Conservative Common Man

Newsmax.com has an article about the lack of alternatives (in John F.U. McCain’s estimation) to the comprehensive immi-amnesty reform being pushed by a coalition of liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans.

“Anyone who says we shouldn’t pass this legislation, I would ask for their proposal,” McCain said. “I have not heard their recommendation.”

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/5/30/74828.shtml?s=ic

I’ve heard various conservative talk radio hosts offering an alternative plan. Laura Ingraham would like to see our elected representation in D.C. wearing buttons that read E.T.L.

I am not a member of the elite so there is obviously a very good chance that I am missing the intricacies of the plan that brought a smile to Teddy Kennedy’s face before cocktail hour. I am a common man that lives a common life, a “know nothing” layman that cannot view the nation through eyes that see the true America. If only I lived in the insullation provided by D.C.

I am beginning to think that many of our career politicians are as detached from real life as the celebrities that are either jetting around fighting global warming or drunkenly driving into curbs (and being misunderstood about their cocaine use.)

So, without further ado, I offer some principles associated with the E.T.L. or Enforce The Laws plan.

If The Social Security Administration has contact information on any undocumented person, they share it with the INS and Homeland Security.

Reverse the trend and stop putting border patrol guards in prison for patroling the border. This might also help recruit border guards.

If a person runs a stop sign or gets stopped for speeding, and he does not have identification, detain him and check his status. If he is here illegally, deport him after his sentence or fine or whatever is appropriate for the offense for which he was originally stopped.

Build the Hunter Fence!

Prosecute employers that hire illegal immigrants.

Do not prohibit employers from denying employment to people whose social security information cannot be verified!

In general, you can reform the curent “nudge-nudge, wink-wink” illegal immigration policy by doing what common sense and current laws dictate! President Bush would say we must do something about this problem and have the courage to do what’s right for America. Bingo! Give that man a cigar (wait, wrong president!) The number of people in the United States illegally would likely decay naturally if incentives for being here illegally were removed where possible (harsh punishment for employers that hire illegals.) Have the courage to listen to the common sense suggestions of the people that elected you. Have the courage to do what’s right for America by enforcing the laws (what does the Executive Branch do again?)

Again, I’m not saying anything new here. I am personally offended by the supporters of this travesty referring to me as being afraid of the “brown tide” (Geraldo) or not liking Latinos (Linda Chavez.) I am personally offended that President Bush dismisses anyone that is for actually solving the problem (via enforcement, what does the Executive Branch do again?) as un-American.

I also am amazed that the supporters of this monstrosity cannot argue with facts about the plan when its opponents argue with facts against it. To a thinking person that alone might raise a red flag.

            I have noticed recently that the opinions and passions of Republicans and conservatives vary far more than I had ever realized. I have come to realize that I may not be a true 100 % conservative as I had once believed myself to be. I have also realized that I could easily be at odds with the powers that be in the Republican Party. I wonder if I am destined to be a man without a party, on the other hand I have always said it is better to be extreme right… than extreme wrong and I still believe that. So what is right? 

           Is it right to be what several believe to be a true conservative like Ron Paul? I honestly don’t know if Ron Paul fits the description of true conservative the best among the candidates. I do know he does not fit the description of my ideal candidate the best. The assertion that we are attempting to police the world is a little hard to swallow. The assertion that our involvement in the Middle East spurred the attacks of September 11, 2001 is even harder to swallow.

           I don’t for a second, believe that President George W. Bush is very conservative, but I do believe he does what he thinks is right. I also find myself in disagreement with the president on many issues. I am personally disgusted by the “comprehensive immigration reform” plan he is supporting. Of course anything that causes Ted Kennedy to smile can’t be good. Illegal immigrants are a drain on taxpayer funded health care and education. The fact that these illegal immigrants drive down wages of many working Americans (but at least not the American workers displaced by these aliens) seems to be lost on the plan’s supporters. Only insulated elites and bleeding heart simpletons could believe encouraging twelve million illegal aliens to stay in our country and even bring in their families would be good for their constituents.   

        Compromise may be key, but not in the sense that President Bush and John F.U. McCain espouse. I suggest a compromise or a mixture of the parts of the various schools of thoughts that make sense from a moral and logical perspective. Maybe one strict set of ideals isn’t practical or even moral.  

