“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation” -James Madison

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

The Democrats' Case for War 1998-1999

These facts and quotes were lifted from the much-more complete article at The Mudville Gazette. He goes into much more detail, with the day-to-day machinations of the UN, various military actions, and the political machinations here in the US, including President Clinton's impeachment process and how that figured in. Sadly, the words of prominent Republicans poo-pooing the military efforts (in a naked show of partisan politics surrounding the impeachment) of the time can also be found.

I have chosen to present only a small sampling of information here that buttresses my point about the feckless Democrats and the baldfaced lies they are spewing now. Prominent Dems, from John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, to Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton, to Sandy Berger and Madeleine Albright, made their various points very clear: Saddam Hussein was successfully engaged in the pursuit of WMD, that he was actively fighting the UN process of discovery and destruction of the stockpiles, that he presented a very real threat to the US and our interests, and that he had contact with rogue terrorist groups including al Qaeda.

Keep in mind throughout that these very things which President Bush has said in various speeches and addresses, matching almost word-for-word in some cases, is exactly what these prominent Dems were saying while Clinton was in the White House. Expecially noteworthy is John Kerry's passionate address to the Senate on Oct 10, 1998.

Oh, yes, let us not forget that pesky little bill from 1998 that not only authorized the removal of Saddam, but also included the promotion of democracy as part of its mandate.

Their words then are in direct contradiction to the position they took in the 2004 election and since. Italicized words and phrases are emphasis added by me. This presentation is by no means exhaustive. Thanks to Mudville for doing the hard researchy bits.

Strap on the tinfoil hats; it's gonna get bumpy!

February 1, 1998: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

February 4, 1998: "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." -
President Bill Clinton

February 17, 1998: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -
President Bill Clinton

February 18, 1998: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser.

August 7, 1998: African embassy bombings. This is the eighth year anniversary of the arrival of U.S. troops into Saudi Arabia and the start of United Nations sanctions against Iraq. A bomb explodes at the rear entrance of the U.S. embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, killing 12 U.S. citizens, 32 Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs), and 247 Kenyan citizens. About 5,000 Kenyans, six U.S. citizens, and 13 FSNs were injured. The U.S. embassy building sustained extensive structural damage. Almost simultaneously, a bomb detonates outside the U.S. embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing seven FSNs and three Tanzanian citizens, and injuring one U.S. citizen and 76 Tanzanians. The explosion caused major structural damage to the U.S. embassy facility. The US holds Osama bin Laden responsible for these acts.

August 26, 1998. Scott Ritter resigns from UNSCOM. In his letter of resignation, he says the Security Council's reaction to Iraq's decision earlier that month to suspend co-operation with the inspection team made a mockery of the disarmament work, stating they were "hobbled by unfettered Iraqi obstruction and non-existent Security Council enforcement of its own resolutions." Ritter also charges that the U.N. Security Council has become "a witting partner to an overall Iraqi strategy of weakening the Special Commission." UNSCOM chairman Richard Butler accepts Ritter's resignation.

September 29, 1998: Representative
Benjamin Gilman (R-NY) introduces H.R.4655, a bill "To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq". Co-sponsored by Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Ca) the bill will ultimately be known as "The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998"

October 5, 1998: HR 4655
passes the House, 360 - 38, with 36 not voting. Republicans vote 202-9 with 16 not voting, Democrats 157-29 with 20 not voting, among them are Nancy Pelosi (Ca) and John Murtha (Pa).

October 7, 1998: HR4655 passes the Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.

October 9, 1998: "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -
Letter to President Clinton. - Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others

October 10, 1998: Senator Kerry follows up on the Senate floor:

Mr. President, there are two subjects that I wish to bring to my colleagues' attention this afternoon. First, I want to talk about an issue of enormous international consequence--the situation with respect to Iraq. For the last 2 months, as we know, Saddam Hussein has been testing, yet again, the full measure of the international community's resolve to force Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. That has been the fundamental goal of our policy toward Iraq since the end of the gulf war and is reflected in the U.N. agreements reached in the aftermath of the war.


Let's understand very clearly that ever since the end of the war, it has been the clear, declared, accepted, and implemented policy of the United States of America and its allies to prevent Saddam Hussein from building weapons of mass destruction. And as part of that agreed-upon policy, we were to be permitted unlimited, unfettered, unconditional, immediate access to the sites that we needed to inspect in order to be able to make that policy real.


In explaining his reasons for resigning, Scott Ritter stated that the policy shift in the Security Council supported `at least implicitly' by the United States, away from an aggressive inspections policy is a surrender to Iraqi leadership that makes a `farce' of the commission's efforts to prove that Iraq is still concealing its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs.


