Point in fact, America has always been the country where immigrants could start a new life. Government, for the most part, has struggled and often failed to regulate incoming foreigners. And until recently, it didn’t really matter. Sure, it’d be nice to know everyone’s legal name, have their birth certificate, and make sure they weren’t carrying infectious diseases. But for the majority of American history, the United States government has had other priorities.

Recently, however, the ever-expanding problem of citizen entitlement has pushed border conflicts to new levels of partisan intensity. Conservatives paradoxically push for more regulation, more exclusivity, and more fences of bureaucracy for would-be immigrants to climb.

Perhaps they’re forced to. The Government has exponentially increased benefits available to citizens and stepped up enforcement to make sure that laborers are working in humane conditions. Naturally, this makes U.S. citizenship one of the best financial deals on Earth. With expanding health care rights, the deal is only getting better.

Of course, if a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t. There’re very few projected outcomes for U.S. fiscal possibilities that don’t end with high taxation. It seems that we can’t sustain the benefits of living like Europeans without getting taxed like Europeans. Tea partyers may fight it, but there’s only one possible outcome with current systems in place: lots of new taxes.

As a temporary solution to a financial crisis caused by an out of control government, Republicans have often pushed tighter border security. After all, less government beneficiaries means less government benefit costs.

But controlling border security is a band-aid on a gaping wound of the U.S. budget. Pushing for despotic border immigration control runs against core values of America and conservatism.

Of course, blatantly ignoring the rule of law by pretending like illegal immigrants have fulfilled the necessary tasks (or, worse, offering carte blanche amnesty) equally ignores central tenets of our social contract. Starting a whole new generation of Americans with a skewed view of the law is hardly ideal.

So conservatives should be pursuing a new agenda instead of the temporary patch of border tyranny. Push to decrease entitlements and give everyone the rights guarenteed by the Constitution.

Perhaps summarized best by Emma Lazarus, the immigration policy should be one of welcoming to a land of new opportunities and associated responsibilities.

“The New Colossus”

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she

With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Bleeding-heart liberal sentiments? Only if citizenship is given without appropriate responsibility. Much like Wabash, lack of regulations requires a community to be built on real commitments. That’s won’t be fostered by domineering immigration laws, nor by pushover welfare policies. And conservatives should be the people pointing America back in the right direction.

Related posts:

1. Conservatives Should Stand for English, Not Against Immigration
2. How Not to Talk about Illegal Immigration
3. Little Mexico, Big Dream: An Immigration Success Story

4th District GOP Congressional Nominee Todd Rokita

Todd Rokita, whose primary opponent Brandt Hershman was endorsed by the incumbent Congressman Steve Buyer, won an overwhelming victory tonight, taking 41% of the vote to Hershman’s 15%, with 94% of the precincts reporting.

Luke Messer, facing off against incumbent Congressman Dan Burton, very nearly wrestled the GOP nomination away from the 28-year political veteran. Burton was declared the victor with 99% of precincts reporting – he garnered only 30% of the vote, to Messer’s 28%. There were five additional candidates on the Republican ticket, and if any of them had dropped out, this would have been a very different race. If Republicans attempting to unseat Burton learn a lesson from tonight, they will coalesce around one man next time. And if tonight’s showing is any indicator, that man will be Luke Messer.

Carlos May faced an uphill battle in his primary against five-time 7th District candidate Marvin Scott, but he never let the challenge slow him down. With 96% of precincts reporting, May is running behind Scott, 44% to 37%. As with Messer, a spoiler candidate seems to have contributed May’s defeat. Wayne Harmon is taking 19% of the vote.

A fourth Wabash man, Charlie White, is expected to be nominated as the candidate for Secretary of State by delegates at the GOP State Convention in Indianapolis this June.

Update via WISHTV: Rokita’s Acceptance Speech

Related posts:

1. Update on the Wabash Candidates
2. A Time Honored Tradition: Wabash and Public Service
3. Evan Bayh’s Senate Opponents to Visit Wabash

Flash forward to 2009. Popular Governor Evan Bayh became popular Senator Evan Bayh, and even in a year where Democratic policies were falling increasingly out of favor, his 2010 reelection seemed inevitable. But that didn’t stop State Senator Marlin Stutzman from mounting an aggressive campaign to unseat him.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Despite the rhetoric coming from some in the Tea Parties, Dan Coats is not a RINO. He’s a good, honorable, mostly conservative man, and in his day he was a good, honorable, mostly conservative senator — with a few notable exceptions, of course. But if his past has proven him to be a good Republican, it has not proven him to be a good fighter.

