The Growth Triangle

by: the Common Constitutionalist

This past election has taught me a couple important lessons. One is that evidently, cheaters do prosper, at least temporarily. That, however, is a discussion for another time. The second is, what is really important to concentrate on going forward.

What I’ve discovered is that relatively minor issues are constantly sidetracking us.

It isn’t that they are not important, they are, but we need a grander vision.

Issues like pro-life versus pro-abortion, homosexual marriage, funding PBS and such. They are all important, but without a viable and vibrant free Republic to decide them, they are all meaningless.

Thus is my grand vision.

Going forward, I have decided to concentrate on three major issues. If I am unable to find candidates that concur on these positions, I cannot and will not vote for them. No more exceptions!

The three issues are the economy, national defense and illegal immigration.

I chose these because I believe them to be the fire triangle of America, as it were.

If you recall, the fire triangle is named for its three essential components; fuel, heat and oxygen (air). A fire must have these three components in order to be maintained.

If you take one of these components away, the fire cannot sustain itself and will extinguish. Likewise, if you are lacking just one of these the fire will not ignite.

Let’s examine the three components of my newly adopted “Growth Triangle”.

The fuel of the “fire triangle” would equate to the American economy. Mitt Romney touched on this during the campaign. Without it, obviously we would cease to exist as a nation.

But there are many types of fuel for fire. If one were to make a fire using only sticks and twigs, it would still be considered a fire, albeit a small one and not much good for warmth, cooking and fending off predators. The small fire could be sustained, however would service but a very few.

If however, you added large logs, thus greatly enhancing the fuel source, quite soon the fire would grow, providing ample warmth, a reliable cooking source and a formidable barrier for predators or enemies.

Merely maintaining a small economy is not good enough either. A weak economy is the twig and stick fire. Yes, it’s a fire, but a pretty sorry one.

The twigs, sticks and logs equate to jobs that fuel economy. Adding little twigs and sticks to your fire will never do. Large logs must be added to keep it stoked properly.

Without these logs, the fire cannot grow and without jobs, lots of jobs, nor can the economy.

The heat of the fire triangle, I liken to our national defense. Without heat the fire cannot be sustained, regardless of the fuel source. You may add all the sticks, twigs, logs or even gasoline you like and without heat they will never ignite.

Thus is the dependency of the economy and a strong national defense. No economy can thrive and grow without protection.

When the heat is drastically reduced, the fire will not extinguish, but will become much more vulnerable to attack by the slightest rain or wind.

Thus it is regarding national defense. By drastically reducing our military, we become more vulnerable to attack and not just by a large force.

Immigration has always been the oxygen of the “Growth Triangle”.

Without a constant stream of fresh air, no amount of fuel and heat will sustain a fire. On the other hand, too much wind and the fire will be blown out. The fires fresh air supply must be controlled. Two little and the fire will choke; too much and it will also succumb.

Such is it with immigration. Too few legal immigrants and our country becomes lazy and stagnant. Too many and the fuel and heat cannot maintain the imbalance.

No fire or economy can sustain the hurricane force winds of illegal immigration.

Looking ahead, I pray I can find at least a few viable candidates that fit into my “Growth Triangle”.

It is sad they all don’t.

Citizenship for All

by: the Common Constitutionalist

So have we officially moved into a new American era; the era of gloves off, minority pandering?

According to our Speaker of the House, the Honorable John Boehner, one of the reasons the Republicans lost, Mitt Romney lost, is due to not speaking to all Americans.

Boehner was recently interviewed by the Queen of recycling, Diane Sawyer. In the interview she quoted Al Cárdenas saying the Republican Party has gotten, “two old, too white and to male”.

Boehner’s response was predictably milquetoast. “Well, I think what Republicans need to learn is how do we speak to all Americans. You know, not just the people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans.”

Yep, you read that correctly. Good old John Boehner, acting as the, go along to get along, moderate he is.

I guess that’s us. I’m two out of three anyway; too white and too male. Maybe I just need a tan a sex change.

As I see it, we as conservative outcasts, have two problems. They are illegal immigration and giveaways. (Racism is a given, so I’m not including it).

By now, we who haven’t tuned out yet, have started to hear the growing cacophony of cries from Republican “know-it-alls”, to be more inclusive.

Of course, by more inclusive they mean we must agree to a “Comprehensive Immigration Policy”.

Now, what exactly is “Comprehensive Immigration Policy”? Simply said, it is, let them all in and grant them instant citizenship, which gives them the right to vote (Democrat of course).

