Castro may be near death

Lots of sites all a buzz:

• Kill Castro
• Michelle Malkin
• Breitbart.com
• NewsMax.com

As of this writing, and per the Kill Castro blog, Granma International (the Cuban newspaper) hasn't been updated since 1:00 p.m. Cuban time.

"Hezbollah fired 140 rockets IN ONE DAY"

But that wasn't the headline. Instead the headline was "Nazareth boys first Arab deaths in Israel rocket attacks". Only when you get to the very last paragraph do you read this:

On Wednesday alone around 140 Hezbollah rockets fell on northern Israel, with almost 1,000 fired since the beginning of the conflict eight days ago.

Here's some good (that is, accurate) journalism from the Aussies: "Photos that damn Hezbollah".

Anybody know where I can find a Hezbollah rocket counter for my blog?

Texas Gubernatorial Debate - October 5

Mark your calendars. The Texas Debates will be hosting a debate among the candidates in the Governor's race October 5 in Dallas at 8:00 p.m. It will be broadcast statewide. So far Chris Bell, Carole Strayhorn, and Kinky Friedman are signed up. Let's see . . . anyone missing from that list? Anyone conservative?

Ritalin has replaced spanking - and it's not working

From World Net Daily:

After I read professor Judith Kleinfeld's report last week, exposing the feminist hoax of the early '90s that purported to show girls as disadvantaged in American schools, I discussed the matter with a friend who teaches "problem" children in a suburban Alberta system.

The Kleinfeld report shows that the disadvantaged kids in American schools, as indisputably evidenced by dropout rates, university registrations and chronic behavioral problems, are not girls. They are boys.

"How many of your 'problem' children are boys?" I asked my friend. Nearly all of them, he said. "How many of the problems are discipline problems?" Nearly all of them, he said. "How many of these discipline problems could be solved if teachers and parents were to routinely swat these kids across their bottoms for misbehavior?" Nearly all of them, he said.

"Then why don't they do it?" I asked.

He looked at me amazed. "Because, of course, society doesn't approve of that anymore," he said.

(Emphasis mine.)

I spank my children. I do not say that proudly nor do I say it sheepishly. I say it because I believe it is simply the right thing to do. No one said it better than Bill Cosby (of all people): "You must associate pain with abhorrent behavior in the mind of a child." Children are not mature enough to understand moral consequences but they can understand physical consequences. I have seen the consequences of not disciplining children. I have even worked with undisciplined children who have physically grown into adults. It is a horrible thing.

I spank my children because I LOVE them, and I do not want them to grow up into beasts. I spank my children because I believe God's word tells me to. I am instructed to train my children. TRAIN them - Proverbs 22:6. And I spank my children because I feel I have a responsibility to you (society). I could unleash two beasts upon you. You would then have to hire ungrateful employees or live next to degenerate citizens or lock up criminals. Instead, it is my goal to provide you two outstanding humans, a man and woman of God, who respect you as fellow citizens and with whom you are happy to interact.

There is no magic drug that will accomplish any of this.

You MUST watch this video

A Katyusha rocket hits a train station in Haifa while a journalist and cameraman are present.

Hat tip: Lone Star Times

But what do they REALLY think?

ATTENTION: Long post ahead.
Go get a cup of coffee, come back and get comfortable, then dive in.

Do you ever wonder if the Lefties really believe what they're saying? That is, do they have a rational, reasoned explanation for liberalism, or is it simply all about them acquiring and maintaining their own personal power using whatever sentences they can manage to get out of their mouths?

A while back I came across an article (probably by way of the brainiacs at Power Line, but I can't recall with certainty) that is an attempt at accomplishing the former. It's titled "Beyond the Vote: The Crisis of American Liberalism", and it's written by Michael J. Thompson. It seems Mr. Thompson actually . . . understands liberalism. Moreover, he tries to explain (rationally, mind you) its difficulties just a few days before the 2004 election. Moreover still, I think that he thinks he has a solution to the problem, although even after reading his article a few times I cannot be entirely certain of that fact. Suffice it to say, Mr. Thompson uses his brains, not his feelings, to explain liberalism (a rare and refreshing event). And in doing so, I believe he has pulled back the curtain to reveal a tired, old man trying his best to make the Wizard seem alive.

