TORTURE

Let’s scream it out!

TORTURE!

A word the Left loves to use when discussing our conduct of the war, the Right, Abu Gharaib, Guantanamo, so-called POWs of the Americans, and virtually anything else they consider uncomfortable.

I had planned a different topic for this week, but in conversations I’ve had recently on the conduct of the war, I’ve changed my mind.

I’m actually revisiting, in a sense, something I’ve addressed before on this blog. But the reason I made this last minute switch is that I had a couple of on-site column exchanges today (6/2/07) with some libs who were citing alleged “torture” by the US as a justification for essentially discrediting the administration, war, and conservatism.

I no longer care about the administration, but I AM concerned about the war, our troops, and conservatism.

I’m going to include a couple of my posts regarding my own thoughts as to “torture”, but first let’s look at the Merriam-Webster definition. Here’s the link: http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torture

As a noun:

a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : Straining

As a verb:

1 : to cause intense suffering to : torment 2 : to punish or coerce by inflicting excruciating pain 3 : to twist or wrench out of shape : distort, warp

Of course, the Left has always taken the Low Road whenever possible in discussing substantive issues, preferring slogans to substance. But on this subject they’ve outshined themselves (unless you consider the synonym of  “Straining” appropriate).

In response to the accusation that our troops and intelligence agencies routinely resort to “torture”, here are some of my responses:

“Your side has so discredited themselves on this issue that as far as I'm concerned it's a non-issue.

”Have guys died? I guess maybe; I don't know. Frankly, when it comes to a bunch of lunatic fanatics who cut off the living heads of their captives, I don't really give a rat's as$, either.

”I've been to war. I've been shot at. I've shot other people. It's not fun, and frankly, the Marquis of Queensbury rules don't apply. It's all well and good for a bunch of people to sit around fat, dumb and happy theorizing about how we should execute a war, with their pinkies in the air while holding their porcelain teacups.

”When you're the guy down in the mud, that doesn't mean whole lot. Nor should it. It also doesn't mean a lot -- as a former mud-eater I can only hope -- to the guys in the rear trying to get the intel I need to keep my miserable butt alive. I don't care about theories. I don't care about the comfort of my enemy. I don't care about drawing-room principles. I care about staying alive and killing my enemy.

”It's very simple.”

Further, to a liberal vet of the Air Force:

“Torture.

“You've been given a building -- a former school -- as a target that you're told houses an AQ command post. Your mission is to bomb that building.

”A recently captured terr happens to know that the target building no longer houses the AQ component, but is now in fact only a school.

”Is it worth a bullet in his kneecap to have that knowledge?

”How dear are your principles? Worth the lives of a couple hundred of SOMEONE ELSE'S kids?”

To the poster “Robert”:

“But more importantly, your post to me saying that what I've written puts me on the same plane -- of whatever level -- as the terrs clearly illustrates to me that you are nothing more than one of the armchair pseudo-intellectual finger-waggers who have not one minute in actual combat, looking down the barrel of someone else's gun, and hoping you don't see your own brains splashed all over the scenery as your last sight in this world.

”Must be nice and comfy for you. Enjoy.”

Finally:

“As to any discussion nowadays of ‘torture’, the way the Left has redefined the word is absolutely laughable. Making some guy wear underwear on his head; sleep deprivation; loud rap music. Is this torture, or a frat party?

”From the Left's idea of what constitutes ‘torture’, if any of them ever went into the service they'd be HORRIFIED at Basic Training.

”What a joke!”

This topic, by being posted on my blog, is getting a lot more attention than it deserves on its merits, but it is one we conservatives are forced to address in “conversation” of whatever level of rationality. It really, in its essence, boils down to simply another form of ad hominem attack.

But we all need ammo to repel those, too, if for no other reason than to direct the discussion into areas that actually address issues on their merits, rather than their emotional rhetoric.

Hopefully, this essay will provide some basis upon which to disarm that rhetoric.

I’m certainly open to comments and opinions. Also, feel free to use these arguments, verbally or in writing (cut and paste) in your own war on liberalism.

We’re all in this together.

 

“Badges? We don’t need no steenkin’ badges!”

Treasure of the Sierra Madre

There was a time in this country when the United States Constitution was actually considered to be the bedrock and final arbiter on the legal limitations of the powers and authority of the government. The ultimate rulebook. It wasn’t a “living” document subject to the whims, fancies and political fads of the times. It didn’t have hidden meaning waiting to be divined by bright legal lights. It meant exactly what it said, in clear and unequivocal language, and was to be interpreted strictly, to its simplest and clearest meaning.

In the 19^th Century, there were Presidents who proposed pensions for war widows, funds for roads, disaster relief for communities, and all were turned down because Congress could find no Constitutional authority to accede to such requests.

My, how times have changed!

The watershed events occurred in the 1930s. FDR was trying to institute his New Deal -- with massive increases in government spending passed by an overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled Congress -- and was in a battle royal with the Supreme Court which had ruled some of his programs unconstitutional. The Supreme Court at that time was composed primarily of Republican appointees. As the Constitution is silent on the numerical makeup of the Court, Roosevelt threatened to “pack” the Court by increasing the number of Justices beyond the customary nine serving, which would afford him the opportunity to appoint as many Democrat Justices as he felt he needed to get his proposed programs approved. This led to a fierce Congressional debate on the nature of the Court’s powers, and the Court itself, perhaps feeling the pressure of the threat, began to rule more favorably on Roosevelt’s programs.

Thus, by altering its own perception of what would henceforth be deemed constitutional, the Court sowed the seeds for future judicial activism and much broader and more liberal and interpretive adjudications of the meaning of constitutionality. Once a dam is cracked, the trickle will inevitably become a flood.

