Marco Rubio at Jack Kemp Leadership Dinner - Video

An Open Letter to @McCainBlogette

Dearest Meghan:

I read you advice to the GOP about moderating or "evolving" as you put it.  You talked about social issues being the death of the republican party:

I know there are many out there, especially in the more conservative sphere, that regard me with disdain. I don’t fit into the traditional Republican box that the wingnuts who have hijacked my party think all Republicans should. For the last four years, I’ve been calling for Republicans to stop concentrating on social issues. I am a single woman in my 20s and that fact alone gave me the perspective that I don’t want to regulate a woman’s right to choice. I am pro-life, but because life is complicated, that choice is between a woman and her idea of a higher power. I believe if Roe vs. Wade were repealed, abortion would still go on. I care more about my economy, national security, and fiscal conservatism than I do about what other woman do with their bodies. It’s not my place, and I don’t believe it’s the government’s place, to make such decisions

Yes, Meghan abortion would still go on if Roe is repealed because repealing Roe doesn't make abortion illegal, it leaves it up to the states to decide.  As a person who is a republican you should be believing in states rights, as that is what is meant, in part, by limited government.  Limited government is part of the platform of the GOP.  You see I think that you agree on abortion when it comes to this, I too don't believe that abortion should be a question of religion.  I believe that abortion is an issue of personhood and the constitutional rights that a person has.  Remember that line Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?  It is a little difficult to pursue happiness if you are dead.  To me abortion is about science, not about God.  That question has never been answered in a court of law and I think it should be.  Does a human being get afforded the same rights under the law that an egg of certain birds gets?  I would like a court to answer the question why a bird egg  has more value under the law than a human being does?  They are laws in place that you will be fined and/or jailed for damaging the bird fetus, but a human being in this country isn't afforded the same rights.  I think there is something wrong with that picture.  Why don't you?  

You go on to talk about immigration issues:

  I think America needs a better immigration policy and immigrants who were brought here illegally as children shouldn’t be deported.

I too think that we need better immigration policy.  It is next to impossible for a low wage earner to come here legally from Mexico, but it will take those same low wage earners from other countries.  That makes no sense.  Those things needs to change and adapt to the work force that we have and the work force that we need.  I am first generation, so I know all too well about the advantages of immigrants coming to this country.  This country was built by them and has flourished because of them.  But I must ask you a few questions about your stance on "The Dream Act".  You say that children brought here shouldn't be deported.  But the questions that people with your view-point never seem to answer are as follows:

1. Do we give those that came as children visa's but deport the parents?  If so, do you think these children/young adults are going to come forward if they fear that it means that their parents are going to be deported?  
2. What about the ones that came here as children but are over the age restrictions that The Dream Act puts into place?  Do we deport the 32-year-old, but not the 29-year-old?  Or whatever arbitrary age that the law comes up with.  
3. Do they get to cut in line in front of the people who have been in other countries going through the proper and legal process?  (As a relative of mine is doing)
4. What do we do with the people who paid thousands upon thousands of dollars to go through the legal process?  Do they get their money back? If not, doesn't that mean we are not being "fair"?    
5. How long before they are allowed to become citizens?  
6. Will they be afforded the same rights as other immigrants and citizens of this country who can sponsor relatives to come here?  If so, doesn't that potentially quadruple the number of people we are giving amnesty to?  
7. What do we do about border security?  If we don't secure the borders and every 30 years or so we give amnesty to people who come here illegally, why bother to have any immigration laws at all?  It is essentially becomes an open border policy.  

You see Ms. McCain it really isn't as black and white as your 20 something brain is led to believe that it is.  The issue is very complicated and people like you won't answer the hard questions.  That is the reason "right winged nuts" take the stand that they do.  Do you believe that America should have no immigration policy?  If so, doesn't that fly in the face of your desire to concentrate on national security?  A de facto open border policy is a national security issue, wouldn't you agree?  There can be no moving forward on this issue until the borders are secured.  Is the federal government making any real attempt to do that?  I think by the levels of crime in your home state that the answer to that question is no.  

