Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Porous Boarders

I haven’t ranted in a bit so I'm going to go with an old standby: Immigration.

It's not that I'm against immigration or immigrants in particular. My mom is Filipino and thus an immigrant herself. I firmly believe that anyone who wants to become an American Citzen™ should be able to do so with little or no restrictions. Belly up to the bar, the bill is due April 15th.

My problem is with illegal immigration and the movement to appease them. They benefit from the state without having to pay into it. They are a burden on our social services. Now, keep in mind these are criminals, but some people want to give them drivers licences and college tuition. Not only is it unfair to native citizens but really unfair to those immigrants that have worked hard to earn their citizenship. It's also unfair to the illegals themselves who often face predators, both animal and human variety, just trying to cross the boarders.

It would seem our government isn't concerned with effective U.S. immigration law enforcement. A recent action by average citizens proves that it is possible to keep a tighter grip on our boarders if only the government would step up to the plate. Where was the ACLU during all of this? The once heralded protector of the common man? Out smoking pot.

Not that I have anything against the ACLU in particular. I'm just against communism in general. Roger Nash Baldwin, a founding member, was once quoted as saying,
"I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is, of course, the goal."
While I applaud the organization in fighting for some of the biggest civil liberty cases in U.S. History, they are shoddily inconsistent and biased in their approach. The fact that they are in support of CAIR is alone cause for me to withdraw support.

... oh, and NAMBLA

Sunday, July 10, 2005

The Left is not Right

Fisking Armando over at Kos:
. . . Meanwhile in Iraq
by Armando

Sun Jul 10th, 2005 at 01:18:24 PDT

More violence:

A suicide bomber killed at least 18 people and wounded more than 40 at an Iraqi army recruiting center in western Baghdad on Sunday, police and hospital sources said.

It was the bloodiest suicide bombing in a week that has seen something of a lull in this form of attack.

A suicide car bomber also killed three civilians and wounded 10 near the local authority building in the ethnically tense northern oil city of Kirkuk on Sunday, police said.

Update [2005-7-10 4:18:24 by Armando]: One for the whoops department:

The U.S. commander of military forces in and around the Iraqi capital said Friday that insurgents apparently are no longer capable of carrying out more than sporadic attacks in Baghdad after a seven-week security crackdown. Maj. Gen. William Webster, who heads the 30,000 U.S. and foreign troops and 15,000 Iraqi soldiers known collectively as Task Force Baghdad, cautioned that "there are some more threats ahead. I do believe, however, that the ability of these insurgents to conduct sustained high-intensity operations, as they did last year -- we've mostly eliminated that."

Boy they made a liar out of that General pretty damn quick didn't they? Tip to btzoo.

No "they" didn't. One attack does not a "sustained, high-intensity operation" make. Lets just ignore the fact that there was a lull. Lets just ignore the fact that no more than a month ago these VBIEDs where modus operandi for the AI forces in Iraq. The fact is we're stopping them. And I no longer call them suicide bombers either - recent reports indicate that the "bombers" are druged and strapped (taped and handcuffed) inside the cars. The bombs themselves have two ignition devices - one which the driver can operate and one remote. Seems to me that if you force someone to kill themselves that should be called murder not suicide.

And the British are leaving! the British are leaving! Probably:

The British government appeared to confirm a newspaper report that it had a plan for sharply cutting back its military presence in the south of the country early next year alongside a possible halving of U.S. forces further north at the same time. The defense minister said the plan was just one scenario.

Oh really? Leaving now? Not re-allocating resources? Concentrating troops where most needed? Acutally leaving the country? The quote states the Brits will cut back it's military presence. Not that it will withdraw it's troops from the country. But when you're grabbing at any straws to justify your position sometimes the facts can get kinda muddled I guess. Why would they withdraw from the south and the U.S. the north? Could it possibly be because the northern and southern provences of Iraq are less violent? That Iraqi Police and Security Forces are able to do the job themselves? We wouldn't want that now would we? That would mean we're winning and Busco would be justified! Can't have that no matter what the facts proves. As we all know, truth is just a matter of perspective....

And there is no end in sight:

A spokesman for the Pentagon, which has said the war in Iraq could last years, insisted Washington had no schedule for withdrawal.

Wait. Didn't you just state the British were leaving?

And Afghanistan remains problematic:

With Britain about to take the lead NATO military role in Afghanistan, a reduction in Iraq has been widely expected.

Oh and Osama bin Laden remains a free man, even though Porter Goss knows where he is, but he doesn't have a permission slip to go get him from Pakistan.

Yeah, free to choose any hole he wants to hide in. Seen any videos from him lately? No? Strange that after a major Al Queda ops he's silent. Probably just searching for the right things to say. Maybe the batteries for his Camcorder ran out...

And we are less safe now than on 9/11.

Wrong. 2,000+ killed on September 11. 192 killed in Spain on March 11. 49 killed on July 7 in England. See a trend here?

Worst President ever.

Worst. Post. Ever.

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

China? Who the fsck is China ...

Google News has an article from Businessweek Online reporting the Chinese goverment basically telling the US Government to back off on the UNOCAL deal.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry indicates in a statement released Tuesday, "We demand that the U.S. Congress correct its mistaken ways of politicizing economic and trade issues and stop interfering in the normal commercial exchanges between enterprises of the two countries," .

The Iranian and North Korean goverments like to do this too - tell us how to conduct our own affairs. This posturing is kinda silly if you ask me. I stopped doing it in the 5th grade.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm an ardent capitalist. If CNOOC was *not* a state owned entity then I'd be all for it - yay Capitalism! But CNOOC is owned by China. Chevron isn't owned by the U.S. Not even in part. That makes the CNOOC offer an unfair bid in my eyes. If we were to put the GNP of the U.S. behind Chevron's bid then I would reconsider. This isn't just protectionist rhetoric either - those that know me know I am no protectionist. Heck, I would even consider a bid fair if the state which owned the corporation was a democracy - any democracy. But this isn't the case. The state in question is a socialist junta. In that environment you get locked up in very nasty places if you dissent with the party. You think the CEO of CNOOC is immune?

This really isn't a trade issue - it's a security issue. Do we really want a national resource owned by a potential enemy state? And China is far from friendly. Those that think otherwise may be overmedicating. All the hubbub comming out of that country is for one purpose - to keep the masses occupied. Keep them distracted from the fact that though their country has one of the highest GPDs of the world - 3rd after the U.S. and EU (per 2005 CIA world factbook) it has 10% of it's population living below the poverty line (U.S. = 5.5%) and has 9.8% unemployment (U.S. = 5.5%, EU = 9.5%). If I were Chinese I'd be pissed as well.

I just hope the Chinese people remember they have t'ien ming, a Mandate of Heaven, and overthrow the current despots and put new ones in charge.