This Page

has been moved to new address

Bloviating Zeppelin

Sorry for inconvenience...

Redirection provided by Blogger to WordPress Migration Service
Bloviating Zeppelin: May 2006

Bloviating Zeppelin

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Saturday, May 27, 2006


-- What you won't be reading in the Defeatist, Elitist Media (DEM):

-- Signs are pointing in directions I find most disturbing

Spoiler and warning: many of my standard readers are going to find this post highly disquieting and bordering on heresy; I have myself written many times, however, that I am a Conservative first and a Republican second -- and also that I am no apologist for President Bush. The facts are the facts and disputatious as one might be to the issues I present, that still does not change what is in evidence.

You won't find this on Hugh Hewitt. Or Instapundit. Or PowerLine. Or any of the other blogs. Only here.

Read and draw your own conclusions.



What Was the Motivation?

I freely admit: most of my recent posts seem to have consumed themselves with the issue of illegal immigration. At the risk of being repetitive I made post after post about the dangers and threats posed by illegal immigration. It's my blog. I get to do that.

All along, I was asking myself: President Bush seems to be such an anomaly; in many ways he pans out to be conservative: he believes in the military, in (what I thought was) sovereignty, in defending America. His war on terror took guts and balls. He walked that tightrope seemingly all alone in the international community. He made two SCOTUS appointments.

On the other hand he contradicts himself by throwing massive amounts money at problems (witness his billions for AIDS thrown to countries whose governments are known for their corruption, disastrous governments and leaders whose penchant is to divert American dollars to numbered Swiss and Jamaican accounts; his promise to rebuild New Orleans -- a city that is, again, rife with corruption and essentially unrebuildable in its present location; his tendency to pitch cash in every direction and to veto nothing budgetary; the US government has bloated during his tenure). This is not in keeping with minimal government and what many perceive to be basic Republican and, moreover, Conservative tenets.

Harriet Miers. The Dubai Ports deal. His failure to take a continuing hard and firm stand with regard to the looming social security crisis and, now, the most disconcerting tendency of all: President Bush's hesitation to slam the door shut on illegal immigration.

So I had to ask myself: with regard to the immigration issue, what could President Bush be seeing that I myself am not? What other higher planes are there? What would be the overarching issues that I might not have yet considered?

The contradiction was huge as far as I was concerned: how could you be fighting a so-called War On Terrorism and fail to see the open northern and, more importantly, southern back doors? And how could one seemingly be in bed with the oily Vicente Fox? Mexican nationals admit Fox has done nothing to move the country forward in terms of creating jobs and moving the economy.

I posited in earlier posts: I was confused -- as was most everyone else with Bush's stance on the issue. I tried to break it down:

-- Was Bush concerned about keeping and holding the Mexican/Hispanic vote? Why? -- when a great percentage of Mexican voters side with the Democratic party?

-- Why also not consider and address the issue of illegal immigrants not only finding fraudulent documentation but documentation that allows illegal voting as well?

-- Was it a matter of oil? Mexico supplies a good portion of our imported oil; was there an "under the table" deal cut with Fox to keep the crude flowing?

What was the issue with President Bush and his failure to simply say: "Enough. Seal the borders. Build a fence. Address the employer issue. Use the Minutemen."

And Bush's labeling of our Minutemen as "vigilantes?" Totally reprehensible! At that point I wondered if our president was in fact a Dem in GOP clothing. Why is it that Jimmy Carter has praised Bush's immigration stance?

The Reason May Be Hiding In Plain Sight

It was there all along; I just had to find it, read it and hear it. And you likely won't care for the answer; I myself do not:

It would appear that President Bush is in the process of building a cabal with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and Mexico's Vicente Fox to create one large borderless American business enterprise -- possibly in an attempt to compete with the European Union and other political and economic powerhouses.

And you wondered why NAFTA and, moreover, CAFTA?

Like the EU with its Euro, this new multi-national union (including, initially, the US, Canada and Mexico) would have its own monetary unit called the Amero.

The proof is here:

There you will find the home page for the "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America." I quote directly from the homepage itself:

President George Bush, President Vicente Fox of Mexico, and Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada unveiled a blueprint for a safer and more prosperous North America when they announced the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) on March 23 in Waco, TX. They agreed on ambitious security and prosperity agendas to keep our borders closed to terrorism and open to trade. The SPP is based on the premise that security and our economic prosperity are mutually reinforcing, and recognizes that our three great nations are bound by a shared belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions.

As the ads say: "But wait, there's more!"

Guided by a Leaders Statement and Action Plans on Security and Prosperity, Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers convened trilateral working groups to develop concrete work plans and specific timetables for securing North America and ensuring legitimate travelers and cargo efficiently cross our shared borders; enhancing the competitive position of North American industries in the global marketplace; and, providing greater economic opportunities for all of our societies while maintaining high standards of health and safety.

"Ensuring legitmate travelers" pans out to be essentially anyone who wishes to cross the northern and southern borders of the United States unimpeded for the purposes of enriching any of the involved country's GDP. The proposal is that the northern and southern US borders would for all intents and purposes disappear.

Do what I call the "logical extension." Pushed further, this business protectorate would likely encompass, in time, not just Mexico to the south but most if not all of the Southern American states right down to Cape Horn.

At this point I should expect most of you are thinking: "BZ has surely lost his marbles on this one, seeing Groom Lake/Area 51 aliens in the closet, likely to be claiming his own abduction soon -- and any other conspiracy theory that comes to mind."

Oh no, dear reader; not just me. From Human Events Online regarding the plan to replace the US dollar, the Canadian dollar and the peso with the Amero:

Following the March 2005 meeting in Waco, Tex., the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published in May 2005 a task force report titled “Building a North American Community.” We have already documented that this CFR task force report calls for a plan to create by 2010 a redefinition of boundaries such that the primary immigration control will be around the three countries of the North American Union, not between the three countries. We have argued that a likely reason President Bush has not secured our border with Mexico is that the administration is pushing for the establishment of the North American Union.

This is clearly in plain sight. To continue from this article:

Pastor’s 2001 book “Toward a North American Community” called for the creation of a North American Union that would perfect the defects Pastor believes limit the progress of the European Union. Much of Pastor’s thinking appears aimed at limiting the power and sovereignty of the United States as we enter this new super-regional entity. Pastor has also called for the creation of a new currency which he has coined the “Amero,” a currency that is proposed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar, and the Mexican peso.

Robert Rector from the Heritage Foundation wrote a recent piece in the New York Post which provides some additional explanation:

May 19, 2006 -- THINK the immigration debate boils down to whether the 10 million illegal immigrants already here deserve amnesty? Think again. The leading reform proposal in the Senate is Sens. Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA). If it becomes law, more than six times that figure will pour in - legally - over the next two decades. The original CIRA would've allowed as many as 100 million people to legally immigrate to the United States over the next 20 years. We're talking about a seismic shift of unprecedented proportions.

Doing The Logical Extension

It would seem to me, all things considered, that President Bush is something of the covert Globalist. Should you think me the bit paranoid, I reprint a paragraph back in the Human Events article for reference:

If President Bush had run openly in 2004 on the proposition that a prime objective of his second term was to form the North American Union and to supplant the dollar with the “Amero,” we doubt very much that President Bush would have carried Ohio, let alone half of the Red State majority he needed to win re-election. Pursuing any plan that would legalize the conservatively estimated 12 million illegal aliens now in the United States could well spell election disaster for the Republican Party in 2006, especially for the House of Representative where every seat is up for grabs.

This begs a wonderful question: knowing now about the nature of President Bush and his workings, would you have voted for his second term? Or even his first?

Or would you take the Standard Fallback of "he's better than Gore"?

And knowing this now, how does it affect your view of the overall immigration issue?

If we as a nation want the South American/Mexican Model of government for our own, we are certainly well on our way.

Here is one example:

The Mob Takes On The State:

RIO DE JANEIRO is more beautiful, but residents of São Paulo boast that their city is safer. At least they did until May 12th, when a wave of violence orchestrated from within the prison system struck Brazil's biggest city and several neighbouring towns. In five days of mayhem and retribution some 150 people, a quarter of them policemen, were killed; 82 buses were torched and 17 bank branches attacked. Rebellions erupted at 74 of the 140 prisons in São Paulo state. Schools, shopping centres and offices shut down; transport froze. For several days, Paulo-istanos could not even claim that their city was safer than Baghdad.

It was a show of force by the leaders of the state's main criminal gang, the Primeiro Comando da Capital. Directing the violence by mobile phone from their prison cells, they cast sudden doubt on whether São Paulo, the engine of Brazil's economy, is ruled by laws or by the mob. This is sure to be an issue in October's presidential election, which pits the incumbent, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, against Geraldo Alckmin. As governor of São Paulo until March, it is Mr Alckmin who has carried the chief political responsibility for its security.

I submit this here and now: immigration and its linked agendas shall become a self-fulfilling prophecy; sort of a Pygmalion Effect.

There is a REASON that thousands want to immigrate to our nation.

Conversely, if we turn this nation into a carbon copy of what Mexicans and Southern Americans left -- well then, dispirited, those that we embraced will leave us in droves for another model. Witness Mexico. Who stayed to fight? Who left? Do the math.

We are well on our way -- at least in Fornicalia. Whilst in San Diego, Los Angeles and Long Beach I primarily heard the Spanish language being spoken around me. I knew that those who spoke it could understand English -- they somehow managed to pay their bills and such -- but other than the times absolutely necessary they reverted to Spanish.

I repeat at the risk of redundancy: I am most disturbed for the rest of us.


Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Time Off and Time Out

I will be in class in San Diego this week; next week I will be handling some personal issues and then, the following week, I'll be taking a much-needed actual vacation.

My posting will be infrequent until the first week of June; I have not gone away. I just need some space, time off and time out.

Take care everyone; value your friends, your spouses, and those you love.


Immigration Issues: Why Now?

Rebecca of Revka's Take had a great question in the comment section of my post, "Not What I Wanted, Not What We Need." She asked:

Blo, I have a question no one has asked. Why now? Why hasn't this been discussed and dealt with 20 years ago? Why is it now BUSH'S deal? Because of the upcoming election, and the 'no-plan' libs are using it to try and regain power. Be careful, because the libs have set the trap and we are getting caught up in it.

