« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »
January 31, 2006
Guard the borders blogburst (late)
January 30, 2006 Guard the Borders Blogburst
By Heidi
This first month of 2006 has seen a spate of unprecedented media attention to on-going border breaches such as drug smuggling tunnels and Mexican Army incursions. Deceitful Mexican government officials have disavowed any knowledge of such breaches, instead presenting laughable theories of "American soldiers disguised as Mexicans". Even our own Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, has covered for the Mexicans by dismissing border incursion as mere navigational "mistakes". (He's failed to comment on the gunfire from said "lost" Mexican soldiers.)
No one is fooled. Our border agents continue to risk their lives confronting heavily armed Mexican soldiers and smuggling gangs, while our own American citizens living on the border continue to petition our government for security - to no avail. Two American states, Arizona and New Mexico, have declared a state of emergency in their states, as the financial and societal obligation of caring for illegal immigrants crushes their economy and resources.
In four states, the two above plus Texas and California, the new majority is the Hispanic, though mostly illegal. Such a disparity between law-abiding, tax-paying American citizens has caused the unconscionable situation to develop that the minority now pays for the services and support of the majority.
In the meantime, trillions of American dollars flow out of our economy and into Mexico's in the form of tax-free cash remittances from illegal labor. These cash disbursements are the largest form of income for the country of Mexico:
Remittances "are our biggest source of foreign income, bigger than oil, tourism or foreign investment," Fox told reporters after a meeting with Mexican-American businessmen."The 20 million Mexicans in the United States generate a gross product that is slightly higher than the $600 billion generated by Mexicans in Mexico," Fox said, adding that his country has the ninth-largest economy in the world.
"If we could add up the two products, Mexico would be the third or fourth economy in the world," he said.
Three years later, the number of illegal Mexicans in America is higher than ever, their impact on U.S. social services even more draining, and the free income is flowing ever-faster into Mexico's coffers. Think of it, their largest source of income costs them nothing in terms of infrastructure, research and development, education, and social services! They export their poorest, neediest citizens (at no cost to themselves) and sit back to wait for the free income to flow. No wonder they feel the need to ease their citizens' illegal entry into America by providing handbooks and maps - it has a direct impact on their economy! What other income-producing activity could they undergo that would require no construction, no training, no law enforcement, and no responsibilities whatsoever to their citizens? Why would they want to curb a free and very lucrative income? The illegality of it bears no consequences or costs, so the Mexican government has no incentive to fix a system that works wonder for them!
I do not know how much longer we can afford to single-handedly support an entire nation through second-hand disbursements. The trillions of American dollars that boost Mexico's economy are trillions of dollars not strengthening our own. Possibly even more important, the cultural impact of the burgeoning class of illegals is superseding American traditions and values and having a severe impact on our elections and government.
Our country was founded upon the premise "of the People, by the People, for the People" - and those People are constitutionally meant to be AMERICANS. Yet, foreign interest lobbies are have an ever-increasing detrimental effect on our local, state, and federal government as non-citizens are accorded most of the rights and privileges of American citizenship and garner actual governmental representation. This corruption of the intent of our Constitution has been allowed through the steady erosion of our national sovereignty.
Today, there are an estimated 23 million Mexicans working and living in America, according to Vicente Fox, who claims he is the leader of 123 million citizens: 100 million in Mexico and 23 million in America. Is it any wonder that he and like-minded special interest lobbies feel the RIGHT to demand more and more from our acquiescent government? Americans watch incredulously as they get most of what they demand, at our expense. To our shame, our nation's government has abdicated our rule of law concerning national sovereignty and national security.
We now have a large foreign presence within our borders that is NOT American, has no intention of ever becoming American, has no regard for American law, nor loyalty to America. This is akin to hosting a nation within a nation - and worse, one that is loyal to a foreign power.
Last week, in a related article, I summarized our current scenario as such:
Let’s recap: we’ve got your basic violent criminals (mafia, drug smugglers, rapists, killers, etc) crossing UNDER our border with impunity…we’ve got heavily armed Mexican military blatantly crossing OVER our border to protect such criminals…firing on American Border Patrol agents to collect $200,000 bounties…plus, we’ve got ongoing sightings of enemy soldiers from other nations, possibly China or North Korea, crossing our border…also firing at our Border Patrol agents…we’ve got Muslim terrorists infiltrating easily and regularly from Mexico…we’ve got Muslim terrorists that have already successfully smuggled in nukes from Mexico…we've got American citizens living armed in a border zone that has become lawless...though we are at war, our borders are undefended and breached on a regular basis... our sovereignty as a nation is defiled…and WE’VE GOT AN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT THAT KNOWS ALL OF THE ABOVE AND HAS NEVER DONE ANYTHING ABOUT IT!!!
Our government today has monumentally failed in its most foundational duties to our lawful citizenry, as guaranteed by our Constitution. There is no doubt in my mind that our conflicted and disloyal elected "leaders" politicians desperately need the following reminder, from President Theodore Roosevelt:
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all.
We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."--Theodore Roosevelt 1907
This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we’re going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to euphoricrealitynet at gmail dot com.
Blogs already on board:
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:16 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
January 30, 2006
Letter for the College Dems
You know, this letter actually made me regret taking out one of the original punch lines in the article... I was going to make reference to this campus' College Dem chapter as the "Donkey Punch" chapter. Last semester they wore shirts that said "Donkey Punching our way to victory". If you don't know what a Donkey Punch is, look it up, it isn't good. The College Repubs had a field day in the paper and on campus with it. But in short, I figured not to include it because I'd be sinking to their level. I still think that was the best idea, despite their flailing letter to accuse me of misinformation for not presenting their spin. How exactly is a pension system made stronger by not funding it again? Dare we talk about Rod wh is under federal investigation (probably several)?
===
If you want to talk about indiscretions, we should talk about your clubs fetish with deviant sexual assault by glorfying donkey punches...
And the Republican party is not "mine", I don't identify them. There is no misinformation in my article, you just take pause with me not buying into the DNC party juice. If you want to talk about extortion, you do know Rod is on Fitzgerald's hitlist after he wraps up the Plame Non-Crime prosecution, don't you?
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 28, 2006
To filibuster or not to filibuster, that is the question
Sen. Kerry, Kennedy, and Clinton appear to be on board with a filibuster, and I'm all for it. I think the should filibuster it. I think when the vote comes up a few hours before the State of the Union, they should let the filibuster begin and let it bump the State of the Union address. Then I think the Republicans should break it the old fashioned way by waiting for whoever does it to need to go to the bathroom. It's time to defeat this sword hanging over the Senate floor. Let them filibuster and then break the filibuster. The humiliation and utter defeat will by the final nail in the coffin of this dying and irrelevant group of children called the Democratic Party.
Posted by John Bambenek at 4:01 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
January 26, 2006
Judicial Legislation: The Destructive Power of Injunctions (Stop the ACLU post)
The judiciary has been characterized as what should be the weakest branch of government and for good cause. When a judge pronounces broad and sweeping judgments about what is or is not a "right" it bypasses democracy and establishes juristocracy. Such governments cannot be considered free.
An enormous amount of trust is placed in judges. This can be seen in the Alito confirmation that is feared to "tilt the country to the right". This language largely means that the Democrats are afraid that Alito is not going to vote the Democrat party line in court cases. But that's not the real issue. Why does a judge have the power to tilt the country to the right or the left? What happened to the legislature being able to write laws and courts applying them?
The problem with courts setting the laws largely revolves around how cases are decided. For each case there are two and generally only two sides. In cases involving civil rights and such you have the party who feels they have been harmed and you have the government. The judgment of the court based upon the statements of the single individual (or group) harmed and the statements of the judge can have an effect on the entirety of the population without any contribution or participation on their part. This is largely why the opinion that lawyers don't "write the law" is largely irresponsible as it tries to dissolve any argument that lawyers might have some moral responsibility.
Take Roe v Wade which had on one side Norma McCorvey and on the other side the state of Texas. The Supreme Court created abortion on demand as the law of the land based on the arguments of those parties. Amicus briefs are fine, but they don't rise to the same level as courtroom participation. Not only did no other interested parties get to participate, a national law was created without as much as a vote of the American people.
Lobbyists and special interests may be a dirty thing in the legislature, but at least for each issue there tends to be at least two groups that oppose each other vying for influence. In a courtroom, there is no one to speak for the desires of the varied opinions of the hundreds of millions of Americans who may be effected by a judicial injunction telling the government what laws they can pass, what laws they cannot pass, what they must set their tax rate at, what they must fund projects with, and a wide variety of issues that, until recently, were seen as part of the political process, not the judicial process.
Constitutional law has largely become a joke. It can no longer be considered that the practical exercise of constitutional law is based on the Constitution. When the Constitution was signed, representatives of the people were there representing their constituents. When a judge signs an injunction that significantly modifies or changes the agreement that was made, who does he represent? He wasn't voted into office by anyone. He doesn't represent anyone. He simply makes the laws, and the unbridled power allows for rampant misinterpretations of the law and constitution.
If the left is afraid of Alito as a Supreme Court justice it is because they have created a system that gives judges far too much power. If gay marriage should be law of the land, there is a process to do it. When people desired desegregation, they passed laws and constitutional amendments. Running into court to impose radically new social and legal norms is the refuge of those who wish to impose tyranny.
Lastly, some would argue there wouldn't be a Brown v Board of Education without an activist court. Activist courts may sometimes get things right and do what is best for society. But for every Brown v Board there is a Dred Scott. And when they get it wrong, you can't just vote the bums out.
See Stop the ACLU for the latest anti-ACLU efforts.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 24, 2006
"End of the World Comes: Minorities and Women Hardest Hit"
It's really hard to take things like this seriously. Only minorities can expect things like Hurricane Katrina to happen again? What happened to the white people that died in disproportionately high numbers in New Orleans?
Posted by John Bambenek at 4:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Mexico Invades the United States
Just after it has been released that there has been over 200 unauthorized border crossings unto US soil by the Mexican military, it appears that people dressed as Mexican military provided armed cover for drug dealers fleeing Texas into Mexico. Mounted machine guns were pointed at law enforcement apparently by the Mexican military inside the borders of the United States.
Some will dismiss this as meaningless posturing despite the fact that if the US military every crossed a border in an unauthorized fashion they'd scream bloody murder. Some may dismiss this as another attack on immigration, despite the fact that no immigrants were involved. In this case, suspected drug dealers fleeing with over a half-ton of drugs were trying to escape Texas law enforcement inside the Texas border, and they were provided armed cover by what appears to be the Mexican military. Some may say it just appears they were dressed like that, and it remains to be seen exactly who those people were, but if there are people running around in military uniforms using military-grade weaponry, Mexico ought to be doing something about it. Especially if they make a habit of causing international incidents on American soil.
For too long the border has gone underprotected. This isn't about immigration, per se. The United States should significantly loosen the restrictions on those who wish to come here to work and have a better life. However, that has largely been lost in the debate where few people understand that there is even a legal way to immigrate and equate those who illegally enter the country with those who follow the proper process. The political cowardice of those in office to enforce the laws related to the border have led not only to rampant illegal immigration but outright mockery of the law. Mexico provides guides for people wishing to enter the US illegally and then the Mexican government demands that Social Security checks be sent to Mexico.
There is nothing wrong with someone trying to get to the US for a better life for themselves and their children and the fact that people still come here in droves speaks volumes about the strength and vitality of the American economy. However, the de facto open borders policy has lead to military incursions, open drug trade, and even easy terrorist access into the country. There are those who say we can't win the drug war. They have a point when a foreign military can invade the United States and provide cover for drug dealers while the White House remains silent.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:57 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
January 23, 2006
Campus Survey on Political and Religious Discrimination
I've created a survey trying to gauge any campus religious or political discrimination. It'll be interesting to see the results. When I'm done I hope to have something to present to the BOT on it. (Sorry, only University of Illinois people can participate).
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Guard the Boarders: Video Footage of Mexican Military Incursion of US Soil
It's one thing to debate whether or not workers should sneak into the country. It's another to pretend that Mexican military defending drug lords on our own soil is no big deal. Do you think Mexico would like Marines on their side of the border? You bet they'd raise a stink in the UN about it. But the US shrugs it off. There are those who think we can't win the drug war, well it certainly doesn't help when we let the military of another country defend the drug trade on our own soil. Below is the GTB blogburst.
====
Last week, those of us who keep an eye on border issues noticed that several mainstream media sources had featured articles about the regular Mexican military incursions over our borders and into our country. This is nothing new, as the Border Patrol has documented hundreds of such illegal incursions by an armed Mexican military over the past decade, and our government has done nothing to curb these incursions. In fact, it seems our government has looked the other way. While I'm relieved that this information is getting out into the mainstream, I have little confidence that our governement will actually do its job and secure our borders.
Some confrontations between the Mexican military troops and our own Border Patrol agents have become violent as Mexican soldiers have fired their weapons at the Border Patrol. It's a mystery why our government refuses to acknowledge these hostile invasions. They surely know about it, and the Mexican Embassy in Washington D.C. has gone so far as to publicly deny that the Mexican soldiers are hostile, but rather there to "patrol for illegal border jumpers". Contrary to that public statement, however, most of the Mexican military troops on the border are moonlighting as security escorts for drug smuggling gangs the coyotes who are running large groups of illegals across the border.
T.J. Bonner, a 27-year Border Patrol veteran who heads the National Border Patrol Council [said], "Intrusions by the Mexican military to protect drug loads happen all the time and represent a significant threat to the agents. "Why else would they be in the area, firing at federal agents in the United States? There is no other explanation," said Mr. Bonner, whose organization represents all 10,000 of the nonsupervisory Border Patrol agents.He also challenged reports that Mexican military units had crossed mistakenly into the United States, saying, "Every country's military has a [global positioning system] nowadays, including the Mexicans. "If the border is so poorly marked, why don't the thousands of Border Patrol agents working 24/7 along it ever seem to get lost, and none of us have been issued a GPS," he said.
[...]
Attacks on Border Patrol agents in the past few years have been attributed to current or former Mexican military personnel. U.S. law-enforcement officials have long thought that current and former Mexican soldiers are being paid to protect drug shipments bound for the United States.Several agents said the attacks have escalated in the past two years as U.S. security efforts on the border have increased -- including the July shooting of two agents in an ambush near Nogales, Ariz., by assailants in black commando-type clothing, who fired more than 50 rounds. Authorities said the gunmen used military-style cover-and-concealment tactics to escape back into Mexico. No one has been arrested.
Without any federal commitment to secure our borders, the Minutemen, a volunteer citizen's group, has performed an invaluable civic service in patrolling our borders to document and verify the location of illegal border crossers. They, too, have encountered Mexican soldiers on the WRONG side of the border. The video clip below comes directly from the Arizona Minutemen who told the Mexican soldiers, when confronted, they were there as "media" to document the border situation. It is incredibly important to note that there is no reason why American citizens should EVER be required to justify their lawful activities on American soil to a FOREIGN military presence. That is anathema to our rights as American citizens!
(SCOTTSDALE, AZ) January 20, 2006 – The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps ("MCDC") announced the release today of video footage of an incursion by a unit of the Mexican army across the U.S. border in Arizona.Chris Simcox and a group of Civil Defense Corps volunteers encountered a squad of approximately eight armed Mexican soldiers about 500 yards inside American territory. The Mexican soldiers started running back through the brush to Mexico when they realized they had been spotted.
The video shows a uniformed Mexican soldier climbing through a barbed wire fence on American soil to return to the Mexican side of the border as he races to catch up with the other Mexican soldiers who had also climbed back through the fence as they retreated back into their country.
A group of armed Mexican soldiers then returned to the barbed wire fence (on American soil) and confronted Simcox and the volunteers. A discussion in Spanish ensued, with the agitated soldier 'in charge' saying the Americans had no business being there.
Simcox and the volunteers did not budge. The Mexican soldiers left and drove off. Judging from earlier activity observed at the ranch that morning, Simcox is of the belief that a trafficking operation had been disrupted by the volunteers.
The footage, filmed in 2004, was sent to then Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge. His office did not respond. The video has remained in the Minuteman video archive and is being released in response to recent news reports that over 200 cross-border incursions by the Mexican army have been documented since 1996.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 22, 2006
Time-Gate? The Media is Learning the Wrong Lesson
Time Magazine apparently has an exclusive that there exists pictures with President Bush and Jack Abramoff together. Skipping past the irrelevancy of what these pictures are supposed to present, there is one immediate thing that comes to mind.
TIME has seen five photographs of Abramoff and the President that suggest a level of contact between them that Bush's aides have downplayed. While TIME's source refused to provide the pictures for publication…
Rathergate of fond memory provided what should have been a valuable lesson to the media to make sure they don’t use forged documents to try to prove a partisan point. However, the lesson they have learned is to provide less visibility and accountability, not more. If the pictures never make it to the public, then they can’t be refuted. This comes from an industry supposedly trying to expose truth, and instead they are concealing it.
There is one important question that any hack journalist would have asked when a resource showed but refused to disclose pictures such as these: why? That question goes unaddressed in the piece. There is no mention of how the source got them, even in general terms, why the source is hiding them, or why the reporters think they are legitimate. Apparently the public is supposed to just “trust” them. The media has become so afraid of bloggers and the public that they are afraid to give them any information which could be used to refute them. The only reason not to provide the pictures from Time’s perspective is because they can be easily refuted, despite the fact they are irrelevant anyway (the President is in thousands of pictures every year, that doesn’t mean that every photo-op is with his closest friends).
Cases of media bias are clear cut, such as the AP Style Guide clearly suggesting using anti-abortion instead of pro-life in order to push “abortion rights” and use pro-choice approved propaganda terms. In this case, the Democrats are trying to push the point that Republicans and only Republicans have corruption problems.
