Right Side of the Rainbow

Posted by Paul at 8:39 PM | Permalink

Want to send a shock wave through the Republican Congress?

Help defeat pro-amnesty GOP Rep. Chris Cannon. Join me in making a contribution, even a small one, to the campaign of his border-boosting, gun-supporting, libertarian-leaning opponent. His name is John Jacob, and he can win the June 27 primary.

Please, help him.

Posted by Paul at 5:52 PM | Permalink

Paleoconservative Star Parker acknowledges what most suspect, many fear and others cheer — the tide of public opinion is turning on gay marriage:

The most recent polling shows that a strong majority of Americans oppose legal recognition of same sex marriage (58 percent) and a slight majority favor a constitutional amendment (50 percent for, 47 percent opposed). The support breaks out consistently along partly lines. Republicans favor the amendment (66 percent for) and Democrats oppose (55 percent against).

These results are about the same as they were last year. However, they have changed a lot over the last 10 years. Today 39 percent of Americans support legal recognition of same sex marriage, up from 27 percent 10 years ago and 58 percent oppose, down from 68 percent 10 years ago.

Completing the picture of what seems reasonable to call a trend, the area of the population where support for same-sex marriage is strongest and growing is among young people. Time does not seem to favor those who want to preserve tradition.

Correct. And this is one reason why gays and lesbians should not seek court rulings that elicit backlash from transient majorities. We should instead follow the example of a winning football team in the closing minutes of the game: fall on the ball and run the clock. We don’t need yardage. We need time.

But Ms. Parker’s admission of the apparent isn’t what caught my attention. This is:

… along with the trend toward increasing acceptance of the idea of same-sex marriage has been the complete obliteration of the idea that homosexuality is a type of behavior as opposed to a state of being. The discussion has long disappeared that this is about attitudes regarding this behavior and it has become almost exclusively cast as discrimination claims against gays and lesbians.

[…]

Now there are without question instances where individuals change their sexual behavior.

I have never heard of instance of a black person becoming white or vice versa.

Yet, somehow we have gotten to the point where it is generally accepted that being gay is a fact and not a choice. [Emphasis mine.]

Notice the conflation of behavior with orientation? Ms. Parker first reduces the homosexual to his genitals, and then concludes that what he can do with them explains the whole of his being.

Here, as fairly as I can put it, is Mr. Parker’s argument in syllogistic form, albeit it with one modification:

Minor premise: There are without question instances where heterosexuals have changed their sexual behavior (e.g., in prison, in the military, in British boarding schools).

Major premise: Behavior is a synonym for orientation.

Conclusion: Therefore, heterosexuality is a choice and not a fact.

In Ms. Parker’s argument, the outside experiences of a few homosexuals belie the inside experiences of all the rest. Accordingly, she ignores any of the extra-sexual elements of gay attraction or relationships, including emotional comfort, psychological support, intellectual stimulation or spiritual growth. She does not commend to us the mysteries that in any case bind one human intimately to another. She commends to us only what people can do with their sex organs. That, she would have us believe, tells the whole story — or at least it does where gays and lesbians are concerned.

Fortunately, Ms. Parker’s argument is evidently unpersuasive to the Nation’s youth. They have come to see gays and lesbians in a way she does not: as human beings.

Posted by Paul at 6:07 PM | Permalink

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 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 Reagan
Pointe du Hoc, France
June 6, 1984

Posted by Paul at 5:13 PM | Permalink

When I was a teenager, Leif Garrett was the bomb, the heartthrob of every straight girl and gay boy in America. I would purloin my sister’s copy of Tiger Beat to fawn over the pictures of him.

Until today, it had been eons since his name crossed my mind. I happened on this story of his arrest — evidently not the first — on drug charges.

What can I say? Except that was then and this is now, and heroin is plainly not good for you. See for yourself.

Gawd damn!

Posted by Paul at 11:21 PM | Permalink

Mark Steyn on Republican debasement:

According to an FBI affidavit, this Democrat congressman was caught on video taking a hundred-grand bribe from a government informer and then storing it in his freezer. That’s what the scandal’s supposed to be: Democrat Icecapades of 2006.

[…]

So what does [House Speaker Dennis] Hastert do? He and the House Republican leadership intervene in the case on behalf of the Democrat: They’re strenuously objecting to the FBI having the appalling lese majeste to go to court, obtain a warrant and search Jefferson’s office. In constitutional terms, they claim it violates the separation of powers. In political terms, they’re climbing right into the Frigidaire with Jefferson’s crisp chilled billfold. What does the Republican base’s despair with Congress boil down to? That the Gingrich revolutionaries have turned into the pampered potentates of pre-1994 Washington, a remote insulated arrogant elite interested only in protecting the privileges of the permanent governing class. But how best to confirm it? Hmm. What about if we send the Republican speaker out to argue that congressmen are beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. law-enforcement agencies?

You’ll also want to see Professor Robert Turner’s essay “Congress isn’t above the law: and bribery isn’t ‘speech or debate,’” which quotes from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972):

Taking a bribe is, obviously, no part of the legislative process or function; it is not a legislative act. It is not, by any conceivable interpretation, an act performed as a part of or even incidental to the role of a legislator.

What ought to trouble us most, though, is not Speaker Hastert’s bogus constitutional claims. (He’s now backpedaling, by the way.) What ought to trouble us most is the arrogance and insularity that induced him to even make such claims:

One might expect that others in Congress would be grateful that a scoundrel in their midst has apparently been caught red-handed. But there is obviously a more fundamental issue here, as House Speaker Dennis Hastert quickly joined forces with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, not to commend the FBI for its outstanding work, but to vehemently denounce its actions on the theory that members of Congress are above the law.

Mr. Hastert isn’t the only Republican leader unhappy with the FBI. Come Tuesday, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, will hold hearings on the “profoundly disturbing” failure of the Framers to exempt members of Congress from criminal process.

Sometimes people say or do things that reveal more than a point of view on a narrow topic; they say or do things that reveal their gestalt, their way of seeing the world generally. Which, in this case, presents the question: in what world do Republican leaders think it appropriate — or at least inconsequential — to defend an allegedly corrupt Democratic colleague with claims of extraordinary privilege as benefits their common class? Or, to put it another way, what do these claims tell us about the mindset that now prevails in Washington? And why shouldn’t that mindset, jealous as it is of the power and prerogatives of the elite, alarm us?

The debate continues among conservative bloggers on whether disaffected Republicans should sit out the 2006 midterms with a view to allowing our party’s fall from power. Myself, I think the verdict is in: our Republican rulers are now so removed from conservative principle, and so infected with a hubris of such force and magnitude — it covers even the corruption of oppositional peers — as to put them not only beyond our redemption, but also to place them within the sphere of our conscientious dissent.

“Oh, but the Democrats will do no better and probably worse,” will come the retort. But that’s an argument against voting Democratic; it isn’t an argument for voting Republican. And when a Democratic majority behaves like petty tyrants, the GOP may do then what principle requires but self-seeking now prevents. It may object. And shouldn’t someone?

Posted by Paul at 4:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Posted by Paul at 1:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

You go, girl: “This is America!” says Nakeisha, who feels strongly you should speak English while here.

(Thanks to Michelle.)

CLARIFICATION — No, I am not endorsing Nakeisha’s shoe-slapping ways.

Posted by Paul at 11:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The editors of National Review, on what may be the worst piece of proposed legislation in our lifetimes:

The [Senate’s immigration “reform”] bill forbids the federal government to use any information included in an application for amnesty in national-security or criminal investigations. Any federal agent who does use that information would be fined $10,000—which is five times more than an illegal alien would have to pay to get the amnesty. The Senate, on a tie vote, defeated John Cornyn’s (R., Tex.) attempt to rectify these provisions.

