Paul's Blog of Wisdom

Take a look at this:

Rumors of immigration roundups have prompted thousands of illegal immigrants to stay home this week and are making some afraid to participate in a national immigration protest planned for Monday.

Len Mills, executive vice president of the Associated General Contractors of South Florida, said he estimated at least 50 percent of workers on construction jobs in the region hadn't shown up for work.

This proves that we can stop illegal immigration from being a big problem. How does this prove that point? The federal government performed 1 high-profile raid on illegal immigrants a week or so ago, catching about 1,000 people, and one smaller raid yesterday, catching about 100 people. Compared to the 10-20 million illegal immigrants in the country now, 1,000 people is a mere 1% of 1% of the illegal population. Yet, from the government doing only 2 raids and catching a mere .01% of the illegal population, a huge number of illegal immigrants are already scared to try to work here. That shows that the tiniest bit of enforcement of our immigration laws causes huge tremors throughout the illegal population. If people think that they can't get jobs here illegally, they simply won't try. If employers fear the consequences of hiring illegals, they won't hire illegals. If illegals can't get jobs because no one will hire them, they'll simply go home. As we can see from this story, it really doesn't take much. A high-profile raid every once in a while appears to be all it will take. We don't need to deport 12 million illegal immigrants, as people often say. If they can't get jobs, they'll simply leave. Enforcing the law is really all it takes. Wow, go figure.

Here's Max Boot in the L.A. Times:

"It is hard to see how media apologists can deny their political bias when no fewer than four prizes were given at least in part for Bush-bashing."

"The full repercussions of these security breaches remain unknown because, just as in 1942, intelligence officers are loath to publicly reveal the harm done to their activities. But there is no doubt that these were among the government's most tightly held secrets and that, despite personal pleas from Bush, both newspapers decided to publish them anyway — to the approbation of their peers."

"What I have found is that journalists feel more bound by their duty to their profession than to their country and that their highest professional calling, as they see it, is to preserve a halo of 'objectivity' by not choosing sides in any controversy.

"No one working for the mainstream media today would refer, as Ernie Pyle did during World War II, to 'our soldiers,' 'our offensive,' 'our predicament.' Today it's 'American soldiers,' 'the military offensive' and (most damning of all) 'the president's predicament' — as if this were Bush's war, not ours."

"An unwillingness to play favorites makes sense when reporting on most topics. Mainstream reporters shouldn't choose between Republicans and Democrats or Microsoft and its critics (though in practice they usually do). But is studied neutrality really the right posture when covering a battle against monsters who fly hijacked aircraft into office buildings?"

I believe that this is one of the big reasons that Fox News is dominating the cable news ratings. They really started to take over the ratings during the Iraq war and I think that's because the people on Fox were obviously happy when we achieved something and were obviously sad when something happened that was bad for us in the war. Other media outlets seem to delight in reporting negative things, while the people on Fox seem to delight in reporting progress and success.

Here comes the pandering:

Senate Republicans are unveiling a 10-point plan Thursday that offers a $100 "gas tax holiday" rebate check to millions of taxpayers. Meanwhile, Democrats are proposing a 60-day gasoline tax holiday.

*Sigh* Both of these ideas are stupid, mindless pandering. How much taxpayer money would we waste by processing and sending out $100 checks to millions of people? A gas tax holiday would just eliminate money from going to the highway trust fund, which is used to build roads, thus causing more congestion in the future, causing us to use more gas sitting in traffic, thus driving up the price of gasoline again. What's even sadder than the mindless election-year pandering going on here is the fact that this would actually sway some voters. How stupid are people? What person out there is stupid enough to think that these things are actual long-term solutions? There are only 2 useful things in Frist's legislation, and they are:

The bill also encourages expansion of existing refineries to expand production capabilities, putting more fuel online for consumers.

and

a provision on opening drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Those would actually make a difference, though not right away. Here is a real long-term energy plan. First, you dramatically streamline the process for building and expanding refineries. Second, you open up drilling virtually anywhere in American territory, whether that's in ANWR, the Gulf of Mexico, or the coast of California or in rural Nevada. Why we're not drilling all the oil that we can get from within our own country baffles the hell out of me. Third, you increase the gas tax by a lot, say $2 per gallon, and lower some other tax like the income tax or payroll tax to offset that increase. This increase will spur the market to find its own innovations. No more government subsidies for specific attempts to find alternative fuels. No more subsidies for hydrogen fuel-cell cars. No more subsidies for ethanol. This is, in effect, the government trying to pick winners, which the government doesn't have a good history of doing. If you raise the cost of gas enough, the market will find its own solutions. It could be hydrogen or it could be something else. Who knows? Ultimately, though, I have more faith in the market than the government to do this. Fourth, eliminate the ineffective and economically inefficient CAFE standard and replace it with a system that simply taxes cars based on their gas mileage. The lower the gas mileage, the higher the tax. Here you have the beginnings of a real energy policy. This haphazard, pandering nonsense is probably worse than worthless.

