Saturday, June 30, 2007

. . .and Jacob have they hated

Listening to the radio provides some unexpected insight.
How many times have you heard someone call a talk show, and start their point with, "I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but . . ." and then proceed to proffer evidence of a perceived conspiracy.
Prompting me to ask Devan, "Do you suppose anyone has ever called into to a talk show and said, 'I'm a conspiracy theorist, and . . .etc., etc.' "
Everyone loves the idea of a conspiracy, but no one wants to be seen as paranoid.
Generally, conspiracies are fantastic and unfounded, but there is one conspiracy I firmly believe in.
It has tentacles everywhere, and in the most unlikely places, but traced back, my suspicions are confirmed. It has one origin.
The history of this conspiracy and the staggering spread of evidence is such that I don't know where to start.
I'll start with a book I read about a man named George Lincoln Rockwell.
The man's parents possibly had high hopes for the child they dubbed with the Christian name and surname of two U.S. presidents. Indeed, he did advance to the national scene, and it was in politics and ideology, as the founder of the American Nazi Party.
Rockwell became convinced, over the course of his life, of the superiority of the white race. He broadened the appeal of white supremacy beyond Hitler's Aryan supermen. Pitching the big tent, he welcomed in whites of European descent, and all other non-Aryan whites. He claims to have had a religious experience while burning candles on an altar in front of Adolf Hitler's picture. He swore allegiance to his dead hero.
White supremacy most famously denigrates blacks, and Rockwell was no exception. He and his people released musical records with inflammatory lyrics regarding blacks. He was vitriolic in his hatred for the black race, and considered them vastly inferior.
So, reading on, I was stunned to read of the joint rallies of Rockwell's Nazis and Elijah Mohammed's Black Panthers.
The common ground on which these two proponents of racial superiority stood is an ancient, blood-soaked piece of land.
Hatred was the motivation for both of these activists, and their hatred of each other's race was strong, but they shared a hatred that was stronger yet, a hatred forged in hellfire long ago, the hatred of the Jews.
Anti-semitism has a long, layered history. Beginning with Haman's final solution, the inexplicable hatred this race triggers extends down through history to the present.
Undoubtedly, Jewish people face the greatest threat from the Muslim population, and yet, there are so many unseen threads that travel back to America and tie themselves to many people and ideologies who are in direct opposition to all things Muslim, except anti-Semitism.
Wikipedia tells me of a new form of anti-semitism, simply called new anti-semitism, that is new because of its convergence of the left, the far right, and Islam.
Immediately, the unexplored connection of Al-Queda to Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, comes to mind. The connection remains largely ignored, I believe, because of the desire of the U.S. media to isolate McVeigh as simply an unhinged, former military, far right-wing, home-grown terrorist. The picture becomes disturbing and far too conspiratorial when far-right ideology becomes linked with radical Islam by anti-Semitism, which has also found a new home in the terrorist-appeasing Democratic Party.
The unlikely alliance becomes more troubling when you consider the underlying theories behind the hatred of all things Jewish. The far right is convinced that Jews control everything. The media, the banks. . .what else is there? They feel it is their duty to expose the Jewish conspiracy.
I mentioned Mohammed's Black Panthers. The Black Muslim ideology continues to share with the far right the belief that Jews are in control. Hearken unto Minster Louis Farrakhan and his rhetoric, "Jewish blood-suckers." Take notice of the word "blood-suckers." It is an outgrowth of the view of Jews as a parasitic people, preying upon their host nation. It is an old distortion, one not even laid to rest with the birth of Israel in 1948, with two billion Muslims claiming the land as their own, and descending on the minuscule, new-born nation with a vast Arab alliance to rid the previously un-used, un-wanted wasteland of their most hated enemy.
Even confined within the restrictive borders of their own homeland, they are still viewed as a parasite preying upon the host.
The Jewish conspiracy is the mother of all conspiracies.
