A Golden Age of Patriots

With the rest of the world, we mourn the passing of Elizabeth Taylor, one of the grand dames of Hollywood, and one of the last from what is rightly called "Hollywood's Golden Age." She'll be remembered for magnificent performances from National Velvet to Ivanhoe (my personal favorite) to Cleopatra to Taming of the Shrew. "Liz" was a classic; she didn't just star in Giant, she walked with giants – men and women who were bigger than life on and off screen.

But, as we compare Hollywood's current stars to previous constellations, there's one comparison that rarely gets any publicity, especially in this age of liberal media. You've probably heard that a lot of big-name actors left Hollywood after December 7, 1941, but maybe you haven't heard much more than that. Allow me to fill in a few blank spots:

Jimmy Stewart

Jimmy came from what qualifies as a military family – both grandfathers fought in the Civil War, his father fought in the Spanish-American War and World War I. They were infantry, but Jimmy had earned both private and commercial pilot's licenses, so he chose the Army Air Corps. Perhaps he saw the writing on the wall; he enlisted in March 1941, and took pilot training. He was commissioned a 2nd lieutenant in April 1942 and assigned as a pilot-instructor.

Afraid his celebrity status would keep him behind the lines, he requested and received combat assignments to the 703rd and 453rd Bombardment Groups, racking up 20 official combat missions over Germany. Actually, he flew many more; assigned to the 453rd because the group was having trouble, he lead them into combat on numerous occasions, but refusing credit for those missions. His awards include the Distinguished Service Medal, two Distinguished Flying Crosses, four Air Medals, the French Croix de Guerre with Palm and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Like many veterans, Jimmy usually declined to talk about the war. He joined the new US Air Force as a reservist, and, though the film Strategic Air Command wasn't based on his military experience, he insisted on an authentic portrayal. He retired in May 1968 as Brigadier General James Maitland Stewart.

John Ford

One of Hollywood's great directors was also one of America's unsung combat photographers. He joined the Naval Reserve in 1934, and reported to active duty in September 1941 with the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, in the Photographic Presentation Branch. In June 1942, he was on Midway during the momentous battle, and actually shot much of the footage, making himself an obvious target. He was likewise aboard USS Hornet for the famous Doolittle Raid. He later served in Washington, in the Burma-China Theater and with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in London. He was awarded the Purple Heart, Legion of Merit, American Defense Service Medal, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal, American Campaign Medal, European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal, World War II Victory Medal and the Naval Reserve Medal. He was placed on the Honorary Retired List with the rank of Rear Admiral on 1 May 1951.

In March 1973, the American Film Institute bestowed its first Lifetime Achievement Award on Ford at a nationally telecast ceremony. During the broadcast, President Richard Nixon presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Rear Admiral John Ford.

Peter Ortiz

New York-born character actor Pierre Julien Ortiz often played uncredited roles in films and on TV, as he did in World War II.  Of French and Spanish ancestry, he was an accomplished linguist, speaking 5 languages. He left school at 19 to join the French Foreign Legion, rising to become its youngest sergeant. In 1940, he was captured by the Germans, but escaped. When the US joined the War, Ortiz joined the Marines then transferred to the fledgling OSS (forerunner of the CIA). Parachuting into France, he became a Maquis (French underground) leader in 1944. One of his regular intelligence-gathering forays was to a nightclub in Lyons frequented by German officers.

According to IMDB.com: "One night, a German officer damned President Roosevelt, then the USA, and finally the Marine Corps. Ortiz then excused himself, went to his apartment and changed into his Marine Corps uniform. Returning to the club, he ordered a round then removed his raincoat and stood there resplendent in full greens and decorations yelling, 'A toast to President Roosevelt!' Pointing his pistols at one German officer then another, they emptied their glasses as he ordered another round to toast the USA then the Marine Corps! The Germans again drained their glasses as he backed out leaving his astonished hosts and disappeared into the night." He was captured again and ended the War a POW. The films 13 Rue Madeleine (1947, starring James Cagney) and Operation Secret (1952, starring Cornel Wilde) were based on his exploits. He was awarded two Navy Crosses, two Purple Hearts, Legion of Merit, Order of the British Empire, five Croix de Guerre, among others. He retired in 1946 as Colonel Pierre Julien Ortiz.

Glenn Ford

Gwyllyn Samuel Newton Ford was born in Canada, son of a railroad worker. The family emigrated to California when Ford was eight; started acting in 1924, Anglicizing his Welsh first name to Glenn, then became a naturalized citizen in 1939. He joined the Coast Guard Auxiliary in 1941 and, though his Hollywood star was already rising, insisted on regular duty, just like any other sailor, including some evening and weekend shifts. In 1943, he transferred to the Marine Corps and saw action in the Pacific.
 
