Law School Conservative

By: Nathan D. Fox

Editor’s note: This is the third article in a continuing series by the author.

This is somewhat of a continuation of the Paradox of Politics columns. On the issue of illegal immigration, both parties seem to have legitimate interests in securing the borders. For the purposes of full disclosure, I will say that I am in favor of very secure borders. I believe that a full fence needs to be built on our southern border, in addition to the “virtual fence.” This “virtual fence” will be but a band-aid to the problem; however if it were proposed as a supplement to a complete actual fence, I would be completely on board. I know, let the name calling begin. Call me what you will, but it is in our national security interest, economic interest, and general well being as a nation to secure the sieve we currently affectionately refer to as our southern border. By definition, a nation is not a nation without borders. If we continue as we are, we will very soon go by Los Estados Unidos de Mexi-Americana.

Conservatives and Republicans (while not always synonymous, there is substantial overlap in the two groups, and this overlap is where I place myself on the political spectrum) maintain the strongest interest in closing the southern border. The main reason I vote Republican is for national security, and currently we are failing with flying colors with regard to our border with Mexico. Even if no “terrorists” have come through the southern border (which I doubt), just the mere possibility that they can come through should be cause for concern. And in case Republican politicians are wondering, their constituents (myself and many others included) are hoping that they are at least competent enough to get this done. However, it appears that Republicans are more inclined to care about big businesses that “rely” on illegal immigrants to work for substandard wages so they can profit. This should not be the case. In my opinion, the “boost” to the economy provided by illegal immigrant labor is far outweighed by the detriment they bring to this country via social services: education, free healthcare, and others. This is criminal. It is the equivalent of stealing.

Democrats should be getting beat up by some of their traditional constituents regarding this issue. Labor unions tend to be big supporters of Democratic candidates. Labor unions should be upset about illegal immigration because union shops are unable to compete with businesses who utilize illegal labor. However, this relies on the assumption that union shops actually have to compete for contracts and that government contracts are not doled out without corruption. I am sure Philadelphia does not have this problem! (If you are offended by my sarcasm, please stop reading, it will continue.) Another union, the NEA (National Education Association), should be absolutely incensed in places such as California, Arizona, and Texas. The public schools have to deal with the direct effect of too many illegals. Some schools actually teach half of a day in Spanish! How is that right to the American citizens who pay their taxes, and pay for the schools? Also, many American minority groups suffer because of illegal immigration. Sean Hannity has had guests on his radio and television program who make this argument repeatedly. Illegal immigrants rob opportunity from American citizens who have legitimately been subject to lesser opportunities. I know as a white suburban male I do not have the best credentials to be making this argument. However, it is a matter of economics 101. Without legislation and consequences, employers are going to give jobs to the lowest bidder. At many levels, this is having a direct effect on American minority groups.

All in all, the southern border’s lack of security is a prime example of bad American politics. Clearly special interests and pandering to potential voters has gotten in the way of our elected officials making proper judgments on this critical issue. I hope and pray that we can secure our borders before it is too late; assuming that it is not too late already. In the mean time, take a listen to Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and in Philly, Michael Smerconish. All of these individuals do vary somewhat in their political views. However, one thing these gentlemen are all right (no pun intended) on is sealing our southern border. One thing we as Americans must be thankful for is “the new media,” as Sean Hannity says. Without the aforementioned individuals, most concerned Americans would be without representation on the airwaves, internet, and television. It is bad enough that on this issue those of us who want a secure southern border seem to be without representation or solid leadership in Washington; at least we have some media on our side.

By: Nathan D. Fox

It is hard to think of a class of people who have less of a voice and have been subject to nearly unbridled wanton genocide as the unborn child in America. Giving a woman the right to “terminate her pregnancy” is an unbelievable justification for killing in the name of convenience. Traditionally liberal Democrats flock to the poor, down trodden, and those without a voice who are trampled by the establishment. Why are fetuses the exception? This makes no sense.

Even worse is the new lingo and labels assigned to either side of the abortion debate. Now the trend seems to be the formerly so-called pro-choice folks are referring to themselves as pro-life, and those of us who are, and always have been pro-life in all forms, are now labeled as anti-choice. Nice spin guys. My hat goes off to you. The supposedly logical explanation for this labeling is that the pro-choice folks are for the life of the mother, while those of us heartless anti-choice conservatives (read pro-life) would rather have the mother die than abort her baby. I would pay some heed to this argument if I was shown examples of women who have had to make this terrible choice. Please do not get me wrong, I would never want a woman to have to choose between her life and her unborn child. Or even worse, to have no viable choice if the situation was reality.

Any pregnancy carries an inherent risk to the life of the mother. The birthing process in of itself is a miracle in that anyone survives, baby or mother (or father if the mother has access to any weapon during labor). A horrifically sad event occurred just last week in a family who are friends of my brother. A woman gave birth in the traditional manner in a hospital to a perfectly healthy child. Unfortunately, the mother passed away from an aneurysm shortly after giving birth. There were no warnings, no signs, no anything. She just died. Now, should she have chosen to abort the baby because her life was at risk? I do not think so. While I pray that God blesses this poor woman’s soul, and any woman who passes during childbirth, I am of the belief that everything in life carries risk and that making our own life “safer” should not involve choices that would end another life without a voice.

If anyone out there can explain to me why liberals and Democrats, who always align themselves to be the champions of the downtrodden and those without a voice, have supported the killing of so many unborn children, please do so. And honestly, to play the ultimate devil’s advocate, I believe the liberals are shooting themselves in the foot by supporting the abortion of likely potential liberal Democrats. In closing I would like challenge anyone who is pro-life to remind the pro-choice folks of the correct labeling for our respective views on this still controversial issue. Pro-life means pro-life in all forms, period.

By: Nathan D. Fox

American politics is known for many things. Unfortunately, a lot of what American politics is known for is hypocrisy and meaningless posturing. In this piece, we will consider the inherent inconsistency of conservative Republicans stance on tort lawyers and liberal Democrats stance on the Second Amendment, which both fall under the umbrella of hypocrisy and meaningless posturing. The main idea here is to simply point out that there are many instances where both major political parties hold views and take stances that are inconsistent with what would seem to be their ideals.

Traditionally, conservative Republicans believe in laissez faire economics which calls for the market to determine demand, prices, and everything else. While legal settlements and jury verdicts are not exactly commerce or directly economic items, it is hard to think of a better example of where the market more purely determines a value for an item; either settlement or jury verdict. However, for some reason conservative Republicans blame trial attorneys for rising insurance premiums, increasing healthcare costs, and many issues within the economy. Yet aren’t these simply just side effects of the market taking its course?

On the left, liberal Democrats are traditionally all for individual liberties and rights. (I only said traditionally, not that I believe this to be true.) However, these liberal ideals are not without exception. If you look at the United States Constitution as a “living document,” and expand the Bill of Rights as many liberals do, you would almost have to take the second amendment as a mandate for individual gun ownership. However, at best a liberal Democrat will only advocate a “collective right” to gun ownership, meaning a state-government run militia who is armed (and controlled) by the state. On the surface this seems au contraire to a liberal ideal of furthering individual rights. One must remember that many liberals have a view of a gun ownership that is synonymous with NASCAR, missing teeth, bumper stickers with such intellectual brilliance as “Eats Chevys, Sh*ts Fords,” and rebel flags. Yet, this conception of the “typical gun owner” is not the true reason the Democratic Party opposes the correct interpretation of the second amendment.

The basic root of both of these inconsistencies is monetary. Conservative Republicans detest tort lawyers because when trial attorneys are successful, their victories against big tobacco, auto manufacturers, hospitals, and insurance companies hurt the institutions which are traditionally sources of big money for Republican campaigns. Also, many trial lawyer associations tend to be large sources of funding for Democratic candidates. On the Democrat end, the root of the issue is monetary again. One of the largest contributors to pro-gun Republican politicians tends to be the NRA. While there are many other plausible explanations for both of these inconsistencies, the bottom line remains that many of the issues party politicians support are influenced by big dollars. A possible resolution to this would be to abandon party politics all together. But do not look for that to come anytime soon as politicians are loathe to bite the hands that feed them, and provide them their power. Fortunately as long the situation remains the same, there will be plenty to blog about.