Ladies and Gentlemen, I asked someone familiar to us all to grace us with a reply to the recent email message I received entitled: "Don't Pump Gas on May 15th," the text of which you may have via a little interpolation, or, if you prefer, at your request. Mr. Hargis has indeed honored my request with his latest Guest Contribution to this forum. So I withhold from you no longer, and without further ado, Mr. Hargis:
There was an email fwd travelling around the internet exhorting Americans to stay away from the gas pumps on 15 May 2007 in an effort to stick it to Big Oil and the Middle Eastern oil industry. Some questionable numbers were used to show that such a boycott would rob those greedheads of a little over $2 billion. Seems like a good idea, right? Let's look at it a little closer, shall we?
If I see a house for sale and I don't buy it, have I taken anything from the owners? The correct answer is no. If I spend $100 per week on groceries at Save-A-Lot, that doesn't deplete Kroger's bank account at all. Millions of people don't buy Chevrolet Corvettes for all kinds of reasons. The effect is the same as if they'd boycotted them, yet Chevrolet still sells every 'Vette they make. See where I'm going? Not buying a thing isn't the same as taking something away from the seller.
I will be the first to admit that $2 billion is a big chunk of change...but not compared to $500 billion. I don't know what the total yearly revenues of the oil industry amount to, but I'm guessing it's closer to the latter than the former, and probably a lot higher. Furthermore, only a tiny fraction of that $2 billion goes to the oil companies, say 25 cents per gallon. It may even be less than that considering the millions of people involved in drilling, transporting, refining, etc., over which all that money is spread. $2 billion dollars divided by $3 per gallon equals about 670,000,000 gallons of gas. Multiply that by 25 cents and you get $167,500,000. A lot of money, but a tiny drop in the bucket compared to what is spent on the world's oil market. So if 73,000,000 Americans (the email's number) refused to buy gas for one day, the only people who would notice would be those 73,000,000 Americans. It isn't as though the gas won't get sold: Every gallon of gas you don't buy is a gallon freed up for someone else. By the way, if my figure of 25 cents doesn't seem right, feel free to use your own figure.
So, the point is that if you want to stay away from the gas pumps for a day as a symbolic gesture, fine. But don't fool yourself into thinking that your action is going to force some oil company executive to have to fire his maid and start cleaning his own swimming pool. The world oil market is simply too big for you, or even 73,000,000 of you to do that.
-Mike Hargis
Monday, May 21, 2007
Sunday, May 20, 2007
AFB Book Review
I just finished Pat Buchanan's relevant and somewhat scary State of Emergency. I'm thankful I read it, although I'll never be the same (read: ignorant, at ease).
Buchanan takes great pains to illustrate the duplicity of the Mexican government and provides a historical context against which to assess the current invasion of illegals: truly, they are trying to take back lands that they have lost.
Some favorite parts...
Buchanan quotes JFK at length in one chapter of the book. As one of the "great" Democrat Presidents, JFK is adored by the Democrats, but his words are an indictment of the current policy of amnesty advocated by the Democrats (and many Republicans). It is worth noting that when people say the same things JFK said, they are labelled racists (p. 238).
He also takes an interesting look at illegal and unchecked immigration: how it hurts the poorest Americans, and wisely illustrates this by quoting Booker T. Washington (p. 230). He also notes that Samuel Gompers (founder of the AFL) was a strong opponent of unchecked immigration, and that this too is an example of how the poorest Americans are harmed by unchecked immigration.
Buchanan offers a number of great ideas, among them a "time-out" on immigration altogether (p. 251). This would give us the necessary time to assimilate the roughly 36 million immigrants in the country today.
Great point I never considered: the elites want illegal and unchecked immigration because it is a means of an enormous transfer of wealth to them.
OK, I've said enough. I recommend the book without reservation. Well, one comment: you'll feel a little like Neo in the first "Matrix" movie - once you go down that rabbit hole, there's no going back.
My new mantra is build the fence; throw out the illegals (no amnesty); time-out on immigration; assimilate those who are here legally; and legislate a common sense annual immigrant allowance (it was 157,000 a year in JFK's day, a far cry from the million and a half a year that is happening today).
Buchanan takes great pains to illustrate the duplicity of the Mexican government and provides a historical context against which to assess the current invasion of illegals: truly, they are trying to take back lands that they have lost.
Some favorite parts...
Buchanan quotes JFK at length in one chapter of the book. As one of the "great" Democrat Presidents, JFK is adored by the Democrats, but his words are an indictment of the current policy of amnesty advocated by the Democrats (and many Republicans). It is worth noting that when people say the same things JFK said, they are labelled racists (p. 238).
He also takes an interesting look at illegal and unchecked immigration: how it hurts the poorest Americans, and wisely illustrates this by quoting Booker T. Washington (p. 230). He also notes that Samuel Gompers (founder of the AFL) was a strong opponent of unchecked immigration, and that this too is an example of how the poorest Americans are harmed by unchecked immigration.
Buchanan offers a number of great ideas, among them a "time-out" on immigration altogether (p. 251). This would give us the necessary time to assimilate the roughly 36 million immigrants in the country today.
Great point I never considered: the elites want illegal and unchecked immigration because it is a means of an enormous transfer of wealth to them.
OK, I've said enough. I recommend the book without reservation. Well, one comment: you'll feel a little like Neo in the first "Matrix" movie - once you go down that rabbit hole, there's no going back.
My new mantra is build the fence; throw out the illegals (no amnesty); time-out on immigration; assimilate those who are here legally; and legislate a common sense annual immigrant allowance (it was 157,000 a year in JFK's day, a far cry from the million and a half a year that is happening today).
Friday, May 18, 2007
National Security
Here's one area where the goofy idolizing of Reagan actually makes some sense. For the record, I loved the guy. I grew up with him as my President. First thing I think of when someone says the word "President?" I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count. But all anyone ever talks about on talk radio is how conservatives are looking for the next Reagan. Please stop. He's not coming back, and while he was perfect for his time, time has marched on. Love the guy, cherish his memory, but let's not start walking around with the WWRD bracelets.
Since when did men stop being men? Here's a simple formula for success, courtesy of the Gipper: we win, they lose. But it has been said better than that...
"It is a principle incorporated into the settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute."
This from the "Father of the Constitution" James Madison.
A good conservative would never bow to threats and sabre rattling from some third-world loser. America is the most powerful nation on Earth. We are to be respected and, to a degree, feared.
All of which just makes me disappointed in two aspects of the Iraq War. First, the President is the Commander in Chief. Congress is not. Nor should the President have a "War Czar." The prosecution of the war is the domain of the Executive, and while a President cannot micro-manage a conflict, he can lay out the vision, delegate to his Generals, and speak directly to the American people to garner support (since little seems to be found in the Congress).
I've heard discussions about how bad the rules of engagement are in our conflict in Iraq, which is the other disappointment. If anyone has some first hand experience or stories of what our troops are going through, please share. It doesn't sound good, if half of what I've heard is true.
Since when did men stop being men? Here's a simple formula for success, courtesy of the Gipper: we win, they lose. But it has been said better than that...
"It is a principle incorporated into the settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute."
This from the "Father of the Constitution" James Madison.
A good conservative would never bow to threats and sabre rattling from some third-world loser. America is the most powerful nation on Earth. We are to be respected and, to a degree, feared.
All of which just makes me disappointed in two aspects of the Iraq War. First, the President is the Commander in Chief. Congress is not. Nor should the President have a "War Czar." The prosecution of the war is the domain of the Executive, and while a President cannot micro-manage a conflict, he can lay out the vision, delegate to his Generals, and speak directly to the American people to garner support (since little seems to be found in the Congress).
I've heard discussions about how bad the rules of engagement are in our conflict in Iraq, which is the other disappointment. If anyone has some first hand experience or stories of what our troops are going through, please share. It doesn't sound good, if half of what I've heard is true.
Public Service Announcement
Perhaps you're a recent high school graduate, and candidly, you slept through most of your civics requirements.
Or maybe you're the Speaker of the House of Representatives and as an utter embarrassment to your country, you're confused about the separation of powers principle (you think the President's job includes rallying votes to pass moronic amnesty legislation, for example; which is the responsibility of your elitist counterparts in Congress).
For both of you, fortunately, there's a convenient guide you can reference when you have tricky questions you can't answer (like, "is it the domain of Congress to act as Commander in Chief?"): it's called the Constitution.
Or maybe you're the Speaker of the House of Representatives and as an utter embarrassment to your country, you're confused about the separation of powers principle (you think the President's job includes rallying votes to pass moronic amnesty legislation, for example; which is the responsibility of your elitist counterparts in Congress).
For both of you, fortunately, there's a convenient guide you can reference when you have tricky questions you can't answer (like, "is it the domain of Congress to act as Commander in Chief?"): it's called the Constitution.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Time For A Nationwide Write-In
Here's what I've had on my mind lately. We can thank the stellar "candidates" running for office in 2008 for illustrating just how bad we have it in the United States. There's days that seem to carry some glimmer of hope in them and others that just seem to expose the utter idiocy of the people who have managed to take positions of "leadership" in the United States.
Any candidate should/must exhibit, in no particular order, the following characteristics: self-government; humility; fidelity; honesty; conviction; leadership; faith; wisdom; courage; and commonality.
For a man who fails to exhibit the dual graces of self-sufficiency and self-restraint; or the man who places himself above others in his mind; or the man who is unfaithful in his heart; or the man who is dishonest with himself or others; or the man who can't stand up for a principle; or a man who can't inspire other men; or a man with no beliefs; or a man who isn't smart enough to know that he doesn't know everything; or the man who shrinks in the face of challenges; or the man who cannot relate to his fellow man, no, none of these men are fit to govern others.
Sadly, I see a little bit of the above in every candidate. Recognize some of these things in Rudy? McCain? Even my current favorite, Romney? Yes to all of them.
Beyond that, then there's more principles, like the one nearest and dearest to my heart, balanced government. Which to me, is just another way of saying a proper reverence to the construction of the Constitution and the intentions of those who created it.
Beyond that, then there's real issues - these are the things that people talk about in coffee shops and around the water cooler. We need to seal our border and begin immediate deportation of every illegal alien in our prison system. After that's done, INS must begin rounding up the law breakers that just haven't been caught yet. Those illegally here should be deported immediately as well, and anyone employing them should be fined for being an accessory to a crime. Concurrently, federal public aid should be abolished immediately and forevermore; if states elect to provide public aid, let that be their business. As the open borders "Economism" (see more here) philosophy teaches us, there's lots of jobs that the illegals are doing that are going to need to be filled. So let's get the "under-employed" employed, shall we?
What else, what else? Oh yeah, a War Czar? I'll devote another entire post to what a conservative candidate would say - and do - on national security and foreign affairs.
All right, I know. Go take a bath or something and calm down. Not a bad idea. But hit me with challenges, I'm ready for 'em, and I think I've got better answers than the frauds who are lining up and taking cash while selling America down the river.
Any candidate should/must exhibit, in no particular order, the following characteristics: self-government; humility; fidelity; honesty; conviction; leadership; faith; wisdom; courage; and commonality.
For a man who fails to exhibit the dual graces of self-sufficiency and self-restraint; or the man who places himself above others in his mind; or the man who is unfaithful in his heart; or the man who is dishonest with himself or others; or the man who can't stand up for a principle; or a man who can't inspire other men; or a man with no beliefs; or a man who isn't smart enough to know that he doesn't know everything; or the man who shrinks in the face of challenges; or the man who cannot relate to his fellow man, no, none of these men are fit to govern others.
Sadly, I see a little bit of the above in every candidate. Recognize some of these things in Rudy? McCain? Even my current favorite, Romney? Yes to all of them.
Beyond that, then there's more principles, like the one nearest and dearest to my heart, balanced government. Which to me, is just another way of saying a proper reverence to the construction of the Constitution and the intentions of those who created it.
Beyond that, then there's real issues - these are the things that people talk about in coffee shops and around the water cooler. We need to seal our border and begin immediate deportation of every illegal alien in our prison system. After that's done, INS must begin rounding up the law breakers that just haven't been caught yet. Those illegally here should be deported immediately as well, and anyone employing them should be fined for being an accessory to a crime. Concurrently, federal public aid should be abolished immediately and forevermore; if states elect to provide public aid, let that be their business. As the open borders "Economism" (see more here) philosophy teaches us, there's lots of jobs that the illegals are doing that are going to need to be filled. So let's get the "under-employed" employed, shall we?
What else, what else? Oh yeah, a War Czar? I'll devote another entire post to what a conservative candidate would say - and do - on national security and foreign affairs.
All right, I know. Go take a bath or something and calm down. Not a bad idea. But hit me with challenges, I'm ready for 'em, and I think I've got better answers than the frauds who are lining up and taking cash while selling America down the river.
Economic Initiative
Subtitle: Socialists Might Be The Stupidest People Alive
"[Freedom] is a right which is important not only for the individual but also for the common good. Experience shows us that the denial of this right, or its limitation in the name of an alleged 'equality' of everyone in society, diminishes, or in practice absolutely destroys, the spirit of initiative, that is to say the creative subjectivity of the citizen." (emphasis mine)
Check out the current issue of Imprimis for a thought-provoking speech by Rev. Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute. The above quote is not Rev. Sirico, nor a famous economist, but the late, great Pope John Paul II.
How about ol' JPII? He was sounding absolutely Founding-Fatherish, if you don't mind me saying so. All you'd have to do is change the "shows" to "shews" and it's right out of the 18th Century. Just goes to show that the truth never goes out of style.
"[Freedom] is a right which is important not only for the individual but also for the common good. Experience shows us that the denial of this right, or its limitation in the name of an alleged 'equality' of everyone in society, diminishes, or in practice absolutely destroys, the spirit of initiative, that is to say the creative subjectivity of the citizen." (emphasis mine)
Check out the current issue of Imprimis for a thought-provoking speech by Rev. Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute. The above quote is not Rev. Sirico, nor a famous economist, but the late, great Pope John Paul II.
How about ol' JPII? He was sounding absolutely Founding-Fatherish, if you don't mind me saying so. All you'd have to do is change the "shows" to "shews" and it's right out of the 18th Century. Just goes to show that the truth never goes out of style.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The Great Gas Out of '07
History will be made this day, ladies and gentlemen, May 15, 2007.
That's right, folks, the Austin, Tx. paper indicated that gas prices could go as high as $4. per gallon later this year. In protest of this anticipated and unacceptable hike in gas prices we're (you and I) being asked to participate in what history may well record as "The Great Gas Out of 'O7."
Read on...
DON'T PUMP GAS ON MAY 15th.
According to...someone's calculations 2.292 billion dollars is almost 3 billion dollars. First, 2.292 billion is closer to 2 billion than it is to 3 billion. But for the sake of clarity, and the mathematical practice of rounding up, let's just say that 2.292 billion is almost 2.3 billion, not 3 billion. And for simplicity's sake, let's use the 2.3 billion dollar figure from here on out, shall we? Okay, now that we've cleared that up let's try and define what this figure represents...
As I understand it there are approximately 73,000,000 Americans (American members?) currently on the internet (network?) -that's 73 million, and it's closer to 70 than it is to 200 million, btw. Seeing as how the average car requires about 30 to 50 dollars to fill up (I'm a little unclear here as to whether these average cars are generally on empty, or, whether they have some "average" amount of gas in 'em when folks fill them up? I'm also a bit unclear about the other relevant factors involved in calculating these particular numbers, but anyway...), if all users were to not go to the pump on May 15th (that's today) it is suggested that the aforementioned 2.3 billion dollars would be removed from the oil companies pockets for just one day. This suggestion is followed by an appeal to: "please do not go to the gas station on May 15th." Okay, are we clear about the 2.3 billion dollar figure? Good.
Now, besides the fact that the "oil companies" are not the only entities involved in the sale and distribution of gasoline, I get the feeling that the person/persons who worked up these numbers think that the 2.3 billion dollars is all profit...to the pockets of the oil companies? But seriously folks: "when demand exceeds supply, prices go high; when supply and demand meet, prices are sweet." I thought of that all by my little self. Nonetheless, my version of the email message (I did mention that this was a request via email didn't I?) is concluded with these words:
"If you agree (which I can't see why you wouldn't) resend this to all of your contact list. With it saying, ''Don't pump gas on May 15th."
Well, I don't agree. And I've alluded to a couple of my reasons why. I thought it'd be an interesting exercise (and we might even learn something) for us to engage this topic. If you agree (and I can't see why you wouldn't) post a comment.
-DW
That's right, folks, the Austin, Tx. paper indicated that gas prices could go as high as $4. per gallon later this year. In protest of this anticipated and unacceptable hike in gas prices we're (you and I) being asked to participate in what history may well record as "The Great Gas Out of 'O7."
Read on...
DON'T PUMP GAS ON MAY 15th.
According to...someone's calculations 2.292 billion dollars is almost 3 billion dollars. First, 2.292 billion is closer to 2 billion than it is to 3 billion. But for the sake of clarity, and the mathematical practice of rounding up, let's just say that 2.292 billion is almost 2.3 billion, not 3 billion. And for simplicity's sake, let's use the 2.3 billion dollar figure from here on out, shall we? Okay, now that we've cleared that up let's try and define what this figure represents...
As I understand it there are approximately 73,000,000 Americans (American members?) currently on the internet (network?) -that's 73 million, and it's closer to 70 than it is to 200 million, btw. Seeing as how the average car requires about 30 to 50 dollars to fill up (I'm a little unclear here as to whether these average cars are generally on empty, or, whether they have some "average" amount of gas in 'em when folks fill them up? I'm also a bit unclear about the other relevant factors involved in calculating these particular numbers, but anyway...), if all users were to not go to the pump on May 15th (that's today) it is suggested that the aforementioned 2.3 billion dollars would be removed from the oil companies pockets for just one day. This suggestion is followed by an appeal to: "please do not go to the gas station on May 15th." Okay, are we clear about the 2.3 billion dollar figure? Good.
Now, besides the fact that the "oil companies" are not the only entities involved in the sale and distribution of gasoline, I get the feeling that the person/persons who worked up these numbers think that the 2.3 billion dollars is all profit...to the pockets of the oil companies? But seriously folks: "when demand exceeds supply, prices go high; when supply and demand meet, prices are sweet." I thought of that all by my little self. Nonetheless, my version of the email message (I did mention that this was a request via email didn't I?) is concluded with these words:
"If you agree (which I can't see why you wouldn't) resend this to all of your contact list. With it saying, ''Don't pump gas on May 15th."
Well, I don't agree. And I've alluded to a couple of my reasons why. I thought it'd be an interesting exercise (and we might even learn something) for us to engage this topic. If you agree (and I can't see why you wouldn't) post a comment.
-DW
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Mother's Day 2007
A special Happy Mother's Day to Mrs. Monarchist, the best mom any two little Monarchists could ask for! Mrs. M. is a wonderful parent and constantly sets an example for me in patience and kindness that I am sure I will never attain.
To my Mom, to all the Moms - God bless you this day and always and may your children learn to be as principled and virtuous as you are.
To my Mom, to all the Moms - God bless you this day and always and may your children learn to be as principled and virtuous as you are.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Hey, Look! The Religion of Peace!
This story was all over talk radio this afternoon. I'm going to guess that we'll hear Congressional Democrats applauding this about as much as Rosie O'Donnell. God forbid that they condemn terrorists - that might mean that George Bush is right!
Here's my favorite - although "favorite" might not be the right term - part of the article: three of the men were here illegally. Imagine that! Imagine my confusion... haven't the amnesty advocates said that the people who are here illegally are either 1) Catholic or 2) just trying to make a better life for their families? Could they be, gasp, wrong? Maybe we should add "3) mentally ill jihadis obsessed with killing Americans" to that list?
Wait, well, this might be a close second:
"The arrests renewed worries among New Jersey's Muslim community. Hundreds of Muslim men from New Jersey were rounded up and detained in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks, but none were connected to that plot.
'If these people did something, then they deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law,' said Sohail Mohammed, a lawyer who represented scores of detainees after the 2001 attacks. 'But when the government says `Islamic militants,' it sends a message to the public that Islam and militancy are synonymous.'
'Don't equate actions with religion,' he said."
Hey, um, Mohammed? You've got yourself an image problem, no question about it. BUT IT IS YOUR OWN DOING. Using the term "Islamic militants" is fair in that it is qualifying the type of militants we're talking about (as opposed to "Gay Rights Militants", "Animal Rights Militants", "Global Warming Militants", etc.). That you fail to recognize this makes me think the Mohammed doth protest too much. And spare me with the lawyering. If they did something wrong? I think they did - they tried to buy automatic weapons and planned to attack Fort Dix.
(deep breath)
OK, I'm better now.
Remember to say a prayer of thanks tonight for the hardworking law enforcement officers who are working overtime to stay a step ahead of these "homegrown" jihadis (a term I object to, considering only one was what I'd call "homegrown").
Heck, say that prayer every night.
Here's my favorite - although "favorite" might not be the right term - part of the article: three of the men were here illegally. Imagine that! Imagine my confusion... haven't the amnesty advocates said that the people who are here illegally are either 1) Catholic or 2) just trying to make a better life for their families? Could they be, gasp, wrong? Maybe we should add "3) mentally ill jihadis obsessed with killing Americans" to that list?
Wait, well, this might be a close second:
"The arrests renewed worries among New Jersey's Muslim community. Hundreds of Muslim men from New Jersey were rounded up and detained in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks, but none were connected to that plot.
'If these people did something, then they deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law,' said Sohail Mohammed, a lawyer who represented scores of detainees after the 2001 attacks. 'But when the government says `Islamic militants,' it sends a message to the public that Islam and militancy are synonymous.'
'Don't equate actions with religion,' he said."
Hey, um, Mohammed? You've got yourself an image problem, no question about it. BUT IT IS YOUR OWN DOING. Using the term "Islamic militants" is fair in that it is qualifying the type of militants we're talking about (as opposed to "Gay Rights Militants", "Animal Rights Militants", "Global Warming Militants", etc.). That you fail to recognize this makes me think the Mohammed doth protest too much. And spare me with the lawyering. If they did something wrong? I think they did - they tried to buy automatic weapons and planned to attack Fort Dix.
(deep breath)
OK, I'm better now.
Remember to say a prayer of thanks tonight for the hardworking law enforcement officers who are working overtime to stay a step ahead of these "homegrown" jihadis (a term I object to, considering only one was what I'd call "homegrown").
Heck, say that prayer every night.
Monday, May 07, 2007
More on McCain
This old fighter may have a few rounds left in him.
The media practically declared McCain's candidacy dead in the water, right before he told this joke. Listen here, courtesy of YouTube. Unlike the botched joke of Jean-Francois Kerry, I think McCain's comments were well considered. For a guy who has been not the favorite son of most conservatives, a gentle reminder that he's tough - very tough - on defense will warm even the most hardened heart (witness mine, as Exhibit A).
McCain then has a pretty good performance at the debate and takes a shot at Rudy today.
I'm not sold yet on any candidate; for me, it's too early for that. They've all got weaknesses, for that matter, and how this chess match goes remains to be seen. But don't be surprised if McCain's numbers rise - probably mostly at Rudy's expense - as he begins to slowly hammer home his message. That message is going to be: I'm more conservative than Rudy, and better on defense than Romney. If he can control how the differences are framed, he might up and surprise both of those guys and take their lunch money. He must, however, avoid any discussions of the Gang of 14 and "Campaign Finance Reform" like Bill Clinton avoids Hillary.
Additional concern? Maybe, maybe not. Hugh Hewitt was a guest on the Michael Medved show today, dissing Fred Thompson's speech right after the GOP debate. According to Hugh, Fred seemed to fall down a little bit. It was a huge opportunity, with a lot of excitement in the air, and he just came out flat. Of course, Hugh's got a book out on Romney, so take it with a grain of salt, perhaps?
The media practically declared McCain's candidacy dead in the water, right before he told this joke. Listen here, courtesy of YouTube. Unlike the botched joke of Jean-Francois Kerry, I think McCain's comments were well considered. For a guy who has been not the favorite son of most conservatives, a gentle reminder that he's tough - very tough - on defense will warm even the most hardened heart (witness mine, as Exhibit A).
McCain then has a pretty good performance at the debate and takes a shot at Rudy today.
I'm not sold yet on any candidate; for me, it's too early for that. They've all got weaknesses, for that matter, and how this chess match goes remains to be seen. But don't be surprised if McCain's numbers rise - probably mostly at Rudy's expense - as he begins to slowly hammer home his message. That message is going to be: I'm more conservative than Rudy, and better on defense than Romney. If he can control how the differences are framed, he might up and surprise both of those guys and take their lunch money. He must, however, avoid any discussions of the Gang of 14 and "Campaign Finance Reform" like Bill Clinton avoids Hillary.
Additional concern? Maybe, maybe not. Hugh Hewitt was a guest on the Michael Medved show today, dissing Fred Thompson's speech right after the GOP debate. According to Hugh, Fred seemed to fall down a little bit. It was a huge opportunity, with a lot of excitement in the air, and he just came out flat. Of course, Hugh's got a book out on Romney, so take it with a grain of salt, perhaps?
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Senator John McCain
Look, people, this guy is a bona fide war hero.
Yes, there's always a "but" isn't there, Mr. Monarchist? Yes, there is. I heard the Senator on the Michael Medved show earlier today talking about abortion and being pro-life.
(deep breath)
So McCain says that he's a "federalist" on this issue, after a little prodding by Medved, and that should individual states decide in the case of the eventual overturn of Roe vs. Wade to create their own laws on abortion he thinks that's appropriate.
(Big, huge, Al Gore-mocking SIGH)
Let's take it from the top, shall we? Governments are instituted among men to protect our God-given rights. Among the rights given us by our Creator is the right to Life. Government at any and every level should be in the business of protecting the inalienable rights of citizens. To suggest that a state has the right to pass laws endorsing abortion is as patently absurd as suggesting that a state has the right to pass laws endorsing slavery. They don't, for the record. And anyone who tells you so is an utter fool. Well, that's a little harsh. Maybe they just don't dig on the Declaration of Independence, that's all.
That sound you hear is our greatest President, the Old Rail Splitter, rolling over in his grave.
Yes, there's always a "but" isn't there, Mr. Monarchist? Yes, there is. I heard the Senator on the Michael Medved show earlier today talking about abortion and being pro-life.
(deep breath)
So McCain says that he's a "federalist" on this issue, after a little prodding by Medved, and that should individual states decide in the case of the eventual overturn of Roe vs. Wade to create their own laws on abortion he thinks that's appropriate.
(Big, huge, Al Gore-mocking SIGH)
Let's take it from the top, shall we? Governments are instituted among men to protect our God-given rights. Among the rights given us by our Creator is the right to Life. Government at any and every level should be in the business of protecting the inalienable rights of citizens. To suggest that a state has the right to pass laws endorsing abortion is as patently absurd as suggesting that a state has the right to pass laws endorsing slavery. They don't, for the record. And anyone who tells you so is an utter fool. Well, that's a little harsh. Maybe they just don't dig on the Declaration of Independence, that's all.
That sound you hear is our greatest President, the Old Rail Splitter, rolling over in his grave.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Happy Birthday!
To our dear friend Mr. Adams! Samuel, you're looking as good as ever. May the "Spirit of '76" keep you forever youthful!
Mr. Adams pointed out to me that yesterday was Law Day in these United States. Can't say I ever recall hearing that, so you do, in fact, learn something new every day.
Mr. Adams pointed out to me that yesterday was Law Day in these United States. Can't say I ever recall hearing that, so you do, in fact, learn something new every day.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Abject Stupidity
I've always wondered what goes on in the minds of "immigration rights" activists when they organize their marches for May 1. Could you pick a more offensive day? And while I'm asking rhetorical questions, what "immigration rights" are they fighting for again? I confess: I can't keep up with the constant word games of the Left.
The Tribune devoted a fair amount of bandwidth to the march today, which the police estimated at 150,000. Uh-huh. You know, there weren't constant reports of the city being shut down with all of these hard-working people taking the day off. I can only conclude that they're a little off on their estimate or the marchers might not be so hard-working.
Breathless reports abounded about how people just wanted to keep their hard-working Catholic parents from being deported. Did we mention that they are Catholic, just like you? Nice sentiment, I say. Here's a tip, absolutely free of charge: don't break the law. That's a start.
And while I'm giving out free tips, here's one for the conservatives: a winning ticket must include building a fence and enforcing our immigration laws. After that, if there are SOOO many jobs that "Americans won't do" as we so often hear, then (and only then) let's discuss matching people and jobs.
Oh, yes, and one more thing to the conservatives: would you kindly print out this tip using a large font and on colorful paper to get the attention of the GOP? Thanks.
The Tribune devoted a fair amount of bandwidth to the march today, which the police estimated at 150,000. Uh-huh. You know, there weren't constant reports of the city being shut down with all of these hard-working people taking the day off. I can only conclude that they're a little off on their estimate or the marchers might not be so hard-working.
Breathless reports abounded about how people just wanted to keep their hard-working Catholic parents from being deported. Did we mention that they are Catholic, just like you? Nice sentiment, I say. Here's a tip, absolutely free of charge: don't break the law. That's a start.
And while I'm giving out free tips, here's one for the conservatives: a winning ticket must include building a fence and enforcing our immigration laws. After that, if there are SOOO many jobs that "Americans won't do" as we so often hear, then (and only then) let's discuss matching people and jobs.
Oh, yes, and one more thing to the conservatives: would you kindly print out this tip using a large font and on colorful paper to get the attention of the GOP? Thanks.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Put This One In The Books
And so we come to the close of another month. Time to flip the calendar, turn the page, cross off the old and look forward to the new.
May should be a good month. I have a couple of exciting things to look forward to in the coming month - more activism and even a homeschooling conference, all of which I'll share with you right here. Hopefully, my partners in this space will see their time free up and they can join in the fun.
I'll close out this last post of the month with an observation on the Democrat debate that happened last week (also known as the "Idiot Parade."). Hillary Clinton can raise all the money she wants, and her attack dogs and consultants can be as good as they are, but none of that changes the fact that she's a shrill, harsh, and personally unlikable candidate.
I'm no fan of him (you can read more here on the subject), but I think Obama is going to foil her grand plans. Most people outside of NY state don't realize this, but Hillary isn't all that experienced at much of anything, other than political survival. Barack is a better speaker and is personally much more appealing as a candidate, and I think this will bear itself out as we get closer to 2008. That said, these are Democrats we're talking about, so if I'm wrong, I'll attribute it to irrational people behaving, well, irrationally.
May should be a good month. I have a couple of exciting things to look forward to in the coming month - more activism and even a homeschooling conference, all of which I'll share with you right here. Hopefully, my partners in this space will see their time free up and they can join in the fun.
I'll close out this last post of the month with an observation on the Democrat debate that happened last week (also known as the "Idiot Parade."). Hillary Clinton can raise all the money she wants, and her attack dogs and consultants can be as good as they are, but none of that changes the fact that she's a shrill, harsh, and personally unlikable candidate.
I'm no fan of him (you can read more here on the subject), but I think Obama is going to foil her grand plans. Most people outside of NY state don't realize this, but Hillary isn't all that experienced at much of anything, other than political survival. Barack is a better speaker and is personally much more appealing as a candidate, and I think this will bear itself out as we get closer to 2008. That said, these are Democrats we're talking about, so if I'm wrong, I'll attribute it to irrational people behaving, well, irrationally.
Friday, April 27, 2007
The Incomparable Victor Davis Hanson
I'm a huge fan of VDH. From his last book, A War Like No Other, to his frequent guest appearances on the Hugh Hewitt show, Hanson routinely acquits himself as one of the truly clear thinkers out there.
So imagine my delight when I got my issue of Imprimis in the mail - the great speech digest of Hillsdale College - and Hanson is this month's speech. Check out the link to Imprimis above for Hanson's thoughts on the possibility of a nuclear Iran.
So imagine my delight when I got my issue of Imprimis in the mail - the great speech digest of Hillsdale College - and Hanson is this month's speech. Check out the link to Imprimis above for Hanson's thoughts on the possibility of a nuclear Iran.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Happy Birthday
I'm a little early, but in case I don't get a chance tomorrow...
Thanks to all who have chimed in, stopped by, and made my world a little more rewarding in the past year. Tomorrow, 4/26/07, marks the first "year in business" for the American Federalist Blog.
Like any worthwhile endeavor (so I tell myself), it takes a lot of hard work to make it successful. Thanks to everyone who has shared their time and talents in this space. Thank you for your friendship. I do appreciate it, thank you all.
Here's to the second year! May we all continue to grow and in little ways, every day, make the world a brighter place.
I remain your faithful servant,
A. Hamilton, aka The Monarchist
P.S. I'm nearly halfway through State of Emergency and will have some insights on that in the coming week, time permitting.
Thanks to all who have chimed in, stopped by, and made my world a little more rewarding in the past year. Tomorrow, 4/26/07, marks the first "year in business" for the American Federalist Blog.
Like any worthwhile endeavor (so I tell myself), it takes a lot of hard work to make it successful. Thanks to everyone who has shared their time and talents in this space. Thank you for your friendship. I do appreciate it, thank you all.
Here's to the second year! May we all continue to grow and in little ways, every day, make the world a brighter place.
I remain your faithful servant,
A. Hamilton, aka The Monarchist
P.S. I'm nearly halfway through State of Emergency and will have some insights on that in the coming week, time permitting.
Governor Kulongoski, Stunt Man
I saw this today and I couldn't pass it up.
It appears the Governor of Oregon decided to live off of food stamps for a week. His purpose? To "raise awareness about the difficulty of feeding a family on a food stamp budget."
Now I understand that sometimes, bad things happen to good people. I understand how hard it is to feed a family when you're poor or a single parent because that's how I grew up. My mom, bless her, worked more than one job to send my sister and me to Catholic school. Most dinners were Kraft Mac and Cheese or the old standby, PB&J.
But here's my thinking on this. As much as they continue to bring it up to this day, the Left absolutely missed the lesson to be learned from Hurricane Katrina: that government can't take care of people very well, no matter how much we'd like it to.
Likewise, I wonder if anyone who supports Governor Kulongoski will get the real lesson from his week on food stamps. Namely, maybe the problem isn't lack of money for the government to give to people in need, but that the government shouldn't be in the charity business at all.
It appears the Governor of Oregon decided to live off of food stamps for a week. His purpose? To "raise awareness about the difficulty of feeding a family on a food stamp budget."
Now I understand that sometimes, bad things happen to good people. I understand how hard it is to feed a family when you're poor or a single parent because that's how I grew up. My mom, bless her, worked more than one job to send my sister and me to Catholic school. Most dinners were Kraft Mac and Cheese or the old standby, PB&J.
But here's my thinking on this. As much as they continue to bring it up to this day, the Left absolutely missed the lesson to be learned from Hurricane Katrina: that government can't take care of people very well, no matter how much we'd like it to.
Likewise, I wonder if anyone who supports Governor Kulongoski will get the real lesson from his week on food stamps. Namely, maybe the problem isn't lack of money for the government to give to people in need, but that the government shouldn't be in the charity business at all.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Worth a Look
I was recently turned on to a rather interesting organization here in Illinois called The Sam Adams Alliance; check them out here.
This appears to be a grassroots organization designed at connecting local leaders who are interested in accountable government, among other things (imagine that, you're thinking).
I'll find out what I can and will be happy to share this with you, if it interests you, "off-blog" if you will. E-mail me through the link under my profile if a review of the site tickles your fancy. I'm not sure if they've got chapters or satellites going outside the Chicago area, but I'll be happy to find out and let you know.
This appears to be a grassroots organization designed at connecting local leaders who are interested in accountable government, among other things (imagine that, you're thinking).
I'll find out what I can and will be happy to share this with you, if it interests you, "off-blog" if you will. E-mail me through the link under my profile if a review of the site tickles your fancy. I'm not sure if they've got chapters or satellites going outside the Chicago area, but I'll be happy to find out and let you know.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
AFB Book Review
I just finished Rodney Stark's excellent The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, and I recommend it without reservation.
From the jacket summary: "...Stark advances a revolutionary, controversial, and long overdue idea: that Christianity and its related institutions are, in fact, directly responsible for the most significant intellectual, political, scientific, and economic breakthroughs of the past millennium."
And might I say he does a masterful job of debunking several myths along the way to clearly supporting this theory.
Some of my favorite parts of the book? In assessing the rise of free market economics in the Italian city-states (P. 84), he asserts that "relatively democratic regimes" are a "necessary precondition for the development of capitalism."
He devotes some considerable space to the idea of "religious economy" (P. 198). He describes a "market" of current and potential adherents, organizations seeking to attract or retain adherents and how this dynamic has an economic aspect to it. An interesting historical perspective exists when one considers state churches as "monopolies" and how this affected cultural developments - like any monopoly, firms become lazy and inefficient.
Lastly, he quotes a book by David Aikman (P. 235) to illustrate "that Christianity remains an essential element in the globalization of modernity." The conclusion itself delivers this message powerfully in the words of a leading Chinese scholar who spent years studying the West: it is our religion that is the heart and soul of our culture, and the foundation of our success.
Amen to that.
From the jacket summary: "...Stark advances a revolutionary, controversial, and long overdue idea: that Christianity and its related institutions are, in fact, directly responsible for the most significant intellectual, political, scientific, and economic breakthroughs of the past millennium."
And might I say he does a masterful job of debunking several myths along the way to clearly supporting this theory.
Some of my favorite parts of the book? In assessing the rise of free market economics in the Italian city-states (P. 84), he asserts that "relatively democratic regimes" are a "necessary precondition for the development of capitalism."
He devotes some considerable space to the idea of "religious economy" (P. 198). He describes a "market" of current and potential adherents, organizations seeking to attract or retain adherents and how this dynamic has an economic aspect to it. An interesting historical perspective exists when one considers state churches as "monopolies" and how this affected cultural developments - like any monopoly, firms become lazy and inefficient.
Lastly, he quotes a book by David Aikman (P. 235) to illustrate "that Christianity remains an essential element in the globalization of modernity." The conclusion itself delivers this message powerfully in the words of a leading Chinese scholar who spent years studying the West: it is our religion that is the heart and soul of our culture, and the foundation of our success.
Amen to that.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Tragedy at VA Tech
I have nothing to add to the discussion other than this:
As the day's events unfolded, I anticipated that it wouldn't be long before the Left - here, the media - started chiming in on the tragedy and thinly suggesting that this might not have happened if we had gun control laws (much in the way there wouldn't be obesity if there were spoon control laws). And wouldn't you know it? I was right, much to my dismay. You can read the whole Reuters article here, but I'll copy the pertinent op-ed section from the article...
"More than 30,000 people die from gunshot wounds in the United States every year and there are more guns in private hands than in any other country. But a powerful gun lobby and support for gun ownership rights has largely thwarted attempts to tighten controls."
I think that might be a direct quote of Michael Moore.
And sadly, one of my co-workers blamed it on Republicans and their support of automatic weapons (yes, actually said that). Under other circumstances I might have argued, but seeing as how people died, I decided not to politicize a tragedy. But that's just me.
I will add this too: please pray for everyone affected by this horrible disaster. May the Loving Grace of the Lord assuage their grief.
As the day's events unfolded, I anticipated that it wouldn't be long before the Left - here, the media - started chiming in on the tragedy and thinly suggesting that this might not have happened if we had gun control laws (much in the way there wouldn't be obesity if there were spoon control laws). And wouldn't you know it? I was right, much to my dismay. You can read the whole Reuters article here, but I'll copy the pertinent op-ed section from the article...
"More than 30,000 people die from gunshot wounds in the United States every year and there are more guns in private hands than in any other country. But a powerful gun lobby and support for gun ownership rights has largely thwarted attempts to tighten controls."
I think that might be a direct quote of Michael Moore.
And sadly, one of my co-workers blamed it on Republicans and their support of automatic weapons (yes, actually said that). Under other circumstances I might have argued, but seeing as how people died, I decided not to politicize a tragedy. But that's just me.
I will add this too: please pray for everyone affected by this horrible disaster. May the Loving Grace of the Lord assuage their grief.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Our Big Challenge
I had a thought earlier today while sitting at the local township GOP meeting. It's a thought I've had before, and surely this is the Holy Spirit smacking me on the back of the head.
As we were being numbed into unconsciousness by the inane pontificating of our State Representative (name withheld to protect the guilty), I was again reminded that if I could have 10 or 15 Moms or Hargises, I could take over the state of Illinois. We're really men among boys (if you don't mind the gender-specific nature of that analogy, Mom).
At one point, the State Rep said that he thinks no one wakes up glad that other people don't have health insurance and we just need to be smart about finding ways to insure the uninsured. I was floored. Since when is health insurance a civil right? Why not life insurance? Car insurance?
Five words. Say 'em loud and proud with me:
Not yours to give, pal.
So here's my request. Call it a favor. If we're going to have any luck in stemming the tide of idiocy and socialism which seem to be marching hand-in-hand, we need to start finding other "Moms and Hargises." If you know some folks who seem to have their heads screwed on right, see if they might like what passes for original thought here. I even took a trip back to the old Patriot Post today to see if there's any thinking going on there. It appears that there indeed is some (although it's clearly not me - check out my gaffe in my subject line).
I'd have mentioned the Outlaw, too, but he seems to be MIA or something. Josey, if you're out there, drop me a "what's up" sometime.
As we were being numbed into unconsciousness by the inane pontificating of our State Representative (name withheld to protect the guilty), I was again reminded that if I could have 10 or 15 Moms or Hargises, I could take over the state of Illinois. We're really men among boys (if you don't mind the gender-specific nature of that analogy, Mom).
At one point, the State Rep said that he thinks no one wakes up glad that other people don't have health insurance and we just need to be smart about finding ways to insure the uninsured. I was floored. Since when is health insurance a civil right? Why not life insurance? Car insurance?
Five words. Say 'em loud and proud with me:
Not yours to give, pal.
So here's my request. Call it a favor. If we're going to have any luck in stemming the tide of idiocy and socialism which seem to be marching hand-in-hand, we need to start finding other "Moms and Hargises." If you know some folks who seem to have their heads screwed on right, see if they might like what passes for original thought here. I even took a trip back to the old Patriot Post today to see if there's any thinking going on there. It appears that there indeed is some (although it's clearly not me - check out my gaffe in my subject line).
I'd have mentioned the Outlaw, too, but he seems to be MIA or something. Josey, if you're out there, drop me a "what's up" sometime.
A Must-Read
I've deliberately been avoiding the free speech/Don Imus issue. I don't have anything in the way of original commentary to add to the volumes that are out there.
But Laura Ingraham mentioned this piece last week that was orignially in the Kansas City Star. Whitlock used to work for ESPN, hence the link to the sports page of the Chicago Tribune.
Enjoy, and if you're reading this, thanks for the lead, and a hat-tip to PW.
P.S. Isn't it interesting that conservative women are both smart and so darn good-looking, btw? Is it wrong for me to enjoy linking to Laura's website?
P.P.S. I mean, have you seen Rosie O'Donnell? Yikes.
But Laura Ingraham mentioned this piece last week that was orignially in the Kansas City Star. Whitlock used to work for ESPN, hence the link to the sports page of the Chicago Tribune.
Enjoy, and if you're reading this, thanks for the lead, and a hat-tip to PW.
P.S. Isn't it interesting that conservative women are both smart and so darn good-looking, btw? Is it wrong for me to enjoy linking to Laura's website?
P.P.S. I mean, have you seen Rosie O'Donnell? Yikes.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Township Update
Every year all the Townships in Illinois hold their annual meetings on the same night. This night was Tuesday April 10.
Given my obsession with the concept of balanced government, you can only imagine my chagrin upon learning that certain Leftist groups were going to attempt to take control of the meeting (my Township, and all of the Townships in DuPage County, for that matter) and force a referendum onto the next ballot asking in a very long way this simple question: should the US begin an immediate withdrawal of its forces from Iraq? Actually, given my obsession with the concept of balanced government (and the respectful balancing of powers among the respective spheres) as you can imagine, learning this nearly sent me into shock.
Fortunately, the Township GOP had enough people there to make sure the meeting wasn't railroaded into utter stupidity. They made their motion; it was seconded and went up for a vote. The nays carried the day.
While I have very large, very difficult-to-surmount issues with the Republican party, it is important that we remember that they're not actively rooting for the defeat, humiliation and/or destruction of the United States. It remains our job to make the party better, or start over. Until that day, we've got to support the only sane option out there.
Given my obsession with the concept of balanced government, you can only imagine my chagrin upon learning that certain Leftist groups were going to attempt to take control of the meeting (my Township, and all of the Townships in DuPage County, for that matter) and force a referendum onto the next ballot asking in a very long way this simple question: should the US begin an immediate withdrawal of its forces from Iraq? Actually, given my obsession with the concept of balanced government (and the respectful balancing of powers among the respective spheres) as you can imagine, learning this nearly sent me into shock.
Fortunately, the Township GOP had enough people there to make sure the meeting wasn't railroaded into utter stupidity. They made their motion; it was seconded and went up for a vote. The nays carried the day.
While I have very large, very difficult-to-surmount issues with the Republican party, it is important that we remember that they're not actively rooting for the defeat, humiliation and/or destruction of the United States. It remains our job to make the party better, or start over. Until that day, we've got to support the only sane option out there.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Hugh Hewitt
So I was on my way home from the gym tonight, and as usual, I was enjoying the Hugh Hewitt show. Check out his interview of E. J. Dionne through this link.
Anyway, "Glenn from Texas" calls in, and I swear he sounded just like Webster! ;) Glenn made a great point: someone has a gun to your head; do you want intervention before or after they pull the trigger? Would that the Left recognized this simple fact of the struggle with Islamofascism. Only a fool would want intervention after the trigger has been pulled, and yet, that's the equivalent to what the appeasement crowd would have us do in our foreign affairs.
Anyway, "Glenn from Texas" calls in, and I swear he sounded just like Webster! ;) Glenn made a great point: someone has a gun to your head; do you want intervention before or after they pull the trigger? Would that the Left recognized this simple fact of the struggle with Islamofascism. Only a fool would want intervention after the trigger has been pulled, and yet, that's the equivalent to what the appeasement crowd would have us do in our foreign affairs.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Good Friday 2007
While the American Federalist Blog is routinely focused on politics and overwhelmingly the things of this world, let's take a break from that today and spend some time reflecting. Here's one of my all-time favorites...
Isaiah 53:
1 Who would believe what we have heard? To whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 He grew up like a sapling before him, like a shoot from the parched earth; There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him.
3 He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity, One of those from whom men hide their faces, spurned, and we held him in no esteem.
4 Yet it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured, While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed.
6 We had all gone astray like sheep, each following his own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.
7 Though he was harshly treated, he submitted and opened not his mouth; Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the shearers, he was silent and opened not his mouth.
8 Oppressed and condemned, he was taken away, and who would have thought any more of his destiny? When he was cut off from the land of the living, and smitten for the sin of his people,
9 A grave was assigned him among the wicked and a burial place with evildoers, Though he had done no wrong nor spoken any falsehood.
10 (But the LORD was pleased to crush him in infirmity.) If he gives his life as an offering for sin, he shall see his descendants in a long life, and the will of the LORD shall be accomplished through him.
11 Because of his affliction he shall see the light in fullness of days; Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many, and their guilt he shall bear.
12 Therefore I will give him his portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty, Because he surrendered himself to death and was counted among the wicked; And he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses.
May we always be thankful for the Gift given us by the Father.
Isaiah 53:
1 Who would believe what we have heard? To whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 He grew up like a sapling before him, like a shoot from the parched earth; There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him.
3 He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity, One of those from whom men hide their faces, spurned, and we held him in no esteem.
4 Yet it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured, While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed.
6 We had all gone astray like sheep, each following his own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.
7 Though he was harshly treated, he submitted and opened not his mouth; Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the shearers, he was silent and opened not his mouth.
8 Oppressed and condemned, he was taken away, and who would have thought any more of his destiny? When he was cut off from the land of the living, and smitten for the sin of his people,
9 A grave was assigned him among the wicked and a burial place with evildoers, Though he had done no wrong nor spoken any falsehood.
10 (But the LORD was pleased to crush him in infirmity.) If he gives his life as an offering for sin, he shall see his descendants in a long life, and the will of the LORD shall be accomplished through him.
11 Because of his affliction he shall see the light in fullness of days; Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many, and their guilt he shall bear.
12 Therefore I will give him his portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty, Because he surrendered himself to death and was counted among the wicked; And he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses.
May we always be thankful for the Gift given us by the Father.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
The Amazing Race
Seems like every time I check the news online or turn on the radio, I hear about the record-setting fund raising that is going on for the Presidential race in 2008. Which is like 20 months away still, or darn close to it. Dire predictions abound for those candidates who aren't pulling in the big dough.
I'm not buying it. Yes, I know that money can be exchanged for goods and services (where would I be without Homer Simpson to educate me?). Yes, I know that money will buy ad time and commercials for politicians to hammer the opposition. But since when has money ever voted? Isn't that still up to regular folks like you and me?
There's sort of a self-fulfilling trap that people can fall into here, and the real guilty party is the media. When headlines sensationalize the $25 million+ raised by both Hillary and Obama, the impression is created that it takes money - and really, that's the important thing - to become Chief Executive. People then begin to narrow the field in their own mind on who is and who isn't a viable candidate.
Here's the thing. A candidate who exhibits excellent character, strong support for the Constitution and can communicate with regular people (thus, being him- or herself a regular person) would make a darn-near unbeatable choice for office.
Then, there's this magical thing called the internet (put aside for a moment your natural objections about something invented by al-Gore. I have a strong hunch he didn't actually invent it. Yes, I know he says he did, but trust me on this one.). If the candidate and their ideals were both strong enough, a grass-roots base would spring up that would get the word out to potential voters. The internet can be a powerful, playing-field leveler to help the "little guys" fight big donor-sponsored candidates.
My point, I guess, is this: we're told an awful lot by the media who is and who isn't a viable candidate. Maybe we ought to consider the source.
Hat tip to Mom, for your comments on a prior post about the media. I was reflecting on your comment with respect to all the noise about fundraising when I picked up this train of thought.
I'm not buying it. Yes, I know that money can be exchanged for goods and services (where would I be without Homer Simpson to educate me?). Yes, I know that money will buy ad time and commercials for politicians to hammer the opposition. But since when has money ever voted? Isn't that still up to regular folks like you and me?
There's sort of a self-fulfilling trap that people can fall into here, and the real guilty party is the media. When headlines sensationalize the $25 million+ raised by both Hillary and Obama, the impression is created that it takes money - and really, that's the important thing - to become Chief Executive. People then begin to narrow the field in their own mind on who is and who isn't a viable candidate.
Here's the thing. A candidate who exhibits excellent character, strong support for the Constitution and can communicate with regular people (thus, being him- or herself a regular person) would make a darn-near unbeatable choice for office.
Then, there's this magical thing called the internet (put aside for a moment your natural objections about something invented by al-Gore. I have a strong hunch he didn't actually invent it. Yes, I know he says he did, but trust me on this one.). If the candidate and their ideals were both strong enough, a grass-roots base would spring up that would get the word out to potential voters. The internet can be a powerful, playing-field leveler to help the "little guys" fight big donor-sponsored candidates.
My point, I guess, is this: we're told an awful lot by the media who is and who isn't a viable candidate. Maybe we ought to consider the source.
Hat tip to Mom, for your comments on a prior post about the media. I was reflecting on your comment with respect to all the noise about fundraising when I picked up this train of thought.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
"We're Sorry"
I'm beginning to agree with the Republicans when I hear them say this. They are, indeed, a sorry bunch.
I'm so glad that I'm not the only one who finds the unending apologies completely idiotic. Ann agrees with me. Just today I was having a conversation with a friend on the topic of the fired U.S. Attorneys. Why in the world didn't the administration simply say: we fired them because we wanted to. Frankly, we don't need a reason. If you insist on having a reason, how about this: we didn't like the way they looked at us.
This constant defensiveness and apologizing smacks of weakness and a lack of understanding about how to fight a political opponent who wants to see you stumble and fall. You'd think that the GOP would have the Demo playbook figured out by now.
While I'm on the topic of weakness, why in the world hasn't Tony Blair issued an ultimatum yet? Release our Marines in 24 hours, or we begin the systematic destruction of your navy. Fail to release them after we sink your fleet, and we'll begin bombing Revolutionary Guard targets and oil refineries - the systematic destruction of your army and infrastructure.
Has the West lost its sense of self-preservation? Have we no pride any more?
I'm so glad that I'm not the only one who finds the unending apologies completely idiotic. Ann agrees with me. Just today I was having a conversation with a friend on the topic of the fired U.S. Attorneys. Why in the world didn't the administration simply say: we fired them because we wanted to. Frankly, we don't need a reason. If you insist on having a reason, how about this: we didn't like the way they looked at us.
This constant defensiveness and apologizing smacks of weakness and a lack of understanding about how to fight a political opponent who wants to see you stumble and fall. You'd think that the GOP would have the Demo playbook figured out by now.
While I'm on the topic of weakness, why in the world hasn't Tony Blair issued an ultimatum yet? Release our Marines in 24 hours, or we begin the systematic destruction of your navy. Fail to release them after we sink your fleet, and we'll begin bombing Revolutionary Guard targets and oil refineries - the systematic destruction of your army and infrastructure.
Has the West lost its sense of self-preservation? Have we no pride any more?
Saturday, March 24, 2007
An Interesting E-mail
A friend of mine recently sent me the following e-mail, which I will share in its entirety. My comments follow.
"How Long Do We Have?
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier: 'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'
'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage'
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St.Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by:
Gore: 19
Bush: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Gore: 580,000
Bush: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Gore: 127 million
Bush: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore: 13.2
Bush: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare.'
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase. If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom."
Now, I haven't independently checked the facts outlined above. I recall seeing that Red and Blue map shortly after both Bush victories, and the concentration of color by county was the most striking.
I just found a great link - go take a look for yourself: you can see the map by county for 2000 and 2004. Curious as to why I keep emphasizing the words "by county"?
While I acknowledge that there is a threat to our Republic from electoral apathy and illegal immigration, the bigger threat that goes unrecognized is our imbalanced government. We have densely populated centers of dependency dragging the rest of the nation kicking and screaming towards socialism.
I'll re-iterate one of my strongest governmental convictions: people should have the right to decide how much government they want, but only at the most local of levels; the smallest of spheres. If the people of Chicago, IL decide they want universal health care and education provided by "the government" that's fine with me if the residents of Cook County are the ones who pay for it. So it should be for any domestic matter - be it health care, retirement security, jet skis or gold chains. As long as the burden is shouldered by the residents of the same area where the beneficiaries reside, my philosophy is: have at it.
As I've also said before, I think that a properly balanced government will lead naturally, and eventually inevitably, to a limited government. Although I doubt it, there's a chance I could be wrong about this. Isn't giving it a try worth the risk, especially when what we're currently doing is obviously not working and when "giving it a try" is really just another way of saying "following the Constitution"?
"How Long Do We Have?
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier: 'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'
'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage'
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St.Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by:
Gore: 19
Bush: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Gore: 580,000
Bush: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Gore: 127 million
Bush: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore: 13.2
Bush: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare.'
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase. If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom."
Now, I haven't independently checked the facts outlined above. I recall seeing that Red and Blue map shortly after both Bush victories, and the concentration of color by county was the most striking.
I just found a great link - go take a look for yourself: you can see the map by county for 2000 and 2004. Curious as to why I keep emphasizing the words "by county"?
While I acknowledge that there is a threat to our Republic from electoral apathy and illegal immigration, the bigger threat that goes unrecognized is our imbalanced government. We have densely populated centers of dependency dragging the rest of the nation kicking and screaming towards socialism.
I'll re-iterate one of my strongest governmental convictions: people should have the right to decide how much government they want, but only at the most local of levels; the smallest of spheres. If the people of Chicago, IL decide they want universal health care and education provided by "the government" that's fine with me if the residents of Cook County are the ones who pay for it. So it should be for any domestic matter - be it health care, retirement security, jet skis or gold chains. As long as the burden is shouldered by the residents of the same area where the beneficiaries reside, my philosophy is: have at it.
As I've also said before, I think that a properly balanced government will lead naturally, and eventually inevitably, to a limited government. Although I doubt it, there's a chance I could be wrong about this. Isn't giving it a try worth the risk, especially when what we're currently doing is obviously not working and when "giving it a try" is really just another way of saying "following the Constitution"?
Friday, March 23, 2007
Graphic Image
Courtesy of the Patriot Post: This is what it looked like the last time we ran a conservative. You can link to a larger image here. Let's do it again like we did back then, 1984-style.
House Passes Iraq Surrender Bill
At least that's how the headline should read. Instead, it's "Dems Challenge Bush."
I don't have a (working) crystal ball, so I can't tell you if my hunch - a defined timetable for pullout equals unmitigated disaster - is right. But I can comment on human nature.
Is this a pretty good day, or a pretty bad day, if you're a blood-thirsty terrorist who wants to see the United States humiliated and beaten? And what's your favorite American political party if you're the same terrorist?
It seems hard to imagine it being possible, but this vote will surely add more shame to the Democrat legacy of cowardice and defeatism.
I don't have a (working) crystal ball, so I can't tell you if my hunch - a defined timetable for pullout equals unmitigated disaster - is right. But I can comment on human nature.
Is this a pretty good day, or a pretty bad day, if you're a blood-thirsty terrorist who wants to see the United States humiliated and beaten? And what's your favorite American political party if you're the same terrorist?
It seems hard to imagine it being possible, but this vote will surely add more shame to the Democrat legacy of cowardice and defeatism.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
The Savagery of Our Enemy
Our enemies in Iraq have sunk to a new low. I heard this first yesterday on the radio, and here's the link to the story.
I'm horrified, and only hope that people remember how the enemy fights when having any conversation about the war. Simply put, these people want to kill civilians. We underestimate the seriousness of our action in Iraq and the ruthlessness of our enemy at our peril.
Am I alone in wondering if Allah told them to do this?
Anyone else surprised that this story was broken on conservative talk radio and the non-story about the 8 U.S. Attorneys is all over the MSM?
I'm horrified, and only hope that people remember how the enemy fights when having any conversation about the war. Simply put, these people want to kill civilians. We underestimate the seriousness of our action in Iraq and the ruthlessness of our enemy at our peril.
Am I alone in wondering if Allah told them to do this?
Anyone else surprised that this story was broken on conservative talk radio and the non-story about the 8 U.S. Attorneys is all over the MSM?
Sunday, March 18, 2007
24
I recently got the first season of 24 on dvd. I'm already over it.
No question, it's good, and I'm sure that subsequent seasons only get better. I have this theory that the first season of any show has bugs that get worked out, and that shows really hit their stride in seasons 2, 3, or 4.
Here's the problem with 24: it's basically an 18-hour movie when you watch it on dvd instead of once a week like most people would. I'd never decide to watch an 18-hour movie, and if you've watched the show, you know that there's a cliff-hanger every week.
Another gripe? It seems like there are 6 different writers for the show, and that they're playing that game we used to play when we were kids. You know, you're sitting around with a group of friends and you start to tell a story... we used to write it out on paper and cover up all but the last sentence. You pass it to your friend, who has your last sentence to start with and no idea what else you had in the story. For example:
"Ben shivered against the barn door. He had been running all night from the McGreevey boys, and was only now just catching his breath. The storm which had been threatening all afternoon was now in full effect. He was wet, cold, and exhausted. But most of all, he wanted to see his family again. He remembered those fine days that **(and this would be the last line, and all that would be showing)** he would spend by the lake, catching fish and skipping rocks."
Of course, this could go anywhere from here, and probably wouldn't have anything to do with what came before it. As far as writing goes, it's not very good. As far as comedy goes, it can be pretty funny. 24 feels like that when you watch it in 2 weeks on dvd.
(spoiler warning - first season information follows)
My last beef? The show stresses me out! How many times did his family get kidnapped, nearly escape, nearly get killed, nearly escape, nearly get killed, escape, get in an accident, get kidnapped, nearly get killed and so on? Look, I acknowledge there's an entertainment value to this sort of thing: I do like action movies. The difference is that a movie is usually 90 minutes and everything is wrapped up nicely at the end.
So long, Jack Bauer. Nice knowing ya.
No question, it's good, and I'm sure that subsequent seasons only get better. I have this theory that the first season of any show has bugs that get worked out, and that shows really hit their stride in seasons 2, 3, or 4.
Here's the problem with 24: it's basically an 18-hour movie when you watch it on dvd instead of once a week like most people would. I'd never decide to watch an 18-hour movie, and if you've watched the show, you know that there's a cliff-hanger every week.
Another gripe? It seems like there are 6 different writers for the show, and that they're playing that game we used to play when we were kids. You know, you're sitting around with a group of friends and you start to tell a story... we used to write it out on paper and cover up all but the last sentence. You pass it to your friend, who has your last sentence to start with and no idea what else you had in the story. For example:
"Ben shivered against the barn door. He had been running all night from the McGreevey boys, and was only now just catching his breath. The storm which had been threatening all afternoon was now in full effect. He was wet, cold, and exhausted. But most of all, he wanted to see his family again. He remembered those fine days that **(and this would be the last line, and all that would be showing)** he would spend by the lake, catching fish and skipping rocks."
Of course, this could go anywhere from here, and probably wouldn't have anything to do with what came before it. As far as writing goes, it's not very good. As far as comedy goes, it can be pretty funny. 24 feels like that when you watch it in 2 weeks on dvd.
(spoiler warning - first season information follows)
My last beef? The show stresses me out! How many times did his family get kidnapped, nearly escape, nearly get killed, nearly escape, nearly get killed, escape, get in an accident, get kidnapped, nearly get killed and so on? Look, I acknowledge there's an entertainment value to this sort of thing: I do like action movies. The difference is that a movie is usually 90 minutes and everything is wrapped up nicely at the end.
