A fellow Townhall blogger, “Doc Steech”, brought to my attention a newspaper column written by yet a another Townhall blogger, “Mike”, who maintains the Townhall blog Deschamps (here), currently the second-most-visited member blog on the site and one in which the author seems to espouse pretty conservative views. However, in the real world Mike is also Michael Powell who writes a column for Pacific Publishing Company, which apparently publishes several community newspapers in the Seattle area. Doc brought to my attention one of Powell’s columns in which he takes a very surprising stand for a professed conservative: “that no one is really responsible enough to own a handgun”. You can read the entire column (here).

If we extend that same rationale to the rest of the Bill of Rights, then neither is anyone responsible enough to have or voice an opinion on issues of national interest, decide their own religion for themselves, determine if they’ve been wronged by government and should seek redress, or anything else. All those aspects of liberty should be dictated, I suppose, by trained professionals. It would also indicate that Powell evidently considers the Founding Fathers misguided in their trust of the People.

Powell also writes: “the Second Amendment was designed for a different time and era in American history.” Well, so was the First Amendment. So, using Powell’s logic, the First Amendment would only protect the Free Press rights of magazines and newspapers, not radio, television, the internet, telephones, or any other post-18^th Century technology.

In talking about the number of guns in private hands in this country, Powell writes: “I do not know how on earth we can decrease that number of weapons, but I do know it is completely necessary and must be attempted”, clearly labeling himself as a gun-banner and enemy of the Second Amendment and by extension the Bill of Rights. Because, you see, the Bill of Rights isn’t a Chinese menu from which you get to pick the ones you like and leave the rest behind; it’s a prix fixee menu, all or none. It was passed as an en bloc amendment to the Constitution, drafted by James Madison.

Of course, we can clearly see Powell’s philosophical underpinnings reflected in this statement: “Out of the entire cadre of Republicans… (running) for president of the United States… Giuliani is the only one who is staunchly for gun control.” Accurate, and reflective of Powell’s status as a neo-conservative in the true sense of the word: one who is only selectively conservative, and generally liberal on social policies. Further, this is a clear example of why the GOP is in so much trouble. The core plank of the Party – support for the Constitution in its original meaning and intent – is in dire jeopardy from those like Powell and Giuliani who would join the Liberals in redefining traditional American values in clear disregard for the intent of the Founders.

Powell, Giuliani and their ilk – the neo-cons, or faux-cons as I call them – are the biggest obstacle the GOP has to overcome if they are ever to regain any meaningful majority political status in this country, because like it or not the GOP’s success is contingent on support from true conservatives; gun owners, religious people, and others who believe the Constitution means just what it says, no more and no less. People unwilling to sell their rights down the river for a vapid promise and a slick campaign, or a hollow election victory by a Party that no longer represents their views. The Silent Majority.

Thanks again to Doc Steech for bringing this to my attention.

UPDATE

Email exchange between Mike and me:

Last Sunday afternoon, 23 September 2007, my little girl became another man’s wife. It was a festive, joyous occasion, with moments of hilarity, tears, and great poignancy. I wish all of you could have been there.

With Bridesmaids                            Brother, Mom, Bride, Stepdad

 
Daughter and Daddy                            Walking down the aisle

  
Taking their vows                           First appearance as Man and Wife

 
Daddy/Daughter dance to "Kokomo"   Cutting the cake

The “Golden Rule”: He who owns the gold
Makes the rules.

“The power to tax involves
the power to destroy”
Chief Justice John Marshall

As I’ve previously written, the debate out here in Leftifornia rages on concerning universal and/or “mandated” health insurance for all residents, with the basis of discussion being not whether it’s a good idea, but simply which form it will take. Unfortunately, this discussion seems to be migrating to the national forum, with many purported conservatives buying into the idea.

This is a very bad omen for us all.

It’s couched in deceptive and emotional rhetoric: compassion, safety net, for the children, the poor, societal responsibility, etcetera, ad nauseum. But the bottom line is it’s just another form of either entitlement or taxation – depending on its form of implementation – and both come with a very high price and heavy burden to a free society.

We already have a governmental system that’s become unconstitutionally intrusive into personal life choices as exemplified by laws regarding smoking, seat belts, helmets, trans fats, fast food restaurants, light bulb choices, and a host of other issues, all of which is rationalized under the umbrella of some alleged “cost to society”.

