It is late Friday, around 6pm as I begin this entry. I’ve cruised and surfed the internet, visited my favorite blogs and news sites, and thought that perhaps I should update my Usual Suspects list with two more — but that’s for another day, I suppose. Or tomorrow.

In any event, it rained a good portion of the day. Sitting upstairs, I can see the drops shaking the green deciduous leaves. My mind wandered and I thought: it’s time. Time for my friend Frederic:

(Claude) Frederic Bastiat, born June 30th of 1801 and died of tuberculosis on December 24th, 1850, was a young French man of massive proportions — mental, not physical.

I was introduced to Bestiat when I read this quote one day in passing:

My attention was captured then and there. A short time later I order his small book entitled “The Law” from Amazon.com. It was one of the best orders I’d ever made, and $6.00 well spent. You need not spend this cash; merely go here to have the complete text of The Law.

Bestiat was something of the theorist, an economist, a libertarian, a man who believed in the greatest of freedoms. He railed against socialism and those non-workers who would plunder the good works of those who labored.

He asked: What is Law?

What, then is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend — even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

Can you think of a more appropriate summation of all that you believe in terms of Law? I myself cannot.

What do we have, then, when we abrogate law? What do we have, then, when we allow the lawbreakers — or the lawless — to rule? And then make the rules?

What do we do as a nation, as a United States, when we allow ourselves to be fractured, to be divided, to be wedged, to be pitted one against another on as many levels as possible? What do we do as a nation when we are told that, as masses, there are those select few who by dint of their source or origin are allowed to break The Law whilst we, we who labor, we who form the backbone of this country, who built this country, who have its history in our hands — yes, we who are the source, the fount of all monies — are told that we cannot? That we must look the other way when some select few break our laws? And to shut up and fund them? With smiles on our stultified faces?

And then why do we not ask: if our laws are inapplicable to only a select few, and those few are newcomers, they are not invested in this nation, they will not speak our language, they will not immerse, they instead attempt to make this country into a carbon copy of that which they left — this nation which we built with our blood — then why is it that we only are tasked with obeying? With paying?

Why should we obey?

Why should we pay?

I wrote in a previous post about my decision to vote for a GOP candidate come 2008 — essentially, anyone other than a Demorat.

I wrote yesterday about the excesses of the Demorats and what one can expect with a Demoratic president come 2008. I reflect now upon some of the comments I proffered to that post:

I can actually only see two ways out: 1. Violence thrust upon us again via terrorism from within, or 2. Violence upon the government by the people OR a national united revolution in terms of tax refusal, non-compliance with certain laws or strictures. Absent those very two shocking and critical actions I don’t see the Quiet Citizens, those who OBEY laws, who PAY the freight, having the ability to perform sufficient actions to enact a major change. We are, in truth, too BUSY doing one primary thing: WORKING so that those in either GOVERNMENT or those parasites who suck from our labors and give back NOTHING may BENEFIT from our labors. And I really do not know how much longer we can keep this country on its current path of fiscal irresponsibility — on both sides. The ONLY politician I’ve EVER heard speak OPENLY about budget cuts, restrictions, paring back, is Fornicalia Senator Tom McClintock — who was running for Governor against Arnold and lost majestically.

I continued further in response:

I still want to think that Conservatism stands for something, but I’m just not sure such an animal can exist publicly and acquire votes. The electorate simply wants too much mollycoddling, too much “gimme,” too much of what it wants when it wants it. And LAWSUITS drive a MASSIVE amount of what we do in this society in terms of corportions and in terms of how we live and account for our day-to-day lives. I WANT to say I can reliably vote for someone on the GOP side but — I am forced to, as Fred rightly acknowledges — I must consider the person closest, despite any number of failings, CLOSEST to my own core beliefs.

No one mostly wants to compromise; we all wish to live in our ideal.

But.

Day by day, I watch as my country — as my very own party — seems to grow so very far from me — yes, in inches — but day-by-day — away from me and my ideals. From Conservatism.

Motivated by cash. By cash. How despicably base. Have we learned nothing? Are we doomed to repeat history because we are indifferent or — even worse — purposeful?

The cartoon seems apropos, does it not?

It pains me to write this.

You think the Demorats couldn’t possibly be any worse than the worst of our GOP handful of Presidential candidates? A good idea to stay home on election day? You may want to consider this:

By now, everyone knows Rep. Charles B. Rangel is poised to introduce the “mother” of all tax reforms, the biggest and most expensive tax code overhaul since 1986. But what they don’t know is how the New York Democrat plans to pay the more than $1 trillion price tag — and that uncertainty is fueling rampant speculation from Capitol Hill to K Street.

Let’s see; hmmm. How might that be paid? Wait a minute, I’m thinking, thinking. . .

There is something free, something wayfaring, something vagabondish about the homeless. They make one harken back to the days of ultimate freedom where wanderers of good heart hopped local freight trains, ate beans from a can, did odd jobs for the occasional pinch of tobacco, watched from the vast expanse of waving grass on a hill at dusk, as the sun set upon a day filled with independence, self-determination and the liberation from an onerous, exceedingly-compartmentalized lifestyle.

Or, on the other hand, Homeless persons are those who have been cast aside by society in one oppressive form or another, Life having delivered one or a series of shivs to the back — likely at the behest of despotic GOP policies. One must immediately realize, of course, that there is nothing about being Homeless that money cannot solve. If only, if only we were to throw sufficient cash at the Homeless problem, well, it would simply dry up overnight. Therefore through of a set of circumstances no fault of their own, the Homeless are not only to be tolerated but truly embraced — and actually, just a bit envied. Are they not the ultimate in downtrodden yet uplifting free spirits?

Such is the view of the Left; more specifically, the view of the Left in San Francisco, one of the most — if not the most liberal city in the United States. This is the city that voted to censor Michael Savage. This is the city whose councilman felt we need no military — the police can handle any national matter. This is the city where plastic grocery bags are outlawed. This is the city where there is no “minimum wage” for businesses — there must now be a living wage for McD workers. This is the city where the city council also wants to abolish Fleet Week and do away with those horribly visible (and unsafe!) examples of militarism, the US Navy’s Blue Angels.

Yet, despite all this Goodness, the SF Left has decided to cross the line into OPPRESSION. And this decision was not (thank Gaia!) made by the city government, but by the city’s residents. How little the plebs understand! Witness:

San Francisco – the liberal, left-coast city conservatives love to mock – could be undergoing a transformation when it comes to homeless people. Although the city would still be a poor choice for a pep rally for the war in Iraq, indications are that residents have had it with aggressive panhandlers, street squatters and drug users.

“Maybe there has been an epiphany,” says David Latterman, president of Fall Line Analytics, a local market research firm. “People have realized they can hate George Bush but still not want people crapping in their doorway.”

You mean to tell us all, including my dear readers, that there may not be something inherently and intrinsically good and admirable in all Homeless persons??

And let me tell you what I’ve seen personally and why I seldom travel, unless forced, to San Francisco anymore:

I’ve seen the gangs not only take over, unimpeded, the housing areas just south of Pier 39 and the other popular tourist venues, but spill over into these tourist areas. I’ve watched bangers slash into crowds en masse and rip off bags and packages wholesale, then challenge the tourists to get them back. I’ve watched disgusting human pieces of crap, NOT the, quote, homeless, unquote, drop pants to their ankles in front of 30 to 40 people and defecate into the clothing at their feet. Then check the surrounding crowd for reactions. I’ve watched panhandlers work in teams accost only the smaller of tourists (always with children) and demand cash — nothing more complicated than strong-arm robbery. I’ve watched alcohol sodden formerly-human meatbags stagger into walls replete with days-old vomit caked in their beards and running in rivulets down their shirts with, as they turned away, the pants stained with glistening urine and congealed excrement.

And read this again: “One city official estimated that nine out of 10 say they are not interested in a shelter or housing when approached.”

Dare I posit: does the worm turn?

Everyone loves immigration. Everyone loves immigrants. Nationwide. Worldwide. Right?

The Pew Research Center released a poll October 4th which indicated:

The publics of the world broadly embrace key tenets of economic globalization but fear the disruptions and downsides of participating in the global economy. In rich countries as well as poor ones, most people endorse free trade, multinational corporations and free markets. However, the latest Pew Global Attitudes survey of more than 45,000 people finds they are concerned about inequality, threats to their culture, threats to the environment and threats posed by immigration. Together, these results reveal an evolving world view on globalization that is nuanced, ambivalent, and sometimes inherently contradictory.

Regarding globalization, the trend indicates:

There are signs that enthusiasm for economic globalization is waning in the West — Americans and Western Europeans are less supportive of international trade and multinational companies than they were five years ago. In contrast, there is near universal approval of global trade among the publics of rising Asian economic powers China and India.

There was also very interesting recent news from Switzerland regarding immigration, in which recent national elections appear to be distilling down to immigration issues:

SCHWERZENBACH, Switzerland: The posters taped on the walls at a political rally here capture the rawness of Switzerland’s national electoral campaign: Three white sheep stand on the Swiss flag, as one of them kicks a single black sheep away.”For Greater Security,” the poster reads.

Suddenly, the campaign has turned into a nationwide debate over the place of immigrants in one of the world’s oldest democracies and over what it means to be Swiss.

Even Switzerland, the most limp-wristed of the limp-wristed in terms of immigration policies, finds itself discussing an issue publicly that, a short time ago, would never have been mentioned under one’s breath in public.

But this kind of puts the capper on it all: if former Mexican President Vicente Fox praises our President Bush for anything, then I know Bush has it wrong. Witness:

NEW YORK (AP) – Former Mexican President Vicente Fox said Monday that the United States is letting racism dictate its policies, especially when it comes to immigration.

“The xenophobics, the racists, those who feel they are a superior race … they are deciding the future of this nation,” he said, without naming names, in an interview with The Associated Press.

In his first interview to promote his new book, “Revolution of Hope,” Fox applauded President Bush‘s desire to pass an immigration accord that would allow more Mexicans to work legally in the U.S.

Folks, when you play the “Xenophobe Card” with Mexican immigration or the “Hitler Card” regarding most any other topic (with some very rare exceptions), then I simply tune you out. Consider Fox not just tuned out but off. In the US, for example, 92% of the people think our government should do more to minimize illegal immigration. That’s not just clear, that’s the electorate screaming at the tops of our voices.

Meanwhile, literally back at the ranch, Farmers in Fornicalia are threatening that, because of greater focus on illegal immigrants, their fields may stand to rot; my reply is: that’s a temporary price to pay for greater security and CONTROL of our nation. And temporary it will be. Economics and employment abhor vacuums, like nature.

Growers said not only is the supply of workers getting smaller, but the federal guest worker program known as the H-2A Visa is too time-consuming.

I’m telling you, people, it’s like I’ve written oh-so-many times: