The Arizona law dealing with unlawful invaders

Ok, listening to CNN, CNBC and FOX, it seems clear that the Arizona law passed that allows police to question the citizenship status of those being investigated for crimes has been tagged an anti-immigration law. Nothing could be further from the truth. A person illegally entering anyplace is and should be treated as an intruder. Let's look at an example:

The DiamondBacks are the Arizona major league baseball team. They play in a stadium which requires the purchase of a ticket to get in and see the game. What if people could just climb the walls and sit in the seats of their choice in total disregard to those who had already purchased tickets? The ushers and uniformed security would throw them out. They would ask to see a ticket stub for proof of purchase and right to be in the stadium. Why can't the illegal invaders be treated the same way?

To this issue, a great American spokesperson for retaining everybody here is one Francisco Hernandez. The man is a liar par excellance. His answers to questions are simply more questions and he obfuscates where he can. He is as full of hubris as Barney Frank and smiles with self-indulgent smugness when he is asked a question as if anyone questioning his viewpoint is beneath his contempt. When asked what should be done with people here illegally, his comment was: "Oh, well. If someone wants to walk across a desert to clean tables, we should leave them alone. They are only here trying to make a living for their family. They just want to work and we should leave them alone." (I put this in quotes but may have a couple of words wrong. It is almost exactly the same as his statement.) He want on to remark: "If there are jobs that need to be filled and Americans won't or can't do them, thank God for them (sic) breaking laws and getting here. Actually, we should be asking if the American Indians are miffed about our illegal immigration into their country."

Does he think he is fooling anyone? Yes all invaders throughout history should give back land they took in conquests or during wars. The planet should be realigned based on some ancient claim of ownership. But when do we get the the point that we are all interlopers in one way or another. Ownership and sovereignty are determined, in large part, by the ability to keep others from taking what we have. We have laws that guarantee ownership but there are always border disputes, eminent domain issues and several legal forms of theft where one's ownership can be challenged. But the bottom line is that if you can defend your property by any means, you can usually keep your property.

So force or the threat of force keeps people from taking your property. With the current set of invaders, we have taken the prospect of "force" out of the equation and actually give the invaders as many or more rights than those being invaded.

So here we are: We are being invaded by non-citizens who offer any number of reasons for the invasion. But reasons don't make something illegal all of a sudden legal. A court would never free a car thief caught in a stolen car who gives the excuse, "I needed to get to my destination faster and I didn't have a car so I took the first one I could find. I was doing it for my family."

That is what we are being told by the invaders. They can ignore our immigration laws because they supposedly have good reasons. Following this logic, anyone who wants to get here and can sneak in somehow should be allowed to stay and given all the rights of citizenship.

The open border proponents are lying to us and trying to confuse facts with arguments that just don't stand up to examination. We need to reduce the benefits of risking law breaking by punishing those who support the invaders. In a sense, we have people giving aid and comfort to the enemy and that is a crime punishable by death in some cases.

FB

The invasion by non-Americans: A solution.

Undocumented workers, Illegal Immigrants, Illegals, Opportunity Seekers, etc. Whatever one decides to call them, America is being overwhelmed by people coming here for a number of reasons. By far, the greatest majority of them are hispanic ethnically and according to news reports, a disproportional number are law breakers.

We have an interesting situation here: On one hand, America needs immigrants. It has always been our history and America is still considered the lodestone of opportunity everywhere on the planet. Nobody is sitting in the Mideast with visions of moving to China to build a future. Nobody is looking to go to Russia to build a future and in both places, general growth is profound. Both are, however, highly racist. There are no minority rights in those countries. There is no equal opportunity, government set asides or anything else to help any ethnic minority. Europe experimented with such a program to the utter failure of the whole system. So America is really the only place to go to build a life with any kind of parity with people of any other ethnic background. Sure there are assimilation problems but these get resolved over time with a few exceptions.

The fact remains that we are currently overwhelmed by the masses of uneducated hispanics who flood across our southern border. What solutions do we have? None according to every democrat and the government in general. This is a completely political decision. The democrats are banking on the possibility that if they support the invaders, these invaders will become democrats and the party will gain power and keep power. It's that simple. Take the support out of the equation and democrats would be as against the invaders as the most conservative republican.

