Prof. Bainbridge has a short post sneering at remarks made by Gov. Schwarzenegger in a radio interview where the Governator criticized the fed gov't's handling of the border and praised the Minuteman. Since AS wants the Feds to actually, um, do their job and secure the border, that means he's appealing "to the nativist/racist wing of the state party." The good professor also approves of the President disparagingly calling the Minutemen "vigilantes" and chides, "Let's hope he can convince Arnie that nativism and racism are bad politics and bad policy." Just a question, can a legal immigrant like Der Ahhnold be a nativist? If Bainbridge thinks Pres. Bush's immigration proposals and ideas are jim-dandy, well, fine, but he can do so without the name-calling of those who wish for tighter controls.

Minority Rule?--How the Democrats decide who to filibuster: Steven G. Calabresi has an excellent piece in the latest issue of the Weekly Standard on the battle currently raging in the Senate over several of President Bush's judicial nominations and the confirmation process in general. Here's a taste:

THE LEGAL LEFT IS DANGEROUSLY close to winning the political war it has been fighting against the Bush administration over the future direction of the federal courts. The evidence of this is that whenever rumors are floated of possible Bush Supreme Court nominees, there are some very prominent conservative names that aren't mentioned, though they should be.

The eminently qualified conservatives Democrats have quashed include Miguel Estrada, who is Hispanic, Janice Rogers Brown, who is African American, Bill Pryor, a brilliant young Catholic, and two white women, Priscilla Owen and Carolyn Kuhl. By keeping these five nominees off the federal courts of appeals, Democrats seem to have blocked Bush from considering them for the Supreme Court.

When George W. Bush became president in 2001, the legal left and the Democratic party rallied around the slogan "No more Clarence Thomases." By that they meant that they would not allow any more conservative African Americans, Hispanics, women, or Catholics to be groomed for nomination to the High Court with court of appeals appointments. The Democrats have done such a good job of this that, today, the only names being floated as serious Supreme Court nominees are those of white men.

Donate to help the victims in Darfur. Thanks again to Feddie for the reminder. If you would like to help, Catholic Relief Services is doing some wonderful work there, and its homepage has the details. To donate on line, just click the "Contribute Now" link and select the Sudan Emergency Fund.

Back to the grind, as I have some deadlines looming, but I noticed during my absence some Rebel Yellers' comments about the wrath of Verity: I can assure you (other than Feddie), I have yet to bolton on anyone!

Thank you MTV!: You know, as a social conservative I am obviously less than thrilled with the vast majority of programming content that MTV airs on a daily basis (remember when MTV actually showed music videos?). That having been said, my hat is off to MTV for the role it is playing in raising awareness of the genocide taking place in Darfur.

The Bush Administration, in contrast, should be ashamed of itself.

(cross-posted at CFD)

Who will stand up and protect the innocent in Darfur?:

Ahem, do not click the red button.

Satellite radio rules!: Well, I've got some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that Mrs. Feddie and I lost the house we had under contract with a "kick out" clause. And it's a real shame because the house was in historic downtown Macon, right across from my son's school (the school that all of my children will attend) and within walking distance of our church.

Anyway, seeing that I now had a great deal more money in my budget for the year, I decided to head on over to Circuit City this past weekend to do something I had been wanting to do for some time--get into the satellite radio game.

I chose Sirius over XM for two major reasons: (1) Sirius has EWTN, and XM doesn't (and there's nothing better than listening to the Holy Rosary on your way to work); and (2) with Sirius you get access to every NFL game, every weekend. I purchased the car kit and a boombox for my office.

The only problem thus far is that the reception in my office is hit-or-miss. On some days, I'll receive great reception for the majority of the day, and on other days there is no reception whatsoever. I suspect there is something I can do to remedy the situation, but I am not inclined to do anything about it right now. Any thoughts from my fellow SR users?

But I gotta say, all-in-all, satellite radio is really cool. And I am really enjoying the music channels as well. I especially like the feature that shows the title of the song playing. This feature makes it much easier to quickly find a song that I want to listen to.

In short, satellite radio rules! I highly recommend it.

Oh, and TP agrees (although he is an XM man).

Update: Here's a comparison chart that breaks down some of the differences between Sirius and XM.

Social Security reform: If you're interested in this subject -- and you should be -- don't miss William Voegeli's WSJ essay, "FDR's Card Trick," or Don Boudreaux's reaction to the recent NYT article noting the low levels of economic literacy in the US and moving on to question the ability of many (most?) Americans to save for retirement.

Brutal put-down of doctoral-level "training" in English as of the early 1990s appears, pseudonymously, in the current Chronicle of Higher Education. This will give you the idea:

It is impossible to discuss the culture of graduate school without caricature. English departments often become intellectual echo chambers uninterrupted by any external critical voices. In a process called "incestuous amplification," outsiders are demonized, and insiders are forced to conform or face social ostracism.

