Lying Republicans And Their Lying Lies

The debate is over in the House. The resolution opposing the president’s ‘New & Improved Surge Plan’ has passed, with several Republican lawmakers crossing the aisle to join with Democrats in voicing the opinion of their constituents, a majority of whom oppose the Iraq War and the Bush Surge Plan.

In practical terms, this changes very little. It was a non-binding resolution. But it did force each member of congress to state their position vis-a-vis the surge and the war in general. I listened to Republican after Republican take the floor and proclaim that passage of the resolution would send a message of defeat to our enemies and a show of no confidence to our troops. Both of those statements are false, but they are opinions and as such can’t be classified as lies. (Call them delusions, sure, but lies requires a little more proof.)

But one statement repeated in various forms by various congress critters, clearly exposes a lie that republicans have been pushing on the American public since this war began, namely, that if American soldiers leave Iraq, the enemy will follow us home.

Really? They will? And just how in the hell can they do that, since the Republican President, his Republican administration, and 6 years of a Republican controlled congress have done everything possible to make America safe from repeated attacks? We’re told time and again by the president that keeping the homeland safe is job number one, that he’s doing everything possible to protect us at home. If that is true, there really is no threat from terrorists who would “follow us home.”

So the claims coming from the congress idiots are lies. Or the statements from the president et. al. have been lies. Either way, the republicans are lying. But they can’t have it both ways.
If the terrorists can simply pack up and ‘follow us home’ then the president’s (and the Republican party’s) efforts to ‘keep America safe’ over the last 6 years have either been non-existant (port security), just for show (airport shoe screening) or completely incompetant (border security). But if all those things are actually in place and effectively working, then the terrorists simply can’t get into the country.

So which is it republicans? Have you done your job and tightened up our home security or have you just practiced your rhetorical fearmongering skills these last few years?

Racist Rove Reveals Republican Reality

From The National Review, a decidedly conservative magazine:

According to a congressman’s wife who attended a Republican women’s luncheon yesterday, Karl Rove explained the rationale behind the president’s amnesty/open-borders proposal this way: “I don’t want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas.” (emphasis added)

Gee Karl, that’s real good of you to finally expose the truth behind compassionate conservatism.It seems like the party of Lincoln has really devolved quite a bit. I doubt that if Lincoln were running for office today he would even get past the vetting teams, because by golly, he actually had to work as a youth.

Excuse me for being offended, but I thought that in America we were an egalitarian society, where all honest work was similarly valued, if not in monetary compensation then at least in principal. I thought that the ‘new conservative agenda’ valued hard work and character building. I thought they stood for ‘the common man.” Guess what Herr Karl? The common man’s kids do make beds, and wash dishes, and clean up after others. Yet somehow, all that isn’t good enough for your kid? Guess we better get some more brown people to clean up after your lily-white ass, eh Karl?

When I was a teenager, getting a part time job in a restaurant or on a farm or in a grocery store or a hotel or mowing lawns was looked upon as good experience, character building experience, as a valuable part of moving towards adulthood. My family wasn’t rich by any means, but even my friends who were fairly well off had part time jobs of the kind that the Bush Administration now claims “American’s aren’t willing to do.”

But now we hear from the asses mouth himself the driving force behind the Bush Administration’s desire for more and less regulated immigration.

Again, from the article:
“This is why the president’s “willing worker/willing employer” immigration extravaganza is morally wrong — it’s not just that it will cost taxpayers untold billions, or that it will beggar our own blue-collar workers, or that it will compromise security, or that it will further dissolve our sovereignty. It would do all that, of course, but most importantly it would change the very nature of our society for the worse, creating whole occupations deemed to be unfit for respectable Americans, for which little brown people have to be imported from abroad. In other words, mass immigration, even now, is moving us toward an unequal, master-servant society.”

I don’t think I could have said it any better myself. If this country really needs immigrant labor, then fine. Develop and stick to laws to make it happen. But if the whole push for more immigration is so that Karl’s kid (and presumably the kids of all the neo-conservative/conservative/Republican jackholes) doesn’t have to wait a table or pick a strawberry, then it’s time to shut the borders up until we have 100% employment of Americans, including (especially) the young people who will one day lead this country. As we have tragically seen, kids who never have to work don’t really make good leaders. And they make incredibly poor presidents and presidential advisors.

More Republican Racism

In the second time in as many weeks, a major Republican policy maker has exposed the racist underpinnings of the Bush Administration regarding immigrants who come to America.
On Feb. 8th, Karl Rove addressed a group of Republican women at a luncheon wherein he described the rationale behind the president’s open-borders proposal by saying, “I don’t want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas.”

Follow that with a statement made by Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff speaking to reporters while visiting in Mexico last Friday where he tries to explain the goals of US immigration policy:
“Every time a Border Patrol officer is transporting a load of future housekeepers and landscapers to someplace to be returned, he’s not looking
for drug dealers or drug loads,” Chertoff said.

So, according to Rove and now Chertoff, and by extension presumably the president, vice-president, their republican allies in Congress and their supporters across the nation, immigrants, and especially those whose skin is brown, are needed to create a servile caste of new citizens. Apparently, according to the Republican party, immigrants, and especially non-white immigrants, are only capable of menial labor oriented tasks like picking crops, washing dishes, changing diapers and cleaning rooms. And further, those who are not coming for low skill labor jobs are either drug dealers or drug lords.

Another classic example of ‘compassionate conservatism’ at work here folks. What year is it again?

Welcome To Tal-Abama!

A law that seems to have come straight from the Taliban is one step closer to becoming a reality in Alabama, this time thanks to a Democrat.

A federal Court of Appeals recently upheld a 1998 Alabama law that was the underpinning of an anti-obscenity law pushed on the people by state Senator Tom Butler, a Democrat. Butler’s law would ban the sale of any device whose main purpose is to stimulate human genitalia- in other words, Butler wants to ban dildos, vibrators, or any other mechanical sexual aid. (the law also includes provisions banning nude dancing and regulation of where adult businesses can operate.)

Since when did personal pleasure seeking become ‘a legitimate state interest’? Is there a state of vibrator injuries in Alabama that are bankrupting the public health system? Are dildo-brandishing burglar’s unleashing havoc in the streats? Or does this guy just have some serious control issues to contend with? Did mommy not treat him right? Does his wife get more stimulation from her battery operated boyfriend than he can provide?

By the way…the anti-obscenity law does exempt condom sales and virility drugs and other sexual devices that have a ‘legitimate medical, scientific, or educational value.’

I bet Alabama doctors are going to be writing a lot of vibrator prescriptions if this law is acted upon.

Thanks for stopping by.

Wrong. At least according to the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Instead of recognizing these two men for doing their job, these agencies of the Bush Administration decide to level charges against these guardians of the border. They even go so far as to grant the illegal crossing drug smuggler immunity to testify against the two men. Of course, as part of the deal, none of the drug smugglers actions become admissable, and neither do the service records and training skills of the agents.

A Texas jury convicted the pair of assault with serious bodily injury; assault with a deadly weapon; discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence; and a civil rights violation. Compean and Ramos also were convicted of four counts and two counts, respectively, of obstruction of justice for not reporting that their weapons had been fired.

According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof said, Ramos and Compean had no business chasing someone in the first place. “It is a violation of Border Patrol regulations to go after someone who is fleeing,” she said. “The Border Patrol pursuit policy prohibits the pursuit of someone.”

Unless you ask the Border Patrol…

(Such claims as the Asst. U.S. Attorney’s) appears to fly in the face of the Border Patrol’s own edicts, which include “detouring illegal entries through improved enforcement” and “apprehending and detouring smugglers of humans, drugs and other contraband.”

If this is what this adminstration means when it talks about protecting the border, I guess we finally know who it is they are seeking to protect. And here’s a hint…it’s not the people living north of that imaginary line in the sand. I’ll bet recruits for the Border Patrol is going to really skyrocket now.

Welcome to the rabbithole boys and girls. Boy does it feel safe down here.

(cross posted on Bring It On! )

America, as everyone should know, was founded by immigrants, fueled by immigrants, and culturally formed by immigrants from all over the world. Without immigration, America would not be the country that it is today. Americans recognize these facts, even if they aren’t eager to embrace them. But talk to anyone about their family heritage, and one of the first things you’ll probably hear is some kind of statement regarding familial ancestry that originated in another part of the world. Since its origins, the United States has acted as a beacon to immigrants who sought out a new life for themselves and their families, and this beacon is still shining brightly today. Yet regardless of the individual reasons for immigrating, the American government’s immigration policies through the years have not been based on the ideas of enlarging personal prosperity for the down trodden of the world, but have instead been based on the needs of American business prosperity and expansion. We may pay lip service to the notion that America welcomes all comers with open arms, but the realities of immigration policy increasingly stem from an unhealthy disregard for the security of ordinary Americans in favor of corporate profit.

Any discussion about immigration, both legal and illegal, must first define the purpose for allowing immigration at all. Politically speaking, immigration makes sense for a government seeking to rapidly increase national or regional population growth, usually in response to the acquisition of new territory. But the United States has not expanded her borders in some time now, so this reasoning does not apply. Sociologically speaking, immigration makes sense when a nation is seeking to balance its racial populations, but as the United States has always been a diverse mixture of ethnic and nationalistic people, this has never been a rationale for immigration policy. (True, immigration quotas do reek of racial motivations, but those rules have had ever changing standards and thus can’t be construed as coming from any sort of lasting ideological policies.) From a humanitarian viewpoint, immigration becomes necessary to assist oppressed people achieve freedom, and this is one of the pillars of U.S. immigration policy today. This seems odd though, in light of our newly reinvigorated goal of taking freedom and democracy to the oppressed countries of the world. Given that objective, we should hope that fewer immigrants come to America seeking these qualities when we want them to instill them in their homelands. Surely if all those who ache for freedom abandon their countries to find it, who will be left to spread those ideals when freedom chances to come knocking? That leaves only the economic reasons for encouraging immigration. Unfortunately, money often speaks loudest and always speaks for itself. The economic benefactors of immigration are not those who come from poverty stricken lands in search of prosperity, but instead are the corporations who lure them in with wages that are much greater than they could earn at home but are still poverty wages in this country. As this rationale for immigration is based solely on corporate greed it fails to meet the test for reasoned public policy.

So I have to ask, in today’s world, what does immigration, legal or illegal, have to offer America? And at a time when fanatical enemies are seeking to destroy our way of life, what effect do our immigration policies have on the effectiveness of national security? The answer to both questions, though far from being politically correct, is nothing. Not a thing. And that means that it’s time to revisit our immigration policies and make some adjustments that better reflect realities in America and the world today.

For starters, the U.S. government should announce a temporary moratorium on all immigration. This may seem like a drastic first step, but until the government can establish policy that is cohesive and equitable, and that addresses American needs and goals abroad, America should hang the “Out to Lunch” sign on the door and lock up for a bit. In doing so, our government should make clear that our reason for such an action stems from our own security concerns as well as the necessity to protect the resources of the American taxpayers. In reality, the immigration policies of most nations are very strict in comparison to our own, so any cries of foul play will likely be coming from hypocritical mouths and should be given little attention.

Secondly, our physical borders should be secured much as I wrote about in my essay A Line In The Sand. Such actions would have the effect of reducing the entry of illegal immigrants, which is the most likely path of infiltration for foreign enemies or other people with criminal histories. In addition, any illegal immigrants that do get apprehended should face immediate deportation to their country of origin with the understanding that they will be dealt with by the law in their home country. It is not enough to defend our borders; we must also demand cooperation from any of our allies when repatriating their citizens.

Thirdly, we must work with the poorer nations of the world so that their citizens will not look at immigration to the U.S. as their only chance at freedom and prosperity. We must assist them in developing their infrastructure and upgrading their health and educational systems. We must encourage them to use their countries resources for the benefit of their people and help them to make the right choices. We have to understand that immigration is usually the last best choice for a person to make. Only when the situation at home seems hopeless do people leave all that they know and love behind forever. The best way to curb immigration, especially illegal immigration, is to help establish security abroad.

Finally, we must find all those people who are currently here illegally, ascertain their identities and their purpose for being here, and return them to their home countries or legalize them unless they are enemy agents. We must enforce the laws against companies the employ illegal immigrants and we must strengthen our citizenship identification programs. We must develop an interim plan for foreign tourism and international business travel, and we must create a separate plan to accommodate those seeking political asylum.

Americans generally have no problems with accepting legal immigrants into their communities, because we understand that immigration is a shared cultural phenomenon. Though most of today’s citizens have had the good fortune to be born in America, many millions are just a generation or three from the tales of their grandparents who walked across hostile territory or sailed an angry ocean to reach these shores. But America is also a country based on the rule of law, and when people arrive in this country by circumventing our immigration laws, we become angry, and, I think, rightly so. Unfortunately, our anger is often misplaced as we turn against the people who only want a better life for their families. More appropriately, we should direct our ire at the governmental policies that have created confusing and ideologically bankrupt immigration standards.

As the nations of the world become more and more interdependent, and as governments exchange animosity and deception for the shared principals of human freedom and self-rule, the need or desire for immigration should naturally recede. Reduced immigration has many benefits including decreased social and enforcement costs for inundated nations, the retention of human resources and national dedication for developing nations, and better security for all nations. These should be the goals of immigration policy in America, not cheaper lettuce or bigger corporate profits.