Here's a paragraph from Mr. Thompson's article that I found particularly interesting. First I'll present the whole paragraph, and then we'll analyze it line by line. (Yes, I told you this would be long.)

What the contemporary manifestation of liberalism has been unable to provide is an ethical foundation for fighting the unrestrained dynamics of the market that have fragmented and reified the public life, alienated whole swaths of the middle class and working people from their most salient political interests, and contributed to an overwhelming breakdown of the public sphere. Social liberalism was the response to this same tendency in American life in the early 20th century, and looking back is useful. One thinks of the influential figures of the Progressive and New Deal eras—now sadly forgotten but, without doubt, just as relevant as ever in the current context—such as Herbert Croly, Walter Weyl, Thurman Arnold, Rexford Tugwell and Nathan Straus, to name only a few. The new interpretation of democracy and liberalism they set out to construct was one that emphasized the social nature of individual and political life as opposed to the laissez faire individualism of the 19th century. Placing emphasis on the social dimensions of political life and the mythology of laissez faire capitalism meant that what Marx had called man’s “communal essence” became for thinkers like Dewey “social liberalism”: individuals were not autonomous entities, they were socially constituted; each of us relied on complex systems—from the division of labor to bureaucracy—to survive and flourish under the conditions of modernity and especially under capitalism. This was set against all previous understandings of liberalism, of “classical liberalism” specifically, which saw individualism in simplistic, atomistic terms more akin to Newtonian physics than to the complex realities of modern life.

Wow. That was something, wasn't it? (Are you still with me?)

Now let's look at this paragraph line by line. (Quit your whining; it's only six sentences.) In doing so, I think we'll be able to spot some foundational assumptions that will confirm common criticisms of liberalism. (How 'bout that alliteration?)

Sentence One
What the contemporary manifestation of liberalism has been unable to provide is an ethical foundation for fighting the unrestrained dynamics of the market that have fragmented and reified the public life, alienated whole swaths of the middle class and working people from their most salient political interests, and contributed to an overwhelming breakdown of the public sphere.

Well, first of all, kudos to Thompson for admitting that there is something missing in today's liberalism. On that point, we can all agree. What's missing, however, is not "an ethical foundation for fighting the unrestrained dynamics of the market." Fighting something that's unrestrained is akin to removing freedoms. And removing freedoms is foundationally unethical. No, what's missing is a philosophy of government that does not have restraint and control at it's core. More on that a little later.

We see a further flawed assumption in this paragraph. According to Thompson, unrestrained market dynamics have "reified..., alienated..., and contributed to an overwhelming breakdown of the public sphere." Reified (which I had to look up) means "to regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence." However, Thompson is using a different meaning of this word. Here's his new definition from earlier in this same article:

The Hungarian philosopher Georg Lukács, as far back as 1923, called the phenomenon “reification.” The insight was that as market capitalism continued to develop, and deepen its impact, its mathematical, instrumental, and egoistic logic would increasingly shape all elements of culture and society. Relations between people would become akin to market relationships; the entire way that individuals approached their world would be caste in market form, defined by the matter-of-factness of the cash nexus. The individual would increasingly turn his or her back on political or moral obligations and concerns, and would be recast as a consumer facing an endless fabric of commodities in a world without meaning or spirit.

So according to Lukács, and in turn Thompson, increasing market capitalism causes reification—the transformation into a world where everything is a commodity and nothing has meaning. Again, free markets are antithetical to their way of thinking. And again, we'll see why below.

Another point here; what's so bad about commodities? Anyone like apples? Oranges? They're commodities. Neither do they cost an exorbitant amount nor do we stand in lines all day to purchase them because we have free market capitalism as our economy, not communism. Things that are commodities cost little and are plentiful. Things that are not commodities cost much and are rare. And it means something to you when you can purchase them or share their benefits. Ever heard of a Bentley?

Sentence Two
Social liberalism was the response to this same tendency in American life in the early 20th century, and looking back is useful.

I agree with that last thought; looking back is indeed useful, as long as it results in course correction.

Now, I'm not the smartest guy in town, but I think when Thompson says "social liberalism" in this sentence he's talking about the loosening (I would use the term "erosion") of moral values our country saw in the early 1900s; you know, when our country began to step out of that horrible Victorian Era. (And make sure you say the word "Victorian" with a sneer, much like you would call something "horrific" or "vile".) But I could be wrong. Onward.

Sentence Three
One thinks of the influential figures of the Progressive and New Deal eras—now sadly forgotten but, without doubt, just as relevant as ever in the current context—such as Herbert Croly, Walter Weyl, Thurman Arnold, Rexford Tugwell and Nathan Straus, to name only a few.

Oy. Certainly a well-schooled liberal would think of these figures. And here's why:

• Herbert Croly - co-founder of The New Republic


• Walter Weyl - co-founder of The New Republic


• Thurman Arnold - Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division in FDR's Department of Justice


• Rexford Tugwell - one of the chief intellectual contributors to FDR's New Deal


• Nathan Straus - I looked, but I couldn't find anything

But we commoners don't think of these people, anytime. Why? Because the vast majority of the New Deal was an awful thing. (World's largest, legalized Ponzi Scheme anyone?) And these are just some of the people who helped dream up that awful thing. I certainly don't want my kids thinking about these people, unless it's in response to Alex Trebek listing them, in which case their response should be "Who are people who helped dream up a bad thing? 'Liberal Vermin' for $400, Alex."

Another thing. While I do understand that mentioning key figures in a movement is appropriate, it's important (especially for not-too-well-known figures) to also speak about their principles: what they stood for and what they accomplished. Here's an example: Ronald Reagan, the greatest president of the 20th century, stood for getting government off our backs and defeating Soviet Communism. In pursuing what he stood for, he lowered income tax rates which unleashed our national economy and advanced the principle of "peace through strength" which won the Cold War.

Sentence Four
The new interpretation of democracy and liberalism they set out to construct was one that emphasized the social nature of individual and political life as opposed to the laissez faire individualism of the 19th century.

Wow. "The new interpretation of democracy and liberalism they set out to construct...." Sounds like someone got their handy-dandy Utopian Construction Permit™ in the mail and started hammering away. Tell me, exactly what was so wrong with Democracy before these people arrived that required their intervention?

"...the social nature of individual ... life." Oxymoron, anyone? They just can't seem to stomach self-sufficiency, and there's a reason. If the population were to ever become self-sufficient, they'd be out of a job.

"...as opposed to the laissez faire individualism of the 19th century." Why are these people so opposed to "laissez faire individualism"? Rugged Individualism is, after all, one of the traits that defines American Culture — that and personal responsibility. (Oops. If any liberals were reading this, they just ran screaming into the hills. You know how they hate responsibility.)

Sentence Five
Placing emphasis on the social dimensions of political life and the mythology of laissez faire capitalism meant that what Marx had called man’s “communal essence” became for thinkers like Dewey “social liberalism”: individuals were not autonomous entities, they were socially constituted; each of us relied on complex systems—from the division of labor to bureaucracy—to survive and flourish under the conditions of modernity and especially under capitalism.

No, no, no, laissez faire capitalism is not a myth, it's a reality. A really big, unavoidable reality. See your nearest Mom & Pop eating establishment for a real-world example.

"Marx." Ah, there it is. You just knew it was coming, right? Could you feel it? This is what I referred to back at the first sentence—a philosophy of government with "restraint and control at it's core." Now you can see why Thompson has difficulty with such concepts as "free markets", "market capitalism", "laissez faire capitalism", and "laissez faire individualism". Communism/Socialism cannot endure talk of freedom.

"Each of us relied on complex systems...to survive and flourish under the conditions of modernity and especially under capitalism." Well, I will stipulate to a degree that we all rely on complex systems in capitalism. Sure, we must obey the law, maintain the law, and correct those disobedient to it. This is why governments are instituted among men—"to secure those liberties", so says The Declaration of Independence. Liberties. What we don't do is rely on complex systems so much that our liberties are transferred to the government. Well, some do. That's called welfare.

My overall point for this sentence: individuals ARE autonomous entities. They react within and among society and require both its guardrails and rules, but they are autonomous entities at their core.

Sentence Six
This was set against all previous understandings of liberalism, of “classical liberalism” specifically, which saw individualism in simplistic, atomistic terms more akin to Newtonian physics than to the complex realities of modern life.

Clearly, we are of two worlds. Thompson is saying here that "classical liberalism" thinks of individuals as, well, individuals. Notice the term "atomistic". Yes, in breaking down a structure to it's constituent parts, we find that molecules are made of atoms. Likewise, societies are made up of individuals. In Thompson's "social liberalism", individuals cannot be separated from the greater society. You must be considered as part of the greater oneness. (Everybody cross your legs and chant "ohm".) Well, this is America. And while we are unified in common causes, we are individual in our hopes and dreams. There's not enough liberalism in the world to change that.

Hey. We made it! Wasn't too painful, was it? Hopefully, we can get a little better glimpse of what motivates these people, at least the ones who think and speak altruistically and not just for acquiring and maintaining personal power.

Now surely (at least for those who read it) this post will generate some comments.

Traditional Marriage is 20 for 20

From World Net Daily:

In fact, 20 out of the 20 times it has come before voters, Americans have chosen to protect by constitutional amendment the idea of limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

So this year as it's brought before voters in another six – or eight – states, what do opponents plan to do to get their first single?

Obfuscate.

"The best that they (traditional marriage opponents) can do is confuse the issue," States Issues Analyst Mona Passignano, of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family Action, told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive look-ahead at this fall's election season.

"What they're running up against is that people just want traditional marriage protected," she said.

Hooray for normalcy!

I was duped

Last night I posted a message about an horrific story of an Iranian Islamic child's punishment. As it turns out, the story is an urban legend. Lesson learned: research to the source before you post. I have since removed the post.

I take the responsibility of blogging seriously. I do not seek to spew thoughts haphazardly. Rather, I seek to blog purposefully with the intent of informing and/or educating. Therefore, I sincerely apologize to those of you who might have read the errant post. In researching the urban legend, I did find similar original source material. So the intent and message of the post still rings true. Still, that does not excuse being fooled by a hoax and continuing its spread. As regular reader (I can't believe I have regular readers!) TB told me, "you are smarter now than you were yesterday." Let's hope so. I value the treasure of your time and attention too much to spread ignorance.

Beware the Chavez-Belarus Alliance

Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom has a great post about Hugo Chavez's "alliance" against the United States . . . and it's similarities to another anti-US group. This guy's a great writer. You need to check him out.

Election Night 2006 - Pre-Preview

What fun we have in store for us in November! That is, if you consider political nail biting fun. (You know I do.) Here's a list of some races I'll be watching Tuesday evening, November 7.

Texas Governor - Perry(R) vs. Bell(D) vs. Strayhorn(I) vs. Friedman(I)
As I write today, it's a horse race. First, there's Chris Bell, the Democrat. I certainly won't vote for him since he's not conservative. Second, there's Carole Keaton Strayhorn Rylander (fill in her latest last name here), who wanted to be called "Grandma", who is running as an Independent. I certainly won't vote for her since she's not conservative. Then there's Kinky Friedman, who is also running as an Independent. I certainly won't be voting for him as he's not a conservative. Finally, there's the incumbent Governor, Rick Perry, a Republican, who has a marvelous head of hair. But I certainly won't be voting for him as he's not a conservative. Wait . . . um . . . oh well.

New Jersey Senate - Kean(R) vs. Menendez(D)
Another horse race. New Jersey is the 13th least conservative state, yet Kean is still in the race.

