Immigration

In her 2006 bid to unseat John Murtha, Diana Irey said,

I want a tall fence with a wide gate.

That line resonated for me, and still does.

Because I want to believe in America as the beacon of hope, the shining city on a hill.

But there are two parts to that phrase: the shining city and the hill on which it sits. The hill, from time immemorial, was the place to build a city if you wanted to defend it from attack. The hill made entering the city marginally more difficult to approach for peaceful commerce, but a great deal more difficult to invade.

The hill also makes the shining city more visible, and more attractive as real estate for other reasons. Who doesn't like a nice view? Who doesn't appreciate good munipal use of hydrodynamics?

I want to know that everyone who lives in the United States is a citizen. I want no underclass, barred by reason of citizenship from engaging in any but the duties of their assigned caste, herded about under the watchful eye of some Congressional committee.

America must call for immigrants to come. We must demand that they be allowed to come. If necessary, we must plead with them to come, to see what they can do here.

We must not adopt the zero-sum belief that limited resources imply limited population. Our population is our greatest resource.

And likewise, we must not allow them to be enticed by governmental handouts, which are indeed limited, despite the current tendency to spend money we don't have.

Instead, we must fight tooth and nail against the notion that people -- and corporations -- who are able to support themselves deserve support from the government to retain a specific lifestyle. Restore the image of America as a place where only diligence and discipline are rewarded, and sloth is discouraged.

We must build a tall fence, and watch it with an eagle's eye. We must deport anyone found here without legal reason. We must punish those who lure people here in denial of our laws.

And then we must with just as much vigor beg immigrants to come in through the wide gate, to pledge with us to defend our nation with their calloused hands, vibrant minds, and sacred honor.

Sphere: Related Content

Murtha Attorney: Congressman Above The Law

Legal counsel for aged Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) claimed in open court that his client is immune from laws which limit ordinary citizens.

Murtha is being sued for saying that Marines involved in an incident at Haditha, Iraq, were "murderers" guilty of "war crimes".

From the via Malkin:

Assistant U.S Attorney Darrell Valdez, who represents Murtha, argued that a member of Congress is “absolutely immune” from a defamation suit because there’s no circumstance in which speaking to the media is not within the scope of a lawmaker’s employment.

That is, a lawyer representing the United States Government asserted that his client is above the law.

It's not clear from the claims if the Congressman claims immunity for all defamation, or only that against members of the Armed Services in time of war. In particular, the question of whether members of Congress are free to say that government lawyers are guilty of malpractice will have to go unanswered.

Clearly, according to the United States Government lawyer, Murtha would be free to allege that the lawyer in question were guilty of murder and crimes against humanity, but alleging malpractice and incompetence may be a line even a Congressman must not cross.

Sphere: Related Content

Marine Acquitted of Haditha Charges

[Updated: w/t Gateway Pundit, via Ace]
Lt. Andrew Grayson, accused of ordering evidence destroyed in the Haditha case, has been acquitted. It turns out that the Marine Corps has a policy of not allowing images of corpses to be kept on personal cameras. Grayson was following the book by ordering them deleted.

The Court Martial must also have decided that Grayson did not believe a war crime to have been committed, because evidence of a war crime would have trumped the rules against carrying "trophy" images.

Congressman Jack Murther (D-PA) could not be reached for comment.

Sphere: Related Content

The Next President

• Must be willing to finish the job in Iraq, and not by quitting
• Must not gain office promising bread (or bandages) from the public trough
• Must understand the importance the nation as an institution, guarding against the encroaching power of transnationalism and the United Nations
• Must understand the importance of the State as an institution, guarding against the encroaching power of nationalism and the Federal government
• Must understand that the Internet doesn't belong to anybody, even though parts of it do, and must not seek to control it
• Must be willing to confront the media, or at least present his side of things once in a while
• Must know that Global Warming is just the latest liberal doomsday fad
• Must support the right to keep and bear arms
• Must clean house in the bureaucracy, starting with anyone in an appointed position not of his party
• Must be willing to enforce our borders

That's not too much to ask, is it?

It is? I was afraid of that.

Sphere: Related Content

Alll She is Saying ... Is Give Fleece a Chance

It appears that Pennsylvania Democrat (and also Congressman) Jack Murtha's problem with the war is it's in Iraq, not in Pennsylvania.

According to the Washington Times (w/t Powerline), Murtha is willing to break House rules to get military pork sent to his district:

During a series of House votes Thursday, Murtha walked to the chamber's Republican side to confront Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., a 43-year-old former FBI agent. Earlier this month, Rogers had tried unsuccessfully to strike a Murtha earmark from an intelligence spending bill. The item would restore $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center, a facility in Murtha's Pennsylvania district that some Republicans say is unneeded.

According to Rogers' account, which Murtha did not dispute, the Democrat angrily told Rogers he should never seek earmarks of his own because "you're not going to get any, now or forever."

Speaker-In-Law™ Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) defended Murtha, saying she had

"[N]o idea what actually happened" during a noisy exchange in the House chamber last week between Reps. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and Mike Rogers, R-Mich.

"What I do know is that Congressman Murtha has — enjoys — an excellent reputation in the Congress on both sides of the aisle," said Pelosi in a broadcast interview taped Friday and aired Sunday.

"He writes the defense appropriation bill in a bipartisan way each year and with the complete involvement of the Republicans as to who gets what on the Republican side," she said.

Democrats are doing everything they can "ethically" do to avoid funding the actual mission of the Department of Defense, but when it comes to pork for their top sloppers, it's no holds barred. And the defense she gives for larding up the Defense appropriation is that Murtha slops both ends of the trough, so what's the complaint here?

According to Democrats, we should not fund the war in Iraq, which has a direct benefit for the security of the nation. Don't fund the war in Iraq, because the troops in the field need to know where our priorities are. Don't fund the war in Iraq, since that would interfere with funding projects in Murtha's district. And don't complain about wasteful spending, or we won't slop your end of the trough any more.

So the Speaker-in-Law is not defending Jack Murtha, really. She doesn't know whether he has broken any rules, after all. All she is saying, is give fleece a chance.

Sphere: Related Content

Encourage Integrity

People in government don't seem to understand that it is their duty to regulate immigration, at least in the sense of being able to count how many people are entering. In an era of constant terrorist attacks, allowing even a handful of people to cross the border without in the minimum identifying themselves is indefensible.

Like Diana Irey (who opposed Jack Murtha in '06), I want a 'tall fence with a wide gate'. Right now, the whole fence is a gate.

The law and all policy should encourage honesty and integrity, not reward its absence as this bill would. Or at least, that's the rumor, because as of this writing there is no bill.

• Do not give amnesty, nor a reward by any other name, to people who break the law. That only results in more lawbreaking.
• We must know, by fingerprint, every single person who enters the country, by whatever means they choose to enter.
• If anyone in the country is subject to a law, everyone must be subject to that law.
  
• There must be no second-class citizens.
• If anyone is willing to give up allegiance to his native land and any other, speak our language, and take up our common cause, I want him as a countryman.
• Economic concerns are of secondary importance
• No illegal alien should be allowed citizenship while there is anyone who followed the rules still in line for it.

Secure the borders.

Secure the workplaces.

Defend the defenders, not the attackers.

Sphere: Related Content

Shall Not Be Infringed

Tyrants and Nannies have something in common. Neither one wants you to own a gun, because neither one wants you to be free of their power.

It seems to me that most governments in the West are trending toward Nannyism. They operate on the principle that it is the government's duty to protect the citizen (including those in the military) from harm, even self-induced harm. In the East, the trend is to tyranny (hey, it's a blog, I can overgeneralize if I want). By contrast, the American Founders believed that the people were to protect themselves, and must be free in order to do that.

That is why we have the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Gun ownership is a check on the encroaching power of government, in at least two ways. First, it makes government less necessary by giving the police less work to do. Conversely, without the ability to defend one's person, family, and property, the ineffective protection of government is in greater demand. Secondly, gun ownership gives overzealous police another variable to consider before they abuse their authority.

If people misuse their guns, they should be punished accordingly. Using a gun in a crime should be a compounding factor in sentencing.

During the 2006 election cycle, one of the treats for me was the way Diana Irey put her beliefs into words. On the Second Amendment, she doesn't disappoint, reminding us of the duty we owe each other:

Freedom isn't free. Our country has a long and dignified history of personal responsibility and accountability. For generations, our ancestors have lived in a country where they were free, and able, and expected to defend themselves, their families, and their homes. I believe that it is important that we maintain these rights for ourselves, and for generations to come.

I don't care what gun ownership does for the crime rate. What does it do for the freedom rate?

I don't care what it does for hunting, except to tell me who I want at my back when the deer sign hits the fan.

There are those who say that the Militia is an antiquated concept, obviated by the modern Reserve system and standing army. They say, therefore, that since a well-regulated militia is no longer used, the right to keep and bear arms is no longer necessary.

In Parker v. District of Columbia (pdf), the Appeals Court noted that the Constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms applies every citizen, not to the hunter or the off-duty policeman alone, and not only to those registered in the Militia. That no one is registered in the Militia is immaterial; its Reserve successor occupies its place in the logic.

We are all responsible for our own defense, and that of our neighbor, and of our country. In this rapidly changing world, you never know when we'll be called upon to exercise the duty to which Mrs. Irey, and the Founders, have called us.

Sphere: Related Content