What Do Conservatives Want?

So, over at the HQ this morning, commenter jwest raised an interesting point.  His comment is too long to quote in its entirety, but the gist seems to be this:  Conservatives, especially in the blogosphere, are too ready to pull out the Long Knives whenever one of our allies (actual allies- a Perry, or Walker, or Cruz, or Lee) makes a tiny misstep.  So we should probably make some decisions, as a movement, about where we really stand.

So here are some areas he highlighted, and my thoughts on them (all quotes: sic; I'm not a proofreader).  I'll follow up with a couple more at the end.

1: Immigration/Border

On immigration, has anyone defined what the word "amnesty" means? We can't simply say "follow existing law", because than entails kicking in doors at 2am and dragging mothers away from their children (which looks bad on the evening news). It would be good to have a well written position on what true conservatives want.

Amnesty means "officially not administering just punishment for a crime."  Any "path to legalization" or "path to citizenship" is Amnesty.

Step 1 (before anything else) secure the border (or take real, substantive steps to secure it).  Step 2 Make explicit that illegal aliens are not eligible for any federal benefit, reduce Medicaid payments to States who pay State benefits for illegal aliens.  Step 3 Come down like "a ton of rectanular building things" on any employer- large or small- found to be hiring illegals.  Step 4 expedite deportation hearings, stop releasing illegals into their own recognizance.

2: ObamaCare/Health Care/Health Insurance

On healthcare, certainly everyone wants Obamacare repealed, but that's not a position. Never in the history of the U.S. has the government been able to give citizens free shit and then turn around and take it back. Those who think this is an option just aren't being serious. We need a conservative plan on what is going to replace Obamacare.

Burn it down. 
Scatter the stones. 
Salt the earth where it stood. 

The federal government has no authority over health care/health insurance.  The only space where the feds have authority is to end the prohibition on interstate sale of insurance.  Would consider making personal health insurance tax deductible, just like employer coverage... but that has issues (since I want the tax code to be much less complex).

3: Defense (esp. Defense Budget)

On defense, some are taking the position that patriotism can be gauged by how much we spend on the military. Others know that at some point, enough is enough. It's hard to make the case of being a budget hawk while handing out blank checks. We should nail this down so that voters know where we're at.

I'm sorry, Hawks, we don't have money.  I don't want to cut defense spending, but neither can we let it grow (or, at least, grow much).  Let's fix the procurement process, cut out the "diversity" stupidity, and see any other avenues available to make the defense budget more efficient.  If that's still not enough, *then* we can talk about more money.

4: Social Security

On Social Security, for decades the holy grail of the conservative side of the aisle was a plan to privatize SS. If this is still the plan, it could be marketed in such a way as to gain the black vote. Of course, our side needs to agree on plan first.

One-time payment of "your" SS money into an IRA.  Retirement planning is your business, not Daddy Government's.  For current or near retirees, we'll have to figure out a plan.  Some kind of phase-out will be necessary, but not sure exactly how that would work.

I'll add on top of that:

5: Taxes

A massively simplified tax code.  Flat tax, fair tax, even a progressive/graduated tax which is simple to understand would be far better than what we have today.  I don't think, realistically, we'll ever get a true "flat tax," and the "fair tax" scares me unless we can repeal the 16th Amendment.  Repeal the estate tax, drop corporate taxes to around 15%, stop taxing capital gains (and maybe dividends).

6: Budget

A balanced budget amendment is way over-due in this country.  Texas has one in our State Constitution, and it has contributed to tax surpluses (since people and especially businesses know that there aren't huge deficits, Texas is seen as very tax-payer friendly).

What are your thoughts?  Jwest is right- the sooner the *base* figures out our starting point, the easier it will be to judge when someone has deviated from it, and to what degree- thus (hopefully) preventing some of the circular firing squads which have led to the last two disastrous Republican presidential candidates.

Enough

Here, go read this.

Now, I'm not going to go over anything Drew says there.  Read the whole thing, it's worth it.

So what we have here is the GOP, once again, trying to have their cake and eat it, too.  The Chamber of Commerce really likes Amnesty.  They've made no attempt to hide that fact.  The Chamber of Commerce is a big Republican donor.  No one has tried to hide that fact, either.