After the War, he transferred again, to the Naval Reserve, and served in the Korean and Vietnam Police Actions. During a 1993 interview, Ford confided that he had been sent on 5 secret missions into Vietnam during that war. Asked for details, all he would say was, "They asked me to go, and I went." He retired as Captain Glenn Ford.

A few other names you might recognize:

Don Adams of Get Smart fame served with the Marine Corps during World War II in the Pacific. He was wounded during the Battle of Guadalcanal, contracted malaria, nearly died of blackwater fever and finished the War in the USA as a drill instructor.

Eddie Albert of Green Acres was as a lieutenant in the Coast Guard during World War II in the Pacific. He received the Bronze Star for his actions during the Battle of Tarawa in November 1943, when he rescued several hundred wounded Marines while under heavy machine-gun fire.

Lew Ayres was already a major star in the 1930s, including starring in the 1930 antiwar film All Quiet on the Western Front. He was so affected by the film's message he became a conscientious objector. He was called a coward and fired by MGM for his stance. Ayers did serve in the War, and was properly acclaimed after the war, when the public learned of his bravery under fire as a medical corpsman.

Walter Brennan played a minister in Sergeant York, but was one of The Real McCoys in World War I. He enlisted in the US Army at 22 and served in an artillery unit. Though unwounded, he was exposed to poison gas which ruined his vocal chords, giving him that distinctive high-pitched voice that was his acting signature.

James Doohan went where no man had gone before, but the Star Trek star had lots of company when he landed at Juno Beach in Normandy on D-Day. Landing with the US Army, the Royal Canadian Artilleryman lost the middle finger of his right hand, a fact he hid during his long career. His life was saved when a bullet hit a silver cigarette case which had been given to him by his brother.

George Roy Hill, before becoming a director, served in the Marine Corps as a fighter pilot during World War II and the Korean Police Action.

Jack Holt was a silent film star and long-time stuntman who entered the US Army at the age of 54, serving at the request of General George C. Marshall as a horse buyer for the cavalry.

Werner Klemperer gained Hollywood immortality as the bumbling Col. Wilhelm Klink in Hogan's Heroes. In fact, Klemperer (and all the actors playing the principal Nazi officers), were Jews who fled Europe as Hitler rose to power. He served in the US Army during World War II. When offered the role of Col. Klink, Klemperer agreed, with the stipulation that he would immediately quit the show if the Germans ever succeeded.

David Niven played a reluctant hero in The Guns of Navarone (1961), but the suave English gentleman was, in fact, a graduate of Sandhurst (the UK's West Point) and a British Commando at Normandy. On his return to Hollywood, he was made a Legionnaire of the Order of Merit – the highest American order that can be earned by a foreign citizen – the award was presented by General Dwight Eisenhower to Lieutenant Colonel David Niven.

Jon Pertwee served in the Royal Navy as an officer aboard HMS Hood at the outbreak of the War. He was lucky to be assigned ashore just before that vessel was sunk by the Bismarck and survived to become the third Doctor Who.

Mickey Spillane not only created Mike Hammer, he played the great private investigator in The Girl Hunters (1963). During World War II, he enlisted in the Army Air Corps and became both a fighter pilot and flight instructor.

Peter Ustinov was a two-time Academy Award-winning film actor, director, writer and journalist. However, from 1942-46, he was as a private soldier with the British Army's Royal Sussex Regiment. He spent most of his service with the Army Cinema Unit, where he worked on recruitment films, wrote plays, and appeared in three films.

Victor Sen Yung was the son of Chinese immigrant parents. He gained fame as "Number 1 Son" in several Charlie Chan films before joining the US Army Air Forces in World War II. He eventually became a captain in Army Intelligence.

Some were unable to serve officially, but contributed to the war effort in other ways:

Andy Devine, one of Hollywood's best-loved sidekicks, was judged too old for enlistment in 1941, but the 36-year-old was an avid pilot and owned a flying school that trained flyers for the armed forces during World War II.

Marlene Dietrich, another grand dame of Hollywood, renounced her German citizenship when the Nazis rose to power, rejecting Hitler's request to return home. She became a zealous supporter of the Allied Forces, performing hundreds of shows for the troops – many of those shows very close to the front lines.

