Our sister organization American Principles in Action is undertaking an independent expenditure in the race for Barbara Boxer's Senate seat in California this November:
Conservative Hispanics Launch $1 Million "Tus Valores" Campaign
The Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, an organization of conservative Hispanics, today announced the details of a $1 million campaign in support of California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina at a press conference in downtown Los Angeles on Tuesday, July 27.
Rick Garnett asks (and answers) this important question in the pages of USA Today:
To no one's surprise, Solicitor General Elena Kagan displayed intelligence and charm during the hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee on her nomination to the Supreme Court. In addition, and also as expected, she avoided with impressive discipline sharing specific answers to senators' questions about the Constitution and the judicial role.
She did, however, provide, a few clues. In her opening statement, Kagan said that the court "has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals," but "must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people." A justice, she said, must be a vigilant "trustee" of the "blessings of liberty," but also "properly deferential to the decisions of the American people and their elected representatives."
Among our most cherished "blessings of liberty" is the freedom of religion, our "first freedom." In the words of James Madison, the "father of the Constitution," America's experiment in religious liberty has brought "lustre to our country."
What, in Kagan's view, is the role of the court in this experiment? When it comes to questions of religious liberty and church-state relations, does she think a justice should show vigilance or deference?
Ashley Samelson comments on the latest episode in the Arizona imbroglio - proof positive that bad federal law, mishandled, brings about additional legal paradoxes at the state level.
An Institutionalized Oxymoron
The federal government has done some serious judicial dentist work on the Arizona immigration law. Specifically, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has removed the bill’s sharpest teeth, rendering Arizona’s latest effort to deal with its illegal immigration crisis lifeless.
The Politico Newsbreak announcing the development stated:
"A federal judge has blocked key provisions of a controversial Arizona law aimed at illegal immigrants. The judge blocked a requirement that police have to check the immigration status of detainees they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally, and stopped part of the law that makes it a crime for immigrants to be in the state illegally.”
Can you read that without your head spinning? So police can detain someone they “reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally” and then what, have coffee with them? Because it’s no longer “illegal” to be in this country “illegally?”
In her ruling, Bolton writes, "Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked.”
Sign me up to be the first person who, if arrested, spends an extra two minutes while my legal citizenship is confirmed.
Much like the concept of a legal Cuban cigar, this federal ruling is little more than institutionalized oxymoron in the place of good rule of law. American citizens and the many hardworking legal immigrants in this country deserve better than that.
Ashley Samelson blogs about faith, feminism, and politics at www.rogueinrouge.com.
Photo Credit: Fred Smith
Last Updated on Thursday, 29 July 2010 12:34
Latinos and the progressive agenda
Written by Thomas Peters
Wednesday, 28 July 2010 12:12
Latinos and the progressive agenda are an odd political combination because they do not agree on fundamental issues - such as the right to life, traditional marriage, and entrepreneurship.
The stress between the goals of progressivism and the aims of the Latino community are beginning to become more evident. Allow me to show a couple of examples:
The Associated Press reports that a new "Poll Shows Cracks in Obama’s Hispanic Support":
President Barack Obama's once solid support among Hispanics is showing a few cracks, a troubling sign for Democrats desperate to get this critical constituency excited about helping the party hold onto Congress this fall.
... the survey ... shows Obama gets only lukewarm ratings on issues important to Hispanics -- and that could bode poorly for the president and his party.
What sort of issues, you may ask? That's not hard to guess: "An unfulfilled promise to overhaul the nation's patchwork immigration system, which Hispanics overwhelmingly want to see fixed, also may be to blame."
Even a Washington Post journalist, attempting to highlight the challenges to conservatives in winning over Latinos, cannot sugarcoat the relationship between the Latino community and the White House:
Last month, Obama invited a small group of influential Latino activists to the White House and reassured them that he is committed to reform. But to succeed, he said, they had to stop their public complaining about how slowly he was moving and instead direct their fire at Republicans.
The activists came away from their presidential audience still convinced that he could be doing more to push the issue. But their discussion with Obama -- and a lengthier one with adviser Valerie Jarrett after he left the room -- made one thing clear to them: The White House plans to use the immigration debate to punish the GOP and aggressively seek the Latino vote in 2012.
Using an issue as a carrot to keep Latinos in a coalition seems hardly fair, especially as Latino influence grows in the electorate. Once Latinos realize they do not need the progressive agenda to achieve their goals, why will they stay with an agenda so foreign to their values?
Conservative Hispanics Launch $1 Million "Tus Valores" Campaign
Rick Garnett asks (and answers) this important question in the pages of USA Today:
An Institutionalized Oxymoron
Latinos and the progressive agenda are an odd political combination because they do not agree on fundamental issues - such as the right to life, traditional marriage, and entrepreneurship.