Archive for the immigration Category

Just What the Hell is Going On Down There?

Posted in immigration, national defense, politics, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , on August 6, 2008 by Randy Streu

Though you won’t hear it from most major news outlets, Washington Times (along with Newsmax, WND and UPI) reports that a US border patrol agent was recently held at gunpoint by Mexican troops — on United States Soil. According to the report, Mexican soldiers crossed the border in a fairly isolated location, approached the border agent (who has not been identified) and pointed their rifles at him.

Surprising and outrages, perhaps — but even more so is the fact that this is only one over more than 200 such incidents to take place since 1996. Some incidents have not been quite as threatening as this one, while one, which took place in 2002, involved armed Mexican soldiers actually firing on a lone border agent, actually shooting the agent’s vehicle with a .50 caliber weapon.

While it is certain that at least some of the 200 incursions by Mexican military onto our soil were accidental (after all, it’s not as if there’s a border fence…), incidents like the two I’ve mentioned above are clearly threats to US agents, obvious international incidents, and, if we’re to be honest about it, acts of war. These actions may or may not be sanctioned by the Mexican government, but the United States has the right, authority and duty to demand an explanation from Mexico, and extract the promise that these events cease immediately, under threat of severe military consequence.

The fact is, The US Customs and Border Patrol is law enforcement.  They are simply not equipped to deal with a threat to national security — as armed Mexican soldiers entering US property unprovoked clearly is.  If only we had a group of trained soldiers whose job it was to guard the nation.

It is long past time to get on the backs of our elected officials about this.  It’s time to build the damned fence.  It’s time to militarize the border.  It’s time for the government to do what we elected them to do: protect the United States of America.

What’s a Conservative to Do?

Posted in Economy, Elections, First Amendment, Fred(!), Hillary, immigration, John McCain, Mitt Romney, politics, Uncategorized with tags , , , on February 8, 2008 by Randy Streu

It was with a heavy heart that I watched Fred Thompson bow out of the race.  A heavy heart as I finally made the decision on Super Tuesday to vote for the nearest candidate left to a true conservative: Mitt Romney.

It was with a heavy heart that I watched Romney get his ass handed to him on Tuesday, and then read his concession speech today.

It was with a heavy heart that I read John McCain’s speech to Conservatives, and began to understand that this arrogant SOB is the only chance we have left against a Dem-led White House.   The speech in which he acknowledged his differences with Conservatives on particular issues, but then dismissed those issues as unimportant.  Issues like the First Amendment and border security.  Issues like the Bush tax cuts. 

To his credit (I guess), McCain did not apologize for his decisions in these matters — merely acknowledged that they failed to line up with the views of the Conservative base.  He still believes the Conservative base is wrong on these issues.  He fails to see how McCain-Feingold attacks the fundamentals of Free Speech.  He promises constructionist judges — but won’t say how he will find judges who are both “strict constructionists” and will uphold McCain-Feingold (because such individuals don’t exist — the two are mutually exclusive.  This leads one to wonder, then, which ideal will be the guiding principle).  He promises to secure the borders first, if elected, but will not backtrack on McCain-Kennedy amnesty for those already living illegally within our borders.  He has not acknowledged any wrongdoing regarding his blatant and false smear against Romney on the Iraq issue.

Today, he said the right things.  I am not convinced — and don’t expect I will be — that he is the right man.

But, we conservatives are told, now is not the time to “abandon” the Republican party.  Now is not the time to let our principles stand in the way of a Republican victory.  There’s a war on, after all, we’re told.  An economy that threatens to collapse.  Could we be so callous, so … so selfish, that we would sacrifice the US to the will of the Democrat party, simply to “make a point?”

So, with a pat on the head (or a smack on the face), we’re told to hang on to those principles until 2012, perhaps.  Or maybe 2018.  The Republicans haven’t abandoned Conservatism, we’re told.  But we really need a win right now.  And if we Conservatives weren’t so damned picky, we could have this thing in the bag.

Fine… so we hang our ideals and vote for McCain.  We beat the Democrats.  And then what?  When do the Conservatives get their party back?  When do get to fight for our own values without being labeled as “traitors” to the party that is even now betraying us?  When do we get to fight the leftward motion of the Republican party, or failing that, leave?  2012?  Assuming there isn’t a similar crisis that demands our loyalty?

McCain spent the last few years of his career betraying Conservatives.  Now he’s asking for our loyalty?  How many times does this dog have to bite before we’re allowed to put it down?

I haven’t yet made up my mind about whether McCain gets my vote in November.  I know he’s not getting my money.  He hasn’t earned my support.  He hasn’t yet earned my vote.  A few paragraphs of pretty words and a call for Conservatives to make nice doesn’t undo McCain-Feingold, or the Gang of 14, or his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, or McCain-Kennedy.  The looming spectre of a Democrat president may well be enough to scare me into pulling the McCain lever.  But neither McCain nor his supporters should make the mistake of taking the vote as anything other than that.

It’s not a mandate to continue pulling the crap he’s been pulling.  It’s not an invitation to urinate all over Conservative principles in the interest of “bipartisanship.”  Conservatives aren’t voting for the Maverick.  They’re voting against the Democrats, plain and simple.  It’ll be a hollow victory for all involved, if victory it is.  A marriage of convenience with divorce looming ever-so-near on the horizen.

So congratulations to John McCain.  He may or may not get my vote, but he has effectively won the nomination.  He hasn’t won my mind.  He hasn’t won the heart and soul of the Republican party.  In spite of the fact that most Conservatives can’t stomach the man, he has a victory.  Maybe it’ll be enough.  Maybe fear of Hillary and Obama will be enough to unite and mobilize the Republican voters.  It’ll have to be.  Because McCain isn’t.

Super Tuesday & Why we should punch our ballet for Mitt

Posted in Elections, Fred Thompson, general, immigration, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, politics, Ron Paul, taxes on January 31, 2008 by ambrose7

A Few weeks ago I had they chance to vote in Michigan’s primary, when I did this the Republican race was wide open and It wan anyone’s game.  I showed my support for this time for true Regan Conservatism and cast my vote for Fred Thompson. 

Since this time the landscape has changed greatly with only 2 viable candidates left in the Republican Party; Mitt Romney and John McCain. (Sure Ron Paul is still here, but he just is after more media coverage before going back to the libertarian party.  The Huckster is still around as well but he’s up to something far more sinister) 

Of the two candidates left the difference couldn’t be more different.  Minus his health care plan, Mitt Romney is a strong Conservative.  McCain is not.  McCain calls himself a Republican but is there in name only.  McCain is for Amnesty, He’s against tax cuts, his people would even tell you he doesn’t believe he can carry true conservatives in an election.  He’s simply hoping to grab moderates, Independents, and Democrats.   Why would Republicans want a leader whose staff would basically cant carry Conservatives because he’s not running on a Conservative platform. 

No I mentioned something earlier about Huckabee’s slow talking Southern Baptist demeanor fool you.  I am confident Huckabee was part of some back room deal with McCain long ago.  Since about halfway through Iowa these two have been spending there time and money going after Mitt Romney.  McCain as the moderate pulling Independents, and Huckabee as the Conservative, splitting the conservative vote, and allowing McCain to sneak by with wins in places like North Carolina and Florida.  And lets face it I cant say it enough, Huckabee isn’t actually a conservative merely a social conservative, with the term former minister in his title.

So this being said is why Conservatives everywhere need to get out and Rally around Mitt.  Those who have supported Tancredo, Hunter, and Thompson in the past need to throw their support to Mitt. Those who are running for Huckabee should throw there support towards Mitt, Even the less crazy Ron Paul supporters should look to make a change.   Conservatives need to bring in someone who won’t come in here get rid of tax cuts, and make it legal to be illegal.  Lets quite turning a blind eye towards the record of this Grandfather type old man because he was a POW, or because he got a nice sense of humor.  Let’s remember he’s also good friends with Ted Kennedy and has time and time again supported liberal’s and liberal Bills. 

I’m now supporting Mitt Romney.  Will I ever consider myself a “Mitt head” no, he’s still the guy I support because I’m against the other guy, But there’s good reasons to not want the other guy to win.

-Ambrose-

What I Want in a Party

Posted in abortion, civil rights, Constitution, Economy, Elections, First Amendment, immigration, My Government, national defense, politics, Second Amendment, taxes with tags , , , , on January 21, 2008 by Randy Streu

As the elections continue to draw near, it becomes more and more clear to me that the Republican Party has lost its identity.  That, or it’s finally coming into its own.  Either way, the party is seemingly becoming something with which I can no longer proudly associate myself. 

To avoid being disingenuous, I’ll point out for those who aren’t as familiar with my personal politics that, though I am a registered Republican and most often vote that way, I have generally identified myself as Libertarian since around 1996 or so (yeah, I voted for Perot — I got over it, so should you).  I have my own reasons for not registering myself as Libertarian, and more still for voting Republican, generally speaking.

