"Guest worker programs are a bad idea and harm all workers," AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said in a statement released the day after the Senate Judiciary Committee cleared an immigration bill. "They cast workers into a perennial second-class status, and unfairly put their fates into their employers' hands....Guest worker programs "encourage employers to turn good jobs into temporary jobs at reduced wages and diminished working conditions and contribute to the growing class of workers laboring in poverty," he said." AFL-CIO chief criticizes guest worker plans AP March 2006

It's not surprising that AFL-CIO---the last vestige of industrial labor in the United States--- is opposed to the Senate's guest worker program. Throughout American history Free Labor has opposed the importation of any sort of "captive" labor, whether as indentured servants, African slaves, 19th-Century Chinese coolies, or Mexicans in the Bracero program. So it's not surprising that the Senate's "Guest Worker Program" strikes so many workers as contradictory to everything they were led to believe America stands for.  

The problem with guest-worker programs is that they subvert the virtues of the founding fathers by promoting a master-servant social divide. The talk of "jobs Americans won't do" is a sentiment that is plainly racist. The attitude that certain jobs are considered to be beneath the dignity of an American is the kind of perspective that one might expect in a feudal society like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, or India with it's cultural tradition of a caste system. But certainly not the America which proclaims that "all men are created equal"!  

President Bush with his obsession with cheap labor and open export markets is modern reincarnation of the Southern Dixiecrat. So Bush's support of globalization and "Guest Worker Programs" is certainly expected of someone "born with a silver spoon in his mouth".

What I can't figure out is why a Northeastern Liberal Democrat like Senator Edward Kennedy would cooperate with the Chamber of Commerce in supporting a bill whose purpose is to undermine the economic security of American Labor. I'm even more surprised that a Midwestern Republican like Senator would support something so utterly contradictory to the social values of the midwestern family farmer. 

A day after the Senate took the same position against troop withdrawal, the GOP-led House voted 256-153 to approve a nonbinding resolution that says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of American forces is not in the national interest..."Achieving victory is our only option," declared House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, casting Democrats as defeatists who want to retreat in the face of terrorist threats. "We must not shy away.....In floor speeches, several GOP incumbents who face tough challenges from Democrats in November tried to strike a balance. They carefully criticized the resolution that their leaders had written, calling it weak and incomplete, but then reluctantly voted in favor of it. "The American people are looking to us to answer their questions on how much progress is being made, what are the Iraqis themselves willing to do to fight for their freedom and when will our men and women come home," Rep. Jim Gerlach R-Pa., said. Rep. Vic Snyder D-Ark., agreed, saying: "We should be having a debate and a discussion on how we will prevail, not just that we want to prevail."  House rejects timetable for Iraq pullout - By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press 

It's no mystery why public holds the Republican Congress in contempt these days. The so-called "debate" about the Iraq War was no debate at all, only meaningless political posturing for the upcoming election.

The Republicans, nervous about the polls showing that voters are favoring the Democrats in the upcoming 2006 election, cooked up a nonbinding resolution designed to bury the the public's growing skepticism for Bush's leadership in a flood of jingoism. The resolution declares that the occupation of Iraq is part of the global fight against terrorism, praises U.S. forces in Iraq and rejects the idea of a fixed date for withdrawing troops.

What is a surprise is that 42 Democrats crossed the line to vote for this silly resolution. The independent voters that will decide the results of the upcoming elections can easily draw a line between support for the troops and support of Bush's management of the war on terror. The rest of the Democrats can easily brush off Republican attacks on them the for not supporting the troops by justifying their "NO" vote as merely a rejection of Bush's management of the war, a sentiment that is widely held by the public.

Bush is leading the Republican Party into destruction on the issues of immigration, social security, jobs, trade and budget deficits, and above all his refusal to give up his dream of permanent US military occupation of the mideast. The Republican Congress wisely choose to break with the President on Amnesty for illegal immigrants. Congress had best listen to the public on Iraq, and not Karl Rove.

In a speech to New Hampshire Republican officials here Monday night, the White House deputy chief of staff attacked Democrats who have criticized the U.S. war effort in Iraq, such as Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), who he said advocate "cutting and running...."They may be with you for the first shots," Rove said of such opponents. "But they're not going . . . to be with you for the tough battles." .....Rove said a precipitous departure would leave the United States weakened and a terrorist-friendly regime in Baghdad.."It would provide a launching pad for the terrorists to strike the United States and the West," he said.

From: Rove's Speech to N.H. Republicans Keeps to Partisan Line The Washington Post - Tuesday, June 13, 2006; Page A07

Like the a Communist Party propaganda commissar that he so much resembles, Rove instructs the Republican faithful on the new "Party Line". That is, of course, to accuse the Democrats of "cutting and running" in the face of the enemy, and abandoning Iraq to the "terrorists".

Of course, if the US hadn't gotten rid of Saddam (and his Baath Party Internal Security Force) in the first place, Iraq wouldn't be at risk of being taken over by the "terrorists".

With Islam enshrined in the new Iraqi constitution, regardless of which side--Sunni, Shiite, or Baath Arab pan-nationalist---wins the civil war, the eventual government that will emerge from the civil war will bear no resemblance to post-WWII Japan or Germany. Rove can hardly argue that Bush's fantasy of implanting a secular democracy in the heart of Islam has been anything but a miserable failure. Worse, the constitution is so ambivalent that it is doubtul that it will lead to the formation of a stable, integrated state.

Rove and Bush have no right to guarantee to anyone that when America makes a military commitment, it sticks to it to the bitter end. America is a democratic republic, and NO politician can make that promise to anyone!  Americans will support a war only as long as they perceive that war is necessary to defend American security. When Americans are sufficiently sick of the Iraqi quagmire and Rove's empty rhetoric, the war will be voted out, no matter what the political or military situation is in Iraq. It's just a matter of time.

That time is coming. Polls show that the public skepticism of Bush's reasons attacking Iraq is growing. Already a majority of Americans believe that Bush's war was not worth the $320 Billion in treasure and over 2,500 lives it has cost. There were NO WMDs. There was NO tie between Saddam and Bin Ladin!

Iraqi has had its elections, and a new constitution, and an elected government. Bush has managed to strong-arm the Iraqi legislature into selecting a Prime Minister and a cabinet. There is little more that America can do to end the sectarian violence, and the public knows it. Nor have the Iraqis shown any sign that they will make the necessary political compromises to end their civil war as long as American troops will do the fighting and dying for them.

As long as the United States maintains permanent military occupation of Iraq to prop up totalitarian client states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or the UAR, not to mention Israel and it's persecution of the Palestinans, the insurgency will continue to recruit patriotic volunteers. In their love of country, Iraqis are no different then Americans, and it's insane to think that they can be manipulated to accept our permanent military bases on their native land.  

It's time to leave. And it's time for the Republican Congress to stop marching in step to Rove's orders, and think for themselves. Or it may well be the end of the Republican electoral majority.

This is really interesting video. Try to tell this working man that illegals and guest workers don't take jobs away from American workers!  I'd like to see John McCain or George W. try to sling the "racism" charge at this Latin-American citizen, Vietnam Vet and father of 7 kids!

Back in the 70's when I was working my way through college, a kid like me could get a job as unskilled construction laborer, and make $10 an hour---a huge sum for a college kid on a summer job. Guys in college who were willing to do physically demanding work as a day laborer at a construction site could earn enough money in the summer for tuition and books, and maybe something extra. NO longer---contractors can get as many illegal immigrants as they want by merely driving by the local shopping mall in the bad side of town. And it should come as no surprise that last time I checked the going rate for a construction laborer is STILL around $10.00--the same as it was over 30 years ago!  You can't earn enough at $10 an hour to pay your college tution anymore, much less support a spouse and a couple of kids.

The Get Detailed Statistics Section of the Bureau of Labor Statistics website tells us that inflation adjusted wages for construction workers have went DOWN 5%!  Now if there was a shortage of construction workers, wouldn't wages for construction workers going up? NO---and as any casual observer of a typical construction site can see---the difference is illegal immigrant workers now dominate the construction trade, and as a result the "free market" destroys the living wage jobs.

There is no shortage of unskilled labor in the United States.  The only reason that the Senate passed a "guest worker program" is that the working class people who perform less skilled work have less political power then the business lobbies who want low wage immigrant labor.

Conservatives are always insisting they are all about freedom and tradition, while liberals claim they are motivated by compassion for the poor. It's not that I disavow ideology--don't get me wrong---it's just that our modern ideological divisions---liberal or conservative are really about serving various elites in the society. 

Conservativism (ie, George Will) is the defense of the interests of the CEO and Leisure classes. Liberalism is the ideology of over-educated well-to-do white liberals (ie, Hillary Clinton), so sheltered and protected, that they can't imagine that human passion should not be limited by tradition or religion. Liberals are always coming up with schemes where the rest of us are supposed to bear the burden for THEIR sense of social justice. Conservatives are always coming up with schemes to give the folks who have the most a little more. Liberals gave us forced busing and affirmative action, Conservatives took the surplus from the Social Security Trust fund and gave it to the top 20% richest Americans in the form of a tax cut.  Well..you get the idea.

