No Holds Barred Politics

Is the Republican Party dead?

2008-11-07T01:45:00.001-07:00

Is the Republican Party dead? The one that I knew certainly is. As a 42 year old Hispanic I embraced Ronald Reagan as the Republican Party's greatest champion. It was Ronald Reagan that made the Republican Party the party for average Americans as well as intellectuals, moral conservatives, young and old, whites and minorities. He made us feel proud to be an American first and then to be proud to be a Republican. He brought us the greatest economic expansion in our country's history, not Bill Clinton as he loves to take credit for. Remember there is a lag period before economic policy is felt at every level of the national economy. It wasn't Bill Clinton, it was Ronald Reagan's sound economic policies from his trickle down economics to its strict fiscal responsibility that brought about economic prosperity to the country during the nineties.

In case our current administration forgot, reducing taxes is good policy if government spending is kept in check, reducing taxes and letting government spending run uncontrollably allows for severe budget deficits. Ronald Reagan taught us that. It is very simple mathematics; when our outflows exceed our inflows, we experience losses, deficits. There has never been a greater champion of the free enterprise system than President Reagan. His trickle down economics model was designed to successfully drive our free enterprise system. And he understood that the closer we got to a free enterprise system without government interference the greater the payoff. However, he also understood that being imperfect beings we were incapable of a perfect system so some intervention was needed. By intervention I mean regulation. He understood that the greater the payoff the greedier we would become and therefore the need to have a certain amount of regulation was imperative. This is where George W. Bush and Bill Clinton failed. Both deregulated almost every industry in our country. And what has happened, greed led us to our prodigious economic prostration since the Great Depression. Ironically, our supposed most capitalistic president we have ever had, George W. Bush, has brought us closer to socialism than any other president in our history. We now have 700 billion dollars of state owned enterprises. Why the economics lesson? We need to discern what the Republican Party represented during its most successful era and what it represents today during its most unsuccessful era.

The Republican Party used to stand for fiscal responsibility, smaller government, strong defense, patriotism and moral conservatism, not what it is today, giant government, budget deficits, Christian fanaticism, strong offense and turning on fellow Americans who have even the slightest difference of opinion and calling them traitors, unpatriotic or Anti-American. So who hijacked the Republican Party from its Reagan roots?

Joe Six Pack hijacked the Party, that's who. Less educated Evangelical Christians that have little understanding of the Party's core principles. The ones that listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and believe that Barack Obama will abolish the First Amendment and the Second Amendment and will replace the Bible with the Koran and will only allow schools to teach the Muslim religion and on and on. The ones that failed to pay attention in American Government class in high school when the teacher taught that there are two additional bodies of government that serve to keep the Executive Branch in check. In the event that it wants to abolish the First and Second Amendments. The ones that believe that evolution is false and Earth is only 12,000 years old irregardless of proven scientific fact. What I am getting at is that these silly issues have taken precedence, abandoning the core principles that Ronald Reagan helped the Party re-adhere to, such as small government, fiscal responsibility, strong defense (not offense) and moral conservatism (not radical Evangelical Christianity). And a Party that had room for everyone from Joe Six Pack to the intellectual moderate right to the staunchest conservatism without labeling any segment of its own Party as unpatriotic. This also included tolerance for the left in terms of an America that was made up of the whole political spectrum not just one side because it was far more important to transcend beyond political parties to protect her truest quality, Democracy.

Reaganites please stand up and introduce yourselves so we can turn over the reigns to you and you can make us proud to be Republicans again and to continue on the path that President Ronald Wilson Reagan set out for us as a country and that gave us our greatest economic prosperity in our history. Jose Six Pack go back to drinking cheap beer and repenting during Sunday services.

Hard to Form the Words, "President Obama"

2008-11-01T20:19:00.005-07:00

Yes, it hurts the lips to form those two words, "President Obama." But get used to it because it seems inevitable even without a few factors that have been hard to predict and I bet are very underestimated. The young voters (18 to 35 years of age) have been an unreliable factor in past elections even when strong efforts have been made to bring them to the voting booths. Most notably the campaign of Al Gore was confident it was going to have a significant edge with the young voters, but that edge failed to materialize and many experts argue that was his ultimate demise. Now, once again, the young voter is in center stage with the Obama campaign cautiously optimistic that this group will give him the landslide some in the national media have been touting.

