.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

The Asylum

Welcome to the Asylum. This is a site devoted to politics and current events in America, and around the globe. The THREE lunatics posting here are unabashed conservatives that go after the liberal lies and deceit prevalent in the debate of the day. We'd like to add that the views expressed here do not reflect the views of other inmates, nor were any inmates harmed in the creation of this site.

Name:
Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Open Topic Sunday ... The Future

Please pardon me if I ramble a bit today, but after the doctor's visits this past week, I'm feeling a little chatty. No, the visits were fine, and I'm progressing in my treatment quite well, according to my doctor. I just have these points where I am tired, I am weak, and I really am frustrated with my body. Cancer and it's treatment have a tendency to do that. But at the request of the "kids," they wanted me to comment on the site today. Likely it is because they are receiving e-mails asking as to where I have been.

To update those concerned, yes, I am doing just fine in my treatment. I started back at work midway through March, and while I am on "limited work detail," in the words of my employer, I did have a couple of days in court. It felt good to be back into the swing of things even though it is limited at this point. I had a chance at a relationship with a man that I met recently, and we are still communicating regularly. And, he is considering a job in Chicago, which would put him considerably closer to me than Norfolk, VA is now. My future, it seems right now, is still bright and shining. So, I take things one day at a time right now.

As for the future in general, well, that's a different story entirely.

Things are heating up around the world, and in the United States. As we have all witnessed over the last couple of weeks, illegal immigrants around the country have been holding demonstrations against any sort of immigration reform. Many of these people are hard-working individuals who do want to work up here. Those people I have no problem with, aside from the fact that they did break the law. They should face punishment for that, but if it is feasible to get them registered and kept track of (I may have not been posting here, but I have Thomas' take on serious reform, and I agree) then I have no problem with them staying. Those that refuse these measures should be deported immediately as punishment for breaking our laws.

A minority of these people though have a militant mindset, and this is what worries me about this debate. We know the militant groups as well as we know the major Middle Eastern terror groups. This includes groups like La Raza and Mecha, who openly preach a "retaking" of the land "stolen" from Mexico. First of all, for it to be stolen there could not have been a transaction between Mexico and the United States. There was. The territories were legally purchased from Mexico. In fact, the state that Thomas and Marcie reside in--Arizona--was bought back in 1848, I believe, and the remainder purchased in 1855. Arizona and New Mexico (both states purchased at the time) are "property" of the United States. You can't take back what didn't belong to you in the first place. What they are advocating is the outright theft of states like California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. And as the rhetoric rises and tempers flare, there grows the ever-increasing liklihood of violence. This is a prospect I neither welcome or relish; this should not be going on at all. The people here illegally possess no rights under the Constitution. It we wanted to take a more Nazi-like approach, we could attempt to round them out and ship them out. This is, unfornately, completely unfeasible, and therefore a moot subject. It falls to Congress to fix this, and that gives me little hope.

Which is another subject altogether. The Republican party is faced with an impasse; a crossroads has been reached, and the party must make a decision. At least the base needs to decide. Which road will they take? Will they continue down the path of "big government conservatism," which is exactly the road they have been on. Or will they force a return to the roots of the party, where the legacy of Reagan lies? This decision is important, especially this year. 2006 is a literal make or break year for the Republican party. They have an even chance at blowing this election, and losing one or both majorities in Congress. The House, while a stretch to accomplish, is not impossible to take back. The entire House is up for reelection, and unless you are a solid Republican, your job may be in jeopardy.

It's up to the party to take a look at what their constituents back home have been telling them. I am sure there's going to be more than one House member confronted on the spending bills that have been passed, and why more spending cuts haven't been instituted. The Senate, on the other hand, is going to be even worse coming home to campaign. They are going to be facing a firestorm from the voters, from the Gang of 14 deal and treatment of judicial appointees to the recent disgusting thing referred to as an "immigration compromise," and they are going to have to prove themselves. Again, those secure in their states will likely win. However there are a couple (Lincoln Chafee, anyone?) who have the potential to lose, and do it in a big way.

Voters have to make the even harder choice of picking a "party man" or a "maverick." Lincoln Chafee has been wropng on every major piece of legislation to come down the pipe, including the war and Justices Roberts and Alito. He can't be counted on to be on the party's side when the bets really matter most. There are others, recently, that have made their black marks as Republicans. Olympia Snowe and Mike DeWine are two of the more recent ones; they have an idea to introduce legislation curtailling the president's surveillance program through the NSA. Both were also a part of the Gang of 14 deal along with Chafee. So, the onus hangs around their necks to prove to the voters that they deserve a return to Congress. I side with the "kids" in stating that I won't shed a tear if either of them are replaced in their primaries by a more solid Republican, but unless they are running against a Democrat like Zell Miller, I don't want them losing their seats. Chafee, however, needs to be thrown under the bus the same way the Gang did to the other seven nominees in the filibuster deal.

There is a benefit the Republicans can reap if they manage to pull out of this election cycle virtually unscathed. The people will have spoken once more, and hopefully this shout finally falls on ears that are open rather than deaf. The resounding decision by the voting populace to put Republicans back in power may just be enough to finally rid the Democrats of their extremist individuals. And maybe it will finally reawaken the spirit that the Democrat party have missed for so long. A rejection of the fringe would be an excellent start for the people of the nation, and by comparison we have far fewer in our party than they have in theirs. Aside from the spontaneous nuttiness from Pat Roberston, Jerry Falwell, or Pat Buchanan, there really isn't much that erupts from our side. Meanwhile the Democrats have the entire Looney Tunes line-up going, and it's not just relegated to the political leaders. It extends itself to the glitz and glamour of the music industry and Hollywood, and permeates the academic institutions. And what's worse is their side is inherently more dangerous than ours; these are the people who ignored the attacks against the US during the Clinton administration.

And speaking of danger, we have other worries in the world. Iran is treading dangerously close to letting a "holy war" loose in the Middle East. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while slightly ... off kilter, is not a fool. He knows what he can accomplish, and how long he has to do it. He has already taken steps that Saddam Hussein didn't take with regard to his WMD programs. The nuclear program for Iran is spread over twenty or so sites throughout Iran. He didn't put all of his eggs into one basket, and recent intelligence shows that there may be "redundant" sites; those being ones where the same operations are run. It nullifies the problem of what would happen if we do run a bombing operation on those sites.

Another problem we have in Iran is their continued interference with the final aspects of the Iraq War. Those obstacles include not only munitions and arms, but people, as well. For a long time Iran has had a partnership with Hizbollah and Palestinian terror groups. An army of Hizbollah fighters is the last thing we'd like to face, and God forbid if Ahmadinejad manages to smuggle a nuclear warhead to a Palestinian group. There will be no hesitation in that weapon's detonation in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. We can continue to act diplomatically, but I doubt it will work. Ahmadinejad is on some sort of holy mission, he believes, and he is willing to take his people to the brink of annihilation.

Which is why we must be working within the shadows to help the dissident movement in Iran. We must have a leader ready to sweep in should a coup be successful. And that is the best thing we could possibly hope for. The military option, while not completely off the table, is not a prospect the president is looking forward to examining. With two years left to go in his tenure, and the possibility of a Democrat president after he leaves office, President Bush isn't likely to start a war with Iran, only to have it cut short by the next president. In all liklihood, if his successor were a Republican, then the fight may be continued, but again, I'm not sure that he's looking at that option right now.

Yes, we have problems in the world, but they're not all bad. And every one of them has a silver lining of sorts. We have decisions to make in the next couple of years that will determine the path of this nation for years to come. And now it matters more than ever. We can't afford to take steps back in the War on Terror, and if we make mistakes in the next couple of years, we'll be right back where we were on September 10, 2001. This nation can't allow that to happen. We live in a brave, new world, and it's not a nice place.

Mistress Pundit

2 Comments:

Blogger JasonSpalding said...

Cheap labor at all costs? We have seen in France what happens.

6:31 PM  
Blogger Syd And Vaughn said...

Mr. Spalding:

The intention of the post wasn't to promote a particular idea, other than the fact that we do have problems on the horizon.

As for immigration, it has been warned by prognosticators that this debate could very well spark an interneccine war within the Republican party. That, at this point in time, is not wise with all that is on their plate right now.

I dislike illegal immigration--as do Marcie and Thomas--and I dislike the excuses given by both sides for not enforcing our laws, and holding these lawbreakers accountable for their crimes.

Cheap labor is not a reason to continue allowing this malfeasance to exist. Yes, Europe is reaping whjat is has sown, and America may end up doing the same with a solution.

Both Thomas and Marcie addressed the issue at hand on Friday of this week (scroll down through the posts) and I agree with the proposal. Thomas has since expanded it's explanation a bit, and sent the proposal off to Sen. John Kyl.

It touches on the things that are of absolute importance in this debate, and the things that should concern Americans when it comes to economic and national security.

Mistress Pundit

7:32 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

weight loss product