When Sen. Johnny Isakson (R., Ga.) offered an amendment to require that enforcement be proven to have succeeded before the amnesty or guest-worker provisions could take effect, he was voted down, 55-40. For most senators, enforcement is just boob bait for the voters. They are not willing to demand it before getting what they, for various reasons, really want: an amnesty and a massive increase in legal immigration.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) wanted to deny illegal immigrants the earned income tax credit. It is one thing to legalize them, went the argument, and another to subsidize them. He, too, was voted down, with Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) flippantly suggesting that the amendment was akin to requiring illegals to ride in the back of the bus. (No, senator: They’re in the front of the line, at least for legal residency in the U.S.)

[…]

[Senate Republicans] are being told that they need to pass a bill, even if they dislike many of its provisions, to be seen as “doing something” about the border. But the voters who care the most about this issue know that the Senate bill does something they heartily detest. They know that the only way to get any enforcement of our immigration laws—at the border or the workplace—is to keep all of the interests that want increased immigration from getting what they want until enforcement is achieved. The Senate should stand down in favor of the House’s enforcement-first approach, not the other way around. But it would be much better to enact no bill than to enact the Senate bill.

Posted by Paul at 10:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Hope:

One of the top House negotiators on immigration said yesterday the only way a final compromise bill can pass is if the Senate drops its path to citizenship for current illegal aliens …

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he is willing to accept a temporary-worker program for future workers, but citizenship for illegal aliens — which he said definitely constitutes “amnesty” — is out.

Come Tuesday, call your congressman.

ADDED — Meanwhile, this:

Key Republicans, including Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina, have joined Democrats in making clear that taking out a path to citizenship would be a deal-breaker.

“It won’t come out of conference [negotiations] if this isn’t part of it,” said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who helped draft the Senate bill. If House members won’t back down, he said, “it’s gone.”

Then let it be gone.

Call your congressman.

Posted by Paul at 9:13 AM | Permalink

Good for him:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, F.B.I. Director Robert S. Mueller III and senior officials and career prosecutors at the Justice Department told associates this week that they were prepared to quit if the White House directed them to relinquish evidence seized in a bitterly disputed search of a House member’s office, government officials said Friday.

Mr. Gonzales was joined in raising the possibility of resignation by the deputy attorney general, Paul J. McNulty, the officials said. Mr. Gonzales and Mr. McNulty told associates that they had an obligation to protect evidence in a criminal case and would be unwilling to carry out any White House order to return the material to Congress.

It’s encouraging to know that even if members of Congress think they’re above the law, the Attorney General of the United States does not.

Posted by Paul at 11:18 PM | Permalink

See the fence. Learn more. Call your congressman.

Posted by Paul at 8:20 PM | Permalink

Posted by Paul at 7:00 PM | Permalink

Who wrote this?

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society — the farmers, mechanics, and laborers — who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.

Answer below the jump.

President Andrew Jackson, on July 10, 1832, in a message to the Senate, wherein he vetoed as unconstitutional the Bank of the United States’ charter renewal. The U.S. Supreme Court, in McCulloch v. Maryland, had upheld the constitutionality of the bank’s charter. Jackson demurred:

It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality in all its features ought to be considered as settled by precedent and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I can not assent.

(Thanks to Professor Barnett.)

Posted by Paul at 6:05 PM | Permalink

Posted by Paul at 12:01 AM | Permalink

Posted by Paul at 8:30 PM | Permalink

Chuck Grassley, R-IA, was a senator in 1986 who voted for the first round of amnesty for illegals. Still a senator, Grassley says he’s not going to make the same mistake twice, and lists the top 10 flaws with the Senate’s version of immigration reform.

Here’s my personal favorite: under S. 2611 (“Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006”), illegal aliens only have to pay three of their last five years in back taxes.

How would it go for you, do you think, if you evaded federal income taxes for five years running and then informed the Government that you would pony up for only three of them?

Umm, hmm.

Might I suggest that any senator, regardless of party, who votes for this abomination does not deserve your vote, money or time?

UPDATE —

Passed, 62-36. Here’s the roll call.

Posted by Paul at 4:29 PM | Permalink

Correct:

As many Republicans see it, President Bush is trying to ram a Democratic amnesty bill down their throats — a bill that would amount to political suicide for them.

