Boehner is liveblogging the GOP House revolt. Click and scroll.

I hate to say this, because I’m going to come off like a traitor, but I strongly suspect that crime rates have more to do — directly, that is — with the metropolitan/non-metropolitan population ratio than they do gun laws.

Look at the crime rates for states broken down into metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. The difference is striking. That should come as no surprise.

Guns surely come into play somewhere, but I don’t know that gun laws per se are much of a variable. Look at Philadelphia, then look at Pennsylvania’s gun laws — better, look at Philadelphia, then look at Centre County. Same state, completely different galaxy. My point is that no matter what the gun laws may be, people in the suburbs and country are far more likely to be armed than people in the city (criminals excluded, of course), and they are far more likely to take responsibility for their own lives and neighborhoods.

How people react to crime primarily has to do with dependence. In the suburbs, small towns, and the country, people are not dependent, and when faced with crime, take a proactive role. Dependent people take a wholly reactive role, and do nothing much but hold candlelight vigils and memorials and wave giant puppet heads and have Al Sharpton down so they can riot. Dependent people are also far less likely to own firearms for protection, because protecting oneself is an independent action, not a dependent one.

There is an article in the Atlantic about how crime follows Section 8 housing. There is the usual amount of idiotic, guilty liberal hand-wringing in the article, but what’s controversial about this? It isn’t race. It’s culture. These are people who are content to live with crime, who hate the police more than they hate the criminals, who whine constantly about how awful it is that the criminals who murder their children and parents are in prison, and who blame crime on everything but the criminal. Why wouldn’t it follow them?

Crime rates are more a cultural than a legislative phenomenon. The legislation — here, gun laws — reflects the degree of dependence of the state as a whole (or whoever holds the power in the state legislature).

I’m not saying that the likelihood of being armed doesn’t affect crime rates. It’s basic common sense that it does. But even in a gun-friendly state like Pennsylvania, the areas with the highest degree of dependence are the areas of the highest crime, and vice versa. And even in a gun-friendly state like Pennsylvania with relatively few gun control laws, those high dependence areas spawn extremely high crime rates. After all, even if a lack of gun control were capable of reducing crime, people would have to take advantage of the laws for them to have an effect.

Crime has nothing to do with poverty. There are people just as poor in the country, and they don’t mug other people; likewise, no thug running around with $5,000 in his pocket is, in any way, poor.

Why, then, does the poor person in Mifflin County not resort to stealing from others, but the not at all poor person in Philadelphia is a career criminal?

Culture.

Our poor person in Mifflin County — we’ll call him John — doesn’t mug people or break into houses and steal or sell drugs because doing any of those things would be socially unacepptable. The Philadelphia career criminal with $5000 in his pocket — we’ll call him Hector — is a career criminal because it’s socially acceptable. And because it is socially acceptable, he knows nobody in his community is going to do anything to keep him from mugging, stealing, raping, selling drugs, or murdering.

And in fact, they don’t. They spend all their time blaming everybody but Hector for the crimes he commits. It’s slavery, or the police, or white people, or racism, or Republicans, or not enough welfare checks, or guns, but it’s never Hector — and if Hector is ever convicted and thrown in prison where he belongs, Hector’s being in prison is suddenly a tragedy, and not the fact that he murdered 25 people. That diversion of responsibility away from Hector is what makes his crime socially acceptable, no matter how much people may whine about the crime, and no matter how many of their own children are murdered.

Those who divert crime away from the criminal enable the crime.

They also encourage Hector to commit crimes because they are dependent. They don’t see policing their own community as their job; they want somebody else to do it. So they wave those giant puppet heads and have million man marches and hold candlelight vigils against guns and sometimes riot, none of which has any power to affect the crime. They want more gun control precisely because they don’t want anybody doing anything about the crime. Defending oneself against a criminal or policing the community would violate the culture of dependence.

It would also cast the spotlight on Hector. So diversion of responsibility and the culture of dependence are the ingredients of the poison cocktail.

This is why even though I applaud the Heller decision, I predict that it will have absolutely no effect on crime in DC. Only a tiny handful of people will arm themselves against crime and take responsibility for their own lives and neighborhoods (provided that they can, given DC’s attempts to re-legislate the ban), by no means enough to affect crime. They’re too busy complaining about the evil police or how they’re not getting enough welfare or how “The Man” is keeping them down to grow up and be adults.

If they were adults and criminals were murdering their children and assaulting them on the streets, they wouldn’t be whining about the police; they’d be doing everything they could to help the police. They’d be too busy cleaning up their own neighborhoods and demanding that criminals be locked up in prison to whine about Bush or guns or most offensive of all, how awful it is that so many of “their boys” are in prison. But they aren’t adults. They’re children. And as long as they remain children, I can’t be bothered to lose any sleep over the crime they encourage in their own neighborhoods.

Crime is for society, a cultural problem. For the individual, crime is a moral problem. Poverty, racism, not enough welfare, Republicans, race, none of these causes crime. Only a lack of morals causes crime.

The Heller decision was good for the nation. It won’t do a damned thing for DC. And that’s my cynical 2 cents for the day.

From Peter Risdon. We’re not all weenies on this side of the pond.

Check out today’s links at Maggie’s Farm.

Here are a few more:

• Shaun Doherty and Bob Clegg Sign Wave in Pelham New Hampshire
• Shaun Doherty and Bob Clegg Sign Wave in Pelham New Hampshire
• Take Part in the Historic Republican Party Online Platform
• Take Part in the Historic Republican Party Online Platform!
• John McCain’s Tour Schedule for July 15th-31st
• Senator Burr: Obama Will Probably Ignore Gen. Petraeus
• Obama vs. Lee Hamilton on Iraq as “central front” in war on terror, timetables for withdrawal
• What To Do For McCain.

Joe Huffman: How Gun Control Lost.

Andy Roth at Club for Growth did an interesting study. He looked at 162 Senate votes, and tabulated how frequently Senators voted with Harry Reid. Senators Coburn and DeMint came in at the top, voting the least frequently with the deranged Reid, at 28.4% and 29%, respectively.

Guess who came in at number three?

John McCain, who only voted with Harry Reid 32.4% of the time.

