TWO SIDES OF THE IMMIGRATION COIN

The White House and Congress have feverishly worked over the past few days to reform immigration. It's a task that some have said would be very long, difficult process - if not impossible. But as with many things governmental, "impossible" can quickly become "possible" if one is merely willing to move the goal post.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, on immigration:

Anyone who enters the United States illegally should be expelled without exception, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a Senate hearing today.

"Our goal at DHS is to completely eliminate the 'catch and release' enforcement problem, and return every single illegal entrant, no exceptions," he said.

"It should be possible to achieve significant and measurable progress to this end in less than a year."

Chertoff said U.S. authorities are immediately returning thousands of Mexicans entering the country illegally, but "other parts of the system have nearly collapsed under the weight of numbers."

"The problem is especially severe for non-Mexicans apprehended at the southwest border," he said.

"Today, a non-Mexican illegal immigrant caught trying to enter the United States across the southwest border has an 80 percent chance of being released immediately because we lack the holding facilities," Chertoff explained.

"Through a comprehensive approach, we are moving to end this 'catch and release' style of border enforcement by reengineering our detention and removal process."

Opps... my apologies for posting the wrong quote. That's what he said 18 months ago. Let's try that again.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, on immigration:

"If someone has a better solution that's realistic, they should come forward with it", Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, 53, said about the immigration debate on Cable News Network's "Late Edition" program. "But if all people want to do is complain and say, well, this isn't good enough, that's the Goldilocks solution, where it's always too hot or too cold."

Chertoff was joined with Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. Secretary Gutierrez demonstrated that he doesn't understand the concept of "amesty" with this interesting bit of insight:

Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez insisted that the immigration bill, whose backers hope to hustle through a debate in Congress from Monday, did not amount to an "amnesty" for the millions now in the country unlawfully.

"They would have to pay fines and undergo a criminal background check", he said on CNN Sunday.

"I have the impression that perhaps for some people, the only thing that would not be amnesty is mass deportation," added Gutierrez, whose family fled to the United States from Cuba when he was a child.

"We don't think that is practical. We don't think that's logical. We don't think that's humane. And that would hurt our economy."

Secretary Chertoff - here's the solution you've been grasping for. Take the people that are in my country illegally, and remove them from my country. When you have removed all illegal aliens, then we can all go back to the debate table and revisit the situation.

Perhaps you believe it's not practical, logical, nor humane. I'll tell you what it is, though:

Legal.

Laws necessary to deal with illegal immigration are already in place. There is law and there is precedent. All that is required of you, Secretary Chertoff, is to enforce the existing law. Second Amendment supporters shouldn't be too surprised with this approach, however, given that governments so often choose to create new gun control laws instead of properly enforcing the ones already on the books.

The President set several goals for his administration. Among them were revamping the situation with prescription drugs, improving public schools and reforming immigration. The prescription drug plan is one of the most costly entitlement programs created in the modern era, and the "No Child Left Behind" program has generally been regarded as yet another federal program having lackluster results. With those efforts fading into the twilight, the White House has now spearheaded a disastrous immigration bill.

One hopes that the President has no other improvements on his to-do list.

DO YOU LIKE MUSIC, MR. FINCH?

Quite a few hardcore Bush conservatives are gleefully slapping each other silly in the twilight of the last debate, over Rudy Giuliani's heated remarks towards Ron Paul on the matter of 9/11.

My initial feeling is that Bush supporters are afraid of Paul, because he's rather skilled at offering solutions to problems that the Republicans have failed to solve. Giuliani supporters don't like him because he's not liberal enough. Both groups have been praying for a moment to come for Paul to "screw up" in front of a camera, and thus clear the way for them to gain the nomination without ever having to give straight, informed answers to anything. During the debate, many thought that moment had finally come.

In case you've missed the media uproar, here's a partial transcript of the exchange:

Paul: Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics.

Giuliani: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th.

The astute observer will note that Paul did not say that we invited anyone to attack us. He asked, "Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us?" and then summarized the terrorists' own stated reasons.

Giuliani's chastising of Paul is seen by many as a touchdown in the arena of politics. The problem these people going to face - hopefully sooner than later - is what to do when it begins to hit the news cycle that Paul's answer was quite accurate.

From the Canada Free Press:

Equally important, it turns out that Paul's point - that the 9/11 attacks were linked to U.S. involvement in Iraq and the Middle East - was factually correct. Osama bin Laden's 1996 "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places" specifically mentioned the situation in Iraq, blaming the U.S. for the impact of economic sanctions on the Saddam Hussein regime. Bin Laden accused the U.S. of "aggression" against Iraq and the record shows that his anti-Americanism was motivated, at least in part, by the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia.

Yet, Giuliani claimed "I don't think I've heard that before," in reference to Paul's citation of some of these facts. One would think that "America's Mayor" and "Mr. 9/11" would understand the genesis of the attacks that took almost 3,000 American lives.

