Saturday, June 30, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
The phrase came to me as I was reading this morning's AP story on the defeat of the amnesty bill and what the next move is for Congress on the heels of that defeat:
Hours after a massive immigration bill collapsed in the Senate, lawmakers and lobbyists began seeking ways to pass bits and pieces of the measure important to their constituents.
A priority for many farm groups is the ''Ag jobs'' component, one of several programs now needing a new legislative vehicle. It would legalize about 1 million undocumented agricultural workers in the U.S., a key goal of growers whose crops can rot in the fields if not harvested at key times by people willing to work hard at low wages.
The program is considered relatively popular, as is another piece of the stalled bill: the DREAM Act, or Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act. It would create a path to legality for illegal immigrants planning to attend college or join the military and who came to the United States with their families before they turned 16.
Some lawmakers said they hope Congress will enact such programs as stand-alone bills fairly soon. Others, however, said it will be difficult to pass even noncontroversial parts by themselves. Backers of items likely to be left out, they said, will resist losing the political leverage that a multifaceted package can provide.
In an interview earlier this week, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. -- a backer of the sidetracked immigration bill -- said the one-at-a-time approach may prove impossible, even for tougher border-enforcement measures that now seem popular.
''The only way we're going to get Ag jobs or DREAM Act'' or pathways to legal status for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, Graham said, ''is to do it together. This idea of 'Just do the enforcement,' there are no votes for that.''
Other Republicans, especially in the House, disagree. All immigration-related proposals should be postponed, they said, until the Mexican border is secured.
''The American people believe that until we're able to secure our borders and enforce our laws, taking additional steps is really not in the best interests of the country,'' House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said after Thursday's crucial Senate vote that derailed the bill.
Some lawmakers immediately urged President Bush to accept defeat on the wide-ranging bill and ask Congress for an emergency spending bill for more border enforcement activities. ''That would be a great next step after this vote,'' said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who opposed the bill.
Some lawmakers said it hardly matters, however, because enough money and authority already are in place to do the job.
There should be ''a very strong sense of urgency in this country to simply carry out the law, the mandate, for 854 miles of fence that we passed'' in the 109th Congress, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., told reporters Thursday. ''They've only built 13 miles of the fence so far. Let's get it built before the next hot season.''
While the security debate simmers, the farm lobby will push for Ag jobs, immigrant advocacy groups will fight for the DREAM Act, and other interest groups will seek avenues for similar pet projects. Some legislative leaders Thursday were noncommittal on how they might fare.
House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., was asked if his caucus would support Ag jobs by itself. Most Republicans would back a similar program, he said, but he added: ''The concern that House Republicans have and have had for some time now is the order in which these things are accomplished. You have securing the border, being sure that workers who are here appropriately are here with ID that's verifiable, that's reasonably hard to duplicate.''
Paul Schlegel, public policy director for the American Farm Bureau, said in an interview, ''It's a little soon to handicap'' the Ag jobs program's future. ''The administration has said all along they want a comprehensive approach,'' he said, and the bureau has worked in concert with the White House thus far.
The immigration bill's collapse forces all key players to rethink their next moves. Individual components may gain support in the coming weeks, but it won't be easy, several lawmakers said.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said in an interview before Thursday's vote: ''I think it's pretty hard, the way things are set up here, to get anything done on immigration that's not part of a package.''
Note the refrain among our lawmakers that it's easier to pass a multi-faceted ('comprehensive'?) immigration plan than it is to pass singular and popular aspects of the bill. Note how that they tend to favor the 'easy,' as opposed to the more difficult pathway to properly dealing with the immigration situation. And I guess it's obvious why, because a packaged deal appeals to more folks than do singular aspects of the deal. But to paraphrase President Lincoln: "you can please some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time; but you can't please all the people all the time."
I'll admit that I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the farm lobby and others who always fall back on the tired old retort that crops are going to rot in the fields if we don't legalize millions of aliens who, unlike Americans, are willing to work hard, and for beans too. It should be pretty obvious to reasonable persons that the claim falls way short of exhausting the options.
There's a point here that I think really needs to be driven home. Americans will work low-paying jobs if the feds'll keep their noses out of private business and the private affairs of individual Americans. But it's not just the feds that are culpable in this, private businesses invite impositions from the government by doing just what they're doing in this case. Individual Americans invite those impositions by asking their government to inject itself into that which should be kept strictly between the negotiating parties.
Another thing that'd be extremely helpful in solving this crisis (if it truly rises to the crisis level) is if welfare and assistance programs were abolished. Not that I'm saying we should abolish them immediately, but I am saying that we need to be working toward that goal. Assistance programs create dependency in those benefiting from them, not to mention that they create unhealthy attachments in the recipients toward those they perceive to be their saviors - the government. One may as well sell his soul to the devil himself if he believes the government to be the savior of he and his family.
Beyond that we have Senators like Graham insisting that to get border and law enforcement we have to go for amnesty. I would simply ask Senator Graham, why is this the case? There are no votes for enforcement? Perhaps the Senate oughta put its collective head to the task of offering the American People a non-comprehensive alternative now that the amnesty deal received its proper death blow.
As MT suggests in our position on immigration reform, we should take ordered, measured, and quantifiable steps in any and all future efforts to correct this situation. The first step is to seal the border. The legislation has already been passed, and the funding is there to build 800+ miles of fence. Get 'er done. In the meantime the States can determine for themselves what the best course of action is regarding the immigration problem. And as it becomes more of a problem for certain States than it currently is, don't think for a second that the citizens thereof won't pressure their Congresses to get something done.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Can you think of a more absurd or ridiculous thing to say?
OK, enough suspense! The Senate hands Bush a major defeat, how about that?! Yes, God help me for I think I have wet myself, that's actually the title of the Reuters headline!
And there's this gem from the article...
"No one benefits now, there is nothing to look forward ... it's very disappointing," Rosa Rosales, the national president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, told Reuters.
Oh, my goodness people! Let's get a few things straight.
1) Reuters: Your knee-jerk hatred of Bush is positively hysterical in this instance, because everyone with nominal brain activity knows that what actually happened was that regular Americans told the elites that there'd be hell to pay if this monstrosity got passed. Regular Americans defeated the Senate elites and Bush. Credit where credit is due, right?
2) Hey, Rosa Rosales! You know who benefits now? Regular American citizens, my favorite people in the world!
Commence the happy dance.
If passed the bill would effectively kill all efforts initiated by individual States in this union intended to deal with the growing threats of open borders, and a lack of will at the national level to enforce existing immigration laws to the respective states themselves. Thus killing in effect the vital guiding influence of the States upon the national entity regarding this question of immigration reform.