          I agree with the Ron Paul’s conservative notions regarding government spending. There probably are entire departments that could be eliminated to sensibly reduce spending. I wouldn’t even be surprised to learn of a Department Of Redundancy in our capital. Hand-outs for art and other non-essential items could probably be eliminated.           

           I admire President Bush’s firm stance in favor of protecting innocent life. Refusing to support abortion and the destruction of innocent children for their stem cells is beyond reproach to anyone that cares about innocent life. In order to be for abortion, embryo farming, cloning, or embryonic stem cell research a person would either have to believe that the baby developing in a mother’s womb is not a person or not alive, or would have to be evil. I don’t understand the motivation of people who support such atrocities so I can only make assumptions. I am assuming that the majority of these people have sold themselves or been sold by others the idea that a baby isn’t a baby until birth. Of course when they realize what they have done, many women who have had an abortion are horrified and filled with regret.  

          I believe domestic security comes from secure borders and vigilance in general. Our borders are far from secure. Border guards are prosecuted for doing their jobs to the best of their abilities and several cities and towns pride themselves on being “sanctuary cities.”          

           I believe our troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan for among other things, domestic security. Governments that sponsor terrorists are a threat to our security. Governments with dictators who have a history of genocide and seeking weapons of mass destruction pose a threat to our national security. Intelligence led many to believe Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Democratic presidential candidates will tell you they were duped by faulty intelligence into supporting a war in Iraq. What is almost never mentioned in with the regrets and chants of “Bush lied, kids died” is the fact that chemical weapon components and means of delivery (small drone planes) have been found. It is never mentioned that Saddam had ample time to stash weapons in places like Syria.

           I am now hearing that next year might bring a troop reduction in Iraq. It would be wonderful if that comes to fruition. It will be great if the Iraqi forces can take a larger role and our troops can serve as advisors and trainers. If the circumstances in Iraq enable a majority of our troops to return home that will be something to be thankful for. We should commend our military for their efforts and for the progress that has been made, but of course is rarely reported. We should appreciate the sacrifices they and their families have made for our country.

           We do not support our troops by demoralizing them. One of the freedoms they fight for is freedom of speech. It is ironic that they fight so some can spew the kind of garbage that can only harm them. Our mainstream media in general demoralizes our military. It seems many democrats root for failure in Iraq so they can gain politically here at home. It seems some Republicans (Ron Paul) view the war through a narrow window of conservative ideology and thus sees it as an unnecessary policing of the world. (This may be how he feels, or it may be to win votes.)

           I have rambled perhaps, but I did not say everything that I wanted to say. I will wrap this entry up with a big thank you to our military members and their families and a prayer that good people will have good intentions and will act in a manner consistent with common sense, morality, and courage.

 I will oblige with 8 random facts about myself, but cannot put anyone else through this.

The Rules: Players start with 8 random facts about themselves. Those who are tagged should post these rules and their 8 random facts. Players should tag eight other people and notify them that they have been tagged.

1. I have 5 beautiful children: boy 12, girl 9, girl 7, girl 2, and boy 4 months.
2. My wife is much older than I am (2 years) and I tell her that next year when she turns 40 we start considering nursing home placement.
3. I worked for 3 1/2 years as a CNA in a hospital (back when I wanted to be a nurse.)
4. My next job was a as a draftsman then engineer at an ammunition company.
5. I got my B.S. degree when I was 33.
6. I am a fan of Bobby Labonte and Tony Stewart.
7. I love football and have a 49er helmet autographed by my all time favorite player, Joe Montana.
8. Before I met my wife and had children I didn’t give much thought to anything that didn’t directly affect me.

Thanks to Blue Collar Muse for making this post possible.

Those of you fortunate enough to be regular listeners of The Laura Ingraham Show will know I’m a little slow with this commentary. I have only recently been able to enjoy her show via podcasts since becoming a “Laura 365″ member. I no longer live in an area that carries her broadcast so I had been missing out.

Friday she interviewed Captain Paul Watson, the visionary that had recently been quoted as calling for a “re-wilding” of the planet. I believe he had told an interviewer that the ideal population for our planet would be around 1 billion. When Laura asked about this statement “Captain Planet” (the show played a bit of the Captain Planet theme between segments) opined that really 1 billion “predatory primates” would overtax the ecological balance.

Of course he isn’t saying which 4 or 5 billion people should be eliminated… in fact he believes that responsible breeding over a few generations will fix this pesky person problem. So for the next few generations the planet’s human inhabitants, these “predatory primates,” should not create the next few generations. Wait, that won’t work. If we followed this plan there would be no human population. Sure that would be ideal in the mind of the captain, but what about the people that want to just hit the target of 1 billion, but not eradicate the nasty “predatory primates” altogether?

