Ron Paul won debate

Ron Paul was the clear winner in the Arizona debate. He won it with one word: "Consistent." All the candidates were asked to describe themselves using only one word.
     Paul backed Santorum into several corners throughout the debate. Santorum apologized on several occasions for his voting record. He admitted voting for "No Child Left Behind," among other bills, against his better judgement. In trying to explain, Santorum mumbled, "Politics is a team sport...you have to go along to get along."
     That is something Ron Paul has never done. He is famous for never voting for a bill that he views as unconstitutional (and most of the bills that Congress passes are unconstitutional).
     If more politicians took their oaths to defend the Constitution more seriously, we would be much better off.

What's wrong with Mexico?

With all the ink and air time the problem of illegal immigration from Mexico has received, almost no time has been spent asking the right question -- namely, "What is wrong with Mexico?"

    The United States has been a beacon of hope for immigrants for hundreds of years. There's no mystery why people want to come here. But illegal immigrants from Canada are not swamping our northern border. Why are Canadians content to follow our immigration laws and Mexicans are not?

    Could it be that Canadians are naturally more law-abiding? More likely, there's something rotten in the state of Mexico. The problem is complicated, but at the same time, it's obvious. There is rampant corruption in Mexico, drug wars and concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, with resulting poverty for the masses. Who can blame Mexicans for wanting to escape grinding poverty and improve their lives?

    The money that illegal Mexican immigrants send back home to their families has become an important part of the Mexican economy -- and at the same time, it lessens the pressure on Mexican officials to reform their society to make the acquisition of wealth more accessible to the average Mexican.

    But understanding their motives doesn't mean we can allow our laws to be flouted and our country inundated with illegals. -- And we shouldn't allow leftists, from the president on down, to mis-characterize opposition to illegal immigration as racism. What part of "illegal" don't they understand? They falsely accuse conservatives opposed to illegal immigration of being opposed to all immigrants.

    I am not concerned that the influx of Latino immigrants will degrade our anglo-saxon culture. We are a nation of immigrants. Every significant wave of newcomers has been met with opposition and even bigotry. My grandfather remembered being called a "dirty Swede," even though his family happened to be Danish. Irish and Italian immigrants have also faced their share of insults.

    There aren't any truly "native" Americans. Even the earliest American Indian tribes migrated from Asia via a land bridge. The first white Europeans who came across the sea were all uninvited immigrants, who pushed aside the Indians as they conquered the New World. The problem with accepting more illegal immigrants now is simply a matter of numbers and economy. The United States has matured and has to set limits on immigration, as every other nation on earth does.

    I have personal experience with the immigration process. I met my Chinese-Indonesian wife in Germany. We applied for a fiance visa so we could be married in the U.S. My wife became an American citizen the legal way. She had to study and thus gained a better knowledge of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. government than most native-born American voters.

    To all legal immigrants, I say, "Welcome to the best country in the world. We're glad to have you as a contributing member of society." To Mexicans so anxious to leave their homeland that they are willing to break the immigration laws of the United States instead of waiting their turn, I ask, "If things are that bad, why don't you consider fighting to make a better life for yourselves in your own country?" 

Too many voters

    There's too much voting going on out there.
    Most politicians and pundits, if they comment on voter turnout, hope for a large one, or bemoan low voter turnout. I maintain there are too many voters already – at least too many voters who haven't a clue.
    Our Founding Fathers knew that the future of the Republic was far too fragile to be left in the hands of just anybody. Voting was restricted to landowners. The assumption was that landowners would be men of means and some intelligence, and would likely be community leaders. The founders were deeply suspicious of pure democracy, which they feared would descend into chaos. That is why they wisely fashioned a constitutional republic.
    Historically, it has been left up to the states to determine, within certain bounds, who may vote and who may not. However, democratic urgings led to extending voting rights to more and more segments of society – not necessarily a good thing, if the voters don't know anything about the U.S. Constitution.
    I know what I'm advocating is heresy. If you even hint that you want to limit voting rights, the immediate reaction is: You're a racist. And with good cause: For decades, before and after the Civil War, whites, especially in the South, sought through devious techniques (poll tax, tests, etc.) to deny voting rights to blacks.
    Even today, there is a knee-jerk reaction to attempts to require voter identification. Asking voters to prove who they are is considered a new form of racism. You need a photo ID to drive a car or check out a book from a library, but you don't need one to vote? To maintain trust in the Republic, citizens need to know that elections are free from fraud.
    But beyond proving who you are, I think voters should need to prove that they know something about the country they live in and the political system that governs it. Otherwise, what are they voting for?
    My wife is a naturalized American citizen. In order to become an American citizen, she had to study materials provided by the federal government. It was a strict, but not an onerous requirement. Any elementary school student could pass the test. Why shouldn't voters be required to take a similar course, to appreciate and understand their form of government?
    In order to get a driver's license, applicants must pass a test of the rules of the road. Would you want people driving dangerous machines at highway speeds who knew nothing about what they were doing?
    The vote is more crucial, and potentially more dangerous to the fabric of the country, than a driver's license.