In contemplating what the better route would be in determining national policy on this important question, I'm increasingly of the opinion that the States should set the standards for the national government around which to mold and shape a federal policy. After all, a national policy on immigration should reflect the will of the whole People of these United States, not of a few rogue representatives of States directly installed by the People thereof who themselves wish to impose their will on the rest of the nation. Oh how I long for a return to a proper balance of powers among the States in this union; how I long for the day when the sustaining influence of federalism experiences a rebirth in this faltering Republic.
My friends, the federal principle is key to the survival of this Republic. I am convinced now more than ever, and in light of recent developments regarding the amnesty bill that in the absence of the re-establishment of the federal principle, we are effectively doomed as a nation unique to the world. We must at some point halt encroachments upon the federal principle, and to begin restoring it to its rightful place in this (Federal) Representative Republic.
I've mentioned on a few occasions now that the legislature of my State has indeed taken aggressive steps with regard to the growing immigration problem here. And as I've said before, this legislation is due to take effect Nov. 1st of this year. The Senate's amnesty bill would, for all intents and purposes, overthrow what the People of the State of Oklahoma through their legislature have determined to be the proper and right course of action for themselves.
While I appreciate the need for a national policy on immigration, much more appreciative, as well as cognitive am I of the need for a sane national policy on the immigration question. And it's my firm belief that the national Senate is too disconnected from the general population to get a sane national policy on immigration reform from that body of miscreants.
No; this Senate amnesty bill needs to be killed now. It is, as is the body proposing it, too wrought with disease to admit of any immediate change or alteration capable of rescuing it from the depths of utter contemptability. And when it's finally put to death, for once and for all, then the States who have yet to do so need, as a matter of responsibility, to take up the question and determine their own policies regarding immigration reform outside the coercive influence of the national government. That appears to me to be the only route available to us by which we may get a sane national policy on the immigration question.
Within the ranks of the GOP it seems like there's a growing fear that the party will suffer immensely if it doesn't rally around the President and his determination to get the Senate bill passed. Personally I don't give a hoot about whether the party lives or dies. All latinos and all latino sympathizers can go on over to the extreme liberal party for all I care. It's not my purpose or my intention to alienate any conservative from the conservative party. But first, I don't think the Republican can any longer claim the attribute of conservatism except perhaps in a sort of 'relative to' kind of way. Nor do I think that any true conservative could ever lower himself to joining ranks with the democrats and what they represent overall.
There's also a growing fear within the ranks of Republicans and democrats alike that if something (the Senate amnesty bill) isn't passed now, the national policy on immigration will be determined by the next President and the next Congress. I have to wonder what exactly the problem is there. What's the rush to get this bill passed? Where exactly are the opposing parties coming from which has them agreeing that it can't wait till 2009? The answers are fairly obvious to my mind.
As I've said, it seems to me that the State legislatures are much more likely than is the national legislature to put together immigration packages closely resembling the general sense of the citizens thereof. And that a proper national policy might better be guided thereby than by their elected officials at the national level whose relative disconnectedness from the general sense of their respective constituencies must be evident to any reasonable person.
The fact of the matter is, my friends, that if you can't trust your State governments to determine a policy on immigration closely resembling your own, then you certainly can't safely entrust that responsibility to the national government which is much more distant from you geographically as well as philosophically. And seriously folks, why would any of you wish for a single State, or a combination of States, to determine national policy on this issue if in fact the opinions and the policies of those States does not comport to that of the majority of States in this union?
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Yes, we need to call, fax and e-mail our "representatives." As a smart fellow (you know who you are; and where ya been?) once suggested, a good-old fashioned tar-and-feathering probably wouldn't hurt either.
A caller to the Hugh Hewitt show last night who hates the bill wondered aloud if the best thing for America might be having the bill pass. The American people would soon bear the brunt of this foolish and destructive bill, and in utter disgust, roundly turn out all of the crooks who voted for it. Dean Barnett (sitting in for Hugh) doubted this "winning-by-losing" outlook, but I can think of examples of great wrongs (Kelo, as a prime example) resulting in positive ends (the states taking aggressive action in the aftermath to protect private property rights).
Of course, "winning-by-losing" may just be wishful thinking, and shouldn't stop people from burying their "representatives" in calls, etc. Yet, hasn't history proven to us that all things serve the Lord? Even great evils, although unwittingly, work towards His purposes.
Taxation without Representation, anyone?
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Says the man:
Faced with a sustained systemic assault on US sovereignty, the federal government simply surrendered - and, in effect, sued for terms. Last year’s offer was rejected as being unacceptable to the vast legions of the “undocumented” and so, for example, the requirement to pay three out of five years’ back taxes was replaced by a total tax amnesty.
But just so we’re all clear what happened: An army of peasants defeated the soi-disant hyperpower. America’s closest allies - the Australians, say – periodically seek some modest advantage for their citizenry in return for their steadfast support, and generally get nowhere. But a population the size of Australia’s simply moved across the border and, despite huge public hostility to the strains imposed on local education and health care, the US government simply shrugged: There’s nothing we can do except give in.
Steyn goes on to discuss our problem as the template for subverting a nation's sovereignty, and makes the same point you make, TM: that those who are smart enough to recognize this aren't recognizing it.
But they're not stupid, the elites (well, those that think being "compassionate" to invaders is more important than American sovereignty are stupid). They simply have sold out American sovereignty for cheap labor. It's pathetic, and part of the problem is the enormous mountain of restrictions and government interference in how a business operates in the first place. Also, courtesy of the elites.
Anyone surprised that in the latest Gallup Poll Americans gave Congress a 14% approval rating?
VA did a piece the anti-amnesty majority over at his blog on Friday that, though judging by the comments to it (there are none as I write), might cast an appearance of being less than interesting, is indeed a well written thought provoking piece on the question of whether immigrants and Americans with shallow immigrant roots truly wish to preserve the unique opportunities this country has provided them and their families as opposed to preferring their native brethren over their adopted American family and country of residency.
I didn't lose ya with that last part did I? Let me rephrase:
Are first and second generation Americans and newly-come immigrants, as is assumed and purported to be the case by many, committed to this country, its laws, its institutions, its structure and framework; its uniqueness to provide numerous means and avenues to great opportunities and great achievements to any qualified individual who has the motivation, the drive, the discipline, the work-ethic and the spirit to achieve them? Or is preserving and maintaining those characteristics and qualities possessed of this great country secondary to preserving their blood-ties to their native lands, customs and peoples? These are extremely relevant questions, particularly in these times, but...
Do these questions ever even occur to immigrants? Are they even aware of them; that they are of the highest import, even to themselves? The same questions might be asked of our illustrious 'leaders,' who it would seem would (or should) be more prone than the average guy to give them their due consideration given the nature and importance of their jobs, not to mention the design of their workplace environment to spawn and encourage proper deliberations on such subjects of high national import.
It seems to me that this is a question of the first magnitude whenever a nation contemplates a policy on immigration. Do these migrants come to this country with deep familial roots, blood ties and preferences to the 'native country,' or do they look to the United States as a beacon of light and hope to themselves and their families, the very elements of which is in their very interests to prefer over the other; to preserve, protect, and defend against enemies foreign and domestic? Again I ask you: Does this ever occur to them? Does it ever occur to most of us? Does it ever occur to those supposedly working to secure our interests? Sometimes I have to wonder.
On just a little reflection it would seem that in answering the question one would need to delineate between what is in their true interests and what is in their imagined interests. The same applies to their American hosts, btw. What are our true, as opposed to our imagined interests on this question of immigration? And to borrow a phrase from the Federalist writers:
"Happy will it be if our choice should be decided by a judicious estimate of our true interests, uninfluenced and unbiased by considerations foreign to the public good."
Within my own field of work, I can't tell you how many contractors I know of personally who have numbers of illegal mexican immigrants working for them because they imagine that this is in their interest. In fact, don't be surprised if you go to the "Immigration Reform" page on this blog in the near future and find pictorial documentation of this very thing. I see it day in and day out on virtually every (if not every) job that my 'native' crew and I work on these days. And I'm thinking that it's time I start to document it.
Not so long ago it was a rare occurance indeed to run into these immigrant workers, but no more is that the case. Indeed, in my neck of the woods it is now a rare occurance not to work side by side with them if in fact you're not trying to compete with their non-contributionary cheap, second and third-rate labor.
But it seems to me to be highly disingenuous of our so-called 'leaders' to fuel an assumption with no basis in fact to support it that these immigrants have any real appreciation for this country or this people who've so nonchalantly and inattentively left the door open to their migration here. And a great many of us, it would appear, would prefer to wedge that door wide open to them, as opposed to closing and locking it from the inside to be opened by and only by the owners thereof at their own pleasure and will. I for one wouldn't be caught dead in that crowd of self-deluded deceptive miscreants.
What appears to be happening here, and it's becoming more and more prevalent I'm afraid, is that Americans from differing walks of life and a variety of backgrounds are increasingly sacrificing their true interests and the long-term public interest for the sake of their immediate, personal, and imagined interests. That is, at the expense of liberty herself many of our own people have effectively sold this country out for the sake of lining their own pockets completely unaware it would seem that by these very acts they destroy the very engines which have propelled them to a higher standard of living.
But back to this question of what is in the true, as opposed to the imagined interests of Americans and immigrants alike. And yes; you read me right in that I hold and maintain that these true and imagined interests are exactly the same for both groups. This is why it is so vitally important that we establish whether or not a prospective American resident and citizen understands and truly appreciates from whence these uniquely American opportunities emanate before we make him a permanent resident, and/or a citizen with equal rights under our Constitution. There's plenty of confusion to go around on the part of Americans without our continuing to bring in hordes of immigrants who in the main must have a very defective view of the subject, even by comparison; if the subject even occurs to them at all.
I for one reject out of hand the idea that we're just lucky; that our good fortune and the successes that propelled us to enjoy the fruits of that good fortune is, as is implied so often, not a product of the design of our framework and institutions around a common idea and interest to 'secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.'
Truly, my friends, we need to get a grip here! What in the name of all that is good and holy are we thinking when we so blasphemously attribute to luck and good fortune that which took so much sacrifice on the parts of our predecessors to secure to us!?
If there's any 'luck' or 'good fortune' to be found at all, it is in that we've been riding on the backs of our forefathers and mothers so long; that it's all been so effortless on our parts that we simply cannot fully appreciate how much effort it took to establish, nor how much effort it takes to maintain it. In that regard I suppose one might say we've been lucky if you consider it luck to inherit such a valuable gift in exclusion of an understanding of how very valuable it truly is. And as is generally the case with such inheritances, they are taken rather lightly and squandered away because the recipients of them more often than not have invested little if any personal sacrifices to the creation or the perpetuation of them. I guess that's just a lesson we're gonna have to learn the hard way.
Truly, my friends, it shows a very lackluster appreciation on our parts for the inestimable value of that precious gift we've had passed down to us, to offer it so very freely to those who are unworthy or ill-prepared and ill-equipped to receive it without a second thought on either of our parts as to the price paid for it by our worthy and venerable predecessors. But as they so often say: "Easy come, easy go."
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Have we mentioned the "Subjects of Interest" page we've created? And by "we" I mean our Chief Technology Officer? LOL. It's along the left of the blog, and we've decided we'll maybe dedicate some more items to that page. Right now, all you'll see there is our position statement on the border/immigration, plus a pretty eye-opening video.
If our CTO keeps up all these cool innovations, I might just have to double his salary.
Not that anybody cares, but I'm leaning towards Duncan Hunter. I think he's my guy for the primary. He's right on all the issues, including the border. BTW, sign his petition on border enforcement! Thank God my state isn't the lowest for petition signers. I'd like him to abolish the Department of Education, but maybe his "streamline" is just that. I'll probably link him up on the site, if for no other reason than I can, LOL.
As perhaps that most significant of all American Holidays quickly approaches us we are reminded here at the AFB of why this blog and the ideas it is here primarily to convey was ever conceived of to begin with.
I've mentioned before that our very own Monarchist is chiefly responsible for carrying forth to execution the idea of creating a blog. Something, however, that the readership in general may not be aware of is that though our beginnings were very very humble even by comparison, the spirit of big ideas, of big thinking, and that truly American quality of inventiveness, of creativity; of abject defiance in the face of all the odds infected our initial correspondences right to the core.
In fact, there are many times that I myself go back to those early discussions and re-read them, if not to remind myself of our humble beginnings, to recapture the very force of that indomitable spirit which marked those early correspondences. Where talent was found wanting, we made up for it perseveringly with a great deal of effort. Where education and knowledge and that best of all teachers -actual experiences- suffered, we called upon the knowledge and experiences of our predecessors. We spoke together, we learned together, we grew together; and so it is today. In a word, we were determined.
So you see, we have yet other things to celebrate on the momentous occasion of this nation's birth. And if I may be so bold as to proclaim -things not too remote, nor too markedly different from that of the first American generation to have celebrated the timely birth of this great nation.