I responded in the comment section of that post, and would now care to expand on that response in the further light of day:


Excellent question! The issue, at least in Fornicalia, has been brewing for many years. And yes, other presidents have had the chance to address the issue. But like most other humans, if people (particularly politicians) don't HAVE to deal with an issue, they WON'T deal with an issue.

In Fornicalia it began under a man named S.I. Hayakawa, who was a large advocate for "English only" in the schools. He felt that English was the language of success not only nationally but internationally as well -- as do I.

He became a Republican US Senator from Fornicalia, 1977 until 1983. He was an English professor at San Francisco State and then president of that college from 1968 to 1973. He also founded "US English," which is a lobbying organization (to which I contribute) advocating, simply, English as the only language of the US.

Taking that stand, at that tumultuous time in a, shall we say, "left wing" college in a "left wing" area was, ahem, turbulent -- and a stand taken by a Japanese man. But the issue was now on the table in Fornicalia, publically.

Fornicalia also passed Proposition 187 in 1995, by a 59% margin. 187 was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to deny illegal immigrants social services, health care, and public education. It was introduced by assemblyman Dick Mountjoy (Monrovia Republican) as the "Save Our State" initiative.

A number of other organizations were involved in bringing it to the voters. It passed with 59% of the vote, but was overturned by a federal court.

Proposition 187 included several additions to the law, falling into two categories:

-- All law enforcement agents who suspect that a person who has been arrested is in violation of immigration laws must investigate the detainee's immigration status, and if they find evidence of illegality they must report it to the attorney general of California, and to the federal Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Local governments are prohibited from doing anything to impair the fulfillment of this requirement. The attorney general must keep records on all such cases and make them available to any other government entity that wishes to inspect them.

-- No one may receive public benefits until they have proven their legal right to reside in the country. If anyone applies for benefits and is suspected by government agents of being illegal, those agents must report in writing to the enforcement authorities. Emergency medical care is exempted as required by federal law but all other medical benefits have the same test as above. Primary and secondary education is explicitly included.

This started a secondary push and there was, of course, massive resistance from the Left -- despite the clear stance of the People.

Then-Governor Pete Wilson supported 187; State Senator Art Torres referred to Prop. 187 as "the last gasp of white America in California." Battle lines were being drawn already.

In southern border states the issue has been on the table for a number of years. It simply took the national fire time to make the pot begin to boil over.

Fast forward to now: let us not forget those who are constantly pushing for more and free entitlements. The "demonstrations" and a "Day Without Immigrants" won over only those already so driven in the Mexican community; the rest of the nation motored on its way. In my opinion the demonstrations and The Day resulted in the issue being further pushed to the forefront where President Bush was finally thrust into a political corner and knew he must appear to act in some fashion.

It's only Bush's Baby because of timing. He had a massive opportunity to make one of his famous stands early on and, instead, has chosen to not recognize the true nature of national feelings and wishes on the issue. We need a fence and we need it now.

I will give President Bush this -- and I can think of this stance as being the only reason to be such a obfuscator on the immigration issue: he may be fearful that a hard-line stance on immigrants from Mexico will cause that nation to turn Hard Left -- not unlike Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Or: the devil he knows vs. the devil he doesn't. That or an "under the table" oil deal.


P.S. to Rebecca:

I see, now that Mexico has threatened to sue the US for its intent to place NG troops on the border, your gloves appear to be coming off. Good!

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Up Or Down: What Will Be The Trend?

Some pundits are predicting $4 for a gallon of gas by mid-summer. Others are indicating $5 per gallon by summers' end. Britain, at this point, pays roughly $6.50 per gallon. Some are indicating we will exceed that price by 2007.

However, just yesterday the price for a barrel of oil fell below $70 -- over a slightly weaker demand and rising inflation. Some business analysts thought the selloff was triggered by profit-taking.

The Associated Press said:

Saudi Arabia said Monday that the market is well supplied, in part because high prices have trimmed consumption levels.

"There is no lack of capacity right now," Saudi oil minister Ali Naimi told reporters on the sidelines of an energy conference in Amman, Jordan. Asked about the impact of high prices, Naimi said: "In general, when prices are high, people check their pockets and when they are lower, they open them."

Light, sweet crude for June delivery fell $2.63 to settle at $69.41 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. That followed a drop of $1.42 on Friday.

That's but one small blip on the petroleum screen. What are, for example, the Saudis and oil producing countries saying about the long-term future of oil? From

AMMAN, Jordan - Saudi Arabia's oil minister warned Arab producers Sunday not to expect continued growth in prices and demand for oil.

Ali al-Naimi said prices could plummet if an economic crisis drives industrialized nations to find other sources of energy, citing the 1980s - when oil prices dropped by 80 percent after such nations reduced their dependency on oil and turned to alternative energy sources.

''Global economic growth may not continue at the same good momentum for years to come,'' al-Naimi said at the opening of a four-day conference of Arab energy ministers in Amman. ''We should be careful and not take expectations as indisputable, especially the continuation of big demand for oil and its prices remaining at the same level or increasing,'' he said.