The extreme ends of many ideologies are tied together with this idea, reminding us that ideology is a circle and when a fascist comes to the end of his radicalism, he will find himself a Communist, and vice versa.
Rockwell believed blacks were inferior and must be subjugated. Mohammed believed blacks were superior and must overcome the white "blue-eyed devils." But both saw Jewish control as the puppet master forcing their people to strive with each other.
You can feel the crawling hatred, so insidious it makes the blood slow in your veins, in the innocuous suggestion of the anti-war protester. "The Muslims hate us because we support Israel." Often left unspoken is the irritation with Israel for having brought the vengeful Muslims down on our head.
Less subtle are the allegations that Israel possessed fore-knowledge of 9-11, and even that the Mossad brought down the twin towers, to unleash the U.S. on Israel's enemies.
The proof of the anti-semitic conspiracy lies in the multiplied and diverse outbursts of anti-semitism.
The Egyptians are credited with planting the seed. The Egyptian historian Manetho wrote that the Israelites were simply expelled Egyptian lepers under the influence of Moses.
The Greeks massacred Jews in Alexandria in 38 A.D. for being "misanthropes."
The Romans had their own Jewish problem. Not content with simply having conquered the Jews, in 19 A.D., Tiberius expelled all Jews from Rome, relocating them to Sardinia. The penalty for non-compliance was slavery for life. In the second century as well, the Romans committed genocide against the Jews during bar Kokhba's revolt. Additionally, the Jews were attacked in Roman cities for issues involving Jewish fiancial and intellectual successes.
The first time the death of Christ became an excuse for hating Jews, (a favorite of the KKK), was in 167 A.D. in a sermon given by Melito of Sardis entitled On The Passover.
The moniker of Christ-killer was also snarled at Jews by officers of the SS.
The Roman Catholic Church, as well, affixed the blame for the death of Christ to the Jewish race, influencing even the renegade Martin Luther to pen some disturbing anti-semitic suggestions.
The Muslim persecution of Jews began in the ninth century, with Muslim rulers enforcing blood libels, forced conversions, massacres and expulsion of Jews.
Expulsion and forced one-child policies were also enforced against Jewish people in Prussia and Bohemia.
During the American Civil War, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant issued an order (hastily rescinded by President Lincoln) expelling all Jews from areas under his control. Grant later issued an order "that no Jews are to be permitted to travel on the road southward."
Grant's aide, Col. John V. DuBois ordered "all cotton speculators, Jews, and vagabonds with no honest means of support" expelled from the district, and furthermore, "The Israelites especially should be kept out. . .they are such an intolerable nuisance."
The KKK, initially formed in 1866, with as much an emphasis on resisting Reconstruction as on racial superiority, was a short lived organization, with Southern elites viewing the uncontrollable nature of the Klan as just another excuse for the Federals to come down on all Southerners. In 1915, however, it was reformed in response to a wide-spreading brush fire of anti-Semitism sparked by the lynching of a Jewish businessman accused, by virtue of some sloppy circumstantial evidence, of rape and murder.
The Klan's membership peaked during the 1920's, with a whopping 4 to 5 million men.
It dropped radically following WWII, resulting partly from prominent members' support of the Nazis.
It is virtually non-existent as an organized movement today, but the strong anti-Semitic mantle has been taken up by the growing Neo-Nazi movement. The Neo-Nazis are not tremendously organized, but galvanized, particularly in Germany, by their hatred of Jews.
As I mentioned earlier, the nation of Israel is blamed for many of America's woes. Democrats accuse President Bush for "flying under two flags." i.e., the flag of the United States and the flag of Israel.
Echoing Charles Lindbergh's sneaky Nazism, every U.S. intervention in the Middle East is blamed on Israel by everyone from Sen. Ernest Hollings to Pat Buchanan.
Additionally, the long-standing furor over the U.S. imprisonment of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard was reason enough to accuse former Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu of "extortion" for trying to attach the release of Pollard, labeled a "treasonous snake," to President Clinton's ill-fated Wye River Peace Accord.

More later. . .

Thursday, June 21, 2007

On Getting Distracted

Listening to Sean Hannity, and getting mad, suddenly seemed as absurd as becoming emotionally involved in a sappy movie.
Today, my frustration with Hannity received its satisfaction of vindication. Such arrogance would reveal itself in sophomoric ridicule, I thought as I listened to Hannity mock a stuttering caller/detractor, the way a junior high bully would.
That was that. Hannity is a jerk. I felt better. Until I remembered Sean Hannity couldn't read my mind, couldn't hear my muttered undertones, and, more infuriating, wouldn't be at all crestfallen to find out that I think he is a jerk.
How different am I, pounding on the dash, than a Sopranos addict screaming at the television while the credits roll?
It is times like these that I feel perhaps we were better off before the information age and the new media.
Before talk radio and television, what medium could have possibly incited me to be so upset with a man I've never met? What's worse, I'm a willing participant in the advertising conquest that bankrolls said jerk.
It's a phase, don't worry. I'll get over it.
I'm become somewhat consistently jaded when it comes to having my emotions manipulated by movies.
It's only the completely innocuous scenes that put a lump in my throat. The scenes with the tears, the rain, the sunsets and the saccharine music I only analyze.
By George, nobody is gonna jerk me around.
Until I turn on the radio, under the dubious auspices of being informed.
The truth is, I listen to, well, let's see, I listen to remind myself why I am right in thinking in what I am thinking. I rehash, and reiterate, and regurgitate everything in a perpetual information or misinformation overload.
There is nothing wrong with knowing what is going on. Nor is there anything wrong with combining religion and politics, thank you, Jerry Falwell.
But in feeding my fury over immigration, I start to mirror those I disagree with.
I'm upset because I feel conservative punditry has elevated a chiefly economic issue to a moral imperative.
And I've lost focus.
Blogs notwithstanding, the immigration debate will be resolved, or not, with or without my consent or approval.
Lost souls, however, I can do something about.
Illegal immigration, Hillary Clinton's strident liberalism, Sean Hannity's hubris, border security, national security, Newt Gingrich's fresh new coat of morality, Mitt Romney's Mormonism, Rudy Gulianni's New Yorkness, all topics of concern, but all potential distractions.
No surprise, here. Spiritual concerns are featherweight, and they fly into the air when disturbed by a stiff wind.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Ad Nauseum

I have a confession to make.
I'm prejudiced.
I happen to like Hispanics.
That being said as a gesture of honesty, I think a lot of people dislike Hispanics.
And, I believe this prejudice is kicking up a lot of the dust we see swirling over this immigration fracas.
I'm well aware that accusing conservatives of prejudice in regards to immigration has been addressed and deemed race-baiting.
I observe, however.
I live in Kentucky. The two largest minorities are African-American and Hispanic.
Studying the behavior of my fellow white brothers and sisters in reaction to both minorities has revealed two things to me.
The Jim Crow days are over. Black people are accepted, assimilated, and integrated. From where I stand, we now look at blacks and see simply another human, perhaps one who can sing better, laugh harder, and cook better, but just another human nonetheless. I see blacks and whites working together in complete harmony. I believe MLK can rest in peace. His dream came true.
On the other hand, when I observe whites and Hispanics, I see sullenness, rolling eyes, irritation. Particularly, (sorry for any controversy this may arouse) among white women.
I see a lot of white people who seem to resent being in the same room as a Hispanic.
Why is this?
You can rattle off your list.
Refusal to assimilate, refusal to learn English, etc.
I am convinced, however, that the reason we have not learned to accept Hispanics as they are, broken English, cha-cha music and all, is because we have not yet been told to accept them.
How many movies have you seen which address the issue of racism in regard to Hispanics?
How many highly publicized hate crimes verdicts have been handed down for white-on-Hispanic, or black-on-Hispanic crime?
Has the Catholic church apologized for enslaving Hispanics, as the Southern Baptist Convention apologized for enslaving African- Americans?
Which month is Hispanic-American history month, and if there is one, how come I haven't heard about it?
How many Jesse Jacksons, or Al Sharptons do the Latinos have?
Just today, a Hispanic male driver clipped a little girl in an Austin neighborhood. She was later taken to the hospital and treated for non-life threatening injuries. At the scene of the accident, however, nine black males descended on the driver of the car, and when another Hispanic male attempted to intervene, they beat him to death.
Let's see if the fuss made over this even begins to compare the explosion we heard over the shooting death of a black male at a strip club the night before his wedding.
I am not suggesting that illegal immigrants be given a pass because they're discriminated against, such as our jury system gave to O.J. Simpson, I am suggesting that the whole reason this discussion raises such rancor is, one, because, it's an economic issue, and two, because people don't like Mexicans. I simply don't believe the American public is capable of rendering a thoughtful judgement on anything.
Illegal immigration is seen as being a drain on the economy, and worse, an irritation and an inconvenience.
It's the economy stupid, and I ain't gonna sit there and try to talk to no Mexican who ain't got the courtesy to learn to speak no English.
Honestly, I'm sick of this.
I listened to the great Sean Hannity treat Tony Snow like Sean doesn't treat Bob Beckle or Melissa Etheridge or Howard Stern, for crying out loud.
He was argumentative, petulant and came off sounding like a cross between Pat Buchanaan and Alec Baldwin.
Hannity repeatedly accuses the president and his supporters of being out of touch with the American people. If I wasn't so exasperated, I'd be amused. Since when do conservatives seek for justification in popular opinion?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that if a majority of the American public support something, I'm automatically against it, but you better believe I'm going to look at it with narrow-eyed suspicion.
Again, I say it's like living in a town full of drunks. If there's a riot, there's been a shortage of booze.
If one-tenth the energy devoted to this issue by talk radio were devoted to, say, the abortion issue, South Dakota wouldn't be the only state to suggest banning it.
Illegal immigration is a problem and needs to be dealt with, but I, for one, am disgusted when I see this issue and the Duke lacrosse scandal as having become our identity.
The only way I would have been happy with the outcome of the Duke mess, by the way, is if they'd put Mike Nifong, the stripper, and the three young Duke thugs all in the same cell together for about six months.
More later.