Hmm…if only the right people were to reproduce at a rate of one “predatory primate” per couple (no gender requirements are to be imposed on said couples,) we might be able to hit the target. So who is to decide who gets to reproduce?

I don’t know who is qualified to make that call but I do know that I would give more consideration to the suggestions of the population control crowd if they would practice what they preach. They could take the inititiative to do their parts to achieve the delicate eco-balance. As soon as they no longer tread the Earth and exhale the globe warming carbon dioxide, I might reconsider the validity of their plans!

Visit www.lauraingraham.com to get “Former Embryo” shirts!

http://conservablogs.com/conservativecommonman/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/4-former-embryos-1-recent-zygote-4.JPG

http://conservablogs.com/conservativecommonman/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/4-former-embryos-1-recent-zygote-3.JPG

The above is an excerpt from the “for parents/men only” section of the web-site of an infamous abortion mill in Granite City Illinois. This baby butchering/body parts supplying temple to the high sacrament of liberalism is despicably named “The Hope Clinic For Women, Ltd.”

Apparently the key is to be supportive of your child’s decision to have your grandchild put to death. I suggest that you support your child by letting her know you love her and don’t want her to ruin two lives with one awful choice. I suggest you explain to her that it is a child that is growing inside her. It is her child as she is your child.

I suggest you make it clear that an abortion would kill her child and your grandchild. I suggest you discuss with her how she may feel the day after or several years after, living with the knowledge that she had her baby put to death.

I would suggest you point out the possible complications associated with such a gruesome procedure. I suggest you point out how terrible she is likely to feel (emotionally) for a long time to come. I suggest you also describe how sad you would be that your daughter had your grandchild put to death.

Ideally we will have taught our kids right from wrong. I know there are no guarantees, but I pray that mine won’t make babies until an appropriate time (after marriage,) but if it were to happen I pray we have instilled in them just how horrible it would be to have a baby put death.

Please visit www.smallvictoriesusa.com to learn about a wonderful group that is saving lives right outside this evil abortion mill. Be warned that at the top of their main page there is a picture of an aborted baby, so if you cannot handle this sad sight I recommend looking near the bottom of your screen and scrolling down a little before reading the site.

 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070507090936.m37a86dd&show_article=1

“Separately, growing numbers of pregnant women are risking their own lives and those of their children by seeking back-alley deliveries to avoid fines for having more than one child, Xinhua quoted vice health minister Jiang Zuojun as saying.

Fines range from under 5,000 yuan (646 dollars) to 200,000 yuan (25,800 dollars) depending on the violator’s location and income.

Xinhua said about half of maternal deaths in east China’s Jiangxi province resulted from illegal pregnancies.”

I have heard and read countless statements describing the pro-choice stance as a good and caring one. How could it be otherwise interpreted? After all, they are crusading to protect women from being forced into having “back-alley abortions” and suffering the infections, etc. that come from these experiences.

I don’t recall hearing or reading any comments lamenting the situation described in the excerpt above. I suppose that an outcry against Chinese women having “back-alley births” would not support their agenda. It would appear that reproductive rights only apply to those that desire abortions. Are the only women worth caring about the ones who don’t want children?

It is also apparent that deception and omission are keys to the pro-choice movement. NARAL’s web-site refers to “The Federal Ban on Abortion” in several places. Curiously, the words “partial birth” were not to be found. This should come as no surprise to anyone that has been listening to pro-life news recently.

For example, a bill recently passed the South Dakota House requiring showing a mother an ultrasound of her baby before having him or her aborted, the pro-choice activists claim this would unfairly intrude on the mother’s right to choose. Is the thinking that if a mother saw the child that was growing inside her she would be less likely to have her or him killed? Freedom of choice apparently depends on not having all the pertinent information. NARAL’s summary of this bill:

“Requires abortion providers obtain costly ultrasound equipment, even if not medically necessary for patient care.”

Sheryl Crow has been mentioned a lot recently. Archbishop Burke of the St. Louis Archdiocese recently resigned from the board of Cardinal Glennon because they were going to have Sheryl Crow perform at a fundraiser. The archbishop, being a man of conviction (and an archbishop which means he sets an example for those of like faith) could not support having an outspoken proponent of abortion involved in a Catholic event. She has also made headlines in her campaign against global warming.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070505/cm_huffpost/047713

“And, if we were to act from a place of compassion in every act of our lives, would we be arguing about whether global warming exists? Or would we simply be living our lives peacefully knowing that how we live will affect the planet we leave for our children and for their children.”