The other factors to that could have a significant impact are Hispanic voters and disenfranchised moderate Republicans (the bulk that are now considered independents). Hispanic voters will of course affect the outcome of important western swing states such as Nevada, Colorado and even Arizona, Senator McCain's home state. Just prior to 9/11, during the 2000 election, the Republican party began to make significant inroads with the Hispanic electorate, appealing to these Hispanics with conservative social values and support for small business. Unfortunately, 9/11 changed the way middle America viewed immigrants in general and a new wave of tough immigration reformers were born that have alienated Hispanics ever since. This minority group is now flocking to Obama with the hopes for what they believe needs to be a more tolerant immigration policy.

The new independent which I will label as the neo-independent are ex-patriat Republicans or currently disenfranchised or simply confused Republicans that no longer fit with the new direction the neo-cons have taken the party; can become a major factor also in electing Obama with a landslide victory. These neo-indies make up surprisingly large segments of the electorate in the West and even in parts of the South and Midwest. Some statistics show them above 20% of registered voters and as much as 33%. It is important to clarify that these independents are not all former Republicans. Traditionally, independents made up anywhere between 10% to 20% depending on the region of the country we may be looking at. But to be safe it made up an average of about 12% of the electorate. The rise in independents are these neo-indies that primarily come from the Republican Party and social conservative Democrats. These neo-indies are the moderates from both parties that have been alienated by the extremes of both parties. The interesting question to answer is why if these neo-indies are made up of the moderates from both parties are they leaning towards a more extreme candidate, Barack Obama, than one that better fits the description of a moderate, John McCain?

It is pretty clear how lost the Republican Party's identity has become. How could it have alienated these many people and worse yet have driven them whether reluctantly or not into the arms of an extreme liberal. And it will be these factors that will determine whether Obama wins with a landslide or he squeaks a win on November 4th. And it is no one Else's fault than the ruling elite of the Republican Party. No, this really won't be McCain's fault altogether.

John McCain can certainly be blamed for picking a horrible choice in Sarah Palin as VP, he can be blamed for his at times erratic behavior and its not because he is old but because he is John McCain. He tends to be erratic at times. Stunts like suspending his campaign as though he was Mighty Mouse "Here I come to Save the Day." Or his increasingly angry and self demeaning negative campaign. Choosing to attack Obama on his silly ties to William Ayers, than to hammer him on his tax policies and belief in big government (something that has been causing the race to tighten in the last few days). Unfortunately to little to late. But these are things that happen during a Presidential campaign and the loser gets dissected and blamed for things like this.

This time however, his loss is the final nail on the coffin of the Republican Party as we know it today. It doesn't mean forever, just what it means now, the present, November 2008. Let's face it, the Republican Party is going to be blown to smithereens come November 4th if Barack Obama does in fact win (and I will bet my left testicle that he will win, I'm married so I don't use it anymore). Do I mean John McCain or the entire Republican Party? Get out your dark suits gentlemen, and ladies you need to dress in mourning, yes for the big funeral. We can bury McCain later, we are going to the funeral of the Republican Party. The Party that will now only have 40 seats in the Senate, only have 40% of the seats in the House of Representatives, will lose the majority of governorships. Lose the White House to the most liberal Senator in the US Senate. The Party that will shortly lose any conservative influence in the Supreme Court. The party that created the neo-indies that with their staggering numbers are going to help Obama get his landslide. The party that once had the young vote, when they voted in droves for my hero Ronald Wilson Reagan. And yes the party that because of the Hispanic vote got George W. Bush elected in 2000.

NEXT POST

In my next post I will analyze why the Republican Party has died and must now figure out how to resurrect itself and what it will take to do so.

Technical Difficulties

2008-11-01T19:26:00.003-07:00

I apologize that this blog is having technical difficulties. More than half of my postings have disappeared. I hope to have them online very shortly. Please come back soon. A new posting will appear later this evening with final observations on the Presidential election and its expected outcome on Tuesday.

McCain's Voting Record: Voting with Bush 95% of the Time

2008-09-01T11:28:00.002-07:00

The Democrats primary attack and slogan against John McCain's campaign is that he voted 95% of the time with Bush's policies and "McCain More of the Same." There is no doubt that this is a sound political strategy. President George W. Bush's popularity ratings at an all time low in the upper to mid 20's. That makes him about the least popular president in the last 30 years if not more. So it doesn't take a great political mind to figure out that tying McCain to Bush gives you a political platform to run against when you have made yourself out to be the candidate of "change."

Has it been a bad thing to have voted in favor of Bush's policies 95% of the time? If you ask your average liberal to name 3 of Bush's policies to use their percentage 95% of them will not be able to name but one, yes the Iraq war. When you press them to name two more is when they begin their psycho babble and attempt to deflect the question because they simply don't know. They are like cattle, once one of them chooses a course they all follow not knowing why but that one of their own decided to move westerly so there they all go. So let's address their one and only answer, the Iraq war.

