The Solid Surfer.com

North American Union? Terrible Idea.

Want to hear something crazy? Not just a little crazy, but something so outrageous and ridiculous it's hard to even believe?

Get this: Serious plans exist to merge the U.S., Canada, and Mexico into a single North American entity a la the European Union.

(Here's a pause for everyone's jaws to drop.)

Yes, that's right - our national sovereignity is in potentially serious danger right under our noses. The proposal, devised at American University (or should we now call it North American University?) by faculty subsidized by the U.S. State Department, calls for a similar entity to the EU, with a united economy, new currency (the Amero, which would replace the dollar), and collaborative militaries. This would not, of course, happen overnight, but rather over a gradual fifty-year integration process, similar to the beginnings of the EU.

This all may sound too far-fetched to be true, but be assured - it is genuine. Earlier this year, top American officials such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of State George Shultz, and former CIA director R. James Woolsey met with similarly high-ranking counterparts from Canada and Mexico to discuss the issue. Furthermore, American University's website exposes the agenda for all to see.

Now you may be asking yourself - what's the big deal? Surely such a move could not occur without majority voter consent in all three nations.

But while that is certainly true, the plan could sneak by more easily than perhaps thought. This point also reveals why such a merger would best benefit Mexico and most hurt the United States. America's per capita GDP stands well above Canada's and towers over Mexico's. And because the plan intends to achieve North American economic integration by funneling money from wealthier areas to poorer regions, hundreds of billions of our tax dollars will be taken to fund development in Mexico and Canada. Quite naturally, then, both Canadian and Mexican citizens may be inclined to vote for such a bill.

For ordinary Americans, however, it would be a tremendous loss. In addition to higher taxes, we would face an even larger government bureaucracy and all its significant shortcomings. Such an entity is currently ruining Europe, and it could easily drag down the dynamic individualism and grass-roots work ethic that largely underlie America's optimistic exceptionalism and phenomenal general success.

Nevertheless, a massive media campaign will no doubt be prepared in order to sway American voters. It worked in Europe, and like them, we could fall under the sway of a North American Union almost before we know it.

The battle, however, is far from lost. These developments can easily be halted in their tracks if the American people reject them. Given that the plan, if implemented, would erode our national identity at our own cultural and financial expense, I certainly believe most Americans would vote against it. And if we spread the word early enough, we can perhaps even prevent it from becoming a possibility.

A North American Union might work as, say, a sports league, but not as a political entity. The U.S., Canada, and Mexico have all functioned plenty well as separate countries, and there's no need to fix what isn't broken. Long live America...the United States of America.

Washington PAC and the 2006 Senate Elections

For all Americans who support Israel, an excellent resource is the Washington PAC, a political action committee founded by former AIPAC executive director Morrie Amitay. While less publicly known than AIPAC, Washington PAC well holds its own as one of Israel's strongest political supporters in America. At the same time, the organization is important not only to the Jewish state; Mr. Amitay clearly recognizes, as per his group's mission statement, that "a strong and secure Israel is in America's best interest" as well.

I have written about Washington PAC before (I met them through TheSolidSurfer.com's Washington correspondent "K-Swiss", and their website is a "My Heroes" link at left), but I'd like to showcase them again due largely to a recently updated document on their site.

Every quarter, Washington PAC publishes a newsletter that compares Israel support amongst upcoming Senate election cycle candidates and their opponents. Many, of course, are well known such as Joe Lieberman and Ted Kennedy. But beyond this, a large number of Senators remain largely unknown outside their home states, and it is very informative to see details and analyses of their Washington PAC support.

The newsletter provides an excellent barometer of how the 2006 political races could potentially impact the Jewish state. No matter where in America one lives, your Senatorial (and Congressional) elections highly matter.

K-Swiss: Political Insider Report from Washington

News from the Middle East has recently dominated headlines, both in the general media and here at TheSolidSurfer.com. But at the same time, our own national political affairs remain highly pertinent. To cover such developments, we turn once again to our Washington correspondent "K-Swiss", who checks in for a brief discussion.

Solid Surfer: What is the political climate in Washington like at the moment? Have the recent thwarted airline terrorist attacks changed the mood there?