Liberals harp on and on about our supposed loss of rights and civil liberties under George Bush. Yet, the 2 biggest examples of loss of rights over the last few years are the ban on issue ads in the months leading up to elections from the McCain-Feingold bill and the voluntary giving up of the right to show anything in our media which might offend Muslims. Yet, both of these things are loved by liberals, by and large. Do they not see this?

Here's my favorite historian, Victor Davis Hanson, on Libya:

"Indeed, after Saddam Hussein was deposed, the United States was supposedly disliked worldwide, its efforts at democratization stalled in the bloodshed of the Sunni Triangle. Yet here in Libya at least, people have been friendly to me and the Americans I'm traveling with — and seem ready to resume relations and surprise Westerners with their newfound access to the outside world.

"It may go mostly unspoken, but the removal of Saddam and the resulting effort to birth democracy in Iraq have sent tremors through the Middle East."

"But the Lebanese people are in a fury against their former occupiers, the Syrians. Tens of thousands of Jordanians took to the streets to protest against the terror of fundamentalist Islam. Revolutionary Hamas is already looking ridiculous, as it tries to beg or cajole enough petty cash to keep its garbage collectors on the job."

"The truth is that a huge rock was dropped in the stagnant Middle East pond by the removal of Saddam Hussein."

I say, it's about time.

President Bush on Tuesday ordered a temporary suspension of environmental rules for gasoline, making it easier for refiners to meet demand and possibly dampen prices at the pump.

Easing the environment rules will allow refiners greater flexibility in providing oil supplies since they will not have to use certain additives such as ethanol to meet clean air standards.

The ethanol requirement is simply a pork barrel project for midwestern farmers anyway. I personally find this very interesting:

"What happen to Iraq oil, Mr. President? You said Iraqi oil would pay for the war. Ain't seen no money. Ain't seen no oil," Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland said.

Wow. Just wow. First, Bush was pounded for supposedly going into Iraq for the oil, which made him evil. Now, he's getting pounded for not taking Iraq's oil? What?

Here are some more pictures from the latest reconquista rally. These poor people just want to work hard to earn a living for their family, you know. They have no other agenda whatsoever. Right.

This has me very excited:

Incentive pay for teachers, full-day kindergarten and more options for high schoolers -- paid for in part by a state lottery -- are the main education proposals Nevada Democrats plan to back in the state Legislature next year.

The idea of rewarding teachers for measurable improvement in student performance was something of a departure for the party, which often has criticized the batteries of tests required by President Bush's No Child Left Behind law as destructive to real, creative learning.

In announcing the new plan, Assemblyman John Oceguera, D-Las Vegas, acknowledged that it's a different direction for the party. "Democrats want to take a new approach to education," Oceguera said. "We will invest in our children and teachers, but we will expect accountability and measurable results."

This is wonderful. It appears that the Democrats are finally going to stand up to the teachers' unions and put forth intelligent proposals for education beyond the old standby of just throwing more money at it. I'm not saying that more money can't help. I'm just saying that that alone is insufficient. There are certainly more reforms that I would put forth if I were running for office, such as allowing more school choice to bring about real competition between schools and to allow people in poor areas to go to better schools, but this is definitely progress. The most interesting thing about the article is what appears to be a sublte admission that President Bush's approach to education is winning in the public debate.

"I believe the debate has evolved," Horsford said. "The bottom line is, we need accountability for our public investment in education."

I've long said that there are probably parts of the thousands-of-pages-long No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act that are not perfect and that can and should be changed. Yet, I've also long said that I believed that the general principles of progress measurement and accountability behind NCLB were the right principles. At least in Nevada, the Democratic Party seems to be agreeing with me and, in effect, subtlely saying that President Bush was largely right about education.

I saw an ad for a radio station--96.3--on the back of a bus in downtown Los Angeles on Sunday that said "Proud To Be Latino." What do you think the reaction would be if a radio station had an ad on a bus that said "Proud To Be White?" Do I even need to ask?

So, Iran has openly stated that it has 40,000 suicide bombers waiting to attack us. That means that Iran says out in the open that they are a terrorist state. A terrorist state simply can not be allowed to exist any longer. That means that our policy towards Iran must be one of regime change. We should enlarge the military as soon as possible. In the meantime, we should do whatever we can to delay Iran's nuclear plans. We should try diplomacy as much as we can. If that doesn't work, we should try sanctions. If that doesn't work, we should use limited military strikes to delay their nuclear program. Then, over the next few years, assuming we can reduce our troop levels in Iraq, we might very well have to try overthrowing the mullahs by force. No, I do not want another war. It would be ugly and horrible and most Americans, including me, are sick and tired of war. However, we simply can't allow an openly terrorist-supporting state to exist anymore, especially one that is trying to get nuclear weapons. We can't just ignore a humungous threat to us because it would be hard in the short-term. I contend that we have no other realistic long-term option besides regime change in Iran.

