The Balkenizatin of America

I recently got into a discussion on a technical forum that took a turn away from technical (programming) considerations. We wound up discussing multiculturalism and I tried to make the point that multiculturalism would be the death of America and was contrary to the basic ideal of America as a melting pot, something that has made us great.

I was replied to with, "yes but your opinion doesn't matter because it has happened, what would you propose to do about it?" - my reply follows.

What does matter is touchy / feely politics and similar mindsets in our society have in fact created a balkenized nation.

To fix it, we need to:
Eliminate all government forms that are printed in a foreign languageEliminate all, "press 1 for ..." options, governmental and corporate. It seems like a stretch to "impose" on corporations in this manner, but with OSHA + EEOC + IRS - I would bet they'd be glad not to fret about the next language they need to support.

Eliminate all ESL classes and replace those with English classes for anyone here legally that cannot speak and write English. These English classes should be held after hours and conducted by teachers who either volunteer or recieve extra pay. The idea being to reserve core shool hours to teach the 3 R's.

To further that concept, we need to realize that the Blakenization isn't just a problem with recent entrants into our society - it is also a function of ghettos and the drug culture.

To correct these problems:
Eliminate all Federal funding for local schools that do not have a dress code, this is to eliminate the ghetto look in schools - helps to eliminate a ghetto mindset (stress helps, not a panacea).

Draw a line in the sand and require that anyone who is 12 (just pick an age) today must complete high school as a prerequisite for any government assistance that they might apply for once they reach adulthood.

Draw another line in the sand similar to the above and add marriage as a prerequisite to anyone who applies for governmental assistance for a child. They don't have to be married when they apply, just need to have been married when they gave birth.

The first line in the sand works against balkenization for folks who land on our shores.

The second works against balkenization for generations of folks (of all shades) who live in the ghetto.

Harsh? yep - but without doing something radical 20 yer olds of today are looking at some dire circumstances 20 years down the road.

Then, legalize recreational drugs to take away the revenue source for the worse of ghetto denizens.

Finally, make it mandatory for all new entrants into America that are of public school age to take: American History and Civics.

Margie (that would be my wife) and I are ever so sadly wrapping up one of the very best vacations that we've ever had. I'm saying that even though this vacation was the same year as our Hawaiian vacation earlier this past March.

On this vacation we my brother (Jim) and His wife (Nanette) drove up from Texas and arrived early on a Saturday evening. We had dinner at a favorite Mexican joint (no illegals there!) and hit the rack shortly thereafter.

Sunday was rest and relaxation. Steaks (2 inch think filets) grilled on the b-b-q grill out back, shared by the 4 of us plus Johnny (my stepson) and his soon to be mother of Scarlet, Katie.

Monday we arose relatively early and after filling up on both gas and breakfast at a local BP attached to a Mickey D's we were on the road and headed to visit our (me and Jim's) roots in Pennsylvania. We drove from Indianapolis through Ohio, a particularily boring state, and on to Pittsburgh PA. Pittsburgh was awesome, Jim and I had forgotten how beautiful the countryside was in and immediately around Pittsburgh. Our old home was in North Braddock, and both North Braddock and Braddock had really gone down hill in the last 46 years. When we moved to texas it was 1961 and the area was starting to go down hill way back then and while Pittrsburgh proper felt healthy, our old area did not.

It is pretty interesting how your memory plays tricks on you. I had remembered our town being a healthy distance away from Pittsburgh but it was virtually next door.

Talk about change, we stopped by and visited the projects where I lived from ages 1 - 10. What had been concrete block projects was now condos. The concrete block appearance was changed to field stone and a rough hewn wood facing of some sort. They had even added central air, quite a shock.

A bigger shock was the neighborhood we had moved to when we left the projects. I had remembered a really big two story home with insul-brick (an asphalt siding, sometimes called ghetto brick), a slate roof that my dad, unaware that I was deathly afraid of heights, used to make me patch with hot tar. Height was an issue since the ground was maybe 30 feet or morre below. The home was still there, now with vinyl siding, an asphaalt shingle roof and central air conditioning. The back porch was no longer there, I wonder what they did with the door that led to that porch - hope the closed it up because the porch was 20 feet off the ground.

Jim and I walked up and down the street remembering stuff. We talked to a few oldtimers but they had all moved to the street afe=ter we had already moved to Texas.

We then drove to South Greensburg where our grandparents had owned a small farm, they bought this and moved to it after my grandfather retired from the coal mines. This was a sad sight. Whoever bought it from my grandfather was one of those families that share their home with 20 cats and 10 dogs. It was abandoned and sad. Even though it was posted, "no tresspassing, no hunting, no fishing" I walked through the weeds and undergowth to see if some of my memories were correct. Sure enough, I found the 2 x 4s that supported the roof over the basement exit. This was important because I remembered my grandfather doing chin ups while holding on to the 2 x 4s with just his index fnger and thunb. He was one strong guy, this was when he was in his 60s. The old concrete block garage was still there. I would have loved to be able to go in the house, but ......

That was the end of Monday so we found a Days Inn and a place to eat and called it a night. The next day we (shock) found a recently opened up racino and played for a few hours, then headed back home. The drive took the rest of that Tuesday.

On Wednesday we woke before the crack of dawn so we could hit opening day at the Indiana State Fair. Jim, Nanette, Margie and I were at the fair by 6:00 AM. We did the early thing because on the opening day there is a hot air balloon race and we were there in time to watch them fill the things with heated air then take off. An inspiring sight. After that we spent an hour in line for breakfast then spent the better part of the day schlepping through exhibits and eating stick food. By exibhits I mean a whole building full of arsty stuff, a lot of needle work that Nanette and Margie really enjoyed. Jim and I were thrilled too.

Thursday was a Caesar's Casino day, our favorite casino a 1oo miles south and across the river from Louisville KY. We're desperately trying to avoid leaving an estate. Well, I am anyway. Everyone besides me actually came out okay.

On Friday Jim and I spent the day at the track, did I mention I'm trying to avoid leaving an estate? Margie and Nanette trucked up north a ways an visited a quilt shop.

On Staurday Jim and Nanette slunk away before the crack of dawn and arrived home in record time.

All in all, this is one of the best vacations I have ever had. Revisiting memories with Margie, my Bro and his lovely bride. One for the books.

Now here are some pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11680034@N05/show/

Information regarding the immigration debate

As background, I attended a protest last Saturday in downtown Indianapolis. The protest was in front of senator Lugar and senator Bayh' offices. The event was sponsored by iFire the Indiana branch of Grassfire.org


The material below was sent to all participants, Well worth your time to read.
========================================================

To ALL,

I want to "thank you" all of you for taking your time, using your energies and spending your $$$$'s for gas to be with us today in downtown Indy. I was delighted to see so many new faces who were obviously as patriotic, passionate, concerned, angry, frustrated.....and even fearful, as are we members of IFIRE and Hoosiers For Secure Borders.

We have a wonderful military fighting to destroy terrorist groups overseas, but we, here at home, also have a battle royal to fight and that of course, is AMNESTY for a possible 20-30 MILLION illegal aliens. DO NOT believe the 12-million number that has been quoted in the liberal media and by politicians from all three Parties, since 1986! That folks, has become an outright lie.

Now, when speaking with you today, I mentioned the first email I sent would contain this Report. PLEASE take the time needed to thoroughly read and digest what the (foreign) author is quite pointedly letting us in on. I sincerely believe it is happening now, with this latest 'Comprehensive Immigration' Bill. Too me, after having read this information, it's has become as plain as day. Let me know if you agree, or disagree.

Again, "thank you" for participating today and I truly hope we will all continue to fight this together, as much as we possibly can.

One other thing, after reading (and understanding) this Report, if you know of any other folks who you believe would benefit from this information, PLEASE share it with them.



Immigration and Usurpation (Or, Real reasons why your Senators want this Amnesty/'immigration' Bill)


July 2006
By Fredo Arias-King[Fredo Arias-King from March 1999 to July 2000 was an aide to presidential candidate Vicente Fox Quesada of Mexico, largely handling the foreign relations of the campaign along with Dr. Carlos Salazar, who handled the foreign relations of Fox’s party, the PAN. After the July 2000 victory, Arias-King declined government jobs but agreed to represent the PAN at both the Republican and the Democratic national conventions in Philadelphia and Los Angeles, respectively. In 14 trips to Washington and to both party conventions, he spoke extensively to U.S. public figures, including 80 members of Congress, about the bilateral relationship. His role in the Fox campaign has been recognized in several books published in Mexico. A Harvard-trained businessman and Sovietologist, his academic work focuses on the post-communist transitions, and he is the founding editor of Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, published in Washington.]

Americans are aware that their political class may not always act in their best interest. This belief is enshrined in the American character, its laws, and the very philosophy underpinning the U.S. Constitution. The Founding Fathers crafted things so that the "knaves" will be forced to abide by the will of the people, but they warned that their "natural progress" is to find ways to remain in power and increase that power at the people’s expense. They therefore also urged eternal vigilance, spiritedness, and the occasional revolt of the people.

