Bush, allies hope to revive immigration bill (from Texas Fred)

While appearing to not have much to do with the above thread per se, it is interesting that I have had on the drafting table for quite a while a planned post responding to twenty-five so-called "arguments" for impeaching President Bush. Most of those objections have been refuted in the draft as it is written now but the reason I am not likely to finish it anytime soon is this:

--I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!!

I do not intend to set forth the full panopoly of arguments to explain this at the present time. However, I will touch in passing on one argument so that readers can see the consistency in how I am approaching this issue.

One of the issues at stake here is that of undermining the common good of society by actions taken to upset just public order. That is what a failure to secure the borders of this nation constitutes in a nutshell. The law is intended to protect the fundamental rights of people as a collective and attempts to undermine those rights is a perversion of the law's natural purpose. Or to remind readers of what Claude Frederic Bastiat wrote on this matter:

If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]

I would like to see some of these amnesty supporters explain how this amnesty proposal does not result in a loss of respect for the law in society in precisely the same dilemma that Bastiat so outlined in the mid nineteenth century:

No society can exist if respect for the law does not to some extent prevail; but the surest way to have the laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality are in contradiction, the citizen finds himself in the cruel dilemma of either losing his moral sense or of losing respect for the law, two evils of which one is as great as the other, and between which it is difficult to choose. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]

A lot more could be noted but that suffices for now. This amnesty idea is a bad idea for a lot more reasons than the ones quickly touched on above but those are adequate in and of themselves. The whole concept makes a mockery of the rule of law in society. And while I could say a lot more than that and probably will at a later time, that is all I will say on the matter right now.

Points to Ponder:
(On D-Day)

Today is the sixty-third anniversary of D-Day. To honour this occasion, I want to post in full a speech delivered on June 6, 1984 at the US Ranger Monument in Pointe de Hoc, France by then President Ronald Reagan -the anniversary of whose passing on was yesterday. Without further ado...

We're here to mark that day in history when the Allied armies joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. For four long years, much of Europe had been under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps, millions cried out for liberation. Europe was enslaved, and the world prayed for its rescue. Here in Normandy the rescue began. Here the Allies stood and fought against tyranny in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history.

We stand on a lonely, windswept point on the northern shore of France. The air is soft, but 40 years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men, and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the roar of cannon. At dawn, on the morning of the 6th of June, 1944, 225 Rangers jumped off the British landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs. Their mission was one of the most difficult and daring of the invasion: to climb these sheer and desolate cliffs and take out the enemy guns. The Allies had been told that some of the mightiest of these guns were here and they would be trained on the beaches to stop the Allied advance.

The Rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers--the edge of the cliffs shooting down at them with machine guns and throwing grenades. And the American Rangers began to climb. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one Ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a Ranger would grab another and begin his climb again. They climbed, shot back, and held their footing. Soon, one by one, the Rangers pulled themselves over the top, and in seizing the firm land at the top of these cliffs, they began to seize back the continent of Europe. Two hundred and twenty-five came here. After two days of fighting, only 90 could still bear arms.

Behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there.

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.

Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender's poem. You are men who in your "lives fought for life . . . and left the vivid air signed with your honor.''

I think I know what you may be thinking right now--thinking, "We were just part of a bigger effort; everyone was brave that day.'' Well, everyone was. Do you remember the story of Bill Millin of the 51st Highlanders? Forty years ago today, British troops were pinned down near a bridge, waiting desperately for help. Suddenly, they heard the sound of bagpipes, and some thought they were dreaming. Well, they weren't. They looked up and saw Bill Millin with his bagpipes, leading the reinforcements and ignoring the smack of the bullets into the ground around him.

Lord Lovat was with him--Lord Lovat of Scotland, who calmly announced when he got to the bridge, "Sorry I'm a few minutes late,'' as if he'd been delayed by a traffic jam, when in truth he'd just come from the bloody fighting on Sword Beach, which he and his men had just taken.

There was the impossible valor of the Poles who threw themselves between the enemy and the rest of Europe as the invasion took hold, and the unsurpassed courage of the Canadians who had already seen the horrors of war on this coast. They knew what awaited them there, but they would not be deterred. And once they hit Juno Beach, they never looked back.

All of these men were part of a rollcall of honor with names that spoke of a pride as bright as the colors they bore: the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, Poland's 24th Lancers, the Royal Scots Fusiliers, the Screaming Eagles, the Yeomen of England's armored divisions, the forces of Free France, the Coast Guard's "Matchbox Fleet'' and you, the American Rangers.

Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet, you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief; it was loyalty and love.

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge--and pray God we have not lost it--that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

The Americans who fought here that morning knew word of the invasion was spreading through the darkness back home. They thought--or felt in their hearts, though they couldn't know in fact, that in Georgia they were filling the churches at 4 a.m., in Kansas they were kneeling on their porches and praying, and in Philadelphia they were ringing the Liberty Bell.

Something else helped the men of D-Day: their rock-hard belief that Providence would have a great hand in the events that would unfold here; that God was an ally in this great cause. And so, the night before the invasion, when Colonel Wolverton asked his parachute troops to kneel with him in prayer he told them: Do not bow your heads, but look up so you can see God and ask His blessing in what we're about to do. Also that night, General Matthew Ridgway on his cot, listening in the darkness for the promise God made to Joshua: "I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.'' These are the things that impelled them; these are the things that shaped the unity of the Allies.

When the war was over, there were lives to be rebuilt and governments to be returned to the people. There were nations to be reborn. Above all, there was a new peace to be assured. These were huge and daunting tasks. But the Allies summoned strength from the faith, belief, loyalty, and love of those who fell here. They rebuilt a new Europe together.

There was first a great reconciliation among those who had been enemies, all of whom had suffered so greatly. The United States did its part, creating the Marshall Plan to help rebuild our allies and our former enemies. The Marshall Plan led to the Atlantic alliance--a great alliance that serves to this day as our shield for freedom, for prosperity, and for peace.

In spite of our great efforts and successes, not all that followed the end of the war was happy or planned. Some liberated countries were lost. The great sadness of this loss echoes down to our own time in the streets of Warsaw, Prague, and East Berlin. Soviet troops that came to the center of this continent did not leave when peace came. They're still there, uninvited, unwanted, unyielding, almost 40 years after the war. Because of this, Allied forces still stand on this continent. Today, as 40 years ago, our armies are here for only one purpose--to protect and defend democracy. The only territories we hold are memorials like this one and graveyards where our heroes rest.

We in America have learned bitter lessons from two World Wars: It is better to be here ready to protect the peace than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent.

But we try always to be prepared for peace; prepared to deter aggression; prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms; and, yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation. In truth, there is no reconciliation we would welcome more than a reconciliation with the Soviet Union, so, together, we can lessen the risks of war, now and forever.

It's fitting to remember here the great losses also suffered by the Russian people during World War II: 20 million perished, a terrible price that testifies to all the world the necessity of ending war. I tell you from my heart that we in the United States do not want war. We want to wipe from the face of the Earth the terrible weapons that man now has in his hands. And I tell you, we are ready to seize that beachhead. We look for some sign from the Soviet Union that they are willing to move forward, that they share our desire and love for peace, and that they will give up the ways of conquest. There must be a changing there that will allow us to turn our hope into action.

We will pray forever that some day that changing will come. But for now, particularly today, it is good and fitting to renew our commitment to each other, to our freedom, and to the alliance that protects it.

We are bound today by what bound us 40 years ago, the same loyalties, traditions, and beliefs. We're bound by reality. The strength of America's allies is vital to the United States, and the American security guarantee is essential to the continued freedom of Europe's democracies. We were with you then; we are with you now. Your hopes are our hopes, and your destiny is our destiny.

Here, in this place where the West held together, let us make a vow to our dead. Let us show them by our actions that we understand what they died for. Let our actions say to them the words for which Matthew Ridgway listened: "I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.''

Strengthened by their courage, heartened by their value [valor], and borne by their memory, let us continue to stand for the ideals for which they lived and died. Thank you very much, and God bless you all. [President Ronald W. Reagan]

As today is the anniversary of the passing of former President Ronald Wilson Reagan, I want to commemorate this by reminding readers of a review I wrote three years ago for Dinesh D'Souza's 1997 book on President Ronald Reagan and recommend that the readers acquire and read it. God rest your soul Mr. President and may we see another of your kind soon.

On the Jefferson Indictment:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Readers of this weblog for some time may remember something written in October of 2005 on the indictment of former Texas Republican Senator Thomas D. DeLay of Texas. Those who remember the media storm over that subject can compare it to how the media is handling this one to see yet another example of msm double standards. First of all, as I noted in that posting, former Senator Thomas DeLay was not actually charged with anything in that indictment.{1} Also worth noting is that the DeLay "indictment" was only four pages long: a rather pittance if one considers how long special prosecutor Ronnie Earle had been going after DeLay. Or as I noted in the aforementioned posting on the matter:

My first impression is the volume of the paperwork involved. Considering how long Ronnie Earle has been going after DeLay, a four page indictment seems rather slim. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 1, 2005)]

What we had in other words was an indictment of four pages in length that did not actually charge the party served with any actual wrongdoing. The response from the media however was to treat DeLay as if he was guilty nonetheless. Nor did anyone seem to want to point out that Ronnie Earle had been pursuing DeLay for a long time and there may well be a political angle to what happened in DeLay's case. I am not going to say whether or not DeLay was guilty of anything or not but I see no reason to presume he was if five attempts at convening a grand jury against him were only able to come up with a four page text which did not actually charge him of any wrong-doing. But enough on that matter for now and let us consider the difference in the DeLay indictment and the one handed down today against Louisiana Democratic Representative William J. Jefferson.

To start with, this is no four page patchjob lacking an accusation of wrongdoing as in the DeLay case. Instead, this indictment is a ninety-five page document which charges Rep. William J. Jefferson with actual wrongdoing. Indeed as readers who view the indictment can see{2}, Rep. William J. Jefferson was actually charged on all the counts for which he is being indicted for.

There are of course other issues which the msm will use to try and distract from the seriousness of this situation. As I have noted before, there is at the very least a problem with appearances in how this process was handled at the beginning.{3} But appearances are not necessarily reality when one considers the broader factors involved. Invariably the claim of "Constitutional violation" will come up in some quarters but I dealt with this accusation last year and pointed out why this dog does not hunt however less-than-stellar (to put it nicely) the Bush Administration went about in its handling of the search of Rep. William J. Jefferson's residence. Here are the threads previously written on this subject for those who are interested in taking a closer look at the whole "Constitutionality" issue:

On the Latest Bush Administration SNAFU Situation (circa May 27, 2006)

On the Fourth Amendment, The Supreme Court, and Warrantless Searches (circa June 1, 2006)

More on the Bush Administration/FBI Constitutionality Question (circa June 11, 2006)

The first posting examines the procedure undertaken with Rep. William J. Jefferson and notes the content of the fourth amendment and what it allows for and does not allow for. The second was mainly written to correct a misperception on the part of one of our readers on the intended scope of the first posting. Meanwhile, the third posting also was written to clarify a reader's misunderstanding of part of the Constitution -namely the part that reads as follows:

They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

More could be noted at this time but the purpose of this posting was to achieve three things. The first was to note briefly what will be an obvious msm double standard in how the DeLay indictment was covered and how this indictment of Jefferson will be. The second was to compare the solid indictment of Rep. William J. Jefferson with the absolute joke of an indictment against former Sen. Thomas D. DeLay. The third was to remind readers who may have forgotten (and alert readers who were unaware) of additional postings from last year which go into certain subsidiary issues on the Jefferson indictment which will with the greatest of likelihood be points of msm focus as they attempt to detract from the solidity of the case against Rep. William J. Jefferson. The political repercussions for the Democratic Congress were well stated by someone who read the same site which your host got the indictment text:

The indictment of William Jefferson is but the visible edge of a vast ethical desert-wasteland presided over by House Democrats.

Democrat Speaker Pelosi, has amply demonstrated her vision of “the most ethical Congress in history”.
Her vision includes

- ignoring the contents of Rep. Jefferson’s (D-LA) deep freezer (zero contact with Jefferson’s office and the ethics committee, since the Democrats came to power, nor any ethics committee meetings on Jefferson during that time)

- anonymous earmarks – where was that promise of “transparency in government”?

- touting impeached former judge, now representative, Alcee Hastings (D-FL) for chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee (Hastings was impeached for bribery by a Democrat-controlled Congress)

- blocking consideration of Abscam Jack Murtha’s House rules violations

- attempting to deprive the minority party of the “motion to recommit” – this in order to be able to raise taxes and increase spending without having to vote and be held accountable

The Justice Department is holding its own “ethics investigation” into Jefferson. Theirs won’t run the risk of being tabled or delayed by Madam Speaker. [DBroome]

All of that is well noted and I will close this posting by saying that there were a number of those who were accusing former Texas Republican Senator Thomas D. DeLay of wrongdoing and claiming he was guilty before trial even before (not to mention after) the issuing of Ronnie Earle's pathetic excuse for an "indictment" against Thomas D. DeLay. I am however not going to claim that current Louisiana Democratic Representative William J. Jefferson is guilty merely because he was indicted. That will be for a court to determine but I will say this: the case for Rep. William J. Jefferson's guilt has been outlined to a substantial degree unlike in the case of former Sen. Thomas D. DeLay.

Notes:

{1} All the indictment says about Thomas Dale DeLay is that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the application of certain parts of the Texas Code of Criminal Conduct with regards to the other two defendents along with waiving some other right pertaining to indictments of the other parties listed as defendents in this indictment...Then the indictment points out that a grand jury indicted the other two defendents on the same charges earlier on.

In other words, Thomas Dale DeLay is supposedly indicted but is not actually charged with any violations of law himself. Nor is he charged with committing any overt acts to furtherance of the alleged "conspiracy" that he was supposedly involved in. The long and short of it is this: he is not charged with any actual wrongdoing by this indictment!!! [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 1, 2005)]

{2} The indictment of William J. Jefferson can be viewed HERE.

{3} On the latest situation with the FBI raid of Rep. William Jefferson's offices, at the very least there is the appearance of impropriety in how this was handled. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 27, 2006)]

Actually, there is one more bit I want to note before the end of the evening...

--If this story is correct, we may have skirted another 9/11 catastrophe. (Courtesy of Drudge.)

I still believe most of the willfully blind lemmings will need to see another 9/11 before they will cease their idiotic blathering as I have said on a number of occasions{1} but that is all I want to say on the matter at this time.

Note:

{1} I hate to say it, but there will probably be the need for another 9-11 type disaster before some in this country actually get it. I hope that my intuition is in error here but I am not too optimistic about that to put it frankly. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 21, 2003)]

While not the only time I have said or written that viewpoint, the above excerpt was nonetheless the only one in the archives I was able to find on a very hasty word search.