But, as the Republican party — that with which I am registered and have associated — appears to be undergoing a redefinition away from the Goldwater/Reagan policies that first drew me in, I’ve decided this is a good time for me, also, to examine what it is I really want for my country — and therefore what I really want in a political party.

First, I want a party that understands liberty is not ‘granted’ by government.  Freedom cannot be given; it can only be limited, regulated or taken.  Liberty is granted by God.  It is the natural state.  Laws, in a democracy — or Democratic Republic, as more accurately describes the US — are intended to govern human decency; to establish a means of living with one another and forming a society.  Such laws are enacted with the limited purpose of providing a means of restitution for doing harm to another’s life, liberty or property.

I want a party that understands the primary role of government to be the protection of her constituency against harm to life, liberty or property by both domestic and foreign enemies.  This includes the security of our borders, protection of our sovereignty and watchfulness over national interests abroad.  When it comes to immigration, this would include, as Fred Thompson has said, tall fences with wide gates.  Immigration is and always has been important to the foundation and continuation of this country — but so has assimilation of such immigrants.  As Thompson also noted, we as a sovereign nation get to decided when, to whom and for how long that wide gate is opened.  My party would recognize that this is fundamental to national security.

I want a party who recognizes that a government who seeks to “equalize” the monetary position of the citizenry through taxation, redistribution and regulation will succeed in making everybody equally poor.  The party who recognizes this will also see it as a moot point: the right to keep what you make (or earn) is fundamental — the right to what somebody else makes or earns is nonexistent.  The government that grants a person this second, nonexistent right does so to the detriment of this fundamental and actual right.

I want a party that will protect the right to life — even for the unborn.  Primary to all other rights is this simple liberty: to live.  To deprive the life of an innocent human being for the sake of convenience, cosmetics or any consideration beyond (perhaps) to save the life of the mother is beyond immoral; it is barbaric and fascist — and out of keeping with the type of free society envisioned by our forefathers.

I want a party that understands the economics of Freedom.  Such a party realizes that market freedom has built this country into the greatest on earth, and that other nations have evolved and improved not by regulation, but when they have chosen to allow free and independent thinkers the ability to work toward their own betterment — and thus better the lives of those around them.

I want a party that will fight for the preservation of our Constitution; one that would amendment our Founding Document for clarification, and to further maintain freedom — rather than to diminish it.

If a party, a president, or a government will start here — how can they go wrong?

-Streu-

Are We Watching Conservative Republicanism Die?

Posted in Constitution, Economy, Elections, Fred(!), Giuliani, healthcare, immigration, Mike Huckabee, national defense, News, politics, Ron Paul, Second Amendment, Stupid Media, taxes with tags , , , , , on January 8, 2008 by Randy Streu

I’m beginning to think the liberals and the media (but, as some would say, I repeat myself) have finally won.  Or, perhaps, are about to.  When I look at polls, when I listen to people talk (both of which are horrible, horrible methods with which to gain information — and I understand that) it seems people actually want the government to do their thinking for them.  They want the government to deny them liberty and force charity, or health insurance, or social security — or whatever.  They are truly beginning to believe that the average citizen, perhaps, shouldn’t be trusted with weapons — Second Amendment be damned.

This is what happens when you stop thinking with your brain.

What’s been really demoralizing to me personally is that this disease of liberal stupidity (to risk being redundant again) is striking in the Republican party — even harder than in the past.  I’m demoralized because, frankly, I don’t have the strength to start a new party which will stick to Goldwater conservative principles, the Constitution — and not force us to retreat from a war that we’re winning.

For example, as we move along in the primaries, we start looking at what sort of impact the Republican candidates are going to have in New Hampshire.  Why?  More importantly, why would conservatives wish to use a traditionally blue state (in which even many of the Republicans are liberal) to gauge the outcome of the Republican ballot?  Fred(!) Thompson has wisely chosen to skip this state altogether and move along to SC.  Why?  Simply put, because that’s when the Republican race begins.  I’m not going to harp on this point — Limbaugh touched on it today, and better than I could.

My point is that the Republican party seems to be under the impression that pandering to the Left, that producing a liberal candidate and winning the election is, in fact, winning.  Folks, I’m here to tell you, giving up liberty is not winning.  Period. 

Allowing the government to have any control over your personal life, including whether or not you and your family are covered by health insurance, is a loss of liberty.

Allowing your tax dollars to subsidize abortion, welfare, amnesty (even in the form of educational aid) or whatever, instead of those thing for which the federal government was actually formed is, in fact, loss of liberty.

And for what, Republicans?  To get a president with the (R) next to his name?  What good will that do, if the choice simply brings us further down the Left, after all?  Just what the hell is the point of having a Republican president if he governs like a Democrat?

I’ll close with words of wisdom from Fred Thompson.  “I believe conservatives beat liberals only when they challenge their outdated positions — not embrace them.”

-Streu-

Definitions of Hate: More on the “English Only” Controversy

Posted in civil rights, Constitution, First Amendment, immigration, News, politics with tags , , , , , , on December 17, 2007 by Randy Streu

A guy in Pennsylvania is being investigated by the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations for having a sign in his restaurant.  Joe Vento, owner of Philly-based Geno’s Steaks posted a sign saying, “This is America.  When you order, speak English.”  Simply put, Vento didn’t want to hire somebody specific for every non-English language spoken throughout parts of the US.  English is the preferred language of the US, and the language spoken by most citizens.  But, he says, he was noticing a larger and larger amount of people who couldn’t, or wouldn’t, order in English — and it was slowing down the productivity of his shop.  So, why does Joe have to defend himself before a city commission over this sign?

Apparently the signs, (two of them, barely larger than bumper stickers) offended some liberal sensativities and the commission saw this as being discriminitory.  Vento’s attorney argues the case should be dismissed, citing the “legitimate business purposes,” graciously allowed by Charlie Gonzales.  The attorney for the Commission (who, in spite of the commission’s claim that no judgement will be rendered for at least two months, seems to have his mind already made up) says this particular hearing is not about free expression, but about “intimidation,” suggesting that some peoples’ business is not wanted.

Another lib with no real connection to the situation, but plenty to say on the subject, testified at the hearing.  Camille Charles, who teaches sociology at UPenn, calls Vento’s signs a throwback to Jim Crow-era “Whites Only” signs.

Wouldn’t it be great of a connection to reality was a requirement to having any sort of special commission take you seriously? 

These signs are not about race.  They aren’t about intimidation.  They aren’t about giving “a feeling of being unwelcome and being excluded,” as Charles suggests.  And, even if they were, I submit, it wouldn’t matter.  The great thing about America is, you have the right to be an asshole.  The market cleanses itself.  If this were a problem for people, they would stop spending money there.  But like most liberals, people don’t want to actually do anything about it.  They want the government to do it for them.

Back to the point, though.  These signs aren’t about any of those things.  The shopowner isn’t asking people to change something about themselves that they can’t change.  He’s asking them to order in English.  It’s his establishment, and he’d prefer if people spoke his language if they wanted service, rather than wasting his time speaking a language he doesn’t understand (and has not responsibility to).  I bet Joe would even be okay with somebody else doing the ordering for you.  Just so long as somebody speaks English.

The thing that really irks me about this situation — okay, everything irks me about this situation — another thing that bugs me is the protesters with the “No Hate in Our Town” signs.  Libs have invented this new definition of hate, and it’s being embraced by a wider and wider audience.  And it’s time for it to stop. 

According to libs, “hate” means, depending on the situation, “you disagree with me,” “you disagree with my lifestyle,” “you’re a Republican,” and now, “you want me to speak English.”  This is not hate.  It never was. 

What we’re looking at is, in fact, an assault on free thought.  We see it in “hate crime” legislation.  We see it in the ever-expanding definition of “hate.”  It’s thought control, riding around in the Trojan Horse of “good intentions.”  We think to ourselves, “You know, hate is bad.  People shouldn’t do that.”  This leads to, “yeah… I think if somebody commits a crime based on hatred, they ought to be punished more” (a dangerous road by itself, as I commented during my myspace days).  But then you have this whole definition of “hate” thing.  Once we outlaw hatred, and we then begin to soften the definition, where does it end?  Who gets to decide what constitutes “Hatred,” and what is “political speech”?  Who gets to decide who it’s okay to hate?

This should bother more people.

-Streu-

A Real Conservative Speaks

Posted in blognews, Constitution, Elections, Fred(!), immigration, politics, Second Amendment with tags , , , , on November 21, 2007 by independentthinking

Thompson’s on fire, blogwise today. 

Read Fred(!)’s thoughts on:
The Second Amendment
Stem Cell Research
EEOC Attacks on the Salvation Army
(Commentary on this subject can also be found here at SIT)

Check out how a true conservative would govern.  And don’t forget, Wednesday, Nov 21 — www.fredsgivingday.com