And here's the same writer's take on the English professoriate today:

I can't even figure out what "English" is anymore; after 10 years of graduate school and five years on the tenure track I can't understand 80 percent of PMLA, the discipline's major journal. I can't talk to most people in my own profession, not that we have anything to say to each other. We don't even buy each other's books; apparently they are not worth reading. We don't go to each other's panels. Why would we? At conferences we stand around and complain about how awful everything is, how there's no point to continuing, but nobody has any idea what to do next.

You can read more from this guy by clicking here.

And speaking of pointless: Professor Bainbridge has identified a new contender for the title, "Least necessary organization in the law school world." Heh.

Faith and Conflict: The Global Rise of Christianity: Last month the Pew Forum and the Council on Foreign Relations invited historian Mark Noll and Anglican bishop Michael Nazir-Ali to address this topic at a luncheon roundtable. The transcript of that event makes for fascinating reading.

Recommended reading: Robert P. George on "Judicial Activism and the Constitution," and Daniel Henninger on "Rush to Victory." Here's a bit of the latter:

What got lost during the years of liberal exclusionism, according to Peter Berkowitz of George Mason University, was "guidance for the negotiation of disagreement in a democracy." No more perfect example of the price the political system has paid for years of conservative shunning exists than the Senate's standoff over judges. You can find the reasons Democrats are shunning the Bush nominees to the appellate bench by consulting the Web site of People for the American Way--abortion, corporate law, minimum wage, Social Security, environment. They disagree with these nominees on--everything.

While it's true that the scope of the Left's opposition is broad, isn't it clear that the most important item in Henninger's list -- by far -- is the first one?

Are you coming to the Atlanta NRO Cocktail Party?: Well, you should! If no other reason, then to hang with the fedster and drink some bourbon. I am not sure whether the NRO folks will be providing bourbon, but I plan on bringing a bottle of Blanton's* to share with my fellow conservatives (or liberals, if any show up). There's a lot to celebrate and toast to (e.g., reelection of Bush, election of Pope Benedict XVI), and I plan on doing my fair share. Although not too much. I do have to drive back to Macon, you know.

*This is the bottle I won from my bet with Publius re: the outcome of the presidential election. My guess is that this particular bottle of Blanton's will be especially sweet. :)

Pryor vote delayed again

The Mobile Register has the story here.

The Senate Judiciary Committee again delayed a vote Thursday on Mobile
native Bill Pryor's nomination for a federal appellate judgeship, but Chairman
Arlen Specter, R-Pa., promised to make it the "number one item" at the panel's
next business session, probably May 12.

SJC Panel may debate Pryor nomination today, according to the Montgomery Advertiser:

A Senate panel plans to meet today on the nomination of former Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor to a lifetime seat on a federal appeals court, a move expected to escalate the battle in Congress over judicial nominees.

Democrats blocked a confirmation vote on Pryor's nomination to the 11th U.S. Court of Appeals in 2003, and debate is expected to be rancorous when the Senate Judiciary Committee again takes up the nomination.

The panel of 10 Republicans and nine Democrats is expected to vote along party lines to approve the nomination. But Democrats are expected to again prevent a full Senate vote on Pryor's candidacy by using a filibuster, or extended debate.

. . . .

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is considering changing Senate rules to prevent Democrats from filibustering Pryor and other of judicial nominees from President Bush that are considered controversial. That would almost guarantee those nominees would win confirmation; the GOP controls the Senate with 55 of 100 votes.

It still is possible the Judiciary Committee will not have time to take up Pryor's nomination today if the panel's chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., decides to first hold a committee vote on a bill that would help settle asbestos claims. That could delay action on Pryor's nomination until next month.

Pryor originally was nominated to the appellate court on April 9, 2003. Democrats blocked the nomination for almost a year before Bush appointed Pryor to the appellate court during a congressional recess early last year. That circumvented Democratic opposition but only temporarily. The recess appointment will last until the end of this year.

Bush renominated Pryor to a lifetime position on the appellate court in February.

Huntington on the Invasion: Samuel Huntington's Who Are We? was not only a shoo-in for 2004 conservative book of the year, but one of the most relevant volumes of political reflection in quite a while. You need to read it. (A fine companion read is John O'Sullivan's magisterial book review from The American Conservative.)

In this brief 2000 article from The American Enterprise you can get a sample of Huntington's perspective on the ongoing collapse of America's southern border:

President-elect Vicente Fox wants to remove all restrictions on the movement of Mexicans into the United States.

In almost every recent year the Border Patrol has stopped about 1 million people attempting to enter the U.S. illegally from Mexico. It is generally estimated that about 300,000 make it across illegally. If over 1 million Mexican soldiers crossed the border, Americans would treat it as a major threat to their national security and react accordingly. The invasion of over 1 million Mexican civilians is a comparable threat to American societal security, and Americans should react against it with comparable vigor.

