Category Archives: Politics

UPDATE II: Republican Thrust And ‘Perry’ (Perry Feels Your Pain, NOT)

IMMIGRATION, Outsourcing, Politics, Regulation, Republicans, Ron Paul, Taxation, The State

I thought the CNN/Tea Party Debate in Tampa, Florida, was far and away better than the Republican spat in Des Moines, Iowa, last month. Perhaps the network is desperate for the ratings Tea Party sponsorship affords because Wolf Blitzer worked it—even if the focus was placed on the Big Two, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

Michelle Bachmann showed that, like her or not, she’s a force of nature. Would that the woman’s eloquence, attractiveness, and the fact that she is seldom fazed could be harnessed in the service of liberty. Like a bulldog, Bachmann latched onto Perry and refused to let go over the governor’s Body Snatcher Program—the forcible invasion of the bodies of little Texan girls. Perry was man enough to apologize for requiring the vaccination of girls as young as 12 against cervical cancer. But a man who would mandate such a thing should never be trusted. Perry is almost as shifty as Bush, although more intelligent than The Shrub.

Jon Huntsman generally came over as the most statist among the Republican contenders. A young man asked him poignantly, “How much of what I earn do you believe I should be able to keep?” Rep. Paul would have replied, “All of it.” Huntsman belabored an incoherent tax plot.

Huntsman managed, however, to brilliantly commandeer Ron Paul’s argument for divesting from Afghanistan. This in response to a question about what he intended to do, as president, for the women and girls of Afghanistan. Nothing, basically, was Huntsman’s retort. Unlike Fox News on whose website there are more images than words, CNN is sure to post debate transcripts by tomorrow, at which time I’ll excerpt Huntsman’s excellent thrust and parry over the need to bring the troops home, look after the homeland, and act as an example to the world by, once again, shining.

However, Huntsman, like most Americans (except for us immigrants), proved that he knows close to nothing about America’s labyrinthine visa programs. He advocated for fixing the immigration system so that the US could import many more brilliant, highly skilled individuals, as if there was a limit on, or an impediment to, such immigration.

THERE are no limits on the number of geniuses American companies can import.

America already has an “Extraordinary Ability” Visa. In exchange for my spouse’s exceptional abilities and qualifications, he was awarded the O-1 visa. And we, in short order, gained green cards.

The primary H-1B hogs—Infosys (and another eight, sister Indian firms), Microsoft, and Intel—are forever claiming that they are desperate for talent. But, in reality, they have unlimited access to individuals with unique abilities through the open-ended O-1 visa program.

I believe that before “Why Aren’t The H-1B Hogs Satisfied With The O-1 ‘Extraordinary Ability’ Visa?” was written, no immigration expert had made the simple point above.

That’s right: The O-1 visa program enables the importation of as many geniuses as a company can find, from every corner of the world. Yet, not even Ron Hira (Ph.D., P.E. Chair, Research & Development Policy Committee The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers – United States of America), advocate for local talent, bothers to point this out in the course of his many media appearances.

UPDATE I (Sept. 13): Tom, the criteria for Sean were quite rigorous. As I mentioned in the article, the authorities do make it even easier for guys who’re more gifted than my guy; they are given green cards on the spot. “A one-of-a-kind Afrikaner RF engineer we know, who possesses a PhD, publications galore, patented software programs and products, and a company, was told to hop on a plane, family in tow.” He came and left; he and the family didn’t like the USA.

Super models can also get the O-1 ‘Extraordinary Ability’ Visa, I believe. And if they are wealthy and beautiful, why not? Heidi Klum has a unique talent or two—and has generated an industry for the locals.

UPDATE II: PERRY FEELS YOUR PAIN, NOT. JACK CAFFERTY, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: “Rick Perry, the anointed front-runner at least at this hour, would have us believe he is a country boy at heart, a down home country cornpone that can relate to the plight of the ordinary American. There’s another side to the Texas governor. ‘Politico’ reports that for years, Perry, who makes $150,000 a year as governor, has enjoyed additional lavish perks and travel mostly funded by wealthy supporters. Imagine that.”

“Texas donors have paid for the governor and his family to travel around the world sometimes on private jets, paid for them to stay at luxury hotels, resorts, vacation in Colorado ski towns, and attend tons of sporting events and concerts. Rick Perry has also accepted a wide range of very expensive gifts, including 22 pairs of cowboy boots, some of them costing $500 a pair. Somebody else even pays his cable TV Bill. Taxpayers pay his rent, $8,500 a month for Perry’s 4,600 square foot mansion in Austin. The governor and his family have been living in the five bedroom seven bath mansion since 2007 while the governor’s mansion undergoes repair. Four years? What sort of repairs are those, do you imagine?”