By February, the United States had an armada of forces positioned in the gulf, and administration officials from our President on down had declared our intention to use military force if necessary to reduce Iraq's capacity to manufacture, stockpile or reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction, or to threaten its neighbors.

Ultimately diplomacy succeeded again. In a sense, it succeeded again. It averted the immediate crisis. One can certainly raise serious questions about how effective it was with respect to the longer-term choices we face. But certainly in the short term, Secretary General Kofi Annan successfully struck an agreement with Iraq to provide UNSCOM inspectors, accompanied by diplomatic representatives, full and unfettered access to all sites. There is little doubt that this agreement would not have been concluded successfully without the Security Council's strong calls for Iraqi compliance combined with the specter of the potential use of American force.

Saddam's latest provocation, however, Mr. President, strikes at the heart of our policy, and at the capacity of UNSCOM to do its job effectively. As long as the U.N. inspectors are prevented, as they are, from undertaking random no-notice inspections, they will never be able to confirm the fundamentals of our policy. They will never be able to confirm what weapons Iraq still has or what it is doing to maintain its capability to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Yet, when confronted with what may be the most serious challenge to UNSCOM to date, the administration's response, and that of our allies and the United Nations, has been to assiduously avoid brandishing the sword and to make a concerted effort to downplay the offense to avoid confrontation at all costs, even if it means implicit and even explicit backing down on our stated position as well as that of the Security Council. That stated position is clear: That Iraq must provide the U.N. inspectors with unconditional and unfettered access to all sites.


They raise questions of the most serious nature about the preparedness of the international community to keep its own commitment to force Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, and the much larger question of our overall proliferation commitment itself. They undermine the credibility of the United States and the United Nations position that Iraq comply with the Security Council's demands to provide unconditional and unfettered access to those inspectors. And, obviously, every single one of our colleagues ought to be deeply concerned about the fact that by keeping the inspectors out of the very places that Saddam Hussein wants to prevent them from entering, they substantially weaken UNSCOM's ability to make any accurate determination of Iraq's nuclear, chemical or biological weapons inventory or capability. And in so doing, they open the door for Iraq's allies on the Security Council to waffle on the question of sanctions.


Russia, France and China have consistently been more sympathetic to Iraq's call for sanctions relief than the United States and Britain. We, on the other hand, have steadfastly insisted that sanctions remain in place until he complies. These differences over how to deal with Iraq reflect the fact that there is a superficial consensus, at best, among the Perm 5 on the degree to which Iraq poses a threat and the priority to be placed on dismantling Iraq's weapons capability. For the United States and Britain, an Iraq equipped with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons under the leadership of Saddam Hussein is a threat that almost goes without description, although our current activities seem to call into question whether or not one needs to be reminded of some of that description. Both of these countries have demonstrated a willingness to expend men, material and money to curb that threat.


Is it possible that there is a sufficient lack of consensus and a lack of will that will permit Saddam Hussein to exploit the differences among the members of the Security Council and to create a sufficient level of sanctions fatigue that we would in fact move further away from the policy we originally had?


I think the question needs to be asked as to how long we can sustain our insistence on the maintenance of sanctions if support for sanctions continues to erode within the Security Council. If it is indeed true that support is eroding--and there are great indicators that, given the current lack of confrontation, it is true--then the question remains, How will our original policy be affected or in fact is our original policy still in place?

In April, Secretary Albright stated that, `It took a threat of force to persuade Saddam Hussein to let the U.N. inspectors back in. We must maintain that threat if the inspectors are to do their jobs.'

That was the policy in April. Whether the administration is still prepared to use force to compel Iraqi compliance is now an enormous question. The Secretary says it is, but the recent revelations raise questions about that.


I would point out also that there are experts on Iraq, those in the inspections team, those at the U.N. and elsewhere in our international community, who are very clear that Saddam Hussein's first objective is not to lift the sanctions. His first objective is to keep Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program--that will come ahead of all else.

The situation is really far more serious than the United Nations, the Congress or the administration have made clear to the American people or demonstrated through the level of diplomacy and focus that is currently being placed on this issue. It is not simply about eliminating Saddam Hussein's capacity to threaten his neighbors. It is about eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction--chemical, biological, and nuclear. Failure to achieve this goal will have a profound impact, I believe, on our efforts with respect to our other nonproliferation efforts including completion of our talks with Russia and the ultimate ratification of the START II treaty by the Duma.


