When the Self Abdicates Responsibility

A silly topic, perhaps, but what's the proper role of government in the food choices of its citizens?

I found this article interesting, and it got me to thinking (pardon the delay in posting).

For that matter, when one weighs the societal costs of brain injuries, are helmet laws a good thing, after all? Anecdotally, I am rather risk-averse when it comes to my health. I have also never ridden a motorcycle. In a candid self-appraisal, I am an aggressive insurer. I like to mitigate my risks; I probably over-insure.

Is it fair to say that bikers, accepting different degrees of risk, are less likely to insure as aggressively? I'd be interested in thoughts from the readership.

I happen to know 5 different entrepreneurs (none of whom know each other) that are bikers. The risk profile seems to be consistent: entrepreneurs are risk-takers, and getting on a motorcycle - or flying a plane, for that matter - involves accepting a certain amount of risk. Yet, I have no evidence to draw a connection between risk-taking and the costs to society for coming up short on the risks one takes. It simply seems intuitive: if you're a risk taker, and you take certain types of risks, sometimes you're going to come out ahead and sometimes, well, the house takes your money.

I think the point, at last, is that government should be silent on these issues to the extent that a person's choices aren't infringing on the liberty of others. There's an intersection where a person's lack of self-government meets up with the rights of others who are affected by this lack of self-government. A good example of this is the biker who doesn't have health insurance. If he/she gets in an accident, they will get the treatment they need; you and I will bear the cost.

As long as people aren't self-governing to a reasonable degree, there's going to be a push for external government to step in and fill the role that properly belongs to the self. I've long thought that "the government" has no business in telling people what to eat. Or if they can smoke. Or if they should wear a helmet. Acknowledging of course that if people were self-governing we wouldn't have to worry about this problem, we must also admit that the urge to enforce restraint through external government when the individual abdicates his/her responsibility is a natural reaction. I'm not yet ready to endorse it, even if I understand it.

And interesting to me is this: if our Founders could see the "issues" that occupy the public space, how do you think they'd react?

Cultural Survival

Russians want Russia to not only survive, but to grow and prosper. They recognize the demographic problem that is facing non-Islamic societies, and are rewarding people for having babies. Talk about pro-family.

Of course, Russians can thank Communism for crushing the human spirit to such a degree that people found it too burdensome to reproduce. Let's hope that these actions are not too little, too late. I loved this quote from the winner from last year:

"Andrei Kartuzov, who won the last "make a baby" grand prize along with his wife, Irina, said they had been planning to have another child anyway.

The campaign "is a good help for people, especially for those living in villages," he said. "If they hold such actions every year, then maybe we will have (more children) growing up and Russia will be bigger."

And isn't that the idea, really? To make our respective nations "bigger" - more powerful, thriving and successful?

Western Europe, of course, is going through the same problems. The question is: do they have the will to fight for cultural survival?

Book Review: America Alone

Yes, I know this has been out for a while and I'm a little late to the party. Nevertheless, in the event you haven't read Mark Steyn's brilliant America Alone, I recommend it without reservation.

Well, on second thought, maybe with one reservation: the night I first opened the book up and began reading, it so unnerved me that I tossed and turned all that night. And I'm not one to lose sleep over much.

Briefly, and then I'll share my favorite parts, Steyn looks at the Islamist threat from a demographic perspective, something I hadn't heard any other commentator do. The replacement birth rate is 2.1 children per woman, and Steyn educates us on the birth rates of Western nations vs. Muslim nations. It's not pretty. Spain, for example, has a birth rate of 1.1; this means that the population will decrease by half every 35 years, an astounding statistic.

Some favorites...

P. 45 - Steyn addresses the dynamic in modern societies, particularly Europe: "Somewhere along the way these countries redefined the relationship between government and citizen into something closer to pusher and addict. And once you've done that, it's very hard to persuade the addict to cut back his habit." Sound like a growing problem of ours, as well?

P. 85 - "But Islam's appropriation of the gay lobby's framing of the debate is very artful. It's the most explicit example of how Islam uses politically correct self-indulgent victimology as a cover. You'll recall that most Western media outlets declined to publish those Danish cartoons showing the prophet Mohammed. Thus, even as they were piously warning of a rise in bogus 'Islamophobia' - i.e., entirely justified concerns over Islamic terrorism and related issues - they were themselves suffering from genuine Islamophobia - i.e., a very real fear that, if they published those cartoons, an angry mob would storm their offices. It was a fine example of how the progressive mind's invented psychoses leave it without any words to describe real dangers."

P. 159-160 - Steyn discusses what he calls "defense welfare" as part of the cause of Europe's problems. With no need to spend money on defense, they spent ever more on social programs. Says he: "Like any other form of welfare, defense welfare is a hard habit to break and damaging to the recipient."

P.187 - Steyn discusses the role of the state in failing to "protect" us. "But the only reason 'a box cutter can bring down a tower' is because on September 11 our defenses against such a threat were exclusively the province of the state. If nineteen punks with box cutters had tried to pull some stunt in the parking lot of a sports bar, they'd have been beaten to a pulp." Quite so.

P.193 - the importance of will. "In a culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of 'suttee' - the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. General Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural: 'You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.'" Non-judgemental multiculturalism, he obviously notes, is a fraud.

Overall, very well-done and both insightful and witty.

Birds of a Feather

Just when you think you've seen and heard it all, comes this story yesterday, that OBL has a new video out. Now, this in itself isn't so unusual, but the facts surrounding it are just plain weird.

You can read the whole thing here, if you'd like, but I'll highlight the most, let's say, interesting aspects of it.

He claims the media is a "tool of the colonist empires."

He criticizes the Maliki government.

He criticizes "neoconservatives like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Richard Pearle."

He speaks directly to the American people acknowledging that they supported the "Democratic (sic) Party" to end the war, but that they "haven't made a move worth mentioning."

He discusses Vietnam and JFK, suggesting his death was orchestrated by major corporations that were benefiting from the war.

He praises Noam Chomsky, and criticizes capitalism, "interest related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgages; global warming and its woes..."

Sound like any major party you know? If I didn't know any better, I'd say these were the talking points of a candidate (Obama bin Laden?) for the DNC nomination. I was struck by just how similar the messages are, right down the line.

Except for one important part of his message: the enticement to appeasers. He suggests in his message that all of these problems can go away if we just simply convert to Islam. We've discussed this before in other posts and other places, but this is the endgame. This appeal will become more frequent, and more spineless appeasers will take up the jihadists on this. It's happening on a large scale in Europe, and will eventually begin happening here at home.

Another Victory for the Good Guys

Old news by now, but thankfully the German police thwarted what appears to have been a serious terrorist plot. They're still looking for more people who were involved in the plot or aiding the suspects.

And while the media reported accurately that these were Islamists, there seems to be some factions of the media that are calling these guys Germans.

Point of clarification: it doesn't matter if these guys were born in Germany. Doesn't matter if they're as white as the driven snow. They're Islamists. That's what counts. We'd do well to recognize that this isn't an Arab problem any more - simply profiling Middle Eastern males might catch a number of jihadis, but it won't get them all. This is a problem with Islam.

We ought to recognize that this is also a problem with the West in general. We're losing an ideological battle with an enemy who espouses 7th century thinking. That just might be an indication that the strength of "modern ideas" - specifically Western liberalism and politically correct permissiveness - leaves a little to be desired.

So He's In

So Fred made his announcement... on Leno? I can sort of understand why Arnold made his announcement on Leno - it was a bit of a surprise and he was running for Governor of California, after all. But the non-candidate candidate (guess I can't call him that any more) has always been in the running, at least as far expectations go. And announcing on Leno seems... I don't know, maybe not becoming of the office you're seeking? I mean, the next thing you know, he's going to be playing a saxaphone on the Arsenio Hall show.

While I neither fear nor welcome a Fred Thompson candidacy, I cast serious doubts on his ability to "invigorate" a dispirited GOP. After all, we're looking for more conservatives, thankyouverymuch, and not more well-phrased platitudes without any meaningful substance behind them.

Hmm. I wonder...? Does that make Fred our Barack Obama? Says all the right things, but a little long on the sizzle and a little short on the steak?

How do we deal with the threat of liberalism?

Mike has put up a couple of nice posts the last few days concerning the nature of Islam, and how best for we Americans and the West to deal with the threat it poses us.

We've both been thinking along the same lines of late it seems. And we've both been searching for answers to the dilemma we face. Perhaps you've been assaulted by the same kinds of thoughts. How do we deal with Islam effectively?

Lawrence Auster of VFR asks the question this way: If we can't democratize Islam, and we can't destroy it, then what? But Auster goes further, he provides the answer. And with my friend, Mike, I strongly suggest that you read Auster's article. Mike has provided the link in his entry below.

Also, Mike's post on moderate Muslims has been a fruitful piece of work in itself. Mike and I had an exchange in the comments section that not only led to this post, but to the one preceding it. Like I said in my comments to Mike, I see some real similarities between Islam and Western liberalism. Both belief systems would destroy us. And the whole problem common to them both may be stated this way:

"There are moderate Muslims as well as moderate liberals, but there's no such thing as a moderate Islam, nor a moderate liberalism."

Both of these are extreme belief systems which are destructive fundamentally. The similarities between them, which I won't go into here except in the general sort of way that I have above, suggested to my mind that perhaps both of them could be dealt with effectively by use of the same separationist strategy Auster suggests concerning Islam, yet customized to and applied in a different way to the problem of liberalism. So I put the question to Mr. Auster, and here is his answer.

Now, I don't necessarily think Auster's reply to me is the end of it. I didn't go into much detail in the way that I posed the question to him because I was having a hard time articulating what I was thinking. But I think he's put this entry up for a reason. And I think part of that reason is to get responses from some of his readers who may have an idea of how to customize the separationist strategy to utilize it effectively against the threat of liberalism. So if any of you have any ideas on the matter, do send a comment to Auster concerning this entry.

I want to be clear. I'm not suggesting that we isolate liberals in the way that we'd isolate Muslims according to Auster's separationist principles. I'm suggesting that the ideology of liberalism be somehow isolated so that it can pose a serious threat to us no more. Because as Auster has noted elsewhere, as long as Islam has an ascendancy into our counsels, it is a threat to us. The same can be said of liberalism, as long as liberalism is a dominant power in American politics, it works to destroy our tradition, our culture, our way of life; our very existence.

Ideas?...

A Rational Strategy for Dealing with Islam

I'm going to claim any number of reasons for not having put together a coherent position on our problems with Islam up until today. For example, my report cards as a kid routinely were fine, but remarked that "Michael needs improvement in exhibiting self-control." See, I'm clearly suffering from ADD, which I guess would make me an "early adopter" - I was even into pseudo-disorders before they become popular (look, don't send me a bunch of hate mail just because I made a joke about ADD being a pseudo-disorder; I'm in a stream of consciousness mode right now and I was just having a little fun).

Or maybe, I've been so busy with work, that I only have a couple of hours a day with which to devote myself to study on topics that interest me; I simply haven't had time , you see, to develop a coherent position on the subject. Or, as the parent of a toddler and a preschooler, there's so much racket and activity up in this house that even when I have time to devote to studies, it's so darn hard to piece together more than a couple of sentences before getting interrupted and having to rush off to broker a peace agreement.

There's a great post called "If we can't democratize Islam, and we can't destroy it, then what?" over at View from the Right - see the link to that site along our left sidebar (hat tip: Terry).

Here's the scary thing - Auster had this figured out in January 2005. If I'm an early adopter for ADD, Auster didn't adopt - he invented the solution to dealing with Islam. Smart guy. Probably has a whole mess of kids too, blowing one of my excuses out of the water.

Folks, I can't say it any more emphatically than this: read that link above. It should be required reading for every American who values his/her culture and way of life.

Moderate Muslims

I have, in the past, scoffed at the notion of such a thing as moderate Muslims. My thinking on that has been formed by what appeared to be a complete lack of condemnation of the actions of extremists, by practitioners of that faith; if indeed there were moderates, my reasoning went, why were they silent on atrocities committed in the name of their faith?

I was listening to the Michael Medved show this week and he devoted a segment to encouraging moderate Muslims. It got me to thinking about the issue some more, and I've refined some of my thinking on the matter.

Before going further, I'd disclaim that I share a slightly different perspective than someone like Dennis Prager when discussing religions: Prager asserts that it is most appropriate to judge the practitioners of a particular religion, and not the religion itself. While Prager makes a point of not criticizing the particular doctrinal aspects of a religion, I think it is appropriate to begin to shift the conversation in that direction. My blogmate Terry pointed out a post at VFR wherein Auster discusses liberalism, and how it manifests itself even in conservatives; particularly notable to me is the self-censoring that conservatives engage in on a given topic, such as criticizing another faith. Inasmuch as I reject moral relativism, I'm inclined to say that we should begin to make informed (righteous) judgments, yes, even with respect to other faiths. More on that in a bit.

I blogged a while ago on the South Korean missionaries who were taken hostage by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Thankfully, the remaining hostages were all released just the other day, see here for details. At what price their freedom comes, the outside world will never know; let us hope that the deal was not a sell-out for immediate gain at the expense of long-term success against extremism.

Especially in light of the hostage crisis, I've been reflecting on the leadership of Hamid Karzai, and to a lesser degree, that of Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq. These leaders are, in fact, living, breathing, moderate Muslims. Karzai in particular was highly critical of the taking of the Korean hostages as being unjustified. He has also taken a leadership role in trying to settle tribal differences, knowing that it is local leadership that will bring Afghanistan out of the middle ages and thus improve life for all Afghanis.

Now here comes the dilemma. As I readily admit, I am not a Koranic scholar. I have read a few books on the religion and, along with anecdotal evidence, have enough data to conclude that there are fundamental problems with Islam. While this post isn't a critique of the tenets of that faith - and perhaps I may yet provide one someday - suffice it to say that if we begin with a fairly core belief, we're immediately at odds with reason.

Muslims contend that the angel Gabriel visited their prophet through which Allah revealed the Koran to Mohammad; they claim Allah is the same God of the Jews and Christians. The Koran - the supposed word of God - permits violence, slavery and the possession of concubines; and this is a short list of the contradictions between the Koran and the Holy Bible. God is a perfect being and cannot contradict Himself: he cannot be both God and the devil; He cannot be both the Truth and a lie; He cannot be inconsistent. So, of the three monotheistic faiths, two suggest that God is one thing and the third suggests He is something quite different.

An interesting discussion remains to be had - also not the point of this post - about the compatibility of reason with major world religions. Rodney Stark wrote a wonderful book called the Victory of Reason, which I wholeheartedly recommend.

At long last, here is where I have been headed with this post: while we're engaged in a battle for our existence with a large segment of Islam, it is worth noting that there are "moderates" in that faith - something I have not done, in a candid critique of my own rhetoric. While Islamic societies have been closed to outside influences for centuries, we should encourage and be encouraged that there are these people, many in leadership roles, throughout the Muslim world. And we should engage moderates where ever we meet them, in the hopes that the Divine gift of reason may enlighten a dark part of our world.

Katrina's Lesson

I don't watch the news.

I make a point of getting my news from the internet and from conservative talk radio. The local television news is just depressing - it is a virtual obituary, only spiced up to get ratings. And the national "news" shows are thinly veiled vehicles for opinion-forming.

Inevitably, though, you'll come across an article or two that pulls you in no matter how hard you try to avoid it. As an added benefit, some are so blissfully off the mark that it makes my job rather easy.

Here's the real lesson to take away from Katrina...

Imbalanced government is ineffective. When individuals, families, neighborhoods and church communities (not to mention cities, townships or counties) abdicate their responsibilities, another sphere of government must step in. Given the tangible and intangible distance between the largest spheres of government and the responsibilities of the smallest spheres, it is natural that for the State or Feds to respond will take a long time, and then not likely well.

How else could the feds respond? There are 966 (or so) miles between Washington DC and NOLA; even if the feds had a "disaster warehouse" and packed supplies and provisions as soon as the storm hit the city, it would still take fifteen hours to truck the material that distance. For responsibilities of the smallest spheres of government, the most distant spheres are going to be horrible at doing the job that needs to get done.

Commentators remark on how "the government" failed the people of NOLA, and in one respect, I agree. Self-government was entirely needed and wholly missing from the scene when the storm hit the city. I also agree with the knucklehead who wrote the article linked above: the US truly does need change. While some might argue it needs less government, I'd only slightly disagree: we need less external government and more internal self-government.

It is my unwavering opinion that until we work on a proper balancing of the largest spheres of government, people will continue to look to external government to handle the responsibilities that are rightfully the domain of the smallest spheres of government.

One Man, One Vote

Earlier, on this blog and others, I have expressed my determination to vote for the candidate I consider best regardless of party affiliation, strategic maneuvering or media bias. This led to a number of questions about pragmatism, expediency and consequences. There were also a few requests for elaboration on the logic (or madness) behind my decision, thus this posting.

Let me begin, gentle reader, by stating my position. I believe that it is my responsibility as an American citizen to define for myself what values, skills, education, opinions and experience are necessary to hold a public office and then find the best qualified candidate for that office and vote for him/her. I regard this as a somewhat private process and a solemn duty. I have not always thought so, but as time passes, I have learned more and so have come to this position.

I have been noticing a definite tendency in the media to influence the public towards one or two candidates almost as soon as a race is announced. I find this to be a highly objectionable tendency, and, on a personal level, extremely intrusive. I do not mind being informed of who is running for office. This is a service and the proper role of the media. I do mind having those candidates sorted into “most likely to have a shot” and “also ran” categories for me. This is a despicable manipulation of the election process and any journalist who engages in it should be sternly reprimanded. (And, one would hope, ashamed of themselves.)

By participating in this sort of manipulation they create the illusion that my vote is worthless if I don’t cast it in favor of their choice of “Most likely to have a shot”. For many voters this leads to an apathy which causes them not to participate at all. After all, if their vote is worthless unless cast for someone who doesn’t represent their views, why vote?

The truth is that we each have exactly one vote and a responsibility to do our homework and cast it according to our conscience. In years past, it may have been an onerous task to get good information about those lesser known candidates, but with the advent of the internet we, as Americans are without excuse.

I refuse to believe that Americans are too stupid or lazy to make the effort to research the best candidate. I believe we are better than that and a good deal smarter than the mainstream media often give us credit for.

I am not so foolish as to believe that this realization will come overnight to the bulk of Americans. I am not so foolish as to expect the major parties to go out of their way to promote such an idea. I am also not so full of myself as to believe that by simply voicing the idea in a small forum such as this, it may have an effect. But when I look at the big picture, I find myself thinking: if not me, who, and if not now, when? So I appeal to the American voter to do the research and find the candidate of YOUR choice, not the one with the most fundraising ability or the one most touted in the press or even the one who might fulfill some personal wish to see a minority or a woman in an office traditionally held by a man, but the best candidate for the job.

Vote your conscience America, I will.

States' Rights

I won't provide more than just a brief opinion on this article, which is an interview Mitt Romney gave to the Associated Press.

In particular, I have to address the abortion issue. While I have blogged over at my personal page about his positions on abortion, I think some discussion is appropriate in this space. In fairness to my colleagues, let me again disclaim that my personal opinions about Romney are just that: personal. In no way do my thoughts about his candidacy reflect the opinions of my colleagues, nor should my opinions be construed as this blog endorsing his candidacy. Ready?

From the article:

States' rights also take precedence in the abortion debate for Romney, a conservative and a Mormon who's against abortion and would like to see the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling overturned. He said in an interview with The Associated Press that states should "fashion their own laws with regard to abortion. That's what I think the next step should be."

As I've said before, Romney is to the left of me on this issue, and for the record, I don't think abortion is an issue that can be permanently relegated to the states; to me, this is sort of a forfeit by federalism. Government at all levels is charged with protecting the inalienable rights of its citizens. There's just no way around that fact. Anyone who disagrees with that simply disagrees with the most important foundational tenet of our Republic, and that which truly makes us American.

There's a bit of pragmatic wisdom, though, in his approach, and it is notable that Romney called this "the next step." From a balanced government perspective, we can draw parallels to the abolition of slavery. Had that institution been universal among the states (at one time, early in our history, I think it had; and the New England states were the first to outlaw the practice), an excellent first step would have been allowing the states to "decide" if they would allow it. Practically speaking, this is what happened between the states with respect to slavery. Eventually, the sea change swept away that blot on our national history, and hundreds of thousands of Americans died to correct that wrongs that had been allowed for so long.

Every cause has milestones that can be seen clearly with the benefit of hindsight. I hope, while I yet think the long-term fight must be fought, that with an articulate and strong leader, we can get most Americans to agree that letting the states decide is a decent first step - understanding that first means many more steps would follow.

Tancredo vs. Geraldo, Tonight!

If you're a Tom Tancredo fan like I am, you'll want to know about his appearance on Fox's Hannity and Colmes program at 9:00pm this evening, or, between 9:00 and 10:00 pm Eastern time, more precisely.

The subject? Immigration, of course. Tancredo will be debating none other than our favorite hispanic and staunch advocate for mass migration and national suicide, Geraldo Rivera.

And btw, if you can't make the live showdown, be sure to check your local listings for the replay of the show later tonight.

-TM

And Welcome!

Everyone give a warm welcome to Mom, who's joining us as a "regular" contributor. Mom's already been a regular reader and contributor, often showing us boys up, quite frankly, and I'm so delighted that she's agreed to become a posting contributor.

So Long, Farewell

Well, looky here. One down, 17 million more to go.

Why did the Tribune reporter say that the agents were screaming at the top of their lungs? Isn't that a little editorial and, well, just plain weird? Couldn't be a bias there, you don't think?

Later in the article, an activist asks if we want America to be the kind of country that does things like arresting people who come here illegally. The obvious answer is yes, we want the government to arrest people who break the law. As far as her boy goes - a U.S. citizen, as Alderman Munoz points out - perhaps if we adhered to the intended purpose of the 14th Amendment, the boy wouldn't have been a citizen and no one would be worrying about his fate at this moment - he'd be going back to Mexico with his mother.

There's a lesson to be learned here, and it's a fairly simple one: don't break the law.

P.S. Unrelated note: we may soon have a fourth joining us on the blog, which me and the boys sure are excited about.

The Enumerated Powers Amendment

We haven't really discussed this topic here before, although it has been touched upon a few times, mostly in comments, I think. And even then, mostly I think it has been Mr. Morris who has put in the time to read and understand the proposal.

I got to thinking of it, and would like to open up a discussion on the subject. I take very seriously any suggestion at amendment. Our Constitution - and even those of the States - should be held in highest regard, and I think amendments to the same should be the subject of very sober deliberation. I'll link to the proposed amendment at the Patriot Post, and I'll post the body of the amendment as follows:

The Enumerated Powers Amendment

To President George Bush, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist:

We, the people of these United States, rightfully petition our President, House of Representatives and Senate in affirmation of the Constitution of the United States, and against those -- in any branch of government -- who would undermine its historical integrity as definitive law.

Judicial activists, those who endeavor to alter the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, willfully violate their oaths to uphold it by divining the "spirit of the Constitution" and amending it by judicial diktat in full disregard for the constitutional prescription for amendment in Article 5. Thus, We, the people of these United States, do call on our representatives to sponsor "The Enumerated Powers Amendment."

Whereas Article V states in its entirety;
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Whereas Article VI Section 1 stipulates;
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Then the clause in Article 5 stating;
"Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Shall be Amended as follows:
"provided that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate; and that no rights or obligations, requirements or restrictions, not expressly stated in this Constitution shall be implied or inferred, it being the intent of this article that any change or alteration to the express provisions of this Constitution shall be by amendment alone, and in accordance with the express provisions in this article alone. Any judicial Officers of the United States, bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution, who imply or infer rights or obligations, requirements or restrictions, not expressly stated in this Constitution, shall be remanded to the House of Representatives for removal from office by a majority vote."

Here's my way of thinking on this. I'm not sure I have given sufficient thought to the "that which is not seen" aspects of such an amendment. Every action has consequences, and many are largely unintended. This is going to take some time for me to think through, but perhaps there are glaring unintended consequences that jump out at you?

It appears that the pertinent parts are designed to strictly interpret the Constitution by the express powers delegated therein to the respective spheres of Government; and further, to formalize and simplify the process whereby the People would be able to remove activist judges.

