Maybe Bush has helped us on immigration?  It is a winner for all Americans.  First, those of us (I am sure most of us on the board) will be able to afford a full time nanny, gardiner and driver rather than just a nanny.  Second, we can keep wages down so that top executives can make more money (they do not make enough as it is -- I can't believe we were such socialists in the 1960s). 

So, what do those other issues really matter?  Who cares if the little people have to pay higher taxes to pay for schools, infastructure, health care and prisons?  Look, if the taxes are too high somewhere -- we can just move somewhere and probably get a tax break if we move our business.  We can easily get up and move from a distressed community.  No big deal for us, we will make a killing in the meantime.

The outreach by the Bush administration for "hispanics" has worked great!  McCain might even get 30% of the hispanic vote.  Wow!  Just think, if "hispanics" keep growing as a number the Republicans can keep getting 30% of the vote.  More Ricky Martin at the next convention!

McCain is somewhat for preferential treatment for non-whites -- Obama is a living example.  After all, his dad had it tough -- he grew up in Segregated Jim Crow South -- oh wait -- that was Clarence Thomas -- but his dad was not able to go to Harvard as his first school. 

So, Obama sure was hurt because of slavery.  Yeah -- he had two separate white slaveholding ancestors from his mom's side, and a father who had no people in America unitil nearly 100 years after the beginning of the Civil War.

But, because of the way "Obama looks" people like him deserve preferential treatment.  So what if his dad went to Harvard -- he looks disadvantaged (?).

I have said on prior blogs that immigration is a fundamentally different issue than it was 100 years ago.

100 years ago, people came to America for a new life. It was a huge sacrifice to get year. 150 years ago, all who came here came on sailboats. Some boats had huge numbers who died on the trip.

People also came here and cut ties to their homeland. People learned to speak English tried to assimilate. 

Now it is different. We now encourage “diversity” – so the melting pot philosophy is gone.

We encourage certain immigrants (non-Europeans, non-whites) with programs that benefit them at the expense of white Americans (irrespective of income or class).

Immigrants do not have to cut ties – they come here by plane if from overseas. 

So, why should we allow all people born in America to become American citizens? Why should we encourage non-Americans to break the law so they have children with such a right? Do we need people who break the law in America? I do not think so.

This idea that we are a nation of immigrants is very insulting when people try to compare the people who immigrate today (who get preferential treatment, welfare programs, come here via plane or car) with my ancestors (who came here in very difficult circumstances).

How it is that someone is a “racist” for merely stating these points?

Don’t expect either McCain or Obama to change this. Obama especially since he had a father who came to the U.S. and got to attend, among other schools Harvard, yet Obama certainly was considered “disadvantaged” for affirmative action purposes. How is it again that he came from a disadvantaged background? People do not like the way he looks? If you go to a bad ghetto or barrio at night – a white person might find out what it is like to not be liked much “because of how they look.”

Since most politicians have power to give people “preferential treatment” with their family and friends – they do not see that it is necessarily wrong. So, the rich kid from Kenya get admitted to a school and a scholarship at the expense of the poor white kid from West Virginia. This has now been public policy for 40 years.

White liberals have all sorts of reasons to excuse this. Generally, they are bigots – they hate working class whites. I grew up in a privileged area – so I should know. These people do not hide their contempt for these groups. On the other hand, working class whites (who I have gotten to know over the last 15 years or so) harbor no such bigotry against white liberals (thought they probably should).

So, these rich liberal bigots completely ignore many reasons that generations of certain white groups have remained poor (if it were up to the rich liberals, they would prevent these “white trash” people from even procreating) they completely agree that non-American non-whites (irrespective of how much money they have) should get preferential treatment in scholarships, admission to college, government contracts and in hiring.

Disgusting.

Obsession over creating a democracies is a terrible foreign policy.

Iraq is but one example of this (Iraq now is less tolerant of Christians, anti basic women’s rights and anti-alcohol because of its democracy).

Iran is a democracy. The Nazi-party took power because of a democracy.

One could argue that America was not a democracy before women could vote. One could argue that the South East of America was not a democracy until the 1970s.

Would America have been better off had someone invaded us in 1910 so women could vote?

Would America had been better off if someone invaded us in 1930s so blacks in the South could vote?

When an invasion occurs lots of other “bad things” happen. Roads are destroyed. Buildings are destroyed. Power plants and power lines are destroyed. Clean water sources are destroyed.

Behavior is more important than poll results. Both sides of the abortion debate are dominated by radical and factually untenable positions.

People actually do not believe that a fertilized embryo is the “same” as a human being. How do I know that? There has been no great movement (and no movement at all to my observation) to save the fertilized eggs at fertility clinics. People who claim they believe this point have made no effort whatsoever to “adopt” these embryos and implant them in women to “save” them.

For some reason it is a great tragedy for these people to either destroy these embryos (via total obliteration) or use the genetic material from them for stem cell research – but nobody wants to adopt them – or even try to pay the owners for them (indeed, if people actually thought this way they would steal these embryos and free them by implanting them in savior-mothers).

Also, for some reason these people claim that the morning-after pill is considered some form of murder (by the way – if someone uses that pill as intended chances are the person is NOT pregnant). How can it be murder if there is only a 1 in 100 chance for an “actual” pregnancy with unprotected sex? Is a zygote that much like a human? No. Is an egg? No. Is sperm? No.

The morning after pill is, in essence, the same kind of thing as many birth control formulae. That is, it prevents the zygote from implanting.

If 20,000,000 sexually active fertile American women use “the pill” each year how many “murders” do you suppose that is each year? Why aren’t people stealing birth control pills? Why aren’t people substituting fake pills for real ones?

Because people actually do not believe the pill is murder.

Ironically, switching fake pills for real ones might actually lead to murder – an 8 week old fetus looks a whole lot like a person. People who otherwise would be on the pill simply might choose to have an abortion – and really there is not a whole lot anyone can do about it. 

A zygote does not resemble a human.

Likewise the obsession so many people have about the Roe v. Wade decision is similarly ridiculous.

Ronald Reagan as California governor signed into law an abortion legalization bill. At least at this juncture, 2008, if Roe v. Wade went away it would not be difficult to obtain an abortion. What percent of Americans have access (not ownership – a friend, family member, who can drive you) to a car – maybe 95%? What percent could afford a 500 mile bus trip (about $100) – perhaps 99.9%. Well, I guess if South Carolina made abortion illegal, you might have to go to Maryland. If South Dakota made abortion illegal, you might have to go to Minnesota. If Utah made abortion illegal, you might have to go to Nevada.

So, Roe v. Wade is overturned some people will have to travel for an abortion? And that is some huuuge deal? If this “choice” is so important – wouldn’t that at least pose some extra time to think about the choice?

Anyway, if Roe v. Wade were actually overturned those who are radical abortion rights people could either (1) help drive people to clinics or (2) pay the Amtrak or Greyhound ticket. Guess what else – we now have the internet which could help put people in touch with those who will assist others.

So, those who think the sky would fall (nobody could get an abortion) if Roe v. Wade were overturned should maybe consult Ronald Reagan’s history – and see that even he signed an abortion legalization law.

Personally, I would want no abortion to ever occur for birth control purposes. America’s abortion rate is atrociously high – much higher than “liberal” countries conservatives love to hate like France, Belgium and the Netherlands (America’s rate is about 3 times per capita of those countries). (Really, how could “conservatives” hate these “liberal” countries so much if they do a much better public policy job on this than America?).