Monday, June 18, 2007

So What Was Frances Schaeffer Trying To Prove?

How does a good fundamentalist balance Christian activism with pre-millenialist theology?
How do you put your heart in your warning against abortion, homosexual activism, and radical Islam when you believe these things are signs of the times?
Put another way, how hypocritical do you feel when you affect grimness over a tumultuous Middle East and the apocalyptic rantings of Iran's president, against a rising bubble of excitement in your gut?
I often feel pitied admiration for the likes of James Dobson, cheering him on, muttering under my breath, "Man, you're beating your head against a brick wall."
I harbor no optimism for the salvation of my country, much less the world.
It's not simply a matter of eschatology. I know that James Dobson knows that the world will not continue to get better and better until it's good enough for God to live in. He's fighting the good fight, don't misunderstand me, but what end does he see?
It could be that I'm simply not compassionate enough to muster the energy to place behind the hope that drives a dedicated Christian activist.
It could be the cynicism of youth, (I'm a Generation X-er, after all. "Hope, where is hope? Don't be a dope, hope is gone.")
There is a passage in a novel that has influenced me, perhaps more than it should.
It is a burst of exasperation from a weary, burned out pastor responding to the blazing, fresh-faced optimism of a young pastor, determined to take the town for Christ.
"Have you even asked this town if it wants to be taken for Christ? . . .I guarantee you, Kyle, I know some people around here who do not wish to be taken for Christ. . .No one . . .has ever. . .taken a city for Christ. Not Paul, not Peter, nobody. Not even Christ took a town for Christ."
Taking a town for Christ, or fervent prayers for a revival to be poured out on this city are owing in part to a certain score-keeping mentality that is inseparable from humanity.
There is something of a war cry in the prayer, "God, take this town for Christ!"
I think most of us would be more suited for battling against principalities and powers if it were a physical matter.
I remember reading the Darkness books by Peretti at a fairly young age and then bolting outside with a broom handle to mow down demons like weeds.
They were, in fact, weeds, and they did fall before my broom handle like Destroyer's hordes fell under Tal's sword.
I'm not equating my immaturity with the zeal of evangelism, but I can't help but be reminded of it when I listen to the words of a worship song, "You know I feel there's somethin bout to break now. You know I feel there's a city here to take now. . .We've got this leather backed book and a freedom cry and we're an army of God who are ready to die."
What army?
Maybe I'm blind but I see a few scattered, exhausted soldiers just standing up under the weight of their armour and a whole bunch more who have shed everything but their sword and are running around hacking on trees for the glory of God.