I have long considered that expressed powers concurrently create implied powers, and that the task of considering every implied power is impossible. My preferred means of effecting change remains bottom-up, by creating a sense in the People of the value of Balanced Government, and the People, self-governing as they become, choosing for their governors people who will carry out this charge. A wise electorate, properly educated in the principles of Constitutionally-consistent government, would have no need for such an amendment; and, while a more difficult goal to attain, would seem to avoid opening up a potential Pandora's Box - creating a sense that Constitutional Amendments could be a commonplace solution.

P.S. You can see that this petition is a bit dated, by the leadership it is addressed to.

We Can't Miss You if You Don't Go Away

Could this story be nearing a conclusion? Is it possible that we could be done with this Rosa Parks wannabe?

So, the self-important law breaker Elvira Arellano has left the church she's been holed up in, and is on her way to D.C., according to this from the Chicago Tribune.

Now, some people have already commented that arresting her on the steps of the Capitol - or some other significant landmark - is just what she wants. Her mug all over the news, and footage for the left to play, and replay, and replay, you get the idea.

Candidly, I don't care. Arrest her in D.C., arrest her on the way back at a rest stop in Indiana, but for crying out loud, just arrest her. And see that she leaves. If only she were a small Cuban boy, we'd have had her a long time ago!

Open Query

I saw this the other day and can't let it go. Believe me, I've tried.

What the deuce is it about liberals - even those that rise to the highest levels in their respective professions - that makes them so clueless?

Courtesy of the Patriot Post, from earlier this week:

"I was in dissent quite a lot and I wasn't happy." - Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer on the last Supreme Court Term

Your Honor, I might respectfully note that your job is to opine on the relative constitutionality of a case that comes before you. This isn't Oprah's book club: agreement and happiness aren't part of the job description.

The Pragmatic Ideologue

The problem with someone who is wholly pragmatic is that they have a hard time inspiring confidence in others. If your decision making is founded purely upon what is expedient, you're not likely to be a great leader (although you could make a wonderful middle-manager, I suppose; just maybe not in the eyes of your subordinates).

The problem with ideologues is that they're not likely to be very effective. In life, while it is best to strive for greatness, there are times when we can let our pursuit of the great become the enemy of the good. True leadership recognizes that sometimes you have to compromise and gain the good, even if the chorus of voices of the ideologues insists that the leader continue the pursuit of the great; and even then despite the likelihood of obvious failure.

I once heard Reagan described as such - a pragmatic ideologue. I think it was a good description, for of what I've read about him, and he had that ability to keep both sides relatively displeased.

Cal Thomas wrote a wonderful column you can read here, on the latest GOP debate. While I share this yearning for competent leadership, I also want ideology in my elected officials. Interesting that the idea of Balanced Government fits both requirements.

A party and candidates that ran on the principles of Balanced Government would be a group of ideologues, no question. The principle is firm: each sphere of government has a well-defined scope of responsibility (beginning with the smallest sphere, the self). Deviating from that is not possible; that would be called imbalanced government, which is what we have today.

The pragmatic aspect of the proposition is this: locally, people are going to sometimes make bad governmental decisions. There will be consequences to these decisions. People will probably go through growing pains, to be charitable. Could real human suffering occur? Yes. Does that mean that people shouldn't be free to make mistakes? Of course not.

However, should local government fail to deliver on its promises (which is inevitable, if the promises are big enough), the right conclusion should be evident: that the best government is that which is closest to the self. As easy as it is to see how the general government "failed" in Katrina (by the false standard that said that individuals, families and church communities aren't responsible for their spheres of duty), would the state of Louisiana have fared much better?

Balanced Government - as designed and advocated by our Founders - is the means to effect the continued success of the United States and ensure Liberty to Her people. It has the added advantage of being a rather simple concept. Now, if we could only get a party to run on that platform, we'd be getting somewhere.

Hypocrite, or Thoughtful Reconsideration?

Let's take a step back in time for a moment, as I illustrate a point.

Fourteen years ago I was just about to turn 21, I was working and going to school and living on my own. I pretty much had it all figured out. Not unrelated to the point of the story, I had stopped going to church at 18 when I started college and was still separated from the church.

I had a friend who I would argue with, just for fun. At the time, I had changed substantially from the kid who grew up idolizing Reagan to a, shall we say, fully indoctrinated product of my schooling. One particular disagreement I remember quite well was abortion. While I didn't support it, I argued, who was my friend to tell someone they couldn't make that decision?

Over time, my ideas changed, of course, and I once again found conservatism of the brand I grew up with. Now then: am I today a hypocrite for changing my mind? Am I a flip-flopper? Fourteen years ago, I said one thing; today, I say another. Suppose for a minute I decided to run for State Representative or County Board. Does that ambition suddenly make me a hypocrite or a flip-flopper? Would my opponent be justified in labeling me as such? Having seen the error of my ways, am I unfit as a candidate and worthy of scorn?

McCain came out today and had a change of heart about his position on illegal immigration. Should I rip him a new one, or be thankful that he gets it? Should I presume that I know what is in another person's mind and heart, and pronounce them guilty of political expediency? Or is it appropriate to give a candidate the benefit of the doubt and recognize that human beings use reason to refine their thinking and become better people?

I'm particularly fascinated in the charge of flip-flopping that is routinely leveled at Romney; most often it has to do with his stated position of the legality of abortion in his race against Kennedy in 1994.

So, here's the question: are you allowed to change your mind - rightly so - so long as you're not a public servant or a candidate for public office?

The High Cost of Arugula

While much of this wonderful column by Kathleen Parker is devoted to the inordinate attention paid to the potential "first spouses", the arugula comment alone is worth the price of admission.

I'm comforted that 1) I have no idea what it is (but I assume a vegetable) and 2) Democrats still say the stupidest things.

You Must See This to Believe It!

Sorry about the shouting, but I wanted to get your attention.

Right now, before you do anything else, go over to Katie's Dad's blog and read this post. I'm sure everyone who has been around long enough has a similar story, but this one... it takes the cake.

Thanks to KD for putting this up on his blog.

An Indictment and a Solution

I've been following this story and the lack of progress on a resolution and reserving my thoughts ever with the hope that this will be settled justly. I tend to be a realist, yet I can't help but hold out hope for the Korean hostages being held by the Taliban. Eighteen of the hostages are women, and here's today's latest news on the story.

Now, I recognize that we're dealing with fascists who are using "religion" to advance their domination. I haven't done any extensive study of Islam, so I can't say for sure that Islam is even a valid religion. Perhaps, as many say, it is a peaceful faith merely hijacked by extremists; yet, conspicuous in its absence is the outcry from the (theoretical) "moderates" not to mention any attempt at wresting back control of their religion, as it were. In fairness, perhaps that is what Karzai and others are doing.

Did you take a look at the link provided? The thing that nobody is saying is that killing is antithetical to Islam. They should release the women, of course; for that matter, they should release all of the Korean hostages. Here's the comments of Taliban thug and degenerate Qari Yousef Ahmadi:

"It might be a man or a woman. ... We may kill one, we may kill two, we may kill one of each (gender), two of each, four of each," Ahmadi told The Associated Press by satellite phone from an unknown location. "Or we may kill all of them at once."

As sad and heartbreaking as it might end up, governments should take the firm stance that they will not negotiate with terrorists. And furthermore, while Western societies pride themselves on Western values (such as patience, diplomacy, and the rule of law), we would be wise to recognize that it is an increasingly dangerous world for our values. And in an asymmetric and dangerous world, you can improve your security by being more dangerous than the perpetrators of terror. I've suggested it before, but I think that Western nations should devote a substantial amount of resources - time, people and money - to developing unprecedented clandestine capabilities. We have enemies that are willing to die in an attempt to destroy us; we would be foolish to not acknowledge this and also to not act to counter this threat.

One of the interesting lessons from the Iraq war, to my way of thinking, is this: we had to dispose of an enemy, and we chose the best option available to us to do that. Had we possessed a robust intelligence infrastructure, one that rivalled the capabilities of the CIA and the KGB at the height of the Cold War, we might not have had to invade Iraq. There are multiple ways to protect American interests abroad. We can't invade every country that poses a threat to American values. Yet, with the right commitment, we can project American power in other ways. We'd be wise to make the investment.

First Past the Post

This has been weighing on my mind.

I've posted in the past about our two party system; twice, as a matter of fact.

Is this just me, or does anyone else run the scenarios in their head and want to punch somebody in the face? As I see it, we're likely to end up with someone like Rudy getting the GOP nomination given the numerous "more conservative" candidates on the ticket.

