Wednesday, May 17

State of the (Dis)Union

From time to time the President of the United is required to convey to Congress (Article II, Section 3) infromation on the State of the Union. However, in recent history (i.e. latter hafl of the 20th Century) this has become either a boring laundry-list of what the President wants to do in the coming year, or how great a President he has been, etc. This President is no exception to this. In and of itself, this does not make him a bad President, but even under ordinary circumstances is rarely conveys the true state of the affairs of the Nation.

These are not ordinary times, nor have they been ordinary times for a very long time. History did not end with the Fall of the Berlin, nor did this War come on us completely by surprise, or as a bolt out of the blue, unanticipated. 9-11 was only a surprise in the scale of the destruction. Muslims have been calling for the Death of America (and acting to bring about the deaths of Americans) for over three decades now. I say "Muslims" rather than "Arabs", because not all of these Muslims have been Arabs. Some of them have even been Americans.

But terrorism has had a decidedly Muslim character, notable by a few exceptions (some of which are questionable as to their affiliation with Muslims). There has been no shortage of Imams and Ayatollahs calling for the deaths of America from Mosques all over the world. While there is much talk about moderate Muslims, it seems highly unlikely that they are even a particularly prolific minority, as said Imams are not in hiding, or in fear for their lives from other Muslims like, say, Salman Rushdie is. No the start of our discussion of the Disunion in our Nation should begin with the absurd manner in which we look at the Muslim question and Terrorism.

Imagine a different world than we live in today. In late August an obscure prisoner in Federal custody reveals a horrific plot intended to kill thousands of innocent Americans. After intense interrogation, he even reveals the name of the principle leader: Mohammed Atta. Using NSA assets, Atta's cell phones are traced to various points around the country, and in foreign nations. Quite inquiries turn up rumors that a man matching Atta's description had meetings in the Czech Republic with men believed to be working for Saddam Hussein. The word goes out, and on 11 Sept 2001 Atta and three other known "acquaintances" are removed from American Airlines flight 11, and detained. News of the detention and some details of the plot are leaked by person(s) unknown at the CIA, and ten minutes afterward, CNN is running "Breaking News".

9-11 never happens. Bush is a hero, right?

No. Five minutes everyone from CAIR to the ACLU is screaming "racial profiling". As the months progress (and Jesse Jackson marches), the charges are dropped amind allegations of "torture" and abuse. 2002, with the United States still in a deep recession, the Democrats re-take the House and Senate. Bush and his entire cabinet resign in disgrace, and by the 2004 "elections" (the Republicans run Trent Lott as a sacrifical pawn) Saddam Hussein is greeting Jacques Chiraq at the groundbreaking of the Osirak II nuclear reactor following the ending of 13 years of sanctions.

If you don't think that represents the likely outcome, you haven't been paying attention since Abu Grab-ass. The latest "crime" of the Bush Administration was not receiving a list of phone numbers without addresses or names, but having had a fake but accurate rumor that the NSA had less information than is generally available in a telephone book.

The horror.

No, had the Bush administration done anything to stop 9-11 he would have been more vilified than Hitler. This is a fact. We know this because even after 9-11 he is more vilified than Hitler by the L³eft and the MSM for doings that might prevent it from happening again.

If our incoherent reaction to Islamic Terrorism wasn't bad enough, we have recently witnessed criminals openly flaunting their crimes, while demanding that they be treated specially because they broke the law. I am speaking, of course, about the recent "immigration" protests. Earlier I said Imagine no 9-11, the pro-illegal immigrant movement says "Imagine a world where illegal immigrants don't work 9 hour days for $10 a day". And they mean that as a bad thing. I'm a free-market Capitalist, but even I am compassionate enough to say that if we are going to have a mandatory minimum wage, then let it apply equally across the board. The current system doesn't even really reward the illegal immigrants as much as it does the people who are willing to break the law to make it possible for them to work. I'm not just talking about the crooked sub-contractors or restaurant managers who are willing to take a kick-back for not looking too hard at Jose Quevero's "Driver's License". From the human smugglers who help them cross the border to the suppliers of illegal documents once they get here to the shyster car dealears who'll sell them a junker for twice what it's worth if they don't look too closely at the "proof of insurance", illegal immigration is a big business.

And that's not mentioning the ones who mule a few grams of smack (or take a job on their back. Brothels may only be legal in Nevada, but that doesn't mean that Nevada is the only State with brothels) as part of their passage.

The figure that is quoted for Illegals in the US is about 12 million people. There are only about four million people in Tennessee. How long will it be, realistically, before they demand their own State? Oh, never mind...

And that is the State of the union in a nutshell. We are more divided than we have been since the Civil War. It isn't just these two issues, but they are the flashpoint, and neither party is really willing to take them (or for that matter any of our lesser problems) seriously. Neither party will lead. Other than abortion uber alles, the Democratic Party can hardly be said to stand for anything. If the Republicans are for it they are against it, which really leaves them out on issues like immigration, where even the Republicans are split. I'm sorry, but saying that we can't do anything about the existing Illegals isn't a policy statement, it is an unconditional surrender. Being afraid to hurt our enemies' little feelings contributes to our insecurity, not our security.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and politics abhors a power vacuum. Something the mythical moderate Muslims and the Illegals might both want to ponder. If neither existing party offers a realistic alternative, then maybe we should look in another direction.

[/Endeth the Sermon]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com