Souvenez-vous la France?

Immigration has been the hot topic for some time now. Everyone from politicians on Capitol Hill to protesters in the streets has had something to say about, and a different angle from which to approach, immigration. However, in all this talk, one thing that I have heard no one mention is France; a country which, sadly, Americans could learn a serious lesson from.

Remember the Paris "youth" (read Muslim) riots? The ones that had French "teens" up in arms and torching buildings and cars? Well let me refresh your memory. In France they had the following problems:

- An excess of Immigrants (both legal and illegal)
- A lack of cultural assimilation on the part of those immigrants
- Most of the Immigrants had "low-paying" or "unskilled" jobs
- Massive protests
- A seeming lack of concern/response from the Politicians

Wait a minute, you must be saying, that doesn't sound like France - that sounds like HERE. And sadly it does; mainly because we here in the U.S.A forgot to look, listen and, most importantly, learn when France had its immigration problems forced onto the table; proving that History not only repeats itself, but can do so at an astonishingly fast rate.

The French situation will fully repeat itself in the United States if nothing is done. This is why the President and all others who call for anything less than Rep. Tancredo or the Minutemen don't get it. Their "I swear-it's-not-amnesty" 'Guest Worker' (wink, wink) program leads down the road, across the Atlantic, and into the not-so-distant past. If Mexican immigrants to this country do not learn English, fail to assimilate culturally, and continue to pollute the job market with their 'unskilled' labor, the United States will fall into the same situation France was in last year.

One of the problems France has is sky-high unemployment. While this is due, in part, to a Socialistic economy; it is due in large part to France's millions of Muslim immigrants. These Immigrants came to France, drove down the average wage and leeched off all of France's massive welfare programs. Immigrants coming in and working for less takes jobs away from locals; which, surprise, causes them to become unemployed. Furthermore, the willingness of immigrants to work for less money causes employers to offer less in salary figures; if locals don't want to work for less, immigrants will. Thus, the average hourly wage is driven down. Of course, in France, the problem is complicated by the fact that individuals can make more money simply accepting welfare checks than from actually getting a job: but that's not my concern here.

However, transpose the above scenario to the United States. Who gets harmed the most in the wage and unemployment department? The poor, that's who. Excessive numbers of Mexicans will harm poor Americans just like it did poor Frenchmen. Additionally, can you image what would happen if the millions of Mexicans already here were able to fully benefit from our welfare programs as they do in France. You think Social Security is in trouble now? Imagine if it had to make payouts to 10% of the Mexican population, on top of Americans! Yikes! Massive fiscal disaster here we come!

Looking back, it is truly frightening to think that the French riots could happen right here in America. Just think, 20 years from now, all these Mexican immigrants (now citizens under the "guest worker program") demanding their Welfare or Social Security checks, while a bankrupt Congress tries to find a way to please them. Throw in the fact that most of those immigrants still don't speak good English and really don't care much for America. Mexican "youth" riots anyone? Hell, I'd be scared of what the lower class in this country might do to protest. 20 years from now, after being spat on constantly by the government in favor of "migrant workers" from another country, you don't think they'll be ticked off?

The above horror scenario is why we need a Border Wall, now. It's why we need to crack down, with jail sentences, on employers who knowingly hire illegals. It's why we need to stop talking about 'guest worker,' 'Visa', or 'earned citizenship' programs. What's happening in America right now leads to disaster. France would know. What's happening in America right now is why we desperately need Real Immigration Reform, now; because 20 years from now I don't want a Mexican torching my house -- or, for that matter, taking my job.

Stop Protesting the 'Da Vinci Code'

All over the globe, as the movie "The Da Vinci Code" premieres, Christian groups are going out to protest the film. Of course, this is hardly unexpected, as this is merely a continuation of the discontent they expressed with the novel written by Dan Brown. However, I really don't understand why these groups keep going out to protest the 'Da Vinci Code' phenomenon; and I really wish they would just stop.

First off, it's fiction. When someone writes a story that they admit isn't true, there's no need to get angry. It's not like Dan Brown started a revolution within the church; I don't recall seeing any mass streams of 'converts' to the, shall we say, 'Dan Brown form' of Christianity. If, for whatever reason, Dan Brown's outlandish (fictional) claims about Christianity offend you, don't watch the movie or read the book. Furthermore, if the movie does offend you, don't start a protest to tell those of us who want to enjoy it how awful it is. We're just trying to go watch a movie; and honestly, at this point, protesting the 'Da Vinci Code' isn't go to do much.

