Blame Dubya First

The new mantra for liberals is "Blame Dubya First!". Combined with a low popularity of the president, it is extremely fashionable to blame the president for everything that goes wrong. Blame Bush for the dandruff and for the dog that chases you during your morning run. I just hit my thumb with a hammer and I swore : "Damn you Bush!"

However, with the pain long gone, let me inspect the rationality of blaming the President for the various problems, perceived or real, that the country is facing. I have chosen four areas: Iraq war, energy crisis, sagging economy and mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina.

I am not an ardent supporter of wars. Not even Iraq war. But to hold the President as the sole scapegoat for whatever shortcomings of the Iraq war is delusional. The Senate and the House, both Republicans and Democrats supported the war. The same people who are blaming Bush for the failures in Iraq were spineless to oppose it before it started. Now that it is fashionable to oppose war, majority of them are against it. Blaming Bush is the way they are refusing to own up their responsibility. Why were they afraid to oppose back then? Because the polls said that the majority of Americans wanted it. They did not have guts to take a moral stand when it was unpopular. Democrats were screaming for Bush to stop Saddam and his WMD. The same people would flip again if the war in Iraq suddenly becomes very popular with the American public. This morality of convenience also makes them forget about the achievements of the war. Back then there was no question about the need of liberating a country from a tyrant who was oppressing all opposition brutally. Now that Saddam is dead and gone, people are forgetting, conveniently, about the positive effects of the invasion. If there is a mess in Iraq, we have to deal with it and let the process complete itself. We cannot just cut and run.

Everybody is bashing bush for the high gas prices. They fail to recognize two things. One: the current high prices are the result of market forces that are beyond the control of the American president. The global supply of oil is almost constant and the consumption is getting higher by the day. This results in an imbalance in the supply-demand equilibrium and the market readjusts by the way of higher prices. This brings to account the second accusation. It is his energy policy that created this mess which could have been avoided. Highly unlikely. Energy policy cannot alter the way a nation consumes energy in a few years. If any flaw in the American energy policy was responsible for the crisis, then the flaw existed for decades. So the blame should be borne by the previous administrations, including Bush Sr, Clinton, Reagan and beyond. However, whether they could have predicted the changes in the global economy that results in the higher oil prices is yet another question. Blaming bush is escapism. Again, let's consider some of the short term measures that can ease the prices a bit. The White House has repeatedly asked/begged Congress to pass legislation that allow drilling in Alaska, which has more oil than Saudi Arabia; allow offshore drilling in the Gulf Coast and California and to allow more nuclear plants to be built. Answers to all of the above from the Democrats and many Republicans is a staunch NO! The technology has evolved so much in the past decade and anyone who is for protecting the environment should add limits/provisions to ensure that in the bill. A blind opposition to any of these is downright moronic.

The main factor behind the economic downturn is the mortgage crisis and the resulting credit crunch. These are the results of decades of indiscipline and over inflation of house prices. Everyone said the house prices will continue to rise perpetually. This led to widespread fiscal irresponsibility by home owners and the lenders. George W Bush did not force these folks to buy bigger houses than they could afford by lying about their income. He did not force the hordes of people to ignore the contracts while signing Adjustable Rate Mortgages and then again use any available inflated equity to buy Plasma TVs. There is only one policy that could have saved thousands from home-foreclosures. There is only one action that could have stopped the credit crunch from happening. It is called personal responsibility.

Another blame that George W Bush has borne singlehandedly is that he is behind everything evil that happened with the Hurricane Katrina. Bush did not create the hurricane. It is a natural phenomenon. He did not make it more severe. There have been far worse hurricanes in the past. He did not designed or built the levees that were broken. Again, the Office of the President of the United States of America has nothing to do with the Hurricane Contingency plans for the area. They are formulated by the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans. The plan was put in action by the state effectively. It gave plenty of warnings and asked for mandatory evacuation from the area. It is not Dubya's fault that one in five people in New Orleans refused to leave. They were amply warned. It is not his fault that there were many people in New Orleans who had no cars or were sick. I've never read anywhere that the duties of the president includes making sure that every citizen is healthy, owns a car and shows common sense. Well, some of these are failings, but you cannot blame Bush alone for that. He rushed all the help that he could as fast as he can. You cannot expect him to go down there and start airlifting people out of rooftops all by himself. The convoys of food and other stuff takes time to organize and to reach a flooded area.