Excepting for our purposes a discussion on the relative conservatism of each candidate, one can safely say that of the possible candidates, the ordering from liberal to conservative goes a little something like this: Guiliani, McCain, Romney, Thompson, Brownback/Huckabee, Hunter/Tancredo. I can't figure out if Paul falls between Thompson and Brownback or Huckabee and Hunter. So of the big name, big money candidates, I'd say I'd prefer Romney to McCain and Rudy any day. But enough people will vote their conscience (and mine is Hunter) and we end up with a liberal in elephant's clothing.

I know I've mentioned before the last primary for Illinois Governor... Judy Topinka won with a plurality, given a genuine split between "traditional" republicans on Oberweis and Brady. And we all know how Judy fared against Rod.

I'm wrestling with how to avoid the consequences inherent in our system, and have only one workable idea. "Workable" being a subject of much debate. I think the conservatives in the race should get together and decide who is going to be the candidate; I think that person should promise and deliver positions of influence for the guys who take the proverbial bullet and support the consensus candidate (Ambassador to the Cayman Islands, anyone?).

I'd be interested if anyone has any dissonance on the subject like I have, and if there's any possible solutions to help avoid a worst-case scenario. I shudder to think of a President Rudy - and he'd be hard, hard pressed to beat a Demo in the first place. There's practically no difference between him and a Democrat.

Gen. David Petraeus

I'm a little late to the party on this, but earlier this week Hugh Hewitt had the General on his show for an interview that was very candid on the state of things in Iraq. You can read Hugh's comments on the moronic backlash against the General, and the transcript to the actual interview here.

Will the surge work? Signs point to some early successes already. The General will present his report in September, but as Hugh already notes the left is out to discredit the General as a partisan mouth piece for the Bush Administration. As if we needed any further evidence of the media's role as a fifth column for the anti-America left. But hey, they "support" the troops, just not the General. Funny how they say things like this, but what they really mean is that the American fighting man or woman isn't really an adult; they are a child (or, stupid, like John Kerry thinks) and need to be protected (read: brought home) - thus, Democrats "support" the troops.

It'll be interesting to watch the news in September, when the General makes his report. Who wants to bet me a cool grand that the media will pick and pluck the sober news from the report and give the American people the "doom and gloom" version?

All the news that fits, prints.

The Challenge of Human Nature

I've ceased being amazed by the things that people say and do, and have begun to accept that it takes an awful lot of effort to change a person's mind. And how's that saying go? A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still?

Check out this link to the Sam Adams Alliance, and especially this commentary by Paul Jacob. I really like the Alliance; I've been to their events and am planning on attending their next one (unless I'm booted off the guest list, LOL). Yet, I feel compelled to respond to these things all the same.

It's a shortcoming of human nature, I suppose, that when the mind fixates on a thing - in this case an apparent solution - it becomes difficult to see beyond the idea to the consequences of such action. This is something I recognize, and I hope that we collectively keep this in mind as we support our own solution, Balanced Government, to our problems governmental.

I've posted a reply to Paul's piece, and I encourage you to do the same. Our efforts at education are going to take many forms, and if we can't educate friendly "competition" like the Alliance, then we've got bigger problems than we realize.

Time to Discharge Your Civic Duty

Brought to you by the good folks at the Patriot Post, see this link for a petition to "free the Texas three."

(But for Heaven's Sake, let's all just please keep quiet about our 16th President, and we'll all get along fine.)

Laura Ingraham had Johnny Sutton on her show today; it's nice to see this story isn't dying and people are still concerned enough about our border and those guys who were doing their jobs that this is staying in the public conscience.

What are you waiting for? Go sign the petition!

Another Victory for the Good Guys

So much news to blog about, so little time. This was good news that came out yesterday and, shame on me, I'm just getting around to it now. So it's going to be sometimes, folks, when blogging doesn't pay the bills.

I'm always on the lookout for positive stories like this; they seem hard to come by in the MSM and so contrary to what Democrats and their Fifth Column in the media would have you hear.

If you're a jihadist in Iraq, you've got to be wondering about promotions. Getting kicked upstairs into management might not be the best career move. I know it's only a matter of time before we close the noose around guys like al-Masri and bin Laden, and that catching them doesn't mean the fight is over. But things like this story give us a hint that things might be going in our direction.

God Bless the American fighting man and woman.

Rep. Duncan Hunter

What follows is the text of an e-mail I got from the Hunter campaign:

For immediate release:
July 17, 2007

Hunter will go to hearing with "fight" on his mind Seeking full pardon for border patrol agents Ramos and Compean (Washington, D.C.)...United States Congressman Duncan Hunter continues his pursuit of justice in the case of two border patrol agents that have been imprisoned. Hunter will attend and will testify for former agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean at a hearing to be held in Washington, D.C.

The agents allegedly shot a fleeing drug smuggler in the buttocks. They were subsequently given sentences of 11 and 12 years in prison, while federal prosecutors granted the drug smuggler immunity to return to the United States and testify against the law enforcement officers. Hunter exclaimed, "The circumstances of this case have outraged many Americans concerned with the problems of illegal immigration and drug-running from Mexico. I have and will continue to call for a full pardon from the President in this case."

In February 2005, the agents tried to stop a van driven by alleged drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila near the Mexico border. After a scuffle with Compean, Aldrete-Davila fled on foot. Ramos says he believes that he saw a gun, which the smuggler denies. Both agents fired at Aldrete-Davila, who fell, then continued his escape across the border. After he got away, Ramos and Compean filed a report on the 743-pounds of marijuana they found in the van, but not on the gunfire. As it turns out, Ramos had shot Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks. A Homeland Security agent heard about the episode went to Mexico and offered Aldrete-Davila immunity, if he would testify against Ramos and Compean.

U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, a Bush appointee, prosecuted the agents. In March, a jury found them guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon, discharge of a firearm during a violent crime, obstructing justice, lying about the incident, and willfully violating Aldrete-Davila's Fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal seizure.

Because there was gunfire, the mandatory-minimum prison sentence the agents will serve is 10 years. The U.S. Probation Office in El Paso, Texas, had recommended 20 years for each of the two agents. Aldrete-Davila, who faces no charges, is believed to be considering a civil suit against the agents and the United States Government. It is believed that he will seek $5M for the violation of his civil rights.

Hunter's congressional district is in southern California near the border with Mexico. He has led the Congressional campaign for border security, joined by dozens of his fellow members, and several activist groups, in calling for a full pardon for the duo.

White House spokesperson Tony Snow recently said he wanted "cooler heads" to prevail and "facts" to be presented in the flaring dispute over the sentences imposed on the two former agents. Following a failed request, lead by Hunter, to keep Compean and Ramos free on bail pending their appeal, the former agents surrendered to federal custody on January 17, 2007. Hunter noted "The very day they surrendered to federal custody, I recommended that agents Compean and Ramos be segregated and was assured they would be removed from the general population and close attention was being paid to their personal safety. The attack against agent Ramos indicates concerns for his personal safety and protection were ignored."

Hunter sent a letter to the President asking for an investigation into the attack against agent Ramos. The letter also requested the discharge that Bureau of Prisons Director Harley Lappin if facts show him to be derelict in his administration of his duties.

Hunter, the only Republican Presidential Candidate expected to attend the upcoming hearing, has been in the forefront on the immigration issue. He has led the way for tight border security and for extraditing the immigrants who are in this country illegally."

There's volumes written out there on the case, and as I have little to add to it, I'll simply state: this is a good example of leadership on Hunter's part. While the release seems hastily prepared and probably not as eloquent as it could be, my hat is off to Hunter on the issue.

New Feature

Check out the new feature on the side of the blog. This should point newcomers in the right direction (I hope). The last thing I want to do, after all, is confuse a visitor. For the life of me, I can't recall where I saw this feature, but it was such a good idea I couldn't let it go. TM, might it have been that fellow at the Brave New World? I'm too tired to check right now, LOL.

It's Not Like I'm Sitting Around, Bored

So in my continued efforts at outreach, I set up a blog at Townhall.com. I know what you're thinking - another blog? Cool your jets, its purpose will be to create some interest over there and direct it back here. This should mean no additional work on your part, for it is going to be very little in the way of work on my part. ;)

I should probably provide the link, don't you think?

