Monday, June 11, 2007

Lawmakers with no respect for the law

It becomes ever more amazing to see the lengths to which proponents of the Bush/Kennedy/McCain immigration "reform" compromise bill will go in their increasingly desperate effort to gain passage. Consider Thursday's defeat of an amendment requiring that Congress certify that all current laws on the books regarding border security and immigration are being enforced before any new amnesty-like processes can begin for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. Offered by Republican Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Jim DeMint of South Carolina, the amendment was defeated 54-42.

Some important names are found among the 54 senators who voted against the amendment, including Democratic presidential candidates Joseph Biden of Delaware, Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois. Among Republican presidential hopefuls, Sam Brownback of Kansas voted against the amendment, and John McCain of Arizona missed the vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont also opposed the amendment, as did the Judiciary Committee's ranking minority member, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

It seems especially peculiar to see men and women who aspire to become the chief enforcer of the law, as well as the two leading members of the committee with jurisdiction over federal courts, opposing a measure that simply required that existing statutes be enforced.

In light of this vote, it is legitimate to now wonder whether there are any other laws these solons would vote to not enforce. Indeed, we wonder whether, in light of this seemingly new precedent, there are any promises these lawmakers have made or will make that can be trusted. True, any law can be repealed, but that's not the same thing as declining to enforce one that remains on the books. Bankers call such an action defaulting on a loan, and they frequently impose rather unpleasant consequences on consumers who break their promises.




Heads up from David Thompson "Some of you may have seen Vanessa Engle’s witty BBC4 documentary series, Lefties, screened in February last year. The 3-part series revisits the “alternative politics” of the 70s and 80s, when the far left was an all-too-serious force in British political life. Among the gems to savour are the endless factional disputes over exactly how capitalism should be toppled, the farcical mismanagement of the News on Sunday, an earnest exposition on “penile imperialism”, and interviews with former self-styled radicals, now sitting by private swimming pools, fretting about fridge ownership or planning to work on lama farms. The three episodes – Property is Theft, Angry Wimmin and A Lot of Balls - can be viewed online here. Given a generation of young lefties with little, if any, experience of what their dreams entail when applied in the real world, it’s worth casting an eye over what happened when Socialism wasn’t just something people laughed at.

The Victims of Communism Memorial: "To be located at the busy intersection of Massachusetts and New Jersey Avenues (and 'G' Street), NW, in Washington, D.C., the Memorial will feature a statue modeled on the 'Goddess of Democracy' used by the Chinese students in Tiananmen Square in 1989, that statue itself deliberately reminiscent of our own Statue of Liberty. Its inscriptions, front and back, will read as follows: 'To the more than 100 million victims of Communism and to those who love liberty,' and 'To the freedom and independence of all captive nations and peoples.' The memorial and its lessons are long overdue."

Moral questions for our liberal friends: "'We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.' What precisely, is the moral principle that allows this? Think for a second about what that statement really means as a practical matter. It asserts that a majority of people can decide to coerce you with the armed, police power of the state, to take away your property if it benefits them. It doesn't matter if you don't want the property to be taken. It doesn't matter if you disagree that the perceived benefit is worth such coercion. Essentially, the position taken by many on the Left is that they can simply take your property from you by force, if they think its necessary. So, what is the moral basis for this position?"

Another Fredhead: "George Bush is supporting Fred Thompson for president - George P Bush, that is, the nephew of the White House incumbent and son of Jeb, the former governor of Florida. The young Bush, a 31-year-old property developer who is thought to have political ambitions of his own, is urging the actor and former Republican senator for Tennessee to run and is encouraging friends to contribute to his campaign. Mary Matalin, a former aide to Dick Cheney, the vice-president, and Lawrence Lindsey, Bush's former economic adviser, are also backing Thompson, who is likely to enter the race formally in July.... Thompson is also developing a rowdy fan club of "Fredheads" among Republican activists on the internet. According to Matalin, they are in every state. "Everywhere we go there are Fredheads," she said."

If only they said this about Iraq: ""Defeat is not an option," Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., said. Unfortunately, he was talking about giving blanket amnesty to 12 million, law-breaking, illegal aliens, the Rocky Mountain News reported. On Iraq, he was one of 48 white-flag-raising Democratic senators."

Haditha Cases Continue To Crumble: "The Associated Press reports that according to the attorney for Captain Randy Stone, legal officer for the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, charged with failing to report or investigate the deaths at Haditha, the investigating officer, Major Thomas McCann, for the Article 32 hearings (military-type grand jury) is recommending to 1st Marine Division commander Lt. Gen. James Mattis that the charges be dismissed".

Islam-wary Swiss to ban minarets: "Members of the right-wing Swiss People's Party, currently the largest party in the Swiss parliament, have launched a campaign to have the building of minarets banned. They claim the minaret is not necessary for worship, but is rather a symbol of Islamic law, and as such incompatible with Switzerland's legal system. Signatures are now being collected to force a nationwide referendum on the issue which, under Switzerland's system of direct democracy, would be binding. The move has shocked Switzerland's 350,000 Muslims, many of whom have been campaigning for decades for more recognition for their faith. A recent opinion poll for one Swiss newspaper found that 43 per cent of those surveyed were in favour of a ban on minarets".


List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here


"Why should the German be interested in the liberation of the Jew, if the Jew is not interested in the liberation of the German?... We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time... In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.... Indeed, in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal expression that the preaching of the Gospel itself and the Christian ministry have become articles of trade... Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist". Who said that? Hitler? No. It was Karl Marx. See also here and here.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party".


No comments: