Rumbling on the Hard-Right

The Washington Times ^ | December 30, 2003 | Stephen Dinan

[GunsareOK]

President Bush is beginning to anger certain hard-line conservatives, particularly over fiscal issues, the way his father did in the year before he lost to Bill Clinton in 1992.

It's not clear how deep the dissatisfaction goes, and whether it will translate to damage at the polls in November.

[!1776!]

And I am not willing to call a pig's ear a silk purse, simply because it is jammed down my throat by a Republican rather than a D@mocrat.

Thing is, I never called it a silk purse, in fact I called it salt in a wound. However, you seem to think the libs, the very people continuing to work toward a total gun ban, one small step at a time, are a better choice.

Maybe I'm dense, but I just don't get it.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

"But, I am totally disgusted at his refusal to control our borders".
So am I and I'm at a complete loss to understand why President Bush never addresses this problem. And our open borders are a very serious problem!"

Do you honestly believe that President Bush has ignored the borders?? Do you think that when he says his most important job is keeping America safe-that he ignores the borders? When he gets his morning PDB-Presidential Daily Brief or threat assessment,from the CIA,do you seriously believe that he winks at everyone present and instructs them to open the borders??!!

From Migration news and the Justice Dept:

"The INS has about 2,000 investigators, 5,000 inspectors, 10,000 Border Patrol agents and 3,000 adjudicators who inspect 550 million people every year. The Border Patrol made 1.2 million apprehensions in FY01; all but 30,000 were Mexicans." 1.2 million apprehensions is not ignoring the border.

" The Immigration and Naturalization Service went out of business on March 1, 2003. Its functions were moved to the Department of Homeland Security and divided in three parts: (1)Immigration enforcement was placed in the DHS Directorate for Border and Transportation Security (BTS) in the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) headed by Michael Garcia.(www.dhs.gov)"

"US businesses in 2003 began to complain openly that tighter visa-issuing policies were hurting business. More time is required for getting visas approved, and there are many uncertainties about whether a visa will be granted to a foreigner that a US business wants admitted. " Imagine that-tighter visa issuing policies.

"Beginning on March 1, 2003, the 500,000 persons a day arriving at US airports, seaports and land borders were screened for radiological materials in an effort to detect the smuggling of nuclear material that could be used to build a dirty bomb, that is, one in which radioactive materials are dispersed by conventional explosives. The US has 300 ports of entry, and the 18,000 border inspectors who staff them--9,000 customs agents, 6,000 immigration agents and 3,000 agriculture agents- are expected to be outfitted with personal radiation pagers by mid-2003. These agents, now all part of DHS, are to be cross-trained to do each other's jobs."

"The federal government is linking databases, and making the information on foreigners stored there more widely available to state and local law enforcement agencies. For the first time, state and local law enforcement agencies will have access to the State Department's visa applicant database, which has information on 50 million overseas applications for US visas."

"In 2003, men over the age of 16 from 24 Middle Eastern countries and North Korea have had to register at the INS under the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). This involves being fingerprinted, photographed and interviewed upon entry, and notifying the INS when leaving the US. US citizens and legal permanent residents from the targeted countries are not required to register. "

"As they registered, some of the foreigners were arrested for visa violations and detained, even if they had applications for visa extensions or change of status pending"

"Of the 955,310 foreigners apprehended by the Border Patrol in FY02 were Mexicans caught just inside the US border in the southern Arizona desert." How can this be,if Bush is ignoring the borders??

[Lael]

PULLING for 1,000

[The Coopster]

Ping for later. I will save this for future reference. Thanks for the voice of reason WIR!

[jeremiah]

If the Democrats were in the White House when 9-11 happened, they would have had to react nearly as GW has done. The CFR, that is the Council on Foreign Relations, would have been staffing the cabinet, there would be little discernible difference between the actions of American forces. If a Democrat is elected in '04, he will embrace the effort in Iraq, and would make the war on terror his own. Just my opinion, but it is historically based. If you throw away preconceived notions of the parties, you will see they are little different.

Of course, Clinton was as evil a man as the Democrats have ever put forth, but he was an anomaly. In another election cycle, such as "08, the Republicans may be as liberal as the D's now, and the D's may be on the right. It can happen when the only thing the politicians believe in is power, and holding on to that power.

[reformedliberal]

No, I don't think defending the Constitution brings harm, per se. I do think that the paleo faction (don't know what else to call y'all) puts all its bets on that one line, is on a hair trigger and will go to the wall over one deviation, real or imagined. It is the hair-trigger part that alarms me.

I deplore the CFR and I was shocked that the SCOTUS upheld that 60-day ban.

The *assault weapon* issue is one where I can see both sides. I believe the 2nd Amendment allows individuals to be armed. As a 61-year-old female, I am not convinced that I need more than a semi and I am a bit worried about what is in the hands of the gangs, but I don't think a law will stop them, either. I see the *camel's nose* argument, as well. It wouldn't be a make it or break it issue for me, though.

The Constitution is not fascist. That is hyperbole. What is fascist is demanding that all Americans, who all have the right to speech and an opinion and, if adults who are not felons, also have a vote, all concur in every interpretation.

What I find fascist is the *my way or die* tone I hear in the posts of the paleos.

As long as this faction demands the same degree of agreement on constitutional purity from everyone and dismisses any different interpretation (even strict constructionists disagree at times)as not *conservative* enough to be included, they lose any ability to be a national party.

Moderates exist all along the spectrum and is not the same as leftist. I am very aware that many paleos believe any moderate is a RINO, but that is far from being a socialist. Neither does moderate mean wishy-washy, indecisive, lukewarm or marginal.I see nothing evil is moderation. Those that do are not going to be part of any national party.

Politics is compromise. It is making deals. It is war by other means. It either accommodates a spread of views or it becomes totalitarian. I loathe totalitarians. I have no wish for Civil War II.

Call me whatever names you wish. The left purges everyone who doesn't follow the party line and disparages those who disagree w/labels like Trotskyite/Leninist/Maoist/bourgeois/deviationist.

I see the same tendency on the far right w/RINO/lib/socialist/moderate as the disparaging labels.
I see little difference between the tactics of the fringe of either side.

I know it is anathema to the far right and the far left, but most of us fall somewhere in the center on many issues. It is that center, the moderates or , as I prefer, the pragmatists, who decide elections.

Frankly, I have no desire to control anyone else and that tendency is what I dislike intensely about both the far left and the far right.
I grant you the right to your POV. But I do not want your POV controlling the entire country because it is inflexible and exclusionary. Both traits are, IMO, the antithesis of what it means to be an American.

[tgslTakoma]

WAITJUSTADAMNMINUTENOW!

I've come to this thread way late - and maybe the commentary gets more civil later in the thread - but right now I have read the first 30 or so comments, and I'm pretty damned disgusted with what I see....

To every keyboard commando and cubicle Einstein out there on this thread who has resorted to insult-flinging and accusations against GunsareOK - of everything from national socialism, to anti-semitism, to being a druggie to being personally responsible for the 8year Hell of the Clinton administration:

You don't know what you are talking about.

It's fairly obvious to me that none of you knows GunsareOK, because if you did you would know how foolish all your flit-shinging really is.

I have known GunsareOK for approximately 10 years and he is as conservative as they come; which is apparently why so many of you lost your cool and fell into the namecalling spree. I have worked side-by-side with Guns on almost every single election, for local, statewide and national offices, in those 10 years. He has walked precincts, stood outside stores, made phone calls, driven through freaking blizzards, stood for hours at gunshows, stood in the cold for weeks outside Cheney's House during the Gore Wars, donated a boatload of money over the years to FR, NRA, SAS, MD gun rights groups (and more), contributed probably more dollars than he could aford and incalculable hours working for dozens upon dozens of conservative (read: mostly Republican, there may be a couple of conservative rural MD Dems) candidates; and never did he do it so he could get a peach appointment with a particular administration or any other personal gain (save for the hope that he could afford to retire in peace one day and have money left over after paying taxes to buy ammo for plinking at targets on his own plot of land.

Those who made and make idiotic and ill-informed accusations and insults against someone who they don't even know - and who I dare say is a helluva lot more active in the real world of political activism than most folks who wear the "conservative" or "Republican" badge - are reflecting the negativity back at themselves rather than at GunsareOK.

I know GunsareOK, and I know that he is an extremely intelligent guy who doesn't make rash decisions or jump to conclusions. If he says he's none to happy with Bush and won't vote for him again, then I'd be inclined to listen to his reasons; and he would be able to intelligently state them.

Maybe the only dumb thing he's ever done is to think that he could have an intelligent debate with some folks here.

P.S. One last thing...
...when other people talk the conservative talk, GunsareOK walks the walk. He's donated a lot of money to help fund the rallies to support the troops that the DC Chapter has held over the past two-plus years; and he's been at all those rallies, too. So, when the real enemies of freedom have tried to take over the streets of DC and attack our country's foundation... and when even the Republicans in high office didn't defend their War on Terror tactics... he was out there doing so.

Were you?

[Fred Mertz]

You're also not a conservative whatsoever.

I'm sure that you wouldn't know what a conservative is unless one ran up and bit you.

[nunya bidness]

Give 'em hell Beth!

[FITZ]

More proof, if any was needed, that conservatives have our share of total morons.

The problem is --- the last election was too close --- one state in the balance --- and Gore actually did win the popular vote and lost the electoral vote. Bush needs the votes of those you might consider morons unless he can really guarantee all the illegals are really Republicans.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

I am familiar with that chart. That is official US Budget data the chart is based on. Human Resources is a main category in the US Budget. The data is consistent from one fiscal year to the next as the OMB takes great pains to make sure comparative data is consistent so one can make comparisons over different periods of time.

The official data in that chart does clearly show that spending on HR (go to OMB to see what that entails) is exceeding under Bush all past presidents. It is based on % of outlays, not $, so it is consistent from one period to the next.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

The site where that chart is from is extolling FDR's virtues, and bashes Bush

That's not what I read. It stated a lot of factual data. It is all based on official data, not opinion.

[FairOpinion]

"Human Resources is a main category in the US Budget. "

===

TOTAL BUNK!

I did go to the official government site and there is NO such item. "Human resources" is just a made up item, and NOT by the US government, and had everything and the kitchen sink rolled into it, just to make Bush look bad.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/hist.html

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I am totally disgusted at his refusal to control our borders."

We stopped over one million people from entering the country illegally in 2002.

I call that control.

I guess by your logic, then our police must be refusing to enforce the law, because there are crimes still being committed daily.

[FairOpinion]

"I have known GunsareOK for approximately 10 years and he is as conservative as they come;"

==

Well, I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is, isn't it?

Anyone who thinks Dean would be better for the country, than Bush, is either a useful idiot of the Dems or a Dem mole. PERIOD.

Which one do you think he is?

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

TOTAL BUNK! I did go to the official government site and there is NO such item. "Human resources" is just a made up item, and NOT by the US government . . .

US Budget FY 2004 Section 3.1 Human Reources, made up of Education, Health, Income Security, SS, Veterans Benefits. Section 3 is "Outlays by Function"

[MattAMiller]

Bush has what? About a 90% approval rating amongst Republicans? The cranks and their hallucinations of amnesty programs won't make much an an impact.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Also, if you go to section 3.2, it breaks it down further between "Function and Subfunction".

Section 3.1 is a broader summary and that is what the figure "Human Resources" was taken from in the data and the chart in question.

[FairOpinion]

OK. I found it.

But it includes Social Security, so when you present that, it is misleading. That is a mandatory spending.