Mexican immigration looms as a unique and disturbing challenge to our cultural integrity, our national identity, and potentially to our future as a country.

So why is Mexican immigration "unique"? Again, Huntington:

There are five distinctive characteristics of the Mexican question which make it special. First, Mexican immigration is different because of contiguity. We have thought of immigration as being symbolized by Ellis Island, and perhaps now by Kennedy Airport. But Mexicans do not come across 2,000 miles of ocean. They come, often easily, across 2,000 miles of land border.
Our relationship with Mexico in this regard is in many respects unique in the world. No other First World country has a land frontier with a Third World country—much less one of 2,000 miles. The significance of this border is enhanced by the economic differences between the two countries. The income gap between Mexico and us is the largest between any two contiguous countries in the world.

Huntington might also have mentioned (he does in the book) that the U.S.-Mexican border has been the subject of armed territorial disputes between the two countries within historical memory, a fact not true of any other current source of immigration.

The second distinctive aspect of today’s Mexican immigration concerns numbers. Mexican immigration during the past several decades has been very substantial. In 1998 Mexican immigrants constituted 27 percent of the total foreign-born population in this country; the next largest two contingents, Filipinos and Chinese, each amounted to only 4 percent. . . . Our post-1965 wave of immigration differs from previous waves in having a majority from a single non-English language group.
A third distinguishing characteristic of this Mexican immigration is illegality. Illegal immigration is overwhelmingly a post-1965 and Mexican phenomenon. In 1995, according to one report, Mexicans made up 62 percent of the immigrants who entered the United States illegally.
The next important characteristic of Mexican immigration has been its concentration in a particular region. Mexican immigrants are heavily concentrated in the Southwest and particularly in southern California. This has very real consequences. Our Founders emphasized that immigrants would have to be dispersed among what they described as the English population in this country. To the extent that we have a large regional concentration of immigrants, it is a departure from our usual pattern.
Finally, there is the matter of the persistence of Mexico’s large immigration. Previous waves of immigration fairly soon came to an end. The huge 1840s and ’50s influxes from Ireland and Germany were drastically reduced by the Civil War and the easing of the Irish potato famine. The big wave at the turn of the century came to an end with World War I and the restrictive legislation in 1924.
These breaks greatly helped to facilitate the assimilation of the newcomers. In contrast, there does not seem to be any prospect of the current wave, begun over three decades ago, coming to an end soon.

The Frist Compromise on judicial nominations: It's a good (and fair) one, but we all know that the dems aren't about to compromise on this issue. That's not their bag, baby. Well, I should say that it's not Ralph Neas's bag. Neas has the dems in his back pocket, and they'll do whatever he tells them to do.

Oh, and just in case some of y'all don't know who Ralph Neas is, you can read all about him (in his own words no doubt) here. Neas is the Devil, and I loathe him with every fiber of my being.

Yes, we have more delays
My latest word is that the bleeping asbestos bill will indeed, quite likely, take up the whole committee meeting today. Judicial nominees Bill Pryor and Brett Kavanaugh will have to wait. This stinks.

Pryor delayed
Just an update: The Senate Judiciary Committee this morning took up the asbestos bill rather than the Pryor nomination. Don't know whether Pryor will come up later today, or if that means he waits (YET AGAIN!) until after next week's recess. This is getting very old. --Quin

Cuba: The House passed House Concurrent Resolution 81, which condemns Castro's crackdown on human rights in Cuba, by a vote of 398-27. Among those opposed were, not surprisingly, Dennis Kucinich, Jim McDermott, Cynthia McKinney, Barbara Lee, plus my congressman, Bennie Thompson. And these are the people that shriek loudest about the supposed restrictions of civil liberties caused by Bush. By the way, I sent a message to Rep. Thompson and his staff via the constituent form on his website asking for an explanation of his vote.

The sole Republican voting against it was Ron Paul, the libertarian from TX. I guess the mentions of the UN in the resolution or that it violates the libertarian notion of not "mettling in the internal affairs of other countries" didn't sit well with him.

The Centrist Party: Brendan Nyhan, a contributor to the now defunct SpinSanity, throws some cold water on Ron Brownstein's article which hyped on former Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi hyping of the idea of a new Internet-based centrist party.

I think fundamentally the problem for anybody creating a centrist third party is what definition of "centrism" they use. A centrist party that is more fiscally conservative/socially liberal (e.g., MN Gov. Jesse Ventura) probably would have a hard time attracting those people who are more fiscally liberal/socially conservative (e.g., PA Gov. Bob Casey, Sr.) and vice versa. Given that centrists really aren't a homogeneous bunch of folks, it's hard to see how they will rally to a third party.

WILLIAM AND PLAINSMAN ARE RIGHT. IT IS AN INVASION.
Michelle Malkin has a revealing post concerning a rather provocative billboard, which you can view by clicking this link:

LAMexico_sm1.jpeg

Update (feddie): Sorry folks, I had to remove the image of the billboard, as it was messing up SA's template. Joel, if you can reduce the size, feel free to post it again

"The Man Nobody Knows": Here is the latest weekly installment from the CFD:

On February 24, 2004, an op-ed entitled "The Unnoticed Genocide" appeared in the pages of the Washington Post warning that without humanitarian intervention in Darfur "tens of thousands of civilians [would] die in the weeks and months ahead in what will be continuing genocidal destruction."

Written by Eric Reeves, a literature professor from Smith College, this op-ed was the catalyst that compelled many of us to start learning more about crisis in Darfur which, in turn, led directly to the creation of the Coalition for Darfur.

For over two years, Eric Reeves has been the driving force behind efforts to call attention to the genocide in Darfur by writing weekly updates and providing on-going analysis of the situation on the ground. As early as 2003, Reeves was calling the situation in Darfur a genocide, nine months before former Secretary of State Colin Powell made a similar declaration. In January of 2005, Reeves lashed out against "shamefully irresponsible" journalists who "contented themselves with a shockingly distorting mortality figure for Darfur's ongoing genocide." Reeves' analysis led to a series of news articles highlighting the limitations of the widely cited figure of 70,000 deaths and culminated in a recent Coalition for International Justice survey that concluded that death toll was nearly 400,000; an figure nearly identical to the one Reeves had calculated on his own.

Perhaps most presciently, on March 21st, Reeves warned that "Khartoum has ambitious plans for accelerating the obstruction of humanitarian access by means of orchestrated violence and insecurity, including the use of targeted violence against humanitarian aid workers." The following day it was reported that Marian Spivey-Estrada, a USAID worker in Sudan, had been shot in the face during an ambush while "traveling in a clearly marked humanitarian vehicle." The lack of security for aid workers has led some agencies to declare certain areas "No Go" zones or withdraw all together, leaving the internally displaced residents of Darfur without access to food, water or medical care.

And as the Boston Globe reported on Sunday, he has done it all while fighting his own battle with leukemia.

Were it not for Eric Reeves, it is quite possible that the genocide in Darfur would have gone largely unnoticed. We at the Coalition for Darfur offer him our prayers and support and express our heartfelt thanks for all that he has done to prick the nation's conscience on this vitally important issue. We hope that his courage and conviction will be an inspiration to others and that Darfur will soon begin to get the attention that it deserves.

Mexican Reconquista

This article is dated, but it lays out some important facts about the Reconquista of the American Southwest. In light of some of the comments to the posts below, I thought I would offer this:

"I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important – a very important – part of this."

This statement wasn’t made in secrecy behind closed doors. It wasn’t said outside the jurisdiction of the United States of America. None other than Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo spoke it in Chicago on July 23, 1997.

Speaking before the National Council of La Raza, Zedillo went on to say, "For this reason, my government proposed a constitutional amendment to allow any Mexican with the right and the desire to acquire another nationality to do so without being forced to first give up his or her Mexican nationality."

[Just as an aside, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is a member of La Raza and has served on the board of La Raza affiliates.]

. . . .

Some Hispanic activists deny that there is any sort of organized effort to take over these states and reclaim it for Mexico. However, Jose Pescador Osuna, who was once the Mexican consul general in Los Angeles, has been quoted on the record as saying, "Even though I’m saying this part serious and part joking, I believe we are practicing 'La Reconquista' in California."

La Reconquista" means "the reconquest" and refers to the taking over of the U.S. Southwest. Osuna now is an agent of the Mexican government and works for migration in Mexico City.

Even though these statements have been made on American soil, Mario Obledo of the California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations said the "radical" Aztlan movement died in the 1960s. Obledo, a resident of Sacramento, Calif., explained that his organization tries to secure the civil rights of Mexican-Americans "and others similarly situated."

Although claiming a profound faith in America, he’s also proud of the fact that the majority of Californians in the next few years will be Hispanic.

"California is going to be a Hispanic state," Obledo said. "Anyone who doesn’t like it should leave."

Yet our government acts if there is no danger or problems with continued illegal immigration. I wonder if Dubya knows how to fiddle?

WICKED TWISTED ROAD.
That is the name of Reckless Kelly’s latest CD. Unfortunately, most people have not heard of this excellent band. That is a shame since this CD contains some of the finest country music I have heard recently. In fact, if country music radio were true to its listeners, and country music for that matter, this CD would get regular airplay. If you like REAL country music, not that glam/pop/country garbage regularly vomited forth on country music radio, this is what you have been waiting for.

While I am at it I will recommend some other great underappreciated country music singers. Robert Earl Keen is a musical genius that deserves far more exposure than he currently receives. I recommend his CD, The Party Never Ends. Furthermore, you can’t go wrong with Jerry Jeff Walker. His Ultimate Collection is well worth the money. I would also recommend George's Bar by Pat Green.

