Job 1 on the Hill: Homeland Security

[sassa]

Job 1 on the Hill: homeland security

President sets agenda for new GOP majority in Congress

MSNBC STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS

Nov. 7 — With his party set to hold majorities in both houses of Congress, President Bush laid out his priorities on Thursday, with the top job being to pass a bill creating a Department of Homeland Security before the end of the lame-duck session of the 107th Congress.

“THE SINGLE most important item of unfinished business on Capitol Hill is creating a unified body to protect the American people,” Bush said at a White House news conference.

It is “imperative” that Congress put a bill on his desk by the end of the lame-duck session that begins Tuesday creating a Cabinet-level department bringing together an array of homeland defense functions, the president said. That effort has been thwarted so far during the current Congress.

The president, in his first major appearance since the electorate ended the split in congressional control, named the economy as his second priority for action on Capitol Hill. He said the first item of business on that front is a bill to assure that businesses are able to get terrorism insurance, a move Bush said would free up construction spending halted by the inability of companies to obtain such coverage in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

Bush emphasized the positives in the economy — low interest rates, low inflation, growing productivity — but said: “I’m not satisfied.”

He said that early next year he would push the new Congress to pass packages boosting growth and jobs.

OTHER ISSUES

On other issues, the president:

Said that if he decides to run for a second term, Vice President Dick Cheney will again be his running mate.

Emphasized that he was prepared to work with the new leadership in Congress, saying he had called, among others, Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., who is losing his status as Senate majority leader, and Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., who announced Thursday that he will not seek another term as House leader for the Democratic Party, to express his desire to work together.

Said he expected the United Nations to vote Friday on a joint U.S.-British resolution that could pave the way for military action against Iraq. Bush said he spoke with President Vladimir Putin of Russia and President Jacques Chirac of France about the issue, and “I’m optimistic that we will get the resolution vote tomorrow.”

Praised Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt, who resigned under pressure Tuesday, for his work reopening the stock markets after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and enforcing corporate responsibility. Bush also praised William Webster, whose selection by Pitt’s SEC to head a new accounting oversight panel has drawn sharp criticism.

CHANGING OF THE GUARD

The changing of committee leadership will soon take place in the Senate, and when it does Bush and the Republicans will be able to advance issues beyond homeland security that had been bottled up by Democrats — issues ranging from judicial nominees to drilling for oil in an Alaskan refuge. The change will be a highly visible impact of Tuesday’s midterm election, which saw Republicans take the Senate and add seats in the House.

Committee changes will happen when the new senators are sworn in come January. But already the names of probable committee chairmen and their priorities are well-known. Here’s a look at some of the key faces.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa: Taxes.

In line to become chairman of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, Grassley helped push through Bush’s big tax cuts last year, and said Wednesday he would work to make them permanent — a key Bush theme.

Grassley is also known as a consensus-builder, and a statement released Wednesday outlining his priorities included themes welcomed by Democrats. “It’s important to build confidence in the markets with strong policing of corporate wrongdoing and with reliable, certain tax policies,” he said.

He added that he’d move legislation “to rein in corporate tax shelters and corporate inversions, to protect workers’ pensions in the face of corporate wrongdoing, and to help build energy security through alternative energy tax incentives.”

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M.: Energy.

Domenici becomes the senior Republican in line to chair the Energy and Natural Resources Committee after Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, won his bid for Alaska governor.

Like Murkowski, Domenici is a loud advocate for opening part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. As a result, he is likely to revive the proposal, which had been voted down earlier this year as part of an energy bill that’s in a House-Senate conference committee.

Another element of that bill — increasing the use of corn-based ethanol as a gasoline additive — is likely to get plenty of support since both parties have courted farm-belt votes.

Domenici is also a strong proponent of expanding use of nuclear energy.

Lott gets another chance

Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan.: CIA oversight.

The likely new Senate Intelligence Committee chair, Roberts’ has been one of the CIA’s biggest defenders, complaining that agency leaders were being put on trial by Democrats second-guessing decisions in the months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The change in leadership could affect the final report of the Senate and House intelligence committees’ inquiry into the attacks if it is not completed by year’s end.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.: Environment.

He will probably chair the Environment and Public Works Committee, replacing Vermont Sen. James Jeffords, a former Republican turned independent.

