Category: Blogroll

This is an open trackback post. Link to this post and track back. More below the body of this post.

---

I usually pre-post my open posts the night before, so they’re up and ready for the early birds, but last night I was more than a little bummed out. Sure, I’m well used to the weathervaning/flip-flopping of such blatant liars as Jean Fraud sKerry, but last night, President Bush harked back to an earlier and far more (politically) deadly flip flop.

President Bush, the Younger, may have been channeling his father last night. For the past couple of years, he’s been touting his “guest worker” idea but pledging it wouldn’t be an amnesty and that illegals wouldn’t be offered a citizenship path without getting in line and doing it like millions of others have. (Oh, but it’s NOT the “guest worker” program he’s been getting resistance to! Oh, no! It’s something entirely different! The SAME THING dressed up as a “temporary worker” program. Thanks for insulting my intelligence, Mr. President. I’ll return the favor Real Soon Now. In spades.)

But despite his outright lie that it isn’t amnesty, and his lie that “temporary workers” will “have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law”, his “temporary workers” proposal does NOT make illegal aliens get to the back of the line. They get to stay and they have a citizenship path telling them, “It’s just hunky dory that youstarted your “citizenship path” with stealing across our borders, stealing our tax dollars and a pack of lies day in and day out with forged documents, etc., even though ANY immigrant who lies to enter the country is subject to deportation. It’s just hunky dory that YOU start off YOUR citizenship path as an outlaw.”

Oh. But that’s not an amnesty program because they “should have to pay a meaningful penalty” for breaking the law. Now that sounds good, right? So what’s the “meaningful penalty”?

Well, he proposes the followwing stiff, draconian penalties: that illegal aliens annointed with “temporary worker” status be required “to pay their taxes to learn English and to work in a job for a number of years.”

Oh! Dread! How vile! How cruel and unusual! Why, it’s downright unconstitutional in its draconian sweep! Pay taxes! *horror!* Learn English! *gasp!* (Why, that’s something politicians, Mass Media Podpeople and Academia Nuts aren’t even forced to do!) Work! *Work!?!?!?!*

Oh, the inhumanity of this “meaningful penalty”! Why, come to think of it, I’d like to know what I’m being penalized for!

Oh, and they would have to wait in line behind those who follow the law seeking citizenship.

A couple of points about that lil lie.

1.) Where are the ones following the law waiting? Well, MOST of them are waiting OUT IN THE COLD, as it were. Still waiting for their chance to enter. If Bush meant what he said and illegals would have to wait in line behind those who follow the law, then they’d have to go outside and get in line with everyone else.
2.) Who says these illegals—or even most of them—really want citizenship? Did you see the May Day (and earlier) demonstrations. What flag was most prominent? Not the American flag. How many seriously want citizenship? Only one sure way to tell: they’ll get in back of the REAL line.

Nope. Not a gonna happen in President Bush’s world. They get to keep their places “won” by cutting in line, here beside the fire. “Want some more hot cocoa while you’re waiting inside by the fire, holding down a job, learning English and paying taxes _like all our citizens we are penalizing in the same way_, Juan?”

And catch this baldfaced lie:

What I have just described is not amnesty it is a way for those who have broken the law to pay their debt to society, and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen.

If what President Bush described is “not an amnesty” then I want to know exactly what is. They get to stay and suffer the penalties of what? Just what every citizen and legal alien does. IAgain: if paying taxes, speaking English and holding down a job are penalties, I want to know what crime I’m guilty of. No longer being a citizen but a subject?

I usually post a “No Bullshit” graphic of Jean Fraud sKerry, the FORMER 21st Century icon of weathervaning bullshit, on Tuesdays. Not today. *sigh*

---

As I said, this is an open trackbacks post. Link to this post and track back.

Also note the other fine blogs featuring linkfests at Linkfest Haven.

