Mainstream Americans Oppose Citizenship for Children of Illegals

For years, conservatives have been impugned for opposing so-called Birthright Citizenship, the practice of granting automatic citizenship to children born to illegal alien parents.  Most of us with commonsense intuition just could not fathom how someone could run across the border, overstay their visa, or exploit "birth tourism" - and proceed to reap the benefits of citizenship for their children. 

We have always asserted that just a convoluted interpretation of the 14th amendment only serves to attenuate the value of American citizenship.  After all, the 14th amendment was meant to guarantee citizenship for blacks who lived in this country for centuries; not for those who break our laws as their first act on American soil.

Now, the latest Rasmussen poll confirms that this is indeed mainstream thought in America:

Voters oppose more strongly than ever granting automatic U.S. citizenship to a child born to an illegal immigrant in this country.
Now, nearly two-out-of-three Likely U.S. Voters (65%) say if a woman enters the United States as an illegal alien and gives birth to a child here, that child should not automatically become a U.S. citizen. 

Only those who live in the New York-Washington ivory tower could possibly view American citizenship any other way.  Unfortunately, they control the media, and as such, will ensure that the immigration polling data is not reported, even though these are the people who live and die by polls.

OWS Flag Desecration

Amidst the fawning coverage from the media, the OWS crowd as already gotten away with rabid anti-semitism and other forms of extremism.  Now they are resorting to desecration of the American flag.  Don't expect this to be covered outside of the new media:

(HT: Weasel Zippers)

GOP Freshmen Take on MSNBC

The inimitable Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) strikes again.  He has a penchant for straight talk and producing epic videos, in which he articulates unvarnished conservatism in a provocative way.  His latest hit took place during an interview with Chris Matthews.  When Matthews began to get rude with Walsh, the good congressman put him in his place:

In a separate altercation between a MSNBC host and GOP freshman, the anchor intimated that Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL) didn't understand the economy because he lacks a degree in economics.  The problem is that Brooks does indeed hold a degree in economics - in addition to a political science and law degrees.

Democrat Rep. Woolsey Chants Anti-Israel Slogans with Code Pink

Remember that shrill code pink activist who "somehow" got into the House chamber and disrupted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech?  Well, we might know who let her in.  Last week, Congresswomen Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) was caught on tape chanting anti-Israel slogans at a code pink rally for the Palestinian terrorists.  Here's the catch.  The woman speaking at the rally is the same piece of human debris that disrupted Netanyahu's speech.  At the end of the video, Woolsey takes the stage and lauds the code pink activist for disturbing the decorum of the government body in which she serves.

(H.T. The Blaze)

The sad thing is that she represents a radical suburban San Francisco district, rated D+23 by Charlie Cook.  It says a lot about the state of our nation that such a detestable person can repeatedly be reelected to Congress.

60 Plus Association TV Ad Defending Ryan's Medicare Reform Plan

It's quite arduous to articulate the problems and solutions for medicare in a 30-second TV ad.  It is much easier to demagogue the issue with fallacious bromides about throwing granny off the cliff.  Nonetheless, the good folks at 60 Plus are trying:

Shale Boom in Texas Providing Thousands of Jobs

Everything is bigger in Texas, including job growth and energy production.  Unlike in Maryland, where the liberal politicians capriciously impound our natural resources, Texans embrace their shale reserves.  Over the past year, oil exploration has discovered gargantuan reserves of oil shale in the south Texas formation known as Eagle Ford.  Drilling experts believe that hydraulic fracturing will allow the oil companies to drill up to 3,000 wells this year, unleashing enough oil flow to raise our national output in a meaningful way.  Additionally, the Houston Chronicle reports that last year, the Eagle Ford shale generated 6,800 jobs and paid $311 million in jobs and salaries.  That's real job creation; Texas style.

Unfortunately, we must be vigilante of the ever intrusive eco-marxists at the EPA.  They already have a vendetta against Texas and would certainly jump at the opportunity to find fault in the drilling technology.  The New York Times is already peddling the unfounded allegations that shale fracking causes water pollution:

"As evidence mounts that fracking poses risks to water supplies, the federal government and regulators in various states are considering tighter regulations on it." 

There is only one problem with this supposition; evidence of water pollution simply doesn't exist.  The writers at the NYT ought to watch this video of the EPA Director admitting at a congressional hearing that there is no evidence that hydraulic fracking is inimical to our water supplies:

Paul Ryan Shows Real Leadership

Paul Ryan educates Meet the Press's David Gregory on real leadership.  He turned a gotcha moment right back at him.