Audrey Hepburn and her mother, a Dutch baroness, were vacationing in Arnhem, Holland, when the Wehrmacht occupied the town. Though only 10 when the war broke out, Audrey served as a courier for the Dutch resistance.
[My grandmother was a Hollander; my grandfather an Austrian living in Holland. He became (legally) a German citizen after Austria's annexation by the Nazis, as did his son and daughter. My aunt was a teenage girl when the war broke out; she also was part of the Dutch resistance. My father refused to join the German Army, and, in later years, was proud of the fact that he was, legally, a traitor to "his country" during the War.]

Memorial Day is not far off. As we remember all those mostly unnamed, unknown "bit players" who gave their lives for freedom, maybe you could watch a movie featuring one of those "stars" who gave up well-earned comfort and wealth because they knew what was right, and fearlessly defended the countries whose people provided them that wealth and comfort.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

Balancing the Budget

There's a lot of talk about how to do it, and a lot of people who think it's the most difficult project Congress will ever undertake. Guess again, it's actually one of the simplest. I propose a four-step plan, based (no surprise, I hope) on the enumerated powers section of the U.S. Constitution:

First, end all federal departments that are not constitutionally authorized.

After examining the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8, I find 5 executive departments to be wholly unconstitutional. They are, with their FY2011 budgets (in billions):

Agriculture:	$132.3
Education:	$71.5
Health & Human Services:	$900.8
Housing & Urban Development:	$47.5
Labor:	$116.7
Total:	$1,268.8

That's about 80% of the 2011 budget deficit, an estimated $1.55 trillion. Of course, the last three Obama budgets have exceeded their deficit estimates, but, now that he's had some practice, he might actually get this one right.

Second, examine programs within the remaining departments and independent agencies for constitutionality and duplication.

2-A: For example, the Department of the Interior has 11 agencies within it:
(1) Bureau of Indian Affairs
Transfer these functions to the Dep't of State – Native Tribes are separate nations, treat them as such.
(2) Bureau of Land Management
Disband it and transfer all federal lands to the control of the States in which they are located, except for those in active use as office buildings, military posts, etc.
(3) Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement
Keep it.
(4) Bureau of Reclamation
Keep it, but limit its operations to oversight of interstate waterways.
(5) Fish and Wildlife Service
Disband it – it has no constitutional authority.
(6) Office for Oil Spills
Disband it – hardly an agency with a really successful track record.
(7) Office of Insular Affairs
Keep it – it deals with US territories and freely-associated states.
(8) Office of Surface Mining
Disband it – a mine is located within a State, it should operate under local regulation.
(9) National Mine Map Repository
Transfer it to the Dep't of Commerce, NARA or other suitable agency.
(10) National Park Service
Keep it, but reduce it to those few facilities which really are national in scope and of historic significance, such as Liberty Island, Fort McHenry or the Gateway Arch; transfer all other lands to the States.
(11) United States Geological Survey
Keep it – it creates and oversees the national atlas.
You'll notice only 5 (in green) of the 11 agencies remain in Interior, 2 (in blue)  are transferred to other departments, and 4 (in red) are disbanded. Maybe we could eliminate one third of the DOI budget.

 
2-B: Eliminate non-constitutional independent agencies. For example:
Commission of Fine Arts
Federal Council on the Arts & the Humanities
Institute of Museum & Library Services
National Commission on Libraries & Information Science
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
National Foundation on the Arts & the Humanities
The enumerated powers include only protection of intellectual property, not the obligation to pay for its creation, nor to oversee those who collect it.

2-C: Consolidate necessary federal functions. For example, these 6 independent agencies all oversee part or all of the federal civilian workforce:

Federal Executive Boards
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
Merit Systems Protection Board
Office of Government Ethics
Office of Personnel Management

Office of Special Counsel
Human resource management is a necessary function of any organization. But divided responsibilities usually generate increased bureaucracy, duplication of effort, budgetary competition and other negatives. A single Office of Federal Employment would be easier to watchdog. 

2-D: Question – why are these independent agencies?

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Tennessee Valley Authority
These sound like functions that should be performed by the Dep't of Energy.

Federal Labor Relations Authority
Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service
Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission
Federal Trade Commission
International Trade Commission
National Labor Relations Board
National Mediation Board
National Technology Transfer Center
Occupational Health & Safety Review Commission
Small Business Administration
Trade & Development Agency
These sound like functions that should be performed by the Dep't of Commerce. 

We could make a number of such lists, and, again, redundancy breeds inefficiency. While we're examining for consolidation, we can also ask: Do we actually need these agencies? Do they operate under an enumerated power?

How bad is it this redundancy? On 1 March 2011, Breitbart.com noted:

"A report from the nonpartisan GAO, to be released Tuesday, compiles a list of redundant and potentially ineffective federal programs, and it could serve as a template for lawmakers in both parties as they move to cut federal spending and consolidate programs to reduce the deficit. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who pushed for the report, estimated it identifies between $100 billion and $200 billion in duplicative spending. The GAO didn’t put a specific figure on the spending overlap. . . .The agency found 82 federal programs to improve teacher quality; 80 to help disadvantaged people with transportation; 47 for job training and employment; and 56 to help people understand finances, according to a draft of the report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal."

What was that phrase I kept hearing while I worked for the federal government? Oh, yes, "Waste, fraud and abuse." Apparently, there are a few things this government does really well.

According to the Social Security Agency, "The national average wage index for 2009 is $40,711.61." Other sources quote higher figures, between $50,000 and $60,000.  Public officials do a little better than average:

President	$400,000
Vice President, Speaker of the House and Chief Justice	$208,100
Associate Justices	$199,200
Secretaries of Executive Departments	$180,100
Senators & Representatives	$162,100

This does not include expenses for travel, entertainment, staff and other things. According to Answers.com, Congress has a legislative staff of about 11,700 (approx. 22 aides per member) plus the committee staffs, operational staff (security, janitorial, etc.) and support agency staffs, totaling about 24,000 people, which costs us taxpayers several billion  per year in pay, benefits, retirement, etc.

This is, of course, far less than the millions senior executives earn in private enterprise, but that is none of your business or mine. Private enterprises are the property of the stockholders, if they want to overpay their underperforming executives, it's their money. Public officials and employees are another matter – We, the People, are the stockholders. As one pundit recently remarked while discussing the Wisconsin situation, it isn't about what the employees want; it is about what the people can afford.

Fourth, end foreign aid. If we can't afford to run America, what makes us think we can afford to run the rest of the world?

There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign policy.  It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal:  The preservation of our national independence.  Nothing in the Constitution grants that the president shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader.  He is our executive; he is on our payroll; he is supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations.  Nothing in the Constitution, nor in logic, grants to the President of the United States, or to Congress, the power to influence the political life of other countries, to ‘uplift’ their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their people, or even to defend them against their enemies.

—Ezra Taft Benson (Secretary of Agriculture under Pres. Eisenhower)

in a speech entitled "America at the Crossroads," August 30, 1969.

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements.  I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy.  I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense.  But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

—George Washington, "Farewell Address," September 17, 1796.

In times of disaster, Americans as private citizens, have been generous to the tune of billions of dollars; tons of food, clothing & other necessities; even to risking their lives by traveling (at their own expense) to provide services where those disasters take place. Like private enterprise, American charities do it better, faster and far more efficiently than government can hope to achieve. If it isn't a disaster, these countries need to stand on their own, just as they expect us to stand on our own – turnabout is fair play.

In sharp contrast, giving money to governments doesn't work. Much of that money ends up in the hands of warlord, despots and other assorted villains who profess to love us, but, in reality, despise us and laugh at us for our stupidity. More of it is wasted in bureaucracies, and still more is diverted to purposes for which it is not intended.

Frankly, I see little difference between U.S. foreign aid and prostitution.

The cause and the solution.

Most government agencies or programs are created to address a specific need, and some actually fill those needs. However, they all seem to be created in a vacuum, with no regard to anything anyone else is or has been doing. As I told a Facebook friend not long ago, "Not only does the right hand not know what the left hand is doing, the right hand doesn't care and would never think to ask."

I've been part of many non-profit organizations. All were run by well-meaning people, but I have seen few of them with any real sense of organizational management over the long term. The leaders do what they do because their predecessors did it. Most organizations deal with their constitutions or bylaws in this same vacuum – when they see a need, they fix it. As a result, projects and officers multiply over the years. Every so often, every organization (private, commercial and governmental) needs to stop and take a careful look at the whole picture. They need to remind themselves of their core purpose/goal and discard any program that does not move the group toward that core purpose and that goal.

I acknowledge that some programs aren't easily dismissed. I think it'll take a whole generation to wean ourselves off Social Security, because we cannot ignore the contractual obligations we entered with the people who have paid into the system over decades.

Let's say we actually pass a law in 2016 ending Social Security; that law would have to include some provision like "No deductions for Social Security shall be taken from the pay of any person under age 18 on 1 January 2016, and no Social Security retirement payments shall be made to these persons." The new generation would then have their whole adult lives to prepare for retirement. Young adults (say ages 18-30) could be given the opportunity to opt out of SS, with the understanding that it the decision would be a one-time, permanent choice. Yes, such legislation would be based on the idea that these are adults who are responsible for themselves. It's a novel concept, but one that has been successful in past generations.

Those few exceptions aside, it really is that simple: (1) Stop spending money we don't have. (2) Stop spending money we are not authorized to spend.

True, we can't simply shut down these agencies, we'd have to sunset them over a period of years – 4 to 8 years is my guess. That means we'd have to elect 2 presidents and 4 congresses that will actually bite the bullet and tighten the purse strings and take the heat for putting several hundred thousand federal employees back into the private sector.

Which means the solution, as always, is not in the process, it's in the people. We have had our fill of politicians, we need to replace them with statesmen.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

What is Aztlan?

This week, we move in a slightly different direction. Immigration remains a hot issue, and I would like to take a closer look at one small aspect of it.

From Aztec to Mexican to American:

According to Wikipedia: "Aztlán is the mythical ancestral home of the Nahua peoples, one of the main cultural groups in Mesoamerica. Aztec is the Nahuatl word for 'people from Aztlan'."

The Aztec arrived at Lake Texcoco by the 13th Century (possibly much earlier). Finding an eagle on a cactus eating a snake – the prophesied sign of their new home – they built Tenochtitlan, their capital. Over the next 200 years, they built an empire that stretched from the Gulf to the Pacific. The first Spaniards, led by Hernando Cortez, arrived in 1519, and within two years, Tenochtitlan and the Empire were destroyed. The Viceroyalty of New Spain was established, which, in turn, was overthrown in 1820 by locals, who (after a brief flirtation with empire) established the United Mexican States.

In 1836, Americans in Texas, who'd been welcomed into Mexico by President Santa Ana, got fed up with persecutions heaped on them by that self-styled Napoleon. They won independence, and, a decade later, became the Lone Star State. In 1847, the US declared war on Mexico, over a border dispute regarding Texas. The US goal was the advancement of Manifest Destiny, the idea that God had endowed the United States with a divine mandate to control all of North America.

Mexico lost – both militarily and politically – and half the country (now called the Mexican Cession) was turned over to the USA in 1848. More was purchased the following decade (under a silent threat of military action) via the Gadsden Purchase. California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and pieces of other western states now comprise this territory.

Aztlan Redux?

It is not my place to judge the righteousness of the Mexican-American War, nor the events which led up to it or followed it. It is my place, as a citizen of Utah and the United States, to declare, emphatically and unequivocally, that the State of Utah is, and has been for over 100 years, a sovereign state within the United States of America, as are the other former Mexican territories.

That is not a universal opinion, and the opposing view is no mere rant by a few crackpots or extremists.

Back in 2002, a Zogby International poll was commissioned to determine the real opinion of Mexicans. To the statement, "The territory of the United States' southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico," 58 percent of Mexicans agreed, while 28 percent disagreed. To the statement, "Mexicans should have the right to enter the US without US permission," 57 percent of Mexicans agreed, while 35 percent disagreed. That's about 1.8 to 1.
In reporting that poll, World News Daily also quoted The Colorado Republican, "President Vicente Fox has stated that the borders of Mexico extend' beyond the country. 'He has created a ministry for Mexicans living outside of Mexico that has provided goody bags for . . . people coming across the border." [1]

Could such a statement be true? Indeed, it is, according to the website La Voz de Aztlan (The Voice of Aztlan):

In an extraordinary political move, President Vicente Fox has announced the formation of a cabinet level agency to govern, protect and provide services to over 20 million Mexicans now living in Aztlan, a territory encompassing most of the southwest part of the USA. President Fox declared yesterday that he will personally lead the new agency he named Consejo Nacional para las Comunidades Mexicanas en el Exterior (National Council for Mexican Communities Abroad). The Council will consist of the president, most of the cabinet secretaries and a, as of yet unnamed, representative from Aztlan. This is a bold move that essentially extends the arm of the Mexican government into the territories it previously lost during the Mexican-American War of 1848. [2]

The idea has even been featured on a major US news network: Lou Dobbs (then with CNN, recently relocated to FoxNews), has repeatedly linked immigration to La Reconquista (The Reconquest). On March 31, 2006, Dobbs said, "There are some Mexican citizens and some Mexican-Americans who want to see California, New Mexico and other parts of the Southwestern United States given over to Mexico . . . And they view the millions of Mexican illegal aliens in particular entering the United States as potentially an army of invaders to achieve that takeover."

