Coddling Criminals: Loren Huss Settles Down

I can hear the liberals now: "Here Steve goes again with his violent crime obsession."

I assure you, nothing could be further from the truth. Aside from the fact that liberal assertions that I am obsessed with violent crime are no more than a charade to cover up their weak, unsupportable views on getting tough with violent felons, I have a duty -- a duty to my readers to follow through on a story that otherwise would have amounted to nothing more than an odd footnote in the annals of Iowa crime. Call it bringing closure or at the very least keeping my readers updated on life of our hero, the misguided and misunderstood but otherwise loveable guy Loren Huss who, through a couple of tiny misunderstandings turned into first a rapist, then a psycho killer. But our loveable little killer was fortunate enough to find himself in a "justice" system that, from the Iowa Supreme Court right on down to a jury of his "peers", recognized that he was really just a harmless loveable little fuzz ball. And in their infinite wisdom, they let him loose. Now our hero is settling down.

I didn't know until I turned on the local news this morning that this lowly blogger had scooped all the local media outlets.

Last Sunday, on information that our friendly neighborhood psycho was coming to roost in a burg near me, I emailed the police chief of Pleasant Hill, Iowa to express my concern. In his response on Monday, he let me know that I was wrong:

So, I knew on Monday what the media outlets weren't reporting until this morning: That instead of living about 15.82 miles from my humble abode, the happy go lucky misunderstood psycho lives 18.40 miles from the place I call home, in a tidy new gray townhouse with white trim -- 1428 SW Twin Gates Drive, Ankeny, Iowa. So much for my wish that he move to a state with more liberals to feel sorry for him. The folks who share the other half of that tidy gray building with the happy family of Husses probably have little sympathy for me, a guy who lives damn near 20 miles from the place Loren Huss decided to settle down. The other folks who live in this town of 30,000 about ten miles directly north of Des Moines on Interstate 35, are none too happy about the situation either:

Ah, to be young and naive again. The guy is a psycho, Lisa. It shouldn't be fine with anyone that he's walking the streets, and, frankly, it troubles me a little that it's fine with you. But then, we know of at least handful people in the county that aren't bothered by having a psycho killer walking loose -- the chaturbat members of the jury that set him free -- and here's the opinion of one of them:

Hence the problem. Liberal judges and shit-for-brains jurors who let psycho killers go. I wonder if the decor in this spiffy new townhouse is a good match for the maroon color blood turns when it dries? More on this story as it develops.

Time to Close The Club?

After watching the histrionics recently displayed by our honorable Senators surrounding the nominations of Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and others, I have only one suggestion for saving the Republic:

Abolish the United States Senate.

Now, wait. Before you call me a traitor, or a communist, or a philistine, let me present the argument.

The bi-cameral legislature comes to us via the Connecticut Compromise, authored by Roger Sherman. It allowed the Founders to agree on a form of governance that would satisfy both the small states and the large ones. The House provides equal representation, while the Senate confers proportional representation, making way for the interests of the individual states to be addressed. The Senate is like the United Nations' General Assembly, in that every state, no matter how useless, has an equal number of representatives. Just as Libya and the US each have one vote in the General Assembly, so Vermont and Texas both have two blathering advocates for their particular whims and pork projects.

That was all very well and good once upon a time, but--be honest, now--who needs it these days? And, may I remind you of what else the Connecticut compromise allowed for? A little clause labeling black folk 3/5 of a person?

Anybody want to keep that today?

Of course not. Times change. Politics evolves. Senators ossify, keel over, and keep talking.

The Senators claim today that their function is to provide a "buffer" for legislation, a "cooling off" space that allows Senators, the more deliberative of the species of legislators, to consider, weigh, and evaluate. In other words, they are there to make sure that the wild-eyed juvenile delinquents in the House don't run off with all the tax money to buy booze and fast cars.

But, please.

Does anyone think the obstructionism of the Senate is any more responsible an exercise of power than the profligacy of the House? Both of them are mired in lobbying money and moral cowardice; neither really represents the people once they get to the piggy trough. There are, of course, exceptions (though in the interest of not making enemies I'll leave your imaginations to insert your favorite legislators here), but for the most part legislators who do a good job for the people generally manage to do it against the best advice of their handlers, lobbyists, bureaucrats, and the tide of DC culture.

Still, I suppose we have to keep at least one of them.

In this last dust-up concerning the president's judicial nominees, the business of the people was simply not being done. The Senate was acting as a wholly owned subsidiary of the liberal special interest groups, which the majority of the voting public decisively booted in the last election.

As for the interests of the states, you aren't even allowed to imply such a thing any more, for fear of being confused with someone advocating "states' rights"--a political pathology usually assumed to be found in the presence of cross-burning Southerners voting against civil rights laws.

Wait. Maybe that's a bad example.

Parochial state interest has basically gone by the wayside ever since the Court decided that the Feds rule and whatever silly laws the states decide to pass—like high speed limits and sodomy restrictions—must fall to the greater wisdom of the High Court’s choice. The states—and, in some cases, even the people—be hanged. The Senate’s role in passing legislation in the people’s interests is now limited to the feeding at the trough of West Virginia’s King of Pork, Bob Byrd, angling for yet more public works that can be named after him. I understand that, upon his retirement, the entire state of West Virginia will be immediately renamed “Byrdtopia,” officially severing all ties with Virginia.

Virginia, I hear, couldn’t be happier.

Seriously, though. Am I the only one who, after watching hour upon hour upon hour of impassioned defense of the nation-preserving filibuster, was seized by the almost irresistible urge to dig up Frank Capra and Jimmy Stewart and shoot them?

The preening Byrd was in high dudgeon, full-throat, and—much of the time—the distant past. I heard him actually lecturing the Republican Senators on the monarchy during the time of Henry IV—I’m still not clear on why. Something to do with the king owning everyone. He was either for or against it, or he was reading a book; he wasn’t exactly lucid. After going to do some kitchen work for about an hour, I returned to C-SPAN to find that the Senator had finally made the long historical trek up to President Tyler.

This spectacle, believe it or not, was intended to impress upon us the necessity of retaining the Senate just as it is.


All it did for me was make me wonder whether the Founders designed the Amendment process for such a time as this.

Of course, it wasn’t just Byrd. The usual gang of suspects was in full effect—Kennedy, Kerry, Dickie Durbin (known to WLS-AM listeners as “Senator Eddie Haskell”), and, of course, the mournful and outraged Harry Reid of Nevada.

Every day during the siege, Reid and his hangers on would hold a press conference at to decry—well, it wasn’t clear exactly what, but it must have been awful, because he came off as more depressed than a basset hound on downers.

Really, think about it. Have you ever seen a more pretentiously unhappy batch of Brahmin than the nitwits that pass for the Democratic side of the United States Senate? If Kerry and Reid sang a duet, it would hit the top forty dirge charts in a New York minute. And if Daschle hadn’t been slain by (not to rub it in) the noble arrow of John Thune, the three could form the Wretched Wanderers and clean up fleecing all those aging hippies that never miss taping PBS pledge week so they can rhapsodize over the amazing spectacle of Peter, Paul, and Mary still capable of drooling their way through “If I Had a Hammer.”

Even Hillary broke her pretended indifferent silence to come out in the last days and beg the Senate not to change the rules. Of course, she only used a few synonyms for “beg.” Byrd, on the other hand, at one point embarrassed himself by not only begging the Senate but pleading, importuning, beseeching, and imploring them. He did everything but offer to name a bridge after them—-or maybe that, too, because there were a few antediluvian expressions he used that are no longer found in English dictionaries, and some of them might have constituted such an offer. You’d have to ask Samuel Johnson.

One brilliantly funny moment came when John Kerry took the floor for a while to repeat what everyone else had already said, but improvised a little bit to opine that if the rules of the Senate were changed it would somehow discourage future bright young things from deciding to become Senators. The spectacle of John “can I get me a huntin’ license” Kerry fretting over whether we could still get the right kind of people to be Senators was almost worth being subjected to the blithering idiocy of Byrd.

No. No, it wasn’t.

The Republicans, for their part, mostly stood up and sputtered, stubbornly insisting on changing the subject—back to the subject. They didn’t seem concerned that future Senators might not feel powerful enough, or that changing the Senate rules constituted an attack on a branch of government, or that Jimmy Stewart would spin in his grave (and if anyone, it should be the Republicans disturbed by that notion—being as how he was one of them.) They just seemed to want a straight up-or-down vote on the President’s nominees, instead of the new Senate Constitutional custom of “advise for four years and withhold consent.”

And, as we now know, the whole unpleasant ordeal reached a veritable Middle Eastern truce when 7 Democrats and 7 Traitors—I mean, RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) effected a “compromise” which has so far eventuated in the Republicans getting Owen confirmed and the Democrats breaking the deal as soon as they could skip to the podium to block John Bolton’s nomination to the United Nations.

What a shock. Moderates that can’t be trusted.

Now, suppose we just phased out the Senate—let them name things after themselves and babble on in the well (don’t you wish there really was a “well” in the Senate—something deep and fatal that we could throw them into?). Just don’t let them vote (they don’t want to anyway, right?) or do anything important anymore. And don’t elect any more of them.

After all, the Jasminelive parties are competitive enough in the House to allow a similar kind of obstructionist “cooling off” period (the “coffee in the saucer” that the Senators claim the Founders had in mind). And isn’t it the liberals that are always telling us how “elastic” the “living Constitution” is supposed to be? Changing with the times, adjusting to the needs of the people? If we can’t criminalize homosexual sodomy anymore because world opinion has “evolved,” why can’t we abolish the Senate because we’re just sick of them?

In this modern world, there’s no real meaning to state borders anymore (after all, if we can’t tell the difference between California and Mexico, why should we bother separating the national governance of California and Arizona?) Modern technology has rendered us all part of the Internet Nation. Let state governments handle state problems, and let the Federal government concern itself with the interests of the people as a whole.

And let the vainglorious members of the “Millionaires’ Club” gradually die off, orating to the cameras, unreplaced and unlamented.

Well, it’s just a thought.

Enlightened Democracy: The Case For The Electoral College

In the history of American politics, the Founding Fathers were probably as close to genius our country will ever see. Among the many high achievements that sprung out of the efforts of the Constitutional Convention was the solution to the problem of electing the President of the United States: the Electoral College. This answer to the much-debated problem has long been considered the most perfect resolution to transpire from that hot summer in 1787; it also perhaps the least understood, and recently, passionately debated.

There is no better way to discuss an issue than to be fully versed in it, and its counterarguments. An excellent resource for a timely discussion on the Electoral College would be the book I just finished, Enlightened Democracy: The Case For The Electoral College by Tara Ross, published by World Ahead Publishing.

This book, while appearing to be one sided based on the title alone, does an admirable job of providing the opposing viewpoints and even dedicates a chapter to detail proposed Electoral College reforms (through careful analysis, the author discredits the proposed reforms). This book is not just for people who hold dear the Federalist principles of our Founding Fathers, but also for opponents of the Electoral College who don't understand those principles.

To truly understand the Electoral College, a bit of history is required and efficiently supplied in this book. Any person interested in learning about the Electoral College, particularly after the 2000 election that emboldened many to demand its reform, ought to do themselves the favor of reading Enlightened Democracy, As the author aptly points out that primary drive of the new wave of Electoral College opponents was the outcome, not the method, and that these opponents were driven by their own selfishness. Said opponents, as well as the studied ones, are highly inconsistent in their criticism, as the author duly notes. The Electoral College is firmly rooted in the principles of the "Great Compromise" that gave us.

Upon reading this book, you will be thoroughly convinced that the Electoral College truly represents the will of the voters, and even protects against things like voter fraud--far above what a direct popular vote election ever could. The pure genius of the Electoral College is revealed in the pages of Enlightened Democracy. This book is a wonderful tool full of useful knowledge about this highly regarded, and often challenged gem of republican democracy.