Recently, in this country, people guilty of tax evasion can either go to jail, get a slap on the wrist, or a position in Obama’s Cabinet. It is an unfortunate reality that equal justice under the law doesn’t really exist anymore… perhaps it never did.  It is rather disturbing that a point in history where technology allows us, as the public masses, be more informed than ever, that such injustices continue to occur without public outcry.

Just recently, we’ve seen Rep. Charlie Rangel, who has deliberately evaded paying thousands and thousands in taxes, year after year, not only stay in Congress, but get a mere slap on the wrist. Rangel was just reelected in November by an overwhelming majority in his district. Despite his crimes, he will serve out congressional term after congressional term, not a jail sentence.

And then there’s former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, an innocent man whose legal activities on behalf of Republicans made his the target of a politically motivated persecution.  The editors at National Review call DeLay’s guilty verdict and sentence Travesty in Texas, and that sums it up perfectly.

As Tom DeLay fights for justice and his freedom, there is something we can do to help.  I encourage all of you to contribute to the  Tom DeLay Legal Defense Fund to help him in what will be a long and expensive appeals process.

This isn’t about one man, this is about the integrity of our legal system. We cannot continue to sit idly by and let criminals go free as innocent people lose their freedom. All of us, Republicans and Democrats, should want equal and fair treatment under the law.

Let’s help Tom DeLay. Politics is not a crime.

A lot of things can happen today, so a bit of an open thread for free discussion of whatever pops up – but here are some interesting developments:

China’s tyrants attempt to seal off China from the revolts.

Ledeen notes the similarities between 1979 and 2011.

El Baradei: Iranian tool?

Interesting poll from Rasmussen:

Nearly half of the Republican Primary voters who support Sarah Palin say they are at least somewhat likely to vote for a third-party candidate if she does not win the GOP presidential nomination.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 46% of Likely Republican Primary Voters who favor Palin say they are at least somewhat likely to vote third-party if she isn’t nominated. That includes 22% who say it is Very Likely…

The survey goes on to note that about 1/3 of GOP likely primary voters are backing Palin right now – so, about 15% of GOP primary voters will consider a third party candidate if Palin isn’t the nominee. This is just about enough to sink a GOP Presidential candidate in 2012 if the Democrats are fully united behind Obama (not a sure thing by any stretch of the imagination; if both parties base is split, then no one knows what in heck might happen). To me, this doesn’t mean “nominate Palin or lose part of the base”; its a bit more sophisticated than that. What it means is “nominate a RINO, and the GOP is doomed”.

Whomever the GOP nominee in 2012 is, that person had better be in good with the TEA Party activists – because those are the people who will provide – or deny – the donations and foot soldiers for the campaign. Obama will raise $1 billion (or more) for his re-election effort and his organization, in tight alliance with most of the MSM, will go for the most relentlessly negative and hate-filled campaign since 1948 (when Truman won by going double extra nasty against the GOP nominee). The only thing which can derail this Obama express is people power – and if the GOP nominee doesn’t enthuse the people, that person simply won’t be able to win.

And this is why, of course, Obama and his allies (especially in the MSM) are trying to scare the GOP away from the TEA Party – endlessly we are told that the TEA Party is toxic and any candidate in good with that organization will be defeated in November of 2012. This “helpful” advice is coming from those who have most to lose if a TEA Party-backed candidate wins, and that should tell everyone all they need to know of the worthiness of the advice. Don’t fall for it – don’t let yourself be convinced to back a Bod Dole-redux in 2012…we don’t need a nice, respected, establishment GOPer who will know how to lose gracefully, we need a fighter who will kick the Democrats right back in the groin when they do it to us.

It doesn’t have to be Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann or, indeed, anyone currently high on the political radar. It does have to be someone who can convince the TEA Party activists that genuine, constitutional reform is coming to DC. We’re in for the fight of our political lives in 2012 – let’s not blow it in the first round by taking liberal/RINO advice on what to do.

As we’ve watched events unfold this week in the middle east I think a lot of people have felt a combination of helplessness and resignation. What can we do? It doesn’t look good, and we’ll just have to deal with whatever bad outcome results. That sort of thing. But it is time, I think, for a clean break with our past foreign policy.

Over at Haaretz it is reported that Israeli PM Netanyahu is urging world leaders to strive for stability in Egypt. This doesn’t necessarily mean hanging on to the Mubarak regime, but it does indicate a desire for someone who can maintain control of a possibly troublesome population. That is the policy we’ve general held to since the end of the Second World War. Save for a few years under Bush when we really pressed for democracy – only to have it derailed because domestic American politics, a desire on the part of the American left to beat President Bush, America be darned – we have tended to just stick with whomever is in charge, fearful of something worse if we shake things up. But what has this brought us? Right now, the terrible situation of being tied to a dying regime without having any leverage with those who aspire to take control.

An alternative policy has been proposed for some time – namely that we cut all direct efforts and just have free trade with everyone without engaging in alliances or any deeper commitments. This libertarian view of the world is that if we just leave well enough alone, everything will be fine – no one will have a cause to hate us and we, at least, will have peace. Such a policy does not – and cannot – commend itself to me because it is an abdication. It creates a power vacuum which, if not filled by us, will be filled by others – and almost certainly by others who have wicked plans. So, disengagement also isn’t the answer.

To me, the best US policy is ardent support for any legitimate government – but only those legitimate by American standards. We hold that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that is how our policy should be governed. If a nation is ruled that way, then they can count on us for aid and trade – if a nation is not ruled that way, then no aid and no trade. A policy like this would have spared us from being in any way, shape or form tied to Egypt’s current regime – and would allow us to step in and help if the Egyptians obtain a genuinely free government after the revolution. We would not, you see, be tied to tyrants and would be free, at will, to help people who wish to be free.

Some worry that such a policy would risk people choosing bad governments who wish to do us harm. That is, indeed, a risk – but the answer to that is a clear statement of American policy that any attack upon America or any democratic nation will result in an exceptionally violent American response – not just sanctions or targeted bombing, but the complete destruction of the offending nation. Be a tyrant all you want; elect a government of the most hideous anti-American tenor – we won’t do anything unless you attack. Don’t attack, don’t get attacked. If we make that clear, then I think that US policy will be able to proceed calmly – no revolution will ever worry us, no tyrant will ever have a claim on us.

No trade, no aid – no connections with unfree regimes. I’d prefer it if we didn’t even maintain diplomatic relations with them. Don’t allow their people to visit us, ban American travel to such places (essentially, a statement that if you’re fool enough to go to a tyrannical regime and get in to trouble, you’re on your own). We Americans have enough to do with our own troubles – we don’t need to entangle ourselves in the troubles tyrants breed for themselves.

A bit more about the British Meteorological office – seems a straight case of fraud – from Christopher Booker at the Telegraph:

Dr Benny Peiser and Dr David Whitehouse, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), have written to John Hirst, chief executive of the beleaguered Met Office, asking for an explanation of a press release issued by his organisation on January 20 and headed “2010 – a near record year”. This won headlines by claiming that last year was hotter than any other in the past decade.

When the two men examined the original data from which this claim was derived – compiled by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and the Met Office’s Hadley Centre – it clearly showed 2010 as having been cooler than 2005 (and 1998) and equal to 2003. It emerged that, for the purposes of the press release, the data had been significantly adjusted.

Comparing the actual data for each year, from 2001 to 2010, with that given in the press release shows that for four years the original figure has been adjusted downwards. Only for 2010 was the data revised upwards, by the largest adjustment of all, allowing the Met Office to claim that 2010 was the hottest year of the decade.

What the warmists can’t allow is any significant reduction of annual temperatures – its already hard enough for them to sustain global warming when temperatures have really be flat for ten years, it will be impossible if a cooling trend shows. And, so, they just adjust the data to fit their needs – adjusting down earlier years, adjusting up last year and, presto!, we’ve got one heck of a hot year.

The hoax, however, continues to unravel – but it will go on for a while yet as so many people are making so much money off taxpayers on global warming alarmism that they just won’t give it up until forced to.

There are reports now that the police have all fled, that common criminals are being freed from jail, that homes and other properties are being looted – and while the army is on the streets, there seems to be no effort to stop anything. This indicates a paralysis at the leadership – probably all looking over their shoulders, wondering if they should flee.

Pray for the people of Egypt – it doesn’t look promising for an early and peaceful end to the trouble.

Lisa Graas thinks so:

…Michele Bachmann is trying to pull the Tea Party together with the Republican Party. She understands the wedges that Obama is driving. She also understands what a real Republican is. She is the anti-RINO. What makes her the anti-RINO? She knows what a real Republican is and she is on guard to defend those principles…but she will not alienate the people who can build the party. She’s smart. I’ve been watching her and know that she is put off by BOTH those who would seek to spend us into oblivion AND those who do not respect basic human dignity enough to fight for the laws that protect us all. She understands. Watch her. Pay attention to everything this woman says.

Am I saying she could be President? I don’t know. All I know is that this woman knows more about what is going on in America politics now than anyone else, and we all need to be paying attention. If she’s not the one to lead us out, she is certainly the one who can point us to the ones who can…

I have to say that I am ever more impressed by Bachmann – I’m just very doubtful that a House member can be elected President. Just too “small beans” to rise to that level…though we did elect a part-time Senator with no real experience in 2008, so anything is possible.

The key, as Graas points out, is to unite, unite and then unite some more. Graas has some hard words for those on the right who have gone along with the various liberal attempts to split the right – attempts, for instance, to overly down play social issues and that sort of thing. Some of this is on our side is unintentional, and some of it is downright well meant…but anything which causes divisions among us only helps the other side. It is either a united right – social and economic conservatives – winning, or a divided right losing.

We can win it all in 2012, if we do this right. Everyone must work to ameliorate divisions and keep focused on the real goal – getting Obama out of office, taking over the Senate and securing such a large majority that we are able to reform our nation. And reforming our nation doesn’t mean just cutting taxes or spending – it means uprooting the entirety of that modern liberalism which has given us not just high taxes and bloated spending, but moral decay and all the social pathologies attendant upon that.

As for me, I’m feeling pretty good about our prospects. Sure, Obama will be tough to beat. Sure, we on our side will break down in to arguments from time to time. Sure, nothing is ever certain in politics. But overall, I think the forces are working towards conservative victory in 2012 – after all, the liberal system is bankrupt and dying; the RINOs are still running scared from the TEA Party. Right is making might and its another good year to be a Republican.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops says, “no“:

Speaking for the U.S. bishops, Archbishop Jose H. Gomez of Los Angeles told the House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 26 that the country should not return to a model of immigration enforcement based on workplace raids. Instead, he urged lawmakers to seek immigration reform that is both humane and just…

…Archbishop Gomez rejected any notion that the government should place its highest priority on rounding up those who have broken U.S. immigration laws. The workplace raids, he said, often had the effect of breaking up families, especially by separating children from their parents for significant periods of time.

While acknowledging the nation’s duty to secure its borders and enforce civil law, Archbishop Gomez indicated that the family –as an institution which is prior to any state– must be given priority, as a matter of natural law…

It is a very Catholic thing that borders are not considered inviolable – the Church does not hold that the nation-State is the highest expression of human achievement. This is a very important truth which has been very much lost on the modern world. It is the human being which is the main concern, and it is the human family which is the building block of the social organization. The State exists to protect the individual and the family, and that is pretty much it – anything which tends to unjustly harm the individual and/or the family is not a proper action of government.

As such, to harm an individual or a family because of a State need is something only to be done for the gravest of reasons – and stopping a Mexican from working at McDonald’s right this moment doesn’t rise to that level. Of course, a State must secure its borders – insecure borders present a clear and present danger to the individuals and families which live within the border. Given this, a balance must be struck – the need to be humane and understanding must be balanced against the need for national security.

Ultimately, it is to the border that we must address ourselves – arresting illegals in country and even heavily punishing people who employ them is to merely attack the symptoms, not the disease. The problem is that we don’t control our border. Once we do control our borders, then we won’t have an ever larger number of illegal immigrants being employed by an ever larger number of American companies. That done, we can address ourselves to figuring out the most just and merciful way of dealing with those who were allowed in because of our failure – as a people – to ensure basic justice as embodied in a secure border.

As long time readers know, I’m in favor of an amnesty to deal with those illegals who have come in to this country some years ago and who have not, subsequent to the illegal border crossing, committed any serious crimes (murder, rape, assault, robbery, financial/welfare fraud). Those who have committed crimes – once their prison term is up – must be deported, as have all those who have only been here a relatively short time. Those we amnesty must go to the back of the naturalization line and pay a fine equal to twice the cost of obtaining legal residence and citizenship in the United States. None of this must happen until after the border is secure – and that border must be made secure regardless of how much it costs. If it takes a 50 foot high, electrified wall along the entire border from the Gulf of Mexico to San Diego, then that is what we’ll have to do. Whatever it takes.

For all those who will be angry over this opinion of mine – liberals because I’m not in favor of open borders and immediate Democrat voter registration of the illegals; my fellow conservatives because I don’t want to deport all the illegals, I direct your attention to today’s Mass reading:

Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down his disciples came to him. And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.

Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.” – Matthew 5:1-2

It isn’t always easy figuring out the right thing to do – but I think I’m on the right track, here.

Interesting bit of news:

Dozens of protesters have been arrested in Saudi Arabia’s second biggest city after they protested against the weaknesses of infrastructure of Jeddah.

The protests were triggered on Friday after floods swept through the city, killing at least four people, and raising fears of a repeat of the deadly 2009 deluge, in which more than 120 people lost their lives…

Another pebble to get the avalanche rolling? Time will tell…

HAT TIP: Mish’s

From the Daily Caller:

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton warns Egypt’s ancient Coptic Christian minority could become increasingly endangered should the protests against Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak drive him from power…

…Bolton points out Egypt’s outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, which promotes the Islamist ideology employed more violently by Hamas and other terror groups, stands to gain despite being a late comer to the revolt.

“One thing I want to say about all of these young people and all of these university students is what they’re learning in the universities is very similar to what the Muslim Brotherhood preaches,” Bolton said. “So we have to worry about the radicalism among the students is very, very high.”…

The really bad news is that no matter how it comes out, Egypt’s Christians will come out losers – they are already severely repressed by Mubarak’s regime and a successor regime, especially if the Islamo-fascists of the Moslem Brotherhood gain influence, will likely be even worse.

Ultimately, unless Moslems learn how to be tolerant, the only hope for the Christians of the Middle east is self government. The Copts of Egypt are, after all, the descendants of the original inhabitants of Egypt and so it would be a matter of simple justice to break off part of Egypt and make it a Christian nation. Only thus can Christians be certain of such basic rights as life, property and the freedom to worship.

UPDATE: The Moslem Brotherhood makes a play for influence in Egypt and a spreading Islamist revolt.

UPDATE II: Seems the Egyptian police has ceased to patrol the Gaza/Egypt border and the bad guys are now moving in to Egypt – from NRO’s The Corner:

Stratfor, the news analysis service, is now reporting the following, which it states is from its source in Hamas but which it has not confirmed. It is consistent with other reports that the Egyptian police have melted away:

The Egyptian police are no longer patrolling the Rafah border crossing into Gaza. Hamas armed men are entering into Egypt and are closely collaborating with the MB [Muslim Brotherhood]. The MB has fully engaged itself in the demonstrations, and they are unsatisfied with the dismissal of the Cabinet. They are insisting on a new Cabinet that does not include members of the ruling National Democratic Party.

The question now: what will Egypt’s army do? Clamp down on the protesters and sent Hamas packing? Or allow Hamas to take armed control of the revolution? Bad news for the whole world if anyone remotely connected to Hamas/MB gets in to power in Egypt…means almost certain war with Israel and Lord only knows what else.

UPDATE III: NRO also has a report about how Egypt’s Copts are fairing:

Upper Egypt, the southern part of the country where many rural Christian Copts live, has been tensely quiet, I’m hearing from knowledgeable sources. This is an area of farmers and peasants, who have limited internet access and relatively low literacy. The area has also had a long-term and strong security presence due to sectarian tensions and to its serving as a traditional base for Islamic extremists (Gamaa’at Islamiyah, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Sadat’s assassins, the Luxor tourists attackers). For now, most people in the south are bracing for the worst, stocking food supplies, and huddling around their televisions and radios following developments to the north.