Support REAL country music. Just say no to suburban pop.

From around the conservative blogosphere:

A scene from Whit Stillman's Barcelona and Antonin Scalia's dissents paired in an interesting post by Max Goss on Right Reason.

Ken Masugi reports on Ward Churchill's speech at Claremont.

(More to come)

A Fond Farewell (sorta). Last night I let the Fedster know that I've decided to step aside and make a little extra room at the Visiting Bloggers table here at SA. I've truly loved blogging for you guys, and I hope you enjoyed some of what I had to write. I'll still see y'all from time to time in the Comments, so you're not completely rid of me yet.

Thanks to Feddie and all my fellow bloggers who helped make SA such a positive experience, and thanks to all the readers who took time to respond to my posts.

See you in the Comments section.

Animus Towards Pryor: The Mobile Register contains a good editorial looking at the efforts by the Democrats on the SJC to re-open a discredited investigation into fundraising practices.

[L]ast Thursday, Sen. Ted Kennedy suddenly told the committee that the RAGA case was unfinished. Never mind that nobody has yet specified anything nefarious that Mr. Pryor is suspected of having done: After letting everything lie dormant for two years, the Democrats now want to reopen the whole case, just in time to delay this Thursday's scheduled committee vote on Mr. Pryor's nomination.

...

[The Democrats] animus against Bill Pryor has gone beyond the pale. They accused him of being insensitive to women plagued by domestic violence -- but two top Alabama women's shelters endorse Mr. Pryor as a hero. They accused him of insensitivity to civil rights -- but the black, Democratic attorney general of Georgia agreed with Mr. Pryor on the issue in question, and a slew of black, Democratic Alabamians have likewise endorsed his nomination.

And on it goes, for every bogus allegation they have thrown Mr. Pryor's way. All have been disproved. All of which makes the threat of a filibuster against him even more objectionable -- and all of which makes their suspiciously timed demand to reopen the RAGA investigation an example of an inexcusable smear job.

This is the sort of despicable performance that the Democratic filibusters protect. And that's reason enough for Republicans, once and for all, to rise up and kill judicial filibusters forever.

UN Puts Its Best Foot Forward: Given this kind of outrageous behavior from the UN, I would think that the Republicans would be happy to have a long, drawn-out debate on the Senate floor over Bolton's nomination - and I would think the Dems would not want to be in the position of defending such a decrepit institution.

By the way, I've actually had the pleasure of meeting Bob Fu, the man at the center of the story, and you'll never meet a more unassuming, gentle, decent fellow. And you'll never meet a guy who is more courageous.

Update: sorry for the formatting glitches. I blame blogger...

The dignity of man and woman. This article, Hat Tip, the Corner, provides a wonderful insight into women's role in the Church.

Light to non-existant posting for a couple weeks, as I'm swamped at work.

Government Encouragement of Illegal Immigration

Many of our commenters are troubled at Plainsman's use of the term "invasion" when there is no formal army of Mexican soldiers crossing our border. That is true. But, considering the Mexican government's explicit encouragement of illegal immigration, who needs uniformed soldiers? Below is a post I did back in January on the Mexican government's how-to guide for illegal immigrants:

The Mexican government recently published a comic book that offers tips for Mexican citizens who desire to enter the U.S. illegally. The book is being distributed as a free supplement to El Libro Vaquero, a popular cowboy comic book, in five Mexican states that send many migrants to the United States. The Mexican government plans to print 1.5 million copies. For example, this government publication gives pointers on navigating deserts and swimming rivers safely:

"Crossing the river can be very dangerous, particularly if you are alone or do it at night," says an English translation of wording next to an illustration of three young men setting out from a river bank. "If you wear heavy clothes, they will become heavier when wet and this will make it more difficult for you to swim."

Once here, the book offers advice on how to avoid American law enforcement:

"The best formula is to not leave your routine going from work to home," one section says. "Avoid loud parties. The neighbors could get annoyed and call police. ... If you go to a bar or a nightclub and a fight starts, keep your distance."

Of course, the book contains a disclaimer that the safest way to enter the U.S. is with a visa, but it gives no instructions on how to obtain one. Pure and simple, this is the Mexican government encouraging a further invasion of the U.S. The Mexican government, with this comic, is endorsing illegal immigration. After all, last year Mexicans living in the United States sent a record $15 billion back to Mexico, providing Mexico with its second biggest source of foreign revenue after oil. Unfortunately, our government sits and does nothing as this invasion continues. With regard to illegal immigration, the U.S. government is abandoning us. It will spend billions to conquer Iraq and establish a friendly government there, but it will not devote the resources to securing our southern border. What a sad state of affairs.

