Now I know that President Bush's veto of Federal funding for stem cell research is going to provoke yet another wave of rants by the left. So before the deluge, let me add my two cents' worth.

What President Bush has done is simply to deny Federal funding. He has not in any way acted to prohibit any private research on stem cell applications.

This seems to be something widely misunderstood. Or at least, it was the last time we went through this. If the Federal Government provides no subsidies, then we are left with market forces only as the impetus behind the research. What this means is that such research will only be done if it looks commercially promising. But what does that mean?

To be commercially promising, stem cell research must hold out strong hope that the results will be widely applicable, and that their application will either be better than currently available tharapies, or will dolve problems that currently admit no solution.

As we should all realize by now, the return on investment in pharmaceuticals is very good, so the companies that are candidates to conduct such research are at no loss for funding. All they need is some reason to believe that the results will be worthwhile.

In general, businesses have a history of making far more rational decisions in such matters than has our government. Businesses must answer to investors, and their investors do not usually buy into the same flim-flammery that so often drives politicians.

So as I see it, this was a victory for reason, and for the taxpayer. And even for those who may reap the eventual benefits -- if any -- of stem cell research. And if, on the other hand, the research is not done, then we may safely assume that the expenditures were no warranted by what we can guage of projected outcomes.

We in America have been raised on the idea of religious freedom, and the principle that all are free to practice whatever religious beliefs -- or none -- they may hold. For most of us (some of the left-wing excepted) the merest thought of taking action against a religious group is abhorrent.

However, as has often been said, the U. S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.

The other day, Neal Boortz said something interesting on his radio show. He mentioned that there are currently some 130 wars in progress, and that of those 130, in all but a small handful, one side of the conflict is Islam.

However unpleasant it may be, we must give consideration to the possibility that our enemy is not merely terrorism, but a significant percentage of Islamic practitioners.

Just as it is folly to be selecting grandmothers for "random checks" in airport security, when we know with certainty that 100% of the men who attacked on 9/11 were thirty-something Muslim males, it is equally stupid to ignore the reality of our enemy.

Brace yourselves, folks, because as ugly as things are right now, they are likely to get worse, and to do so rather soon. Reality will not be denied.

We hear often about accusations of treason, and just as often that such charges are extreme. But treason is one of the few crimes delineated in the U. S. Constitution, so it behooves us to review what is declared there before proceeding. Article III, Section 3 states:


The Constitution further declares that Congress has the power to declare the punishment for treason.

According to the Legal Encyclopedia, the commission of treason requires intent, and is only possible (under the terms of the Constitution) in times of war. They also state:


Hence, it is possible to levy war through other acts, such as the divulgence of classified material, as in the recent disclosure by the New York Times of the previously secret program to monitor financial transactions of suspected al Qaeda members.

However, it is the Aid and comfort to the enemy clause that most often resonates for me. When members of the Senate announce their desire for a hard date for the return of all U. S. troops from Iraq, would not such a resolution constitute aid and comfort to the enemy?

Even if the NYT article does not meet, for some reason, the definition of levying war, does it not clearly constitute aid and comfort to the enemy?

Again, the Legal Encyclopedia:


Isn't it time to remind your elected representatives of the seriousness of the document they are sworn to protect and defend?

Many Americans have views on immigration, even though their lives may have been relatively untouched by it. I say relatively untouched, because the flood of illegal aliens into this country in the last few decades has affected us all adversely.

My own position is informed by a couple of experiences that are not shared by the majority of American citizens. First, I have been an immigrant, not in America, but in Canada. Therefore, I have more personal experience of immigration process than many Americans. Second, my wife and step-daughter are both immigrants, and that has made me painfully aware of the immigration process in this country.

Most government processes proceed at a snail's pace, but immigration is a process that is glacially slow, in America. Each small step inviolves the filing of yet another form, with yet another filing fee, and generally requiring stacks of supporting documentation. This is the process that all immigrants to this country must learn to accept.

Illegal aliens are not immigrants. Immigration is a legal process, and illegal aliens are not participants in that process. They are, by definition, criminals.

There are those who point out, repeatedly, that being here illegally is only a misdemeanor. True enough. However, any illegal alien who works in this country for pay is a felon. Again, by definition, illegally obtaining fraudulent documentation, whether a driver's license, a Social Security card, or any other piece of what is ordinarily considered legal identification, constitutes a felony, in jurisdictions with which I am familiar.

Illegal aliens are felons. Not only have they committed felonious acts in the acquisition of fraudulent documentation, but again, in the act of using those documents for fraudulent purposes. And each day that they continue to work, they commit a new felony. It is in this context that I cannot accept any form of amnesty, regardless of any euphemisms applied by the panderers-in-office.

Deportation is not necessary. We have heard very often of late that it is impractical to deport the millions of illegal aliens who now call our country home. But this is a specious argument, as there is no need to deport any of these folks. Three critical changes are needed, and once made, the result will be the departure of nearly all illegal aliens.

1. Make it uneconomic for employers to hire illegals.
2. Eliminate all subsidized medical care for illegals and their families, apart from (true) emergency care. Also eliminate in-state tuition for children of illegals -- offer them, instead, the tuition paid by international students.
   
3. Eliminate automatic citizenship for children born to illegals in this country.

These are not extreme measures! Hiring illegal aliens is a crime; it simply hasn't been suitably punished. Many Americans (we keep being told) cannot obtain a wide range of medical services because they cannot afford medical insurance. So why should we provide such services to illegal aliens? Similarly, there are children of American citizens who are unable to attend college, because they cannot afford the tuition. Why, again, should we facilitate in any way the attandance of the children of illegals? Finally, when the 14th amendment was passed, it was focused on correcting wrongs that had been done to slaves; no one anticipated, in the drafting of that amendment, that it would ever be used as the platform for an invasion from Mexico.

A country that cannot control its borders will cease to exist. This is fundamental. Make sure your elected representatives hear you reminding them of that critical reality.

The modest crowd who have read my posts on another blogsite know that I post only when I have something to say. But that site has lately drawn little of my attention, and little of anyone else's. Perhaps it has to do with the overpopulation of that host. Only time will tell.

At any event, now that TownHall.com has reinvented itself, and as they play host to most of my favorite big league bloggers, I decided to jump ship, and landed here.

As the current state of the world is pretty inspiring -- not all inspirations stem from positive situations -- I anticipate posting something meaty soon.