense? And why do those suspected of
making illegal entry spend weeks or months in custody waiting for a hearing? Such
hearings don't require a Brandeis, a Marshall or a Rehnquist. There are hundreds
of underemployed attorneys who could be given a crash course in immigration law
and sworn in as Special Masters (working under the supervision of actual judges)
to dispense justice in these cases without the costly and undue wait on overburdened
courts and crowded dockets. It's done in family courts, cases of debt discharge and
plead out misdemeanors all the time. Why not for caught-in-the-act illegal aliens?
   At no point in this difficult process will trust between traditionally opposing
parties be more critical. Once enforcement parameters are hammered out, the
right must proffer a watchful modicum of trust in the administration to carry them
out fully and promptly. Any undue delay, hedging, bureaucratic wrangling over
political, environmental, diplomatic or other issues will breach that trust and cause 
the collapse of a process that will likely be doomed for a decade. This is a serious
matter for serious people, and those tempted to play politics with it will simply
kill it. As there can be no reform without making employers honest, there can
be none without securing the borders. The one will help with the other.
 
Tags: immigration  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SOLVING IMMIGRATION - PART III

 
   Figuring out how to cover the costs of legalizing illegal immigrants without either
raising taxes or adding to the deficit will be a solid concession by liberals to fiscally
concerned conservatives. In the spirit of linkage we have described, it will beg a
counter-concession from conservatives, and it will entail changing the way in which
a number of Americans do business.
   It is America's dirty little open secret that many employers have flaunted the law
by hiring illegal immigrants who will work "off the books" for less than the minimum
wage and no benefits. The result has been entrenched poverty, human exploitation
and states that have to pick up the burden of caring for those whom employers won't.
That will all have to end! It must end not only because it is scandalous and immoral,
but because it is arguably the only way to really solve the illegal immigration problem.
Most illegals come here for work. The argument runs that whatever they can get here
is better than what they had there, which is akin to arguing that death by starvation
is better than death by firing squad. We claim that we are "a nation of laws," yet wink
when employers wantonly choose to break the law in the name of earning stronger
profits. It is hypocritical, undermines the republic and continues to fuel the problem
caused by an unabated northward flow of humanity. If we hire them, they will come.
When we can't, they won't!
   Not only will this process be painful, it should be. Successful immigration reform
legislation must impose Draconian fines and hard jail time for employers who know-
ingly hire illegals. Conversely, workers must be provided with something like
biometric identity cards to prove that they are, in fact, in the country legally and
permitted to work here. A refined E-Verify system and dramatically stepped up
enforcement involving ICE raids, IRS audits and spot checks by INS agents will be
needed to root out and prosecute cheaters. There can be no gray areas, no second
chances and no exceptions. It must be exactly like an alcoholic going "on the
wagon." Some businesses will make the argument that they cannot operate at a
profit if they have to meet such requirements. They must be told politely that in
such a case they need to go out of business and make room for those who find
ways to obey the law and prosper. If there are businesses that can't thrive without
exploiting people and breaking laws then America will be the richer without them.
   Businesses wishing to keep illegal employees should be allowed to providing (a)
that they pay a fine, and (b) that the illegal agrees to enter into the amnesty program
with an ultimate goal of achieving citizenship. Businesses who release illegals to avoid
fines should have those fines tripled if they later hire them back. Illegals with regular
employment, and an employer who will vouch for them should, along with their nuclear
families, be first in line for any amnesty that is granted.
   Employers who exploit people for profit have given capitalism a bad name. Laws
providing painful sanctions and enforcement with real teeth can end this scandal once
and for all. When the word drifts south that employers fear the INS, IRS and the
Justice Department more than they desire cheap labor, the crowds climbing border
fences will dwindle to a trickle, and many of those already here will return home.
ANY solution not incorporating these provisions will not satisfy those on the left, will not expiate the sins of the profiteers and will not pass muster. Business will have to suffer a bit.
   In tomorrow's post we look at the enforcement side, how to control the border,
and what to do about those in the country illegally who do not enroll in the structured
amnesty program. Yes, every day's dilemma gets harder!
Tags: immigration  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SOLVING IMMIGRATION - PART II

 
   A bipartisan effort in which concessions by one side are linked to concessions by
the other is the only way to decide upon and pass real immigration reform. In this
post we examine one of those necessary linkages that could lead to a package
acceptable to most Americans.
   Due to the debt and deficit crisis, the first question on everyone's lips will be, "What
is it going to cost to grant amnesty to illegal aliens?" This is a bigger issue for fiscally
conservative Republicans than for more fiscally liberal Democrats, but it doesn't
really matter. The audience it will have to convince is a bipartisan national one that
has had it with deficit spending for any reason. Both sides must be realistic about
the fact that the costs will be very real. Hiring enough case agents to speed up the
logjam of those wanting to be processed will cost. Based on past figures the median
incomes of those granted amnesty is low, and does not rise appreciably over a
ten-year period. Amnesty is a commitment to formally importing poverty, and the
social safety net for twelve million newly legal residents will be accompanied by
formidable costs. Those costs may be the most formidable argument by skeptics
for not doing it at all.
   There are some ways to offset or defer those costs, however. In the DREAM Act
co-sponsored by Senators Schumer and Graham, the caveat for amnesty was payment
of a $5,000 fine and all back taxes. How a family living on $26,000 annually could
come up with that money is uncertain, and it could be a deal breaker. But if they
could, even over time (like a student loan) and you multiplied twelve million by
$5,000, that's a lot of money that could be used to offset the costs. One might also
fine companies that currently employ illegals at, say. $2,000 per. That would also
cut the cost while imposing a long overdue justice.
   Additionally, legalization might be laid out as a five to seven year process during
which social benefits accrue progressively from start to finish. This would blunt the
up front "sticker shock" and perhaps help those in the process learn to earn and
appreciate citizenship and its real benefits. Add to this the fact that newly legalized
workers will have to be paid at least minimum wage and provided with employee
benefits. They will therefore have to pay taxes that will increase the federal revenue
stream and, over time, entitle them to unemployment benefits should they lose their
job. Meanwhile they'll be paying into social security, unemployment and income
tax just like everyone else.
   To sell alien amnesty to a country slogging through a deep recession with 10%
unemployment, a flagging stock market and freefalling consumer confidence, the
financials are going to have to somehow be a virtual wash. On this, one would
think legislators beholden to a very nervous electorate would agree.
   In tomorrow's post, we'll look at the most effective means of stemming the
northbound tide of illegals, and the bullets that must be bitten to accomplish it.
Tags: immigration  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SOLVING IMMIGRATION - PART I

 
   When President Obama made his recent immigration speech he stated that
reform was impossible without Republican votes. In so doing, he presented
the GOP with a golden opportunity to seize the initiative to resolve what is our
national scandal, prove to Latinos objectively that they are not, as Democrats
have painted them, anti-immigrant and, at the same time, demonstrate problem-
solving leadership that can propel them into legislative majorities.
   Republicans should promptly begin informal across-the-aisle conversations
with the Blue Dogs, border state Democrats and perhaps even the White House,
proposing a reasoned and deliberate process that, while probably not giving
either party exactly what it wants, would nevertheless provide the country with
a plan, security, purpose, closure and peace around this thorny issue.
   Such a plan would hinge on a series of linked issues in which progress toward
what one party considers most important would be conditioned by and corollary
to progress toward the priority of the other. It's basic conflict resolution strategy
that assumes and demands good faith on both sides, and it can work.
   There will, of course, be pre-conditions. Those on the right favoring mass
deportations will not get those, while those on the left favoring open borders will
have to step back and think about a second choice. Areas of mutual interest need
to be identified, i.e., the costs of mass legalization, the qualifications for limited
amnesty, actually securing the border, enforcement against those who remain in
the country but choose not to participate in an amnesty offer, policing hiring and
verification practices by business and the diplomatic ramifcations of securing the
southern border. Benchmarks must be established that measure progress toward
each side's priorities, and a watchdog designated to be certain that such progress
is fair and equitable to both.
   If issues arise where the parties perceive that goals are attainable by one or the
other but not by both (the formal definition of conflict), a team of arbiters outside
congress and independent of the administration (perhaps comprised of the border
state governors and a representative from the Chamber of Commerce) should be
established to propose equitable resolutions commensurate with the process that
has been set in motion.
   On issues like free enterprise versus statism, national security versus individual
liberties and Republican versus Democrat, the moral imperatives often become
so abstract as to be lost in the heat of debate. But the immigration issue should
be different, because we are not talking about ideas, philosophies, profits or laws
so much as we are talking about the fate of living, breathing human beings. Those
referred to alternately as "immigrant workers" or "illegal aliens" have names and
families, hopes and dreams, joys and sorrows. And to turn them into political
punching bags, pawns in a labor versus capital game, and votes for one party or
the other is flatly immoral and completely unworthy of the United States of
America. Surely both Democrats and Republicans of goodwill can at least agree
on that.
   In tomorrow's post, we'll look at how some of the linkages that conjoin the
disparate positions might be established to come up with a working solution to
what is fast becoming an unmanageable problem.
Tags: immigration  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE FOX IN THE HENHOUSE

