12/07: Chinese Threat
China has an extensive and aggressive network in the U.S. working hard to aquire military technology. See this article. (link from Instapundit). So when do we impose sanctions against the Chicom government? We are enabling a powerful enemy to become more powerful by our trade policies.
Category: Friends of the Bosque Boys
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Guest Blog
Special thanks to "Tocqueville," TBB friend and constitutionalist, who has been keeping close track of the recent legal developments in the same-sex marriage controversy. Please consider his string of insightful comments and reportage on these events, in chronological order (it is fairly lengthy--but well worth your time):
6 July 2006:
Gay marriage was dealt two defeats today.
By a vote of 4 to 2, the highest court in New York has held that the New York constitution does not "compel" the recognition of same-sex marriages. The matter, said the court, is for the state legislature to decide. Here is an excellent quote from the majority opinion:
"The dissenters assert confidently that "future generations" will agree with their view of this case (dissenting op at 28). We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives. We therefore express our hope that the participants in the controversy over same-sex marriage will address their arguments to the Legislature; that the Legislature will listen and decide as wisely as it can; and that those unhappy with the result -- as many undoubtedly will be -- will respect it as people in a democratic state should respect choices democratically made."
This marks the first state high court to address the substance of a gay-marriage claim since the outrageous Goodrich decision in Massachusetts in 2003.
The ruling, coming from a fairly progressive court in a deep-blue state, must be considered a significant set-back for gay-marriage litigants and further evidence that (if democracy is allowed to prevail) conservatives are not losing this battle. At the same time, the opinion does not undermine the arguments of those who have claimed that a federal marriage amendment is needed to block an activist Supreme Court from imposing gay marriage on the nation. That argument is largely premised on the demands of the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the questionable constitutional validity of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Special thanks to "Tocqueville," TBB friend and constitutionalist, who has been keeping close track of the recent legal developments in the same-sex marriage controversy. Please consider his string of insightful comments and reportage on these events, in chronological order (it is fairly lengthy--but well worth your time):
6 July 2006:
Gay marriage was dealt two defeats today.
By a vote of 4 to 2, the highest court in New York has held that the New York constitution does not "compel" the recognition of same-sex marriages. The matter, said the court, is for the state legislature to decide. Here is an excellent quote from the majority opinion:
"The dissenters assert confidently that "future generations" will agree with their view of this case (dissenting op at 28). We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives. We therefore express our hope that the participants in the controversy over same-sex marriage will address their arguments to the Legislature; that the Legislature will listen and decide as wisely as it can; and that those unhappy with the result -- as many undoubtedly will be -- will respect it as people in a democratic state should respect choices democratically made."
This marks the first state high court to address the substance of a gay-marriage claim since the outrageous Goodrich decision in Massachusetts in 2003.
The ruling, coming from a fairly progressive court in a deep-blue state, must be considered a significant set-back for gay-marriage litigants and further evidence that (if democracy is allowed to prevail) conservatives are not losing this battle. At the same time, the opinion does not undermine the arguments of those who have claimed that a federal marriage amendment is needed to block an activist Supreme Court from imposing gay marriage on the nation. That argument is largely premised on the demands of the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the questionable constitutional validity of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.
10/07: Iran and August
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Wonder why the Iranians have stated that they will not respond to the latest proposal till August 22? Here is a chilling thought from Zionist. Link from LGF.
August 22 is the Muslim celebration of the reconquest of Jerusalem. Combine that with Ahmadinejad's belief that he and Iran have a special role to play in the return of the Hidden Imam, and it could hit the fan. (Which I think it will when the Iranians have the bomb and a capable delivery system.)
See my earlier post on Deterence and the Mullahs.
August 22 is the Muslim celebration of the reconquest of Jerusalem. Combine that with Ahmadinejad's belief that he and Iran have a special role to play in the return of the Hidden Imam, and it could hit the fan. (Which I think it will when the Iranians have the bomb and a capable delivery system.)
See my earlier post on Deterence and the Mullahs.
For those of you who are not regular readers of Cardinal Pell's writing, I would encourage you to read his regular columns for the Sunday Telegraph. Brief, lucid, insightful. The most recent column covered sexual addiction and the scourge of pornography. The link is here.
10/07: The Future of Islam
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
In the last several weeks I have had occasion to meet, and in some cases to talk with, a few ex-Muslims who now are Christians. And I have had occasion to talk with several folks in a position to know about Muslim conversions to Christianity in Africa, Asia, even the Middle East. As I mentioned in a previous post, we today are seeing the conversion of Muslims in numbers that are unprecedented in history. Part of the fear driving the violent Muslims may be the weakness of today's Islam, a weakness that tries to hide itself with violence.
See this earlier post.
See this earlier post.