That’s fairly comprehensive, I’d say.

You might ask yourself why the Democrats are so hot to legalize all the illegals. Is it as they claim? Are they the true party of inclusion and the big tent? Are they actually just looking out for the poor and disenfranchised illegals?

I say we put it to the test and Rush Limbaugh has devised a perfect one. It’s genius, if I do say.

His idea is to have the Republicans compromise with the dems. This is what the moderates in our party want, is it not? Do they not want us to be Democrat light?

Yes, let us compromise, with one proviso. The Republicans, the party of no, will become the new party of yes.

This is Limbaugh’s proposal. The Republicans will allow all illegal aliens to become citizens of the United States immediately. That’s the yes part of the new Republican.

The proviso is that said “new citizens” will relinquish the right to vote for 25 years.

Why would we conservatives ever agree to such thing? Just think about it for a moment.

Think of why the dishonest, devious Democrats really want to legalize the criminal aliens. Is it their big hearts? Hell no! It’s the vote. That’s all it is and that’s all it’s ever been.

Hispanics increasingly vote Democrat, not for their solidarity regarding immigration, but for the freebies they know the Democrats will provide. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it’s a fact.

Republicans think that Hispanics might come over from the Democrat side because of Latinos purported similarly strong family and religious values. They’d be wrong. It’s the welfare they are after, the free stuff.

For example, in California, US-born Hispanics use welfare programs at twice the rate of non-Hispanics. Nearly 7 out of 10 poor children are Hispanic.

With that statistic, do we really think they care about immigration? Of course not. They’re voting for a continuation an escalation of the welfare state.

And that is the reason why the Democrats provide the giveaways. It’s for votes, that’s it!

I learned a long time ago that when selling a product or an idea, one has to be unique, set yourself apart from the rest. You must also educate your customer, so he fully understands just what he’s buying and why he should jump ship and purchase from you.

None of these “voters” will leave the Democrats for the Republicans just because we go along. We are, in effect, just offering them a “me too” product.

So let’s develop some backbone and call them out for what they really are – vote pimps.

It’s time we went on the attack.

Put the Limbaugh immigration offer on the table and watch the Dems squirm and make any excuse possible not to agree with it. Let them, for once, have to show their hand.

Immigration Transformation

by: the Common Constitutionalist (special thanks to Mark Levin)

We are a nation of Immigrants. Of course, so is almost every other nation. So what?

That is the line and argument for a “Comprehensive Immigration” policy, is it not. This throwaway line comes not only from the left, but the right.

They say that even those who founded are nation were immigrants. Yours and my forefathers were immigrants. True enough. Again, so what?

One has to make a giant leap to arrive at the conclusion that there is therefore a moral equivalent between legal and illegal immigration. But the leap is made nonetheless.

Mark Levin reminds us to always go back and look at our founding documents for guidance. The answer is usually there. And of course it is. The Declaration of Independence states, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Can anyone tell me who amongst the legally governed, other than our Dictator in chief, consented to defacto blanket amnesty for 1 million or so illegals by Obama’s decreed “deferred action”?

As an aside, bully for Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona for standing up to this tyrant.

The Declaration also gives a handy little solution to this dilemma. “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” That’s the crux of this upcoming election. We can take a big step toward the abolition of the current governing body this November.

The progressives, both left and right, tell us that today’s illegal immigrants are the moral equivalent to all other immigrants that came before. As Levin says, the illegal is portrayed as somehow being more virtuous than even American citizens. They are people of faith, hard working and strong in family values. Traits not shared with us citizens, apparently.

So how did we get here? What was the genesis of this upside down thinking?

It was 1965, during the Lyndon Johnson administration. Like his progressive predecessors, Johnson’s “Great Society” would fundamentally transform this nation, forever altering immigration policy in this country.

Johnson signed the Hart-Celler act in 1965. It was to be the beginning of the “new” immigration structure. Johnson claimed in his signing speech that, “When the earliest settlers poured into a wild continent there was no one to ask them where they came from. The only question was: Were they sturdy enough to make the journey, were they strong enough to clear the land, were they enduring enough to make a home for freedom, and were they brave enough to die for liberty if it became necessary to do so?” He neglected to add that we were not yet a nation with an elected government charged with protecting and defending our borders. But hey, what do I know.

He added, “This bill says simply that from this day forth those wishing to immigrate to America shall be admitted on the basis of their skills and their close relationship to those already here.”

Our old buddy the late senator Ted Kennedy added on the floor of the senate, that, “Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.” He added, “The entire mix of this country will not be upset.”