Let us Republicans not make the same mistake and begin our own psycho babble trying to justify a completely stupid and badly managed policy. Let's admit it was one of the dumbest decisions he could have made. He was so interested in being the cowboy that Ronald Reagan (greatest president we Republicans have had in modern history) brilliantly pulled off. When he flew in on the fighter jet to declare "mission accomplished," I thought he had gone mad. That very moment I knew this would blow up in his face. And here we are today.

This decision and this decision alone has been the root of all the evils we are encountering. He went into this war with no preparation and no contingency plan in case it dragged on more than his inner circle of trusted adviser's believed. Forget the fact that he used bogus and unsubstantiated intelligence that Hussein had WMDs. He made the executive decision to attack and attack he did. Freshly recovering from 9/11 everyone gave him the go ahead, their bad judgement to bare as well. The true war was in Afghanistan and all resources should have been put there until the leader of the billion crazy Muslims was brought to justice, Osama Bin Laden. Yes you liberals can begin you attacks now about how I am a Muslim racist and that most Muslims are not extremist. I ask, how many came out and publicly denounce the attacks and insist that the wrath of God be brought down upon them for the attacks on 9/11 on our homeland? A hand full? Yes, at most a hand full and that was much later after the rise in anti-Muslim sentiment was on a rise in the US and many other parts of the world.

Getting back to the decision to go to war in Iraq and how it was an obvious mistake that is now the root cause of many of the countries problems. The economy has suffered because of the high cost of the war. One thing is to have a deficit that is manageable but when it reaches unprecedented levels as it is now, it will affect the economy. Oil prices have skyrocketed because of the instability in the area because of the war. Though the recent increases are really due to speculators, the war has given them the opportunity. Again, the war is undoubtedly at the root of the federal deficits. The broken immigration system has been brought to the forefront because of the war and Congress's inability to deal with it is tied to wars debate. And a laundry list of effects can be attributed to the war and its failed management of it.

Now that we are in the war and there is no easy solution to it. Bringing our troops home sounds easy and it certainly appeals to the anti-war movement that continues to grow, as the polls show, that isn't the best solution either. This will only energize the lunatic Islamists to continue their jihad. President Bush having decided to put the country into a silly war in Iraq and having realized that "mission accomplished" wasn't the end he needed to send holy hell into Iraq until the insurgents begged for mercy. You can not run a compassionate war! If the surge has been successful imagine what a total annihilation would have done. This war would have been long over. Instead we are in the midst of another Vietnam war.

Other than that, have Bush's other policies been bad? He has advocated a trickle down economic policy similar to the brilliant one that Ronald Reagan gave us. By the way, and I am going to say his over and over again, THE GREATEST ECONOMIC EXPANSION IS BECAUSE OF RONALD REAGAN, NOT BILL CLINTON. IN AN ECONOMIC POLICY LIKE REAGAN'S THERE IS A LAG PERIOD FOR ALL SECTOR OF THE ECONOMY TO FEEL THE BENEFITS. THIS OCCURRED DURING CLINTON'S EIGHT YEARS. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CLINTON, HE WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO BE PRESIDENT WHILE REAGAN'S ECONOMICS BROUGHT THE GREATEST EXPANSION EVER.

Many might argue that we are feeling the effects of Bill Clinton's failed economic policies because those have lag periods as well. President Bush other than the Iraq war has had many good policies, many that have been stalled or rejected by the Democratically elected majority in Congress. So McCain's 95% voting record of supporting George W. Bush's policies show good judgement despite what Obama's campaign and the herd of liberal cattle want you to believe.

McCain's VP Pick Brilliant Strategy But Very Irresponsible

2008-08-30T20:08:00.001-07:00

My first reaction was, "is he out of his mind?" But after listening to the Republicans that were interviewed not only on Fox but CNN and MSNBC I realized why he made the choice. This was not really his decision. This came from the most brilliant political strategist of our lifetime, Karl Rove. There is no one that the Democrats hate more than Karl Rove, not even Dick Cheney. So that should tell you what kind of threat Karl Rove is to the Democrats. He made this decision and convinced our candidate McCain to do this. Why? Because she is almost bulletproof and it takes their only shot they can take and turns the gun around and aims it at themselves. “She is too inexperienced!” And their first statement was exactly that and why did they have to retract it? Because every Republican spokesman said, “she’s no more inexperienced than Obama.” BRILLIANT POLITICAL STRATEGY. That is why Obama had to retract the statement that Bill Burton his main spokesman made. Every time they mention the inexperience which is all they can say about her, they hit the Obama camp right between the eyes. She does not have enough history to attack her any other way. There is one issue however that could sink them and that is that she is under ethics review for having pressured to fire her sister’s ex husband, read the article; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26458400/.

However, there is one major BUT, and that is, this choice is terribly irresponsible. The truth is that as the Democrats say, it puts a virtual newcomer to politics within an earshot of the presidency. If something happened to McCain, who turned 72 yesterday and is a reasonable concerned based on that age and his continued struggle with Melanoma, would put someone that has been governor of a state that has less people than the city of Austin, Texas. This makes his decision a very irresponsible one that puts his candidacy first and the good of the people second. I understand that there is no prize for second place, but ideologically speaking running for president is the most important public servant job in the entire world. A man fit for the job is one that holds the utmost integrity and always without exception puts the good of the people first. Of course we know that is not always the case. We had the most corrupt individual a country could have with Bill Clinton for 8 long years. And we almost had an even more corrupt person with Hillary Clinton.

The bottom line is that I am disappointed with McCain that with 67 days to beat Obama fair and square with good judgement chose to make a desperate move as brilliant as it may be, this early in the race.

University of Arizona Gay & Lesbian Affairs Director

2007-10-01T21:26:00.000-07:00

This past week the University of Arizona proudly announced how it is the first university to assign a gay & lesbian affairs director to its roster. So once again, a special interest group takes our hard earned money (our taxes) and uses it to force their own liberal bias down our throats. Not only is it a serous waste of our taxes but it immediately condones a lifestyle that is perverse in order to make it mainstream and give it legitimacy.

And yes it is perverse. Let's argue this point further. Let's take away religious views and morality out, and only looking at it stictly in nature's terms. Mother Nature in her infinite wisdom divided all of us complex multi-cell organisms into males and females. And she gave us reproductive abilities in order to flourish as species in order to fulfill the purpose of life. Life is her purpose and ours. She created reproductive organs in order for us to flourish and grow as species. These are very specific and the two divisions, male and female each have one set of reproductive organs and glands which must work together in order to in fact reproduce (flourish and grow).

Any deviation from these specific natural requirements to reproduce or to utilize our reproductive organs and glands that Mother Nature bestowed on us is not-natural. Now taking from the thesarus' synonyms for not-natural, we come up with: abnormal, aberrant, twisted, deviant and ah yes, perverted. Remember now we haven't brought in the religious or moral perspective into the debate. This is strictly a biological argument. But does the religious or moral perspective have a different set of reasons to also determine homosexuality as perverse? These two schools of thought also use the same biological standard to make the deduction that homosexuality is in fact a perversion. The religious and moral community just substitute God for Mother Nature when making the same argument.

Now that I've explained what makes homosexuality a perversion we can come back to the University of Arizona taking valuable tax dollars and wasting them on hiring a campaign manager to lobby the community and its donors in accepting this perversion as mainstream. And let's not kid ourselves that she isn't assigned to that position to be anything other than a campaign manager promoting the legitimacy of homosexuals in society. She is also there to make sure that conservative freedoms of speech are quashed. Anyone that is against homosexuality must be silenced and it will be her job to do it.

We have covered one side of the coin let's talk about the other side of the coin which is fair representation. Since the university hired a gay and lesbian affairs director and it has a Latino, Black, Women's, Muslim affairs directors, shouldn't they also appoint a White Christian Male Affairs Director? Oh and while they are at it, they should not leave out the Sado-masochist affairs director, and the beastiality affairs director and the pornography affairs director and the cats and dogs living together affairs director and the list can go on and on. But why should gays and lesbians get their own affairs director? They only represent 3% of the population while the white Christian males make up a far greater percentage of the population. Since white Christian males make up a far greater percentage of the population they are making a far greater contribution to tax dollars, much, much more than homosexuals. Why shouldn't their greater tax dollars go towards their own representation at universities than say the homosexual community?

This is once again a perfect example at just how bias the liberal minority is and how un-balanced our representation has become. This country continues to take steps backward instead of forward. It can no longer afford to bow down to minority activists that have no interest in the community as a whole but only to protect their own interests at the expense of a majority of people that do not condone their lifestyles or would find them to be a part of mainstream America. The right thing for the University of Arizona and any other universities to do is eliminate these special interests groups at the expense of hardworking Americans that would rather see their tax dollars used on programs that benefit the vast majority of Americans and not a twisted 3% of the population.

