The TSA Won't Save You

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXDLQPfqc04&feature=share

The above video is intended to be comical, of course, but I’m sure it’s not too far away from reality.

The incompetent Underwear Bomber of Christmas 2009 prompted the Transportation Security Administration to upgrade its security measures at airports. We now have two new hurdles to jump over when trying to travel by airplane: the full body X-ray scan, and the “enhanced pat-down”:

This issue has been coming up repeatedly in the news since the new security measures were implemented in November, so I won’t belabor my readers with the details of each measure. The point is that TSA staff are either ogling your genitalia or are touching them with rubber-gloved hands, all in the name of keeping us safe.

Oh, really? (O RLY?)

The aim of the new measures is to prevent another Underwear Bomber-type incident, which was not caught by the old security measures of metal detection. However, so far, the new measures seem to do two things: 1) they embarrass travelers, especially those travelers with medical conditions or past histories of abuse that are revealed to the public upon being scanned and/or “patted down”, and 2) they aren’t keeping us safe.

Various reports and articles on the new TSA security measures have shown glaring failures, with some airports failing to detect dangerous items a shocking 70% of the time. Just recently, a businessman named Farid Seif managed to board a plane in Houston, Texas with a .40 caliber handgun “accidentally” stowed in his carry-on bag. This is no small, Derringer-type weapon; it can put a good-sized hole in a person fairly accurately. You’d think the TSA would detect that. Another passenger got on a different plane with a six-inch hunting knife. Whether these weapons were accidentally or purposefully carried on the planes is a moot point, because the fact is that the über-invasive new security procedures did not work.

Let’s say that the new measures did work, though. Let’s say that the success rate was nearly 100%, or even 100% exactly. Is it worth it?

Many people would say “yes”, because it could indeed prevent a person from detonating a bomb contained on their person. Such an incident would kill hundreds of people, bring our air travel to a grinding halt, and have a very significant economic impact, along with frightening the public into not traveling at all, compounding these effects. However, the new measures probably couldn’t detect a bomb planted IN a person, either surgically, anally, orally, or otherwise. Think that’s far-fetched or ludicrous? Terrorists don’t think so.

Beyond that, terrorism can take place in more locations than 30,000 feet above the ground. Will the TSA measures protect against a Mumbai-style attack in which gunmen go into a densely-populated location with military-grade assault rifles and hand grenades, and kill people until they themselves are killed and captured? Such an attack could easily kill as many (or more!) people than a plane blowing up in mid-air, and yet there is almost no protection against an attack that the government can offer short of martial law.

So as the government expands its power and infringes upon your rights further and further in the name of protecting you and making you feel (key word: FEEL) safer, think about their track record. Think like a terrorist, even. If you couldn’t hit the air travel industry, are there other targets of opportunity? Of course there are.

The best way to protect you and your family from terrorism? Self-defense. Of course, on an airplane, everyone can’t be armed. A stray bullet could breach the wall of the plane and cause massive depressurization of the cabin, even bringing down the plane in its entirety. But pepper spray? Knives? Stun guns? These could be easily used by everyday passengers to subdue someone trying to blow up their shoes or their crotch, or someone trying to commandeer the plane, without endangering the entire flight. However, just like in schools, colleges, and other public places, laws preventing basic self-defense will not keep unlawful people from trying to hurt you. In addition, taking away nail files, nail clippers, and pens from lawful passengers (including old ladies and small children) is even more asinine. On top of that, tack on a healthy dose of humiliation and trauma for passengers subjected to the new full body scans and “enhanced pat-downs”, and we officially have stupid government by our elected leaders who feel the need to act on every poor nitwit’s cry for help and protection by Big Brother.

The TSA won’t save you from terrorism, no matter how invasive their procedures get. And by yielding to these new security procedures at the airport, we are surrendering our Fourth Amendment right to protection against unwarranted search and seizure without reasonable cause.

The (Attempted) Political Assassination of Rand Paul

One year ago, Dr. Rand Paul, son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul, made barely a blip on the American politics radar screen. Today, onAugust 12th, he aims to be the first candidate to be elected to the Senate with the support of the grassroots Tea Party movement.

It was pretty clear that the political establishment hated him from the start. He didn't have the blessing of the long-established kingpins in the GOP, and the liberal Democrats thought he was a right-wing nightmare waiting to happen. After Rand Paul applied for his official Senate candidacy as a Republican, the support from the growing Tea Party movement was immediate. Many of the Tea Partiers already supported his father, Ron Paul, and his son, while differing with his father on some policies, matched his father's dedication to constitutional conservatism. That was enough to fire up the Tea Partiers, and it quickly became evident that it was enough for Kentucky conservatives as well. Paul's message of limited government, fiscal conservatism, and balanced government budgets inspired Kentucky Republicans to elect him as the Republican Senate candidate for Kentucky over his establishment-picked opponent, Trey Grayson.

Grayson ran a dirty campaign, trying to snipe Rand Paul with false or exaggerated accusations which were supposed to demonstrate to Kentucky conservatives that he wasn't right for Kentucky or the nation. Kentuckians didn't buy it; the anti-establishment wave had begun to crest, and Grayson was too close to the big-wigs in DC for Kentucky Republicans to believe that he was anything new or improved.

Rand Paul is now poised to defeat his Democrat opponent at the polls as well, and is currently leading by several points. The holy alliance of the political establishment and the mainstream media has been doing everything in their enormous power to derail his campaign, however, and the road has been thus far bumpy. Take Rand Paul's stance on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which he explained on Rachel Maddow's show. It would unleash a barrage of wicked criticism from both liberal Democrats and his fellow Republicans:

"I don't like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it's a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant, but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership."

You could almost hear the collective gasp as the left's 46-year-old sacred cow was blasphemed against. Rand Paul surely had a white robe and hood hanging in his closet, with a tool shed full of wooden crosses and gasoline. The aforementioned holy alliance had their target, and they began to take potshots.

Pretty much every variation of the "racist" charge was thrown around by both Democrats and establishment Republicans. Paul's Democrat opponent, Jack Conway, said that Paul "rejected the fundamental provision of the Civil Rights Act," and that, to him, was "a rejection of the progress we've made over the last half-century." Progress, indeed.

Say or do anything that allows the political-media alliance to label you a racist, and your career is automatically in jeopardy, whether your career is in politics or not. Just look at what happened to Shirley Sherrod, who worked for the Department of Agriculture. There is no worse thing that a person can possibly be in America, and yet racism has killed fewer people than communism, pollution, and several of the Seven Deadly Sins, I'm pretty sure. So why does the term and idea of racism have so much power? Such a question is the topic for another conversation, another day.

What can be said now is that the media and Rand's political opponents used the deadliest weapon in politics against him, and failed. They may fail again if Rand Paul becomes the next Senator for Kentucky, which he very well may do. Paul backed off a bit from his initial stance, but he's a political novice, and his two-step backpedal didn't detract from his original (and reasonable) stance, nor did it hurt his credibility with Kentuckians or other conservatives.

The political assassination attempts continue, of course.Take the recent accusation by an anonymous female:

"The article in GQ quotes an unnamed woman as saying Pauland a friend once blindfolded her, tied her up, drove her to their house and tried to force her to smoke marijuana. The woman said she and Paul were teammates on the Baylor University swim team at the time, about a quarter-century ago." (Quote from AP news story: "GOP candidate Paul denies kidnapping suggestions")

Not only was the source of this claim anonymous, but there was no proof given for such a ridiculous accusation. In a time when journalistic integrity is as rare as naturally-occurring plutonium, it's no surprise that GQ ran with the story without any such proof. Rand Paul basically laughed it off, which was a pretty great reaction; most other candidates would sweat through their suits.

All of these incidents targeting Rand Paul prove that the political establishment in our nation's capital has an agenda, and Rand Paul is not part of it. Nor will any other grassroots candidate be a part of that agenda, as demonstrated by Trent Lott's recent comment that incoming GOP congressmen and Senators from the Tea Party movement need to be "co-opted" by the Republican establishment so they can fall within the acceptable party lines. Thanks for being honest, Trent.

I truly hope Rand Paul goes all the way to the Senate, and that his candidacy inspires other true, constitutional conservatives to aggressively run for office. A Senator Rand Paul would knock the political big-wigs back on their heels. We can't afford not to seize advantage of that.

The Oil Conundrum

I wanted to write an article earlier about the oily disaster that’s plaguing the Gulf of Mexico and the surrounding coastal states, but I had a hard time finding something to say that hasn’t already been covered by every news anchor and political pundit in America. The United States’ worst environmental disaster continues to surprise me as to how much worse it can actually get: just when you think nothing more can go wrong, it does.

For those people hibernating in bear caves, I’m talking about the explosion at the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico which led to the destruction and eventual sinking of the entire rig itself. Eleven people are presumed to have died in the explosion, which was caused by a buildup of methane gas. This event wouldn’t nearly be as bad of a problem if the blowout preventers, which are located miles below the ocean surface and which had a leaky hydraulic system and failed batteries, actually worked. Instead, oil has been flowing (gushing, pouring, spilling, etc.) into the Gulf. More than seven million (7,000,000) barrels of oil have poisoned the Gulf’s waters and its ecosystem. To put that in perspective for those not familiar with oil barrels, that’s approximately 298 million (298,000,000) gallons of oil. Line up 298 million milk jugs filled with crude. Tens of thousands of barrels (between 1 and 3 million gallons) of oil are venting into the Gulf each passing day. Get the picture? “Disaster” is not a hyperbolic word choice.

The depth of the leaking pipes makes them extremely difficult to fix, cap, or seal. Attempts to use underwater robots have been plagued with failure: first when the robots couldn’t manually trip the blowout preventers, and most recently when a robot which was attempting to cap a pipe actually knocked a piece loose, causing even more oil to spill out. Fail much?

The oil spill has destroyed the livelihoods of thousands of Gulf residents who rely on the ocean for their bread and butter, and has hurt tourism for Gulf states, whose beaches are usually crammed with people enjoying the summer. Now, with tar balls, oil sheens, and dead animals washing up on shore, no one’s looking for fun in the sun.

