Governator Channels TR's Immigrant View

If, like John Edwards, you believe in channeling, then you might get the impression that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is channeling Teddy Roosevelt, and without knowing it, he is channeling my mother as well. While few criticized Roosevelt for his outspoken opinion that immigrants who do not learn English were not really Americans, Schwarzenegger has come under fire from Spanish language journalists and Democrats for urging immigrants to avoid Spanish language media and immerse themselves in English to learn the language faster. Learning to speak, read, and write in English is critical for a successful life in America, but publicly stating so has become politically incorrect.

This issue has personal importance in my life, as my mother, who emigrated from Germany in the 1950s, immersed herself in English media to learn the language, which was required for her naturalization process. She acquired a fondness for American movies and television programs, particularly westerns, and these helped in her assimilation of English. She attended citizenship and government courses and became the most patriotically “American” American I have ever known. She cut all ideological ties to her birthplace and in fact never returned to visit it because she cannot bear to leave America, even temporarily. She passed her fierce loyalty to the United States on to her children, teaching us that service to this country, in any capacity, was the least we could do to show appreciation for the freedoms we are blessed with as Americans. She truly followed Teddy Roosevelt’s advice to immigrants, given many years earlier in 1919 (not 1907, as some sources have erroneously claimed):

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.

But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here.

Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all.

We have room for but one flag, the American flag.

We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...

…and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.

Roosevelt’s remarks did not differ greatly from the statements by Schwarzenegger that attracted media attention yesterday. Fox News reported the “Governator’s” comments on learning English as follows:

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's remarks that immigrants should avoid Spanish-language media if they want to learn English quickly left some Hispanic journalists shaking their heads.

"You've got to turn off the Spanish television set" and stay away from Spanish-language television, books and newspapers, the Republican governor said Wednesday night at the annual convention of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. "You're just forced to speak English, and that just makes you learn the language faster."

Schwarzenegger, who emigrated to the U.S. from Austria, was responding to a question about how Hispanic students can improve academic performance. The audience included many journalists who work for Spanish-language media outlets.

"I know this sounds odd and this is the politically incorrect thing to say and I'm going to get myself in trouble," he said. "But I know that when I came to this country, I very rarely spoke German to anyone."

Whatever one thinks of Schwarzenegger as a politician, the truth of his message about learning English quickly is undeniable. Language immersion is unquestionably the most effective method for English assimilation or assimilation into any language. Of course, the Spanish-language journalists despised his comments because they fear for their careers. While they claim to offer a public service for Spanish speaking immigrants, they in fact perpetuate poverty and doors closed to social and economic opportunity by providing a crutch that permanently hobbles Spanish-language media users rather than supporting them in their assimilation into American culture. Perhaps that is the key. Unlike Teddy Roosevelt’s vision of immigrants becoming Americans, Spanish-language media accentuate and maintain cultural divides, in essence encouraging immigrants to make America more like their native country than to make their lives conform to America’s cultural history.

Schwarzenegger’s critics responded to his remarks:

"I'm sitting shaking my head not believing that someone would be so naive and out of it that he would say something like that," Alex Nogales, president and CEO of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, said Thursday.

Nogales said immigrants need Spanish-language media to stay informed and "function in this society."

Pilar Marrero, the political editor for the Spanish-language newspaper La Opinion, chuckled at the governor's comments, saying many Hispanics did not have time to learn English.

"They're too busy working," she said.

Alex Nogales and Pilar Marrero are, of course, trying to preserve their media empires built on the Spanish-language enslavement of immigrants. Nogales believes that immigrants need to stay informed and “function in this society” by watching Spanish-language media, yet the opposite is true. To function in this society as a whole, and not just small geographic pockets of other Spanish-speaking immigrants, they must learn English, and English media immersion is an effective way to achieve that goal. Clearly Nogales has a vested interest in downplaying the importance of learning English.

Pillar’s comment that Hispanics have no time to learn English because they are too busy working is also disingenuous and self-serving. I learned a foreign language in an intense immersion program where we were expected to speak that language with our colleagues 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. Immigrants, according to Democrats and President Bush, are working jobs “Americans won’t do,” like picking fruit, washing cars, trimming lawns, and so forth. As an American teen many years ago I worked many such jobs and I can assure Marrero that there is ample opportunity for these workers to practice speaking English with each other while they are in the fields, traveling to and from jobs, or waiting by a Home Depot for selection as day laborers. I never hear them speaking anything but Spanish, and it is not because they have no time, it is because it is easier to speak Spanish than struggle with learning English. They go home at night and watch television, in Spanish, and thus miss the opportunity for vocabulary growth as well as the practice time with English speakers. That has been and continues to be a recipe for economic and social subservience for immigrants, and learning English is the key that will open countless doors for entrepreneurial and educational ventures.

Teddy Roosevelt, a revered American president, would be ridiculed by today’s politically correct Democrats, if their reactions to Schwarzenegger are any indication:

In October, the governor was criticized by Democrats when he said some Mexican immigrants "try to stay Mexican" when they come to the United States and urged them to learn English and U.S. history and "make an effort to become part of America.

This begs the question, why do Democrats want immigrants not to learn English or U.S. history? Perhaps it is because once immigrants learn English and embrace America’s history they are far more likely to become economically independent, more capitalistic, and less reliant on socialist government benefits that rely on poverty and ignorance for program survival. Perhaps it is because when immigrants learn English they can better understand the language of government and law, which is far more complex than conversational English. Perhaps they do not want Hispanics to read the bills being debated in Congress or understand the laws they are expected to obey. Hispanic immigrants should ask themselves why one political party does not want them to become truly American or fluent in English.

My mother, like Schwarzenegger and millions of other legal immigrants immersed themselves in English because they understood that success in American life could only be achieved through learning the language and because they were attracted to the culture, ideals, freedoms, and values of America. They wanted to be Americans first, no hyphenations, no latent loyalties to any other land, and no wishing America were more like their birthplace. Spanish-language media and Democrats may attack Schwarzenegger for espousing these ideas, but in doing so they are merely exposing an ugly and selfish desire to maintain a class of immigrants with little hope of upward mobility because they lack English language skills. This approach by Spanish media and Democrats may be good for their bank accounts and ballot boxes, but it is harmful for Hispanic immigrants.

Technorati Tags:
Arnold Schwarzenegger, English Immersion, Theodore Roosevelt, Immigration, Spanish Language Media, Assimilation, English as Official Language, Democrats

Reid, Pelosi Lack Al-Maliki's Faith, Spine

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are, in a politically correct euphemism, “diplomatically challenged.” This condition has manifested itself through various symptoms over the past six months, including Pelosi’s unconstitutional and borderline treasonous “diplomatic” visit to Syria, Harry Reid’s declaration to the world and the enemy that “the war is lost” in Iraq, and their newest premature and impatient judgment that the surge strategy currently underway in Iraq is a failure, giving even more encouragement to the enemy attempting to destroy Iraq’s democratically elected government. Despite the pleading of Iraq’s parliamentary leaders and Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki for the U.S. to remain steadfast in its defense of the Iraqi democracy, the pleas have fallen on Reid’s and Pelosi’s deaf ears, blind eyes, and cold hearts, resulting in an international cold shoulder that is the antithesis of responsible diplomacy.

Never mind the fact that Reid and Pelosi have judged the surge a failure 3 months in advance of the scheduled progress report to be delivered by General Petraeus in September. Never mind the fact that Petraeus’ current summaries reveal significant reductions in violence and increased rebuilding in the Anbar province. Reid and Pelosi remind me of a line from the George Banks character in Disney’s Mary Poppins. While in a particularly irritable mood, Banks sits down at the piano in his home, plays one note, and promptly judges that the piano is out of tune. He then chastens his incredibly patient wife for allowing the piano to have become out of tune. He states to her, “When I sit down to an instrument, I expect it be in tune.” Mrs. Banks points out, “But dear, you don’t play.” George Banks, in classic Reid/Pelosi mentality, shouts in response, “Madam that is entirely beside the point. Kindly do not cloud the issue with facts!”

What are the facts on progress in Iraq and the effectiveness of the surge strategy? General Petraeus stated that the results thus far have been mixed, with “breathtaking” achievements in some provinces, but increased violence in others. Reid and Pelosi do want their issues clouded with facts, and so they choose to ignore Petraeus’s explanation that the surge strategy itself draws more terrorists and insurgents into confrontation, and this naturally produces statistical increases in casualties on both sides in the short term. They also choose to ignore Petraeus’s reports that the Iraqi Army has increased its enrollment by 20,000 men so far this year and it continues to grow steadily. It now stands at approximately 120,000-150,000 and is becoming better trained, better equipped, and more capable with each passing month. More importantly, residents in some provinces, Sunni and Shia, have risen to take up arms against al Qaeda, recognizing the terrorist group as their common enemy. The result has been a complete retreat of al Qaeda from those provinces. These are the facts of the surge strategy thus far, but Reid and Pelosi want no silver linings found in their clouds. From a letter to the White House written jointly by Reid and Pelosi:

"As many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote.

"The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.

"It has not enhanced America’s national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased.

The defeatist attitudes displayed by our Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House are in starkly embarrassing contrast with the optimism and faith in democracy displayed by Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki. I have recently been reading Never Give In! The Best of Winston Churchill's Speeches, particularly those speeches he delivered personally or via radio to the citizens and government of the United States from 1940 until the attack on Pearl Harbor. In every speech he patiently and graciously attempted to convince the American people that their interests were tied to Britain’s and to join directly in the battle to preserve freedom in Europe rather than remain entrenched in isolationism. The tone of those speeches, in trying to convince America to join a war that would surely engulf it eventually, was eerily reminiscent of Prime Minister Al-Maliki’s current pleas for America to stand firmly by its new democratic ally in a war for freedom already in progress.

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal contained a column penned by Prime Minister Al-Maliki entitled, “Our Common Struggle,” in which the Iraqi leader offered an eloquent appeal for America’s steadfastness and patience, lacing his arguments with historical precedent and providing an internal audit of the current conditions in Iraq. It should be required reading for all members of Congress, all members of the media, and all Americans who insist that Iraq is a “quagmire,” “failure,” or that “the war is lost.”