Mr. President, I believe there are a number of things we could do, a number of things both in covert as well as overt fashion. There is more policy energy that ought to be placed on this effort, and I believe that, as I have set forth in my comments, it is critical for us to engage in that effort, to hold him accountable.

October 27, 1998 -
Richard Butler says tests carried out by international scientists confirm that Iraq filled missile warheads with the deadly nerve agent VX before the 1991 Gulf War.

October 31, 1998: President Clinton signs the
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998:

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

From the document itself:

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.


Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime.

The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.
(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.
(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.
(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat.
(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.
(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.
(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.
(8) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.
(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'
(12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.

November 14, 1998: CNN – Sandy Berger: "We were poised to take military action, we remain poised to take action," Berger said when a reporter asked if President Clinton had given the order for attacks to begin.

December 16, 1998: The United States and Great Britain begin a four-day air campaign against targets in Iraq,
Operation Desert Fox. The stated mission: "to strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction." UNSCOM withdraws its staff from Iraq.

December 19, 1998:
Operation Desert Fox concludes. "On Wednesday when U.S. and British forces launched strikes against Iraq, I stated that we were pursuing clear military goals. And as President Clinton has announced, we've achieved those goals. We've degraded Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. We've diminished his ability to wage war against his neighbors. Our forces attacked about 100 targets over four nights, following a plan that was developed and had been developed and refined over the past year. We concentrated on military targets and we worked very hard to keep civilian casualties as low as possible. Our goal was to weaken Iraq's military power, not to hurt Iraq's people." - Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen

"As the President's principal military advisor, I am confident that the carefully planned and superbly executed combat operations of the past four days have degraded Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs, his ability to deliver weapons and his ability to militarily threaten the security of this strategically important Persian Gulf region. Gen. Zinni made the same assessment.

November 10, 1999: "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

Tuesday, November 22, 2005


Okay, so the blogad spider saw some harsh words for the Republicans and deduced my page is lefty....


Click on 'em anyway; I get paid regardless and it'll give the Jackasses false hope that interested parties are hitting their page.

Oh, and just to set the record straight for the spider: The Socialist Democrats are destroying this country and must be stopped. Marxism didn't work in Europe (where, supposedly the people are smarter and speak 3 languages and fight themselves every few decades and eat weird stuff), and it won't work here. Democrats -- no ideas, Republicans -- some ideas but no spine. Modern Democrat = socialist marxist throwback and is therefore bad.

Rush Limbaugh good. Al Franken bad. Michael Savage good. Alan Colmes bad (but reasonable for a Dem). Captain's Quarters good. Daily Kos bad (mind-numbingly). Tax cuts good. Tax hikes bad.

America not only good but GREAT. Europe not bad but certainly not good.

This is a conservative webpage, dedicated to the eradication of socialism and the preservation of our free-market capitalist system. Got it, spider?

Friday, November 18, 2005

Off with their 'eads!

The Senate Republicans continue to be a collective disgrace. For some time they have held the numeric majority of the Senate, yet they continue to allow themselves to be beaten down by the likes of Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and John Kerry -- truly a collection of feebleminded self-serving "never-was"-es as you can find.

There is a great discussion of this at Polipundit.

The lack of party unity and discipline is appalling. The very idea that 55 (R) votes translates into maybe 47 or 48 when social conservative issues are on the table is disheartening at the very least. The fish rots from the head, as the saying goes, and the Senate is no exception. Dr. Frist may very well be a wonderful person, great husband/father, topnotch surgeon, and many other things. However, he is a terrible Majority Leader. Since the beginning of his tenure in the leadership role, the good doctor has consistently spoken of "comity" and of the need to work with the Democrats. In major fights he has chosen the path of least resistance, resulting in failure and defeat on many issues that a strong Republican majority could easily have won.

One example is the repeated failure to call for the change of Senate rules and the filibuster. To begin with, the modern filibuster is not a filibuster at all; it is merely a procedural tantrum that allows minority numbers to shut down work on particular issues while allowing the Senate to conduct other business. It is a far cry from the days when Byrd stood up talking for a couple of days in the '60s. For over 3 years there have been repeated discussions of changing the Senate rules for filibustering when applied to judicial candidates, and there was (and still is) plenty of popular support for doing so. Many times Dr. Frist has had the 51 votes necessary to do so and threatened to use it. Each time he has backed down and we have been left with the recent Miers fiasco and potential future versions of this nomination.

