If hypocrisy is staple in politics, then it certainly is doubly so in media and business, it would appear. Take the case of Rupert Murdoch, the effective ruler of the News Corporation empire that owns Fox News and New York Post. The Australian-American media mogul has become a key corporate supporter of immigration reform and makes no bones about telling everyone that the media should play a role in pushing for that reform while his own Fox News and NY Post are the loudest opponent of this reform. Talk about talking from multiple sides of your mouth.

The fact is that President Obama, for all his promises, was key to wrecking immigration reform in 2006 when as a Senator he held up the compromise bill at the insistence of the labor unions. Those same unions are also responsible for creating problems for this year’s bill, if there is one, by their insistence that guest worker programs be severely curtailed. Just as he claims Republicans have been obstructing, he should admit the less-than-noble part played in the game by his own side. Only with such candor, can we reach for a bipartisan solution based on truth, commonsense, and compassion.

Like my hero Ronald Reagan, I have very little sympathy for populist outbursts of paranoia. The hard facts are recognized by real conservatives like Jeb Bush, Richard Land, and Chris Christie. Our national security, business capacity, and constitutional integrity demands reform that is faithful to our culture of freedom and improves our security and economic capabilities. If the President truly means to accomplish immigration reform, he has to engage and be willing to risk a lot of his political capital and lead by example for those who have much more to lose politically than he does in a year that had Congressional elections coming up.

As usual, the President and his advisers seem to forget who our allies are…and frankly we have precious few in the world right now. First it was dithering on backing Israel; before that it was the double talk on a hundred year old historical issue that made Turkey wonder about trusting us. Now it is the constant bashing of British oil giant BP because of the Louisiana spill. The White House even suggested stopping BP dividend payments! Yeah…some confidence it gives to investors and our allies. For the record, I own funds that have positions in BP; how can stopping those dividends help Louisiana? I am beginning to think that the President’s advisers are cynically using the tragedy to further regulate and strangulate industries they philosophically dislike.

It seems there is someone else who too understands how the change of designation and wardrobe in airline crew has strong correlation with the sharp decline in service on-board As a child who got to fly quite a bit, I still remember the upbeat professionalism and dedicated service that was exuded by well groomed air hostesses dressed in fitted skirts, blouses, and heels. Yes, contrary to conventional wisdom, the clothes do matter sometimes.

http://likethedew.com/2009/06/16/bring-back-the-stewardesses/

While such professionalism is still very much a part of the culture in the top notch airlines in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East, by and large it is non-existent in the United States.

That correlation is seen in other areas of life too. Too many men, young and not so young, have pants falling down and underwear showing....and these are expensive clothes that are supposed to make a fashion statement. Conversely, many women think slapping on one of their ubiquitous black pants and having underwear pulled down under shapeless tops is the 'professional' look. Sloppy and lazy in both cases.

Better late than never. Thus I describe the President’s dispatch of the National Guard to the southern border. For a man so politically perspicacious and undeniably savvy, it is amazing that he waited this long to take such a simple and extremely important step. One only wishes that instead of the 1200 he would send three times that number. If comprehensive immigration reform has to have any chance of succeeding in these times of anxiety, fear, and genuine concerns of safety, the first step is to secure the border against gangs, drugs, and petty miscreants. By waiting this long to take such a simple step, the President has done harm to his own oft-stated cause. It is still not too late for him to beef up that volatile border with more men and materiel. Every day he dithers and his bureaucrats bicker is another day that makes it harder to reach genuine reform where cool heads can hammer out the necessary compromises.

Good move Mr. President, but 1200 is not nearly enough.

 I am somewhat saddened by the slow but inevitable backtracking that Dr. Rand Paul has done on a host of issues. I guess that is to be expected with the tremendous pressure brought upon him by the full spectrum of the political establishment.

The fact is that purely private racial/religious/linguistic/gender discrimination, while reprehensible, is not the proper area for a free government to interfere. Now if such prejudice were to affect commerce subsidized by the government, that would be a different story; that is acknowledged by Dr. Paul in his affirmation of the main tenements of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Beyond the immediate flap, however, is the basic notion that is forgotten by and large by Left and Right, except when a controversy suits them: a limited government means that nobody can be 100 % secure or remain a 100 % unoffended. Nor can individual liberty be guarded without the pesky little thing called procedural due process. Both the Left and the Right have their favorite targets to deny the guarantees of due process, and prudent observers know what I am referring to.  Dr. Rand Paul will be amiss if he buckles further into the trap of trading a little bit of liberty for a little bit of safety.

From his remarks I draw hope that he will be able to strengthen the three positive elements in the conservative coalition: the right to life folks, business, and libertarians. At the same time, it is important that his candidacy sideline the more pernicious components of latter day conservative movements: the nativists, anti free trade nuts, and pure bigots.

Like many other noted national security personalities, I too believe that Pakistan is as much a hotbed as-if not more so than-Afghanistan when it comes to international terrorism. The difference is that Pakistan’s potential terrorists, unlike Afghans, are almost exclusively drawn from the educated, Westernized, upper middle class bourgoise of that country. The solution is not to limit civil liberties here but to deal pain where it hurts that segment of Pakistani society: put key organizations on the international terror organization list, cut off the contacts of their membership to American institutions, banks, universities, and severely limit their ability to travel to or do business with the United States. And keep the pressure on till there is concrete measurable improvement.

And please, let us dispense with the notion that somehow Pakistan’s armed forces are fully allied with the United States. It is an overtly broad generalization. Pakistan has great soldiers, airmen, and military officers, but many amongst those are not exactly on our side.

If President Obama ends up nominating Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court, as is widely rumored, he would sadly end up picking someone who exhibits the worst of both spectrums of politics. Many so-called conservatives are okay with Kagan because of her rather expansive view of executive dictatorial power; many liberals adore her given her obvious dislike of the military and her radical anti-life position. If this is the kind of ‘bipartisanship’ that gets her through the Senate, it is indeed a sad reflection on our body politic.

Your papers please?

Those three words, more than any other dialogue, encapsulate what is different between free societies and totalitarian ones of the Nazi and Communist stripe. In pushing Arizona towards the hues of totalitarianism, it is no surprise that neo-Nazi groups have been the most vocal supporters of the likes of 'Sheriff' Joe Arpaio, Bill Montgomery, and Russell Pearce.

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/PoliticalInsider/79888

As someone who truly believes in federalism and a small government, KsReaganite stands with Gov. Jeb Bush, Gov. Bob McDonnell, Gov. Rick Perry, Marco Rubio and Karl Rove in opposing the SB 1070 law signed into law by the governor in Arizona. From a policy, political, and moral perspective, it is an abomination. Yes, I know that over seventy percent of self described conservatives support the law; so what? I was never a populist, but always a constitutionalist.

The proper approach to oppose the law is via constitutional means: the courts, the markets, and the referendum. I intend to make contributions to those civil liberties organization challenging the law in court. Furthermore, I will be making sure not to purchase any goods or services from companies based in Arizona. My grandfather wore the Allied uniform in the Second World War; my money will not be subsidizing neo-Nazi like policies.

KsReaganite is not a fan of populism, no matter in which form it reincarnates itself from time to time: Prohibition, nationalization, Perot mania, or tea parties. Like the Founding Fathers, I have a healthy disregard for the mob seized of this issue or that in the heat of the moment. Nor surprisingly, the Framers of the Constitution were not enamored of democracy, but rather devised a very finely balanced federal Republic (that balance has been assaulted, often successfully, by generations of demagogic politicians of all stripes..but I digress).

The Founders were deeply impressed by the Burkean logic that “A representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.” This nonsense of casting votes or signing bills by looking at opinion polls or playing to the populist gallery was anathema to the men of 1787. I find the raw appeals to economic jealousy by the Obama campaign in 2008 to be repulsive; sadly for the President and his advisers, the crass playing to the financial insecurities of Americans did not cease with his assumption of office. The politics of rage, currently aimed at Wall Street and banking, continues full force in the liberal circles.

I wish I could say that conservatives have stayed above the fray and true to the republican principles of the country’s founding. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Ignorant ranting about deficits and free trade, scapegoating of immigrants, a fragmented understanding of the Bill of Rights (2^nd amendment good, fourth amendment non-existent), and an utter lack of perception when it comes to the world at large: such is the missive of many of the tea partiers. Much of this has been brought about by President Obama whose tone deafness to popular perception has fed rage on the right.

Rage of the left has met rage of the right. And it is not good for the long term health of the Republic bequeathed by the men of 1787, men who believed that small governments, lower taxes, free trade, procedural due process, and immigration were good. People like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Arpaio, and Glenn Beck wouldn’t have a clue about the philosophy of people like Madison, Franklin, and Hamilton.

Ultimately the issue before Governor Brewer comes down to this: do we love our liberties more than we despise those who come through the Southern border in search of a better life? Anyone who thinks that the rampant increase in police power targeted at brown people will not be turned around and used someday against others should only look at the memo from Janet Napolitano last year. Prolife and pro 2^nd Amendment folks were described as potential wrongdoers…as they are in the eyes of the left wing judiciary and bureaucracy. A power once given to the government can never be taken back, no matter how long the cause of that power increase has ceased to be an issue.

That the chief proponent of the Arizona bill happens to be a anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic bigot says something. My grandfather wore the Allied uniform in the Asia/Pacific in WWII; my mom’s uncle did the same in the European theatre. Cardinal Mahoney’s comparison is right.

The President has a golden opportunity to find a replacement for Justice Stevens who can disappoint rabid partisans on each side and, instead, be extremely partisan to the entire Bill of Rights. Sadly, when it comes to the Bill of Rights, recent appointments of presidents from both parties have left much to be desired with Democrat nominees ignoring the Second, Tenth, and parts of the First Amendment , and their GOP brethren forgetting the Fourth through the Seventh Amendments.

 Today is Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day. Never mind Israel, it is reflective for anyone who wonders how could it all happen. Whether it was six million or more or less, the fact remains it happened right in the middle of purported modern civilization.

Germans were the epitome of Western civilization, buzzing with industry, energy, arts, culture, parliaments, parties, and an efficient bureaucracy. Yet, when the laws started rolling out of their Reichstag, they were indifferent. Neighbors, friends, and coworkers were slowly deprived of their livelihoods, freedom of movement, homes, and finally lives. It is the law, came the refrain. We are following the law, said the policeman and the Gestapo agent. We can only apply the law, said the distinguished jurists. A little inconvenience for some is okay for the safety of many, said the average fraulein rushing to catch the bus to the market. We shouldn’t involve ourselves in politics, intoned the venerable preachers from their Sunday pulpits.

And so, came the midnight knocks on the doors, the dismissals from jobs, the expropriation of the last dime saved for retirement, and finally, the trains to Auschwitz and Dachau. Jews were illegal. And a modern civilized society always followed the law, right?

Make no mistake about it: if the Republican Party is to resurrect itself as a true alternative to bigger government, it has to become the party of smaller government in every sense of the term. Otherwise, there is really no reason for a Republican Party. Why on earth would we want a party whose only difference with the other side is the reasons for which it wants a bigger, more intrusive, more expensive government.

And hence, notwithstanding my serious disagreements on campaign finance legislation, I do strongly and undoubtedly support John McCain’s reelection to the United States Senate. So do Sarah Palin, Jeb Bush, and Mitt Romney.  His primary opponent, banking on the anger of a segment of conservatives, is simply another big government, anti-liberty buffoon whose sordid past includes rancid earmarks, collusion with Jack Abramoff, and armchair generalship.

We are at war. In fact, we are in two wars. One, a war of ideas and ideals waged against socialism and fascism. Another, a struggle of weapons and tactics targeted against terrorism. Who would you trust to lead you in those battles? 

I would pick the Naval aviator and war hero over the disc jockey anytime; specially a disc jockey who has never served a day in harm’s way. It is really funny to hear about borders and national security from J.D. Hayworth, an overweight and florid complexioned man whose facial makeup can barely mask his absolute lack of any credentials on the issues on which he deems himself an expert.

On a lighter note, I wanted to point out that the First Lady, regardless of her leftist politics, is one very well dressed woman. Frankly I am surprised to see Michelle Obama eschew the constant and annoying pantsuit garb of one of her predecessors. Rather, Mrs. Obama does credit to her station by preferring the mix of tradition and elegance found in a repertoire of floral dresses, pants and capris, skirts and sweaters, and gowns. Nor has she been spotted with the awful ubiquity of lazy professional women all over the country: the black dress pants hanging on the hips and wiping the floors with their dirty hems (with the silly idea that these somehow make the wearer look slim and elegant..NOT).

So here is a tip of the hat from a conservative to one of the most liberal First Ladies of the USA: you dress well ma’am.