Here's an editorial written by Radley Balko of the Cato Institute on immigration. Here's a copy of an e-mail response I sent to him:

You use the common argument that previous groups of immigrants, like the Chinese and Irish, have assimilated into our culture, therefore the fear that Mexicans won’t assimilate must be wrong this time. This is comparing apples and oranges. You simply can’t compare our current Latino, which is primarily Mexican, immigration with previous bursts of immigration. You certainly can’t compare it to Irish immigration, because the Irish had one big advantage in assimilating, namely that Irish people speak English. Wow, by the third generation, 80% of Mexicans speak primarily English. For the Irish that number was 100% during the first generation. The biggest reason, however, that you can’t compare our current Mexican immigration to previous big bursts of immigration is the sheer numbers. Hispanics are now the biggest minority in the United States. Just look at the numbers to see how quickly that has occurred. Previous bursts of immigration from one country happened for a few years, then slowed down significantly. Over time and several generations, then, their people assimilated. If Mexican immigration slowed down significantly now, then Mexicans would assimilate over time, too. The problem with this is that there is no sign that Mexican immigration is going to slow down any time soon unless we actually put forth the resources to enforce our laws. Sure, after 3 or 4 generations, Mexicans are largely assimilated into American society and culture. The problem with the implication of this statement is that the number and percentage of first- and second-generation Mexicans is ever-increasing. That means that we have a large and constantly growing unassimilated minority. The more it grows, the more it will be allowed to grow. By this I mean that as the unassimilated “Mexican” sections of America grow, their children will increasingly come in contact with unassimilated Mexicans and Mexican culture, listen primarily to Spanish-language radio stations and watch primarily Spanish-language TV channels, so, increasingly, their children will not assimilate. The previous bursts of immigration did not have the numbers and the duration of our current Mexican immigration, so you simply can’t make this comparison. There’s also one more very big thing about Mexicans that separates them from any other big group of immigrants that we’ve ever had come in and it’s something that very few people on either side of the debate seem to mention. “The poll found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, ‘The territory of the United States' southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.’ Zogby said 28 percent disagreed, while another 14 percent said they weren't sure” (http://oglebay.blogspot.com/2006/04/mexican-poll-results.html#links) (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27941). So, we’re importing, by the millions upon millions, people who say that a significant part of our country belongs to Mexico. If we don’t slow down immigration from Mexico, then a group of people who largely believe that much of our country is not ours will be majorities in whole states. I personally don’t want to see who they would elect into office. I don’t want them electing people who say that we should give the Southwest back to Mexico and who would work to make that happen. I’m not sure that this would happen, but I for one don’t want to find out. Therefore, I think that importing so many millions of Mexicans is crazy if only for this reason alone.

Your response to people who want to enforce our immigration laws is that “not all laws are moral.” Then you compared this to previous laws banning blacks and whites from eating at the same counter. Are you serious? Are you therefore saying that all laws controlling immigration are as immoral as a law banning blacks and whites from eating with each other? If you believe this, let me ask you a question. There are probably 5 billion people in the world that would come to the U.S. tomorrow if they could. Are you proposing that we let in all 5 billion of those people tomorrow? Do you think that would be reasonable? Of course you don’t believe that. So, that means that you support having some restrictions on immigration. If we are going to have restrictions on immigration, don’t you think that we should enforce these restrictions? This is really not a difficult concept to grasp. I would think that even you would support having restrictions and enforcing them.

You then say that a test of whether someone is anti-immigrant or merely anti-illegal immigrant is to ask them if they support a guest worker program. That’s a silly and unfair thing to say, for a few reasons. The first reason that’s silly and unfair is that I, and many people, generally support a guest worker program in theory, but we are not sure that we would support one in practice. Our government has shown itself either incapable of enforcing or unwilling to enforce our current immigration laws. If the government shows that it can enforce our immigration laws, then we can discuss having a guest worker program. Until that time, though, I will oppose a guest worker program. Also, saying that if someone doesn’t support a guest worker program—which would bring an additional several hundred thousand immigrants into the country every year on top of the million or so we already bring in each year legally—that makes that person anti-immigrant is unfair. Like I said before, basically everyone does support some restrictions on immigration. Everyone, therefore, has their own idea of what constitutes the optimal number of legal immigrants to allow in every year. Maybe this person just has a different idea of the optimal number of immigrants to bring in than you do. Maybe this person just happens to think that we already allow in a good number of legal immigrants and doesn’t want to increase that number by several hundreds of thousands per year. Maybe this person thinks we should allow in only 300,000 immigrants per year. Does that make this person anti-immigrant or does this person just have a different view of the optimal number than you do? Maybe this person thinks we should allow in only 1,000,000 immigrants a year. Again, does that make this person anti-immigrant or does this person just have a different viewpoint than you do? Maybe this person thinks that having hundreds of thousands of guest workers come in per year would create a two-tiered immigration system in which the guest workers will think “Oh, so we’re good enough to work for them, but not good enough to live with them,” which would then lead to future social tensions. I personally think that it would lead to future social tensions and I have therefore become a bit wary of the idea. Who knows why someone would oppose the guest worker program? Making your charge is like saying that if a person doesn’t agree with you 100% on the exact number of immigrants to bring in every year and the exact structure by which we will bring them in, that makes them anti-immigrant. Do you really think that’s fair?

