The following is a portion of President Bush's comments during the welcoming ceremony upon his arrival in Mexico. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070313-1.html
"The United States respects rule of law. But in the debate on migration, I remind my fellow citizens that family values do not stop at the Rio Grande River, that there are decent, hardworking honorable citizens of Mexico who want to make a living for their families. And so, Mr. President, my pledge to you and your government -- but, more importantly, the people of Mexico -- is I will work as hard as I possibly can to pass comprehensive immigration reform."
There are several points that require comment (as far as I know there has been no response by Conservatives):
1. "The United States respects the rule of law. But ..." Apparently, the rule of law is okay so long as it doesn't get in the way of doing something illegal, e.g. entering the United States illegally, or failing to enforce existing immigration "laws." Why does the president even mention "the rule of law" unless he is acknowledging that US Immigration laws are being violated by people from Mexico.
2. "in the debate on migration..." There is no "debate on migration," there is only failure by the "people" of Mexico to respect the sovreign borders of its neighbor and the unwillingness of the government of the United States to protect and defend its borders against illegal crossing and to deal with those who cross illegally.
3. "I remind my fellow citizens..." This is both irrelevant and insulting. The president is in a foreign country lecturing us on the virtues of people who violate our laws by illegally crossing our borders. I'm sure that pedophiles have many endearing qualities. THAT'S NOT THE POINT, Mr. President.
4. "my pledge to ... the people of Mexico." The President of The United States is not responsible for or to the people of Mexico. He is not responsible for their welfare, their prosperity, or enabling them to fulfill their dreams of living in the United States. He is responsible to his oath of office to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," this means enforcing its laws.
There are no ifs, ands or "buts" about it, Mr. President.
Monday, March 19, 2007
On State Interference
(This is the final paragraph from an essay by William G. Sumner (I have divided it for easier reading).
"I therefore maintain that it is at the present time a matter of patriotism and civic duty to resist the extension of State interference. It is one of the proudest results of political growth that we have reached the point where individualism is possible.
Nothing could better show the merit and value of the institutions which we have inherited than the fact that we can afford to play with all these socialistic and semi-socialistic absurdities. They have no great importance until the question arises: Will a generation which can be led away into this sort of frivolity be able to transmit intact institutions which were made only by men of sterling thought and power, and which can be maintained only by men of the same type?
I am familiar with the irritation and impatience with which remonstrances on this matter are received. Those who know just how the world ought to be reconstructed are, of course, angry when they are pushed aside as busybodies. A group of people who assail the legislature with a plan for regulating their neighbor's mode of living are enraged at the "dogma" of non-interference.
The publicist who has been struck by some of the superficial roughnesses in the collision of interests which must occur in any time of great industrial activity, and who has therefore determined to waive the objections to State interference, if he can see it brought to bear on his pet reform, will object to absolute principles.
For my part, I have never seen that public or private principles were good for anything except when there seemed to be a motive for breaking them. Anyone who has studied a question as to which the solution is yet wanting may despair of the power of free contract to solve it.
I have examined a great many cases of proposed interference with free contract, and the only alternative to free contract which I can find is "heads I win, tails you lose" in favor of one party or the other. I am familiar with the criticisms which some writers claim to make upon individualism, but the worst individualism I can find in history is that of the Jacobins, and I believe that it is logically sound that the anti-social vices should be most developed whenever the attempt is made to put socialistic theories in practice.
The only question at this point is: Which may we better trust, the play of free social forces or legislative and administrative interference? This question is as pertinent for those who expect to win by interference as for others, for whenever we try to get paternalized we only succeed in getting policed."
State Interference, William Graham Sumner, "The Wisdom of Conservatism," pp 1596-1603, Institute for Western Values, 1971.
"I therefore maintain that it is at the present time a matter of patriotism and civic duty to resist the extension of State interference. It is one of the proudest results of political growth that we have reached the point where individualism is possible.
Nothing could better show the merit and value of the institutions which we have inherited than the fact that we can afford to play with all these socialistic and semi-socialistic absurdities. They have no great importance until the question arises: Will a generation which can be led away into this sort of frivolity be able to transmit intact institutions which were made only by men of sterling thought and power, and which can be maintained only by men of the same type?