What’s most interesting about this is that some of the “real conservatives” whom pundits suggest McCain should choose for the VP slot have voted with Harry Reid significantly more frequently than McCain. Brownback, for example, voted with Reid 45.7% of the time, Sessions 43.2%, Cornyn 46.3%, and Thune, a solid conservative 50% of the time.

My suggestion for MDS sufferers is that they start looking at actual data instead of relying on their impressions, or what the pundits tell them. Deaf ears, I know, but I can try.

Raw, undisciplined, cowardly men:

In March 1775, the British First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Sandwich, declared “Suppose the colonies do abound in men, what does that signify? They are raw, undisciplined, cowardly men.” It was an opinion that resonated in the House of Commons. (David McCullough, 1776)

The following month the British army would find out just how “raw, undisciplined, and cowardly” those men were not, when they met at Lexington and Concord in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. The pyrric British victory in these opening battles of the American Revolution would set the tone for things to come, and truely were “the shots heard around the world.”

Those “raw, undisciplined, and cowardly men” overcame tremendous adversities in fighting the most powerful military force of the day. Fourteen months later, on July 4, 1776, Congress approved the wording of the most sacred document in American history—the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration laid out, in detail, the infractions of the tyrant King George against the colonists of America, and declared the thirteen colonies free of British rule.

The war raged on for five more years, but in the fall of 1781, British General Charles Cornwallis was surrendering his army to the “raw, undisciplined, and cowardly” American General George Washington.

Had I seen it yesterday, I definitely would have linked it. Surely the best 4th of July article for 2008. The only thing it is missing is this:

Faced with a dwindling supply of food and ammunition, and still awaiting relief from Clinton, Cornwallis offered to surrender unconditionally on October 17. Cornwallis declined to appear at the surrender ceremony or to surrender his sword (a custom at the time) to General Washington, claiming illness and sending Charles O’Hara instead. Washington refused to accept the surrender from O’Hara, and so the deputy surrendered to Washington’s subordinate, General Benjamin Lincoln. When the British forces came out, their drummers played the march, “The Day the World Turned Upside Down.”

:

More from Bob Krumm:

As you get away for a long Independence Day weekend this evening, you might want to give a little thought to an event taking place in Baghdad tomorrow. Eleven hundred Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines–the equivalent of two entire battalions–are celebrating the 4th of July by re-enlisting in the midst of what many call an “unpopular” war.

It is thought to be the largest mass reenlistment ceremony in the history of the United States military, and is twice the size of last year’s event where 588 military members reenlisted. The ceremony will be held in the Al Faw Palace which once belonged to Saddam Hussein. During a practice beneath a 40-foot high American flag today, nearly the entire marble floor of the immense rotunda of the palace was covered in a sea of camouflage uniforms representing all branches of service. Even the rehearsal was an awe-inspiring site.

They won’t like this either. From the NYT:

On the field before the All-Star Game, Major League Baseball plans to assemble the largest gathering of Hall of Fame players in baseball history. And as fans salute their heroes, the former players will join the crowd in saluting the American flag — one that is roughly 75 feet by 150 feet, as long as a 15-story building is tall, spread horizontally over the Yankee Stadium turf.

That is a relatively small flag by big-event standards in American sports these days. But it will signal the latest can’t-miss blend of sports and patriotism, a combination increasingly presenting itself through gigantic American flags, unfurled by dozens or hundreds of people in an attempt to elicit a sense of awe and nationalism in the surrounding crowd.

Once the gaudy lure of attention-seeking car dealerships or other roadside attractions, big flags have found a comfortable home inside the ballparks, arenas and raceways of American sporting events.

“It is an American phenomenon, no doubt about it,” said Frank Supovitz, the N.F.L.’s senior vice president for events, who oversees such spectacles as the Super Bowl and has helped stage events around the world.

A small industry has formed to supply the flags, usually at a cost of a few thousand dollars an appearance. Some colleges and bowl games, tired of renting them frequently, have bought their own field-sized flags.

“People are getting more on the bandwagon,” said Doug Green, who has long rented giant flags to teams and leagues, and recently supplied one for the Indianapolis 500. “Nascar’s doing it more and more, the N.F.L. is doing it more and more”….

“For big, spectacular events, big just happens because it paints a more vibrant picture,” said Tim Brosnan, the executive vice president for business at Major League Baseball. “I don’t think bigger is necessarily better, but it is a celebration.”

[ . . . ]

“People go ape when they see it,” said Jim Alexander, a retired Coast Guard commander who runs Superflag, the company that basically invented the industry and once held the world record for the largest flag, which temporarily hung on the Hoover Dam. It was 255 by 505 feet and has been surpassed by a flag in Israel that measures 2,165 by 330 feet. “It’s a feeling. It’s a feeling that takes over a whole stadium. If anyone in the stands opened their mouth and objected, there would be hell to pay.”

:

Thomas Jefferson, All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.

Rich Lowry on the Declaration of Independence.

Maggie Gallagher, Three Great American Ideas.

Bob Krumm on the “largest reenlistment ceremony in the history of the American military.”

Victor Davis Hanson reflects on Independence Day.

Fr. Roger Landry, Safeguard and strengthen freedom.

George Will, A Fourth of July by any other name would feel as free.

Rick Hampson, In this war, troops get a rousing welcome home.

Sacrifice:

Trace Adkins:

The Academy Choirs:

Buckingham Palace on 9/11:

Sticky. Scroll down for updates.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

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

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

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

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

(An intentionally ironic title, given that I got the link from Glenn Reynolds.) On Volokh:

The Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, upholding the Second Amendment right of individuals to own firearms, should finally lay to rest the widespread myth that the defining difference between liberal and conservative justices is that the former support “individual rights” and “civil liberties,” while the latter routinely defer to government assertions of authority. The Heller dissent presents the remarkable spectacle of four liberal Supreme Court justices tying themselves into an intellectual knot to narrow the protections the Bill of Rights provides. Or perhaps it’s not as remarkable as we’ve been led to think.

And on that note, I think I’ll retire to the TV until tomorrow.

That’s what they’re highlighting on the Club for Growth’s new blog, Dumb Laws.

If you’re interested, there’s a detailed, lengthy discussion of the Heller decision at SCOTUS Blog, with links to ruling and dissents.

Uncle:

Oh yeah, and lawsuits filed in NYC and Chicago tomorrow.

From the blog:

Tom Goldstein - Heller affirmed.

Ben Winograd - The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.

Tom Goldstein - Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.

Tom Goldstein - We’ll post the opinion as soon as it is available.

Whew! Now, I need to shower all the sweat off before Best Buy gets here.

First, I reported on June 2 that our HOA had actually voted for liberty. Let me explain. Apparently, the HOA covenant was written up by the contractor who built the homes here. Okay, now I find this odd. Why would a contractor write a covenant, and was it with the input of at least some of the people who originally bought homes here? From conversations with an ex-board member and other communication, people have apparently challenged the covenant repeatedly because there are conflicting terms and it can be read either way.

Anyway, the questions were basically this: With regard to fences, sheds, pools, satellite dishes, and landscaping, should HOA members be required to get the okay of the HOA board, or should they be able to build without getting permission (provided construction is within township guidelines)? (And why would a covenant restrict fencing, when fencing adds to the property value?) Here were the results:

The results were consistent across all issues, with a clear relative majority voting to allow individual property owners to have the power to make their own decisions regarding fences, sheds, pools, and landscaping, providing their plans fall within X Township guidelines. No approval will be required by the HOA or its members.

Great, huh? Well, about a week later, we got this rather odd message (GHA refers to the HOA board):

We have received many nice comments and compliments about the recent neighborhood vote, but also a few concerns regarding the ballot and outcome. While we knew not everyone would be happy no matter what the outcome, we tried very hard to have the X HOA feel that the voting process was equitable. Based on some feedback we have received, it does not appear that we met that goal.

On the issues of landscaping and satellite dishes, the ballot results were clear, so a re-vote will not be needed. But the items concerning sheds, fencing, and pools raised questions. While there was a clear relative majority (i.e., one response that got significantly more votes than the others), the fact that the response options were not binary (like a clear yes/no vote) and two of the options were similar in nature (e.g., that some body should have approval power) made some members question the results.

So… let’s do this again! While it will be improbable that we’ll make everyone 100% happy, we’d like to re-vote, with newly worded questions, in an attempt to make the outcome more clear. Please note that whatever the outcome, the results will only affect future sheds, fencing, and pool installations.

Below is DRAFT wording for a new ballot. If you have any feedback pertaining to the wording of the questions or response options, please let us know. We may not be able to take all feedback into account (especially if it conflicts with someone else’s feedback!), but we will do our best to massage the wording so that it is as effective and clear as possible.

*Please provide any feedback you may have by Monday, June 16, 2008. *You may send your feedback to me or any of the other GHA Board members . . .

QUESTION 1: In regards to future fences in the X neighborhood, I vote that:

A. A governing body, such as the GHA Board of Directors or a committee of GHA members, should have the power to approve or deny fencing requests, based on a set of official guidelines. NOTE: If this response option prevails, then the GHA Board of Directors will follow-up with the GHA membership to establish a set of official guidelines regarding acceptable fencing that will be written into the X HOA By-laws and Covenants.

B. The individual property owners having the power to make their own decision regarding fencing on their property, providing it falls within X Township guidelines. No approval would be required by the GHA Board of Directors or the HOA members.

QUESTION 2: In regards to future pools in the X neighborhood, I vote that:

A. A governing body, such as the GHA Board of Directors or a committee of GHA members, should have the power to approve or deny pool requests, based on a set of official guidelines. NOTE: If this response option prevails, then the GHA Board of Directors will follow-up with the GHA membership to establish a set of official guidelines regarding acceptable pools that will be written into the X HOA By-laws and Covenants.

B. The individual property owners having the power to make their own decision regarding pools on their property, providing it falls within Patton Township guidelines. No approval would be required by the GHA Board of Directors or the HOA members.

QUESTION 3: Should X homeowners be allowed to erect sheds, whether temporary or permanent, on their property?

A. Yes, future sheds should be permitted in our development - NOTE: If a “Yes” vote prevails, then the GHA Board of Directors will follow-up with the GHA membership to establish a set of official guidelines regarding acceptable sheds that will be written into the X HOA By-laws and Covenants.

B. No, future sheds should not be permitted in our development.

We got a follow-up that stated that the pool question wasn’t going to appear, because they were accepting the results of the first vote (?) although I don’t understand why it’s even in the damned covenant, since the lots here aren’t big enough to build both a house and a pool, unless it’s a very, very small pool. And since we live right on the ridge, just six inches above solid limestone, I suspect that putting in a pool would be massively expensive. But back to the voting issue.

I agree that the original questions were bizarre. They were basically like this (working from memory, so it’s not an exact quotation):

• The GHA board should determine whether the property owners may or may not build X
• The members of the HOA should determine whether the property owners may or may not build X
• The property owners may build X, provided they fall within township guidelines.

The ambiguity was in the second option. Depending on how you read it, it could mean one of three things: More or less the same as the first, more or less the same as the third (since the property owners are the members of the HOA), or building requests must be submitted to a vote by the whole damned neighborhood. Puzzling or not, however, it was the third option that won (in what our secretary calls a “relative majority,” and if anyone knows what a “relative majority” is supposed to be, please enlighten me. The secretary’s definition, “one response that got significantly more votes than the others,” doesn’t sound relative. What would be a majority majority, then? Or a plurality? Or did the secretary not take civics in high school?)

Now, call me cynical, but I think this reeks of GHA board members (or a group of HOA members) who want to retain control over other peoples’ private property, and want us to re-vote because they didn’t like the outcome. I wonder if at the end of this vote if it comes out the same way, they’ll demand recounts, counting differently each time (oh, we only want these votes recounted, and those votes over there should be discarded) until they get the result they want — just like Al Gore and Florida in 2000.

Anyway, we’ll know in two weeks. Voting just opened, and I cast mine.

This should enrage anyone, regardless of politics:

A Nebraska district court judge prohibited the victim from describing what happened to her as rape, saying that it would be too prejudicial to the defendant. Also prohibited: “sexual assault”, calling herself “a victim,” or calling the defendant “the assailant.”

He left out one crucial piece of information, and you need to read that again, so this time, I’ll supply it:

A Nebraska district court judge [presiding over a rape case] prohibited the victim from describing what happened to her as rape, saying that it would be too prejudicial to the defendant. Also prohibited: “sexual assault”, calling herself “a victim,” or calling the defendant “the assailant.”

And this is why appointed, accountable bureaucrats should not exist. This crap about “an independent judiciary” is just that. Crap. Elected judges can be recalled when they pull crap like this. Appointed judges cannot be.

Barr tells the neo-nazi scum to go jump in a lake.

Our HOA (yes, yes, I live in a neighborhood with a HOA). As I’ve said before, they’re pretty sane for a HOA. Pretty conservative neighborhood in Central Pennsylvania. Anyway, there recently was a HOA vote on the covenant. The questions were a bit confusing, and I and one of my neighbors couldn’t figure out why there were three options, but forgetting the second option for each question, the vote was basically this:

With regard to fences, sheds, pools, and landscaping, should HOA members be required to get the okay of the HOA board, or should they be able to build without getting permission (provided construction is within township guidelines)?

You can guess how I voted. Apparently, so did a majority of the HOA. This just in.

The results were consistent across all issues, with a clear relative majority voting to allow individual property owners to have the power to make their own decisions regarding fences, sheds, pools, and landscaping, providing their plans fall within Patton Township guidelines. No approval will be required by the HOA or its members.

How about that?

There are a few comments on my heretical post I want to address.

First, yes, I know the difference between keeping people in and out. It doesn’t make any difference. I have a negative gut reaction to it either way. But the really stupid thing about the fence is that it won’t do a damned thing. If people want to get over it, they’ll get over it. So what are you going to do then? It’s a waste of money that could go to beefing up the border patrol.

Mister Snitch sez:

Visit New Jersey, where election fraud is routine. We NEED Voter IDs, for at least a modicum of fairness in elections. Cops stopping you on the street and demanding IDs, hat’s a different matter. But here in Jersey, there’s simply no stopping election fraud right now.

Whoa, back up. Who said anything about Voter ID? I was referring to National ID cards — a completely different issue. As it happens, I’m strongly in favor of Voter ID.

Then about penalizing employers for hiring illegals, Charles sez:

Gotta disagree with you here. It’s conservative because it is simply a matter of enforcing the laws that are on the books – and have been there for a very long time.

If you think this is what the immigration hawks are demanding, you aren’t paying attention. First, if it’s a matter of enforcing laws already in place, there’s absolutely no reason to pass any more laws. Second, the immigration hawks don’t want enforcement; they want automatic penalties. If I’ve got a SSN for my employee, it sure as the hell isn’t my job to hunt it down and make sure it’s not somebody else’s SSN. Employers are not police agencies. When Mike Pence made these very points, all of the immigration hawks started screaming SHAMNESTY! RINO! RINO!

They also want to expand the lengths employers have to go to verify citizenship. That’s making businesses an arm of law enforcement, and it’s bullshit.

The problem with the whole illegal immigration issue is that you can’t discuss it rationally with these people, because they aren’t rational. They’re also not honest. If they were, they wouldn’t try to paint it as throw them all out or “open borders.” Well okay, they could just be simple minded, but I don’t think that’s the case.

Enforce the laws on the books? Sounds great to me. Automatic penalties? That’s horseshit — and it’s also unconstitutional. No penalties without a trial. I might point out that current law requires, as it must, that the government prove that the employer knowingly broke the law. This is precisely what the immigration hawks want to change, and it’s why they’re assholes.

If you want to bring me up on charges that I knowingly hired illegals, then you have to prove it. In court. In front of a jury. Provided, of course, that I don’t plead guilty and pay a fine.

As far as that addition on my house goes, I’m not going to check anybody’s papers. That’s the contractor’s job. And I’m still waiting for immigration hawks to tell me they’ll reimburse me out of their own pockets (not from tax revenue) for the thousands of dollars I’ll be throwing away just to make them happy.

Hat tip to Hube (or would that be Hube tip?) for this:

For the 77th consecutive month, FNC finished first in total day and prime time ratings during May. FNC was the sixth highest rated cable network on all of basic cable during prime time for the month (CNN and MSNBC finished 19th and 26th) and the seventh rated network in total day (CNN and MSNBC were 19th and 27th).

FNC also had 11 out of the top 13 programs in cable during the month in Total Viewers. The O’Reilly Factor was the #1 program in cable news for the 90th consecutive month, and saw gains in Total Viewers year-to-year (26%).

Amercia’s Newsroom (9-11amET) was up 30% year-to-year, with the program averaging more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined during the time period.

Meanwhile, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren has been #1 for 73 consecutive months in Total Viewers while Hannity & Colmes has been #1 in its timeslot for 54 consecutive months.

I’m getting pretty cynical in my old age, so there aren’t many politicians I really, really, really like. But here’s one:

Continuing his ongoing efforts to secure immediate legislative action on the School Property Tax Elimination Act (House Bill 1275), Representative Sam Rohrer (R-Berks) will host the Save Our Homes Rally at 11:00 a.m. on Monday, June 2 in the state Capitol rotunda.

Organized in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Taxpayer’s Cyber Coalition (PTCC) and 27 other grass roots taxpayer groups from across the Keystone State, the Save Our Homes Rally will feature personal testimony from several individuals who have been forced out of their homes or otherwise negatively impacted by school property taxes.

I got on his mailing list because he’s about the strongest Second Amendment advocate in the state legislature (and to be fair, that’s saying a great deal). This guy is a rock star. It’s just not fair that he’s not my representative.

But you know what? I sent him an email message and told him I lived in the 5th, and he replied anyway — and it was a real reply, not a form letter. Give this man another gold star.

Sam Rohrer, 128th District, PA.

Jon Henke, From Ronald Reagan to Rick Santorum (or Mike Huckabee).

Civil Defense sirens, duck and cover drills, fallout shelters, and Rocky and Bullwinkle, these are the things that shaped how we saw the world when we were kids. When the Soviet Union fell, I was initially relieved, but skeptical, and younger folks called me foolish for being skeptical. It should be apparent now that since the re-emergence of the KGB Soviets as the dominant political force in Russia and their Soviet-like foreign policy that my skepticism was justified.