Republican voters should not be too comforted by recent polls showing Coats with a massive lead over presumptive Democratic nominee Brad Ellsworth — this is a very early stage of the campaign, in a state where competitive senate races are a rarity. The polls will eventually tighten. At this point, it’s all about name recognition. Voters know Coats, but not Ellsworth. The Coats they know, however, is from the 1990s. His time as a lobbyist since then gives him plenty of exploitable negatives — negatives that diminish his appeal to both the left and the right. And Ellsworth’s time as a sheriff likewise gives him plenty of exploitable positives, that will increase his appeal to both sides of the aisle.

It would be foolish to assume that this election will be easy. Most elections aren’t. And even when they are, it is foolish to approach them half-heartedly. When Hoosier Republicans go to the polls on May 4 to choose their candidate, they need to ask themselves the question: do they want the man who backs down in the face of tough challenges, or the man takes them on enthusiastically?

Click here to view the embedded video.

Disclaimer: As noted on our blog page, this piece represents the views of the author alone, and not the Wabash Conservative Union.

Related posts:

1. Thoughts on the Warsaw, Indiana Republican Senate Debate
2. Evan Bayh and the Media Narrative
3. Evan Bayh’s Senate Opponents to Visit Wabash

First, in the Warsaw Senate debate, he implied, but stopped short of actually saying, that he would physically harm a metaphorical intruder “climbing through the back window” of his home instead of using the “front door.”

You know, there’s two facts about our country. One is, we are a nation of immigrants. That’s what makes us great. All different races, colors, cultures. We’re also a Republic of laws. And we live by the law. You know, if you come to my house, and the front light is on — the porch light’s on — you’re welcome. Come knock on the front door, open up, come on in. If I catch you climbing through the back window, in my house, I’m likely to, uh…we don’t need another YouTube moment but…you know, I don’t know what’s going on. You know, and while you’re in my house, I ask that you live by my house rules. And I would like that you speak English, thank you very much.

He then decided not to be so wishy-washy in the Huntington debate, saying that the metaphorical intruder is “likely to get shot,” and implying that said intruder wants to harm children.

I’m going to treat it like my house, folks. You know… you’re welcome to come in my front door anytime…but if I find you climbing in the back window, you’re likely to get shot. And if you hurt one of my kids, I am going to shoot you. And by the way, when you’re in my house, I expect you to obey the house rules and speak English.

This goes too far on a number of levels. Regardless of where you stand on the immigration debate, the fact remains that there are an estimated eleven to twenty million illegal immigrants living among us today. They’re not sneaking in the windows. They’re already here. They’re members of our communities. Most of them came here seeking employment. Most of them don’t want to hurt your children — they’re too busy taking care of their own. Most of them worship the same God we do. All of them were created in the image of that God. All of them deserve a certain level of respect by simple virtue of that fact.

If you want to deport them, fine. If you want them to have a path to citizenship, fine. We can have a debate about that. But please, don’t even joke about shooting them. I know that Mr. Behney has been a little trigger happy in the past, but I hope that he begins to tame his rhetoric soon. Even as a metaphor and a joke, this goes too far. We’re talking about human beings here.

Related posts:

1. Conservatives Should Stand for English, Not Against Immigration
2. On the Arizona Immigration Law
3. Little Mexico, Big Dream: An Immigration Success Story

As I use this portable printing press, the question of why must inevitably arise. In fact, a little thought (like Pope’s “little learning”) is enought to make it seem dangerously insane. Think of the computer technology that no one uses because it is obsolete. But when this technology was itself fresh out of the cradle, the manual typewriter I am using was already a dinosaur. In fact, it would have been rather ridiculous even back when the Web could only be used to communicate messages as simple (and yet profound) as “Some pig”. So why on earth would I deliberately confine myself to such an outdated word processing device when we now have so much more efficient ways of giving visible form to words? Furthermore, why am I posting this on the blog of the Wabash Conservative Union?

I think a typewriter is a useful jumping-off place for thinking about a variety of topics. Let us consider the form and function of a typewriter. It is a tool for putting words on paper, just like a printing press or an ordinary pencil. It is prosaic, mechanical, and purely utilitarian. That people can be nostalgic about typewriters is the clearest proof of the fact that nostalgia can be applied to absolutely anything. And yet when we use a rather ordinary tool such as one of these writing implements, we should not forget its ultimate purpose, its final cause. Its purpose is not just to put marks on paper, but the very special kinds of marks we call words, language. And language is far from prosaic and purely utilitarian: a word is an incarnate thought, a messenger from heaven. Since it is incarnate, it will have a different character depending on what kind of body it has, and its body will depend on how it is conceived and delivered: on a typewriter, or Microsoft Word, or a simple text editor, or a pencil, or a ballpoint pen, or a quill pen, or a fountain pen, or a stylus scratching on clay. Therefore, seemingly unimportant considerations such as the method of transcription may have great and often unpredicted effects on the final result.

