First, nowhere is Bush’s betrayal more evident than with immigration. He refuses to recognize that America historically has not been a “nation of [illegal] immigrants” arriving at an extant welfare state, but rather a nation of settlers and colonists. Like a failed Roman emperor, Bush engages in the unbecoming business of auctioning of citizenship for (unlikely) future loyalty. He sides with Ted Kennedy in pushing a guest-worker program, although a recent Zogby poll shows that 81 percent of Republican voters support an enforcement-only approach. Jettisoning reason, tradition, and loyalty to hard-working Americans, Bush attempts to transform America into a third-world country.

Second, Bush also allies himself with Ted Kennedy on education. Bush’s socialist No Child Left Behind should be named “Great Society, Pt. II.” NCLB has removed authority over education from the states and placed it at the feet of a bloated federal bureaucracy; has expanded the role of certification and the proletarian Schools of Education; has reinforced the notion that education should be universal; and will have a dumbing-down effect unlike any we’ve ever seen. One can easily dismiss this piece of legislation as one of the worst washouts in recent history.

Third, Bush is no friend to prudent economic policy. He has spent more money than the previous six presidents combined, and it will require generations to pay off this debt. Under Newt Gingrich, Republicans came to power claiming a Contract with America, promising to reduce expenditures and return authority to the states. Bush has accomplished the opposite, spending like a liberal and broadening big government. Furthermore, regarding international trade, we now have the largest trade deficit in American history vis-à-vis Mexico, China and India – and the situation grows worse each month. Even former free-trade enthusiasts are indignant that Bush is not buoying more trade barriers.

Fourth, in the domain of foreign policy, Bush also lacks any conservative conviction. His failed Wilsonian foreign policy in the Middle East reeks of liberal interventionism. Real conservatives, from Aristotle to the present, have always acknowledged that different forms of government are better tailored for different traditions. The Procrustean conversion of all countries to liberal democracy is impractical, undesirable, and reminiscent of Robespierre. And the very notion of “regime change” comes from Marxist annals. No true conservative would rally round such recklessness.

Fifth, Bush’s only conservative contribution may be the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court – but it remains to be seen. They could resuscitate the Tenth Amendment, return affairs (like abortion) to the states, and fulfill the noble intent of the Founding Fathers. They, however, could move the other way, and bolster an imperial presidency at the expense of states’ rights, whereby chalking up yet another point to Bush’s liberal legacy.

G.W. Bush has indeed proven to be a liberal just like his father, and the conservative constituency seethes with resentment. Hopefully, Republicans will distance themselves from Bush’s sinking presidency, and wash their hands of Bush’s fellow travelers (Condoleezza Rice, John McCain, Arlen Specter, Mike DeWine, Lindsey Graham, et al.). Otherwise, the GOP will remain unredeemed and unelectable.
————-
(c) 2006 Matthew A. Roberts. Mr. Roberts is a conservative columnist whose articles have appeared in dozens of publications. He also co-edits a weblog at www.conservatoroccidentalis.com

In the economic realm, to many Americans, India certainly remains a menace. Western countries are unable to compete with India’s slave-labor market, and India has captured countless American jobs through ominous outsourcing. First-world countries simply cannot compete with India, which is why some economists – even Republican free-trade enthusiasts – have suggested that America should buoy more trade barriers.

But the threat does not stop here. We know that India has at least 65 active nuclear warheads, of which the delivery systems differ. Some have short-range capacity, aimed at Pakistan, but India has engaged in research to develop ICBMs. The production of nuclear weapons persists today and, even under Rice’s plans, India still develops nuclear weapons vis-à-vis Pakistan and China. There also are grave concerns that India has shared or will share nuclear technology with Iran.

What remains deeply disturbing about India increasing its nuclear weapons is its instability. Terrorists, bombings, assassinations, potential secessions, and violent struggles persistently plague the Indian Government – so often that incidents rarely make the international news. Given the constant chaos, it is likely that nuclear weapons will someday fall into unfriendly hands.

At least 14 percent of India is Muslim, making its Muslim population at least 140 million, and growing. The Hindu religion rarely converts people, and Hindus have smaller families. The Muslims, however, with their large families, are actively converting much of the countryside. At the present conversion and growth rates, some have concluded that by the year 2050 the majority of Indians will be Muslim, at which time you will have a Muslim state with a massive nuclear arsenal. In the meantime, much strife will endure between Hindus and Muslims, making many areas of the country perennially unstable.

Muslim terrorists, however, are not alone. Incidents of Hindu terrorism, even against Christians, have also risen. As reported recently by Agape Press (March 14,2006), Hindu terrorists in the state of Rajasthan, in some cases supported by the local police, have attacked Christian missionaries who work at local charities and orphanages. And as evidenced by the recent protests, anti-Western sentiment still persists in India among the Hindu population.

Another problem confronting India is the fact that the Indian Government blatantly lies about its HIV infection rate. International organizations and public health experts vehemently dispute the Government’s “official statistics” downplaying the HIV epidemic. In reality, health experts argue, India has surpassed South Africa with the most HIV infections in the world, with infections spreading at epidemic rates. The reason India lies about these figures, more than likely, is to maintain a pro-business posture. But many Western countries recognize the reality, and have begun to restrict travel and visas from India, due to the recent infections.

In short, India is reliably unstable, and an unstable country is an unreliable ally. There has been much unjustified hype about prospect American-Indian relations. But the more analysts look at India, the more perilous it appears, and the future of friendly American-Indian relations seems fickle at best. Americans should tread with great trepidation.

Many of the arguments one hears against gay marriage are religious or, more specifically, Christian in nature. For example, Leviticus, 1 Corinthians and Romans all proscribe homosexual behavior. Furthermore, within the history of Christianity, from the early Church Fathers to later Protestants, there exists a continual condemnation of homosexual acts. In short, the Christian tradition for over 2,000 years has overwhelmingly deplored any sort of homosexual undertaking, and Western countries, being Christian in origin, have significantly been influenced by Christian morals on this subject.

The extent of the disapproval of homosexuality, however, limits itself not only to Christianity. We also find proscriptions against excessive homosexual behavior in Plato, the Emperor Augustus (who encouraged marriage among the upper class for procreation) and among other ancient writers as well. In fact, homosexual “relationships,” at least as we know them, did not even exist among the Greeks and Romans. Although we commonly find pederasty among the ancients, evidence of same-age relationships scarcely exists. Although they recognized homosexual acts as common among certain classes, specific homosexual acts (esp. those regarding passivity) were considered degrading for the upper class. Furthermore, heterosexual marriage remained the unquestioned norm, and the ancients did not even consider “gay marriage” as an option.

The definition of marriage has always implied heterosexuality. The word ‘marriage’, from the Latin maritare, linguistically has built into it the idea of procreation. Maritare not only means to marry but also to impregnate, which is why commentators would speak of women simultaneously being married and impregnated. In short, purely in terms of semantics, the very notion of marriage is defined in terms of impregnation. Historically in the West, even in non-Christian cultures, the very idea of “gay marriage” would have been an oxymoron.
The legal arguments against “gay marriage” mirror the linguistic in many ways. In natural law, for example, the teleological purpose of marriage is procreation. The very survival of the species depends upon reproduction, so it is the goal of government to encourage fruitful marriages. It is also for this reason, both in pagan and Christian laws, that you find the failure to issue any progeny permissible grounds for divorce. Even in periods of European history when divorce would be prohibited for almost any reason, one can still find many instances of divorce for lack of offspring. Reproduction, through and through, has always been central to the legality of marriage, which is why no culture, until very recently, has even considered “gay marriage.”

Heterosexuals, however, are not alone in their condemnation of “gay marriage.” Historically minded homosexuals too – those who realize that history does not begin in 1968 – recognize homosexuality as an exception to long-standing historical norm, and are quite content with it remaining in the margins. As many have noted, people have always engaged in homosexual acts, but these acts have never been prescribed as the norm, especially not in relation to marriage. Following the cues of history, intellectual homosexuals prefer to keep homosexuality as a vibrant subculture, but nothing more. To transgress against a firmly planted historical paradigm, they argue, is Quixotic at best.

Marriage, if it is to survive, must remain a long-standing institution defined as the eternal union of man and a woman. There is a reason that wise statesmen for all of recorded history have prescribed heterosexual marriage as the norm; it is necessary for the survival of society. Undermine such an important institution, and you are undermining your very cultural legacy. To tamper with this institution in the spirit of social engineering is not only foolish, but also quite devastating. Destroy one of the central tenants of our society, and you are ripping away at the very fabric of our stability. Leveled buildings can easily be rebuilt, but once a nation’s moral fiber has been destroyed it is in serious trouble. Just read Toynbee.
————-
Matthew A. Roberts is a conservative columnist whose articles have appeared in dozens of publications. He also co-edits a weblog at www.conservatoroccidentalis.com

Regarding legal immigration, this poll demonstrates that Americans want less – not more – immigration, with only two percent responding that current immigration levels are too low. The Senate plan, which would increase legal immigration from one to two million a year, appears blatantly at odds with the wishes of voters. Americans, through and through, do not think we need more people, not even for low-paying jobs. Seventy-four percent of likely voters think that there are enough Americans to fill low-wage jobs, if employers would pay and treat employees better.

What do these numbers mean? Most Democrats, President Bush, and many Republicans in the Senate are out of touch. This news could be particularly damaging for Democrats, given that a majority of their constituents generally supports an enforcement-only approach. It could also be damaging for certain Republicans (like Senators McCain, Brownback, DeWine, or Graham) who currently attempt to auction off citizenship for (unlikely) future votes. Senate Republicans ignoring their base on immigration will likely benefit Democrats this November. Many Republicans are so angry over the guest-worker proposal that they may vote third-party or not vote at all.

This poll is the first poll to ask the question – using neutral language – whether likely voters prefer the House bill (enforcement-only) or Senate (guest-worker) plan. This outcome interestingly depicts that despite all the pro-amnesty rhetoric in the liberal media, 64 percent of Americans still favor an enforcement-only approach. If we were to have a more balanced media, with more opponents of immigration allowed to speak, this number would possibly jump from 64 to 80 percent.

Although previous polls showed that more Americans may support a guest-worker plan, the wording of such polls proved at best questionable, at worst blatantly biased. Critics, however, have always been skeptical of previous polls, especially when almost every person you know – Democrat or Republican – says he wants the same thing: (1) no guest-worker plan, (2) a border secured by guards and a physical fence, and (3) a massive reduction in legal and illegal immigration.

In many states it now rings popular to call oneself a conservative, even if one truly resembles a liberal. As with any popular movement, dilution occurs, opportunists blow with the wind, and pretenders abound. Senator John McCain is one of these pretenders. He is a leftist in disguise, using his popularity and charisma to masque his liberal leanings. In reality, McCain resides as far to the Left as Senator John Kerry. Anyone who thinks otherwise deludes himself.

McCain has most feigned conservatism in his militarism. McCain, a Vietnam veteran, is hawkish and patriotic. These attributes support his political stump. As long as he can play the veteran card and remain pro-war, he can downplay all his other shortcomings. Appearing hawkish, however, does not necessarily constitute conservatism. (Recent history shows that leftists can be militaristic too: Stalin, Mao, Castro). Military force always will remain crucial in many cases, but willingness to use it does not incontrovertibly make one a conservative.

And when one gets beyond McCain’s bellicism, his true liberal character crops up. Outside martial matters, McCain sides with the American Left on most key issues. The greatest irony of McCain’s masquerade is that he packages himself as a principled conservative, one with character, who rises above partisan politics. In reality, however, he is as disingenuous as the Clintons and presently bends whichever the way the wind blows to bolster himself for 2008. Analyze him issue by issue.

First, regarding religion, McCain looms as no lover of Christians. Recall his comments about key religious leaders in 2000, calling them “agents of intolerance.” And McCain’s vitriolic vilification of Christians was not limited to a single occurrence, for he later said, “I must not and will not retract anything that I said in that speech at Virginia Beach. It was carefully crafted, it was carefully thought out” (Hardball, 3/1/00). More recently, however, McCain, positioning himself for 2008, has repackaged himself as pro-Christian, lauding key religious leaders and duping the devout. (Is this not as reptilian as Bill Clinton’s waffling?)

Second, on the issue of gay marriage, in 2005 McCain opposed a federal gay-marriage ban (Los Angeles Times, 1/25 and 3/8). Now, however, likely realizing that most Americans think otherwise, McCain says he supports a gay-marriage ban (Meet the Press, 4/2/06). Which is it? Given his penchant for progressive politics, we can only assume the former.

