MAY 1 PROTESTS
Sometimes, when I am up early compiling news stories, I really shake my head. Today is one of those days. On May 1st, there will be a huge day of rallies to, in essence, support illegal immigration into the United States. You can say anything else you want about it, but the bottom line is that advocates of this day of protest are actually protesting the rule of law. They are protesting the idea that there is actually such a thing as right and wrong. It is fair to engage in a dialogue with the people and with policy makers about the law, which states that there is a formal and necessary process that any potential immigrant to the United States must follow before immigrating to America. The reality is that there are now millions of residents in the United States who quite literally ignored that law, and came here anyways. Congress is in the midst of a debate about how to make sure that these immigration laws can be more effectively enforced at the points of entry to America, and they are debating what to do, in a very practical sense, about what is estimated to be well over ten million scofflaws who knowingly violated our country’s laws, and snuck/smuggled/coasted into the United States illegally. A lot of the proponents of the protest on May first feel that these millions of illegal immigrants literally did no wrong. That the laws of the land violate the "spirit of America being a nation of immigrants" — but there is no doubt that the very first action committed by each of these ersatz Americans was to disrespect the most important foundation of our democratic republic – observance of our laws. I believe in free speech rights, and clearly demonstrations about what Congress should and should not be doing is a fair debate. But, speaking for myself, I have a hard time getting past the basic fact that these rallies are really about granting amnesty for criminal activity, however benign some people think that criminal activity might be. As for myself, I think that I would be a whole lot less concerned with WHO was coming into America except for two things. The first is that there are people on planet earth who want to attack American — terrorists who oppose the very concepts of freedom and liberty that this country represents. The other is issue is that the United States is becoming more and more a welfare state each and every day. There are more and more programs being approved at the federal and state levels that are designed to tax one group of people and use that confiscated wealth to them subsidize other people. Because of this, and the fact that I believe that many who come to this country illegally are in a position to benefit from programs paid for by American tax dollars (such as this issue of a foreign national who sneaks into the country and into our state being able to get an ‘in-state resident’ tuition break). We should all be concerned about this. Anyways, there will be a lot of debate on this issue, but don’t miss the articles on the main page about the preparations for the May 1st "Day of Prostest" — and the featured Golden Pen piece by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore talking about the actions of the California State Senate yesterday, where on a partisan vote, Democrats cancelled scheduled floor session on… May 1st!
DEMOCRAT FOOD FIGHT
Today is the opening day of the California Democratic Party’s State Convention. Compared to the very mild State GOP convention back in February, this convention should be a full-on knock-down drag-out food fight between State Treasurer Phil Angelides and State Controller Steve Westly. Angelides wants the endorsement of the party he used to head up – and he very well might get it. Click here to read my crazy idea of how former Democratic Party Executive Director Susan Kennedy, currently Governor Schwarzenegger’s Chief of Staff, can stir up the food fight even more.
ERIC ROACH: THE GOP NEEDS HIM TO RUN IN THE 50TH
**There is more – click the link**
April 28th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Bilbray is such a liberal that Big Time RINO V.P. Dick Cheney is comming out to the 50th to campaign for him.
April 28th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Like I said, Bilbray is better than Busby. That said, on a lot of issues that I and most conservatives care a lot about, his superiority to her is probably measured in inches, not miles as it should be.
April 28th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Phil:
I dug out my 1982 “Almanac of American Politics” to check the
House voting record of then-Congressman Dick Cheney of Wyoming.
His ACU rating was 74% in 1980, and National Taxpayers Union only 64%!
Perhaps we are lucky he wasn’t primaried in 1982 for being
too “moderate”, since he went on to be an effective and conservative Secretary
of Defense and Vice President of the USA.
April 29th, 2006 at 12:00 am
If Roach believes that running is the best thing he could do for his country and his district, he should run.
If you truly believe Roach would be better for the country than Brian, you should continue to support him.
No one should be intimidated by threats of being “buried,” especially as familiar (to the point of being done to death) as they are coming from certain quarters.
With all due respect to Phil and Jim, Cheney is coming out to support an incumbent – that’s what partisans do for each other. The White House has also pulled out all the stops to save Lincoln Chafee, a leftist nitwit who has bent the White House and his own leadership over on too many votes to count. The fact that Cheney is coming out to support Bilbray is hardly an endorsement of Bilbray’s conservative credentials. Thanks for playing.
April 29th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Jim,
I genuinely like Bilbray and I’d be happy to see him back in Congress. But I think his support of Bilbray is meaningless – Bilbray is now viewed as the incumbent, and they’re about incumbent protection.
As far as Bilbray’s conservatism, Bilbray had to be a moderate for his old district and that was exactly how he governed. I attended at least one gun-grabbers’ rally where his spokespeople delivered one attack after the other on the Second Amendment. That’s not exactly conservatism. I’ve said previously that I think Bilbray will move further right in his new district, because he’s adaptable. But I think Jon’s point is that we need someone with real passion to reform a grossly corrupt government (and Republican Party) in DC, and that Bilbray isn’t the guy to do that. On that point, I think he’s right.
April 29th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Tony:
My point is that Brian Bilbray, representing a Coastal moderate California district, had roughly
as conservative a voting record as Dick Cheney did in 1980 representing Wyoming!
Bilbray showed courage in voting as conservatively as he did … and he paid for
it with one tough general election race after another.
He could have gone the Lincoln Chafee route to win over liberal
voters, but he didn’t. That showed integrity.
April 30th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I still don’t understand the point. Brian Bilbray is not running against Dick Cheney in 1980. Bilbray is not running in the old 49th. If he were challenging Susan Davis right now, I would be all for it.
Instead, Bilbray ran in a special election where conservative candidates received a huge number of votes compared to the moderate candidates. This is a conservative district. It deserves a representative who will be focused on limiting government, cutting spending, securing our borders, providing for our national security, and supporting the family values platform of the conservative wing of the party.
IMHO, the contrast between Roach and Bilbray is stark. Bilbray may very well have been a solid Republican vote while representing the old 49th…but the question is, who will be the stronger conservative vote in the new 50th? Roach is the man, Bilbray isn’t.