Who's Coming Across Our Southern Border?

The southern border of the United States is extremely porous, despite what this administration has been telling us about it being as secure as it's ever been (which isn't saying much anyway).  When Republicans talk about securing the border, Democrats and the butt-kissing press that supports them scream about Republicans hating Hispanics and immigrants in general.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Republicans in turn too often shrink from talking about stemming illegal immigration for fear of totally alienating Hispanic voters.  Is there anyone out there who has the courage to stand up for doing what's right and protecting our borders?

While it's impossible to completely halt illegal entry into the country, the federal government could do a damn sight better at controlling the border than it's currently doing.  This is not a matter of hating immigrants or Hispanics; it's a matter of national security.  In this day and age of terrorism, with the rapid spread of ISIS (or ISIL if you prefer), isn't it just common sense to suspect that there are more than just poor Mexicans coming across the border into the U.S.?

Indeed, there is evidence to support the contention that those who would love to kill Americans are indeed entering the country via the southern border.  
The Tucson Weekly reports that the Bureau of Land Management estimates that there is a total of eight pounds of trash per day, per person dropped in Arizona by this invasion of illegal immigrants.  Alarmingly, prayer rugs, juice boxes in Arabic, and an Arabic diary have also been discovered, among other things.  An illegal female migrant knocked on the door of an Arizona rancher one night, asking to use his phone.  He complied; the call she made was to Libya!

Obama talks often of "fairness".  How fair is it to the hundreds of thousands of people around the world who are going through legal channels to enter the United States, only to see the president allow millions to enter through the southern border illegally?  Republicans need to remember the legal immigrants who are outraged at the illegal entry so many people make into this country.

Improving border security is not discrimination.  It would be a step toward bringing order to a chaotic situation, enabling us to know who is entering the country and where they are going.  This would be of benefit to everyone living here; the failure of our government to do so is a dereliction of duty.  

Democrats and American Women

What was the "women's movement" about?  Allegedly, it was to open up previously unavailable choices and options to women and to foster equality with men - socially, sexually and economically.  

Why, then, do so many women look to the government, Democrats specifically, to be their provider?  As you may or may not know, there is a "gender gap" when it comes to the support each political party enjoys.  By and large, men tend to support Republicans, while women tend to support Democrats.  When looking at single vs. married women, this gap narrows, with a larger percentage of married women supporting Republicans than single women.


Perhaps women have bought into the notion pushed by Democrats and reinforced by the compliant liberal media that Republicans have no compassion and are waging a "war on women".  Listening to the Democrats, one might come to the conclusion that Republicans and conservatives are trying to deny access to contraceptives, keep women down and - who knows - maybe even take away the right to vote!

As a woman, I'm embarrassed that so many of my fellow females have fallen for these falsehoods.  The assumption that women need the government to take care of them and provide their most basic needs is insulting and condescending. The policies endorsed and promulgated by Democrats do not arise from compassion.  They originate in the desire to gain and keep political power. After all, if you can keep people dependent on governmental goodies, they're likely to keep voting for the provider of those benefits.  

Conservatives, on the other hand, endorse a smaller governmental footprint in our lives, common-sense regulations and policies that foster economic growth that will benefit all levels of society, while keeping the safety net for those who truly need it. 

I'm appealing to American women:  don't fall for the Democrats' lies about the terrible tragedies that will befall you should Republicans be elected. You're smarter than that! Republicans are the ones who recognize that you are strong and capable of standing on your own two feet.  The policies of the Democrats are patronizing and condescending.  Ask yourself:  who's truly conducting a "war on women"?   

A Radical Idea

Suddenly, Republicans are in a panic about passing immigration reform legislation.  Why?  We've been rolling along with things the way they are for years now, so why all at once does this have to be done?  Why, also, does it have to be done in one big piece of comprehensive legislation?  The answer is simple:  votes. The Republican leaders seem to think this is the only way to win Latino votes.   I believe Latinos will still, by and large, vote for Democrats no matter what legislation passes. Republicans will never be able to outdo Dems with the freebies, so why try?

Representative Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, opposes the Senate's comprehensive bill and plans instead to advance a series of more narrowly focused immigration bills.  This is the best way, in my opinion, to accomplish true reform and come up with good legislation.  The Senate always seems to want to come up with huge, sweeping legislation; unfortunately, what we usually end up with is a 2,000 page bill that is incomprehensible and causes more problems than it solves.  

I believe there is a way to win Latinos over to the Republican side, and it involves what some Republican leaders may consider to be radical.  How about actually going into predominantly Latino areas and talking to them?!  Hispanics are like the rest of us:  they want financial security and freedom to pursue it.  Republicans should conduct an enthusiastic outreach to Hispanic communities and explain to them why conservative policies offer them what government handouts cannot:  the best opportunity to take care of their families and become financially stable and secure.  People who are dependent on the government for their income and care are in a very vulnerable position, and dependence on the government will keep people poor forever.  Once Latinos understand that, Republicans can win them over.  

Contempt and Loathing

Well, the talks today between congressional leaders and the president about the impending sequestration apparently have failed.  Is anyone surprised?  

President Obama portrays himself as having his hands tied - those evil, rigid Republicans simply won't compromise and won't agree to "new revenue".  Meanwhile, Obama repeats over and over, ad nauseam, that he wants a "balanced approach" (please see my blog posting of 2/8/13 for that definition).  

May we remind the president that he has already raised our taxes this year, and it's now time for him to do some compromising?  Democrats always promise spending cuts sometime in the not well-defined future, but somehow that time never seems to come.  

If the president were even halfway honest, he'd tell people that he has no interest in cutting governmental spending and his "balanced approach" means he wants tax hikes on everyone.  When he says that Republicans won't agree to "new revenue", what he really means is that Republicans refuse to raise taxes, especially in light of the fact that we've already seen a tax hike this year.  Republicans wanted to pass a bill that would give President Obama greater flexibility in deciding where spending cuts would occur when the sequestration kicks in, but Obama immediately announced he would veto such a bill. Why would he do that, when it gives him more power?  It's simple:  if such a bill were passed, the president would then have to actually make a decision and take some responsibility (gasp!) for something and we can't have that!

The fact is, Obama wants to make the sequestration as painful as possible for as many people as possible in the belief that Americans will blame Republicans for their pain. He is hell bent on decimating Republicans in the hope that Democrats can take control of the House next year. The fact that an American president is willing to inflict unnecessary pain on the American populace for his own political gain is shocking and shameful.  

I pray that my fellow Americans will wake up and recognize the chaos and damage that this president is wreaking on our country, all in the name of political power.  Obama has inspired some strong feelings in many people.  For me, those feelings are contempt and loathing.  

Listen Up, Republicans!

Republicans continue to amaze and dismay many of us with their ineptitude in dealing with President Obama.  Not that they'll listen, but here are a few tips for the Republican "leadership".

• Do something different!  What you've been doing isn't working, so it's time to come up with a new strategy. Never, ever forget that Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, et al. are NOT honorable people. They are fundamentally dishonest and will do whatever they can to destroy you. Maintain your integrity, but don't trust that these people will keep their word about anything.  
• Call out Obama on his lies and deceptions. Don't allow him to stand there and say that if you don't raise the debt ceiling, the U.S. will default on its obligations. Not raising the debt ceiling does not equal default. True, some cuts will have to be made and this will be painful. Make it clear that the president gets to decide what is cut, so if Social Security, welfare or Medicare recipients don't get their benefits, it's because the president chose to make cuts in those programs!
• Decide what you believe in and develop the courage to stand by your principles.
• Don't assume people know more than they actually do. Explain clearly and concisely, without being condescending, why you're taking the position that you are. Don't throw terms like "capital gains" around freely.   I'd bet that most people in this country couldn't tell you what capital gains even are.  
• Don't pander to us by trying to give us more "goodies" than the Democrats.   
• Pick one or two people in both the House and Senate to be your spokespeople. They must be able to clearly articulate your positions and the reasons behind those policies. Make use of the social networks and technology available to you. Better yet, follow the advice of Daniel Henninger, who writes in the Wall Street Journal that the Republicans should create an office of chief party spokesman, one for the House and one for the Senate. This position would be analogous to the White House's press secretary (hopefully, the Republicans can find someone more charismatic than Jay Carney - shouldn't be difficult!). This might bruise a few egos of those politicians who like to appear on the Sunday morning talk shows, but so be it.  

Americans are hungry for real leadership and courage.  We're not getting it from this administration, so Republicans must step up to the plate and fill that void.  

Should Conservatives Soften Their Views?

In the wake of the Republican defeat this week, the second guessing has begun as expected.  Not only is the Romney strategy being dissected and criticized, there are voices saying the Republicans need to change their principles to fall more in line with contemporary society or abandon social conservatism altogether.  

I would argue that the conservative message is basically a good one, but we've done a poor job of selling our principles. I understand the anger and frustration of many conservatives, as I feel that way too. However, I also believe we must soften our tone, not the principles themselves. We must try to win hearts and minds and that cannot be done by yelling at people or bashing them over the head, figuratively speaking, of course.  

I'm becoming increasingly annoyed and turned off by some of the conservative talk show hosts also.  I am a regular listener of Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh, among others, and the strident, angry tone, particularly of Ingraham, is a turn-off to me, a conservative.  I'm certain she changes no minds among those who call themselves "moderate".  She likes to cite Ronald Reagan, but he had the knack of communicating firmly and clearly without ever sounding harsh.  

