Yesterday evening, watching the local news, I saw a story on residents of our city returning from protesting Arizona’s new immigration law. Being Memorial Day, it was painful to hear some of the comments being made about our country and efforts to secure our borders. Apparently every country, including Mexico, is allowed to have secure borders with the sole exception of the one country everyone wants to go to. In honor of these protests I thought I’d offer some points for consideration and a couple recommendations for the state of Arizona.
A secure Southern border will be good for Mexico. As it stands illegals send billions of dollars back to Mexico propping up a broken system. So long as this steady flow of cash continues there is no need for our southern neighbor to fix anything. The country suffers because politicians continue to turn a blind eye to their mismanagement and their country’s less fortunate sons and daughters go off to America to send money back to family. Throughout the Border States wire services to send money to Mexico is a major industry. Of course, those who come here should be allowed to make their own choices about their money and have the freedom to send it home, but only if they are here earning the money legally. With the current situation, the Mexican government has its claws in the pockets of our tax –payers as well as their own.
There is no such thing as a law-abiding illegal alien. This phrase makes my head spin every time I hear it. Of course, I have to admit it has been a while since I heard it because I think even the logic-deficient, bleeding heart left realized it was a bit over the top. However I do still here about those who come here and try hard to obey the laws and work constructively to earn a living. While this is true it overlooks the fact that their very presence in this country is illegal. When this person crossed the border he or she flagrantly broke our laws. When this person took employment without a work-permit more laws were broken. Each day residing in this country and each day working here is another day of illegal activity. Even the nicest of illegal aliens is a criminal, by definition.
Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration insults those who work to enter this country legally. Everyday thousands of people realize the dream of setting foot on the shores of the United States. This country has always attracted the best and brightest of the world’s people. Coming here legally can cost thousands depending upon the country of origin, but these people see it as worth the cost to live in America and have the chances this offers. When we permit a large population to cross and unsecure border and take up long term residence in the US we insult those who come here legally. In effect we are saying to them, “You must pay and jump through hoops to come here. These others get to come here free and without any paperwork.”
Current support for illegal immigration is racist. Those who see Mexicans as somehow in special need or a special exception to the immigration laws, assume that these people just can’t make it without help from a benevolent government. Of course their own government will not help them, unless you count the help they give breaking our laws. Some people feel guilty, believing that being white has given advantages unavailable to other races. This is nothing but a feel good version of the White Man’s burden. It was once seen as a virtue for the white race to control the world and use its power to help those of darker complexions out of barbarity and ignorance. Now it is the white man’s burden to lift up the poor Mexican who comes here illegally. Of course, those believing this do so because they also believe without help from them (the superior white person) the Mexican is unable to help him or herself. Anyone having much contact with Mexican immigrants knows these people are perfectly capable of helping themselves.
After seeing the people from my own city greeted like heroes from a protest in Arizona, I have a recommendation for the state of Arizona. Wherever a group of protesters gather against this law, there is the place to check papers. Permit them to assemble as is their right, but each person participating in or observing should have their residency status checked with those here illegally detained and turned over to ICE. You will very quickly thin the ranks of support at these rallies.
Please consider one other recommendation. Since California, your neighbor, is one of the loudest states standing against you and ICE is threatening to refuse to cooperate with your law enforcement in any cases springing from this law, there is an easy way to handle both problems at once. I recommend you start your own deportation agency. As your officers discover and detain illegals put them on a bus and drop them off in California.
Joe Biden has been out of the house—the White House—and that’s never a good thing. Like the proverbial crazy relative kept out of view in the upper floor of a house, Joe should never be allowed to leave his White House office—at least until 2012 when America will hopefully return to sanity. The best way to secure this would be to brick over the door, leaving an opening just big enough to pass food and water. Unfortunately, no matter how much Obama would like to do this, he just can’t seem to give the order.
I suppose, in the future, when some upstart tyrant conquers his neighbors or kills off the minorities in his country, Europe will ride to the rescue with diplomats flocking to Brussels for help. Good! With Brussels firmly in control, the American military can be brought home from bases around the world. Finally, no longer needing a military, we can sit back and complain about Brussels. Then we, the greatest super-power on earth can finally become Canada.
