Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Merry Christmas !

Both of us hope that all of you find joy and warmth with your families this Christmas, and remember the love that brings us this holiday season, and makes us all part of His family.

Rovin and East

Friday, December 20, 2013

Open letter to a Republican Congressman on Immigration "Reform"

As it turns out, in connection with the previous post on immigration, the author of the following letter has agreed to let Camped on the Right post an edited version of the letter, without attribution.   

The author is sending the letter to his Congressman and and also copies to the House leadership and the NRCC.  The letter highlights a number of concerns about the leadership's plans for amnesty and responds to a several of the "arguments" given for amnesty.  So, here is the letter...oh, and if it prompts any of you to contact your representative on this much the better.

Congressman ......
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Immigration
cc: Reps. Boehner, McCarthy, Walden

Dear Rep. ....:

I appreciate your response to my recent email, but I felt I needed to follow up.  I believe it is clear that Boehner, Ryan and the House leadership are about to abandon wholly their base voters on immigration amnesty.  They evidence no desire either to listen or honestly engage the voters who made Republicans the majority in the House.

Congressman, you will lose the base of the Republican party in 2014 if you sell us out on amnesty. And you will be lucky to hold the House, much less take the Senate.

Instead of trumpeting the disaster that is Obamacare as a focal point for the 2014 elections, it becomes increasingly clear that Boehner and the House leadership intend to pick a very public fight with the Republican base, over – of all things – immigration. 

Perhaps this might be understandable if there were good reasons for “reform” while we have control only of the House.  But Boehner, et. al., make unfounded assertions and ignore real evidence.  And they certainly do not engage us in real and honest debate.....

Consider just some of the most recent indications that House leadership is preparing to abandon their base and adopt a path to amnesty, with empty promises of border security and “triggers.”  Much less do they plan to explain their actions to base voters:

Paul Ryan plans to lead the push for amnesty.

Major Garret reports that come summer 2014, Paul Ryan plans to lead on reform but promising "no amnesty."  He doesn’t believe that the Gang of 8 bill is amnesty, yet we’re supposed to trust him on this?

The House “gang of 8” was giving away everything – with Boehner’s approval! – in order to strike a deal.

Their first act was to agree to a path to citizenship !!! Why even bother to negotiate?  They abandoned any “hard trigger” for border security, and their idea of requiring some penalty so that it wouldn’t be amnesty was a “learn English” requirement.  And we are to take Republican efforts on immigration reform seriously?  

Boehner hires an unabashed amnesty advocate as an advisor.

I don’t know what’s worse, his doing so without first explaining his intentions to base voters or the fact that he hired an advisor from the atrocious 2008 campaign of the some times Republican McCain !!  What good did amnesty do McCain with Hispanic voters?

We are told by Boehner, floating his version of “Dreamer,”  “it is the right thing to do.”

 Of course, he didn’t bother to explain why children should benefit from their parents’ crimes.  Perhaps he’s willing to extend this “right thing” – perhaps he thinks that we should not only let the children of bank robbers keep the stolen money, but give them a reward as well!

We are told that we must have reform – “legalization” – if  we are to “level the playing field” and appeal to Hispanic voters.  However:

Will Boehner & Co then support Obamacare?  62% of Hispanics do.

Will Boehner & Co then support more big government?  75% of Hispanics do.

Will Boehner & Co then oppose capitalism?  55% of Hispanics oppose it.

Will Boehner & Co then support racial preferences?  75% of Hispanics do.

And here is Charles Cooke: “Often lost in the analysis of the 2012 election is that the Republican party needs to win only small slivers of each traditionally Democratic bloc in order to again win a national election.”

We are told that the majority of voters favor a “pathway” to citizenship.

However, 56% of American adults want the border secure before any type of amnesty is granted to illegal aliens.

We are told the immigration system is “broken” and needs to be “fixed.”

Yet neither Boehner nor his lieutenants have bothered to explain
(1) why we should expect some new law to be enforced, when we can’t trust this administration to enforce current law! 
(2) what will prevent some liberal federal judge from striking down all the enforcement mechanisms and leaving only amnesty and open borders!

We are told Boehner & Co won’t pass “amnesty.”

Ryan boldly challenged anyone to debate whether the Senate Gang of 8 was amnesty.  Yet he apparently is more afraid of Heritage than he is Patty Murray.  Since when is (perhaps!) paying back taxes a penalty?  That’s the law, not a penalty!  And we’re supposed to trust Ryan and McCarthy on these issues?

We are never told by Boehner & Co how many illegal immigrants will be legalized. 

We hear the 11 million figure over and over; but no one in House leadership bothers to explain how they arrive at that figure or whether that is indeed the real figure.  During Senate debate, the real figure was put at 30 million.

Boehner & Co never tell us why they place such a priority on this issue!!

Liberal Beltway media and liberal activists – and an administration desperate to distract from Obamacare – are the only ones who believe this is a high priority issue.  Polls show that it routinely draws only about 5% voter support as a high priority issue.  Yet Boehner hires an amnesty advocate?

