In the upcoming presidential election, two issues are more important than any others: repealing Obamacare and halting illegal immigration. If we fail at either one, the country will be changed permanently.
Taxes can be raised and lowered. Regulations can be removed (though they rarely are). Attorneys general and Cabinet members can be fired. Laws can be repealed. Even Supreme Court justices eventually die.
But capitulate on illegal immigration, and the entire country will have the electorate of California. There will be no turning back.
By the way, Ann goes on to conclude that Bachmann and Romney are the best on illegal immigration, but that only Romney can win.
Bachmann is a creature of AIPAC. The only reason for Bachmann's run was to neutralize reduce Ron Paul's impact in Iowa. From day one, everything about Bachmann's campaign as been custom designed for that purpose and no other. AIPAC would never in a million years support a candidate that had a chance in hell of actually implementing immigration restriction. They fashioned Bachmann into an Iowa-only lightning-rod. The reason Bachmann is easily the best on immigration is that AIPAC knows more about the US body politic than we do about ourselves.
ReplyDeleteWhen Kent Sorenson "defected" from being Bachmann's Iowa Chairman to the Ron Paul campaign a few days ago, a lot of folks claimed that Sorenson had been a plant in Bachmann's campaign by Ron Paul. Oh that it were so -- such poetry in motion -- but alas, Ron Paul's folks are simply incapable of such intrigue.
As for Romney, he'll probably do more damage than would Ron Paul simply because his lack of integrity makes it likely that whatever his intent, business as usual will prevail. At least with Ron Paul, he will carry out his erroneous policies on immigration and have enough integrity to actually compare the outcome predicted by his "Austrian school" ideologues to the actual outcome. Of course, it may be too late to reverse the damage by then but at least he may set the stage for the peaceful devolution of powers to the States so the States can set up their own border controls.
Ok but Ron Paul believes in freedom of association. So he basically thinks that private organizations can discriminate as they see fit without the gov't intervening.
ReplyDeletehe basically thinks that private organizations can discriminate as they see fit without the gov't intervening.
ReplyDeleteEven if he were President, he would be unable to translate that thought into any action. The POTUS cannot make the law be "that private organizations can discriminate as they see fit without the gov't intervening".
Even if he were President, he would be unable to translate that thought into any action. The POTUS cannot make the law be "that private organizations can discriminate as they see fit without the gov't intervening".
ReplyDeleteWell, he can direct the Attorney General not to defend the State's position like Obama and Gov. Brown.
We need to repeal the direct election of Senators.