Politics

So what would a conservative Mennonite care about mere earthly politics? And why?

FlashBack: Jimmy Carter

From his news conference, twenty-nine years ago today.

Q. Mr. President, how do you reconcile your decision to go ahead with the neutron bomb with your inaugural pledge to eliminate all nuclear weapons?

A. In the first place, I did not know what was in the bill.

Could President Bush skate with that kind of answer?

Q. Mr. President, just today, I believe, you are reported on the brink of approving a compromise minimum wage proposal of $2.60 an hour. Now, if that’s true, did you raise your sights because of political factors, economic factors, or a combination?

A. Well, the fact of the matter is that the minimum wage proposals are being handled by the congressional committees–Congressman Dent, Congressman Perkins.

We have no administration legislation to propose, and I do not intend to send the Congress any message on the minimum wage. I might say in advance that we have come to agree with the proposal that Congressman Perkins will propose, but it is not an administration bill.

The President raised his sights to $2.60 an hour? Wow.

By the way, I graduated from high school in 1977. I remember working for less than that an hour in my first job. I was an assemblyman for the Little Harvey food dryer at Harvest Mills in Woodburn, Oregon. Wow II.

Q. When you talk about the necessity for a Palestinian homeland, are you thinking of locating that homeland in territory that at one time was Palestine, or in your mind, could it be located anywhere?

The second part of .the question is: Do you still believe, as you said a few weeks ago, that Israel eventually must withdraw with only minor changes to the pre-1967 borders?

A. I have not changed my opinion since the earlier statements that I made concerning the general outline of terms to be sought at a possible Geneva conference.

We have never tried to define geographical boundaries for a so-called Palestinian entity. My own preference, which I have expressed since I’ve been President and also as a candidate. was that the Palestinian entity, whatever form it might take and whatever area it might occupy, should be tied in with Jordan and not be independent.

I assume he still takes the same view regarding Israel’s boundaries. But why do I suspect his view has changed regarding Palestinian statehood?

Q. Mr. President, how comfortable are you with the recent Supreme Court decision that says the Federal Government is not obligated to provide money for abortions for women who cannot afford to pay for them themselves?

A. I do not think that the Federal Government should finance abortions except when the woman’s life is threatened or when the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest. I think it ought to be interpreted very strictly.

In my opinion, the Federal Government being willing to finance abortions, as it has been in recent months, is an encouragement to abortion and its acceptance as a routine contraceptive means. And I think within that strict definition that I’ve given you, I would like to prevent the Federal Government financing abortions. […] I don’t believe that either States or the Federal Government should be required to finance abortions.

I wonder where he stands on that issue today. (But I don’t wonder enough to do the research.)

Q. Mr. President, how fair do you believe it is then, that women who can afford to get an abortion can go ahead and have one, and women who cannot afford to are precluded?

A. Well, as you know, there are many things in life that are not fair, that wealthy people can afford and poor people can’t. But I don’t believe that the Federal Government should take action to try to make these opportunities exactly equal, particularly when there is a moral factor involved.

What kind of rhetoric and bashing would that answer get today if President Bush gave it?

And is Jimmy Carter today still supportive of that kind of answer to the poor — “Just lump it, pal”?

Ah, what does all this matter anyway?!

1996: The Law

Was it 20 years ago today that “immigration reform” law was passed?

Seems I read that somewhere earlier this morning.

Learn what that law is about, right here at the official government site.

If that’s not being well enforced now, how can anyone give credible assurances that any new laws on the subject will be better enforced?

Oh, and lest anyone forget — the issue in illegal immigration is not the noun but the adjective!

Thank you. 🙂

Buy it at Amazon: Introducing the 1996 Immigration Reform Act

Berlin Wall

Yeah, I know — we’ve heard this before about the proposed wall on the US southern border.

Critics compare it to the Berlin Wall and say it goes against the American spirit of openness, sending the wrong message to the rest of the world about the United States.

The Berlin Wall? Where’s the historical accuracy in that comparison?

  • I haven’t heard that the House bill includes shoot-to-kill orders.
  • I haven’t heard that the intent of the House bill is to keep Americans in the US.
  • I haven’t heard that the House bill acknowledges that the current border between Mexico and the US is an artificial, foreign-imposed border dividing a single country from itself.

Berlin Wall, indeed.

And as far as sending the wrong message to the rest of the world about the US . . . . Protecting national sovereignty, promoting national security, and enforcing domestic laws are all part of a wrong message? Yes, if you believe that the concept of nation-states is an antiquated idea that must give way to the new world, one world order.

How about a bit more from the story:

But the U.S. Department of Homeland Security described the planned barrier, which would run for 698 miles, as a “stupid fence . . . .”

Oh wow!

Immigrant welfare groups are also critical of the proposal, and point to the fact that past policing crackdowns such as “Operation Gatekeeper” in the San Diego sector in 1994 only succeeded in rerouting the flow of immigrants to more remote and dangerous areas of the border.

“Nothing has actually succeeded in slowing down the number of migrants crossing the U.S. border,” said Rev. Robin Hoover, president of Tucson-based welfare group Humane Borders.

“The fence is just another gimmick that will just expose migrants to greater danger,” he added.

Does the fact the illegals make the choices that expose them to greater personal danger somehow obligate the US to make their illegal deeds less hazardous?

In that case, the logical conclusion is that the Border Patrol’s big buses ought to be used to ferry illegals north from the border instead of south to the border. Have the US agents meet the illegals at the normal (ie, safe) crossings, not with entry applications, but with bus tickets, meal vouchers, and motel passes.

OK. 😯

Loose Rubberband Gun

Not to be confused with a loose cannon, please. 😉

Here we have Mr. (not to be confused with reverend, for God alone is reverend) Robertson holding forth regarding Ariel Sharon’s stroke:

The Reverend Pat Robertson says Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s massive stroke could be God’s punishment for giving up Israeli territory.

He is right. It could be God’s punishment.

It also could be God saying, “Ariel, you’ve done what I sent you to do. Time to leave the scene.”

I much prefer Joel Rosenberg’s perspective to Pat Robertson’s. Here is just one paragraph from Rosenberg’s blog:

Let us pray, therefore, for the Israeli leader, for his family, his senior advisors, and for Vice Premier Ehud Olmert, who is now serving as acting Prime Minister as this difficult moment unfolds. Let us also pray for the peace of Jerusalem and the safety and protection of the Israeli people, who now face one of the most severe leadership crises in their modern history, even as terrorists smuggle arms into the West Bank and Gaza and Iran threatens to wipe Israel “off the map.”

Amen!

ACLU’s Tiresome Arguments

I just learned about this at World Magazine’s blog. And it’s nine-day old news. I want to know why I didn’t know any sooner.

But never mind, here are the story’s lead paragraphs:

A federal appeals court has upheld a display of the Ten Commandments alongside other historical documents in the Mercer County, Ky., courthouse.

The judge who wrote the opinion blasted the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the display, in language that echoed the type of criticism often directed at the organization.

Judge Richard Suhrheinrich’s ruling said the ACLU brought “tiresome” arguments about the “wall of separation” between church and state, and it said the organization does not represent a “reasonable person.”

That’s, like, way cool, dude!

Sorry. 😀 That’s not how I talk.

But I think I might like that judge. 🙂

I wonder who appointed him.

Does a quick Google on the subject.

Well, well. According to this, this:

Judge Suhrheinrich has served on the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, since being appointed by President Bush in 1990. He ascended to the Sixth Circuit after serving on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, following an appointment by President Reagan in 1984.

How about that.

Two Southern Borders

In comments obviously for national consumption, Mexican President Vicente Fox . . .

denounced as “disgraceful and shameful” on Wednesday a proposal to build a high-tech wall on the U.S.-Mexico border to stop illegal immigrants.

Concerned about the huge numbers of illegal immigrants streaming across the border and worried it could be an entry point for terrorists, a U.S. lawmaker has proposed building two parallel steel and wire fences running from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Coast. But Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has said a wall running the length of a border would cost too much.

Mexico has expressed indignation at the idea.

Fox, speaking in Tamaulipas state across the border from Texas, said such extreme security measures would violate immigrants’ rights.

He again called for the easing of U.S. immigration laws to benefit millions of undocumented Mexican fruit pickers, waiters and janitors working north of the border….

Señor Presidente, una idea, por favor. (“Mr. President, an idea, please.”)

  • Treat the illegals on your southern border as you would have the US treat illegals on its southern border.
  • How about easing your immigration laws to benefit those Central Americans entering (and wishing to enter) through your southern border?

Perhaps you should show the US how it’s done. :mrgreen:

Just a (wild) thought.

DISCLAIMER: I have no ill-will for Mr. Fox nor his countrymen (there or here). For the record, Mexico is the land of my infancy, childhood and youth, though not quite of my nativity. I also served there five years as a missionary. I love Mexico and her people.

Above all, love God!