Monthly Archives: September 2014

Some Thoughts on Immigration

Posted on by
Reply

Started 24 years ago, the EB-5 program allots 10,000 visas annually to foreigners who invest at least $500,000 in US development projects, from dairy farms and ski resorts to hotels and bridges. In return, the investor and family members become eligible for green cards, or permanent residency, typically within two years.

There are similar quotas, if not monetary requirements, on the other visas we issue.

But why? Immigrants are good for the United States: they bring with them ideas, problem solving techniques, entrepreneurship, a demonstrated view of the importance of family, and so on.

Beyond that, they are spring-loaded to take to heart the modern Conservative/18th Century Liberal view of their personal responsibility and liberty, and the proper role of limited government in their lives (in too many cases, they’re coming here explicitly to escape an intrusive, controlling government)—they already possess much of that view.

Why are modern Conservatives afraid? In any contest of ideas, the Conservative message will resonate with the majority. Immigrants are not at all “natural Democrats.” Far from it: they’re natural Conservatives.

Arms Control and the Terrorists

Posted on by
Reply

The Iranian government appears to be steadily leveraging the Islamic State crisis by dangling the possibility of cooperation against the terror group in exchange for a favorable deal on its nuclear program….

And

Iranian negotiators wanted to see more flexibility on the nuclear issue, in exchange for working with the US and its allies to tackle the Islamic State threat.

And

[Iranian President Hassan] Rouhani, in his U.N. address on Thursday, made clear Iran’s cooperation in addressing terror threats hinges on the outcome of ongoing nuclear talks – as he once again urged other nations to drop what he described as “excessive demands.”

Rouhani said a deal could mark the “beginning of multilateral cooperation” and allow for “greater focus on some very important regional issues such as combating violence and extremism.”

In a press conference on Friday, when asked about a possible trade-off, Rouhani said that a nuclear deal could lead to “trust-building” and “cooperation” between the U.S. and Iran.

Of course, it’s not true until it’s been officially denied. For instance, by President Barack Obama, through his Press Secretary Josh Earnest:

The United States will not be in a position of trading aspects of Iran’s nuclear program to secure commitments to take on ISIL.

Hmm….

Arrogance and Encryption

Posted on by
2

I wrote a bit ago about liberty and encryption. Here’s an example of the arrogance of the government’s attitude toward an American citizen encrypting his communications against government snooping.

Regarding Google and Apple plans to market encryption capabilities for their smart phones, FBI Director James Comey had this to say:

What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law[.]

This comes in the context of Brent Kendall’s paraphrase of Comey’s concern in Kendall’s WSJ article, also summarized in the link just above

FBI Director James Comey on Thursday said he is concerned about moves by Apple Inc and Google Inc to market phones that can’t be searched by law enforcement….

There are two things wrong with this, both of which a talented lawman at the peak of his career knows full well. First is the fact that encryption does not at all place anyone “beyond the law:” get a warrant. Also, the government, as has been well publicized, has an IT capacity fully capable of breaking encryption should the cell phone’s owner decide jail is preferable to honoring the warrant. Finally, the cell phone service providers aren’t the ones engaged in the communications of government interest; the cell phone owners are. The only legitimate targets of warrants for communications are the communicators, not the service providers.

The second thing wrong is the appalling arrogance inherent in Comey’s quoted statement. Leaving aside the foolishness of his claim of unsearchability, he’s cynically conflating “the law” with “law enforcement,” the police. Of course, this is…inaccurate. “The law” is what we citizens, through our elected representatives, say it is; the police are not the law but folks we hire to enforce it.

Here is the modern Liberal government in action.

A Geopolitical Misunderstanding

Posted on by
Reply

…if The Wall Street Journal‘s interpretation is accurate, and a lack of political courage [emphasis added].

A solution to the Ukraine crisis is still far off, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned on Saturday, as his Russian counterpart accused the West of seeking to create chaos in the Kremlin’s geographic sphere.

And

Steinmeier said that a few weeks ago “we were on the brink of direct confrontation” between Russian and Ukrainian armed forces but that diplomacy had “prevented the worst.” However, he said, “I am under no illusion. A political solution is still a long way off.”

Last things first. Diplomacy has “prevented the worst?” Only if the worst is taken as the conquering and occupation of Ukraine as a whole, which is not an implausible view. However, diplomacy has failed to prevent the near-worst: Russian occupation of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, together with a drive along Ukraine’s Sea of Azov coast with a view toward opening a land route to occupied Crimea, solidifying militarily the occupation.

Diplomacy alone—talking alone—can achieve very little beyond abject acceptance of these military facts. Diplomacy, to have any material effect, must be backed by, must be animated by, force—economic, military, and/or their combination. To date, there has been no force backing the West’s…diplomacy. The West has been too timid even to apply economic force against the Russians, only pin pricks that give western leaders a means of comforting themselves through the night.

Now to this:

[Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov] reiterated the conditions Moscow requires for the crisis to be resolved, including acceptance of Ukraine as a “neutral and non-bloc country,” meaning one that would remain outside of the EU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

This brings us back to the first thing. Neither Ukraine, nor any other of the nations bordering on Russia, belong in any way to Russia or to “the Kremlin’s geographic sphere.” These are sovereign nations, and they’re free to chart their own course—including aligning themselves with the West, joining the prosperity of Western free market economics, even taking in the essential sovereignty of a people over their government. No matter how uncomfortable this might make Russia.

And no, Mr Lavrov, not all cultures are equal, and neither are all polities morally equivalent.

A Little Bit About Fighting

Posted on by
Reply

This came up a while ago from Bing West’s book, The Wrong War.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm Michael Mullen, was fond of saying, “we can’t kill our way to victory.” That was political drivel. If the Taliban weren’t killing people, there wouldn’t be 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan. It was comparable to a police chief saying, “Arrests are not the solution to crime”—a vacuity sure to result in fewer arrests. War is centered on killing. The grunts knew that, even if their own generals did not. Killing was not the solution, but it was the means to the solution.

It’s still true, and it’s especially applicable today as the Obama administration pays lip service to taking on ISIS. We need to take this war seriously, and set about doing a couple of things:

  • getting serious about fighting—and killing—these terrorists, rather than just taking potshots from the air
  • repairing our reputation with our friends, allies, and enemies so that we can get a real coalition going and take the fight to these terrorists, on the ground as well as from the air.

It’s also applicable today as so many on the Left argue that this isn’t a war we should be fighting, it’s a wrong war. Never mind that if we don’t fight today, there, the terrorists will force us to fight tomorrow, here.

The time for talking is long past. Three administrations have tried talking, including the present one for six interminable years. Words don’t stop terrorists.