United Enemies

Illegal immigration, more than healthcare or the environment or Iraq, indicates there is a major sea change in national politics. And it doesn't bode well for American voters.

Every political observer, with a modicum of knowledge, can accurately divide the positions of conservatives and liberals on healthcare, the environment and the Middle East. Although at times nuanced, the overall views of both parties starkly contrast on these issues.

Immigration is more telling. Listen to the name calling. We’ve all heard it. Those that oppose the amnesty bill—under any disguise—are labeled anti-family, anti-Latino, anti-immigrant, anti-poor and are generally categorized as heartless. Interestingly, those supporting amnesty have not been branded by either political party.

Most observers would agree that neither party can claim that they are only interested in helping the poor. That would be an urban legend of historic proportions. We instinctively know that political calculations drive their agendas.

Most voters have concluded that the Republicans' promotion of amnesty caters to Corporate America’s interest in cheap labor. It’s always wise to serve the major source of your campaign funding. The Democrats see the millions of illegal immigrants as a great source for voter recruitment. They hope to addict the new citizens to government entitlements, which will assure their prominence for generations to come.

Many Democrats support the position that illegal immigrants are only taking jobs that Americans won’t do. Like the Republicans, they forget to mention that Americans aren’t willing to work for slave wages. Those nasty American workers even demand benefits. Of note, these statements by the Democratic leadership support the Republican’s viewpoint. Find that unusual?

Everyone knows the Democrats and higher taxes are synonymous terms. Liberals just don’t want their constituency to be touched by them. The Republicans are universally viewed as anti-tax, less-government devotees. Do you find it strange that the Republicans aren’t screaming about the $2.5 to $3.5 trillion that the illegal immigrants will immediately devour if granted amnesty?

Place these political conundrums next to the fact that 80% of Americans oppose amnesty. Both sides of the aisle are ignoring the loud and persistent protest. Senator Lott (R) all but recommended that talk radio is solely responsible for the protest, and suggested passing legislation to curtail its voice. That’s ironic. Talk radio saved his bacon after he made those stupid remarks at Senator Strom’s birthday party, and talk radio is the only strong voice of conservatism left in the nation.

Here’s a fair question: What’s going on?

Let’s ignore conspiracy theories. Although their goals are distinct, both parties share the same objective—amnesty. And who does amnesty negatively affect? All American workers and tax payers will suffer dearly. Who wins? The DNC and RNC. It seems they’ve stumbled on a sure win formula. They can join hands when the legislation mutually benefits both; and their shared responsibility removes the issue from political contention. We are all being betrayed.

We Can Only Dream . . .

Set aside the obvious negative aspects of the following scenarios, and just relish the first moment they are revealed:

• The Middle East wakes up to the announcement that Israel in now the fifty-first state, and those nasty tempered Republicans control Congress and President Petraeus is in the Oval Office.

• The medical community has just discovered that the deadly plague sweeping America doesn’t affect smokers, cola drinkers, or consumers of trans fatty acids, sugared cereals and red meat.

• Scientists discover that global warming could be reduced by ten percent if the primary election season was cut in half.

• The members of the United Nations are informed that the US has completed building its new headquarters on an island in Micronesia.

• The American voters hear a recording secreted from a backroom in Congress in which Republicans and Democrats are scrambling to divvy up $200 billion stashed for earmarks in a defense appropriation.

• When General Motors announces its patented technology that improves gas mileage by 400% isn’t compatible with ethanol.

• The President of the United States declares our healthcare system is in shambles, and invites Congress to pass legislation that restricts the citizens from Canada, France and Great Britain from overwhelming it.

• When the US voters are informed that the $150,000 fines levied against companies that hire illegal aliens has created a negative influx in illegal immigration.

• Oil prices plummet to $10/barrel and Venezuela’s President Chavez comes begging the US for aid.

• When the Governor of New Hampshire announces the state doesn’t have a sufficient infra-structure to support the citizens of Massachusetts fleeing its insanity and oppressive taxation.

• When scientists declare suntan lotion as the major cause of beach erosion.

• When child molesters are given the option of being listed on the National Watch List or signing up for membership in the ACLU.

• When attorneys are declared an endangered species.

Let's Educate Our Finest

It is evident that US advances in the sciences, mathematics and medicine underpin America’s future. The environment, energy, our wellness and job creation are all interdependent. Both business and government site statistics that our universities are not graduating enough students in these science-based disciplines to meet our near term or future needs.

The solution seems obvious. Continue to import talent until we are self-sufficient. The HB1 program, which gives foreigners with these academic credentials a preferential place in our immigration line, is sound policy. But the HB1 program is a band-aid.

Currently the US government spends nearly $60 billion each year on Pell Grants, and provides $69 billion in student loans. Let’s pretend we have enough attorneys and convert about 20% of the $60 billion dollars spent on Pell grants into full scholarships for our best and brightest in the fields of science, math and medicine.

Academic prowess should be the sole factor in determining eligibility. Student records and SAT scores simplify the process of identifying the young people with the most potential. Each calendar year, let’s provide the top 10,000 American students four year scholarships, with the option of receiving grants for two years of post-graduate study. They can attend the school(s) of their choice.

Set the grant per year, indexed to inflation, at $30,000. Universities accepting these students will agree that this sum covers tuition, books, room and board. This would include any summer school programs. Those universities that claim they cannot afford to educate America’s best and brightest engineering, science, medical and math students at this price, have the option not to participate.

In the sixth year, the program’s annual cost would be under $11 billion, assuming every eligible student elects to continue his/her education for six years. Using $11 billion to underwrite our future is a good investment. Scraping the rest of the Pell Grant program will also benefit all Americans.

The Higher Education Act, passed in 1965, inflated the cost of higher education to the outer edge of our constellation. It may have helped some of the nation’s poor, but it crucified the middle class. Our universities have engorged themselves on this revenue stream—by inflating tuitions to sop up as much revenue as the government is willing to underwrite.

Universities tell us the 35% increase in tuition in just the last five years is worth every penny. To whom, the graduates stuck with outrageous debt, or middle class families burdened with second mortgages, or those economically paralyzed by tuition costs?

All of America’s families will benefit if the artificial floor (Higher Education Act) protecting exorbitant tuitions was rescinded. Let the law of supply and demand determine pricing. Cancel the Pell grant and loan programs.

Without the $49 billion in Pell grants and $69 billion in loans inflating the cost of tuition, the cost of education would plummet. Universities would be forced to adjust tuitions downward to accommodate the financial elasticity of American family incomes, or face empty classrooms.

Taxes could be reduced over $49 billion a year. Or Congress could toss a bone to America’s families by providing a tax credit—not to be confused with a measly deduction—for the interest families pay on student loans.

The New Hampshire Advantage

Although it’s months before the primary elections, any casual, New Hampshire, political observer can predict with absolute certainty which party’s candidates each newspaper will endorse. Like the lead articles in most local papers and TV stations, our “hard news” is gilded with opinions. On the East Coast the practice is as common as salt water and as predictable as ocean tides.

The New Hampshire advantage—beyond no sales or state income taxes—is that we get to see the presidential candidates on our turf. That’s an advantage. It clears the media fog. We are not confined to sound bites and the agenda driven interpretations of our newspapers, local pundits, and national TV newscasters.

But that’s only part of it. News bites focus on the podium. Generally, the people behind the speaker are enthusiastic supporters, props that applaud and smile in sync. The reaction of the audience, and how quickly they disperse after the speech, is the true measure of a candidate’s acceptance. It’s too bad the TV media outlets don’t focus on the audience and keep the candidate in a little picture-in-picture.

Watching and reading the media’s synopsis of these political events is fascinating, especially the national newscasts. The summaries aren’t summaries—they’re scripted boilerplate. In fairness to the national broadcasters, maybe their reporters sleep through the events.

NASCAR fans should be thankful these journalists don’t cover their sport, because they would only hear about the accidents. After attending a few of these political events and comparing them to the post-analysis in the evening news, one gets the feeling these journalists would throw nails on a speedway track.

And cameras miss a lot. The candidates’ speaking abilities vary widely. The messages of the less skilled are compromised by their lackluster performances. The cameras objectively report this tangible shortcoming. But the cameras miss the connection between the speaker and the audience.

