Tony Blair May Be an Economic and P.C. Socialist, BUT...

When Tony Blair steps down as Prime Minister of Britain next summer, we will miss him. He has been as staunch an ally in the War on Terror as Australia's PM John Howard, and if only President Bush were as eloquent and charismatic as he in describing the gravity of the threat and the type of enemy we face, maybe more Americans would understand, sit up, and pay attention. This speech of his from earlier this month is long, but it is worth the read, so check it out.

"Over these past nine years, Britain has pursued a markedly different foreign policy. We have been strongly activist, justifying our actions, even if not always successfully, at least as much by reference to values as interests. We have constructed a foreign policy agenda that has sought to link, in values, military action in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq with diplomatic action on climate change, world trade, Africa and Palestine. I set out the basis for this in the Chicago speech of 1999 where I called for a doctrine of international community, and again in the speech to the US Congress in July 2003.

The basic thesis is that the defining characteristic of today's world is its interdependence; that whereas the economics of globalisation are well matured, the politics of globalisation are not; and that unless we articulate a common global policy based on common values, we risk chaos threatening our stability, economic and political, through letting extremism, conflict or injustice go unchecked.

The consequence of this thesis is a policy of engagement not isolation; and one that is active not reactive.

Confusingly, its proponents and opponents come from all sides of the political spectrum. So it is apparently a "neo-conservative" ie right wing view, to be ardently in favour of spreading democracy round the world; whilst others on the right take the view that this is dangerous and deluded - the only thing that matters is an immediate view of national interest. Some progressives see intervention as humanitarian and necessary; others take the view that provided dictators don't threaten our citizens directly, what they do with their own, is up to them.

The debate on world trade has thrown all sides into an orgy of political cross-dressing. Protectionist sentiment is rife on the left; on the right, there are calls for "economic patriotism"; meanwhile some voices left and right, are making the case for free trade not just on grounds of commerce but of justice.

The true division in foreign policy today is between: those who want the shop "open", or those who want it "closed"; those who believe that the long-term interests of a country lie in it being out there, engaged, interactive and those who think the short-term pain of such a policy and its decisions, too great. This division has strong echoes in debates not just over foreign policy and trade but also over immigration.

Progressives may implement policy differently from conservatives, but the fault lines are the same.

Where progressive and conservative policy can differ is that progressives are stronger on the challenges of poverty, climate change and trade justice. I have no doubt at all it is impossible to gain support for our values, unless the demand for justice is as strong as the demand for freedom; and the willingness to work in partnership with others is an avowed preference to going it alone, even if that may sometimes be necessary.

I believe we will not ever get real support for the tough action that may well be essential to safeguard our way of life; unless we also attack global poverty and environmental degradation or injustice with equal vigour.

Neither in defending this interventionist policy do I pretend that mistakes have not been made or that major problems do not confront us and there are many areas in which we have not intervened as effectively as I would wish, even if only by political pressure. Sudan, for example; the appalling deterioration in the conditions of the people of Zimbabwe; human rights in Burma; the virtual enslavement of the people of North Korea.

I also acknowledge - and shall at a later time expand on this point - that the state of the MEPP and the stand-off between Israel and Palestine remains a, perhaps the, real, genuine source of anger in the Arab and Muslim world that goes far beyond usual anti-western feeling. The issue of "even handedness" rankles deeply. I will set out later how we should respond to Hamas in a way that acknowledges its democratic mandate but seeks to make progress peacefully.

So this is not an attempt to deflect criticism or ignore the huge challenges which remain; but to set out the thinking behind the foreign policy we have pursued.

Over the next few weeks, I will outline the implication of this agenda in three speeches, including this one. In this, the first, I will describe how I believe we can defeat global terrorism and why I believe victory for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is a vital element of doing that. In the second, I shall outline the importance of a broad global alliance to achieve our common goals. In the third, in America, I shall say how the international institutions need radical reform to make them capable of implementing such an agenda, in a strong and effective multilateral way. But throughout all three, I want to stress why this concept of an international community, based on core, shared values, prepared actively to intervene and resolve problems, is an essential pre-condition of our future prosperity and stability.

It is in confronting global terrorism today that the sharpest debate and disagreement is found. Nowhere is the supposed "folly" of the interventionist case so loudly trumpeted as in this case. Here, so it is said, as the third anniversary of the Iraq conflict takes place, is the wreckage of such a world view. Under Saddam Iraq was "stable". Now its stability is in the balance. Ergo, it should never have been done.