To differentiate the plans, universal health care (UHC) is health insurance provided by the state as an entitlement, while mandated health insurance (MHC) is exactly what it sounds like: a legislated requirement that all people be insured, generally with government providing one of the insurance options. In both cases, this is going to require additional taxes be paid by those who are able to pay them, and will obviously require subsidization for those “unable” for whatever reason to cough up the moolah.

So from Square One, we’re talking about more taxes on those who are productive and, probably not coincidentally, most likely already covered by a health plan.

But the far larger problem is that once the government truly controls health insurance – and under either plan that most surely is the end result – we can kiss our freedom of choice buh-bye. Because from that point forward, there is a clearly quantifiable true price in insurance exposure to all human activity, and as the provider of insurance the government will be able to set the premiums at will based on their own actuarial “analysis” of the health care cost exposure of any activity.

You like skydiving? Forget it, the risk’s too high to allow that. Smoker? Prepare for Draconian premium increases. Twenty pounds overweight? Premium surcharge for THAT indulgence. No more Big Macs at Mickey D’s. Your next milk shake at Coldstone Creamery will be made from soy milk, and only non-dairy creamer at Starbucks; forget the sprinkles and whipped cream on top. You’re not feeding your newborn the prescribed baby formula? Penalty! Police “studies prove” that being out after a certain hour makes one more prone to victimization by violent criminals? Curfew! Literally ANYTHING can be couched as a “health issue”.

Worst of all, the whole idea of government interfering in this issue is predicated on a lie. Many if not most of the uninsured are that way by choice, particularly young people who don’t perceive a need for insuring their own good health. As for those who do have a real need, they’re already provided a safety net through the hospital system we have in this country. Stop emergency room abuse, and we’ll go a long way toward solving the problems we have in our health care system in this country.

True liberty, by definition, entitles people to make their own decisions – good OR bad – and enjoy the benefits or suffer the consequences without government dictating those choices, or insulating them from their own bad choices. Granting government that power also grants it the power to determine and define what is a bad choice. Once that happens, liberty is simply…. Gone.

I’ll start by thanking my good friend John R. for forwarding to me the email that is quoted in this essay.

On the subject of the Islamics in their community it would seem Australia’s Prime Minister has a rather blunt and laudable prescription for dealing with those who don’t care to assimilate into the Australian culture. Here’s the story:

WAY TO GO AUSSIES - At least your Government has the guts.

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown.  Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not Accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament.  "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia  is not for you", he said on National Television.

"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia: one the Australian law and another Islamic law that is false.  If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option", Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country.  Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should 'clear off'.  "Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off", he said.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.

Quote: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.  Take It Or Leave It.  I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture.  Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.

"However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.  I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia . However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity.  And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. Our culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language.  Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society .. Learn the language!

"Most Australians believe in God.  This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented.  It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools.  If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.

"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.

"If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like 'A Fair Go', then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means keep your culture, but do not force it on others.

”This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian Beliefs, or Our Way Of Life, I encourage you to take advantage of one other great Australian freedom ....

“THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.

"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE.  We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here.  So accept the country YOU accepted.”

I’ve confirmed the validity of the story, unreported in the American press as far as I can recall, by finding the following story in the Australian press regarding the Muslims’ response, here. Not surprisingly, they weren’t too enthusiastic.

Too bad.

What would be more heartening would be to see our own politicians emulate PM Howard’s approach to this issue – and by extrapolation to the other group of non-assimilators, illegal aliens – and put an end to this perpetual nonsense of the tail wagging the American dog.

Perspective is everything. When most people look at me, at 6’ 2”, they consider me tall. However, to me most of the world is composed of short people.

In the case of physical human height, we have statistical data which reveal that based on the objective criteria, my viewpoint is actually incorrect, as the average height for an American adult male is a little under 5’ 10”, according to the CDC. So we don’t have to cue up the Randy Newman song just yet.

In the cultural civil war in which we currently find ourselves, the use of language is a very powerful tool, as it helps shape the debate. This conflict can be traced back to the Vietnam Era, when a true schism in values developed between the Left and the Right, and for the first time since the Civil War of the 19^th Century fundamental societal issues became contested. At the time, the forum for debate was essentially monopolized by what’s now called the Mainstream Media (MSM), i.e. newspapers and television. Talk radio and the internet as we know them today didn’t exist.

The prevailing political point of view of those influential in the MSM is lopsidedly liberal; this isn’t simply anecdotal as witnessed by people like author Bernard Goldberg, a former network news producer and reporter, but is supported by independent research data also. If one studies the data available, such as here, one sees that not only do MSM members self-identify disproportionately as Democrats, but also view world events and policies through a much more liberal lens than is truly reflective of the American populace at large.

Two very human mechanisms then come into play. The first is a perception of reality colored by one’s proclivities. Child molesters view their actions as a natural expression of their “love” for their victims. Liberal/Leftist reporters and commentators also view their own point of view as the “norm”, and therefore bristle when accused of being biased in their reportage. This distorted perception leads naturally to the second human mechanism, a lack of true objectivity. Just as I view my height as the norm and most other people as short, liberals view leftism as the true standard of normalcy, and their advocacy of leftist ideals as actually being objective.

Thus Sarah Brady and the gun-banning organizations can be called “gun safety advocates” (a benign, even philanthropic, term), while the NRA and gun rights supporters are called the “gun lobby” (a term with connotations of “evil”), all while maintaining a claim to objectivity.

In an Op-Ed piece in the Washington post (here) Robert Dalleck advocates a constitutional amendment to allow the removal of a President from office based on the whim of the Congress, no actual reason required, and uses as his justification the unpopularity of George Bush and Dalleck’s assertion that Bush is a “failed President”. Of course, when Jimmy Carter was President and had a vastly less popular administration which was truly failed in every way, there were no calls for such an amendment.

In an astonishing New York Times editorial dated 26 July (here), columnist Jean Edward Smith takes the position regarding the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) that “if the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values” the Democrat-controlled Congress should take matters into its own hands and “stack” the Court with additional – and presumably more liberal – justices, a power that Congress does in fact have, as the Constitution does not specify how many members shall comprise the Court.

In considering Smith’s column, several interesting thoughts come to mind. The first is the idea that SCOTUS is to somehow reflect “popular values”. The duty of SCOTUS is to rule on the constitutionality of legal issues, not conduct popularity polls. Further, we live in a republic, not a populist democracy. We are governed by the rule of law, not opinion polls. True democracy is three foxes and a hen deciding on what’s for dinner, and is not our system.

Even more interesting is the idea that a Court that has now – by a very slim and undependable margin – returned to some semblance of Originalism fails to reflect “popular values”. This clearly illustrates the true lack of objectivity of author Smith. The clear inference is that the activist SCOTUS that brought us Kelo, Roe, and the original finding on McCain-Feingold is the normative standard for the Judiciary. Of course, this conforms perfectly to the practices and ideology of the Left.

It’s also worth noting that the main actions proposed in both columns – which are in no way anomalous and in fact reflect “mainstream” liberal thought – are dependant on a Congress now controlled by Democrats to take draconian action against the other two branches of government no longer under Democrat control. No such actions or powers were ever proposed for a Congress controlled by Republicans. Further, I’d bet my bottom dollar that if the situations were reversed, and a Conservative was proposing any such actions against a sitting Democrat president or activist liberal SCOTUS, the howl of protest would ring to high heaven. All we have to do is look to the record of recent history, and how the Left heaped praise on SCOTUS every time it overreached its authority to validate a liberal cause or action, to see the truth of the matter.

The only true and objective yardstick we have by which to measure such issues is the Constitution itself. That’s why it’s so essential that as we consider candidates for public office, we closely examine their commitment to true conservative – and therefore Constitutional – values, both in word and deed. Not only what they promise – I’m sure it’s no surprise to anyone that politicians lie, or “spin” – but what their record has been and how they’ve performed in their public life, what policies they’ve supported and implemented, what they’ve voted for and against.

It’s our only hope for winning this battle for the soul of the country.

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?

“The country has come to feel the same when Congress
is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer”
Will Rogers

“Under every stone lurks a politician”
Aristophanes

“Politicians are the same all over.
They promise to build a bridge even when there is no river”
Nikita Khrushchev

Bi-partisanship! Post-partisanship!

Such stirring words. Such noble concepts.

We see it at the state level here in Kalifornia as the Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger -- who ran as a purported Republican -- makes nice with the Sacramento Democrats in forwarding an agenda that includes anti-“global warming” initiatives, universal healthcare, and spending the state into an incomprehensible state of indebtedness through obscene budgets and bond indebtedness. Hardly Republican principles.

The press swoons at the “enlightenment” this signifies in a Republican state executive and bemoans the fact that other Republican state governors don’t emulate the Governator.

El Presidente, George Bush, America’s First Mexican President in the vein of Clinton being America’s First Black President, gets his only drive-by media kudos in living memory by “reaching across the aisle” and working with Democrat Senators and unprincipled fellow Republicans to foist upon the country an amnesty plan for illegal aliens that will doom the GOP to permanent minority status in the long run as it destroys the country economically, politically, and culturally.

There are two interesting factors to consider here. First, bi-partisanship is most widely lauded only when it is conservative principles that are being compromised. The Left rarely seems to give up on pushing their agenda. They are absolute Energizer Bunnies in chasing their goals, and are due acknowledgement – and envy – of their zeal. Unlike the GOP, if their proposal is defeated in one session of the Sacramento Legislature or the US Congress, they’ll just keep bringing it back until they wear the other side down. If that doesn’t work, they’ll run to a sympathetic judge in a court somewhere and try to impose their will through the judiciary. The GOP, on the other hand, has generally acknowledged that “the People have spoken”, and moved on to other matters, the current scamnesty issue being a rare exception.

The second and more important factor to consider is that the Founders, in their wisdom, created a complex system of government with the intent of making it difficult for government to impose its will on the People. The constitutional amendment process is difficult, and the legislative process has to survive the scrutiny and participation of three independent and co-equal branches of government in order for laws to be in force. They anticipated a clamor of competing voices representing differing interests being in a state of constant dynamic tension, assuring that only the laws least harmful to society would have a chance of being enacted into law.

With these ideas in mind, it becomes clear that post- or bi-partisanship is actually harmful and antithetic to the ideals of democracy, because it removes the very dynamic tension upon which the success of democracy depends. This is particularly true when the acquiescence of principle comes from one side only of the philosophical divide, regardless of which side.

As is often the case, Kalifornia is the test bed on the state level for policies later activated on the federal level, and here in Kalifornia we can clearly see that the abandonment over time of conservative principles has led to a state GOP and “Republican” Governator that make little if any effort to support an agenda based on those principles. The difference between state Democrats and Republicans is quickly disappearing and becoming meaningless.

Unfortunately, El Presidente’s push for scamnesty – coupled with the GOP’s abandonment in Congress over time of the principles espoused in the 1994 Contract with America, which brought them to power – has led us to the same tipping point at the national level. We see self-styled “conservatives” like Trent Lott and John McCain joining with the Left in trying to muzzle the vox populi. But the same basic principle should still adhere: just because we can pass a law doesn’t necessarily mean we should pass a law.

The real danger in “post-partisanship”, as we’re seeing, is the creation of a “government ruling class” – a modern American aristocracy -- that no longer cares about nor is responsive to the will of the People, a group of elites answerable to no one.

“It’s a free country!”

We’ve all heard it. It’s the hallmark statement in the United States, almost a national motto. It’s so much a part of our national identity that no one ever really gives it much thought, particularly not critical thought.

But just exactly what does that mean? And is it really a “free country”?

There are certain characteristics of the human condition that are traditionally considered and held to be the indicators of true freedom, and thus a truly free society.

The first and most obvious, of course, is that slavery is not countenanced in that society. Any society that allows the enslavement of any of its members, even by using the rhetorical trick of portraying the slaves as non-members, cannot in any sense consider itself free. If slavery is a possible condition for one, there are circumstances that can be conjured to make it possible for any. We fought a bloody Civil War in which slavery was one of the underlying issues, and cast that onus aside.

The ability of individuals to own property outright, without need of permission from a higher authority, is another mark of a free society. In feudal societies, the land is owned by the aristocracy, either as an outright possession of the monarchy or as feudal estates such as baronies and duchies. The serfs or peasants working the land for their subsistence do so at the pleasure of the overlord, and only keep a portion of the proceeds of their labor. They can be dispossessed at any time for no reason.