We were raised with very clearcut ideas about what separated us from the Soviets, and foolish or not, when I see these characteristics associated with the USSR repeated, or even supported, here, I get nervous. When I see them advocated by Republicans (they aren’t always, or even mostly), I get even more nervous.

In the 90s, in addition to all of the things people usually point out (Reno and Waco, etc.), we had witchcraft trials where people were actually convicted based on no evidence that could be confirmed. Remember all those “Believe the children!” bumper stickers? But the witch trials were “for the children,” so those few of us who did object then were labeled nuts at best, sympathizers of child molesters at worst. Mind, we were labeled nuts, but the people who went on and on about “national rings of satanic cult child molesters” were not. There’s irony there.

We had ads on television and programs in school telling children to turn their parents into the police if they were smoking joints — and I’m about as much a “do the crime, do the time” type as anyone, but that was one of those differences between us and the Soviets. There, kids turned their parents into the state. Now, we wanted our kids to do it. We still do.

And let’s not forget the Meese report, surely one of the classics of pure junk science ever published. It went from sheer ludicrousness to unintentional self-parody when the moralists started quoting Ted Bundy to support their legislation. Thank God that didn’t go anywhere, but there are plenty of conservatives who would have liked for it to, and would love to push it yet again. Remember that bozo congressman — a Republican — who is trying to ban Playboy on bases? Numerous bloggers supported him, saying (among other things) that “we needed to have a national dialogue about pornography.” Here’s a clue: “Having a national dialogue” and trying to pass a law are two different things. You want to talk about it, fine. You want to pass a law, go to hell.

National ID cards. Clinton wanted them, but didn’t get anywhere. Now, conservatives are pushing for them. Great. Again, call me foolish, but how long will it be before we’re thrown in jail for not being able to produce identification on demand, as the Soviets did? You think I’m paranoid? A court just ruled that no, you do not, in fact, have to produce identification on demand if you are not a suspect. (Massachusetts, I believe?) The frightening thing is that a policeman thought he could arrest somebody for refusing to produce identification, and that the D.A. agreed and tried to prosecute him.

What really bothers me is all of this immigration nonsense. Beef up the border patrol and untie their hands so they can enforce the law, I have absolutely no problem with that. None. And I absolutely have no problem with local enforcement (and untying the hands of local law enforcement). Illegal immigrants who break the law? Lock them up and when they get out, deport them. That’s that “do the crime, do the time” part of me.

But.

Penalizing employers for hiring illegals, are you kidding me? Now we want to force businesses to become an arm of the state? That’s a couple of light years beyond just your basic liberal government intruding into the private sector where it has no business. In what world, exactly, can that be called conservative?

We don’t have illegals here, except the few that are passing through, but if I were putting an addition on my house, I’d hire the Amish (we have lots and lots of them), because they’d do it in a third the time for a lot less money than a union contractor. Sorry, I don’t see the difference between Democrats telling me I can’t hire Amish and conservative immigration hawks telling me I can’t hire illegals. The Amish work 10-12 hour days, and they get it done. They don’t steal or con. And they’ll put up the same addition for half the price a contractor would charge, and in far less time. Oh yes. You won’t work for those wages? Better find another job, then.

What business is it of anyone’s, exactly, whether I hire the Amish, or whether I waste money and time on contractors? And since when did such unconscionable government intrusion become not just a conservative issue, but a litmus test issue? I feel like Rip van Winkle. I wake up, and the conservatives are just as fond of passing laws and restricting liberty and intruding where it’s none of their business as the liberals.

If one of you people screaming about illegal immigration wants to reimburse me the thousands of dollars I’d flush down the toilet by paying inflated wages, we’ll talk. Until then, go to hell.

And a fence? Sorry, but that’s just way too East Berlin for me to go along with. Way, way, way too East Berlin. Uh-uh, you’ll never get my support on that.

The other day, when Mark Steyn said:

The modern Democratic party is like Islam: You’re either a believer or an apostate.

he was only half right. The GOP, or I should say the self-appointed “base” of the GOP are exactly the same.

I don’t want to go all libertarian on you because I’m just your basic, garden-variety traditionalist Goldwater conservative and am many light years from being a libertarian, but proponents of government intrusion just need to back way off — both liberals and conservatives. Maybe I’m just getting to be an old coot, but I really fail to see why people will not mind their own business. This country is way too full of people across the spectrum who see something they don’t like and immediately want to pass a law.

You know, if I’d wanted to live in the USSR, I would have moved there. I didn’t. There’s a reason I didn’t.

Just back off and mind your own business. What’s so hard about that?

You won’t see me whining about so-called civil liberty violations by the Bush administration or expansion of executive powers, because both are crap; Congress has been unconstitutionally taking executive powers for themselves since the 70s. And I’m not sure what it is, but something about the last eight years is turning conservatives into a bunch of moralistic jackbooted thugs — that element has always been there, but not like it is now. Conservatives don’t even believe in personal responsibility anymore; we now have them advocating for parents who refuse to be parents and want to “protect” children from television shows, video games, you name it. Conservatives support “sin taxes,” agricultural welfare, protectionism and tariffs, trade restrictions, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, open container laws, it just never stops. Bigger more intrusive government, more legislation, less liberty, all under the aegis of social engineering.

Would somebody tell me what’s conservative about that? And what about the last eight years has so encouraged these big government pass-a-law types? And most importantly, how is it that these people are suddenly the “base” of the party? When did that happen? How did that happen?

Mind your own business.

In addition, of course, to the big Boalsburg festival. See here (you’ll have to copy and paste links, some of which wrap to the next line).

Julian is a small burg (pop. 152) over on the other side of Skytop in Bald Eagle Valley. There’s a small cemetery on the side of a hill there, until recently, largely forgotten. Wayne Richards has changed that.

Boalsburg: The American Village.

Army Pfc. Ross McGinnis to get the Medal of Honor.

Darryl Worley, Have You Forgotten:

Tim McGraw, If You’re Reading This

Trace Adkins sings the national anthem.

Blackfive: Fallen, but not forgotten

Veterans placing flags in Bellefonte.

We will be in Boalsburg again for Memorial Day. More about Boalsburg and Memorial Day at Rootsweb.

I could excerpt and comment, but why mess with perfection? Just go read it.

At the Pennsylvania Military Museum yesterday, the Pennsylvania National Guard held the 28th Infantry memorial.

Story and pictures here.

It’s not the best form to quote an entire post, but it’s short, and it’s Uncle, so it’s, uh, pointed:

Did you know Bob Barr is running for president on the Libertarian party ticket? Yes, Bob Barr of war on drugs, ban gay marriage, etc. fame. Those aren’t very libertarian positions. And the guy was in office for a while, he coulda gotten his libertarian on then, ya know. Instead of now, when he’s a political nobody. Just saying.

Over at Wm Briggs. And aren’t all police good Bayesians?

So did you think I was engaging in hyperbole when I said, “the Colt .45 certain segments have been holding to everybody else’s heads needs to be taken firmly away”? Well, they’re brandishing it again, but not about McCain. Oh no. It’s about Mitt. Mitt?

If Governor Romney is on your ticket, many social conservative voters will consider their values repudiated by the Republican Party and will either stay away from the polls this November or only vote down ticket. For the sake of your election, the health of your party, and the future of America you must not allow the obvious electoral consequences of that to occur.

Um, your party? Well, if it’s our party and not yours, as your choice of pronouns implies, then why are you shooing off your mouth as if you own the damned party? Who the hell do you think you are, anyway? And where were you all the way through the campaign? Did you just now for the first time look at Mitt’s record? If so, aren’t you a bit too stupid to be issuing ultimatums?

Not, mind, that I think Mitt would be a good choice for VP on a McCain ticket. But McCain hasn’t made any statement about putting Mitt on the ticket, so why are you idiots screaming like spoiled brats now?

You know, I don’t often use profanity here, but these God Squaddies can go straight to Hell and burn.

One of this year’s must read articles: Freedom is a little piece of broken concrete.

If you think that last one was incendiary, just wait till you read this. And I might add that three hours on the phone with Microsoft support did not improve my mood.

Ryan Sager, author of The Elephant in the Room (which, ironically, cause a great deal of screaming when it came out), quotes an article about a panel discussion he was on:

The speakers generally agreed that the coalition Ronald Reagan assembled of social conservatives, libertarians, limited-government proponents and free-marketeers is fractured.

As I commented on the article, I don’t think “fractured” is accurate. Last month, I suggested that we all need to go back to kindergarten for a few days, and relearn some of the lessons, specifically, how to play with others. I’m going to reiterate that here.

I apologize for the cold, hard dose of reality, but you cannot have both a coalition (or a big tent) and a base (or “true” conservatives). If a coalition has a litmus test, then it must be minimal, and acceptable to everyone in the coalition. And the only way you can have a coalition is if every party compromises with every other party.

I hate to break it to you purists, but there are a lot of people in the coalition who are not happy with the current “only true conservatives need apply” GOP. Deb is, to put it blunty, really pissed off:

Last month, there were numerous blog postings about “How I will never vote for John McCain.” Most of these focused on how the “Republican Party has abandoned me,” or some other perceived grievance. Let me find my tiny violin.

Actually, that’s just the first paragraph. Here’s where she really gets honked off:

Part of me laughed at all those people so pissed that the Republicans didn’t select a candidate that they liked. They jumped up on their high horses and proclaimed, in typical holier-than-thou fashion, about how they would never vote for the lesser of two evils. Good for you. But I have been forced to vote for the lesser of two evils in almost every Presidential Campaign I ever voted in.

It has been funny to watch the Right morph into a perfect mirror of the deranged Left we were treated to after George W. Bush was elected. McCain derangement syndrome? Maybe. No compromise - not just on first principles, but on anything. If everybody felt that way, George W. Bush would not have been elected either time.

Anyway, I’ve had enough. The Democrats are totalitarian in their efforts to take care of everyone. The Republicans are totalitarian in their efforts to control morality. I will probably vote for one of the two of them - the Libertarian party is mostly insane, Nader is a Communist joke - but I won’t be happy about it.

And Uncle is none too happy, either, although he’s a bit less caustic:

That’s when the Big Tent decided that the small government types; small l libertarians; big L Libertarian types who were realistic; South Park Republicans; socially liberal but economically conservative types; and people who just don’t like Democrats; people who dig federalism; could collectively go fuck themselves. They dropped us faster than Brittney can drop a dime on therapy bills. But they stuck with the God Squad; the people that hate gay cooties; the Neocons; Paleocons; and others. To the former, the appealing to the latter seemed like they were keeping all the bad and none of the good.

Now, something else is happening. And the appeal of the party to the Paleocons; the God Squad; and the people that hate gay cooties; isn’t so great. All that’s left are the Neocons and some moderates.

So, forgive me if I’m not too sympathetic to cries of the Paleocons; the God Squad; and the people that hate gay cooties; about how the Republican party is dead. They abandoned me before they abandoned you.

Remember how you told me to suck it up and get in line? Not so fun, eh?

And Greg chimes in, in “Uncle Lays Out Why the GOP is Dying”:

Because they keep pushing out group after group.

And that’s inevitable when you have a “base” of “true” conservatives who are allowed to make (and change) all of the rules, and dictate who may and may not play. Just ask the Libertarians. They’re about as ideologically pure as it gets — in fact, ideological purity is all they care about — and you see how successful they are. They may not be able to get anybody elected, but they all pass that litmus test!

Understand that I am certainly not suggesting that anybody should be kicked to the curb. But the Colt .45 certain segments have been holding to everybody else’s heads needs to be taken firmly away. Every single issue needs to back on the table, with nothing held back, and the whole platform needs to be re-negotiated — well, that’s not the best word, since the platform wasn’t negotiated in the first place, it was dictated, and everybody else was told, in not only Uncle’s words, but those who were stamping their feet about McCain, to suck it up and fall in line.

And no party must be allowed to hold everybody else hostage again. No “true conservatives,” no “base.” Unless we want to walk ourselves right off the playing field, we have to become a coalition again.

And that means that no, you may not get your pet issue, and you over there, you may not get yours, either. Oh well. Life’s like that. Be an adult. If you’re not mature enough to compromise, then you need to find a nice, irrelevant, ideology-only party, like the LP, or the CP. Then you can scream and make demands all you like.