K-Swiss: The climate is still as bipartisan as ever. The Democrats are focused on all negative aspects of the American strategy in Iraq as a means of taking over the Congress, whereas the Republicans are focused on keeping the voters thinking about the war on terrorism, rather than Iraq, and staying in power.

Solid Surfer: Who do you see coming out on top in the November congressional races - Democrats or Republicans?

K-Swiss: Polls have shown that Democrats have a much better chance at taking over the House rather than the Senate. However, I believe that at the end of the day, the American voter will realize that appeasement does not work, and hence the Democrats focusing their campaigns on the Iraq War will not win over enough voters to replace Republicans. I see the Republicans staying in control of both the House and Senate.

Solid Surfer: Who wins the Connecticut race - Lieberman or Lamont, and why?

K-Swiss: Lieberman. Many Republican voters sympathize with Lieberman, and traditionally during primaries, the fringe left for Democrats and the fringe right for Republicans are overrepresented. It would truly be a shame if Lamont were to win, and his victory would show how far left the Democratic party has moved. Allowing Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to stand on the podium behind him during his primary victory speech should be enough to turn the average Connecticut voter away from Lamont.

Solid Surfer: What do you see the U.S. doing in response to Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment?

K-Swiss: I think President Bush's recent, more aggressive language toward Iran has been positive. But the EU's typical call for more negotiations shows that the Europeans remain in the business of appeasement. I do not believe Iran will ever agree to halt its nuclear weapons program, regardless of any sanctions against it. So at the end of the day, it appears Israel once again will be forced to do the world's dirty work, and will attack Iran.

Solid Surfer: On a similar note, knowing that Iran and Hezbollah are gearing for more attacks, what should Israel's next move be?

K-Swiss: Continue the air and sea blockade until the kidnapped soldiers are released. If Lebanon continues to violate Resolution 1701, I think Israel will be forced to re-enter and finish the job. Next time, Israel should pursue not just Lebanon, but also Syria. Arabs understand force and strength, and so Israel needs to send a signal to Lebanon that the "divine victory" allegedly achieved by Hezbollah was not so divine after all.

Solid Surfer: Looking forward to 2008, who do you see each party's presidential nominees being? Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani? Russ Feingold vs. John McCain?

K-Swiss: For the Democrats sake, I hope it is not Hillary. And I think Feingold has about as good a chance of being nominated as I do. He isn't nearly as popular as the media makes him out to be, and being twice-divorced badly hurts his image among social moderates. I think the nominees will be Evan Bayh vs. McCain...but of course a lot can happen in the next two years.

Solid Surfer: K-Swiss, thank you for the perspectives and analysis. Barring an unlikely Dick Cheney change of mind, 2008 will be the first presidential race in 80 years to feature no incumbents (president or vice president). The implications of that race, as well as the upcoming congressional elections, will largely shape America's direction over the next few years. Let's all hope it turns out well.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Site Update: Please note our new "Guest Contributors" category at right. All significant guest contributions to the site, including the current post, have been marked and archived as such.

Washington PAC, Israel Elections, Immigration and more

Thanks to a connection through TheSolidSurfer.com's Washington correspondent "K-Swiss", I had the pleasure of recently meeting with pro-Israel lobbyist and former AIPAC executive director Morrie Amitay. Mr. Amitay now runs his own organization, Washington PAC, and the "My Heroes" section on this website's left column has been updated to include a link to his site.

On the topic of Israel, meanwhile, the Kadima party has garnered the most Knesset seats in the just-completed election, with Labor, Shas, Israel Beitenu, and Likud following in decreasing order. Overall, center-left parties, excluding Arab parties, have gained 52 seats, while center-right parties have gained 51.

What does this mean? Most likely, Kadima leader Ehud Olmert will be able to form a majority government, but the coalition could be weak if the center-right opposition unites against it. Assuming this occurs, Olmert will likely face great difficulties in implementing his planned West Bank disengagement, which, as the Washington Times' Frank Gaffney notes, is a terrible idea based on faulty wishful thinking. Olmert wants to finalize the plan by 2010, but if enough opposition gridlock occurs, Kadima just might be forced to scrap the plan and declare new elections sometime in 2007. This party needs to learn very quickly that, just as with Gaza, withdrawing in the face of a hostile enemy (i.e. Hamas) never works.

