Monthly Archives: May 2006

Let me put a positive spin on the latest scandal to emerge from Washington: The feuding parties have all united! And, we find that it actually is possible to embarrass Nancy Pelosi. But first, here are the salient details…

Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), caught on videotape taking $100,000 in bribes, with $90,000 of the money found in his freezer during a search, is maintaining his innocence. Give him full marks for chutzpah and arrogance. And, don’t forget stupidity, since he acted as his own bagman, thus extinguishing any possibility of deniability. While we’re at it on the stupidity thing, ponder a moment on the moronic tribalistic New Orleans voters that keep returning this miscreant—nicknamed “Dollar Bill”—to office.

It is surely no surprise that yet another rotten congressman was caught with his hands in the cookie jar, but even this world-class cynic was taken aback when virtually the entire Congress jumped to his defense. Puzzled? You can bet that many on the Hill are shaking in their boots at the prospect of their office or residence being searched by the FBI, just like Jefferson’s was. Thus, they have created, out of whole cloth, the notion of “constitutional protections” that shield them from “executive-branch harassment.”

Credit this pathetic corrupt Louisiana politician for being able to unite the entire US Congress under the rallying cry of defending their right to be corrupt.

True, the FBI is part of the Department of Justice, which is an executive branch institution. But, the search warrant was duly issued by U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan. The hassle seems to be centered around the historical fact that until 20 May 2006, no such warrant had ever been used to search a lawmaker’s office in the 219-year history of the Congress. Of course, one could argue that it probably took 219 years for Congress to deteriorate into such a motley collection of grandstanders, windbags, useless eaters, and just plain criminals.

Jefferson is a fine example of the latter. Former associates of his have stated that Jefferson accepted more than $400,000 in bribes to help them sell telecommunications technology to Nigeria and other West African countries.

While Dollar Bill remains defiant for now, we note that the House leaders have backed off from their original demand of returning the evidence, which itself prompted threats of several resignations from the Department of Justice, including Attorney General Gonzales. On 26 May, Minority Leader Pelosi said, “No one is above the law.” “Democrats will not support any position that allows members of Congress to use their office to shield illegal activity, period.”

Laugh all you want. It’s a big step. The tone deaf congressional leadership seems to be noticing that the citizens have about reached the breaking point, given this little fiasco coupled with the Senate’s giant amnesty giveaway.

But, there’s more. Assume that a certain percentage of those in Congress are really good guys. Let’s aim high and say that this number is 10 percent. Here’s my question: Why are they there?

Would YOU want to work in an environment where 90 percent of your colleagues are either corrupt, incompetent, or both? Ever ask yourself why they would?

Even though our system is fatally biased against third parties, it is clear that a new party will be our only way out. You’ll notice that even 9/11 didn’t change anything, other than creating more bloated mostly pointless agencies.

Remember that the fledgling Republican party got its big break as Whigs broke away over the issue of slavery. God knows we have plenty of issues. All we need is for the good guys to break away.

Allow me to present the ultimate plan, that will not only stop all illegal immigration from Mexico, but, if implemented, will create tremendous economic benefit, and solve a few more problems along the way.

Before I tell you what it is, be assured that as great and simple an idea as it is, it will never be implemented.

Here’s the deal: The United States will annex Mexico.

Don’t laugh this one off so quickly. Mexico currently has much mineral wealth (not just oil) but has forever been burdened with a corrupt and sometimes even evil ruling class, that seems to care little that a great percentage of its people are below the poverty line.

With a comparatively benevolent American government in power, there would be much less reason for people to abandon their homes for “El Norte.” Rather, there would be much work locally. Millions could be gainfully employed in untold development projects, involving basic infrastructure, as well as in extracting natural resources. Indeed, billions now spent—mostly fruitlessly—in border enforcement could be directed into far more useful pursuits.

For all those jobs north of the former border that “Americans won’t do,” we now have a ready source of workers, who can be legally employed at provisional sub-minimum wage levels for a short time, if necessary in certain cases, to take up this supposed slack. But, it would all be above board. And, all these workers would be paying taxes. More than that, they would not be sending their wages “home” to a different country, they would merely be sending them to a different state or territory.

Since the birth rate of the former Mexicans is far higher than that of El Norte, we have also solved the problem of Social Security going broke, given a ready supply of young people paying into the system.

Liberals and the media whores would love all this, since we Americans are not being cowboys anymore at the border. Instead, we are helping our fellow man. Yet, socialism would not be much of an answer, since the only way this could work we be via massive projects, at least partially privately funded and run via private corporations. Yes, Bechtel, Fluor, and all the A&E firms would be booming, carrying countless sub-contractors along with them.

Internationally, the Eurotrash would be forced to love us, even if they would still feel envy since they could not copy this model, based on their geography.

For those who argue that there would be a language problem given large numbers of Spanish-only speakers, I would respond, “Are you kidding?”

The only big losers in this plan would be the Mexican ruling class, and I am confident that they could be bought off and kicked out. A smaller class of losers would be immigration lawyers and related service providers, including purveyors of fake ID’s, but there won’t be too many tears cried over their plight.

The most difficult part of the transition would be replacing Mexican government institutions with American versions. This would be phased in over 10 years, and English could be worked into the equation at the same time. The cost of doing business in the former Mexico would be drastically reduced once the corruption and the dreaded mordidas are eliminated.

The more you study this proposition, the better it looks.

Why would it never happen?

Obviously, the entrenched governments in both countries would be against it, for reasons of ego and self-interest. Delusional patriots of the Pat Buchanan persuasion would note a loss of national identity, to which I would ask, “Where have you been since the end of World War II?”

For various reasons, and none of them are good, there is no American character or identity anymore. Indeed, tribalism and identity politics of a racial and ethnic nature, that serve merely to divide us and provide short-term political gain for the established kleptocracy have succeeded in destroying whatever “American” character ever did exist.

Simply put, unless we are willing to shoot illegals as they cross the border—and, of course, we are not—a merger of the countries is the only answer.

You wanted a solution? I gave you a good one.

But, it will never happen.

The term “useful idiot” is attributed to Vladimir Lenin, and refers to those in the West who were overly sympathetic to the Soviet cause—often to the detriment of their own country. Of late, there has been some scholarship to suggest that Lenin did not originate the term. Still, there is no doubt that useful idiots existed in his era, and persist to the present time, even if there is no more Soviet Union. Sadly, socialism and communism are still with us.

With the fall of the Soviet Union and its Eastern bloc, and the transformation of China from a hard-line Communist country to a sort of semi-Capitalist bureaucratized state with perhaps a Communist-style government, there are no more major powers that can realistically be considered Communist, at least as Lenin and company would have intended. On the other hand, less predatory socialism, in the style of Western Europe, seems to be on the rise almost everywhere.

Today’s useful idiots, then, are not so much in favor of a Communist country (although sympathy toward Cuba does occur with this group) as they are biased toward what can be called a “Leftist” philosophy. Unfortunately, the terms “Left” and “Right” themselves provide much confusion.

This terminology has been used since the early French Revolutionary era, and originally referred to the seating arrangements used in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, when the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left.

Thus, the defining point was how an individual felt towards the so-called ancien régime (“old order”). Those on “The Right” supported aristocratic, royal, or clerical interests, while those on “The Left” implied opposition to the same. Note that in this time frame, it was the Left that supported laissez-faire capitalism and free markets. Nowadays, of course, these views would be considered as being on the Right. Moreover, during the French Revolution an extreme left wing called for government intervention in the economy on behalf of the poor.

A further confusion ensued in the 1930’s, when Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ (Nazi) Party rose to power, essentially by co-opting popular support for Communist causes, and by being officially anti-Communist. Yet, there was little to distinguish his regime with Stalin’s beyond the Nazis being far more overt with their militarism, imperialism, racism, and brutality. By being so overt and obvious, Hitler had far fewer useful idiots.

As such, and stupidly so, the Nazis symbolized the Right for many. I am purposely avoiding Mussolini’s Fascism, since that word now has virtually no meaning anymore, other than being a term of general derision. Although the Soviet Union was hardly friendly to Jews, the Nazis will forever be known as the supreme Jew haters. Not surprisingly, most Jews tend to line up on the Left.

But there’s more. Some people are genuinely humanitarian, and have become convinced—usually via their Left-leaning teachers—that some form of socialism is the only way to effect social reform and improve conditions for the downtrodden. Often, these “created” Leftists have but a superficial knowledge of socialism’s record in the real world, and cling—sometimes for their entire lives—to notions of politics that exist only in the classroom.

Finally, there are the truly downtrodden, who view Leftist politics as their way out. Now, add to this various “victim” groups and any number of causes. Classical Communists used civil rights, gay rights (to a lesser extent), immigrant rights, environmental issues, and anti-clerical and anti-war sentiments as hobbyhorses to advance their true agenda of oligarchic control and world domination. Traditionally, the staunchest foes of Communist expansionism have been the United States and the Catholic Church.

That’s why the positions of hard-Left groups such as the ACLU (founded by Communist Roger Baldwin in 1917) and International ANSWER have no consistency other than they favor whatever is bad for America and bad for the Church.

While many useful idiots are aware—deep down—that their positions are wrong, simple pride keeps them from publicly admitting it. Yet, by their actions, in how they live their own lives, it is usually apparent what they really believe. Whether it is lip service for public education and eschewing vouchers while sending their own kids to private school, or the anything but egalitarian means by which the Sulzberger family retains control of the New York Times, despite only a minority ownership, as Jesus would say (Matthew 7:16), “By their fruits, you will know them.”