10/07: Against Abortion
Imagine that you are a contractor responsible for demolishing a building using explosives. Even if you've never watched the Discovery Channel you can imagine the steps. As you prep the building for demolition you erect fences to keep out trespassers. You post Keep Out signs. After the explosives are in place, you do one last sweep of the building to check for vagrants, children, anybody. Then, when you are certain the building is empty of human beings, you detonate. (You probably would hold up detonation in order to remove a stray dog.) As a demolition contractor you would take your responsibility not to kill accidentally very seriously. If someone came running up to you moments before you set off the explosives and told you they thought they had seen someone sneak onto the site, you would postpone the demolition until you were absolutely certain no one was in the building. You would want to know that the building was empty. And the owner of the building certainly would want you to behave responsibly. Our culture, through mores and through the legal system, mandates that we try very hard not to kill someone accidentally.
Think about abortion. The abortionist is the demolition contractor. Does the abortionist know that no human being is killed by abortion? Does the mother (the building owner)? The pro-abortion lobby turns the burden of proof around from where it ought to be. They challenge the anti-abortion side to prove that the fetus is a human being. Wrong. By the logic in the example above of the demoltion contractor, the abortionist must be the one to prove that the fetus is not a human being. The burden of proof is on those who would commit abortions. Prove that you are not killing a human being.
Think about abortion. The abortionist is the demolition contractor. Does the abortionist know that no human being is killed by abortion? Does the mother (the building owner)? The pro-abortion lobby turns the burden of proof around from where it ought to be. They challenge the anti-abortion side to prove that the fetus is a human being. Wrong. By the logic in the example above of the demoltion contractor, the abortionist must be the one to prove that the fetus is not a human being. The burden of proof is on those who would commit abortions. Prove that you are not killing a human being.
10/07: Suspicious Mind
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
The last couple of days I've had suspicious thoughts about a couple of world events, but have not posted since I thought--no, I'm just paranoid. However, some others on the web have posted such thoughts.
First, Russia kills a major Chechen enemy commander (link to Wizbang), and Chechen rebels experience a bad "work accident" that kills a significant leader. (link to Jihadwatch) Is it a coincidence that these events happen during the time when Iran needs Russia to block any actions by the U.S. in the Security Council? Jihadwatch raises that question: reminding readers that the Iranians have been supporters of the Chechens.
Second, the media, and U.S. government, assumes that Communist China tried very hard to stop the North Koreans from launching those missles. Did they indeed? The Chicoms said they did, but . . . . Fact: the Chinese regard us as their chief adversary; Fact: it is to their benefit that we concentrate on numerous threats around the world; Fact: the Chicoms got an opportunity to glean intelligence from our response to the missles. A former Reagan administration official expressed his suspicions of the Chicoms. (link from Drudge)
If these suspicions are correct, then diplomacy has about as much chance with NK and Iran as it had with Saddam, for similar reasons.
First, Russia kills a major Chechen enemy commander (link to Wizbang), and Chechen rebels experience a bad "work accident" that kills a significant leader. (link to Jihadwatch) Is it a coincidence that these events happen during the time when Iran needs Russia to block any actions by the U.S. in the Security Council? Jihadwatch raises that question: reminding readers that the Iranians have been supporters of the Chechens.
Second, the media, and U.S. government, assumes that Communist China tried very hard to stop the North Koreans from launching those missles. Did they indeed? The Chicoms said they did, but . . . . Fact: the Chinese regard us as their chief adversary; Fact: it is to their benefit that we concentrate on numerous threats around the world; Fact: the Chicoms got an opportunity to glean intelligence from our response to the missles. A former Reagan administration official expressed his suspicions of the Chicoms. (link from Drudge)
If these suspicions are correct, then diplomacy has about as much chance with NK and Iran as it had with Saddam, for similar reasons.
08/07: Conquest and Legitimacy
Most of earth's territory has been conquered, often many times, by a succession of peoples. In the U.S. we think of our own conquest of native tribes (who themselves were often conquerors, e.g. the Sioux did nor originate in the Dakotas nor the Comanche in Texas or Oklahoma). And, most Anglos, even those most sympathetic to Native Peoples, are not getting on boats or planes and going back to Europe. Of course that would not solve the problem. Celts might demand that Germanic peoples move back east, ad infinitum. Those Hispanics who claim the southwestern U.S. should go back to Mexican peoples could be met by claims from Navajo or Apache.
Regardless of what our moral sense is regarding conquest, after a while we accept the movement of peoples as an accomplished fact. Which brings me to a question I have asked regarding the nation of Israel. To the Arab nations: how long does the nation of Israel have to be in place before you recognize it as legitimate? If the answer is "never, we will always regard it as conquered land," then I ask this question: why should we accept the Arab conquest of the Middle East about 1400 years ago as legitimate? Why should not Egypt be the land of the Copts, Iraq the land of the Chaldeans and others, Morocco the land of the Berbers? Arabs back to Arabia! In other words, if the position is taken that the Jews never can be legitimate occupiers of Israel, no matter how long they are there, then Islamic Arab claims on huge chunks of territory have no logical basis, no claim on the land either.
Of course, the real motivation, I maintain, is not nationalist, but religious. In Islamic thought, none of the Land of Submission ever can be given up (call it the Al Brezhnev Doctrine).
Regardless of what our moral sense is regarding conquest, after a while we accept the movement of peoples as an accomplished fact. Which brings me to a question I have asked regarding the nation of Israel. To the Arab nations: how long does the nation of Israel have to be in place before you recognize it as legitimate? If the answer is "never, we will always regard it as conquered land," then I ask this question: why should we accept the Arab conquest of the Middle East about 1400 years ago as legitimate? Why should not Egypt be the land of the Copts, Iraq the land of the Chaldeans and others, Morocco the land of the Berbers? Arabs back to Arabia! In other words, if the position is taken that the Jews never can be legitimate occupiers of Israel, no matter how long they are there, then Islamic Arab claims on huge chunks of territory have no logical basis, no claim on the land either.
Of course, the real motivation, I maintain, is not nationalist, but religious. In Islamic thought, none of the Land of Submission ever can be given up (call it the Al Brezhnev Doctrine).
On one hand, the trial of Joe Lieberman in the upcoming CT primary, August 8, is a perfect example of American democracy in action (click here for some bg and context from the Wash Post). "Throw the bums out!" has been an effective rallying cry for frustrated voters since the earliest moments of American self government. James Madison et al constructed the federal government of the United States to be responsive to the desires of the people. Joe Lieberman has offended a core constituency of the citizenry of CT; therefore, Joe Lieberman must go.
However, the framers divided government into departments, and the departments into distinct institutions, making some sections of the government more responsive to the people than others. For example, the House of Representatives is elected directly by the voters every two years. That keeps representatives in the lower house on a very short leash. The House is rightly the people's conduit to government. Congressman ought to be taking polls and monitoring their phone calls and email, fittingly hyper-sensitive to the will of the people.
The President. Elected by the people every four years (albeit indirectly through the somewhat arcane institution of the electoral college), the president, traditionally, is the one person in the government empowered to represent all the people. The rest of the executive branch works for him and answers to him (or his management team) directly; the enormous executive department, sworn to uphold the Constitution and abide by federal law, answers to the people only indirectly through congressional oversight.
The Courts. Intentionally removed from the election process, judges are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate for life terms. Federal judges are only grazed by the consent of the people--and only once, during the process of nomination and confirmation.
Why all this variation?
However, the framers divided government into departments, and the departments into distinct institutions, making some sections of the government more responsive to the people than others. For example, the House of Representatives is elected directly by the voters every two years. That keeps representatives in the lower house on a very short leash. The House is rightly the people's conduit to government. Congressman ought to be taking polls and monitoring their phone calls and email, fittingly hyper-sensitive to the will of the people.
The President. Elected by the people every four years (albeit indirectly through the somewhat arcane institution of the electoral college), the president, traditionally, is the one person in the government empowered to represent all the people. The rest of the executive branch works for him and answers to him (or his management team) directly; the enormous executive department, sworn to uphold the Constitution and abide by federal law, answers to the people only indirectly through congressional oversight.
The Courts. Intentionally removed from the election process, judges are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate for life terms. Federal judges are only grazed by the consent of the people--and only once, during the process of nomination and confirmation.
Why all this variation?
A few kind words about the President and “compassionate conservatism” on his birthday.
Happy 60th, Mr. President.
A few months ago, explaining my support for George W. Bush in 2000, I wrote:
"I reluctantly settled on George Bush because he looked like he could win and I liked his family. He also struck me as an unpolished but authentic and sincere man.... On the whole, he has not disappointed me."
I am not unmoved today by my conservative brethren who castigate the President for his big-government conservatism, his Wilsonian idealism, his evangelicalism and his bent toward “tolerance” in regard to social issues.
For me, the most damning of those accusations is the first, which plays to my fear of out-sized budget deficits and an ever-increasing federal leviathan. I am nothing if not a Reagan conservative. Reagan would shudder at “No Child Left Behind” and the prescription drug program.
Notwithstanding, I admire the President. I appreciate his toughness following 9/11. For good or ill, I cannot imagine another American president who would have followed the course he charted in respect to the “War on Terror.”
Happy 60th, Mr. President.
A few months ago, explaining my support for George W. Bush in 2000, I wrote:
"I reluctantly settled on George Bush because he looked like he could win and I liked his family. He also struck me as an unpolished but authentic and sincere man.... On the whole, he has not disappointed me."
I am not unmoved today by my conservative brethren who castigate the President for his big-government conservatism, his Wilsonian idealism, his evangelicalism and his bent toward “tolerance” in regard to social issues.
For me, the most damning of those accusations is the first, which plays to my fear of out-sized budget deficits and an ever-increasing federal leviathan. I am nothing if not a Reagan conservative. Reagan would shudder at “No Child Left Behind” and the prescription drug program.
Notwithstanding, I admire the President. I appreciate his toughness following 9/11. For good or ill, I cannot imagine another American president who would have followed the course he charted in respect to the “War on Terror.”