You say that “Immigration opponents frequently claim that Mexican immigrants are crime prone, more likely to be on public assistance, and a drain on the healthcare and education systems. Some of that may be true.” You then say “But I also suspect that much of this anti-immigrant sentiment is exaggerated, or conjecture.” Well, let’s say that the problems caused by illegal immigrants are not as severe as the more extreme opponents make it out to be. Doesn’t that mean, though, that they’re still problems? Whether the problems are huge negatives are small negatives, they’re still negatives, right? Doesn’t that mean that we should try to eliminate these negatives, regardless of their size? If our society eliminates negatives, aren’t we improving our society?

You say “When it comes to family, work ethic, pride in heritage, and religious faith, it’s hard to find a more conservative ethnic group than Hispanics. Yet somehow, for many on the right, they’ve become the enemy.” Ah, good old race-baiting. Yes, people who want to crack down on illegal immigration simply hate all Hispanics, who are their “enemy.” Come on, now.

Here's an exact copy of a letter I just sent to The Economist for your perusal:

You contend that the enforcement-first immigration reform crowd in the U.S. is only debating with its gut, rather than with its head. I, however, contend that it is The Economist, whose ideology consistently preaches the open flow of goods, services and people, who is debating primarily with its gut rather than with its head. Let’s take this one by one. First, you use the popular straw man argument asking if Americans really want to “criminalize or deport 11m people?” This simply is not necessary. The federal government punished a grand total of 4 businesses in all of 2005 for hiring illegal immigrants. If we had an interior enforcement system which actually cracked down on employers who hired illegals, we wouldn’t have to deport 11 million+ people. Many of them would simply leave on their own. As the open borders crowd always says, most of those people come here just to make an honest living for their family. Using that logic, if they can’t “make an honest living” here illegally, they’ll go back home to “make an honest living” there, right? Surveys show that most illegals in the U.S. did not leave home as unemployed people, but rather left a job in their home country to come here. That seems to show that they would be able to find a job again once they get back home. I contend that if you were debating with your head rather than with your gut, which tells you that cracking down on these poor people is mean, you would see this.

You use the silly Berlin Wall comparison. The Berlin Wall was designed to keep people in, whereas ours would be designed to keep people out. In addition to that, the Berlin Wall was meant to be impassable, whereas ours would be designed to be passable only by people who wanted to come here legally. I really don’t see what’s so outrageous about that. And, yes, I believe this would keep many people out. Anything that makes it more difficult for people to get here would have an impact. This wouldn’t stop everyone, but it would certainly reduce the number of people coming here illegally. I contend that if you were debating with your head rather than with your gut, which tells you that border walls are bad, you would realize this.

You use the example of the “collapse in Latino support for California Republicans after the race-baiting in the 1990s.” First of all, I wouldn’t call denying government benefits to illegal immigrants race-baiting. Secondly, one could use the example of Gray Davis, who lost out in his recall election, apparently at least partially because he allowed illegal immigrants to get driver licenses. This seems to contradict your charge that being tough on illegal immigrants is bad politics. I contend that if you were debating with your head rather than with your gut, you would realize this.

You ask “How else can it satisfy the ravenous demand for labour from business?” You seem to be implying that if we stop illegal immigration then all of a sudden we’ll be a country that has completely shut itself off from the rest of the world. That’s silly. We already let in more legal immigrants per year than any other country on the planet. Is that not enough for you? Plus, any Senate bill that passes is likely to have an increase in legal immigration in it, which I personally support. Your question also ignores that unemployment among teenage Americans is quite high by historical standards, largely because illegal immigrants have taken the jobs that American teenagers once did. Why don’t we once again let teenage Americans mow other people’s lawns and pick fruit in the summer? What would be so horrible about that? I contend that if you were debating with your head rather than with your gut, you would realize this.

You say that “Securing the border has been the main focus of immigration policy for the past two decades, yet the number of illegal immigrants has still swollen from 3m to 11m.” Come on, now. Maybe on paper securing the border has been the main focus of our immigration policy, but you know as well as I do that we have not put in the resources needed to secure the border. One more time, I contend that if you were debating with your head instead of with your gut, you would realize this.

This is really quite simple. What the enforcement-first crowd is saying is that the government has to show us that they can actually enforce the border and our immigration laws first before we should even consider adding another huge bureaucratic mess like a guest-worker program. There has been a mini scandal brewing in the Department of Homeland Security over immigration because there has been a lot of pressure on people there simply to rubber stamp immigrants’ papers without doing background checks on them. If our bureaucracy can’t handle the current influx of immigrants, how are we going to be able to handle hundreds of thousands of additional immigrants per year? If they show me that they can handle existing law and existing immigrants, then we can discuss a guest-worker program.

