Monday, February 25, 2008

Don't Tell Me To Be Calm

Fair Warning: This will be a long one. Due to circumstances beyond my control, the subsequent installments of our discussion will be taking a slightly different direction than I had intended. So, we’re going to just jump right into it here and talk about what we conservatives have gotten ourselves into. However, I am also very encouraged. A good number of you are being proactive and seeking out the truth. The truth will set us free. Thank you for being independent and spreading the truth to others. I am less anxious about my generation because of you. I guess we have to accept that John McCain is going to be our Presidential nominee. I say this because every other viable candidate has dropped out and endorsed McCain for the sake of “unity.” Whether this is reaching out or goose-stepping, it doesn’t really matter. Now, let’s review what John McCain has done for the three branches of Conservatism. He has made this convenient for us in the three following pieces of legislation. I don’t need to comment on the fact that these are all titled McCain-“A Prominent Democrat”. As usual, sources will be listed at the end. McCain-Feingold: McCain-Feingold claims to bring campaign finance reform. It is reform, to be sure, but not for the benefit of American citizens. McCain-Feingold bans all broadcast political advocacy advertising that mentions candidates by name, beginning 60 days before an election. President Bush signed and the U.S. Supreme Court shockingly upheld McCain-Feingold. What McCain-Feingold did accomplish was opening the door for Congress to decide what is acceptable political speech. For the first time in American history, individual citizens cannot join with like-minded others as members of a variety of associations to buy a broadcast spot to criticize an incumbent congressman by name for 60 days prior to the November election. This law gives career politicians the power of government to silence their critics. It is the most effective incumbent protection act possible, short of abolishing the elections themselves. The most important reason to oppose McCain-Feingold is the way the 1st Amendment is written. "Congress shall make no law . . ." What is so hard to understand about that? McCain created a law that was in direct contradiction to the most fundamental of American rights: the right to communicate. This is stepping-stone legislation, guys. If they can control our speech about specific people and issues, they can expand that to other areas as well. See China, where a person is allowed to be a Christian – as long as he doesn’t tell anyone? This is a blow to social conservatives. McCain has already used this to his own benefit. I’ll let Rush explain: “Romney was up ten points in Florida until two things happened — until McCain started with this bulls**t about Romney being in favor of a timeline for withdrawal — he did that on a Saturday….This thing about McCain and Romney — I know it's politics. It's what it is, and I don't whine and complain about it. But I found it very interesting. It was a Saturday he made that claim. So it's three days before the election. And Romney, because of McCain-Feingold, his groups could not go out and run ads countering what McCain had said….So while McCain-Feingold prevented Romney, or Romney's groups, from responding to it [with] TV ads, McCain was free to mouth off. A little irony.” McCain-Kennedy: McCain and Kennedy created legislation that would give legal status--amnesty--to 10 million illegal aliens, and create a guest-worker program to admit even more foreign workers. In essence it is the same as the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act: amnesty up front for millions of illegal aliens, and promises to enforce immigration law. Such promises are quickly abandoned--but in 1986, people didn't know that yet. The result of the amnesty was completely predictable: a profusion of fraudulent documentation, a doubling of the illegal population (to more than 10 million), and the normalization of illegal immigration, something that had been widely considered unacceptable only a few years before. Supporters of the McCain-Kennedy proposal deny that it's an amnesty, pointing to the fact that illegals must pay a modest fine before they are legalized. But since the goal of an illegal immigrant is to enter and stay in the United States, anything that legalizes his presence is a reward; the fine is just a retroactive smuggling fee paid to the U.S. government. This does not help our national security. It is, in effect, an amnesty--which undercuts the rule of law by rewarding those who have acted wrongly and will only encourage further illegal entry. Effective internal enforcement must deter further illegal entry. Any effective deterrent must require individuals to leave and apply for admission without prejudice or advantage. This is an attack on foreign-policy conservatives. Thankfully, McCain-Kennedy failed to be ratified. However, this is still an important “front line” position McCain took and we should all take note. McCain-Lieberman: McCain-Lieberman is a bill dealing with global warming and carbon emissions in the US. I won’t spend any time here debating the science behind the global warming argument. That’s for another time. But the problem with McCain-Lieberman is not the faulty science. The problem is how it affects business. According to the study, McCain-Lieberman 2004: --will cost the average U.S. household at least $600 per year by 2010, rising to at least $1,000 per year by 2020; --will cost the U.S. economy at least 39,000 jobs in 2010, and at least 190,000 jobs by 2020; --will force at least a 13 percent rise in electricity prices by 2010, and at least a 19 percent rise in electricity prices by 2020; and --will force at least a 9 percent rise in gasoline prices by 2010, and at least a 14 percent rise in gasoline prices by 2020. Also, McCain-Leiberman: --would cost the average U.S. household at least $1,300 per year by 2010, rising to at least $2,300 per year by 2020; --would cost the U.S. economy at least 250,000 jobs in 2010, and at least 610,000 jobs by 2020; --would force at least a 31 percent rise in electricity prices by 2010, and at least a 43 percent rise in electricity prices by 2020; and --would force at least a 23 percent rise in gasoline prices by 2010, and at least a 37 percent rise in gasoline prices by 2020. The new Charles River study is especially informative for state legislators because it breaks down costs on a state-by-state basis reflecting local economic factors. For example, the study reports Illinoisans would suffer even more under McCain-Lieberman 2004 than the national average. McCain-Lieberman 2004 would cost the average Illinois household at least $700 per year by 2010 and at least $1,100 per year by 2020. Similarly, the New England governors' plan would disproportionately affect Illinoisans by forcing at least a $1,400 decline in average household income by 2010, and at least a $2,400 decline in average household income by 2020. Oh, and in interesting news, a revamped 2007 version of this bill not only was sponsored by McCain-Leiberman, but our good friend Sen. Obama put his name behind it as well. As we can see, in the interest of carbon emissions, McCain decided to make war on consumers, industry, and state and government income alike. This is against the interests of fiscal conservatives. As a result, on the litmus test issues of our time, only partially excluding Iraq, McCain is a liberal. -- He excoriated pro-life judicial nominee Samuel Alito as too "conservative." -- He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants. -- He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold. -- He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo. -- He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. -- He opposes ANWR and supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels. -- He voted in favor of using taxpayer funds to harvest stem cells from human embryos and opposes a constitutional amendment to protect human life. So, what say you? What is your thought process on this? Are we to vote for a man who seems to be fighting against us at every turn, for the sake of unity and having an ‘R’ president instead of a ‘D’ president for the next four years? Or should we simply vote against the opposing candidate? Do we vote for someone who actually admits they’re a Democrat rather than put a man in office who would hurt the party’s image? Or, as some already say they are going to, should we just not vote at all? I understand people who are of that opinion. I certainly would like to vote for someone rather than just against someone. At this point, I don’t know what I’ll do. And there are still, what, 9 months until the election? Anything can happen before then. So I don’t know. I don’t have a conclusion for this one.,8599,1713041-2,00.html

No comments: