Two thoughts...

*Much hype and attention has been given to the recent Arizona immigration law. Those who attack the law do so on grounds that invoke that ever clever race card. But upon closer analysis which side is truly focused on race here? Would the left in this country be in such an uprising over the Arizona law meant to curtail illegal immigration primarily made up of Swedes? Of course not. Why? Because Swedes do not hold the keys to power. When was the last time you heard, "As goes St. Olaf so goes the nation." Those who support the law still have legitimacy with the Swede model because the objective is to still curtail the illegality of the action---not necessarily those who commit the action. But the left truly is getting itself into a bind by arguing against the law with the ridiculous"papers please" line of thought. According the left, the Arizona law is equatable to the Nazis because both supposedly force people to "show their papers" or face persecution. The problem? Remember during the health care debate when the President and supporters of the law vowed that the bill did not give out taxpayer funded care for illegals? How on earth would one be able to determine who is legal (and thus eligible) to receive benefits? Oh i know..."papers please." And plus, why on earth would we create a new law when we don't enforce the current one? It's complete political pandering by the left...and we shouldn't buy it.

*Opponents of Obamacare have attacked the "individual mandate" aspect of the law. They have even begun to attack Republican politicians who have supported an individual mandate in the past---most recently Mitt Romney and Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah. Bennett was just ousted at the Utah Republican Convention. He was one of the most conservative Senators in America and was really unfairly attacked by the ever annoying "tea party." Romney and Bennett attackers miss one crucial element though: an individual mandate is different when it's at the State level. I know some may say that such an argument is just a cop-out, but when it comes to the Constitutional analysis the argument stands. The US Constitution clearly lays out what the Federal government can do---the rest is left to the states. This is a logical understanding of the Constitution and a conservative one. The individual mandate is unconstitutional on the federal level. One the state level, such a policy is completely legal (unless restricted by the underlying state constitution.) This brings up a source of contention I have with the current logic being used by the conservative movement today. They rightly point out that certain things the federal government does now (ex. education) should be left to the states. But when states try and deal with the issue conservatives are still pissed. You can't have it both ways. How many times have you heard conservatives complain about John Hoeven because of his increased funding of education? I hear it all the time. Yet those same people rail against federal involvement in education. If not at the state level then where?