The 2nd Amendment and The Wall St Journal

My recent post on a petition relating to the Second Amendment, drew a response via Sphere It which tracked back to the following opinion piece in the Wall St Journal, which surprised me as I expected this source to go the other way.

Guns and the Constitution

Is the Second Amendment an individual, or collective, right?

In recent decades, the Supreme Court has discovered any number of new rights not in the explicit text of the Constitution. Now it has the opportunity to validate a right that resides in plain sight--"the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment.

This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. In March, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declared unconstitutional the District's near-total ban on handgun possession. That 2-1 ruling, written by Judge Laurence Silberman, found that when the Second Amendment spoke of the "right of the people," it meant the right of "individuals," and not some "collective right" held only by state governments or the National Guard.

That stirring conclusion was enough to prompt the D.C. government to declare Judge Silberman outside "the mainstream of American jurisprudence" in its petition to the Supreme Court. We've certainly come to an interesting legal place if asserting principles that appear nowhere in the Constitution is considered normal, but it's beyond the pale to interpret the words that are in the Constitution to mean what they say…………..

The phrase "the right of the people" or some variation of it appears repeatedly in the Bill of Rights, and nowhere does it actually mean "the right of the government." When the Bill of Rights was written and adopted, the rights that mattered politically were of one sort--an individual's, or a minority's, right to be free from interference from the state. Today, rights are most often thought of as an entitlement to receive something from the state, as opposed to a freedom from interference by the state. The Second Amendment is, in our view, clearly a right of the latter sort………..

………It would seriously harm the Court's credibility if Justice Kennedy and the Court's liberal wing now turned around and declared the right "to keep and bear arms" a dead letter because it didn't comport with their current policy views on gun control. This potential contradiction may explain why no less a liberal legal theorist than Harvard's Laurence Tribe has come around to an "individual rights" understanding of the Second Amendment.

By the way, a victory for gun rights in Heller would not ban all gun regulation, any more than the Court's support for the First Amendment bars every restraint on free speech. The Supreme Court has allowed limits on speech inciting violence or disrupting civil order. In the same way, a judgment that the Second Amendment is an individual right could allow reasonable limits on gun use, such as to protect public safety.

Here's hoping the Justices will put aside today's gun control passions and look to the plain language of the Bill of Rights for instruction in this case, as Judge Silberman had the courage to do.

Just as a matter of interest lets have a look at what the 2nd says; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The first part; “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is essentially a preamble, basically nothing more than an introduction. It if anything reinforces what follows, by recognizing the right of the citizen to resist oppression and possess the means of doing so.

The second part is certainly clear in its intent however; “, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” There can be no argument as to what the draughters intended and that was that the state has no right to interfere with the right of people to keep and bear arms. Its that simple.

Global warming to take a cold shower in New York next week.

By Viv Forbes, BScApp, FAusIMM, FSIA

The Carbon Sense Coalition (“Carbon Sense”) based in Australia is supporting an International Conference on the Science of Global Warming in New York next week (2-4th March 2008).

This conference, sponsored by The Heartland Institute of Chicago, is co-sponsored by 19 other organisations all over the world including the Carbon Sense Coalition.

The Conference will feature internationally recognised speakers from Australia, New Zealand, UK, USA, Canada and Europe. Carbon Sense has registered 10 delegates from Australia and New Zealand and several other individual delegates and scientists from Australia and New Zealand will attend.

For more information on the Conference see:
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm

The chairman Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, said that this conference would highlight the fact that a large number of eminently qualified scientists all over the world are rejecting the IPCC proposition that human emissions of carbon dioxide have caused or will cause dangerous global warming.

“We compliment Professor Garnaut for acknowledging that the science is not settled and for seeing value in expanding the global scientific effort beyond the IPCC. We urge Professor Garnaut, and Ministers Wong and Garret to attend the New York conference to see the powerful new scientific arguments and evidence that have emerged since the now outdated work supporting latest IPCC reports.”