Al-Naimi also cited the Asian economic crisis of 1997-1998, when oil prices fell by 50 percent, slowing Arab oil production.

''Some are even concerned about a looming economic problem because of the increased policies of economic protectionism, or what is known as economic nationalism,'' al-Naimi said, referring to Western countries' determination to become less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

Still, oil prices are about 48 percent higher than a year ago, a reflection of the market's fear about real and possible output disruptions at a time when the world's supply cushion is perilously thin. Only Saudi Arabia has any spare production capacity, but it is less than 2 percent of the daily global demand of almost 85 million barrels and not the high quality crude that refiners prefer, analysts said.

This does not have to be an all-or-nothing equation. We can attack the petroleum issue on a number of levels at once should we choose to do so. We can drill in ANWR. We can drill off our own shores. We can begin personal conservation. We can move to ethanol.

We can do all this and more should we choose to do so. And doing so would be the way to go -- particularly considering the countries from which we import oil are generally regimes of great instability -- the Middle East, Venezuela, Ethiopia, even Mexico. The sooner we can divest ourselves of our economic need to deal, on bended knee, with these countries, the better off we will be politically, militarily and economically.

The writing is on the wall. Already some factions are worried about their future and their hold on us.


Monday, May 15, 2006

Not What I Wanted; Not What We Need

President Bush delivered his prime time speech tonight. It was not what I wanted and not what I believe we need at this time. It was a step -- but altogether too tentative and made, in my opinion, only because Bush knows the crosshairs of the National Scope are focused on the bridge of his nose by everyone trying to dethrone not only Bush but all the GOP as well.

With this speech, he further allows the ELECTION crosshairs to be focused BY the Democrats, the DEM (Defeatist, Elitist Media), dissatisfied Republicans and Conservatives on not only himself but the GOP in future elections this year. And that, friends, is not good.

WHY is this such a difficult issue for people to get their minds around?

If we're not serious about OUR security, about securing our OWN borders, then why, I ask, are we even in Iraq? Why is there more security WITHOUT this nation than WITHIN?

Or is President Bush "misunderestimated" once again? He does admit in the speech:

Despite this progress, we do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that. Tonight I'm calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we'll increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we'll have more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my presidency.

President Bush also wants the National Guard on the border. I've thought about this for some time since his recent announcement.

And I've decided that, unless we're going to shoot coyotes and drug runners (and I am convinced we do NOT have the national resolve to do this) then NG deployment is a smokescreen designed to jerk the electorate off under the table. We would be better served to keep NG troops available for foreign deployments, and instead FURTHER increase the number of USBP officers. THEY are the ones who 1) do the work, 2) know the terrain and 3) that's their job!

Will we use the National Guard when elders want to cross streets?

This speech may only please those illiterates who have not been paying attention to the entire issue at all -- to be blunt.

Both parties don't seem to want to do anything about the issue -- and that appears to be the bottom line at this point. A bottom line like this will only hurt the GOP and certainly not the Democrats. And the DEM will, of course, pile on.

Harriet Miers, the Dubai Ports issue, the massive budget and now immigration. These are the issues causing consternation with GOP internals. And splitting us horribly whilst the Dems and the DEM rub their hands with glee.

But on the other hand I can understand why Conservatives draw a line and say: "No more. Here, once again, is where the GOP and me part ways."

It is because Conservatives have an actual position and are loathe to eject that position. Above and beyond Republicans. And Bush Apologists. It is why I read A Jacksonian.

Here is a paragraph in Bush's speech that speaks, as I am wont to say, volumes about his thoughts regarding Mexico:
The United States is not going to militarize the southern border. Mexico is our neighbor, and our friend. We will continue to work cooperatively to improve security on both sides of the border, to confront common problems like drug trafficking and crime, and to reduce illegal immigration.

Is Mexico truly our friend? Is Fox our friend? Are people providing maps to cross the border our friend? Are drug runners our friend? Is La Mordida our friend? Are armed border incursions conducted by our friends?

I was indifferent regarding a fence. Until today. Now I am a supporter of a fence. And TAX ME for it -- I will GLADLY pay some additional buckage for same. It appears to be working for the Israelis.

I would also ask: if it is such a wondrous thing, why is there NOT a "virtual fence" surrounding the White House? Any answer for that, Mr. President?

This speech reminds me of someone's impacted prostate: dribbling at best.


Sunday, May 14, 2006

What Is So Difficult To Understand?

One Iowa Congressman took a recent trip to the border -- and not via Taco Bell either.

Congressman Steve King has just returned from a five-day trip to Arizona's border with Mexico. "It was a real eye-opener," King says. "One cannot get a feel for this without going down there and being in it."

King has been advocating construction of a fence along the U.S./Mexico border, and King says the drug trade he witnessed just reaffirmed his belief that a fence is what it will take to stop the flood of immigrants crossing the border.

"This is my second trip down to the border but this is the one that I learned the most at and the one that really causes me to take a look at this and see it from a different perspective on how many people are coming across the border illegally and how many drugs are a part of that," King says.