This is essentially the product of the conventional view of foreign policy since the fall of the Berlin Wall. This view holds that there is no longer a defining issue in foreign policy. Countries should therefore manage their affairs and relationships according to their narrow national interests. The basic posture represented by this view is: not to provoke, to keep all as settled as it can be and cause no tectonic plates to move. It has its soft face in dealing with issues like global warming or Africa; and reserves its hard face only if directly attacked by another state, which is unlikely. It is a view which sees the world as not without challenge but basically calm, with a few nasty things lurking in deep waters, which it is best to avoid; but no major currents that inevitably threaten its placid surface. It believes the storms have been largely self-created.

This is the majority view of a large part of western opinion, certainly in Europe. According to this opinion, the policy of America since 9/11 has been a gross overreaction; George Bush is as much if not more of a threat to world peace as Osama bin Laden; and what is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else in the Middle East, is an entirely understandable consequence of US/UK imperialism or worse, of just plain stupidity. Leave it all alone or at least treat it with sensitivity and it would all resolve itself in time; "it" never quite being defined, but just generally felt as anything that causes disruption.

This world view - which I would characterise as a doctrine of benign inactivity - sits in the commentator's seat, almost as a matter of principle. It has imposed a paradigm on world events that is extraordinary in its attraction and its scope. As we speak, Iraq is facing a crucial moment in its history: to unify and progress, under a government elected by its people for the first time in half a century; or to descend into sectarian strife, bringing a return to certain misery for millions. In Afghanistan, the same life choice for a nation, is being played out. And in many Arab and Muslim states, similar, though less publicised, struggles for democracy dominate their politics.

The effect of this paradigm is to see each setback in Iraq or Afghanistan, each revolting terrorist barbarity, each reverse for the forces of democracy or advance for the forces of tyranny as merely an illustration of the foolishness of our ever being there; as a reason why Saddam should have been left in place or the Taliban free to continue their alliance with Al Qaida. Those who still justify the interventions are treated with scorn.

Then, when terrorists strike in the nations like Britain or Spain, who supported such action, there is a groundswell of opinion formers keen to say, in effect, that it's hardly surprising - after all, if we do this to "their" countries, is it any wonder they do it to "ours"?

So the statement that Iraq or Afghanistan or Palestine or indeed Chechnya, Kashmir or half a dozen other troublespots is seen by extremists as fertile ground for their recruiting - a statement of the obvious - is elided with the notion that we have "caused" such recruitment or made terrorism worse, a notion that, on any sane analysis, has the most profound implications for democracy.


The easiest line for any politician seeking office in the West today is to attack American policy. A couple of weeks ago as I was addressing young Slovak students, one got up, denouncing US/UK policy in Iraq, fully bought in to the demonisation of the US, utterly oblivious to the fact that without the US and the liberation of his country, he would have been unable to ask such a question, let alone get an answer to it.

There is an interesting debate going on inside government today about how to counter extremism in British communities. Ministers have been advised never to use the term "Islamist extremist". It will give offence. It is true. It will. There are those - perfectly decent-minded people - who say the extremists who commit these acts of terrorism are not true Muslims. And, of course, they are right. They are no more proper Muslims than the Protestant bigot who murders a Catholic in Northern Ireland is a proper Christian. But, unfortunately, he is still a "Protestant" bigot. To say his religion is irrelevant is both completely to misunderstand his motive and to refuse to face up to the strain of extremism within his religion that has given rise to it.

Yet, in respect of radical Islam, the paradigm insists that to say what is true, is to provoke, to show insensitivity, to demonstrate the same qualities of purblind ignorance that leads us to suppose that Muslims view democracy or liberty in the same way we do.

Just as it lets go unchallenged the frequent refrain that it is to be expected that Muslim opinion will react violently to the invasion of Iraq: after all it is a Muslim country. Thus, the attitude is: we understand your sense of grievance; we acknowledge your anger at the invasion of a Muslim country; but to strike back through terrorism is wrong.

It is a posture of weakness, defeatism and most of all, deeply insulting to every Muslim who believes in freedom ie the majority. Instead of challenging the extremism, this attitude panders to it and therefore instead of choking it, feeds its growth.

None of this means, incidentally, that the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan was right; merely that it is nonsense to suggest it was done because the countries are Muslim.

I recall the video footage of Mohammed Sadiq Khan, the man who was the ringleader of the 7/7 bombers. There he was, complaining about the suppression of Muslims, the wickedness of America and Britain, calling on all fellow Muslims to fight us. And I thought: here is someone, brought up in this country, free to practise his religion, free to speak out, free to vote, with a good standard of living and every chance to raise a family in a decent way of life, talking about "us", the British, when his whole experience of "us" has been the very opposite of the message he is preaching. And in so far as he is angry about Muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan let Iraqi or Afghan Muslims decide whether to be angry or not by ballot.

There was something tragic, terrible but also ridiculous about such a diatribe. He may have been born here. But his ideology wasn't. And that is why it has to be taken on, everywhere.

This terrorism will not be defeated until its ideas, the poison that warps the minds of its adherents, are confronted, head-on, in their essence, at their core. By this I don't mean telling them terrorism is wrong. I mean telling them their attitude to America is absurd; their concept of governance pre-feudal; their positions on women and other faiths, reactionary and regressive; and then since only by Muslims can this be done: standing up for and supporting those within Islam who will tell them all of this but more, namely that the extremist view of Islam is not just theologically backward but completely contrary to the spirit and teaching of the Koran.

But in order to do this, we must reject the thought that somehow we are the authors of our own distress; that if only we altered this decision or that, the extremism would fade away. The only way to win is: to recognise this phenomenon is a global ideology; to see all areas, in which it operates, as linked; and to defeat it by values and ideas set in opposition to those of the terrorists.

The roots of global terrorism and extremism are indeed deep. They reach right down through decades of alienation, victimhood and political oppression in the Arab and Muslim world. Yet this is not and never has been inevitable. The most remarkable thing about reading the Koran - in so far as it can be truly translated from the original Arabic - is to understand how progressive it is. I speak with great diffidence and humility as a member of another faith. I am not qualified to make any judgements. But as an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, rather as reformers attempted with the Christian Church centuries later. It is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance.

Under its guidance, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands was breathtaking. Over centuries it founded an Empire, leading the world in discovery, art and culture. The standard bearers of tolerance in the early Middle Ages were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian.

This is not the place to digress into a history of what subsequently happened. But by the early 20th century, after renaissance, reformation and enlightenment had swept over the Western world, the Muslim and Arab world was uncertain, insecure and on the defensive. Some countries like Turkey went for a muscular move to secularism. Others found themselves caught between colonisation, nascent nationalism, political oppression and religious radicalism. Muslims began to see the sorry state of Muslim countries as symptomatic of the sorry state of Islam. Political radicals became religious radicals and vice versa. Those in power tried to accommodate the resurgent Islamic radicalism by incorporating some of its leaders and some of its ideology. The result was nearly always disastrous. The religious radicalism was made respectable; the political radicalism suppressed and so in the minds of many, the cause of the two came together to symbolise the need for change. So many came to believe that the way of restoring the confidence and stability of Islam was the combination of religious extremism and populist politics.

The true enemies became "the West" and those Islamic leaders who co-operated with them.

The extremism may have started through religious doctrine and thought. But soon, in offshoots of the Muslim brotherhood, supported by Wahabi extremists and taught in some of the Madrassas of the Middle East and Asia, an ideology was born and exported around the world.

The worst terrorist act was 9/11 in New York and Washington DC in 2001, where three thousand people were murdered. But the reality is that many more had already died not just in acts of terrorism against Western interests, but in political insurrection and turmoil round the world. Over 100,000 died in Algeria. In Chechnya and Kashmir political causes that could have been resolved became brutally incapable of resolution under the pressure of terrorism. Today, in well over 30 or 40 countries terrorists are plotting action loosely linked with this ideology. Its roots are not superficial, therefore, they are deep, embedded now in the culture of many nations and capable of an eruption at any time.

The different aspects of this terrorism are linked. The struggle against terrorism in Madrid or London or Paris is the same as the struggle against the terrorist acts of Hezbollah in Lebanon or the PIJ in Palestine or rejectionist groups in Iraq. The murder of the innocent in Beslan is part of the same ideology that takes innocent lives in Saudi Arabia, the Yemen or Libya. And when Iran gives support to such terrorism, it becomes part of the same battle with the same ideology at its heart.

True the conventional view is that, for example, Iran is hostile to Al Qaida and therefore would never support its activities. But as we know from our own history of conflict, under the pressure of battle, alliances shift and change. Fundamentally, for this ideology, we are the enemy.

Which brings me to the fundamental point. "We" is not the West. "We" are as much Muslim as Christian or Jew or Hindu. "We" are those who believe in religious tolerance, openness to others, to democracy, liberty and human rights administered by secular courts.

This is not a clash between civilisations. It is a clash about civilisation. It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace and see opportunity in the modern world and those who reject its existence; between optimism and hope on the one hand; and pessimism and fear on the other. And in the era of globalisation where nations depend on each other and where our security is held in common or not at all, the outcome of this clash between extremism and progress is utterly determinative of our future here in Britain. We can no more opt out of this struggle than we can opt out of the climate changing around us. Inaction, pushing the responsibility on to America, deluding ourselves that this terrorism is an isolated series of individual incidents rather than a global movement and would go away if only we were more sensitive to its pretensions; this too is a policy. It is just that; it is a policy that is profoundly, fundamentally wrong.

And this is why the position of so much opinion on how to defeat this terrorism and on the continuing struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Middle East is, in my judgement, so mistaken.

It ignores the true significance of the elections in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact is: given the chance, the people wanted democracy. OK so they voted on religious or regional lines. That's not surprising, given the history. But there's not much doubt what all the main parties in both countries would prefer and it is neither theocratic nor secular dictatorship. The people - despite violence, intimidation, inexperience and often logistical nightmares - voted. Not a few. But in numbers large enough to shame many western democracies. They want Government decided by the people.

And who is trying to stop them? In Iraq, a mixture of foreign Jihadists, former Saddamists and rejectionist insurgents. In Afghanistan, a combination of drug barons, Taliban and Al Qaida.

In each case, US, UK and the forces of many other nations are there to help the indigenous security forces grow, to support the democratic process and to provide some clear bulwark against the terrorism that threatens it. In each case, full UN authority is in place. There was and is a debate about the legality of the original decision to remove Saddam. But since May 2003, the MNF has been in Iraq under a UN resolution and with the authority of the first ever elected Government. In Afghanistan throughout, UN authority has been in place.

In both countries, the armed forces and police service are taking shape so that in time a democratically elected government has, under its control, sufficient power to do the will of the democratic state. In each case again, people die queuing up to join such forces, determined whatever the risk, to be part of a new and different dispensation.

Of course, and wholly wrongly, there are abuses of human rights, mistakes made, things done that should not be done. There always were. But at least this time, someone demands redress; people are free to complain.

So here, in its most pure form, is a struggle between democracy and violence. People look back on the three years since the Iraq conflict; they point to the precarious nature of Iraq today and to those who have died - mainly in terrorist acts - and they say: how can it have been worth it?

But there is a different question to ask: why is it so important to the forces of reaction and violence to halt Iraq in its democratic tracks and tip it into sectarian war? Why do foreign terrorists from Al Qaida and its associates go across the border to kill and maim? Why does Syria not take stronger action to prevent them? Why does Iran meddle so furiously in the stability of Iraq?

Examine the propaganda poured into the minds of Arabs and Muslims. Every abuse at Abu Ghraib is exposed in detail; of course it is unacceptable but it is as if the only absence of due process in that part of the world is in prisons run by the Americans. Every conspiracy theory - from seizing Iraqi oil to imperial domination - is largely dusted down and repeated.

Why? The answer is that the reactionary elements know the importance of victory or defeat in Iraq. Right from the beginning, to them it was obvious. For sure, errors were made on our side. It is arguable that de-Baathification went too quickly and was spread too indiscriminately, especially amongst the armed forces. Though in parenthesis, the real worry, back in 2003 was a humanitarian crisis, which we avoided; and the pressure was all to de-Baathify faster.

But the basic problem from the murder of the United Nations staff in August 2003 onwards was simple: security. The reactionary elements were trying to de-rail both reconstruction and democracy by violence. Power and electricity became problems not through the indolence of either Iraqis or the MNF but through sabotage. People became frightened through terrorism and through criminal gangs, some deliberately released by Saddam.

These were not random acts. They were and are a strategy. When that strategy failed to push the MNF out of Iraq prematurely and failed to stop the voting; they turned to sectarian killing and outrage most notably February's savage and blasphemous destruction of the Shia Shrine at Samarra.

