American Republic Online

As I predicted, Congress approval numbers continue to sink lower.  Congress now has a whopping 19% of people that find them doing a “good” job.

Now while typically general congress disapproval outweighs the feelings on individual congressional members, Harry Reid is proudly bucking that trend.  He also turned in an abysmal 19% favorable rating.  I’m sure that was unrelated to his maneuvering to stall the immigration bill procedurally. One  also wonders where all the press hubbub is, you know, mirroring that when the President first hit 29% in approval.
These new lows are largely due to the immigration travesty that is still trying to find a way to go against vast public opposition.  But some credit must also be given to the Democratically control congress that has started countless hearings and investigations (what is the Judicial Branch for again?) while forgetting campaign promises like better ethics and being in session more of the year (last I heard they are scheduled for 22 weeks off).

Read the full article »

This article is quite simply: GREAT. The much vaunted by eco-snobs Toyota Prius, apparently pollutes enough to give a tree-hugger nightmares. If you know someone with a Prius, you really owe it to yourself to print out this article, give it to them, and say “HAHAHAHAHA!”.

A serious laugh really is deserved here. While the average Prius purchaser’s intent was to be better than other people and save the planet, they in fact wasted money and energy while helping to kill helpless animals in Canada.

The best part? Guess which car soundly spanks the hybrid in eco-friendliness when you also consider construction and lifespan in addition to fuel economy…. That’s right: The Hummer.

Below are snippets, check the link for the full text.

Read the full article »

I’ve not commented much on the on-going immigration debate, Scott has been doing a great job keeping up.  However, I read a column today by Rich Lowry about Cynicism and Government.  In it, he describes a couple of instances of Americans coming together to achieve great things, even during hard times, and contrasts them with modern times:

In five years, we built the Hoover Dam. From 1931 to 1936, the Colorado River was diverted with tunnels blasted into the Black Canyon walls, a town was built to house a small army of workers laboring in the desert, and 3 1/4 million cubic yards of concrete were poured into a dam reaching 726 1/2 feet high — two years ahead of schedule.

It’s hard to look back at this monumental effort without a feeling of envy. The dam was completed on the backs of desperate men during the Great Depression, but from this remove, it looks like an apotheosis of the can-do spirit. Who believes we could do something similar today, that political bickering, governmental bungling, Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations, lawsuits, and environmental objections wouldn’t make such a project all but impossible?

While his piece is more of a commentary on the state of our government, I couldn’t help but think of the immigration debate.  Why?  Well, how’s that wall down on the border coming?  Some chain-link here, some concrete there, and the border is much more secure.  The wall will probably never be built, and that is why Americans are so opposed to the new deal being struck.  Not necessarily the wall per se, but the fact that our government can not even secure the border makes the other issues moot.  For, if we do not decide the means in which people are immigrating, what good do the reforms do?  Would it matter if we increased the amount of people allowed in, or eased the path to citizenship, if people can still walk across the border and partake of our country without even looking into the process?

Read the full article »

President Bush is headed to Capital Hill today to try and revive his immigration travesty. In hearing all the spin on this bill and much ignorance about it’s provisions, I thought I would VERY simply point out the Amnesty in S. 1348.

Those supporting the bill like to point to all of these measures that such as learning English and fines to state that there is no Amnesty in this bill. There are punishments. There are hoops they have to jump through. But therein lies the dirty little secret of this bill that most people are missing: illegals won’t have to do ANY of those things.

That’s right. The second this bill is signed into law every single illegal will be LEGAL. Done. Fini. The fine, the English, the mandatory trips back home… they are all steps to citizenship. Don’t want to be a citizen? Oh - well, you’re legal… have a nice life! (And don’t forget to enjoy all our social services!)
This bill is amnesty because it’s solution to the 12-20 million illegals is to simply make them legal. Tada! No more millions of illegals in the country. Problem solved right? Right? So while the provisions to bring the ex-illegals families into the country by the millions are economically scary and the promises at better enforcement of this new law over the current law are unbelievable, one thing is certain. Waving a wand to make 20 million il-legals, legal IS Amnesty.

In a temporary victory for the people, enough of the government became afraid of steamrolling their voters - even in an effort to create some new ones. That’s right, the immigration travesty of 2007 has been beaten back, if only for a little while.

Everyone that called, faxed, emailed or visited their Senator can pause for a moment to pat themselves on the back. The bill failed to achieve cloture first 33 to 63 and then at 45 to 50 (remember 60 is required). The Senate is now moving on to other things, as the more debate that occurred - the more info about it revealed - the more the people of this great country were against it. Sen. Reid has promised to bring the bill around again “soon”. But more likely than not, this issue will be delayed enough to become a center piece of the next Presidential election. Or at least we can hope for that, as this is an issue about which American’s agree. The hard part will be bringing around the politicians.

Be sure an check in on how your reps voted:

Read the full article »

I felt compelled to follow-up on Scott’s post regarding Edwards. This is an issue that holds a special place in my heart: the non leadership of leaders. How can a man (or woman) expect to lead if they are unwilling to take a stand? The whole “everything is equal to all else” is ridiculous. I know Edwards only mentioned different faiths, but why are we so scared to say we think something is better, or “more right?” Why in the world do you believe it then? Was it simply encoded into your DNA, and is thus not your fault, so please don’t think any less of you as a human being?

When a person comes to terms with their faith, politics, etc they are declaring the choice is the best out of all the alternatives available. Even those who are “pressured” into it by parents, peers, etc are still making the same declaration. For, choosing someone else’s choice is the best option for them at that time. I’m not trying to get overly philosophical here, but the fact remains that throughout our days we makes choices that we deem the best: the decision to get up and go to work, to eat, to watch TV, to spend time with people, are all choices because we could have stayed in bed, gone on a diet, read a book, or sat in front of the computer working on your blog.

When we look at this behavior, there are really two things at work here: 1. avoiding taking responsibility for your choices, and 2. being scared of offending someone else. If we say that this is what I believe, and it is the best, we then have to take ownership of it. By saying, this is what I believe, but it’s no better than what other people believe, we minimize the importance and our role in the decision. Our society has also been conditioned to be mindful of others’ feelings. While this is fine, it should not be at the expense of one’s own feelings. There can be debate with out rancor, but no one is willing to vocalize their opinions any more out of fear of being called names themselves.

So here we have a possible candidate for president that first of all demonstrates to people of faith that his faith is shallow at best. If faith played as an “enormous” role in Edwards’ life as he claims, it would affect his entire life. Faith is not meant to be compartmentalized. It permeates everything. People understand this, and know this when they elect representatives for themselves. In fact, a large portion of our nation elect people for their faith. Not to establish a theocracy, but because they understand the values these people hold, and that they hope will be with them when they are making decisions that affect us all. They (we) do not want someone in an executive role sitting there wondering how he can keep from offending the least amount of people, instead of making the tough decision that needs to be made. Can you imagine a CEO sitting in his office with a difficult choice to make, hoping he’s not offending someone, and then saying, “Well, any other decision would have been equally good.” The words are hollow, and lack leadership. The first thing someone would say is “Then why didn’t you make the decision that didn’t mean I had to lose my job?”
Can our nation be led by a leader who shows no leadership? The coming election may give us a chance to see.

Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid is already passing blame to the President, saying, if the bill fails, that it would “produce headlines that ‘the president fails again.’” And that “‘It’s his bill, it’s not our bill.’” I’m sure Senator Reid would have happily, and as quickly, given credit to the President if the bill had passed.

But we can not fault the Senator, after all Bush is responsible for global warming, terrorist attacks, hurricane Katrina, high gas prices, the flu vaccine shortage, future dentists cheating on exams…

That’s right a whopping 16% of the American people believe the Senate Bill will reduce illegal immigration. I think almost as many Americans believe space aliens have come here (sorry couldn’t resist the parallel).

Today the Senate votes on cloture to end debate on the immigration bill. If this doesn’t pass it could kill the bill. We’ll keep score and let you know the results here.

Read the full article »

On Monday, the Democratic Presidential hopefuls reached out to the “Religious Right” by holding a forum with the head of the Sojourners Social Justice Ministry. Some of the attempts to connect with the faithful through biblical references were fairly amusing like Sen. Obama’s statement that “I am my brother’s keeper”.

Now while I’m sure Obama was proud that he remembered something from those Sunday school lessons long ago, he probably should have checked his reference. The only time the phrase “my brother’s keeper” is used in the bible is in Genesis 4:8-9. And its use is Cain attempting to change the subject when God asks about his brother Abel (recently killed by Cain). Probably not the imagery the Senator was hoping to conjure up.

Aside from the amusing allusions, there was on statement that I found to be quite shocking. Though no one else seemed to pick up on it. When John Edwards was asked “If you think something is morally wrong, though, you morally disagree with it, as president of the United States, don’t you have a duty to go with your moral belief?”

His response? “No.” No? NO! John Edwards -at a forum that was supposedly faith based- wanted to make it clear that any morals that were held by him would not effect how he ran his Presidency. Now his response was actually quite longer than just no, here is the transcript for his full response:

Read the full article »