GOP Plans Suicide With Amnesty Meeting

GOP Suicide Amnesty SC

Led by House Speaker John Boehner, a group of Republican leaders are headed to Massachusetts Thursday in an attempt to convince the rest of the party to back a fast track to legal status for millions of illegals currently living in the U.S.

Boehner has given the issue of amnesty an increasing amount of attention in recent months, a fact punctuated by his addition of Rebecca Tallent to his staff. Tallent, who previously helped shape John McCain’s liberal views on immigration, has been Boehner’s top immigration aide since late last year.

Establishment Republicans apparently hope their push to legitimize illegal immigrants will somehow endear that community to their party. In reality, of course, the mainstream media will make sure the GOP gets no credit for the plan; meanwhile, this effort will only serve to further alienate the party’s conservative base.

Obviously, a significant number of Republican lawmakers are adamantly opposed to the proposal. Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, for example, reportedly distributed a list among legislators containing various arguments against amnesty.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party is once again making an attempt to woo leftist voters by being almost as radical as their Democrat counterparts. The problem, though, is that these leftists are already happy with their chosen party.

Instead of rallying their center-right base by lambasting the tyranny of the current administration and offering commonsense solutions to the problems Obama has created, Boehner and company are focused on the losing proposition of offering blanket amnesty to millions of criminals.

The meeting is set to take place Thursday afternoon in Cambridge, with the Republican plan available for public consumption sometime shortly after their discussion ends. Those opposed to the plan, including Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, have made it clear they intend to stand firmly in support of American’s existing immigration laws.

He said a group of conservatives in the party will “speak as aggressively and loudly and articulately as we can in opposing this nonsense of amnesty for 10 to 20 million illegals which would cause great harm to the country and destroy the Republican Party.”

Considering the extreme national trauma caused in just five years by the Obama administration, one can only imagine the repercussions of creating a permanent Democrat majority.

–B. Christopher Agee

Have an idea for a story? Email us at

GOP Governor Among Latest Amnesty Advocates

Rick Snyder

Among most radical leftists, the debate over illegal immigration is over. They have unilaterally decided – as with global warming and any number of other issues – that conservatives are wrong and must be defeated.

While those on the right see America’s immigration laws as vital national security measures that must be enforced, too many on the other side of the aisle believe such legislation should be ignored, and those in violation be unequivocally pardoned.

Though this trend is hardly new, a disturbingly high number of Republicans have recently joined forces with those who seek to dismantle our sovereignty as a nation by legalizing millions of people who entered the U.S. as criminals.

Rick Snyder, the Republican governor of Michigan, is just the latest to express support for amnesty, explaining his position alongside former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg at a recent event in Washington, D.C.

He expressed the need for “comprehensive immigration reform,” calling America’s current immigration law enforcement “a dumb system.”

Snyder, though rarely included in conversations about strong conservative leaders, is nevertheless a symbol of the leftward lurch of establishment GOP members. During his recent statement, he publicly supported an array of proposals that would result in amnesty for illegals – and reduced income for American workers, according to researchers at the Congressional Budget Office.

First and foremost, he wants to see lawmakers “get them in legalized status,” suggesting the next logical step would be full-fledged American citizenship.

“And then the question of citizenship is more a question of differing views on how many steps or what stages you go through,” he continued.

His advocacy sounds exactly like that of the most radical amnesty supporters on the left. With no mention of the extreme impacts – economic and otherwise – that his proposal would inevitably cause, Snyder apparently sees nothing but upside in completely disregarding the laws he was elected to uphold.

As he and other Republicans join the leftist cause on this issue, it will only expedite legislation granting amnesty to illegals. This will, in turn, create a new permanent voting bloc that will reward the Republican effort by guaranteeing Democrat victories throughout the foreseeable future.

Getting Along In The GOP

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)

Recently, I’ve heard some resounding influential voices of the Republican Party repeating that tired old line that we must, as a party, all get along, regardless of our differences.

To a point, I would agree that this is true. We of the GOP do need to be careful not to “strain on a gnat, to swallow a camel,” as the old expression goes.

That said, if we are still a party that believes in the traditions of our founding and the Constitution, we do need to hold true to these principles that are still overwhelmingly held as standards among the party’s voting base.

These days, though, it seems that many who brand themselves with our party’s name believe that it is more important for them, as politicians, to get along with each other than it is to get along with those who vote them into, or out of, office.

