Here is another subject that Republicans and conservatives should drop – making English the official language of the United States.

There are three main reasons it should be dropped:

1. It is dumb, making those who propose it sound like bigots.
2. It is not necessary and would not work.
3. It distracts from more important issues.

At who is English as the official language aimed? In the first decade of the 21^st century you can say whatever you want, but everyone “knows” it is really aimed at people who speak Spanish as a first language. 

So right from the beginning English as the official language has the effect of alienating a significant minority – a minority that Republicans and conservatives must appeal to if they are to succeed.

English is the predominate language in America.

No individual or organization should be forced to prepare materials in multiple languages. However, if a state or organization wishes to print materials in a language other than English, government should not prohibit it from doing so. We certainly do not want a situation where government forces organizations to print items in multiple languages.

There are pockets in the United States where English is all but the second language and English-only speakers may feel uncomfortable. Stay away, no one is forcing you to go to those areas and the businesses in those areas do not see you as a primary customer. Similarly, a business that advertises exclusively in English is not seeking to reach non-English speaking customers.

Even without an official language people know that it is in their own economic self-interest to speak and read English.

Finally, English as the official language makes too good of a sound bite. You know the media will run with the story and more important Republican and conservative messages will be shunted aside.

So, do not bring it up, do not use it as a political trap for liberals, and do not use it to appeal to some imagined base.

I wish the most important problem in the United States was that I cannot order a sandwich in my local ethnic deli, unfortunately there are more important matters.

Raise your hand, how many people think young people have sex?

Keep your hand up if you think sex leads to unwanted pregnancy and/or sexually transmitted diseases?

No brainers, right? 

So the real question becomes who should provide sex education to young people? 

Most people probably think that ideally it should be the young person’s parents.  But, we all know that does not happen all that often.

If not the parents, who? 

How about the schools? 

Problem there is not all parents want their children taking sex education in school. 

How about opt-in sex education at schools?  Parents must provide a signed approval form for their child to take sex education.  The children who do not have parental permission would be given either another class or study hall.

You may not like the idea of illegal aliens in the U.S., but…

Illegal presence in the U.S. is different under the law from illegal entry.  Now you may say how can someone be present illegally if they did not enter illegally?  Well, for example, if someone overstayed a visa, they entered legally, but would be present illegally.

Any alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers…for the first commission of any such offense, be fined or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both…

So being “just” an illegal alien (as opposed to a murder who is an illegal alien) is not that serious an offense.

Deportation (also called "removal") occurs when the Federal government formally removes an alien from the United States for violations of a number of immigration or criminal laws… 

Removal is a legal proceeding, and an alien who is subject to this procedure has legal rights prior to being removed from the country, including the right to challenge the removal itself on procedural or constitutional grounds… Any alien that is in the United States may be subject to deportation or removal if he or she… Is present in the U.S. in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act or any other U.S. law…

There are perhaps 12,000,000 illegal immigrants in the U.S.

In 2007, in the U.S. some 4,000,000 people were arrested for major crimes in cities of over 100,000 people.

So, if we first secured the border so no one else could enter illegally, and if we had all local, state and Federal law enforcement officers ignore all other crimes (murder, rape, robbery, etc.) and focus on rounding up illegal aliens, it might only take 3 years to catch them all.  We would not want to release these people on bail (would they show up for their court dates?), so we would have to have jails to hold them all. 

John Demjanjuk is former autoworker from Cleveland who is accused of being a Nazi death camp guard. The Justice Department first brought charges in 1977 seeking to deport him for falsifying information on his application when entering the U.S. in 1952. In January 2008, “only” 30 years later, a Federal appeals court denied his challenge to a final deportation order of the nation's chief immigration judge. He still has avenues of appeal.

Let’s say we could arrest and detain the 12,000,000 illegal aliens, then what? In general the illegal aliens have the same legal rights as a citizen.  Thus, all would have the right to legal representation and hearings/trials and appeals. I wonder how long it would take to deport them all?

What kind of society would we be creating?

I am not suggesting we do nothing about the illegal immigrant situation, but while you may not like the idea of illegal aliens in the U.S., it would seem highly unlikely that we are going to arrest, detain and deport 12,000,000 people. 

First, if an illegal alien commits a serious crime, he or she should be deported. But, what about the vast majority of illegal aliens who are otherwise law abiding?

Amnesty has become a buzz word for the “Right”, and anyone who even hints at amnesty is an immediate pariah in their eyes; so no amnesty.

How about this: We pass a law that provides a time window (6 months? One year?) during which illegal aliens can come into a government office, provide identification and be finger-printed.  They will pay a reasonable fine ($100? $250?). After an appropriate period of time to allow their identities and fingerprints to be checked the illegal alien would return to the office, and assuming there are no problems with the review, the person would get a worker’s card. Anyone stupid enough to give fingerprints and who had committed some crime, and then return to the office, would be held until the legal system could resolve his/her status. 

Of course, the nation would also have to do something about securing its borders, otherwise we will face the same situation again and again.

Prohibition may provide the best, albeit imprecise, insight to the current state of the abortion debate in the United States.

The 18th Amendment to the U.S. Consitiution, which banned the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol for consumption, went into effect on January 16, 1920. Prohibition was repealed with ratification of the 21^st Amendment, on December 5, 1933.

The Prohibition movement had a long history in the United States, beginning in the colonies in the mid-1600s. By the beginning of the 20^th century the hostility toward the consumpution of alcohol had become widespread. Interrestingly, in the Presidential election of 1916 neither candidate made Prohibition an issue; echoing the recent Presidential election where silence was the rule on the Right-to-Life and Pro-Choice. The 1916 and 2008 elections were both thought to be close, and no canidate wanted to alienate voters by taking a stand on Probition or abortion.