It Works Every Time

Hill Poll: 53% Support Private Retirement Accounts

According to a new poll commissioned by The Hill, likely voters are in favor of private accounts by 53%-36%.  But, you wouldn't realize it from the title and narrative of the accompanying article in the Hill.  The title of the article is, "Voters troubled over future of Social Security".  They proceed to discuss how most people are concerned about Social Security solvency, but are split 40-48% on whether to raise the retirement age.  It's not until the end of the article that they mention the fact that the Public Opionion Research poll actually inquired about private retirement accounts.  Here is how they ensconced the majority support for privatization in their results:

Voters were also split over whether to allow people to invest the Social Security taxes they pay into personal retirement accounts, an idea that was a linchpin of then-President George W. Bush’s plan to reform the program.

Thirty-six percent of likely voters believe diverting payroll taxes to personal accounts should not be permitted at all, while 37 percent backed being able to invest either 25 percent or 50 percent. Sixteen percent supported the ability to invest three-fourths or all of one’s Social Security taxes.

Notice how they say that voters are split on the issue instead of decisively stating that a majority support private accounts.  They begin by saying that 36% oppose privatization, while 37% back investment of up to 50%.  However, when you add the additional 16% who support a majority privatization, there is a clear majority who support some sort of privatization.  The Hill declines to tally the numbers and lead off with the headline, "Majority Support Privatization".

Keep in mind that most political consultants believed that this issue is a profound liability to the party.  Most Republicans only call for a small percentage of privatization, and yet, a clear majority support up to 50% privatization.  I hope the Republican strategists are able to read between the lines, even if the media tries to obscure the truth about public sentiment for private property and ownership of one's own retirement.

The reality is that young voters cannot be forced into a confiscatory system which continues to raise the age at which they can receive their money- without offering a way to opt out.  I don't mind raising the retirement age for those who want to continue in the system, but there must be a private option. 

The Tuscon Shooter Was Deranged, Not Conservative

Thankfully, the latest reports indicate that Congresswomen Giffords is expected to recover from the shooting earlier today.  While there are still many things to sort out, one thing is clear.  This murderer was insane.  There was no coherent right or left political ideology that fueled his actions.  We must make sure that the media and the far left have no plans to turn this into some referendum of the tea party by blaming today's massacre on conservatives.  This is why I want to draw attention to one line from an ABC article on the murderer, Jared Loughner:

In the YouTube profile, the account holder, identified as Loughner, lists "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf" among his favorite books.
A former classmate of Loughner's told ABC News he was extremely political in high school, but not radical. The classmate said Loughner once met Giffords in 2007 and said he thought the congresswoman was "unintelligent."(emphasis added)

It is quite evident that this guy was simply a madman.  This was not left wing or right wing terrorism.  A would be "tea party assassin" would not quote the Communist Manifesto.  In addition, Gabrielle Giffords is one of the most conservative Democrats and recently voted against Nancy Pelosi, much to the chagrin of some left wing websites.  There are also reports of people who knew him that are describing him as a leftist.  However, I am not saying that this attack was politically motivated from the left either.  He was simply deranged.

The bottom line is that as the week progresses, we need to make sure that the narrative is focused upon the important things such as security measures for public servants.  If the media attempts to conjure up images of the tea party while discussing the Tuscon massacre, we need to remind them of Loughner's choice reading.

Andy Harris's Health Care Request: Who are the Real Hypocrites?

The drive-by media is attempting to gin up political hay for Democrats by accusing Andy Harris of hypocrisy.  Last week, Andy Harris asked if he can pre-buy his health coverage from the FEHBP because he was told that he would not be insured until February.  In response, the government run Democrat lobby, AFSCME, is calling upon Republicans to opt out of the "government-provided" health care benefits that are given to congressmen.  These clowns are missing one basic point about the health care debate, which is partially exacerbated by a lack of articulation from most Republicans.

We all agree that the cost of health care and health insurance has skyrocketed (even before Obama Care, which is already causing severe increases in premiums) to the point that it is hard for individuals to pay for it on their own.  However, the factors that are driving up those costs are all related to the 50 years of Democrat inducement of taxation, regulation, and litigation which has all but eliminated the free market from the health care industry.  The result is that all of us (yes, even conservatives like Harris) must suffer with artificially high prices and are forced to rely on third parties to provide it; namely the employer.  If the employer is the federal government, then they are even more responsible for providing coverage because they have destroyed health care insurance in this country.

The fundamental effect of the GOP's communication problem lies with the perception of most people that the Republicans own the status quo of health care, while the Democrats own the changes made by Obama Care.  To that end, although the country strongly opposes the socialist takeover, they are also wary (and justifiably so) of the rising costs of health care and health insurance even without Obama Care.  Unfortunately, the reality is that the Democrats own the problems with the current system as well as the disaster that will arise from the new system.