Passions on such topics run high, and sometimes betray more truth than the passionate want to have in the public view.  In a 2004 editorial in La Voz de Aztlan, by Juan Armando Roque de Lara wrote:

As the 21st Century gets underway, issues of concern to Aztlan surface more and more, demanding attention by those outside of our community. During the tragedy of jewish [sic] inspired Manifest Destiny and the invasion of Mexico by a rogue United States seeking specifically to extend the boundaries of slave territory, Aztlan was lost with the signing of the now rightly reviled Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The Mexicanos left behind found themselves behind enemy lines and made to be a part of an ugly empire which didn't want them. Land, lives, families and Aztlan were destroyed. Had the United States pulled this type of gross aggression in modern times it would most likely lead to World War III and may yet still. [3]

Is World War III a realistic possibility? Charles Truxillo, professor of Chicano Studies at the University of New Mexico hints that it is. In an Associated Press article, he "predicts a new, sovereign Hispanic nation within the century, taking in the Southwest and several northern states of Mexico." Truxillo proposes Republica del Norte (Republic of the North) as the name of this new country, which, he says, is inevitable. "He envisions it encompassing all of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and southern Colorado, plus the northern tier of Mexican states: Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas."

Truxillo looks at the US-Mexico border situation and believes "there is a growing fusion, a reviving of connections. Southwest Chicanos and Norteño Mexicanos are becoming one people again."

The AP also quotes the Professor as saying this new country should be brought into being "by any means necessary," but the AP assures readers Truxillo doesn't think civil war is likely. "Instead," the news service suggests, "its creation will be accomplished by the electoral pressure of the future majority Hispanic population in the region." [Emphasis added.]

The Aztlan movement grew out of the general Chicano movement of the 1960s, and they have a plan:

In March of 1969, at Denver, Colorado, the Crusade for Justice organized the National Chicano Youth Conference that drafted the basic premises for the Chicana/Chicano Movement in El Plan de Aztlán (EPA). A synopsis of El Plan stipulates:
1) We are Chicanas and Chicanos of Aztlán reclaiming the land of our birth (Chicana/Chicano Nation);
2) Aztlán belongs to indigenous people, who are sovereign and not subject to a foreign culture;
3) We are a union of free pueblos forming a bronze (Chicana/Chicano) Nation;
4) Chicano nationalism, as the key to mobilization and organization, is the common denominator to bring consensus to the Chicana/Chicano Movement;
5) Cultural values strengthen our identity as La Familia de La Raza; and
6) EPA, as a basic plan of Chicana/Chicano liberation, sought the formation of an independent national political party that would represent the sentiments of the Chicana/Chicano community. [4; emphasis added]

Part of the plan was organization of college students, which became the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan or MEChA). The Preamble to MEChA's National Constitution states:

Chicano and Chicana students of Aztlan must take upon themselves the responsibilities to promote Chicanismo within the community, politicizing our Raza with an emphasis on indigenous consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlán.

The National MEChA logo depicts an eagle with a machete-like weapon in one claw and a lighted stick of dynamite in the other. A scary image; one designed to be so.

America Reacts:

Immigration control may not be the top priority on Capitol Hill or at the White House, but it is among voters. A Rasmussen Reports survey of last week reports 63% of likely US voters think gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing undocumented workers already here; 27% put legalizing immigrants first. That's above 2.3 to 1.

Rasmussen adds, "Most conservatives (79%) and moderates (59%) think border control should come first; most liberals (52%) say the priority should be legalizing the illegal immigrants who are already in the United States. Support for border control as a legislative priority has been at this level for years." [5]

Arizona's illegal immigration enforcement law has gained wide press coverage, and the attention of the federal government. Last July, a federal judge put the law on hold and Arizonans are still waiting to see its fate. Other states aren't. An MSNBC report just last month says:

That hasn't deterred elected officials elsewhere — legislation closely modeled on Arizona's law has been introduced in at least 15 other states since the beginning of the year. And legislators in other states say they're awaiting clarification from the courts before introducing their own measures. [6]

In Utah, several immigration bills came through the state legislature before its 2011 session ended Thursday at midnight. Two gained particular attention:

The Utah Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act (HB497) allows (but does not require) law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of persons they arrest or book into jail (among other provisions). It has garnered widespread support among Utahns, and generally favorable press outside the Beehive State.

