Straw-Manning: An Amnesty Shill’s Best Friend

Oh look: Pew got Republican voters to look more liberal than they really are with intentionally-vague terminology — “certain requirements” — that induces respondents to project wildly different notions of what those requirements should be into a single category.

The poll does not say a majority of Republicans are content with the real bone of contention: sham bills that provide amnesty with citizenship but lie about security and enforcement. (It also shows that majorities of Republicans want to end birthright citizenship and build a border wall, and that only 37% favor citizenship for illegals.)

Contrary to the lying cheap-labor toadies who slander conservatives as “xenophobes” for not agreeing with them, very few of us opposed to the GOP’s amnesty-mania insist that every single illegal has to be gone no matter what.

Again, for the unprincipled simpletons who parrot whatever Republican leadership and the Wall Street Journal tell them to, it’s really not that complicated:

  1. Complete a manned and monitored border wall.
  2. Crack down on visa overstays.
  3. Fully implement e-Verify.
  4. Take legal action against sanctuary cities.
  5. Reverse President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty.
  6. Crack down on illegals’ use of public aid.
  7. After Congress has actually done it, rather than given us the umpteenth insincere promise to do it in the indeterminate future, and after the people have seen for themselves that we really have stopped the mass influx of new illegals and meaningfully reduced the number of current illegals, then we can look at how many are left and decide on some sort of regularization (provided it does not allow any possibility of citizenship without first leaving and re-entering legally).

Abysmal Kasich-Rubio ’16 Case Illustrates Why GOP Keeps Losing Elections

The following article was originally written in August. Given the lack of responses at the time and that the subject of conservative publications giving platforms to disastrously unconservative political advice remains newsworthy, I am publishing it here.

In most fields, past failures to produce results tend to diminish one’s standing as an authority on future successes. So while it’s natural that alumni of John McCain’s presidential campaign would favor a 2016 nominee as centrist as John Kasich and a running mate as amnesty-minded as Marco Rubio, it’s also alarming to see their prescriptions disseminated in a leading conservative publication.

None of Myra Adams’s five points for Kasich-Rubio ’16 are persuasive. In fact, her August 14 National Review column making the case reads more like a catalogue of the Beltway myths, shallow assumptions, and unconservative priorities that have created countless Republican defeats. Continue reading

SCOTUS “Pregnancy Discrimination” Case Tempts Pro-Lifers to Flip-Flop on State Coercion

The abortion debate ultimately concerns two concepts: the sanctity of human life and the proper application of civil law. Pro-lifers generally champion the latter, while abortion champions pervert it with convoluted judicial rulings that unjustly insulate their desired policies from the democratic process and regulatory mandates that illegally and unconstitutionally compel private citizens and organizations to do their bidding. They lost one such battle in 2014 when the Supreme Court ruled that forcing religious businesses to provide abortifacient drugs violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

But last December, 24 pro-life organizations took a more favorable view of federal workplace intervention. Led by Americans United for Life, a coalition of groups including the Susan B. Anthony List, American Life League, and Students for Life of America filed an amicus curiae brief in Young v. UPS, a Supreme Court battle over alleged pregnancy discrimination. AUL summarizes:

The case involves the 36-year-old Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and whether it offers any real protection to women who choose life for their unborn children. “Pro-life and pro-abortion advocates agree: This case is about protecting pregnant mothers from employment discrimination,” noted [AUL President & CEO Dr. Charmaine] Yoest. “Women should not suffer physical hardship at work or lose their jobs because they are having a baby. Most especially, pregnant mothers should not be refused the same accommodation offered others with similar work challenges” […]

Peggy Young was a driver for UPS when she became pregnant. Though other workers with similar work challenges received a “lighter duty” accommodation, Ms. Young was denied an accommodation during her pregnancy, in violation of the federal PDA. Peggy lost in the two lower courts.

The court ruled 6-3 in Young’s favor in June, and a few days ago she and UPS reached a settlement. But while the temptation to declare victory and move on is understandable, a few words are in order to remind fellow pro-lifers that limited-government, natural-rights principles are just as binding in sympathetic cases as unsympathetic ones. Continue reading