What has happened to President Bush?

This morning, the President gave a speech in response to the rising price of gas, and, according to the 'honorable' Senator Chucky Schumer, the president was missing 5 words in his speech about gas prices: "get tough on big oil".

Personally, I think that everyone in the debate (as usual) is missing the gargantuan 2-ton gorilla lurking in the back of the room: the gas tax. The President said in his speech that "the one thing the American people won't tolerate is manipulation of the market." What about the government's manipulation of the market? Should we tolerate that? The people are complaining about the high gas prices. The politicians are blaming the oil industry, saying that they should be investigated and penalized if they are committing illegal price gouging. Now, I believe that this is true: if the oil companies are committing criminal acts, they should be prosecuted for that. But it seems that we go through this every summer: gas prices go up, people complain, politicians shout & investigate, and nothing substantive gets done. Why has nothing been done? Because there is no evidence of price gouging.

It is abundantly true that the oil companies look very, very bad in all of this, especially in light of the fact that Exxon's chairman just retired with a $400 million retirement package (the fact that they are scapegoated by politicians every time prices go up also lends to the negative image)...but this isn't as much evidence of price gouging as it is indicative of a larger corporate trend: CEOs across the board are making more and more money relative to the average worker...but that's a totally different topic. The way these gas prices are, if they were due to price gouging, it would have to be so obvious that the oil companies would have been outed and penalized for it long ago.

The most laughable part of this debate is (no surprises here) Senator Arlen Specter, who has urged the Congress to pass a tax on oil companies. My question is this: just how did this moron get elected? Does he have no sense at all? How will a tax on oil companies fix anything? I can see his (il)logic: oil companies are making profits...so if the government taxes those profits more, the oil companies will endeavor to make less profits. The problem with this argument: the cost of the tax will only be passed on to the consumer, thus amplifying the problem rather than fixing it. The last thing we need is another gas tax...yet it seems that for US liberals, the answer to every problem is higher taxes. Senator Specter, here's a little tip from our history: if higher taxes really fixed things, the United States would still be a part of the British Empire.


If our politicians were truly serious about doing something to reduce gas prices, they would actually be taking substantive action to do something about it, instead of just complaining about oil companies. It's easy to blame "big oil" every time gas prices go up, but if you do a little digging into the facts behind gas prices, it doesn't take long at all to find out that the government is making far more in profits off of gasoline than any oil company. This puts the government in a far better position to do something about gas prices than any oil company.

Another step they could take is to drill for oil in ANWR. This is a step that should have been taken long ago (we're talking at least 10 years here), but our politicians have continually played to the environmental lobby and blocked any attempt to tap this vital reserve. Now, instead of doing what makes sense: tap a huge reserve that would decrease our dependance on oil from foreign sources (many of which are of questionable loyalty to us), President Bush has said that the government will temporarily stop putting oil into the strategic oil reserve so that more oil will be on the market, (hopefully) lowering prices. Let me point something out: it's called the strategic oil reserve...yet it seems that every time the President gets into trouble over rising gas prices, he uses it for political purposes (after Hurricane Katrina, President Bush, at the insistence of Congressional Democrats, actually released oil from the reserve in order to assist in bringing prices down). The strategic oil reserve should not be used as a political tool, and the fact that President Bush is doing so yet again is reprehensible.

The final step that the government should be taking is to increase US refining capacity. Many oil companies have wanted to build new refineries, but, like with ANWR, our politicians have bowed to the environmentalists and blocked their attempts. Greater refining capacity would go a long way in increasing the market's supply and bringing prices down...without compromising our security by draining our strategic reserve.


Basically what it gets down to is that for all of their talk, once again, our politicians are refusing to take real action to diffuse the issue. The government could go a long way in reducing gas prices in three simple steps:

1. Repeal, or at least drastically reduce the gas tax (an accompanying decrease in government spending would be nice, as well)
   
2. Allow drilling in ANWR
3. Allow an increase in US refining capacity

If this were to be President Bush's energy policy, I'd definitely be willing to vote Republican in the next election - if he were to throw in some tasty incentives to change over to ethanol or hydrogen, it'd be even better. But unfortunately, it looks like this will be nothing new: our politicians will whine, complain, and investigate, and they might even take some token measures to make it look like they really care...but in the end, nothing substantive will be done...and, once again, the only reason that I don't regret voting for President Bush in 2004 is because he was running against John Kerry.

