April 8, 2006

Passage of the Day: Krauthammer on Immigration Control Priorities

Filed under: Immigration,Quotes, Etc. of the Day — Tom @ 8:03 pm

First thing first, he says:

Forget employer sanctions. Build a barrier. It is simply ridiculous to say it cannot be done. If one fence won’t do it, then build a second 100 yards behind it. And then build a road for patrols in between. Put cameras. Put sensors. Put out lots of patrols.

Can’t be done? Israel’s border fence has been extraordinarily successful in keeping out potential infiltrators who are far more determined than mere immigrants. Nor have very many North Koreans crossed into South Korea in the last 50 years.

Of course it will be ugly. So are the concrete barriers to keep truck bombs from driving into the White House. But sometimes necessity trumps aesthetics. And don’t tell me that this is our Berlin Wall. When you build a wall to keep people in, that’s a prison. When you build a wall to keep people out, that’s an expression of sovereignty. The fence around your house is a perfectly legitimate expression of your desire to control who comes into your house to eat, sleep and use the facilities. It imprisons no one.

Of course, no barrier will be foolproof. But it doesn’t have to be. It simply has to reduce the river of illegals to a manageable trickle. Once we can do that, everything becomes possible — most especially, humanizing the situation of our 11 million existing illegals.

Anybody who isn’t with the barrier program simply isn’t serious about controlling illegal immigration.

Quote of the Day: On France’s Job Market

Filed under: Economy,Quotes, Etc. of the Day,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:05 am

In a bit of a paraphrase of Benjamin Franklin on liberty and security, The Wall Street Journal, in a subscription-only editorial, comments on France:

So entrenched has the politics of union entitlement become in France that even at the onset of their careers these young protesters are demanding security over opportunity. In the global economy, this means they will end up with less of both.

Team McEwen Has Not Been Interested in Dealing with “Issues”–Including the Most Important One

Filed under: MSM Biz/Other Bias,OH-02 US House,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 8:27 am

….. and Because of That, They Watched a Big Fat One over the Plate Sail Right by Them.

Here’s the issue:

Instead of doing something to restore the electoral process to what it should be — an open, transparent, and fully disclosed process where people are free to give money to candidates and causes they believe in — The House Wednesday went in the other direction, attempting to regulate and restrict those supposedly evil “527″ organizations that gained notoriety in the 2004 election cycle. Examples include those supported by MoveOn.org and George Soros that flooded the airwaves, and the Swiftboat Vets for the Truth.

As the blog at The Club for Growth, itself a target of what I believe is a frivolous Federal Elections Commission complaint about its advocacy activities, described it: “Free Speech Is Circling the Drain.”

The “527 Reform Act” (HR 513) passed 218-209 (211 Republicans and 7 Democrats for, 190 Democrats, Socialist Bernie Sanders, and 18 Republicans against). The Democrats opposing the bill didn’t think it was strong enough, and wanted to drag non-profit 501(c) organizations and others into it.

Locally, on this sad day for the First Amendment (what part of “Congress shall make no law” don’t you people understand?), it was an across-the-board disaster, with Davis of Kentucky and Boehner, Turner, Chabot, and Schmidt of Ohio all voting Yes.

Which brings us back to the Second District race.

I “think” 2006 congressional candidate Bob McEwen would have voted No on this bill (but after 13 years, who knows for sure? Who has any idea whether he would be a go-along majority guy or an independent thinker?). The early- and mid-1980s version of Bob almost certainly would have. The late-1980s early-1990s Bob probably would have voted No if he had come off the road long enough to grace Congress with his presence (on Page 6 at this link, the writer notes that McEwen was accused of “missing 25 roll call votes on days he received honoraria for speeches.”).

It appears from this letter to the editor McEwen wrote in March of 2000 (scroll down about halfway), in response to the bizarre story of the grandmother who walked 3,200 miles to call attention to the “need” for campaign finance reform, that whatever was left of the 1980s Bob at least had a pretty good recall of the First Amendment:

Granny’s right! Since we spend twice as much on chewing gum each year as we spend on all Federal Elections combined every four years, we must focus our attention on those terrible people participating in the election process. No one is allowed to contribute more than one thousand dollars to any federal candidate (President/Congress) per election, and no candidate is permitted to accept 10 cents from a corporation and yet individuals still care enough about their country to voluntarily support their fellow citizens who choose to run for office. Shame. This must be stopped. American citizens contributing to candidates every four years almost as much as we spend on cat litter each year reveals the rampant patriotism that must be ended. Go for it Granny! Don’t contribute anything to anyone. The freest land on earth and hope for the world is not worth a three-month supply of cat litter. Edmund Burke was right. ‘All that is needed for tyranny to prosper is for good men to do nothing.’ I pray that in America, Granny D and her supporters in the media will forever be in the minority. Freedom loving people around the globe, pray that as well.

(Aside: This 2002 speech by Granny Dearest shows her to be among the battiest of moonbats — amazing how the WORMs [Worn-Out Reactionary Media, known to most as the Mainstream Media] always manage to miss disclosing those things, isn’t it?)

Now here’s the irony:

Bob McEwen and his peeps, including his campaign manager, who inveighed me passionately last night about how this election should be “about the issues,” should have seen this betrayal of freedom coming this week, and, if Bob’s position is what I think it is, should have capitalized on a clear opportunity to differentiate their guy from Jean Schmidt and the other whipped-into-line Republicans.

So where was the McEwen campaign? Arriving unannounced (with or without Bob) at a water treatment plant, working hard to turn what was to be an April 19 debate into a circus, and taking satisfaction in watching others pick at their opponent’s resume — while a big fat opportunity for differentiation was missed.

And now that I’ve blogged on it, Bob & Co., it’s too late. You only get points for originality. Better luck on the next pitch.

Strident protests to the contrary, the McEwen 2006 campaign from its inception has not been about “the issues” at all (unless someone thinks a six-bullet, 26-word “issues” blurb suffices), and there has been no visible attempt by Team McEwen to differentiate itself in any meaningful way from their opponents. Oh, except to say “he’s not Jean Schmidt,” and at least implicitly delegating the dirty work to others.

This is not how a challenger claiming to be interested in “the issues” beats an incumbent.

And in case this post is perceived as muddying the waters, let me be clear about something: There is no current “issue” that is deserving of meaningful discussion until the issue of Bob McEwen’s past is fully vetted. Until it is, we can’t possibly evaluate if his issue positions are credible, or mere matters of convenience. We don’t know him, he won’t let us know him, and he doesn’t think we need to know him. As far as I’m concerned (and I can heartily assure you that I’m not alone), that stalemate should mean one thing, regardless of what he claims to believe — a free ticket back to private life. And as long as Bob is a candidate, the attempts by myself and others to determine and reveal what he won’t tell us will, and as a service to Second District voters should, continue.

UPDATE: Another “issue” pre-empts discussion of “the issues.” It’s one that didn’t seem to surface in the 2005 Primary, but it has loomed ever larger as the 2006 campaign has progressed. More on that as the remaining weeks of the campaign unfold.

Positivity: Kidney swap could start transplant trend

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 6:05 am

Let’s hope it does: