The president delivered a speech yesterday regarding illegal immigration and the U.S.-Mexican border. What he offered was not a redaction of his previous plan but a new focus to precede that plan.
Conservatives had opposed his initial plan of creating a guest-worker program not because they necessarily disagreed with the concept, but because the president’s plan ended there. Absent was any mention of shoring up the border to prevent illegal aliens from coming into the country in the first place. A guest-worker program may be the way to go, but before you can create new laws and programs you must enforce the existing ones, making sure that we do a better job of preventing illegal aliens from cutting in line in front of those who come here legally.
Moreover, a guest-worker program does little if anything to address the grave national security threat that arises from having poor border enforcement. A guest-worker program is not going to stop a member of al-Qaeda or someone else interested in harming the United States from crossing the border illegally and undocumented. Only a strong border enforcement will.
Hopefully the president now understands this and is willing to push for it with congress.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Friday, November 18, 2005
The Alito Application
There has been a small controversy over comments Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito made in a 1985 application for a position in the Reagan Justice Department, a memo in which he essentially said that he was proud to have advocated legal positions which held that the constitution did not permit racial quotas or protect abortion. Senate Democrats were naturally concerned over such a revelation and quizzed Judge Alito as a result. His reported response was that he wrote those comments twenty years ago while applying for a legal advocacy position in a conservative administration. Moreover, he pointed out that he is a judge now and the personal views he expressed then carry no relevance in his current role as a judge.
This response is entirely legitimate and correct, and Democrats would do well to remember the difference between advocate and judge as the confirmation process progresses. All of this aside however Judge Alito was entirely correct in ‘85—the constitution does not protect abortion. What it does protect is the right for every state and the people therein to resolve the issue of abortion, and most other issues for that matter, through the democratic process. The constitution does not make substantive judgments on issues, it provides the framework and protects the right of the people to make the substantive judgments themselves.
Democrats will undoubtedly try to hold the fact that Judge Alito recognizes this against him. To counteract this a sustained and vigorous rebuttal from conservatives will be required.
Cross-posted @ Respectfully Republican
This response is entirely legitimate and correct, and Democrats would do well to remember the difference between advocate and judge as the confirmation process progresses. All of this aside however Judge Alito was entirely correct in ‘85—the constitution does not protect abortion. What it does protect is the right for every state and the people therein to resolve the issue of abortion, and most other issues for that matter, through the democratic process. The constitution does not make substantive judgments on issues, it provides the framework and protects the right of the people to make the substantive judgments themselves.
Democrats will undoubtedly try to hold the fact that Judge Alito recognizes this against him. To counteract this a sustained and vigorous rebuttal from conservatives will be required.
Cross-posted @ Respectfully Republican
Friday, November 11, 2005
Veterans' Day
A warm thank you to all of our veterans who have worn the uniform and fought under the American flag. I cannot possibly begin to articulate all the gratitude I and every other patriotic American feel on this day. But I can say that we as a nation are all completely aware of the fact that if it weren’t for the brave there would be no land of the free. Thank you once again and God Bless each and every one of you.
The Soldier
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves under the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to abuse and burn the flag.
By Charles M. Province
The Soldier
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves under the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to abuse and burn the flag.
By Charles M. Province
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
The '05 Elections
The returns are in from yesterday’s election and everything seems to have gone as expected. Mayor Bloomberg won big in Gotham, Sen. Corzine won in New Jersey, Kaine won in the Old Dominion state, and the constitutional ban on gay marriage passed in Texas.
Presumably Democrats will present the gubernatorial victories of Corzine and Kaine as harbingers of more Democratic victories to come in ‘06. Perhaps they will be right, but I hardly see how these results foreshadow such an outcome. Sen. Corzine won in New Jersey because he is an established Democrat in an established Democratic state. Kaine was able to ride the coat-tails of the ever-popular current governor, Mark Warner, whom Kaine served under as lieutenant governor the past four years. Moreover, these victories were simple holds, not pick-ups. Democrats control no more state houses today than they did yesterday.
