Monday, November 23, 2015

Terrorism is Only Secondarily a Foreign-Policy Issue

Articles like this one by the Christian Science Monitor usually involve the Conventional Wisdom types expressing surprise that after the Paris attacks, in a time of crisis, people are still flocking to Trump and not to the "moire serious" candidates such as Jeb or Marco (to be fair, Ted Cruz is also sometimes mentioned).

Whiole Greg Sargent does not express any surprise over it, he also to some extent misdiagnoses the problem as being entirely due to Trump's "strong man" image; that is, people care less about policy than about the fact he makes a big noise about it.

There is a more important point, though, that I think most people are not getting. Most pundits, and many politicians, insist on seeing the Paris attacks and terrorism in general as primarily an issue of foreign policy; we are being attacked by a foreign power and need to retaliate; we need to conquer the foreign power that is attacking us.

In reality, the problem is the enemy within; many western countries have large, unassimilated, and unassimilating Muslim populations. When we are told that most of the Paris attacks were carried out by French and Belgian nationals, the media try to distinguish them from immigrants in order to make us believe that the problem is our own people; in reality, what it proves is that the enemy has infiltrated us. But there is an importance to the distinction; it's not that immigrants are not dangerous; it is that the problem with Muslim immigrants is not merely one of whether individuals have terrorist ties, it is whether or not people of Muslim background are likely to become, in essence, fifth columnists in the future. In other words, there is an explicitly racial/cultural/religious angle to the political question of immigration, and more importantly, IT IS PERFECTLY REASONABLE FOR THERE TO BE A RACIAL/CULTURAL/RELIGIOUS ANGLE.

What we are getting from the "serious people" is that the primary solution here is to destroy ISIS and other radicals at the source and to remove their threat. While definitely this is a part of the war on terror, it is unclear whether this will accomplish anything as long as we are letting millions of Muslims into the West, many of whom share, if not the exact ideology of ISIS, ideologies of conquest that are just as deadly to western civilization.

And the problem here is that among the most ardent hawks are also those who most want vastly increase immigration (e.g. Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Kelly Ayotte, Bob Corker, George W. Bush, Jeb Bush). The fact of the matter is, the most effective way "not to fight the terrorists here" is NOT TO BRING THEM HERE, and "fighting them over there" is a secondary tactic.

After 9/11, we were assured by all of the usual suspects that illegal aliens were "willing workers" and that we should distinguish between desperately needed low-pay farmworkers and people with bombs strapped to them or some such. The point being that controlling our borders was not a good way to keep terrorists out, so instead of course we ought to focus on fighting wars in the Middle East. Many came to feel that these wars at least in part served as a distraction to stop the public from demanding actual homeland security policies that dealt with the immigration angle. Being asked to have security guards look at you naked is not too high a price to pay for security, but not letting American corporations get foreign labor for a dollar less an hour is off the table.

What we are getting from Trump is someone who is talking about protecting the homeland first and foremost. He was talking about immigration before any of the other candidates made it a big deal. People sense that he is interested in avoiding Islamic terrorism via immigration policy to a greater extent than any other candidate, and therefore they flock to him, not to "serious" candidates like Rubio, whose Gang of Eight bill would have vastly increased immigration, including giving administrations far more leeway in granting refugee and asylum claims. Almost certainly the Gang of Eight bill would have brought more Muslims into the United States. So no one trusts Rubio. Similarly, Bush's love of immigrants over and above American citizens makes people distrust him on this issue.

In other words, Trump is dealing with the issue that most Americans think is most behind the terrorist attacks. Being a "serious candidate" means dealing primarily with an issue that most Americans think is at best a back-up to the primary issue and at worst a distraction. Hence Trump's success.

That is all.

Friday, November 13, 2015

Fighting Foreign Worker Expansion

The Obama Administration is proposing new regulations that could turn the F-1 Optional Training Program into backdoor H1B visas, allowing companies to undercut American workers. Comments can be submitted until November 18. The Stop Overreach website has a streamlined process for making comments. I would suggest emailing copies of your comments to you Senators and Congressman, and ask them to use their influence to turn the regulatory agency's ear. Here (in bold) is a sample of my email to Senator King including the original comment:

I recently submitted the following comment (tracking no. 1jz-8m8d-3dz9) to regarding ICEB-2015-0002-0011, Improving and Expanding Training Opportunities for F-1 Nonimmigrant Students With STEM Degrees and CapGap Relief for All Eligible F-1 Students. I am opposed to expanding this program, which is being used as a backdoor H1B visa to allow companies to undercut America workers' wages. I ask that you use your influence as a Senator to help make certain that the regulatory agencies address my concerns. Thank you for your time.