Compromise is possible, provided everyone agrees to be adults and compromise. Probably every faction would agree that Roe v. Wade is bad law and sets a bad precedent, and that judges are important, but that’s entirely distinct from using the Constitution as a social engineering tool (not to mention that the HLA is the very worst kind of pandering anyway, since every politician knows it has less chance of ever being ratified than the ERA). But there will be no compromise and no negotiation of anything unless there is no litmus test, no “true conservatives,” no “RINOs,” and no “base.”

Having said that, a McCain win in November may be the best thing that has happened to the GOP since Reagan — and, you see, I can invoke Reagan, because I was voting before he was elected the first time. A McCain win would effectively take the gun out of the hands of the self-appointed, screaming, juvenile, spoiled brat “base.” I don’t agree with him on everything, and strongly disagree with him on a couple of issues, but that’s tangential. Deb perhaps doesn’t realize that we rarely get to vote for a perfect candidate, unless we happen to be on the ballot. It took me a good ten elections or so before I realized it. But the fact that McCain is few peoples’ ideal candidate may be what saves the GOP from committing suicide.

A McCain win would force a re-assessment. McCain doesn’t pander to anyone, and would let no faction hold a gun to his head (and that, I think, really is the problem behind all of the screaming: They’re mad because McCain doesn’t kiss their asses, or kneel and kiss Dobson’s ring, or beg Robertson or Gilchrist for forgiveness for any sins, real or imaginary). A McCain win would disarm the “true conservatives,” but they wrongly claim that would “tear the party apart.” Actually, it may be the only thing that will save the party from the purists.

So please, put the revolver — and the crack pipe — down, take a deep breath, be and adult and realize that you can’t have everything you want, sit down at the table, and play nice with everybody else. And if you get the temptation to call yourself a “true conservative,” then keep your mouth shut, pick up a copy of Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative and read it, then ask yourself just how truly conservative your issues are.

And if you think I’m exaggerating, see here.

So here’s the first of several grumpy posts. I’m sure to get in hot water for this one, but wait, because I’ve only started.

As long as illegal immigration is a law enforcement issue, I’m on board. No, I don’t buy this “they’re here because they’re oppressed and they’re not criminals!” idiocy, because by being here, they demonstrate that they don’t have much respect for the law. I’m completely with you. It’s a problem.

However, you started to lose me right after the illegal immigration protests. Sure, anybody who waves a Mexican flag and obviously feels he is a Mexican citizen belongs in Mexico, not here. The problem was the hysteria.

When you start screaming, I leave the room. If you want to be taken seriously like an adult, act like an adult. Adults don’t scream or get hysterical. And if you can’t stop screaming, I suggest you see a shrink and get some nice Prozac.

You lose me when you start sounding like paleocons, you know, like that idiot Tancredo or Buchanan. If you want to make illegal immigration yet another losing culture war issue, knock yourselves out, but sorry, I think my dog’s ears need to be cleaned.

Assimilation? I’m with you there, but there is no evidence that immigrants are assimilating any less than they did fifty years ago, a hundred years ago, at any point in the past, other than a very few islands, such as Detroit and Ann Arbor. Look at the historical documents. People were screaming about German immigrants speaking German, yet they all speak English now, and you wouldn’t know they were German unless you knew their names. Ditto for every other immigrant group that has arrived here.

Illegal immigration is a national security issue, you say? Well, I admit, it does pass the common sense sniff test, but sorry, you don’t get off any easier than anybody else. Show me the data that prove your assertion. What’s that, you don’t have any? You mean your assertion is nothing more than faith? Well sorry, then. Don’t use that one on me.

But wait, you say, this terrorist had a fake Visa. Well sure, but that has nothing to do with illegal immigration. Move right along to an argument that does.

La Raza? Yeah, okay, but you know, a small fringe group proves nothing about a larger community, whether it’s La Raza or CAIR. So again, move right along.

If you want to beef up border security, and remove the handcuffs from the agents so they can actually protect the border, then I’m completely behind you. But a fence? Maybe it’s generational, but sorry, that’s just a little too East Berlin for me. And I really have serious trouble imagining that Ronald Reagan, the man who said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” would jump on board your fence plan — in fact, we badly need a moratorium on Reagan invocations, particularly from kids who were in diapers when he was in the White House. Move right along.

But you did move right along, and that’s where you really lost me. First, there was all of the squealing and howling you did when a bank — a business — offered credit cards to Spanish speakers, or whatever it was. Oh, the horrors! Terrible! Even stupider, you started screaming for some kind of sanctions. Since when did conservatives believe that the government should interfere with businesses?

Or this big government idea that businesses should be fined for hiring illegals. Excuse me? Do you think that your employer is an arm of law enforcement? I don’t have too much trouble with fining employers who knowingly hire illegals, but most do not, and when you want employers fined for hiring illegals with false IDs, well, you lose me. Sorry. The government does not need to stick its nose further in where it does not belong.

Then there’s the stealing jobs from Americans crap. Look, let’s say you’re building a house. You have two contractors. One will do the job for, say, $120,000, and the other, $70,000. All other things being equal — the quality of the work they do, for example — who are you going to hire? Oh, wait, but it’s Americans, you say, who work for the first contractor, and Mexicans who work for the second. Well, sorry, that ain’t my problem. I’m hiring the second contractor because I’m not an idiot who will waste money on workers who will not work for what the market will bear (actually, I’d hire the Amish, but the principle is the same). If you want to check everybody’s IDs, knock yourselves out. I’m not playing.

But the most idiotic thing you have come up with so far is this “deport them all!” crap. It’s never going to happen, and you just can’t accept that. So you scream about “amnesty!”

Yes, I’m entirely with you when you say illegal immigrants shouldn’t be rewarded by going on the public dole. And I’m entirely with you when you say illegal immigrants shouldn’t be given preference over legal immigrants. But you’re way beyond that. Take your Prozac, and deal with reality.

It. Ain’t. Ever. Gonna. Happen. Never.

