I will respond here to any reasonable and politely framed question. This is not a forum for a food fight. Bring your food fights over to Twitter. If you want to submit a question to Bob, send it to comment@BobKingforTexas-21.org.
On 4/20/2024, davbrian521 on TikTok asks: "Why do you say we need more legal immigration? What for?"
On 4/25/ 2024, Bob answers: Thanks for the question. I am a constitutional libertarian, and while I believe in LEGAL immigration, I am not an open-borders anarchist. There is a huge difference between a person who applies to immigrate to the US legally versus someone who sneaks across the border under cover of darkness, wearing camouflage, hoping not to be picked up. The first group simply wants to work and build a better life. The second group has bad intentions. We need to have a policy that is able to differentiate between the two. Right now we have one party that is dominated by the disastrous open-borders idea, and another with a base highly likely to believe that all immigrants are bad. My idea is to negotiate simplifications and expansions of LEGAL immigration programs, then put them on the shelf to be activated only once enforcement activity restores functional control of our borders. You can find this policy better explained here.
But to specifically answer the question, we need immigrants for two reasons, one that is theoretical in nature and the other which is very practical. The more theoretical reason is that we have always been a nation of immigrants, and all of us -- apart from 100% Native Americans -- are descended from immigrants. Immigrants have always brought us energy, work ethic, creativity, and cultural and religious diversity that is a good thing. LEGAL immigrants commit far less crimes than do native-born US citizens on a per capita basis, and are not disproportionate users of social services ... in fact, quite the opposite. They are on balance hard workers and great citizens. And we need them.
The practical reason is that we are a nation with $35 trillion of national debt. Without growth that debt will eventually cause our dollar and our economy to collapse. Native-born US citizens are bearing children at the rate of approximately 1.66 children per woman -- not even enough to maintain a stable population, let alone to grow. Only through immigration can we grow, and only through growth can we hope to get our debt/GDP ratio back in line with the standards of a healthy economy.
The question really isn't whether we need immigrants (we do!). The question is whether we want controlled LEGAL immigration or uncontrolled illegal immigration.
Hope this has been helpful.
God bless,
bob
============================================
On 2/18/2024, Patrick asks: "How do you feel about the US funding our Ukrainian allies to protect themselves against Russia's occupation and invasion?"
On 2/20/2024, Bob answers: Hi Patrick and thanks for the question. Sorry, this won’t be a pithy answer. It's a very complicated situation.
1. We are where we are with Ukraine because of the desire of the US security establishment, since GWB but continuing through Obama, to advance NATO farther and farther into Russia’s back yard, combined with Putin’s innate authoritarianism, which feeds his predictable reaction to our messing in his back yard. Had we not reinstated this Cold War/Dick Cheney approach in the early 2000s, I doubt we would have this war today.
2. But given where we are today, an abrupt abandonment of Ukraine would be as dishonorable as our exit from Afganistan in 2021. We have led the Ukrainian people into this conflagration, and turning tail would be a disgrace, not to mention destabilizing for all of Eastern Europe.
3. But American patience for war is not infinite, and the cracks in the coalition are already observable. We should be communicating to Zelensky that he needs to negotiate. There are obvious middle grounds that Ukraine, believing it is already a de facto NATO member, has refused to consider. He has already missed his best opportunity to negotiate, and waiting longer weakens the deal he will ultimately get.
4. Any military escalations aimed at deposing Putin only bring nuclear weapons into the equation. Putin is indeed a tyrant, his murder of Navalny proves it once again, and he has 3,000 nukes pointed at us and our European friends. You have to give your adversary a way out that allows him to save face, unless you want to corner him into using his nukes.
5. The real winner of this will be China, they are sitting back and watching their geopolitical adversaries deplete themselves. Russia is a regional power with nukes, their primary opponent should be Western Europe, not us. China is the long run threat to US interests absent an accidental nuclear war with Russia.
6. In case you haven’t noticed, we are spending money we don’t have, and the inflation we have thusfar experienced is but a taste of what is to come. I would support more funding to bolster our NATO allies’ support for Ukraine, but only if we offset it with other spending cuts. The national security establishment acts as if it should be immune to budget realities … I disagree.
In short I would steer a middle path between the perpetual war neocons who are running DC and the isolationists who would abandon Ukraine tomorrow. We are not going to achieve a final military victory over Russia by bleeding them to the last Ukrainian. The Russians will win this war of attrition, and we can’t fight an escalating war without risking a nuclear exchange.
I hope we will someday learn the lesson that we are not the policeman of the world. We’re eventually going to have to learn to share the world with others, even those we don’t like. And we must recognize that we have our sphere of influence and other countries have theirs. Ukraine will NEVER be as important to the US as it is to Russia, and we should have been wise enough 20 years ago not to head down this path.
The most effective thing we CAN do is to stimulate domestic oil and gas production to lower prices and thus reduce Putin's cash flow. It is massively irresponsible from a national security point of view that we have failed to do this, in fact our current leadership has gone in precisely the wrong direction on this, playing into the hands of our geopolitical adversaries like Russia and Iran.
Hope this has been helpful, Patrick.
God bless,
bob
============================================
On 1/22/2024, Susie asks: "Bob, what is your plan on beating Chip Roy? I'm 21 and I lean right, I'm a Trump supporter like tons of Hill Country folks are but I don't want to have to vote for Chip Roy, nor will I vote for a Dem. I agree with some of your things, but some not so much."
On 1/23/2024, Bob answers: Susie, if you are 21 then you are exactly the reason I am running. My Boomer Generation inherited a juggernaut nation from our grandparents' Greatest Generation, but what we are leaving to your Gen Z is something completely different. Both parties, Rs and Ds, are complicit in running up hideous levels of debt to sustain our overconsumption. Republicans like Chip Roy pay lip service to cutting the size of government, but when they are in power they never seem to do a damn thing.
We will, for the next 9+ months, bring it to Chip Roy with a message that is principled: more personal liberty, more economic liberty, speaking softly and carrying a big stick, and following the Constitution and the rule of law. We will get our message out at farmers markets and civic lunches and wherever people are gathered to learn about a viable third option that our duopoly doesn't want you to know exists.
I hope we have the opportunity to cross paths out there. I'd love to hear where you think I am wrong ... I will listen. As a libertarian I am used to the fact that two people with independent brains will NEVER agree on everything.
God bless,
bob
==========================================
On 1/6/2024, Karen M. asks: "Bob, I am worried about the United States. I grew up in Mexico admiring the US and thinking it was the greatest country in the world, now I am not so sure. You all seem to hate each other, and I fear that such belligerent attitudes will also hurt relations with Mexico. Can the US again find its patriotism like it did back in the 1980s? And maybe improve relations with Mexico?"
On 1/7/2024, Bob answers: Hola Karen, and yes, it does seem that way, especially from a Mexican perspective. What I love about Mexico is that no matter what Mexicans think about your government, you all love your country. For you they are two different questions, government and country. Even with all of Mexico's governing problems, your beautiful culture and your commitment to God and to family are beautiful things to behold, they give you a unity that we lack, and I wish more Estadounidenses would come to know Mexico as I have.
The USA was founded not as a common culture, but as a common commitment to the ideals of individual liberty and self-government. While our Founders were not perfect, they were amazingly wise beyond their time. Jefferson articulated our vision of liberty, and Madison crafted a framework of government to make it difficult for anyone to accumulate enough power to threaten that liberty. The rancor that you are now seeing in the USA is the unraveling of unity around these ideals. And without common ideals anymore, and lacking your common culture, we find ourselves estranged from one another. It is sad and frightening.
But I have hopes that we will turn away from the abyss once enough of us wake up and see what our future might be without returning to faith and family, like Mexico, and limited government, as our Founders envisioned it. And if we do, we can have spiritual and economic growth that allows us to recover the pride and openness that gave the US (Texas especially) and Mexico such wonderful relations in the 1980s and 90s. Sí, podemos hacerlo, pero con mucho trabajo.
Díos te bendiga, Karen.
==========================================
On 12/23/2023, Joe E. asks: "Bob, I applaud your idea for a Right to Privacy amendment to the US Constitution. After the Dobbs decision, citizens certainly need to know whether we have such a right. But your third plank gives me pause. Are you saying that public schools should not have the ability to force students to be vaccinated against communicable childhood diseases?"
On 12/24/2023, Bob answers: Hey Joe, thanks for the thoughtful question. I understand that vaccination theory holds that we can wipe out some communicable diseases through mass vaccination. But we have seen with the COVID vaccine the tendency of government to abuse this, to create panic among the population that justifies the declaration of "emergency powers" that seem to never go away. Each parent should have a choice with every vaccine, and it should be informed not by government mandates but by discussions with the family doctor. If you are fearful of, say, measles in your child's school, then by all means you can get your child vaccinated, and that will protect him or her from little Joey whose parents do not vaccinate him. Or, you can choose to go to a private school, or a home school pod, where the vaccination is a voluntary rule of association. On balance, I don't trust a government to make health care or educational decisions for my child, and neither should you. Our government has proven that its political agendas often trump (sorry for the use of that word) common sense and the preservation of our liberties.