The President’s speech tonight was a major disappointment to me. I have posted the full text of his remarks here, but in this post, I’ll simply excerpt a few of the most blatant pieces of bullshit.

But first, before the bad and the ugly, the few pieces of good:

A pledge to involve 6,000 National Guard troops. I’d be much, much happier with regular Army (and controlling our borders would NOT conflict with posse comitatus restrictions in any universe except the ACLU’s warped “reality-based” fantasy).

A pledge to end “catch and release” for illegal aliens. (We’ll see if this is a real pledge as things unfold.)

The Bad?

“…we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire.” Sounds good? Yeh, but then he goes into a spiel about how haaaaard it is for the poor widdle employers to screen illegals. Bullshit. He goes all around the barn inventing a need for hi-tech biometric IDs. Bullshit. All that’s needed is to plainly and simply jail people who employ illegals and confiscate their businesses. Bob’s your uncle. No more jobs for illegals. (Or damned few.)

Instead, Bush flogs the issue… all around the bush and excuses the vast jobs market in illegals.

Bullshit.

“A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law and leave employers with no excuse for violating it,” the President said. What he said a few sentences earlier, plainly, and reiterates here elliptically, is that employers now have a ready-made excuse, acceptable to the Administration, for violating the law. Poor widdle co-conspirators with alien invaders!

“… by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work [with hi-tech, but still fakeable ID cards–ed] in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place.

Gee, when simply ENFORCING THE LAWS AS THEY NOW STAND would do the same thing, and would have started emptying our borders of illegals long ago, he wants to shut down jobs for illegals the hard way. He says. Except…

It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border.

But, but I thought he said that enforcing the laws against hiring illegals would shut down their job market? Gee, wouldn’t that dry up their reasons for being here? Doesn’t he even listen to himself? No, because while arguing that a guest worker program is not amnesty (and ignoring what he himself said about drying up the job market for illegals), he describes… an amnesty program. Sure, he said it’s not amnesty, by redefining very narrowly what amnesty is, but what’s the “harsh penalty” he outlines for illegals in his proposed guest worker program? Let’s see… they get to stay and work, they get to apply for citizenship and, oh, he says they have to get to the back of the line in getting their citizenship approved! Wow! While millions of people around the world have to wait in line just to enter the country, these people who cut in line to begin with get to stay! What penalty do they pay? uhm, zippo, zilch, nada, zero-with-the-rim-kicked-off. If they had to LEAVE and THEN REALLY, genuinely, honestly “get in the back of the line” then they’d be paying a small penalty for being line-jumpers.

As it is, the President’s proposal is a lie. No penalties of any substance. They are getting amnesty, no matter what disingenuous label he slaps on it.

The Ugly

The United States is not going to militarize the southern border. Mexico is our neighbor, and our friend. We will continue to work cooperatively to improve security on both sides of the border, to confront common problems like drug trafficking and crime, and to reduce illegal immigration.

“…continue to work cooperatively…” with Mexico? Complete and absolute and utter bullshit. Violation of our borders as an institutionalized policy of the Mexican authorities is an established fact. Anyone who can type in a google search can refute this piece of the President’s bullshit. Unacceptable, Mr. President. Completely unacceptable. Until you can start being truthful about the Mexican authorities’ willful participation in aiding illegal immigration, you have not yet begun to be honest about border security.

*sigh*

The Prsident concluded his remarks with two highly offensive comments:

America needs to conduct this debate on immigration in a reasoned and respectful tone.

Mr. President, when you engage in flat-out lies, deception and misdirection, YOU are not being reasonable or respectful. You are being insulting. And although I have defended you and your policies in the past, until and unless you apologize for your deceptions on this issue and your insulting remarks, I will no longer consider you within the circle of those to whom I need deal with respectfully.

