The Straight Talk Express hits a snag in South Carolina
While visiting my old stomping grounds, Louisville, Kentucky, home of the Kentucky Derby. I thought of the political race that is heating up--the 2008 presidential race.
After a hard horse race, the Derby winner steps up and receives the bouquet of roses, specially made for the occasion, thus the race is called Run for the Roses. Another special race is starting to gain more attention, the presidential race, specially the primary in my current home state of South Carolina.
As a professor in politics, teaching the presidency and the media, South Carolina is known for picking winners. South Carolina is the gateway to the South, that is, the Southern Primary. Historically, South Carolina in 1980 chose Ronald Reagan, who became president. In 1988, South Carolina picked George H.W. Bush over Pat Robertson and Jack Kemp. Bush became president.
Again, in 2000, after a bitter defeat in New Hampshire, George W. Bush came back, winning a crucial victory over John McCain--where else? in South Carolina. George W. became the 43rd president.
Since 2000, John McCain has been courting South Carolina leaders and have been endorsed by many prominent Republicans, starting with U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC, who has been "driving" the Straighttalk Express for about eight years. Graham needs to deliver for McCain, who may consider him as his vice presidential nominee.
McCain needs to win this state or his hopes will be dashed.
What do you think?
Jun 28, 2007
Amnesty Away
Under the law
Obedience to American law was my family's step toward citizenship. I became a citizen at 16 years old, seven years after my arrival to this land of liberty. It does matter what you do first in regard to one's new country. If breaking the law is the first deed; it won't be the last time.
My Filipino parents respect American law and abided by it then and now. Respect for law is a principle that I am teaching my students and children. So it is good that illegal immigrants were not rewarded with a helping hand towards the path to a very valued asset, United States citizenship.
U.S. citizenship is a prize
American citizenship should be treasured by Americans, especially by American leaders; much of the world are striving, even dying, to get this status. Leaders, including Pres. Bush, U.S. senators John Kerry, D-Mass, Ted Kennedy, D-Mass, John McCain, R-AZ, Lindsey Graham, R-SC should never be permitted to give away the right to citizenship like food stamps for mere votes (for future Hispanic votes, the leading minority voting bloc). Even with good intentions, which I believe some on the pro-illegal immigration side have, the move to make illegals legal will only invite civil disobedience, cultural division and constitutional devolution.
Political fallout
In this transcending issue, the winners:
law, reason and principle over appeasement, emotion and compromise;
conservatives over liberals;
Southerners and social conservatives over northerners and establishment politicians;
U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, R-Al over U.S. senators Ted Kennedy & John Kerry, D-Mass;
U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, R-SC over U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC;
U.S. Senator John Cornyn, R-TX over U.S. Senator John Kyl- R-AZ;
Grassroots conservatism over pragmatic and patrician Republicanism (Pres. Bush, Sen. McCain)
The law and order presidency on this issue gave in to compromise and emotion, while the Graham/McCain duo lost to DeMint and Sessions (as a South Carolinian, perhaps, DeMint will become the movement senator in our state). Senator Kyl, the leading conservative in the senate who formely led the fight on this issue may now take a back seat to Sen. Cornyn, R-TX.
This issue has proved that grassroot and cultural conservatism along with Talk Radio can still stand against liberal, Beltway politicians, the elite media, and the President--that shows political and cultural depth and strength.
Illegal immigration is an issue that is legal, cultural, moral and constitutional, and should be resolved by upholding current law first followed by, if necessary, an amendment process. The issue of abortion was decided by men in black (the U.S. Supreme Court) and still remains a deeply divisive issue. Illegal immigration should, if necessary, be finally resolved through the amendment process in order to allow U.S. constitutional law, human reason and national unity to again be our standard.
These are my initial thoughts. What are yours?
For an in-depth discussion of this topic, please go back to my website at http://www.drecarma.com/ and read my published writings on the right side of the home page. Please click my illegal immigration article.
Obedience to American law was my family's step toward citizenship. I became a citizen at 16 years old, seven years after my arrival to this land of liberty. It does matter what you do first in regard to one's new country. If breaking the law is the first deed; it won't be the last time.
My Filipino parents respect American law and abided by it then and now. Respect for law is a principle that I am teaching my students and children. So it is good that illegal immigrants were not rewarded with a helping hand towards the path to a very valued asset, United States citizenship.
