Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

Seattle City Council balks at vote?

This doesn't come as any surprise to me. Seattle Councilmembers are questioning whether the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement should go to a vote of the people. From the Seattle Times:

"I was surprised and disappointed by the governor's decision, and almost everybody I've talked to shares those feelings," said Councilwoman Jan Drago, who chairs the council's transportation committee.

Along with council members Jean Godden and Richard McIver, Drago raised doubts Wednesday about the wisdom of an advisory vote on whether to build a tunnel to replace the viaduct.

...

A spokeswoman for Gregoire issued a terse statement regarding the council's wavering about an election.

"The Governor believes the legislature will have something to say if there is no vote," said Holly Armstrong in an e-mail.

...

A majority of the council supports a tunnel and decided last year not to send the matter to voters. Critics, such as Council President Nick Licata, contend council members avoided a vote because they were afraid it would go against a tunnel.

...

Licata predicted that no matter what happens with a viaduct vote, extensive and expensive legal battles would follow.

"I think we'll end up hiring more lawyers than engineers for this project," he said.

I can't say I'm surprised in the least. At least Mayor Nickels has shown the maturity to be willing to accept a vote. The children on the Seattle City Council are behaving true to their spoiled brat form.

Previous Posts:

• Governor: Give Voters the Choice
• King County Council conflicted over morality
• Mayor Nickels ready to act like spoiled child
• Seattle City Council among reasons viaduct cost could rise
• Do we need another big government agency for transit?
• More drivers, more time in gridlock

Cross posted at NWBloggers.com

I'm going to be travelling to Spokane tomorrow, so I won't be blogging much, if at all.

This is your Open Trackbacks Post for Friday, December 22^nd, 2006. If you have an interesting post you'd like to share, feel free to link it here and ping for a trackback. Just remember to follow the trackback policy.

For the best exposure, go to the blogger's oasis and use the linkfest chooser to choose the posts you'd like to hook up with.

Dem's getting ready to pull a fast one?

Tom Delay has an interesting post on his blog. In it he notes that there may be a move underfoot to try to hijack the election of Vern Buchanon in Florida...

You see, when the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives on January 4^th, the new leadership will be forced to confront their leftwing base on a touchy political issue even before they set out to raise taxes, crush small business, and weaken our international standing. It is not well known, but the final approval of officially being granted a seat in the House rests not with the voters, but within the body itself. The entire House must vote to 'seat' each individual member on its first day of business regardless of the electoral outcome. Normally, the seating of the members is a pro forma ritual, but disputes can and have arisen in our recent history.

The controversy that could erupt next month involves the representation of the 13^th District of Florida, the seat Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) vacated to run unsuccessfully for the Senate. The voters, albeit by a small 369 vote margin, chose Republican businessman Vern Buchanan to replace her. However, in typical sore loser form, the Democrat nominee, wealthy former bank president Christine Jennings, is activating the left-wing base, including the DNC’s ultra-liberal Chairman Howard Dean, to pressure the incoming leadership and the state courts to call for a new election. Dean is going so far as to tell the likely next Speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), that she should deny seating Buchanan, despite the fact that Buchanan has been officially certified the winner by the state’s chief election officer, the same status as the other 434 members-elect, including herself.

This wouldn't surprise me one bit. I've noted before that it seems that the only ones that really try to "steal" elections are the Democrats. This time looks no different.

Previous Posts:

• Yet another left-winger claims fraud in elections
• Voting machine problems in Florida, again.
• I guess their code worked.
• The only poll that matters...

Trackposted to Rightwing Guy, Wake Up America, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, The HILL Chronicles, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, basil's blog, The Right Nation, Pirate's Cove, Stuck On Stupid, Renaissance Blogger, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, and bRight & Early, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

A menorah, but no nativity...

From the Seattle Post Intelligencer:

OLYMPIA -- Holiday trees are a longtime tradition in the rotunda of the Washington state Capitol, and this week the governor also lit a menorah.

Now a Nativity scene has been ruled out on the advice of the state attorney general's office.

...

Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky of Chabad Lubavitch in Seattle, whose request led to the nationally publicized uproar at the airport, was delighted Monday afternoon when Gov. Chris Gregoire lit a menorah in a ceremony with singing from the Menachem Mendel Seattle Cheder School choir.

The menorah, a candelabrum lit by Jews to celebrate Hanukkah, was added to the rotunda in response to a request Bogomilsky made more than a year ago, officials in the governor's office said.

...

Ron Wesselius, a real estate agent in Olympia, then proposed a creche, a display depicting the birth of Jesus that is the religious basis for Christmas.

"I had been thinking about it, but it's one of those things -- you don't want to create waves," Wesselius said Wednesday, "but when I saw the menorah was there, I thought, `Hey, why don't I ask?'"

He said he didn't know whether he would seek to change the state's decision.

...

Steve Valandra, a spokesman for the Department of General Administration, officials were concerned that in comparison with a tree or menorah, a Nativity scene might carry a stronger impression of government endorsement of religion.

In addition, since Wesselius made his request only this week, lawyers for the state felt there was insufficient time to fully research the issue, Valandra said.

"Based on that, without having more time, we had to say no," he said.

