Year: 2007

Ann Nails Amnesty

Calvin Freiburger Coulter, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, immigration
IMPORTING A SLAVE CLASS
–
Apparently, my position on immigration is that we must deport all 12 million illegal aliens immediately, inasmuch as this is billed as the only alternative to immediate amnesty. The jejune fact that we “can’t deport them all” is supposed to lead ineluctably to the conclusion that we must grant amnesty to illegal aliens — and fast!
–
I’m astounded that debate has sunk so low that I need to type the following words, but: No law is ever enforced 100 percent.
–
We can’t catch all rapists, so why not grant amnesty to rapists? Surely no one wants thousands of rapists living in the shadows! How about discrimination laws? Insider trading laws? Do you expect Bush to round up everyone who goes over the speed limit? Of course we can’t do that. We can’t even catch all murderers. What we need is “comprehensive murder reform.” It’s not “amnesty” — we’ll ask them to pay a small fine.
–
If it’s “impossible” to deport illegal aliens, how did we come to have so much specific information about them? I keep hearing they are Catholic, pro-life, hardworking, just dying to become American citizens, and will take jobs other Americans won’t. Someone must have talked to them to gather all this information. Let’s find that guy — he must know where they are!
–
How do we even know there are 12 million of them? Why not 3 million, or 40 million? Maybe we should put the guy who counted them in charge of deporting them.
–
If the 12-million figure is an extrapolation based on the number of illegal immigrants in public schools or emergency rooms and well-manicured lawns in Brentwood, then shouldn’t we be looking for them at schools and hospitals and well-manicured lawns in Brentwood?
–
I believe that the shortage of unskilled, non-English-speaking Mexicans we experienced in the ’60s has been remedied by now.
–
Since Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act, more than half of all legal immigrants have been unskilled, non-English-speaking Mexicans. America takes in roughly 1 million legal immigrants each year. Only about 30,000 of them have Ph.D.s. Why on earth would any rational immigration policy discriminate against immigrants with Ph.D.s in favor of unskilled, non-English-speaking immigrants?
–
Say, don’t Ph.D.s and other skilled workers have more influence on government policy than unskilled workers? Aren’t they more likely to bend a president’s ear? Yes, I believe they are! Noticeably, the biggest proponents of the government’s policy of importing a huge underclass of unskilled workers are not themselves unskilled workers.
–
The great bounty of cheap labor by unskilled immigrants isn’t going to hardworking Americans who hang drywall or clean hotel rooms — and who are having trouble getting jobs, now that they’re forced to compete with the vast influx of unskilled workers who don’t pay taxes.
–
The people who make arguments about “jobs Americans won’t do” are never in a line of work where unskilled immigrants can compete with them. Liberals love to strike generous, humanitarian poses with other people’s lives.
–
Something tells me the immigration debate would be different if we were importing millions of politicians or Hollywood agents. You lose your job, while I keep my job at the Endeavor agency, my Senate seat, my professorship, my editorial position or my presidency. (And I get a maid!)
–
The only beneficiaries of these famed hardworking immigrants — unlike you lazy Americans — are the wealthy, who want the cheap labor while making the rest of us chip in for the immigrants’ schooling, food and health care.
–
These great lovers of the downtrodden — the downtrodden trimming their hedges — pretend to believe that their gardeners’ children will be graduating from Harvard and curing cancer someday, but (1) they don’t believe that; and (2) if it happened, they’d lose their gardeners.
–
Not to worry, Marie Antoinettes! According to “Alien Nation” author Peter Brimelow, “There is recent evidence that, even after four generations, fewer than 10 percent of Mexicans have post-high school degrees, as opposed to nearly half of non-Mexican-Americans.” So you’ll always have the maid. As New York mayor Michael Bloomberg said, our golf fairways would suffer without illegal immigrants: “You and I both play golf; who takes care of the greens and the fairways on your golf course?”
–
We fought a civil war to force Democrats to give up on slavery 150 years ago. They’ve become so desperate for servants that now they’re importing an underclass to wash their clothes and pick their vegetables. This vast class of unskilled immigrants is the left’s new form of slavery.
–
What do they care if their servants are made citizens eligible to vote and collect government benefits? Aren’t the fabulously rich happy in Venezuela? Oops, wrong example. Brazil? No, no, let me try again. Mexico! … Well, no matter. What could go wrong?