I’ll save you all the details of British Petroleum’s response; I’m sure you’ve all heard about it by now, except for the aforementioned cave-dwellers. Suffice to say, their response has been clumsy at least and criminal at worst.

Even more puzzling is the Obama administration’s response. The Coast Guard and other branches of the armed forces have been helping with the cleanup effort, but the administration rejected 70 offers of international assistance from 23 countries, including Iran, of all places. Until a week or so ago, Obama basically responded to all offerings of aid with a “thanks, but no thanks” sort of response. One given explanation was that the Dutch oil-cleaning ships did not clean the water to American standards of cleanliness. Quite frankly, this is no excuse to reject aid when we so clearly need every possible helping hand that is extended our way. It’s really that bad.

Obama finally kowtowed and allowed the Dutch equipment to be used, but still refuses to use Dutch ships or Dutch workers. What on earth is he so afraid of? Any act, law, or provision that’s clogging up the cleanup and relief effort with bureaucratic big-government red tape could surely be suspended, even temporarily, with one of those nifty executive orders that Bush and now Obama seem to be so fond of.

Instead, the Obama administration has busied itself with billing and questioning British Petroleum and its corporate heads, as well as placing a six-month moratorium on offshore drilling, a move that has already cost many jobs on the 33 drilling rigs affected. While one may think that such a moratorium would be prudent, considering the scope of this debacle, such a decision seems to ignore the fact that BP has boatloads more safety and environmental violations than other oil companies. The source of the problem is pretty clear. While this does not necessarily mean that the current disaster is a one-off (to use Janet Napolitano’s favorite counterterrorist term), it does mean that a six-month moratorium on all drilling from the federal government may be unnecessary. On the other hand, if a state such as California decides to nix offshore drilling, that is an entirely appropriate response. Such is a state’s right. Just don’t expect the rig workers to be happy.

Obama’s bipartisan national commission to investigate the incident and all offshore drilling projects is stacked with environmental advocates, which means that they advocate for expanded government power in order to protect the environment. We know you’re trying, Mr. Obama, but you still stacked the deck with people that are going to tell you what you want to hear: that America needs to un-invest in petroleum and embrace clean energy.

The funny thing is that such a sentiment is almost right. America does need to embrace cleaner, more efficient means of producing energy. It is one of the most worthy long-term political goals to which we as Americans can strive to achieve. In the meantime, however, it is paramount that the United States weans itself off of its dependency on foreign oil by tapping what resources we have here on our territory. When we use foreign sources for our petroleum needs, our enemies, ideological or otherwise, usually get paid. Combine that with pollution and this most recent hellish situation in the Gulf, and it is clear as day that the United States must decrease its appetite for oil. We can actually use a two-pronged approach when it comes to renewable energy and utilizing domestic energy sources; it doesn’t have to be one or the other.

So far, though, Obama and his allies have predictably used this crisis to push an agenda which only focuses on that vague notion of renewable energy. The fact is that clean and renewable energy are still in their infant stages of development. Nuclear energy is as efficient and clean as we can currently get, and even that produces some horrible waste products. Solar, hydroelectric, and wind energy are great for powering small units, not large cities and important infrastructure. Fusion energy is but a glimmer over the horizon of time. So when Obama tries to create “green” jobs and somehow pursue a cleaner energy source, he and his administration end up costing taxpayers an awful lot of money for an energy panacea that is not yet ready to be exploited.

We’re not saying that we don’t want cleaner energy, Mr. President. We want you to get that leak plugged in whatever way possible, and we want you to pursue sensible energy policies, not green dreams. Stop the crony-style capitalism that gives favors and breaks to big, wealthy oil companies that shirk their responsibilities and stop cherry-picking industries to attack. This is not the time to pursue an agenda.

Much Ado About Israel

If you haven’t heard the news about Israel and the Gaza “Freedom Flotilla” by now, then do a quick search for the latter term, and you’ll get a slew of news stories, blogs, and blogs about how news stories are getting the story wrong. There’s a wealth of opinions and perspectives, and I don’t intend to take one side or the other here, mainly because I wasn’t there. I’ll stick to the basics: a large flotilla of ships loaded with aid and supplies was bound for the Gaza strip when it was intercepted by Israeli military forces. Israeli commandos rappelled onboard the ships, and somewhere along the way, non-lethal riot control methods turned into live ammunition, and nine passengers on the ships were dead by the time the flotilla reached Ashdod.

If you dispute any aspects of that short rendition, send me some mail about it, and we’ll chat. I’m eager to hear all sides of any issue. But that’s the bare bones of it, as far as I can tell.

The United Nations quickly scolded Israel for its actions. Turkey called the incident a “bloody massacre” and held memorial services for the slain Turks who were onboard the ships in the flotilla. The United States more or less backed the United Nations’ wrist-slapping. Benjamin Netanyahu declared Israel’s unwavering dedication to national security and reaffirmed its right to self-defense. Public opinion is split along similar lines, particularly in the United States, with one side backing Israel’s right to defend itself, and one side lambasting Israel for brutality, overaggressive action, et cetera.

In actuality, both sides are right. If Israel is to be considered a sovereign nation, they must have the right to defend themselves against any and all aggression within their territory or on their borders. If a nation cannot defend its borders or fight its enemies, then it is not sovereign, and it will not survive. That being said, however, Israel cannot board a flotilla of foreign cargo ships in international waters using commandos and military equipment and shoot nine people without expecting international backlash. Israel does not deserve and cannot receive special treatment than the rest of the world if we’re going to pretend that Woodrow Wilson’s lofty dreams of international cooperation mean anything.

Of course, the international response essentially amounted to finger-wagging. The most crucial diplomatic wound that Israel received was the harsh response from Turkey, mainly because most (if not all) of the dead from the raid were Turks who died on a ship, the Mavi Marmara, which was flying Turkish colors. Turkey is probably Israel’s strongest Muslim ally in the region, and deteriorating relations with Turkey doesn’t help Israel’s strategic or geopolitical situation.

So, did Israel have a right to board the ships and search them for contraband and weapons? Of course. Any nation has a right to do so when a vessel enters their territory. Should Israel have waited until they were out of international waters? Yeah, probably, if not only for political and diplomatic reasons. Were weapons found on the ship? Aside from some blunt objects (such as pipes and bats), knives, and some construction tools, no. No weapons caches or rocket-building equipment were found.

Israel has a right to defend itself, but this is clearly a case of overkill. The Israelis must have expected some resistance when they started rappelling armed commandos onto the decks of the ships, and the activists on the ships must have expected the Israeli soldiers to defend themselves from attack in turn. Both sides were itching for a fight, but in this case, the activists on the flotilla of ships accomplished their goal: they were the underdog the entire time, and their cause was supported by this incident, even though nine of their people were killed.

The situation in Gaza is a dire one, and even the staunchest American supporters of Israel cannot deny that. Since the blockade of the territory by Israel in 2009, aid and supplies have slowed to about one quarter of the aid received before the blockade was put in place. The blockade was meant to put political pressure on Hamas, the ruling political force in Gaza. The blockade also prevents Palestinians in the region from accessing clean water, shelter, medical supplies, and other essentials. Such circumstances breed terrorism and insurgency instead of stopping them. So what is Israel’s endgame in Gaza? As of the writing of this article on June 4th, 2010, another aid ship is on its way to the Gaza Strip, and Israel has already vowed to prevent it from reaching land.

I know it’s taboo for American conservatives to question Israel’s actions, especially among evangelical Christian Americans, who see support for Israel as something more akin to religious piety instead of strategic or political benefit. Our imbalanced support for Israel makes us a lot of enemies in the Middle East; it is one of the main reasons why Osama bin Laden ordered the attack on the United States on 9/11. Instead of reexamining America’s role in the Middle East and our relationship with Israel, however, many Americans doubled their support for the beleaguered Jewish state.

These pro-Israel Americans support an American military strike against Iran to prevent that country from gaining nuclear capabilities, which means that they supported sending other Americans into harm’s way to ensure Israel’s survival. Call me crazy, but I don’t see any political or strategic gain from opening up a third front in the Middle East against one of the largest countries in that region. As an American, I feel that Americans should fight for American interests and security, not that of other nations. And no, Iran is not a military threat to the United States, so don’t even try to stumble down that path of discussion.

Support for an ally such as Israel is one thing; kowtowing to every policy and political stance that pro-Israel lobbying forces such as AIPAC desire is quite another. Many Israeli officials have boasted of how much influence the Israel lobby has on American foreign policy. On another note, Israelis have been caught spying on the United States. Is that something a diehard ally would do? Then there was the sustained attack on the USS Liberty in June of 1967 by the Israeli Air Force and torpedo boats, which killed thirty-four of the American crew and injured over 100. This was the only maritime attack on the United States which was not investigated by the US Congress. And people who question Israel’s influence on American foreign policy are called “conspiracy theorists” and anti-Semitic?

America’s relationship with Israel has drifted in the hazy area between an alliance and a protectorate. If an American wants to become a Congressman or president, he has to pass a litmus test of his support for Israel before he or she is even considered a viable candidate. No such litmus test exists for support for any other ally, such as the United Kingdom, for example. Israel clearly has powerful lobbying forces in Washington that shape our foreign policy and influence domestic policy by essentially screening candidates for political office. It is time for the United States to take a closer look at its relationship with Israel and determine whether or not American and Israeli interests are one and the same.

The Looming Immigration Showdown, Part 2

A few weeks ago, I wrote an article describing Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law and why most opposition to it is misled or misleading in its criticism.

Now, some weeks later, both opposition and support for the law have spread across the country and even down into Mexico, with Mexican president Felipe Calderon calling the law “backward” and issuing travel warnings for Mexicans traveling to the state of Arizona. Uhh, excuse me, Presidente Felipe, what exactly are you criticizing? Did you forget the tenets of your own country’s immigration laws and policies?

Did you conveniently forget that Mexico mandates that all levels of law enforcement (which includes the Mexican military) must enforce the national immigration laws? Is Calderon ignoring the fact those laws are in many ways tougher on both legal and illegal immigration than are immigration laws in the United States? Being in Mexico illegally is a felony which will put the offender in jail for at least two years. All potential immigrants must be able to contribute positively to the Mexican economy, society, and the general well-being of Mexico. Those who aid in illegal immigration and those foreign visitors who violate their visas or enter Mexico under false pretenses are either imprisoned or deported, or both.

So Mexico clearly has no issues with enforcing tough, sensible immigration laws. Why, then, is President Calderon hating on Arizona? Mexican politics may be rife with corruption, but this is hypocrisy of the highest order from our southern neighbor.

The most glaring aspect of this criticism from the Mexican president is the way in which he implies that Arizona’s law is racist and/or promotes racial profiling; it is a way of expressing racial solidarity with his people, the Mexicans and Chicanos, against those pesky white Arizonans who dare to enforce America’s immigration laws. Why else would Calderon make such statements, considering his country’s own immigration policies? Mexico’s laws are very harsh on other Central American immigrants who come to Mexico illegally. The Arizona law isn’t explicitly aimed at Mexican immigrants, no matter what the law’s opponents claim. In this way, President Calderon of Mexico acknowledges that he has done nothing to close the spigot of illegal immigrants flowing north out of his country into the United States. He accepts the fact that Mexican immigrants are the most numerous of immigrants in the southwestern United States, and despite the crackdowns on illegal immigrants in his own country, Calderon cannot stand by while his people (many of whom are fleeing the violence and corruption of his country) may be forced to endure the enforcement of American immigration laws, which are not nearly as harsh as his own.

President Obama is set to meet with Felipe Calderon soon, and immigration is sure to be high on the agenda. Seeing as how both presidents have similar opinions on Arizona’s law, the outcome of such a meeting is worrisome at best. The fact that the American president agrees with the Mexican president’s opinion on a harsh American immigration enforcement bill in a state on the Mexican border belies where Obama’s allegiances lie.

This is not to say that Obama is in league with Mexico in some sinister way. But I can guarantee if one of Mexico’s Central American neighbors lodged a similar complaint to Felipe Calderon about Mexico’s immigration policies, Calderon would tell that country exactly where they could shove their complaint.

Arizona passed this law allowing its state and local law enforcement branches to enforce federal immigration laws because the federal government has largely failed at their task. The murder of rancher Robert Krentz is only one of a multitude of murders in Arizona by illegal immigrants. Arizona also now boasts one of the kidnapping capitals of the country, thanks to illegal immigration and the crime that comes with it. When people say that our southern borders are broken, many politicians laugh it off, like President Obama did in a speech shortly following the signing of Arizona’s law. I guess it’s easy to laugh about broken borders when one resides in Washington DC or Chicago. For Arizonans, though, broken borders are no laughing matter.

A country that cannot adequately control its borders is not sovereign. Border security and immigration enforcement are tasks that the federal government legitimately must undertake, since the national borders outline several different states. If the federal government fails in their task or outright refuses to secure the border, as has been the case now for decades, then it must be the state’s imperative to enforce those laws themselves. All the whining and gnashing of teeth over Arizona’s new law ignores the fact that the federal government is not and does not want to secure the borders without comprehensive amnesty to the tens of millions of illegal immigrants currently residing in the US.

Many opponents of Arizona’s law claim that it is solely the responsibility of the federal government to enforce immigration policies and secure the border. I’d be willing to bet that most of those opponents also believe the responsibilities of health care and saving the environment lie with the federal government, too. Time and time again, the federal government has proven that, as its responsibilities, mandates, and subsidies grow, so do its incompetency and inefficiency (not to mention its outstanding debt). Combine that with an unwillingness to secure the border or enforce immigration policy, and we have disastrous situations like that in Arizona which require state and local action to help regain control of the problem.
I was somewhat surprised by cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle calling for all-out boycotts of Arizona. Granted, those cities are Democratic hotbeds of leftist politics, but rarely does one state or locality call for a boycott of another over state policy. This demonstrates the growing political divide in the United States. There will be a showdown, political or otherwise; I can promise you that. It is merely a question of when, where, and in which manner the showdown takes place.

This showdown will not necessarily be between Republicans and Democrats, or even between conservatives and liberals. Some conservatives opposed Arizona’s law, and I’m sure there exist some liberals who agree with it. A clash between Obama’s supporters and supporters of the Tea Party movement might be more accurate, but even that is a shaky description of what may be on the horizon.

The movie trailer that appeared in the Quentin Tarantino/Robert Rodriguez film Grindhouse for the fake movie “Machete” has been recently redone in light of the signing of Arizona’s immigration law. The new trailer features actor Danny Trejo giving a warning to Arizona, followed by a trailer describing a movie in which Mexicans in the United States wage violent war against Americans who want to enforce US immigration policy and secure the borders. I’m sure there’s more to the plot than that, but politically, that’s what the movie was about.

Is Robert Rodriguez secretly organizing a race war between Chicanos and European-Americans? I doubt it. It’s just entertainment at the end of the day. But if the plot of the movie were reversed, with some white American protagonist waging war against criminal illegal immigrants, would that even make any airtime? How quick and strong would the condemnations come from every news network in America? Couple this new trailer for “you-fucked-with-the-wrong-Mexican” “Machete” with the calls for boycotts of Arizona and with Los Angeles high school teacher Ron Gochez’s call for revolutionary action to his Latino students, and we can see the political divide growing further.

I do not claim to know what lays beyond the horizon, folks. I leave such predictions to people like Gerald Celente and his Trends Research Institute (which, by the way, anyone looking for chillingly accurate predictions of national and global trends should check out). What I and many others can see, however, is a growing, bubbling, frothing, volatile dissatisfaction with the direction of American government. Each side of the political divide is blaming the other side for radicalizing and drifting towards the fringe. The result is gridlock in Congress and polemics by almost everyone in Washington DC. This happens often in times of economic turmoil. The recent senate primary wins, which include Rand Paul of Kentucky, show that the political status quo in Washington DC will not last much longer.

The American political scene has always hovered mostly around the center-right position, no matter who’s in the White House. Under Obama, however, American government has drifted to the center left, and have certainly increased the statism championed by George W. Bush; Obama’s supporters have backed him almost every step of the way. The so-called “radicalization” of the political right is merely a desire for true conservative principles of limited government, balanced budgets, and state sovereignty rather than the usual GOP appease-and-compromise strategy that has left no distinction between Democrats and Republicans.

So does something wicked this way come? Only time will tell. As the new Arizona law illustrates, however, if the federal government cannot do its job when it comes to the border and immigration, those who are affected the most and have the most to lose from government inaction will do the job instead.

While Presidents Obama and Calderon are meeting in DC bemoaning the “racism” of Arizona’s immigration law with their fingers crossed behind their backs, Arizonans will be securing their state and doing what should have been done in all states a long time ago.

The Looming Immigration Showdown (Part 1 of 2)

Finally!

After months of wrangling over health care, immigration is back in the political spotlight. It was only a matter of time, and both Republicans and Democrats quiver before the notion of addressing the issue. Both parties have something to lose in the immigration debate. Republicans who support amnesty and Democrats who do not will both lose votes. Both parties claim to support tougher border enforcement, but they've been pitching that line for decades now.

What sparked the thrust of immigration to the forefront of political debate in the United States? I'm sure a lot of people will point to Governor Jan Brewer signing a tough new immigration enforcement bill into law recently. I argue that another incident is at the root of the immigration debate renewal: the murder of 58-year-old Robert Krentz, a rancher in Arizona, by an illegal immigrant who then scuttled back into Mexico.

Krentz's death is not a statistical anomaly; it wasn't a glitch in the Matrix. Representative Steve King of Iowa released statistics in 2006 which suggested that twelve Americans were murdered by illegal immigrants per day. This would amount to 4,380 murders per year.

What makes Krentz's murder more poignant are the circumstances of his death. Apparently Krentz was checking the water lines and fencing of his family's property when he discovered a lone illegal immigrant. Krentz's brother has mentioned that Krentz had radioed to him that he had found an illegal immigrant, and was going to try to give him some water.

No one knows exactly what happened next, but Robert Krentz was mortally wounded. He managed to drive part of the way back to his ranch house in his ATV, but died with the engine running and the lights on before he got there.

Days before the killing, Krentz's brother Phil reported possible drug smuggling through their ranch property, which led local authorities to find 290 pounds of marijuana and eight illegal immigrants on the property.

Robert Krentz has become the new rallying figure for those in America who want something to be done about illegal immigration and crime. Whether Krentz would have wanted that is immaterial. It's one thing to sneak across our southern border, take advantage of civil services, and speak little to no English all the while. It's quite another to murder innocent Americans on their own private property.

Within weeks, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the immigration enforcement bill into law, igniting a firestorm of controversy, polemics, protests, riots, and boycotts by civil rights leaders.

So what's all the hullabaloo about? Opponents of the law claim that it will lead to racial profiling, discrimination, and Arizona becoming a police state. Any cursory glance at the law's provisions would quickly dispel such outlandish claims.

As it stands, the law merely provides local and state law enforcement with the legal means to enforce federal immigration laws. If any person with whom the state and local authorities come into contact is suspected of being an illegal immigrant, those authorities have the means to assess their legal status, and if they are found to be in the country illegally and are convicted of the initial offense that led to the authorities approaching them in the first place, then the illegal immigrant is transferred into federal custody.

The clauses in the law with which the law's opponents take issue are those which give local authorities the right to question a suspect's immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion." Of course, for civil rights leaders like Al Sharpton and several Hispanic lawmakers in Congress, this means a de facto Nazi-Germany-Jim-Crow-police-state.

How ludicrous. A few things to consider:
1) The law gives state and local authorities the means to enforce federal immigration policy. There are no special powers given.
2) Since there are no special powers given in the law beyond what is already written, there will not be Arizona cops roaming the streets and rounding up Mexicans.
3) There are multiple clauses in the law that specifically prohibit racial profiling and which protect the rights of lawful, legal citizens.
4) Any officer proven to have acted solely on the basis of race will be punished, so Arizona cops actually have something to lose if they are guilty of racial profiling.

It's fascinating to watch how opponents of the law (which are comprised of both Democrats and Republicans, by the way) dance around these basic facts. If there hasn't been rampant racial profiling in Arizona beforehand (which we have to assume, since Al Sharpton and his ilk haven't opened their mouths about it until now), then why will this new law, which specifically prohibits and penalizes racial profiling, suddenly turn Arizona into a police state?

It won't. But claiming such gains a lot of political points and rallies the leftist troops.

Another claim by opponents of the law is that it will destroy any incentive that Mexicans had to cooperate with police investigations, since they would then run the risk of being apprehended or deported themselves. Of course, one has to wonder how much illegal immigrants cooperate with American authorities in the first place. My bet is that they don't. Besides, there is another provision in the law which allows a police officer to forgo assessing someone's immigration status if the officer feels that such an action will hamper police investigation efforts for other crimes.

The state of Arizona was forced to pass this law because of the federal government's inability to enforce its immigration laws in the border states. Ask Republicans, and they'll likely agree with that statement; ask Democrats, and they'll say it's a failure of the federal government to come to a compromise on the immigration issue in order to pass effective enforcement measures. Both points are correct, but it's important to realize that Congress hasn't reached a compromise on the issue because pro-amnesty legislators continue to push for "a pathway to citizenship."

"A pathway to citizenship"...that sounds so lovely, doesn't it? It brings to mind the Yellow Brick Road from the Wizard of Oz. But for those calling for such a "path", it amounts to amnesty, pure and simple. Those illegal immigrants put on this "pathway to citizenship" will not be deported or penalized for entering the country illegally; they'd probably be put to work picking vegetables or mowing lawns.

That's not being "racist". Most illegal immigrants find work in those fields, as well as in construction. These stereotypes come from somewhere. But how much more cheap labor do we need injected in to our majority-service economy? We need to be manufacturing and producing more high-quality finished goods. But that's a topic for another article.

Amnesty is the weakest solution to the 11 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States (and that's a VERY conservative estimate; others, like the company Bear Stearns, peg that number at about 20 million). The alternative is deportation, which is lambasted as inhumane, racist, and all other degrees of "bad" by proponents of amnesty. Another alternative, to do nothing about the illegal immigrants currently here, is unsustainable.

So what do we do? Stay tuned for Part 2 of this essay to find out.

Bernanke, Banks, and Catastrophically Shifting Tectonic Plates

Banking reforms:

President Obama wants to impose new regulations on banks to halt what he calls “risky lending.” President Obama has once again demonstrated his complete lack of understanding of the fundamental causes of the recession. It was his Democratic presidential predecessor Bill Clinton’s administration which encouraged Fannie and Freddy to give loans to people who couldn’t necessarily pay them back (subprime loans), all in the interest of “fairness” and equality. It was George Bush who continued that policy. To blame the banks for the housing bubble and its subsequent burst is like blaming your car for getting arrested for drunk driving; risky lending was encouraged by government, so Obama blames the free market and offers more government as the solution. As a result, the American stock market, particularly in reference to those bank stocks, has plunged deeper into the toilet for three days straight so far.

And Obama wonders why people are so goddamn angry with his administration after his first year in office.

Haiti:

Over 100,000 people are confirmed dead in Haiti from the recent devastating earthquake. The human suffering in that country is indescribable and unimaginable for most Americans.

The subpar infrastructure has been rendered completely useless, save for the main airport, which normally saw air traffic of about 80 planes a day (or something like that). The US military has increased the efficiency of the airport, and it now is processing about 130 planes, I believe. And here in America, people are getting all angry at the US military, wondering why it’s taking so long to distribute aid and why that aid is having little effect. Celebrities didn’t miss a chance to thrust themselves dutifully into the spotlight to demonstrate their humanitarianism by encouraging economically-bankrupt America to throw money at Haiti.

So in a country with no working infrastructure, hundreds of thousands of dead, an ineffectual government, a roaming gaggle of criminals who escaped from the wrecked prison by the Haitian presidential palace, and a frantically desperate population, our solution is to send wheelbarrows full of money? That’s ridiculous. None of you should donate a penny to Haiti. Haitians need care packages; Haitians need food, water, medicine and other medical supplies, and construction equipment. Haitians aren’t really going to be able to run to their local Home Depot or Rite Aid to pick this stuff up, either. Americans should hold on to their dwindling dollars and organize shipments of actual supplies. Americans should volunteer their skills and physically help out in Haiti, if they can. But I fear that Haiti will become a black hole of donations, with millions of dollars going in and no progress coming out. So save your money, America, and give some help to Haiti that they can actually use.
If Americans want to donate money to a cause, they should donate to their local tent city, or something similar.

Ben Bernanke:

Ol’ Ben is expected to pick up the confirmation for a second run in the Federal Reserve. His supporters, including President Obama, praise his actions during his first tenure, saying that he staved off a potentially devastating depression and mitigated the effects of the recession. As if keeping interest rates artificially low (almost at zero) for this long, printing more fiat currency backed by nothing, and bottomless quantitative easing is going to help us in the long run. What good is a rallying stock market or a small boost in consumer confidence if our currency isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on?

Health Care Czars? No Thanks.

The health care system of the United States needs some reform. Truly progressive and effective reform cannot come from the federal government, however. Here’s why.

One side of the health care debate, the side which is dominated by politically left-leaning Democrats and liberals, the argument states that the solution to millions of Americans’ lack of adequate health insurance is a government-run “public option” health care plan which its supporters say will force private insurance companies to become more efficient and reduce costs to Americans. The other side of the argument which is comprised of right-leaning Republicans and conservatives claim that legislation establishing a public health care option is tantamount to a federal government takeover of health care, and in addition to not actually reducing health care costs for Americans on a private insurance plan, would also launch the national deficit into the stratosphere and lead to usual government inefficiency in health care.

Neither side of the debate is arguing that the current health care system that exists in the United States is perfect, or does not need to be reformed. Both sides admit that the current system is inefficient, unresponsive, and grossly expensive. As is usually the case, the argument about solutions to this issue are divided by those who want more government involvement (liberal Democrats) and those who want less government involvement (conservatives). My question to liberal Democrats is this: if you truly believe that our current health care system is inefficient, unresponsive, and grossly expensive, then why in the world would your solution include the federal government as the driving engine of this policy train?

The only entity that is less efficient, less responsive, and worse with money than insurance companies is the federal government. The only body less accountable than large corporations is the federal government. Don’t think so? How long did it take the federal government to distribute water at the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? What has the federal government done to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States? Why does the US have one of the worst infrastructures (in terms of roads, bridges, et cetera) in the world, despite being one of the richest nations on earth? And we’re now considering entrusting that same federal government to make crucial decisions about our health care?

The big-government solution of throwing money at a problem and multiplying bureaucrats and bureaucratic agencies rarely, if ever, leads to a successful resolution of a national problem. The health care problem in the United States is no exception. Want some proof? Just look abroad to the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. An argument by liberal Democrats goes something like this: “It’s a shame how far the United States is behind Europe in providing health services to its citizens.” This argument is based on the premise that governments are good at running health care, and should therefore provide “free” health care to citizens; the example of the NHS in the UK demonstrates otherwise.

While the currently-debated public option in the United States is quite a distant stone’s throw away from the NHS, British MEP Daniel Hannan pointed out that the UK had a similar “public option” which precluded the current socialized health care industry in that country. In reference to the slippery slope of socializing or nationalizing an industry, Hannan rightly asks, “Where does it end?” Indeed, giving the federal government the opportunity to provide a non-obligatory public health care option could open doors at the policy level of further burdensome expansions of the federal government.

Unlike private corporations, the financial coffers of the federal government are essentially endless, so long as Congress approves. This means that the federal government is entirely unresponsive to consumer concerns, efficiency and cost of care, and other market mechanisms that drive pricing because in terms of finances, the government doesn’t have to worry about a loss of funds due to customers finding better care elsewhere. Combine this with the natural tendency for government programs of any sort to foster crippling dependency among the citizens benefiting from them, and we have the National Health Service of the United Kingdom. The United States is currently trotting down the same road that the United Kingdom has traveled, and that road leads to rationed care, cueing for services, and potential months of waiting time; in short, typical centralized government inefficiency.

Lastly, our national deficit and public debt is outrageous. The national public debt is just over $12 trillion. President Obama, one of the driving forces behind the pending health care legislation, promised Americans that the bill will help ease the national debt. Many Congressmen and even the President himself promised that they would not support any bill that adds to the national deficit. President Obama estimated that the initial costs of the planned health care reform would be about $900 billion. Although that may seem like small potatoes now after the multi-billion-dollar “stimulus packages,” $900 billion is truly a staggering price tag for a non-obligatory service. Even now, though, after the bill has passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Obama team is admitting that the initial $900 billion price that America had been quoted during the debate is not enough. James Cabretta of the Heritage Foundation estimates that (even after the four years of “preparation” to raise revenue for the health care project) the bill will actually cost about $2.3 trillion between 2014 and 2023. Both the House version of the bill and the Senate version have comparable price tags when all costs are considered.
What sort of allegedly-responsible government would tack on over two trillion dollars to an ever-bloating $12 trillion of national public debt? Despite what President Obama and President Bush said, the federal government cannot stimulate the economy in a way that will also fill the government’s coffers. The health care bill is therefore more than just fiscally irresponsible; it’s comparable to giving a compulsive gambler a bottomless credit line.

If President Obama and his supporters really want to reform American health care for the better, then they will be best served avoiding the federal government option. The current bill is almost all costs with no guaranteed results, in addition to the political implications of socializing medicine. America will be better off finding innovative market solutions to our health care woes, as can be found in Switzerland’s health care system. Liberty always works better than centralized planning.