Paul's Blog of Wisdom

Boy, I'm quoting a Paul Krugman editorial to support an argument of mine? What has the world come to? Anyway, here it goes:

"In other words, I'm instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration."

"Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent."

"Because Mexican immigrants have much less education ... they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study ... by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration."

"Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive."

I have never used many of the most typical arguments used against illegal immigration. Most of the arguments against it are of the silly "They took our jobs" type. My reasons are mostly cultural. I have said for a long time that immigration is happening so quickly and so much from 1 country that assimilation is simply not happening for most of the Mexicans who come here. For people from non-Latin American countries, there's simply no option but to learn English, to be surrounded by people from countries other than their old home country and to assimilate, but Mexicans don't have to do this. Many of them don't speak English and they're not learning our culture and assimilating because there's simply no reason for them to. They live in overwhelmingly Mexican areas, overwhelmingly speak Spanish, watch TV shows in Spanish, hang out with only or mostly Mexicans, etc. How are they supposed to assimilate that way? We have a very large and constantly-growing subset of our population that associates itself primarily with another country, many of whom outright hate our country and dream of the day that the reconquista of the American southwest comes. I know someone who used to live in Laredo, Texas, who said that he was constantly treated differently--like a foreigner, he said--and discriminated against because he's white. I know a hispanic woman who used to live in Tucson, Arizona, who said that everyone at her school hated her and called her a gringa because she spoke English like an American and she spoke Spanish with an American accent. Or, how about this from yesterday:















Or this:























That second photo was at an American school where students had put the Mexican flag above the upside-down American flag. Got that? This happened at an American school. The first photo is of a girl getting yelled at and sneered at for having an American flag on. You know, the flag of the country where she lives! She even said that her heart was with the Mexican flag, but she thought she would wear the American flag because that's where she lives. Even the girl wearing the American flag said that her heart is with the Mexican flag! In other words, among Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, it is culturally completely unacceptable to associate oneself primarily with America. There is tremendous cultural pressure among them not to assimilate. Why on God's green Earth should we possibly want millions upon millions more people who hate our country and who actively fight assimilation to come here?!

You know, all of this begs the obvious question: If these people hate the United States so much, why are they risking their lives to come here and fighting so hard to stay here?

We simply can't continue on with this the way we're going. It will be a disaster. As I said, there is a loud, vocal and ever-growing minority in this country that actively and passionately hates this country and whose allegiance is primarily with another country. We need to shut off the flow of illegal immigrants from this country and make it virtually impossible to hire them. If they can't get jobs illegally, they won't come here illegally. People say that "We can't deport 12 million people," but if we make it almost impossible for them to get illegal jobs, through huge fines and stepped-up interior enforcement, we won't need to deport them. If people who are already here illegally can't get a job, they'll simply go back home of their own will. I support a guest worker program in theory, if the government could actually administer it effectively, which I doubt. However, even if we do implement a guest worker program, we don't have to get our guest workers from Mexico, where the people who came here would likely just hate our country when they come here. There are probably 5 billion people throughout the world who would love to come to the United States and who would appreciate the tremendous freedom and opportunity it would offer them. My wife, for instance, grew up in the Soviet Union. She loves the United States with every ounce of her being and her primary allegiance is to the United States. There are plenty of people in her home country who would love to come here and who would appreciate it. It would be very easy for us to get our low-cost labor from other places in the world. Why don't we do that?

See Michelle Malkin for much more.

Finally, a somewhat mainstream media source, Investor's Business Daily, takes on our politically correct culture on the topic of Islam. As I have said in previous posts, for the past few decades, our culture has been overwhelmed by a politically correct mindset that says "Who are we to judge?" whenever there is a difference between us and anyone else. This mindset's primary concern is making sure that we don't offend the minority or the "other." This mindset simply doesn't allow us to criticize the "other," which means anyone who's not a white, Western Christian male, no matter what the circumstances, without being branded racist or sexist or xenophobic or anti-Islamic or some other similar term. This mindset says "Who are we to say that Iran can't have nuclear weapons when we're the only country ever to have used them?" and "Who are we to criticize Islam when people have done horrible things in the name of Christianity before?" It is my belief that this PC mindset is a threat to our society and this post tries to explain why. Here are some questions that Investor's Business Daily asks of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR):

Is Islam the only religion with a doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers?

Is it true that 26 chapters of the Quran deal with jihad, a fight able-bodied believers are obligated to join (Surah 2:216), and that the text orders Muslims to "instill terror into the hearts of the unbeliever" and to "smite above their necks" (8:12)?