Consider the damnable deception of your closing argument, sir:

I know many of you listening tonight have a parent or a grandparent who came here from another country with dreams of a better life. You know what freedom meant to them, and you know that America is a more hopeful country because of their hard work and sacrifice. As President, I have had the opportunity to meet people of many backgrounds, and hear what America means to them. On a visit to Bethesda Naval Hospital, Laura and I met a wounded Marine named Guadalupe Denogean. Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean came to the United States from Mexico when he was a boy. He spent his summers picking crops with his family, and then he volunteered for the United States Marine Corps as soon as he was able…

Thank you, Mr. President, for metaphorically showing us how you really think our country’s flag should be flown:

I too know many immigrants. I too know family who are the progeny of immigrants. Legal immigrants. When you lump them all into the same pot, sir, you create an error of construction. You know what you are doing. You are being deliberately deceptive, conflating arguments for accepting LEGAL immigrants, those who stood their turn in line, learned English, earned citizenship and became productive members of society LEGALLY, with line-jumpers who refuse to assimilate, to learn English and earn citizenship, truly become Americans.

That deliberate blurring of a very real line is disgusting and offensive, and it alone proves, Mr. President, that you know you are betraying the real immigrants, the one who are willing to genuinely pay the price to enter legally and truly become Americans.

Either that or the Bushitler people were right all along and you really are stupid.

Which one is it?

Update: Big Dog nails the speech with trenchant observations including this one:

I have no problem with a guest worker program. I just think the guest workers should be people who are not already here ILLEGALLY. We can get people who did not break the law and let them be guests. A man who breaks into your house would not be treated as a guest so why treat a person who broke into our country as one.

Woof!

And I missed the the “Live Blogging/Drinking Party” at Stop the ACLU, but the comments are certainly worth swinging by for.

Well, you won’t find it in this list.

Early this year, the Book Review’s editor, Sam Tanenhaus, sent out a short letter to a couple of hundred prominent writers, critics, editors and other literary sages, asking them to please identify “the single best work of American fiction published in the last 25 years.”

Yeh, well, that’s exactly the wrong kind of people to ask. Why do I say that? Because it is exactly that list of “prominent writers, critics, editors and other literary sages” who are responsible for the plague of “Suckitudinous Fiction” so well described by Holly Lisle.

It’s fair to say that writing a good story is damned hard to do. Writing something that engages readers and wins them over to the side of the characters and makes these readers care about the outcome of your tale requires constant effort on the writer’s part — brutal questioning of each scene and each line, a tight, sharp focus, and a deep belief in the story that you the writer want to tell.

The writers—and books—on the NYT list fail on most of those points, preferring binstead to write shallow, pretentious, manipulative crap that pointy-headed critics and the like proclaim to be profound and moving because they are themselves shallow pretentious and mani[pulative and have no idea what good storytelling is.

Don’t take my word for it. Check a couple of the books on the list out at your local public library. They’ll be easy to find, cos they’re likely covered with dust. Try to read them. Try your hardest to enjoy reading them.

The more intelligent you are, the harder that task will be, cos most of ’em are really crappy stories with characters it’s easy to dismiss as pretentious and disengaging constructs, reflections of their creators’ mental masturbation.

“Great” literature of the 20th century: the ugly flip side of pop culture crap novels.

Oh, and am I going to tell you what the best American fiction of the last 25 years was? No. You tell me. What work of fiction held you with credible characters, believable plot, well-written descriptive narrative? In short, what was the best-written story you’ve read in the last 25 years? Ignore the Academia Nuts, Mass Media Podpeople and Moonbatteried “critics.” What really grabbed you and held you?

I’d almost go with the mythic legend the Clintoons built up about themselves, except that the whole thing was so pornographic. (And in the end, not even particularly titilating porn, although it did achieve its essential purpose: the further coarsening of the American political and social scene… )

h.t. Chaos Manor Musings for the link to the NYT article, where the reference was listed under “Literary Affirmative Action”—*heh* And I don’t care HOW many thousands of readers Pournelle’s blog has, it’ll ALWAYS be the most under-read blog out there. It should be on everyone’s daily reads.

Self-featured at Mark My Words, Jo’s Cafe, Basil’s Blog, Right Wing Nation and Comittees of Correspondence.

This is an open post. Link to this post and track back.

---

Today is usually Guard the Borders Blogburst day, but I’m waiting to hear what President Bush has to say this evening in defense of his disingenuously named “guest worker” proposals. His deceptive amnesty position has never sat well with me only in part because it’s a tissue of lies. Principles do matter, even in politics, and the proposal he’s been pushing for some time is the most unprincipled pseudo pragmatism his administration has proposed. As Ann Coulter recently put it, any child could tell you that cutting in line isn’t right. You let folks get away with it and pretty soon, there is no line, just an unruly mob.

And that’s just the start of problems with amnesty disguised as a “guest worker” program. Like we really need to legitimize this attitude:

(And yes, I did flip that Aztlan flag upside down. I would rather like to see the ruling elite of Mexico have to handle their own problems than have them shoved down our throats. Let them deal with their own peoples’ distress… )

More after his speech tonight. Maybe, just maybe there’s a dim chance he’ll amend his position. If he does, so to a satisfactory degree, well and good. If not, he’ll be speaking fightin’ words.

---

As I said, this is an open trackbacks post.link to this post and track back.

Also note the other fine blogs featuring linkfests at Linkfest Haven.

I am more blest than I deserve. Not only in parents, sibs, wife, children and offline friends, but online friends as well.

Especially with Blogmothers.

Did I say “Blogmothers” as in plural, more than one?

Yes.

Last year, when I initiated Blogmothers Day, I honored my “Unconscious Blogmother”—the person whose blog I haunted until I finally got up the nerve to post a comment. At that time, Blogger required—or maybe just my Blogmother’s settings for her blog, I don’t actually know—having a Blogger identity to post comments on her blog, so I signed up for a Blogger identity and… well, had a blog. Had no idea what to do with it, so I really just posted comments at her blog. Had a few of encouraging replies (like, “You ought to blog that” kind of comments) and I was “birthed” as a blogger.

Thanks Carol. I still visit your blog for sane, insightful commentary on the current scene. Your voice is always reasonable and passionate at the same time. While I rarely rise to the same level of reasonable passion you model (a characteristic you share with your “blogfather” :-)), I always end one of my rants thinking, “What would my blogmom think?” It doesn’t necessarily stop my ranting, but your “presence” does help moderate my tone a tad, at least.

And then there’s my second blogmother. Diane is… amazing. It is she who is responsible for moving me off of Blogger and into my own digs. In fact, the nice layout you see is her adaptation of the Journalized Sand theme to reflect some of my old Blogger blog’s characteristic styling. She set this whole thing up without asking me and sent me an email saying “Here are the keys to your new blog. Either use it or tell me to go to hell.”

As though I could do the latter.

Such generosity is characteristic of so many of my blogging aquaintances (The English Guy and Romeocat made the mistake of asking oif they could give me a new blogsite. Diane just did it. Presumptuous? Sure. Generous, gracious to a fault? Definitely!)

And, all through the process of learning how to use this new blogging platform, manage the hosting account, whatever—including a day just a couple of weeks in when I managed tio crash and burn the whole thing!—she’s been there making sure I “got” it.

Thanks, Diane. For all you’ve given here at third world county, and thanks for all you give day in and day out—humor, down home wisdom, music, fun—at Diane’s Stuff.

I am truly blessed. Two Blogmommies. Neat.

Carol, Diane: Happy Blogmothers Day!

(CLICK the pic)

🙂

Note: If I mentioned all the bloggers who have been abundantly generous toward me, this post would never end… because nearly every day another blogger shows me a new boundary of generosity and graciousness. Most are such good folk that it’s been hard to hang on to my curmudgeonly ways. But I’m strong; I will endure. 🙂

UPDATE: Tomorrow Today is Blogmothers Day. What are YOU doing for your bogmom?