So long, Jack Bauer. Nice knowing ya.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Happy St. Patrick's Day
Irish eyes are smiling today!
I'm off to the parade - what an odd character I will be, not a drop of Irish in me, nor a stitch of green clothing to my name. Well, I have two green ties, but this isn't a dress-up event, LOL.
I'm going to be on the lookout for the DuPage County Democrats. They shouldn't be hard to find. They'll be the ones with the "No Blood for Oil" and "Free Mumia" signs.
I'm off to the parade - what an odd character I will be, not a drop of Irish in me, nor a stitch of green clothing to my name. Well, I have two green ties, but this isn't a dress-up event, LOL.
I'm going to be on the lookout for the DuPage County Democrats. They shouldn't be hard to find. They'll be the ones with the "No Blood for Oil" and "Free Mumia" signs.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Informal Poll
I'm curious about your thoughts on the early candidates and not-yet-announced candidates for 2008 - and let's stick to GOP for now.
Feel free to sound off about any or all of the following: McCain, Guiliani, Romney, Gingrich or Fred Thompson. Am I missing some? Feel free to address those, too.
I'll share some thoughts of my own on what I like and dislike about each. We're still a long way off, but it'll be August before you know it and this is going to start to mean something.
THE MONARCHIST ADDS: I've gotta find more time for this sort of thing and not get started on it at 10:00 every night, LOL. Here's the thing about the names I mentioned... the only one who seems any good is Thompson, and that's probably because what little we know about him is this: he's no BS-er. McCain and Guiliani are both horrible. I heard Romney on the Laura Ingraham show last week, and he was all over the place. First, he was suggesting that abortion should be decided by the states (!! - what the deuce??) and then, two sentences later, he's quoting the DoI. I was at one time thinking he'd be the guy, but after that incoherent drivel, I'm so over Romney.
Talk radio is already playing the audio clips of Rudy talking up federally-funded abortions. And don't get me started on John "clean government" McCain.
THE MONARCHIST ADDS: I'm happy to see that the most recent (3/23) edition of the Patriot Post does a nice job of plugging Fred Thompson. But guys, what took you 8 days to get caught up with the American Federalist Blog?
Feel free to sound off about any or all of the following: McCain, Guiliani, Romney, Gingrich or Fred Thompson. Am I missing some? Feel free to address those, too.
I'll share some thoughts of my own on what I like and dislike about each. We're still a long way off, but it'll be August before you know it and this is going to start to mean something.
THE MONARCHIST ADDS: I've gotta find more time for this sort of thing and not get started on it at 10:00 every night, LOL. Here's the thing about the names I mentioned... the only one who seems any good is Thompson, and that's probably because what little we know about him is this: he's no BS-er. McCain and Guiliani are both horrible. I heard Romney on the Laura Ingraham show last week, and he was all over the place. First, he was suggesting that abortion should be decided by the states (!! - what the deuce??) and then, two sentences later, he's quoting the DoI. I was at one time thinking he'd be the guy, but after that incoherent drivel, I'm so over Romney.
Talk radio is already playing the audio clips of Rudy talking up federally-funded abortions. And don't get me started on John "clean government" McCain.
THE MONARCHIST ADDS: I'm happy to see that the most recent (3/23) edition of the Patriot Post does a nice job of plugging Fred Thompson. But guys, what took you 8 days to get caught up with the American Federalist Blog?
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
A Lesson in Illinois
Aha! At last, I think I have pin-pointed the difference of opinion.
Mr. Hargis, you know I love you like a Brother, and that I continue to turn this over (and over, and over, and...) only shows how concerned I am about understanding where we differ.
You said something perfectly succinct in the comments from the last post: "To me, the question of whether the chicom regime is legitimate is almost beside the point. The fact is they are there, and they have a billion people at their disposal. Do we wait for the Chinese to win their own freedom, or do we start now and help them undermine totalitarianism every way possible?You know my answer."
If I can, I'd like to revisit an ongoing issue right here in the State of Illinois, and use it as a parallel to what we were discussing. As I mentioned in a prior post, Illinois is staring down a rather punitive Gross Receipts Tax. Blagojevich promised entitlements and got elected; now, he's attempting to make good on his promises. Given that Republicans are a minority in the General Assembly, there's a good chance that this will pass and become a reality. Consumers will be hurt by this: since this is a 1% tax before any expenses, this can and easily will be passed on to consumers. Businesses will leave the state or will source components of the manufacturing process from out-of-state companies.
All of this is bad news. But I'm not entirely unhappy. Allow me to explain.
This is how it is supposed to work, if you're a believer in balanced government like I am. We have the freedom to make mistakes, and they can be very painful. We already have a fiscal crisis, and may someday soon have a total disaster on our hands. I'm OK with that, as long as we learn from our mistakes and I grant you that's a big qualifier. I'd be much happier if entitlement spending were happening at the county level, because I'd at least have the option of moving, but thank God this is happening at the state and not federal level. Yes, I know entitlement spending is out of control at the federal level, but I'm speaking specific to Illinois right now. The governor is proposing taxes to pay for entitlements, which is at least in the right ballpark.
What does this have to do with the Chinese? Simple: I think sometimes - most times - things have to truly get worse before they can get better. That's just a part of human nature - we're disposed to suffer evils while they are sufferable. Do I want the regular Chinese citizen to suffer unnecessarily? Of course not. But if suffering is necessary to correct problems, isn't any attempt to avoid that hardship merely going to prolong the eventual pain?
Thanks again to all for the lively discussion!
Mr. Hargis, you know I love you like a Brother, and that I continue to turn this over (and over, and over, and...) only shows how concerned I am about understanding where we differ.
You said something perfectly succinct in the comments from the last post: "To me, the question of whether the chicom regime is legitimate is almost beside the point. The fact is they are there, and they have a billion people at their disposal. Do we wait for the Chinese to win their own freedom, or do we start now and help them undermine totalitarianism every way possible?You know my answer."
If I can, I'd like to revisit an ongoing issue right here in the State of Illinois, and use it as a parallel to what we were discussing. As I mentioned in a prior post, Illinois is staring down a rather punitive Gross Receipts Tax. Blagojevich promised entitlements and got elected; now, he's attempting to make good on his promises. Given that Republicans are a minority in the General Assembly, there's a good chance that this will pass and become a reality. Consumers will be hurt by this: since this is a 1% tax before any expenses, this can and easily will be passed on to consumers. Businesses will leave the state or will source components of the manufacturing process from out-of-state companies.
All of this is bad news. But I'm not entirely unhappy. Allow me to explain.
This is how it is supposed to work, if you're a believer in balanced government like I am. We have the freedom to make mistakes, and they can be very painful. We already have a fiscal crisis, and may someday soon have a total disaster on our hands. I'm OK with that, as long as we learn from our mistakes and I grant you that's a big qualifier. I'd be much happier if entitlement spending were happening at the county level, because I'd at least have the option of moving, but thank God this is happening at the state and not federal level. Yes, I know entitlement spending is out of control at the federal level, but I'm speaking specific to Illinois right now. The governor is proposing taxes to pay for entitlements, which is at least in the right ballpark.
What does this have to do with the Chinese? Simple: I think sometimes - most times - things have to truly get worse before they can get better. That's just a part of human nature - we're disposed to suffer evils while they are sufferable. Do I want the regular Chinese citizen to suffer unnecessarily? Of course not. But if suffering is necessary to correct problems, isn't any attempt to avoid that hardship merely going to prolong the eventual pain?
Thanks again to all for the lively discussion!
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Good Conversation
I'm starting a new post, because I want to take the discussion started under my Barack post in another direction. That, and 40 comments later the discussion has changed enough to merit another posting. ;)
I have a question, or maybe just a clarification...
"It is my position that the government has no business interfering with peaceful voluntary transactions, whether between me and my local Kroger, or between me and a Cuban cigar manufacturer."
Mr. Hargis, I don't disagree with your position, but I have been troubled as of late by the nature of our commercial and political relationship with China. I've started to notice talk radio - the Laura Ingraham Show in particular - beginning to pick up on this topic. I'm hoping you can discuss this with me.
Although Carter tried to turn his back on Taiwan, we're committed to the defense of that country. Recently, Chinese leaders declared that they have no interest in freedom, and that "democracy" is probably 100 years away from reality. I have long thought that our commercial relationship with China is supporting a regime that oppresses its people - witness the allegations of their treatment of followers of the religious movement Falun Gong. Tiananmen Square wasn't so long ago, although it seems that people conveniently forget this.
I think that at some level, government has a responsibility to check the interests of private enterprise. After all, if men were angels, we'd need no government - isn't that true about human nature? If you accept this, you'll acknowledge that some people (certainly not a majority) are of weak character and will take advantage of others for their benefit. And since corporations are merely collections of individuals working as one legal entity, isn't it reasonable to expect that government has a duty to regulate business activities at some level?
I object to the sentiment that manifests itself on the pages of the Wall Street Journal Editorial page - that the United States is essentially America Inc. and that should be the basis for national decisions. There is a strong sentiment in this country that what is good for business is good for America, and I can't say I agree with this.
Our trading partner China is openly hostile and dishonest. That we can get cheap goods from them seems like a shortsighted mortgaging of our sovereignty.
I have a question, or maybe just a clarification...
"It is my position that the government has no business interfering with peaceful voluntary transactions, whether between me and my local Kroger, or between me and a Cuban cigar manufacturer."
Mr. Hargis, I don't disagree with your position, but I have been troubled as of late by the nature of our commercial and political relationship with China. I've started to notice talk radio - the Laura Ingraham Show in particular - beginning to pick up on this topic. I'm hoping you can discuss this with me.
Although Carter tried to turn his back on Taiwan, we're committed to the defense of that country. Recently, Chinese leaders declared that they have no interest in freedom, and that "democracy" is probably 100 years away from reality. I have long thought that our commercial relationship with China is supporting a regime that oppresses its people - witness the allegations of their treatment of followers of the religious movement Falun Gong. Tiananmen Square wasn't so long ago, although it seems that people conveniently forget this.
I think that at some level, government has a responsibility to check the interests of private enterprise. After all, if men were angels, we'd need no government - isn't that true about human nature? If you accept this, you'll acknowledge that some people (certainly not a majority) are of weak character and will take advantage of others for their benefit. And since corporations are merely collections of individuals working as one legal entity, isn't it reasonable to expect that government has a duty to regulate business activities at some level?
I object to the sentiment that manifests itself on the pages of the Wall Street Journal Editorial page - that the United States is essentially America Inc. and that should be the basis for national decisions. There is a strong sentiment in this country that what is good for business is good for America, and I can't say I agree with this.
Our trading partner China is openly hostile and dishonest. That we can get cheap goods from them seems like a shortsighted mortgaging of our sovereignty.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Survey Says: Irritated
I recently received a member survey from Mike Duncan at the RNC. Hurray!
Two questions into it I decided that my efforts to educate the people at the RNC were going to be in vain - as soon as my survey is received sans check, in the trash it would go. Now that I think of it, I'd bet they toss the ones that come back with checks, for that matter.
Question 1: Do I think it is important to make the President's tax cuts permanent? Answer: Are you kidding me? Taxes on personal income should be abolished, not reduced. Taxes should be based on consumption, as a wise man once noted, for they are a natural check against the growth of government.
Question 2: Is it important to provide incentives for businesses to create new jobs? Answer: What the deuce are you talking about? Businesses create jobs because they can deliver a product or service that people want. If they're able to do this, and they're not creating jobs, it's because government needs to get out of the way.
Question 3: Line-item veto important? Answer: Have these people any idea at all about the way government used to work? If a piece of legislation reaches the President's desk that is Constitutionally inconsistent, veto that piece of trash and send it back to Congress! Will some branch of government - any one would do! - please stand up and execute its Constitutional duties?
Several questions later...
Question 6: Important to reform our immigration laws? Answer: What's the minimum criteria for getting a job at the RNC, a pulse? How about we start with enforcing the immigration laws we have? Let's try that first, then we can talk about reforming them, whatever that means. This is like a patient in the ER who has been run over by a car, and the attending surgeon says: "Let's get that broken nose set before we go any further."
Question 7: Important to increase border security? Answer: No, let's just open the borders up and let anyone at all into the country. Wait. Sorry. We're already doing that! Should this be a big surprise, though? I mean, after all, Mel Martinez (General Chairman, whatever that means) probably had some input in the survey.
Didn't we used to be the party of ideas? Principles? Since when does the GOP need to take the temperature of regular people to determine what the right policies are? Answer: Since they lost touch with regular people, probably sometime after 1994.
Two questions into it I decided that my efforts to educate the people at the RNC were going to be in vain - as soon as my survey is received sans check, in the trash it would go. Now that I think of it, I'd bet they toss the ones that come back with checks, for that matter.
Question 1: Do I think it is important to make the President's tax cuts permanent? Answer: Are you kidding me? Taxes on personal income should be abolished, not reduced. Taxes should be based on consumption, as a wise man once noted, for they are a natural check against the growth of government.
Question 2: Is it important to provide incentives for businesses to create new jobs? Answer: What the deuce are you talking about? Businesses create jobs because they can deliver a product or service that people want. If they're able to do this, and they're not creating jobs, it's because government needs to get out of the way.
Question 3: Line-item veto important? Answer: Have these people any idea at all about the way government used to work? If a piece of legislation reaches the President's desk that is Constitutionally inconsistent, veto that piece of trash and send it back to Congress! Will some branch of government - any one would do! - please stand up and execute its Constitutional duties?
Several questions later...
Question 6: Important to reform our immigration laws? Answer: What's the minimum criteria for getting a job at the RNC, a pulse? How about we start with enforcing the immigration laws we have? Let's try that first, then we can talk about reforming them, whatever that means. This is like a patient in the ER who has been run over by a car, and the attending surgeon says: "Let's get that broken nose set before we go any further."
Question 7: Important to increase border security? Answer: No, let's just open the borders up and let anyone at all into the country. Wait. Sorry. We're already doing that! Should this be a big surprise, though? I mean, after all, Mel Martinez (General Chairman, whatever that means) probably had some input in the survey.
Didn't we used to be the party of ideas? Principles? Since when does the GOP need to take the temperature of regular people to determine what the right policies are? Answer: Since they lost touch with regular people, probably sometime after 1994.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Gross Taxes
Illinois is in a heap of trouble. Pandering to the least common denominator, buying votes, and a lack of self-government has gotten us here. The question is: what'll get us out?
According to my sources at the Chamber, for fiscal 2007, the State will have $28.8B in receipts. To fund true costs, approximately $5.9B more would be needed. Worse yet, when you total up all of the State's debts and unfunded obligations (apart from general obligation bonds), the price tag is a whopping $106B, or roughly $8,800 per person for the 12 million residents of Illinois.
(deep breath)
OK, this is very bad, and appears to be getting worse. We're the worst in the Union with respect to unfunded pension liabilities: $46B. This number is going to grow - rapidly - while the State continues to operate in the red. And we'll continue to operate in the red as long as the General Assembly sees fit to spend exorbitantly on pensions and health care for State employees and dream up anti-competitive measures like the Gross Receipts Tax (GRT).
The GRT works like this. You own a business and sell your services for $100. Before you factor in any of your costs and expenses, the State taxes a cut right off the top of 1%. This affects every business in the product cycle. So if you sell $100 of steel to a manufacturer, you pay 1%. If the manufacturer makes a product (say, a truck part) and sells it to a distributor for $250, he pays 1% of that amount. If the distributor sells it to another party (who uses the part to modify a truck chassis, for example) for $300, the distributor pays 1%. The last party sells a truck with the part in it for $500, and pays his 1% fee. You can see quickly how Illinois businesses will be directly hurt via the pocketbook, and how indirectly they'll be hurt by companies seeking parts or raw materials from neighboring states like Indiana or (shudders) Wisconsin.
I told you what has gotten us here, but let me elaborate just a bit. Businesses have been accused of not paying their fair share of taxes, while education and entitlement programs have spiraled out of control. I'm no disciple of the Wall Street Journal editorial page. I'm in business, but when you get right down to it, so is most everyone else who has a job. My point is this: I'm no defender of business, just for the sake of defending business. But I am, I like to think, fair.
Folks, we have a self-government problem, and there's a solution. As I've said before, and I'll keep saying it, most government programs should be pushed to the most local levels possible. County for sure. Township preferably, City ideally. Then, when the bills come due, people get to decide: as residents of our town, do we want our taxes to be used to pay for out-of-market retirement benefits for municipal employees? For classroom expenditures that serve to supplement parental involvement? For universal heath care coverage? Then, and I think only then, are we going to see a return to common sense. People will rediscover self-government in their DNA - no, it's not gone, it's just been dulled and underutilized.
According to my sources at the Chamber, for fiscal 2007, the State will have $28.8B in receipts. To fund true costs, approximately $5.9B more would be needed. Worse yet, when you total up all of the State's debts and unfunded obligations (apart from general obligation bonds), the price tag is a whopping $106B, or roughly $8,800 per person for the 12 million residents of Illinois.
(deep breath)
OK, this is very bad, and appears to be getting worse. We're the worst in the Union with respect to unfunded pension liabilities: $46B. This number is going to grow - rapidly - while the State continues to operate in the red. And we'll continue to operate in the red as long as the General Assembly sees fit to spend exorbitantly on pensions and health care for State employees and dream up anti-competitive measures like the Gross Receipts Tax (GRT).
The GRT works like this. You own a business and sell your services for $100. Before you factor in any of your costs and expenses, the State taxes a cut right off the top of 1%. This affects every business in the product cycle. So if you sell $100 of steel to a manufacturer, you pay 1%. If the manufacturer makes a product (say, a truck part) and sells it to a distributor for $250, he pays 1% of that amount. If the distributor sells it to another party (who uses the part to modify a truck chassis, for example) for $300, the distributor pays 1%. The last party sells a truck with the part in it for $500, and pays his 1% fee. You can see quickly how Illinois businesses will be directly hurt via the pocketbook, and how indirectly they'll be hurt by companies seeking parts or raw materials from neighboring states like Indiana or (shudders) Wisconsin.
I told you what has gotten us here, but let me elaborate just a bit. Businesses have been accused of not paying their fair share of taxes, while education and entitlement programs have spiraled out of control. I'm no disciple of the Wall Street Journal editorial page. I'm in business, but when you get right down to it, so is most everyone else who has a job. My point is this: I'm no defender of business, just for the sake of defending business. But I am, I like to think, fair.
Folks, we have a self-government problem, and there's a solution. As I've said before, and I'll keep saying it, most government programs should be pushed to the most local levels possible. County for sure. Township preferably, City ideally. Then, when the bills come due, people get to decide: as residents of our town, do we want our taxes to be used to pay for out-of-market retirement benefits for municipal employees? For classroom expenditures that serve to supplement parental involvement? For universal heath care coverage? Then, and I think only then, are we going to see a return to common sense. People will rediscover self-government in their DNA - no, it's not gone, it's just been dulled and underutilized.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Barack Obama is Bad for America
So he made his announcement today. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to scream or cry...?
Once and for all, I'd like to put the fascination with Sen. Obama behind us. The MSM loves this guy. And his shameless, outrageous, and inappropriate "branding" as a modern day Lincoln is an insult of the highest order. I'm sure that our 16th President would just love a pretender like Obama invoking his name for political gain. Obama is to Lincoln as Saddam Hussein is to Ghandi; the comparison makes no sense. Obama isn't even close to "great" Democrats in history like FDR or Truman. He's a groomed and polished Jimmy Carter with better communication skills.
Here's what I'd like to do. Given that people have so little understanding of where the Senator stands on the issues, as a public service, I'll spell his positions out for you. I'll use his website as a source, so you can check for yourself and share this with others. I'm going to use the man's words, folks, so please let people know who and what they're going to be supporting when they support this candidate. If I hear one more person say that he's a fresh new leader I think I'm going to be sick. Anyway, here goes.
On Taxation: The Senator thinks the tax code has become too complex and "unfair" and is need of reform. So far, this follows his modus operandi - speak in platitudes so absurdly generalized that they can't be criticized. You almost expect him to follow a statement like this with something really controversial, like, I don't know, "Women are people too." The Senator thinks that "Reform options should focus on creating a system that is simple, progressive, easy to comply with and devoid of abusive shelters." Translation: the redistribution of wealth as it currently is designed should remain ("progressive") and there are too many means of avoiding taxes as the system stands. On taxation, the Senator's position is in line with the majority of his party, which is out of touch with most Americans. Shall we continue?
On Energy: The Senator supports alternative fuels, raising automobile fuel efficiency standards, investing in new technologies, and taxing oil companies so they don't make as much money (somehow, beyond comprehension, he calls this "Working to Lower High Gas Prices."). If indeed we are too dependent on foreign oil, we could open up increased offshore drilling right by these United States, if the environmental lobbies/interests would allow it (they won't). Last I checked, no new nuclear reactors are being built in the United States, for that matter. I'll give you three guesses why that isn't happening, and the first two don't count.
On Iraq: The Senator actually makes the effort to separate Iraq and National Defense; the sheer stupidity of this isn't worth the time to address. On his inability to discern the critical role of our presence in Iraq alone he should be disqualified from seeking the Presidency (and if I had my way, removed from the Senate). However, for the record, the Senator wants US forces out of Iraq by March 31, 2008 - about 13 and a half months from now. You know who thinks that's a good idea? Registered Democrats, everyone who works at either ABC News, CBS News, CNN or MSNBC, most Europeans, the Chinese and the Russians. Oh yeah, and the Terrorists.
On the Environment, On Immigration, On Education, On Health Care... oh Dear Lord, this could take a week! I suppose that if indeed Obama is the fraud that I think he is, he'll either be exposed in the Primaries or in the General Election. Forgive me for not being confident in the citizenry's ability to recognize a fool when he presents himself. Nor in the GOP's ability to just pound a lightweight like Obama.
I'm sure I'll have just as many objections to the eventual nominees from both parties, and since we've got a long way to go, I'll give it a rest for now. ;)
Once and for all, I'd like to put the fascination with Sen. Obama behind us. The MSM loves this guy. And his shameless, outrageous, and inappropriate "branding" as a modern day Lincoln is an insult of the highest order. I'm sure that our 16th President would just love a pretender like Obama invoking his name for political gain. Obama is to Lincoln as Saddam Hussein is to Ghandi; the comparison makes no sense. Obama isn't even close to "great" Democrats in history like FDR or Truman. He's a groomed and polished Jimmy Carter with better communication skills.
Here's what I'd like to do. Given that people have so little understanding of where the Senator stands on the issues, as a public service, I'll spell his positions out for you. I'll use his website as a source, so you can check for yourself and share this with others. I'm going to use the man's words, folks, so please let people know who and what they're going to be supporting when they support this candidate. If I hear one more person say that he's a fresh new leader I think I'm going to be sick. Anyway, here goes.
On Taxation: The Senator thinks the tax code has become too complex and "unfair" and is need of reform. So far, this follows his modus operandi - speak in platitudes so absurdly generalized that they can't be criticized. You almost expect him to follow a statement like this with something really controversial, like, I don't know, "Women are people too." The Senator thinks that "Reform options should focus on creating a system that is simple, progressive, easy to comply with and devoid of abusive shelters." Translation: the redistribution of wealth as it currently is designed should remain ("progressive") and there are too many means of avoiding taxes as the system stands. On taxation, the Senator's position is in line with the majority of his party, which is out of touch with most Americans. Shall we continue?
On Energy: The Senator supports alternative fuels, raising automobile fuel efficiency standards, investing in new technologies, and taxing oil companies so they don't make as much money (somehow, beyond comprehension, he calls this "Working to Lower High Gas Prices."). If indeed we are too dependent on foreign oil, we could open up increased offshore drilling right by these United States, if the environmental lobbies/interests would allow it (they won't). Last I checked, no new nuclear reactors are being built in the United States, for that matter. I'll give you three guesses why that isn't happening, and the first two don't count.
On Iraq: The Senator actually makes the effort to separate Iraq and National Defense; the sheer stupidity of this isn't worth the time to address. On his inability to discern the critical role of our presence in Iraq alone he should be disqualified from seeking the Presidency (and if I had my way, removed from the Senate). However, for the record, the Senator wants US forces out of Iraq by March 31, 2008 - about 13 and a half months from now. You know who thinks that's a good idea? Registered Democrats, everyone who works at either ABC News, CBS News, CNN or MSNBC, most Europeans, the Chinese and the Russians. Oh yeah, and the Terrorists.
On the Environment, On Immigration, On Education, On Health Care... oh Dear Lord, this could take a week! I suppose that if indeed Obama is the fraud that I think he is, he'll either be exposed in the Primaries or in the General Election. Forgive me for not being confident in the citizenry's ability to recognize a fool when he presents himself. Nor in the GOP's ability to just pound a lightweight like Obama.
I'm sure I'll have just as many objections to the eventual nominees from both parties, and since we've got a long way to go, I'll give it a rest for now. ;)
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
The Good and the Bad
The good, at least I think so, upon a quick glance. Newt has an organization called American Solutions. Worth checking out. He keeps sending me e-mails about it...
The bad? Governor of Texas, Rick Perry. I won't even do it justice, but check out this link to Mr. Light Bulb's blog.
(shudders)
Rather than leave you with a bad taste in your mouth, check out Coulter's latest column, which is always a treat.
The bad? Governor of Texas, Rick Perry. I won't even do it justice, but check out this link to Mr. Light Bulb's blog.
(shudders)
Rather than leave you with a bad taste in your mouth, check out Coulter's latest column, which is always a treat.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Clock Building
Something Mr. Hargis said in his comments to my post entitled Update has got me thinking. You're not wrong, my friend, but I do feel compelled to clarify something (you only have yourself to blame for this compulsion; you realize this, right?). You said:
Now, here's where we diverge. The great ones in any field are what Jim Collins called "clock builders" in his groundbreaking book, Good to Great. Anyone can tell you what time it is, but the really great ones build clocks, and these will tell time long after we've passed on.
I really think that any organization needs to take conscious steps to building a franchise, and this involves organizational mechanisms and rigorous development of human capital. This applies in just about any organization, and I'm going to go dust off GtG and share some more pearls of wisdom. More to follow.
Some people go into business hoping to make a quick killing and retire to some tropical island. No doubt some go into politics for the same reason, but for most businessmen and politicians success equals longevity. If there's any difference it's that few go into business hoping to change the world; they just want to make money.
Now, here's where we diverge. The great ones in any field are what Jim Collins called "clock builders" in his groundbreaking book, Good to Great. Anyone can tell you what time it is, but the really great ones build clocks, and these will tell time long after we've passed on.
I really think that any organization needs to take conscious steps to building a franchise, and this involves organizational mechanisms and rigorous development of human capital. This applies in just about any organization, and I'm going to go dust off GtG and share some more pearls of wisdom. More to follow.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Update
Someone once told me that if all we're doing is sitting at our computers typing fiery prose then we're not much better than people who do nothing at all. I may not have that exactly right - in fact I'm absolutely sure it was more eloquent than that - but the sentiment is dead-on, at any rate. My friend was right: that's the same thing as lighting a candle and then covering it with a bushel basket. Put that light on a lamp-stand, Brother!
So, here's what I've been up to, without giving away too much. I've gotten more involved at the Township level in the only party I'd even consider a remote association with. This is good for me; it's easy to complain about how things are run at the national and State levels. It's another thing altogether to accept responsibility for fixing what we might perceive to be problems. There's no victims here, right? Nobody calling out in the darkness "where have our leaders gone." Right? Plus, candidly, there's a little on-the-job training I'm getting for next to nothing.
I'm also helping out a great guy in a mayoral election however I can, and I'm considering creating an advocacy organization in town for the homeowner's associations in our area. It's with great pride that I'm staking out ground in support of residents (aka the little guy) that seems like the worst possible position when considering my profession (commercial lending and finance). Yep, I'm principled, and I'll prove it to you by forsaking a successful career, just you watch me.
"Where the h*ll has that Monarchist been?" you may have thought in passing lately. I'm still as passionate as ever, but if I have periods of quiet, it's because I'm taking that friend's advice I mentioned before, and - Lord, there it is again! - seeking balance in my efforts.
There's a risk here: people start to listen and I need to drop the anonymity and get real about how this fits with what I'm supposed to do with my life and what my ambitions are. I might have to take that most terrifying of all things - a chance. By no means are we there yet, but I'll hope that should that one day arrive, you'll remember Dear Reader, that we started this together, and by God, we'll finish it if given the chance.
Hopefully this month will give us more chances to talk. After all, you're such a great listener!
So, here's what I've been up to, without giving away too much. I've gotten more involved at the Township level in the only party I'd even consider a remote association with. This is good for me; it's easy to complain about how things are run at the national and State levels. It's another thing altogether to accept responsibility for fixing what we might perceive to be problems. There's no victims here, right? Nobody calling out in the darkness "where have our leaders gone." Right? Plus, candidly, there's a little on-the-job training I'm getting for next to nothing.
I'm also helping out a great guy in a mayoral election however I can, and I'm considering creating an advocacy organization in town for the homeowner's associations in our area. It's with great pride that I'm staking out ground in support of residents (aka the little guy) that seems like the worst possible position when considering my profession (commercial lending and finance). Yep, I'm principled, and I'll prove it to you by forsaking a successful career, just you watch me.
"Where the h*ll has that Monarchist been?" you may have thought in passing lately. I'm still as passionate as ever, but if I have periods of quiet, it's because I'm taking that friend's advice I mentioned before, and - Lord, there it is again! - seeking balance in my efforts.
There's a risk here: people start to listen and I need to drop the anonymity and get real about how this fits with what I'm supposed to do with my life and what my ambitions are. I might have to take that most terrifying of all things - a chance. By no means are we there yet, but I'll hope that should that one day arrive, you'll remember Dear Reader, that we started this together, and by God, we'll finish it if given the chance.
Hopefully this month will give us more chances to talk. After all, you're such a great listener!
Thursday, January 25, 2007
State of the Union: Imbalanced
I read, but did not watch, the President's speech from Tuesday night. For those of you who watched it, I'd be interested in how he did.
Pouring over his words, the President did a couple of things very well. They are the same things he's done very well since becoming President. His summary and analysis of Iraq was excellent. An analogy I love is this: suppose you're walking down the street and someone walks up to you and punches you in the head. You begin to fight back. Suddenly, two of his friends walk up and start helping him out. Now, you're in a fight you hadn't anticpated, but you'd better do everything you can to win or your situation will get much, much worse. The President even said something very close to this: that this isn't the fight we entered, but it's the fight we're in.
On other National Security matters, he was equally strong. We can debate the merits of the federal government imposing standards to reduce gasoline consumption, for the issue is not cut-and-dry, and as the saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat; yet, as this will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, this protects the National Security interests of America.
He blew it, however, on important domestic matters. His comments on entitlement programs like health care and Social Security were borderline endorsements ("commitments of conscience"?). And of course, predictably, he fell down on immigration. Of course, the President is still a politician, even if he's not running for office, and he may have been saying all the right things considering the changes he's faced with (such as "Madam Speaker").
Nevertheless, one can't help but reflect on how a system of government, properly balanced, would address the issues before us. We've experienced the whole spectrum of balance - from the Articles of Confederation, to the ratification of our Constitution, to where we've come to since then. Here's to hoping that we can return to a proper balance in our lifetime.
Pouring over his words, the President did a couple of things very well. They are the same things he's done very well since becoming President. His summary and analysis of Iraq was excellent. An analogy I love is this: suppose you're walking down the street and someone walks up to you and punches you in the head. You begin to fight back. Suddenly, two of his friends walk up and start helping him out. Now, you're in a fight you hadn't anticpated, but you'd better do everything you can to win or your situation will get much, much worse. The President even said something very close to this: that this isn't the fight we entered, but it's the fight we're in.
On other National Security matters, he was equally strong. We can debate the merits of the federal government imposing standards to reduce gasoline consumption, for the issue is not cut-and-dry, and as the saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat; yet, as this will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, this protects the National Security interests of America.
He blew it, however, on important domestic matters. His comments on entitlement programs like health care and Social Security were borderline endorsements ("commitments of conscience"?). And of course, predictably, he fell down on immigration. Of course, the President is still a politician, even if he's not running for office, and he may have been saying all the right things considering the changes he's faced with (such as "Madam Speaker").
Nevertheless, one can't help but reflect on how a system of government, properly balanced, would address the issues before us. We've experienced the whole spectrum of balance - from the Articles of Confederation, to the ratification of our Constitution, to where we've come to since then. Here's to hoping that we can return to a proper balance in our lifetime.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Big Shocker
So Hillary is going to run in 2008, have you heard?? I laughed at this headline this morning. According to the Laura Ingraham show, Team Billary has already taken a shot at Obama's muslim background, indicating/questioning that he was educated at a madrasa in Indonesia. Of course, had a conservative mentioned this, they'd be forced to resign... from whatever it is that they happen to be doing (Headline: "Dogcatcher Resigns Amid Backlash From 'Outing' Obama's Past").
I'd say that I'm psyched to see the two of them tear each other apart, except that this would be a little like watching the Green Bay Packers play the Minnesota Vikings for the NFC Championship. Isn't there a way where both of them can lose?
I'd say that I'm psyched to see the two of them tear each other apart, except that this would be a little like watching the Green Bay Packers play the Minnesota Vikings for the NFC Championship. Isn't there a way where both of them can lose?
Monday, January 15, 2007
Timeless Quotation
I came across this, loved it, and decided to share:
"We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown.
But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own.
Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!
It behooves us then to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins and pray for clemency and forgiveness."
This is a quote that I pulled from America's God and Country, by William J. Federer. I'm always surprised when I read a distant quote that echoes my feelings about the current state of things in this Republic. I'm also encouraged that while things may seem bleak at times, they have been worse, and we have always persevered. I'll continue it, rather than make you guess or leave you in suspense.
"Now, therefore, in compliance with the request and fully concurring in the view of the Senate, I do, by this my proclamation, designate and set apart Thursday, the 30th day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting and prayer."
Also under the category of the more things change, the more they stay the same: the Democrat Party is pulling for America's defeat, just like in Lincoln's day. What possesses a man to root against his own country?
"We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown.
But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own.
Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!
It behooves us then to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins and pray for clemency and forgiveness."
This is a quote that I pulled from America's God and Country, by William J. Federer. I'm always surprised when I read a distant quote that echoes my feelings about the current state of things in this Republic. I'm also encouraged that while things may seem bleak at times, they have been worse, and we have always persevered. I'll continue it, rather than make you guess or leave you in suspense.
"Now, therefore, in compliance with the request and fully concurring in the view of the Senate, I do, by this my proclamation, designate and set apart Thursday, the 30th day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting and prayer."
Also under the category of the more things change, the more they stay the same: the Democrat Party is pulling for America's defeat, just like in Lincoln's day. What possesses a man to root against his own country?
Saturday, January 06, 2007
In Loco Parentis
Update: The legislation never got referred to the committee and as a result must be re-introduced next session. Unfortunately, Rep Kestell is retiring and Sen Leibham is running for Congress, so both of my legislators, who acted as sponsors for this legislation, are likely to be gone(although I will grant that Mr. Leibham will have stiff competition for Rep Petri's seat in Sen Grothman.) I own to some disappointment. You may see the latest update here.
By now, any regular here knows Mom (Call Me Mom to be exact). Mom's had an open invitation to guest post here, and she dazzles with the following. Sit back, relax and enjoy.
"Where to begin? The topic is one that is near and dear to my heart and the hearts of all parents. It is but a portion of the topic of parental rights. There have been some judicial rulings made in the last 10-20 years which were meant to streamline the disciplinary process in our schools, but, instead they have stripped us of our parental rights during the time when our child is attending school. They have also left our children open to the most tyrannical interrogatory procedures I have ever heard of in these United States . I hope that you, gentle reader, will be motivated by the information presented here, to contact your own legislators and take back your parental rights.
To start, I shall inform you that you and the courts have granted school officials the status of “in loco parentis” for the hours that your children attend school. “In loco parentis” means nothing more or less than that the school is acting “in the place of a parent”. This is necessary for a number of reasons and is generally a reasonable thing. If your child is passing notes or being disruptive, this means that the teacher or principal can administer reasonable consequences within the parameters of school board policy and stated procedures.
We have a problem when the school official, while acting in loco parentis, is also acting as an agent of law enforcement. If little Johnny or Susie is passing notes or making a ruckus, it is reasonable for them to be sent to the office and disciplined by school officials. If, however, little Johnny or Susie are called into the office to be disciplined for or questioned about something that can be used to charge them in a criminal proceeding, what then is the school official’s proper role?
In my state, the association of school boards says only that school officials have the right to question a child about a crime because that is a violation of the school’s rules and as the “acting parent” they have to investigate to determine the level of discipline that is necessary. There is no conflict of interest, they say, because “that’s the current law of the land.” (May I say that the comments which immediately clamored for expression at this point in our conversation are best kept to myself.)
In case you don’t understand the ramifications of this, let me educate you. This means that as long as it is school hours, if your child is implicated in a crime, school officials can accuse your child of the crime, search their belongings, and interrogate your child until the end of the school day, without contacting you. They do not have to inform your child of his/her rights. They do not have to tell your child that they may have you or a lawyer present during this questioning. The school officials may lie to your child in order to coerce a confession.
To me, this is a huge conflict of interest. At this point the school official is clearly acting as an agent of law enforcement. (Unless you think a judge will believe your child‘s testimony over that of the school official.)I believe this is a direct conflict of interest with the parental role they have been temporarily granted.
Just in case you do not see the conflict here, let me revisit the in loco parentis role in a different situation. Say little Johnny or Susie fell down the stairs and broke their arm. You would expect the school to call an ambulance and then call you immediately. You do not expect them to try to set the arm themselves and send your child back to class without notifying you. School officials understand that this situation involves more than their temporary status of “in loco parentis” covers. They do not attempt to insert themselves into the role of medical practitioner without contacting you. Why then, should they think they can act as law enforcement without contacting you first? In an emergency medical situation, it is clearly understood by all that it is in the child’s best interests to have qualified medical help immediately. Why isn’t it understood that in a criminal law situation, a child’s best interests are served by having a parent and/or a lawyer present before questioning that child?
There has, unfortunately, been more than one case where students have been interrogated for hours and even unjustly expelled on the suspicion of committing serious crimes because someone told the office at school that they were talking about bombs, or explosions. (In case you don’t think that is serious let me assure you that it is. Making a false bomb threat is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and $250,000.00 in fines. Juveniles are charged the same as adults and there is a zero tolerance policy. Do you think your child should be questioned on that kind of charge without someone informing you about it first?) Let me be clear, these children didn’t make bomb threats, someone else told school officials that they had been talking about bombs or explosions. These children were interrogated, had their belongings searched and in at least two cases they were expelled when they didn’t confess under questioning.
In the interest of protecting my child’s rights, I have contacted my state’s legislators to request that they draft legislation clearly stating that a parent (or in the case of an orphan- a sympathetic adult) must be present when school officials or police liaison officers to the school are questioning a student about a crime. I believe there will be an appropriate exception for hurry cases. (credible bomb threats, etc.)
I was informed such legislation had been discussed only to be dismissed due to logistical objections from law enforcement. I said I could understand that in a case where they pick some kid up off the street and he/she doesn’t want to divulge their name or perhaps they look old enough to know their rights already, but a school must have parental contact information. That is why the legislation I am requesting is limited to students and not minors in general. The fact that it had already been discussed tells me that this type of abuse of the “in loco parentis” status is more common than it should be.
Don’t wait until this happens to your child. Protect them now. Contact your school and ask what their policy is in these circumstances. If your child is vulnerable, first tell your school officials in writing that you rescind their right to act in loco parentis in this type of situation, and then contact your legislators and demand legislation to fix it. Then do what you can to support that legislation once it is introduced."
THE MONARCHIST ADDS: Thank you for the posting Mom. As a parent of two toddlers, I'm going to - when the time is right - remember to rescind the school's right to act as parent. If ever there was a cause that needed some grassroots activism, this sounds like it.
By now, any regular here knows Mom (Call Me Mom to be exact). Mom's had an open invitation to guest post here, and she dazzles with the following. Sit back, relax and enjoy.
"Where to begin? The topic is one that is near and dear to my heart and the hearts of all parents. It is but a portion of the topic of parental rights. There have been some judicial rulings made in the last 10-20 years which were meant to streamline the disciplinary process in our schools, but, instead they have stripped us of our parental rights during the time when our child is attending school. They have also left our children open to the most tyrannical interrogatory procedures I have ever heard of in these United States . I hope that you, gentle reader, will be motivated by the information presented here, to contact your own legislators and take back your parental rights.
To start, I shall inform you that you and the courts have granted school officials the status of “in loco parentis” for the hours that your children attend school. “In loco parentis” means nothing more or less than that the school is acting “in the place of a parent”. This is necessary for a number of reasons and is generally a reasonable thing. If your child is passing notes or being disruptive, this means that the teacher or principal can administer reasonable consequences within the parameters of school board policy and stated procedures.
We have a problem when the school official, while acting in loco parentis, is also acting as an agent of law enforcement. If little Johnny or Susie is passing notes or making a ruckus, it is reasonable for them to be sent to the office and disciplined by school officials. If, however, little Johnny or Susie are called into the office to be disciplined for or questioned about something that can be used to charge them in a criminal proceeding, what then is the school official’s proper role?
In my state, the association of school boards says only that school officials have the right to question a child about a crime because that is a violation of the school’s rules and as the “acting parent” they have to investigate to determine the level of discipline that is necessary. There is no conflict of interest, they say, because “that’s the current law of the land.” (May I say that the comments which immediately clamored for expression at this point in our conversation are best kept to myself.)
In case you don’t understand the ramifications of this, let me educate you. This means that as long as it is school hours, if your child is implicated in a crime, school officials can accuse your child of the crime, search their belongings, and interrogate your child until the end of the school day, without contacting you. They do not have to inform your child of his/her rights. They do not have to tell your child that they may have you or a lawyer present during this questioning. The school officials may lie to your child in order to coerce a confession.
To me, this is a huge conflict of interest. At this point the school official is clearly acting as an agent of law enforcement. (Unless you think a judge will believe your child‘s testimony over that of the school official.)I believe this is a direct conflict of interest with the parental role they have been temporarily granted.
Just in case you do not see the conflict here, let me revisit the in loco parentis role in a different situation. Say little Johnny or Susie fell down the stairs and broke their arm. You would expect the school to call an ambulance and then call you immediately. You do not expect them to try to set the arm themselves and send your child back to class without notifying you. School officials understand that this situation involves more than their temporary status of “in loco parentis” covers. They do not attempt to insert themselves into the role of medical practitioner without contacting you. Why then, should they think they can act as law enforcement without contacting you first? In an emergency medical situation, it is clearly understood by all that it is in the child’s best interests to have qualified medical help immediately. Why isn’t it understood that in a criminal law situation, a child’s best interests are served by having a parent and/or a lawyer present before questioning that child?
There has, unfortunately, been more than one case where students have been interrogated for hours and even unjustly expelled on the suspicion of committing serious crimes because someone told the office at school that they were talking about bombs, or explosions. (In case you don’t think that is serious let me assure you that it is. Making a false bomb threat is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and $250,000.00 in fines. Juveniles are charged the same as adults and there is a zero tolerance policy. Do you think your child should be questioned on that kind of charge without someone informing you about it first?) Let me be clear, these children didn’t make bomb threats, someone else told school officials that they had been talking about bombs or explosions. These children were interrogated, had their belongings searched and in at least two cases they were expelled when they didn’t confess under questioning.
In the interest of protecting my child’s rights, I have contacted my state’s legislators to request that they draft legislation clearly stating that a parent (or in the case of an orphan- a sympathetic adult) must be present when school officials or police liaison officers to the school are questioning a student about a crime. I believe there will be an appropriate exception for hurry cases. (credible bomb threats, etc.)
I was informed such legislation had been discussed only to be dismissed due to logistical objections from law enforcement. I said I could understand that in a case where they pick some kid up off the street and he/she doesn’t want to divulge their name or perhaps they look old enough to know their rights already, but a school must have parental contact information. That is why the legislation I am requesting is limited to students and not minors in general. The fact that it had already been discussed tells me that this type of abuse of the “in loco parentis” status is more common than it should be.
Don’t wait until this happens to your child. Protect them now. Contact your school and ask what their policy is in these circumstances. If your child is vulnerable, first tell your school officials in writing that you rescind their right to act in loco parentis in this type of situation, and then contact your legislators and demand legislation to fix it. Then do what you can to support that legislation once it is introduced."
THE MONARCHIST ADDS: Thank you for the posting Mom. As a parent of two toddlers, I'm going to - when the time is right - remember to rescind the school's right to act as parent. If ever there was a cause that needed some grassroots activism, this sounds like it.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Searching for the Right Term
Bowl season is almost come and gone. Bowl season, we hadly knew thee!
We're Irish fans in our house and I've been turning the loss over and over in my mind looking for the right words to express my sentiment. I suppose there's something to be said for better late than never? Well, here goes.
Henceforth, I will refer to the football team from South Bend as the "Possibly Mildly Objectin'" Irish.
At least Sooner Nation put up a fight.
We're Irish fans in our house and I've been turning the loss over and over in my mind looking for the right words to express my sentiment. I suppose there's something to be said for better late than never? Well, here goes.
Henceforth, I will refer to the football team from South Bend as the "Possibly Mildly Objectin'" Irish.
At least Sooner Nation put up a fight.
Friday, December 29, 2006
A Time For Resolutions
I happen to be a pretty big fan of resolutions.
I suppose this is because I'm sort of a serial self-improver. This can be annoying to others, I know. The key to making resolutions work for you - not just now, but anytime of the year - is to be realistic and make sure they're measurable. I think those two qualifying characteristics are the difference between success and failure in changing something about yourself.
So what do I resolve this year? I resolve that I'm going to not let my professional life influence my personal life. That should be an easy one to measure - ask me how happy my family is anytime in the coming year, and the answer will be a pretty good indication of how well I'm doing. Being a good husband and father are top priorities.
I resolve to watch less TV and read more. I'll keep track and let you know how many books I read in 2007.
I resolve to jump in with both feet to more political activities. If you've been reading here, you know what I'm going to be doing in the coming year. I hope that I can reach out to more people and share my - our - philosophy on government.
