In the long run, I’m sure it surprises no one that 2008 would bring me out of seclusion on this site to start posting again. While I would prefer to see this amount of election attention paid every two years rather than every four, I’m willing to ride the crest of the wave on this while people are actually paying attention.

As anyone paying attention will note, the Republican Nomination is a done deal. John McCain will be the candidate, which should bring for interesting times on the Republican side of the House. McCain is viewed as more liberal than most of the Republicans currently serving in Congress and has resulted in teeth gnashing from the hard right portions of the Republican party. My main issues with McCain settle around his being far too willing to take Government money and spend it on people. As anyone who has talked to me for any length of time on the topic of government spending will tell you, this chaps my hide something fierce. I am more than willing to point out that this is the essentially the Government putting the gun to a tax payer’s head and taking money from him to give to someone else (for those following along at home, this is essentially the boiled down facts of income redistribution). A number of my Centrist friends have crowed about McCain’s candidacy, but I simply can’t get excited about it.

Of course, the Democratic side is even less excite worthy. If the media hype is to be believed, Hillary Clinton is a sinking ship and Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Looking at the way the Democratic selection is settled, I wouldn’t rule Clinton out just yet. While there are super delegates here and there who are pledging themselves to Obama, many are remaining silent until the convention. It would fill me with glee to see Hillary Clinton snag the nomination through the Super Delegates despite Obama having the popular vote delegate win. Why, you might ask? I’m a big fan of seeing hypocrisy laid bare. The Democrats screamed to high heaven when Bush won in 2000 through the Electoral College while not winning the popular vote. Hillary seizing the nomination would be a very similar situation if done via the Super Delegates.

To be honest, however, I believe that Howard Dean would put his foot down at this point and (amazingly) stand up to the Clinton Machine to keep that little bit of hypocrisy from happening. Now, I don’t believe it would be from any form of desire to see the “will of the people” carried out (though he’d couch it in those terms), but purely to avoid the big gaping attack hole in Clinton’s candidacy for President (granted, not the only one, but that’s something to save in case she gets the nomination).

So what about the “third” party Candidates? The Libertarian Party has been decidedly quiet this time around after the actual competition in 2004. Of course, I’ve moved to taking the little l viewpoint of my identification at this point namely because I’m annoyed with some of the viewpoints and pushes by the big L party. As for the others, I just can’t see myself identifying with any of them. Of course, I’m sure it comes as no surprise to anyone that I find the Green Party laughable. I do honestly wish the Libertarian Party would get its head out of its ass and actually get out a message that appeals to mainstream America rather than the constant blaring about repealing the drug laws. While I agree with this viewpoint, it simply doesn’t play on Main Street.

All in all, I’m going to be paying much more attention to what happens with the House of Representatives and the Senate than I am about the Presidential Race. In the long run, the President is a figurehead and cheerleader. The main interest it holds for me is it will be the first time a Senator has been elected to the Presidency since 1960. While an interesting footnote, it’s just not engaging politics. I’m sure there will be plenty of bread and circuses for the masses, however, to distract them from true change possibilities in the House and Senate races.

When I transitioned this website over to its current format, I had grand and lofty dreams of what it could be. I had dreams of where it could grow and the discussion that would grow here. Unfortunately, like many things, it simply fell short of the goal. While there was some good conversation here, it never panned out in the manner I would have liked. The majority of the fault for this rests squarely with me, and I don’t deny this. The other writers did a good job of providing content, but if I’m not willing to put the work into doing so myself and continuing to push it, no one else is.

For those of you who have checked here now and then and read what was posted, I appreciate your time. For now, though, it’s time to turn off the lights and lock up the doors. In the next few months, I may flip them back on, especially as the 2008 Presidential Race ramps up in earnest (the entry of Fred Thompson as of last night has sparked my interest a bit, though my general feelings of apathy remain). If this happens, I’ll try and get the word out.

Until then, thank you and good night.

Last night the Senate once again failed to reach cloture on the Bush-Kennedy Immigration reform bill.  This is a good thing.  The bill as it existed was a farce and would have been detrimental to the US.  Of course, its likely that this same bill will come up again in the near future (say a month or so), but I think that the members of Congress will find that there really is a large group of people that are opposed to amnesty for illegals in the US.  Those are the ones that have been calling their Senators every day to remind them that they want this bill killed.

Does this mean that immigration reform is dead?  No, and it shouldn’t be.  There is a need to fix the system that we currently have.  It has huge problems and needs to be fixed, but this was not the proper fix.  First off, one of the biggest problems with the current bill was the automatic granting of effectively permanent legal work status to anyone.  When Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) attempted to attach an amendment to block convicted felons from being granted permanent temporary work status (and eventually the ability to apply for citizenship) it was defeated.  When Senator Coburn (R-OK) brought up an amendment that would have reaffirmed the commitment of the US government to enforce existing immigration laws, it also was defeated 54-42.  I called Senator Hutchison (R-TX) to try and find out why she voted against it, but her office said that she had not commented on why she would oppose enforcing our laws.

Immigration reform is complex, but not impossible.  What might make it impossible is that you have various groups that all want something very different.  You have the free marketers (usually Republicans) who want open borders so that they can get cheap labor, you have the labor unions (usually Democrats) who foresee a huge influx of new members.  Both sides want this Z visa to be created thinking it will benefit them without realizing that it benefits neither in its current form.  They say that politics makes for strange bedfellows…but immigration reform has made for some of the strangest.

One of the main complaints with the Bush-Kennedy bill is that it further emasculates the fence that was provided for last year.  Congress authorized 700 miles of fence, then failed to fund it.  Then the funded 375 miles of it…and now with only a few score miles actually under construction, this bill would reduce that number even further.  But the fence, and with that the enforcement of border security so that thousands of illegals from terrorist nations are not able to enter into our country.  The other reason that enforcing our own border makes sense is that we make it hard to enter illegally to encourage people to enter legally.

So, once we have a legitimate border, how can we encourage people to enter legally?  Well, they have to have the ability to do so.  This will require an overhaul of the immigration system as we know it.  We can certainly handle more immigrants coming into the US.  If we are dealing with roughly a million illegals each year, then we can certainly deal with a million legals instead.  One big reason for opening up our visa levels is to allow for people from countries other them just Mexico and Central America to enter the US and work here.  There are certainly lots of people from Africa, Asia, or Eastern Europe who would love the opportunity to come to the US and work.  Right now the Mexican immigrants are getting all the press because they, much like squatters, can get here first and easily.  There are significant advantages to pushing for immigrants from other parts of the world and we are missing the boat by not allowing them entry.

Then there is the problem of the 12-22 million already here.  What do we do with them?  My response is nothing.  We don’t give them free schooling, we don’t give them public assistance, and we don’t give them work.  Get much tougher about penalizing employers that hire illegals.  It means that we need a tamper resistant ID card, and yes that means that we likely end up with a national ID.  Then, that ID is used, along with a database, to validate employment status.  When an employer knowingly hires illegals, then we hammer them.  Without work, there is little incentive to stay.  With a nice fence, entering illegally becomes harder then entering legally.  And then, if we are feeling generous, and I am today, we go ahead and provide anyone who requests it a free ticket home.  So, when an illegal can’t find a job, and can’t get welfare, they can get a free ticket back to their country of origin, heck we can even throw in a few hundred dollars for spending money.

Once we can make the border hard to cross,  make it easy to enter the US legally to work,  ensure that only those here legally can actually work, and provide a route home for those here illegally of their own volition will we have finally reformed immigration.  Of course all of that is incumbent upon an Executive Branch that will actually enforce the laws, which every administration since Ronald Reagan has been evidently unable to do.  This is one big plus that Rudy G has going for him.  Even laws he claims to not agree with he enforces.

I will direct you to Ron Paul’s abysmal performance in Tuesday night’s Presidential debate.  Its worth watching the clip to see the response by Rudy G.

You can read the transcript instead, but here are the important parts.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East — I think Reagan was right.

We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, “I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.” They have already now since that time — (bell rings) — have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that. (Applause.)

One thing that the transcript doesn’t do is show the level of applause.  It lists that Rep. Paul was applauded for his statement,  It then lists Rudy G as getting Applause, and Cheers for his statement.  You can hear some applause for Rep. Paul, but it is tepid and very limited.  Rudy’s applause stopped the debate to runs its course.

I heard Rep. Paul on the radio a while back (KSEV) and while I had known that he was a former Libertarian and knew that he was likely an isolationist…I had no idea he was a moonbat.  The guys on KSEV decided then and there that they would work hard to find someone to oppose Rep Paul in the CD-14 race in ‘08.  It looks like after last night someone has taken up the drive to unseat Rep. Paul.  I wish him well.  The GOP has a big tent, and I always figured that Libertarians had a place in the tent…but this kind of Republican we don’t need.  Heck this kind of Congressman we don’t need (we have enough of them…they have D’s after their names).