This week the Senate Republicans went along with the Dems and revisited Vietnam, 1975. They passed a bill that calls for regular presidential updates on the war and a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. This is retreat, plain and simple. It was done while the President is out of the country. A handful of strong patriots, including my own 2 senators from Georgia, opposed this travesty. In the end, however, the Senate Republicans chose to stand with the ideological enemy against our President, and against the will of the people they are there to serve. They chose to cave in once again, for whatever reasons, and basically gave the Dems what they have been demanding for months, ignoring the outrage from the populace.

Social Security reform is dead. Tax reform is all but dead. Border control is a nonstarter. Massive new spending, including unheard-of pork levels and new entitlements like the Prescription Drug welfare and the Farm and Highway bills, all demonstrate the utterly NONconservative viewpoint of these people. The president cannot nominate another Scalia, the oil companies are simultaneously disallowed to drill and brought forward to explain their profits (Homework: go to and look up capitalism and fascism). we are poised to lose the Mortgage Interest deduction, and Nationalized Healthcare is coming.

Tell me again why we bother voting for Republicans. This sounds like the work of Socialist Democrats.

The spirit of comity and the Senatorial Club is at odds with the requirements of the job of representing constituents.

No one wants a monolithic block, and there are times when honest disagreements and debate should occur within a party. That being said, abandoning everything that conservatives stand for, time and time again, shows poor judgment of purpose and position. When the vote comes down on important issues, a majority should be able to count on that majority, especially when it comes to supporting the president.

We are at war, and it is bad enough most civilians don't really seem to be aware of it. When our national leaders stop being aware of it, we are in serious jeopardy.

It is time we cleaned house (and Senate). There is little point to having a Republican majority if they are going to be Democrats or under the thumb of Democrats. Constituents deserve better, and incumbency is a major part of this problem. We need to begin anew, at the primary level, to put new blood up in the Senate. We need conservatives, not Republicans. We need to be willing to risk allowing a Democrat to occupy a seat currently held by a RINO. The only way to galvanize a people in this country is to traumatize them. So be it.

Trackback testing

I found a good page explaining trackbacks

Now to test the trackback....

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Bits and bites

Wilson/Plame. Yawn. I suppose I should care, but I don't. Yeah, someone needs to learn to keep their mouth shut, but that's the only lesson here. Everything else is ginned-up hoohah that distracts from the real deal. This president and all others need to crack down hard on the leakers.

CIA. So much for the long-held belief in professional government covert problem-handlers. The conspiracy wackos are scared of this bunch? Fire 'em all, George.

Leakers. Keep your damn mouth SHUT! You're not doing anyone any favors, and are only complicating things. If you're trusted with confidential or classified info, don't share it with anyone, especially a reporter! How hard is this concept?

Elections 2005. Status quo -- the Dems kept seats they already had and were expected to keep, NYC kept its RINO mayor, and California proved once again that the people there simply are not paying attention.

Paris burning. Bigger than poverty, smaller than al Quaeda. France created the foundations of this problem and have exacerbated it with non-solutions. The rioters themselves aren't part of any Jihad movement, although there is a definite separatist bent. They're just pissed off and feel emboldened by a weak response. Watch Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and England -- things there will calm down or flare up based on what happens in France.

Europe. When are you going to learn that socialism DOES NOT WORK? That multiculturalism DOES NOT WORK? That pandering to immigrants with no intention of integrating DOES NOT WORK? That forming a larger collective ostensibly to bolster your own crappy economies DOES NOT WORK?

MSM. Vainglorious traitors. Can you imagine ANY news outlet 'outing' a secret interrogation facility during WWII? C'mon, guys, at least PRETEND to be Americans once in awhile. It's not as if your constant betrayals are netting you any more viewers/readers anyway. And you do NOT run the show anymore. Get over your egos, report the facts, and quit the grandstanding and anti-American propaganda. We don't care about body counts; talk about the schools and roads and elections that we are bringing to millions of newly-freed Iraqis and Afghanis. We also don't care about the latest pretty white girl to go missing, or what celebrity is marrying what other celebrity. It's pretty bad when a conservative can't stand to watch Fox News anymore. Also, blogs are out there and we are reading them instead of watching you. Better not demonize them; your future lies with learning from them.

Republicans. Where are you, Ronald Reagan? You guys finally got the reins of power. You finally convinced libertarians to join with you for a couple of elections. Now cut the damn budget, slash some of these ridiculous social programs, put some meat in the military, and END THE PORK. Where exactly is a true conservative supposed to place loyalty with the current band of thieves in power?