The dam fully breached and the valley of constitutionalism started flooding with 1973’s decision in Roe v. Wade, in which the Court invented the new “Right of Privacy” not mentioned in the Constitution and to that point undiscovered, couching its justification in astronomical terms such as “penumbra” and “emanations”, a ruling more fitting for a palm reader’s tent than the “Court of Last Resort”. Roe set new lows for the standards to be applied to constitutional interpretation. No longer would Original Intent be the standard, as “rights” could be read into the document, and Supreme Court arguments and political discourse would now revolve not around what is actually written in the document itself, but on how words are defined.

Thus, in Kelo v. New London, a case centered on the eminent domain confiscation of private homes, the “public use” phrase in the Public Takings clause of the Fifth Amendment has now been redefined to include an increase in revenues from property taxation, instead of the traditional meaning of the creation of public infrastructure such as roads, bridges or schools.

Under McCain-Feingold as upheld by the Court, paid political advertising is no longer considered “speech” and thus is subject to restriction and censorship, with penalties provided by law. This, of course, flies in the very face of, and undermines the absolute core value -- that of political expression and criticism of government -- recognized by, the First Amendment. No longer of any matter.

“Hate crime” laws are passed, which punish thought and opinion – as opposed to actions – and create special favored classes of people. Crimes committed against members of these classes are punished more harshly than those committed against people not in the favored classes, thereby creating inequality in the application of law. No longer are all equal in the eyes of the law; some are more equal than others.

The Second Amendment right of private gun ownership is besieged, with public figures from both parties – including Presidential candidates – claiming to “support the Second Amendment” while at the same time supporting restrictive measures that directly contravene the Amendment. There is proposed legislation that would make ineligible for gun ownership people whose names are merely on a list of those with suspected terrorist ties, effectively denying them rights based on unsubstantiated accusation without having actually been proven to have committed any wrongdoing at all. HR 1022 would reinstate a vastly enlarged version of the “assault weapon” ban, restricting ownership based purely on cosmetics and the appearance of a firearm.

The so-called “Fairness Doctrine” has once again reared its ugly head, a measure that would be narrowly targeted at one segment of the media -- talk radio -- without even a nudge and wink about forcing television and newspapers to comply to the same standard, let alone the fact that it’s another direct violation of the First Amendment right to free speech and is a form of government censorship.

Examples abound. Our Constitution is being turned into a quaint document whose meaning has been twisted out of all recognition, something of almost archeological interest, with no more relevance to life today than Tut’s sarcophagus. Unless this situation is turned around, America is it has traditionally existed is doomed, and our rights along with her.

There is no God-given mandate nor guarantee to our existence. Upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, Franklin was asked what they had made. “A republic, madam. If you can keep it”, he replied.

If we can keep it.

 

Si, Yo hablo Espanol
(signage in many retail establishments in Los Angeles)

Presidents are ever-mindful of their legacy, as they well should be. Hopefully, it’s one of the things that keeps them responsive to the electorate – the citizens who put them in office and for whom they work, at least putatively – and this is especially important in the case of a Lame Duck President who won’t again face the public at the polls.

Think of Reagan and you remember a resurgence of conservative values and a sunny optimism pervading the land. Carter and his “malaise”; Clinton and “bimbo eruptions” among many other scandals, along with impeachment for perjury; Eisenhower linked with the “Father Knows Best” lifestyle of the 50s; Kennedy’s “New Frontiers” and the Bay of Pigs; Johnson’s presiding over America’s first military defeat and the awful specter of the creation of a welfare-dependant underclass; Bush Pere’s failure to “finish the job” during Desert Storm; the “bully pulpit” of Teddy Roosevelt; the buck stopping at Truman’s desk.

How can we anticipate history treating the current President George Bush? I think it would be constructive to take a look.

In 2000 nominee Bush labeled himself a “compassionate conservative” with exciting ideas about how to save Social Security from collapse, cutting taxes to stimulate the economy while also increasing government revenues, lowering capital gains penalties and rolling back the “death tax”, freeing the marketplace from governmental interference, limiting liability lawsuits, strong support for the Second Amendment, and putting people more in control of their own financial future, all sound conservative values.

During his administration, he’s enjoyed some successes – on issues such as taxes, guns, and tort reform – and some failures, primarily on Social Security reform. He also gave us some very expensive entitlements programs, such as Drugs for Seniors and No Child Left Behind, and signed McCain-Feingold into law. This was the first hint – a big one – of trouble ahead. But, he was on his way to a somewhat successful, if certainly not Reaganesque, place in history.

Then came 9/11/01 and Bush found himself becoming a War President, an automatic legacy-definer. Barring some radical and unforeseen change in the tides of the war, I don’t think history is going to treat Bush well on this part of his legacy. His first, and biggest, mistake is that Bush has just never really tried to “sell” this war to the American people. FDR knew war with Japan and Germany was inevitable, but knowing it was an impossible “sell” to the American people he was forced to wait for the attack or some other overt action to justify entering America into that war. Even with very valid justification – violation of terms of surrender, firing on our aircraft, actual discovery of WMDs – Bush has still never made the effort to try to effectively rally support for the war. This has been compounded by ineffective management, poor strategy, unrealistic goals, and no definition of victory. Consequently, he’s lost virtually all support for his conduct of the war from both sides, supporters AND opponents of the idea itself.

The second issue that will define Bush’s legacy is his adamant support for amnesty for illegal aliens. Yesterday a bill emerged from the Senate committee on this issue that would effectively grant amnesty to the millions of illegals in the country. Hopefully, it won’t have enough support in the Senate to move forward, and if it does it will die in the House if things go well. This bill would grant a “Z” (for “si, I now legal!”) visa to every illegal alien now in the country, and normalize them on a path to permanent residence and/or citizenship, along with their families and relatives not in the country yet. This bill opens the floodgates. When Simpson-Mazzoli became law in 1986 we were promised it was a one-time permanent solution to the problem of illegals, and the number at that time was 3 million. Over twenty years later we have 4 to 8 times as many illegals, none of Simpson-Mazzoli’s enforcement provisions have ever been put into effect, and we’re now told that this will be the last time, it’s a one-time deal, with plenty of enforcement provisions that will trigger further blah, blah, blah….

In other words, it’s déjà vu all over again.

Bush, McCain et al try to pass off the idea this isn’t amnesty, as there are fines, forms, etc. That pig’s just got on lipstick, that’s all. This bill, if it becomes law, has the potential of being the biggest disaster for this country in history, bar none, far worse than anything the Islamic terrorists can do. With a price tag in the trillions, activists already marching in the streets demanding non-existent “rights”, our infrastructure overwhelmed, and this amnesty acting as a magnet for future border-jumpers who know they only have to wait for the next round, what can we expect for the future? I’ve read that worldwide over a billion people would willingly come to the US illegally and take their chances.

Whether he likes it or not, his support for this idea – which he didn’t mention until after winning his second term – in the face of overwhelming public opposition is also an indelible part of his legacy, hopefully as another failed idea, because its success is a terrible thought to contemplate.

Thus I predict Bush’s legacy will be a so-far-failing war and an amnesty plan that has the potential to overwhelm and destroy this country and its culture.

There’s also an instructive point to consider as we look ahead to the next election. Remember that Bush painted himself as a “compassionate conservative”, which should have given us a clue as to his proclivities. There are GOP candidates right now trying to paint themselves as something other than what they are – liberals – hoping we won’t pay attention because there’s a war on. But if we forget Bush’s legacy, in the future we’ll again find ourselves battling other “Republicans” over issues of abortion, gay marriage, gun control, more amnesty, entitlement programs, out of control spending, and all the other problems we’ve been facing during the Bush administration.

As Santayana noted, “Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it”.

 

Those familiar with this blog know that I usually post one essay per week. There are several reasons for this: I like my essays to be of quality rather than necessarily quantity and a week gives me time to think of a topic, an approach, and write and refine the product; having done all that, I don’t want to dilute my own effort by having more than one active essay going for people to read and comment upon; lastly it leaves me time to actually have a life outside the blogosphere.

However, an event that I consider of huge significance has just taken place, one that not only bears directly on an issue of intense debate here on the Townhall site, but that has potential ramifications for the very future of the GOP and consequently our country as a whole. With that in mind, I’m breaking my own rule, though I’ll take this opportunity to urge you to also read my immediately previous essay on the MPAA if you haven’t already done so.

On Friday 11 May 2007, at a speech at the Houston Baptist College, Rudolph Giuliani flatly stated his support for abortion rights, gun control, and gay rights, asserting this should not bar him from being selected as the GOP candidate for President. You can read the full LA Daily News/New York Times article here.

The debate between Republicans and conservatives over Giuliani’s candidacy has been over the issue of his liberalism, with Republicans taking the position that it was merely expedient for his tenure as mayor of NYC, that he wasn’t really as liberal as conservatives were warning, that he was better than anyone the Democrats were offering; and conservatives saying he was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, that he was philosophically and ideologically identical to the Democrats, and a threat to GOP values.

On Friday, Giuliani himself removed all doubt. In doing so, he has thrown down the gauntlet to the Republican Party: what value do you place on your principles?

This will shift the thrust of the debate away from a question of Giuliani’s position on core GOP values and toward the more important discussion that will determine the entire future of the GOP, which is: will the GOP completely abandon its principles and party planks to accommodate the candidacy of a self-professed liberal, and what will that mean for the tenability of the party as a viable political entity going into the future?

On this blog, since last year I have been warning of the dangers inherent in a Giuliani candidacy, as have some (but not very many) others in columns and comments. It will be interesting to see if this story even gets much traction and notice. If it doesn’t, that will be a clear signal that party regulars are simply hoping it will go away unnoticed so the boat doesn’t start rocking.

Further, after this bombshell pronouncement, what can we expect from a Giuliani presidency? Obviously, no support for Second Amendment rights to private gun ownership. Giuliani will act on his already acknowledged support for taxpayer funding of abortions. But most important, in the past he’s stated he would appoint constructionist judges. Even putting aside his own record of appointing very liberal municipal judges as mayor of NYC, how can anyone, in light of his stated position on these issues, believe for one New York Minute (how fitting!) that he’ll do anything of the kind? To do so would be to work against the very issues for which he just expressed his support.

Let’s also contemplate the effect on the GOP. To nominate Giuliani would be to disavow the traditional Republican positions and planks on the very issues that define the GOP, and especially conservatism. These are key issues distinguishing the GOP from Democrats. That distinction would be completely erased with a Giuliani nomination.

Finally, as a practical matter of winning elections, Giuliani and the GOP will be able to expect absolutely no support from conservatives. The party will have consigned itself to minority status, as it can’t win without the conservatives. It will also have sacrificed its soul on the altar of expediency.

I would urge all conservatives to make sure the word of this speech spreads as far and wide as possible. I would also urge all Republicans to rethink any support for Giuliani they’ve been contemplating. Finally, I would urge the GOP to throw this poseur out on his ear.

 

The Motion Picture Alliance of America (MPAA) is the organization that brings us the familiar rating system for the movies and TV programming we watch – “G’, “PG”,”PG-13”, “R”, “NC-17”, and “X” – as well as the code that lets us know why a particular show has earned its rating – “S” for sexual content, “V” for violence, “N” for nudity, “L” for bad language.

In a stunningly hilarious show of Political Correctness run amok, the MPAA has announced that from now on, it will give shows with too much smoking in them an “R” rating!

It’s not yet clear how they’ll implement the coding, as the “S” is already taken by sexual content.

You can read the complete story here.

"By placing smoking on a par with considerations of violence and sex, the rating board has acknowledged the public-health dangers to children associated with glamorized images of a toxic and lethal addiction to tobacco," Barry Bloom, dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, said in one of the statements released by the MPAA.

Or maybe more accurately, the MPAA is proving itself to be increasingly irrelevant and foolish, if smoking is to be rated “on a par with considerations of violence and sex”.

Just think of it: no more scene of Tyrone Power lighting a ciggie for Betty Grable and passing it to her in “A Yank in the RAF”. James Dean without the trademark coffin nail hanging insouciantly from his lips. Historical dramas with all the characters abstaining from their nicotine fix. Eastwood’s Man With No Name waltzing through all those Leone spaghetti westerns without the trademark cigar. GROUCHO without the cigar!

I think these folks simply have WAAAAAAAY too much time on their hands. Someone needs to find honest jobs for them to do.

By the way, wondering why my blog is rated “R”?

I smoked several cigarettes during the writing of this little gem.

Enjoy!

 

A Special Edition essay on the Island

Interesting debate among the GOP Presidential candidates last night, especially the performance by Giuliani. When asked about his position on abortion, he reaffirmed his support of a woman’s right to “choose”, and said he’d have no problem if a “constructionist justice” found to uphold Roe v. Wade.

How very Kerryesque, reminiscent of the “voted for before voted against” wriggle, which almost swept the nation as a new dance craze.

In his contorted efforts to be all things to all people, Giuliani managed to avoid giving himself a hernia as he tried to straddle both sides of the issue.

How a “constructionist justice” can find to uphold Roe, which is not founded in any concept of a constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, and still be “constructionist” was left unexplained by the befuddled and flustered candidate.

But then, Giuliani’s from New York City, a venue where the rumors of an actual conservative being in residence have recently been shown to be unfounded.

This has been a Special Edition essay on The View from the Island.

 

Why RINOism is killing America

The Mayor of New York City, Mike Bloomberg, is a Republican, as is the Governator of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The Mayor has proposed a plan for NYC that would impose a new tax, in the form of a “congestion fee”, of $8/day on cars and $21/day on trucks that enter the downtown area. The funds from that tax would be directed toward mass transit projects. You can read the full story Here.

Meanwhile, in California, Sacramento Democrats are proposing a new law that would mandate state-provided universal health care coverage. The Governator opposes this proposal. It’s the basis of the Governator’s opposition that is important: he’s demanding that his own proposal for government-mandated health care insurance – funded by employers or individual subscribers – be enacted, a plan that would use the tax code to penalize anyone not covered by health insurance. Read the full story Here.

The Mayor’s plan is a classic example of using governmental power to implement social engineering in the form of the liberal idea of compulsory dependence on mass transit. The Governator’s proposal is also dependant on the application of the power of the tax to deprive people of choice in the matter of how to protect themselves and their families.

The Mayor’s a rabid gun controller; the Governator’s a big proponent of anti-global-warming mandates.

These are textbook liberal methods and ideas, yet both these men were elected into office as Republicans. How can this be happening?

It’s because of the paradigm shift in the Republican Party away from principle and toward political expediency. Both men hold power in liberal bastions, and the argument is made that in order to win elections concessions – compromises – in principle and on issues must be accepted in order for the GOP to succeed.

But if at the same time the GOP is transformed from a party that actually stands for something identifiable into another thing that is simply a modified version of the Democrat Party, what exactly is the point? What is being gained?

This is precisely the question that is now being debated among the ranks of conservatives and Republicans at this unique point in history. There is no incumbent running for President. The GOP has been soundly rebuked during the last election. The putative frontrunners, Giuliani and McCain, really hold no conservative credentials. Though time may, in reality, consign them to irrelevancy as other potential candidates – possibly Fred Thompson or Tom Tancredo – rise to prominence, I think this debate at this time is constructive as well as instructive.

The GOP is truly the only extant political party of substance with a realistic presence in the national arena that can represent traditional values. But as I’ve written before, if the party leaders become convinced that they can maintain power without committing themselves to upholding those values, then the easy way is to “compromise” the values beyond any point of recognition.

The net result will be that more Mayors and Governators will be elected to office, at ever-higher levels as evidenced by the candidacies of Giuliani and McCain, until current conservative doctrine is simply a thing of the past.

The whole country will turn into NYC and California.

 

“… the right of the People to keep and bear arms,

shall not be infringed”

Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The tragic shooting rampage this week at Virginia Tech (VT) led to the immediate – and expected – call by the Left for more stringent gun controls. On various columns on this web site, the debate has been fast, furious, and sometimes emotional; no surprise as it is an emotional issue.

Sometimes, I can’t help but envision the anti-gunners as a group of vultures sitting on the telephone wires, just waiting for someone to die so they can just swoop down onto the still-warm carcass.

To me, this debate clearly illustrates the difference in mindset between Left and Right. The Left views government as the solution to all problems; the Right views government as the problem.

As Reagan joked, the most feared sentence is: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help”.

Anti-gunners hold, as always, that just a bit more regulation would prevent this kind of occurrence. Of course, as gun rights in other countries – most notably Australia and the UK – have been whittled away, we can see the fallacy of this position. In both countries, as gun ownership has evaporated an inverse increase in crime rates – particularly violent crimes – has been evidenced on a dramatic scale. Bad guys may be bad, but they’re not necessarily foolish. They know their intended victims are now unarmed, so they have become ever bolder. As crime rates increase, the gun laws become ever more draconian in response, until in the UK BB guns have been banned and now they’re even going after knives, including kitchen utensils. Just when you think the absurdity has reached its peak, you are proven wrong once again. Further, in the UK people who defend themselves against criminal attack are prosecuted and imprisoned, a truly bizarre twist to escalating Leftist hysteria.

Whenever discussing the issue, anti-gunners are also always careful to leave Switzerland and Israel out of the discussion. In both countries, firearms ownership is pervasive, and both enjoy very low crime rates. In Switzerland, ownership is mandatory, and every home has at least one firearm and plenty of ammo, in most cases a fully-automatic assault rifle. In Israel, not only is ownership common, so is the carrying of guns in public. To good effect, I might add, as several bomb-carrying terrorists have been blown out of their socks before they could detonate their devices. One must wonder if that would have been the outcome at VT if at least some of those students or faculty had been armed.

Liberals also seem to hold that the police will or can provide some type of protection. This is absolutely untrue. The job of the police is to respond after the fact, and arrest offenders. How can they possibly act proactively in a free society? Divine someone’s intent, then arrest them as a prophylactic measure? Further, where would all these police come from? They’d have to be everywhere at the same time. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled in South v. Maryland that police had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are willing to accept responsibility for their own actions, and want the government to simply get out of the way as much as possible. It’s a necessary evil. Speaking for myself, I share the view of the Founding Fathers that I don’t think government per se can be trusted as far as you can throw it, and private gun ownership is the ultimate guarantee that it remains “of, by and for the People” to paraphrase Lincoln.

No other Amendment or Right means anything if the people who enjoy those rights don’t have the means to guarantee their retention. The final arbiter is the People, with their privately owned firearms. WE have more guns than the government.

Further, let’s not forget what the Revolutionary War was all about. King George and Great Britain were the lawful government of the colonies, until we revolted. Also, don’t forget what government action triggered “the shot heard ‘round the world”: an attempt by the legally constituted government of the time to confiscate citizens’ privately owned firearms. In other words, it was about gun control!

The Founders were justifiably leery about the unchecked power of government, as indeed we should be today. Our government requires the consent of the governed; our guns guarantee it isn’t coerced or pre-empted.

________________________________________________________


Update of 20 April 2007

Surpisingly good news on this Fox News poll: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267085,00.html

And a surprising editorial in today's LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-wilson20apr20,0,4514008.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

 

The seeds of destruction are sown from within

There’s a significant philosophical debate heating up this election cycle between Republican Regulars and conservatives, and here at Townhall I find myself at the point of the conservative spear. The putative current frontrunners are Giuliani and McCain, and we’re told by the Regulars that regardless of how we feel, should either end up as the Republican nominee we should, if necessary, hold our noses and give them the nod.

I, on the other hand, have huge problems with that idea, even assuming I could find a gas mask strong enough.

A historical perspective: when I first came to California over 35 years ago, it was a pretty normal state politically. Alioto was Mayor of San Francisco, as I recall, and he was considered well out of the mainstream as a liberal. That, obviously, gradually changed over time.

Twenty-odd years ago, I was a Young Republican, but after a few years quit in disgust over the schism within the party, as the “moderate” wing totally marginalized the conservative wing so they could shamelessly pander for votes. Conservative principles were outright disavowed by the California party. As time went on the state became ever more Leftist, to the point that the “mainstream” of the state Republican party would be considered Democrat/Left in many other states. Now we have a Governator who ran Right, but governs Left, a la Clinton. California has become a political and regulatory freak show.

Unfortunately, I see the same thing now happening at the national level. We’re told that in the case of Giuliani he’d be great fighting the War on Terror, and that Hillary Clinton would be a disaster. A rerun of last year’s campaign, with the bogeyman of “President Clinton” replacing “Speaker Pelosi”. Didn’t work last year, and won’t this time either, and as Einstein observed, insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

More importantly, the War on Terror – a serious issue to be sure – isn’t the ONLY issue on the table. Let’s be realistic: can the terrorists destroy this country? No. The Twin Towers, as horrific as that was, didn’t cripple this country for even a day, and that was a HUGE and unique success for the terrs. Even if the worst happens, a nuclear detonation in a major city (which I addressed in my essay “City of Glass”) this country will survive.

However, we can certainly destroy ourselves from within. When the two parties become virtually indistinguishable, as has happened here in California, the country will be in serious if not mortal danger. We are well on our way now nationally.

History abounds with examples: Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, right up to the modern era with the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. In all cases, great societies that rotted from within, which made them susceptible to either collapse or destruction at the hands of much weaker forces.

The current Republican frontrunner, Giuliani, is pro-abortion (including taxpayer funding), pro-open borders, pro-gun control, and appointed extremely liberal municipal judges as the Mayor of NYC, though now we’re supposed to believe his claim of being a “constructionist” who will appoint constructionist judges. How can we believe such claims with the evidence of his history at hand? And more importantly how do his positions on the other issues, all traditionally Democrat positions, all of a sudden become acceptable to ANY Republican? This is absolutely beyond me. Further, just to be clear, I consider McCain easily as bad as Giuliani.

I am constantly scolded and told I’m wrong to look for someone who’s 100% right on all the issues. I’ve never said that, interestingly enough, because I know that the only person in the world with whom I agree 100% is me. However, I’m also not willing to settle for someone who’s only right on 20% of the issues. This whole argument is simply an intellectually vacuous straw man to distract attention from the critic’s own lack of principle and fiber.

Once the Rep party gets the idea they can win elections without supporting the core values it purportedly represents, it won't even bother paying lip service to them anymore. So say goodbye to your guns, goodbye to secure borders, goodbye judicial restraint, goodbye to any attempt at fiscal restraint, and a big HELLO to higher taxes and runaway big nanny government.

Is “win at all costs” the only goal, regardless of the price one pays? And what have you really won if you’ve given up the soul of your party and your principles to do it?

Do you want this whole country to be…….. California?

 
The Townhall blogosphere remains in a state of limbo for the third day as the terrorists controlling the site refuse to grant access to the "comments" feature of the member blogs.

No word has yet been received as to the fate of the techies who normally control the operational aspects of the popular "conservative" website. At this point, they are being considered as being captives, but their status may be upgraded shortly to Missing in Action.

The first signs of trouble became apparent earlier in the week when the "email it", or forwarding, function of many of the blogs became inoperative. However, responding emails purportedly from the IT team of the site were still being received by enquiring bloggers until three days ago, at which time the "comments" capability became inoperative and further emails addressed to the IT team went unanswered.

For those concerned about the fates of their loved ones in the Townhall IT department, or who want to pass on words of encouragement or inquiry, the email address is as follows:

info@townhall.com

Those who do so are urged not to use inflammatory language, because at this point -- until the identities and demands of the hostage-takers are known -- no action should be taken that may further endanger the hostages or the marginal remaining functionality of the site.

In light of the almost-perpetual presidential campaign mode we now seem to find ourselves in, I thought it might be interesting to contemplate the Electoral College system of Presidential selection. As I cite numerical examples, I’ll use California as the example from which I draw, for simplicity and clarity.

I can hear you now: “Ohmigod, the Electoral College! Yawn. Wonder whassup with Anna Nicole?” CLICK!

Well, not so fast, bucko. This is actually interesting, and I’m going to hopefully pique your thought processes with some potential scenarios.

We’re all familiar with the election night vigil of seeing into whose column a state, with its attendant electoral votes, will fall. Of the required 270, California’s the predictable elephant in the room with its 55 invariably going to the Democrats. Does it have to be this way, though?

The Constitution requires each state to provide Electoral delegates equal to the number of its Congressional Delegation (2 Senators and its appropriate number of House members), the method to be determined by the individual state’s legislature. California (as well as most other states) has determined that whichever party gets the majority of presidential votes in the state will get all the delegates. But that is NOT a Constitutional requirement. The net result is that as a California conservative (and no, it’s not an oxymoron) in a Blue state, I am for all intents and purposes disenfranchised in the national Presidential ballot. My vote is merely symbolic, at best, in the raw number tally nationwide.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Of the 55 members of California’s Congressional Delegation, both senators are Democrats, as well as 34 of the House members. But guess what? Nineteen of the House members are Republican. Now, if we can have elections in which Republican districts can have Republican House members, why can’t they also have Republican Electoral delegates?

Hmmmmm…….?

I’ll tell you my best guess: neither national party wants it to happen, because they’d lose their “safe states”, and have to work harder for OUR votes.

Republicans could no longer write off California and New York, nor could Democrats ignore Florida and Texas. They’d actually have to start spending time and campaign dollars in those states, and actually pay attention to what their constituents want. Can’t have that! Further, since this would motivate other previously disenfranchised voters to actually start showing up at the polls, the outcomes would become a lot more unpredictable.

In other words, we’d have a REAL election. And we certainly can’t have that!

Here’s the real kicker. Both parties are continually squawking about low voter turnouts. I think I’ve outlined the reasons why that happens. But will either step up and endorse the one thing that I think would guarantee higher turnouts, i.e. proportional Electoral representation? I don’t think I’ll hold my breath.

But I told you I’d pique your interest, and you made it to the end. Not as bad as you thought, was it?



By the way, here's a county-by-county map of the voting results in the 2004 election, with Blue for Kerry and Red for Bush. Food for thought.

 
Once again the issue of illegal aliens flooding into our country seems to be heating up, and I think it’s time to reexamine it here on the Island since my state, Leftifornia, is one that stands in the forefront of its effects.

I think it’s necessary to clear the air as far as what we’re talking about. It’s pretty much accepted across the board that there are somewhere between 12 million and 25 million illegals in the country. But let’s also be honest in admitting that the majority are Latinos that have come across our southern border. A year ago, when a couple hundred thousand (reportedly, though I doubt the number) took to the streets of LA to demonstrate for citizenship “rights” and amnesty, that crowd wasn’t made up of Iranians (though LA’s nickname is Teherangeles), or Armenians, or Canadians, or South Africans, or Cambodians, or anyone else. It was Latinos. I think it’s important to acknowledge this because the Left has a tendency to try to paint the issue as racism or xenophobia, and that’s simply an attempt at throwing a red herring into the discussion. The simple fact of the matter is that it’s easier to sneak into the country across a long contiguous border than by boat across a very large ocean, or by airplane with all the security measures that entails. And who is on the other side of that border? Not the Danes, if you need a hint.

Further, though I have no doubt that all of the aforementioned groups are represented in the illegal population, not one of them is running around demanding “rights”.

I well remember how in 1986, when the odious amnesty bill was passed and signed into law by Reagan (which he later rued as the worst mistake of his administration) we were promised as a palliative that it was a “one time measure only”, that there would never again be another amnesty, and that this – with its employer sanctions -- would address the problem for perpetuity. At that time there were only about 3 million illegals in the country (funny how nowadays that qualifies as an “only”), and we were supposed to see a DECLINE in that number. Now, a little over 20 years later, the number is 4 to 8 times as large. Evidently, amnesty isn’t a very effective tool for stemming the tide. Res ipsa loquitur.

Now we’re being told – AGAIN -- that passage of a “comprehensive” bill with border security, guest workers programs, and fines with a path to “regularization” (read “amnesty”) will solve our illegal alien problem. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Bush (who seems to think his constituency is in Ensenada instead of the US) has dug his heels in for his program of “comprehensive” reform, to the point that his presidency has suffered a huge hit in poll numbers. Backed by a coalition of business interests (looking for cheap labor), liberals, and alien-rights special interest backers, he seems willing to bet his legacy on this issue.

The rationale for the “guest worker” program is that illegals will “do jobs Americans won’t do”. What baloney. Illegals will do jobs Americans won’t do for the lousy pay that’s offered. This is the same rationale used by the South to justify slavery, for Pete’s sake. Amazing that they don’t see the cynical hypocrisy embodied by that justification. Further, we’re told that eliminating illegals from our economy will lead to much higher prices for goods, especially agricultural products. Nonsense! Another cynical shell game. We’re already paying the higher prices through the taxes required to provide the infrastructure required by the illegals, particularly in healthcare, education, etc. At least if the price shows up directly in a head of lettuce, I can make the choice of whether or not to buy it. Further, it’s conservatively estimated that $20 billion annually is sent into Mexico by our illegal population; as a matter of fact, it’s Mexico’s second most important source of income, only behind oil. That’s $20 billion sucked out of our economy, for the most part without even being taxed.

We’re told it’s impossible to “round up” 12 million people and deport them. Maybe so. It’s also impossible to throw every murderer in prison. That doesn’t mean we make murder legal. We do our best, that’s all. Further, if the employer-sanctions aspect of the 1986 law would simply be put into use, the problem becomes self-solving: dry up the jobs and you eliminate the magnet that draws the illegals here.

Here’s where the cynicism really comes into play. We’re constantly told by the chattering classes that the only “effective” solution to the problem is the “comprehensive” approach blending border security, guest worker program, and amnesty. My question: Why? There are many problems that are solved one step at a time. If your house is damaged in an earthquake, the first thing you do, before repairing the interior damage, is fix the foundation. This is no different, and the foundation here is border security. Nothing else will matter if that doesn’t happen.

So I’ll answer my own question. It’s obvious that the problem could be taken one step at a time. Fix the border, then deal with the illegals already in the country. But the reason Bush & Company don’t want to take that approach is that they know border security is hugely popular, while amnesty is hugely unpopular. If they did the first, there’s no way on God’s green Earth that the people would stand by while they tried to do the second separately.

Cynical indeed.

Since my return to this site, I’ve had many debates with other posters, both here on my blog and in the comments on the columns, as to why the Republican party is in so much trouble. Typically, my opponent will take the position that if one opposes liberalism one must hold one’s nose and vote for whatever candidate the Republican party selects, because the alternative would be so much worse: last year it was the bogeyman of “Speaker Pelosi”, now it’s the spectre of “President Hillary”. Generally, they’re taking this position when voicing their support for McCain and/or Giuliani (or as I call them, McCrazy and Bald Hillary).

The following exchange is a good example:

Poster: “Brian, the GOP is NOT going to be what you want them to be because what you want is unelectable.
And your ‘hold my breath until I die’ has run its course. The GOP will move to the middle because that is where most of the American voter is. They will walk away from you and yours and not depend on or want your vote.
You will become irrelevant...is that what you want?”

BrianR: “I reject your conclusions as being too limited; the GOP may and can be forced back to more faithful representation of core principles. As a matter of fact, as I've written so many times, the more they become the ‘party of compromise’ the worse their electoral outcomes are. They have always enjoyed their largest margins of victory when they have loudly stood by, in word and deed, conservative principles.

"But if not, then in answer to your question about my being ‘irrelevant’, the answer is yes. If standing by my principles makes me irrelevant, then so be it, though that will be a very sad statement for the state of our nation.”

There are two points worth considering here: the Poster says “The GOP will move to the middle…”, and moving to the middle always seems to entail the Repubs doing the moving, never the libs. The net result is the Leftification of the Republican party, because as they move left so do the Democrats. It seems the Republicans are always trying to catch up by moving ever leftward.

But another exchange with the same Poster was also revealing:

Poster: “THIS WAR WITH ISLAMIC TERRORIST SUPERCEDES EVERYTHING ELSE. Including your pet issue and mine.”

BrianR: “You don't seem aware of your OWN absolutism.”

And that is an interesting point. The ultimate shield from criticism of capitulating one’s principles: “The war made me do it”. But there’s a very real reason why the oath taken by Congresspeople at the start of each term includes the pledge to defend against all “enemies, foreign and domestic”; the dangers to the American way of life are just as real if they come from within as from without. Letting the war become such a distraction that no further attention is paid to our internal problems, and the drift from our core values, poses at least as much of a threat. This country is still an essentially conservative one. However, as the two parties become ever more indistinguishable from each other, ever fewer conservatives are showing up at the polls to vote for Republicans. The best examples of this are Bush's two recent victories against demonstrably incompetent opponents, Gore and Kerry, leftists from the McGovern/Sheehan/Carter/Michael Moore wing of the Dem party. Instead of a Reaganesque trouncing of his opponents, in both cases Bush eked out a victory measured by the hundreds (Florida 2000) or few thousands (Ohio 2004) of voters.

It is incumbent on those of us who do hold our principles dear to stand up and clearly say that we will NOT go along while our core values are simply ground into the dust. Our country is at stake. It is the only hope for forcing the Republican party back onto the track of conservatism which has, not coincidentally, given them their largest margins of victory.

Otherwise, the answer to the title question will be, sadly, “yes”. At that point principles will have become irrelevant, and our country will be irrevocably changed for the worse.

 

“If I could save time in a bottle…”
Jim Croce

I have a daughter, Nikki, of whom I’m very proud. She’s come a long way in her life, and is on the threshold of some major advancements during the course of this year. In September, she’ll turn twenty-one, a milestone in everyone’s life. Later that month, she’s getting married. A few months after that, she’ll be graduating from college.

My daughter is the light of my life, and fathering her was the best and most fulfilling thing I’ve ever done in my entire life. I saw her born. I was there when she took her first steps, and captured it on videotape. I well remember her dancing to music videos in the family room as a little girl. Every night, we had “Special Time” – time we dedicated to an activity together – and she would get to choose what we did. When I was a young man, if anybody had ever told me I’d be lying on the living room floor playing the “Barbie’s Dream Date” game, I’d have laughed in their face.

Sometimes Nikki would choose dancing. I’d put a Beach Boys CD on the stereo, and we’d dance, which entailed me carrying her in my arms while I danced around to the music. Only one of us worked up a sweat. We both loved “Kokomo”.

She wanted to go everywhere with me. We were quite the couple at Lumber City. I sometimes took her with me to the construction sites; she really loved that. When I took her flying, I’d let her take the controls after I had the plane trimmed out. She vowed she wanted to be an airline pilot when she grew up.

She used to hold my hand wherever we went, until the time came when she felt she was too old for that anymore, but didn’t know how to break it to me without hurting my feelings. When I’d take her to school, at the curb I’d hold out my hand for hers, but all of a sudden she’d “need” to adjust the straps on her backpack, or cover her mouth for a coughing fit, either of which coincidentally lasted for the amount of time it took to cross the street. Of course, I knew what was happening, but I let it continue for a few days until the day when her contortions were so extreme that I burst out laughing, and told her I understood the situation.

My pet name for her was “Doodles”, short for “Doodle-Bug”. I’ve forgotten how old she was when she forbade me from using her nickname anymore; mid-teens, I think. Now and then she’ll still sign her name on greeting cards that way, though. She loves her Old Man.

We went through some of the typical teenage angst together, but she and I have always had a special bond, and that period wasn’t too bad. Some extra gray hairs; I’ll survive. More importantly, she did. She looked beautiful for her Junior Prom. She looked absolutely stunning for her Senior Prom. I’ve got the pictures to prove it.

Now, she’s become a young woman, acquiring grace and poise. Sure, there are still the minor – and occasional major – crises. We deal with them. But every time I see her, I’m simply stunned at the young lady in front of me.

And every time I see her, I also see the little girl she used to be. It’s funny, the tricks your mind plays on you. Life is a collage of vignettes, a montage of scenes and mental snapshots, translucent images projected onto the screen of reality.

All of these things seem like they happened only yesterday.

Time is the greatest thief of all.

 

Well, this is what happens when Republicans who don’t have their principles firmly rooted in conservatism are elected to office. And where better to find such folks than in Leftifornia?

There is a bill working its way through the state Senate that would give every newborn a $500 cash deposit in a savings account. For the full text of the bill, click the following link:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_752_bill_20070223_introduced.html

One of the co-authors of the bill was State Senator Robert Dutton, Republican from the 31^st District, Rancho Cucamonga. The bill doesn’t have any residency requirements regarding the children, so in addition to being a government giveaway of money (talk about fiscal irresponsibility, with no constitutional authority), it would be a $500 gift to all the babies of illegal aliens, so-called “anchor babies”.

Last week Dutton was a guest on a local radio talk show hosted by John & Ken, and they took him to task over his support for this bill. Evidently, his office was flooded with calls excoriating him for his actions. Within two days, he had withdrawn his sponsorship and support from this bill. Read here:

http://www.sacbee.com/391/story/132092.html

What’s interesting is the part of Dutton’s statement in which he tried to justify his original support: "I have never seen a tax cut that I didn't like," he said. "I will continue to work to assist California's families by looking into tax breaks and other opportunities." Somehow, in Dutton’s mind, a giveaway of $500 to every newborn child, which has to be paid for somehow – to the annual tune of $280 million – is a “tax cut”. Maybe for the baby, but sure as hell not for the taxpaying citizens of Kalifornia who have to finance this boondoggle.



PS

3/5/2007

On a somewhat side issue, but not really since we're talking about RINOs, did anybody catch Giuliani's speech to the CPAC gathering last weekend? Here's a notable quote:

" We don’t all agree on everything. I don’t agree with myself on everything.’’

Um, does this strike anyone other than me as being one of the most bizarre statements of all time?

Is this pandering of the most egregious order, or what?

I don't know about anyone else here, but I do happen to agree with myself all the time, on all the issues.

Further, if this guy has trouble agreeing with himself, assuming he's not the male equivalent of Sybill, is this a guy we want with his finger on the nuclear "Go" button?

This is actually worth an essay in itself, but I'd already published this one, I didn't want to wait, the giggle factor was too high, and the guy is JUST TOO WEIRD.