In recent months and weeks, surely unrelated to their aspirations for election and re-election, some politicians have reiterated these talking points.

Just among the Texas politicians I’ve personally voted for, there is one gentleman in Washington who continues to paint himself as a dyed-in-the-wool conservative in spite of his voting record that has, of late, increasingly proven otherwise. Then, there is a local politician who votes with his conservative base 97% of the time, but is often afraid to consider himself a conservative Republican. In his view, it seems that labels such as “Mainstream Republican” or “Moderate Republican” are safer bets in pleasing the masses.

In my view, I’m not sure which is worse.

The latter of these two examples has personally related to me that we need to discontinue the usage of labels such as “R.I.N.O.” (Republican in Name Only) when describing those with whom we disagree on key issues among our party’s ranks.

I couldn’t help but notice this line of thinking, as it was recently repeated by Governor Mike Huckabee on his regular Fox News show.

He likewise expressed his disdain for the term “RINO,” saying that “I’d rather go to battle with someone who isn’t perfect than with someone who thinks he is.”

He went on to say that we shouldn’t waste our time quarreling with those we agree with 90% of the time, but that we should unify against those forces that stand in stark contrast to our convictions.

I continue to believe that Mike Huckabee brings presidential material to the table in any election cycle, especially when compared to the one who currently holds the office; but these words from him struck a negative chord with me.

When there is no other choice, such as in the conclusion of a recent campaign, I tend to agree with Mr. Huckabee on his point.

However, it occurs to me that there are only two ways by which any two disagreeing individuals or groups of individuals ever come to agreement: You must either compromise your convictions for those of others, or you must convince the other to compromise his convictions for yours.

Either of these two scenarios can be realized through sincere conviction or coercion.

I’m not a one (or even two) issue voter, but I believe that disagreement on a single issue should be a deal breaker within our party when the decision on that issue stands to either follow or disregard the U.S. Constitution.

If you haven’t noticed by now, I’m on the side of the Constitution.

Compromise is a double-edged sword. When you’re right, you’d better be sure that the sharpest edge is the outer rather than the inner.

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)


Governor: Conservatives “Have No Place” Here

Photo credit: saebaryo (Creative Commons)

Though outrageous statements by leftist leaders in New York are hardly newsworthy, the state’s governor has landed in hot water after some particularly incendiary comments he made in a recent interview.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a bitterly partisan Democrat who has proposed some of the most permissive abortion laws in the nation, expressed his disdain toward pro-life activists, indicating they are not welcome in the state.

He trashed the infighting among Republicans, claiming the far right is to blame for many of the problems in New York.

“Is the Republican Party in this state a moderate party or is it an extreme conservative party?” he asked. As long as the GOP includes members who believe in the sanctity of life, he suggested his state only has room for far-left Democrats.

“Who are they?” he asked, referring to New York Republicans. “Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

Leave it to an ideological leftist to put all of a state’s inhabitants into a box, precluding any possibility that there might actually be some room for traditional morality inside the hotbed of moral relativism.

Perhaps he is still upset with Republicans in the state senate who prevented his radical abortion bill from passing last year. Opponents of the bill rightfully argued that Cuomo wanted to raise abortion to the level of a civil right, limiting virtually any restrictions on the murderous act.

No matter his motivation, though, plenty of conservatives are outraged that a governor would make such intolerant remarks about a huge percentage of the nation – and his state. As one prominent New York religious leader expressed on Twitter, Cuomo’s comments are making other states look even more attractive to residents on the right.


High taxes and an expanding bureaucracy have already prompted countless conservatives to leave the state. Cuomo apparently wants to purge New York of its remaining right-wingers. Of course, without hardworking conservatives, the fragile entitlement state will likely crumble under the weight of unsustainable demand.

Click here to listen to Cuomo’s entire interview with Susan Arbetter of The Capitol Pressroom.

–B. Christopher Agee

Have an idea for a story? Email us at

Photo credit: saebaryo (Creative Commons)

Is Prodigal GOP Inching Home?

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)

I’m a Bible-believing Christian first, a conservative second, and, sometimes with rapidly dwindling frequency, a Republican third (but only when the Grand Old Party is behaving itself).

Although the GOP’s RINO establishment still controls its legislative reins, I’m mildly encouraged by some recent developments at the Republican National Committee (RNC) level. It seems that under the leadership of Chairman Reince Priebus, the party is moving – at least to some degree – back toward its historical conservative platform moorings.

It’s a popular refrain among “moderate” Republicans and libertine libertarians that the GOP “must give up the fight on ‘social issues’” (i.e. gun rights, religious freedom, protecting life, and defending legitimate marriage and the natural family).

If the GOP follows through and abandons these transcendent conservative values, it’s done once and for all. The Republican Party had better run, not walk, back toward these conservative platform principles; otherwise, Democrats will rule in perpetuity. The “progressive” juggernaut will finish off an America it has already maimed beyond recognition.

As I’ve noted before, Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds what I call “complete conservatism.” The legs symbolize a strong national defense, strong free-market principles, and strong traditional social values. For the stool to remain upright, it must be supported by all three legs. If you snap off even one leg, the stool collapses under its own weight.

A Republican, for instance, who is conservative on social and national defense issues but liberal on fiscal issues is not a complete conservative. He is a quasi-conservative socialist.

A Republican who is conservative on fiscal and social issues but liberal on national defense issues is not a complete conservative. He is a quasi-conservative dove.

By the same token, a Republican who is conservative on fiscal and national defense issues but liberal on social issue – such as abortion, homosexual activism, or the Second Amendment – is not a complete conservative. He is a socio-liberal libertarian.

Karl Rove represents the embodiment of this kind of mushy moderate false pragmatism – a Democrat-lite mindset embraced by the GOP’s socio-liberal establishment. If you run into Karl and his ilk, don’t forget to thank them for President Dole, President McCain, and President Romney.

Indeed, if the Republican Party ever hopes to occupy the Oval Office again, it’s going to have to nominate a complete conservative and adopt a legislative agenda that reflects the values shared by the tens-of-millions who make up the GOP’s complete conservative base. I don’t mean by simply paying empty lip service either. I mean through unwavering legislative practice.

As Mitt Romney might tell you, if the base ain’t fired up, the base ain’t going to the polls.

In 2012, the GOP approved a platform that, at least in writing, re-established a firm position on – as they say – “guns, ‘gays,’ and abortion.” It’s now time for the Republican Party to stand firm atop that platform. As a complete conservative who shudders at the thought of a President Hillary “Benghazi” Clinton, I’m cautiously optimistic that some in leadership are beginning to scale the platform once more. The RNC, under Priebus, has recently taken steps that seem to indicate the message of the GOP’s majority base is finally getting through.

For example, the Washington Times recently reported: “In an unprecedented show of opposition to abortion, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is delaying the start of the party’s annual winter meeting so he and other committee members can join the (Jan. 22) March for Life on the Mall. …”

“‘I saw that there was a real interest among a significant portion of our members to attend and support the Rally for Life,’ Mr. Priebus said in an email to the Times. ‘This is a core principle of our party. It was natural for me to support our members and our principles,’” he said.

Moreover, this past Thursday was National Religious Freedom Day. In recent years, we’ve seen religious freedom under attack at unprecedented levels through things like the HHS abortion mandate, so-called “gay marriage,” and “sexual orientation” laws that target religious business owners. The RNC released the following statement indicating that the GOP intends to defend religious freedom:

“Today we celebrate National Religious Freedom Day and honor the vision of our founders, who ensured every American would have the right to ‘the free exercise’ of his or her faith. As a party, Republicans are committed to preserving and defending the protections enshrined in the First Amendment so that future generations will always enjoy religious freedom in America.”

This move back toward the GOP’s conservative platform has made some socio-liberal Republicans unhappy. In fact, it recently drove homosexual RINO Jimmy LaSalvia, the founder of GOProud (a tiny “gay activist” outfit), to announce that he was defecting from the party.

LaSalvia told Time magazine that “he could no longer take his own party’s refusal to stand up to bigotry: he was leaving the Republican Party and had registered as an Independent.”

By refusing to “stand up to bigotry,” of course, LaSalvia, like all “gay” activists, means that he can no longer abide the Republican platform’s support for religious freedom and pro-family values.

LaSalvia’s frustration and defection bode well for the Republican Party in general. It means that the GOP is moving slowly – ever so slowly – back toward its conservative roots. This is good news indeed. The more conservative this prodigal GOP becomes; the more successful it will be going forward.

Keep it up, Mr. Priebus; and in November, your base just might grill up the fatted calf.


Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)