Paul Oglebay
Las Vegas, NV

I have already said that the Democrats' best strategy from a short-term political viewpoint appears to be to shut up and just let the Republicans self destruct. Now, I will put forth my proposed strategy for the Republicans for the Congressional election this year. That strategy is to bring the impeachment issue out into the open full force. The Republicans should say over and over that the left wing of the Democratic Party would love nothing more than to take back control of Congress, to impeach President Bush and to kick him out of office. This should be made a big issue in each individual House and Senate race. The Democrat in each race will then have 3 options. One option is to agree with the charge and to say that we should impeach the President. That would instantly make that race primarily about this one issue, which would work to the Republican's advantage. While most people are not happy with the President, I don't think they want to go through all of the crap that comes with impeachment proceedings again, either. If the Democrat says that we should impeach the President, his Republican opponent can say "My Democratic opponent wants to waste all of next year, a time when our country is facing major problems, on trying to impeach the President, and all this during a time of war!" I think this would also tarnish the image of the whole Democratic party as being extremist, rather than just that one person. The second option is not really to answer the charges and try to fudge the issue. I think this would backfire, because it would still allow the Republican to paint the Democrat as someone who wants impeachment. The third option is for the Democrat to deny the charges openly. This would dishearten the Democrats' base since impeachment of the President is what they dream about every night. If the Democrats come out in big numbers publicly against impeachment, their disheartened base would likely not turn out to vote in significant numbers, giving the Republicans an advantage. In short, the Democrats' goal for the upcoming election is to turn it into a referendum on the President, which the Democrats would likely win. The Republicans' goal should be to turn it into a referendum on impeachment, which the Republicans would likely win. We'll see if they take my advice.

This story is the talk of the blogosphere today and I couldn't ignore it. I watched the episode of South Park last night with a mix of awe and an almost giddy joy. I hope everyone who is reading this saw it. If not, I hope you get a chance to see it as a repeat. Michelle Malkin has the round-up. At the very least, check out her page to read all about it. I watched the whole cartoon jihad as it was happening with absolute incredulity. It was one of the most remarkably sad things that I have ever seen. I felt like a few crazies halfway around the world had completely succeeded in imposing their extremist views on the entire Western media. It was more than a little depressing for me to see. Then, last night South Park came and redeemed us. Thank you, Trey Parker and Matt Stone! You guys are truly awesome.

In a previous post entitled "Will Political Hamas Moderate," I said:

Another principle of neoconservative ideology is that when extremists suddenly have real democratic political power, they become more moderate because of the realities of democratic power. This principle says that Hamas will be less likely to attack Israel from now on because then Israel would counterattack, Hamas would get blamed for this and they would lose seats in the next election. When Hamas wasn't elected, they didn't have to worry so much about things like that. Now they do. Also, as the majority in the Parliament, Hamas will want to gain and then maintain international credibility. They're already facing lots of pressure from the U.S., for instance, to renounce their call to destroy Israel. Time will tell if they will do it or not.

Today comes this:

Hamas is ready for a "two-state" solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a senior official said Friday, in what would appear to be a softening of Hamas' position and imply recognition of the Jewish state.

Wow. Naturally, one must take Hamas's statements with a very large grain of salt. Is Hamas just saying that to get Israel not to attack it for now so that they can rebuild their forces and attack Israel with even more ferocity later? Maybe. However, even if that's the case, this has crossed a previously uncrossable line. Hamas has never recognized Israel's right to exist in public. Even if they don't mean it, they have now effectively said publicly that Israel has a right to exist. That in and of itself shouldn't be underestimated. Nor should it be overestimated, either, of course.

This is pretty striking, huh?:

The poll found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, "The territory of the United States' southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico." Zogby said 28 percent disagreed, while another 14 percent said they weren't sure.

So, tell me, why should we be importing millions upon millions of people who are more than twice as likely than not to say that a significant part of our country, including where I live, rightfully belongs to Mexico? That's just crazy. In fact, it's borderline suicidal. That would be like Israel importing millions of Palestinians every year who believe that all of Israel should belong to them. Israel wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, so why do we do it? There are probably billions of people throughout the world who would come here tomorrow if they could. Why don't we bring in people from parts of the world who don't think that a major part of our country belongs to their long-lost Aztlan? If we continue with current immigration trends, Mexicans and people descended from Mexicans will be the majority of entire states in the not too totally distant future. Who will they vote into office when this is the case? Californians were seriously considering voting in Cruz Bustamante, a former member of M.E.Ch.A. who would not publicly distance himself from some of their more extreme slogans and goals, as governor! If he hadn't made a few high-profile blunders late in the campaign, he might have won. Now, we probably won't have this future any time soon, if ever, since the immigration reforms being debated in Congress now will likely pass and will probably dramatically slow down illegal immigration over time, but this is a warning that if we don't do something soon, the future could be very, very ugly.