Let’s consider the history of the US and Brussels for a moment to see who truly deserves this title. Only one look is needed. During WWII, when both nations (the US and Belgium) were involved in resisting Fascism, the US dashed her own sons against the walls of Fortress Europe to overthrow Hitler and liberate a continent. But what was Belgium doing? What is the best way to describe Belgium’s part in that fight for freedom? It is a single word, just on the tip of my tongue. Oh, that’s right, the word is “surrender.” Sorry Brussels, but you’ll have to do a bit more than rent space to some foreign agencies and make waffles to be the Capital of the Free World—keep up the waffles though.
Somebody grab Joe and muzzle him again. Perhaps he should follow the practice of his boss and stick to the teleprompter.
If there is any image of the problem with the Republican Party over the last few years it’s John McCain. I know, many thought I meant Bush, but even he was never the darling of the “We want to be popular” sycophants among the party leadership. John McCain has a made a career of bucking his own party’s principles to stand for whatever crackpot liberal idea came down the pike. Support for bailouts, amnesty, carbon credits, global warming, and the unconstitutional McCain Feingold shows part of the picture. The rest comes from his opposition to taxes—remember his opposition to the Bush tax cuts? Had I listed these positions before telling you of whom I was speaking, you would assume I meant a leftist Democrat—and you’d be right. Remember when it became obvious that McCain was going to lose the presidential primary to Bush. There was a big push to recruit him to run on the Democratic ticket. What made this so serious was how well he would have fit on that side of the aisle—he’ been little more than a Democratic mole for years.
Now, after fighting hard to get a conservative in the senate seat so long held by Ted Kennedy, those most responsible for the victory are being sold out by none other than their primary darlings. Senator-elect Brown has recorded phone ads for John McCain and Sarah Palin has announced her support for, and intention to campaign for McCain.
I found the following picture on the net. It was not credited so I don’t know the original person to atribute it to, but I found it on RedState.com and on TwitPic.
The colors may throw you off a bit considering this is the state of the Kennedy’s, Kerry and Barney Frank.
Looking around the blogosphere I am finding some interesting information on the Brown victory in Massachusetts. In case you are in liberal denial and feel this was a fluke with little meaning for the 2010 elections look at some facts I found from Ann Coulter:
“Coakley had already won two statewide elections, while her Republican opponent, Scott Brown, had only won elections in his district. She had endorsements from the Kennedy family and the current appointed Democratic senator, Paul Kirk — as well as endless glowing profiles in The Boston Globe.
“And by the way, as of Jan. 1, Brown had spent $642,000 on the race, while Coakley had spent $2 million.
“On Jan. 8, just 11 days before the election, The New York Times reported: ‘A Brown win remains improbable, given that Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3 to 1 in the state and that Ms. Coakley, the state’s attorney general, has far more name recognition, money and organizational support.’”
It appears that the best cure for what ails us was a strong shot of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi virus. I refuse to celebrate though. I am ever fearful that the GOP leadership will manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by fielding and supporting candidates that fit the mold of the kinder, gentler party. The GOP was never meant to be the kinder gentler party we are patriots who believe in freedom and refuse to give an inch on our principles. Only time will tell, because nothing can deflate a Republican groundswell like the beltway Bozos believing their own press.
Now we see the change that was promised and the only hope we have is a return to the freedoms that built this country. Obama sought to make this country more like Europe and with double digit unemployment and loss of economic freedoms he has succeeded. Hopefully, this Novermber we will see a return to sanity in Washington, but even with a major GOP win the freedom loving libertarian in me is skeptical.
Yesterday a miracle happened. No, a lion did not lie down with a lamb, the lame did not walk and neither did the blind see. Instead, a miracle of an unprecedented magnitude happened in the state of Massachusetts. A Republican was elected to fill the seat of Teddy “One-for-the-Road” Kennedy. To say that the left is in shock is an understatement.
The question I ask coming out of this election is how will the GOP read it? The election was spun by the left as a referendum on healthcare and that is exactly what won it for Brown. The people of Massachusetts came out in droves to vote against Obama’s plans to extend control over 1/7th of the US economy in the guise of healthcare reform. GOP leadership is of course ecstatic over the victory and they should be (heaven knows it’s been a while since good news involved the GOP). The danger to those of us who value freedom is a misread of Brown’s victory by party elites.