Blacks and Latinos in Jail versus College

2007-09-28T21:40:00.000-07:00

This week a report came out based on census data that alarmed many minority interests groups. The report raised the statistic that there are more Blacks and Latinos in prison cells than there are in college dormitories. Headlines read "Latino and African American groups surprised by new statistics by census bureau." My question immediately was "why," why are these groups surprised?

These statistics are in line with other statistics as to education level, economic level and in the case of Latinos, assimilation into the general society. Of course, the immediate thing to do by these groups is to blame "The Man," in crude terms. It's someone Else's fault but their own. It's the minority groups socioeconomic level that leads them to a life of crime. How could it be their fault? Blacks have been free men since the late 1800's and Latinos are going on their 4th and 5th generations here in this country. In all of this time, they've managed to have made no great advancements as races. The only reason they have political and economic impact is because of sheer population numbers. Both minority groups are nearing 40 million people respectively without counting definitively the number of illegal immigrant Latinos in the country.

With these statistics should we be surprised that there is a growing backlash against illegal immigration? The answer should be no. We should not be surprised that this country is moving closer to a racial war. The Anglo Saxon majority is growing tired of being blamed for the failures of these two major ethnic groups. It is growing tired of continuously having to carry these two races along by giving them preferential treatment, by letting them off because of their socioeconomic stagnation and underdevelopment. And it is about time that the Anglo majority is demanding a stop to the avoidance of responsibility by these two ethnic groups.

Until blacks and Latinos start to take responsibility for their shortcomings, their failures and their ultimate realities such as this statistic, this will continue to spiral out of control and we will see more and more blacks and Latinos in jail. It is up to them to progress as a people through education, assimilation, ambition and a sense of social responsibility. Why should it be up to the Anglo majority to continue to provide the crutches by not forcing them to compete evenly with whites. No one buys the argument that it's the "man" that is holding them back. It's the "man" that puts a gun in their hands as they walk into a convenience store and rob it. It's the "man" that forces them to stand on a street corner and distribute meth for a living.

This government needs to immediately eliminate affirmative action,and to significantly reduce social assistance such as welfare and force these ethnic groups to work hard and seek higher educations in order to progress. In fact, there should be a shift towards the other extreme and begin to hold them more accountable because they have for many decades now gotten preferential treatment and have chosen to waste it. They want to change these statistics then they have to change them for themselves.

Recently, a local report in Tucson, Arizona showed that high school graduates from school districts that have minority majorities can not read beyond a 5th grade level and perform math beyond a 3rd grade level. Yet you continue to hear the screams from minority interests groups and civil rights activists that more midnight basketball programs need to be implemented and paid for by the tax payers in order to keep young blacks and Latinos off the streets and from committing crimes. Other groups like the Urban League and Chicanos Por La Causa attribute these realities to the fact that blacks and Latinos tend to live in impoverished communities where schools have less qualified teachers, less demanding curriculum's and lower expectations. But who's fault is it that they live in these conditions? Who is setting these lower expectations? The "Man?" After 5, 6 or 7 generations there can only be one people to blame, themselves.

This country was built by impoverished immigrants that came from England, Ireland and other European countries. Many of these initial immigrants had little to no education yet they had the ambition, the drive, the desire to succeed in the New World. They were able to defeat a much more powerful kingdom and were able to draw up the greatest constitution in the world's history that to this day gives anyone an opportunity to succeed if they work hard and abide by the right side of the law.

Blacks and Latinos have to stop expecting a free lunch just because they are minorities. Their future is in their control and within their reach. White Americans would welcome the rise of these two minority groups into a much higher socioeconomic stature if they strive to do it on their own merit. It is only to white Americans' self interests to welcome that. The more any group contributes to the economic growth of this country the more income there is for greater services, greater technology, and greater quality of life. Unfortunately, until these groups take responsibility for their actions and their unwillingness to make it on their own, white Americans will be forced to accept less of a quality of life because they have to foot the bill for the shortcomings and failures of these ethnic groups. It's not cheap to feed these many prisoners.

Immigration Reform

2007-09-06T13:14:00.000-07:00

Immigration reform has become far too complicated since it became such a political firestorm due to the many interest groups that have a hand in it. What is the issue in the simplest of terms can be asked in the following way. How do you balance the safety of a country's citizens and their interests, and the humanitarian perspective of allowing immigrants into the most powerful and largest economy in the world? Isn't that the basic question?

Every country has the right to protect its national interests and its borders. It also has the right to allow immigrants that represent the best option for the country. If educated immigrants are best for the country, then the country has the right to limit those only to the educated immigrant. If low cost labor is in the best interest of the country then it has the right to limit immigration to those who fit that description.