I just saw a clip of Gerardo Sandoval, the Supervisor for District 11 in San Francisco, on Hannity & Colmes from a few months ago. In this clip, Mr. Sandoval said that the United States should get rid of our military and that we should have no military at all. Alan Colmes, the liberal co-host of the show, asked Mr. Sandoval multiple times if he really meant what he said and Mr. Sandoval said multiple times that, yes, in fact he believes that we should have no military whatsoever. Mr. Sandoval just came back on the show yesterday and he stated this more recent time, and I can't confirm this for myself, that the entire Board of Supervisors in San Francisco just voted unanimously to put forth a ballot question in the next election asking the public if San Francisco should just ignore the federal immigration bill that could pass soon if certain aspects of it pass. Yes, this is for real. San Francisco is that loony. I believe that the entire city has gone completely, totally, 100% off the deep end. This is what we in the sane world like to call a slippery slope. If you allow people to break the law without consequences, it just leads to more law-breaking. Apparently, the government and people of San Francisco simply don't care at all what the law says. First, there was Gavin Newsom who blatantly ignored the state law saying that same-gender couples can't get married. That law was passed by a huge majority of the state's population, by the way, and Mr. Newsom, like a dictator on high, simply ignored it. I personally think that same-gender couples should be allowed to get married, but I also believe that the law should be enforced. Then there was the vote by the people of San Francisco saying not to allow military recruiters in public schools even though federal law says they must if they receive federal funds. When people started saying that federal funds should then be cut off because of this, San Franciscans got angry. Now, there's this. This is why crazy, right-wing conservatives like myself think that the law should be followed. If the city of San Francisco and its top politicians simply break the law without there being any consequences whatsoever, people start to think that they can do whatever the hell they want. Gavin Newsom should be in jail for his political stunt, all federal education funding should be yanked from San Francisco if they put through that plan not to allow military recruiters on public campuses and any public official who refuses to enforce any immigration laws should also be put in jail. It's that simple. Follow the law or face the consequences. Apparently, San Francisco has simply lost its collective mind. Seriously, what is wrong with that place?

Here's an editorial, written by Ronald F. Maxwell and printed in the Washington Times, that I just had to reprint in full:

Dear President Bush, Perhaps you know me from my work. I wrote and directed the movies "Gettysburg" and "Gods and Generals." Walking Civil War battlefields, soaking up the letters and diaries of that generation, re-creating the world of our ancestors -- all this has given me a deep appreciation for our country. My dad was with the Army Air Corps in North Africa while your dad was in the Pacific. My French mother was liberated in Tunisia and became a lawful immigrant to the United States. For an American, my story is unique and typical at the same time.
You probably don't need to be reminded of the hostility and animus directed your way by most of the Hollywood community. Then again, I'm sure you don't take it personally. After all, they held Ronald Reagan in equal contempt. As one of the very few directors of major motion pictures who sees you in a different light, I implore you to listen seriously to what I have to say.
What is happening on the southern border is unprecedented. Not only in our own history, but in the history of the world. No country at any time anywhere has sustained the influx of tens of millions of foreigners across its borders. A wave of anti-American leftism is sweeping Latin America. A socialist radical may soon be elected as the president of Mexico, a country which officially encourages its emigrants to vote in Mexican elections, urging them to think of themselves as Mexican first and perhaps only. The eventual outcome is plain for anyone with eyes to see. This is invasion masquerading as immigration.
It may already be too late to avoid a future annexation of the Southwest by Mexico or the evolution of a Mexican-dominated satellite state. This is not to say Mexican people are better or worse than any of God's children. It is to say that millions of ethnically and culturally homogeneous people will seek self-determination in a land they will increasingly feel justified in claiming as their own. Especially when the natural weight of demographic change is accompanied by the soundtrack of radical demagoguery which seeks to legitimize and moralize this phenomenon as a "reconquista." Many pundits claim you will be remembered in history as the president who won (or lost) the war in Iraq. I see it differently. I believe you will come to be seen, in the years and decades to come, as the President who saved (or lost) the Southwest of the United States.
Mr. President, this is a time for candor. Your immigration policy is viewed as captive to the cheap labor -- big business lobby and inimical to the survival of our country. It is splitting the party and draining away support for your presidency. We who understand the vital stakes will not be placated by rhetoric or slogans. The failure to recognize this growing and deep disaffection among Republicans, conservatives, independents and, indeed, many Reagan Democrats, is, in the short run, going to lead to a monumental defeat for your party at the polls in November.
The last two years of your presidency will be plagued with impeachment hearings, with pressures to diminish the war against terrorism, with the cutting off of funds for the war of liberation in Iraq for which so many of our brothers in uniform have paid the ultimate price. The American people will once again be forced to endure a painful repetition of the humiliating withdrawal from Vietnam. We will be dedicating yet another monument to brave men who gave their lives for honor, country and a lost cause.
I understand that in your heart you want to believe that the border should be an open place where goods and people can move freely back and forth for the good of all. I do not question your integrity or the goodness and decency of your motivations. Dear Mr. President, this is a utopian creed, which must be discarded before it is too late.
When I watched the Senate Judiciary Committee's one-day public session on immigration reform (I suppose we should be grateful that Sen. Arlen Specter devoted one whole day out of his busy schedule for the public discussion of a problem regarding 20 million illegal aliens) it was remarkable for the near absence of any senator speaking on behalf of the American people or their own constituents. It seems the overriding concern of most senators of both parties is for the illegal immigrant population. Perhaps these senators should be reminded that they are supposed to represent and defend American citizens, not foreign nationals, illegal aliens or indeed anyone else. Listening to the self-serving and pandering speeches, you'd think the senators were elected in Mexico or any other country on the globe except America.