Here are some of the highlights from the Prime Minister’s OpinionJournal piece, but I recommend reading it in its entirety:

Under the Baath [Saddam] tyranny, Iraqis were to endure a brutal regime the likes of which they had never known before. Countless people were put to death on the smallest measure of suspicion. Wars were waged by that regime and our national treasure was squandered without the consent of a population that was herded into costly and brutal military campaigns. Today when I hear the continuous American debate about the struggle raging in Iraq, I can only recall with great sorrow the silence which attended the former dictator's wars.

It is perhaps true that only people who are denied the gift of liberty can truly appreciate its full meaning and bounty....

….War being what it is, the images of Iraq that come America's way are of car bombs and daily explosions. Missing from the coverage are the great, subtle changes our country is undergoing, the birth of new national ideas and values which will in the end impose themselves despite the death and destruction that the terrorists have been hell-bent on inflicting on us. Those who endured the brutality of the former regime, those who saw the outside world avert its gaze from their troubles, know the magnitude of the change that has come to Iraq. A fundamental struggle is being fought on Iraqi soil between those who believe that Iraqis, after a long nightmare, can retrieve their dignity and freedom, and others who think that oppression is the order of things and that Iraqis are doomed to a political culture of terror, prisons and mass graves. Some of our neighbors have made this struggle more lethal still, they have placed their bets on the forces of terror in pursuit of their own interests.

When I became prime minister a year and a half ago, my appointment emerged out of a political process unique in our neighborhood: Some 12 million voters took part in our parliamentary elections. They gave voice to their belief in freedom and open politics and their trust imposed heavy burdens on all of us in political life. Our enemies grew determined to drown that political process in indiscriminate violence, to divert attention from the spectacle of old men and women casting their vote, for the first time, to choose those who would govern in their name. You may take this right for granted in America, but for us this was a tantalizing dream during the decades of dictatorship and repression.

….Iraq is well on its way to passing a new oil law that would divide the national treasure among our provinces and cities, based on their share of the population. This was intended to reassure those provinces without oil that they will not be left behind and consigned to poverty. The goal is to repair our oil sector, open the door for new investments and raise the standard of living of Iraqi families. Our national budget this year is the largest in Iraq's history, its bulk dedicated to our most neglected provinces and to improving the service sector in the country as a whole. Our path has been made difficult by the saboteurs and the terrorists who target our infrastructure and our people, but we have persevered, even though our progress has been obscured by the scenes of death and destruction.

Daily we still fight the battle for our security. We lose policemen and soldiers to the violence, as do the multinational forces fighting along our side. We are training and equipping a modern force, a truly national and neutral force, aided by our allies. This is against the stream of history here, where the armed forces have traditionally been drawn into political conflicts and struggles. What gives us sustenance and hope is an increase in the numbers of those who volunteer for our armed forces, which we see as proof of the devotion of our people to the stability and success of our national government.

We have entered into a war, I want it known, against militias that had preyed upon the weakness of the national government….We believe that the best way to defeat these militias is to build and enhance the capabilities of our government as a defender of the rights of our citizens. A stable government cannot coexist with these militias.

Our conflict, it should be emphasized time and again, has been fueled by regional powers that have reached into our affairs....

…We have come to believe, as Americans who founded your country once believed, that freedom is a precious inheritance. It is never cheap but the price is worth paying if we are to rescue our country.

“The war is lost,” “failure,” “little impact,” “has not enhanced.” Reid and Pelosi could use optimism and spine transplants. Iraq’s Prime Minister would be a highly appropriate donor.

Technorati:
Nouri Al-Maliki Harry Reid Nancy Pelosi Iraq War Troop Surge Diplomacy Iraqi Democracy Quagmire David Petraeus Rebuilding Iraq

Assessing Rudy's 12 Commitments

During a speech Monday in New Hampshire, GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani unveiled his “12 Commitments to the American People,” reminiscent of Newt Gingrich’s 1994 GOP Contract with America. Anytime a candidate provides a firm outline of his policy positions and promises to voters, it should be welcomed and then scrutinized carefully. Unfortunately, candidates for high office rarely offer specifics about how they intend to achieve their stated goals. Capital Cloak offers the following assessment of Giuliani’s 12 Commitments to the American People:

1) I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.
Winning the terrorists’ war on us is the greatest responsibility of the 9/11 Generation. We need to continue taking the fight to the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists by increasing the size, strength, and support of our military — beginning with ten new Army combat brigades.

Giuliani has good advisers and speech consultants if, like most politicians, he does not write for himself. With his first commitment Giuliani achieves three critical feats: first, he alters the politically divisive and mostly ambiguous phrase “War on Terror” to “the Terrorists’ War on Us,” which unites America into “us” and reminds Americans that we were attacked and thus are justified in conflict against terrorists; second, Giuliani introduces the phrase “9/11 Generation” as a formal title, drawing a historical parallel with the revered Greatest Generation that fought WWII and the evil totalitarianism and brutality of Nazism, which in its aims and doctrines differed little from the current brand of radical Islamic terrorist rule with which we are engaged in war. This formal title unites all Americans who can remember 9/11 and more importantly, prepares Americans for what will surely be a generational struggle requiring sacrifice and patience over a very long period of sustained engagements; and third, Giuliani calls for increased military buildup, which is necessary not only for combat with terrorists, but also as preparation for potential conflict with more powerful nation states such as Iran, Syria, and if relations deteriorate, Russia or China.

