FederalRepublic.net

Even though it’s passed Memorial Day, many patriotic Americans continue to support our troops day in and day out. I was recently clicking around the conservative blog world when I came across this picture, displayed by the official San Antonio, Texas website:

Pearl Harbor survivor Houston James of Dallas is overcome with emotion as he embraces Marine Staff Sgt. Mark Graunke Jr. during the Dallas Veterans Day Commemoration at Dallas City Hall on Thursday. Sgt Graunke, who was a member of a Marine ordnance-disposal team, lost a hand, leg and eye while defusing a bomb in Iraq in July of last year.

Even though it’s not Memorial Day or Veteran’s Day or any other holiday honoring our fallen brothers and fellow veterans, let us remember our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in this time of war. Their country has called for their service in this trying time in American and world history. Let us not forget their sacrifices or the honor they deserve.

By Peter Brown

As President Bush’s poll ratings hit historic lows, the answer to whether he can rehabilitate his image may be rooted in why he has lost the support of the American people in the first place.

Simply put, are Americans fed up with Bush’s brand of conservatism, or skeptical about the president’s competence, his ability to make the trains run on time?

With only a third of Americans approving of his job performance, even his most committed supporters, mainstream conservatives and evangelical Christians, are complaining.

If the dramatically lower numbers result from Americans souring on the president’s vision for the United States, then it will be difficult, if not impossible, for Bush to return to the point in the public’s mind where he was when re-elected 18 months ago.

Strange as it may seem, it would be easier for Bush to regain his popularity if his problems stem from a perceived lack of competence.

For example, if the president’s poor ratings stem primarily from Americans’ views that Bush & Co. has made too many mistakes in how they fought the war in Iraq and led the post-war reconstruction, rather than the decision to invade, that is another matter.

-Snip-

In general, any way back in the public opinion polls for this President Bush would require he and his administration to demonstrate their ability to deal with the nation’s problems in a way that satisfies the public. The public has so far found the record in dealing with Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath, and implementation of the prescription drug plan, as unacceptable.

That is why, for instance, the president and his aides are so desperate to have Congress pass an immigration reform bill, among other measures.

And, of course, unforeseen events, such as the capture of Osama Bin Laden, could provide a political environment that could favor the president. However, an economic downturn would make his task that much more difficult.

Even at the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, a vocal minority of Americans opposed the decision as the embodiment of Bush’s overly aggressive and unilateral foreign policy. Democrats like to believe that many of the millions who voted for Bush, but now think he is a failed president, have also adopted their viewpoint.

Link

Public opinion and approval rating is something that is always considered important in American politics. According to polls, President Bush’s approval rating has been in the mid to low 30s for some time. Many political pundits blame mishappenings in Iraq, FEMA incompetence in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and sometimes undeniable Bush family evil and corruption.

However, I really don’t think that incompetence and unpopularity of the presidency solidly resides at the foot of Bush’s White House. Often times people and especially opposition politicians denounce President Bush’s character for not going it differently in Iraq. But I think if you asked people on the street what Bush should do differently, you’d get nothing more than rhetoric they have heard in 30 second segments in the mainstream media. Some would say “He should win the peace.” Those who disagree with Bush under the “he didn’t win the peace” pretext must realize it is difficult for a representative government to keep a peace while surrounded by a region of Islamo-fascist states and foreign influence. Even after WWII, Germany had holdouts and insurgent attacks that kept on for decades. I think many wouldn’t really know how Bush should go about it differently anyway, but instead quote their favorite party talking points while remembering what their local politicians have said. The sad reality is that many people today do not think for themselves or educate themselves in today’s pressing issues.

According to many conservatives, a liberal mainstream, network media is to blame for many aspects of Bush’s low approval rating. While focusing on everyday, negative news, I believe the media has lost touch with the positive aspects of Bush’s foreign policy and military pre-emption strategy. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have rid the world of tyrannical regimes while freeing 25 million people and have refocused the world on the dangers of Iran and nuclear proliferation. But these facts are not communicated to common citizens through the mainstream media. Fortunately, the Internet and reformed media outlets like Fox News are slowly changing that.