According to Forbes, “Global warming hysteria will take a cold shower in New York next week”.

A copy of the submission by Carbon Sense to the Garnaut Review can be found at:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/garnaut-submission.pdf

“There is definitely no “consensus” on man-made global warming even if this were relevant to determining a question of science. In fact, far more scientists have openly rejected the IPCC propositions than are publicly supporting it.”

“The Carbon Sense Coalition, supported by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and other groups and individuals in Australia and New Zealand, recently called on the governments of Australia and New Zealand to set up an Australia New Zealand Royal Commission on the Science of Global Warming (to be known as “The ANZIG Royal Commission” – the Australia New Zealand Inquiry into Global Warming). We strongly believe that establishment of this enquiry should be a recommendation of the Garnaut Review.”

The submission by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition to the New Zealand Parliament in 2006, calling for a Royal Commission can be found at: http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=205&itemid=1

“The interim report released recently by Professor Garnaut makes it more urgent that this independent scientific enquiry should take place.”

“Garnaut’s proposal that Australia should target a 90% cut in carbon emissions by 2050 is so extreme that Australians need to take notice what destruction is being proposed in such a cavalier fashion. At one stroke, he could destroy the value of the huge public assets in coal fired power stations, as well as causing a dramatic fall in food production, power shortages and the migration to Asia of much of Australia’s cement, steel, processing and manufacturing industries.”

“These people have already brainwashed our children into a state of fear about the future, now Garnaut will guarantee them lives of shortages and poverty. Without coal and oil the world could not maintain the world population, or produce and transport its food.”

“Coal fuelled the British Industrial Revolution, and coal-fired electricity cleaned the air of last century’s polluted cities in Europe and America. Coal is still the most reliable and economical source of energy for modern life and is now offering its magic to Asia.”

“There is loose talk about how we can simply replace coal by non-carbon sources such as uranium, hydro, wind, solar, bio-energy or hydrogen.

“Of these, only nuclear power has the proven capacity to replace coal, but to do so would require more time, more capital, less political hurdles and cheaper supplies of uranium than are in prospect. There is almost zero prospect that Australia could virtually replace its total carbon based generating capacity with nuclear by 2050.”

“Hydro is a good reliable source of energy, but all the best sites are taken or sterilised by World Heritage disease.”

“Gas can generate significant power, but it is enormously wasteful to use gas for base load power. Gas should be used for peak power, for standby power for solar or wind energy toys, for transport fuel to reduce our dependence on unstable Arab supplies and as a chemical feedstock. It is too valuable to be wasted on base load power generation.”

“Hydrogen does not occur naturally, and is thus not a source of energy – it can be used to store and transport energy if the considerable engineering and economic hurdles are overcome.”

“Nowhere in the world is wind or solar energy contributing significant base load energy for the simple reason that it is impossible. Neither can supply energy continuously and both supply ZERO power for significant parts of their operating cycle. Both must be supplemented by conventional power sources (such as gas or hydro) ready to start up instantly the wind drops or a cloud passes in front of the sun. Such backup power needs to be the same capacity as the solar/wind facility, thus doubling total generating capacity and making this option an expensive, unstable and wasteful exercise.

“Wind power is useful for pumping water to storage ponds for other use, and solar is useful for heating and storing domestic hot water. Beyond these applications, they will never survive without costly subsidies or mandated shares. No one runs a big city or a steel works solely on solar or wind.”

“The only efficient way to harvest the sun’s energy is to use plants such as grass, trees and algae. However, “Biofuel” is a costly con which does more harm than good to energy supplies, energy costs and the environment.”


Viv Forbes, BScApp, FAusIMM, FSIA
Chairman
The Carbon Sense Coalition

www.carbon-sense.com
info@carbon-sense.com

John McCain Online

By Jim Fryar

Mentions have been made of late about the degree of internet support for various candidates and pointing out that John McCain hasn’t the sort of support enjoyed by Obama. Online support is an important part of modern campaigning and we should make every endeavor to improve our visibility in this area.