It’s not a cerebral connection; it’s something they radiate. Maybe it’s sincerity, maybe it’s passion, maybe it’s honesty. I’m not sure. But certainly, it’s the one thing their speech writers can’t give them and the cameras rarely detect.

Now that the other states are jamming their primaries together, fewer voters will get the opportunity to personally relate, almost one on one, with any candidate. That’s a shame because no one can take the measure of a candidate through a lens.

There is another insight that the attendees of “neighborhood” rallies receive. We get to observe the candidates when the flood lights aren’t burning. Some ignore us. Some only huddle with their inner circle. Some smile and shake hands with the same sincerity as a used car salesperson. Some don’t remember what state they are in. Some arrive late without apology. Some won’t loiter for even a second after the cameras stop recording. But some, just a few, sincerely reach out to us.

Campaigns are money dominated. The candidates with the fattest bankrolls always seem to be in the top tiers. This would change if more voters met them in person. No amount of image advertising or media spin can overcome the perceptions gained during their personal appearances. Character, intensity, beliefs, trustworthiness, and distain for the masses quickly materialize. It restores your faith in the process.

I wish every voter in this great Republic would get the opportunity that blesses our tiny state of New Hampshire. We don’t have to rely on a tainted media to make our decisions.

Live free or die.

Where's the Trust?

The Republicans got skunked in 2006. No wonder the Democrats are feeling smug. They are winning by default.

America has a conscience. The Democrats prey on it and the Republicans are intimidated by it. And America’s working class is caught in the crossfire.

Remember George W. Bush’s compassionate conservative slogan? That was an admission of surrender before he was elected. The subsequent spending onslaught during his two terms would have made an avowed socialist blush. Of course, it didn’t. The two measly tax cuts he enacted caused apoplexy within the Democrats’ ranks. Only the expiration of these temporary tax reductions will heal their trauma.

Whether the subject was education, immigration, welfare or healthcare, Republicans generally caved on their less-government principle in fear of being labeled heartless. But that’s only part of the reason they were defeated in 2006. The Republicans also poked their fingers in the eyes of their constituents.

It’s obvious to Americans that our uncontested borders cater to Corporate America’s lust for cheap labor. That this occurred on the heels of companies receiving tax incentives to ship jobs off-shore, doesn’t ingratiate the voters. That the Democrats said nothing, seeing the invasion as a boon to party recruitment, doesn’t lessen their complicity, nor redeem the Republicans.

This pervasive attitude of corporate supremacy engendered headlines exposing outlandish bonuses and severance packages for failed chieftains, as ex-employees headed for unemployment offices. Most found new jobs in the service sector, where low wages and rotten benefits rule. For these wage earners, the low unemployment statistics belie the nation’s prosperity.

Most Americans will admit that they are doing okay. But there is a reason they don’t believe the country is moving in the right direction. Put simply: They don’t feel safe. Too many have witnessed good paying US manufacturing, research and technical support jobs get shipped off-shore, while listening to CEO’s brag about staggering profits.

In this environment, workers know their job security only extends two weeks beyond a severance notice. The employed are looking over their shoulders as companies eye the hordes of immigrants ready to accept sub-standard wages. Americans are outraged when corporations like Dell and IBM fire workers, while simultaneously prodding the government to expedite their HB1 requests to import others. Who do they think they’re fooling?

How many workers want to scream when they hear the word “productivity?” To most Americans, the term “productivity” means watching their fellow workers get cut, while they are expected to pick up the slack. Many work off the clock to protect their families. Although this practice is illegal, more and more, it has become standard operating procedure.

The availability of cheap labor has made companies—large and small—ruthless. This tension doesn’t spur voters to support the party that enables it.

Only the talking heads and shallow thinking politicians believe the voters tossed the Republicans into the bleachers because of Iraq. The voters may believe it was a mistake to stay in Iraq, but they don’t want to see the US turn tail and run. They remember 9/11 and know the stakes.

Voters will return the Republicans to office when they are convinced its candidates will close the borders, pursue and fine companies that hire illegal aliens, control entitlements, end earmarks, offer tax incentives to companies that generate US based manufacturing jobs, declare English the national language and stay out of their pockets.

A note to John McCain: You’re lucky to still be a Senator.

The Jewels of Socialism

The Supreme Court decisions in the 1960’s struck down the Jim Crow laws that denied blacks access to the opportunities and freedoms enjoyed by other Americans. It was long overdue. The staggering poverty of blacks, especially in the South, was the genesis of President Johnson’s Great Society—his promise to end racism and poverty.

The welfare legislation passed in this era enticed the last three generations of black Americans to the Democratic Party. But the trillions upon trillions of dollars of welfare legislation they ushered in the last fifty years created a social quagmire for black self-reliance and self-confidence. And the programs all but eradicated black family unity.

The law of unintended consequences has always dogged Democratic initiatives. Their entitlement programs and embrace of affirmative action, although well intended, branded blacks as a race that requires more than just an even playing field to succeed. They institutionalized black dependency on government aid—which created an economic dead end. And how many prisons were built to hide the consequences of their legislation?

It’s nearly miraculous that any blacks survived this form of subjugation. Yet, many have. By their own strength, resolve and personal pride they managed to achieve the American dream. They are the foundation of the black community that has earned the right to shout, “Damn right we’re equal.”

Class warfare, illiteracy and ignorance are the foundation upon which the Democratic Party builds its success. It needs class warfare to perpetuate its own existence. Without the minority vote the Democrats would drift into obscurity. That’s why blacks that flee the Democratic Party are loudly defiled as Uncle Toms.

The Democrats’ spokespeople must deride successful blacks that oppose their welfare agenda, lest those still mired in poverty take advice from blacks who beat the system. What evidence? Does the slander of Condoleezza Rice and Bill Cosby ring a bell?

The backbone of financial success is a good education. Isn’t it strange that the Democrats limited school choice? What motivates them to prevent black children from attending better schools? Why do they protest against a national testing program that identifies schools that provide sub-standard educations?

Education leads to prosperity, and the prosperity of blacks undermines the left wing’s influence.

Now, hordes of illegal immigrants are crossing our southern border. They are poor and uneducated—perfect targets for the Democrats’ siren call. They hope to addict these people to entitlements, which will buttress their political ranks for generations to come. This strategy was exemplified by Senator Kennedy when he railed against a proposed amendment to restrict the Income Tax Credit (a $1700-$2000 stipend) to only poor Americans.

He used the standard “It’s for the children” refrain to justify broadening the eligibility for the largest welfare subsidy in the nation. Of course, this is in addition to the entitlements of food stamps, subsidized housing, free education and medical care, Unemployment Compensation, Social Security, etc., etc., for all illegal aliens and their families.

The left’s rush to welcome illegal aliens is sinister. Business will scoop up these unskilled workers and pay them a lower wage than they would have to pay unskilled Americans. This practice will devastate black opportunity. In addition to this betrayal, their immigration agenda will lead ten to twelve million poor down the same dead-end road.

Entitlements, the jewels of socialism, are just stones that anchor the poor.

Referendum on Survival

On June 3, 2007, CNN hosted the Democratic Presidential debate at St. Anselm College, Manchester, NH. There were no surprises.

CNN’s delving questions reminded me of a 3rd grade spelling bee held at my school. The mother of one of the participants moderated. She randomly selected the words the contestants had to spell from an approved list. Her daughter won. Even eight year olds knew the fix was in.

In fairness to CNN, it only asked questions that any eight year old socialist could answer. It was a great example of freedom of the press—to manipulate and approve an agenda.

Who would have guessed that these presidential aspirants despise President Bush, would want nationalized healthcare, more money for education, amnesty by any other name for illegal aliens, would dismiss the consequences of $50 trillion in long term debt, would close Gitmo, rescind the Patriot Act, capitulate in Iraq and believe discussions with Iran would lead to a better relationship with those terribly misunderstood Islamic jihadists?

The content of the answers was pure Democratic boilerplate. Rating the different positions among the candidates is nearly impossible. Twenty-five pennies, five nickels, two dimes and a nickel and a quarter are all worth two-bits. That’s why the talking heads that dissected the event focused on personality rather than content.

The most enlightening moment in the exchange occurred when one of the candidates stated that the current entitlement programs have saddled America with $50 trillion in long term debt. The leading candidate’s response: This is a minor problem that balanced budgets will solve. The other candidates hummed their approval, and the subject was changed.

The hand-picked audience accepted this response, which would indicate that Democrats are rabid lottery ticket buyers. They have never figured out that lotteries are taxation for the mathematically challenged.

Had that response been made in a roomful of conservatives, it would have been met with a chorus of groans, or possibly a spontaneous lynching. Social Security and Medicare are tax time-bombs. Now add nationalized healthcare, which will hoist the cost of aspirin into the stratosphere, and then insert the financing of college education for all Americans and illegal aliens to the mix.

Now, balance the budget!

The revenues generated by the Democrats’ promise to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 and 2011 won’t begin to cover the deficit. The cost of this spending platform will necessitate a 30% increase in taxes. Their generosity with our incomes will slaughter the American economy, and put this country into a tale spin that may not be recoverable.

The stakes in the 2008 election were defined by Senator Clinton and her comrades. Let’s hope some Democrats and Independents take remedial arithmetic before the election, because it is now a referendum on their own economic survival.

Of Guns and Gods

Since historians scribbled notes, religious prosecution and aggrandizement have been tied to the expansion and consolidation of power and economic gain. In each instance, the promotion of a single, religious belief has doomed countries to bloodshed, political chaos and war.

Atheism is a lowercase religion, or sect, whose adherents believe all power resides in man and the state. It offers a unique way of looking at the universe. It’s neither good nor bad, and is technically defensible.

Communism is the blend of atheism and socialism. Socialism is uppercase religion-intolerant. The first of the Ten Commandments (Thou shall not have strange Gods before Me.) conflicts with the first axiom of socialism—all power resides in the state. Socialists find the remaining nine Commandments good to go. They do reserve the right to interpret them. That right led to the death of about 20 million reluctant central and eastern Europeans and Russians, the creation of the Soviet Union and the Cold War.

The annals of Christianity, Judaism and Muslimism are replete with equally unsavory episodes in mankind’s abuse of religious tolerance for the sake of state hegemony. Many graveyards in Ireland attest to the consequences of religious intolerance. Now, each day new families are standing over fresh graves wreaked by the havoc of guns and gods.

Religion is an excellent pretext for rallying support. It’s a tried and true methodology, capable of inciting its disciples to commit atrocities that require no atonement. The Islamic jihad against infidels is a pretext, unless one believes Iran’s President and mullahs, or Iraq’s al-Sadr, or al-Asad of Syria aren’t motivated by expansion, power and treasure.

Westerners who espouse the idea that democracies brought this terrorism upon themselves are delusional. They site the creation of Israel and the West’s interference in the Middle East as the cause. That’s propaganda straight from the Marketing-A-War handbook of Muslim leaders. The jihad was born of the ambitions of Arab and Persian princes seeking to dominate their neighbors and the oil fields.

As it happens, the United States and its allies are standing between them and their goals—and $10 a gallon gasoline.

That was Saddam Hussein’s objective. He used the animosity between Sunnis and Shiites to consolidate his control of Iraq. It’s difficult to believe that the “Butcher of Bagdad” cared about which descendents of Mohammad were worthiest to carry the mantle of the Islamic faith. Empire builders use the tools at hand. He leveraged their hatred.

Saddam’s termination and the destruction of the Iraqi military enhanced Iran’s prospects to dominate the oil rich Arabian peninsula. A US withdrawal from Iraq coupled with a nuclear arsenal exponentially increases its potential for a successful conquest.

A strong Iraq, democratic or not, is an unwanted barrier to Iran’s ambitions. Iran is not about to commit any overt act which will place it in the sights of the US military. It does understand that the death of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens solidifies the political opposition to the US presence in Iraq.

Iran will continue to exploit this ambivalence by supplying their al-Qaeda proxies. Certainly, the proxies will continue to leverage the hatred between Sunnis and Shiites to keep the death toll climbing. The stakes are high in Iraq and the outcome is open to conjecture. The only thing Americans can be certain of is that Allah is hearing a lot of good things about Democratic candidates.