2) I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders and identify every non-citizen in our nation. We can end illegal immigration with tough but realistic laws that put security first. We need to secure the border with a physical fence and a technological fence. We need to require a tamper-proof I.D. card for all non-citizens coming into the United States and tracking their entry and exit. And we need to encourage Americanization by requiring new citizens to read, write, and speak English.

Candidates should be careful not to promise what they cannot deliver. Even if Giuliani achieves the most securely enforced border in the history of modern man, he cannot put a 100% end to illegal immigration. There will always be enterprising and desperate foreign nationals with good and bad intentions who will probe incessantly until a vulnerable border area is identified. I do not mean to imply that because 100% is impossible it should not be the goal, but the media and his opponents in both parties, if he is elected president, will beat him over the head with the 100% promise anytime a report surfaces of an illegal alien who commits a crime. I can already picture Wolf Blitzer, with gleeful sneer in full bloom, asking: “President Giuliani, an illegal alien recently killed a family of 4 in a DUI incident, but according to your promises you put an end to illegal immigration. Doesn’t this make you personally liable for the deaths of this family since you allowed an illegal alien across our border?” Giuliani should learn from Former President Bush’s “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. A broken promise, unintentional or calculated, will spell doom for candidates and sitting presidents.

The rest of this commitment is solid; an ID (though nothing is tamper-proof, as I wrote yesterday) for all non-citizens, tracking entry and exit, and requiring English language proficiency are all in line with conservative principles. I would have preferred that he first commit to full enforcement of the existing laws to determine how well they could work if actually implemented before entering a long legislative battle to adopt new laws. Voters should beware Giuliani’s phrase “tough but realistic laws” when it comes to illegal immigration. Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff has certainly been criticized by conservatives for suggesting that amnesty “bows to reality.’ Thus it is critical for voters that Giuliani identify the specific meaning of the word “realistic” as used in this commitment. I do not see how “realistic” and “end illegal immigration” coexist in the same sentence, as much as I wish it were possible. Limit, yes. Curtail, certainly. Eliminate? That is unlikely, as long as there are foreign nationals who are willing to risk arrest or deportation because life here is better than life in their homeland.

3) I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending. Over the next two presidential terms, 42 percent of the federal civilian workforce is due to retire. We should only hire back half, replacing non-essential workers with technology. I’ll ask agency heads to identify annual budget cuts of 5 to 20 percent. With entitlement costs scheduled to explode, we need fiscal discipline to avoid passing an unsupportable burden on to the next generation.

Giuliani makes an interesting argument here. Apparently Giuliani believes that the most egregious source of government overspending is the federal workforce, rather than the combination of pork barrel projects, earmarks, subsidies, and grants that empty government coffers at an alarming rate. This commitment will not win him any votes from federal employees, or roughly 3 million voters. While I concur that there are agencies and departments that could and should be disbanded because they offer services or fulfill responsibilities that exceed the constitution’s vision of a limited central government, across the board federal workforce reductions and budget cuts may exacerbate already understaffed agencies struggling to retain capable employees. I am no Ron Paul fan, as the ire of his supporters toward me has demonstrated, but Giuliani should instead consider a Ron Paul-like reduction of federal agencies that are extra-constitutional. Doing so would likely eliminate a significant portion of Washington’s wasteful spending. Addressing earmarks and legislative pork would eliminate most of the rest. A workforce, especially in important national security related agencies, is an asset, not a drain.

4) I will cut taxes and reform the tax code. Pro-growth policies lead to broader prosperity. The next president needs to simplify the tax code and keep taxes low — including the personal income tax, the capital-gains tax and the corporate tax. And we can eliminate double taxation and protect family businesses by giving the Death Tax the death penalty.

Cutting taxes will always be an effective political promise to conservatives, and if Giuliani actually reduced government spending as I outlined above, there would be far less need for taxes. Simplifying the tax code is a political cliché that has meant nothing and will continue to mean nothing until someone actually simplifies it by, gasp, eliminating income tax and replacing it with a simple tax policy, whether that is a flat tax, fair tax, or consumption tax. Giuliani did not mention any of these, stating only that he would keep taxes low, which implies that he intends to keep the existing income tax in place but cut the rate. This would be good, but it could be better.

5) I will impose accountability on Washington.We need to restore Americans’ faith that government can work again. That’s why we’ll implement the first constant measurement of government effectiveness, known as “FedStat,” and put the results online so the public can hold agencies accountable.

How does a president impose accountability on Washington? Isn’t that what elections are for? I find it ironic that Americans complain long and loud about out of control spending, arrogance in Washington, and the “disconnect between Americans and Congress” mentioned frequently by Sean Hannity, yet they expect a president to ride in on a white horse and restore sanity and accountability in the nation’s capital. Rather than hope for a political messiah to deliver them from their unfeeling and seemingly deaf representatives, Americans have the power to replace their elected officials when necessary, through recalls and special elections. Giuliani here appeals to the sense of outrage all Americans feel when they read of government corruption, waste, or incompetence, but the reality is that only the people have the ability to hold their elected officials accountable for their performance. While “FedStat” sounds catchy, who will determine the “measurement of government effectiveness?” Another government agency? The White House? Rather than relying on “FedStat” to tell them how government is performing, voters should make clear for their elected officials what they want accomplished by government agencies and then vote out or recall anyone who does not work to achieve the electorate’s wishes.