What are we to think…except that House leadership plans to betray fundamental conservative principles and millions of base voters.  I continue to receive solicitations from McCarthy, Walden, Boehner, reminding me that I have not renewed my 2014 NRCC membership. 

Here’s my promise, Rep.....: Just like I stopped contributing to the NRSC after the Gang of 8 passed with 13 Republican votes, if Boehner, Ryan and House Republicans sell us out on this issue, I will close my checkbook…and stay home in 2014.  I wouldn’t vote for some liberal.  And I most certainly won’t vote for Republicans who abandon their base to pass a very, very bad law.



Thursday, December 19, 2013

House leadership to lie to base during primaries?

Planning on lying to the base?  Yes.  House leadership – Boehner, Cantor, Ryan – will wait until after the Republican primary season to introduce sweeping immigration reforms, including amnesty.  Their intent is virtually transparent:  Spare House members running for reelection having to face primary challenges or pointed questions about amnesty.  And then once all are safely nominated, tell the world  -- and the conservative base – “We’re for amnesty.” 

But why suggest that House leadership is planning on lying to conservative activists, those that typically are most active in the primaries?  Because the Boehner/Ryan team plans to withhold the whole truth from the very voters that put them in leadership roles! 

“Withholding the truth” is but a nice way of saying “lie.”

The evidence continues to mount that this is exactly the House leaders plan.  Indeed a Dec. 18 piece from Major Garrett at National Journal provides the cues for understanding Boehner-Ryan strategy:

New possibilities have presented themselves, and the political and tactical climate may, several months hence, be such that Obama and Boehner find passing immigration reform irresistible…..

Is there any doubt that the time frame of “several months hence” is intended to coincide with the end of Republican primary season?  That the intention is to avoid primaries that subject the House leadership immigration amnesty plan to serious scrutiny?

We already know that Boehner has hired Rebecca Tallent, John McCain’s former chief of staff and one of the chief architects of the 2007 immigration giveaway, disastrously introduced by then President Bush and championed by McCain.  Would you trust a McCain chief of staff to tell the truth…to conservatives?  Again from Garrett:

Tallent's role gives House Republicans something they've never had since 2010—a staffer who knows immigration policy and politics on both sides of the aisle and has the confidence and respect of the White House and Democrats.

No mention, however, that Tallent has the respect or confidence of conservatives who vote in every election, who make phone calls, who send money, who keeping trying to make the Republican establishment listen to them, or that Tallent, like McCain, understands anything other than being applauded by Democrats and liberal media.

But there is still more evidence of the leadership plan.  Again from Garrett:

Immigration-reform advocates with ties to the White House see Ryan's outline as more specific and enforceable than the "triggers" in the Senate immigration bill. They interpret Ryan calling for six or eight separate bills (the now-agreed upon piecemeal approach), starting with border security and interior enforcement followed by the other components of reform—legalization, path to citizenship, agricultural/seasonal workers, and the Dream Act. This process bears a striking resemblance to Tallent's aforementioned roadmap.

As for the benefits of passing immigration reform, Ryan sounded bullish. "Guaranteed border security, guaranteed interior enforcement, no amnesty—then I think that's productive. I think that's in our interest. I think that's good for our country." (emphasis added)
No amnesty?  This is the same person who boldly claimed that the Gang of 8 bill of lies was not amnesty!  He challenged anyone who claimed otherwise to debate him on precisely this point.  (Everyone caught the Ryan-Heritage debate on CSPAN, right?)  Ryan thinks allowing someone jump ahead in line of those following the law, but having to learn English and being on the honor system when it comes to paying back taxes waives any worry of amnesty...even if they've committed identity and Social Security fraud!

So here is the lie: Boehner/Ryan/Cantor will withhold the truth from primary voters that they intend to push for amnesty as soon as the last primary vote is counted.  A lot of little bills can still add up to amnesty.  To quote Garrett once more:  "And that's no smoke and mirrors."'s just another lie from a leadership that is resolute about only one thing: ignoring the conservative base and giving in to liberals.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Has ObamaCare Become a Form of Slavery?

How many stood in chains to proclaim they were Spartacus?
In Hot Air's Quotes of the Day, the Obama Administration has admitted to possibly losing hundreds of thousands of participants on the website:

"The Obama administration said Friday that there could be problems with the enrollment records for a quarter of all the people who signed up for health insurance through the federal marketplace in October and November, raising questions about whether consumers will get coverage in time to pay for their medical care next month…"

So, probably 25% of the people who signed up in the past two months may have become “digitally obscure” in the web-maze of  How does the government go about denying that these people have coverage?  How many thousands, (that signed up and went through the entire process, and clicked on the final tab, and got the message: Congratulations, you now have health insurance), will find out some time early next year that they have nothing of the kind?

Perhaps the President, with his Messianic powers, will on his own amend the law, providing an “amnesty period” and the honor system for all those who claim they concluded the process.  Seriously, what’s wrong with adding one more “FIX” in this un-fixable program?  

So, early next year, HHS will make another proclamation that “we lost you and we need you to come forward”, and the masses will begin standing up and proclaiming “I’m Spartacus”!

Funny, that in the Spartacus clip, the Roman barking out the conditions of surrender says: “Slaves you were, and slaves you remain”.

Can any government that institutes these kinds of federal mandates on businesses, on its citizens really deny this is not a form of servitude or slavery?  No matter what law the people's representatives pass, a "Messiah" changes them on a whim?  Without consulting the people?  Isn't the history of the struggle for freedom and democracy, starting in 1215 with the Magna Carta, a history of telling a lawless executive: "You don't have the right to pass judgment or law on your own"?  Wasn't the American Revolution motivated by exactly this sort behavior?

Perhaps it’s this 25% that are still truly free from their impending bondage.

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

The Ryan compromise

But did he have to give this one away?

Various Republicans, even conservative Republicans, are celebrating Paul Ryan's "achievement."  We are reminded more times than we can count that Republicans control only the House, that this deal will insure that a laser-like focus will remain on Obamacare throughout the 2014 election cycle.

Remember that Ryan's counterpart was Patty Murray.  This is the genius who said to high school students about bin Laden:

"He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful, " Murray told them.
Yet Ryan was unable to prevent Murray from including a change in the Senate rules.  The change makes it easier for the Senate to pass tax increases with only 51 votes.

Did Paul Ryan know about this? Did the scores of Republican House members who voted for this deal know about it?  Well, various conservative media, including National Review, knew about it.

And we are asked to believe that this is the best deal Ryan could get.  The great Paul Ryan, master of the budget, could only bring home this deal by including a Senate rules change that makes it easier to increase taxes!  And what did Ryan get in return?  Cutting veterans' benefits by only 1%?
Not one of the folks trumpeting this now done deal has explained why Ryan needed to sign on to making straight the path to tax increases.  Given Ryan's and others' past reluctance to face hard questions (recall "I'll debate anyone who says it's amnesty -- he's still hiding from Heritage), I doubt we will ever be given a straight answer as to why this was included.    

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Pot, Meet the Kettle

In the irony/hypocritical department, here's a New York Times story, (Dec. 9th, 2013) scolding the online internet journalist for running untruthful stories:

If a Story Is Viral, Truth May Be Taking a Beating
"Truth has never been an essential ingredient of viral content on the Internet. But in the stepped-up competition for readers, digital news sites are increasingly blurring the line between fact and fiction, and saying that it is all part of doing business in the rough-and-tumble world of online journalism."
This, from the world’s #1 publication that turned a single-sourced lobbyist story (the McCain/Iseman connection), into a full blown love affair, and then, (after the 2008 Presidential election), recanted/submitted---on the New York Time’s Website*---that they did not intend to imply/conclude that Senator McCain had a romantic affair or an unethical relationship:

"In February, 2009, the lawsuit was settled with no money changing hands between the parties. From the Times coverage of the settlement: "On Thursday, the two sides released a joint statement saying: 'To resolve the lawsuit, Ms. Iseman has accepted The Times’s explanation, which will appear in a Note to Readers to be published in the newspaper on Feb. 20, that the article did not state, and The Times did not intend to conclude, that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain or an unethical relationship on behalf of her clients in breach of the public trust.'....... "

No, the Times didn’t “intend to conclude”, they just wrote a story, based on one single source, a disgruntled ex-McCain employee, that suggested both an unethical and romantic affair, and then left it up to their readership to draw the untruthful conclusions.  Damage done!  The Times' Story took center stage just weeks before a presidential election---VIRALLY---and with little regard for reporting "the truth".  And we all know who ended up "taking the beating".

*(the source for the paragraph [in quotes] about the settlement and the Time's "admission of intentions" were taken from a Wikipedia site.  While Wikipedia is sometimes "a questionable" source, I found no refutable evidence that the quote published here was untruthful content of the text.)   

Friday, December 6, 2013

Welcome to Camped on the Right

Welcome everyone to Camped on the Right, a new Conservative-leaning site dedicated to provocative commentary on events and issues affecting all of us.  This site is currently in a "test mode" and may incur modifications as the authors see fit, so bare with us.  The authors also reserve the right to edit the content of all post, (when needed) to provide accuracy, add links, or provide photos for enhancement.  If the content is changed dramatically, we will note the changes at the bottom of the post.

Camped on the Right is dedicated to keeping a watchful eye on the affairs of our governments, local, state, and national.  These affairs are often inseparable from our culture, and the history of that culture and our nation.  Our aim is to contribute to the continuing discussion of issues or circumstances that affect one or a few or all of us.  As you will see our perspective is generally conservative and always committed to American exceptionalism.

An open commentary format and policies will be created soon to invite all who are interested to post their thoughts.  And while we will invite informative conversation, this site reserves the right to remove any and all comments that we find offensive to our readership.  Foul language will not be tolerated, (including the clever substitutions for letters that still spell out vulgar words or language---ie any and all F-words and the like.  The idea is to promote civil minded conversations, NOT the vile attacks aimed at the authors or the commenters.

We hope you will enjoy the postings/opinions of Camped on the Right and will come back for future postings.

Best regards,

Rovin and EastofEden