In other news:

An estimated 500,000 people marched in Los Angeles over the weekend to protest a proposed federal crackdown on illegal immigration. National reaction has been mixed; the protestors have garnered significant support among some quarters, while others have vehemently opposed them.

Personally, I feel somewhat split on the matter. In the illegals' favor, most are good people who have moved to America simply to pursue better opportunities. No one can fault them for such aspirations, and indeed apart from Native Americans, we all have ancestors who arrived seeking the same thing. A large majority of illegals most certainly would prefer to reside lawfully, but obtaining official permanent residency is often difficult and frustrating (something I can verify firsthand, as my wife immigrated here and went through a 10-year green card process), and many quite logically choose to circumvent the system altogether.

On the other hand, though, as much as America prides itself as a land of immigrants, we still possess finite carrying capacity and would be overwhelmed to unconditionally accept everyone who wishes to enter. Furthermore, illegals benefit from our public services without paying taxes (which unfairly hurts all tax-contributing citizens), and a small number are even hostile to our government and wish to reconquer the Southwest states for Mexico. (Yes, as unbelievable as that sounds, you heard it correctly.) Clearly, we must control the general immigration flow, while absolutely keeping out would-be revolutionaries along with criminals and terrorists.

On that note, I support the government's proposed bill to accept most of the current illegals while taking stronger measures to keep new ones out. The plan may not be ideal (these people did break the law, after all), but deporting 12 million people (their estimated number) would be difficult beyond belief, and apart from a few bad apples (who will indeed have to leave), most are proud to reside here and should willingly become fine, productive, taxpaying Americans. At the same time, resticting new illegals from this point forward will give America the breathing room necessary to fully integrate the new citizens. This is how immigration successfully functioned for most of our nation's existence, and hopefully we can repeat the model par excellence.

Remember: America Supports Itself First, Then Israel

Should we believe President Bush's statement, as discussed in the previous post, that the U.S. will defend Israel against Iran? His words seem very straightforward, but certain pundits nevertheless see reason to doubt.

I feel that the President is fully sincere, although unfortunately his words aren't quite as pro-Israel as they may seem. How can that be? Let's re-examine his key point, as quoted in the previous post:

"The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace."

This statement is certainly true, but just as notable is what's left out. Iran isn't after only Israel; it has directly threatened America as well. As president of the United States, Bush's responsibility is first and foremost to his own nation, and although he mentions defending Israel, his warning's real impetus is to advance America's interests, and not necessarily those of Israel (or anyone else). Protecting America comes first.

This is, of course, no surprise; the leader of any nation will defend his own land before that of others. But Bush's words are actually troubling in a deeper sense. He presents America as doing Israel a favor, one which presumably must be repaid in the future. This could prove harmful if Israel's interests fail to align with America's in such manner, and in any case, Israel shouldn't owe the U.S. for really protecting its own neck. Furthermore, Bush's words unintentionally give fodder to those who outrageously believe that Israel controls America; here is more "evidence," such bigots and crackpots would say, that Israel's interests dictate U.S. foreign policy.

America's plans to support Israel against Iran are wonderful, but we must remember that like all nations, the U.S. places its own goals first. America sat idly during World War II until its own shores were attacked, and it hardly counteracted international terrorism until the 9/11 tragedy. America is highly pro-Israel, but above all it is simply pro-America. Israel should certainly welcome U.S. assistance, but would be wise to always remember this point.

In other news:

Israel may have little of the black gold, but blue gold is another story: Jewish state poised to be a water technology superpower.

While Harvard's faculty may lean leftist, the student body, thank goodness, does not. WorldNetDaily's Hans Zeiger reports on the Ivy League generation gap.

Amazingly, the Basque terrorist group in Spain, ETA, has agreed to a permanent cease-fire. The group's motive, most suspect, is that Al Qaeda has so turned the world against terror that the tactic has lost its effectiveness for everyone else. I'm not so sure, however. In general, terrorist groups can never be trusted, and ETA has broken numerous cease-fires in the past. News of this latest truce is certainly welcome, but I would view it with a healthy dose of skepticism.

CAMERA has provided yet another rebuttal to the disgraceful Harvard study on the Israel lobby.