Democrats. Where are you, Harry Truman? John Kennedy? The party that fought commies to the mat for 40 years now is poised to have Madame Chairperson Hillary anointed, and is 'run' by Howard Dean, a doctor I wouldn't trust to treat a splinter. And your military hero is John Kerry?

No offense, but I will be so glad when men who were of military-service age during Vietnam are all retired or deceased. It is time for service or nonservice at the time to not be a factor in political races. It was a weird time, where young men either did everything they could to not get sent over, or if they were, to get it out of the way. There were many honorable young men at that time who served with distinction, but it appears damn few of them ever run for office. And those end up as McCains, apparently. At any rate, it was 35-40 years ago, and most of us really don't care what a college kid did or didn't do for an unpopular and badly-prosecuted war.

Iran. Thumbing its nose at the UN, saying they are not scared of the Security Council and its resolutions. Wow, I wonder where they could possibly have gotten that idea?

North Korea. Resuming work on their reactors after promising not to. Ditto Iran.

Minuteman Project. BRAVO! You guys are doing yeoman's work, and in the face of constant belittlement by your own government and the media. Hang tough; some of us get it and support you.

Abortion will never be illegal. Pot will never be legal. The extremists on both sides need to understand these and many other realities.

Incumbency. Would it be too much to ask everyone to vote for a few elections against incumbents at all levels, regardless of party? New faces, even those of your ideological opposite, are unlikely to be more damaging than entrenched incumbents feeding at the public trough for decades at a time. Once the clowns in power are made to understand it is a TEMP gig and that they are there to serve us, we can go back to putting good people in for multiple terms.

Friday, November 04, 2005

Paris Riots, coming to a US city near you!

Last week a couple of kids running away from cops who were not chasing them, hid out in an electrical substation and were then electrocuted to death. The kids were muslim immigrants from North Africa and lived in one of the many growing muslim ghettoes. Like Los Angeles in 1992, the minority populations of the ghettoes are using a single event as an excuse to cry "Racism" and destroy their surroundings, burn cars, loot, fire weapons at police, and generally create chaos. We are now on Day 8 of this, and rather than fading the violence is increasing and expanding beyond Paris suburbs and into surrounding towns. The media are reporting "youth violence" and it is difficult to find articles that use the "M" word.

The muslim immigrants in Europe, especially in France, face a hard road. High taxes, low productivity, an over-large social safety net, declining native population, and general lack of opportunity has impacted the economy horribly. It is difficult enough for a skilled citizen to get a job, let alone an unskilled alien. The immigrant ghettoes are filled with desperate people who are unemployed, unskilled, do not speak French, and are resentful of their position. The muslim population in France is expected to be over 35% in the next few years. They are not French (although the children born there technically are), have no connection to the French culture or language, and have demonstrated a disdain for coexistence -- remember the political fights over burkas and head coverings in French schools over the last couple of years. They are poor muslims, and tend to make their surroundings look like Beirut in the 80s or the West Bank now. Their answer tends to be violence.

Compounding the economy issue is the European/French past response to immigration. Like the US and its Mexican illegals, France and Europe embraced the North Africans as cheap labor to "do the jobs the citizens won't." Like the US, they did not demand these immigrants integrate into their culture and learn the local language. Like the US, they allowed the immigrants to cloister together and keep their native culture alive in large swaths of housing districts that no citizen could possibly navigate. Like the US, they extended governmental benefits to the immigrants and expect the citizens' taxes to pay.

These immigrants face the worst circumstances of Mexican immigrants and inner-city Blacks in the US. The French have not recognized the dangers of the immigration, integration, or poverty issues. In a nation that routinely experiences societal upheaval, this is only the latest example. The French government typically is responding by calls for "understanding" the immigrants as opposed to restoring order.

Americans need to be paying attention to this. France and Europe in general are facing a war from within. Civil unrest and violence will only increase as the muslim immigration continues without integration. With producers retiring and entire populations on the government teat, the culture of dependence will fuel resentment between races and classes. It has happened sporadically here in the US and is beginning to do so in Paris.

We can follow the path France and Europe have with respect to our own immigration and poverty issues, and then wonder why the same results happen. That is insanity by every definition. France and Europe have some hard choices to make, and soon. Fortunately we still have time before it becomes as imperative here, but we have to pay attention and learn. Most importantly, we have to change our approach.

Oh, and the last time Europe had problems of this magnitude and depth? Mid-1930s, and a man came to power with a plan to solve the problems of a nation by promising to eradicate a subset of that population perceived to be causing the problems. Those wacky Europeans frequently fall for this kind of thing. Are we really ready to go back in and mop up when it happens again?