A third aspect of the Bush presidency that I think has reduced approval ratings is a lack of conservative leadership on important issues. The American people sent President Bush a mandate to govern another four years, giving him more votes than any other president in our nation’s history in the general election of 2004. However, reelection promises have not gone through as hoped, even with a Republican-led Congress and a right of center Supreme Court. Social Security reform never even got off the ground, federal spending is out of control, immigration reform has taken a turn toward amnesty, and the 2003 middle class tax cuts haven’t been made permanent. It’s not that the American people disagree with Republican conservativism, it’s that Bush has not offered leadership to push reforms through a liberal-minded Senate, even with the support of a right-leaning House of Representatives. Frankly, the Bush press office and the president himself have refused to forcefully denounce the chaotic, socialist ideals of the Democratic Party opposition.

There are many things that could provide a boost to President Bush’s approval ratings. A solid enforcement-first immigration policy and additional tax cuts would definately be a start, followed by a more efficient grassroots outreach program and positive news about the Iraq war. The American people aren’t stupid by any means, but I think the lack of education and a focus on looks and appearance instead of policy definately don’t help our country. As conservatives, we must stand firm with the President, while loyally disagreeing with his policy when incorrect. We must educate those who need educating and stand by our values and what we think is right - even if that means voting out liberal Republicans in November.

From Fox News

WASHINGTON — President Bush laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns in Arlington Cemetery on Monday, carrying on a tradition that has been held every Memorial Day for the past 138 years. He said afterward that fallen soldiers have died for a worthy cause.

“In this place where valor sleeps, we find strength in knowing that those who served in freedom’s cause have acted with principle and steadfast faith,” Bush told veterans and their families.

“Here in the presence of veterans they fought with and loved ones whose pictures they carried, the fallen give silent witness to the price of our liberty, and our nation honors them this day and every day,” he said.

Monday’s ceremonies mark the fifth Memorial Day in a row that the country has been fighting a War on Terror state of war, with military members confronting combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush said the ceremony is a chance for Americans to express their appreciation for those who have sacrificed their lives in the quest for freedom around the world.

“The markers here record the names of more than 296,000 men and women. Each of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines buried here answered the call to serve and stepped forward to protect the nation they love. All who are buried here understood their duty — they saw a dark shadow on the horizon and went to meet it. They understood that tyranny must be met with resolve and liberty is always the achievement of courage,” Bush said.

Link

“Another year, another Memorial Day.” Many people around the nation often forget what Memorial Day is all about or why it is celebrated. People often consider Memorial Day an excuse to hit the beach or put back some brews, but don’t really take time to reflect on its meaning.

Memorial Day is about honoring those who have fallen in the defense of our country. From the early days of the Confederation to those who have defended our modern republic, from the defenders of liberty in the Revolutionary War to those fighting for freedom in Iraq today, we honor those who have lost their lives and sacrificed for something greater than themselves - a liberty that is the envy of the world.

Today, let us remember our fallen comrades, our brothers, our neighbors, and friends. Let us remember their sacrifice and their courage as they stood for liberty and freedom against the tyrants of history. God bless our modern warriors and our great republic as we battle for liberty and justice around the world.

William Kristol has written an article for The Weekly Standard demonstrating why he believes President Bush has had a good month of May and how recent actions could lead to an improvement in his image and governance. I’ve quoted the parts of the article that I believed to be the most relevent:

Good economic signs:

Congress extended, and the president signed, the wildly successful supply-side tax cuts on interest and dividend income originally passed in 2003. The new tax rates are now in force until 2010, providing helpful certainty for the economy and the markets, and forcing Democrats in this year’s congressional elections, and in the 2008 presidential election, either to accept a core element of Bush’s economic policy, or to be for raising taxes.

Speaking of the economy . . . last week the Commerce Department revised first quarter growth up to 5.3 percent. Not too lame. Then we learned that new home sales had risen in April, suggesting a reasonably soft landing for the housing market. And gas prices even began to drift down.

Immigration:

They can talk themselves into a frenzy about illegal immigration, of course. But on this issue, the Senate managed–contrary to the conventional wisdom of late April–easily to pass a sensible and comprehensive immigration reform bill. And House Republicans now show some signs of coming to realize that talk radio is not always the best source of policy guidance. Enough of them may come to realize that passing legislation they regard as flawed would be better than going home to the voters having achieved nothing. So Bush could have an immigration reform signing ceremony to look forward to in the fall.

Personnel Shakeups:

Meanwhile, on the personnel front, new chief of staff Josh Bolten seems to have improved White House performance, and Tony Snow took over as press secretary to rave reviews. Michael Hayden was easily confirmed by the Senate as CIA Director–as all the hoopla over warrantless wiretapping and data mining of phone records came to nothing.