“It’s all copacetic down there in the lone star state which has some of the loosest ethics and campaign rules in the country. Nonetheless, it is tough to imagine supporters aren’t buying influence when they lavish those perks on the governor. Of course they are. Some donors have wound up with appointments to state commissions, million dollar state grants to businesses they are involved in.”

Perry’s camp insists it is all on the up and up. A spokeswoman told ‘Politico’ the governor fully discloses all gifts and travel in his financial disclosure statements. But that don’t make it cricket.”

Here’s the question — does Rick Perry’s lavish lifestyle, mostly paid for mostly by taxpayers and wealthy friends and donors, match his downhome, awe shucks country boy image?

Quintessential Republican Cretinism

Intelligence, Military, Politics, Republicans

As the Republican presidential candidates ramp-up their faux-patriotic militaristic jingoism, it’s time to remember just how dumb these people are. Here is “The Republican Party Animals Music Video”:

The American Conservative captured this thematic, quintessentially Republican cretinism, in all its contradictions—as if both “small government” and a massive military can coincide—in the cover art and cover story of the issue titled, “GOP and Man at Yale”:

Unbeknown to Republicans, “the military is government. The military works like government; is financed like government, and sports many of the same inherent malignancies of government. Like government, it must be kept small.”

“Conservative can’t coherently preach against the evils of big government, while excluding the military mammoth.”

UPDATE IV: Tim Pawlenty is a Weasel (Bravo LA Times)

Democracy, Democrats, Elections, Government, IMMIGRATION, Politics, Republicans, Ron Paul

Do I really have to debate The Debate? What can I add about the Republican spat in Des Moines, Iowa, that has not been rehashed already?

I’ll set aside my ideological loyalties (which are with Ron Paul), and comment some on style and character. (Readers already know that I’m fuming because, given the status of the written word in news reports, there are no online transcripts. Just YouTube.)

Tim Pawlenty revealed himself to be a weasel. But no one in the media is making a call on character. Pawlenty is terrified of Michele Bachmann, and for good reason. She’s the man he is not. However, his tactics are underhanded.

Via FoxNews:

Pawlenty responded “to Bachmann’s relentless repetition of her claim to leadership in Washington, pointing out that Democrats had rolled up legislative victories for most of her time in Congress and passed multiple bills over her objections, sometimes using her as a foil.”

This Pawlenty argument is plain wrong, maybe even devious; it’s the argument a consummate politico will make. What do I mean? Take Ron Paul. He celebrates victories in the arena of ideas. As he has pointed out, more and more of his rivals are moving in his direction, and adopting the truth where they once dubbed this truth kooky. On the Federal Reserve banking system, for example.

So the fact that Bachmann has not gotten her way with a cowardly Congress says nothing much at all about her “leadership.” After all, most of her Tea Party colleagues in the House voted to raise the debt ceiling for a mess of pottage, a meager cut in the rate of government metastasization.

“If that’s your view of effective leadership with results, please stop, because you’re killing us,” Pawlenty snarled Bachmann.

In other words, what Pawlenty has implied is this: if cleaving to the right ideas doesn’t penetrate the wrong heads, a real leader should “stop” agitating for the truth as he or she sees it. By the Pawlenty logic, Paul ought to have given up ages ago on talking sound money and foreign policy.

Pawlenty stuck out as particularly statist.

More later.

UPDATE I: MY Straw Poll Prediction. The 2011 Iowa Straw Poll: My sense is that R. Paul and M. Bachmann will win out. This win will highlight even more my long-standing contention that, to take the country back, these two have to collaborate.

UPDATE II: VALIDATED. I called the straw poll (above) 36 minutes ago, as the Talkers pontificated on the TV. Isn’t it time to stop reading and listening to television’s political whores, who never call anything as it is? I describe these Big Mouths’ shtick in the post, “Talkers fear Losing Top-Dog Status.”

Not one (as far as I can tell) of the paid pundits on TV predicted that Bachmann and Paul would win. Yet I’ve been saying the same since “September of 2009, when this column had already picked the GOP’s winning ticket: Ron Paul for commander-in-chief; Michele Bachmann as second-in-command.”

But I’m afraid that the voting public is probably right. For a winning ticket, the order of the ticket needs to be reversed. Bachmann is just that talented. It’s not my choice, but it’s reality.

The Ames Straw Poll results:

Bachmann secured 4,823 votes, narrowly besting Texas Rep. Ron Paul who had 4,671 votes. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty was chosen on 2,293 ballots, placing him third. … Part country fair and entirely political, the Ames Straw Poll has helped take the pulse of a campaign’s strength since 1979. It’s also the first opportunity for the tens of thousands of voters who weighed in Saturday on which GOP president candidate they support.

UPDATE (Aug 14): Clearly the candidates know very little about immigration policy and the labyrinth of visas the bureaucracy peddles. Most American know nothing about the topic. Herman Cain had a good line about there being a path to American citizenship: legal immigration. Back to Mitt, who complained that here in the US, we qualify PhDs in physics and then send them back “home.” Nonsense. The US has “unlimited access to individuals with unique abilities through the open-ended O-1 visa program … that is if the US really wanted it.”

Read about the O-1 visa (awarded to my spouse).

Gary Johnson on immigration? He’s just insane.

UPDATE IV: BRAVO LA TIMES. A transcript of the Iowa debate at last. I was looking for the Newt Gingrich segments, because the man did make a few vital points, but of course, reporting being what it is, I could not locate his words verbatim.

“… repeal Dodd-Frank, repeal Sarbanes-Oxley, repeal Obamacare.”

Very good practical points. “The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, courtesy of the Republican Party, cost American companies upwards of $1.2 trillion. The capital flight it initiated caused the London Stock Exchange to become the new hub for capital markets. Given America’s habit of forcing its habits on others, SOX struck fear into quite a few Liberal Democratic hearts in the House of Lords. Lord Teverson worried about the ‘increasing danger of regulatory creep from American regulators that threatens [Britain’s] own light-touch approach to financial regulation.’”

UPDATE III: Unflapable, But No ‘Flake’ (‘Winning’)

Elections, Etiquette, Human Accomplishment, Intelligence, John McCain, Media, Politics, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin

At last, presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) is deploying a tactic touted by this column in hammering home her own intellectual heft (relative to a politician, that is). She has to. Fox News’ Chris Wallace apparently thinks that asking Bachmann (as opposed to John McCain and progeny) whether she is a flake amounts to hard-hitting journalism.

Then and there, the “seldom fazed” representative replied (paraphrased):

Well, I think that would be insulting, to say something like that, because I’m a serious person. I’m a 55-year-old woman. I’ve been married for 33 years, and I have a post-doctorate [I think she meant post-graduate] degree in federal tax law. I have five children, and have raised 23 foster children and opened a charter school for at-risk youth.

[Note how the Fox News article is written in the passive voice, so as to avoid implicating its hired hand, Wallace.]

As I’ve written repeatedly, Bachmann is nothing like Sarah Palin. Palin is Bush in a bra (with all the implications about brain power that implies).

Rep. Bachmann, on the other hand, as was contended back in September of 2009, is very clever.

Back then , this column had already picked the GOP’s winning ticket: Ron Paul for commander-in-chief; Michele Bachmann as second-in-command.

Bachmann is eloquent and is seldom fazed. As attractive as Sarah, she is also cerebral, a quality poor Palin is without. Bachmann is not yet a libertarian, but neither is she wedded to the warfare state, and is wise enough to recognize the political value of denouncing America’s forays abroad in order to bring moderates and independents into the fold. Given guidance (and a good kick), she is not beyond apologizing for her unforgivable vote for the Patriot Act.
Conversely … Paul has gone from immigration hawk to toying with amnesty (with an asterisk or two). Bachmann will bring Paul back from the brink. Americans inhabit a world of reality TV and other frivolity. To win the GOP nomination in this parallel universe, Ron Paul needs political bling—he will want the punch, pizazz and money bombs a Bachmann can provide.

“Bundle Rand (Paul) and Bachmann—and the opposition, both Republican and Democratic, will be vanquished. But that’s for another day.”

UPDATE I: A Facebook friend wants an analysis of Sarah palin’s unraveling. Okay, here.

UPDATE II: Bill, as I wrote in “Bachmann: Bling For Ron Paul?”, Paul would not take MB on unless it was under his tutelage, after she was, “Given guidance (and a good kick),” and made to “apologize for her unforgivable vote for the Patriot Act.”

Alone, how is Paul to win? We’re in this to win, right?

UPDATE III: (June 29): WINNING. Myron, what is wrong with wanting Paul to win? He can win the nomination if he and MB combine forces. Alone he is unlikely to get anywhere. Defeatism is a luxury only well-funded, spoilt brats (like these) can afford.

Bachmann has jumped into second place in the New Hampshire Republican primary. … While Bachmann remains well behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has 36 percent support, the other sixteen Republicans included in the survey all had levels of support in the single digits.”

The results of the Gallup poll released on Tuesday showed that Bachmann’s name recognition is up to 69 percent from 52 percent in a poll conducted in late February/early March. With the increase, Bachmann is behind only Romney, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Congressman Ron Paul, R-Texas, in terms of name recognition, Gallup also noted that Bachmann has a positive intensity score of 24, which ties with pizza magnate Herman Cain’s as the highest such score of any candidate