I think it's shameful that because of the ACLU we have to be so careful to avoid any type of religious display in the public square. Acknowledging the religious roots of our national holidays isn't the same as the creation of a state religion, which is what the establishment clause in the first amendment is all about.

I think it's too late for this year, but hopefully next year we'll see the nativity as well as the menorah.

Previous posts

• The Trees are Back!
• Merry Rebellion at Sea-Tac
• The Sea-Tac Christmas Tree kerfuffle...
• Rabbi shocked at results of Christmas Tree lawsuit.
• What does a tree have to do with religion?

Trackposted to Rightwing Guy, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, The HILL Chronicles, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, Stuck On Stupid, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

A Muslim In Congress... So What?

It seems to me that the flap over Rep. Keith Ellison is a bit overblown. I believe in conservative values, particularly in Christian values, but the furor over Rep. Ellison's choice to use the Koran during his private swearing in for office is much ado about nothing. Now we have a Republican Congressman warning that the election of a Muslim to Congress is a threat to our traditional values.

It started with Dennis Prager. Mr. Prager said that the Bible was the only religious book that was relevant in the United States, and that the Mr. Ellison's choice to use the Koran would undermine Western Civilization. That's a bit over the top, since no Congressman is officially sworn in on a Bible, or any other text. Congress is sworn in en masse and none of them with a Bible.

According to Mr. Prager, “If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress,” referring to the Bible. Mr. Prager is dead wrong. The Constitution of the United States prohibits any religious test for serving in office in the last paragraph of Article VI.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So what about the Koran? Rep. Ellison would swear on the Koran in an unofficial, private, ceremony. That's up to him, and while I may not agree with the Koran, he's free to exercise his own religion as he sees fit. Rep. Goode (R. VA) sees something ominous in all of this though.

In his letter, which was dated Dec. 5, Mr. Goode said that Americans needed to “wake up” or else there would “likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.”

“I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped,” said Mr. Goode, who vowed to use the Bible when taking his own oath of office.

I don't have a problem with more Muslims being elected to office, as long as they swear and are bound by their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I know that there are a lot of people out there that are worried that the "Religion of Peace" is anything but peaceful. Mr. Goode is apparently one of them.

I'm well aware that there is a global war on terror going on, and that most of the terrorists that we have to deal with are radical Islamic fundamentalists, or as they are frequently referred to Islamo-fascists or Islamo-nazis. I'm not trying to dismiss the threat of Islamic terrorism. It's real.

But not all Muslims are terrorists. And not all terrorists are Muslims. There are plenty of domestic terrorists that have nothing to do with Islam. The Earth Liberation Front comes to mind. There are also plenty of international terrorists that have nothing to do with Islam. It wasn't that long ago that Northern Ireland was experiencing a great deal of terrorism, with Protestants and Catholics (that's right, Christians) committing the terrorist acts.

Mr. Goode and Mr. Prager are wrong. The election of Muslims to serve in our government doesn't mark the beginning of the end of Western Civilization. It also isn't a threat to our traditional values, unless those values are bigotry and intolerance.

I do have a problem with Mr. Ellison's election, but it has nothing to do with his religion. Rather it has to do with his politics.

To begin with, I'm really tired of hyphenated Americans. Mr. Ellison says he's an African-American. Why the emphasis on African? Why not just American? If his American ancestors can be traced back to 1742 then he's an American plain and simple. Tacking African in front and hyphenating it isn't inclusive, it's divisive. If his religion doesn't matter then why should his race?

Secondly, I'm not too impressed with some of the secular issues Mr. Ellison wants to focus on. The New York Times article mentions two: increasing the federal minimum wage, and providing universal health insurance.

Increasing the federal minimum wage is not a good idea. In the first place, Congress doesn't really have the authority to set a minimum wage for all workers in the country. Not all businesses that employ people are involved in interstate commerce. Any business that isn't involved in interstate commerce doesn't fall under the congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce.

In the second place, most workers are already making more than the minimum wage, but where a business has many workers making minimum wage and the minimum wage is raised, that business' labor expenses go up. Inevitably that means either fewer job openings are available for new workers or the business' prices have to go up to pass the increased cost on to the consumer. Ultimately raising the minimum wage will cause higher unemployment or an inflationary rise in consumer prices. This is a perfect example of good intentions having undesirable consequences.

Just as increasing the federal minimum wage is a bad idea, so too is providing universal health insurance through the government. Similar arguments against this can be made.

Firstly, that congress doesn't have the authority under the constitution to provide universal health insurance. Secondly, providing universal health insurance will drive up the cost of health care all around, resulting in even more confiscatory taxation. Third, socialized medicine doesn't work very well. We only need to look to the health care systems in Canada and Great Britain to see the horror stories that abound when bureaucrats make your health care decisions for you.

So my problems with Mr. Ellison have to do with his socialist politics and the fact that he's a Democrat. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that he's a Muslim. Focusing on his religion distracts us from the true reason's why his election is not good for our nation. Socialists and liberals are the true danger to our traditional values. Sadly they've been joined by the so-called champions of our values.

This is your Open Trackbacks Post for Thursday, December 21th, 2006. If you have an interesting post you'd like to share, feel free to link it here and ping for a trackback. Just remember to follow the trackback policy.

For the best exposure, go to the blogger's oasis and use the linkfest chooser to choose the posts you'd like to hook up with.