The most objectionable and absurd thing you’ve come up with, however, is using how much you scream about “amnesty!” as the major criterion for conservatism. Sorry, but no, populism is not conservative. Sorry, Duncan Hunter is in the wrong party. He’s indistinguishable from your garden-variety Hoosier Democrat. Same for Tancredo. And another apology, because expanding the power of the federal government to intrude into private business is also not conservative. Like Tancredo and Hunter, you’re in the wrong party. The Democrats are over there.

Now, if you want to take your meds, calm down, and discuss realistic solutions, by all means, let’s do it. Just because the left-wing “activists” are screaming doesn’t mean you have to. But somehow, I don’t think you have any intention of doing so. You like hearing yourselves scream too much. So scream all you want, but you’ll accomplish nothing, except preserving the status quo.

And let me remind you. We’re at war. We have troops overseas. As long as that’s the case, illegal immigration is at best a trivial issue — and war or not, illegal immigration as you have framed it is most emphatically not a conservative issue.

A favorite Jonah Goldberg column, that is, from 2001. “Invasion of the Obvious: I need a study to tell me this?” Starts off humorous, but addresses some points that badly need to be made more strongly and more often.

His property tax reform bill passes, and with almost no “revisions” from Democrats:

The final legislature hurdle was cleared at 3:19 p.m. today when the Indiana Senate voted 41-6 to pass House Bill 1001, the sweeping property tax proposal that raises the sales tax and caps property tax bills in order to cut the average Hoosier homeowners’ tax bill by about 30 percent this year.

The Indiana House voted 82-17 about a couple hours earlier for the plan. It now heads to Daniels, who is expected to sign the bill into law.

[ . . . ]

In addition, both the chambers also voted to put the property tax caps into the state constitution, starting in 2012. Those caps limit homeowners’ bills to 1 percent of their homes’ assessed valuation, with rental and farm property capped at 2 percent and business property limited to 3 percent.

The state Democrats had tried to get that changed to capping property taxes based on income. That didn’t fly.

The legislation includes much of a framework proposed by Daniels in October, including immediate tax relief, a sales tax increase to 7 percent from the current 6 percent, caps on property taxes, the elimination of some township assessors, referendums on major building projects and spending controls for local government.

Sen. Luke Kenley, the Noblesville Republican who was a chief architect of the plan, said the package — which raises the sales tax, shifts several levies off counties and to the state, and limits homeowners’ bills from ever being more than 1 percent of their homes’ assessed value — resolves a taxing issue that has confounded states across the nation.

“It’s going to put Indiana in the forefront,” Kenley told his colleagues. “We will probably have the best property tax system in the United States of America when we get done.”

No new gyms, schools, school buildings, “free” laptops for everybody, or any other questionable spending without being approved by referenda. Praise God. But for me, perhaps the best thing is that Vi Simpson voted against it, and it passed.

Peterson’s retiring, and as I’ve mentioned, we have 14 candidates on the ballot for his seat, 9 Republicans and 5 Democrats. The primary is only six weeks away, on 4/22. Keep that in mind as you read this:

Shaner spending triggers FEC law
By Mike Joseph

With seven weeks to go until Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary, 5th Congressional District Republican Matt Shaner has already spent more than $350,000 of his own money on the race, a campaign finance report shows.

The amount reflects the skyrocketing cost of congressional campaigns and especially the cost of TV commercials but also underscores a difference in personal wealth among candidates for the only open U.S. House seat in the state.

Federal law requires self-financed candidates to notify their opponents when they exceed $350,000 in spending because the opponents then become eligible to accept contributions from individuals three times higher than the typical limit, $2,300.

Shaner, 28, a State College-based real estate developer, filed the required Federal Election Commission report last Friday and sent copies to opponents in accordance with the FEC’s so-called Millionaire’s Amendment.

With me so far? Shaner has spent $350,000 of his own money on his campaign. Keep reading:

Shaner this week explained the expenditures by saying that, with so many Republicans seeking the 5th District nomination — nine — and with the campaign spread over 17 counties, “we’re trying to get our message out.”

He added: “By spending my own money on my campaign, it allows me to remain independent if elected and not be beholden to large donors because they financed my campaign.”

Shaner, the son of hotel industry entrepreneur Lance Shaner, said he has spent the money mostly on TV and radio commercials throughout the district’s 17 counties as well as on direct mailings to residents.

Let’s see. He’s running for office, the primary is only six weeks away, so he’s spending money — campaigning. You’d think people wouldn’t see a problem with that, wouldn’t you? Well, no.

Shaner’s Republican primary opponents reacted to his spending with wide-ranging criticism.

His Republican opponents are complaining because he’s spending his own money on his campaign. Keep that in the forefront of your brain:

“Is this the guy who’s the fiscal conservative?” said former Centre County commissioner Chris Exarchos, 63. “If he treats his own money that way, how’s he going to treat the rest of our money?”

Let’s see if we can keep this one simple, Chris. It’s Matt Shaner’s money. Matt is running for office. Just because you can’t distinguish between your money and the taxpayers’ money doesn’t mean that he can’t (Exarchos, by the way, is the walking talking zit who lost the primary, then stomped his feet and threw a fit and ran as an independent). Oh, but they get even stupider:

Clearfield County financial consultant Derek Walker, 32, the son and grandson of wealthy coal industry entrepreneurs, said his father and grandfather “haven’t put one cent into the campaign so far.” Until the Millionaire’s Amendment took effect, his father and grandfather could not contribute more than $2,300 each to his campaign.

“This election is not going to be won by glitzy ads,” Walker said. “If I can afford to use TV, I’ll use TV. It’s good for name recognition. It’s not good for character recognition.”

Uh, it might help you get elected if you at least tried to tell us why we should vote for you. How’s that for a brilliant idea?

Centre County Republican Chairman Glenn Thompson said he was surprised when he got a copy of Shaner’s Millionaire’s Amendment form.

“I really never expected it would be something that would be used in this congressional race,” he said. “I’m not worried and frankly not intimidated by that much money being spent in the race. We trust that the voters will use all opportunities to make an informed decision.”

Well, we can’t make an informed decision until you inform us, can we?

So far, I have heard radio ads from only two candidates: Matt Shaner and Jeff Stroehmann. What is it about candidates who put out no information and expect you to pull the lever for them? There’s a lot of that around here.

My advice to the rest of the candidates is stop whining and start campaigning.