Is the "test" of loyalty to Allah not good acts or faith in general, but martyrdom that results from fighting unbelievers (47:4) — the only assurance of salvation in Islam (4:74; 9:111)?

Are the sins of any Muslim who becomes a martyr forgiven by the very act of being slain while slaying the unbelievers (4:96)?

And is it really true that martyrs are rewarded with virgins, among other carnal delights, in Paradise (38:51, 55:56; 55:76; 56:22)?

Are those unable to do jihad — such as women or the elderly — required to give "asylum and aid" to those who do fight unbelievers in the cause of Allah (8:74)?

Does Islam advocate expansion by force? And is the final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, to conquer the world in the name of Islam (9:29)?

Is Islam the only religion that does not teach the Golden Rule (48:29)? Does the Quran instead teach violence and hatred against non-Muslims, specifically Jews and Christians (5:50)?

Our society has almost totally ignored questions like these since 9/11 because it's simply not PC to ask them. Without actually knowing a single thing about Islam (and I should state clearly now that I'm certainly no Islamic scholar, either), good PC Americans have simply gone out and preached to anyone and everyone that Islam is really a "religion of peace" that has been "hijacked by extremists" just like Torquemada hijacked Christianity. This mindset has become a sort of fetish for much of Western society ever since the civil rights movement. We have so rammed home this guilt over our societies' past imperialism/slavery/racism, that our obsession with being sensitive to the minority/other doesn't allow us to see the truth that's right in front of our faces. Our obedience to this PC ideology has trumped our obedience to the truth and I believe that this mindset is a threat to our society. How can we defeat an enemy if we refuse even to identify it or even to ask questions that might lead to us identifying the true problem? We are facing an enemy that has the will, and, in the near future, could very well have the means, to destroy us. This PC culture is a luxury that only a sleeping society that's not at war for its very existence can afford to have. Unfortunately, that description no longer describes us. We have to wake up and see the truth that's right in front of our face because if we can't even identify our enemy, how can we defeat it?

See Michelle Malkin for more.

I couldn't have said this better myself:

"What was striking, following the mosque bombing, was the evidence of Iraq's underlying stability in the face of attempts to undermine it. The country's vital institutions seem to have grown strong enough to withstand even the provocation of the bombing of the golden mosque.

"In the wake of the bombing, it is true, militias took to the streets, and widespread sectarian violence occurred, killing and wounding many Iraqis. But not a single Iraqi political leader, including the volatile Moktada al-Sadr, endorsed an expansion of the violence. On the contrary, all joined to condemn it, to support government efforts to curtail it, and called on their followers to stop it. The Iraqi army and police were sent out to enforce curfews and stop traffic in many areas. Even in this crisis, they executed their orders, and shut down the great bulk of the violence within several days. Within a fortnight, Sunni leaders who had boycotted discussions aimed at forming a government reentered negotiations, and Iraqi politics--turbulent and nerve-wracking as it is--began again. This is not the performance of a society on the brink of civil war."

The Republicans are pathetic right now. The Democrats have been pathetic for a long time, but the Republicans are certainly pathetic right now and seem to be getting more so all the time. There was a little while there when the Republicans could claim with some legitimacy that they were the party that had real ideas and that stood by their principles. Whatever truth there was to that idea before is totally gone now. The Republicans won't extend Bush's tax cuts. They are tripping over themselves to spend more and more money on everything, running away in fear from the idea of restraining spending even the tiniest bit. They were terrified even to discuss any social security reforms at all. They didn't vote to drill for oil in ANWR. These and many other examples are all being done in an attempt to buy off various constituencies for short-term political gain. However, even if this does help the Republicans in the short term for the election this year, which I kind of doubt, it will hurt them in the long-term, because people can see quite clearly now that they are no longer a party of any principles.

There are still some people out there who refer to Russia as our ally. I think that this should pretty much put that idea to rest:

Two Iraqi documents from March 2003 — on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion — and addressed to the secretary of Saddam Hussein, describe details of a U.S. plan for war. According to the documents, the plan was disclosed to the Iraqis by the Russian ambassador.

The first document (CMPC-2003-001950) is a handwritten account of a meeting with the Russian ambassador that details his description of the composition, size, location and type of U.S. military forces arrayed in the Gulf and Jordan. The document includes the exact numbers of tanks, armored vehicles, different types of aircraft, missiles, helicopters, aircraft carriers, and other forces, and also includes their exact locations. The ambassador also described the positions of two Special Forces units.

The second document (CMPC-2004-001117) is a typed account, signed by Deputy Foreign Minister Hammam Abdel Khaleq, that states that the Russian ambassador has told the Iraqis that the United States was planning to deploy its force into Iraq from Basra in the South and up the Euphrates, and would avoid entering major cities on the way to Baghdad, which is, in fact what happened.