I would think that one of the things that you are saying is that we should compromise and get good law for all Americans.  Forgive me if I am wrong about that.  But I get this feeling that I am not.  I am not blind to the fact that governing is about compromise.  But another thing that my not in my 20's perspective has taught me is that when you are entering negotiations you need to start in a place that is further than where you end up.  

Now, when you negotiate your contracts with MSNBC to bash talk about conservatives don't you start at a higher rate?  If so, why do think it is unreasonable for the republicans to do basically the same thing?  Because what I am getting from your essay is that we should be starting with a position that isn't much different from the democrats.  How exactly do you negotiate?  I hope you have an agent that is better suited to take care of your needs.  If not, you are doing yourself a big disservice.  

Another thing that you talk about is fiscal conservatism.  One of the things that leads to all the spending we do in this country is based on social issues.  That is another thing that your 20 something brain has yet to learn.  Fiscal conservatism requires discussion on social issues.  

You have brought "gay rights".  I don't care who someone loves.  But I do care what the gay right movement is trying to accomplish; a total dismissal of the biblical view of marriage.  That is bad and it must be punished.  My view-point is bigoted.    Many say that gay marriage will have no ill effects on society.  While it is too new in this country to gauge that, it has been around in Canada for more than 10 years.  A study has been recently released:

The formal effect of the judicial decisions (and subsequent legislation) establishing same-sex civil marriage in Canada was simply that persons of the same-sex could now have the government recognize their relationships as marriages. But the legal and cultural effect was much broader. What transpired was the adoption of a new orthodoxy: that same-sex relationships are, in every way, the equivalent of traditional marriage, and that same-sex marriage must therefore be treated identically to traditional marriage in law and public life.
A corollary is that anyone who rejects the new orthodoxy must be acting on the basis of bigotry and animus toward gays and lesbians. Any statement of disagreement with same-sex civil marriage is thus considered a straightforward manifestation of hatred toward a minority sexual group. Any reasoned explanation (for example, those that were offered in legal arguments that same-sex marriage is incompatible with a conception of marriage that responds to the needs of the children of the marriage for stability, fidelity, and permanence—what is sometimes called the conjugal conception of marriage), is dismissed right away as mere pretext.
When one understands opposition to same-sex marriage as a manifestation of sheer bigotry and hatred, it becomes very hard to tolerate continued dissent. Thus it was in Canada that the terms of participation in public life changed very quickly. Civil marriage commissioners were the first to feel the hard edge of the new orthodoxy; several provinces refused to allow commissioners a right of conscience to refuse to preside over same-sex weddings, and demanded their resignations. At the same time, religious organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, were fined for refusing to rent their facilities for post-wedding celebrations.

They go on:

The new orthodoxy’s impact has not been limited to the relatively small number of persons at risk of being coerced into supporting or celebrating a same-sex marriage. The change has widely affected persons—including clergy—who wish to make public arguments about human sexuality.
Much speech that was permitted before same-sex marriage now carries risks. Many of those who have persisted in voicing their dissent have been subjected to investigations by human rights commissions and (in some cases) proceedings before human rights tribunals. Those who are poor, poorly educated, and without institutional affiliation have been particularly easy targets—anti-discrimination laws are not always applied evenly.  Some have been ordered to pay fines, make apologies, and undertake never to speak publicly on such matters again. Targets have included individuals writing letters to the editors of local newspapers, and ministers of small congregations of Christians. A Catholic bishop faced two complaints—both eventually withdrawn—prompted by comments he made in a pastoral letter about marriage.
Reviewing courts have begun to rein in the commissions and tribunals (particularly since some ill-advised proceedings against Mark Steyn andMaclean’s magazine in 2009), and restore a more capacious view of freedom of speech. And in response to the public outcry following the Steyn/Maclean’saffair, the Parliament of Canada recently revoked the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s statutory jurisdiction to pursue “hate speech.”
But the financial cost of fighting the human rights machine remains enormous—Maclean’s spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, none of which is recoverable from the commissions, tribunals, or complainants. And these cases can take up to a decade to resolve. An ordinary person with few resources who has drawn the attention of a human rights commission has no hope of appealing to the courts for relief; such a person can only accept the admonition of the commission, pay a (comparatively) small fine, and then observe the directive to remain forever silent. As long as these tools remain at the disposal of the commissions—for whom the new orthodoxy gives no theoretical basis to tolerate dissent—to engage in public discussion about same-sex marriage is to court ruin.
Similar pressure can be—and is—brought to bear on dissenters by professional governing bodies (such as bar associations, teachers’ colleges, and the like) that have statutory power to discipline members for conduct unbecoming of the profession. Expressions of disagreement with the reasonableness of institutionalizing same-sex marriage are understood by these bodies to be acts of illegal discrimination, which are matters for professional censure.
Teachers are particularly at risk for disciplinary action, for even if they only make public statements criticizing same-sex marriage outside the classroom, they are still deemed to create a hostile environment for gay and lesbian students. Other workplaces and voluntary associations have adopted similar policies as a result of their having internalized this new orthodoxy that disagreement with same-sex marriage is illegal discrimination that must not be tolerated.