6) I will lead America towards energy independence. We must decrease America’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil. We can meet this challenge through diversification of our energy portfolio, innovation, and conservation. We must increase public and private investment in nuclear power, clean coal, and alternative-energy sources across the board. America must lead the world in energy-efficient, environmentally responsible, commercially viable innovation, including wind, solar, geo-thermal, ethanol, and biofuel technologies.

I agree with everything in this statement. It is to President Bush’s condemnation that Giuliani is using a near verbatim version of the president’s 2000 and 2004 election promises regarding energy independence. In over 6 years, the president has not accomplished any of these goals, which sounded good then and sound good now. How will Giuliani specifically accomplish what President Bush could not, even with a Republican-controlled House and Senate up to November 2006? Note also Giuliani’s lack of confidence in this policy area. With illegal immigration he committed to end it. With energy independence, he commits only to lead America towards it.

7) I will give Americans more control over their health care with affordable and portable free-market solutions. We can improve the quality of health care while decreasing costs through increased competition. Solutions can include reforming the tax treatment of health care, expanding portable health-savings accounts, encouraging state-by-state innovations, and reforming the legal system.

If by reforming the legal system here he is referring to placing caps on malpractice lawsuits, then his stated priorities in health care are solidly conservative.

8) I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children. We need to take advantage of the common ground in America to reduce abortions by increasing adoptions and assuring that individual choice is well informed. We need to measure our progress toward these goals. We need to reduce the high costs of adoption. And we need to protect our children against sexual predators and online pornography.

Encouraging adoptions is Giuliani’s way to join hands with conservatives who would otherwise shun him for his pro-choice convictions. Reducing adoption costs and fostering the “culture of life” eloquently spoken of by Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee in the GOP debates are welcome ideas to combat Roe and its tragic results. There is nothing in this commitment to oppose.

9) I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges. America must reform its legal system. We need to eliminate nuisance lawsuits through “loser-pays” provisions. Tort reform can help us reduce costs passed on to the consumer, such as higher insurance premiums. Activist judges threaten to expand the power of the courts beyond the bounds established by the Constitution; we must reassert the proper balance.

A Washington, DC area judge is currently suing his dry cleaner for losing a pair of pants, which was subsequently found. He is suing the cleaner for $54 million for the treatment he received. Giuliani’s commitment to eliminate such lawsuits and champion tort reform should be welcomed by conservatives and should be taken seriously given Giuliani’s reputation as a prosecutor. A man who can dismantle the mafia in New York could strike fear in the ambulance-chasing mafia fattening their bank accounts in America’s courtrooms.

10) I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.Homeland security and national security are now inseparable. We need to ensure that local first responders are trained to meet natural disasters as well as terrorist attacks. We must improve information-sharing between local, state, and federal authorities. And we need to repair vulnerable infrastructure to minimize the impact of terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

I agree that homeland security and national security are inseparable but disagree strongly with the notion that natural disasters are homeland security related. Should hurricanes and tornadoes occupy the time, resources, and attention of intelligence and national security agencies? The inclusion of FEMA within Homeland Security has diverted that department’s attention away from terrorism and other domestic threats and focused it instead on weather reports and a desire never to repeat any Katrina-like snafus. I am also skeptical of the idea that the federal government is qualified to train local first responders to meet natural disasters or terrorist attacks. In most cases, local police, fire, and rescue personnel are experienced and well trained and do not need federal training or guidance in the performance of their duties. If by stating “ensure that local first responders are trained” Giuliani means through minimal federal grants in the interest of protection for citizens, it would eliminate my concerns over the wording here.

11) I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents. Education reform is a civil-rights struggle and the key to improving America’s competitiveness in the global economy. We need to empower parents and children by expanding school choice. We need to promote math and science, while ending the digital divide.

School choice and vouchers are great ideas that are working in some areas (Utah is pioneering this concept currently). “Digital divide?” Could a politician be any more cryptic? If Giuliani believes there is a gap in computer literacy between segments of our society or between American children and their counterparts in other nations, then he should say so, not use a cliché like “digital divide” that sounds ominous but explains nothing.

12) I will expand America's involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.We need to strengthen our country by engaging aggressively the global economy. The mission of the State Department needs to be focused on acting first and foremost as an advocate for America. Fostering trade and educational and cultural exchange will promote the expansion of freedom.

I appreciated the fact that Giuliani chastises the State Department for not always advocating American interests. No department in government contains more liberal, anti-American sentiment among its employees than State, as ironic as that may seem. I also agree that increased trade and cultural relations is the surest way to spread freedom or at least the seeds that could one day sprout up as liberty in unexpected places. Hopefully during the coming months of the campaign Giuliani will explain the phrase “engaging aggressively the global economy” as committed to here. It is good practice for voters to demand clarification when a politician wields the term “aggressively” in an ambiguous manner. Likewise, conservatives should demand explanation of the phrase “expand America’s involvement in the global economy.” There are many methods an administration could use to expand involvement, but Giuliani does not outline the ones he would favor.