House Republicans are dead-set against legalization, convinced that backing Bush’s plan would so infuriate conservatives that they’d sit out the election and let Democrats win control of Congress.

Some of us, fed up with the GOP’s spendthrift ways, are already prepared to sit out the election. House Republicans are well-advised not to swell our ranks.

Posted by Paul at 7:43 AM | Permalink

… who the hell do you people think you are? Your hubris is appalling.

ADDED —

Eugene Volokh:

Exactly what’s the constitutional argument against the search of Rep. Jefferson’s office? I confess I’m pretty puzzled by Speaker Hastert’s theory here.

Professor Volokh dignifies the speaker’s remarks by elevating them to the status of ‘constitutional argument.’ There is no argument, if by argument we mean coherent reasons in support of a view. There’s only one ass hat covering another.

I try to avoid histrionics. But I’m quite genuinely taken back by the congressional mind-set on display here. It’s the mind-set of tyrants.

Posted by Paul at 4:23 PM | Permalink

We’re on the verge of making the same mistakes we’ve made before. Call your senators.

UPDATE —

Washington Post:

The Senate voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to limit debate on election-year immigration legislation, clearing the way for final passage later this week of a bill that calls for tougher border security as well as an eventual chance at citizenship for millions of men and women in the country illegally.

[…]

Final passage would set the stage for a difficult negotiation with the House …

The vote to invoke cloture was 73-25. See here how your senators voted. We can expect passage tomorrow or Friday and then it’s on to conference committee; let’s hope House negotiators show some grit.

Posted by Paul at 10:25 AM | Permalink

The Senate’s version of immigration reform must die. Read why.

Call your senators. Urge a “no” vote on S. 2611 (“Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006”).

Posted by Paul at 3:02 PM | Permalink

When drinking and fighting with your family and houseguests, lock the door and draw the shades.

Posted by Paul at 11:30 PM | Permalink

Gee, ya think?

Tomorrow’s headline today: “Midterm election is key to Democrat strategy, too”

(Incidentally, the image you see is from an unrelated story. The nurse is not, as you might suppose from the picture’s placement, preparing to give a Republican senator an injection of spine.)

Posted by Paul at 11:20 PM | Permalink

Jon Henke of the Q and O Blog, in an essay for TCS Daily:

Fundamentally, [illegal immigration] is, as Jeffrey Miron points out, a very simple supply-and-demand issue. In both the War on the Border and the War on Drugs, “demand is substantial” while “existing policy seeks mainly to reduce supply.” Miron continues:

“The key lesson is nevertheless the same: demand creates a supply. Policy appears to be ineffective at raising the costs of supplying drugs, immigration and many other things. So policy should focus on reducing demand, or moderating the negative consequences of that demand, rather than on costly and mainly ineffective efforts to curtail supply.” [Emphasis added.]

Yes, and this is why advocates of border security are not always fungible with advocates of restrictionist immigration policy.

To say that we should secure our borders — so that, post 9/11, we know who is here and why — is not to say that we should, or could, stop all immigration. Even with 11 million illegals here, our economy is operating at near-full employment, which suggests no surplus of labor. America needs immigrants, and lots of them. And where there is a demand, there will be a supply. Count on it.

Which is why we ought to harmonize our law with reality and adopt a generous immigration policy, one that does not interfere with the market’s calibration of the balance between supply and demand. But from this it does not follow from that we must grant citizenship to all who enter, or that we cannot deport aliens who commit violent crimes or that we must forswear all regulations of the time, place and manner of immigration.

We can no more successfully prosecute a war on labor than we can successfully prosecute a war on drugs. But the war on drugs is unwinnable not because it seeks to regulate the distribution of a lawful commodity; it’s unwinnable because it seeks to do what cannot be done: eradicate supply in the presence of demand.