So, the Russian government told Iraq what our war plan was, thus almost certainly causing the deaths of Americans in war? I'd say that pretty much puts Russia into the "enemy" category, doesn't it? I personally have been attacked for saying things like this before, but I'd say that this shows that Russia is still an active enemy of the United States.

Here's Victor Hanson once again giving an analysis of the war on terror and our country's collective thoughts about its progress:

Even our current clinical depression is typically American. In July 1864, Lincoln was hated and McClellan and the Copperheads who wished a cessation of war and bisection of country canonized. Truman left office with the nation’s anger that he had failed in Korea. As George Bush Sr. departed, the conventional wisdom was that the budding chaos and redrawing of the map of Eastern Europe would prompt decades of instability as former Communists could not simply be spoon fed democracy and capitalism. During Afghanistan by week five we were in a quagmire; the dust storm supposedly threatened our success in Iraq — in the manner that the explosion of the dome at Samarra marked the beginning of a hopeless civil war that “lost” Iraq.

The fact is that we are close to seeing a democratically elected government emerge, backed by an increasingly competent army, pitted against a minority of a minority in Zaraqawi’s Wahhabi jihadists.

While we worry about our own losses, both human and financial, al Qaeda knows that thousands of its terrorists are dead, with its leadership dismantled or in hiding — and most of the globe turning against it. For all our depression at home, we can still win two wars — the removal of Saddam Hussein and the destruction of jihadists that followed him — and leave a legitimate government that is the antithesis of both autocracy and theocracy.

Syria is out of Lebanon — but only as long as democracy is in Iraq. Libya and Pakistan have come clean about nuclear trafficking — but only as long as the U.S. is serious about reform in the Middle East.

I often say that while being bombarded by the 24-hour news cycle sometimes we need to take a step back and remember not to miss the forest for the trees. The media get us so caught up in that day's individual events that it's very easy to forget about the big picture.

The federal government has started to release some of its roughly 2 million unread documents that it has captured in Afghanistan and Iraq so far. They are proving to contain some very interesting information. For instance:

"SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME PROVIDED FINANCIAL support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq. An eight-page fax dated June 6, 2001, and sent from the Iraqi ambassador in Manila to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad, provides an update on Abu Sayyaf kidnappings and indicates that the Iraqi regime was providing the group with money to purchase weapons."

"The first of them, a series of memos from the spring of 2001, shows that the Iraqi Intelligence Service funded Abu Sayyaf, despite the reservations of some IIS officials. The second, an internal Iraqi Intelligence memo on the relationships between the IIS and Saudi opposition groups, records that Osama bin Laden requested Iraqi cooperation on terrorism and propaganda and that in January 1997 the Iraqi regime was eager to continue its relationship with bin Laden."

"An analysis of Iraqi embassy phone records by Philippine authorities showed that Hussein had been in regular contact with Abu Sayyaf leaders both before and after the attack that killed SFC Jackson. Andrea Domingo, immigration commissioner for the Philippines, said Hussein ran an 'established network' of terrorists in the country. Hussein had also met with members of the New People's Army, a Communist opposition group on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist groups, in his office at the embassy. According to a Philippine government official, the Philippine National Police uncovered documents in a New People's Army compound that indicate the Iraqi embassy had provided funding for the group."

There are an awful lot of people out there who owe apologies for saying that there were no links between Saddam Hussein and terrorists.

To those who continue to say that there's no mainstream media bias, I challenge you to look at this and then say that:

"An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:

• That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.
• That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and 'bin Laden's group' agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
• That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in 'these destructive operations,' the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
• That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with 'bin Laden's group' while he was in Iran.

"At the end, the writer recommends informing 'the committee of intentions' about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear.

"(Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable -- i.e. an unnamed Afghan 'informant' reporting on a conversation with another Afghan 'consul.' The date of the document -- four days after 9/11 -- is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)"

Take a look at that Editor's Note. Everything said in it is true, of course. However, I want you to ask yourself if you've ever seen a note like this about a similar situation that made George Bush look bad. How many stories have there been over the last few years with unnamed or questionable informants that painted Bush in a bad light? Some of them even turned out to be false or probably false, like the Guantanamo Koran flushing story and the Bush National Guard papers story. Have you ever seen anyone in the mainstream media, including CBS, put a similar Editor's Note after those stories, claiming that "without further corroboration, this document/information is of limited evidentiary value?"