I was encouraged by an Email from Stephen R Maloney, part of which I include below. Stephen is a great asset to have onside and has impressed me with his work to the point where I posted about him on an Australian blog to give some of those I am politically aligned with a few ideas on campaigning.

I first met Stephen when he was campaigning for William Russell, who has taken on the very difficult task of defeating Porky Mertha in district 12 PA. William has set a difficult task for himself as can be seen in the Wikipedia entry for the seat: -

The 12th Pennsylvania congressional district is located in southwestern Pennsylvania. It is a heavily Gerrymandered district……….

The district was drawn specifically for Murtha, including many heavily Democratic regions, while leaving more right-leaning Pittsburgh suburban regions to the 4th or 18th district, and rural conservative regions to the 3rd or 9th district.

You only have to look at the map of the district to know from the strange and impractical way it is drawn to know something is very smelly there. Still it has to be said that a serious candidate working hard can make a hell of a difference. He may just win, but even if he misses out, his efforts are going to help us in November.

Remember that a Presidential candidate has a much easier job of it if supported by a great team of Congressional and Senate candidates fighting for every vote they can get, and with that influencing all outcomes. If you support McCain, get behind your local candidate as well.

Here is part of what Stephen had to say: -

John McCain's online support is not yet anywhere near the levels achieved by Barack Obama, but that situation is beginning to change. It's essential that bloggers and others work with each other to generate online support and coalitions

Obviously, John McCain is a tremendous campaigner, one who can take some very hard punches and keep fighting effectively. McCain core supporters, are perhaps not as into online politics as Barack Obama's army of know-little college freshmen and sophomores, but McCain's on-line efforts are beginning to pay some real dividends.

One very positive recent development is the large (1500 plus) "Rudy Supporters on Yahoo" joined America's Mayor and became the "Rudy Supporters for McCain." Other groups with a strong online presence, including Romney supporters, are turning toward McCain. Apparently, many, many people are making donations online to McCain's site: http://johnmccain.com.

If you want to see what's happening with McCain online, just google some obvious terms, such as "John McCain" + "blogs." I just did so, and the number that came up was 29,100,000! That doesn't look like a minimal presence. 

Online campaigning is not everything, it is extremely important, but will not win elections on its own as Ron Paul seems to have discovered. A credible candidate however with a credible message, as ours has can be assisted enormously by large numbers getting behind him on the net. So join us.

Insanity and the Liberal Left.

Funny, I have always felt that there was something wrong with those who demand to spend their lives sucking on the titty of the nanny state, and in return having to be submissive to the control freak state.

An article I found in The Catskill Commentator “Eminent psychiatrist makes case ideology is mental disorder” kind of puts it in perspective.

Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

“Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded,” says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.” “Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”

For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

In his penetrating analysis, Dr. Rossiter reveals modern liberalism's assaults on:

The freedom of adults to make good lives for themselves by cooperating with others

The ability of families to raise children to be self-reliant and mutual

The morals, rights and laws that protect our freedoms

“Modern liberalism's irrationality can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche."

"The Liberal Mind" reveals the madness of the modern liberal for what it is: a massive transference neurosis acted out in the world's political arenas, with devastating effects on the institutions of liberty.”

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

Creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;

Satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

Augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

Rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

So next time you find yourself saying that the left have to be insane, it will be nice to know that there is a professional opinion backing you up.

Save the Second.com

While cruising through Michael Sutcliffe’s blog I ran into an item, which will be of interest to US readers.

Michael has drawn attention to a petition by Rep. Eric Cantor (R – VA) in defense of the second amendment and suggesting that we urge all pro-freedom people to sign it. I agree fully with this and am urging you to go to his site and do it now, don’t put it off and let your friends know about it.

It has not reached me before and there are probably some out there who do not know about it.

In a great victory for the American People, the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the DC handgun ban saying it was a violation of the second amendment. For the first time in years a court held that the second amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. Defenders of the second amendment have been working hard for just this moment in history for years.