Michigan Governor - Granholm(D) vs. DeVos(R)
Jennifer Granholm is in a battle to keep her governorship in a state with serious economic problems.

Connecticut Senate - Lieberman(I) vs. Lamont(D) vs. Schlesinger(R)
Will a recent Clinton assist really help? If Joe wins as an Independent, watch the Democrats pee in their pants with fear for their futures.

Maryland Senate - too many to list
The primary is not until September 12, so it's really too early to comment. But if Michael Steele wins, the leftist media won't be able to avoid their worst nightmare—a black conservative.

More to come.

California: "We need more power! Again!"

Here's some shocking news - Californians need more power.

Now, please understand, I'm not a heartless individual. I don't want there to be rolling blackouts like we saw years ago. In fact, now that my memory is kicking in, those rolling blackouts were caused by the evil, greedy people at Enron. Well, it's 2006 now, and Enron is gone. So why hasn't the problem gone away? Because, when you grow supply at a lower rate than demand (that is, not building enough power plants), you have problems.

Don't worry, the Lefties will still find a way to blame Ken Lay and maybe even what's left of Enron.

UPDATE - Stage 2 emergency declared.

Kerry: "If I was President..."

What is it about John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, that prevents him from believing he should have been president?

"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry during a noon stop at Honest John's bar and grill in Detroit's Cass Corridor.

Bush has been so concentrated on the war in Iraq that other Middle East tension arose as a result, he said.

Poor Democrats. They take Lenin's principle to heart: "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." And, sure it worked during the Clinton nightmare, but I think the country has learned a lesson or two since then.

I'm back. Anything happening?

Geez. I go away for just one week and look what happens - Hezbollah acts up, the New York Times is at it again, and Cynthia "Loony as a DoDo Bird" McKinney is forced into an August 8th runoff election.

Time to make the doughnuts.

July 20, 1969

One of the few things our government has done well has been to put men on the Moon. America first accomplished this feat on this date in 1969 with less space ship computing power than a present-day caluclator.


It's good to remember good things.

On vacation

Posting will be light for the next week while my family (wife, kids, parents-in-law) and I visit the Happiest Place on Earth. And we're driving (it's genetic in my family). Please pray for us, for our car, and for our budget.

And try not to let anything really big happen while we're gone. OK?

"Islam" does not mean "peace"

It means "submission".


More similarly peaceful pictures here. Thanks to KW for the reference.

Bring back firing squads

You've probably heard about this article by now. Ralph Peters, writing in the New York Post, makes a great point:

Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.

Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or even illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others, but by ourselves.

The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.

This is the very same argument voiced by my hero and one of our nation's best thinkers, Dr. Thomas Sowell, back in June of 2002. And he used United States history as precedent.

During the Battle of the Bulge, near the end of World War II, some specially trained German soldiers who spoke English put on American uniforms and infiltrated the American lines to disrupt and confuse U.S. military operations. When caught, they were lined up in front of a firing squad and shot. The protections of the Geneva Convention's rules of war are for those who play by those rules.

Terrorists who infiltrate the American homeland are combatants, not criminals, and they are combatants out of uniform who disregard the rules of war, forfeiting the protection of those rules. "Rights" are not things plucked out of thin air. They are products of particular arrangements -- and apply only to those who are subject to those arrangements and who respect those arrangements.

Our nation had no problem with firing squads sixty years ago. The bad people were coming after the good people to utterly destroy them. Instead of letting the bad people win, the good people rose up and eliminated the bad people. Problem solved.

In sixty years, what has changed?

"Federal" does not equal "Professional"

On my morning drive to work, my radio is usually tuned to AM 700 KSEV and the Edd Hendee show. This morning Edd talked about this article in the Houston Chronicle. Here's the facts:

1. A man with a Middle Eastern name tried to go through a Hobby Airport security checkpoint on June 26.
2. The man shook his head "No" when asked if he had a laptop computer in his luggage.
3. It turns out that he did indeed have a laptop in his luggage.
4. And a clock.
5. With a 9 volt battery taped to it.
6. And a copy of the Quran.
7. And the "entire soles of both shoes were gutted out."