Regulation, on the other hand, is not a synonym for eradication, nor is it futile; in fact, we know from ample experience that we can regulate an otherwise legally available product. In Texas, for example, you can lawfully buy liquor from tens of thousands of licensed dealers, but not between the hours of 2 a.m. and 7 a.m. And yet there is no off-hour black market in the sale of alcohol. The relatively minor burdens of the state’s regulatory scheme are easily negotiated — buy while the stores are open! — and do not encourage, or outweigh, the risks of illicit trade. We can say much the same about tobacco; its consumption is heavily taxed and restricted by statute in many public places, but not in toto. Consequently, there is no black market in cigarettes (at least not outside the Nation’s jails). Ban them and see what you get.

But where, as with other drugs, the law puts itself at odds with the demands of the market by imposing not regulation but prohibition, then the risks of unlawful trade are trumped by the benefits. For the operators of a drug cartel, the choice is between the risk of prison and the certainty of avarice. If you’re temperamentally inclined to play cat and mouse with the police, it’s not a hard choice.¹

The supply of foreign labor flows across our border because our economy demands that it flow across. It flows illegally because our law does not allow it do otherwise.

We must reconcile the demands of our economy with the rule of law.

We can begin by making unregulated entry incredibly arduous. We can build walls — yes, Jon, one across the Canadian border, too! — while deploying enough technology and manpower to detect and halt the much-reduced but inevitable breaches. Next, we can disincentivize the hiring of illegals by credibly threatening their middle-class employers with the prospect of punitive fines and a term in the penitentiary.

But that’s only half the solution. The other half is to provide employers with an attractive alternative: a market-calibrated pool of legal labor, as determined by the general use of fraud-resistant biometic identification.²

Let the people come. And let them go. And let them come and go, as many surely would if they could cross legally — and of wall-induced necessity — through a border or airport check point rather than through the Arizona desert. And let them work, which is an honorable thing. And let those who want it and who have followed the rules apply to become American citizens. But let them do these things in a way consistent with our security and with our values. Let them do it under the rule of law.

“America can be,” as Mr. Bush put it, “a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time.” We just have to decide if we want to be.

¹We could make the choice harder by imposing, say, summary execution on anyone claimed by the police to have been caught manufacturing, transporting, selling or possessing drugs. But do you imagine we’re going to do that? And would you want us to?

²We must, I submit, abandon our resistance to a national ID card. What, do we imagine ourselves anonymous to the Government? The Government that issued our used-for-everything Social Security numbers, to whom we submit our tax returns, in whose armed forces we may have served, in whose employ we may work, in whose files we can find our photograph and fingerprints if we carry a gun, and from whom we will one day, if we don’t already, receive a benefit check? Please.

Posted by Paul at 7:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

No. Giuliani is the candidate of conservatives, and McCain is the candidate of the Leviathan.

Run, Rudy, run!

Posted by Paul at 1:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

From footage at the National Archives, our men in uniform, out of uniform. (Note: not porn, but not work safe either.)

Posted by Paul at 12:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Results from the Lousiana Secretary of State are here.

Posted by Paul at 10:32 PM | Permalink

And on and on it goes. Where it stops, nobody knows:

OLYMPIA, Wash. — The small meth lab — a toxic, dangerous and squalid symbol of the methamphetamine problem — is becoming a rarity in Washington and around the country, but the drug itself remains.

The number of meth labs found in Washington dropped by more than 50 percent last year, a decrease credited in part to tough new laws that include banning over-the-counter sales of everyday cold and allergy medications that are used to make methamphetamine.

But into the void stepped Mexican-based drug organizations that ship a purer, more addictive form of the drug — crystal meth, also known as “ice.” Officials now say that 75 percent of the state’s meth comes from outside its borders, compared to an estimated 50 percent in 2001.

“As we have controlled our domestic problem, our importation problem has increased exponentially,” said Washington State Patrol Detective Sgt. Gary Gasseling, who works with the state’s Meth Initiative, a coalition of treatment, prevention and enforcement agencies. “These people are very, very well organized, very well connected and they know what they’re doing. This is big business for them.” (Link)

Posted by Paul at 10:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Ross Kaminsky:

The Senate has by a 50-49 vote allowed a provision to remain in the Immigration Bill allowing illegal aliens to claim Social Security benefits. There is no way to sugar-coat what a disaster this is for Republicans and for the country.