The shake-up will put a chill on efforts by Jeffords and Democrats to regulate carbon dioxide emissions as a pollutant and to resume a special tax that expired in 1995 and had helped pay for Superfund toxic waste cleanups.

It remains unclear whether the committee will continue to demand that the Environmental Protection Agency turn over documents on clean air rules reviewed by the White House.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: Judges.

Senate Democrats have held up 46 of President Bush’s nominees to federal benches — a fact used by Bush in speech after speech on the midterm campaign trail.

Election aftermath

Hatch has said he fears Democrats were “voting down judges based on their religious views.”

“The American people want judges who know their limited roles and will uphold the law, regardless of their personal views,” he told a Christian Coalition conference last month. “As long as a judge is willing to do that, any other litmus test on their personal views is wrong.”

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.: Iraq policy.

Conservative Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., would have been in line to chair the Foreign Relations Committee, but his retirement leaves Lugar next in line.

Lugar is much more sensitive about how U.S. policy plays oversees. And while he has urged the overthrow of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein for more than a decade, he has also warned the United States should not act alone against Iraq.

Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.: Farming.

Expected to chair the Senate Agriculture Committee, he will look for more ways to help farmers hurt by drought or floods, aides have said.

A defender of farm subsidies, particularly for cotton and rice, Cochran will also likely chair the agriculture subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

ELECTION NUMBERS

Republicans claimed at least 51 Senate seats to the Democrats’ 46. Two races remained too close to call and a third seat is held by Jeffords, an independent.

The Senate races still undecided are in South Dakota, where Republican Rep. John Thune might seek a recount in his tight race against Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson, and in Louisiana, where Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu had the most votes of any candidate but not enough to avoid a Dec. 7 runoff in the state’s unique election system.

In the House, Tuesday’s voting padded the GOP majority by at least five seats.

In the races for governor, Democrats won big victories in industrial swing states, but the GOP took two top prizes: Florida, where Gov. Jeb Bush was re-elected, and heavily Democratic Maryland. The outcome left Republicans governing 25 states, Democrats 24.

ALABAMA IN DISPUTE

‘The next governor should have the legitimacy of this election.’

— DON SIEGELMAN Alabama governor

The governor’s race in Alabama remains in dispute: Tuesday’s general election results are to be certified at noon Friday in each of Alabama’s 67 counties, NBC affiliate WVTM reported, but Democratic incumbent Gov. Don Siegelman asked late Thursday for a statewide recount of the vote, saying the outcome was so close it needs a second look.

Siegelman and Republican challenger Bob Riley both claimed victory in Tuesday’s election, but in Baldwin County, a reported software malfunction lowered the final vote count for Siegelman, giving Riley a 3,195-vote lead out of 1.3 million votes cast statewide — the margin he needed to make him the apparent winner statewide.

At a brief news conference, the governor said that in Baldwin County, a GOP stronghold, he wants a “recount by hand.”

“The next governor should have the legitimacy of this election,” Siegelman said.

‘PROGRAMMING GLITCH’

Probate Judge Adrian Johns, a member of the county canvassing board, blamed the initial, higher number on “a programming glitch in the software” that tallies the votes. The governor cried foul, claiming the results were changed after poll watchers had left.

The Siegelman camp has said the changes are suspect, but Riley campaign officials said it was an honest mistake.

Siegelman’s other options include challenging the election in court or contesting it before the Alabama Legislature. No candidate for governor has pursued the legislative route in modern times, but if Siegelman did, the entire Legislature — 89 Democrats and 51 Republicans — would decide which candidate won.

[bigmahs]

That's why he will be one of the best Presidents america will ever have. I am sooo happy Gore didn't get elected:)

[sassa]

Originally posted by bigmahs

That's why he will be one of the best Presidents america will ever have. I am sooo happy Gore didn't get elected:)

i cannot believe any rational person can say this and be honest about it...can't you see he's leading this country into a hell that will be hard to come out of?

they're using terrorism as an advantage/excuse to target iraq and other countries where they can just go in, screw the infrastructure, and steal their oil.

i wish there would be a coup d'etat here....and someone more sensible can be put in this idiot's place.

[bigmahs]

Originally posted by sassa

i cannot believe any rational person can say this and be honest about it...can't you see he's leading this country into a hell that will be hard to come out of?

they're using terrorism as an advantage/excuse to target iraq and other countries where they can just go in, screw the infrastructure, and steal their oil.

i wish there would be a coup d'etat here....and someone more sensible can be put in this idiot's place.

Seriously Sassa

If he is such a monster why is his approval rating so high????

Why did he single handley because of his popularity take control of the Senate? I'll tell ya- AMERICA LOVES GEORGE W. BUSH......

1- How is putting the Homeland security bill first on his agenda leading the country to hell???

2- The tough stance of threatening with the use of force has accomplished a number of things

- The inspectors are going back in and have access to all the sites in Iraq, if not we go to war it's perfect bargaining.

- Time and time again Bush has said that if he does not comply We will lead a COALITION to disarm him and WAR is his LAST resort so it is entireley upto SADAM to comply.

- Hey I hoped to god that we are wrong believe me but we will never know until the inspectors go back in.

This Republican administration has accomplished more in 2 years then the Democratic administration's eleven years with Clinton as president.

~Tax cuts

~War on terror which in my mind we are winning.

~The creation of the Dept of Homeland Security

-which the democrats have stalled because the labor unions have numerous senators in their pockets.

Enough said

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by bigmahs

1- How is putting the Homeland security bill first on his agenda leading the country to hell???

2~The creation of the Dept of Homeland Security

-which the democrats have stalled because the labor unions have numerous senators in their pockets.

Enough said

it eliminates federal protection for whilsteblowers within the administration, as well as collective bargaining rights for federal employees

and about the democratic senators being controlled by labor unions....is that worse than the republicans being controlled by oil and defense companies? (some Republicans are controlled by unions too....look at the UAW for example)

[sassa]

Originally posted by bigmahs

Seriously Sassa

If he is such a monster why is his approval rating so high????

Why did he single handley because of his popularity take control of the Senate? I'll tell ya- AMERICA LOVES GEORGE W. BUSH......

1- How is putting the Homeland security bill first on his agenda leading the country to hell???

2- The tough stance of threatening with the use of force has accomplished a number of things

- The inspectors are going back in and have access to all the sites in Iraq, if not we go to war it's perfect bargaining.

- Time and time again Bush has said that if he does not comply We will lead a COALITION to disarm him and WAR is his LAST resort so it is entireley upto SADAM to comply.

- Hey I hoped to god that we are wrong believe me but we will never know until the inspectors go back in.

This Republican administration has accomplished more in 2 years then the Democratic administration's eleven years with Clinton as president.

~Tax cuts

~War on terror which in my mind we are winning.

~The creation of the Dept of Homeland Security

-which the democrats have stalled because the labor unions have numerous senators in their pockets.

Enough said

i have my theory of why his approval rating is so high, but it will probably insult a lot of the die hard americans in here.

the american general public are clueless about politics. around 30% only voted in this year's elections...what do that say? it says that either most people don't give a damn about what's going on, or don't know. either way, it is easy to lead a group of people into believeing something is good with the right words, the right person to say them,and giving a list of options of why it is good(for them). it is like a shepard leading a group of sheep to pasture.

as for the tax cuts...that is bullshit. a rich man will now own a new lexus with this, while the average man will probably only have gotten $600 from it....not equal or fair at all, so that argument is shot...

their stance on using force is COMPLETELY contradictory to what this country is trying to preach to the rest of the world. A true democracy is based on NEGOTIATION AND COMPROMISE, not threatening to bomb someone if they don't agree with you or don't live/abide by the same rules you do. This is bullshit.

World War III is coming...and it's all thanks to a moron cowboy who just happens to come from a powerful, wealthy family. Little boy Bush is taking this shit too far and needs to be stopped....I wish he'd choke on another pretzel for good.