Recently Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated that the war in Iraq is lost and it is impossible to win.  He was talking in defense of the Congressional plan to put into spending authorizations a mandatory withdrawal date for US troops in Iraq.  Putting aside the concept of Congress attempting to take the role of Commander in Chief upon themselves, let us ponder two issues that arise from this declaration.

First, let us examine the idea that the war is lost and we should start bringing the troops home starting in October.  If this is true, then why should we wait until October?  Why should we maintain any US troop in harms way for even a single day if the war is lost and unwinnable?  Obviously it takes time to disengage from a conflict while in contact with the enemy, and it is the most difficult maneuver to accomplish successfully (to whit the withdrawal under fire from Viet Nam).  Still, one wonders why we would delay the withdrawal until October with all troops to be gone in mid 2008 if we have lost and cannot win.  What would we say to the families of those soldiers that die from now until October?  Unless of course we are waiting to see if we can turn things around, but the proposed legislation offers no way of measuring success.

Which leads to the second question that arises from Senator Reid’s remarks.  If we lose in Iraq, then who has won?  In a war there are winners and losers.  If we are the losers, then who are the winners?  Logically it would appear that the two main forces that oppose us in Iraq would be the winners.  One would be the forces of Islamic Jihad in the form of Al Qaeda, another would be the destabilizing forces in Iraq that want to grab what power they can for themselves.  Theoretically there will be regional fallout but it is very difficult to foretell what the effect on Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other countries would be from an Iraq that fell into chaos.

Coupling the two arguments and you get even more of a reason to withdraw right now.  If we have lost and cannot win, then the sooner that we get out and allow the chaos to settle into whatever form it takes afterwards the better off we will be. 

There is of course one other group that wins if the US looses in Iraq…and that would the the very group the Senator Reid speaks for. 

Today as I was driving into work I was listening to a local radio station talk about a series of incidents involving Border Patrol agents.  There is the case of Ramos and Campeon, of Gilmer Hernandez (though not a Border Patrol Agent), and now of an Agent named Nicholas Corbett who was attacked by an illegal immigrant and who shot and killed him. 

Then I also heard today about a Border Patrol agent that has been convicted of harboring illegal aliens.  Who was he harboring?  His legally adopted daughters.  Now he is awaiting incarceration at the Yazoo City Federal Penitentiary (the same lockup where Mexican gang members beat up Ramos a few months ago).  In the meantime, his daughters were held in a Federal facility for a year and evidently deported back to Mexico.

Throughout this there has been a cry for President Bush to change his mind on his current immigration policies.  For him to secure the border and to enforce immigration laws.  The irony of the situation is that one of the qualities of President Bush that has engendered him to the Conservative movement is that President Bush sticks to his guns and does not waver in the face of public sentiment or opinion. 

So now that President Bush has made up his mind about immigration reform (wanting to grant what amounts to amnesty to millions who have entered the country illegally) do we really think that writing letters, calling the White House, or even marching in the streets will change his mind? 

There is a bill currently pending in the Canadian Parliament introduced by Joy Smith, a member of the Conversative Party. She introduced this bill speaking about it being used to stop human trafficking and child pornography. Fortunately, these are all things that are illegal under Canadian Law. So that makes you wonder exactly what MP Smith is wanting to accomplish.

Michael Geist did the leg work to look through this bill and pull out some of the things in it that it’s supposed to accomplish:

• an ISP licensing system, administered by the CRTC, that is defined far too broadly (it could conceivably tag you as an ISP if you have an open Wi-Fi network in your home)
• Know Your Subscriber rules that would require ISPs to refuse service to any past offenders (or immediately end service and notify the government if they find out someone is a past offender)
• Power for the Minister of Industry in Canada to order sites blocked that fall under certain guidelines, offering fines and imprisonment for ISP officers who refuse
• Power for the Minister of Industry to allow shortcuts to facilitate e-data searches

I am quite sure that MP Smith only has the best intentions in mind and if it were her household and she wanted to block what her kids wanted to see on the Internet, I have no issues with this. My issue is the same one that I have with the majority of social conservatives (and, to note, this one of the places where circular politics comes into play since many Governmental Liberals would agree with this viewpoint in pursuit of the Nanny State). She is trying to use the Government to make decisions for people. Child Porn and Human Trafficking are already illegal. You shouldn’t need another law tacted on top of it. Yes, there are some sites out there that are offensive and perpetuate “hate” speech. However, it’s still speech and isn’t breaking a law. It isn’t the place of Government to come in and regulate what you can or can’t say so long as you don’t infringe on someone else.

Instead of pursuing something like this, perhaps MP Smith could turn her attention to something other than trying to mother Canada with this law. Me personally, I’m just waiting for someone in Congress to try and put this forward in the US. My answer then will be the same as my answer now: thanks, but no thanks. I already have a mother. I don’t need a government full of them.

So right now two Republican representatives in the General Assembly of North Carolina have introduced a bill to put forward a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a Man and Woman. Given that this is a Southern state, I wish that I could say I was surprised, but sadly I’m not. This doesn’t mean I don’t continue to be disappointed in my fellow citizens and want to ask them to see if they have logically considered this. First and foremost, before we get into this, I will note that my general belief is that “marriage” isn’t a business for Government anyway. Marriage is a church sacrament and it should be left up to the Church to deside on whom they wish to bestow this sacrament. However, I also firmly believe that if you’re going to offer benefits under a civil union, it should not be restricted to just heterosexual couples.

Question #1: How will two men or two women getting married impact your personal life, liberty, or property?

While I could offer a flippant ‘it won’t’ here, I do truly have to pose this question. If a homosexual couple being extended the same benefits under the law as a heterosexual couple would impact someone’s life, liberty, or property, then I could see a reason for pushing through Amendments of this nature. I personally don’t see anything that even comes close to doing so, however. Just because any of the homosexual couples I know get married, it will not impact my marriage with my wife one iota. Our marriage will still have the same sanctity (if anything about my life deserves the ’sanctity’ title), benefits, and meaning as it did before a homosexual couple was married.

Question #2: Where in the Constitution do you find any other Amendment that restricts Liberty and/or Civil Rights rather than protecting it?

The quck answer for those who want to go scurring to the US Constitution is Amendment 18. The only problem with pointing to this, however, is Amendment XXI, which repealed Amendment 18. So as a net result, there is not a single Constitutional Amendment in the US Constitution that restricts Civil Rights or denies Liberty. Based on the Bill of Rights and the Articles of the Constitution, it’s designed to limit the scope of the Federal Government and to protect (not grant) the rights of the Citizens of the United States.

Question #3: What other societal changes in the past have resulted in a total breakdown of family structure?

The argument I heard on WPTF this morning that drew my attention to this topic was that if this amendment wasn’t passed, then what would stop two same sex people from claiming the civil benefits of marriage even if they weren’t really a couple? My immediate response was “the exact same things that keeps a man and a woman who aren’t a couple from doing the same thing–nothing.” Marriages of Convenience are not anything new in this country and I honestly don’t foresee them ever going away. The sex of the couples involved doesn’t matter. Other arguments of this nature were made during the Civil Rights era, claiming that interracial marriage would ruin the country and lead to the downfall of our way of life. I’ve yet to see anything of that nature happen, and I seriously doubt that it ever will. In many cases, this is simply someone projecting their fears on society at large and trying to stir up concensus through fear.

Question #4: Where in the Constitution does it place protections and/or grant special privileges to any religious viewpoint?

This is another of those questions that likely will elicit a ‘It doesn’t, but…’ response. At least most people will realize that the only notation regarding religion in the US Constitution is the statement that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. However, many people seem to believe that encoding religion morality into an Amendment doesn’t have anything to do with the establishment of religion. I’m quite sure a Constitional argument could be made either way, but my personal preference is to keep someone’s religious viewpoint as far away from my rule of Law as possible.

Question #5: When did you make the conscious decision to be Heterosexual?

The main response you’ll generally get here is “I didn’t, because it’s normal to be Heterosexual.” At this point, I’m generally in the mode of just giving a blank stare in response to answers that make me want to shake someone until they wake up and re-engage the logical portions of their brain. There are documented cases of homosexuality occuring in the wild among animals. Yes, in many cases, those animals are either ostracized from the social group or killed by the others, but that doesn’t invalidate the argument that homosexuality is, in large part, a biological hardwiring rather than a conscious choice. Kids who are going for shock value and L.U.G.s not withstanding, I’ve yet to meet anyone who identifies as being homosexual who sat down one day and opted to be part of a sub-set of the population that would earn them discrimination, scorn, and in many cases put them in personal danger.

