Category Archives: Bush

Immigration Infarct

America, Bush, IMMIGRATION

Bush’s immigration infarct was studded with his trademark non sequiturs:

We are a nation of immigrants; therefore we must uphold that “tradition,” he puled. And “to secure our border, we must create a temporary worker program.” In both assertions, the second proposition doesn’t follow from the first—even if America is indeed a nation of immigrants, it doesn’t follow that it has to remain so. Similarly, it is quite possible to seal the border without creating a guest worker program (with its attendant bureaucracy).

One of the many moral infelicities Bush has committed on the matter of immigration is to have decided that the longer an illegal alien has been in the U.S., and thus violated its laws, the shorter his road to citizenship. Another was to praise these plucky folks for heroically forging documents and lying to employers about their status in the country.

Sanctimonious admonitions were in no short supply—but were directed at … the American people. They were told to “conduct this debate on immigration in a reasoned and respectful tone.” “We must always remember,” said The Man Who Pulverized Iraq, “that real lives will be affected by our debates and decisions.”

Since Those Jobs The American People Aren’t Doing were also mentioned, I, in turn, wish to refer the POTUS to a report by researcher Edwin S. Rubenstein, according to which illegals make up only 13 percent of hotel industry workers, 11 percent of restaurant and food service workers, and 10 percent of construction workers.

Will the president pray tell who the other mystery workers are?

Bush's Energy and Eco-Idiocy

Bush, Energy

Debates about energy on Fox News, the Republican Party’s megaphone, reflect just how far Bush and his supporters have strayed from a priori economic truths, in adopting the Democratic agenda.

The two ubiquitous interlocutors typically invited to “debate” energy—one a Democrat; the other a Republican—have no real disagreement about policy or the facts undergirding it. Their only quarrel concerns the degree to which Bush is carrying out the Democrats’ plank; Democrat pinkos say not fast enough; Republican pinkos give him full marks.

Democrats don’t even have to argue their case for the repugnant Marxist theory of environmentalism; Bush has accepted and acted on it–its fallacies inform his policies. As I’ve written:

“The theory used to be that capitalism was going to cause the impoverishment of the worker. The exact opposite transpired. Greater economic freedom, especially in developed nations, has enabled those who, in previous centuries would have lived short, nasty and brutish lives, to afford the accoutrements of modernity. The theory now is that the capitalist has taken a slight detour—the worker’s demise will indeed follow as soon as the capitalist is through despoiling the environment.”

Republicans have been converted: they are now “watermelons”—green on the outside, red on the inside.

Duly, they ignore that supply and demand determine the price of gas—and that, other than taking care in future not to reduce supply by pulverizing a country that was once a major oil producer—supply has to be increased to reduce prices.

Furthermore, the price system is the best way to conserve. Americans are already adjusting consumption because of prices. Dare to meddle with these, as Bill O’Reilly advocates, and shortages or surpluses will follow in short succession. If you cap prices (or profits, as Comrade Bill advocates), people will conserve less because prices will have been artificially lowered, and suppliers will have no incentive to drill for crude and bring it to market. If the eco-idiots don’t want lines at the pump the likes Iraqis are now enduring, let the price system work to conserve—and to secure supply.

Any impending scarcity is the responsibility of the powerful environmental lobby’s opposition to oil exploration—and the governments that have heeded it. This lobby has seen to it that a domestic moratorium and thousands of regulations and restrictions have been foisted over the years on industry in a bungling attempt at conservation. The prices at the pump are their handiwork. Absent legislative barriers to exploration, courtesy of ignorant environmentalists, high prices would, ordinarily, signal to oil companies that there are profits to be made, and that they should intensify drilling, refining, etc. In short, get more product to market.

As to the “commie cars” Bush is pushing, much to the delight of Democrats: Don’t expect Bush (who recently spoke of reducing “greenhouse admissions“), the Fox fillies, affiliated fops, or any other ignoramus on the networks, to tell you what they apparently don’t understand—also the only thing you need to know about electric, hydrogen, and hybrid gas-and-electric vehicles—these are only as good as the original source of energy that powers them.

Take the Hydrogen vehicle: energy is released when water (H2O) is separated into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Notwithstanding that this process is not economically viable, and thus far more wasteful than oil extraction, to bring about this reaction, coal, natural gas, nuclear power, or a hydroelectric dam are required first. Dah!

America’s “People’s Car”—engineered due to the same central planning that brought into being the lowly Russian Lada (it was decreed by USSR’s Ministries Council)—is only as clean as “the original source of energy that generated the vim that powers it.”

Further reading: “Commie Cars”, “Mutant Marxists in the ‘Heart of Darkness'”

Bush’s Energy and Eco-Idiocy

Bush, Economy, Energy

Debates about energy on Fox News, the Republican Party’s megaphone, reflect just how far Bush and his supporters have strayed from a priori economic truths, in adopting the Democratic agenda.

The two ubiquitous interlocutors typically invited to “debate” energy—one a Democrat; the other a Republican—have no real disagreement about policy or the facts undergirding it. Their only quarrel concerns the degree to which Bush is carrying out the Democrats’ plank; Democrat pinkos say not fast enough; Republican pinkos give him full marks.

Democrats don’t even have to argue their case for the repugnant Marxist theory of environmentalism; Bush has accepted and acted on it–its fallacies inform his policies. As I’ve written:

“The theory used to be that capitalism was going to cause the impoverishment of the worker. The exact opposite transpired. Greater economic freedom, especially in developed nations, has enabled those who, in previous centuries would have lived short, nasty and brutish lives, to afford the accoutrements of modernity. The theory now is that the capitalist has taken a slight detour—the worker’s demise will indeed follow as soon as the capitalist is through despoiling the environment.”