The West has learned several new words since the war on terror really began full-force after 9/11. We've learned words like jihad, infidel and sharia that most of us didn't know before. There's one very important word, however, that we should all know that most of us don't. That word is dhimmi. Here is the definition of dhimmi in the Wikipedia:

"A dhimmi is a non-Muslim subject of a state governed in accordance with sharia — Islamic law. The word dhimmi is an adjective derived from the noun 'dhimma,' which means 'tutelage' and denotes the legal relationship between a dhimmi and the Islamic state. It applied mostly to non-polytheists who were conquered by a Muslim state and allowed to retain their religion.

Dhimmis were guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying a special capitation tax known as the jizya and accepting various restrictions and legal disabilities. These provisions of sharia limited the ability of dhimmis to visibly practice their rituals, expand and repair places of worship. Dhimmis were not allowed to testify in cases involving a Muslim; dhimmi men were prohibited from marrying Muslim women. Some restrictions imposed on dhimmis from time to time were largely symbolic in nature and were designed to highlight the inferiority of dhimmis compared to Muslims. These regulations included, among others, requirements to wear distinctive clothing and prohibitions on riding horses and camels."

A dhimmi, therefore, is someone who is not a Muslim, but who lives by Muslim rules and who openly professes one's inferiority to Muslims by paying a literal tax--the jizya--and by submitting to rules designed by Muslims to show the dhimmi that they're inferior. We should all burn this word into our brain. When we see Muslims committing ridiculous acts of violence over silly cartoons and we then apologize for these cartoons, the rioters don't see a kind act of apology. They see the act of a dhimmi. When CNN puts a note on its web page that it won't print the cartoons out of "respect for Islam," al Qaeda doesn't see a nice, kind, loving society that they should emulate. They see weak dhimmi who won't stand up for what we supposedly believe in. They see a society that voluntarily gives up what it professes are its most cherished values in response to its weakness against the Muslim rioters. Our media's self-censorship over these cartoons was, to them, an act of dhimmis openly submitting to their rules and openly professing our inferiority to them. Remember this word and don't allow us to become dhimmis in the name of "respect" or "sensitivity."

It seems as if we've been counting on China to help us with respect to Iran and North Korea. It's my perception that China simply will not help us in either instance and here's why. There are different events in our 2 countries' histories that define our policies. For the U.S., the 9/11 attack is the event that guides our policies more than any other. Our biggest fear is having another terrorist attack conducted against us, especially one with WMDs. For China, however, the event that guides their policies more than any other is the protest at Tiananmen Square in 1989. China watched as "people power" brought down the Soviet Union. Top government members in China have stated that they watched the "color revolutions" of the past few years in Lebanon, Ukraine and other countries with fear. China has also been having a lot of unrest over the past few years and it has been growing. This doesn't get a lot of coverage in Western media, largely because the Chinese government keeps the media out, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. So, while the fear of terrorist attacks keeps our government leaders awake at night, it's social unrest that scares the pants off of the Chinese government. This is why China won't help us with Iran or North Korea.

China's main goal with North Korea is simply to keep the country stable enough so that it doesn't collapse. If North Korea were to collapse, that would send millions of Korean refugees spilling over the borders into China. China is more afraid of the instability and social chaos this would bring than they are of North Korea having a few nukes. For that reason, China won't get tough, because any tough action against the North Korean government would increase the likelihood that the North Korean government would collapse, which is China's biggest fear. So, China will simply keep giving North Korea what they want indefinitely and as long as North Korea knows that China will keep providing them with a lifeline, North Korea doesn't have to concede anything with regards to its nuclear program. Hence, the standoff will continue in perpetuity unless we get the idea that China might help us out of our heads and change tactics.

As for Iran, China simply wants their oil. The Chinese government knows that it is not viewed as being legitimate in the same way that an elected government is, either internationally or by its own people. Thus, they have determined that the best way to minimize the social unrest that they fear so much and to boost their legitimacy in the eyes of their own people is through rapid economic growth. This has largely worked. Certain parts of China that used to produce quite a bit of unrest have been largely quieted when the good economic times have come to that part of the country. Therefore, the Chinese government sees it as being necessary for their very survival to achieve 8-10% economic growth every year. Iran has already stated that it will use oil as a weapon if any sanctions are imposed against them. Cutting off their oil would lower China's economic growth, which, again, China fears more than Iran having a few nukes. So, because of our different fears, China is simply not going to help us here.