If party leadership reads this victory to mean people are so fed up with the Democrats they will vote for anyone wearing the Republican moniker the potential for big wins in 2010 will be lost. The Republican Party lost big in the last round, not because the country had shifted left, but because the Republican Party had shifted left. Under Bush it was hard to tell a Republican voting record from a Democratic one. Keynesian deficit spending alongside rampant Congressional corruption and moral turpitude produced a perfect storm for the left. The left won because the right stayed home.
It may be possible for the GOP to go one cycle or perhaps two with the old practice of running RINOs and Rockefeller Republicans. It is possible the electorate, shocked by the abuses of a strong Democratic majority, will vote for any elephant walking down the street, but this will not last long. Unless the party of Reagan returns to its base it will find itself exiled from power again and again. If this happens it is not the Republican leaders who will suffer but the American people who are forced to watch more and more of their freedoms wheedled away by misguided apparatchiks.
Recently a friend sent a list of ideas to reform Congress. I told his that most of the ideas would not work and pointed out that many of the ideas were based on myths about Congress—such as the old claim that Congress does not pay into Social Security. This was changed in the 80’s. My friend’s response was to ask for my ideas. I don’t know why in this country we have adopted the ludicrous idea that one cannot point out problems of an action without also laying out a better plan. We saw this in the healthcare debates when the Democrats belittled Republican opposition with the accusation that they had not given a better plan. One does not have to have a better plan to be able to recognize a bad plan. Despite this, I put together my usual list of appropriate fixes. You will not that none of them are the usual fluff floating around conservative circles.
Since only Constitutional Amendments cannot be overturned let’s start there.
First, repeal the XVII Amendment. In the Constitution, the Senate represented the state governments so Senators were elected by the State Legislatures. This was changed to popular election by XVII. We have such a bloated federal government because no one speaks for the states in Congress. With this small change there will never be another unfunded mandate, the X Amendment will be uplifted, and state governments will be empowered to stand up to the federal juggernaut.
Second, repeal the XVI Amendment. This aberration allowed the federal government to tax the people directly without apportionment by census figures. This would abolish the income tax. If you want to limit a government you must keep a tight grip on its ability to raise funds.
Third, further define the treaty making process. The Constitution empowers the President and the Senate to ratify treaties. This is fine with the repeal of XVII since the Senate would once again represent the state governments. The problem is that all bills for appropriation of money are constitutionally required to start in the House. What happens if a treaty is signed that requires the raising of an amount of money? Does the house have to raise the money? If so this is in effect an appropriation started by the Executive branch and the Senate sunning roughshod over the people’s representatives. There needs to be more definition. It must be stated that even if the President and Senate approve a treaty, the House still has the right to refuse to pay for it, by withholding the appropriations. This would handicap much of the feared results of Kyoto, UN mandates, etc. This does not violate the president’s power of foreign diplomacy, but it would limit his ability to enact harmful legislation under the guise of diplomacy, and protect the sovereignty of the American people.
Fourth, the war powers of the president need to be amended. Yes, the president is Commander-in-Chief but the power to send troops outside the US borders to engage any force or nation must be limited to those engagements where Congress has passed a declaration of war. In the case of Afghanistan this would not have been a problem because one could have been passed within hours of 911. However, this would have prevented many problems with Korea and Vietnam because the war could not simply be handed off to blame the president because Congress’ own votes would have been a matter of record. The American soldier should never be sent into harm’s way without the recorded agreement of their representatives. Voting to fund is not enough; it must be a declaration of war.
Fifth, there must be a Constitutional definition of Executive orders. As it is right now the president can make what is in effect law through these monarchical pronouncements, without Constitutional limitation. These orders are necessary for the operation of the executive branch to carry out its duties, but for now there is nothing to limit them. In this way the president is without the limits of checks and balances in executive orders.
Sixth, repeal the XXII Amendment. While others are proposing term limits for Congress, I see presidential term limits as detrimental. Limiting the president to two terms places the executive at a disadvantage in dealing with Congress, because this person’s political career is over. This in effect removes part of the checks and balances over Congress. During a second four year term Congress can force through many things that would never be possible without an emasculated president. Yes, some may point to the danger of ending up with an unbeatable president doing popular but unwise things such as FDR. However the New Deal was long after the passage of the XVI and XVII Amendments. With these repealed FDR would have been powerless.