As for libertarianism and communism--they are mirror images of each other. While the Communist believes is absolute equality, the Libertarian believes in absolute freedom. Both are utopian and irrational, and equally dangerous and destructive. Not really political philosophies, libertarianism/communism resemble the mind-set of the cult group. "Cult of Ayn Rand" anyone?

If we must have an ideology, this is the ideology it should be:

"Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

REPEAT AFTER ME:

1. There is no "free" lunch because someone always pays the cost of that lunch.

2. There is no "free" trade because someone always pays the cost of that trade.

3. There is no "free" market because someone always pays the cost in that market.

4. There is only trade, markets...and lunch.

In other words:

Putting "free" in front of those words are just so much propaganda. Instead, the analysis should be to determine who is paying the cost in a structure or system and what, if anything, should be done to fine tune or make fundamental changes to the structure or system at various times. There is no utopic correct answer for all time.
 

Excellent observation by MFBlog on the idiocy of talking about "free" markets....he's absolutely correct, there is no "free" anything---someone always pay the cost.  In the case of NAFTA and "free" trade, it's the industrial worker that pays the price, not professionals like lawyers, doctors, accountants, MBAs, and CEOs.  In the case of unrestrained immigration, it's the same thing---the working stiff that pays the price, and it's the upper-income folks who benefit.  

We suspect that the U.S. had help not only from the Jordanians as always, but oddly from Iran - even if indirect. As the folks over at Strategy Page noted *yesterday*, Zarqawi's increasingly strident outburts against Iran and the Shia marked him for “an accident.” By April Zarqawi surrendered his political duties and was demoted. Al Qaeda and Iranian interests were not served by Zarqawi's calls for more bloodshed against Shia, Iran and civilians. In fact, beginning this Spring, most analyts noted that Zarqawi was actively retarding Al Qaeda objectives in Iraq. SEE: Knock Knock Knockin' at Stop The Spirit Of Zossen

The fact that the U.S. managed to find and kill Zarqawi the day after the new Iraqi government released 2,500 insurgent-sympathizers from prison (they were greeted and given money by leaders of the main Sunni party in parliament), announced a reintegration of Baathists into political society, and appointed a Sunni former Baathist general as defense minister seems to suggest that some sort of deal has been done. SEE: Zarqawi Death Suggests the U.S. Has Brought the Baathists in From the Cold

Nobody believes that Zarqawi's death was a positive step in the so-called "War on Terror".   Zarqawi was a loud mouth show-off whose reckless and irrational behavior finally got him offed by his associates in the Iraq insurgency and Al Qaeda.  I wouldn't be surprised if the $25 million that the US government paid as a reward will be buying guns, ammo and bomb-making material that will kill more of our brave soldiers.

As usual, the US Military is doing exactly what the insurgency wanted it to...get rid of their problem.  It's sort of like Bush getting rid of Saddam for Bin Ladin. Saddam's neo-nazi style national socialism and secular Pan-Nationalism was in conflict with Bin Ladin's religious fundamentalist crusade. So the US getting rid of Saddam was the best thing the US could have done for Bin Ladin's goal of opening up Iraq to Al Qaeda's infiltration and influence.

Whatever we do, we do wrong. We need to let the Iraqis solve this problem by themselves, instead of squandering OUR soldiers'  lives and our treasure in an ill-conceived military adventure to protect an oil supply that we would be better off weaning ourselves away from the first place.

Conservative blacks are objecting to recent comparisons between the gay marriage and civil rights movements, arguing that sexual orientation is a choice...Links between the two struggles have been made since the state's highest court ruled last week that the Massachusetts Constitution guarantees gay couples the right to marry. The Supreme Judicial Court cited landmark laws that struck bans on interracial marriage...But the Rev. Talbert Swan II, pastor of Solid Rock Church of God in Christ in Springfield, said the two struggles are not similar because blacks were lynched, denied property rights, and declared inhuman. "Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle," he said. "I could not choose the color of my skin. . . . For me to ride down the street and get profiled just because of my skin color is something a homosexual will never go through. Black conservatives oppose gay marriage Reject parallels with civil rights movement By Jay Lindsay, Associated Press, 11/29/2003

“We have been left with no other choice for the defense of marriage than an amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based Family Research Council. “We have a very simple message: Americans want common sense written into the Constitution.”....“This is not about gay marriage, it is an assault on traditional marriage,” said Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr., Chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, which organized the press conference. “Gays are aggressive, gays declared war, gays are attacking traditional marriage, and we’re saying stop it now...".....“We’ve already seen in Black America what happens when families are destroyed,” said Shar Parker, President of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education. “We have seen what happens when we tell young men that they could do whatever they desire in terms of their sexual passions, of when they go into the jails and they go back into these 4,000 housing projects." Black Religious Leaders Call for Protection of Marriage/ The Chrisian Post Wednesday, Jun. 7, 2006 
 

The well-to-do white Liberals who control the Democrat Party like to tell us all that the Democrat Party is political party of Civil Rights Movement.  But it's actually the party of special interest politics, controlled by white well-to-do liberals who enjoy the pretense of feeling morally superior to working folks on whose votes they claim they rely on.

An example of this is the tendency of the Democrat Party to ignore Black folks who are rallying to defend traditional marriage and family, and oppose redefining marriage to accomodate the lifestyles of homsexuals and lesbians.  

African-Americans more then anyone else can detect the illogical premises of the Gay marriage advocates. Blacks in the Civil Rights movement were merely seeking equal treatment under the law, and equal accommodation in public services, housing and employment. Gays and lesbians are NOT seeking equal accommodation to existing laws, but to change the existing laws to accommodate sexual behavior that the the majority of Americans believe is personally destructive.  

Homosexuality has always been viewed as an opportunistic sexual behavior, not a state of being.  And this is a view that is universally shared across all cultures, races and religions, and across time. So it's downright silly to put "Gay Sexual Liberation" on the same table with the Black Civil Rights movement.

In fact, many African-Americans find it downright confounding, if not insulting that Gays and Lesbians compare themselves to African-Americans under Jim Crow. Unlike Blacks under Jim Crow, Gays and Lesbians have a high degree of social acceptance, among the well-to-do and the leisure classes. Unlike African-Americans, Gays and Lesbians are disproportionately represented in the elite professions in art, media, and academia, as well as law and medicine, and the corporate staffs of the largest multi-national corporations. Unlike Blacks and Browns, Gays have never been prohibited from owning property, obtaining mortgages and financing. Gays are not prohibited from leaving their property to whomever they want. Gays have never been prohibited from entering into legal contracts and have them enforced in the courts. Unlike African-Americans under Jim Crow, Gays have the right to public assembly, and free association. And it was gay men responding to the AIDS crisis who normalized living wills and power of attorney for medical decision making, something most gay activists would like us to forget.

Obviously, Gays have not been deprived of the law's equal protection, or even the right to marry -- only of the right to insist that same sex cohabitation is a "marriage." Gays disingenuously cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: they want to take what is obviously an issue of their own personal sexual liberation and give it the status of a civil right problem.

The refusal of the Senate to consider the Gay Marriage is only delaying the inevitable showdown on this issue. As long as the Liberal Democrat judges insist on overturning Defense of Marriage Acts, and insisting that marriage is the equivalent of Jim Crow, the Federal Marriage Amendment will be in play.

The Supreme Court said yesterday it will hear appeals of two cases that could determine if race can be used in assigning students to public schools for the purpose of enhancing enrollment diversity in situations where court orders are not involved.  The court announced that it will take up the case this fall of a Louisville, Ky., woman who says the Jefferson County Public Schools' desegregation plan is unconstitutional because it barred her son from transferring to a better school. Her son is white....In the second case, a Seattle parents' group charges that a policy of the Seattle school district that allowed students to select their high schools but used race to decide who fills limited spots.....Last December, when Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was still on the bench, the Supreme Court rejected another case involving the use of race as a factor in school admissions to achieve diversity....Critics of such policies said the court's announcement that it will accept the appeals of the Seattle and Kentucky cases hints at a new aggressiveness by the court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who is also conservative, in dealing with race issues in public schools." Court takes 2 race-based school-assignment cases By Joyce Howard Price THE WASHINGTON TIMES June 6th http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060605-111142-4954r.htm

The benefit of racial quotas to the black community has been vastly overstated.  The overwhelming majority of racial set-asides go well-to-do Blacks who have the economic resources to compete with whites for jobs and educational opportunities. Despite vast set-asides and special preferences, black middle classes have not grown in the presence of racial quotas. The breakdown of the black family has have been a far bigger factor in the failure of our Black Community to achieve parity with whites. The Black family unit has been virtually destroyed by the culture war on marriage and family, and what little economic security Black families did enjoy as result has been destroyed. 

To the white working classes, racial quotas have long been viewed as the way the rich and connected pass off the burden of racism in America on down the economic ladder. After all, racial quotas in college admissions does NOT correct the injustice of legacy set-asides that rich playboys like President Bush rely on to get into the best colleges!  NO--all that affirmative action has accomplished is pitting the grandson of a Slovak mineworker with the great-grandson of a slave in competition for whatever slots are left open after the well-connected sons of the wealthy get first choice.

Why should the white working classes bear ALL of the burden of racism in America?

"Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he will vote against (the Marriage Amendment) on the floor but allowed it to survive his panel in part to give the Republicans the debate party leaders believe will pay off on Election Day....As that hearing gets under way, debate on the marriage amendment will enter its second day on the Senate floor. All but one of the Senate Democrats, the exception is Ben Nelson of Nebraska, oppose the measure and, with moderate Republicans, are expected to block an up- or-down vote, killing the measure for the year. Democrats say the amendment is a divisive bow to religious conservatives, and point out that it conflicts with the GOP's opposition to big government interference.  "A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple," said Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, where the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriages in 2003. Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, which in 2004 began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, on Monday denounced Bush's move as predictable and "stale rhetoric" aimed at rallying conservatives for this year's midterm elections. "It's politics. It's pandering and it's placating a core constituency, the evangelicals," Newsom said on ABC's "Good Morning America." Gay Marriage Ban Short of Votes in Senate Jun 05 LAURIE KELLMAN Associated Press http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/05/D8I271G01.html

Associated Press is reporting that the Gay Marriage Amendment has no hope of passing either the Senate or the House. So Bush's offering up the Gay Marriage as an issue right after his support of the Senate's Amnesty Bill has got to be viewed as disingenuous.

If Gay Marriage was really important to Bush2, then you'd have thought he'd have been pushing it a year ago, instead of bringing it out at practically the zero hour to get the issue into play for the 2006 Elections. Given his terrible approval ratings in the polls for his radical foreign policy positions and disastrous jobs performance, Bush/Rove certainly aren't risking alienating any moderate voters---he lost those votes long time ago.

Isn't it downright bad taste to bring up gay marriage after ramming through the Amnesty provisions under the pretense of a "guest worker program"?  If the Republican Party honchos support an immigration bill whose purpose is to cheapen the most valuable thing the working class has---it's American citizenship----by giving away the benefits of citizenship to anybody who walks across the border, why should we believe that they give a hoot about gay marriage?

Of course, liberals have been accusing the Republicans of bringing out "divisive" social issues when they come looking for votes for years. Until recently, that dog won't hunt. After all, aren't the Democrats the ones who are being "divisive" about social issues? Are not the Republicans merely responding to public reaction to the attack on their traditional social values?

After all, the vast majority of Americans just don't agree with the liberal elite that gay marriage is a civil right, or that defining marriage as one man and one women is discriminatory. If the Democrat appointed judges are hell-bent on a radical redefination of marriage and family, why is President Bush being so "divisive" in bringing it up?

The working class folks and those in the middle class have been looking suspiciously at the Democrats since 1968. The Democrats like to claim that they are the party that protects the economic security of "working families" even though 8 years of Clinton-omics did little to reverse the declining wages of working class folks. If Democrat Party was so concerned about working folks economic well being, then why are they doing everything they can to denigrate the social values of these folks?   

If the Democrats are supposed to be on the side of "working families", then why are always allied with those folks who think that traditional family values are outdated and oppressive?  After all, isn't the Democrat Party the party of those folks like People for the American Way, who want to kick all references to God out of public discourse? Isn't the Democrat Party the political arm of the Teacher's Unions, whose agenda is to indoctrinate our kids in political correctness and cultural relativism instead of teaching basic math and science? Isn't the Democrat Party the party of the radical feminism groups like NOW? And NOW's agenda of abortion-on-demand that so many people are uncomfortable with. Isn't the Democrat Party the party of the HRC and it's well-funded media campaign to redefine the traditional family to accomodate it to the "modern" views of morality held by the cosmopolitan elite in places like San Francisco, or Washington DC?

Frankly, the Democrats have got to learn that a voter is not going to be inclined to trust anyone with their economic security who is denigrating and undermining their religious and social values.  If the Democrats finally learn that simple fact, they might even become a true opposition party to Bush and his agenda.