McCain Fears Riots if Illegals Deported

I fully expected that this morning, considering that the second Democratic candidates’ debate occurred last night, it would be easy to select the most asinine comment of the weekend from a wide variety of choices. Thanks to John Hawkins at Right Wing News, it was easy to identify by far the most ludicrous statement made over the weekend, but it dismayed me that the comment did not come from any of the Democratic candidates and was not uttered in last night’s DNC debate on CNN. Instead, it came from a leading GOP presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, who may have quashed his presidential ambitions through his continued political jihad against true conservatives who oppose giving amnesty to America’s illegal aliens.

As quoted by Right Wing News:

McCain went back and forth with one audience member, who said he was upset that the immigration proposal before Congress is not tough enough. The man told McCain that there were already adequate laws on the books — they just aren't being enforced.

McCain said that was a misnomer.

``The old rules are not workable and enforceable,'' he said. ``We've certainly proved that over the last 20 years.''

Congress ``failed you,'' McCain said. ``We passed a law in 1986 that said we'd give amnesty to some people and now we have 12 million more,'' illegal immigrants.

The man wasn't satisfied with McCain's answer. He asked McCain why the U.S. couldn't execute large-scale deportations, as he had heard they did in France and other countries.

The question seemed to pique McCain.

``In case you hadn't noticed, the thousands of people who have been relegated to ghettos have risen up and burned cars in France,'' McCain said. ``They've got huge problems in France. They have tremendous problems. The police can't even go into certain areas in the suburbs of Paris. I don't want that in the suburbs of America.''

For a lover of history and politics, John McCain here demonstrated a remarkable ignorance, particularly through his analogy with France. Of course there have been and continue to be neighborhoods of young Muslim immigrants in France who riot and burn cars, but McCain leaves out the salient fact that most of these young Muslims in France are not illegal aliens at all. They are not rioting against the government because France is deporting those who are in France illegally. They riot because they came to France expecting “the good life” but have discovered that living on France’s socialist welfare and unemployment benefits is becoming more difficult. Anytime anyone (such as newly-elected President Sarkozy) proposes reducing welfare benefits and forcing these idle hooligans to find jobs or face deportation they riot and burn their own neighborhoods in suburban Paris. The comparison by McCain is completely disingenuous. So disingenuous, in fact, that Sarkozy’s opponent warned French voters that if Sarkozy were elected, France would be torn apart by rioting immigrant workers. Senator McCain might want to remember that she lost that election, and fear-mongering did not sway the French, nor will it sway the American voter.

Yet, even if the riots in France were solely to oppose deportation, McCain’s invocation of them as an example of why America cannot and should not deport its illegal aliens is quite revealing about McCain’s leadership potential. McCain survived the Vietnam War and imprisonment as a POW for 5 years, yet his primary reason not to deport illegal aliens is fear. He fears an illegal alien uprising; he fears riots in American streets; he fears cars burning and police unable to go into certain neighborhoods in America. He fears all of these more than he fears the gangs, drugs, murders, rapes, DUI’s, and other crimes that are already attributable to illegal aliens in disturbingly high numbers in America. I sense that McCain does not take many occasions to venture outside his protected comfort bubble and witness firsthand with law enforcement that America has plenty of neighborhoods and entire suburbs where police will not go.

Notice that when asked why America does not deport illegal aliens like France, McCain became condescending to the audience member and tried to scare the audience with mental images of rioting illegal aliens (isn’t that profiling?), but he did not answer the question. He did not claim that the government lacks the ability to deport, only that it fears the social consequences of doing so. Why is there no fear among our elected officials about the consequences that result when a nation does not enforce the laws it enacts? If Congress cannot agree that enforcing laws governing legal entry and presence is critical to living up to their sworn duty to defend the United States, how likely is it that Congress is in any way serious about any of its other duties? Every election year brings a slew of incumbents and challengers, each of whom vows to “change Washington” or “restore public trust in government.” That trust will never be renewed until government learns to enforce existing laws that the people demanded in the first place.