So here's a solution or solution set: If you employ anyone who is here (Native born are exempt.) without being processed though the immigration department, you stand to lose your business and lose your business license. If anyone rents to anyone who is here without proper documentation, he loses his property. We have some exceptions:

1. If a person is sick, they need to be taken care of at least on the primary level. If a person goes to a hospital without proper documentation, they are cared for then are immediately turned over to immigration for future deportation. But health transcends many things on a humanitarian level and none should be turned away. However, endemic invasion for the purpose of accessing medical services needs to be deterred. This means a database based on profiling of illegal invaders who access the medical system.

2. If you employ a person with false ID and that person is exposed, there is no penalty. If you are found to employ or rent to people with false IDs consistently, say more than three, you lose your business or property.

3. People here on student visas get preference. Often, people come here for education and get degrees, these people often simply overstay their visa and remain hoping to find a company that will support their resident alien request. However, to avoid student visa scams, the person must graduate and file an application of citizenship BEFORE he graduates.

Until we tie the hiring and exploitation of the invaders with profit, we stand little hope of resolving the solution. Oh sure, a fence seems like a good idea and if we had a border 1/100 the size of the American/Mexican border, it may work. But do we really want to be a country surrounded by a barb-wired fence? And what happens if the invaders find a way to get to Canada and rush across the border in the north? Are we going to fence that border too?

We don't want racial profiling but it is rampant. Everyone operates from a racial basis. If anyone thinks the people supporting the invaders aren't operating from a racial basis, they are delusional indeed. Besides the biggest profiling scam is affirmative action.

FB

Goldman lies and congressional lies make good theater.

Currently, the senate is investigating wall street in the form of a pillory. In the cross-hairs are the executives from Goldman Sachs. The great American wit Will Rogers used to read from the newspapers and point out the hypocrisy inherent in some of the articles. In one of the more famous, he pointed out that two black men were being tried for stealing food and they were shown shackled standing in front of the judge. On the same page was an article about two congressmen accused of stealing or misappropriating millions of dollars and they were shown wearing silk shirts.

So with something like the investigation into Goldman trading practices by congress, we are told that the people doing the questioning are above reproach. They are without sin and would never engage in questionable behavior.

Everyone on the face of the planet knows that sales people lie. Even in movies, selling anything is presented as a less than honorable profession. Similarly with politicians. The aspect of an honest politician is everyone's hope but the reality is that people expect to be lied to by politicians. The only surprised is that people are surprised when politicians lie.

So what is the purpose of this investigation? It is political theater with the end result that we end up with more government control which in reality only affects the small guy. The big guys, like Goldman, never suffer. In fact, an interesting observation can be made here: Goldman Sachs is one of the largest contributors to the democratic party and Obama in particular. So we have a government body dominated by democrats investigating one of their largest contributors. Can this be coincidence? What, in the final analysis, is the ultimate goal here? Because so many of the sources of information are based on falsehoods, how can anyone ever figure out what is going on? Well, we can't. It's that simple.

Maybe that's the game: Keep people so confused that they just don't have the time or energy to figure out an underlying truth from the facts they are given.

FB

Creating Jobs

Government initiated work is interesting. In a sense, working for any governmental body is more like work-fare than working in the open market. It used to be that government employees had low pay but did have security and decent benefits. This has changed. The founding fathers knew that as soon as government workers discovered they could pass acts and legislation that would give themselves money like raises and bonuses, we would all be in real trouble. It seems that we have reached and surpassed the trouble stage.

In my mind the democratic party is the party of government but the republican party is close behind if not on par. I have several friends who work in government and each is in lock-step with the democratic party and quite freely associate all that is evil with republicans. They honestly believe that government work is exactly the same as the most successful entrepreneurial efforts; they produce nothing yet equate their work with those who do create goods. One cannot create services but one can provide services so I can't really use the concept of goods and services. In other words, government does not produce goods and services.

The following is a remarkably simplistic model but it will serve for all practical purposes: Money has to change hands from people who want goods others have and prices are supposed to be determined by availability and need. For a capitalist system to work with any degree of success there must be goods made and delivered. Jobs are created when those with the goods cannot meet the needs of those wanting those goods.