"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society." -D. James Kennedy

Head in the clouds or head in the sand, what's the difference?
I recently looked at a website called Theocracy Watch.
They are the brave souls warning America about the drumbeat of doom. These people are literally terrified of the rise of the Christian right and their impending "theocracy."
I want to laugh so hard that I reach that stage when it's hard to tell laughing from crying.
Yeah, sure. Lock up the kids. Bar the windows. We're coming to get you.
We're gonna haul you in to a church and force communion down your throat, and make you recite the Ten Commandments, the Four Spiritual Laws, and Martin Luther's Ninety-Five Theses.
Beyond the absurdity of worrying about a Christian conspiracy is the sad fact that if we wished to conspire, we'd be hard put to gather ten of us around a bonfire to come up with a secret password.

More later.

I fully intend to reconcile my view with optimism.


Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Theory of Relativity (and Einstein rolled over and groaned)

Where does relativism end?
How much of it do we ingest every day and how much do we breathe out?
Relative, i.e. not absolute or independent.
I'm sure there would be a consensus among most of us, that-
Noam Chomsky is a zealot.
Not only that, he's zealous about absolutely nothing, and quite literally.
Nietzsche, was, in my mind, not the father of, (the claim to that title goes to the one who spoke the words, ". . .and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.") but the Bill Gates of functional moral relativism. He made it user-friendly and progressively, since his death, more necessary until now, we're confounded without it. He was also Adolf Hitler's false prophet.
It doesn't impress me that Nietzsche held anti-Semitism in low regard. He had no right to hold anything in low regard. He certainly couldn't have said that killing Jews for being Jews was wrong, now, could he?
But Nietzsche was the hairy, scary, real deal.
He emblazoned the pages of his books with courageous pronouncements. He minced no words, he made no concessions, and, to his credit, was quite possibly the least contradictory relativist I've ever read after.
But his stuff was a little too strong for us to stomach.
Especially after the development of his ideas arguably contributed to the Holocaust. So, we watered it down a little.
Not unlike evangelical Christianity does with predestination.
Poor John Calvin must have been in a theological slump when he walked up to the plate with that predestination idea.
But the doctrine of eternal security, he knocked that one out of the park!
Which is not unlike saying he used a matchstick to hit one out.
Just a curious aside, if the doctrine of eternal security was based on predestination and it was, how come everyone goes around assuming they are one of the ones God chose to go to Heaven and not hell?
So, are you a relativist?
Before you lower your eyebrows, when was the last time, when discussing a difference in a certain point of doctrine, or standard of living, you said, "Well, I have confidence in that person, I just don't agree with them on this or that."?
Without getting into specifics, (I haven't the nerve) what exactly is it that makes you so sure that the person is dead wrong, and all right at the same time?
Just how far back up through the ranks and levels of rules and regulations can we take this "personal conviction" stuff?
All the way to the very first ten?
Where do you put the kibosh on not judging?
When they start getting on your nerves?
The deeper I sink into this quagmire, the more I realize that "judge not that ye be not judged" is a command only understood and followed properly by the most devout, an order I long to join.
Did it mean, "Decide not for yourself whether this person is right or wrong?"
Upon quick perusal, I say, "No, it doesn't, it just means, keep your decision to yourself."
Quick perusal is generally a bad idea.
Looking closer, I see a command, a directive given to the heart, an attitude the Lord instructed us to cultivate.
It means, desperately wish and hope for and believe the best about your brother's spirituality, and when you are proved wrong, don't "aha!" Rather mourn and intercede for that soul as if it were your own.
Furthermore, "their Christianity is their business," is pure flippancy when viewed through this Christ lens.
We are to become heavily invested in our brother's success as a follower of Jesus.
Don't just not care.
Don't just make it a matter not for your concern.
Until now, there is a story about the Wesley brothers I have always regarded with some degree of cynicism.
It is said that John stated that Charles reserved judgement, and wished to be convinced of someones spirituality, but that he, John, took them at their word. I, John said, have been more often right than Charles.
I'm as cynical as the next cynic, but now, I wonder, without deciding for sure, can the confidence you place in someone become a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Saturday, June 09, 2007

An Ineffective Coalition

The impetus behind my frustration with the current furor over immigration is the disingenuous "conservative" motivation behind it.
I know plenty of hard-core, blue-collar, pro-union, yellow-dog Democrats who are just as vehement around their wad of tobacco about the flood of illegals as is the bespectacled Newt Gingrich.
The only distinction lies in the presentation of the case. The case of the blue-collar Democrat may be summed up in an anecdotal comparison; Renowned for his reserve, Calvin Coolidge reportedly attended church one Sunday without his wife. Upon returning to the White House, his wife asked after the service and the topic of the sermon. "Adultery" was the extent of Coolidge's report. "Well. . ." the First Lady insisted, "What did the minister have to say on the subject?"
"He's against it." Coolidge replied.
Gingrich's presentation for the case against II, if we can abbreviate, is intellectual and eloquent.
The commonality?
The motivation.
I.E., the good of the country, which, after unauthorized translation means, the good of me.
In the Dem's case, more money, and less difficulty conversing with mono-lingual Hispanics.
In Newt's case, a prospective presidential campaign.
I realize there are other, better examples of high-profile II opponents, and their motivation may be less suspect than that of either the union Democrat or the politician.
However, the trumpeting of an impending conservative victory in regard to the languishing immigration bill disgusts me.
Opposition to II is no more begotten of conservative ideology than opposition to human rights abuse is the spawn of liberalism.
Unless, of course, you agree to call a spade a spade and acknowledge that your conservatism in this matter is pure fiscal conservatism.
Again, keep in mind, I discuss the issue of Hispanic influx (which is the wind that drives the storm) and not the issue, linked though it is, of national security.
My frustration lies in the company that I, as a conservative ideologue by virtue of my Christianity, must keep.
The instability of the Peggy Noonan-dubbed conservative coalition was made evident to me when Sean Hannity invited Howard Stern as a guest on his show, following the FCC censure of Stern.
The realization dawned not as a result of Hannity hosting Stern. After all, he features (and opposes) many others I differ with.
It was not even the result of Hannity's essentially gutless, completely ineffective handling of Stern's barely restrained stream of filth.
It was the many calls afterwards from loyal Hannity listeners who also laid claim to being loyal Stern listeners.
Are these the people with whom I share the foxhole?
Disciples of Howard Stern?
Everything I stand for as a social conservative, every reason I call myself a conservative is diametrically opposed to everything that motivates Howard Stern.
If there is evil, there must be good, if there is a Satan, there must be a God, and if there is a Howard Stern, it must mean there was an original concept of purity in which he found his identity by spending his life mocking.
To call yourself a conservative, but gleefully indulge the sickness of a Stern, an Imus, an Opie and Anthony, a Bob and Tom under the guise of First Amendment rights is to expose yourself as nothing but a libertarian, which is another word for the most self-centered creature on God's green earth.
Probably more later.

Thursday, June 07, 2007

The Death of a Bill

Just as I was prepared to fire the silver bullet at the afore-mentioned conservative pundits, asking, so, what's your plan?, Sean Hannity let fly with a concrete suggestion.
Before we do anything, stop the flow.
Easier said than done, but the point is taken.
Illegal immigration is a monumental multi-faceted problem, but turning the water off before you start to mop up the puddle is common sense.
Beefing up border patrol, included in the now dying bill, is perhaps more of the same, but again, I trust border agents to turn back the tide more than I trust a fence.
A comprehensive electronic database allowing the government to closely monitor employers is an even better idea included in the dying bill.
Much of the focus has been on the illegals instead of the avenues taken by them.
They aren't swimming the river individually.
Preemptive intelligence focused on smuggling networks would seem to be only more common sense.
The proposed path to citizenship has suffered another accusation by yet another conservative pundit, Mike McConnell. To make a way, straight and narrow though it may be, to citizenship for those who chose to enter the country illegally is not fair to those who wish to enter the country but have chosen not to come in under the radar.
I find that an odd argument, especially coming from the no-nonsense McConnell.
This is not about them, this is about us, correct?
The primary objective is how to fix the problem for America, not all the foreigners who want in.
And if we are to begin trying to be all things to all people, let us either apologize to the Hutus slaughtered in Rwanda or forsake Darfur altogether.
America is a steward trusted with great responsibility, but our own interests come into play.
Altruism applied in our personal lives is commanded, but applied geo-politically unfortunately doesn't preserve a nation very well.
The security issues raised by Mark trump the economic issues.
If we have nukes going off in our cities, priorities will hurriedly realign.
More later.
And by the way, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will be popping champagne corks if this bill is killed.
Unlike Bush, they do everything for political expediency, and don't think they aren't going to play up this Republican division for every dime it's worth

