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.

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.

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.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5vAYLLS2cQ

Thanks to my good friend Dr. Bud Powell for pointing this video out to me.

It’s too bad that fifty years later we’re still being offered the same Utopian pipedreams.

That’s right. The White House has declared war against Fox news. Why? Fox News broadcasts the opposing view. In other words they practice journalism. I would not be so naive to say that Fox new is always unbiased. They have commentators who regularly speak against the left, just like CNN does. The problem is that the Obama administration loves CNN and MSNBC because the love is returned. These two stations have been in a love fest with this administration long before Obama was sworn in. Of course, MSNBC is the worst of the two. If they didn’t occasionally broadcast the weather MSNBC could not even be called a news station. CNN, formerly the Clinton New Network and now in the thralls of Obama, has yet to air a story in any way negative of the new president.

The First Amendment was not put in place to protect the government’s mouthpiece but to protect those who would speak against the government so that the people will hear more than the official side. This role has fallen to Fox News, the only station following its First Amendment mandate.

In nine short months a fertilized egg becomes a fully formed human being. The transformation from single cell to sentient intelligent being is an amazing miracle to consider. Compound that complexity with the quickness of the process and awe is only natural. The mother feels her bond grow daily as her child develops; a father’s first experience of the child is at birth. Just as the bewildered father finds himself bewildered by miracle that has changed him from man to father and feels mixed emotions as he realizes the weight of his new responsibilities, a society can find itself overcome by the changes wrought in a few months by a misguided agenda.

The last few months of US history are a perfect example. We have seen changes in the land unforeseeable only a few years ago. I still remember the days when the media was bemoaning the destruction of the Democratic Party and declaring that the whole country had taken a sharp turn to the right. With the leadership of the American Triumvirate (Obama, Reid and Pelosi) we face a brave new world—not so brave, and if you listen to Solomon, not so new.

Over the last few months the following has come to pass under the leadership of the most left leaning president and Congress in history:
• American’s largest auto manufacturer is majority owned by the federal government.
• The President of the United States has removed the CEO of a major corporation.
• The financial industry is under the heavy hand of the fed.
• Major segments of society are being managed by Czars, not one of them elected.
• Veterans who served their country have been labeled potential terrorists.
• A government website has been established for reporting opposition.
• The government is poised to expand its control of our healthcare.
• War has been declared on the entire health insurance industry.
• Members of previous administrations are being criminalized for policy differences.
• Business is being attacked with higher mandatory wages and proposed new requirements.
• Our children’s wealth has been spent before the children have earned it.
• Government debt has risen to unprecedented levels.
• Art and education are being suborned to speak in support of the president and his policies.
• Our economy is being sacrificed to the new religion of Global Warming.

As if this isn’t enough, imagine what a few more months will bring. Already, in 2010 taxes will increase without any action by the Congress or President. This automatic tax increase will kick in when the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. It will be spun by Obama and the boys as not being a tax cut, but if your taxes are one amount this year and nearly double next year what do you call it? It is a tax increase and it will be Obama, Reid and Pelosi’s baby.

Some used to be say, “One election doesn’t matter; how must damage could be done in four years?” If the last few months are an example every election counts because the damage done can be irrevocable. Mister Obama, “I’ll keep my current health coverage, my current income and my current freedoms; you can keep the change.”

Efforts of this administration and the Hip-pocket Congress prove that the current elected assemblies in Washington are representing a failed ideology at the expense of the American people. Many of us fear having an imperfect system that works replaced by a system destined for failure. The Democrats in Congress (with the help of their moderate to liberal Republican sycophants) are so set on building their leftist Utopia that they are ignoring the voices of the people.

This congress and administration has done far more to undermine the confidence of the American people in their own government than all previous ones combined. Over the last few months we have become aware that those elected to represent us are voting on bills they have never read, and that many times are not even off the presses. This happened before, but pair it with record spending and you have a government run amuck. Add to this their hatred for dissent with efforts to reinstate the failed “Fairness Doctrine,” special email addresses to report those who would dare to speak out against healthcare, labeling those who served their country with honor as potential terrorists and accusations by Speaker Pelosi that those who are now speaking out are un-American.”

