…but we’re taking it all with us.

All right.  You win.  You think this land (i.e., California, Arizona, New Mexico) was stolen from you.  You want us to leave.  Never mind that—among other issues involved in how we ended up with that land—we purchased that land for a total of 25$ million dollars in two land deals (i.e., [1] The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which concluded a war that you lost, so that we could just have taken the land instead of shelling out $15 million; and [2] The Gadsden Purchase which cost us $10 million).  In todays dollars that amount would be  about $554,457,077.76—almost twice Mexico’s 2005  public debt (which I have calculated to be about somewhere in the neighborhood of $420 million dollars; but I’m willing to stand corrected).  By the way, no one is certain exactly what your politicians did with the money we paid them.

Also, we are not sure who you are.  Are you Native Americans?  And by “us” are we talking about descendants of European invaders?  If so, when you say that you want us to leave, do you also want us to leave Mexico also?  We have fellow Europeans (i.e., “criollos”) in Mexico.  Do you want them to leave also?  I mean, they too are thieves.  (And Spaniards comprise only 10 percent of your population and own just about everything. [My source for that comment is Terrence Haverlock, who teaches Geopolitics at the U.S. Air Force Academy, Mike Rosen Show, 3d hour, KOA-AM, Denver, Colorado, 25 April 2006.]  No wonder they want you to come up here!)

Some of us are not too sure where we should go back to.  Should I go back to Spain, Scotland, Norway, England?  Those of us who are half-breeds—where should we go?  Perhaps I am just latino enough to be permitted to remain.  Can my non-latino wife remain?  What about our children?

Finally, we don’t understand your claim to this land.  Given that you are coming here from Mexico and claiming this land as yours, you must be claiming that this land rightly belongs to Mexico.  But Mexico’s claim on this land was inherited from Spain.  The people who lived in the area now known as Mexico had no claims to this land before the Spaniards arrived.  Mexico acquired a claim to this land by conquest (i.e., by defeating Spain in a war for independence).  We also acquired a claim to this land by conquest (i.e., by defeating Mexico in a war).  (Some conquest.  The conqueror pays the conquored for the privilege of taking the territory he has won.  That’s just like a white guy, isn’t it?)  If it is wrong for us to have this land by conquest, then it must be so for you as well.  (Why didn’t you give it back to Spain?  They had it before you did.)  So we don’t think you have a claim to this land.  It belonged to others even before it belonged to Mexico or Spain.  I am not sure which country’s flag should be flying here.  But I know this: if the U.S. flag shouldn’t be flying here, neither should Mexico’s.

But never mind all that now.  You want us to leave.  Let’s say we do just that.

We leave.  You get your land back.

And just to be fair, we should leave it as close to the way we found it as we possibly can.  I mean, really, if you want your land back, you must want it in the condition it was in before we took it.  After all, you had a different kind of culture, a different kind of life.  Surely, you want that life back.  And you can’t have that life if we leave all our stuff here.

So, we will take everything with us.  There were no paved roads here before we got here.  So,  since you obviously want to live the way you did before we got here and started building stuff—like paved roads, we will remove those pesky roads for you.  The automobile too.  All those houses in Beverly Hills?  Gone.  Movie production companies?  Gone.  Recording labels?  Gone.  Radio and television stations?  Gone.  Sea World and Disney World?  Gone.  Power plants, skyscrapers, ports and military installations?  Gone.  Airports and railroad stations?  Gone (including the planes and the trains).  Bridges?  Gone (I mean, as long as we’re undoing the roads, right?).  Schools?  Gone (including universities, well the public ones anyway).  Wineries?  Gone.  All those tech companies?  Gone.  Everything that we brought with us, we will take with us when we leave.  It’s only the right thing to do, right?  Leaving it the way you had it set up before we took it all from you?  We shall return it to its pristine condition—the way you were living on it before we tore it all up.

I know that you will want to say that actually we should leave it to you the way it now is because you did all the real work of building it.  (Of course, that would not have happened but for our money, which we obviously had before we got here.)  But think of what you’re saying:  we made you tear up your land.  It just wouldn’t be fair for us to leave it the way we screwed it all up.  It’s okay.  We don’t mind cleaning it all up when we leave.

It’s the right thing to do.

We all know how Mexico thinks we should treat illegal immigrants, or at least illegal immigrants coming in from Central and South America.  But it is interesting to take note of how Mexico treats illegals coming in from its south.  While Mexico complains about our threat to make being here illegally a crime, this is precisely what Mexico has done.  Being in Mexico illegally is a felony.  Someone who commits a felony is called a felon; a felon is a criminal.  So, while illegals here object to being called criminals for being here; Mexico has no hesitation to do just that.  Do these illegals (and not all illegals are Mexicans) know that Mexico does what they object to us doing?

It makes you wonder (doesn’t it?) why illegals in Mexico don’t protest Mexico’s treatment of them.  Do you think we shall see illegal Guatemalan immigrants marching and waving the flag of Guatemala on Mexican soil?  I don’t think so: they know what Mexico will do to them.  Actually, Mexico (in the sense of any element of the government, federal, state or local) probably won’t have to lift a finger; the citizens on the street will deal with a Guatemala-flag-waving-illegal-protesting-immigrant!  And it won’t be pretty.

So why aren’t they afraid to wave their flag here?  It is because they have been emboldened by organizations like La Raza and others who feed them the line of garbage that this is their country after all, and the Mexican flag ought to be waving over it.  And also, they are likely convinced that we, unlike Mexico, are a nation of feminized sissies who won’t do anything about it because we are too afraid of them.  But I covered that briefly in a previous post.

Here is an article—Colin Nickerson (Boston Globe Staff), "A lesson in immigration:
Guest worker experiments transformed Europe," 19 April 2006—to which Laura Ingraham links on her website.  It outlines problems that Germany, France and the Netherlands are having with the “guest worker” programs.  No matter what proponents may say, such a program is not a good idea.

Look, assimilation is a must.  Through the process of assimilation immigrants’ descendants become, well, native.  They eventually, unless multiculturalists are successful, adopt the culture of their new country.  This also means adopting the cultural motif.  And here in the Undocumented States of America, that motif is Judeo-Christian.  But never mind that for now.

Many people understand the problem and the importance of assimilation.  But Robert J. Samuelson has a good article,  "Conspiracy Against Assimilation" which was in the Washington Post yesterday (20 April 2006).  This is what the first paragraph says:

It's all about assimilation -- or it should be. One of America's glories is that it has assimilated many waves of immigrants. Outsiders have become insiders. But it hasn't been easy. Every new group has struggled: Germans, Irish, Jews and Italians. All have encountered economic hardship, prejudice and discrimination. The story of U.S. immigration is often ugly. If today's wave of immigration does not end in assimilation, it will be a failure. By this standard, I think the major contending sides in the present bitter debate are leading us astray. Their proposals, if adopted, would frustrate assimilation.

I wish I could have written that article.  If only I had the time; but work must intrude upon pleasure, at least these days.

The bottom line is this.  We already have a guest worker program, indeed it’s more properly called “an uninvited guest” worker program.  But having any kind of guest worker program is just inconsistent with our national priciples.  Guests, as such, will be definition always be outsiders.  Guests never become part of the family, even when you tell them to make themselves at home.  For example, guests residing in your house when you die aren’t entitled to an inheritance.  And any guest who insisted on being included in the will would be seen as morally bankrupt, doubly so if he were an uninvited guest.  Right?

You may recall that I cited an article by Mark Krikorian, previously.  Well, I received this e-mail announcement concerning illegal immigration, specifically on the question of whether we can actually get them out of our country.