A Democrat for Survival

Calvin Freiburger Democrats, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Iraq, Kerrey, War on Terror
As if signs of reemerging sanity in France weren’t unsettling enough, today ex-Senator Bob Kerrey, a committed Democrat, has an editorial in the Wall Street Journal standing for victory in Iraq. Read the whole thing, but here are some highlights:
–
– “Democracy cannot be imposed with military force.” What troubled me about this statement–a commonly heard criticism of U.S. involvement in Iraq–is that those who say such things seem to forget the good U.S. arms have done in imposing democracy on countries like Japan and Germany, or Bosnia more recently.”
–
– “As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.”
–
– “The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.
–
“Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn’t you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.
–
“American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq’s middle class has fled the country in fear.
–
“With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.
–
“The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically ‘yes.’
–
“This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified–though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.”
–
– “We must not allow terrorist sanctuaries to develop any place on earth. Whether these fighters are finding refuge in Syria, Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere, we cannot afford diplomatic or political excuses to prevent us from using military force to eliminate them.”
Hat tip: The Corner

Sarkozy: Good for France, Bad for Leno & Conan

Calvin Freiburger Europe, France, immigration, Sarkozy
You know there’s something wrong with America’s Republican leadership when, at least on one issue, France starts to sound pretty good by comparison:
–
Brice Hortefeux heads the Ministry of Immigration and National Identity — newly created by President Nicolas Sarkozy to manage the inflow of immigrants and protect French values and cohesion.
–
“We have to put aside massive legalization. It doesn’t work and it penalizes, even immigrants,” Hortefeux said on Europe 1 radio. Policy, he added, would be guided by “firmness and humanism” with “lots of pragmatism.”
–
He said he planned to adhere to the policy of deporting illegal immigrants from France. The number of deportees was expected to reach some 25,000 this year, and Hortefeux said he would ensure that figure was reached.
–
The conservative Sarkozy, elected president May 6, had reached out to the anti-immigration far-right to capture votes, rankling some of his own allies by creating the new immigration ministry. Critics have said the government should not mix immigration with national identity.
–
Just one question: How on Earth do you keep immigration and national identity separate?

Amnesty Again

Calvin Freiburger 2008, Bush, conservatism, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, immigration, national security, Ted Kennedy
By now you’ve heard about the immigration “compromise” plan unveiled on Capitol Hill this week.
–
Bobby Eberle gives voice to the Right’s universal (well, near universal) frustration over the announcement. El Rushbo, Mark Taylor, and Rich Lowry’s takes are also well worth checking out.
–
My take: I’ve never supported a guest worker program or amnesty, so this is more of the same Bush-Kennedy-McCain drivel. But the President seems to have found a brand-new way to make things worse: “The Bush administration insisted on a little-noticed change in the bipartisan Senate immigration bill that would enable 12 million undocumented residents to avoid paying back taxes or associated fines to the Internal Revenue Service, officials said.” Soooo………what keeps this from being amnesty, exactly? What is the fair trade-off for the incredible strain we’re inviting on the country’s social structure?
–
As Duncan Hunter noted in the debate, the government has built a whopping two miles of border fence to date. Think about that:
–
6 years.
2 miles.
–
Although, there has been some silver lining this week: it’s not a done deal yet (Hugh Hewitt’s got contact info for a bunch of GOP lawmakers here), and the whole affair illustrates that on yet another major issue, there’s only one viable conservative choice.
–
UPDATE: Kate has given us a heads-up of a lengthy cliff notes version of the legislation.

Remembering Rev. Jerry Falwell

Calvin Freiburger Armstron Williams, atheism, Christianity, conservatism, Coulter, demagogues, Falwell, Hitchens, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Medved, religion, RIP
What Was It About Falwell That’s Supposed to be “Little”?
–
Michael Medved, 5/17/07
–
Secular militants have provided no shortage of intemperate, vicious, mean-spirited reactions to the death of Jerry Falwell but perhaps the most revealing came from Christopher Hitchens (author of a new book attacking religious delusions, “God is Not Great.”)
–
Interviewed by Anderson Cooper on CNN, Hitchens seemed oddly obsessed with repeatedly applying a single—and singularly inappropriate — adjective to the late Dr, Falwell.
–
In the course of the interview, Hitchens decried “the empty life of this ugly little charlatan…” and then asked “who would, even at your network, have invited such a little toad….” Shortly thereafter, he declared, “The whole consideration of this horrible little person is offensive to very, very many of us…” He also concluded that Dr. Falwell even counted as insincere in his religious faith, suggesting, “He woke up every morning, as I say, pinching his chubby little flanks and thinking, I have got away with it again.”
–
In what possible sense did Jerry Falwell count as a little man?
–
In the most obvious, physical sense Hitchens’ attempt to belittle Falwell might reflect the common envy of a small guy for a larger, stronger specimen. Aside from the late pastor’s obvious girth, he stood well over six feet tall. I’ve shared refreshments with both Falwell and Hitchens, and the Brit’s not bigger in any sense of the word.
–
Of course, Hitchens and his apologists might respond that describing Falwell as “little” denotes his ultimate insignificance, his limited intellectual, spiritual dimensions, not his physical size, but even here the dismissive term hardly applies.
–
As the driving force behind the emergence of the modern Christian conservative movement in U.S. politics, Falwell changed history – as even his most vitriolic critics concede. “The Moral Majority” which he founded played a crucial role in the Reagan landslide of 1980, and even more conspicuously led the way to the stunning, unpredicted Senate sweep that gave the GOP control of the upper house of Congress for the first time in 26 years. Twelve Republican challengers – most of them outspoken Christian conservatives – seized the seats of twelve highly entrenched Democratic incumbents (including such luminaries and former Presidential candidates as George McGovern, Birch Bayh and Frank Church). Liberals may lament the outcome of that watershed election but it’s impossible to dismiss its importance.
–
In other words, this purportedly “little charlatan” Jerry Falwell, managed to bring about a big shift in American politics – thereby qualifying as a major figure in all the battles of the Reagan Presiency and beyond. Everything about the man actually counted as big – big ambitions, big plans, big ideas, big impact. In addition to his well-known role in politics and media, Falwell qualified as a spectacularly successful institution builder. His Thomas Road Baptist Church, which he founded from scratch in 1951, now draws 22,000 members, and booming Liberty University (founded in 1971) educates nearly 8,000 students (more than Dartmouth or Princeton). Emerson once said that “any durable institution is nothing more than the lengthened shadow of one man.” In that context, Falwell counts as a big guy, with a big shadow.
–
There is one possible sense in which a major figure might be described as “small” – if even this powerful, influential individual comes across as petty, obsessed with trivialities, nursing grudges and slights.
–
Falwell possessed none of these characteristics of smallness, and managed to strike up unlikely friendships even with his political and religious adversaries. Opponents as diverse as Jesse Jackson and Larry Flynt remembered him on his passing as a “friend,” praising his graciousness and geniality while emphatically rejecting his ideology. Falwell engaged in frequent, sometimes furious battles in politics and pop culture but he did so, for the most part, as a proverbial happy warrior. The New York Times wrote in their obituary: “For all the controversy, Mr. Falwell was often an unconvincing villain. His manner was patient and affable. His sermons had little of the white-hot menace of those of his contemporaries like Jimmy Swaggart. He shared podiums with Senator Kennedy, appeared at hostile college campuses and in 1984 spent an event before a crowd full of hecklers in Town Hall in New York, probably not changing many minds but nevertheless expressing good will.”
–
The fact that some of Falwell’s critics displayed so little good will on the occasion of his passing (“Ding Dong, Falwell’s Dead!” exulted a typical headline at CommonDreams.org) reflects their insecurity and bitterness, not their certainty. Religious believers feel no need to sneer and celebrate when a noted atheist leaves this life. If, as the skeptics believe, there’s no fate awaiting any of us beyond a future as worm food, then deeply religious people have no more reason to worry than their irreligious counterparts.
–
If, on the other hand, there’s a watchful God who’ll ultimately judge us all by Biblical standards, then the non-believers may face significant reasons for concern. No wonder an angry atheist like Christopher Hitchens reacts with such defensive fury to the very idea that Falwell (and, ultimately, the rest of us) will go on to some form of eternal reward.
–
Despite the effort to disregard him as “little,” Falwell qualified in every sense as a large figure– big hearted and cheerful, secure and sincere in his own faith, with enormous dreams and major impact. He never would have stooped to a cruel, small-minded, petty and pathetic publicity stunt like smearing one of his ideological adversaries on the very day that opponent died.
–
So who, then, is the real “little toad,” Mr. Hitchens?
–
—
–
Other remembrances: Ann Coulter, Zev Chafes, Armstrong Williams

Planned Parenthood Outrage

Calvin Freiburger abortion, crime, Planned Parenthood, pro-life, scandal
Still think Planned Parenthood is a swell outfit? Look no further. I understand the Justice Department has a lot on its plate, but you’d sure think they could devote more focus to such grievous conduct against minors and to obstruction of justice, both from a group that gets funding from we the people. And of course, that’s just the legally-recognized wrongs they do…

Liberal Leanings as Conservative Credentials?

Calvin Freiburger 2008, conservatism, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post
I know that sounds like an odd proposition, especially coming from a vehement Rudy Giuliani foe like me, but hear me out. During last night’s debate, Mitt Romney was challenged for “flip-flopping” on guns, and asked if reconsidering an issue had ever moved him away from the conservative base. He debunked the former—he did, and still does, favor assault weapon bans—and on the latter said he has come to support the federal No Child Left Behind legislation.
–
First things first: while such laws will vary from state to state, there’s a strong case to be made that Romney is wrong on the general concept of assault weapon bans. Regarding NCLB, the Governor made a fair point about going over the heads of teachers’ unions to place grading standards on school districts (right-wingers take note: this guy slapped teachers’ unions), but it’s also true that NCLB was/is a dramatic expansion of the federal government’s power in matters that should be left to the states.
–
So why should these imperfections make the Right more comfortable with Romney? Because they speak against the charge that he’s a flip-floppin’ phony whose conservative credentials will wash off in the rain. If he really was a cheap opportunist tailoring his image depending on his political audience, why not go all the way? Gun owners especially are a serious voting force (By the way, Romney never ran as a liberal).
–
So am I advocating that we throw limited government and gun rights overboard? Am I a hypocrite for accusing Giuliani supporters of doing the same? No.
–
First, almost all the candidates—even plenty of the “conservative alternative” types—have a few kinks in their armor. John McCain & Giuliani’s excursions into LeftyLand have been beaten to death, Sam Brownback favors amnesty & is unreliable on Iraq, Mike Huckabee is a big government guy, Jim Gilmore & Tommy Thompson impress nobody, Tom Tancredo’s “disengage but don’t withdrawal” (or something like that) approach to Iraq was incoherent, Newt Gingrich has bought into man-made global warming, Fred Thompson supported campaign-finance reform, and Ron Paul favors national suicide (and that’s just off the top of my head!). To the best of my knowledge, the only candidate who’s solidly conservative on nearly every issue is Duncan Hunter—and let’s face it, he’s not going to be the next President.
–
I know that choosing an imperfect conservative—a candidate who will disappoint at least a few members of the coalition—is unavoidable. But my point is this: contrary to what some may tell you, those of us who oppose Giuliani & (to a lesser extent) McCain are not doing so because we’re demanding some mythological representative of conservative perfection (heck, I’ve even said I’ll back McCain if he’s the nominee). We understand that our standard-bearer won’t agree with us on every single issue. Rather, we’re looking for the best we can realistically get. Simply put, when you look at the entirety of their records, McCain is to the right of Giuliani, and Romney is to the right of McCain. The reason this position is different than the Rudy crowd’s is that it deliberately seeks out the candidate with the most conservatism and least liberalism. In contrast, it would be awfully difficult to argue that Rudy Giuliani is not the most liberal Republican in the race (aside from Ron Paul, of course—and even though Paul’s terrorism lunacy immediately makes him worse than Rudy, it’s probably true that Paul is, on balance, to Rudy’s right).
–
Your thoughts?