By this point, you're probably thinking (as I did) something along the lines of "arrest this man, he's trying to bomb a plane!" Let's see what our Houston Police and Transportation Security Officers did.

No explosive material was detected, the report states. A police officer was summoned and questioned the man, examined his identification, shoes and the clock, then cleared him for travel, according to the report.

A TSA screener disagreed with the officer, saying "the shoes had been tampered with and there were all the components of (a bomb) except the explosive itself," the report says.

The officer retorted, "I thought y'all were trained in this stuff," TSA officials reported.

The report says the TSA screener notified Delta Airlines and talked again with the officer, who said he had been unable to check the passenger's criminal background because of computer problems.

Did you get that? Let's break it down:

1. The TSA employee, after finding nearly all of the components of a bomb, tries to hand-off the problem to a cop.
2. The cop fails to see a problem with allowing a bomb-component-possessing passenger on an airplane and clears the man for travel.
3. Rightfully, the TSA officer disagreed with the cop.
4. Rightfully, the cop assumed the TSA officer was trained for such situations.
5. Amazingly, instead of detaining the passenger, the TSA allows him on the airplane.

Remember back in 2001 right after the terrorist/jihadist attacks when people said we needed airport security under the direct control of the government? This is the result: airport security run by government employees. I hate to say it, but it's only a matter of time.

Every party has an end, even a really good one

Each election year, we hear that the world of politics is becoming meaner and nastier. We hear that name-calling and political advertising have hit a new low. Well, I've heard it said before, and I completely agree: the election cycles of 2006 and especially that of 2008 will be the nastiest, most mean-spirited, and cut-throat elections our country has ever seen. The Democrats have no plan of their own. All they can do is try to tear down Republicans, and their attempts will be relentless.

We on the right, however, have had to come up with reasons we believe what we believe. We have had to construct logical arguments about why our beliefs are good for the country and why theirs are bad. It is with that impetus in mind that I ask all of you who think similarly to read an essay titled "The Endless Party", written by William Voegeli, Vice President of the Claremont Institute. Mr. Voegeli has presented the two sides of the discussion with exquisite clarity. My favorite passage:

The "no message" interpretation of the 2004 election claims that this gap has now closed, finally and completely: liberalism cannot become politically strong again until it stops being so theoretically weak. But Democrats need to recognize how far back, and how far down, liberalism's confusion goes. The notion that liberalism is fundamentally indecipherable was voiced frequently during the 1930s, when liberals absolutely dominated American politics. Raymond Moley, an erstwhile advisor to FDR, wrote of the New Deal in his memoirs, "To look upon these programs as the result of a unified plan, was to believe that the accumulation of stuffed snakes, baseball pictures, school flags, old tennis shoes, carpenter's tools, geometry books, and chemistry sets in a boy's bedroom could have been put there by an interior decorator." In 1940 another New Dealer, the economist Alvin Hansen, admitted, "I really do not know what the basic principle of the New Deal is. I know from my experience in the government that there are as many conflicting opinions among the people in Washington as we have in the country at large."

But the complaint that it's impossible to figure liberalism out has, until recently, typically been voiced by exasperated conservatives. For decades they have watched liberals rushing around with wheelbarrows and ladders, busy, busy, busy at building the welfare state. New programs are created, old ones expanded, urgent needs discovered and rediscovered. Conservatives marvel at this vast construction site and ask prosaic questions: What is this thing going to look like when it's done? How big is it going to be? How will we know when it's finished? And just in case there's any doubt that they are conservatives, how much is all this going to cost?

The replies have not been illuminating.

I gave paper copies of this essay to some of my family members near the end of last year. I urged them then, and I urge you now, to read this essay thoroughly a few times. (Yes, Playwriter Girl, it's non-fiction. But it won't hurt, I promise.) Print out a few copies, and give them to your family members. When the liberals turn nasty in the coming months, and they will, we as conservatives need to be ready with well-formed, thoughtful responses, not emotional reactions. Happy reading.

Real border control - been there, done that

Not only can it be done, but we've done it before.

Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.

President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents - less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.

Boy howdy, President Eisenhower didn't mess around. The more I learn about him, the more I like him. Here's how he did it.

In 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph "Jumpin' Joe" Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner.

Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing's close connections to the president shielded him - and the Border Patrol - from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests.

One of Swing's first decisive acts was to transfer certain entrenched immigration officials out of the border area to other regions of the country where their political connections with people such as Senator Johnson would have no effect.

Then on June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.

History can be such a great teacher, if only we'd listen.

One order of Presidential birthday cake please

Our President turns 60 years old today.


Happy Birthday, Mr. President.

Jesus: the Fulfillment of the Old Testament

I've been a Christian for over twenty years. (Note: the definition of the word "Christian" is a born-again believer in Jesus Christ, not one who attends a church.) I've been the student of many good teachers in those twenty plus years. However, what I'm about to share, while seemingly fundamental and obvious to the most casual of observers, is something I only learned within this past year from my current Sunday School teacher, Mark Lanier, a self-confessed Bible Nerd.

In our first lesson from the New Testament, an overview of the book of Matthew, Mark told us that the main theme of Matthew was that Jesus is not a contradiction but a consistent fulfillment of the Old Testament. Matthew was primarily written to the Jewish people as an attempt to both confirm the faith of Jewish Christians and to refute Jewish opponents of their faith. His audience would be knowledgeable of Israel's journey from Egypt to the Promised Land and of the record of that journey, to wit, Matthew quotes both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek Septuagint in his gospel to show Jesus fulfilling Old Testament prophesy.

Then (and this is where I had my "awe" moment) Mark showed us how the narrative of Matthew's gospel would be clearly seen by his Jewish audience as a reflection of the Torah. Mark shared the following parallels between events in the life of the nation of Israel from the Old Testament and events during Jesus' life and ministry from the New Testament.

Israel	Jesus
Comes out of Egypt	Comes out of Egypt - 2:21
Baptized by the Red Sea	Baptized in the Jordan River - 3:16
Wanders in the wilderness for 40 years	Tempted in the wilderness for 40 days - 4:1-11
Moses ascends Mt. Siani to receive the law	Jesus ascends a mountain and expounds on the law - 5:1-7:28
God feeds Israel with mana and quail	Jesus feeds the multitudes with loaves and fish - 15:29-38
Israel walks through the water	Jesus walks on the water - 14:22-32
5 books of the law	5 discourses: Sermon on the Mount - 5-7 Commissioning of the Apostles - 10 Parables of the Kingdom - 13 Life in the Kingdom - 18 Olivet Discourse - 24-25

At once I'm embarrassed for not knowing/seeing these things in all my previous years, but then I'm so thankful for the continued unfolding of the mystery of God's love for me. What a treasure it is to see the wonder of Almighty God in the intricate design of his Word and the events He orchestrates throughout history.

This is merely a sample of what I've learned from Mark. And, of great benefit to you, his lessons are on our Sunday School web site. They are well deserving of your attention.

NASA lights a candle on July 4th

Space Shuttle Discovery successfully blasted off from the Kennedy Space Center this afternoon in a first-ever Indepence Day launch for NASA.

“I have to say the very first time I experienced a launch I thought, ‘Well this is pretty cool,’” Shana Dale, NASA’s deputy administrator, told SPACE.com before today’s launch. “But I never expected the sense of patriotism I felt when the space shuttle went off…it’s just one of those proud moments that you have. You think, ‘Wow, I’m proud to be an American and this is the United States space program.’”

Godspeed, Discovery.

Independence Day

Our nation turns 230 years old today. Happy Birthday America!

When I think of what it took to win the freedom I far too often take for granted, I am so humbled. Here are the first, second, and last paragraphs from the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

...

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The men who signed this document knew they were jeopardizing their very lives, yet they signed it still. They placed freedom and their future nation, our nation, above themselves.