There are a number of other questions that could be asked here, but I think this illustrates my point well enough. In the end, unfortunately, this is a situation much like the abortion debate. Each side can talk until they’re blue in the face, but it’s not going to change the base opinion. Unfortunately in this day and age, there are too many politicians who are willing to pander to the fears and zealotry of their constituents in what they choose to introduce. The Constitution is there to protect the rights of the minority from the majority, not to enforce the will of the majority on the minority. If I wanted that, I’d live in a Democracy rather than a Republic.

Reading through things this morning, I came across two different articles that point out that control beyond the scope of their mandate knows no political party. Both sides are equally capable of attempting to lay claim to control over constituencies that they shouldn’t. In both of them, I can see the “good intentions” of the people putting these forward. However, I truly wonder if they can see the “road to hell” they’re paving.

The first one comes out of Texas. You have Rep. Wayne Smith of Baytown, Texas, who is wanting to place a $500 fine and a misdemeanor charge on any parent who misses a scheduled meeting with their child’s public school teacher. His good intentions are to get parents to stop skipping the meetings and have more involvement in their children’s education. While I can understand and appreciate his intent, I cringe at the idea of putting this sort of force on parents. What would be the next step here? Taking children away from their parents when they skip meetings and charging the parents with child abuse? Thankfully, the chair of the House Public Education Committee in Texas, Rep. Rob Eissler, is skeptical about the law and it’s looking unlikely it’ll ever make its way to the floor in Texas.

The second example comes out of Washington. You have Initiative 957 filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance pushing to have an initiative put on the ballot in November. If the initiative passes, it would require anyone putting in for a marriage license to prove that they both able to have children and are planning to have children within the bounds of their marriage. If they do not have children within three years, their marriage would be annulled. Again, I can see the “good intentions” here. The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance is attempting to force debate on the issue of Same Sex Marriage by pushing an absurd initiative based on one of the foundation arguments for why heterosexual couples are allowed to marry but homosexual couples are not. The danger here is that the Far Right will take up this banner and push to have it approved. Granted, this is the Pacific Northwest where the Far Right is a definite minority, but that would not stop this from spreading elsewhere.

In both of these cases, you have one small group (or simply an individual) attempting to enforce their viewpoints or beliefs on the rest of the population using the force of law. I truly have to wonder at the hubris (or simple naivety) of someone who would attempt to use the business end of a gun to enforce their viewpoint on others in this country. Of course, the masses in this country fail to understand that this is what they’re doing when they ask the Government to pass a law supporting their beliefs. It seems anymore that it’s considered the standard to push personal belief issues on others through the force of Government no matter if it’s something that falls under the purview of the Government.

Obviously far too many people believe that the idea of ‘my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins’ doesn’t extend to realm of the mind as well as the realm of the physical.

Last night, George Bush graced us with his sixth State of the Union address. Personally, I wish Woodrow Wilson had been an abberation rather than the new standard when it came to delivering the State of the Union address, not to mention the wonderful joy of Lyndon Johnson moving the State of the Union address to prime time. Regardless of my feelings on standard delivery of the address, Bush put forward six domestic items and three international items in his address. Below is my general impression of each of these.

We’ll start out with the Domestic items, beginning with Energy policy. This is one of the few areas where I have almost no issues with Bush’s agenda. He wants to move the United States away from the massive dependency on oil we currently enjoy. As much as I hate to say it, I don’t see the collusion between the oil companies and the auto industry being broken up in a meaningful fashion without government intervention. Yes, there are hybrids on the market. However, they’re a small segment of all of the automobiles produced and the price point on them isn’t anything resembling their pure gasoline counterparts. I also agree that one thing we need to do is push domestic oil exploration. If nothing else, it’s hypocritical of us to say it’s okay for other places to endanger their areas by drilling for oil, but we’re not willing to do it here. As for Bush’s desire to increase the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, I honestly don’t know. From a national security standpoint, I see it as a good thing. From a standpoint of wanting to move away from oil dependency, I question the wisdom of expanding our national reserve of oil. All in all, this is one of the agenda items that didn’t leave me with a bad taste in my mouth.

Next in line was Health Care. Bush is blatantly pandering to the Democrats here and trying to beat them to the punch when it comes to National Healthcare. As anyone who’s read me for any length of time knows, I’m vehemently against Nationalized Healthcare. It’s not something that’s the responsibility of the Federal Government and should not be pursued. Yes, Bush’s plan has a private component. I’ll at least acknowledge that it’s not a full nationalization of the system. However, he fails in my viewpoint by wanting to amend the tax code to provide for a standard deduction for health care. The tax code needs to be scrapped and replaced with something else (Fair Tax, perhaps?). It does not need to be expanded to provide socialist control of the healthcare system. Yes, the health insurance industry has issues. Essentially nationalizing it isn’t the answer in my opinion.