America and the Dubai Ports Deal: The Aftermath

The Dubai ports crisis is finally over. After large-scale public outcry and strong Congressional opposition, the deal which would have allowed a UAE government-owned company to manage six key U.S. ports has been canceled, and the company has agreed to transfer the management to an American entity to be named. At the same time, President Bush has avoided what surely would have been a nasty showdown with a large part of his political constituency.

So where do we, the American people, stand in the aftermath of the deal gone bad?

Most importantly, our national security has been strengthened. Before this issue came to light, hardly anyone was even aware that foreign companies managed most of our ports. Now, the operation of such an essential aspect of our border security will increasingly lie in American hands. It's also wonderful to see so many of us remaining skeptical of government officials who say "trust me" without providing full information, such as President Bush in this case. Of course these officials are our elected representatives, but they too can make mistakes, and we should always take proper action if necessary.

Some say that rejecting the deal sends the wrong message to our Arab allies, but let's not kid ourselves - the UAE is no true ally. Any nation with links to Al Qaeda and Hamas is fundamentally hostile to U.S. interests, no matter how much superficial support (such as airbases) its government has given us to save itself from a terrorist takeover.

Economically, meanwhile, the impact is neutral. Some pundits worry that we've hurt ourselves by sending a protectionist message to other nations, but the port cancellation clearly was a security-motivated isolated incident and by no means points to an overall protectionist trend.

The big question is the political fallout. President Bush championed a highly unpopular stand, and anger has run high, from all-time low poll support to even calls for impeachment. I don't think the latter will actually occur, but a much larger risk is the Republicans losing control of the House and/or Senate in 2006. If the GOP is no longer perceived as the party that can keep America secure, it will likely take a tumble.

The danger of this would lessen, of course, if the opposing Democrats had better national security ideas themselves, but as we have seen, for the most part they do not. The upcoming elections will be an essential judge of where Americans stand on this issue. Personally, I think the ports matter will quickly become old news a la the Harriet Miers Supreme Court episode, and while Republicans may lose a few seats, they'll still maintain control of both lawmaking bodies.

The ports crisis could have been avoided by some sharper moves from the get-go (such as considering only American companies for the management contracts), but once it occurred, our only option was to resolve the situation satisfactorily and build upon what we learned from the mistake. Having just completed the former, it is essential that we Americans continue on the path of the latter.

Exclusive Interview: Van Taylor, Iraq War Veteran and Republican Candidate for the House of Representatives

Texas Congressional District 17 (based in Waco, TX) looks to be the site of one of 2006's most competitive political contests. Several prominent Republicans are vying neck and neck to win a crowded primary for the right to challenge the seat of eight-time Democratic incumbent Rep. Chet Edwards.

TheSolidSurfer.com recently caught up with perhaps the most prominent of these challengers, recent Iraq War veteran Van Taylor. A 7th generation Texan running in his first national election at age 33, Mr. Taylor is a former U.S. Marine Captain and intelligence officer, Harvard graduate, independent business owner, and husband and father. In an exclusive interview for this site, he spoke candidly about the congressional race, his views and positions, Iraq and the war on terror, and what needs to be fixed in America.

TheSolidSurfer.com: Van, thank you very much for joining us. Let's start out by discussing the coming elections. You're facing a very tough primary race against some conservative Republicans with similar positions on many issues. How do you stand out?

Van Taylor: Thank you, glad to be here. Around the district, people are really excited to support someone whose life experience as a marine and as a businessman speaks to the challenges of our times. My focus is on issues that truly affect our lives, such as winning the war on terror, securing our borders, restoring fiscal discipline to Washington, growing our economy, and fighting for traditional family values.

Solid Surfer: Sounds great. Let's discuss some of these positions. On supporting traditional families, what specific ways do you have in mind?

Taylor: I believe in the sanctity of marriage and will vote to support it. I'll support a constitutional amendment for that as well. I'll also work to eliminate the marriage penalty and the alternative minimum tax, and increase the per-tax child credit, and I'm going to vote for traditional family values, defend faith in public life and won't attack it, and defend religion.

Solid Surfer: How about taxes in more detail? I know you want to cut taxes in general, but any specific tax or taxes that especially stand out?