You can see here how your senators voted. Note well the names of the Republicans who voted “yes.” Some of them have presidential ambitions.

Posted by Paul at 7:39 PM | Permalink

Associated Press:

OKLAHOMA CITY — A federal judge struck down a 2-year-old law that prohibits Oklahoma from recognizing adoptions by same-sex couples from other states and countries.

U.S. District Judge Robin Cauthron ruled Friday the measure violated due process rights under the U.S. Constitution because it attempted to break up families without considering the parents’ fitness or the children’s best interests.

The court’s ruling, in pdf, is here.

(Thanks to Howard Bashman.)

Posted by Paul at 6:55 PM | Permalink

On Wednesday, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee passed H.R. 5013, which prohibits local authorities from confiscating lawfully owned firearms during times of disaster. The text of the bill is here.

Posted by Paul at 7:58 PM | Permalink

Having relieved the Bush Bots of their posts (pun intended), Polipundit is now a one man anti-illegal immigration blogging machine. And he’s asking the president to stop already with the trumped-up arguments.

Posted by Paul at 7:28 PM | Permalink

Sigh.

Why, I wonder, do we not bring to the war on drugs the same concern about privacy rights that we bring to the war on terror? For it is the war on drugs, and not the war on terror, that has the Fourth Amendment in disrepair.

We publish our landline numbers and talk over wireless phones while standing on line at the Starbucks. But we do not usually invite others to rummage through our belongings.

Posted by Paul at 7:03 PM | Permalink

… again.

Why is it that God never tells your preacher or fortune teller the winning numbers to the power ball?

Posted by Paul at 10:16 PM | Permalink

If the president really wanted comprehensive immigration reform, he’d call for an end to the war on drugs. Our exportation of that war is one of the reasons Mexico is a hell hole.

Posted by Paul at 8:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

If you understand amnesty to mean a path to citizenship for aliens who have entered the country unlawfully, then these senators can be fairly said to favor amnesty:

Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

And these senators can be fairly said to oppose amnesty:

Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
McConnell (R-KY)
Nelson (D-NE)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

See roll call vote on amendment by Vitter to “[remove] provisions [of the immigration bill] giving an eventual chance at citizenship to illegal immigrants who have been in the country more than two years.”

The Senate also voted today, 83-16, “in favor of construction of [370 miles of triple-layered fencing] and 500 miles of vehicle barriers, the first significant victory in two days for conservatives seeking to place their stamp on the [immigration reform] measure.” That roll call is here.

Posted by Paul at 6:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Well, at least there’s one immigration measure all senators can agree on.

Meanwhile, this is a serious disappointment. Let’s hope the House insists on putting the horse back in front of the cart.

Posted by Paul at 10:45 AM | Permalink

FeedDemon is my choice of RSS aggregator. Evidently, it’s also the choice of the Nation’s premier spy agency.

Posted by Paul at 11:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Thomas Sowell:

If there is a smoking gun in the Duke University rape case, it is not about the stripper who made the charges or the lacrosse players who have been accused. The smoking gun is the decision of District Attorney Michael Nifong to postpone a trial until the spring of 2007.

If Professor Sowell is right, Nifong is effectively acknowledging the obvious: he doesn’t have a case.

Posted by Paul at 12:49 AM | Permalink

Republican v. Republican:

El Presidente is speaking now, and every word coming out of his mouth is a lie. He is trying to bait-and-switch us yahoos into buying an unprecedented sell-out of America to Mexico.

If you are truly a Republican to begin with, if you are truly a conservative, then you will applaud [Bush’s] speech and support the reforms he has articulated. Otherwise, you are not a Republican. You are not a conservative. You are a LIAR. A LIAR.

If that kind of intraparty venom is still present in November, the GOP is toast.

Posted by Paul at 12:01 AM | Permalink

(Kept on top; new posts below)
(Liv