Last Friday, the United States Solicitor General filed formal briefs asking the Supreme Court not to affirm the lower court’s decision. This is just outrageous. The Solicitor General is the Federal Government’s lawyer. So, now we have the federal government using our tax dollars to argue for a delay on a ruling concerning our fundamental rights.

Take action today - sign this petition to let the government know that you value your second amendment rights. Together, we can ensure that your rights are protected. For the first time in years we have the opportunity for the Supreme Court to clearly say that the second amendment applies to all Americans and that no government can ban all handguns.

Let your voice be heard - sign the petition today.

Michael adds; when a congressman is willing to make a stand like this it just proves to me that America is still the world’s greatest liberal democracy.

I can only concur with that.

Solidarity or “Sammenhold”

It is generally my policy not to post images such as this, as while I am a great believer in freedom of speech to which I see no boundaries without taking it away, I do not wish to needlessly cause offense to people.

The recent plot to kill one of the Danish cartoonists however is an anathema to this belief and must be challenged as strongly as possible, and for that reason I am joining bloggers everywhere in republishing this, as an exercise of our rights.

I hope it doesn't have to happen again.

Just when we thought the “Danish Cartoons” issue was ancient history, common sense had at last prevailed and things were going back to normal, a group of Muslims have been arrested for plotting to murder one of the cartoonists. It is of note that the one they were going to kill was Kurt Westergaard who is 70+ years old, and this is probably the reason they felt they only needed three of them to do it.

What were they hoping to achieve from such an act, show their ‘cultural superiority’?

The following is Mark Steyns take on it: -

Great Danes [Mark Steyn]

Following the arrests of three Muslims for plotting to kill Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist who drew Mohammed wearing a bomb turban, the Danish media have today republished the offending illustration.

Good for them. The minute it became clear that violence and intimidation were the response the western press should have said: Okay, you want to kill one of us; you'll have to kill us all. The Danes have now taken an important stand against Islamic encroachments on freedom of expression.

In Canada, by contrast, the state hauled the only publisher of the cartoons, my old boss Ezra Levant, into one of its thought-crime courts at the behest of a raving incoherent imam. And all the jelly-spined squish of a Minister of Justice has done is issue lamely evasive talking points.

 Nonetheless, the imam has now folded and is calling (insofar as I can follow him) for the matter to be settled according to Gene Autry's Cowboy Code or some Islamic understanding thereof. Ezra is going on the offensive.

The lesson is, if you face down these bullies, you can win and stop the lights going out on liberty. But you won't get much help from your government.

Sayed Soharwardy, the complainant in the Canadian issue stated; “You may remember that the original publication of these drawings by a Danish newspaper in September 2005 sparked a wave of violent and destructive protests across Europe and in the Muslim world."

It occurs to me that if Muslims do not wish to be seen in a poor light by the majority of the community then their objections to the content should be something articulate instead of, “a wave of violent and destructive protests,” which is the real cause of peoples disdain for them.

Recently an ‘artwork’ called ‘Piss Christ’ was presented at an exhibition, which caused offense to many Christians. The piece was actually a photo of a crucifix in a glass of the ‘artists’ urine. Still more were offended that it received an award of $15000 from the taxpayer funded National Endowment for the Arts.

What amused me was the stupid arrogance of the liberal left arts crowd, showing their ‘courage’ in the face of the most tolerant religion (or pretty close to it) when there is no way they would dare to come up with something equivalent on the subject of Islam. 

The liberal legislated thought police would deal with them severely if they tried, but they still proudly claimed they were standing up for freedom of speech and artistic expression, knowing all the time that there would be little in the way of consequences, if any.

Michelle Malkin has pointed out that Newspapers in Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands also republished the drawing Wednesday as part of their coverage of Tuesday’s arrests.

These people in going too far have provoked a reaction that has guaranteed that the images would be disseminated much further than they otherwise would have been. Serves them right.

Saudis Prefer Terrorists to Investigation.

