The best interest of the child...

The great Phyllis Schafly on why Children's Rights Should Include Life With Both Parents:

Debates about same-sex marriage and gay adoptions always include the argument that a child has the right to both a father and a mother. If that is true, why is a child usually deprived of that right when heterosexual couples divorce?

It would seem that maintaining the father's love and authority would be crucial when a child's life is turned upside down by divorce. Yet, family courts routinely deprive children of one parent, usually the father, restricting his time with his child to about six days a month.

The courts pompously assert they are invoking "the best interest of the child," but how can it be in the best interest of children to make them forfeit one parent?

We hear many pious comments about the need for fathers to be involved in the upbringing of their children. This need should be even more important in times of emotional stress, such as divorce, than the need for fathers to play ball with their kids in an intact family.

Some states are considering legislation that establishes a presumption of shared parenting whereby divorced parents divide equally both time and authority over the children. This enables children to maintain strong ties to both parents.

When primary or sole custody is given to the mother, the father becomes merely a visitor in the child's life (that's why it's called "visitation"), whose only value is to mail a paycheck and be an occasional baby sitter. The father loses his parental authority and fades out of his own child's life. ...

Read the rest.

Related resources:
All Pro Dad
John Eldredge - Wild at Heart and Way of the Wild Heart
The Fatherhood Coalition
Heartbreaking fatherhood stats

Immigration 'compromise legislation': a bitter pill with a very thin sugar coating of promises...

Mark Alexander is spot-on again when he says that immigration reform starts at the border:

... As I outlined last year in an essay entitled “Insanity on bordering,” immigration legislation must first address national security issues, meaning border security and enforcement are paramount.

Once border security has been established, the following priorities must be authorized and funded: immediate detention and deportation of those crossing our borders illegally; deportation of any foreign national convicted of a serious crime or seditious activity; a guest-worker program (with reliable documentation as prerequisite) to meet the current demand for unskilled labor; penalties against employers who hire undocumented workers; no extension of blanket amnesty or fast-track citizenship (new citizenship applicants to the back of the line); the preservation and provision of tax-subsidized medical, educational and social services for American citizens and immigrants here legally, and the Americanization of new legal immigrants, including a national mandate for English as the official language and an end to bilingual education.

Additionally, the Supreme Court must affirm that there is no constitutional birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. The 14th Amendment’s relevant clause reads “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Children born to those who have entered the U.S. illegally are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” (More on that subject next week.)

If immigration policy does not start at the border, our national heritage will end there. Please support the national campaign to stop the compromise and secure our borders.

That was just the conclusion. Read it all.

Related:
Immigration: Why Aren't Republicans Crying? by David Limbaugh
Why Congress Caved to Bush by Patrick J. Buchanan
Republican Immigrant Rage by Robert Novak
Senate Immigration Bill is a Sellout, Not Reform By Phyllis Schlafly
First a Fence (radio podcast) By Dennis Prager
A Christian View on Illegal Immigration By Frank Pastore
The Great Lie At The Heart Of The Senate Amnesty Bill By Mac Johnson
Why Don’t We Just Bring Back Slavery? By Phillip Ellis Jackson

Lou Dobbs is right:


Comedy Update: And I've heard that Mexicans are good at catapult engineering:


In The Know: The U.S. Moat

Ann Coulter is back...

...and Matt Lauer does his best to kick off the book tour.

Rick Moran doesn't like Ann much.

She's agressive, intimidating, unafraid and articulate. She's also often right and ridiculously (wonderfully) pointed in her commentary. She - along with Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Marie Jon', Star Parker, and of course Phyllis Schlafly - is forcing liberalism out into the open.

You be the judge, just look for the truth and not the emotion.

Ian says he will have the entire video soon.

***Update 6-7-06***

More video links:

Lauer v. Coulter: ‘Godless’ Author Attacked By Liberal Matt

Coulter on Hannity & Colmes

Coulter responds

-Home-

Reconquista & Aztlan - Our heads are in the sand...

**Bumped**

Reconquista is real.

Click the picture to the right for a very disturbing video.
(Hat tip Prudence)

The conquest has already begun, so let's just move it along and offer amnesty or "a path to citizenship" to millions more.

Michelle Malkin has been all over the reconquista...here.

Renew America is on the same page with some great info and links. Here are some:

The "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America"

Council on Foreign Relations - "Building a North American Community"

White House "Fact Sheet" confirming the agreement

Phyllis Schlafly on "CFR's Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada".

You ready to trade in your dollars for ameros?

-Home-

If you do not check in with Michelle Malkin on a regular basis, you are simply not informed...

Michelle's blog is, I think, the very best out there. She is unbelievably well-informed, and her insights are tremendous.

She's typically ranked behind Glenn Reynolds in the Ecosystem, but she's leading the way in my book.

Check out these latest posts:
HOMELAND INSECURITY BULLETIN & UN HUMAN ANTI-RIGHTS COUNCIL & AAYAN HIRSI ALI AT HARVARD

Michelle has also just started a new online network called Hot Air. Again, you must check it out regularly.

Her daily video report called "Vent" is a must-watch also. The latest called More Border Disorder is great.

Finally, her columns. I have no idea how she has the time, but they're always interesting, if not controversial.

As with Ann Coulter, Thomas Sowell, Mac Johnson, Phyllis Schlafly...you're missing out if you don't read every one.

-Home-

Phyllis Schlafly, the "Margaret Thatcher" of the Conservative movement, hears a crescendo building...

Phyllis Schlafly for president! How unappealing that proposition would likely seem to Ms. Schlafly.

Where are all the inspiring candidates anyway? Where's the next Ronald Reagan? Does anyone see that kind of clear-thinking conservative leadership in McCain?... in Allen?... in Romney? Certainly not in Frist.

The Drums Are Beating to a Conservative Crescendo, by Phyllis Schlafly

A new conservative uprising is stirring and no one should be surprised. The Republican establishment has been drifting leftward, and a backlash had to come against the big government spenders in legislatures and against supremacist judges who order the spending.

Witness the conservative complaints against the Texas Republican leadership for trying to railroad through, in a special legislative session, a new tax on businesses that would impose $3 billion in new taxes on the most productive workers in Texas.

Is this justified by a shortfall in the budget? No, Texas has a budget surplus of more than $8 billion this year and business is booming.

Contrast that with California, which runs annual multibillion-dollar budget deficits and has a bond rating that ranks as low as hurricane-damaged Louisiana. The major difference is income taxes; California has the highest effective top rate (factoring in lack of deductions), while Texas has no personal or business income tax.

If Texas Republicans think they are helping their state or party by imposing a tax on business, they are badly misguided. Despite carefully obtaining the blessing of key leaders in both political parties, the grass roots are rising up against higher taxes.

The revolt is a replay of what happened after President Bush lined up bipartisan support for his personal top choice for the U.S. Supreme Court, Harriet Miers. Conservatives rallied against her nomination, and Bush replaced her with Justice Samuel A. Alito.

The failed Dubai Ports deal gave us another example of how conservative natives are getting restless. Despite Bush's threat to veto any legislation to kill the deal, Congress heeded the loud and clear message from the grass roots and did exactly that.

Apparently these lessons were lost on Republican leaders in Miers' home state of Texas. Her chief booster (the one who assured us that Miers is conservative), Texas Justice Nathan Hecht, writing for the state Supreme Court, ordered the Texas Legislature to revamp its public school funding by June 1.

Activist judges in other states, notably Kansas and Arizona, have been ordering state legislatures to appropriate more funding for public schools. The judges have convinced themselves that only judges are wise enough to know how much taxpayer money is "equitable" or "adequate," and Hecht is apparently infected with that same judicial conceit.

Conservative Texas Supreme Court Justice Scott Brister wasn't fooled by his court's decision. He dissented vigorously. The Texas Legislature should not be fooled nor intimidated because levying taxes and appropriating money are legislative, not judicial, powers.

It is long overdue for state legislatures to educate state judges about the separation of powers and the fact that state courts should defer to elected representatives on taxes and spending.

Instead, Texas Republican legislators are jumping in Pavlovian response to the court's arbitrary demands and deadline. A lame-duck session of the Legislature has convened to try to increase taxes to appease the court.

The Republicans rallied behind a tax increase recommended by Democrat John Sharp, who said, "I view this as my last shot to do anything significant in government." Is imposing new taxes now a badge of honor?

One business, Braidwood Management, wrote Texas legislators that its taxes will increase tenfold - from $5,000 last year to $55,000 under the proposed bill. Is budget-surplus Texas now heading down the road of near-bankrupt California?

Teachers unions, with their overwhelmingly Democratic membership, are tickled pink that Republicans are doing this unpopular work. The unions can blame the tax hike on Republicans and laugh all the way to the bank as they soak up new revenue.

Enter stage right. Conservative radio personality Dan Patrick declared, "I cannot and will not support a tax increase on homeowners or business owners." Patrick just upset the Republican establishment by winning a landslide victory in the primary for a Texas state senate seat.

Missouri has shown what the real conservative position is on taxes. Thanks to the Hancock Amendment of 1980, a surplus in tax collections must be refunded to the taxpayers, and nearly $1 billion was refunded to individual and corporate taxpayers from 1995 to 1999.

Conservative challenges to tax-and-spend Republicans are gaining around the country. Despite strenuous efforts by the Republican National Committee to prop up U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., for re-election, this tax-and-spend Republican In Name Only ran dead last among his major primary and general election opponents in fundraising this past quarter. His wife has now appealed to Democrats to change their registration to vote for him in the Republican primary.

The politically tone-deaf White House, which is still trying to shove a very unpopular amnesty bill through the Senate, should listen to the grass roots. The sooner there is a reconciliation, the better off our country, our economy and the Republican Party will be.

Stay tuned...

-Home-

Will conservatives "settle" again in '08 as McCain runs to the right?

What McCain has to offer, by Martin L. Gross

Here's the conclusion...as if you couldn't tell from the title:

"Wanted: A president of the United States. Must be willing to work 110 hours a week, setting aside time to fight the light heavyweight champion of the world before lunch. He must be anxious to suffer psychic torture by daily watching Oprah and Katie Couric on television in the Oval Office, then be interviewed by Mike Wallace -- all the while conducting four simultaneous wars throughout the globe as commander in chief. Must be willing to face editorial demonization by the media, tussle with congressional opposition including threats of impeachment from Sen. Russ Feingold, while dealing with Cabinet officers being discharged for corruption. He must be able to handle a low 20 percent approval rating without losing heart or his natural optimism. Most important, the president must be willing to die in office as a symbol of his dedication to the American people, a love affair that will not be requited until 30 years later. Apply Box 101, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., along with a non-refundable deposit of $10 million."

Who among the contenders would be courageous enough to respond to such a daunting ad? Only one: Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Why? Is he so hopelessly ambitious to suffer indignity for his personal goals?

Perhaps, but more important, he seems to be the only one who has that in-born authentic patriotic spirit that requires him to sacrifice for this nation. Plus he seems to have the sense of destiny, shared by Washington, Lincoln, FDR and Reagan -- that he is the only one of his time capable of the onerous job of a president under shattering fire.

Besides, after years of torture by the communists in the Hanoi Hilton, he has already survived the test of the constant attack he will have to undergo as president.

Not everyone loves Mr. McCain. He has made some mistakes along the way, including running against George W. Bush in the 2000 primary, then insulting the religious right, a vital force in the Republican Party.

Liberals are tantalized by him, but they fear his anti-abortion and low-tax stand. Others are wary of his constant agenda of reform in lobbying and campaign financing and his strong anti-pork views.

But most of Middle America trusts him. As for the media, who have sharp teeth for any conservative, it would be hard for them to demonize a wily John McCain as they have Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney.

In summation, Mr. McCain is the only presidential candidate possible for the Republican nomination. And as a plus, he is the only one who can defeat any candidate the hapless Democratic Party can put up, especially Hillary Clinton.

McCain on Imus...

I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government.

Here's the video: (posthumous update on 5/11/06 from George Will here)



This may be too cynical, but it appears to me that the liberal media/journalists are promoting McCain more than ever as a conservative...propping him up in order to try and make him more appealing to the conservative Republican base. McCain could probably run as a Democrat and win the nomination.

So...will his "move to the right" work? Personally, I'm not enthusiastic about any of the potential candidates at this point. I'm afraid, as in 2000 and 2004, that my 2008 vote will once again be cast for the person that I am least unenthusiastic about.

A little irony...I imagine that if running as a Democrat McCain might well win the nomination. Same for Lieberman on the Republican side. Maybe the "conservative media" should start propping Joe up as left-wing.

