Wednesday, November 17, 2004


OK. Why is not pertinent to the issue of the alleged execution of a terrorist in Fallujah that the man behind the camera was "held captive for several hours by Iraqi Fedayeen who accused them of being spies. His hands were bound behind his back and an AK-47 round fired at his feet"? (thanks Hugh Hewitt)

What if we'd seen the same footage of a US soldier in the Korean War and were told that the reporter/photographer had been held and released by the North Koreans a few months earlier? Would that make you more skeptical about the report? Don't you at least think that it should have been disclosed considering the terrible impact that this report has for anti-American propagandists around the world? And what about that Marine...doesn't he deserve to have that kind of information disclosed about his video accuser?


Chrissy Matthews, when he isn't kissing his wife's butt on "Hardball" (sheesh...see last night's broadcast to become truly ill), opines that the bloodthirsty, cowardly, inhuman beasts that the Marines are fighting in Fallujah are "not bad guys especially, just people that disagree with us. They are, in fact, the insurgents fighting us in their country."

Not "bad guys especially"? Matthews makes me sick...is this supposed to be American journalism? Hurrah for the brave Chrissy Matthews speaking truth to power! Right on Brotha!!!

What a pathetic excuse for a human being. How can anyone think that? It may be that the Marine that shot that piece of shit who was pretending to be dead in that mosque in Fallujah was wrong to do so (but we don't know that YET...and heaven knows if there had been cameras manned by weenie leftists on the front lines at Tarawa or Okinawa what horrible things we would have seen) but that doesn't mean the hooded butchers that we are fighting are VIRTUOUS.

How can you expect more, really, from someone who shilled for Jimmy Carter (who thinks Arafat was a "powerful human symbol and forceful advocate").

Kidnappers...assassins...mass murderers...not such bad guys after all.


One of the big issues that the Republicans need to tackle aggressively is border control. After discovering a way to monitor the mind-boggling number of shipping containers that enter US ports every day, the most important problem is sealing the southern border with Mexico.

The Mexican government has been pushing for the Administration to support a legally protected status for illegal immigrants. Before September 11, 2001 Bush appeared to be headed in that direction but prosecuting the war and protecting the borders became higher priorities.

That's fine except that we can't secure our borders given the amount of resources that we are devoting to it, the lack of Mexican government assistance and the determination of Mexicans to risk death to get into the States. Mind you, we are under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to grant any of the rights of citizenship (healthcare, education, drivers licenses, etc.) to those who are in this country illegally. But given the fact that we have consistently refused to enforce our own laws resulting in millions of illegal residents, what is a realistic approach to the problem?

There is no way that we will ever deport even a fraction of the Latin American nationals that reside in this country illegally. Like it or not they are here to stay. And frankly their presence here isn't the problem - it isn't like unemployment is rampant and these immigrants are taking jobs that other Americans would ordinarily fill and most of the Latins are Catholics who share our values not Muslims who preach anti-Americanism from the pulpit. No, the problems are that we 1)ignore our own laws to let them stay, 2)don't collect taxes on the money they make in a largely pay-by-cash economy and, most importantly, 3)are overwhelmed by the human flood to the extent that it is unlikely that the government is providing proper safeguards against terrorist infiltration.

It seems to me that there is a solution that would satisfy the needs of all parties:

1) Create a new guest worker program for Latin American countries. This could be similar to an H Visa but more liberal. Applicants would need only an American sponsor (a citizen in good standing here) and pass a background check. All applicants would be fingerprinted and have their photographs taken for an FBI/INS database.
2) Guest workers would be subject to income and payroll taxes just like all other American citizens but would be eligible for public education and worker assistance programs. One difference I would propose would be a lifetime cap on unemployment benefits prior to naturalization - if a person can't stay employed here we don't want them to put a burden on our welfare system. GWs would be eligible for Social Security benefits only after becoming American citizens.
3)GWs would NOT be able to vote in US elections - this prohibition would apply to state and local governments also.
4)US born children of GWs would be automatically eligible for GW status upon application but would NOT become citizens by way of their birth in this country. GWs American born children would be eligible for naturalization at the age of 18 assuming that they had no felony convictions.
5) A felony conviction in the US would be grounds for automatic deportation.
6) Male GWs above the age of 18 will automatically be registered for the draft. GWs may decline to be drafted into the US military but by electing to do so they (and their dependents) must surrender their GW status and return to their native country.
7) All illegal Latin American immigrants will be eligible for GW registration so long as they have proof that they were in the United States prior to the announcement of the program, have no felony history and currently have adequate means of support.
8) The quota of Guest Worker Visas to be granted each year should be roughly equal to the average estimated Latin American immigration (legal and illegal) over the past ten years. The quota may be adjusted up or down in conjunction with fluxuations in the US unemployment rate.

In return for the enactment of this legislation, the Mexican government will agree to assist us in patrolling the border and permit American surveillance and law enforcement activities to be conducted on the Mexican side of the border (in coordination with Mexican police) in a zone to be determined.

A small tax increase on the "wealthiest" Americans (that John Kerry was so keen on punishing) would be used to purchase surveillance equipment, build barriers and hire thousands of military personnel to patrol the border. The tax would sunset after five years with the intent being to reduce it after the bulk of the capital expenditures had been made.

Now this is just me brainstorming. I'm sure there are a lot of problems with what I've proposed not the least of which is the massive expenditures that will be necessary to realize a truly secure border. But think of the influx of cash into the treasury if only a small portion of the eligible income is taxed - and least you think this is unfair I ask you, why should the working poor have to pay SS taxes and small businesses have to pay when the guy who cuts your lawn doesn't?

It's a good deal all around - hell, even labor unions OUGHT to support it because it makes the playing field more equal. So let's get to it Republicans.

Tuesday, November 16, 2004


Why are the Democrats no longer capable of winning national elections?

That is what they are asking themselves these days. Can they find solace in the fact that they won a plurality of the vote in 1992, 1996 and 2000? Perhaps. But the last time a Democratic candidate for president won a majority of the vote was Jimmy Carter (ughh) in 1976. Twenty-eight years ago they were able to win a narrow majority against Gerald Ford. Not so comforting after all.

This election completed the realignment of national political allegiances - there are no more hawkish, socially conservative southern Democrats - they either retired (John Breaux, Zell Miller)or they switched parties a long time ago (John Connally, Phil Gramm). Ironically the inclusive party is now the Republican party - it is a center-right coalition that still includes a few northeastern liberals (Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter)- while the Democrats demands lock-step adherence to the party platform (pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage) in order to have a voice at the table.

The Democrats are racking their brains now trying to figure out a winning strategy. But how can you win elections on the national level when your core constituency is far outside of the mainstream? Abortion rights groups, radical feminists, socialists, anarchists, pacifists, homosexual advocates, labor unions, environmental activists and the ACLU to varying degrees influence Democratic Party policies. It is not possible to simultaneously appeal to those groups (with the exception of labor unions and environmentalists) and the Christians (both Protestants and Catholics) who turned out in record numbers to turn the tide for President Bush.

I've commented on this before - Kerry's problem in this campaign and the Democrats' problem in general is that the core beliefs of the party cannot be openly espoused because to do so is political suicide. The far left in the country tolerates this strategy of deception because they had no viable alternative to center-right rule. But over time the electorate has caught on to the fact that the democratic Party has become the anti-religion, pro-tax and pacifism-at-all-cost party regardless of the presidential election year rhetoric.

Democrats in their pain over Kerry's loss have continued their strategy of insulting the intelligence of the "red state" voters while wondering aloud why they can't capture those votes. It is instructive to note that the Dems are more than happy to accept the help of vile mouthed rappers who can't resist the temptation to stab each other at an awards ceremony and yet attribute racist and homophobic motives to those who voted against their platform.

Isn't it possible that some of us just disagree with more taxes, more regulation, retreat in the face of Islamic fascism, abortion in the final trimester and the use of our tax dollars to push the acceptance of homosexual marriage in society? This doesn't seem reactionary or ignorant to me.

Some of us think that the education of our children is more important than the agenda of teachers unions. A lot of us think that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry with the blessing of the state. We don't think that the Boy Scouts should be attacked for denying homosexuals the access to young boys. The overwhelming majority of us believe that we should have gone into Afghanistan to take out the people who killed almost 3000 of us on 9/11. We don't like Michael Moore's anti-American screeds any more than we like Noam Chomsky's. But to those of us who believe these things there is only one political party that we can call home.

I think that it is more likely that the Democratic Party will fracture with its far left wing splintering off into irrelevant and sporadically violent protest than it will become a majority party again. The great success of the Conservatives over the past 40 years is that we have succeeded in shifting the political debate in the country from a left-wing agenda to a center-right agenda. Think of it, John F. Kerry, who won his party's nomination by posing as an anti-war candidate - who had been the ultimate anti-war protester after Vietnam, had to campaign as a "war hero". The Democratic nominee for president had to claim to be against homosexual marriage (although he'd voted against the Defense of Marriage Act). Even if Bush had lost the election he succeeded in pulling the debate far enough to the right that Kerry had pledged not to pull out the troops in Iraq until we had "won".

The Republicans have to guard against getting to prideful over their victory. We already have the progressive agenda on education, tax reform and social security but a more effective public relations effort has to be waged to win the day. And there isn't any reason why immigration, environmental and energy policies can't be crafted to both be consistent with conservative values and provide the practical solutions that people want to see.

The danger for Republicans is that they push too hard and lose the center. It will be interesting....but my money has the Democrats shifting to the left and leaving centrists with no choice but to align with the right.

Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=