Where was the concern for American schoolchildren forced to sit in overcrowded classes, for American patients forced to wait in overcrowded hospitals, for American workers whose wages are being undercut, for American drivers forced to sit in interminable traffic jams in over-whelmed freeway systems, for the victims of organized gangs, for the American college students who are turned away from publicly funded state universities, for many African Americans who are being literally displaced from their neighborhoods while being moved figuratively, once again, to the back of the bus, for those environmentalists and conservationists who want to protect open space and slow down urban sprawl, for the American taxpayers who have had to bear the burden of billions of dollars in increased welfare costs, over-burdened prisons, extra police and security and even, adding insult to injury, for bilingual education?
Where was the concern that we as a people are compelled to deal with these "in your face" issues which have been imposed upon us by external forces, instead of focusing our time, energies and capital on our own indigenous, urgent concerns, like for instance, the medical care for our own countrymen and women. Might it be irresponsible to mislead the 20 million illegal foreigners already here and might it be immoral to encourage the yearly arrival of millions more when we cannot even take care of our own millions of poor and sick and hungry and, yes, dare I say it, our unemployed?
Working as I do in Civil War history, I have had to explore the ugly depths of the American institution of slavery, and have been privileged to work alongside civil rights leaders and specialists in African-American history. For this reason it troubles me that we appear today to be importing a second virtual slave class of low-wage workers who are hired to replace or displace less-educated or privileged Americans -- including the very descendants of American slaves.
I agree with you that "no child should be left behind." But that is precisely what immigration advocates are doing to the children of America's working class -- by flooding the market with workers from a desperately poor country, who depress the wages of high school and even college graduates.
Little in the current situation resembles the immigration we knew and cherished while growing up in America prior to the '80s. The new and radically dislocating phenomenon we are enduring is not the old, familiar immigration of yesteryear -- gradual, orderly, assimilating and lawful. The numbers alone are unprecedented. The American people have been made the victims of monumental social engineering perpetuated upon them without their consent and against their will by an arrogant governing elite. Those who try to neutralize their justifiable instincts of self-preservation as a people and a sovereign nation by constantly invoking the mantra of "a nation of immigrants" are trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
The House immigration bill isn't perfect, but it is a firm and realistic place from which to build an effective policy for the survival of our country. The McCain-Kennedy bill looks like it was drafted by bureaucrats at the United Nations, not by representatives of the United States.
To do the right thing, to take the safe course for protecting our country, you will have to endure even more vilification from the left, you will have to watch large and increasingly violent rallies by those who don't want to abide by our laws or the will of the American people -- who think they are entitled -- who believe this country already belongs to them -- who believe the rest of us should just move aside, shut up and smile. To pretend this problem will go away by pandering to the illegal population, or to leave it for the next generation to solve is national suicide.
The moment has arrived. The Senate has already begun its bloviations and self-agrandizing platitudes, its morality play of good and evil wherein they the noble senators are cast as the redeemers of the entire world population seeking only to "live the American dream." We know by their coded words they will do nothing meaningful to really solve the problem or to defend America. If their actions of the past 20 years are a guide, they will only take the pose of pretending to do so. As a movie director I can see bad acting a mile away.
Today there are two Republican Parties. One is now seen correctly by most Americans as responsive first and foremost to the demands of multinational corporations, the agro-business and the Chamber of Commerce. The other, best represented by the embattled members of the House, represents grass-roots America -- we the people. In this debate you have the opportunity to make the party one and whole again, to regain its soul and return it to the service and the sovereignty of the American people.
Dear Mr. President, you must disenthrall yourself from the failed policies of the present. I implore you to rethink this issue and to change course. Millions of Americans, a great majority of your fellow citizens will be with you. Start speaking and doing the sensible, courageous and right thing. You will see your poll numbers turn dramatically around. You will save your country.

One of the most common arguments you hear from people on the left who were against the Iraq war (I know there were lots of people on the right who were against the war, but they use different arguments) is that our fighting "creates more terrorists than it destroys." It's the old "violence begets violence" argument. Of course this fits with the liberal orthodoxy that says that the solution to every problem in the world is to be nicer. Hitler is stampeding across Europe? Just be nicer to him. That'll fix the problem. Crazy extremist Muslims are burning Western embassies over some stupid cartoons? Just be nicer to them. That'll fix the problem. What is the liberal obsession with being liked by everyone? But I digress. Strategy Page is made up of former military and intelligence members who still have contacts with people who are currently in the military and intelligence agencies. Here's what they have to say about that:

Fallujah was also a propaganda defeat. Although attempts were made to portray the outcome as a glorious example of courageous Moslem warriors. But most Iraqis, and Moslems in general, saw it for what it was, a quick and embarrassing defeat. It became more difficult for the terrorists to recruit new people, after details of the Fallujah fighting got out. That's the downside of so many of the defenders escaping. These guys talked, and their tales of the murderously efficient Americans were convincing, too convincing. The American troops were described as very well prepared, and relentless in their attacks.