Then there’s the blatant hypocrisy of a Congress that rails against corporate executives flying in private jets, only to turn around and request new business jets from the Pentagon to ferry Congressmen around. According to a story in Market Watch this money will have to be cut out of other areas of the defense budget. Congress is willing to cut the amount of money being spent to support our troops in war so they can get a cushy flight. Of course this ignores the old news request of Speaker Pelosi for a larger jet for her private coast to coast flights. Their hypocrisy doesn’t stop there though. What about Card Check? This plan, also known as the Employee “Free Choice” Act, claimed to be for the support of workers. This claim was possible because leftists still long for the days of the great Revolution and calls of “Workers of the World, Unite!” They overlook the facts about unions—driving up costs, making American manufacturing uncompetitive, and unwillingness to see companies as anything other than cash-cows to be milked at every opportunity. Do you want to know why manufacturing jobs are fleeing the United States? “Look for Union Label.” This nice little bill would have stripped away a worker’s right to a secret ballot in a union vote.

So what are good hard-working Americans to do when faced with these issues? Are we to wait for the media to get the word out? Considering they have still not dropped their love affair with Barack Obama, I don’t think this will happen anytime soon.

Of course we should not be surprised they still fawn over Barack. They should have known that once they sold their souls in the election they would have to keep up the charade for the rest of his presidency. Liberals do not care what you did for them yesterday. Any anchor in the MSM that comes out with any negative press about Barack Obama will find himself labeled a bigot and tarred and feathered by the left. We can hope the media will wake up and resume their post as defenders of liberty and clarions of the truth, but that kind of media is rare.

“If you do not read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you read the newspaper you are misinformed.” —-Mark Twain.

The answer is what we see happening today. Protests and demonstrations are one of the few ways left to get the word to congressmen. The first amendment was not meant to protect only the news industry but all Americans who want to express themselves. Solutions will not be found in quiet discourse and polite debate, but in high volume vitriol. Politician’s calls for niceness and quiet are a veiled attempt to silence and to muzzle. The left has used this tactic for decades. There is a huge difference between what the left did before and what is going on now. When the left would demonstrate, the ranks were filled with the unemployed, the professional protestors and people unlikely to pay for what they demanded. Those protesting now are the very people who write the check and mail it to the IRS to pay the bills of this country. They are the productive in our society. When those who create the wealth in this land feel the need to take time away from work and family to come to a townhall meeting and make their opinions known it is the Congressmen or other official that should sit down and be quiet because those who pay them are speaking.

In party politics we as individuals must realize that we will never have a perfect candidate—one who is supported by all of the party. Compromise is essential in politics, even on the choice of a candidate. In deciding whom to support we take many things into account and their position on issues are only part of the equation. We must also keep in mind that, at least on the federal level, no single candidate will ever accomplish anything. The lone wolf is the most ineffective member of Congress. Change comes from majorities. If the majority will be freedom loving then it may be necessary to tolerate a few RINOs so long as the majority is large enough to counter their foolish votes. Unfortunately, with the last Republican majority this concept caused trouble. First, the majority was slim enough that liberal Republicans often obliterated the advantage of the majority by voting with the opposition. Second, once the ratio of conservatives, moderates and liberals in the majority tips from one to the other you may have the same party in charge, but an entirely different agenda.

The Republican party leadership must realize that the base will not support a liberal or moderate majority, even a Republican one. As conservatives and libertarians we must support candidates who believe in the maximum of freedom, even if at times it means our party loses.

We ordain the Constitution to protect our liberty.
We permit the government to wield our power.
We create parties to express our voice.

The GOP got the mistaken idea that the members of the party exist to keep them in office and power. They forgot that the liberties, the power and the voice are ours. They are simply one of several tools. Like any tool, it is of value so long as it performs its function, other wise it is discarded.