So, how do we remedy this situation? It seems to me that the most likely way we can get China on our side is to make our security fears and their economic fears one and the same. For instance, I think that we should say "Okay, China, either tighten the screws on Iran/North Korea or we'll put tariffs on so and so products of yours." That way, we'll turn their fear of slowed down economic growth to our advantage. Now, the problem with this is that China and the U.S. are both in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and most tariffs are thus banned. Therefore, we would have to find some way within WTO rules to punish them economically if they don't help us. Another possibility would be to say that if China doesn't help us we'll sell Taiwan certain high-tech military equipment at a discounted price. I just don't think that our current path will yield any results in either case.

I hate social security. I think it's an awful program and I would love to overhaul it. I give credit to George Bush for campaigning on changing it, even though he failed spectacularly. My biggest problem with his reforms were actually that I personally think they didn't go nearly far enough. Since I hate social security the way it is currently set up, I figured I'd explain why in an effort to do my part to shift the public's view of what I think is a horrible program.

The first reason I hate social security is that it creates a culture of dependence on the government. It leads people to think "Why should I save for my retirement when the government will give me money when I retire?" This and other programs of this sort create a culture-wide lack of individual responsibility and independence. This culture leads people to expect things of the government/taxpayer rather than expecting to go out and earn things themselves.

The second reason I hate social security is because it's a massive transfer of wealth from economically productive people to economically unproductive people. It causes a tremendous drain on the economy to take money from people who are productive and simply give it to people who are unproductive.

The third reason I hate social security is because everyone gets it, whether they need it or not. If/when Bill Gates retires, he'll get social security. I can't be the only one who thinks this is ridiculous, can I? I can't believe that liberals support this program. I have always wanted to ask a liberal, "So, as a liberal you support a program that takes money away from someone making minimum wage so that a billionaire can get a monthly government check?" How can this be? I don't want poor seniors dying on the streets because we won't help them, so I would keep some form of social security for seniors, but come on, rich people simply don't need a monthly government check.

The fourth reason I hate social security is because I have no control over it. I was shocked at the number of people who were against Bush's personal accounts idea. How could anyone be against this idea? Social security is supposedly my retirement money, right? So, why don't I have any say over what happens to it? Under Bush's program, if I wanted to invest part of my social security money, I could. If I didn't want to, I didn't have to. For the life of me, I don't understand how that didn't have 100% public support. When did it become a radical idea for people to have the option of controlling some of their retirement money? Have we become such a nanny state that this is too radical of an idea?

The fifth reason I hate social security is because I think that this is simply not the government's role. This is an ideological reason more than a practical reason and I freely admit that. I just simply don't think it's the government's job to be controlling people's retirement. I think it's individuals'/families' jobs to take care of people's retirement.

Okay, so if I hate social security so much, what would I do if I were dictator of America? I would basically treat it like a social program rather than a retirement program. I would means test people so that if they made more than a certain amount of money during their career they simply would not get any social security. Sorry, but if you made $100,000 per year, you simply don't need social security. You made enough money during your life to prepare for your retirement. If you didn't prepare, well, too bad, it's not the taxpayers' fault. If you made less than that level, whatever that level would be set to, then you could get it. I would then eliminate the ceiling on income that can be taxed for social security, so everyone would be paying the tax on every dollar of income they made. Since the total amount of social security payments would go down due to the means testing, the tax level could also go down. I would also index the retirement age to average life expectancy so that as people grow to live longer, the age at which they could receive social security would get higher.

Having already blogged about the official confirmation that Bush didn't intentionally lie about WMDs, here's official confirmation that he didn't lie about Iraq's connections to terrorism:

"The Saddam Fedayeen also took part in the regime's domestic terrorism operations and planned for attacks throughout Europe and the Middle East. In a document dated May 1999, Saddam's older son, Uday, ordered preparations for 'special operations, assassinations, and bombings, for the centers and traitor symbols in London, Iran and the self-ruled areas [Kurdistan].' Preparations for 'Blessed July,' a regime-directed wave of 'martyrdom' operations against targets in the West, were well under way at the time of the coalition invasion."

Once again, if the Republicans are smart, they'll run to the cameras and demand apologies from everyone who said that Iraq had no connections to terrorists, which means that he should get an apology from, let's see, basically every Democrat and at least 99% of the media.

This should be the death knell for the stupid charge that Bush lied about WMDs to get us into war:

"The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defense."

So, for people to keep using the charge that Bush intentionally lied about the weapons to get us into war, they would have to be saying that President Bush knew more about Iraq's weapons than even Saddam's own top military leaders did. If the Republicans are smart they will run to the TV cameras with the names of all the people who have used the "Bush lied" line and pound those people over and over until they either apologize for their slander or are shown to be the ones who really lied. And, as we all know, there are a lot of people who've used that line.

