Have to hand it to him.  Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich may be an amoral heel… but he is one hell of a politician.  It is pretty clear now that he doesn’t expect to keep his Governor’s seat, but I’m beginning to wonder if he doesn’t already have a grander future in mind.

I started to think that Blago may have a trick or two up his sleeve when he failed to produce a witness list within the designated timeframe — one of several rather important deadlines to meet, if one wishes to defend himself in an impeachment proceeding.  A few days later, Governor Rod proved my suspicions when he began telling the (evidently very forgetful) public, via the media, that he was not being allowed to produce witnesses.

As he continues to take his proclaimed innocence to the public, Blago further distances himself from the impeachment proceedings by refusing to show up, and saying the hearing is rigged.  His strategy appears to be to impugn the integrity of the hearing itself, as a distraction to what he is sure will be his ouster from office.

Now, you would be accurate in saying it takes either sheer insanity or a monumental set of cajones to try pulling something like this off — refusing to file paperwork contesting the charges, missing the witness and evidence deadline, etc., and then claiming a denial of “due process” — but that is exactly what Blago is doing.  And you know… I think it may just be working.  As media outlets form “The View” to “Larry King” host “exclusive” interviews with Rod, he is starting to gain a small measure sympathy, at least from media types.

He is setting himself up as a victim to a constituency too lazy to do any fact-checking (for proof, see Obama’s vast popularity in Chicago) in the Illinois liberal demographic.  And let’s face it, liberals love them some victims.

And now, in another sly move, Blago has let the information (of dubious importance) out that he very nearly chose Oprah to replace Obama in the Senate.  And seriously, who the hell cares about backroom political dealings, when faced with the idea that there was almost a Senator Oprah?!

Blagojevich is indeed slicker than snot.  And time will tell if it works for him.  I predict it will.  Not only will he not be found guilty (see O.J.), but I see a national run in his very near future.

I’m starting to get a little worried.  And annoyed.  Actually, mostly annoyed.  Gubenatorial candidates in states like New Jersey and Virginia are coming out of the woodwork.  Republicans are lining up to take on leadership roles throughout the country, and preparing for long, hard battles.

Meanwhile, in New York, where we face an enormous budget crisis and an unelected governor who seems to feel that more taxation is just the stimulus this economy needs — an unelected governor, by the way, who is getting less popular in his own party by the day, thanks to his moderate choice to replace Hillary Clinton — we get… crickets.

So far, we have two Republican “might-runs,” considering a bid against “governor” Paterson: Rudy Giuliani and Rick Lazio.  Neither has officially announced candidacy, and I’m not about to start going into their respective Conservative bona fides just yet (suffice to say, they’re both pretty typical NYC-style Republicans).  At this point, I’ve given up on the idea of getting a full-fledged Conservative into the Governor’s Mansion.  What does bother me is that neither these potential candidates, nor the State GOP as an entity is paving the way for a serious opposition bid.

Giuliani, who, if you had asked me in December, would easily have been my pick for Governor, won’t even raise his voice in opposition to the heavy-handed tax proposals endorsed by Paterson, let alone even mention taking him on for Governor.

He doesn’t need a two-year election campaign. I think he should be given every opportunity to do the very best he can for the state, and then we can see about it six months from now, eight months from now.

Far distant from the kind of leadership we should be expecting from the GOP, this reads more like an endorsement.

Lazio, meanwhile, a former Congressman and current JP Morgan exec, who is perhaps best known for losing spectacularly to Hillary Clinton in the Senate race of 2000 (after blowing all his political capital by being too abrasive against Mrs. Clinton), is staying silent on all issues.

Giuliani seems to think that the best tactic for Republicans to take is to let Democrats control the narrative, to let Paterson make decisions uncontested, to let the Democrat party settle down and lear to deal with their new moderate senator.  And Lazio… well, who the hell knows what he’s thinking.

They couldn’t be more wrong.

In fact, this is the perfect time to strike.  People know something about Paterson’s budget plan stinks — now is the time for a Repulican leader to tell them what that smell is.  Democrats are already unhappy about Paterson’s pick for Senator — so much so that many are already plotting a mutiny; there should be a Repulican candidate out there thanking Paterson for the pick, and exploiting the hell out of the division in the Dem ranks.

No — letting Paterson do his “very best” by implementing bad policy uncontested is not, in fact, good for the state.  It is very, very bad for the state.  And I am very disturbed that, so far at least, we don’t have a potential candidate who is willing to fight for New York.

Like many others, I’ve been contemplating in disgust the celebrity “pledge” video for Barack Obama (warning, viewing may induce vomiting).  And thinkers and writers from our own aglanon to Andrew Brietbart have written wonderful and appropriate responses to the celebs in question.  So I’m not going to do that here.  Not really.

Instead, I’m simply going to share what I learned from the video.  Or, rather, not from the video per se, but from my and others’ reactions to it.  And that is simply the answer to the question, to whom are we loyal?  To what are we pledging when we pledge our allegience?  It is clear from the content of the above video that those celebrities involved cannot but pledge their allegience to a leader (a term I use in the loosest possible sense) — somebody who will tell them how and when to act, and what they ought to think.

But regular individuals?  True Patriots?  Men and women who echo our Founding Fathers?  I think for most Conservatives, our Pledge of Loyalty is to God and Country.

Our Country.  No matter who is at her helm, it is our Country which makes us Americans.  It is our Country which makes our chests burst with pride.  Our Country, the love of which brings tears to our eyes.

When we pledge our allegience to her flag, it is to the standard and symbolism of our country — the Republic for which it stands — the symbol of pride in one nation (formed of many individual states and, indeed, many individuals), under God and Indivisible.  And it is to those inseperable ideals of Liberty and Justice.

In the waning years of the 18th century, a group of men turned to revolution — not, at first, to get out from under the heel of the King, but merely to gain the status and favor of any citizen of that Kingdom.   In 1776, those men realized that the only way to truly be gain those freedoms to which they believed themselves to be morally entitled — life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — was to not simply battle the Kingdom on their own behalf, but to sever their ties to it, and most importantly, to forge a new nation.

And this new nation — the first of its kind — would be built, not on the mortar of aristocracy or serfdom, but on those same endowments of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  It was from this single idea — “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” — that this country was born.  Her governance, her Constitution, her life’s blood.

Just like a charter, in a very real sense, is itself the organization for which it was drafted, the Constitution of the United States is the country herself.  This Country — the United States of America — does not exist without her Constitution.   As parts of the Constitution are threatened, so does America lose a piece of herself.  If the Constitution of our country is allowed to die, the United States of America will be destroyed — without a single bomb dropped or airplane hijacked.

A Country is not defined by its name, nor by its geography, nor even by its citizens.  Citizens make up a nation, but a Country is defined by her ideals.  When Communists took over Russia, they recognized this very fact, and noted it by changing the name of it.  When Communism was routed from that same area, a name change again denoted the passage of one country and the birth of a new one (or, rather, several new ones).

We have a new President; one with whom I disagree strongly about the direction and leadership of this country.  But Barack H. Obama is indeed my President, so long as he presides over my Country.  I pledge myself in his service, not because I agree with him, nor even like him, but because I pledge myself to my Country.  I (unlike certain celebrities mentioned at the top of this post) have never seriously threatened to flee this country based on who helms it — because it is my country.  This doesn’t mean President Obama will find himself free of dissent.  My Country holds my loyalty — the President is merely Head Servant.

But I also serve notice.  My Country is founded upon a Constitution.  A Constitution which was forged with certain intent.  And no matter how legislation or executive order is worded or spun, I recognize when that Constitution is being undermined.  And on the day the Constitution is negated, that is the day my country — that to which I pledge with my forebears my life, my fortune and my sacred honor — will cease to exist.

Upstate New York is home to a lot of Amish.  A lot.  And, for some reason, it appears that some local politicians dislike having them here.  I have no way of knowing whether it’s because of the horses and buggies they drive, the organic veggies they sell at roadside stands or the high-quality woodworking, but Powers That Be in some parts of Franklin, St. Lawrence and other Northern Counties seem to be doing their best to rid this “scourge” from our fair fields and foothills.

The news for months now has been of too-big-for-their-britches City Council members trying to force the Amish to conform to State and local building requirements — many of which run directly contrary to long-established Amish heritage and belief.  The Amish, of course, have been fighting back, and now, in what seems to be a move of spite more than anything else, the Town of Hammond has been trying to evict a group of Amish from their property.

The property they bought with money they earned; homes they built with their own hands; ground they tilled, planted and harvested on their own.  Why?  Put simply, because of a refusal to bow.  Basically, the Amish families have, by and large, refused to go against their religious beliefs for the sake of a few codes.  Fortunately the State Supreme Court got another one right.  At least, partly right.  In a decision that came down this past week, Judge David Demarest granted the stay requested by the attorney for the two Amish families, pending the outcome of the federal suit the families have brought against the Town.

The question that should’ve been asked here is, what’s the damned hurry?  Why is it so important that these people be removed from their own homes that it couldn’t wait at least until after the federal suit?  As I spelled out above, I do have my own theories on that… but it would be nice to hear what the Town’s attorney has to say on the subject.  Moot point now, I guess — though the motives for any action taken by a municipality ought to be above reproach and beyond question.

Speaking of motive, however, I have been thinking alot about why municipalities have become so darned interested in the houses of the Amish lately.   Not that I have a grand conspiracy theory involving Amish real estate or anything, though.  In fact, I would say there’s nothing going on here more or less nefarious than good ol’ fashioned liberalism.

Basically, where I have engaged in or seen discussions on this topic, I find that those on the side of the municipality fall into two camps: There’s “If we have to do it, so should they” (the “It’s Not Fair” Crowd), and then “They’re obviously too ignorant to make the RIGHT decision (as determined by us) so we’ll have to do it for them” (AKA elitists).  Both approaches have long, deep roots in the Democrat Party, and in liberalism in general — and the two are at least loosely related.  The first group, in fact, is usually a party to the second group, at least subconsciously.  For example, if you press a member of the “It’s Not Fair” crowd hard enough, they will ultimately have two options: either agree with you or fall back on Approach #2 and become elitists.

At least, that is the response I get when I press them with my own opinion on the subject.  You’re right, I tell them, it <em>isn’t</em> fair that we have to follow these rules, as if we were all ignoramuses who wouldn’t know what’s best for us if we didn’t have the government to tell us, while the Amish get off scott free.  But instead of punishing the Amish, why not push for relaxed housing laws for the rest of us?  Instead of telling the Amish to bend over with the rest of us, why not tell the government to back the hell off?

And it is here that we get to the root of the “It’s Not Fair” Party member’s attitude.  He now has the choice of agreeing, at least in principle (he may be too much a coward or idiot to do anything about it, but it’s a start) or else falling back on that old elitist line of argument: “Well, it really is what’s best.  I mean, it’s only common sense, after all, and this protects people (from themselves).”

So let’s get to that.  I’ve said it before — constantly, in fact — and I’m going to keep saying it:  It is not the government’s job — not at the national level, the state level, or even the municipal level — to play Nanny to the taxpayers.  Part of liberty is the freedom to act on your own behalf as you see fit (so long as it doesn’t interfere with the life, liberty or property of others), <strong>and</strong> the responsibility to bear the consequences of those actions.

So, yes, New York municipal governments, leave the Amish alone.  And the rest of the taxpayers, too.

(cross-posted at St. Lawrence County Republitarian)