They know that if they can succeed either in Iraq or Afghanistan or indeed in Lebanon or anywhere else wanting to go the democratic route, then the choice of a modern democratic future for the Arab or Muslim world is dealt a potentially mortal blow. Likewise if they fail, and those countries become democracies and make progress and, in the case of Iraq, prosper rapidly as it would; then not merely is that a blow against their whole value system; but it is the most effective message possible against their wretched propaganda about America, the West, the rest of the world.

That to me is the painful irony of what is happening. They have so much clearer a sense of what is at stake. They play our own media with a shrewdness that would be the envy of many a political party. Every act of carnage adds to the death toll. But somehow it serves to indicate our responsibility for disorder, rather than the act of wickedness that causes it. For us, so much of our opinion believes that what was done in Iraq in 2003 was so wrong, that it is reluctant to accept what is plainly right now.

What happens in Iraq or Afghanistan today is not just crucial for the people in those countries or even in those regions; but for our security here and round the world. It is a cause that has none of the debatable nature of the decisions to go for regime change; it is an entirely noble one - to help people in need of our help in pursuit of liberty; and a self-interested one, since in their salvation lies our own security.

Naturally, the debate over the wisdom of the original decisions, especially in respect of Iraq will continue. Opponents will say Iraq was never a threat; there were no WMD; the drug trade in Afghanistan continues. I will point out Iraq was indeed a threat as two regional wars, 14 UN resolutions and the final report of the Iraq Survey Group show; that in the aftermath of the Iraq War we secured major advances on WMD not least the new relationship with Libya and the shutting down of the AQ Khan network; and that it was the Taliban who manipulated the drug trade and in any event housed Al Qaida and its training camps.

But whatever the conclusion to this debate, if there ever is one, the fact is that now, whatever the rights and wrongs of how and why Saddam and the Taliban were removed, there is an obvious, clear and overwhelming reason for supporting the people of those countries in their desire for democracy.

I might point out too that in both countries supporters of the ideology represented by Saddam and Mullah Omar are free to stand in elections and on the rare occasions they dare to do so, don't win many votes.

Across the Arab and Muslim world such a struggle for democracy and liberty continues. One reason I am so passionate about Turkey's membership of the EU is precisely because it enhances the possibility of a good outcome to such a struggle. It should be our task to empower and support those in favour of uniting Islam and democracy, everywhere.

To do this, we must fight the ideas of the extremists, not just their actions; and stand up for and not walk away from those engaged in a life or death battle for freedom. The fact of their courage in doing so should give us courage; their determination should lend us strength; their embrace of democratic values, which do not belong to any race, religion or nation, but are universal, should reinforce our own confidence in those values.

Shortly after Saddam fell, I met in London a woman who after years of exile - and there were 4 million such exiles - had returned to Iraq to participate in modern politics there. A couple of months later, she was assassinated, one of the first to be so. I cannot tell what she would say now. But I do know it would not be: give up. She would not want her sacrifice for her beliefs to be in vain.

Two years later the same ideology killed people on the streets of London, and for the same reason. To stop cultures, faiths and races living in harmony; to deter those who see greater openness to others as a mark of humanity's progress; to disrupt the very thing that makes London special would in time, if allowed to, set Iraq on a course of progress too.

This is, ultimately, a battle about modernity. Some of it can only be conducted and won within Islam itself. But don't let us in our desire not to speak of what we can only imperfectly understand; or our wish not to trespass on sensitive feelings, end up accepting the premise of the very people fighting us.

The extremism is not the true voice of Islam. Neither is that voice necessarily to be found in those who are from one part only of Islamic thought, however assertively that voice makes itself heard. It is, as ever, to be found in the calm, but too often unheard beliefs of the many Muslims, millions of them the world over, including in Europe, who want what we all want: to be ourselves free and for others to be free also; who regard tolerance as a virtue and respect for the faith of others as part of our own faith. That is what this battle is about, within Islam and outside of it; it is a battle of values and progress; and therefore it is one we must win."

Tony Blair is Prime Minister of Great Britain.

Illegal Immigration, the Perfect Analogy, and One Decent Solution

I try not to weigh in too often or lose too much sleep over politics, but since it is something I feel very strongly about, I think that blogger Emperor Darth Misha I said it best re: illegal immigration, to wit...ahem:

"An illegal immigrant is no more an 'undocumented worker' than a rapist is an 'undocumented boyfriend'".

