Free Web Site Counter
University A Conservative Harvest: March 2006

Friday, March 31, 2006

A Boston Tea Party …(Let Us All Down)

Definitions:

Amnesty: the act of an authority by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.

Pardon: to allow to pass without punishment for a fault or crime.


It has been twenty-four years since Reagan was President and the United States offered amnesty to illegal immigrants. In those twenty-four years one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve million additional people, mostly Mexicans, have crossed our borders unlawfully. How is it possible so many were allowed to break our laws? How did we reach this point? The contradiction in the entire immigration debate is the very people who allowed this to happen are now being asked to solve it.

Since 1982 each party has controlled Congress and different Presidents have come and gone without any leadership on controlling our borders. Based on the definitions above it would seem we have been continuing with amnesty for the last twenty-four years. Had the public been in charge of our borders like the minutemen of this past year I doubt we would be having this debate today. It is pure foolishness to think our federal government has the will to solve the illegal immigration problem. It is this same government who for years has been buying bus tickets to places like Chicago for illegals caught entering this country. Our government is full of carrots but never carries any sticks. Why? Because carrots win votes and sticks do not.

A form of carrot is the way illegals are being portrayed both by government officials and the media. Those who sympathize and see potential votes in the twelve million aliens currently here refuse to use the word “illegal” before the word “immigrant”. The President uses misleading statements when he says, “immigrants are the backbone of our country.” He is correct but purposely fails to mention those immigrants were LEGAL and entered this country the correct way. The media classified all those who rallied last weekend as protestors while never mentioning that a majority of the crowds were actually here illegally. There are may different solutions to this problem but distorting and misleading statements only show our leaders can not be trusted to end this problem.

Polls show seventy percent of the American public along with the 9/11 commission is in favor of strong border security and no amnesty for those who have broken the law. With such a majority it is logical that such support crosses Party lines. Polls also show seventy percent of elected officials favor a less strict form of control including the current President. Once again it is the “true” conservative members of the House who are forcing this issue. Most of these members are from the southern United States where illegal immigration is bankrupting their states. The President continues to show very little concern for his conservative base. By now it should be perfectly clear "the boy genius” advisor to the President, Carl Rove, has gone tone deaf. No more evidence is needed than the string of Miers, Dubai, and now border security. One should not think President Bush is the only Republican going soft on immigration. He is joined by McCain, Graham, and others.

The common theme of any elected official is more times than not they will think they know more than the average constituent. Each year they serve makes them less concerned about those who voted for them in the past and more willing to prostitute themselves for potential new votes. Those who support strong borders are being accused of being intolerant and unwilling to provide basic human rights to those who want a better life. We are told how would we like it if our family’s ancestors were treated this way. Again, our leaders twist the issue since our ancestors were allowed into this country in a legal fashion. Strong border security does not mean one is against immigration as a whole. We only want our laws respected and enforced. If we were to give rights to those who enter this country illegally then it would be logical to give prisoners at Guantanamo access to our court system. If one is consistent you cannot allow one and not the other. If a single right is given to a non-citizen then all rights must be given.

I want to say I do not blame anyone for wanting to come to America. For twenty-four years those in charge have looked the other direction while people flooded across our southern borders. These people did what is natural to the human spirit. The President often talks about the natural desire for people to want a better life for themselves. We are trying to give that to the Iraqi people. We are, however, not allowing all the Iraqi people to come to America. It is not America’s problem that life in Mexico is so terrible. It is the responsibility of our elected officials to manage the number of people allowed into this country. Rather than trust those who have failed to do so for the last quarter century, we would be better served to entrust the solution to new leaders. Someone needs to be held responsible for the current situation.

From a cost / benefit analysis it would seem if we don’t remove our current public officials then both they and the illegals benefit while every legal citizen loses. As a philosopher once said, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” I know one thing if a terrorist comes through that border and attacks America that border will be closed within a month. Vote Republican or vote Democrat but if you want border safety and legal immigration you must vote for a different one. We cannot continue to elect the same people. They had their chance and it is safe to say twelve million illegal aliens later they let us all down.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

What Are You Thinking …(Schweety Balls)

We now have new “Noonday” on WDAY radio hosts. It was announced today that Darcy and Angie have won the contest for the position of talk show host from noon to two on the radio. Many people were given a chance to show their ability on the radio over the past month or so with the winner(s) announced today. Knowing the politeness of the people of Fargo-Moorhead I am going to make a prediction. It can already be declared even before their first show that Darcy and Angie are doing a wonderful job and are perfect for radio. Content and delivery have nothing to do with it. They are one of us so therefore they are terrific. This is how it works in our area.

I listened to a many of the potential hosts and heard the Darcy and Angie radio audition. My immediate thought was these are the hosts from the Saturday Night Live skit “Schweety Balls”. Yes, Fargo now has its own version of the NPR ladies, Margaret Jo McCullen and Teri Rialto from that famous SNL skit. Bill Bennett’s radio show “Good Morning in America" recently had a discussion on a new book discussing the feminizing of American men. I have a hunch if you listen to this new show you will get first hand evidence of it. In no way am I saying every host needs to be a man. I am saying they need a pulse. The woman who hosted on Monday of this week I felt was terrific. I didn’t think it was possible to get worse than Jack & Sandy but I was mistaken. Amazing, I had just gotten over my Lynn Nichols nightmares.

Monday, March 27, 2006

A Boston Tea Party …(You Can Run)

In the opening episode of the “Sopranos” this year one of Tony’s underlings inherits a couple million dollars and asks Tony if he could retire from the “family” and move his family to their favorite place in Florida. Tony reminds him that once you are in the family you are in for life. He tells him there is no such thing as retiring from the m.o.b. Finding no way out the man eventually commits suicide hoping his wife and children will then move to their dream home in Florida.

The case of Abdul Rahman is very similar to what this mob member faced. Abdul Rahman is an Afghan citizen who is on trial for converting to Christianity. He was facing execution until world pressure stayed his sentence over the weekend. It seems the courts in Afghanistan are saying he is mentally insane and therefore cannot stand trial for such a terrible act. This action by the court is an out for the so-called newly democratic country of Afghanistan where the national religion is Islam. A religion which says once a Muslim always a Muslim.

I am all for creating Democratic societies in the Middle East. The white elephant in the room is the Islamic religion as it exists in today’s Middle East. Extreme Islam favored by the peoples of this area is not tolerant enough to exist with Democratic principles. Mr. Rahman’s life has only been saved because of selective international outrage over his potential execution. The indignation was not as unanimous as I would have hoped. President Bush and Secretary of State Rice tempered their remarks over the weekend. I would have preferred to hear a stricter scolding of Afghanistan something to the effect of “don’t you dare execute this man”. While the administration’s remarks were not as harsh and demanding as I would have hoped, I did not see any anger from those on the left. I guess we should not be surprised.

Killing a man because he decides to become a Christian show us how far Democracy has to go in the Middle East. It is perfect evidence that more pressure needs to be applied to religious reform and not just political. It is after all the extremism of Islam as a religion that has created the world in which we now live. While Mr. Rahman’s life may have been sparred, we must wonder for how long. The government may not execute him but private Muslim citizens may. It is reported today that Mr. Rahman is asking for asylum. It seems another m.o.b. rule now applies, “you can run but you can’t hide”. I hope the Christian world comes to this man’s rescue.

Friday, March 24, 2006

A Boston Tea Party …(How The Hell Did That Happen)

(Imagine the theme from the TV show “Mission Impossible”)

Your mission George, should you decide to accept it is, to convince the American people that progress is actually being made in Iraq. You will need to take on the mainstream media types directly. If they are allowed to continue to define the results in Iraq in their biased way the war may be in jeopardy. As usual, should you fail in this mission the government will disavow any knowledge of it. This tape will self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck, George.

This week President Bush decided to stop sending out his press secretary to face the yapping cha-wow-wows known as the mainstream media. He stood in the firing line and answered the accusatory questions with firm, direct, and honest answers. For a brief shining moment he played offense at its very best. The negative questions kept coming and he remained poised and heartfelt. The remainder of the week has had the media back on its heels trying to justify its actions to the American public.

The President stated publicly what conservative talk show hosts and soldiers have been saying quite some time. The media has brought an agenda to its reporting of this war for far to long. Negative stories outnumbered positive war stories three or four to one. I challenge anyone to name five positive stories the media has covered other than the elections in Iraq. Those stories exist but fail to get any coverage. The American soldiers who have committed acts of heroism should be household names in this country but instead go unnoticed. Imagine if the opposite were true and positive stories outnumbered negative ones by the same ratio of three to one. America would have a very different perspective of the war.

Most people in this country base their views of the war on what they see or read. It is the responsibility of the media to cover the entire story of the war and not just half of it. Personal bias is not part of a reporter’s job description. I don’t care what Helen Thomas or David Gregory thinks. I just want the facts and by that I mean ALL the facts. The President must continue to challenge the media to present every aspect of this war. The press conference this week showed someone acting as a leader. If he can display that leadership more than just periodically his poll rating will go up.