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and others got it right—the knaves have, by and large, behaved, and their actions largely reflect in some way the will of the American people. Americans do not need to engage their politicians in an uncivil way—as happens most elsewhere—since the ballot box, the media, and other constitutional tools largely suffice. Indeed, the American political system works remarkably well. However, there are a handful of topics where the elites do not act in the interests of those they govern. Of these, the most notorious is the contentious issue of immigration. Why are politicians so keen on mass immigration while the common American is not? This has perplexed analysts.

When I aided the foreign relations of presidential candidate and president-elect Vicente Fox back in 1999 and 2000, I met with almost 80 U.S. congressmen and senators during numerous trips and at several events. With just over 50 of them, my colleagues and I spoke about immigration in some depth, as it is one of the important bilateral topics. My findings were reported in a Backgrounder published by the Center for Immigration Studies called "Politics by Other Means."1 It is a dense and academic paper, but the basic finding was: Indeed, American politicians are overwhelmingly pro-immigration, for a variety of reasons, and they do not always admit this to their constituents. Of those 50 legislators, 45 were unambiguously pro-immigration, even asking us at times to "send more." This was true of both Democrats and Republicans.

These empirical findings seemed to confirm what some analysts without that level of access termed as a political "perfect storm" of widespread political-elite support for immigration despite its general unpopularity with the average American. The paradox is that immigration is the only issue (perhaps besides trade policy) that represents a notorious discrepancy between elite and popular opinion in the United States.2 But this contradicts the established conventional wisdom of a representative democracy such as the United States. If mass immigration from Latin America has debatable benefits for the United States as a whole, if a majority of the American people is against it, and if immigrants cannot vote until they become naturalized (which can take years after their arrival), why would nine-tenths of the legislators we spoke with be so keen on increasing immigration?

Before these encounters, I believed that it was a problem of either diffusion of responsibility, "creeping non-decision," or collective rationalization with those legislators, but that was dispelled the more of them we met. Most of them seemed to be aware of the negative or at least doubtful consequences of mass immigration from Latin America, while still advocating mass immigration.3

The familiar reasons usually discussed by the critics were there: Democrats wanted increased immigration because Latin American immigrants tend to vote Democrat once naturalized (we did not meet a single Democrat that was openly against mass immigration); and Republicans like immigration because their sponsors (businesses and churches) do. But there were other, more nuanced reasons that we came upon, usually not discussed by the critics, and probably more difficult to detect without the type of access that we, as a Mexican delegation, had.

Their "Natural Progress"
Of a handful of motivations, one of the main ones (even if unconscious) of many of these legislators can be found in what the U.S. Founding Fathers called "usurpation." Madison, Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and others devised a system and embedded the Constitution with mechanisms to thwart the "natural" tendency of the political class to usurp power—to become a permanent elite lording over pauperized subjects, as was the norm in Europe at the time.

However, the Founding Fathers seem to have based the logic of their entire model on the independent character of the American folk. After reviewing the different mechanisms and how they would work in theory, they wrote in the Federalist Papers that in the end, "If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America …"4 With all his emphasis on reason and civic virtue as the basis of a functioning and decentralized democratic polity, Jefferson speculated whether Latin American societies could be governed thus.5

While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and "dependable" in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American.

Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). This seemed paradoxical, and explaining their motivations was more challenging. However, while acknowledging that they may not now receive their votes, they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and "teaching," they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did. Curiously, three out of the five lawmakers that declared their opposition to amnesty and increased immigration (all Republicans), were from border states.

Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with "converted"

Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized "new" United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would "go away" after tinkering with the People, who have given lawmakers their privileges but who, like a Sword of Damocles, can also "unfairly" take them away. Hispanics would acquiesce and assist in the "natural progress" of these legislators to remain in power and increase the scope of that power. In this sense, Republicans and Democrats were similar.

While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a "high five" when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them "rednecks," and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself. Jefferson and Madison would have perhaps understood why this is so—enthusiasm for mass immigration seems to be correlated with examples of undermining the "just and constitutional laws" they devised.

One leading Republican senator over a period of months was advising us, through a mutual acquaintance, about which mechanisms to follow and which other legislators to lobby in order to ensure passage of the amnesty proposal. In the meantime, he would speak on television about the need to "militarize" the border. This senator was recently singled out by a taxpayer’s advocacy group as a leader in "pork"-related politics.

Bill Richardson, who had served in Clinton’s cabinet and later became governor of New Mexico, kindly stopped to speak to our delegation at the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles. He commented favorably to us: "What do Hispanics want? Fully funded government programs!"

The Economist mentioned about his state:
New Mexico is a poor place, with one of the highest proportion of people living on food stamps … Its political tradition also long had a Latin American feel, based around a padrón system of clients and bosses. The bosses ran grocery stores, gave you credit, helped you if you needed a job. And all you had to do was vote for the Democrats … New Mexican politics is still about jobs, contracts and personal loyalty, not ideology. And Mr. Richardson personifies this.6

Trailer-park poverty combined with a cult of personality, where government initiatives regularly bear the governor’s name, as they would with some Latin American potentate (the governor is half Mexican himself), prevails in a state that is 40 percent Hispanic, including Hispanics already many generations in the United States.

Those that have come out supporting amnesty are also associated with other attempts to undermine the Jeffersonian and Madisonian model of democracy. Sen. Arlen Specter, for instance, a leading supporter of amnesty, years ago proposed another bill that would have changed the outcome of elections based on quotas, whereby electoral outcomes could be changed by a federal judge.7

Some legislators had also mentioned to us (oftentimes laughing) how they had "defanged" or "gutted" anti-immigration bills and measures, by neglecting to fund this program or tabling that provision, or deleting the other measure, etc. "Yes, we passed that law, but it can’t work because we also…" was a usual comment to assuage the Mexican delegations.

In light of what we learned from speaking to them privately, it is surprising that many legislators have gone public recently with their pro-immigration views, as opposed to simply adding their votes discreetly and imposing a fait accompli. This is another conundrum, but may be explained because legislators also suffer a collective-action problem. My feeling is that if the vote on granting amnesty to the illegal migrants was up for a secret vote, then perhaps we would see a 90 percent vote in favor, coinciding with my random sample from six years ago.

One such example of "natural progress" that legislators attempted to impose with no debate was when Pennsylvania state legislators—in the middle of the night before a recess— in July 2005 passed a bill giving themselves a modest pay raise. The civic reaction and spontaneous popular mobilization was such (with effigies of pigs carried by demonstrators calling their legislators "Harrisburg Hogs"), the legislators recanted and, with only one dissenting vote, repealed their pay raise weeks later.

To Govern Is to PopulateA group of Argentine statesmen in the 19th century sought to populate their country with immigrants from certain parts of Europe, believing that they were more politically mature and more propitious for a stable state than the criollo and mestizo populations in their country at the time. One of those statesmen, President Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, had a slogan: "To govern is to populate," perhaps because Argentina traditionally has been both under-populated and ungovernable.

What could be motivating U.S. legislators to do the opposite, that is, to see their constituents—already politically mature and proven as responsible and civic-minded—as an obstacle needing replacement? In other words, why would they want to replace a nation that works remarkably well (that Sarmiento was hoping to emulate), with another that has trouble forming stable, normal countries?

Mexicans are kind and hardworking, with a legendary hospitality, and unlike some European nations, harbor little popular ambitions to impose models or ideologies on others. However, Mexicans are seemingly unable to produce anything but corrupt and tyrannical rulers, oftentimes even accepting them as the norm, unaffected by allegations of graft or abuse.8

Mexico, and Latin American societies in general, seem to suffer from what an observer called "moral relativism," accepting the "natural progress" of the political class rather than challenging it, and also appearing more susceptible to "miracle solutions" and demagogic political appeals. Mexican intellectuals speak of the corrosive effects of Mexican culture on the institutions needed to make democracy work, and surveys reveal that most of the population accepts and expects corruption from the political class.9 A sociological study conducted throughout the region found that Latin Americans are indeed highly susceptible to clientelismo, or partaking in patron-client relations, and that Mexico was high even by regional standards.10

In a Latin environment, there are fewer costs to behaving "like a knave," which explains the relative failure of most Spanish-speaking countries in the Hemisphere: Pauperized populations with rich and entrenched knaves. Montesquieu’s separation-of-powers model breaks down in Latin America (though essentially all constitutions are based on it) since elites do not take their responsibilities seriously and easily reach extra-legal "understandings" with their colleagues across the branches of government, oftentimes willingly making the judicial and legislative powers subservient to a generous executive, and giving the population little recourse and little choice but to challenge the system in its entirety.

These pathologies are already evident across the border. For example, at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, when even President Clinton’s strongest backers such as Rep. Richard Gephardt were distancing themselves from him and calling on the president to "tell the truth," the Hispanic Caucus in the U.S. Congress lent its support to the president. Rep. Esteban Torres stated "We’re going to stand by him to the end … no matter what!"11 The case of the "unconditional support" by the Hispanics in Congress to their patron demonstrated why the Montesquieu-Madisonian model had difficulty functioning in the Latin American context. This type of unconditional support seems to be what professional politicians of both parties expect from their Hispanic constituents and allies.

When thinking of populating as a way of obtaining power, perhaps these U.S. legislators, rather than from the statesman Sarmiento, took an unconscious cue from another Latin American leader who used migration and ethnic policy for less laudable goals. Mexican President Luis Echeverría (1970-76), who began the cycle of political violence and economic crisis from which the country has yet to recover, pursued a policy of moving hundreds of thousands of impoverished people from the country’s south to the more prosperous and dynamic northern states, where they remain to this day, mostly in shantytowns. His goal was to neutralize those states’ more active civic culture that threatened his power—as these states were at the time the main source of opposition to his dictatorial ambitions.

These pauperized and dependent migrants and their offspring would provide a ready source of votes for the ruling party along with a mobilizeable mass to counter (politically as well as physically) the more civic-oriented middle classes of those northern states and "crack" their will to challenge his corporatist regime. Along with other extra-constitutional tools (he almost succeeded in canceling the constitution to remain indefinitely as president), migration from undeveloped areas was used by Echeverría as "politics by other means." Echeverría, in other words, was the ultimate knave.

Do the U.S. legislators have an overt and well thought-out "plan," as Echeverría did? That is unlikely.

Unlike Echeverría, these 45 U.S. legislators (especially the Republican ones) may simply be following a string of what can be called "rational short-termisms," that seem beneficial now even though they may unwittingly lead to adverse outcomes for them in the end. Like a diet rich in fats and sugar brings a jolt of energy and pleasure in the short run but causes health problems in the longer term, these congressmen still have incentives to allow and encourage mass immigration because of its low political cost for them and the perceived short-term benefits it brings (for them and the special interests that fund them).

If these "rational short-termisms" exist within a given individual (where he assumes both the benefits and the costs, such as with an irresponsible diet), they are more prevalent in a country, as those accruing the benefits are not those who pay the costs, and have an incentive to organize themselves to pursue the behavior leading to those outcomes. Because of collective-action problems, those benefiting from mass immigration are better organized, even if they are in the minority and even if they are vaguely aware that "someone else" pays for their largesse. These groups only see the assets, not the liabilities. By nature, legislators should prefer these short-termisms, since the payoffs are immediate and directly attributed to a political figure, whereas the costs can be pushed into the future.

The payoffs and benefits of more long-term policies are unlikely to be associated with a particular political figure and become, essentially, public goods. Just as there is a large body of literature on "economic failure," we should begin to explore a related concept—"political failure," which could be the Achilles heel of the American and other models of representative democracy. In the end, the result of mass Latin American immigration will not likely present the stark choice of democracy versus non-democracy for the United States, but the quality of democracy may indeed be affected.

Acción Directa as a Double-Edged Sword
What awaits the United States when a critical mass of the American people realizes the immigration issue is little different than what happened in Pennsylvania with the pay-raise issue? What if they decide to organize?

These legislators are probably correct that, by acquiescing to mass immigration, they will eventually "crack" the immigration-control advocates. They do not need to win or even engage in a debate if they can change the terms of the game so decisively. However, they have only taken into account the legal or civilized resistance—from those who write in the papers or volunteer peacefully at the border. In Latin America, people engage in un-civil direct action because they have come to realize that attempting to convince their elites that their antisocial behavior has adverse consequences for the country—and expecting that this will dissuade them from engaging in it—is largely a futile exercise. But in the United States as well, once immigration-control advocates realize they cannot reach their goals through legal means, this could breed a form of resistance that has not occurred yet, but cannot be discounted offhand.

The degree of usurpation and neglect of their fiduciary duty by legislators could provoke immigration-reform advocates to engage increasingly in civil resistance, so that instead of influencing political institutions through civic engagement (as Americans traditionally have), they may attempt to politicize individual institutions.

Their direct actions are already being reported: local officers taking it upon themselves to detain illegal migrants, sit-ins at immigration offices, vandalizing of Mexican restaurants, threatening calls to the Hispanic mayor of Los Angeles, etc. Once these types of mobilizations begin, they will be difficult to stop.

Some Americans may take a cue from Spanish/Latin American culture itself and engage in what Spaniards call acción directa, or "direct action." A Spaniard once lamented that "In this country, nobody votes, but everyone protests." Immigration advocates should not be surprised if Latin American immigrants and their offspring continue their tradition of direct action and ignoring laws and institutions—as the recent mass protests in cities across the country demonstrate. But they should also not be surprised if Americans also learn to pursue acción directa. An interesting test for the U.S. political class will be how they respond to Americans utilizing direct action, since they seem to tolerate and even encourage it for Latin American immigrants and their offspring. So far, their reaction has been predictable—accusing peaceful volunteers of being "vigilantes" and labeling critics as "racist," while backing down in the face of mass protests by the illegal immigrants.

There were even reports that the U.S. government had handed over to the Mexican government the names of the "Minutemen" critics and border-control volunteers.

Moreover, those who challenge through extra-legal means the extra-constitutional and fait accompli pro-immigration methods of the elites would, paradoxically, be abiding more by the spirit and even letter of the U.S. Constitution than the political class being targeted by them. The Federalist Papers are replete with this philosophy. If they do so effectively, the reaction of the U.S. Congress may be the same as it was for the Pennsylvania legislature in the aftermath of the pay-raise scandal. Both policies are difficult to defend openly and publicly with an engaged citizenry.

If Americans do indeed take up civil disobedience and acción directa, hopefully they would realize that targeting Mexicans will not solve their problem, because even if for some reason they could "neutralize" Mexico as a source of mass immigration, soon they would be targeting Indonesians or Africans or South Americans. But that would be attacking the symptoms and not the root cause of their malaise.

Realizing this, what other events could turn the tables in favor of moderate and civic-minded immigration-reform advocates?

One, if these politicians begin to realize that the consequences of mass immigration for them are not what they expected—when the string of "rational short-termisms" crashes in the rocks of failed electoral campaigns or mass mobilization by critics of immigration against their political careers. Perhaps that is why three of the five lawmakers critical of mass immigration we met with are from border states. They perhaps have already come to realize that their "fantasy constituents" were different than expected. But this realization is unlikely to come any time soon to the remaining lawmakers.

Two, if a critical mass of Americans of Mexican and other Latin American descent take the lead in opposing the openly partisan and irredentist leaders mobilizing the illegal immigrants and the Latino citizens, since it is those types of leaders and provocateurs, not average populations at large, who start ethnic conflicts, as in Yugoslavia and Northern Ireland.12 But this is also unlikely because of the collective-action problem. American Latinos who criticize mass immigration tend not to organize, as they are especially targeted by the pro-immigration Latino "leaders."

A third peaceful way to close the gap between elite and popular opinion on the immigration issue is to pass certain political reforms that would help to assuage lawmakers’ concerns for their political and financial stability. Increasing their (already-high) salaries may be a small price to pay to reduce their proclivity to find solutions for their "natural progress" elsewhere, such as with immigration. However, in this case the medicine may be worse than the illness.
A fourth way would be for a political entrepreneur to successfully use popular discontent with mass immigration to reach power.

This is essentially what happened in Denmark. There, the antisocial behavior of Middle Eastern and other immigrants was largely ignored by both main parties and the press, both also displaying an elite consensus against the population’s antipathy for immigrants and for further immigration. The parties had even agreed between them not to make immigration an issue in campaigns or on television debates. Eventually, a political entrepreneur named Anders Fogh Rasmussen used the immigration issue to capture power inside his party, and then go on to win the general elections in 2001. As prime minister he enjoys popular support for his tough immigration and law-and-order policies, which also coincided with other reforms against big government and the welfare state. He was reelected in 2005, and even the opposition Social Democrats have dropped their prior position and now largely agree with Rasmussen’s views on immigration.

Bilateral Codependence
Some American and Mexican pundits argue that the outcome of the amnesty debate will affect the way Mexicans view the United States and their own democracy. The argument goes that if the U.S. Congress does not pass a law favorable to the undocumented workers, there will be a Mexican backlash against the United States that could ensure the victory of the illiberal, anti-American Left. However, this argument assumes that Mexico (through its population and political elites) acts in a rational way, and that these American overtures will be understood and appreciated (much the same way that France also understood and appreciated the American role in its liberation from Nazi Germany).

However, the same argument was made by Russian elites and their American sympathizers during the debate on expanding NATO, with the argument that if America pursued its interests (expanding NATO), this would cause an irreversible collapse of Russian democracy and a backlash from the Kremlin. This argument held sway for years at the Clinton White House. In the end, NATO expanded and Moscow’s relations with its former imperial colonies and with NATO itself actually improved.