Some potentially great tickets: Rice/Coulter, Schlafly/Sowell, Hannity/Malkin ?

Related:
John McCain v. America
John McCain: Liberal in Disguise
The fall and rise of Mr Right

-Home-

A "Bush is wrong on Immigration" roundup

**UPDATE - 2/14/2006**

Phyliss Schlafly chimes in with great commentary...as usual.

...The Bush Administration whines that it can't (i.e., won't) do anything to implement border security unless its guest-worker/amnesty proposal is part of the legislative package, and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff looked pathetically weak when interviewed on television by Bill O'Reilly. When is our government going to protect us from the crime, the drugs, the smuggling racket, destruction of property, the endangerment to U.S. residents along our border and our undermanned Border Patrol?

In charge of protecting Americans against this war is 36-year-old Julie Myers, to whom President Bush gave a recess appointment after her Senate confirmation bogged down because of her total lack of law-enforcement experience. Her qualifications are her connections: she is the niece of former Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers and the wife of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff's chief of staff...

** END UPDATE **

For many conservatives, it seems that the alternative to George W. Bush was/is so terrifying that even when he's screwing up we take solice in the fact that he's not John Kerry...or Hillary, Dean or Gore for that matter.

Combined with the all-too-common inability to articulate his message, this has led to the expectations for Bush creeping lower and lower. As he walked out to deliver his latest SOTU address for example, all I could think was "just don't stammer your way through this...and don't give us too much of that emploring 'I'm smarter than you think I am' cheesy grin-speak". Practically all he had to do was stay on his feet and I'd be feeling good about his performance.

Many conservatives feel good about what he's not, and cling to grateful optimism by continuously lowering the Bush-bar. On the scale of right-wrong however, George W. Bush has walked on the wrong side, and even has some conservatives comparing him to...Jimmy Carter?

Chuck Muth
"The White House doesn't have a tin ear on this issue; it's DEAF. And it isn't just conservatives who want stricter border control without the amnesty...er, guest worker program. Citizens from sea to shining sea of all political stripes simply won't support any kind of "guest worker" program until they FIRST see serious and dramatic changes in how the nation's immigration laws are enforced. Period. End of story."

J.D. Hayworth
"Both the timing and the thin, patchwork context of this House bill reinforce my concern that Washington continues to view illegal immigration as a political problem to be managed rather than an invasion to be stopped. Now is the time for bold steps, not timid incrementalism."

"It is up to the people to deliver this message to Congress: Enforcement first; no amnesty; no excuses; this time, get it right. Do whatever it takes to protect our national security and our sovereignty,"

Rep. Tom Tancredo
(on the 01/06 SOTU) "Sadly, the President missed yet another great opportunity to correct his course on immigration reform tonight. The President should have clarified his plan and joined the forces in Congress holding the line against amnesty. Instead, Americans will have to wait and wonder where the President stands on securing our borders, while he pushes for guest workers."

Mac Johnson
"Any measure to reform our immigration system is pointless until we reform our immigration enforcement system. So please, Mr. President, give us our stick up front this time, and then we can talk about carrots. Let’s get control of the situation and show that we can enforce the laws we have before we begin fantasizing about new laws."

Rep. Mike Pence
"The first thing we have to do is close the border. We can do that. We have the technology and the resources to do it. I am someone who believes that a nation that cannot defend its borders is not a nation, and if we secure our border first, then the American people who believe in what it says on the Statue of Liberty would be prepared to consider a broad range of proposals unrelated to citizenship in regards to the eight to 10 million people who are here. But I’m not willing to consider that until we’ve closed the border, because one of the unbroken truths of amnesty in American history has been if the back door is ajar and you announce amnesty, then you are going to greatly worsen your problem with illegal immigration as people sprint for the continental United States."

Human Events Top 10 Lists
Top 10 Priorities for GOP Congress in 2006

10. End earmarks
9. Ban all human cloning
8. Repeal Medicare Prescription Drug Plan
7. Stop President Bush’s amnesty/guest worker plan
6. Authorize oil drilling in ANWR
5. Renew the Patriot Act
4. Reform Social Security with private accounts
3. Cut federal government spending
2. Make President Bush’s tax cuts permanent, including abolition of the death tax
1. Build border fence to cover entire U.S.-Mexico border

Lynn Woolley
"President Bush can blather on all he wants to about matching willing workers with willing employers -- but none of that will make much difference if the Southwestern region of the United States becomes so Mexicanized that it seeks a rejoining with Mexico -- known to those who support it as “the Reconquista.”"

Here's the kicker...

Charles Hurt
"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is staking out a position on illegal immigration that is more conservative than President Bush, a strategy that supporters and detractors alike see as a way for the New York Democrat to shake the "liberal" label and appeal to traditionally Republican states.

Mrs. Clinton — who is tagged as a liberal because of her plan for nationalized health care and various remarks during her husband's presidency — is taking an increasingly vocal and hard-line stance on an issue that ranks among the highest concerns for voters, particularly Republicans."

Phyllis Schlafly on Title IX - Radical feminism doesn't jive with public demand

Radical Feminists Reinterpret Title IX
by Phyllis Schlafly
Posted January 17, 2006

Phyllis Schlafly is right.

"This year's spectacular Rose Bowl game attracted a phenomenal 35.6 million viewers because it featured what we want: rugged men playing football and attractive women cheering them on...

The runaway success of this game proved again that stereotypical roles for men and women do not bother Americans one bit. Political correctness lost out as all-male teams battled and women cheered...

It's too bad that male sports are being eliminated on most college campuses. Except for Texas, USC, and a few other places, radical feminism rules in the athletic departments at the expense of popular male sports...

Feminists oppose anything that is all-male or all-female unless it's gay marriage. The Feminist Majority Foundation posts this warning on its website:

'By encouraging boys to become aggressive, violent athletes, and by encouraging girls to cheer for them, we perpetuate the cycle of male aggression and violence against women.'

Meanwhile, the feminists are censoring out hundreds of traditional manly college sports teams...

Several years ago, Howard University Athletic Director Sondra Norrell-Thomas announced her elimination of both its wrestling and baseball teams on the same day. It should surprise no one that Howard University's male enrollment has dropped to only 34 percent compared to 66 percent female...

On June 2, 1997, the feminist National Women's Law Center announced that it would file a complaint against Boston University, the fourth largest private school in the nation, over its sports programs. Within months, BU ended the football team that had been in existence for 91 years. It is no surprise that male enrollment at Boston University is now down to 40%...

In the entire State of Washington, there is no longer a single major college wrestling team, despite wrestling’s huge popularity in high schools. Wrestling is one of the least expensive sports, requiring almost no equipment and having a low risk of injury, but feminists are working to eliminate all masculine sports...

The few colleges that have held firm against feminist pressure continue to attract males. Penn State, for example, has kept its superb programs in football, wrestling, baseball and track, and enjoys a 55-45 percent male-to-female enrollment...

The lack of college sports teams and camaraderie makes many high school boys wonder, why bother going to college? Despite the bloated price of college tuition, college doesn't even offer the sports opportunities that they enjoyed in their poorer high schools...

Public demand is for all-male sports, not female contests. Boys do not want to go to a college that eliminates the macho sports, and that is true even if the boy does not expect to compete himself...

The effects of the feminists' attack on men's sports are now coming home to roost. By the time this year's college freshmen are seniors, the ratio will be 60 percent women to 40 percent men, and women are now crying that there are not enough college-educated men to marry...

China's brutal one-child policy has artificially created millions of young men for whom no wives are available. Right here at home, the feminists have created millions of college-educated women for whom no college-educated men are available, and the trend is getting steadily worse...

Part of the change in the ratio of male and female college students is due to the ruthless interpretation of Title IX by the radical feminist bureaucrats in the Carter and Clinton administrations. Unfortunately, President George W. Bush and Secretary of Education Rod Paige chickened out on their opportunity to remedy the mischief...

Congress should step into the gap and stop funding colleges that terminate men's sports to meet arbitrary feminist quotas. Congress should imitate its action in passing the Solomon Amendment that tells colleges they will lose federal funding if they discriminate against military recruiters...

Congress should tell colleges they will lose federal funding if they discriminate against men's sports. The American people clearly want male football, baseball, track and wrestling, and colleges that cut these sports should be cut out of the federal budget."

More Title IX resources:
Gender Equity in College Sports Data
About Title IX
Save Title IX
Schiller Law Firm slide show
Equity Resource Center FAQ on Title IX
Title IX news articles