I am strongly against amnesty. The most important thing we need to do is enforce our existing laws. We have existing immigration laws that are not being adequately enforced. Nothing will make it harder to enforce the existing laws, if you reward people who broke them. It demoralizes people who are going through the legal process, it’s a very clear signal of why go through the legal process, if you can accomplish the same thing if you go through the illegal process. And number two, it demoralizes the people enforcing the laws. I am not, and I will never support any effort to grant blanket legalization/amnesty to folks who have entered, stayed in this country illegally. — Marco Rubio, 2010
Question: At this point, if your original (comprehensive immigration bill) came to a vote on the Senate floor, would you vote for it? […] John McCain: No, I would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the borders secured first. — John McCain, 2008
Do you think the Tasmanian tiger would have voted to end the existence of its species on earth? How about the Dodo? What about the Tyrannosaurus Rex?
It’s tempting to say that none of them would have voted to destroy themselves, but since John McCain and Marco Rubio are engineering nothing less than the end of conservatism as a political force in America with the immigration bill they’re working on right now, it’s hard to say.
For all practical purposes, what the Gang of 8 amnesty bill does is permanently ensconce 11 million plus illegal immigrants in our country in return for mostly waivable promises of border security that will never be fulfilled and a permanent liberal majority. This is a phenomenal deal for Democrats and people who came to this country illegally; so it’s easy to understand why they’d back the deal.
Why there are so many conservatives in Congress who are willing to put conservatism’s neck in a noose and jump off a stool is harder to say.
As always, money is helping to grease the wheels. There are corrupt businessmen who have made such a killing by hiring illegals to do jobs that should have gone to American workers that they have plenty of cash to spread around. Combine them with the greedy tech companies that are willing to saddle the public with 11 million illegal aliens if they can get some new high skill immigrant workers in the bargain and you have the primary reason this bill is getting Republican support. If you took that cash flow out of the equation, a bill this suicidal would have been a non-starter.
As far as conservative newspapers go, there are very few. The most recognizable being IBD, the Washington Times, the New York Post (at times) and of course, the Wall Street Journal.
While I agree for the most part, I challenge those who trust the Wall Street Journal to be conservative. In my opinion it only masquerades as a conservative newspaper.
Case in point: A recent article penned on May 2 by Kimberly Strassel entitled, “About Those Conservative ‘Squishes’”. In it she tows the typical Republican line. You know, the faux-conservative Karl Rove, Bill Kristol republican line.
She began the article with: “Texas Sen. Ted Cruz recently gave a speech to some FreedomWorks activists, delivering a fascinating retelling of the Senate-it gun control fight. After taking credit for killing the bill with his filibuster threat, Mr. Cruz went on to divide the Republican caucus between those who have ‘principles’ and those who are a bunch of ‘squishes’.”
FreedomWorks activists eh? Not a group of FreedomWorks patriots; no, activists. I also enjoyed the implication that Ted Cruz is nothing but a glory hound.
She continued with: “… The GOP is split between those who insist on making a point, and those who want to make some progress.”
Although I am not, I could stop here as she reveals her hand in one word: “progress”. The watchword of both Republican and Democrat big government Statists.
She claimed that Cruz, Rand Paul and Mike Lee screwed up the perfect storm of Obama’s failed gun control bill. She, of course, was all about the Republican win. No mention of preserving the Second Amendment. It’s all about the party.
And not a word regarding the left’s ultimate strategy, assuming she even knows it. What was supposed to happen was the Bill was to sail through the “squishy” Senate and get soundly defeated in the Republican-controlled House, giving Obama and his minions the issue they can hammer into 2014. The strategy was, that if the bill was approved, it would further their gun confiscation agenda. If it was defeated, they have an issue for 2014.
Strassel said the Cruz “faction” wanted to make a point that the GOP believed in the Constitution. He’s right and what’s sad is that there seems to be but a few senators standing up for the document.
She went on to describe how the House was on the verge of scoring a political victory over the Democrats on some minor funding for Obamacare insurance exchanges. (Yes I know, it’s $5 billion, but that’s minor for Obamacare.) Wow, the Republicans would force the Dems to choose between sick people and some money. Big win!
She then explained that if not for the Cruz “absolutionists” the reasonable Republicans could’ve force the Dems to kill off a tiny portion of Obamacare. Cruz and his buddies, she claims, insist on full repeal or nothing. Oh the nerve of them.