Rather than rational and mutually beneficial, U.S. bilateral relations with Mexico (as it was with Russia in the 1990s before NATO expansion) can instead be called "codependence," which is defined by the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology as "silent or even cheerful tolerance of unreasonable behavior from others," or even a pathology of trying to fix things for other people and rescue them, which in turn encourages a certain behavior from the object to be rescued.

These sacrifices and concessions (with countries as with people) produce a sense of entitlement and an unending string of additional unreasonable demands. The IMF also engaged in a form of codependence with Moscow in the 1990s—the more money that was lent to the Kremlin, the fewer reforms it implemented, and the more anti-U.S. and anti-Western rhetoric it engaged in, with much of that money going to finance the war in Chechnya, for its weapons industries, and for its political class.13

During the 18 months when I aided Fox’s foreign relations, in those meetings with what became the new Mexican elite I do not recall so many discussions about "what can we do to make tough decisions to reform Mexico," but rather more "how can we get more concessions from the United States." Indeed, Fox largely continued governing the country as his predecessors did, even appointing as head of the federal police agency an Echeverría loyalist who was allegedly involved in a deadly extortion attempt against a museum owner in 1972. According to several leading world rankings on corruption, quality of government, development, and competitiveness, Mexico actually worsened during Fox’s presidency.14

Lacking internal or external pressure, the Mexican elites have taken the path of least resistance, which is not the best outcome for the country. Paradoxically, as happens in co-dependent relations, a firm but polite defense of American interests by Washington would force the Mexican elites to act and in the end (surely after a brief period of acrimonious recriminations) would be beneficial for Mexico, much as the European Union’s tough accession laws force elites in lesser-developed aspiring members (Spain in the 1980s and Central European countries in the 1990s) to adopt painful and otherwise politically unfeasible reforms that affect special interests but that benefit average citizens. After all, the gap between elite and popular aspirations in these countries is wider than in the United States, and on a broader range of issues.

This co-dependence is perhaps nowhere more evident than the personal relations of the political classes of Mexico and the United States. When speaking to these congressmen, we noticed an affinity toward the corrupt party we were attempting to overthrow in Mexico. Several had visited Mexico and apparently enjoyed lavish treatment from their hosts, even mentioning how some of the things they enjoyed in Mexico would not be possible at home.

Even though the Mexican political class is notoriously corrupt, they can often count on stronger support in Washington than can several more worthy world leaders who are genuinely attempting to reform and improve their countries. The history of the Bush family is symptomatic.

While snubbing pro-American reformers in the newly liberated Eastern Europe, George H.W. Bush did go out of his way to accommodate Mexico and its leader Carlos Salinas. Then-vice president and presidential candidate Bush openly endorsed Salinas after the latter’s fraudulent election in 1988, a favor that Salinas returned four years later when he met only with Bush and snubbed his Democratic rival, Bill Clinton. As presidents, Salinas and Bush crafted NAFTA, and then Bush assisted Salinas in joining the OECD (though Mexico was not qualified) and was even attempting to promote him to head the WTO before Salinas’s political star collapsed amid a torrent of corruption and political murders. Whereas Lech Wałesa—the slayer of communism and harbinger of democracy for Poland and the rest of east-central Europe—publicly scolded his fellow former president George H.W. Bush in a Prague meeting in 1999 for having done much less than expected for the transformation of his country and the region as a whole, Salinas remains a close friend and admirer of Bush Sr. to this day.

While Bush Sr. went out of his way to help Salinas, other deserving reformers besides Wałesa also complained of having been ignored by Bush Sr., even in countries more important to U.S. security and prosperity than Mexico. For example, Bush Sr. repeatedly refused to give even a modicum of assistance (moral or financial) to the Russian government of acting Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar during the risky and painful reforms launched to dismantle the Soviet legacy and attempt to put Russia on a reform and democratic path. Bush’s lackadaisical and lukewarm relations with such figures have been widely criticized, and seem counterintuitive. Gaidar’s failure can largely be traced to the lack of political and financial support from the West, and the United States in particular, for his reforms.

In April 2000, candidate George W. Bush followed in his father’s footsteps when he tacitly but unambiguously endorsed the candidate of Salinas’s ruling party against a then little-known opposition figure named Vicente Fox, perhaps believing that the official-party candidate, the former secret-police chief Francisco Labastida, would engage in a quid pro quo as president. Labastida himself could not receive the honor in person on April 7, 2000, since he had been fingered by the U.S. press as a possible target of the Drug Enforcement Administration because of his record as governor. Instead, he sent his wife to meet with Bush. Florida governor Jeb Bush knew for many years and apparently also received lavish treatment from Salinas’s brother Raúl, before Raúl was arrested on corruption and murder charges and spent the next decade in a Mexican high-security prison.

Bush Sr. had a long friendship and business relations with Jorge Díaz Serrano, then director of the Mexican oil monopoly pemex, before he was also arrested in a power struggle and accused of embezzling over $50 million. The long-time politicos of the Hank Rhon family, who were suspected of laundering drug money and who continue to win elections in Mexico, were also reported to have contributed money to the gubernatorial campaigns of George W. Bush from a Texas bank they own.15 To their credit, no overtly illegal practice has been proven against the Bush family in their dealings with Mexico, but the appearance of admiration toward its ruling classes cannot be easily discounted.

Though similar stories involving lesser politicians do not make headlines, several lawmakers we met also had a special, giddy mystique of Mexico as a place where moneyed leaders coexist with tame, grateful citizens. It would seem that the American political class has a special affinity for their colleagues south of the border. The appeal of their lavishness and impunity seems to strike a positive chord in the American politicians, who perhaps resent being held accountable by their citizens, who cannot become wealthy from politics, and who may be removed from power "unfairly" and without warning.

ConclusionSamuel Huntington speculated that the American "creed" (values and beliefs) cannot be used to openly oppose mass immigration.16 That may change. So far, the immigration debate has centered on the immigrants themselves—whether they are worthy or unworthy. This debate is a red herring, since average Americans are unusually kind and restrained in the face of mass immigration, something that cannot be said about other nations (including Mexico).17 Recent poll findings from Zogby challenge the popular belief that the average American somehow has negative or overtly prejudicial feelings toward Mexicans in particular.18 However, Huntington did not take into account the possibility that the debate could yet be framed in terms of potential usurpation from the political class using immigration as a tool.

If an organizeable mass of Americans comes to suspect that mass immigration from Latin America is being used by the political class to undermine their democracy and as a tool to liberate the political elites from the Jeffersonian and Madisonian constraints, then indeed we may witness a reaction—but hopefully not against the immigrants themselves, as they are also objects of elite manipulations in more than one country.

The Founding Fathers also prescribed a cure for usurpation. Hopefully the American people will not apply it so literally, for the sake of those legislators.

End Notes
1 "Politics by Other Means: The ‘Why’ of Immigration to the United States," Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, December 2003, http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back1703.html .

2 "See Elite vs. Public Opinion: An Examination of Diverge
nt Views on Immigration," by Roy Beck and Steven A. Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, December 2002, http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back1402.html .

3 Maybe this is where immigration policy differs from trade policy. At least the elites that promote free trade with other countries do genuinely believe it benefits the U.S. economy and the average person, and the evidence proves them right.

4 The Federalist Papers, No. 57.

5 Jefferson wrote "I wish I could give better hopes of our southern brethren. … what will then become of them? Ignorance and bigotry, like other insanities, are incapable of self-government. They will fall under military despotism …" Jefferson letter to Marquis de Lafayette, 4 May 1817, in http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl249.htm .

6 "Bill Richardson’s Story," The Economist, 29 May 2004, p. 34.

7 S 1992 (vote No. 177, 97th Cong.).

8 An analyst actually argued that allegations of corruption and abuse have a positive impact on a politician’s career throughout Latin America. Andrés Oppenheimer, "Los más denunciados, los más votados," Reforma, 17 September 2002, p. 33A.

9 Surveys indeed reveal a distrust of institutions by the citizenry, but also a distrust of each other—55 percent thought "most people in Mexico are corrupt," whereas 25 percent believed most other Mexicans are honest. See the Reforma survey focused on corruption, in "La cultura del soborno," Reforma, 29 August 2002, 8A. Moreover, social status and education seem to be positively correlated with corruption. Another survey by Transparency International revealed that the younger and more educated Mexicans are actually more likely to engage in corruption, and that most people believe public officials are entitled to gain financially from their positions. See Leonardo Valero, "Son más corruptos los jóvenes, revelan," Reforma, 5 April 2002, 7A.

10 The survey was conducted in 18 Latin American countries by Latinobarómetro. The question was if the respondent knew of someone who had received privileges for sympathizing with the party in power. The average for Latin America was 18 percent, whereas the Mexican figure was 34 percent. "Lidera México en clientelismo," Reforma, 30 October 2005, A1.