He, of course, was either wrong or intentionally lying. I vote for the latter.

The 1965 act abolished national quotas in favor of what we call chain-migration. This gave preference to relatives of residents (family unification) over applicants with special skills.  Facts are facts and the facts are that since 1965, immigrants to the United States are poorer, less educated & less skilled, and those are the legal immigrants.

This liberalization of our immigration policy gave rise to an increase of illegal immigration.

Cesar Estrada Chavez was an American farm worker, labor leader, and civil rights activist who, with Dolores Huerta, co-founded the National Farm Workers Association, which later became the United Farm Workers. Believe me, he was no conservative.

In the sixties Chavez strongly opposed illegal immigration saying that it undermined his ability to unionize farm workers, improve conditions and wages for the American worker. The union would even report illegals to the feds. How far we’ve come in a short 47 years, eh?

In 1969, Chavez along with Walter Mondale (yes, that Walter Mondale) organized a march on the southern border protesting farmers’ use of illegals. Imagine that happening today. That’s progress, I guess.

Then there is the misuse of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, they always cite. It states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside…” The Statists (as Levin calls them) always neglect the, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” part of the amendment. The amendments purpose was to grant citizenship to the emancipated slaves, who were born here and owed sole allegiance to this country. The American Indians did not have the same right, due to their allegiance to tribal jurisdiction. They were excluded by the 14th amendment.

One cannot be conferred citizenship by their mere presence. Diplomats and other foreign visitors to this country who happen to give birth here are not granted automatic citizenship. Why? Because the parents aren’t subject to this country’s jurisdiction and owe no allegiance to the U.S. They, of course, are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country.

The illegal or even the legal immigration problem we have today can be summed up this way. Statists in the sixties are really no different than the ones that rule us today. Whether it is through healthcare or as this article documents, immigration, it’s always the same, the unending want to fundamental transform America.  They will bend and pervert the Constitution and rule of law however they need to, to accomplish it.

Attribution: Mark Levin

Deja Vu, All Over Again

Obama 2010: “It’s time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs.

Obama 2012: “Colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down.”

***

Obama 2010: “And we should continue the work by fixing our broken immigration system.”

Obama 2011: “I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration.”

Obama 2012: “I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration.”

***

Obama 2010: “We face a deficit of trust.”

Obama 2012: “I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust . . .”

***

Obama 2010: “We can’t wage a perpetual campaign.”

Obama 2012: “We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign.”

Attribution: Weekly Standard

ACLU Picks the Republican

The ACLU, that bastion of
righteousness, has now taken upon itself to rank the presidential candidates.
The Nashua Telegraph reports that the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) has released their “Candidate Report Card”, ranking candidates for the Republican nomination and President Barack Obama on how well – or poorly – they adhere to the Constitution.

I wasn’t aware The ACLU had a sense of humor? They must have quite a good one because they have to be kidding. What would they know about the Constitution other than how to subvert it?

You may also say, who cares. I, for one, care. If the ACLU rates high, any Republican candidate, you best run away, from said candidate.

So, let’s take a look and see what they came up with.

You would think this would be a slam-dunk for the anointed one. Oh contraire.

The criteria that they used to rank the candidates is as follows:

The rankings, represented by lit or unlit “Lady Liberty torches” (see, they do have a sense of humor), were based on seven categories: humane immigration policy, closing Guantanamo Bay and ending indefinite detentions, gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, ending torture, ending a surveillance state, gay marriage and freedom of reproductive choice. (Weren’t these first seven amendments in the Bill of Rights?) Candidates could score up to four torches in each category, according to the report.

Here are the 2012 candidates in order of ACLU preference:

Gary Johnson, libertarian w/ 21 torches

Ron Paul, libertarian w/ 18 torches

Barack Obama came in third w/ 16

Jon Huntsman w/ 12

Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry each got only 2 ACLU torches

Rating lowest and last on the ACLU scale are Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum with 0 torches. Michele Bachmann also rated 0 but has dropped out of the race.

I don’t know about you but if the ACLU doesn’t like a candidate, that alone is a good reason for me to support them.

So, that tells me I have 3 candidates to choose from.

There’s Bachmann, but she dropped out. That’s not much of an option.

How about Mitt? Well
, he’s a squishy moderate that keeps telling us he’ll work with the democrats. “Work with democrats” is code for conservatives must compromise & libs don’t. He’s out.

That leaves one. Rick Santorum.

I stand corrected. The ACLU has performed a service after all.

Attribution: Nashua Telegraph, GOPUSA