Our vicious fighting and subsequent stomping of the terrorists in Fallujah did not "create more terrorists than it destroyed." In fact, it made it "more difficult for the terrorists to recruit new people," as Strategy Page says. This is coming both from their previous military and intelligence knowledge and from the information they get from their continuing military and intelligence contacts. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. If you want to encourage behavior, you reward it. If you want to discourage behavior, you punish it. Any parent can tell you this. If you reward a kid when she throws a hissy fit, you're just going to get more hissy fits in the future because she has realized that hissy fits get her what she wants. It's the same thing with terrorism. When we left Lebanon after being attacked, we rewarded the attackers. When we left Somalia after being attacked, we rewarded the attackers. Bin Laden himself has cited these examples of how terrorism works against the U.S. in his own propaganda. He doesn't cite us stomping them in Fallujah as a way to get people to support him. He cites us running away in Lebanon and Somalia. Us going into Iraq might very well have "created" more terrorists in the short-term by angering people, but in the long-term people will see what that terrorism has brought upon themselves. In fact, that's already started to happen. Support for bin Laden in the Muslim world is now lower than it was before 9/11, though that's been much less publicized than the increase that happened in the run-up to the Iraq war. It's obvious why that is. Before 9/11, people saw "Commit terrorist attacks against America, get reward." Now people see "Commit terrorist attacks against America, get the crap beat out of you." The liberal orthodoxy is once again wrong and history will prove it wrong even more in the coming years.

One of the most common arguments used by opponents of the Iraq war has been that Bush broke international law to take us into Iraq. Now, I actually don't think that's true. After all, the treaty signed at the end of the first Gulf War, which was okayed by the U.N. Security Council, said that we would stop attacking Iraq if Iraq did A, B, C and D, which they didn't do. Therefore, we could have gone right back to attacking them at any point simply as a continuation of the first Gulf War. But I digress. The point of this post is to ask a hypothetical question about why we should even care about the U.N. Security Council. That sounds pompous, but here's my question: Should the unelected leader of China really have a veto over our actions? The current Security Council rules say that Britain, France, Russia and China all have an absolute veto over our actions. Should this really be the case? We have zero say over who the leader of China is, so why should they have a complete veto over our actions? I ask this question as someone who realizes that there is no perfect answer to this question. I don't think China should have a veto over our actions, but I also don't think that there should be zero international laws. It's tough, but people should at the very least acknowledge that there are major problems with the current set up.

There's a new argument being used by people who are against the immigration reforms being proposed in Congress. That argument runs a little something like this: America has dealt with immigration better than probably any other country ever and these proposed reforms would make our immigration laws more like France's, so if we make our immigration laws more like France's, we'll be importing France's huge immigration problems. Hooey. This is a clear case of comparing apples and oranges. What people who make this argument are saying is that our immigrants have assimilated into our society better than France's have assimilated into theirs completely because of our lax and open immigration situation. That's just silly. The real reasons that our immigration situation is better than France's are culture, economics and the immigrants themselves. First, our culture is simply more open to immigrants than France's culture is. As a culture, we welcome foreigners more than France does, so there is less isolation and alienation among immigrants here than there is in France. Second, it's no secret that our economy and labor market are stronger than France's at the moment. That does 2 things. When immigrants come here, it's easier for them to get a job, so they feel less alienated than immigrants to America do. Plus, when it's easy for Americans to find a job, they feel less angry about foreigners "taking their jobs." That makes immigration easier both for the immigrants and for the natives. I think that this stronger economy of ours eases social tension quite a bit. Lastly, our immigrants simply assimilate better into our culture than France's immigrants because of their background. Our immigrants are primarily Latin American and France's are primarily northern African. Our immigrants are primarily Christian, like most Americans. France's immigrants are primarily Muslim, unlike most French people. Our immigrants generally come from democratic countries, no matter how ineffective and corrupt those democracies are, while France's immigrants generally come from undemocratic countries. That means that our immigrants generally have a better understanding of our governmental and societal structure than France's immigrants do. Our immigrants genreally come from secular countries where religion does not run public policy. France's immigrants generally come from ultra-religious countries where religion controls everything. Because of this, France's immigrants have a very hard time fitting in with France's ultra-secular system. While there are certainly some assimilation issues with America and our immigrants, they're not nearly as difficult as the assimilation problems with France's immigrants. These are the reasons that we assimilate our immigrants better than France does, not because we have a lax border policy. So, the next time someone tries to use this fallacious argument, you can tell them why it's silly.