Patriotic Federalist

Hollywood has been liberal for a much longer time than it was ever conservative, but the trend in filmmaking may be moving back to the right.

Although overshadowed by her traumatic personal life, Sandra Bullock’s nomination and 2010 Oscar award for her performance in the 2009 film, The Blind Side, put many Hollywood directors on notice that family-oriented films with realistic conservative narratives are an important new addition to the industry (see a review of The Blind Side). The film’s success also proved to film executives that quality conservative movies will draw audiences to the box office and may revive struggling DVD sales.

Continue reading

From William Weiss

Recently there has been talk in the media about an issue that has been on the back burner for awhile. With the stimulus package behind us and health-care reform still in limbo, priorities may shift back to an important issue that most politicians do not like to address. This issue is illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration is a tough subject for politicians, even though it is integral to many of the problems facing the country. People are looking for a perfect solution that does not exist. Many solutions are heart-breaking or unfair to illegal immigrants. But one of these proposed solutions is unfair to US citizens and will not solve the problem of illegal immigration, anyway. This “solution” is amnesty.

Amnesty is not viable because it neither reduces nor eliminates illegal immigration. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and who had been continuous residents. An estimated two to three million people gained citizenship as a result of this bi-partisan bill sponsored by a Republican president and a Democratic Congressional majority. Both sides of the aisle were part of this “solution.” More than 20 years later, we still have the same problem — only it is five to 10 times worse.

What kind of message does the US send when it rewards people who break the law? That is what amnesty does. Illegal immigrants living in this country avoid paying taxes and break the law. Amnesty sets the stage for these lawbreakers to go unpunished. This violates an important principle of our legal system, “Equal Justice Under the Law”. When everyday citizens fail to pay their taxes, the punishment is often severe. Non-citizens should suffer the same consequences.

Amnesty also threatens US citizens in economic ways. The health of the country’s social services — as well as its economic recovery — would be greatly affected by amnesty. With many social services currently being threatened by budget cuts, it would be reckless to add new recipients to an already struggling system. Amnesty would also create competition in an overly swamped job market. America is not in an economic position to raise its ceiling for work visas. Nor is it equipped, for that matter, to add an influx of new citizens to an ever-shrinking workforce.

Giving free membership to those who have migrated to the US illegally is also unfair to those who have chosen to take the tough, but honorable road to legal residency. This country was founded by immigrants. Many of our greatest achievements and innovations were achieved by immigrants. Immigration is a good thing for America — when it’s done legally.

America was once the land of opportunity for immigrants and natural born citizens. More and more that is becoming a thing of the past. Unemployment is sky high and our social services are in financial jeopardy. Adding 10 to 20 million new Americans to an already hurting system will only make things worse for the citizens of this country. When we consider the cost of rewarding people who benefit from a system to which they do not contribute, the answers may not be easy, but one thing is clear: social services, employment and the general welfare of law-abiding, tax-paying American citizens are all at risk when amnesty is the “solution.”

Why Elena Kagan Should Not be a Supreme Court Justice

When President George W. Bush nominated White House Counsel Harriet Miers to be Supreme Court Justice in 2005, liberals decried the choice primarily because Miers had no experience serving on a judicial bench of any kind.

Many conservatives saw the point in this criticism and joined in their calls to withdraw Miers’ name from consideration. In the end, Miers herself saw the writing on the wall and withdrew her own name.

Now, more than five years later, many of those same liberals are saying that the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan is a sound one, despite the fact that she has no experience as a judge. The appointment of judges to serve on the Supreme Court is a relatively new phenomenon, they say. The last Supreme Court Justice to not have had any prior experience on the bench was none other than William Rehnquist¹, and conservatives certainly had no problem with his decisions, they say. What does it matter that she has no experience as a judge?

It matters plenty.

Continue reading

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf

Other reading:

Attorney General Eric Holder never read the bill but took to the TV airwaves last weekend to offer what he called grave “Constitutional concerns” over the law.

He probably considered this action because his messiah was unhappy with it. Hussein had not read it either, but he knew the bill was upsetting to traitors and illegals (potential liberals) that live in the states near Mexico.