The Utah Immigration Accountability and Enforcement Amendments (HB116) create a guest worker program that opponents view as a road-to-amnesty bill. They fought it in both chambers, tried to dissuade the Governor from signing it, and vow to fight it until it is repealed. Many supporters are vocal in their desire to see every politician who supported it unseated.

Reality check:

Is the Aztlan movement a real threat or a tempest in a teapot?
 

Do Muslims really intend to re-establish the Caliphate and bring Sharia law to the USA?

Will the Confederacy rise again?

Not all conspiracy theories are only theories. Not all theorists are lunatics, even if they sound insane. Not all real conspiracies have the same chance of succeeding. The point of the discussion is to remind America that she is not the beloved behemoth she sometimes sees in the mirror. There are enemies out there, and some in here. Americans spend billions guarding their homes and businesses with alarm systems, live monitor services, guard dogs and more. They should not do less for their national borders and public institutions. Remember the counsel attributed to Edmund Burke, MP:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

[1] Jon Dougherty, "Mexicans: Southwest US is Ours," WorldNetDaily.com, June 13, 2002. Web. 11 March 2011.  [2] Ernesto Cienfuegos, "Government into Aztlan," La Voz de Aztlan, reprinted at Rense.com, 2 February 2002. Web. 11 March 2011.  [3] The Associated Press, "Professor Predicts 'Hispanic Homeland'," La Voc de Aztlan. Web. 11 March 2011.  [4] From the website of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán; Web. 11 March 2011. (http://www.nationalmecha.org).  [5] "63% Say Border Control Is Top Immigration Priority," Rasmussen Reports. Web. 11 March 2011.[6] Alex Johnson and Vanessa Hauc, " States seek to copy Arizona immigration law," MSNBC.com. Web. 11 March 2011.

Thoughts on Re-elections

I was afraid this posting would be late; spring has sprung in Utah and, with it, my semi-annual allergy attack came on last Thursday. Happily, we're not late, though I'm still feeling the effects. So, in spite of of the congestion and the medications – in the immortal words of Jackie Gleason – "And away we go!"

"Let each citizen remember, at the moment he is offering his vote, that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual – or, at least, that he ought not so to do – but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.  The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men." (Samuel Adams)

The 2012 election season hasn't started yet, at least, not seriously. The rhetoric has begun, even if few candidates have declared. So, before personalities get in the way (don't kid yourself, they will!) I thought I'd give you my take on elections — specifically, re-elections.

What you like vs. what you don't like:

"Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.  Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are.  How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside." (Sen. Zell Miller).

When choosing to re-elect or replace an incumbent, I suggest the following process:

Step One: Get the facts. There are many places to research a senator's or representative's votes.

Project VoteSmart is a respected record that's been around a long time.
MegaVote is a project of Congress.org.
Voter Effect also allows you to cast virtual votes.
The Washington Post has a database.
The US government even has one.

Step Two: Split the vote. Divide the responses into those with which you agree and those with which you disagree.

Step Three: Ignore the votes you like. Not kidding, here. You like these, you don't have a problem with these, you hope your members of congress would always vote like this. 'Nuf said.

Step Four: Consider long and hard the votes with which you disagree. You see, "there's the rub," as Shakespeare said. Every person in the world has positives and negatives, you like your friends in spite of the negatives, because they are outweighed by the positives. My question regarding politicians: Are you willing to put up with the negatives to get the positives? This isn't a case of my buddy explains everything in excruciating detail. This isn't a case of my husband snores. This isn't a case of my wife can't cook. This isn't a case of any of those old, tired comedy clichés. This is the national security of, the economic strength of, the protection of core freedoms and rights in the United States of America.

I remember a precinct caucus not long ago; three candidates stood for delegate to the state convention, where congressional candidates were to be chosen. When asked if they supported Candidate X, one delegate-nominee said, "I'll poll the precinct and vote for their choice." The second said, "Well, I think he's done a fairly good job, I think he deserves another chance." The third said, "If you want to give him another term, vote for someone else." Number three was the precinct's choice, and became part of the removal of Candidate X from the race.

This is serious business, and I believe in being harsh in political judgments. That's really easy for me, as I have a natural cynicism. I consider it my greatest political advantage. I would like to see that same cynicism in more voters. In law, we say, "Innocent until proven guilty." In politics, we should be assuming, "Unworthy of re-election until proven worthy."

The members of Congress have huge responsibilities among which are a multi-trillion-dollar federal budget, our relationship with other countries, our judges and courts, and the lives of 2,900,000 soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen. Civil servants are paid by the hard-earned tax dollars of every American; they must be held to the highest standards; "good enough" is not "good enough." If the United States is the greatest nation in the world, we, as Americans, deserve the best of the best as our president, senators, representatives, governors, state legislators, county and municipal officers.

Trust and Reliability:

A Facebook friend recently wrote: "It might bring us a nice, warm fuzzy feeling to focus on the good votes [Candidate Y] is giving now, but the motivation is extremely important. If [Y] is sincere, great, but if [Y] is not, [Y's] votes will change as soon as elections are over and [the] seat is safe. . . .That is why we also have to focus on the bad. [Y's] overall record is more telling than [the] record near election years."

I agree, for the most part, but I think my friend missed something. Candidate Y's voting record in election years is very telling. If there's consistency across the years, then we can assume Y is an honest politician (that means, one who stays bought). If Y's vote moves toward the majority of his constituency at election time, and away between elections, it means Y is out of step with constituents and knows it. It also means Y doesn't care and thinks his constituents are stupid enough not to notice that pretense of being on their side. Repentance is still part of the gospel, people do change, but when a member of Congress swings back and forth over several elections, don't believe those who say, "This person has seen the light; s/he is finally representing us correctly."

Of course, those with shorter service have shorter records, less data to analyze. Do you err on the side of the incumbent or the replacement? That is a choice each voter must make on each individual candidate.

Seniority and Power:

"A representative owes the people not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion." (Edmund Burke, MP)

I believe that members of Congress should vote against the opinion of their constituents, if the facts warrant it. But that member is then obligated to justify that vote to their constituents. Those constituents are then free to elect someone else if they disagree with that justification.

The key to politics is trust, and the key to trust is reliability. The primary argument given to Utah to keep Sen. Bob Bennett in the Senate was his power, meaning his seniority. In fact, one delegate to the convention (wherein Bennett was replaced) actually told me, "You'd have to be an idiot to remove him now. We're going to get the Senate back and then, we [Utah] will have real power."

Okay, first, I don't like being called an idiot, even by implication. Second, I agree that a fourth-term US senator is not an insignificant commodity. However, third, and most important, people kept asking if he exercised his power to benefit Utah. The answer was no. That's why Bob Bennett was retired. (Fourth, we didn't get the Senate back, so Utah would've been stuck with a guy they didn't like because of a false promise – that's politics.)

This isn't a question of earmarks, pork-barrel politics, or whatever you want to call the custom of politicians getting federal money for local projects. According to a Rasmussen Reports poll of 19 November 2010: 58% of likely voters say they’d rather vote for a candidate who works to cut federal spending. 54% think members of Congress who seeks federal money is more interested in re-election than in what’s best for his constituents. 67% of mainstream America prefers a candidate who cuts spending.

This is about doing what's right for America. Do you exercise power to stop wasteful spending? Do you exercise power to stop activist judges? Do you exercise power to stop unconstitutional government programs? In this case, I would definitely err on the side of the replacement. I'd rather have a reliable junior than an unreliable senior. I'd rather take a chance on an untested junior than an unreliable senior. Remember the counsel to ignore a candidate's positives? Here's the rub again: If true conservatives elect true conservatives, they will get the positives without the negatives!

No one is unbeatable:

The Federal Election Commission reports that Sen. Bob Bennett spent $3,192,876. His legitimate challengers spent a combined $2,667,163 (Tim Bridgewater – $739,495; Cherilyn Eagar – $151,675 and Mike Lee – $1,775,993). Incumbency, seniority and money lost.

Did you know that Tom Daschle, in 2004, was defeated in his re-election bid, despite the fact that he was senate majority leader at the time?

George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Herbert Hoover, William Howard Taft, Grover Cleveland, Chester A. Arthur, Andrew Johnson, Millard Fillmore, John Tyler, Martin Van Buren, John Quincy Adams and John Adams were defeated as sitting or former US presidents.

Mike Lee, Utah's newest contribution to the Beltway swamp, had no political record – he'd never held political office, he'd never held party office, he'd never been an advocate for anything, except his law clients (some of whom aren't all that popular in Utah). He won because he was the best campaigner.

Final thoughts:

"If you are part of a society that votes, then do so.  There may be no candidates or measures you want to vote for, but there are certain to be ones that you want to vote against.  By this rule, you will rarely go wrong." (Robert Anson Heinlein, science fiction writer)

"When I was growing up on a farm, my father taught me how bulls serve cows, how boars serve sows, and how rams serve ewes.  I tell you this so that you will understand what a politician means when he says he wants to serve the people." ("Paul Harvey, Good day!")

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.