"Iran is a leading world sponsor of Islamic totalitarianism and has long been waging a terrorist proxy war against the West, through groups such as Hezbollah. In Iraq, Iran's proxies have been slaughtering U.S. and British troops. Iran initiates all of this aggression--to say nothing of its nuclear weapons program--with the confidence that it has an Allah-given right to murder. No surprise, then, that when 15 British naval personnel came near Iranian waters, Teheran took them hostage--and unabashedly demanded an apology from Britain, its victim.

"What has been the British, and American, response to Iran's outrage? What has the West done in the face of such a confidently evil regime? Did Britain give Iran an ultimatum backed by the threat of force? Far from it. With Washington's endorsement, London meekly protested, renounced using force to free its troops, and solemnly vowed to pursue 'patient diplomacy.' It has brought up the issue at the international sewer known as the United Nations, London is hoping that the U.N. will condescend to issue a press statement--its weakest possible statement--deploring Iran's actions. But since the U.N. is packed with Iranian allies and sympathizers, even this futile gesture is unlikely to happen.

"What underlies this unconscionably weak response? Fundamentally, it is the corrupt moral principle that dominates the West, the principle that regards selflessness as a virtue and self-assertion in pursuit, and defense, of one's interests as immoral. To punish Iran militarily for its many acts of war would be wrong, it would flout the will of the 'international community,' it would, on this premise, be 'selfish.' It is this premise that inhibits, and thus disarms, the West in the face of the enemy--and, as a result, spurs our enemy.

"While the British may hope that their timid, deferential approach will avoid inflaming the crisis and antagonizing Iran, they are accomplishing the opposite. The spectacle of Western nations bowing in submission is an encouragement to Iran and Islamic totalitarians worldwide.

"Iran and other evil regimes grow stronger and more threatening precisely because the morally good nations, who should defeat Iran's regime, are cowardly, apologetic, and meek."

Commentary by David H.: The idea that sanctions would persuade Iran to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons is laughable and demonstrates a total evasion of the nature of the Iranian regime and of its stated goals. Iran is a totalitarian Islamic country led by religious fanatics bent on a jihad to destroy Western civilization and subjugate the world to Islam. No amount of sanctions will deflect this leading terrorist state from its destructive mission. While the West plays diplomatic games at the United Nations, Iran moves closer to acquiring nuclear bombs. For the sake of its own security, the United States should start the necessary military action -- before it's too late. This does not mean an Iraq-like crusade to bring Iran elections. It means protecting U.S. lives by destroying Iran's militant regime.

« Close It

These are but a few examples and there are many more. All of them have two things in common: (1) an adamant desire by adherents of liberalism to dictate and control the behavior of others (as opposed to the desire of conservatives and libertarians who do not want to give up their liberties and be controlled), and (2) the desire of liberals to take from the producers and redistribute what was unearned by them to the non-producers - egalitarianism.

The basis of a culture war is nothing less than trying to: (1) imposing your value systems, or lack of them, on others and (2), taking (seizing) wealth and comfort from others against their will to redistribute as you see fit – often in self-interest. If you advocate redistribution in any form, for any reason what-so-ever, then this is your shameful frame of reference. Now that most socialists (communists) have departed these pages, let’s continue.

The only issue among and between liberals (and neo- or paleo-conservatives) is the degree of control sought. A libertarian would make a conscious choice to exercise the least amount of control over society. A conservative espouses a small government, minimal laws, self-reliance, low taxes and a few local ordinances – just enough to keep society orderly. To the left of conservatives, in the ideological spectrum between conservative philosophy and liberal ideology, are several cleverly disguised life forms of liberalism identified by deceptive and misleading labels. These are the so-called neo-conservatives and paleo-conservatives found pervasively in today’s Republican Party. The main stream media laughably describes these pretenders as “moderates,” trying to obscure their profoundly liberal agenda. Neo- and paleo-conservatives embrace many aspects of a distinctly liberal ideology that is light years distant from conservatism and individualism, but arguably it is not liberalism in its most extreme form (Democratic Party) and therefore somehow portrayed by the media as moderate. Neo-conservatives (which include George W. Bush) have a plan for ruling (not governing) America, just as do all liberals at every incremental level of society, from your home-owners association to Congress. With a little effort, you can trace the evolution of their thought from their youthful Trotskyism in the 1930s to their anti-communist liberalism in the 1940s and '50s, and finally to their development of a new kind of culture in the 1960s and 1970s. Neo-conservatives have in common that they regard themselves as the most intellectually impressive faction of the post-war intellectual Right, which is only slightly right of far Left. To a casual observer, they seem to take ideas seriously; they seem to be principled; they seem to support the principles of the American founding; and they seem to support capitalism. But, behind their rhetorical façade, "Neocons" scorn principles, scorn morality, scorn the rule of law, scorn capitalism and most of all, they scorn America. Despite their pro-American rhetoric and their appeals to, and defense of, America's ideals and institutions, neo-conservatives advocate singularly un-American principles: mysticism over reason, altruism over egoism, duty over rights, collectivism over individualism, socialism over capitalism, war and empire over peace and trade, individual power and self interest over the voice of the people, and possibly the most egregious, union over nationalism.

Neo-conservatives gained control of the Republican Party and the conservative intellectual movement in 1994 led by Newt Gingrich and transformed their gains into a permanent ruling majority (until 2006). Neo-conservatives have a pragmatic method which includes advocacy of a less extreme social welfare state and the intent to turn America toward a form of Platonic republicanism that includes Canada and Mexico in a North American Union. Ultimately, the neo-conservatives are as much - or more - of a threat to a free society as the devout Socialists in the fundamentalist Democratic Party.

Neo- and paleo-conservatives are the “compassionate” conservatives, the “swing voters” you often hear about. More aptly, these are the nation’s “swing socialists” and ever-changing political chameleons.

At the very left end of the ideological spectrum in the 21st Century is liberalism itself and the Democratic Party. They represent the strongest and most unrelenting proponents of the Religion of Socialism and with it, omnipotent government devoid of religion, devoid of individual rights, and devoid of private property ownership - privileges only for the elite. There is one common denominator among liberals. To the man and woman, liberals advocate their own social privileges as members of an unaccountable elite class. As individuals, liberals tend to avoid becoming involved in competition at all costs, seeing competition as evil - but seeing your earned wealth as their entitlement, not unlike the plantation owners of old. The only thing more repulsive than competition to a liberal is personal responsibility, i.e., accountability that cannot be shifted to someone else.

Possibly you remember from your studies many years ago that light through a prism reveals itself in a visible spectrum (red, orange, yellow, green blue, indigo and violet), with white light being the combined presence of all colors. How beautiful is a rainbow? Try to imagine that each one of those individual colors is one of your individual freedoms. Each is the component color of a beautiful rainbow. You have many of them, ostensibly protected by the Bill of Rights. In contrast, what you see as black, the “color” black is the absence of all light (and the absence of individual freedoms). Liberalism (which includes neo-conservatives) is at the black end of the spectrum of liberty. Closer inspection will reveal to anyone who is willing to look out of one eye and see out of the other that liberalism is that hard nucleus about which all variants of Socialism form, including Fascism and Communism. Each “Right” of any American that we permit to be marginally diminished or extinguished, whether your own or you neighbor’s, regardless of its application at the moment to you personally, whether it is gun ownership, free (not politically correct) speech, freedom to pursue your chosen religion without interference from others, etc., you lose one more color that comprises the spectrum of liberty. With one color missing, such as freedom of speech, can you still have a rainbow? The rainbow of liberty has been under assault for a long time. Does it still exist?

By our apathetic acquiescence, or surrendering our rights out of tired disillusionment, or abandoning our rights through ill-informed advocacy of removing colors from what once was a beautiful rainbow, you facilitate the high priests of the religion of Socialism to incrementally move all of us toward the “black” (the absence of all individual freedoms and property rights).

Think of it this way. By allowing or facilitating the loss of any constitutional “Right” is to permit others with dubious motivation to be the pilot in control of a large airplane that is intentionally flown into the “tower of liberty,” in order to bring down the entire building. Just as the WTC came down, so will our Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights can no more stand without several of its component colors any more than the WTC can stand without several of its component floors. Those organizations and individuals who assail our individual rights, which collectively form the basis for our liberty, or attempt to marginalize, limit or tax them in any way, are no less culpable than the terrorists in control of the aircraft who brought down the WTC.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation of the United States of America. They stand as our only defense of those who would rule. Those who attack our individual rights, whether Senator John McCain or adherents of Islam, deserve relentless rebuke, and certainly not the free ride they’re getting today. They know exactly what they’re doing and they intend that we will be the victims. If any American could manage to get a comment from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, she would say, “I laugh because there is nothing you can do about it.”

How important is it that we educate ourselves, and particularly our children and our neighbors? Could there be anything more important at this point in history? Ignorance of socialism and fascism, the form of government being imposed upon us by the most corrupt members of our own society (Democrat and Republican politicians), in rejection of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, in exchange for our votes that guarantees to them permanent power, will ultimately result in the death of liberty for all of us. Any step by a government entity that would diminish even one Amendment in the Bill of Rights, e.g., freedom of speech, assaults your liberty. Has your freedom of speech been restricted in recent years – in how many ways? That realization that our liberties are circling the drain of history should cause every American citizen to reflect long and hard on what it means to have liberty, and who would take it from us. If you have any doubt, consider what passes for education (indoctrination) our young Americans are receiving and question why it is happening.

Just maybe the movie, “Planet of the Apes” was less science fiction than profound insight on what will come to pass if we squander our cultural heritage and liberty.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

Gun registration, followed by gun confiscation and the final destruction of the Second Amendment, is but the first part of an orchestrated campaign to ultimately strip the American people of the protection afforded by the Bill of Rights. The subversive members of Congress who would perpetrate this crime fully realize that law abiding gun owners are the single biggest obstacle to their ultimate plan for a socialist-democratic government (in which, of course, they personally will gain immensely in power and influence while the people they were elected to represent suffer).

Although all individuals everywhere have inalienable rights, it has been repeatedly proven throughout history that only those who are armed can ultimately defend their rights against governments and politicians who seek to abrogate them. So it follows that politicians with subversive objectives must disarm a free people before they can usurp the rest of their freedoms.

That is the clear intention behind their current gun registration scheme, an intention they have admitted in private, although they deny it publicly. Lying to the public, disseminating falsehoods, and "spinning" the truth so that it seems to support their political agenda when in fact it does not are the acknowledged tools of socialist politicians everywhere. Remember that these are people who believe that the ends justify the means, and that there is no objective truth, only whatever "truth" serves their political purposes. It is a viewpoint and tactic practiced and polished to its present perfection in the 20th Century by the Communist and National Socialist (Nazi) movements and parties.

Our Founding Fathers were coming at the issue from the other side: their goal was to protect the individual freedoms they had risked so much to secure. They realized that only an armed populace could guarantee the continuation of a free society. They had the foresight to see that someday the Federal Government that they were reluctantly creating might itself threaten the very freedoms it was established to protect. That is why they guaranteed in the Second Amendment the individual right of the people to maintain (own) and bear (carry) arms (guns).

It is no accident that the Fathers placed the right to maintain and bear arms (which became the Second Amendment) right after the First Amendment (which guarantees the most basic human rights), and before the other eight Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They regarded it as the second most important right, the guarantor of all other rights.
This is clear to anyone who has read the Federalist Papers (written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison). The Second Amendment was primarily intended to guarantee that the people could defend the First and all subsequent Amendments in the Bill of Rights against the intrusion of the federal government, should it ever become necessary. That is a responsibility that still rests upon the shoulders of all law abiding gun owners today.

Now a group of amoral socialists and venal intellectual lightweights in Congress want to destroy the work of intellectual giants like John Adams, Sam Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, and the others who framed the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution (including the Bill of Rights). These socialists don't accept that you have "an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The words "Inalienable right" mean a right not subject to the whim of government, a right with which you are born and from which you cannot be separated. They think all rights are subject to their interpretation, and usually claim that "the people" (which means everyone not in the ruling cabal) must sacrifice their rights for the "greater good" (which invariably turns out to mean what is good for the politicians in the ruling cabal).

It isn't only the Second Amendment that the socialists (that is what they are, regardless of their party affiliation) despise, they have also repeatedly assaulted the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments in their ongoing struggle to "break" the Bill of Rights. (WAKE UP MAINSTREAM AMERICA, IT ISN'T JUST LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS WHO ARE UNDER ASSAULT HERE, IT IS YOU WHO ARE IN DANGER OF LOSING YOUR BILL OF RIGHTS.)

Ultimately we must answer to an authority higher than the political power brokers inside the Beltway who currently run the Federal Government. This is particularly true at a time when so many individuals of corrupt morality, questionable ethics, and unsavory motives populate the US Congress. Individuals who have a proven record of foolish (and sometimes criminal) behavior, lying to their constituents, and undermining the Constitution they have sworn to protect. In a just and moral government the Senators and Representatives named at the beginning of this essay and their cohorts would be removed from office for violating their oath of office. (They promised to uphold and protect the Constitution when they were sworn in as Senators and Representatives.) Their subversive actions, in the main, are not legally treasonous (the legal requirements for treason are very difficult to fulfill), but they amount to the same thing.

It is this age old tendency of government to become elitist and encroach on the rights of its own citizens, well understood by the Founding Fathers that we as citizens of the United States must find a way to resist today. And because it is the gun owners of America who must bear the brunt of the initial assaults on the rights of all the people of the United States, it is we who own guns who must first take a stand. We must somehow draw a figurative line in the sand. The practical question becomes, how shall we do so?
My proposal is that we gun owners adopt a policy popularized (in a different context, to be sure) by Nancy Reagan when she was First Lady. I suggest that we "Just say NO." NO to gun registration, and NO to gun confiscation. If the majority of the 65 million law abiding gun owners in the United States take the moral high ground and say NO, the government will be powerless to enforce its anti-gun laws on a widespread scale.

I do not suggest such a course lightly as I am a working class guy, a veteran who volunteered to serve in the armed forces of his country and emerged with an Honorable Discharge, and a citizen who gripes about, but does not cheat on, his taxes. I support my local police and I have never been arrested for any crime (let alone charged or convicted). I like to think of myself as being a reasonably moral person (but, God knows, far from perfect), and (although not a jingoist) as patriotic as the next guy. These things do not by any means make me exceptional; in fact they make me ordinary. I mention them merely to show that I am not by inclination or experience a criminal.

I realize that I am openly advocating breaking the law, should gun registration (for instance) become law. But I reason that such a law is immoral as well as unconstitutional. And it is the duty of every citizen to refuse to obey immoral laws, just as it is the duty of every soldier to refuse to obey immoral orders, whatever the personal cost. It now falls to us to put our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor on the line, following the example of the brave and noble men who signed the Declaration of Independence.

Admittedly, those in government charged with enforcing these abhorrent laws will arrest a few visible individuals who advocate just saying NO (perhaps including me) to make "examples" of them. But they simply lack the resources to arrest the biggest part of 65 million otherwise law-abiding citizens. And should they try, I have to believe that the majority of mainstream America will finally see and understand what is happening and rise to our defense by electing different politicians who will repeal the anti-gun laws and free those who were arrested for refusing to register or surrender their guns.

In urging all gun owners to "Just Say NO" to gun registration and confiscation, I am advocating a form of civil disobedience that I hope will become so widespread and visible that it will cause the opponents of freedom to pause. Make them realize that their own political demise will be the inevitable result of their actions. Perhaps if the gun owners of America take this stand it will ultimately save the Second Amendment, and the entire Bill of Rights, from those who seek to destroy it. I am hoping that word of this proposal spreads rapidly to, and finds acceptance with, the majority of gun owners in every corner of this land.

Understand, I am not suggesting or advocating initiating violence or the use of force against anyone. In my view force, and particularly lethal force, should properly be used only to protect and defend one's life or property (or the life and property of another innocent person).

In any case, speaking only for myself, I have benefited from living in a free country for my entire life, some 57 years as I write these words. Because of that freedom I have been able to vote, run a small business, hunt, fish, and travel to foreign lands, and do many things that would have been impossible for a working class person in a society without the freedoms protected by the Constitution of the United States of America and its Bill of Rights. If it is now necessary to stand up for freedom, to take a risk, even to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to help give succeeding generations their chance to live in a free country, so be it.

