Putting Things In Perspective
Posted on May 13, 2006
I get exhausted and tired of talking politics everyday, but something inside keeps pushing me. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t think about quitting, but never do. The Anchoress is having to take a well deserved breather on politics, but before she does…she has a little more to say.
But as I put the subject away, I just have to ask all of you people – on every side – who have decided that immigration is one man’s burden, and that every good thing President Bush has done is to be negated because he hasn’t snapped his fingers and done what YOU think is the solution to the immigration problem…what did Clinton do about immigration, what did Bush 41 do? What did St. Reagan do? What did Carter do? What has any president, congressperson or senator done about immigration for the last 30 years, except kick the issue down the road for someone else to deal with?
She covers several other topics on how conservatives are jumping ship. I was just talking to someone last night on how much of a shame it would be if the current political hot potato of immigration and border control was to overshadow the many great things that president Bush has done.
Gateway Pundit puts it all in perspective.
Captain’s Quarters says don’t throw Bush under the bus.
But…Professor Brainbridge….have you really considered how much damage four years of Hillary could really do?
Shrinkwrapped has thoughts on the fatigue too.
Rove says it’s just sour times, we’ll be fine by fall.
» Filed Under Border Control/Homeland Security, News
Trackback URL
Comments
50 Responses to “Putting Things In Perspective”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
I absolutely agree. The Republican Party is the ONLY vehicle for conservatives to get their agendas realized. And they are content with destroying the party’s consolidation in DC and handing partial or complete power over to the Democrats. How will that further conservative causes?
Immigration is a big issue and many conservatives will accept nothing less than a complete and total ideological victory in this area. I have made the case (and will trackback it again) that the right needs to step back from the brink a little and start compromising on the issue, and start realizing that much of President Bush’s proposals are realistic and a step in the right direction.
What did Clinton, Carter, etc. (even Reagan) do about illegal immigration? Irrelevant. What matters is what we do from this point on. If we want to play the blame game pointing fingers at past administrations, then President Reagan deserves a few onions thrown at him for the amnesty he championed.
What is pointedly relevant is that the President of the United States swore to faithfully execute the office of the presidency, and that does mean enforcing the laws we have until they are changed–as long as those laws have firm Constitutional grounds for being.
Oops. That last phrase would relieve a president from enforcing most of the laws dependent upon screwy interpretations of the Commerce clause and the “general welfare” clause.
But it would not excuse slacking off on immigrtation laws, especially with the security threats facing us today.
President Bush has had my support all along, and he’s still better than any alternative that was offered from the dems’ camp.
But.
He has lost me with his appeasement of alien invaders tack.
I’m a firm believer in a two party system, but more and more, as the current administration and political poltroons on both sides of the aisle in Congress misbehave on border control and the illegal alien issue, I wish we had two OTHER viable parties to choose from.
Bush has, for some inexplicable reason, championed amnesty. I don’t care what you call it, it is amnesty.
He has done tons of great things, and we cannot forget that, and this one issue is going to tear the country apart, because conservatives are tired of being called “racist” for demanding that our laws be enforced, and not getting our side of this issue the attention it deserves.
We MUST secure the border, and can give all illegal aliens 90 days to leave, and get to the back of the line.
After that 90 days we start really enforcing the law…..that is more than enough amnesty for anyone.
We already have the most generous immigration policy of any country on the planet, and Bush’s insistence of taking the easy route, as others have done with their amnesty programs, is going to earn Bush a bad name, rightfully or not.
So how do you define amnesty and how exactly has Bush proposed it? And what is your real world alternative fix to the problem?
I agree that even if he does not do everything we want on immigration he is still orders of magnitude better than anything the Dems have to offer.
The same is true about taxes and spending, although I still would like to see significant cutbacks in spending
Otto, I define amnesty as letting any illegal alien stay in the country, period. If they came illegally they should be made to go back and apply and wait for their turn.
My fix is just what I have said, 90 days to get out……
David, the point is…that despite how major this one issue is…have some folks gone overboard in the jumping ship trend? Some conservatives have even jumped on the impeachment bandwagon. There is a long list of how Bush has bettered the world…should that list be ignored in the entire perspective?
I agree with Anchorette. While I don’t agree with Bush on quite a few things he stands for, his refusal to seal up the borders and his guest worker program that rewards those who have come into this country illegally, I think judging Bush on just this one important area would be ridiculous and unfair.
If people insist on just one area as a litmus test, consider this, would the country have been better off post 9/11 with Gore? Carey?
the answer, Clay, is a resounding no….can you imagine what would have happened with one of those guys in office?
I think the reason many are jumping on Bush on this issue is the fact that going on 5 years after 9/11 our borders are not secured. His biggest hing is National Security yet he refuses to secure our borders and refuses to enforce the laws that are on the books already. A few well timed raids and arrests are not cutting it for many people. His demand for a Guest worker/ amnesty is ridiculous. This issue is a hot as it is because of 9/11 you can not have National security with out securing the borders.
I agree with Neil Boortz.
I think we should build a huge fence around our border, and punish employers who hire illegal aliens in a harsh matter, harsh enough to serve as a deterent against any one else continuing to hire these illegal aliens.
Then we should start rounding them up and deporting them back to their country once the border is secure. Some people are saying that it would be impossible to find all of the illegal aliens and deport them, but I disagree, and it certainly doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try just because it is a daunting task.
Once employment stops being an option for these illegal aliens they will have no choice but to return back to their country. Maybe then they can protest in their own countrys’ streets for the reform of their corrupt governments that are the reason they are coming here for work in the first place.
Of course you guys are correct on this issue. Bush is wrong. But, is it fair to judge his entire presidency on it to the point that some are calling for impeachment? I don’t want to minimize the importance of the issue at all, but we live in a multi-issue world. Should we not use perspective and include the long list of great things Bush has done for this country and other countries in our overall judgement?
I mean some people are even talking about a third party. Would that not hand over power to liberals? How can we justify a dangerous result like that?
Okay Kender,
Amnesty is more accurately defined as granting pardons to groups of people. This is not what the Bush plan is.
Again, what is the realistic solution to the problem above and beyond sealing the border? If you won’t support any program that would eventually allow illegals to assimilate and stay with their families, then what is your fix?
Now keeping in mind that (I’m guessing) you are conservative, what proposal would you support that wouldn’t involve creating the most bureacratic and intrusive federal government ever? How do you (against their will) locate, round-up, arrest or deport 10 to 12 million people? Give me reality, not a bunch of ’should have’ demands.
Christy, you are exactly dead on with your observation that Bush is dropping the ball on Homeland Security by not making the security of our borders a priority.
I also agree that his “guest worker” idea is ridiculous. It is also travesty of injustice to those who made the sacrifices financially and via wading through all of the beauracratic red tape to become legal residents and or citizens of this country. I know about that because my wife and two step children are legal residents here and it wasn’t easy getting them entrance here.
With our borders standing wide open the way they are with the government doing little to stop illegal immigration into our country, it begs the question how many al Qaeda cells have snuck in here prior to and since 9/11 and have established themselves in little pockets sprinkled throughout our nation’s cities?
It is a terrifying thought. Not to be racist, but Arab people can look very similar to hispanics.
While I am firmly against illegal immigration, it is one thing to have hispanics here illegally but it is quite another to have terrorists here who look hispanic.
Again, I’m not a racist and I’m not trying to make any racial point other than the deceptive cover of looking hispanic can provide to arabic Islamo-Fascist terrorists.
You are absolutely right Jay. Third party splits allow your opponents to divide and conquer you. I’m sorry, but the party that willing to compromise a little on it’s ideals (when it is sane to do so) is the only party that’s going to come out on top. As a conservative, in a post-911 world, the thought of a Kerry or Hillary presidency makes me nauseas. I will take (and try to influence) a moderate Republican party before I ever consider surrendering power to Democrats, even if that means not always getting what I want.
Jay,
I agree with you. While Bush is wrong on this issue (and a few others, I am by no means a Bush sychophant), it is no reason to call for his impeachment, much less throw political power back over to the Democrats whose liberal agenda would certainly ruin America.
I think it’s fair to say that us conservatives have found ourselves in a dilema. The Republican party always woos around election time and then lets us down for the most part when they are elected. The Democratic party is no alternative as they represent the opposite viewpoint of us conservatives. Unfortunately America is a two party system, voting for any third party just ultimately helps one of the two main parties as the lesson of Ross Perot served to illustrate.
What to do? I think we should organize in a grassroots fashion and start putting pressure on Republican senators and Presidental candidates to end their big government agenda (that only looks different than the liberal’s big government agenda) and start making good on their promises to the conservative majority that puts them in power in the first place.