I am not claiming that George W Bush is the finest president that America has ever seen. But he is not the monster that the liberals portray him to be. To counter their claims, these facts are out there to be seen by anyone who cares to look. But as I have read in the internet, "If the sun were to explode, the Liberals would spend their last few minutes blaming it on Bush."

Keep the immigrants. Deport the Columbia faculty.

I'm referring to a story by Jason L Riley on Wall Street Journal. Check out the article at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121080967841993539.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Mr. Riley has explored into some serious stuff here. It rings true to the beliefs of most of America. And it points to the extremism that is being promoted by the hard core liberals who are against the concept of assimilation. This absolutely shows how they are out of touch with the reality.

Let me talk about assimilation, the supposedly dirty word. If I may, assimilation is the whole essence of being American. Right from the beginning, with each wave of immigration, the newcomers have tried their best to being a part of the mainstream. This may take a decade, or a couple of generations. But the whole idea is that the immigrants adjust their ways and become one to the melting pot that is America. The first generation may have their own difficulties, but the subsequent generations have always found it natural becoming American in all senses.

The key to this transformation is that there were always opportunities to do so in the past. Or at least, assimilation was always expected. Nobody talked about having Italian language education. There were no German sign boards in the public. Sure enough, the children of Catholic immigrants needed Notre Dame to come up against the odds that were stacked up in the universities then. But fast forward to the twenty first century and none of them is away from main stream America. Nobody bats an eye when a Catholic is running for president.

Again, this is not to say that assimilation is a one way street. No. It works both ways. As much as the immigrants become a part of America, they contribute to the culture, the cuisine and the folk lore: be it Pizza, Mafia or Drinking habits.

So, the pundits are wrong when they say assimilation is a bad thing. We do not need some parallel societies where a lower quality citizens exist segregated by the walls of education in a different language. There is no reason for English not becoming the official language of America. Earlier in history, there was no need for it. But now a days multiculturalists fail to realize that lack of assimilation linguistically and culturally is only enslaving the immigrants against an opportunity to self improvement : Financially and Culturally.

Good traditions never die. It never did in the past two centuries. So there is no reason to think that the sole identity of an immigrant is lost with assimilation. It only strengthens the person in a new environment. It only strengthens the country.

Shock : Democrats deriding American people!

First it was Obama's pastor dissing the country. Now it is a Clintonian.

Hillary once said : "Screw them!"

Regardless of who it is, both the democratic campaigns are elitists and condescending.

Democrats to entrust Coyotes with national security!

America is the only country where anybody can just walk in to the country and the local law enforcement authorities doesn't have any right to check anyone's legality to remain in the country. Go to any country in the world and one service that the governments do to the citizens is to make sure that it does not allow anyone to arrive without permission and cause harm to the citizens physically or economically.

For the record, Politics Avalanche is not against immigration. PA believes in creating provisions for temporary workers to be allowed into the country through special visas. There are around 13 million illegal immigrants in this country who are earning money and yet paying no taxes. The only way to end this free-ride is to get them ways to become legal and force employers to hire only legal workers by strong enforcement tactics.

Coming back to the main issue in question. Have anyone of you thought about how good is the border security in Mexico? Well, other than from certain neighboring countries, the border security measures in Mexico is pretty slack and anybody can get into Mexico pretty easily. So are we trusting Mexican authorities with our national security? They have other things to worry about.

Think about this: Once in Mexico, anyone can pay the coyotes to get themselves easily into the United States. Do you seriously think that the Coyotes are going to check the people against the US Terror Watch List before letting them cross the border? You must be kidding me! So in essence, we are trusting the coyotes with the National Security of the United States of America.

One argument I see against the strengthening of the borders is that no terrorist has come that way yet. OK, let us wait till a bunch of them arrive and blow up half of America before we can start doing something about it.

Problem with big government

This is exactly what happens when government tries to do something that we, the people can do better.

I could not have used a better person to show the point.