The Key To Getting Illegal Immigrants Out Of The United States
At The Corner, they're discussing illegal immigration and John Derbyshire noted that he received emails from "numerous readers" saying:
"It's nice to talk about deporting illegal immigrants, but how on earth would we do it? There are millions of them. Get real."
"How on earth would we do it?" It's actually much easier than most people think.
You want to get rid of the majority of "undocumented workers" coming into this country? You want to see the river of illegals flowing into this country turn into a trickle? Here's what you do:
Go after the people who are employing them.
Jack the fines way up for hiring illegal aliens. Throw flagrant abusers in jail. Have agents regularly show up at businesses known to hire illegals. In other words, make the penalties steep and chances of getting caught so high that business owners won't hire illegals.
Guess what will happen then?
The illegals who came to get jobs will no longer be able to find them and so they'll self-deport. Then, once they get home, they'll tell all their friends that illegals can't get a job in America and they'll decide it's better to just stay home.
Will this get rid of all the illegals in the US? No. There may be a few criminals and illegals who are using their US born children to collect welfare benefits who may stay on.
But, if we could cut the number of illegals living here from say 10-12 million (Estimates vary) to say 1-2 million without replacement illegals pouring in, that would be an enormous step forward.
There are of course other things we could do as well like securing the border, setting up a guest pass system, not allowing children of illegals to have American citizenship, permanently banning any illegal caught in the US from ever becoming a citizen, etc., etc., etc., but the key to getting rid of illegals is cracking down on the people who are giving them jobs. If we do that, we go a long way towards solving the problem...
RWN's Quick And Dirty Guide To The Potential Supreme Court Nominees
*** It goes without saying that all the nominees being mentioned are qualified to be on the Supreme Court and would be originalists and strict constructionists unless I specifically say otherwise. Also, since in the end it's one man's call, there's always the possibility that the President will select a candidate who is not even on the radar screen right now. Don't rule that possibility out. ***
1) Miguel Estrada: Estrada is a 44 year-old immigrant from Honduras who also would be the first Hispanic ever appointed to the court (which, incidentally, would lessen Bush's motivation to appoint Gonzales). In and of itself, that makes Estrada an attractive candidate. But, there's more!
The Dems also got busted with an internal memo saying that Estrada was "'especially dangerous' because 'he is Latino'" while they were unfairly blocking his nomination to the appellate court. Just imagine the Dems being forced to explain that in a high profile Supreme Court hearing! Unfortunately, Estrada is not thought to be a top tier candidate for Bush which is really too bad, because at 44 years of age, it's entirely possible he could be on the court for 30+ years.
2) Janice Rogers Brown: Brown would be the first black woman ever appointed to the Supreme Court and she is one of the most staunch originalists being considered. Moreover, since she was already confirmed in June as part of the media's beloved "gang-of-14" compromise, the Democrats' complaints and delays would look even more incredibly hypocritical than usual. Brown would also be a particularly popular pick with the base, but again, she's not thought to be one of the top candidates Bush is considering.
3) Michael Luttig (50), John Roberts (51), Priscilla Owen (50) are all great candidates and relatively young for Supreme Court nominees. Plus, as a bonus for Owen, she was just confirmed in late May as part of the "gang-of-14" compromise so the Dems would look particularly foolish pitching a fit over putting her on the Supreme Court.
4) Sam "Scalito" Alito (55) or Emilio Garza (58) would be great nominees. Garza would be the first Hispanic judge ever appointed to the SCOTUS and if he were confirmed it would lessen Bush's motivation to appoint Gonzales. Either Alito or Garza would be a great addition to the Supreme Court, but they're both down a notch from Luttig, Roberts, & Owen because they're a little older and an extra 5-8 years for a conservative justice on the Supreme Court is no small thing.
5) Other quality candidates that conservatives should be happy with include Michael McConnell, Edith Jones, William Pryor, John Cornyn, and Ted Olson.
6) J. Harvie Wilkinson, Harriet Miers, Larry Thompson, & Edith Brown Clement might be good candidates to turn into little Kennedys or Souters. Any of these selections COULD BE OK, but none of them are likely to set any conservative hearts aflutter.
7) Alberto Gonzales: The base is basically screaming "anybody but Gonzales" right now and were Bush to nominate him, not only would it mean another Kennedy/Souter judge on the SCOTUS, the base would feel betrayed to such an extent that there would be significant political fall-out. Gonzales would be the worst of both worlds.
"Reporter Bob Novak declares on CNN that Rehnquist will announce retirement today after Bush's planel touches down at Andrews AFB approx. 4:50 PM EDT... DEVELOPING... "
* The original version of this story errantly described Samuel Alito as Hispanic. That's incorrect. He's actually Italian.
London Muslims Say: Bombing=Blair Conspiracy By Scott McCollum
Charmaine Yoest in London via Powerline says the many of the Londoners she has interviewed just hours after the terrorist attack on their subway system think the bombings are Tony Blair's fault:
"I interviewed three very ordinary, normal teenaged English Muslims... All three seem to be parroting Muslim talking points: 'The bombings were a conspiracy by Blair to generate support for the war,' they recited in a charming British accent... A young British black woman told me, 'The bombings are Tony Blair's fault - they killed a 100 thousand Iraqis - and it's like a boomerang [coming back at the British].' Most everyone [in London] I talked to believed that the British caused the bombing or had it coming. Of the dozen or so people I interviewed only white males in business attire expressed surprise that anyone would think the British were at fault. But these gentlemen were the minority. Most felt that the Brits were complicit."
Yes, the dumb@ss Left still parrots the utterly ridiculous "100 thousand Iraqis" killed statistic posted by a British medical journal almost two years ago.
GlobalSecurity, a defense analysis firm based in Alexandria, VA, completely discredited the phony 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualty number as early as Fall 2003:
"The study was published in the October 29, 2004, online edition of The Lancet. 'We estimate that there were 98000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000 - 194000) during the post-war period…' from March 2003 through September 2004. CI refers to confidence interval.
But they did not find 98,000 additional deaths, but a range from 8,000 to 194,000 -- a range is so broad as to be nearly meaningless. And of the 61 actual violent deaths attributed to Coalition forces, three were blamed on ground forces, while 58 deaths were attributed to 'helicopter gunships, rockets, or other forms of aerial weaponry' (p. 7). This might suggest that the air war had been infinitely more intense than previously believed, which is difficult to believe. For the 'about 100,000 killed' to be correct, almost all of these deaths would have been women and children killed by American air power, at a rate of nearly 200 a day. At least some of these deaths may have been due to the insurgency, since at least some Iraqis interpret insurgent car bombs as American cruise missile attacks.