Does Ms. Strassel fail to realize that trimming around the edges of Obamacare is utter futility? Sen. Cruz and his few allies along with Heritage and the Club for Growth seem to be the only ones in Washington that know or care of the devastation that is Obamacare.
She then points out that, “the majority of Republicans are ardent supporters of the second amendment, passionate about repealing Obamacare, in favor of lower taxes.” Tells you a lot that she has to point it out!
“Yet”, she states, “disagree with Mr. Cruz on his filibuster strategy and you are a ‘squish’.”
Well, Ms. Strassel, Ted Cruz is the upstart you make him out to be. He and a few other relative newcomers have so far been uncorrupted by the DC moderate “Squishes”, and the big government Republicans don’t know how to contain them and that, no doubt, is quite frustrating.
So since the moderates can contain these rebels, they run to the so-called conservative press to do their dirty work.
It appears to me at least that the inside the Beltway Republicans think, as do the leftists, that these conservative rabble-rousers are the biggest threat to our country and certainly to their power. Bigger than joblessness, the debt, taxes, Obamacare and terrorism.
If they could just get rid of, or turn, those uncompromising conservatives, Washington would run like the well oiled machine we all know it to be. (Kinda choked on that one).
Health Care: As Democrats grow increasingly worried that ObamaCare will explode on the launch pad just as midterm elections get going, the Obama administration seeks to pin blame on Republicans. Good luck with that.
Earlier this week, Health and Human Services head Kathleen Sebelius admitted that she didn’t realize how complicated getting ObamaCare off the ground would be.
Sebelius complained that “no one fully anticipated” the difficulties involved in implementing ObamaCare, or how confusing it would be with the public.
She wasn’t talking about the massive and impossible task of imposing central planning on one-sixth of the nation’s economy.
Instead, she was trying to find a way to blame Republicans for ObamaCare’s failures when the inevitable problems start emerging.
Rather than say “let’s get on board, let’s make this work,” recalcitrant Republicans have forced her to engage in “state-by-state political battles,” Sebelius said at a Harvard School of Public Health forum. “The politics has been relentless.”
When Will Republicans Understand Free Market Healthcare?
Healthcare is one of the most complex policy issues. The lack of free market healthcare, engendered by endless government interventions (and secondary interventions to fix the original interventions), has made policy solutions even more cumbersome. But the overarching principle of any reform must begin with the understanding that federal intervention in the healthcare industry has inexorably driven up the cost of healthcare and health insurance. As such, no healthcare policy panacea can begin with growing government and further distorting the already grossly-altered healthcare market.
Instead of proposing more free market solutions, Republicans are offering pale-pastel versions of Democrat government intervention as solutions. Here are two examples.
Last week, Congressman Larry Bucshon (R-IN) introduced the Orwellian-named “Truth in Healthcare Marketing Act of 2013” (HR 1427) – a bill that forces optometrists to disclose all their licensing and qualifications in all advertising. It grants wide latitude to the Federal Trade Commission to regulate and penalize offenders. The bill is heavily backed by special interest hustlers like the AMA and American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO). The ophthalmologist lobby doesn’t want competition from cheaper healthcare providers (optometrists), and they want to use the boot of the federal government to ensnare them in red tape.
It is this sort of anti-free market special interest legislating that has crowded out choice and competition from the marketplace. The reality is that there are already strict laws in most states to punish those optometrists who step outside of their scope of service beyond their qualifications. There is no reason, beyond special interest politicking, for the federal government to get involved. The bill was introduced on April 9, a day before the AAOs national meetings in DC commenced.
It’s baffling to most Republicans and conservatives that a vast majority of blacks in America support, defend and vote for Democrats.
Somehow history has been rewritten. I misspoke. We know how. I believe it can be traced back to the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., for before that time, most blacks were Republicans.
According to his niece, Dr. Alveda King, MLK was Republican. Republican you say? Impossible! We have all been taught that the Democrats are the party of civil rights, of minority empowerment and Republicans are racists. It’s irrefutable!
Well, here’s a little proof. Time to step into the Way-Back machine again.