Government workers produce no goods and if one reads The Federalist Papers and other writings from our founders, it is pretty clear that they didn't want government competing with private individuals or companies. They wanted government to keep an environment that would benefit the people with imagination and drive to create goods people wanted. Government was never supposed to be a provider of goods. (For a comparison, private banks, despite excesses, did not fuel our current recession but the government run Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.)

I know some people who worked for the last 2010 census. The government used this to show how many people were being employed and used those statistics to show how government can create jobs. See my post on Census Blues for a view of how the census was run in my area. It is a model of inefficiency, waste and duplication.

So the government can take money from taxes and give it to others for services provided. But it still takes an imaginative mind to come up with goods that fulfill some kind of need. Government does not operate that way.

Where government can work is in allocating funds for the repair and upkeep of infrastructure of national importance. It cannot create the jobs necessary for this though. Work can be funded but that isn't the same thing as creating a job. The job was already there so what the government can do is actuate the use of those job skills for temporary projects like fixes. That is not the same thing as creating a job or "getting America back to work."

Recently, the ever-so-opinionated Chris Matthews on MSNBC mentioned that we have always had an active public sector in government. He remarked that the transcontinental railroads were a product of this public sector. I strongly suggest Mr. Matthews learn his history before opening his mouth. The government did not pay for the railroad construction. It did, however, facilitate land acquisition (through bond sales) and was at the base of one of the biggest fraud schemes during construction. Bonds were sold to purchase land for the laying of tracks, stations and train yards. The building was funded by private investors who came up with the idea in the first place.

There are some indications that what government does is create an environment where jobs are not created. So we are being lied to in many ways and each of these lies keeps us thinking that the government can, indeed, create jobs the same as private industry can create jobs. Such is not the case.

FB

Newscasts are populated with liars: Opening Salvo

Years ago, (before cable and satellite ruled the masses) I used to meet with a friend on Friday nights, have a few cocktails and the watch evening news before we went our separate ways. My friend had an expression he would mutter whenever his credibility meter went off the chart. I'll get to the phrase shortly but before I let it out, I want it known that it didn't matter which newscast, which anchor or which show was on. The Sixty Minutes crew would get it as well as any other known and respected anchor. If politicians were interviewed, the term was especially heard. A few times many friends stopped by and some were shocked at his solo banter with the boob tube. But since he had equal contempt for all, no one was more than slightly offended.

Here is his phrase: "The lies. Oh, the lies. How can these people live with themselves lying like this?"

At the time, I wasn't as politically aware as my friend and it all seemed like good fun to me. Besides, his liquor cabinet was always well stocked which mitigated any potential umbrage. Since then, I have become at least as cynical and I think I can state with a fair degree of certainty that 99% of the news is lies or based on falsehoods. Even in cases where so-called facts are presented, they are presented in such a way as to make them meaningless as facts. Facts are used simply to sell a point and there is absolutely no way of knowing the legitimacy of the underlying premise if it can even be comprehended.

So, if the news is made up of lies, it stands to reason that the people spreading that so-called news are liars. Should anyone be surprised at this? Should we be shocked to learn that we are being lied to in the news with the same fervor as a commercial for life insurance or any other product?

Does anyone wonder why newscasters don't put people they interview on the carpet and expose obvious lies? It seems clear that all the ducks are quacking the same tune and for one to expose any of his colleagues he would risk exposing himself. Would people watch the dissemination of falsehoods knowing that they scantly rise above fiction? Possibly but with the advent of "reality" television, the world of expository fiction or dramatic fiction written without a series of supposed facts has dimmed into the background of white and pink noise.

On this blog, I have nothing to gain but the self-satisfaction of actually stating who I think is lying and what they are lying about among other things. Regardless of the situation, I don't think I can find the whole underlying "truth" behind any set of lies but some may become apparent with examination. But I will be frank (Frank Benjamin) as possible without screwing things up with my own bias and if I do discover more than an obvious bias, I will point it out just as the stock market touts on CNBC of FOX Business are supposed to do with stock positions.

I will try and post every day and keep my posts short but one never knows.

Frank Benjamin (FB)