King was the only member of congress on this trip. He went with a "security detail" to meet with border patrol agents, some retired agents, and a group of fewer than two dozen Native Americans called the Shadow Wolves who are intercepting more drugs than the two-thousand border patrol agents in the area.

When King was at the reservation one night, the Shadow Wolves caught a gang member with 180 pounds of marijuana hidden in his pick-up.

It would appear that Congressman King actually took the time to see what needs to be seen.

King says a concrete fence must be built along the whole length of the U.S./Mexico border because his trip made him realize the number of border crossings are "far greater in number" than he thought, and the level of violence and the drug trade is much higher, too.

To those in his own Republican party who say the U.S. is not a country that builds walls but is a country that tears them down, King offers this response. "There is a 180 degree difference between a wall that's built to keep people in, which the Berlin Wall was, and a wall that's built to keep people out, which this would be," King says.

"It's entirely moral to defend yourself from people who are pouring over your borders, that don't have respect for our sovereignty and who are brining billions of dollars of drugs into the United States."

There's a national wildlife refuge in the area of Arizona King visited, and he says a fence worked there to protect the endangered "lesser long-nosed bat." That species of bat lives in only four caves in the world, one of which illegal immigrants crossing the border in Arizona used as a hiding place.

The bats left, according to King, so the National Park Service built a wrought-iron fence around the cave's entrance. King says the winged creatures moved back in the cave once the illegal immigrants were kept out.

"A fence does work," King says. "It worked to keep the illegals out of the bat cave." King says he spent about two days traveling to and from Arizona and about three days along what he estimates was about 450 miles of border.

King says he went in sort of "undercover" fashion so he'd get the real story, not the sanitized version delivered to members of congress who climb into helicopters and fly over the area.

So what would work? One point? Two points? Three points?

How about THESE points?


  • Secure the southern and northern borders of the United States in any physical, logistical and human fashion necessary;
  • Use ALL available INS and Border Patrol sources available and then National Guard and then strictly military forces only if necessary in terms of personnel;
  • Rely on human USBP interdiction first and then construct techno-fences, with physical fences only if absolutely necessary as a last resort -- physical fences are too easily breached;
  • At the same time develop and implement a new national SSN card which resists theft;
  • Require all states to verify each and every voter during every election to be a lawful resident;
  • Require all states to comply with English-Only teaching programs;
  • Require all states to audit, identify and then penalize all employers who utilize illegal immigrants in any form;
  • Completely halt ALL legal immigration for the next two years, in order to digest, record and then implement the above mandates;
  • Create and then share immigration databases with all affected federal, state and local agencies;
  • Create a "Temporary Guest Worker Program" which allows a maximum stay of two years;
  • No amnesty for anyone. PERIOD.

Without any one of the above sections in place, our country is doomed to failure.

What do YOU think?


Saturday, May 13, 2006

Do I Detect A Slight Turn?

Popularity for President Bush is at its lowest recorded point; so "say" all the polls.

It is his second term; second term presidents always encounter rough riding.

We know about some of his tendencies:

He will stay the course in Iraq;
He is a fighter against terrorism and, to a degree, would rather terrorism not find its way again to our domestic shores;
His NSA tap policy is publicly-supported by a 2-to-1 margin;
He spends money like water;
He is loyal -- almost to a fault;
He is no Great Communicator and leaves many things un- or poorly-explained;


He apparently is disinclined to secure our borders.

. . . causing many Conservatives (and some Republicans) to wonder just where in the hell he is going and what in the hell he is doing.
Throughout all of this the economy is still pumping along nicely (though the DEM are doing their damnedest to keep this factoid from you) despite gas prices, Bush has made two excellent (and one zany nomination) selections for the Supreme Court, and a questionable replacement for Porter Goss (I do not object to the "military" aspect; I object to the "status quo" aspect -- Porter Goss actually attempted some change).
-- (Sorry, Blogger has this moment decided to not allow me to delineate paragraphs.) --
And now this -- in advance of his Monday speech on immigration.
Bush May Widen National Guard Patrols at Border
By Jonathan Weisman and Michael A. FletcherWashington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 13, 2006; A01

President Bush will push next week for a broad overhaul of the nation's immigration laws and plans to tighten security on the borders, possibly with a wider deployment of the National Guard, White House officials said yesterday.

The officials said Bush will use a prime-time television address Monday to outline his plans and then visit the U.S.-Mexico border on Thursday to highlight the problem of illegal immigration.

Officials say he is considering substantially increasing the presence of National Guard troops, some of whom are already deployed under state of emergency declarations in New Mexico and Arizona. Administration officials are exploring ways to allow governors to deploy troops across state lines to help seal the porous border with Mexico.
Despite this, President Bush has still not visited with or consulted border-state governors on their needs and issues with regard to illegal immigration.
And, in my opinion, President Bush is doing this only because he perceives he must make the move for self-preservation -- a motivational factor I find most disturbing.
Is this the initial "laying of hands" on the wheel of the RMS Titanic prior to its collision with the iceberg?
I wish I could say I were supremely confident. I am not.
Only time will tell.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Takes The Stand We Knew He Would -- Exhibiting More Balls Than Our Elected President

"I'm going to catch as many as I can and throw them in my jail," said Sheriff Joe Arpaio. "And the jails are not that nice."

Sheriff Joe Arpaio is right. His jails primarily suck. And that's on a good day. Check it out: when he ran out of brick and mortar buildings for inmates, he created tent cities in the Arizona desert. Allow me to consult my thermometer right now: oh yes; about 118 degrees in the shade. Perfect for inmates or boiling lobster tails.

Before I go further, to get a good sense of who he is, I refer you to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department website, some truths about Sheriff Joe, and what Wikipedia has to say about the good Sheriff.

People either love or hate Sheriff Joe. Many hate him. He has been sued. He has received numerous death threats. Still he has survived. Some say that he is the most recognized and revered politician in the entire state of Arizona. At age 74, not a bad testimony -- considering Arizona is rife with True Politicians as is any other given state. In my opinion Sheriff Joe is the last of a breed.

Hell, I should have made him a Today's Hero months ago.

Silly me.

Also: silly me for not checking Arpaio's influence on the illegal immigrant issue because Arizona is, of course, on the cutting edge of illegal immigration as it borders the Mexican state of Sonora and the Mexican cities of Nogales and Agua Prieta.

From the Associated Press:

Beginning Wednesday, more illegal immigrants coming through Maricopa County could meet the same fate as the sheriff's department beefs up its efforts to find illegal immigrants.

A 250-member posse that will operate similarly to the anti-smuggler task force will patrol the area for illegal immigrants who pay smugglers to cross through Arizona, the busiest illegal entry point along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border.

The posse will be made up of existing sheriff's deputies and members of the department's 3,000-member posse reserve of trained, unpaid volunteers.

A recent Arizona state law makes human smuggling a crime -- it was already a federal crime -- (though largely unenforced by those who have the power to do so!) allowing local law enforcement agencies to arrest suspected smugglers.

And so in steps another player: Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas. He believes the law can be applied to the smuggled immigrants themselves, thinking that illegal immigrants who pay smugglers to enter the United States are committing conspiracy to smuggle and can therefore be prosecuted under the state law.

Sounds to me like the continual controversy of "spirit of the law" vs. the "letter of the law."

Which philosophy do you think should win? And on whose side should the law lean?

Naturally, attorneys for some of the arrested illegal immigrants have filed motions to have the charges dismissed. One LA lawyer brought into the case by the Mexican Consul General's Office in Phoenix (big clue there) filed another motion claiming Thomas and Arpaio are violating state and federal law and are using the conspiracy charges to control illegal immigration, which, they allege, is the federal government's job.

Easily countered: the federal government ISN'T DOING ITS JOB. Period.

Again, from the AP story:

Arpaio said the motions don't worry him.

"I get sued when I go to the toilet. You think I'm worried about it?" he said. "If they think I'm going to slow down because of these threats, I've got news for them - I'm not going to slow down. I'll do more of it."

Balls. Pure and simple.

So few of them left in this country.

Huh, George?


Tuesday, May 09, 2006

The Final Insult

As most already know, my life has been "busy" shall we say, these last two months. This situation has been complicated by the fact that Blogger appeared to be ignoring me in the most insulting way -- not allowing me to post, eradicating lengthy posts, not allowing me to add a photograph, not allowing me to save drafts or publish at all. Even now, as I write these words, I'm attempting to add a photo (on another computer) and the process is glazingly slow.

As a matter of fact, there it goes. I can't add a photo and this computer is hooked to DSL. I have a little winky dial-up at home but, unfortunately, with the way my life has been running, all the emergencies and issues have been in the Sacratomato Valley -- nowhere near my home.

The previous post, for example, was accomplished after five attempts by first composing in Word and then pasting rapidly. No photo, no graphics. On my work computer, my blog appeared as though I had completely eradicated my right sidebar and I thought: "Lord, how would I possibly re-create this blog from scratch?" I admit; I panicked.

I had to wait all day until I could leave work and access another computer. But at least I know the problem: my work computer. I discovered the I.T. creatures have added more sites to their URLs of Death -- to include Blogger. I also discovered "other entities" had been logging onto Blogger for hours at a time during work hours -- whilst I used my early morning time to blog before work. Heavy sigh.

So there you have it. I have to bring my massive HP Pavilion zd8000 to work and try to run it from my phone line, through my dial-up ISP.

I've not gone away; I've simply been out-maneuvered by a wily I.T. team.

I'll not give up so easily.


The Budget And Mad Cow

One opinion, one point:

When it comes to fiscal conservatism, the Republican Party simply fails under President Bush. Today, the federal government spends $2.47 trillion—that's 2,470 billions of dollars—each year. Adjusted for inflation, that's 50 percent larger than the big-government Clinton-era budgets of only a decade ago – remember those? – the ones conservatives complained about? Of that, only 21 cents of every taxpayer dollar goes to national defense and homeland security. By contrast, 54 cents goes to entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and 8 cents goes to servicing the federal debt.

As The Patriot Post indicates: Meanwhile, the federal deficit will grow another $423 billion this year, raising the national debt to $8.28 trillion! While we're not exactly "The sky is falling!" deficit hawks, it's worth noting that big budgets and big deficits tighten the money supply, increasing the costs of investment and slowing economic growth and prosperity.