The Founding Fathers understood this and enshrined private property rights in the Constitution, very strictly limiting the ability and justification of the government to deprive a citizen of their property in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Unfortunately, in Kelo v. New London the Supreme Court saw fit to redefine property rights and give preferential treatment to government determination of the appropriateness of land usage based on potential tax generation, a reversion to the old feudal system of letting the overlord – in this case local governments – rather than the land’s owner arbitrarily determine whether or not the private property is being used in a “proper” manner. Further encroachment has been enshrined in cities such as New York and Santa Monica that allow “rent control” practices to flourish. Property owners are not allowed to enjoy the benefit of the free market, but instead are forced by government fiat to realize only a portion of the return on their investment in property as is deemed fit by government mandarins.

Free societies enjoy governmental self-determination. They are not ruled by monarchs, but instead the members of the society select their own form of government and leaders. Surprisingly enough, in the Western Hemisphere the first true democracies were actually practiced by the pirates of the Caribbean, who elected their own captains and were free to recall them and elect replacements.

Recognizing that governmental self-determination required the ability to hold free and open discussions, the Founders enshrined these freedoms in the First Amendment in the form of a free press, the right to assemble, and the free speech right to criticize and petition the government.

Again, however, we see this freedom under rabid assault. The McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibits many forms of exactly the kind of discussion that the Founders had intended to take place for free elections, such as candidate-specific political ads within 60 days of an election. Think of that: you can’t discuss the candidate within 60 days of the election in which he’s running for office.

Another prong of this assault is the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which in its currently-proposed incarnation would be narrowly targeted at the exact two media that are the most critical of Big Government policies: talk radio and the internet. Interestingly enough, these are also the most populist forms of media, and the ones the Founders would have probably most approved, being reminiscent of the broadsides of their era, as well as the Federalist Papers.

The last hallmark I’ll address today is that of the ability of the citizens of a truly free society to openly own weapons. Since ancient times the rulers of repressive societies have limited or banned this right. In the Far East this led to the development of the various marshal arts such as karate and judo, combat methods not dependant on the use of weaponry. In Great Britain we see the efficacy of armed subjects forcing monarchic reform in the forced signing of the Magna Carta by King John. Of course, the “shot heard ‘round the world” was fired when the Redcoats marched on the armories of Lexington and Concord to seize the colonials’ weapons; the precipitating event of the Revolutionary War was King George’s attempt at gun control! Historically, even in the modern era, the first action of a burgeoning tyranny is the elimination of private gun ownership, as we’ve seen in Nazi Germany, the USSR, Cambodia, Uganda, and many other places.

The Founders realized that the final refuge of the victims of tyranny lay in their own ability to secure their freedoms by force if necessary, and that required the ability to possess the same weaponry as the government. When any government is the sole possessor of weapons, the citizens are at the mercy of that government and totally dependant upon government largesse for any freedoms they enjoy. Being diligent students of history the Founders were well aware of this axiom.

Our Second Amendment rights are under constant assault by those who would disarm the public to assure government primacy in all matters. Their tactics include misusing two words in the Amendment itself, “state” and “militia”, by coupling the two to misrepresent Original Intent as meaning the Amendment only applied to “state militias”. To the Founders, a militia was the entire body of citizens capable of bearing arms, as evidenced in the Federalist Papers, their own contemporary writings, and Section 311 of Title 10 US Code. To the Founders, it was in the very nature of freedom – as we have explored – that free men were able to own their own weapons, just as they owned their property, and had the right to governmental self-determination. These freedoms were indistinguishable and inherent in the concept of liberty.

It would be facile to say these assaults are only from Left. It would also be wrong. The Kelo decision rendered by the Supreme Court was determined based on the vote cast by Sandra Day O’Connor, a Reagan appointee. McCain-Feingold was passed by a Congress completely under the control of the Republicans, and signed into law by Republican President George Bush. The Republican Presidential candidate currently in the lead in the polls, Rudy Giuliani, has openly supported tighter restrictions on private gun ownership.

Freedom is a rare commodity, as fragile as fine china. It has to be guarded jealously, and protected constantly. The US is the oldest extant democratic form of government in the world today, but it has no God-given guaranty of its survival. To answer the question I posed at the start of this essay, the United States is no longer the free country it used to be, and is slowly but inexorably edging itself ever-further away from freedoms that at one time were taken for granted.

It has been, and continues to be, a slow process, this erosion. But the Grand Canyon started out as a little streambed.