They are desperately trying to stick Abramoff to Bush to use as a template in the 2008 elections conveniently forgetting record-breaking corruption of a certain previous Democrat administration. In short, the Democrat party platform has become, ”We can’t beat them so let’s try to indict them”.
And it appears that Time Magazine is playing along.
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:26 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
January 21, 2006
2 DI Letters Yesterday
I'd link to them, but the DI's website sucks. One was basically, "well why didn't Bush just go to FISA?" It's an interesting question, and entirely independent of the issue at hand, whether it was legal to do what Bush did. Why didn't he go to FISA? Some say FISA was getting less cooperative but in the end, because he didn't have to.
The second letter accuses me of factual inaccuracies while not understanding the difference between data-mining and eavesdropping. Just because a call was monitored by this program doesn't mean that it got flagged for analsys.
At least this time they actually read what I wrote before responding.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Food for Thought - Iran, Israel, and the bomb
The US's EIA chief has said we can't get by without Iranian oil. Can we get buy with a nuclear crater that used to be Tel Aviv?
War with Iran may be ugly and require some real sacrifice from the citizens, but if the alternative is sitting on our thumbs when Iran vaporizes Tel Aviv and tells us that they've got a nuke pointed at Paris if anyone does anything, then I think I can handle walking to work.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 20, 2006
21st Century Conservatism - Guiding Principles
This article is part of the 21st Century Conservatism series for Blogcritics, this article is the first in the series of hopefully many more posts. Comments are welcome and appreciated. Personal attacks are ignored.
Current political discourse is marred by the scourge of the "sound bite". Issues are reduced to fragments of a sentence and disposed of inside 30 seconds. For each issue, people are carved out into rival camps and the left/right or liberal/conservative moniker is applied. The effects on political discourse specifically but political philosophy generally is that instead of a coherent philosophy that runs through Conservatism, the movement is made up of single-issue groups that vary wildly when it comes to matters of application. There are the neoconservatives, the paleoconservatives, the metro conservatives, the religious conservatives, the fiscal conservatives, and so on. The gun rights crowd may be conservative on that issue, but they may have no opinions on the free market economy. The pro-life groups are certainly conservative on life issues but may not have a concern about foreign policy.
This has seemingly left, in the mind of this author, a gap of a common philosophy to draw these issues into a coherent ideology instead of being a disparate group of issues. This series is an attempt to carve out a solid political philosophy for Conservatism at large. This article is the first in that series.
Before such an attempt can be made to apply such a philosophy to specific issues, the principles of the philosophy need to be laid out and explained. The following six principles will serve as the core of this political philosophy so moving forward is possible. The principles are: subsidiary, solidarity, morality, the role of government, free market economics and organic growth.
Subsidiary, simply put, is the idea that what can be done on the lowest level should be done on the lowest level. For instance, regulation of parking should be done locally because it would be absurd to have the federal government based in DC deciding where people in Paducah, KY should park. The people in Paducah are best able to deal with local matters and have their values respected. As another example, military defense should be done on the national level. For one thing, the Articles of Confederation proved that having each state responsible for their own defense did not work. More importantly, if a nation is to exist as such it needs to defend its integrity.
This leads into the second principle, solidarity. Solidarity is the idea that "we're all in this together" or that people have social connection and investment in their respective societies. A society where people are only self-concerned, a Hobbesian state of nature, cannot be free and will not be stable. People need to have mutual concern for one another and be willing to make some level of sacrifice for the common good. For instance, a society cannot be defended if people are unwilling to fight and die for that defense. If being a soldier is "someone else's job", eventually there are no soldiers at all. The same is true for those members of the community that fall into need, meeting those human needs are a duty one owes to the community.
Morality closely plays a role in solidarity. There are certain moral principles anyone in a free society will agree on. People are entitled to freedom of speech, private property, and the right to life and those should not be unnecessarily infringed upon. However, morality goes farther. There needs to be a sense that people live in a just society or that society will begin to fracture. It is only possible for a moral people to be free. An immoral populace requires an expansive government to keep the order.
The role of government needs to be tightly defined in a free society. It is not that governments are bad. Regulation is necessary for a well-ordered society. This can be seen in simple things as having a common side of the road to drive on, a common currency, consistent standards for phone lines, and complex things like interstate and international commerce, and educational standards. Disputes will arise in any culture and there needs to be a fair arbiter. Society needs rules in how to operate. However, the government should not be treated as the end-all-be-all of what we should do and how we should act. The government should be restricted to those functions that cannot be adequately performed by individuals, civic groups, or communities. Government should also govern at the lowest level possible for the function involved. Not everything requires a national program. The bigger the government gets, the harder it gets to keep in check. The more involved government is in other functions, particularly economic, the more special interests and the well-connected are represented.
The free market, properly understood, entails the freedom to make economic choices for oneself. The parties to a transaction are the best ones able to determine their values. As far as possible, transactions and the terms of those transactions should be left to the "buyer" and the "seller". Information is obviously needed to make intelligent economic choices and policies should have a presumption of disclosure with reasonable exceptions (i.e. trade secrets, etc). However, the free market entails more decisions than just what to buy, it entails where to work, what methods to use, and which vendors to do business with. All parties should have the broadest possible choices in which to ask to ensure that the free market produces efficient and fair solutions. Reasonable and limited regulation is appropriate, but over regulation just leads to the dynamic where the wealthy and well-connected start to lobby for regulations that tip the scales in their favor.
Lastly, organic growth is the principle that society should be allowed to develop and grow on its own without the interference of social planners. There is a temptation in some that the best way to deal with problems in institutions is to disregard the benefits they provide, burn the institution to the ground, and hope a Phoenix rises from the ashes. Such attempts always run afoul of the law of unintended consequences. Society should not be forced down unnatural roads and when changes need to be made they should be done emphasizing discourse and debate as opposed to brute force. Very rarely is it necessary to impose significant changes on a society (slavery being a notable exception). Social institutions that stand the test of time need not be tampered with, or destroyed without good cause.
These principles form the basic crux of a work in process, namely a coherent philosophy to speak to the issues facing a new century and a new generation. It isn't an attempt to disregard those ideas of the past, but build them and use them in such a way to paint a picture of how best to have a society that can enjoy stability and allow for individuals to find fulfillment in their own personal ways.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:24 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
January 19, 2006
Weak attempt at an Anti-ACLU Post
There is a movement to intervene in the ACLU case so that real Americans can have real views represented in the NSA lawsuit filed by the ACLU...
Debbie Schlussel, blogger/investigative writer/lawyer, is extending an invitation to citizens interested in intervening in the ACLU's NSA lawsuit. She practices in Eastern Michigan, where the suit was filed.
Take a look and sign up.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The War on Terror has been Won
Today, Bin Laden has offered a truce. He has been beaten and knows it so he wants time. Holding up a white flag is not the sign of a victor, it's the sign of defeat. He's losing Afghanistan and Iraq and he wants to save face by getting out before those countries turn against him. He wants time to build "good will" by mimicking the image of the US in those countries, that of a rebuilder and friend.
He knows he cannot win with terrorism there, so he wants to wait.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:46 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
January 18, 2006
Christian Carnival Posted
It's up featuring a post from yours truly...
Archconservatives unite!
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
DI Column Posted: Connecting the Dots
You can read it here.
The editor who worked on this, a liberal, particularly had a problem with my description of abortion as "the right of women to kill their babies for reasons of convenience". She didn't want to get drowned in another sea of letters like my last column caused.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 13, 2006
Let's Talk About Sex II: Christianity, Sex, and Love
Disclaimer: This is yet another draft. It's generally written from the Catholic perspective, but likely matches up with various orthodox Christian interpretations. All comments are appreciated; all errors are mine. To be fair, I'm less than happy with this and it need more work, I'm not sure I really said what I set out to say.
Two recent articles have motivated me to finally write this. The first is the Dawn Patrol's report on the Planned Barrenhood key chains and the second is Planned Barrenhood's discussion on the difference between their view of sex and the "absolutist" (read as Christian) view of sex. This is typical of the certain sectors of liberal sex ideology to say that Christian's hate sex and they are celebrating life and love and all that is light with sex. The problems with this are that (1) it wildly misrepresents the Christian view of sex and (2) they really don't believe their own statements on sex as a celebration.
Below is how they show the differences between the views of sex:
Fixed (F) or Absolutist World View vs. Relativist (R) World View:F. Sexuality is basically animal passion and lust, genital, and must be controlled.
R. Sexuality is a natural and positive life force with both sensual and spiritual aspects.F. The main goal of sex is marriage and reproduction.
R. Sex does not have to be confined to marriage; pleasure, love, and celebration are goals in themselves.F. Sex is only acceptable in heterosexual marriages.
R. Tolerance or acceptance of same-gender relationships.F. Masturbation, oral sex, same-gender relationships, and contraception all thwart God’s purposes for sex and are forbidden.
R. God’s purpose for sex is to celebrate life; masturbation, oral sex, and same-gender relationships can express the celebratory and communion nature of sex.F. Strict gender roles in relationships with male active and superior.
R. Flexible, egalitarian gender roles.F. Emphasis on sex as genitality and on genital acts.
R. Emphasis on people and their relationships rather than on what they do genitally.
In several of these cases it is my belief that they have it backwards. They attribute their own beliefs onto Christianity in this straw-man attempt to justify their brand of sexual ethics. For instance, the focus on sex as genitality is certainly no Christian position, nor is the idea that sex is animal passion and lust. It wasn't a Christian band that came up with the lyrics, "You and me ain't nothing but mammals so let's do it like the do it on the Discovery Channel." (It's from the Bloodhound Gang in an album called "Hooray for Boobies").
Going into bookstores lately I've noticed something about this brand of liberal sexual ethics. They say that sex is spiritual, emotional, communal (skipping past the interesting yet unconvincing theory that masturbation is a communal celebration), etc, but the books and content they put out on the subject focuses purely on the physical. There is book after book, article after article, teaching readers about the latest position or technique to make your partner crazy. For an ideology that claims to say that it recognizes the spiritual and emotional components of sex it certainly seems to talk about nothing else but the physical. In any store remotely identifying itself as Christian you won't find collections of sex toys for purchase. There's a good reason. If you have to resort to power tools and contortionism to enjoy sex, you aren't doing it right. For an ideology that is always searching and striving for the ultimate orgasm, they've never been less sexually fulfilled.
The point of contention at its deepest level is really a disagreement about love. Christians have one view; the liberal sexual ideology crowd has another. When Christians talk about love, they talk about a relationship between people first and foremost. That is why in Christian relationships, courting and getting to know one another takes place before sex (ideally). In the other camp, love is about sex first and foremost. That is why they generally have sex before any real relationship exists (i.e. one-night stands). In the September 2005 issue of Foreign Policy magazine, economist Jacques Attali predicts the death of monogamy because "at long last, we will recognize that it is human to love different people at the same time." What he means is sex. If society is so ready to disregard monogamy why is infidelity still such a large cause of the many divorces we see? When Christians talk about loving many people it doesn't require or necessitate sexual relations with those people.
Enough of talking about what other people think about sex, the point here is to talk about what Christianity says about sex, and love in general. If you ask about anyone what is the most intimate sign of love (particularly romantic love) you will almost universally get sex as a response. Ask people what would be the most intimate sign of love between married people; you'll likely get the same answer. So the first question to answer is what is love; particularly romantic love.
As Christians, our example is obviously Jesus Christ. I brief synopsis of Jesus' saving work can be put this way: In the fullness of Time, God the Father gave His only Son, who in turn, gave up His life on the cross for us. The love of Jesus can be seen by what he does for us and what he gives us. Jesus doesn't show His love by allowing us to give something to Him; he initiates the relationship by His gift. This brand of love is characterized first and foremost by giving.
The state of mankind when He died on the Cross wasn't particularly swell. The Jews repudiated Him, His apostles deserted Him, and He was put to death like a criminal. Jesus' gift of salvation comes to us in our sin. In other words, Jesus' love is unconditional. This brand of love is characterized by it being unconditional.
This is a good description of love in general; however that doesn't clarify romantic love specifically. For that we can turn to the much maligned Ephesians 5. In turn it talks about marriage from the perspective of the wife and the husband. Wives are to give obedience to their husbands. Husbands are to give their lives up for their wives. There is no discussion on the conditions for that (aside of an implied valid marriage) just that it should be done. Likewise, it's a gift.
This is also illustrated in the typical wedding vows of Catholic (and I imagine most Christian) weddings. Phrases like "for richer or for poorer", "in sickness and in health", "til death do us part" all can be summarized like this. I will love you and be your spouse no matter what conditions arise until one of us dies. Marital love is unconditional.
The most beautiful expression of this is the expression used both in Genesis and Ephesians to describe marriage, "the two shall become one flesh". To be more accurate and not allow ourselves to be hamstrung by the English translation, it isn’t a physical unity that is being referred to but a complete union, body, soul, mind, and heart. In short, the union is complete. Marriage is something that is more than just a physical reality as illustrated by the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes it as the highest form of spirituality, a Sacrament.
Sacraments, in order to be valid require correct form and correct matter. This is of particular interest to the point because of the form and matter of the Sacrament of Marriage. The form is the free consent to marriage as an indissoluble union. The matter is the consummation of marriage, or sex. Not only does the Catholic Church no consider sex to be some base or animalistic instinct to be controlled, it is an essential component to the Sacrament and a highly spiritual act at that.
To follow the train of thought, the ultimate act of marriage is almost universally considered to be sex. As such, one would expect that sex should reflect the marital reality as a complete unconditional gift of love. At this point, this view of sex is totally irreconcilable with how it is presented by the liberal sexual ideology crowd. This view doesn’t restrict sex to the physical realm, nor dismiss the physical realm as something dirty to be discarded but it is an integration of the entire human person with the entire person of the spouse. This is a crude summary of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.
As a final point, there are those of the liberal sexual persuasion who argue that sex is beautiful in special in the way they practice it. Something that is special is characterized by its rarity. My wife is special because she’s the only one of her kind; there is not another person that is her clone. When one sleeps with 10 people, 50 people, 100 people, can one say that those encounters are special? Is it still special when you can’t remember all their names? When you don’t call them anymore? How can something be beautiful when it is treated with the same regard as a handshake?
The drive to continue new and different forms of physical expression of sex tends to indicate a focus on that aspect. If sex is little more than assembly line love, of course one will get bored. When sex is a celebration of love, as it should be in the Christian sense, one doesn’t need to make weekly sojourns to the adult book store for a new toy. No one gets tired of being truly loved. That’s not to say that only the missionary position is permitted, but the focus on the “latest fad” in technique betrays something that ends up ignoring the other dimensions of sex and perhaps ends up being sex as a taking instead of a giving. Contraception converts an unconditional act of love to a conditional act (only if we can avoid children). Then of course, the random sexual encounters can’t be understood as love in any real sense.
As one final point, it certainly isn't the Christian position that the only expression of marital love is sex exclusively. There are a myriad of general ways and even more ways specific to the couple where one can express love. Fostering those expressions which speak to the emotional (generally) dimensions of ourselves are what helps couples to feel connected and in love outside the bedroom, and quite frankly, to also feel those things inside the bedroom. No one wants to feel like merely a sexual object and without those other expressions of love, it very quickly begins to feel that way. The idea that sex should be the only way one expresses love does great harm to marriages.
It is only in the complete unconditional loving gift of self in the sexual act where one can truly experience the beauty and spirituality of sexuality. This is the orthodox Christian position, despite the claims to the contrary. Something special, sacred, and beautiful need not be shouted from the rooftops for all to hear but it’s high time that Christians speak up to counter this idea that we hate sex and think it is something base. It’s certainly high time that we counter this radical sexual liberation philosophy that has ended up so handicapping men and women that they no longer know how to relate to each other except genitally. It’s time to stop letting Planned Barrenhood have the only say in what sex is and what it should be.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:38 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
January 12, 2006
Stop the ACLU: They're not against prayer, they're against Christianity
It is happening all across the nation. The ACLU sue city counsel after city counsel over praying in Jesus name. They don't sue to stop all prayer, but in every case the target has been Christian prayer. They even fought for the right of a Wiccan to pray at a counsel meeting. Many times it doesn't even take a lawsuit. They just type up a threatening letter and that does the trick. This was the case in Fredericksburg. But one man isn't taking things lying down.
Fredericksburg City Councilman Hashmel Turner has filed suit against his fellow council members, saying the council's newly adopted prayer policy violates his constitutional rights.Turner is being represented by the Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit group that advocates for free expression issues.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Richmond, asks the court to rule that the city's prayer policy is unconstitutional, and to order that Turner be allowed back into the council's prayer rotation.
The council voted 5-1 in November to adopt a policy of offering non-denominational prayers devoid of any Christian or other specific religious references.
Turner abstained from that vote, and Councilman Matt Kelly voted against the policy.
The vote came after Turner had been excluded from the council prayer rotation for more than a year. The council got a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union in July 2004 saying that the civil liberties group would file suit if Turner continued to invoke the name of Jesus Christ in his prayers.
Turner, who is pastor at First Baptist Church of Love in Fredericksburg, had always closed his prayers before council meetings by invoking the name of Jesus Christ before the ACLU complaint.
On the same night of the November vote for the nondenominational prayer policy, Turner asked to be put back into the prayer rotation, and to give the opening prayer before the Nov. 22 council meeting.
Mayor Tom Tomzak said today he asked Councilwoman Debby Girvan to give the prayer at that meeting instead of Turner, because, "I did not want to unleash a 1,000-pound gorilla-the ACLU-on the City Council."
However, Tomzak said he does believe Turner's rights are being violated, and the suit filed today is "a lawsuit that I probably agree with."
"He's a very passionate man, a man of faith and a man of principle, and he believes his rights have been violated," Tomzak said of Turner.
Neither City Council members nor City Attorney Kathleen Dooley had seen copies of the lawsuit earlier today.
The suit calls the new prayer policy "an unlawful attempt by the City Council to prescribe the content of prayers given at City Council meetings by Turner and other members of City Council."
John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, said Turner approached his organization last fall, saying he believed his rights were being violated. "All he wants is to say Jesus Christ at the end of the prayer," Whitehead said. "He's not asking for any money. ... It's a very simple suit."
One would think that it would be simple, yet the ACLU don't seem to get that. Religious expression in America is under attack. It is a shame that an organization that claims to protect our rights are the number one censor of Christian religious expression. If they were trying to get rid of all prayer at counsel meetings, we would have a different argument, but they are targeting Christian prayers and individual expression. It is good to see this man is standing up for his rights. More people should do so.
Currently there is legislation, introduced by Representative Hostettler that could put a stop to these ridiculous lawsuits. Hostettler's proposal would amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorney's fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings. This would prevent local governments from having to use taxpayer funds to pay the ACLU or similar organization when a case is lost, and also would protect elected officials from having to pay fees from their own pockets.
SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP TAXPAYER FUNDING OF THE ACLU
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already on-board.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:28 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
AP Media Bias - Uncovered
Here's the title of the story, "Corporate Taxes, Gov't Spending Hit Records".
Here's the quoted first paragraph, emphasis mine:
The federal government posted the first budget surplus for December in three years as corporate tax payments hit an all-time high, helping offset a record level for spending, the Treasury Department reported Thursday.
The first paragraph says the government is running it's first surplus in three years and they focus on something else. We wouldn't want to deprive the Democrats of the "record surpluses to record deficits" motto, would we?
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:23 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
War With Iran is Coming
The European project has failed. The EU has come out and said that diplomacy has failed and they are referring the matter to the Security Council. There is talk of economic sanctions, but economic sanctions alone have always been useless to deal with problems of this sort (see Cuba).
Make not mistake, Iran is building nukes. The issue would be easily resolved if Iran would allow public inspections of what they are up to and they have refused them. This barely concealed agenda is not lost on the Europeans who may waffle on terrorism are very concerned about weapons proliferation. It's a question of whether China or Russia will stonewall, but the politics of this situation make it unlikely that either of those superpowers will get themselves alienated so Iran can make nukes and threaten Israel.
The timing of these developments almost sets up an invasion. US troops are already in Iraq, the next nation over, and will be scaling down operations in the coming months. Iraq has elected its own permanent government and as the dust settles, likely so will the terrorist attacks (generated in no small part because of the assistance of Iran). No one seriously would consider attacking Iran without the US onboard, and the US will surely be leading that operation. The EU military certainly isn't up to the task.
While Iran is doing everything possible to push a confrontation including its saber-rattling towards Israel, there are political downsides domestically. The United States will ramp up for war (this time a globally supported one) during the 2006 election season making the election solely about war which will largely favor Republicans, and rightfully so. However, this will push other political issues back to the background. This shouldn't be read into such as to assume I'm suggesting this is a big GOP conspiracy, I don't think that at all.
However, several issues remain on the table, none the least of which is apparent corruption in Congress. With war going on, corruption will get forgotten. While the partisan witch-hunt that has developed is doing nothing to help matters, there are other efforts afoot that could help, such as the pushing of lobbying reform. Social Security will once again be forgotten and will stay unreformed and insolvent. Tax reform will be forgotten. Reforming the non-free market health care system will fall by the wayside.
The fact is being in a solid majority has made the GOP rest on their laurels not pushing for the limited-government conservative ideals that put them in power. War, while seemingly necessary in this case, will exaggerate this problem. The upcoming elections could provide the necessary motivation for the GOP to stand for the principles they enunciate and the unfortunate reality is that if war does come, the reigning-in will most likely be postponed.
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:56 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
January 10, 2006
What does Separation of Church and State Really Mean?
The much-bandied about phrase “separation of church and state” means different things to different people. To those from the secular humanist persuasion, it means that the state can make no public acknowledgement of religion, have no religious displays, recognize no tax exemptions for churches, and goes so far to regulate even religious expressions of private individuals in the public arena out of line. One also hears that any attempt by others to “moralize” or use any religious values to argue for a policy should be silenced. On the other hand, there are those who believe the matter is simply that the government should not establish an official state church, or that a church should not be anointing officials in the government. Other than that, people should believe and practice how they see fit. Both sides couch their arguments on constitutional theories, some involving Thomas Jefferson’s wall of separation letter.
To consider this issue, it is important to consider the historical situation of the framers and what they intended. To recap, they were declaring independence from the King of England. There is one important title for the monarch of England that is relevant to this issue, “Supreme Governor of the Church of England”. Not only was the Church of England the official state religion (and still is), but the King himself was the head of that Church. This insured that his political reach not only extended in the public realm, but from the pulpit and even into the confessional. The hierarchy of the church was subservient to the king. This led to abuses in both directions, those by the church and those by the government.
The founders did not declare independence from England because they wanted to set up a secular state. They declared independence because of a long train of abuses and usurpations of government power against its people. They were concerned about matters of tyranny, not theology. The Boston Tea Party was about taxes (and thus enshrined in American tradition the fine art of bitching about taxes) not about Baptists throwing Presbyterian’s Bibles into the Atlantic. The Declaration itself made liberal use of religion in general, as did the Founders in their public statements. Even in Jefferson’s Wall letter, he expresses religious sentiment and asks for prayers. It’s obviously clear; it isn’t religious expression they are worried about.
The choice of phrase is important, “separation of church and state”. Jefferson doesn’t say separation of religion and state. He is talking about institutionalseparation. Ireland’s official church is the Roman Catholic Church, as is Poland’s. In England, it’s the Church of England. These aren’t religions in general but specific religious institutions. No nation has “Christianity” as the official state religion for a very good reason. The reason is that there’s about 50,000 some odd flavors that run the gamut from the Mormons to the Unitarians. Some Christians say Jesus established a hierarchical church, others say he was a social activist, still others say he was an anarchist. Saying Christianity is the official state religion would border on effective meaninglessness. It wasn’t the ideas that the Founders were afraid of which is why they were perfectly free praying together and expressing religious sentiment in public documents and speeches. Institutional corruption and tyranny were there concerns.
The results of institutional-mingling of churches and governments are quite clear in history and it hasn’t been beneficial for the state or the church. However, this is a far cry from divining an intent that projects the idea that “religion is all that’s wrong with the world” upon the Founders. There was a camp among the Founders who believed that a free society required a religious people and yet still continued to allow free association between the various churches.
However, the crowd pushing separation most vigorously also is the crowd that’s trying to regulate certain religious beliefs out of existence. Pharmacists aren’t allowed to express their religious sentiments about abortion and retain their jobs. The argument is that they shouldn’t take the job if they don’t follow a pre-defined ethical construct approved by the government. Catholic hospitals are consistently fighting attempts to force them to provide abortions despite their clear religious teaching. Catholic Charities in California was required to recognize “gay marriage” despite their own beliefs. School children (a.k.a. individual citizens not to be confused with government officials) are told that they aren’t allowed to pray or have bible studies on school property. In one case, school children were threatened with federal prison if they dared utter a prayer on their own volition during a graduation ceremony. The IRS has investigated churches for preaching against abortion. In short, the wall of separation is growing to enforce a certain religious orthodoxy and not protect the free expression of religion that was also mentioned in the First Amendment.
The irony of setting up such a system where beliefs are regulated to some level of appropriate orthodoxy on issues such as abortion is that the sword cuts both ways depending on the whims of government. When right-wing churches complained about IRS harassment, the left-wing told them to stop talking about abortion instead. However, when an antiwar sermon brought the IRS, the left-wing cried foul. The problem with state regulation of religion is that its regulation will serve its own interests, usually on sale to the highest bidder. The Founders were rightly concerned about this abuse, which is why in the same breath of saying the State should establish no official religion; it should also in no way restrict reasonable expressions of religion.
Contrary to the opinion of some, the First Amendment doesn’t require regulating religion into hiding; it requires that they remain institutionally separate. The mere expression of the word “God” in a speech does not a theocracy make.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:49 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
January 9, 2006
Number of Cases of Child Rape Covered Up by Planned Parenthood in Illinois Remains Steady in 2004
The latest set of abortion statistics have come out for Illinois that indicate that Planned Parenthood and friends have covered up at least 290 cases of child rape during the year 2004. Local media in the state seemed to miss this during their coverage of the latest statistics.
In Illinois, as in most of the civilized world, the age of consent means that girls under a certain age cannot legally consent to sex, and hence, any intercourse with them is rape. Illinois requires that medical professionals report any cases of child abuse to DCFS. While in this case they tried to make a distinction between a medical professional and someone answering the phone, in this case it is obvious that a medical professional was involved, knew the girls age, and choose not to follow their obligations under the law to report. Contrary to their claims, no investigation is required by Planned Parenthood, they simply have to recognize the girl's age and make a phone call so their can be an appropriate investigation. Instead, they choose to make money on the deal by charging for the abortion and then concealing the fact that there was a crime. This is what Planned Parenthood's apparent business model is.
At the same time they are making a profit by covering up the rape of little girls by dirty old men, they insist that parents should not be allowed to interfere and have no right to know that their children are getting abortions. In fact, in a case of clear kidnapping, rape, and fraud by a child rapists mother, Planned Parenthood had the mother of the daughter who was raped arrested for trying to prevent the abortion. Planned Parenthood will even write prescriptions to non-existent minors they have never seen in what they even admit is against the law.
If you think Dr. Waldyke should not be writing prescriptions to underage girls she hasn't met and encouraging her to share the pills with others so their older rapist boyfriends can get off scot-free, I encourage you to contact her at waldyke@uiuc.edu or by phone at (217) 333-2711. This doctor works for the state (and even used the University's clinic prescription pads to write the order), knew and admitted what she did was illegal and has not been held to account.
Planned Parenthood can proudly boast on their own website that they cover up cases of child rape. The irony of this portion of the pro-choice debate is that the only who gets a choice is the rapist who can choose to cover his tracks.
(ht: Dawn Eden)
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:52 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
January 8, 2006
New Wideawakes Post...
Check it out over at Wide Awakes. Hopefully I'll get around to blogging once again, but lately, I've just found playing Shadowbane that much more interesting. Sure, you have lots of infantilism in the game, but at least no one pretends it's national politics... where you get just as much infantilism.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 6, 2006
Fearmongering for Fun and Profit
Come on! Space terrorists???. Let's analyze the last few terrorist attacks shall we? Let's start with 9/11. They bought plane tickets, got flight training, and had box cutters. All in all, low rent. Subway bombings? Homemade explosives. Then there was the husband-wife duo who's gear was so crappy that the wife's bomb didn't even go off.
I'm not suggesting there is no such thing as terrorism, but the term has become so widely used to pad budgets with grant money, we are making ourselves MORE vulnerable to terrorism. Instead of paying attention to real threats, we are going to be goosing millionaires to see if they have bombs before they board a space shuttle. How about we focus on the real threat?
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 1, 2006
Articles of Impeachment Being Written
I've just gotten wind that UI Law Professor Francis Boyle is writing new articles of impeachment against the President. (His old version, here consisted of mostly thought crimes). The local anti-war group will be meeting tonight to discuss this with him it looks like. What this means is that not only will they go after the NSA wiretaps, they'll go after the war also and put that in. It'll be interesting to see what the final product is.
UPDATE:
Sorry, fixed old impeachment articles link (http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle01172003.html) dated 2003. Included such crimes as appointing members of the Federalist Society to the bench, not creating opportunities for minorities, and getting Congress to pass the PATRIOT Act. Get that, because Congress passed the Patriot Act, Bush should be impeached.
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:00 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