The administration also got reenergized on the judicial front, shepherding Brett Kavanaugh through to confirmation to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. If a Supreme Court seat comes open in a month, the administration seems prepared, with (sources say) a short list of well vetted and well qualified conservative candidates.

War on Terrorism:

What about the world, and the war? There is a new Iraqi government, and we saw an impressive display of resolution on the Iraqi front by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair at their press conference last Thursday night. The president seems to have resisted calls to draw down troops precipitately, correctly understanding that he will get no credit for losing Iraq with 100,000 troops rather than 135,000.

As for Iran, the State Department seems to remain in charge of U.S. policy, and unwilling to come to grips with the urgency and gravity of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s challenge. Iran and Iraq are very likely to define the historical judgment on the Bush presidency. So these foreign policy splotches on the picture of a rosy May painted above are important. But if the president realizes he really isn’t a lame duck, and that he has two and half years left, two and half years in which his foreign policy can either succeed or fail–he can begin to turn his attention to reenergizing that foreign policy in June.

Read the whole thing

By the editors of National Review

The Senate isn’t serious about enforcing the nation’s immigration laws. It is bad enough that the bill that 39 Democrats and 23 Republicans just voted to pass provides an amnesty to illegal immigrants already here. There might be an argument for doing that if there were any evidence of a commitment to enforce the immigration laws in the future. But the bill actually prohibits local police from enforcing civil violations of immigration laws—which in practice, given the byzantine rules distinguishing between civil and criminal violations of those laws, will get local police out of the enforcement business altogether. No serious effort is being made to make the bureaucracy capable of the enforcement tasks that will now be asked of them, such as performing background checks on the illegal population.

All throughout this week’s immigration debate in the Senate, I have personally felt that leaders in the Senate and those in the infamous gang of 14 don’t really care about the will of the people in terms of immigration policy. The Senate has defied those in the House of Representatives and the majority of the American people who favor an enforcement first policy. The reality is the border must be secured first and foremost to cut back on illegal border crossings - ultimately the source of the United States’ immigration problem.

The bill forbids the federal government to use any information included in an application for amnesty in national-security or criminal investigations. Any federal agent who does use that information would be fined $10,000—which is five times more than an illegal alien would have to pay to get the amnesty. The Senate, on a tie vote, defeated John Cornyn’s (R., Tex.) attempt to rectify these provisions.

Unlike law enforcement standards for true American citizens where local police can arrest someone for outstanding charges while giving a speeding ticket, illegals are actually given more rights in the Senate version of the immigration bill. It’s an absurd idea to tie the hands of police who are the main law enforcers of our society. We must give local police forces the ability to arrest illegal aliens (a large source of border crime) for simply being in this country illegally.

When Sen. Johnny Isakson (R., Ga.) offered an amendment to require that enforcement be proven to have succeeded before the amnesty or guest-worker provisions could take effect, he was voted down, 55-40. For most senators, enforcement is just boob bait for the voters. They are not willing to demand it before getting what they, for various reasons, really want: an amnesty and a massive increase in legal immigration.

If the Senators in Washington were actually serious about the crackdown on illegal immigration, they would’ve supported the House’s proposal - an enforcement first approach. Instead, the Senate has put election year politics ahead of the people’s will, defying what millions of Americans have been saying since 1986 - illegal behavior must not be rewarded with a path to citizenship, directly or indirectly.

The “temporary” guest-workers will be eligible for citizenship. If they overstay their welcome, there is no guarantee they will be deported—especially when Congress will have signaled, by passing this bill, its view that deportation is draconian. So these “temporary” workers will permanently change America. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimates that the bill would make for an inflow of 66 million immigrants over the next 20 years. Since much of this inflow would consist of poor and relatively uneducated people, one result would be, he says, the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years. (And he’s not accounting for the likely effects of these people’s votes.) Another very likely result would be the increased balkanization of America, as this massive inflow slows both economic and cultural assimilation.

Many experts and common sense Americans agree that a large influx in illegal immigration will put a huge burden on states’ social services. Illegal immigration fiscal problems followed by the large increase in baby-boomer medical and social benefits will tax our government tremendously, both at the state and federal levels, producing a fiscal crisis not seen since the Great Depression.

Read more analysis at National Review Online

The Senate yesterday easily approved an immigration bill that allows 10 million illegal aliens to become citizens, doubles the flow of legal immigration each year and will cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $54 billion over the next 10 years.

The leaders of both parties hailed the 62-36 passage as a historic success

Majority Leader Bill Frist said the vote represented the “very best” of the Senate.”This is a success for the American people,” the Tennessee Republican said. “It is a success for people who hope to participate someday in that American dream.”

-Snip-

The 62-36 roll call by which the Senate yesterday passed a broad immigration-reform bill. Voting “yes” were 38 Democrats, 23 Republicans and one independent. Voting “no” were 32 Republicans and four Democrats.

-Snip-

-Amnesty: 10 million illegals can apply for citizenship.
-Border security: Adds 370 miles of triple-wire fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers;  adds 3,000 Border Patrol agents this year
-Employers: No penalties for businesses that hired illegals

Link

While seeing the Congress work in a bipartisan way toward a comprehensive immigration strategy is quite encouraging, I just don’t think this particular bill has what it takes to stem illegal immigration, while encouraging people to come into the United States in a lawful manner

Congress should’ve taken up immigration enforcement first and focused on guest worker provisions at a later period. The reality is that our borders are nowhere near as secure as they should be and border patrol agents are in dire need of additional personnel and new equipment to secure it. This bill, while offering hundreds of miles of fencing and a projected number of new border patrol agents, does not go far enough. We must secure the border with a universal fence (where possible) and allow the National Guard to do law enforcement duties under the control of state governors.

This bill also does not do enough to penalize employers who hire illegal aliens. In fact, this bill does nearly nothing to that affect. Employers must realize it is unlawful to hire illegal aliens in the first place and should have to confirm Social Security numbers before hiring immigrants. This would cut down on document fraud and unlawful workers.

As I’ve said before, the borders must be secure, first and foremost. This immigration compromise in the Senate does not go far enough in dealing with illegal immigration and a fight in conference between the House and the Senate is a foregone conclusion. The House must take a hard line on the immigration issue, forcing the government to secure the border.

Townhall.com has more about the bill:

-Urging the hiring of 1,000 more Border Patrol agents this year and 14,000 by 2011.
-Endorsing Bush’s plan for a short-term deployment of National Guard troops to states along the border with Mexico.
-Calling for the construction of 370 miles of fencing on the border.
-The guest worker program would admit 200,000 individuals a year. They eventually could apply for a green card, which confers legal permanent residency.

An interesting editorial from the Washington Times explains several reasons why many rank and file conservatives do not trust President Bush to crack down on illegal immigration:

Put plainly, when Mr. Bush talks tough on border security and enforcement, conservatives don’t believe him, and they have the facts to back them up. Last week’s address to the nation, during which Mr. Bush proposed adding 6,000 Border Patrol agents by 2007, wasn’t the first time he’s made such a promise. When one considers that it was just a couple of years ago when Mr. Bush promised to add 2,000 agents every year for the next five years, only to submit a 2006 budget calling for only 210, it’s no wonder why conservatives remain wary.

-Snip-

All of which is to say that Mr. Bush needs some bona fides on border security and enforcement. A recent CNN poll found that 66 percent of the public favors increasing penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants. Here’s one instance where the administration can reverse its abysmal record on employer sanctions, which dropped from 417 who had been fined for hiring illegal aliens in 1999 to just three in 2004. Mr. Bush should call for stricter employer sanctions and for increasing the number of federal investigators looking into those cases.
 
That’s not all. Mr. Bush should endorse the House immigration bill’s proposed 700-mile fence along the southern border, instead of the Senate’s 370-mile version. That’s still less than half of what’s required, but an improvement nonetheless. Also, the administration should stop advertising how many illegal aliens it has apprehended and start telling Americans how many it has deported. Mr. Bush’s trumpeting of his administration’s arrest and deportation of 6 million illegal aliens is actually a decline compared to any five-year period under Mr. Clinton. Once that number begins to rise in a significant way, then the administration can claim progress.

Action, not words, will convince conservatives that the president is serious about border security.

While I do not trust political polling in the least, a recent poll by Rasmussen offers an interesting viewpoint in terms of illegal immigration:

The Rasmussen Reports national opinion survey taken the night after the President’s nationally televised address also highlighted a common misconception about the immigration debate.

Media commentaries often suggest that support for an enforcement first policy is an option supported primarily by conservatives. In fact, 67% of political moderates support such an approach. That’s virtually indistinguishable from the 66% of conservatives who support for enforcement-first approach. Fifty-two percent (52%) of self-identified liberals also hold this view.

Link

The Congress and the president would be wise to take the body politic seriously when it comes to immigration. Since the beginning of the whole debate, the public has continued to support enforcement first, worrying about border control and law enforcement first and foremost. I would suspect most people would also support the idea of debating the fate of our 12 million illegal aliens once the country has a border control strategy.

By Jessamy Brown

A Keller school district parent said political correctness has run amok at her daughter’s elementary school, where the principal chose to omit the words “In God We Trust” from an oversize coin depicted on the yearbook cover.

Janet Travis, principal of Liberty Elementary School in Colleyville, wanted to avoid offending students of different religions, a district spokesman said. Students were given stickers with the words that could be affixed to the book if they so chose.

Debi Ackerman of North Richland Hills said she is offended by the omission. It’s yet another example of a politically correct culture that is removing Christian references from all public places, she said.

“I think it’s really ridiculous,” said Ackerman, whose daughter Tawni, 10, took the book home Thursday afternoon. “Now it has come to this. … When is it going to end?”

She likened the situation to retailers that use “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas” in their displays and advertising.

“First, we can’t say ‘Christmas’ trees. It’s ‘holiday’ trees. Then it’s ‘holiday’ decorations,” Ackerman said. “It just doesn’t make any sense to me.”

Link

In a show of idiocy, this school district has played the “offence” card on displaying our country’s totally legal and uniting mottos on an oversize coin display. Instead of acknoledging our country’s deep heritage and traditional ideals, this school has let political correctness get in the way of common sense. By the way, did anyone think removing “In God We Trust” would not offend patriotic citizens or Christians? Didn’t think so. Another example of the wreckless political correctness the ACLU and so-called democratic organizations have wrought.

Right Wing News and Betsy’s Page have more:

Geesh, I realize that the principal was just trying not to offend anyone, but then pick another symbol. Since they’re Liberty Elementary, you’d think that the Liberty Bell would be a natural. It proclaims “Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.” Who could object to that? Oops, that is from Leviticus. Can’t have that.

Michelle Malkin is carrying a related article about the hypocracy of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as it relates to the treatment of Christianity and Islam in the classroom:

In California, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (the one that outlawed the Pledge of Allegiance for its reference to God) approved putting public school students through Muslim role-playing exercises.

The Philadelphia Inquirer has an interesting article detailing the difficulties President Bush and religious conservatives will have in getting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage passed:

The religious conservatives who worked hard to reelect President Bush in 2004 have long anticipated that the White House would reward them by pushing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

But that’s not happening.

Too many other issues predominate, everything from Iraq to immigration. As a result, Bush seems ill-positioned to spend dwindling political capital on a social crusade - especially at a time when a nod toward greater religiosity might turn off secular Republican voters and thus imperil the moderate Republicans in Congress who are already struggling to keep their jobs in November.

So the religious right, which may well have been pivotal in helping Bush keep his job, appears destined for major disappointment in 2006.

-Snip-

Why are so many moderate Republican voters feeling alienated? Party strategist Craig Shirley suggested, “There is a fear, among some in the party, that the Republicans are being identified too much as a theological party.” With good reason, apparently: Fabrizio estimates, based on his own surveys, that half of today’s Republicans are “theocrats” who want government to “promote traditional values by protecting traditional marriage,” as opposed to wanting less government intrusion into personal lives.

-Snip-

But religious-right leaders insist that saying no to gay marriage is a mainstream position; they cite recent Pew polls showing that 51 percent of Americans oppose the concept. For that reason, said Gary Bauer, “President Bush should be pushing this. This is an issue where the public is on his side, yet he seems too busy to deal with it. At least he’d be able to talk about something that can get people’s heads nodding, instead of him getting tuned out.”

While I agree with the President’s motives for preserving traditional marriage between a man and a woman and support for the core family unit, I don’t believe a constitutional amendment is the right way to go on this issue. Sure, conservatives and American society in general, have largely rejected gay marriage in the legislatures and at the ballot box. However, issues like this remind me of why we have a Tenth Amendment to the constitution.

The Tenth Amendment to the constitution states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Clearly, because the federal government is not granted a license to govern social unions or the arrangement of the family unit in the constitution, it is up to the states to decide the status of gay marriage or define marriage in the traditional sense. President Bush and conservatives in my opinion, are wrong for attempting to use the constitution as a catalyst for social change. Not only is this not in the best interest of our republic, but it implies that the constitution should be changed for minor social issues that are clearly in the interest of the states to decide.

Instead of looking to the federal government to define what “marriage” means, conservatives should look to their state governments for defining law. As much as I support the traditionalist cause, some just might want to read the constitution for once and see how federalism allows judgement in the gay marriage fiasco.