I have for a long time felt a deep distrust towards the Saudi leadership. Perhaps it is just their financial support for radical Islamic clerics abroad, but there is something about the photos of the royal family that give me a deep feeling of unease.

I guess there has to be something wrong with the psychology of people who believe they were born to rule and I might be picking up on that, but the impression I get from them is that I wouldn’t trust them with the families cat, and I am not a cat person. There is no way they are getting near my dog.

Even with all the supposed good will between our countries I find it difficult to support any regime that has as part of its system the ubiquitous (for an Islamic society) morals police. Remember a few years ago how a Saudi girls school caught fire and the students were forced back into the burning buildings by these thugs because they had the temerity to try to escape the flames without getting properly dressed first.

These authoritarian bastards had so little common sense that they prevented the fire brigade from getting too close, as such immodestly clad women might have adversely affected them. It is difficult to believe that the sight of female flesh group or facial features can so seriously outrage anyone to a point where they wish to, and actually physically attack women tor transgressions.

I think the major problem with forming such groups is that they attract the sort of people who get their jollies from doing this sort of thing, in fact those sort of people are probably the only sort of people who would get involved.

Anyway I was not really surprised to find the following article in ‘The Australian’, which relates to a successful attempt by the Saudi royals to blackmail the British government, disappointed, outraged, yes, but not really surprised.

Saudis in Terror Threat to Halt Case

Saudi Arabia's rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, court documents revealed yesterday.

Previously secret files describe how investigators were told they faced "another 7/7" - a reference to the July 7, 2005 London bombings - and the loss of "British lives on British streets" if they pressed on with their inquiries and the Saudis carried out their threat to cut off intelligence.

Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was alleged in court to be the man behind the threats to hold back information about suicide bombers and terrorists, Britain's The Guardian newspaper reported yesterday. He faces accusations that he took more than pound stg. 1 billion ($2.2 billion) in secret payments from British arms company BAE.

The paper reported that he was accused in High Court hearings this week of flying to London in December 2006 and making threats which made former prime minister Tony Blair force an end to the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery allegations involving Prince Bandar and his family.

The threats halted the fraud inquiry, but triggered an outcry, amid allegations that Britain had broken international anti-bribery treaties.

Campaigners this week launched a civil case in the High Court seeking to reopen the investigation into the bribery allegations. Anti-corruption groups, including social activist think tank The Corner House and the Campaign against the Arms Trade, want the decision to halt the case overturned, arguing that the Government had caved in to blackmail.

It seems they will stop at nothing to prevent any investigation into their obscene way of corrupt life and I have been justified in my feelings all along.

Dr Sanity and John McCain.

We have what would appear to be a great friend, although not linked to us in Dr Sanity. I have only occasionally visited her site in the past and haven’t been aware of the really good stuff she turns out until now. It’s not just that she supports John McCain, (or at least considers him to be a thoroughly honourable man) she has great insights into the politics of collectivism.

Quite a lot of what she has to say which I will be quoting in this post has to do with the subject of narcissism, which to most people (myself included till I read this) has only negative connotations, however it appears there is a healthy standard form present in all of us, and a pathological type which is very unhealthy. It is explained here in “NARCISSISM AND SOCIETY: Part I - The Psychology of the Self”

Everyone has some Narcissistic traits, and a certain amount of Narcissism is a necessary and healthy thing. What’s different about the personality disorder is that the symptoms are prominent and persistent over time and pervade every aspect of the person’s existence. It can be very disabling in extreme cases; and in others those who have this personality can make the people around them thoroughly miserable, since some narcissists can be manipulative, predatory and completely lacking in empathy. Narcissists are notoriously spiteful and vicious and usually alienate anyone close to them.

Probably around the middle of last year I read a comment on McCain, I don’t remember where, but it indicated that the writer thought something along the lines of “If John McCain did all of those things he would need to do to become President, he would probably consider himself unworthy of the position.” I realized that he was referring to the habit of most candidates of reinventing themselves in the image that suited the voters they were about to face.