I am pledging on my sacred honor to say "NO" to gun registration and/or confiscation. I humbly ask you, gentle reader, after serious consideration and in full realization of the potential consequences, to make the same pledge. And to pass the idea along to all of the gun owners (and other freedom loving citizens) you know. As Ben Franklin said in 1776 when he signed the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

« Close It

Over time, the over-supply of willing workers will cause the costs (hourly price) for cheap labor to decrease, not only for Mexicans but for Americans as well. Eventually equilibrium will develop, but not as long as employment opportunities exist in the Entitlement Industry, and not as long as the over-supply of cheap legal and illegal labor can find refuge in the welfare lines. It is a certainty that the over-supply of Mexican menial labor will cause more and more low-wage Americans to be driven into the waiting arms of the Democratic Party. Soon, the few remaining Americans willing to work at menial labor jobs will be made irrevocably dependent on government (i.e., taxpayers). The next liberalism agenda will be the dependency of the Mexicans.

The border wall does nothing to reduce the supply of cheap labor jobs in the United States and nothing to alleviate the scarcity of Americans willing to fill cheap labor jobs. The border wall is another understandable and desperate effort to manipulate the free market rather than deal with the dislocations that government alone, in both countries, has caused.

If Congress were to “declare war” on illegal migration, as most citizens want them to do, the outcome will be no different than every other failed government attempt at market intervention. But listen carefully! Build the wall. By all means, build the border wall and do it now! Just understand while we are building the wall, nothing will change except the volume of the flow of illegal alien migrants and drugs. If they can’t come in across the southern border, they will find their way through Canada. Supply and demand forces will not have changed. Illegal alien migrants can and will eventually find another route into the United States.

The need for menial laborers in the United States creates the supply of jobs waiting for willing workers. People from Mexico and other nations who are willing to risk it all provide the demand. In other words, what are our choices? If we don’t want Mexican migrants to enter the United States seeking jobs, we must increase the number of Americans willing to fill the “cheap labor” market demand. The alternative is to watch as companies and entire industries leave the United States in a desperate effort to avail themselves of cheap labor that is willing to work.

Without the labor of the illegal alien, we would be without whatever this person is producing. That’s not much you say … but understand that “not much” is enough to keep 20+ million illegal aliens employed daily full- or part-time, and enough to encourage still more citizens of other countries to migrate to the United States. That’s a lot more than “not much.”

The United States has more than an adequate labor pool. The problem is that our labor pool is not “willing labor,” because most of the would-be candidates are employed in the “Entitlement Industry,” and have been for their entire life. Multiple generations have found comfort there. Why should they leave the sofa and god-forbid, work to earn their place on this planet and become deserving of their citizenship? In fact, research into the psychological impact of entitlement programs shows that the most difficult aspect of unemployment for any recipient over an extended period of time is adjusting to the hours.

While it is definitely possible for government to make it painful to Americans who employ illegal migrants, those efforts at market manipulation will come at some cost to national prosperity. What if you were to reduce the number of jobs available to illegal aliens (restrict the supply – punish the employers)? Economically, that doesn’t make sense and harms the United States economy. We shouldn’t want to do that, except that it appeals to our patriotic impulses, improves national security and protects United States sovereignty. So what are we to do?

What we need to do is twofold, (1) increase the supply of “cheap labor” from citizen sources inside the United States (and in the process give some relief to taxpayers whose income is being redistributed to services dedicated to welfare recipients), and (2) drastically reduce or eliminate taxpayer-funded social services available to illegal aliens. Only then will human trafficking across the border begin to diminish. Over 50% of illegal aliens come to the United States just to avail themselves of free social services and health care.

Some have suggested the problem of illegal alien migration could be fixed easily . . . with the stroke of a pen. They’re convinced that all we have to do is put an armed guardsman every four feet along the southern border and this will stop the flow. Unfortunately, it will do no such thing. It will slow the flow, proportional to the density of the deterrent, but as we have already discussed, the market will simply devise ways to get around any obstacle that government can create. Worse, the guardsman alternative is the most expensive of all alternatives by many orders of magnitude. The costs to taxpayers will be incredible.

Just as you put a lock on your residence door to deter a burglar, the United States should build a wall on the border to deter migrants. The lock on the residence door will not prevent a burglary. It will only cause predators to seek an easier target, an open door. If the burglar is truly determined, they will seek an alternate path of entry, finding a way to circumvent the lock on the door. Illegal alien migrants are, after all, nothing more than burglars, unlawfully entering your house (your nation) and then committing additional felony crimes once inside. But hey, it’s only a crime whose victim is a United States citizen. Only a racist would care.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

In the current war on drunk driving, what have we done as a nation? Since we failed in our attempts to deny Americans access to alcoholic beverages (control the behavior of others, to interfere with a free market), now we take away a persons privilege to drive a vehicle if they are found to have been impaired while in actual physical control of a vehicle. The BAC limit is ratcheting lower each year or two in an effort to eliminate the consumption of alcohol. Local law enforcement jurisdictions have become absolutely predatory in their efforts to catch and convict offenders spurred on by jurisdictions dependent on traffic ticket revenue. (I can say that as a retired police officer who personally was pressured for years to make more DUI arrests.) In the process of this culture war, each of us has had to surrender a measure of our liberties.

Congress initiated the so-called "War on Poverty" in the 1960’s during President Johnson’s Administration. By some estimates, the War on Poverty has not ended and the financial tally of scarce and incredibly valuable resources spent is between 7 and10 trillion dollars. Just using the low end of this estimate, the federal government could write a check to every man, woman, and child in the country for $23,333.34 (over $200,000 in constant dollars by some estimates). Yet, activists still claim that we have poor people (defined as people who have less than you) in our midst. Why? Our intentions were honorable? Didn't we mean well? Regardless of our intentions, the war on poverty was a failure in every respect. If everybody in the United States was born “equal,” why are so many still on welfare? LBJ is currently enjoying his just reward and we are still paying the bill for his and Congress’ socialist folly. Without belaboring the point, what do you think happened in the government’s war on illiteracy?

Today we find ourselves engaged in another long and unfruitful war, the "War on Drugs." Like prohibition, the war on drugs has been incredibly costly in blood, treasure, and personal liberties. Even those of us who don’t use illicit drugs have been forced to surrender some of our liberties in an effort to fight this so-called war. Unfortunately, the war on drugs is also un-winnable because of the free market. There is a huge market demand in the United States for narcotic and hallucinogenic drugs. For example, U.S. growers alone produce nearly $35 billion worth of marijuana annually, making the illegal drug the largest cash crop, bigger than corn and wheat combined. No one is arguing that it is wise to use drugs, and certainly not here. But many (those who are not ideologues) are arguing that the government’s culture war with its basis in liberalism is far too expensive in too many ways, and it doesn’t remotely begin to deal with the market causes. The government’s War on Drugs was destined from the outset to be what it is, another costly failure.

What do these examples have to do with illegal immigration? They are but a few examples of what we might expect if Americans forcefully demand of Congress that “government” do something about this problem of illegal migration, or that problem whatever it may be, or any other perceived problem. Ask yourself, how well have we fared in education since the government took over (seized) the state’s responsibility to educate its citizens? “Pathetic” would be a kind choice of words, but that was never the government’s point. Controlling the knowledge and behavior of others has always been the only point of liberalism. Why does anybody think that a war on illegal immigration will be any more successful than any previous government culture war? The free market will overcome any obstacle government can place in its path. As long as there is a market demand - for anything - the demand will be met. The stronger the demand, the more difficult it will be to artificially manipulate or suppress that particular market.

The most secure facility that any government can construct is a jail, and jails still leak like a sieve. Contraband products make their way inside of the walls of every jail every day. Why, because there is a market demand for these forbidden products. If government cannot stop the flow of contraband into a jail, how on earth do you think it will ever stop a porous, arguably non-existent border with Mexico?

Sure, we could and we SHOULD spend four billion dollars in an effort to try to stem at least part of the flow of non-citizens who are trying to become part of the labor supply in the United States, and particularly those entering the United States illegally solely to avail themselves of our overly-generous social services or to inflict harm on United States citizens. The return on that investment in a 2,000-mile wall would be 1000 to 1. But realize that building the border wall will not by itself achieve nearly as much success as we all hope for. A wall will substantially interfere with crossing the border, possibly reducing what is now an open fire hydrant of illegal migration to the volume of a garden hose – reducing the volume by 90%. That size of a reduction should be justification enough to expedite construction of a border wall.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

An estimated 20-30 million persons now live in the United States illegally, most receiving multiple forms of social benefits funded by taxpayers. Some estimates reach a staggering 40 million. Our federal and state governments don't know for sure how many illegal aliens are receiving economic subsidies, or what numbers of illegal aliens are receiving multiple subsidies using multiple forms of fraudulent identification.

It is worse than a racket and the whole mess is the direct responsibility of our Congressmen. And it continues! Why Americans allow this to continue is beyond comprehension. If Senator John McCain were confronted, he would quickly try to tell you that a number of bills are before Congress to solve some of the problems. He would blame partisan politics for the fact that nothing is being done. Senator McCain's answer should beg the question, “What has Congress, and John McCain in particular, been doing for the last 20 years?” Yes, he has been in Congress that long and is one of the primary architects of the crisis our nation now faces.

Clearly, our Congress led by John McCain and Ted Kennedy has failed intentionally to do its duty to protect American citizenship, national sovereignty, and taxpayers, and worse, failed miserably in upholding their own citizenship, regardless of their hollow protestations.

Just how bad is it (to the extent that we are willing to believe government figures)? In 2001, the United States reportedly admitted 1,064,318 immigrants - enough people to create a major city the size of Chicago. One can only guess at the numbers for last year, including both immigrants and illegal alien migrants.

Why are immigration numbers so high? One of the principal reasons is "chain migration," created by Congress in 1965, where once a migrant becomes a legal immigrant, he can then sponsor several other immigrants for admission, each of whom themselves sponsor several others, and so on. Naturally, chain migration drives immigration numbers up - way up. Chain migration has been allowed to happen because current U.S. immigration policy is based on the principle of a broadly defined concept of “family reunification,” i.e., immigrants are able to sponsor their relatives back home to be admitted as legal immigrants here in the United States. In other words, most illegal alien migrants are admitted and reclassified as legal immigrants simply because they have a relative here who sponsors them, not because of what they might be able to contribute in skills, education, culture or work ethic to our society.

Under the chain policy described above, immigration numbers will never stop rising - never. That fact is a mathematical certainty. Under the "immediate relatives" category, the parents, spouse, and children of a U.S. citizen are admitted without limit. In 2001, 36 years after chain migration began, the number of immediate relatives admitted (not immigrants) was approximately 676,000. Last year it was over one million.

Since most immigration categories have a statutory limit in the law to the number of people who can be admitted each year, immigrants' relatives back home in theory must wait for years to be admitted. Over three million aliens have been told they are "eligible to immigrate" but have to wait. Many of them do not, figuring that, since they are eligible anyway, they should not have to wait for the U.S. government to get around to doing the paperwork. In this way, chain migration and the expectations it produces, increases illegal migration.

Unfortunately, the problem will continue to get worse. Conveniently ignored by the media, and intentionally ignored by the authors and sponsors of immigration reform bills in Congress (Senator John McCain for example), is that the illegal aliens given amnesty by Congress in 1986, 21 years ago, are now fueling naturalization in record numbers. As these former illegal aliens become naturalized citizens, ALL of their immediate relatives in the known universe, and relatives they never knew they had, suddenly qualify to come immediately to the United States, and each starts a new migration chain of their own.

One wonders - are Congressmen, Governors and State Legislators really willling to sell American citizenship, and their own birthright, and give away the wealth of American citizens? Are they willing to abandon United States sovereignty to illegal aliens in exchange for campaign contributions and fraudulent votes? The bitter truth is that any politician who advocates illegal alien amnesty is willing to do just that. What about an entire pollitical party that advocates open borders and minimal national security?

It comes down to this - any political party, and any member of a political party, Republican and Democrat alike, who endorses illegal alien amnesty and open borders is defiantly telling all American citizens, right in our face, that they are willing to sell American citizens into the service of illegal aliens via income redistribution. Such seritude amounts to nothing less than modern slavery, slavery to illegal aliens and other minorities who seek to be served by taxpayers rather than assimilate and participate as fellow Americans. Not only are income taxes taken to provide an enviable lifestyle and medical care by world standards to those who have not earned it, huge staffs have been employed in administrative agencies to wait solely on the needs of these people. In other words, the world has been turned upside down. The top 50% of wage earners pay the income taxes, and in doing so, serve their masters. Who are the masters? First and foremost, members of Congress. Secondly, their designated minority communities and special interest groups that form the coalition to keep them in positions of power so that they can continue to access taxpayer funding. The producers - the taxpayers - have become the slaves. And that is what amnesty for illegal aliens is all about - extending the slavery of the producers to ever greater depths and the power of Congress to ever greater heights.

Red State Patriot

Commentary by David R.: One ill conceived government program begets another. Remove the United States Supreme Court case "Goldberg v. Kelly", which made social welfare programs "entitlements" rather than "charity", and you collapse the illegal immigrant problem. With that gone, state governments can completely deny any benefits to the undocumented, and if they aren't subsidized with schooling, health care, housing, or other programs, the earned income will not be sufficient to draw them here. If there is no draw, they won't come, and nobody will have to surrender any liberties, Mexican or American.

Commentary by Tom D.: The site contains some good information. I too am thoroughly disgusted about illegal immigration in this country. Note that I said "illegal immigration". My wife, who is English, is a card carrying "green card" holder and we went through the process to bring her legally into the country. This included a thorough background investigation, mental exam, physical exam, and personal interview at the US Embassy Councilate's Office. Additionally, I had to guarantee fiscally responsibility by showing I had the income and assets available so she would not become a "burden" on the country. It infuraties me to no end that anyone that can walk, swim, or jump can enter the US illegally, take root here, and then receive the free benefits such as health care, education, social services programs, food stamps/programs, etc., that we end up supporting them with. It has gotten so bad here in Chandler that we are seriously thinking of leaving AZ for a non-border state.

« Close It

By his looks, I assumed that he was either a Druze or from the Syrian region. He looked more like a teacher than a construction worker and, as I later found out, he was actually a teacher by profession. Since my conversation with the student five years ago, I was always curious to hear their side of the story; therefore, I decided to invite him for a cup of coffee to our house. I saw him hesitate for a moment; then he smiled and thanked me for my hospitality.

While we drank our coffee, he told me that he was from a small village in the Galilee called Jish, near the present Kibbutz Sassa. I remembered the village very well as I was one of the soldiers who captured the village while serving in the 7th Armored brigade during the War of Independence in 1948. I decided not to tell him about it because at the time we encountered some stiff resistance at that village and quite a few of the inhabitants were killed.

He went on to tell me a little about himself. “For a while I was a teacher and I loved teaching, but I couldn’t make a living at it and I decided to join my father in law who is in the construction business.” Judging by the large Honda he was driving, I figured that he didn’t do too badly changing his profession.

Our conversation soon turned to the present situation in the Middle East, about Hamas winning the elections, the situation of the Israeli Arabs, and the last Lebanese war against Hezbollah. “As Christians we are in a difficult situation here in Israel.

Unfortunately, the Moslems and especially the extreme Islamist section, are giving the tone here. My family who lived in Bethlehem probably since the Crusaders, had to flee for their life. The Moslems have been forcing us out, by threats and even murder. Bethlehem that was once predominantly Christian is now predominantly Moslem. Very little is written about it even in the Israeli press.”

He sipped his coffee and gave me a long look. He seemed like someone who wasn’t quite sure whether to say what he was about to say. I gave him an encouraging nod.

“I have to tell you something which very few of you seem to comprehend.” He continued, “Your bungling war against a few thousand Hezbollah fighters which you should have crushed no matter what, considering the importance of the outcome, has created a completely new situation, not only for this area, but globally. Your inept leadership totally misunderstood the importance of winning this war."