So when the SCOAMT enacted Executive Amnesty, the CoC and the Republican establishment were jubilant (in private, anyway).  The CoC gets what it wants (amnesty) and Republicans get to pretend that they had nothing to do with it and no way to stop it.

Except then November 2014 comes along, and Republicans retake the Senate- largely on promises to stop ObamaCare (how's that going?) and Executive Amnesty, so the GOP is in a bind.  If they actually act on their promise, they tick off the CoC and lose donation money.  If they do nothing, they tick off the base and become the minority party again.

So rather than showing some moral fiber, making a decision, and explaining it like men, they hide behind this pathetic move attempting to be seen as trying to do something, while their actions actually make it impossible for anything to be done.

A commenter at the HQ summed it up like this:

"Or to paraphrase Rudy Giuliani, 'They do not love the American people.'"

This is correct.

The rest of this post goes out to the few Republicans who *do* love the American people.

Please join us.  Various pundits, bloggers, and commenters have mentioned a 3rd party.  The Republican party is going the way of the Whigs- they care too much for their privilege and "unity" than they do doing what is right.

It is time for a 3rd party.  It is a time for you, you remnant of the Conservative Right, to stand up and say "No more."  While you support Mitch McConnel and John Boehner even simply by wearing the same party label, you are supporting people who are willing to sacrifice the American People to their privilege.

You must disassociate with them.  You must form your own bloc, your own Party.  If you lead, there are countless Conservatives who will follow.  You will be amazed at the support.

If you love this country- if you love her people- you will stand for what is right, even though the cost will be high.  The cost will be so much higher if you do not.

Yeah, What He Said

Here, go read this.

It says something I've been thinking- and even saying- for the last week or so.

Let's set aside all the problems with Emperor Obama's Amnesty.  Let's pretend he did something I liked.  I dunno- an across the board tax cut, just to pick something.

That makes it no less wrong.  That makes it no less evil.  Barack Obama is not an Emperor- or, he's not supposed to be.  He is a President.  Our Founders sought for just the right term for the Chief Executive of our Nation for some time before settling on "President."  He "presides."  He is supposed to "faithfully execute" the law, see that it is Justly applied to all.

But note that he is precisely operating as an Emperor.  Even if he were going to simply ignore immigration law, that would be one (very, very bad) thing.  But it would be equally applied to all.  Instead, he enacted- by executive fiat- new law.  He did not simply say, "I'm just ignoring immigration law," his plan has requirements and prerequisites which must be met.  That's not "details about the execution of a law."  That's not "discretion."  That's authoring new law.

And the Legislature will let this stand.  The Republicans will do nothing because there's nothing they can do.  All the talk of defunding the government or shutting it down?  It won't stop this amnesty.  It won't stop an Imperial President.  Not confirming presidential appointees?  For one thing, no one will really notice that.  For another, that *also* won't stop the amnesty.

There is only one remedy- the Constitutional remedy: impeachment.  And Republicans will not do that, because the Democrats will not do that.  Democrats have welded themselves to the SCOAMT.  They hitched their wagons to him in 2008, and now it's too late.  If they turn on him now, they lose *both* the black and hispanic vote.  At least, that's their fear, and it's not entirely irrational.

Absent some real action from the Legislature- a united legislature looking to preserve the great Republic our Founders created- we have just witnessed the end of the American Experiment.

The Protection Racket

For the record, let's state that what the SCOAMT did last night was tantamount to an imperial takeover.  Apparently, now, the President and not the Legislature or even Judiciary is the arbiter of what is and is not law.

I wish I could say I was surprised.  I am outraged.  But in a sense that's like being outraged at a scorpion for stinging.  I do not believe that his character would allow him to do anything else than what he did.  Malignant Narcissism is *going* to assert its power, especially after being told it's not so powerful after all.

However, I do have more outrage for the Media.  The MFM consensus seems to be this: "Barack Obama is protecting illegals."  Yes, that is their word of choice: "protecting."  It's odd to me that they would discuss the decision not to see justice done against law-breakers as "protecting."

Would they be so sanguine if he "protected" thieves in the same way?  Murders, arsonists, identity thieves, or even dead-beat dads?

Let's say the President had said this:  "Too many Americans must live in the shadows.  Their situation requires that they live outside our normal bounds of law, but it is not their fault.  Society and their history have forced them into these shadows.  It is their poverty, their lack of education, and their lack of opportunities- a lack reinforced by law and custom- which causes them to live on the outside.  So tonight I am declaring an amnesty for all thieves.  If not for their poverty and lack of other options, they would not steal your cars, your jewelry, or your money.  It is a failure of our system- a great moral failure- to hold them accountable for their past deeds.  So I am now offering complete amnesty for any past crimes and wiping the slate clean."

Would the MFM be speaking glowingly of him "protecting" the thieves?

Yet that is just what he has done.  Illegal aliens break laws all the time.  Setting aside the ones we might normally classify as "criminal"- those who have committed heinous crimes- even the most benign routinely commit fraud and identity theft.  They drive illegally and have no insurance- and they don't drive particularly well.  The most "deserving" illegal alien broke the law first by coming across our border illegally, and then repeatedly breaks the law any time they work, receive welfare benefits, or drive.

And what of those here legally?  What of low-income, low-skilled legal aliens or citizens?  It is they who will see most of the negative effects of this.  They are the ones who will face additional competition for already low-wage jobs.  It is they who will have to face waiting rooms- for Doctors who accept Medicaid, and for Hospital Emergency Rooms- filled to overflowing, even more than now, with the children of illegals.  It is these in our society- those most already in need of "protection" who the President just threw to the wolves.

Then we consider legal aliens, especially naturalized citizens.  If this is anything other than a strongly-expended middle digit toward them, I can't see what.  Legal aliens jumped through numerous hoops- even those on temporary visas.  They pay high fees for their residency.  They know that one misstep in regards to our laws- even one relatively benign- can get them sent back to their country of origin with no chance of ever returning legally.  Those who seek naturalization wait years and pay astronomical fees to do so.

Yet now they look at what this President has just done, and realize their foolishness.  Why obey the law, why pay all those fees?  They could have just come illegally and been saved all of that.

Yet it is the illegals who are being "protected."

Who Abandoned Whom?

So, I got this in my email today.

Now, normally I get these emails and I just ignore them.  If I decide I want to give money, I will.  I don't give money to the RNC for lots of reasons, but those have been *my* reasons and I've kept them to myself.  However, accusing me of "abandoning the Republican Party" is a bridge too far.

You know what Mr. RNC Treasurer Tony Parker?  You asked for it, you're getting it.

When I was a kid in the 80s, I believed, with the innocence of youth, that the Republican Party was a conservative party.  How could I not?  Ronald Reagan was president.  My Conservative (yes: Christian) parents loved him.  My father (in banking) never bought into the idea that the S&L crash was due to too little government.  The Republicans had reduced taxes, and, if they had also increased spending, at least it was spending on conservative things, right?

Then came the 90s.  I got a little older.  I was still a kid, still innocent, but I was pretty sure that raising taxes wasn't the conservative option, whatever George HW Bush had said.  And I'd been taught lying was bad (Read my lips).  Both George HW Bush and Bob Dole were certainly better than Bill Clinton- a draft-dodging womanizer (at best)- who never met a government program he didn't like, but I was beginning to see that things weren't so clear as I'd believed when I was (yet) younger.

My first Presidential election was in 2000.  I enthusiastically voted for George W Bush.  He'd been my governor, I knew I liked how Texas was running, I figured we'd be back to conservatism after 8 years in the Prog/Commie desert.  And things started out well.  The crash of 2000 happened (that no one remembers), and President Bush responded as he should have- by cutting taxes and putting money back in the hands of the citizenry.  If he also gave some of my money to people who already didn't pay taxes... well, the economy was in a slump.

And after September 11th, 2001, I was incredibly glad he was at the helm.

But George Bush was never Conservative.  Maybe "conservativist" might be a better term, but really he was always a big government progressive who happened to believe in slightly smaller government than the Democrats.  The Patriot Act passed at his insistence.  The Department of Homeland Security quickly started stepping on the Constitution.  No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D both passed and were signed by President Bush.

For 2001, and the immediate aftermath, I was still young enough to believe that "as long as people we can trust" were in charge, the law giving them the power to trample on the Constitution would not be abused.  I have since come to realize the error in that thinking was flawed.  For one thing, people we trust will not always be in charge.  For another, you should never trust government in the first place.

I've grown wiser since then.  It's been nearly 13 years since Muslim Terrorists flew airplanes full of our neighbors, brothers, sisters, parents, and children into three buildings -and attempted another- in the largest single attack on US Soil in history.

And what does the RNC Stand for now?
1- They stand for big government.  I have never heard a Republican on the national stage- except for Presidential debates, which don't count (words are cheap) call for an end to the grossly unconstitutional government overreach which exists.  Find me the Constitutional Authority for the EPA, DoE (either one), No Child Left Behind, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, or any other big government program.  The Constitution is short, I'll wait. 

Republicans don't want to shrink government.  They don't want it out of our lives as much as possible.  They want it under their control.

2- They stand for amnesty.  Over and over Republicans have tried to force amnesty (under the Orwellian term "comprehensive immigration reform") down the nation's throat.  We don't want it.  A nation which cannot or will not control its borders is not a nation.

And what do Republicans stand against?

1- They stand against small government.  If you are for big government, you cannot be for small government.  QED.

2- They stand against border control and sane immigration policy.  See above.

3- Most importantly: They stand against their own constituents.  Over and over since 2010, engaged Republican voters at a grass-roots level have shown their displeasure with the current status quo by selecting actual conservative candidates to run against incumbents.  Some of those were... ill advised.  But some were not.  Some were men and women quite capable of winning their elections.  How did the RNC respond?

When they engaged in the primary at all, they always did so on the side of the incumbent.  I suppose that's fair enough.  But what did they do *after* the primary?  Well, when the incumbent won, they proceeded to rub Conservatives' noses in the fact that their candidate lost, and then immediately called for "party unity."  When the incumbent lost, they gave words of faint praise, and then mostly did nothing.  That was bad enough.

But then came the Mississippi run-off between Thad Cochrain and Chris McDaniel.  In that race, the Republican National Committee shat upon Conservative Republicans from a great height.  When Republican Leadership bought ads smearing Chris McDaniel as a racist homophobe- the very same deceitful attacks Democrats use- they were saying to Conservatives across the nation: "We don't want you.  We don't value you.  We don't think we need you to win."

To which I say, "Fine.  Then you won't have me."

I will vote for Republicans in my Great State of Texas.  I will vote for Ted Cruz- one Republican who does seem to get it.  I reserve the right- if the Republican Party stops trying to urinate on me and tell me it's precipitation- to vote for whoever is the Republican nominee in 2016.

But the RNC will never see another dime from me.  And if the candidates are not as conservative as I am, they will not get my vote.  If they're too Progressive, I'll vote Democrat.

No more.  You have pushed me too far, and you will push me no further.

Burn it down.
Scatter the stones.
Salt the earth where it stood.

Amnesty IS "A Path To Citizenship"

As Republicans plan to cave on "Immigration Reform" we keep hearing this from Conservatives who want to "sound reasonable,": "I wouldn't mind an amnesty if there was no path to citizenship."  Another formulation is "Grant amnesty, but anyone who accepts it is forbidden from ever becoming a citizen."  There are others as well.  That certainly "sounds reasonable," but it fails any form of intellectual rigor.

First off, once you have granted someone "amnesty," they are no longer guilty of their crime.  If they're not guilty of that crime, then what justification do you have for preventing them applying for- and eventually receiving- citizenship?  None.

Secondly, we have the 14th Amendment.  It states, in part, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  Now, some of our laws are written on how to obtain citizenship.  Once they are in the United States legally, there is no legal barrier to their citizenship.

Finally, though, even if the first two were not true, this falls into the "give a mouse a cookie," category.  Once you capitulate to an amnesty (by whatever name) you now have several million more legal residents.  Those several million legal residents (more likely: some Liberal group acting "on their behalf") will begin petitioning the Government for citizenship.  Their arguments will be eloquent: "We pay taxes," and "We serve in the military," and "It's not fair!"  And, eventually, Congress will cave again, and they'll become citizens.

The only way to avoid that is not to offer amnesty.  They came here illegally.  They chose to do so (in virtually all cases).  They could have come legally, but didn't want to put up with whatever hurdles were being thrown in their way (often enough by our Government, which now wants to grant them amnesty).

The Conservative Position on Illegal Immigration should not be "Enforcement First."  It should be "Enforcement.  Period."

On Illegal Immigration

It's just a topical cornucopia today.

So, also big on the national stage at the moment is "Immigration Reform" which we all know is code for "amnesty."  Apparently, some Republicans (including Marco Rubio.  Awesome), think that catering to Democrats on this issue will somehow win them votes with Hispanic voters.  I'm not exactly sure how that's supposed to work.

First off, there's the fact that Hispanics vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.  They're not quite to the Black Community numbers, but a vast majority.  Indeed, it is considered "impressive" that Rick Perry pulls nearly 40% of the Hispanic vote in Texas.  Think about that for a minute.

Secondly, the only people who benefit from amnesty (I don't care what they call it, that's what it is- own it Republicans) are Democrats (who get more voters on a better than 7 : 3 basis) and illegal immigrants.  These immigrants are often poor, usually on multiple forms of Government (that is: tax-payer provided) assistance, and generally not the kind of crowd that is normally going to vote Republican (that is: to have their "free" stuff taken away).

Third, it royally screws over legal immigrants.  For those who have already completed the process, it makes a mockery of the trouble they went through to follow our laws.  For those completing the process now, it says "hey, why bother?  We don't care about our laws, why should you?"  Even those who decide to stick it out are going to be negatively affected as ICE is overwhelmed with paperwork related to enforcing whatever new amnesty is passed.

And what will Republicans get?  Nothing.  Zip.  Zero.  Nada.  Zilch.  Enforcement?  If you're granting Amnesty, what is there to enforce?  Oh, you want me to believe we'll suddenly start enforcing it for any "new" illegal aliens?  You'll excuse me if I'm skeptical.

Now, one of the rhetorical devices Liberals will use to defend amnesty is this line: "What do you want?  We can't deport them all!"

This line gets used so often that it needs to be carefully reviewed.  There are three ways that illegal aliens could be deported.  The method preferred by the enforcement crowd is self deportation.  We believe that if we enforce the laws (more on that in a minute), and stop claiming they should be eligible for tax-payer funded benefits like Social Security, Medicaid, and TANF, that most of them would leave on their own.  They might go home; they might go somewhere else.  Either way they would no longer be here as a drain on our social services.

The second method, and the one Liberals accuse us of supporting is "mass deportations."  Now, this tricky because it could mean one of two things.  What they mean when they say it, though they may not be willing to admit it, is the idea of mass mobilization of LEO in a systematic manner, kicking down doors, throwing smoke grenades, and generally terrorizing the "poor" illegals.  Then anyone who could not prove their citizenship or legal status would be deported.

This is important, because no one is actually advocating that.  It's not on the table.  It's a particularly weak straw-man.

The third method, (and liberals will try to claim that this is "mass deportation" as well- thus trying to confuse the matter) is deportation of illegals as they are identified through other means.  If one is caught driving without a license, or through some other contact with law enforcement, deport them.  The reason Liberals claim this is "the same" as mass deportation is that "it would be deportation on a massive scale."  See?  "Massive scale" = "mass deportation."  QED.

Or not.  To say that it would be "the same" as the more generally accepted definition of "mass deportations" is the same as saying that we have "mass drunk driving enforcement" because there are a lot of drunk driving cases.  Absolutely not.  With the exception of "Driver Checkpoints" (which I believe are unconstitutional), cops are not specifically seeking out drunk drivers, but when they find them they don't hesitate to fine or jail them.  And we don't hesitate, if they plead not-guilty, to try them in a court of law.  The same would be true of immigration.  No one, except possibly ICE agents (whose job it is anyway) would be looking specifically for illegal aliens.  When they are found, however, we should not hesitate to start deportation proceedings.

Which brings us back to the "enforce the law" point.  Yes, we understand that enforcing the law will necessarily result in deportation on a massive scale- either through self deportations or through deportation proceedings or (more likely) some combination of both.  I won't say that it is "the point," but it's definitely a side benefit.  These people are here illegally.  I'm supposed to care if they experience some inconvenience when we enforce the law?  Why?

So let's start with that, first, huh?  Take any form of amnesty off the table.  In fact, take any legislation off the table.  The laws are already written.  We don't need more.  We simply need to enforce the laws that exist.  There's no need for "Immigration Reform."  What is needed is "Customs and Border Enforcement Reform."