11CNN Headline News, 4 August 1998.

12This is the theory of Fintan O’Toole, The Lie of the Land: Irish Identities (London: Verso, 1997). O’Toole’s writings on Yugoslavia include "Serbian aim to kill all Kosovans is nothing new," The Irish Times, 5 May 1999.

13See Stephan Hedlund, "Russia and the IMF: A Sordid Tale of Moral Hazard," Demokratizatsiya, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2001),
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3996/is_200101/ai_n8944035 .

14See my article "Mexico’s Wasted Chance," The National Interest, Winter 2005-6.

15Steve Sailer, "Latino Magazine Probes Bushes’ Mexican Contacts," United Press International, 23 February 2001. See also Alan Zarembo, "Bush Family Ties," Newsweek International, 26 February 2001.

16 Samuel Huntington, "The Hispanic Challenge," Foreign Policy, March/April 2004.

17See "Mexico’s Glass House: How the Mexican constitution treats foreign residents, workers and naturalized citizens," by J. Michael Waller, Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper No. 7, April 2006, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/Mexicos_Glass_House.pdf , and "Mexico’s Immigration Law: Let’s Try it Here at Home," by J. Michael Waller, Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper No. 8, April 2006, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/Mexicos_Immigration_Law.pdf .

18See "Zogby Poll: Americans, Mexicans Want Closer Ties, But Suspicion Abounds," 19 March 2006, http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1082 .
http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back706.html

A Wonderful Holiday

Even though I am still numb from a 14 hour drive I had to take a minute and post a word of gratitude to the guy upstairs for a truly wonderful Christmas. It actually started with a really enjoyable Thanksgiving visit here in Indianapolis with my youngest son Doug and his family. We all had a chance to connect and really enjoyed our time together. After they left Margie went into a full steam ahead baking marathon and we shipped Christmas cookies to all compass directions. Once that was accomplished it was time to drive to Texas to spend a week there with my brother and his wife Nanette. Christmas Eve, our traditional family day, was once again a real joy. The family expands each year as new relationships are entered into the fold. Really looking forward to the next one when there will be a brand new great grandchild for us to coo over.

Our Rennovation

• If you're interested in seeing what we've had done to our condo, click on the pix[^] and then either go through the pictures manually or click on the show button. The show button is much more fun but then you don't get to see the comment.
  
  This all came about as a result of the nexus of several circumstances:
• My desire to have a whirilpool tub
• Saying the heck with it and our decision to redo the whole master bathroom
• The sale of a rental property in Texas to fund major work by the Owner's Accociation
• The Association deciding not to do the major work
• Our realization that life is short
  
  We certainly didn't start out with the idea of a major rennovation, but here we are and it is much more pleasant to enjoy our surroundings than it was to cash a small monthly rent check.
  
  Anyway -come visit and enjoy it with us.

May 1st – Demonstrations that our government has failed

May 1st – Demonstrations that our government has failed

Tomorrow on May 1st, a day synonymous with communism and communist movements we’ll reportedly have millions of illegals marching in the streets of major cities to show us their strength. Today I heard that not only will it be Hispanics but Muslims as well. The demonstrations are supported by state governments (California), churches (my own church, in California of course) and silly-assed feel good liberals of all stripes.

If the activities of May 1st do not move you to call your congressional representatives and take a stand, then: you, your grandchildren and all future generations deserve the results.

What are the results?

There is anarchy, a total disrespect for our laws and our sovereignty. We have no borders, certainly no national language (press 1 for English) and no national leaders willing to enforce the laws they have sworn to up hold.

Should our inept national leaders decide to implement the so called “compromise” that hasbeen discussed, those inept leaders will extend a form of citizenship to law breakers. You will hear statements in the current debate that these illegals are not law breakers, they’re simply people looking for a better life. Well, both statements are true but if a legal status is extended, the result will be horrific. Think not? Well, do the math.

Estimates tell us that there are 11,000,000 to 20,000,000 illegals currently in the country. Few of these are here with their families.

If we compromise and say it is 15,000,000 and the Senate and the president have their way, these 15,000,000 will be bestowed a legal status, the immediate impact will be twofold. First they’ll be able to lay claim on the entire range of social services, forcing higher taxes (property, income and sales) to support. Second they’ll be able to bring their families into the country. Now we can multiply the 15,000,000 by as much as 5, adding 60,000,000 to the population. That 60,000,000 would be on the lower end of the economic scale and ultimately be able to VOTE.

Get the picture?

60,000,000 new citizens or legal residents, considering a current population of 300,000,000 means the new population would represent 16% to 15% of our population, a dramatic shift in the demographics of our country. If you consider that more than half of our current population pays exactly no incomes tax, then in the future envisioned by the senate and silly-assed liberals, something like 65% of the population will pay no taxes and be able to vote. Guess how our professional politicians get elected. Here’s a hint, they promise the masses something for nothing. Here’s another question. How to they pay for the promise? Here’s a hint, if you pay taxes then the politicians are promising your money away and will be doing so on far more dramatic terms because they will have a larger, non-tax paying group to cater too.

Mad yet? Probably not. If you are, then what can be done?

Let me repeat. Call your legislatures. Call your representative. Call your senators. Call the Whitehouse.

For my money, what needs be done:

First:
Build a real fence on the southern border.

Second:
Actually enforce the law against both the illegals and the businesses that hire them

Third
One and two above are a start. I do realize that there is a need for foreign labor so we need a guest worker program. To do that correctly and in a manner that allows our laws to be enforced, we need to support the guest worker program with state of the art identification cards. Those cards would be issued not here but in countries where the workers (should) live. That includes many South American countries. Those cards would be issued by a US Government agency and be encoded with biometrics that identify the worker and possibly a GPS signal capability. Once a worker is qualified and issued a card that worker could then contact US employers via web-site that matched business needs to worker capabilities. Once the card is issued and an employer accepts the worker, then and only then can he come to the USA.

Fourth
Once the engagement between employer and worker is completed, the worker must leave. I believe the employer should fund transportation costs, something as simple as bus fare. If the ID card is GPS enabled then we'd know the location of the worker.

Fifth
Any illegal caught violating the law / rules would then lose all privileges of entry into the USA for all times.

What should be done if our government continues to fail us? Ultimately it is the citizens of the country who must be in control, after all our form of government is democratic and the people must speak and be heard.

How can we make them listen if they refuse?

A set of simple steps:
First
On January 1, submit a W-4 claiming 99 dependents. That will squeeze the nation's coffers since virtually no tax revenue will be collected.

Second
On January 1, cash in any and all government bonds, further squeezing the federal government.

Third
Cease any and all political contributions and when asked why, explain.

Fourth
On January 1, contact your mortgage company and get the paperwork you need to fill out that says you no longer want them to escrow for your property taxes. Then refuse to pay those property taxes – that will squeeze local governments just as we did with the federal government. It will takes years of action for the local government to do anything significant in the way of collection activity. The minute they take action pay the minimum necessary to get them off your back.

Fifth
On April 15th of the following year fill out the federal tax form that requests an automatic 4 month extension for your federal income taxes.


Sixth
On August 15th of that same year make your personal decision whether or not you’ll pay. My guess is that by that time the federal government will have gotten the message or the country would have imploded.

I’m not sure which is worse. An imploded national government or a country that has been handed over to an invading army, which is what is now taking place.

Summary
I believe our country is committing national suicide, for corporate greed and silly-assed liberal feel good notions. The next time someone explains to you that these people just want a better life, remember that they got here illegally and achieved employment by using falsified social security numbers and utilizing other falsified papers – so, extending a legal status to these people is extending a legal status to people who have already proven they have no respect for our laws.

The point is, we lose and lose big if you don’t do something. The “something” today is as difficult as making a couple of phone calls and making your voice heard. Later it gets much much worse.

Not a rant - just a good idea

The other day I needed to create a back up of a project that I've been working on. It is huge and I have been working on it for years so if it ever gets trashed I'd have a problem. when I tried to burn a CD I discovered that the result was unreadable, so I have a problem with the one high capacity media on my machine. This isn't a surprise as I have had this system for 5 or 6 years and it is wellpast it's prime. I still had to find a way to create the back up though because one thing is certain, if you think you need to back up something and don't then you'll soon regret it.

Here is what I did:
Identified the files I wanted to back up
Using winzip, zip up the files
Get on my Google gmail account and create yet another
Create an email from my old account to my new one
Attach the zipped file to the email and hit send

Now I have a redundant copy of those important file, 1 in my sent folder and 1 in my new in-box. Really works well, Google storing my files for me. Since they give you a little more than 2 gigabytes of space per account, I'm good for a while and have to find a new way to justify a new PC.

