Call me "Mr. Nobody"

Here we have an idiotic Democrat(ic) member of Congress putting his idiocy on open display before God and everybody.

Democrat idiot on the supposed authority of Congress to force Americans to purchase health insurance:

"Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that."

Again, call me Mr. Nobody. Heavy on the Mister!

By the way, when exactly was it that Congress' (unlimited) authority on this issue became unquestionable? I must have been sick that day.

Read More

The specter of Specter and the United States government

So Arlen Specter done went and done it. Will wonders never cease! Question: Have you ever wondered how much ridiculousness can be crammed into a single article?

Let's see now, Specter's defection is said to possibly give the Democrats 60 votes, which we later read all hinges on Al Franken's prevailing in Minnesota.

The article declares Specter's switcheroo to be a stunning turn of events, and Specter himself said of his decision, as quoted in the article, that the Republican party had moved too far to the right. Hmmm, that sounds oddly familiar for some reason.

Back to the Franken hinge on which this whole proposition of the Senate Demos gaining that magical and coveted sixtieth vote supposedly turns, it is stated that in the event that Franken wins his lawsuit, this would result in the denial of the chance for Republicans to stall legislation. The chance? What chance? Oh, I get it, the specter of the chance in hell Republicans had of stalling democrat legislation in that body when Specter was still donning the mask of a Republican day before yesterday.

No, we're not done yet...

In the next sentence we read that the news of Specter's defection -- brace yourselves for it! -- shocked Senate Republicans who had been hanging on to their ability (otherwise known as their chance in hell) to block legislation by a thread (would that be an actual thread, or a proverbial thread? Methinks it is/was the specter of a thread in any case.)

Accordingly, we read further that Senator McConnell called an emergency meeting of party leaders who had -- brace yourselves again 'cause this is a biggie! -- no forewarning of Specter's intentions to defect. No; not even the specter of the specter of a forewarning, apparently.

Democrats, it is said, were, ahem, jubilant about the development. Apparently Specter's specter even had Senate Demos buffaloed.

Hussein allegedly said to Specter over the phone "we are thrilled to have you." This specter of being genuinely thrilled was skillfully and artfully done, I'm sure.

The Vice President, it is said, had been arguing for weeks the position with Specter the specter that the Republican party had drifted away from him ideologically, that Specter was [now], due to this drift of the Republican party, closer to the democrats. Yes, the specter of Specter was among the few "Republicans" marching in step.

And etc...

Did I say "ridiculous?" What I meant to say was how much idiocy can be crammed into a single article? Well, besides the amount that the writer is solely responsible for himself, apparenly about as much as can be exhibited in a single day by the specter of leadership on Capitol Hill. Anyway, good riddance to that piece of garbage. Here's hoping he'll start a trend in which several others we know of will enter upon their own specter of defections from Republican ranks.

Read More

Allow me to put to an end...

...all the hype and the hope.

Given that not a single Repbulican House member voted for the Democrat's so-called "stimulus package" (I heard earlier today Obama call it a "recovery package" -- something about the word "package" used to describe an 825 Billion dollar, out-of-thin-air Marxist redistribution scheme doesn't set quite well with me) which was easily passed in the leftist controlled HoR, will the Republicans in the Senate stand firm with, and emulate their lower-house colleagues?

No.

The John Galt Option is sounding better all the time. You see, "a country boy will survive," and this country boy has absolutely no interest in indebting his great, great grandchildren with a debt they cannot pay (not to mention that they didn't themselves assent to) before they're even born. So you democrats can take your "stimulus" package and screw yourselves with it. As for me and my house, we will not participate.

Read More

Listen up Sean

For the umteenth time, we have a Senate makeup which is virtually filibuster proof.

I was watching Hannity and Colmes the other night, nunoff election eve for Saxby Chambliss of Georgia. Chambliss was a guest on the show and a lot was made (by Hannity) of the fact that the Republicans enlisted the help of Governor Palin while the Democrats kept Obama off stage in Georgia.

As you know by now Chambliss won the runoff by 20 points. The point though is this, while Hannity was beating the drum that Obama's non-appearance in support of the Democrat opponent of Chambliss was some kind of indication that Obama is a coward, given that Obama ought to be doing all in his power to make the U.S. Senate filibuster proof per the cause of the Democrats, he seemed to be completely oblivious to the fact that on the things that matter most -- on the key issues -- the Senate is already, or, as I've said before virtually filibuster proof. Those key issues of which I speak are so-called 'comprehensive immigration reform', reinstatement of the gun ban, etc.

It's not about Democrat vs. Republican per se, it's about Liberalism vs. Conservatism. And there are at least a couple of Democrats in Republican garb (or RINOs if you prefer) who still hold seats in the U.S. Senate, of which John McCain is one. Harry Reid recognizes this, but somehow Sean Hannity doesn't.

Read More

Have I been vindicated?

I wrote in an entry to this blog back on November 7 that ... well, here's what I wrote:

I predict that under the Hussein Obama administration the new Democrat controlled, virtually filibuster-proof, Congress is going to come to an agreement on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," by and with the aid of that RINO John McCain, and other liberal RINO Senators. What this means effectively is that Oklahoma's H.B. 1804 (and all other state and local immigration restriction laws), while probably remaining on the books for symbolism's sake, will become shortly nothing more than a dead letter as the all-powerful central government will have comprehensively "occupied the field" of immigration, and comprehensively left no doubt that it "intended a complete ouster" ... of the state and local authorities on immigration restrictionism.

Prepare to be overrun by Mexican and other third-worlders, America! Most of you who support immigration restriction to one extent or the other have literally been dragged kicking and screaming to create your own state and local laws on immigration -- kicking and screaming that immigration is a federal issue and a federal responsibility. Well, believe me when I say that the feds have heard you and they will respond to your dependency in fairly short order. (emphasis added)

So have I been vindicated? Well, certain people in certain key positions of power seem to think so, or that I soon will be.

Here is exhibit A and here is exhibit B.

Read More

The late election and what it portends for immigration restriction

I predict that under the Hussein Obama administration the new Democrat controlled, virtually filibuster-proof, Congress is going to come to an agreement on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," by and with the aid of that RINO John McCain, and other liberal RINO Senators. What this means effectively is that Oklahoma's H.B. 1804 (and all other state and local immigration restriction laws), while probably remaining on the books for symbolism's sake, will become shortly nothing more than a dead letter as the all-powerful central government will have comprehensively "occupied the field" of immigration, and comprehensively left no doubt that it "intended a complete ouster" ... of the state and local authorities on immigration restrictionism.

Prepare to be overrun by Mexican and other third-worlders, America! Most of you who support immigration restriction to one extent or the other have literally been dragged kicking and screaming to create your own state and local laws on immigration -- kicking and screaming that immigration is a federal issue and a federal responsibility. Well, believe me when I say that the feds have heard you and they will respond to your dependency in fairly short order.

Read More

Leftists shooting themselves in the foot

You'll have to pardon my getting pleasure from this, but I simply cannot help it. I mentioned in the previous post that I'd visited several leftist sites, one in particular, concerning the Palin interview. Well, I've gone back to the site -- which consists of a bunch of radical leftist female Barack Obama supporters -- and here is part of what I found there in a separate entry:

Open Letter to Barack Obama

Dear Senator Obama,

For 19+ months you've tried to run a positive campaign. You've focused on change. You've inspired millions with your message of hope. You've focused on the issues. Now, all of a sudden, with the introduction of Sarah Palin as Republican Vice Presidential candidate, the game has changed.

The Republicans cannot go head-to-head with you on the issues because they know if they try they'll lose. THey have been. They're trying to co-opt your message of change and it's back-firing. They're offering more of the same and they know it. So suddenly it's not about issues anymore, it's about personalities: The grizzled POW and the pert PTA mom.

Here's what I want you to do:

I want you to fight. back. I am giving you permission to get. angry. I want to hear you say, "Enough is enough!" every time you speak. I want you to take on their cynical, half-truth-ridden, insulting-to-all-American-citizens campaign and wrestle it to the ground.

And the author goes on and on and on, building anger and momentum as she goes, about how she's giving Obama permission to go on the attack against the evil, hate-filled, perverted, lying, manipulating, everyone-offending, etc., fundamentalist Christian team of McCain-Palin. Apparently the author is too angry to have noticed that Obama has been on the offensive sticking his foot in his mouth every time he turns around lately, saying stupid things like McCain doesn't know how to send an email and whatnot.

I understand that the introduction of Sarah Palin into the mix put the fear of God into the left which had been just cruising along virtually unopposed, without a care in the world except arrogantly pronouncing how badly they were going to defeat McCain (apparently they don't understand the meaning of the phrase "don't count your chickens before they hatch"), but doesn't the author realize how desperate she's become, in a matter of a couple of weeks no less, and how desperate and potentially harmful are her recommendations to the mild-mannered Barack Obama? And by the way, if the Republicans' tactic, according to this author, of "co-opting" Barack's message of change, is truly backfiring on them, as she further asserts, then what's to worry about, why get so passionate and angry about it; if it's backfiring, that means it's working against the Republicans, right? Call me crazy. LOL

Read More

Attention Republicans:

Sit down, shut up, pay close attention, and take copious notes! You're about to receive an important lecture on what's at stake and what it means to be a good loyal Republican!

When I first opened and read this week's "e-news" message from Mr. Matt Pinnell writing in behalf of the Oklahoma Republican Party, my first instinct was to fire off a fiery rebuttal using this forum as my vehicle. In fact, I actually did so, but I thought better of posting it, opting rather to give my mind and my emotions a few hours to process what it is that Mr. Pinnell is attempting to shame Oklahoma Republicans like myself into doing. In short, Mr. Pinnell, in the name of the Republican Party of Oklahoma, is advising me and other Oklahoma conservatives to violate both the dictates of my conscience and of my principles.

Mr. Pinnell, Director of Operations for the Oklahoma Republican Party, writes:

As I listened to the Sunday political television lineup, a common theme kept arising from both Republican and Democratic pundits: the talk of a wide “enthusiasm gap” between the Republican and Democrat tickets. I would agree that there may be some truth to this, but there certainly shouldn’t be, and let me tell you why.

Six. That’s the only number conservatives need to remember for the next ten months. Create a bumper sticker, iron press it on some t-shirts, get one of those cool Henna tattoos, whatever it takes for you to remember that number.

Why? Six Supreme Court Justices will be over the age of 70 or nearing that age when the next President is sworn into office. Justice Stevens is 87, Justice Ginsburg 74, Justices Kennedy and Scalia 71, Justice Breyer 69 and Justice Souter 68.

Maybe all of them will still be in place eight years from now. Maybe all of them will be retired. These nine Justices protect our fundamental rights as citizens and even govern over human lives. They matter more than the person living in our Governor’s Mansion, more than our local school boards and city councils, and matter even more than who is in control of the U.S. House and Senate. And one person alone has the power to fill empty Supreme Court seats….the President of the United States.

Two of the most loud and proud liberal Democrats in recent memory, Senators Clinton and Obama, are running for President. If one of these two liberals became our next President and had the power to name six Supreme Courts Justices, historians may look back on this presidential race as the most damaging and destructive ever for conservative Republicans. One we as conservatives may never recover from.

You enthused now?

Let me first say that ever since I signed up with the Oklahoma Republican Party to receive their weekly emails a couple of years ago, I've derived little if any benefit from them insofar as the advocacy of genuine conservative principles is concerned. This bunch is so party loyal and utterly unprincipled that if Hillary were to switch to the Republican party and it looked as though she were going to win the nomination, they'd get behind her 100% and argue the exact same points.

Second, in response to Mr. Pinnell's question to Oklahoma Republicans, "you enthused now?", can you imagine a more stupid question to ask conservative Republicans on the heels of regurgitating so much liberal tripe in such a short space; the same sort of liberal tripe, rife as it is with insinuations toward what I presume is his target audience, which has resulted in the so-called "enthusiasm gap" between Republicans and Democrats? There is an enthusiasm gap, it's both profound and real irrespective of his attempts to discount it, but I think Mr. Pinnell fails to understand from whence it emanates, which is the real issue here.

If Mr. Pinnell actually thinks his message resonates with genuine conservative Republicans, he must be living on a whole 'nother planet. I'll resist the urge to say anything more at this point, and leave it to you, if you so desire, to add whatever you like.

By all means, have at it.

Read More

So You've Considered Moving to Oklahoma, Have You?...

Over at the AFB, my friend, Mike Tams, posted this entry yesterday. I'm going to provide the link to Katie's Dad's entry here, as well that posted on the same topic at VA's.

This story is an all too familiar story for your's truly. And though I can't say that my business, my employees, nor my family have been nearly as negatively impacted financially speaking as this particular contractor and those associated with him has, I can say without hesitation that all of these have indeed suffered at the hands of cheap, illegal, mostly Mexican labor...

Months back my brothers and I discussed this very topic and the negative impact my interests had suffered on several occasions due to the influx of illegal Mexican construction workers in my area over the last couple of years. Interestingly, while I was away over this past weekend, I managed to get a visit in to one of my good friends whose initials, MB, I'll use from here on out. MB also has his own business, and he employs about six people full-time I think.

MB and I were in his office along with his wife and my two employees just shooting the breeze. I don't recall exactly who or what got the conversation started, but somewhere along the way we began discussing the illegal alien situation. I made a statement to the effect of "ah, don't fret it, man, come November 1st it's reckoning time. He asked what I meant so I told him that November 1st is when Oklahoma's tough immigration legislation goes into effect...thanks to the defeat of the amnesty bill. This legislation, as I related to MB, deals not only with illegals, but with their employers as well. And the fines incurred by the latter for employing illegal aliens get substantially stiffer with each offense so that it becomes increasingly more difficult to justify employing illegal aliens.

The reason I tell that story is because MB said something to me in the wake of my little rant that hit home pretty well. He said that there was a time in the not so distant past when he himself had thought pretty highly of these Mexican illegals because he considered them to be hard workers, pretty reliable, and overall to have good work ethic. His next statement, though, put his initial statements into proper context; he said to me that "I think I'm over that now." Of course we got a good laugh out of it, and certainly I agreed with MB that I had held some of his very views concerning Mexican illegals until I got properly educated.

I've complained to my brothers at the AFB before about the fact that finding good (American) help these days is extremely difficult. And believe me, it doesn't matter how much you pay them; that's not the issue. This being the case, I ran into a situation a couple of years ago wherein two of my four employees quit work (that is, they quit working altogether, for anyone), leaving me with a workload that the three of us left could not handle on the schedule predetermined for, and agreed to by us. I was turned on to a young Mexican immigrant who was supposedly legal and of age, and I hired him. It weren't very long before I realized that I'd made a mistake, however.

I was a little suspicious of him to begin with, so as is my general approach to things like that, I simply listened more than I spoke. And eventually he let out more information than he intended, as per the usual. He had a distinctive accent, but he spoke english very well. The fact was that he had been here several years with his parents who came here illegally. As it turned out he was only 16 years of age, he had no driver's license, no insurance, no tag and no registration in his name. As he was commuting about sixty miles a day, one way, I asked him, upon learning some of these facts: "you realize, do you not, that you're going to get stopped one day during your commute to or from?....what are you going to do when you get caught? His answer was simply this, and in these exact and nonchalant words: "go back to Mexico!"

I approach my nationality in the same sort of way that I approach my immediate and extended family members. Which is to say that while I may complain about the way certain of them act from time to time, and while I may curse their actions on occasion, they are my family so I consider myself allowed. Whereas, someone else had better not curse them with me being present unless they care to get an earfull from your's truly. And it works the same way with my countrymen. We're all Americans, and while I may complain about this and that which Americans do, or about this and that which the President does, that doesn't give an illegal alien license to curse them, or to complain about them in any way, shape, or form. And here again, they had better not in front of me. Well, this young Mexican employee of mine made that mistake, saying some very unflattering things about our President and Americans in general, and very boldly so in my very presence. Not only was he 'biting the hand that fed him' in a direct sort of way, but indirectly he was biting all the hands that feed him, and I didn't like it, no; not one bit! You can use your imaginations to conclude what happened next.

I remember well when these illegals began to arrive here in relatively small numbers. At that time there was enough work to go around for everyone, and in many cases customers were forced to wait as long as a month on some of us contractors to get to their jobs. I'd like to discuss more about how that a certain amount of independency on the part of contract laborers works very well to the advantage of not only the contractor in question, but also to that of the customer. But that's yet another subject for another discussion. The point here is that these illegals began arriving here in very small numbers, and under extremely difficult circumstances. So much so that myself and other contractors I know not only welcomed them against our better judgments, but we loaned them essential tools they needed yet did not have, as well as to help them to find places to live and to help them get jobs, and all sorts of things like that. Such I guess is the nature of many Americans.

While I certainly understood the idea that mass immigration to this country of any kind, and from anywhere was bad (just remember, anything done in the extreme is bad), I still felt sorry for these individuals who were 'just trying to make a better way for themselves and their families.' It was only a couple of years, and several very strained relations between myself and some of my former accounts, before their numbers increased exponentially in my area and they began to compete with me for many of the jobs that formerly I would only have had Americans to compete with. The difference being, of course, that Mexican illegals pay no taxes and they're generally not held to the same standards by law that American contractors are held to. Therefore they can charge as little as half our prices and still come out ahead of us in the end. And of course a general contractor, or a homeowner, or whomever is enticed by these potential savings to their own pockets, so they hire the illegals to do their jobs many times when they would otherwise prefer American labor over Mexican labor.

This all came to a head (but it was far from the only incident of its kind I had personally experienced) when I secured a large commerical contract with one individual who later reneged on his obligation about two days before the actual work was to begin. The exact same Mexican illegal, along with his somewhat larger crew now, had come in and undercut my bid by about half. When I learned of this I immediately got on the horn with some of my nativist friends and we began to start to make phone calls to I.N.S., and to some of our state legislators, expressing our severe displeasure with the immigration situation in our State and our area. This was before we kicked out the democrat bums who had held power in our Congress during the entire existence of this State, and replaced them with a Republican controlled legislature that started work on correcting this immigration deal immediately.

Now here's the deal, this same crew is still out and about undercutting contractors like myself, and funneling in new illegals almost on a daily basis. This has effectively caused a great power shift to take place wherein myself and others like me either have to give up some of our independency, or to cowar to the implicit (sometimes explicit) threat that "ok, we'll just get the Mexicans to do it, and they'll do it whenever we say to do it, and at a cheaper rate too." Since I'm not really one to cowar to anyone, and since I enjoy the independency that my profession provides me, not to mention that I understand certain aspects of it, as I said before, that actually works to the advantage of the customers themselves, though it's hard for them to see it unless someone points it out to them, I have since been dedicated to ridding this State first, and the nation second, of these illegals whose compass oughta be pointing south.

But there's a lot more to it than these personal experiences I've had, of course. So very jealous am I of my liberty, my independency, and the ideas of government that have secured them to me in my own State, that I don't even like to see Americans from other States moving into and establishing permanent residency in mine, particularly folks from some of the more liberal States in this nation. And indeed, as I've discussed before with Mike and Edmund, and as my crew will confirm, I don't hesitate to make this known to these migrant Americans whenever I happen upon them. My approach to them on an individual level is usually to give an extreme example of some goofy individual moving in on us from somewhere up in the northeast. Invariably these individuals bring with them inordinate and fallacious ideas of government learned in their former environment and they begin to assert them upon their establishment of citizenship within this State. Their goal is to 'improve upon' what Okies have long since determined to be their own self-governing methods. Our State looked so very inviting to them until they lived amongst us for awhile and finally decided that we're just too d*mn independent here, not to mention that the idea of 'self-government' means just that down here in flyover country - the government of oneself and of one's affairs and concerns without undue influence from on high.

This is generally the line of thought that I engage with these migrants. And of course I also let them know that "we have enough nut-jobs of our own; we don't need anymore moving in on us, so if you have those kinds of ideas that you need to improve upon what Okies have already settled in this State, please leave them at the door because in the end you're destroying the very foundations of the things you found so attractive about our State before you decided to move here."

Now, if I have those kinds of negative feelings about migrant Americans moving into my State generally, how much more must I have the same kinds of feelings with regard to immigrants from other countries? And I ask you, where am I going wrong?

-DW

Read More

Charisma = Leadership = Where's the Beef?...

Over at VA's is posted this interesting entry from yesterday. In this excerpt from her post she astutely observes:

Now may we please put an end to the illusion that Obama can 'transcend race' and be a 'uniter' because of his mixed heritage? This was my feeling about him from the git-go; he is a divider, and despite his half-white ancestry, he has a grudge against majority America.

Simply put, I agree...

I was flipping through the channels and happened to catch the first part of the Monday night Hannity and Colmes replay. That part of the show was dedicated to covering the democrat primary debate. One aspect of their coverage was on the Fox News live-feed piped in from some location here in the U.S. I'm assuming (lol) where there was a room full of 'average' folk who were to observe the debate as it transpired, and to offer their assessments of how each of the candidates fared as compared to the rest once the debate had ended. Naturally a lot of focus was put on the two most popular demo candidates, Hillary and Obama.

The interesting thing about the consensus among this rather 'diverse' group of participants, and as the Fox host kept reiterating, was that the overwhelming majority of them claimed to have come in preferring Hillary over Obama. Whereas when all was said and done in the debate, about the same number of participants, and most of the same people as far as I could tell, claimed to have changed their minds, now preferring Obama over Hillary. And their reasons for were interesting in light of some other blogging efforts done previously, particularly...