Last year, I encouraged my readers to add their “Blogmothers” to their Mothers Day celebration. The modest success of the first (as far as I know) Blogmothers Day was heartening. Playing off that, I also encouraged folks to honor their Blogfather on Fathers Day.

For those of y’all who may be wondering what the heck I’m talking about, here are a couple of links—one to the original Blogmothers Day post at my old Blogger address and another link to one of those old Blogger Blogmothers Day posts as imported to my new address here.

A “Blogmother,” for those of y’all who may be thinking I’ve slipped yet another cog, is the person (in this case, female person) who encouraged (or shanghaied) you to start blogging, helped, mentored you along the way, etc. Pretty much the same for a Blogfather. Last year I honored my Blogmother, even though she had no idea she was the proximal cause (hadda throw some lawyerese in, cos she’s a lawyer) of my blogging. This year, I’ll also honor my adoptive blogmommie (and IF I get a certain secret project finished before then, I’ll be sending her a lil surprise as well).

So, this will stay as a sticky post for a while. Please do honor your Blogmom, if you have one, on Mothers Day. Link back to this post when you do, please, so I can keep an “Honor Roll” of Blogmothers.

Blogmothers Day is May 14 this year.

Last minute tb-postings at Gribbit’s Word, Stuck On Stupid, The Business of America is Business, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Rhymes With Right, Blue Star Chronicles, Is It Just Me?, The Uncooperative Blogger, Adam’s Blog TMH’s Bacon Bits and The Conservative Cat

Well, the usual suspects—Jean Fraud sKerry, Dianne Feinstein, Teddy “Swimmer” Kennedy and all the denisens of Demoncrappic Underpants and the like are baying at the moon over Michael Hayden’s nomination to head the CIA, especially given his involvement with the electronic surveillance programs run by one of their fav boogymen, the NSA.

And they’re so completely removed from reality that they not only do not see (or are unwilling to admit) that not only are the ESP (yeh, I like that acronym for “electronic surveillance programs”) perfectly within legal boundaries (“Oh,” but they twitter, “they could be abused!” Yeh, if a Clintoon were back in office… ) but also eminently sensible given the nature of terrorist threats against the U.S.

No, they even bury their heads in the sand and ignore the penultimate bellwether (only Mass Media Podpeople carry a bigger stick with these folks) a politician *spit* must follow: the polls. Why, even the D.C. commie rag, the Washington Post, ran results of a poll it admitted revealed…

…that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

A slightly larger majority–66 percent–said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.

Even when it’s written clearly, “Mene, Mene Tekel Upharsin,” (or perhaps instead, “The tree of liberty must from time to time be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots”), politicians, greedy for a little face time in venues controlled by Mass Media Podpeople, have to spout inanities about invasion of privacy.

Well, those critters had better remember: as they posture and preen and babble vicious nonsense, whether at or leading up to the Michael Hayden’s nomination hearings or at any other time, we are watching them, and their day of judgement will come. Either at the polling booth or as they catch a one-way bus to hell at the end of their tenure in this life.

Just sayin’…

h.t. STACLU on the WaPo article.

BBSed at Sed Vitae (where trackbacks aren’t really enabled, but I’ll give it a shot, anyway), Is It Just Me? (Off camping and letting the blog run on autopilot? :-)), Adam’s Blog (what a purty liz, bubba! *heh*) and TMH’s Bacon Bits (bein’ a lil catty, TMH? ;-)).

This is my Friday Open Trackback Alliance post, extending through Sunday. Link to this post and track back. More below the short post.

---

Jerry Pournelle [Not Dr. Pournelle: an email from a reader that Dr. Pournelle published] has some good sense to offer about the mess our national intelligence bureaus/departments are in. His observations—as one who has “been there, done that, helped win the Cold War—make so much sense that naturally they’ll not find an ear in Washington D.C. [Note: the rest of Pournelle’s own comments are worth reading, as well]

A small sample:

…DIA evolved precisely because of the following mindset, automatically regurgitated by the STRATFOR analyst: “On the surface, the answer to that is clear: The job of the intelligence community, taken as a whole, is to warn the president of major threats or changes in the international system.”

No. ‘The job of the intelligence community, taken as a whole’, is to provide intelligence data to the entire federal government to support its execution of national policy as established by the President and Congress. And also to support the formulation of that policy.

*sigh*

As I said, I doubt D.C. will listen to that any more than it listens to citizens’ concerns about illegal aliens invading. The political elite und Das Büros (I’d rather spell it “burros” to reflect the assinine nature of bureaucraps) will have none of those vestiges of a democratic republic whose government is actually subordinate to a citizenry…

---

As I said, this is an Open Trackback Alliance open trackbacks post. Link here and track back.

Also note the other fine blogs featuring linkfests at Linkfest Haven.

From Gribbit:

---

Why Isn’t A Town Enforcing Their Law? – The ACLU

The ACLU is watching a small town in western Pennsylvania because of its curfew law.  Each night at 9:45 pm the Trafford fire station blows its alert sirens to alert teens and other children that the curfew is fast approaching.  All persons under the age of 18 are to be home by 10:00 pm according to local law.  But with the ACLU looking over their shoulder, the town has been reluctant to enforce their law.

This stems from one child.  Again it is the needs of the one trumping the needs of the many.  Mr. Spock wouldn’t agree with this total lack of logic but that is the principle that the ACLU operates under.

Under threat of lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, it appears the borough has backed off its curfew ordinance. Neither Mayor Kevin Karazsia nor solicitor Bill Ferraro would confirm or deny if the long-time curfew ordinance is being enforced — but this much is certain: In December, the ACLU contacted Ferraro after the Toocheck family complained to the organization. Attorney David Millstein, a volunteer at the ACLU who handled the case, said as far as he knows the ordinance is not being enforced. If he learns otherwise, he said, the ACLU will sue. Craig Toocheck contacted the organization after one of his sons was cited a second time under the Trafford curfew ordinance. The first incident occurred last summer when the boy, then 15, walked to the 7-11 without his parents’ permission around midnight. Craig Toocheck was asleep in bed when a police officer brought his son to the door. Surprised that his son had gone in search of a Slurpee without informing him, Toocheck agreed to pay the $73 fine and grounded his son — an active Boy Scout who posted a 4.11 grade point average on his last Penn-Trafford report card — for two weeks. The second incident occurred last August when the boy was watching a pre-season Steelers game at a friend’s house. At half-time — and with his parents permission — he left to walk home. The time was 10 minutes after curfew. Craig Toocheck said his son was a half block from his home on Edgewood Avenue when he was picked up by police. A week later, a fine for $98 was in the Toocheck mailbox. Millstein called the fine and the curfew ridiculous. “The whole thing was unconstitutional,” he said. “There’s no question about it.” The curfew violates one of the rights in the First Amendment — the freedom of assembly, Millstein said. “To impose a curfew on a person just because they’re a juvenile… It’s just not constitutional.” Toocheck said the curfew also violates the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and 14th Amendments — which protect against deprivation of liberty without due process of law and includes the right to travel.  SOURCE

Ok, let me get this straight, the ACLU is claiming that a reasonable curfew of 10:00 pm for what we can all agree are minor children  violates the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments?  How absurd.  Next you will be telling me that a 9 year old has the right to buy a semi-automatic handgun provided they are willing to wait the required waiting period.  I won’t hold my breath on that one but it falls in line with the same logic.

Here are the facts folks:

   

Children under the age of 18 are just that – CHILDREN.  And are subject to the regulations that the home and society puts on them.

   

Persons under the age of 18 (CHILDREN) cannot legally marry without consent.

   

Children cannot own guns, securities, land, vote, and are not subject to taxation all because of their age.

At which point do we throw caution to the wind and teach youngsters the meaning of law and order?  If children are subjected to the same freedoms that adults enjoy, then why is it that no one is standing in line to represent children who are forced to live under their parents’ regulations as false imprisonment?  After all, a responsible parent would restrict where and when a child can travel outside of the home right?

If you leave children alone for any amount of time, their inner demons will get the better of them and trouble usually follows.  As someone who lives with 2 teenage boys, I can tell you that if left to their devices there would be holes in the walls, broken fixtures, parties 24/7 where all kinds of unspeakable activities would be occurring, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.  Teenage children often times need to be restricted more than younger children.

The ACLU will stop at nothing to remove all barriers to free will in order to create chaos.  Once that is achieved they will swoop in utilizing their dupes in black vestments to create laws restricting all liberties to restore order and a Communist state will be born.

The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one.  In this case the needs of Trafford to be safe and secure in their community without an unchecked unregulated youth population roaming the streets causing trouble at all times of the night out weight any presumption that a minor child has to Constitutional rights to travel.  And if I remember right, there is no such right in the 4th, 5th, 9th, or 14th Amendments.

The ACLU needs to allow local governments decide what is best for the citizens of their locality.  The beautiful thing about a representative democracy, if you don’t like the decisions being made on your behalf, you can vote the decision maker out of office.  Hence the terms government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Sign the Petition To Stop Taxpayer Funding of the ACLU.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board

---

N.B. While I’m not in complete agreement with Gribbit’s latter comments (I raised two teenagers, and can testify that I know of one time when they were mostly unsupervised for a whole month, for perfectly good reasons, and they were very responsible people during that time. Ages? 15 and 17. BUT, whether teenagers in general are or are not well-behaved (something that it is entirely the responsibility of the parents to ensure by raising them well before they reach that age), is not the point here, nor is the serious point that the ACLU will sweep in with “men in black” to rip our freedoms away. No, the point as far as I’m concerned is the twisting of Constitutional provisions into something they are not, thus weakening the fabric of the Constitution even further and not coincidentally weakening the fabric of society at the same time.

Over at TMH’s Bacon Bits, DL has a post, “Conservatives Asking: Which Face Now?”, that I consider a “must read” for anyone who needs a reminder of the political dilemma facing responsible voters in upcoming elections. In it he makes mention of disaffectation among the Rpublican Paty faithful.

Loyalty is a two way street. The party faithful can only maintain faith with the party when the party leaders maintain faith with them.

BTW, “faith” entered the English language from Norman French. It was a term explicitly used to denote fealty relationships. relationships that required two-way loyalty. even more interesting is that “belief” came to English through a Celtic/Anglo linguistic journey. “Lief-an” was the relationship between a Celtic chieftan/leader and his people denoting much the same two-way loyalty that faith’s French journey into English followed. (The Anglic intensifier “be” was added much later as “lief-an” became pejorated to denote the highest form of lief-an.) The history of both these words was strongly reflected in their contemporary meanings at the times Wycliffe, Coverdale and later the KJV translators used them to translate verb and noun forms of “pisteuo” which—in first century Koine—held the same meanings of bilateral loyalty. Or, to use a more current idiom from the military, loyalty up the chain of command is only as strong as loyalty down the chain of command.

In fact, one of the fundamental principles of Christianity has remained that we are only able to be faithful to God because of His faithfulness to us. Our faith in Him is a gift from him. The best of feudal rulers understood this and that’s where the concept of noblesse oblige came from: to whom much is given (wealth, power, prestige, etc.), much shall be required in return.

Our current political elite—of both major parties—have no such understandings of faithfulness, responsibility, obligations. To the leaders of both parties, political power is more important than doing what is right and just and good. The representative republic handed us by the Founders has become a kakistocratic kleptocracy.

And “we the people” are to blame.

The Tree of Liberty is getting mighty thirsty…