There are none so blind as those
who will not see.

In the year or so that I’ve been writing this blog one of the driving themes has been that the Republican Party has lost contact with its core principles of conservatism and has suffered political consequences for doing so, as well as put the entire country in serious jeopardy of becoming an overwhelmingly socialist entity. I’ve made analogies using my own state of Kalifornia as an example, as well drawn attention to national issues to illustrate the dangers we’re facing in this era.

This debate has now become a national one, taking place at all levels from my lowly blog all the way up to the national arena, involving national bloggers and talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, and many others.

The battle lines are clearly drawn between party regulars, for whom it’s GOP uber alles and victory over Democrats at any cost; and conservatives who are demanding party fealty to core principles and planks, and are willing to withhold support from the GOP rather than sacrifice the nation’s future to long-term disaster simply for short-term political gain.

Everyone’s heard of Battered Wife Syndrome, in which the cops show up and the wife refuses to press charges against the guy who just knocked her silly for the tenth time, usually saying, “But I love him! And he’s such a wonderful guy most of the time!” Yeah, when he’s not knocking her through the wall. She is an “enabler”, allowing him to continue his behavior pattern of spousal abuse without fear of penalty. Many states finally had to pass laws taking the charging decision out of the hands of the victim to allow prosecution of the batterers.

That’s exactly what we have with the GOP Enablers: they love their party, when it’s not busy trying to be Democrat-Lite by spending money in a way that would shame a drunken sailor, writing laws infringing on the Bill of Rights, trying to grant amnesty to illegal aliens, expanding entitlements dramatically, enacting anti-market regulations to address such liberal causes as Global Warming, and refusing to enforce existing laws such as those mandating a border fence.

Like the battered wife who refuses to see her husband as the SOB he really is, the GOP Enablers refuse to acknowledge that we have only gotten to the sorry state we’re in through the collusion of the GOP with the Democrats; and their refusal to stand for traditional Republican principles of fiscal responsibility, small government, and adhesion to the concept of law and order. Like the abusive spouse, the GOP is able to continue its behavior without fear of consequences, because the Enablers will stick with it blindly.

The Enablers are concerned with one thing only: beating Democrats in elections. They don’t seem to care what the consequences are, and they are significant. From a practical standpoint, they seem blind to the fact that when candidates run on strong core principles, they enjoy huge margins of victory, such as Reagan’s two landslides and the 1994 congressional sweep predicated on the Contract with America. As candidates become weaker on the principles, they receive ever-slimmer margins, and depending on how far they stray, may well end up in defeat, as we saw in last November’s mid-term congressional elections in which the GOP lost the majorities of both houses.

Quite frankly, that practical consideration alone should make the Enablers re-think their position, but it never seems to do so. I am constantly mystified as to why that is.

But of even more import is the consequence to our country and society. The only hope of stopping the leftward drift in which we find ourselves is a Republican Party that will stand firmly for true conservative principles. At this point in time, that is sadly not the case.

The Enablers use the War on Terror (WOT) as their justification for overlooking all flaws in the GOP candidates. This is a huge mistake, as the WOT is going to last for many years, if not generations. The Cold War lasted almost 40 years, and the Korea stalemate has passed fifty years and goes on to this day. If we sacrifice all other considerations of a candidate’s worthiness on the altar of this one issue, then the doors are open for candidates who are liberal on other very important issues to label themselves as Republicans and run for office. This is exactly what’s happened when we consider political figures like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudolph Giuliani; in other eras, they would be Democrats.

The only way a spousal batterer changes his behavior is when he’s forced to suffer consequences for his actions. The same holds true for political parties. If the GOP can continue sliding leftward without fear of losing elections, it will continue to do so. Pandering is so much easier than principle, and they can always count on the votes of the Enablers. It may take the consequence of lost elections – including possibly next year’s presidential race – for the GOP to change its own behavior.

The only hope for the GOP and for the country is for conservatives to refuse to blindly vote for candidates who aren’t demonstrably principled, in order to force the GOP to rediscover and adhere to its values or suffer the consequences.

A couple of days ago, another blogger on this site – thank you, Jevica – brought to my attention a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published by OSHA that would have a very serious impact on the ability of sporting goods or gun stores that stock firearms to also keep in stock the ammunition used in those guns. You can read about it here. The net result would be that those stores could stock either guns or ammunition, but not both. Guns without ammo are simply expensive hammers. I have a hard time envisioning a whole industry of ammo-only stores springing up. Bottom line: draconian gun control by Federal fiat.

There’s been a lot of talk lately about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. Most people are unaware that the Fairness Doctrine originally came into existence as a rule issued by the FCC in 1949. The FCC finally dropped it under Reagan, but while it was in effect the Supreme Court made several rulings on various aspects of it because the Doctrine actually created more problems than it was allegedly designed to solve.

What do these two Federal agency rules have in common? In both cases, they have a clear impact on the ability of the people to exercise their basic Constitutional rights as protected in the Bill of Rights; in the case of the OSHA rule, the Second Amendment, and the Fairness Doctrine tramples on the First Amendment.

Federal agencies like OSHA, FCC, FEC, EPA and the rest of the alphabet soup have the power to make “rules” which have the power of law, all without these proposed regulations being subjected to the scrutiny and debate of the normal legislative process. All the agency has to do is publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that allows a specified period for public comment, and they can move ahead. There’s no requirement that they pay attention to or respond to the comments that are submitted, and in most cases these rules move forward essentially unchallenged, as most people are never even aware of them until they either read about the rule going into effect in the newspaper, or the person’s charged with violating the rule. The heads of these agencies are political appointees essentially answerable to no one.

This is to lawmaking what a Kangaroo Court is to justice; legislating in the dark of night, outside of public scrutiny and debate.

In the case of the proposed OSHA rule: as attuned to the gun rights issue as I am, I had never heard of this rule until Jevica’s post of July 6, and the comment period for this rule expires on July 12, three days from the date I’m posting this essay. Needless to say, I posted a comment immediately on the OSHA site, and am contacting my Representative directly on this issue, but that’s almost by pure chance, and I have little hope that it will have any effect.

Further, this outrageous practice essentially insulates elected politicians from any consequence arising from bad policy, and the only recourse once bad rules have been put into effect – at least as far as I can determine – is to somehow force the elected politicians to overrule it by legislative action. In other words, the cart is definitely before the horse.

In the case of the proposed OSHA rule, what the net result of this rule will be is a de facto form of gun control without any debate in any public forum, no accountability by any elected official, achieved with virtual invisibility, with far-reaching national effects, and no remedy of redress or appeal.

Does that sound to you like the American way?

Democracy worked last week.

A hubristic President and his cohorts in the U.S. Senate were forced to concede to the will of the People, and shelve plans to force upon the nation an amnesty for illegal aliens that was opposed by almost 80% of the electorate. It was an almost unprecedented event, the vox populi forcing their representatives to actually represent their wishes on a major national policy.

However, the Fat Lady hasn’t warbled yet.

In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA 1986) – also known as Simpson-Mazzoli -- was passed into law mandating penalties for those who hire illegal aliens, as well as granting amnesty to an estimated 3 million. Last year, in a move of political desperation motivated by their desire to maintain control of the House and Senate, Congressional Republicans passed, and Bush signed into law, legislation mandating the construction of a border fence along our southern boundary with Mexico.

Those are the extant and current laws of the land: employer penalties and border barricades. Further, it is among the duties of the President, as mandated by the Constitution, to “execute” and enforce the laws of the land. What does Bush have to show for his efforts in this area?

It’s estimated that about half of the illegal aliens currently in the country arrived during Bush’s administration. That’s anywhere from 6 million to 15 million illegals in the last 6 years. Further, of the 700 miles of fence mandated by last year’s bill, somewhere around 3 to 13 miles, depending on the source, have actually been built.

Now, in an extraordinary fit of what can only be described as pique, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff – who reports directly to Bush – has taken to the airwaves to proclaim that once again the Bush administration is essentially refusing to do its job. You can read the full story here.

“Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff yesterday scolded senators for failing to pass an immigration bill with new border and interior enforcement tools, refused to commit to spending the $4.4 billion in border security President Bush said is needed, and said the onus is now on Congress to pass something.”

He “refused to commit”? In other words, he has refused to do his job.

"We're going to say to the members of Congress who think they have a better way that they should produce legislation and pass legislation, which they have not done for the past two years," Mr. Chertoff said on "Fox News Sunday.”

Wait a minute, Chertoff! There are already laws on the books. You are refusing to do your job because Congress didn’t pass the new laws, including amnesty, that Bush wanted? We need more new laws when you have so far refused to enforce the laws already on the books?

“When pressed by host Chris Wallace about the $4.4 billion that Mr. Bush vowed during the immigration-bill debate to spend on border security, Mr. Chertoff said that money was to have come from fines paid under the bill's legalization program and thus said funding border security is now Congress' problem.”

Really? Last year’s fence bill was funded. Why is the fence not being built? Where’s the fence?

“Mr. Chertoff said he will have a tough time enforcing existing laws without some of the tools the Senate bill would have given him, including stiffer employer sanctions, but said the administration has been enforcing the laws and will continue to do so.”

A flat-out lie.

The time has come to demand that the Bush Administration do its job. We should contact our elected representatives, including Bush, demand that either he do his job or be investigated as to why he and his underlings refuse to execute their duly sworn duties, and demand an answer to the question: Where’s the fence?