Thursday, April 23, 2009

Chris Simcox to run against McCain in Arizona Senate primary

Minuteman Project co-founder Chris Simcox has officially announced that he is seeking to bump John McCain as the GOP's nominee for Arizona Senate in 2010. His campaign and donation pages are both now operational.

Needless to say, this is an enormous opportunity for restrictionists to essentially end the political career of the Republican party's national champion for open borders. If you need reminding, as Presidential nominee, McCain refused to allow anyone at last year's Republican National Convention to speak critically of US immigration policy and enforcement, receives a lifetime grade of 'D' by Americans for Better Immigration (7th worst of the 201 current Republican Congressmembers who have been assessed), and with Ted Kennedy co-sponsored the amnesty bill of 2007 that despite almost uniform support among The Establishment (Big Business, Big Labor, Big Religion, Big Education, Big Government, and Big Media), was overwhelmingly rejected by the American citizenry.


Brittanicus said...

If America is expected to sustaining its living standards, we must start to conserve our environment and address the use of oil, water and energy. In these current decades we have all observed the deterioration of our highways, infrastructure with clogged traffic lanes that never seem to abate? The continuous requisite for land to build homes, and stretching, concrete pavement that once was farmland. Border states where water supplies are being rationed, because of years of drought. The desperate need for refineries, because of constant production, cannot keep up with demand. Our ailing national electrical grid that is unable to keep up with requirements, owing to the millions of illegal people who slip across our uneasy border and need services. America is growing smaller each day, just like the Amazon rain forests. We are daily encroaching on the wild animals of our lands, who we now find foraging for food in community suburbs--that was once a wilderness. Our President should not be contemplating Amnesty for an unknown number of illegal immigrants. Such would be the forthcoming harbinger of Overpopulation for future generations. According to the Census Bureau with the current immigration level our population will touch close to a half a billion by 2050.

More than 65 percent of that growth can be attributed to our current immigration rate and irrational polices. Without changing the direction of our current immigration policies, our population by the year 2100 and 2120 will attain the one billion mark. Is this what we want for our own?

If President Obama introduces a new Immigration policy, this would be a disaster for the new generations of our children? We already settle over 1.5 million new legal immigrants each year in this nation. This is more people than any other country in the world? What we need is an amendment to the 1986 Immigration Control and Reform Act. This would allow highly professional and skilled people, who would contribute in Engineering, Computer and Science technologies. Giving Potential legal newcomers that has something special to offer the American workplace, including education and other layers of future industry. We already have millions of low skilled, many uneducated American workers who remain jobless in this economic morass. If our politicians will restore funding for E-Verify now before it terminates. We can revise it, modify and append to its function, in removing foreign workers from the workplace. As illegal immigrants start their movement from our nation, wages, benefits should slowly start to rise, as employers will have no choice but to hire American workers, instead of cheap labor from foreign lands.

Anonymous said...

I hate to break it to you, but the environmental lobby has been bought off and for liberals and leftists, Mother Earth takes a back seat to bringing in more NAMs(actually, she is in the trunk). The Sierra Club took the 30 pieces of silver long ago...

Stopped Clock said...

Environmentalism as a liberal ideology doesnt even really seem to make sense. Youd think it'd be conservatives who want to conserve the Earth's ecosystems. But, it seems, attitudes towards business seem to have made environmentalism unappealing to most Republicans. As a rural conservative who loves nature, I really have always felt sympathetic for environmentalist causes in general, even silly ones like those people who sat on tree branches to prevent loggers from converting them into furniture. But mainstream Democrats don't greatly differ in their approach to such as issues from mainstream Republicans, so why do environmentalists overwhelmingly vote Democrat? Perhaps it is just due to the tendency for all marginalized single-issue interest groups to see themselves as liberals by default even if their interests directly contradict those of another liberal single-issue interest group. I only wish that environmentalists could see beyond this mindset and help build support for conservationism in the Republican party.

Audacious Epigone said...


There aren't enough environmentalists along the lines of yourself or VDare's Brenda Walker. As Anon says, ever since the Sierra Club declared itself neutral on the question of immigration, it's been impossible to take the organization seriously. I remember reading an article about water shortages and dangerous dryness throughout the American Southwest because of the rapid population growth there. But in a ~4000 page feature article, this wasn't a single mention of immigration from Mexico and the rest of Latin America!


Well put. I share your sentiments entirely.

togo said...

The two-party system might have been fine in Ike's day, but for quite some time now it has the basis for throwing voters into nonsensical coalitions that only serve the interests of cynical political careerists and the big money interests(both business and public employee unions) that buy them off.

Rather than simply complaining about this, those opposed to the present state of affairs should target one small state and push for Instant Runoff Voting for the POTUS election, US Senate, US House, Governor and other offices. Also election of one house of the state legislature by Proportional Representation. A medium to large state could allocate Electoral College votes by PR.

Once one state breaks up the corrupt two-party duopoly others may follow suit once they see that the D and R paradigm is not something ordained by God.

togo said...

Here's an example of the attacks that will be directed against Simcox:

Audacious Epigone said...


What would be some of the optimal states to try this in? New Hampshire and Vermont come to mind.

Yes, look for relentless ad hominem against Simcox from the neocon/liberal right. The last thing they want is an empirical debate on the cost-benefit analysis of current immigration patterns.

togo said...

What would be some of the optimal states to try this in? New Hampshire and Vermont come to mind.Another possibility might be Montana. They seem to be in a rebellious pro-Second and Tenth Amendment frame of mind lately and must have an awful lot of disillusioned voters who normally vote for the GOP.

Montana also allows for amending the constitution by initiative and referendum.

Blode0322 said...

To put a spin on what Togo said, I think it would be a good idea in some states to pitch the idea of moving to a unicameral legislature with the same number of members as the current legislature, and the same number of districts as the current state senate. That would couch everything in comforting, familiar terms, and allow for the multi-member districts that are necessary in pretty much every PR scheme (though in most states they would have a small number of members).

A simpler solution would be making each county a constituency, use open-list voting, largest remainder system. Though the mixed-member proportion has recently one its victories in the UK, I'd hate to try to explain it to someone (overhang seats?!), and would prefer something simpler.