 
   You wouldn't send a fox to feed your chickens unless you were really stupid, or
just wanted fewer chickens. Yet Barack Obama has dispatched his puppet attorney
general Eric Holder to help Afghans ferret out and prosecute corruption in government.
It's the same thing!
   Consider the case of the ubiquitous Mr. Holder, the reincarnation of "Slick Willie."
An undistinguished attorney in Bill Clinton's Justice Department, it was Holder who
researched, recommended and signed off on Clinton's notorious pardon of fugitive
financier Marc Rich. It was Rich, you'll remember, who was under indictment for
financial fraud, brokering oil deals with Iran during years in which they were banned
by law, and owing $48M in back taxes. In total he faced 51 counts of tax evasion,
among other crimes, when he scooted on his bail and took refuge in Switzerland.
When his wife, Denise, who was a New York socialite and Democratic fundraiser
facilitated a large cash donation to Hillary Clinton's senatorial campaign and pledged
even more for Clinton's own post-presidential library, the lame duck president, with
Holder's ample assistance, suddenly saw the light and issued Rich a pardon. It was
one of the most excoriated pardons in presidential history, condemned by lopsided
margins in both the House and the Senate and used to defeat the Democrats in the
following election. During his own confirmation hearings, Holder allowed as how it
was an error in judgment to recommend that pardon. Boy howdy!
   Then there was the mysterious dismissal of charges against the three New Black
Panthers accused of intimidating Philadelphia voters with a deadly weapon. They
never contested their indictments and had already been found guilty when Holder's
Justice Department summarily dropped all charges, save an injunction banning one
of the three from carrying a weapon near a polling station. I'll bet that hurt! When
media inquired about the reasons for the dismissal, Holder and his minions
stonewalled. When congress inquired, a so-called internal inquiry was launched by
someone subservient to those who had made the decision. Some inquiry. More
recently J. Christian Adams, an attorney who was, until fairly recently in the Justice
Department, alleged that the decision was entirely political, that attorneys were
strictly instructed to bring no more prosecutions against voter intimidation or
tampering by minorities and that a "pervasive climate of hostility" against prosecution
of non-whites exists in the department today. Liberty and justice for all (unless you're
white).
   Most recently, there is the matter of Arizona's new immigration enforcement law,
which Holder proclaimed unconstitutional and threatened to sue over just before
admitting that he hadn't even read it. While he has not yet filed the suit, it is clear
that he intends to if, and when, the Supreme Court rules against the companion
Arizona law inflicting criminal sanctions against those in the state who employ
illegals. If the supremes let that one stand, it is unlikely that Holder can succeed
in the other matter, and since he's already wearing the equivalent of twenty rare
omelets on his face, might simply choose to cower away into the night.
   Holder's record includes partnership in a firm that specializes in defending those
incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay, and many of his former associates are now
employed by his Justice Department. After much prodding, he finally specfied how
many, but declined to name them, and called them "great patriots" for their work
on behalf of the detainees. It may be something of a stretch to call someone who
carries the legal water for a bunch of murdering terrorists a patriot. Do you think?
   There is no distinguished legal acumen here. Eric Holder is a partisan politician
whose record suggests that his chief purpose in life is to advocate for lawbreakers
and who is arguably a reverse racist. For the "land of the free and home the brave"
to send this jerk to a foreign country to help them root out corruption is like pitching
an anchor to a drowning man. Or maybe sending the fox to the hen house?
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive