landgazing

A few words on the illegal immigration debate (which I’m probably going to get some harsh words for):

The conservative line on immigration seems to be “enforcement first-enforcement now” in the words of Michelle Malkin. Militarize the border (violation of posse comitatus?). Punish businesses that employ illegals. Make the “Basic Pilot” program mandatory, not a bone to throw to the Feds. The Social Security Administration should be more diligent in informing employers of bogus Social Security numbers. The logistics of two to three week rotations of 6,000 troops will be a logistical nightmare. The Department of Homeland Security already is a bureaucratic mess. Congress is bribing anti-immigration activists to get amnesty through.

I applaud the united, passionate front from the right on this (ever notice there really isn’t a united liberal front, BTW?) They are not bigots, racists or xenophobes, but patriots. Most of these ideas are sound, but it does not address the question of what to do with the ones already here. Don’t yell at me yet, though.

First off, the “necessity argument” precludes the need to answer what they would do with illegals already here. Which is what? They oppose the current “back taxes-back of line-fines-English” solution as rewarding lawbreakers and giving a path to citizenship. What wouldn’t be amnesty to conservatives? It appears anything except purely punitive measures. No one would argue that the leaky borders need to be stopped up, and the system needs to be less conducive to illegal aliens. But with the fiscal hurricane we will be experiencing down the road (Iraq, Katrina, Social Security, Medicare) wouldn’t we want more people on the tax rolls? In addition, doesn’t “enforcement now” mean mass incarceration or deportation? And isn’t compromise or deal-making just the nature of the beast in Washington? If one is adamant that their position be acceded to 100% while giving the other side nothing, doesn’t that ensure nothing gets done?

As mentioned above, I don’t think conservatives are driven by a belief in the moral or racial inferiority of other cultures at all. They do not want our laws and sovereignty to be made a mockery of. I am of the same mind, but this problem, and many other attendant ones, are so large, that firm prosecution of the law only has now become a short-sighted solution.

(In my next post, I plan to write about an thought-provoking Op-Ed article published in the Wall Street Journal that got a lot of airtime on conservative talk radio recently. It posits that the institution of white supremacy as a source of worldwide moral righteousness and civil authority so stigmatized the West that it left us impotent to fight wars which jeopardizes our very existence. Read it here.)

UPDATE

A lot of the buzz on a few conservative blogs reminds us that illegals have murdered Americans and one also aided the 9-11 hijackers. Very true.

It also is very disgusting. They want to remind us that illegals, given the chance, would rather indiscriminately kill you and your family rather than feed and clothe theirs. And to my knowledge, no one has ever said (although the some on the right imply it) that illegals are the cause of most of our social ills from murder and the high cost of health care to our very national fabric. True, they contribute, but how many legal residents do as well?

In addition, the U.S. Government did as much to help the 9-11 hijackers as the illegal alien did. This demonization of illegals is dishearteningly repugnant, and I hope most sensible conservatives see this.

Voting time!

Ah yes, we are all busy. Personally, on my plate, I have work, school and a wedding, so I count on the Voter’s Pamphlet, the Oregonian and the Portland Tribune. Many of the choices were unopposed appellate court candidates, but I’ll expound on a few other choices:

Oregon Supreme Court: Virginia Linder.

Having a female perspective on the court would not be a detriment. She is currently an appellate judge and was not backed by big business or trial lawyers. She also receives a good rating from the Oregon State Bar. Besides, it looks like Roberts himself said that Linder would be a good Supreme Court justice!

Circuit Court, Position 11: Susie Huva.
Both have the necessary basic qualifications. Paul, a deputy DA, has an impressive list of endorsements, including Craig Roberts, and he was goaded to run by the Clackamas County DA, John Foote. He also has been a positive force in the community (Meth Enforcement Team, etc.), and is an experienced prosecutor. Huva appears more reserved, having been steeped in mundane county matters. She seems extremely earnest with an almost child-like desire to be even-handed. Judges are “umpires,” in the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. I would like Paul to continue in the capacity he is in. He would make a great judge, and my conviction is he’d make a better prosecutor. The Oregonian endorses Paul, saying “He has a solid legal background and extensive experience in crime prevention. He is an asset to the community and he would enhance the bench.” Indeed he would. However, bear in mind that neither have been judges, and the Oregonian said Huva was qualified as well. She has also garnered endorsements from former appellate, circuit, and Supreme Court judges and, like Paul is today, used to be a deputy DA.

County Clerk: Sherry Hall.
Saving the best for last! Delmazzo doesn’t have any experience and his campaign hinges on bad-mouthing Hall. Craigen is non-partisan and has ample experience at Marion County elections. However, one of Hall’s largest “blunders” wasn’t even her fault. I find no compelling reason or outright incompetence on Hall’s part to oust her.

We all know of Porter Goss’ departure as head of the CIA last week. Why? Maybe too much political baggage came with him. Maybe it was due to the stench surrounding the gambling and prostitution scandal regarding CIA contracts. Who knows.

Bush has nominated the former head of the NSA, Lt. General Michael Hayden, to replace him.

My question - Is this the agenda-driven militarization of intelligence? At this point in time, that is my perception.

Granted, he excels in communicating these matters to Congress and the President currently. But his metier was electronic surveillance. In the ongoing struggle for dominance in the intelligence community between the CIA and DoD, doesn’t this give an edge to the Pentagon, especially considering recent reforms?

He has been vocal in his support for the NSA domestic wiretapping program. Now, I don’t think any rational person would debate the wisdom in that (but I think they may also wonder why Bush thought he had to make an end run around FISA).

And let’s not forget Hayden’s somewhat shaky grasp of the Fourth Amendment :)

I am not saying those in the military wouldn’t make good leaders. On the contrary, they are among the best America has to offer. In addition, of the 19 previous CIA directors, six were military officers, the most recent being Admiral Stansfield Turner (1977-81). However, these are different times with different challenges, and I am unconvinced Hayden is the best choice to effectively deal with the problems the CIA faces in the new century.

I’m going to reserve judgment at least until after his confirmation hearings.

But then there is Arlen Specter, who is threatening to hold up Hayden’s confirmation if he doesn’t get more information from him about the warrantless wiretapping. Ew, this could get messy.

I was reading a story on Michelle Malkin’s blog here that linked to a story here.

At an immigration rally in Minnesota, a University of Minnesota instructor told the press that “it is not possible for minorities to be racist against white people.”

Let’s analyze this for a moment, shall we? I presume she says this because she views persecution as the reason minorities exist, or it is a fact of life for them. (ok..) I would posit that some blacks would say the same things about whites. Why? There has been a history of racism and prejudice along race lines towards minorities in the past and, arguably, in the present.

However, if it is possible to persecute one race unjustly, what makes another race immune to charges of the same? If a Hispanic labels me “stupid inbred cracker trailer-trash,” what makes their comment automatically not racist? I can only infer this: Because of their perception of prior negative treatment by individuals, it gives them a pass to do the same. In other words, when the same infantile behavior is indulged in by the “downtrodden,” it ceases to be so. What then does it become? A right and valid expression against the “tyranny” of the majority (namely, whites)? Obviously it does not. Even if they were being “oppressed,” to suggest that a situation vindicates her words is ludicrous. Rhymes with Right makes a good point. It certainly is free speech, but she needs to take responsibility for it. Would you yell “fire” in a crowded theater?

Look at her statement for what it is: an excuse to spread a venomous, bigoted point-of-view, subsequently projected onto an entire race; in other words, furthering a stereotype. That, my friends, is racism.

It is nonsensical to suggest that minority status gives someone free license to engage in vicious race-based invective against one race while at the same time denying it is so simply on the basis of numbers, or because “the other side did it.”

Numbers don’t make racists - people do. It is a reprehensible and irrational denial of responsiblity, decorum, and logic.

It is also a prime example of intellectual indolence, by an academic no less!

However, we do all have failings, and speaking purely from emotion is one of them.

Oh, man. First this and now this.

Here’s a scary nugget from the November 2005 USA Today story above:

The bulk of Bush’s 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax-cut program is set to expire at the end of 2010. But Congress is moving to make the reductions permanent. That would keep tax revenue at roughly 18% of the economy, where it’s been for the past half-century — too low to support even current spending levels.

And this just sets my hair on fire from the Fox News story:

The trust funds actually are government IOUs to be paid back by either borrowing more money from the public by issuing marketable Treasury securities, raising taxes or cutting spending in other programs.

It reminds me of the way Congress has pilfered from this fund for the past 30 years to fund God knows what, leaving another generation to deal with their miserable failures.

Uh, I’m tired and disgusted. G’night.

Reality check on illegal immigration:

If you want people to rally to your cause, does it make sense to want to slow, cripple, retard or otherwise disrupt economic activity in your city or town?

Does it make sense to walk off your job without the OK from your boss?

Does it make sense to demand “rights” when as an illegal alien, you have none?

I read an AP story about this here:

“If these people are good enough to pay taxes, they’re good enough to be citizens,” said Chris Delgado, a tax preparer
from Skokie, Illinois, who came to a Chicago rally.

I wonder if he can tell me how many illegals walked into his office to pay taxes this year.

In sum, to convince people of the wisdom of not only of de-criminilaizing them, but of our dependence on them, they’re going to hurt (or at least inconvenience) us economically for a day.

What is the underlying message in that?

Yesterday, I blogged about Tyler Drumheller, a CIA chief (and 26-year veteran of the agency) involved in the intelligence operation regarding allegations of Iraq seeking uranium from Niger, and now I’ve read something more disturbing.
 
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856/page/2/
 
Essentially, it tells about a high-ranking Iraqi government official (not ‘Curveball’) who the CIA paid to get Iraqi military secrets. Drumheller, in the 60 Minutes interview, was asked if they could trust this guy. They said they “validated him the whole way through.” Hmm…
 
The source was Naji Sabri, Iraq’s foreign minister under Saddam.
 
I haven’t heard much about this story, except that a conservative blogger recalled a speech he gave to the U.N. in which he blasted the U.S. as a Zionist occupier. Yet, he was reading a letter written by Saddam Hussein.
 
Anyway, it turns out that this guy on the whole was more accurate than the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. From the above story:
 
“On the issue of chemical weapons, the CIA said Saddam had stockpiled as much as “500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents” and had “renewed” production of deadly agents. Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had “poison gas” left over from the first Gulf War. Both Sabri and the agency were wrong.”
 
However, it turns out Sabri was right about Saddam’s inability to build nukes AND his nonexistent biological weapons program.
 
Drumheller alleges the White House lost interest in the source after they heard what he had to say. Drumheller mentions that Condi Rice said Sabri was only one source and there were many others, although they relied on single sources regarding other areas. So this raises the question: Why shouldn’t they have gone to war when only one source said that Saddam essentially didn’t have WMDs? Read on…
 
Drumheller said he was told it was now about ‘regime change,’ recalling the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. However, if you read the act:
 
“Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.”
 
What is in that section?
 
“The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.”
 
That does not sound like the President was given sole discretion to use decisive force.
 
Soon after, documents popped up in Rome that seemed to prove the opposite - that Iraq had purchased uranium in Niger. However, the Italian reporter who got hold of them thought they were forgeries. The documents were given to the U.S. Embassy. The CIA station chief in Rome and Drumheller, who the station chief worked for, thought something smelled fishy. So did the State Department. So did the National Intelligence Council that oversees all U.S. intelligence agencies. They submitted a final report to the White House that concluded the story was false. However, it must be mentioned that the NIC also heads up the effort to produce the infamous intelligence estimates that were so infamously wrong.
 
Weeks later, Bush told the nation the British government discovered Iraq was trying to get uranium from Africa. What? So either they thought our intelligence was wrong (why?), they didn’t know or they didn’t care. The British government said their intelligence was credible but haven’t disclosed it, presumably because it is classified. In the Butler Report (the British report which investigates this very matter) they concede the documents weren’t available to them. And the administration didn’t know this? They didn’t think to check? The report also says the CIA “agreed that there was evidence that [uranium from Africa] had been sought.” George Tenet, then-head of the CIA, said he ran with the story because he felt the CIA had not investigated it thoroughly. What about the State Department? What about the National Intelligence Council? What about Drumheller? What about the CIA section chief in Rome? And what about Carlton Fulford, Jr.?
 
Fulford was a Marine General, deputy commander of the United States European Command (EUCOM), and Africa was in his purview. In February 2002, at the behest of the American ambassador to Niger, he was sent to investigate general concerns about possible procurement of uranium by al-Qaida. He learned of the many controls and international monitoring of the industry, and sent a report to Washington asserting such. Fulford says he never again was asked to look into these concerns before he stepped down in December 2002. He also didn’t get wind of any efforts to acquire uranium ore from Somalia or Congo, which the NIE also mentioned, although Somalia was outside EUCOM’s area of responsibility.

I am puzzled as to why Drumheller’s story hasn’t gotten more traction. All of this has dire implications for our nation, and if what is suggested here is true, we cannot allow this matter to continue unexamined. Controversy easily molded itself around Joseph Wilson, but would it just as easily gel around what is ostensibly a straight-talking former CIA man? In light of what has surfaced, cries of “honoring the soldiers” and “Consitutional obligations” would be groundless when the policy was a geopolitical experiment whose outcome was all but certain.

Did you watch that 60 Minutes piece with a former CIA chief a week or so ago? He essentially said that the White House ignored intelligence to fit policy decisions in the run-up to the Iraq war. I won’t open up that can of worms about whether he is on the money or not, but I did notice something interesting. (BTW, the swift-boating has already started, with talk of himbeing an obese, disgruntled opportunist. I’d urge you to watch the story and make up your own mind about this guy.)

First of all, yes, he does have a new book in the wings. However, links all over the place to the Amazon page for the book now are dead. Barnes and Noble notes that the original release date for the book was January but a copy is not available. No Borders stores have it around here, and their site says it was to be released in February.

My question: Is this just what goes on in the book world, or is something going onbehind the scenes because of information the book might reveal?

I’m sure some of you have heard about that Spanish rendition
of “The Star Spangled Banner.” At first I was angry, because
national unity is important and things like this only serve to divide us and dilute our national character.

Conservatives are getting VERY angry, aren’t they? It’s a knee-jerk
reaction reproduced time and again: “Sing it in English or go home!” They have a point. How can we forge an identity if we
become the Tower of Babel?

However, there is a bright side that I see. Most of the Hispanics
in our communities speak Spanish mostly, shop at their own stores where they can send money back to Mexico and generally appear to be existing in their own sub-culture. Couldn’t this rousing song be a bridge?

Couldn’t it serve to cultivate a pro-American sentiment and a call for assimiliation rather than a group cast off, in essence,
from the rest of society?

Could it bring them more into mainstream, and in doing so, help ease tensions?

Mannix appears to be a man of contrasts. If there
ever was a man who had a sail that steered him to
and fro with the political gale, it’d be this guy.
His record appears to toe the party line most of
the time, with key differences on issues such as abortion
or crime. He seems to have at least some sense of
pragmatism and definitely is not wanting in the “art
of the deal,” as the Oregonian mentioned. However,
he is not as definitive on issues such as taxes
and immigration reform that Saxton is a bit more solid on,
although I wish Saxton would talk about rolling back this
state’s insane dependence on other’s dependencies (namely,
on the Oregon Lottery).

And what’s with Loren Parks? Seems like the only reason he’s funding Mannix is that he is convinced he’ll crack down on activist judges he sees as responsible for him losing court cases (not to mention that whole sexual, hypnotist, self-help cult, uh, thing…)

One word Kevin: “DIS-connect!”