These numbers would suggest that the US is fighting two wars: a well-publicized ground campaign in which US ground forces have killed over 5,000 enemy combatants this year [at an average rate of maybe 20 per day], and an invisible air campaign in which American helicopters are killing nearly 200 women and children every day. This is difficult to believe."
If the "reality-based" community ever took some frickin' remedial math courses rather than waiting to hear the numbers some intern at NPR came up with for Morning Edition, they would've realized that killing 100,000 people is the equivalent of killing every man, woman, and child in the city of Green Bay, WI. Ask a muckadoo the question: "How could Coalition Forces hide that fact from dozens of embedded reporters from diverse news agencies in 20+ nations?"
ANSWER: A conspiracy by Tony Blair in the spirit of the cunning plans often made by his fellow nefarious Englishman, Edmund Blackadder.
If I was Karl Rove, I'd be really angry that Tony Blair has stolen all of my conspiracy thunder over in Europe...
This content was used with the permission of IMAO.
Yesterday, all across the left side of the blogosphere, willfully ignorant liberal bloggers were seizing upon the attacks in London as evidence that the "flypaper theory" is bogus -- which just goes to show what a poor grasp of foreign policy issues they have.
Nobody has ever claimed that fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq makes the whole western world perfectly safe or that we're now invulnerable to terrorist attacks.
Instead, the whole premise behind the "flypaper theory" is that the more blood and treasure that Al-Qaeda spends in Iraq, the less they'll have to use in attacks against the US and our allies. Al-Qaeda does not have unlimited resources & it's to our advantage to see them used against Coalition and Iraqi forces rather than buses and airplanes full of civilians in the West. Were it not for the conflict in Iraq, all the suicide bombers, money, and manpower Al-Qaeda is using there would be free to go elsewhere...for example to London, New York, Rome, LA, Canberra, & Chicago among other cities.
This shouldn't be such a difficult concept to get a handle on, even for anti-war liberals...
Joke Of The Day: Why The British Were Called "Redcoats"
"... We should remember the origins, history and tradition of the uniforms worn with pride by militaries around the world.
For example, a long time ago, Britain and France were at war. During one battle, the French captured an English colonel. Taking him to their headquarters, the French general began to question him. Finally, as an afterthought, the French general asked, "Why do you English officers all wear red coats? Don't you know the red material makes you easier targets for us to shoot at?"
In his bland English way, the colonel informed the general that the reason English officers wear red coats are so that if they are shot, the blood won't show and the men they are leading won't panic.
And that is why, from that day to this, all French Army officers wear brown pants."
"London's Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair tells the BBC he knows of "about six explosions", one on a bus and the others related to Underground stations. He says he believes the six affected areas are Edgware Road, King's Cross, Liverpool Street, Russell Square, Aldgate East and Moorgate, but says it is 'still a confusing situation'."
There are many confirmed injuries at this point, but only a few confirmed deaths. Given the severity of these attacks, that will undoubtedly change as the day goes on.
Good luck and Godspeed to the Brits as they deal with this attack.
*** Update #1: *** Posted at 7:18 AM from the Financial Times:
"Multiple explosions on the London Underground and on buses have caused fatalities and left dozens with “terrible injuries” in what prime minister Tony Blair said was a co-ordinated terrorist attack timed to coincide with the G8 summit.
Mr Blair, speaking in Gleneagles, described the attack as “barbaric” but said the summit would continue.
Police reported at least two deaths and large numbers of casualties. The first of the explosions was reported at 8.49am at Aldgate tube station. Five other incidents were reported at Edgware Road station, King’s Cross, Old Street, Moorgate and Russell Square.
The Metropolitan Police also confirmed there had been explosions on three buses, one of which happened in Tavistock Square minutes after the blasts on the Underground."
"The blasts, which were early on blamed on a possible power surge on the London grid, have now been claimed by the terrorist group al-Qaida according to a document posted on Web site often used by the group to announce attacks. A group calling itself "Secret Organization -- al Qaida in Europe" says it was responsible and says it was a reaction to British participation in military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The authenticity of the claim could not immediately be verified.
Arab sources who monitor al-Qaida have also said they believe the attacks are almost certainly the handiwork of Osama bin Laden's terrorist group."
*** Update #3: *** Apparently the Brits had some sort of inkling beforehand that a serious terror attack might be going down. From the AP at 8:18 AM:
British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before Thursday's explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city, a senior Israeli official said.
Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had planned to attend an economic conference in a hotel over the subway stop where one of the blasts occurred, and the warning prompted him to stay in his hotel room instead, government officials said"
"Three explosions rocked the London subway and one tore open a packed double-decker bus during the morning rush hour Thursday. The blasts killed at least two people. Hospital officials say 190 people are being treated for injuries in what a shaken Prime Minister Tony Blair called a series of "barbaric" terrorist attacks."
Sounds like it may be 4 bombs instead of 6...
*** Update #5:*** 8:39 AM -- The BBC has eyewitness reports
"Rudy Giuliani, who led the Big Apple through the devastating attacks, said he was only yards away from the first explosion this morning, while on a visit to London." -- The Daily Mail
*** Update #7 *** 5:40 PM
"At least 37 people have been killed and 700 injured in a series of terror attacks on London." -- Sky News
"But if these terrorists thought they could intimidate the people of a great nation, they picked the wrong people and the wrong nation. For generations, tyrants, fascists, and terrorists have sought to carry out their violent designs upon the British people only to founder upon its unrelenting shores.
Before long, I suspect that those responsible for these acts will encounter British steel. Their kind of steel has an uncommon strength. It does not bend or break."
"Declaring the nation united and standing firm in its resolve to face down terrorism, Party Leader Michael Howard issued a statement which declared: "We express our deepest sympathy to the families and friends of those who have lost lives and those who have been injured. We express our thanks and admiration for the heroic work of the emergency services and we fully support the Prime Minister in what he has said about our determination to defend and to protect our way of life."
...Speaking after Home Secretary Charles Clarke made a brief statement to MPs following the bombings on the Tube network and at least one bus in the capital, Mr Davis said: "A prime aim of terrorists is to demoralise and divide our communities. It is right that we should be angry at today's atrocities. It is no less essential that we remain clear-headed and united. We say to the terrorists: you will not succeed in setting us against one another."
...Mr Davis said: "This morning's explosions were acts of almost unspeakable depravity and wickedness - planned with the deliberate intention of taking innocent life. The whole House condemns them utterly. This is not just an attack on our capital city, but on our country as a whole. It goes without saying that the Government will have our full support in dealing with this assault upon our society. We stand ready with them to play our part."
An Early Reaction To The London Bombings From Some People At The Democratic Underground
whatever4: "Oh yes. This surely takes public attention away from Rove. Anyone that can't see that is either a fool or lying; this will be the news for days. Inbetween stories of Martha Steward and baby tigers with heart defects. This will certainly distract many people. And every little distraction helps the neocon monsters.
People, they still amuse me. They balk, fairly well lose their cookies, over the idea that our own government might have had ANYTHING to do with 911. They laugh loudly about conspiracy theories. Yet they fly immediately to the notion that it was a foreign "conspiracy" with ease.
And our government looking as corrupt as any on the planet. With the most resources. NO, they could never have had a hand it that. NO, they would never bomb another nation to reach their political ideals.
No, they'd never use napalm. Never torture prisoners. Never, never, never And NO, this particular conspiracy of bombings in England couldn't possibly have ANYTHING to do with the politics in America, never happen.
Funny. We do so much oil business with the Saudis, and yet still, people don't think our people could have had anything to do with 911. So sad.
Yeah, this will distract from Rove, in a big way."
China_cat: "It seems to me that this is retaliation for the DSM. Or for London getting the Olympics when Paris really wanted it. Sorry, but the *sshole is in Scotland and who knows what specialties are included in his entourage."
greenbriar: "so much for Rove indictment....bush crime family strikes again how convenient for shrub and company. I am more of a believer that MIHOP is true now"
pokercat999: "Exactly. The enemy in this "war" has no F-15 or bunker buster bombs so they use what is at hand. The fact that they can infiltrate and attack at will should give us pause. As I see it we have two choices in this business. We can try to find a peaceful solution to our "problems" or we can kill them all...and I mean all. Anything in the middle will just serve to continue the violence and perpetuate the "war", which maybe just what a lot of our "leaders" want. Certainly a large part of the industrial-political complex reaps huge rewards from these actions. My suggestion is to turn the other cheek, end all combat operations world wide and start to do what ever is necessary to bring peace to the world. Instead of flooding the world with bombs I suggest we flood the world with food. Peace, by whatever means necessary."
Warren Stupidity: Is what we are doing terrorism? I reject any assertion that we have the moral high ground here. We might have held that position on 9/12/2001 but we have long since demonstrated that we are just as depraved as the jihadist suicide bombers, just as willing to kill civilians, just as willing to cause wanton destruction to advance our cause, and to do so all the while claiming that God is on our side. I see no major differences.
MetaTrope: Bush hightail it out of the UK? Then he wouldn't have a chance to enjoy the carnage he financed...
Cascadian: That was not meant to be insensitive. This is something you would not wish on anybody. My point is I hope this is not the start of something bigger. Give Bush an excuse to turn America into a full-on dictatorship. Bush, Cheney, and Rove know they are in deep trouble. What better way to stay in power than create chaos. I don't like the feel of this one bit!
An Early Reaction To The London Bombings From A Lefty Blog
I just heard the short statement by Tony Blair trying to condemn the terrorists for hitting London at the time the G8 is meeting at Gleneagles, in Scotland.
Tony Blair is a liar, but his statement showed he is also a fool.
When he entertains his master, pResident Bush, what does he expect - that the terrorists will leave those who are killing indiscriminately in Afghaniustan and Iraq alone.
If Bush and Blair want peace for their citizens and their country, they had better stop killing innocent civilians in those countries. The terrorists are only following the "values" of these war criminals.
...Is this a Rovian / Negroponte tactic to take the heat of the Downing Street Memos and the outing of Valerie Plame?
Our hearts go out to the innocents in Afghanistan, Iraq and England - but hold the correct people to blame - Bush and Blair, to account for this - NO ONE ELSE!!" -- Jacob's Politics
Yes, we certainly wouldn't want to blame the terrorists for the terrorist attacks....
Quote Of The #2: Gonzales Gets The All-Important Kos Endorsement
"True, we could go ballistic if Gonzales is the nominee, especially given his love of torture, but he's about as close a shot to another Souter that we'll get under this administration. Precisely the reason the Far Right hates him is the reason I'd be willing to give him a pass.
He's not perfect. He's a Republican, after all. But given the alternatives, he may be the best of a bad lot." -- Markos Moulitsas Zúniga of the Daily Kos endorses Alberto Gonzales
We have 55 Republican Senators and a President who made a campaign promise to nominate judges like Scalia and Thomas to the Supreme Court and yet, Bush is making it clear that he is seriously considering nominating a candidate who is supported by Kos and opposed by James Dobson & National Review among many, many others.
Were President Bush to break his campaign promise and betray his conservative supporters by nominating Gonzales, the fall-out has the potential to be enormous.
Instead of backing Bush's nominee, many conservatives would undoubtedly oppose Gonzales which would put GOP candidates in a terrible position: do they stick with the President and grievously offend the base or stick with the base and grievously offend the President? This would be an unfair position to put Republican candidates into especially given that this is an issue big enough to cost GOP pols their jobs. Just ask Mike DeWine's son, who went from 1st to 4th place in a Republican primary for a congressional seat after his father signed on to the "Gang of 14" compromise. Quite frankly, if Jeb Bush were to ever run for President, he could get exactly the same sort of backlash if Gonzales were nominated.
Last but not least, let me also add that it's one thing to appoint a trusted friend to be a part of your administration. That's understandable. But a seat on the Supreme Court is not only far more important than any cabinet position, it's a lifetime job. So it's a whole different ball game.
Given that, to put a man like Alberto Gonzales on the court -- despite the fact that there are many other qualified candidates -- would involve breaking a campaign promise, the base is rabidly opposed to him, and he would have to recuse himself from many important cases because of previous duties as the Attorney General -- and it would smack of unprincipled cronyism that should be beneath the President of the United States.
Were Alberto Gonzales to be nominated to the SCOTUS, it would be a disaster on the court, for the Bush administration, and for the Republican Party. Given that, Bush shouldn't even be considering sending Gonzales to the highest court in the land...
It's bad enough when liberals trash our troops who are fighting far from home to protect this country and to help the Iraqi people towards freedom, but now at least one of them is going after the soldiers who fought and died to defeat the Japanese in WW2. From a weepy, whiny column by James Carroll in the Boston Globe:
"The Iwo Jima image is sacred precisely because the men lifting up the fallen flag are all but unable to do so. The extremity of their exhaustion, their nearness to defeat, the horrors of what they have been through and of what awaits them are all implied in the painful stretch of limbs, in the rough gear of armored clothing, in the absolute investment each has made in a symbol of something better than himself. Even as the valor of what they did on one beachhead after another is properly honored, the American fighters of the Pacific War were not heroes. The desperation of island combat included exchanged barbarities of which no one would willingly speak for a generation. On the American side, there were foul racism, vengeful refusals to take prisoners, a generalized brutality that extended to a savage air war. To raise the flag at Iwo Jima was to lift the transcendent symbol out of the total hell that the war had become. Few if any men who survived it came home speaking of virtue."
This may be hard for certain liberals like James Carroll to understand because their views are so twisted by moral equivalence and because their knee jerk reaction is to blame America first, but the Japanese were not just the "other side" in WW2, they were the "bad guys."
If our troops didn't act like boyscouts the entire time, so what? That old saying: "It's not whether you win or lose; it's how you play the game" doesn't apply to war. In the end, what matters is winning, especially when the price of losing could be the enslavement of your nation.
Moreover, if our troops hated the Japanese, were brutal, and sometimes didn't take prisoners, they had good reason to do so. They were fighting imperialistic brutes who launched a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor and were bent on world conquest. The very idea that our soldiers in WW2 shouldn't be given the credit they're due for their heroism because they weren't "nice enough" to the enemy is staggeringly moronic.
The American soldiers who fought, bled, and in many cases died to break the Japanese were heroes and they deserve to be spoken of as such instead of being dishonored by some soft-headed liberal hack in the Boston Globe who seems to be deficient not just in judgement, but in patriotism as well.
Quotes Of The Day: The Litmus Test For Conservative Nominees
"The fundamental goal of the next Supreme Court justice should be to create a record that would not inspire Sen. Chuck Schumer to say, as he did of Justice O'Connor last week: "We hope the president chooses someone thoughtful, mainstream, pragmatic – someone just like Sandra Day O'Connor." That's our litmus test: We will accept only judicial nominees violently opposed by Chuck Schumer." -- Ann Coulter
"When did it become the job of a [judicial] nomination to unite the country?" -- Brit Hume
"Compounding the GOP advantage is what I call the Roe effect. It is a statement of fact, not a moral judgment, to observe that every pregnancy aborted today results in one fewer eligible voter 18 years from now. More than 40 million legal abortions have occurred in the United States since 1973, and these are not randomly distributed across the population. Black women, for example, have a higher abortion ratio (percentage of pregnancies aborted) than Hispanic women, whose abortion ratio in turn is higher than that of non-Hispanic whites. Since blacks vote Democratic in far greater proportions than Hispanics, and whites are more Republican than Hispanics or blacks, ethnic disparities in abortion ratios would be sufficient to give the GOP a significant boost--surely enough to account for George W. Bush's razor-thin Florida victory in 2000.
The Roe effect, however, refers specifically to the nexus between the practice of abortion and the politics of abortion. It seems self-evident that pro-choice women are more likely to have abortions than pro-life ones, and common sense suggests that children tend to gravitate toward their parents' values. This would seem to ensure that Americans born after Roe v. Wade have a greater propensity to vote for the pro-life party--that is, Republican--than they otherwise would have.
The Roe effect would have made itself felt before post-Roe children even reached voting age. Children, after all, are counted in the population figures that determine states' representation in Congress and the Electoral College. Thus, if the greater prevalence of abortion post-Roe affected statewide fertility patterns, the results would have begun showing up after the 1980 reapportionment--in the 1982 election for Congress, and the 1984 election for president.
The first post-Roe babies reached voting age in 1991, in time for the 1992 election. In 1992 the Roe effect would have been minimal, since it was limited to a small segment of the electorate (18- and 19-year-olds), who tend not to vote. The affected segment of the population grows with each election, ranging up to 23-year-olds in 1996, 27-year-olds in 2000, and 31-year-olds in 2004. The Roe effect is compounded over generations. Children who are never born do not have children or grandchildren.
...Has the Roe effect borne itself out in practice? The results are mixed. In terms of reapportionment, the trend is decidedly in favor of Republican states. The 30 states George W. Bush carried in 2000 had 271 electoral votes, a bare majority. Reapportionment after the 2000 census increased that number to 278. In the 1980s, they were worth only 267 electoral votes, not enough for a majority; in the 1970s, 260. The trend continues: Of the 10 fastest-growing states in 2003-04, Bush carried nine in 2004. (One of them, New Mexico, went for Al Gore four years earlier." -- James Taranto
That's an intriguing analysis. Could the Dems be slowly aborting themselves into political oblivion? It certainly seems to be a possibility...
*** Update #1: *** Steven Levitt & Stephen Dubner wrote a book called "Freakonomics" & in one of the chapters of the book, the argument was made that the number of abortions has a lot to do with the lower crime rate we've seen over the last few years. Here's a summary of that theory from The Economist:
One of his best-known, and in some quarters notorious, findings concerns America's falling crime-rate during the 1990s. Towards the end of that decade, confounding the expectations of most analysts, the teenage murder rate fell by more than 50% in the space of five years; by 2000, the book notes, the overall murder rate was at its lowest for 35 years. Other kinds of crime fell too. Why? Some gave the credit to economic growth; others to gun control; still others to new methods of policing, or to greater reliance on imprisonment, or to increasing use of the death penalty, or to the ageing of the population.
Mr Levitt goes carefully through these various explanations, checking them against the evidence. He finds that some of them do offer a partial explanation (more jail time, for instance), whereas others do not (greater use of the death penalty, new policing methods). But the most intriguing finding was that one of the most powerful explanations had not even been broached. That explanation was abortion.
The reasoning is simple enough. In January 1973, the Supreme Court made abortion legal throughout the United States, where previously it had been available in only five states. In 1974, roughly 750,000 women had abortions in America; by 1980, the number was 1.6m (one abortion for every 2.3 live births). “What sort of woman was most likely to take advantage of Roe v Wade?” the book asks. “Very often she was unmarried or in her teens or poor, and sometimes all three...In other words, the very factors that drove millions of American women to have an abortion also seemed to predict that their children, had they been born, would have led unhappy and possibly criminal lives...In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v Wade was hitting its late teen years—the years during which young men enter their criminal prime—the rate of crime began to fall.”
The theory is the easy part, once you dare to articulate it. Testing it is quite another matter. But the book moves methodically and persuasively through the statistical evidence. It turns out, for instance, that crime started falling earlier in the states that legalised abortion before Roe v Wade; that the states with the highest abortion rates saw the biggest drops in crime (even controlling for other factors); that there was no link between abortion rates and crime before the late 1980s (when unborn criminals, as it were, first began to affect the figures); and that a similar association of crime and abortion has been found in other countries."
Personally, I don't believe abortion alone has caused a reduction in the crime & the decline in the Democratic Party's political fortunes. However, I do think you can probably make a compelling statistical argument that abortion has had a significant impact in both of those areas.
.....Which leads us to a question posed by President_Friedman in the comments section:
Interesting. So what happens after the conservatives overturn Roe V Wade and most states make abortions illegal? Does that mean we are approximately 20 years from living in a socialist state?
By the way, President_Friedman is exactly right: if Roe v. Wade were overturned, it's likely that most (but certainly not all) states would make abortion illegal except perhaps under certain rare circumstances (rape, incest, threat to the life of the mother).
Would that mean there would be some sort of huge political fall-out for Republicans? I doubt it.
Although most of the abortion brawling would move to the states, there would still be abortion related issues on the national level and Christian conservatives who were inspired to get involved in politics because of Roe v. Wade would have reason to stay involved.
Demographically, the left might start to recover their losses in some states but, of course, losing the lion's share of 30 years' worth of potential voters is tough to recover from and blue states would be the ones most likely to leave abortion untouched.
So at this point, the damage is probably already done and if and when Roe v. Wade is reversed, it'll be tough for the Dems to recover at this point...
Here is a quick tale of the tape, so to speak, regarding some of the leading contenders to be nominated to replace Justice O’Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court (in no particular order):
1) Emilio Garza
Age: 58.
Experience: Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit.
Philosophy: Conservativism/constructionism.
Misc.: In light of the explosive growth rates of the Sun Belt States, along with continuing prosperity among Hispanics, the political advantages to this nomination are obvious.
Overall JJ rating: A.
2) Janice Rogers Brown
Age: 56.
Experience: Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California.
Philosophy: Conservativism/constructionism.
Misc.: A conservative female African-American who just was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Political advantages are self-explanatory.
Overall JJ rating: A+.
3) Priscilla Owen
Age: 51.
Experience: Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Texas.
Philosophy: Conservativism/constructionism.
Misc.: Arguably the most conservative jurist being considered. And she just was confirmed to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Overall JJ rating: A+.
4) Michael Luttig
Age: 51.
Experience: Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit.
Philosophy: Conservativism/constructionism.
Misc.: Arguably the intellectual master of Scalia.
Overall JJ rating: A.
5) Sam Alito, Jr.
Age: 55.
Experience: Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit.
Philosophy: Conservativism/constructionism.
Misc.: A Scalia disciple.
Overall JJ rating: A-/B+.
6) Edith Jones
Age: 56.
Experience: Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit.
Philosophy: Conservativism/constructionism.
Misc.: Hard-core conservative.
Overall JJ rating: A+.
7) John Roberts
Age: 50.
Experience: Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit.
Philosophy: Conservativism/constructionism.
Misc.: Doesn’t really stand out in a political sense. But a true legal heavyweight.
Overall JJ rating: A-/B+.
8) Alberto Gonzales
Age: Souter.
Experience: Souter.
Philosophy: Souter.
Misc.: Souter.
Overall JJ rating: D- (but only because he’d be replacing the precursor to Souter, as opposed to a solid conservative vote).
This content was used with the permission of Polipundit.
The mainstream media regularly traffics in speculation, rumors, anonymous charges, bogus politically motivated allegations, but when some anonymous bloggers try to get in on the action, the WAPO feels compelled to punch up a story on this possible threat to Democracy. Here's the crux of the WAPO's article:
"First came this posting on the site virginia2005.blogspot.com: "David isn't the only Englin with designs on public office. . . . There's going to be an Englin running for Congress in 2006, but not the one you think. I know for a fact that Shayna has already been getting pledges for money for her race."
Then a slightly more disturbing note appeared on the same Web site: "Driving home tonight, guess what I saw on the Englins' front lawn??? Democrat Greg Werkheiser. I walked back to try to listen into the conversation but couldn't hear much without being obvious."
Both were anonymous postings on a Web site run by the group of bloggers known as Not Larry Sabato. The pseudonym is a dig at the frequency with which Larry J. Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, appears in mainstream media.
Shayna Englin, 31, who lives in Alexandria, said she has no plans to run for office, especially against Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.). She added she was "chilled" to learn that people were spying on her home and posting what they saw on the Internet.
"It's creepy. That somebody would spread rumors on Jim Moran's seat, that's not all that surprising. The fact that somebody is keeping tabs on who we have over to dinner, that's more problematic," she said. "The whole thing about being anonymous is that there's no accountability. They can literally post anything."
Such is the new and emerging realm of Internet blogs. Since the 2005 Virginia election cycle kicked off, the number of blogs talking about Virginia politics has swelled to at least 20. Many are run anonymously, allowing people to express their views freely -- and giving them an easy way to spread rumors and half-truths.
...The blogs are too new to have a major impact on the Nov. 8 election, Sabato and some politicians agreed. Most draw only a few thousand readers a day. But in a primary, where voter turnout is low and "political junkies" who frequent such Web sites are more likely to vote, the blogs might have a real effect, they said.
Del. Brian J. Moran (D-Alexandria), for one, said he is not a fan of anonymous blogs. He has been the target of a new blogger who adopted the name "Not Brian Moran."
"Anyone who does it anonymously is being cowardly, in my opinion," he said. Blogs, he added, "don't seem to be used constructively at this point. It just seems to be wild potshots at people."
The whole point of the piece is to undermine bloggers who are portrayed as weirdos who spend their days listening in on people's conversations and tossing out wild rumors and half-truths. But even if that were true -- which it isn't -- how different is that from what the mainstream media does on a day in and day out basis?
Have you ever heard of Paparazzi? They make a living spying on public figures, taking pictures and selling the pics, often to the MSM. What about the "Bush was AWOL from the National Guard" story? What is that other than still unconfirmed speculation and rumor that has spawned tens of thousands of stories in the mainstream media over the last few years?
Moreover, for all the talk about "anonymous blogging," it's not the free pass the WAPO makes it appear to be. Yes, anonymous bloggers can say whatever they want, but the very fact that they're anonymous and that blogging tends to be a partisan endeavor is going to lead to their readers being very skeptical about any "hot rumors" or political propaganda that they may post....and that's assuming that more than a handful of people are even reading what they have to say which isn't necessarily a given.
Furthermore, take it from somebody who used to work for an ISP wholesaler: there really is no such thing as anonymity on the net if you break the law. If someone who can get a subpoena wants to know who you are -- at least in the US -- they can track you right down to the computer you posted from 99 times out of 100 and your webhosting company, your ISP, and even your local phone company will happily help them do it. So even the identity protection of anonymous blogging only goes so far.
Despite the impression that you get from reading stories like this one in the WAPO, for every questionable ethical decision made by a blogger, you'll find members of the MSM who've done almost the exact same thing and usually on a far grander scale. The difference is that most members of the MSM consider bloggers to be a growing threat to their bottom line and so they'll write articles that attack blogs for practices that they'd merely shrug off if one of their journalistic brethren had been involved.
PS: I know somebody is going to say: "OK, this was a column about "anonymous" bloggers. Name someone in the MSM who has contributed anonymously to their publication." Setting aside the common practice of having stringers contribute to articles without having their names mentioned, here is anonymous blogger David M on the Columbia Journalism Review:
"Imagine this scenario: A supposedly unbiased publication is being run by someone with a clear political bias, and that person is not listed on the publication's masthead. It's just the type of story that media watchdog Columbia Journalism Review would love to uncover.
Only in this case CJR is the perpetrator.
This blog has learned that Victor Navasky, publisher, editorial director and apparently co-owner of iconic left wing journal The Nation, is running CJR; however he is not on the masthead.
CJR executive editor Michael Hoyt said in a phone conversation today with this blog, "I think he should be on the masthead as soon as possible."
Commenting on Navasky's organizational role, Hoyt said, "I answer to him. But honestly, to date, he hasn't done much editorially. Most of his work has been on the business side." Hoyt said Navasky had been with CJR for a couple of months in an incrementally responsible role.
Here's a far left winger running a "supposedly unbiased publication" without the readers -- who might understandably start to question the biases of CJR if they were in the know -- being alerted at all. Like I said, when members of the MSM engage in the same sins they sneer at bloggers over, they do it on a "far grander scale".
-- I kill, I molest, I blog: Joseph Duncan's frightening weblog
-- The left and the military
-- There is no God but the Supreme Court and Nancy Pelosi is their prophet
Read CG, bookmark it, and check it out after you read RWN every day. If you're not reading Conservative Grapevine, you're going to miss some of the best of the blogosphere each day...
Democrats signaled that whoever the nominee is, their three likely lines of attack will be to assert the White House did not consult them sufficiently, then paint the nominee as ideologically extreme and finally assert that the Senate had not received sufficient documents about the candidate.
What Other Supreme Court Justices Will Be Retiring? The Rumor Mill...
You think the Democrats are gnashing their teeth over Sandra Day O'Connor being replaced on the Supreme Court? If this rumor being peddled by the American Spectator turns out to be true, this nomination will look like a British tea party compared to what's coming...
"Rumors are already swirling about a possible third retirement after November. The most likely would be Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who according to former Supreme Court clerks may be in poorer health than Justice Rehnquist."
Then there's this rumor floated by FoxNews columnist Radley Balko:
"Here's a wildcard for you: I have it on reasonably good authority that an unlikely retirement might be on the way, too. A Supreme Court insider told me several weeks ago that Souter may well retire. He apparently told friends and family that he has always planned to step down upon turning 65, and that he'd rather return to New Hampshire year-round than continue to spend time in D.C. He's 65 now."
Of course, Rehnquist is almost universally expected to retire soon and nobody knows how much longer 85 year-old John Paul Stevens can hang in there on the court.
Boy, talk about a long 4 years for the Democrats...if the rumors turn out to be true...
A lot of conservatives are gearing up for a public relations battle to support Bush's nominee (as long as it's not Gonzales). While that's all well and good, this isn't the same sort of fight Republicans had on their hands with Bork or Thomas.
Back when Bork was voted down and Thomas had so much trouble getting confirmed, Democrats controlled the Senate. Today, Republicans are in charge by a large margin, 55-44-1.
Get the picture?
While it would be great to have some Democrats on board when Bush's nominee is confirmed, Republicans can shove through Bush's selection whether the Democrats like it or not.
Moreover, while it's certainly important to defend Bush's nominee from the Democratic onslaught that's sure to come, this isn't just about selling the public on Bush's selection. After all, Bush won in 2000 and 2004 while promising to appoint Justices like Scalia and Thomas to the Supreme Court. So, even if the poll numbers for a Bush nominee take a temporary dip because of the left's upcoming propaganda blitz, the last two presidential elections have already proven Bush has the support he needs from the public to choose a conservative judge.
.....Which brings us to the real problem area (assuming Bush doesn't make the biggest mistake of his presidency by selecting Alberto Gonzales): the squishy Republicans in the Senate on this issue. That would include the "gang of 7," John McCain, Mike DeWine, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chaffee, John W. Warner, & Olympia Snowe. You also have to watch wimpy RINO Arlen Specter and Trent Lott who helped set up the whole compromise over the nuclear option.
The good news is that all of these candidates are going to be inclined to vote for Bush's nominee and that the chatter on the "Washington street" seems to indicate that a filibuster would lead to the trigger being pulled on the nuclear option. From the Seattle Times:
"A bipartisan agreement signed six weeks ago by seven Democrats and seven Republicans says a judicial nominee would be filibustered only in "extraordinary circumstances." Several of those senators said yesterday that a nominee's philosophical views could not amount to "extraordinary circumstances," and therefore a filibuster could be justified only on questions of personal ethics or character.
"Earlier this week, Frist said he hoped the agreement by the 14 senators had placed the filibuster and nuclear option "back in their cages."
But Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, one of the seven Democrats in the deal, warned that if Bush names a "very, very conservative nominee" and didn't seek advice from the Senate, some of the seven Democrats could view that as an "extraordinary circumstance" that would trigger a filibuster."
So, what it really comes down to is making sure that 4 out of 9 Republican Senators vote with the other 46 reliable votes whether it's for the nominee (which is very likely) or -- if it comes to that -- the nuclear option (which is an open question).
Now if sweet reason works, if the necessary number of Senators can be convinced that getting a conservative justice on the court is vitally important to the base and to conservatism, wonderful.
If not, then the President and Bill Frist should use every bit of leverage within their power to steamroll them. Deny them fundraisers, cut off their money from the RNC, take their committee chairmanships, try to kill programs and pork that benefit their states -- in other words, be absolutely ruthless and do anything and everything within the law to bring them around.
This is worth going to the mat over, it's worth hard feelings; heck, if a Republican Senator had to be politically damaged so badly that it cost him an election in 2006 just to set an example, it would be worth it if we managed to kill the judicial filibuster and get a conservative justice on the SCOTUS. So if there has ever been a time for Republican Senators to toe the line or get politically buried under it, this is it!
*** Update #1 ***:Lindsey Graham is sending up a few smoke signals and it sounds like he's going the right way:
"Meanwhile, conservative Republican Senator Lindsay Graham said on Fox that only an ethical problem should stop a Bush nominee.
"To me, it'd have to be a character problem, an ethics problem, some allegation about the qualifications of the person, not an ideological bent, given what we've done in the past," he said."
"The president, Warner said, “can step forward and be a uniter, not a divider, in this nomination by selecting someone that will gain the confidence of the majority of Americans; that will enable the two sides here to remove the center aisle, and that we can join [behind] in a bipartisan way and give strong ratification,” according to a transcript provided by the senator’s office."
Olympia Snowe seems to be indicating that she'll be voting with the Democrats:
""We have to make sure we don't lose the balance on the court," Snowe said. "Sandra Day O'Connor was a moderate thinker and jurist. We need that."
Snowe said she will look less at the person's political leanings and more at how they approach questions of legal precedent. "You don't want someone on the Supreme Court overturning decades of precedent," she said.
"Obviously, (reproductive) choice is teetering in the balance," she said. "That's a very important issue for me. Roe v. Wade has been the precedent for the better part of three decades. Would (the nominee) be predisposed to upholding precedent?"
Believe it or not, I'm encouraged by this non-confrontational quote from John McCain:
"Senator John McCain, a potential Republic candidate to succeed Mr Bush as president, said of Ms O'Connor: "She did make history."
"I am confident that President Bush will appoint a Supreme Court justice who shares his philosophy, which is a conservative philosophy," Mr McCain told CNN."
"''We only made an agreement with seven of them -- seven Democrats and seven Republicans -- so it's their view that matters, not that of, in all due respect, their more liberal colleagues," McCain said. ''I believe that the president will send over a very good, strong conservative, but not somebody that would meet that criteria [of extraordinary circumstances]."
Again, given that McCain is such a crapweasel, I may be reading too much into this -- but -- but -- I'm thinking he's saying that ideology isn't going to count as "extraordinary circumstances." If so, you can add him in with Graham as Vote #2 to kill a filibuster.
So are we set? After seeing this ridiculous slander of Judge Bork by Arlen Specter, I'd have to say, " no," given that what most conservatives want is another Bork:
"Mr. Specter, appearing earlier on that program and several others, brought Mr. Bork up repeatedly. "I've been criticized a lot for questioning Judge Bork in one session for an hour and a half," Mr. Specter said, defending his criticism of Judge Bork's emphasis on the "original intent" of the Constitution's framers. "If his 'original intent' stood, we'd still be segregating the United States Senate with African-Americans on one side and Caucasians on the other side."
Ok, Rick Santorum and W., who put this guy over the top against Pat Toomey, I hope you're happy we've got this guy running the Senate Judiciary Committee during a crucial time. Oh, and Hugh Hewitt and the rest of the conservatives who bent over backwards to help make this third rate RINO the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee: I hope you didn't make a terrible mistake when you went to bat for Specter.
In any case, Specter might vote -- I say might -- vote against the nominee (remember, he did vote for Thomas and Scalia), but perhaps he wouldn't vote against the nuclear option since that would be practically guaranteed to cost him his precious chairmanship. Still, you never know with a weak-kneed milksop like Specter...
I'm still looking for quotes from Chaffee, Lott, DeWine, & Collins. But, on the upside, Lott supposedly wants to be Majority Leader again. I seriously don't think that'll happen, but if it's true, he'll vote the right way. After all, you don't become majority leader by selling out a conservative nominee to the Supreme Court. DeWine seemed awfully defensive after the "gang of 14" deal and I'm inclined to think he'll pull the trigger on the nuclear option if the Dems filibuster as well. Collins and Chaffee, they're both "weak reeds," and are as likely to vote with the Democrats as not.
Still, reading the tea leaves here, my first guess would be that Lott, McCain, DeWine, and Graham would vote for the nuclear option and just about any conservative Bush puts up. Along with the 46 other reliable votes, I'm seeing the magical number there to get a candidate confirmed or for the nuclear option. Of course, any razor thin margin that includes McCain can never be considered to be reliable, but so far, so good. It's up to W. and Frist to solidify those 50 votes and to start padding the numbers just in case a Senator pulls a "Voinovich" and changes his mind at the last minute...
Quotes Of The Day: O'Connor Doesn't Deserve To Be Praised
"O'Connor is often praised for having been "unpredictable." The suggestion is that she was non-ideological, impartial, fair. But the truth is that she was "unpredictable" because she was arbitrary. She was dangerously unwilling to think about whether and when judicial review can be justified in a democracy, and because of that unwillingness to think, her ultimate decisions too often looked less like law and much more like a raw assertion of power." -- David Frum
"O'Connor was ideologically indefinable. She was symbolic of the disappointment conservatives have routinely felt after all but a few Republican nominations to the high court.
...The Supreme Court has for far too long been controlled by justices who think they are masters of the Constitution, when the Founders intended it to be the other way around. If President Bush wants to restore the primacy of the Constitution, he must appoint a justice who views it, and not the personal opinions of five justices, as the supreme law of the land." -- The New Hampshire Union Leader
Over the last few days, it has been a struggle to control my gag reflex as Sandra Day O'Connor has been the recipient of the sort of gushing praise normally handed out when someone dies. Well, "Sandy baby," as Redskins running back John Riggins once famously called her, ain't dead yet, and deserves to be recognized for the mediocrity that she was.
Despite the fact that O'Connor is being talked about as if she's some sort of modern day version of Solomon, she was entirely unimpressive. In fact, given her flighty and inconsistent rulings & her lack of guiding principles, she might as well have been replaced by a flipping coin.
Furthermore, her willingness to consider foreign law in making decisions showed her complete lack of respect for the Constitution & proved conclusively that she didn't deserve to be on the Supreme Court of the United States.
So as far as I'm concerned, good bye and good riddance to O'Connor. She may have voted with the originalists at times, but she was a big part of the problem on the Supreme Court...