John Adams words to his beloved Abagail the day after signing are both prescient and sobering:

The second day* of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward, forevermore.

You will think me transported with enthusiasm, but I am not. I am well aware of the toll, and blood, and treasure, that it will cost us to maintain this declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet, through all the gloom, I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is more than worth all the means, and that posterity will triumph in that day's transaction, even although we should rue it, which I trust in God we shall not.

Have a great Fourth of July.

* The delegates voted July 2 to approve the Lee Resolution on Independence. The Declaration was voted on July 4.

"Superman Returns"

I recommend it. My wife and I saw it today at the Studio Move Grill (which I also recommend). I don't know if the sound was intentionally LOUD (as in a Director choice) or happened to be LOUD (as in a facility setting), but it was LOUD. This served the movie exceedingly well (IMHO), especially during the beautiful opening and title sequence. The explosion of Krypton shook my bones. I'm serious. After the explosion was finished, I turned to look at my wife . . . and realized that I needed to exhale. Evidently I had been holding my breath because the movie was so frighteningly LOUD. Highly cool. (Those of you who know me know my penchant for all things loud when it comes to film audio and exercising my 15 inch subwoofer, so you know that I know of which I write.)

Cast. Spacey was expectedly great. It is always fun to play the bad guy, and you could tell he enjoyed it. Parker Posey, spot on. Kate Bosworth . . . well, Louis Lane is supposed to be an intrepid reporter. Bosworth was not an intrepid reporter. She's pretty, but she just didn't convince me. Routh did well. Let's face it, when casting Superman you're probably not looking for Olivier or Branaugh. You're probably looking for a specific-looking body that has a specific-looking head attached to it that has a brain inside it that can take direction. And he did that well.

The film was beautifully photographed. The flying sequences were AMAZING. The first action sequence (which Singer has admitted was an homage to Donner) was an E-ticket rollercoaster ride. You could tell that bits of the flying were computer generated, but I could get over it. The story was good with a couple of possible directions to go for the next one.

Overall, a definite add to my DVD collection when it appears. Can't wait to see Krypton blow up again.

New blog on the block

Please welcome my friend, Playwriter Girl, to the blogosphere. My wife and I have known Playwriter Girl and her husband for over a decade. She posesses a wonderful wit and is indeed a playwright. A good one. A really good one. She's won awards. No lie.

Shadow Government

Yes, there is a Shadow Government in our land. And it HATES our Elected Government.

Mr. Light Bulb, have you taken your pills today?

Yes, I have. Let me explain. I have heard others say it, and I believe it as well. There is a concerted effort by left-leaning government employees and their like-minded friends in the media to derail any success the Bush Administration might have. They lost control of the Legislative Branch in 1994 via the Contract with America revolution. The remaining members reside primarily within the State Department and the CIA.

When President Bush won the presidency in 2000, they were livid. Then, September 11, 2001 happened. National focus shifted from diplomacy with the world (a State Department concern) to defense of our land (a Defense Department concern). No longer were they the favored ones. Moreover, they were pointed out as the ones who failed our nation, and they were not happy to have their inadequacies revealed to the world. George Tenet, the CIA leader through the Clinton miasma, was replaced with Porter Goss. Mr. Goss was given orders to "clean it up". And when that didn't work, the CIA got an even tougher boss, General Michael Hayden. Meanwhile, at the State Department, Colin Powell replaced the pompous Madeleine Albright. The Shadow Government was pacified until Secretary Powell allowed the Defense Department to take the lead after September 11. When Condoleezza Rice took the helm, you can bet the Shadow Government didn't like her plan for Transformational Diplomacy.

They hate George W. Bush. They hate those around him. They want to see President Bush fail at every turn. To accomplish this, they will leak government secrets to their media friends in an attempt to threaten our national security. They will actively work against their own Defense Department. They will tell our enemies that their calls are being tracked and their finances monitored.

If these actions had occurred during World War II, is there any doubt about what would have happened to this Shadow Government?