From a constitutional perspective – I think that for legitimate medical reasons a woman needs to be able to make legitimate health care choices. For example, if a scenario existed that a continuing pregnancy would likely result in (1) infertility, (2) death or serious injury to the fetus and (3) injury to the mother – I think a woman and her doctor should be able to make an appropriate decision. While there may be some bad doctors, few doctors in my experience would continually “fake” a serious health issue to perform an abortion (in any case, this is basically a moot point since many states will no matter what for the foreseeable future continue to allow abortion).  Not allowing an abortion in this fairly rare kind of scenario might be close to murder -- destroying the fertility of a woman who wants to have children through a bad policy would be evil (and presumtuous for those people who know nothing about medicine -- and probably do not even know that Belgium is a country).

Conservatives love to say we need to have abstinence only education – or else a parade of horribles will occur. Of course, they back this up with no evidence – because there is no such evidence.

Guess what? Back in the old days when people lived in one or two rooms on a farm (sometimes with the farm animals in the house) kids were exposed to sex at a much younger age than today. Parents had no privacy – and when you need to breed animals to survive children will observe the obvious.  Pigs and sheep are a lot closer to the "real thing" than birds and bees.

Obama clearly has no shame. What is unclear to me is what exactly the foundation of his beliefs is? Recently, he has advocated the continuation of affirmative action – which particularly in public contracting discriminates against white males (and white males alone). A firm owned by a non-white male can be a DBE (disadvantaged business enterprise). A firm owned by a white male cannot. Federally funded contracts all require a minimum quota of DBE contracts (often going to such historically discriminated groups such as Brahmin-Indian Americans). 

It is unclear how groups that had no history in the U.S. – thus had no history of being discriminated against, should be given preferential treatment over the evil “white male.” After all, many white male ethnic groups were subject to fairly recent examples of ethnic cleansing – while countries groups outside of Europe have sections of powerful dominant tribes – who recently killed weaker members of their society (see, for example Rwanda or Sudan). 

It also has turned a clearly oppressive group into a fake oppressed group. America, unlike any country in the world, has a racial group called Hispanics. They sure had it tough when they were killing American Indians and enslaving blacks from Africa. Of course, many non-American Spanish descent people are (incredibly) able to claim some false history of discrimination. Certainly, if “Hispanics” were a discriminated “race” I Love Lucy would never have aired – Hispanics are no less white than Italians.

Down the road our grandchildren or great-grandchildren will wonder why we had such blatantly discriminatory programs. From an economic standpoint, it certainly makes no sense since many Asian groups earn more than whites.

Today, college educated black women earn more than college educated white women. So, once again – what exactly is the basis for preferential treatment?

On another note, if Obama believes that blacks deserve preferential treatment, how does that translate into his deserving preferential treatment? People have tried to denigrate Clarence Thomas’ achievements due to Affirmative Action – yet he was actually the descendant of slaves and he accepted the benefits of that program in the early 1970s. Obama is not the descendant of slaves – and actually is the descendant of slaveholders – and he (probably) accepted the benefits of Affirmative Action 25 years after Justice Thomas did.

Someone with a sense of propriety and history along with Obama’s background would never have attended the church he attended. Obama, the descendant of white slaveholders, wants the vast number of “whites” who have no such connection to “pay a price” for what someone who supposedly looked like them did.  Such a belief is nothing short of bigotry.

This same rationale is used by people who think that any black person driving a nice car should be pulled over, or any black person in a store should be suspected of being a thief. 

It is nothing more than bigotry. 

Like I said in an other recent posting, for my own reasons, I would like at all descendants of slaveholders to be forced to the point of being deported. I would like this for two reasons (1) it would derail the candidacy of both Obama and McCain and (2) it would finally educate Americans regarding who has some sort of “family guilt” for slavery. As a percent of the population, very few whites would be among the many deported. Many blacks would be among that group – and many would have nothing to do with rape or oppression – surprising numbers of relations happened in the 19^th century before the age of Jim Crow laws.

Ok – I am just (sort of) kidding. But, it really would be a good (if bitter) historical pill for people to swallow.