Considering that the Mexican government is encouraging its citizens to come here illegally and offers them advice on how to escape the attention of U.S. law enforcement, can we really deny that this is an invasion?

1854 Webster's definition of "invasion"*: The first entry reads as follows: "A hostile entrance into the possessions of another." Now it is true that the definition goes on to note "particularly, the entrance of a hostile army into a country for the purpose of conquest or plunder, or the attack of a military force."

Three quick points.

First, originalism is not strict constructionism. The question is whether Plainsman's interpretation of the word "invasion" falls within the word's reasonable range of meaning. I think it clearly does. If the framers had wanted to limit the meaning of invasion to an invasion by an army they could have done so. They chose not to place that textual limitation on the word.

Second, notwithstanding the foregoing, I think one could argue that the government of Mexico's explicit encouragement of illegal immigration to the United States turns Mexican illegals into a de facto army of that country. In any event, I have yet to see any evidence from the founding period that would convince me Plainsman's reading of Article IV, Sec. 4 is not the correct one.

Finally, I find it somewhat curious that many of our liberal readers, all of whom appear to subscribe to the living constitutionalist viewpoint, have now turned into strict constructionists on this particular issue.

*I realize that this definition is not from the founding period. I strongly suspect, however, that the 1854 definition for "invasion" noted above is most likely the same as the definition for "invasion" contained in dictionaries floating around the States in 1789.

Story on the meaning of "invasion" as used in Article IV, Sec. 4:

§ 1812. "A protection against invasion is due from every society, to the parts composing it. The latitude of the expression here used, seems to secure each state not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbours. The history both of ancient and modern confederacies proves, that the weaker members of the union ought not to be insensible, to the policy of this article.

I offer this quote in support of my man Plainsman's post below. And as I noted in the comments section to that post:

The question is what does the word "invasion" mean in the context of Article IV, Sec. 4. You seem to suggest, although it's hard to tell given your non-substantive responses, that an invasion can only mean a formal invasion by an army. You fail, however, to offer any evidence for that interpretation. And as Plainsman has explained, we are most certainly being invaded by illegals with the explicit approval of Mexico's government. If that's not foreign hostility then I don't know what the hell is.

The beauty of originalism is that it is not strict constructionism, and that the principles enshrined in the Constitution can be applied in a modern context. So is immigration per se an invasion? Of course not. Can it be? You bet your hindquarters it can. In short, ILLEGAL immigration is a form of foreign hostility.

Immigration, Invasion, and Sports

Plainsman's post below called to mind the events of last month when the U.S. played Mexico in soccer on the Mexican's home turf. This is the greeting bestowed:

The crowd booed the U.S. national anthem and a spattering of fans chanted "Osama! Osama!" before play started, and shortly after Lewis' goal.

Sadly, this was probably better treatment than the American players received a couple of years ago in L.A.:

There was an anguishing afternoon in the Coliseum where the U.S. soccer team was playing Mexico. The Mexican-American crowd showered the U.S. team with water bombs, beer bottles and trash. The Star Spangled Banner was hooted and jeered. A small contingent of fans of the American team had garbage hurled at them. The American players later said that they were better received in Mexico City than in their own country.

Plainsman's use of the term "invasion" below is not overblown. We are being invaded, and the circumstantial evidence indicates that the invaders don't care much for our country and culture. To many of them, America is but paycheck. I can't blame them for wanting a decent wage, but I can blame our leaders for not enforcing our immigration laws.

Now that's what I'm talking about: This Wash Times article on the Minuteman Project is great, hopeful stuff:

More than 200 people rallied across the street from the White House yesterday to protest the immigration enforcement policies of the Bush administration and Congress, vowing to take their message nationwide and secure the U.S. borders themselves. . . .
"We are demanding, not asking, for secure and safe borders. We are demanding, not asking, for the enforcement of existing immigration laws," Mr. Simcox told the cheering crowd. "We will remain on duty until we are relieved by Humvees filled with National Guard or U.S. military troops."
Mr. Simcox's comments were part of the opening salvo of a six-day Washington lobbying campaign by advocates of stronger immigration controls. The campaign will include rallies, press conferences, meetings with members of Congress and testimony Wednesday by Mr. Simcox and others before the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus.
Hailed as "Hold Their Feet to the Fire 2005," the campaign is aimed at demonstrating nationwide opposition to the immigration enforcement policies of Congress and the White House, President Bush's guest worker program and the issuance of drivers' licenses to illegal aliens. It also seeks a crackdown on employers who hire illegals, and calls for the resumption of interior sweeps by the Border Patrol.
The campaign was put together by Roger Hedgecock, former San Diego mayor and now a radio talk-show host. Rep. Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Republican and a vocal proponent of immigration enforcement, is the keynote speaker at a dinner tomorrow.
Yesterday, as the Lafayette Park crowd raised placards and chanted "Thank you, Minutemen," Mr. Simcox reported that 15,000 new volunteers are ready to begin civilian patrols in October of the U.S.-Mexico border from California to Texas, with others being set for limited vigils in Michigan, Idaho and Vermont.