We have a different country today than in the day of Reagan.  I believe it's more secularized and I'm not convinced that it's still "right of center".  It's clear we need to reach out to blacks, Hispanics and Asians more effectively if we're to win elections in the future.  

People tend to vote for whatever they perceive to be in their own best interests.  Thus, it is imperative that we demonstrate in a clear, concise manner how conservative policies can help people become more financially stable, secure and independent.   I think that would resonate with a majority of people, because government dependency puts one in a vulnerable position and keeps people poor.   

Polls: True or Skewed?

Many of the current polls are indicating that President Obama is significantly ahead of Mitt Romney.  I wade into the area of polling with great trepidation, but here goes.

Rasmussen, which historically has been the most accurate poll, currently has the candidates tied. They also show that Republicans have a 4 percentage point advantage over Democrats in terms of party affiliation.  

Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell, Democratic pollsters, have both expressed the belief that the polls are skewed against Romney.  Pollsters are basing their samples on voter turnout from 2008, when Democratic turnout was greater than Republican.  However, they are ignoring the elections of 2010, when Republicans turned out en masse to repudiate the Obama agenda. Does anyone really believe Democrats will turn out in bigger numbers than Republicans this year?  

It is my belief that pollsters are attempting to shape public opinion rather than reflect it.  It is a pathetic attempt to discourage Republican voters, but it is not going to work.  In fact, I suspect it may actually backfire on them.  It is my hope that people who plan to vote for Obama see these polls and believe that he has it wrapped up and therefore won't feel the need to actually go cast their votes.   

MSNBC Gets Crazier

Well, I hear that MSNBC analyst Karen Finney says that Republicans like Herman Cain because he's a "black man who knows his place" and we're trying to show we're not racist.  


Excuse me, Karen, but conservatives don't look at a candidate's skin color; we judge him or her on positions he or she puts forth.  We certainly don't have to prove to ourselves, or anyone else for that matter, that we're not racist.  We know we're not.


Democrats consistently accuse Republicans of things that they themselves do.  One of the main reasons Obama was elected is because liberals were swooning over the opportunity to demonstrate how tolerant they are and to prove (to themselves?) that they aren't racist.  


I think one of the main reasons people are attracted to Herman Cain is because he's not afraid to say what he thinks and we largely agree with his opinions.  Why is that so hard for liberals to grasp?  

Positive vs. Negative

There are those who think Obama will be difficult to beat in 2012.  The field of GOP candidates is far from stellar, but what tack should the eventual candidate take in the campaign?

The economy is anemic and teetering, millions of people are unemployed and the  future doesn't look especially bright, which is exactly why the Republicans need to be upbeat, optimistic and encouraging.  Obama believes the United States is not an exceptional country and apparently has little faith in Americans.  He sees America as a country in permanent decline and thinks our best days are behind us.  If a Republican candidate will get up and speak of the exceptional nature of our great country and its people, offer a plan to get us back on track as the world leader we still are and bring hope to people, it will be a wonderful contrast to the pessimistic scolding of Barack Obama.  Don't focus on "shared sacrifice" or austerity; put the spotlight on how we can pull ourselves out of the doldrums in which we find ourselves.  Obama seems content to settle for living in those doldrums.  I, for one, am not.  

Where's the Rebuttal?

I can't help wondering why Republicans are so inept at answering the demagoguery of the Democrats.  One instance in particular in really getting under my skin.


When Barack Obama tells everyone that he can't guarantee that Social Security recipients will get their checks or that Medicare patients will get theirs, why do the Republicans sit there like bumps on a log?  They should go straight to the American people and say something along these lines:  "We have the revenue to meet our major obligations.  If we fail to reach a debt limit agreement and Social Security checks don't go out, it's because President Obama made the choice not to send them.  He's telling you that Social Security isn't important enough to him to prioritize it and he's using you as a political pawn."


I'm sick and tired of the Republican's failure to counteract the lies and scare tactics coming from the president's mouth.  Enough!  I don't listen to anything Obama says anymore, but too many people do and actually believe him!  Republicans must be more forthright in answering the half-truths and outright lies that abound in this administration.

How Can a Hispanic Be a Republican?

Harry Reid, the illustrious Senate Majority Leader, has made yet another inane statement.  He questions how anyone of Hispanic heritage could possibly be Republican.



Allow me to enlighten you, Harry.  The Hispanics I know are socially conservative.  Families are a priority for them, they are pro-life, believe in traditional marriage, i.e., between a man and a woman and attend church regularly.  That's why knowledgable and informed Hispanics vote Republican!

Blame Time - Yet Again

Will Obama ever stop blaming Republicans for "obstructing" progress?  Now he's saying that Republicans are hurting the unemployed by their filibuster of a broad economic bill that would bloat the deficit even more. 

Someone should point out to the president that Democrats currently enjoy a majority in the Senate and House, so the "obstruction" is not coming from Republicans alone.  Perhaps if Obama were more skillful in negotiating with the opposition, he could get more things done.  There have been many presidents who worked with a Congress dominated by the opposite party, yet they managed to negotiate and compromise to make progress in solving problems.  This president seems to lack the flexibility and/or the "know-how" to do this. 

Obama's devotion to his political ideology and his habit of falling into the same pattern over and over are hurting him politically.  Is he smart?  I don't think so, but one thing is certain:  wise he is not. 

Better for Republicans Not to Win the House in November?

Republicans are expected to make significant gains in the House and Senate in November.  Is it possible that it would be better for the Republicans if they don't take over the House after the election?

I admit that this is something I hadn't considered.  However, I read a rather provocative article in the Wall Street Journal this morning by columnist Gerald F. Seib.  As put forth by Mr. Seib, it would very likely benefit the Republicans not to take over the House after the election, especially since it's unlikely that they will take over the Senate as well. He argues that even if they win control of the House, it will be by such a small margin that they won't be able to control anything.  But being the majority party in the House would put them in the forefront and force them to absorb blame for much of what goes wrong in Washington.  On the other hand, one must take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves. 

In addition, Mr. Seib argues that if the Republicans take over the House, this will give Obama an excuse to move to the political middle, which is where he probably needs to be in order to win re-election in 2012. 

I do have a problem with his second argument, however.  Mr. Seib notes that Bill Clinton moved to the political center after Democrats lost the house in 1994.  There are a couple of important differences between Clinton and Obama though.  Bill Clinton is a liberal, but not an ideologue, and he is capable of moderation in some matters.  Obama, however, is a dedicated ideologue, even though he argues that he's not.  He can say "I'm not an ideologue" until the cows come home, but the fact is that he behaves like an ideologue.  He has shown us his true colors and he has no credibility as a centrist (I admit he has no credibility with me in any realm).  If he attempts to maneuver to the political center, it will be obvious to everyone that this is nothing more than a cynical ploy.  I rather doubt that Obama would do this.  I suspect he would rather move his agenda forward and be a one term president than be a two-termer with a watered-down agenda. 

A Precarious Position

Liberals like to think that they are the only compassionate people around and that conservatives care only about the wealthy.  There is plenty of evidence to refute that, which I won't go into now, but the Republicans have not, in my opinion, effectively dispelled that notion.   This could possibly have repercussions for the upcoming elections.

It's obvious to anyone who has even half a brain that we cannot continue on the current spending spree if we want to survive as a prosperous nation.  Cuts, some of them painful, are going to have to be made, if politicians can find their spines.  Of course, the Democrats will cry foul and make it sound as if Republicans are cruel and cold.  How can Republicans counteract this?

It's human nature to want to get something for nothing.  Those of us in touch with reality know that happens very seldom.  It's comforting to think that someone will take care of you too, but what's the downside of all this?

Aside from the obvious economic implications of a welfare state, people who are dependent on others for their care and upkeep are in a vulnerable position.  I believe that Democrats have a vested interest in keeping more and more people poor and dependent on the government because, after all, they count on their votes to keep them in office.  What's a Republican to do?

Let me say clearly and unequivocally that I recognize there are people who truly are unable to take care of themselves because of physical or mental limitations.  As a Christian, I feel a moral obligation to help people in need.  I have no problem with that.  However there are too many families in our society that have been on welfare for generations and way too many people who think the country owes them something.  I definitely do have a problem with my tax dollars being used to promote learned helplessness and/or laziness.

This brings me back to my original question:  what can Republicans do to counteract this trend?  Well, it's time that we had some politicians who talk to us like adults.  First, they should outline in a clear and concise fashion how being dependent on the government makes you vulnerable so people understand that having the government take care of you is not a free ride.  It actually decreases personal freedom; the dependency makes the government feel as it it has the right to make certain demands. 

Second, Republicans should make it very clear that the more people we have in this society of all races and ethnicities who are educated and self-sufficient, the better off our society will be for everyone.  If a person receives welfare, then perhaps we should put a limit on how long they may receive it and make it contingent on their getting educated or trained so they can get a good job (assuming they're able-bodied, of course).

Republicans should explain that being independent and self-sufficient produces a variety of benefits.  By facing challenges and mastering them we discover true self-esteem and confidence and are free to enjoy the satisfaction that comes with a job well done.