Right now I don’t propose to get into writing and language and what they are and how they should be used. If you want more on that, I suggest you talk to Dr. Campbell, or see Dr. Benedicks’s Chapel Talk. My purpose is only to suggest that the possibility should not be discounted that external factors may make a significant difference in the way one writes. One might be sitting at a desk in silence and solitude scratching a pen along a piece of paper, or sitting at a manual typewriter making constant physical exertion and hearing a loud clacking noise, or sitting at a computer, straining his eyes somewhat and yet other than that physically at rest—a sheer impossibility while performing the fatiguing tasks of writing longhand or typing manually.

What difference is there likely to be? Perhaps C.S. Lewis was right when he advised a young writer never to use a typewriter because the noise would disturb her sense of rhythym. On the other hand, perhaps a little disturbance is needed. Imagine Thomas Jefferson writing the Declaration of Indepence, isolated in a private room at that famous writing desk, the only sound his quill pen dragging across the parchment. What does that have to do with the real world? Look at the things he was complaining of in that document—a tyrannical king, stepping on the law and on the authority of Parliament, pushing his own agenda without regard to legality or the will of the people (this may sound familiar, but never mind), plundering, ravaging, burning, destroying, exciting domestic insurrections. Does it ring false for him to write about these things while sitting in quiet, waving a white feather? Perhaps he should have had a typewriter so he could have heard some noise: as Screwtape called it, “the grand dynamism, the audible expression of all that is exultant, ruthless, and virile.” Better yet, a computer so that he could receive constant updates on the progress of the war while writing. Even while he complained of the injustice, he would actually hear the cries of the widows and orphans. Would that have resulted in a document to better express the American mind?

Perhaps. It could be so argued. On the other hand, perhaps he was more fortunate than he knew in not sharing the fate of us Wabash students who try to perform similar work to his in crowded, noisy computer labs. Perhaps being caught up on all the breaking news is not the most important part of knowing the truth of a situation, and perhaps one can hear the cry of the poor better in one’s soul when there is less to hear in the ears. As for the usefulness of inner peace and quiet to give full play to the creative faculties, let’s not even go there. Who knows what inner peace is anymore?

It is clear at any rate that the methods used to give birth to words have changed over the years, while the underlying goal has remained the same: to use words to communicate thoughts as effectively as possible. Now I’d like to transfer this line of thought to a higher plane—not just language, but learning itself. Let us suppose—and even this has been challenged, but let us suppose—that the purpose of the existence of Wabash College has always been to educate students in something called the Liberal Arts, a mysterious something that everyone talks about while no one seems to know what it is, except that all are convinced that anything they want for the College, perhaps on completely different grounds, such as C&T, teacher education, a strong pre-med program, a Latin major, or new athletic fields, is an essential part of it. Let us further assume that the many changes which have been made in the Wabash curriculum since its inception have been for the purpose of serving that end. (For a brief overview of these changes, see the first part of Dean Bambrey’s magnificent Chapel Talk, which I highly recommend to all Wabash men who missed it.) This could be done because the curriculum has never existed for its own sake, but is a means to an end. Furthermore, that end is not to produce doctors, lawyers, salesmen, athletes, teachers, ministers, or classicists, but gentlemen, men who are liberally educated. What exactly constitutes a gentleman or liberal education has always been far from clear, but we can agree on the principle. The definition has certainly varied over the years, as well, but the changing definitions are only to serve something greater than themselves.

The curriculum changes seem to be as inevitable as the changes in transcription methods to keep pace with the ever-advancing march of technology. A typewriter and a required four years of Latin are obsolete in just the same way. As Dean Bambrey so rightly told us (if you haven’t listened to that talk, please do so immediately), change is inevitable. However, I think at this point the talk, which I am so thankful to have heard, makes a leap of logic. We have already considered the possibility that changes in writing technology might have unforeseen consequences, and that the resulting changes might not have to be for the better. Now, learning is a greater thing than language, and a college curriculum is more than writing. The stakes are higher and the difficulty is even greater. If, then, even the change from a typewriter to a word processor should be done with fear and trembling, how much more the change to a different liberal arts curriculum! And there is no guarantee that the right decision will be made, any more than you can be sure you aren’t draining your soul every time you write a paper on Microsoft Word. Please don’t laugh. You can’t claim it doesn’t sometimes feel that way.