You see Ms. McCain, the agenda as well as the outcome has much broader effects than simple "fairness".  You see people who have strong religious views; which I would hope you feel that they are entitled to, are being forced to not only accept something, but being stifled.  The right of parents to pass down those biblical values to their children are being threatened.  Tolerance requires that both sides accept opposing points of views.  What is tolerant about private citizens being sued to accept something that goes against their deeply held belief system?  I, for one, view marriage as primarily a religious institution that for some reason that the government decided to get involved with.  Mostly so they can raise revenue with fees for licenses and the like.  You say you don't want the government involved in issues between a person and their God higher power when it comes to abortion but have no problem with that same interference when it comes to marriage.  

So, I have a suggestion for you, take some of that hard-earned money that you have received bashing discussing people like me, go and buy yourself a new pair of Jimmy Choos for the occasion and march yourself to your local board of elections and change your registration.  Why wait?  

Guess What? You Agree with Conservatives

Today I was out doing some canvassing for Tito Munoz's senate campaign.  I was sitting at a local grocery store that happens to have WiFi and looking up some addresses on Mapquest.  The restaurant section was pretty full and this man asked if he could sit at my table.  Of course it was no big deal to me, I was not doing anything with state secrets or anything.  For some reason the man felt like he needed to have a conversation with me. 

He made a joke and asked me if I was a tax assessor because I had a clipboard of addresses.  I said no worse, I was doing work for the upcoming elections for the state legislator.  He asked me if the candidate was a minority or not.  I said as matter of fact yes he is.  I told him that Tito is a naturalized citizen who was born and raised in Columbia. 

We got to talking about politics and I told him that I have gotten very involved since 2008.  I think this man assumed that Tito and I are both democrats.  I then told him that no we are republicans and conservative republicans at that.  He then looked at me and said "oh, you are part of the tea party.".  Why yes we are.  This man happened to be a minority as well, a black man.  He told me that he would never vote for a republican because they don't care about him.  I asked him where he was from and he wasn't in Tito's district, matter fact he was from Maryland, so I figured I could say what I wanted to say without affecting anything as he didn't recognize Tito's name. 

So I explained to him my insight into the black community as it is and asked him some questions.