I recall one aspect of those early discussions touching on the idea that a twenty first century version of the veritable 'committees of correspondence' might be pursued via the internet. The blogosphere had probably not occured to us then as a vehicle perfectly suited to that purpose, but the idea was gotten out there anyhow, and we always kept our minds open to ideas, methods and vehicles suitable to the cause. There was some experimental effort made in that vein which served, if nothing else, to familiarize ourselves with the workings of the internet vehicle. And so we moved forward; our vision kept intact, our spirits undaunted.
Efforts were also made to connect with other like-minded folks early on in our endeavors. Several contacts were indeed made, and a few of those early relationships which developed still survive to this very day. Nay, they have been strengthened through the bond of affection and friendship. And we're better for it. We're better for having made contact with those folks, we're better for having developed mutual friendships with them, and we're better for having kept in contact with them. We consider these folks as part of our inner-circle if you will. And I cannot tell you how helpful they've been in moving this project forward. And I could say much much more.
That said, I cannot imagine posting under this title without making some historical references to our founding documents and the ideas which inspired them. Indeed, it is these very ideas which connects us in such a personal way with our great and honorable forbears. If only we should come to know them better:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them,...
In studying the founding fathers one is struck by their continual references to the march of human history. In our Founding Document we read these words penned of Mr. Jefferson: "When in the course of human events," as if to say that in the progress of human events their generation had found its place. Most certainly they had. Elsewhere we find such phrases as Quincy Adams's "...is it not that in the chain of human events...," like so many unbroken and connected links theirs was closing up at that moment that the next was forging itself interlockingly into the chain of human history; and so the march continued.
The examples are literally endless. But the idea is undeniably there in many of their writings that the human race had forever been on a steady and a progressive march forward; that they themselves were instrumental in that forward march; that as they looked back to human history preceding them and forward to that which would succeed them they were called upon to take particular care not to forsake their noble brethren on either side of their immediate time in history, or that place in history's chain.
As liberty's torch is carried forward we must also be very diligent to be sure that our generation's mark on history's pages shall not be an ugly one or amount to a simple byline. With our venerable founders we must consult history's lessons while living our own chapter in the book of human story as we must assume that others shall follow taking care to honor their duty to generations past and future, yet mindful that their place is their place, their calling theirs to fufill; that their chapter is their chapter...to be written by themselves. As we shall write our own.
Jefferson's words inspire all the more studious reflection as he speaks in a Peoples' behalf which had found it 'necessary to dissolve the political bands connecting it with another...' I find no shortage of examples in our very time where the idea might justly and rightly be applied regarding this People's political capacity and the connections formed by others than ourselves.
While the celebration of our country's birth may seem something of an inappropriate time to raise the question, nonetheless the day is quickly approaching when we ourselves will be forced to assert that very idea which our forefathers so well expressed in our founding document. But I find in the celebration of our birth as a nation a markedly appropriate time for doing so. Indeed many of us have already done so, at least unofficially. But on a larger scale we have yet to commit to doing so, perhaps in a feigned or a real hope that somehow the existing political forces will turn their attentions back to those who matter most. But who can continue to deny the undeniable?
The bands connecting this people to political entities not of our own making are rather eroding very quickly. Let us be cautious yet decisive as our fathers were in the way that we reorganize ourselves into a newly reinvigorated political force. It is indeed our right, as well as our duty to assert our 'separate and equal station' by the very 'Laws of Nature and Nature's God' that they themselves recurred to.
And with the truth of those ideas comes a great deal of responsibility as finally expressed in the Preamble to the DoI:
...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Do we not bear this same responsibility as did those who preceded us? Is it not our responsibility to 'declare the causes which impel us' to break the political bands connecting us with our Republican and Democrat brethren? We certainly owe them at least that much. But beyond that it is an historical record of fact that our tradition is indeed to honor this basic committment. And so we shall.
And in so doing let us conduct ourselves as becomes Americans. Let us announce that we shall ever be enemies to any force bent on the destruction of liberty herself. Let us never again foolishly cling to a party -in the face of mounting evidence against it- which claims to be acting in our interests and in the interest of liberty because it is the party of our parents; because that's the party of our fathers. And let us be mindful of, encouraged and animated by our heritage as a freedom-loving, freedom-establishing, freedom-defending People in the face of all enemies, foreign and domestic.
And so it is that this Independence Day, 2007 will be an especial one for me. As I watch and participate in the lighting of the fireworks Independence night, as I raise the flag that morning and decorate the house with red white and blue; as I fire up the grill in preparation for some celebratory gorging, and read to the children our Declaration recounting story of the Revolutionary War; as I recite to them stories of our own struggle in liberty's march. As I do all of these things and more, mindful of the sacrifices willingly made indirectly in my behalf, and of those which we must make ourselves, my heart will turn to you my friends. I shall think of where we've come from, I shall think of where we are; and I shall think of where it is we're headed, believing and knowing always that:
...with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
Happy Anniversary fellas and thank you. And thanks to DW for the use of his name.
Friday, June 22, 2007
I mentioned in Tuesday's "House of Horrors" post that the ghouls in the lower house were scheduled to vote the following day on certain amendments attached to the State Foreign-Operations Appropriations Bill . And as you'll recall my focus was on the amendments concerning providing funding to overseas abortion groups.
Update from the House of Horrors:
The AP is reporting that the measure passed Thursday in a vote I'll take the liberty of describing as a day late and a few liberals long by a margin of 223-201. That margin of victory for the liberals is significant given that so many 'conservative' democrats won seats over 'liberal' republicans in the Nov., '06 elections. At least that's the way it was reported to us, right?
As I recall the demos netted a gain of somewhere around 31 or 32 seats (feel free to correct me on that) in the lower house with that clear message the voters sent Republicans on Nov. 3rd. But it seems like Republicans weren't the only ones that got themselves a garbled message that day. Is it just me or was that message either poorly transmitted by those sending it, poorly received by those decoding it, or do we just need an upgrade to our transmission/receiving devices?
Democrats claim that current U.S. Policy initiated by President Reagan at the 1984 'population conference,' in Mexico City is "failing badly." Their intent in raising the issue was, according to the AP, to "crack open debate" on that badly failing policy.
Well, I guess they've succeeded, and I guess we have our answer. The question as you'll recall was this: how is providing U.S. taxpayer assistance to overseas abortion groups working in our interests; to what vital national purpose are democrats seeking to reverse this policy? And like the conscientious public servants they are, they've provided us with the answer: This is working in our interests because in cracking open the debate they'll be able to expose the erroneous thinking behind President Reagan's ill-conceived policy initiated in Mexico City. Once they've successfully accomplished that task, then they can overturn that fateful policy carried on by President Bush. Then and only then can the United States honor its committment to global population control because in the twisted thinking of liberals you and I have just been fed a bill of goods that won't stand up to reason. And it's high time that the truth came out.