Spirit of '76, folks. Mark Krikorian over at NRO's The Corner knows the score:

San Diego radio talk show host Roger Hedgecock [has] lined up a lot of other hosts to do one of those "talk radio row" things here, where people do their various shows all together in the same place. And other talkers who didn't come to Washington are nevertheless focusing on immigration this week . . .
The presence of so many conservative radio talkers points to the GOP's conundrum on immigration, as [analyzed] by David Frum and others: The party's base hates the president's stance on immigration, and this threatens to sunder the Republican coalition.

If President Bush and the Congressional GOP are so far gone that they won't do their constitutional duty (Art. IV, sect. 4: "The United States ... shall protect each of [the States] against Invasion ..."), even when large popular majorities support reform of the disaster that is current U.S. immigration policy -- then Bush and his party deserve to be abandoned.

UPDATE: Those who balk at the use of the term "invasion" might reflect on this item.

Interesting tidbit o' the day: "Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful."

Wednesday Humor

Sorry my posting has been minimal these last two weeks--I've been covered up at work.

But, this is for all you law students and undergraduates preparing to celebrate after exams. As this video indicates, remember to extinguish the flame before downing the shot.

Polling and the Filibuster: According to a recent poll, the public says no to changing the Senate rules, rather than ending the filibuster of judicial nominees. Today's Washington Post contains results from a result poll in which, by a ratio of 2-1, the public feels Senate rules should not be changed re: filibustering of judicial nominees.

[B]y a 2 to 1 ratio, the public rejected easing Senate rules in a way that would make it harder for Democratic senators to prevent final action on Bush's nominees. Even many Republicans were reluctant to abandon current Senate confirmation procedures: Nearly half opposed any rule changes, joining eight in 10 Democrats and seven in 10 political independents, the poll found.

Personally, I've yet to fully come aboard the ship setting sail towards the "nuclear option." That being said, I know there are excellent, and persuasive, arguments for said action, I've just not had the time to sit down and study such. See, e.g., Martin B. Gold & Dimple Gupta, The Constitutional Option to Change Senate Rules and Procedures: A Majoritarian Means to Overcome the Filibuster, 28 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 205 (2004).

Discrimination? Eugene Volokh endorses Cathy Young's argument that the refusal on the part of Senate Democrats to allow a vote on some judicial nominees is most decidedly not about "religious bigotry" and thus not comparable to "racial bias." (Professor Bainbridge demurs, suggesting that under the rule of disparate impact, it may indeed be like racial bias).

Now, I'm willing to believe that the Senate Dems who are leading the filibusters are not per se biased against Catholics or Evangelicals. I think it ridiculous (and not a bit frightening) that having pro-life views will disqualify one from the Appeals Court, but I'm not sure it's a straight line from religious bigotry. (I wouldn't rule it out, either - the history of anti-Catholic politics in this country and elsewhere is far too long for that and Young's claim that "Surely,* it would apply just as much to atheists or agnostics who oppose abortion on secular grounds" begs the question of who else has been excoriated for his deeply held (religious) beliefs).

But one counter-claim to charge of religious bias is just silly and this is the idea that it's obscene, even bigoted, for conservative religious folks to charge that the Senate Dems (and the leftist pressure groups behind them) are biased against "people of faith." We know it's obscene and bigoted because there are "people of faith" on the Senate Dems' side. They can't be against "people of faith" because they are "people of faith." Well, even to the degree that they *are* "people of faith", that doesn't mean that they can't be against other "people of faith." Think about the comparison with racial bias. Just because someone likes Asians or Latinos doesn't mean he isn't biased against Blacks. Why shouldn't the same be true of religious believers? Those on the Religious Left despise the Religious Right a lot more than, say, the libertarian Right (and the converse is true as well). So it's still the case that the Senate Dems could be guilty of religious bias even if they are themselves religious believers.

*I had a professor once note that writers use the term "surely" to indicate some proposition that seems all but irrefutable to the writer, but for which he or she has no actual evidence. It's a remarkably good rule of thumb.

This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no fooling around: Wait, scratch that. It is some fooling around. David Byrne, who, when it comes to international politics sure made some cool songs 20 years ago, holds forth on (scroll down) "cultural censorship."

It amounts to a kind of cultural censorship. Call me paranoid, but given all the manipulative tricks the Republicans have gotten up to recently, I am prepared to believe that this has less to do with Homeland security and more to do with keeping the American public ignorant and free of foreign influence and inspiration. An ill-informed, isolated, ignorant populace is a populace easily manipulated. Fed a diet of reality shows coupled with faith-based reasoning (an oxymoron if ever there was one) and you have a perfect recipe for a country in which the government that can do more or less whatever it wants. Democracy becomes a farce without access to information. And culture — music, theater, dance, etc. — is information for the heart. Yes, we can still obtain news reports and recordings online, but without live performance there is a hole where there should be face to face “news” about how others live, how they love and why and what their passions are. If we are not allowed to feel the rest of the world then we can be told anything about it and not know what those people are really like. If the Other is hidden from you, then you don’t even know to ask or inquire about what it is you’re not getting — because you don’t even know it exists.