This means really, that we don’t know where most candidates stand and we are essentially voting for most of them on their ability to assess what you want to hear and say it. It’s a bit like voting for your favourite chameleon.

The following passage from Dr Sanity’s post from 12 Feb 2008 “HILLARY AND THE POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION” says a great deal about our man and also the bitterness and destructive criticism that seems to follow him around: -

If you want to understand why political campaigns have become so virulent and personally vicious you need not look any farther that this sad truth. While politics still occasionally brings out those who have strong personal integrity and values; often it is the people of no demonstrable integrity and elastic values who are obsessively attracted to the field and who triumph--and that is true on both sides of the political spectrum.

By that, I mean that those who would actually make the best leaders generally opt out of the process, because they tend to be too healthy to generate the continual all-consuming rage necessary to destroy all opponents; or they lack the required-- and mostly distorted --sense of personal "perfection" and grandiosity that drives the power-hungry.

Clearly, there can be other conflicts that motivate people in politics other than a broken sense of self--John McCain is probably a good example. It is not that McCain lacks narcissism--there is no candidate in the political arena who lacks grandiosity and self-serving behavior, after all; but McCain's identity does not get re-invented regularly to please people; nor does he want to be POTUS if doing so he violates his own sense of personal honor and integrity.

Yes, such a commitment to values is indeed narcissism--but it is the healthy kind, the kind that generates values and ideals. We can safely assume that anyone who could say, " I'd rather lose a campaign than lose a war", and defiantly maintain his support for an unpopular war though that attitude once sunk his popularity, is someone who has principles; not a pathological narcissist whose only principle is himself.

I am frequently reminded that it is hopelessly naive these days to expect the electorate to vote for a person based on what that person actually stands for; instead, these days most people respond to the negative campaign ads that slice and dice the other guy; and are mainly influenced by botoxed faces and Hollywood-packaged good-looks rather than the content of any candidate's character. The less they know of that character, the better!

Do you imagine that a Golda Meir or a Margaret Thatcher would have a chance to become the first woman president of the US? Not these days, for sure.

Real personal integrity and character comes from having a consistent set of values and exhibiting behavior driven by those values. Today's classic narcissistically-driven politicians like both Hillary and Bill can only flutter in the political winds, and zelig-like easily take on whatever characteristics their public care to project onto them.

The US has the opportunity to put a real man of integrity into the White House this time, and while there is a way to go yet to get him the nomination, we are reaching the stage where we can probably afford to turn some of our guns on the Democrats.

Romney Supporters coming over.

By Jim Fryar.

I have joined bloggers for McCain, as while being an Australian I tend to have a great deal of interest in what goes on over there, and tend to discuss quite a bit of politics with Americans, as I tend to find the moderate Republicans stand about where I find myself politically.

 I am actually more libertarian than most republicans, however while I keep contact with the LP I find myself at odds with them on matters such as defense, and their tendency to be a bit more “in your face” than voters are likely to accept.

I could support Wayne Allyn Root, but he is really a moderate Republican anyway. It really is a shame he decided to stand Libertarian but I wish him well.

When I decided to support John McCain I found myself in the embarrassing position of being almost the only one of my group of contacts who was not supporting Romney, who I quite liked as well, but that’s history. I did however have concerns about some of the statements from some of them that if he wasn’t the nominee they would sit the election out or vote for Wayne Root.

This doesn’t seem to have happened as most Romney supporters I have been in contact with seem to have come over to the position of acceptance, that a Democrat President would be a disaster, and are willing to compromise after all. I am delighted to find a couple of them on this blogroll.

One suggestion that has come up from some of those who do not support us is that they make a serious effort to try to get moderate Republicans elected in the House, Senate, and in the state legislatures. While I am disappointed that they are not with us, this effort is in itself commendable as their efforts will assist us in getting a Republican elected as president from the flow-on effect, and hopefully a great presidential campaign will get us more of the right sort of people elected in the various houses.