A suggestion for his next press conference would be to surround himself with military medal honorees and tell their stories of heroism. He could then ask the media why these soldier’s stories had not been covered on a national basis. It is a national embarrassment that we don’t know more about the progress being made in Iraq. When we win this war America is going to ask “how the hell did that happen”? The media has painted a picture of mission impossible.

Sunday, March 19, 2006

A Boston Tea Party …(The un-Cola)

Ronald Reagan often talked about America as the shining city upon the hill. Shining cities are built on leadership, innovation, productivity, and cooperation. Shining cities are not created when half the population is wishing for failure. We have reached a low point in American history where half of the country prefers America fail so it can gain power.

Many Democrats are going to argue they want only good things for America. I believe this to be true but only if it happens while they occupy the Presidency. Do Democrats prefer the economy do poorly? Yes, if a Republican is President. Do Democrats want us to fail in Iraq? Yes, as long as a Republican was the one who took this country into war. Would Democrats prefer the government fail to provide adequate help those caught in a natural disaster? Yes, when a Republican sits as chief executive.

Why do I KNOW this with such certainty? Current Democrats won’t admit to any possible success or offer any specific solutions. Our local mouth piece for the “progressive” left continually says no plan is required but rather his party should sit back and revel in any and all possible failures. Rather than admitting to some economic successes and saying more can be done, Progressives say only the rich are doing better.

There is no more hope for a negative result than in the war in Iraq. The left knows what happens in Iraq correlates directly to their political futures. Since they have been so extremely negative throughout the war, it cannot be argued success in Iraq helps their party. Any suggestions the Dems genuinely want America and the Iraqi people to win is pure propaganda.

The Katrina disaster provides more evidence of the Dems addiction to failure and their happiness over it. They refuse to be intellectually honest and discuss the poor response of the state and local governments. They went so far to use the race card against the Republican President. In their eyes Katrina was a disaster ONLY because a Republican, more specifically George Bush, is President.

Yes Democrats are plenty satisfied if the shining city loses all its luster. They have invented a new brand of leadership. A brand that hopes being negative is a positive. If Republicans are Coca-cola then the Dems are the un-Cola. Their way of selling their product is not how wonderful a different Cola would be but instead just that the current Cola is very bad for you.

It is said character is what you do when no one is watching. Well, political character is what you do when you are not in power. The character of the current Democratic Party will not help the city upon the hill grow any brighter. They know their success depends on as many lights going out as possible. The sad thing is they are comfortable thinking that way.

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

A Boston Tea Party …(Hypocriteaphobia)

As each day passes and we get closer to the 2006 midterm election campaigns Democratic followers are finding it hard to contain themselves. Over the past couple weeks far left talk show hosts including the one based in Fargo have spent many hours psychoanalyzing President Bush. It seems most of them do not understand how a man could make the decisions he has without having something mentally wrong with him.

The two most popular diagnoses from those on the left are schizophrenia or some type of multiple personality disorder. They believe no sane man could actually believe in the things President Bush does so they assume he must be afflicted with some mental sickness. These people in combination with their left wing talk show hosts agree that what this President has done is most certainly criminal. They seek punishment for his actions.

This week Senator Russ Feingold publicly voiced the opinion of a large majority of the Democratic Party that up to then was only being voiced on the progressive radio shows. He is calling for the censure of President Bush over the surveillance of phone calls made by terrorists into this country. This is a precursor to the hopeful impeachment proceedings of President Bush should Democrats take over the house this fall. Feingold is a hero to those on the far left for standing up and saying what so many of them believe however nearly all his fellow Democratic Senators refuse to publicly stand with him.

We should all applaud Senator Feingold for voicing his beliefs. He is totally off base but is certainly speaking for his party. What though can be said about those who agree with him but lack the courage to voice their convictions? If a private vote were taken their would easily be 25 – 30 Democratic Senators who would agree with Feingold yet so far there are less than five Senators who have backed his call for censure. I wonder if there is a clinical diagnosis that describes their silence? Maybe they suffer from “hypocriteaphobia”.

Friday, March 10, 2006

A Boston Tea Party …(You Get What You Pay For)

Rest easy my fellow citizens. All will be fine in the country now that Tom DeLay has won his Republican primary in Texas (insert sarcasm). In case you hadn’t heard, DeLay won his Republican primary with sixty percent of the votes in his Texas district. Should we be surprised? Probably not. Should we be disappointed? It depends. Should we be disillusioned? Yes!

It should not shock anyone that an incumbent dominated a primary. The system is designed to give any incumbent a tremendous advantage. Ninety-eight percent of all incumbents win in re-election bids. The large amount of money they have in their campaign war chests and the addiction their constituents have to the pork these incumbents bring home based on the seniority train are just two reasons why congressional members rarely lose.