You know, I think he might be on to something. I mean, with the Republicans completely sealing the borders to anybody who might not genuflect to Karl Rove, there's really no way for anyone to get an outside source for culture or commentary or some such. I mean, it would be different if there were some way--call me a dreamer if you must--of magically beaming one's voice to someone located far away from them, then the situation would be different. And if there were some way of magically beaming one's words and pictures to someone far away, it would really be a different situation. And if you could somehow put the power of the written word in the hands of everyone who had some sort of machine that would somehow connect to other machines around the world in some sort of international network of those machines, then it would really, really be a different situation.

But of course, none of those things exist. As a result, I for one am scared. When musicians nobody cares about can't make music nobody likes, then the terrorists have won.

Paul Henning, R.I.P. The last couple of weeks have been busy for me, so I missed the news of the death of Paul Henning on March 25. R.T. Karnick has a nice tribute to the creator of The Beverly Hillbillies, et al., on NRO, and a related post on The Reform Club. Henning's shows dominated TV comedy when I was a kid, and I was a fan. It may not have been "a simpler time," as people like to say, but popular culture was certainly kinder back then.

Speaking of the Anglosphere (see immediately below), Bennett has started a blog about his book, called Albion's Seedling. So far, the posts are few and far between. Let's hope for more there. Keith Windschuttle's review of the book for NRODT is now available online.

Also, the Anglosphere Institute has a snazzy new website that includes links to Bennett's 3-part Anglosphere Primer (look at the lower right hand corner of the home pages).

What's the Anglosphere, you ask? Well:

The Anglosphere is the emerging branch of civilization at the core of which are the nations of the English-speaking world. But the Anglosphere is about more than language. Many non-English speakers in the Anglosphere benefit from its existence. Its characteristics include the justice of Common Law and the freedom guaranteed by traditions of individual liberty and representative constitutional government. It is an entity where wide mutual trust is vital and civil society prospers.

Anglosphere nations and organizations adhere to the fundamental customs and values that form the core of English-speaking cultures, such as individualism, rule of law, honoring contracts and covenants, and the elevation of freedom to the first rank of political and cultural values.

If Senate Democrats succeed in Borking John Bolton, the President needs to be ready to name a follow-up nominee so quickly it will make Robert Byrd's head spin. Here are my top 4 candidates to serve as US Ambassador to the UN:

Robert Bork (I know, I know: his foreign policy experience seems to be limited to service in the US Marines during WWII and Korean War; as the tech guys say, that's not a bug, that's a feature)

Zell Miller (also a Marine; plus this would be exactly the kind of wonderful, hands-across-the-aisle bipartisanship that the scuttling of the Bolton nomination would call for)

Victor Davis Hanson (his bio contains no indication of military service; he is, however, a farmer).

James Bennett (author of the book, The Anglosphere Challenge, about the force that may bring peace and freedom to the world -- not to be confused with the UN).

The floor is open for other nominations.

College Access: Is Government Part of the Solution, or Part of the Problem? You can read Richard Vedder's answer to this question in his testimony before the House committee on education, where he focuses on

six factors related to the tuition fee explosion: the presence of huge third party payments, the lack of strong market discipline, the use of university resources to cross-subsidize non-academic activities, price discrimination against some students, a decline in productivity, and, finally, rent-seeking behavior.

Pryor SJC Hearing Transcript: Per the request of a loyal SA reader, I obtained and uploaded a copy of the transcript for Judge William H. Pryor's hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is located under the FYI section of links, which is down and to the right (or just click here). Enjoy!

Frist Says: Stop blocking judicial nominees.

Thank you, Arianna, for a promising source of post fodder. If we ever want for things to spar about here at SA (as unlikely as that may be), we're sure to find something absurd to pan at the Huffington Post.

A Liberal Paradox

Where would Barbara Boxer stand on illegal immigration if she discovered that these migrants were crossing the border in order to block the entrances of American abortion clinics?

46 years of Revolucion and counting: "Castro More Than Doubles Minimum Wage to $10 a Month"

Castro promised the population new and more efficient household appliances, such as electric fans and refrigerators.

Sports Hierarchy: If I were an NBA official, I'd be mighty worried right about now. Here you are, just about to plunge into the playoffs, and what is the premier sports TV network all gaga about? The NFL Draft. Every time I've turned on the local sports talk radio station, all I get is draft, draft, draft. It's almost like they don't even care about the NBA.