For me, the goal remains getting people excited about balanced government and advocating for the principles we all get worked up about. Little by little, day by day, let's keep working to change the conversation.

Balanced Government and Disasters

Well, I was over at my personal page, replying to comments on my latest post. Such a mundane topic of rain came up, which naturally got the old brain a-working.

I had heard maybe a week ago on the radio that particularly in Texas and Oklahoma, the central-southern states had been pounded with some heavy rains, to the point that certain communities might be declared disaster areas, the newsman speculated.

So, I got to thinking about balanced government, of course, and how the reaction to a "disaster" is different in a balanced vs. imbalanced scenario.

Today, when a storm hits, the feds rush in to "save the day" and declare the affected area a "disaster area." This ostensibly frees up the feds to marshall resources to communities that need them. Except... didn't we have a pretty big storm a couple years ago that proved this model doesn't work as effectively as the most local spheres taking charge?

There were lots of lessons to take away from Katrina. Like, don't hire your buddy for FEMA Chief if he's not qualified for the job. Well, true, but more importantly: the federal government is too big, distant and slow to respond to the needs of citizens when you get right down to it. And on the heels of that: self-governing people are the best responders to disasters like Katrina.

Now obviously, when a genuine disaster hits (Katrina's estimated cost: $80 billion), states are going to need help. In a more balanced government, however, we'd witness states helping each other out more often before rushing off to call in the feds.

Something like this happened in my neighborhood on a small scale a few years back. After a pretty strong storm, an enormous tree branch was hanging down off of one of the neighbor's trees, laying partially attached in the middle of the yard. Three of the neighborhood guys were attempting to turn the branch and dislodge it from the main trunk, with no success (bunch of Sallies). Naturally, I came along and volunteered my services and the four of us were able to dislodge the bugger; then the chainsawing could commence. If you have a meat head like me in your family, take heart: even we have our moments of glory, although it usually involves lifting heavy objects.

I think this is a fine analogy to illustrate how a more balanced government would work. Before calling in the cops (or the public works department, or a tree cutting service, or whatever) we all grabbed hold of the problem and turned it around.

This is not to say that there shouldn't be times when the feds might have to step in and lend a hand - use the same analogy and have the entire tree knock down some power lines for the whole block. Clearly, this is something that a handful of neighbors aren't equipped to handle. Yet, there is much that we can do for our neighbors when they need help without running off at the first sign of difficulty to get some help from the "authorities."

Lord knows that the lesson from Katrina was that there are times when the "authorities" aren't going to be able to help you, and you need to count on your own wits and the help of your community.

The Patriot's Handbook

I often find myself telling the same story over and over. Perhaps it's an occupational hazard (sales), or perhaps it's "dependent-induced acute onset forgetfulness" (aka parent-brain). Before you go and roll your eyes, that happens to be an ADA-recognized condition.

OK, it's not, but you could imagine that it might be, right?

Anyway, have I mentioned before that my dear and wonderful Bride found me a copy of The Patriot's Handbook by George Grant?

Well, she did. And I had the true delight of reading a sermon delivered by Samuel West entitled On The Right To Rebel.

Well, my Countrymen (and -women), lend me your ears (or, eyes) and I'll share a little of this wisdom, 1776-style...

...the same principles which oblige us to submit to government do equally oblige us to resist tyranny..."

Oh, and here's a good one for the Libertarians:

The law of Nature gives men no right to do anything that is immoral, or contrary to the will of God, and injurious to their fellow creatures..."

And here's one for the tyrants (you know who you are):

As magistrates have no authority but what they derive from the people, whenever they act contrary to the public good, and pursue measures destructive of the peace and safety of the community, they forfeit their right to govern the people."

And later, more along the same lines:

...for it would imply a gross absurdity to assert that, when magistrates are ordained by the people solely for the purpose of being beneficial to the state, they must be obeyed when they are seeking to ruin and destroy it. This would imply that men were bound to act against the great law of self-preservation, and to contribute their assistance to their own ruin and destruction, in order that they may please and gratify the greatest monsters in nature, who are violating the laws of God and destroying the rights of mankind."

And there is much, much more where this came from. When I was reading this - incidentally, right around the time of the Senate's and President's attempted sell-out of America - you can imagine the frightening, terrible, and wonderful thoughts I was having about the nature of the American Revolution.

See, and I think I have said it before, I don't think the Revolution has ended. I think there's times where it lessens in intensity, and other times when it increases in intensity. Heck, there's times where it takes steps forward and times when it takes steps backward.

And, God willing, the Great Experiment will once again - soon - take a big leap forward.

And in other news...

I remember reading Ann Coulter one time and she made the point that the only people who are ever surprised are liberals. It's as if every morning they wake up and they've completely forgotten everything that happened before. This is why you'll notice liberals in shock, SHOCK, I tell you, when something predictable happens.

So I had to laugh when I read this article from the Associated Press. No, when a politician tells you something, you can count on it!

Look, only a liberal or an AP reporter wouldn't understand that the 2008 election is wide-open, and that when Hagel says he won't run as an independent, it just means "in the next 48 hours."

And what the deuce is a "power projector" anyway?

Oh, yeah, and in other news... the Iranians say that their nuclear program is simply for energy. Isn't that great news??

Independence Day 2007

What a great and glorious day! This has become one of my favorite holidays, and the special meaning of it grows every year for me.

Here's my favorite part of the Declaration...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Is there a more stirring political statement?

Tomorrow I will take the time to read the Declaration to my family, and hope that the kids get a little out of it. I'll remember to pray for Patriots past and present and give thanks for everything I have. I'll enjoy being surrounded by the people I love most in the world.

And I'll say a prayer of thanks for you, Dear Reader, and ask for His guidance and protection for us all while we carry on for the noble cause.

Mapping Responses to Inhofe's Petition

Inhofe Praises Defeat of Senate Amnesty Bill

June 28th, 2007

Senator Cites Support for ‘Secure Borders Now’ Petition as Evidence of American Public’s Outrage with Senate Leadership’s Failed Immigration Policy.

U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), sponsor of the ‘Secure Borders Now’ petition, today lauded the defeat of the 2007 Immigration Reform Bill (S.1639) after a fourth cloture vote failed by a margin of 53-46:

Today’s defeat of the Senate Immigration Bill is a victory for the American people, the integrity of our borders and the rule of law. For the past several weeks, a small cadre of Senators have manipulated the traditional legislative processes, strangled debate, and prevented the introduction of worthwhile amendments. In doing so, they turned a deaf ear to the will of the American people and the overwhelming sentiment of their constituents.

“I created the ‘Secure Borders Now’ petition as a way for voters all across our great nation to register their opposition to this disaster legislation. Thankfully, Americans of all stripes weighed in on this issue, influencing Congressional opinions and helping to once again defeat this bill.

“Despite its proponents’ claims to the contrary, the Senate Immigration Bill was fatally flawed from day one. Since its inception, this legislation has failed to address the key issues of concern for almost all Americans: the enhancement of border security and the enforcement of current immigration laws.

“From the beginning of this debate, I have stated that I would vehemently oppose any immigration legislation that guarantees amnesty for illegal immigrants, unfairly burdens taxpayers or fails to secure our borders. In the wake of this latest vote against amnesty, I sincerely hope the Senate will now turn its attention and efforts toward meaningful immigration reform. It is clear that in the future we must deal with the issue of illegal immigration by focusing first on securing our borders - without a path to amnesty.

“I want to offer my sincere thanks to all those who stood firm for increased border security and against amnesty. Today, your voices were heard and a Senate long deaf to the will of the American people on this issue, responded as directed by its constituents.

Senator Inhofe’s ‘Secure Borders Now’ petition has received over 85,000 signatures since its inception. Voters from all fifty states signed the petition urging Senators to “vote against the immigration reform bill currently being considered in the Senate and to oppose any future effort that undermines our national security or grants amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.”
Copies of petition signatures from each state were provided to their respective Senators.

Senator Inhofe has pledged to provide the same information to member of the House of Representatives, when that chamber begins debate on immigration reform later this year.

To sign the petition, view the map of signatures, or join the discussion on the ‘Secure Borders Now’ blog, please visit http://www.securebordersnow.com/.

Governor Pressured Into Signing Bill

This immigration deal ain't over yet by a long shot. But in the meantime while the federal Congress regroups and recollects its thoughts on the late nightmarish attempt to impose its 'comprehensive' will on the governed whose consent is THE prerequisite for its authority (DoI), concerned citizens at the local and State levels are demanding their Legislatures and their Governors impose their will on illegals, and on those who assist them in breaking the law.

Case in point? Border State, Arizona, whose Legislative and Executive branches have apparently been embroiled in a three-year-long battle over tough legislation intended to make the State less inviting to illegal mexican immigrants. Below are some excerpts from the AP story which you may read in full here: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Employer-Sanctions.html

PHOENIX (AP) --

Arizona's governor signed a bill Monday that prohibits people from hiring illegal immigrants and requires businesses to verify applicants' employment eligibility, saying Congress was apparently ''incapable'' of helping.

The bill's approval by Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, marks the end of a three-year fight at the Republican-controlled Legislature to create state-imposed employer sanctions. The goal is to weaken the economic incentive for immigrants to sneak across the border and to lessen Arizona's role as the busiest illegal gateway into the nation.

But the governor said that the bill she signed had major flaws, and that she was willing to call a special legislative session to address them.

''Immigration is a federal responsibility, but ... it is now abundantly clear that Congress finds itself incapable of coping with the comprehensive immigration reforms our country needs,'' the governor said in a statement. ''I signed it, too, out of the realization that the flow of illegal immigration into our state is due to the constant demand of some employers for cheap, undocumented labor.''

I guess the 'major flaws' inherent to the bill Gov. Napolitnano signed Monday are what kept her from signing earlier, but apparently those flaws don't rise to the same level that they once did when she thought our saviors at the federal level were going to get her off the hook. Apparently the legislation has been sitting there prepared and waiting for the governor's signature for some time now, if I read the story right. But the governor was withholding her signature in hopes that the feds would release her from the responsibility.

Like so many others, Governor Napolitano is working under the false impression that 'immigration is a federal responibility,' in exclusion of any independent responsibility from the States which make up this federal union of ours. But even if her view were the correct one, it wouldn't take away from the fact that it is a flawed and an improper view, which ultimately leads to improper manifestations thereof. Speaking of which, I reckon that at least some of the flaws contained in the bill she signed would be more rightly denominated 'perceived flaws' based on her incorrect view of the subject.

On the one hand it's worrisome that we have governors of States who fallaciously believe as Napolitano does. On the other, I'm encouraged that despite their reticence to sign the appropriate legislation into law, we've been given yet another example, in the State of Arizona, of representative government working as it should.

Don't be surprised when the feds, the pundits, and the talking-heads start throwing a fit about the dangers inherent with 'allowing' the States to decide the question of immigration reform. And don't let that influence you. You can chalk it up to one of two things; either they're simply misinformed, or they fear a diminution of the federal government's power and influence over the States. In either case they should be called on the carpet at the very moment they begin shouting their declamations.

Cool New Feature

Be sure and check out the cool new feature on the left of the blog. Webster's got his own page for more broad musings, and I for one am excited about having one myself. Coming soon, hopefully!

"Anything worth having is worth Working for."

That's one of the many verses of guiding wisdom that my dad used to offer up to me occasionally during my upbringing. And in the tradition of ol' dad I too have found very creative ways in which to share with my children, my employees and friends, and at times strangers with whom I converse on occasion, the truth in the words, and of course what the phrase itself leaves unsaid yet clearly implies - a thing isn't worth having if it isn't worth working for.

The phrase came to me as I was reading this morning's AP story on the defeat of the amnesty bill and what the next move is for Congress on the heels of that defeat:

WASHINGTON (AP):

Hours after a massive immigration bill collapsed in the Senate, lawmakers and lobbyists began seeking ways to pass bits and pieces of the measure important to their constituents.

A priority for many farm groups is the ''Ag jobs'' component, one of several programs now needing a new legislative vehicle. It would legalize about 1 million undocumented agricultural workers in the U.S., a key goal of growers whose crops can rot in the fields if not harvested at key times by people willing to work hard at low wages.

The program is considered relatively popular, as is another piece of the stalled bill: the DREAM Act, or Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act. It would create a path to legality for illegal immigrants planning to attend college or join the military and who came to the United States with their families before they turned 16.

Some lawmakers said they hope Congress will enact such programs as stand-alone bills fairly soon. Others, however, said it will be difficult to pass even noncontroversial parts by themselves. Backers of items likely to be left out, they said, will resist losing the political leverage that a multifaceted package can provide.

In an interview earlier this week, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. -- a backer of the sidetracked immigration bill -- said the one-at-a-time approach may prove impossible, even for tougher border-enforcement measures that now seem popular.

''The only way we're going to get Ag jobs or DREAM Act'' or pathways to legal status for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, Graham said, ''is to do it together. This idea of 'Just do the enforcement,' there are no votes for that.''

Other Republicans, especially in the House, disagree. All immigration-related proposals should be postponed, they said, until the Mexican border is secured.

''The American people believe that until we're able to secure our borders and enforce our laws, taking additional steps is really not in the best interests of the country,'' House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said after Thursday's crucial Senate vote that derailed the bill.
Some lawmakers immediately urged President Bush to accept defeat on the wide-ranging bill and ask Congress for an emergency spending bill for more border enforcement activities. ''That would be a great next step after this vote,'' said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who opposed the bill.
Some lawmakers said it hardly matters, however, because enough money and authority already are in place to do the job.

There should be ''a very strong sense of urgency in this country to simply carry out the law, the mandate, for 854 miles of fence that we passed'' in the 109th Congress, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., told reporters Thursday. ''They've only built 13 miles of the fence so far. Let's get it built before the next hot season.''

While the security debate simmers, the farm lobby will push for Ag jobs, immigrant advocacy groups will fight for the DREAM Act, and other interest groups will seek avenues for similar pet projects. Some legislative leaders Thursday were noncommittal on how they might fare.
House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., was asked if his caucus would support Ag jobs by itself. Most Republicans would back a similar program, he said, but he added: ''The concern that House Republicans have and have had for some time now is the order in which these things are accomplished. You have securing the border, being sure that workers who are here appropriately are here with ID that's verifiable, that's reasonably hard to duplicate.''
Paul Schlegel, public policy director for the American Farm Bureau, said in an interview, ''It's a little soon to handicap'' the Ag jobs program's future. ''The administration has said all along they want a comprehensive approach,'' he said, and the bureau has worked in concert with the White House thus far.

The immigration bill's collapse forces all key players to rethink their next moves. Individual components may gain support in the coming weeks, but it won't be easy, several lawmakers said.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said in an interview before Thursday's vote: ''I think it's pretty hard, the way things are set up here, to get anything done on immigration that's not part of a package.''

Note the refrain among our lawmakers that it's easier to pass a multi-faceted ('comprehensive'?) immigration plan than it is to pass singular and popular aspects of the bill. Note how that they tend to favor the 'easy,' as opposed to the more difficult pathway to properly dealing with the immigration situation. And I guess it's obvious why, because a packaged deal appeals to more folks than do singular aspects of the deal. But to paraphrase President Lincoln: "you can please some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time; but you can't please all the people all the time."

I'll admit that I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the farm lobby and others who always fall back on the tired old retort that crops are going to rot in the fields if we don't legalize millions of aliens who, unlike Americans, are willing to work hard, and for beans too. It should be pretty obvious to reasonable persons that the claim falls way short of exhausting the options.

There's a point here that I think really needs to be driven home. Americans will work low-paying jobs if the feds'll keep their noses out of private business and the private affairs of individual Americans. But it's not just the feds that are culpable in this, private businesses invite impositions from the government by doing just what they're doing in this case. Individual Americans invite those impositions by asking their government to inject itself into that which should be kept strictly between the negotiating parties.

Another thing that'd be extremely helpful in solving this crisis (if it truly rises to the crisis level) is if welfare and assistance programs were abolished. Not that I'm saying we should abolish them immediately, but I am saying that we need to be working toward that goal. Assistance programs create dependency in those benefiting from them, not to mention that they create unhealthy attachments in the recipients toward those they perceive to be their saviors - the government. One may as well sell his soul to the devil himself if he believes the government to be the savior of he and his family.

Beyond that we have Senators like Graham insisting that to get border and law enforcement we have to go for amnesty. I would simply ask Senator Graham, why is this the case? There are no votes for enforcement? Perhaps the Senate oughta put its collective head to the task of offering the American People a non-comprehensive alternative now that the amnesty deal received its proper death blow.

As MT suggests in our position on immigration reform, we should take ordered, measured, and quantifiable steps in any and all future efforts to correct this situation. The first step is to seal the border. The legislation has already been passed, and the funding is there to build 800+ miles of fence. Get 'er done. In the meantime the States can determine for themselves what the best course of action is regarding the immigration problem. And as it becomes more of a problem for certain States than it currently is, don't think for a second that the citizens thereof won't pressure their Congresses to get something done.

A Slap of Friendship

Great story: there was this kid who lived in our neighborhood back when I was in junior high. He allegedly got into some tussle with, of all people, a girl in the neighborhood; and further, he allegedly slapped her. Now, I don't remember all the people involved in this tussle. I just remember being there when the explanation was offered: it was a slap of friendship.

Can you think of a more absurd or ridiculous thing to say?

Still thinking?

OK, enough suspense! The Senate hands Bush a major defeat, how about that?! Yes, God help me for I think I have wet myself, that's actually the title of the Reuters headline!

And there's this gem from the article...

"No one benefits now, there is nothing to look forward ... it's very disappointing," Rosa Rosales, the national president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, told Reuters.

Oh, my goodness people! Let's get a few things straight.

1) Reuters: Your knee-jerk hatred of Bush is positively hysterical in this instance, because everyone with nominal brain activity knows that what actually happened was that regular Americans told the elites that there'd be hell to pay if this monstrosity got passed. Regular Americans defeated the Senate elites and Bush. Credit where credit is due, right?

2) Hey, Rosa Rosales! You know who benefits now? Regular American citizens, my favorite people in the world!

Commence the happy dance.

A Federal Case for Sane Immigration Reform

A key vote is scheduled today on the Senate's amnesty bill. And by the way, it has ever been and remains a bill designed primarily around the intention of determining a national policy on immigration which grants amnesty to 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants already in the country, and to open the door to millions more. These are the fundamental principles which yet undergird the Senate's bill.

If passed the bill would effectively kill all efforts initiated by individual States in this union intended to deal with the growing threats of open borders, and a lack of will at the national level to enforce existing immigration laws to the respective states themselves. Thus killing in effect the vital guiding influence of the States upon the national entity regarding this question of immigration reform.

In contemplating what the better route would be in determining national policy on this important question, I'm increasingly of the opinion that the States should set the standards for the national government around which to mold and shape a federal policy. After all, a national policy on immigration should reflect the will of the whole People of these United States, not of a few rogue representatives of States directly installed by the People thereof who themselves wish to impose their will on the rest of the nation. Oh how I long for a return to a proper balance of powers among the States in this union; how I long for the day when the sustaining influence of federalism experiences a rebirth in this faltering Republic.

My friends, the federal principle is key to the survival of this Republic. I am convinced now more than ever, and in light of recent developments regarding the amnesty bill that in the absence of the re-establishment of the federal principle, we are effectively doomed as a nation unique to the world. We must at some point halt encroachments upon the federal principle, and to begin restoring it to its rightful place in this (Federal) Representative Republic.

I've mentioned on a few occasions now that the legislature of my State has indeed taken aggressive steps with regard to the growing immigration problem here. And as I've said before, this legislation is due to take effect Nov. 1st of this year. The Senate's amnesty bill would, for all intents and purposes, overthrow what the People of the State of Oklahoma through their legislature have determined to be the proper and right course of action for themselves.

While I appreciate the need for a national policy on immigration, much more appreciative, as well as cognitive am I of the need for a sane national policy on the immigration question. And it's my firm belief that the national Senate is too disconnected from the general population to get a sane national policy on immigration reform from that body of miscreants.

No; this Senate amnesty bill needs to be killed now. It is, as is the body proposing it, too wrought with disease to admit of any immediate change or alteration capable of rescuing it from the depths of utter contemptability. And when it's finally put to death, for once and for all, then the States who have yet to do so need, as a matter of responsibility, to take up the question and determine their own policies regarding immigration reform outside the coercive influence of the national government. That appears to me to be the only route available to us by which we may get a sane national policy on the immigration question.

Within the ranks of the GOP it seems like there's a growing fear that the party will suffer immensely if it doesn't rally around the President and his determination to get the Senate bill passed. Personally I don't give a hoot about whether the party lives or dies. All latinos and all latino sympathizers can go on over to the extreme liberal party for all I care. It's not my purpose or my intention to alienate any conservative from the conservative party. But first, I don't think the Republican can any longer claim the attribute of conservatism except perhaps in a sort of 'relative to' kind of way. Nor do I think that any true conservative could ever lower himself to joining ranks with the democrats and what they represent overall.

There's also a growing fear within the ranks of Republicans and democrats alike that if something (the Senate amnesty bill) isn't passed now, the national policy on immigration will be determined by the next President and the next Congress. I have to wonder what exactly the problem is there. What's the rush to get this bill passed? Where exactly are the opposing parties coming from which has them agreeing that it can't wait till 2009? The answers are fairly obvious to my mind.

As I've said, it seems to me that the State legislatures are much more likely than is the national legislature to put together immigration packages closely resembling the general sense of the citizens thereof. And that a proper national policy might better be guided thereby than by their elected officials at the national level whose relative disconnectedness from the general sense of their respective constituencies must be evident to any reasonable person.

The fact of the matter is, my friends, that if you can't trust your State governments to determine a policy on immigration closely resembling your own, then you certainly can't safely entrust that responsibility to the national government which is much more distant from you geographically as well as philosophically. And seriously folks, why would any of you wish for a single State, or a combination of States, to determine national policy on this issue if in fact the opinions and the policies of those States does not comport to that of the majority of States in this union?

Revolutionary Concept

So here we are. The sell-out of America continues, as the amnesty bill is back in play. And this AP article almost speaks glowingly of Bush - which should be a very large, very bright, red flag when the President's agenda fits nicely with the MSM.

Yes, we need to call, fax and e-mail our "representatives." As a smart fellow (you know who you are; and where ya been?) once suggested, a good-old fashioned tar-and-feathering probably wouldn't hurt either.

A caller to the Hugh Hewitt show last night who hates the bill wondered aloud if the best thing for America might be having the bill pass. The American people would soon bear the brunt of this foolish and destructive bill, and in utter disgust, roundly turn out all of the crooks who voted for it. Dean Barnett (sitting in for Hugh) doubted this "winning-by-losing" outlook, but I can think of examples of great wrongs (Kelo, as a prime example) resulting in positive ends (the states taking aggressive action in the aftermath to protect private property rights).

Of course, "winning-by-losing" may just be wishful thinking, and shouldn't stop people from burying their "representatives" in calls, etc. Yet, hasn't history proven to us that all things serve the Lord? Even great evils, although unwittingly, work towards His purposes.

Taxation without Representation, anyone?

The Immigration Question, Part II

TM, you know, the "squandered inheritance" line of thinking in your post jogged my memory a bit. I went back and found this piece that I read recently by the incomparable Mark Steyn. You can read the whole thing here, but I'll excerpt the best of it below.

Says the man:

Faced with a sustained systemic assault on US sovereignty, the federal government simply surrendered - and, in effect, sued for terms. Last year’s offer was rejected as being unacceptable to the vast legions of the “undocumented” and so, for example, the requirement to pay three out of five years’ back taxes was replaced by a total tax amnesty.

But just so we’re all clear what happened: An army of peasants defeated the soi-disant hyperpower. America’s closest allies - the Australians, say – periodically seek some modest advantage for their citizenry in return for their steadfast support, and generally get nowhere. But a population the size of Australia’s simply moved across the border and, despite huge public hostility to the strains imposed on local education and health care, the US government simply shrugged: There’s nothing we can do except give in.

Steyn goes on to discuss our problem as the template for subverting a nation's sovereignty, and makes the same point you make, TM: that those who are smart enough to recognize this aren't recognizing it.

But they're not stupid, the elites (well, those that think being "compassionate" to invaders is more important than American sovereignty are stupid). They simply have sold out American sovereignty for cheap labor. It's pathetic, and part of the problem is the enormous mountain of restrictions and government interference in how a business operates in the first place. Also, courtesy of the elites.

Anyone surprised that in the latest Gallup Poll Americans gave Congress a 14% approval rating?