“As a matter of fact, the whole Moslem world, not only the Arabs, simply couldn’t believe that the mighty Israeli Army that defeated the combined Arab forces in six days in 1967, and almost captured Cairo and Damascus in 1973, couldn’t defeat a small army of Hezbollah men. As usual the Moslems see things the way they want to see things. Most think that the present generation of Israelis have gone soft and can be defeated."

“The American bungling of the war in Iraq only added to their conviction that victory not only over Israel but also over the West is not only possible, but certain. The ramifications of these two bungling wars may bring an Islamic bloody Tsunami all over the West, not only in Israel. The sharks smell blood and these two wars gave them the green light to attack sooner than they had in mind. Your problem is that you are on the defensive and they have the option to choose the time and the places when and where to attack and there is nothing much you can do about it. When will you Westerners realize that half measures don’t work with people who are willing to die by the thousands for Allah to achieve their goal? In their eyes the Western World is simply an abomination on earth that has to be wiped out.”

He spoke quietly and I could just picture him in the school giving his students a lecture. I poured him another cup of coffee and encouraged him to continue.

“The Americans, the Europeans, and even you Israelis really don’t know what it is all about, do you? During the last generation hundreds of thousands of children have been taught all over the Moslem world in Madrass schools to become martyrs for Allah in order to kill the infidels. These youngsters not only are ready to do it, but are actually in the process of doing it. Bombs are going off all over the world killing and maiming thousands of people, not only on 9/11 in the US, in London Madrid and Bali, but in Africa, India, Bengladesh, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and many other places. The first signs of the Islamic tsunami is already here, but the West doesn’t understand, or doesn’t want to understand what is coming."

“The Americans, instead of realizing that this is as bad as World War Two, or even worse, are going to pull out of Iraq, handing it over to Iran on a silver platter. Next may come the Saudis and the rest of the Gulf States. When dirty bombs go off all over Western towns, who is going to stop the Iranians?"

“Now is the time to stop them, not only because they are developing nuclear bombs, but because Iran has become the base for all Islamic terrorist. They supply money, men, and weapons to Islamic terrorist around the world, quite often through their diplomatic mail. Billions of petro-dollars that are pouring into Iran are being funneled into terrorist organizations world-wide. They believe, and perhaps rightly so, that the West will do nothing to stop them in achieving their goals. Is history repeating itself? Are the Iranians making the same mistake that Hitler made when he attacked Poland? Is the situation similar?"

“As a history teacher who studied the subject thoroughly I can tell you that Western victory in World War Two was not all certain. Hitler could have won the war if he would have gone ahead with the atomic bomb development before the Americans. The Germans began working on it in the thirties, and it was Hitler’s decision to prefer building more conventional arms, as he considered atomic weapons sheer fantasy. Hitler made the wrong decision, but had he made the right decision the world would have been a different type of world today, wouldn’t it? The West won the war against Hitler by sheer chance. Very few people seem to realize that.”

I must say that his last words shook me up quite a bit. Had Hitler made a different decision, I would have died in Dachau, there wouldn’t have been a Jewish state called Israel, and most likely there wouldn’t have been any Jews left in the world. The idea that the Western democracies in general and the fate of the Jewish people in particular could have hinged on Hitler’s one decision, is a scenario of the worst nightmare.

He notices that his last words had an effect on me, and he smiled. “I see that my words are not wasted on you,” he said dryly. I nodded, and he continued with his lecture. “Coming back to our time, the Iranians rely on the West doing nothing about their development of nuclear bombs. They also rely on their secret weapon: an inexhaustible supply of Islamic suicide bombers, some of them who are already planted all over the Western World. Besides the Islamic countries that supply these suicide bombers, a second front has been opened, and that is the Internet with more than five thousand Islamic web sites, brain washing and urging young Moslems to become martyrs for Allah. They especially target young Moslems who live in Europe and the West in general. The Western intelligence authorities consider these web sites a bigger threat than the Iranian atomic bomb. Al-Qaeda recently issued a television broadcast that promised a devastating attack against its enemies this spring. As we all know, Al-Qaeda doesn’t make empty threats."

“Actually, I don’t understand why the Iranians bother to develop atomic bombs and bring the whole world down on them. Every suicide bomber is a potential atomic bomb, or a biological, chemical or dirty bomb that can be no less devastating than an atom bomb. The Americans and Europeans have no defense against this type of war."

“What can we do against this type warfare?” I asked him. “Well, you Israelis, should better prepare yourself for another round against Hezbollah. It will not be long in coming. It depends on the Iranians to give the word. This time you will have to destroy Hezbollah no matter what the cost may be."

“Of course, your next round against Hezbollah may involve the Syrians and the Iranians against you. The Iranians declared that they will not allow Hezbollah to be defeated no matter what and may launch their missiles against you. So will the Syrians. What will Israel do? It is unlikely that Israel will accept its destruction and may use their nuclear arsenal if the West will not come to their help. Perhaps our book of Revelation is not so wrong in describing that the end of the world would start at Armageddon, which we know as Har-Megiddo in Israel. The book of Revelations describe the last battle would be fought at Armageddon between the “Forces of good and the forces of evil.”

“And who would you call the forces of good ‘Israel or Islam?’ I asked looking him straight in the eyes. He gave me a startled look. “If I were a Moslem, I would have no problem to name the forces of good and it wouldn’t be Israel. As a Christian, I would probably name Israel, but as a Christian Arab I would prefer not to answer.”

We looked at each other. His answer made it clear where the Israeli Arabs stood, whether they were Moslems or Christians. And why should I be surprised? After all the Israeli Arabs call the establishment of the State of Israel their nakbah (disaster).

Is there a way to avoid the “Armageddon”?

“I think there are two ways to avoid it. One can be a major war which the West can win. As in World War Two, had the West attacked the Germans in 1936 the war would have lasted not more than a month with very few casualties. Their procrastination resulted in World War II with all its consequences. Eventually, the West will have to tackle the Iranians, it is better that they do it now to avert a world catastrophe later. With Iran defeated the Islamic onslaught will lose its base, and it may be the turning point in history to defeat the menace of extreme Islam. The majority of the Moslems don’t want this confrontation anyway.”

“You are painting a rather dark picture. When do you think we will have the next round against Hezbollah?” I asked. “I think they will attack again as soon as they are fully re-equipped and I think it will be during the summer, while Israel is still in a military and political turmoil.”

For a while, we sat in silence. He finished his second cup of coffee and got up. “I know what I am going to do. I am going to Canada to join my brother. This country is becoming much too dangerous for Christians as well,” he said. He thanked me for the coffee and we shook hands.

“You said there are two ways to avoid Armageddon?” I remembered to ask him.

“Sure, all the West has to do is follow Putin’s ways. He assassinates his enemies without blinking an eye. Assassinate the four or five Mullahs who run the show, Ahmadinejad, and a few more Iranian fanatics, and the War can be avoided. It may be difficult to do, but not impossible. With today’s hi- tech technology I am sure that new weapons against individuals are being prepared right now. I think it would be a better way of handling the matter than an all out war against Islam.”

The conversation with Francis was not more encouraging than the one I had with the Palestinian student five years ago. It was becoming clear that Israel may be on the forefront for the coming war of the West against Islam, unless we follow Francis’ suggestion to assassinate the heads of the snake, rather than going to war with Islam.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27385

« Close It

Marriage has declined across all income groups, but it has declined far less among couples who make the most money and have the best education. Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II.

"We seem to be reverting to a much older pattern, when elites marry and a great many others live together and have kids," said Peter Francese, demographic trends analyst for Ogilvy & Mather, an ad firm.

In recent years, the marrying kind have been empowered by college degrees and bankrolled by dual incomes. College-educated men and women are increasingly less likely to "marry down," that is, to choose mates who have less education and professional standing than they do.

Married couples living with their own children younger than 18 are also helping to drive a well-documented increase in income inequality. Compared with all households, they are twice as likely to be in the top 20 percent of income. Their income has increased 59 percent in the past three decades, compared with 44 percent for all households, according to the census.

