Archive for the ‘immigration’ Category

McCain’s Keys to Victory

johncindymccain.jpg 

Last night it was surreal to see my favorite presidential candidate effectively win the GOP nomination.  Last summer this maverick candidate was left for dead on the campaign trail, but I think that’s one of the qualities I can’t help but love about McCain–he’s a fighter. 

If you’re like me, I’m generally disgusted with politics.  I don’t much care for the “Republican” or “Democrat” labels and the folks who would rather wrangle over power than actually work together.  I think McCain might feel the same way.  I’m interested in seeing the people we elect get things done!!!  (Even if it means both sides have to compromise a little on something.)

You know, some things never change.  The Federalists arguing for the passage of the U.S. Constitution claimed that it was sufficient in and of itself as drafted.  The Anti-Federalists at the time didn’t want a strong national government at all and they refuted the bold assertions of the Federalists and demanded that a Bill of Rights to be added for greater protections to the citizenry.  Well, guess what?  Without a little give from both political parties, we might not have a U.S. Constitution or a Bill of Rights today!

That’s why I trust McCain to get things done! 

If you want “CHANGE” in Washington D.C., who better than the guy who has consistently worked to bring both sides together on important issues!?  I trust that McCain will continue to work to secure the nation’s borders without infringing on human rightsI trust that McCain will continue to work to nominate conservative judges and justices to the Federal Courts and the Supreme CourtI trust that McCain will continue to support the new government in Iraq until they can fight the radical jihadists without usI trust that McCain will continue to support policies that promote the sanctity of human life.  I trust that McCain will continue to fight wasteful spending in government and fight for lower taxes.  And I’d much rather get 80% of all of that for example, than nothing at all.

So what must McCain do to win the presidency?  First, I think he needs to be faithful to the convictions that got him this far.  But second, his vice presidential running mate will make or break his campaign.  I really don’t think Romney or Huckabee will do either.  It’s not McCain’s style and I think either of those two will impede momentum.  It would be in McCain’s best interest to steal some more “change” thunder from the Democrats, i.e. select a woman and/or a minority as a conservative running mate!!!

 mccainrice081.jpg

Condoleezza Rice anyone?  You’ve got to admit, McCain and Rice compliment each other very well!  She has lots of foreign affairs experience as Secretary of State and understands international security issues inside and out.  She actually has REAL national and international U.S. policy experience (unlike another lady running for office who shall remain nameless).  But why give any voter the dumb excuse to vote for someone simply because a candidate is the first “fill-in-the-blank”?  McCain can make that a non-issue by doing essentially the same thing, but with a conservative running mate!  Both parties and voters will then have to re-focus on the real issues at stake! 

Or how about Collin Powell as a VP pick for many of the same reasons?

 mccainpowell08.jpg

Or how about former Congressman J.C. Watts as a VP pick for a younger, vibrant midwestern conservative?  (Great thought Neil!)

jcwatts.jpg 

I’m sure there are many more excellent choices, but whoever McCain ultimately asks to join the ticket–his choice is absolutely critical. 

 

 

 

Conservatives, “It’s About the Justices Stupid”

The economy is always a pressing issue for any President, but the nomination and appointment of federal judges, especially Supreme Court Justices lives decades beyond any Presidency. –Jay

The conservative movement has made enormous gains over the past three decades in restoring constitutional government. The Roberts Supreme Court shows every sign of building on these gains.

Yet the gulf between Democratic and Republican approaches to constitutional law and the role of the federal courts is greater than at any time since the New Deal. With a Democratic Senate, Democratic presidents would be able to confirm adherents of the theory of the “Living Constitution” — in essence empowering judges to update the Constitution to advance their own conception of a better world. This would threaten the jurisprudential gains of the past three decades, and provide new impetus to judicial activism of a kind not seen since the 1960s.

We believe that the nomination of John McCain is the best option to preserve the ongoing restoration of constitutional government. He is by far the most electable Republican candidate remaining in the race, and based on his record is as likely to appoint judges committed to constitutionalism as Mitt Romney, a candidate for whom we also have great respect.

We make no apology for suggesting that electability must be a prime consideration. The expected value of any presidential candidate for the future of the American judiciary must be discounted by the probability that the candidate will not prevail in the election. For other kinds of issues, it may be argued that it is better to lose with the perfect candidate than to win with an imperfect one. The party lives to fight another day and can reverse the bad policies of an intervening presidency.

The judiciary is different. On Jan. 20, 2009, six of the nine Supreme Court justices will be over 70. Most of them could be replaced by the next president, particularly if he or she is re-elected. Given the prospect of accelerating gains in modern medical technology, some of the new justices may serve for half a century. Even if a more perfect candidate were somehow elected in 2012, he would not be able to undo the damage, especially to the Supreme Court.

mccain.jpg

Continue reading

Rush Limbaugh: The Irrelevant Conservative

As a young conservative years ago while listening to Rush Limbaugh one day,  it dawned on me that Rush Limbaugh with all his potential influence and self-claimed solid  “conservative viewpoints” has never put forth any ideas of his own to be tested and tried in the public arena.  In fact, I came to the realization that his whole career is aimed at hyping people up, tearing other people down that he personally dislikes, and generally making sure that the ratings for his radio network and program don’t slip.  He’s the leader of the anti-Clinton bandwagon.  I get that.  But if this guy really knows anything (as he seems to have all the answers or at least easily spots every bad one), why doesn’t he run for office?  Why doesn’t he stick his neck out there in the political arena and put it all on the line like a real candidate?

A: Rush doesn’t have any answers.  He is simply a loud critic.   

Interestingly enough, Rush’s Missouri lineage is steeped with close relatives who are or were attorneys and public servants.  One relative is a current Missouri Supreme Court justice, and another one is a Federal District Court judge in the Western District of Missouri.  So, what about Rush?  After two semesters and one summer of college, he dropped out. 

So now we have this seemingly popular “conservative” radio talk show host, telling everyone who will listen what it means to be truly conservative. 

But how does he know?  Well, he obviously doesn’t. 

Rush Limbaugh is absolutley irrelevant.  And the proof is when he throws his support behind someone like Fred Thompson claiming that Thompson is the only true conservative and basically that he is what the Republican Party needs.  Give me a break.  The OVERWHELMING majority of conservatives in the primaries and caucuses thus far clearly did not want someone like Thompson.  And even more embarrassing for Rush was the fact that he was dancing on the political grave of Hillary Clinton the night she came in third place in the Iowa Caucuses claiming that it “was a devastating and humiliating loss for Hillary Clinton” and mused that she may be done.  Who is Rush kidding?  There is so much more to being a thoughtful, independent conservative than Rush’s ideologically-driven version of hating the Clintons, or hating Democrats in general and all their ideas,  hating illegal immigrants, and dismissing any other conservatives with whom he might disagree. 

And being a self-described Reagan Conservative, Rush continually bashes McCain for his proposed immigration reform (which is not amnesty) all the while ignoring the fact that Reagan actually gave illegal immigrants real, no penalties, amnesty!!!   Republicans generally pride themselves in promoting various issues and conservative viewpoints that are grounded in realism, but Rush is obviously grounded in something else.     

Talk is Cheap

Service.  Experience.  Leadership. 

Any questions?

A Christian Conservative’s Take On Immigration

“The point of my article today is that the illegal immigrant infrastructure in this country is and has been a danger to national security and human life. These people do not pay taxes, they are a drain on the social welfare system, and they have these dangerous terrorists among them.” (A Fort Dix, N.J. related post.)

I don’t believe that U.S. immigration (illegal or not) has much to do with national security or terrorism. Historically, the U.S. has not had much terrorist-type trouble (that I can think of) with open borders in Canada or Mexico going back decades now. My point is this: people like Timothy McVey or anyone else who wishes America harm will always exploit any system to inflict terror. (Wasn’t Mr. McVey a full-fledged U.S. citizen?)

Anyway, the economic problems in the U.S. are hardly the result of immigration (illegal or not). Rather the welfare system, other government-funded social programs, and bad laws have caused the problem by artificially interfering with free market economics that would otherwise adjust to new and various population increases.

The best answer is to change the laws in such a way to allow for easier legal immigration and documentation and legal U.S. residency and/or citizenship, and thereby get such people paying taxes like the rest of us. The idea that the best fix is to “ship all them illegals back to where ever the Hell they came from” is rather cruel. That notion is practically racist. If one has ever spent any time with the good, yet comparatively poor people of Mexico for example, then one also understands the desperation with which they seek new lives in the U.S. (Just like our own ancestors before us.)

Immigration issues today have little to do with terrorism. How are a few crazys in N.J. any different from gang members in Chicago or L.A.? No amount of legislation will ever stop violence, and it is unfair to characterize “illegals” as being more likely to cause any more “terrorism” than anyone else.