The blind followers of Republican dogma should stop their victory dance for a moment and consider who actually lost this exchange. Giuliani looked passionate, for sure. But in a rush to defend his image as "America's Mayor", he also looked rather uninformed on the deeper background of the terrorists' motives behind 9/11.

It's been said that if you repeat a lie long enough, and loudly enough, eventually people believe it to be the truth. Those of you that believe we were attacked because we watch Mtv, let our women wear skirts, and drink alcohol are sadly mistaken. The terrorists had their reasons to attack us; they've even gone to the trouble of writing them down for easy reference. If one wishes to understand their hatred, it would be prudent to read what they themselves offer as explanation.

The full article is here, and well worth reading. Thanks go to Radley for pointing the way.

WINDFALL PROFITS

It is often said that there are two constants in the world: death and taxes. Based on the news of late, I believe we can add yet another constant: than Americans will forever complain about the price of gasoline. I can recall a time when gasoline was relatively cheap, by any measure of economy. When I was in college (1989), I distinctly remember paying .82 cents/gallon for regular unleaded. Here in May 2007, it's nearly quadrupled.

I'm no different than anyone else. I have a monthly budget, based on the salary my employer pays me. The more I have to pay for gasoline, the less money I have for other things... be it necessities, or leisure spending. However, the nonstop drone of people complaining about the price of fuel has reached an all-time high. Today I saw a media poll asking "Should the government regulate gas prices?" The results are either astounding or horrifying, depending on your point of view: 76% of respondents answered "Yes".

Quite frankly, it's time for Americans to stop complaining about the Evil Big Oil Companies and pay more attention to who actually makes the most money from the sale of gasoline. So here are some facts about gasoline and the profits associated with it. In case you're a skeptic and don't care for these numbers, be aware that I've personally researched and sourced each one.

According to AAA, today's national average price of a gallon of gas is $3.087. In Cincinnati, I saw the price hovering around $3.15; it's higher in places like California, where laws requiring special blends of gasoline increase the price.

How much profit does Big Oil make for every gallon sold? According to Conoco-Phillips:

A multitude of factors can affect an individual oil company's profit on gasoline sales. However, data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicates that when the average price of unleaded regular peaked at about $3 a gallon in the middle of 2006, major companies were making a profit of about 10 cents a gallon on their U.S. refining and marketing operations.

But let's not forget the tax revenue. The national average is 45.8 cents/gallon. New Yorkers pay the highest rate of 60.8 cents/gallon, while Alaskan residents pay quite a bit less of 26.4 cents/gallon.

So how much money are we talking about? The Energy Information Administration lists U.S. Motor Gasoline Consumption for March 2007 at 384,700,000 gallons per day. Yes, that's 11.9 Billion gallons used in that month.

We'll do some quick math for March 2007, using the national tax average of .458/gallon and the average oil company profit of .10/gallon.

Big Oil's Profit: $1,192,570,000
Local, State, & Federal Profit: $5,461,970,600

No, that isn't a typo. In March 2007, the government's profits on gasoline were 4.58 time greater than that of the oil companies - or, 4.2 Billion dollars more. And by the way, we're only talking about gasoline. Diesel fuel and heating oil also come from crude, and of course those are taxed as well.

You'll note that I've consistently referred to the government's tax revenue as "profit"... because that's exactly what it is: profit. The government doesn't spend money to search for the oil, drill for it, extract it, ship it to a facility to refine it, and finally ship it to consumers. Oil companies spend billions of dollars on research, drilling, shipping, and marketing... the IRS simply collects a check.

The naysayers will speak of "federal oil subsidies". My answer to you: do some research of your own, and you'll find that the amount of subsidies awarded by Congress is hysterically minuscule compared to the tax revenues received.

Oil companies make quite a lot of money... I've no argument with that. But the facts are crystal clear - it's not Exxon-Mobil earning windfall profits.

It's Washington.

FREEDOM UNDER SIEGE

One of the most notable turning points in my life came about when one of my closest friends gave me a copy of "The Fountainhead", by Ayn Rand. I still recall the day. It was a late afternoon in early December of 1996. We were sitting in the cafe area of Barnes & Noble on Apalachee Pkwy in Tallahassee, FL having some coffee. I was preparing to move to Cincinnati, and this was to be one of our last long chats together.

Right before it was time for us to depart, he excused himself for a moment and walked back into the store area. Within a few minutes, he returned with a newly purchased book: a parting gift, and gave it to me saying "This is my bible."

Michael Chiang changed my outlook on life that day.

It wasn't a matter of developing a new way of thinking, exactly... more accurately, it was an experience in which you find yourself reading things that echo your own thoughts. Thoughts and opinions I'd held in a very disorganized internal fashion were explored and defined. Rand's philosophy of reason, rationality, and the innate truth that man has the intrinsic right to exist and live for his own well-being are beliefs which drive every day of my life.

I've experienced a similar feeling recently, upon reading this: the first chapter of Freedom Under Siege, by Ron Paul. Find a few spare minutes this weekend. Pour yourself a cup of coffee or open a bottle of your favorite beverage, and read 27 pages of brilliance.

In previous posts, I've focused on the shortcomings of some of the Republican candidates for President. Now I present to you something different: the views and opinions of a man who does not say things to acquire votes, but instead says what he believes.

Stay tuned.

FAMILIAR WORDS

"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

Rudolph Giuliani
March 16, 1994

Hm... where have I read something like that before... oh, yes.

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

George Orwell, "1984"

Perhaps that is yet another belief that Rudy will gloss over in his quest for electoral votes. Hat tip to Arracos at the OFCC Forum for finding the speech online.

DOMAIN NAME CHANGE

Small site-related update... on the off-chance that you've bookmarked this page, you can now find it at my newly-registered address:

http://www.gunpowder-treason.com/

Using the older blogspot URL will continue to work and just redirect here. So since I'm still using Blogger for posting and the URL is redirecting, what's the point of getting the domain name in the first place?

I'm not sure, except I like the solidity of having it published under my own address. It was a good enough reason for me. ;)

Well - that's all for now. Busy day ahead. I've got to give my FFL a call and go to the post office to mail a money order to a gentleman in Louisiana.

CONDITION CORRECTIONS

Those that choose to carry a concealed weapon often speak of Col. Jeff Cooper's "Color Code". It's a very interesting system of approaching conflict. But as it happens with many things over time, the intended lesson has been somewhat misunderstood. Rather than write my own interpretation of the Color Code system, I'll let Col. Cooper speak for himself. (Article reproduced as original. Paragraphs have been reformatted for ease of reading.)

I have been teaching the Color Code for about 30 years now, but I have not been teaching it well. I keep seeing something handed back to me which purports to be what I have taught, but which is not. Clearly I am not as much of a teacher as I would like to be.

I believe I can speak freely of the Color Code because as it applies to defensive pistolcraft I invented it. I cannot, of course, say that what I think is right, but only that what I have preached is just that - what I have preached. It works, and it satisfies me, but not all the time. I have scores of cases now from men I have taught and who have reported back to me that their understanding of a Color Code saved their lives. This, of course, is very satisfying, but I do wish the matter were more clearly understood.

The Color Code refers not to a condition of peril, but rather to a condition of readiness to take life. Fortunately most people are very reluctant to take lethal action against another human being. Most people are reluctant to shoot for blood on a harmless game animal, until they become used to it.

To press the trigger on a human adversary calls for a wrenching effort of will which is always difficult to achieve and sometimes apparently impossible.

Thus we live our days in Condition White, which may or may not have anything to do with our danger, since quite frequently we are in deadly danger and do not realize it. Any time you cross directions out on a two-lane highway you are at the mercy of that character coming towards you in the opposite direction. Usually he is okay, but when he is under some sort of chemical influence, or is psychologically upset, he may only twitch his wheel to produce a multiple fatal accident.

Most of us would prefer to live in Condition White permanently, and many do, but those who are more aware of the nature of things are often in Yellow, which is a condition in which we are aware that the world is full of hazards which are human, and some of which may be obviated by our own defensive action. When one is in Condition Yellow he is aware that today may be the day. He is not in a combat mood, nor is he aware of any specific situation which may call for action on his part.

There is a vital difference between White and Yellow, and it has to do not with any specific enemy or a set of circumstances, but rather with your awareness that you individually may have to take decisive action on this very day.

If you are attacked in Condition White, you will probably die, or at least need a stretcher. If you are attacked in Condition Yellow, you will probably win, assuming that you are armed, awake and aware. The difference does not lie in the deadliness of the hazard facing you, but rather in your willingness to take a very unusual action.

If in the course of events you become aware of the possible existence in your presence of a lethal adversary, you switch from Yellow to Orange. The difference lies in the specific nature of your presumed antagonist, not in his evident competence or attitude. In Yellow you say to yourself, "I may have to shoot today." I may actually have to press my trigger on a human adversary, but I don't know who or where.

When you detect the presence of a target who may be the one you will have to engage, you shift from Yellow to Orange. In Yellow your mind-set is "I may have to shoot today." In Orange it is "I may have to shoot him today." At this point your normal reluctance becomes easier to overcome. Legal and moral aspects of the conflict are lowered and have been dismissed from your mind. Your attitude is dictated by the presence of that enemy standing there. You may have to shoot him, now, today.

What is needed is a trigger. The trigger is the act establishing that the situation is indeed a matter of lethal conflict. This is Condition Red, and in Red you have solved the psychological problem and have no further concerns beyond the technical. In Red you are go, and your mind is concerned only with front-sight and surprise.

Moving from the various Conditions into each other is easy to accomplish once it is understood. If you are attacked in White you will lose the fight. In Yellow you will have the advantage of initiative response over your antagonist. In Orange you are pretty safe, provided you are armed, alert and aware. In Red you win.

Simple, isn't it?

Clearly you cannot go any further than Red because in Red you have already made the lethal decision.

Complications are unproductive.