Taylor: It's really important to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, particularly the capital gains tax. Clearly it was too high, and cutting it has given both taxpayers a lower tax rate and the federal government more revenue. When we lowered it by 25%, revenue from it doubled from $300 billion to $600 billion in two years, and I think we should cut it down even further. This is what I like to call the Wal Mart strategy – lower prices every day. When your prices are too high for capital gains, people are afraid to take profits on long term investments, and fortunately the president stood up for it and voted for it, and everyone has been a winner.

I'm shocked and appalled, though, that certain Democrats want to raise the tax rate despite knowing all this evidence. The returns are indisputable - there is no question that lowering the tax rate on the capital gains tax has pushed revenue up. But for partisan reasons, a lot of Democrats want to charge higher tax rates and lower our treasury revenue, and this is a sad statement on politics in Washington today. But I'm going to fight for the right thing, which is to lower tax rates to benefit us all.

Solid Surfer: On a similar note, where do we have opportunities to eliminate wasteful spending, and what is your strategy?

Taylor: Unfortunately, there is a culture in Washington of wasteful spending, i.e. vote for my wasteful project and I'll vote for yours. Due to this, we've seen many significant wastes of money like a bridge built to nowhere, $50 million for an indoor rainforest in Iowa, half a million dollars to paint a fish on the side of an airplane, and so on. Those are galling examples of bad spending policy, and as a member of Congress I'll fight to root that out and to say, look let's be careful here and spend this money as if it's our own personal savings. Part of that means reforming how we do earmarks, if not eliminating them completely; that’s a path of corrupting power and wasteful spending that we should avoid.

Solid Surfer: What about border security? How should we beef it up?

Taylor: We need to implement the physical infrastructure necessary to secure our borders, shift the focus of the border patrol away from interdiction and towards prevention, and reform our immigration code internally inside the U.S. We should also work to replace our illegal labor force with a legal labor force. The problem on our U.S.-Mexico border is accelerating; as a Marine, I served on that border eight years ago, and not only did we not control it then, but it's worse today than it has ever been. Last year, one million people crossed our southern border illegally, which is a very serious problem that must be fixed. Without border security, you can't have national security.

Solid Surfer: Speaking of that, as a former soldier you have a significant insider perspective on the war on terror. How, in your view, is America is doing? Do you think we’re winning, and what can we improve?

Taylor: I have tremendous confidence in our men and women in uniform as they serve in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world defeating terrorists wherever they may be. I am concerned, however, about opportunistic politicians trying to implement bad military strategy and practice on the troops on the ground, such as tying their hands with benchmarks, milestones, and timelines. This really only serves to encourage and help the enemy, and it won't help keep America safe or free. I intend to make sure that our troops don't have their hands tied by politicians in Washington, and that they receive the latitude they need to successfully accomplish their mission, which is to provide for our common defense.

Solid Surfer: On a similar token, having been in Iraq, do you think the mainstream American media has been reporting the war fairly and accurately?

Taylor: Well, newspapers do what they do – they report exciting stories that are going to sell. Same with the broadcast media. But look at what happened (last) Friday. Iraq officially announced the successful conduct of its elections, released the results, worked out all the corruption issues, and not a single reporter showed up. Here is one of the great moments in Iraqi history, and not a word about it in the newspaper.

Of course the papers had plenty of words instead about a terrorist massacring eight innocent civilians in a mosque, but the media often tends to gravitate towards shocking stories and ends up missing the big story. And the big stories in Iraq over the last year have been three successful elections, the creation of a strong Iraqi military which by this June will control half the country, and the courage of the brave young men and women who serve every day in the war on terror with tremendous success.

Solid Surfer: How do you feel about America's prospects for achieving President Bush's goals of energy independence from Middle East oil? Is it realistic and how can we as Americans contribute to that effort?

Taylor: I think ultimately the market will solve this problem, just as it did in the 1970s, when we actually faced a much more severe energy crisis than we do today. High oil prices meant for high profits, and that prompted entrepreneurs to come in and create more supply, as well as causing consumers to consume less. As a result we have become twice as efficient with each unit of energy as we were 30 years ago.

The best thing the government can really do is to stay out of it. Every president since Richard Nixon had his own plan to reduce energy dependence through some kind of progressive new fuel or new technology, and they all failed completely. That said, we should always continue to keep trying. The federal government does have a small role to play, but the private sector’s role should be much larger, as ultimately they will be the ones to solve this problem. I don't agree with people who say the federal government should solve everything; I think they should create a level playing field and let the rest of us play on it.

Solid Surfer: Any other issues or positions you want to discuss, or more on the campaign itself?

Taylor: In my own story, people have come up to me and said, "Van we're excited to support you, not only because we share your beliefs and not only because you have real world experiences and will work to make Washington more responsive, but because you have a lifetime of leadership, from being an Eagle Scout and Senior Patrol Leader in Boy Scouts, sports team captain in school, Marine Officer, building and running your own company, bringing together business deals, and now running a political campaign."

I think when you talk with people involved in the campaign or who served with me in Iraq or have been in business with me, you’ll find a consistent theme that I have always sought out the opportunity to lead, and have been blessed with success in doing so and in helping others to be successful and developing themselves as well.

Solid Surfer: That all sounds great. To conclude, what's in store for you leading to the election, and how do you feel about your chances for success?

Taylor: I've been overwhelmed by the tremendous support across the district and really across the country as well, from small campaign contributions to emails on my website saying 'keep going'. I just talked to my platoon sergeant from Iraq ten minutes ago and he said, "My wife and I are going to be walking blocks for you on Saturday. We’re there for you. You kept me alive in Iraq, and I’m going to work to get you elected to Congress." And it's wonderful having people I've never known before come off the street and say "I want five Van Taylor bumper stickers and two yard signs, and how can I help and what can I do?" It's great to see such response to our message that experience matters, that experience can make a difference in your life. It's resonating across the district in a meaningful way, and I'm very excited.

Solid Surfer: Van, thank you very much again. It’s been a pleasure to speak with you and to have you on TheSolidSurfer.com.

Taylor: Thank you too, and I appreciate it.

Jimmy Carter: Worst U.S. President Supports Hamas

Jimmy Carter has demonstrated, once again, why he is undoubtedly the worst ex-president America has ever had. Immediately on the heels of the US and EU cutting their financial support to the Hamas-led Palestinians based on the principle of not supporting terorrists, Carter has called for the funding anyway, because in his view, the Palestinian people are still economically suffering.

Does this man have any practical intelligence? Seriously - how can someone possibly be that naive? Carter says he hopes that Hamas will become more moderate now that it's in power, but there is zero evidence of such a trend. Just listen to Hamas leaders themselves; they all say that their goal remains the destruction of Israel through terror and violence. These are the people Jimmy Carter wants to support.

If this sounds overly critical of Carter, it's fully intentional. There are many American politicians with whom I disagree and yet still respect, but I can't hold an ounce of respect for someone who wants to financially support an evil terrorist group. No matter how nobly intentioned Carter may be in his own mind, sympathy for Hamas is entirely inexcusable.

Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg of Carter's actions; in addition to his rainy day presidency in which America both suffered its worst economic downturn since World War II and failed to confront adversaries in the Middle East and Latin America, he has continually opposed American foreign policy and frequently apologized for numerous dictators such as Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and (what a surprise) Yasser Arafat.

Want to know, Mr. Carter, why the Palestinian people indeed are economically suffering? Because rather than building his people a nation, your man Arafat stole billions from them. If you truly want to help the Palestinians, try working instead towards ending the vile hatred against Israel that their leadership instilled in them over the past decade.

As Israeli prime minister Golda Meir once said, "peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us." Until Jimmy Carter recognizes that and quits apologizing for terrorists, he is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Kinky Friedman for Governor (and other tidbits)

As his official slogan proudly states: "Why the hell not?" Tomorrow, Kinky Friedman plans to submit his Declaration of Intent to run as an Independent candidate for governor of the State of Texas. That's right, the cowboy hat-wearing, cigar-chomping country singer and mystery novelist is taking his first steps into the political fray.

But lest Mr. Friedman be dismissed as a flash-in-the pan celebrity cashing in on the success of Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger, his platform actually contains many sensible ideas. Kinky favors low taxes and renewable energy (especially to reduce our dependence on OPEC and Middle Eastern oil), is against big government and corruption, and perhaps best of all wants to campaign against political correctness.