Additionally, how can all these people be so offended by such a great book? I absolutely loved it. So, lay your sensibilities aside and just enjoy the novel for what it is: a well-written thriller. I, for one, can't wait to see the movie, and if you don't agree with me -- I don't care. And you know why? Because, well, it's just a movie.

Hayden and the CIA

President Bush recently nominated Air Force General Michael Hayden for the top CIA position, a move that has upset folks on both the right and left. The only problem is they have no legitimate reason to be upset. General Hayden is a great choice for the top CIA position, mainly because he knows the intelligence community so well. Of course, this doesn't stop Democrats or Republicans who are facing re-election from questioning the nomination. Most of the dissatisfaction has come from two main points:

The first complaint is the one that comes from the left and bemoans General Hayden's piloting of the NSA's 'Domestic Spying' program. Consequently, Democrats have threatened him with 'though' questioning; and, I'm sure the thought of 'tough' questions from Ted Kennedy has the 4-star General shaking in his boots. Seriously, are the Democrats stupid enough to believe that President Bush (read Karl Rove) would overlook the fact that Democrats will be upset over Hayden's lead role in NSA spying and, thus, question it intensely? The President obviously hasn't overlooked this, instead he must feel that the General is not only capable of handling these questions but will be stellar in doing so. This is why every 5 minutes someone on FOX News is wondering whether the President is "looking for a fight". Of course he's looking for a fight, because he wants to challenge the Democrats on this issue. The only question is whether the Democrats will be foolish enough to play the White House's game.

The second major concern, that Republicans and Democrats both have, is that Hayden is "a military man leading a civilian agency". The hilarity here is watching these politicians try to defend their reasoning behind this opinion. In interviews it usually goes like this:

Interviewer: Do you think Gen. Hayden is qualified for the job?
Sen. Whoever: Yes, and I think that he would be in the top 3 on everybody's list, both Republicans and Democrats
Interviewer: Really?
Sen. Whoever: Oh, absolutely. No one questions his qualifications for the job.
Sen. Whatshisname (from the opposing party): Yes, I agree with you on that Sen. Whoever, he's well qualified for the job.
Interviewer: So, you both seem to like this guy, will you be voting to confirm him?
Sen. Whatshisname: No, not at this point, I have some questions I want to ask him first.
Sen. Whoever: I'm not really sure that putting a military man in charge of the CIA is the right move.....

And the interview goes on, as the Politicians try to explain how and why they don't, 'at this point', plan on voting for a guy who is "supremely qualified" and "one of everybody's top choices". C'mon, where is the logic in that? If he's the best man for the job, give it to him; it really isn't that complex.

Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not Michael Hayden can restore confidence in, and smoothly and successfully run, the CIA; and, by Congressional officials' own admissions, this is something he can definitely do. Oh, and lastly, I have to give President Bush credit. For all his faults, he is very good at selecting and appointing people for everything from the Supreme Court to the CIA.

Who's the Real 'Evil, Warmongers'

So, its been a while since I've posted, and during that time the following occurred to me:

Democrats often like to call us Conservatives 'Warmongers' but a review of the last 100 or so years doesn't confirm that:

- Since 1898 America has been in 8 Wars: Spanish-American, World War I, World War II, Korean, Vietnam, the Cold War, and the First and Second Gulf Wars
- Only 3 were started by Republicans: The Spanish-American, and the Gulf Wars
- Of the 7 that have been concluded, despite only starting 2, Republicans have ended 5 (McKinley - Spanish-American, Eisenhower - Korea, Nixon - Vietnam, Reagan - The Cold War, Bush Sr. - Gulf War)
- The only War that was won without actual battle, the Cold War, was won by Ronald Reagan, a Republican
- The total number of deaths from all 3 Wars started by Republicans (appx. 5,150) is about seven times less than the number of deaths from the least costly War started by a Democrat (Korea 36,914)
- The 3 wars started by Republicans are (as a percentage of the GDP) the 3 cheapest of the 8 Wars

So, in conclusion, not only do Republicans actually fight less Wars than Democrats, but they are better at doing so, and they are much better at making peace. This does not mean we shouldn't have fought the Wars started by Democrats, au contraire. Rather, it goes to show that Democrats are in absolutely no position to criticize Republicans for being 'warmongers', 'illegally putting the troops in harms way', etc., etc. because, well, they're actually much better at those things themselves.