This is not what Conservatism is about. I continue to be disappointed.

Just what you want in your beef: bovine spongiform encephalopathy. You know it as Mad Cow Disease. And were you aware that the USDA under President Bush has barred Kansas meatpacking company Creekstone Farms from following through on its plan to test 100% of its cattle for BSE?

In order to reassure its overseas customers, Creekstone wanted to test 100% of its cows – compared to the USDA – which tests 1% of slaughtered cattle. The USDA had the actual temerity to say that Creekstone’s proposed testing regime would “undermine confidence in government efforts to spot the disease,” which can cause fatal brain damage in people eating infected animals.

Here are some Truths according to BZ:

Yes, it would undermine confidence. And why is the USDA only testing 1%?
Moreover, the USDA is likely afraid that testing would reveal Mad Cow more common than anyone ever imagined.

That the Bush Administration’s USDA would actually oppose a positive move for the benefit of public health is beyond outrageous. It’s just plain stupid and dangerous.

And what of tree trade and open markets? What if Creekstone’s beef “takes off” because of vigorous testing? Wouldn’t that likely force others in the beef industry to test in a like fashion?

So, Bush USDA: competition isn’t good? Public health isn’t good? Saving peoples’ lives isn’t good?

This is reprehensible.


Friday, May 05, 2006

Likely My Final Choice

I've looked at a bunch of cars. Sedans, wagons, coupes.

For my money, for my desire, for my driving habits, I think I've narrowed things down to, essentially, the Honda Civic.

Yes, the full-sized 2006 Honda Civic. There are three model types, the DX, LX and EX. I'm thinking I'm liking the EX because, after all, that's the one I drove.

A friend of mine at work recently purchased a 2006 Civic and allowed me a brief drive. I enjoyed every moment and then some.

First, I have to admit: I really like the styling of the new Civics. My fiance doesn't care for the styling at all. I suppose it's a love/hate relationship. But then again she wants a new Toyota Tundra pickup truck. She's into fantasy; I'm into reality. In my opinion, gas ain't goin' down in price boys and girls. Those who think so are sorely deranged.

So, momentarily, let's attack that MPG factor.

MPG of any given Tundra sucks. Period.

My 2003 Subaru Outback Sport gets around 22 to 23 mpg. That's on a forgiving day.

With only two weeks on the odometer, my friend drove his new Civic to the Bay Area and back, and acquired 48 mpg. Last weekend he drove from Placerville to the East Bay and back. He acquired 43 mpg. And folks: that's with a brand new engine. Mileage only gets better with a few more miles.

Quite frankly, those figures are better than the ones quoted by hybrid vehicles.

Here's my take on Hybrids:

  • Slow
  • Ugly
  • Minimal engine
  • Huge battery box replacement costs
  • Complicated electronic system susceptible to failure

The 2006 Honda Civic acquired an overall superior mileage figure to that of any Toyota or Honda Hybrid. Hybrid figures, people are discovering, are laced with falsehoods. The Honda Civic automatic gets better gas mileage than the standard transmission -- due to its algorithmic shifting points. I am told it does not hunt for gears whilst traveling uphill.

I'm going to investigate having a Civic in my future.


The Monster New Russia -- Or The New Russian Monster?

Vice President Dick Cheney's Halliburton implant has, once again, apparently stirred and ruffled some recent feathers with his comments regarding Russia -- and in my opinion he would be positively spot-on with his analyses.

Russia's Putin has been doing the feint-and-dodge in the worst place of all: in plain sight. Those who think that Russia is another dissembling former-powerhouse nation would be wrong -- critically wrong. Yes, its Blue Water navy is primarily rusting; it has not a complete clue as to how it will make its next month's army payroll; the Russian Mafia is alive and well domestically as well as abroad.

On the other hand as evinced by the photo at left, Putin has been doing his level best to court China and provide hardware and equipment to, eh, shall we say, "other nations."

If you are not already aware, Russia sits on top of a vast (emphasize vast) wealth of untapped mineral, gas and petroleum deposits. And Putin, as far as I'm concerned, means to draft Russia behind various world powerhouses and then, at the appropriate moment, make his move into the Left Power Lane. And he means, at this point, to do it with Energy.

Per Reuters:

MOSCOW (Reuters) - A speech by Vice President Dick Cheney strongly critical of the Kremlin marks the start of a new Cold War that could drive Moscow away from its new-found Western allies, the Russian press said on Friday.

In shocked reaction to the harshest U.S. criticism of Moscow for years, commentators said Washington had created an anti-Russian cordon of Western-aligned states stretching from the Baltic almost to the Caspian Sea.

The Kremlin, in a reaction within hours of Cheney's delivery in Vilnius, said the speech, which was full of accusations that Moscow was limiting human rights and using its energy riches to blackmail the world, was "completely incomprehensible."

What remarks had Cheney made? From Reuters once again:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Friday backed Vice President Dick Cheney's tough speech on Russia and said Russian President Vladimir Putin should move on democratic reforms before hosting a major international summit in July.

Cheney had said in a speech in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius on Thursday that opponents of democratic reform in Russia "are seeking to reverse the gains of the last decade."

Putin's moves for Russia have been precisely as I've indicated: in plain sight had one been able to read them for what they were. Further explanation:

The new tensions come as the United States is seeking support from Russia on applying pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions.

Russia, which has major investments in Iran, has stood firm against U.N. sanctions on Tehran to the chagrin of Washington.

"They add up the pluses and minuses, they don't want to trash the relationship with Iran," said Steve Pifer, a Russian expert for the State Department in Bush's first term and now an analyst for the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

He said the Cheney speech was a signal that Washington "is uneasy about some of the directions that the Russians are moving in."

Cheney criticized Moscow for playing power politics with its vast energy reserves at a time of record world prices and accused it of bullying neighboring countries, many of which were dominated by the Kremlin in the Soviet era.

Pifer said that was a reference to Russia's turning off its natural gas taps to Ukraine in a pricing dispute that disrupted supplies to Europe briefly.

Putin is doing precisely what he intends: to bring Russia back into the international spotlight and recreate and reassemble its former Glory Days when the USSR was one of only two Superpowers. He is doing his best to forget 1989, Ronald Reagan and the word "Balkanized."

Putin has already placed his nation directly in conflict with the United States with regard to his supplying Iran with technologically-sophisticated air defense systems.

From the Jerusalem Post, 01-31-2006:
But the far more controversial decision by Putin's regime - to sell Russia's sophisticated air defense systems to Iran - not only changes the situation in principle but triggers a scenario for possible regional and even global catastrophe.

Israel had room for maneuver for a year and a half, until Iran's probable completion of its first nuclear weapon. Now it has only a few months, because the Russian air defense systems protecting Iranian nuclear objectives will be fully deployed by autumn of 2006. An Israeli strike would be much more difficult, if not impossible, once these systems are in place. This means that a preventive strike by the Israelis would occur most likely before this summer.

Russia's role in advancing the date of this potentially desperate military action by providing Iran with high-quality air defense weapons raises the question of whether Putin might have had some additional purpose besides the profits from his weapons sale. Israel's defensive strike would likely incite Iranian action to block the shipments of oil through the Straits of Hormuz.

Putin seems to perceive such a scenario as beneficial to him.

Much is linked. Much is controverted. Much is deeper than most would suspect. You would do well to do what is popularly termed today: "connect the dots."

They are present if one wishes but to see.

We in the United States see Iraq. We see Afghanistan. We see Iran to a degree. We see North Korea. We need to see Russia.

Of course -- most of our students couldn't identify Ohio or Texas or Montana on a map if their lives depended on it.

Can you say: "Would you like fries with that?"


I am posting now from my home high atop various Sierra Nevada mountains. The problem is that I have not been home for quite some time, despite the fact that I have nothing more than a telephone modem. I will be bringing my Big Bruiser HP Pavilion zd8000 laptop down into the Sacramento Valley and, with luck, I will be able to convince my ISP to show me how to link up to another dialup number.

I am undergoing Blogger Withdrawal and it isn't a Pretty Picture at all. Please stick with me. I am not going away. Anything but.


Tuesday, May 02, 2006

What Will Be The Impact?

First: Is it just me? Am I the only one frustrated by Blogger seemingly day in and day out -- at least 5 times in the past two weeks? The first post I lost was monstrous in size and damned near caused me to hurl the Confuser out the second story window. Today I was ready to post at 4 AM and again lost the post. Has this occurred to anyone else? This is my third try at the same post today and . . . very frustrating!


Yesterday was the so-called "Day Without Immigrants" or, as some Mexicans are saying, the "Day Without Gringos" as documented by the AP:

Thousands of Mexicans took to the streets Monday to support migrants in the United States and celebrated what they called a "Day Without Gringos" by shunning U.S.-owned supermarkets, fast-food restaurants and American goods.

How has it impacted you? Here is how it impacted me yesterday in Sacratomato, Fornicalia:

-- I worked out early in the morning at 3:30 at a large fitness chain; the standard three Mexican males were wearing the cleaning uniforms and doing their jobs as per normal;
-- I was the recipient of a large work product shipment at 9:00 am, the load delivered by a Mexican driver handling a Freightliner. He helped me unload 4,200 pounds of product. Then he drove to San Francisco;
-- I motored along a major adjacent highway where a large housing subdivision was being built; I specifically slowed down so I could see who was working on the various sites. There were a number of clearly Mexican workers wielding various construction tools;
-- I had a hankering for a hot doggie from a major national doggie chain; I was served by a Mexican female cashier.

That's how it affected me. How did it affect you?



I believe I have determined that, for whatever reason, Blogger has decided that it will no longer publish from work. I customarily blog from my work computer very early in the morning and that venue seems to have been removed -- covertly by my I.T. people or by various Acts of God, I am uncertain. In any event, this is clearly going to impact how frequently I blog during the week -- combined with the inconsistent familial events I have experienced and will be experiencing in the future. I am going to try to solve this problem -- I may have to bring my own huge laptop from home and connect via dial-up modem.

Now Blogger won't let me add an image. Again I ask: am I the only one Blogger seems to despise?