A couple potential downsides, however - apparently he wants to legalize casino gambling to fund education and wishes to appoint both Willie Nelson as head of the Texas Rangers (the law enforcement group, not the baseball team) and his Palestinian hairdresser Farouk Shami as Texas's ambassador to Israel. I'm not sure how serious these particular claims are (they come from quotes on his website and not part of an official platform), but casinos can be a mixed bag, Willie Nelson certainly doesn't seem to be a law enforcement type of guy (if anything, he's the opposite!), and who knows about this Palestinian hairdresser. (Do states even have official ambassadors to other nations?)

But whether the above is real or merely tongue-in-cheek, Kinky Friedman's presence will certainly make the 2006 Texas governor race much more interesting. See his official website at www.kinkyfriedman.com for more details and to follow his campaign.

Also, in other news:

Inclined to believe Howard Dean, John Murtha and the like on Iraq? James Phillips of The Heritage Foundation presents a must-read fact-based document dispelling all of their antiwar myths.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia says that "extremists have hijacked Islam" and vows to fight them. I guess he's going to start by looking in the mirror? The Saudi government has financed fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam, which has inspired tens of thousands of terrorists (at least), around the world for years. Extremists haven't hijacked Islam; Saudi Arabia has. This country is no U.S. ally, and our government must toughen up on them immediately.

For Jewish people in America: Time to get busier in the bedroom. (This is actually a serious and important article.)

Where I Disagree with the GOP

Throughout its brief history, this blog has supported and promoted many entrenched GOP positions, from tax cuts to the war in Iraq to intelligent design theory. But while TheSolidSurfer.com certainly leans Republican, I do disagree with the party's official line (and President Bush's actions) on a number of key issues. Here are some, along with the reasoning behind my stances:

Immigration
President Bush has strongly favored an open immigration policy, offering numerous benefits (including guest-worker status) to illegals and leaving porous borders between the U.S. and both Canada and Mexico. I believe this is a large mistake. Of course, America has been built on immigration (and, in fact, I'm married to an immigrant), and by no means do I propose ending it. Immigration provides new Americans with countless opportunities not present in their birth countries, while giving this nation a fresh supply of skilled workers. But at the same time, we do have finite resources and cannot realistically accept all would-be immigrants without straining ourselves beyond capacity. Therefore, we should more effectively police our borders and ensure that if people wish to immigrate, they do it legally instead of sneaking over the fence (unless, say, it's an emergency refugee situation).

The situation is also all the more urgent, now that we've caught known Al-Qaida members trying to infiltrate America from Mexico. Even beyond immigration issues, we must keep terrorists out of this country. And building a better, well-policed border fence is the way to do it.

Stem Cells
President Bush and leading Republicans have ruled against using embryonic stem cells in medical research, citing a violation against their pro-life principles. Here too, I disagree. Abortion is one thing, but embryonic stem cells come not from fetuses, but from rejected fertility treatment embryos. During such treatments, numerous embryos are created with the hope that one will become a viable fetus able to be implanted in the woman's uterus. When this occurs, the rest are discarded. These embryos are never implanted and never given the chance to develop into an actual person. If you're going to throw them out anyway, you certainly might as well use them to help cure some of humanity's worst diseases.

Israel-Palestinian Conflict
I certainly agree with much of President Bush's and the GOPs actions regarding this situation, particularly their strong support for Israel. But that said, I vehemently disagree with their continuing to reward the Palestinians for doing absolutely nothing to combat terror, extremism, and bad government. Israel has done all it can to try and make peace, and now the ball is completely in the Palestinians' court. And yet the U.S. continues to hold Israel almost entirely responsible for achieving calm in the region. This line of thinking is dangerously wrong, and Bush's policies here will fail just as Clinton's and every other former president's did, unless he acknowledges the Palestinian leadership (and the surrounding Arab countries) as the real cause of the problems and acts accordingly.

Big Government
Traditionally the Democrats have been the party of big government while Republicans preferred a leaner federal structure. But in recent years, Republicans have greatly expanded numerous governmental programs from Medicare to Farm Acts. Even excluding defense and homeland security budgets (which are vital and must remain), President Bush has become the largest spending president in thirty years. Big government is getting out of control and we must find ways to better manage and reduce it.