China, aka the sheepskined wolf.

China is not our friend. I say this from a somewhat precarious position, as at least 90% of the people I work with are Chinese immigrants, but I stand steadfast in this view. I have no problem with the people of China...but the government of China is most definitely an entity we should be wary of.

President Hu Jintao is visiting the United States, and has been in the US, in fact, for the past few days. Yet, for some reason, he first visited the White House this morning. Why? Because his first stop was in Seattle, where he met with Bill Gates and the leaders of Starbucks.

On the surface, this seems innocent enough - after all, China has business interests in the US, and it is well known that China wishes to expand those business intersts. Add to that the fact that Seattle is on the way to Washington, and you have...nothing but a pile of excuses.

Diplomatically speaking, the first person President Hu should have been meeting with is President Bush. To do otherwise is to show that China puts its business interests ahead of diplomacy...and I have no doubt that this is true. While China and the US put on diplomatic happy faces and act all chummy, for the past couple of decades, China has been strategically positioning itself to destroy the US economy. And, like a pack of fools, US officials have played right into their collective hand (pun intended).

China is what made the debate over the port deal with DPW so disengenuous - DPW was set to take control of several major East coast ports, but China already controls our West coast ports. While I don't like the fact that our national deficit has now exceeded 9 trillion dollars, I am even more disturbed by the fact that China holds most of that debt. China is one of the main sources of cheap goods imported by the United States. At the present time, if they chose to, China could cripple the US economy. As they continue to expand their economic interests in the US, they will soon be in a position to devastate our economy outright.

On the surface, there is little to worry about when it comes to China's economic interests in the US...after all, aren't we economic partners? A quick study of history, however, tells me that we have much to fear from Red China. For nearly 50 years, the United States was in a Cold War with Russia. America won the Cold War, not through military might, but through economics. Through the arms race, we were able to bury the Soviet Union economically, until they had no choice but to back down. I believe that we are currently in a second Cold War, this time with China, and they are positioning themselves to bring us down economically in one swift stroke.

Is this view alarmist? Quite possibly, but this is how geopolitics works: it is a battle of egos, a battle of nationalism, a battle of economic, military, and terrirorial interests. And even while we move to contain the threat of North Korea and prevent the expansion of the threat from Iran, in order to continue to survive, the United States must deal with the economic threat posed by China. As much press as the situation between China and Taiwan gets, the economic problem is paramount: if China is able to destroy the US economy, no one will be there to defend Taiwan when the Red Army rolls over them.


All of this is reason enough that the US government should be distancing itself from China...and I haven't even mentioned the civil & human rights issues going on in China.

Protests against immigration reform...or against America?

Now, to start off with, I realize that the vast majority of those who went out and protested initially were clueless high school kids. I understand fully the distinction between clueless high school kids and intelligent high school kids...and I understand that it's fully possible for intelligent high school kids to be totally clueless, especially on political topics. With these first protests, it was quite clear that the vast majority of the marchers were of the clueless variety: they were either a) looking for an excuse to get out of school, or b) were buying into the lies about what the protest was all about (namely, anti-Hispanic racism on the part of legislators).

First things first: any group that marches in the United States under the flag of any other nation is not okay in my book. That includes the flag of Mexico just as much as the Nazi flag, because if you're an American, then you're not a Mexican anymore. You can be Mexican-American, but if you're a citizen of the United States, then your allegiance should be to the American flag. All of this marching under the Mexican flag just disgusts me. It's revolting, precisely for the reason that many of these marches are being organized by groups for which the symbol of marching under the Mexican flag means something entirely different than it does for the average marcher.

From talking to people and hearing interviews with marchers, it seems that to the average marcher, the flag is a cultural symbol only...and that, on the surface, is okay (though there are some dire sociological implications of the "salad bowl" mentality vs. the traditional "melting pot" - see France for further reference).

For the organizations behind the marches, however, the Mexican flag has more dire implications: it is a symbol of Mexico's eventual takeover of the American Southwest (see previous post for some of the names of these groups). Perhaps the most disturbing fact about these groups is their new (or perhaps only newly known) affiliation with Marxist/Communist/Socialist groups such as the ANSWER Coalition (who also organized the LA protest).

Apparently, they are now trying to organize a boycott/walkout on May 1, calling it "a day without immigrants". May 1...that seems to ring a bell. That's right! May Day! Time for a May Day party!!! (for anyone who doesn't know the significance of May Day, please click the link...it's pretty self-explanatory).

One of the problems I have with these marches is that while the average protestor may have legitimate questions and concerns, the groups behind the marches are either fringe Communist wackos or pro-Mexico, anti-America racist organizations. While these organizations undeniably have the right to protest (except for the illegal immigrants among them, whose civil rights are not guaranteed under the US Constitution), there is absolutely no reason we should listen to them. For one thing, America spent nearly 50 years fighting Communism during the Cold War. Communism has been shown again and again to be ineffective, and while Canada and parts of Europe are still experimenting with socialism, that really isn't going all that well (I find it amusing how socialist nations are said to be the most progressive, yet they routinely restrict the civil rights of their citizens to a much, much higher degree than happens here in the US). As for the racism angle, I see no reason for us to listen to the advice to a bunch of anti-white racists.

The other problem I have with these protests is that we have illegal immigrants demanding rights under the US Constitution...and for many of them, they are rights even citizens aren't guaranteed. For instance, I can't just walk into any hospital emergency room & get medical care on the taxpayer dole. Yet illegal immigrants are marching in the streets, insisting not only that they aren't criminals (hint: criminal=someone who breaks the law...that includes immigration law), but that they are entitled to rights. It's disgusting how the entitlement culture seems to have spread.


Eventually, I fear, these groups will succeed. America is under attack on too many fronts (internal and external) to survive indefinitely. What's more, organizations such as MEChA are very good at putting on fronts: their local organizations seem innocent enough...but the overarching organization has insidious designs on the future of America. Already Congress is in the process of weakening the legislation that is necessary to stop, or at the least slow this onslaught of illegal immigration. Unfortunately, or politicians are more worried about getting re-elected and acquiring more power than they are about doing the right thing...but nothing new there.

Of course, the protestors are learning. In the latest protests, the organizers told people to leave their Mexican flags at home, and they distributed American flags in an attempt to gain traction in the press. It worked, too. I don't know how many times I heard that day about how great the protest looked, with so many American flags flying, and narry a Mexican flag in sight. But while this may make them look better on the surface, the core message and the core beliefs have not changed. It's still the Aztlan movement. It's still anti-white. It's still "this is our land, and we want it back." I don't know how many people they fooled, but I wasn't one of them. It doesn't matter how many American flags they carry; as long as these protests are organized by racists and communists, it doesn't matter what they say, the real agenda shines through brilliantly.

The simple solution: on Monday, May 1, go out and shop. Personally, I plan to buy groceries and gas on May 1, and I may go out and buy a CD or two, or maybe a movie on DVD, just to try and help counteract the protest.

Another solution: I've heard rumors of a proposed walkout/boycott on May 5 (Cinco de Mayo), called "The Day Without Citizens". Basically, this is a counter-protest. The idea: stay home on May 5. Don't go shopping, don't contribute to the economy. This is to be the citizens' protest in favor of strong immigration reform. How much success it will have is still to be determined. May 5 is a Friday, and unless I have some great excuse, I will be going to work, no matter how much I'd like to join this protest, simply because I need the money (this is why conservatives tend to make bad protestors: we live real lives, and real lives can't just be dropped on a dime to go marching out in the streets to protest every little thing). However, I definitely won't be buying anything on May 5 - if I fill up my gas tank & buy groceries on May 1, there will be no need anyway, but I plan to go out of my way to avoid shopping in any form on May 5, and I encourage any legal citizens of America to join me in this. I would even encourage student-citizens to stay away from school on that day, but education is more important than protest. Go to school...but take a sack lunch, and stay away from the soda machines (or whatever they've replaced the soda machines with out here in California with their wacko health laws).

VIVA LA RAZA!!!

Well, on to immigration.

This immigration debate has become so convoluted as to be meaningless. It started out well, but it didn't take long to degenerate into cries of racism, jingoism, bigotry, and whatever other smears the Left could come up with to mischaracterize conservatives.

There are several arguments against immigration reform...I'll hit as many of them as I can think of.