I am familiar with the irritation and impatience with which remonstrances on this matter are received. Those who know just how the world ought to be reconstructed are, of course, angry when they are pushed aside as busybodies. A group of people who assail the legislature with a plan for regulating their neighbor's mode of living are enraged at the "dogma" of non-interference.
The publicist who has been struck by some of the superficial roughnesses in the collision of interests which must occur in any time of great industrial activity, and who has therefore determined to waive the objections to State interference, if he can see it brought to bear on his pet reform, will object to absolute principles.
For my part, I have never seen that public or private principles were good for anything except when there seemed to be a motive for breaking them. Anyone who has studied a question as to which the solution is yet wanting may despair of the power of free contract to solve it.
I have examined a great many cases of proposed interference with free contract, and the only alternative to free contract which I can find is "heads I win, tails you lose" in favor of one party or the other. I am familiar with the criticisms which some writers claim to make upon individualism, but the worst individualism I can find in history is that of the Jacobins, and I believe that it is logically sound that the anti-social vices should be most developed whenever the attempt is made to put socialistic theories in practice.
The only question at this point is: Which may we better trust, the play of free social forces or legislative and administrative interference? This question is as pertinent for those who expect to win by interference as for others, for whenever we try to get paternalized we only succeed in getting policed."
State Interference, William Graham Sumner, "The Wisdom of Conservatism," pp 1596-1603, Institute for Western Values, 1971.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Yes, Virginia, someone DID oppose the war ON Iraq
In researching who else might have opposed the war on Iraq, I was surprised to see that Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia made the following prescient observations in his speech opposing the Senate's Use of Force Resolution.
Nor do I think that the Iraqi people would necessarily rise up against Saddam Hussein in the event of a U.S. invasion, even if there is an undercurrent of support for his overthrow. The Iraqi people have spent decades living in fear of Saddam Hussein and his network of informers and security forces.
There has been no positive showing, in the form of riots or large and active internal opposition groups, that popular sentiment in Iraq supports a governmental overthrow or the installation of a democratic or republican form of government.
There is no tradition of democracy in Iraq's long history. There is, however, a natural instinct to favor the known over the unknown, and in this instance, the U.S. is the unknown factor.
The President and his cabinet have suggested that this would be a war of relatively short duration. If that is true, which I doubt, but if it were, why would the Iraqi populace rush out to welcome the U.S. forces.
In a few weeks, they might have to answer to the remnants of Saddam Hussein's security forces. A prudent Iraqi would just put his or her head under the bedcovers and not come out until the future became clear.
A U.S. invasion of Iraq that proved successful and which resulted in the overthrow of the government would not be a simple effort. The aftermath of that effort would require a long term occupation.
The President has said that he would overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a new government that would recognize all interest groups in Iraq. This would presumably include the Kurds to the north and the Shiite Muslims to the south.
Because the entire military and security apparatus of Iraq would have to be replaced, the U.S. would have to provide interim security throughout the countryside.
This kind of nation-building cannot be accomplished with the wave of a wand by some fairy godmother, even one with the full might and power of the world's last remaining superpower behind her.
To follow through on the proposal outlined by the President would require the commitment of a large number of U.S. forces - forces that cannot be used for other missions, such as homeland defense - for an extended period of time. It will take time to confirm that Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction are well and truly destroyed. It will take time to root out all elements of Saddam Hussein's government, military, and security forces and to build new government and security elements. It will take time to establish a new and legitimate government and to conduct free and fair elections. It will cost billions of dollars to do this as well. And the forces to carry out this mission and to pay for this mission will come from the United States. There can be little question of that. If the rest of the world doesn't want to come with us at the outset, it seems highly unlikely that they would line up for the follow through, even though their own security might be improved by the elimination of a rogue nation's weapons of mass destruction.
So, if the Congress authorizes such a mission, we must be prepared for what will follow.
Nor do I think that the Iraqi people would necessarily rise up against Saddam Hussein in the event of a U.S. invasion, even if there is an undercurrent of support for his overthrow. The Iraqi people have spent decades living in fear of Saddam Hussein and his network of informers and security forces.
There has been no positive showing, in the form of riots or large and active internal opposition groups, that popular sentiment in Iraq supports a governmental overthrow or the installation of a democratic or republican form of government.
There is no tradition of democracy in Iraq's long history. There is, however, a natural instinct to favor the known over the unknown, and in this instance, the U.S. is the unknown factor.
The President and his cabinet have suggested that this would be a war of relatively short duration. If that is true, which I doubt, but if it were, why would the Iraqi populace rush out to welcome the U.S. forces.
In a few weeks, they might have to answer to the remnants of Saddam Hussein's security forces. A prudent Iraqi would just put his or her head under the bedcovers and not come out until the future became clear.
A U.S. invasion of Iraq that proved successful and which resulted in the overthrow of the government would not be a simple effort. The aftermath of that effort would require a long term occupation.
The President has said that he would overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a new government that would recognize all interest groups in Iraq. This would presumably include the Kurds to the north and the Shiite Muslims to the south.
Because the entire military and security apparatus of Iraq would have to be replaced, the U.S. would have to provide interim security throughout the countryside.
This kind of nation-building cannot be accomplished with the wave of a wand by some fairy godmother, even one with the full might and power of the world's last remaining superpower behind her.
To follow through on the proposal outlined by the President would require the commitment of a large number of U.S. forces - forces that cannot be used for other missions, such as homeland defense - for an extended period of time. It will take time to confirm that Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction are well and truly destroyed. It will take time to root out all elements of Saddam Hussein's government, military, and security forces and to build new government and security elements. It will take time to establish a new and legitimate government and to conduct free and fair elections. It will cost billions of dollars to do this as well. And the forces to carry out this mission and to pay for this mission will come from the United States. There can be little question of that. If the rest of the world doesn't want to come with us at the outset, it seems highly unlikely that they would line up for the follow through, even though their own security might be improved by the elimination of a rogue nation's weapons of mass destruction.
So, if the Congress authorizes such a mission, we must be prepared for what will follow.
Hugh Hewitt says I can't oppose Mitt Romney just because he is a Mormon
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2007/02/17/a_mormon_in_the_white_house
Hugh Hewitt is a well known talk-show host on the Salem network. Some would call him a "shill" for the Republican establishment, like Michael Medved (also on Salem), but I will refrain from doing that.
Implicit in Hugh's statements is the idea that true political views can arise from other than true theology. The question here for Christians is, or should be, not whether a Mormon should be elected, but how we evaluate the suitability of any candidate (Hugh doesn't say if it's okay for Mormons to support Romney just because he is a Mormon).
Another, perhaps more fundamental question is, who is Hugh Hewitt to tell me what I can and cannot consider in making such an evaluation. His comparison between opposing Ms Rodham because she is a woman and opposing Romney because he is a Mormon is both faulty and wrong.
Mormonism is a belief system: it has specific views about the nature of man and his ultimate end. It, therefore, like all belief systems has a philosophy of government. Being a female is not a belief system - it is a gender.
Further, scripture is clear that it is a sign of God's judgement when women bear rule (during President Clinton's term, some evangelical leaders announced that God would judge American because of "the Clintons" - a more scriptural view would have been that "the Clintons" were God's judgement on America).
So, as a Christian, I can oppose Hilary just because she is a woman. As a free man, I can oppose any candidate for any reason I want.
Hugh and those of his ilk will have to come up with something better than simply saying that I can't.
Hugh Hewitt is a well known talk-show host on the Salem network. Some would call him a "shill" for the Republican establishment, like Michael Medved (also on Salem), but I will refrain from doing that.
Implicit in Hugh's statements is the idea that true political views can arise from other than true theology. The question here for Christians is, or should be, not whether a Mormon should be elected, but how we evaluate the suitability of any candidate (Hugh doesn't say if it's okay for Mormons to support Romney just because he is a Mormon).
Another, perhaps more fundamental question is, who is Hugh Hewitt to tell me what I can and cannot consider in making such an evaluation. His comparison between opposing Ms Rodham because she is a woman and opposing Romney because he is a Mormon is both faulty and wrong.
Mormonism is a belief system: it has specific views about the nature of man and his ultimate end. It, therefore, like all belief systems has a philosophy of government. Being a female is not a belief system - it is a gender.
Further, scripture is clear that it is a sign of God's judgement when women bear rule (during President Clinton's term, some evangelical leaders announced that God would judge American because of "the Clintons" - a more scriptural view would have been that "the Clintons" were God's judgement on America).
So, as a Christian, I can oppose Hilary just because she is a woman. As a free man, I can oppose any candidate for any reason I want.
Hugh and those of his ilk will have to come up with something better than simply saying that I can't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)