Hat tip to David R.
The following commentary is by David R.:

This is a national tragedy that will be played out in the political spectrum over the next decades. Children are being raised in unstable environments with no strong figures to depend on. Rather, they depend on Government. Do you believe this is not engineered? Do you believe that the US Tax code, which punishes married couples, is an accident? Do you believe that the welfare system, which punishes married couples by combining their income to calculate benefits, is an accident? Do you believe that the process of providing more money per child out of wedlock is incidental? Do you believe that the decision the poor to not marry, but live together and still have children is unrelated to financial rewards/penalties?

If you do, you are a fool.

This process is well understood. Its parameters were laid out in the early parts of the twentieth century. Government increases its power and control by undermining the family connection. It increases its influence by becoming the de-facto parent, providing resources and sustenance through programs, raising the children in "crèches" which we now call "day care". There the children are taught the values of an approved government agenda, rather than the values of their parents. When the children become older they go to government schools where they are indoctrinated in the government’s agenda. Even this article tries to cover up the story by claiming people to be “reverting to a much older pattern." Really? It seems to me that marriage is the single oldest pattern in human history. The most primitive tribes conduct marriage ceremonies regardless of what culture or part of the world we find them in. They do this without the help or involvement of government.

On the contrary, this is something entirely new. This is social engineering on an unprecedented scale, as bureaucracy and governments implement the crazy social theories (e.g., income redistribution, repudiating private property rights, institutionalized discrimination, taxpayer financed abortion as birth control, disavowing constitutional limitations of power, contravening the Bill of Rights, facilitating transnational sovereignty in a borderless empire, selective application of the Rule of Law, etc. – emphasis added by the editor) of the toxic totalitarian theorists of the twentieth century. They aim to fulfill Aristotle’s prophesy that democracy becomes the dictatorship of the manipulated masses.

« Close It

Part of this insatiable demand for highly motivated (but minimally skilled) workers was solved by outsourcing manufacturing jobs and entire industries overseas. The seeds of this transition began cynically as politicians in the United States offered minimally skilled American workers a pernament economic subsidy in return for their votes. As a result, year after year minimally skilled workers in the United States became increasingly scarce as a result of large numbers leaving the labor market (no longer looking for jobs). Politicians had offered them a life on permanent income redistribution (employment in the welfare industry) and free medical care which provided them higher standard of living than their prior life as a minimally skilled worker without benefits. In most cases, it was a logical economic decision.

At the same time, workers in India and China were becomming plentiful and willing to work at a fraction of the cost of labor in the United States. There are still large numbers of minimally skilled indigenous workers in the United States, and arguably that number has gown exponentially with the disintegration of education in the government public school system. Two highly correlated factors are at work at the same time. While the American society and economy was devolving as a result of government interference with the labor market, major segments of our population were becoming less skilled (poor education) and less motivated (income redistribution).

Regardless of skill or education considerations, the labor pool in the United States is three-tiered, those who are highly motivated, those who are minimally motivated, and those who are unmotivated. Minimally motivated and unmotivated workers have come to expect (demand) so much in the form of total compensation that they cannot compete in a world labor market. It is difficult to entice them to work at all, particularly after Congress chose to provide the social alternative of relying on income redistribution as a respectable livelihood. Imagine, choosing not to work and still being subsidized by taxpayers in every imaginable way (health care, housing, no taxes, cash subsidy, transportation, education, food stamps, utility bills, etc.). What is the incentive for any minimally motivated and unmotivated worker to seek employment? Constructive employment (real jobs) for these individuals, in most cases, is a net financial and healthcare loss. Clearly pride is not a factor, nor ethnicity or self-respect, as large numbers of various demographic groups consciously seek, through sociopathic behavior and wilfull ignorance, to make themselves unemployable.

It should go without saying that manufacturing is the foundation of any economy, and particularly a global economy. Workers in India or China or Mexico can produce, for a labor cost of $1.00, the same product of the same quality as a worker in the United States for a labor cost of $30.00. In order to compete, the United States’ worker had better be able to produce 30 times as much, or substantially higher quality, in the same amount of time.

Meanwhile, the manufacturer has the objective, as does any business enterprise, to produce their product with the least consumption of scarce natural resources, including labor, in order to maximize profit. Even though the basic concepts are economic in origin, for a moment think of labor in environmental terms. In the course of all human activity, we should try to consume the least quantity of all natural resources whenever possible, including labor. Most people of liberal orientation understand that it is far more efficient and humanitarian to hire 30 Indians than one American (for the same labor cost) – unless there are overriding economic, nationalistic or ideological considerations.

At the same time that labor costs were becoming prohibitively uncompetitive during the 1990's, with lesser-skilled labor demanding too much to get of their sofa, government was simultaneously imposing too much regulatory overhead for any business in the United States to profitably function as a domestic corporation. The situation has grown worse each year without any sign of comprehension by lawmakers. The economic fires are raging, consuming the United States economy, and Congress is throwing combustible fuel on the fire as a solution. The absence of inexpensive labor in the United States, combined with oppressive government administrative agency interference and congressional malfeasance, continue to be important factors that weigh very heavily in corporate outsourcing decisions.

A wise man once remarked a long time ago, that it was a little late to close the barn door after the horses were gone. It isn’t always that easy to get them back. Yet in the case of many important United States’ industries, we must try.

We should pause for a well-deserved moment of silence in tribute to past and current Congressmen who have collectively engineered this debacle. The consequence of their ineptitude is that every manufacturing industry still remaining in the United States is facing increasingly stiff competition from overseas, forcing them to cut costs deeply, including wages and benefits, in order to compete with foreign rivals. So severe is the problem that since 1993, U.S. production has only met half of the increase in American demand for durable goods; the other half has come from overseas. So when you hear the President say that Americans are “addicted” to foreign goods, that claim is patently false. Americans want quality manufactured goods, and are more than capable of producing quality manufactured goods themselves, but they are just not made in the United States anymore.

Why not? In the fewest possible words, American manufacturing and its associated jobs are gone, courtesy of failed domestic socialism, regulatory programs and foreign trade policies enacted by Congress and successive American administrations. The United States Congress, state legislatures and courts have literally and unwittingly undermined the profitability of American industry until most fled overseas for survival. Halliburton is only the most recent to flee. Those that remain are circling the drain in ever-decreasing concentric circles. Keep an close eye on Ford Motor Company and U.S. Air, the two corporations voted the most likely to succumb and submerge in the near future.

The root causes of the scarcity of inexpensive labor include such factors as federal and state legislation and local ordinances, administrative agency regulations to implement ill-advised legislation, litigation, equal opportunity, environmental restrictions, poor education and work ethic, union interference, worker’s compensation, mindless taxation, double taxation, political corruption, earmarks, occupational safety extremes, demographics, product liability, crime, etc. Far from last or least on the list of causes of labor scarcity are schemes intended to benefit special interest groups in return for their votes, i.e., income redistribution. The clearly visible but ignored effect of our national welfare state is to dramatically shrink the willing labor pool year after year. In fact, real incomes for middle-class taxpaying households were lower in 2005 than in the recession year of 2001. Democrat Jim Webb, who just won election in normally Republican Virginia, warned, “In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future.”

Why has the United States’ Congress, in their collective incompetence and Nero Syndrome, allowed America to become short the 20-40 million employees, educated or not, skilled or not, motivated or not, needed to sustain industrial manufacturing in the United States? That is a matter best left to ideologues. A lifetime could be spent analyzing past Congressional legislation and Supreme Court decisions that resulted in subsidizing whole groups of people, effectively removing them from the need to work, institutionalizing discrimination and disenfranchising American industry. It would be easier to understand if social engineering was being used by the courts and legislatures to advance the cause of socialism. What logical explanation could there be for Congress to have created a permanent and expanding underclass whose literal survival today depends on income redistribution through entitlement programs (in exchange for votes)? Did we answer the question inadvertently? Sorry.

If that were not enough, and regardless of ideology, there is still another factor that exacerbates the huge unfilled demand for workers, i.e., American citizens who would have entered the workforce by the millions, between twenty and forty million, but were not born. The relevant point now is that demand for labor in the United States is far greater than the ‘willing’ supply. The shortfall in the willing labor supply, even after outsourcing, is being met by vast numbers of illegal alien migrants. The behavior of the unwilling indigenous labor supply, i.e., sloth, ignorance and degeneracy, is being subsidized by taxes extracted from the top 50% of wage earners at the forceful behest of the United States government.

In the fewest words possible, it has been the unrelenting, broad and pervasive government interference with free markets, and abandoning long established cultural norms, that has caused a loss of manufacturing jobs and a severe labor shortage in the United States.

An abundance of skilled tradesmen and service jobs requiring lesser skills have replaced the manufacturing jobs. We have a knowledge and skill economy at the top, a tradesman and service economy at the bottom. The “Middle Class” who used to make widgets have become an endangered species. While it is true that both the population of the United States and the number of people employed has increased dramatically, constant-dollar real wages of the average American citizen has been decreasing for decades. With the Fed’s engineered devaluation of the U.S. dollar, with the worst yet to come, the standard of living of all but the wealthiest Americans is declining. That is not the fault of American citizens – talk to Congress. As for what remains of the Middle Class, they struggle to maintain their standard of living. Consumption expenditures of the Middle Class, which once came from discretionary income and savings, have all but been replaced by consumption spending using debt as a funding mechanism, i.e., refinancing their home and buying what they cannot afford.

Instead of Upper, Middle and Lower classes in society, two new classes have emerged – those few who are debt-free and the debtors. As the ranks of the debtors grow, and consumables continue to increase in price due to a combination of foreign manufacture and the devaluation of the Unites States' currency, consumption of durable goods will ultimately diminish.

Regardless of conservative philosophy or liberal ideology, illegal alien migration is factually and simply the “market” supplying a “demand.” Any market demand will be met by human beings seeking to profit by providing a supply – in this case, labor. The demand is so strong that millions of human beings, many of whom believe they have few or no viable economic alternatives in other parts of the world, are willing to risk their lives to meet the labor demand in the United States. Make no mistake. They’re not coming to the United States to become loyal citizens – that ended with the Era of Conservatism. They have no knowledge or respect for the borders of the United States or any of its laws. They’re coming solely to work and to avail themselves of an economic paradise on earth, a well-spring in social services and taxpayer funded benefits with absolutely nothing expected from them in return. Think of it as the illegal alien’s modern day California Gold Rush, but for social services and taxpayer funded benefits.

When viewed as a labor demand being met and satisfied, from an economic perspective, illegal migration is not a problem. This is a triumph of market forces. There are two really big problems, however. The first one is that the triumph belongs to the “black market.” The triumph of the “black market” in labor is in stark contravention of United States law – just as is the black market in drugs. The second problem is the apparent illicit and prescription drug-induced psychosis to simply give away boundless American wealth and jobs to illegal aliens – to forcibly take hard-earned wealth from Americans and give it away, without any commensurate obligation from non-citizens. Those who support amnesty for illegal aliens, or their continued access to social services, are advocating nothing less than the wholesale transfer of American wealth to illegal aliens - and still more to subsequent generations of illegal aliens.

Either the black market or the rule of law will ultimately prevail, but not both. In the “war on drugs,” which economic force has prevailed? Was it the black market in drugs or United States’ laws? Where incredible demand exists, human beings will supply the commodity in their own self interest. There are no exceptions. You may say, “I wouldn’t,” but the fact is that someone will and that person may not speak English or be a United States citizen. Embedded among them may be some (or many) of our nation’s most deadly enemies.

Extending the analysis further, why does a black market in labor exist? Very simply, the black market exists because of government intervention. The United States’ government has been trying to circumvent natural market forces by regulating (imposing) wage scales and labor eligibility by every artifice imaginable. They have gone to the extremes of favoring one ethnic group over others, all of whom are in competition to be part of the labor supply.

The black market in labor has become a big problem for two primary reasons – (1) illegal alien migrants have been led by our elected politicians to expect goods, benefits and services from the different levels of government that only those citizens in the top 50% of wage earners must pay for, and (2), the actual overhead costs of the illegal alien labor pool far exceeds the perceived national benefits, particularly in crime and cultural degradation.

The most significant goods and services that illegal aliens have come to expect include: medical care, citizenship for children born in the USA, chain migration, and welfare in numerous forms, public school education of their children, in-state tuition, voting rights, affirmative action privileges, and preferential language consideration.

Overhead costs include a range of political demands by illegal aliens that impinge on people's expectations concerning the English language (such as ballots printed in multiple languages), security, property ownership, conferring civil rights without citizenship, repeated criminal victimization of American citizens, criminal injustice toward Americans, disproportionate numbers of illegal aliens who must be incarcerated at taxpayer expense, the economic failure and closing of hundreds of hospitals, and fading political and cultural cohesion. (As an aside, if you think illegal alien migration is a social and fiscal crisis, it is only the opening gambit. Next will come the Muslim demands and the associated civil unrest widely seen in Europe. By that time it will be too late.)

Statistically, 25 Americans die every day at the hands of illegal aliens. In one year, 9125 people die at the hands of illegal aliens; more than the combined total of our military losses and civilian casualties since the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut in 1983. In one year, more Americans die at home from the criminal actions of illegal aliens than the nation has experienced from a total of 23 years of foreign military adventures. You might want to re-read those last two sentences to realize the enormity of the overhead costs to society. Think of their families whose lives have been devistated. Where does it end?

There is also the “small nagging detail” that illegal alien’s pay no taxes (except after engaging in document fraud in conjunction with identity theft) and contribute little to America except their labor, yet derive/demand a vast majority of the benefits.

There is also the 'not-so-small problem' of the justice (courts) and security (police) systems in this country, which don't work particularly well for citizens, much less for illegal alien migrants. And because politicians and judges have worked to the advantage of illegal aliens and disadvantage of citizens, more often than not, a citizen revolt such as the 2006 Mid-term elections was all but predictable. Add to the demographic equation the size and density of the illegal alien population, their distribution, vital statistics and capacity for expansion. Then factor in the dynamic balance with, or disruption of, the existing culture that is being displaced. Houston, we have a problem.

Rather than fostering free and open markets, the most serious problems (resource dislocations) have been caused by our own government’s attempting market manipulation and outright intervention, trying to artificially regulate the laws of economic exchange between rational human beings. Without our government’s intervention, everything could otherwise be a peaceful trading environment – in theory. The liberal mindset has prevailed for so long that it has become a pathological obsession to regulate everything, even human nature itself. By making the same mistakes over and over and over, Congress responds to crime by banning guns, Congress responds to bigotry by banning speech, Congress responds to terrorism by banning profiling and opening the borders, Congress responds to illegal aliens running wild within United States’ borders by discouraging enforcement of existing law, Courts respond to homosexuality by banning the Boy Scouts, Courts respond to secularism and immorality by banning Christianity, and Congress responds to child abuse by banning pornography. You can easily think of a dozen more examples. In every case, the programmed liberal mindset refuses to hold the individual responsible for the crime, including the illegal alien, and instead casts the crime perpetrator or illegal alien invader as the victim of an evil racist society or child abuse. Is it possible that there is more sanity and fewer drugs in the story of Alice in Wonderland?

There are still more issues, and one that is huge – multiculturalism. Federal, state and local governments are now presiding over a multi-cultural and multi-lingual land, that they created, that is incrementally becoming unstable. All levels of government are vainly attempting to “rule” using government-institutionalized discrimination augmented with force, suppressing the majority will of Americans in order to make room for illegal aliens and facilitate what appears to be the inevitable advent of the North American Union.

The United States, with its rapidly decreasing cultural homogeneity, is becoming less and less politically and socially stable with each passing year. To better appreciate the future of America, think of the Jews and Arab Palestinians who occupy and claim the same “holy ground” in Israel. Now add to their mix a vast welfare and regulatory state, layered with multiple religions, disparate cultures and languages, and you can see why Israel has such an explosive situation on their hands. Israel’s national stability is inversely correlated with multiple cultures and beset with institutionalized government and religious discrimination. And we are not? Unless politicians change course soon, Israel’s present situation is a glimpse into America’s future, but ours will be on a much larger scale.

Before the November 2006 election, United States’ citizens were already taking to the streets and the internet in protest because the sources of their angst were not being addressed by politicians. Most people have come to realize that there is less than 15 cents in difference between Democrats and liberal Republicans. Most relevant is a single fact: Democrats are now in control of Congress. The problems, from the viewpoint of border control advocates, and conservatives in general will grow worse – much worse. More citizens will probably join the anti-illegal migration protest incrementally. Most will not realize the issues are wrapped around an axle called market forces, i.e., supply and demand – and nobody is addressing market forces. To do so would require Congress to increase the supply of cheap labor (workers) inside the United States from among American citizens by providing fewer unearned subsistence alternatives to working. There is no workable solution that does not include significantly increasing the supply of American “cheap labor.” Reducing income redistribution will not be a political Happy Meal among Congressmen. Odds-makers would probably give a 60-year old disabled veteran better odds of winning the Boston Marathon.

As long as the over-supply of jobs goes unfilled by American workers, it will be filled by foreign workers, and they will continue to flood into the United States just as a tide floods the lowlands. The only changes possible are to alter the natural geography (increase the cheap labor pool from American sources) or build a dam (wall) to keep the water out. As long as industry can be more profitable using less expensive foreign labor, vital industries that were once the cornerstone of the United States’ economy will not return to the United States. Congress has indeed squandered our industrial base and national heritage.

One more example will suffice. Democrats coming into office have voiced concern about the plight of industry and loudly criticized the Bush Administration’s policies; but they don’t have anything that remotely resembles an alternative model that will meet the challenge. Democrats and liberal Republicans refuse to recognize that their role is twofold, (1) to increase the supply of manufactured goods “made in America,” which is the only solution to reducing the demand for goods from India, China, Mexico, Peru and Columbia, and to increase the supply of willing cheap labor from internal sources comprised of United States citizens and “legal” aliens.

While legalizing the “illegals” is the easiest political solution, it is by far the most damaging to national sovereignty and dangerous to the American culture. Just as France is rapidly becoming a Muslim nation, the United States is arguably becoming a Hispanic nation. If the plight of Mexico and its citizens is what we want for ourselves, Mexico being our national role model, then we should make every effort to adopt their culture (or permit it to be forced on us with amnesty for illegal aliens).

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that no child labor laws, organized unions or environmental standards will do anything to reduce the demand from the United States for manufactured goods. Instead, the measures championed by the Democratic Party as economic reform will only increase the cost of everything manufactured in any country which will then be passed on to the consumer in the United States - once again reducing the Middle Class' standard of living.

What about a citizen protest? Will it do any good? Are the Minutemen effective? Yes, they have been effective in raising awareness and politicizing the issue. It is also relatively easy to predict that any attempt by individual American citizens to stem the tide of illegal aliens into the United States will be met with severe government retalliation. At some point, American citizens have only two alternatives, i.e., turn into civil unrest or abdicate and flee. There is the distinct possibility that illegal alien migration will someday become an explosive social issue.

Ask yourself, if the Democrats who now control Congress fail to stem the tide of illegal aliens, will they have succeeded or failed? The more astute members of the Democratic Party know it has fallen to them to deal with illegal alien migration or be swept aside in the 2008 election. Regardless of political and media rhetoric, illegal alien migration will still be an issue in 2008 because it will still be an unresolved matter of supply and demand. All of the politician’s made-for-TV hand-wringing changes nothing, but then it was never intended to change anything.

The Democratic Party leadership (and liberal Republicans) has a preferred solution. They wish to legalize every living creature within the United States’ borders, plus any other life-form in our solar system, and make them all the responsibility of U.S. taxpayers in exchange for their votes. The tax responsibility to subsidize this mass of humanity and alternate life forms will fall squarely on corporations (small businesses) who will then pass on the costs to the consumer. The tax burden will fall especially heavily on the top 50% of citizens who are the only wage earners currently paying taxes. None of the bottom 50% of wage earners (who vote), and all non-citizens who reside within the borders of the United States, will have to pay a dime to subsidize the social services of the growing numbers of illegal aliens.

There is a finite limit and there is a long-term price to be paid. Total government dependency can finally be yours with a vote for any Congressional candidate that is neither a conservative nor a libertarian. Why are conservatives and libertarians more desirable – and only them, and not liberals, neo-conservatives or paleo-conservatives? True Conservatives and Libertarians, not some hyphenated alphabet soup, are the only Americans who are espousing a very limited government, the rule of law, personal responsibility, low taxes, self-reliance and a military whose sole responsibility is to defend the United States.

What the end result will be? If we continue to elect advocates of liberalism, we will receive in return a vastly larger government driven by ever more income redistribution. As socialism becomes more and more pervasive, existing problems of civil liberties and private property that rile American sensibilities today will become much, much worse. Civil liberties and private property DO NOT EXIST under socialism (liberalism) - nor does class mobility, personal wealth, small business or private enterprise. How could anyone but the most ignorant among us wish that on themselves?

The political competition in 2008 is not be to become the President of the United States. Nor is it between elected representatives who desperately want to improve the lot of all Americans. No, in most cases, theirs is a quest to rule, to become Caesar.

Hopefully you consider yourself to be one of the proud indomitable Americans who were born free and intend to remain free, defiantly refusing to live under the yoke of any religion, particularly Socialism or Islam.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

This vision of economics as the supreme judge of long-term national interest does not, however, take into account that in a war, we are unlikely to have the co-operation of (or even simple access to) the overseas factories that crank out the mundane items of civilian commerce today. We will not have jeans factories that can suddenly make uniforms. Our farm implement manufacturers cannot be counted on to begin making tanks. Our soap manufacturers cannot be tapped for explosives production; our motor fuels sources cannot be diverted to war use; and the factories that make pots and pans cannot make canteens and bedpans -- because many of “our” factories are located in foreign nations, staffed by foreign citizens, and they could -- quite possibly -- be busy making supplies for our enemies in some future war.

Although the United States makes some effort to maintain a high tech manufacturing base, as well as some specialized military manufacturing capacity capable of providing our tiny peacetime defense needs (and this is worth doing), what really matters in a war is having the capacity to rapidly convert a substantial civilian manufacturing capability to military use. America can make the best military equipment on Earth right now, but how much of it could we make in some future large conventional war?

America should be especially attuned to this possibility, since manufacturing is how we won World War II so decisively. More than strategy, or righteousness, or bravery, or sacrifice, we won with factories. And they were not weapons factories. They were mundane manufactories of boring household goods: sewing machines, plumbing pipe, furniture, pleasure boats, automobiles, tractors, hosiery, toys, and toothpaste -- you name it. At the outbreak of war, they were then converted to make everything from rifles to oilcans to parachutes and cleaning kits.

Our boring factories provided our every need and much of our allies’ needs as well. We became the celebrated “Arsenal of Democracy.” The Axis was drowned under our converted manufacturing capacity. American citizens worked overtime and applied decades of experience to the wartime conversion. Patriotism and creativity was unleashed from the design bureaus through to the factory floors. Were we to need to do this today, could we make even a shadow of the effort we had in World War II?

Trade creates not just commodities and goods, but capacities and knowledge as well. These latter two items do not seem to figure prominently in any of the calculations of net good that are made regarding instant free trade with low wage nations. In a world in which all labor is an interchangeable commodity, the patriotic orientation of the laborers is not considered important. This is an oversight that might become painfully obvious to us one day, when we find that a factory that makes cheap plastic toys can also make cheap plastic mines -- but who these mines are made for will not be determined by open bid.

War is a constant of human behavior. America will be involved in another major war one day -- a fairly easy possibility to imagine currently. Iran’s population will surpass that of Russia within a generation. China is a nascent superpower very open about her ambitions in Asia. North Korea can field an army of millions tonight. A militaristic neo-Marxism grows in Latin America. The number of nuclear nations increases as never before -- eliminating the unilateral nuclear option America has long had as a panic button in the event of a worst-case conventional war.

If America had to fight -- really fight under a military draft with millions of men in a sustained war against a constellation of united enemies -- with what would we fight? There are many benefits to free trade. But we need to admit also that free trade, like all other philosophies, breaks down at the extremes and carries with it costs that cannot be readily determined by the short term self-interest of a business transaction. In the end, every nation needs to reserve to itself certain minimum capabilities as a form of insurance, and all nations need to remember that there are moments when the loyalties in a man’s heart are worth far more than any economic enticement. In war, there is no global labor market.

The above was an excerpt of the original internet posting on 2/28/07, modified only for length.
http://www.mindspring.com/~macjohnson/

« Close It