Politics: June 2005 Archives

From the local rag



First off, all this group does is report movement to the Border Patrol, as the article finally gets around to explaining in the next to last paragraph. They do not approach anyone. They don't enforce the laws. All they're doing is making it easier for the Border Patrol to do their job.



I took a client out California 94 to look at a property the other day. Seven border patrol vehicles between Barrett Junction and Cameron Corners. Lots of movement in the brush, too, and it didn't look like rattlesnakes or even mountain lions. Do I need to draw you more of a picture?



These invaders are willfully violating the law. It's not like there's any secret about the fact that you have to have permission to enter a country - any country. Most other borders in the world are guarded by the military, and when they spot somebody trying to cross without being noticed, they are arrested and deported. If those soldiers cannot detain said crossers, the guards shoot to kill.



Now, keeping this in mind, the paper doesn't leave much doubt about which side they're on, do they? An article designed to inflame fear of the evil right wing militias, it seemed like to me. "Armed" "Vigilantes". First off, a vigilante is one who takes justice into his own hands - punishing alleged wrongdoers on their own account. This does not describe someone who alerts the authorities and has no intention of taking any further action themselves. Most of the time, these are called good citizens. If your sister was being raped or murdered and some concerned citizen called the cops, wouldn't you think that person who called the cops was a good citizen? I can see calling the members of this organization the equivalent of the neighborhood busybody, but that's all and even that is subject to debate.



"Some of them are armed" and this somehow makes the them evil? Okay, the local rag never met a gun grabber it didn't love, but still. Boys and girls, if I was going out in the back country of San Diego these days, I'd be armed even if I was just trying to take a hike on a known and marked trail. It's a different world out there than when I was in Boy Scouts. When I was in my early teens, the only people you'd meet out there were fellow hikers and horseback riders. That has changed. I'm informed by contacts that this has become one of the hotspots for marijuana growing in the country, and the growers have a tendency to violently defend their investment. Plus all of the incidents of violence, vandalism, and intimidation that these illegal aliens perform on those who are property owners in the area would have me rightly concerned over my safety and wanting to take all reasonable precautions.



I am not anti-immigration. My wife's family came across the Rio Grande during World War I, before the immigration laws of the 1920s. Most of my ancestors came here a little further back, but American is American. We are a nation of immigrants because those already here needed as much unskilled labor as they could get. That has changed now, but we still need some immigration. I don't object to them, and providing they follow our laws - including in the method of arrival - I'll happily stand here and say "Welcome to America. How can I help you get started?" But it has to be measured and controlled, not the unchecked flood we are dealing with. This is an invasion in all but labelling, and it's time it was dealt with. I'm glad the border watchers are willing to do a more than their fair share. Maybe I'll buy them a couple cases of water or soda as my inadequate method of saying thanks.



Now, with all that said, I'm glad these other groups are monitoring the border watchers. I don't want these watchers given a free pass. If they do step over the line, I want them held accountable in a court of law.



Finally, here's the money quote:

"When people take the law into their own hands, it jeopardizes our system of justice, it undermines the rule of law, and it also encourages other citizens to take the law into their own hands," Velasquez said.



"It can also create anti-immigrant hysteria, racism, racial profiling and hate crimes."

Actually, it seems like to me that those negative things are caused by the huge and seemingly endless waves of those illegally crossing out southern border. Seems to me like the invaders are the ones taking the law into their own hands. The border group wants to put a stop to that, by the (sarcasm on) awful, horrible, an unprecedentedly mean (sarcasm off) method of alerting the authorities so those like, for instance, my wife's family don't face suspicion, problems with la migra, bad attitudes from other citizens, and so on and so forth. So that maybe those who are here legally and legitimately stand a better chance of finding decent employment that actually supports a reasonable standard of living. So that our public health programs aren't strained past the breaking point and maybe our own citizens and legal residents can get a better standard of care. For all those reasons and more, I want these illegal invaders gone.



TRAFFIC WHORE UPDATE: The Jawa Report invites self generated trackbacks.

ChrisCam talks about a prediction he made for the middle east about three years ago:

About 3 years ago, I was having a discussion with my father about Iraq. I made the statement that I thought the President and his team had nothing short than reshaping the entire Middle East as their primary foreign policy goal. This would be the 21st Century version of the revolutions of 1848 in Europe. A broad, sea-change in that region that would allow its people to live freely and under liberal Democracy instead of under the thumb of the few. This, I said, would be America's generational committment to ensuring that a 9/11 would never happen again. Iraq, I said, was just part of the equation. The whole picture involved Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iran and Egypt, for starters. It would involve toppling regimes by force if necessary, by fostering grass-roots reform if possible and by diplomatic pressure if effective.



I think I was prescient.

You weren't prescient, Chris. I'm on record as predicting the same thing. It's just that we were both paying attention to what the President was saying, and realized he meant it, something that for some reason very few people believed until after the Iraq invasion when Libya decided to play nice just to be on the safe side. Saddam Hussein obviously didn't believe he meant it. Most of europe didn't believe he meant it. I'm absolutely certain that except for maybe a couple of the smaller states, the arab world didn't believe it.



And that's probably just as well. If those despots had really thought our president meant to install a democratic government in Iraq, our troops would have had a much harder time of it.



One of my favorite (and most parallel to true life) movie scenes is in The Shootist, where John Wayne's character is explaining to Opie Ron Howard's that technical competence is only a small part of the game. Far more important is being willing and mentally ready. Most of the time, by the time the other party figures out that you actually intend to shoot them, you've already done it. It is no less true strategically than tactically.

Daily Kos writes of Two ways to address the war



His ways:

Promoting a withdrawal



We have a lot to be proud of over the past three years. We have freed the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator and given them their first taste of freedom. Iraq held successful presidential elections earlier this year, and the nation is now run by a democratic-elected government.



We have accomplished what we set out to do — bring freedom to Iraq and rid the region of the specter of Saddam's terror.



But now it is time to let the Iraqis take charge of their own lives. The future belongs to a free democratic Iraq, but it is a future they must fight for themselves.

See also Saigon, 1973. We had won on the battlefield then, too. Let's just throw the people who put their lives on the line for us, who really believed we intended to accomplish a stable, democratic government, to the mercies of those who have a vested interest in the failure of democracy in the region. If anyone believes Syria and Iran aren't doing all they can get away with to destabilize Iraq, you haven't been paying attention. If anyone believes this role won't expand if our troops are no longer watching, please contact me. I have some land.



Boys and girls, the mullahs in Iran and Assad in Syria can feel power slipping away as you read this. They have each abused and stolen from their respective peoples, who should be wealthy but are poverty stricken, for decades. They are in fear for their lives, their power, their wealth and their families. If we could afford to do so, the kindest thing we could do for these despots would be to invade now so they would at least face a reasonable trial, like Saddam Hussein, rather than being torn limb from limb in the streets. A free, democratic government in Iraq is a threat of incredible potence to them, just by existing. But that free democratic Iraq does not yet have the tools to defend itself against them. Battles aren't really won by generals. They are won by corporals and captains and training and equipment. The Iraqi Army has got about 30,000 men, last I checked, many of whom are half trained by any standard and all of whom are led by green officers up to at least field grade. They have almost nothing in the way of modern major battlefield equipment. Leaving now would be roughly like expecting Luxembourg to defend itself against Nazi Germany in 1940.



Nor is the strategic situation any better. There's a reason the terrorists keep targeting the oil production and distribution machinery. Actually there are many reasons. That gets going and stays going, and the Iraqi government now has money. Money with which they can build their country. Money with which they can get their economy going. Money to help their people live healthier lives. Money which they can use for development. Money which they can use for repairs. Money which they can use to recruit, train and equip a real army, all of which takes time. All of this gives the Iraqis a voice and a stake in the well being of their country. Once they've got it, it'll take conquest to take it away.



Externally, the pipeline is just as important. Let it get secure and let the oil start flowing again, and all of the euro-weenies and other powers who above all don't want their nice comfortable world disturbed will suddenly switch sides. Let the price of oil drop just a little with more in the offing, and watch terrorist sympathy become less popular with populist politicians across the world with no stomach for telling their constituents something they don't want to hear.



The Iraqis are in charge of their own destiny already. But they're not ready to defend it on their own yet.



Mr. Kos' other suggestion?

Afraid to call for withdrawal? Hammer on "accountability".



We are facing a crisis in Iraq, and yet no one is being held accountable. Our troops don't have enough men, equipment, or armor to effectively and safely do their job, yet those responsible for these deadly miscalculations remain at their jobs. They claim, as they always have, that Iraq is about to turn yet another corner, pass yet another milestone on the road to peace and prosperity. But the reality on the ground mocks those assertions.



We must have accountability in order to win this war. Those responsible for so many catastrophic mistakes must replaced by more competent, more effective, people.

That's it! Hold all the politicians who led the war accountable! That sounds like a good schtick! Anything to get the opposition.



Me? I think I'll hold Mr. Bush accountable for eight million voters fingers stained, stained I say, with purple and held up as badges of honor. I think I'll hold him responsible for a constitution that's eighty percent written in a country with no democratic traditions. I'll hold him responsible for a Provisional Government that handed power over to an elected Interim government which is doing a heck of a job. I'll hold him responsible for scheduling elections for sticking to his guns about deadlines for democratic actions, like writing a constitution and holding two complete rounds of elections. I'll hold him responsible for getting the Sunnis to join the government as power sharers rather than the old dictators or the new victims. Rumsfield I'll hold accountable for an Army that routed an entrenched power in days at the end of logistical lines ten thousand miles long. For an Air Force and Navy that no one can challenge on an even basis that provided that logistical support. I'll hold him accountable for equipment and training and procedures so good that in over two years of insurgency, our fatalities are less than 1.5 percent - far below those of any comparable power in any comparable situation at any time in the history of the world. I'll hold him accountable for policies that are training the Iraqis to handle foreign terrorists themselves. I'll hold them both responsible for the fact that the Iraqi terrorists appear to an increasing degree to be fighting each other.



Problem is, I haven't got the faintest idea what we can actually do to hold them accountable thus. Mr. Bush can't run again and Mr. Rumsfield isn't interested in the Presidency. We can't declare them kings or give them titles of nobilty, it's unconstitional. A national day of celebration with ticker tape parades just doesn't seem to cut it. Another national holiday might turn us into France, and I don't think either one of these fine gentlemen would want us to risk that.



Anyone?



Hat tip: Little Green Footballs



UPDATE: Slight editing change to remove duplicate sentence.

at Legal Information Institute



Hat tip: Orin Kerr at Volokh Conspiracy



I just read this. I'm not a lawyer, but the more I learn about Clarence Thomas, the more I respect him, his thought process, and his fundamental humanity and good sense. He has dealt with more slandering of his character than anyone should ever have to put up with. Scalia may be a stronger scholar, but I've never seen Thomas lose sight of human fundamentals in the legal minutiae.



He has assembled a body of work worthy of admiration, aspiration, and imitation. And that's the best thing I can say about anybody.



I realize that it's rather empty prestige granting no more weight to one's opinion. And I think the confirmation fight would make the whole Anita Hill thing look tame, to no noteworthy good purpose. But I'd love to see him as Chief Justice.

My mind wouldn't let me leave it alone. I got to thinking about how to fix this.



I think Congress could do fix this tomorrow. Simple Public Law.



The Congress of the United States, wishing to discourage abuse of eminent domain, henceforth enacts into law:



1. In the event of public condemnation of private property, the public entity bringing suit shall pay all expenses of the defending party in said suit, including but not limited to legal expenses, and any expenses incurred in evaluation of the property or documentation of this value. This compensation shall be immediately due and payable upon presentation of reasonable proof, and it shall accrue interest at a rate not less than double the prevailing customary rate, or additional charges incurred by the property owner as a result of tardy payment, whichever is greater. This compensation shall be paid regardless of the said suit's resolution.



2. In the event of a successful condemnation, the property owner shall be additionally compensated no less than the greater of either 150% of the fair value of the property determined in accordance with usual practices or 125% of the cost of replacement property.



Okay, folks. Pick it apart. Tell me where this fails.



(other than making communists unhappy, that is)



Update: Bill Quick at Daily Pundit notes that a Texas legislator had a similar idea.

Today's truly huge topic in the blogosphere is of course the Kelo decision from the Supreme Court. It's not that I'm uninterested. Quite the contrary. But so many from Eugene Volokh to Glenn Reynolds to Michelle Malkin to several of my fellow Raging RINOs



World According to Nick

Arguing With Signposts

My Pet Jawa comes up with this Uniquely Funny link



I could go on. The scholarship of some of these people is remarkable, particularly on such short notice.



(I just checked, and Scott Ott of Scrappleface doesn't have anything yet, but I'm expecting a doozy when it arrives)



My only contribution is the hope that this will be a "9/11 moment" that wakes the whole country up, once and for all, about exactly how much authority the government (especially the courts) have usurped for themselves under the cover of various interest groups defending said hijacking.



In other words, because it kept somebody powerful happy, it was allowed to go on.



This has to end. Just because your ox isn't being gored today doesn't mean it won't be tomorrow, and tomorrow may be too late.



I've seen a lot of stuff about how this will be used to create space for Wal-Mart. But consider: A business operation is no less vulnerable. What is there in law to forbid the government from mandating that unprofitable businesses remain in place? ("No, General Motors, we need those jobs to stay here.) From requiring that they relocate to poverty stricken areas, or build there in the first place, no matter how unsuitable?



This is about fat wallets, yes, but it isn't intrinsically and unavoidably linked solely to fat wallets. Below that, more importantly, is the ability to move things politically. Once the public taking of property depends upon who has the loudest political voice, no one is safe. Down this path lies madness. Stark raving insanity.



As those who have the misfortune of living in Zimbabwe or North Korea today, or any number of countries twenty years ago could tell you.



Edit: Corrected a type in Michelle Malkin's name.

From Evolution



Didn't we send Black Jack Pershing last time this happened?

From Opinion Journal



I knew Arnold was likely to make a heck of a governor when I voted for him.



I didn't know the half of it.



His agenda on the whole has done great benefits for the whole of California (although great harm to interest groups such as the teachers union), benefits that will compound with time. Balanced Budget. Reduced Spending Mechanisms. A Rainy Day Fund. Unprecedented. Unheard of.



He's taking on the Gerrymander monster that let the state get this way. He's trying to hold teachers accountable for the quality of their teaching, so that our children - those who can't afford private schools for those of you who think this is elitist - can reliably get an education worth having. And he doesn't want unions to be able to mandate members pay contributions to support political goals.



All of these are worthy causes. All of these are non-partisan causes. This guy is doing a job that no other politician in the country is even willing to try.





Fellow Raging RINOs: May I nominate Arnold as our patron saint?

I decided to go through my fellow Raging RINO websites from bottom to top in search of truly worthwhile stuff.



Here's the first refined gold, from State Of Flux

I don't think so.



Dr. Sanity



via Mad Mikey



UPDATE: My bad. The correct link is here: Dr. Sanity

From Lt. Smash at Indepundit



I never served.



But that doesn't mean that I don't respect and admire those who do or have, most of whom never mention their heroism, as in the case of my old Scoutmaster whom I found out years later was a survivor of the Bataan Death March.



Sometimes I wish it were possible for me to personally thank every individual veteran in the United States, and follow it with my heartfelt apology for the fact that the people these fine men and women defended include these "Counter Recruiters," among others.



It wouldn't be enough. But it'd be something. And it might be a good use for this website



Just because you're exercising your first amendment rights doesn't mean you're not acting like an idiot.







P.S. And now that I've had my joke, the correct link is here

From Stuart Buck



Hat tip: Eugene Volokh



Then again, why can't we restrict outselves to original interpretations (what it meant when it was enacted), period? I'm as big a believer in Marbury vs. Madison as anyone, but somehow I acquired this weird idea that it's the job of the legislative branch to create the laws, while the job of the judicial branch is to see that those laws are applied and enforced on a consistent and even-handed basis.



If something in the Constitution is truly odious to society, we have managed to explicitly amend it twenty-seven times. Or am I the only one who feels a distinctly cold draft upon reading "...and the constitution is whatever five members of the Supreme Court say it is", no matter how good a job they've made of it thus far?

By Christopher Hitchens.



At Slate



Hat tip: Ace of Spades via Inoperable Terran



Can we please remember who accusations of barbarism are effective against?



See also Harry Turtledove's "The Last Command" for a fictional illustration that should be sufficient unto the task.