Columnist Joe Mariani sums up my views on the situation perfectly and in great detail here, rebutting all the straw men and tired canards that proponents of mass illegal immigration often use:

America is a nation built on the rule of law, first and foremost. Much like driving or practicing a profession, American citizenship is a privilege, not a "right". People who wish to become citizens of this country should do so through legal channels, no exceptions. Anyone who wants to become an American citizen who is willing to wait in line, follow the law, file the proper papers, bring their family, work hard, assimilate into our culture, speak English, and be loyal to the United States and the values on which this nation was founded...I would love to have them as a neighbor and citizen, and would welcome their arrival. A great analogy here from Mike at the blog Cold Fury, "Citizenship is like marriage - you dont bring your ex-wife into the new marriage, nor ought you to retain any loyalty to your former country." I truly believe that this is how the majority of American citizens and legal immigrants feel about this issue.

On the other hand, people who start out in this country breaking and disrespecting our laws by entering the country and again by working illegally (if they work) and driving down wages, who commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes relative to their presence here...AND THEN have the gall to demand driver's licenses, free health care and education for themselves and their families, and a plethora of other "rights" (stealing taxpayer money), all while still remaining in allegiance to their Third World cesspool country from which they came and attempting to create enclaves of said cesspool in the middle of our country while insisting we speak their language before ours and telling us how horrible and intolerant we are when this doesn't happen...to folks of that ilk (and their enablers in this country), I say, STAY HOME! We have enough problems of our own without importing you and yours. Cue blogger Kim du Toit :

"What's at stake here is not the lettuce industry, or the landscaping business, or housemaid services. Whats at stake is our national culture, and the argument is with people who want to subvert it. Think Im overstating the issue? There are many (too many) parts of the United States where, if you don't speak Spanish, you either feel like a stranger in your own country or are made to feel like one. At some point, accommodation to anothers language has become not only a right, but an exclusive right, where one has to speak the others language, but they dont have to speak yours."

These satires (links here and here) explain the situation perfectly, and it would be funny if it were not so !*^& true:

This is where I part company with the disconnected elite Republican Party in D.C. today, as exemplified in the squishy spines of Senators Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Sam Brownback (KS), Arlen Specter (RINO- PA), and worst of all, the Republican author of the worst parts of this bill who aspires to be President, John McCain (AZ), who voted to grant amnesty to over 12-20 MILLION illegal immigrants who broke the law by coming into this country illegally and who are a net drain of billions upon billions of dollars a year on the economy. Giving your base and the grassroots folks who elected you the finger in the pursuit of a mythical "swing voter" or to get the Beltway press corps to like you is not only bad motivation leading to worse policy, it never works because that is precisely how Republicans lose elections time and again. The only good thing about this development in the Senate is that it will likely be the stake in the heart of any McCain presidential bid, as he will be skewered by primary voters, most of whom actually happen to be, er, well, conservative.

The Republican Party in general, including President Bush (with whom I agree on quite a few issues, but he is way off on this one), has abandoned and turned a deaf ear to its constituents on this issue, all because polls tell them they might lose the legal "Hispanic vote" or some portion of it, and because their major contributors in business who donate the big dollars want all the cheap labor they can get. The Democrats are no better, because they care nothing for these people beyond seeing them as more cheap, stupid minority votes to hook up to the government tit, thereby making them vehicles for the spread of socialism, dependent on Democrat welfare and income redistribution for their survival. The only common between the two parties re: immigration is pure, craven fear and opportunism of the worst kind by politicians who literally care about nothing more than they do ensuring their own power and re-election. The reason this so concerns politicians is that their terms of office could be in jeopardy if they vote against amnesty, and then it happens anyway, and all the new voters from said amnesty vote against them.

The link to this column by Frank Salvato actually provides one of the more innovative and original ideas I have ever heard regarding what to do with the millions of illegals already here:

Basically, it says that since illegal immigrants break the law entering the country illegally, they should be charged as such, with a felony, and here is the interesting part. If the illegal agrees to be found guilty of this felony, he must then register with the federal government and, because he is a felon, forfeits his right to vote in exchange for citizenship. The alternative is to go back and get in the back of the line in his home country and come here LEGALLY like everyone else is supposed to. The right to vote for anyone in the family of this person would only happen for the U.S. citizen children of the former illegal. While I still believe that the illegal should have to pay taxes and/or a fine, have no criminal record prior to the felony they accept, have a job, and learn English before their citizenship becomes official, this solution sounds much better to me because it would remove the fear of cowardly politicians who don't wish to be voted out of office by the people to whom they just granted amnesty. Hopefully then, it would make clearer who actually wants what on the illegal immigration issue and for what reason.

The intriguing solution above notwithstanding, enforcement of our borders should be the first priority, because it falls under the government's Constitutional duty to provide for the common defense of this nation. This is especially clear after 9-11, which was caused in part due to horribly lax and ineffective immigration policy, and it must come first. It is also healthier for our economy and society to have controlled, legal immigration, which I am all in favor of. I could mount my soap box for days about this issue, but I think my viewpoint is clear...getting full control of our borders should happen before ANY talk of granting citizenship or amnesty to illegal immigrants under any circumstances...after that, legal immigrants who play by the rules, come on over, illegals who don't, not so much.

In closing, I have this shout out, courtesy of former President Teddy Roosevelt, to all the Aztlan-lusting idiots flying the flags of other countries above the American flag and displaying signs with Che Guevara that say things like "Honkies go back to Europe"...take it away, Teddy:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the persons becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isnt an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Yep, what he said, in triplicate.

Should Men Have a Say? Let the Discussion Begin

I remember going on a first date with a woman a few months back who was several years younger than me. I was attracted to her, and things were going OK but not fabulous, when out of the clear blue sky, on the first date less than 2 hours in, "So, what do you think about abortion?" Stunned at the inappropriateness and poor timing of this question, after picking my jaw up off the floorboard of the car, I stammered out that I thought it was horrible for anyone to have to be in the situation where they are seriously considering it as an option. I said that while I didn't think it was right for a man to be able to force a woman to have a baby she does not want, I also didn't think it was right for a woman to have all the say either, making the choice for both parties if there is to be a child or not when both had a role in its creation. It is a tough situation without a clear good answer, and I said if I had a good or easy solution I would take it to Congress, write the bill, solve the issue, and everyone is happy. That was not the right answer for this girl, whose friend had just had an abortion, and as you might guess, that was our first and last date.

It seems now that a man from Michigan has actually taken this idea and filed a lawsuit based on it:

The money quote,

"More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy. We will ask a United States district court judge to apply the principles of reproductive choice, as articulated in Roe vs. Wade, to men. We will ask that men be granted equal protection of the laws which safeguard the right of women to make family planning decisions after sex. We will argue that, at a time of reproductive freedom for women, fatherhood must be more than a matter of DNA: A man must choose to be a father in the same way that a woman chooses to be a mother."

At first blush, the legal argument based on a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution appears to have some merit, as women are afforded the entire range of options re: becoming a parent while men have no input whatsoever, their decisions entirely dictated by the woman's call. That said, this is enough of a hot potato, especially in today's political arena, that most judges would rather and likely will punt, dismissing the case on technical grounds or something besides the actual merits of the case. Doing so would avoid the heat and political backlash were they to make some kind of decision that would change the status quo of abortion rights in place since Roe and the 70s, leaving the issue to be decided by another district court judge, the appeals courts, or the Supreme Court.

As I said to the young lady, I don't have all the answers, and I am personally morally opposed to abortion, especially given that it has been used entirely too often as birth control rather than for cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother. It is, however, way past time we as a society have this discussion, because it takes two to tango, and if abortion is going to stay around as an issue and an option, men should have some input and say in these kind of very important, personal, and intimate decisions.

Is It Really God? A Second Look From Out of Ur

From Out of Ur:

"We like to take matters into our own hands and to progress. We like to call some opportunities "open doors" in order to make progress. But "open doors" aren't always an invitation from God, said Andy Stanley (a pastor)...not when they're against God's laws, principles, and wisdom... I'm not too good at evaluating my circumstances. I get emotional and saturated by my environment, especially when it looks like the stars are aligning and "God is opening a door." He said "opportunities must be weighed against something other than the uniqueness of the circumstances surrounding them."

We like to make progress, so when something looks, feels, sounds like a God thing, we chalk it up to what? A God thing. But in 1 Samuel 24, David says this to Saul, "May the Lord judge between you and me. And may the Lord avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my hand will not touch you. David waits. And through waiting, his situation later turned out better than if he would have been crowned king by means of assassination. King David reminded me that the most direct route to what I want is RARELY the best route."

I have included the money quotes from above because this is something I have struggled with in the past and continue to struggle with on occasion. My struggle is and has been centered around the speed with which God works in my life (or doesn't). Like the author of this piece, I get saturated in my environment, including the world, which says, "More now, faster is better, let's have it yesterday."

My tendency is/has been to take what the Lord gives me and try to put it into warp speed and get it now. It really takes a lot for me not to do that, partly out of selfishness and wanting what I want now, but also out of eagerness for God's full blessings to be in my life as soon as possible. It is completely unacceptable to take something you have received through God's grace and blessings, appropriate it solely for your own selfish uses, and say to Him, "Thanks God...it's all good, I got it from here and I know best, so you can go now." Anything handled in this way, be it things or relationships, will ultimately be lost, or worse yet, cursed.

I am reminded of a quote from a book I once read, "God does not often answer our prayers right away because he desires a relationship with us, and sometimes that is the only way for him to get us to stick around and talk to Him". This is one of many good reasons God does not give us a fast forward button in life, because we would miss out on the journey, the walk with Him that He desires and is so rich and rewarding. It is also one of the things I take comfort in when I have to tell myself to re-focus, slow down, and wait upon the Lord, because I know what He has for me in His time is the best of all possible things and it is what will make me the happiest and best suited for service in His kingdom.

"The Bachelor" (Travis and Sarah) Finale

OK, so some people have guilty pleasures like chocolate, others drugs and alcohol, and me, certain reality TV shows. The way I figure it, the shows won't make me fat, and at least if they kill off brain cells or make me dumber for having watched them, at least it will happen at a slower pace. I have watched every season of "The Bachelor" and "The Bachelorette" when they have come on. As a funny side note, only two of the previous six male bachelors on the show have made their relationships with the woman they chose at the end work in the real world. The bachelorettes, on the other hand, are two for three. Draw whatever conclusions from that you will.

What has occurred to me the most, including tonight, is that the bachelors almost always seem to end up with two women who could not be more polar opposite of one another. It is so pronounced that I find it hard to see how one of the two (whichever one doesn't match) even makes it to the final two of the show. I suppose part of it could be played up by the producers for TV effect, through editing and the like, but it still got me to thinking, and here is why. The show, and the bachelors, just like this season, set it up as a choice between one deeply emotional and mysterious girl whose match with the bachelor is not readily apparent (but with unlimited upside potential) versus the good, safe, honest girl with everything a man could want in a good wife and mother (with all the cards ever to be played pretty much laid out on the table).

I happen to believe that this is a false choice, and find myself counting my blessings that life doesn't work like a TV show. My take is that there needs to be a little of both present in a high-quality mate in order to maximize the potential relationship growth and happiness. Put another way, two people need to be enough alike and have enough common interests to form a cohesive bond, but be sufficiently dissimilar with enough different interests to stave off staleness and boredom with one another.

Expanding on the last paragraph with a tangent to my own experience, I don't think my growth is supposed to stop just because I might meet someone and decide I like them enough to get married and have a family with them. Just the opposite, I think that phase of your life should present some unique and amazing growth opportunities for you and your spouse. While priorities and responsibilities most certainly get re-arranged after marriage and family come along, that does not mean the self, the core of a person from before they were married, has to die. It is the responsibility of the two people in the relationship, on the front end, to ascertain whether sufficient mystery and safeness can co-exist, whether they can keep the relationship unit thriving while still allowing the individuals who comprise it growing and happy, while still completing the tasks that come along with everyday life. I once read somewhere that a relationship, marriage included, is no better or worse, no more or less healthy, than the people who make it up, and that sounds about right to me.

I want someone who challenges and inspires me on many levels, but without being pushy or awkward about it; someone who is a bit of a mystery on the front end but is willing to open up her heart and let me in when the time is right; someone who I know to be safe, with whom I am secure in my trust, but yet at the same time, someone who will, at the moment of truth on our journey, step up and take a leap of faith and wise risks with me down the road in order to achieve greatness together. I want someone who, when we are together, fits in well enough so the world doesn't necessarily scratch its head with utter confusion at us as a couple, while also recognizing that there are certain things that can only be shared and make sense between us. On the things that make sense to us alone, I could give a crap whether anyone else gets it or not as long as it works for us...this sounds a little like an addendum to my "beyond the list" post from last week now that I think of it.

Simply put, I want it all for my own life, and if the participants on these kinds of TV romance shows don't see that at the end of the show, they should not choose anyone and go home, still single and with dignity intact, grateful for meeting new people and having a growth-inspiring learning experience.