Personally, though I'm disgusted with the nature of the debate itself, I'm pretty excited that the liberals successfully cracked it open. Few things in this world give me more pleasure than to expose the weaknesses in liberal positions.
So, as we debate the issue, ladies and gentlemen, let's keep in mind that we're experiencing a transmitter/receiver problem; that the messages we're sending our illustrious leaders aren't coming through very well due to one or more reasons. And let us consider that perhaps it is time that we do some upgrade and maintenance work on the elements comprising the system itself. You know what they say: the three minimal requirements of intelligent conversation are as follows:
1. A mind capable of transmitting a thought,
2. A mind capable of receiving a thought, and
3. A mode of conversation common to them both -a common language for instance.
One or more of these seems to be in a real state of disrepair.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
We disagree with the so-called 'comprehensive' approach because we disagree that it's best for Americans. We concern ourselves with what is best for immigrants after, and only after we've determined and secured what is best for Americans. After all, this is our country.
Though it is a complex subject in some respects, we believe that fundamentally it is fairly simple; and that by taking quantifiable, measurable steps, we can accomplish real and enduring immigration reform.
Step 1: Our borders must be secured. In a post 9/11 world there can be no question about this, and it is appalling that our "representatives" fail to treat this seriously. We believe the best method of securing our open southern border is in building a fence. In his recent book, State of Emergency, Pat Buchanan suggests how a fence could be built: dual fences with a 2-way road in between them for border patrol to use, monitored by cameras and motion sensors. The fence works in San Diego; the Israelis could also teach us a thing or two about how a fence works. That there will always be a way to break in for the most determined and enterprising invaders doesn't negate the fact that a fence would halt nearly all illegal immigration. Nor should that fact be a deterrent to building the fence.
Step 2: No Amnesty for illegals. Upon securing our borders, no illegal alien should be granted amnesty. While the fence will prevent more illegal aliens from entering the country, we strongly oppose any legislation that rewards breaking the law. We are either a nation that respects the rule of law, or we are not. Furthermore, and immediately, every illegal alien in our prison system should be deported to his/her country of origin, or the south side of the border fence minimally. It is insult on top of injury that US citizens are supporting illegal aliens who have come here and committed felonies.
Concurrently, we insist on no fast track to citizenship. American citizenship is an honor that is to be bestowed upon persons meeting certain qualifications. We believe that all prospective American citizens have the responsibility to apply legally and in a manner consistent with existing laws. A prospective American citizen is one who respects Americans and American laws, and who honors that respect by applying for citizenship through official and legal means pursued by himself/herself, on his/her own merits.
Step 3: Enforce existing immigration laws. As illegals are caught - be it through workplace enforcement, traffic stops, whatever - they should be treated as an illegal alien and deported.
Step 4: No "Anchor Babies": It is our firm position that children born within these borders to illegal immigrant parents do not qualify for automatic citizenship status under the fourteenth amendment. Someone who is here illegally is not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States; logically, neither are their minor children. This was the spirit and intent of the 14th Amendment, which can be readily seen by studying the drafting and passage of the Amendment.
Step 5: Limited Services for Immigrants and Welfare Reform. Taxpayer provided services such as health-care, food and housing assistance programs, wic, welfare, and etc., are provided by the American taxpayer and intended for the use of American citizens. With the exception of limited emergency care our position is that all taxpayer provided goods and services are to be withheld from immigrants in compliance thereof.
Furthermore, while we are reminded constantly that there are simply jobs that "Americans won't do" we would be remiss to not add that federal welfare should be abolished. This is perfectly acceptable for the states to provide, as it falls under their sphere of responsibility. The dual benefit of finding out just how many jobs there are that Americans won't do is that, as Benjamin Franklin believed, leading people out of poverty is the morally right thing to do (decreasing a person's dependence on government is increasing a person's liberty).
Step 6: lastly, have real open and candid legislation created on how many people we are going to allow to come to the US annually and from where. Whereas the "comprehensive" crowd would like to do this concurrently, there is no logical justification for doing so until the previous steps are completed.
We firmly assert that the steps as detailed - in order of execution - are critical to creating lasting and meaningful immigration reform. The problems we have today are the result of well-meaning but poorly crafted policy. The time is right for well-meaning and well-crafted policy.
MT ADDS 7/21/07: This was written back in June and never posted as a blog post, but as another link to the Interest section. It's being posted to the blog today as another means of linking up our recommended solutions to our readers.
Suppose that Bllomberg does run, now that he's officially an independent. In our first-past-the-post plurality system, who does this hurt the most?
Suppose for a minute that there was a truly conservative minor party, at least minor as compared to the GOP. Would they have a chance to walk away with it, if you assume that Bloomberg would appeal to "conservative" Democrats and "moderate" (read: liberal) Republicans?
Assuming that to be successful, a third party must displace an existing, established major party, I don't see Bloomberg pulling it off. But he could change the dynamic if he runs, no question about that.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Tirelessly, ceaselessly, intrepidly your elected officials in the House of Representatives work to secure your vital interests.
One way in which they're scheduled to decide on a few of the terms this Wednesday is in voting on an appropriations bill that includes language...
...aimed at ending the president's prohibition on tax dollars going to groups that fund or promote abortion overseas."
"Another provision in the bill would change the way AIDS money is spent.
The State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill contains language that would kill the Mexico City policy – named after the location where President Reagan announced it."
The obvious question is: How is this working in our interests? Why in the world would anyone wish to open the door for committing American Tax dollars to "funding abortions overseas?"
While the President warns he will veto the bill should it get through Congress, one wonders whether that question under close inspection might prompt in the electorate some sense of personal responsibility for the actions that its latest choice in Representatives to that body is initiating on the heels of its victory in November?
But that's not all:
The National Right to Life Committee has said that the provision as proposed would allow even the most aggressively pro-abortion groups to be eligible for U.S. assistance. In this case I'm assuming we're speaking of the 'most aggressive pro-abortion groups' overseas.
Here again our illustrious leaders in Congress feel it necessary, and obligatory upon themselves to commit American tax dollars to foreign interest groups to what vital national purpose?... so that we may finally do our part in the global social engineering and population control effort?
Yet another example of legislation from your very own 'house of horrors' with a 'moral' objective. No; that piece of legislation doesn't represent my morals, and it probably doesn't represent your's, but it represents someone's morals you can be sure.
Why am I seeing a philosophical connection between this story and that of the Senate's backdoor deal on the immigration issue?
failing to pass immigration reforms would push illegal immigrants into isolation and create breeding grounds for homegrown terrorists.