On the whole, Giuliani’s 12 Commitments contain many encouraging features and many seemingly unrealistic political promises offered by all politicians seeking votes. With additional clarification of meanings and implementation logistics, Giuliani could cement himself further as the clear front-runner among candidates for the GOP nomination in 2008. The Contract with America was a novel and successful election strategy, and Giuliani’s advisers were wise to move him to present his 12 Commitments before any of his opponents did so. Will he live up to them? Voters have 7 months to make that determination, but for the candidate in most need of firming up his conservative credentials, these 12 Commitments were timely and decidedly conservative.

Technorati Tags:
Rudy Giuliani, 12 Commitments, Presidential Candidates, Terrorists' War on Us, Illegal Immigration, Tort Reform, Ron Paul, Tax Cuts, Campaign Strategy, 9/11 Generation

"Tamper-Proof" ID is Fantasy

The buzzword in the illegal immigration debate is “tamper-proof,” as in tamper proof ID cards for aliens. I just watched Tony Snow’s interview this morning with Steve Doocy on Fox and Friends, and Snow was out there front and center defending the proposed amnesty bill by touting the “tough” enforcement measures it allegedly contains. Perhaps some of the measures would be “tough” if the government had any track record whatsoever of enforcing past laws. However, the most outrageous falsehood that Snow, President Bush, and even the field of 2008 presidential candidates continue to perpetuate, aside from claiming the bill is not amnesty, is the notion of a “tamper-proof” government issued ID card.

Show me a “tamper-proof” ID card, and I can take you to a street corner in Los Angeles near MacArthur Park where the card can be taken, analyzed, dissected, and reproduced to near perfection in a matter of minutes. Governments have a poor history of making “tamper-proof” official documents, as evidenced by the phenomenally lucrative criminal market for counterfeit or forged Social Security Cards, passports (including the new ridiculously vulnerable RF chip encoded version), driver’s licenses, and even law enforcement credentials and badges. The simple truth is that there is no such thing as “tamper-proof,” whether one is referring to ID documents, ID cards, computer networks, or product packaging. Computer hackers, some of them mere teens testing their skills on a dare, have penetrated “secure” networks operated by the Defense Department and many other local, state, and federal agencies. Private corporations guarding priceless trade secrets have also learned by sad experience that their secure systems are anything but tamper proof. Credit card companies have spent millions of dollars attempting to make their cards as tamper-proof as possible, but with only mixed results.

Tony Snow told Steve Doocy moments ago that the proposed “tamper-proof” ID card for illegal aliens would allow the government to know who is currently here, because, according to Snow, anyone found without one would be “kicked out” of America. Let me see if I have this straight: The government that has never made any serious effort to deport illegal aliens it stumbles upon or are handed to it without proper documentation or ID will miraculously transform itself and “kick out” any illegal aliens found without the magic “tamper-proof” ID card after they are issued to amnesty recipients? It doesn’t take a math whiz to calculate that something in that equation is significantly flawed.

Americans should be suspicious of anyone who insists that something is tamper-proof, and even more skeptical of the pie-in-the-sky promise that any new form of ID card will eliminate the underground market for counterfeit official documents. Unfortunately, many 2008 presidential candidates have adopted the lingo of “tamper-proof” ID cards in their policy positions on illegal immigration, including Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. To their credit, they advocate a “tamper-proof” ID card AFTER the borders have been secured and after illegal aliens currently here are given Z visa applications and sent back to their native country to await the granting of legal permission to enter the U.S. That is not the case when the White House champions “tamper-proof” ID cards. President Bush’s vision for immigration reform does not require anyone currently in America to leave, allowing all to remain in place, apply for the Z visa, and continue working and living in America.

As Romney pointed out strongly in the third GOP candidates’ debate, allowing any Z visa applicants to remain in the U.S. to await adjudication of their status gives them tremendous advantages over applicants from other countries who are waiting in their homeland, where they should be. Let’s face facts: immigration adjudication officers will be under enormous pressure to grant Z visas first to applicants already in America, and they will receive preferential treatment despite the illegality of their presence here. A law abiding foreign national who wants to become a U.S. citizen will be kept waiting for years, while foreign nationals who broke our laws by entering the U.S. without documentation will be rewarded with all the benefits of life in the U.S. throughout the entire application time line.

Consider the following whopper from Tony Snow, courtesy of World Net Daily. I preface the inclusion of Snow’s comment and my subsequent analysis with the disclaimer that I think Snow is a fantastic White House Press Secretary, tragically tasked with defending a terrible piece of legislation. Having made that point, note in Snow’s comment all of the violations for which illegal aliens would allegedly be deported under the proposed McCain-Kennedy-Bush amnesty bill:

Snow launched his response by denying that the plan is amnesty. "Right now a lot of times 'amnesty' is used as shorthand for saying, we don't like the bill," he said. "If you look up the dictionary definition of amnesty, it means total forgiveness of a crime.

"What you have here is a crime [entering the U.S. illegally] for which there was no punishment originally. Now what we're saying is everybody who came across the border, No. 1, you pay a thousand dollar fine. No. 2, you are on permanent probation. If you break the law, you're deported. If you do not maintain a job, you are deported. If you do not learn the English language, you're deported. If you do not subject yourself to a criminal background check, you're deported. If you do not have an ID that allows us to trace who you are, where you are, for whom you work, you are deported," he said.