[FYI: A new cost analysis of a strategy of attrition of the illegal population through immigration law enforcement. -- Mark Krikorian] ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT Government's Own Data Show Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy Contact: Jessica Vaughan, (202) 466-8185 WASHINGTON (April 2006) -- Proponents of mass legalization of the illegal alien population often justify this radical step by suggesting that the only alternative – a broad campaign to remove illegal aliens by force – is unworkable. One study fancifully suggested that the cost of such a deportation strategy would be $206 billion over the next five years. But mass forced removal is not the only alternative to mass legalization. A third way is to seek attrition of the illegal population through law enforcement, encouraging illegal aliens to give up and leave of their own accord. A new analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies uses a variety of federal government data to demonstrate that such a strategy of attrition, combined with a stronger border security effort such as the administration's Secure Border Initiative (SBI), can significantly reduce the size of the illegal alien population at a reasonable cost. The report, by CIS Senior Policy Analyst Jessica Vaughan, finds that, according to the government's own cost estimates, an attrition strategy could cut the illegal population by nearly half in five years, with an additional investment of less than $2 billion, or $400 million per year – an increase of less than 1 percent of the President's 2007 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security ($42.7 billion). The report, ''Attrition Through Enforcement: A Cost-Effective Strategy to Shrink the Illegal Population,'' is on line at http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back406.html and includes the following additional findings: * Elements of an attrition strategy would include: mandatory workplace verification of immigration status; measures to curb misuse of Social Security and IRS identification numbers; partnerships with state and local law enforcement officials; expanded entry-exit recording under US-VISIT; increased non-criminal removals; and state and local laws to discourage illegal settlement. * An attrition strategy could reduce the illegal population by as many as 1.5 million illegal aliens each year. Currently, only about 183,000 illegal aliens per year depart without the intervention of immigration officials, according to DHS statistics. * Persuading illegals to leave of their own accord works faster and is cheaper than a borders-only approach to immigration law enforcement. For example, under the controversial NSEERS program launched after 9/11, DHS removed roughly 1,500 illegally-resident Pakistanis; over the same time period, in response to the registration requirements, about 15,000 illegal Pakistani immigrants left the country on their own. * Requiring employers to verify the status of workers could deny jobs to about three million illegal workers in three years, affecting at least one-third of the illegal population. This measure is a central feature of H.R. 4437, the enforcement measure passed by the House of Representatives in December, and is estimated to cost just over $400 million over five years. * The Internal Revenue Service knows the name, address, and place of employment of millions of illegal aliens, and issues hundreds of millions of dollars in tax refunds and tax credits to illegal aliens. Changing the laws to provide for information-sharing would help boost immigration law enforcement at minimal cost. * US-VISIT border registration program is a critical tool in curbing illegal immigration. Screening must be expanded to include Mexicans and Canadians, and DHS must move forward to deploy an exit-recording system. These steps should be a prerequisite to adding or expanding any visa program. * Less than 10 percent of the investigative resources of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are devoted to fraud, workplace violations, and overstayers. DHS could double non-criminal removals at a cost of roughly $120 million per year, balancing a ''broken windows'' approach with its current triage approach to interior enforcement. * Laws enacted by the state governments of Florida and New York to prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses have induced more illegal aliens to leave than have federal enforcement efforts against certain illegal populations in those states, and have come at virtually no cost to the federal government. # # # To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to center@cis.org with REMOVE in the subject line. ---------------------------------------- Center for Immigration Studies 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 466-8185 / fax: (202) 466-8076 center@cis.org / www.cis.org ----------------------------------------

So there I was. Listening to the Michael Medved show yesterday.  Only Michael wasn’t there.  The substitute host, whose name I cannot now recall, asked for legal immigrants to call him up and talk about the proposed legislation.

One of these callers really ticked me off.  He boldly admitted that one of the reasons he came here (legally) was precisely to help bring about the state of affairs we face.  He went on to say, among other things, that Americans don’t have the stomach or the backbone to defend our borders, and he is happy to this all going on.  In short, his coming here was, as far as I’m concerned, an act of war in his mind.

This guest host assured him that Americans don’t respond well to threats.  That may be so.  But we know that the reason these illegals come here the way they do must be because they think that we do, in fact, lack the backbone to do something about it.  Think about it: if they thought that we’d actually do something about it, would they protest in our streets, waving the flag of the nation to which their loyalties so abviously belong?   As we used to say when I was a kid:  You don’t toy with someone whom you think can do something about it.  Think about: whose space got invaded when you were in school?  The wimp’s, right?  You don’t mess with the 800 pound gorilla.  Illegals just are not afraid to be here illegally.

And so far, Congress seems to me to be confirming this guy’s conviction that we do lack the required backbone.

I agree whole-heartedly with this guest host’s assertion that the Undocumented States of America will be in a border war with Mexico inside a handful of years.

On the same topic, Denver station KAO-AM interviewed several of the students who protested yesterday.  (You can read the Denver Post story here.)   One of them, a high school student named Juan told interviewers that he was protesting because, “We are not criminals and we need to have our rights too, because we are people.”  Now that’s logic.  He is entitled to the rights of citizens recognized by our Constitution simply because he’s a human being.  Well heck, on that logic, who isn’t entitled to be treated like a legal citizen of the US?  Fine. Let’s not wait for them to come here.  Let’s just declare all of the earth’s inhabitants to be US citizens, with all the rights and privileges (but none of the  responsibilities) thereunto appertaining!  Now, we can go do something about the ethnic cleansing in the Sudan, right?  And no one needs to ask anymore where we get off being the world’s police force.  As far as I’m concerned our role (as Juan would have) as the world’s sugar daddy gives us the role as world’s police force.  It’s the Golden Rule:  The one dispensing the gold makes—and enforces—the rules.  (One begins to understand why teenagers aren’t allowed to vote, despite being able to shoot and kill people, and have babies.  As Aristotle pointed out (in his Nicomachean Ethics), they just are not mature enough to engage in philosophical, and hence, policy discussions.  And given that adolescense in the Undocumented States of America doesn’t effectively end until around age twenty-five, maybe we should adjust the voting age accordingly.  But of course we’d have to rely upon those younger than 25 to go along with that.

Previously, while criticizing the French, I made mention of the lower value placed on child-raising.  I made the claim that


[A]assuming secularism makes a genuine offer, a commitment to all that you can have and be, here and now tends to make you a bit self-centered and very much inclined to make peace under whatever terms are offered you as long as your own personal peace and affluence are promised and protected.  The fewer children you have, the more for you.


I don’t like to make claims like that without presenting at least a scintilla of evidence.  So right on cue, MSN.com helps me out.  Here's an article, by M. P. Dunleavey ("Kids: Bad investments, big returns," MSN Money Central. Cited 12 April 2006.) that discusses the cost, to parents, of having children.

Here are a few quotes illustrating my point:


While the benefits of marriage, in terms of health, longevity, resistance to depression and even greater wealth, have been demonstrated repeatedly, the effect of children on your quality of life or well-being isn't so clear.  A study of 13,017 adults published last month in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, found that parents experience significantly higher levels of depression than nonparents.  And in a now-famous study published in the journal Science, in 2004, when researchers asked 909 women in Texas to record the events of a single day and rate how much they enjoyed various activities, spending time with their kids didn't even crack the top five, which were: sex, socializing, relaxing, praying or meditating and eating.


That’s a bit negative.  Here a positive:

Derry-Williams has made it his specialty to keep up with research in the field of economics and happiness. "In the short term, if you look at the dollar value you lose, it can be substantial -- but at the same time, it's like an ongoing, lifelong investment in happiness," he says.

But whether anything said in the article is positive or negative, as you read it, ask yourself one question.  What’s the focus?  The answer is, of course: the Self of the person contemplating child-raising.  On one hand we have the costs—to the Self.  When we get to talking about the benefits, we are talking about the benefits to the Self.  Note the quote from Derry-Williams, above.  He talks about a “lifelong investment in happiness.”  Isn’t that wonderful?  But note that he’s talking about the parent’s happiness—here and now.

Happiness.  Here.  Now.  That’s what I said that secularism promises.  Children optional—depending upon how happy you calculate they can make you.  (Dunleavy writes another article, "Cost of being a stay-at-home-mom: $1 million," which, like the article I’m presently discussing, has its ups and downs but shares the same focus: the cost to the Self of parenthood.)

This raises the question about my own feelings on the matter.  And the truth is that when I was a secularist I had no interest in having children; neither did I have an interest in marriage.  For one thing, I knew I would have a problem with the whole parental authority thing.  When I was a kid and became an atheist, I also became—of course—an evolutionist.  One problem I always had with my parents was their—to my mind—silly conviction that their decision to spawn me gave them authority over me.  I never could see how they got authority over me just by copulating.  How can an accident of birth have such a ridiculous significance?  (What about the “consent of the governed”?)  Also, I wasn’t sure how committed I should be to be to the continuation of the human race.  If the race continued, it could, and no doubt would, do so just as well without my “output” as with it.  And to whatever extent I did believe that the human race should continue, I thought test-tube babies were the best way to go, the way of the future; so it didn’t matter at all.

Back to my point, then, about the French.  They, like the articles I’ve cited here, are secular in outlook.  The people they are relying upon to populate their country are not secular in outlook.  Like me (a Christian—a Reformed Catholic, to be specific) they believe that the purpose of a human being is to glorify God and that one of the ways that one does so is by having children.  After all, according to the Christian faith, humans are the image of God; multiplying that image on the face of the earth is a good thing.  And it requires selflessness, which is a form of courage. And courage is something which many of the French seem to lack—at least from this far away.

Laura Ingraham links to this article by Mark Krikorian, “Not Just Mexicans: Guest-workers open doors to a whole new world.” (National Review Online. 11 April 2006.) It’s an insightful article. Here’s a quote from it:

[O]nce foreign workers no longer have to sneak in, and are instead shipped here by labor-recruitment companies, Mexico’s advantage disappears. Cheap airfares and easy communications guarantee that employers will start looking farther afield for workers even cheaper and more compliant that Mexicans.Mexico’s per capita income, in purchasing-power terms, is nearly $10,000 a year — putting it near the top of the developing world.

Egypt, on the other hand, is home to nearly 80 million people who make less than half the average Mexican. India and Indonesia together have 1.3 billion people with one-third the average Mexican’s income. And Pakistan and Bangladesh together have more than 300 million people with less than one-quarter the average Mexican’s income.

And how much of Iraq’s working-age population would leap at the chance to get out, regardless of the wages offered?

That’s a lot of “willing workers” who will work cheaper than Mexicans.

Yup. He’s right. It’s the dirty little secret that our politicians don’t want to share with our benevolent invaders (after all they are doing us a whole lot of favors by building our houses and highways, scrubbing our toilets and picking our vegetables): “[There are] a lot of ‘willing workers’ who will work cheaper than Mexicans.”

Or maybe it’s not a secret. Maybe those boneheads just haven’t thought that far ahead. After all, the problem Krikorian writes about won’t arise until well after the next election.

I was just listening to the news on the radio. The mayor of Los Angeles wants to remind America that this country was built on the backs of immigrants. I hate that line of garbage, for implicit within it is the proposition that some body of non-immigrants made some other body, the immigrants, do all the work. As we all know, there is no one here who is not an immigrant; by which I mean to include those who are the descendants of immigrants.

In addition to making—wilfully, I suspect—the same mistake that Tony Snow and others have made (that is, missing the point) by speaking of immigration per se as opposed to illegal immigration, Villarigosa makes another mistake. Villarigosa speaks of this country. A country is, among other things, a geographical entity; as a geographical entity, a country has borders. For all practical purposes, Villarigosa seems to want this country to continue without borders. Which is as much as to say that he wishes this country not to continue. (It’s about semantics and logical implications. Being a poltician, Villarigosa probably spends some time thinking about rhetorical flourish, but not a whole lot about logical implications, apparently.)

You can have doctors without borders. But you can’t have countries without borders. After all, countries are defined by their borders; doctors are defined by their medical credentials.

Besides, if there were countries without borders, what would we could call them?

Hmmmm. Welcome to the Undocumented States of America. No rules. Just rights.

Came across this gem by Mark Steyn on Friday.  It’s a good article.  From his last paragraph:

Recounting the Muslim march on France 1,300 years ago, Gibbon writes:

"The decline of the French monarchy invited the attack of these insatiate fanatics. The descendants of Clovis had lost the inheritance of his martial and ferocious spirit; and their misfortune or demerit has affixed the epithet of lazy to the last kings of the Merovingian race. They ascended the throne without power, and sunk into the grave without a name. . . . The vineyards of Gascony and the city of Bordeaux were possessed by the sovereign of Damascus and Samarcand; and the south of France, from the mouth of the Garonne to that of the Rhone, assumed the manners and religion of Arabia."  (Links added.)

Hmmm.  “Religion of Arabia.”  Wonder who Gibbon was writing about.

I’m in a playful mood, so let’s update Gibbon:

"The decline of the French monarchy and all subsequent republics has invited the attack of these insatiable Islamofascist fanatics. The descendants of the Franks long ago lost that original warrior spirit that once made them a world empire; and this has resulted in their being written off as weak, whimpy, whiny, and whipped—in short, wussies.  (What American, except for Liberals, doesn’t think of “French” as synonymous with “sissy”?)  Gutless wonders, they stand as they do because those whom they are tempted to disregard as barbarians have bailed them out of two world wars.  This, no doubt their last, Republic will end without even so much as a whimper when it is replaced by a new Sultanate.  Their youth will no doubt accept the rule and religion of Arabia as long as those rulers will promise not to allow their employers to fire them or extend the work week to longer than 30 hours." – Philologous Lector

(Now, pardon me while I rant a bit.)

Sadly, I doubt the French will see a Charles Martel rise to their defense.  But one good thing may come out the death of France.  There are those who will tell us that the goal of Muslim conquest is a phantasm.  As we watch France die, we’ll see whether or not this is true.  If the Republic of France is not replaced in a few decades by an Islamic Sultanate then we will know that it is true.  But if so?  On my view, for whatever it’s worth, France is already dead; the French just haven’t accepted it.  Yet.

And it’s sad because the solution to their dissolution is (pardon me for being graphic) right between their legs, literally and figuratively.  The French can regain much of what they have lost if they will do three things: (1) embrace the orthodox Christian faith of their forebears; (2) copulate like rabbits and raise families (as opposed to fornicating like porn stars and discarding the results); and (3) actually work hard for a living.

The second two are obvious enough I suppose, but why would I recommend the first?  Because Islam is a faith system and, for all that I oppose about it, it demands strength of will of its adherents.  What ails France right now is its secularism; and I mean secularism as a faith system, not in the simple sense of an approach to the relation of church and state.  What secularism promises is the only life one gets here and now.  It may sound like a whole lot, but it isn’t.  And those people than whom secularists think they are smarter see that secularism offers them nothing, even less than nothing, less than a handful of pebbles.  Enter post-modernism.

But assuming secularism makes a genuine offer, a commitment to all that you can have and be, here and now tends to make you a bit self-centered and very much inclined to make peace under whatever terms are offered you as long as your own personal peace and affluence are promised and protected.  The fewer children you have, the more for you.  And once child-raising is out of the picture there isn’t much reason to bother about marriage.  Loyalties shift, the primary loyalty being not to one’s nation but to one’s self.  A nation is in many respects an extended family whose members, by and large, bear allegiance to one another; when marriage and family decline, a nation degenerates into a collection of selves that begins to feed on itself, thus losing the ability to provide for its continued existence.  France’s continued existence depends upon reproduction.

This is why France will not continue as a Republic.  Presently, France must depend upon foreign nationals to populate her, because her own people have effectively achieved zero population growth.  Zero.  Null. No population growth means zero population life.   France is dead.  Those who are populating France, both by immigration and procreation, are, by virtue of being Muslims, a network of families with its own allegiances—a nation within a nation.  And that nation within a nation is a Muslim nation; and that nation’s allegiances, though in some respects similar, are not identical with the (secular) allegiances of the nation currently calling itself France.

Of course, what the French probably tell themselves is that all this is just proof of their tolerance and open-mindedness.  We have overcome the narrow allegiance to nation and state and have embraced all humanity, they might say.  To me, that sounds like what a cuckolded husband would say in response to his wife’s constant and repeated infidelities, instead of just confessing that he hasn’t got the stones to satisfy his wife—or to cut her loose if she won’t toe the fidelity line.

As any man knows: You’ve got to have—and know how to use— the right tool for the job.

Within just moments after I sent my previous post, a caller to Mike Rosen's show informed him and his guest that her daughter had been sent home just for wearing a T-shirt which has “U.S. Marines” written on it.  Why?  Because such a shirt makes a political statement.

Following up on my previous post, I just heard a caller to Laura Ingraham's show make this point:  Once the illegal immigrants are given permanent resident status or citizenship, they are going to want better jobs.  They will be (even if only for practical purposes) Americans; therefore they will no longer want to do those jobs-that-Americans-won’t-do.  

Who is going to do those jobs then?

This caller, by the way, is a naturalized U.S. citizen who immigrated from Senegal.

In other news and speaking again of  flags:

By the laws of the state in which I live, every person has the right to display the US flag, to include wearing the flag on his person.  This state recognizes that this first amendment right extends to students at school.  Two public schools have taken it upon themselves to prohibit students from doing so.  Despite the fact that they have been informed that they are breaking the law, these two schools are digging in.  (Did I neglect to mention that the schools are breaking the laws?)  Students are being sent home for even wearing clothing in the colors red, white and blue.  There will more than likely be court action necessary to “motivate” the schools to obey the law.

But, when you think about it.  If Mexicans and other South Americans don’t have to obey our immigration laws, why should we expect anyone—even, or perhaps, especially, citizens—to obey any law?  Lawlessness begets lawlessness.

Still thinking about illegal immigration, one of the arguments that I hear and have to take issue with is the one which asserts that these illegals don’t take jobs from Americans because they do jobs that Americans won’t do.  I keep trying to figure out which jobs these may be.  But it doesn’t really matter.  The simple fact is that illegal immigrants aren’t here to satisfy our needs; they are not here to do us any favors.  They are here because they cannot find work in their home country (you know, the country whose flag they fly while demanding that we give them certain rights).  And the jobs they do are not jobs that Americans won’t do, but jobs that Americans don’t have to do, for various reasons.

I’ll deal with the easiest reason first.  Many of these jobs are jobs that Americans don’t have to do because they have options other than work.  First, they can get themselves on welfare, for various reasons, excuses, whatever.  Second, they can live well by engaging in illegal activites like drug trafficking.

On the other hand, we have those Americans who don’t do these jobs-that-Americans-won’t-do because they have other work options.  Let’s take me.  (Like most humans, I am one of my favorite subjects.  Unlike most humans, I freely admit it.) Some of the jobs-that-Americans-won’t-do are in the building trades and food service, in both of which I have worked.

When I was a kid, I did some construction work; I didn’t like it.  Not because it was beneath me, but because it just didn’t interest me.  I had other options, so I took them.  And I have more options now than I did back then.  So, instead of constructing a building, I could design one.  If that building that I designed were a church, I could—this is no joke—pastor it (that is, if a had a calling in that direction, which I don’t).  If that building were part of a school, I could teach in it (but for the fact that I don’t have a teaching certificate; never went for it, don’t care to, but the point is I could).  If that building were a college lecture hall, I could lecture in it.  If that building were a restaurant—again, no joke—I could manage it.

I do not do those jobs-that-Americans-won’t-do not because I am too good for them; I am not.  Besides, I have done many of them.  No, the reason I do not do those jobs, is that my present socio-economic status gives me other options; and I have taken those options, just like these illegals would if they were in my shoes.  I don’t do those jobs because I don’t want the pay cut involved; and neither would illegal immigrants if they were in my shoes.

And this is not true because of some mystical substance called White Privilege.  I wouldn’t know White Privilege if it jumped out of the ground and bit me in my buttocks.  For one thing, although I am so fair complected as to pass for white, thanks to a lot of interracial marriage on my mother’s side, I have always identified more with my hispanic background, than with my Norwegian and Scotish; after all, Spanish was my first language.  On every occasion possible I have found a way to make clear to people around me that I am hispanic.  So anyone willing to grant me White Privilege would hardly have been disposed to grant me that after I identified myself as being of hispanic background.  Moreover, my hispanic father rose to a rather high—and I do mean high—rank in federal service (which federal service I won’t identify of course; everything about me is classified—bit it wasn’t the Postal Service!).  For another thing, talk of White Privilege is ad hominem; and as such, it can falsify no proposition whatsoever.

I can imagine that if my dead ancestors from both streams of my heritage could see me and my siblings and cousins they would look at us and at each other and say,  “Who could ever think that our descendents could have such opportunities?”  My siblings and cousins are some of the first in our families’ histories to have graduate level educations, to own our own homes before retirement, and to be able to say, “No, I won’t take that job because I can’t afford the pay cut.”  And that is something that very few—if any—of our ancestors could ever have said.

Jobs that Americans won’t do?  Creo que no.  (I don’t think so.)  Jobs we don’t have to  do—because we have other, higher-paying, options.

But isn’t all that just another way of saying that, in fact, these are jobs that we won’t do?  Sure.  But two things need to be said about that.  First, the assertion that These are jobs that Americans won’t do seems to imply that these are jobs that Americans think that they are too good to, but Mexicans are not.  My point is that, while there may be those Americans who feel that way—probably liberals, society’s Guardians (in the Platonic sense), the greatest reason “we” aren’t doing those jobs is because “we” don’t need to in order to make a living.  Second, there are Americans who would do those jobs if there were not effectively being paid not to work.  If they were truly in the same (jobless, welfare-less) conditions as illegals, we would probably be surprised at the sort of jobs Americans will do.  Both of which are just two ways of restating my argument: these are jobs that, for whatever reasons, Americans don’t have to do because they have other options.

Tony Snow, whom I otherwise enjoy reading, has a column, published at Jewish World Review’s online site, that just irritates the heck out of me. I’m going to comment on it bit by bit.

Illegal immigration seems to have spawned a dreary debate about the merits of Mexicans, when it should be drawing attention instead to a very different matter: how to build on the luster and wonder of the American dream.

The debate isn’t about “the merits of Mexicans.” The debate is about the merits of doing nothing about the trampling of our laws. Part of the “luster and wonder of the Amrican dream” is living in a nation of laws, a nation where our rights are protected by virtue of recognition that those rights exist apart from the consitution which acknowledges them. It is also the dream of living in a nation whose leaders have to obey the laws, just like everyone else. Everyone else except illegal immigrants, I guess. Snow’s position means that we can ignore a set of laws. Well, if we can set aside immigration laws, Tony, why not constitutional law?

Immigration is not the pox neo-Know Nothings make it out to be

Well let’s just drive a tank over the point. I don’t know who has said that immigration is the pox. This pox (read slowly, Tony) is (I’m…writing…very…slowly…for…you…Know…Somethings…out…there) il…le…gal im…mi…gra…tion. Seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee?

Begin with the astounding influx of illegal immigrants, the vast majority of whom hail from Mexico. While the population includes an eye-popping number of crooks, drug-dealers and would-be welfare sponges, it also provides a helpful prop for sustaining American economic growth and cultural dynamism.

In other words: It’s okay to ignore the law if, as a consequence of ignoring the law, we get “a helpful prop for sustaining American economic growth and cultural dynamism.” Oh, yeah. And all you would-be legal immigrants? Thank you for applying, but @#&* you! We’d rather have people who, though they don’t follow the law like you do, nonetheless help us prop up and sustain our economic growth and cultural dynamism. Because, after all, we’re Americans; and, as the world knows, our economic growth and cultural dynamism trumps all other considerations. Yes, even our own laws. So, again, @#&* you very much. Now go away; we already have 10 million immigrants; and they’ll do more work than you for a lot less money.

Princeton University sociologist Douglas S. Massey reports that 62 percent of illegal immigrants pay income taxes (via withholding) and 66 percent contribute to Social Security. Forbes magazine notes that Mexican illegals aren't clogging up the social-services system: only 5 percent receive food stamps or unemployment assistance; 10 percent send kids to public schools.

Hey kids! It’s okay to break a set of laws you find objectionable as long as you pay your income taxes, contribute to Social Security, and don’t clog up our social services system. So you just go on out there, pick a law or set of laws that you don’t like and live it up!!! You have Tony Snow’s kind permission . (Of course, Tony would like it very much if you didn’t break into his house and steal anything. Because if you were to do that, he would probably have you prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And, of course, he’s free to do this because, like you, he pays taxes, contributes to social security, and doesn’t clog up our social services system.)

On the work front, Hispanic unemployment has tumbled to 5.5 percent, only slightly above the national average of 4.7 percent and considerably lower than the black unemployment rate of 9.3 percent. Economist Larry Kudlow praises Hispanic entrepreneurship: "According to 2002 Census Bureau data, Hispanics are opening businesses at a rate three times faster than the national average. In addition, there were almost 1.6 million Hispanic-owned businesses generating $222 billion in revenue in 2002."

This would be very interesting if Hispanics—the merits of Mexicans—were the issue!!! They are not. This is an interesting statistic, but irrelevant.

Skeptics counter that immigrants have clogged our hospitals, which is true — but primarily in places that offer lavish benefits to illegal immigrants.

We are, again, not concerned about immigrants, but (slowly again) il…le…gal im…mi…grants.

As for crime, the picture doesn't quite conform to conventional wisdom. Heather McDonald discovered that illegal immigrants in 2004 accounted for 95 percent of all outstanding homicide warrants in Los Angeles and two-thirds of unserved felony warrants. (Gangs, aided and abetted by laws that prevent local officials from handing illegal-immigrant criminals over to federal authorities, account for much of the mayhem.)

On the other hand, the most comprehensive survey to date of national crime data concludes, "In the small number of studies providing empirical evidence, immigrants are generally less involved in crime than similarly situated groups, despite the wealth of prominent criminological theories that provide good reasons why this should not be the case.”

Okay. It’s okay to break our laws, as long as you don’t…well…break our laws, that is, the laws that Tony Snow, and the other non-neo-Know-Nothings, do like and think people should obey. Besides, our problem is not—again—with “immigrants.” We have a problem with illegal immigrants; and we don’t care which of our many laws they graciously condescend to obey.

Authors Ramiro Martinez Jr. and Matthew T. Lee note, for instance, that the Latino homicide rate in Miami is three times that of El Paso, Texas, which has one of the nation's largest immigrant populations. That's not just an anomaly. Another major study, "U.S. Impacts of Mexican Immigration," by professors Michael J. Greenwood and Marta Tienda reports that "crime rates along the border are lower than those of comparable non-border cities."

Interesting. But we are not concerned with Mexican immigration. We are concerned with illegal immigration, by anyone.

This doesn't mean immigrants from Mexico are saints — it just means that they may not be the marauding horde some make them out to be. As it turns out, crime rates in the highest immigration states have been trending significantly downward.

Therefore, what? We should continue to do nothing about our immigration policy being trampled by those who see fit, for reasons that seem good to them? All you’re saying, Tony, is that it’s fine for people to break one set of laws (and you’ll decide which set, of course) as long as they don’t break another set of laws (and you’ll decide which set, of course).

Total crime and property crime in California are half what they were in 1980; violent crime has fallen more than a third. The state's Hispanic population during that time has increased 120 percent.

Irrelevant. We’re are not talking about the behavior of Hispanics. I was raised by Hispanics. We’re talking about illegal immigration. And many Hispanics have a problem with illegal immigration. Here's an example of one of them (some may think that my own hispanic credentials are somewhat suspect, due to generations of interracial marriages).

Similar trends apply in other high-traffic states, with the exception of Colorado. While Arizona's population grew 41.8 percent between 1993 and 2003, for instance, the rates for every major category of crime fell.

All we find here is what we’ve already discovered. Tony thinks it fine for a group of people to break a set of laws that he doesn’t particularly care about, just so long as they don’t break sets of laws that he does care about. (In other contexts, we’ll no doubt be treated to a dose of his complaining about how we’re supposed to be a nation of laws, blah, blah, blah.)

Why, then, the fuss? In America today, unemployment remains low, employment is booming, wages have begun to grow in tandem with the economy, tax receipts are exploding at the federal and state levels, and the United States continues to run laps around its European and Asian economic rivals.

Welcome to America, you law-breakers. Feel free to stay as long as you like as long as you don’t break any other laws that I, Tony Snow, care about, and unemployment remains low, employment continues to boom, wages keep growing in tandem with the economy, and tax receipts continue to explode at federal and state levels, and the United States continues to run laps around its European and Asian economic rivals. (But if all that comes crashing to a halt, Tony Snow may then be in favor of kicking your law-breaking butts out of here.)

Hey, Tony, try not paying your taxes and then tell the IRS what wonderful things you do for this country’s economy. See how kindly they treat you. I mean, hey, if we can excuse the breaking of one set of laws on the basis of some supposed good being done by the law-breakers, then quite possibly we can excuse the breaking of another set of laws on the basis of some good being done by the law-breakers in that case. Tony Snow, apparently, wants to have a “law buffet.”

The United States somehow has managed to absorb 10 million to 20 million illegal immigrants not only without turning into Animal Farm, but while cranking up the most impressive economic recovery in two decades and the most prolonged period of declining crime in a century — all in the teeth of the post-9/11 recession, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the double-whammy hurricane season of 2005.

Yes, well whether we’ve actually absorbed them is debatable. It may turn out that we’ll have absorbed them like the Romans did the Goths. Besides, it not a matter of how well we absorb them, but of how well we assimilate them. But hey, who cares about all that as long as we keep “cranking up the most impressive economic recovery in two decades and the most prolonged period of declining crime in a century — all in the teeth of the post-9/11 recession, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the double-whammy hurricane season of 2005.” Screw the laws! The money surf’s up! It’s time to party, dudes!

Rather than panicking, the political class might want to take a deep breath and attempt a little common sense. Virtually everyone agrees that we need to secure our borders, deport lawbreakers and slackers among the illegal-immigrant population, and revitalize the notion of citizenship by insisting that prospective citizens master the English language and the fundaments of American history and culture.

It is interesting to see him think he has something to say about deporting “lawbreakers…among the illegal-immigrant population” (italics added, by me). Is he kidding us?

The Statue of Liberty symbolizes America's affection for the world's tired and poor, the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Yes, the Statue of Liberty does symbolize “America's affection for the world's tired and poor, the ‘huddled masses yearning to breathe free’ ”. But that affection is, like everything should be in a nation of laws, expressed by our immigration laws. It is our right and privilege, as a free nation, to decide and to prescribe by law, how—under what, if any, conditions— we will accept the world’s “huddled masses.” And we have done so.

Hey, Tony. Why don’t you take a drive down to Ciudad Juarez—just across the border from El Paso (the city you mentioned just above)—and take a walk around the city, draped in our flag. And just for kicks, while you’re walking around, yell at the top of your lungs, “América, América! Sí se puede!” See what happens. On second thought, don’t do any of that. I may disagree with you, but I wouldn’t want you to get yourself beaten to a jelly.

Before someone razes Lady Liberty and decides to erect a wall to "protect" America from the world, shouldn't we at least spend a little time trying to get our facts straight?

Yeah, Tony. Why don’t you go down to the border and do that; get your facts straight. Find one of those tunnels, that no one else has found, and be there to greet our illegal guests. Better yet, hang around with ranchers near the border, who have been warned by law enforcement authorities not to go out on their own land to check on their cattle. I myself wouldn’t want to see the welcome that they give to you. But you go ahead anyway. Get those facts straight.
Tags: Tony Snow, illegal immigration, illegal immigrants, Mexican immigrants

In my previous post, I linked to a photo album which contains this photo

If you will look in the upper right corner of the photo, you will notice a sign that says, “THIS IS STOLEN LAND”.  That is an interesting proposition.  To whom might the sign be referring?  To the Spaniards, who stole it from the “natives”?  To the Mexicans, who, after gaining independence from Spain, kept it?  To the Russians, who stole Alaska—and a bit more—from the Eskimos?  I mean, this sign couldn’t really be referring to the US, could it?  After all, the US paid millions of (nineteenth century) dollars (to the Mexicans, the French, and the Russians) for the land that these people think we stole!  (I know.  I know.  There are those who would like to think that we purchased this land by pointing our guns at the Mexicans.  But, really, who points a gun at someone and says, “Here, let me give you some money that will help you pay a great many of your debts”?)

Besides, I thought it was wrong for one group to force its morality on another.  By telling us that we shouldn’t have stolen that land, aren’t these people sorting of forcing their morality on us?  And aren’t they also doing so by, well, trying to steal it back after we bought it fair and square and telling us that we deserve it for stealing it in the first place?

There’s something else.  I thought Mexico was so bad that this is why they are coming here.  By flying the flag of Mexico (a country they are supposed fleeing from) flag here (in a country they are supposedly fleeing to) aren’t they saying “This land should be part of the hell-hole I just left”?  To where would they then flee?

Anyway, you can see more pictures of the new conquistadores at work here.

Tags: Aztlan, reconquista, illegal immigration.

Here is a photo abum of the aforementioned protest, courtesy of The LA Times, where you can see this photo.


There is nothing like loyalty to one's country. So noble.

Take a good look at this picture.

In my last post, I was concern to stress the importance of distinctions, relevant distinctions. The photograph above is technically correct: the US was, in fact built by immigrants. This would be a good point if anyone was talking about stopping all immigration. Maybe some are, but this protestor is not dealing with that particular issue. The protestor is addressing the issue of current proposed legislation that deals with illegal immigration.

This is an exercise in deliberately ignoring an issue. No one is talking about immigration per se; the current proposed legislation is not designed to stop immigration. The issue is illegal immigration. The question is whether the US were built by illegal immigrants. And even if someone wanted to claim that the US were built by illegal immigrants, previous abuse is no argument against proper use.

Many people are trying to immigrate here legally. They are waiting upwards of 18 months for the paperwork to go through. They are following the laws. Those who immigrate illegally decide that the laws don’t apply to them.

Many of those who are opposed to the proposed legislation are liberals, Democrats. It is interesting to watch them favor immigrants who migrate here illegally, while at the same time screaming about an illegal war in Iraq, and a President who, they claim, ignores the law in order to spy on Americans. I don’t want to make any unwarranted assumptions about the protestors, so it would be interesting to see the results of a poll which would ask respondents how they feel about the legality of the war in Iraq and about illegal immigration.

You know, one of the arguments in favor of illegal immigration, when whittled down to essentials is, “It’s good for us.” One of the arguments in favor of invading the sovereign nation of Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein is a great deal similar to that one.

So, I guess one question that I have is why can we permit illegal immigration on the one hand, but not an illegal war? Another question is, “We’re a sovereign nation. Why isn’t it wrong for our neighbors to the south to invade us?” Shouldn’t a sovereign nation be able to define by law who gets in and why?

I used the word invasion. At several of these rallies there have been many more Mexican flags than US flags and people chanting, “México! México! Sí se puede!” (“Mexico! Mexico! Yes we can.”) One would expect that if these rallies were about what is good for the US, by people who wanted to be Americans, there would be no Mexican flags and that the chants would be something like “Queremos ser norte americanos!” (“We want to be Americans!”) As it is they are telling us, “We’re here! We’re Mexicans! Get used to it!” (Recall the leftist reaction to the flying of the US flag on Iraqi soil and compare the disimilar reaction to the flying of the Mexican flag on US soil.)

I live two doors down from an immigrant, a German immigrant. He flies the US flag, not the German flag. He has flown the US flag every day since 9-11-01; and he was the first one on my block to do so. That shamed me.

So let’s not pretend that these immigrants want to participate in our building project. In flying their nation’s flag on our soil and chanting as they did, they have made their loyalties quite clear.

You want to immigrate here? Fine by me, if you will do so legally. Want to fly your nation’s flag? Then go back to that nation you are so proud of and fly that flag on your own soil. For I have no doubt what would happen to me if I vacationed down south and flew my nation’s flag out my hotel window.

Lest anyone think that my motivation is racist: I am the proud descendant of both Viking and Spaniard explorers on my mother’s side. I am the adopted son of a Mexican-American. Viva los estados unidos!

The title of Justice Ginsberg’s speech which I mentioned in my previous post is "’A  decent Respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind’: The Value of a Comparative perspective in Constitutional Adjudication.”  This title is an allusion to the very first sentence of our Declaration of Independence: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation (italics added).”

Justice Ginsberg finds some precedent for her “comparative perspective” in the fact that the Declaration expresses a concern for attention to the good opinion of foreign nations.  She would have us to believe that in paying attention to foreign law, and using such to interpret and apply our own, judges do no more than what the Declaration does.  It occurs to me that she overlooks certain distinctions, distinctions which are important and are  made by our very Constitution—the one she has sworn an oath to protect and defend.  I am referring to the distinction between the legistlature and the judiciary, specifically what sort of acts they each may perform, and not perform.

First, she overlooks the fact that the Declaration which evinces this concern for the opinions of other nations, was a legislative act, not a judicial one.  The people, through their representatives in the Continental Congress, expressed this concern and acted upon it by the act of the national Congress.  At the very top of the document one reads: “In Congress, July 4, 1776.”

Second, she seems not to take due note of the fact that the very Declaration which expresses this concern for the opinions of foreign nations, in cataloging the grievances against the King of England, includes among those grievances that, “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation…. (italics added).”  It is interesting (is it not?) that Justice Ginsberg takes a theme from our Declaration of Independence to justify her (and her fellow travelers’) desire to “subject us to…jurisdiction[s] foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws.”  (It is just this sort of selectivity that Justice Scalia criticizes: judges who apply foreign law apply only that body of foreign law which agrees with the position they have already taken!  Here, Justice Ginsberg does it with one of our founding documents!)

Third, she seems unaware of the fact that there is a difference between concern for the opinions of others, and applying the laws of others.  In expressing a concern for “the opinions of mankind” the Declaration does not adjudicate any matter before any court.  It does no more than to express the desire that anyone in the world who may care to know, should know that the reasons behind the revolution were given by the unlawful acts of the King of England.  It is not as if any contrary opinion held by “mankind” would have constituted a veto.  “Mankind” had no vote in the Second Continental Congess.  And I see no reason to give “mankind” a virtual seat on any of our courts.

Fourth, she overlooks the distinction between giving instruction and receiving instruction.  Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Kennedy and o’Connor, speak of foreign law as instructive though not binding.  But in publishing the facts of the case “to a candid world” the colonists in revolt against the Crown were not seeking instruction; if anything they were giving it.  “These are the reasons,” they inform the world.  They do not—notice!—turn round and ask the candid world, “What do you think?”  Had that candid world stood up in mass and said in unison, “You really should not revolt!” does anyone suppose that any of the colonists would have said, “Wait fellas.  The world has an opinion on this issue we’re struggling with and though it isn’t binding, we really need to pause and consider it”?

Patrick Henry, I’m certain, would have said, “Screw the world.  I still say, ‘Give me liberty or give me death’!”  (Or words to that effect, I’m sure.)

The same Declaration which Justice Ginsberg applies in error, also claims that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed."  We may, from time to time, want to look around the world to see how they address certain issues.  But it isn’t for judges to decide that we, the people, want or need this instruction.  For them to make that decision is to (let me see now, how would Jefferson put it?) “subject us to…jurisdiction[s] foreign to our Constitution” without our consent, as expressed through our representatives in Congress.  Thus another distinction that Justice Ginsberg overlooks: that between representatives and judges, a distinction made very clear in that document which she is supposed (a) to be a master of and (b) to protect and defend; I mean the Constitution, of course.

Tags for this post:  Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Scalia, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg,  Ruth Bader Ginsberg,  judges, judicial tyranny, tyrants, constitutional interpretation, originalism, living document, frozen-in-time interpretation, Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry.

Anyone who listens to Laura Ingraham, has heard about the speech (i.e., "’A decent Respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind’: The Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication”) the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg delivered to the Constitutional Court of S. Africa on 7 February, an argument in favor of using foreign law to interpret and apply the US Constitution.  In keeping with my role as the Jack Ryan of the blogosphere (thanks, Mom) I’ve been reading through it.  (It’s my pleasure to read and analyze liberal crap so no one else has to.)  This could take a few days, what with having to stop occasionally and work (just kidding, boss).

Without taking time here to give it the analysis which, in any fair world, it doesn’t deserve, let me display this gem, as good a sampling of this woman’s genuis as surely there ever could be in a work such as this speech.  After taking several pot shots at originalism, framing it as “frozen-in-time interpretation” (and coming very close to  likening opponents of her view to Justice Roger Taney, of Dred Scot infamy) she affirms a position taken in the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations, that "[W]herever the United States acts 'it can only act in accordance with the limitations imposed by the Constitution'" (para. 28 of her speech).  Here’s what’s interesting about that affirmation: her brand of Constitutional interpretation tacitly asserts that there are no limitations imposed by the Constitution!  How could there be?  There can be no limitations imposed by a document which, in order to avoid frozen-in-time interpretations must be treated as if it were living and breathing.  A limitation is a boundary.  A living breathing document specifies no boundaries (whether absolute or relative), lest any insistence upon such boundaries be criticized as a “frozen-in-time interpretation.”  What limitations can be imposed by a document whose meaning may shift at any time, for any reason?

Think of it this way.  You are involved in a boundary dispute with your neighbor to the west of you.  He claims, for reasons you don’t fully comprehend, that he owns the property which you believe you own.  After all, you foolishly think to yourself, I have a deed to the property; and it’s recorded in the county clerk’s office.  Off you and your neighbor go, to court that is, where you are certain that you will win hands down, because, again, you have a deed, a legal document stipulating that you have a right to the property it describes and which is also described in the records at the county clerk’s office.  During the trial you produce the documents which specify your and your neighbor’s respective boundaries, that is the limitations on your and your neighbor’s respective property rights imposed by some legal document(s).  You are, needless to say, shocked to find that the documents which describe the pieces of property owned by you and your neighbor respectively are, according to the judge anyway, not subject to “frozen-in-time interpretations;” because they are living and breathing documents and actually have changed in meaning and, when viewed according to some law in another country, the documents which used to say that you owned your property, now say that your neighbor really owns all the property that you thought was owned by you (and actually was owned by you until the meanings of the relevant documents changed without your knowledge)!

Don’t let the sublties involved in the illustration distract you from seeing that Justice Ginsberg has pulled a barely perceptible trick on you.  She has, in fact contradicted herself: she has said both that a (legal) document with no “frozen-in-time interpretations”  imposes limitations.  Think of it!  A document which ultimately specifies nothing, somehow imposes limitations!  Yes.  On everyone except those who will tell us what those limitations are.  We used to call such people tyrants.

Tags for this post:  Laura Ingraham, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Ruth Bader Ginsberg,  judges, judicial tyranny, tyrants, constitutional interpretation, originalism, living document, frozen-in-time interpretation

So, Senator Feingold wants to censure the President for “domestic spying” (see, Ed O’Keefe, “Feingold Calls for Bush’s Censure,” here).

Even if it’s true—and I don’t claim to know or understand the applicable law, or even all of the relevant facts—consider that a censure is a punitive act.  (Representative Hyde explained this during President Clinton’s impeachment.)  You cannot have a punitive act in this country, without a trial of the facts.  It is wrong for Senator Feingold to initiate a punitive measure without a trial.  And there cannot be a trial, in this case, without an impeachment.  Here’s why: you cannot censure someone except for some wrong-doing.  And the wrong-doing must first be proved.  At this point, the President has been accused of wrong-doing.  And the President has admitted to eaves-dropping; but he has not admitted to any wrong-doing.  Therefore, it must be proved before competent authority that wrong-doing has in fact taken place.  You simply cannot, and ought not to be, punished for being accused of wrong-doing.

So far, all we have on all this amounts to: (1) the accusation of wrong-doing; (2) assertions that the evidence (including statements by the Administration) demonstrates wrong-doing; (3) assertions that this evidence is incontrovertible.  All of this, is, at best the opening statement of the prosecution at trial.  It sure as heck shouldn’t count as verdict!

Oh, one more thing.  Typically, a censure is the act of a body of one of its members.  The President, while not above the law, is not a member of the Senate.

Tags:  Russ Feingold, domestic spying, censure Bush, impeach Bush

I am moved by a recent Michael Medved program to compile, impromptu, a short list of the greatest moderates of recent history. You see, several callers expressed dismay that there are no moderates in much of American politics. So, here it is, my short list of Great Moderates.

1. Neville Chamberlain is the first person I normally think of when it comes to great moderates. And everyone knows who he is, right? Long after Churchill is forgotten, people will remember Chamberlain whose political legacy is defined by his dealings with and appeasment of Nazi Germany. He signed the Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler in 1938 which effectively allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland, leaving Czechoslovakia vulnerable to German attack, one of the steps on the road to World War II. Chamberlain remained in office during the Phoney War, from September 1939 to May 1940, but resigned the premiership immediately after Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Sure, he failed to act to avert war, a war which ultimately became a world-wide war; but—and this is important—he brought peace in his time. Of course, his time didn’t last very long. (Hmmmm. On the other hand, he wasn’t very moderate about avoiding war, at any cost, including not acting to enforce the terms of an international treaty violated by Adolph Hitler. Kind of like the UN.) Long after Churchill, Hitler, Stalin, and Roosevelt are fogotten, the world will remember Neville Chamberlain.

2. Arlen Spectre. Who could be more moderate than a Republican who is pro-choice on the abortion issue? This guy is a Republican senator from a largely liberal state. He must work overtime trying not to piss off a sufficient number of both Democrats and Republicans in order to continue to be elected. Hmmmm. On the other hand, he isn’t moderate on the abortion issue. How could one be?

3. How about Joe Leiberman?

Oh, never mind.

This is a waste of time. Moderation for the sake of moderation is ridiculous. I think it was C. S. Lewis who said, “You can’t be a good egg all your life. Sooner or later you must hatch or rot.” Moderates are people who apparently stand for nothing except not standing for anything, or not pissing anyone off. In other words, they are people without commitments; or, if they have commitments, have not the courage of their convictions. More to the point: they are pussilanimous whimps.

Tags: Michael Medved, Neville Chamerlain, Arlen Specter, Joseph Leiberman, moderates, Munich Agreement, Sudentenland, Phoney War

A reader of this blog (thanks, for reading) writes:

“Reading Philologous' latest on Dubai I thought I would mention an interesting tidbit I heard yesterday. Do you know that Democratic (former) Senator Daschle represents Dubai in some way? Pres Clinton was advising them for a $fee & there was another Democrat named but can't remember right now. You don't think the Bush Administration was "set up" by these guys do you? They might have guessed what the reaction of Republicans would be. The fact that Hillary says she didn't know Bill was involved, makes a person really skeptical as she isn't that stupid, or is she? Just some facts I heard & know that Philologous knows how to dig further into it.

Also there are two companies looking into buying the ports deal now but don't know if they have the capital to do it. But there is one that does that someone mentioned & that would be the former company of VP Cheney. Wouldn't that be a "hoot" if that came about? How could Congress veto that American company that came to the rescue?”

I’ve done a bit of searching and what I have found is that, in fact, Daschle does not represent Dubai Ports World.  The Daschle connection is this: he works for the  Alston & Bird lobbying and law firm in Washington, D.C., which he joined in 2005 at  Bob Dole's inviation.  It is, in fact, Bob Dole, who represents DPW.  (For more on this read this article, "White House hastens to brief lawmakers on ports deal," by Keith Koffler.)

I too have read and heard that President Clinton has received money from Dubai.  However, what I have found is that this may have little or nothing to do with the ports deal.  First, the money has come from the UAE’s leaders, not from the executives at Dubai Ports World.  (Yes, DPW is a government-owned entity.  But look, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a government-owned entity; that doesn’t mean that President Bush, or even Karl Rove, approves the programming.)  Second, the money was given as a function of a relationship which has existed between the former President and the UAE and which may have nothing to do with any ports anywhere in the world.  It seems to have more to do with the American Universtity in Dubai.  (For more on this, read this article.)

So, no, I don’t think that the Administration was set up.  It is not as if any and every sale of any and every bit of property (and a port terminal is property) goes across the President’s desk and awaits his personal approval and, on at least this occasion, he got caught.  What I do think happened is that opportunists of both Democratic and Republican stripe took advantage of an opportunity to prey upon people’s fears, and, when accused of this, to blame the President for creating those fears in the first place, as if he has always encouraged us to fear every Muslim nation, never asserting that there are actually peace-loving Muslims in the world.  Hasn’t he been chided for his oft-repeated assertion that Islam is a religion of peace?  Indeed, my friends, The Red Sky Brothers, are constant in mocking this assertion.  I’m sure that we may color them sceptical of the President’s assertions.  BUT…the fact that he has made these assertions goes, I think, a long way toward demonstrating that the President has not, in fact, been urging in us a fear of every Muslim nation.

Don’t get me wrong: I wish there was a way to implicate the Clintons (and Daschle) in all this.  But it just doesn’t seem to be true.

Finally, I for one would not mind seeing a US company owning these port terminals, even if it’s Halliburton.  Operating port terminals is not a business engaged in by everyone.  Besides even Charles Shumer has indicated that he has no objections to the port terminals being owned by Halliburton.  That’s generous of him, isn’t it,  that he has no objection to a company owning something?

This post is a test.  If you came to read an actual post, just scroll down.  Thank you.  Alternatively, you could go here, since the post below links to it anyway.

The Dragon Master Gunner has another good post (on the putatively impending civil war in Iraq) in which he asks

Why do they honestly hate him so much? Because they misunderestimated his strategery during the 2000 and 2004 elections? Or because they think of themselves as so much smarter than the rest of us, you know, Red Staters. Do they really think we're ignorant country bumpkins for voting our moral conscience?

I have long pondered this question. I was clued in to the answer during the 1996 Olympics, thanks to Bryant Gumbel’s brother (whose name I cannot recall presently). Those who watched the games may recall being incredulous that the media covering the events just could not bring themselves to root for the American team. When asked about this, Brant Gumbel’s brother explained that they didn’t want to lose their “objectivity”.

Why do the media hate the President? Because they are marxist in worldview. As such they despise capitalism and virtually everyone and everything associated with it, including the nation-state. No doubt, they share Jay Bennish’s view that capitalism is, among other things, opposed to human rights. The action in Iraq, however it may be characterized, is an action by a free nation-state. More than that, it is the action of a free capitalist nation-state. And this free nation-state’s leader is a capitalist; and not just any type of capitalist, but an uber-capitalist. After all what is more capitalist than (gulp and spit) big oil?

That’s why the media hate the President, and their country. It’s part of their hatred of capitalism. And this isn’t their country; the world is their country.

Tags:

nation-state, capitalism, main stream media, MSM, Marxism, Iraq, Red Staters, Red States, Bryant Gumbel, Jay Bennish

I was listening to Bill Bennett’s
radio show on the way in to work this morning. James L. Swanson (author of the book, Manhunt: The 12 Day Hunt For Lincoln's Killer) was his guest. Bennett asked Swanson to compare Presidents Bush and Lincoln. Swanson, in commenting on Bush supposed violation of civil rights and of the Constitution generally, said, essentially, that President Bush has done nothing when compared to President Lincoln.

Now, I don’t believe that the President has violated any provision of the Consititution. (In fact, I doubt that it is any secret that I am a fan of the President.) But really, saying that one President has done nothing when compared to some other President is like saying that an accused murderer (including a cop killer here where I live) has done nothing when compared to, say, Charles Manson.

That doesn’t strike me as the best defense. Should the President actually be impeached, I’m glad that Swanson won’t be managing his defense. Should President Bush be impeached, the question at his trial before the Senate will be whether he violated the Constitution or some other provision of federal law, not whether he engaged in fewer violations than some other President.

Besides, I’m not very impressed by President Lincoln anyway. The man took the first step in virtually destroying federalism in this union. (It is possible, you know, to believe in states’ rights without at the same time believing in slavery, racism, or segregation.) In fact, this isn’t much of a union; it’s a dominion. But that’s just me.



Tags: Bill Bennett, James L. Swanson, impeachment, civil rights, Bush, Lincoln, federalism, states’ rights

Recall that the President said he would veto any bill that would stop the Dubai ports deal (of which I have not been a particular fan). Recall also that the President is committed to financing the war on terror. The President is now in the position of having either (a) to veto a bill financing the war in order to veto a bill blocking the ports deal or (b) signing a bill blocking the ports deal in order to sign a bill providing funding for the war. Why? Because a bill which, among other things, will provide additional financing for the war has an amendment attached to it; and this amendment blocks the port deal. With a line item veto, the President could get the funding for the war and still have the ports deal go through.


Did I mention that I’m not a big fan of the ports deal? What I dislike more than things like this ports deal are dirty tricks like this latest stunt!


By the way: not being a fan doesn’t mean I’m opposed. It just means I’m a sceptic. That’s all. Of course, now that Dubai is pulling out, it doesn't really matter.

I wanted to follow up my two posts on Intelligient Design with one on plausiblity structures. But this one at evangelical outpost is already written and posted. Why re-evolve the wheel? While you’re there, this one on dropping use of the term supernatural is also worth the reading.

You’ve got to go to Red Sky Brothers, specifically, right here. They have a 16 minute interview with three former Islamofascist terrorists. It is truly MUST SEE TV.

We hear the Left scream, yell, and rant about American Imperialism. For a change of pace (not to mention tone and volume), try reading this article, “The New Geopolitics of Empire,” by John Bellamy Foster, which at least makes a case without engaging in the sort of annoying whining that most leftists do. How good a case? In the end, Foster’s problem is that the world empire that the US is supposedly building is a capitalist one and not a socialist one. Here’s his conluding paragraph:

What hope remains under these dire circumstances lies in the building of a new world peace movement that recognizes that what ultimately must be overcome is not a particular instance of imperialism and war, but an entire world economic system that feeds on militarism and imperialism. The goal of peace must be seen as involving the creation of a world of substantive equality in which global exploitation and the geopolitics of empire are no longer the principal objects. The age-old name for such a radical egalitarian order is “socialism.”

He simply prefers a pax marxiana to a pax americana. That's his right. But he doesn't really make an ethical case for why socialism is superior to capitalism, or why capitialism is evil. He just writes under the implicit assumption that this is the case. More than likely he would say that the superiority is in the goal of socialism to bring about an equal distribution of wealth. But of course this assumes that such a state of affairs is ethically superior to that state of affairs in which there is an unequal distribution of wealth. Because the marxist worldview is atheistic, I deny that it is in a position to talk ethics. But that's just me.

At any rate, Foster offers something better than typical leftist screed. And he may actually be correct that the powers that be are building an American empire. Well, so what if we are?

[Headnote: This was supposed to have been posted on Friday. I have no idea what happened. File it under Better-late-than-never, even if, now, a bit irrlevant.]

If you would like to hear capitalism-hating Jay Bennish’s geography class anti-Bush tirade Michelle Malkin has posted a link to it here, or you can just click here. (Scroll down on the page to where it says "Listen to the taped remarks made by Overland High teacher Jay Bennish in a 10th grade World Geography class. They were recorded by student Sean Allen. "

…New Orleans Mayor Ray “School Bus” Nagin can add “disgraceful” to the list of adjectives that fit him.

When you look at something like the photo of the son of a [sorry, I was about to have a Patton moment] below, you must surely agree with the Master Blaster’s assessment.




Can you believe the gall of this sack of [sorry, almost had another Patton moment]? There he is, looking for all the world like a third world dictator, while dressed up in a mock-up of a US military uniform.

As we all know from listening to the news yesterday, the big story is that Bush knew about the levees. The Alien Media Nation, as Bill Bennett likes to call them, are worse marksmen than VP Cheney. Those of us who remember, know that what we all knew about the levees was the possibility that they would be topped, not breached. And that is what the President knew.

The media spent most of yesterday talking as if topped and breached were synonymous terms; and they are not. Of course, it is not very easy to fault them for this error: being so cozy with gays they could easily get the idea that being topped and being breached are the same thing because they are…for gays. Ahem.

But see
this article
for a bit more information regarding what the President knew and, more importantly, where he got some of his information.

Now, I just happen to believe that the AMN (i.e., Alien Media Nation) do know the difference—when it comes to levees—between being topped and breached. What they are counting on is this: that the majority of us do not know the difference.

And their purpose for this? Must be to continue to work on the portrait of the President as a not-Benevolent Dictator (when compared of course to their Benevolent Dictators life Roosevelt and Clinton). For whatever it’s worth, I don’t care whether the President care about me. I don’t want a President to care about me. In fact, I want a government that doesn’t care about me. For, as I said in a previous post, at some point we just have to take responsibility for saving our own asses.

Interesting exchange here about the nature of the conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims. A brief defense of Jews and Christians by an Arabic-speaking secular humanist.