Are y'all getting this? Let me break it down for you:
'Failure to pass immigration reforms;' that is failure to pass the Senate amnesty bill will result in, according to the senior Senator from Massachusetts, pushing illegal immigrants into isolation, and this in turn will create breeding grounds for homegrown terrorists.
Is there no limit to which these people will resort to get their measures passed? Do tell Mr. Kennedy, why is it necessarily that failure to pass amnesty legislation for illegal Mexican nationals will result in what you're saying? Once more I ask you, Sir, why is it that passage of the Senate's legislation would prevent these things from happening?
And he and the President are all chummy on this'n too. I'm so glad to see that Senator Kennedy was finally killed by the President's early kindess toward him, aren't you? Some folks are just hard sells I guess.
Sometimes I wonder whether these folks have any clue as to how the cause/effect relationship works. If a free people decide that they're not comfortable with granting a huge number of illegals and other immigrants amnesty and effective citizenship status this means of course that their isolationist tendencies will create related short and long term problems for themselves that they just cannot foresee, nor that they can deal with effectively when the proverbial crap hits the fan.
So we have to yield to them through our great and illustrious Senate, the members of which we've elected to grab us by the collective hand and pull us out of the way of the oncoming danger. We should be good little children and obey our parents who know better than we do about these things because after all they're of course more knowledgable in these areas than we little people are.
But these people have no predisposition to preference to their own ethnicity do they? Most certainly not! They come to America in droves because they're freedom loving, fair minded people just like you and me. They're just trying to escape the impoverished state they found themselves in (through no fault of their own) in their native country.
But wait! Weren't they isolated there, from their non freedom loving brethren? Weren't the actual 'breeding grounds' for 'homegrown' terrorists created in the country that isolated them from the blessings of liberty that extremist American isolationists are so immorally protective over?
Somehow I'm reminded of the immortal and the rather prophetic words of Noah Webster:
...Numbers of them come here with violent prejudices against arbitrary government, and they seem to make no great distinction between arbitrary government and a government of laws founded on free elections.
One wonders whether our 'leaders' know the difference.
Monday, June 18, 2007
What a fascinating universe we mortals find ourselves hurtling through! Experts scoffed at mile-per-minute human travel, warning that the traveller's face would peel off precisely at 60 mph. Then they said heavier-than-air flight was a pipedream, and now our economy cannot survive without it. (Free peoples are such enterprising, barrier-breaking bastards, aren't they!)
But what I find peculiar is a more persistant habit we humans can't shake; the strange mixture of pride and forgetfulness. How often has one society conquered some evil, just to fall to some other evil, and have that evil vanquished by another society, but you look around, and that one's gone, too?
If you look at the big picture, you just have to laugh at the Allies of 1918. "Oh yeah, scoreboard! This'll never happen again, not in a million years!" (sound of one person clapping slowly) Bravo, fellas. Bra-vo.
But let's take it back about fifty years. The War on Slavery (thank you publik skool) was an unmitigated success, right? Slavery is dead forever, at least in North America ... right? Hmm, oh we forgot to let vote and otherwise participate in America. Happy belated greetings, anyway. Okay, NOW we're done with slavery.
If it seems like I'm going all catty-wumpus, meandering through so many corners of my mind, let me tell you something; I was going to have a nice, orderly piece on immigration and the borders, but some people just won't listen.
I'm sure senators on both sides of the aisle are being pounded by these talk-radio people who don't even know what's in the bill...leadership will have to be prepared to do what needs to be done.
Poor Mr. Martinez, the RNC Chairperson must feel just like Stalin as he signed that treaty with Germany. This is Martinez's quote, not Stalin's: "It gives people confidence that security really will be there."
What the hell is THAT supposed to mean? Do "senators on both sides of the aisle" only listen to "talk-radio people" and completely ignore their constituency, or is it just you, Trenton?
Lord knows D. Crockett had to deal with some corazones grandes in his day. Of course, most in the D/RNC are Stalinists in the end.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
This is my fourth glorious Father's Day, and I thank God each and every single day for blessing me with two wonderful children, without whom I would be less of a person today. Thank you, Mrs. T., for your part in giving me such an amazing gift.
(JUNE 15, 2007) - U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) today announced “Secure Borders Now” ), http://www.securebordersnow.com/a new website for Americans to urge the Senate to consider immigration reform that focuses on enforcing existing border security laws and opposition to amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.
Unfortunately it appears many in the Senate remain deaf to the voices of the American people, as yet another backroom deal has emerged designed to revive the fatally flawed immigration bill and its immediate path to amnesty. The ‘Secure Borders Now’ petition gives Americans an opportunity to voice their opposition. I hope my constituents and citizens from all across our country will take action, sign the petition and show how many Americans are strongly opposed to this bill.”
“Despite the promise of increased funding for border security and additional votes on a handful of amendments, the proposed legislation will continue to shortcut the current naturalization process and grant amnesty to 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants currently in our country. That is a trade off that I simply cannot support.
“The first step in any significant immigration legislation must be securing our borders and enforcing existing laws. It is unconscionable to make border security conditional on the guarantee of amnesty. Even with the promise of additional funding for border security, the Senate bill focuses far too much on controversial and irresponsible programs such as the ‘Z-visa’ (which I voted to eliminate), and far too little on ensuring that our borders are no longer porous.
“I have stated from the outset of this immigration debate that I will vehemently oppose any legislation that guarantees amnesty for illegal immigrants, unfairly burdens taxpayers or fails to secure our borders.
“It is time that we deal with real immigration reform beginning with border security. This is the best way to restore trust with the American people and facilitate future improvement of our immigration policy.”
On Tuesday, Senator Inhofe joined eight Senators in writing a letter to President Bush urging him to fulfill the border security provisions listed in the Senate immigration bill whether the legislation passes or not. Each border security trigger in the bill can be implemented under current law without any need for new legislation from Congress.
A Rasmussen Reports national phone survey conducted June 11 and 12, found that only 20 percent of voters wanted Congress to try and pass the Senate bill that failed last week. Sixty-nine percent favored an approach that focused “exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration.”
Friday, June 15, 2007
It has come to our attentions, thanks to you dear readers, that in our numerous submissions of an alternative and superior approach to government reform we have yet to offer a clearly defined singular explanation of what that alternative approach is and what it means; that although we've reduced our approach under a simple, easily recognizable and singular term, we have yet to reduce the idea under a clear, concise, and easily referenced explanation. We shall seek to rectify this situation in this post, and in others should this one prove inadequate the important task. As always, dear reader, your feedback is vital to the task of our articulating our position in the clearest terms possible: the process of refinement may well be said to hold the key to providing a truly superior product.
While we shall not attempt to define a balanced approach to government reform in every particular - an exercise that would be as impossible as it is unwise - we do recognize that an overall explanation and understanding of the idea of balanced government is indeed necessary and warranted, and completely within the purview of our overall mission. Once more, my friends, we would direct your attentions to the archival posts dedicated to this particular subject as part and parcel of developing a better understanding of the idea of balanced reform. As has been said, these posts in particular have generated a good deal of dialogue and debate on the subject, and that debate in itself is fairly instructional as to what we mean by the term Balance, or as Mr. Tams so aptly puts it: "the Cornerstone of Federalism."
One such post is entitled: "Why Libertarians have it wrong." In this particular piece, Mr. Tams puts together a reasonable argument in favor of Balanced Government as a means to an end generally sought by the idea of libertarianism - a return to limited government. As Tams explains: while limited government is a fine goal, it is indeed a goal; not a strategy. Let us momentarily pause here to reiterate, our strategy or means for reforming this government can be reduced under one overarching and common theme - Balanced Government. But what does this mean?...
By "Balanced Government" we intend a return to the original balance of political powers, and the balanced distribution of those powers among the several branches, levels and spheres of our government. Herein you will note, dear reader, a twofold objective: 1. Proper balance in the distribution of political powers among the several branches of our government, and 2. Proper balance in the distribution of those political powers among the various levels and spheres of government. The idea is simply this - achieve the goals of limited and overall legitimate and effective government through the means of a wide distribution of the powers of government among the various levels and spheres of same. We submit that the closer to the individual American government is, the more involved in the political process is the individual American likely to be....as a general rule, of course: The closer to the individual government is, the closer to government is the individual...
Do pause to reflect on that thought for a moment. It has a nice ring to it no doubt, but think on it awhile. If the individual is close to his government; that is, if he is aware of the general (and certain particular) workings of his government, not to mention what it is doing or is likely to do under a given scenario, and etc., then he is much more likely to be more politically aware, and more politically activated. In other words, he will take particular care to protect and defend his true interests under a balanced scenario. And his general interests are the same as his neighbor's interests, incidentally. And it works the same way in the inverse. The closer to the individual government is, the more aware government is of the individual's needs, his wants, what his priorities are, and so on and so forth. Now, I recognize that this is a rather simple explanation of a rather complex idea. But I like simple; it suits me very well. And I'm in no way attempting to thwart your own imaginative process here. Indeed, quite to the contrary.
...And while government power becomes more widely distributed among the levels and spheres, so too will individual Americans, being closer to the functions of government themselves, begin to experience in a more personal way the impact or effects of bad (and good) governmental policies instituted over the governed. The governed under a balanced scenario would be defined, and confined, more strictly to those individuals finding themselves under this and that particular sphere and level of government. This is what we mean by "Balanced Government." It is fundamentally an approach which seeks to re-establish the Constitutional boundaries originally confining the national government in particular to a clear and definite sphere of operation. In so doing, the lower levels of government take on more constitutionally consistent responsibilities thus bringing "government" ever closer to the people themselves where it may be more finely adjusted to the unique circumstances and needs of those more localized governed to whom it is confined. Therefore, and by these very principles, the balanced method of government reform, in theory or put into actual practice, appears to me to be a top-down, as opposed to a bottom-up approach. It also appears to take on an external to internal kind of a quality. Not too awful long ago those facts might well have sealed the fate of balanced government to my own mind. However, my investigation into the matter has convinced me that not only is this possible, but that it is also quite appropriate given the state of governmental chaos in this nation. And truly the method itself proves quite the contrary on some reflection. But let us proceed with our investigation.
The various levels and spheres are further expounded on in yet another archival post which is somewhat instructional on this point. It is entitled, interestingly enough: Expanding Upon the Concept of Balance. As the title would lead us to believe, the point of this particular post is to expand upon Mr. Tams's formal introduction of the idea of Balanced Government as a means to our common ends. And as becomes strikingly evident in reading this particular post in light of Tams's foundational piece, the concept is indeed expanded upon insofar as the Federalist approach to government reform is an extensive and a sweeping approach. By the term "sweeping" we intend here to say that it becomes fairly evident upon reflection that while other approaches to government reform tend to be rather, and by their very natures "limited" in their applications and extent of application (though quite the contrary in the extent of their effects), even by design, our approach which we've merely borrowed from the founders is rather unlimited in the extent of its application across the governmental spectrum thereby earning its very descriptive because, first and foremost, it possesses the unique quality of limitlessness; which is to say that honest adherents to the concept of reform will recognize that reforms of any kind, limited in application and well intended as they may be, are inherently far-reaching in the extensiveness of their effects. This is generally an undesirable characteristic possessed of limited methods of reform because it imposes upon the natural order of things, leaving to chance occurrences that which a more discerning eye would most probably resign to the realm of dangerous and insidious doctrine.
And herein is an ever-mindful flag to would-be reformers: any method of government reform that proposes, and/or imposes strict limitations to its designs and purposes, well intended and attractively clothed as it may be, is steeped in the deceptive influence of imbalance. That is; whether the strategy is shown to restrict government, or whether it possesses itself the restrictive characteristic, it is an inferior and a hopeless method of governmental reform. It creates more problems than it cures, in other words, continuing the cycle of imbalance. Balance possesses no tendency to limit itself, except in the pace at which it displaces that of imbalance. And that is not properly a limitation on itself as much as it is a strict adherence to natural laws. It has no inherent limits; it is limiting...to those forces that oppose it. The term limits as it applies to balanced government describes what it does, not what it is. This unlimited characteristic unique to balanced government, coupled with the double security of its natural tendency to slow, yet purposeful and decisive application, and its recognition of the cause-effect relationship, my friends, is what lends to balanced reform its most outstanding and superior aspects and qualities.
There exists a striking contrast between balanced reform and any limited method of reform. As to the latter, each and all of these have one common and inherent flaw which we've already identified - limited extent and applicability. As I said before, this is undesirable, deceptive, and insidious; it is odious to the very idea of reform itself. This common characteristic of limited approaches to reform in itself leads us to identify yet another flaw in such an approach - the dangers inherent in seeking changes applicable to singular aspects of the whole of government. These dangers are most evident in their effects - that one aspect of government is subject to an attempt at alteration and improvement, while the remaining aspects are supposedly left unaltered and unaffected. This is simply an impossibility and therefore an imprudent, not to mention imbalanced, method of approach. As to the former, no such flaw, nor any such inherency exists. By the very nature of this method the whole of government undergoes simultaneous reform, slowly, methodically, and perhaps above all, peacefully.