I attended a meeting of a local Republican organization and heard a speech from the county Chairman of the party. Out of respect I will neither say what group nor identify the person. The problem was not the speaker nor the venue but the substance of what was said. Seldom have so many words been spoken with so little being said. The entire time was spent on a litany of charges against Barack Obama with the occasional back-handed jab at the Clintons; all of which were the same old screeds bouncing around the internet. While many of these charges are serious and should be investigated, this chance to motivate the grassroots was wasted with pointless tirades. There was nothing of substance to show what the party should do or what the GOP had to offer. This speech made me wonder if the GOP is reverting back to opposition party mentality as the anti-Obama party: “vote for us because we are not Barack Obama.” We saw this before when Bob Dole ran as the moral antithesis of Bill “Where’s my cigar” Clinton. This tactic never succeeds and if the GOP is going to adopt it then yet another election cycle will be lost.

Conservatives and libertarians in the GOP must lay out a plan. Running against Barack Obama will fail, while a workable plan with a definite direction is the road to success.

Such legislation makes certain feelings behind a crime extenuating circumstances in the punishment of the crime. If I mug a person, I get one punishment; if I am inspired by hatred of his race, gender, ethnic origin or sexual orientation then I receive a stricter sentence. While this may seem like a good idea, consider the issue of justice and why we inflict punishment on a perpetrator. When one commits a crime we take away from them something (time, money, or even life) commensurate to what they cost society and the victim. Hate crimes legislation insinuates that a victim of a hate-inspired crime loses more than the victim of the same crime when inspired by something else. The other victim would probably differ with this and so should we all. A mugger is imprisoned for violating the rights of another. These were the right to their property, and the right to a reasonable sense of security. To increase the punishment for a crime because it is inspired by hate assumes that one has the right to not be hated. This may sound warm and fuzzy, but would give you right over my mind and emotions. If I think in my own mind badly about you and it inspires me to hate then I would have violated your rights. Such a right is ludicrous and indefensible. I have the right to think as I see fit. I have the right to speak as I see fit. When hatred inspires one to hurt another it is the harm, not the hatred, that is a crime.

Hate crimes legislation also belittles the loss of other victims. “This woman was raped in a hate crime so her attacker gets 25 years. Your rape is only worth 15 years.” Sentence would be based on the beliefs behind the crime instead of the details of the crime, the cost to the victim and society?

One other problem is the difficulty of defense against accusations. How disprove hatred? How can a heterosexual prove he doesn’t hate homosexuals? How can a man prove he doesn’t hate women? How can a black man prove he doesn’t hate whites? It is often said that you can not prove a negative. When I was in the Army I was stationed in Korea and served with several Korean soldiers. Most were good friends whom I would hang out with to learn the language and culture while helping them to understand ours. However, one Korean soldier and I did not get along at all. He pretended to speak less English to get out of work, refused to take initiative and seldom carried out his own duties. One day the Company Commander called me into his office. This soldier had charged me with hating Koreans and discrimination. Such a charge can end a military career in a day. I was called on to prove that I did not hate Koreans. The fact that I could speak and read the language was not enough. The fact that I loved to walk through the Korean villages well away from camp to experience the food and culture was not enough. I had only one card to play in my defense. I responded: “Sir, you signed my marriage paperwork. You know my wife is Korean and my future children will be half Korean.” The Commander went blank for a second before sending me away. He tore up the charges and I was exonerated. This is important to realize the depth of actions needed to defend against accusations of hatred. Actually, my commander was wrong in one regard. My being married did not answer the charges because there can be any number of nuances to hatred. It is possible to hate an entire people and find one among them who, for some reason, is not hated. Once we open the door to hate crimes legislation we open a Pandora’s box that will be next to impossible to shut.

If a person has a right (as this legislation insinuates) to not be hated, before long there will be a cry for hate speech legislation. When this happens we lose the most central of our freedoms—the right to speak our minds, no matter how unpopular or uncomfortable the words may be. We will be a country muzzled, afraid to speak for fear of the hate police. Religious speech will be curtailed. Political speech will be monitored. The America that set the world free will have been killed by a hateful leftist agenda—the only hatred permitted.