The question the audience should have posed to McCain was “since you already granted one time amnesty in 1986 and continue to fail to enforce deportation laws already on the books, why on earth should we believe you have any intention of enforcing any measures in the Kennedy amnesty bill?” McCain made the ridiculous claim that the government has proven that the old laws are “unworkable” or “unenforceable,” yet this, too, is simply false. The government has never made a concerted effort to try to enforce the deportation provisions of our immigration statutes, whether out of misguided compassion (President Bush), fear of social unrest (McCain), or political pandering to Hispanic voters (the GOP and DNC). The truth is that since the 1986 amnesty, the government has made only a token effort to enforce deportation. It is an issue of will rather than capacity. Are we supposed to believe that a nation that can send men to the moon, harness the energy of the atom, and make powerful computers that fit into shirt pockets lacks the logistical capacity to secure its borders or systematically deport illegal aliens, especially those who have committed criminal acts? Why would anyone vote for a candidate who lacks the faith and optimism to believe that America is capable of surmounting any obstacle?

Senator McCain is likely to discover, to his chagrin and well in advance of any state primaries, that Americans do not appreciate fear-mongering from their leaders, nor do we want our leaders to be held captive by their own fears of burning cars and riots. Should we forbid the Tigers, Red Wings, or Pistons from ever playing for championships because their fans have a tendency to riot in, loot, and burn various sections of Detroit when they win? Should we never hold another Democratic Convention in Los Angeles because protesters overturned and set fire to vehicles and threw bottles at police in 2000? What about the violent riots at the 1968 Democratic Convention? If fear of potential rioting were the determining factor, large events of every kind would be banned for safety reasons. Fortunately, Americans are not ruled by their fears even if some of its prominent leaders and political candidates think otherwise.

Technorati: John McCain Presidential Candidates Immigration Reform Illegal Immigration Riots Nicolas Sarkozy Deportation Amnesty Illegal Aliens

Hillary Bets On Socialism's Appeal in 2008

Hillary Clinton is often touted as the “most intelligent woman in America.” I have an aunt who is practically salivating (or is that foaming at the mouth?) over the prospect of a Hillary presidency, as Hillary will surely solve all of America’s inequalities with a woman’s touch. Political pundits like Dick Morris insist that the “Clinton Machine” is unstoppable and will make no significant errors while piloting her over any rocky reef en route to the White House in 2008. If one accepts any of these paradigms, Hillary’s speech to the Manchester (NH) School of Technology this week was quite a conundrum; it was either a major and suicidal campaign sinker or it signaled that the Democratic Party believes America is ready to abandon its 231 year experiment with self-determination and capitalism.

Here are a few highlights from the AP/Yahoo story:

Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

…"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

Karl Marx? Lenin? Stalin? No, these are the views of Hillary Rodham Clinton, socialist extraordinaire. The only chance “workers” have for success is when the government steps in to “help.” It isn’t fair that some get rich while others remain poor. “Fairness doesn’t just happen,” the government must make life fair by punishing achievers for having too much success. These are the tenets of socialism, with “fairness” serving as the emotionally charged catchphrase slogan to disguise the intended vehicle for Hillary’s version of “fairness.” Had this Manchester speech been a slip-up or something taken out of context, it would still stand out as particularly socialist. However, Hillary has gone down this road before. This is what she said in June 2004:

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Now that’s an inspiring campaign slogan for a potential American president!

I recently wrote that America’s leaders are becoming more French while France’s leaders are becoming more American. Newly elected French President Nicolas Sarkozy was elected on a platform consisting of the following: Fight the War on Terror as America’s ally; reform France’s immigration system, particularly as it applies to the influx of Muslim immigrants; shrink the government’s role in providing social services (including socialized medicine) to its citizens; eliminate the 35 hour work week and promote more work, greater achievement, and less dependence on government subsidies for the unemployed and business owners.

Contrast that winning French platform with what Hillary is proposing for America in 2008: retreat from Iraq and giving al Qaeda victory in the War on Terror; “reform” America’s immigration policy through amnesty and citizenship for 12-20 million illegal aliens; increase the role of government by providing massive new services such as “universal health care” (socialized medicine) and replacing economic self-determination with “shared prosperity” through government intervention (socialism).