Republicans have been converted: they are now “watermelons”—green on the outside, red on the inside.

Duly, they ignore that supply and demand determine the price of gas—and that, other than taking care in future not to reduce supply by pulverizing a country that was once a major oil producer—supply has to be increased to reduce prices.

Furthermore, the price system is the best way to conserve. Americans are already adjusting consumption because of prices. Dare to meddle with these, as Bill O’Reilly advocates, and shortages or surpluses will follow in short succession. If you cap prices (or profits, as Comrade Bill advocates), people will conserve less because prices will have been artificially lowered, and suppliers will have no incentive to drill for crude and bring it to market. If the eco-idiots don’t want lines at the pump the likes Iraqis are now enduring, let the price system work to conserve—and to secure supply.

Any impending scarcity is the responsibility of the powerful environmental lobby’s opposition to oil exploration—and the governments that have heeded it. This lobby has seen to it that a domestic moratorium and thousands of regulations and restrictions have been foisted over the years on industry in a bungling attempt at conservation. The prices at the pump are their handiwork. Absent legislative barriers to exploration, courtesy of ignorant environmentalists, high prices would, ordinarily, signal to oil companies that there are profits to be made, and that they should intensify drilling, refining, etc. In short, get more product to market.

As to the “commie cars” Bush is pushing, much to the delight of Democrats: Don’t expect Bush (who recently spoke of reducing “greenhouse admissions“), the Fox fillies, affiliated fops, or any other ignoramus on the networks, to tell you what they apparently don’t understand—also the only thing you need to know about electric, hydrogen, and hybrid gas-and-electric vehicles—these are only as good as the original source of energy that powers them.

Take the Hydrogen vehicle: energy is released when water (H2O) is separated into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Notwithstanding that this process is not economically viable, and thus far more wasteful than oil extraction, to bring about this reaction, coal, natural gas, nuclear power, or a hydroelectric dam are required first. Dah!

America’s “People’s Car”—engineered due to the same central planning that brought into being the lowly Russian Lada (it was decreed by USSR’s Ministries Council)—is only as clean as “the original source of energy that generated the vim that powers it.”

Further reading: “Commie Cars”, “Mutant Marxists in the ‘Heart of Darkness'”

A Saddamless Iraq — A Free Iraq

Bush, Democracy, Iraq, Islam, Neoconservatism, War

Genghis (Bush) and his gang have recently told Iraqis to get with the program: form a government, or else. There is something really screwy about this administration’s admonitions to Iraqis for not getting it together. As though Iraq ever had it together; Saddam’s reign was one of the more peaceful periods in the history of this fractious people, which did not, I might add, ask to be invaded—and “improved.”

Under our ministrations, Iraq has gone from a secular to a religious country; from rogue to failed state. Put yourself in the worn-out shoes of this sad, pathetic people. Would you rather live under Saddam—who was a brutal dictator, but did provide Iraq with one of the foundations of civilization: order or under a force made up of ideological terrorists and an “Ali Baba” element, all running rampant because they can, and where not even mosques provide a safe haven from these brutes and their bombs?

I know what my answer would be. But then I’ve actually had some experience—nothing compared to the experience of the Iraqis, but certainly something compared to the inexperience of the types (Hannity, O’Reilly et al.) who talk up this war.

I lived under a dictatorship in apartheid South-Africa. So did millions of Africans. Crime was never an issue then. Africans suffered indignities, but not much violence. Unless one made a point of clashing with the authorities, one’s life was secure. Now that “freedom” has come to South Africa, lawlessness is such that the “democratic” government has implemented “an official blackout” on national crime statistics. The place is one of the most violent spots on earth, after Iraq, Haiti, and some other African countries.

A few weeks back I got the news that my youngest brother and his family (wife and new baby) were attacked in their suburban fortress at 2:00am by a gang of Africans. The alarm was bypassed. Luckily they escaped with their lives.

In my father’s upmarket neighborhood, another dad was shot point-blank in front of his little girls, as he exited his car to open the garage gates. The loot? A cell phone and some cash. He begged the savages to take his car and all his possessions and spare his life. Two of my husband’s colleagues are dead; one shot in broad daylight as he left his girlfriend’s apartment.

South-Africa is heaven on earth compared to Iraq. So don’t speak to me about “liberation.” The removal of Saddam is not to be equated with liberty in Iraq; a Saddamless Iraq is not necessarily a free Iraq.

Let us stipulate for the record that Saddam Hussein was a killer, a wicked man indeed. Yet even the invasion’s most avid supporters cannot but agree that Iraq was not a lawless society prior to our merciful faith-based intervention.

In addition to their society’s cultural limitations vis-a -vis the attainment of democracy, if Iraqis appear ungrateful or disoriented it is because they are busy… busy dying at rates much much higher than those claimed by the Saddam = Hitler crowd. In the final days of Saddam’s reign of terror, i.e., in the 15 months preceding the invasion, the primary causes of death in Iraq were natural: “heart attack, stroke and chronic illness,” according to a Lancet report. Since Iraq became another neocon object lesson, the primary cause of death has been violence.

As I once wrote, people “whose lungs are airless, whose hearts are not beating, and whose eyes and limbs are missing are not free and will never be free.” And people who risk such a fate daily are not free in any meaningful way.