It was 1954 and the Supreme Court was deciding the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education case. The Supreme Court and Chief Justice Earl Warren, appointed by Republican Pres. Eisenhower, ruled for Brown. The landmark decision ended school segregation and declared the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision violated the 14th amendment, with its “Separate but Equal” doctrine. The Democrat party supported the views and sided with the Topeka Board of Education. In fact, a faction of the democrat party, the Dixiecrat’s, formed in 1948, had a slogan; “segregation forever”.
It was Pres. Eisenhower (republican) that established the first permanent U.S. civil rights commission, which had coincidentally been rejected by the Democrat man of the people, Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt actually banned black American newspapers from the military, claiming they were communist.
Many Democrats voted against the first civil rights act in 1957. Among them was a senator from Massachusetts named John F Kennedy. Republicans such as Sen. Everett Dirksen and Barry Goldwater supported it.
In fact, Illinois Sen. Dirksen was instrumental in virtually all civil rights legislation; in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. He wrote the language in the 1965, “Voting Rights Act”. But history has been rewritten to show LBJ was a civil rights advocate.
Yet in private Johnson said: “these Negroes, they’re getting uppity these days. That’s a problem for us, since they got something now they never had before. The political pull to back up their uppityness. Now, we’ve got to do something about this. We’ve got to give them a little something. Just enough to quiet them down, but not enough to make a difference. If we don’t move at all, their allies will line up against us. And there’ll be no way to stop them. It’ll be reconstruction all over again.”
As president, JFK opposed the 1963 MLK march on Washington. A. Philip Randolph, a black Republican, organized the march for Dr. King.
It was well known back then that Dr. King criticized Kennedy for ignoring issues of civil rights. JFK didn’t take too kindly to the criticism and was one of the reasons he had his Atty. Gen. brother Bobby Kennedy, through the FBI, wiretap King’s hotel rooms on suspicion of him being a communist. This was all done to undermine King’s efforts, for obviously Dr. King was no communist.
There were many other notable Democrats; none were friends of black Americans. Some of the leading opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were racist Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd. What? Al Gore’s dad was anti-black? Yep. And Robert Byrd was a former Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan.
A few of the worst were Eugene “Bull” Connor, Lester Maddox and George Wallace. Bull Connor let loose dogs and fire hoses on black demonstrators and did I forget to mention he was also Pres. Bill Clinton’s mentor.
Maddox, governor of Georgia, and his supporters used ax handles to beat blacks to prevent them from entering his restaurant.
Alabama Gov. Wallace infamously blocked two black students from entering the University of Alabama in 1963, where he continually shouted: “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”
Before history was rewritten it was well known that racist Democrats said they would vote for a “Yellow Dog” before a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
It was Ronald Reagan that made Dr. King’s birthday a federal holiday.
So despite what we hear, see and read today, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would never be a democrat. Not then and not now. He would’ve never joined the party of segregation and the Klan.
Of course, were he alive today, he would probably have his doubts about the GOP.
Mitch McConnell wants to clear the air based on my earlier RedState post. In the post, quoting Yahoo! News, I noted McConnell said, “When it came to Obamacare, we gave it everything we have, everything we have, and we just lost.”
In response to this morning’s post, Mitch McConnell’s press team sent out an email blast with the transcript of the speech. They reached out to my office insisting I fix a quote from a news story that itself has not changed the quote. Nonetheless, the McConnell team insists the actual quote is, “We gave it everything we had, and we just barely lost the legislative fight.”
Okay, but what else did Mitch McConnell say. From his own transcript:
Obamacare should be repealed root and branch. And we’re not backing down from this fight. We’ve taken the same approach to Obamacare. We gave it everything we had, and we just barely lost the legislative fight. The Supreme Court ruling last summer was another blow. But I can’t just stand by and look at that assault on liberty behind me and do nothing.
Stupid Republican Believes Obama Dinner With GOP Was Sincere Bipartisanship
Bobby Jindal had it right: the GOP is truly the stupid party. Sure, stupid is better than corrupt and deceitful, like the Democrats, and at least stupidity will get good results sometimes, albeit accidentally. But man, Republicans sure do have their share of moments of naïvete.
While Senator Rand Paul was speaking on the Senate floor for 13 hours to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan to lead the CIA, there were twelve of his Republican colleagues dining with President Obama at a fancy restaurant.
One particular member of the Stupid Party, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, lived up to his party’s name, saying that he believes Obama’s invitation to dinner is a sign that Obama truly does want to end his partisanship. Oh, Tom, bless your heart. (By the way, Coburn was one of the twelve).