The economic arguments make the most sense of the bunch (just don't take that to mean that they make sense): basically, that illegal immigrants are doing jobs that Americans won't do, and we need them to keep our economy going. This could be solved in two steps: deport the illegal immigrants and get rid of welfare. Frankly, the thing that I can't stand about some Americans is that they think there are jobs that are beneath them. I've worked as a janitor. I've cleaned dirty, stinking toilets for a living when I couldn't find a better job. There was a point in my life where I almost ended up working out in the fields (then I was offered the janitorial position). When you need work in order to eat, there is no job that is below you. And if you have a problem with that, then you should be allowed to go ahead and starve...you have that right. It's not as much an immigration issue as it is a problem with the American work ethic. Of course, it's also true that Americans don't want these jobs because they can't compete with the sub-standard wages that employers are paying illegal immigrants. After all, why hire citizens when you can exploit illegals at a lower cost?

Proponens of this theory also use the rationalle that if we deport illegal immigrants and American citizens start working these jobs, prices will go up: prices for produce, houses, and more will jump up, causing a huge burden to America. The problem with this argument: only a fractional amount of illegal immigrants pay taxes, all the while draining our federal budget in the form of state-sponsored services. From CBS.com:

But the revenue [from taxes paid by illegal immigrants] is not enough to offset the drain on the federal budget in the form of services including $2.5 billion in Medicaid costs, $2.2 billion for health care for the uninsured, and $1.9 billion for food stamps.

What's more, illegal immigrants send around $20 billion back to their families in Mexico. While, on the surface, I have no problem with people wanting to take care of their families, that's $20 billion annually that isn't being re-invested in the US economy. Economic re-investment is essential for any nation's economy, and this money constitutes a $20 billion drain on the economy of the United States (on a side-note, money sent back to Mexico from illegal immigrants constitutes the second-largest moneymaker for the Mexican economy...second only to oil...no wonder Vicente Fox is out there actively advocating for illegal immigration).

To all of those who argue that deporting illegal immigrants will lead to increased prices: we're already paying higher prices for produce and housing...we're just paying for them in tax dollars to pay for social programs for these non-citizens, as well as all of the US dollars being exported to Mexico.


There are also people out there saying that this is a civil rights issue (cue "We Shall Overcome" and Martin Luther King, Jr. references). The problem with this argument is so fundamental and basic that it's embarrassing that it was even brought up in the first place: Civil rights are rights granted to citizens of a nation by their government. By definition, illegal immigrants are not citizens (whereas black Americans protesting in the '50s and '60s were citizens under the Constitution). Therefore, illegal immigrants are entitled to exactly zero rights from the U.S. government.


Finally, there are people out there framing the debate in terms of race. Nothing angers me more than the race card these days, and this is no exception. The real problem is that there is racism out there...but it's not on the pro-border security side.

The side of this debate that is in favor of increased border security is in favor of enforcing the law. To date, US immigration law either has not been enforced at all, or has been enforced so poorly that it may as well have not been enforced at all. After all, we're talking about millions of illegal immigrants coming across the border each year. The issue here isn't about Hispanics, or even just Mexicans. It's about enforcing our immigration laws, whether dealing with Hispanics, Asians, Africans, Middle-Easterners, or Europeans. Race is not the issue; law is.

Of course, there is a racist element in the debate...and it's coming from the Hispanic side. There are many groups out there, among them La Raza (the Race), the Aztalan movement, the Mexica movement, and MEChA, whose organizations want to take back the Southwestern United States for Mexico and kick European-Americans out. This is why we see marchers across the US carrying Mexican flags: they want California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas to become the territory of Mexico again. This is where the debate gets racist - they want all of us white people of European descent to go back to Europe...like that's ever going to happen.

Basically what it gets down to is Mexico. Mexico is one heck of a screwed up nation, with a massive poverty problem...which they are exporting to the United States. They also have massive problems with corruption within the Mexican government. This is one of the main reasons Vicente Fox has been so vocal in support of the US allowing illegal immigration: it gets rid of a huge problem for Mexico. When Mexicans are flocking across the border for what are considered sub-standard wages here in the US, that's indicative of a problem in Mexico.


