It’s no surprise to me when the MSM pontificates about the Hispanic vote when it tries to explain the immigration policies of this administration. But I was expecting more clarity in conservative publications. A couple of recent  articles continue the myth of the “Hispanic vote.”

First, Jim Meyers wrote in “Arizona’s Illegals War Roils Country”(Newsmax)  that “Rep. Luis Guitierrez, D-Ill alluded to the fact that 68 percent of Hispanic voters backed Obama in 2008.” The article also showed pie charts detailing the percentages of the Hispanic vote in previous presidential elections. I’m always puzzled by the way the media can determine who votes for whom when we still supposedly have a secret ballot. What are they basing those percentages on- exit polling; addresses? How about voter fraud?

Immigrants from any country cannot vote unless they are naturalized although some Democrats want to do away with that provision here in NYC. Former City Councilman Bill Perkins tried to pass a resolution allowing legal immigrants the right to vote. He insisted that since they paid taxes they should have a right to choose their representatives. I pointed out in my 2005 New York Sun column (Only Citizens Have the Right To Vote ) that these individuals get benefits for their taxes, e.g. police, sanitation, etc. (more…)

Two years ago today, William F. Buckley moved on to the great Firing Line in the Sky where he is, no doubt, still debating the wisdom of turning over the Panama Canal with the Gipper. Buckley’s legacy lives on, not only in the remarkable generation of writers that he spawned after he first dared to stand athwart history and yell stop but, in an odd sort of way, in the manner in which some of the liberals he defied over the course of five decades seem to pine for the great man’s genteel ways.

On a personal note, Buckley was one of the two great influences in the creative life of this particular – not particularly humble – correspondent. The other was that irascible Chicago newspaperman/Everyman: Mike Royko. It’s difficult to imagine an odder couple, but Buckley and Royko shared at least a couple of common characteristics. One took them on at one’s peril (and very few ever successfully did so) and neither could be neatly constrained within an ideological box. Royko was classically liberal, but he openly scorned the liberal elite. Buckley became the symbol of the conservative movement, but he refused to let the movement define him, cutting his own path through the ideological jungle when necessary, most famously when he argued for the legalization of many illegal drugs. Agree or disagree, both Royko and Buckley were thinkers, and honest thinkers to boot, who had a knack for expressing their thoughts with the kind of panache that left their readers breathless in awe. (more…)