I resolve to try and make reading the Bible a habit. I had a good stretch this year when I was reading it every day, but I'll have to work at it again.
Of course, I'll work to exceed the successes I had this year and eliminate the disappointments.
Here's a toast to you, Dear Reader: may the coming year bring blessings innumerable, good health, happiness, and of course, success. Enjoy the coming holiday, and as always, be safe.
I suppose this is because I'm sort of a serial self-improver. This can be annoying to others, I know. The key to making resolutions work for you - not just now, but anytime of the year - is to be realistic and make sure they're measurable. I think those two qualifying characteristics are the difference between success and failure in changing something about yourself.
So what do I resolve this year? I resolve that I'm going to not let my professional life influence my personal life. That should be an easy one to measure - ask me how happy my family is anytime in the coming year, and the answer will be a pretty good indication of how well I'm doing. Being a good husband and father are top priorities.
I resolve to watch less TV and read more. I'll keep track and let you know how many books I read in 2007.
I resolve to jump in with both feet to more political activities. If you've been reading here, you know what I'm going to be doing in the coming year. I hope that I can reach out to more people and share my - our - philosophy on government.
I resolve to try and make reading the Bible a habit. I had a good stretch this year when I was reading it every day, but I'll have to work at it again.
Of course, I'll work to exceed the successes I had this year and eliminate the disappointments.
Here's a toast to you, Dear Reader: may the coming year bring blessings innumerable, good health, happiness, and of course, success. Enjoy the coming holiday, and as always, be safe.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Kwanzaa
Ann Coulter did her annual column on this bogus holiday, which you can read here at Human Events.
Even the favorable Kwanzaa entry at Wikipedia acknowledges some of the less-than-shiny aspects of the "holiday."
So when your kid's school is insisting on teaching about Kwanzaa, rather than object, simply demand that in the name of true multiculturalism they also teach about Festivus.
Even the favorable Kwanzaa entry at Wikipedia acknowledges some of the less-than-shiny aspects of the "holiday."
So when your kid's school is insisting on teaching about Kwanzaa, rather than object, simply demand that in the name of true multiculturalism they also teach about Festivus.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
More Changes
Blogger is rolling out a new version and it took me probably three tries to get my name switched over. For a fellow like me, not exactly the most technically-savvy guy, I was confused as can be!
So it may look different for now, but rest assured, nothing is changing that counts - still the same three guys you know and love, bringing you the new American Revolution.
So it may look different for now, but rest assured, nothing is changing that counts - still the same three guys you know and love, bringing you the new American Revolution.
In Case I Don't Get Another Chance...
Merry Christmas to all! God bless you and your families this holiday season and always!
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Minor Changes
We're going to be instituting comment verification on this blog. You'll just need to type in whatever letters or characters that you're prompted to enter. That there is such a thing as comment spam just... floors me.
And am I alone in thinking that surely there must be a circle in hell for spammers? Is there a bigger waste of time, talent, or money?
Daniel Webster adds:
Sorry for the minor inconvenience this presents the posters, but we've experienced a problem lately which we figure called for nippin' in the bud. Additionally, and particularly for all you "anonymous" posters, you'll note the following information beneath your posts - "Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author." Simply stated, if you choose to post as "anonymous," you gotta get the content by me first, so it dang sure better be worthwhile as well as clean.
And am I alone in thinking that surely there must be a circle in hell for spammers? Is there a bigger waste of time, talent, or money?
Daniel Webster adds:
Sorry for the minor inconvenience this presents the posters, but we've experienced a problem lately which we figure called for nippin' in the bud. Additionally, and particularly for all you "anonymous" posters, you'll note the following information beneath your posts - "Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author." Simply stated, if you choose to post as "anonymous," you gotta get the content by me first, so it dang sure better be worthwhile as well as clean.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Conquest of America III: The Intruder
It was no dark and stormy night. It could not have been, for Ebenezer would otherwise had been much more alert and on guard. The only things stirring outside were the familiar wind, the autumn leaves, and the malevolent designs of an uninvited guest.
As Sara closed down the house for the night, Ebenezer was making his rounds, tucking in his children one by one. He began with the eldest, Horatio, whose bravery and marksmanship earlier that week had single-handedly saved the herd and won the family three of the most prized pelts the county had seen in their generation. His father’s face still beamed with pride as he moved on to his second, Ephraim, who, was blessed with a vocal acuity that had already earned him renown for his ability to sing as dulcetly as he could carry a message from one hamlet to the other without taking a step—but everyone was also aware of his running prowess, as well. Third and last was little Abigail, who was already being tended to by her mother; the sight of the two loveliest of creatures was simply too wonderful for Ebenezer to put into words.
A second-generation immigrant, Ebenezer had grown weary of the depressing influences of the city and had ventured west with the simple goal of living free. The desire to dwell, as his ancestors, in the hills was strong in him, so he did not stop traveling until he had reached a modestly mountainous region, happily populated with a few like-minded native dwellers who welcomed him to their small community. His self-sufficient independence earned him much respect among the people and won him the heart of the blacksmith’s daughter, Sara. They were wed five years to the day of his arrival, and produced the three children mentioned above in the next seven. The independence by which Ebenezer lived would be put to the test on this night of his twentieth year in the mountains.
Suddenly, and in precise compliance with his training (and not a little instinct), the voice of Ephraim was heard, obviously on the very loud setting, “MOMMY!” He had seen through the slightly ajar doorway to his room, a shape moving away from a window that had been left open, curtains blowing as they never normally would at this time of the year. Ebenezer, in the same instant, scolded himself, pulled the shotgun from beneath Abigail’s crib, and handed it to Sara before jumping into the master bedroom to prepare himself for battle. The shadowy shape immediately knew the jig was up and that he had to act fast, just in case there were more than the loud voice and its mother to deal with. To his great misfortune, there were.
Making his way swiftly toward where he though was an eight-year-old boy’s room, he was brought to a sudden and complete stop by the unmistakable sound of a hand-held firearm being prepared to fire, and the sound did not come from a distance of any more than a span. The image of what modern observers might describe as a pre-pubescent Clint Eastwood—yet with the concentration and scowl of the middle-aged version of the same—materialized before him; and between he and the focused, young subject was the remarkably steady business end of a Colt 45 (or other handgun to be named later), open for business. But where was that accursed light originating? “Hold your fire, boy.” The intruder needn’t have wondered long about that as the soft but urgent whisper of a grown and angry man behind him informed him that he had indeed selected the wrong house to invade. Ebenezer, brandishing a lantern and a hatchet, mercifully turned backwards, loomed behind him and ended the intruder’s short-lived venture with one well-placed stroke.
________________________________
What, if any, is the role of the state on the issue of illegal immigration? It is often bandied about that the state and local police should butt out of it because it’s a federal issue. To that I say, Nuts!
Consider, in the above story, that Ebenezer is a type of the federal government, and his children types of the states. Like the federal government, it is the responsibility of the father to guard and defend the whole of the property from intruders, whether they intend to steal, kill, destroy, or even get a job…the law of the house is clearly posted: “No Trespassing, period.” (or, as I’ve stated earlier somewhere, “…comma, ‘period,’ period”). It’s clearly within reason for the reader to infer that the rules of the house are that no one is allowed—whether a member of the family or otherwise—to steal, kill, or destroy anything either in the house or on the premises except in self-defense. From time to time, there will be crafty scoundrels who thwart the father’s effort to keep them out. When such scoundrels do make it into one of the boys’ rooms, he will then have to deal with at least one of the boys…in addition to the holy hell that is still overdue in coming down upon his head by the hand of the father.
But in a world where the father does nothing to stop the intrusion, the boys are free to handle the intruder as meanly as they see fit, which is not necessarily as humanely as the more attentive father might have been (instead of a mere debilitating shot to the knees, the boy might miss the knees and hit—or deliberately aim for—the crotch or the temple).
And then, go on to consider what abject injustice it would have been for the father to suddenly take the gun out of his own son’s hand just as the intruder is about to do untold evil either to him or his mother, scolding the boy for being racist.
As per usual, kind reader, your comments are more than welcome—they are requested.
As Sara closed down the house for the night, Ebenezer was making his rounds, tucking in his children one by one. He began with the eldest, Horatio, whose bravery and marksmanship earlier that week had single-handedly saved the herd and won the family three of the most prized pelts the county had seen in their generation. His father’s face still beamed with pride as he moved on to his second, Ephraim, who, was blessed with a vocal acuity that had already earned him renown for his ability to sing as dulcetly as he could carry a message from one hamlet to the other without taking a step—but everyone was also aware of his running prowess, as well. Third and last was little Abigail, who was already being tended to by her mother; the sight of the two loveliest of creatures was simply too wonderful for Ebenezer to put into words.
A second-generation immigrant, Ebenezer had grown weary of the depressing influences of the city and had ventured west with the simple goal of living free. The desire to dwell, as his ancestors, in the hills was strong in him, so he did not stop traveling until he had reached a modestly mountainous region, happily populated with a few like-minded native dwellers who welcomed him to their small community. His self-sufficient independence earned him much respect among the people and won him the heart of the blacksmith’s daughter, Sara. They were wed five years to the day of his arrival, and produced the three children mentioned above in the next seven. The independence by which Ebenezer lived would be put to the test on this night of his twentieth year in the mountains.
Suddenly, and in precise compliance with his training (and not a little instinct), the voice of Ephraim was heard, obviously on the very loud setting, “MOMMY!” He had seen through the slightly ajar doorway to his room, a shape moving away from a window that had been left open, curtains blowing as they never normally would at this time of the year. Ebenezer, in the same instant, scolded himself, pulled the shotgun from beneath Abigail’s crib, and handed it to Sara before jumping into the master bedroom to prepare himself for battle. The shadowy shape immediately knew the jig was up and that he had to act fast, just in case there were more than the loud voice and its mother to deal with. To his great misfortune, there were.
Making his way swiftly toward where he though was an eight-year-old boy’s room, he was brought to a sudden and complete stop by the unmistakable sound of a hand-held firearm being prepared to fire, and the sound did not come from a distance of any more than a span. The image of what modern observers might describe as a pre-pubescent Clint Eastwood—yet with the concentration and scowl of the middle-aged version of the same—materialized before him; and between he and the focused, young subject was the remarkably steady business end of a Colt 45 (or other handgun to be named later), open for business. But where was that accursed light originating? “Hold your fire, boy.” The intruder needn’t have wondered long about that as the soft but urgent whisper of a grown and angry man behind him informed him that he had indeed selected the wrong house to invade. Ebenezer, brandishing a lantern and a hatchet, mercifully turned backwards, loomed behind him and ended the intruder’s short-lived venture with one well-placed stroke.
________________________________
What, if any, is the role of the state on the issue of illegal immigration? It is often bandied about that the state and local police should butt out of it because it’s a federal issue. To that I say, Nuts!
Consider, in the above story, that Ebenezer is a type of the federal government, and his children types of the states. Like the federal government, it is the responsibility of the father to guard and defend the whole of the property from intruders, whether they intend to steal, kill, destroy, or even get a job…the law of the house is clearly posted: “No Trespassing, period.” (or, as I’ve stated earlier somewhere, “…comma, ‘period,’ period”). It’s clearly within reason for the reader to infer that the rules of the house are that no one is allowed—whether a member of the family or otherwise—to steal, kill, or destroy anything either in the house or on the premises except in self-defense. From time to time, there will be crafty scoundrels who thwart the father’s effort to keep them out. When such scoundrels do make it into one of the boys’ rooms, he will then have to deal with at least one of the boys…in addition to the holy hell that is still overdue in coming down upon his head by the hand of the father.
But in a world where the father does nothing to stop the intrusion, the boys are free to handle the intruder as meanly as they see fit, which is not necessarily as humanely as the more attentive father might have been (instead of a mere debilitating shot to the knees, the boy might miss the knees and hit—or deliberately aim for—the crotch or the temple).
And then, go on to consider what abject injustice it would have been for the father to suddenly take the gun out of his own son’s hand just as the intruder is about to do untold evil either to him or his mother, scolding the boy for being racist.
As per usual, kind reader, your comments are more than welcome—they are requested.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Two Things, Dear Reader
First, please say a prayer for the families who lost loved ones in the tragic shooting yesterday evening in Chicago. That Richard Daley and the Chicago City Council have banned handguns in the city somehow didn't deter the guy who destroyed several families last night. One can only guess if the result might have been different if Illinois had concealed carry laws, but if I'm the shooter, I'm thinking twice about it. The Chicago Tribune reports that the perpetrator was actually escorted by a security guard to the offices. I'm sure that we haven't heard the last of the story.
Second, courtesy of the Federalist Society, you might enjoy this link. I haven't checked it out, but I've heard Scalia speak before and he's enjoyable, to say the least.
Second, courtesy of the Federalist Society, you might enjoy this link. I haven't checked it out, but I've heard Scalia speak before and he's enjoyable, to say the least.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
The Iraq Surrender Group
I first heard a guest on the Hugh Hewitt show call the ISG just this, and I liked it so much I had to adopt it.
So here's what I got to thinking with respect to the ISG. Bush knows Baker really well, and the results of the report are a surprise to no one (if you actually meet someone who is surprised you really ought to have them checked into a hospital). So, why? Why go through all of this? What's the point? I've got my theories, and the one I've been batting back and forth like some sort of really awesome cat playing with a ball of string is this: Bush and Rove are outflanking the surrender monkeys. Sort of like how the House Republicans demanded a withdrawal vote on Iraq a while back that was defeated something like 10,000 to 2 (hyperbole, people).
All Bush hears is how we're losing, victory isn't an option, we need to withdraw, I mean, re-deploy the troops (which Jean-Francois Kerry actually said; so in addition to botching jokes he also botches party talking-points - and they wanted this guy to be President?), and he says: OK, I warned you not to mess with Texas, so tell me what you've got.
We can all see the ISG's recommendations for what they are: more foolish ideas that result in America losing.
Here's a thought, and you can play along at home. Bush gathered all of those big brains to come up with ideas on how to handle Iraq from here on out. I figure the readership here is easily... three times as smart as those dullards. So, I'm commissioning you, dear Reader, to tell me what our strategy should be in Iraq to win (which wasn't the scope of the ISG, by the way).
Dust off your thinking caps and fire away. I'll compile the recommendations and send them to Bush and then we'll see some results.
So here's what I got to thinking with respect to the ISG. Bush knows Baker really well, and the results of the report are a surprise to no one (if you actually meet someone who is surprised you really ought to have them checked into a hospital). So, why? Why go through all of this? What's the point? I've got my theories, and the one I've been batting back and forth like some sort of really awesome cat playing with a ball of string is this: Bush and Rove are outflanking the surrender monkeys. Sort of like how the House Republicans demanded a withdrawal vote on Iraq a while back that was defeated something like 10,000 to 2 (hyperbole, people).
All Bush hears is how we're losing, victory isn't an option, we need to withdraw, I mean, re-deploy the troops (which Jean-Francois Kerry actually said; so in addition to botching jokes he also botches party talking-points - and they wanted this guy to be President?), and he says: OK, I warned you not to mess with Texas, so tell me what you've got.
We can all see the ISG's recommendations for what they are: more foolish ideas that result in America losing.
Here's a thought, and you can play along at home. Bush gathered all of those big brains to come up with ideas on how to handle Iraq from here on out. I figure the readership here is easily... three times as smart as those dullards. So, I'm commissioning you, dear Reader, to tell me what our strategy should be in Iraq to win (which wasn't the scope of the ISG, by the way).
Dust off your thinking caps and fire away. I'll compile the recommendations and send them to Bush and then we'll see some results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