Is it wrong to take into consideration the best interests of the country before the humanitarian needs of those immigrants that are seeking a better life away from their own countries that may be persecuting them or that have high unemployment rates, economic underdevelopment, etc?
The answer is of course yes. Its citizens and their national interests come first and a country is in no way responsible for people outside of its borders. The world chose to be divided into sovereign nations with borders claiming what’s theirs within those borders for the people that constitute citizens of that particular country.

It happens that in the case of the United States being the largest economy in the world it does need immigration flow in order to maintain the growth of its economy and the appropriate workforce for its industries. And the United States chooses to allow a certain number of immigrants to flee persecution, war and poverty. But there is a limit to what it can do and what it should do without affecting its rightful citizens.

Unfortunately, many sleazy politicians have chosen to demonize the illegal immigrants that are already in the country. These people seek a better life for their families and to escape harsh conditions in their respective countries. Most of these people come from the 3rd world and just south of the U.S.'s southern border. Most of these people are unskilled workers that provide valuable unskilled labor in industries such as hospitality, construction, farming, food processing and others that require a large number of unskilled workers.

Likewise, those many interests groups such as La Raza and Chicanos por La Causa, etc. and those Democrats that make up the left side of the spectrum on this issue must also stop making this strictly a political favor. The more under educated immigrants that can become citizens the more political clout these groups will have, strength in numbers if nothing else. This author may be too cynical, but for them to make us believe that they are fighting for reasons of humanity and social justice should also sell us the Brooklyn Bridge. The realities are that the average Latino has a 3rd grade education and make combined family incomes (two income homes) of less than $22,000 a year even after 5 and 6 generation in this country. Many Latinos have been living here for 20 plus years and have trouble speaking the national language, English, and yes it is the national language whether it is made a law or remains unofficial. The same argument from this side of the spectrum has been that this country was and is founded by immigrants. The "melting pot" as it is referred to so often. The major difference is that the original immigrants had mostly common cultural backgrounds and values. The second wave in the early 1900's again had common cultural backgrounds and values from that of the original immigrants that founded the country. Most were from European working class backgrounds with many similar cultural beliefs and values. Now the last several waves starting in the mid 70's have come from the very poor 3rd world where double digit unemployment runs rampant, where corruption is ingrained in its every day culture. Many of these immigrants have been unemployed or underemployed for years and have very different set of cultural values from the Anglo Saxon majority of the United States.

The truth is that this country has a right to choose the immigrants and cultural backgrounds that bests suits it. And even if it is willing to allow other cultures to immigrate it has the right and obligation to insist that they assimilate into the national identity which is to speak English, abide by its laws, work hard and celebrate its flag, national customs and holidays that define it.

Every interest group manages to point out particular studies, of the countless number of studies that are conducted regularly in this country, which best fits their specific agendas. You can find many studies that will tell you that these illegal immigrants are a tremendous benefit to the economy and others that they are a drain to the economy. Many sleazy politicians and bias news media networks that demonize these simple people for their personal political careers and financial gains initiate xenophobic emotions from particular groups of constituents (mainly the less educated and less informed) will tell you that illegal immigration hasn't been a benefit to the economy. Economic statistics show that illegal immigrants have in fact been very beneficial to the economy and consumer markets. However, the scale is slowly starting to shift.

The more expensive health care becomes, the more expensive public education becomes and the greater number of illegal immigrants coming in will at some point in the future tip the scales the other way and they will become a drain to the economy. But let us not miss the point. There are many reasons why these people are illegal immigrants. Our government puts a limit to immigration according to workforce needs, and a percentage for humanitarian purposes and this is adjusted every year according to the needs. Those that don't fall within the legal status are in fact not necessarily needed other than for purposes of hiring cheap labor. And yes, there are always differences in determining the labor needs of US industry between the private and public sectors. But irregardless of those differences, lawful means to bring consensus to immigration reform are the only way to determine policy. Just allowing for mass illegal immigration and the practices of hiring cheap undocumented workers goes against the lawful national interests of the country.

How do you bring consensus and reconciliation between both sides of the political spectrum on this issue? This is most likely the most explosive issue in this country besides the war in Iraq. The many different interests groups that are restrictive vs. the nonrestrictive are millions of miles apart. To simply say that both sides must make compromises when the gap between them is so big is just naive.

Unfortunately, the blame for the mess that defines our current immigration policy was created decades ago. The person most responsible is the most revered Republican in modern history, Ronald Reagan. When President Reagan pushed through and blessed an amnesty program that allowed scores of undocumented workers to become legal aliens and were given a path to citizenship, the flood gates were open and have stayed open for many millions of new illegal immigrants hoping that history will repeat itself. And it is for this reason that a new amnesty program is a game of Russian roulette. Patch up the wound with a new path to citizenship for the illegal immigrants and hope that another 11 million or 20 million more will not take that as an invitation to cross the borders.