Therefore, I encourage you to listen critically to certain parts of the talk linked above. When you hear that all changes at Wabash are for the good of the students, “whether they believe it or not”, please don’t let that pass without a very small shudder. It’s true that we are often too dumb to know what’s best for us, but that’s too similar to the rhetoric that builds tyrannies. A curriculum or a piece of it, from an all-college course to a French department, is but a tool. One always has the option of putting down one tool and picking up another, thinking it will be more suitable to the job at hand. But you do so at your own risk and the risk of all who are depending on you to do the work for which you are using the tool. No matter how many faults the old tool had, the new one may have more. You might discard a dull paring knife only to find yourself with a warped potato peeler.

I’m not saying anything wildly subversive here; I’m simply preaching the basic conservative philosophy. There is such a thing as change that is not for the better. Things worsen every day. No matter where the change comes from—the president of the United States, the king of England, or the administration of one’s beloved college—no change should be accepted purely because it is change and change always happens. Each case must be argued on its own merits.

This is my challenge to anyone still reading: don’t be afraid to argue with the inevitable. Don’t be cowed by statements that change is inevitable (always true in general, but always false in particular cases), that it is always for your good (that’s as may be), or that the “Traditional Wabash” so beloved by some students is a fiction and never really existed. Be a conservative. If you think the College is going to hell in a handbasket, don’t be afraid to say so. It’s possible you’re right; institutions have done so before. If you think the liberal arts are being betrayed, don’t be dissuaded from saying so by the words of people who are a little too keen on tolerance and understanding. It’s possible they are being betrayed; it’s certain they are being kissed.

Taken to its logical conclusion, an unquestioning assumption that all change is for the better makes sense only on the assumption that right now we live in the worst of all possible worlds. That’s too pessimistic for me. To find some of the things that are still right in this corner of the world, one need only listen to the last part of Dean Bambrey’s talk. Among the things he mentions: the Mall on a clear night with the stars overhead. The Mall in early morning, with the dew on the grass. The Mall on a snowy late afternoon, its whiteness dazzling. All I can say to that is Amen. I find it impossible to walk across the mall on the sidewalk next to the flag pole and glance across at the Chapel without feeling renewed gratitude for the privilege of attending this school.

Moreover, to move this discussion to the highest plane of all, I am writing this on the day that Good Friday passed into Easter Sunday. Christ is risen. That is such a monumental change for the better that any other change can be tolerated if need be. For all my uncertainties, which are many and severe, about the direction we are moving as a college, a nation, and a world, this is a time when it is good to be alive. God bless you all.

No related posts.

Rokita, running here in the fourth district to replace retiring Republican congressman Steve Buyer, is in an especially strong position. As the current Indiana Secretary of State, Rokita has name recognition that the other candidates (and there are many of them) lack. The latest poll taken from the district shows Rokita with a commanding lead — taking 40 percent of the vote, with his next closest challenger, State Senator Mike Young, pulling only 10 percent (and Buyer’s favored replacement, Brandt Hershman, thus far only receives 8 percent). The primary is not until May, and things could change quickly — Rokita, being the frontrunner, no doubt now has a huge target on his back, with thirteen challengers to shoot at it. But for the time being, the Rokita campaign must feel fairly comfortable.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Related posts:

1. A Time Honored Tradition: Wabash and Public Service
2. Wabash Candidate Primary Results
3. College Republicans to Host Luke Messer ‘91

I awoke this morning at 5:30. Why? Because I am the off-season equipment manager of Wabash’s football team. During the regular season, I’m the videographer. These two jobs may seem not so different, but they are. Both require steadfast dedication, patience and discipline. The necessity of each has helped me translate such values into a work ethic, but managing is not the only place I’ve received such lessons. You see, I am an Eagle Scout.

To say that I learned much from my time in Scouts would be an understatement. The training I received, the values I gained and the friendships I made will be with me for the rest of my life. Thanks to the dedication, patience and discipline of the Scouting parents who ran my troop, I have become a better person. The same can be said from my experience as a high school and college football manager.

Why am I telling you this, especially on a seemingly all-political organization’s website? I am telling you this because these are values I associate with conservatism, and values that no doubt can be associated with non-conservatives as well. These are things all people, regardless of their political leanings, should have. If you are not involved in something bigger, GET INVOLVED. You don’t have to be conservative to make a difference.

Let me put it this way: ten years from now, when you look back on the 2010s just as we look back now on the 2000s, what will you say to yourself? That you did well, helped others, made yourself better, contributed to the greater good? Or that you failed to make any positive impact on yourself or your environment? To quote one of my favorite films, “It’s what you do right now that makes a difference.” Mad about healthcare? Get out and voice your opinion. When elections come around, VOTE and do so for the candidate you believe will make the right choices. Non-action accomplishes nothing.

Become a part of something greater than yourself. You will NOT regret it.

No related posts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOdvn2dtM0A

Related posts:

1. Lecture by Dr. Douglas Farrow on Defining Marriage a Success
2. We Are Not Our Own: A Reflection on John Calvin’s 500th Birthday
3. Joseph Phillips Enthralls Crowd

Let me just say that there is something positive coming out of this. Because of the fact that, according to the polls, 54% of Americans are against this, this will probably ensure the election of several Republicans into currently Democratic seats. This will give us back the majority, and set us on the right path. I do not pretend that I have forgotten what transgressions occurred by members of the GOP. But we cannot undo what has already been done… We can only work to make positive changes and decisions NOW.

That is all.

Related posts:

1. CPAC and the Future of the Republican Party
2. Thoughts on the Warsaw, Indiana Republican Senate Debate
3. The Case for Marlin Stutzman

1. Democrats in the House could exert full political force and pass the Healthcare legislation without batting an eye, possibly by 35 or 40 votes.

2. Some Democrats and all Republicans would realize that Americans don’t want this bill and the vote would be close.

3. Bart Stupak wouldn’t buy the (false) notion that President Barack Obama would cut federal funding for abortion from the bill. He then, along with the pro-life bloc of Democrats in the House would do America a favor and vote “nay.”

Alas, my second thought came true. 219-212 in favor of Obamacare. With 6 minutes remaining in the vote a sense of false hope came over me when I realized only 8 more Democrats needed to vote “nay” if Republicans stayed the course. The GOP did their part. If only 4 more Democrats could have.

Monday was not a very pleasant day. The thought of worse health coverage at higher prices just didn’t see to make me feel better.

Today, Barack Obama signed this legislation into law. While the fact that I live in a worse America at this moment than I did 3 days ago makes my blood boil, I do, now hold a hope that is not false. Barack Obama promised hope and change. He has delivered change. Bad change, but change. Now I have hope. My hope is not for better healthcare. Once the effects of this law are seen it will take years for America’s health system to again become the greatest the world has ever seen. No, my hope is not for social equality or that this bill results in a better America. My hope is that this bill results in a better government!

Before this legislation passed, polls had many House and Senate Democrats trailing Republican challengers. This bill will undoubtedly worsen poll numbers for the left. Last week, Republicans had hope of making the Senate nearly split down the middle and cutting the deficit in the House in half. Today, the party of Lincoln, Reagan and the non-socialist (Teddy) Roosevelt has majority in the Senate and being only a few seats in the minority in the House in sight. Who would’ve thought that we’d ever see a midterm turnaround like that of 2006? And here we are, 4 years down the road, and we could see a repeat of 1994. That’s where my hope comes from.

A personally note to the “leader” of our (once) great nation:

Mr. President,

I heard you countless times during the past few months exclaim that health reform hadn’t occurred in decades, maybe even a century. That’s because Americans didn’t want it. Americans still don’t want it. You shoved it down our throats. For this, your comrades on the Hill, and most likely you in 2012 will pay for it. You did NOT listen to your constituents. You held them in contempt. You think that we have no power. Sir, we gave you power. You have grown the government to a size that impedes on our daily lives. You had an agenda that you would push at all costs. Well, the cost will be your job. This November your parts of your power will be stripped when we remove your enablers from office. Then, two years from now, you will be fired.

Your numbers are dropping, support is slipping. Prepare to become a lame duck president. You’re well on your way. Better yet, prepare to be only the ceremonial head of state, because that’s what happens when 65-75% of the country hates the President’s agenda. Congratulations on your passing of healthcare. May you go down in history as the man who destroyed the greatest healthcare system in the world and who threatened capitalism and democracy.

And thank you for giving me hope, just like you said you would. I hope that your partners in crime are enjoying their last months in Washington. I hope that the next President is wiser than you. And I hope that you get a permanent vacation in November 2012.

Sincerely,

A GOP Vote

Related posts:

1. Scott Brown’s “Miracle”: A Promise, a Commercial, and the Campaign that Led Him to Victory
2. You Lie! The Case for Politically Incorrect Debate
3. A Glimmer of Hope: Taking the Last Stand to Really Fix Healthcare