“I think he gets it,” said Coburn, “and I think he’s genuinely reaching out. I think the president is tremendously sincere. I don’t think this is just a political change in tactic. I think he actually would like to solve the problems of the country….” Continue Reading
Have you ever felt alone? Not like, on a desert island alone; just the feeling that you are in such a philosophical minority that your segregated from the rest of society.
Well, that’s how I’m beginning to feel. I know that is not the case, but with every passing month I see one ally after another fall, or at least lean toward the Dark Side. I’m speaking metaphysically of course.
Maybe I set my sights too high or maybe I’m just being unreasonable. I liken the situation we find ourselves in to the Matrix movie; the first one in particular. In the movie practically everyone is living in a great mirage and even if given the choice to free themselves from the program, they choose not to. There are a relative few who broke out of the matrix to fight the system and try to free the minds of others. In the first of the trilogy, one of the freedom fighters betrays the others. As payment for this betrayal, the overlords promise to return him to the mirage of the matrix, thus freeing him from the suffering of reality. He claimed he was simply tired of fighting the good fight.
Well, as I stated, it appears that not a month goes by where another freedom fighter seems to either give up the fight or begin the slow walk of compromise to the Dark Side.
Not that Christie was a conservative in the first place and whatever his reason, in 2012 Chris Christie sold us out with his famous post Sandy invite an overly affectionate salutation of Obama. Personally, I believe it was that he felt snubbed by Romney for not choosing him as his running mate. Whatever conservative leanings he did have, have all but vanished.
Then about a month ago, the great Hispanic hope of the conservative movement and potential presidential hopeful, sold out to the lefts idea of immigration reform. Some would say it was smart and pragmatic, given the times we live in. I say it was a sellout, pure and simple.
Now in just the past few days, one of my favorite constitutional conservatives has shocked me. I’ve held up Rand Paul as one of a very few constitutionalists in our government I could count on to say and do the right thing consistently.
I was disappointed in his vote for John Kerry as Secretary of State. I held out hope that he would redeem himself when he and others filibustered Obama’s nomination for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel. Hagel was a Republican, but a liberal RINO in every sense of the word. I was stunned when after two successful filibusters; Rand Paul changed his vote to confirm Hagel.
He first appeared on Fox news to explain why:
So he filibustered just to get additional information on Hagel and when he knew he would not receive it, rather than just vote his conscience, he voted to confirm. He claimed he voted for Kerry, “despite not agreeing with a single thing Kerry believes”. Huh?
Paul explained he did so due to constitutional deference to the President. Indeed, the president may nominate anyone he likes to such posts and the Senate’s job is “Advice and Consent” of the nominee.
The senator said that he takes the position that, “The president is afforded a lot of leeway in his selection”. He’s right; the president could select Charles Manson if he is so inclined. The Constitution does however, in no way state that the Senate is merely a rubber stamp. If that were the case why would they bother with it? Hello! Robert Bork?!
Article II. Section. 2. Of the United States Constitution, in part reads: “… and he (the president) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for…”
I know it’s a silly and outdated notion, but are we not supposed to follow the law, which is the Constitution? Ridiculous! And if we are even the slightest bit confused, regarding the meaning of said document should we not look to the original intent of the founders who wrote and advocated for the Constitution? Seems logical.
Well, the Federalist Papers were the commercials of the day. They were written to explain the document and compel people to support it.
Federalist 76 – The Appointment Power of the Executive – explains the Advice and Consent clause.
The author of Federalist 76 was Alexander Hamilton. He wrote, “to what purpose then require the cooperation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the president, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters…” “The Senate… In the business of appointments, will be a considerable and salutary restraint upon the conduct of that magistrate.”
It is therefore evident to me that the Senate is supposed to play an important role in the process of confirmation, and not as I said, be a rubberstamp.
Another thing that bothered me was Paul’s statement that he will stick with his party (Republicans) if the party will stick together. I don’t care for that lemming mentality and it was wholly unexpected coming from Rand Paul.
When asked whether he thought Chuck Hagel would be a good Secretary of Defense, Rand said he didn’t know. Then why vote to confirm him?!
I haven’t given up on Rand Paul, but I do know that compromise begets more compromise until one is unable to walk it back. Let’s hope this doesn’t happen to the Senator.