I don’t know about anybody else, but I’ve had it with “compassionate conservatism”.
It’s just mealy mouthed conservativism that always gives in to liberal threats.
Otto, securing the border is step one.
Allowing someone to remain here when they have snuck in IS granting them a “pardon” for their misdeed….and THAT is amnesty.
I have no problem with allowing immigration, it is the hallmark of our country, although I am not sure that over a million a year is the correct number right now….we don’t know who is here now…and must get a handle on the situation before we move forward.
People that have snuck in here illegally can go get in line and wait their turn, it is as simple as that. As for the entire family thing that is a strawman and you know it……just because you have family that is legal here doesn’t mean you should get a pass to stay here illegally.
It is EXACTLY this point that is making conservatives angry.
Rounding up and deporting 12 million illegals is doable, and yes things may very well be intrusive for awhile, but illegals should NOT have driver licenses or other hallmarks of the average citizen, and it is law enforcements job to enforce the laws. Cops should be allowed to ask for your citizenship status, and the fact that so many people are against that speaks badly on the average citizens’ view of the police. Do you really think that cops are so stupid that they don’t know the difference between citizens and illegals?
I asked an LAPD officer a question on the day that a lawsuit against the LAPD was announced. The lawsuit is aimed at getting the LAPD to be able to ask for citizenship status, (currently they are barred by dept. policy from asking under something called, if I remember right, Special order 20 or 40), and that officer said “They should let us ask, because robbing a bank is a federal offense too, and if you rob a bank I have to arrest you, so why should people be allowed to break one rule and not another?
I also agree that impeaching Bush over this one issue is stupid….
Kender,
You are either uninformed or you are deliberately misrepresenting what the guest worker program proposes. There is nothing close to pardoning anyone in it.
The laws we have do not and can not work and that is why we have to change the laws. They could work with a secured and monitored border, but we are beyond that now for the millions who are already here.
You say that it is ‘doable’ but you still haven’t told me how. You say it may be a little intrusive for a while and this simply is wishful thinking! What do you envision, government agents knocking on doors and demanding to “zee your papers?” I agree with some of your finer points about the the ridiculous limits on the abilities of cops and I would submit that anyone of an illegal status should be deported or imprisoned after being pulled over or arrested in connection to a crime.
But the money and the manpower and the ability to achieve the objectives of mass arrests and deportations just seems cartoonish to me. I would rather see the federal government apply the thousands upon thousands of men and women and billions of dollars required to apprehend millions of roofers, framers and their families, to rooting out terrorist sleeper cells in the United States!
Unless you just blow me away with some realistic way of implementing your strategy, it will never, ever, ever work and we will never, ever try it. Thank God.
Otto, let’s say for a moment that you are an illegal alien, and the law gets made to say
Are you going to stay? Of course not. You aren’t going to take the chance of losing all possibility to be here when keeping that chance is so easy.
As for employers, harsh fines for hiring illegals should be implemented and adhered to.
If you file taxes, and the government notices that you don’t belong here, they should make every effort to secure you and deport you.
The government pays attention to who is paying taxes and filing and not filing. I once held a license from a state board in a certain industry, even though I wasn’t using it at the time, and the government sent me a tax bill for many thousands more than I made because I didn’t file even though I held the license. They based the bill on the average of what people with that license were making, so the government has the ability to root out these people.
People should also be let in on a basis of ability, skill and good health. We don’t need more ignorant, low skilled ill people here….we have enough of our own.
People also shouldn’t be allowed to immigrate here if they have a criminal record, as we already have enough of our own.
People that come here should want to BECOME AMERICANS, taking on the rights and responsibilities that the monikor implies, including learning the language and putting AMERICA FIRST!!!!
We have enough people out there, (many in public office) that place everybody else’s welfare above that of our country, and that too must end.
You will be hearing all of the ideas, plans and “coulda/shoulda/wouldas” regarding the borders, the war and everything else under the sun starting on July 4th when Wide Awakes Radio starts streaming….
I don’t subscribe to your belief that millions of people are going to voluntarily leave their loved-ones, their homes, families who count on their income just to get back into line. They didn’t the first time, why would they when they already have so much invested here?
What I find funny about your position (and I realize that many, many people share that position) is that your plan and the Bush plan both end in the same results, except Bush’s plan (hopefully the one he proposes on Monday) would create convictions and fines for people and your plan would not. Is your desire for mass deportation rooted in substance or some romantic, idealistic principle?
I’m not going to respond much to your other stuff because by and large I agree with it.
I absolutely believe that any illegal alien with felonious records from their home countries or ex-convicts here in the states should be deported immediately. That’s reasonable and can be accomplished, but even that wouldn’t work entirely.
If people are established here, have remained employed, have families, homes, kids, have kept themselves clean and aren’t living on the public dime, then I support a plan that would require them to acknowledge the crime, pay a fine, pay an determined back taxes, assimilate and learn English and American history and have a waiting period before gaining citizenship.
In a perfect utopian world, your plan might work and I would even support it. But we are beyond the capability of punishing several million people who are hiding in the shadows. The only fix is to get rid of the truly troubled and make the rest earn their citizenship through other means.
I know that what I support wouldn’t make as good a lyrics for a country western song, but I think it’s a rational compromise between fixing the problem and reason.
Are you yourself launching WideAwakeRadio or are you just participating in it? It sounds interesting!
NO, my plan and the Bush plan have some serious differences.
I fully support making felons of illegals.
I also support banning them from immigrating, at least for a substantial amount of time. If there are no consequences for a detrimental behavior then getting people to follow the rules and laws regarding that behavior is going to be almost impossible.
When you have a reward for one action and a consequence for the opposite action, the reward vs consequence should be level.
In this case, the reward is citizenship in the U.S, and the consequence is NOT gaining citizenship.
The way it stands now the consequence for doing it illegally will be a small fine, so the question is where is the reward for doing it legally?
At the moment there isn’t one.
We need to change that.
Again, I agree with your sentiments but think that the ability to achieve them are rooted in fantasy. And, going back to the guts of this board, it’s that lack of realism that is going to split the Republican Party and ignite a new era of Democrat rule and the tragedy is that it will happen because a significant number of conservatives demand what they will NEVER get.
So, we’ll agree to disagree?
If you were an illegal, and faced with the prospect of either becoming an ineligble felon or being away for some amount of time, which path would you choose?
We can agree to disagree, but I don’t believe that this country can’t do whatever it sets out to do.
We don’t have a history of being the whiny ones in the corner saying “It can’t be done” like the French are wont to do……..we are the United States of America, and we have a long history of saying “This MUST be done” and then going out and making it happen.
I simply CANNOT WAIT to get back on the air……
Otto, defending a “guest worker” status for illegal aliens—making their breaking of the law moot—IS an amnesty, regardless any disingenuous misrepresentations by you or anyone else. Simply saying it is not an amnesty and repeating the lie often enough to make the meme stick is no argument either.
Jay: “…is it fair to judge his [Bush's] entire presidency on it to the point that some are calling for impeachment?” You conflate two things in order to defend one. It does not matter if Bush has done many, many things right and good, or even if he had done much more right than he has. It is no defense in court to say, “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, yes, my client has broken the law in this instance, but he has done many other good things. Why convict him of the crime he has done when he has done so many other things that are good?” So, too, if Bush were indeed found to have failed—wittingly and with forethought—to “…faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and… to the best of [his] ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” then he should be removed from office no matter WHAT good he has done. (And I said the same thing about Clintoon and would say the same of anyone to hold the office.)
I am almost (almost) to the point of asserting that.
To whom much is given, of him much shall be required. And of the office of the president, the least that should be expected—and the one clearcut reason Clintoon should have been removed—is that they faithfully observe and execute the laws given into their administration to observe and execute. Failing that, a president will have failed his oath of office.
And again, Otto, your pragmatic argument fails at the point of embracing wrong to achieve right. The means to an end do matter, because bad means always assure bad ends. It’s the nature of unintended consequences to assure that pragmatic compromises always benefit those who are in the wrong on an issue.
Making public policy by compromising principles is like putting only a little poison in your child’s milk. How little is too little? How much is too much? You only know, in the end, by whether it kills the baby… or how quickly it kills the baby (or stunts his growth, causes other ills to arise… ).
I so agree and can’t even imagine what our President thinks about with so many important issues on his platter. I don’t believe there has ever been a President that has had to deal with as much as he has. He deserves so much credit for all the good things he has done and will do in the future.
On the illegals, I don’t feel they deserve amnesty and have no idea how they would prove how long they have been here with forged docs, etc for the guest worker program. On that same note though, I do feel our Pres. heart is in the right place. This issue I disagree with him on, but I support him as my President and will continue to do so.
Really great comments, all. Taking a few steps back though, I’m afraid that Bush’s “groove” has left him b/c he’s been sucked into the corrupt political machine that has become SOP in DC. The horrific spending, being beholden to special interest groups, pandering for campaign funding, irresponsible and biased media… I can’t help but think that it’s going to take 2nd ammendment display of armed citizens marching on the capitol to set these career politicians straight! I know that’s extreme, but sheeesh. Term limits and $1M annual salaries would get private-sector leadership in there, which I think would change everythign for the better. But the only sense I’m seeing from politicians right now is coming from the House with folks like Pence, McHenry and Garrett. Inhofe, Coburn and Kyl…and even Allen – who will hopefully be the ‘08 candidate – are trying, but for my money the entire Senate is paralized by either fear or hate. Nothing good is happening because of it, and Bush has just lost his backbone to step out and lead. We need straight-shooting, reform-driven, unabashedly-conservative politicians in office to pull this country out of what seems to me is horribly bad situation…corrupt, beholden, lifelong politicians are taking us down. Jay – I can’t say enough good things about your anti-ACLU mission. Them, the MSM, Hollywood…they are controlling the message and are paving the way towards madness. Cheers!!! Get your gun ready.
Rounding them up and deporting them can be done if Eisenhower could have 1+ million rounded up and deported in 1954 without the capabilities we have today it can be done. As for them leaving on their own if you fine the employers with very big fines and start throwing them in jail for hiring illegals and make sure they get NO government aid at all they will leave. People seem to forget that they do not break the law only once they break the law daily, first they cross the border which is illegal, then they find employment again a crime, and they set up house and stay here. So not by any means is the only crime they committed crossing the borders they break the law everyday over and over again by working and living here. And to me and a very big part of this country American citizenship is priceless and not for sale at any price. And any Senator, Congressman Or President who trys to sell something that is not for sale does not need to be reelected to office because they think too little of the Country and people they are supposed to represent.
So what is the consensus? It makes no sense at this point in American development to even attempt a third party. To do so would only put liberals in controls, God forbid. So, how do you give the Conservatives a wake up call without making such a risk?
And Bush is not on trial, so it is not fair to judge his few failures against his many successes in a manner as if he is.
The concensus? I don’t know….how do we keep the republicans in power while letting them know we aren’t happy?
Don’t know that either…..it may be too late….I now many people that are saying “They need a wakeup call and if losing control for a few years is what’s needed so be it.”
Scary huh?
I don’t think there can be a consensus other than the general one that common-sense conservative values continue to be too-often forgotten by Republican leaders. It’s frightening, but I’m one who is tempted by the idea that – order to get where I think this group of commentors wants to go – we’ll need A) a wake-up-call to Republicans that they are not entitled to the conservative vote just because their opponents are more wicked then they are. If that means Hillary, then so be it, but hopefully it won’t take that level if insanity… and B) a passionate and eloquent conservative leader to step forward carry the flag. I’m interested to hear from this group who they think that is?
Jay – consider posting the comments from this post in a long string…really great stuff from everyone! Very motivating.
The “so be it” attitude is what I fear might be a misjudgement. What would the consequences be of giving that power, no matter the short time it would take to give the Conservatives the message?
Seriously, Hillary? You would be willing to accept that consequence? Think on that long before anwering. Would the damage done be worth it?
Deep breath…Don’t misunderstand…what a freaking nightmare that would be. Losing control of the House would be pretty awful too. Pelosi is a wrecking ball waiting to swing. The “so be it” comment assumes rock bottom…Republicans continuing to walk into the left’s sucker-punches, calling for more investigations into capitalism (oil), security (NSA), etc… If they truly don’t get it…if the Republican machine doesn’t find and promote a true conservative in ‘08 and we’re left with McCain or Rudy………………..I really don’t know, but sitting on my hands is a real possibility. For once, I want to vote FOR someone instead of against the worse of two evils.
I want to vote FOR someone instead of against the worst of two evils.
But…the question is whether that will be an option and IF sitting on your hands is the right answer.
Let me throw a rhetorical…hypothetical one out there. Here is your only two options…
McCain or Lieberman.
I’d choose Lieberman.
ABSOLUTELY! How amusing would that be…to have McCain v. Lieberman and watch Dems vote McCain and Republicans vote Joe!