There is another new issue that was absent during the Reagan years, homeland security. The country has a new and probably the most formidable enemy in its history, fundamental Islamic terrorism. Border security takes a very different and imperative concern. Terrorist organizations are not only slipping in through the southern border but from the northern border as well. This enemy is cowardice as it does not wear a uniform and is clearly identifiable, this makes it very difficult to be stop Islamic terrorists from entering America. This further complicates the issue. Often times it is difficult to differentiate Arabs from Latinos because of skin color and other similarities in physiological facade. After all, most Latin Americans come from a mixture of Spanish and native indigents. Spain was conquered and ultimately ruled by the Arab Moors over a period of 500 years.

Islamic extremism is rapidly disseminating like an unstoppable plague. And the American homeland therefore becomes a greater target more and more everyday. Making it even more important to determine a strict set of criteria for who are candidates for legal immigration or guest worker programs. The US as unjust as it may seem to the liberal left, must deny further entry of Islamic Arabs and racial profiling must take a part in determining the criteria of the what constitutes the ideal legal immigrant.

Getting back to the need for immigration reform, if in fact the private sector is correct that there is a grave need for foreign workers, a policy that creates a guest worker program is essential. However, it is also important to clearly define such a policy and program. It must be restrictive in nature that addresses the national interests of the country. This gets back to defining the type of immigrant that bests suits the interests of this country. Do they need to be educated? Should they be required to speak the English language? Since it would be a temporary guest workers program, should they be allowed to bring with them their immediate families? Should the government discriminate based on race and religion? In other words, should Islamists be singled out and denied entry simply for their set of beliefs like those described in the Koran. The belief that infidels must die (infidels are defined as anyone that is not Islamist or Muslim). How often should they be required to return to their homelands to reapply for another term as temporary workers? Like these there are hundreds of unanswered questions that must be analyzed and clearly defined.

Even after many of those questions are well defined and a specific criteria is created that defines who exactly will make up this guest worker program, the issue of the 11 million illegal immigrants still remains. Do these illegal immigrants take precedence because they are already here and have employment? Are these people criminals because they are breaking the law by illegally immigrating here? These questions must be answered only after a specifically defined set of criteria is created for what makes up an ideal candidate to be a guest worker in the US. And only after that can we evaluate those illegal immigrants currently living in the US. Since they have already become part of the economic machine it becomes difficult to deport that many illegal immigrants. That does not exclude them however from having to meet the criteria. Those that meet the well defined and specific criteria determined by both private and public sectors based on the best interests of the country can stay and those that do not must then be deported.

It is important for our leaders to be completely objective and non-partisan (very unlikely, this is why this issue is so complex). Those politicians as stated earlier in this blog that use this issue to win votes by demonizing these people and fomenting racism for political favor will only worsen the gap between both sides of immigration reform. So are these people criminals? They are in fact breaking the law by crossing illegally into the US. But is there a legitimate argument that the intent to break the law exists or is absent in the minds of these people. Are they doing this to escape brutal conditions in their respective countries in order to save their families from famine, persecution and disease? Does that make them bad people? Come on now, who wouldn't do the same for their families? Anyone that has a speck of decency and love for their families should feel compassion for these poor people. But no matter how much one feels compassion, every sovereign country has the right to control and determine what is best for their countries with regards to immigration. Mexico deports illegal immigrants from Central and South America, so does Guatemala and so on. It is a horrible reality that these poor people have to risk their lives, live in the shadows and constant fear of racial persecution, but our government must first see for its own citizens. Period!

What really is disturbing is the gull of the current Mexican president and his predecessor and many other Mexican politicians that are campaigning for immigration reform in the US. Now that is something infuriating. He and any Mexican politician or Guatemalan politician, etc. should feel responsible and brought to justice for the fact that their greed and corruption are the reasons that these people must flee from adverse conditions in those countries. Mr. Calderon you want compassionate immigration reform then pay for it. Cut the US government a check to provide these people with the tools to meet the criteria that will make them candidates for a guest worker program or citizenship and the social needs that they will require. And while you are doing that fix the rampant corruption that creates the adverse conditions that your citizens are trying to escape.

In conclusion, the complexity of this issue brought by such a massive gap between both sides of the political spectrum of this issue has me unable to give a clear solution to the problem. I hope that at least I provide some more food for thought about this politically explosive issue. One thing is for certain every country has the right to control immigration according to the best interests of its citizens.