After the 1916 election there was enough support for Prohibition that the 18^th Amendment was eventually enacted into law. Over 1,500 Federal agents were given the task of enforcing the law. Of course, the period of U.S. history from 1920 to 1933 has become notorious in our cultural mythology for speakeasies, Al Capone, the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, etc.

There was the support and political will to pass Prohibition, but the overwhelming majority of Americans still wanted to drink.

Let us be clear on three matters:

1. Life begins at conception.
2. Abortion is the taking of a life.
3. We expect government to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

A Gallup poll in May 2008 showed the following positions by Americans:

·         28% want abortions "legal under any circumstances"

·         17% want abortions illegal in all circumstances

·         54% want abortions legal in some circumstances and illegal in others (the poll did not clarify the circumstances)

Now, the majority does not always rule. The people would have never voted for civil rights, but the people’s elected representatives provided direction to the nation by their conservative understanding that the rights of the people had to be extended to all the people.

If there were the public support and political will to enact a 28^th Amendment making abortions illegal in all circumstances, my guess is that people would respond as they did during Prohibition when they wanted a drink, and the equivalent of speakeasies would arise. How many Federal agents would we need to enforce this law? 1,500? 3,000? 5,000?

Just because people do not obey the law and it would take resources to enforce the law does not mean we should not pass a law. Illegal drugs are a prime example of this. 

A CBS News poll in January 2007 showed that:

• 30% want to limit abortions to cases of rape, incest or life of the mother
• 12% want abortions allowed only in when the pregnancy threatens the mother's life

Given a choice between more or less government intervention in our lives, I would choose less. Normally, we would leave medical decisions to the patient and the doctor. The problem when it comes to abortion is there is a third life involved, that of the unborn child. And that is why government must intervene, to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The question is how should government intervene?

Perhaps the time has come for America to consider the following outline of a law regarding abortions:

1.       Abortion would be legal only when the pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother. The health of the mother is understood to mean physical, mental, and/or spiritual health.

2.       The determination to approve an abortion would be made by the unanimous consent to three people: the mother, the mother’s physician, and a healthcare professional appointed as an advocate for the unborn child. The physician and the advocate should encourage the mother to consult with and seek the approval of the father of the unborn child, and as may be appropriate others such as her parents, spiritual advisor, etc. In cases where immediate action is required to save the mother’s life, and obtaining the approval of the advocate is impractical, the physician shall make the determination according to accepted guidelines for emergency treatment.

3.       Any individual or institution which is philosophically opposed to abortion should not be forced to conduct abortions.

This approach would:

1. Restrict abortion, including doing away with abortion on demand.
2. Minimize government intervention in our private lives.
3. Provide some protection to the unborn child.

In America those who wish to advocate for no restrictions on abortion and those who want all abortions to be prohibited can continue to present their positions.

This is not an ideal solution. An ideal solution would be that an abortion would never take place. We should strive for the ideal, but realize the practical aspect of life.

What should conservatives and Republicans do now? Simple, follow the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Treat President Obama with the respect you thought the liberals and Democrats should have treated President Bush.

Even when you disagree with President Obama’s foreign policy decisions, especially regarding our troops in the field, remember all those who so opposed President Bush that they said things that were not supportive of America. Support the President for the sake of America, if you cannot openly support his decisions, be silent. Never seem to be the position of not supporting the President to the determent of America.

If you thought it was “dumb” for the Democrats to complain about President Bush’s use of Executive Orders, do not complain about President Obama’s use of them. If need be, disagree on his position, but not his legitimate use of his Presidential authority.

Do not be against something just because the President is for something. Be silent in most opposition and again, save your vocal opposition for the big issues. Be statesmen and women in your opposition.

For eight years Democrats and liberals whined about how the 2000 election was “stolen”. President Obama won the election; you cannot change that so move on.

Regarding the President’s family, if you cannot say something nice, do not say anything. 

Remember all the name calling directed toward President Bush and do not do that to President Obama. Statements such as the recent Marxist, Hitler reference are not only stupid, but turn the people against you. When someone makes such a statement, quickly and strongly condemn it. If you cannot condemn it, at least issue a statement saying something to the effect of “I’m sure that is not what he or she meant…” Then, especially if it is a Republican official, get a hold of the person and tell them they need to: 1) retract/explain away their stupid statement, and 2) shut up.

So remember, do unto the Democratic President they way you wish they would do unto the Republican President.

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918)
Canadian Army

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/flanders.htm

Compare how President-elect Obama did in 2008, versus Senator John Kerry in 2004, and Vice President Al Gore in 2000.

Obama did poorer than either Kerry or Gore in four categories:

Obama drew only 47% of the age 60+ voters, 4% less than Gore, but only 1% less than Kerry. Gore received 1% more of the Jewish vote and 1% more of the Big City vote. Kerry received 3% more than Obama in Small Towns, but Obama outdrew Gore by 7%.

There have been 16 presidential elections held since the end of World War II. In six of the 16 the winning candidate drew a higher percentage of the vote than Obama. The only non-incumbents who outdrew Obama were Eisenhower in 1952 (being the general who “won” the war in Europe may have helped) and George H.W. Bush in 1988 (and, of course, Bush was a sitting vice president).

Obama’s 52.6% is higher than Clinton’s or George W. Bush’s in either of their elections, Reagan’s and Nixon’s first elections, and Truman, Kennedy and Carter.

So, despite all the pre-election hand-wringing about racism being a factor, Americans may have voted the way they did for a number of reasons, but race wasn’t a significant issue.