It’s Time to Declare War on Karl Rove and his ‘Conservative Defeat Project’
The New York Timesis reporting “that the ‘biggest donors in the Republican Party’ have joined forces with Karl Rove and Steven J. Law, president of American Crossroads, to create the Conservative Victory Project.”
The Conservative Victory Project is a direct attack on the Tea Party and its conservative agenda to bring the GOP back to fiscal conservatism and a renewed moral culture that includes opposition to State-sanctioned abortion and State-promoted homosexual marriage, to name just two important social issues
The Times article states that “dedicate itself to ‘recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s effort to win control of the Senate.’”
People like Rove were content to have Richard Lugar of Indiana win re-election. He was one of his guys.
Karl Rove has been a disaster for conservatives ever since the door was opened to him to orchestrate the direction of the Republican Party. As you probably know, there are two main factions in the GOP: social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. But there’s another group that does not have a name yet and I’m not clever enough to come up with one. Corporate Welfarists might suffice until someone can come up with a better moniker.
They are Republicans who like the flow of free money just as much as Democrats do. They just like it directed at their kind of people. They’re not against stimulus money as long as it’s simulating their fat-cat donors. Continue Reading
Lately I’ve been quite critical of the Republican Party and supposed conservatives therein. I’ve had friends recently asked why I’m being so hard on the Republicans; why am I not going after the Democrats?
There is no saving the Democrat party. They are all too far-gone. In fact I have virtually given up on the Republicans also. There are but a handful able to stand up for true conservative values such as Ted Cruz and Louie Gohmert, but there are damn few and not enough to make a difference in the Republican Party.
As most of you know, I’m a big fan of conservative talk radio. The three opinions I trust most are Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Glenn Beck.
Just as Democrats will take to the cable networks such as CNN and MSNBC to get their message out, so will conservatives. The conservatives will however, take their message to a different venue; conservative talk radio. How I judge the conservative bona fides of a politician who has been thrust front and center into an issue is by with whom they speak to explain their issue.
When I hear a supposed conservative on a program such as Sean Hannity or some other Fox News airing but don’t hear them on Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck’s shows, my warning bells sound. I know that a fake conservative will have no problem with a Sean Hannity interview, whereas he would be wary to speak to Rush and never darken Glenn Beck’s door. This I believe to be the one true measure of one’s, shall we say, conservative honesty.
This is why I was encouraged when I heard Marco Rubio was to be on the Rush Limbaugh program to explain his plan on immigration. Rush gave him a fair shake but unfortunately, in my opinion, he was a disappointment. He did say some good things, but overall, a lot of it sounded like political nonsense.
He (Rubio) has been pushing hard, getting his word out on radio, television and in print. Recently he tried to make his case on Erik Erickson’s site, RedState.
He wrote, “We have a legal immigration system that doesn’t work, we don’t have an effective system to enforce our immigration laws, and we have, by some estimates, as many as 11 million human beings living in the United States without the proper immigration documents in a state of de facto amnesty.”
While I agree with Mr. Rubio that our immigration system is broken, I believe he is wrong in his assessment of the 11 million human beings. If we wish to have an honest discussion, we must be honest about who we are dealing with. These “human beings” are not just those without proper documents. They are criminals that knowingly, illegally breached our sovereign border. With their first act, they willingly broke American law. Don’t get me wrong. If I were in a similar situation as most of these people, I would be trying to do the same thing, sneak across the border to get some work or free stuff, but our laws can’t take into account the sufferings of individual noncitizens. I’m sorry that these folks were not born in America and aren’t citizens, but that’s just the way it is.
Rubio continues, “On the political front, a growing number of voters of Asian and Hispanic descent have been convinced by the left that conservative opposition to immigration reform equates to being anti-immigrant.”
I agree that the left has indeed convinced many that conservatives are anti-immigrant. This however, is not due to the ability of the left but the ineptness of the right. The right has allowed the lefties to frame illegal immigration as all immigration. I conclude that those on the right either don’t really care about the distinction or are not courageous enough to speak out against the lies. And another thing; can we stop with the incessant “voting block” nonsense. We have to appeal to the Hispanic community, the Black community, the Asian community. This is all such utter nonsense. Either these people are Americans or they’re not. Go out there and speak to them as individuals, not some monolithic voting bloc. It’s all such crap. This is what I mean when I say, those who control the language control the debate.