US Marine is an American Hero

2007-09-05T10:50:00.000-07:00

Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich is currently awaiting the decision by a court hearing on whether he and 4 other American servicemen will be tried for murder. After a roadside bomb went off in Haditha that killed several Marines including Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, Sgt. Wuterich opened fire and killed 17 unarmed Iraqi men following the explosion.

So what! They are at war! There are enemies at every corner and every turn that want them dead. You want to argue about whether the war was justified, whether it was a mistake, great, argue all you want. As far as I am concerned, the war was a mistake. But, the war happened and now this country must get behind the American service men and women that are laying down their lives for their country. Irregardless of whether the argument that the war's purpose is to keep America safe is valid or not. Every American serviceman wakes up telling himself that he is keeping America safe. They face the high probability that they will not make it through the day, "I am here to keep my country safe". The greater mistake now is retreating and sending a message to our enemies that we can be defeated. We must not allow the media and the liberal left to run the war and ensure victory to our enemies. They are the most dangerous enemies this country has ever faced. They are not fighting for territory, economics, oil, national pride, they are fighting for a fanaticism that transcends reason and humanity. Now, they must be crushed and so demoralized that even Muhammed would go into hiding. But instead we are letting liberal senators with constituents in San Franscisco and Manhattan that don't understand exactly what is at stake here to determine the outcome of the war. Instead, we are crushing the morale of our Marines by conducting public lynchings of our own men and women that are facing the barrels of AK-47s held by the most fanatical followers of another crazed man, Mohammed.

Now, Sgt. Wuterich should not have opened fire on these men, but under extreme conditions, under attack that killed one of his own, how do you tell that Marine to kill but turn it off and analyze whether those men were armed or not? How do you demand that these American soldiers turn on and off their killer instinct when under attack? War is difficult, war is violent, war is unjust, war is about killing, period.

Why don't we hear from the liberal left in our country when our fellow Americans are tortured and decapitated? Why don't we hear them say, "we demand justice for the atrocious murders of our fellow Americans"? Instead its Sgt. Wuterich's fault that the US is the oppressor in Iraq. Is that it, liberals? Are we to condemn this young Marine because you do not agree with the war? Is it his fault? He signed up voluntarily to protect his country even at the cost of his own life and if his Commander-in-Chief orders him to engage in war in Iraq and he complies because that is exactly what he has to do, he now represents the guilty party for the war.

How dare you liberals! He is only doing what he was trained and instructed to do. Under extreme distress he saw the enemy in front of him. How do you tell them apart? They don't wear a uniform to clearly identify them as friendlies or enemies. Where are the peaceful Muslims that clearly stand behind our country? Those very unarmed men can very likely be the enemy. Instinctually he makes the decision to eliminate a further threat. Live with it, its WAR!

Those unfortunate Iraqi men are victims of collateral damage, but collateral damage they are. If you want to bring reason into the purpose of the war, great, argue away. But trying to bring reason into the acts of war, the acts of killing the enemy will only undermine our fellow Americans that were ordered by their Commander-in-Chief, to fight to defend our country's interests and its people.

So leave Sgt. Wuterich and his fellow Marines alone, they have a job to do even if it is a misguided job!

Where has the Republican Party Gone?

2007-09-02T21:41:00.000-07:00

As a conservative Republican that stands for fiscal responsibility, I must finally scream even if it means nothing, "Enough!" The war was a mistake, the handling of it has been a mistake and now I don't care who reports on its progress, it is going to cost an additional unexpected 50 billion dollars this year. This war will cost the US a trillion dollars before we see significant changes to its policy. In case our administration forgot, reducing taxes is good policy if government spending is kept in check, reducing taxes and letting government spending run uncontrollably allows for severe budget deficits. The Republican Party used to stand for fiscal responsibility, smaller government, strong defense, patriotism and moral conservatism, not what it is today, giant government, budget deficits, Christian fanaticism, strong offense and turning on fellow Americans who have even the slightest difference of opinion and calling them traitors. Who hijacked the Republican Party?

Now I may sound like another dissenter from the Republican party and against President Bush's war. Though I think it was a mistake to have entered into a war, it would be a far greater mistake to withdraw now. Enough with going about this war like we did in Vietnam. Don't give Bush his 50 billion, give him 500 billion to crush once and for all the enemy at hand. Let it be well spent by decisively and with full steam ahead defeat these terrorist insurgents. Giving little sips of water will not rehydrate our positions. We must give him everything he needs to unmistakeably take down the enemy.