[My Real Name]

Text of comment:

The Optional Practical Training program allows U.S. employers to hire foreign students for up to 1 year or up to 29 months in certain fields of study. The program was meant to provide foreign students with on-the-job training that would benefit them when they return to their home countries. Because of that, these students were exempted from paying payroll tax or being paid the prevailing wage. Instead, this proposed rule, which will extend the program for STEM students to 36 months, would create a bridge to a longer-term work visa and eventual green card. Given the prevailing wage exemption and the payroll tax exemption, this gives companies a direct incentive to hire foreign workers over U.S. workers. Not only does this hurt hard-working Americans, this is a direct violation of the foreign student's pledge when they received their student visa to leave the country upon graduation.

It's hard enough already for American workers, especially recent U.S. graduates, to find work, and this rule would make it even more difficult by adding unnecessary job competition to the mix. We have already heard about Disney using H1B visas to fire American workers in order to use foreign workers whom they can pay less. We should not be creating more ways for companies to undercut Americans.

I am sending a copy of this to my Representative (Chellie Pingree, ME-01) and to my Senators (Angus King and Susan Collins, ME). I believe that Congress ought to be consulted on a policy change such as this, and moreover that programs like this ought to require Congressional authorization, which was never obtained in the first place.

That is all.

Friday, October 23, 2015

Congressman a Democrat? How You Can Still Fight Against Ryan Becoming Speaker

Mickey Kaus is telling folks to inundate their Congressman with calls telling them they do not want Paul Ryan for Speaker.

It's a good strategy, and if it doesn't keep Ryan from the Speakership, it might at least get him to reduce his demands.

But what if your Congressman is a Democrat, and you don't see the point in calling politicians you are not constituents of?

Money is the best way I think to show your opinion. Give to them campaigns of Congressmen who have come out against Ryan. Although VDARE has expressed concerns that Webster may be wobbly on amnesty, at this point a vote for Webster is a vote against Ryan, so an endorsement of Webster is considered a good thing. Then post to their Facebook and Twitter feeds that you agave and why (and if there is a comment section on their "Donate" page, comment there as well).

People so far to give to:

Louie Gohmert (explains lack of support for Ryan)
Steve King (Endorsed Webster)
Ted Yoho (Ditto)
Walter Jones (backs Webster, and has blasted Ryan)
Thomas Massie (Massie Won't Back Ryan for Speaker)
Daniel Webster the guy running against Ryan.

There are others, but these are the ones I have noted and donated to so far. You can make your own list or donate to anyone against Ryan who is not on the list. As more opponents come out, I will try to add to the list, although I may not be able to donate personally to any more than these 6.

If you give, make certain to state on Facebook or Twitter that you gave and why (their pages ought to be accessible on their websites). This will send a message to other House members that you intend to help people who are against Ryan, which is as much influence as you probably can have outside your own district. It also might send the wobbly ones a message that you might help a primary challenger if they vote for Ryan.

That is all.

Thursday, August 20, 2015

One Reason Why Trump's Kelly Comments Did Not Hurt Him

Because most people are less concerned with the blood coming out of Megyn Kelly's whatever than they are with the blood that came out of Kate Steinle's bullet wound.

That is all.

Sunday, August 09, 2015

Question on Margin of Error

When we see a margin of error in a poll, is it really the same for any points within a poll? In other words, if a poll has a 3% margin of error, does that mean that someone who has 5% in the poll has a 95% chance of having between 2% and 8%, or is the 5% 3% only valid for someone who gets 50% in the poll? I am under the impression that the further away you are from 50%, the smaller the margin of error should be, but I am not certain about this.

Any statistic geeks want to explain it to me?

That is all.

Monday, August 03, 2015

Did Steve Sailer Column Inspire the "Cuckservative" Label?

Am I the only one who thought of this column when I first began to notice the words "cuckservative," "race-cuck," etc.?

I particularly like this line:

Do we even have the language anymore to articulate the concept of being personally cuckolded? Is the word “cuckold” even in current circulation?

Well, maybe it ought to be. And now it is being brought back.

That is all.

Saturday, August 01, 2015

Huckabee and the Holocaust

I don't see what all of the brouhaha over Huckabee's comments about Obama leading the Jews to the ovens is about.

Huckabee's position is that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it will use it against Israel. Now, you can debate the merits of this belief. Personally, I don't think the Iranians will do it; they are evil, but they are not crazy.

This doesn't mean I want them to have nukes. It would probably lead to an arms race and get Iran a lot more influence over the Middle East. But I do not think they are Bond villains.

However, if you think they would use it against Israel, the comparison is perfectly apt. As I said, you can debate the merits of what Huckabee is suggesting. But if you think that Iran would nuke Israel if given a chance, then the comparison is quite apt. The only difference is that the deaths will be over a much smaller period of time.

I just don't see how comparing hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians being vaporized and more civilians dying a slow agonizing death from radiation poisoning to the Holocaust diminishes the Holocaust.

That is all.
There was an error in this gadget