It would be better if they were behind us, but what they are doing should result in a win win situation anyway. Once our man is the nominee we should support their efforts and hopefully they will reciprocate. Their efforts should help us unless they decide to be bloody-minded about it, in which case they would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces and I think they are brighter than that.

A Call for a Positive Campaign.

By Jim Fryar

One of the frustrations of living in Australia and being very interested in US politics is the time difference between us. 

Here I am in the late afternoon of 5 Feb 08, ‘Super Tuesday, and some of you are not even out of Monday yet. Patrick Joubert Conlon is probably still out on the veranda in Oregon with a glass of wine and a cigar ending the day, while I have to wait till Wednesday for you to do Tuesday.

Hey, I want to see some results. Just kidding.

One of the problems I see with the campaign on our side of politics is the extreme amount of negativity I am seeing, especially with such things as the ‘Dump McCain Now’ symbol on blogs. I am not being one eyed here as I felt that the Rudy one which is disappearing now was also a bad idea.

If I were a Democrat, (give me a minute to wash my mouth out) I would collect all of these for use later on.

Another idea which tends to be a bit short sighted, is the down and dirty stuff where the efforts to attack another Republican, only benefits the Democrats. An example of this is the posts that appeared a day or so ago, pointing out that Huckabee was at *6 on Judicial Watch’s 10 most corrupt politicians list.

I quote: - Governor Huckabee enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls in December 2007, which prompted a more thorough review of his ethics record. According to The Associated Press: “[Huckabee’s] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office.” And what was Governor Huckabee’s response to these ethics allegations? Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.

A visit to the site reveals some much more interesting facts, such as: -
*1 on the list is Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY),
*2 is Rep. John Conyers (D-MI),
*4 is Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA).

I am not sure of the validity of the site as at number four is Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) whose only act approaching an actual ethics violation was apparently attempting to use his position to bluff the police officer, the rest comes under sheer stupidity. He should probably be tossed out of the Senate for lack of judgment.

I am reminded by all of this of an election in Australia around the late 70s where the Liberal Party with Malcolm Frazer as PM was up against Labor with Gough Whitlam as opposition leader. Both sides stank in the eyes of all but their most sycophantic followers, to the point where about the only thing they could do to look good was to talk about the other side.

This lead to the bizarre phenomenon where all Liberal Party advertising was headed with a photograph of Gough, while all Labor adds were headed by a photo of Frazer. To avoid keeping you in suspense, the Liberal party had deeper pockets and was able to print more photos of Gough than Labor could of Frazer, and so won the election.

I hope we can do better.

McCain, I'll Back Him

By Jim Fryar.

Well I am going to disappoint and upset most of my US friends on the net and support McCain, a difficult decision, but one, which had to be made in the face of the ANCIR and other racist groups attack on him.

Sure immigration is a difficult issue to deal with and some hard decisions have to be made, especially in view of the sheer numbers of illegals in the US. However when I see calls for all of them to be booted out immediately, it becomes obvious that many of the proponents come from La La Land or somewhere close to it.

The sheer impractability of it is breathtaking in its stupidity. Just how the hell do you take 12 million people out of a country in a period as short as six months as some advocate and toss them into another, with out causing disastrous consequences both economically and socially is beyond me.

Criminal elements should be weeded out and deported, fair enough. The problem is that many people seem to equate the unauthorized entry in itself as an act of criminality, which in a strictly legalistic sense, it is, however so is jay walking. When we refer to criminality we should be talking of real crime, with real victims, not some guy trying to get a job to help him support his family.

The McCain policy of securing borders to control the inflow and allow those who declare themselves, to pass criminal background checks, prove their employment, pay fines, taxes, and meet other requirements a chance at citizenship if they want it is not unreasonable. They pay the price, for illegal entry, then documentation allows other problems such as non payment of taxes, non entry to health insurance, etc to be resolved as most of these are caused by the situation whereby there is no way the person can do so without saying "I am illegal, come and get me.”

He makes more sense than the others.