Article on illegal migrant workers

A few days ago our local Indianapolis paper published an article on the protests / rallies / marches conducted by illegal migrant workers. I fully agree with Representative Hostettler's opinion but was absolutely disgusted by Senator Lugar's opinion. A representative government like our own is incredibally frustrating when our elected officials refuse to enforce the laws they have passed. At least one Indiana representative, Hosettler[^], has it right. The content of the article quoted Lugar and prompted me to write to the editor and express my opinion[^]

The 14th Amendment and more on the invasion of illegals

As pointed out by MG below, the 14th Amendment makes any child born in the USA a citizen.

In the current debate, these children are called, “anchor babies”. The idea being that “you” won’t want to deport the parents (here illegally) if their children, born here, are citizens.

The question becomes, what do you do where “you” is the United States of America.

First there needs to be an effective wall built on the Southern border.

Yes, it can be done – Google up some research on Israel to see how effective this can be.

Second, as MG stated there needs to be serious penalties for any business that employs an illegal, migrant worker. Maybe a hand slap the first time, a stiff penalty the second, and forfeiture of their business and jail time the third. The effect will be to dry up the opportunities for work. This should be followed by a voluntary migration back to thee home of origin for these people.

Third, create special migrant centers in Mexico and other countries. These migrant centers would issue biometric (possibly GPS enabled) migrant worker identification cards. Once issued to a potential migrant worker, the worker can then contact employers through a web-based system that is accessed in the migrant worker center. If they connect with an employer then their migrant worker identification card would be authorized to allow entry into the United States.

If the now legal migrant worker wants to become a citizen and his background permits, he can apply for citizenship through a formalized process.

Forget about and fight against the garbage about creating paths to citizenship for the illegals already here. Allowing that is the next step into turning our country into something you don’t want for your grandchildren.

Along those lines, at today’s march of illegals in Dallas the news captured a leader of LULAC as he exhorted the crowd with, “this is our land, we’re not going anywhere”. This “our land” exhortation is (as I’ve been told) the battle cry of Hispanics who are working to create a Hispanic homeland in our country. Read up on LULAC, LaRaza, the Reconquistador movement, MEChA (Aztlan) – think long and hard, then make your voice heard.

Dig into Lulac[^]
and read between the lines.

Dig into LaRaza[^] and read between the lines.

Dig around on some of the links provided by MEChA[^]

If you don't read anything else, dig into Aztlan[^] - this is what is at risk, a Hispanic homeland carved out of your country, helped along by cowardly poiticians.

What can you do about the border and immigration?

I am sick and damned tired of the politicians who refuse to address the problems they have created by ignoring the danger of unprotected borders. Repeat, THEY HAVE CREATED THE PROBLEM.

Those same buffoons have now converted the problem they have created such that it is now an immigration problem. So let me have the luxury of repeating myself, I AM SICK AND DAMNED TIRED OF THE POLITICIANS WHO REFUSE TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS THEY HAVE CREATED BY IGNORING THE DANGER.

Sorry President Bush, as much as I respect you, it is not a problem with our immigration laws it is a problem with you and your partners on both sides of the political spectrum who refuse to do their constitutional duty and protect our borders.

The most recent farce was the idiotic dance in the Senate. If you didn’t watch it or pay attention to what went on, a couple of bills introduced in the Senate focused on creating a path to citizenship for people who are here illegally.

That would have been the equivalent of rewarding the guy who tried to jack your car by forcing you to buy him a new one. Just how stupid are these people?

Those Senate bills were roundly defeated, the most egregious being the McCain / Kennedy piece of garbage. That was soundly rejected.

Then there was the farce created by Frist / Reid. This was a “compromise”. This particular compromise INCORPORATED AND EXPANDED the McCain / Kennedy bill – the same bill that was defeated earlier that same day.

The House of Representatives has it right. They have a bill that focuses on border security. Of course the senate can’t stomach it, because it makes sense.

What can you do? Don’t say nothing because it is time to wrest back your country. Consider the following:

Put them on notice. I mean you should let Washington DC (the President, your Representative in the House, your two senators) know how you feel. Call and email each and all.

When you call and / or email, tell them:
If they don’t do anything about border security, and I mean build a real wall like Israel has done, that you’ll mail in your voter registration card and sit out the next election.

Make sure they know you’re a voting Republican or Democrat.

Let them know your household income (you’ll see why below).

Tell them you’ll cash in any US savings bonds you happen to own, this will put a drain on the Treasury if there are any significant number of bond holders out there.

Tell them that on 1-1-2007 you’ll submit a W4 form claiming 99 (or the maximum amount) of dependents so the government will have a limited flow of income during the year.

And if we still don’t get something done, continue not voting and continue the W4 activity years into the future. No, it won’t hurt our country because we’ll have lost it anyway.

Still not completed

Geez, this is taking forever. We've now nearly completed our painting project, but not totally.

• The office is painted and Margie did a superlative job. Instead of "just" a color Margie did sponging for the walls. What "we" did was create a Florida kinda room with a coral color. The way it was done was: 1) wash the walls and ceiling with a solution of TSP, 2) rinse the walls and ceiling with clean water, 3) prime the ceiling with Killz [a kick butt primer that hides everything], 4) prime the walls with a tintable primer that contained pigment that matched the first coat of color, 5) paint the ceiling with an off-white called "Honey Bloom", 6) paint the walls with an undercoat of Blaze Red, 7) apply a Coral color, using sea sponges instead of a brush or typical roller. The result is really slick and makes it look like high dollar wall paper.
• Three walls of the living area are painted a nifty green color. We went through the same drill on those walls: 1) wash, 2) rinse, tinted primer, 3) paint - but no sponging.
• The other wall in the living area is yellow, again the same drill. We carried the yellow color down the hallway. Unlike with the green, we did a special effects thing on the yellow. We mixed in some sparkling granite chips. The result on the yellow walls is a sparkling effect when the light hits it just right.
• The TV now sits inside one wall of the living area, in one of the green walls. It is really pretty, the 61" TV is framed in the green wall with a 3" wide frame, painted off white to match the ceiling.

All of this goes very nice with the bamboo floors.

This weekend we'll paint the kitchen. We're going to carry the yellow into the kitchen and get rid of that gawd-awful orange color I chose umpty-two years ago,

Next week we're having our remaining bathroom redone. This isn't as major an undertaking as the other bathroom was. Here we're going to install a stacked washer and dryer and use the bamboo flooring that remains instead of tile. This means our full size shower will be a half sized shower as the washer and dryer will go in that area. We'll install a new toilet, the black one just doesn't look right now that everything else in our home is brightly colored. Of course, this means more painting. We're going to try another sponging technique on this bath, using a glaze. It should be interesting.

Once the bath and kitchen are complete we're going to re-do the paint in the master bedroom. We aren't satisfied with the paint job the contractor did so we're going to re-paint it using the same color but use a technique called "dragging". That is a base coat of a high gloss (for color and slickness), with a top coat of the same color but maybe a slight variation. You put the top coat on over the base, then take a stiff bristled brush and drag it through the top coat creating lines in the covering. It will look something like a linen finish.

Once we finish that, I'm propping my feet up for a while.

Half finished

Okay it has been a while since I posted anything. Normally I'd be upset enough about something going on that I'd post a rant. Problem is, we're still upside down here with the latest bit of renovations we have going on. Actually this bit is done. The master bedroom is now big enough to call it a master bedroom. The cat, poor Moose - bless her kitty heart, walks around trying to figure out what has happened. A couple of months ago she watched a bathroom disappear, only to see it be replaced by a much bigger one. Then she watched the bedroom disappear only to see it be replaced by yet another, bigger room. She's still having trouble figuring out where the wwalk-in closet came from, I don't think she's noticed that the office has disappeared.

We still haven't put everything back in it's proper place. We have 3 bedrooms worth of "stuff" (actually an office and 2 bedrooms) scattered on the balcony (hope nothing blows off) and in our living room, hallway and dining area. It really is fun to have to stumble over "stuff". Oh yeah, the dust is great too. I never in my wildest imagination (and I have an active one) would I have thought that a little sanding could generate dust dunes, but for sure we'll get that taken care of as well.

I haven't posted any pictures from Christmas, much less the renovations, since one of the things that is scattered all over the house happens to be our personal, non-work PC. With luck we can get that set back up and I can go back to ranting about things I can't control. Or not. Now that we've done the back of the condo (bath, bedroom, walk-in) it has become apparent that we need to do something about painting the rest of the place and re-carpeting. We're toying with not doing carpet but going with a bamboo floor. Bamboo is interesting, more expensive than laminate flooring (imitation wood) and less expensive than wood. Since it is a renewable resource (bamboo grows fast) it doesn't come at a premium. So we still have a decision to make, wood v. carpet v. laminate v. bamboo.
Oh, did I say the bedroom is red?

Cripes - another renovation project

We had so much fun renovating our bathroom that we decided to do another project. This time we're deleting a bedroom. What we're doing is converting our 3 bedroom condo into a 2 bedroom. When we redid the bathroom we accidentially got rid of half of Margie's closet space. Now that is bad because she had to store a lot of her clothes in big plastic tubs.