John Savage wrote about this (very observable in this gathering) preference among the American electorate for 'style over substance,' assigning to it the domineering quality of the "Triumph" of style over substance. And I think it notable that he doesn't limit the effect to liberals only. Moreover, that he identifies precisely what I observed; the exact sorts of responses to the questions posed of the host - which this 'style over substance' idea would predict - to the effect of "why did you prefer Obama over Hillary?;" "why did you change your opinion during the debate." John writes:

As an admirer of certain media critics, foremost among them Neil Postman, I’ve frequently criticized the way that style reigns over substance in the media. Like Postman, I think the triumph of style over substance (henceforth SOS) is a very bad thing, but it’s also not something we can expect to change. At best, we can hope that the news media (which currently has a stake in the avoidance of real issues) will stop reinforcing SOS by focusing on the style displayed at presidential debates at the expense of the issues. But to a large extent, SOS is an unavoidable direct consequence of television as a medium, of which Marshall McLuhan said, "The medium is the message." The message of the TV medium is entertainment, which when applied to politics produces SOS – presenting oneself as honest, optimistic, unflappable, and responsive to constituents, among other things. In addition, most Americans want to get the impression that the candidate stands for Mom, baseball, and apple pie. Principles that are universally honored are prominently displayed, whereas unpopular principles, as well as mutually conflicting principles, are hidden...

Almost to the person, when asked to answer the question, this is the kind of answer they gave. "Obama was just more believable;" "I felt a connection with Obama;" "I think he (Obama) showed his leadership abilities because he was more believable, and I connected more with him," and such as that. While on the other hand the consensus about Hillary's believability, her 'disconnectedness' with the average person, and so on and so forth, and therefore her capacity for leadership was found to be wanting. One young caucasion male even referred to Obama as "Charismatic." I guess in his youthful exuberance he forgot how offensive that is to say about a 'black leader.'

There was also the desire expressed of one person in the audience that the two of them team-up, to which the majority of the rest of the group seemed to heartily approve of. Sean Hannity posed the question of whether the members, given such an alliance, would prefer Obama or Hillary as the top-dog? And once more the group reconfirmed their newly formed 'convictions' that they should prefer Obama to hold that distinction.

But the point I'm really driving at here is that indeed I think John is right that 'style over substance' is triumphant in today's American politics, and probably for the exact reasons he offers us in his excellent post. Not that I think either of them to have any firm attachment to any 'principled' stand that I would in any way approve of, but I came away from that segment of the show thoroughly convinced that to these people the debate between Hillary and Obama was nothing more or less than a competition between them for who could project the more favorable image; whose personality was most approvable to them. And Obama won that contest hands down. It saddens me that people tend to place so much value on their emotions, but I guess that's just the way it is.

Thanks to VA, and to John for continually providing us with some outstanding, thoughtful, and pretty darn accurate commentaries.

-DW

Read More

Who is this Ron Paul Character? (Part 2)

In the first edition to this series I posed the 'big question' which you see in the titles of that post, and again in this one: Who is this Ron Paul Character? In addition, I gave you some bit of insight as to what you might expect in this as well as future editions to this series. And of course you'll recall my mentioning that the series itself, once completed to my satisfaction, would likely contain anywhere from three to five separate entries or more.

But before we get on with the meat of the subject let me also make you aware that I'll be embedding links from post to post in the series to assist anyone who happens to link up to a single entry, yet is unaware that there are others in the series. The 'Part 1,' Part 2,' and etc., designations should help us in that regard, but I imagine that before all is said and done here there will be the distance of days as well as unrelated topics separating the connected entries. Therefore, if you happen to be a regular reader, just ignore the minor inconvenience this presents you. Otherwise, use the provided links when needed, that's what they're there for.

And now, let us begin our investigation into who this Ron Paul Character truly is, as opposed perhaps to who we've been led to believe he is by himself and/or by others...

It seems like as good a place to start as any to open our investigation by attempting to answer one question which I posed in Part 1 of this series: Is Ron Paul really who he says he is? And a good place to open that investigation up would be, it would appear, to determine what it is that Ron Paul is saying about Ron Paul, as opposed to what others are saying about him. As to that latter part, we will most assuredly get to it later. But for this entry let us concentrate our efforts overall, once again, on what the man is saying about himself publicly.

In the opening paragraph to Part 1 of this series you may recall that I described Ron Paul as a "self-styled Champion of the Constitution," and that I later made a second mention of this designation. My source for that information about Rep. Paul, as well as other information about the man destined to make its way into this series directly or indirectly, is a site which I provided a link to in one of my posts a couple of weeks back. If you'll click on the link to that site provided here again for your convenience, it's just a matter of properly navigating the site (which I'll leave to you to do) to get to that revelation of Mr. Paul about himself.

I'll admit here that I'm rather turned off by individuals claiming to themselves such distinctive attributes as Mr. Paul chose to do at the late Presidential debate in June of this year. Truly it seems more appropriate to me to allow others to make these bold claims about oneself while the designee himself concentrates his efforts on supporting the claim rather than asserting it. It may just be a matter of a display of improper decorum, but it still tends to raise suspicions in me as it has something of an offensive quality to it. To be fair to Paul though, I understand the desire and the need to separate and distinguish oneself from the rest of the pack in a public debate between Republican Presidential contenders wherein one might find himself, as Paul, a relative unknown certainly must have - little recognized. Still, the traditionalist in me finds it somewhat distasteful for a 'bonified leader' under virtually any circumstances to engage himself in such self-promotional displays as Paul here did. My idea of a 'true leader' in this regard being someone possessing internal qualities of character which would rather tend to resist such impulses, strong as they may be under certain circumstances. But I can let that slide if in fact Paul truly is what he says he is - "The Champion of the Constitution." So is he? Is Ron Paul truly THE champion of the Constitution as he says? That's the question before us, and to answer it properly we must take our investigation of the man to yet another level.

Of course the preceding paragraph reveals, if nothing else, that to this point in my own investigation of Rep. Paul he's rather behind the eight ball so to speak given that he has at least one strike against him and none as yet for. So, for our purposes here our subject (Paul) has some ground to make up. This shouldn't present him with too much of a problem given that his career in public service has been rather marked, if I may say so, by this very 'champion of the Constitution' description afforded himself. And in point of fact this very thing is what has led to some of his Congressional colleagues casting other laudable characteristics at his feet. Ron Paul has been referred to (among his colleagues mind you), among other things, as 'the most principled man in Congress.' Further, it is said of Mr. Paul that he simply will not vote for a bill which is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. And there's certainly something respectable to be said of that quality which he seems to possess in a much superior way to the vast majority of his Congressional peers. While it may be said of the majority of his colleagues that 'they rarely saw a bill they wouldn't vote for,' it might be said of Ron in contrast that 'he never saw a bill that didn't raise suspicions as to its specific authorization by the Constitution.' As for me, that latter is a truly distinguishing mark that at very least evens the score for Ron once more.

Having now brought our investigation back, in fairness to Ron, to more of an even keel let us proceed by investigating Ron's principled stand on some of the key issues. Once again I would direct your attentions to the link provided above. Having successfully navigated the site to Paul's page, and under the heading "Ron Paul on Principles and Values," we find Congressman Paul's 'principled' belief as pertains to the first amendment.

The question is posed:

"You ran for president once before as a Libertarian. What do you say about this whole issue of church and state and these issues that are coming forward right now?"

And here is Paul's answer:

"I think we should read the First Amendment, where it says, "Congress shall write no law." And we should write a lot less laws regarding this matter. It shouldn't be a matter of the president or the Congress. It should be local people, local officials--we just don't need more laws determining religious things or prayer in school. We should allow people at the local level. That's what the Constitution tells us. We don't need somebody in Washington telling us what we can do, because we don't have perfect knowledge. And that's the magnificence of our Constitution and our republic. We sort out the difficult problems at local levels and we don't have one case fit all. That's why we shouldn't have it at a central level."

Ignoring the obvious misquote of the first amendment, assuming that Paul is simply paraphrasing here, I'll concentrate more on the meat of what he's saying. If I understand him correctly he seems to be saying that he believes that the 'establishment clause' in the first amendment should be read and applied more literally than seems to be the habit of that body as well as that sphere of government which he finds himself a member, albeit an often dissenting member of. On this point I would agree with Paul wholeheartedly, and notably to this investigation on this very point he seems to hold indeed to the distinguishing designation: Champion of the Constitution. However, this to me is something of an oddly simplistic view coming from a man having been the particular recipient of such accolades from different quarters of being a 'true intellectual.' I think to get a true and accurate reading of exactly where Congressman Paul stands on this issue of church and state we need the question to be posed in a more particular sense. Since the context of a Presidential debate does not necessarily lend itself to expounding upon a stated view of a given subject, we must ultimately take our investigation elsewhere.

However, Congressman Paul has given us herein enough of an insight into his overall view of the subject to warrant, in my opinion, some measure of breaking down the elements of his answer in that context in order to assist us in answering our own questions which may well come to mind in reading his answer. As an example my mind was naturally led to ask, given the fact that we do have laws in place restricting the exercise of religion, would Paul consider it appropriate for the Congress to 'write' laws consistent with the non-prohibition clause of the first amendment? In other words, if the first amendment may be read in part as "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion..." and in light of the first amendment's express prohibition on Congress to 'make no law respecting an "establishment" of same,' would Congressman Paul consider it proper (or 'constitutional) of the federal Congress to write laws which tend to encourage and assist in Congress' resisting the apparently overwhelming urge among its members to create laws in actuality restricting the 'free exercise of religion?' And if so, should that 'writing of such laws' at the federal level tend to reflect the general sense of the People, or should it tend more to protect 'the free expression of' minority religions represented by relatively small segments of this society at the expense of the majority and the 'free expression' of its religion? What little I'm able to glean from his statement leads me to believe that he thinks it improper of Congress, and perhaps actually "unconstitutional" to write and pass any law 'respecting' religion period, effecting an 'establishment' thereof or otherwise.

I think Paul more or less answers these questions of ours, though, when he offers his thoughts on how best and at what level of government these questions should be dealt with generally speaking. Here again I tend to agree with Paul on the idea that these questions should be dealt with in more particular ways at the State and local levels of government. But that's just not the reality of our situation at present. You have to have a strong federal stucture in place to support this idea, and that we just don't currently have. More often than not these questions when dealt with in a more appropriate way at the lower levels are challenged in the courts and at length the federal government decides the issue on a grand scale. And in this process the central authority tends rather to side with the minority (often a very small and insignificant minority) on this question of the free exercise of one's religion.

By virtue of this fact we are rather left with bare remnants of the original design of this government which cannot be said to have possessed any appreciable fear or determination that it should arm itself and its minority citizens against encroachments on its powers and their rights via restrictions on the free exercise of the Christian Religion in particular. While it is all well and good to remind ourselves from time to time of the original intent of the founding generation in demanding a 'bill of rights' be attached to the Constitution, we should also, and in compliance with the underlying reasons for those reminders of ours, seek out practical means for returning our government to that original intent while in the meantime working to halt the degenerative process so pervading our government and her institutions. In this sense I think it possible that Ron Paul may more accurately be said to be something less than 'THE champion of the Constitution,' for a true and a committed 'top of the food chain champion' of anything or any worthy cause, would firmly adhere to the genuine sense in which the cause in question is to be maintained and furthered. And I think it may be said of the first amendment that a genuine reading of same would yield that indeed the federal Congress, while being expressly forbidden from 'making any law respecting an establishment of religion,' is rather encouraged to, than being prohibited from making laws of a non-prohibitionary type with respect to the 'free exercise thereof.' For what good is the statement "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion..." without the force of law to uphold and guarantee it against violations of the principle? Some may claim that the Constitutional provision itself is enough. But this does not square with the reality that the provision of the first amendment has proven to be of little use in prohibiting the actual practice thereof.

These laws should of course, as I said, reflect the general sense of the citizenry while taking into account the necessity of preserving our form of government in very particular ways as it cannot be stated too often nor too forcefully the irrefutable fact that the general consists itself in particulars. So, while I tend to agree with Paul's approach as stated, that these questions should be dealt with at more of a local level under a 'more perfect' scenario, I should think that given our current situation on this question the reality evinces that Paul's approach to addressing this question, as stated above, while it may have been an appropriate and a capable one 150 years ago is certainly less than so now. I should further think that such an approach, once more, given our current situation, would rather tend to provide opponents of the Constitution inroads to overthrowing its sacred principles which we must maintain at all costs.

If Congress is considered by its members and by the People in authority over them authorized by the Constitution to 'write laws' on questions of religion and morality, which I certainly think may well be said to be the case, and if in fact a proper reading of the Constitution itself does yield that conclusion to be consistent with the truth of the matter (not necessarily with the way it is applied) then to me the better, not to mention the more 'Constitutionally consistent' approach is to place less emphasis on what one considers a prohibition on that authorization, and rather to use one's 'pulpit' to emphasize the duty of Congress to write such laws adhering to the true sense of the Constitution, and to the general sense of the population under its governance. Does it rise to the level of an 'establishment of religion' for the federal Congress to acknowledge by law the right of the State and local authorities to themselves authorize prayers in the local schools? Or is it rather that such laws strictly adhere to that clause of the first amendment which has in it an implicit authority for the federal Congress to guarantee by law that it (the federal Congress) shall never write or endorse a law 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' in schools or elsewhere? Is this not the genuine sense in which the first amendment is to be read? Is this not the restriction on itself that the federal Congress is bound to acknowledge lawfully as inplicit in the first amendment? If indeed it is, and if Paul holds a view contrary to this, then it follows that it must be said of Paul on this issue that he is wrong. And if that is the case, then we have at least one reason to believe that Congressman Paul is not the 'champion of the Constitution' that he claims himself to be, as well as further calling into question his qualifications for being the next President of the United States. On the other hand, if this is the case, and if Paul's statement reflects a view consistent with the genuine sense in which the first amendment is to be read, as well as lawfully applied, then it may be said of Paul that he is in this particular truly what he says he is - THE Champion of the Constitution - as well as securing to himself his rightful place among the Presidential contenders.

In the foregoing discourse we have endeavored to discover whether Ron Paul, while certainly being rightly denominated in some sense "A" 'champion of the Constitution,' may be wrongly denominating himself "The" champion of the same, at least in the sense that we've investigated the matter here. As I said before I can forgive Paul for what I consider to be an inappropriate display of self-promotion IF indeed he can truly be said to be what he claims to himself, though I would certainly advise him against restating the offensive gesture too forcefully as well as too often. During the course of this investigation, and for the reasons offered here among others we will surely cover, my mind is led to question and further investigate whether Ron Paul may truly be said to be all he says he is. Therefore, my conclusion to this point in our investigation is that Paul inadvisedly expressed something of a rather high opinion of himself as well as of his own sense of self-importance in his introduction of himself at the late debate, unnecessarily raising doubts in the minds of some, including myself. And while I'm sure that this conclusion of mine is likely to bring some unfavorable comments my way, nonetheless this is my conclusion. But as I said in Part 1 of this ongoing series now well underway, I welcome your input as my conclusions about Paul and his statements may certainly prove to be misguided as well as misplaced.

In any event I would once again encourage you to leave a thoughtful comment to this post whether you happen to agree with the conclusions I've drawn or not. And also that you would return to read the third edition to this series which will be coming shortly. In the meantime, and if you haven't done so yet, do utilize the link I've provided here to further educate yourself on this man, Congressman Ron Paul. I look forward to your participation as certainly and as has been promised, this series while being paused for the moment, is most assuredly:

To be continued....

-DW

Read More

Conservatism - A Mighty and a Grand Illusion

Here's a great topic for discussion. And I hope y'all are sitting down because you are now reading the latest edition of the great trifecta I had predicted (only last night) may be forthcoming. Not only is this strong indication that I may well rank among the prophets of old as to my accuracy concerning the fulfillment of my predictions, but it marks the first recorded trifecta in the short yet distinguished history of this blog. Y'all must be positively sitting on the edges of your seats waiting to read what my next prediction is going to be, right? Well, you can relax now because it ain't gonna come in this post. I like to keep my readers in suspense. lol

As my wonderful step-mother used to remind me quite frequently when I was a youngster, and as she still does from time to time to this very day, and in her own unique way of expressing the thought: "It don't take much to entertain you, does it boy!?" Well, I can't rightly say that I disagree with that. I'm pretty easily entertained, as is clearly documented in the above paragraph. But now that I've managed to get that out of my system, let's move on, shall we?...

During a visit to Savage's blog yesterday (that's BNWW if the name Savage isn't ringing a bell), and while scanning through his rather voluminous list of latest posts, I ran into one title that I'd simply overlooked during my former visits. This isn't at all unusual for me since my habit, particularly when I'm in something of a hurry, is to scroll down the page, stopping at new post titles as they appear and reading the first few lines to see whether I'm particularly intrigued by it. During that process it's easy, I've noted on several occasions, for me to fly right past an independently posted title only to realize I'd done so during a later visit. And that's what happened with this particular post, the more intriguing part of which (to me anyway) is shortly forthcoming.

I'm going to take the liberty to quote John here without having obtained his express permission, but I'm fairly certain he's not going to mind, and if he does, I guess we can hash that out later. By far the most intriguing part of John's post to me as I read it is contained within this interesting excerpt from the post itself. Says he:

I think it’s actually reasonable to believe that conservatives often become conservative because they have struggled against a stronger tendency toward sin. They’ve shown a stronger need for God’s help, as well as that of a "judgmental" society, and they naturally sympathize with others who have had the same experience.

Y'all see why I found it so intriguing now, don't you! I've said this before, and I'll say it again because I think it bears repeating: it's a lot easier to go around picking apart someone else's quality posts than it is to write one, at least for me it is. This recognition of mine can be said to account for most of my effort to exercise the quality of moderation when challenging someone on an assertion that I believe to be wrong. And this is the very reason that I approached John fairly cautiously in raising a question as to the validity of his argument. I reasoned that either one of three things was likely the case: 1. John had mispoken a thought; 2. I had misinterpreted his intent; or 3. John had intended it just as I had interpreted it. John has graciously confirmed that indeed, the third option is the correct one in his latest reply to my comment to the post which you may read at the link provided.

So, now that we have that cleared up, let's move on to some more meatier stuff here, shall we, 'cause I fear I'm about to lose some of you, or to bore you with details that you can read for yourselves...

As you're thoroughly aware of by now, John asserts that 'conservatives' are drawn to conservatism by what he terms a 'greater tendency toward the greater sin.' In other words, and to expand upon John's theory a bit more, John's thinking is that conservative people tend to be the more sinful people matched up against their liberal counterparts who naturally tend to sin less than do conservatives. Something about human biology I think.

According to John's logic, it's a grand struggle with a greater, more egregious form of sinning that draws eventual conservatives away from their left-leaning/embracing youthful polity and more toward the right. In strict adherence to the natural laws of magnetism, persons with a greater tendency to commit the greater sin are simply naturally drawn toward the positively charged poll on the political magnet, while those who are less inclined to sin, or exhibit a more 'sinless' tendency are quite naturally drawn to the negative, or the liberal side. I suspect that this answers to John's mind the question of why people tend to be more left leaning in their youths, and to begin to move more or less to the right later in their lives.

Now, while it may be argued that I have effectively mixed those up -left and right; positive and negative charged polls- the analogy works to my mind because I see a greater tendency to sin (whether I accept John's logic or not) as negative, and a desire to control it with respect to oneself as positive, and vice versa.

But as I related to John, I can't say as I agree with his logic here. I don't necessarily think it illogical to theorize this way, nor do I think it illogical to conclude as he does based on the ideas he proposes. However, I do think it illogical to form that conclusion in the absence of thoroughly considering other options. And while I find John's theory to be quite intriguing, probably because I don't recall having ever run up against it before, at least not in his exact form, I find it to be somewhat dishonest with all due respect to John. And that's not at all a dig at John, I just think he may be engaging in a little self-induced denial here.

But here's a little food for thought that I'll throw into the mix, I can't say as I've ever truly embraced liberalism. Oh, I entertained it some during my youth, and a bland sort of mixture of it and conservatism appealed to me for a relatively short while during my more promiscuous days. But to claim that I ever actually embraced liberalism as such as a youngster would simply be an untruth. The more truthful history of my formidable years is that I actually and really acted in defiance of what I knew to be the better way. And here's a key point that I don't want you all to miss...

You'll note in reading John's posted profile his honest acnowledgement that he was a liberal until about 2005. Now, either John exposes in himself a greater tendency to commit the greater sin by his ultimate conversion to conservatism (unless of course he's some kind of odd exception to his own rule, and I assume that he does admit of such exceptions as I do), or he exposes a real weakness in his argument, i.e., that all those years he was fondly embracing and likely propagating the idea of liberalism he was somehow shielded from his own self-awareness of his own more sinful tendencies, only for them to come to bear upon him at some later date. BTW, the weakness exposed in the argument better stated is this, that it necessitates that a great many people who would describe themselves as liberals have yet to come to this realization about themselves. Yet indeed they are the greater sinners, to which eventually many of them will be forced to conclude, embracing in that wake the more fitting ideal of conservatism. So how can it be concluded that liberals are the lesser sinners when indeed they are the greater sinners in a state of unawares?

There's another point I'm driving at here as well, and it is that my having never actually embraced liberalism as opposed to John's having actually done so by his own admission, I think presents us with two naturally opposing perspectives on the subject. And that while by comparison I might be considered the more 'experienced' conservative between the two of us, John would certainly be thought of as the more experienced across the spectrum of political philosophy. He has an understanding of the idea of liberalism that I just can't possess given my lack of personal experience with eagerly embracing the philosophy. In either case I think there is something to be learned of each of us. It is often stated within Christian circles, as an example, that we know the better way because we've experienced both worlds - the commission of sin without redemption, and of course its opposite. And I admit that I've always embraced this idea to some extent or the other. This idea necessarily works under the assumption that 'all men are more or less on an equal sinning field,' however, John would simply not accept that idea. But there is yet another conclusion which John draws on his conception worthy of note...

To John's mind, liberals, given their tendencies to be less disposed to sin, are naturally in need of less government than are their conservative counterparts. I find it extremely interesting, with this view in mind, that in John's espousing of the traditionalist conservative idealism he also, and by necessity of the philosophy itself, espouses a view of government less restricting, less powerful; less controlling. This to me is yet another weakness in his argument. For if conservatives actually need more government due to the comparatively egregious nature of their sin, and therefore embrace a political philosophy which tends to recognize this need more than its counterpart, then why does the philosophy itself vie for more self-government, and less external manifestations thereof? And of course given that this is indeed the case, then why would 'conservatives' be drawn to this political philosophy as opposed to the liberal kind? The question of course may be asked as well in the reverse - why does liberalism promote the idea of more government, and why are liberals who need less of it, according to John, drawn to the liberal philosophy and ideas of the same?

The only reasonable answer I can formulate on the proposition is that John must believe as well that liberals also possess a very keen and unique sense of recognizing in their more sinful brethren the very sinfulness that they themselves wrestle not with. Since liberals magically possess this more perfect awareness of the true nature of sin and of the sinful, liberals naturally embrace and actually demand a form of political philosophy which directs itself more to the control of the more egregious sins and the more likely perpetrators thereof, i.e. conservative doctrine, and conservatives. There's nothing wrong or immoral about this approach, of course, because liberals actually must possess this distinguishing and more righteous characteristic, while it must elude the great majority of conservatives given what we and our resulting philosophy are - sinful in the extreme. While we conservatives recognize and own our sinful tendencies, according to John's theory we possess a very imperfect understanding of its nature as compared to liberals.

Well, it won't surprise y'all that I simply reject this idea and all the related mess that naturally follows it. To my mind it is simply dangerous to assume one group of people to be more sinful than another. Eventually one must arrive at the ultimate conclusion that that group -the more sinful one- must be controlled by the other when in fact the opposite may be the case. I think the more reasonable approach is to count all men equally disposed to sin irrespective of their political philosophy. I don't deny John's assertion that certain individuals possess certain tendencies to commit certain kinds of sins, while others possess lesser tendencies in those areas. What I do deny though is his conclusion on that truth that these factors are indicative of an attraction to a certain political philosophy. This assertion necessarily denies mine that conservative people are simply more aware of their sins and the need to govern them, than are liberals generally speaking; that the two groups are more or less equally disposed to sin, yet unequally aware of the same.

But I wonder how liberals, not actually experiencing sinfulness to the extreme degree that conservatives do, can have such a keen awareness of the extreme sinfulness of conservatives and conservative idealism when their own experiences would lend to them little insight as to that which uniquely affects the latter group to the greater degree? Wouldn't logic dictate under these conditions that those who possess these characteristics to a greater degree would in turn most likely possess the better understanding of their causes and effects; or at least a greater degree of resolve to discover them?

In any event, and as per the usual, liberals are way more everything that is good and holy than are you and me less evolved conservatives. I can't say as that is much of a revelation to me given that I've been pounded over the head with it more or less all of my life. But you know me, I'm pretty thick headed.

-DW

Read More

Why Do I Object to the Savage Strategy?

As y'all know, John Savage from Brave New World Watch and I have been engaged in a cross-blog discussion over the merits of John's strategy to mobilize traditionalist voters to cast a vote in favor of Hillary come November, '08, given two established variables: 1. That Hillary is indeed the democrat nominee; and 2. that the eventual republican nominee is someone other than a traditionalist -Rudy, McRomney, Thompson, or the like. John says he'll vote for the traditionalist Republican should a traditionalist get the nomination. But he agrees with me that that's not a likely scenario.

Thus far the discussion has centered more on our clarifying our respective positions on the subject, or, to give one-another some bit of clarity on the other's written perspective. However, we seem to be past that stage of the discussion now, and hopefully we can move on to more of the meat of our arguments for and against the proposal.

Now, I should say that John seems to be committed to the strategy whether Hillary is the demo nominee or not. The reason I threw that variable in the mix though is because Hillary is probably the best example of the worst potential POTUS that most of us traditionalist voters can even imagine. So, though the Hillary factor (or variable) is not a determining factor for John, I assume that it would be for most traditionalist voters - in their case it might be the difference between their engaging the strategy or not.

What John is proposing may be summed up as follows (and if I get it wrong here, I trust he'll correct me): to basically violate all that you've ever thought right, proper, and sacred about your duty as an American citizen and a traditionalist, consciously choosing to cast your vote in favor of the candidate the farthest left of your own political philosophy. And if this strategy works in the way John speculates it will, you will have in actuality and by the very act itself, earned to yourself the laudable chacteristic of a true and a distinguished patriot.

My disagreement with the approach originally was based in part on the predisposition I had with regard to the strategy itself - that it was intended as a more election-wide strategy aimed at securing more defeats to republicans, which of course would be seats gained to the demos. And that is where I focused my attention in raising a contention with the approach. As John has patiently and politely explained to me, this was indeed an unwarranted assumption on my part. And I accept his explanation without further question.

Yet, I still find myself reeling at the thought of my casting a vote in favor of Hillary or any other democrat in the race right now, and against the republican challenger whomever that may be. And as I suggested originally, I still find it more palatable to simply recuse myself from that particular aspect of the upcoming election than to actively engage myself in the former.

But beyond the distastefulness of the thought of the whole thing, I do have actual concerns with the method and its most likely effects. John assumed that immigration was probably my chief concern with electing Hillary or one of her lesser-thans. But as I explained to him, that is not as much a concern to me as are other things connected with the office of the presidency.

For one, John tends to focus his attention on the internal aspects of the executive department, while I would place more emphasis than he does (or so far has) on the external aspects of that office. That is, where John devotes a lot of consideration to the workings of our federal executive with respect to ourselves, I would tend to consider the appointment of ambassadors to foreign nations as representatives of the United States as one example, as well as the executive's treaty responsibilities as yet another. And the reason I would put a lot of emphasis on those aspects of the presidency and the office-holder's duties therein is because foreign relations, even those between the U.S. and nations not particularly friendly to us, is one of those things that could be the difference between war and peace; that could be the difference between security and insecurity, not just between us and other nations, but between other nations friendly and unfriendly to the United States. And if there's anything I know to be an absolute truth, it is that this nation as such has an obligation among the nations to promote (not to establish it; not to entangle itself in foreign relations between differing foreign entities) peace between nations, as well as to guard against creating an instable situation between ourselves and other powers. It's in our interest as well as everyone else's to do so.

To put an analogy to it, and to bring it down to a more personal and individual level, it is my responsibility as a father to my children and a member of my community to establish and maintain order within and without my family as regards my family members' external relationships, not only for my family's sake, but for the greater good of the whole of my community, state, and nation. If I enter into a bit of strategery aimed at correcting a problem with my child's temper, yet putting the larger community at risk in the process, I've more or less made matters worse, not better; effectively endangering the very lives, liberties, and properties of my neighbors, not to mention giving them just cause for pitting themselves against me.

There is yet another concern I have about actively engaging the strategy. Whether I agree with them or not; whether I like them or not, Presidents of the United States now have the privelege of Executive Orders. And this is not a power that is likely to be removed from that branch anytime soon. One of the things with EOs that really bothers me is that many of them are enacted without the knowledge of the general public. It isn't bad enough that the president has this illegitimate power, but he/she generally utilizes it in a rather secretive fashion. I recognize that there are watchdogs out there keeping up with every move the president makes, but this seems to make little difference as to what the general public realizes about what their government and their executive is up to with regard to these particular orders.

Another concern is that of the President's appointment of executive officers to positions in the justice department and etc... I can't even fathom who Hillary's choice for the AG's position might be, or what her list of choices for the position might look like - remember Janet Reno, anyone? I for one remember very well the actions of a government gone completely and utterly berserk on the intoxicating influence of power during the former Clinton administration, and with the advantage of having a majority republican Congress, mind you. And if it's argued that we oughta be willing to sacrifice the few in the short term for the many over the long haul in a fashion remotely resembling that of the Clinton administration's murderous actions, I think I'm going to shoot myself. lol

But generally speaking I think a republican much easier controlled than a nutty democrat like Hillary or Edwards or Kerry or Gore, or whomever. Though they're savvy politicians, they're still nutty, and nutty people are just hard to contain within certain bounds. President Bush wasn't my first choice back in 2000 either. But I took him, and still would take him over Al Gore or John Kerry any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Personally I think more emphasis oughta be put on a strategy that, though it may seem an impossibility at this moment, would secure to us more long-term advantages than that offered by John. It also should take into consideration some of the ways in which a president of the United States is actually encouraged to, not discouraged from, act(ing) in defiance of the public's wishes and against their best interests. And what I'm getting at here is our limiting the president to two terms. Though we can't properly be credited with the creation of that amendment, we continue to sustain it to our own hurt in my opinion.

So, in essence I have a lot of concerns with engaging such an approach as John is suggesting. And there's more where those came from. When I was learning to fly airplanes one of the first things my instructor, as well as the training manuels I was reading, kept reiterating until he'd thoroughly driven it home was that of making coordinated turns particularly on approach to land. Pilots know that one of the most vulnerable times of their flights is during this transition from straight and level powered flight to entering the landing pattern/approach, and a whole heap of a pilot's required training is dedicated to properly piloting this transition. As the pilot begins to slow the airplane in this pattern through the use of flaps, and decreasing power, he is keeping a very watchful eye on his instruments which tell him such vital things as his relative airspeed, his heading, how many degrees of flaps he has engaged; and in his turns whether they are 'coordinated' or not. In other words, as every pilot knows full well, every time you adjust a single element of the airplane, to slow it, to turn, to gain or lose altitude, whatever, there is an effect on all the other aspects of your flight which you must account for if you care to live. And many a pilot has lost his life, and the lives of his passengers due to a neglect of some form to attend to this essential element of his flight.

Essentially I think John's proposal probably does not take into account enough of the necessary and related effects of engaging it. And that pretty well sums up my disagreement with the proposal. It's purpose is to create a manufactured crisis situation which might effectually spark a real crisis situation that we're not properly trained and equipped to handle when it comes down on us. And on that note, I disagree with John in his thought that a huge majority of Americans were against the amnesty bill. I rather think that a mobile and loud minority effected that outcome. I'm not sure it can with certain other things it's not so passionately opposed to, or not so keenly aware of. And though during my flight training we continually engaged in manufacturing crisis situations as an essential part of my training, we were always at a high enough altitude to allow for a safe recovery with plenty of altitude to spare, and I wasn't manufacturing them without a qualified pilot sitting next to me, ready to take the wheel and control of the airplane.

-DW

Read More

Vote Democrat; Save the Republic?...

An idea that gets floated around from time to time is that of strategically utilizing the sacred franchise of the vote to effect a greater end within the 'conservative' hierarchy.

The idea is simply to join in a united, and a movement-wide effort to cast your vote in favor of the opposition candidate/candidates, essentially effecting an opposition win, which it is theorized will result in tempering the resolve of the wayward party, the core principles of which you actually and truly support.

John Savage over at Brave New World Watch (BNWW) wrote a piece on this very topic recently. Do go over and visit his blog, it's well worth your time.

The suggestion, or proposal for dealing with the crisis, if it comes to that, is an interesting one; one might even say an intriguing one. In theory it would work; in practice I ain't so sure. We've dealt with that before around here. And the truth of the matter is that I don't have much faith that it could ever actually work as proposed.

I can't say as I agree with the method, as you readers have undoubtedly figured out by now, but I certainly understand why someone would conclude that kind of approach a viable, and even a preferable option given the apparent state of confusion about who and what it is, seemingly pervading the GOP right now.

Committing just a quick bit of reflection to it, I think my main disagreement with the approach, however, is this: that I really don't think 'conservative America' can find the inner strength at this moment to effect that kind of a systematic, united, purposeful, and strategic effort. At least I don't think it ('conservative America') could sustain it (the effort) even if it found that inner strength, or remnants of it hiding somewhere deep within itself. I just don't think we're accustomed to digging that deep within us as a group, nor to committing ourselves to such a systematic cause greater than ourselves, and over the long haul, which for me may be said to account for a lot, if not most of the problems we find ourselves facing these days.

Do I deny that it is there, somewhere, waiting to be re-discovered and brought to the fore? No; I don't deny the inner strength of true conservatives; the principled basis upon which our philosophy is erected, and to which it is firmly anchored. To deny it would be no less than to resign myself to a hopeless feeling of impending doom for conservatism, by extension for the nation as a whole. And I ain't ready to do that by any means.

Indeed, I think that it is that kind of inner strength which is usually to be found in an actual crisis situation, not a manufactured one. And that's why I question a conservative-wide commitment to it. After all, 'mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves...' This suggestion is to me nothing less than a proposal to attempt to manufacture a crisis, and as I said, manufactured crises are not the same as actual ones.

We (and I'm painting with a pretty broad brush here, but for a reason) tend to focus so much on our petty differences, and this practice has become so habitual for us, that we tend to forget what it is that truly unites us many times...most of the time, even. But beyond that, I think we average joe conservatives have lost our sense of direction enough, and again, habitually so, that an attempt at what some are proposing would likely end, if it could ever actually be effected movement wide, in a chaotic going in all directions except the right one. And the only thing I see benefitting from that is the opposition movement if it recognizes what is happening well enough to capitalize on it. Perhaps I give them too much credit, but I think the opposition has proven themselves on more than a few occasions a pretty savvy bunch.

But this is a really deep subject which is deserving of much more time and reflection than I have to give it at this moment. Don't be surprised if I devote yet another post, or even several more to the topic. In any event it'll make for some good discussion, I'm sure, as it has in the past.

P.S. as y'all can see we're still making lots of changes to the blog, and there remains much more work to be done. Please be patient with us as we tirelessly work to perfect it for your viewing pleasure.

-DW

Read More