As for solutions, I believe that we have to approach illegal immigration in a 3-fold approach:

1. We need to secure the border. We need some kind of fence or wall, coupled with an enhanced and empowered border patrol. The way things are now, the fences we do have are weak or nonexistent, and our border is undermanned. If we are going to do anything about our illegal immigration problems, we must start by closing the border, or anything else will be entirely ineffective.
2. We need to start deporting illegal immigrants. Amnesty won't solve much of anything - after all, that was tried back in the 1980s, and the fact that we're still debating the issue twenty years later is all the evidence we should need that amnesty is a failing policy. Don't agree? Check this out. While there are massive practical issues surrounding the deportation of nearly 12 million people, the bulk of the problem can be taken care of simply by empowering our law enforcement personnell to arrest and deport anyone caught doing anything illegal who is an illegal immigrant. Stealing? You get deported. Speeding? You get deported. Get in a wreck without insurance? Deported. Make an illegal u-turn? Deported. You get the idea.
   
3. We need to punish businesses that hire illegal immigrants. One of the main contributing factors to illegal immigration has been the willingness of businesses to hire illegal immigrants, and we must keep these businesses from providing a demand for illegal immigrants. There have been various proposals on how to implement this, ranging from a $500 fine per immigrant, to shutting businesses down. I say we impose a $5000 fine for the first illegal immigrant, and $10,000 per illegal after that. Maybe that will get the attention of some of these unethical businesses.
   

In summation: this isn't a race problem, it's a legal problem. It's a practical problem. It's a problem that must be addressed, or we will lose this country.

In the words of Lou Dobbs of CNN:

There are 280 million legal citizens of this country. They are the ones carrying the burden of 20 million illegal immigrants. Oh, it's a great benefit for illegal employers. But don't you dare suggest that it is a benefit to working men and women, who are watching $200 billion of wages disappear every year because of illegal immigration. They're paying for their health care. They're paying for their children in schools that are overcrowded. We are failing the people who built this country, the American middle-class. Don't tell me how important illegal immigration is, because it's utter nonsense.

At a Los Angeles high school:

























Photo captions on the website of the Mexica movement in reference to the LA protest march:

One of the more negative parts of the march was when American flags were passed out to make sure the marchers were looked on as part of "America".

Our signs helped to counter the American flags. Our people expressed their agreement with our message.

Tomorrow: the protests themselves.

Lent is finally over!

It's been absolute torture refraining from blogging for so long. I think God has been testing me - right after I decided to give up blogging for Lent, so much started happening in the world.

But I'm back now, so I can vent everything I've been seeing happen in the world.


Today I want to talk about France. France started off with riots by a bunch of "youths" who were, in fact, Muslims who were tired of being looked down upon & descriminated against by French society (quite a shocker in such a socially progressive nation, eh? Maybe that 'multiculturalism thing isn't such a great idea after all).

The latest riots were in response to a labor law that allows employers to fire employees. Really, all this legislation entails is common sense. French labor laws have been so restrictive toward employers that no one wants to hire - after all, why hire someone if you run such a risk of getting an incompetent or lazy employee that you then cannot legally fire? Under the old laws, the French economy was going to hell in a handbasket. Under the new laws, these "youths" have a much better prospect of getting hired, because the law now enables businesses instead of restricting them.

But to the "youths," it's not an issue of enabling businesses, it's an issue of job security. They rioted because under the new law, if they get a job, they are no longer guaranteed to keep it...basically, they are living in the real world...or would be, if they had decided to live with common sense rather than tearing France to pieces in an effort to get the law repealed.

Let's face it: these "youths" are proving that they're just a bunch of lazy snobbish kids who don't want to work for a living. Maybe they're not, but that's how they come across. Anywhere else in the world (with some exceptions, of course), if you do a good job, you're pretty much guaranteed to keep it. If you do a poor job or laze around all day, don't expect to be employed much longer. That's how capitalism works...and in a larger context, France is an excellent example of the failure of socialism...especially in light of Jaque Chirac's capitualtion to the rioters/protestors. By removing this law, the French government has essentially slain whatever was left of common sense in their nation...just because some "youths" decided to march in the streets, whining and complaining about the government giving them a fair deal.

Now, I know the use of "youths" over and over gets quite annoying...but it's easier to type out than "young socialist punks," which is the tame version of what I really think of them.




Tomorrow: my take on the immigration issue.