Then, regarding abortion, McCain most certainly is pro-choice. In the San Francisco Chronicle (8/20/99) McCain sided with the pro-abortion camp, suggesting that overturning Roe v. Wade would lead to illegal abortions. Realizing, however, that he could not inveigle the GOP nomination with such views, McCain more recently has resold himself as pro-life, even saying he would support the South Dakota ban on abortions. What are Americans to believe? He either is pro-choice or lacks any real conviction on the subject.

Furthermore, regarding campaign-finance reform, the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act is perhaps one of the more left-wing acts of Congress in the past twenty years. As recently exposed by Brian C. Anderson, “The Plot to Shush Rush and O’Reilly” in City Journal, McCain-Feingold (which passed with overwhelming Democrat support) is a convenient contrivance to silence conservatives. As noted by a whole host of commentators (George Will, Jonathan Rauch, and even Justice Clarence Thomas), this act poses blatant restrictions on political speech. It especially affects AM Radio and political internet blogs – the only two spheres of popular media where conservatives can truly compete. Critics remain divided why McCain supported a dictate so damaging to conservatives. Was it perhaps so that he could silence many on the Right whom he laconically loathes?

Last, but not least, McCain’s liberal tendencies show in the immigration debate. McCain has proven to be farther Left on the immigration issue than even many Liberals. At the very basis of most conservative thought is the idea of law and order, which are essential for the continuity of society. Bypassing tradition and sanity, and slapping in the face those who have come here legally, McCain has sought to sweep aside law and order to engage in the unbecoming business of pandering to ethnicities. (Isn’t this the dominion of Democrats?) McCain’s radical views on immigration threaten numerous components of the wellbeing of the United States and, more generally, Western Civilization: national security, standards of living, and cultural homogeneity, to name a few. McCain has courted the cheap-labor lobby for some fast cash for 2008 and now attempts to convert the U.S. into a third-world country.

McCain’s liberal laundry list goes on and on. Senator Lindsey Graham, another liberal in disguise, comments correctly that the present is a defining moment for the Republican Party, although his underlying analysis is wrong. The choice is between a party of McCain’s vision, a party indistinguishable from the Democratic Party, or a party that at least maintains a modicum of conservatism. If McCain loses, hopefully he will depart for the Democratic Party (where he belongs); but if he wins, expect to see a mass exodus of conservative voters from the GOP, probably over to a third party.

The avalanche of support that has followed Republicans since 1994 we now see slowly evaporating over the issue of a guest-worker program. Impassioned Republicans four years ago now stand out of steam, feeling betrayed by a party leadership that would support a bill so at odds with conservative principles.

This guest-worker proposal, after all, rewards illegal behavior. Instead of requiring illegal immigrants to return to Mexico (or wherever) to apply for a permit, it grants legal status on the spot, thus acting as a “magnet for continued illegal immigration.” And, as Rep. John Hostettler (R.-Ind.) recently said, any guest-worker plan “puts the interest of foreign, illegal workers above those of our own American citizens.”

Newt Gingrich summed up the matter most succinctly on the O’Reilly Factor (March 15, 2006). He has observed a growing divide between Washington GOP elites and the average voting Republican. Somehow, GOP elites have come to believe that a guest-worker program is necessary (although it is not). Your average GOP voter, however, while praising boosts to border security, deeply dislikes any guest-worker giveaway.

Why GOP leadership supports such a lemon remains unseen. In 1986 Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act. It granted green cards to three million illegal immigrants, consequently attracting yet another five million to cross the border to replace their decriminalized comrades. Furthermore, a recent poll taken in Mexico found that at least 46 percent of the population (50 million Mexicans) would cross the border if given the chance. Any guest-worker initiative advertises this avenue.

It is in future forecasts, however, that Republicans really blunder. Illegal immigrants, voting for socialist candidates in Mexico or South America, will become Democrats once gaining full citizenship. Superficial surveys taken in a couple cities show that 9 out of 10 illegal immigrants support Democrats over Republicans. This guest-worker program, on a silver platter, will hand over California, Florida, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico to Democrats.

Is the GOP abating its base and fallowing its future in one fell swoop?