Kennedy Slams Unnamed Supreme Court Nominee -- Satire By Scott Ott
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA, today criticized President George Bush's as-yet-unnamed replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as a "brutal, Bible-thumping, right-wing ideologue who hates minorities, women and cocker spaniels."
"He or she is clearly outside the mainstream of American values," said Sen. Kennedy. "President Bush has again ignored the Senate's 'advice and consent' role, forcing Democrats to filibuster this outrageous nominee."
The Massachusetts Senator said his aides have already discovered "reams of memos" showing that the man or woman Mr. Bush will appoint has "a history of abusing subordinates, dodging military service, hiring undocumented workers, spanking his or her children and rolling back the clock on human rights to the days when the Pharaohs ruled Egypt with an iron fist."
The Senator's office issued a news release to the media documenting the allegations against the potential high court judge, with a convenient blank line allowing reporters to fill in the nominee's name as soon as that information is leaked.
This satire was used with the permission of Scott Ott from Scrappleface.
"Furthermore, you should never, never, never, forget about judges. Because liberalism is so unpopular, the Democrats count on getting activist liberal judges to implement their agenda over the protests of the voters (perfect example: gay marriage in Massachusetts). Because the Senate Republicans have wimped out, the Dems have managed to block a number of Bush's judges, but Bush has gotten 198 of them through and given that 7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices will crack 70 by 2008, it's entirely possible that the winner of this election could significantly change the balance of the Supreme Court. Who would you rather see picking 3 or 4 new Supreme Court Justices over the next four years: George W. Bush, an imperfect conservative or John F. Kerry, one of the most liberal members of the Senate?"
Without question, Bush is an "imperfect conservative," especially on domestic issues and the GOP in Congress? Ugh. Half the time, they're as likely to make you pull your hair out as the Dems. For all the elections Republicans win, it often seems that we get precious little that we hold dear pushed forward in Washington.
But today, on the eve of a historic Supreme Court appointment that looks like it's going to start to tilt the balance of the court back towards originalism and strict constructionism, it's great to know that all the hard work conservatives have put in is paying some real dividends. There will always be plenty to complain about, but it's nice to just savor the moment every once in a while...
In the past, to inspire people to suggest new music that I might be interested in and just for entertainment's sake, I've posted the music I was currently listening to on RWN. But, thanks to wonders of modern technology, I can now tell you which songs I listened to the most over the last month.
Here's the list for June...
9) Uncle Kracker: What You Lookin' At?
9) Kid Rock: Cowboy
9) John Denver: Thank God I'm a Country Boy
9) Insane Clown Posse: Oddities
9) AC/DC: Highway to Hell
9) 3 Doors Down: Here Without You
6) White Zombie: Thunder Kiss 65'
6) Dope: You Spin Me Round
6) Disturbed: Down With the Sickness
4) Rob Zombie: Dragula
4) AC/DC: Back in Black
3) Russell Watson: Faith of the Heart
2) O-Zone: Dragostea Din Tei
1) Rob Base & DJ EZ Rock: It Takes Two
A 4th of July Message To Americans From Our Former Masters
Here's Peter Glover, a Brit blogger who runs Wires From The Bunker, on the July the 4th:
"To my American friends across the blogging pond: a very Happy Independence Day, July 4th!
...(T)his is a very distressing day for us...your closest allies? Even so, every year you shamefully flaunt this shaking off of benevolent British rule. A day that speaks of rebellious uprising and infamy.
Still we have to be magnanimous in defeat as in victory...but you still owe us for a cargo of tea."
It's nice to see some of our British cousins have a great sense of humor!
But you Brits are lucky we Americans don't have hard feelings even after all this time after the Boston Massacre, the dishonorable behavior of Banastre Tarleton, the shameful murder of Jane McCrea, the hanging of Nathan Hale, and other such wartime outrages. Even 225 years later, it's still enough to set an American's blood to boiling!
Still, it has been quite a long time and it's nearly impossible to hold a grudge against a civilized people magnificent enough to have produced both Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher.
So, all is forgiven...but you shall never get your tea. Samuel Adams would curse us from the grave -- and rightfully so -- were we to go that far to make amends.
Stop Questioning My Patriotism -- Satire By Iowahawk
Iowahawk Special July 4 Guest Commentary
by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi
Americans are famous for their diversity, and nowhere is this diversity more on display than in the various ways we celebrate the Fourth of July. Whether you are a traditional infidel enjoying hot dogs and cold watermelon, a recent immigrant infidel celebrating your new citizenship with a colorful piñata full of sweet treats, or like me, a not-as-yet-arrived-there-American who celebrates our independence through videotaped beheadings, we Americans have an almost infinite variety of ways of ‘lighting up the Fourth.’
Unfortunately, there are some who are angered by this rich Independence Day tapestry of watermelon and piñatas and decapitations, and express their anger through intolerance. Ironically, these angry voices have chosen to ignore the message of the Founding Infidels, and have instead lashed out against their fellow Americans, and aspiring-Americans, by openly questioning our patriotism and threatening our civil liberties with their GPS-guided ‘Bunker Busters.’
Sadly, this chorus of intolerance has grown since America embarked on its disastrous campaign of militarism in the Mideast. Instead of focusing on the real issues that trouble us -- like rampant poverty, Zionist aggression, and our immodestly dressed female cousins who have dishonored our clans -- these ‘neocon’ voices have sought to distract us with a stupid war for oil and empire. Those of us who have stood up in principled, armed opposition to Bush’s misadventure have been branded “unpatriotic.”
This chilling wind should alarm the millions of Americans and future-Americans everywhere who have called for the immediate timed withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, and have expressed their opinion through their local newspapers, peace marches, and rocket-propelled grenades. It sometimes seems that the Administration is more interested in the “rights” of their foreign Iraqi clients than the rights of their own citizens, and their own inevitable invading conquerors.
If nothing else, the Fourth of July should prompt all Americans, whether they are an infidel fornicating whore-woman in a Miami strip club or a fresh-faced enlistee in a secret Prague martyr cell, to reflect on the true meaning of ‘patriotism.’ To me, patriotism is not some empty flag-waving gesture, or spouting jingoistic slogans. To me, dissent is the real patriotism. And what could be more patriotic than the ultimate in dissent – bloody jihad against the kufr and their heretic puppets in Baghdad?
So, on this day when we mark the birth of the Great Satan, let us remember that true patriotism is not a “one-size-fits-all” idea. While there may be precious little to celebrate America as it is, millions of us real patriots will continue to celebrate the idea of America as it could be. Allah willing.
This satire was used with the permission of Iowahawk.