U.S. citizenship is a prize
American citizenship should be treasured by Americans, especially by American leaders; much of the world are striving, even dying, to get this status. Leaders, including Pres. Bush, U.S. senators John Kerry, D-Mass, Ted Kennedy, D-Mass, John McCain, R-AZ, Lindsey Graham, R-SC should never be permitted to give away the right to citizenship like food stamps for mere votes (for future Hispanic votes, the leading minority voting bloc). Even with good intentions, which I believe some on the pro-illegal immigration side have, the move to make illegals legal will only invite civil disobedience, cultural division and constitutional devolution.
Political fallout
In this transcending issue, the winners:
law, reason and principle over appeasement, emotion and compromise;
conservatives over liberals;
Southerners and social conservatives over northerners and establishment politicians;
U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, R-Al over U.S. senators Ted Kennedy & John Kerry, D-Mass;
U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, R-SC over U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC;
U.S. Senator John Cornyn, R-TX over U.S. Senator John Kyl- R-AZ;
Grassroots conservatism over pragmatic and patrician Republicanism (Pres. Bush, Sen. McCain)
The law and order presidency on this issue gave in to compromise and emotion, while the Graham/McCain duo lost to DeMint and Sessions (as a South Carolinian, perhaps, DeMint will become the movement senator in our state). Senator Kyl, the leading conservative in the senate who formely led the fight on this issue may now take a back seat to Sen. Cornyn, R-TX.
This issue has proved that grassroot and cultural conservatism along with Talk Radio can still stand against liberal, Beltway politicians, the elite media, and the President--that shows political and cultural depth and strength.
Illegal immigration is an issue that is legal, cultural, moral and constitutional, and should be resolved by upholding current law first followed by, if necessary, an amendment process. The issue of abortion was decided by men in black (the U.S. Supreme Court) and still remains a deeply divisive issue. Illegal immigration should, if necessary, be finally resolved through the amendment process in order to allow U.S. constitutional law, human reason and national unity to again be our standard.
These are my initial thoughts. What are yours?
For an in-depth discussion of this topic, please go back to my website at http://www.drecarma.com/ and read my published writings on the right side of the home page. Please click my illegal immigration article.
Dec 14, 2006
New Jersey passes gay unions, bows to high court
Once again, another state court has forced its state legislature to make law contrary to its state constitution. According to a news report:
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - Under pressure from New Jersey's highest court to offer marriage or its equivalent to gay couples, the Legislature voted Thursday to make New Jersey the third state to allow civil unions.
This report reflected how the respective state supreme courts have coerced legislatures of Vermont, Massachusetts (by one vote) and now New Jersey (also by one vote) to codify into law what has been regarded historically as "a crime against nature." In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court validated the view that a homosexual act as a criminal act as recently as 1986 in the Bowers vs. Hardwick case.
But why do legislatures bow down to such judicial tyranny. They and respective governors have been given constitutional authority to protect their respective state constitutions from such clear extra-constitutional juridical "opinions." Legislative weakness, both federal and state levels, have allowed such judicial imperialism. Often, legislatures no longer reflect the values of the people nor exercise constitutional and moral leadership, but rather experience political fear and legal handwringing.
Who will stand against judicial hegemony and stand for historically proven constitutional values?
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - Under pressure from New Jersey's highest court to offer marriage or its equivalent to gay couples, the Legislature voted Thursday to make New Jersey the third state to allow civil unions.
This report reflected how the respective state supreme courts have coerced legislatures of Vermont, Massachusetts (by one vote) and now New Jersey (also by one vote) to codify into law what has been regarded historically as "a crime against nature." In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court validated the view that a homosexual act as a criminal act as recently as 1986 in the Bowers vs. Hardwick case.
But why do legislatures bow down to such judicial tyranny. They and respective governors have been given constitutional authority to protect their respective state constitutions from such clear extra-constitutional juridical "opinions." Legislative weakness, both federal and state levels, have allowed such judicial imperialism. Often, legislatures no longer reflect the values of the people nor exercise constitutional and moral leadership, but rather experience political fear and legal handwringing.
Who will stand against judicial hegemony and stand for historically proven constitutional values?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)