Coulter’s last column nailed it. Her last sentence: “Now the only question is whether conservatives will choose victory.” The ball is in their court…keep pussy-footing around and I’m not hitting the ball back. Lead with common-sense conservative values (cut spending, protect freedom OF religion not FROM religion, defend this country and truth with all our mite, reform, reform, reform) and behind them with everything I’ve got.
Kender, as I’ve already said, you have made your sentiments known and I share them but you have yet to propose a realistic way to do it. It’s already illegal for them to be here and as people like you love to point out, they violated the law to begin with. You really think it’s that easy to choose between law and the risk of being prosecuted vs. family who rely on your support?
Christy: Operation Wetback of 1954 was deemed in large part a failure (even the alleged million is questioned because records have never supported it) and it was terminated shortly after it began because either it was too expensive or too intrusive, too many police-state tactics (depending on the reference), which are two of the problems I listed in regards to mass deportations. We had a much smaller population and a much smaller number of illegals.
I’m sorry David, I’m not the one redefining a word in order to simplify my argument so I can beat my chest and make really loud bumper sticker points.
You may not like the guest worker idea and you are free to criticize it, but you are misusing a term. Amnesty can apply to anything, not just citizenship status and when you make the claim that the guest worker program and amnesty are the same thing, you are spouting a slogan that only works due to most people’s ignorance of the meaning of the word.
MT/kender: Just so I understand, you would risk not getting anything out of the White House because you are not happy not getting everything?
To send the Republicans a message, you need only do a couple of basic things: campaign heavily in the primary and support conservatives whenever you can! If the conservative fails, then please support his less conservative opponent until your next opportunity arises.
The is a democratic republic and while I think it’s wonderful to see conservatives win elections, understand that when they don’t it’s probably because you are in the minority of what your fellow voters want. The only thing you can do is change minds and acting irrational and unwavering on complex problems like immigration will not do that. That is why I am trying to make the point of approaching controversial issues with reason. I’m not criticizing your view of this issue but I am concerned about why you would wish to ignore the realities and the ultimate consequences of unyielding ideals.
Good thread Jay!
Not looking for everything Otto and certainly not wanting nothing. I recognize that when push comes to shove it would be next to physically impossible not to pull the lever against Hillary. Where else does the message get sent though? The old “why buy the cow if you’re getting the milk for free” saying…tired of giving the milk for free. (boy, I never thought I’d find a way to be the milk!)
Lieberman over McCain? Now THAT would be a message to send to BOTH parties! The Democrats putting up a Lieberman is about as hypothetical as you can get! ;o)
First of all…thank you everyone for getting a conversation going on these issues. This is exactly what I wanted. Now..milk, cow, whatever…what I want to know is whether the majority think it is worth giving liberals more power by staying home during the polls just to send the GOP a message.
Is it worth it?
Like I said, the ball is in their court. I’m not willing to rule it out if there aren’t some meaningful changes in attitude and behavior. I’m out. This was great! I’m going to check back in tomorrow and review everyones posts/blogs more carefully. Nice work Jay. Cool to meet y’all!
MT
Jay,
Of course it’s not worth it. There is no way I’m going to help any socialist liberal find his way into the White House. But, consider this,more damage will be done if the congress is democratic, therefore, socialist led than if a democrat becomes President. So, as far as I am concerned the congressional elections are more important than the Presidential one. If a democratic President tries to placate to our Islamo-Facist enemy, a Repulican led congress would surely do whatever it took to stop him even if it meant impeachment!
Bush has a choice defend the U.S. border or I will not support him. The issue is black and white and he chooses to commit treason by aiding and abetting Mexico to invade the U.S. I will not back him. Anyone who does is a fool.
Jay,
At the federal level the only Republican candidate that is running also voted for House Resolution 4437. If he sticks to his guns then I will vote for him. My opinion is that the Republican party is neither hot nor cold and unless they get off their butts and do something for me as A value voter I will seriously consider following God’s action and spit them out. They need to act for inaction is defeat.
Too many comments to read them all, but since you asked, Jay, here’s my view:
I don’t give a rat’s rear end what anyone else did before Bush. Illegal Immigration is a serious problem now, today. It’s a lame excuse for the damn president of the United States to claim, “Well gee, no one else did anything.” It’s called “leadership,” and Bush isn’t showing it now.
As for the Republican Party being the only vehicle for conservatives, I also disagree. The national republican party is not doing anything conservative with the one except of lowering taxes — which is just enough to keep the country from falling in upon itself.