The above excerpt from her commentary on The Huffington Post would lead one to believe that Miss Crow cares about our children and their children. At what point does she begin to care? What is her cut-off for jumping from it is ok to have this child put to death and I care about his or her future? Is it a specific age? Does the child need to meet a certain set of criteria to earn the concern?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070504/ap_on_re_us/clinton_disaster_conference_2

 I read the article in the above link while scanning the Drudge Report this evening. I was curious what Bill Clinton would see as a looming disaster. I don’t think the article revealed what the former president might view as truly disastrous so I thought I would fill in the gaps.

Disasters on a personal level:

• Hillary wins the presidency in 2008 and she somehow creates a legacy that is better than his own.
• Hillary wins the presidency in 2008 and he has to become more discreet in his dating or risk incurring her wrath. (Not that she cares about his affairs, but one must maintain appearances.)
• Hillary wins the presidency in 2008 and upon moving back into the White House, he finds dates harder to come by with the D.C. Madame being out of business.
• He finds he has not restocked his humador.
• Hillary wins the presidency in 2008 and a controversy erupts in which he must testify as to what the meaning of “is” is. (Fortunately the main-stream media only reports a viscious attack by the vast right-wing conspiracy.)

Disasters in his new role as ambassador to the world:

• He finds that in countries with which the new President Clinton has good relations, he has a more difficult time having “relations.” Apparently Hillary has asked the governments of these countries to keep him from embarassing her while inside their borders.
• He finds that his cigar tricks are not welcome in all nations.
• He finds that in some countries, the leadership does not respect him due to his role as a subordinate to his wife. (On the bright side some of these nations don’t care about Hillary’s image and allow him to visit their brothels.)

 Disasters related to a Hillary Clinton presidency:

• Hillary gets socialized medicine established in the United States and he finds that every time he needs to get checked for certain “social” diseases he must wait weeks or even months. (At this point he really feels the burn.)
• Hillary reduces his Secret Service detail since once she achieves the presidency, she really has no further use for him.
• Hillary insists that she not be denied the respect that other presidents had been shown, thus she demands Bill be referred to as the first lady.

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard or read about global warming achieving the status of a religion. I have heard Rush Limbaugh talk about it and have read about it in Ann Coulter’s The Coming Ass Age. I saw this article the other day and it hit me just how much global warming had indeed become a religion.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=us&sid=afIESX3LdgnQ

California Hotels Go Green With Low-Flow Toilets, Solar Lights By Ari Levy and Carole ZimmerApril 27 (Bloomberg) — Visitors to the Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa won’t find the Gideon Bible in the nightstand drawer. Instead, on the bureau will be a copy of “An Inconvenient Truth,” former Vice President Al Gore’s book about global warming.  

The worst part of this religion isn’t the fact that its high priest, Al Gore will not take measures to practice what he preaches until he is forced to do so by having his electricity consumption exposed by a watchdog group in his home state. It also isn’t the fact that its clergy burn so much fuel traveling in private planes, and in Sheryl Crow’s case several buses and semis to preach the gospel of man’s negative impact on the climate.

The worst part is illustrated by this article I read on The Drudge Report today:       

            China’s Solution

“China is already doing a lot,” said Hu Tao, of

China is apparently doing its part to combat the serious issue of man-made global warming by eliminating the root cause. Every man they can prevent from being born can of course not contribute to the catastrophe that is man-made global warming! A Chinese family is legally limited to bringing only one carbon dioxide exhaling person into this world.This of course dovetails seamlessly with what Ann Coulter described as a “sacrament of the Church of Liberalism,” which is of course abortion. This illustrates the priorities of these people. Natural climate change (or as they call it man-made global warming) must be stopped, but it is perfectly ok for a mother to decide to have her baby killed. It is even ok for a government to force mothers to have their babies killed.
It is a disturbing thought, but I wouldn’t be surprised see a number of liberals who would not oppose government coerced abortions in The United States. The Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse violates their imagined meaning of separation of church and state. Having laws against immoral acts violates their imagined meaning of separation of church and state, but if the law called for the slaughter of innocent babies that would be acceptable.