Democrat Media Hosting Republican Presidential Debates

Presidential primary politics has already begun to percolate into the media following the midterm elections.  There is now discussion of hosting the first GOP primary debate at the Reagan Library as early as this coming spring.  While many conservatives are upset that we are already contemplating debates before the field of candidates is set, I have another bone to pick concerning this development. 

Politico announced yesterday that they will be sponsoring that debate at the Reagan Library along with ...... NBC news!  This is astounding.  We have already ceded over the general election debates to be controlled and orchestrated by the Democrat media.  Do we need to have them moderate our own primary debates as well?  Keep in mind that these media types live in a very different world than we do, and their policy premises and understanding of the political dynamic makes them unqualified to moderate a debate among conservatives.

We should have at least one debate that is moderated by a panel of respected conservative journalists, talk radio figures, and others who would frame the debate in a meaningful way to conservatives. Yet, we are going to let those who garner vociferous antipathy towards conservatives have the opportunity to influence the selection of our leader!  Do we really need moderators who will ask the candidate what they will do to curb global warming?

The Juggernaut of the Democrat and Media Smear Machine

Several astute political observers have begun to notice the growing dichotomy between the state of the House races and the Senate races.  While the conservative wave has continued to build in the House, it has stalled and even faltered in statewide races.  More house polls continue to show incumbent liberals in deep blue territory to be vulnerable.  However, on the Senate front (and in a few Gubernatorial races), we have lost ground throughout October.  

Our momentum has stalled in Colorado and Illinois, and the Democrats were even beginning to make a comeback in Kentucky and Pennsylvania (those races are now looking better).  In addition, Connecticut and Delaware seem to be lost, while California and Washington are looking tough.  Joe Manchin has successfully lied to West Virginians about his liberalism and is looking pretty competitive.  The question is, how are the Democrats successfully competing in some of these races while there is record unemployment and economic malaise?  The answer is quite simple; it’s the Democrat/media smear machine, of course!

The Senatorial and Gubernatorial races that the Democrats have been competitive in during the past month directly correspond with the candidates whom they have most successfully smeared. Despite the tidal wave of anger against the Democrats, and the decline of America as a result of their policies, the liberals have successfully isolated some statewide races and dragged down their Republican opponents based upon frivolous allegations, lies, and distractions. Evidently, the smears and lies about Meg Whitman’s cleaning lady, John Raese’s wife, Ken Buck’s statements, Joe Miller’s past, and Rand Paul’s college years, are more important than the state of the economy and the future of the nation. Together with their buddies in the media, liberals and rinos (in the case of Murkowski) have been able to succeed (at least to some degree) in their time tested use of politics of personal destruction, even in the most unfavorable political climate for Democrats in many years. What does this say about many voters in this country?

Another Liberal Poll, This Time from New Hampshire

If there is any semi competitive Senate race that everyone agrees the Republican will easily win, it is New Hampshire. In every recent poll, Republican Kelly Ayotte has held a large and growing lead over Democrat Paul Hodes. Well, the latest poll from American Research Group (ARG) has Hodes trailing Ayotte by just 5 points, 47%-42%. I found that result quite astounding in light of the recent polling data and especially as Republicans are polling much better than that in other states where they are running against incumbents. Then I took a look at the internal numbers and found this from their website:

"The following results are based on 600 completed telephone interviews among a statewide random sample of registered voters in New Hampshire likely to vote in the November 2, 2010 general election." Also, the partisan breakdown of that poll was 29% R, 31% D, 40% undeclared. That is almost exactly in line with the partisan turnout of 2008. Does anyone really believe that the 2010 turnout will be just as bad for the GOP as 2008, especially is a state that has swung further to the right over the past two years than almost any other?

We are going to see a lot more of these polls over the next few weeks percolating throughout the media as a ploy to gin up enthusiasm with the left wing kooks. I'm not worried about the Senate race, but the Governor's race is crucial for the 2012 Presidential election. Although Democrat Governor Stephen Lynch was not considered vulnerable, Republican John Stephen had pulled within two according to the most recent survey from Rasmussen. This ARG poll had Lynch leading Stephen 51-41. Then again, what good is a sample of registered voters in an election cycle like 2010.

Md-Senate:The Washington Post and Their Fraudulent Poll

Anyone who didn't believe that last week's Washington Post poll showing O'Malley leading Ehrlich 52-41 was pulled out of a cereal box is sure to admit it now.  They are out with the second half of their new poll of the Senate race which shows Barbara Mikulski leading Republican Eric Wargotz 61-29!  That's a 32 point margin!  Now, I admit that Wargotz doesn't have much of a chance to defeat Mikulski, but does anyone really believe that she will do better in 2010 than most years?  The last Rasmussen poll had Mikulski leading by just 16 points.  Then again, what do we care if the liberal media convinces themselves that they are ahead.