The 3 bedrooms were fairly small as you may remember if you ever visited. That really didn't matter much since one of the three was used as my office and the other just a junk room. The change we're making combines half of one of the bedrooms with the master bedroom, making it an actual master bedroom. Doing this makes the master bedroom and the rennovated bathroom a master suite. The resulting bedroom is roughly 23 feet by 18 feet, big enough for a party.

The remaining half of the bedroom (the other half is being added to the master) is being converted into a walk-in closet - giving Margie back her lost closet space. I get some too and really need it because in between the two combined rooms was a small closet that was a part of the original master bedroom(on the master bedroom side) and another small closet in the bedroom beng used as an office. The walk-in closet will be 16 feet by 8 feet. We'll outfit it with a closet system, We discovered that you can find some nifty such systems, custom designed, on line.

The other thing we're doing is embedding our large screen TV into the living room wall. The back of the living room is a closet so we'll lose half of that to house the TV. That is okay because, well, we're adding a walk-in as discussed above. The result will be more living room space.

Of course the Christmas Tree is still up and we have "stuff" sitting everywhere and everything is a complete mess at the moment. Once it is complete we'll have a very comfortable home, albeit shy one bedroom.

Christmas

It is now December 30th and Margie and I are looking forward to New Years Eve at Caesar's.

The year has been interesting and in my view began with our marriage in March, but then I've gotten to be an old softy.

We spent Christmas week at my brother's home, he and his bride (of many, many years) made us feel at home as they always do. Even though we normally only see them once a year our visits are like the resumption of a conversation that was paused for only a few minutes.

Our Christmas celebration there is in two parts, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. Christmas Eve is wonderfully chaotic. My brother and his wife, Nanette, graciously open their home to their neice and nephew (who happen to be my kids) and their children and grandchild (my grandchildren and great grandchild). That tribe plus their own daughter and her significant other had a blast from noon on through early evening.

Christmas Day was unique for both Margie and I. This is the first year in the 15 or so years we've been together that we've actually exchanged and opened our gifts on Christmas morning. That was way cool. Previously we had a Christmas before leaving for Texas, but not this year. After exchanging gifts we attended a service at Nanette's church, yet another first. We seem to be doing a lot of that this year. Later in the day we visited with my daughter, Tina, and her husband Oz - continuing a long standing tradition.

Speaking of tradition, on Friday of that week we had our traditional Mexican food dinner at a terrific and fashionably grungy local Tex-Mex eatery. Somehow that has become a "must do" event, something I wouldn't miss if I had to be wheeled in.

While we weren't able to see any of Margie's side of the family over the Christmas holiday, we were able to talk to most of them at some point and they were in our hearts and prayers.

I'll post some pictures on New Years Day, I got really ambitous this year and took 70 or so. Okay, I really didn't get ambitous - Margie told me to. She has created a scrapbook of Christmasses past and made sure I knew it was my responsibility to have plenty of pictures for the 2005 addition. Another first, I listened to her (ha ha).

Signing off for now and wishing any reader a happy and prosperous New Year.

Wolf Blitzer hammered by Don King

A snippet from an interview of the boxing promoter Don King by CNN's Wolf Blitzer

THE SITUATION ROOM December 14, 2005 4:00 PM EST

WOLF BLITZER, HOST: Don king is known worldwide as a big-time boxing promoter. But has also taken some new fights on recently...You love George Bush?
DON KING: I love George Walker Bush because I think he's a revolutionary. He's a president that comes in with conclusiveness. What they're doing in tomorrow in Iraq is a demonstration of that for the vote for democracy. The fundamental process of democracy is freedom of speech, law and order, being able to have freedom, working with people and working and governing yourselves. George Bush is that. He included in...
BLITZER: Do you have any regrets supporting him? Take a look at that picture when you and I were there at the diner last year. Do you have any regrets supporting him as enthusiastically as you did?
KING: No, I don't. In fact, I want to support him more now because it seems like everybody is punching him. You know what I mean? But he's fighting back, and he's throwing great combinations. And I think he's the guy that is really a revolutionary president.I think he's a president that cares about the people he represents, but doesn't compromise himself to the extent that he acquiesce and accommodate. He goes out there and says like it is, and tries to make things better. Inclusiveness, education, is fighting for that.These are the things that many guys that don't fight for -- George Walker Bush is a tremendous advocate to America, a great president for the great American people, and he's decisive. He's doesn't equivocate.

War on Christmas

If you're a FoxNews watcher you'll have seen the hew and cry regarding the war on Christmas, a fact highlighted by: John Gibson, Neil Cavuto and Bill O’Reilly. I happen to agree, there is a conscious effort by local governments, businesses and schools to transform a unique American adaptation of Christmas into some generic winter holiday. Presumably this is to avoid offending anyone who sees a religious (Christian) component to the season. FoxNews has chronicled some truly ridiculous attempts such as the rewording of Silent Night, changing it to an ambiguous secular tune, and the barring of red and green in a Plano, Texas public school because the colors were too “Christmassy”.

This is political correctness run amuck and we need to push back. I’ve seen other news shows where the contention was that the war on Christmas is a contrivance by FoxNews to sell books and build audience / market share. The truth is, the war exists. You can see it in the stores (try to find a nativity scene or the words, “Merry Christmas”), in advertisements (try to find anything other than “happy holidays”) and in the banishment of Salvation Army bell ringers from Target Store entrances.

If you don’t believe it and you’re anywhere from 35 years or older, pay attention and check the differences between what you remember as a child or young adult and what you see today.

What I find extremely interesting, on a different level, is that the current war on Christmas has a parallel to a previous one. You may need to be older than 35 to remember this one. The battle the last time was against the commercialization of Christmas – taking Christ out of the holiday. That means in the last 50 years or so we’ve seen Christmas evolve from primarily a religious celebration into a highly commercialized event, albeit still with a religious connotation, and now we’re seeing the next step where anything that ties the holiday to Christianity is being blurred, erased or trivialized.

If we let this happen, we’re a collection of fools because we’ll lose the heart of what is not only a religious celebration, the birth of Christ, but one of the most important family holidays on the calendar.

Christmas, at least for me, is a time when the importance of family is paramount. Both my wife and I look forward to our annual trek to Dallas to be with my brother and his wife, my kids and their children. We spend a considerable amount of time in preparation for the trip, like a couple of kids we start weeks prior, shopping (that danged commercialization) for gifts to take as well as to ship to other family scattered all over the country, and Margie (bless her heart) spends weeks baking cookies to share with all.

This year the holiday is even more special since it is our first as husband and wife and the first in decades for us both as active / practicing Catholics.

War on Christmas? Not in this home.

New Marine

Here is a young man that would make any parent proud.

His name is Justin, he is one of my grandkids and he just graduated from Marine bootcamp. He came home one day and announced to his parents that he had enlisted, it was a done deed. He had taken a look at his future and decided he could make it much better by serving his country then taking advantage of the benefits that derived from that service.

My hat is off to Justin, a fine young man and one that would make any parent proud. The country needs many more like him, young men that take control of their lives and attempt to make something of themselves.

He'll soon be in traing for his speciality as a combat engineer. I wish him well and admire his courage. God bless.

Thanksgiving

Okay, so Thanksgiving was last week and I am just now posting on the subject.

Margie and I had a simply wonderful Thanksgiving holiday, it was the perfect family day. Even though we're hundreds of miles from the rest of our family, we were in touch with nearly everyone. I swear we spent most of the day (that didn't involve eating) talking to family, thank God for the telephone. The meal was great, as usual, sharing it even better.

The day after, that would be Friday, we woke up reasonably early and headed out for Christmas (NOT WINTER HOLIDAY!!!) shopping. We did our shopping at a high-end outlet mall that had a huge array of shops, terific prices and a good selection. The bottom line is that we did all our shopping in 8 hours flat. Good thing we have an SUV sorta vehicle.

Islamic link

This is a URL that I came across. It is a link to an Islamic scientific site[^] - I offer it with little comment. Oh crap, I am actually posting it because a Muslim posted a link to an article that "proved" the Quran supposedly posited an important bit of scientific information some 1,400 years ago. You have to dig around for that particular article since I have posted the link to the home page. If you dig around you'll find some interesting Islamic views. No, no one there is calling for your death (or mine for that matter), but it is interesting.

A Marine's report from Iraq

Iraq report from a Marine home on leave. Really interesting.

This came to me via email from a friend in Dallas. It is a father's debriefing of his son.

A couple of weekends ago I got to spend time with my son, who was on his first leave since returning from Iraq. He is well (a little thin), and already bored. He will be returning to Iraq for a second tour in early '06 and has already re-enlisted early for 4 more years. He loves the Marine Corps and is actually looking forward to returning to Iraq.

He spent 7 months at Camp Blue Diamond in Ramadi. Aka: Fort Apache. He saw and did a lot and the following is what he had to say about weapons, equipment, tactics and other miscellaneous info which may be of interest to you. Nothing is by any means classified. No politics here, just a Marine with a bird's eye view.

Opinions:
1) The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. Kid says you feel filthy 2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it is lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also. They like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the picattiny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cant be reliably counted on to put the enemy down. Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate use.

2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light machine gun. Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of shit. Chronic jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly. (that's fun in the middle of a firefight).

3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys hit multiple times and still in the fight.

4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well, used frequently for clearing houses to good effect.

5) The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.308) cal. belt fed machine gun, developed to replace the old M-60 (what a beautiful weapon that was!!). Thumbs up. Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts ‘em down. Originally developed as a vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the structure over there.

6) The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. Ma deuce is still worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight stopper, puts their dicks in the dirt every time. The most coveted weapon in-theater.

7) The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few exceptions, can reliably be expected to put 'em down with a torso hit. The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The old government model .45's are being re-issued en masse.

8) The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and they love the 7.62 round.

9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle suicide bombers ( we actually stop a lot of them) and barricaded enemy. Definitely here to stay.

10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in .308 but some in 300 win mag. Heavily modified Remington 700's. Great performance. Snipers have been used heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a marine sniper on his third tour in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcock's record for confirmed kills with OVER 100.

11) The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approx. 6 lbs. and can reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even will stop an AK-47 round. The bad news: Hot as shit to wear, almost unbearable in the summer heat (which averages over 120 degrees). Also, the enemy now goes for head shots whenever possible. All the bullshit about the old body armor making our guys vulnerable to the IED's was a non-starter. The IED explosions are enormous and body armor doesn't make any difference at all in most cases.

12) Night Vision and Infrared Equipment: Thumbs way up. Spectacular performance. Our guys see in the dark and own the night, period. Very little enemy action after evening prayers. More and more enemy being whacked at night during movement by our hunter-killer teams. We've all seen the videos.

13) Lights: Thumbs up. Most of the weapon mounted and personal lights are Surefires, and the troops love 'em. Invaluable for night urban operations. He carried a $34 Surefire G2 on a neck lanyard and loved it.

I cant help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and ordnance are 50 or more years old!!!!!!!!! With all our technology, it's the WWII and Vietnam era weapons that everybody wants!!!! The infantry fighting is frequent, up close and brutal. No quarter is given or shown.

Bad guy weapons:
1) Mostly AK47's . The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the desert than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably. PKM belt fed light machine guns are also common and effective. Luckily, the enemy mostly shoots like shit. Undisciplined "spray and pray" type fire. However, they are seeing more and more precision weapons, especially sniper rifles. (Iran, again)

Fun fact: Captured enemy have apparently marveled at the marksmanship of our guys and how hard they fight. They are apparently told in Jihad school that the Americans rely solely on technology, and can be easily beaten in close quarters combat for their lack of toughness. Let's just say they know better now.


2) The RPG: Probably the infantry weapon most feared by our guys. Simple, reliable and as common as dogshit. The enemy responded to our up-armored humvees by aiming at the windshields, often at point blank range. Still killing a lot of our guys.

3) The IED: The biggest killer of all. Can be anything from old Soviet anti-armor mines to jury rigged artillery shells. A lot found in his area were in abandoned cars. The enemy would take 2 or 3 155mm artillery shells and wire them together. Most were detonated by cell phone, and the explosions are enormous. You're not safe in any vehicle, even an M1 tank. Driving is by far the most dangerous thing our guys do over there. Lately, they are much more sophisticated shaped charges (Iranian) specifically designed to penetrate armor.

Fact: Most of the ready made IED's are supplied by Iran, who is also providing terrorists (Hezbollah types) to train the insurgents in their use and tactics. That's why the attacks have been so deadly lately. Their concealment methods are ingenious, the latest being shape charges in Styrofoam containers spray painted to look like the cinderblocks that litter all Iraqi roads. We find about 40% before they detonate, and the bomb disposal guys are unsung heroes of this war.

4) Mortars and rockets: Very prevalent. The soviet era 122mm rockets (with an 18km range) are becoming more prevalent. One of his NCO's lost a leg to one. These weapons cause a lot of damage inside the wire. His base was hit almost daily his entire time there by mortar and rocket fire, often at night to disrupt sleep patterns and cause fatigue (It did). More of a psychological weapon than anything else. The enemy mortar teams would jump out of vehicles, fire a few rounds, and then haul ass in a matter of seconds.

5) Bad guy technology: Simple yet effective. Most communication is by cell and satellite phones, and also by email on laptops. They use handheld GPS units for navigation and Google earth for overhead views of our positions. Their weapons are good, if not fancy, and prevalent. Their explosives and bomb technology is TOP OF THE LINE. Night vision is rare. They are very careless with their equipment and the captured GPS units and laptops are treasure troves of Intel when captured.

Who are the bad guys?:
Most of the carnage is caused by the Zarqawi Al Qaeda group. They operate mostly in Anbar province (Fallujah and Ramadi). These are mostly foreigners, non-Iraqi Sunni Arab Jihadists from all over the Muslim world (and Europe). Most enter Iraq through Syria (with, of course, the knowledge and complicity of the Syrian govt.), and then travel down the trail of towns along the Euphrates River that we've been hitting hard for the last few months. Some are virtually untrained young Jihadists that often end up as suicide bombers or in sacrifice squads. Most, however, are hard core terrorists from all the usual suspects (Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas etc.).

These are the guys running around murdering civilians en masse and cutting heads off. The Chechens (many of whom are Caucasian), are supposedly the most ruthless and the best fighters. (they have been fighting the Russians for years). In the Baghdad area and south, most of the insurgents are Iranian inspired (and led) Iraqi Shiites. The Iranian Shiia have been very adept at infiltrating the Iraqi local govt's, the police forces and the Army. The have had a massive spy and agitator network there since the Iran-Iraq war in the early 80's. Most of the Saddam loyalists were killed, captured or gave up long ago.

Bad Guy Tactics:
When they are engaged on an infantry level they get their asses kicked every time. Brave, but stupid. Suicidal Banzai-type charges were very common earlier in the war and still occur. They will literally sacrifice 8-10 man teams in suicide squads by sending them screaming and firing Aka's and RPG's directly at our bases just to probe the defenses. They get mowed down like grass every time. ( see the M2 and M240 above).

His base was hit like this often. When engaged, they have a tendency to flee to the same building, probably for what they think will be a glorious last stand. Instead, we call in air and that's the end of that more often than not. These hole-ups are referred to as Alpha Whiskey Romeos (Allah's Waiting Room). We have the laser guided ground-air thing down to a science. The fast movers, mostly Marine F-18's, are taking an ever increasing toll on the enemy. When caught out in the open, the helicopter gunships and AC-130 Spectre gunships cut them to ribbons with cannon and rocket fire, especially at night. Interestingly, artillery is hardly used at all.

Fun fact: The enemy death toll is supposedly between 45-50 thousand. That is why we're seeing less and less infantry attacks and more IED, suicide bomber shit. The new strategy is simple: attrition.

The insurgent tactic most frustrating is their use of civilian non-combatants as cover. They know we do all we can to avoid civilian casualties and therefore schools, hospitals and (especially) Mosques are locations where they meet, stage for attacks, cache weapons and ammo and flee to when engaged. They have absolutely no regard whatsoever for civilian casualties. They will terrorize locals and murder without hesitation anyone believed to be sympathetic to the Americans or the new Iraqi govt. Kidnapping of family members (especially children) is common to influence people they are trying to influence but cant reach, such as local govt. officials, clerics, tribal leaders, etc.).

The first thing our guys are told is "don't get captured". They know that if captured they will be tortured and beheaded on the internet.

Zarqawi openly offers bounties for anyone who brings him a live American serviceman. This motivates the criminal element who otherwise don't give a shit about the war. A lot of the beheading victims were actually kidnapped by common criminals and sold to Zarqawi. As such, for our guys, every fight is to the death. Surrender is not an option.

The Iraqis are a mixed bag. Some fight well, others aren't worth a shit. Most do okay with American support. Finding leaders is hard, but they are getting better. It is widely viewed that Zarqawi's use of suicide bombers, en masse, against the civilian population was a serious tactical mistake. Many Iraqis were galvanized and the caliber of recruits in the Army and the police forces went up, along with their motivation. It also led to an exponential increase in good intel because the Iraqis are sick of the insurgent attacks against civilians. The Kurds are solidly pro-American and fearless fighters.

According to him, morale among our guys is very high. They not only believe they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted.

They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see shit like "Are we losing in Iraq" on TV and the print media. For the most part, they are satisfied with their equipment, food and leadership. Bottom line though, and they all say this, there are not enough guys there to drive the final stake through the heart of the insurgency, primarily because there aren't enough troops in-theater to shut down the borders with Iran and Syria. The Iranians and the Syrians just cant stand the thought of Iraq being an American ally (with, of course, permanent US bases there).

Anyway, that's it, hope you found it interesting, I sure did.