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Trouble on the Border

I don't know how many people read this blog.
Last estimates were somewhere in upwards of single digits.
Sometime in the next quarter some analysts predict breaking into double digits.
But I really would like some feedback on this one.
I'm in a political funk.
I'm disgusted with liberals, predictably.
I'm disgusted with conservatives.
And I'm uncomfortable siding with John McCain against John Cornyn.
There's an issue that has come down out of nowhere, like a handichopper on an unsuspecting potato.
Illegal immigration has been a problem for decades.
It has been one of those things we live with and joke about, like Congress.
I suppose it had gotten to the point where I assumed it was one of those things that would never be addressed, and if it were, it would be in some droning congressional session in the middle of August, with the pages and the C-Span camera men knocking back cappuccinos and punching each other to stay awake.
What becomes a hot push-button issue for a public whose list of concerns is topped by American Idol and NASCAR, and becomes outraged only when their direct deposit paycheck doesn't clear the bank until noon on Friday?
Who'da thunk it?
This is the first thing that bothers me.
As disenfranchised as I am with my countrymen, I'm bound to cast a jaundiced eye on any issue that roils such widespread concern. Such as it would be for one sober to live in a community of drunks. If there's a riot, chances are there's been a shortage or prohibition. Society in general is too stupefied to be upset over anything legitimate.
So what am I left with?
Across the board, there is one issue that unites us all in one common purpose: money.
If there's an uprising, as they say, follow the money.
Illegals are seen as being a drain on the old pocketbook.
So we've decided to build a what?
The first time I heard somebody raise the idea of a fence, I thought it was good.
As a joke, not an idea.
Fences work good for cattle and chickens.
People, however, bent on the American dream, will tend to be repelled by it only if it is forty feet high with high voltage running on top and underneath and manned by guards every 100 yards armed with assault rifles.
Such as the Berlin Wall.
And if you wish to run away screaming with hysterical conjecture at the comparison, don't let me stop you.
Let me say that I think the border should be beefed up, and the government should come down hard on employers who hire illegals.
I do believe illegal immigration is a problem.
I just find the idea of a fence ridiculous.
So we have a bill in the Senate with the express purpose of fixing the problem of illegal immigration.
Early on, President Bush advocated a guest-worker program; the best idea yet.
Conservative pundits howled amnesty, and it went the way of the president's approval numbers.
So now, we have another Bush-backed idea.
We have a proposed path to citizenship for an estimated 12 million illegals.
If you want legal status, which is an excellent deterrent to deportation, you own up.
You pay a 6,500 dollar fine, prove yourself proficient in English, pass a criminal background check, pay all back taxes, prove full-time employment, and go back to the Mother land to await a visa, for a minimum of thirteen years.
And conservative pundits howled amnesty again.
I'm seeing two Latinos, Miguel and Gorge, looking at each other with raised eyebrows and low whistles, "With friends like this, amigo, who needs amnesty?"
I hesitate to begin a list of the president's detractors on this because I should get to bed sometime tonight, but . . .
Sean Hannity takes the concept of beating a dead horse to new proportions, (Think of whacking a dried up jaw bone down the road with a stick) and then references all the flak he's taking over all the flak he's giving the president.
Laura Ingraham whines that all this time conservatives have begged the president to take the gloves off, and now he's taken them off and punched conservatives in the nose.
Peggy Noonan accuses the President of sundering the conservative coalition, serving notice on me that there was such a thing.
Michael Savage ravages the bill because the name Bush is attached to it and because if Michael Savage wasn't savage, he'd just be another nutritional expert with a political talk show.
Rush Limbaugh has opposed the president on this, but has studiously avoided joining the Bush bash.
President Bush doesn't do things for political expediency.
I do have a charming gift for understatement, don't I?
More later.