[georgym]

Originally posted by bigpoppanils

it eliminates federal protection for whilsteblowers within the administration, as well as collective bargaining rights for federal employees

Please elaborate on this , Monsieur Poppa

And i don't necessarily have a big problem with his homeland security bill, it's mostly his expected nomination of conservative judges to the supreme court who have life tenure, and his drilling in Alaska

[bigmahs]

Originally posted by sassa

i have my theory of why his approval rating is so high, but it will probably insult a lot of the die hard americans in here.

the american general public are clueless about politics. around 30% only voted in this year's elections...what do that say? it says that either most people don't give a damn about what's going on, or don't know. either way, it is easy to lead a group of people into believeing something is good with the right words, the right person to say them,and giving a list of options of why it is good(for them). it is like a shepard leading a group of sheep to pasture.

as for the tax cuts...that is bullshit. a rich man will now own a new lexus with this, while the average man will probably only have gotten $600 from it....not equal or fair at all, so that argument is shot...

their stance on using force is COMPLETELY contradictory to what this country is trying to preach to the rest of the world. A true democracy is based on NEGOTIATION AND COMPROMISE, not threatening to bomb someone if they don't agree with you or don't live/abide by the same rules you do. This is bullshit.

World War III is coming...and it's all thanks to a moron cowboy who just happens to come from a powerful, wealthy family. Little boy Bush is taking this shit too far and needs to be stopped....I wish he'd choke on another pretzel for good.

-Why penalize somone for making more money that's what capitalism is all about . Right, the wealthy will feel it more because it is a progressive tax cut the more you make the more of a tax break you will receive. It works the other way around the more you make the more your are taxed

Let me ask you has Iraq violated the resolutions over the last eleven years? Yes

Now with this tough talk from The Bush administration is Iraq letting the inspectors in? yES

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED....

The war on terrorism was explained to us when he addressed The State of the Union in 2001. He said it will be fought in different ways even after people have forgotten. Iraq is known to harbor terrorists a top Iraqi official met with Al-queda before Sept 11th that's not proof?

[sassa]

Originally posted by bigmahs

-Why penalize somone for making more money that's what capitalism is all about . Right, the wealthy will feel it more because it is a progressive tax cut the more you make the more of a tax break you will receive. It works the other way around the more you make the more your are taxed

Let me ask you has Iraq violated the resolutions over the last eleven years? Yes

Now with this tough talk from The Bush administration is Iraq letting the inspectors in? yES

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED....

The war on terrorism was explained to us when he addressed The State of the Union in 2001. He said it will be fought in different ways even after people have forgotten. Iraq is known to harbor terrorists a top Iraqi official met with Al-queda before Sept 11th that's not proof?

Who the fuck died and made Bush God?

[bigmahs]

Originally posted by sassa

Who the fuck died and made Bush God?

He is not God.

He is the LEADER OF THE STRONGEST NATION IN THE WORLD....

and that my freind has some respnsibilities, like assuring world peace. Sometimes the use of force is needed to keep the peace. See before Sept 11th we dealth with most middle eastern countries that we didn't have in our pockets hating us.

Sept 11th it got personal.....

[sassa]

Originally posted by bigmahs

He is not God.

He is the LEADER OF THE STRONGEST NATION IN THE WORLD....

and that my freind has some respnsibilities, like assuring world peace. Sometimes the use of force is needed to keep the peace. See before Sept 11th we dealth with most middle eastern countries that we didn't have in our pockets hating us.

Sept 11th it got personal.....

a

I understand this. But this does not mean he can abuse his power. I think my problem is that I can honestly see the world being a good place to live in, if everyone cooperated with each other and did not allow greed and pettiness to get in the way. I guess I'm disillusional.

Go USA....

[nycmuzik]

Homeland security along with the missle defense system will give too many people a false sense of securtiy....It sounds nice but I fail to see what they're going to do.....If the FBI or the CIA couldnt prevent Sept 11., then I fail to see how creating a new agency will solve any problems.....

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by gmccookny

Please elaborate on this , Monsieur Poppa

Currently protections exist within governmental bodies for employees who find corruption and errors within the system. It basically prevents them for being fired/demoted if they come foward. This bill will erase that protection.

[georgym]

Originally posted by bigpoppanils

Currently protections exist within governmental bodies for employees who find corruption and errors within the system. It basically prevents them for being fired/demoted if they come foward. This bill will erase that protection.

Damn, then where's the incentive to rat out the rats?/?> Friggin Bush

And for Bigmah's , I understand your point about the US having a responsibility as being the #1 superpower, but seriously, other nations like China and Russia are not far behind. The U.S. should set a good example and NOT strike until they have either A. clear proof of Iraq making WMD's OR until Saddam faults and denies UN security detail access to his nation's arms.

in other words, yes the US must stand up, but only at the right time and reason.

[bigmahs]

Originally posted by gmccookny

Damn, then where's the incentive to rat out the rats?/?> Friggin Bush

And for Bigmah's , I understand your point about the US having a responsibility as being the #1 superpower, but seriously, other nations like China and Russia are not far behind. The U.S. should set a good example and NOT strike until they have either A. clear proof of Iraq making WMD's OR until Saddam faults and denies UN security detail access to his nation's arms.

in other words, yes the US must stand up, but only at the right time and reason.

It has been stated that it will be the last resort and IT IS UP TO SADAM. If HE doesn't comply we will lead a coalition to disarm him the tough stance or consequences for not complying is what will let the inspectors in. Iraq now knows that the World is serious about him. The dance is over

[cj7dave2]

Some people should think before they speak, and i do not mean that in an insulting manner. Stay with me for a sec:

Taxes: Take a class, look at the facts, the undisputable facts. Taxes equal slower growth of the economy, less taxes is good. if rich people get bigger breaks, its because they pay more. Even if you only gave rich people breaks, then the poor people still benefit, eg. rich people buy more stuff for the poor people to make and have jobs. Talk about our great country, and the people revolted for being taxed far less than we are now. Is it fair and democratic to be forced by someone else to give my money away. Regardless, its common fact that taxes only serve to make poor people poorer than they would be without them, why you say, because the govt is a sinkhole of inefficiency, Its not like the rich people are stealing the poor peoples money, because i assumed that everyone who bought something wanted to buy it, and there wasnt some rich guy standing there with a gun telling him to. But the poor people are stealing the rich peoples money now, and the average person's money for that matter. It is said that if you take from peter to give to paul, youre always gonn have the support of paul. If people only realized that others dont get rich by taking money from people, and that everyone can get wealthier by trading with each other, then you would see the most utopian society ever. Instead of everyone being equally poor, as you would get with redistribution of wealth, you would have some people being crazy rich, while others, the bottom of the wealth bracket, would only be rich. yeah only rich, what a shame, instead of everyone equally poor, you end up with everyone having big differences of richness, how unfair.

War: You want to stop the war and promote freedom? Get rid of every trade embargo that the us has, even iraq, and encourage trade with them. Wow what a crazy idea, look at china. we did it with them, and in just a short time they have grown their economy at tremendous rates, and wow, they have been a lot less controlling and cruel to their people. If we helped everyone in Iraq get rich, do you think they would stand for a leader who is cruel and unjust, hmmm. So instead of wasting all this money going to war, why not make some money, and avoid war totally.

As for the popular belief that popularity makes you correct, just think of how popular the idea was that the world was flat, and tell me thats true.

Im out, but if anyone wants some proof about anything ive written or is curious about how these ideas come about, you can email me or just post your question. My intent is to spread knowlegde, not feelings, facts, not opinions. Thinking with your heart, is like breathing with your liver.

[underwater]

Originally posted by cj7dave2

War: You want to stop the war and promote freedom? Get rid of every trade embargo that the us has, even iraq, and encourage trade with them. Wow what a crazy idea, look at china. we did it with them, and in just a short time they have grown their economy at tremendous rates, and wow, they have been a lot less controlling and cruel to their people. If we helped everyone in Iraq get rich, do you think they would stand for a leader who is cruel and unjust, hmmm. So instead of wasting all this money going to war, why not make some money, and avoid war totally.

just from my observation....middle east countries are flush with cash due to oil....the problem is that the riches are held in the hands of a few and wealth will never be passed down to the majority of the population....it seems to me that you need to rid those countries of their dictatorship and spread the power to the people...if not you will only have the creme of their society benefiting from lifting sanctions......iraq's government will always seek to oppress its people b/c that is the only way they can retain their power.....

[cj7dave2]

No embargos means no embargos, if you only buy oil then those who posses the oil will be rich and powerful, but if you start to trade other things, everything look what happens. Look at Dubai, did they just disover oil, is that why they have built over 100 out of the 144 skyscrappers since 97. No, the reason is free trade enterprize zones. They aint sellin sand, and they havent been stockpiling their money just to release it in the late 90's, no this wonderful free trade thing came about, and made all those people rich. And as far as rights in the UAE, yeah maybe the women cant drive cars, but the gov is not starving people, nor is it not carrying out unfair trials. The punishments may be considered cruel, but there are no reports from any parties that the government is convicting people unjustly. So the only thing you can say there, and the only thing that amnesty international could say about it, is that they are giving out penalties that are too harsh, and i could say the opposite. Dont break the laws, which are for the most part just, and getting even more just, and you wont have to face the severe consequences. Why not have a little accountability for yourself and take responsibility? Dont expect a handout when your poor, work a little. I didnt come from a rich family, in fact i bet my family has less money than anyone else on this board, yet i sit here successful, on a computer, in a nice apartment. Get off your ass and work, and dont sit down and expect a handout. Dont tell me it cant be done, cuz many people do it. And dont expect not to be punished if you do something wrong, thats how people learn. I expect to go to jail and be gangraped all day if i kill someone. So what do i do, i sure as hell dont kill someone. ?

[bigmahs]

Originally posted by underwater

just from my observation....middle east countries are flush with cash due to oil....the problem is that the riches are held in the hands of a few and wealth will never be passed down to the majority of the population....it seems to me that you need to rid those countries of their dictatorship and spread the power to the people...if not you will only have the creme of their society benefiting from lifting sanctions......iraq's government will always seek to oppress its people b/c that is the only way they can retain their power.....

Liberals and tree huggers are always quick to blame the sanctions for the hardships of the Iraqi people...

HORSESHIT......

One of the aggreement'S with IRAQ was food for oil program. Iraq is actually the U.S's 5th largest importer of oil which inturn has placed BILLIONS in the hands of the Iraqi regime. Now tell me where did it go and that's not even including the hundreds of millions illegaly smuggled out of the country where that go. I'll tell ya NUKES and other nasty critters that he can use to blackmail us and increase his clout in the region.

Can you imagine what Sadam will do if he can be one of the worls largest oil producer????

I was watching BBC news and a author of Sadam biography said that he has had "Thirst for Nukes" since the late 70's

[cj7dave2]

"War has all the characteristics of socialism that most conservatives hate: Centralized power, state planning, false rationalism, restricted liberties, foolish optimism about intended results, and blindness to unintended secondary results"

"If you want the government to intervene domestically, your a liberal. If you want the government to intervene overseas, your a conservative. If you want the government to intervene everywhere, your a moderate. If you want the government to intervene nowhere, your an extremist."

I am not sure if I was called a liberal or tree hugger, but to straighten things out, I am by far neither, nor am I a conservative. A liberal blaims sanctions, I blaim sanctions, subsidies, taxes and many other things for the problems in Iraq. Food for oil, bullshit, I agree that the program actually increases good old saddam's power. Thats not opening up though. The fact is though that places that have high per capita income, no matter how distorted, or centralized that income is, cannot and do not sustain dictatorships. Yeah saddam may have loads of money, but when you factor in all the people in the country, the per capita income is very low. This directly corresponds to freedom in the country. High per capita income (no matter how it is distributed): UK, US, Canada. Low per capita income: Iran, Syria, Pakistan, IRAQ. Do you see a pattern? This is not a coincidence. So what do you do to oust the leader, the least dangerous way for your country? Not spend billions on a war, that only creates more anger, and leads to more wars, and slows the economy, and puts people out of jobs. You spend nothing, elimate barriers to trade, make yourself rich, as with the Iraqi people, and bye bye Saddam. Now you say, Saddam wont allow this. Well saddam cant stop it, because with such an infusion of trade and wealth caused by this, all the activity cannot be stopped, he cant controll it all, and then when people catch on to the fact that they could be a lot better off, even if they have to chance their live (which is in danger anyways), they will. In the words of a famous and highly respected economist, "If you can find openings to give people good incentives and opportunities, they will respond to the incentives to make their lives better. People respond to incentives...all the rest is commentary." Quoted from Steven Landsburg, in Business Week. Why hurt ourselves to make things for others better off, when we can make ourselves better off, while making others better off too.

"The great virtue of the free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another."