This statement by Snow is astonishing in its scope and in its audacity. When someone has to pull out the dictionary to explain why a proposed bill is not amnesty, you can rest assured that he is in fact trying to conceal amnesty. The semantic hairsplitting involved in defining amnesty is disgustingly reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s legal obfuscations over the legal definition of “sex” in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Trying to sound tough on illegal immigration after doing virtually nothing about it for 6 years is also less than impressive. Snow stated, “If you break the law, you’re deported.” That’s a good place to start, Tony. We have laws on the books that include deportation. Enforce them. The government has not enforced them in the past and claims that deporting illegal aliens already here is logistically impossible. If the government has not been deporting illegal aliens who have already broken our laws, why should anyone accept the claim that the government will suddenly grow sufficient spine to start deporting violators of the proposed bill?

There are certainly a lot of violations listed in Snow’s comment for which deportation is promised. Snow should be reminded that deportation has always been the prescribed punishment for illegal immigration but the government never writes the prescription and the medicine is never administered, hence the 12-20 million who have come here with impunity knowing that the government lacked the spine and/or stomach to deport anyone unless public outcry over a specific case made it unavoidable.

Even in those cases, most criminal deportees are back in the U.S. in a matter of weeks, free to commit further crimes or kill law enforcement officers (remember the slayer of L.A. County Sheriff’s Deputy David March). They return so easily because the borders are not secure. Note that I wrote “borders” rather than “border,” because there are enormous security problems associated with both our northern and southern borders. Instead of offering “tamper-proof” ID cards as a spoonful of sugar to help the amnesty medicine go down more smoothly, the government should strive for a “tamper-proof” border and “tamper-proof” deportation proceedings.

Technorati Tags:
Illegal Immigration, Amnesty, Tamper Proof Identification, Tony Snow, Deportation, Immigration Reform, Border Enforcement, Border Security

Reagan Mantle Too Big for Ron Paul

Libertarian conservatives have been busy artificially bolstering the myth that their presidential candidate of choice, Ron Paul, has a strong grass-roots base and wide appeal. During Fox News’ sophomoric cell phone text message voting during the second GOP presidential candidates’ debate, Ron Paul’s boosters voted early and often, causing the post-debate results to appear skewed toward the opinion that Paul was the winner of the debate, despite his trip to the proverbial woodshed courtesy of Rudy Giuliani for his argument that America brought 9/11 upon itself. Initially I thought that perhaps some of Paul’s poll votes were coming from Democrats hoping to dilute strong performances by Giuliani or Romney by voting for the least likely and most provocative of the candidates. However, comments posted by Paul supporters on conservative Internet sites or in blogs indicate that Paul is viewed by some as the only true conservative in the race and a champion of the constitution. Of course, Paul himself declares that he stands for the constitution, and on the surface that sounds like an honorable position to hold.

When it comes to government spending and government involvement in social matters, Paul’s urgings to limit government only to the duties expressly permitted by the constitution have appeal and resonate well in conservative circles. What conservative doesn’t want to see certain federal governmental departments disbanded and their duties reverted back to local and state authorities? What conservative doesn’t want to see the dreaded income tax disappear? To some conservatives, the economic/social aspects of Paul’s libertarian-leaning principles are a siren song by which they wish to be led, if only someone holding those views could actually secure the GOP nomination. Paul clearly is not a candidate that can win a national election, and for clear-thinking conservatives who can look past their own personal benefits from no income tax and smaller government, the reason for Paul’s lack of appeal is easy to identify.

Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan. Paul’s supporters may claim he is the true representative of conservatism in the current candidate field, but Paul has an Achilles heel that keeps Reagan conservatives and Regan Democrats alike from ever considering him as anything more than a campaign footnote: He is selective about which portions of the constitution he would adhere to strictly, and “provide for the common defense” is not among them.

In the second GOP candidates’ debate, Paul stated the following:

They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald Reagan] was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting…

…They’re not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there.

Reagan directly repudiated Paul’s isolationist foreign policies 23 years ago on the beach at Normandy, France, a site where American intervention in foreign affairs proved most decisive in freeing Europe from Nazi enslavement:

The Boys of Pointe Du Hoc
June 6, 1984, Normandy

We in America have learned bitter lessons from two world wars. It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent. But we try always to be prepared for peace, prepared to deter aggression, prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms, and yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation.

Reagan conservatives and Reagan Democrats need look no further than Reagan’s statement to find sufficient reason to shun Ron Paul’s isolationist ideas. Paul claimed during the second GOP candidates’ debate that the U.S. has been bombing Iraq for 10 years, as if it were unjustified and indiscriminate bombing of cities. That is patently false. Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, the U.S. had occasionally bombed Iraq’s air defense stations or shot down Iraqi aircraft because Iraq regularly violated the no-fly zone enacted by the cease-fire that halted the first Gulf War. Paul chooses to ignore the fact that the Gulf War was, as Reagan prescribed, a “response to a tyrannical government with an expansionist intent.” Saddam invaded neighboring Kuwait solely for expansionist and economic motives. He wanted Kuwait’s oil and Kuwait’s ports, and Kuwait’s accumulated wealth, and so decided to take it by force. World leaders in 1991 had the fortitude to band together and, led by the U.S. military, pushed Saddam back behind his original borders. Had Saddam not violated the terms of the cease-fire by targeting our aircraft, there would have been no need for any further bombing. The defense of the no-fly zone lasted from 1991 until Operation Iraqi Freedom made it a moot point by removing Saddam from the equation because of his failure to abide by any of the UN conditions for the cease-fire enacted in 1991. Thus the current Operation Iraqi Freedom is merely a resumption of hostilities and is a continuation of the Gulf War.