Let us here pause to reflect that our condition is not yet a hopeless one. Many would argue differently, and to be candid, I've come real close to arguing that myself a time or two. I have good reason to believe we haven't degenerated to the depths of hopelessness, however. But one specific reason fits this context very well: This government and this People are not yet completely and utterly out of balance. Were that the case we would indeed be at the precipice. But that's not the case. There still exist under this system many remnants of balanced government, and many Americans who conduct themselves overall to accord with the principles of balance, yet their vital influence is anemic due to the effects of imbalance, which they themselves do not willingly participate in. And this, my friends, should be a source of great comfort to us as we seek to restore the principle of balance on those very remnants, and by and with the aid of those very souls. And incidentally, if we are to have any sense of urgency to our purposes, it must be to halt the degenerative process while remnants of balance still remain; while our most powerful asset (The People) remains in a state not altogether corrupted. For once we've lost those remnants, those structures and surviving institutions; those very souls, I can imagine nothing short of all out war to follow. We're a more imaginative people than that, are we not?
I will conclude this edition with one final thought on the balanced approach to government reform: Having put quite a lot of thought to it, I have concluded that there's a quality inherent to balance that is somewhat elusive under a mere cursory investigation. For my own purposes I have denominated this "the non-deceptive quality." For the sake of putting a definition to it, I will say this: Balanced Government does not abide deception, or the practice thereof. Deception itself is incidental to imbalance, not balance. It may well be that it's an actual product of imbalance. In some cases I think it truly is. There are few instances that my imagination can contrive of deception finding many havens under a truly balanced scenario. It may hide itself in the far corners, but it cannot survive long at the forefront. Under imbalance, however, not only is deception provided safe haven, it is actually encouraged and aided in its destructive tendencies. And as I said, in many cases it may well be an actual product of imbalance itself. In stark contrast to this, balance has no such tendencies. Where there is imbalance there is always deception in direct proportion to, and vice versa. Balance and imbalance are opposing forces. So too are those elements incidental to them. This very quality inherent to Balance is striking in its implications once balanced reform is underway. My friends, Balance itself is its own best security. Balance exposes deception where it lives and roots it out; it drives it to the far corners where remnants of imbalance (that which provides it succor) still survive. No; I have no utopian vision that the natural world under any circumstances can exist absolutely free from the evil of deception. On the other hand, I do not deny the connection between imbalance and deception, nor the evil of them both.
Finally, as with other postings to this blog, we seek to find some common ground with other reform-minded individuals. We believe there are a great many untapped human resources out there who would agree with the idea and method of balanced reform were they familiar with its concepts. It is not our purpose to put a negative spin on, or to delegitimize any method of reform - most of us seek the same goal. Rather, our purpose, as with balance itself, is to expose inherent weaknesses and dangerous tendencies incidental to limited methods of reform. While it would be disingenuous to claim that we have no bias on the subject, it would be wrong not to expose the general weaknesses and dangers inherent to limited methods of reform as they become evident to us. We believe then that common ground lies in a balanced perspective on reform. The choice then is between balance and imbalance, and we hope to have herein offered some bit of clarity to the question.
Time once again to get on the phones and fire off e-mails to our "representatives" and let them know how we feel. They heard from enough of us last time to shelve the issue. This time, it will go to a vote. I'm sure Ted Stevens will have an amendment for some of yours and my tax money to go to Alaska in exchange for his vote. There's a good chance they'll get the 60 votes they need if we don't do our job and flood them with feedback about how much this legislation stinks.
The disgusting and shameful sell-out of America continues. See my post here for what real immigration reform should look like: phased and measurable, not "comprehensive."
God save these United States.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
This guy took a half million in bribes and they're raising money for his legal defense fund??
As long as you hold the Liberal line (abortion on demand, redistribution of wealth and national health care), can you basically get away with anything and still have supporters? The Right would have thrown this guy under the bus a long time ago.
It appears that "no" is the answer to the question: is there any end to our collective stupidity?
P.S. I promised you a trade policy piece, but don't hold your breath. It may be a couple of days, since I plan on getting a pair of eyes (or two) to look it over.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
If you're confused about where your representatives stand (not necessarily where their rhetoric is) on the vital issue of immigration reform, this is a wonderful resource. And it's easy to use. No longer do you have to go to your representative's voting record, the people at immigration stance have done all the work for you. They've rated each House and Senate member from the various States on a spectrum ranging from "highest ranking" to "lowest ranking." You can figure out the rest.
I did my own quick survey of a few selected States finding results not too surprising, but interesting nonetheless. I think my investigation included such States as Oklahoma, Illinois, Kentucky, Wisconsin...you know, those States represented by our readership. Oh yeah, a few others like Kansas, California, and Massachusetts - not that Kansas belongs in that latter group. I also did a quick compare/contrast study of the various representatives, and the States and districts which they represent. Again, my findings didn't surprise me much -all the usual suspects taking all the usual positions- but I found them to be pretty interesting in one particular way - if the positions of the respective representatives from the various districts and States were put in map form, it'd probably look a whole lot like the county by county red and blue map of the 2000 Presidential election. In other words, we definately occupy the vast extent of the territory, yet, if their representatives are any indication of where the actual constituents stand on the issue, which would include the all too common "I don't really give a hoot," they've almost got us outnumbered.
Speaking of which, what is it about living in huge population centers near large bodies of salt water? Does the combination kill an inordinate number of brain cells or what? Ultimately I'd like to do a more exhaustive study to include every representative from every State and district in this union. So I'll be visiting the site again....and again I'm sure.
The real point?...
It seems to me that a return to proper balance in this government might well work in the interest of the American population on immigration reform. Specifically, as has been mentioned before, our national government has improperly moved into the realm of providing services that would be best provided at the local and State levels, if government is to provide them at all. If the American people need more government than they once did (and I don't think there's any question about that), it's ok, that's where we're at, but we're going to have to make some changes in the way that authority is delegated so that the national government can concentrate as it should, on the national business, e.g., on sealing our borders as one immediate and prime example.
Now, I've stated before that if this massive influx of immigrants and illegal aliens, particularly from the south, is what it takes to wake the American people up to the fact that they're going about tending to (or not) their government all wrong; that if inaction, or action contrary to their interests from their representatives in Congress on this issue is what it takes to make them realize that they need to restore some foundational Constitutional Principles (not to mention some semblance of common sense to their government), then I'm all for it. And I haven't materially changed my position on the subject yet. To paraphrase VA in a conversation between he and I over at his blog: "it may take a loss, or a near loss of our way of life before we decide to do something about it." I tend to agree. However, if we can offer up a viable, and a preventative governmental solution that most can get onboard with, then we oughta, right.
Why don't we start by educating folks on the governmental imbalance that has precipitated, and actually brought on some of our more striking and dangerous tendencies as a nation, including this one...