Democrats remain hopeful DeLay’s legal and ethical problems will derail him in the November election. Some were probably disappointed he didn’t lose in the primary or at a minimum struggle. There had been rumors DeLay had much to be nervous about and spent plenty of time on the campaign trail. A faithful constituency combined with calculated gerrymandering should result in broken hearts for those Democrats salivating on a DeLay defeat in November.

Count this writer as one of the disillusioned over the results of this primary. As a conservative I would have loved to have see DeLay lose. I am no fan of his. I have said before that I expect PERFECTION from my side. While Delay may not be guilty of any crime, his judgment certainly must be questioned. I am also not a “worshiper” of any politician. I may be wrong but I don’t see any “greatness” in the current lot of public servants. It is for these reasons why I don’t understand the psyche of the current voter. Congressional members have a favorable rating that rivals those of lawyers yet we won’t elect someone new. Why do people think this job is so difficult that others shouldn’t be allowed to do it? There is a saying “you get what you pay for”, well, as long as we continue to re-elect these REJECTS of both parties this country will lack leadership. The next Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, or Reagan is out there somewhere but will never be given a chance. The incumbent and the constituent seem perfectly happy with that.

Monday, March 06, 2006

A Boston Tea Party …(Time Consuming Drive)

We have all heard the phrase coined by Bill Bennett that it is better to be on offense than defense. Each day it becomes more evident this second term administration’s idea of being on offense is three runs and a punt. It may work if you are playing for field position but the lack of offense being played by the Bush gang is stunning.

We are now hearing the press throw around the topic of second term fatigue. Give me a break. If anyone in that administration is tired then fire him. One of my problems with this administration is they only seem to play offense in the last two minutes of each half. They consistently allow the press and the Democrats to paint a false picture of them. The administration is being defined rather than doing the defining. Misrepresentations from Katrina to the use of the word “domestic” spying to the war in Iraq are being hyped by the Dems without a timely response. Where the Clinton administration would take minutes to get it’s side of the story out the Bush administration can take days. This lack of rapid response hurts the cause because the truth is not a strength of the media or the hypocritical Democrats. Many people’s opinions are formed on the initial news regardless of how factual it is.

I love that this administration is not a fan of the news media. Their disdain should not prevent them, however, from getting their story out. The positions this administration takes must be defended at the same time those on the left are branding them. If there are people on the President’s staff who are weary they must be replaced. If they are not weary then they need to get in the game. The Democrats are trying to mount a comeback and the Bush squad needs to realize halftime is over. Offense is best when it is bold, relentless, and unpredictable. I am waiting for these guys to take the ball and go on a time consuming drive. Beating the Dems is not that difficult. They spot us plenty of points just because of their stance on the issues. When Republicans are on offense the game isn’t even fair. When they stay on offense they win by touchdowns rather than just playing for overtime.

Sunday, March 05, 2006

A Boston Tea Party …(Color Blind)

I like to keep things simple. Issues are usually black or white to me. Yes or no. Like you or I don’t. Agree or disagree. The words “you are either with us or against us”, known as the Bush Doctrine, were spoken in my kind of language. I understood them to be unambiguous, precise, very matter of fact. The Bush Doctrine said what needed to be said without any ifs, buts, or exceptions attached to it.

I am not naïve enough to believe deciding which countries are our allies and which are not is quite so simple. In today’s world the term ally is defined by more gray than it is black and white. President Bush calls countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE our allies. These countries are a much different ally then say England, Canada, France, Japan, and Spain. When the President visits these countries we don’t have to be worried he will be assassinated to the degree we had to this week on his visit to Pakistan.

In my view calling any Arab country an ally is a bit of a put down to our true allies. The Arabs, in my opinion, tell us they support our efforts in the same way a youngster would tell someone he is telling the truth while crossing his fingers behind his back. The governments tell America they are on our side while they turn a blind eye to anti-American representation in the press and schools. This is where the “you are either wish us or against us” doctrine should be clear. We should demand publicly that Arab governments put a stop to such anti-Americanism before we term them allies.

I like seventy percent of the country does not favor the UAE port deal. I hold the term ally for a very special few countries. If a country (the UAE) supports the elimination of another of our allies (Israel), it is hard for me to consider them “with us”. It really is that black and white for me. I have no hesitation in saying until Muslims can choose country over religion, they cannot be considered allies. I appreciate any and all support any of these countries can give us in the war on terror but I am convinced their fingers are still crossed. Forty-five days from now I will feel the same way. When it comes to shades of gray I am color blind.