Saddam, like Hitler, was removed, and rebuilding a nation and protecting it from foreign interference by those with designs on fomenting chaos, much like post WWII, is why our troops remain in Iraq. Had Ron Paul been president instead of Truman or Eisenhower, all of Germany would have fallen under Soviet occupation and Japan would have been overrun by Soviet or Chinese forces seeking retribution because Paul would have pulled American troops out of both places and brought them home immediately upon conclusion of the war. There would have been no Marshall Plan, no rebuilding and friendship alliance with Japan. No BMWs; no VWs; no Hondas; no Toyotas. Likewise, in Paul’s isolationist world, there would be no democratic South Korea. There would only be communist Korea, since Paul would not have committed U.S. troops to defend the free people of South Korea.

Ron Paul wants America to approach foreign policy with a pre-WWI mentality, when the mindset centered on the idea that America should not involve itself in any foreign war, and we nearly allowed all of Europe to be defeated by Germany. That war was so destructive that the isolationists redoubled their efforts between 1919 and 1941 to keep America from ever entangling itself in a foreign war. That isolationism resulted in Nazi occupation of continental Europe and Scandinavia, and horrific bombings of England. It also cost 6 million Jews their lives while Americans, who thought then as Ron Paul now does about intervention, stood silently on the sidelines of history, much to their condemnation.

Paul’s supporters should consider another sentence from Reagan’s powerful speech at Normandy. His explanation for why America’s military remained in Europe to confront potential Soviet aggression long after WWII, was simple, profound, and prophetic of our continued presence in Iraq:

Today, as forty years ago, our armies are here for only one purpose: to protect and defend democracy.

Regardless of how Iraq’s democracy came into existence, it is there now. Iraq has a constitution. Iraq has a democratically elected parliament that represents the wide variety of religious and tribal divisions of its population. It is imperfect, and it is often contentious, but so was America’s in its early years. The question Paul should be forced to address is, “Does America have a duty or role in history to protect and defend democracy in the world?” As an isolationist he will argue that such is not America’s role as it is not defined in the constitution. Reagan understood history far better than Paul, who would like to believe that the world begins and ends at America’s shores and nothing that occurs in foreign lands is worthy of intervention unless American interests are directly threatened. Technically speaking, from an economic/trade point of view, would it have made any difference to isolationists like Paul if Europe had been enslaved by Hitler as long as Hitler let America alone? America could have conducted normal trade in goods with Nazi Europe, including lucrative arms sales. Rescuing Britain, France, and Italy from Nazi control certainly involved an enormously “entangling alliance,” something George Washington warned of and Paul concurs with wholeheartedly. Why then did America free Europe and remain there in defensive posture for decades? The answer, as Reagan stated so perfectly, is that isolationism has never been and never will be an appropriate response to tyranny. Tyranny must be confronted wherever it exists, defeated, and replaced by freedom. Ron Paul would rather put his head in the sand and selfishly keep democracy and liberty all to himself.

Reagan understood something that Paul does not: America does not hold an exclusive right to freedom. America does not possess liberty out of luck or superior intellect. America is free and powerful because it is destined to use that power to spread and preserve freedom throughout the world. Paul’s strict but selective constitutional adherence seems to ignore that the right to liberty is identified in the Declaration of Independence, not as an American, English, or French right, but a right that belongs to all men, presumably even those in the Middle East whom Paul would abandon as apparently unworthy of these Jeffersonian words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This is the great issue of our time, and Paul falls woefully short in his willingness to engage in the defense of freedom. His GOP opponents more closely resemble the Reagan tradition. For example, when asked in the third GOP candidates’ debate what was the most important moral issue facing America, Giuliani replied that the greatest moral issue is whether America will share its blessings of freedom and liberty with the rest of the world. Conservatives should not allow themselves to be fooled by the Ron Paul Internet “phenomenon.” Paul was declared the winner of two GOP candidates’ debates by MSNBC, CNN, Politico, Slate, ABC News, and myriad other left-leaning media sources. A review of Wikipedia’s Ron Paul page certainly could leave an undiscerning reader with the idea that Paul has widespread support and is whipping all comers in the GOP debates. The liberal slant is obvious. Clearly from an ideological perspective liberals do not embrace Ron Paul’s libertarian views, so why is he the darling of the media and many Internet blogs? Quite simply, it is because Paul is 2008’s Ross Perot. If even 3 percent of conservative voters are swayed by Paul, it could spell the difference in a tight race and throw victory to the left, just as Perot’s theatrics did in 1992 and 1996. The left knows this and is in fact counting on it for victory.

Libertarian conservatives should not worship Paul as the constitutional savior they hold him out to be, and Reagan Conservatives and Reagan Democrats should remember that Paul is an isolationist hoarder of liberty, unwilling to preserve it among nations who possess it or share it with oppressed peoples who long for it and implore America to help them obtain it.

Technorati Tags:
Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan, Conservatism, Libertarian, Isolationism, Interventionism, Iraq War, Democracy, Presidential Candidates