When considered from this perspective, electing Hillary would place America on a sure path to becoming socialist France, while the French electing Sarkozy placed them on a course to emulate capitalist America. Hillary’s GOP opponents should wield these contrasts like a political bludgeon, hitting her hard every time she utters a phrase that espouses socialist tendencies and bluntly referring to her as a socialist. This is why her speech was a conundrum. The “Clinton machine” so ominously reverenced by Dick Morris must surely know that the majority of Americans will reflexively vote against someone who can effectively be branded as a socialist, yet they do nothing to curb her references to “shared prosperity” or government provided fairness. Why is Hillary speaking so openly of her socialist ideas during a primary campaign cycle when it can so easily be used later in the general election cycle by the GOP nominee to paint her (accurately) as a socialist?

Two reasons come to mind. First, Hillary must earn the nomination of her party, which embraces Euro-socialist ideals, and she will not be the nominee without establishing, at least verbally, her socialist credentials. Instead of “street cred”, the DNC demands “Soc cred,” the promise that all people will be given everything they need or want through government services. Second, Hillary’s advisers truly believe America is ripe for a socialist harvest in 2008. Despite record stock market growth and peaks, despite record low unemployment (4%), and despite the highest percentage of Americans owning their own homes in the nation’s history, Hillary’s camp is preaching the gospel of class envy and apparently is betting that they can convince voters by 2008 that the economy is failing, everyone is out of work, no one can afford health insurance, and the rich are grinding the faces of the poor every chance they get.

It is ironic that the same liberals who insist that Darwin was right about evolution and natural selection refuse to accept capitalism as economic Darwinism, with the survival of the fittest as the linchpin of a free market system. Are animals that cannot adapt through evolution allowed to survive out of “fairness?” Should businesses that produce a product no longer wanted in the market be protected from their competitors who are meeting market demands for new and better goods? Should workers who are incompetent or unproductive be protected from termination out of “fairness?” For that matter, what should be done with candidates who lose elections? After all, it isn’t “fair” that one should prosper while another languishes in defeat. Who decides what is “fair,” the government? No thanks.

The government has never been the solution to poverty, unemployment, racism, or any of the other social ills that can infect society. Poverty has proven much more virulent war opponent than terrorism. FDR could not eliminate it, Johnson waged a “war on poverty” but poverty, like the impervious cockroach, seems to survive all threats to its existence. Could it be that poverty survives because economic “fairness” is a socialist utopian dream that runs counter to nature? There have always been, and will always be rich and poor people in every society, but do the poor need rescuing? It is the arrogance of the wealthy (and most liberal socialists are rich, like Clinton) to assume that success in life must be measured by the accumulation of wealth. There can be dignity in poverty, usually far more dignity and humility than is found among the affluent. If success is measured, as it should be, by living an honorable life, then one does not need income redistribution or “fairness” in economic opportunity to be successful in life.

Socialism has failed in every respect in every society that has ever attempted to live by it, yet the DNC, and Hillary in particular, continue to aggressively foist it upon America as the magic medicinal tonic that will cure all of society’s ills. Rather than taking Hillary’s or Obama’s or any other American liberal’s endorsement of socialism at face value, we should consider some dissenting opinions:

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'" - Thomas Jefferson

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” - Winston Churchill

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” – Winston Churchill

“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” – Alexis de Tocqueville

“The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to ‘help.’” – Thomas Sowell

“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order – or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, ‘The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.’” — Ronald Reagan

The “Clinton machine” would have us believe that a vote for Hillary is a vote for “fairness,” but as Reagan stated, there is only an up or down. Voting for Hillary is voting for Marx, rather than Jefferson. The Founding Fathers defined fairness as the opportunity to succeed or fail based on the inherent capacities of the individual (see Jefferson above). Hillary wants to assure that no one can fail, thus clearly she has abandoned the intent and content of our founding documents. Socialism does not just happen. We do not wake up one morning, fire up the Internet and read on Capital Cloak that America became a socialist nation overnight. However, if we continue to embrace government programs as the solution to poverty or social problems, the addiction to socialism will become unbreakable while we were sleeping.

Technorati: Hillary Clinton Socialism Shared Prosperity Presidential Campaign

France Doing Job Americans Won't Do

I never thought it would come to this. The more I observe America’s political state, I find myself wishing that our president and Congress were, well, more French. I do not refer to their culinary tastes or mandatory maximum 35 hour work week (that would require Congress to put in many more hours than they currently do!). Perhaps it would be more accurate to write that I wish our leaders had the courage of the newly elected and unapologetic pro-American French President, Nicolas Sarkozy. While President Bush and political opportunists in the House and Senate, such as John McCain and Ted Kennedy, attempt to sneak amnesty past the American people while insisting it is not amnesty, the French are taking steps to do what the vast majority of its citizens have demanded: Not granting legalization (amnesty) to France’s illegal immigrants and continuing to deport them at an increasing rate.

When did the French develop more backbone than Americans? Why is France becoming increasingly aware of the need to enforce its existing laws and adopting stronger new ones at the very time America’s elected officials are insisting that a “path to citizenship” (amnesty) should be provided to illegal immigrants? Is it possible that France, faced with the largest Muslim population of any European nation, realized that its very survival might depend on securing its borders and developing intelligence regarding who resides in France and why they are there? President Bush and vote pandering members of both parties claim enforcement and deportation are not realistic, yet France is stepping up its efforts to do both.

One of President Sarkozy’s first post-election moves was to establish a Ministry of Immigration and National Identity, which is charged with enforcing immigration laws and deporting violators. At Sarkozy’s urging, the new ministry is also concerned with helping legal immigrants better assimilate into French society, culture, and education. Sarkozy insists that immigrants learn the French language and that once legal citizenship is extended and family members from the native country seek to join the new French citizen, those family members must demonstrate French language proficiency as well. While the French require immigrants to speak the national language and integrate better with their new country, America cannot even agree that English is the national language, thus integration or assimilation are optional for immigrants, regardless of legal status.

It is a dangerous situation when law enforcement or other first responders cannot communicate with citizens in entire sections of American cities because learning English is not required for driving, shopping, obtaining government services, or citizenship. France is moving to correct this; America is afraid of offending immigrants by imposing American civilization upon them.

The Senate immigration bill put forward by Senators Kennedy, McCain, Kyl, and others late last week and praised by the president, is rightfully under assault as amnesty by another name. 2008 GOP candidate Mitt Romney spoke out forcefully against the bill, and was joined later by 2008 GOP expected candidate Fred Thompson in that assessment. The 2008 DNC candidates are avoiding this issue like the plague, as they cannot pander to Latino voters and appear tough on homeland security simultaneously. Romney and Thompson appear to grasp that the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose amnesty or any policy that offers anything similar to it. Over time, Americans will embrace candidates who, like Sarkozy, recognize that the existence of national culture and identity are threatened by illegal immigration and legal immigration without integration.

Sarkozy’s election victory sparked rioting in French suburbs populated in large part by Muslim immigrants living on government subsidies who feared Sarkozy would follow through with his promises to slash welfare programs and make immigrants work to support themselves. When French voters see this unrest, it only assures that they will continue to ask pertinent questions of their political leaders: Where did these immigrants come from? Are they here in France legally? Why aren’t they trying to become French? Sarkozy offered the desired though controversial answers and the French elevated him to the presidency to restore order and preserve France from a perceived invasion of immigrants, legal and illegal.

Jokes about French retreat are becoming stale and do not apply to Sarkozy’s France, while America’s government is replacing France as a punch line. It is the American government that wants to retreat from Iraq, retreat from confronting near-nuclear Iran, retreat from securing its borders, retreat from establishing English as the national language, and retreat from enforcing existing deportation laws. In coming years, the French may boycott American cheese, American Airlines, and all things American because America, particularly through its elected officials, increasingly symbolizes cowardice.