Bush next hit on spending reform. He mouthed the usual platitudes regarding cutting out earmarks, spending with restraint, and otherwise being a good custodian for the money of the citizens of this Republic. Pardon me if I’m a bit cynical about this actually coming to fruition, especially in light of Bush’s desire to push forwarding with some form of nationalized healthcare and the wonderful prescription drug program. Until members of Congress are given some reason not to put earmarks into bills (like their Constituents booting them out of office when they do it), then it’s going to continue. Dog and Pony shows about how it’s going to be changed aren’t going to make a difference. Maybe Bush should get behind Ron Paul’s yearly submission of a bill requiring each bill put forward to quote the portion of the Constitution giving Congress the authority to do whatever the bill is enabling would get rid of some of my cynicism.

Education was the next windmill that Bush took aim toward with his lance. He’s wanting to expand and re-up No Child Left Behind. Again, this was a good idea in theory, but it’s not working and is merely another band-aid to the failing public school system. Until meaningful reform is actually made from the bottom up to the Public Schools in America, throwing money at the problem and puttinga new coat of paint in the system isn’t going to do any good. I’m firmly of the opinion that the Federal Government needs to get out of Public Education and leave it to the states. There are very few good marks the Federal Government have left on public education.

Next up was Immigration. This is currently a hot topic on both sides of the aisle. Unlike many on the Conservative side, I’m not screaming to close the borders and ship everyone home. I personally think the borders should be more open than they actually are. However, everyone should sign in at the door when they come in and should be checked to make sure we’re not letting in murderers, rapists, and other undesireables. I’m very much of the mind that the free market should be allowed to work and if people are willing to work for what many of the illegal immigrants are willing to receive, then they should be allowed to do so. Of course, I’m also of the mind that healthcare for them and social services shouldn’t be provided without them paying taxes. If they’re contributing to the system, then they get the same benefits as anyone else paying into it. If they’re not, then they don’t.

The final domestic item listed as judges. Bush again pushed the point that judicial nominations shouldn’t die in committee and all nominees deserve a timely up/down vote on the floor of the Senate. I’m personally in agreement with this. However, I also recognize that the Democrats are just doing the same thing that the Republicans did. Who does it and who cries foul changes based on who is in charge. Everyone needs to grow up and get over themselves. Given the tone of Congress, however, I honestly don’t see this happening anytime soon. The idea of doing your job while you’re there got lost in playing the partisan game.

Moving on to Bush’s International Agenda, two of them go hand in hand. He’s wanting to continue to push the war in Iraq and to expand the military. Bush is convinced his new Iraq Plan (same as the only plan, only now with more troops) is the right way to go. He’s also wanting to increase the military size by 92,000 over the next five years. Many people today are bringing up the votes of prominent Democrats in favor of the war and wanting to know why they’re not behind it now and supporting Bush. I don’t have a problem with them changing their mind given that the public information about the situation and how things have gone is much clearer now than it was when the vote was passed. While I recognize that in hindsight the invasion of Iraq was poorly handled, ill considered, and bothed in various ways, I think that simply dropping things and withdrawing will only escalate the destabilization of the region. I could point fingers at whom I believe are to blame for the quagmire in Iraq, but that serves no real purpose here. I do, however, believe that more troops would be a good thing given how thinly spread we are right now. Where those troops are going to come from, however, I honestly don’t know.

The final bit of his interational agenda were the continued support for efforts to combat AIDS and Malaria outside of the United States. In my personal opinion, this isn’t something we should be doing. Leave this to private donors and foundations. Taking care of diseases in other countries is not our responsibility and is not a valid use of tax dollars in this country. Just as we shouldn’t be the world’s police man, we also shouldn’t be the world’s doctor.

In the end, we had more of the same from Bush. There was really nothing new under the sun, nor did I honestly expect there to be. If you’re interested in reading more on Bush’s State of the Union agenda, it’s available in PDF at whitehouse.gov. Personally, I’d rather do that anyway and do without the pomp and ceremony that now surrounds the State of the Union address. Anyone know out of curiosity how much tax payer money was wasted in last night’s speech? Something tells me I really don’t want to know.