1. Are you a religious man and regular church goer.  Yes he is.
2. Are you against gay marriage on religious beliefs.  Yes he is.
3. Wouldn't you say that if a family is going on third or fourth generation living in poverty and public assistance the system has failed them?  Yes, I guess so.
4. Shouldn't a poor black child get a good education?  Of course.
5. Shouldn't the poor black family have access to better schools like richer people?  Of course.
6. Would you agree that the high levels of black unemployment have a relationship to the less effective school systems in the poorer communities.  I guess so.
7. Would it shock you to learn that the NAACP has sided with the teachers unions in Harlem, NY to keep one of the lowest performing schools in the country open instead of allowing the students to attend a charter school?  He doesn't believe that is true.  I assured him it was. 
8. Do you think it is fair that public school teachers in New Jersey put in approx. $100K towards benefits and the tax payers pay them almost $1 Million in return.  He doesn't believe that is true.  I googled it for him. 
9. Do you  believe that tax payers should fund abortion?  No. 
10. Do you understand that the founder of Planned Parenthood was a racist who gave lectures to the KKK and wanted to rid the world of "undesirables?  Did you know that she considered blacks undesirables?  Did you know that many of the PP clinics are in minority neighborhoods?  Do you think that is just happenstance?  Did you know that the black community would be almost doubled in size in this country if Roe V. Wade had not become legal in this country.  He was dumbfounded.

My final question was

You vote for the democrats why?  He didn't have an answer.  Will he become a republican.  Maybe, maybe not.  But I gave him something to think about. 

One person at a time is how we will win the fight to get our country back on track.  Don't name call, just ask serious questions and give factual answers.  One person at a time.

Conservatism Matters

Photo courtsey of Opus #6

After the election of President Obama many cheered and jeered that conservatism was all but dead. James Carville went as far as to write a book about the next forty years of progressive rule. Oh, what a difference a year can make. The progressive trifecta of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi took care of that.


Just as conservatives feared they over-reached. They mistakenly assumed that the election of Obama and the majorities in Congress was a mandate to push this country further left than ever before. They believed that progressivism reigned supreme. They forget one little detail; this is a center-right country. The growth of the tea party shows that. In one left leaning poll the results were that approval of the tea party grew 8 points in one month. With all the marginalization and demonization of the movement from the lame stream media, that is quite an accomplishment. The tea parties are becoming more organized and larger by the month.


We are rallying not against a black president; we are rallying for the prosperity that this country has been known for around the world. You can fulfill the dream in this country. In many other countries around the world a caste system still exists to a degree. But in America the dream for a better life for your children is attainable.


The conservatives are not interested in guaranteeing it to anyone, but they are not bound and determined to stand in the way of it either. Conservatism matters because we don’t want our children to feel entitled to another’s vision of that dream. We want every individual to find their own unique version of that dream for themselves. For some that could mean just seeing the first member of the family to graduate college, for others it is being the CEO of a large corporation. For many it is finding a person to truly love and grow old with. Every individual has the right to define that dream for themselves. The government needs not be involved.


Conservatism matters because of people like Bertha Lewis; the head of ACORN who has publically says that home ownership is a right. There is no such right in our constitution. Some people simply cannot afford to own a home. We have done no favors to the people who couldn’t afford to pay back those mortgages; they now have no place to live and have to deal with a forclosure on their credit ratings for the next ten years. We have hurt them much more than we helped them.


Conservatism matters because we want every child in this country to get a good education. If a teacher or an entire school system is failing, then the parent of that child should have options to give their child a good education. A good education is the one of the keys of succeeding in life. We cannot simply keep throwing good money after bad into failing school systems and getting no better results. One needs to look no further than DC and Chicago. The two public school systems that spend the most money per student, yet are still failing way behind on not only graduation rates, but also on testing scores. We have very little to show for spending those precious tax payer resources. In DC some of the private schools are actually less expensive than the public schools; which cost almost $15,000/student. Let the parents make the choice for a better education for their child.


Conservatism matters because we should be judging people on the content of their character and their god given skills, not on the color of their skin or ethnicity. Fireman in New Haven, CT should not be denied a promotion they fairly earned because they are white. Written tests should be administered fairly and allow the chips to fall where they may.


Conservatism matters because parents instead of the safe school czar should be teaching their children about sex. It is not the job of the government to subsidize conferences where fisting exhibitions are given to kids as young as 14. Children should find out sex in their own time and in their own way.


Conservatism matters because all life is sacred; even the woman on a feeding tube. The state should not be making life and death decisions. The state looks at numbers, families look at loved ones. A few more months to a child that is losing a parent means the world to them. Conservatism matters.