It is entirely possible that Democrats will enjoy substantial gains in next year’s mid-terms. Republicans are, for various reasons, certainly ripe for defeat. They spend too much, they haven’t addressed the border, we have heard very little about making the tax cuts permanent, and it seems to be business as usual in Washington, which Republicans were supposed to change when they were given control of congress in ‘94.
For the Democrats to capitalize on this however they will need to find some strong leadership and an agenda palatable to the American people. They don’t have either right now, and in fact are just as unpopular as Republicans are. All the Democrats have to offer now is opposition and outright hatred for Republicans and President Bush. That is nothing, and as the Democrats have learned in the past two elections you can’t beat something with nothing. The makeup of congress will change very little unless Democrats correct this.
Presumably Democrats will present the gubernatorial victories of Corzine and Kaine as harbingers of more Democratic victories to come in ‘06. Perhaps they will be right, but I hardly see how these results foreshadow such an outcome. Sen. Corzine won in New Jersey because he is an established Democrat in an established Democratic state. Kaine was able to ride the coat-tails of the ever-popular current governor, Mark Warner, whom Kaine served under as lieutenant governor the past four years. Moreover, these victories were simple holds, not pick-ups. Democrats control no more state houses today than they did yesterday.
It is entirely possible that Democrats will enjoy substantial gains in next year’s mid-terms. Republicans are, for various reasons, certainly ripe for defeat. They spend too much, they haven’t addressed the border, we have heard very little about making the tax cuts permanent, and it seems to be business as usual in Washington, which Republicans were supposed to change when they were given control of congress in ‘94.
For the Democrats to capitalize on this however they will need to find some strong leadership and an agenda palatable to the American people. They don’t have either right now, and in fact are just as unpopular as Republicans are. All the Democrats have to offer now is opposition and outright hatred for Republicans and President Bush. That is nothing, and as the Democrats have learned in the past two elections you can’t beat something with nothing. The makeup of congress will change very little unless Democrats correct this.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Twenty-Five Years Ago
It was only twenty-five years ago today that America picked itself up from the ashes and sent Ronald Reagan to the White House. As a result the Cold War has been won, taxes are lower, and America believes in itself once again.
Good But Not Good Enough
The Senate took a step in the right direction yesterday by passing a spending reduction bill amounting to $36 billion. It was only a step however, and a very small step at that. Compared to the sheer size of the federal budget yesterday's cuts were fairly small, and if not followed by further cuts in the future will do little to advance fiscal responsibility within the federal government.
Moreover, even in a bill designed to cut spending Washington lawmakers couldn’t help but throw in a few token pieces of pork. For example, the bill provides $3 billion in federal funds to "subsidize television converter boxes for an upcoming changeover to digital broadcasts." Seriously. The bill may reduce $36 billion in federal spending but in total it introduces other new spending totaling $35 billion. It has gotten so pathetic that even when congress sets out to cut spending it only ends up finding new ways to spend more.
Slight cuts are certainly welcome, but federal spending is still out of control and cutting bits and pieces of spending here and there only to offset those cuts with increased spending elsewhere is going to do very little to solve the federal government’s fiscal challenges. What is needed is a comprehensive budget-reduction effort that will redo and reduce the federal budget from top to bottom. Republicans have been in the majority for over eleven years now and the fact that this has not been accomplished yet should shame every Republican lawmaker into action; serious action that goes much farther than the Senate went yesterday.
Moreover, even in a bill designed to cut spending Washington lawmakers couldn’t help but throw in a few token pieces of pork. For example, the bill provides $3 billion in federal funds to "subsidize television converter boxes for an upcoming changeover to digital broadcasts." Seriously. The bill may reduce $36 billion in federal spending but in total it introduces other new spending totaling $35 billion. It has gotten so pathetic that even when congress sets out to cut spending it only ends up finding new ways to spend more.
Slight cuts are certainly welcome, but federal spending is still out of control and cutting bits and pieces of spending here and there only to offset those cuts with increased spending elsewhere is going to do very little to solve the federal government’s fiscal challenges. What is needed is a comprehensive budget-reduction effort that will redo and reduce the federal budget from top to bottom. Republicans have been in the majority for over eleven years now and the fact that this has not been accomplished yet should shame every Republican lawmaker into action; serious action that goes much farther than the Senate went yesterday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)