It's no secret that President Bush's popularity has gone down and that party loyalty has decreased substantially. It seems apparent that he's not going to get any more big ideas or policies through for the remainder of his Presidency. Yet, some useful things can still happen during his Presidency. Here are the things that I want from Bush considering his weakened political state:

Illegal Immigration--Here's the number 1 thing I want in domestic policy for the remainder of Bush's Presidency. I want an illegal immigration bill that will not only drastically reduce the number of illegal immigrants that will come here, but one that will also make it so much harder to get a job for illegal immigrants that they will start going back home of their own choice. The bill that the House passed will go a long way towards achieving this. Let's hope the Senate passes a bill that's similar or even tougher.

Tax Cuts--The tax cuts have stimulated the economy and I hope they're made permanent. I would also like to see some real attempt to control spending, but that appears unlikely given both Bush's and the Republicans' weakened political states right now. Republicans are going out of their way now to spend even more money than they have over the last several years in order to try to buy votes for November.

Iraq--We need to stick in Iraq until the job is done. This looks extremely likely. Bush is not going to leave early. The only thing that could stop this from happening would be for Congress to cut off funding and I don't think that'll happen.

Terrorists--I want to get Zarqawi, bin Laden and Zawahiri, for goodness' sake!

Iran--I don't know what to do about Iran, but I want their nuclear program taken care of.

These things could all be taken care of in Bush's remaining time in office and if these are all taken care of, that would be a successful last few years considering Bush's weak political situation.

It's interesting to look at how the 2 major American political parties seem to have switched roles in many ways over the last few decades. For instance, Democrats used to dominate the South and now Republicans do. Republicans used to be the party just of the rich, snobby elite while the Democrats were the party of the "common person." Now, the symbols of the left are rich, spoiled elitists like Howard Dean, Barbra Streisand and George Soros while the symbol of the right has increasingly become a poor, rural, "everyday" guy holding a gun and going to church. The Republicans used to be the party of smaller government and fiscal responsibility. Now, well, neither party really is that now, but the Republicans certainly aren't. Here's another example:

"'In order to win the war on terror we have got to strengthen our friendships and relationships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East,' he said."

Ever since the run-up to the Iraq war, the left screamed that the way to win the war on terror was to be "multilateral" and to "build alliances" with "moderate Arab countries" and things like that. This interesting thing about this quote, however, is that it's from George Bush. This quote came from the man that the left screamed at for years at the top of their lungs for having destroyed all of our relationships with other countries and having alienated all the countries that might help us in the war on terror and in other matters. So, what's going on here? While it's becoming increasingly obvious that George Bush does not, in and of himself, represent his party as a whole, it appears that, on this issue at least, the 2 parties seem to have flipped again to some extent.

The Economist takes a look at sectarian tensions in Iraq in the most recent issue.

"It notes, for example, how American administrators...unwittingly empowered religious factions by applying sectarian formulas to government appointments."

This holds lessons for the U.S. and affirmative action. Our policy of basing government appointments in Iraq on sectarian affiliation, which we thought would give everyone a warm and happy feeling, really made people focus on people's sectarian differences more, thus exacerbating tensions. The same thing is true of our affirmative action policies. If we base school admissions or job placement on race, rather than reducing racial tensions, this will merely make them worse, by continuing to make race an issue. People who support affirmative action often call people who are against it racist. However, in reality, people who support affirmative action are the ones who want to keep race as an issue, while people who are against it, like me, are the ones who want race not to be an issue.

Arab-American Psychologist Wafa Sultan absolutely blasted Islamic societies and culture on Al-Jazeera recently. Here are some quotes:

"The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings."

"All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking."

"The Jews have come from the tragedy [of the Holocaust], and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. Fifteen million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them."

Ouch! I'm sure there are fatwas being put out against her as we speak. Hopefully, though, this will lead Muslims all around the world to question themselves, their culture and their values in an intelligent way, rather than just being another excuse to kill someone who disagrees with them which is then ignored by moderate Muslims.

The Patriot Act was renewed by the Senate, with relatively minor changes, this time by a vote of 89-10. So, that means that out of 200 possible votes in the 2 times it has come up before the Senate for a democratic vote by the legitimately elected Senators of the United States, there have been a total of 11 votes against it. It seems to me that the democratically elected Senators of this country overwhelmingly support the Patriot Act. Yet, this has been one of the primary exhibits by ultra-liberals of the "dictatorship" that is George Bush's Presidency. Hopefully, this will end that argument, at least in reference to the Patriot Act. Now, if they still think that it does more harm than good and they want to get rid of it altogether or alter it some more, that's fine. Let them continue to make that case and try to get representatives elected who will do that. However, if one more person uses the Patriot Act as evidence of George Bush being a "dictator," I very well might scream.

"Former Rep. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham, who collected $2.4 million in homes, yachts, antique furnishings and other bribes on a scale unparalleled in the history of Congress, was sentenced Friday to eight years and four months in prison, the longest term meted out to a congressman in decades."

Ouch. This goes to remind us that even members of Congress aren't above the law.

"'Your honor I have ripped my life to shreds due to my actions, my actions that I did to myself,' he said."

That is correct.

"An Overland High School teacher who criticized President Bush, capitalism and U.S. foreign policy during his geography class was placed on administrative leave Wednesday afternoon after a student who recorded the session went public with the tape."

I believe that this is the beginning of the end of the ultra-hippy cultural relativism dominance in our educational system and I couldn't be happier. Granted, this will not end it right away, but this accountability for political preaching disguised as teaching will likely spread and this will be seen as the event that started it. Parents will now be more aware of teachers doing this sort of thing and teachers will become a little warier about preaching politics in their classroom for fear that they could get suspended or even fired.

Here's a link to a site that has the whole recording.

Michelle Malkin has transcribed the whole thing for you if you prefer to read it.

In the post-Vietnam era, our educational system has been marked by an overwhelming dominance of a culturally relativistic mindset like this that says that the United States is always wrong and is the cause of everything bad that happens in the world. This mindset points out our flaws and always says "Who are we to judge?" Because people of this mindset think that the U.S. is so bad and so flawed, it follows that they think that any time we disagree with someone or use foreign aid to influence other countries' policies or go to war with another country, that's wrong because "Who are we to judge?" "How can we try to change another country when we've done so and so bad thing in the past? Who are we to judge?" they ask. This mindset has so totally taken over our educational system and the culture of people who were born since Vietnam that it kind of scares me. Judging by my parents' reactions when I tell them this, they don't realize the extent to which this mindset has permeated our society among younger people. Luckily, now there seems to be a backlash developing against this mindset, or at least the dominance of this mindset, and Sean Allen has fired a shot against it because teachers everywhere will be a little more careful about saying their whacko political viewpoints--whether conservative or liberal--in a public school setting to children.

Let me make it clear that I don't have any problem with an individual having these particular crazy opinions besides just thinking they're crazy. I'd be glad to let this guy speak publicly and have his opinions shot down in the court of public opinion. What bothers me is that he's pushing it down impressionable kids' throats, thus trying to create a whole new generation of whackos like him. I don't want Ann Coulter teaching classes and telling kids that all Democrats are treasonous any more than I want this loon saying the nonsense that he does in his classroom.


Check out Slapstick Politics for more.

"The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is calling on the California Democratic congressional delegation to press for the impeachment of President Bush. Seven of the city's 10 supervisors agreed that the president had failed to perform his duties by leading the country into war in Iraq and eroding civil liberties."

That's the San Francisco we all know and laugh at. What impeachable offense has Bush committed? Just keep sending out that loony tunes image to the rest of the country, San Francisco. Are they even in the same country as the rest of us? At least Gavin Newsom is talking a little bit of sense:

"Mayor Gavin Newsom says he hasn't decided whether he'll sign the non-bonding resolution, but tells the San Francisco Chronicle, 'On the list of 1 to 3000, it's not even on that list of priorities for me to sign a resolution that will have no force and effect.'"

Why do they even waste their time and taxpayer money on this nonsense? Sigh.

There are people in border states whose property goes right up to the Mexican border. After years of having their property stolen and littered upon and having their livestock slaughtered by people illegally crossing the border, some of them have started to fight back. Some of them have begun stopping people at gunpoint and telling them to get off their property. It's perfectly legal by American law to protect one's property this way. Well, I saw on Fox News this morning that the Mexican government is filing lawsuits on behalf of some of those illegal immigrants, charging the American landowners with harassment. One assumes that the Mexican government will lose, but this is extremely worrisome nonetheless. This is a clear intimidation tactic. The Mexican government is clearly saying "If you try to mess with these illegal immigrants, whose repatriations from your functioning economy are the lifeblood of our crappy, corrupt economy and government, then you'll have the full weight of the Mexican government coming against you." This would bother me more, but I know that the Mexican government is simply shooting themselves in the foot with things like this. It's outrageous things like this that have mobilized the public enough to pressure Congress to crack down on illegal immigration. The more the Mexican government does things like this, the more pressure will be put on Congress to fix the problem for good. So, I say, keep it up Mexico!

One of the things that just about every liberal "credits" the Bush administration with is that they have such a ruthlessly effective "propaganda" team. Liberals constantly say that the Bush administration is so good at spinning and selling their policies that this is the only reason that Bush has been elected twice and that any of his policies have gotten through. After all, to most liberals, Bush is somewhere between Hitler and the devil and for someone between Hitler and the devil to have been elected twice, it must be because of a Goebbles-like effectiveness at propaganda. This charge drives me nuts, because I say the exact opposite. I say that the Bush administration is shockingly bad at getting its message across. They have effectively outsourced their public relations to talk radio hosts and blogs. The hullabaloo over this port deal is a perfect example and should put this idea to rest, though it won't. The administration has been totally, completely incompetent at telling its side of the story over and over and over and this total incompetence affects Bush's approval rating, which affects his ability to get his policies through. Let's take this ports deal. Whether you support it or not, there is a very strong case to be made that it should go through, which I have described here. Yet, for days all anyone heard was "A country that produced 2 of the 9/11 hijackers and through which 9/11 money was transferred is taking over our port security!" A competent public relations team would have been out there on the first day saying what is now, finally, being said. Yet, Bush's public relations team isn't the slightest bit competent. It's horrendous. Let me examine a few more ways in which their public relations team is a pathetic failure:

The economy--A recent poll showed that something like 1/3 of Americans think the economy's in recession right now! A strong case can be made that the economy is not only good but great right now, yet the public as a whole simply doesn't realize this.

Social Security--For a long time, seemingly everyone, including most of the mainstream media, was either implying or saying straight out that the personal accounts in the President's proposed Social Security reform were mandatory. This got the idea in people's heads that the President's plan would force away your retirement security to place upon the whims of the stock market. If they had been on the ball, the administration would have come out and said over and over again, "These personal accounts would be 100% optional. If you want to invest part of your social security money in the stock market, you can. If you don't want to, you don't have to. How could anyone disagree with this?" Poll after poll showed that when people were told that the accounts were optional, support for his reforms jumped way up. Yet, they failed to get this message across.

Guantanamo Bay--An awful lot of people think that we should give everyone at Guantanamo Bay a civilian trial, when this simply is not feasible. Pakistani intelligence has captured hundreds of terrorists since 9/11. If they were all put to an American civilian trial, this would require putting Pakistani intelligence agents on the stand as witnesses in order to prove their guilt to the standard of a civilian trial. What are the chances of the Pakistani government allowing their intelligence agents to take the stand in an American civilian trial, thus exposing their agents and intelligence-gathering methods to the world? Zero. Therefore, if we gave them all civilian trials, basically all of them would go free because the witnesses couldn't testify. Is it really feasible simply to let almost every al Qaeda agent we have go free?

Iraq--There are a million things here that I could mention. Most people thought that it was our job to prove that Iraq had WMDs before we attacked. In reality, U.N. Resolution 1441 said that it was Iraq's job to prove that they didn't have the weapons. That sounds like a small difference, yet it makes all the difference in the world. Again, this was a pretty easy case to make, yet the administration utterly failed to make it. It has become accepted pretty much as fact, at least among most of the media, that there was no connection at all between Iraq and al Qaeda pre-9/11. That's debunked here. While Iraq clearly wasn't a state run by and for international terrorists like Afghanistan was, Iraq clearly had some connections with international terrorists, including al Qaeda, yet the story of no connection at all endures.

Allies--The rhetoric of the last few years would have you believe that George Bush has alienated the entire world against us and that since we have no friends that will hurt us in everything we try to do from now on. Yet, we're now closer allies with India, Pakistan, Israel and Japan, not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan, than we've ever been. Together, these countries have a population of well over a billion people. Given the threats and problems we're likely to face in the coming years and decades, I'll take India, Pakistan and Japan over France, Germany and Canada any day of the week. With that said, however, we might not have to make that choice. The new leaders of Canada and Germany seem to want to have better relations with the U.S. and Nicolas Sarkozy, the early front-runner to be the next President of France, is likely to be more pro-American, or at least less anti-American, than Jacques Chirac. Yes, there was an immature, almost global, temper tantrum against for a while, but as more and more people, especially Europeans, realize that they are also a target of terrorists, people are going to be cozying up to us more and more in the coming months and years. Yet people still think that everyone hates us.

This is just a smattering of the administration's PR failures, yet you get the point. The points I make are things that could very easily be made by the administration, yet they have almost completely failed. Like I said, this doesn't just affect Bush's approval rating. It affects his ability to get important legislation through. Every time I hear liberals talk about their "ruthlessly effective propaganda" team, I am just shocked.